SHSBC 72

VALENCES, CIRCUITS

A lecture given on 18 October 1961

Yeah, you see, that's all for Mary Sue. That's good. That's good.
All right, this is what? The 18th of October, AD 11.
Now today, you are dealing with Problems Intensives, and so forth. And the
modus operandi which we are following, very ordinarily, can be considered
to be finding somebody's goal; finding somebody's terminal; giving them a
Problems Intensive; giving them runs on the Prehav Scale on the found goal;
flattening off two/three levels; spotting and assessing some engrams that
have been turned up during that period; running those; flattening some more
levels on the Prehav Scale; and then probably giving a whole track Problems
Intensive; and then flattening off a few more levels on the Prehav Scale.
If they're not Clear by that time, run a few more engrams, and then run
some more levels.
Now, the truth be told, they had a barnyard one time and they had an
election. I thought that would wake you up. And they had decided that all
animals were equal. And this is perfectly fine, but they had decided all
animals were equal and they're having an election, and the pigs were
finally elected as chairmans and governors of the barnyard. So, life went
on along the barnyard way, very nicely and smoothly and everything was
going along fine, except most of the animals began to notice that the bulk
of the feed was going into the pig trough. And so they complained about it
and were overruled by a point of order. And then they noticed that the pig
quarters had been moved to the warmest part of the barn. Oh, by this time
it got a little bit rough. And finally it got to a point where there wasn't
anything to eat anyplace but in the pig trough, so they had a big meeting.
And the animals wanted to know why, if all animals were equal and all had
equal rights, the pigs should be living in the warmest part of the barn and
should be getting practically all the food in the barnyard. So, the pigs
had a considerable meeting amongst themselves as an executive committee and
finally came up with this conclusion, which they published: that some
animals are more equal than others.
This thing about equality comes up amongst preclears. Are some thetans
tougher than other thetans? Are thetans all of 61.1 grasshopper power, or
you see, and so on. That is by the way, an unanswered question. But the
basics of the thing are that some people are certainly - all cases are
rough, but some cases are more rougher than others. And in this particular
wise, all cases will now be found to respond to what we know, but some
require more of it than others.
And regardless of the equality of thetans and how some thetans might be
equal to some thetans and all thetans are more equal than other thetans -
in spite of these problems, which are unanswered - you'll find that all
thetans who are here at this time on this particular time track in this
universe (you must qualify it in that wise) are suffering from exactly the
same levels of aberration.
The difference is magnitude. And that is the only difference. Now, this is
an important conclusion because it doesn't give you Kraepelin's - I think
it's probably pronounced differently, but I prefer the pronunciation of
"Craplin's" - Index of Insanity. Now, his Index of Insanity goes on for
some pages, and it's all the different kinds of insanity that people have.
And it's very interesting, and it was developed many, many decades ago in
Germany, and then was exported and arrived almost simultaneously on Park
Avenue and Madison Avenue. On Park Avenue it was applied to the rich and on
Madison Avenue it was applied to the advertising world.
And they expanded it. And in most insane asylums in America - I prefer
that, too. I prefer that derogation of "insane asylums." I think they're
insane, don't you? And they have expanded this. Believe it or not they've
expanded this almost unexpandable list. Well, it begins to look like
Kraepelin's list originally was quite simple compared to the list which
they now have of the numbers of types of insanity.
Well, these different types are only manifestational. It's how does the
basic aberration manifest itself? And that is the only question which is
answered by a long classification of types of insanity or aberration.
Manifestational - they manifest themselves differently; they are the same
aberrations. So you have different manifestations and different orders of
magnitude and you have no difference of insanity.
In other words, this is what we have been working for, for some time in
Dianetics and Scientology, is to understand all of these various types and
responses. But basically, you have the condition of all aberration arising
from the same causes, but manifesting itself differently and manifesting
itself to greater degrees of magnitude or lesser degrees of magnitude. It's
the same thing, you understand, but it can look different and it can be
greater or lesser.
And what are these manifestations? Well, we've talked about them for many,
many years; there have been many points of address to them. But the reason
why we are clearing people, broadly today, and the reason why you can clear
people, is because you are taking people out by the same process that they
went in. At the beginning of Book One, Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental
Health - actually its third volume, not its - I think it is - not its first
volume; it's the third book of the first book. It says if you can just
parallel what the mind is doing, why, you can lick most anything. So you
have to parallel what the mind is doing. That's one of the fundamentals.
Actually, the fundamentals with which we operate are expressed in that
book. And also many of them, of research, are expressed in Dianetics:
Evolution of a Science, and Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, as a little
short essay, is basically more important than it looks, because these are
the various indexes which are used in sorting out data, and it's the only
place they've ever been expressed. But here today, we have a process in
Routine 3 of becoming aberrated - the process of becoming aberrated. And
we, in Routine 3, you see, reverse the process of becoming aberrated.
And it sort of works like this - it does work like this: A thetan, doing
and acting in this universe, loses confidence or conviction of his own
strength, independence or power. A thetan loses confidence - basically in
himself. He loses confidence in his ability to do and to survive. Having
lost that confidence, he then assumes an identity which he considers will
stand instead of self. He himself goes down into degradation.
Now, what he is overwhelmed by or what he has overwhelmed consistently is
adopted by him as a full package of behavior, and that stands in lieu of
self. And that is a valence. And that's - technical terminology for that is
a valence: A valence is a substitute for self taken on after the fact of
lost confidence in self.
Now, as a thetan sinks into degradation - lost confidence in self - he goes
down into personal oblivion, so that he himself has no further memory of
self, but has only memory as a valence. Now having - having taken on this
valence, he then carries it on as a mechanism of survival. This is the
thing that is surviving. He is doing a life continuum actually of what he
has overwhelmed or what has overwhelmed him. This is a valence.
Now, at the point of degradation you will find it backtracking this way:
Now, just before he assumed the valence he had a problem concerning his own
survival, which he himself could not solve. He could not solve it as
himself Now, just before that problem, there was a tremendous confusion in
which, by processes of overts and withholds, he became enturbulated as
himself. Usually these overts and withholds were - well, always these
overts and withholds - were against the various dynamics.
Now, that was the route by which he went in. He missed his way and he had
some overts and some withholds, particularly against the mores of the group
in which he was operating. And then he lost confidence in himself
completely. He felt he couldn't go on as himself, and this gave him some
tremendous problem relating to survival. He felt he couldn't solve this
problem and he adopted a valence to solve this problem. He adopted an
identity he thought would stand as a solution to this problem and then he
went on as that identity.
Now, that identity in turn, as the millennia progressed, submerged by the
same cycle. As the identity, while a member of a group, the thetan
committed overts and had withholds from other members of the group, and
this finally mounted up into a tremendous unsolvable problem. And this
problem, of course, was solved by him by actually the acceptance - usually,
not of another valence - but the acceptance of a change or a different
status.
Now, there are several ways with which he can face up to this situation.
Now, I've described the most basic one. The most basic one is represented
by Routine 3, which is to say he had a certain goal line of some kind or
another, he did not succeed in this particular goal line, while part of a
group he accumulated overts and withholds, and this amounted to a
tremendous problem. This problem was solved by him by the acceptance of an
identity.
Now, he is in trouble because he himself has gone into oblivion and the
identity knows, the identity knows, but he doesn't. All right, that's the
most fundamental. But how many ways can this then work out thereafter? Now,
having committed that basic error, how many ways can this work out
thereafter? Fortunately for us there are not very many of them, but the
cycle is always the same: While a member of a group having certain goals,
he commits overts and has withholds from other group members, from which
arises a confusion, which summates into a problem, which he then solves
by... Now you name it, see? And there's the only variable, is what does he
use to solve the problem.
Now, he has always used a valence, early on the track, to solve the
problem. He always has done that. That we're sure of. So that you always
have a thetan that you're processing who has adopted a valence. That's for
sure. See, you know that. And you can take a look at any person, any human
being, anybody walking around, and you know that he's had some goals and
he's - as a member of a group, he's had overts and withholds, and this has
amounted to a tremendous problem. And that he has solved this by assuming a
valence, and that this valence is greater than himself, and that he himself
has disappeared into an oblivion while the valence is dominant and
paramount. This we know about every human being we meet who is not Clear.
That's fundamental.
But remember now, as this valence, with certain goals, while a member of a
group, he has developed overts and withholds which have culminated in a
problem which he then solved by... And we've got the next variation; we've
got the next thing he did.
Well, now, the common denominator of it all is change. And of course he's
always solved the problem by changing. By changing what? See? We don't have
to say what. We just say he solved the problem by changing. There change
came about in his lifetime.
Now, that is equally true of the first assumption of a valence. You see,
that was a change of identity. And life after life, as he's gone along he's
shucked the old identity - the dead body - and he left it lying there in
the coffin with the relatives weeping about, or left it stashed up
underneath the dashboard, rather poorly preserved meat. He's done something
with this body and he's gone ahead and he's picked up a new body.
Now, the whole of the Buddhist concern was the life - death cycle. The
birth - death cycle of Buddhism is their total fixation, and actually is
probably the greatest wisdom that Earth had up until we came along. It
wasn't much, they ran it kind of backwards. But nevertheless it was a lamp
burning.
Now, here, an interesting thing: The whole goal of the Buddhist is to
escape this cycle of birth - death, birth - death, birth - death. And he's
very afraid of making a change. The Buddhist is afraid of causing
something, and he is afraid of making any change in life because he might
then change somebody else, and he might then become responsible for broader
changes. You see? Now, actually he's doing all this on the basis of "If I
shirk enough responsibility, why, I will somehow or another float out of my
'ead." Well, unfortunately, it doesn't work very well. If Buddha did it
sitting under the Bodhi tree, he didn't write it down on rock. He wrote it
on men's minds and that is writing as upon quicksand, because there's
something, something missing.
Now, it is true, that occasionally, accidentally, a thetan can sit down and
be very quiet and go out of his 'ead, bong! You know how he does it? He's
so concerned about escaping from dead bodies that he will actually set up
an ejector mechanism, like a fighter plane ejects the cockpit and all at
the press of a button, you see? The fighter pilot in these modern jet
planes - the better governments build them this way at least - presses a
button and the whole cockpit flies out into space on a shot, and a
parachute bangs open and he floats to earth.
Now, you'll find every once in a while - while you're processing a thetan,
you'll find one of these things. And you'll know when you find it because
he got an awful start, something happened, he exteriorized, it's all very
mysterious, it's exactly what happened. We are hard put to find out unless
we know that we have simply run into one of these ejector mechanisms.
Accidentally we've pushed the button.
Well now, they don't work. Usually they're - most of them are broken and
they haven't been functional for ages and they're quite silly, actually.
Now, one fellow was so afraid - . You see, they get all mixed up. If they
got into severe pain they should be able to die and get out of their heads.
See? So they will set up some kind of a mechanism like a guillotine right
above their foreheads - actually, it's a mocked up, heavy-energy
guillotine. And at a certain time, when they experience enough pain, they
feel they won't be able to think while they're doing this, so they trigger
this to respond to pain. And they get enough pain and this guillotine will
go - clank! And it's supposed to knock off the body. And nearly everybody
has wound up at this stage of the track with the belief that you have to
kill the body before you can get out of it. That is very interesting - you
have to kill a body before you can get out of it. And people will just work
like mad trying to kill a body so they can get out of it. And, of course,
it has nothing to do with it - it is a via.
If you didn't have that many overts against - on the body, you would float
out of it anyway. You'd have a hard time sticking with it, unless you had a
few overts on it. So in trying to get out of the body, they try to kill the
body, and they're - they're just all mixed up. And this is a silliness.
They - they're doing the exact thing they shouldn't be doing.
All right. You find people are gimping around, being ill and that sort of
thing. They very often have triggered some of these ejector mechanisms.
Mysterious how these things occurred. Here they are, twenty years after
they triggered something that was supposed to blow them out of their heads,
or knock off the body or something like this. And they're still in their
heads, and it didn't blow them out. And this is a big defeat and it's a -
wow! - it's a problem the solution of which failed. It's a failed solution.
Do you see now, there is the birth-death cycle. And the Buddhist believed
that he could escape this cycle. He could leave this vale of tears and woe.
Now, it's one of the mechanisms of that particular series of truths that
they believed that the world was horrible and poverty-stricken and that it
was pretty well all bad over there. Now, the basic truths which they were
putting out are so interlarded with these other exaggerations, overts and
unkind thoughts, criticisms, alter-ises, and so on, that it operates as a
self-trapping mechanism. If you get a guy to be still long enough you will
key him in like crazy. All motions of the past will come in and kick him in
the head.
Well, why do you find your pc sitting in the middle of a problem? Or why do
you find him sitting there with that solution? And why is it such a still
solution? Well, it's a still point on the track. And every time the pc has
tried to rest he's practically been overwhelmed. And then as soon as you
get the problem out of the way and you look back for the motion and the
confusion, the motion and confusion runs and, the still spot disappears. In
other words, the still spot is held there because of the pressure and
duress of an active spot behind or earlier than the still spot. Do you see
that? So therefore, every time the man tries to rest, the motion threatens
to overwhelm him. You see, the still spot is there to hold back the motion
earlier. So, every time he goes still, of course he restimulates the
earlier motion.
You run into somebody, he can't rest, he can't rest, he can't rest, he
can't rest. He doesn't dare! He walks down the street, he doesn't even dare
stop in the middle of the block to look in a shop window. All of a sudden
something goes merrrrmmmmm! He knows better! And a traffic light stops him
as he's driving the car, he hasn't got any place to go. As a matter of
fact, he's sitting alongside of a pretty girl; he would just love to have a
moment to chin-chin, you'd think, you know? And there's the traffic light -
perfectly good excuse to stop, you know? Does he talk to the pretty girl?
No. He says, "Well, damn the police department! Rrrrrr. And these traffic
lights and so on - . And look-it, there's nobody on the side streets
anyhow. Rrrrmm." and so on, you know? And he finally throws it in gear and
jumps the last instant of the light and goes roaring across the thing. Why?
Why? Because it's upsetting to him to be still. Because the second he goes
still he starts getting overwhelmed by all the former motion. The former
motion restimulates on a still. And this is an oddity. The still is there
to prevent former motion. So of course, then, the still becomes the
restimulator for former motion.
Every thetan is subject to this. The Buddhist, he wanted to go out of his
bloomin' 'ead, 'e did, and sail around in the sky. Now, the last time I was
sailing around in the sky, do you know I was bored stiff! Interesting. I
was just bored stiff. Interesting! There was nothing to do! There was very
little to look at. There was nothing to participate in. But, of course,
there's enough former motion to make me feel like maybe I ought to be in
motion, or ought to be doing something.
That's all beside the point. The point is that there was nothing to do. So
the basic goal of the Buddhist must have been "do nothing." That is the
defeatist goal. Whenever you have people in defeat, they are telling you
that they wish to do nothing. Now, they will gauge it in many, many ways,
and they will say it in innumerable ways and justify it in a thousand,
thousand ways; but it still adds up to the fact that they want to do
nothing. That's what they think they should be doing.
Now, of course, the nothingness is the point of overwhelm. So people who
yearn for nothing inadvertently yearn to be overwhelmed - inadvertently, by
mechanism. They get overwhelmed. And so you have every great culture
working hard to achieve peace. And they achieve more peace and more peace
and more peace, and it gets terribly peaceful. It's awfully peaceful
everywhere. And then up jumps one barbarian with a busted slingshot and
knocks over the whole ruddy lot. They finally achieve no motion. And, of
course, that is synonymous with death.
So a thetan's ambitions can often be contrary to his best interests. But
this is not surprising in view of the fact that there are no real
liabilities to being a thetan, except the liability of inaction, of no
interest, the liability of nothing to do, the liability of nothing to have,
no place to go, nothing to be. Those are all liabilities. And when you see
people around preaching these, you are seeing people in the finest possible
games condition. That is the ne plus ultra of all games conditions.
When you see somebody preaching to everybody that they must be very still,
that they must be very good, that they must be very, very peaceful, that
they mustn't move around much, that they should settle down on the farm and
never again do anything else, that they should content themselves with that
little swivel chair in front of the desk, that they must not do anything
else. Whenever you see somebody preaching this - or "What you need now, Mr.
Doakes, is a long rest." The fellow strokes his blood-stained lapel and
gives you the business, you know? What a finer, finer way to kill a man,
there isn't. That's the medico - his advice is always in this direction,
you see?
But when you see these people talking about peace, peace, peace, quiet,
still, stay in one place, don't move, the best life in the world is for you
- is to stand there like a lamppost; look  at the wonderful life a lamppost
leads - especially with dogs!
Anyway, you're ask - . You're seeing somebody there who is in a games
condition. He is playing a game in which he wants the other fellow to get
overwhelmed. And he's using basically and fundamentally the mechanisms of
the track which will best overwhelm the other person. It is not at all in
the interests of helping somebody out. That is all part of the game. "The
best way we can possibly help you out is to give you a long rest."
Now, the proofs of this are quite interesting. The proofs of this are all
over the place. You take a soldier wounded on the firing line, and you put
him in the first-aid shop, which is right hard beside the 155s that are
slamming away, and you would think offhand that that would be the worst
place in the world (because you see the propaganda is otherwise) for him to
recover from his wounds. But what do you know! The death rate in the
first-aid station alongside the guns is much lower for the same wounds than
the death rate in the base hospital. Why, that's fantastic!
They move the guy back to the base hospital and they say, "Peace, peace,
rest, rest. Now you take a long rest." And - poof! There he goes! They got
rid of that one right now!
Yeah, but what kind of care does he get in the first-aid station up
alongside the guns? "Is this one gonna live, or is he gonna kick the
bucket? Oh, well, tie him up a little bit, move him over there, we got
three more in the tent! How you doing Joe? All right."
You know, just not, "You poor dear fellow. How are we possibly going to
save you?" You know? People practically walking on them with hobnail boots
and the characters get well. Because nobody up to that moment has
introduced the idea of quiet. Nobody has introduced the idea of
motionlessness.
Now, they've attributed it - the "psyrologists" of yesteryear - attributed
it to the fact that he did this. They had no explanation, except perhaps he
felt he was still participating or something. But this is one of the great
puzzles, because the medical figures are so directly contrary to what the
medical doctor does. If you leave him in the first-aid station between a
couple of slamming guns, he gets well. And if you send him to the rear, he
dies - same wounds, same type of case. They know this, so they keep sending
him to the rear.
Now, there are many instances of this. You take old Mr. Doakes. Well, he's
worked hammer and tongs in that lumberyard for the last forty-five years,
man and boy, and he built it up himself, he did. Splinters in all ten
fingers. And here he is, he's working on the thing. And truth of the matter
is he does know more about the lumberyard than the other people around
there, and he's going around just having a time.
And one day he gets gallbladder trouble or something - one of the splinters
got in his gallbladder. And he finally has to go down and he unluckily
lands in the middle of "Peace, peace," you see? And he gets a bit sicker.
And he keep - first few days he's there he keeps fretting away, you know,
and he's saying, "I wonder if that damn foreman is going to load that pine
up on the wrong truck again, and do you suppose they remembered to get the
oak out of the rain?" You know? And worry, worry, fuss. And every time he
starts worrying about it, what operation is run on him? Is "No, no, they'll
get along all right. Be quiet now, and don't fret yourself" Can't you just
hear it running off?
Well, it's an operation. It doesn't do him any good. The best possible
thing that could happen to him is for the telephone call actually to come
in, and the foreman has left the oak out in the rain. And they loaded the
pine, not only on the wrong truck, but sent it to the wrong continent. No
peace going on. Next thing you know, he says, "Well, hell with this
gallbladder," and goes back to work.
Well, now, you see examples that are pointed out to you as fellows who are
dying from overwork. These are examples of fellows that are killing
themselves with work. And the whole society subscribes to this. You see how
a thetan lays the red herrings? He doesn't throw red herrings across the
track, he throws flats of red herrings across the track. Dumps truckloads
of them - because the evidence isn't there. He's dying from stills; he is
never dying from motions.
How does a thetan - how does a thetan get sick? You know yourself that the
moment that you release the still that he is stuck in, he'll get well. What
is an engram but a still, you see? He'll get well if you can release that
still. Now you - he's lying there with a broken leg and it's going to take
him six weeks for the leg to get squared around - well, all right, how
about this? This is wh - . We've done this so many times it's just routine,
practically. If you go in - we go in and we get rid of the engram of
breaking the leg, and we get all holds out of the thing and all resistances
out of the thing and so forth; he's out of there in about a week or so and
the doctors are flabbergasted. They can't believe it.
You've been around - if you've been around where they've given lots of
these assists, or if you've given some yourself, well, you recognize that
you've run out what was holding him in the accident. Now, that's well
within your own reality.
Well now, he was suffering from a broken leg because he was held in the
accident - not because there was too much motion, but because there was too
much still. It's this motion before the still, don't you see, which is
crowding the still into being a still. And you could release it better by
getting the motion before it.
But what has happened to him that he is not any longer in this condition?
That he falls off a motorbike, hits the pavement, several limbs bend the
wrong way to, he picks up the body, puts it back on the motorcycle and
rides home. The punctures close in the flesh, and the bones go instantly
back together again - what has happened to him that he cannot do this? He's
been leading too quiet a life, that's all. That's all that's happened to
him.
Now, you get around, you get around very active people, you will see them
taking fall... Well, get around a circus. That's not too good an example
because they're on display. Another factor is entered into it, if they're
giving other people mock-ups all the time. But you'll see these fellows
take falls and flops, and so on, that would kill you. And they just pick
themselves up again and they never think twice about it, you know? Of
course, every once in a while their, the bull elephant, or something like
that, will lean into an elephant man, and he will lean until the elephant
man is pasteboard. But that's not the type of accidents I'm talking about.
But I also could add: what's the matter with the elephant man that, having
become pasteboard, he now doesn't resume his former shape? Why is it that
when you hit a body and knock it out of shape, what's the matter here that
it doesn't come back to shape again instantly? Well, we say immediately,
"Well, it's broken. Well, it's like a toy, or it's like a piece of wood, or
something like that, it's broken." No, toys and pieces of wood are not
alive.
Why doesn't the body come back to shape? Because we know the body comes
back to shape slowly, why doesn't the body come back to shape rapidly?
Because of stills. Because it is held out of shape. And that should be well
within your reality as an auditor that if there is something wrong, it is
being held that way with considerable magnitude of force. Those things that
are wrong with people are held wrong at the expense of considerable energy.
How a man can stay crazy has often been a great deal of mystery to me. The
effort it must take to stay crazy must be fantastic. And true enough, if
you get the exact unknown spot in a person's craziness, you undo him
utterly. He goes zooom, and he goes sane. I've seen it happen time and
again.
The most fruitful source of these sudden recoveries of course are
withholds. Withholds best overcome stills, because they're the motion
before the still. The motion before the still was going on while the person
was not participating with the motion. See, the person was withholding
himself from the motion already, so while in motion he was being slightly
still, in that he was withholding himself from the motion. Get the idea?
He's practicing withholds.
So he's already dragged himself back out of the motion. And eventually he
drags himself back so hard and so thoroughly out of the motion and he makes
so many overts against the rest of the participating elements of the motion
that he is no longer part of the motion. And what is there left for him to
be but still?
When you haven't any right to longer be part of a motion, you have only one
other choice. If you are - cannot be part of all available motion, you can
only then be still. If the only motion available to you in a group is
motion A, B, C, D, E, F, you know, and yet you've withheld yourself from
the group, and have overts against the motion of the group one way or the
other, of course where can you go but still? There's no place else to go.
If that's all the available motion there is, is the motion of this group,
and you withhold yourself from that, you go still. And, of course, that is
the basic mechanism by which you get a confusion, overts and withholds,
winding up in a problem.
Well, the problem is the still. It's postulate - counter-postulate. It's
idea - counter-idea. It is a held and timeless mechanism.
Now, everything I've been talking about problems this past summer is
totally applicable. We haven't gone astray a bit. What we've done in a
Problems Intensive is find just a better way to handle the same mechanisms.
There have been a couple of new discoveries on the exact anatomy of those
mechanisms. Exactly how do - how does a problem hang up? That's what's been
found. Very closely stated that the confusion comes before the stable datum
on a time plot. The confusion and the stable datum are not in the same
instant of time. It's the confusion, and then time lapse, and then the
stable datum. The stable datum is always after the fact of the confusion,
and that the overt and the withhold eventually culminate in a still. And,
of course, that still can say it's a problem, it can say it's a this, it
can say it's a that.
But immediately after the problem is a solution to the problem. Now,
because the problem is held motionless in time, of course the solution
becomes continuous in time. So you have a thetan with a terrible problem:
how to get some motion, how to have some excitement, how to do something,
how to stop sitting on this condemned cloud.
Now, you could say, earlier, well, he must have had motion earlier that
prompts him into this. No, we have to accept the fact that although moving
is quite aberrative - obviously - thetans like to do it. And we sort of
have to accept the nature of the piece that thetans will move around, and
that they are happiest when in motion, although motion is apparently very
foreign and to them and very bad for them. It's something on the order of a
child gets sick every time he eats ice cream, but he does and will eat ice
cream. You can say, well, motion is very bad for a thetan, a thetan likes
to move. You c - the Buddhist adds it up, of course, and these other people
who are practicing this games condition are saying that motion is very bad.
That is their first lesson: motion is evil, evil is motion.
So we get the concept of the Devil, of course, is fire and the concept of
God is nothing. But the Devil is at least something, and the Devil is
always up to something, and the Devil is always in motion, and the Devil
will find something to do for idle hands, and nearly every - and nearly
every phrase that we associate around, around Lucifer has to do with
doingness and motion. So, the lesson which we should of course gain out of
this is that if we want to be godly, we'll stop dead-still and do nothing.
And that is the penalty. And, of course, the second you stop dead-still and
do nothing, everything you have been doing then overwhumps you. That's the
way it is.
You see, if you hadn't been going at - taking Reg's new car - if you hadn't
been going at 165 miles an hour, having your bumper up against another
car's bumper - nothing wrong with that, is there? You've got a bumper
against another car's bumper. But if you add to that, just prior to it -
that you were doing 165. Reg would have to get a new Jag! You get what I'm
talking about, see? It's the motion before the fact that makes the impact.
And there you have the - the mechanics of existence - you have the motion
and the still.
Well, now, there's nothing wrong with a still, actually, if there hasn't
been some motion. And there's actually nothing wrong with motion if a - if
a still doesn't occur. But like oil and water, alcohol and petrol, these
things don't mix. Motion is motion and stills are stills. And if you're
going to live a life as a priest, for heaven's sakes, live a life as a
priest! But if you're going to live a life; if you're going to live a life
as an alpineer or an airplane pilot or something of the sort, well, for
heaven's sakes, live a life as an alpineer or an airplane pilot. You got
the idea? Unless you can adjust.
Now, if you can tolerate motion and if you can tolerate still, you never
get into any of this trouble. But those are the two things that a thetan
cannot do. There are certain motions he cannot tolerate and there are
certain stills he cannot tolerate. Do you know that if you just put a huge
boulder in the middle of a courtyard in an insane asylum, and just let this
boulder sit there, and put a lot of seats around, and the patients could go
out and sit and look at the boulder... Doesn't have to have any further
significance than that.
You could blow this up and make it a temple, you see? You could have a -
you could have an idol there, or you could have a piece of architecture or
something of this sort there, but just as long as it's a big massive still.
And they go out and they could sit and look at this still. Well, some of
them would at once be sort of overwhelmed, and some of them at once get
terribly enturbulated. But I assure you that if they were permitted to do
this, day after day after day after day after day after day, after a few
years, in the wildest state, why, they'd all of a sudden go more or less
sane. You're familiarizing themself with a massive still, you see? Just
familiarize them with a still, familiarize them with a still, familiarize
them with a still. You could do that and you'd blow - you'd blow them up
the track. You'd move them around and so forth, without ever processing
them. It's something to do.
But you say, never process a still. All right, that's perfectly correct.
Don't process a still directly. But that hasn't anything to do with
familiarizing somebody with an actual still. Processing a still in the bank
and making somebody observe a still in the physical universe are two
different actions.
Now, observing a still in the physical universe can be quite therapeutic,
and observing stills in the bank without blowing them can really louse a
thetan up. His bank has limited quantity and he loses havingness and other
things happen when he observes bank stills.
Now, if we look carefully over how a thetan got aberrated, we will see that
he went through a cycle of: action, confusion. Confusion is caused by
overts and withholds against the people he's in action with or the things
he's in action with... And of course he was in action because he wanted to
do something. The mores of the group, his goal, the goal of the group, and
so forth - this is all part of motion and action; it's a goingness -
doingness proposition. That is followed by overts and withholds, and that
culminates in a problem which is a stop. And the problem which is a stop is
then followed by a change which is a solution to the problem. Now, we get
that anatomy repetitive. It goes over and over and over and over and over
and over and over. And it's been going on for the last two hundred trillion
years.
Thetan wanted to do something and he was in motion, and then while in
motion along with others he developed overts and withholds from the others,
and this culminated in a problem. Which problem he then solved by changing
in some fashion, and having changed in some fashion he of course went off
and set himself all up for a new cycle.
And he always set himself up for a new cycle, and every cycle is like every
other cycle. And this is the - this is the sameness which runs as the woof
and warp of life. That is the cycle of action of a thetan's aberration and
a thetan's doingness and so forth, but basically the cycle of action of his
aberration. And it doesn't matter what aberration he winds up with or how
that aberration manifests itself, it all goes back to the same anatomy.
There's no difference of the anatomy at all.
All right. Early in the game he adopted a valence. That was the change
which solved the problem. He had a goal, and that was a basic goal and that
has been going on ever since. And then he got a problem across this goals
line, and then this valence came along and this valence solved this goal.
And here he is now. He's now somebody else.
Now, while being this somebody else, ever since, he still picks up new
bodies who are somebody else. Oh, well, this masked the whole show. This
really made it complicated. The thetan already is not himself. No, he's a
valence. And as a valence he then picks up new bodies, each one of which is
an identity. So he apparently would just stack up endless and endless and
endless valences on top of his basic valence. Funny part of it is, he
doesn't. That's what's amazing. The basic valence is in there so solid that
transient valences from lifetime to lifetime don't overwhelm it. That's
what's going on.
So while living these lifetimes he could subscribe to the identity which he
had in the lifetime, but it still was underlaid by his valence - the - see
- key, central valence which was motivatedd by a basic key, central goal.
And although he gets other goals and these goals come and go, he still has
that valence; he still has that basic goal.
Well, that is the biggest single shift; that is the biggest single change
that takes place in a lifetime that is available to the auditor. Now, that
is a big one, and it is available on anyone with whom you can communicate.
That's available on anyone with whom you can communicate. That is a
requisite.
Because you wouldn't have much chance getting the basic valence of a Chinee
while you were speaking Portuguese and he was speaking Japanese. I mean,
this is - get rather adrift. So some communication is necessary to the
resolution of this situation. Given that communication, you'd be able to do
something about it.
Now, to a limited degree, you would be able to process the Chinee with the
CCHs without the benefit of communication. So you have a whole strata of
processes which one way or the other will work out things for somebody,
called the CCHs, which are without much benefit of communication. Those
things will work on - those things will work on animals. You probably could
process insects this way, maybe you could even process a stalk of corn or
something this way, who knows. But it would be a CCH proposition. And we've
got that whole band pretty well taped, and it's an important series of
process, because it means processing in the absence of communication - that
is what that gives us. And that is really what the CCHs are used for, is
processing in the absence of communication.
If you can communicate to somebody, or with somebody, and get that person
to answer your questions, even somewhat laboriously, and so forth, you have
no business using the CCHs. That's about what that amounts to. And the CCHs
can be categorized in that fashion now only because we can get rid of
hidden standards. Now, until 1A came along (1A did a little bit), and until
prior confusion came along (which did it much, much more), we had only one
method of getting rid of a hidden standard, and that was the CCHs.
Now, in view of the fact that we have Problems Intensives, you can relegate
the CCHs back to where they came from, which is processing in the absence
of verbal communication - you can process somebody you can't talk with. And
that's where the CCHs belong. Well, therefore, they are important.
But now, what else could happen to this thetan? Remember, he's still going
to go on this same cycle - going to have a goal to get something done; he's
going to be part of a group; and then he's going to get overts and he's
going to get withholds from this group; and then he's going to get a big
problem; and then he's going to change.
Well, what other changes are available asides from valences? Well, the
first and foremost one that you run into, as far as body line is concerned,
is he can pick up new bodies. He runs into an awful problem in life so he
decides to die. The solution to that, of course, the change of that, is a
new body. And you have the Buddhist cycle of birth and death. And that is -
the Buddhist cycle of, of birth and death is simply the problem of "How do
we keep going after the fact of an unsolvable problem?"
You could say that every death is accompanied by, preceded by - that every
new life is preceded by an unsolvable problem. Somewhere in the vicinity of
that death is an unsolvable problem. Death was a solution to the problem.
And then new life was the solution to the death. Because in between the
life and the death he ran into the brand-new problem. Is - that is being an
unemployed thetan. So he solves that problem.
And he goes ahead, then, by his action - desire for action and
accomplishment culminates in overts, withholds which produces a problem
which he then resolves. And then - we're talking now about - specifically
about the resolution point. Well, it can be solved by death, couldn't it?
And all illness - all illness of whatever kind - derives from unsolved
problems. All illnesses dissolve - resolve or, or evolve from unsolved
problems. That you must know pretty well, because that is the key to
illness.
There is no illness in the absence of a wish to live. Illness is always a
gradient scale of dying. Illness is always a gradient scale of dying. It is
- expresses a resentment against life. It  can be traced back to that.
The person is so overwhelmed by it he can no longer tangle it out, and we
say, "Well, that person is ill because he wants to die." Well, it's a
rather careless statement of it, because you're saying that only reactively
does he wish to die. It's a reactive problem, and therefore not exposed to
his analytical consultation.
So the person gets ill. He wins a football pool and they come around and
after the government's had its cut, why, they stuff his pockets full of
five pound notes, and shovel them into his living room and say, "Well, you
won the football pool," and he gets very ill - in spite of the medicos. The
medicos occasionally have written essays showing that every time you win a
football pool you get well. Well, that is not - doesn't follow. It's too
much change there. This fellow's goal line, long ago, was set up that you
were safe as long as you were poor. And if you could just be good and poor
then nobody would want anything you had, and so you wouldn't get stood up
in the corner of the basement and hung up on raw ice tongs and be bled to
death - which was the last time he had anything - what happened to him, you
see?
So he solved this problem by saying, "I should be good and poor." And he's
gone along being poor, and he's been a very successful poor man. I have - I
feel like shaking a beggar's hand sometime, and when he's a really, he's
really a mess, you see, and congratulating him, you know, on being such a
successful beggar.
You'd be amazed, if - if you congratulate somebody who is pretending to be
a victim, congratulate them on being such an excellent victim, you suddenly
do something - bwww! of course, because they are doing that reactively.
It's intentional, reactively.
So where you have this beggar being very proud, reactively, because of
accomplishing the act of beggary, you'd have somebody who was being very
proud of being a poor man. And then somebody fills his living par - living
room up full of five pound notes. Ooooh!
Oh, boy, this is the one thing - this is the one thing - that he shouldn't
have. We are - had case - case here. I seldom quote cases out loud, but
this - this - this fellow came into possession of something and has been
sick ever since. But most everybody would consider that it was good luck to
have come into this possession. And medically, and by all other rules, this
should have made him well. But it didn't, it made him good and sick
because, of course, it made him unsafe - he felt unsafe. Somehow or another
the possession of these things threatened his survival.
All right. So havingness is also the consideration of how much havingness
should you have in order to survive. And, of course, you have lots of
fellows that if you just filled their pockets full of gold they would be
terrified. That is too much havingness to survive. And although they might
say, "I'd like to have a million dollars," hand them a million dollars. And
they go "Duhuh! Oh-oh! Um-hmm!" Just hand them a million dollars in
one-pound notes, you see, or one-dollar bills. Whew!
The guy. .. Well, preferably do it about dusk, five or six miles from the
fellow's home. And he doesn't have a car. Just do that to somebody, you
see? Oooh! Why, the fellow wouldn't be fifty - fifty yards from the house
before he'd have a nervous collapse. Why every sparrow in every tree would
be lining up its beak on him to drill him dead, you know? It's unsafe.
I just give you that as an exaggerated aspect of what normally happens.
Some child suddenly finds itself part of a rich family and is terrified.
How did he get there? Family wasn't rich when they were born into it, but
got rich afterwards, and now the child's a nervous wreck. It's too much
havingness.
Now, they'll solve the problem some other way: by dying, by getting poor,
by wasting things, by - by trying to make everybody else poor. I'm sure
that Edsel Ford over in America, considers himself utterly overwhelmed by
the magnitude of the Ford Motor Company, because ever since he's had
anything to do with the Ford Motor Company he's done nothing but boob. He's
a complete idiot. They've got a Mercury, so he builds another more
expensive Mercury and calls it an Edsel. He's torn up every textbook and
policy of the Ford Motor Company wherever he operates so as to do exactly
the wrong things. You see? It is not safe for him to be in that position.
So he can't destroy himself - that's bad, so he's got to destroy the
position in some kind of a fashion. How else would you account for the
fellow?
The whole country is starved for a cheap car. The compact is on the way up
so he builds a clunk that is exactly like another Ford Motor Company car,
and calls it the Edsel, and sells it for too much money, and the dealers
all go broke, and he goes broke, and everything goes broke in all
directions.
Now, these - thetans aren't stupid. That's the other thing you must
recognize about thetans. One of their aberrations may be stupidity. But
according to the computation on which they are living, what they are doing
is very clever. And you will always ha - always find, inevitably, that the
very stupid have the most fantastic belief in their great cunning. And you
often find somebody who is very bright who has great belief in his own
stupidity. But these are mostly survival mechanisms of one kind or another.
These are ways of getting along, ways of surviving, ways of living.
All right, not to be torturously long-winded about it. How many changes
could occur - how many things or ways of change could occur - at that point
just after problem? You know, problem! exclamation point. Now, how many
types of changes could there be? Well, you could think of billions of them
in life. But how many mental changes could there be? Well, actually, very
few. They could suppress or enhance certain characteristics or they could
get rid of or adopt certain manifestations. And you've just more or less
got the whole package in those two things - you could get rid of or adopt
certain manifestations. Characteristics, manifestations - there aren't even
two, see? - there's just two of them.
You could get some kind of a manifestation or you could get rid of some
kind of a manifestation, and that's about all a thetan could do mentally.
And what's the earliest step of this? Well, he takes on a valence. He takes
on his valence. And that, of course, is a manifestation. A valence both
limits and exaggerates a person's own skills - exaggerates some, limits
some others.
Anything a thetan has, a thetan can do. Anything a thetan is doing a thetan
can do. You can put it down to that. A thetan can be stupid. It isn't
thetans are always smart but they get aberrated and get stupid. No, thetans
can be stupid. Thetans can be bright. If a thetan can fix up a circuit of
stupidity, therefore a thetan can be stupid. You see? He can only set up
what he can do. He only can do that. That's all he can do. That's his basic
limitation. A thetan can never do any more than he can do. And a thetan can
always do as much as he is doing.
Fellow comes in and he lifts a thousand-pound weight by his little finger
on the stage and twirls it around his head a couple of times and drops it
on the - on his toe, and flexes his muscles and walks off, and so forth
and... Well, that's very interesting. You say, "Well, he can do that
because he has such a strong body." No. No, the body is just a via. That is
just a via. No, a thetan can walk on a stage and pick up a thousand-pound
weight and twirl it around and drop it. That is all there is to that. But
he is so dedicated to the idea that it requires a strongman's body to do
that, that he only walks on the stage and does it when he has a strongman's
body. You see that?
All right. Now, your next little step on the thing is he only walks on the
stage and does that in a strongman' s body when he is feeling - when he -
when he is in training. See, a strongman body has to be in training. Then
he can lift the thousand-pound weight. You get the conditions he's adding
on to these things?
All right. Now, he can only do that when he is in a strongman's body, when
he is in condition, when he is well. Get the additional conditions that are
added on to this. All right. Now we get this additional condition: He can
only walk on the stage and do this when he has a strongman's body, when he
is employed to do it, when his agent has permitted it, when the billing has
been perfectly okay for him to do this, when he is in condition, when he
does not have any problems with the manager or the family; when, you see,
he believes in himself.
He's got - now got a new circuit. You see, he feels powerful tonight. But
on another night he doesn't feel powerful, so you see, he only picks up a
five-hundred pound weight, you see? And he gets very prima donna-ish about
all this, you know? And this gets wilder and wilder. But these are all
vias.
And in actual fact the basic truth of the matter is that a thetan can walk
on a stage, pick up a thousand-pound weight, twirl it around in a circle
and put it down on the stage. That's what this all basically comes down to.
A thetan can do this. But these conditions - limiters, limiters, limiters -
are each one of them the solution to a problem he couldn't otherwise solve.
So limitations or exaggerations are always solutions to problems which are
otherwise relatively unsolvable and which are hanging up. And the problem
got there because of: they wanted to get something done as part of a group,
and in that motion had overts, had withholds, and these resolved in a
problem. And that whole story goes back of each one of these problems which
results in a solution like, has to have a strong-armed body, see? Has to
have a strongman's body. All of these things are just more and more
complicated, more and more complicated, but it's just a summation of
problems. And each time that whole cycle has had to take place for him to
wind up at the other end with some kind of a wild solution.
Now, the solutions you are interested in, as an auditor, are not very many.
You are not particularly concerned that he is in a body, because he's been
in bodies before and he's gotten out of bodies before or he wouldn't be
here. So there can't be very much wrong with him in this particular
department. But what is he doing with this body? Now, that gets very
interesting. In the first place he isn't being the body he is in. He
basically and fundamentally, way back when, is being a valence which is in
a body. Ah, he is not a thetan in a body, he's a valence in a body. He is a
thetan who is a failed thetan, who is a valence which is a failed valence
which is in a body. You get where this goes?
All right. Now let's move ahead just a little bit further, and recognize
that there are new things that enter in which put you out of communication
with him. Now, up to this point we'd find it very easy to communicate with
him. There'd be no difficulty in communicating with him. But these new
problems and solutions with their changes that come after, interpose such
things as constant somatics.
A constant somatic is a solution to some problem, and you're auditing him
through the problem. You've got a constant somatic so there you've got a
problem, and you're auditing him through the constant somatic because his
attention is on the constant somatic because it's on the problem. And his
attention is not on valences so you can't run Routine 3.
Oh, you could find his goal, and you can find his terminal. But I fully
expect there are some people that you'd actually have to run a Problems
Intensive on before you could find the goal and terminal. You will not find
them in Scientology, or able to do any kind of a job of auditing or
anything else. They're really bad-off people. But you could find that
condition. Now, they're just a total circuit, you know? And the valence
just wouldn't be available, nothing else, you see. You won't find those, I
repeat, in somebody who can walk up to the front door and say, "Here I am."
Now, he could be in a circuit. Well, what's a circuit? Well, a circuit is a
kind of a subsidiary valence. A circuit is a mechanism which modifies a
valence. A circuit is a solution to the realization that the valence can
often be wrong, so therefore needs dictation to or needs things hidden from
it. So you've got a circuit. And you set up a valence that can think,
allegedly, and then you set up a circuit to modify the thinking of the
valence. All of which happens, of course, when the - the thetan, as a
valence, has run into a problem where the valence has failed. Do you see
what could happen here?
You see, after the fact of the thetan failing, now everything he adopts
after that is susceptible to failure. And each one of them becomes a
barrier to processing. And a circuit is something which modifies the
thinkingness and doingness of the valence. It's a dictational machine. It's
like you set up a tailor's dummy or something in a window, and the tailor's
dummy is animated. And it's supposed to be able to turn its head backwards
and forwards and shake its finger at the people who are looking outside,
and it's doing this all the time. And now you set up a circuit to keep it
from turning its head quite so fast. See, it's already built in so that it
will turn its head at a certain speed, and will raise its hand at a certain
speed. Now we'll put an entirely new machine over here. We will modify this
dummy, see, with an entirely new machine over here, and wire it in to slow
down the turn of the head, see? Of course, this is rather uncomfortable
because the machinery in the thing is to speed the turn of the head at a
certain speed, and then you put another machine on top of it to turn it at
a slower speed, see?
Now, there's another machine there that, because it is turning its head so
slowly, this new machine is fixed to turn the head up rapidly. So while -
while it is turning its head at this speed, it's got a machine which turns
the head at this speed, but this machine over here turns the head this
speed. And after a while the dummy starts wearing out.
You see what these circuitry things are, you see? They're things to slow
down or speed up. They're things to show or to hide things. They're
occlusion circuits or demonstration circuits; they're picture circuits.
They are all kinds of wild things. They're secondary thinkingness apparati
that modify the basic thinkingness which is built into the valence.
Now, if those circuits get too wild and there's too many of those and it's
all too complicated one way or the other, then the person can modify the
circuit with a somatic in some fashion and do something there. So that,
frankly, if he gets some kind of a circuit that goes operative, he gets a
somatic, and that sort of makes him turn the circuit off. Soon as a circuit
gets operative, and the somatic comes on, and off goes the circuit. And
it's - all kinds of this weird via, via, via, via, speed it up, slow it
down, hide it, show it, do this with it and do that with it.
Now, you get somebody that has this amount of - of bric-a-brac, additives
and subtractives... You get this amount of bric-a-brac which is modifying
the modifier, you see? You've got something that modifies and then
something that modifies that, and then something that modifies that, and
something that modifies that.
Somewhere down along the line, about the level of the somatic I mentioned a
moment or two ago, or any one of these circuits, you would have a hidden
standard. You could have a hidden standard. It knows more than the valence,
which of course knows more than the thetan. Of course, the valence itself
could be crudely classified as a hidden standard, but we don't so classify
it because it is a whole package of thinkingness, doingness, beingness -
that is a valence. It's a whole package. It's complete. You see that
package when you get a profile. And when you don't move off that package
you don't get a profile change. That's all there is to that.
Now, the modifications can be many without becoming hidden standards. A
hidden standard is only qualified this way: It's what knows better, to
which the thetan is paying attention. See, a fellow could have a hidden
standard to which he was paying no attention, therefore it wouldn't be a
hidden standard. You see, you could have a circuit that he never gave any
attention to. Well, it has all the qualifications of modifying his
thinkingness, but it would not slow up processing at all unless he paid
some attention to it. Hey, if he paid some attention to it, then it would
have a modifying characteristic on processing.
Now, the difficulty is this: A concentration on this item - whether it is a
circuit or a somatic or anything else - the concentration on this item can
be so heavy, so thoroughly concentrated and the dependency on that
particular circuit or item could be so tremendously heavy that the thetan
only knew if it knew and if it tells him it's true, but if it doesn't tell
him, it isn't true. And that is what we exactly mean by a hidden standard -
must be a very heavy concentration on it and it must be what tells him.
Now, when you're auditing him, he goes into the cycle of only consulting
it: He does not see you really; he does not hear you, really; he - it's all
set up on vias to such a degree that you're really processing some kind of
a piece of circuitry. It knows, he doesn't.
This produces some of the greatest oddities you ever saw. I mean, an
individual could - he could be standing in the auditing room, as you often
see a newspaper reporter do, and he'll see some demonstration and not even
see it. But such a person could be standing in the room; a person comes in,
sits down in the chair, you take two passes with your hand, and they grow
two legs that they didn't have before, you see? And they walk out of the
room, and the person would ask you, "What was the price of. . ." You expect
him to say, "an intensive," or something like that. He wants to know the
price of the cigarettes you smoke.
This used to absolutely drive me daffy, you know? I'd give some kind of a
demonstration. It'd be a fantastic demonstration, some wild thing would
happen or another, and some newspaper reporter would ask me, you know, very
searchingly and so forth, what - what - what state was I born in. You see,
he'd say - like it just had nothing whatsoever to do with anything
observed, and it was non sequitur to anything he had observed. And seeing
this originally got me onto the track of this sort of thing - not because I
was not getting proper recognition from such people - I began - I began to
wonder if they could see anything.
To some degree everybody's attention is absorbed in various parts of the
bank, to some degree. To some degree they're absorbed. But where a person's
total overwhelm exists, attention is so absorbed that only it knows. So,
they walk into a room, the person who is in the room sets somebody down in
a chair, they throw a sheet over the body. The person who threw the sheet
over the body picks up the sheet, and nothing - no change has occurred. And
says, "There you are." And the person walks out. And you turn around to
this person with a hidden standard and you say, "Isn't that wonderful?" And
he says, Yeah, I guess it is," and so on. "It's probably very wonderful."
He doesn t even know what he's seen.
That is how you can fool such vast numbers of people. You can fool people -
you don't really ever do anything. Why? Because they don't see.
Now, this is more real to you in this wise: If you had any difficulties
with your parents of any kind whatsoever, you had them because you were
assuming they knew you. You were assuming they observed what you were
doing. You assumed they heard what you said. They - you assumed that the
basis of their judgment was based upon the actual fact of your activities.
And after a while you became very confused. Because if you were having very
much trouble with their parents - your parents, they never observed
anything you ever did and they didn't know anything about you at all. They
had somebody else there entirely different.
If you had asked them for a recount of what you had done in any given year
of your life you would have gotten the doggonedest potpourri you ever heard
of. It would have had nothing to do with any part of the fact - not because
you didn't have a different memory, but because they didn't observe
anything you ever did.
Now, their adjudications of what you did do - should do in life are usually
based on not having observed anything you could do in life. So you get into
a hell of a lot - if you'll excuse the French - get into an awful lot of
confusion. You've demonstrated conclusively that you can't dig ditches, and
your parents absolutely insist that that is the very career for you. And
you assume, then, that they have observed that you cannot dig ditches. And
the joker in the deck is, is they've never observed this. They have not
seen you. They have never met you.
What have they met? They are running on a social circuit of some kind or
another. They're running on a whole series of now-I'm-supposed-to that is
dictated by some kind of circuitry. And it runs this way: "If I have a son
or if I have a daughter, why, that person should go to a certain kind of
school and they should do this and they should do that and in life they
ought to do this and the best way for them to survive is that and so
forth.. ." And if you don't compare with all these I'm-supposed-to's - the
pity of it is, you see, you don't even know what these I'm-supposed-to's
are - if you don't compare exactly with these, of course, you're a great
disappointment to your parents. You're an enormous disappointment to your
parents.
Of course, you get baffled in that you might be quite successful in doing
what you are doing. You might be going along fine and be driven half out of
your mind all the time because they keep telling you you're not doing well.
Child goes out, wins a contest of some kind or another. Comes home just
overjoyed, you see, covered with laurels and so forth, and Mama says, "You
know your feet are muddy." And the little girl looks at her feet and, by
George, she doesn't have any mud on her feet. And she - "What is going on?"
and she gets kind of confused along about this point, you see? The truth of
the matter is, Mama has a circuit that says "Children have mud on their
feet." See, it just happens that "You should take care of a child's
appearance at all times," or "A child should always be polite." Or there's
something - some I'm-supposed-to circuit operating like this, you see?
Hasn't anything to do with it.
And you could sometimes appear, you see, in total dishabille - never a
word. The next time you appear, you're neat as a pin, you see, and you get
all, all scolded. Why? Because what the circuit protests against, of
course, activates the circuit. Now, a child is supposed to have good
appearance. So any child who has good appearance gets criticized. You - the
circuits are idiotic, see? They're set up on the basis that the thetan
didn't know, so, what is set in its place is usually pure idiocy. "A
child's appearance should be very good." So a child has very good
appearance and he's criticized. But if his appearance is very bad he's
ignored. See, it's an A = A, you know, it's not the reverse.
And this confuses children, and they don't understand what they're doing
right and when they're doing wrong. You trace it back and you'll find out
that it's just the awfullest mishmash of 8-C you ever heard. It's all
reversed 8-C, and so forth. Little Johnny's sitting in a chair, and he
hasn't made a noise for an hour, and all of a sudden his mother comes in
and says, "Johnny, be quiet now!"
"Well, what have I been doing?" you see, big protest, injustice, betrayal.
All of these things follow immediately in the wake of this sort of thing.
But a circuit is most likely to go into activation on the thing it is
trying to achieve. So a circuit most ordinarily protests when it has won.
It'll protest its own end product at any time.
The basis of this is most circuits are set up on overts and withholds
resulting in a problem and going over into, then, a change of some kind or
another. And of course the circuit will dramatize the problem, or dramatize
the overt and the withhold.
Most things that are protested against, the person will do. We call it
hypocrisy. This fellow goes around, he's always on the platform, he's
always beating the drum, he's always screaming at people, he's always
jawing about secret drinkers. Well, he's got a circuit about secret
drinking. He drinks secretly. See? It's all A = A = A = A. It defies logic
because it isn't logical. Because circuitry is an escape from knowing. It
is knowingness in a substitute for lack of knowing.
When a thetan escapes from knowing he sets up a circuit. When he no longer
wishes to confront life he interposes circuits between himself and life, or
valences between himself and life, or identities between himself and life.
Get the idea? He makes an interposition of some sort. He has thinkingness
done for him. He has beingness and doingness done for him. He wishes to
divorce himself just a little bit from life. So he sets up an interposition
of some kind or another. And when you start to audit him, this gets
terribly important because you are part of life. Aren't you? You're right
there in the room, aren't you, as the auditor? And if you were there in the
room, as the auditor, of course anything you are saying or doing is liable
to get an interposition.
So he sets up the interposition between you the auditor and himself the
case. And you are auditing a circuit from there on. And that is why you
cannot do a pure Routine 3. That is why only a few people go Clear on
straight Routine 3 without preparation.
Now, by getting off his present time problems, his ARC breaks, by
accustoming him to the room and getting his rudiments in, of course he is
less susceptible to this particular phenomenon of an interposition between
himself and life. You cut those things down and you can talk to him for a
while. And that is the most powerful general and common mechanism to make
it possible to talk to the pc, not a circuit. Because circuits go into
action on PT problems and ARC breaks - withholds, that sort of thing, pop a
circuit into view. So you're talking to the circuit, you're not auditing
the pc when the rudiments are out. You get the rudiments in, and for a
short time you'll be talking to the pc.
But people have problems of such magnitude on the immediate backtrack that
it sets up as a permanent circuit. And you're always auditing at the
circuit. And you are making very slow progress. Well, you now have a tool
or a weapon with which to get this out of the road. Understanding the exact
cycle that a circuit comes into being on, you can then get a circuit out.
You find any self-determined change, trace the problem immediately behind
it, flatten that, get the confusion, the withholds and the overts out of
the confused area immediately ahead of it, and you will find out that a
circuit will disappear if done right. And that is a Problems Intensive.
Now, all a Problems Intensive does is pave the way so that you can at least
audit the pc out of the valence he is in. It keeps scraping the top off so
that you can actually pull the bottom out. Okay?
That is the system of aberration which has been operative on the whole
track, and that is how it works and that is what it is, and you have the
tools that get rid of it. And it's never any other cycle, but you have, of
course, different tools that are effective on it. Okay?
Thank you.
Audience:       Thank you.


