SHSBC 54
SUBJECTIVE REALITY

A lecture given on 6 September 1961

Okay, this is 6 Sept. 61. Which is more properly AD 11. Special Briefing
Course, Saint Hill.
Well now, I was early for the lecture today and I had a complete lecture to
give you, and I forgot it. So I'll now have to dream up another lecture.
The difficulties of auditing that I covered yesterday, if you will
remember, had two ways that you could learn something about auditing, that
is to say, as an auditor observing the pc and being audited - the
subjective reality. So today's lecture is definitely on the subject of
subjective reality, and this then perforce includes numerous parts of the
mind and what it's all about. It's a very restimulative lecture, so if
you're easily restimulated why you'd better put some earplugs in. You
better get your earplugs in because this is very bad stuff, you know; I
mean, engrams, secondaries, things of this character, they're just
horrible. Shouldn't go near them! Might get stuck in them.
The earliest days of Dianetics still expresses some of the awe and almost
fear with which the reactive bank is regarded. The viciousness of the
subject matter, the - what an engram can do to you, what a secondary can
do, the horrors of being stuck on the track, and that sort of thing, of
course immediately drops down intention, and so on, the more, command you
have of the subject.
Now, we have tools today which make the tools of 1950 look like moving
mountains with a teaspoon, and there is no great difficulty in getting
somebody out of an engram. For instance, England, on the 5th and 6th London
ACCs, Scientology almost bit the dust in England asking people to go into
the bank and look at engrams and secondaries and try to learn how to run
engrams and that sort of thing. It was completely beyond them, much to my
shame.
Well, basically we didn't have tools enough to move an engram through on
somebody who was having a terrible lot of difficulty looking at an engram.
Person was having a great deal of difficulty looking at an engram, he
didn't want too much to do with the engram. This gave a great deal of
difficulty to the auditor, who himself had no reality on the engram, in
holding him in it and pushing him through. So this compound difficulty of
the auditor with no reality on looking at the pc in an engram and the
auditor with no reality on being in an engram, and the difficulty the pc
was having being in and staying in an engram, made a dog's breakfast. Made
a pluperfect mess. Well, just because it fell on its head in this degree is
no reason under the sun why it should continue to be on its head. Because
you could run an engram today with no difficulty at all. You could get a
guy stuck in an engram and unstuck in an engram, and so forth, as quick
it'd make you spit.
Just nothing to it, believe me, believe me. And in this lecture I'm going
to give you some processes that get people over their allergies of the
bank.
Now, an auditor who believes that there is such a thing as an engram and
there is such a thing as a time track, and who has the idea that there are
such things as masses and has a good intellectual approach to the subject,
and who is totally aware of pcs having been out of present time, but
himself has no slightest idea of ever being in another time stream than
now, is a dangerous auditor. That is a dangerous auditor. Because that
auditor is doing an escape. He is escaping from then. And now is only an
escape from then, by definition. Therefore he will do everything in his
power out of kindness to give the proper solution to the preclear. And the
proper solution to the preclear is escape from then.
This is directly in reverse to what makes Clears and what makes people well
and what recovers things - is you have to show somebody that he doesn't
have to escape from then, because he can confront then, and once he can
confront then he is no longer stuck in then. You see, that's very simple.
In other words, you have to show somebody that he can stand and fight his
demons down. You see. You have to show him that he can survive in spite of.
You have to show him that these things which are traveling after him were
the shadows of life, not the substance. Now, that's what you have to show
him. And if you're sitting there showing him how to escape from life, of
course, you're teaching him to be worse off.
Now, an auditor who is permitting a pc to escape from life, from the bank,
will make mistakes from a standpoint of auditing. And this is the most
fruitful source of mistakes. Auditing mistakes, auditing mistakes, auditing
mistakes. Pc has no feeling that the auditor is pitching with him; the pc
has no confidence in the auditor; pc ARC breaking - all of this kind of
thing is all mainly caused by this mechanism of the auditor is not getting
the pc to confront the bank. And the pc down deep knows this is wrong. So
the pc objects. Pc knows he isn't getting auditing in some vague, dim way,
don't you see? And you get all these ARC breaks and upsets, and so forth.
Now, as I say, you can learn a thousand rules. Well, just - I don't know,
what are you going to do? Keep a dictionary open alongside of the E-Meter
and look up the rule for every auditing command? Or are you going to have
understanding and instinctive knowingness adequate to what the pc is
fumbling around with? Of course, there is no substitute for an
understanding, and understandings are all built on observation and
familiarity. There can be no understanding, actually no basic deep
understanding, without experience. And a person who has not had any
experience of a reactive mind trying to get somebody to handle a reactive
mind, of course, as I said, just makes a dog's breakfast out of it. That is
a mess from there on.
Now, it has long been said that a Scientologist is harder to audit than raw
meat off the street. You hear this every now and then. You hear this left
and right. Well, may be several reasons for this, apparent reasons. One of
those is the Scientologist knows how it ought to be and how it ought to go.
He is also accustomed to handling an auditing session. So as a pc, of
course, he is more accustomed to handling the session than a pc would be.
He knows which way this thing is. Actually, he audits faster. But he ARC
breaks more, you see. Don't get these two things mixed, don't say that a
Scientologist gets less case gain than raw meat, that is not true. He gets
more ARC breaks than raw meat. He is more critical as a pc. Why? What is
the basic reason for this criticalness as a pc?
It is all in the zone and area of duplication. He just cannot sit there and
permit himself to duplicate a bad session. All of his training tells him
not to duplicate bad sessions. You see, he's supposed to run a good
session. So he sees a session running badly, he becomes totally unwilling
to duplicate it. So therefore, his havingness of the session disappears.
Havingness and duplication are almost synonyms. So his havingness of the
session vanishes much more rapidly than somebody else's because he
recognizes what the session should be. And if he doesn't conceive the
session to be what the session should be, why then, he is unwilling to
duplicate the actions or activities of that auditor. So as a result he ARC
breaks. He loses a session faster than raw meat, even though he's in better
shape. The apparency is that the amount of ARC break would be a case
indicator. It is not a case indicator. He has a professional specialty, and
all of his training says, "Do not duplicate bad auditing." So he, of
course, cannot duplicate a bad auditor. So if he feels the auditor is doing
a bad job, he refuses to duplicate the auditor and of course, duplication
and havingness, being the same breed of cat, he of course loses his session
much more rapidly. That strike home? That sound familiar to you? All right.
You're just unwilling to duplicate a bad session, so therefore you put up
quite a show as a pc. Has nothing to do with your case, but has a great
deal to do with your professional attitudes or aptitudes.
All right. Nothing shows up faster in the auditor than an unfamiliarity
with the bank. And if a Scientologist who is familiar with the bank is
being audited by a Scientologist who isn't at all familiar with the bank
and hasn't any idea what the bank is all about, you're never going to get a
session, and that's it. At every side this thing is going to ARC break.
Naturally, because a Scientologist is supposed to duplicate a bank-handling
procedure which is reliable and good, the pc, being a Scientologist, will
not duplicate a bad handling. Quite interesting. It's an interesting
function, manifestation. A rather effective process to get over a bad
auditing session would be, "What part of a blank, or an auditor or a
person's name, would you be willing to be?" or "What about so-and-so would
you be willing to be?" "What about so-and-so would you be unwilling to be?"
You get the idea?
Well now, that shows up with great subjective reality at once, that there
are certain things about the auditor that the pc is unwilling to be. And it
is his unwillingness to be which makes it almost impossible for auditing to
occur.
Now, a Scientologist will respond much faster to routine auditing which
does so - show some insight than any raw meat that ever walked off the
street, I'll guarantee you. If this other factor is introduced, however, he
will riot move at all. Because, of course, he can't communicate in the
session. Communication - duplication. You have to have duplication in order
to have communication. The auditor gives an auditing command, the
Scientology pc is out the window. If the command has absolutely nothing to
do with what the pc is doing, raw meat thinks he's wrong, you see. He
thinks, "Well, I - I don't know, something new to me."
Therefore he says, "Well, the grapevine, the grapevine? I'm supposed to
climb the grapevine."
The auditor has said, "Well now, take a look at that grapevine." Well, he's
never really ever mentioned a grapevine, you see. There wasn't any
grapevine in the session, and suddenly out of the blue, why, the auditor
says, "Take a look at the grapevine."
Well, raw meat just says, "Well, grapevine," he says, "There must be a
grapevine here. There's obviously a grapevine here," so he mocks up a
grapevine or something of the sort. Tries to make something out of all
this. And he's a little bit confused, but he doesn't dare protest because
of the altitude factor. All right, so he'll go on and do an apparency of
pcing, you see.
You tell a Scientologist - he's sitting there and he's looking at this
railroad track and the auditor says, "All right now, what about this
grapevine?"
And Scientologist says, "Grapevine? What - what the hell are you talking
about? What grapevine?"
"Oh, a grapevine you mentioned a few minutes ago."
"Grapevine I mentioned a few minutes ago? I don't recall mentioning any
grapevine. Oh! Oh, oh, oh, oh, you're talking about - No, I said it was on
the grapevine. It was rumored."
"Oh."
And you'll get something like, "Christ almighty, why the hell don't you
learn how to audit?" Almost instant response, don't you see. And the
auditor has not been in good communication with the pc. He's made some
little flub of some kind or another, you get this razzle-dazzle going, and
whambo, see?
Well now, if the auditor has a good familiarity with the bank, he will know
exactly what he has done. So therefore he can handle it. And therefore the
ARC break doesn't continue very long. He understands, don't you see. See,
instantly he'll say, "Well, this pc must have been looking at something
else and was quite absorbed in it and I've distracted his attention and I
must be writing script here. See, I must have written a little script. Now,
let's find out what the pc is doing." So right away the auditor finds out
that he's had the wrong look at the situation, he says, "Well all right,
what are you looking at then?"
"Oh," pc says, "This railroad track."
"All right, all right. What about the railroad track?"
"A railroad track, and it goes on to infinity," and so forth, and it
so-and-so, a cognition and this and that, and so forth, "and that was what
I was trying to tell you."
"Well, all right, I heard you now."
There's no more ARC break.
But the auditor who has no reality on the bank will go this way: the pc
says, "Grapevine? What the hell, grapevine? Good God, why don't you learn
how to audit?" See. Well, he's thinking; he's almost going into this, you
see, and this other person says well - takes up at once the flub. Puts the
pc's attention on the flub, you see. And the flub isn't anything because
it's not aberrative. But what's in the bank is, see. So he puts his pc's
attention back on what is aberrative, see. And the auditor isn't so
self-conscious about this.
But the auditor who has no familiarity with the bank will say something
like, "Oh, well a couple of minutes ago you talked to me about a grapevine.
What did you mean about a grapevine?"
"Uh, well, I don't know, it was this grapevine, I mean, I said it was on
the grapevine, and that meant some kind of a rumor, and so forth."
"Well, I misunderstood you. I thought you said that - I thought you said
that you had a grapevine there."
"Well, I didn't have a grapevine here!"
"Uh, oh well! Well, what kind of a rumor was that that you were talking
about?"
"Well, I don't know, I've forgotten about it now."
See, the auditor doesn't have the dimmest concept. He sees the pc, the pc
is apparently there in a body, is apparently there in present time, is
apparently able to talk, and so forth, and has no idea that the pc is not
in present time, but the pc is on the backtrack and the pc is actually
expressing displeasure at having his attention flicked off of what his
attention is on, you see?
Well, the auditor that has some experience with the bank, he says, "Well,
this pc's attention is on something else. What the hell is his attention
on?" Don't you see? He says at once, "Well, the pc's attention must have
been on something else. Well, what is the pc's attention on?" And, of
course, the session continues.
But if the auditor thinks that this ARC break is terribly important, the
mistake is terribly important, he'll put the pc's attention over on the
mistake and we get an entirely different situation going because now we
have nothing to talk about but the mistake. Now, we'll get off with TR 5N,
and so on, and all this adds up to what? This adds up to no auditing. Ah,
but that is the only basis of the ARC break. Ha-ha! So the more we handle
the mistake, the less auditing occurs, so the more ARC break occurs, so
apparently then you can't blow an ARC break. Look simple? You see?
So the auditor who has no familiarity with the bank does not see why the pc
is going kind of zzzz-zzzz. See? He hasn't any subjective reality on the
idea that somebody can be there and absorbed in something and looking at
something and trying to do something and trying to follow out maybe an
auditing command and has his attention on something. If he understands this
and if he knows this, and if he has subjective reality on it, of course his
first thought - rules or no rules, you see - his first thought is, "Well,
what the hell is his attention on?" See. Not self-consciously, "What
horrible mistake I have made. Now I will have to remedy this terrible
mistake I have made." Well, of course, the person isn't projected on the
pc, hasn't any reality on what's going on, he hasn't any idea that the pc's
doing other than just sitting in a chair. See, he thinks the pc's sitting
in a chair so the pc's there to be sat in a chair, so therefore the pc is a
person sitting in a chair in present time, who is just nastily and out of
the meanness of his disposition or her disposition is having an ARC break.
You get the adjudication, see? So you get an overt on the part of the
auditor and an overt on the part of the pc, and then you get a dog's
breakfast for a session. Get the idea?
You can make a fantastic number of flubs if you know what you're doing. You
actually can. You can just go on, flub, flub, flub, and you know what
you're doing, you can always grab them. But if your flubs are being made
and you have an understanding of the subjective situation of the pc, you
can straighten them up so fast that they're just there.
Yeah, you give the pc a wrong auditing command, or something like this; you
miss an auditing command, and so on. And pc starts to answer it. Don't stop
him, let him answer the auditing command. Then give him the right one.
Don't keep dragging the thing up to PT. But you see, a person who has no
subjective reality on the bank has no idea that he's dragging a pc up to
PT. You see, he's not using any process that drags a pc up to PT, except
put attention on the session. So actually the pc now gets present time
collapsed on the track. Well, he's rather out of control. He has a hard
time orienting himself.
Now, disorientation is for one thing the source of dreams and delusions.
Disorientation. Person has a dream - Well, if you have a dream - you're
worried about having nightmares, something like that; you want to cure
yourself of having nightmares - or when you wake up, out of the nightmare,
well, look it over and figure out how the nightmare spotted you somewhere,
how it located you. And figure out where you are, and locate yourself.
After you've done that a few times you become so unanxious about locating
yourself that you don't have nightmares. Interesting, isn't it?
Thetan's in the skull and he can't find out where he is, the eyes are
closed and the body is asleep, he can't find out where he is so he puts up
some pretended or false knowingness as to where he is. And so the false
knowingness as to where he is then makes this sequence known as a dream or
a nightmare, or whatever. And that's all that is. It's a pretended
knowingness about location is what a dream is.
Old Papa Freud were around, why, I'm sure he would contest that. He'd say
that's - "Actually a dream is the expression of inhibitions, because
everybody knows man lives with a horrible, ravening beast, barely repressed
below the censor." I think the guy must have been on a naval vessel during
the time of war and after duty he always had to censor letters or
something. He had some engram running there.
But the upshot of this is, of course, you'd get a totally wild idea. If you
were processing a brain or something of the sort, and you - and there was a
thetan present, why, you'd choose the thetan for your randomity and after
that you'd, of course, believe that there was a primitive being of some
kind or another which lay down below the intellectual surface of the mind
and you'd get all sorts of wild ideas, and so forth.
Well, the second you disorient a thetan you give him the only real shock
that he can get. You've sort of chosen him out for your randomity. You sort
of told him, "Get lost. Get confused. Get lost."
Now, when you're auditing, with the processes you're using and so forth,
you're in direct communication with the thetan. All right, now, this guy,
he's got problems and they're disorientation problems of various kinds and
most of these problems are just disorientation. He doesn't know where he
is, you see. All right, so he's down the track someplace, groveling around,
and looking under odd corners of things to find out where he has been and
you spring a surprise on him and his first reaction is not to know where he
is, so his next action is delusory knowingness. He'll put up a pretended
knowingness. He knows he doesn't know something, but the first - his first
reaction is to tell you that he doesn't know something. He doesn't know
what you are doing. He doesn't know this, he doesn't know that. You get the
idea? Well, actually all of he's - all he's saying is, "I'm disoriented. I
was in one time stream and now you've got me back in this other time stream
and now what the hell are we doing?" It's as simple as that, don't you see?
He thought he was going through the back alleys of Timbuktu, about to be
knifed, don't you see. And you've got him all persuaded that he's in
Timbuktu with your auditing command. Whether you realized it or not, you
were persuading him he was in Timbuktu. You've said - you've given him an
auditing command of "What unknown alley could you confront?" see, and he's
obediently confronting some unknown alley, and then you give him an unknown
room, because he's not aware of the room very much, and you give him the
room suddenly, don't you see. And then you insist he stays in the room
while he is still in the alley, and he'll put up delusory arguments. See,
just like a dream or nightmare, you know he'll put up all kinds of reasons
why you did this.
And the only reason why the auditor did this is because the auditor didn't
have enough subjective reality on the bank to realize that the pc is in
another time stream, and that's it. That's the only thing that occurred. He
didn't have enough reality on the pc's bank. And he fostered a
disorientation and the pc becomes confused thereby. And the delusory
character of a pc who is telling you all sorts of extraordinary things
about your auditing, and so forth, these things are simply delusory. He's
trying to orient himself, he's trying to find the unknown. But, of course,
he's in the unknown of thinkingness because he's confused enough not to be
able to confront the unknown of whereness.
See, the unknown of whereness, you know, location, always requires more on
the part of the pc than unknown of idea. You see, solids take much more
ability to confront than an idea. See, a thetan finds it very easy to
confront an idea because he generally even thinks of himself as an idea.
You see, so he finds it very hard to confront suddenly the masses, which is
to say location. His location factor is the last thing he'll confront, so
therefore he gives you delusory ideas as to what is going on, when as an
actual fact he's looking for a factual location as to where he is, don't
you see?
And if you don't put him where he is in a hurry he will go on delusorizing
as to what you are doing and what he is thinking and what this is all
about, don't you see. He just adds significance, significance,
significance, significance, significance. And this is all an effort on the
part of the thetan, believe it or not, to orient himself. It doesn't sound
like it at first collision, but it is just an effort to orient. Where he is
- all the auditor has to do to shut any of  this off is to find out where
the pc has been and where he is. That's all. It's so elementary, you see.
But an auditor would have to have an idea that there is a place to be
called the bank, before he could ask the pc where he is in it. See, if he
didn't have a good, solid subjective reality on the is-ness of a bank, he
could be startled enough not to remember the textbook rule of "always ask
the pc where he is." He would never think of this because it's one of seven
thousand rules.
An auditor who has a good subjective reality on this - the pc says, "What?
What the hell? What - what was - what - what are you doing?" so forth. He
knows what he's looking at. He knows he's - pc's attention has been on
something, and therefore he's had an orientation called a bank orientation,
don't you see. And he now no longer has this orientation. He is groping for
an orientation, he can't find himself in the room, he can't find himself in
the bank and therefore he feels very confused.
Of course, all the auditor can do is to find out, "Well, where are you?"
see. "Where are you? What are you looking at? What were you looking at?"
Not even, "Just before you said that," you see, "Just before I made this
mistake, where were you?" Now, of course you've done this sequence. You've
put the pc's attention on the mistake, and then put them on the whereness,
and now he doesn't know where the hell he is, see. You've given him a via.
You can cure up an ARC break and then by mentioning it in your next
question, ARC break the pc twice as bad all over again. It's very simple.
You're asking a Security Check question of some kind or another, and you
say, "Well, now, just before that ARC break I was going to ask you this
question now, and you.. ." See, what'd you do, you disoriented him again.
See, he thinks he's supposed to be looking at his bank and getting
auditing, and you seem to be insisting that he look at a no-auditing called
an ARC break, don't you see.
But if you've got a good reality on the bank and the thenness of things,
and so on - which is a rather simple reality to attain, actually - why, you
get this other response. And he rather grumpily says, "Well, I - I was
looking at this alley."
"What alley?"
"This alley!"
"All right. How long is it?"
"Well, it's just an alley alley. It isn't very damn long. Alleys normally
aren't." He's still nattering. He's a little bit disoriented, and so on.
"Well, does it end? Does it run between two streets, or what?"
"Yeah, well, it ends between two streets," and so forth.
"Well, where is it there, exactly?" and so on.
"It's here in Cairo. Oh, this is Cairo!" he says. "This is Cairo! Yeah, I
got it. This is Cairo. There's the mosque, and there's the street, and
there's the fiacres, and there's the anti-British slogans, and... Yeah, I
see where I am now."
"Oh, fine. All right, that's dandy." And he forgets all about the ARC
break.
Orientation. That's all it is. But if, of course - as I say, stressing
again - if the auditor has no idea that there is a whereness called the
bank or the time track, of course, he doesn't - he isn't actually capable
of finding the whereness in the pc because he only knows that it exists
intellectually. So, yeah, having a look at a time track, and having a look
at some pictures and engrams and secondaries, and getting a sensation of
thenness, and so forth, is worth a thousand hours of TR 0 to improve
auditing quality. See that?
All right, now, I'll give you a few processes by which an auditor could be
audited and would wind up with a reality on the bank you couldn't shake
with a bat. And actually he'll have to attain this anyhow before he even
vaguely gets Clear. He'll - an auditor who is skipping out of the bank and
skipping out of the engram and skipping off the track and skipping into PT
- he reminds somebody of a parachute, you kknow, with compressed air blowing
up against the top of the chute. He's - never goes down, he just always
floats up. No matter what you do, he comes up. And he'll have to get over
that before he gets Clear anyhow, so this is a great kindness.
Here's a command: "What unknown would you escape from?" and "What unknown
would you attack?" This is simply a basic command form. And this is, of
course, reach and withdraw on unknowns. Any verb form on either one of them
is just "escape the unknown," "attack the unknown," see?
Now, you put it over into the valence rules and you say, "Think of an
unknown. Who would escape from it? Who would attack it?" Got the idea? That
gets valences coming into it. And you can go at this in reverse and you
could say, "Think of a being. What unknown would he escape from? What
unknown would he attack?" All kinds of command forms. But it's just escape
and attack from unknowns.
And, of course, you - the pc in this particular case is sitting in the
middle of some wild unknown incident of some kind or another, and he'll
start attacking and escaping from engrams. He just cannot help himself from
doing so. And he'll plunge around in the track like a bumblebee in a bottle
- won't know what the hell's cooking. Of coourse he's never realized that
he's right in the middle of the track; he is not in present time. He has
kidded himself for years. He is not oriented at all because he's totally
surrounded by engrams he isn't looking at. And anybody who's obsessively in
present time is simply stacked up with engrams and that's all there is to
that.
People who have obscure somatics or not-so-obscure somatics are, of course,
sitting in an engram. Now, when you find that person who has somatics, who
has also (quote) "never been back on the track" and has no awareness of
thenness in the bank - you know, has no awareness of yesterday in the bank
- of course that person is not in present ttime at all. That person has
escaped by total withdrawal from some environment which may be two hundred
billion years ago, see, so they're not in present time. Not even vaguely.
And, of course, this type of auditing command, "Escape an attack from
unknowns" - well, of course they're trying to escape from the unknown of
what they're in, and at the same time they must be trying to attack the
unknown of what they're in, and it'll just unfold engrams like a bunch of
picture postcards you buy in Venice. That's one of them. That's just one of
them.
Now, you could have a valence-type process: "Who would escape from things?
Who would attack things?" Milder process.
Now, you can throw this over into beingness - you can throw it over into
beingness - and you'll also throw up track that comes into view. I'll go
into this in a minute as to why, but you can write it down. Beingness: "Who
would you be willing to be? Who would you rather not be?" will show up
track. Your first one is the beefiest one. These others are simply
variations of one kind or another.
Now, the reason why a beingness is functional, is that valences are
packages and part of the package of a valence is a track. A valence has a
track. This is a great oddity, but every once in a while you find somebody
without his own bank. He isn't running in his own bank. Any pictures of
himself will be wildly out of valence. He is never, never, never in
valence. He always sees himself from afar. If you do get him on the track
he sees himself from afar, and he gets the vaguest and thinnest impressions
imaginable of being in anything - it's very unconvincing, don't you see. I
mean, well, he has this picture of himself as a child; well, ask him,
"Well, how do you see the picture?"
"Well, the child is down there."
Well, you can immediately assume you have somebody out of valence who is
therefore having valence trouble. If he does have any pictures of his bank,
you would not be able to find them at first glance. Why? Let us say he is
in Mother's valence, so of course the only pictures he gets of himself are
the pictures seen by Mother. He always sees himself through somebody else's
eyes. So he has the bank of each person in whose valence he has gone. And
this becomes the most disorienting, confusing sort of a thing that anybody
ever had anything to do with. But first and foremost thing that it does is
promote an unreality of location. Because, of course, the fellow knew he
was in himself as a child, but as he gets the picture of it he does not see
himself below his eyes, he sees himself over there on the other side of the
room. Well, obviously he's seeing through somebody else's - this must be a
picture in somebody else's bank, immediately, you see. Quite curious, some
of the phenomena here.
But every valence is a complete package. A valence has a bank, has all
these now-I'm-supposed-to's, has skills, has disabilities, and so forth.
It's just a package person, don't you see? It's a package person that does
not exist in fact, but is only resident in the mind and is mocked up by the
pc.
Now, the pc, of course, entered this on the basis of not being able to have
the person and not really controlling the person, and so if the pc doesn't
have or control the person in any way, of course, he cannot have or control
any of the mechanisms of the person. So you cannot move that bank. It's not
his bank. See, he hasn't enough ownership of it to run it as an engram,
don't you see how? He hasn't any ownership of this bank, because it's
somebody else's. He doesn't have any - there's no way he could change that
person's personality. You could audit him practically forever, and you're
trying to change somebody else's characteristics. Never his own ideas or
characteristics, they're all packaged characteristics of the other.
Now of course there was a point where this person did enter or did
accumulate or collect this other valence, see? And that's the only point
where the valence will break. By following this principle that a valence is
a total package, and then by the dealing with beings who, you see, and
persons, rather than ideas - the auditing of beings rather than the
auditing of ideas and conditions, the auditing of beings rather than the
auditing of pictures - these views of other banks, you see, will suddenly
blow off. And the person will be left with some of his own pictures. Or you
get two or three of these things blown off.
And one of the most effective ways of doing this happens to be Routine 3
complete. And that's why it clears people, of course. But there's a
shorthand way of doing this. And you can really shake up a bank - you can
really shake one up - just by running any beingness process. Just any
beingness process, just like: "Think of a being. Thank you. Think of a
being. Thank you. Think of a being. Thank you. Think of a being. Thank
you." This'd be the most idiotically - it's a long drag sort of a process,
it may not be very stable, may not be anything happening, but it is going
to shift the bank. It will shift the fellow around, and it will cure
somebody of standing outside looking in at his own life, and it'll give him
his own track back.
You're every once in a while auditing pcs who have a tremendous number of
pictures that they dimly recognize as not theirs. They don't have much
familiarity with these pictures; they've got no real recollection of these
pictures and it seems sort of dull, and sort of thin. You get a hell of an
unreality going.
Well, there's - I run across a case in point: there was a person had a
whole bunch of pictures of sexual activities. He couldn't fit them on the
backtrack, he couldn't fit them on the whole track. This is one of the
mechanisms by the way which invalidates past lives, every once in a while
an individual gets into it and sees some thin pictures of past lives, of
some kind or another, he can't integrate them in any way, and he says,
"Well," dimly, "well, I, sort of have some pictures on the track, but I
don't know," and so forth. The person's having beingness trouble.
Of course, in his past life he was another being. And his other beingness
is so flagrantly a fact that it's the same as somebody else's bank when
this has occurred: that when the other being he was being in the past life
was in another valence. Figure that one out.
Now people that have valence trouble go very easily - accumulate very
easily other valences, and go into other valences very easily, so he
probably has been doing it for a number of millennia. So it's not just one
life's worth of pictures that are wrong; it is utterly thousands. I'll give
you an example of this, a subjective reality on the thing. This really had
me puzzled for a while. Back about 1605, something like that, I was set up
- I won't go into the story in any great deegree. But it took a warship and
a company of marines and a broadside to kill one girl. And it's such a
fantastic ferocity, you see, to launch against one girl. She was protected
by four redcoats and me. And of course, we caught it in the first three
seconds of play. Don't you see, that was the end of us. But it was such a
terrific ferocity against this girl, who by the way, was blind. Now, this
really starts pouring it on, see. She was! And her face was so disfigured
through a bomb assassination attempt, when she was a child at seven, that
she had to wear a mask. And she was a rather pathetic little character. A
whole man-of-war and a company of marines landing in boats and a full
broadside to kill this one girl.
She was the last of the family of Charles V. She was the granddaughter
aspirant of the old Holy Roman Empire, and one of the innumerable French
that lived down here about sixty miles had decided she was a great menace
to the throne. So they set her up to be assassinated. Well, that was quite
an assassination. It was with - it was skyrockets, see.
Well, I was being audited one day. I found myself sitting around with a
picture of a girl on a rock, apparently about 1870. Didn't compare with any
track I had. Nice exterior view. It just didn't make sense. Didn't have any
track I knew anything about. Here was a girl, sitting on a rock in exactly
the same location, in exactly the same place, and I knew what happened to
the girl and I knew all about it and so forth, but I hadn't ever known the
girl. Fascinating.
What this was all about was very, very simple. Apparently I'd kept a spot
of attention on this person as a thetan for the next couple of hundred
years. I didn't have the girl's valence particularly, but there was a -
there was a cross, there, right at the moment of confusion, don't you see.
I had her future bank. You know, I'd tracked the bank of this particular -
which gave me a whole set of totally disrelated pictures that had
absolutely nothing to do with my pictures and nothing to do with the track.
It was very intriguing. They were very thin, very unreal. I knew all about
them but they didn't have any real substance, don't you see.
And right now I could say, well, possibly this is the way the track looks
to an awful lot of people. Don't you know, it's very thin, and there's
nothing much to it, and so forth, and it's all just kind of an idea. Well,
it was this girl's track, from the time she had been killed, straight on
up. I still had it on file.
Funny part of it is that this girl, picking up another body after that, had
gone along for a very long time and had then happened accidentally to be
taken by her parents to exactly the same rock that she was killed on in
1605. And she became very ill and she sickened and she died! Just keyed her
in complete. You possibly know the place. It's right across from Gib., and
the Hotel Reina Christina is on the Spanish coast side. And it's one of
those rocks right close to the Reina Christina Hotel. And of course, it's a
tourist resort and her parents had taken her back there. What a dirty
trick. That must have been some vacation, man!
All right, so you take an incident of vast confusion of motion that one is
not willing to tolerate. Well, one is willing to tolerate such motion in
battle perhaps, one - in a naval battle and it's all the way it should be.
But the motion occurs at a moment, or with a target, which isn't suited to
the motion, don't you see? There's this much bombardment and yippity-yap,
and it causes a hell of a disorientation. And you say, "Well that shouldn't
be," you see, and big protest about the whole thing, and therefore you
start tracking it.
Now, a valence could occur that way. And ordinarily, however, what would
have happened is that whoever had been there would have picked up the
girl's valence, don't you see, and would have gone ahead with the girl's
valence, and that would have been the person who died because her parents
took her back on the rock, don't you see. That would be what a valence - a
solid valence picture would look like. And this person wouldn't have any
more pictures than the man in the moon. They'd all have somebody else's
pictures, don't you see? It'd all be something else, and it'd all be from
the wrong point of view, and what would this add up to? This'd add up to a
disorientation, all of which springs from a spot of total disorientation.
Some incident which has in it total disorientation, then is liable to breed
a total, out-of-valence situation from there on up.
All right, somebody who's in that kind of condition of course is having
valence trouble. And an auditor who's having too much valence trouble, of
course, has no great reality on somebody else's bank because he thinks this
bank is not a bank, you see. It's kind of - well, it's about as real to
him, you know, as a thin, indistinguishable picture cast up on that wall
with the room lights on, with a cracked magic lantern slide. Never bothers
him to look at pictures. Doesn't bother him at all.
You start running this person back, however, they wind up in the middle of
some kind of an explosion. Eighteen spacecraft all of a sudden collide
instantly and immediately on one point in space, because as he was picking
up his paperweight off of the chart room desk, you see, it wasn't the
paperweight, but it was the fleet signal alarm, or something, you see, and
he shouldn't have done this! And you'll find him at this point of
disorientation. And he'll be in - and there was a cabin boy there, or
something of the sort that he was quite fond of, and you find him in the
valence of the cabin boy. Only he isn't quite sure, maybe it's the captain,
you know, and it's all a tingle-tangle, and it goes back to such a point.
That is the type of incident it takes to make a valence transfer. They are
not just the conditioned reflex. Well, Joe just keeps hammering at Mary,
you see, and keeps hammering at Mary, and pretty soon, why, Mary goes into
Joe's valence. That's ordinarily how we look at this thing. We're too prone
to believe that aberration is a gradient scale because it can be taken
apart by a gradient scale. Aberration is no such thing. For Joe to go into
Mary's valence there is either a long track association with plenty of
violence, murder, poison and sudden death on it, or there is a very similar
person or something, and there is some fantastic overt of some kind or
another against such a person which contains a tremendous amount of
violence and motion. That's what it goes back to.
But, of course, the "psyrologist," looking at the tame, stupid life that he
himself leads in our modern world, you see, sitting at his hydraulically
operated desk with his chromium, self-pushing graph pens, and - he couldn't
conceive of this much experience, don't you see. And he doesn't find that
there is anybody in life ever has any real experience, so of course it just
must be the business of living itself, day-by-day living, is what is
aberrative. This is what he winds up at.
And of course, you take this character, he would have no reality on the
backtrack. He'd have no reality on anything of that character. You shove
him back on the backtrack and he finds out there was experience of some
kind or another on the backtrack. If he continued to see it through an
other-valence bank, you see, of some kind, you wouldn't wind up then with
any kind of reality on it. He wouldn't have much reality. But of course,
the keynote of the case is he doesn't have much reality anyhow. So he never
conceived of this sort of thing.
Now, one of the things you want to watch for in auditors is the auditor who
says that he has no reality on past lives. Watch it. Because that person
has not collided with his bank very hard. He has a touching acquaintance,
he has, you know, sort of a polite hat tip. You get him in the
tonsillectomy and he's out there on the outside of the hospital, you see.
And he knows how to run a tonsillectomy: You get on the outside of the
hospital and you just watch the picture, you see the picture of the
hospital, and you kind of look through the window and that's fine, and
that's it, you've run the engram, you see.
"Have you ever seen a picture of an operation?"
"Yes," he says, "yes." You see, and that line of questioning is not very
productive of anything. But the line of questioning of, "You have any
reality on past lives?" - that is productive, see, because he'll tell you
quite frankly he does not have. All right. Well, that's not reprehensible.
Nobody's trying to force anything on him. I'm just giving you a symptom of
the thing. This fellow is having valence-bank trouble. And having
valence-bank trouble, you're not now likely to discover an
in-the-middle-of, 3-D sort of picture, unless you look pretty hard. All of
a sudden, if he gets in the picture, he'll come out of it. See, there'll be
no idea of attention stuck on pictures or attention in pictures or anything
like that.
Well, until he himself has got some kind of a reality of this character, he
will worry about his auditing flubs, and these auditing flubs... He knows
that he has a perfectly decent wish to help his fellow man. There's nobody
disputing that in any way whatsoever. And he'll wonder why pcs ARC break or
why he can't quite handle this pc or handle that pc and this will be very
mysterious to him, and he'll say, "Well, I better have eight thousand hours
more of TR 0, see. And I'd better grind the midnight oil," you know, "and
I'd better read Scientology 8 -8008 or something. Or maybe there's
something on a tape I haven't heard, or..." And he'll get into a
considerable anxiety about this particular activity. Why does he - why do
his pcs blow up? And then he'll get a lot of loses, and then he'll decide,
"Well, I maybe shouldn't audit," you know, and so on. What's he trying to
do? He's trying to orient himself with a datum or something of the sort.
Well, the datum he's actually looking for is just this: As long as he has a
low subjective reality on a bank, of course, when a pc gets into one, his
understanding is not instantaneous, so he will do a fumble. He'll do a
little fumble, and a little comm lag, and this little fumble and little
comm lag will be just that instant necessary to permit the ARC break to go
bloom! See. The pc drops down in tone and is not making very much forward
progress and then maybe blows up or blows session or something of the sort.
This is the - a common experience. It is not true that this person was
trying to do something bad to the pc. That is not true. It isn't true that
this person didn't know his Scientology - he did. None of these things that
you would normally consider true are true. It's just this one little fact -
is the individual's mechanisms of handling life have been: "Escape from
self into others," "escape from situation," "out," "up," "don't get any
real good contact with the horrors of yesterday, because they're just too
horrible, man! And the best thing to do is just stay out of valence and out
of picture and out of thenness. And if you just stay out of thenness
enough, you'll be all set."
Alcoholics Synonymous have themselves a considerable time with this, they
have little mottos like: "Live twenty-four hours at a time," and so on.
They also have another little motto which gets in your road occasionally,
and if you don't know about it you'll have trouble processing alcoholics.
They have another motto which - "Alcoholism is incurable." And that's the
first thing you have to know, and that's the first thing you have to admit
to be a member of Alcoholics Synonymous. You can get in the wildest
arguments with an alcoholic. Well, you say, "Well, we'll audit you for a
while, and then you'll be all right." And you wonder what the devil's the
matter with the man, you know. What's the matter with him is he had to
swear on a stack of - well, I don't know what they swear on, actually - I
guess empty bourbon bottles, that they will never be cured of alcohol. It's
- practically amounts to that. When you reaad the textbook of Alcoholics
Anonymous your hair stands on end. All looks fine right up to the point
when you read the fact that they can never be cured, they will never get
over it, and they've had it, and they must just succumb to the whole idea
that they are an alcoholic. They have to admit this. Ah, you're digging
somebody out of that, what are you doing? They're just plowing him in,
harder and harder and harder, into the valence of somebody that he thought
was an alcoholic.
Anyway - that aside beyond the point - the difficulties which you encounter
all come under the heading of auditor comm lag. And you yourself will
recognize it, looking back over the times when you've had pcs ARC break on
you, that if you'd just been in there a little faster it wouldn't have
happened. And if you yourself have been ex - inexpertly audited, you can
look it over, and you can look at it very bluntly, and you realize that if
the auditor just said something before all of that silence, and so on, or,
you know, if they hadn't fumbled and given the appearance of fumbling,
there wouldn't have been any ARC break. Well, what's that fumble? Now,
we're really getting down to fundamentals, see.
Well, that fumble is just the unreality that he has on what the pc is doing
or going through. And the fumble is sufficiently long to permit the pc to
get out from underneath his control. So actually you don't have time to
look up the datum in the textbook, or even to remember it, don't you see,
your response must be instantaneous. You must be in there, so on.
So when I say there is no substitute for knowing your business, of course,
you've got to know Scientology, but you've also got to know instinctively
the reactions of the mind. "What is this guy doing?" See? "What goofball
situation is this?" you see. And you haven't even got time to say, "Well,
let's see, what is hap-pen-ning here?" you know. Well, the only thing that
teaches you data to that degree is experience. A race driver who has read a
lot of textbooks on the subject of racing car doesn't take Dead Man Bend,
you see, out of the textbook. He feels the wheel slipping, it's gone off
and it's hitting just slightly into the gravel, it's only an inch deep in
the gravel, and he's back on the track. Ah, but if he read it in a
textbook, and it said, "When you feel the wheel hit the gravel on the edge
of the track you should turn the wheel slowly to the opposite direction."
"Oh, yes, I remember that now. It was on page 73."
Well, by this time they are of course are putting him in the ambulance. And
that's just exactly what happens in your ARC breaky auditing difficulties.
When you get into these you don't yourself have enough subjective reality.
This isn't true of all auditors, you see, because they do have subjective
reality. The edge of the wheel hits the gravel, and they of course, they
say well, the edge of the wheel has hit the gravel, but they're already
doing something about it, you see. They've already turned the wheel. Pc
isn't going in that direction anymore.
It's very simple. It is so simple that an auditor who has good subjective
reality hearing this tape will wonder what the hell I'm talking about.
They say, "Of course. Naturally. Yes. Well, so what?" And then they sit
down opposite Mr. Doakes for an auditing session. They're the pc now. And
Mr. Doakes, in the auditing session, the wheel edges over, and one inch of
wheel - tire moves over into the gravel and Mr. Doakes looks up in the
textbook on how to drive racing cars - how to drive a Mark Sixteen racing
car particularly - and the conditions of the track. And that's all on page
173, and so forth, and he happens to get stuck on the datum of the worm
gear of the steering wheel, and so on, details of, you see. Well, of course
your poor auditor at this point is being picked up in pieces and put in the
ambulance. That's about all that happens. Because really, you - what - what
the hell is going on, see. And then you have great difficulty settling back
and feeling relaxed enough to go into the bank. Because you know the next
patch of gravel he's going to do the same thing.
No amount of explaining on your part, and no amount of teaching on my part
or anybody else is going to teach him anything - enough data, and enough
textbooks, and enough huge plots and blueprints as to how you do it, to
overcome that little comm lag, see. You could maybe drill him that every
time the pc says, "What are you doing?" he says, "Where are you?" But I
think this would lead to an instantaneous ARC break, you see, because he
really doesn't want to know. You get the idea?
So, the only basic, fundamental cure is to get somebody over the jumps.
Now, auditing has to be done before clearing. That, of course, is the
fundamental problem. Everybody can look at this and say, "Well, of course,
that is the problem. Let's clear everybody and then let's audit. Let's
clear everybody on Earth and then let's audit."
Somebody figured it out the other day that you couldn't possibly clear
everybody in New York City because it would require so many thousand
auditors, working so many thousand years, and so forth. And they figured it
all out, and they had it all taped, and this was conclusive fact that you
couldn't clear New York City. They had absolutely, totally omitted the fact
of making any new auditors. This had been omitted from the calculation.
It isn't true that an auditor has to be cleared before he can audit. That
is definitely not true. And if it were true it'd be "God help Earth!" That
would be a stopper that nobody could get around. It'd be nice, you see, and
where auditors do get Clear you find out they make Clears very rapidly.
I'll give you a datum here. Brenda Scott, who was cleared on the last
Australian course, back in Sydney, has cleared two more people. Well, she's
hardly been home any time at all. But similarly an uncleared auditor off a
South African course who didn't get Clear has also cleared somebody in
South Africa. See? Get the idea?
So it isn't - a requisite to clearing is not "to be Clear." It's nice. It's
nice. It's always nice when you're out in a storm to be in nothing but a
Camper and Nicholson vessel that is fully equipped with all stabilizers and
is fully proofed against everything, and so on. But at the same time, why
some old hooker that you picked up in a back bay with half its bottom
falling out, it'll very often ride storms too, you see. But it would be
nice if you were in this other yacht but not absolutely necessary.
Well, anyway, the road toward making a good auditor is to get the auditor a
subjective reality on the bank. Now, don't think that that is going to
occur automatically by reason of straight auditing. That is not going to
occur automatically. Because people can be audited for many, many, many,
many hours, with no reality on the bank, without getting one. This has been
demonstrated time and time again. And where Routine 3 is being terribly,
unthinkably, ghastly, awful, slow, it's just that this particular facet of
a case has never been hit. The escape mechanism of the case has not been
triggered off. It is still very much in full bloom. And so the case, as he
runs the processes, of course, never does take any kind of a tour of the
track but is dealing with other things and you still got an escape
mechanism going.
Now, the escape mechanism is not necessarily a difficult mechanism to
overcome. It is - surrenders rather easily because it is based on another
idea than that which degrades or aberrates a thetan. Escape is simply a
method of handling a bank. That is all, it's just a method of handling a
bank. It's not a method of getting aberrated.
Now, you can go reductio ad absurdum and trace it back and say, "Well, yes,
and if he'd only stood and confronted it at the time..." But I'm sure that
there are Clears and they will not walk out in the middle of Market Street
and say, "Well, I should be able to confront all this oncoming traffic from
the middle of the street." I'm sure they won't carry this on as a practice.
They find themselves in the middle of Market Street in San Francisco, they
will go over to the curb. Got the idea? Well, you could say, "Well, they're
practicing an escape mechanism. They didn't stand there and get run over."
No, the deterioration of a case is based on another mechanism. The
individual no longer has confidence in himself as himself and so he adopts
another packaged beingness which could handle the situation. And then this
beingness he conceives to be useless in the handling of life and it is not
a solution, so he adopts another packaged beingness in order to handle life
and then that one is thoroughly invalidated, why, then, of course, he gets
another one and when that one is thoroughly invalidated, why, he gets
another one. See how it goes? And your backtrack of clearing could not be
followed by the idea of escape because that's much too simple a statement
of the situation. A person can find themselves inadequate in numerous ways
besides the fact that they are trying to escape. I know lots of things that
a man would be a very foolish fellow and a thetan would be a very foolish
fellow not to escape from.
When you're wearing a body which is inflammable, it is not good sense not
to escape from fire. That is what comes under the heading of preservation
of property. But the deterioration of self-confidence in being able to
handle life in all of its facets and aspects goes down into a degradation,
and it makes one believe that he now must have another beingness in order
to handle things for him. And now he starts living life on an
irresponsibility. And that being goes out and he gets another being on top,
and that being goes out and eventually this goes into the life - death
cycle that right now is so normal and usual on this planet.
Well, it's of course about as normal and usual as a girl in pink tights
standing out on a - on a Buckingham Palace's flagpole. It is not at all
usual. You don't have to kick the bucket every few years. This is not any
part of your contract.
But life, invalidating the body and the beingnesses, the valences, gets
down to an invalidation which says, "Well, the best thing to do is to chuck
the mock-up." Well, that just marks a failure.
A person ages to the degree that they feel invalidated. And this could be
stated processingwise: The age of a man in any lifetime is directly
proportional to the accumulation of unknowns. Which, of course, is
invalidation. You could almost measure the physical age of a person on this
basis.
Now, of course this is exaggerated in childhood, and probably in childhood
that is why you get fast growth. Kids have a terrific amount of
unknownness, and they move up rapidly through this unknownnesses, and so
forth. But you're getting proportionate aging. You're getting very rapid
aging, actually. The change but - of six months in a child's life in his
first ten years makes a considerable difference. Well, frankly, he's
getting a lot of pretended knows and unknows, and all that sort of thing.
They're pounding at him one way or the other. But he's carried through all
this with hope and confidence, you see, because he's going to grow up. And
his growing up process, of course, doesn't necessarily carry with it all
this validation of this confidence he felt. He possibly shouldn't have been
quite so confident. Unknowingnesses start to accumulate. Unknowingnesses
now that he has no hope of overcoming it. And these go on and on, and the
unknowingnesses get greater and greater and greater and greater, and he
finally kicks the bucket.
Aging, the amount of gray hair, and so on. People are sometimes amazed at
me. I get gray hair and then few weeks later I don't have gray hair and
then I get gray hair, and then no gray hair, and so on. It's the Central
Organizations that are doing it, you see, I don't... It's how much I know
about their operation or how many not-knows they're running on me, see!
Directly proportional.
Anyhow, all joking aside, I think you would do very well - if you're
seeking to prove up the auditing skill and - of an auditor - I think you
would do extremely well to just check into this factor of reality on
thenness and what he considers a picture is, and so forth. And then use
those processes I gave you, or some other process, similar, to whoop this
thing out, and all of a sudden - straighten out his track, in other words.
Do a track straighten-out activity of some kind or another, and you'll all
of a sudden find his auditing ability will suddenly go zzzoooom! He won't
necessarily get Clear, but at the same time he will clear faster. Get the
idea?
Now, this pays benefit completely aside from auditing in that it permits an
individual to experience more benefit per unit of time in auditing.
Now, one of the ways you grope with this situation is in doing Goals and
Terminal Assessments. The more valences a person is in the more goals he is
likely to come up with or have, or the more submerged his goal is likely to
be. But if a person is susceptible to invalidation, then you do have a
coordination between roughness of case and length of time that it would
take you to find the goal if you didn't take up the invalidation factor
with rudiments. In other words, a person's goal is so easily and so swiftly
invalidated that it plunges out of sight with the greatest of ease. So as
the goal vanishes, you apparently then have many more goals than you should
have, don't you see. But it'd be a susceptibility to invalidation.
Well, his susceptibility to invalidation is directly proportional to the
number of valences he has accumulated, because of course the invalidation
of valences - of self was what caused valences and then the invalidation of
valences is what caused more valences, you see. So if there's anything
going on, it is a basis of invalidation. If you wanted to draw a common
denominator of all aberration, it would be - it could be said to be in the
vicinity of invalidation. The person is as aberrated as they are
invalidated - as they feel invalidated.
It wouldn't be proportional. You could take a whole line of men, invalidate
them all equally, you'll find out they'd all react differently to the same
amount of invalidation. It would be how much invalidation a person feels,
not how much a person has. And you just breathe on some people - you're
just passing by them accidentally and you just breathe; you don't even
breathe at them - and they're promptly invalidated. You see how this would
be. And some other fellow, you walk up to him and you slap him on the back
enough to break his spine and you kick him in the stomach, and he looks at
you admiringly and he says, "Come on and have a beer!"
I know that would be rather foreign to your experience in this particular
lifetime, but out on the frontiers I've run into such men. I hauled off and
hit a guy hard enough one time to knock him from one side of the ship to
the other. He went on bragging about people - he bragged to people, "God,
he sure can hit!" you know. Never bothered him at all! It was very
invalidative of me, you know! It was quite a remarkable experience. Never
occurred to him, you see.
Had a dog one time, his name was Al for "Albino." And crazy old Al was a
malemute. Half malemute, half Spitsbergen. Pure white, meaner than mean,
you know. Big, tough, strong. And my poor old mother used to try to make
this dog do something, you know. And she would beat at this dog with her
fists, you see, and she would push at the dog and she would maul the dog
and she would drag at the dog and... Of course, all this dog knew how to do
was the second he felt weight against his chest he knew what you're
supposed to do, you're supposed to pull. And if anybody was crazy enough to
have him on a leash which had a harness on it, you see, you just - just the
second you tighten up the leash he'd mush! And he could really pull! Of
course, my mother weighed about 110 pounds - wringing wet.
And I have seen her just practically clean up on this Al, trying to get him
to do something, you know. Trying to get him to walk on up the road with
her or something out in the country, you know. And he's busy barking at
cats or something like that. And all Al would do was stand around and laugh
at her, you know. And he'd pant, and he'd just be so happy about the whole
thing, "I'm getting some attention!" is about the only thing that ever
registered on him. He'd just be so happy.
And when I first ran into Al one day, he - I was a stranger. He'd been
around there for quite a while and I hadn't been home, and he showed, oh,
1,652 sharp wolf fangs, you see, and he came at me with a low charge, and
he was ready to eat me up, and of course he meant to stop two or three feet
away, you see, and just scare me half to death. And you learn about dogs,
living in Europe and Alaska and things, and I just grabbed him by the
jowls, you see, on the loose skin on either side of his teeth, and then
using his impetus coming forward, then swung him sideways, you see, and
threw him about twenty-five feet. He landed in the flower bed with a
terrible thud.
And Al got up and he came over and he looked at me, and he spent quite a
bit of time looking at me, and then he finally started to smile about the
whole thing.
He had a very short memory. I was home every few months so I'd have to
repeat the process. But we always stayed friends. Yep. By God he'd - you
could just hear him say, "I swear by this Ron!" you know!
He didn't have any clue - he didn't have any clue of ever being punished;
you couldn't do anything to Al. And he was about the healthiest brute you
ever laid your eyes on. Now, he's probably still living yet. They sent him
up into the woods to live with lumberjacks. I know he was at it for five or
six years and just thriving. So you can imagine.
So from animal to animal, person to person, being to being, the factor of
invalidation is entirely different. And, as invalidation is rather a common
denominator of aberration, therefore you find the factors of clearing are
registering on people differently, but more important to this lecture, that
a person's responses as an auditor or as a pc measure up this invalidation
factor to a large degree - but not so mu

