Volume III 1957-1959 - Technical Bulletins

Volume III 1957-1959 - Technical Bulletins

Сообщение auditor » 27 дек 2016, 16:39

Web auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/

The
Technical Bulletins
of
Dianetics and Scientology

by
L. Ron Hubbard
FOUNDER OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY

Volume
III
1957-1959
_____________________________________________________________________

I will not always be here on guard.
The stars twinkle in the Milky Way
And the wind sighs for songs
Across the empty fields of a planet
A Galaxy away.

You won’t always be here.
But before you go,
Whisper this to your sons
And their sons —
“The work was free.
Keep it so. “


L. RON HUBBARD


L. Ron Hubbard
Founder of Dianetics and Scientology

EDITORS’ NOTE

“A chronological study of materials is necessary for the complete training of a truly top grade expert in these lines. He can see how the subject progressed and so is able to see which are the highest levels of development. Not the least advantage in this is the defining of words and terms for each, when originally used, was defined, in most cases, with considerable exactitude, and one is not left with any misunderstoods.”

—L. Ron Hubbard

The first eight volumes of the Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology contain, exclusively, issues written by L. Ron Hubbard, thus providing a chronological time track of the development of Dianetics and Scientology. Volume IX, The Auditing Series, and Volume X, The Case Supervisor Series, contain Board Technical Bulletins that are part of the series. They are LRH data even though compiled or written by another.

So that the time track of the subject may be studied in its entirety, all HCO Bs have been included, excluding only those upper level materials which will be found on courses to which they apply. If an issue has been revised, replaced, or cancelled, this has been indicated in the upper right-hand corner along with the page number of the issue which should be referred to.

The points at which Ron gave tape recorded lectures have been indicated as they occurred. Where they were given as part of an event or course, information is given on that event or course on the page in the chronological volumes which corresponds to the date. The symbol “**” preceding a tape title means that copies are available from both Publications Organizations. A tape preceded by “*” means that it will soon be available. No asterisk (*) means that neither Publications Organization nor Flag has a master copy of that lecture. If you have, or know anyone who has, copies of these tapes, please contact the Flag Audio Chief, P.O. Box 23751, Tampa, Florida, 33623, U.S.A. The number in the tape title is a code for the date; example: 5505C07—55 = year, 1955; 05 = month, May; C = copy; 07 = day, 7th; 7 May 1955. The abbreviation tells what group the tape is a part of. For an explanation of the abbreviations see Volume X, page 539.

At the back of this volume is a Subject Index covering only the material in this volume. Use the index to locate the LRH source material in context, don’t just get data from the index. This index has been combined with indexes from other volumes to form the Cumulative Index which is in Volume X, starting on page 287.

TECHNICAL BULLETINS
1957 - 1959



CONTENTS


1957

Jan The Code of a Scientologist (PAB 103)
2 Jan 16th American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures(2 Jan—11 Feb) 3
15 Jan Dissemination (PAB 104) OEC Vol 6—457
Feb The Story of a Static (PAB 105) 4
6 Feb Procedure CCH (HCO Training Bulletin) 5
15 Feb Good Processes (PAB 106) 9
25 Feb 17th American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (18 Feb—31 Mar) 13
Mar Specific for Terror Stomach (PAB 107) 14
8 Mar Goal of Indoctrination Course 16
15 Mar Learning Rate (Part 1) (PAB 108) 17
Apr Learning Rate (Part 2) (PAB 109) 20
8 Apr Group Auditing 23
9 Apr List of “Purposes” 25
10 Apr HPA/HCA Course Curriculum 26
12 Apr London Congress on Nuclear Radiation and Health Lectures
(12 Apr—15 Apr) 27
15 Apr Education (PAB 110) 28
ca Apr Today’s Riches in Scientology (Ability 45) 32
May Eyesight and Glasses (PAB 111) 36
3 May Training—What It Is Today—How We Tell People About It 40
3 May Ministerial Qualifications (FC PL) see OEC Vol 5—281
15 May The Rights of the Field Auditor (PAB 112) 41
17 May Definitions (HCO Training Bulletin) 42
15 May Hubbard Certified Auditor Course Lectures (15 May—30 May) 42
20 May Interim Process (HCO Training Bulletin) 43
ca May The Radiation Picture and Scientology (Ability 47) 44
May All About Radiation 49
24 May Stable Data for Instructors 50
June Rights of the Directors of Training and Processing, Staff Auditors,
and Instructors Regarding Preclears and Students (HCO Info Bull) 51
3 June Explanation of Aberrative Character of Radiation 52
3 June Auditing a 10-Year Old Child 53
ca June The Hubbard Certified Auditor Course (Ability 48) 54
8 June The Teaching of the 18th ACC 58

1957 (cont.)

10 June What to Tell New HGC Auditors to Process on Preclears
(HGC Processing Bulletin) 60
11 June Training and CCH Processes (reissued 12 May 1972) 61
13 June Student Intensives and Co-Auditing Processes 75
15 June Group Processing (PAB 114) see footnote— 24
16 June People’s Questions see— 75
18 June People’s Questions 75
ca June What About Validation? (Ability 49) 76
July The Rehabilitation of Abilities (PAB 115) 79
July Addition to the Auditor’s Code 82
ca July Levels of Skill (Ability 50) 83
4 July Freedom Congress Lectures (4 July 7 July) 86
15 July Solids and Chronic Somatics (PAB 116) 87
15 July 8-C on Students (HCO Training Bulletin) 90
15 July 18th American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (8 July—16 Aug) 90
17 July Changes in Training Drills (HCO Training Bulletin) 91
ca July The Adventure of Communication (Ability 51 ) 92
29 July Withholds and Communication 93
31 July More Workable Commands for Testing 95
1 Aug Confronting Present Time (PAB 117) 96
10 Aug CCH 18 (ACC Bulletin) 99
ca Aug Confronting (Ability 52) 100
15 Aug Ministerial Qualifications (FC PL) see OEC Vol 5—281
15 Aug Validation Committee (PAB 118) 102
ca Aug Communication (Ability 53) 104
29 Aug Government Project Stable Data 106
1 Sept The Big Auditing Problem (PAB 119) 107
2 Sept When a Verbal Direction Is Given 111
3 Sept HCA/HPA Course Processes (HCO Training Bulletin) 111
4 Sept Stable Data for Instructors (HCO Training Bulletin) 112
5 Sept All Preclears Are Expected to (HASI PL) OEC Vol 4—498
ca Sept More Confronting (Ability 54) 113
9 Sept Processes to Be Run on HGC Preclears from This Date 117
15 Sept Control Trio (PAB 120) 119
24 Sept Curriculum of CCH (HCO Training Bulletin) 121
1 Oct Rudiments and Goals (PAB 121) 122
ca Oct The Eighteenth ACC (Ability 56) 126
15 Oct The Five Levels of Indoctrination and Procedure CCH (PAB 122) 128
29 Oct A Basic Chart of Process Types 131
ca Oct Escape (Ability 57) 133

1957 (cont.)

1 Nov The Reality Scale (PAB 123) 136
2 Nov Intensive Processes for Use in Operation Clear and Operation
Staff Clear (HCO Training Bulletin) see Vol VIII--393
13 Nov Project Clear Check Sheet 143
ca Nov We Are the Free People (Ability 58) 145
15 Nov Communication and Is-ness (PAB 124) 146
1 Dec The Parts of Man (PAB 125) 149
ca Dec Scientology: The Philosophy of a New Age (Ability 60) 153
3 Dec Clear Procedure—Definitions, Goals 155
4 Dec Clear Procedure Continued—Step One: Participation in Session
by the Pc 157
7 Dec HGC Procedure 162
15 Dec Problems: Handling and Running (PAB 126) 164
16 Dec Present Time Problem 168
18 Dec Psychosis, Neurosis and Psychiatrists 169
Dec Scientology: Clear Procedure—Issue One 172
29 Dec Ability Congress Lectures (29 Dec—31 Dec) 193
Dec Control and the Mechanics of S.C.S 194


1958

Jan The Threat to Havingness (PAB 127) 195
11 Jan HGC Procedure 197
13 Jan HGC Running of Pcs 198
15 Jan The Factors Behind the Handling of IQ (PAB 128) 199
18 Jan Control 204
20 Jan 19th American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (6 Jan—14 Feb) 204
21 Jan Mest Clear Procedure 205
21 Jan ACCs—HPA/HCA 206
25 Jan Inept Students (Org PL) OEC Vol 4—148
25 Jan Reviewing Week’s Profiles 207
26 Jan Future Plans 208
28 Jan Future Plans see—208
Feb Clearing of Fields 209
1 Feb Confronting (PAB 129) 211

3 Feb Free Clearing Project 216
ca Feb The Attainment of “Clears” (Ability 66) 217
6 Feb CCH Ob—Help in Full—Starting Session 219
13 Feb Rules Governing the Running of CCH Ob “Help” 220
ca Feb Man’s Contest with the Machine Age (Ability 67) 221
15 Feb “Death” (PAB 130) 223

1958 (cont.)
1 Mar Processes 229
Mar The Scale of Withhold (PAB 131) 230
15 Mar Report on Two Cases That Have Received Psychiatric and
Euro-Russian Therapy from the Government (PAB 132) 234
22 Mar Clearing Reality 235
ca Mar Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training? (Ability 70) 236
1 Apr Procedure CCH (PAB 133) 238
2 Apr ARC in Comm Course 242
8 Apr Auditing the Pc on Clear Procedure 243
8 Apr A Pair of Processes 245
11 Apr CCH 88—Enforced Nothingness 246
11 Apr Staff Members’ Outside Auditing Regulation OEC Vol 4—609
15 Apr Procedure CCH Continued (PAB 134) 247
23 Apr Vital Training Data for Training Hats and Registrar 250
ca Apr How We Work on the Third Dynamic (Ability 72) 251
May Signs of Success 253
May Procedure CCH Continued (PAB 135) 254
2 May Beingness Again 257
ca May Assists in Scientology (Ability 73) 259
9 May Who Should Take Which Class 264
15 May Procedure CCH Continued (PAB 136) 265
22 May Enemies of the Pc 268
ca May Scientology and the Reactive Mind (Ability 74) 269
24 May A Comment on Beingness Processing 271
28 May Procedure for Certifying Clears see—289
29 May Standard Clear Procedure and an Experimental Road:
Clearing by Valences 273
29 May An Example of Clearing by Valences 276
June Some More CCH Processes (PAB 137) 278
3 June Amendment to HCO B 11 April 1958 see OEC Vol 4—609
ca June “Offbeat” Processing (Ability 76) 282
4 June Running Valences 284
12 June Ministerial Qualifications (FC PL) OEC Vol 5—281
14 June Standardization of Clear Procedure 285
15 June Standard Clear Procedure and an Experimental Road:
Clearing by Valences (PAB 138) see footnote—275
ca June Learning How to “Clear” (Ability 77) 286
30 June Procedure for Certifying Clears 289
July An Example of Clearing by Valences (PAB 139) see footnote—277
4 July Clearing Congress Lectures (4 July—6 July) 290
7 July Contents and Coverage of HCA/HPA Course 291
9 July Staff Clearing 291

1958 (cont.)

12 July Standardization of Clear Processes 292
14 July 20th American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (7 July—15 Aug) 293
14 July 20th ACC Training Procedure 294
15 July Carrying On 295
28 July Clear Procedure 296
29 July The Rock 299
Aug Beingness Again (PAB 141) see footnote—258
5 Aug The Basic Locating Question of the Rock 300
10 Aug ACC Auxiliary Procedure 301
15 Aug Auditing the Pc on Clear Procedure (PAB 142) see footnote—244
20 Aug Present Time Problem—Running of 303
20 Aug Out of Sessionness 304

ca Aug The Axioms of Scientology—The Prelogics—The Logics—The Axioms
of Dianetics (Ability 80) see—305
Aug Axioms and Logics 305
28 Aug Change Auditor’s Code 306
Sept A Pair of Processes (PAB 143) see footnote—245
3 Sept HCA Course Examination 306
12 Sept Post Case Analysis Routine 307
12 Sept Havingness—New Commands 307
15 Sept More on Training Drill Two 308
15 Sept Psychosis, Neurosis and Psychiatrists (PAB 144) see footnote—171
29 Sept Vital Training Data 309
Oct HCO Board of Review (HCO PL) OEC Vol 4—269
Oct More on Training Drill Two (PAB 145) see footnote—308
5 Oct Abbreviations see—334
9 Oct Correction of HCO Policy Letter 1 Oct 1958 see OEC Vol 4—271
15 Oct ACC Clear Procedure 311
15 Oct Procedure CCH (PAB 146) 323
ca Oct New HCA Course You Can Begin at Home (Ability 83) 328
18 Oct London Clearing Congress Lectures (18 Oct—20 Oct) 332
25 Oct Abbreviations 334
27 Oct 5th London Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (21 Oct—29 Nov) 333
ca Oct The Axioms of Scientology—The Prelogics—The Logics—The Axioms
of Dianetics (Certainty Vol 5, No 21 ) see—305
27 Oct HPA Courses for Staff see—339
27 Oct How to Read Profiles on OCA: Comparing Current Week Profile
with Week Before 334
Nov Communication Course (PAB 147) 335
3 Nov American College of Personnel Efficiency, Dublin 338
7 Nov HPA Courses for Staff 339

1958 (cont.)

11 Nov ACC Schedule 339
13 Nov TR 9 (b) and TR 9 (c) 340
17 Nov Clear Bracelets 341
25 Nov Step 6 341
25 Nov Techniques to Be Used on HGC Preclears (Academy Training Bull) 342
ca Nov Violence (Certainty Vol 5, No 22) 343
ca Nov The Theory of Training in Scientology (Ability 85) 344
26 Nov ACCs 347
1 Dec People Permitted to Audit Engrams by Scientology Processes 348
1 Dec Dummy Auditing-Step Two: Acknowledgment (PAB 149) 349
6 Dec How to Run an Engram 352
7 Dec Training Drill Change 353
15 Dec Academy Training Curriculum & Examination (HCO PL) OEC Vol 4—274
15 Dec Dummy Auditing—Step Three: Duplication (PAB 150) 354
16 Dec Extension Course Curriculum 357
17 Dec Basic Postulate of Overt Act-Motivator Sequence 359
17 Dec Auditing ARC Breaks on Registrar and Assistant Registrar 360
20 Dec Processing a New Mother 361
22 Dec New HGC Process—A New Straight Wire 363
ca Dec Something Has Happened!!! (Ability 86 M) 365
26 Dec BScn/HCS Course 366
27 Dec The First First Dynamic Process 367
28 Dec Short Sessioning 368
31 Dec ACC Clear Procedure Change 369
31 Dec Routing of Profiles (HCO Secretarial Letter) OEC Vol 4—502


1959

Jan Dummy Auditing—Step Four: Handling Originations (PAB 151) 370
3 Jan 1950 Success Congress Lectures (3 Jan—4 Jan) 374
5 Jan 21st American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (5 Jan—13 Feb) 374
ca Jan What Are Clears? (Ability 87) 375
ca Jan The 1959 HCA Course Becomes a Clearing Course (Ability 87) 376
6 Jan Field Activities 378
6 Jan Change of HCO Policy Letter of 15 December 1958 380
7 Jan Anti-Q & A TR (21st ACC Training Drill) see Vol VIII—221
10 Jan HGC Allowed Processes 381
11 Jan An Amusingly Effective Process 383
12 Jan Tone of Voice—Acknowledgement 383
15 Jan The Five Levels of Indoctrination (PAB 152) 384
18 Jan ACC Preparatory Processes for Running Engrams see—389

1959 (cont.)

19 Jan New HCA/HPA Course 387
20 Jan ACC Preparatory Process Schedule for Running Engrams 389
22 Jan Not-Is Straight Wire 390
ca Jan A Campaign for Ethical Auditing (Ability 88 M) 391
23 Jan Ethics (HCO PL) OEC Vol 1—361
24 Jan Scientology Axiom 58 393
Feb CCH (PAB 153) 394
3 Feb HGC Current Procedure 397
3 Feb Flattening a Process 398
4 Feb Op Pro by Dup 399
9 Feb Auditor’s Code No l9 see footnote-417
15 Feb CCH (Concluded) (PAB 154) 400
16 Feb HGC Processes for Those Trained in Engram Running or Trained
in These Processes 402
16 Feb Staff Auditors’ Conference of February 16, 1959 404
19 Feb Auditor’s Code No 19 417
24 Feb Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire 417
26 Feb Identification 418
26 Feb Engram Running on Old Dianetic Cases or Restarted Cases 419
ca Feb How to Study Scientology (Ability 90 M) 420
27 Feb How to Select Selected Persons 427
28 Feb Analysis of Cases 428
28 Feb ARC Breaks with Auditors 430
28 Feb Clearing Commands 430
Mar Two Rules for Happy Living 431
Mar Processes Used in 21st ACC (PAB 155) 433
4 Mar HGC Allowed Processes (cancelled—see 468) 436
6 Mar Training Drills 437
6 Mar How to Do a Diagnosis on Dynamic Straightwire 438
10 Mar Supplemental Data Sheet to HCO Bulletin of Feb 16, 1959 and
Staff Auditors’ Conference of Feb 16, 1959 439
13 Mar Muzzled Auditing 440
15 Mar Processes Used in 21st ACC (PAB 156) 441
17 Mar An Insanity Questionnaire 443
17 Mar Do It Yourself Therapy 444
23 Mar An Insanity Questionnaire see—443
ca Mar The Subject of Clearing (Ability 92 M) 445
24 Mar HAS Co-Audit 449
24 Mar Minimum Standards 450
25 Mar HAS Co-Audit - Comm Course 451
31 Mar Know to Mystery Straight Wire for Extreme Cases see—460

1959 (cont.)

Apr Processes Used in 21st ACC (Concluded) (PAB 157) 453
3 Apr HAS Co-Audit and Comm Course 456
6 Apr Special Hubbard Professional Auditor’s Course Lectures
(6 Apr—1 May) 457
8 Apr Emotional Tone Scale Expanded see—459
14 Apr Letter from Australia 458
15 Apr Emotional Tone Scale Expanded 459

17 Apr Know to Mystery Straight Wire for Extreme Cases 460
17 Apr The Credo of a Good and Skilled Manager see footnote Vol I— 97
22 Apr The Credo of a Good and Skilled Manager see footnote Vol I— 97
22 Apr Old and New Reality Scale 461
23 Apr Definitions 462
3 May Solution to Solutions 462
4 May An Affinity Process 463
4 May How to Write a Curriculum 464
7 May New Process 465
8 May An Un-doable Command 467
12 May 6th London Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (4 May—13 June) 467
21 May HGC Allowed Processes and ACC Processes as of May 21, 1959 468
26 May Man Who Invented Scientology 470
5 June Formula 10 472
6 June When Cases Crack Well on Selected Persons Overts Withhold 473
9 June Needed Material 474
10 June Co-Audit Formula 475
11 June The Dates of the Australian ACC 475
22 June How to “Sell Scientology” 476
23 June Clear Test 476
23 June What Is Scientology 477
2 July Add Formula 10 (HCO PL) 478
3 July General Information 479
4 July Theta Clear Congress Lectures(4 July—6 July) 490
9 July Definition of Scientology—Written by LRH for Legal When
Setting Up HASI Ltd. 491
14 July Special Information for Franchise Holders 492
17 July Africa Over the Top 494
18 July Technically Speaking 494
18 July Income Tax Reform 495
21 July HGC Allowed Processes 497
22 July Actual Working Definition of Psychology 499
26 July HGC Regimen see footnote—502
28 July Our Goals 500

1959 (cont.)

5 Aug HGC Processes 502
7 Aug The Handling of Communication Processes—Some Rapid Data 503
12 Aug A Second Type of Franchise 506
13 Aug Suggested HCA Course Schedule 509
13 Aug Franchise Holders 512
19 Aug HAS Co-Audit—Finding Terminals 513
19 Aug How to Handle Work see OEC Vol 0—122
19 Aug To a Roman Catholic 514
27 Aug Growth with Competence 515
3 Sept Why “Victim” Works as a Process 518
9 Sept A Short Story by Cable 521
9 Sept Organizational Health Chart see footnote OEC Vol. 7—115
14 Sept News Bulletin 522
15 Sept Dissemination Tips OEC Vol 6—101
23 Sept The Perfect Dissemination Program OEC Vol 6—105
25 Sept HAS Co-Audit 524
26 Sept Data on Clearing a Staff Member After Specific Terminals Are
Flat with Overt-Withhold Straight Wire 525
28 Sept Technical Notes on Child Processing 526
29 Sept The Organization of a PE Foundation 527
29 Sept Universe Processes 529
5 Oct Universe Processes 530
5 Oct Universe Processes see—529
13 Oct A Useful Process 532
13 Oct DEI Expanded Scale 533
14 Oct London Up 535

15 Oct My Whereabouts in November 535
20 Oct An Experimental Process 536
25 Oct Psychoanalysis Goes Capitalistic 537
30 Oct To Retain Co-Audit Pc’s Interest in Case 538
31 Oct Create Processes—Dangers & Advantages 539
ca Nov On Bringing Order (Ability 107) 541
7 Nov Melbourne Congress Lectures (7 Nov—8 Nov) 542
9 Nov 1st Melbourne Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (9 Nov—30 Nov) 542
12 Nov Acknowledgements in Auditing 543
18 Nov 1st Melbourne ACC Material 545
18 Nov Congratulations HASI—South Africa 546
30 Nov Allowed Processes 1st Melbourne ACC 547
4 Dec Allowed Processes 1st Melbourne ACC see—547
11 Dec New Horizons in Scientology 548
15 Dec HAS Co-Audit 550
15 Dec Urgent Change in All Co-Audit Courses 551
16 Dec Responsibility for O/Ws 552
ca Dec Techniques of Child Processing (Ability 110) 553
23 Dec Responsibility 555
31 Dec Blow-offs 557

Subject Index 561
Alphabetical List of Titles 593


PERIODICALS BY ISSUE NUMBER


PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

No
103 1 Jan 57 The Code of a Scientologist
104 15 Jan 57 Dissemination OEC Vol 6—457
105 1 Feb 57 The Story of a Static 4
106 15 Feb 57 Good Processes 9
107 1 Mar 57 Specific for Terror Stomach 14
108 15 Mar 57 Learning Rate (Part 1) 17
109 1 Apr 57 Learning Rate (Part 2) 20
110 15 Apr 57 Education 28
111 1 May 57 Eyesight and Glasses 36
112 15 May 57 The Rights of the Field Auditor 41
114 15 June 57 Group Processing see footnote- 24
115 1 July 57 The Rehabilitation of Abilities 79
116 15 July 57 Solids and Chronic Somatics 87
117 1 Aug 57 Confronting Present Time 96
118 15 Aug 57 Validation Committee 102
119 1 Sept 57 The Big Auditing Problem 107
120 15 Sept 57 Control Trio 119
121 1 Oct 57 Rudiments and Goals 122
122 15 Oct 57 The Five Levels of Indoctrination
and Procedure CCH 128
123 1 Nov 57 The Reality Scale 136
124 15 Nov 57 Communication and Is-ness 146
125 1 Dec 57 The Parts of Man 149
126 15 Dec 57 Problems: Handling and Running 164
127 1 Jan 58 The Threat to Havingness 195
128 15 Jan 58 The Factors behind the Handling of IQ 199
129 I Feb 58 Confronting 211
130 15 Feb 58 “Death” 223
131 1 Mar 58 The Scale of Withhold 230
132 15 Mar 58 Report on Two Cases That Have Received Psychiatric
and Euro-Russian Therapy from the Government 234
133 1 Apr 58 Procedure CCH 238
134 15 Apr 58 Procedure CCH Continued 247
135 1 May 58 Procedure CCH Continued 254
136 15 May 58 Procedure CCH Continued 265
137 1 June 58 Some More CCH Processes 278

138 15 June 58 Standard Clear Procedure and An Experimental
Road: Clearing by Valences see footnote—275
139 1 July 58 An Example of Clearing by Valences see footnote---277
141 1 Aug 58 Beingness Again see footnote—258
142 15 Aug 58 Auditing the Pc on Clear Procedure see footnote—244
143 1 Sept 58 A Pair of Processes see footnote—245
144 15 Sept 58 Psychosis, Neurosis and Psychiatrists see footnote—171
145 1 Oct 58 More on Training Drill Two see footnote—308
146 15 Oct 58 Procedure CCH 323
147 1 Nov 58 Communication Course 335
149 1 Dec 58 Dummy Auditing Step Two: Acknowledgment 349
150 15 Dec 58 Dummy Auditing—Step Three: Duplication 354
151 1 Jan 59 Dummy Auditing—Step Four: Handling Originations 370
152 15 Jan 59 The Five Levels of Indoctrination 384
153 1 Feb 59 CCH 394
154 15 Feb 59 CCH (Concluded) 400
155 1 Mar 59 Processes Used in 21st ACC 433
156 15 Mar 59 Processes Used in 21st ACC 441
157 1 Apr 59 Processes Used in 21st ACC (Concluded) 453


ABILITY MAGAZINE

Issue
45 ca Apr 57 Today’s Riches in Scientology 32
47 ca May 57 The Radiation Picture and Scientology 44
48 ca June 57 The Hubbard Certified Auditor Course 54
49 ca June 57 What About Validation? 76
50 ca July 57 Levels of Skill 83
51 ca July 57 The Adventure of Communication 92
52 ca Aug 57 Confronting 100
53 ca Aug 57 Communication 104
54 ca Sept 57 More Confronting 113
56 ca Oct 57 The Eighteenth ACC 126
57 ca Oct 57 Escape 133
58 ca Nov 57 We Are the Free People 145
60 ca Dec 57 Scientology: The Philosophy of a New Age 153
66 ca Feb 58 The Attainment of “Clears” 217
67 ca Feb 58 Man’s Contest with the Machine Age 221
70 ca Mar 58 Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training? 236
72 ca Apr 58 How We Work on the Third Dynamic 251
73 ca May 58 Assists in Scientology 259
74 ca May 58 Scientology and the Reactive Mind 269
76 ca June 58 “Offbeat” Processing 282

77 ca June 58 Learning How to “Clear” 286
80 ca Aug 58 The Axioms of Scientology—The Prelogics
—The Logics—The Axioms of Dianetics see- 305
83 ca Oct 58 New HCA Course You Can Begin at Home 328
85 ca Nov 58 The Theory of Training in Scientology 344
86 M ca Dec 58 Something Has Happened!!! 365
87 ca Jan 59 What Are Clears? 375
The 1959 HCA Course Becomes a Clearing Course 376
88 M ca Jan 59 A Campaign for Ethical Auditing 391
90 M ca Feb 59 How to Study Scientology 420
92 M ca Mar 59 The Subject of Clearing 445
107 ca Nov 59 On Bringing Order 541
110 ca Dec 59 Techniques of Child Processing 553
125 ca Feb 61 Personal Integrity Vol IV- 203
129 June 61 The Sad Tail of PDH Vol IV- 321


CERTAINTY MAGAZINE

Vol-No
5-21 ca Oct 58 The Axioms of Scientology-The Prelogics
—The Logics-The Axioms of Dianetics see--305
5-22 ca Nov 58 Violence 343


LONG CONTENTS


PAB No. 103, 1 Jan. 1957 THE CODE OF A SCIENTOLOGIST, 1
The A.M.A.’s proposed principles of medical ethics, 2

PAB No. 105,1 Feb. 1957 THE STORY OF A STATIC, 4
Thetan, trying to prove he is not simple, 4

HCO Training Bulletin 6 Feb. 1957 PROCEDURE CCH, 5
Goal of CCH, 5
HPA/HCA Processes, 5
Communication Processes, 5
Location-Control Processes, 6
Duplication Processes, 7
Havingness Processes, 7
Objective Havingness, 7
Subjective Havingness, 8
Thought Processes, 8

PAB No. 106, 15 Feb. 1957 GOOD PROCESSES, 9
Best processes, 9
Control, 9
Fight the Wall, commands and how to run, 9
Opponents [process], commands, 10
Individuality [process], 10
Can’t Have [process], 1 0
Lie about Effect [process], 1 0
Problem, when is it flat, 10
Solids [process], 11
Vacuums, 11
Remedy of restimulation, 11
How to split valences, 11
Out of valence, how to handle, 11

PAB No. 107, 1 Mar. 1957 SPECIFIC FOR TERROR STOMACH, 14
Anatomy of confusion, 14
Stomach, guilty of the overt act of eating, 14

HCO B 8 Mar. 1957 GOAL OF INDOCTRINATION COURSE, 16

PAB No. 108, 15 Mar. 1957 LEARNING RATE (Part 1), 17
Process lag and learning lag, 18
Aberration in education, 18

PAB No. 109, 1 Apr. 1957 LEARNING RATE (Part 2), 20
Learning rate—consequences, 20
Power of choice over data, 21
Learning rate used to sell Scientology, 21
Difference between education and Scientology, 22

HCO B 8 Apr. 1957 GROUP AUDITING, 23
Control factors available to the auditor, 23
Group Processing model processes, 23
Assistant Group Auditor, 24


HCO B 9 Apr. 1957 LIST OF “PURPOSES”, 25
Purposes posted on Org Board, 25

HCO B 10 Apr. 1957 HPA/HCA COURSE CURRICULUM, 26
HPA/HCA full Course, 26
Five Levels of Indoctrination, 26

PAB No. 110, 15 Apr. 1957 EDUCATION, 28
Learning rate, the rate one will permit ideas to inflow, 28
The trouble with education, 28
Education and aberration, 29
University students, suicide and nervous breakdown, 29
Necessities of education, 29
Knowledge isn’t recalling, 30
Child education, 3 0
Five Learning Processes, 31

Ability Issue 45, ca. Apr. 1957 TODAY’S RICHES IN SCIENTOLOGY, 32
Significance of mechanics of the mental image picture, 32
Importance of various truths, 33
Then and Now Solids, 33
Age and auditing, 34

PAB No. 111, 1 May 1957 EYESIGHT AND GLASSES, 36
Gold discs, 3 6
Eyes, how they function, 36
Effort Processing and eyesight, 36
Eyesight and havingness, 37
Eyesight and confronting, 37
Blindness, 38

HCO B 3 May 1957 TRAINING—WHAT IT IS TODAY—HOW WE TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT, 40
Stable datum of all training, 40
HPA/HCA training, 40

PAB No. 112, 15 May 1957 THE RIGHTS OF THE FIELD AUDITOR, 41

HCO Training Bulletin l7 May 1957 DEFINITIONS, 42
Definitions of consultant, instructor, coach, 42

HCO Training Bulletin 20 May 1957 INTERIM PROCESS, 43
Objective Show Me, commands and how to run, 43

Ability Issue 47, ca. May 1957 THE RADIATION PICTURE AND
SCIENTOLOGY, 44
Hysteria and radiation, 44
Russian propaganda, 45
Danger of radiation, 45
Wundtian psychology, 46
Reaction to radiation is wholly mental, 46
Worry about radiation, 47
Surviving radiation, 48

HCO B 24 May 1957 STABLE DATA FOR INSTRUCTORS, 50


HCO Info. Bulletin 1 June 1957 RIGHTS OF THE D of T and D of P, STAFF AUDITORS, AND INSTRUCTORS REGARDING PRECLEARS AND STUDENTS, 51

HCO B 3 June 1957 EXPLANATION OF ABERRATIVE CHARACTER OF RADIATION, 52
Radiation, invalidation of solids, 52

HCO B 3 June 1957 AUDITING A 10-YEAR OLD CHILD, 53
CCH I session, 53

Ability Issue 48, ca. June 1957 THE HUBBARD CERTIFIED AUDITOR
COURSE, 54
Goals of Scientology, 55
HCA curriculum, 55

HCO B 8 June 1957 THE TEACHING OF THE 18TH ACC, 58
Communication Course, 5 8
Upper Indoctrination Course, 58
CCH Course, 5 8

HGC Processing Bulletin 10 June 1957 WHAT TO TELL NEW HGC AUDITORS TO PROCESS ON PRECLEARS, 60
Stable datum, 60

HCO B 11 June 1957 TRAINING AND CCH PROCESSES, 61
Training 0, Confronting Preclear, 61
Training 1, Dear Alice, 61
Training 2, Acknowledgments, 61
Training 3, Duplicative Question, 62
Training 4, Preclear Originations, 62
Training 5, Hand Mimicry, 63
Training 6, Plain 8-C, 63
Training 7, Hi-School Indoc, 63
Training 8, Tone 40 on an Object, 64
Training 9, Tone 4() on a Person, 64
CCH 0, Rudiments, Goals and Present Time Problem, 65
CCH 1, Give Me Your Hand, Tone 40, 65
CCH 2, Tone 40 8-C, 66
CCH 3, Book Mimicry, 66
CCH 4, Hand Space Mimicry, 66
Training 10, Locational Processing, 67
CCH 5, Location by Contact, 67
CCH 6, Body-Room Contact, 67
CCH 7, Contact by Duplication, 68
CCH 8, Trio, 68
CCH 9, Tone 40 “Keep it from going away”, 69
CCH 10, Tone 40 “Hold it still”, 69
CCH 11, Tone 40 “Make it a little more solid”, 69
Training 11, ARC Straight Wire, 69
CCH 12, Limited Subjective Havingness, 70
CCH 13, Subjective Solids, 70
CCH 14, Then and Now Solids, 71
Training 12, Think a Thought, 71
CCH 15, Rising Scale Processing, 72
GP Nos. I through 15, 72
Training 13, Fishing a Cognition, 73


HCO B 13 June 1957 STUDENT INTENSIVES AND CO-AUDITING PROCESSES, 75

HCO B 18 June 1957 PEOPLE’S QUESTIONS, 75
Answer people’s questions, 75

Ability Issue 49, ca. June 1957 WHAT ABOUT VALIDATION?, 76
Training skills, 76
Need of training, 77
Problem of retraining, 78

PAB No. 115, 1 July 1957 THE REHABILITATION OF ABILITIES, 79
Willingness to learn, 79
Importance of willingness to do, 80
Power of choice, 81
How to handle children, 81
Using good 8-C on children, 82
Technique for rehabilitation of abilities, 82

HCO B 1 July 1957 ADDITION TO THE AUDITOR’S CODE, 82

Ability Issue 50, ca. July 1957 LEVELS OF SKILL, 83
Book auditor, 83
Certified auditor, 83
Specially trained auditors, 83
Staff auditors, 83
Levels of auditors and levels of processes, 84
Importance of book auditor, 85

PAB No. 116,15 July 1957 SOLIDS AND CHRONIC SOMATICS, 87
Chronic somatic handling, 87
Master cognition, “I knew it all the time”, 88

HCO Training Bulletin 15 July 1957 8-C ON STUDENTS, 90
Error of instructor softness, 90

HCO Training Bulletin 17 July 1957 CHANGES IN TRAINING DRILLS, 91
Training 5, Sit in that Chair, 91
Training 6, 8-C, 91

Ability Issue 51, ca. July 1957 THE ADVENTURE OF COMMUNICATION, 92
Success level of a person is his communication level, 92
Communication, be, do and have, 92
CCH and ARC, 92

HCO B 29 July 1957 WITHHOLDS AND COMMUNICATION, 93
Rehabilitation of communication, 93
Withhold Process, 93

HCO B 31 July 1957 MORE WORKABLE COMMANDS FOR TESTING, 95

PAB No. 117, 1 Aug. 1957 CONFRONTING PRESENT TIME, 96
Unreality of processes too high for a preclear, 96
Confronting and irresponsibility, 96
Disconnection from present time, 97
Connectedness [process], 97
Time shift, 98

Total responsibility, 98
Anchor points and pain in the head, 98

ACC Bulletin 10 Aug. 1957 CCH 18, 99

Ability Issue 52, ca. Aug. 1957 CONFRONTING, 100
Training 0, Confronting Preclear, 100
Definition of Scientology Clear, 101

PAB No. 118, 15 Aug. 1957 VALIDATION COMMITTEE, 102
Game of life, 102
Professional auditor, 102
Doctors of Scientology, 102

Ability Issue 53, ca. Aug. 1957 COMMUNICATION, 104
ARC triangle, the way it is used, 104
Games conditions, 104

HCO B 29 Aug. 1957 GOVERNMENT PROJECT STABLE DATA, 106

PAB No. 119, 1 Sept. 1957 THE BIG AUDITING PROBLEM, 107
Auditing does require stamina, 107
Increased awareness is the only factor which offers any road out, 107
Effects of radiation, 108
Native state, 109
Retrograded state of children and natives, 109
Child requires understanding and assistance in controlling the environment around him, 110

HCO B 2 Sept. 1957 WHEN A VERBAL DIRECTION IS GIVEN, 111
Verbal direction from LRH, 111

HCO Training Bulletin 3 Sept. 1957 HCA/HPA COURSE PROCESSES, 111

HCO Training Bulletin 4 Sept. 1957 STABLE DATA FOR INSTRUCTORS, 112

Ability Issue 54, ca. Sept. 1957 MORE CONFRONTING, 113

First step of handling anything, 113
Basic anatomy of problems, 113
State of man regarding human spirit, 114
Confronting and mental image pictures, 114
Problems of Comparable Magnitude, 114
TR 0, how it is run, 115
Confronting, 11 6

HCO B 9 Sept. 1957 PROCESSES TO BE RUN ON HGC PRECLEARS FROM THIS DATE, 117
Processes to run on preclears who have points below zero line of OCA/APA, 117
Processes to run on preclears who have most points above zero line of OCA/APA, 117
How to run Trio, 117
OCA/APA: nervous-depressed, 118
OCA/APA: critical, 118

PAB No. 120,15 Sept. 1957 CONTROL TRIO, 119
Control of thinkingness, 119
Undercut in Trio, 119
Recall a moment of loss, 120

HCO Training Bulletin 24 Sept. 1957 CURRICULUM OF CCH, 121


PAB No. 121, 1 Oct. 1957 RUDIMENTS AND GOALS, 122
Clearing commands, 122
Clearing the Auditor, 122
Subject of goals, 123
Goals Process, 123
How to clear up a goal, 124
Future Process, 125
Help and goals, 125

Ability Issue 56, ca. Oct. 1957 THE EIGHTEENTH A.C.C., 126

World crisis, 126
Past civilizations have vanished, 126
Scientology can win, one man at a time, 127

PAB No. 122, 15 Oct. 1957 THE FIVE LEVELS OF INDOCTRINATION AND
PROCEDURE CCH, 128
Need of training, 128
Target of CCH, 129
Make-or-break point of case, 129
Background theory of CCH, 130

29 Oct. 1957 A BASIC CHART OF PROCESS TYPES, 131

Ability Issue 571 ca. Oct. 1957 ESCAPE, 133
Escape from this universe, 134
Scientology, the way out, 134

PAB No. 123, 1 Nov. 1957 THE REALITY SCALE, 136
Two-way comm, 136
Hello and Okay Process, 136
Survival of things, who causes it, 137
Loss, why it is held on to, 137
Sound in communication, 138
Condemning facts of psychoanalysis, 138
Reality Scale, 139
Postulates and considerations, 139
Lines and terminals, Reality Scale, 139
Breaking a solid communication line, 140
Havingness Scale, part of Reality Scale, 141
Waste, what you can’t have, 141

HCO B 13 Nov. 1957 PROJECT CLEAR CHECK SHEET, 143
Information sheet on Project Clear, 144

Ability Issue 58, ca. Nov. 1957 WE ARE THE FREE PEOPLE, 145

PAB No. 124, 15 Nov. 1957 COMMUNICATION AND IS-NESS, 146
Being dangerous toward environment, 146
Inflow and outflow, prevention of, 146
Consequences of defense, 147
Mechanism of disease, 147
Consequences of cut communication, 148

PAB No. 125, 1 Dec. 1957 THE PARTS OF MAN, 149
Exteriorization, 149
Mind, 150
Association-Differentiation are the two principles of the mind, 150
Body, subject of, 151
Electronic structure around body, 151


Ability Issue 60, ca. Dec. 1957 SCIENTOLOGY: THE PHILOSOPHY OF A
NEW AGE, 153
Period of instability and change, 153
Clears are the lucky, 153

HCO B 3 Dec. 1957 CLEAR PROCEDURE—DEFINITIONS, GOALS, 155

Three possible goals in processing (defines mest clear, theta clear, Operating Thetan), 155
Operating Thetan, our actual goal, 155

HCO B 4 Dec. 1957 CLEAR PROCEDURE CONTINUED—STEP ONE: PARTICIPATION IN SESSION BY THE PC, 157
Present time problem is a highly vital point of preclear participation, 158
What CCH 0 consists of, 158
Getting special cases to participate in session, 159
Process which turns on a somatic must be continued until it no longer turns on somatics, 159
Basic difference amongst cases lies in ability to knowingly cause, 160
How to gain participation of the pc, 161

HCO B 7 Dec. 1957 HGC PROCEDURE, 162
Present time problem running, 162
S-C-S steps, 162
Spotting steps, 163

PAB No. 126, 15 Dec. 1 957 PROBLEMS: HANDLING AND RUNNING, 164

Difference between condition and terminal, 164
Problems of Comparable Magnitude, 165
Necessity to have evaluation by others, 166
Responsibility and automaticity, 167

HCO B 16 Dec. 1957 PRESENT TIME PROBLEM, 168
Definition and example of present time problem, 168
Things to audit PT problem with, 168

HCO B 18 Dec. 1957 PSYCHOSIS, NEUROSIS AND PSYCHIATRISTS, 169
Difference between neurosis and psychosis, 169
Aspects of thetan, 169
Madness is compounded of disarranged abilities, 170

Dec. 1957 SCIENTOLOGY: CLEAR PROCEDURE—ISSUE ONE, 172

Clear Procedure steps, 173
Auditing truths, 174
Three possible goals in processing (defines mest clear, theta clear, Operating Thetan), 175
Step One: Participation in session by the pc, 176
Loss of ARC is more important than loss of havingness, 177
Present time problem is a highly vital point of preclear participation, 177
What CCH 0 consists of, 178
Getting special cases to participate in session, 178
Process which turns on a somatic must be continued until it no longer turns on somatics, 179
Basic difference amongst cases lies in ability to knowingly cause, 180
How to gain participation of the pc, 181
Step Two: Placing the preclear at cause, 182
Running CCHs, 183
Step Three: Establish control of pc’s body by pc, 184

S-C-S Processes, 185
Reason for holding on to body, 186
Step Four: Find the auditor, 188
Step Five: Pc versus mest, 189
Spotting Processes, 189
Step Six: Creative Processing, 191
Step Seven (Optional): Establish pc’s control over his “bank”, 191
Step Eight: Make some time, 191
An intensive in brief for practical use, 191
Present time problem running, 192
S-C-S steps, 192
Spotting steps, 192

PAB No. 127, 1 Jan. 1958 THE THREAT TO HAVINGNESS, 195
Threat to havingness is present time problem, 195
How to handle threat to havingness, 196

11 Jan. 1958 HGC PROCEDURE, 197
HCO B 13 Jan. 1958 HGC RUNNING OF PCS, 198

PAB No. 128, 15 Jan. 1958 THE FACTORS BEHIND THE HANDLING
OF IQ, 199
Testing, a very old subject, 199
Difference between personality and IQ, 200
Theory behind IQ change, 201
Why psychotherapy never worked, 201
Reach and withdraw mechanism, 201
Traps, how you are kept in one, 202
Basic mechanism of valence closure, 202

HCO B 18 Jan. 1958 CONTROL, 204
Find the Auditor is part of Control, 204

HCO B 21 Jan. 1958 MEST CLEAR PROCEDURE, 205
CCH 0, 205
S-C-S, 205
Control Connectedness, 205
Clean-up of field, 205
Creative Processing, 205

HCO B 21 Jan. 1958 ACCs—HPA/HCA, 206

HCO B 25 Jan. 1958 REVIEWING WEEK’S PROFILES, 207

HCO B 26 Jan. 1958 FUTURE PLANS, 208

HCO B 1 Feb. 1958 CLEARING OF FIELDS, 209
Rules of fields, 209
Testing for fields, 209
Clearing fields, 210
Solution to automaticity of form, 210

PAB No. 129, 1 Feb. 1958 CONFRONTING, 211
What made governments persevere, 211
Good and bad 8-C, 212
Why teenagers revolt, 212
Confronting drama, 213
Things which are worth confronting, 213


HCO B 3 Feb. 1958 FREE CLEARING PROJECT, 216

Ability Issue 66, ca. Feb. 1958 THE ATTAINMENT OF “CLEARS”, 217
Clear defined, 217
State of Bodhi, 217

HCO B 6 Feb. 1958 CCH Ob—HELP IN FULL—STARTING SESSION, 219
Help 9-way bracket, 219

HCO B 13 Feb. 1958 RULES GOVERNING THE RUNNING OF CCH Ob
“HELP”, 220

Ability Issue 67, ca. Feb. 1958 MAN’S CONTEST WITH THE MACHINE AGE, 2
Industrial technology vs. mental technology, 221

PAB No. 130, 15 Feb. 1958 “DEATH”, 223
Parts of man-thetan, mind, body, 223
What happens when man dies, 224
Death and havingness, 225
Death and exteriorization, 225
Picking up a new body, 226
Death, handling of dead bodies, 227
Theta body, 228

HCO B 1 Mar. 1958 PROCESSES, 229
How to run Problems of Comparable Magnitude, 229
Connectedness command with “you” added, 229

PAB No. 131, 1 Mar. 1958 THE SCALE OF WITHHOLD, 230
Why mental machinery is made, 230
Facsimiles are control mechanisms, 231
Ability to hold on to things, 232
Scale of withhold, 233

PAB No. 132, 15 Mar. 1958 REPORT ON TWO CASES THAT HAVE RECEIVED PSYCHIATRIC AND EURO-RUSSIAN THERAPY FROM THE GOVERNMENT, 234

HCO B 22 Mar. 1958 CLEARING REALITY, 235
Rule regarding reality on terminal, 235

Ability Issue 70, ca. Mar. 1958 DOES CLEARING CANCEL THE NEED FOR
TRAINING?, 236
Clear needs training, 237
Why Scientology is senior to life, 237

PAB No. 133,1 Apr. 1958 PROCEDURE CCH, 238
Steps and purpose of CCH Zero, 238
CCH I known as “Give me that hand”, 240
Reality Scale and CCH 1, 240

HCO B 2 Apr. 1958 ARC IN COMM COURSE, 242
Formal auditing and Tone 40 auditing, two different types of auditing, 242

HCO B 8 Apr. 1958 AUDITING THE PC ON CLEAR PROCEDURE, 243
Two processes clear a pc: Help, CCH Ob and Step 6, Mock-ups, 243
Barriers to auditing, 244

HCO B 8 Apr. 1958 A PAIR OF PROCESSES, 245

Op Pro by Dup, 245
Forgetting, 6-way bracket, 245

HCO B 11 Apr. 1958 CCH 88—ENFORCED NOTHINGNESS, 246
Enforced Nothingness, CCH 88, increases havingness, 246
OCA/APA high critical cured by CCH 88, Enforced Nothingness, 246

PAB No. 134,15 Apr. 1958 PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED, 247
Commands and goal of CCH 2 (Tone 40 8-C), 247
Product, purpose and procedure of CCH 3 (Book Mimicry), 247
Purpose and procedure of CCH 4 (Hand Space Mimicry), 248
A CCH case history, 249

HCO B 23 Apr. 1958 VITAL TRAINING DATA FOR TRAINING HATS AND REGISTRAR, 250

Ability Issue 72, ca. Apr. 1958 HOW WE WORK ON THE THIRD DYNAMIC, 251
Barbarian societies, 251
Insanity of governments, 251
How to cure barbarism, 252

HCO B 1 May 1958 SIGNS OF SUCCESS, 253
What is a squirrel, 253

PAB No. 135, 1 May 1958 PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED, 254
Purpose, procedure and commands of CCH 5 (Tone 40 Locational Processing), 254
Purpose, procedure and commands of CCH 6 (Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957), 254
CCH 7, 8, 9: Tone 40 8-C processes, 255
How to bring preclear’s thinkingness under control, 255
Commands of CCH 12 (Limited Subjective Havingness), 256
Commands of CCH 13 (Subjective Solids), 256

HCO B 2 May 1958 BEINGNESS AGAIN, 257
Best solution to valences is beingness processing, 257
Assumption of beingness, 257

Ability Issue 73, ca. May 1958 ASSISTS IN SCIENTOLOGY, 259
Difference between formal session and assist, 260
What techniques comprise an assist, 260
How to help in an emergency, 261
How to handle confusion, 262
Example of an assist on an accident, 263

HCO B 9 May 1958 WHO SHOULD TAKE WHICH CLASS, 264

PAB No. 136, 15 May 1958 PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED, 265
CCH 14, Then and Now Solids, 265
Procedure and purpose of CCH 14, 265
Procedure CCH (long form), 267

HCO B 22 May 1958 ENEMIES OF THE PC, 268
Run Help on enemies of pc, 268

Ability Issue 74, ca. May 1958 SCIENTOLOGY AND THE REACTIVE MIND, 269
Primary characteristic of reactive mind, 269
Clearing in Dianetics vs. clearing in Scientology, 270


HCO B 24 May 1958 A COMMENT ON BEINGNESS PROCESSING, 271
Beingness again, 271
Assumption of beingness, 271

HCO B 29 May 1958 STANDARD CLEAR PROCEDURE AND AN
EXPERIMENTAL ROAD: CLEARING BY VALENCES, 273
Description of 1947-1949 clearing, 273
Standard Clearing Procedure, 274
Clearing by Valences, 274

HCO B 29 May 1958 AN EXAMPLE OF CLEARING BY VALENCES, 276
LRH session, Clearing by Valences, 276

PAB No. 137, 1 June 1958 SOME MORE CCH PROCESSES, 278
Commands of and how to run Control Trio, 278
How to establish goals, 279
Losses and exteriorization, 280
Characteristics of a Scientologist, 281

Ability Issue 76, ca. June 1958 “OFFBEAT” PROCESSING, 282
Experimental auditing and standard techniques, 282
Goal of Scientology, 283

HCO B 4 June 1958 RUNNING VALENCES, 284
Commands for Wasting Valence, 284
Never run pro-survival valences, 284

HCO B 14 June 1958 STANDARDIZATION OF CLEAR PROCEDURE, 285
Four points of auditing error, 285
What Clear Procedure consists of, 285
Standardize valences, 285
Eliminate Wasting Help, 285

Ability Issue 77, ca. June 1958 LEARNING HOW TO “CLEAR”, 286
Know-how in auditing to clear, 286
Hubbard Clearing Scientologist Course, 287
Ladder of courses, 288

HCO B 30 June 1958 PROCEDURE FOR CERTIFYING CLEARS, 289

HCO B 7 July 1958 CONTENTS AND COVERAGE OF HCA/HPA COURSE, 291

HCO B 9 July 1958 STAFF CLEARING, 291

HCO B 12 July 1958 STANDARDIZATION OF CLEAR PROCESSES, 292
Four points of auditing error, 292
What Clear Procedure consists of, 292
Standardize valences, 29 2

HCO B 14 July 1958 20TH ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE, 294
CCH 0, 294
ARC Straight Wire, 294
Start-C-S oldest version, 294
Connectedness, control version, 294
Help—5 or 9 way bracket, 294
Step 6 as in Clear Procedure, 295

HCO B 1 5 July 1 958 CARRYING ON, 295
Org staffs carrying on while some of their members attend 20th ACC, 295


HCO B 28 July 1958 CLEAR PROCEDURE, 296
CCH 0—Starting session, 296
ARC break, 296
Start—Change—Stop, 296
Use and commands of Connectedness, 297
Scouting and running Help, 297
How to clear commands, 298
Clear Procedure, Step Six, 298

HCO B 29 July 1958 THE ROCK, 299

HCO B 5 Aug. 1958 THE BASIC LOCATING QUESTION OF THE ROCK, 300
Rock bracket, 3 00

HCO B 10 Aug. 1958 ACC AUXILIARY PROCEDURE, 301
Start session, 301
Clear auditor with pc, 301
Get pc into session, 301
Clear key words, 301
Clear up psychosomatics, 302
Clear up states of mind, 302
Isolate basic rock, 302
Run general Help and Step 6, 302

HCO B 20 Aug. 1958 PRESENT TIME PROBLEM—RUNNING OF, 303

HCO B 20 Aug. 1958 OUT OF SESSIONNESS, 304

HCO B 28 Aug. 1958 CHANGE AUDITOR’S CODE, 306

HCO B 3 Sept. 1958 HCA COURSE EXAMINATION, 306

HCO B 12 Sept. 1958 POST CASE ANALYSIS ROUTINE, 307
Clearing auditor with the pc after D of P interview, 307

HCO B 12 Sept. 1958 HAVINGNESS—NEW COMMANDS, 307
Factual Havingness, 307

HCO B 15 Sept. 1958 MORE ON TRAINING DRILL TWO, 308
Avoidance of double acknowledgement, 308
Mis-acknowledgement of pc, 308

HCO B 29 Sept. 1958 VITAL TRAINING DATA, 309
Case of a student, 309
Academy training, 309

HCO B 15 Oct. 1958 ACC CLEAR PROCEDURE, 311

ARC in auditing, 311
Theory of auditing, 312
Reality level of pc, 312
CCH 1, Give me that hand, Tone 40, 313
CCH 2, Tone 40 8-C, 313
CCH 3, Hand Space Mimicry, 314
CCH 4, Book Mimicry, 314
CCH 0, 314
Present time problem, 315
TR 11, ARC Straight Wire, 316

Start—Change—Stop, 317
Connectedness, 317
CCH 3(c), S-C-S on a person, 317
Commands of GP-3, Connectedness, 318
Factual Havingness commands, 318
Confrontingness, 318
Body Confrontingness, 319
Subjective Confrontingness, 319
Participation, 319
Survival, 320
Creating, 320
Help, 320
Help on the rock, 320
General Help bracket, 321
Responsibility, 321
Answers, 321
Origins (originations), 321
The buttons, 321
How to run Clear Procedure, Step 6, 322

PAB No. 146, 15 Oct. 1958 PROCEDURE CCH, 323

Commands of and how to run Trio, 323
Exteriorization and loss, 324
Think of something you might withhold from (valence) [process], 325
Locational Processing and Problems of Comparable or Incomparable Magnitude, which to run, 325
Goals as a process, 326
Clearing up a goal, 327

Ability Issue 83, ca. Oct. 1958 NEW HCA COURSE YOU CAN BEGIN AT HOME, 328

A Scientologist in his training must approximate the route of actual research and discovery, 328 Length of time to become an auditor, 329
Training plan, 330
Frailties of “correspondence courses” , 331
Scientologists can get the job done, 332

HCO B 25 Oct. 1958 ABBREVIATIONS, 334
Abbreviations of Director of Processing and Director of Procurement, 334

HCO B 27 Oct. 1958 HOW TO READ PROFILES ON OCA: COMPARING
CURRENT WEEK PROFILE WITH WEEK BEFORE, 334

PAB No. 147, 1 Nov. 1958 COMMUNICATION COURSE, 335
TR One and Tone 40 on an Object, 335
Communicating to a specific individual, 336
How to communicate to a group, 336
How to do TR One, 337
Can you own ideas, 337

HCO B 3 Nov. 1958 AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PERSONNEL EFFICIENCY, DUBLIN, 338

HCO B 7 Nov. 1958 HPA COURSES FOR STAFF, 339

HCO B 11 Nov. 1958 ACC SCHEDULE, 339


HCO B 13 Nov. 1958 TR 9 (b) AND TR 9 (c), 340
Training 9 (b), Starting the session, 340
Training 9 (c), Ending the session, 340

HCO B 17 Nov. 1958 CLEAR BRACELETS, 341

HCO B 25 Nov. 1958 STEP 6, 341

Academy Training Bulletin 25 Nov. 1958 TECHNIQUES TO BE USED ON HGC PRECLEARS, 342

Certainty Vol. 5, No. 22, ca. Nov. 1958 VIOLENCE, 343
Violence leads to barbarianism, 343

Ability Issue 85, ca. Nov. 1958 THE THEORY OF TRAINING IN SCIENTOLOGY, 344
How students are handled, 344
Gradient scale in training, 345
Evaluation of importance of data in philosophy, 346

HCO B 26 Nov. 1958 ACCs, 347
Schedules of ACCs, 347

HCO B 1 Dec. 1958 PEOPLE PERMITTED TO AUDIT ENGRAMS BY SCIENTOLOGY PROCESSES, 348

PAB No. 149, 1 Dec. 1958 DUMMY AUDITING—STEP TWO: ACKNOWLEDGMENT, 349
Acknowledgment is a control factor, 349
Reason for obsessive talking, 350
How TR Two is done, 350

HCO B 6 Dec. 1958 HOW TO RUN AN ENGRAM, 352
Locating the engram, 352

HCO B 7 Dec. 1958 TRAINING DRILL CHANGE, 353
TR 5N to replace TR 5 as Comm Course drill, 353

PAB No. 150,15 Dec. 1958 DUMMY AUDITING—STEP THREE: DUPLICATION, 354
Theory of TR Three, 355
Auditor must be able to duplicate, 355
How TR Three can unjam the track, 356

HCO B 16 Dec. 1958 EXTENSION COURSE CURRICULUM, 357
How to write an Extension Course section, 358

HCO B 17 Dec. 1958 BASIC POSTULATE OF OVERT ACT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE, 359

HCO B 17 Dec. 1958 AUDITING ARC BREAKS ON REGISTRAR AND
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, 360

HCO B 20 Dec. 1958 PROCESSING A NEW MOTHER, 361
Ideal conditions for birth, 361
How to run out the delivery, 361
How to handle new baby, 361


HCO B 22 Dec. 1958 NEW HGC PROCESS—A NEW STRAIGHT WIRE, 363
Commands of and how to run ARC Break Straight Wire, 363
Good and bad points of ARC Break Straight Wire, 364
Cause of husband and wife quarrel, 364

Ability Issue 86 M, ca. Dec. 1958 SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED!!!, 365
Technical advances—engram running, TRs, styles of auditing, 365

HCO B 26 Dec. 1958 B.SCN/HCS COURSE, 366

HCO B 27 Dec. 1958 THE FIRST FIRST DYNAMIC PROCESS, 367
Invent something worse than you [process], 367

HCO B 28 Dec. 1958 SHORT SESSIONING, 368
Short sessioning as a technique, 368

HCO B 31 Dec. 1958 ACC CLEAR PROCEDURE CHANGE, 369
Omit “What part of that can you confront best?” from ACC Clear Procedure, 369

PAB No. 151, 1 Jan. 1959 DUMMY AUDITING—STEP FOUR: HANDLING
ORIGINATIONS, 370
What is an origination of the preclear, 370
How to handle originations, 371
Three steps in handling an origin, 372
What is a communication bridge, 373

Ability Issue 87, ca. Jan. 1959 WHAT ARE CLEARS?, 375
Three grades of Clear, 375
Mest clear, 375
Theta clear, 3 7 5
Operating Thetan, 375
Difference between mest clear and theta clear, 376
The 1959 HCA Course becomes a Clearing Course, 376
Clearing processes for mest clear, 377

HCO B 6 Jan. 1959 FIELD ACTIVITIES, 378
Bringing order is keynote of handling any area, 378
Auditor confidence, 379
Key rehabilitation process, 379
Group recruiting, 379

HCO B 6 Jan. 1959 CHANGE OF HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 DECEMBER 1958, 380

HCO B 10 Jan. 1959 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES, 381
OCA/APA low pcs, 381
OCA/APA medium pcs, 381
OCA/APA high pcs, 381
Other processes for all, 381
Result retarders, 3 82
Clearing procedures, 382

HCO B 11 Jan. 1959 AN AMUSINGLY EFFECTIVE PROCESS, 383
Invent a Problem, 383

HCO B 12 Jan. 1959 TONE OF VOICE—ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, 383


PAB No. 152,15 Jan. 1959 THE FIVE LEVELS OF INDOCTRINATION, 384
Five dummy auditing processes, 384
8-C, 384
High School Indoctrination, 384
How to flunk Upper Indoc TRs, 385
Tone 40 on an Object, 385
Tone 40 on a Person, 386

HCO B 19 Jan. 1959 NEW HCA/HPA COURSE, 387

HCO B 20 Jan. 1959 ACC PREPARATORY PROCESS SCHEDULE FOR
RUNNING ENGRAMS, 389
Commands of and how to run Selected Persons Overt Acts, 389
Commands of and how to run Overt Act Straight Wire, 389
Commands of and how to run ARC Break Straight Wire, 389
Dating incidents with E-Meter, 389

HCO B 22 Jan. 1959 NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE, 390
Pcs divide into three general classes, 390
Commands of Not-Is Straight Wire, 390

Ability Issue 88 M, ca. Jan. 1959 A CAMPAIGN FOR ETHICAL AUDITING, 391
Ethical standards in America, 391
“Bring Order”—the motto of HCO, 391
What an ethical auditor does, 392
What an unethical auditor does, 392

HCO B 24 Jan. 1959 SCIENTOLOGY AXIOM 58, 393

PAB No. 153, 1 Feb. 1959 CCH, 394
Order of training processes, 394
Simple 8-C, 394
Locational Processing, 394
Locational, Body and Room, 394
Objective Show Me, 39 5
Attention by Duplication 9, Number 4, 395
Opening Procedure by Duplication, fatal to interrupt process, 396

HCO B 3 Feb. 1959 HGC CURRENT PROCEDURE, 397
Selected Persons Overts Straightwire, 397
Auditor crimes, 397
Gradual scale of processes, 397

HCO B 3 Feb. 1959 FLATTENING A PROCESS, 398

HCO B 4 Feb. 1959 OP. PRO. BY DUP., 399
Commands of and how to run Opening Procedure by Duplication, 399

PAB No. 154,15 Feb. 1959 CCH (Concluded), 400
Subjective Havingness, 400
Book Mimicry, 400
Hand Space Mimicry, 401
Trio, 401

HCO B 16 Feb. 1959 HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED IN ENGRAM RUNNING OR TRAINED IN THESE PROCESSES, 402
Starting a case, 402
Present time problem by Selected Persons O/W Straight Wire, 402

Dynamic Straight Wire, 402
Past and Future Experience, 403
Engram Running, 403
Not-Is Straight Wire, 403

16 Feb. 1959 STAFF AUDITORS’ CONFERENCE OF FEBRUARY 16,1959, 404
Undercutting cases, 404
Confront Scale is the scale of disintegrating reality, 404
Reality Scale and engram running, 405
Present time problem handling, 405
Commands of and how to run Selected Person Overt-Withhold, 406
How to run Dynamic Straight Wire, 407
Past and Future Experience, 408
Engram Running, 409
Past deaths of famous historical figures, 411
Commands of and how to run Not-Is Straight Wire, 412
Effects of withholds, 413
Questions and answers, 414
Overt and motivator engrams, 414
Dynamic Straight Wire, 414
Recall a time vs. Recall something, 415
Magnitudes of overt and motivator, 416
Muzzled auditing of engrams, 416

HCO B 19 Feb. 1959 AUDITOR’S CODE No. 19, 417

HCO B 24 Feb. 1959 SELECTED PERSONS OVERT WITHHOLD STRAIGHTWIRE, 417

HCO B 26 Feb. 1959 IDENTIFICATION, 418

HCO B 26 Feb. 1959 ENGRAM RUNNING ON OLD DIANETIC CASES OR
RESTARTED CASES, 419
Running incidents, 419
Running out bad auditing, 419

Ability Issue 90 M, ca. Feb. 1959 HOW TO STUDY SCIENTOLOGY, 420

Two ways man ordinarily accepts things, 420
Evaluation of data, 421
A look at the sciences, 423
How war can come about, 423
Fundamentals, 424
Learning isn’t memorizing, 424

HCO B 27 Feb. 1959 HOW TO SELECT SELECTED PERSONS, 427

HCO B 28 Feb. 1959 ANALYSIS OF CASES, 428

Definitions of results, better, ability gain and intelligence gain, 428
Unfixing attention, 428

HCO B 28 Feb. 1959 ARC BREAKS WITH AUDITORS, 430

HCO B 28 Feb. 1959 CLEARING COMMANDS, 430

HCO B 1 Mar. 1959 TWO RULES FOR HAPPY LIVING, 431
Be able to experience anything, 431
Cause only those things which others are able to experience easily, 431

PAB No. 155,1 Mar. 1959 PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC, 433
Dynamic Straightwire, 433
Reality of terminals, 433

Choosing terminals, 434
Commands of and how to run Selected Person Overts, 434
Commands of General Overts and Not-Is Straightwire, 435

HCO B 4 Mar. 1959 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES, 436 [CANCELLED]
Processes on gradient scale from unconscious pc to theta clear, 436
When muzzled auditing should be used, 436

HCO B 6 Mar. 1959 TRAINING DRILLS, 437
ARC break handling, 437

HCO B 6 Mar. 1959 HOW TO DO A DIAGNOSIS ON DYNAMIC
STRAIGHTWIRE, 438

HCO B 10 Mar. 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DATA SHEET TO HCO BULLETIN OF FEB. 16, 1959 AND STAFF AUDITORS’ CONFERENCE OF FEB. 16, 1959, 439
Route Theta Clear, list of processes, 439
HAS Co-Audit processes, 439

HCO B 13 Mar. 1959 MUZZLED AUDITING, 440

PAB No. 156; 15 Mar. 1959 PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC, 441
Straightwire processes run muzzled, 441
Muzzled auditing, 441
Overts, 442

HCO B 17 Mar. 1959 AN INSANITY QUESTIONNAIRE, 443

HCO B 17 Mar. 1959 DO IT YOURSELF THERAPY, 444
Successful way for the untrained person to make it all the way to release, 444

Ability Issue 92 M, ca. Mar. 1959 THE SUBJECT OF CLEARING, 445
State of release, 445
Mest clearing, 446
Confrontingness Scale of Reality, 447
Theta clearing, 447
Length of time used in processing, 447

HCOB 24 Mar. 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT, 449
Magazine—majors and minors, 449

HCO B 24 Mar. 1959 MINIMUM STANDARDS, 450
Minimum inflow of students and preclears, 450

HCO B 25 Mar. 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT & COMM COURSE, 451
Communication Course, 451
HAS Co-Audit Course, 451
How to run a co-audit, 452

PAB No. 157,1 Apr. 1959 PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC (Concluded), 453
Engram commands, 453
ARC Break Straightwire, 453
SCS Control Process, Thinking version, 454
Valences, 454

HCO B 3 Apr. 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT AND COMM COURSE, 456


HCO B 14 Apr. 1959 LETTER FROM AUSTRALIA, 458

HCO B 15 Apr. 1959 EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE EXPANDED, 459

HCO B 17 Apr. 1959 KNOW TO MYSTERY STRAIGHT WIRE FOR
EXTREME CASES, 460
Know to Mystery Scale expanded, 460

HCO B 22 Apr. 1959 OLD AND NEW REALITY SCALE, 461

HCO B 23 Apr. 1959 DEFINITIONS, 462
Definitions of consultant, instructor and coach, 462

HCO B 3 May 1959 SOLUTION TO SOLUTIONS, 462
Problems and solutions, 462
Penalty of solving problems, 462

HCO B 4 May 1959 AN AFFINITY PROCESS, 463

HCO B 4 May 1959 HOW TO WRITE A CURRICULUM, 464

HCO B 7 May 1959 NEW PROCESS, 465
Picture of aberration, 465
Why a thetan makes his postulate fail to stick, 465
A new process: Locational Communication, 466

HCO B 8 May 1959 AN UN-DOABLE COMMAND, 467

HCO B 21 May 1959 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES AND ACC PROCESSES AS
OF MAY 21, 1959, 468
Theta clear schedule, 468
Case remedies, 468
HAS Co-Audit allowed process, 469

HCO B 26 May 1959 MAN WHO INVENTED SCIENTOLOGY, 470
Career of L. Ron Hubbard, 470
Dianetics, the branch of Scientology which deals with mental anatomy, 470
Translations of Scientology books, 471

HCO B 5 June 1959 FORMULA 10, 472
Formula 10-an approach to OT, 472

HCO B 6 June 1959 WHEN CASES CRACK WELL ON SELECTED PERSONS
OVERTS WITHHOLD, 473
Route for staff processing, 473

HCO B 9 June 1959 NEEDED MATERIAL, 474
HPA/BScn Course lectures, 474
6th London ACC tapes tell how to run an HAS Co-Audit Course, 474

HCO B 10 June 1959 CO-AUDIT FORMULA, 475

HCO B 11 June 1959 THE DATES OF THE AUSTRALIAN ACC, 475

HCO B 22 June 1959 HOW TO “SELL SCIENTOLOGY”, 476
Disseminate Scientology without telling what it is, 476

HCO B 23 June 1959 CLEAR TEST, 476


HCO B 23 June 1959 WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY, 477

HCO PL 2 July 1959 ADD FORMULA 10, 478
Process S2—”From where could you communicate to a victim?”, 478
Process S22—”Think of a place from which you could communicate to a victim”, 478

HCO B 3 July 1959 GENERAL INFORMATION, 479
Six basic process types, 479
Starting and Ending Sessions, 479
Control Processes, 479
Duplication Processes, 479
Subjective Processes, 479
Objective Processes, 480
Straight Wire, 480
Definitions of thetan, mind and body, 480
The CCH Processes—Tone 40 auditing; their commands and procedure, 480
CCH 1, Give me that hand, Tone 40, 480
CCH 2, Tone 40 8-C, 481
CCH 3, Hand Space Mimicry, 481
CCH 4, Book Mimicry, 482
Method of running CCH 1, 2, 3, 4, 482
ARC Straight Wire as a training process, 483
Terminal Assessment for Overt-Withhold Process, 484
Dynamic and Know to Mystery scouting, 484
Selected Persons scout, 484
Overt-Withhold Selected Persons Straight Wire as a training process, 485
Factual Havingness, 486
Third Rail, a special form of Factual Havingness, 486
Rudiments, 487
Mock up a picture for which you can be totally responsible [process], 487
Re-experience and Experience Process, 488
Present Time Problems, 488
ARC Break Straight Wire, 489
Not-Is Straight Wire, 489
Scale of processes taught in HCA/HPA, 489

HCO B 9 July 1959 DEFINITION OF SCIENTOLOGY—WRITTEN BY LRH FOR LEGAL WHEN SETTING UP HASI LTD, 491

HCO B 14 July 1959 SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR FRANCHISE HOLDERS, 492
Addresses, 492
Interim franchise, 492

HCO B 17 July 1959 AFRICA OVER THE TOP, 494

HCO B 18 July 1959 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, 494
Victims, 494

HCO B 18 July 1959 INCOME TAX REFORM, 495

HCO B 21 July 1959 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES, 497
Case remedies, 497
HAS Co-Audit, 498

HCO B 22 July 1959 ACTUAL WORKING DEFINITION OF PSYCHOLOGY, 499


HCO B 28 July 1959 OUR GOALS, 500
Exact plan of a centre, 500
Clearing Earth, 501

HCO B 5 Aug. 1959 HGC PROCESSES, 502
Regimen to be followed, 502

HCO B 7 Aug. 1959 THE HANDLING OF COMMUNICATION PROCESSES
—SOME RAPID DATA, 503
Essentials of use of Communication Processes, 503
Generalized terminals vs. proper names, 503
Use of E-Meter, 504
Cautions regarding Communication Processes, 505

HCO B 12 Aug. 1959 A SECOND TYPE OF FRANCHISE, 506
HCO Processing Franchise, 506
Exchanging types of franchises, 506
Percentages to be sent to HCO WW, 507
Cable, don’t phone, 508
Buttons we want flat on everybody in Scientology: victim, money, 508

HCO B 13 Aug. 1959 SUGGESTED HCA COURSE SCHEDULE, 509

HCO B 13 Aug. 1959 FRANCHISE HOLDERS, 512
What UK franchise holders need to do, 512

HCO B 19 Aug. 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT—FINDING TERMINALS, 513

HCO B 19 Aug. 1959 TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC, 514
Scientology demands no belief or faith and thus is not in conflict with faith, 514

HCO B 27 Aug. 1959 GROWTH WITH COMPETENCE, 515
A central org can succeed as far as it can service, 515
Victim is central button of overt act-motivator sequence, 516
How to audit victim item, 516
Organization and victim button, 517

HCO B 3 Sept. 1959 WHY “VICTIM” WORKS AS A PROCESS, 518
Cases not to run on victim process, 519
Pcs have service facsimiles so they can be victims, 519
When is victim flat, 520

HCO B 9 Sept. 1959 A SHORT STORY BY CABLE, 521
Fast dispatch lines handle awkward situations, 521

HCO B 14 Sept. 1959 NEWS BULLETIN, 522
Saint Hill Manor, 522
Application of Scientology to the fifth dynamic, 522

HCO B 25 Sept. 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT, 524
How to run Comm Processes on assessment, 524
Universal Processes, 524

HCO B 26 Sept. 1959 DATA ON CLEARING A STAFF MEMBER AFTER SPECIFIC TERMINALS ARE FLAT WITH OVERT WITHHOLD STRAIGHT WIRE, 525


HCO B 28 Sept. 1959 TECHNICAL NOTES ON CHILD PROCESSING, 526
Processes for different types of children, 526

HCO B 29 Sept. 1959 THE ORGANIZATION OF A PE FOUNDATION, 527
PE Course curriculum, 527
PE Foundation personnel, 528

HCO B 29 Sept. 1959 UNIVERSE PROCESSES, 529
Universe O/W, 5 29

HCO B 5 Oct. 1959 UNIVERSE PROCESSES, 530
Universe O/W, 530
Universe Comm Process, 531

HCO B 13 Oct. 1959 A USEFUL PROCESS, 532
For pcs who cannot seem to plumb an overt/motivator sequence, 532

HCO B 13 Oct. 1959 D.E.I. EXPANDED SCALE, 533
Evolution of the D.E.I. Scale, 533
Basic scale of selling, 533
Comm Processes and D.E.I. Scale, 534

HCO B 14 Oct. 1959 LONDON UP, 535

HCO B 15 Oct. 1959 MY WHEREABOUTS IN NOVEMBER, 535

HCO B 20 Oct. 1959 AN EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS, 536
Comm Recall Process, 536
Know Mystery Recall Processes, 536
Basic Affinity Process, 536

HCO B 25 Oct. 1959 PSYCHOANALYSIS GOES CAPITALISTIC, 537

HCO B 30 Oct. 1959 TO RETAIN CO-AUDIT PC’S INTEREST IN CASE, 538

HCO B 31 Oct. 1959 CREATE PROCESSES—DANGERS & ADVANTAGES, 539
What would you like to create [process], 539
What would you like to confront [process], 539
What would you like to destroy [process], 539

Ability Issue 107, ca. Nov. 1959 ON BRINGING ORDER, 541

HCO B 12 Nov. 1959 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN AUDITING, 543
Avoidance of double acknowledgement, 543
Misacknowledgement, 543

HCO B 18 Nov. 1959 1ST MELBOURNE ACC MATERIAL, 545

HCO B 18 Nov. 1959 CONGRATULATIONS HASI—SOUTH AFRICA, 546

HCO B 4 Dec. 1959 ALLOWED PROCESSES 1ST MELBOURNE ACC, 547
Melbourne 1, 547
Melbourne 2, 547
Melbourne 3, 547
Melbourne 4, 547
Melbourne 5, 547

HCO B 11 Dec. 1959 NEW HORIZONS IN SCIENTOLOGY, 548
Scientology organizational goals, 548


HCO B 15 Dec. 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT, 550
Process to use on HAS Co-Audit, 550

HCO B 15 Dec. 1959 URGENT CHANGE IN ALL CO-AUDIT COURSES, 551
Full responsibility, 551
PE Co-Audit process, 552

HCO B 16 Dec. 1959 RESPONSIBILITY FOR O/Ws, 552

Ability Issue 110, ca. Dec. 1959 TECHNIQUES OF CHILD PROCESSING, 553
Type of Child Processing session, 553
Short sessioning works very well with a child, 553
Assists on children, 554
Routine Child Processes, 554
Children with rough cases, 554
Instilling confidence in children, 554
Recall Processes on children, 554

HCO B 23 Dec. 1959 RESPONSIBILITY, 555
Responsibility and past lives, 555
Reason for blows, 555

HCO B 31 Dec. 1959 BLOW-OFFS, 557
The reason behind blow-offs, 557
Blowing can cause repercussions, 558
































































P.A.B. No. 103
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 January 1957




So we’re cause again. Here is the Code of a Scientologist being used as a pattern for the medicos in the United States.


“The Code of a Scientologist”


As a Scientologist, I pledge myself to the Code of Scientology for the good of all:

l. To hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclears concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this science.

2. To use the best I know of Scientology, to the best of my ability, to better my preclears, groups and the world.

3. To refuse to accept for processing, and to refuse to accept money from, any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help.

4. To punish to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends.

5. To prevent the use of Scientology in advertisements of other products.

6. To discourage the abuse of Scientology in the press.

7. To employ Scientology to the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics.

8. To render good processing, sound training and good discipline to those students or peoples entrusted to my care.

9. To refuse to impart the personal secrets of my preclears.

10. To engage in no unseemly disputes with the uninformed on the subject of my profession.”


Using it, the A.M.A. has now proposed the following code for all medicos as given in “The Doctor’s New Conscience” in Look Magazine, December 11, 1956. You see, they aren’t completely brave:

“The A.M.A.’s Proposed Principles of Medical Ethics”


These principles are intended to serve physicians, individually or collectively, as a guide to ethical conduct. They are not laws; rather they are standards by which a physician may determine the propriety of his own conduct. They are intended to aid physicians in their relationship with patients, with colleagues, with members of allied professions and with the public, to maintain, under God, as they have through the ages, the highest moral standards.

l. The prime objective of the medical profession is to render service to humanity with full respect for both the dignity of man and the rights of patients. Physicians must merit the confidence of those entrusted to their care, rendering to each a full measure of service and devotion.

2. Physicians should strive continuously to improve their medical knowledge and skill and should make available the benefits of their professional attainments.

3. A physician should not base his practice on an exclusive dogma or a sectarian system, nor should he associate voluntarily with those who indulge in such practices,

4. The medical profession must be safeguarded against members deficient in moral character and professional competence. Physicians should observe all laws, uphold the dignity and honor of the profession and accept its self-imposed disciplines. They should expose, without hesitation, illegal or unethical conduct of fellow members of the profession.

5. Except in emergencies, a physician may choose whom he will serve. Having undertaken the care of a patient, the physician may not neglect him. Unless he has been discharged, he may discontinue his services only after having given adequate notice. He should not solicit patients.

6. A physician should not dispose of his services under terms or conditions which will interfere with or impair the free and complete exercise of his independent medical judgment and skill or cause deterioration of the quality of medical care.

7. In the practice of medicine, a physician should limit the source of his professional income to medical services actually rendered by him to his patient.

8. A physician should seek consultation in doubtful or difficult cases, upon request or when it appears that the quality of medical service may be enhanced thereby.

9. Confidence entrusted to physicians or deficiencies observed in the disposition or character of patients, during the course of medical attendance, should not be revealed except as required by law or unless it becomes necessary in order to protect the health and welfare of the individual or the community.

10. The responsibilities of the physician extend not only to the individual but also to society and demand his cooperation and participation in activities which have as their objective the improvement of the health and welfare of the individual and the community.”



We are advising them to use our Number 3. You see how they recoiled from it.

16TH AMERICAN ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
2 January—11 February 1957


L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures to students attending the 16th American ACC in Washington, D.C:


5701C02 16ACC-1 Course Outline
5701C03 16ACC-2 Reality Scale in Action
5701C05 16ACC-3 Havingness: Particles, Solids, Spaces
5701C07 16ACC-4 Learning Process: No-Game Condition
5701C08 16ACC-5 Agreements and Postulates of the 8 Dynamics
** 5701C09 16ACC-6 Obnosis
** 5701C10 16ACC-7 The Postulate of Game
5701C11 16ACC-8 Postulates of Action-Reaction
** 5701C14 16ACC-9 Control
5701C15 16ACC-10 Evil
5701C16 16ACC-11 Havingness
** 5701C17 16ACC-12 Communication, Randomities of
5701C18 16ACC-13 Auditing Techniques: Self-Denial, Responsibility
5701C22 16ACC-14 Auditing Techniques: Order of Processes
5701C23 16ACC-15 Auditing Techniques: Scale of Processes
** 5701 C24 16ACC-16 Auditing Techniques: Altering Cases
5701C25 16ACC-17 Auditing Techniques: Specifics
5701C28 16ACC-18 Auditing Techniques: Stimulus response
5701C29 16ACC-19 Auditing Techniques: Action, Reaction
5701C30 16ACC-20 Auditing Techniques: Workable and Unworkable
5701C31 16ACC-21 Auditing Techniques: Solids
5702C01 16ACC-22 Auditing Techniques: Games Conditions
5702C04 16ACC-23 Auditing Techniques: Procedure CCH
** 5702C05 16ACC-24 Auditing Techniques: How Far South?
5702C06 16ACC-25 Demonstration
5702C07 16ACC-26 Summation
5702C08 16ACC-27 General Use of Procedure
5702C11 16ACC-28 Question and Answer Period
5702C11 16ACC-29 Final Lecture—Question and Answers


All 16th American ACC lectures are listed above for convenience. They are also listed on the following pages in date order sequence.

P.A.B. No. 105
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

l February 1957

THE STORY OF A STATIC


Once upon a time there was a thetan, and he was a happy little thetan and the world was a simple thing. It was all very, very simple.

And then one day somebody told him he was simple.

And ever since that time he has been trying to prove that he is not.

And that is the history of the Universe, the Human Race, the Fifth Invaders, the Fourth Invaders, the 31/2 Invaders, the people on Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Arcturus, the Markab Galaxy, the Markab System, the Psi Galaxy, Galaxy 82—

I don’t care where you look—that’s the story.

Only it’s too simple a story, much too simple a story, because a thetan would have to admit he was simple if he understood it.

L R H









LRH TAPE LECTURE
Washington, D.C.
1—6 February 1957


5702C01 16ACC-22 Auditing Techniques: Games Conditions
5702C04 16ACC-23 Auditing Techniques: Procedure CCH
** 5702C05 16ACC-24 Auditing Techniques: How Far South?
5702C06 16ACC-25 Demonstration

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE


HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 6 FEBRUARY 1957


The following procedure is not for general release to the field, and is to be released only to organizational staff. The reason it is not being generally released to the field is that very few auditors have the skill necessary to run these techniques. The entirety of this will be released, somewhat modified, and much more expanded, some time in the future, and forms the backbone of a book. Therefore, I will appreciate your courtesy in not releasing these techniques to anyone, but keeping them in the Clinic until the book can be written, since you will scoop me if you do not, and the book will have that much less meaningfulness and appeal. The reason I am releasing these at this moment is that we need them, and we have every right to use them, but I do not wish them to be generally released, since they are actually so powerful that an auditor who is badly schooled would not be able to handle them at all on preclears. He is better off using that in which he has been trained. It will take a book to get him totally oriented on this subject.

PROCEDURE CCH

This procedure has two forms, it has the long form and the short form. The long form is omitted here since it is not necessary in any broad number of cases, and the short form is entirely right out through the top.

The name, “CCH”, is taken from Communication-Control-Havingness. These are the immediate exercise targets of this procedure.

The goal of this procedure is to take the preclear from as far south as preclears can be reached, straight on through as far north as a preclear can be pushed. Therefore, the breadth of Procedure CCH is much greater than any other auditing procedure ever released.

This procedure is covered rather adequately in the long series of lectures of the 1 6th ACC which specifically cover technique. This does not mean the entirety of the 16th ACC lectures, it means that section of the 16th ACC lectures which was immediately addressed to technique. A study of these lectures is recommended before extensive use of Procedure CCH is engaged upon in the Clinics. Copies of these lectures are being made available to Washington and London.

The goal of the Auditor is to discover an ability in the preclear and improve it.

The first discoverable ability of a preclear is communication in one form or another. This even applies to a person in a comatose state. Such a person quite ordinarily responds to tactile if you do not expect him to acknowledge. He is not able to acknowledge our communication to him by tactile since he at first cannot sufficiently or adequately control the body in order to make the reply.

HPA/HCA PROCESSES

Group 1: Communication Processes, taught in Indoctrination:

* Parts of Communication

*A. “Look at me. Who am l ?”

*B. Hand contact mimicry. Commands: “Put your hands against mine,” then “mimic and contribute to the motion of my hands.” Acknowledge when the preclear has completed the command. Then say “Put your hands in your

*- indicates to be taught in HPA & EICA Classes.

lap.” Then the auditor does the same. Repeat this process.

*C. Hand Mimicry (gradient scale of spaces). Hand mimicry is run the same as hand contact mimicry, with the following changes in the commands: “Put your hands up facing mine, with about one inch distance between your hands and mine.” Then, “Mimic and contribute to the motions of my hands, while maintaining the same distance between our hands.” Acknowledge. Then, “Put your hands in your lap.” Auditor then puts his hands in his lap. When this level of the process is flat, the auditor then puts more space between himself and the preclear, on a gradient scale, and changes the distance part of the command accordingly. Use a gradient scale to a limit of 3 feet.

*D. Mirror image hand mimicry. The commands are “Put your hands up facing mine.” “Mimic my commands mirror-wise; that is, when I move my hand back, you move your hand back on the same side of the body, and when I move my hands forward, you move your hands forward correspondingly.” “Good. Put your hands in your lap.”

E. Full body mimicry. The auditor picks two spaces in the auditing room, marking them out with chairs or other objects, or using the rug. One space is for the preclear, and the other for the auditor. The auditor explains to the preclear as follows: “I am going to step into my space and deliver a command to you which will consist of a series of body positions. When I have finished executing this command I will step out of the space. You are then, without any further command on my part, to step into your space and mimic the command I have given. When you have finished doing that, then you step out of that space and that will be the end of that command.” The process is then repeated. If the preclear is not doing a good job of mimicking the auditor or is thrown into inordinately long communication lags, the process may be run with the auditor stepping into his space and giving the command while at the same time, the preclear steps into his space and mimics the command. That is to say, the command is executed simultaneously by the auditor and the preclear instead of the auditor first executing it and then the preclear following it, with a mimic.

Group II. Location-Control Processes:

Parts of Control

A. Locational. “Locate the __.” The auditor has the preclear locate the floor, the ceiling, the walls, the furniture in the room, and other objects and bodies.

*B. Connectedness. “Look around here and find something you wouldn’t mind making connect with you.” Make sure while running this process that the preclear is making (causing) things to connect with him rather than he connecting with the things. If he connects with the things, it is a no-games condition. It is important that this be stressed in the session.

*C. 8-C Solids. “Do you see that ____over there?” “Good.” “Walk over to it.” “Good.” “Touch it.” “Good.” “Now, make it a little more solid.” “Good.” “Let go of____.” “Good.” The process is then repeated, with the auditor selecting the object each time.

D. S-C-S. “I am going to tell you to start the body. Then I want you to start the body.” “All right.” “Start the body.” If the preclear has started the body, he acknowledges the execution of the command. The auditor then repeats this process. Note: These commands must be used exactly, and be duplicated by the auditor. You should also get the preclear’s agreement to do it each time. The change portion of S-C-S is run as follows: The auditor picks and arranges with the preclear the location of three spots in the room. The auditor then designates these spots as Spot A, Spot B, and Spot C, and

has the preclear stand in one of them. The command, duplicated each time, is as follows: “I’m going to tell you to change the body from Spot ___ to Spot___. Then you change the body from___to___. Okay?” When the preclear indicates that he has heard this and understood, the auditor then gives the command, “Change the body from___to___.” Spots A, B and C may be chosen by the auditor in any order. The Stop portion of S-C-S is run as follows: “I’m going to tell you to get the body moving in that direction.” The auditor indicates a direction across the room. “I then want you to get the body moving, and somewhere along the line I’ll tell you to stop. I then want you to stop the body.” When the preclear has stopped his body, the auditor then acknowledges and repeats the process and commands. As in the previous two, the auditor always duplicates the commands and gets the agreement of the preclear to make sure that he has started, changed and stopped the body himself, while running the above three processes.

Group III. Duplication Processes:

A. Opening Procedure by Duplication. “Go over to the___.” “Look at it.” “Pick it up.” “What is its colour?” “What is its temperature?” “What is its weight?” “Put it down in exactly the same place.” The preclear obeys each command and answers each question in turn. The auditor then says, indicating the other object, “Go over to the___.” “Look at it.” “Pick it up.” “What is its colour?” “What is its temperature?” “What is its weight?” “Put it down in exactly the same place.” The auditor using the same words, same objects, and the same formula over and over again. This process must be run with good ARC at all times, and with a good duplication of the commands, and with good control.

*B. Keep it from going away. The auditor asks the preclear to select a number of objects in the room which appear real to the preclear. The auditor then selects two of these objects. These objects should be of a size that is easy to handle with the hands, and of a significance as non-restimulative as possible to the preclear. The auditor then selects two of these objects and places them either on a table in front of the preclear within easy reach and with some distance between them, or else on the arms of the preclear’s chair, one object on each arm. The commands of the process are: “Pick up the___.” “Good.” “Keep it from going away.” “Good.” When the preclear has kept it from going away for at least an instant and with certainty, the auditor then says, “Put it back exactly where you found it.” “Good.” The auditor then says, indicating the other object, “Pick up the___.” “Good.” “Keep it from going away.” “Good.” “Put it back exactly where you found it.” “Good.” The process is repeated.

*C. Hold it still. The commands for this process and the execution of it are the same as the process “Keep it from going away”, with the following exceptions: the command “Hold it still” is used in place of the command “Keep it from going away”.

Group IV. Havingness Processes:

Objective Havingness

A. Terrible Trio “Look around here and find something you would be willing to have.” “Look around here and find something you would be willing to permit to remain where it is.” “Look around here and find something you would be willing to dispense with.”

B. Trio on Valences. “Look around here and find something___can’t have.” Run this command until flat then run “Look around here and find something you can have.” (NOTE: should be a person, such as mother, father, sister, etc.)

C. Objective Solids. “Look around here and find something.” “Okay.” “Make it a little more solid.”

Group V. Subjective Havingness:

A. Subjective Havingness. “Mock up___.” “Make it a little more solid.” “Do what you like with the mock-up.” 1. Confusions; 2. Wasting havingness.

B. Straight Wire. “Tell me something you would be willing to forget.” Preclear answers, auditor acknowledges. Repeat until flat.

*C. Then and Now Solids. “Get a facsimile.” “Make it a little more solid.” “Look at the environment.” “Make it a little more solid.” Repeat this process.

Group VI. Thought Processes:

A. Rising Scale. This run on emotion and/or attitude charts, by running from the lowest to the top of the respective scale. “Put into the wall.” Preclear answers, auditor acknowledges. (Example, “Put apathy into the wall,” etc.)

*B. Present-time problem. “Invent a problem of Comparable Magnitude to ___.” “How could that be a problem to you?” The blank in this case being a terminal; best to use a single terminal with a minimum of condition.

C. Find a spot. “Look around here and find a place you could light.” Preclear answers, auditor acknowledges. “Invent a consequence of your having lighted.” Preclear answers, auditor acknowledges.

*D. Thoughts in Walls.
(1) “Have the front wall say to you, ‘This means go to___.” Preclear supplies the blank, the blank being a location. This is run on front, back, right, left, ceiling and floor—use same order throughout. After one round, you alternate “Have the front wall say to you, ‘This means don’t go to ___.” When these alternates are flat, run:
(2) “Have the front wall say to you, ‘This means stay in ___,” which is alternated with “Have the front wall say to you, ‘This means don’t stay in___”
Run pairs (1) and (2) comparatively flat—this is the only process for terror stomach.

E. Objective Not Know. “Look around here and find something you wouldn’t mind not knowing.”


L. RON HUBBARD


This Bulletin subject to
correction

LRH: rs.lnd.rd
Copyright (©)1957
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Feb 6, 1957.



5702C07 16ACC-26 Summation
5702C08 16ACC-27 General Use of Procedure
5702C11 16ACC-28 Question and Answer Period
5702C11 16ACC-29 Final Lecture—Question and Answers

P.A.B. No. 106
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 February 1957

GOOD PROCESSES

Prepared from the research papers of L. Ron Hubbard


The material in recent PABs, much of it, has come from an LRH research paper that still contains material, not covered, on some modern processes and general theory of primary value. In the research paper it is given in extremely staccato fashion, as the paper was the basis for conferences where the material could be expanded. Here is some more of the material.

The best processes are those which fastest convert unknowing games conditions to knowing games conditions. This does not disregard the fact that one’s goal of processing might be, at a very far reach, the static. No-games conditions do describe the static and various harmonics of the static. The no-games conditions list does not anywhere describe workable processing tools. Games conditions, and games conditions only, do that.

Here are some of those fastest processes:

CONTROL. Start, Change and Stop on objects or preclear’s body, emphasis on stop. Why emphasis on stop? It has long been known in Scientology (see Scientology 8-80) that the ability to hold points, locations, masses and objects, including bodies, in space at one’s own direction and choice is the essence of control. Without the ability to fix locations in space there is no self-determinism. Where one is concerned with the physical universe he collapses if he cannot hold space.

The exact commands and procedure of control processes are contained in recent PABs as well as in early Bulletins to be released.

The effectiveness of any processing is as great as the extreme of good control is exercised by the auditor. A corollary to this is that how well one lives life is measured by the extent of his good control of the things within his actual boundaries of interest.

FIGHT THE WALL. This is a very fascinating process. The auditor makes (he has to make him) the preclear fight the wall bodily. Since there is no accepted social behavior in man on this subject, the way that a preclear will DO this process varies somewhat wildly. What his running of the process does is to bring him up to a confrontingness of walls and environment. It does this through exercising a games condition (fighting) and causing the preclear to exercise this games condition knowingly. It is not designed to 7 nor does it, run out the preclear’s ability to fight.

The total command is, having directed the preclear’s attention to a wall, “Fight the wall.” You don’t tell them how to fight it, you tell them to fight it. The amount of


Copyright(©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

bruised knuckles and holes in plaster can be cut down by providing the preclear with a mattress or other protector and it works just as well. The purpose of the process is not damage, although preclears are known to go into fighting walls with a peculiar enthusiasm.

This can also be run by mock-ups but not as a substitute for making the preclear use his body. Do not make a thinkingness process of this, it is a doingness and a confrontingness process. It can be run outdoors on trees, etc., as well as in the auditing room.

OPPONENTS. The main thing about opponents is that there are not enough of them. An opponent is a games condition. Have the preclear tell lies about the subject of opponents. That is a good process. Have the preclear invent opponents. Of these two, Invent is best, but Lie is a lower harmonic of Invent and can be run all the way south.

When opponents become scarce to an individual they become so precious and valuable that he will neither confront, have, nor let go of anything he considers to be one. He will fight himself and do all sorts of things but he will not do these things. He becomes extremely aberrated on this point and will attempt to “discover” enemies or “find out” or some such thing. This is a compulsive games condition, with unknownness. Havingness is extremely poor on such an individual.

The exact commands are “Tell me a lie about an opponent,” “Tell me a lie about opponents,” “Invent an opponent.”

INDIVIDUALITY. A lot is said about individuality. Indeed it is a highly important subject. Either individuality is a very bad thing and causes human troubles, is a very good thing, or it is a games condition. The truth is that individuality is an aberration and a games condition. It therefore, good or bad, processes, whereas namelessness (unidentifiedness) does not. An extreme or exaggerated view on the subject of individuality is a havingness upset and contains unknowingness. Knowingness about identity includes awareness of game. A good process is “Invent an individuality that would impress people.” Run it for all eight dynamics. Examples: “Invent an individuality that would impress animals,” “Invent an individuality that would impress God.”

CAN’T HAVE. An interesting little creative processing process is “Mock up a mockup” and then “Say that bodies can’t have it” or “Say that your body can’t have it.” A further use of this is to say that the MEST universe can’t have it. Auditors call this “Escape Processing.”

EFFECT. Lie about an effect you are having. Examples: “I’m not having any effect from my tooth,” “I’m not having any effect from that wall” or “That wall is giving me some money.” Lie about an effect you are having on (any dynamic).

PROBLEMS. Problems must be handled in auditing. Never leave the present time problem unhandled. This does not mean that the problem is flat when the preclear says he now knows what to do about it or can solve it, etc. The problem is not flat until he can tolerate it solved or not solved. If he MUST solve it then he is not able to tolerate the problem and it is not flat. People think that all problems or some problems MUST be solved. They think this because they cannot tolerate or confront the problems.

Problems are processed by “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to (the problem).” Until preclear can have the problem.

Undercutting the above, is, having the preclear tell lies about the problem.

Inventing problems of comparable magnitude must each time be questioned as to “How could that be a problem to you?”

Another process related to problems is “Consequences of Solutions.” Since a problem not confronted persists and confronted does not persist, then preclears can discover that they have been not solving problems because they were scarce.

SOLIDS. “What are you looking at?”, “Make it solid,” “What are you looking at?”, etc.

VACUUMS. A vacuum is a super-cold object which, if brought into contact with bank, drinks bank. Objects at 25°F or less have high electrical capacitance, low resistance. This was psychiatry before Earth. Shocks, ether, can act similarly. This is how one mechanically forgets the past. He depends on pictures, loses pictures to a vacuum incident. Vacuums drink up the preclear’s havingness. They are just incidents and they are brainwashing. You encounter these running solids. Opponents, individualities, more solids, problems, undo them.

RESTIMULATION. When one violates a games condition, intends to have an effect on something and doesn’t, one often puts the effect on the body. One thus gets “no-effect” on opponent, makes an effect on self. This is restimulation. It is also stimulus-response.

“Effect you could have on (people, preclears, any dynamic)” remedies this. The condition of self-auditing while auditing is the above restimulation. The same process resolves it.

TO SPLIT VALENCES

A term that really makes a psychiatrist feel like somebody is “schizo,” their nickname for the schizophrenic. It is an odd misnomer in that it means split personality and the trouble with a schizo is that he needs splitting, not that he’s split. He’s in another’s valence, and what is required is to remove or split the preclear out of that other’s valence.

STEPS. A series of steps rather than a single process or command worked best by test at the Hubbard Guidance Center and the London HASI Clinic.

1. Get the preclear under control with Start-Change-Stop. Lots of it. This can’t be slid over or brushed through carelessly. The total reason for getting the preclear under good control is that he is under bad control or he wouldn’t be a preclear, even though the bad control is his own. Though it is his own it is not knowing. The auditor’s job is to make the preclear CAUSATIVE throughout. The preclear must be CAUSE toward all things in the session. The control by the auditor is necessary because, left to his own devices, as he has been for aeons, the preclear will be EFFECT of his reactive bank, pictures, circuits and figure-figure. The one thing, of course, that the preclear is effect of in session and not causative toward is the auditing. The auditor pan-determines the whole thing.
2. Unjam the track with “What are you looking at? Make it solid.” Anything jamming (sticking, holding) the track (time) can be run AS A VALENCE in the following steps. Examples could be: Mother, dog, book, machine, town, house, gun, etc. You can readily see in this command “Make it solid” that the preclear is being CAUSE toward the thing or person. It is of considerable relief to the preclear.
3. Choose valence or valences, weakest universe preferred. At this point skill comes into great demand. The OBVIOUS here would be usually the correct valence to run. Obvious to the AUDITOR. It won’t be obvious to the preclear. For example,

the weakest universe would be to the preclear the one that gives no trouble. He never gets bothered or upset about that person. He never even thinks about that person or when he does it is only with the mildest feelings. Why? Because he’s “wearing the head” of that person! He’s looking FROM, not AT. If you find you have picked the wrong valence to run, go back to ( 1 ) and choose again at (3).
4. “What would interest (universe so chosen)?” Run this flat.
5. “Invent an opponent of comparable magnitude to .” You are getting a games condition here. Scarcity of opponents is the stickiest condition there is in human relations. Run this until preclear does it well and comm lag is flat.
6. “What would get the attention of ?” Here the preclear will name or invent things that would get the attention of the universe being run. What you know about the SERVICE FACSIMILE will apply here. Run it out this way. “What would get the attention of ?”
7. “Look around here and find something that can’t have.” Answers must be things physically observable in the auditing environment. This must be run very, very flat. A key process.
8. “What could you protect from?” This actually could be run as above, having the preclear look around the room and find what he could protect____from. However, if (7) has been run flat as a pancake it can be run as a subjective process as given.
9. “What communication could you prevent from originating?” You will see that this gives the preclear a games condition and an opponent. It isn’t flat when the preclear is still giving answers from the bank. He should make some.
10. Problems of Comparable Magnitude. The command is: “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to .” This is an important process. Note that it has to be flattened well and that it is not flat when the preclear says he feels better about it or will handle it. It is flat when the preclear can HAVE the problem, does not HAVE TO solve it. Could have it, permit it to remain, or dispense with it. Problems: games condition. Solutions: no-game condition.
11. “Invent a game you could play with .” This light-hearted little process is dynamite. Don’t neglect it. Run it on the preclear and you’ll see what a high-level process looks like when it really bites. (It will bite if you have properly run the preceding ten steps.)
12. “Make fight the wall.” This is done, of course, with mock-ups, until the preclear does them extremely well and with full control of the mock-ups and comm lag is flat.
13. Run (4) to ( 12) again to check.

This procedure cleans up universes and valences. When running this, keep the preclear at it and do not lapse into discussion or excessive two-way comm aside from the processes themselves. Use two-way communication in delivering the process to the preclear, not in getting the preclear to deliver the bank to the auditor.

This is a lot of processes for one bulletin, but we can include more detailed material on these in future PABs.

17TH AMERICAN ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
18 February—31 March 1957


L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures to students attending the 17th American ACC in Washington, D.C:


** 5702C25 17ACC-1 Opening Lecture, CCHs, the Future of Scientology
** 5702C26 17ACC-2 ARC Triangle and Associated Scales
** 5702C27 17ACC-3 Communication and Isness
5702C27 17ACC Inflow/Outflow
** 5702C28 17ACC-4 The Parts of Man
* * 5703C01 17ACC-5 Problems: Their Handling and Running
5703C01 17ACC Problems of Comparable Magnitude
(could be same tape as above)
** 5703C04 17ACC-6 Control
** 5703C05 17ACC-7 The Scale of Techniques
5703C06 17ACC-8 Reaching the Lowest Possible Level
5703C07 17ACC-9 “Ought to Be”
** 5703C10 17ACC-10 Valences
** 5703C11 17ACC-11 Summary of Techniques
5703C11 17ACC-11A Comments and Question-and-Answer Period
5703C12 17ACC-12 Survival
5703C12 17ACC-12A Question-and-Answer Session on Lecture
** 5703C13 17ACC-13 Techniques in Practice
5703C14 17ACC-14 A Summary of an Intensive
** 5703C15 17ACC-15 Exact Control
5703C19 17ACC-16 Outline of Modern Intensive
** 5703C20 17ACC-17 Games Conditions
** 5703C21 17ACC-18 The Assist
5703C22 17ACC-19 Effect: Axiom 10
5703C25 17ACC-20 The Uses of Control
5703C26 17ACC-21 Rest Points and Confusions
** 5703C27 17ACC-22 Extroversion—Introversion, Its Relationship to
Havingness and Communication
5703C28 17ACC-23 Valences and Control
5703C29 17ACC-24 The Professional Scientologist
5703C31 17ACC-25 Techniques in Practice


All 17th American ACC lectures are listed above for convenience. They are also listed on the following pages in date order sequence.

P.A.B. No. 107
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 March 1957

SPECIFIC FOR TERROR STOMACH


There is a specific process which goes this way. You ask the preclear to put into the six sides of the room, the four walls, the ceiling and the floor, in regular order, the statement to him or to some part of his body “This means go to “ and the preclear furnishes the location. He does this with each wall, the floor and the ceiling, in rotation. Now you had better let him have the walls, etc., first of all say it to him, then after a while say it to his body. Now the next time round you get him to put into the walls, etc. “This means don’t go to .” Then the next time we go around to “This means go to ,” and finally we get this thing flat. These commands are run in alternation until it seems fairly flat.

Now the reason why you ask him to supply the name of the location each time is simply to see how his communication lag is coming along. If you didn’t ask him to add the name you would not see his comm lag. When you ask him to originate a location this puts a little stopper on the line. Now when we have that pair of commands fairly flat we go on into the next pair. “This means stay in “ is completed with all the six sides of the room, and the alternation command in this case is “This means don’t stay in ,” and we run these alternately covering the six sides of the room each time.

Now, of course, this is essentially the anatomy of the confusion—the confusion basically of a person doing, or trying to do, two things at once. So we get him to sort out the stable data. This is a technique which has been with us for some time. It is what we call one of our specifics, and it is a specific for a terror stomach.

Now this is something for you to have because these terror stomachs can cause you some difficulty. For instance, one of the commonest things that you find in prison work or in people who are under pressure from the police in one way or another is the terror stomach. With some people just the thought of possibly being arrested would turn one on. Now just why the police are the commonest restimulator of the terror stomach lies, of course, on the back track.

The stomach is guilty of the overt act of eating, it is continuously guilty of this act and becomes quite frantic on the whole subject of being incarcerated. This is rather funny, because the stomach is already incarcerated and is continually incarcerating—it puts food into jail three times a day; and so we get police putting somebody away as being the commonest restimulator of the terror stomach. A terror stomach is simply a confusion in a high degree of restimulation in the vicinity of the vagus nerve. This is one of the larger nerves and it goes into agitation under this restimulation. Now medical science has already solved this, already knows how to take care of it: they simply cut the vagus nerve—that it brings on a fairly early death and completely


Copyright (©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

disrupts the entirety of the gastric system is, of course, not considered. It is comparable with electric shock, which, incidentally, is almost uniformly followed by an early stroke.

Now here we have a specific and this somatic has not had any alleviation from any other process prior to Spring, 1956. At that time some other processes came in which are, to some degree, faster. But they have not yet been tested on a terror stomach with any thoroughness. They are more powerful, but they have not been thoroughly tested against this specific somatic.

With good auditing and good communication we can, apparently at any tone level, seem to be able to use this process successfully. This is quite remarkable. The terror stomach flattens out and if it does recur, it will be quite minor. But the preclear should be warned about this so that if it does recur he can come in again to see the auditor, who can continue the process and flatten it further.

It is a specific and for a long time I figured out the confusion of where to go and where to stay, and figured out the disenfranchisement of the game somewhat. Disenfranchisement brought about a condition of confusion which was best expressed in the stomach evidently. We can handle that today. I can tell you with some confidence that the only thing that would interrupt your ability to handle this would, of course, be your communication with the preclear. This would have to be pretty good before you could use this process. To establish communication with a preclear suffering from the terror stomach is, of course, one of the more interesting things to do because the preclear is quite frantic. He leaps around, goes in and out of session, etc. Nevertheless, in spite of this, the process does level out the terror stomach which is just a bundle of confusion.

With this process one would apparently be dealing with a no-games condition, because something is talking to the preclear. But remember that the preclear is making something talk to him for the first time. The walls are always telling people something, and when walls become warnings and when the various items of the physical universe become associated all under the headings of warnings, then you have a terror stomach. Well the common denominator of a warning is not conditional actually, it is a warning about change of position. What has deteriorated in the preclear is the ability to differentiate messages so that all messages mean “Go to , don’t go to____’ stay in , and don’t stay in .” The process runs out, in essence, the bad 8-C of the universe and you just turn it into good 8-C.

When running the process, ask the preclear if he is putting the postulate behind the wall, in the wall, just ahead of the wall, ask him how it is going now, what is the progress of the various points, how much space is the postulate occupying now, has he any inclination to put the postulate into the whole building, or compulsion to do this or that, and so on. You just go on policing it you see, but don’t slow it down with too much policing because this process is a quantity process—unlike almost any other process we have—it’s very low scale and so is quantitative, i.e. how many times he gets it into the wall. So you want him to do as many of these commands as possible.

Now the reason I bring up this process is to acquaint you with it and also because it is so wonderfully illustrative of the relationship between aberration and learning rate, a subject which I will be continuing in another PAB.

L. RON HUBBARD

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 MARCH 1957

COPIES TO:
Director Of Training
Indoc Instructor
Asst Indoc Instructor
HCO—LONDON

GOAL OF INDOCTRINATION COURSE



1. To give new student a reality on Scientology.

(No matter what this takes- should include a couple hours professional auditing.)

2. The Communication formula.

3. The Positions of Auditing.

4. The Communication formula used in the positions of auditing. Theoretical Material taught. The Codes of Scientology.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:rds jh




LRH TAPE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
1—15 March 1957


** 5703C01 17ACC-5 Problems: Their Handling and Running
5703C01 17ACC Problems of Comparable Magnitude
(could be same tape as above)
** 5703C04 17ACC-6 Control
** 5703C05 17ACC-7 The Scale of Techniques
5703C06 17ACC-8 Reaching the Lowest Possible Level
5703C07 17ACC-9 “Ought to Be”
** 5703C10 17ACC-10 Valences
** 5703C11 17ACC-11 Summary of Techniques
5703C11 17ACC-11A Comments and Question-and-Answer Period
5703C12 17ACC-12 Survival
5703C12 17ACC-12A Question-and-Answer Session on Lecture
** 5703C13 17ACC-13 Techniques in Practice
5703C14 17ACC-14 A Summary of an Intensive
** 5703C15 17ACC-15 Exact Control

P.A.B. No. 108
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 March 1957

LEARNING RATE
(Part 1 )


This is one of the more important things with which we have to do. Scientology has always been the science of knowing how to know. With some diffidence I tell you it is also the basic science of education. Education happens to be just one part of a large whole. Education is seldom creative and is, therefore, just a middle ground of activity. Getting people to know something rather than getting people to invent something to know, you will see are quite different. In Scientology itself, however, we engage in a great number of educational activities and just for that reason alone you should understand education.

Education really takes off from a series of basics which we have a good grip on, and nobody ever knew where education took off from before. Well, it takes off from Scientology. This is factually true: nobody ever before had these basics. It is quite amazing. If you asked an educator about these things—on how you taught people and so forth—he would be flabbergasted. Some of his ideas are interesting and complicated enough to be fascinating, but they are not sufficiently effective. In order to educate somebody you had to know what the mind was all about, and unless you knew the nearly total anatomy of the mind you could not hope then to do much educating, and the educational world did not know the anatomy of the mind and so they didn’t do much educating. That is the simple background of the situation. But the funny part of it is, that if you tell an educator some of the basics of education he will agree with you all the time. He knew these things all the time, he will tell you, but a little conversation will show you that these things are not aligned properly and are tied up with all sorts of extraneous data and that he has no idea of relative importance of the various data, both pertinent and extraneous. He could not evaluate for you the data you have fed him, but would be in such total agreement with the basics that you feel that he would be rather apt to go anaten, stagger, yawn, etc., but he would know for sure that he had met someone who could tell him about his business.

If you know about the mind you can educate a mind. This is certain and quite true. Now here is the coordination: You have a wall say to yourself, “This means go to_____.” What are you actually doing? You are really running out the total significance of a wall. You are evidently doing about half a hundred different things while doing this process. If you listed the things which make this process work you would be likely to have a couple of sheets of foolscap. But let us take one of them here and let us see how walls are always teaching you something, how fire plugs are always teaching you something, and how grass is always teaching you something, etc. The least that a wall teaches you is that it is a wall. Now when you ask a preclear to walk over and touch that wall as in Step A of 8-C, he finally finds out that there is a wall there, which is the goal of the process. Now what is this but learning that he has a wall there?


Copyright (©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Now process lag and learning lag would be the same thing for these purposes. It takes him this long to find out there is a wall. You will understand that the wall gets more solid to the preclear and a lot of other parts of Scientology immediately accrue that are off the subject of learning rate, but we are just taking up this one thing. We call this thing a learning lag. A learning lag is how long it takes the wall to get the message through to the preclear. Well, it takes as long as the preclear is in a high unknowing games condition. High unknown games condition is “no effect on self and effect on other things,” and yet his ability in the universe depends upon his differentiation amongst objects. For the wall says to him “This is a wall,” but because there can be no effect on self in a very obsessive way, the wall saying to him “This is a wall” means of course “This is a hospital spittoon.” No differentiation in perception. This is sometimes quite evident in a sudden exteriorization because of a loss of havingness which occurs at that time.

It is not that his MEST body is what gives him perception—this is not true—but the havingness of the MEST body makes his perception possible. You reduce his havingness by exteriorizing him suddenly and his perception goes by the board and of course he goes downscale, and LOOK is way up there at the top of the Know to Mystery Scale just below KNOW and you drop him down the scale to NO-LOOK, and sometimes in a sudden exteriorization you may drop him down to a delusory look. They not only don’t see what is there, they see something that is not there. Well what is this in essence but an inability to perceive, which is an inability to learn?

Suddenly exteriorized, with havingness dropped, they look at the ceiling and it is the same ceiling they were looking at a moment before with their MEST body’s eyes. But it is now a hospital ceiling. Well some via is occurring between themselves and the lesson the ceiling is trying to give them, and that lesson is “This is a ceiling.” They don’t perceive that, they perceive a “better” lesson. What do we mean by a “better” lesson? We mean a more convincing one. The hospital ceiling was a far better lesson, it was much more convincing. It was saying “This is a ceiling” to somebody who was so anaten and fogged out that he just could not resist learning that lesson or differentiate, and so the hospital ceiling kept saying to a person in this condition “This is a ceiling” until it became all possible ceilings. The moment you reduce his havingness he drops in tone and picks up the most dominant lessons.

As we go downscale, then, with a preclear, he can be expected to pick up more and more dominant lessons. And what is aberration? Aberration would simply be a pattern of convictions, and we could say for the purposes of education that aberration is really a series of lessons that were learned too well. For example, a fellow was raised in a tough neighborhood and was taught that the thing to do to get on in life was to bash everybody over the head, and he learnt this lesson very very well. But he never learnt another lesson which was presented to him later in life that the way to get on in life was to be able to live with the people. Therefore, we find that what is wrong with him is a lesson learned too well—a wrong lesson. The schoolboy who studies his lessons very often reads something which is not in the book and learns it much better than what is in the book. This is because we get into alteration and change of location at once. Now a wrong location and a wrong datum are more or less the same thing. When we move data into solids we get the most dominant thing they perceive—location. First we have postulates and then we have located postulates. That is a lower order of postulate, but is still higher than most people’s heads.

We find out, then, that aberration consists of a number of lessons which a person has learned too well. That would be an interesting way to talk about it and would certainly grip the imagination of an educator. But there is something else riding alongside of it which wipes it out as a total explanation, and that is his willingness to learn a wrong lesson and that is his learning lag. Now why is he willing to learn these wrong lessons? He just is. He has decided some time or other without any prompting that this

was the way things were. Now many people, simply by getting into the band of agreement are way up tone scale from where they were before, but remember people can go downscale into agreement too. So the datum is confirmed, he generated it himself, and then it was agreed.

Now and only now do we enter the field we could call learning rate or learning lag, or education. Just for no reason at all, he assumed, for instance, that his mother was a bad woman. He had no reason, he just assumed it—no prenatals in other words. One day he decided she was a beast and went along playing the game that he was a sad little orphan, just out of “thin air,” and then one day (he had been postulating this all the time) she blows up which she never did before and does something dreadful to him like sending him to bed without supper, or issuing threats, etc., and this confirms his assumed belief. Now take the reversal that he has postulated his mother as an angel and all of a sudden she turns and becomes a drunkard, etc. He is then always trying to convince people that she is a good woman and yet he knows that she is a bad one. Then one day he gives up entirely and he now has another conviction, only he didn’t generate this conviction, it was exterior to him.

Now one of the fondest things that your preclear thinks is that he caused everything everywhere but he covers this up and advertises to one and all, including himself, that he is not responsible for anything that ever happened to him. Now this is quite remarkable, because it is a complete reversal. In advertising that he is totally irresponsible he yet really believes that he basically caused everything. Now you know from old-time Ownership Processing that if you misown something it gets very real and solid-so at least 50% of the things that happened to him have been from exterior sources. If they are in restimulation they are the things that didn’t happen to him, you see, and the things that did happen to him are misowned the other way. He is misowning both ways. He says he caused something but this was really caused by someone else if it is in heavy restimulation. In other words, there are other things that work in the universe besides the preclear. He not only has to discover that he exists but that other things exist too.

The random factors in a case lead us, then, to conclude that the premises of education and conviction only go for a short distance. They go up to self-generated data, and that’s quite a way, but it doesn’t take us the whole distance. Therefore, handle this thing as far as it goes—handle the premise of learning rate and lag and other material of this character just as far as it goes. It is terribly effective as far as it goes—it is so effective that you are likely to go completely overboard and then wonder what happened—but what happened is that you moved out of that range into the range of self-generated non-caused attitudes. Non-caused attitudes are undone by communication, so we find communication vastly superior to education. Communication will always undo education, but it has to be terrible communication to do nothing but fix ideas.

What do we have in terms of processes here? Well, we have a lot of processes. I am not trying to give you anything but a decent resume here of the exact place something occupies before I tell you about it, because this is so good you will possibly try to supplant communication with education. You must not do that because self-generated data can supplant education. Now where do we go, then, with this thing called education, learning rate, learning lag and so forth? Well, let us become glib—not me, but all of us-with regard to such a thing as industry and learning rate. We will take that up in the next PAB.

L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 109
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication In Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 April 1957

LEARNING RATE
(Part 2)


To continue with how we use this factor of learning rate and learning lag and so forth. You can interest an industrialist by telling him that it is learning rate that is impeding his own operation. How many instructions has he put out that have not been followed? You can say that these people really do want to cooperate with him but that the learning rate is so poor that these people cannot absorb the instructions. This is the stable datum—something he will understand—a better stable datum than anyone else will ever give him. “Labor is all bad” is the usual stable datum given to him. You will explain to him the trouble with his executives and foremen, etc., the reason why his production curve is down, or his machinery busted up, etc., is entirely because the learning rate varies from person to person. You can remind him of the stupid child and the bright child in the same classroom—one child doesn’t learn as much as the other simply because it takes one child too long to learn what the other child learns rapidly. But it is learning rate; it isn’t learning quantity. Now you get very technical at this point and explain the difference between these two children is the learning rate.

Do not go into quantity—but he will assume at once that the length of time it takes somebody to learn something establishes then how much he knows. That is not quite true, but it is awfully convincing. You can say to him, “Now actually there are not thirty people, Mr. Industrialist, in the thousands in your plant, who are really the cause of your labor difficulties. Certainly not more than thirty. These people are against you because they don’t know you.” Immediately he will say, “That is so true.” You continue, “They don’t know you because their learning rate is so poor that they have no idea what you are trying to do or what you want them to do. They are merely in revolt and they don’t know against what.” This will make sense to the industrialist. You tell him, “Now, I could pick these people out with the greatest of ease.” You could do this through the use of Personality Analysis tests which should make it quite clear to you, and he could check these against their service records, and you can be quite sure that the records would agree with your analysis. He will wonder how you could establish their learning rate so rapidly when you didn’t even talk to these people. Just use “learning rate” as a substitute conversationally for aberration, comm lag, etc., and it translates. So we are in communication with him even if it is a bit of a stretch. We are in communication.

I’ll give you an example. A stupid judge is one who can’t learn the rights and wrongs, the in’s and out’s, from the witnesses, and all the attorneys will tell you at once that this man is a stupid judge because his decisions are incorrect. But sometimes they take a person who is simply a stupid judge and they say he is a vicious judge, but actually you could say his difficulty in learning is so great that he becomes emotionally disturbed at the thought of learning and therefore exerts punishment in revenge on the


Copyright (©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

people who have brought this torture upon him. His learning faculties are so poor that it becomes painful for him to learn.

You see how you could just talk to somebody and without accusing anybody of being insane or aberrated, etc., you could probably sell him processing for the whole of his executive and foremen levels of his staff to increase their learning rate. And the reason for this? So that his postulates will stick; that is, what he can see will happen. But this is not what you do.

At this point, you have a point of agreement and you as a Scientologist take departure from it. You have made a point of agreement that it is learning rate and learning lag that causes randomity on his communication lines. You can tell him this and convince him because it is almost true, and it is certainly true within the realm of his experience. But you, in actually processing people, depart from it. You’re not interested exclusively in the employer’s postulates sticking. You’re not interested at all in this. You are interested in giving the person determinism over data. You’re not interested in a person’s learning rate really, but in his power of choice to establish or review the importance of data. This is what you re-establish with the person. You don’t teach him, then, to get into a state of hypnotic impulse; you teach him power of choice over data, and only then will the data become of use to him, and then only can he become social in his behavior.

The answer to the question is in total disagreement with the industrialist’s modus operandi. It is not in agreement at all. I have talked to some of these boys within the last year, and it is quite interesting that the moment I started to establish the fluidity and the right to think for labor, the right to live, and the right to be for labor, we were talking on different planets, and this is the secret of their failure. If their system of money control was a successful system there would be more of it today than there is, and it would be an increasing system, and it is not. It is a decreasing system. They must have a short glance at something, but you’re not going to involve yourself with this short glance. Management will buy learning rate completely. They will buy this whole thing because they themselves cannot face communication, but they can face learning. Communication is too high for them, and we have tried to sell them this for several years. It is too high for them because you are trying to make them face a Static. They will not do this, but they will, however, face learning rate.

So what do you tell them, knowing this full well? You say you are going to increase the learning rate of their staff members. You don’t discuss technically how you do it. You just give him wonderful examples, e.g., ask how long it takes a person to learn to use one of his machines well. He may say it needs an apprenticeship of five years. Then you can reply, what a long time, obviously due to the very slow learning rate. Then ask him, how does he know the man can really run the machine—ask him about his repair and maintenance bill. You can tell him that certainly, he, personally, knows about these machines, but that is why he is sitting at the top in an administrative post. But what about these other people? How does he know that they know?

Take the junior executive who is not very effective, doesn’t get things done. His learning rate is so poor that he doesn’t understand what his employer wants done. It could be that he is very willing to do anything for him, but he never finds out what. Now let’s have a conference with this employee and see if this is the case. And sure enough, it always is the case. If you’re dealing with somebody who can’t get things done, you are for sure dealing with someone who cannot absorb data. And you just prove it by getting into communication without mentioning communication. You will talk about learning rate and learning lag. I’ve tried this out and found that you can do wonders with it in ordinary conversation.

The definition of you, as a Scientologist, in such a circumstance would be someone who decreases the learning lag of people—increases their speed of assimilation of

data. This is how you could describe your job. You can talk about reaction time and the vast amount of data that the environment demands of people, etc. Take a professional football team; one of the most difficult things here is that they have to learn new plays all the time. What if they have a good player who cannot learn new plays and always uses the old ones? That is where they lose their games. Well, what do we do? We speed up the ability of learning new plays. Now you can really start to get technical. You have some agreement here, your listener has not yet begun to suspect that you can do something for him, but that will be a matter of just a short time.

Learning rate is important to the truck driver. He has to learn that there is a truck in front of him on the road before he can put his brakes on. Now, suppose it takes him a long time to learn this—he has a wreck. So people with low learning rates are accident prone. Your job as a Scientologist is to make sure that people have fast reaction time by increasing their learning rate. But do not forget that this is purely a method of obtaining agreement and introducing your subject—it is not an end in itself.

This occupies a fairly interesting section in Scientology, but its accomplishment is not effected by direct drill. This is never done. Why did it take people nine months to learn to recognize an aircraft in 1/1 25th of a second on the aircraft recognition courses? Because it was done by drill and the recognition officer very, very often was not so good at recognizing planes. But increasing learning rate by drill, etc., usually only increases familiarity and automaticity.

Learning rate governs reading time. There are many systems which speed up your reading time, but the practice of reading or the practice of acting simply increases the familiarity with what you are doing to a point where you can neglect it, and that is never the goal of a Scientologist. His goal is not to get something more automatic, his goal is to establish or re-establish power of choice over data.

A totally fixed datum is in the past. Where would a person have to go to recover it? In the past, of course. A person, to stay in present time, has to have all his data in a relatively fluid condition, so the re-establishment of the power of choice over data—to be able to accept it or reject it at will—comes first, and the whole process of increasing learning rate, which is a secondary thing, is the process of recovering power of choice over data.

All education is trying to do is fix data and all Scientology is trying to do is fix or unfix it at will. This is what a Scientologist is doing and that is the goal of the processes used, and incidentally, they are the only things that will increase learning rate and cut down learning lag and increase reaction time, etc.

But the final product in the framework of the society itself is actually coming from something else than the society believes it is coming from. Now anybody will happily let you come in and teach or process a person as much as you please about his job if they think this is the drill to increase his learning rate, and so you have freedom to process people. But what you are doing, is re-establishing his power of choice over the data he has. He always then winds up knowing more about it, and his learning rate depends upon that power of choice to fix or unfix data at will, and some processes which I will be giving you in future PABs will be aimed at doing this very precisely.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W. 1
Phone: LANgham 3601

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 APRIL 1957



GROUP AUDITlNG


Group Auditing is as effective as we can continue control over the group. As therapeutic as the control can be bettered.

Control can be of attention, person (body) and thinkingness. Should any of these break down, auditing value stops.

Attention is easiest—thinkingness is hardest.

Order of control factors available to the auditor, group or individual auditor, are:

1. ATTENTION
2. PERSON
3. THINKINGNESS.

Thus the group auditor has only available to him in any group which contains new or unclear people

1. ATTENTION
2. PERSON.

Thus we see at once that a significance process or any process aimed at thinkingness in a new or rugged group or one which contains any rough case must NOT BE run.

Let’s audit the WHOLE group always, not just the disciplined ones. So we must delete all thinkingness processes from group auditing—and that is quite a trick.

Model Processes in order.

1. “Look at (indicated wall, etc).”

2. “Take your right hand and touch your head (chair, right foot, left hand, etc).”

3. “Feel your chair,” “Look at the front wall.” Run one command then the other one time each (alternating).

4. Put up two objects, right and left sides of room in view of group. “Look at object one.” “Look at object two.”

5. Hand mimicry mirror image from Group Auditor.

6. Hand each of group an object. Auditor also takes one. Then group is made to do a simple mimicked motion of his object by the auditor. Auditor repeats his motion with the object until WHOLE group has done it right.

7. Group standing mimicking auditor.

8. Verbal mimicry—beware of repeater techniques.

As each one of these could be itself a total of group auditing, the length of time it

is to be run is long. You would be surprised how a group’s interest stays up. (The reason Group Auditors vary commands is they’re afraid interest will flag.)

The institution of the Assistant Group Auditor must here come into its own. Group chairs are widely spaced so the Assistant Group Auditor can walk through. Anyone not doing the command is manually guided into doing it (not verbally) by the Assistant Group Auditor.

The auditor asks only “Did he do the command?” not “Did the command have an effect upon his health?” If the former persists, the latter follows.

The use of significance in a command puts thinkingness beyond the auditor’s control. Hence “See that wall, put it there” is wrong with the “put it there”. The pc has to THINK that. The auditor cannot be sure he did and cannot enforce it easily.

All group auditing is done from tone 40.0.

NOTE: I have never written a book about group auditing. Now that we’ve found that from control proceeds communication ability, I can.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jt.rs.nm
Copyright (©) 1957
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


[PAB 114, Croup Processing, 15 June 1957, is taken from this HCO B.]







LRH TAPE LECTURES

Washington, D.C.
19—31 March 1957


5703C19 17ACC-16 Outline of Modern Intensive
** 5703C20 17ACC-17 Games Conditions
** 5703C21 17ACC-18 The Assist
5703C22 17ACC-19 Effect: Axiom 10
5703C25 17ACC-20 The Uses of Control
5703C26 17ACC-21 Rest Points and Confusions
** 5703C27 17ACC-22 Extroversion—Introversion, Its Relationship to
Havingness and Communication
5703C28 17ACC-23 Valences and Control
5703C29 17ACC-24 The Professional Scientologist
5703C31 17ACC-25 Techniques in Practice

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO LONDON BULLETIN OF 9 APRIL 1957


LIST OF “PURPOSES”
as posted on Org Board

Purpose of Organization. To disseminate Scientology. To advance and protect its membership. To hold the lines and data of Scientology clean and clear. To educate and process people toward the goal of a civilized age on Earth second to none. To Survive on all Dynamics.
L. Ron Hubbard. To develop and disseminate Scientology. To support and assist Scientologists. To write better books. To act as a court of appeals in all organizational disputes. To form and to make official policies and orders affecting the FC.
Org Secty. To execute policies and orders. To coordinate organizational activities. To care for legal and public concerns of the organization.
Mary Sue Hubbard. To carry on Scientology. To be certain the organization remains solvent.
Accounting Unit. To expedite, handle and police the financial items from the moment they enter the organizational comm lines to the moment they depart.
HCO. To be the office of LRH. To handle and expedite the comm lines of LRH. To prepare or handle the preparation of all manuscripts and other to-be-published material of Scientology. To keep, use and care for LRH’s office equipment. To assist the organizations of Scientology and their people. To set a good example of efficiency to organizations.
Advisory Council. To advise the executives of the organization as to needed changes and policies. To act as a meeting ground of department heads. To assemble and report the statistics of finance and action to the Exec Dir. To advance ideas for promotion and improvement.
Staff Mtg. To gather agreement and permit staff origination upon matters relating to personnel and duties. To report on performance of duties. To suggest promotional, maintenance and organizational changes to FC executives.
Technical Division: To insure good training and processing, good service and ARC inside and outside the organization.
Administrative Division. To insure good and accurate communication inside the organization. To handle business and administrative affairs. To insure good working quarters and conditions for and good work from organizational personnel.
Academy of Scientology: To train the best auditors in the world.
HGC. To do more for people’s health and ability than has ever before been possible and to give the best auditing possible. To help people.
PE Unit. To make a better worker of the worker, a better executive of the executive, a better Homo Sapiens on all dynamics.
Dept. of Registrar. To communicate what we have to offer to those who care to be better and to help and to respond effectively when they reply.
Secretarial Unit. To expedite the communications of the organization.
Shipping Unit. To swiftly and competently furnish the public with the materials of Scientology.
Maintenance Unit. To maintain suitable quarters, clean and in repair, for the organization.
Indoc Instructor. To give people a reality on Scientology and to teach the communication formula by Dummy Auditing.
HPA Course. To create a competent auditor with a good grasp of theory and practice of Scientology. All 5 levels of indoc.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:-.mek jh
Copyright (©) 1957
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 APRIL 1957




HPA/HCA COURSE CURRICULUM


TO: DIRECTOR OF TRAINING.


The HPA/HCA full Course must teach entirely—

Communication
Control
Havingness

Indoctrination HPA/HCA teaches Communication.

HPA/HCA teaches Control and Havingness.

Indoctrination teaches 1st steps (Dummy Auditing) on communication and a reality on Scientology. Textbooks: Self Analysis and Dianetics ‘55!.

HPA/HCA teaches remaining 4 steps of Indoc. Textbook: Scientology. The Fundamentals of Thought.

FIVE LEVELS OF INDOCTRINATION

1. Dummy Auditing
Communication formula learned old style.

2. 8C
Commands and walkabout with pc learned old style.

3. Hi School Indoc
Co-Auditor basis. If auditor fails to make a command stick he’s done.

4. Tone 40.0 on an object.

5. Tone 40.0 8c on a person.
Upper Hi School Indoc (Hi Hi Indoc). Co-Auditor basis. If auditor
mentions or acknowledges anything but commands he’s dead!

The Procedure taught on HPA/HCA Course is PROCEDURE CCH.


L. RON HUBBARD





LRH:rs.nm
11.4.57

LONDON CONGRESS ON NUCLEAR RADIATION AND HEALTH LECTURES

London, England
12—15 April 1957


The London Congress on Nuclear Radiation and Health met at the Royal Empire Society Hall in London, Friday, April 12th, through Monday, April 15th, 1957. L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures covering the latest advances in Scientology, as well as nuclear radiation and health:


** 5704C12 LCNRH-1 Control, Communication and Havingness—I
5704C12 LCNRH-2 Control, Communication and Havingness—ll
5704C12 LCNRH -3 Control Processes
5704C12 LCNRH-4 Demonstration “Dr. Ash”
5704C12 LCNRH-4A Havingness
5704C12 LCNRH-4B Flying Saucers
5704C13 LCNRH-5 Radiation and the Scientologist
5704C13 LCNRH-6 Radiation in Peace
5704C13 LCNRH-7 Radiation in War
5704C13 LCNRH-8 Group Processing: Emphasis on Control
5704C13 LCNRH-9 Group Processing: Emphasis on Control (cont.)
** 5704C14 LCNRH-10 The Reality Scale and the Effect Scale
5704C14 LCNRH-11 The Reality Scale and the Effect Scale (cont.)
5704C14 LCNRH-12 Scientology and Children
5704C14 LCNRH-15 Group Processing—”Sit in your chair, Wear a
Head, Have two feet, etc.”
5704C14 LCNRH-16 On Auditing
5704C15 LCNRH-17 The Control of Hysteria
5704C15 LCNRH-18 Effective Dissemination


Note: Lectures 13 and 14 were given by speakers other than L. Ron Hubbard.

P.A.B. No. 110
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 April 1957

EDUCATION

Education—point of agreement.

The learning processes are all of them extremely interesting to the auditor because they bring to his attention at once that the common denominator of communication and aberration is at once “telling somebody something.” You say to somebody “hello”-you mean in essence “I am here, you are there and I recognize it.” It’s the relay of an idea. Well, now, learning itself has been, for I don’t know how long, very compartmented, it’s been very carefully grooved, so that learning as we speak of it then prior to 1956 meant what they meant in school—and that was “the inflow of ideas.”

Now when you speak to somebody out in the public about learning he thinks you’re talking about inflow of ideas, from some source or another either from a book or a teacher. That is a very narrow look, and when I talked to you about this before I was using learning in that definition—an inflow of ideas.

It is not true that learning rate or the rate one will permit ideas to inflow is the common denominator of aberration or anything else, but it looks like it. The truth of the matter is, if you only considered inflow it would be like considering the motivator without the overt act. Now you know as an auditor how important it is to look at the overt act rather than the motivator. Don’t look at these inflows all the time. If you continue to look at these inflows and nothing but these inflows you will make as many mistakes as have been made in the past umpteen thousands of years in the field of education; and let’s not make these mistakes all over again.

Education could have been defined this way: “Education is the process of placing data in the recalls of another.” Do you see that? That’s what education thought it was doing. It thought it was placing ideas in the recalls of another and making a recall possible by somebody else of data related to him. Now that’s not very complicated, and that is the trouble with it: it is not complicated enough for educators. Now we deal with simplicities and this is the first time we really find fault on the line of simplicity—it’s an idiot’s definition—and that’s the process that is being carried on at this moment at Yale, Princeton, Harvard and Columbia; down here at George Washington, at Oxford, Cambridge and the Sorbonne—any place across the world at which they consider themselves tops in education—they are placing ideas in the recall of others.

A few schools departed from this from time to time, almost by accident, and usually under duress from their student bodies. Heidelberg is an example of this. Heidelberg never considered the relay of ideas important; it considered having been to Heidelberg important, and that was quite different.

As long as we maintain this idea of “inflow only” we are in trouble. Education does not happen. If education means inflowing ideas then you are also talking about hypnotism. You see, there’s no differentiation there; we are talking about beating

Copyright (©)1957
by L. Ron Hubbard.
All Rights Reserved.

somebody up and laying in an engram. This too would be education, wouldn’t it? So we have education and aberration very, very closely associated.

In fact, education WAS aberration. Life was busy teaching somebody a lesson and the lesson it succeeded in teaching him was not to do any more living. And that little lesson, then, was always at the base of education and it was done so that education itself could be considered aberration. In other words educational systems did the lazy thing, they did the easy thing: they simply paralleled the game of the MEST universe in teaching somebody not to live, and living paralleled it. Why, they then thought they were doing a good job. But let’s look at education as it was done. You taught somebody something by saying “Pigs have snouts.” They’re not supposed to say “Yes,” the classroom is supposed to be quiet. Later on you put an examination in front of them and it says: “What do have?” and they’re supposed to immediately answer and write: “ have snouts.” You’re supposed to be able to associate this completely. So it’s just a test of recall.

Now as you know, therapeutically, recalls—and by the way, if you don’t know this try it some time: just sit and ask somebody to recall something about some person and do nothing but that and notice that you get a decline of case. That’s an interesting thing. You had to use the whole of the ARC formula, something really real, some time you were in communication with, and the reverse side of it too—in other words, the entirety of the straight-wire formula, inflow and outflow—to get away with it. But if you just asked somebody to remember something about George, remember something else about George, remember something else about George—if you asked him what he was doing, he’s picking up every moment he ever saw George motionless. This erases, you see, all the rest points of George and leaves nothing but the confusions and the halfway feeling that George is there, so we sort of move George as a disembodied entity into present time and confirm the valence. Now this is quite a trick, but you just knock these rest points out and George becomes a confusion. Therefore, nothing but recall used therapeutically and educationally would wind somebody up in rather a confused state. He would be sort of half hypnotized, just nothing but recalls. So if you give people data like “Pigs have snouts” and then ask them “What has a snout?” or “What has a ?” you have given them a stable datum and now you’re taking it away from them.

You might look up some time a university record as to suicide and nervous breakdown; such a record is honestly kept, I know. I did this once and I had a lot of trouble. I wanted to know how many students had committed suicide in that university and they wouldn’t own up to it, but I found out there had been quite a few and there’d been a great many nervous breakdowns, all at examination time. They spend the whole semester giving somebody some stable data and then at examination time they take that all away suddenly. In other words, simply implanting the recall and then pulling it back out again has been defined as education; but it is nothing but a black operation—nothing but. To do this to little kids is to do away with their initiative; therefore a time for revolution in the field of education is definitely at hand.

Education would have to be defined much more broadly. But remember in the old logics about action definitions. Well, you’d have to give it an action definition; it would have to be a real definition that gave its use and a purpose for it, to be of any kind of a game itself. The reason why teachers go into a no-game condition is because teaching itself is not really a game. It is putting a bunch of other people in a no-game condition, and of course that’s only part of a game. To teach a subject it would be necessary for the person being taught to be able to receive a non-significant, disrelated idea from another person. You see, that would be a necessity in order to teach somebody something.

The next condition that we would have to meet would be making certain that person could maintain his power of choice over the data given to him. So we would

give him some data which were incorrect, and giving him these incorrect data we would find out if he could remember them and if he could reject them. The idea of being able to reject a datum and still remember it, to know that it’s untrue and non-factual and still be able to recall it, is of course bettered by a further action: being able to wipe it out completely or not even recall it; and that is a skill.

The next thing would be to feed him a datum, have him give objective examples and active examples of this datum so that it’s not then just a string of words, and then ascertain whether or not he could still reject it or accept it and then ask him to rephrase it, and eventually he will form something which will to him be an agreeable stable datum, and having done this we would then have accomplished power of choice over a datum. To get him to remember or repeat a non-significant datum would be the longest haul at first, and you may find people who have a terribly long haul on the subject of incorrect data. You give him an incorrect datum and he can’t reject it, but when you have made that possible you can then give him a datum, have him give objective examples of the datum, have him rephrase it, give objective examples of his datum, accept it, reject it, handle it, throw it around, and the next thing you know he has something which will buff the entirety of confusion surrounding that subject. You have created there something which is armor plate as far as he is concerned. He KNOWS a datum. Now he doesn’t KNOW it as recall; that’s the trick, you see. This is entirely different.

Now it’s hard to describe how he knows it, because there’s nothing there to describe except the datum itself, so to write long chapters on this new type of knowingness would be an impossibility—it’s something that is experienced, it easily goes on beyond the field of description.

All right, let’s take a look then at education and find out why you would do this that way—rather than to just place something in somebody’s recalls, to have him really know it as a datum. Why would you do this? Would there be any sense in this at all? Well, yes, there certainly would be. The individual would be able to USE that datum. He would be able to evaluate its importance, he would be able to handle it and handle with it many other things. In other words you have given him something for his utilization.

Now I want to tell you a little difference in the field of education itself. The stress of “teaching” in a modern school today is this: “How to occupy the child’s time.” That’s right—that’s what they teach in modern training schools. Great stress is put on this; you have a child just so long, he has to be taken out of his home for that length of time, you have to keep him occupied in school and that’s just about it, and you wonder why a child of twelve or thirteen doesn’t really know how to spell, his penmanship is poor, his reading is worse, and so on—that’s because a different thing has come into view. Now this is not the tradition of the little red schoolhouse of song and storybook through the generations. There was another tradition in this country, and I don’t know where the tradition I have just described came from, but this other tradition was the American tradition and it went like this: You had to get ‘em and put some shoes on ‘em in a hurry and teach ‘em readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmetic as fast as you could because they weren’t going to be in school very long, and the teacher who was put through normal school, so called, a hundred years ago was taught that. You have got to be fast, you never know when papa’s going to take him out and put him behind the plough. Give him some education before it happens to him. You probably will get them in the winter months when there’s not much work to do, but in the summer you’re never going to get them. Hence the summer vacation.

Of course, the child loves this idea; he doesn’t have too much sympathy with education in the most part, as it is performed; but if school really educated him I’m afraid you’d have an entirely different attitude on the part of the child. Now I have been very fortunate to know in my life quite a few real geniuses—fellows that really

wrote their name fairly large in the world of literature and science—and I consider myself very fortunate to have known them because they are so rare. Why are they so rare? I found something peculiar about these fellows—they were for the most part taught in peculiar schools! They were taught in some YMCA school or they were taught by some Englishman who ran a little college for difficult children in the street; they were all taught—it seems—in some kind of off-breed school. Now this is peculiar, because the school existed to a large measure to take care of people who were slopovers from the usual educational system—there wasn’t very much education involved. The fellow would come in and he’d be interested in something and therefore they had the master give him his head. One chap by the way, who gave us solid fuel, rockets and assist take-offs for airplanes too heavily loaded on aircraft carriers, and all the rest of this rocketry panorama, and who formed Aerojet in California and so on. The late Jack Parsons, by the way, was not a chemist the way we think of chemists. He was not taught in the field of chemistry beyond this fact: There was a little professor who opened up a school. Nobody could do anything with Jack so they sent him over to this school and the professor found out he was interested in chemical experiments and turned him loose in the laboratory and gave him a lot of encouragement. He eventually became quite a man. It is interesting that this completely sloppy type of education is apparently quite workable.

Here are some LEARNING PROCESSES. Try them out and see the difference between KNOWING a datum and knowing it as a recall.

1. Learning Process No. 1:

(Flatten each part thoroughly before going to next.)
(a) Give pc 3 numbers. Have him repeat. See if he remembered. Repeat this process.
(b) Give him incorrect datum. Have him repeat it. Discover if he could remember it. Discover if he could reject it. Repeat this process.
(c) Give him vital datum (concerning rudiments of auditing in the case of a Scientologist, for example). See if he can repeat it. See if he can rephrase it. Have him give objective examples. See if he can reject it. Repeat this process.

2. Learning Process No. 2:

(a) Discover things Auditor and pc can agree on in vicinity.
(b) Feed pc vital data (Scientology and rudiments, for example). Get him to give objective examples, rephrase and reject and accept.

3. Learning Process No. 3:

Have pc discover unimportant data in environment.

4. Assigning Identity:

This is a Walkabout, inside and outside.
Commands: “Look around here and find something you could have,” “For what is it used?” (or “What is it called?”), “Could you invent another use (name) for it?”

5. Objective Forgettingness:

This is a Not-Know Process. It is another Walkabout.
Commands: “Look around here and find something it would be all right to forget (or not-know).”

If these five processes are flattened early in the week, note the changes, repeat, and effect further changes.

L. RON HUBBARD


Issue 45 [1957, ca. mid-April]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



Today’s Riches in Scientology


L. Ron Hubbard



Today, we have something here.

To apologize to anyone for any fumbling I may have done in a line of research which Man has consistently muffed for the past 50,000 years is unthinkable, since at any given moment we have had more progress than has before been attained. This is not a light statement nor lightly made, for today’s results can vouchsafe for anyone the truth of these words.

As every Dianeticist knows, we have since the beginning had the foremost clue to the condition of the mind and the aberrated state of individuals or groups. The mental image picture, carrying a record of the past which could be restimulated and thus made to react against the body was, one might say, our entrance point into the solution of the subject of the human mind and beingness.

Following from there, it was necessary to isolate any and all important parts of the human mental anatomy, and to bring about an understanding of any vagaries or wild variables which might occur.

It was important, further, to establish whether or not it was thinkingness or mechanics which gave us the best exit route from the involvement of life which we found beyond our control. The decision was finally made and proved that it was the mechanics of the mental image picture rather than the significance in the mental image picture which best surrendered to our efforts. Handling the mechanics made it possible to resolve the significances, and even though the significances were the greatest difficulty from the viewpoint of a human being, it was found that adequate handling of the mechanics eradicated the villainy of the significances.

An astonishing number of characteristics and potential abilities were unearthed in this course of study, and it was a difficult task which had to be painstakingly done to isolate the most important.

It will be discovered in any other activity or line of endeavor that the Prelogics of Dianetics are missing from that course of study. Therefore the Prelogics themselves have given us our course and have taught us which way to go in our courses of investigation. Thus it will be discovered that the work of many failed to stress the greatest importance, but gave us a rather aesthetic view of a great many facts, all of which were true but none of which were sufficiently isolated to undo the riddle of existence. Taking older works, one can find in them, here and there, bits of Dianetics


Copyright (©)1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

and Scientology, but a careful study of them reveals that at no point does one of these factors have greater stress than another factor. This single difference must be understood, otherwise our people will continue to study and search in ancient texts, and these have in common the frailty of failing to stress the importance of various truths, even though they give us a great many truths, many of which we have regained today. Unless this is clearly appreciated, then the value of Dianetics and Scientology cannot be entirely experienced, for one is continually chasing down corridors where all pillars are like all pillars, and all pillars in the corridor seem equally true. It is not a fact that truths are equal; there are truths which are greater than other truths, and the greatest of the great truths have been isolated in Dianetics and Scientology, even though our answers today seem extremely simple.

Today, once more, the mental image picture has taken its stand as the foremost discovery of Dianetics and Scientology. By the handling of the mental image picture concurrently with the handling of present time, it is possible not only to destimulate the bank in its entirety, but also to bring about a number of abilities by which the individual can recover data of the past much more easily than ever before. This, everyone who has had anything to do with Dianetics will understand, is extremely worthwhile.

We set out, in the beginning, to bring into being a state which we called “clear.” Although this seemed relatively simple in 1947, as the years progressed it became more and more difficult. Just why this was is not clearly understood even today, although it could be said that those people who began to think on this subject reduced their havingness considerably, and we had to do mostly with people who had been thinking on this subject. Therefore, we were starting below the level of case which I had started upon in 1947. We had not yet learned, from ‘47 to ‘56 that significances or thinkingness was not the route. Therefore it was very easy to use these and handle them, and, as a result, to suppress the case level below an easy recovery point. There is no apology in this; it is simply a liability of investigation. That many people were cleared goes without saying, but these unfortunately became more interested in living than processing, in the most part, since none of these had been trained before they were processed. Thus, knowing nothing about the subject, and simply attaining a state which they themselves did not particularly understand, they saw no reason to continue on in our midst. Thus we did not find ourselves surrounded by clears and we ourselves were not clear.

Clearing today, and the attainment of the state of clear, exactly as given in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Chapter II, is once more easily obtainable and is, through what we know today, extremely simple, providing we ourselves do not have to be so complicated that we override the goal.

Today a procedure exists which is known as Procedure CCH. This stands for Communication, Control and Havingness. This procedure is used directly toward the accomplishment of a technique known as “Then and Now Solids.”

The auditing of this particular procedure is much more difficult and much more exacting than any auditing which has ever been attempted. The precision of the results is attained only by a precision of application. Therefore, it is unfortunately rather necessary that auditors be trained, not indifferently by someone who “knows all about the subject,” but in a regimented course of study, by which-the individual can himself attain sufficient subjective reality upon the techniques to follow them along and to be able to predict what is happening with the preclear. Thus the auditor today should have training. Fortunately, the many past years have given us techniques and technologies for training which bring us to an achievement of our goal in training rather easily. We can, today, make a very excellent auditor in only eight weeks. This in itself is news, and is very worthy of comment amongst the great number of advances which

we have made. As a matter of fact, we could probably make a very good almost anything in six or eight weeks today, since we have unearthed and put to use the technologies of training itself.

Then and Now Solids is not attainable by many preclears on a straight route. It is evidently necessary to carry through a very precise series of exercises to better his abilities up to a point where he can accomplish the technique. Then and Now Solids is not susceptible of being run, unfortunately, by a large percentage of the cases to which it is addressed until certain preparatory steps are accomplished. These preparatory steps are not difficult, and are the stepping stones toward these greater abilities. The steps themselves are apparently complete, and anyone who is faintly conscious can be pulled forward up to an ability to do Then and Now Solids through a series of gradients.

Then and Now Solids consists exactly of making the preclear capable not only of contacting and handling present time, but also any segment of the past.

Evidently we have been under a misapprehension with regard to the character of past and future. The fact of the case is that mental image “pictures” are, in effect, only de-solidified present times. By a sequence of de-solidifying present time, one evidently achieves time. This is a crude and not entirely exact explanation of the matter, but serves us in our processing. It then behooves the individual who wishes to be clear to achieve the ability of creating a present time out of any segment of the past track.

The length of time required in processing today is sufficiently short as to be accomplished in almost any case in under two or three hundred hours. This is a much better look than it has ever had. At any given instant of this processing, the results obtained are superior to those which we have been led to expect by our own experience. Thus, one must realize, when I say two or three hundred hours, that one is in actuality saying two or three hundred hours for a new and heretofore unenvisioned goal. Our ability to process upwards has gone so high that there is no real comparison with what we have done in the past. Furthermore, our ability to reach low has extended sufficiently that we are able to say with some aplomb that we are not balked by states of case. Naturally, the insane pose a problem to us, and always will, but our business is not with this peculiarity of mental mix-up. One of the more heartening factors is that insanity is found to be a highly peculiar form of composition of the mind, and is not an immediate consequence of livingness. To undo insanity, one today has the techniques if he also has the patience. So only insanity itself is set aside in this estimation of two or three hundred hours, since it is true that two or three hundred hours of processing might be found necessary on some insane people simply to bring them up to a rational response to the auditor.

Age also poses some limitation. Not old age, as it has in the past, for this is not today important, but the very young preclear, up to the age of six, seven or eight, will still be found to give the auditor difficulty. The reason for this is the attention factor. This is not the same thing as the attention factor in insanity, but is handled in much the same way. The attention factor of extreme youth has been discovered to be a disorientation factor brought about by the inability to handle the body and the environment, and is not an immediate “natural state.” A child is a thetan in usually rather bad condition. The attention factor has to be widened before much processing can be embarked upon, along a line leading to clear.

We have then achieved our goals in terms of processing. It is necessary now to apply those goals, and in order to apply them it is necessary to learn what there is to know about auditing itself. Today, we can make excellent auditors. We are doing so. We are making auditing training available in any way we can.

We have never been more sincere about our goals, and we have never been more successful in achieving them.

The race with the atomic bomb was, years ago, more or less a method of comparing Dianetics and Scientology to the physical sciences. Today it is a fact and an actuality. The consequences of air pollution and other matters, consequent upon the possession by not too sane governments of weapons of this magnitude, make it incumbent upon us to do our job here and now. It is actually not that we wish to any vast degree to save Earth. As I have said before, it has been saved too many times. But here we have a playing field, we have trained auditors, we have organizations, we have the technologies, and here we can exert a higher self-determinism than ever before. Here we can do the job of Dianetics and Scientology. We have factors in our immediate vicinity seeking to destroy the riches which we have assembled in getting ourselves out of this jackpot. We probably will have to solve the atomic puzzle on the third dynamic if we can hope for much further progress in livingness.

Dianetics and Scientology are today more alive than ever before. We know more, we can do more, we can achieve those things which we set out to do.

Those of us who were basically interested in Dianetics and Scientology for ourselves and others, today must be informed and must understand that whatever vagaries in our career of research and investigation, whatever organizational upsets we may have had, have never at any time been capable of swerving us from our basic goals and our determination to make it this time. We are making it this time. Whatever you wanted out of Dianetics and Scientology is yours today. It is only necessary for you now to reach out your hand in order to achieve it.

May I ask you to extend that hand?

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH TAPE LECTURE

London, England
18 April 1957


5704C18 ATE Auditors’ Training Evening, CCHs

P.A.B. No. 111
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 May 1957

EYESIGHT AND GLASSES

Compiled from ACC tape material of L. Ron Hubbard



It is interesting to know that a thetan doesn’t look through his eyeballs. He has two little gold discs, one in front of each eye lens. These are not the lenses of the eyes, but, as you might say, mocked-up energy. They are little gold discs that are superimposed over the eye and he looks through these. The eyeballs merely serve to locate these discs.

An eyeball isn’t even a good camera. Some people, dissecting eyeballs to find out how people looked with them, have been totally baffled since the first time this was done because it is about the worst camera that anybody ever had anything to do with.

What the ophthalmologist doesn’t know is that the individual looks through these little discs—the ones in front of each eye—and when things begin to deteriorate, or when the anchor points of the body deteriorate, they are liable to follow suit. They become distorted one way or another.

They begin to Q-and-A with the distortions of the eye themselves—the eye reacts to light, so these little golden shields react to light. After a while the little gold shield becomes black or corrodes in some fashion which makes it very difficult to look through.

Of course, we don’t know why he is looking through them in the first place. When they do deteriorate the individual starts wearing glasses. The person thinks this is necessary. The next thing he does is to make the lenses of the glasses stronger.

He puts on a pair of glasses. This is a big shield—a big disc. This disc also goes in front of the eyeball and he knows this and he cannot see things unless he looks through one. The reason why glasses become very difficult in an auditing problem is that one is not auditing glasses.

I have audited glasses, just as an experiment, for a long time. Havingness in terms of glasses, or in terms of eyeballs, does produce some sort of change, but havingness in terms of little golden discs produces an awful alteration in terms of eyesight, sometimes faster than is comfortable.

You can take this old-time effort processing and produce a change of vision with everybody with no permanence, but a fantastic alteration of vision can occur, making somebody very uncomfortable.


Copyright (©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Have the preclear get the effort to see, followed by the effort not to see, followed by the effort to see, one after the other. The next thing you know is that all the little muscles in the eyes will start to Q-and-A with the little golden lenses in front of the eyeballs, which are changing under all this processing, and the next thing you know is that he is seeing double, cross-eyed, or something like that.

Things will turn on with tremendous brilliance as though somebody swung a rheostat-and he will turn it down quickly because that would mean that he would be confronting too much. You should thus change his idea of what he should be able to confront. If you change that idea, he will then adjust the machinery of sight. But if you attack the machinery of sight directly, you are just forcing him to confront and you get this phenomenon of a person turning up his vision and turning it down again at once.

You get the person capable of being able to get beautiful scenes and visio in the bank and then going totally black. You get a person cleared up tonight and tomorrow morning he is a psychotic wreck. That is all under the heading of HAVINGNESS and CONFRONTINGNESS. When you remedy havingness and confrontingness, he will remedy the rest of it.

There is no reason why a thetan couldn’t stand in the middle of the room and look at everything just as clear and flat and hard as it ever was. He doesn’t need any mechanics. He certainly has to be able to be it, and have it. In other words, he has to be able to occupy the middle of something, and he has to be able to do a lot of things before he can even see something. But all of these things adjust on straight havingness.

Havingness will change vision and special perception. That is something nobody can argue with, but the whole problem of glasses is the problem of confronting.

I once had a bomb go off in my face with some authority some time or another, because I was standing in a place where I shouldn’t have been standing at all, a total miscalculation on my part. The startlement that I could miscalculate to this degree did me in. After that I couldn’t see. Finally my eyesight turned on a bit and got way up to 3120, 4/20—that in the Service is “what wall?” I was doing combat service and navigation and every other thing I was supposed to do, with that kind of eyesight, clear through until 1946. After the war was over I was still wearing black glasses. I was trying to write books, and “what piece of paper” in “what typewriter.”

My instincts are very good and I was perceptive enough and wasn’t unwilling to confront things to such a degree that I ran into doors or did embarrassing things, but I was rather upset because my marksmanship was way off. I shot too many bullets into too many forbidden directions, I guess, or something of the sort—that used to be a great hobby of mine.

So I wore glasses, contact lenses, trying to increase my vision. I found out that vision increased only when you diminutivized the subjects you were looking at. In other words, the more powerful the glasses become, the smaller they make the objects you look at appear. Think that over for a moment in terms of confrontingness and it will amuse you. Of course, the world isn’t quite as formidable if it gets that small.

A very high-powered pair of glasses reduces the size of the face you are looking at by about half. People who are wearing glasses are very often not aware of this. But if you put a new pair of glasses on somebody’s nose and put him in a car and tell him to drive, he does some of the most fantastic things. In other words, confrontingness is altered by glasses. I don’t know that sight or lines or clarity of vision is altered, but certainly confrontingness is altered by a pair of lenses.

The moment I found that out, I was vastly amused because I didn’t want things to be that small, and my eyes were simply recovering from having been torn up, which was an interesting state of affairs. I got some processing, ran out a lot of these things, and my eyes came back up and flickered all over the place—they got anywhere from 15/20 to 25/20, which means they were above normal sometimes and way below normal at other intervals. I found one day whilst reading a report that I couldn’t make out anything. The printing was all blurry and going askew. There were ghost letters riding above every line and I just couldn’t make head or tail of the report. I was thinking that I’d better use a monocle or a magnifying glass. I suddenly realized that I was reading an AMA report with a total unwillingness to confront it. I threw it aside, picked up a novel and the print was perfect.

So I can sympathize with those who wear glasses because I have been over the jumps. I have been all the way at the bottom of not even being able to find the door, to almost being able to find the door, on up to being able to find two doors.

Where is the havingness of the person located in terms of the body? A scholar has a fixed vision point at a certain distance from his eyes. He has had havingness in that point and then he hasn’t had havingness. If you make somebody “keep a book from going away” at that distance his eyesight will change all over the place. Just have him “open a book and keep it from going away,” “Now leave it uncontrolled,” “Now keep it from going away.” He gets headaches, eyeburn, his eyes practically bleed before you get through because you are restoring the havingness at the exact distance where it was fixed and lost.

You get all sorts of phenomena of this character, but it isn’t really a problem of how good are the optic nerves. Of course, you shove an icepick through a person’s eyes like the psychiatrists do—he is not going to be able to see well because he has already got “now I am not supposed to see with the thing.”

I have an awfully hard time with blind people on this “Now I am supposed to.” I can get them to see, get them to do everything. Then they suddenly realize that they were not supposed to be able to see—and they shut off their sight again, but you process some more, and so on. But any time you have a vagary in the adjustment of sight, it is a vagary in the adjustment of havingness.

There must be something there to observe. The havingness goes by quantity. Don’t get the idea that people are afraid of seeing anything. You’re figuring right along with the type of figure-figure that has never worked for anybody in any time or place. He is just afraid to look at things, so we will take him out and make him confront things. If, by some necromancy, he is able to have that thing or some part of it, then he will be able to see it and will not be afraid of it. If we can get him to confront, then his fears will change. People know this. But this other thing, that people are afraid of things, that they have irrational terrors and all that, is all pretty well resolved on just this one basis. There is something there to confront, then there isn’t anything there to confront. This is a loss of havingness. If their havingness goes down far enough, i.e. their idea of quantity falls far enough out of adjustment, they will begin to detest seeing it. They won’t quite like to see it. Now there can be too much of it or too little of it. In either case the scarcity or importance or responsibility factors alter and they get so that they cannot confront it. They are perfectly willing to listen to a radio, but are they willing to listen to a radio 24 hours a day? They finally say, “This is too much, I cannot confront it,” and they turn off their hearing in some fashion.

You can actually fool your considerations to this degree. You say, “Look at all the books I’ve got to write or read. Look at that—a tremendous number of them there.” You got one little book which is not going to last you two hours. Actually, you

can have much too little to read. It is quite fascinating. The variations in confronting are a tremendous study.

Astigmatism, a distortion of image, is only an anxiety to alter the image. You get an astigmatic condition when a person is trying to work it over into a substitute, if he possibly can. Here again it is a case of not enough—he didn’t have enough.

Some men’s wives just disappear right in front of their faces. Just a black statue will be standing there. That’s visual occlusion, or the woman will disappear entirely. She will have no midriff or something like that. Only they don’t tell anybody about it, for this means, of course, that they are mad—or something wrong there with his havingness of his wife and his willingness to confront or not to confront that girl.

There is another factor that enters in. He would actually be in love with Martha but be married to Jane. So Jane gets blurry because he is trying to see Martha and he will do it on an axis. He will twist all things over.

There is another whole class of sight disabilities which are not allowed by or listed by the bulk of ophthalmologists. These people do not really go in for these things. They say these are bizarre effects and they doubt that anybody really sees them, which is a fascinating way of dodging out from presented phenomena.

A thetan with a buffer in front of him feels that he cannot receive various wavelengths and he knows there are some dangerous ones. He thinks they are dangerous to him and he has a tremendous number of considerations about this.

The considerations are utterly fabulous in quantity concerning the amount of protection one has to have, the conditions under which one can do things. This degenerates to a point where a man can only see well when he is wearing a certain pair of carpet slippers. It can get this far removed—I got this from a writer once—he could only write when he was wearing a certain pair of carpet slippers. I talked this over with him and all of a sudden discovered that he could only see when he was wearing that pair of carpet slippers.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MAY 1957

To All Staff
TRAINING—WHAT IT IS TODAY
HOW WE TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT

In London I made up a chart of training for the Comm Course (former Indoc) and HPA/HCA.

This course is plotted exactly on eight weeks including an intensive by a graduating student upon an incoming student.

The stable datum of all training now is:

“A student is graduated when his training level is such that he could be entrusted with an HGC preclear.”

Thus examination is rendered much easier and stable.

HPA/HCA Training requisites stress:

1. Synopses of all important Dianetic and Scientology Books and a synopsis of tapes heard.

2. Profile student achieved when auditing an incomer.

3. Memorized Axioms.

4. Five levels of Indoc.

5. Long form CCH.

6. Good attendance record.

7. Ability to Group Audit.

8. The Codes down pat.

That is more or less it. The Chart is intensely specific.

Paramount in all our training are:

1. To get our graduating students in good shape; and

2. To make sure our incoming students are given a good week intensive by the graduating student before the newcomer enters Comm Course. Why? Because Comm Course can reduce havingness and we want our new Comm Course student to learn, not agonize.

Training today can be pretty smooth.

But be alert here. We’ve changed type of training from emphasis on Classroom to emphasis on Student. “Academy” means coaching.

In Public representation of Washington and London schools stress that eight weeks of personal individual attention can make a Scientologist and a good one and that this is why the cost is what it is. This training is the best on Earth for living in general as well as doing Scientology. “It’s personal. It’s for you. It’s good. Only those who have it can Survive.”


LRH:md.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright (©) 1957
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 112
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 May 1957





Copyright (©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 17 MAY 1957

cc: Dir of Training
Dir of Processing
Comm Course Instructor
Night HCA Instructor
Org Secretary
HCO Board of Review
Registrar PE Found Instructor
Bulletin Board HCO London—for
distribution there

DEFINITIONS


A CONSULTANT is an instructor who is on duty sporadically or from time to time but not routinely in any one place.

AN INSTRUCTOR is one who has regular classes and who is assigned to places at specific times.

A COACH is a student who is standing in the role of “pc”.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH: md.rd
5-17-57






HUBBARD CERTIFIED AUDITOR COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
15—30 May 1957


L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures to the Hubbard Certified Auditor Course in Washington, D.C., in May, 1957:


** 5705C15 HCA-1 Comm Course, TRs 1, 2, 3, 4
** 5705C15 HCA-2 Comm Course, TR 5
** 5705C16 HCA-3 Procedure CCH: Background
5705C16 HCA-4 Procedure CCH: CCH Steps
** 5705C30 HCA-5 Outline of a Course and Its Purpose

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE


HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 20 MAY 1957



INTERIM PROCESS


While auditors are learning to handle CCH this learning process is recommended.

Objective Show Me is as workable as any old-time process and is very easy to run. Therefore, all HGC preclears until further notice in Washington shall be run on Objective Show Me as follows.

Objective Show Me is first run as simple Locational and is run in this way until it is flat as simple Locational:

Commands: “Show me that (object).”

The second stage is run alternately between body and room objects. The commands are: “Show me that (object),” then “Show me your (body part),” “Show me that (object),” “Show me your (body part).”

The third stage of Objective Show Me is run similar to Opening Procedure by Duplication. Two objects such as a chair and a table near together are selected and one part of the preclear’s body such as the head, the eyes, the right hand, etc, is selected. The preclear is asked to show the auditor the table, the body part, the chair, the body part, the table, the body part, the chair, etc.

Care should be taken in running this process not to use body parts which will embarrass the preclear. The target of the process is actually the engram bank and it will be found that at great long length the preclear will come clear of facsimiles. The target of the process is not the second dynamic and in running it any specialization toward second dynamic aberration defeats the process thoroughly.

This process actually will produce a clear if it is carefully and completely run.

It is not a Tone 40 process, which means that you acknowledge the originations of the preclear.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH: md.nm
May 20, 1957

This Bulletin applies to outside preclears. CCH should be used on Staff.



Issue 47 [1957, ca. mid-May]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



The Radiation Picture
and Scientology


L. Ron Hubbard


The country has become very involved with radiation in the past year or so and as we in Scientology have achieved a much clearer understanding of this I think I owe you a rundown on Scientology and radiation.

At the outset let me assure you that our total interests in radiation at this time are two only: that radiation can create hysteria, and Scientology handles hysteria, and secondly that hysteria, because of radiation, puts people in rather poor condition and Scientology can rehabilitate them. We have no political or international interest in radiation.

As you can remember, the HASI in Phoenix, Arizona, was there at the time when a great deal of bomb testing was being done in Nevada only 250 miles away. At that time we had some vague interest in radiation, but it was more in the direction of locating any deposits of uranium which might have escaped notice. Being in possession of instruments which could measure radiation, we were quite shocked to discover that the atmosphere and the grand pianos began to count somewhat alarmingly. This was immediately after an H-bomb had been buried under nine feet of dirt and had been exploded. These radioactive dust particles swirled around the Southwest for quite a while before they separated themselves out.

We were worried. We were worried because the amount of radiation was obviously alarmingly great and I was as worried as the rest, perhaps even more so because of my responsibility for our people in the Phoenix area. I felt that we could not go on in the immediate vicinity of a great deal of testing and so I came East to give a Congress and establish offices somewhere away from that area. There were other local reasons but this radiation reason was more or less primary.

Back East we made no further tests but we continued to be impressed. We read about radiation in the public press, we read how the government was saying how it was not dangerous, and we read apparently responsible scientists on the subject saying that it was very dangerous. But because we had seen grand pianos counting like uranium mines, we were, of course, of the opinion that radiation was an extremely dangerous thing.

Without further examination of this subject and paying attention only to what was printed in the public presses, we saw no reason to change our attitude concerning


Copyright (©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

radiation. But some things have happened recently which have brought about a considerable change.

I have just completed a Congress in London and was in communication with Members of Parliament through a HASI representative on the subject of radiation. It was clearly and cleanly stated by an authoritative Member of the British Government that Russia was making full use of the hysteria factors inherent in radiation in order to stop England from constructing H-bombs and to impede her defenses in other ways. He had incontrovertible proof that the hysteria campaign being conducted by Russia inside England and the United States was totally an effort to impede their national defense.

Russian campaigns you must understand are of the mental, brainwashing type. Radiation is tailor-made to their agent provocateur tactics.

When I returned to America two things became very obvious. The first of these was that only the press of Russia and the United States did not report my remarks made at the Nuclear Radiation and Health Congress at the Royal Empire Society Hall in London. Other newspapers the world around carried the remarks as headline news. These remarks were to the effect that the greatest danger of radiation was hysteria. At the Congress I said that the H-bomb was not a weapon because it was far too powerful, it would not coerce obedience but only terror. These remarks are more or less complete in a book now being published called All About Radiation, for the British market only.

Another thing that happened is that I remembered why I left the Author’s League of America some years ago. Its Board had begun to offer prizes to deify minorities and it was taking other party-line data and trying to foist it off on American writers. The Newspaper Guild, so far as I know, is not entirely clear of this influence.

The other thing I did was to take a Geiger counter and make a test of Washington. A little earlier this Geiger counter had been giving false evidence because the stick used with the counter, as will happen, evidently had some uranium stuck to it. But with the counter in good operating order and clean, it was discovered that the background count of Washington, D.C., was the same as it was in 1932 when I was going to George Washington University and studying radiation. In other words, there has apparently been no general increase of count in London or Washington because of bomb testing. I did more than this. I made a calculation of the amount of gamma and cosmic rays which fall on Earth’s surface daily and compared this to the amount of test radiation waste which would be thrown into the atmosphere yearly. The figures do not compare. The added man-made radiation will probably never add up to your luminous dial watch.

On the whole track, radiation was dangerous for the good reason that there was more radiation in those times that could be exploded. However, radiation is a half-life matter and the older the universe gets the less radiation there is available to throw at people. And a good thing, too.

While we have no doubt whatsoever of the actual dangers of a bomb dropping on a city, we are now in a position to doubt rather thoroughly the vaunted harm from test bombing which is being sold the populations of Earth, evidently by the Communist propagandists.

The U.S. population is being stampeded by Russia toward leaving the U.S. defenseless. Already this has accomplished a defective U.S. civil defense and is gaining momentum toward a public demand for no bombs. This is how Russia works. Russia works on the population imagination. Russia uses any knowledge of the mind she has

to instill fear and bring about destruction. She is an unworthy purveyor of scientific information.

Russia has already succeeded rather well in this field of seizing control of the mind. There is no essential difference between dialectic materialism and Wundtian psychology. Yet, Wundtian psychology is taught in all the universities of the United States. England, being an older and more mature government than the United States Government, has already awakened to this and is taking active government steps to halt this matter of public panic. England, for instance, is not buying Wundtian psychology. England is buying Scientology in rather large amounts. But this is not yet true of the United States. That it will come about in the future is more or less a certain thing, but that it does not exist at the time is a fact. Only the better IQs of the U.S. as yet buy Scientology.

We can be assured on the score of fallout—it isn’t dangerous at this time. It does not compare to the amount of “natural radiation” with which we are being bombarded. If you went down to Florida to live you would increase your radiation count much more than it would be increased if you stayed well North and the government blew off ten thousand more test bombs. In other words, just exposure to a clearer view of the sun will give you more radiation than you could be hit with in the near future because of test bombs. It’s just a fact that there isn’t enough uranium around to actually thoroughly contaminate the atmosphere at this time. I know that this is in controversy to my own statements on the subject—which is very interesting. My own statements were made in the light of our earlier experience. We had experienced test fallout in Phoenix and I had not made further tests or calculations. In other words, I myself had been swept up in this campaign to frighten the populace half to death.

The reaction to radiation is thus entirely, completely, and wholly mental!

Dianazene depends for its reaction upon whole-track radiation incidents, and x-ray and sunburn in the current life. By taking away the engram which can react to the worry about radiation, worry about radiation is then made non-painful.

If you add all this up you will clearly see that scare talk about radiation is the source of radiation sickness in our present world. The Atom Bomb is too powerful a weapon to be used for control of human beings and is therefore not a weapon. But it does promise the population no future, and so promising, it damps out efforts toward survival. This itself can bring on sickness.

But we should not delude ourselves in thinking that actual radiation in dangerous quantities is adrift in this atmosphere at this time. It is not. All I invite you to do is to get a Scintillometer or Geiger counter and test around.

There is probably an ionospheric flash which gives a tiny sudden shock of radiation for the briefest instant of time—less than the amount you would get from a simple x-ray—and this acts as a restimulator to whole-track incidents. But it isn’t true that radiation is drifting around biting you at this time.

On the subject of strontium-90 it is interesting to note that a sufficient intake of calcium renders a person completely immuned to any effects of strontium-90. A child should be made to drink more milk and probably should have his diet fortified a little bit with calcium if anybody is truly worried about it.

This fight, then, is in the propaganda field. It is not in the field of actual science. I am extremely surprised at some of the scientists who are saying that radiation is dangerous. These men professionally should know their business and they are not

expressing the true data. On the other hand, neither is the government making actual data available. The government is seeking to convince the public on the score of opinion. Opinion has no validity in science. If you want to know about radiation, why, go and look for some radiation in the atmosphere and if you cannot find more than the usual background count then you must assume that there isn’t any extra radiation in the atmosphere. I am not saying that the scientists who have been beating the drum on the dangers of radiation are Communist-inspired. I am not saying that these men are Communists. I am merely saying that they are aiding and assisting a Communist campaign.

We will not assist Commie propaganda aimed at stampeding the U.S. public into revolt against U.S. defense. The U.S. can bargain her way out of this. I am very hopeful that a general control of radiation the world around will be achieved and I am sure that if it is not achieved, national governments are dead. I am also fairly sure that there will never be such a thing as an atomic war. I have looked this over rather carefully and I personally don’t believe that national governments will last long enough at their present rate of non-survival activity.

Our cue is to make nothing out of radiation, if we mention it at all. People who are worried about radiation are worried because enough talk about it has thrown enough engrams into restimulation to make them actually quite ill. We can do something about restimulation. But we have no business aiding this public hysteria in any way. We are the people who take care of hysteria and not the people who stir it up. What we are doing is a bit bigger than one of Man’s new destructive toys.

Our campaign is to sell Scientology. If we sell it well, psychiatry and psychology will collapse. For instance, one of the most unfortunate things that psychiatry and psychology have ever engaged upon has been this mental health campaign of this spring. These people are not capable of withstanding public scrutiny. Their general activities are sufficiently harmful to their patients that if they stick their head up just a little bit further, even people in the government will be able to see that there is a swindle involved there. I expect within the next two or three years to see a complete and thorough congressional investigation of “charity rackets” and would expect to see psychiatry and psychology leading the van in those who are being investigated. Before you begin to advertise that you can do something, you should be able to do it. We ourselves are suffering from a comm lag of seven years. Not for seven years were we able to train auditors uniformly up to a level to get the maximum possible results out of Dianetics and Scientology. We, accordingly, experienced a considerable public kickback. Now we are making our promises good. It is possible for us to withstand the most minute and searching scrutiny on the subject of what we are doing and how we are doing it. The Validation Program of all Certificates which we are now entered upon is a very worthwhile step in this direction. We can today train an auditor. We can train him very very well. We have the processes which make an auditor able to audit. And this will accrue into our attaining dominance in the field of the human mind rather easily. All psychiatry and psychology need to do is to fight us a little harder, to advertise themselves a little more strongly, and the public and the government will see to it that they collapse. Furthermore, psychiatry and psychology are playing it too close to the government. And if people begin to turn away from the government because of the government’s promise to extinguish them with an H-bomb, they will also turn away from anybody who supported the government in the field of brainwashing.

We have gone a little off track here with radiation, danger of; with politics, the need to do something about; and we are not off track any more. We are in the business of Scientology. And Scientology rises considerably above the tinkerings of a few somewhat deranged scientists and the bickerings of a few misanthropic men wearing political crowns for the moment.

We have today very easily the most powerful “weapon” extant in the fourth dynamic. That weapon is Scientology. We are not using it for evil, we are using it for good. Therefore, we will win with it.

The answer to all this is to sell Scientology to individuals. Don’t try to sell it to groups. One doesn’t easily talk to a group. One should sell it to individuals and he should use the skills of Scientology to bring about a better understanding on the part of individuals of themselves and of himself.

I am not saying that the various governments might not do something dangerous with testing. I am not saying that H-bombs are good weapons. I am only saying we can survive it. I am only saying that we have one case—me—who has had 502 times the “allowed” amount and is surviving nicely, thank you, and other cases that are in like condition because of good processing. I am saying that with good, modern auditing a Scientologist can survive it—so why worry about it. As an organization and as individuals we’re going up-tone faster than others are going down. And Man faces many enemies more dangerous than Radiation.

I am giving you all this in explanation of what you will now begin to see come from the central organization and that will be Scientology—good auditors—validation of old certificates—good processing—bona fide clears—other things which we have waited to see all these years. We are making the grade now rather easily. We are doing things that we never thought were possible before. We are living up to any optimism which I ever gave out. I knew I could do it. I am afraid that I was over-confident in some other directions, but there is one thing that I have never done. I have never told you other than what I believed implicitly and completely. I have been as honest with you as I knew how to be and I have been as honest about my shortcomings as I have been about my victories. You can count on that, you know you can—for you always

I invite your cooperation in this new campaign of ours—a brand-new campaign:

To sell Scientology, Sanity and Survival to the individuals alive on Earth today. Thank you.

L. RON HUBBARD

All ABOUT RADIATION

by
L. Ron Hubbard

Published May 1957



In April 1957 L. Ron Hubbard addressed the London Congress on Nuclear Radiation and Health, and from these lectures came All About Radiation.

Atomic radiation is a subject which interests the minds of every thinking man and woman of the world.

In All About Radiation, we have the sane and sober views of a medical doctor on the physical facts and consequences of the actual atomic blast and the diseases resulting from it.

L. Ron Hubbard, who was one of the first nuclear physicists in the United States, has interpreted these facts and related them to human livingness, governments and the control of populaces.

These facts when presented at the Congress on Nuclear Radiation and Health at the Royal Empire Society Hall, London, in April 1957, so impressed Parliamentary figures that they requested immediate transcription of these lectures.

Here they are presented in book form. It will help to clear a great deal of the mystery which has surrounded this problem and will give people and their governments a basis upon which they can solve this situation.

This book clearly demonstrates the immediate effects which can be expected from varying doses of radiation; it demonstrates means of protection from atomic explosions; it shows the deleterious attributes of an atomic explosion in all its aspects, from flash and blast through to the more lasting effect of gamma radiation. I n fact, as its title states, it is a book all about radiation.

It is a book that is written in everyday language as far as possible. It is far from its purpose to hide facts behind a mass of scholarly discourse. It intends to place the facts in full view in a form where they are easily understandable by every reader.

152 pages, hardcover with dust jacket. Available from your nearest Scientology Organization or Mission, or direct from the publishers: Scientology Publications Organization, Jernbanegade 6, 1608 Copenhagen V, Denmark; or Church of Scientology Publications Organization U.S., 2723 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90026, U.S.A.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MAY 1957




STABLE DATA FOR INSTRUCTORS


1. Keep students busy at all times. Do not let them have unassigned work while at the Academy.

2. The Director of Training is not the Director of Processing. If after the student intensive and a week’s Comm Course a student’s case is not in condition so the student can be trained, the Director of Training or the Instructor should send the student to the Registrar and should not attempt a patch-up by another student. When the Director of Training constitutes himself the Director of Processing he not only denies the organization income but most usually continues the agony of the student and does not get training done.

3. Answer the student’s questions.

4. The stability of the Director of Training and his Instructors depends upon the apparency of their agreement with me on what should be trained and how it should be trained. When they innovate in disagreement with organized schedules they lower the appearance of stability and deprive themselves usually of the cooperation of students.

5. It is not the place of the Director of Training or an Instructor to defend the organization, LRH, or the past track of Dianetics and Scientology. Any new subject combating vested interests develops some randomity. Rather than defend against critical attacks by students it is much more productive to look over the student’s case with an eye to sending him to the Registrar.

6. The Director of Training and his Instructors are there to give service. Service is always harder to give on an individualized basis and easier to give on a wide group basis. However, we are training individuals and even though it is difficult, service must be given.

7. On the head of the Director of Training and his Instructors rests any future failure the student may have in processing preclears. Quality of training is to the level of Staff Auditor HGC.

IF A STUDENT CANNOT BE TRUSTED UPON GRADUATION
WITH AN HGC PRECLEAR, HE SHOULD NOT BE GRADUATED
OR CERTIFIED.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:md.rd
5-24-57



LRH TAPE LECTURE

30 May 1957


** 5705C30 HCA-5 Outline of a Course and Its Purpose

HCO INFORMATION BULLETIN OF 1 JUNE 1957


RIGHTS OF THE DIRECTORS OF TRAINING AND PROCESSING,
STAFF AUDITORS, AND INSTRUCTORS
REGARDING PRECLEARS AND STUDENTS


The Director of Processing may refuse a preclear already registered on the following grounds, and only on these grounds:

1. Risk to Clinic by reason of low profile or connections.
2. Not enough weeks bought by pc (example: bought one, needs three).
3. Non-payment of former debts to Clinic.

He may not refuse a pc on grounds of insufficient auditors or inconvenience to staff. In case of refusal he returns pc to Registrar.

The Director of Training may refuse a student already registered on the following grounds, and only on these grounds:

1. Flagrantly needs processing of a more expert level than student intensive.
2. Signed up for a course for which student not qualified by earlier training.
3. Non-payment of former debts to Academy.

He may not refuse students on grounds of insufficient instructors or classrooms. In case of refusal he returns student to the Registrar.

A Staff Auditor may refuse to process a pc on following grounds:

1. Psychotic past history of institutional nature.
2. Marked antipathy to case.

An Instructor may refuse training in his unit to a student who:

1. Gives no evidence of having learned the basics taught in a lower unit. (In which case he returns student to the lower unit.)
2. Flagrantly needs processing. (In which case he sends student to Director of Training and thence to Registrar.)
3. Is chronically absent or tardy. (In which case he sends student to Director of Training. )
4. Disobeys school regulations. (In which case he sends student to Director of Training.)

A Director of Processing may refuse to sign out or release a preclear he considers vitally in need of further processing. In which case he sends preclear to Registrar.

The Director of Training may refuse to send a student to the Examiner by reason that he will not be a credit to the corps of auditors. He is under no compulsion to train such a student beyond the allotted training period but may do so at his discretion.

A Staff Auditor may refuse to release a preclear from the HGC whom he feels in vital need of further processing regardless of the opinion or administration of the Director of Processing or the Registrar. He should send the pc to the Registrar but may give further processing whether or not the preclear signs up for more and despite any remonstrance of the Director of Processing.

An Instructor may refuse to release a student to a higher class or to Examination despite the opinion or the administration of the Director of Training.


L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE


HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JUNE 1957



EXPLANATION OF ABERRATIVE CHARACTER OF

RADIATION


As cosmic rays, gamma, x-rays, et al, apparently move through solids without encountering resistance, they then invalidate solids. This is a direct invalidation of the solidity of anything including a mock-up. Thus it tends to say a thing is not there—thus that a creation has not been made.

This then has been used as a means of discounting creativeness or of discounting solids. For example, any child being x-rayed has been baffled as to how “he wasn’t there” when the picture was made. The rays went straight through. This made him feel he wasn’t solid—was not real.

When a body is over x-rayed it ceases to create sexually and creates on a cellular level in a highly irresponsible way. This is cancer.

Radiation ills stem from the not-thereness of creations. Mental Image Pictures, mock-ups, are apparently vanished.

“Making things solid” remedies all such Radiation ills easily. Show Me objective and subjective does as well.

Radiation, then, is the proof that a solid thing is not solid. This is an invalidation that one has created. Thus Radiation is seen to hit at all creativeness. Its irresponsibility factor is also this—one cannot be responsible for things which are proven not to exist.

This also tells us that time began on an invalidation of solids.

In actual proof Procedure CCH, run with this understanding and Problems of Incomparable or Comparable Magnitude to Radiation, resolves Radiation.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH: md.rd
6-4-57

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JUNE 1957




AUDITING A 10-YEAR OLD CHILD


Herbie Parkhouse over in London sent me the following report on his session with a 10-year old child.

“I knew her mother had been messing her up by telling her how much she was like Mama, and how weak Mama was. So I ran a Present Time Problem on Solid Terminals, then Give Me Your Hand—Thank You. The PTP was ok. GMYH produced immediate change by the girl using all the normal childish ways of trying to stop the Auditor. After about II/2 hours she went Anaten, but good, for 1 hour and then came out of it. I carried on for l/2 hour—everything seemed ok so we had lunch.

“After lunch I went back on to GMYH, but only just checked PTP (not very thoroughly). Within a very short period—10 minutes—pc was Anaten. This lasted for approximately I hour when pc rallied into present time, changed her body position to that of a ‘lady reclining in a chair’—just like Mama—and doped off. This also lasted about I hour, then pc came up to present time—then into enthusiasm which lasted well after I ended the session. After tea I gave her another I hour on GMYH with no apparent change at an enthusiasm. When I say Anaten on this case, I mean the pc was doing the process, not even mechanically most of the time, but eyes shut and doped.

“After this she felt good. I then sent her home to her father and step-mother-both of whom have had lots of auditing. They couldn’t believe the difference, especially after only six hours. The child is now in better conditon than she has ever been before.”


L. RON HUBBARD





LRH : md.nm
6-3-57



Issue 48 [1957, ca. early June]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



The Hubbard
Certified Auditor Course


L. Ron Hubbard



I’ve mentioned several times that training in Scientology had become a fine art and that it was in reality an evolved science in itself.

How does one go about training someone to really be a Scientologist? Unfortunately it has taken seven years to work this out. If we’d been able to do this originally, what a different picture it would have made !

Some auditors were “naturals.” Well, we’d better take into account that not everybody was. So the task has been—”How do you make a natural?”

Everyone who came for training had the willingness to help. All our training people had the willingness to train. But with the how-to unsolved, it was sometimes pretty grim. Seeing this I worked almost as hard on how-to-train as how-to-clear.

Well, the upshot of all this is a series of skills necessary to being an auditor that aren’t processing but living skills. That’s pretty much of an achievement because it changes for the superior better the whole family! If we can handle people, we can have groups and a successful Scientology life. Along with teaching auditors to audit we came to teach, as a parallel bonus, auditors to handle people.

Well, it’s been a good struggle and a lot of us, me included, bear some scars but we won, Mom.

I’m pretty proud of the Academy course now. We do our best to make people able to do their best.

It’s not really a school now. It’s 576 hours of personal coaching plus 25 hours of good processing. We don’t do much student co-auditing now except when a student can audit.

Gosh, the old-time horrors of student co-auditing! How drastic can life get!

All I want to tell you is that we’ve sewed it up on training and to give you a glance over the HCA Course schedule. It’s pretty darned good because it’s no longer a dream. It’s real as real itself. Even our quarters are air-conditioned and well decorated— good quarters themselves are news.


Copyright (©)1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Here’s the goals I wrote and had framed for the Communication Course room here on the third floor, front of 1812 19th Street, N.W. It’s in green on cream to match the trees outside the balcony and the room walls.

“A Scientologist is one who controls persons, environments and situations.

“Scientology is used on Life and its forms and products. The chief uses of Scientology are in the fields of Education, Organization, Mental Disability, Social Order and Religion. Scientology is the first to give scientific meaning to these.

“A Scientologist is considered a professional if he uses Scientology in any of these fields and has been thoroughly trained in Scientology. Scientology means Knowing in the fullest sense of the word. A Scientologist operates within the boundaries of the Auditor’s Code and the Code of a Scientologist.

“A Scientologist is a first cousin to the Buddhist, a distant relative to the Taoist, a feudal enemy to the enslaving priest and a bitter foe of the German, Viennese and Russian defamers of Man.

“The religion of the Scientologist is freedom for all things spiritual on all dynamics which means adequate discipline and Knowledge to keep that freedom guaranteed.

“We are the people who are ending the cycle of homo sapiens and starting the cycle of a good earth.

“There are no barriers on our path except those we make ourselves. Our ability belongs to all worlds everywhere.”

This is the curriculum in full for the HCA Course. If some of it looks strange, wait until next Ability when I’m sending you the Advanced Course schedule. It includes all the processes old-timers learned long ago. We weren’t far enough South. Having gotten South, we leave all the old stuff North as Graduate material.

So here’s the HCA Course, 8 weeks long exactly, specific material and skills to specific examination. Most of it is audited from Tone 40. The auditing skills take the student to that auditing position. I can’t detail those here.

Thought you’d be interested.

WEEK ONE: STUDENT GETS INTENSIVE

WEEK TWO: COMMUNICATION COURSE

Monday Tr 1—Dear Alice (Tr = Training)
Tuesday Tr 2 - Acknowledgment
Wednesday Tr 3—Duplicative Question
Thursday Tr 4—Pc Origination
Friday Tr 5 - Hand Mimicry
Saturday Dianetics ‘55!—write synopsis before Monday

WEEK THREE: UPPER INDOCTRINATION

Monday CCH 0 —Rudiments, Goals & Present Time Problem
(CCH = Control—Communication—Havingness)
Codes
Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought

Tuesday Tr 6—8-C

Wednesday Tr 7—High School Indoc
Thursday Tr 8—Tone 40 on an Object
Friday Tr 9—Tone 40 on a Person
Saturday Axioms 1 to 10—Memorize
WEEK FOUR: BODY CONTROL PROCESSES
Monday CCH 0—Rudiments, Goals & Present Time Problem
Codes
Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought
Tuesday CCH I—Give Me Your Hand
Wednesday CCH 2—Tone 40 8-C
Thursday CCH 3—Hand Space Mimicry
Friday CCH 4—Book Mimicry
Saturday Axioms 11 to 21—Memorize
WEEK FIVE: LOCATION AND DUPLICATION PROCESSES
Monday CCH 0—Rudiments, Goals & Present Time Problem
Codes
Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought
Tuesday Tr 10—Locational Processing
Wednesday CCH 5—Location by Contact
Thursday CCH 6—Body-Room Contact
Friday CCH 7—Contact by Duplication
Saturday Axioms 22 to 33—Memorize
WEEK SIX: OBJECTIVE HAVINGNESS PROCESSES
Monday CCH 0—Rudiments, Goals & Present Time Problem
Codes
Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought
Tuesday CCH 8—Trio
Wednesday CCH 9—Tone 40 Keep it from Going Away
Thursday CCH 10—Tone 40 Hold it Still
Friday CCH 11—Tone 40 Make it a Little More Solid
Saturday Axioms 34 to 45—Memorize
WEEK SEVEN: UNIVERSE PROCESSES
Monday CCH 0—Rudiments, Goals & Present Time Problem
Codes
Scientology. Fundamentals of Thought

Tuesday Tr 11—ARC Straightwire
Wednesday CCH 12—Limited Subjective Havingness
Thursday CCH 13—Subjective Solids
Friday CCH 14—Then and Now Solids

Saturday Axioms 46 to 55—Memorize

(NOTE: Student repeats any week not passed, or returns to Communication Course.)

WEEK EIGHT. STUDENT ADMINISTERS INTENSIVE

EXAMINATION AT END OF WEEK EIGHT

Required by Examiner.

All levels of Indoctrination passed.
All processes in Training learned.
Thorough knowledge of Axioms.
Knowledge of Logics and Prelogics.
Thorough knowledge of Codes.
Good results from student intensive.
Case Profile of student to be examined.
Completed check sheets.
Synopses of required books.
A command of Group Auditing.
A command of Group Teaching by Agreement.
A command of Assists.

______________

COURSE TEXT: Scientology. Fundamentals of Thought

READING MATERIALS: (Brief Synopsis of each required at Examination Time)

Dianetics ‘55!
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
Science of Survival
Advanced Procedure and Axioms
Creation of Human Ability

The number of class hours is about 576. The amount of processing included is 25 hours.

The cost of the course is $750 financed, $500 cash.

The course is supervised by myself.

Enrollment is every Monday. People enrolling between now and August 1st enter the Congress in July 1957 without charge.

The Academy Registrar should be contacted at 1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C., for enrollment.

Living costs about $65.00 a month, room and board for the two months of training.

We are also teaching a night HCA in Washington which goes three times a week between 7:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. In view of the fact that it is very easy to get jobs in the Government it is possible for a student to come to Washington, enroll in the night HCA and get a job in the Government to support himself and his training. The length of the night HCA varies but is from 6 to 8 months. Instruction in the night HCA is fully as good as day HCA. Cost of the night HCA is the same as day HCA.

Be seeing you ....

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE 1957


THE TEACHING OF THE 18TH ACC

The 18th ACC in Washington, July 8 to August 16, will be taught in three units using five instructors.

Immediately upon registration the students will be tested on Tone 40 on an Object for placements in one of the three units. All instructors will be used for this testing. A Check Sheet divided into three sections to match the courses with the title of each process shall be drawn up and mimeographed by LRH, Jr. (list of processes taken from the Student Manual). This sheet shall carry a section for this testing and placement where the instructor can write simply the unit number plus or minus into which the student should be placed. When the testing is concluded the sheets will be assembled and the class will be divided into three sections as evenly distributed as possible. Those who are best will go into section 3, next best will go into section 2, and the worst will go into section 1. By using plus or minus unit, some accuracy can be obtained. The judgment of the instructor on the student in general while doing Tone 40 on all Object as 3 short test shall also be used in determining the unit. Difficulties in adjustment will be smoothed out by the use of plus or minus signs after the unit number.

The three units of the course shall be composed as follows:

Communication Course
Upper Indoctrination Course
CCH Course

The curriculum of each shall be basically one week in length. In the six weeks, each student regardless of skill will be expected to go through each of these units twice, but not consecutively, i.e. he will go into the next unit at the end of each week regardless of his ability.

The Communication Course shall embrace Training 0 to Training 5 inclusive. It shall begin with a half-hour description at 9:00 a.m. by the instructor and shall thereafter be broken down into two long auditing periods. At 4:30 p.m. a group auditing session will take place, conducted by the instructor, one hour in length, the processes of which shall be those which direct attention and assign intentions to the walls and objects of the room. This Course shall be conducted by Mary Sue Hubbard.

The Upper Indoctrination Course shall consist of one week and shall embrace training processes 6 to 9 inclusive with Training 8 (Tone 40 on an Object) repeated Wednesday and Thursday—that is teaching 4 drills in 5 days. The Course Day shall begin with a one-hour lecture on the Rudiments by LRH, Jr., and the remainder of the day until 4:30 p.m. is broken down into two long auditing periods. The day will end with one hour’s agreement on definitions, beginning at 4:30 and ending at 5:30 p.m. The Course instructor for this unit may come on duty at 10:15 a.m., after the 15-minute break following the morning lecture by LRH, Jr. The Upper Indoctrination Course shall be conducted by Dr. Kenneth Barrett, in addition to his PE Course activities for the PE Foundation. (Note in all courses, only one process should be taught per day.)

The CCH Course shall be taught in the same room for both of its sections but shall have two sections. The CCH processes shall be divided in half and one instructor shall teach the lower half to half the class and the other instructor shall teach the upper half to half the class. These shall be called “CCH A” and “CCH B”. Half of the unit in any week will be started in the “A” group and half will be started in the “B” group in any given week, and on the repeat week the student will be reversed in groups in the CCH Course. The CCH Course Day shall begin each day with an hour’s instruction on

the Rudiments, which hour’s lecture shall be alternated between the two instructors. This hour’s lecture shall have the characteristic of questions and answers. The remainder of the day shall be divided into four auditing periods until 4:30 p.m., and shall conclude with an hour’s group processing by the instructors, using the HCO Bulletin on group processing. The Course shall be conducted by Dr. George Richard Halpern and assisted by Dr. Jan Halpern.

The Comm Course shall hereafter be referred to as Course 1, the Upper Indoctrination Course shall be referred to as Course 2, the CCH Course shall be referred to as Course 3, of which there are two parts, 3-A and 3-B.

At least 3 large rooms must be procured especially for this 18th ACC Course. They will be in use only during these six weeks. That room where noise will be the least disturbing will be used as the Upper Indoc Room. If 4 rooms are secured, then the CCH Course shall be broken down into its sections with Dr. Jan Halpern in charge of the “B” section.

The general plan of the course is that the students who are already rather good shall be started highest, those who are mediumly good started in the mid course, and those who are poorest started in the first course. The students will simply rotate through these courses during their six weeks. Thus, each will have done the Comm Course twice, the Upper Indoc twice, and each part of the CCH Course once.

The goal of the course shall be to make the most successful graduates capable of coaching toward validation field auditor certificates. Thus these people have to be exceptionally good on the Comm Course, Upper Indoc and CCH, both in the interests of their future instruction and in the interests of their auditing ability. The course is arranged in this fashion as outlined here because I know of no more efficient way to give the information.

I will lecture evenings to the whole class, beginning at 7:30 p.m. In these lectures I will cover the entirety of Scientology with stress on the theory and practice of CCH. Given a large enough room to hold the class, FC Staff will be welcomed to these lectures.

General supervision of the course shall be done by L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. Course administration shall be done by Jan Halpern. Course examination shall be done by L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. Final assignment of teams, changes and transfers of students and grievances shall be handled by Dr. Dick Halpern.

L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. is responsible for arranging and mimeographing the proper administration sheets and sending to Dick and Jan pertinent information.

All instructors are requested to go over thoroughly the various steps of the training drills and CCH processes and standardize all methods of doing them as given in the text to be furnished and to meet together during the course to iron out any references of consulting, instructing and coaching so as to be sure to have a solid agreement on even the smallest points to be taught. The exact methods of doing and coaching the training drills and CCH processes will be furnished all instructors and their attention and practice on these is solicited so as to iron out any misunderstandings before the course begins. These methodologies are now intensely standardized. No randomity between one unit and another should develop during the course.

The Organization Secretary is responsible for the procurement of and readying of suitable quarters for the teaching of the 18th ACC and arranging to have at least one of the rooms large enough to hold the entire class.

Schedules should be made up and posted early and this course should be ready to be tested selected into units by noon of 8 July.


LRH:nld.nm L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HGC PROCESSING BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1957

For London
and Washington


WHAT TO TELL NEW HGC AUDITORS TO
PROCESS ON PRECLEARS


When a new auditor is taken on at HGC we do NOT

1. Train him while he is processing his first preclear.
2. Tell him what process to run.
3. Add to his already tense confusion of being on staff by unstabilizing all his stable auditing data, too.

We DO this:

1. We ask him what process he has the greatest certainty on.
2. We tell him to audit the pc with that process and no other.
3. If he has certainty on several we have him select one best suited to pc and have him use that.

Then we train up the new staff auditor by auditors’ conferences and HCO Board of Review at a leisurely pace.

STABLE DATUM:

It will be found that any auditor using a process on which he has high reality will obtain high results with a pc using that process.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH: md.rd
Copyright (c) 1957
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JUNE 1957
REISSUED 12 MAY 1972

Remimeo

TRAINING AND CCH PROCESSES

(Originally issued as an HCO Training Bulletin
from Hubbard Communications Office, Washington, D.C.)


NOTE.. The variations and some of the most potent processes are not included in this Training Bulletin but will appear in the Student Manual when published in September 1957.

NUMBER: Training O

NAME: Confronting Preclear.

COMMANDS: None.

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart— about five feet.

PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing.

TRAINING STRESS: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not speak, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. Coach may speak only if student goes anaten (dope off). Student is confronting the body, thetan and bank of the preclear.

HlSTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957, to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be “interesting”.

NUMBER: Training 1

NAME: Dear Alice.

COMMANDS: A phrase (with the “he saids” omitted) is picked out of the book “Alice in Wonderland” and read to the coach. It is repeated until the coach is satisfied it arrived where he is.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart .

PURPOSE: To teach the student to send an intention from himself to a preclear in one unit of time without vias.

TRAINING STRESS: The command goes from the book to the student and, as his own, to the coach. It must not go from book to coach. It must sound natural, not artificial. Diction and elocution have no part in it. Loudness may have.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the communication formula to new students.

NUMBER: Training 2

NAME: Acknowledgments.

COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from “Alice in Wonderland” omitting “he saids” and the student thoroughly acknowledges them. The coach repeats any line he feels was not truly acknowledged.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgment is a method of controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgment is a full stop.

TRAINING STRESS: Teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so that preclear knows it was heard. Ask student from time to time what was said. Curb over and under acknowledgment. Let student do anything at first to get acknowledgments across, then even him out. Teach him that an acknowledgment is a stop, not beginning of a new cycle of communication or an encouragement to the preclear to go on.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to teach new students that an acknowledgment ends a communication cycle and a period of time, that a new command begins a new period of time.

NUMBER: Training 3

NAME: Duplicative Question.

COMMANDS: “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” Communication bridge between.

POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To teach a student to duplicate without variation an auditing question, each time newly, in its own unit of time, not as a blur with other questions; and to teach him how to shift from one question to another with a communication bridge rather than an abrupt change.

TRAINING STRESS: One question and student acknowledgment of its answer in one unit of time which is then finished. To keep student from straying into variations of command. To insist on communication bridge when question is changed. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it had never occurred to anyone before. To teach students that a communication bridge consists of getting three agreements—one agreement to end this question, second agreement to continue session in general and maintain ARC, third agreement to begin a new question. Teach student that preclear is part of these agreements. To teach student never to vary question or shift question or command without a bridge.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to overcome variations and sudden changes in session.

NUMBER: Training 4

NAME: Preclear Originations.

COMMANDS: The student runs “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” on coach. Coach answers but now and then makes startling comments from a prepared list given by instructor. Student must handle originations to satisfaction of coach.

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To teach a student not to be tongue-tied or startled or thrown off session by originations of preclear and to maintain ARC with preclear throughout an origination.

TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear origination and do three things: ( I ) Understand it; (2) Acknowledge it; and (3) Return preclear to session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of comprehension, he corrects the student into better handling.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to teach auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out.

NUMBER: Training 5

NAME: Hand Mimicry.

COMMANDS: All commands are by motions of one or two hands. The auditor makes a simple hand motion, holding his hand or hands in the final position. The coach bobs his head as having received it. The coach then, mirror-wise, makes the same motion with his hand or hands. The student then acknowledges. If the motion was not correctly done by coach the student acknowledges doubtfully, then repeats the motion to the coach. If the coach does it well, student thanks coach by shaking own two hands together (prize fighter fashion). Keep motions simple. Student must always be able to duplicate own motions.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a short distance, coach’s knees inside student’s.

PURPOSE: To educate student that verbal commands are not entirely necessary. To make student physically telegraph an intention. To show student necessity of having preclear obey commands.

TRAINING STRESS: Accuracy of student repeating own commands. Teaching student to give preclear wins. Teaching student that an intention is different from words.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, from the principles of body mimicry developed by LRH in Camden, N.J., in 1954.

The following group of processes are usually taught in Upper Indoctrination Course:

NUMBER: Training 6

NAME: Plain 8-C.

COMMANDS: “Look at that wall.” “Walk over to that wall.” “With your right hand, touch that wall.” “Turn around.” All with acknowledgments. Not Tone 40. (Preclear is acknowledged when he originates, no physical contact.)

POSITION: Student and coach both ambulant in a room with no center obstacles. Student walks with coach who does process for student.

PURPOSE: To give preclear reality on environment, control in following directions and havingness. Not all effects fully explored.

TRAINING STRESS: Precision in repetition of commands by student and experience on a gradient scale in directing another body than own. Handling of originations. Acknowledging execution of commands by preclear. When this process develops somatics on a preclear it must be continued until flat.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Camden, 1953. Originally called “Opening Procedure of 8-C”, 8-C being a full auditing procedure aimed at negative thought. The only surviving part of this is now called 8-C and means the above process. Original intention was to place preclear within the control of the auditor so auditing could occur. Proved so successful became an end-all in itself. Nominated in Summary Research Project 1956 as responsible all by itself for approximately 50% of results achieved by auditors across the world.

NUMBER: Training 7

NAME: Hi-School Indoc.

COMMANDS: Same as 8-C but with student in physical contact with coach, student enforcing commands by manual guiding. Coach has only three valid statements to which student must listen: these are “Start” to begin process, “Flunk” to call attention to student error, and “That’s it” to end session. No other remark by coach is valid on student. Coach tries in all possible ways, verbal, covert and physical, to stop student

from running 8-C on him. If the student falters, comm lags, fumbles a command or fails to get an execution on coach, coach says “Flunk” and they start at beginning of command cycle in which error occurred. Coach falling down is not allowed.

POSITION: Student and coach ambulant. Student handling coach physically.

PURPOSE: To train a student never to be stopped by a preclear. To train him to run fine 8-C in any circumstances. To teach him to handle rebellious people.

TRAINING STRESS: Stress is on accuracy of student performance and persistence by student. Start gradually to toughen up resistance to student. Don’t kill him off at once.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, 1956.

NUMBER: Training 8

NAME: Tone 40 on an Object.

COMMANDS: “Stand up.” “Thank you.” “Sit down on the table.” “Thank you.” These are the only commands used. (If student has trouble with Training 9, have him do Tone 40 on an Object with 8-C commands.)

POSITION: Student standing beside table holding ashtray which he manually makes execute the commands he gives.

PURPOSE: To make student clearly achieve Tone 40 command. To clarify intentions as different than words. To start student on road to handling objects and preclears with postulates. To obtain obedience not wholly based on spoken commands.

TRAINING STRESS: have student give orders for a while alone. Then begin to nag him to get them up to Tone 40 commands. Have student silently permeate object with command and an expectancy that it will do it. When student can “see” his intentions going in accurately, when he wonders why object doesn’t instantly obey, when he is not stumbling through energy or depending on his voice, the training process is flat. This process usually takes the most time in training of any process and time on it is well spent. Objects can be ashtrays or rag dolls.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1957, for the 17th ACC.

NUMBER: Training 9

NAME: Tone 40 on a Person.

COMMANDS: Same as 8-C. This is not Tone 40 8-C (CCH 12). Student runs fine, clearcut intentions and verbal orders on a coach. Coach tries to break down Tone 40 of the student. Coach commands that are valid are “Start” (to begin), “Flunk” to tell student he has erred and must return to beginning of cycle, and “That’s it” to take a break or stop session for the day. No other statement by coach in session is valid on student and is only an effort to make student come off Tone 40 or in general be stopped.

POSITION: Student and coach ambulant. Student in manual contact with coach as needed.

PURPOSE: To make student able to maintain Tone 40 under any stress of auditing.

TRAINING STRESS: The exact amount of physical effort must be used by student plus a compelling unspoken intention. No jerky struggles are allowed since each jerk is 3 stop. Student must learn to smoothly increase effort quickly to amount needed to make coach execute. Stress is on exact intention, exact strength needed, exact force necessary, exact Tone 40. Even a slight smile by student can be a flunk. Too much force can be a flunk. Too little definitely is a flunk. Anything not Tone 40 is a flunk.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., for the 17th ACC.

The following processes are taught in the Communication-Control-Havingness Course:

NUMBER: CCH 0

NAME: Rudiments, Goals and Present Time Problem.

COMMANDS: Establishing session beginning by calling attention to room, auditor and the session to begin. Discussing the preclear’s goals for the session. Auditor asks for present time problem and settles it with problems of comparable magnitude or incomparable magnitude or by Locational Processing. In general, remarks and commands enough to bring about ARC at session’s beginning but not enough to run down havingness of the preclear.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated at a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To make known the beginning of a session to a preclear and the auditor so that no error as to its beginning is made. To put the preclear into a condition to be audited.

TRAINING STRESS: To begin sessions, not just let them happen. To educate the student into the actual elements of a session and condition of preclears. To stress the inability to audit something else when present time problem is not flat. To demonstrate what happens when preclear doesn’t know session has begun or has no goals for it or what happens when present time problem only half flat when other things are engaged upon. Stress that it is done each session. Explain closure mechanism of problem with preclear, the solution of “the liability of solutions”.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Elizabeth, N.J., 1950; Goals in Wichita, Kansas in 1951; Present Time Problem, London, 1952; Rudiments, Phoenix, 1955.

NUMBER: CCH 1.

NAME: * Give Me Your Hand, Tone 40.

COMMANDS: “Give me your hand.” Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in preclear’s lap. And “Thank you” ending cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way verbally or physically. May be run on right hand, left hand, both hands, each one flattened in turn.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated, in chairs without arms, close together. Auditor’s knees both to auditor’s left of preclear’s knees, outside of auditor’s right thigh against outside of preclear’s right thigh. This position reversed for left hand. In both hands preclear’s knees are between auditor’s knees.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate to preclear that control of preclear’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting preclear to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over toward absolute control of his own body by preclear.

TRAINING STRESS: Never stop process until a flat place is reached. To process with good Tone 40. Auditor taught to pick up preclear’s hand by wrist with auditor’s thumb nearest auditor’s body, to have an exact and invariable place to carry preclear’s hand to before clasping, clasping hand with exactly correct pressure, replacing hand (with auditor’s left hand still holding preclear’s wrist) in preclear’s lap. Making every command(l and cycle separate. Maintaining Tone 40. Stress on intention from auditor to preclear with each command. To leave an instant for preclear to do it by own will before auditor does it. Stress Tone 40 precision. To keep epicenters balanced. CCH I (b) should also be flattened.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC, Washington, D.C., 1957.

* The name and command for CCH 1 has since been revised to, “Give me that hand.”

NUMBER: CCH2

NAME: * Tone 40 8-C.

COMMANDS: “Look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With the right hand, touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn around.” “Thank you.” Run without acknowledging in any way any origin by preclear, acknowledging only preclear’s execution of the command. Commands smoothly enforced physically. Tone 40, full intention.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant, auditor in physical contact with preclear as needed.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate to preclear that his body can be directly controlled and thus inviting him to control it. Finding present time. Havingness. Other effects not fully explained.

TRAINING STRESS: Absolute auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present-time auditing. Auditor turns preclear counterclockwise then steps always on preclear’s right side. Auditor’s body acts as block to forward motion when preclear turns. Auditor gives command, gives preclear a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not check preclear from executing commands.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1957, for the 17th ACC.

* The name and command for CCH 2 has since been revised to, “You look at that wall.”

NUMBER: CCH 3

NAME: Book Mimicry.

COMMANDS: Auditor makes a simple or complex motion with a book. Hands book to preclear. Preclear makes motion, duplicating auditor’s mirror image-wise. Auditor asks preclear if he is satisfied that the preclear duplicated the motion. If preclear is and auditor is also fairly satisfied, auditor takes book and goes to next command. If preclear says he is and auditor fairly sure preclear isn’t, auditor takes back book and repeats command and gives book to preclear again for another try. If preclear is not sure he duplicated any command auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. Tone 40 only in motions. Verbal two-way quite free.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + duplication = communication.)

TRAINING STRESS: Stress giving preclear wins. Stress auditor’s necessity to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication developed by LRH in London, 1952.

NUMBER: CCH 4

NAME: Hand Space Mimicry.

COMMANDS: Auditor raises two hands, palms facing preclear’s and says, “Put your hands against mine, follow them and contribute to their motion.” He then makes a simple motion with right hand, then left. “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Good.” “Put your hands in your lap.” When this is flat the auditor does this same thing with a half inch of space between his and preclear’s palms. When this is flat auditor does it with a wider space and so on until preclear is able to follow motions a yard away.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated, close together facing each other, preclear’s knees between auditor’s.

PURPOSE: To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid comm line). To get preclear into comm by control + duplication.

TRAINING STRESS: That auditor be gentle and accurate in his motions, giving preclear wins. To be free in two-way comm.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, 1956, as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant “Look at me. Who am l?” and “Find the Auditor” part of rudiments.

NUMBER: Training 10

NAME: Locational Processing.

COMMANDS: “You notice that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” Auditor enforces command when needed by turning preclear’s head toward object. Run inside an auditing room or outside. Auditor indicates obvious objects, naming them and pointing to them.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated side by side or facing each other or seated or walking outside.

PURPOSE: To control attention. Since attention is being controlled by facsimiles, an unknown control, supplanting with a known control brings preclear up to present time. See also Pre-Logics. A highly therapeutic process. Can be substituted for Present Time Problem to some degree in cases that cannot run a Present Time Problem as a process.

TRAINING STRESS: That coach (or preclear) always looks in direction of object.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Elizabeth, N.J., in June 1950, to bring preclears into auditing room after they had been “brought up to present time”.

NUMBER: CCH 5

NAME: Location by Contact.

COMMANDS: “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear may be seated where the preclear is very unable, in which case they are seated at a table which has a number of objects scattered on its surface. Or auditor and preclear may be ambulant, with the auditor in manual contact with the preclear as is necessary to face him toward and guide him to the indicated object.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the process is to give the preclear orientation and havingness and to improve his perception.

TRAINING STRESS: Training stress is upon gentleness, ARC and the raising of the preclear’s certainty that he has touched the indicated object. It should be noticed that this can be run on blind people.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard from Locational Processing in 1957.

NUMBER: CCH 6

NAME: Body-Room Contact.

COMMANDS: “Touch your (body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated room object).” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear move about together as needed, the auditor enforcing the commands by manual contact using the preclear’s hands to touch objects and touch body parts.

PURPOSE: To establish the orientation and increase the havingness of the preclear and to give him in particular a reality on his own body.

TRAINING STRESS: Training Stress is upon using only those body parts which are not embarrassing to the preclear as it will be found that the preclear ordinarily has very little reality on various parts of his body. Impossible commands should not be given to the preclear in any case.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1957 in Washington, D.C., as a lower step than Body-Room Show Me.

NUMBER: CCH 7

NAME: Contact by Duplication.

COMMANDS: “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (same body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (same body part).” “Thank you,” etc., in that order.

POSITION: Auditor may be seated. Preclear should be walking. Usually auditor standing by to manually enforce the commands.

PURPOSE: Process is used to heighten perception, orient the preclear and raise the preclear’s havingness. Control of attention as in all these “contact” processes naturally takes the attention units out of the bank which itself has been controlling the preclear’s attention.

TRAINING STRESS: Training stress is on precision of command and motion, with each command in its unit of time, all commands perfectly duplicated. Preclear to continue to run process even though he dopes off. Good ARC with the preclear, not picking one body part which is aberrated at first but flattening some non-aberrated body part before aberrated body part is tackled.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1957 in Washington, D.C., as a lower level process than Opening Procedure by Duplication, or Show Me by Duplication. All contact processes have been developed out of the Pre-Logics.

NUMBER: CCH 8

NAME: Trio.

COMMANDS: “Look around the room (environment) and tell me something you could have.” Run until flat. “Look around the room and tell me something the body (body part) can’t have.” Valence form: “Look around the room and tell me something mother (or other valence) can’t have.” Long form: “Look around the room and tell me what you could have.” Run flat. “Look around the room and tell me something you would permit to remain.” Run flat. “Look around the room and tell me what you could dispense with.” Dispense in long form is sometimes run first when preclear is set on wasting.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated at a comfortable distance both facing toward majority of the room.

PURPOSE: To remedy havingness objectively.

TRAINING STRESS: Run it smoothly without invalidative questions. One of the most effective processes known when thinkingness can be controlled somewhat. Run when havingness drops or for a full intensive.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in 1955. Name derived from the three questions of the long form. Originally called the “Terrible Trio”.

NUMBER: CCH 9

NAME: Tone 40 “Keep it from going away.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Keep it from going away.” “Thank you.” “Did you keep it from going away?” “Thank you,” and so forth.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant. Auditor assisting by manual contact.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the process is to increase havingness of the preclear and bring about his ability to keep things from going away, which ability lost, accounts for the possession of psychosomatic illnesses.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on precision and accuracy and finding out that this is actually Tone 40 8-C with a thinkingness addition. This is the first step on to the route of making things solid.

HlSTORY: Developed in 1956 in London, England, by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: CCH 10

NAME: Tone 40 “Hold it still.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Hold it still.” “Thank you.” “Did you hold it still’?” “Thank you,” etc., in that order.

PURPOSE: To improve an individual’s ability to make things more solid and to assert his ability to control his environment.

TRAINING STRESS: Same as CCH 9.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, England, in 1956.

NUMBER: CCH 11

NAME: Tone 40 “Make it a little more solid.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” “Did you make it a little more solid’?” ‘‘Thank you,” etc., in that order.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant.

PURPOSE: To assert control over the preclear and increase the preclear’s havingness. To increase the preclear’s reality on the Pre-Logics. To reverse the flow of solids.

TRAINING STRESS: Complete precision of performance, a stress 011 all the CCH 9, CCH 10 and CCH 11, that they include a control of thinkingness of the preclear and therefore should not be run with a tremendous amount of auditor trust of the preclear and should not be run until the lower levels of CCH are to some degree flat as they will give the preclear losses.

HISTORY: Developed in 1956 in London, England, by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: Training 11

NAME: ARC Straight Wire.

COMMANDS: “Recall something that was really real to you.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone.”’ “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you really liked someone.” “Thank you.” The three commands are given in that order and repeated in that order consistently.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.

PURPOSE: To give the student reality on the existence of a bank. This is audited on another and is audited until the other student is in present time. It will be found that the process discloses the cycling action of the preclear going deeper and deeper into the past and then more and more shallowly into the past until he is recalling something again close to present time. This cyclic action should be studied and understood and the reality on the pictures the preclear gets should be thoroughly understood by the student. The fact that another has pictures should be totally real to the student under training.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951 in Wichita, Kansas. This was once a very important process. It has been known to bring people from a neurotic to a sane level after only a short period of application. It has been run on a group basis with success but it should be noted that the thinkingness of the individuals in the group would have to be well under the control of the auditor in order to have this process broadly beneficial. When it was discovered that this process occasionally reduced people’s havingness, the process itself was not generally run thereafter. It is still, however, an excellent process with that proviso, a reduction of havingness in some cases.

NUMBER: CCH 12

NAME: Limited Subjective Havingness.

COMMANDS: “What can you mock up?” “O.K. (to preclear’s answer).” “Mock up (what preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Shove it in to yourself.” “O.K.” When this is relatively flat, “Mock up (whatever preclear said he could).” “O.K.” “Let it remain where it is.” “O.K.” When this is relatively flat enter on the third part. “Mock up (whatever the preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Throw it away.” “O.K.” If the preclear cannot throw the object away at once, have him duplicate it many times and move one of them slightly further away from him until he has at last thrown one away. If the preclear cannot mock anything up, remedy his havingness with blackness. If the preclear’s “field” is invisibility, have him put glass objects of many sorts and sizes on a table and one after the other “keep them from going away”. If mock-up disappears have preclear keep on trying at it because he will eventually be able to get it back.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other.

PURPOSE: To Remedy the Havingness of the preclear’s bank.

TRAINING STRESS: Not to give the preclear any losses. He must successfully complete each step and the auditor must do things on a gradient scale until the preclear has successfully completed each command given.

HISTORY: These and other creative processes were developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in the fall of 1952.

NUMBER: CCH 13

NAME: Subjective Solids.

COMMANDS: “What can you mock up?” “O.K. (to preclear’s answer).” (This is asked once every time one changes the type of mock-up.) “Mock up (whatever the preclear said).” “O.K.” “Now make it a little more solid.” “O.K.” “Did you do that?” “Thank you.” Various objects are mocked up and made a little more solid. The preclear can be told to do what he pleases with these. This is not a Tone 40 process.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated.

PURPOSE: To make it possible for the preclear to mock up subjective objects and make them a little more solid, preparatory to running “Then and Now Solids”.

TRAINING STRESS: On knowing what the preclear is doing, how he is doing it, where he is putting the mock-ups, so that the preclear is certainly policed and is certainly doing the process. If the preclear neglects to do the process, even though he receives the command and nods his assent, he is, of course, going out of control of the auditor.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1956 in London.

NUMBER: CCH 14

NAME: Then and Now Solids.

COMMANDS: “Get a picture—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” “Look at that (auditor indicates object)—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” These commands are given with a tiny pause between the first and second phrase as it will be found that the glance of the preclear at the object tends to give him the impression that he has already made it a little more solid before the auditor gives the command if this auditing command is broken into two commands.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To straighten out the time track of the preclear. To clear up his bank. To disclose his life computation. To show up the whole track. To give preclear practice in handling time. To get rid of unwanted facsimiles. And in general to handle in its totality the reactive mind.

TRAINING STRESS: On leading up with gradients toward any failure that the preclear may have in making something a little more solid. In keeping the auditor from chasing all over the bank every time the preclear has a second picture show up or a third or a fourth or a fifth on the same command. The auditor wants one picture and wants one thing or the picture itself to be made a little more solid. We do not do two or three pictures and then a room object. The preclear can get easily lost on the track unless this is obeyed. Furthermore, it will be noted that the preclear goes out of present time further and further and then less and less and then further and further and then less and less and this cycle of further into the past and then less into the past finally winds up with bringing the preclear wholly into present time.

HISTORY: Developed from Over and Under Solids, which was developed by L. Ron Hubbard in late 1955 and improved by him in 1956. The process more or less completes the work begun on the reactive mind in 1947. It will be noted that many earlier processes and effects are woven into Then and Now Solids.

NUMBER: Training 12

NAME: Think a Thought.

COMMANDS: “Think a thought.” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To give the student some reality on the thinkingness of other people and demonstrate that the control of thinkingness is possible.

TRAINING STRESS: Should be on the fact that after the control of the body has been asserted and control of attention flattened, control of thinkingness can take place. There is really nothing wrong with the preclear except that he cannot control his thinkingness, thus he cannot change considerations at will because he is stopped by the bank. This is the most permissive of such processes since the preclear cannot really help to think a thought and we do not much care whether he thought it or the bank thought it.

HISTORY: Developed in 1955 in Phoenix, Arizona, by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: CCH 15

NAME: Rising Scale Processing.

COMMANDS: The Chart of Attitudes is employed, the top and bottom buttons of which are: DEAD-SURVIVE, NOBODY-EVERYBODY, DISTRUST-FAITH, LOSE-WIN, WRONG-RIGHT, NEVER-ALWAYS, I KNOW NOT-I KNOW, STOP-CHANGE-START, NO RESPONSIBILITY-FULLY RESPONSIBLE, STOPPED-CAUSES MOTION, FULL EFFECT-CAUSE, IDENTIFICATION-DIFFERENTIATION, OWNS NOTHING-OWNS ALL, HALLUCINATION-TRUTH, I AM NOT-I AM, NO-GAME-UNLIMITED GAMES. The auditing commands in this process are “Get the idea of (bottom button).” “Do you have that idea?” “All right.” “Now change that idea as nearly as you can to (top button).” “O.K.” “How close did you come?” “Thank you.” This is run many times on the one set of buttons until the preclear has a certainty that he can maintain the upper scale idea.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To give the preclear drills in changing his mind and to demonstrate that he can maintain higher levels of certainty and that he can alter his considerations. And incidentally to probably change his glandular structure to the better until they have a better performance which is of no great importance to the process and has little to do with Scientology.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on maintaining ARC with the preclear, yet being definite about what idea the preclear is supposed to get. The prerequisites demand that the thinkingness of the preclear be to some degree under the control of the auditor. The auditor must not be impatient with the preclear, but let the preclear try again and again to get these two ideas, one a low-scale idea and change that idea into an upper-scale idea. The preclear must be in fairly good condition with regard to havingness or the process can fail.

HISTORY: This process was developed in the fall of 1951 by L. Ron Hubbard in Wichita, Kansas, and is taken from Scientology 8-8008 as published in England and as given in The Creation of Human Ability, page 129, as R2—51. This is probably the oldest purely Scientology process in existence. It was not entirely workable in the past because it was not understood that the body has to be brought under the auditor’s control and that the attention has to be brought under the auditor’s control before the thinkingness of the preclear can be brought under the auditor’s control. The process, however, run on preclears who were not in too bad condition, has been continually successful both in changing their physical beingness and abilities, the latter being in the sphere of interest of Scientology. The first preclear on which this and Opening Procedure by Duplication were run was Mary Sue Hubbard.

NUMBER: GP I

NAME: Bank Processes (Engrams, Secondaries, Locks, Perceptics and Whole Track).

NUMBER: GP 2

NAME: Subjective Havingness in Full, Repair and Remedy of Havingness, Avalanches, Black and White, Flows.

NUMBER: GP 3

NAME: Connectedness, Association, Identification, A = A = A = A.

NUMBER: GP 4

NAME: Time Processes.

NUMBER: GP 5

NAME: Creative Processes.

NUMBER: GP6

NAME: Full Rising Scale Processes.

NUMBER: GP7

NAME: Not-Know Processes, Waterloo Station, Something you wouldn’t mind Forgetting.

NUMBER: GP8

NAME: Think a Thought, Future Mock-ups.

NUMBER: GP9

NAME: CDEI, Problems, Find Something that is Not Thinking.

NUMBER: GP10

NAME: Thought Placement, Invent a Lie, Assign an Intention, Place a Command.

NUMBER: GP11

NAME: Exteriorization, Pre-Logics, Keep Head from Going Away, Try not to Exteriorize.

NUMBER: GP12

NAME: Route 1.

NUMBER: GP13

NAME: Anchor Points, Structure of Body.

NUMBER: GP14

NAME: Body Lifting.

NUMBER: GP15

NAME: World Reality, Get the Idea that (object) is Thinking about Itself, Perception of Environment, Reality Scale Processes.

NUMBER: Training13

NAME: Fishing a Cognition.

COMMANDS: This is a general ARC, answering the preclear’s origin process. When the preclear experiences a somatic, when he sighs, when he gives a reaction to a Tone 40 process, the auditor repeats the process two or three more times (random number) and then pausing the process asks the preclear, “How are you doing now?” or “What is going on?” and finds out what happened to the preclear just as though the auditor has not noticed that the preclear had a reaction. The auditor does not point out the reaction but merely wants a discussion in general. During this discussion he brings the preclear up to at least a cognition that the preclear has had a somatic or a reaction and then merely continues the process without further bridge. This is done randomly. It is not always done every time the preclear experiences a reaction.

POSITION: Whatever position the preclear and auditor are in as directed by the process they are running. But usually with the auditor touching the preclear. For example, in “Give Me Your Hand” the auditor continues to hold the preclear’s hand after he has said “Thank you” and asks the preclear how he is doing.

TRAINING STRESS: Is that the fishing of a cognition is an art and it cannot be taught by general command, that the auditor must not as-is the preclear’s havingness by asking him, “How are you feeling now?”, that the preclear must not be placed in possession of the knowledge that he can stop the auditor from auditing by having a reaction or experiencing a reaction to the processing, otherwise he will begin to experience them simply to stop the auditor. Thus the use of Training 13 is not routine and regular but is random. It should be stressed that this can be used while running any and all Tone 40 processes. It should be stressed that the Tone 40 is run as itself and that fishing a cognition is run into the process between cycles of command and acknowledgment and command and acknowledgment. After a thorough acknowledgment one can fish for a cognition thus pausing momentarily in the process, get things straightened out, maintain ARC with the preclear and then go on with the Tone 40 process. One does not enter fishing a cognition between the command and the acknowledgment. One never reacts to what the preclear is doing the instant that the preclear does it, otherwise one educates the preclear to stop one. Training stress here is that a Tone 40 process is not run on an automaton basis.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1957 while developing CCH on the following notes from LRH’s notebook: “I use processes to restimulate thought or action and when this happens I fish out a cognition and either continue the process or bridge to the next process.” It was developed basically to keep auditors in communication with the preclear since Tone 40 processes give some auditors, when they are studying them, the idea that they are supposed to go out of communication with the preclear.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: ne.rd
Copyright © 1957, 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

























[CCHs 5, 6 & 7 have been reissued for use on the HQS Course as HCO B 30 September 1971, Issue VI, amended and reissued 19 April 1974, CCHs 5, 6 & 7, Volume VII, page 408. Training 13 has been revised for use in Hubbard Consultant Stress Analysis as BTB 25 June 1970R, Issue 11, revised and reissued 14 August 1974, Fishing a Cognition. ]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 JUNE 1957

(NOTE: Temporary Directive Subject to Change when further
advised by Directors of Training who experience it in use.)

STUDENT INTENSIVES AND
CO-AUDITING PROCESSES

Graduating Students should run the following in student intensives on incoming students:

CCH 0 — Rudiments, Goals, Present Time Problem
Tr 15 — Clearing the Auditor
CCH 5 — Location by Contact
CCH 6 — Body-Room Contact
CCH 7 — (if reached in 25 hrs) Contact by Duplication

Students will run dummy and coached on all but following processes which they should run on a co-auditing basis:

Tr 6 — Plain 8c
Tr 10 — Locational Processing
CCH 5 (b) — Objective Show Me
CCH 6 (b) — Body-Room Show Me
CCH 7 (b) — Show Me Duplication
CCH 8 — Trio
Tr 11 — ARC Straightwire
CCH 7 (c) — Book and Bottle


LRH:md.nm L. RON HUBBARD



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 JUNE 1957
ALL STAFF—
Washington and London

PEOPLE’S QUESTIONS


A Congress MUST

An Organization MUST

Answer people’s questions.

This is the primary public complaint—that Scientologists in the Organization or out won’t answer directly questions asked about this or that.

Understand it, answer it, make friends.

Best,

LRH:md.jh L. RON HUBBARD

[Some copies of the above HCO B were dated 16 June 1957.]



Issue 49 [1957, ca. late June]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



What About Validation?


L. Ron Hubbard



Almost at once we are going to have a Congress.

We are calling it the Freedom Congress because it starts July 4, 1957 and because it is all about freedom from human confusion.

But there’s something we’ll have to take up at this Congress beyond Freedom, and that’s Validation.

It isn’t good sense that I try to handle this Validation Program without knowing how you feel about it. And so I am asking you to help me.

Here’s the situation current:

We have come to a plateau of training and technology. I do not say we are at any peak of peaks. But we are on a very high plateau.

We can do these things:

We can accurately and predictably process a day-old baby, a person in a coma, a catatonic schitz, a no-reality case or a person in very good shape. Of course that’s news, but it also changes several things.

We can also train well and thoroughly any person of good will in a few weeks of arduous drill. We arrived at a plateau of results and at the same time arrived at a plateau of training skills.

Without these skills learned in heavy training, the processing results do not occur. Better than 50’ YO of the result depends upon the skill of the auditor.

If this is Scientology today, then it had better be Scientology everywhere, not just here in Washington or amongst recent Academy graduates.

Rumor has probably told you already much misinformation about levels of Indoc and CCH. The truth is I’m just now finding time to hand-train enough people in these two things to make them get a reality on them. You might say the real thing wasn’t released until I went to London in April and, in the U.S., until I returned in May.


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Truth is, these things are man-killers. An auditor not well schooled in all levels of Indoc cannot get results of any consequence with CCH (actually CDCCtH*). No older auditor credits this until he faces it in a training room. But an old auditor does better with older processes—those released up to December 31, 1956. Those were pretty hot, too, remember.

The present situation, then, is as follows: We have many good auditors who can get fine results with pre-57 processes. We have some less able auditors who get poor results with pre-57 processes. We have a series of training skills and processes which would permit both to get much finer, faster results.

The past situation, beginning in 1950, was this: We had a vision of what could be done. We saw it done by some. We were trying to learn how so that all could do it. To learn we had to train and process. Our results were better than Man had ever experienced before but here and there the results did not match the hopes of some—to put it mildly. Therefore, I considered it was up to us to better the processes and to better training so that people could do the processes developed.

Well, I miscalculated. For certain, those processes which could tear a case apart and make a clear fast, would also tear a homo sapiens auditor apart. And so it has transpired. Full-scale CDCCtH tears up auditors fast.

Thus I had to recapitulate and find a new route to make a new man. That route is loosely called Indoctrination but it isn’t at full dress parade what you’ve seen. It’s 13 levels of skill, each one more advanced, which wind up with a clear-acting auditor.

These levels of training make, when thoroughly administered, a synthetic clear without proofing a person against being audited to clear all the way.

Now in 1950 I did a lot of talking and made a lot of promises. And in 1957, seven years of study and work later, only now can they all be kept. To reach our present plateau I had to get a lot of people trained. Every one of those has coming to him a full realization of ability to help and handle others.

All right. That’s the project. It’s big enough. Thousands of auditors should now have everything that’s been learned and developed about auditing.

If they get that to which they’re entitled, no force on Earth can stop Scientology.

So what do we do about it?

There’s the old HDA, there’s the person who was trained in L.A. or Wichita or Elizabeth. Maybe he’s auditing now, maybe not. But he’s entitled to his ability to clear his fellow man. These were people of great heart, great willingness to serve. I did all I could for them—it was always, until 1957, not enough. But a wider look bade me learn how to train and then to speak.

I have learned. I am speaking.

Further, I am asking for help in solving this great problem. How do we bring up to ability every auditor ever trained by a central organization?

How do we find some of these people? We’re not now interested in no-comm lists or other nonsense. The battle for knowledge is won. And unlike in so many battles, all can share in the victory.

[* C for Control, D for Duplication, C for Communication, Ct for Control of thought = H for Havingness, See also P.A.B. 122, “The Five Levels of Indoctrination and Procedure CCH.”]

How do we finance such a project? Do these people pay for retraining (or, actually for training in full, not retraining)? How do we handle people lately trained (1956) in this wise? How can we do this without invalidating the real ability of many auditors and without upsetting too many people?

Your help is needed in assisting me to answer such questions.

They wanted to be clear. They wanted to help their fellow man. All I know now is how to do the clearing and the training on a major scale.

I have some proposals on this. I am going to give the right to coach other auditors to every successful graduate of the 18th ACC—with high standards for successful graduation. To do this I’ll have to work the 18th ACC people through July and into mid-August harder than anybody has been worked yet. But they can take it.

I can validate recent graduates partly trained on this but I don’t think it would be entirely fair.

Well, there it is. It’s the Validation Program. But what is it? It’s what you and I decide it will be at the July 4th Congress.

Would you please bring your thoughts on it and your proposals to the Congress or send them to me here.

Validation U.S. means a lot. But it can’t be done at all until I know how you feel it should be done.

1. Should it be done at all.

2. If so, how should it be done.

Could I have your help?

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD







LRH TAPE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
28 June 1957


The following are Auditors’ Conferences held by L. Ron Hubbard:

5706C28 AUDC Lecture
5706C28 AUDC Question-and-Answer Period

P.A.B. No. 115
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 July 1957

THE REHABILITATION OF ABILITIES


In this PAB I want to discuss a question which many field auditors have confronted me with—i.e. that of increasing the preclear’s willingness in practicing a musical instrument, or to keep writing, or just to regain a lost ability.

If you take an individual and make him play a musical instrument (as parents and schools do), his ability to play that instrument will not improve. We would first have to consult with him as to what his ambitions are. He would eventually at least have to agree with the fact that it is a good thing to play an instrument.

Once in a while we find a bad boy. He cannot be put in school and has to be sent to a military school. They are going to force him in order to change him. Occasionally this bad boy is sent to a school which simply thinks the best way to handle such cases is to find something in which he is interested and to allow him to do it. Such a school once existed in California and consecutively produced geniuses. The roster of World War II’s scientists practically marched from that particular school. They figured that it must have been the example set by the professor, his purity in not smoking cigars or something like that.

What actually happened was this. They took a boy with whom nobody got any results and said, “Isn’t there anything you would like to do?” The boy said “No,” and they answered, “Well, fuss around in the lab or grounds or something and someday you may make up your mind.” The boy thought this over and decided that he wanted to be a chemist. Nobody ever sent him to a class and told him to crack a book, and nobody ever complained very much when he blew up something in the laboratory, and the next thing you knew the boy was an excellent chemist. Nobody interrupted his desire to be a chemist. It existed then, and from that point on he was not himself interrupting his willingness to be a chemist. Educationally this is a very interesting point.

Supposing we had only a few minutes as a coach on a football team and we wanted to pick out the number of men who were going to be the first squad and quickly put them in good shape so that they could win a special game; we would only have to ask this question: “Now I want any one of you people whose desire to be a football player stems from the age of ten to step forward.” Maybe half of the squad would step forward. Here would be your first team.

What about the little runt that has only been the water boy? He is the best quarterback in the world because he wanted to be a football player. But the man who was merely qualified and who thought it was a good way to get through school, get a scholarship, some coaching or make a couple of dollars, or perhaps only really wanted lots of women because he knew that women gyrated around football players, will utterly

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

pulverize the team because he is an unsupportable person. He is doing this on a via, and he isn’t really willing to be a member of a football team. His willingness is missing.

Now let’s have this ordinary team play against a team of all-stars and they will make the all-stars look like a bunch of punks. It is too simple a method of selection for anybody ever to have used.

You could by a series of almost straightwire questions ask a fellow who has difficulty in playing a trumpet, “Can you recall a time when somebody told you it was a bad thing to play a trumpet?” This limited process might stand up for two or three questions and you might be able to key out the lock he has against being a person who plays a trumpet and his ability to play a trumpet goes up. Then somebody else walks up to him and tells him something about how bad it is to be a trumpeter and he goes right back to where he was. It is not a permanent improvement at all.

It is possible that a person who was very good on the piano in his last life is born into a family who didn’t have a piano. Why? Because he cannot confront one. There isn’t one now because he cannot have one. Now he starts to learn something about this and he goes along fine until he thinks that he ought to have an upright piano to practice on. This has been restimulated a little and his parents say to him, “Oh, I don’t know. That’s much too expensive. You’ll have to pick something else.” Somebody has raised an objection to it.

Well, his willingness at that time is exerted in the direction of trying to be a part of this new team called the family and this is being subordinate, and so is his idea of playing the piano. He doesn’t force the matter but that confirms to him the scarcity of pianos. He is liable from then on not to be able to play a note or even learn how to read music. He is just as liable to be stopped again.

The willingness to write is systematically killed in American universities. I have lectured on writing to Harvard university students many times, and they have asked me how one develops style. Personally, as far as style was concerned, all one had to do was express what he wanted to say and that was style. It is no more complicated than this and sometimes, just for gags, why, write in the valence of Shakespeare or other literary figure. I have said to these students, “Style—well, I can tell you how you would find out whether you had a style or not, or how to develop one. Just sit down and write a hundred thousand words.”

The class fainted. One hundred thousand words. Nobody could write one hundred thousand words. From there on out that killed it. What was this all about? We obviously had a class of writers that had been carefully trained to be very good in every line they wrote. That isn’t how you write at all. You write! That is all you do, write for lots of people about lots of things. These students were looking for some magic sesame and the professor there is carefully monitoring them of quality, quality, quality, correcting their ideas, punctuation marks, their schematics and so on, correct, correct, correct, chop, chop, chop, for there isn’t going to be a writer in this class, you dogs. The final result of this is a complete unwillingness to write.

It is true that a person can be quantitatively coaxed into doing something that he apparently couldn’t do before. But it is only when you carelessly or accidentally tripped over this having, confronting, contribute to, mechanism. Writing lies in the band of “contribute to.” If you have to write in order to have, you rather suffer for it because an art is almost totally in Create, Contribute To, and it goes between those two lines. And when those are fallen away from, you get fouled up.

If a person keeps writing or talking pointlessly, like making out government forms to be sent to the State Department or Internal Revenue, you know nobody is ever

going to read any part of them. And you could make these forever and your willingness to do so would go by the boards eventually because there is no communication formula involved. There is no havingness, no confrontingness, no contributing-to-ness. People get so bad about this that they cannot fill out reports. The Revenue down here deprives itself of billions of dollars of revenue every year, not because people are unwilling to pay their income tax, but because they are no longer capable of confronting a form. Then after that the effort is not to fill out the form.

People will permit you to take things away from them if you do it gracefully and don’t upset their willingness too much. The way you make a greedy or a selfish child is to make him, against his will, give up things to other children. You will eventually drive him into the only-one category. Parents usually never consult the child’s willingness. They consult his havingness, handle it and they have a spoilt child.

It is interesting to watch a child that has been around somebody who always consulted him but didn’t take very good care of him as opposed to a child who had the best of care but who never was consulted.

A little boy is sitting on the floor playing with blocks and balls and is having a good time. Along comes the nurse and picks him up and takes him into the other room and changes his diapers and he screams bloody murder the whole way. He doesn’t like it. She keeps on doing this to him, placing him around, never consulting his power of choice and he will eventually grow up obsessed with the power of choice. He has to have his way. He becomes very didactic. He is trying to hold down the last rungs of it, and his ability will be correspondingly poor, particularly in the handling of people.

Now this is quite different. You know the child is hungry or this or that, and you know he ought to eat. The child will eat if he is kept on some sort of routine. Supper IS at 6:00 and he will get used to eating at 6:00, the willingness never quite overwhelmed him. He finds out the food is there at 6:00 and so he makes up his mind to eat at 6:00. You provide the havingness and he provides the willingness. If you don’t override that he will never have any trouble about food.

Then somebody comes along and talks to him and says, “Hey, wouldn’t you like to go into the other room and change your clothes?” and the answer is “No.” I am afraid that you are making a horrible mistake if you proceed from that point on the basis of “Well, I’ll give you a piece of candy,” persuade, seduce, coax, etc. That is psychology, the way psychologists handle situations, and it doesn’t really work.

You take one of two courses. Either you run expert 8-C with lots of two-way communication and so on, or you just let him grow. There is no other choice. Kids don’t like to be mauled and pulled around and not consulted. You can talk to a child and if your ARC is good with him, you can make him do all sorts of things. He will touch the floor, his head, point you out and find the table. He will fool around for a while and after that you can just say do so and so and “Let’s go and eat” and he will do it. He has found out that your commands are not necessarily going to override the totality of his willingness. So your commands are therefore not dangerous. You have confronted him and he can confront you. Therefore you and he can do something.

Suzie always gets a kick out of this because I am always having my children bring me slippers, and caps and other things and they sometimes bring me some of the most outrageous errors and I always thank them very much, take it, and as a brand-new thought say, “Go and put these in the closet now,” and they do, very happy about it. They never get the idea it is wrong just because they have made a mistake. It is quite amazing because when I say to one of them, “Well, how about going to bed, huh?” the answer is “Okay.”

A child sometimes says “I want to stay up with you” and they insist on doing so, exerting their power of choice. Just letting a child do what he is doing and not interfering with him and not running any 8-C on him is psychology. You might as well shoot a child as to let his circuits run away with him. They are never going to be in communication with anybody; they won’t grow or get experience in life for they didn’t change their havingness. They didn’t have to change their mind, work, exercise or do anything. But they respond very readily to good 8-C and communication, but it certainly takes good communication to override this—not persuasion but good communication.

People think that persuasion works with children. It doesn’t. It’s communication that does the trick. You say, “Well, it’s time for you to go to bed now,” and he says, “No.” Don’t stay on the subject. Leave it alone and just talk about something else, “What did you do today?” “Where?” “How?” “Oh, did you? Is that a fact?” “Well, how about going to bed?” and the answer will be “Okay.”

One doesn’t have to use force. Go into communication with the child, and control follows this as an inevitability. Omit control from the beginning when bringing up a child and he who looks to you for a lot of his direction and control is gypped. He thinks you don’t care about him.

However, as in the case with the playing of musical instruments, learning of languages or the arts and abilities, consult the preclear’s or child’s willingness.

To restore an ability run this technique from SLP 8:

Rehabilitation of abilities. For any ability the preclear always wanted to have, lost and couldn’t do. For example, for the speaking of Arabic: “Mock up (Arabic objects).” “Keep it from going away.” Then, “Mock up (Arab men, women, children).” “Stop (him, her) from talking.” “Start (him, her) talking.”

Should it be a particular musical instrument the preclear wants to play, have him mock up the instrument, make it solid, keep it from going away, stop and start it playing, and this will rehabilitate his ability—if Procedure CCH has been run before.

L. RON HUBBARD






HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JULY 1957




ADDITION TO THE AUDITOR’S CODE



17. Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditor’s own personal profit.


L. RON HUBBARD



Issue 50 [1957, ca. early July]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.


Levels of Skill


L. Ron Hubbard


From the earliest days of Dianetics there have always been four grades of auditing


FIRST of these was the Book Auditor (bless them), the people with the verve to do or be damned with Dianetic or Scientology written material but without formal training.

SECOND of these was the generally certified auditor—the HDA, the HCA, who had been formally trained at one or another central organization school. Trained over seven years, their skills were varied by the period in which they were trained. These were the “backbone” of the subject, the leaders of groups, the authorities in areas.

THIRD were the specially coached or trained auditors, BScn, HAA, DScn, who by repeated training kept abreast and who had a large span of schooling and training skill.

FOURTH were the Staff Auditors of central organizations. As could be expected these were trained against the necessity of producing sweeping results to uphold the repute of the Foundation or the HASI or the Founding Church. Their skills were above and beyond certification and their degrees were anything from HDA to BScn. They spent, and spend even today, many hours of training in any week just to hold their own with the subject and the repute of the “clinic.”

Now something new has happened. A plateau of training and processing skill has been reached. With Advanced Processes and the ferocity of the Training Drills, we can divide up processes and processing to match these four grades. We are rich in skill now, broadly so.

We have been producing excellent results for a long time. But now we can produce results on lower level and higher level cases than ever before.

Thus a book auditor, using the below described processes, without much training could produce fair results on average homo sapiens, patch up the environment and live better.

Thus a generally certified auditor, without further training, using the processes in which he was trained, could do very well on preclears. Remember, they were and are good processes. And this is true of pre-1957 upper grade auditors. However, the processes, even so, do not go “all the way south” or “all the way north.”

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

But here enters a new grade and level, more or less equivalent to the upper grade auditor of yesterday. This is the VALIDATED AUDITOR who has been drilled up to the level of this plateau and could go all the way south on cases if not, perhaps, all the way north. As I am so sure of this now, we have stopped looking southward. That’s what makes it a plateau. Such an auditor could audit a person in a coma or a day-old baby or somebody 10 years shocked in a spin-bin. So there’s a positiveness about the grade never before possible.

It is not probable that a staff auditor rating will ever be superseded. This level is what it is and is independent of quality of degree. Just now central organization staff auditors are at grips with fully grasping the fact that they can go all the way south and soon will be happy with that and will then be trying for “all the way north.” (The nearest approach possible to absolute clear is now the research line and will someday soon be the “clinic” auditing line.)

Hence, we get 4 levels of auditors and 4 levels of processes in Scientology.

LEVELS OF AUDITORS LEVELS OF PROCESSES

(1) The Book Auditor. (1) Processes not requiring more skill
than that acquired by reading and home
practice.

(2) The Generally Certified Auditor. (2) Qualified for the processes in which
HDA—HCA—BScn—HAA—DScn. they have been trained and no higher
into CCH because of absence of training
along CCH lines.

(3) The Validated Auditor. Any level of (3) Drilled in the Training Skills of
certificate for any period but stamped 1957. Qualified for CCH in full.
by HCO Board of Review for Advanced
Processes ‘ 5 7 .

(4) Staff Auditor. (4) Already Validated. Pursuing pro cesses developed from recent research
which have proven themselves for organi zational use.

Book Auditor processes would include:

Engram Running as described in the first edition, Book One, Dianetics. The Modern Science of Mental Health.

The Fifteen Acts of Scientology, the Handbook for Preclears.

Self Analysis in its entirety.

The Processing Section of Scientology. The Fundamentals of Thought.

The various “assists” which have been listed in many publications.

The Co-Auditors Manual processes.

All the above books are easily obtained. Their age has nothing to do with their workability on average people and they produce some startling results not otherwise attainable by any other practice on Earth despite the “lack of training” of the book auditor. This was the way the subjects started and this is the way they will continue to be used.

A book auditor requires no more okay than the writings and his own raw courage.

People feel, of late times, that book auditing is “frowned upon.” Only by medicos and head-shrinkers (a technical term for psychiatrist), not by us. Scientologists respect the nerve of the book auditor!

My feeling today is that there isn’t enough book auditing. Any book auditor, reading backwards and half drunk can do more for a man than ten thousand years at Mayo Brothers or Menninger’s Squirrel Cage. If we had a hundred thousand book auditors, the AMA, the APA and the American Society of Brainwashing would fade and die.

The Generally Certified Auditor was trained in good processes and he has always gotten results. His only stumbling block is the case all the way south. These tend to break his heart (which is why I kept my spyglass trained south for seven years!). Unless he runs into one of these unsuspectingly, he’s in clover.

There is no need to list his repertoire. It is tremendous. And in the main successfully so.

The Validated Auditor, having passed through all the TRs (Training Drills ‘57), not being human anymore, can run thorough-going CDCCtH.* Any generally certified auditor can become a Validated Auditor with drills and training.

The Staff Auditor—lord knows what he’ll be doing. He’ll be trying for the Moon and OTs—a neglected subject these last 5 years because of the southward project.

Well, there’s the way it seems to fit together.

What do you think of it?

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD





[* C for Control, D for Duplication, C for Communication, Ctfor Control of thought = H for Havingness. See also P.A.B. 122, “The Five Levels of Indoctrination and Procedure CCH.”]

FREEDOM CONGRESS LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
4 - 7 July 1957


The Freedom Congress met at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., on United States Independence Day, July 4, 1957. L. Ron Hubbard, assisted by Mary Sue Hubbard and other top Scientologists, electrified the attendees with his lectures and demonstrations of the CCHs and Training Drills. Delegates also got two hours of potent Group Processing.


** 5707C04 FC-1 Opening Lecture—How We Have Addressed the Problem
of the Mind
* * 5707C04 FC-2 Man’s Search and Scientology’s Answer
** 5707C04 FC-3 Definition of Control
** 5707C05 FC-4 Basic Theory of CCHs
5707C05 FC-5 Group Processing—Acceptable Pressures
5707C05 FC-6 Group Processing—”Hold your body/the floor on earth”
** 5707C05 FC-7 Purpose and Need of Training Drills
** 5707C05 FC-8 Training Drills Demonstrated
** 5707C06 FC-9 Third Dynamic and Communication—Demo of High School
Indoc
** 5707C06 FC-10 Training Demonstration of High School Indoctrination
** 5707C06 FC-11 Explanation & Demonstration of “Tone 40” on an Object
** 5707C06 FC-12 Levels of Skill
** 5707C06 FC-13 Explanation & Demonstration of “Tone 40” on a Person
** 5707C07 FC-14 Child Scientology [including Naming Ceremony]
** 5707C07 FC-15 CCH Steps 1 through 4: Demonstration (LRH MTS-1)
5707C07 FC-16 CCH Steps 5 through 7: plus Solids

P.A.B. No. 116
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 July 1957


SOLIDS AND CHRONIC SOMATICS



I am giving you in this PAB my latest findings in the handling of chronic somatics. However, I would like to point out that before this technique can be run on a given preclear, you must have him thoroughly under control—i.e. the person, his attention and thoughts. It is a way of running Problems of Comparable Magnitude to a chronic somatic.

Not all people can do this immediately if they cannot make things solid. It may even be very dangerous to run, but it does handle the chronic somatic, providing you have already run the preclear on CCH (Communication, Control, Havingness). When you have done this you can come back again, substituting this process for Problems of Comparable Magnitude to the chronic somatic.

The preclear must be able to make things solid. He has got to have his attention under your control and have his body under control. He must also be able to make things solid objectively (i.e. “Look at the wall and make it a little more solid”) and subjectively (i.e. having the preclear make “the mock-ups a little more solid”), which is to say that you would have to take the preclear through Procedure CCH before this would work, but on the next time through you could kill his chronic somatic deader than a mackerel. You would simply omit running Problem of Comparable Magnitude to the chronic somatic and run the intensive in this manner:

1. Present time problem.

2. Control in all its facets.

3. 8-C: “Keep it from going away.”

4. 8-C: “Hold it still.”

5. 8-C: “Make it a little more solid.”

6. Subjective Havingness: “Make the mock-ups a little more solid.”

7. Then and Now Solids.

Then go right back to wondering if he had any problems about auditing, which is now the present time problem—if people are very low on havingness the auditing always becomes a present time problem. Go up again into control and make sure that

Copyright ©1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.


you have the preclear thoroughly under control. Run through the 7 steps again. Only then would it be safe to run this technique.

This process joins up a phenomenon which has been around for years and which was never known to be turned on at will. This phenomenon is: “He knew about it all the time.”

All auditors know this phenomenon. The preclear has sinusitis—it is from Johnny punching him in the nose when he was five—and he says: “Yes, but I knew it all the time.” Well, he never knew it all the time, because he had sinusitis. It is only after he realizes that he knew it all the time that he gets well. That is the recovery of the game which underlies the game he has been playing. That is the hidden game.

The most disturbing thing in the world is to have a preclear that you have been working on cognite. He says, “Well, yes, my mother was actually a prostitute.” He never realized that before. And you say, “What do you know about that!” and he says, “I knew it all the time.” He knew it all the time, but he couldn’t identify what it was that he knew all the time.

When we talk about cognitions, we are actually looking for the master cognition, which is “I knew it all the time.” Only he didn’t know it all the time; in other words, he recovered the hidden game. It is the other game that we have suddenly got sight of. Football made him sick, but all of a sudden we spotted Lacrosse, or vice versa. He knew all the time that it was Lacrosse that made him this sick, or football that made him this sick. He knew it all the time, but only now is he well.

How do we trigger this at will?

The postulate of change is “ought to be—should be.” Limited, just as change is on any other level, but awfully effective.

The postulate which underlies havingness is “enough.” Havingness is quantitative. So you cannot run this without running the whole works evidently. He would have to be able to mock up, hence the first pass at this in CCH. He would have to be able to make things a little more solid, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to risk this one. But it evidently turns on rather at will this “I knew it all the time,” in other words, the hidden game.

You run the process this way: Tell the preclear to “Mock up enough _ (whatever the chronic somatic is)” and “Make it a little more solid.”

For example, take a case of obnosis—if you are not good at observing, you will miss on this every time. This is one of the reasons why we have more or less unconsciously been stressing obnosis. The auditor has to be able to look at somebody—and it is not the fellow’s belief that all women are bad. He is sitting there with a chronic sore throat, complete glandular arrest, with a club in his hands and you are trying to read his thoughts. Out of all these things, take the one thing he is complaining about—a sore throat.

The first thing you do is run the bad condition. Then just run the condition, after that the terminal, and you will shift his attention and turn off this “I knew it all the time. I knew my mother used to choke me.” Only he didn’t because before that he told you, “Well, mother’s a very sweet girl, very nice to me. I don’t know why I never turned out all right.”

Have him “Mock up enough sore throats” and “Make it a little more solid.” Then “Mock up enough sore throat (singular)” and “Make it a little more solid” and “Good.

Mock up enough sore throat” and by this time he will say, “Well, yes, so and so and so, probably.” His attention shifted and this is a method of doing it. It has shifted his attention from the badness of the condition to the condition. “Mock up enough throat.” He has a condition known as a throat, and this oddly enough in this particular instance becomes the solid for the terminal—enough throat. Only it will mean two different things to the preclear and you want the preclear to duplicate your commands exactly, which he will only do if he is thoroughly under your control.

Let us take “bad eyesight” for an example, although this is not necessarily the process you would use. The preclear came to you to be audited because he had shooting pains in his right kneecap. He has never been able to work because of it, draws compensation. As a result of the compensation he has an easy life and this is a control mechanism. If you take this away from him against his better “judgments” the difficulty you will have in keeping him in session thereafter is absolutely zero.

He has bad eyesight and you have him “Mock up enough bad eyesight” and “Make it a little more solid”—a few times “Enough eyesight,” a condition or circumstance, “Make it a little more solid.” “Enough eyes,” and “Make them a little more solid.” There is his chronic somatic.

I have no guarantee whatsoever that this will work in all cases at all times, because I cannot guarantee that you will have him in condition whereby he can execute the commands when given. He must be in a condition whereby he can execute the auditing commands, and if the auditing commands are “mock it up,” which means he has got to be able to get mock-ups—which you can turn on with CCH—he has to be in a condition where you have some guarantee that you can control his thoughts. You can say, “Put an emotion in the wall.” He will feel the wall mentally but he didn’t do what you said, therefore you don’t have his thoughts under control.

In other words, the person’s attention and thoughts must be under your control before this works, but when you have accomplished this, this process works with a thud.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 15 JULY 1957


8-C ON STUDENTS

Our first lesson in training from the 1 8th ACC is that the only error a Scientology instructor can make is in the direction of softness.

The one unit in the 3 ACC units now going through that

1. Had a student leave,

2. Didn’t gain or learn

was handled by poor 8-C on instructor’s part.

Scientology training Stable Datum:

When in doubt, handle student with much stricter positive placement and direction.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: md.rd
7-1 5-57




18TH AMERICAN ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
8 July—16 August 1957


The 18th American Advanced Clinical Course convened on Tuesday, July 8th, the day after the Freedom Congress ended. L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures to students starting on July 15th:


** 5707C15 18ACC-1 What is Scientology?
** 5707C16 18ACC-2 CCH Related to ARC
** 5707C17 18ACC-3 Theory and Definition of Auditing
** 5707C18 18ACC-4 What Scientology is Addressed to
** 5707C19 18ACC-5 The Five Categories
** 5707C22 18ACC-6 Control
5707C23 18ACC-7 The Stability of Scientology
5707C24 18ACC-8 Auditing Styles
** 5707C25 18ACC-9 Scales (Effect Scale)
** 5707C26 18ACC-10 The Mind: Its Structure in Relation to Thetan and MEST
5707C26 18ACC Anatomy of Problems—Coaching Athletics


The list of lectures given to the 18th ACC continues on pages 94, 95 and 103.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Washington, D.C.
All Staff
All ACC Students HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 17 JULY 1957
4—London (to
their training
personnel,
Assoc Secty)
LRH ACC file CHANGES IN TRAINING DRILLS
CO file

The 18th ACC, which is being conducted with a goal of refining training, is furnishing some vital data. This will be published from time to time and finally summarized in Training Bulletins.

Training 5, Hand Mimicry, becomes Training 5(b) Hand Mimicry.

The new Training 5 is “Sit in that Chair”. It is used on Saturdays in Washington supervised and London unsupervised.

NUMBER: Training 5.

NAME: Sit in that Chair.

COMMANDS: Sit in that Chair, comm bridged occasionally to Touch that Chair and back to Sit in that Chair.

POSITION: Auditor and pc seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To give student an actual process that integrates all earlier steps in the Communication Course (TR 0 to TR 4) as an actual process so that he will not be faced with doing this integration on 8c while in motion. Summates the things learned in Comm Course.

TRAINING STRESS: Process is not coached save by instructor. It is actually run on a fellow student. The student pc is not manually forced to do process. Only the earlier TR skills are used. Student’s confidence in being able to audit should be raised.

HISTORY: Developed by LRH for the 18th Advanced Clinical Course in Washington, D.C., July 1957.

Training 6, 8c, remains itself but is changed as follows:

NUMBER: Training 6.

NAME: 8c.

COMMANDS: First half of session period student silently steers coach’s body around room, not even to walls, quietly starting, turning and stopping coach’s body. Second part of session commands are “Look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With your right hand touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn around.” “Thank you.” Student may touch coach’s body.

POSITION: Student and coach walking side by side. Student always on coach’s right except when turning coach.

PURPOSE: First part: To accustom student to moving another body than his own without verbal communication. Second part: To accustom student to move another body by and while giving auditing commands and to accustom student to proper commands of 8c.

TRAINING STRESS: Complete, crisp precision of movement and commands. Student as in any other TR except TR 5 is flunked only for current and preceding TRs. Thus in this case the coach flunks student for every hesitation or nervousness in moving body, for every flub of command, for poor confronting, for bad communication of command, for poor acknowledgment, for poor repetition of command, and for failing to handle origins by coach.

HISTORY: Developed by LRH in Camden, New Jersey, for the 2nd ACC, in October 1953 and modified for the 18th ACC, July 1957, in Washington, D.C.

LRH:md,jh
Copyright © 1957 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 51 [1957, ca. late July]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



The Adventure of Communication

L. Ron Hubbard


The success level of a person is his communication level.

One can have only those things with which he can communicate. To have it is necessary to communicate.

One can do only those things with which he can exchange communication.

One can be whatever he feels will assist him to carry out his ideas of communication itself.

It has been three years since we first isolated communication as the dominant corner of the Affinity-Reality-Communication triangle.

Now when one realizes that have and the Reality corner of the triangle are the same and when one understands that control is possible only in the presence of maximal Affinity, one sees in Control-Communication-Havingness theory the working aspects of the Affinity-Reality-Communication theory.

We have always known A-R-C was true. We now know its best-working aspects in the Control-Communication-Havingness theories of processing.

Communication continues its dominance. Affinity gives us the only working mood of Control. Reality gives us the reward of Communication.

Thus one can BE—one can DO, one can HAVE only as well as one can communicate.

At the intensely successful Freedom Congress, just held, a number of Training drills were presented which have as their goal communication betterment.

Doing these drills betters one’s communication ability.

Thus these drills can be seen as an opening door to better beingness, better doingness, better havingness.

While, as everyone recognized at the Congress, there is no substitute for Academy training in these drills, doing them yourself at home can result in enormous improvement.

We have found the level from which to live successfully—Tone 40.

We have found the drills and processes by which to get us there.

High Adventure requires high communication.

Could there be anything so brash as to stop us now?

Copyright ©1957 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
All Rights Reserved.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE


HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1957

STAFF AUDITORS WASHINGTON ONLY

WITHHOLDS AND COMMUNICATION

A Preview of a book to be called “The Handling of Human Problems. A Scientology Text by L. Ron Hubbard,” a paperbacked booklet.

The book explains the parts of man, ARC, and states that the ability to communicate on 8 dynamics must be regained in order to lead a successful Spiritual life.

The book will then give a process to rehabilitate Communication. It is based on our old “Recall a Secret”. The version is entirely straight wire.

The reason secrets cannot be dredged up in people is because they will not tell them. This process by-passes divulgence of data and works well without informing on oneself.

The Process.

The auditor explains to the pc that he is not looking for hidden data to evaluate it. He is only asking the pc to look at the data.

The auditor then makes a list of valences, paying great attention to those the pc considers “unimportant” or is very slow to divulge.

Then the auditor takes this list and runs repetitive straight wire ( 1951 ) as follows:

“Think of something you might withhold from (valence).”

He repeats this question over and over until no comm lag is present. He never says “Something else you might withhold” because auditor wants pc to think of some of these many times.

Before selecting another valence, auditor runs a little Locational or Trio.

He then takes next valence the same way.

The list is covered once, then the same list is covered again.

The object is speed . Cover many people.

Given time the auditor can do the same thing on all dynamics.

VARIATION

Instead of a valence, body parts may be used.

“Think of something you might withhold about your (body part).”

Leave sexual parts or obvious psychosomatic difficulties until last. Don’t begin on a withered arm. Pc can’t cut it.

SUMMARY

It is amusing to realize that this process overlords all early psychotherapies. But

they, using this effort to locate secrets, thought that divulgence and confession were the therapeutic agents. These have no bearing on the workability.

Further, early efforts naively thought there was one secret per case. Actually there are billions.

It is easy to get into past lives on this. A basic secret is that one lived before.

This can be E-Metered with great success if the auditor realizes that the meter is only useful to find out if a valence or a dynamic is hot or flat. Locating actual data for the auditor to know about is useless to the process itself.

Eight or eight thousand or eight billion secrets later will discover the pc in better communication. This is our only goal.

WARNING

The invasion of privacy-horror of-can stop the process cold if the auditor is too nosey.

The auditor will strike a data gusher sooner or later in the pc. It is unimportant.

The process may run down havingness. The “secret mechanism” is also used by pc to keep body from going away. (Some address to this last with “Keep [body part] from going away” may be needed.)

PURPOSE OF THIS RELEASE

To put HGC pcs into high communication.

To gain know-how for the above book—therefore report any changes needed or problems met while running this.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: md. nm
7-29-57





18TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
29 - 30 July 1957


5707C29 18ACC-11 Optimum 25-Hour Session

** 5707C30 18ACC-12 Death


Other lectures given to the 18th ACC will be found on pages 90, 95 and 103.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 JULY ] 957

(Amending HCO Bulletin of 29 July 1957)


STAFF AUDITORS WASHINGTON ONLY



More workable commands for testing:

1. “Recall something you have done or said to (valence).”

2. “Think of something you could do or say to (valence).”


LRH:md,rd L. RON HUBBARD
7-31-57












18TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
31 July—9 August 1957


** 5707C31 18ACC-13 Surprise—The Anatomy of Sleep
5708C01 18ACC-14 Thinnies
** 5708C02 18ACC-15 Ability—Laughter
5708C05 18ACC-16 The Handling of l.Q. (Factors Behind)
5708C06 18ACC-17 The Scale of Withhold
** 5708C07 18ACC-18 Havingness, Endurance, Progress
** 5708C08 18ACC-19 Confronting, Necessity Level
5708C09 18ACC-20 Instructing a Course


Other lectures given to the 18th ACC will be found on pages 90, 94 and 103.

P.A.B. No. 117
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 August 1957

CONFRONTING PRESENT TIME


We all know about the unreality of processes too high for a preclear. You ask him to do something too high for him and he, oddly enough, can do it. He can get the idea of doing it, and he will even tell you he is doing it. Some preclears can actually walk around and touch the walls for as long as you want them to and it doesn’t affect them. It means that a particular preclear who is doing this has no responsibility whatsoever for walking around and touching the walls. It doesn’t affect him except that irresponsibility is running out all the time. I don’t know if there is such a thing as a technique that is thoroughly above the preclear’s ability to run. It is only a much longer reach.

I have taken a very bad-off case and told him to mock up a scene which everybody could see. I told him to do this over and over and over and I turned his mock-ups on brilliantly.

I have said in a Congress “Create that wall,” etc. The funny part is that it almost killed the audience, and they didn’t even spot what it was during the congress that almost mowed them down. They thought something else was responsible for it. They complained about two or three other processes which, if run on individuals, would hardly affect them at all. But they didn’t complain about this one. We were making them confront the wall, create the wall, take ownership of the wall, take ownership of the universe, and it was so far from them that they were unaware that they couldn’t do it.

When you can imagine people walking up and down the street out here being unaware of the fact that they are unable to confront the street, you have got aberration really nailed. Their irresponsibility has grown to the point of not even knowing they cannot, to the point of doing it all the time. You process them for a while and they will just become aghast at confronting the street. It feels all right to them for a while, and all of a sudden they will get a somatic and flinch here, and they are not sure that they want to touch that tree. They are actually coming upscale toward this action. People evidently get interiorized into a universe, and then don’t ever exteriorize. It is because they find more and more in it that they are unwilling to confront. So their awareness of its existence drops. All blindness is an extreme unawareness.

For instance, if one were all wound up with some other person and that other person died or disappeared, there was too much absent in present time. But this is not factual. As a writer in the New York area, I used to go down to the Village with some of the boys and used to have some knock-down-drag-out arguments, discussions, personal feuds, brawlings, etc. We were always doing something wild or weird. A crowd of us went up to Sing Sing one time just to see how it felt to sit in an electric chair. We were always having criminals and things electrocuted in stories. In order to know how

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

they felt we walked through the green door. We were always doing something like this and life looked very alive and full, and it seemed impossible to reach through it or to it or to exhaust it in any way. Looking back after a long time and at a long distance it seems to me very much like New York and the Village—dull, and it is all tame and a long time ago. But that is merely because I am not in contact with it. The same dramas still go on.

To give you an idea of short circuits, an artist, Hannes Bok’s next-door neighbor, was walking past a thrift shop and bought a painting because she wanted the frame. When she got home she wiped off some of the dust and found out that the painting was a submission to the New York World’s Fair in 1939. It had the artist’s name on it. So Hannes Bok took a look at it and said, “That’s Ron,” wrote to me to find out about this, and that was right. She wants to give the painting to me and is sending it here.

In other words, there are all kinds of wild little actions, randomities, short circuits and so forth going on in the world. This one was intimately enough connected with me that I would be alerted to it. But if I were in the scene, there would be all kinds of actions that would only vaguely come close to this in which I would be vitally interested. Why? They also concern ME now, because I am part of the scene. So at this distance I am aware of New York because something intimately concerned me, but in New York everything would concern me, so I would be intimately interested in it.

People become rather easily convinced there isn’t much in present time. I have seen race drivers talking about their humdrum lives. It is wild. You talk to these T.W.A. and American airline pilots. They think their life is a little bit humdrum.

I was down at the airport the other evening to meet a couple coming in from Ireland, and the snow was coming down thickly. A quarter of a century ago, any wooden propellor trying to chew through that much snow would have just been torn into splinters at once. Well, evidently a steel propellor isn’t affected. The leading edges don’t gather ice any more, and a lot of other things don’t occur. I know that airplanes have been made totally proof.

But pilots were flying through this snow on schedule and landing and taking off and continuing airline schedules, and I could hardly see the length of the administration building. And I imagine that if I’d gone into the pilot’s shack where they were checking in, they would have been saying, “Aw, it’s just another darned night,” and they would wish they could do something interesting.

In such a case man has disconnected himself to some degree from present time, and therefore not much in present time affects him. (Connectedness as a process will help to remedy this condition: “Look around here and find something you wouldn’t mind making connect with you,” and see that he makes it connect with him, and not him with the object.) You might say that there is so much danger in present time that he must disconnect most of the present time from himself.

As I was saying, the personal interest factor extends from New York to Washington, D.C. when something personal occurs. Well, if you were in New York, there would be a lot of personal things occurring—what a cab driver said to another cab driver would become a personal matter—on a higher dynamic. This is, by the way, the dwindling scale of the dynamics you are looking at when you look at a distance from.

Time itself seems to strip away from us our adventures and objects and havingness. But havingness is only an awareness of existence. Why we so readily consent to have present time stripped away at this mad rate is quite interesting because we are to a marked degree in control of it.

For instance, I had time shift on me the other day rather inexplicably and startlingly and it upset me for a little while. As I was traveling through time at the usual routine rate of speed which would be my rate of passage through time, and I had a lot of things to get done, I accidentally extended time on some kind of an automaticity I hadn’t been aware of. I got a lot of things done and came back and found that five minutes had passed, and it upset me because about two-and-a-half hours should have passed.

So concept of time is something which is quite variable, it sometimes changes on us when we skid or take our fingers off it. Our machinery which is carefully saying “one second, one second, one second” slips over into the old machine which we had which said “one—second—one—second—” without at the same time impeding our motion.

Motion is not necessarily related to the abstract time, it only appears to be. But why are people so anxious, why do people have so little time as they go downscale? It is quite interesting, but they do have less and less time the further downscale they go. Well, they are just that anxious to have present time stripped away, and they are counting on this mechanism of the universe which will take this present time away and dispose of the walls, space, and in just a little time they hope not to be there any longer.

Some part of them is very frantic although they appear to be very calm. Therefore they avidly consent to this thing, and then one day they complain (second postulate) that they haven’t enough time to do anything. Therefore they cannot do anything. Quite a fascinating enigma.

If you said “total responsibility” you would be saying to admit the authorship of, be willing to admit the authorship of, any created thing anywhere whether yours or another’s, and “mis-responsibility” would be the miscalling of authorship. In other words, those things which you, yourself, had done or made, you would say, “I did or made these things.” And those things which other people had made, you would say you had made them. You thus get this mis-responsibility.

Now total responsibility would come out of not just the assignment of the correct authorship to everything and would be the fact, act or final consequence of being willing to do so. Only willingness is necessary. One has to be willing to do that and that is the state of mind you should bring your preclear into—only willing to do that.

As far as anchor points are concerned, if a person made them and said that he made them, all will be well, but if he said he didn’t make them when he actually made them, that would be horrible. That is a mis-responsibility.

For instance, if you have a preclear mock up an anchor point and actually fit it into some point in his skull, in contradistinction to the others, he will get a headache. Why should he get a headache since the anchor point belongs there? Because he didn’t make those anchor points. Now he makes one and he puts one in and he is assuming ownership of the others. He didn’t find the anchor point that belonged there and put it there, and then say, “Well, I put it there but I didn’t make it.” If he had done that he wouldn’t have had a headache and the anchor point would be there.

A mishandling of life, however, is not as serious as the desire to mishandle it. An anxiety to mishandle life, a willingness to mishandle it, or an unawareness that one is unwilling to handle it properly are the aberrative factors, not the actual mishandling of it.

Any thetan can play the game of saying, “Well, I made these body anchor points.” He did it consciously and he can play that game. But to have to admit that from some exterior compulsion would be something else.

Take for an example you having to take charge of the mimeograph machine which is running badly. It is not your department. You don’t desire to take it over but you have to, and the next thing you know is that you have busted the mimeograph machine. What happened here? One sees people do this in offices all the time. One thinks one is being forced to take a responsibility and one is unwilling to take that responsibility, thinking it belongs to someone else. So that correction under duress— that is to say misownership and misresponsibility under duress—always has grave consequences.

This works in many fields. For example, a traffic cop stops you for speeding and comes up alongside of the wheel and says that you were speeding, and you say, “Yes, I was speeding.” He says you have been doing 65 miles an hour, and you correct him and say, “68, Officer,’’ and he says, “Well, it is pretty slippery today,” and you say, “I know it.” It unnerves him. He may or may not give you a ticket, but the chances of his giving you one are much cut down. You are not buttering him up or telling him that you have learned better now or anything of the sort, but saying the exact facts of the case tends to as-is them. You have knocked out his first postulate.

L. RON HUBBARD





ACC BULLETIN
10 August 1957

CCH 18


This is CCH 18, named after the 18th ACC.

The following process is to be run by students on students in the evening sessions of the coming week:

Commands: “Look around here and find something you would be unwilling for that body (or psychosomatic body part) to have.”

“Look around here and find something you would be willing to have.”

Interspersed with Locational—”Notice that (indicated object).”

Formal auditing.

Process may be run inside seated, or outside ambulatory.

Auditor-pc teams are to be assigned by their instructor of next week.


L. RON HUBBARD


Issue 52 [1957, ca. early August]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



Confronting


L. Ron Hubbard


This begins a series of training processes aimed at raising the communication level.

In subsequent issues I’ll give you others, so don’t fail to do this one in the next two weeks.

This is taken from the new Student Manual.


Training 0.

Name: Confronting Preclear.

Commands. None.

Position: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart—about five feet.

Purpose: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing.

Training Stress: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not speak, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. Coach may speak only if student goes anaten (dope off). Student is confronting the body, thetan and bank of preclear.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be “interesting.”
________________

We used to say, the way out is the way through.

Now we say,

If you can’t stand it, Confront it.

And that, I think you’ll find, is much more satisfactory.


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Definition of a Scientology Clear

A Scientology Clear would be able to confront the physical universe, other bodies, his own body, other minds, his own mind and other beings—without trimmings.

The first step on this road is the drill called Training 0—Confronting.

Do it for at least 25 hours and you’ll never have trouble with a preclear.

No systems allowed. Both feet flat on the floor. No twitches, no squirms, no talk.

If you have difficulty, feel the floor and your chair back as you sit. That adds confronting the universe.

Confronting isn’t just looking—so don’t try to confront with your eyeballs only.

Do it and may you never be the same again.

Nothing like Training 0 to raise Communication level.


L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 118
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 August 1957


VALIDATION COMMITTEE


The following statement and recommendations concerning U.S. Validation of Certificates were made by the Validation Committee of the Freedom Congress, held July 4 through 7 at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., and accepted by the Congress and myself for the U.S.

“Scientologists play the game of life. They put life into living. Homo sapiens lets life live him and this planet has a large lack of people who knowingly play the game of life. The reality of the game of life can only be communicated by those who play it. Scientologists do play the game. Our ability as players determines how well and how swiftly we win at making life a game for all men, and this is one of the goals of Scientology. Our direct ability to control, to communicate and to have men, women, groups and governments determines the degree to which we can create a game of life and a knowledge of livingness to all men. Your ability as a Scientologist to play and to communicate playingness and livingness will determine how soon and how well we can win. The Validation Program can better enable you to play and live on all dynamics, no matter how well you are doing now. Truthfully, can you be more able? Yes! No man will ordinarily light a fire by rubbing dry sticks together when he can use a match; the match is obviously a better tool. The Validation Program will sharpen your old tools and provide you with better ones. We have today in Scientology better communication, control and havingness on ability than ever before. The Validation Program is intended to give every professional Scientologist the basic tools of livingness and the ability to use them. These are his by right of his own very existence, by right of the fact that he helped build the better bridge that Ron Hubbard asked him to help build, and by right of the fact that he cannot help but want to play the game better once he realizes that there really is a better level of game now in existence through his participation in this program. Toward this end, we, the Validation Committee, propose and recommend the following procedures dedicating them to mankind and the creation of human ability:

“1. That there be two classifications of validation:

(a) The professional auditor of any grade coached in training drills and CCH processes and passed by the HCO Board of Review; and

(b) Doctors of Scientology coached and trained in the use and coaching of these skills and validated by the HCO Board of Review, to both use CCH processes and coach others in their use subject to approval by the HCO Board of Review.

“2. We further recommend that a travelling HCO Board of Review be organized to sit in major cities for the purpose of validating for the use of CCH

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

processes those professional auditors coached by Doctors of Scientology in the field.

“3. That Notification be sent to every professional auditor in the field that his professional certificate of whatever grade is as valid today and as honored as it was upon the day it was issued.

“4. That Doctors of Scientology authorized to coach other professional auditors in training drills and CCH processes take responsibility for their areas in seeing to it that all professional auditors (those holding professional certificates) in their respective areas are personally contacted and the purposes of the 1957 Validation Program are thoroughly and carefully communicated and received.

“We of this Committee deem ourselves highly honored at having been selected for this recommending committee. We pledge our cooperation in this 1957 Validation Program and urge the fullest cooperation by all auditors everywhere that we may have for the first time in earth’s recorded history true sanity and civilization for all mankind.”

Wing Angel, Chairman
Kenneth D. Barrett, Technical Adviser
Burke Belknap
J. Burton Farber
Rosina Mann
Ralph Swanson

L. RON HUBBARD
























18TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
16 August 1957


5708C16 18ACC-21 The Future of Scientology

5708C16 18ACC Awards

Earlier lectures given to the 18th ACC will be found on pages 90, 94 and 95.



Issue 53 [1957, ca. late August]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



Communication


L. Ron Hubbard



Communication is life. Without it we are dead to all.

Gradually the importance of Communication has evolved since July 1950 when I first evolved the ARC triangle. The corners are Affinity, Reality and Communication.

The triangle has many fascinating aspects. If one corner of it is lowered, the other two are dropped as well. If one corner is raised the other two are raised.

But the full use of this triangle, no matter how much Scientologists refer to it, has never been established.

Let us see some ways the triangle is used.

Estimation of the quality or ability of a person is at once established by his tone. Tone is established by his ARC. The whole of the book Science of Survival is devoted to this.

Actually, tone is established by his Affinity and Reality. It is most directly observed by his Communication.

One easy, quick way to ascertain a person’s tone would be as follows: What does he try to do to your ARC? If he discovers something with which you have good ARC, does he attempt to increase or decrease your communication with it?

The whole theory of games conditions as contained in Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, when applied to A-R-C opens up volumes of understanding. Obsessive selection of opponents is obsessive cut of communication. In a game, one seeks to cut the communication of an opponent. When one is in an obsessive games condition one obsessively cuts everyone else’s communication.

This can be done in two ways with the same end result. He or she insists on communication with hurtful things so that one will know better than to communicate (as a nation does to youth with war) or the communication cut is direct.

Lower affinity with things and communication is cut. Raise affinity with things and communication is improved.



Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

An example of this would be the contrast between the end results achieved by (1) a parent who warns the child about things and (2) a parent who lets the child get acquainted with things. The child handled the first way will go awry; the child handled the second way will become the better child.

You notice I have said “warns the child about things.” This could be expressed also as “lowers the affinity of the child about reality.”

One determines, then, the actual character of a person by observing his intent concerning communication.

If a person wants Communication to be knowingly raised (and all good Communication is knowing Communication), his intent to another is good. There is no games condition here.

If a person wants Communication to be unknowing or lowered, his intent to another is bad.

Communication is the clue that is always in sight. By it one sees the true Affinity and Reality of the person.

When another tries to chop your ARC with something, it is a good thing to decoy him into believing you have ARC with something else and see how he handles that. He, by cutting away, seeks to make you a victim of his game. It becomes an amusing game when you fully understand ARC. The difference will be—you will be playing a knowing game—the other person will only be dramatizing.

Many a budding Scientologist has been squelched by someone chopping his ARC with Scientology when in actuality it was merely someone chopping his ARC.

Communication is the clue. If you can handle communication in or out, you can win.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 AUGUST 1957




GOVERNMENT PROJECT STABLE DATA


To any government official or on any government project the HASI stable data for negotiation and discourse are as follows:

WE ARE THE EXPERTS ON HUMAN ABILITY AND ENDURANCE. WE OFFER ONLY SERVICES. WE DISCUSS ONLY RESULTS, THE NEED OF RESULTS, THE CONSEQUENCES OF NO RESULTS, THE SINCERITY OF THE ORGANIZATION AND ALL CONCERNED IN OBTAINING RESULTS, AND INTERESTING RESULTS.

REASON: You cannot communicate in 25 minutes something which took 25 years to develop. Scientology really takes some time to learn. To try to teach someone Scientology at a luncheon table or in an office is difficult, since prejudice and mental illiteracy are barriers. Scientology, however, using the above stable data, is easy.

We know already that in a discussion with uninformed persons, these attempt to learn all about Scientology in 25 minutes. To stop all further learning by them, try at once and instantly to fully educate them. To lead them to further learning read again the stable data given above.

The importance of these data will be realized when they will be published to all personnel on a project as a must.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:rs jh Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 119
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 September 1957

THE BIG AUDITING PROBLEM


If you were to take a mediumly good race driver and you wanted to make out of him a championship race driver, I’m afraid you would have to train him from scratch. And you would have to train him with a great deal more ardor than you would have to train just a kid that just walked in from Kokomo with an interest in motors.

Nevertheless, if you were successful in training a mediumly good race driver with a lot of races behind him, straight from scratch and all the way through, you would have a championship race driver—there would be no doubt about this whatever. Whereas the kid from Kokomo might or might not.

I will tell you at once the first and foremost factor, and that is, auditing does require a certain amount of stamina. It takes a certain amount of what it takes just to stay around Scientology—there is that, you see. It takes a certain amount of—to use a technical term—”guts.” You know that. In the first place, the problem of living is complicated by the fact that you know what the other fellow is doing, and he doesn’t. You go down to the bank and your communication is disturbed by the degree that you know the fellow behind the teller’s window is a 1.5, the like of which you’ve never seen before, and he thinks he’s just a good average human being doing a job, and you count your change more carefully than you would on some other bank teller.

Now there is a tremendous advantage in this. You don’t walk around all the time in a figure-figure wondering what’s wrong with you because you don’t always get along invariably with other people uniformly well. Now you realize that the bulk of the human race is walking around with the belief that there is something wrong somewhere, but they don’t quite know what it is and it worries them. Now when you get up to a degree where you have some idea of this worry, you are aware of the factors which exist, the fact that your awareness has increased is all in your favor.

One of the great truths of Scientology is that INCREASED AWARENESS IS THE ONLY FACTOR WHICH OFFERS ANY ROAD OUT. That is an awfully simple truth, but you’ll find out that people don’t know that. They think that LESS awareness is the road out—and that is the road down into the basement.

All right—you live in a world that is trying right now to commit suicide on the grandest scale it has ever attempted, although I will say that when they dug up that last cave down in the Middle East and found seven civilizations, they did find under the shreds of the seventh civilization green glass, which looked awfully like the green glass from an atomic explosion out in the middle of the New Mexican desert. In other words, tens of thousands of years ago there was evidently another atomic blast, and perhaps everybody has been coming forward through barbarism and so on up the line.


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

It is quite amusing to notice that atomic radiation DOES reverse the genetic line. It gives a throwback. It produces the more original forms.

So you would expect the human race at this time to be walking toward greater and greater individual survival and less and less group survival. And here you are with some kind of a notion of the fact that the third dynamic exists and you are able to march out a bit on the third dynamic and the rest of the world is retreating back to the first dynamic—probably an inverted first.

I just had a report from our Public Relations Unit concerning the amount of attention being paid to injured persons alongside the road and on the street, and the report summed up that practically no attention was being paid now to anybody who was injured. That is quite interesting, because it has suffered, according to Public Relations, a considerable shift in attitude during the last two months. You are quite well aware of the fact that there might be just a tiny amount of radiation in the air which would never really damage anybody physically at all, yet which would restimulate people into a heavy unknowing games condition. So they would begin to act more and more hectic and on the first dynamic. This would be one of the first symptoms that you would discover in a society—everybody takes out on the Only One classification. Now that is the road to death. It doesn’t matter whether or not the society at large ever is atom-bombed, that point is not of any great interest to us. It IS of great interest to us, however, that the effects of radiation and its presence in the society drives people down the dynamics.

All right. So although it is pretty hard to live around Scientology very often— somebody tells me, “You know, that is awfully restimulative material which is in these lectures” (I’ve heard this said two or three times), “Oh, I don’t know, I’ve sat through a lot of lectures and it just restimulated me and I’m in terrible shape now.” And I’ve also heard somebody in the organization look at a remark like this and laugh. They say, “Well, the only real difference is that you’re in terrible shape, that’s sure, but now you know it.” And if you’re in bad shape, it’s better to know it than not know it, that’s for sure.

What happens to Scientology and Scientologists in a world of this character? What happens to us? Why should we know what we know and know it well, and so on? That’s because your basic attitude toward the world at large will have to be more and more an auditor’s attitude toward a preclear if you are going to accomplish any survival at all. To get anybody to do anything will probably require an auditor here in the near future. I will give you an idea of this.

In North Africa they had the Arab with the gun and whip. He could force people to do things with a gun and a whip and he accomplished a tremendous amount of extermination, but he certainly didn’t advance that civilization very much. In South Africa they had a bit of the whip but everybody just gave up. The South African native is probably the one impossible person to train in the entire world—he is probably impossible by any human standard. I’ll give you an example. A South African native is being shown how to sow crops and he has a basket, and he’s got some seed, and he’s walking along back of the harrow disc—and he is supposed to throw seed out this way: seed out this way, seed out that way, seed out this way. A white man is riding a little tractor that’s pulling the disc and scraping the soil for the seed. And this scene was enacted and was witnessed and was told to me with considerable hilarity as some kind of an idea of learning rate. The white man was sitting on the little tractor pulling the harrow, the native along behind him, sowing the seed straight down in handfuls on the ground. The white man got off the tractor, came back to the native, took the basket away from him, put his hand in the basket, threw it to the right, put his hand in the basket, threw it to the left, and gave it back to the native. And the native waited, the white man got on the tractor, drove along, and the native took a handful out of the

basket and threw it straight on the ground. So the white man got off the tractor, came back, took the basket away from the native, showed the native, throw it to the right, throw it to the left, gave it back to the native, took his seat again on the tractor, the native followed along behind, took handfuls and threw it straight on the ground! And this went on for a very long time. The native never did throw any handfuls of seed to the right and left. Never did. That is farming in South Africa.

Now did anything ever come along and change that? Yes. Man had to cease to be Homo Sapiens and had to become Homo Scientologicus in order to accomplish any action that was anywhere near efficient in South Africa. And we have had some auditors in South Africa who have actually succeeded in training natives easily and well and have successfully managed large organizations there. That’s certainly something. Now with these people it was still possible to get something done. But what had this native done? Was this native what we think of as primitive stock? No, we make a great many mistakes. We say a child is in a “native state.” A native is in a “native state.” People are in a barbaric condition and then they grow up and become civilized. How do we know that this barbaric condition isn’t a retrogression from a highly civilized condition back to an Only One category? How do we know that isn’t true? How do we know that that native didn’t at one time achieve a great civilization of culture which then collapsed on him and he went back into a state of being a barbarian?

But the point is, is this true that a native is in a clearer state, and is it true that it requires Livingness to advance somebody in that crude state up to a condition of ability? No, that is not true. The child, the primitive, the native, are in retrograded states. They are worse off than somebody who is at a civilized or thinking or analytical level.

I will give you an interesting example of this. If you can tell the difference between a lot of little kids you run into, and psychos, I’ll give you a medal. Now the funny part of it is that little kids have something to hope for. They have the future to grow up into. And that’s their only asset. Almost everything else is on the debit side of the column. Here is this poor devil who has been slugged, he’s just lost a body, he’s been put into a state of anxiety, here he’s got another body, is it going to get along right or isn’t it? He’s got the hope that it will grow and that alone can carry him forward and color the world brightly for him, but at the same time he is suffering from death shock. And because he is suffering from death shock, he is coming along very timidly with his learning. Now that is the condition a little kid is in, and when you KNOW that a little kid is in that condition, boy! can you handle him! You don’t label him with this omnipresent overused term “insane,” or “psychotic,” you don’t do that. This person is having a terrible time trying to adjust himself to his environment and control a body which is suffering from many responses he does not understand, and he is at his wit’s end. The delusions of children and death delusions are quite similar. When a person dies and starts to pull out of that body, he generally snaps in on himself a torrent of facsimiles of one kind or another. He has all sorts of weird things that go “boomp in the night” present themselves at that moment.

And very often you get a preclear who is suffering merely from the death shock. And he is psychotic, he’s crazy, he doesn’t know whether he is coming or going. Why? Because he’s surrounded by things he cannot understand—and that is the common denominator of all lack of orientation, of all aberration. It’s being surrounded by things you cannot understand. And a child, surrounded by these things he cannot understand, therefore can produce what we call childhood delusions. But I can’t find any real difference between these childhood delusions and the delusions being suffered by a person about to die or a person in an asylum.

When the kid gets worried, he’s worried. Now who can handle him? Mamas and papas across the face of Earth today, particularly in America, have just about given up.

We have a whole philosophy—we hardly dignify it with the name of Science or even really dignify it with the name of Philosophy—which tells us that the child must be permitted to express himself, that you let the child do anything he pleases in any direction that he pleases and he will be all right—now that is modern psychology at work with children, and it is not true.

A child requires understanding and a child requires assistance in controlling the environment around him which is already too big, too strong, and is moving much too fast on him. He has to be set a good example of 8-C. I am not now talking about heavy discipline. I’ll show you the shortness of discipline. How many people have told you to be a good boy or a good girl, and when you were a good boy and a good girl, they never came to you and said, “Thank you for being a good boy or a good girl.” I almost startled little Quentin out of his wits a couple of evenings ago. I told him to be a good boy now and go to sleep. He was feeling upset. “Stay in bed, now, get some rest.” He was very quiet for half an hour. I went downstairs again and noticed he was still awake, and I said, “Thank you very much for being a good boy.” He smiled, looked sort of dazed—it really shook him. And ever since then he’s been saying—he always says it with enthusiasm, but with this he just about bursts the walls—”HELLO, DADDY!” He is really in communication. Probably the first time it’s happened to him in seventy-six trillion years. You get the idea! Somebody did give him an order and then did finally acknowledge that he had executed it. But there is a common lag on the executing of such an order as “Be good,” or “Go to sleep,” and there is never an auditor there to say “Thank you,” never an auditor there to say “You did it.” So life is furnished with these tremendous numbers of unfinished cycles.

If one is bad, it gets acknowledged, confirmed and pushed around, but if he’s good, it’s sort of neglected. That is an interesting factor right there. But all I am telling you is that children, South African natives, and now the entirety of this world in which we are living, present to us an auditing problem. We are rich in being able to understand what is happening in our environment and we are rich also in knowing exactly how to handle such a circumstance or condition. Nobody knew before. That is factually true here on Earth.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 SEPTEMBER 1957


When a verbal direction is given to the HGC Staff Auditors concerning the processing of preclears, such as what process is to be run, etc, the auditor is to write out verbatim the order and have it initialed by myself and present it to the Director of Processing immediately. The processing directions are to be followed exactly without variation until ordered to change.

This is the Stable Datum: If given an order by myself and it isn’t written, you are to write it out.

LRH:md.jh
Copyright ©1957 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON (Issued at Washington)

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 3 SEPTEMBER 1957
To: Dir Tr
All Instructors
Assoc Sec
Tech Dir
HCA/HPA COURSE PROCESSES


The following are the only processes to be run in actual student auditing. (All Formal Auditing.) They are to be run as they appear on the Training schedule. All other processes are to be coached.

1. RUDIMENTS in full.

2. ARC Straightwire: “Recall something that was really real to you.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you really liked someone.” “Thank you.” The 3 commands are given in that order and repeated in that order consistently. (FOR TRAINING ONLY.)

3. Static Preparation. “Recall a moment of loss.”

4. Control Trio. Commands: “Notice that (object).” “Get the idea of having that (object).” Flatten this, then “Notice that (object).” “Get the idea it would be all right for it to remain as it is.” Flatten, then “Notice that (object).” “Get the idea of making it disappear.” (WITH EMPHASIS ON “REMAIN”.) (All with proper acknowledgments.)

5. OP BY DUP, old style—book and bottle. “Go over to the book.” “Look at it.” “Pick it up.” “What is its color?” “What is its temperature?” “What is its weight?” “Put it down in exactly the same place.” Then same commands with a bottle (or ashtray, etc). (All with proper acknowledgments.)

6. Training 5: “Seat that body in that chair” comm bridged occasionally to “Touch that chair” and back to “Seat that body in that chair”.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 4 SEPTEMBER 1957
Dir Training
All HCA Instructors
All ACC Instructors
Org Sec
Pub Rel
Tech Dir
London STABLE DATA FOR INSTRUCTORS
Other operations

for info

1. Instructors must know and use the Instructor’s Code to the letter. There must be no violation of this Code permitted by the Director of Training.

2. Grant Beingness to the students at all times. An Instructor must be willing for a coach to “instruct” without resenting a “valence theft”.

3. Insist that coaches give the student auditors wins; have coaches push the student auditor to a better willingness and ability, and chop bank, not thetan.

4. Have coaches coach with precision, and have them tell the student auditor when he has done something well. Instruct them to tell the student auditor what he is doing right as well as what he is doing wrong.

5. See that the coaches coach with Purpose, Reality, Intention, and to Win.

6. Instruct coach to maintain his control when student auditor gets in “hot water”, adding more ARC to help him through it, while at the same time banging away at the same level. Make the coach who caused it retrieve any student who blows.

7. An Instructor’s sole purpose is not to make a student blow. The main goal of an Instructor is to make a better auditor. This then must apply to coaches.

8. Always answer your students’ questions as per the Instructor’s Code. An Instructor should not withhold communication from students when the student needs communication.

9. Run good 8-C on students with lots of ARC. Stress good 8-C more than ARC.

10. The most important thing an Instructor should do is to make a good auditor out of every student. This means making good coaches. This means wins. This means beingness.

As ye teach ‘em, so shall they audit.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: md.rd Copyright © 19 57 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 54 [1957, ca. early September]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



More Confronting


L. Ron Hubbard



That which a person can confront, he can handle.

The first step of handling anything is gaining an ability to face it.

It could be said that war continues as a threat to Man because Man cannot confront war. The idea of making war so terrible that no one will be able to fight it is the exact reverse of fact—if one wishes to end war. The invention of the longbow, gunpowder, heavy naval cannon, machine guns, liquid fire, and the hydrogen bomb add only more and more certainty that war will continue. As each new element which Man cannot confront is added to elements he has not been able to confront so far, Man engages himself upon a decreasing ability to handle war.

We are looking here at the basic anatomy of all problems. Problems start with an inability to confront anything. Whether we apply this to domestic quarrels or to insects, to garbage dumps or Picasso, one can always trace the beginning of any existing problem to an unwillingness to confront.

Let us take a domestic scene. The husband or the wife cannot confront the other, cannot confront second dynamic consequences, cannot confront the economic burdens, and so we have domestic strife. The less any of these actually are confronted the more problem they will become.

It is a truism that one never solves anything by running away from it. Of course, one might also say that one never solves cannonballs by baring his breast to them. But I assure you that if nobody cared whether cannonballs were fired or not, control of people by threat of cannonballs would cease.

Down on skid row where flotsam and jetsam exist to keep the police busy, we could not find one man whose basic difficulties, whose downfall could not be traced at once to an inability to confront. A criminal once came to me whose entire right side was paralyzed. Yet, this man made his living by walking up to people in alleys, striking them and robbing them. Why he struck people he could not connect with his paralyzed side and arm. From his infancy he had been educated not to confront men. The nearest he could come to confronting men was to strike them, and so his criminal career.

The more the horribleness of crime is deified by television and public press, the less the society will be able to handle crime. The more formidable is made the juvenile delinquent, the less the society will be able to handle the juvenile delinquent.

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

In education, the more esoteric and difficult a subject is made, the less the student will be able to handle the subject. When a subject is made too formidable by an instructor, the more the student retreats from it. There were, for instance, some early European mental studies which were so complicated and so incomprehensible and which were sown with such lack of understanding of Man that no student could possibly confront them. In Scientology when we have a student who has been educated basically in the idea that the mind is so formidable and so complicated that none could confront it, or perhaps so bestial and degraded that no one would want to, we have a student who cannot learn Scientology. He has confused Scientology with his earlier training, and his difficulty is that he cannot be made to confront the subject of the mind.

Man at large today is in this state with regard to the human spirit. For centuries Man was educated to believe in demons, ghouls, and things that went boomp in the night. There was an organization in southern Europe which capitalized upon this terror and made demons and devils so formidable that at length Man could not even face the fact that any of his fellows had souls. And thus we entered an entirely materialistic age. With the background teaching that no one can confront the “invisible,” vengeful religions sought to move forward into a foremost place of control. Naturally, it failed to achieve its goal and irreligion became the order of the day, thus opening the door for Communism and other idiocies. Although it might seem true that one cannot confront the invisible, who said that a spirit was always invisible? Rather let us say that it is impossible for Man or anything else to confront the nonexistent and thus when nonexistent gods are invented and are given more roles in the society, we discover Man becomes so degraded that he cannot even confront the spirit in his fellows, much less become moral.

Confronting as a subject in itself is intensely interesting. Indeed, there is some evidence that mental image pictures occur only when the individual is unable to confront the circumstances of the picture. When this compounds and Man is unable to confront anything anywhere, he might be considered to have pictures of everything everywhere. This is proven by a rather interesting test made in 1947 by myself when it was discovered that if an individual could be made to “run a lock” of something he had just seen, run another lock on something he had just heard, and run an additional lock on something he had just felt, he would at length be able to handle much more serious pictures in his mind. I discovered, although I did not entirely interpret it at the time, that an individual has no further pictures when he can confront all pictures; thus being able to confront everything he has done, he is no longer troubled with the things he has done. Supporting this, it will be discovered that individuals who progress in an ability to handle pictures eventually have no pictures at all. This we call a Clear.

A Clear in an absolute sense would be someone who could confront anything and everything in the past, present and future.

Unfortunately for the world of action, it will be discovered that one who can confront everything does not have to handle anything. In support of this is offered that Scientology process, Problems of Comparable Magnitude. In this particular process the individual being processed is asked to select a terminal with which he has had difficulty. In that the definition of a terminal is a “live mass” or something that is capable of causing, receiving or relaying communication, it will be seen that terminals are quite ordinarily people in the problem category of anyone’s bank. The person is then asked to invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that person. He is asked to do this many, many times. It will be found midway in the process that he is willing to do something now about the problems he is having with that person. But at the end of the process a new and strange thing is found to occur. The individual no longer feels that he must do something about the problem. Indeed, he can simply confront or regard or view the problem with complete equanimity. Now an almost mystic quality enters this when it is discovered that the problem in the physical universe about which

he has been worried often ceases to exist out there. In other words, the handling of a problem seems to be simply the increase of ability to confront the problem and when the problem can be totally confronted it no longer exists. This is strange and miraculous.

It is hard to believe that an individual who has a drunken husband could cure that individual of drink simply by processing out the problem of having a drunken husband, and yet this has occurred. I am not saying here that all the problems of the world could be vanquished simply by running Problems of Comparable Magnitude on a few people, but neither am I saying that all the problems of the world could not be handled by Problems of Comparable Magnitude on a few people, and indeed I am at this time undertaking an experiment in this direction on the subject of the atomic bomb. It is an oddity that the longer this experiment is continued, the less responsive these bombs are to test firing.

Perhaps it could be said, however, that if there existed one person in the entire universe who could confront all of the universe, the problems of the universe for all would deintensify enormously.

Man’s difficulties are a compound of his cowardices. To have difficulties in life, all it is necessary to do is to start running away from the business of livingness. After that, problems of unsolvable magnitude are assured. When individuals are restrained from confronting life they accrue a vast ability to have difficulties with it.

There are many other things about confronting which are intensely interesting but these we will take up in a later issue.

An earlier issue of Ability carried in it a full resume of Training 0, the name of which is Confronting. This drill, done for a great many hours, will be found intensely efficacious in the handling of life. A wife and a husband whose way has not been too smooth would find it extremely interesting in terms of resolution of domestic difficulties to co-audit with this training drill alone, each one running it upon the other for at least 25 hours. This would have to be done, of course, on a turnabout basis of not more than 2 hours on one and then a switch from “coach” to “auditor.”

To run Confronting in this fashion and with considerable gain, it would be necessary to have some understanding of what a “coach” is and, in one of these co-auditing teams, what an “auditor” is. A much fuller understanding of this will be contained in the Student Manual The team sits in straightbacked—preferably uncomfortably upright—chairs. The coach and auditor sit facing each other a short distance apart. It is the task of the coach to keep the auditor “on the ball.” The “auditor’s” feet must be flat on the floor, his hands must be in his lap. His head must be erect and he must not use any system or method but must simply confront. A twitching muscle, a jittering finger alike would be reproached by the coach. The coach has several terms he uses. The first of these is “Start,” at which moment the “session” begins. Every time the auditor falls from grace, does not hold his position, slumps, goes anaten (unconscious), twitches, starts his eyes wandering, or in any way demonstrates an incorrect position, the coach says “Flunk” and corrects the difficulty. He then says “Start” again and the session goes on. When the person in the role of “auditor” has been extremely successful over a period of time the coach can say “Win” and then again “Start.” When the coach wishes to make some comments or give some advice the coach says “That’s it,” straightens up this point and then again says “Start.”

In the coaching itself only these terms are employed: “Start,” “Flunk,” “Win,” “That’s it.” Anything else the coach does or says is disregarded by the “auditor” unless the coach has said “That’s it” and has then advised on a point and then has started again. The coach would be at liberty to do anything he wished, short of physical violence, to make the auditor nervous or upset him. The coach could say anything he wished between a “start” and another command as above, and the auditor would flunk if he paid any attention or did otherwise than simply confronted.

Ordinarily all the coach does is make sure that the auditor goes on confronting. However, it should be understood that the drill can be toughened up considerably. The coach can do anything to throw the auditor off the simple business of confronting. If the auditor so much as twitches a smile, looks embarrassed, clears his throat or in any other way falls off from plain and ordinary confronting, it is, of course, always a “flunk.”

It should be understood that drill sessions are not auditing sessions. In a drill session the entire session is in the hands of the coach, who is only in a vague way the “preclear” of the session. In an auditing session the entire session is in the hands of the auditor.

There is a basic rule here. Anything which the “auditor” or “student,” as he is called in the drills, is holding tense, is the thing with which he is confronting. If the “auditor’s” eyes begin to smart, he is confronting with them. If his stomach begins to protrude and becomes tense he is confronting with his stomach. If his shoulders or even the back of his head become tense, then he is confronting with the shoulders or the back of his head. A coach who becomes very expert in this can spot these things at once and would in this case give a “That’s it,” straighten the auditor out on it and would then start the session anew.

It is interesting that the drill does not consist of confronting with something. The drill consists only of confronting; therefore, confronting with is a “flunk.”

Various nervous traits can be traced at once to trying to confront with something which insists on running away. A nervous hand, for instance, would be a hand with which the individual is trying to confront something. The forward motion of the nervousness would be the effort to make it confront, the backward motion of it would be its refusal to confront. Of course, the basic error is confronting with the hand.

The world is never bright to those who cannot confront it. Everything is a dull gray to a defeated army. The whole trick of somebody telling you “It’s all bad over there,” is contained in the fact that he is trying to keep you from confronting something and thus make you retreat from life. Eyeglasses, nervous twitches, tensions, all of these things stem from an unwillingness to confront. When that willingness is repaired, these disabilities tend to disappear.

Of course, tumultuously married couples may encounter some knock-down and drag-out moments in doing this confronting drill. However, it should be kept in mind that it is the coach in these training drills who is bound by the Instructor’s Code and that the only harm that can result would come about if the “auditor” were permitted to “blow” (leave) the session without the coach, even with manhandling, getting the auditor back into the drill. It will be found that these “blows” occur most frequently when the person being coached, in other words the “auditor,” is being given too few wins and is being discouraged by the coach. Of course, things he does wrong should be flunked, but it will be found that the way is paved to success with wins; therefore, when he does it well for a period of time, the “auditor” should be told so. Go into this drill expecting explosions and upsets and simply refuse to give up if they occur and you will have it whipped in short order. Go into it expecting that all will be sweetness and light and everyone should be a little gentleman and a little lady and disaster will loom.

Neither I nor the management are responsible for cuts, contusions, violent words, or divorces resulting from attempts to run confrontingness drills by husbands and wives on each other.

May you never be the same.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER 1957



PROCESSES TO BE RUN ON HGC PRECLEARS FROM THIS DATE


The following processes are to be run on HGC preclears from this date until otherwise notified.

ON PRECLEARS WHO HAVE POINTS BELOW THE ZERO LINE OF APAs: Very brief rudiments. Then CCH 1, CCH 2, CCH 3 and CCH 4. These processes are not run on a basis where each is killed dead before the auditor goes on. Each is run to a flat spot and then bridged to the next. It would be amazing to run one of them more than a couple of hours except perhaps CCH 4 Book Mimicry, but even this is only run to a mediumly flat spot. As soon as the auditor has gone through these four processes once he goes over each one again, possibly using now CCH I (b), Don’t give me that hand, instead of Give me that hand. It will be noted that each one of these tends to unflatten the other three. Further a pc may get no response at all on CCH I until he has run CCH 3 and CCH 4. Hence to grind on one only is folly of the first order.

The object of these processes CCH 1-4 is to get the person under control, by which is meant the body. Only when that is done can an auditor hope to go on with success.

Once the person is under control it is quite easy to put attention under control. This is best done by TRAINING 10 Locational Processing. It is to be noted on a low scale case that TR 10 can be enforced. Thus the pc does not fly out of control.

ON PRECLEARS WHO HAVE MOST POINTS ABOVE THE ZERO LINE OF AN APA: Here again we have to hit the CCH steps but in this case we first handle rudiments with the following thoroughness:

1. We clear help. Can the auditor help the pc. Can the pc help the auditor. Do people ever help people. Etc. On a two way comm basis break this down until the pc comes through any compulsive help or wasting help.

2. We clear pt problem making sure again that the pc can invent a problem of some sort about something. We run pt problem on a terminal only, never on a condition. Further, we run this until the pc is willing to let the pt problem ride. We don’t want him to be “willing to do something about it”. But we NEVER let this process occupy 15% of an intensive. Why? Because havingness is the clue to problems and a person obsessively has problems when he doesn’t have havingness. If a problem takes too long to clear, the auditor blundered by running pt problem and should come off of it at the first logical spot and return to it AFTER he has later run havingness.

3. Goals are then cleared in full. It doesn’t matter if this takes the rest of the intensive. The questions are formally audited as follows: “Tell me something that you’re absolutely certain will be there in --—,” “Tell me something you would really like to have in -.” The times are one minute, five minutes, one hour, one day, three days, one week, one month, three months, six months, one year, two years, three years, ten years. These times are not absolute, but may be changed by the auditor. But they are close to pat as given. The auditor does not figure out for the preclear the dates on which these times will occur. The pc’s figuring out the date is part of the process.

From here the auditor selectively shoots up APA by running old-time Trio with all three parts. In this he knocks out “remain” and “dispense with” as well as “have”. He runs this Trio as follows. He runs many haves, then bridges to many remains, then bridges to many, many, many dispense withs. Then he bridges to haves, then runs many, many, many remains, and bridges to many dispense withs. Then he bridges to many, many, many haves, runs many remains (into which he bridges), and then bridges to many dispense withs. He can keep this up in this order. Each one of the legs of Trio tends to unflatten the other two legs. All three have to wind up flat. This is run

first inside and then, if being concentrated on, outside. Goals can be run again as above if desired for then will run differently.

If the auditor has any suspicion that he does not have the pc under control he runs the early CCH steps briefly and accomplishes it.

If the foregoing basic things are done, then many other things can be done. An analysis of a profile will tell us a few things about a preclear and while we do not yet have every point on an APA taped, we do have several.

Foremost is the point “nervous-depressed”. When this is low, the pc doesn’t have any reality on anything. No stable datum. The first stable datum the pc gets may well be achieved by the oldy ARC STRAIGHTWIRE gone through just a few times. That’s cracked plenty of people’s cases. The early CCH steps are all aimed squarely at that point. “Look at me who am l?” also hammers at that point. When I see a before and after with no change on nervous-depressed when it was low (always about -90) I think, “The pc never found the auditor”. Actually it’s lack on any stable datum of any kind. The auditor may be found only after the pc has gotten hold of some very minor stable datum, “Something that’s really real in the room.” “Recall a moment that is really real to you.”

The second point we have even better established through test is the CRITICAL. When this is low, the pc is on obsessive change and will LET NOTHING REMAIN. Getting him to let just one thing remain (and to be still) can shift this critical. Letting things remain is the key to a low critical.

IQ is another big win for us now since we know what IQ is all about. IQ is the ABILITY TO WlTHHOLD OR GIVE OUT A DATUM ON A SELF DETERMINED BASIS. Incidentally we also shoot valences with WITHHOLD. It is run the same way whether shooting valences or raising IQ. One finds the weak valence from which the pc could withhold nothing and finally gets the pc to be able to withhold things from that valence.

EXTERIORIZATION is accomplished by “Recall a moment of loss”. When a pc gets this flat he can then be run on old S-C-S routine (not Stop-C-S) and he will exteriorize easily.

Psychosomatic difficulties have been vanished rather easily on withhold. “Look around here and find something from which you could withhold that------” skin-rash, leg, whatever.

EYESIGHT can be shifted by CONTROL TRIO with emphasis on Disappear.

THE FAILED CASE is a case in which thought can always be overpowered by Mest. The pc’s ability to make his thinkingness prevail against Mest has failed too often and cannot change. Only Mest changes, therefore. This is usually the below zero on the APA pc. Making him think things and do things doesn’t much change him because he is too weak in thinking to prevail against Mest. “Look at it and tell me something about it you could handle” or “Think a thought that would be all right for you to think”, and other approaches, done by a clever auditor, can crack this sort of thing up on an even gone case. This is a point which occasionally needs attention, particularly when we have a pc who is not changing on APA or IQ. If an intensive didn’t change him, he can’t think against anything. The oldest workable remedy known is “Spot something around here that isn’t thinking”.

After being trained in the TRs it is necessary to run a student on the remain button of Control Trio or Trio and upon withhold processes to up his test.

I have turned out this bulletin rapidly for use in the HGC and on students in training. This bulletin will only be modified when necessity becomes apparent. Nothing in this bulletin will overcome sloppy, yakkeyety, wiggly or can’t-confront auditing.

I trust you will get good results with the above.

Best,

Ron

P.A.B. No. 120
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 September 1957

CONTROL TRIO


Now thinkingness in general should not be suspected of being under anybody’s control, much less the auditor’s, but it is probably more under the auditor’s control than it is under the preclear’s control. When I say to you “Do you think that thinkingness is under control?” you should be aware of the fact that it is less under the preclear’s control at any time than under the auditor’s control. That’s one the boys don’t get always. They think, “Well, can I get the preclear’s thinkingness under control?” Well, you can do it better than the preclear, but that is horribly bad, and when you get this clear you will see that you have to get the body under control and get attention under control before you aim at thinkingness.

Therefore, a condition to running Trio is this: Is the person of the preclear under control, is the attention of the preclear under control—those are two conditions necessary to run Trio. Now to assume the power of choice is also under the preclear’s control—much less thinkingness—is, of course, pretty grim. It moves Trio outrageously high. So you could say, then, that there are two versions of Trio, and I have been fishing around for one of them; I’ve been doing some work on this for the last several weeks and I finally got this thing taped—I do mean taped.

All right. Trio would just be Trio just the way it is. But there is an undercut in Trio; Trio could be a directive process, and it would be prefaced by “Get the idea of having that clock,” “Get the idea of having that picture” (indicating picture on wall), “Get the idea of having that sofa,” “Get the idea of having that chair,” “Get the idea of having that table”—do you see this? Now that is highly directive, isn’t it? Now that would keep thinkingness under control in the kind of a case who was having a rough time with it.

All right. Now let’s take the second version. “Get the idea that it would be all right for that clock to remain as it is.” “Get the idea that it would be all right for that wall to remain as it is.” Got that? Just an indicating process.

All right. Now here comes the clincher! Instead of dispense with, or not-know, we run into actually a brand-new process. Its rationale is much higher; it’s “Get the idea of making that clock disappear.” “Get the idea of making that chair disappear.” “Get the idea of making that ceiling disappear,” etc. Small objects are much easier for the preclear to make disappear than large ones, but you haven’t told him to make it disappear, have you? You have told him to get the idea of making it disappear. They usually interpret you literally and try like mad to make it disappear, and it usually does for a short time.

Now this process is restimulative, too. Anyway, we’ve got a point, and that is simply this: that this as a process all by itself is probably one of the killer processes of

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

all time. I have solved this enigma: Why doesn’t a preclear exteriorize easily and stay exteriorized? And we ask this question and we ask this accompanying question: Why does a preclear get sick when you ask him to conceive a static? Now obviously we’d have to get somebody to conceive a static before he could himself stay comfortably outside. What keeps a preclear from conceiving a static? It’s because he associates a static with loss, and he says, “All right, if there is nothing there I’ve lost it.” Don’t you see? “I’ve lost something if there’s nothing there, therefore I’d better not conceive a static.” Conceiving a static is therefore painful. Well, the truth of the matter is, whenever he lost anything, something disappeared. All right.

The funny part of it is that he never noticed that he didn’t lose totally every time. He still had other objects. He lost his tie-pin—well, heavens, he’s still got his tie. He’s still got the floor, the room, this universe, space, but he never realizes this in these instances, and so that’s why we’ve been running this process here on “Recall a moment of loss,” just to see if we couldn’t accustom someone to conceiving a static very directly on loss, and whether or not the individual would exteriorize just as such, on the process.

Now that was a test that was made. The test process, “Recall a moment of loss,” sandwiched in with Havingness, then, has been run with the expected result that we would get this fellow concentrated on exteriorization and a little more able to conceive an exteriorization, certainly. Now final figures from this are probably not available from testing yet; they aren’t, but regardless of that, here is the rationale. An individual cannot conceive a static if he associates a static with loss, if loss is painful. So we have to cure him of the painfulness of loss, consideration of, before we can exteriorize him easily.

Now how do we do this? We have to go back to automaticity. The universe has been taking things away from him. It has become an automaticity and we find that the universe has an automaticity known as time, and time itself is a consecutive series of losses. All right. So we have to cure this fellow of losses before we can get him to appreciate time, otherwise he’s so afraid of losing it that he parks himself on the track, and this is “stuck on the track” phenomena. All right. The process which is aimed at this, the experimental process “Recall a moment of loss,” sandwiched in with Havingness (Trio now handles it on this—”Control Trio” it had better be called, and its third command is “Get the idea of making that (object) disappear”)—well, this gets him to take over the automaticity of all the losses which he has experienced unwillingly, you see that. It’s the universe that’s been taking the things away, and an individual, then, just by spotting objects and getting the idea that they are going to disappear or are disappearing, of course then does take over this automaticity of losses, and he becomes accustomed to it after a while and he should come out of the woods on it.

Now all of these invisible masses that preclears have around them are actually simply symptoms of mass - loss, mass- loss. Now when an individual has no visio, has never seen anything, couldn’t see anything, the only thing he’s looking at is a stuck loss. Got the idea? He’s looking at the nothingness of something that was there. All right, you take over that automaticity with this third command on Control Trio. Therefore, you have a highly directional, a highly workable set of processes, and each part of that Trio would be run relatively flat and go on to the next part, and I would say you’d probably run it something on the order of, oh, certainly not a hundred commands each—you’d try to stay in that order of magnitude, and you could just run it round and round. It’s “get the idea of.”

Well, what would be necessary before you got to that process? It would be necessary to get an individual’s body under control, which takes the early steps of CCH. And then put his attention under control; a great many processes can do this. Chief amongst them has always been locational processing, and if you were to just run

the ordinary locational processes, you would eventually get his attention under control.

The auditor taking control of somebody’s attention actually puts the preclear into more control of attention than the preclear ordinarily is, which is one of the freak things. People look at this and they say, “Well, we must be running the fellow out the bottom,” and we wouldn’t be running the fellow out the bottom.

Well, we leave Trio in its time-honored style and so on just as it has always been, but we do have this low-cut Trio and it’s rather a killer. You take somebody with glasses, his eyesight will do more tricks in less time on this third process of Control Trio. Things will go black—well, why do things go black? Well, blackness makes things disappear, doesn’t it, and you take over the automaticity of using blackness to make things disappear. Night grabs, the way of the universe, once in every 24 hours on earth here. This is the one we’ve been looking for to turn on visio.

Now if you wanted to turn on sonic with this you’d have to go down to a noisy part of town and just run Trio on sound, but you wouldn’t dare do this—run Control Trio on sound—you would not dare do this, of course, if the preclear did not already have Trio on objects flat. Obviously, visio would turn on before sonic.

There are many things that you could do with this. People who have anaesthetized areas in their body—like they have no chest, no sensation in their chest, etc.—do weird things with this process, this Control Trio. Got it? I wanted to tell you particularly about this particular process because it is a specific, and it will be found to be very useful to you. We had to find out if one version of this would run without killing a preclear, and that’s “Recall a moment of loss.” Actually, “Recall a moment of loss” should act as a havingness process, because it as-ises all of the loss points on the track, and it should be a havingness process all by itself, but we didn’t want to be so bold as to run it with no Havingness.

(Until I find out differently, this Control Trio and “Recall a moment of loss” are making a bid for our chief exteriorization processes.)

L. RON HUBBARD



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1957

CURRICULUM OF CCH

TO BE DONE WELL

CCH 0
CCH 1
CCH 2
CCH 3
CCH 4

A Subjective process (think)
An Objective process (spot or find)
A Straight Wire process


LRH:md.nm L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 121
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 October 1957

RUDIMENTS AND GOALS


All you need to clear up if somebody is having too much trouble trying to locate or isolate a problem is to clear up the semantics of a problem—what does he mean by a problem? I got this rich one off a preclear one day doing this quite fascinating thing. What was a problem, I finally asked, and he told me a problem was something that could never be solved.

Whenever you run “withhold” on a valence you finish up with “can’t have” on the valence and that flattens it off better.

You will find it is quite often more advantageous to run Locational Processing than it is to run Problems of Comparable Magnitude. A Problem of Comparable Magnitude is all right, but it’s a thinkingness process, and on a case that is having an awful lot of trouble, it gives them hell to run Locational Processing, but nevertheless it does run out the present time problem, which is most fascinating.

Any one of the Rudiments are excellent processes—any one of them. Two-way communication is something that has never been stressed much on this side of the water—it has been taught very thoroughly on the other side. I took up a lot of the 4th London A.C.C. on the subject of two-way comm, how you handle two-way comm. You have to keep the reality of it very high and you have to be willing to interrupt obsessive outflows of the preclear, etc., and obsessive silences. Two-way comm is a very interesting way of going about things, and it isn’t just talking. It is establishing a high level of reality. It consists of the auditor feeding experimental data to the preclear, in order to have the preclear look it over and decide about it one way or the other. In two-way comm, you don’t let a preclear as-is everything he knows, thinks or wants to do.

All right. Now we look over this and we discover that the Rudiments consist, in part, of a present time problem. Now we already know that a present time problem can be run in this wise—Locational. It can also be run as a Problem of Comparable Magnitude. So we have a lot of processes connected with a present time problem.

Now let’s take another one of the Rudiments. Clearing the Auditor. Actually, the crudest way known of clearing the auditor is “Who do I remind you of?” “Tell me something you don’t like about me”—these are real crude ways of clearing the auditor. The best way of clearing the auditor we know of is in Training 13, which is “Could I help you—how?” “Could you help me—how?” “Could I help anybody else—how?” “Could you help anybody else—how?” “Do other people ever help other people?” “Do women ever help women?” “Do men ever help men?” “Do men ever help women?” “Do women ever help men?” And you just beat it to pieces on a big long bracket. Now


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

this goes so far that it becomes a fantastic process in itself. You take father and mother valences—they are usually quite hot. You can run this on Help. This is usually quite necessary on a case that’s going to hang up, because the only reason the case is sitting there is to waste help. And you can run a case on any process, no matter how excellent, on a basis of wasting help until the case simply can’t find enough ways to waste it and he goes down tone scale. You have to understand the case is trying to waste help. It isn’t Find the Auditor in the Rudiments today, it is Clear the Auditor. The only point on which he’s cleared is Help—”Can I help you?” “Can you help me?”

All right. Now let’s take another facet of this. Goals. Actually, Handbook for Preclears has been helping us out just to the degree that it does do a little clarification on goals and gets the guy stirred up. The real reason the Handbook for Preclears is used at the HGC is quite an interesting one. It’s simply to stir the case up so it’ll run out.

All right, this guy’s sitting there in a sleep and he’s just gonna run Locational, you know, and he’s in a disoriented state anyhow: He isn’t here and he isn’t home and he isn’t anywhere—well, let’s get him worried, let’s get him chewed up a little bit, let’s get him restimulated somewhat, let’s get him interested in this. All right, these problems, then, do tend to swim to the top; you run some relatively non-directional process, and does it bite on? Now if you’re going to run non-directional processes—that is to say, “Give me that hand” and so on—you’re going to have to have something to run them against, and something like the Handbook for Preclears gives you something. The guy thinks while he’s going over this sort of thing, he thinks “Oh my, blah blah, the trouble with me is I have nothing to do and I don’t want to do anything and I never will have anything to do.”

But I got to thinking about goals from the usual standpoint of their high generality with most people—”I wonder if there is anybody around who could articulate with great conciseness what he would like to do”—and I found on all sides that a failure to articulate was the main difficulty. The person had a feeling he wanted to do something and this would be wonderful, and it was all in a sensory capacity. Now if he could be made to articulate this, why, we would really have something. And I experimented on ;t a little bit and we see that today in the Handbook for Preclears.

Now if you can get him to articulate in a session anything about the future, you have won on the subject of goals. But it must be in the alignment of this person’s frame of reference—it must be aligned with his life, not aligned with something we think he ought to live. So let’s take a look at clearance of goals. Goals would not be likely to run on a high generality. In other words they are specific, personal and intimate. It’s “What do you think?” “What do you want?” “What is aligned with your life?”—and we can’t beat around the bush with this one if we’re going to get any place with it.

All right, let’s take Goals as a process. You could run goals for 25 hours with the greatest of ease, and we just had a report of a terrific win here on a preclear who was run on Locational for 25 hours, so it looks like the Rudiments could be the session. So if somebody says, “Well, now, I ran the Rudiments and then we got into some processing”-fascinating, you see. Rudiments are dignified today with CCH 0 as an appellation. All right.

We discover this preclear in this terrible condition of not wanting any auditing, not going any place, all of his goals being somebody else’s goals. Two things we can do at once are Clear the Auditor and then run Goals. Now how would you really run Goals with two-way comm? Goals could be run with two-way comm in this way: You ask the preclear what he is absolutely sure would happen in the next two minutes-in the next day—three days from now—one week from now—one month from now-and one year from now. And we want something he’d be absolutely sure would happen.

Now we’re running right there the reverse process of atomic bombs, which say “no future”—”no future”—”no future.” Well, basically, what’s wrong with anybody— why does he jam on the track? It’s because of “no future.” He has been denied to a point where his loss is so great that he dare not own.

I knew a person at one time, a case that was, by the way, a psychology major— one of the roughest cases I have ever run into. The case put on the total appearance of being sane—it was a dramatized sanity, and yet the case would make odd remarks like “I really think people are crazy.” “Well, why do you think people are crazy?” I would say. “Well, because people say they can tell right from wrong, and you know there’s no difference.” Fascinating! The case would make odd remarks like this from time to time. One day the case made a remark on goals, like this: “Well, it’s really best to tell people that things can’t happen to them, because otherwise they might hope that they could, and then they’d be disappointed.” Now you disentangle that. This was all taught to this person, by the way, at the University of California at Berkeley. The person was also taught that the best way to preserve anybody’s status quo, etc., was to drug them and so on, I mean it was a gentle course. All right. This person was stark, staring mad and had no future of any kind, no slightest future, brought out by this. Five hours on just this one type of question, “Is there anything going to happen in the remainder of this afternoon?” “Will anything happen the rest of today?” “Is there anything going to occur any place in the world the rest of today?” And the confident answer, with great certainty, was “No.” “No.” Five hours. And finally we broke through it—”Well, you will probably sit there for the rest of the day wrangling with me and screaming at me the way you have been doing”—and it busted and I finally got the person to admit that there was some slight possibility that there would be a room here for the rest of the day. And it busted this case. It read from total no-future up. Well, this case was an isolated case, as we’ve occasionally had now and then, and this was an inspirational sort of process that cracked through.

Well now, we see this process of Goals on the basis of futures, and a person without futures cannot have a fancy future called a goal, and all a goal is is a fancy future determined by the person. And if he has no future at all determined by anybody, then he isn’t going to go anywhere from that point, and any goal he has is totally unreal.

So the best way I know of to clear up a goal is as follows: Two-way comm “Is there anything that’s going to happen in the next couple of minutes?” We finally get this totally thrashed out till he’s got some great big certainty that there will be something a couple of minutes from now. And then we move it up a day, and then we move it up a week—three days—and move it up a week; and move it up a month; and move it up a year. And we get certainties at each one of these stages and levels, regardless of on what. Now the person knows that that is going to occur. He knows there is going to be a future there.

Now let’s have him put something in this future that he now has had created. He’s created a future, he’s got certainty on it, it’s up there. All right. Now let’s put some desire in the future and we get a goal. “Now what would you like to have happen in the next couple of minutes?” or “What would you like to do in the next couple of minutes?”—”What would you like to do tomorrow?”—”What would you like to do in three days?”—”What would you like to do in a week?”—”What would you like to do in a month?”—”What would you like to do in a year?” And we will get these weird things which have no desire in them; they are all get-rid-ofs, and if you really plowed such a person down on it he would get down to the bottom of the ladder, which is “Knock this body off right now.” And when he says “I would like to get rid of my fear of darkness, I would like to get over feeling bad every time my mother screams at me”—well now, these aren’t desires. These are runaways, these are flinches—these are “let’s not confront it,” “let’s get out of the universe,” “let’s scram.” And the final

result is the basic postulate “If I could just get rid of this body right this instant I would be all right.”

All right. So that thing doesn’t even vaguely get flat unless there is a real goal like “I’d like to have a stick of candy”—now that’s a goal, see, that’s a goal. “Tomorrow, I’d like to walk down the street and find a couple of bags of gold lying on the corner.” You see, it has to have desire in it. “Next week, why I’d like to go camping. I’d just love to go camping.” Then they’ll always modify these things in some way or other, “because of course I can’t because I have to work and I don’t have any money and” yak, yak, yak-you got the idea? They’ll modify these goals. As long as they’re modifying them they don’t have a goal, because they’re making a postulate and the MEST universe is kicking the postulate in on them.

So how do you solve this? If it’s this arduous how do you solve it? Well, run “Build a future—” two minutes (these times are only approximate), tomorrow, three days, a week, a month, a year just build the fact that there will be something there, that time is going to advance in those areas. Then we build a desire into it: “Well, what would you like to have happen?”—”What would you like to do in two minutes?”, a day, three days, a week, a month, a year? All right. Well, he didn’t give you anything he really wanted to have happen; he said, “I’d like to—if I were brave enough I’d tell you I’d like to get rid of you and me and everything, but I’m not brave enough so all I will say is I would like to get rid of the darkness, that would be fine.”

All right. Two-way comm consists in the main of keeping a preclear talking, busting through their silences, knocking them into line and manhandling them with pomp. You keep ‘em talking; and therefore it is a skill—a very high skill. But after you’ve built a future you build into it something they would like to have happen in that future. All right.

So here is a modus operandi now that makes this a process: Build a future on that span, then build something they’d like to have happen in that future. Now build a new future, go all over the same first process again on prediction, next couple of minutes, what he’s sure is going to happen, what he could be certain about. “What could you be certain about a year from now?” All right, we’ve built a future—then you’ll find out that’s a little stronger, and then we build something in that future that he’d like to have happen. And then we build a new future-same first process again—and then the second process of adding the desire to it, and we finally will come out into the clear.

Now there is a way to run Goals for twenty-five hours—slug, slug, slug. Now you can run Help for twenty-five hours, too, on just who helps who, when, where. “Has there ever been anybody in the whole universe who ever helped anybody in the whole universe?” is the most general form of question. But here we have these Rudiments, then, moved out into processes, and it’s possible to just handle intensives with Rudiments.

Now we find somebody wasting help—well, he’s hard to put into session. And if you are going to help him anyway, it isn’t goals that’s in trouble, it’s help, and if you try to help him too much and he’s wasting help, he will eventually waste help by blowing. So it’s help that has to be cleared if goals won’t. Got this? All right!


L. RON HUBBARD



Issue 56 [1957, ca. early October]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

_____________________________________________________________________

The Eighteenth A.C.C.


L. Ron Hubbard



Now that the 18th ACC has roared into history, there are a lot of auditors around whose auditing skill is very wonderful.

But more important to us all there are some Scientologists around whose ability to run groups is in the stars.

The 18th ACC people, over half a hundred of them, received gold seals on their certificates. That means they can validate other certificates and it means they can grant a new Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist certificate.

We are looking to the 18th ACC graduates to complete the validation program and to get going groups and more groups.

These 1 8th people are wonderful people. They did well. I saw it and I have said it. They’re fine people.

Let us face the reality of this thing. The world confronts several crises. Man’s inhumanity to Man is gaining monuments daily. The time to bring a chaos under control is before it is well begun. We’re slightly late as it is. Brutally, there is no other organization on Earth that can slow these down. Factually there is no other know-how on Earth that can plumb the problems of Man. So if we don’t want all of us to be sitting amongst the charred embers, we had better get busy.

This is no alarmist statement you know. We are the people who can confront it. Past civilizations have vanished, you see. The Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Chinese, Hind, Greek, Roman, European—they did vanish. Those little beaten down peasants you see in France were once the proud Romans. Those small brown men who sell their sisters on the streets of Cairo were once the mighty Egyptians. And it was when those societies looked richest that they had already started down. Like this one.

They all failed because they had no know-how about Man. They all dived under from ignorance. Wisdom, real wisdom, could have salvaged any one of them. Wisdom can salvage this one. Wisdom held by the many, not one wise man.

Scientology can smooth the way. It can make intelligent leaders, workable policies. But Scientology hasn’t a chance unless we get groups going. You and these people can do this.

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

If you want men to be slaves, do nothing. Just sit.

If you want this civilization to become charred embers, do nothing. Just sit.

An empty belly and a dead family aren’t funny. Why wait until they’re a fact to do something.

You say, well what can I do. I’m just a little fellow. I’m just one of billions. That’s a lie. You have to hand the most powerful weapon yet forged on Earth: Scientology. You can talk. You can organize. The unions broke the back of savage management. All men in one union against ignorance can break the back of savage “fate.”

Listen: At the HGC we can selectively increase profiles or IQ. So can other auditors. We are making tomorrow’s leaders. Right now I am working with government contacts to do this.

You can back that up. Get processed. Get trained. Get groups going. It doesn’t matter how expert you are.

We’ve just trained people whose advice you can ask. They’re now all over the country. That’s what we did in the 1 8th ACC.

I’m going to need 5,000 auditors for the Army alone. The 18th ACC was just a springboard to that.

Groups, groups, groups. We can run them now—solvently.

We can make the grade. We can win. How. You don’t have to do the whole job. One man at a time is as fast as anything can be made to travel. Get one man, one woman in. Handle one. Then you’ll get the others—one by one.

I trained the 1 8th ACC to Validate your certificate, or to give you know-how. To show you how to do it. To help you with your Scientology plans. All right, that’s riches. We did a good job on these people. We hope from them will spring a great number of fine, enthusiastic, working groups.

So here’s the 1 8th ACC.

On one side we’ve only a world, a universe to win. On the other we’ve only tomorrow’s wreckage.

Let’s go!

L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 122
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 October 1957

THE FIVE LEVELS OF INDOCTRINATION AND
PROCEDURE CCH


The first thing that we should take up is the state of Scientology at this time, and to tell you that we are on a plateau. We are certainly on a plateau, and it is a plateau so very much higher than man has ever walked before that it is well worth saying it is a level that can be maintained. If people want more results than we can get today from CCH properly used, there will have to be a better auditor than we can make today.

The idea that “This is it” periodically has occurred in Scientology. Right now we are justified in saying that we are on a plateau which does not have to change.

When you can process a catatonic schiz, a five-day-old baby, you’ve got it made in the world of homo sapiens. The only further adventure we might adventure upon would be the processing of the thetan not connected with the body, and that would be an entire field about which we know practically nothing. But anybody who is having anything to do with bodies is well within the reach of Procedure CCH, providing it is used by an auditor who has been validated through the five levels of indoctrination. CCH used by an auditor who has not been validated would be the least guaranteed thing I can think of at the moment. I have already thrown up my hands in a few expressive horrors when I have seen auditors who have not been through the five levels fumble around with any Tone 40 process, and it is so grim that even now, to you, watching it, untrained, trying to do one of these things, it would not look like auditing.

Back in old Book One days, a fellow could sit down beside someone on a couch and say “Go back to that engram,” and it looked like auditing. It doesn’t look like auditing today. It is the difference of indoctrination which makes the difference. The person who applies it has been successfully checked through the five levels of Indoc. It is now the auditor plus the process. That is one of the reasons why we knew we were on a plateau. There wasn’t something you could tell out of CCH easily to your Aunt Mame’s little girl, to fix up her fear of cats. It is interesting that such employment does not reach any level that you yourself can consider a good result. Somebody untrained does not achieve any great result with it, and is liable to leave his preclear in a badly restimulated condition. We are dealing with a package of dynamite with Procedure CCH. We have to take into account the five levels of indoctrination successfully passed, which is necessary to apply CCH to a preclear.

CCH is a very sloppy title, for Procedure CCH is really C for Control, D for Duplication, C for Communication, Ct for Control of Thought = Havingness; and that is the real name of it.

First, we get the person under control, get him into the capability of duplicating, and then we move him up into communication more or less on a person level. Now we

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

take the mind. The mind consists of mental image pictures, and if duplication is addressed to the mind we get communication. The third zone is the control of the Thetan, which brings us to Control of Thinkingness, Ct. I will show you more graphically what these three things are:
1. Notice that you are sitting in the chair. Notice that you have a body sitting in a chair.
2. Get a picture of a cat. Can you? Note that it is a picture. That is the mind. It’s pictures and the apparatus which handles pictures.
3. Get a picture of a cat again. Answer this question: “What is looking at the cat?” That is all you ever need to know about a thetan with CCH.

As we extend out from the thetan we get the physical universe, so actually there is a fourth thing there which undercuts the body, and that would be the physical universe. In other words, you are in immediate and direct contact with everything that you will be expected to study or ever process in Scientology. Every one of these things that I have mentioned, the physical universe, body, mind, thetan, may have a clearer appearance to you, or some other condition connected with it, but there isn’t anything outside of this. We omit the physical universe, because it is pretty hard to look totally at the physical universe right at this moment. But for sure you are looking at all the body you have got. As far as this picture is concerned, it may flop over and have many cross associations, and you could trace this endlessly as I have. As far as thetans are concerned, the most you will ever learn about one is your own beingness, or the observation that something is being moved, made alive, and motivated.

This is the entire target of CCH. There isn’t anything else to shoot at. All of these things intimately, then, relate to the thetan, and we have Control, Duplication, Communication, Control of Thinkingness, and Havingness, that relate to a thetan. We could process in any one of these zones. When you process any part of these four things, you really cater to some slight degree to the other three, but you can concentrate upon any one of these things.

CCH has in its concentration levels first the body, then the mind, and the thetan just happens—nowhere in CCH do we intimately address a thetan. But we can come close to addressing a thetan by addressing thinkingness.

Here is what CCH does. It makes the person more aware of a body, and he eventually recognizes to some degree that he can control the body. Next, it addresses the physical universe, in the locational processes of the next facet. Actually, it addresses intimately the thetan plus the physical universe.

How can you as an auditor overcome the obsessive mental changes which occur? You cannot see what he is thinking. You put his body under control, then you get him into communication, and then you can also clarify and control to some degree his thinkingness. At thinkingness we are standing at a borderline between the mind and the thetan.

By control and duplication we get communication. When we have communication we can straighten up the fellow’s time track and his habitat in the final process, Then and Now Solids.

Let me be much more positive about this. The make-or-break point of any case is this: Can he make things more solid or can’t he? A person who can make things a little more solid can also be processed on almost anything and get along fairly well. I knew there was one point above which cases process easily with almost any technique you use, and there was a point below which no process seemed to have anything to do with a person. As soon as this was isolated we had things made, for we could graduate somebody up to a toleration of solids.

We can cross this borderline in all cases today.

But how about the fellow that we cannot communicate with at all? He has another bug that we have to overcome, and that is the bug of obsessive change. When you tell him to think of a cat, he has to be able to think of a cat. When cases failed in the past, it was that the preclear never thought what we had told him to think. He said so, but didn’t do it. Here we have this thing. If we can get him to think the thought “keep it from going away” we can graduate him up to solids.

There are two things that you do with a person. You control his person and you make him duplicate and communicate; you control his thinkingness. So you use the early steps of control of a person, which are “Give me your hand,” Tone 40 8-C, Hand-Space Mimicry and Book Mimicry, over and over, until you are absolutely sure that the fellow can think when you tell him to. Then you go into the next stage, which is Tone 40 “Keep it from going away,” Tone 40 “Hold it still,” and Tone 40 “Make it a little more solid.”

What is the bank doing? He has some attention units which get stuck on the track that are only being fixed by the bank sticking him, so we do all these things on the body and then we do practically the same things on the attention. After that, we have got it made, because we can graduate him to making something a little more solid. Let’s take him aside and let him get the inside confidential story of the whole thing. Have him take a look at his mind, and there comes the trickiest step of CCH. It only condenses almost the entirety of what an auditor had to know that was developed in three years.

This is the rough process and I don’t make any bones about it. You can either subjectively remedy havingness or you can’t. So the way we run CCH is to graduate a person up to making things objectively (the outside world) or subjectively (mind) solid, and then have him straighten out the whole track. All sorts of odd and interesting thoughts occur when we use this thing Then and Now Solids. Above this we do have a couple more things. They are super-developed gee-whiz processes, completely unusable on homo sapiens. However, you start winding up, why, you go over into these processes. I’ll give you some idea of where this goes. You could turn on a person’s mental image pictures the size of that wall in three dimensions, with total perception, in half an hour’s processing. Abilities are not perishable. The only thing which is perishable is willingness. Processing is still a matter of choice. A person would never refuse processing or help if he knew what it was. That which refuses processing is not the person. After a while, it isn’t that he pulls up on you and surrenders. He finally takes an apathetic look and says, “What you are doing is not bad. I wouldn’t mind being a lot better. “

You give him a surfeit of control, until he finds out it doesn’t kill him. Maybe he can control something now. Now that is the background theory of CCH. What I want to punch up is that if you wish to handle body illnesses, they come under the heading of person. If you want to handle mental actions you would do it with control of attention, and if you wish to handle a thetan it would be through control of thinkingness.

L. RON HUBBARD

A BASIC CHART OF PROCESS TYPES

October 29, 1957


Prerequisite understanding to this chart: Definitions of body, bank and mind. Communication—Upper Indoc course. Text: Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought.

_____________________________________________________________________

Type No. 1 2 3
____________________________________________________________________

a) Name Starting— Control Duplication
Ending session Processes
_____________________________________________________________________

b) Characteristic 2-way Comm Control by Mimicry by
Action Action
_____________________________________________________________________

c) Purpose To compose pc To place pc’s To establish
into and release body and actions communication
him from the under auditor’s
auditing session control to invite
control of them
by pc
_____________________________________________________________________

d) Action on Bank To double To better control To go into comm
control of it of it with it on pc
Auditor + determinism not
Preclear bank
determinism
_____________________________________________________________________

e) A Basic Example Is it all right with Sit in that chair Pc makes motion;
you to start an Thank you Auditor makes
auditing session? same motion.
Auditor makes
motion; pc makes
same motion.
_____________________________________________________________________

f) Stable Datum Agreement Never let the Each command in
pc get out of its own unit of
doing what he time separate
is told from every other
command
_____________________________________________________________________

g) Phenomena Auditing is a Pc is controlled Mis-duplication
knowing and by unknown (only once)
known activity source, which shows up and
must be turned runs out before
into known insistent
sources duplication
_____________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________

Type No. 4 5 6
_____________________________________________________________________

a) Name Straight-wire Objective Subjective
Processes Processes Processes
(think)
_____________________________________________________________________

b) Characteristic Remembering Spotting Thinkingness
& Forgetting & Finding
_____________________________________________________________________

c) Purpose To recontrol To orient pc in To recover auto forgetting and present time, maticities of
remembering drop out past and thought and as-is
and relate past improve having- unwanted
to present ness thinkingness
_____________________________________________________________________

d) Action on Bank To as-is locks and To drop out past To mass as-is
engrams and havingness by significance
bring them into substituting
knowingness level present
havingness and to
reorient
_____________________________________________________________________

e) A Basic Example Recall a moment Notice that wall Think a thought
_____________________________________________________________________

f) Stable Datum Specific things, Attention of pc Body control
not generalities must be under comes before
auditor’s control control of
thinking
_____________________________________________________________________

g) Phenomena Occlusions turn Old locations Thought has
from generalities (change of space) become
to specifics. Cycle drop out substitute for
aspect of recall in masses. Classes of
time (earlier, late, thought group
etc.) and source
appears
_____________________________________________________________________



L. RON HUBBARD










LRH:rd Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 57 [1957, ca. late October]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.


Escape


L. Ron Hubbard



Well, I’ve been working now for a lot of years to bring Dianetics and Scientology up to a point of supermagic.

It was easy to get them up to magic. In a world where no results, aside from accidentals, had been the order of things, it was simple to create magic. A cloying illness resolved, a fast heal of a broken limb, a recovery from fixations and obsessions, it was easy to repair these. That was simple magic.

And time and again I’ve told you “this is better” and it’s been true and auditing worked better.

But what were we really looking for?

We knew all of us that we were in a sort of trap called physical universe. And although it was all right to say we’d gotten in ourselves and that it was each man’s fault, it is nevertheless true that it was a trap complicated by innumerable traps.

It was all right to say that it was “natural” for man to kill deer. But that wasn’t making it any easier on the deer.

It was all right to recover enough data to know that dying wasn’t fatal but still men died and dying often hurts.

By no actual consent of our own we are torn from our friends and possessions and crushed into new lives. But just because we understood it made it no less arbitrary, no less painful. Just because we could better understand the trap made it no less a trap.

I’ve heard people say, “I don’t know what I ever would have done if you hadn’t come along, Ron.” A11 right, why should somebody like me have to come along if all the world is right and the universe an expression of deep love.

We curse at man-made hells. We spot cause in villainies uncountable. Yet, think now, what are we doing in a universe in which hells are possible.

Sure, maybe you even asked to come here. But deep in pain and shock, shadowed by your own forgetting, why puzzle now if this Universe is a good place.


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

You wouldn’t say a lion’s cage is a good place for a child. Nor would you jeer at and accuse a child who unwittingly stumbled into a lion’s cage. What is the cage doing there in the first place for a child to fall into?

Let’s be sane. We can rationalize this universe, we can explain complaints, we can blame the inmates but is it not true that we came unwitting into it?

What do we really want out of Dianetics and Scientology? What could I really give you that you want?

Escape.

Is there anything wrong with escape? Is a man mad who seeks to leave a fire that chars him, a mass that crushes him, a world that laughs at his dreams and scolds him for his stupidity?

Escape.

Why not escape?

Why not let a few others escape. After all, we’re not all only ones. We can feel and we can cry.

Tell me why Christianity won so well. Wasn’t it because of promised escape?

Tell me why Buddhism won so sweepingly. Because it promised escape.

Well, why not escape. If the great religions of all time became great on the promise of escape, we must assume that a lot of people want out and that there’s something wrong with in.

This universe is a breaker of bones, a defiler of deeds, a mocker of gallantry and peace. I can say this with equanimity. I don’t have to get emotional or even personal about it.

A spirit seeks to advance, to improve. Each way is blocked. This universe knows only how to decay.

Is there a way out?

Yes there is.

We have it in Scientology now. I have found it and charted it. I know exactly how to open the gate.

For whom. Ah yes, that’s the news. We used to say—”if your case is in good shape” or “if you really want to.” Of course you want to. But it didn’t require magic to open the gate. It required a supermagic to let our friends go free.

For seven years or less you have believed in me. You saw enough to know two things: (a) that I was sincere and would continue to work on it and (b) that a progress line existed which improved.

All right. What has been done? The auditing skills have been created which led an auditor up to this.

What has been done? In the lower steps of CCH we can rescue the people lowest down, even the unconscious people.

I told the 18th ACC—”I am through researching south. A11 further HGC researches will consist of going North.” I went North faster than I had thought I would. I have now taught the auditors in Washington and the Academy instructors how to go all the way north.

All the way.

I know why you’re here and the fast way out. I have taught auditing skill to Academy students and the 18th ACC. I’ve taught all the way north to the HGC auditors.

What is the way out? With no excuses, no byroads. Straight out. A11 the way.

Without belief or faith or “right conduct” you can go all the way.

P.A.B. No. 123
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 November 1957

THE REALITY SCALE

Prepared from L. Ron Hubbard’s second lecture to the 17th American A.C.C.
in Washington, D.C. on 26 February 1957


I want to talk to you about the Reality Scale and the whys and wherefores of Hand Contact Mimicry.

For a very, very long time we had the ARC Triangle. We had Affinity and Reality, and afterwards had Communication. A lot of people thought that Reality was the most important corner, but evidently Communication was the most important corner because by processing with communication we could do some astonishing things.

Two-way communication: Pc has a problem, you make him talk about it. If you don’t go to a point where you excessively reduce his havingness, he will have a tendency to desensitize on the problem. This is one of the oldest therapies known: you go and tell a friend you’re in trouble and you feel better. However, in Scientology this thing took on a new burnished radiator cap. Nobody knew before what it was in communication that made things communicate and made it therapeutic and so forth. We isolated the various parts of communication, and we isolated, much more importantly, the Bill-Joe interchange of two-way communication.

Now what can you do with communication? Well, a lot of people go around and they don’t have any reality on Scientology because nothing has ever happened to them. Their idea of what it takes to get reality on something is—they can’t examine something—the reality must have a mass. It must have an impact, a very heavy effect.

Now remember that you can reduce havingness by communication, but within that framework let us take somebody who has no reality on anything happening to him. Of course he has no reality on anything happening to him! He’s in a high games condition, which means “no effect on self, total effect on others.” So you’re trying to plow through his consistent postulation that there must be no effect upon himself of any kind whatsoever, and if you get through that barrier, then he says, “I have some reality on this subject.” If you destroy his “no effect on self,” then he’ll believe you. This is totally idiotic, but that’s the way it works.

Now we get this fellow. He has no reality on Scientology, but he’s got a toothache. We have him say “Hello” to the tooth, have the tooth say “Okay” to that hello. Have the tooth say “Hello” to him, and have him say “Okay” to the tooth. Which makes a two-way comm. Have him do this a few times and the toothache goes—poof!

We take a heavier mass than this, like an arthritic leg. Arthritis is a ridge illness, and therefore you go up or down from the ridge and you’ve got it made. We can make


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

him get rid of his arthritis even by simply putting him in apathy about it. You could hammer and pound him until he was sitting there very, very quietly and unable to wiggle in any way, and he wouldn’t feel his arthritis. Well, he wouldn’t feel anything else either.

You take slight little somatics, little conditions, or fears of things, and run two-way communication on them, and you get some fabulous results. Let’s say somebody’s afraid of a stove. Have him say “Hello” to the stove, and have the stove say “Okay.” Have the stove say “Hello” to him, and have him say “Okay” to the stove. After a while he won’t have any fear of touching the stove. Oddly enough, he will receive less effect from the stove even if hot. That is quite important. It tells you that the body does not naturally lend itself to injury, but injury takes place only in a highly aberrated condition. You should be able to take a body and throw it up against the wall hard enough to crush its skull in, have it drop to the floor, stand and walk away—providing you aren’t holding in suspension the image picture of its hitting the wall and being injured.

Now I’ll give you an example of that. I want you to look at this ashtray. Now I’m going to raise this ashtray and then I’m going to put it back on the desk. Is that action now in existence? Where? You’ve got some pictures of it, haven’t you? This universe doesn’t make things survive. Only you make things survive. And this is: you are holding the engram in restimulation, which permits it to have an effect. You’re so doggone hipped on the subject of survival that it’s just marvelous to behold. That is because a thetan cannot do anything else but survive. Naturally, anything that’s surviving he can go into good communication with.

People like to look at the Pyramids. Why? Well, the person is surviving and evidently the Pyramids are surviving, so there is a medium of interchange. A thetan looking at a solid is much happier if the solid is surviving. If this solid has duration, then the thetan can have a means of communication between himself and the solid, in spite of the fact that the thetan can’t be solid.

So people really don’t have much of a tendency to look at and study and examine very closely things of very finite survival periods—things that die right now, things that vanish right now. But they could say, “Look. It became nothing just like I am, and therefore I have another communication point with it.”

Sudden disappearances stay hung in the bank. That is different than something with a finite life. Things with a very finite small life are not very important, but solids which suddenly disappear are quite curious to a thetan. Hence we like magic shows and such things.

Now let’s add these factors up. This nothingness tends to survive only when arrived at under that circumstance: there was something there, now there’s nothing there. So that I give you a motion of MEST and you make a picture survive, but it’s not any longer moving in MEST. MEST has very, very finite duration, so we have to rig up all sorts of things so it’ll survive, so it’ll continue.

And people like to have things continue, but after a while, when things have not continued with them for a long time, then they get onto another kick: they only hold on to. It was something and suddenly became nothing, so therefore they hold on to losses. And the whole track, at length, becomes a concatenation of losses.

Communication, oddly enough, has always attended one of these losses. It is not true, basically, that communication as-ises or destroys or knocks out any mass. But communication has always accompanied the vanishment or destruction of mass, so the preclear gets these two things involved with each other, and then he goes through an

automaticity of having mass vanish when he communicates. You must get this clearly. The only thing that as-ises mass is as-ising mass. But communication always accompanied this, and after a while the preclear gets one very solid conviction: that if he talks to something, something disappears. It’s not true.

Sound is another aspect of communication which is fabulous. You realize, the first sounds were evidently those which accompanied explosions or destructive actions. Electronic particles traveling through space will carry with them sound, even in the absence of air. Sound does not go through a vacuum. Unless you have some carrier for sound it doesn’t reach you at all. Therefore, a sudden electronic explosion was usually the first acquaintance with sound.

It’s true that he had to put sound there in order for sound to be there, but he has a number of experiences whereby something blew up (and therefore disappeared) and sound took place. So you’ll find any preclear willing to swear that sound is disintegrative. Not all communications contain sound, but sound is a disintegrating factor. So communications with sound combine the destructive aspect of sound (of which the preclear’s convinced) with the as-ising aspect of communication itself (of which he is again convinced), and between the two of them you get an awful loss of havingness if you’re not very careful. Communication, verbal, tends to as-is (or knock out) the masses in the bank of the preclear. So we just start right in auditing him. Now if he has a present time problem which is terribly pressing, well, you could do something with this if you didn’t talk about the problem too much. If you ran problems of comparable magnitude to it, you’d probably add to his havingness.

The way we got away with it with running engrams was quite peculiar. The person was having to put the engram there to some degree in order to run the thing. This made him capable of confronting the incident and so brought a discharge of the fixation he had for that incident, and yet did not rob him particularly of the incident, the mass. We were running the significance out of the mass. It’s interesting. But where a person couldn’t afford to lose anything, he couldn’t even afford to lose significance, and so we couldn’t run an engram. Well communication goes much further south, and we have a condition here whereby we see an individual drop through the bottom just by too much yackety-yak with the auditor on the subject of his particular phobia or bank.

This tells you, by the way, at once, one of the most condemning facts of psychoanalysis. I started digging up all the factors utilized in psychoanalysis, and I discovered this fantastic thing, that I couldn’t find any factor present which was therapeutic. Beyond the fact of telling a friend your troubles, there is no therapeutic rationale behind it, because you get the as-ising of mass. Where Freud achieved any result—let’s be generous, let’s say he did achieve some results—let’s find out how long it took him to achieve them. An old lady came in from Bavaria and talked to him for a few minutes and just ranted on and on, and all of a sudden said that she felt better and got up and left. Freud, as far as I can discover, never had any results from cases who went longer than a very few hours in psychoanalysis. In other words, Freud’s results were the magic results. A person came in and said, “This is wrong, and that is wrong” and felt better and went away. If you let the patient talk too long, he is going to go out the bottom, and that I guarantee. They talk themselves down the tone scale.

Just take a preclear who’s in bad shape and have him tell you about his problem or something, and he drops on out the bottom doing this. You can watch him go right on downscale. It’s possibly an experiment you ought to make to really understand this. Just make somebody tell you his trouble over and over and over. And you will understand at once why Freud got spectacular results in a very few hours, and why nobody’s gotten any results since in a great many hours.

Brainwashing—that’s the biggest joke of this half-century, brainwashing. A fellow will talk out enough havingness to throw himself into an introverted condition. You’ve got his mind concentrated upon his bank, and now you make him talk, and out goes the havingness. And he goes right on downscale with great speed.

Please understand this as auditors. Know what you are looking at. You’re just looking at the vanishment of mass. And a thetan believes that to be recognized and to be able to prove things and to be able to demonstrate to the world that he is there and that things have happened to him, he has to have mass.

And so we get the third corner here. Affinity is actually the consideration of distance. Communication is an interchange of ideas. But Reality is what it is about and what it is proved by.

Looking all around now, I would say that the weakest comer of the ARC Triangle is “A”—Affinity. This has the least monitoring effect upon a preclear but is the most strongly demonstrated. It is NOT a good entering point. C and R run out A, or re-establish A. And A is very easily monitored. C is less easily monitored by A and R. And you pull R and C apart and you’ve got nothing. You have no reaction. You have no universe. So C and R—Communication and Reality—are very, very closely associated.

And Reality has a scale. And because C is closely associated with Reality, Reality then again (after ‘54) started to take a certain prominence. Reality is a scale in its own right, and that scale begins at the top with a Postulate. Which postulate, continuing, can make a Consideration. You can acquire considerations by other means than postulating; all you have to do is agree with an existing postulate or an existing consideration, and you too can have the consideration—you didn’t have to postulate it in the first place.

It’s Postulates; Continuing Postulates/Considerations—and the next step down from there is Agreement. And here we see this vast panorama of “everybody agreed with everything,” which knits them all together in the same time continuum. It’s a postulate, a consideration, and then a couple of guys or more have this same consideration and, having it, then we have a specialized consideration—it is shared in common— and this we call an “agreement”: a shared consideration.

Having accomplished that, we get Solids. We get proof of the consideration, and that takes place in spaces and solids. But Reality, actually, is the solid aspect, whereas A is more closely associated to the spatial aspect. Because they wish to prove it and convince one another, they get something that can enter the phenomenon of sight, and the other phenomena of touch, smell. Here we have spatial relationships established and confirmed by mass.

What happens to somebody who is no longer convinced even though the mass is there? Where would he go? The one just below that is “a Line.” The mass called a “terminal” tends to vanish, and the line between a couple of terminals tends to take place and appear.

And then, below that we get “No Terminal, No Line.” And don’t mistake that for a postulate condition. You get this person selling you a beautiful bill of goods—because there’s nothing there—that he’s in a postulating condition. He has become the total effect of his postulates, total effect of his considerations, total effect of all masses, total effect of all lines—and now he can’t even see lines and masses. Such a person is liable to tell you, “My thoughts affect things thousands of miles away.” It’s true that an OT can affect something thousands of miles away. But he isn’t an OT, he’s got lumbago. OTs don’t have lumbago.

You start to process him, and what happens? The line shows up. You process him longer, and shadowy things show up at either end of the line, and the line starts to disappear and the terminals start to appear. And then you process him a little bit longer and boy, do those terminals become solid! And after he is able to make a terminal have an effect upon him so that his confidence in this is unassailable, he can only then enter into the world of agreement. Only then are his agreements binding and valid. Only then can he make them or break them. Up to that time he is obsessed by any agreement of the past track. He is the victim of all the upper scale at any point he is on the scale. And that is true of the Tone Scale, or is true of any other scale.

A person, you know, does not move up level by level of the Tone Scale. He broadens up the Tone Scale. He becomes the whole scale. There is a big difference. A person who is in good shape can postulate, consider (which is to say, continue a postulate), agree, make masses, or make masses disappear, or make lines between masses appear or disappear. At any point you find him on the scale, he can do the points from there down, and you win for him the ability again, you make him willing to have the ability again, to do the points from there up.

The Reality Scale is very important. It tells you that communication down below “No Line, No Terminal” is almost totally first dynamic communication. The person actually gets convinced that if he thinks it, it arrives in Chesapeake Bay, you see. He gets a telepathic idea of his own thinkingness. Naturally, all terminals there are are all there too, and all lines are there too.

Now what’s the state of a case at any one of these levels? Well, it matches up right there alongside the old Tone Scale—the Sub-Zero Scale and the original Tone Scale in their continuum, you see, from Serenity clear on down to Wait—Wait, not even Unconscious. This level is paralleled by this Reality Scale. And there’s also a series of communications which go down along the whole line.

Let’s take our preclear at the point where he doesn’t know you’re there and doesn’t know the room is there and doesn’t know he’s there and doesn’t know that he has a body sitting there, and he just DOESN’T KNOW, but he’s performing on some social machinery. Where is the entrance point? The first thing that you can do with this preclear, we believe now, that would recall to him an ability would be the recognition of the existence of a line. Hence, your hand against the preclear’s hand—that’s a line. By establishing a line he can come into cognizance of the terminal. Your arm is liable to get awful real to him. Unless his hand and arm get real, you’re not going to find anything else gettin’ real.

It doesn’t mean that a person responds to Hand Contact Mimicry only when he is in terrible shape. Anybody ought to respond to Hand Contact Mimicry. You do Hand Contact Mimicry with most anybody who hasn’t had his hands cleared, and you’re going to get some results, that’s for sure.

A solid communication line is very fine, but what if you break it? Well, you can break it so slowly that the person doesn’t notice that the hands have ceased to be lines and have become terminals. There is a little space, an inch, between your hand and the preclear’s hand, and he hasn’t noticed to any great degree. Affinity starts to take place, because we’ve got some distance, but the affinity, you’ll find, will be first worst and then best with the terminals close together. Hand Contact Mimicry is the point back to which I would drop at any time I became very suspicious that I was auditing over the head of the preclear. I’ve gone way over his head, therefore I’ve given him a loss, so therefore momentarily I would consider he was in bad communication with me—and his reality on me possibly could be graduated up to a line now.

Reality contains a level known as Havingness. In this little band of Mass there is a scale inside the Reality Scale—the Havingness Scale. And that has to do with the consideration of mass. It’s what you do with mass. That scale is quite an interesting scale in itself.

It starts out, probably, with Waste, or maybe with Substitute. It is so messed up at that point of Mass that it is very hard to get preclears to come up uniformly as to which one is the lowest one. It possibly goes this way: Waste, Substitute, Waste, Substitute, Waste, Substitute until you get up to the next one. Just as you find a great many false emotions jammed in at the level of Apathy on the Affinity Scale—and I’m sure you’ve seen this—so do you find this Waste and Substitute kicking around and kicking at each other on the Havingness Scale.

“Have” is the next one up. If a person can’t have something, you can have him waste it enough, and you’ll find out after a while he’ll say, “Well, I can have it.”

What is the next important way-stop on this Havingness Scale? The next one up the line is Confront—and that’s awfully important. A person who can’t confront something is liable to “have to have it” as his highest expression. And if he can’t confront it and can’t have it, it’s a cinch that he will waste it. And if he can’t even waste it, it’s a cinch he’ll substitute. And we get Freudian and other sublimations and all of that. Sublimation—they never knew what they talked about. This is not sublimation I’m talking about. This thing called “sublimation” is substitution. I mean, why get sublimative about something that is easily done? If a person hates women, it is a cinch that he probably hates “a woman” and substitutes for her all other women. But this is not a clean statement of it for this reason: you get identification, which is substitution, of one woman for another—and then you get disassociation; he can’t even identify any more. Hence your lower Waste level. He’s wasting now a substitute.

You’ll find a preclear after a while will, on some subject, disassociate. He says that ashtray isn’t that ashtray. You get the idea? He says, “This ashtray is a camel.” Well, now, that’s disassociation. He can’t recognize a thing for itself, but it must be something else, so we must understand that as an action of Mass to lie on the lower end of the Havingness Scale. It’s just as simple as that.

Now, as we go upscale further from Confront, we run into something which is pretty doggone high, and that’s Contribute To. People, if they are prevented from contributing to something, go downscale. Now if contributing to something is getting rid of mass, it’s somebody else is going to have something besides yourself—and you take a person who is sitting down at Have, or below, and you make him contribute a little bit, and he gets to be a sick puppy. He’ll just go on down into Waste and Substitute. It is a very high manifestation. It holds true all up and down this Havingness Scale that if an individual is prevented from helping, from contributing in some fashion, he gets very ill. Not in auditing, but in real life.

Let’s go on even higher than this, and what do we get to? We get to Create.

So the Havingness Scale, which fits at that innocuous word “Mass” on the Reality Scale, consists of the doingnesses with regard to Mass. And they begin at the top with Create, go down at once into Contribute To, into Confront, into Have, into Waste, and on down into Substitute. That all belongs at Mass; these are all the things you do with mass.

Now probably there are a bunch of doingnesses with Agreement. Ask an attorney. There are probably doingnesses with Postulates, and doingnesses with Lines—ask the telephone company. And these things probably, too, form up other scales quite similar to the Havingness Scale. And when you had all these doingness scales paralleling the

Reality Scale, you would have this difference: the thing, which is the Reality Scale and its aspects, which would be the doingness scale (considerations with regard to these things in actuality would be over here on this other scale). We mustn’t confuse the thing with what you do with it. You can have without doing. It’s pretty hard, however, to do without having, which is why Reality is so important in running on the preclear.

Now I hope you understand these two scales, and I hope you will take them around with you on auditing and look them over a little bit and understand what they are all about. Because we’re still talking about ARC, and as a matter of fact we’ll be talking a lot about Survive, which is OLD HAT, but it has certainly been polished up, and it certainly has a nice new band, and it certainly fits on a lot more heads than it used to.

L. RON HUBBARD

________________________________
HCO B 2 NOVEMBER 1957

[HCO B 2 November 1957, Intensive Processes for Use in Operation Clear and Operation Staff Clear, was a confidential staff only issue. It was revised on 22 February 1975 as HCO B 2 November 1957RA, An Objective Rundown, which is in Volume VIII, page 393.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE


HCO BULLETIN OF 13 NOVEMBER 1957




PROJECT CLEAR CHECK SHEET


___________________ __________________ _______________________
NAME OF PRECLEAR NAME OF AUDITOR DATE PROJECT STARTED

HOURS RUN PER SESSION ____________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________


USE A CHECK IF PROCESS IS RUN, USE AN X IF PROCESS IS CONSIDERED FLAT.

CCH 0 CCH 1 CCH 2

CCH 3 CCH 4

Tr. 10

MOCK UP AN UNWANTED FUTURE TRIO

ARC STRAIGHTWIRE

RECALL AN UNWANTED OBJECT
RECALL A MOMENT OF LOSS

RECALL AN EXPECTED COMMUNICATION
RECALL A COMPLETED COMMUNICATION

PSYCHOSOMATIC ADDRESS. Condition _________________________________
RECALL AN UNWANTED (AFFECTED BODY PART)
RECALL A LOST (AFFECTED BODY PART)

SHORT SPOTTING

MOCK UP A CONDITION WORSE THAN (AFFECTED BODY PART)

VALENCE SPLITTERS:
Person located by E-Meter Split________
Person located by E-Meter Split________
Person located by E-Meter Split________

RISING SCALE PROCESSING

BODY ANCHOR POINTS





Note: This sheet does not replace regular report sheets in HGC but must be included.

INFORMATION SHEET ON PROJECT CLEAR


It is expected that the processes scheduled for project clear be run more or less in the following order.

CCH 0 at the beginning of each session. If pc falters on one or another point, stress that point until cleared up.

CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 to be run as follows. If 1 produces no reaction go to 2, if 2 produces no reaction go to 3, if 3 produces an action flatten it a bit and go to 4. If 4 produces an action or no action either flatten or go quickly to 1, etc, until these steps have each one been unflattened and flattened again.

Tr. 10 is used liberally as a bridge process and to start and end sessions. If it develops a somatic, auditor should treat it as a process and flatten it and then go right on using it. Main use is at session end.

RECALL SOMETHING REALLY REAL TO YOU is run to test recalls. It is a very effective process in itself. In fact all the three questions of ARC Straight Wire can be run if pc is found pretty bad on this. But it is intended to be used simply to groove the pc and to keep a cataclysm from occurring if the pc can’t run recall processes. If he has a hard time, flatten ARC Straight Wire. Otherwise, run for minutes only.

RECALL AN UNWANTED OBJECT and RECALL A MOMENT OF LOSS are a pair. If one is used, then the other must be used exactly the same length of time in the same session. They are alternate processes where one is run a half hour then the other is run a half hour. These two are the chief processes of Operation Clear so give them lots of concentration and time.

TRIO is run as a step between recall processes. If one session is run on recall processes the next is run on TRIO. There is Control Trio and Trio. It is up to the auditor which is used. But use all three commands of either in any proportion that seems right to the auditor. Run lots of Trio even though both recall processes are havingness processes.

RECALL AN EXPECTED COMMUNICATION and RECALL A COMPLETED COMMUNICATION are interesting processes. Communication as-ises havingness. Thus this is a reverse process which, by dropping the pc’s level of concentration on past persons and activities thus gives him the havingness of those areas of the track. These processes may or may not be vital to Project Clear as they are released ahead of long experiment and use.

RISING SCALE PROCESSING is run when the pc can change ideas. He must be up to lots of cognitions before this is run. It is run from the Chart of Attitudes as given in Creation of Human Ability.

ADJUSTING ANCHOR POINTS is done almost at project end. This is a delicate auditing job and additional material will be released upon it.

SHORT SPOTTING and VALENCE SPLITTING are fitted in at the auditor’s discretion. SHORT spotting is done by indicating objects close up to pc and making him repeatedly notice his psychosomatic area. Valence splitting may not even be necessary if the above auditing steps are well done. Also, it may be that psychosomatic difficulties will not need further attention than earlier processes on this sheet.

PROBLEMS OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE are here done with MOCK UP SOMETHING WORSE THAN PSYCHOSOMATIC CONDITION. UNWANTED FUTURES may also be fitted in anywhere.


L. RON HUBBARD



Issue 58 [1957, ca. early November]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



We Are the Free People


L. Ron Hubbard



We are the Free People. We have grown up—grown up to Freedom, not senility.

We are the Free People. The Scientologist has left behind the claws and barriers of miscontrol.

We are the Free People. Grown from out the mud and jungle rot of fear, our unchained minds can reach afar and grasp the idea of ultimate Freedom.

We are the Free People in whom the whims of “I’m supposed to” have no rule, on whom the scientist can blunt his weighty arguments to prove we are not Free.

Be glad, they said before we came, that you are mad, insane, for there is genius, so they said. You cannot change. Our brand on you is fixed. Your brain is all you are and fixed like clockwork in a robot head. So think, they said, as we have said, to think, for thought is our own chain and your ideas nil.

Die, they said, and live no more and become dispossessed so we can own. Fall down, they said, and worship clay or maybe space, but of course wrath. And sing lugubrious songs to fear or maybe international cults that specialize in slaves.

Believe, they said, that Man is just a shiny thing well meant to die beneath the pounding of their bombs—the mightiest God they knew.

The flesh, they said, is All and you are but a decay of yourself.

And so they barriered All men.

The witch and the pot; the test tube and the scope; the cell and the club; the textbook and the lies-Control! Control them or we die! Beat them or they win! Starve them or we shrink. We are afraid, afraid, afraid!—they said in that old age we killed.

Freedom becks and we now laughing at their lies, went free.

Scientology—The Road Sign Out.

We are the Free People. We LIVE! We’re Free !



Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

P.A.B. No. 124
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 November 1957

COMMUNICATION AND IS-NESS


A man is as well off as he can consider himself dangerous to his environment.

I will tell you a little short anecdote, which is quite amusing. Well, sometime early in 1945 I flunked my overseas examination. Well, I crawled around and felt sorry for myself, and the fact of it was that the Judo instructor there at the hospital brought up the idea that there was a shortage of people in the war—there was. So he kept up my training for me. I think it was July 25th that I went down to Hollywood and three sailors with Petty Officers’ ratings accosted me on the street. They were drunk. They were out to kill officers. And the three of them tied into me. An unbelievable thing happened. One of them turned me around facing him while the second one took a heavy beer bottle to bring it down on my skull. I took the fellow who brought the beer bottle down, threw him over my head into this fellow, who went down and hit the side of a bumper. The beer bottle hit the pavement, broke the end off, and the other fellow reared up where he had been sitting on the running board of a car, and I put it in his face. That’s what you are trained to do.

Overnight, the wound in my side healed—overnight. They wouldn’t let me out at all, but I could get extended leave from the hospital. I went down to Hollywood and messed around at the studios. In the middle of all that I managed to complete all the researches which I’d stacked up and which had been interrupted by the war.

Steam. . . where had it come from? You get your teeth shoved in this way and that, and you develop a tremendous amount of inflow. And then one day you just outflow! The Chief Petty Officer in charge of the Shore Patrol had been sitting at his desk, telling me, “Under no circumstances should you have taken any action. You were trifling with your life.” Telling me what a good boy I ought to be. And then through the door he saw the Shore Patrol bring these people in. Of course, they were all saturated with blood, and they were all messed up. And he just shut up right then!

He was running the usual social dramatization—”You must protect yourself.” The society teaches you to hold in. All you have to do to somebody is to prevent him from outflowing to make him ill. And someday he decides to outflow. Not only the social world but the world of yourself can act to cause you to prevent outflow. Outflow is prevented by regret, it is prevented by all sorts of things. If one has something terrifically valuable he protects it—which is what? Prevent an inflow! Well, when you say prevent an inflow you might as well say prevent an outflow. If you hold flows from coming in toward you you might as well flow them in, because sooner or later that dike that you put up is going to burst. So you get these confounded actions in this universe composing a picture of tremendous inflow, not balanced at all by outflow.



Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

What does this all add up to? Any time that you protect and defend, you are aiding and abetting all the structures which make up this universe. The child who is taught to defend himself against these big, vicious automobiles some day turns out to be one of the lousiest drivers you ever saw, because he is taught to defend and protect. All you have to assume is that safety is desirable to have all of the ills of Pandora’s box swarm around your head.

Just what boxing glove can hit a thetan I wouldn’t know. A thetan has to mock himself up to be reachable. You are dealing with the idea of what a person is supposed to feel as a result of, when it comes to inflows. And that’s just an idea. If a person over-defends himself through some exaggerated idea of pain, he will suffer the full consequences of that over-defense, just to the degree that anybody else over-defends himself to that degree.

So the reason for the defense or the reason for safety is variable, but the consequences of it aren’t. As long as you deal with masses, and agreements and ideas directly concerning masses, you are all right. But when you go back into an opinion of what it ought to be as far as the preclear is concerned, you are of course immediately in trouble. Any auditor who is having a rough time with preclears, not snapping them out of the hop immediately, is paying attention to this factor, which is a variable, which is opinion. Figure-figure, ideas, ideas, ideas.

Suppose we had no cops in the society but there was the idea around that there were cops. We would get some of the nuttiest ideas you have ever heard of! We would have a set of ideas about cops, different for each person in the entire community. Why? Because there is no way to experience cops. Cops are an idea which one cannot get into communication with; therefore we get this great oddity—abundance and scarcity. Only it isn’t actually the possession of quantity; it is only apparently quantitative. It is having something to go into communication with.

I’m very sure that the whole world of disease is built entirely on this mechanism. I seriously doubt the existence of any given germ—I seriously doubt it. It is very embarrassing to men in sailing ships and so on, very embarrassing to these fellows, to have venereal diseases happen when they have had no contact with women at all. And I have seen that often enough in young boys that were as pure as the driven lily to understand completely that we didn’t have here a germ at work. We had a series of ideas at work. Fascinating subject in view of the fact that it has ruined as many lives down the decades and centuries as it has. When you socially enter a great many prohibitions against communication on the second dynamic, you will get all sorts of interesting ideas.

Aberration is caused by cut communication with the mass, and is remedied by re-established communication with the mass. Look what they are doing with the A-bomb. This is one of the silliest things you ever saw in your life. They make everything about it confidential, secret, and nobody must be let in on it.

And there is possibly no more illness to radiation than that.

The formula for creating an illness is to establish a terminal, get everybody convinced that this terminal is there, and refuse to let them communicate with it.

Now one of the dangerous things to do with Scientology would be to put it under the counter. In the first place it isn’t a terminal. A terminal, however, must be maintained, and access to that terminal must be preserved. And it mustn’t be put on confidential, any part of it. Why? Because it’s already dynamite. We do anything with it that can be done with anything. Let’s not cut a line to it and let’s not put it beyond reach. There would be a certain fatality in doing that. And yet every group that has

ever learned a series of great truths has inevitably gone into secret priesthoods concerning them, which was of course a destructive action.

It isn’t jumping into ten thousand volts of current that electrocutes a man. It’s having so many times in the past disconnected from electricity when confronted with it. Every time you disconnect you to that degree lower your own tolerance.

Obviously the electricity flying through these poles is more real to the individual being the line than the actual terminal of the pole. Why is it more real to him and his body? Because it has the greatest effect on him and his body. He can touch the pole, but he can’t touch the juice. That tells you there must be some terrific reality about the dangerousness of this juice, and the pole is either in apathy or non-existent. Therefore you can only teach one thing to a preclear, horribly enough, and that is—”You can communicate with it.” The communication with a mass is the only thing we can do for him, but we have to have a mass.

We can get him to conceive of an is-ness, and we can get him to communicate with it, and by this he will change his mind concerning its existence. He will change his mind concerning its conditions, but most particularly and more important to you, he will change his mind with regard to its abundance or scarcity, and therefore its importance. It is the scarcity or abundance of things which denotes their value or importance. A man who has lived too long without women will consider women dangerous.

So scarcities and abundances do declare the final state of one’s reactions to anything. When something becomes very scarce it is because one has cut communication, and that action of cutting communication is the same action of defending or protecting self. Now as I say, you can break out of this. You can have this tremendous resurgence. You can outflow. You can act. And that’s all there is behind one of these resurgences, by the way, there are no other factors. Or you, as an auditor, can bring him gently and quietly up on a gradient scale until he can again communicate with the objects in his environment, and he again will experience the same thing he experienced when he did this tremendous outflow. We are reaching towards the same goals but we’re saying that by communication we establish the is-ness of existence, and by doing that, why, we make people well.

L. RON HUBBARD



LRH TAPE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
26 November 1957

5711C26 LECTURE Lecture to J. Fudge and Staff

5711C26 LECTURE Lecture to Staff (cont.)

P.A.B. No. 125
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 December 1957

THE PARTS OF MAN


I am going to go over with you the parts of man. The first thing we’re going to take up is exteriorization, as the most important part of man. It’s the causation. That’s the thetan. Now, the fact that you can’t weigh one is because this is the author of weighing. There is, however, a way of experiencing this. It is a personal attitude, it is a personal view. An individual can exteriorize and experience this phenomenon. It is very easy to experience being a thetan, but it’s not easy to experience seeing one.

So therefore people tend quite markedly to become Only Ones. Here is a phenomenon which a person can experience himself but cannot observe in others. There are many ways to experience the idea of somebody else exteriorizing.

Exteriorization is the phenomenon of being in a position of space dependent on only one’s consideration, able to view from that space, bodies and the room, as it is. That is exteriorization. Well, people who have difficulty controlling the body from close up, I can assure you, won’t get out of their heads, because they can’t control anything at a distance. If you can’t control a body from a distance you will find yourself very, very reluctant to get out of your head. It is as simple as that. Any phenomenon which occurs beyond the point of willingness to be out of the head or control the body from a distance is regulated by the scarcity and abundance of bodies and universes. And if you can’t see your body, then there is a scarcity of them. If you can’t see the universe, there is a scarcity of that. That’s all there is to that.

Now, here is exteriorization: Keep your head from going away. “Take your hands and hold on to your head and keep it from going away.” I don’t know how many hours it would take with some preclears. Probably a Black 5 would have to sweat along at this for fifteen or twenty hours before he was really there, but he would get there on that one technique. That is quite amazing, isn’t it? There are probably about five thousand other techniques. This is the only shotgun one that I know, the one that doesn’t ever fail. It is only contingent upon one thing—being able to take hold of your head. That is a necessary prerequisite to that technique.

All right. Now let’s take the next fact about this, and we find that vision depends upon scarcity and abundance. The ability to exteriorize depends on the willingness to exteriorize, but the willingness to experience is totally monitored by the amount of things available to experience. A thetan gets quantitatively minded.

What good is a human being? The fact is, there are too many of them to be seen. Now, how about too few? Well, on a frontier, the fewness of people is one of the fabulous things. Man dramatizes. When he gets into an area of too few people, he then kills the people who exist. And when he gets into an area where there are too many


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

people, he then overlooks the people who exist. Somewhere in between this, you will have a progressive society. And such a society was the United States—anywhere between twenty-five and a hundred million people the United States was in there pitching. But now that it has begun to exceed that, people have started to disappear. They aren’t. That sounds to you like a cynical statement. If we were to have an atomic war, and cut the population down to fifty million, you’d get another view. It is simply a statement of scarcity and abundance.

All right. We take somebody and we can get him out of his head, but would he just go out of his head without being gotten out of his head? Well, yes. Scarcity and abundance will actually kick him out of his head. Scarcity and abundance of what? Let’s say that the preclear’s idea of the scarcity or abundance of rooms depends then upon his willingness to view them. You have to put him into direct contact with the is-ness of rooms. Now let’s go a little bit further than that and look at the body. If he has too few bodies he is certainly going to be unwilling to get out of the body he is in. And if he has too many right where he is, he’ll be trapped there too. He won’t know where he is. So remedying his havingness on the subject of his own body is very necessary to an accurate and stable exteriorization.

So much for exteriorization. Let’s go off now into the second part, which is the mind. By mind today we mean that structure of mental image pictures and machinery on which the preclear is depending for his opinions and ideas. The structure of the mind is totally composed of mental image pictures. I’m afraid the mind doesn’t produce any thoughts. The mind may be considered to have certain phonograph records. The phonograph record, as you know, doesn’t play unless you put a needle on the platter. Well, the thetan is the needle on the platter, and unless the record is played directly it doesn’t activate it. Any livingness, even a thetan exteriorized, tends to utilize some sort of mental image pictures. But when he reads all of the records in the mind as the absolute truth and fact and conviction, when he is obeying concatenations of “I am supposed to,” we have behavior patterns; we have mental reactions; we have all of these various things that were never studied, by the way, in psychology. I don’t know where a psychologist lives, but it’s certainly not in this universe.

Now the exact workings of this mechanism depend on association and differentiation, or identification and differentiation. Now when that part of the mind which we call a reactive mind begins to identify everything with everything in order to get certain pattern responses, and is able to exert its influence upon a person far better than the thetan himself can, we say that this person is suffering from reactive conduct. A=A=A=A.

Now Association—Differentiation are the two principles of the mind. It is supposed to tell the difference between two or more things, and it is supposed to tell the similarity between two or more things. Now, a mind in good shape doesn’t identify. What causes association to become identification? Lack of objects. Lack of incidents. Lack of experience. When you have too few things happen to you, you’re liable to have all sorts of things happen to you. In other words, if you are busy and there are lots of incidents, there is a high probability that you will not suffer the consequences thereof. But if you are not busy and you are idle, then you are liable to long for those times when you were very busy. And if you are ever worried about a mental image picture, it’s because you haven’t enough to worry about.

Where all drama is tailor-made for you, you are in grave jeopardy. In a TV screen world you are apt to be in trouble, because the TV is only a pattern of lights and shadows which is a restimulative mechanism to shuffle your bank around, and give you again some segment of that which you have already experienced. It’s a funny thing that people will not read about certain periods. If you are talking to somebody who is very upset on the subject of past lives, you should realize that he was probably just

executed up at Sing Sing in 1932 or 1933, and he just can’t stand the idea. It is only people who are borderline insanity cases who got up and screamed about past lives. This I have kept a very careful tally on. They were people who were terrified; people who were incapable ever of holding their own on the subject. They couldn’t have talked about it very long before a past life would have snapped in and snapped their heads off. Those incidents which are most scarce tend to stick hardest.

Let’s look at this thing called the mind, and let’s find that the mind is a mechanism for overcoming the lack of incidents, lack of experience in present time by storing pictures and knowingnesses of the past, which could be made available to the present. A preclear is always losing incidents. One of the methods of not losing them would be to simply suspend them as a picture. Now, if you restore his ability to make these pictures solid, you’ve really done something. He can have the picture then any time he wants, in its full form. You have to change the idea of how much picture and incident is actually necessary in order to alter the preclear’s viewpoint, and you change that with scarcity and abundance. Scarcity and abundance naturally comes up, and is handled by Havingness.

Now, let’s take up the final and remaining part of man, which is the body.

Now, the body is a solid appendage which makes a person recognizable. The body is a game of considerable magnitude, and very popular at this time. It is quite old, but still very popular. The body can be monitored and handled by mental image pictures, and it can also be monitored and handled by thetans, fortunately. But a body is subject to these two other things. It is actually not possible to change a body without changing the other two things. The body is modified by the mind and the thetan, and is actually a very low order of MEST.

Now the anchor points of the body are quite interesting, in that the body exists as solid only within these spaces, and in the absence of some of these anchor points the body will aberrate its shape. We know the fastest way to change body shape is to put the thetan into a condition of willingness to handle anchor points, and then remedy the scarcity and abundance of anchor points, and put the actual anchor points back there and have him put them back there. You will see the body change its shape, health and general characteristics.

Now, mental image pictures also influence the body, and they influence the body basically by influencing these anchor points. A facsimile evidently imposes itself by magnetic fields and currents and other things upon the anchor point system. It is quite interesting.

So therefore the body is handled and controlled on a mental level through these anchor points. If you were sailing along seventy-five feet back of your head some day, and you see some preclear come along, just shift your range of vision enough to find that preclear’s wing anchor points; if you were to get hold of one of these wing anchor points and just bend it off line—the person will walk in a circle. As long as you hold the anchor point out of line the person will walk out of line.

Joints operate because of anchor point structure. The body is then held together by electronic structure which is easily influenceable, and that electronic structure has much more command upon the body than the MEST around it. And the thetan goes through these very many vias of mental image pictures and these anchor points, and thus influences the structure of the body.

Now, to influence the mind by influencing the body is only possible by doing something to the havingness of the thetan. Now you can influence a thetan by influencing the body. Let’s not overlook this point. But that influence only takes place to a degree that it influences abundance and scarcity.

In other words, as you influence his ideas of havingness of bodies, so you influence his condition with regard to bodies, and we re-influence the body. We find out that a body can be moved, thus influencing the thetan, or two or three bodies can be put back, thus influencing the thetan, and we have simply run the back flow of mass reaction on the person. And we do that in auditing all the time. We adjust the person’s havingness, his ability to communicate with an is-ness, his ability to conceive an is-ness, to communicate with it. This is Havingness; this is the way you run Havingness.

There in essence we have the body.

But with the three subdivisions of a human being we have to include the fact that he lives in the universe.

All right. These, then, are the three parts of beingness, with the condition that one lives in the universe. And these are inter-influencing. These parts of man, each one of them, are insistent upon experience, incident. Man grows old, minds become complicated, thetans become wise. But at no time does their capability, or ability in general, lessen. Only their willingness to live increases and decreases, and that increases and decreases in direct ratio that there is a scarcity or abundance of the various things in which they are interested. And these scarcities and abundances influence them and monitor their conduct, or any culture. The cure for this is to put the person into communication with actual is-ness, or the is-ness of any given object, and to permit him to reacquaint himself with that. And so by auditing his life can be righted.


L. RON HUBBARD



Issue 60 [1957, ca. early December]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



Scientology:
The Philosophy of a New Age


L. Ron Hubbard



It takes Truth to live with a swiftly changing world. Nothing less than Truth can Survive. You cannot Survive with anything less than Truth.

We are the heralds of a New Age. Man, stuck for millennia in the rut of status quo can at first balk and even ridicule, but, Can He Survive?

Always the old has hooted at the new. But the new grows strong and each day’s dawning sees us closer to a new World.

What will this world be? Atomic reactors giving unlimited power. Automatic machines providing for the most of Man’s animal wants. Space flight to the Solar System. New politics, new leisure, new hates, new loves.

But before any new era begins there is always a period of instability and change, a period of violence, a period soiled with the death of the old and the failed experiments of the new.

Such periods of change are violent. Many things, many men may not Survive them.

What will it take to Survive this change? Who can Survive it and sail onward to live in new times?

The lucky and the clear.

But who are the lucky but the clear.

Scientology for the individual is a passport to this new time. Scientology for the group is the Survival of the State.

No old shaky basis of thought could last out the fire of the period of change. No quivering, unstable person could Survive the duress of the times just now to come.

One’s first duty to all is to be himself clear, able to Survive, able to lead his own destiny by the hand.

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

One’s next duty is to his fellows to be sure their ability can compare to the tasks imposed by the new State of things.

The answer to these trials is contained in Scientology. And Scientology is the answer to you.

Only a clear could think and act fast enough to live in a disaster and to make others live. Only a clear could Survive in Space. Only a clear could enjoy the fast pace of the game to come.

Others may die or worse, become slaves in the inevitable advance of technology which holds in question the abilities of a man.

Hence, Project Clear. That’s our goal now. We can do it. We can teach you to get it done.

It’s taken seven years to iron out the kinks. Seven years isn’t long against 73 trillion.

Today can be ours. Tomorrow can come. Let us be ready for it.

We are the prime movers in this, the new age. Forget the old. Face up to what will come. And let the dead yesterdays bury the philosophy of Authority and Capital Gains and Communist psychology cults. We’re no longer tied.

The eons march on. Space Opera has again come to a planet on which we live. Always before it meant destruction.

Perhaps, this time, due to our efforts, a humanitarian world can exist. We, the Prophets of the Morrow, know the way.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN # 1 OF 3 DECEMBER 1957




CLEAR PROCEDURE

DEFINITIONS, GOALS


There are three possible goals in processing a preclear. The first of these is Mest Clear. The second is Theta Clear. The third is Operating Thetan.

By Mest Clear is meant a BOOK ONE CLEAR. Here we defined clear in terms of facsimiles. This is a rather simple mechanical definition. It said in effect that so far as human beings were concerned our preclear finally arrived at a point where he had full color-visio-sonic, had no psychoses or neuroses and could recall what had happened to him in this lifetime. This is almost a baby-talk sort of clear. It pays no heed at all to identification with a body and it has nothing to do with ability. Today, by running Creative Processes (four years old!) we can turn on visible facsimiles and weed out the bottom spots of operations and what not. This is actually a rather easy goal. Somehow I’ve never given a real tight procedure for achieving it even though the essence of the processes have been around for a very long time. COMPLETING STEP SIX OF CLEAR PROCEDURE IN FULL GIVES US A MEST CLEAR.

By Theta Clear is meant a Clear obtained by Clear Procedure as is being delineated in this regimen. The main trouble is, amusingly, trying to reach Mest Clear without running into Theta Clear. I personally don’t believe now that it can be done without actually shoving the pc back in his head every time he pops out. Thus the goal of this procedure is actually THETA CLEAR. This is what we mean then when we say “clear”. We mean a Theta Clear.

By Operating Thetan we mean Theta Clear PLUS ability to operate functionally against or with Mest and other life forms. For the first time we have here the matter of ABILITY. An Operating Thetan is not an absolute term. Theta Clear is a more absolute term than Operating Thetan. An Operating Thetan is a Theta Clear (Not a mystical mystic out on an inversion) who can also do something.

Thus we have two goals which contain no ambition to accomplish anything and one goal which contains much ambition. Now here is another puzzle in definitions. Which is highest, the Theta Clear or the Operating Thetan? Well, the answer to that is not what we used to think. As DOINGNESS is not really at the top we find that we will probably make an Operating Thetan before we achieve Theta Clear for a Theta Clear would probably not be much interested in operating. Therefore we see that the actual goal we are trying to reach, no matter in which limited sense, is Operating Thetan.

Operating Thetan is then a highly variable goal. A thetan who can move in and out of a body is actually operating somewhat but he is not really a Theta Clear since a Theta Clear, in its highest sense, means no further dependency upon bodies.

The goals of the auditor, therefore, do not rack up one, two, three, Mest Clear, Theta Clear, Operating Thetan. They actually stack up on a very gradient scale between thetan inoperative and a thetan who can operate. The auditor is therefore seeking to reach with the pc a state wherein the pc can function. At no time does the auditor suddenly arrive with a pc in a startling new shiny state all of a sudden that can be called a certain thing. In that pcs often expect this suddenly bursting “into the light” the auditor is subjected to disappointment when he has actually achieved an enormous gain for the pc. In other words, pcs gain on a smooth gradient scale and do not suddenly become something.

There is only one point on the road up where something does happen and that is exteriorization. When the pc exteriorizes for the first time he feels there must be a cause for rejoicing and has the idea he has gotten somewhere. Well, in fact you could achieve the same result by hitting him over the head with a club. He would exteriorize. The point is not exteriorizing the pc but cutting down his dependency upon a body. A pc who exteriorizes and is not carried right on with the same process that sprang him out of his head until it is flat will go back into his head in an hour or a week and will be harder to dig out the next time.

In other words this point of exteriorization does happen and does mean to the pc that he is himself. But it shouldn’t mean very much to an auditor beyond his noticing that this phase has been entered in the case. For in truth thetans don’t stay out of their bodies very long if they are not in good shape. Thus exteriorization means less than ability to act, to live, to be and do. The attention of the auditor should be upon the increasing ability of the pc to handle life, not upon the distance the pc gets from his body. Is that clear? Well, it tells us that arriving at a state of Clear is easy if that means stable outside and that any state of betterment on the road to Operating Thetan is an honest achievement.

Thus an auditor should at all times go toward the state of Operating Thetan and should not be mixed up in the oddities of exteriorization for a day.

HGC Clear Procedure goes straight toward exteriorization and achieves it. But it also goes straight toward increasing ability to handle life. The latter is the auditor’s best goal. The auditing goal should go in the same direction as this new definition for Operating Thetan.

An Operating Thetan can be at cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.

This Action Definition of Operating Thetan is the true goal of the auditor and if followed with complete understanding will achieve the best possible results.

In this discussion of goals and definitions, I am telling you cleanly that the goals of Mest Clear and Theta Clear are not worth following from the auditor’s standpoint. You can let pcs think what they will about them. The only goal worthy of the auditor’s time WHATEVER THE STATE OF CASE OF THE PC is Operating Thetan. To achieve one on any subject it is only necessary to place the pc to some degree at willing and knowing cause point with regard to that subject. All the steps of HGC Clear Procedure are leveled at Operating Thetan. But you need not tell your pc that. You can use the words RELEASE, MEST CLEAR, THETA CLEAR or any other if you like. Just remember there is only one payoff goal and that is Operating Thetan.

MEST CLEAR: Can see facsimiles with sonic present lifetime, has no psychoses or neuroses. Upper part of APA (in UK OCA) graph. Above 135 IQ.

THETA CLEAR: Can exist knowingly independent of bodies.

RELEASE: Average a third of a graph higher than first test, above 115 IQ.

OPERATING THETAN: Can be at Cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.


L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 DECEMBER 1957


Clear Procedure as of Dec 3, 1957, is supplemented by a tape made at Auditors’ Conference of Nov 30, 1957.

This current bulletin supplements HCO Bulletin of Dec 3, 1957, which is the Introduction. There will be a series of these, giving a bulletin to each step. The entire series will be published in a photolitho booklet called CLEAR PROCEDURE which will be ready for the December Congress and which will cost $2.00 in the U.S. and 10 shillings in Great Britain. Both booklets will be published by the HCO and will be copyrighted internationally. The booklet published in Great Britain will be a photolitho of the U.S. photolitho copy. The booklet may not be published in whole or in part by anyone but the HCO.

CLEAR PROCEDURE CONTINUED
STEP ONE: PARTICIPATION IN SESSION BY THE PC.

We have long known that ARC was important. Just how important it is was established by some tests I made in London in 1956 wherein every time the pc showed any restlessness or other signs of loss of havingness, instead of remedying havingness I carefully searched out any fancied break of ARC and patched it up. The “loss of havingness” vanished. In other words loss of ARC is even more important than loss of havingness since a repair of ARC restores havingness. Lack of havingness is only one symptom of a lack of communication.

There are two ways an auditor, according to long practice, can err. One of these is to permit two-way communication to a point where the pc’s havingness is injured. The other is to chop communication to such a degree that havingness is injured. There is a point past which communication is bad and short of which lack of communication is bad. Here we have auditor judgment at play. Because the pc will fidget or go downscale in tone when his havingness drops an auditor can SEE when the pc’s havingness is being lowered. Because a pc will go anaten or start to grind into the process an auditor can tell whether or not the pc feels his communication has been chopped. When either happens the auditor should take action—in the first instance by shutting off the pc’s outflow and getting to work and in the second instance by making the pc talk out any fancied communication severance.

Participation in session by the pc is not something the auditor sees to at the beginning of the session and then forgets for the rest of the intensive. This step is continued throughout the intensive and is given as much attention as any process being run at the time. The auditor’s attention is always therefore upon two things—first the continued participation in session and second the action of the process.

Grouped under this head we would also have ways and means of getting the pc into session in the first place. An unconscious pc used to be an apparent road block. A downtone, antagonistic, you-can’t-help-me pc was also a rough one. These two things are countered by always carefully starting a session and following through on standard CCH 0.

It is as important to open a session with a baby or an unconscious person as it is with any other preclear. It doesn’t matter whether the pc is answering up or not. It is only necessary to assume that the pc would answer if he could answer and that the mechanics of voice and gesture are simply absent from the answer. Therefore one always carefully starts every session, paying attention to what is happening, where it is happening, who is there, help, goals and problems. Obviously anaten or inability to control the body are the present time problem of the unconscious person or the child. One can actually audit this with a plain question and simply assume after a bit it has been answered, then give the acknowledgement and ask another question just as

though the pc were in full vocal action. Auditors still fall for the belief, very current, that “unconscious” people are unable to think or be aware in any way. A thetan is seldom unconscious regardless of what the body is doing or not doing.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM is a highly vital point of PRECLEAR PARTICIPATION. If a preclear is being nagged too thoroughly by a PT Problem auditing can actually send him downhill if done without addressing the problem. A whole intensive, even seventy-five hours can be wasted if the auditor does not clear the PT PROBLEM.

The preclear generally doesn’t know he has one which is nagging him, for the rough PT Problems go into the apathy band and below into forgetfulness rather rapidly. Therefore the auditor should ferret out the PT Problem with an E-Meter. Adroit use of an E-Meter does not include evaluating for the preclear but it certainly does include ferreting out PT Problems. The E-Meter is also used for valences and sometimes psychophysical difficulties. (Auditor: Use the word “psychophysical” rather than psychosomatic and stay out of a medical field.)

THE RUNNING OF A PT PROBLEM today is the most. PT Problem, valences, psychophysical ailments, all run beautifully with “Mock up something worse than (terminal)” or “Invent something worse than (terminal)”. To run this it is necessary to isolate the TERMINAL most intimately connected with the PT Problem (or the valence or psychophysical difficulty). One then CLEARS THE COMMAND (and you always better do that with any command) and lets go.

The whole idea of WORSE THAN is the whole of the dwindling spiral. People who are “trying to get better” and “be more perfect” and “think the right thought” lose all control of “getting worse”, “being imperfect”, and “thinking the wrong thought”. All these WORSE THANs are then left on automatic and we arrive at something less than optimum. In fact we arrive with the dwindling spiral. We also arrive with the “point of no return”. We also arrive with the declining ability to heal or get well. And we also arrive with old age.

After running “worse than” on the PT Problem, we proceed with other parts of CCH 0. Clearing help will be found quite beneficial. But to get a pc to participate who is downright ugly about it, running help is usually only a partial solution. When these only ones get going they really snarl on the subject of getting audited. Here CCH 1 is of benefit. No questions asked. But this of course defeats the purpose of STEP ONE.

PARTICIPATION OF THE PC in the session is necessary in order to place the pc somewhat at the cause point in the actual fact of auditing. This fits the definition. You can always change a body or recover it from some illness by auditing without much helping the pc himself. Therefore the pc, while under auditor control, is still somewhat at cause what with comm bridges and clearing commands, etc. But he is made to feel no bad effects from being AT EFFECT if ample ARC is used. In other words, the pc can’t be entirely at cause in a session or he would be self-auditing, which isn’t good, but he can be salvaged from being a total effect by good ARC. When the ARC drops out that DOES leave the pc at more or less total effect, a thing you have probably noticed.

The things to be done in CCH 0 should be done thoroughly at intensive’s beginning and should be glanced at whenever a new session starts and should get a bow when a new command is used. But all CCH 0 is is a collection of mechanical aids to assist the pc’s participation in the session and to assist the auditor in ARC. Although CCH 0 must be used always, it is not a total substitute for ARC.

The sum of CCH 0 is find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc, knock out any existing PT Problem, establish goals, clear help, get agreement on session length and get up to the first real auditing command. CCH 0 isn’t necessarily run in that order and this isn’t necessarily all of CCH 0, but if any of these are seriously scamped, the session will somewhere get into trouble.

When the participation of the pc ceases in a session, he must be gotten back into session by any means and then participation is re-established. A pc is never permitted to end a session on his own choice. He seeks to end them when his participation drops out of sight.

The trick question “What did I do wrong?” re-establishes ARC.

The problem of handling a pc who is not co-operative, who does not wish to participate, is a highly special problem. In the first place it is the pc’s engrams that do not want to continue, in the second place it is the engrams which are doing the talking. One ordinarily tackles this case with a formal opening of session, brief but positive, and then sails in with CCH 0, just as though the person were unconscious, which, of course, the person is.

Participation by an unconscious person, while covered above, requires the additional refinement of technique. ONE MUST ALWAYS FIND SOMETHING THE PRECLEAR CAN DO AND THEN BETTER THAT ABILITY. An unconscious person is usually lying in bed. If not, the command must be varied to fit the environment. But the best command is something like “You make that body lie in that bed.” A slightly upper grade process to a person sitting in a chair is “You seat that body in that chair.” In such cases a grip on the pc’s hand and the use of a slight squeeze each time the auditor acknowledges considerably speeds the process.

There is another special case—or maybe it isn’t so special. There are many people who cannot tackle a present time problem with a process. If the auditor sought out a PT Problem and then ran “something worse than a related terminal” or a “problem of comparable or incomparable magnitude” he would find the pc digging in hard, unable to handle the process. Thus some judgment must be used in such cases. Don’t run a PT Problem on somebody in very bad shape casewise.

There is an awful lot to know about starting sessions. The bad off case and the case in very good condition alike require special handling. For the case just mentioned who cannot handle a PT Problem with a process, there is always locational (TR TEN). TR TEN will run a PT Problem or anything else if slowly. Thus many a person with a PT Problem can only participate in a session to the extent of TR TEN, “YOU notice that (object—wall, floor, chair, etc).” By introducing in the auditor’s and pc’s bodies as a couple of the items being spotted along with everything else we eventually wind up with “find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc”. And we get there without a PT Problem being in full bloom.

In running “You notice that object” there are some things that MUST be observed. Most important of these is this one: ANY PROCESS WHICH TURNS ON A SOMATIC MUST BE CONTINUED UNTIL IT NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS. This is true particularly of TR TEN, 8-C and TRIO. The case hangs right there until the process is flat, whether in one day, one year or six. Another thing which must be stressed is the inclusion of the auditor’s and pc’s bodies. Because some pcs WHEN EXTERIORIZED snap back in when they see the body is no reason to avoid it in TR TEN. Another thing is to make the pc use his eyes to view the objects and if he doesn’t turn his eyes toward them, then it is up to the auditor to use manual direction of the head and even pry the eyes open. No balks are ever permitted in auditing. If TR TEN is being run at a problem, every now and then the auditor pauses and discusses the problem again with the pc in order to keep it in restimulation until TR TEN can run it out.

The high case is a worse problem than auditors commonly believe. In the first place a high case can “blow” a situation out of the bank with considerable ease and if the auditor insists on sledge-hammering it out with a process, then pc participation blows rather than a facsimile.

High case participation can also be misunderstood in that there are a lot of cases that think they are high which aren’t. Here’s how you tell a real high case from a bogus (“I can do everything”) case. A thetan in good shape can be cause. When he looks at something in the bank it becomes the effect. A bogus high case can think anything he wants without anything having an effect on the bank. You want to watch this point because here is the definition of OT thoroughly at work. Pc at Cause. A case that has pictures and everything and is impatient to get on with it BUT DOES NOT MARKEDLY ALTER THE BANK WITH THINKING ALONE is not a high case but an old “wide open case” of Dianetic days.

Two-way communication AS A PROCESS is the key to all this. If you put a pc on an E-Meter and locate a present time charge, you can, if the pc can somewhat handle his bank, get him to two-way comm the incident flat very quickly—in five or ten minutes at the most. This is all the process used. It would take an actual E-Meter run to give you a full reality on this.

Here we are looking at the basic difference amongst cases. That difference lies in the ability to knowingly CAUSE. Bodies are the same, they all react alike. Banks differ only vaguely and only in content and significance. Engrams are engrams and they all behave alike. There is only ONE DIFFERENCE amongst pcs. We called this BASIC PERSONALITY in BOOK ONE. We can be a lot more simple about it now that I have my teeth into the subject a few more feet. The difference is DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY. What do we mean by CAUSE? The basic, old Scientology definition is still at work. CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT. Joe knowingly shoots Bill. Joe is at Cause, Bill is at Effect. Mary gives John a present. Mary is at Cause, John is at Effect. Bill says Boo to Joe. Bill is at Cause, Joe is at Effect. But when we introduce KNOWING CAUSE and CAUSE AT WILL into this CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT idea we see we have something else added. The person at Cause is there because he knows he is there and because he is willingly there. The person at Cause is not at Cause because he does not dare be at Effect. He must be able to be at Effect. If he is afraid to be at Effect, then he is Unwilling Cause and is at Cause only because he is very afraid of being at Effect. Education can show a person he can be at Effect without liability. Then he can be at Cause without HAVING TO BE BECAUSE HE DOESN’T DARE BE AT EFFECT. Auditing in its whole operation is teaching the pc this. Pc slides from terrified effect to tolerated effect to knowing cause with regard to any incident he contacts IF HE IS AUDITED PROPERLY. The pc who has to get rid of all his engrams because he has to get rid of them because it’s all too horrible winds up, with good auditing, into a tolerance of the pictures since he has learned he can tolerate them and so can swing around to Cause.

So we have this great difference in pcs. DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY is the extent that he is willing to be at Cause and the extent he is willing to know he is at Cause plus the ability to cause things.

You will see this on an E-Meter in PT Problem handling. Bill has a PT Problem. It drops a dial when first contacted. The auditor, using his UNDERSTANDING of Scientology, two-way comms on it. The incident discharges and no longer registers after a few minutes. Mary has a PT Problem. It drops steeply on the E-Meter. The auditor tries to two-way comm on it. The charge remains the same or Mary begins to disperse. She doesn’t hold to the subject. The auditor at length finds that two-way comm only serves to run down her havingness. The charge remains on the meter dial. What is the difference between Bill and Mary? Bill can be at knowing cause, Mary is either obsessive cause or heavy effect. Bill can blow facsimiles. Mary cannot. On Mary the auditor is very wise to enter upon TR TEN.

One version of TR TEN is called Short Spotting. “You notice that (nearby object).” So long as the pc can see with his eyes the object or feel the auditor’s hand on it the process works. It is spotting right up close. If run with mediumly near and far objects (such as the room wall) it is very effective in getting a case going. It has given some cases their first reality on auditing. BUT the rule still holds here about somatics. When a somatic is turned on with a process, turn it off with that process. See Auditor’s Code 13. This is entirely true of Short Spotting. In that it almost always turns on somatics, when you start it, you have to flatten it and that’s often lengthy.

Remember this about pc participation. A low case can’t handle the bank, therefore you keep high ARC and kid-glove him through a session. A very high case doesn’t need dynamite, therefore you retain his participation by going as rapidly as you can. A medium, average case needs ARC, something of dynamite, something of kid-gloves, something of two-way comm.

And IN ALL GOOD AUDITING CASES IMPROVE. Just because you start a pc low doesn’t mean he’ll always stay low. Check the case often. See if his CAUSABILITY is rising. If it isn’t, he isn’t improving and you better go easier or

heavier. PROBABLY when a case doesn’t improve you didn’t handle a PT Problem. THAT IS THE ONLY THING WHICH CAN KEEP A CASE FROM GAINING. So check every session for one.

There are probably thousands of ways to gain the participation of the pc, there are probably thousands of ways to open a session. There are probably an infinite number of tricky things you can do. However, this breadth of choice should not obscure the following.

1. A pc who is not participating in the session is not at Cause.

2. An auditor who isn’t able to maintain ARC, who isn’t able to “Freeze” a process for a short time, even a tone 40.0 process, and re-establish ARC, will not get results.

3. The end-all of processing is the attainment of a goal, the goal of OT. One always processes the problems and difficulties of the pc, he does not process the process. Processes only assist in processing the pc. They will not do anything by themselves. Processes are a road map to the goal of OT, they are nothing in themselves. The target is the condition, the disabilities of the pc. How one achieves the eradication of these difficulties is secondary to the fact of their eradication. Scientology is a route attained after several thousand years of no attainment by Man and the route is important and valuable and must be travelled correctly, but the concern is the pc, not the route.

4. A new auditor can be adrift with his tools. He is uncertain as to what he is attacking. He should have reality on engrams, locks, key-ins, secondaries, the time track, the key buttons of Scientology such as Communication, Control and Havingness. Given an understanding of all these and the theory of Scientology itself he can almost pilot his way through a case with two-way comm. But two-way comm will not work if one doesn’t understand all the above. So two-way comm is not conversation. The pc has had a few trillion years of that and it hasn’t made him well, so two-way comm is a highly specialized thing, done with full understanding of the thetan, bank and body. Good two-way comm means participation by the pc.

5. Scientology is a precise commodity, something like engineering. A pc is a precise thing, part animal, part pictures and part God. We want the ability to handle things and the God, and the less unthinking responses in the pc, the better off he will be. Therefore a PC WHO ISN’T COGNITING regularly is being processed beyond his ability to do and it is necessary to drop back downscale to find something he CAN DO.

6. The golden rule of processing is to find something the preclear CAN do and then to improve his ability to do it. At once you will have participation. The highest ability one pc had was to get drunk: a resolution of his case was entered upon by having him invent ways to get drunk.

7. The attention span of children and psychos is not necessarily a factor since it is only the phenomena of dispersal against mental blocks, keying in of incidents. The auditor can pay attention to it or not as he likes. Short, regular sessions on people with limited attention span get more gain per week than a steady grind since the participation is maintained.

8. The auditor remains at Cause in all sessions without forbidding the pc to be at Cause. See the rules in DIANETICS: THE ORIGINAL THESIS.


L. RON HUBBARD




[Further material can be found in Scientology: Clear Procedure-Issue One on page 172. The above HCO B was reissued on 29 September 1970.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street N.W., Washington D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 DECEMBER 1957




HGC PROCEDURE



The following is laid down as an entirety of processing to be done in the HGC in London. No other processes or variations are allowed.

GOAL: Operating Thetan.
DEFINITION: An Operating Thetan is one who can be knowingly at Cause over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time.

CCH 0 in brief, find auditor, find pc, find auditing room, clear help and goals. BUT IN THE MAIN HANDLE THE PT PROBLEM IF IT EXISTS. IF IT DOESN’T EXIST do CCH 0 briefly and quickly and get on with the session.

It will be noted that giving pc’s attention to auditing room or environment can turn on a somatic after three or four commands. After one command of “Have you got an auditing room,” this becomes a process called LOCATIONAL. If Locational turns on a somatic it must be run until somatic is flat. Therefore the auditor has no business attempting Locational or getting the pc involved unless he intends to do something about it.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

The pc is put on an E-Meter before PT Problem is discussed. When the E-Meter has been adjusted (one third of a dial surge when pc squeezes cans) the auditor asks if the pc has a present time problem. After a little discussion of this, the needle may surge. If it does the auditor locates the PT Problem’s most intimate terminal and runs (with the pc still holding the cans) “Invent something worse than (indicated terminal)” until the problem flattens out on the dial. The auditor can ask for and run another PT Problem or even three or four but always flattening down the surge of the needle. IF THE PC IS 50% below the center line of the APA it is not safe to run “Invent”. Instead, without scouting around Invent but knowing the graph in the first place, simply two way comms the problem and runs Locational until the problem flattens out on the needle. The auditor does not begin with Invent and then change his mind and run Locational. It is an either or. The auditor starts with “Invent” or he starts with Locational and whichever he does he does not change. IF LOCATIONAL TURNS ON A SOMATIC IT MUST BE RUN UNTIL LOCATIONAL NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS .

Once the PT Problem is flat the auditor puts away the E-Meter.

S-C-S STEPS

S-C-S begins with 8c of any kind. If 8c turns on a somatic it runs until it no longer turns on somatics. 8c is run formal or tone 40.

Start is then run as per 1956.

Change is then run as per 1956.

Stop is then run as per 1956.

If each of these is flattened in turn it does not mean that S-C-S is flat. It means

only that Start is probably unflattened. Thus one again runs Start after Stop, runs Change after Start, Stop after Change until none of the three unflatten the others.

More 8c can be run. There is no error in liberally running 8c which is, after all, a more complicated Locational of a Short Spotting sort.

SPOTTING STEPS

Spotting itself is a broad process. Locational is only one of many spotting processes. Spotting spots in the past, in space, in the present, Short Spotting (Locational done up close) are all effective.

SPOTTING DEPENDS FOR ITS WORKABILITY ON THE DISLIKE OF A THETAN OF BEING LOCATED. IT RUNS BEST, of course, WITH THE THETAN AT CAUSE DOING THE SPOTTING.

Connectedness is the basic process on ASSOCIATION of Theta with Mest. All forms and kinds of association including being caught in traps are prone to become identifications as in Dianetics. Connectedness puts the thetan at cause in making the Mest (or people when run outside) connect with him. The command is “Get the idea of making (indicated object) connect with you.” The auditor points. The worse off a person is the less reality they have on far objects.

Havingness is a complicated Connectedness. Also a permissive one. Thus Trio is above Connectedness and may be used when Connectedness is flat.


L. RON HUBBARD





LRH:-.rd Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 126
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 December 1957

PROBLEMS: HANDLING AND RUNNING


Easily the most important process in Scientology is Problems of Comparable Magnitude. It has no peers. We don’t care how low a process runs, or how high it runs. But nowhere in Scientology do we have a process which runs as high and low as Problems of Comparable Magnitude.

Now that idea of span should be clearly understood by you. There are processes which undoubtedly run lower or higher—of this we are certain. But no other process runs both so low and so high. The only thing necessary in a “problem of comparable magnitude” is for the terminal selected to be real to the preclear. Now that is a necessary condition for the running of it. “Problems of comparable magnitude” become real only if the terminal or terminals selected become real. That is the first condition. Where this process breaks down, it is actually not being run, since Problems of Comparable Magnitude by definition is a process which brings the preclear to invent situations of similar importance to a given situation, and the given situation must be composed of one or more terminals.

Now what do we mean by “terminal”? It would be any fixed mass utilized in a communication system. Thus, you see, a man would be a terminal, but a post could also be a terminal. Thus, a head could be a terminal, but so could a hat. But between the two, we get a hat as questionable. It is questionable to the degree that it has less mass, and is easily shed. Somewhere along the line there is a border between a terminal and a condition. Now, we have to know what a condition is.

A condition is a circumstance regarding a mass or terminal. When you are asking for “problems of comparable magnitude,” if you run them on conditions you are calling for a circumstance or a problem comparable to a circumstance, which doesn’t have any fixed position and never did have any fixed position and never did operate in any communication system, so you are describing a description—and there is nothing into which the preclear can get his teeth.

First we must conceive, then, a difference between a condition and a terminal. That is quite important for you to conceive. If you can’t conceive the difference between a condition and terminal, why, you’re in for it; this technique will forever be beyond your grasp—and that is a very easy thing to conceive, however.

The light is on. Now, “on” is a circumstance regarding the light. So you wouldn’t run a “problem of comparable magnitude to ‘on,’ “ but you would run a “problem of comparable magnitude to the light.” Do you see that? It sounds idiotic, but a lot of people miss this one. Let’s take this now, and see that there are masses, and all masses are only relatively fixed. Masses are masses, and they are not, by the way, particles.

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Masses are something that are shed from a thetan by mock-up, and particles are something that are shed from masses. You don’t run particles. So what we mean as a terminal has a relatively fixed, identifiable, isolatable location in space.

Now just why you don’t run particles, just why you don’t run “problems of comparable magnitude” to words, just why you don’t run “problems of comparable magnitude” to conditions of one kind or another, that is best demonstrated by your running it some time—and that’s a happy adventure for the auditor, not the preclear. To make a real, sure-fire test, why, you should run something like this: a problem of comparable magnitude to fancy words. Now that is indefinite enough and up in the air enough .... You would shoot the bottom out from your preclear fast enough.

The auditor to run this successfully must choose first and foremost a terminal as his target—not a condition. The next thing is to choose the right terminal.

Now you must understand the procedure of running this technique. Now you wonder why I’m stressing this. The most fabulous thing—this technique can go off the rails faster in auditing than any other technique I know anything about. Now one of the things that is most remarkable about it is that auditors do not accept from the preclear—problems. In other words, an auditor who is obsessively solving problems would have an awful time running this technique, because he has to accept from the preclear a problem every time the preclear answers the question. The way to run it is this: it actually requires about three answers. You said, “Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to your mother,” and the preclear said, “The Atlantic Ocean.” Now if the auditor said, “Well, how could that be a problem to you?” you would get this oddity. The preclear would say, “Well, the Atlantic Ocean overflowing its banks.” Now, an auditor who can’t stand problems would accept this one as a problem—but it is a condition. The first thing the preclear gave was what he conceived to be a comparable terminal, then he gave a condition. And only on another repetition of “How could that be a problem to you?” would it come home to him. But there was a problem involved with it—”How could that be a problem to you?” So the auditing commands are: “Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to (a terminal),” “How could that be a problem to you?” and if necessary “How could that be a problem to you?” and as many times as necessary to get the preclear to finally dredge out the problem.

Unless the preclear can get that idea of a problem, the technique is unworkable. The semantics of the thing may throw him. Therefore the command could be cleared with some profit. The word that is liable to throw the command is “problem,” not “comparable magnitude,” and because those are polysyllabic you are liable to believe that on some preclears “comparable magnitude” is where they will hang up, and this is not where they hang up.

The auditing of it must include another thing, and that is a feeling on the part of the preclear himself figuring on it. This is evidently a necessary part of the running. We say, “A problem of comparable magnitude to your mother.” The preclear says, “The Atlantic Ocean.” We say, “How could that be a problem to you?” The preclear says, “Oh, its overflowing its banks.” And you say, “All right, how could that be a problem to you?” He says, “Oh, I could figure out some way to keep it from going over its banks.” If you’re not sure yet, because you wouldn’t be sure with that one, you say, “But how could that be a problem to you?” or—alternative command here—”Can you get yourself figuring how to do that?” He’ll get that—that’s what you want. He’s got to get an idea of himself figuring it out. You want that included in the anatomy of the running of it.

Now, an alternative command to all this is “incomparable magnitude,” as I have just mentioned. When you tackle something so huge, so formidable that it would mean

a couple of hours’ comm lag on the part of your preclear—you see, he’s just this moment been informed that he is going to be electrocuted at dawn—you want to desensitize him and blow him out of his head and leave them a dead body, which would be a good joke—something on this order, you see. You realize that this problem could be huge. His fixation is unbelievably great. It goes from horizon to horizon, down to the very center of the earth, and fills the entire universe on the other side. And that’s how big this problem is. Now this technique of incomparable magnitude enters in at the bottom on problems. If a person can’t get a datum of comparable magnitude, why, what do you suppose that you should do? Get a problem of incomparable magnitude. You cannot evaluate on a single datum except by postulate. Of course, you yourself should be in a condition whereby you simply say “That is important” or “That isn’t important” and that could then be the evaluation of any single datum. But you would no longer be human. You are aware of the fact, by the way, that you cannot be human and be right—that is not possible. I have mentioned that before.

Now here we have, then, a necessity to have evaluation by others. Evaluation from other people. Now get this idea of the only-oneness of problems or situations. When a person is no longer pronouncing the evaluation of things in some grand and kingly style, when he has surrendered this in order to have a more intricate and involved game, he then needs two data. It requires a certain amount of experience of evil to experience good. And we get some people who are around telling us how bad it all is, who have experienced a great deal of kindness. This is a great oddity. You should look it over. All you have to do is to restimulate the early goodness to slip into the consequences of the later evil. Supposing somebody was just being filthy mean, and we compliment him on his good heart, his love of his fellow men—and we’ll watch him chuck his cookies. He’s liable to fold right up in front of you. You could restimulate such a thing into being until it collapsed and was no longer a button.

We understand things when we are no longer evaluating by postulate, but when we are being polite and evaluating by proof, by demonstration, we no longer are able to accept an “only-one” thing. This is a bad thing because a thetan is to a marked degree an “only-one” creature, and it restimulates his own beingness. When he falls into the lower harmonics of his own beingness, he comes to grief. All you’ve got to do is exaggerate being a thetan in any one of its facets and you’re in trouble. But now it doesn’t say that you cannot attain these things. I said the lower harmonics. How does he get to the lower harmonics? By fixation. By fixations on various incidents, and certainly on things which exist as “only-one.” There is nothing else like it, so you can never look away if you want to look at such a thing, you have to look at it. And this becomes very bad . . . very, very bad.

As a matter of fact it becomes very amusing when you have problems of comparable magnitude, because a person is using when he runs this his desire for evaluation, but he’s putting evaluation on a cause basis, and you are running off the highest logics in logic straight out of the bank. So a person doesn’t have to have beautiful sunshine in the streets in order to have a beautiful day. Do you understand that? A person to a marked degree ceases to be dependent upon his environment to give him pleasure or pain.

If you stand around and wait for something else to decide it is something or other, you are in bad trouble. Now children do this—do this to such a marked degree that they don’t even know how much pain is painful until they ask Momma or ask Poppa. A child is dependent on exterior evaluation, and I’ve seen a child go so far as not to eat ice cream. Why? “Ice cream’s bad. I don’t like ice cream.” I said, “What?” I was pretty fast on my feet as an auditor and I said, “Who told you that?” “Oh ....” “Well, who told you that?” I said. “Ice cream’s good.” A horrible thing to do. I ran out the other person’s magic spell and ran my own in. Kids straightwire rather fast. You can straighten out almost anything with a child if you straightwire them.

Thus we look over the situation and find out that an individual is made to suffer by life to a degree that he is made to by life. Thus his evaluation of life from himself as cause point, as an ability, is necessary to his recovery. We find this under Problems of Comparable Magnitude. We could go off and discuss the whole subject of logic, you realize, the second we say comparable magnitude. I’m going to point your attention to the Prelogics, by the way. I’m going to ask you to read those.

The only reason Problems of Comparable Magnitude works so well and easily is that the individual puts certain things on automatic, which is to say he will not take certain responsibilities for one side of a dichotomy. He abandons all responsibility for evil. It’s an interesting state of affairs, because he becomes incapable of handling evil, and then goes on this one-two basis of stimulus-response, and in his next life he’s going to be totally evil. He didn’t take any responsibility for it, and it’s going to eat him up. You take enough responsibility for a lion, you’ll dine on him—every time.

There is an interesting experiment that you can perform yourself—I advise that you should perform this to have an understanding of responsibility and automaticity, because automaticity and responsibility are nowhere more necessary to understand than in Problems of Comparable Magnitude—and that is this: “Get the idea of the effort it took to make that wall.” Get the idea of anything in the line of effort and feel almost at once the overwhelming irresponsibility concerning it. It could be an irresponsibility so great it could make you practically ill.

If you wanted to be real mean to a preclear, not improve him particularly, you could just ask him, “Give me an idea of the effort necessary to make your case.” He would be sitting right there in a total irresponsibility for his case. His case is there, he’s not responsible for it. Now how do you recover his responsibility for anything? He has to be able to handle it. Now you could put something on automatic, but usually when you do you will sooner or later get into an irresponsibility for it, because that’s what automatic is. So we put something on automatic. Well, if we put problems on automatic, then we ourselves become a problem eventually without our consent. In other words we put problems on automatic, then we ourselves become solution. And when we ourselves are in nothing but solution, the whole world around us is nothing but problem and we’re obsessively solution and all the problems are automatic, we wind down faster than any other method I know. We’ll wind up being a problem, that’s all. The whole Service Facsimile can be summed up by just this one word—solution. A Service Facsimile is a solution. That’s all. If you took over this automaticity of problems the individual then could recover from his Service Facsimile. But remember that you had better run terminals, not conditions.

What I have just been talking to you about solves in toto all of that which we were going over in 1952 concerning Service Facsimiles—and that is quite a mouthful. If you do it this way, if you know how to do it, if you can look over this whole thing and see quickly how it is done and why it is done, and get it set and settled so you know what’s going on with the preclear, then you’ll be able to handle chronic somatics directly. You will be able to handle any dynamic directly.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 DECEMBER 1957




PRESENT TIME PROBLEM


The handling of a present time problem is relatively simple but requires a certain deftness on an E-Meter.

DEFINITION: A present time problem is one which has its elements in the material universe in present time, which is going on NOW, and which would demand the preclear’s attention to such an extent that he would feel he had better be doing something about it rather than be audited.

EXAMPLE: Auditor locates girl friend as pt problem of pc. He runs problem with “invent something worse”, considers it flat, never looks at it again in intensive. Girl friend calls up pc every night, invalidates him, finally makes him so sick she carts him off in triumph to a hospital. BLUNDER: Auditor tried to clear pt problem for the whole intensive, not at the beginning of each session. BLUNDER: Auditor in this case went backtrack to a dead wife to clean up charge.

A pt problem is cleaned up as itself only. One doesn’t backtrack to get why the pc has such a problem when doing CCH 0.

A pt problem is checked at the beginning of every session—and if there is a break at noon, is cleaned up also at the beginning of the afternoon session.

A pt problem doesn’t always bop on the meter at the first question. The auditor has to spend a little time asking around and making sure. Then he audits it on if it falls under above definition of pt problem.

THINGS TO AUDIT PT PROBLEM WITH: A very bad off case: TR Ten and if it turns on a somatic, flatten TR TEN “YOU notice that object.” An average case: Isolate the terminal most closely associated with the problem and run “Invent something worse than (terminal)” and then flatten it off with “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to (terminal).” Also can be run “Spot where (terminal) is now. Okay. Spot where you are now. Okay.” A very easy case: Two way comm about the problem and terminals, getting pc to cognite, until the charge is gone.

Where the PT PROBLEM is pain in some member of the body, the auditor can run “Recall an unwanted (member that hurts).” And when that has been run for a few cycles from present to past, “Recall a lost (member that hurts).” (Always run lost and unwanted in the same session and for the same length of time.) Short spotting will also relieve a pain but is rough on the pc unless wholly flattened and run along with medium and long spotting.


L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
23 Hancock Street, Joubert Park, Johannesburg

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 DECEMBER 1957



PSYCHOSIS, NEUROSIS AND PSYCHIATRISTS



An auditor who does not understand the true character of neurosis and psychosis is likely to find himself trying to understand neurotics and psychotics and psychiatrists and to the degree of that un-understanding could become the effect of these.

If we examine the definition for operating thetan we find his highest capability is knowing and willing cause. This should tell us at once that the definition of neurosis and psychosis would be unknowing and unwilling effect, and this is the actual definition of either.

Neurosis and psychosis are different only in degree of singleness of effect. A neurotic is the subject of one or more unknown causes to which he is the unwilling effect—but he can still function to some degree, which is to say he can still be cause in other lines. A psychotic is the complete subject of one or more unknown causes to which he is the unwilling effect and any effort on his part to be cause is interfered with by the things to which he is the effect; in other words, a psychotic’s outflow is cut to zero by the inflow.

Now let us examine the potential number of neuroses and psychoses in the light of the above definitions. How many aspects are there to a life unit, which is to say, a thetan? Perhaps the number is infinite but at least we can say the number of aspects is very large. There are no additional aspects in this or any other universe. In other words when you examine the aspects or abilities of a basic life unit you have examined all the aspects or abilities there are in a universe. There aren’t any left over. Even if you include gods in every universe you will see that you have not escaped the potentialities of life units.

All the aspects and abilities there are are the aspects and abilities of a thetan. The only thing that can be done with these aspects or abilities is included, at least in this universe, in the formula of cause and effect. Take one ability and add to it the idea of cause and effect of the more simple variety CAUSE, DISTANCE, EFFECT, fix it so it can never be flowed against by anything else and we have a source of neuroses. Now take a being at the effect point of this flow. If this being is the effect point of a flow he can never flow back against, we have here what we could carelessly call a neurosis. But there is no other qualification for this neurosis than that it be unwillingly received and unknown. Therefore a known “stuck flow” at a person which he is not unwilling to receive does not cause a neurosis. Now as we make this “stuck flow” unwillingly received, then unknown, and make it so that it bars out all back flows of whatever kind on any subject then we have psychosis.

As there are no other aspects than those of a thetan, we see at once that all neuroses and psychoses are EXAGGERATED, CONCENTRATED ABILITIES. The recipient, still trying to be cause, transfers himself to a false cause point. We call this dramatization. He seeks to do only the ability and no other. We have then a psychosis. As he can do no other thing, because he is really unwilling and unknowing EFFECT seeking to be CAUSE by DRAMATIZING the EFFECT, he loses all the abilities but this one ability. This makes a peculiar and lopsided personality. People object to it partially because it is false cause and partially because it denies society all the other social abilities of the person. The psychotic himself is insufficiently willing or knowing about it to object to it.

Thus we have the standard Scientology method of eradicating one of those

psychoses or neuroses. Actually we don’t even use these words or admit them as any kind of irreparable state. We are not in such a business. We say we must find something the preclear can do and then improve it. Let us say that we find something the preclear can do knowingly and willingly and have the preclear do it to improve it. All you have to do is get him to reach toward the source of the CAUSE of his condition. The lowest level cause of any difficulty is MEST, therefore the objective processes of Trio, locational, 8c, etc, work uniformly well since anybody here is to some degree the unwilling and unknowing effect of this universe.

Now where does the psychiatrist come into this? And why is he a bad fellow to have around in the society? Well in the first place, he is cognizant only of insanities. As every insanity is only an exaggerated and concentrated ability the psychiatrist can see in every ability an insanity.

There are no other aspects or abilities than those of a thetan. Any one of these can pressure, as detailed above, into an insanity. A psychiatrist or any other person totally associated with insanity then sees all abilities as a parade of insanities. Only where abilities are several and performed socially, not anti-socially, do we have sanity. The psychiatrist never, or rarely, inspects the sphere of sanity. To him, all things then, add up to madness, since every madness is compounded of abilities (disarranged as above).

Let us see a good example of this. “A” is a fine statesman. He plays polo, has a satisfied wife, collects old cars, can do a good job of work as a carpenter, a fisherman and an ice skater. He reads detective stories and plays good poker. He is working on a plan privately to disentangle the Middle East and assist France. One day he is at his club and he is joined by “B”. “B” is a political dilettante. He spends most of his money on maps and treatises about the Middle East. He cannot ride, sing or work and his family life is in ruins. He is obviously a neurotic at best. His ideas are disassociated, impractical but loud. Everyone at the club except “B” knows “B” is a poor risk.

“A”, the sane, versatile man, hears “B”, the neurotic, sounding off about the Middle East and saving France and how only “B” could accomplish this. “A”, knowing “B’s” character, BEGINS TO WONDER IF HE IS CRAZY BECAUSE HE IS INTERESTED IN THE MIDDLE EAST. In such a way, and in any line, the psychotic or neurotic is a sort of mockery of the sane ability.

Now, as an authority on man and insanity (but not an authority on sanity as is a Scientologist) the psychiatrist, studying insane people runs across “B”. He classifies “B” as a save-the-world type and notes that “B” is fixated on France and the Middle East. Shortly thereafter the psychiatrist is called upon to render a decision about “A”. He looks in his book, finds “A” is trying to do something about France and the Middle East and, of course classifies “A” as insane.

Another case. George loves Norma. Norma is at first very impressed. George works hard, likes to hike, has some property he is fixing up at week-ends. Now along comes Oswald. Oswald says he loves Norma. Oswald says he is mad about Norma. This is, of course, the case. Oswald has big ideas but no job, wouldn’t walk out of the building if it was on fire, gets rid of every piece of real or personal property that comes his way. George knows Oswald is “nutty”. Oswald loves Norma. George begins to think he, George, must be crazy to love Norma because Oswald does.

As an authority on twisted and insane love, but not an authority on love, the psychiatrist examining Oswald finds he loves Norma’s type of girl. Later, examining George, the psychiatrist finds that George is crazy because he loves the type of girl Norma is. Well, that’s an exaggeration but you see where it goes. The psychiatrist, having noted that love was pretty well flung about in the insane wards, leaps to the conclusion that all love is insane because it is so common in the wards and founds in a flash of inspiration psychoanalysis which says all insanity derives from love.

We are held to mockery in all our loves and dreams by the neurotic and psychotic who specialize in mishandling these dreams and loves. And so the world goes mad.

It is not safe to have experts on insanity who are not also experts on sanity. Such persons as those who know only the insane eventually judge that everything man can do is insane and that all men are mad and then we get a society devoted entirely to the support of asylums until it is at last only an asylum itself.

The auditor should understand the mechanism behind neurosis and psychosis. He should draw it out for himself on a graph, showing cause and effect. He should understand that mechanism because it is the ONLY THING THERE IS TO UNDERSTAND about neurotics and psychotics, for all else they do is gibberish and un-understandable.

If he truly understands this mechanism in all its phases then neurosis and psychosis can never make him an effect point and he can audit them with ease when he has to step out of character that far.

If the Scientologist thoroughly understands that the downfall of psychiatry which is now occurring came about because the psychiatrist never understood sanity then we won’t have any future specialists in insanity beyond these data.

Society has long suspected versatility and the man of many skills. We should have realized there was something right with him.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:-.rd Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





[PAB 144, Psychosis, Neurosis and Psychiatrists, 15 September 1958, is taken from this HCO B.]

Scientology: Clear Procedure
Issue One

December 1957


L. Ron Hubbard


GOAL:

To obtain the state of clear in individuals.


DEFINITION OF A CLEAR:

A thetan who can knowingly be at cause over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjective and objective.

This is a working definition. Self-determinism and knowledge that he himself can be at cause point are then primary targets.

Minimum Requisite for Auditor in Using These Techniques:

A Validated Hubbard Professional Auditor Certificate.


INTRODUCTION

I have been at work for seven years to produce a series of techniques which any well trained auditor can use to clear people. We now have them.

I am truly sorry that this took seven years. Actually, it took more than twenty-five.

Under other “systems of research” it could not have been done. It was financed at first by my writings and expeditions. Some 15,000,000 words of fact and fiction articles ranging from political articles to westerns were consumed in a large part by this research-but it was free to act if not free from sweat.

No bullying dictator wanted it for his mass slaveries as happened to poor misguided Pavlov. No big corporation wanted it for a better Madison Avenue approach to advertising—another kind of slavery. No big RESEARCH FOUNDATION like Ford was there to interject their “America First” philosophy. These had not paid for it; therefore they didn’t own it. The work stayed free. Thus it prospered. It did not wither in support of some aberrated “cause.” It bloomed.

But the violence of protecting this work while continuing it took a toll nevertheless. Special interests believed it must be evil if they did not own it. Between 1950 and 1956, 2,000,000 traceable dollars were spent to halt this work. Newspaper articles, radio ads (as in Seattle from the University of Washington), bribed “patrons,” financed “patients” all cost money. You hear the repercussions of this campaign even today.

Money could not stop this work by then. It was too late. If anything had been wrong with our organizations, my character, our intentions or abilities the whole advance would have crumbled. But we had no Achilles’ heels. We carried on. All that has survived of this attack by the two APAs, the AMA and several universities is a clutter of rumors concerning your sanity and mine—and rumors no longer financed will some day die.

And so the work has emerged free of taint and misguided slants. It is itself. It does what it says it does. It contains no adroit curves to make one open to better believing some “ism.” That makes it singular today in a world gone mad with nationalism. Buddhism, when it came to the millions, was no longer free of slant and prejudice. Taoism itself became a national jingoism far from any work of Lao-Tze. Even Christianity had its “pitch.” And if these great works became curved, with all the personal force of their creators, how is it that our little triumph here can still be found in a clear state?

Well, no diamonds and palaces have been accepted from rajahs, no gratuitous printing of results has been the gift of warlords, no testament had to be written 300 years after the fact.

For this we can thank Johann Gutenberg, and the invention of magnetic tape.

Therefore, although we have no such stature as the Great Philosophies, I charge you with this—look to source writings, not to interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.

If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it free from some destructive “pitch” or slant, then you certainly can carry that motif a little further.

I’ll not always be here on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a Galaxy away.

You won’t always be here.

But before you go, whisper this to your sons and their sons—”The work was free. Keep it so.”

SUMMARY

STEP ONE: Establish participation in session of pc. Do not here or anywhere else neglect this factor. Maintain always ARC. Pc must to some degree be at cause with regard to session if only by wanting it or some result of it, or to escape some elsewhere consequence. This step is CCH 0 but it is run only to establish the thetan to some degree at cause with regard to the whole session. This must be improved throughout the intensive. Applies even to dead pcs.

STEP TWO: Establish obedience of some part of the auditing room to the pc. Here he must begin at some level of knowingness. He must KNOW that he himself, when ordered to do so, can gain some compliance on the part of the auditing room. This includes his own body. Thus we get “You seat that body in that chair. Thank you.” “You make that body continue to lie in that bed. Thank you.” We also get CCH 1. And we get a very important but neglected process run with two objects wherein the pc himself is ordered to keep one then the other from going away (alternately), hold it still, make it more solid, all with two objects. Stress is on YOU do it.

STEP THREE: Establish control of pc’s body by pc. Here we have CCH 2, but we also have an even more important series of processes, S-C-S in all their ramifications on the body. Here is pc at cause with regard to body. It is expected that lots of S-C-S will be run on pcs.

STEP FOUR: Make pc even more conscious of auditor and place him somewhat at cause with ARC. The mechanical steps of this are CCH 3 and CCH 4 but these steps are only valid if they heighten ARC and make the pc decide HE did it.

STEP FIVE: Establish pc as cause over Mest by establishing pc’s ideas as cause over Mest. Here, running these, we again emphasize YOU DO IT. The basic process of this is CONNECTEDNESS with the PC doing the connecting. Control Trio, Trio, Look around here and tell me what part of the environment you would be willing to be responsible for. You look, You connect, You make ....... Alter the old commands to put pc at cause point in doing these.

STEP SIX: Establish pc’s control over Mest subjective. Creative Processes, Recall Unwanted and Lost Objects. Then and Now Solids. First step on this in some cases is conquering black ‘‘field’’ and invisible “field.” This is done by a repair of havingness over black masses and then invisible masses, run even if pc goes unconscious. When field is cleared up, start on a gradient scale of mock-ups and get pc able to mock things up. Then run “Keep it from going away” until flat on mock-ups. Then run “Hold it still” on mock-ups. Then run “Make it more solid” on mock-ups. All this until pc really has fine, solid mock-ups. Typical command, “Mock up a and keep it from going away. Thank you.” RULE: A PC’S FACSIMILES ARE NOT STORED, THEY ARE MADE IN THE INSTANT AND UNMADE BY THE PC, therefore remedy of mock-ups AND THEIR PERSISTENCE is actually a direct route to clear and winds up with no obsessive mock-up making (which we call a bank). A valuable side process here: “Decide to make a mock-up. Decide that will ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” Also this one, “Decide to make a mock-up everyone can see. Decide that would ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” A TOTAL REMEDY OF MOCK-UPS WOULD MAKE A BOOK ONE CLEAR.

STEP SEVEN: Establish pc’s control over his “bank.” “Mock up a facsimile and (keep it from going away, and when that is flat, hold it still, and when that is flat, make it a little more solid).” Run this alternately with “Mock up that wall (keep it from going away, hold it still, make it a little more solid).” Run the “Keep it from going away” on a facsimile one command, then the wall one command, until flat, then shift to “Hold it still” same way, then shift to “Make it more solid,” same way.

STEP EIGHT: Make some Time.

AUDITING TRUTHS:

ARC breaks must all be repaired thoroughly. ARC Must Be Maintained.

There is no real liability to a pc in this universe except one: becoming total subject of Mest.

Life versus Life, no liability. Life via Mest versus Life, some liability. Life versus Mest, total liability.

A pc must be kept at Cause as much as possible.

An Intensive in Brief for Practical Use

Begin by carefully easing the pc into session with CCH 0 but don’t talk too much or permit him to talk too much as you will as-is his havingness.

Establish control of a room object with “You make that chair sit on the floor.”

Get wheeling with S-C-S and run it up to Stop-C-S.

Run Connectedness inside the auditing room and then outside with “You make that connect with you.” or “You look around here and tell me something you could have.” Or, “You look around here and tell me something you could be responsible for.”

Run an engram or do Then and Now Solids and put pc at cause with regard to facsimiles.

If you have any time left, do it all over again.


DEFINITIONS, GOALS

There are three possible goals in processing a preclear. The first of these is Mest Clear. The second is Theta Clear. The third is Operating Thetan.

By Mest Clear is meant a BOOK ONE CLEAR. Here we defined clear in terms of facsimiles. This is a rather simple mechanical definition. It said in effect that so far as human beings were concerned our preclear finally arrived at a point where he had full color-visio-sonic, had no psychoses or neuroses and could recall what had happened to him in this lifetime. This is almost a baby-talk sort of clear. It pays no heed at all to identification with a body and it has nothing to do with ability. Today, by running Creative Processes (four years old!) we can turn on visible facsimiles and weed out the bottom spots of operations and what not. This is actually a rather easy goal. Somehow I’ve never given a real tight procedure for achieving it even though the essence of the processes has been around for a very long time. COMPLETING STEP SIX OF CLEAR PROCEDURE IN FULL GIVES US A MEST CLEAR.

By Theta Clear is meant a Clear obtained by Clear Procedure as is being delineated in this regimen. The main trouble is, amusingly, trying to reach Mest Clear without running into Theta Clear. I personally don’t believe now that it can be done without actually shoving the pc back in his head every time he pops out. Thus the goal of this procedure is actually THETA CLEAR. This is what we mean then when we say “clear.” We mean a Theta Clear.

By Operating Thetan we mean Theta Clear PLUS ability to operate functionally against or with Mest and other life forms. For the first time we have here the matter of ABILITY. An Operating Thetan is not an absolute term. Theta Clear is a more absolute term than Operating Thetan. An Operating Thetan is a Theta Clear (not a mystical mystic out on an inversion) who can also do something.

Thus we have two goals which contain no ambition to accomplish anything and one goal which contains much ambition. Now here is another puzzle in definitions. Which is highest, the Theta Clear or the Operating Thetan? Well, the answer to that is not what we used to think. As DOINGNESS is not really at the top we find that we will probably make an Operating Thetan before we achieve Theta Clear for a Theta Clear would probably not be much interested in operating. Therefore, we see the actual goal we are trying to reach, no matter in which limited sense, is Operating Thetan.

Operating Thetan is then a highly variable goal. A thetan who can move in and out of a body is actually operating somewhat but he is not really a Theta Clear since a Theta Clear, in its highest sense, means no further dependency upon bodies.

The goals of the auditor, therefore, do not rack up one, two, three, Mest Clear, Theta Clear, Operating Thetan. They actually stack up on a very gradient scale between thetan inoperative and a thetan who can operate. The auditor is therefore seeking to reach with the pc a state wherein the pc can function. At no time does the auditor suddenly arrive with a pc in a startling new shiny state all of a sudden that can be called a certain thing. In that pcs often expect this suddenly bursting “into the light” the auditor is subject to disappointment when he has actually achieved an enormous gain for the pc. In other words, pcs gain on a smooth gradient scale and do not suddenly become something.

There is only one point on the road up where something does happen and that is exteriorization. When the pc exteriorizes for the first time he feels there must be a cause for rejoicing and has the idea he has gotten somewhere. Well, in fact you could achieve the same result by hitting him over the head with a club. He would exteriorize. The point is not exteriorizing the pc but cutting down his dependency upon a body. A pc who exteriorizes and is not carried right on with the same process that sprang him out of his head until it is flat will go back into his head in an hour or a week and will be harder to dig out the next time.

In other words, this point of exteriorization does happen and does mean to the pc that he is himself. But it shouldn’t mean very much to an auditor beyond his noticing that this phase has been entered in the case. For in truth thetans don’t stay out of their bodies very long if they are not in good shape. Thus exteriorization means less than ability to act, to live, to be and do. The attention of the auditor should be upon the increasing ability of the pc to handle life, not upon the distance the pc gets from his body. Is that clear? Well, it tells us that arriving at a state of Clear is easy if that means stable outside and that any state of betterment on the road to Operating Thetan is an honest achievement.

Thus an auditor should at all times go toward the state of Operating Thetan and should not be mixed up in the oddities of exteriorization for a day.

HGC Clear Procedure goes straight toward exteriorization and achieves it. But it also goes straight toward increasing ability to handle life. The latter is the auditor’s best goal. The auditing goal should go in the same direction as this new definition for Operating Thetan.

An Operating Thetan can be at cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.

This Action Definition of Operating Thetan is the true goal of the auditor and if followed with complete understanding will achieve the best possible results.

In this discussion of goals and definitions, I am telling you cleanly that the goals of Mest Clear and Theta Clear are not worth following from the auditor’s standpoint. You can let pcs think what they will about them. The only goal worthy of the auditor’s time WHATEVER THE STATE OF CASE OF THE PC is Operating Thetan. To achieve one on any subject it is only necessary to place the pc to some degree at willing and knowing cause point with regard to that subject. All the steps of HGC Clear Procedure are leveled at Operating Thetan. But you need not tell your pc that. You can use the words RELEASE, MEST CLEAR, THETA CLEAR or any other if you like. Just remember there is only one payoff goal and that is Operating Thetan.

MEST CLEAR: Can see facsimiles with sonic present lifetime, has no psychoses or neuroses. Upper part of APA (in UK OCA) graph. Above 13 5 IQ.

THETA CLEAR: Can exist knowingly independent of bodies.

RELEASE: Average a third of a graph higher than first test, above 115 IQ.

OPERATING THETAN: Can be at Cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.


STEP ONE

Participation in Session by the Pc

We have long known that ARC was important. Just how important it is was established by some tests I made in London in 1956 wherein every time the pc showed

any restlessness or other signs of loss of havingness, instead of remedying havingness I carefully searched out any fancied break of ARC and patched it up. The “loss of havingness” vanished. In other words, loss of ARC is even more important than loss of havingness since a repair of ARC restores havingness. Lack of havingness is only one symptom of a lack of communication.

There are two ways an auditor, according to long practice, can err. One of these is to permit two-way communication to a point where the pc’s havingness is injured. The other is to chop communication to such a degree that havingness is injured. There is a point past which communication is bad and short of which lack of communication is bad. Here we have auditor judgment at play. Because the pc will fidget or go downscale in tone when his havingness drops, an auditor can SEE when the pc’s havingness is being lowered. Because a pc will go anaten or start to grind into the process an auditor can tell whether or not the pc feels his communication has been chopped. When either happens the auditor should take action—in the first instance by shutting off the pc’s outflow and getting to work and in the second instance by making the pc talk out any fancied communication severance.

Participation in session by the pc is not something the auditor sees to at the beginning of the session and then forgets for the rest of the intensive. This step is continued throughout the intensive and is given as much attention as any process being run at the time. The auditor’s attention is always therefore upon two things—first the continued participation in session and second the action of the process.

Grouped under this head we would also have ways and means of getting the pc into session in the first place. An unconscious pc used to be an apparent roadblock. A downtone, antagonistic, you-can’t-help-me pc was also a rough one. These two things are countered by always carefully starting a session and following through on standard CCH 0.

It is as important to open a session with a baby or an unconscious person as it is with any other preclear. It doesn’t matter whether the pc is answering up or not. It is only necessary to assume that the pc would answer if he could answer and that the mechanics of voice and gesture are simply absent from the answer. Therefore one always carefully starts every session, paying attention to what is happening, where it is happening, who is there, help, goals and problems. Obviously anaten or inability to control the body are the present time problem of the unconscious person or the child. One can actually audit this with a plain question and simply assume after a bit it has been answered, then give the acknowledgment and ask another question just as though the pc were in full vocal action. Auditors still fall for the belief, very current, that “unconscious” people are unable to think or be aware in any way. A thetan is seldom unconscious regardless of what the body is doing or not doing.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM is a highly vital point of PRECLEAR PARTICIPATION. If a preclear is being nagged too thoroughly by a PT problem auditing can actually send him downhill if done without addressing the problem. A whole intensive, even seventy-five hours can be wasted if the auditor does not clear the PT PROBLEM.

The preclear generally doesn’t know he has one which is nagging him, for the rough PT problems go into the apathy band and below into forgetfulness rather rapidly. Therefore the auditor should ferret out the PT problem with an E-Meter. Adroit use of an E-Meter does not include evaluating for the preclear but it certainly does include ferreting out PT problems. The E-Meter is also used for valences and sometimes psychophysical difficulties. (Auditor: Use the word “psychophysical” rather than psychosomatic and stay out of a medical field.)

THE RUNNING OF A PT PROBLEM today is the most. PT problem, valences, psychophysical ailments, all run beautifully with “Mock up something worse than

(terminal)” or “Invent something worse than (terminal).” To run this it is necessary to isolate the TERMINAL most intimately connected with the PT problem (or the valence or psychophysical difficulty). One then CLEARS THE COMMAND (and you always better do that with any command) and lets go.

The whole idea of WORSE THAN is the whole of the dwindling spiral. People who are “trying to get better” and “be more perfect” and “think the right thought” lose all control of “getting worse,” “being imperfect” and “thinking the wrong thought.” All these WORSE THANS are then left on automatic and we arrive at something less than optimum. In fact we arrive with the dwindling spiral. We also arrive with the “point of no return.” We also arrive with the declining ability to heal or get well. And we also arrive with old age.

After running “worse than” on the PT problem, we proceed with other parts of CCH 0. Clearing help will be found quite beneficial. But to get a pc to participate who is downright ugly about it, running help is usually only a partial solution. When these only ones get going they really snarl on the subject of getting audited. Here CCH 1 is of benefit. No questions asked. But this, of course, defeats the purpose of STEP ONE.

PARTICIPATION OF THE PC in the session is necessary in order to place the pc somewhat at the cause point in the actual fact of auditing. This fits the definition. You can always change a body or recover it from some illness by auditing without much helping the pc himself. Therefore, the pc, while under auditor control, is still somewhat at cause, what with comm bridges and clearing commands, etc., but he is made to feel no bad effects from being AT EFFECT if ample ARC is used. In other words, the pc can’t be entirely at cause in a session or he would be self-auditing, which isn’t good, but he can be salvaged from being a total effect by good ARC. When the ARC drops out that DOES leave the pc at more or less total effect, a thing you have probably noticed.

The things to be done in CCH 0 should be done thoroughly at intensive’s beginning and should be glanced at whenever a new session starts and should get a bow when a new command is used. But all CCH 0 is is a collection of mechanical aids to assist the pc’s participation in the session and to assist the auditor in ARC. Although CCH 0 must be used always, it is not a total substitute for ARC.

The sum of CCH 0 is find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc, knock out any existing PT problem, establish goals, clear help, get agreement on session length and get up to the first real auditing command. CCH 0 isn’t necessarily run in that order and this isn’t necessarily all of CCH 0, but if any of these are seriously scamped, the session will somewhere get into trouble.

When the participation of the pc ceases in a session, he must be gotten back into session by any means and then participation is re-established. A pc is never permitted to end a session on his own choice. He seeks to end them when his participation drops out of sight.

The trick question “What did I do wrong?” re-establishes ARC.

The problem of handling a pc who is not cooperative, who does not wish to participate, is a highly special problem. In the first place it is the pc’s engrams that do not want to continue, in the second place it is the engrams which are doing the talking. One ordinarily tackles this case with a formal opening of session, brief but positive, and then sails in with CCH 0, just as though the person were unconscious, which, of course, the person is.

Participation by an unconscious person, while covered above, requires the additional refinement of technique. ONE MUST ALWAYS FIND SOMETHING THE

PRECLEAR CAN DO AND THEN BETTER THAT ABILITY. An unconscious person is usually lying in bed. If not the command must be varied to fit the environment. But the best command is something like “You make that body lie in that bed.” A slightly upper grade process to a person sitting in a chair is “You seat that body in that chair.” In such cases a grip on the pc’s hand and the use of a slight squeeze each time the auditor acknowledges considerably speeds the process.

There is another special case—or maybe it isn’t so special. There are many people who cannot tackle a present time problem with a process. If the auditor sought out a PT problem and then ran “something worse than a related terminal” or a “problem of comparable or incomparable magnitude” he would find the pc digging in hard, unable to handle the process. Thus some judgment must be used in such cases. Don’t run a PT problem on somebody in very bad shape casewise.

There is an awful lot to know about starting sessions. The bad-off case and the case in very good condition alike require special handling. For the case just mentioned who cannot handle a PT problem with a process, there is always locational (TR TEN). TR TEN will run a PT problem or anything else if slowly. Thus many a person with a PT problem can only participate in a session to the extent of TR TEN, “YOU notice that object (wall, floor, chair, etc.).” By introducing in the auditor’s and pc’s bodies as a couple of the items being spotted along with everything else we eventually wind up with “find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc.” And we get there without a PT problem being in full bloom.

In running “You notice that object” there are some things that MUST be observed. Most important of these is this one: ANY PROCESS WHICH TURNS ON A SOMATIC MUST BE CONTINUED UNTIL IT NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS. This is true particularly of TR TEN, 8-C and TRIO. The case hangs right there until the process is flat, whether in one day, one year or six. Another thing which must be stressed is the inclusion of the auditor’s and pc’s bodies. Because some pcs WHEN EXTERIORIZED snap back in when they see the body is no reason to avoid it in TR TEN. Another thing is to make the pc use his eyes to view the objects and if he doesn’t turn his eyes toward them, then it is up to the auditor to use manual direction of the head and even pry the eyes open. No balks are ever permitted in auditing. If TR TEN is being run at a problem, every now and then the auditor pauses and discusses the problem again with the pc in order to keep it in restimulation until TR TEN can run it out.

The high case is a worse problem than auditors commonly believe. In the first place a high case can “blow” a situation out of the bank with considerable ease and if the auditor insists on sledge-hammering it out with a process, then pc participation blows rather than a facsimile.

High case participation can also be misunderstood in that there are a lot of cases that think they are high which aren’t. Here’s how you tell a real high case from a bogus (“I can do everything”) case. A thetan in good shape can be cause. When he looks at something in the bank it becomes the effect. A bogus high case can think anything he wants without anything having an effect on the bank. You want to watch this point because here is the definition of OT thoroughly at work. Pc at Cause. A case that has pictures and everything and is impatient to get on with it BUT DOES NOT MARKEDLY ALTER THE BANK WITH THINKING ALONE is not a high case but an old “wide open case” of Dianetic days.

Two-way communication AS A PROCESS is the key to all this. If you put a pc on an E-Meter and locate a present time charge, you can, if the pc can somewhat handle his bank, get him to two-way comm the incident flat very quickly—in five or ten minutes at the most. This is all the process used. It would take an actual E-Meter run to give you a full reality on this.

Here we are looking at the basic differences amongst cases. That difference lies in the ability to knowingly CAUSE. Bodies are the same, they all react alike. Banks differ only vaguely and only in content and significance. Engrams are engrams and they all behave alike. There is only ONE DIFFERENCE amongst pcs. We called this BASIC PERSONALITY in BOOK ONE. We can be a lot more simple about it now that I have my teeth into the subject a few more feet. The difference is DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY. What do we mean by CAUSE? The basic, old Scientology definition is still at work. CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT. Joe knowingly shoots Bill. Joe is at Cause. Bill is at Effect. Mary gives John a present. Mary is at Cause, John is at Effect. Bill says Boo to Joe. Bill is at Cause, Joe is at Effect. But when we introduce KNOWING CAUSE and CAUSE AT WILL into this CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT idea we see we have something else added. The person at Cause is there because he knows he is there and because he is willingly there. The person at Cause is not at Cause because he does not dare be at Effect. He must be able to be at Effect. If he is afraid to be at Effect, then he is Unwilling Cause and is at Cause only because he is very afraid of being at Effect. Education can show a person he can be at effect without liability. Then he can be at Cause without HAVING TO BE BECAUSE HE DOESN’T DARE BE AT EFFECT. Auditing in its whole operation is teaching the pc this. Pc slides from terrified effect to tolerated effect to knowing cause with regard to any incident he contacts IF HE IS AUDITED PROPERLY. The pc who has to get rid of all his engrams because he has to get rid of them because it’s all too horrible winds up, with good auditing, into a tolerance of the pictures since he has learned he can tolerate them and so can swing around to Cause.

So we have this great difference in pcs. DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY is the extent that he is willing to be at Cause and the extent he is willing to know he is at Cause plus the ability to cause things.

You will see this on an E-Meter in PT problem handling. Bill has a PT problem. It drops a dial when first contacted. The auditor, using his UNDERSTANDING of Scientology, two-way comms on it. The incident discharges and no longer registers after a few minutes. Mary has a PT problem. It drops steeply on the E-Meter. The auditor tries to two-way comm on it. The charge remains the same or Mary begins to disperse. She doesn’t hold to the subject. The auditor at length finds that two-way comm only serves to run down her havingness. The charge remains on the meter dial. What is the difference between Bill and Mary? Bill can be at knowing cause, Mary is either obsessive cause or heavy effect. Bill can blow facsimiles. Mary cannot. On Mary the auditor is very wise to enter upon TR TEN.

One version of TR TEN is called Short Spotting. “You notice that (nearby object).” So long as the pc can see with his eyes the object or feel the auditor’s hand on it, the process works. It is spotting right up close. If run with mediumly near and far objects (such as the room wall) it is very effective in getting a case going. It has given some cases their first reality on auditing. BUT the rule still holds here about somatics. When a somatic is turned on with a process, turn it off with that process. See Auditor’s Code 13. This is entirely true of Short Spotting. In that it almost always turns on somatics, when you start it, you have to flatten it and that’s often lengthy.

Remember this about pc participation. A low case can’t handle the bank, therefore you keep high ARC and kid-glove him through a session. A very high case doesn’t need dynamite, therefore you retain his participation by going as rapidly as you can. A medium, average case needs ARC, something of dynamite, something of kid gloves, something of two-way comm.

And IN ALL GOOD AUDITING, CASES IMPROVE. Just because you start a pc low doesn’t mean he’ll always stay low. Check the case often. See if his CAUSABILITY is

rising. If it isn’t, he isn’t improving and you better go easier or heavier. PROBABLY when a case doesn’t improve you didn’t handle a PT problem. THAT IS THE ONLY THING WHICH CAN KEEP A CASE FROM GAINING. So check every session for one.

There are probably thousands of ways to gain the participation of the pc, there are probably thousands of ways to open a session. There are probably an infinite number of tricky things you can do. However, this breadth of choice should not obscure the following:

1. A pc who is not participating in the session is not at Cause.

2. An auditor who isn’t able to maintain ARC, who isn’t able to “freeze” a process for a short time, even a Tone 40.0 process, and re-establish ARC, will not get results.

3. The end-all of processing is the attainment of a goal, the goal of OT. One always processes the problems and difficulties of the pc, he does not process the process. Processes only assist in processing the pc. They will not do anything by themselves. Processes are a road map to the goal of OT, they are nothing in themselves. The target is the condition, the disabilities of the pc. How one achieves the eradication of these difficulties is secondary to the fact of their eradication. Scientology is a route attained after several thousand years of no attainment by Man and the route is important and valuable and must be traveled correctly, but the concern is the pc, not the route.

4. A new auditor can be adrift with his tools. He is uncertain as to what he is attacking. He should have reality on engrams, locks, key-ins, secondaries, the time track, the key buttons of Scientology such as Communication, Control and Havingness. Given an understanding of all these and the theory of Scientology itself he can almost pilot his way through a case with two-way comm. But two-way comm will not work if one doesn’t understand all the above. So two-way comm is not conversation. The pc has had a few trillion years of that and it hasn’t made him well, so two-way comm is a highly specialized thing, done with full understanding of the thetan, bank and body. Good two-way comm means participation by the pc.

5. Scientology is a precise commodity, something like engineering. A pc is a precise thing, part animal, part pictures and part God. We want the ability to handle things and the God, and the less unthinking responses in the pc the better off he will be. Therefore a PC WHO ISN’T COGNITING regularly is being processed beyond his ability to do and it is necessary to drop back downscale to find something he CAN DO.

6. The golden rule of processing is to find something the preclear CAN do and then to improve his ability to do it. At once you will have participation. The highest ability one pc had was to get drunk: a resolution of his case was entered upon by having him invent ways to get drunk.

7. The attention span of children and psychos is not necessarily a factor since it is only the phenomena of dispersal against mental blocks, keying in of incidents. The auditor can pay attention to it or not as he likes. Short, regular sessions on people with limited attention span get more gain per week than a steady grind since the participation is maintained.

8. The auditor remains at Cause in all sessions without forbidding the pc to be at Cause. See the rules in Dianetics: The Original Thesis.

STEP TWO

Placing the Preclear at Cause

Establish obedience of some part of the auditing room to the pc. Here he must begin at some level of knowingness. He must know that he himself, when ordered to do so, can gain some compliance on the part of the auditing room. This includes his own body.

The basic rule of auditing is to start with something the preclear can do and then get him to do it better. This is the basic difference between a high level and a low level process. This is also the difference between a process which is real to the preclear and a process which is unreal to the preclear. A preclear “can do” a process without doing it at all. Actually the body and bank are obeying the auditor. Now here we had in Dianetics one of the more interesting phenomena of an auditor being able to make a preclear physically well without the preclear once finding out about it. This was a source of great grief and upset to auditors. They could not see how this could possibly be. The man priorly could not walk, apparently, and after auditing he could walk, and yet he did not attribute to Dianetics or to the auditor any of this renewed ability.

The auditor could monitor the preclear’s bank and body, shift around the engrams, as-is them and do various things with them without the preclear finding out about it. All of this was so far above the preclear’s ability to do that it was totally unreal to him.

We also get the phenomenon of an individual doing a great many spotting processes and feeling better but not being able to understand what this has to do with sanity or insanity. In the first place, the individual could not himself spot. The auditor more or less did the spotting for him. The preclear then never connected it in any way with his own capabilities.

A test an auditor should make to ascertain the sense of this is as follows: “Look around here and tell me something you could do.” The preclear will get many odd and peculiar sensations as he fishes around and finally decides that he could do some minor thing. This is not really a good process but it is a good test process for an auditor. This preclear who has been walking and talking and working and going around the world and apparently behaving in a fairly sane and rational fashion actually could do none of these things. He was supported entirely by his “machinery,” by the social responsibilities which were demonstrated toward him, by his education, by the basic agreement of what goes on in the world. He was walking around in a dream and life felt to him much like a dream. Now the auditor starts to audit him on the basis that this individual is capable. Well now the individual himself is the thetan and whereas the bank might have been capable (and would have broken down some day), the thetan himself was not. He was going along for the ride.

We often see this phenomenon in the third dynamic. It could be said that a government is the aggregate irresponsibility of a people. They are not taking responsibility for the course of justice or protection of the state from foreign aggression, and they shove all this responsibility over on to a government and they themselves are quite irresponsible for it. After a while the government doesn’t look to the people at all to furnish any responsibility. The government takes all the initiative, and we eventually wind up with some sort of a dictatorship. The people then no longer count; they are slaves; they are totally irresponsible.

In a similar wise, a thetan can be totally irresponsible for everything that goes on in relationship to his workaday world, and we see people dramatizing this on every hand. Wherever a thetan refuses to take responsibility and is participating in action, he is being “unreal.” This is the unreality of a situation. Let us say you were part of a

crowd which was surging downtown to Third Street and you yourself wanted to go uptown to Tenth Street. The crowd swept you along toward Third Street and after a while things would become pretty unreal. That is because you were being carried in a direction opposite to your basic intent. Thus your own intention is overwhelmed. This intention overwhelmed becomes what we know as unreality.

It is very easy for an auditor to overwhelm the preclear’s intention. The preclear is actually going to Tenth Street, the auditor is trying to push him to Third Street. We get the most remarkable subdivision of this in Survive and Succumb. The auditor is going on the basis that the preclear wants to Survive and the preclear is going on the basis that he wants to Succumb. The auditor is then thrusting him in an opposite direction. Hence it is really necessary to clear Goals in an auditing session. There must be some goal which the preclear considers obtainable. The goal of just being able to sit there for the next two or three hours is a goal. You would be surprised to find that in some preclears this is a tremendously high goal. But even a preclear’s goals can be unreal to him. They are the social goals. Actually, the preclear privately thinks he’d like to get rid of every man, woman and child on Earth and the goal he gives you is to save everyone.

Now the question actually confronts us—what can the preclear really do? Of course, in a case of tremendous doubt, you could run the above process—”Look around here and find something you could do.” But there are certain things that an auditor can take for granted which undercut any other thing. The body is sitting in the chair. The preclear can be brought up to a realization that he can make the body sit in the chair. And thus we get the first really worthwhile process on a preclear who is conscious, and that process is “You seat that body in that chair. Thank you.” And in the case of somebody who is Lying in bed, even unconscious, we get this basic process: “You make that body continue to lie in that bed. Thank you.”

All we are asking anybody to do when we ask for these two processes is to take responsibility for what is actually occurring in the first place. We raise his responsibility level in other words, and thus raise his doingness level. A preclear who does not come through eventually with a cognition that he can make the body sit in the chair of course isn’t worth bothering with, in that his doingness level is even below this. This preclear ought to be lying in a bed. He must consider himself completely helpless and completely ill. Thus if we ran “You seat that body in that chair. Thank you,” for several hours without any realization on the part of the preclear that he could do this and without turning on any somatics or without getting any effect at all, we would consider that we had overshot this. Actually it shouldn’t take several hours to find this out. We would go back to the basic position of Dianetic auditing. This preclear probably thinks of himself as being dead or probably thinks of himself as being very ill or thinks of himself as being totally unconscious. Thus we would run him as an unconscious person. Putting him down on a couch we would run “You make that body continue to lie in that bed. Thank you.”

Also, on a much higher level we get CCH 1.

“You give me that hand” is actually the old cat process where we got the cat to reach for the auditor, plus an obedience process. The preclear after a while should decide that he can do this. Sometimes we run CCH 1, then CCH 2, CCH 3, and then CCH 4 and going back discover that CCH 1 is now unflat and the preclear is unable to perform this action which he previously could perform. Now what has happened here is we have broadened the scope of the preclear’s responsibility. His bank at first was perfectly capable of giving that hand but once we have invited further responsibility and gotten him to find the auditor as in CCH 3 and CCH 4, we discover that the preclear himself is now trying to do it and in trying to do it is having difficulties but he wins through with this difficulty and eventually comes out much better.

Unless these particular goals and theories behind these processes are understood they very often do not work at all in the CCH bands. Thus CCH 1 to 4, while tremendously successful when run by a very excellent auditor understanding his job, may not be successful in the hands of somebody who is simply going through some mechanical motions.

Basically we are trying to get the preclear to do something and know that he himself can do it. Thus we are improving his ability. On this fundamental we can go forward and establish many processes, all of which are fundamental doingness or obedience processes. We can do such a process as “You make that chair sit on the floor.” This process at first seems a little incredible to the preclear, but after a while he gets the idea that he can do it, then this unflattens and he gets the idea that it’s gravity that’s doing it and therefore he can’t do it, and he goes through various cognitions of one sort or another simply about having a chair, which is already sitting there, sit there. Unless we can cross this particular stage of a case and get the preclear up to an idea that he does have some sort of an ability of some kind, we might as well do nothing else about the case at all. Therefore this Step Two is quite important and actually is the basic entrance into auditing.


STEP THREE

Establish Control of Pc’s Body by Pc

Although we could continue onward with the CCHs simply rotating them from CCH 1 through to 4 and back to 1 and to 4, and back to 1 and to 4 again and again and again and win, there is a faster way of going about this which has been known to us for a very long time. This way starts really with 8-C.

It does not matter particularly which brand of 8-C is run. We have had now three or four varieties of 8-C. The first one was rather permissive and indirect and did not demand very much compliance and possibly had its own place in the firmament since use of it has resolved a very, very great many cases. The first command of this is “Do you see that wall?” Then “Walk over to it.” Then “Touch it.” And that was all there was to the process. Later 8-Cs, particularly Tone 40 8-Cs, were highly precise, very directive and had a great deal of control stress to them. It does not matter particularly which 8-C is used so long as the auditor feels that it is biting. If the particular 8-C he is using isn’t biting, maybe he needs a more permissive one, maybe he needs a more exacting control one.

There are a great many factors surrounding the control of the pc’s body by a pc. Most pcs feel their body if tampered with in any way would fly out of control and flip-flop all over the floor, would suddenly freeze or would get ill, and they have anxieties about their bodies and the control of their bodies which must be solved, otherwise we don’t get very far. Control of bodies can actually be assisted by old-time flip-flopping.

Flip-flopping was a process by which the preclear’s excess motion was taken off. The creative processes of earlier times did not require of the preclear any great cognition of what was going on. Thus flip-flopping could be used at a very early stage of case. We would say, “Mock up a man and make him flip-flop” and then make him insist that the body flip-flop even further and even more wildly until he himself knew that he was making the body flip-flop. We would do this with a woman’s body and would eventually take the motion off the case that was inhibiting the preclear from controlling the body. This is actually a motionectomy. It is really a case of the auditor controlling the bank and body of the preclear. When we did not do this we found that in running 8-C and in doing some other processes the preclear all of a sudden would convulse and start to fly apart. These fly-aparts were simply the flip-flop manifestation of bodies.

It is extremely interesting that a preclear exteriorizing from his own body which is out of control, flip-flopping, writhing, convulsing and going into epileptiform seizures was at a distance from a flip-flopping body. One day while in his own body he causes some other body to go out of control, he shoots somebody or hits somebody, and has this person go into a flip-flop. He himself gets restimulated and he feels that his body in the future is liable to go out of control at any time. If you draw a little picture of this you will see that a thetan exteriorized from his own body and a thetan in his body knocking about some other body is, to the thetan, the same point of view. In other words, if you make somebody’s body flip-flop, your own body may flip-flop. It looks the same to a thetan.

Some guarantee or security of body control is therefore necessary.

There is a very fine set of processes which have been used for more than a year at this writing and which produced excellent results. These we call the S-C-S processes.

After running 8-C (and if it turned on somatics remember to flatten the process entirely, even though it takes 50 hours, before going on to another process), we go into these control processes grouped under S-C-S. There have been several varieties of process, all entirely in the control bracket but with different severities of control. The commands of S-C-S processes are almost all the same except that some are made more severe than others.

The first of these processes is the Start process. This is very simple. We have a preclear out in the middle of the room standing up while we stand up alongside of him touching him, and we explain to him (and we explain this every command) that when we say “Start” we want him to start his body in that direction, and we point out some direction.

Then we take our hands off of him and we say “Start.” We do not say Stop, Halt, or anything else, but after he has moved forward we then say, “Did you start your body?” And he says he guesses he did or he did, and we then—and only then— acknowledge. We do this many times until the process apparently has no charge on it or is flat. We then go into the next of this series, which is Change.

To run Change the auditor marks four points out on the floor. These points can be imaginary or they can be actually chalk-marked on the floor. One of these points we label “A,” one “B,” one “C,” and one “D.” We explain the meanings of these symbols to the preclear and we give him this auditing command: “Now when I ask you to change the body, I want you to change the body’s position from A to B. Do you understand that?” The preclear says he does, and the auditor, stepping back from the preclear, says “Change.” The preclear then changes the body’s position. Similarly in using the various points and combinations of the points A, B, C and D, the auditor drills the preclear on Change until that particular process seems to be flat.

The auditor then goes to Stop. The auditor takes the preclear by the arm and explains (explains every time) that when he says “Stop,” he wants the preclear to stop the body. The actual wording of the auditor is “Now I want you to get the body moving in that direction and when I say Stop, I want you to stop the body. Do you understand?” When the preclear says that he does, the auditor lets go of him, lets him move down the room a distance (never the same distance twice) and says “Stop.” When the preclear has stopped the auditor says “Did you stop the body?” And the preclear says “yes,” or “maybe” and the auditor then acknowledges. The auditor does this many times until the preclear understands that he himself can stop the body or he has regained an ability, or the process appears to be flat and has no charge on it.

These three steps done in that order are then repeated. And it will be discovered that once Stop has been flattened, Start is now unflattened and can be flattened all

over again by running it anew. Similarly, Change will be found to be unflat and again Stop will be found to be unflat. Thus, one runs Start and one runs Change and then one runs Stop, in that order, over and over and over again until all three appear to be flat.

A variation of this particular process has been called Stop Supreme. Stop Supreme is a heavy emphasis on Stop and it will be found that after the three processes of Start, Change and Stop are flat, one can move rather easily into Stop Supreme and concentrate heavily upon it. In other words, one runs Start, Change and Stop, Start, Change and Stop, Start, Change and Stop until they are relatively flat. He should not then suppose that the whole of S-C-S is flat since he still has Stop Supreme in all of its variations.

The idea behind Stop Supreme is that Stop, or motionlessness, is probably the most thetan ability a thetan has. Thus the rehabilitation of this particular ability is worth while and does produce considerable results. But don’t be surprised if the preclear falls apart in the process of doing it.

The commands of Stop Supreme are roughly these. Every time one runs one of these S-C-S processes he, of course, explains the thing in full at the beginning of every command. He does not let any explanation hang over from the last time the command was executed. It will be found that the preclear cannot hold in his mind these explanations. Therefore, it has to be all explained anew every time. Thus we say to the preclear in Stop Supreme, “Now I want you to get your body moving down the room when I so indicate and when I say Stop, I want you to stop your body absolutely still.” Then the auditor gives the preclear a slight shove and the preclear moves the body down the room, and the auditor says “Stop,” and the preclear tries to stop his body absolutely still in that instant. It will be found that faster and faster responses are achieved by the preclear and he can actually stop the body in more and more peculiar positions. The auditor then says, “Did you stop your body absolutely still?” The preclear answers this and then the auditor acknowledges. There are even more severe versions of this, but they are left to the imagination of the auditor.

These S-C-S processes produced the greatest control changes that have been produced with any control process. They were consistently used with great success by a great many auditors. This is not really true of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4. CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 depend in a very large measure not only upon the excellence of the auditor but upon how the auditor himself is feeling while he is running them. And we can get an auditor who is not feeling up to par that day not doing well with CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4. This difficulty was never encountered with the S-C-S processes and therefore the S-C-S processes are to be recommended.

An apparent drop of havingness is occasionally experienced by the preclear as he does these processes. This is because of compulsive exteriorization. If a preclear is about to fly out of his head he’ll fly out of his head on S-C-S. If he does fly out of his head on S-C-S, or any other process, you, of course, continue the process. You do not suddenly change and do some other process. Once upon a time we felt at liberty to change because of the severity of the change, but we have learned in long experience that one never changes the process just because somebody compulsively exteriorizes. S-C-S is probably more susceptible to compulsive exteriorization than any other single process, and as it is run preclears fly into their heads and out of them at a great rate and eventually get to a state quite ordinarily where they can move into the head or out of the head at will.

The reason the preclear is holding on to the body is ( 1 ) fear of loss of control and (2) havingness. If the havingness of the preclear is low, he is apt to close in tight to the body because this gives him more havingness and if the preclear fears that the body is

going to go out of control he will also move in closer to the body. Thus we get interiorization as no more complicated than fear of loss of control and drops in havingness.

When a loss of havingness is experienced, a preclear will agitate or go anaten and tend to be upset in general. Actually, any loss of havingness in an auditing session can be repaired by an excellent auditor by repair of the ARC of the session. One uses the trick “What did I do wrong?” and two-way comm in general to patch up state of affairs. Loss of havingness is first manifested on loss of havingness of the session or loss of goals rather than on actual loss of mass.

In running S-C-S, however, the preclear flying in and out of his head will experience various changes of havingness which are quite upsetting. The very best handling of this situation is to restore the ARC of the session in every way possible. It is actually not allowed to stop S-C-S and go into Trio.

Concentration upon the body is one of the frailties of S-C-S and we have long since discovered that those preclears who had difficulty in exteriorization would very often re-interiorize the moment they glanced at the body. Well, keeping a body there and looking at it are apparently two different things entirely. Thus if a preclear can’t put his attention upon the body without bad things happening, we should run a process which prevents the preclear from being upset simply because he is concentrating upon his body, and S-C-S certainly does this and does it well.

Don’t be surprised in running S-C-S if the preclear suddenly flies to pieces, goes into flip-flopping, has to be picked up off the floor and put over on the couch and left aghast, but do be very surprised at yourself if you fail to get the preclear back up on his feet and into session again at once. This is no time for you to be changing processes simply because a preclear collapses. Now if this did happen, that the preclear went entirely out of session while running S-C-S and you could not get him in any way to do any more of the S-C-S and get it flat, then you had better start the entire intensive all over again and go right back to the beginning and carry on from the beginning and bring him right straight on through to S-C-S. You would do this rapidly, of course, but you would nevertheless have no other choice. It would not be good enough to change processes simply because the preclear found himself incapable of running this body control process of S-C-S.

It has been noticed that S-C-S can be run very sloppily by some auditors who do not have very much experience with it. The only way to err is in the direction of imprecision and bad ARC. It is perfectly easy to be very precise with high ARC. ARC does not mean non-confronting.

One of the elementary processes which can be used after S-C-S and which is a very fine process and will have to be done at some time, is the Keep it from going away— Hold it still—Make it more solid series on two objects.

To do this particular process one takes two disrelated objects, that is to say he doesn’t take two ashtrays or two bottles. He could take one object made out of wood, one made out of glass, both of them with different purposes. But these are usually picked up as non-significant objects and the auditor asks the preclear to place the two of them to the right and to the left of the preclear and asks the preclear to pick up one of them and keep it from going away and put it back in exactly the same place, pick up the other one and keep it from going away, put it back in exactly the same place, and keeps up this drill between these two objects. Actually, preclears who are having a very hard time require more than two objects, even as many as six or seven. In this event the auditor places the preclear at a table and scatters several objects around and picks them up at random. The duplicative feature of the process can be toughened up as the

process is continued, but on some preclears it will be found to be very arduous to start out basically with two. When the preclear can successfully keep the two objects from going away, knowing very well that he kept them from going away—which the auditor asks him every time, “Did you keep it from going away?”—the hold-it-still phase is run in exactly the same way, and when this seems to be flat on the two objects we get into “Make it more solid.” One of the principal dividing lines between a psychotic state and a sane state is the ability to make things solid. It will be found that people who are having a very bad time indeed have the whole world in a very thin look-straight through-it state. Only when they themselves can be at Cause in keeping things from going away and making things hold still and making things more solid will it be found that they have a solidity in the environment.

There would be another process which we could run at this particular stage and that is old-time Book and Bottle, which is also one of the deadlier exteriorization processes.

Old-time Book and Bottle was run in this wise. The auditor placed a book on one table or chair and a bottle on the other table or chair and he directed the individual to first one and then the other, always with a very duplicative command. Probably the first version of Book and Bottle was the best. It should be understood that Book and Bottle is an absolute necessity and must be run at some time or another upon a Scientology auditor, but it is not necessarily something which must be run on somebody who is simply trying to attain a state of Clear. Thus a mention of it is introduced at this time.


STEP FOUR

Find the Auditor

Make pc even more conscious of auditor and place him somewhat at Cause with ARC.

There are probably a thousand inventive ways that this could be done but it is time when one has been butchering the pc this long for the pc to regain some of his self-respect with regard to the auditing session. One could do this with almost any auditing command which made the pc look at the auditor. Such a question as “Is there anything I am doing that you could do?” carried forward to its logical conclusion would find the pc regaining some of his Cause with regard to the session. Simple locational spotting, however, is probably the best process here. One directs the pc’s attention with “You notice that (object)” all about the room and at first only occasionally includes the pc’s body and the auditor’s body in the spotting. Then the auditor, using the same process, concentrates less and less upon the room and more and more upon the auditor and the pc. It will be found that the pc will eventually find the auditor with his attention so directed.

It will be seen then that S-C-S directed the pc’s attention very strongly to the auditing of his own body and it will be seen that we have not yet started to get the pc’s attention out into the environment.

But here we have two very pat processes which are CCH 3 and CCH 4. These are extremely simple processes but require a considerable amount of care in their use. Any validated auditor knows how to run these two processes. CCH 3 is Hand Space Mimicry and CCH 4 is Book Mimicry. Both of these processes simply invite the pc to find the auditor more thoroughly.

The earliest process along the line was “Look at me, Who am I?”, and it has very far from been disallowed, so that in lack of anything else simply this process could be picked up and used at this stage. Now here we get the preclear to identify or to say

who the auditor is and you will find that many preclears go through a considerable number of convulsions in trying to establish who the auditor is.

There is no particularly recommended step for this. It depends in a large measure on what state the pc is in when he arrives at this point. But it is necessary for the pc to become somewhat causative with regard to the session at this stage, whether by spotting, CCH 3 and CCH 4, or by old-time “Look at me, Who am I?” They all more or less accomplish the same thing. CCH 3 and 4 accomplish the location of the auditor very mechanically according to the Reality Scale. Spotting has the additional advantage of taking a pc’s attention very thoroughly under control, and “Look at me, Who am I?” invites the pc to use his identification and thinking capacities. If an auditor wanted to be totally sure, he would use all of them.


STEP FIVE

Pc Versus Mest

Establish pc as cause over Mest by establishing pc’s ideas as cause over Mest.

There are several varieties of spotting processes. The most basic of these is the most basic process to association and this is Connectedness. This process is run directively with the following command: “You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you. Did you? Thank you.”

The reason Connectedness works is because it is the basic process on association. The most aberrative thing on any case is association with Mest. This does not mean that the individual is not creating the Mest, it does not mean that he has no relationship with Mest, but it does mean that Theta and Mest interconnected too strongly are the components of a trap. Theta is mixed up with Mest, Mest is mixed up with Theta. They are two different things actually, and it is not true that all thought derives from Mest, nor is it true that all Mest derives from thought. A thetan can create Mest by simply creating Mest, not by telling it to be created, but simply by putting it there. This is the isness of Mest. Now when he connects his thoughts with the actual mass he gets into trouble and we get association, we get compulsive thinking, we get identification and the old A = A = A of Dianetic days.

Thus you will see at once that Connectedness in any form is a very excellent process to run. But note carefully that we have him get the idea of making the object connect with him. We never command the preclear to get the other idea of connecting with the object. This is a no-games condition. This is what is wrong with the preclear.

Now there are a large variety of processes which stem out of this process of basic association. These are Control Trio, Trio and Responsibility. But all of these things are basically connectedness processes.

The only thing that ever went wrong with connectedness processes was the unreality factor. The auditor would tell the preclear to get the idea of making that wall connect with him, when as a matter of fact the preclear couldn’t have gotten much of any kind of an idea of making anything connect with him.

Thus it is mandatory for an auditor to start out a preclear on some level of reality and some two-way comm should precede this connectedness process, such as “Do you think there is anything anywhere that you could get to connect with you?” Once this is cleared up, it will be found that only those things very close in could be real to the preclear on this line of connectedness. Thus the auditor is given no great power of choice in this matter in the first runnings of the process. He will have to run things which are relatively close in to the preclear, then proceed to things which are middle distance and then things which are further from the preclear.

A great deal of good common sense is needed here, and a great deal of two-way comm is necessary to get some idea of whether or not the preclear thought it was real.

Thus the earliest commands of Connectedness should probably be the preclear’s nose and the auditor’s hand; the arm of the preclear’s chair and the button on the auditor’s shirt; the button on the preclear’s shirt and his own left hand, et cetera. Further, the auditor is only asking him to get the idea of making the thing connect with him, not to make the thing connect with him, otherwise he will have the preclear being yanked all over the room.

Control Trio, Trio and Responsibility are actually only complications on top of Connectedness, but they themselves have their own particular peculiar virtues, and a preclear who can actually run straight, old-time Trio, “Look around here and find something you could have,” can get a very long way on that process all by itself.

Control Trio is actually a three-stage process on a heavy spotting control. It runs in this fashion. “Get the idea that you can have that (object).” And when this is relatively flat, “Get the idea of making that (object) remain where it is,” (or continue where it is) and “Get the idea of making that (object) disappear.” This is actually a very fine process and undercuts (runs on a lower case than) Trio itself.

Old-time Trio is extremely good, however, and is not to be underrated in any way. You can run a whole three-week intensive on this if the preclear can do it. The commands are: “Look around here and find something you could have.” And when that is somewhat flat, “Look around here and find something you would permit to remain,” and then “Look around here and find something you would permit to disappear.” These are run in relationship to each other. In other words, all three of them are run in the same session. Sometimes a preclear will run the third command two hundred and fifty times before he can get either of the other two commands with any reality at all.

Responsibility is another process just like Trio and actually has its three commands, too. “Look around here and find something you could be responsible for.” “Look around here and find something you don’t have to be responsible for.” “Look around here and find something you would permit somebody else to be responsible for.”

The emphasis here is “You look,” “You connect,” “You make” in any of these processes, and the “You” should be entered into the old commands to make the thing as causative as possible.

Although we cover this rather briefly, this is probably the most effective section of Clear Procedure. The whole trick is to get the preclear to actually do it. It does no good for a preclear to run these processes with no reality. It does no good for a preclear to run these processes with no ARC between himself and the auditor. But it does a lot of good to get these processes run.

Basically TR TEN, “You notice that (object),” is a fundamental process on connectedness. It will be discovered that unless the preclear is actually able to look at a few things he will not be able to get an idea about them, too. Furthermore, it will be discovered that there is a process called Short Spotting, wherein the auditor has the preclear spot things that are very close to him. The only thing wrong with Short Spotting is that the auditor must give the preclear things to spot which the preclear can actually see with his eyes. If the preclear cannot see these things with his eyes there is not much use in having him spot them as it will run down his havingness and add to an uncertainty.

Havingness of an objective variety, namely Trio, is one of the greatest processes ever invented. Do not lose sight of this fact. The process can do things that no other

process can do. There may be some factors kicking around in Havingness which are not entirely understood and which are not entirely connected with Connectedness. However, it has been found that Connectedness will put a preclear in a condition where he can eventually run Havingness. Therefore, Connectedness undercuts and possibly even overpasses Havingness in general.

This process of Connectedness can also be run outside. It can be run on people. It can be run on a certain type of object. It can be used to familiarize a pilot with his airplane and a driver with his car. It can be used to increase ARC between the preclear and the world around him by letting him run it in a heavily populated area or upon a busy street and using bodies. Here we have one of the more interesting processes to run in terms of cognition, because it undoes so much basic association. If your preclear is not cogniting while running Connectedness you can be very sure of the fact that somewhere along the line you have not given him a reality and you should flatten it off gracefully and start the intensive all over again.



STEP SIX

Creative Processing

Read and understand Scientology 8-8008 and “Electropsychometric Auditing,” and use an E-Meter throughout the auditing.

The first step on this in some cases is conquering black “field” and invisible “field.” This is done by a repair of havingness over black masses and then invisible masses, run even if the pc goes unconscious. This means that you continue to audit him even if he goes unconscious and you use the same command and pay no attention to his unconsciousness. You continue just as though he were wide awake. When field is cleared up, start on a gradient scale of mock-ups and get pc able to mock things up. Then run “Keep it from going away” until flat on mock-ups. Then run “Hold it still” on mock-ups. Then run “Make it more solid” on mock-ups. All this until pc really has fine, solid mock-ups. Typical command, “Mock up a and keep it from going away. Thank you.” RULE: A PC’S FACSIMILES ARE NOT STORED, THEY ARE MADE IN THE INSTANT AND UNMADE BY THE PC, therefore remedy of mock-ups AND THEIR PERSISTENCE, is actually a direct route to clear and winds up with no obsessive mock-up making (which we call a bank). A valuable side process here: “Decide to make a mock-up. Decide that will ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” Also this one: “Decide to make a mock-up everyone can see. Decide that would ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” A TOTAL REMEDY OF MOCK-UPS WOULD MAKE A BOOK ONE CLEAR.


STEP SEVEN

(Optional)

Establish the preclear’s control over his “bank.” “Mock up a facsimile and (keep it from going away, and when that is flat, hold it still, and when that is flat, make it a little more solid).” Run this alternately with “Mock up that wall (keep it from going away, hold it still, make it a little more solid).” Run the “Keep it from going away” on a facsimile one command, then the wall one command, until flat, then shift to “Hold it still” same way, then shift to “Make it more solid,” same way.



STEP EIGHT

Make Some Time

See Dianetics ‘55!, Chapter XV.

AN INTENSIVE IN BRIEF FOR PRACTICAL USE

GOAL: Operating Thetan.

DEFINITION: An Operating Thetan is one who can be knowingly at cause over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time.

CCH 0 in brief, find the auditor, find pc, find auditing room, clear help and goals. BUT IN THE MAIN HANDLE THE PT PROBLEM IF IT EXISTS. IF IT DOESN’T EXIST do CCH 0 briefly and quickly and get on with the session.

It will be noted that giving pc’s attention to auditing room or environment can turn on a somatic after three or four commands. After one command of “Have you got an auditing room?” this becomes a process called LOCATIONAL. If Locational turns on a somatic it must be run until somatic is flat. Therefore, the auditor has no business attempting Locational or getting the pc involved unless he intends to do something about it.

Present Time Problem

The preclear is put on an E-Meter before PT problem is discussed. When the E-Meter has been adjusted (one-third of a dial surge when pc squeezes cans), the auditor asks if the pc has a present time problem. After a little discussion of this, the needle may surge. If it does, the auditor locates the PT problem’s most intimate terminal and runs (with the pc still holding the cans) “Invent something worse than (indicated terminal)” until the problem flattens out on the dial. The auditor can ask for and run another PT problem or even three or four, but always flattening down the surge of the needle. IF THE PC IS 50% below the center line of the APA, it is not safe to run “Invent.” Instead, without scouting around “Invent,” but knowing the graph in the first place, simply two-way comm the problem and run Locational until the problem flattens out on the needle. The auditor does not begin with “Invent” and then change his mind and run Locational. It is an “either-or.” The auditor starts with “Invent” or he starts with Locational and whichever he does he does not change. IF LOCATIONAL TURNS ON A SOMATIC IT MUST BE RUN UNTIL LOCATIONAL NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS.

Once the PT problem is flat the auditor puts away the E-Meter.


S-C-S Steps

S-C-S begins with 8-C of any kind. If 8-C turns on a somatic, the auditor runs it until it no longer turns on somatics. 8-C is run formal or Tone 40.

Start is then run as per 1956.

Change is then run as per 1956.

Stop is then run as per 1956.

If each of these is flattened in turn, it does not mean that S-C-S is flat. It means only that Start is probably unflattened. Thus one again runs Start after Stop, runs Change after Start, Stop after Change until none of the three unflatten the others.

More 8-C can be run. There is no error in liberally running 8-C, which is, after all, a more complicated Locational of a Short Spotting sort.

Spotting Steps

Spotting itself is a broad process. Locational is only one of many spotting processes. Spotting spots in the past, in space, in the present, Short Spotting (Locational done up close) are all effective.

SPOTTING DEPENDS FOR ITS WORKABILITY ON THE DISLIKE OF A THETAN OF BEING LOCATED. IT RUNS BEST, of course, WITH THE THETAN AT CAUSE DOING THE SPOTTING.

Connectedness is the basic process on ASSOCIATION of Theta with Mest. All forms and kinds of association, including being caught in traps, are prone to become identifications as in Dianetics. Connectedness puts the thetan at cause in making the Mest (or people when run outside) connect with him. The command is “Get the idea of making (indicated object) connect with you.” The auditor points. The worse off a person is, the less reality he has on far objects.

Havingness is a complicated Connectedness. Also a permissive one. Thus Trio is above Connectedness and may be used when Connectedness is flat.


[The above is the complete text of Scientology: Clear Procedure-Issue One which has been available as a small paperback booklet and is referred to as a book or booklet in various issues.]



ABILITY CONGRESS LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
29—31 December 1957


The Ability Congress, held at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., December 29-31, 1957, was a record breaker for winter Congresses. The 300 attendees all seemed delighted with the lectures and seminars. The Congress opened on a note of comedy when L. Ron Hubbard “launched” a Fftnik which rose to the top of the stage and exploded into a shower of ping-pong balls. Immediately afterward, a round sphere circled the stage, emitting sputnik-like beeps.

Getting into the swing of it, the program continued with a complete rundown on the history of organizations, showing that a steady increase in volume shows Scientology to be of greater scope than Dianetics ever was at its highest peak. Mr. Hubbard gave a full description of the state of Clear and gave full details of the techniques necessary for producing Clears. There was no group processing this Congress; the audience did it themselves with co-auditing.

—Ability 64

5712C29 AC-1 Experience—Randomity and Change of Pace

5712C29 AC-2 The Clear—Defined

5712C29 AC-3 Clear Procedure

5712C30 AC-4 Cause and Effect—Education, Unknowing and
Unwilling Effect

** 5712C30 AC-5 Creating a Third Dynamic

5712C30 AC-6 Upper Route to Operating Thetan

571 2C31 AC-7 Responsibility ( How to Create a Third Dynamic)

5712C31 AC-8 The NAAP (The National Academy of American Psychology)

5712C31 AC-9 Creative Processing Steps

CONTROL AND THE MECHANICS OF S.C.S.

Published
December 1957

by
L. Ron Hubbard


Control and the Mechanics of S.C.S., although just a small thin booklet, contains vital data on the anatomy of control.


In 1956 LRH evolved processes for use in the processing of the personnel of a large London company so that they would get uniform results and would not be telling one another different processes during work. These were among the first packages to be “used on anybody” and are detailed in Control and the Mechanics of S.C.S.

The ARC triangle is our next to oldest property in Scientology (the oldest is the bank, the engram and the mental image picture), and in this booklet LRH relates ARC to Control, Havingness and Communication.


“Follow ARC down scale as per the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation in Science of Survival and as you go down you will find an area below the bottom line of the chart. That has to do with mass In other words, to wrap up this whole subject the only responses still extant at the bottom of the Chart can still be phrased in terms of control, havingness and communication.”
L. Ron Hubbard—Control and the Mechanics of S.C.S.


24 pages, soft-cover, two codes. Available from your nearest Scientology Organization or Mission, or direct from the publishers: Scientology Publications Organization, Jernbanegade 6, 1608 Copenhagen V, Denmark; or Church of Scientology Publications Organization U.S., 2723 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90026, U.S.A.

P.A.B. No. 127
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 January 1958

THE THREAT TO HAVINGNESS

Prepared from the research material of L. Ron Hubbard



The first step to processing a preclear is to find out if he has a present time problem and to handle it adequately enough to proceed with auditing. Often we have a preclear who comes to us basically just to get more able and as we process him we find that we are making no particular progress with this case. He seems to be doing everything just as we expect it to be done with no apparent gain.

The reason for this occurrence is the fact that the preclear is not doing the process in present time and has a present time problem that is interfering, of which he did not tell us. The fact about the matter is that the preclear himself does not really know, is not cognizant of the fact that he has a present time problem and is consequently a very “south” case.

I have found that a preclear who isn’t processing real fast on Procedure CCH isn’t doing the process because he has something which “threatens his havingness.” Since processing and havingness go hand in hand it isn’t surprising that the preclear will make sure that he doesn’t change since he cannot afford to expend more havingness in cognitions.

So this threat to his havingness is his present time problem of which he may or may not be aware and if you as an auditor didn’t handle it at the beginning of the session, it is certain that the preclear is not consciously aware that he has such a problem or is deliberately Lying to you for reason of shame, embarrassment—or that ARC is not fully present.

This threat to havingness is that which most prevents the preclear from having things. It is that which stands in his way to having and is thus a problem to him which he hasn’t under control.

What the auditor has to do is to find this problem for the preclear and then to handle it properly. This case is so low on problems that he doesn’t even recognize that he has one and his level of problems has to be increased otherwise he will create a problem out of auditing which is what happens when he doesn’t change. Auditing itself then becomes a problem to the preclear.

One handles this matter simply by going into good two-way communication with the preclear. (One-way communication as-ises havingness, two-way doesn’t and actually raises the tone of the preclear.)

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

One asks him if there is something that “worries him,” “presents a difficulty which he would like to handle or which is making life a bit troublesome,” or if he is about to “lose” anything (a pending court case, wife, business deal, etc.) or “if there is anything that he would like to change as it produces some pressure on him” and so forth. But the important question here is: “What most prevents you from having things?”

The moment anything arises, go straight ahead and ask him pointed but not evaluating questions about it so that he can define it into a more definite form. Ask him to tell you about it again, how it worries him, exactly what it is that has this effect until he can articulate it clearly and precisely. One can even play stupid so as to make him more lucid until one actually finds the terminal if it is a condition that is worrying him—for we handle terminals and masses only, and not conditions or effects.

After this one can state the problem to the preclear in practically his own words, asking him to listen carefully and correct one if one hasn’t repeated it accurately and then ask him to tell one if “it is a problem to him” and if he recognizes it as such. It is surprising that the preclear will look quite pleased to have this problem and will naturally want to hold on to it in spite of his protestations that he wouldn’t if you questioned him further about it. It would thus be wrong to suggest to him that it should be “solved” or taken away from him, for a problem is a game and a threat to havingness does and can reveal the hidden game the preclear is compulsively playing. Taking that problem would be robbing him of a game and the preclear would react violently or by not changing, since he thinks you are going to keep on taking all his games from him.

One thus tells the preclear that since he now has a problem it would be better if he had more problems which would be directly under his own control. One then handles this threat to his havingness by taking the terminal to the problem and running “Invent a problem of comparable/incomparable magnitude to (the terminal).”

The new problems he invents (if it is done with reality, and it is the auditor’s job to see that he does so) will not be aberrative since he has created both the intention and counter-intention that constitutes the problem and is therefore pan-determined in relation to these problems which he then can control. These problems will serve to move his fixed attention from the problem which he doesn’t have under control and the auditor can then proceed with Procedure CCH.

There is, however, a note of warning here. The two-way communication must remain “two-way” and also, this process can come dangerously near evaluation which must not occur. It therefore needs clever auditing to have the preclear discover this problem without breaking the Auditor’s Code. The auditor can ask “pointed” questions which will reveal it more easily, and even re-state the problem in clearer and concise language, but he must not evaluate under any circumstance.

This type of case, by the way, is a low toned case and needs a great amount of good control, and the first four steps of CCH must be thoroughly flattened before any attention and thinkingness processes are used.

It can be seen from the above that it is important at all times to look out for the things that threaten the preclear’s havingness and to handle them with problems of comparable/incomparable magnitude so that auditing doesn’t have to become a present time problem to you and the preclear.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

11 JANUARY 1958






HGC PROCEDURE


1. CCH 0 with PT Problem on E-Meter.

2. S-C-S and Connectedness to get pc under control only.

1 and 2 not “therapeutic” steps.

3. Step 6 Clear Procedure Connectedness used to extrovert pc now and then.

3 is the therapeutic step.

Run Intensive with 1 and 2 occupying no more than 1/5 of 25 hrs.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 JANUARY 1958





HGC RUNNING OF PCS



Use CCH 0 with PT Problem, S-C-S and Connectedness to get pc under auditor control and no longer.

Then use Step 6 of Clear Procedure as soon as possible and until end of intensive. Some Objective Havingness can be run if necessary.

Repair havingness on invisible and black objects in fields which are invisible or black. The test is “Shut your eyes—what are you looking at?” They’ll tell you and you establish whether field is invisible or black. Then use the above. Otherwise (if mock-ups are clear) don’t use it.

What can you mock up easily? Pc says, “An apple.” Do so. (Note meter.) (If reaction on meter choose something else.)

The command then is “In front of that body, you mock up an apple (pause) and keep it from going away. Did you keep it from going away?” Pc says he did. “Thank you.” The next command is “Behind that body, etc.” The next is “Above that body, etc.” The next is “Below that body, etc.” The next is “To the right of that body, etc.” The next is “To the left of that body, etc.” Then one begins the series again with “In front of that body, etc.” This is continued until E-Meter no longer registers a surge when pc does it. Now pick a larger object. Test it for surge on the meter. If meter surges, don’t use it, pick another, etc. Now go through same series. One runs this on at least 6 objects each one larger until he goes on to next, Hold it still.

Keep it from going away, when flat on many objects, is followed by the same command substituting “Hold it still.” This is done before, behind, above, below, to the right, to the left, the same way around and around. When Hold it still is flat one goes to “Make it a little more solid,” same command otherwise as before.

If this all flattens, start all over again now with more significant objects. Read Step 6 Clear Procedure.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 128
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 January 1958

THE FACTORS BEHIND THE HANDLING OF IQ

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s 16th lecture to the 18th American ACC
in Washington, D.C., on S August 1957


This past week has been an eventful one in research. It has culminated a four-year search for the factors which lay behind what is called IQ, or Intelligence Quotient. We have been taking tests here for many years and these tests were mainly used to establish change in preclears. We care nothing about the significance of the test. We do care, however, that these tests mirror change.

Someone may say that a test taken twice will, of course, get a better answer than one taken once. This is not true, since everybody in the MEST universe is on a “mustn’t happen again” and we automatically figure that a test taken twice would get a worse grade the second time. We have two different tests marked A and B which are supposed to give identical results. I have been waiting for the people who devised this test originally to say, “Well, you can throw the results in any direction you want to with these tests.” But we have given a considerable amount of testing to many, many people and we do find that a test will hold constant on a given person in the absence of processing. If a person is not processed the variability in the profile and IQ is very slight. Somebody who is not getting any results from any treatment or processing will register the same, test after test which is quite unusual.

Testing is a very old subject. It is not newly developed in modern times. One of the first examples of testing that we find is in the early Chaldean times. Testing of all kinds, sorts and descriptions as to honesty, intent, reliability, ability and so forth, have been with Man almost as long as he has been on Earth. In modern times these tests have been more standardized and reduced to writing.

Here, for example, is a test I heard about, from the 18th Century down in Georgia. It was a guilt test. Somebody had stolen something, so they would have all the negroes on the plantation line up and put a rooster underneath a big black kettle. This was a witch rooster or something of the sort. And they would say, “The man who stole it, when he touches the black kettle will make the rooster crow.” All the negroes on the plantation would go by the kettle and then the overseer merely had to go by and look at their hands. The negro who didn’t have any soot on his hands was, of course, guilty.

All tests, however, have had an end goal, and they of modern times are more or less as covert as this rooster under the black kettle.

Modern tests were originally devised in the total belief that Man could not be changed. From year to year people would get changes of one kind or another from childhood on, which would demonstrate the year’s IQ which might be higher or lower

Copyright ©1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

than another year’s IQ. They maintained that people advanced in IQ because of age, yet at the same time said that IQ could not change, would never change and could not be influenced by any particular factor.

I am rather astounded to discover that when a person is happy and takes the test, and when this same person is unhappy and takes the test, he practically gets the same curve on his personality profile with the same IQ. It does have a constancy. It was this constancy and an inability to understand the mind prior to 1950 which made people say that it was not possible to change Man or his IQ. A stupid man was stupid and a bright man bright and that was it.

People knew, however, that personality and IQ were not the same thing and were distinct from one another. So there are tests to measure personality and tests to measure intelligence. One of the ways one would observe this would be to take three or four men who had more or less an equal personality. The result of testing would show that they had more or less similar personalities but that their IQs differed. Or one could take men of the same IQ and test them, only to find that their personalities were completely different from each other.

I have known this ever since 1950 when the first testing was done. We either changed their personality or changed their IQ. Very often with a very successful case we changed and improved both. This created a mystery and we wondered why it was that when we ran an intensive on Joe his IQ changed and when we ran the same intensive on Bill his personality changed but not his IQ. In view of the fact that all of our processes were mixed to a large degree, including such things as havingness, 8-C, thinkingness and significance processes, and in view of the fact that auditors were different from one another, we had a sufficient number of factors in each one of these test representations to make it impossible to sort out. I could not sort it out.

Then I started on a project with the HGC auditors last week and wound up with the answer to this problem when I had no intention of doing so at all. It was just accidental that I found the answer.

Here is what happened. We wanted a process that we could write up in a book and send to ministers so that they could counsel easily and well, since the minister is doing a tremendous amount of personal counseling. If he could just sit down, according to these rules as he read them and get some sort of a result we would have been very happy. We called this project “Process July.”

We knew one thing about Process July: It was slanted in the direction of getting people to unburden their souls. We wanted to get the overt act-motivator sequence off the case. So we would have the minister write down the names of everybody the person knew and then pick out the most likely candidates and ask just one question about each one of those until we got this person straightened out. It would have been a straight wire question on a present time basis, such as “Tell me something you could do or say to valence.”

We do know that an overt act-motivator sequence is a reach-withdraw situation, therefore we had to test “withhold” since we obviously had this withhold situation to consider. (Now earlier processes already indicated this, and particularly “Recall a secret.” Don’t confuse this with withhold because they are not the same process at all. We merely wanted the person to open up and talk to the auditor when we were recalling secrets and if we did anything with it, it was totally accidental. But we did learn here about withhold.)

So the first question the minister would ask would be, “Think of something you could withhold from .” Now one of the discoveries that led to this question is

that divulgence and confessions had nothing to do with raising anybody’s IQ or improving his case. It wasn’t the fact that he confessed it or divulged it but the fact that he erased it.

We started running this “withhold” command for a couple of days and then went over to “What could you say or do to ,” varied that question around for a couple of days and returned to “Think of something you could withhold from (valence),” and found that the latter was the question that was producing the results.

Withhold is a games condition on communication and is a partner to the process, “Mock up somebody denying communication.” People are in an obsessive games condition which they have to play, although they are not aware of it, and on the subject of communication they are naturally going to be withholding obsessively.

We tested this process carefully and found minimal personality changes, but found that the IQs of the preclears changed remarkably. An old lady’s IQ went up from 84 to 105 and everybody knew that her brains were atrophied. It was an “impossible” jump for a person of her age. Another person quite advanced in years, between 70 and 80 years old, got an IQ raise from 109 to 133. An invalid’s IQ went up from 98 to 121 and a student’s from 101 to 126. There was an IQ change on every case on which this process was run.

The theory behind it seems to be this: The individual gets his mind so involved with the problems of some game with some valence or person that his computers are all tied up on that particular subject. When you restore self-determinism on this level you free the individual’s ability to think. An obsessive games condition is to withhold communication from somebody. When we take that off automatic and put it under the control of the preclear so that he is doing it, all of the involved mechanisms start working out.

That is why psychotherapy never worked. You have never seen before and after tests, whether IQ or personality, on a Freudian analysis. It is the ability to withhold communication which advances IQ and makes a person feel better, not the ability to divulge it. We’ve been told all our lives that all we had to do was go to somebody and confess. If we were to confess to our mothers and fathers that we did those dirty, nasty little things we would feel so much better. It isn’t true. You probably only felt better to the end of getting your pants spanked. This is an enforced communication and as an enforced communication would break through a games condition, in which a person found himself. It would demand that one communicate with the enemy and would depress one accordingly. Obviously, then, it is not true that divulging or confessing did anything for anybody, because the only improvement he got would be if he regained the ability to withhold that information without being upset about withholding it. The only disturbing element in secrets is the guilt which accompanies them.

For example: You took your old man’s car and it got a wobbly wheel. You put it back in the garage and he came out the next day and looked at it and said, “I wonder how that happened?” You stood there innocently, saying nothing. But you felt guilt. At length you felt as though you were going out of communication with him when these incidents piled up too high. Psychotherapy’s whole answer to this is that you had to throw yourself at your father’s chest and confess all whereupon all would be well. It wouldn’t have done a thing for you. What the bent wheel did was to overcome your ability to withhold communication by making you feel you ought to communicate. It interrupted your self-determinism on the subject of communication.

This is the reach and withdraw mechanism, of must reach, can’t reach, must withdraw, can’t withdraw and these are the two pairs which create the sensation of insanity. As an example, you must run away from the bogey man that’s chasing you

through the treacle. He is coming like a mad express train and there you are stuck. That is a nightmare. You must withdraw and cannot withdraw. The glee of insanity is only composed of this. People in asylums are stuck in this so they must withdraw and can’t withdraw, must reach and cannot reach.

All of the past psychotherapies are aimed at getting a person to outflow, and what do we find here? We find that intelligence increases and neurotic personality traits get better when we run withhold communication from valences. It is a fantastic reversal. We found this to be the case: that people from whom one felt that one could not withhold anything were the most aberrative valences on the case. We thus have a new definition for aberrative valences, namely the “cannot withhold from” valence, who is the most aberrative valence on the case. As you run it the preclear will say, “Well,” unreality, unreality, “I don’t seem to be able to withhold anything from Aunt Grace at all.” Ask a criminal what he could withhold from jail and he will find that he cannot withhold anything from jail. He will see facsimiles and other electronic phenomena sweeping towards some spot he considers jail since he is unable to withhold anything from jail.

We are looking at the basic anatomy of the track and the basic process by which one would run a track. You could be sitting in the middle of the trap and just dream it up for a while and say, “How did I get in here? I don’t know.” The only way anybody could keep you in a trap would be to give you the idea that you had to surrender to the trap and the way to undo this would simply be to think of something you could withhold from the trap—or track.

The other side takes care of itself. I don’t know how a thetan can keep from communicating with everything unless he feels he should withhold everything from everything. Remember, you are not trying to erase a lot of things. It is the regaining of the ability to withhold that you are working toward. It is a certainty process, the preclear selectively withholding things from canvas, typewriter or aberrative valence with certainty, because an individual has been in a games condition with the canvas, typewriter, drill press or the valence. It has absorbed all of his ideas and thinkingness and everything else, and they are all stuck and bunched up on the track. He is trying to think, “How can I communicate?” since communication is composed of selective withholding.

One thus gets this kind of activity. One has individuals in a games condition with their highest common denominator of a games condition, and that action is communicate, and they are trying to withhold communication from their opponents. Wherever they have considered an opponent to exist they have withheld communication from the opponent. Having decided to withhold communication from the opponent they now decide to communicate with the opponent because they have to, and you get a denial of self which is, of course, the basic aberrative pattern. We take this circumstance, look it over and discover that the individual has been made to break his own postulate—”I am withholding it”—because he considered this person an opponent and then he said, “I have to talk.”

When you can no longer withhold from a valence you become it, and we have the basic mechanism of valence closure, because what is the one thing that you don’t withhold from something you have become? Yourself. So here is a gradient scale of withholding.

One would run “withhold” this way: You would take an inventory of valences, their professions and habitats. A habitat is a place where the preclear has lived and couldn’t pay rent. In other words, the old homestead, his childhood home. There are a number of tricks by which one can isolate these valences without asking the direct question on the basis of comm lag or the fact that he didn’t mention at all in five people the two most aberrative people or valences on the case.

One would then establish a session with thoroughness and with questioning find out if there was a present time valence with which the person was very deeply involved and run that out with Problems of Comparable Magnitude. One would then move into the session and sandwich valences with Locational Processing. The command here is: “Think of something you could withhold from (valence),” not “Recall something.” The preclear would say, “Oh, yes, I can think of lots of things.” Now beware of an automaticity. He might strike a games condition on an automaticity that says, “I can withhold something from (valence).” That has to be flattened. Get to the point where he can withhold rather ordinary and routine things at his own discretion one at a time and that would be the ability to withhold regained, the only thing you are interested in.

When the preclear finally decides that he can withhold things from the valence, go into Locational Processing to orient your preclear in present time, and to command his attention. Then run the next aberrative valence. This one should be a little more difficult than the last one and so on to the next valence which should be stiffer than the last.

One should then pick up the preclear’s professional tools and run these on a similar gradient scale—the easier ones first and gradiently to the difficult ones—until he can withhold anything from his childhood home.

Flatten CCH 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 fairly well before you embark on this and then use ample Locational Processing for the remainder of the intensive and Lord knows what his IQ will be if you went for broke to this degree.

But remember that the process will not do anything unless you have some goals as to where the process is going, and the goal is to restore the preclear’s ability to withhold. This will bring the preclear out of all traps and is quite evidently IQ, and it changes valences only to the degree that it totally snaps the preclear out of that valence.

I hope this information is as valuable to you as it has proven itself to me and the HGC auditors who assisted me with this project.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 JANUARY 1958




CONTROL



The reason the auditor is having trouble getting off Control and onto Step 6 is that the auditor expects a technique to take control of pc. Auditing depends on the auditor taking control of the pc. When this is learned we’ll not have 20 hrs devoted to Control processes and 5 to Step 6. We will have 5 hrs to Control and 20 hrs to Step 6.

Control consists of the pc being aware of who and what is controlling him. So Find the Auditor is therefore part of Control.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




19TH AMERICAN ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
6 January—14 February 1958

“There were 35 students in the 19th ACC. During this course 15 of these students attained the state of Clear.

“The 19th Advanced Clinical Course began January 6, 1958 and ended February 14, 1958. The first two weeks of the course were devoted to a course in communication and indoctrination in order to smooth out the student auditing. The remaining four weeks were devoted to co-auditing. In each week half the class audited the other half, which means that each student, in the four auditing weeks gave two weeks and received two weeks of auditing (72 hours each).

“More students would have been Clear in the course if I had earlier developed a special method of reducing ‘fields’ (the plack curtains some people have). A development I released toward the end of the fifth week on this took care of the problem but several members of the course were not again audited.”

L. Ron Hubbard—Ability 68


** 5801C20 19ACC-1 The Four Universes

5801C20 19ACC The E-Meter (possibly same tape as 5801C24)

5801C21 19ACC-2 Intensive Procedures

5801C21 19ACC-2A Question-and-Answer Period

The list of lectures given to the 19th ACC continues in date order sequence on pages 206, 207, 216, 219 and 220.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY AD 8

For use of 19th ACC, Staff Clearing & HGC


MEST CLEAR PROCEDURE


1. CCH 0: Get PC into communication on the following points:
1) presence of auditor; 2) presence of auditing room; 3) presence of PC; 4) starting of session and when it will end; 5) PC’s goals; 6) possibility of help; 7) present time problem—if no blip, or only slight blip on meter, skip it. If needle action severe, use “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” Run to nul on meter. Use no other process for PTP.

NOTE: Use no Locational Processing at all during intensive.

2. S-C-S: (See Clear Procedure for commands [page 185] .)

NOTES: In all commands, use “that body” or “the body”, not “your”.
Run until no step unflattens the other steps.
Be certain to duplicate the full command exactly each time.
Acknowledgement is a Tone 40 “Thank you”.

3. Control Connectedness: Command: “You get the idea of making that (object selected at random by auditor with auditor indicating the object) connect with you.”

4. Clean-up of field: Command: “You mock up a (terminal in the same condition as PC’s field) and shove it into the body,” i.e., black field—black mass, invisible field—invisible mass, speckled field—speckled mass.

NOTES: ABSOLUTELY NO HECKLING ABOUT CERTAINTY THAT HE MOCKED IT UP.
Use patience, persistence, understanding, and kid gloves.

5. Creative Processing: Command: “In front of that body you mock up a (nul object, located on meter) and keep it from going away. Did you? Thank you.” (Tone 40 ack.)

NOTES: The “Did you?” refers only to whether he kept it from going away, not to whether he mocked it up.

Change the location of the mock-up on each successive command by commanding, “Behind that body ... ,” “Above that body ... ,” “Below that body ... ,” “To that body’s right ... ,” “To that body’s left ...”

When the first object has been run from nul to nul, locate a somewhat larger nul object with the meter. Run it nul to nul on the same command. You will then go on to a 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th object, each larger than the last, and each run nul to nul on “Keep it from going away”.

When all 6 objects have been flattened on “Keep it from going away”, run each one again in the original order on “Hold it still”. When this is flat, run the same 6 objects with “Make it a little more solid”.

NOTES: If a mock-up disappears or flies out of control, don’t red herring after it. Just have him mock up the same item again.

If PC becomes extremely introverted during session of Creative Processing, Connectedness may be used to end session. If PC should remain introverted for entire day, go back to Connectedness.

If needle consistently out of pace with supposed command execution, PC has lost auditor, is out of control. Re-establish auditor, or go to bottom again.

If auditor can locate invisible nul object or particle, running it will reduce body’s susceptibility to germs.

6. Creative Processing: repeat 5 with 6 different objects.

7. Creative Processing: ditto


LRH:-.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY 1958

ACCs

HPA/HCA


An ACC is a special activity.

It may modify HCA/HPA but not necessarily.

What is good in an ACC is generally taught in HPA/HCA sometime.

HPA/HCA is a tougher course by far and must prepare a student for all eventualities.

Thus HCA/HPA must cover all types of processing and theory.

Clearing a student is not in the province of HCA/HPA. Teaching how to clear is the emphasis. If they get clear it’s incidental.

They’re all auditors in HCA/HPA.

L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


5801C22 19ACC-3 The Bank Out of Control and Its Stabilization
5801C23 19ACC-4 Clearing Fields
5801C23 19ACC-4A Question-and-Answer Period plus Comments
5801C24 19ACC-5 E-Meter Identification and Association
5801C24 19ACC-5A Question-and-Answer Period: Step 6, Clearing Children
5801C27 19ACC-6 Clear Procedure l: What It Is You Clear,
Something and Nothing

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN #2 OF 25 JANUARY AD 8




REVIEWING WEEK’S PROFILES


In clearing pcs it is necessary for the auditor to cause something.

Abandon any idea of running significant objects ever. Always run non-significant objects.

Free the needle before you run Step 6 when needle is stuck. Two-way Comm and Str Wire will do it.

Totally clear up a field before running Step 6. A field is cleared by running repair of havingness on a terminal like the field. Don’t go running pcs on 6 who “think they see a mock-up” or who “have an ‘idea’ one is there”.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :-.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



19TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURES (cont.)
Washington, D.C.
27—31 January 1958

** 5801C28 19ACC-7 Clear Procedure ll: Man the Animal and Man the God
** 5801C28 19ACC-7A Clear Procedure ll: Q & A, Handling the PT Problem
** 5801C29 19ACC-8 Clear Procedure lll: One Clear Procedure, Q & A Period
5801C30 19ACC-9 Clear Procedure IV: Test for Clears
5801C30 1 9ACC-9A Clear Procedure IV: Q & A, Space
** 5801C31 19ACC-10 Clear Procedure V: Importance of Theory Behind
Clearing Procedure
5801C31 19ACC-10A Clear Procedure V: Q & A Period

Other lectures given to the 19th ACC are listed on pages 204, 206, 216, 219 and 220.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 JANUARY AD 8


FUTURE PLANS

Well, here we begin!

A well schooled auditor can take any volunteering PC and get him under control and run Step 6 of Clear Procedure and we have a Book One Clear.

Future of Research is Operating Thetan and the situation on Earth.

To consolidate this I am doing the following:

1. I am completing the 19th ACC.
2. I will groom up the DC operation until mid-February.
3. In mid-February I am going to London for 3 weeks to get London going on Clearing (because it communicates easily to rest of world). This for sure consolidates SA, NZ and Aust, which Man may need.
4. Returning to DC end of 1st week in March.
5. I will write our next “Book One” bringing us up to date and giving us a book for the book stores that advertises as the solution to Bohdi, the clear everybody’s wanted for 2500 years.
6. That done I’ll be in DC in late April.
7. The book will be published in June by Vantage Press. It will also be published in UK and France through Vantage contacts.

A pamphlet about Bodhi will be written at once for reply to ads in mystic magazines which announces the goal of 2500 years has been reached. It will be printed like a $1 or 5s book.

Here’s what Scientology Organizations should do:

1. Put announcements at once in all mystic magazines announcing state attainable. Steves has the ad copy.
2. Get pamphlet on clears published as soon as I complete it.
3. Get whole staff cleared by Co-audit and HGC where necessary. (I want all staff everywhere clear by June: easy to do and the results are startling.)
4. Get groomed up for the summer rush and see to it that it is a rush.

Well, in AD 8 we’ve got a kick-off for a much more rapid game. The scope of that game will be apparent to everyone when you start getting clear and making clears.

My game in research is not at end by a long way. For instance in research for OT actions I wrote 15 things the US Govt should do five weeks ago. It has now done 6 of them. When they’ve done all 15 I know we’re sailing (for the 6 may have been my telepathy or coincidence).

And organization know-how and expansion is a long way from ended. Map a comm center for the nearest ten stars for instance. We’ll be on deck to welcome the space ships when they get them!

Here’s our program then. REACH ‘EM. CLEAR ‘EM.

And my actions are all geared to making that adequately possible.

I think we’ll all get the notion shortly that we’re making it!

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD

[Some copies of the above HCO B, issued from London, were dated 28 January 1958.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 FEBRUARY 1958



CLEARING OF FIELDS

Definition:

A field is any thing interposing between pc (thetan) and something he wishes to see, whether Mest or mock-up.

Fields are black, grey, purple, any substance, or invisible.

To run Step 6 of Clear Procedure it is necessary to clear up “field”.

RULES OF FIELDS

We take a Thetan’s ability to see for granted.

His willingness to see may be poor but we increase it by increasing his confidence, decreasing his fear of objects.

Fear of seeing is fear of mass.

A pc can keep himself from seeing by destroying all mass. This is one way mock-ups fail to appear. He has an automaticity which destroys them before they visibly appear. Short duration mock-ups are similarly caused.

A pc that can’t see is reacting from a failure (or failures) of having tried to destroy something. He then tries to destroy mock-ups. Failing this he tries to destroy self. This is a scale of survival.

Persistence of mock-ups is therefore dependent upon a pc’s willingness to let one survive.

One of the phenomena most in the road of clearing is called a ‘‘field’’. It is a self-protective or destructive device.

For our purposes, however, the question of a field is simple. Common example, pc was held in a dark room. The room kept him from going away. It is an incident. The blackness he always sees is the blackness of the room which kept him from going away. This incident or many like it piled up is a “field”. It is only necessary to have him mock up black rooms, shove them into his body and keep them from going away (pc is cause here where the room was cause before) and the field will change. This is a rule: In any field, a PC was effect in an incident where he was being kept from going away. To clear that field, it is only necessary to have him create the incident, shove it into the body and have pc keep it from going away.

The main rule of fields is that pc must be made to reverse cause on the field from field at cause to pc at cause. As all fields are incidents, and as a pc is the one who mocks up these incidents, all fields can be cleared by attaining knowing cause.

Another rule is that a pc will confront anything to the degree that he is made familiar with it. Merely making him find and recognize fields will rid him of them. Merely making him confront objects will rid him of fields.

TESTING FOR FIELDS

Basic Method of Testing for a Field.

Aud: “Close your eyes.” “What do you see?”
PC: “Nothing.”
Aud: “Look at the room.” (Pc eyes still closed) “What do you see?”
PC: “Nothing.”
Aud: “Then something must be between you and room. What is it?”

etc. until pc sees field or eyelids or room.

Now repeat the same with a simple mock-up shape. (Egg, ball-bearing, or sugar cube.) Have him mock it up, look at it. If he can’t see it, ask what’s between him and it. Keep this up until he sees field.

You can also test for partial fields in areas.

CLEARING FIELDS

Basic Methods of Clearing a Field:

A. A “field” is one or more incidents.

Identify and Locate the incident making a field.

Have pc mock up the incident, shove it into the body and keep it from going away.

B. Mock up a terminal same shade as the field and keep it from going away.

C. Mock up a terminal same shade as field and shove it into body.

D. Run “Destroy a mock-up in front of that body. Did you? Thanks.”
“ “ “ “ behind “ “ “ “ “ “
“ “ “ “ below “ “ “ “ “ “
“ “ “ “ to the right of “ “ “ “ “
“ “ “ “ to the left of “ “ “ “ “
“ “ “ “ above “ “ “ “ “
“ “ “ “ below “ “ “ “ “

E. Take pc outside as in Waterloo Station and have him “Get the idea of destroying that (indicated body or object).”

F. Move pc on time track.

AUTOMATICITY OF FORM SOLUTION

A pc must know he is creating what he is creating. He is creating any mental pictures he sees. But he must know that he is creating.

Automaticity of form keeps him from believing he is making facsimiles. He has buried the ability to form complex objects. He “mocks up a man”. The mock-up is his. The form is an automaticity. Therefore he feels the mock-up isn’t his.

Simplicity of form will conquer this and regain a knowingness of mocking up. An entire clearing, including the handling of fields could be accomplished on a pc by having him do a gradient scale of forms in mock-ups, always using only mock-ups he is confident are his own and recovering his ability to destroy these mock-ups.

What is clearing but regaining awareness that one is himself mocking up all his facsimiles and regaining confidence he can destroy them as well as create them.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 129
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 February 1958

CONFRONTING


I want to speak to you about a phenomenon having to do with “enough” and “not enough.” This adds up to meaning “insatiable.” The thetan is insatiable as far as “enough” is concerned.

Just what is enough? That limit has never been agreed upon. For instance, the governments of populations have long since exceeded “enough” with internal revenues. But the fact of the matter is that if you object to taxes it is probably because there are not enough taxes.

I was fascinated to study (and I examined several hundred governments to discover what made them persevere) what people considered a good government to be. There are certain requisites to a good government. People seem to buy governments of tremendous duress; and govemments which are very sweet and polite and constructive are all lost. But governments which call in leading citizens, incarcerate them and tear off their toenails with pincers seem to be very well liked on the track. They persevere, not because the police and governments do a good job, but probably only because they can’t be confronted.

Justinian, the first great Christian emperor, used to call in the foremost citizens or members of government that had happened to make his wife a little mad and throw them into the nearest dungeon, torture them to death and sell their wives off to the Arabs for slaves. The leading general of this emperor was actually one of the great generals of all time. But every time he won a victory, Justinian would issue some kind of cross mandate depriving the victory of all significance. At the end Belisarius was rewarded by having his eyes put out.

The more people Justinian illegally taxed, burned and tortured, the happier everybody seemed about the whole thing. There was no smell of revolt. But the same people, just a few years before Justinian and just a short while afterwards, had perfectly good emperors with equitable taxes, just courts, and these emperors lasted only a short period before the populace was in revolt all over the place.

Well, what causes this? The answer is: enough government. The populace had an

idea of how much government there ought to be and if you didn’t give them that much government, they exploded. But they would have exploded to a much higher level if somebody could have caught them. But nobody ever did and as they came up on the upbound they just got a new tyrant who pushed them down harder.

The only reason I am talking about government is that I want you to see a preclear. Take somebody’s wife. He is mean to her and as long as he continues to be

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

mean she doesn’t explode. One day he decides to be kinder and she explodes. Here is a husband. He hardly puts his foot in the door and she jerks his pay envelope out of his hand, counts it very rapidly, tells him his supper is on the table—and it is cold mutton ! We get a tremendous amount of duress and then one day she is feeling poorly and doesn’t furnish this much duress and he explodes. What does this prove? Unless one applies a tremendous duress and bad 8-C people explode.

A preclear explodes under a mediumly mild 8-C which has regularity rather than a tremendous number of surprises. He has never been given orders he can follow before and all his effort to be orderly goes into restimulation. His efforts to be orderly were manifest at those times when disorder was in his vicinity. You start to handle him well and the disorder to his view goes into automatic and he blows up. This restimulates his efforts to keep a chaotic duress which he first used a long time ago to have an orderly duress against such chaos. You actually start running out the tremendous duress which he has had to apply to keep chaos from exploding. When that runs out you get an explosion of the chaos he has been holding down. You run out, by command, the duress which he has applied to chaotic times of his lives. As a consequence you get an explosion. It looks as though this individual thrives on nothing but chaos, but that is not true. He doesn’t want it and he doesn’t want anything to do with it. A short period of application of very good 8-C that is positive and won’t let him get away with a thing, will run this out.

An individual will apparently sit around in a sort of mucky apathy and be abused for years without anything happening because the abuse he is getting is sort of running out former chaotic periods of his life. It is in restimulation. It convinces him that he cannot handle the wife and that there is nothing one can do about government.

A person who is subjected to a chaotic duress year after year is not getting any place, but, and this seems to be the criteria by which this is judged, he did not revolt.

There is nothing confused about the auditor in a Tone 40 session. If you want a fast blow that will run this all out, you must be very didactic, positive and totally unconfused. He will pull out tricks like origins, then sly tricks and then somatics. None of them interrupt positive control. You just continue to run out all the times when he has tried to control things and has had them blow up in his face.

It is very interesting to watch a child move up into his teens. His parents have been giving him 8-C, family style—did you wash your face, why don’t you get a glass of milk, no there isn’t any milk, go to bed, no don’t go to bed, no get up, go to bed, no don’t stand up. When he gets into the teens all of a sudden his parents aren’t applying very much duress on him and he revolts. It is not really a feeling, sentient, knowing revolt at all. It is a restimulation of his own effort to take care of the chaos which happened to him years ago. So actually bad control breeds periods of chaos which will someday explode.

The actual appearances that come out of this are quite fascinating. One of them is that the individual needs a lot of dramas. You might say, “Well if the thetan can stand up to that much drama he must like it.” He does not like it but it is at least something to do. And that is his misconception of what is worth confronting.

For example, a man had a nice art collection, lived an orderly existence, was an interesting conversationalist and lived in his Maryland village. He never had a caller. One day he died and the whole environment went to his funeral. Obviously a funeral is worth confronting but a live being isn’t. Just add this up to what we used to have to say about Acceptance Level. Now we have Confronting Level.

Another man hardly had anybody to talk to him in the office. He did a good job, and there wasn’t anybody who ever talked to him particularly. One day he got sick and

everybody in the office came to see him clear down at the hospital. If he had got sick from leprosy they all would have come in the first five minutes.

An individual has a concept of what is worth confronting, and all of the chaos which he has been handed has got him so confused that he doesn’t understand that things don’t have to be horrible, terrible, miserable or dramatic in order to be confronted. He falls this way straight away from confronting the universe around him, and he confronts only the horribleness and nastiness and so on.

Lately the Book Review tells us that a book called Andersonville by McKinley Cantor is supposed to be and is advertised as the greatest Civil War novel ever written. I took a look at it. It isn’t about the Civil War at all. It is about a prison camp erected in Georgia by Southerners in which they incarcerated damn Yankees. Every nasty foul condition of humanity is delineated, painfully and unartfully at exceeding length. This low tone level is something that is worth confronting.

Have you watched TV lately, some of the 1.5ing and high toned TV actors acting at 1.5? That is evidently worth confronting. If you could just figure out what a lot of people consider to be worth confronting and then give it to them you would probably come up with much greater popularity than anything else. The same thing goes for the circus and screen. Hollywood got the idea and I imagine laid a tremendous multibillion dollar egg with their Vista Vision and Wide Screen. They are getting actors bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger screens, and finally you sit down and begin to feel like an ant crawling on one of the actor’s knees.

There is another side of the manifestation. We have the anxiety to be confronted. We get these two things in conflict with each other, and those two things in their adjustment make the drama of life.

Where do we find preclears stuck? They are stuck in drama, and one gets the idea that that is something worth confronting. They go off on a gradient scale to things nobody could possibly confront and which they never did confront and then go anaten.

First he starts facing these things which are, he considers, worth confronting, and if he considers enormous drama the only thing worth confronting then he easily falls into enormous chaos. When he goes over into enormous chaos he gets caught up in the fact that nobody could possibly confront the thing, but he is already stuck on an earlier postulate that there was nothing worth confronting and so he gets no havingness in the physical universe.

People run such tricks on other people’s havingness. They tell him nothing around here is worth looking at. “This is a dull town.” (I think America invented the small town just to convince people there was nothing worth confronting.) These small communities, with their small minds, work one way or the other on making nothing out of things that a child was willing to confront. So they bred, as the child grew older, a contempt for anything in his vicinity, and he started looking for things that were worth confronting.

Here is a sample process which could go: “Mock up something that isn’t worth confronting. Make it a little more solid. Thank you.” The person gets streets in his immediate vicinity. He gets havingness and the only things that he could ever get havingness from. Yet his total idea is that none of this is worth confronting and he never sees it. Thus you get your standard homo sapiens, vacant eyed, walking down the street.

As an example: On a lovely cool day people were riding and walking down the street. One lady pushed a little boy in a cart and they were all going along vacant eyed.

All of a sudden the woman pulled the tongue of the little cart up and catapulted the little boy out onto the pavement with a crash. Instantly traffic jammed up. The kid wasn’t even hurt, he just cried a little, but all the cars stopped and their passengers popeyed onto this terrifying scene. People stopped walking and crowded around the spectacle. That was worth confronting. The ingredients of blood-curdling drama were added. But when the little boy wasn’t hurt and he shut up, looks of disappointment were on all faces and the crowd dispersed quietly to the vacancy of other blocks.

Another process on this line: “Mock up something that nobody can confront,” and we discover the favorite games of psychos. Not a productive process at all. By the way, when you get something that nobody could confront you get black minds with ridges, shooting stars and space opera flying around them that they could not make head or tail of.

If you said, “Invent something to confront. Mock it up and make it a little more solid,” you would probably get the best process that can be worked out of this morass. The individual would gradually change his mind concerning things there were to be confronted. There are no such things as can’t be confronted at all. There are only things which are difficult to confront.

“Mock up something you’ve got to confront” and you get the standard run of the mill, homo sapiens nonsense such as alarm fires, funerals, etc. We also get work. Work is considered to be about the last thing that anybody should ever be expected to confront. The Anglo-American view is to put a tremendous amount of kick in the pants on this thing called work. The way you work out work as something that is impossible for anybody to confront is to discourage a child when you see him perform any work. You say, “Oh, get out of my way. It’s too much trouble to show you. You’re in my road.” And by the time he is six or seven he’s thoroughly educated that he will not be permitted to work. And then the laws of state keep him from getting jobs and earning money so that he can escape from the tremendous dependency of family. Further up in his teens they realize the police have a vested interest in crime and they have here a good quality juvenile delinquent. Then he is not permitted to work either. We get him in his early twenties and insist he get married and then we show him that he’s got to work. Here you’ve got one of these super duress got-to-confronts. No wonder people get tired, because every time you put them into a “got to confront” you run them into all the emergencies.

What is an emergency? It is something that requires a necessity level. What is a necessity level? It is a heightened willingness—a sudden heightened willingness which untaps a tremendous amount of ability and you get these tremendous feats. Now this cycle of super energy and application winding up with super tiredness gets applied to the work-a-day world of turning a lathe or driving a truck or keeping a set of books. He’s got to get the work done and he finally goes into total exhaustion. This is because he has no orientation on what’s worth while confronting. This adds up to the fact that Man goes into an emergency level of activity when he has got to confront and his whole lifetime is one long activity at an emergency height. This tells us the reason for the hectic anxiety to get the work done. The human body has its limitations and cannot stand that since it is built on a number of “now I am supposed to’s” and every time you have the problem handled you go out in the middle of the Sahara Desert and “now I am supposed to have a drink of water” keys in and you haven’t got it licked at all.

“Mock up something you have got to confront” brings to the guy the tools of his trade. Run it a bit further and you’ll get women if it is a man, and vice versa. It is a “got to confront.”

You can ask what the solution of confrontingness in the preclear would mean in terms of exteriorization. Things that are impossible to confront, that are not worth

confronting, each play their role in exteriorization. A person who is dead in the head knows that he couldn’t possibly confront a skull of a body, but he has got to confront one.

I would say that it would take a lot of preparation with the early steps of CCH before one started soaring into those rarefied realms of confrontingness. There is one process called Locational Processing which works out a tremendous amount of confrontingness and controls attention at the same time. It is run Tone 40, with great accuracy and precision by the auditor, who then controls the preclear’s attention which was previously controlled by facsimiles. And a steady control like that runs out the preclear’s attempts to control. Locational Processing happens to make the thetan make the body confront the wall. This is an objective confrontingness process. As a subjective one, “Invent something to confront. Mock it up and make it a little more solid,” is very good, and they are at present the two standard confrontingness processes in Scientology.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY AD 8



FREE CLEARING PROJECT


It is vital to have cleared auditors.

The Hubbard Association of Scientologists, International shall offer to its professional membership only, the facilities, technique, quarters and schedules adequate to effect clearing.

Anyone reporting to Washington who is an HDA or HCA in good standing with the HASI will be assigned co-auditing facilities. The auditing quarters, technique tapes, scheduling and supervision will be made available without cost. The only expense incurred by the participant would be transportation to, food and living quarters in, Washington.

Clearing on this project would be done on a co-auditing basis with staff supervision. Estimated time is from 3 to 5 weeks. No guarantee of result is made since it is conditional upon participation.

This project is open until the end of April 1958 only.

Charters and franchises will hereafter be given to clears only according to recent board resolution.

This is not an ACC and in no way parallels an ACC.

Only professional auditors—Hubbard Dianetic Auditors and Hubbard Certified Auditors—in good standing are eligible. Reinstatement is attainable on payment of one year’s dues of $15 for those whose membership is not current.

The HASI reserves the right to refuse to enroll persons in the project or to terminate participation of any person with or without cause.

We need thousands of cleared auditors for current projects.

Report to the Registrar FC any Monday.


Copyright © 1958 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



5802C03 19ACC-11 Clear Procedure Vl

** 5802C04 19ACC-12 How to Find a Preclear, Responsibility and Help
Clear Procedure Vl I

** 5802C05 19ACC-13 Clear Procedure Vlll: The Basic Approach to Clearing,
Finding the Auditor

5802C05 19ACC-13A Clear Procedure Vlll: Q & A Period

Other lectures given to the 19th ACC are listed on pages 204; 206, 207, 219 and 220.



Issue 66 [1958, ca. early February]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



The Attainment of “Clears”


L. Ron Hubbard



A CLEAR. A person at willing and knowing cause over his own life, his body and his surroundings and without a reactive or subconscious mind.

I have been receiving congratulations the last few weeks for having developed techniques which make it possible for auditors other than myself to clear people.

It has taken more than eight years to cross this bridge. I made the first Clears in 1947-49. Then I wrote a book about it—Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. I honestly thought people could clear people with that book. But all it really did was make people able to heal people, not clear them.

People got better when audited by others. They did not get clear except in rare cases.

So the past eight years has been occupied in the making of a bridge so that others could clear others. Now it appears it has been done.

First I had to find out what I was doing. Then I had to find language to describe it. Then it was necessary to develop a discipline which could do it.

Well, apparently we’ve won. It has taken eight years. But it is done. We are making “Book I” Clears in the Hubbard Guidance Center. We are making them in ACCs. We are making the grade in staff co-auditing.

For much more than 2,500 years, Man has dreamed of this goal. When Gautama Siddhartha (623 B.C.) rose in the East as a Buddha, he could bring about the state of Bodhi in a man. Nearly all of his teachings concerned the attainment of this goal. The state of Bodhi is evidently our “Clear.” (It is accidental that the goals compare.) But from this action of a few reaching “Bodhi,” more than half the civilized world was changed.

It was forecast at that time that some day in the West someone would make it possible for this to occur in one lifetime and for many. Regardless of the prophecy, it is evident that we are now able to bring about a state higher and more acceptable than Man has believed possible. And it is very important that many people can accomplish the state in others.


Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Further, it is now possible to train a person to create the state in others with a few months of work at the Academy. And it is possible to bring about the state of Clear in from 30 to 275 hours of professional auditing at the Hubbard Guidance Center.

So an eight-year bridge-building program draws to a close and I find myself engaged in communicating the data and researching toward an even higher state, one not even embraced by earlier literature—”Operating Thetan.”

The staff attitude here concerning Clears is interesting. Only within the last few weeks has the staff as a whole become aware of some of the magnitude of all this. It required about five Clears around the organization headquarters, one after the other, for people to wake up to what has happened. And then more days to realize that these Clears had been brought about by auditors not yet clear. And finally more days to realize that Clears were being made by somebody other than myself. And finally, that:

1. At the Academy we teach all the skills necessary to clear people.

2. At the Hubbard Guidance Center, staff auditors are using only techniques to clear people.

In other words, the staff woke up to find that they were doing it and that they now were doing nothing else.

In the 19th Advanced Clinical Course, clearing began to occur with routine student auditing.

And in the broad field of the public an awareness of this seems to be coming about. We have some advertisements running in magazines that simply invite people to come in and get clear and people we’ve never heard of before are arriving with no preamble and signing up and sitting down to get cleared—just like that.

What an enormous amount of data has been covered in 25 years! I’ve combed into almost anything and everything for the answers. The answers were not as simple as one would expect. But they were simple enough to get the job done.

An old-time Dianeticist came in during the 19th ACC, looked at the students and what was happening and was the first to put it in words—”Thanks for making it so others can do it.”

Well, that’s what’s happened.

The practical aspects of this are apparent in such things as a new Board of Trustees order to the effect that charters in the future would be given only to Clears, by an order to worldwide staff to be clear in six months, by a co-auditing clearing project for professional auditors here in D.C., at no cost.

You could say that we’ve been marking time as an organization waiting for this day. The day has arrived. We need mark time no longer. In the teeth of a worsening world, we’ve made it, no matter what happens on Earth.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

It can be done for you.

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 FEBRUARY 1958


HGC CLEAR PROCEDURE OUTLINE


CCH Ob—HELP IN FULL

STARTING SESSION



After clearing any pt problem with “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” run CCH 0 for help. If any difficulty whatever is experienced or if pc has field, run CCH Ob in full.

This is formally audited. Each command is cleared with pc word for word. And a bridge is used for every change. Run until E-Meter is flat or field vanishes or both. This is a 9-way bracket.

How could you help yourself? How could you help me? How could I help you? How could I help myself? How could you help another person? How could I help another person? How could another person help you? How could another person help me? How could another person help another person?

This, I think pretty well does away with any difficulty with fields. Note: There went the only randomity in clearing. I nailed this in the 19th ACC where only 7 cases in 36 were not progressing. All these had fields. All these had difficulty with help. Incidentally, a black field is in reality a betrayal. A betrayal is help turned to destruction. The dichotomy of destroy is destroy-help. When help fails destruction occurs, or so goes the most basic consideration behind living. There are many ramifications of this.

LRH:-.rd
Copyright © 1958 L RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



** 5802C06 19ACC-14 CCH-0, SCS, Connectedness
** 5802C07 19ACC-15 Help—How to Get Started
** 5802C07 19ACC-15A Q & A Period and Group Processing
** 5802C10 19ACC-16 Conduct of Clear
** 5802C10 19ACC-16A Q & A Period: Help, Clearing a Command
** 5802C10 19ACC-17 The Key Processes of Clearing
5802C11 19ACC-17A Q & A Period
** 5802C12 19ACC-18 Havingness, Anaten, Flows—in Relation to Clearing
** 5802C12 19ACC-18A Q & A Period: Postulates, Flows, Valences

Other lectures given to the 19th ACC are listed on pages 204, 206, 207, 216 and 220.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 FEBRUARY 1958
(corrected)




RULES GOVERNING THE RUNNING

OF CCH Ob “HELP”



When pc has a pt problem, run pt problem as prescribed in HGC Proc of Feb 6. Then use the following.

Thoroughly clear command word for word and every time auditor uses a bridge.

Always bridge no matter how brief number of commands is.

Run on E-Meter on help until needle is loose, not nul.

Help follows laws of flows not terminals. See Scientology 8-80 for flows. Anaten ensues when one direction of command is run too long.

E-Meter needle that is stuck will run to loose if proper flow direction is selected. If a command is run too long needle will go past a loose state and into a new stick. Reversing command frees needle.

Help also frees valences.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:-.rd Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



[In the original issue of this HCO B, the first paragraph read, “When pc has a pt problem, select most intimate terminals on these and run problems of comparable magnitude and/or help in brackets, a few commands each bracket.” l




19TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURES (cont.) Washington, D.C.
13— 14 February 1958

** 5802C13 19ACC-19 Other Processes—the Help Button
5802C13 19ACC- 1 9A Q & A Period
** 5802C14 19ACC-20 Responsibility for Mock-ups
** 5802C14 19ACC-20A Q & A Period: Present Time Problem
5802C14 19ACC-20B Q & A Period: Present Time Problem (cont.)

Earlier lectures given to the 19th ACC are listed on pages 204, 206, 207, 216 and 219.



Issue 67 [1958, ca. mid-February]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.


Man’s Contest with the Machine Age


L. Ron Hubbard


The humanities, until now, have been defeated by the raging chatter and disinfected order of the Machine Age.

Man as a creation has been overwhelmed by his own creations, the drill press, the typewriter, the superbomb and the moon-carrying missiles. Bewildered, he knows the octanes in his fuel, the calories in his stomach and the wavelength of Radio Rome, but he does not know his own thoughts, his intentions, the source of his fears or the reason for the decay of his discipline. He can fire a bomb half around the world and yet like a hand closing in a death throe, the boundaries of his empire draw inward. From his chromium-banded car he gazes out at throngs of his fellows going where they do not know or why.

The Anglo-American peoples have launched upon the world a technology bound by perfection to win against and across all other cultures, but they have not launched with it a technology of the mind or a code of behavior adequate to guarantee the conquest.

Borrowing from a Russian, already a slave to the Anglo-American machine age, all they know or use of insanity, the authors of our industrial age have found boundaries and limits to their own conquest in “human humiliation.” Human inability has placed a ceiling on the height Man can go into space, upon the amount of technology that can be absorbed by a savage race and, less romantically but far more practically, upon the efficiency of a business office.

Man is in trouble. He has invented himself into a dead end. The more efficient his machinery, the clumsier become his mind and behavior.

It is our business to match the forward advance of the machine sciences with a comparable advance in the humanities. We have done so in Scientology.

With Scientology we can restore the freedom of the individual, the discipline of the group, the pride of accomplishment and the understanding necessary to use the Machine Age before it itself uses Man entirely.

We recover here our miracle and ability to do and to live or we perish in the howl of an upsurging wave of savages or of a down-coming bomb.

We did not civilize the native. We overwhelmed and equipped him for revolt. We did not advance our clerks and executives as we advanced their equipment and their duties.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

We have the only workable new civilization and technology since Rome fell. We have not given it the philosophy and know-how that will permit it to win.

In the midst of everything material we need, we live in a vacuum of pride and courage and so we can fail.

Scientology adds to the Anglo-American potential that philosophy of humanness necessary to our winning. Without it our peoples will continue to crumble and break before the savageness of the machine and its remorseless toll of our hope, our courage and our will to do. We can still win—with an adequate philosophy to know and to do.

We have it in Scientology.

A Clear is above all this.

P.A.B. No. 130
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 February 19 5 8

“DEATH”

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s 12th lecture to the 18th American
Advanced Clinical Course in Washington, D.C., on 30 July 1957


The whole subject of death has been one of the more mysterious subjects to Man and it has only been in Scientology itself, and not in Dianetics, that the mechanisms of death have been thoroughly understood. When I say thoroughly understood I mean, of course, only the mechanisms.

We know a great deal about death and we are actually the first people on this planet that do. This is one of the larger wins of Scientology.

It is very easy to forget about death because that is what death is, a forgettingness. However, we do have a considerable amount of information on this subject and you are entitled to that information.

Man is composed of a body, a mind and what we refer to as the thetan. Exteriorization processes give a person a considerable subjective reality on the idea that he himself is a being that is independent of a mind or a body and that there actually is a separateness between them. One doesn’t even have to be carried along to a point of where one exteriorizes in processing in order to get a reality on this.

This subject has been fully covered by me since 1952, when I defined the thetan as in Axiom 1 and devised techniques to separate any preclear from his body. This was the first scientific evidence that Man has had on the subject of the human spirit. Man thought he had a human spirit. That is totally incorrect. Man is a human spirit which is enwrapped, more or less, in a mind, which is in a body—and that is Man, Homo sapiens. He is a spirit and his usual residence is in his head and he looks at pictures and his body carries him around.

When we look at the fact that Man is a spirit which has a mind and a body, and when we describe Man in that fashion, then it becomes extremely simple to understand what his difficulties would be. His difficulties would be basically with his body or with his mind and we can understand that there obviously would be difficulties with him as a spiritual being. He has to think that he can get into a trap, has to get the idea that he can be in danger before he can get into danger. In other words, the thetan has to give permission to be trapped before he can be trapped, and is therefore easily untrapped. The moment he is untrapped he gives birth to all sorts of interesting phenomena which we know as the exteriorization phenomena, all of which are quite easily demonstrated. I actually constructed a meter once that could measure and prove a thetan to have an electrical field around him—independent of energy ridges, bodies and such combinations as that.

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

What happens to Man when he dies? Basically all that happens is that a separation occurs between the thetan and the body. However, he takes old facsimiles, energy phenomena and bric-a-brac that he feels he cannot do without, with him, and attaches this to the next body he picks up. He does not build a body in this lazy time of manufactured items and Frigidaires and so on. He picks one up off the genetic line, and the genetic line is a series of mocked-up automaticities which produce according to a certain blueprint from the earliest times of life on this planet through until now. Everybody—people even in biology know that there is a definite succession of steps that life takes today, as they announce in their theory of natural selection and evolution. We understand it rather thoroughly that something goes through these steps.

There is the cycle of action in Scientology which is Create, Survive (persist), Destroy. At the shoulder of the curve an individual is mostly interested in surviving, early on the curve he is interested in creating, and at the end of the curve he is interested in the disposition of the remains.

When we apply this cycle of action to the various parts I described, we get a death of the body, a partial death of the mind and a forgettingness on the part of the spiritual being, which is in itself, again, a type of death. Actually bodies stay around for quite a while after death since it takes some time for them to decompose—certain parts before other parts—and the cells in the cuticle and hair evidently live longest.

The first thing one learns about death is that it is not anything of which to be very frightened. If you are frightened of losing your pocketbook, your money, your memory, boy or girl friend, well, that’s how frightened you ought to be of dying because it’s all the same order of magnitude.

Here we strike the first observable phenomenon when we find out that the mind, in spite of mechanisms which seek to decay and wipe it out, does maintain and preserve mental-image pictures of earlier experiences. With the proper technology and an understanding of this, one can be again in possession of the mental-image pictures of earlier existences in order to understand what was going on. In view of the fact that we have not restored remembrance to the being, the mental-image pictures usually just continue to be pictures. We send somebody into a past life and he looks at a mental image picture and you might as well have sent him to the art gallery. He himself has no connection with this because the mental-image picture may be the mind’s or the body’s. (The body carries around mental-image pictures and the thetan does the same and these two combine to form the mind.)

The mind, then, is a bridge between the spirit and the body, and the mental-image pictures formed by a thetan added to and confused with the mental-image pictures formed by the body is usually how a thetan stays in a head. He confuses the two and therefore demonstration of past existences by running somebody “back down on the time track” and having him look at a picture is not very convincing. He has always had some unreality about it, has no recognition of having ever been anything else before.

The restoration of memory to one of these beings is of great interest to us, since all that is really wrong with him is that things have happened to him which he knows all about but won’t let himself in on. Therefore the restoration of memory is done as a matter of course in almost any processing, and in view of the fact that it is part of any processing, it is impossible today to process somebody, well and expertly, without having him sooner or later get some sort of a recall on a past existence with some small reality.

An individual’s own will has a great deal to do with this. One should not look for outside sources as to why his memory is shut off. Just as he must grant permission to be trapped, so must he grant permission to be made to remember. He is more or less

convinced that a memory would cause him to re-experience the pain he already feels has been too much for him. He is very reluctant to face up again to this mechanism, and facing death, he almost always goes into a bit of amnesia.

The fact that one has lived before is so restrained that it itself is the reason why it is forgotten. The unpopularity of it in other ages and this one brought about a forgetter mechanism which causes an occlusion on the subject of death. The fact that one cannot talk about it is enough, all by itself, to continue to cause the forgetter mechanism.

A way to plot this would be to ask somebody, as an auditing question: “To whom can you tell the fact that you have been dead?” It works something like this: “Tell me the one person in the world who does not believe that you are insane.” It has a fantastically cataclysmic effect upon a person. He sort of believes he is going wog and spinning and so forth, and when you ask him that question you have broken the agreement chain.

You could ask a similar question, “Tell me one person in the world who believes you live more than once,” and you would get a similar reaction.

I have plumbed into this subject very deeply with lie detectors and E-Meters, checking up with grown-ups and children from all walks of life. You can, with the aid of one of these meters, put a person in such an incident. There is a peculiar behavior of the needle. It is a little hunt of the needle, and it just hunts back and forth over a small area quite frantically. It indicates that a person is still sitting in one of these exteriorization incidents.

We know a great deal about havingness and that if a person suddenly ran out of havingness he would die and we would expect so much loss of his possessions and so forth to wipe him out. It doesn’t wipe him out. This is what ordinarily occurs. He backs out at the moment of death with full memory. At that moment he knows who he is, where he has been, and so forth. You’d expect a total occlusion but it does not occur at this point. It is not true that a thetan in excellent condition gets some distance from the body and then doesn’t care about it any more. That is simply a phenomenon of havingness. When we first found that, we thought this was always the case, but we were striking at thetans ordinarily low on the tone scale. Those who forget about it immediately and do not care have actually gone into the sub-zero tone scale. In support of this you can pick up on the track times when a fellow backed out of his head and was mad and just kicked the stuffing out of the person who killed him.

At a certain level a person who had to “have” tremendously would get just so far from a body and say, “Well, I don’t care. I’ve had a very unhappy time during that life and I’m awfully glad, I don’t care.” But that person was so little alive when he was alive that his aliveness after he has died is also negligible. A person a little higher up when somebody knocks off his body, would have an interesting reaction to this. “I’ll show them they can’t put me out of the game,” and he’ll dive halfway across the country, see a maternity hospital and grab the body of a baby. Somebody higher than this would not have been in contact with bodies in the first place.

We get a very fascinating exteriorization here because it is totally cognizant. The person knows who he is and usually has very good perception. He knows where his friends are and for somebody to come around and point out this fantastic spiritual phenomena that somebody has appeared to them after he had died several thousand miles away is something like being terribly surprised because a waitress came to the table in a restaurant. If a person is killed with sudden violence and he is very surprised about the whole thing, he is sufficiently upset and unphilosophical about it that he is liable to go around and see his next of kin and the rest of his friends in an awful frenzied

hurry, trying to reassure himself that he hasn’t gone to purgatory. (“Purgatory and hell” is a total myth, an invention just to make people very unhappy, and is a vicious lie.)

He has suffered the loss of mass. That is just about the frame of mind the thetan is usually in when he finds his body dead. If he is below 2.0 on the tone scale his major thought is to get another body. This he can do by finding a young child that he could bring back to life. Thetans are very good at this. But the ordinary entrance is some time around what we call the “assumption,” and the assumption occurs within a few minutes after birth in most cases. That is the usual procedure, but the thetan can hang around for some time.

They’ll hang around people. They’ll see somebody who is pregnant and they will follow them down the street. They’ll hang around the entrance to an accident ward and find somebody—some body—that is all banged up and pick up this body and pretend to be somebody else’s husband or something of the sort.

It isn’t necessarily true that all of this is taped, measured. I am telling you what is standard about this behavior and what is not. It is a case of how fast you can pick up a body before somebody else gets it. So there is a certain anxiety connected with this. Thetans often say very interesting prayers at the moment they pick up a body. They dedicate themselves to its continued growing and they are so pleased with the whole thing that they dedicate themselves to the family and go through all kinds of odd rituals of one kind or another. The odd part of it is, they don’t shut their memory off until they pick up another, a new body, and the shut-off of memory actually occurs with the pick-up of the new body.

There is a phenomena series known as the “between-lives” series, and people have some sort of a thing mocked up whereby somebody goes back through a between-lives area. This can be plotted, it is not unusual, but it is certainly not a constant. Until thirteen or fourteen hundred the between-lives area operations weren’t thriving at all. Then they started to pick it up more and more. They had to knock witchcraft totally out of Europe before the between-lives area clubs started thriving. They had to knock out any idea about demons and spirits. In other words, they had to make one feel guilty for hanging around and admiring the trees with no body to look through.

They succeeded in doing this. You can make a little child sick by just talking to him about this sort of thing, by mentioning ghosts and spirits and how bad they are and how fearful they are. He gets upset because (1) you are restimulating times when he exteriorized and (2) you are invalidating him and throwing him down tone like mad. He is a ghost, a spirit, a demon. He is all these bad things they have mocked up.

In view of the fact that two exteriorizations take place, it could get very complicated as one looked at it because the GE exteriorizes. I don’t know much about that except that there is something that mocks up bodies that we call the genetic entity and it skips from life to life. In other words, even a body doesn’t live only once. It is so obvious once you look at it that if a body lived only once it would never have learned how. The intricacy of a body, itself, is something that is developed over a long period of time.

When you realize that you have the capability of endowing things with life then we don’t even know that the genetic entity is alive. It might just be machinery or computation of one kind or another that goes on and that you continue to endow with life to some degree until you separate from it.

Another interesting phenomenon about death is that a thetan will stay around a body until it is disposed of properly. You can take an E-Meter and any preclear, and

you can find times when he has been left out on a cliff and nobody even put a lid on the coffin, and there it was exposed to the wind and rain and he will stay around there until that body is totally dust. Bodies left out in the open decompose. Bodies buried in the ground go to pieces in a hurry. The rate of decay of a body is not really a point in question except that a thetan will try to accelerate it if the body isn’t cared for. A thetan doesn’t much care concerning the actual disposition of the body as long as it isn’t given any more indignity than it suffered in the lifetime. He is apt to be very upset about indignities rendered to a dead body. Even while he is “in a body, alive,” when the body is apparently alive and he is taking one around, he gets upset, if he is in any shape at all, about bodies being abused and mistreated. Much lower on the scale he is still upset about indignities to dead bodies and dead things.

He associates the body with his own identity to the degree that every time an indignity is rendered to the body he thinks it is to some degree being rendered to him; therefore he hangs around a body until it is properly disposed of. When people make wills in which they declare a certain disposition of the body, it is a very wise thing to do, if you want him to live a happy life elsewhere, to carry out those wishes, because that is his idea of what proper care is.

The Egyptians had the idea of living forever and so they wanted their bodies to live forever, but don’t think that a thetan hung around just because his body had been mummified. As far as he was concerned he was on some other genetic line and he would not particularly be upset about his body if it had been hauled out of a tomb and been put up in the Metropolitan Museum. He already would have been too far away from it to worry about it. One very worrisome case was that of a thetan whose skull was used by a carnival who put a motor in the jaws to make them keep on opening, and the thetan just couldn’t take it. I actually had to unwrap a preclear from that particular skull. He still had a finger on it even though he had another body. People actually become curators of museums just to keep a finger on a body they might have once had.

Mary Sue is the sweetest tempered girl you ever saw. We went into the British Museum, saw a whole bunch of jewels lying there and she went completely 1.5. She just got so mad that even I couldn’t talk her out of it. Finally I took her home, put her on an E-Meter and her total conviction was they were still safe in a tomb someplace.

Every once in a while some fellow will go into some area and go completely berserk and not know quite what is wrong with him. Well, he probably got killed there or something of that nature.

The subject of death is never a very serious one to a Scientologist beyond the fact that he feels kind of sorry for himself sometimes. There was somebody of such terrific elan, who made him real happy and this person was thoughtless enough to dispose of the mock-up and go out of communication and the Scientologist feels unhappy about it, for it is a thoughtless thing for a friend to do. This, by the way, is a very early concept of death. You now more or less progress back to death as it was regarded very early on this particular track in this universe. People didn’t regard it very seriously.

Death is in itself a technical subject. You can, with considerable confidence, reassure some husband whose wife is dying or has just died that she got out all right and she is going someplace else to pick up a mock-up. If you got there while the person could still talk, still communicate with you MEST-wise, in the last moments they usually have something spotted, something planned.

Now, sometimes a thetan gets so furious that he gets hallucinatory. He goes around killing all his enemies in all directions and they don’t even exist. Motto: Have your reality in good condition before you die. There are many processes which

exteriorize people and give them high reality on this. Amongst those processes the key process that produces the phenomena without any great shock is old Stop, Change and Start—it produces exteriorization rather easily.

Thetans do not become body cells, walls and can get out of any trap they are in, but sometimes it is better to be in a trap than nowhere, and that is true of most people.

A thetan very often carries with him a theta body, which he mocked up on the past track and which is a number of facsimiles of old bodies he has misowned and is carrying along with him as control mechanisms which he uses to control the body he is using. He eventually develops quite a heavy, thick, automatic-control theta body. They are quite interesting. Many have electronic claws and all sorts of things. Usually the theta body structure has an electronic beam that goes down each of the fingers and he opens and closes his hand with beams. This is going off into structure, but he sometimes pulls out this theta body complete and simply takes it along.

Losing your pocketbook, some treasured possession or your body are all alike, and because of the forgetter mechanism a great mystery is made out of this. But that is death—phenomena of. And I hope sometime or another you may have no use for this whatsoever.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MARCH 1958

Distribution:
All Staff
Bulletin Board
Field Offices
HCO London

PROCESSES


When running Problems of Comparable (or incomparable) Magnitude, use the following three parts. Do not omit any part:

1. “Invent a problem of comparable (or incomparable) magnitude to (terminal).”

2. “How could that be a problem to you?”

3. “Can you conceive yourself figuring on that?”

Note: Question 2 may be omitted only if the preclear tells you how it could be a problem to him while answering the first part.

------------------

CONNECTEDNESS: Insertion of the word “You” in the command:

“Get the idea of you making that (indicated object) connect with you.”


Best,

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:md.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 131
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. Ron Hubbard
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 March 1958

THE SCALE OF WITHHOLD

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s 17th lecture to the 18th American
Advanced Clinical Course in Washington, D.C., on 6 August 1957



CCH 9, Tone 40 “Keep it from going away” is a withhold process. We know it to have a considerable workability. The road to solids, toleration of solids, lies through withhold. Only we never had a straight wire version on this before or anything that clipped it directly and immediately, but we have it here with Tone 40 “Keep it from going away.”

CCH 9 proves that we are dealing with the automaticity which goes as follows: everything that comes along is used by a thetan to keep things from going away. He gets a cannonball in the stomach and says, “Ah, that moment of impact kept the body from going away. So I’ll make a picture of the impact”—hence the necessity for pictures—”and have it keep the body from going away from here on out.”

That is why people hang on to impact engrams. It is fear of loss—fear that they will lose a body. They do other things. They fill the atmosphere around the body with machinery so that other thetans will be afraid to come into it and take it over, take it away.

“Keeping things from going away” is a basic mechanism which guards against loss. As you know the mind runs on a gradient scale from thought through effort to solids. Actually the mind is already graphed on the tone scale. That is the gradient scale of approach between something that is nothing and total solids at the other end. It isn’t that the person himself becomes a total solid, but his approach to solids is on a gradient scale through less solids and misemotions and plain emotions and energies, like aesthetics, to just thought.

When an individual gets hold of something like a cannonball in the stomach, he says, “That certainly got there in a hurry. That I can directly handle because it handled me so well.” He keeps things from going away. He guards against loss with impacts. He also does other things with impacts. He uses them as control mechanisms. It would not be put beyond a thetan to take a cannonball engram on the right to move his body to the left and vice versa. It is handy and requires no effort. He just puts a slight thought into the line and says, “Move to the right.” The cannonball goes into restimulation and he moves over to the right. This could be a good system.

He uses these “keep-it-from-going-aways” as control. In other words, he lets the body be shoved around by things and he keeps those things there and thus he can control the body rather easily—but he deteriorates at the same time.

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

An individual can also very easily take a cannonball engram and hang it on somebody else’s head to make him bow. Very often you start to audit a preclear and you find out that you are auditing a stomach out of his right arm or a head off his left foot. This is the interchange of facsimiles, and thetans do use facsimiles on others.

Way back on the track there is a thing called the Engram Police. It is quite amusing to get a thetan into some kind of condition where he can be policed—to be confined for thirty days in the space opera trap.

Facsimiles have a use and then they have the lovely attraction of also being mass. A fellow who keeps money for its own sake is the type of person who would keep facsimiles for their own sake.

You, as an auditor, start to look for the significance of why this preclear has this thing stuck in front of his face and you may find that he is merely keeping it for its own sake.

Facsimiles either keep you where you are or the body where it is. They are control mechanisms. Sometimes a thetan will get a series of engrams all hooked together—shoulder with an arrow, stomach with a crossbow through it, leg with a spear in it and a few slinging stones that are back of the left eye. That is a nice combination and moves the body rapidly. You start to shift the engram a little and the body jumps, and you move this at somebody else and he jumps as well.

The service facsimile is a series of facsimiles which you call a facsimile, which can be applied to the control of others very nicely. But after the individual has been on the track for a few billion years using one of these combinations, he sooner or later flops.

If an individual is to have anything to do with facsimiles, he is going to be somewhere between solids and thought. By gradient scales of concatenation and by lots of postulates about association, which gets into identification, finally this scale can become relatively solid. He can think a thought and turn on the solid at the other end of the scale.

We look this over and we see that the movement and the motionlessness of people can easily be handled by facsimile patterns.

Throwing things away or dispensing with them is much inferior to holding on to them. I near killed some preclears trying to find this out. Which side of the reach-and withdraw mechanism is the one which can be audited? I have found that the “reach” one is good and high toned—not games condition activity. That is communication. Unless you have an opponent situation you would certainly run “reach.”

In view of the fact that everybody has some games condition on almost everything we can run withdraw, and withdraw is the side we can run rather endlessly. (By withdraw we mean “withdraw something from” because this builds up and increases havingness.) “Withdraw it from” or “Hold to yourself” the object holds good anywhere up to a couple of hundred hours of processing. Man will communicate outward to the degree that he can hold inward and the monitoring thing is the “hold inward.”

Every time a psycho comes into the foundation we find that they cannot separate anything from them. I used to try to process them on getting them to throw away a single scrap of paper and with very good results. That is an extreme case of hold, hold in to self and withdraw it from others. You will find out that as a person heads on down the scale it gets that bad—but what complicates it is that it has inversions, and right above this “clutch it to the chest this tight” would be an inversion of “throw it away.”

Which one solved it—the “throw it away” or the “clutch”? People cannot throw away ad infinitum. They run out of havingness. We are really only concerned with a person’s holdingness to himself. That gives us an engram bank, puts the bank in restimulation and upsets things endlessly.

Now, “hold it in” solves both “hold it in” and “throw it away.” An individual’s communication is raised by holding things in. Here is a nothing that couldn’t duplicate any mass busy holding mass in to himself. He comes to harm because of it. His abilities go to pieces and his penalties and that sort of thing all accumulate on him. Everything a thetan has done wrong he carries around in little pictures to remind himself how guilty he is. It is probably the result of a number of considerations peculiar only to this universe.

We have to increase a thetan’s ability to hold. When this ability to hold is emphatically good and he himself can do it, he will abandon all these cannonballs in the stomach. In other words, he abandons all this lower scale automaticity of having things held for him.

Holding on to, when it becomes automatic, goes out and beyond one’s power of choice, which automatically can start by power of choice, but after that it has to violate it all the way to be automatic. One doesn’t stop an automaticity. An automaticity, when and if it stops, wears out.

If we have everything holding on to things for us, such as gravity, body holding on to you, and all kinds of things holding on for us, we eventually get to a frame of mind where we feel we are being totally cared for. But at the same time we don’t dare reject anything because it might be some of our hold-on-to mechanism and a thetan doesn’t reject.

For a thetan to re-acquire the ability to hold on to things, is not necessarily the same as a thetan having to destroy all automaticities. Automaticities, quite incidentally, fold up when the thetan starts to re-acquire the powers and abilities contained in an automaticity. We do not take over automaticities to destroy automaticities. We take over automaticities only to rehabilitate the ability of a thetan. We just take them over because they are robbing the thetan of his ability to perform. (The inflow principle of the universe is being used to hold on to things rather than the thetan’s ability to hold on to them.)

Power is contained in the ability to maintain a position in space.* If you can’t maintain a position in space you will never have any power. If everything is holding things in to you, they will eventually start moving you around and the moment this happens you no longer have power. An individual’s ability to withhold, his ability to hold and his ability to keep something from going away, are part and parcel of his ability to maintain his own position, situation or location.

Some people start confronting and immediately fly out of their heads. Eventually they get so that they can sit there and confront and hold their position. This is a necessary point in confronting. You have to be able to hold the position in the face of something. Higher than this, or lower down since it goes either way, we realize that to keep something from going away is a sort of confrontingness. Keeping things from going away is an ability which gradually cultivates the ability of the thetan to remain where he is.

If you can keep a wall from going away, the ability to hold still in general is regained. One then is able to confront things and can then recognize solids. First you

* Refer to Scientology 8-80 by L. Ron Hubbard.

have to acquire this ability to keep things from going away, then finally discover that you yourself can be stationary—which gives you the idea of confronting—and as soon as you are willing to confront then you can make things more solid. And that is why these three processes, CCH 9, 10 and 11, are run in this manner.

The solids and the solidity that you are willing to confront have an awful lot to do with your ability to hold still or hold things still, and your ability to hold things still has a lot to do with your ability to keep things from going away.

But here is a basic ability in the keeping of a secret—being able to withhold things from others. We have a whole span of keeping things from going away, all of which simply begin with the withheld thought, which is what a secret is, and it scales on further to a withheld object.

When an individual has regained his ability to keep certain things from going away, he could then start in on the basis of holding things still, but he will never hold himself still for the excellent reason that he isn’t there to be held still. He can only suppose he is in a place. And this depends upon his ability to hold other things still.

Now, “Keep it from going away” solves both outflow and inflow. “Hold it still” solves motion and no motion. We have motion and no motion and you really don’t solve motion with motion. You solve motion with “hold stillness. “ And the ability to confront and confound solids solves alike something and nothing. To be able to confront a solid, then, makes a person capable of confronting no-thing.

Here we have six items and their gradient scale. The first two of these items are a pair called “reach” and “withdraw,” or “throw it away” and “hold it to you.” And that bracket is solved only by running “Keep it from going away.” The next one up is “motion” and “no motion”—action and stillness—and those are solved by running “Hold it still.” The last bracket, we have somebody who is terribly fascinated with vaporous “nothingness.” To solve nothingness we run solids. The person will graduate rather rapidly up to being able to confront nothing if we run solids. But we don’t run nothings—conceiving statics. We run solids and what we do is pick him out of those places where he is totally convinced of solids and you walk him back to the world of thought. The gradient scale goes from nothing through emotions, through effort and facsimiles into solids, and you get him back up to where he can handle it on the effort band and up above into thought.

These processes can be run by formal auditing and are not necessarily Tone 40. If you have a very figure-figure case you better run it formal. It will run more easily for you. But first flatten CCH 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 and then run this combination of processes and win like mad.

L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 132
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 March 1958

REPORT ON TWO CASES THAT HAVE RECEIVED

PSYCHIATRIC AND EURO-RUSSIAN THERAPY

FROM THE GOVERNMENT


Recently two cases came to the attention of the HGC which had received former mental “therapy” of the Euro-Russian variety.

One of these, a 32-year-old shipworker, had been four years in prison for having committed a crime of violence.

The other was a 46-year-old man who had received a dishonorable discharge from the Army.

Both cases were picked up at random from the general run of workers.

It was found that both had received mental “treatment.” The first had been given considerable attention in prison from “clinical psychologists.” The second had had “psychiatric interviews” in the Army.

Neither case had been in any way improved. Both had been antagonized. The first committed a “grand theft” after release from prison and was in no sense a safe factor in society. The other case, even though court-martialed and discharged for drunkenness, was still getting drunk and losing jobs.

These two cases had one thing in common—they had been made contemptuous of mental treatments. They had to be forced into session due to their former experiences.

Both were improved by processing and could have been completed as cases. As soon as this was established they were let go as this was all that we cared to discover.

We can assume that Euro-Russian mental treatment is a liability in that it destroys any faintest hope of recovery. We can also notice that money spent by the prison and the Army was wasted.

It is noticeable that neither the prison nor the Army paid any attention to public safety in these cases. Two men were released in a worsened state and permitted to victimize the public. Thus all measures taken were apparently detrimental to public well-being.

We can further notice that our task in Scientology is being made harder by the presence and practice of Euro-Russian psychotherapy and the handling of criminals in government areas.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

A time has come for a reform of these matters.

The correction of prison and Army systems of punishment and the introduction of mental methods which do not make cases less approachable are both needful.

In a national disaster the presence of a large number of criminals and insane in our midst, unreformed and loosed upon us, could well mean the fact that gives us defeat.

The time to start is now, not when a man brings chaos to the whole public.

L. RON HUBBARD


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MARCH 1958
(revised)


CLEARING REALITY

A new rule.

In the absence or unreality of a terminal the significance in a process will not function.

In other words, the significance of help will not function on a tooth unless the pc is given a reality on the terminal of a tooth.

On a nervous-dispersed case, there is no real gain in running significance until hellos and okays are run on something.

Command “You say hello to that body.” “Have the body say okay to that hello.” “Have the body say hello to you.” “You say okay to that hello.”

When pc has misemotion off the interchange, then run help in brackets on the same terminal.

Establish the reality of a terminal before you try to clear it with significance.

A pc in extreme pain can be audited if one clears reality on the hurting terminal and then runs brackets in help on that terminal. Note: Extreme control must be used in attempting this.

The above applies to objective terminals. Subjective might or might not work.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :-.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 70 [1958, ca. late March]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.




Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training?


L. Ron Hubbard



To answer the important question “Does Clearing cancel training?” all you need to do as an auditor is clear someone without training him and then say to him, “All right. Go out and clear people.”

You’ll get a blank stare.

Why?

Because Auditing skill is a discipline in living and a know-how of the parts of life which is in itself something new in the universe. Even OTs don’t have auditing skill since there have never been any auditors behind them.

There is such a thing as learning. There are such things as data.

The fact is, that a cleared Zulu is a cleared Zulu. A cleared advertising man is a cleared advertising man. A cleared Zulu is not a cleared advertising man.

Now a Zulu uncleared has scant chance of becoming an advertising man. But a cleared Zulu would probably be able to become one rapidly. And there’s the difference.

Being clear gives one the potential of being and makes the being rather easy, and fun. Further, being cleared makes it possible to continue to be something. There’s nothing wrong with being clear. A person ought to be. The state is so valuable several hundreds of millions of people in the past 2,500 years have concentrated on nothing else.

But how about getting clear and staying clear forever? The auditor alone with his data well learned could manage that.

Remember, you were clear once—trillions of years ago. Why didn’t you stay that way? Because the traps were well designed and you had no anatomy of traps.

Well, Scientology does have the anatomy of the traps, the Axioms, the discipline and know-how necessary to handle and control the laws of the universe. Scientology is the data necessary to live.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

If everyone were now to concentrate only on how to get clear and forget all about how to stay clear, we’d be back in the soup in a century.

Oddly enough, the best time to study auditing is when you’re aberrated—when the thing looks impossible, when you can achieve subjective reality on the grimness of it.

The best things a person can do are to (1) get trained and (2) get cleared. Auditors will always be senior to clears. Always. That became very obvious in the 19th ACC. People who weren’t clear created clears.

If a person gets cleared first, he can, of course, learn very rapidly how to be a good Scientologist. If he is to be a very good being he will be both a good auditor and a clear. That combination cannot be beaten.

If we had only clears and no auditors we’d have another slump ahead. Scientology is not in the experience of anyone’s back track. It is itself. It is the one thing senior to life because it handles all factors of life. Scientology could not have happened earlier because there was not enough livingness to study. We have arrived near bottom.

There are people getting cleared now all over the world. Just remember that you share the agreement of the society in which you live. You’ll have to be able to audit to skillfully handle aberrated persons. And it will take a lot of auditors to have a cleared society.

Right now it’s all right to keep your eye on that first dynamic and get clear. You should. But when, suddenly, you find you’ve achieved clear, remember when I tell you this one thing:

There are eight dynamics.

You cannot stay clear unless you solve things by the equation of the optimum solution: The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. Failing to so solve things dug you in to where you were in the first place.

Scientology got you out.

Stay out by knowing Scientology well.

I look forward to seeing your bright, smiling face, clear or not, in the Academy or an ACC, or both, in D.C., or London, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa. A Clear world to be, needs you as a good and skilled Scientologist.

And that’s how you’re going to help me.

Okay?

L. RON HUBBARD

P.S. When I solve a case I always ask the pc for one unnamed favor. I’ve never called these favors in. The favor I tell you now for the first time: Whatever else you are, be a good Scientologist and help me clear these Earth people.

P.A.B. No. 133
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 April 1958

PROCEDURE CCH

Compiled from the Research Writings and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard


(The following series of PABs are devoted to an elucidation of Procedure CCH and should by no means be taken as a complete exposition of that procedure. This course of information will be fully covered in the newly completed but as yet unpublished basic handbook for all auditors: “The Student Manual” by L. Ron Hubbard, which is the most comprehensive book ever issued from the pen of LRH on auditing procedure and all that a Scientologist should know about how to audit and practice.

Further, the numbers of the CCHs don’t necessarily agree with “The Student Manual” except from CCH0 to 5, since these PABs are based on a workable procedure called Procedure CCH [Long Form], given by LRH to the HGC staff auditors here in Washington, D.C., in 1957.)


CCH ZERO:

CCH 0 is firstly establishing the Rudiments of the session, discussing the goals of the preclear for the intensive—also established at the beginning of each separate session—handling the present time problem and clearing the auditor for the preclear. The latter has become very important in modern auditing.

One establishes the session by calling the preclear’s attention to the room, the auditing environment, to let him know that he has arrived for a session. This can be done by light “Locational Processing.” At this point one doesn’t have to belabor the Rudiments.

Following this there is a discussion of the preclear’s goals for the session and intensive and making sure that these goals are not wild or completely outside the preclear’s reality. He may, for instance, want to be an Operating Thetan while hiding in mystery and he will thus not achieve that goal unless he has full reality on it. In other words, the auditor makes sure that the goals which the preclear has set for himself are goals which the preclear can work towards and attain without much difficulty.

The auditor then defines for himself—but does not inform the preclear of—his own goals and intentions for this session so that he does not grope blindly with techniques without knowing which way and why he is guiding the preclear. Often auditors work in the dark without setting goals for themselves toward which to guide the preclear. Best of all is when the auditor can align the preclear’s and his own goals for the intensive.

After this the auditor must inquire if the preclear has any pressing present time problem which needs immediate attention. It is fairly safe to say that every preclear on

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

earth today has a present time problem. The more the preclear has the easier they can be handled. If the problem is not pressing and will not interfere with the processing, then the auditor can continue further. Should there be a scarcity of problems the preclear will hold on to and dramatize that problem and the situation has to be remedied either with Problems of Comparable or Incomparable Magnitude or by Locational Processing.

A lot here depends upon auditor judgment of the case (and it is, of course, best to have preclears tested at the London or Washington Academies to aid the auditor), but should the preclear be too low to handle the present time problem, the auditor should only run Locational Processing to bring the preclear up to present time. Preclears who are very low toned do not even vaguely have their thinkingness under control, and to run “problems” would be a waste of time.

Since many preclears do not know much about their condition or what they are working towards, LRH has found a very good way to clear this matter. This process is a Rudiment called “Clear the Auditor” and known as “Help.” It is surprising, after running this process for an hour or so, to find that many preclears do not believe that they can be helped by anybody and are unclear as to what the auditor can do for them.

This is the best way of clearing the auditor and making the fact that they can be helped to help themselves clear to them.

The commands for this process are as follows:

“Could I help you?” “How?”
“Could you help me?” “How?”
“Can I help anybody else?” “Who?” “How?”
“Could you help anybody else?” “Who?” “How?”
“Do other people ever help other people?” “How?”
“Do men ever help women?” “How?”

and the auditor just does this on a big, long bracket.

Of course, it is necessary to see that the preclear does not give machine answers and that he is fairly sure that this can be done. Two-way communication here is important and a lot of it could be used.

This process becomes a fantastic way of dealing with the preclear and is valuable in many ways. For example, you can take Father and Mother valences which are usually aberrative and run them on Help in brackets.

Running Help is necessary on a case that is hung up, because the only reason he is sitting there is to “waste” help. You can run such a case on any process, no matter how excellent, on a basis of “wasting help” until the case simply cannot find enough ways to waste help and he goes down the tone scale.

One has to understand that the case which isn’t changing is trying to waste help. It isn’t a case of “finding the auditor” in the Rudiments nowadays, but of “clearing the auditor.” The only point on which he can be cleared is “Help”—”Can I help you?” or “Can you help me?” and asking “How?” each time to keep the command real to the preclear and applicable. No conditional answers are accepted and the preclear has to find real answers.

The whole purpose of CCH 0 to quote from “The Student Manual,” is “to make known the beginning of a session to a preclear and the auditor so that no error as to its beginning is made; to put the preclear in a condition to be audited. “

CCH 1:

CCH 1 is known as “Give Me That Hand,” and is one of the most effective entrances to cases yet devised. Apart from having great beneficial effects it is also used as a Rudiment. For example, soon the preclear finds that there is a mass sitting in front of him (the body of the auditor) and that he is occupying a mass in the chair—and thus the environment takes on a more real shape.

To illustrate this better, here is a brief description from an LRH lecture to the Washington, D.C., HGC staff auditors: “Most preclears are completely unaware of their own body or that of the auditor. GMTH brings the preclear back onto the Scale of Reality, which runs this way (from the top of scale down):

Postulates, Agreements, Solids (masses, terminals), Communication Lines But No Terminals, which dwindles into Confused And Complex Communication Lines, and eventually into No Lines—and you’ve got mystery.

“Applying the Scale of Reality to GMTH, you have a preclear who is in mystery. You take his hand often enough with an acknowledgment (‘Thank you’) at the execution of the command and he slowly, through some dope-off, becomes aware of a solid line of communication—your arm grasping his hand to his arm—and that becomes more solid until he goes through the complexities and confusions of communication lines and gets them straight enough to recognize a solid terminal sitting in front of him (the auditor’s body sitting there, a mass, a terminal). He thus gets into communication with a solid terminal. As he comes upscale he does not have to use solid comm lines to communicate but can do so by agreements (symbols, words) and higher upscale just by postulate.

“As Opening Procedure by Duplication demonstrated the accuracy of the Know to Mystery Scale, so Give Me That Hand proves the accuracy of the Sub-Zero Tone Scale and the Reality Scale. Preclears will go into dope-off and a state of confusion, engrams will fly off as the complexities and confusions of comm lines fade into where his and your hands will become real to him. He will most likely recognize you as the first real terminal he has ever had.”

This is a Tone 40 process.

Tone 40 has been defined as “Giving a command and just knowing that it will be executed despite any contrary appearances. “ (This is not the 18th ACC definition.) In other words, Tone 40 is positive postulating.

“The Student Manual” has the following to say about the procedure and the running of this unique process: “Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in the preclear’s lap and ‘Thank you’ ending the cycle. It is Tone 40, with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way, verbally or physically.” However, one can freeze the process after a cycle of action has been completed if one is sure that something is occurring which needs further “fishing” for a cognition.

This is the first step to the control of the preclear’s body, which is the basic element of Control-C-H (CCH). We first have to bring the preclear’s body under your and then his control before we can attempt to bring his attention or thinkingness under control. And processing follows that basic pattern all the time—control of body, attention and thinkingness.

This is a very precise process, being Tone 40, and Tone 40 demands accurate precision into which one has to be trained to be efficient. Further information will be found in “The Student Manual,” which will be published shortly, or in the Validation Courses run in Washington, London or by Gold Seal Certificate holders.

As a last note on this process, there is a negative side to this if your preclear is “withholding” communication from you and it simply runs in smooth Tone 40 as follows: “Don’t give me that hand.” “Thank you.”

The preclear will get frantic after a while and want to give you his hand. By telling him to withhold his hand, and acknowledging it so that he receives the acknowledgment, you are telling him to do what he has been doing all his life and consequently ruin that mechanism which has been “withholding” all the while, when you take over the automaticity.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 APRIL 1958





ARC IN COMM COURSE


There are two types of Auditing. Both include control. They are called “Formal Auditing” and “Tone 40 Auditing”.

The first is control by ARC. The second is control by direct Tone 40 command.

The first, Control by ARC, is taught in Comm Course. The second, Control by Tone 40, is taught in Upper Indoc.

The two are never mixed in teaching. Tone 40 is never taught in a Comm Course and is not even permitted. ARC is not taught in Upper Indoc.

The most widespread weakness in auditors prior to this date is an inability to use step one of Clear Procedure (Participation by the pc). This is only good ARC in the Training Drills of Comm Course. Auditors are now too prone to let CCH Ob Help do the work. Auditors fail to make the pc feel they are interested in the pc when they handle him with poor ARC.

We care nothing about ARC in Upper Indoc. We want command, we want Tone 40. We do not even handle pc origins in Upper Indoc.

Students must understand that there are two types of auditing. They should realize that Tone 40 is for the unconscious, the psycho, the non-communicative, the electric shock case pc. The student should realize that ARC formal auditing is not chatty or yap-yap, but it is itself. It has warmth, humanity, understanding and interest in it.

Academy Dir of Tr, Comm Course and Upper Indoc Instructors should keep this in their hats as needful technical data, since we must turn out auditors capable of handling pcs with ARC.


LRH

LRH:bt.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 APRIL 1958



AUDITING THE PC ON CLEAR PROCEDURE


We must not lose sight of the fact that only TWO processes clear a pc. All others only support these TWO and make it possible to run these two.

These processes are:

1. Help, CCH Ob

2. Step 6, Mock-ups. Keep it from going away, Hold it still, Make it more solid.

First in auditing we have to get pc to sit there and be willing to be audited. We have for this many processes. Best is TR 5 “You make that body sit in that chair” “Thank you”.

Next we are continually confronted with keeping pc in session. This is done with good ARC. No process can supplant good auditor ARC. Pc must know auditor is interested in him. This does not mean auditor does not control pc or let him gabble but it does mean that pc and auditor have ARC.

The next condition which must be met is the eradication of present time problems. This is done by “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?”

Psychosomatics may come under head of a p.t. problem. One runs hellos and okays on the terminal to improve reality on it. “Say hello to that (body part)—have it say okay to you. Have it say hello to you. You say okay to it.” One can also run “What part of that (body part) can you be responsible for?” One can also have pc mock up “unknown (body part)”. One can also clear help on that body part. As a psychosomatic is a concentration of attention it fulfills the condition of a p.t. problem which is “any worry that keeps a pc out of session, which worry must exist in present time in the real universe”. One can run all of these on a resistant psychosomatic.

One should clear help on objects and terminals connected with the pc’s job.

One should clear help on the terminals of the various dynamics.

With an E-Meter needle nul and free on help, one can go to Step 6. This doesn’t mean that one should not later return to help. It may be Step 6 must be approached with S-C-S and Connectedness. The needle will tell. A heavily stuck needle is worse than a wildly surging one. Connectedness clears stuck needles.

Step 6 can be run just as in the book “Clear Procedure.” [See page 172.] If it is too tough for pc, run help and responsibility on pictures.

Then complete Step 6 with great thoroughness.

Rising Scale Processing Modern Version is very good. However, even though it works low scale, it is in reality an OT process, not a clear process. Rising Scale can be run on any consideration. The basic is “Get the idea it is impossible to reach anything”. “Now Postulate that you can reach everything.” There is no fancier version. There are other buttons besides reach. The basic command is get the idea negative. Postulate the positive.

This is clearing. It works as well as one directly approaches the task of clearing with the above.

But clearing cannot happen in the presence of

1. A present time problem not flat.

2. Poor auditor-pc ARC.

3. Putting the pc at the effect end of life in or out of session during an intensive.

4. Detouring into contributory processes in the belief they will clear rather than set up a case. And

5. Leaving untouched zones of irresponsibility and zones of refused help.

I wish you good luck in clearing.

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




[PAB 142, Auditing the Pc on Clear Procedure, 15 August 1958, is taken from this HCO B.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 APRIL AD 8
Issue II




A PAIR OF PROCESSES


Now and then I overhaul some old process once in use and see what can be done to make it work.

Op Pro by Dup and Forgetting are a pair that recently showed up as having a possible specific value—i.e. to create a specific effect upon a specific difficulty.

Evidently Admiration and Critical are a dichotomy. Maxine Kozak suggests that Duplication is Admiration. From this I looked over Critical on the APA (OCA) profile and saw that the low critical might be influenced by Op Pro by Dup. A test should be made of this.

The other process is less nebulous in action. The specific for a bad memory is Forgetting run in Brackets. You will ordinarily find an automaticity of forgetting when you ask “Recall something you wouldn’t mind other people forgetting.” This is a “bad memory”. Nothing like a good conscience to retain a good memory.

The commands of Forgetting would be a 6-way bracket.

Recall (or think of) something you wouldn’t mind

1. Forgetting yourself
2. Another person forgetting
3. Forgetting about another
4. Another forgetting about you
5. Other people forgetting
6. Another person forgetting about another person.

Each command is cleared. The commands are run in sequence rather than repetition.

This is a low scale process. Goes lower than “Not know” but graduates into it.

This is a basic on unknowns and fields of whatever kind.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:bt.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.


HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1958




CCH 88—ENFORCED NOTHINGNESS


When the following command is relatively flat on an auditor or instructor he may run it on HGC pcs and teach it as part of curriculum to students. But it must be somewhat flat on auditors and instructors before use or taught publicly.

The command is a repetitive command. It is used with some 2-way comm to punch cognitions.

The name of the process is Enforced Nothingness. Number CCH 88.

The command is: “Mock up some people who made you want to make nothing of things.”

This increases havingness all the way.

The person the auditor wants mocked up will be invisible to the pc and pc should keep on trying to mock the person up, eyes open, until he can do so.

I developed this process to vanquish fields and thus speed clearing. It belongs anywhere prior to Step 6 of Clear Procedure.

In Creative Processing we knew good results were achieved when we used a gradient scale to get the pc to improve an ability to mock up someone. The above command gives the reason this was necessary.

Considerable relief and calmness follows a run on this process.

High critical is cured by this process.

Failure to help is the basis of the collapse of a desire to make nothing of things and the process therefore ranks in importance near to help.

A subjective reality on the process is necessary for skilled use.

The process can in a pinch be self-audited by reading the command off sheet. The process is unlimited.

I think I have discovered in Enforced Nothingness a direct route to bringing any pc who is under some control up to the ability to conceive a static. And therefore the key to all exteriorization, havingness and perception.

The process cures colds, tiredness and psychosomatics.



L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 134
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 April 1958

PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED

Compiled from the Research Writings and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard


CCH 2:

CCH 2 is Tone 40 8-C, which has the following commands: “With that body’s eyes look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk that body over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With that right hand touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn that body around.” “Thank you.”

One doesn’t acknowledge any of the preclear’s originations and can only “freeze” the command after a cycle of action has been completed. As with all Tone 40 processes this is a precision process and needs validation training for execution on an optimum level.

The intention or goal of this process is to bring the preclear’s body further under control and to insure that he does “precisely” what you tell him to do, and it is a basic step for getting his thinkingness under your command as well. By showing the preclear you can control his body, you are actually inviting him to control it and to take some responsibility for it.

Don’t be surprised if the preclear exteriorizes quickly on this technique. By taking control of the body, he will go in and out of it and eventually feel that the best way to handle it is from a few feet behind his head. As an auditor one must beware of not-ising this phenomenon and should communicate about it when one “freezes” the session and make sure that the preclear understands this and that it is to be expected.

This is an ambulatory process and the auditor should be next to or with his preclear at all times during the running of this technique.

Don’t avoid this process or not administer enough, since 8-C, Tone 40 or otherwise, has been a stable processing datum for over three years and will continue to remain as such for a considerable period of time.


CCH 3:

This is the process that produces some of those fantastic IQ changes, for it deals directly with the preclear’s learning rate and his ability to duplicate communications. Bringing up his non-language factor in the IQ has the effect of bringing the preclear into a better control of his environment and into handling the people and objects in his immediate surroundings.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Its purpose, according to “The Student Manual,” is “to bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + Duplication = Communication.)”

Book Mimicry, as this process is called, is run in the following manner: Auditor tells the preclear that he is going to make a motion with the book and that he wants the preclear to duplicate the auditor’s motion mirror-image-wise. He hands the book to the preclear and then waits for the preclear to execute that motion. He acknowledges the execution of that command and then asks the preclear if he “is satisfied that he duplicated that command.” If the preclear says he is satisfied, and the auditor is sure he did not do it satisfactorily, the auditor does the same command until the preclear and the auditor are both satisfied.

There is a gradient scale of simplicities and complexities here. One first starts with fairly simple commands, graduating into complexities. LRH found that straight lines and angles are simplicities, whereas circles and arcs are complexities. Preclears who like complexities will be able to do the difficult ones with great ease while finding the simple motions burdensome. One keeps on doing both until the preclear can do each with relative ease.

In order to do this process properly the preclear has to be in present time, and that will unstick him from the rest points on the track, and it has been noted by many auditors that engrams and valences turn on, also a lot of dope-off and anaten which must naturally be run flat.

For the preclear who is in manic motion, small, very slow movements will cause a panic and should be done until he can tolerate the no-motion with ease and vice versa.

One must be sure, however, to remember the commands one has given in case the preclear cannot execute them and one has to do it again. Also, we are interested in giving our preclears only wins and one should work closely within that framework. Give the preclear only the commands, on a gradient scale towards difficulties, that he can execute. It does not mean that one cannot make it complex, but one mustn’t give impossible commands and so confuse and invalidate the certainty that he can duplicate a communication between himself and another terminal.

This is not a Tone 40 process, but the auditor does not talk until the motion he has made is executed unless the preclear has as-ised the command before he started the motion or finds himself unable to complete it.

Since engrams do appear and odd sensations and somatics turn on, communicate with the preclear about them, but remember the intention of the process and do not go chasing after facsimiles.

CCH 4:

CCH 4 is “Hand Space Mimicry” and the purpose of this process as per “The Student Manual” is “to develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid comm line) and to get the preclear into communication by control + duplication. “

It is run as follows: Auditor and preclear sit straight opposite each other. The auditor then raises his two hands with his palms facing the preclear and says, “Put those hands against mine, follow them and contribute to their motion.” He then makes a simple motion with his right and then left hand and asks the preclear, “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Good.” “Put those hands in your lap.” After this has been run flat, increase the space between the palms of the auditor’s and preclear’s hands by half an inch. When this is flat gradiently increase the space between the auditor’s and preclear’s palms until the preclear can follow the motion yards away.

There is a lot of two-way communication during the running of this process, and the auditor must allow the communication which is born from the duplication and control to come forth without restraining the preclear’s desires to do so.

The distance factor here (affinity in the communication formula) will affect various preclears in different ways, and it is of interest that the preclear will communicate a lot about love and the second dynamic to the auditor which can then be viewed. There seems to be a certain distance factor here for each preclear, and once the auditor moves out of it suddenly without that gradient increase in space the preclear will go out of communication with the auditor, and the process should therefore be kept to small increases only.

The strained feeling in the preclear’s (and sometimes auditor’s) wrists is not a tiredness as one may suppose, but will disappear as he gets into communication with the auditor. He will go through a lot of anaten and dope-off, but should come out very bright and in present time and in much better shape than when the session started. HE will be able to communicate and recognize your body as a solid terminal opposite his and will really find the auditor during the process if he has not done so already. His reality level will increase to the point where he can communicate by agreement only and know that he is doing so (see the last PAB on the Scale of Reality).

This is not a Tone 40 process and should not be run as such.

CCH 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the essential basics to the running of every case, and where these are neglected (where control in these facets has been neglected) there will only be failure. It is therefore remunerative in the long run to really flatten each process.

The workability of these processes is astonishing and is a delight in the hands of a Validated Auditor who has been coached on them himself. If ever processes demanded that one knows HOW to run them, these do, for the untrained auditor might just confuse both himself and the preclear if he doesn’t know what to expect and how to handle that which is sure to arise from such processes as CCH.

One can run these processes over and over again. Run 0, 1, 2 and either 3 or 4, then back to CCH I—right hand, through the other steps, left hand, through the other steps, both hands, and up again, or instead of using “Give me that hand” the auditor can run “Don’t give me that hand”—right, left and “those hands,” and so forth.

Somewhere along the line one of these processes is going to bite and then each and every one of them will do the same. If nothing happens it means that there is a threat to the preclear’s havingness and that the present time problem should be cleared while “help” is run again, after which one of the four CCHs should open up the preclear’s bank.

As an example, here is a case history from one of the Washington HGC staff auditors: Preclear, a business man, age 48, who had numerous pressing present time problems in the home environment. His profile proved that he was totally unable to handle his numerous present time problems as his ability to communicate was on the very low minus side. What’s more, his profile showed that he should really be a three-week preclear but was accepted on the understanding that since he couldn’t possibly afford more time, he would be given this week as an exception to the rule since he came a very long way (the HGC doesn’t accept for processing a 25-hour case who really needs 75 hours).

LRH looked at this profile and suggested quite calmly to the auditor that CCH steps 0 to 5 should do it.

The preclear was out of communication. He did not volunteer any information and seemed to get nothing out of the first 71/2 hours when the first 5 steps were

covered. (His present time problems were handled by Locational Processing.) Since this preclear was withholding information the auditor ran him on “Don’t give me that hand,” which started biting slightly, a few minor somatics shot through various areas of his body and facsimiles darted in and out of his field, but the preclear still felt that this meant nothing. (His critical level was high and he was making nothing out of the auditing.) But when the auditor arrived at Hand Space Mimicry, the preclear burst open for he couldn’t tolerate the close contact with the auditor and volunteered information about a second dynamic restimulation which blew the aberration out of the way and opened the Case.

After that the preclear exteriorized with full visio and sonic when run on Tone 40 8-C, felt that he could control both his body and his environment much more ably and with greater certainty as to what he was doing.

Further up the line on Control Trio and Trio, the preclear ran each one of the six commands flat in approximately half an hour, with cognitions ranging from the first to eighth dynamic, each intimately related to his own life and livingness, and the preclear is a clear.

This preclear still has his present time problems at home, but feels much more confident about handling them and the auditor reports that he is moving heaven and earth to return for the outstanding two weeks.

This might not have been possible on older technologies since the factor of control wasn’t so neatly and exactly organized by LRH as it is now, but the fact remains, much against some people’s better wishes, that one has to be coached into knowing through experience to fully comprehend the power of Procedure CCH.


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 APRIL 1958

To: All Training Activities


VITAL TRAINING DATA FOR TRAINING HATS AND REGISTRAR


Students in the Academy are auditors. They are not preclears. Emphasis is on auditors, not pcs.

The goal of the Academy is to produce auditors of such quality that we would be willing to hire them in the HGC. We don’t graduate those we wouldn’t.

Training staff can refuse a student at any time on grounds of inadequate financial arrangements. In which event the student applicant is returned to Registrar.

The Academy is not a clinic and concerns about cases belong to the HGC and are so referred.

LRH
LRH :bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 72 [1958, ca. late April]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



How We Work on the Third Dynamic


L. Ron Hubbard


It is obvious that a barbarian society, leaving all to chance, believing in luck and irresponsibility, needs direction.

If it cannot receive that direction from its elected leaders, it is soon drowned in confusion.

This is particularly true of barbarian societies. By barbarian, we mean, of course, “lacking in social graces.” A nation may have huge machines, projectiles of great violence and stoves that do all the cooking and yet be a complete barbarism socially.

The activities of a barbarism one against another are punishment, revilement, contest for first dynamic supremacy with no thought of the rights of others.

The barbarism solves political problems with brutality, crime with punishment and social ills with degradation.

It is fairly obvious then that the United States of America—and the Western world-is a barbarism, wearing nylon shirts instead of bearskins, lip rouge rather than tattoo tabu marks, but subscribing to the Code of Hammurabi just the same.

The social code used identifies the barbarism and an “eye for an eye” is little better than law for the sake of sadism, mere animalism.

You can know a barbarism by its witch doctors, its concept of the other man’s mind. In this society the mental witch doctor, comfortably enfranchised by the A.P.A., believes sincerely Man is an animal without soul or hope and, following Pavlov and other Russian teachings, that Man works only for reward like “any other dog.”

These are the brands of barbarism. Hate is deified above love, a deterrent to an action is better than a communication, the delusion is more palatable than the truth.

If we place the govemment on our chart of human evaluation, we find a craven psychotic. What would you think of the sanity of a man who sits in his house all day every day loading guns for fear of some mythical enemy? What would you think of a person who used violence against the weak, the helpless, women and children? What would you think of someone who solved all his problems with threats of violence? You’d be right. Such a person would be insane. Just add up the characteristics of a government today, apply them as if done by an individual and make up your mind. Governments are insane. It is a big thought and one necessary to digest if you are not

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

going to go around all your life snarling impotently against “government stupidity.” The insane aren’t always stupid but they are certainly insane.

Of course you could define government as “that body created by the aggregate irresponsibility of a people.” The insane are irresponsible. That is why they are insane. If you lump all the irresponsibility in a nation into one body you would then have an insane body. Thus the government temper.

Now it is a fact that help and destroy are opposite ends of the same string. When a person can no longer help he seeks to destroy. Destroy is the same as help to a psychiatrist. Total identification. But more of this elsewhere. It is enough here to demonstrate that if you try to help an insane body it responds by seeking to destroy you. This is nothing to be afraid of since the ability to direct in an insane body is very poor. Thus the blows usually go awry. One sees it in government when the police arrest and question the man who was attacked by a thug. The police forget the thug and arrest the innocent.

Now all this comes about only when you have a barbarism, where the social training of each person is so poor as to amount to a collective insanity.

To cure a barbarism one must make men socially grow up. And that is done with individuals. One works with individual people, not with groups.

We in Scientology have done a “power of growing up,” me and you both. We are strong in that we have the ability to make other people “grow up.” Our target is the individual if we wish to increase the group level of responsibility.

To properly hit the target each of us needs to be (I) a good example in our own case and (2) well trained and secure in our Scientology skills.

All we really have to do to win is to get clear and clear others, the while keeping on with the routine demands of life.

As startling as clearing is today, as impressive as it is to learn Scientology well at the Academy, yet these things can be done rather easily.

Clear is now no esoteric goal. It can be reached in a few weeks of highly skilled auditing.

Getting to be an excellent auditor is a must if one merely wishes to live. But one dynamic isn’t enough. It takes all the dynamics to make a freedom. Therefore to be clear is not enough. To be a cleared auditor and to handle and audit people is a must if we wish to be totally free.

Face it. We live in a barbarism. The shiny cars are driven by degraded men. You won’t be free unless they are.

It has taken me ten hard years to make clearing everyone an accomplished fact. That I could do it was not enough. That you could do it was part of the major plan.

My purpose is to bring a barbarism out of the mud it thinks conceived it and to form here on Earth a civilization based on human understanding, not violence.

That’s a big purpose. A broad field. A star-high goal.

But I think it’s your purpose, too.

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF I MAY 1958

Post: HASI London
Admin Board, D.C.



SIGNS OF SUCCESS


Whenever we’re really winning the squirrels start to scream. You can tell if somebody is a squirrel. They howl or make trouble only when we’re winning.

Spectacular success can quadruple the number of complaints. Tell the complainees: “Come in, get clear.” Otherwise skip it.

To understand a squirrel, consider the reaction of somebody who could not run the fifth leg of help “How could another person help another person”. The thought of this drives some people spinny. That’s a squirrel. They can’t view other people helping others without going berserk.

There’s nothing personal in having squirrels. Even heroes can have lice.

Best,

LRH




LRH:bt.rd

P.A.B. No. 135
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 May 1958

PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED

Compiled from the Research Writings and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard


CCH 5:

This is Tone 40 Locational Processing, and the purpose of this process is to bring the preclear’s attention under control and unfix it from the facsimiles which usually control his attention. It is also a most valuable process to run when the preclear’s communication is too poor to run the present time problems with Problems of Comparable/Incomparable Magnitude.

It brings the preclear from the problem in which he is interiorized into a recognition of the environment, which gives him havingness, and he can consequently unfix his attention from the problem. It brings him into present time—the 6th dynamic—and he can have mass again.

Since this is a Tone 40 process the auditor does not acknowledge idle chatter from the preclear, but should HE say something, the process may be frozen after a few more commands have been executed and the auditor can discuss or “fish” the cognition. The auditor must point to and clearly indicate the object which he wants the preclear to see and must make sure that his “thank you” stops the preclear from getting stuck on the object at which he looks.

The commands are “With that body’s eyes notice that (indicated object, wall, etc.).” When the preclear has done so the auditor says “Thank you” with such intention as to stop the cycle of action completely and to start a new command in present time. If the acknowledgment really reached the preclear he will immediately look away from the object at which he was looking and look at you, smile and seem pleased. Incidentally, the auditor points to both that body and that object.

While using this process in CCH 0, the handling of the present time problem, it can be used as either ordinary or Tone 40 Locational.

CCH 6:

To bring the preclear’s attention further and fully under control of the auditor, Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957, with the following commands, is used: (Auditor takes a book and bottle, placing them some distance apart on tables so that the preclear doesn’t have to bend.) “With that body’s eyes look at that book.” “Thank you.” “Walk that body over to that book.” “Thank you.” (Auditor each time with the commands points to “that body” and “that book.”) “With that hand pick up that book.” “Thank you.” “Put that book down in exactly the same place.” “Thank you.”

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

“Turn that body round.” “Thank you.” “With that body’s eyes look at that bottle,” etc.

It is a Tone 40 process and should be run precisely, making sure that the preclear does not anticipate or distort the command. Duplication + Control = Communication is a formula which is well worth remembering during the running of all Tone 40 processes. This does not mean that if the preclear seems to be communicating, he is, for a lot of his machinery will go into restimulation during this process and one must be able to differentiate between the preclear’s originations and those of his bank.

This, being one of the most arduous processes in Scientology, should be run in one session until flat; otherwise the preclear will be hung up at the point where the process was ended and it will unnecessarily retard the progress which Procedure CCH brings about.

These two processes, when well run, will bring the preclear’s attention under the direction of the auditor. Since duplication will straighten out all the vias and twists the preclear might have in receiving the exact intention of the command which originated from the auditor, the auditor may then proceed to bring the preclear’s thinkingness under his control with

CCH 7: Tone 40 8-C—”Keep it from going away,”
CCH 8: Tone 40 8-C—”Hold it still,” and
CCH 9: Tone 40 8-C—”Make it a little more solid,”

which should be run as a combo [combination of processes] one after the other until each one is flat.

As with most processes, make sure that the command is cleared before embarked upon, and then after a while, if the preclear doesn’t cognite or have any facsimiles, find out “how” and “what” he is doing, for there might still be a possibility that due to semantic difficulties he misunderstood the command and is really running another.

“Keep it from going away” and “Hold it still,” apart from the fundamental value in cognitions, are to exercise the preclear’s ability to control facsimiles—to keep them from going away and to hold them still when he later is going to run Then and Now Solids, which demands just that. Preclears who have been involved in Eastern teachings will cognite during running “Hold it still” and find out a lot about “serenity” and the eighth dynamic. All the things which the preclear has been keeping from going away will come to view. These are good exteriorizing processes. Refer to earlier PABs for further information regarding these processes.

“Make it a little more solid” is the first exercise in making MEST and facsimiles a little more solid and must be done before the preclear can progress to Then and Now Solids. His abilities to keep things from going away, hold them still and make them a little more solid must be thoroughly checked and rechecked, and the auditor must be sure in his own mind that the preclear has acquired these abilities.

Making things a little more solid is just what it says. The preclear does not have to make things very massive, but he should be aware of an increase in the mass, weight and density of the structure of that which he is making more solid. This process will increase his reality on the Prelogics and reverse the flow of solids. It will remedy the preclear’s havingness and push him further up the Scale of Reality.

The commands for the three Tone 40 8-Cs are: “With that body’s eyes look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk that body over to that (indicated object).” “With those hands touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Keep it from going away.” “Hold it still.” “Make it a little more solid.” Run each one flat individually.

Since these are Tone 40 processes, precision of execution of commands is closely observed by the auditor.

“These processes include a control of thinkingness of the preclear and therefore should be run with a tremendous amount of auditor trust of the preclear and should not be run until the lower levels of CCH are to some degree flat, as they will give the preclear losses. “—LRH from “The Student Manual.”

CCH 12 and CCH 13:

CCH 12 is known as “Limited Subjective Havingness.” The commands for this set of processes are: “What can you mock up?” Preclear answers and the auditor says, “O.K.” to the preclear’s answer and then tells him: “Mock up (whatever the preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Shove it into yourself.” Run this flat then proceed in the same way except for then having the preclear “Let it remain where it is.” When this is flat enter on the third part, which is “Throw it away.”

Have the preclear shove the mock-ups into “himself” and not the body. Remember it is “have” for the thetan and “can’t have” for the body. It is important here to remedy the havingness of the preclear’s bank before going on to Then and Now Solids.

Should the preclear’s field be black, then run the following process until it clears up: Remedy the field with blackness. Have him mock it up, let it remain and throw it away. This preclear is holding on to blackness since he does not have enough blackness. This is remedying the havingness with blackness of which he has a scarcity.

If the preclear’s field is invisibility, put glass objects of all sorts and sizes on a table next to him and one after another have him “Keep it from going away” until his field returns.

As with all other processes in Scientology we are only interested in giving our preclears wins, and it is therefore necessary to see that he completes each step successfully before continuing with the next process.

Should none of these processes do what is required, CCH has not been properly applied and steps 0 to 5 should be run once more and the auditor can then run Control Trio, which is being spoken about in a later PAB.

CCH 13 is “Subjective Solids” and the first exercise to make things solid subjectively. The commands for this process are: “What can you mock up?” (which is asked every time one changes the type of mock-ups). “O.K.” “Mock up (whatever the preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Now make it a little more solid.” When this is done the auditor checks with “Did you do it?” for preclears often say they have when they didn’t execute the command.

Start this on a gradient scale. As long as he makes only a few atoms of the mock-up a little more solid the auditor should be satisfied. The preclear here will break through Effort on the Know to Mystery Scale and as he proceeds use less and less effort until he just postulates the solidity.

It is most important to ask the preclear what he is doing, how he is doing it to insure that he IS doing it properly.

Smoothness of auditing is essential. One does not desire to break ARC with the preclear, but a certain amount of policing is necessary and this is a “certainty” process. It is important that the preclear find the process “real,” otherwise he is not under control and will not be able to do Then and Now Solids, to which all these other processes lead.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MAY 1958



BEINGNESS AGAIN


The best solution to valences is beingness processing.

Help on valences is excellent, even phenomenal and should not be ignored.

Problems of Comparable Magnitude to a selected person cannot be ignored.

But an understanding of valences gives us a new look at processes.

In the first place a valence is a beingness. Bad, crazy or superb, a valence is still a beingness.

A thetan has a basic personality. But if this is too thoroughly invalidated, a thetan assumes some invented valence. And if this is invalidated he then eventually completes the DEI Scale on Beingness.

The things wrong with a thetan are the lower harmonics of the characteristics of a thetan. You could say carelessly that the only thing wrong with a person is himself. Let us say more accurately that the only thing wrong with a person is his abandonment of self and the assumption of other selves. Because there is a self, the assumption of selves is possible.

We find that the APA or OCA is a picture of a self What self is another matter. All selves other than true self are less honest and ethical since the thetan has a poorer opinion of others than he does of himself in the basic state.

To change an APA or OCA it is necessary to shift selves.

It is fascinating that theft of objects is really an effort to steal a self. Objects represent selves to others. Thieves and what they steal cannot be understood by the logic of their material needs. They steal tokens of selves and hope to assume thereby another self. It is sometimes not amusing to me to be missing my lecture notes or a book from my shelf. This is covert theft of beingness. People sometimes get anxious to be me—I know not why. They wind up stealing my things. The theft is irrational. The articles were not later cherished and all were put away or thrown away when the beingness did not materialize. Perhaps it is bad taste to mention this from my personal viewpoint but from where else should I look? And it has all happened to you, too. The senselessness of the items selected probably puzzled you when they were stolen. But they were identified with you. You couldn’t be stolen, so you lost your wife, your husband or your little trinket, “meaningless” perhaps to anyone but you.

A person has to discover he can’t be you before he steals your things without credit. When he discovers he still isn’t you, he damns you to all. He finally cannot be you, so he wastes you. And thus the DEI Scale of beingness is completed.

One answer to this is never be a desirable you. And never get famous. A far better answer is to understand it, for by understanding alone you can prevent it.

Thus, the major tears of the world are based on beingness. Insanity, heartbreak, bitter lives all stem from the same source.

There is also an acceptance level of beingness, based on a viewpoint of an already alloyed beingness. Some people can only have the beingness of the criminal or the insane. Thus there is yet another door to cracking cases, another latchstring to the problem of Man.

There is also the problem of acceptable beingness, probably more important than acceptance level. What Beingness is acceptable to various people in the pc’s life?

There is also such a thing as taking on another’s unwanted beingness to help him or her. Such as taking a psychosomatic.

We have had many beingness processes. Like we did at first with help, we missed a point. The preclear does not know what “help” means. And he does not know what beingness means. He is below cognition level on them. All help or beingness actions he undertakes are reactive, not analytical.

To overcome this, one enters the case of the pc at the Inhibit end of the DEI Scale. He has the pc waste the item in brackets. He asks the pc to waste help, to waste the help of another, to have another waste help for himself and so on.

Thus it is with beingness. Have the pc waste it.

Man tears his idols apart trying to get a bit of desirable beingness. Every thetan wants to heal at sight; so they crucified Christ. And sold pieces of the cross.

A pc who assumes the aches of another wishes to be that other. He is short on beingness. He accepts it obsessively.

Wearing Empress Eugenie’s hats is understandable. What woman wouldn’t be an empress? But wearing the crooked back of the Hunchback of Notre Dame isn’t quite so comprehensible—if you don’t know Scientology.

One follows knowing assumptions of beingness with unknowing assumptions. The thief knows not why he steals. The bishop knows little of why he cherishes the bit of the True Cross.

And none of them know, so invalidated has it become, that each has a basic beingness, complete. And that beingness is important to you. It is the best beingness there is. And it is important to me, how important can only be viewed through these eyes that see the magnitude of the job. Why should anyone steal when he can have the best there is for the asking? And why steal from me and thee for we alone in all Man’s history can give him the priceless gift of himself.

Just as the thief knows not why he steals, so does the archbishop fail to know why he dons a robe.

To abandon life is to waste all beingness. There is the preclear who sits at succumb.

Try it on a pc. You’ll be surprised.

This is one of the OT steps on which I am working for the 20th ACC.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:md.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 73 [1958, ca. early May]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.


Assists in Scientology


L. Ron Hubbard



DEFINITION: AN ASSIST: An action undertaken by a minister to assist the spirit to confront physical, difficulties which can then be cared for with medical methodology by a medical doctor as needful.

An assist is not normally done in a formal auditing session. The way the term has been used is a very simple processing activity to relieve an immediate troublesome difficulty.

An assist is much more specifically and definitely anything which is done to alleviate a present-time discomfort. It is differentiated from auditing at large by defining auditing as an activity directed toward the rehabilitation of the entire individual.

The first moments of every formal session are an assist. Before you undertake further auditing you usually perform an assist. If you are a very clever auditor you do it by scouting what has happened between sessions, or if the person has a present time problem, for the handling of a present time problem in an auditing session is really not auditing because it is addressed to a surface difficulty.

You handle the difficulty which is uppermost and foremost in the preclear’s mind. A preclear may say, “Well, my wife and I had a fight last night. She threatened to commit suicide, and now she has a violent headache.”

The wrong way to look at what he is saying is to think that it is her headache that is causing the trouble in the session and that you cannot cure her headache as she isn’t present. The actual trouble in the session is his concern about her headache. So you run Problems of Comparable Magnitude to relieve his mind to a point where he is quite comfortable and you can get on with the auditing. And that is actually what an assist is.

Since you really do not have the preclear under good control, nor well orientated in the environment, you have to answer this technical question: When does an auditing session begin?

The answer to that question is: An auditing session begins when you have a preclear, and when he knows he has an auditing environment and an auditor. There is auditing which is done on a relatively loose basis, which might be out in the street, in the kitchen, or anywhere. An assist could happen almost anywhere. But at the

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

beginning of the session, no matter how formally this session is constituted, you are running an assist.

You have an auditing room. You have a preclear, and you are the auditor. You know all these things, but the preclear doesn’t. As far as he is concerned, there isn’t a formal session taking place. Don’t call it a formal session. Call it an assist. Tell the preclear that it is an assist and that you are not intending anything very strenuous. In rendering an assist you should tell the preclear that “this is just an assist” to try and ease the pain in his hand a little, after which you are going to stop.

The handling of an assist as an auditor is different than the handling of a formal session since the factor of control is notably slackened, sometimes almost completely missing.

One of the factors in assists is that an assist has as a large part of its anatomy, “trying to help.” Just remember that you are only trying to help and don’t get your heart broken by the fact that the fellow’s broken spine doesn’t heal instantly.

Another factor is that an assist is differentiated and defined as addressing the game someone knows he is playing.

What techniques would comprise an assist? Anything that would help. And what are these? One of the easiest ones to render is Locational Processing. You tell the person, “Look at that chair. Look at that ceiling. Look at that floor. Look at that hand” (the auditor pointing to the objects), when he has an injured hand and the pain will diminish. This is a very easy assist.

For example, a person has a bad shoulder. You touch his hand of the same arm and say, “Close your eyes and look at my fingers.’’ Make sure that he keeps his eyes closed. You then touch him on the elbow and say, “Look at my fingers.” Do this anywhere on his body. Just touch him and say, “Look at my fingers.’’ This is a communication process which eases his attention over from a concentration upon the injury to something else which is quite near the injury and thus doesn’t result in too much of a shock. It reduces havingness but it is positive and gets positive results. It can be done by an untrained person.

You can teach this assist to anybody. You say, “If somebody has a bruise, injury, a burn, a cut, the way to handle this is to tell the person to close his eyes, and then you touch the area near and distant from the vicinity of the injured area, asking them, with their eyes closed, to look at your fingers. You contact them this way many times. They will experience sudden pains in the area, and you will discover that the ‘psychic trauma’ has been discharged.”

You will find that people do not have any upset about physical contact. Most people think that this is the thing to do.

Say you wanted to render an assist on somebody who had a very indefinite difficulty. That is the hardest one to render an assist on. The person has a pain but he cannot say where. He doesn’t know what has happened to him. He just feels bad. Use Locational Processing as such. You will find out that this process will work when other processes fail.

An assist carries with it a certain responsibility. If you give an assist casually to somebody out in the public and do not shove a professional calling card in his pocket, you are making an error. The reason for this is that he will not know from whom and where help came. Therefore, an auditor walking around without a pack of cards is doing a foolish thing. An auditor goes through life and he casts his shadow upon many

people and they have really no cognizance of what has happened at all if he is rendering an assist. He says, “Do this, do that”—maybe he wins, or maybe he loses because this is the type of session least calculated to procure orderly results. But in the main these people have been helped. They don’t know really by what, except some word that the auditor kept saying. They don’t even know that he is an auditor. They don’t know anything about it at all. Show a person where he can obtain further assistance, and by whom the assistance was given.

Be yourself. Be positive. Be professional and definite. Have a card and make sure the card is easily enough understood. Don’t ask them for permission. Just do it. No reason to wander around and give them funny notions. If you are going to help some stranger out, help him out. Don’t explain to him or any bystander, otherwise you are likely to stand there explaining, waiting for somebody’s permission. Don’t bother with that. You act as though you are the one in charge and you will be in charge. And this is part and parcel of the knowledge of how to do an assist. You have got to be the person in charge. This has to be so good, as far as you are concerned, that you overcome the informality of the session to a very marked degree. If you do it extremely well, the assist will amount to auditing.

Say, for example, there is a big accident and a crowd of people are pressing around. The police are trying to push the people back. Well, push the people back and then push the policeman back. Say, “Officer, keep these people at a distance.” Then you lean over the victim and snap him back to rights. If you are enough THERE, everybody else will realize that you are the ONE that is THERE. Therefore, such things as panic, worry, wonder, upset, looking dreamily into the far distance, wondering what is wrong or what should be done, are no part of your make-up if you are rendering an assist. Cool, calm and collected should be the keynote of your attitude. Realize that to take control of any given situation it is only necessary to be there more than anybody else. There is no necromancy involved. Just BE there. The others aren’t. And if you are there enough, then somebody else will pull himself out of it and go on living.

Understand that an auditor when rendering an assist must make up with presence what he lacks in surroundings and agreements. It all comes under the heading of willingness to be there and willingness to control people.

One of the ways of convincing people of beingness and of being there is to exercise control—positive, undeniable Tone 40 exercise of control. Start to control the situation with high enough ARC, enough presence and factuality—there won’t be anybody present that won’t step back and let you control the situation. You are entitled to it in the first place because of senior “know-how.” The control of body attention or thought comprises the majority of your knowledge. The majority in Scientology simply points in this direction. The observable thing is control of attention, objects and thoughts. When you have good confidence of being able to handle these, and when you positively know how to do these, then you can make sure that everybody else knows you can do this, and you make them realize this by doing it. You have all of these things available in rendering an assist.

You might never think of a riot as being a situation which necessitated an assist, or an assist as applicable to a riot, but a riot is simply a psychosomatic momentary injury or traumatic condition on the third dynamic. Could you settle a riot? Well, if you can settle a riot, you can certainly settle one person who is in a riot. The antithesis of any pain, disturbance or tumult is order. The thing which controls tumult is order; and, conversely, the thing which controls order is tumult. You need only bring order into a confused situation and bring confusion into an orderly situation to control everything in the field of motion, action and objects.

This is a fantastic simplicity and one which takes some grasping. Conceive as order, merely a fixed position, idea and attitude. A policeman knows what he is

supposed to do. Maybe he will put on a tourniquet or maybe he won’t. Keep the people away and stop everything is his idea of how it should be. Now you can aid or abet the order he is creating, or cancel the order by creating a confusion which he cannot handle. Of the two, the first is the best in that situation. You aid and abet and cap the order he is creating. If you were to accuse him of having a confused accident scene, which is by now not at all confused, and ask him to straighten it out, you would channel his attention in the direction it is already gone, and so you control his attention.

Remember, those people are still moving a little bit; they are still breathing. There is still a tiny bit of motion going on. If you were to ask him something on the order of “Can’t we have it a little quieter and more orderly here?” he would at once perceive that there was far too much confusion and motion, and he would simply come under your direction because you have simply channeled his attention in the direction it was already going. Therefore, you have taken control.

If you ever want to overset a fixed order, create a confusion. If you want to overset a confusion, create a fixed order. Pick out of the scene those beings in the scene whose attention is channeled in the direction you want attention to go, and you aid and abet that attention which already exists. Or, where you have too many fixed positions and fixed ideas to overcome, you simply take those turbulent individuals in the scene who are creating the confusion against those fixed ideas and channels and you make their confusion much more confused, at the same time yourself imposing another order in another direction.

The mechanics of taking over any confused scene are simply the mechanics of trying to get a preclear to see through the morass of cross-purposes, commands, ideas and environments in which he has lived. And whether that applies to the third dynamic or otherwise, the laws are still there and it tells you then that the imposition of order on a preclear comes foremost in an assist.

In an assist you always count on the fact that the thetan himself would, if he could, do the right thing. If you work on that postulate you will never be wrong. Get the idea that it is something else trying to do the wrong thing. The keynote of a thetan is order.

Where you are giving an assist to one person, you put things in the environment into an orderly state as the first step, unless you are trying to stop a pumping artery— but here you would use First Aid. You should understand that First Aid always precedes an assist. You should look the situation over from the standpoint of how much First Aid is required. Maybe you will find somebody with a temperature of 106 degrees. It may very well be that he needs to lie down and be covered up, and though antibiotics are much overrated, he might be better off with a shot of one of these than with an assist at that time.

Auditing will not shut off a pumping artery, but a tourniquet will. If you are going into the zone of accidents, you are going to be in the vicinity of a great deal of destruction and chaos, and you are very foolish not to have your Red Cross First Aid Certificate. You may often have to find some method of controlling, handling and directing personnel who get in your way before you can render an assist. You might just as well realize that an assist requires that you control the entire environment and personnel associated with the assist if necessary.

An assist is auditing on several dynamics. It is, therefore, much harder to do than auditing in a formal room as it requires presence. You must bring yourself to face the fact that you have to give enough presence and enough control to enough dynamics to bring the environment into a compliance with your postulate. If you postulate that

somebody is going to pick up his bed and walk, then you have to be willing to move and be capable of moving around the people who are going to watch him pick up his bed and walk.

A good example of an assist would be when somebody is washing dishes in the kitchen. There is a horrendous crash and the person comes down all over the sink, hits the floor and as she is going down, she grabs the butcher knife as it falls. You go in and say, “Well, let me fix that up.” One of the first things you would have to do is to wind some bandage around the hand to stop the bleeding. Part of the First Aid would be to pick up the dishes and put them back on the sink, sweep the pieces together into a more orderly semblance. This is the first symptom of control. She becomes introverted into the cut to the point that she wouldn’t particularly notice what you were doing. But you relieve the anxiety that all her blood is pouring out; your first attention to the case is attention to the environment.

Next you would make her sit down. To remove her from the scene of the accident is not as desirable as auditing her there. That is directly contrary, perhaps, to what you believe, but it is true. That is why you bring a little order into the environment. You position her and then you are ready for techniques. It is quite remarkable for you have manifested order in a much wider sphere than a cut hand in order to bring about a healing of the cut hand. If you understand that your responsibility always extends much wider than the immediate zone of commotion, you never miss. If you bring order to the wider environment you also bring it to the narrower environment. If you bring it into the narrow environment, you also bring it to the wider environment. It is a gradient scale of how much order you can bring.

In processing, you have to control or direct attention, objects, person, or thoughts of the injured person. If you are really good on the subject of assists, you will direct an additional thing: his knowingness. You can control a man’s knowingness rather easily, but it is hard to see it. About the first thing that you can observe about somebody is his person. You are trying to straighten it out. Don’t think that, even though you have this person sitting down, you have straightened it out, because it is still messed up. But there is something that you can straighten out easily—and that is his attention. If you could heighten his attention and his knowingness at the same time, you would really be in wonderful circumstances. You always shift and direct his attention, hence Locational Processing. If he was a Scientologist, with his case in pretty good shape, you could run Trio with considerable success by directing his attention. But you wouldn’t run Trio with the command “Look around the room and find something you could have, “ You should say, “ You look at that chair.” “Now decide you can have it. “ That is a very low order of the Terrible Trio.

You could run the injury out in this fashion: “Look at that chair. “ “Decide the injury cannot have it.” This is directed attention, positively controlled. There is no permissiveness connected with this in any way whatsoever.

Because he is injured you are not going to move his person around. You have got his attention. Don’t try to shift his thoughts around at first because they are dispersed and chaotic. This leaves you his attention only.

The above assist is quite satisfactory, but a later development in the line of assists which included the significance of “Keep it from going away, “ is much more powerful. In one case a bruise, turned utterly black, and covering this person’s entire hip, passed away in 45 minutes of good auditing by “Keeping the right hip from going away, “ and then “Keeping the left hip from going away. “

If you run the right eye, you run the left eye as well. If you run one thing, you run another. If you run his head, run his knees as well. The master of all these

is the direction of attention. “Keep it from going away” is tremendously workable.

You don’t run “Keep it from going away” first, because you are partially controlling his thoughts and this is not possible in the early stages of an assist. If someone is in terrible condition and he is really writhing around, and you want to render an assist, you don’t wait until he stops writhing. He is liable to stop writhing dead. What you do with him is to direct his attention. You tell him, “Shut your eyes and look at my fingers. “ You press your fingers hard enough so that he can’t help but put his attention on them.

If you want it to come out with no bruise, then you would get him to a point where you can control his thoughts, which are chaotic enough. Have him “keep the left ankle from going away, the right ankle from going away,” etc. If the process doesn’t seem to be flattening, direct his attention somewhere else because he is not keeping it from going away. In this wise you can always have a successful assist, because assists all come under the heading of control. The beingness of the person and his presence makes the control possible. So part of control is always presence, identity, person, the one who takes charge and has things under control. When you are able to control his attention, his body and thoughts, then he will be in session and you are no longer doing an assist.

Assists dominantly require that you direct the attention of the preclear and dispose his person one way or the other and eventually take over control of his thoughts on the subject. But by the time you have all these three in line, you are no longer doing an assist.

So what you really do is do an assist up to the time the person can handle the incident or pain, put him in a more favorable environment and give him auditing. So the assist is what you do on the street, and auditing is what you do in the auditing room when he comes to you after your assist has been successful.

AN ASSIST IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL ATTENTION AND DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO CURE INJURIES REQUIRING MEDICAL AID. FIRST, CALL THE DOCTOR. THEN ASSIST THE PERSON AS YOU CAN.

L RON HUBBARD

[The above was edited and issued under the same title in Ability 154, October 1963, which was further edited and issued as HCO B 21 October 1971, Volume VII, page 415.]



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 MAY 1958


WHO SHOULD TAKE WHICH CLASS


The Director of Training should never instruct the advanced Academy class, because of the amount of administrative work he has to do. Director of Training preferably teaches Comm Course.

The Academy Senior Instructor should handle the advanced class and do no administrative work. His job is making sure the student is an auditor at course end.

The Academy Administrator should be the Upper Indoc Instructor.


LRH:bt.rd L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 136
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 May 1958

PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED

Compiled from the Research Writings and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard




THEN AND NOW SOLIDS:

CCHs 0 to 13 are steps in exercising the preclear’s ability to be able to do CCH 14 which is Then and Now Solids. They are a gradient scale of exercises to eliminate all his wrong conceptions and to clear out of the way those considerations which aberrated him into having that unknown, hidden and compulsive game of which he was at the mercy.

The preclear must be in control of his body and environment. He must be able to keep things from going away (especially mock-ups and facsimiles), hold them still and, most important of all, make them a little more solid. We say “more solid” for it invalidates the present solidity of whatever the preclear mocked up or touched if we say “make it solid.”

The process is run in the following manner with these commands: “Get a picture—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” “Look at that (auditor indicates object)—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.”

“The commands are given with a tiny pause between the first and second phrase, as it will be found that the glance of the preclear at the object tends to give him the impression that he has already made it a little more solid before the auditor gives the command if this auditing command is broken into two commands. “ (“The Student Manual” by L. Ron Hubbard.)

The command says get a “picture” and the auditor must explain to the preclear, if he doesn’t already know, the difference between facsimiles, dub-ins and mock-ups. We must make sure that he gets a picture (facsimile).

This process combines subjectivity and objectivity (introversion and extroversion) in the preclear’s universe and the MEST universe. It handles time. He will have to go into the past in order to get the picture and then come up into the present by making a specific indicated object a little more solid. Its whole goal is to straighten out the preclear’s time track, to clear up his reactive bank and disclose his Service Facsimile and Life Computation (and even whole track computations which make him act in a certain manner life after life). It will enable the preclear to handle time and get rid of all the unwanted facsimiles, for by viewing them and making these a little more solid


Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

he will get the restimulative facsimiles under his control. He will then be able to handle in its totality the whole reactive mind.

To impress its importance, here is a direct quotation from “The Student Manual”: “HISTORY: Developed from Over and Under Solids, which was developed by L. Ron Hubbard in late 1955 and improved by him in 1956. The process more or less completes the work begun on the reactive mind in 1947. It will be noted that many earlier processes and effects are woven into Then and Now Solids. “

The auditor running this process must be capable of handling any emotional situation, however startling and unexpected it might be, with great smoothness and ease. Facsimiles will stand out unexpectedly; the preclear will get sudden somatics and past life enemies will be there in front of his body in metrocolor and three dimensions. He will run up and down that tone scale, dramatize anger or pain to such a degree that the auditor who has not been run on High School Indoc or Hi Hi Indoc might get the scare of his life and take off, leaving the preclear in a spin.

Then and Now Solids demonstrates in its application all that is written in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and A History of Man. It takes into account the basic theory and elements of both Scientology and Dianetics, and only the expert can handle this process well.

Nowhere along the line is the auditor allowed to move from the commands of the process, since it is Tone 40. It does not mean that the auditor must not communicate with the preclear. Indeed, it is most necessary at times, but he must keep the original intention of the process in mind at all times and gently but firmly steer the preclear back on to the route he is leading. The process MUST be run EXACTLY as given.

It is not advised that any book auditor or beginner use this process, for the session will most certainly go out of control if Tone 40 and the TRAININGS (see “The Student Manual”)* are not clearly understood and applied.

This process acts quickly if it is real to the preclear. If these facsimiles do not sometimes stand out with alarming clarity he is not running the process. It should not be run for hours and hours without a break. One can always run it to a flat point and then return to the beginning of Procedure CCH and flatten each command, which by now will take a comparatively short period.

It is not necessary for the preclear to tell the auditor each time what the facsimile was that he found, but it is advisable that the auditor check now and again to see that the preclear is doing it properly. It should be run non-specifically.

The auditor will notice that the preclear will go further and further into the past and then come up nearer and nearer to present time and eventually, after many of the cycles are completed, come wholly into present time.

There are a few developments from Then and Now Solids which can be used on valences, for example. If the preclear has trouble with mother, have him “Get a picture of mother—and make it a little more solid.” Then have him “Notice (an indicated object or wall)—and make it a little more solid.” (It must remain THEN and NOW solids alternately throughout the whole session.)

Should the auditor suspect that the preclear is stuck in a past life or has recurring facsimiles of past lives during processing, have him get the pictures, make them a little more solid and then make something in present time a little more solid. It will blow. The same procedure applies for any troubles the preclear has regarding men, women, children or other parts of the dynamics.

[* See HCO B 11 June 1957, Training and CCH Processes. “The Student Manual” is unavailable.]

LRH told an HGC auditor to clear the valences with Then and Now Solids, then the preclear’s own body, and after that to return to general non-specific Then and Now.

CCH 14 is the fastest and most effective process in Scientology if the earlier steps are well accomplished, but it stirs up so much motion and emotion that the auditor better be fully trained before he attempts to run it on an innocent preclear.


PROCEDURE CCH (LONG FORM)

The CCH numbers in the preceding PABs and on this chart do not necessarily coincide with that of “The Student Manual” by L. Ron Hubbard, but is a procedure which LRH gave HGC staff auditors. The numbers by which they are known will be published in “The Student Manual” or may be obtained from the central organizations.

CCH 0a. Rudiments.
0b. Goals.
0c. Present Time Problems.
0d. Help.

CONTROL OF 1. “Give me that hand”
PERSON (Body) (right, left and both hands).

1a. “Don’t give me that hand”
(right, left and both hands).

2. Tone 40 8-C.

3. Book Mimicry.

4. Hand Space Mimicry.

CONTROL OF MIND 5. Tone 40 Locational Processing.
(Attention)
6. Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957.

CONTROL OF 7. Tone 40 8-C—”Keep it from
THINKINGNESS going away.”

8. Tone 40 8-C—”Hold it still.”

9. Tone 40 8-C—”Make it a little more solid.”

CONTROL OF 10. S-C-S on an object. (Covered
PERSON in previous PABs.)

11. S-C-S on a person. (Ditto.)

CONTROL OF 12. Control Trio.
MIND
13. Trio

CONTROL OF 14. Limited Subjective Havingness.
THINKINGNESS
15. THEN and NOW Solids.
Creative Processing (as in
Scientology 8-8008).
Route One (as in The Creation
of Human Ability).

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MAY 1958






ENEMIES OF THE PC




List the enemies of the pc. Then run help on them.

Entrance, run things pc doesn’t have to do to them.

A PT Prob doesn’t free on help is under-pinned by a similar earlier problem.


LRH












LRH :bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 74 [1958, ca. mid-May]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



Scientology and the Reactive Mind

L. Ron Hubbard


You may have wondered why we have said so little in Scientology about the reactive mind.

That it hasn’t been mentioned lately doesn’t mean everyone changed his ideas and decided it didn’t exist.

In Dianetics the reactive mind was that thinkingness which went on without analytical inspection. The reactive mind was described fully and accurately in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

The whole of Freudian Analysis concerns itself with treating the reactive mind. Freud called it the Unconscious, amongst other things.

The whole of German (and U.S.) psychology concerns itself with examining the reactive mind.

Only Dianetics laid bare the full anatomy of the reactive mind. That anatomy is concerned with mental image pictures ordinarily unseen by the person which nevertheless dictate his illnesses and responses.

The primary characteristic of the reactive mind is response to a situation without analytical inspection. People react without volition. They do strange things when confronted with stimuli. Offer a man a cup of coffee. He twitches. He doesn’t know why he did. Wink at a girl and she gets an earache. She doesn’t know why she did. This is the reactive mind at work. Think of going for a drive—get tired. Decide to study—get a stomach ache. These are reactive mind actions. And the pity of it is the man didn’t know it was the cup of coffee that made him twitch. The girl didn’t know it was the wink which gave her an earache. Because it is an illogical connection. But that is the stock-in-trade of the reactive mind—everything equals everything.

If you really want to know more about this strange mind you should study Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health thoroughly. It’s enough here to say it still exists and still accounts for all one’s “unaccountable” actions.

Scientology went upstairs from Dianetics into the area of the spirit. But that didn’t mean that all we knew was forgotten. Far from it.

In Scientology we find the source of creation, of good, of evil. We also find the source of the reactive mind.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

The spirit is the source of all. You are a spirit. These are the basic lessons of Scientology.

These are heady lessons. They are not easily learned. Man would rather be approached slowly than leapt upon. He shudders away from truth when truth seeks to pinpoint him as the responsible party.

In Scientology we have found that a person can be so far below apathy that he doesn’t know what he is doing. And so he can have a reactive mind.

Clearing in Dianetics consisted of getting rid of the reactive mind by erasing it and learning to handle it. That’s a long task.

Clearing in Scientology consists of discovering the source of the reactive mind itself and making it vanish. That’s a short, fast task.

The basic difference between Dianetics and Scientology is this: Dianetics attacked the reactive mind on a materialistic level. Scientology, amongst other things, attacks the reactive mind on a spiritual level. Scientology works faster, better and more stably than Dianetics ever did.

In clearing, the reactive mind vanishes. That is not the primary Scientology target in clearing but it is a worthwhile one.

Freud’s Unconscious is conquered territory. The German psychologist’s “mind” is conquered territory.

Conquest comes in Clearing. And fast Clearing is done by Scientology.

There are many real proofs of this. A reactive mind can be seen on a lie detector or any skin galvanometer. When it is gone, these machines do not react on the person. And there are other proofs as substantial.

That Scientology has whipped the reactive mind is brand-new news. That the ills of Man can be healed only by an address to the spirit is news. That no materialistic means, no medicines, no treatments by matter permanently heal or cure anything is a demonstrable fact.

In Dianetics it was a large forward step well meriting its acclaim to identify the anatomy of the Freudian subconscious.

In Scientology it is a large forward step again to find that the reactive mind vanishes before the strong spirit.

And it is another great step now to know that any material means or defense can come to nothing in the end:

The spirit is the source of all creation. You are a spirit.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1
(Issued at Washington)

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MAY 1958
All Staff
Field Offices

A COMMENT ON BEINGNESS PROCESSING


I recently received the following from an HGC auditor:

“Dear Ron,

“I am writing to congratulate you on the development of the Beingness processes outlined in HCO Bulletin of May 2, AD 8. ***

“These are wonderful processes and I thank you for them.

“Not as a report, but purely as clinical data I want you to know what happened in seven and a half hours of using them.

“Nine major valences came off the case, including the weak one and the strong one. All the important ones stripped off clean. Plus the fact that the service facsimile keyed out. This person is not a clear, yet, but is a brand new person.”

*** HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MAY 1958

Beingness Again

The best solution to valences is beingness processing.

Help on valences is excellent, even phenomenal and should not be ignored.

Problems of Comparable Magnitude to a selected person cannot be ignored.

But an understanding of valences gives us a new look at processes.

In the first place a valence is a beingness. Bad, crazy or superb, a valence is still a beingness.

A thetan has a basic personality. But if this is too thoroughly invalidated, a thetan assumes some invented valence. And if this is invalidated he then eventually completes the DEI Scale on Beingness.

The things wrong with a thetan are the lower harmonics of the characteristics of a thetan. You could say carelessly that the only thing wrong with a person is himself. Let us say more accurately that the only thing wrong with a person is his abandonment of self and the assumption of other selves. Because there is a self, the assumption of selves is possible.

We find that the APA or OCA is a picture of a self What self is another matter. All selves other than true self are less honest and ethical since the thetan has a poorer opinion of others than he does of himself in the basic state.

To change an APA or OCA it is necessary to shift selves.

It is fascinating that theft of objects is really an effort to steal a self. Objects represent selves to others. Thieves and what they steal cannot be understood by the logic of their material needs. They steal tokens of selves and hope to assume thereby another self. It is sometimes not amusing to me to be missing my lecture notes or a book from my shelf. This is covert theft of beingness. People sometimes get anxious to be me—I know not why. They wind up stealing my things. The theft is irrational. The articles were not later cherished and all were put away or thrown away when the beingness did not materialize. Perhaps it is bad taste to mention this from my personal viewpoint but from where else should I look? And it has all happened to you, too. The

senselessness of the items selected probably puzzled you when they were stolen. But they were identified with you. You couldn’t be stolen, so you lost your wife, your husband or your little trinket, “meaningless” perhaps to anyone but you.

A person has to discover he can’t be you before he steals your things without credit. When he discovers he still isn’t you, he damns you to all. He finally cannot be you, so he wastes you. And thus the DEI Scale of beingness is completed.

One answer to this is never be a desirable you. And never get famous. A far better answer is to understand it, for by understanding alone you can prevent it.

Thus, the major tears of the world are based on beingness. Insanity, heartbreak, bitter lives all stem from the same source.

There is also an acceptance level of beingness, based on a viewpoint of an already alloyed beingness. Some people can only have the beingness of the criminal or the insane. Thus there is yet another door to cracking cases, another latchstring to the problem of Man.

There is also the problem of acceptable beingness, probably more important than acceptance level. What Beingness is acceptable to various people in the pc’s life?

There is also such a thing as taking on another’s unwanted beingness to help him or her. Such as taking a psychosomatic.

We have had many beingness processes. Like we did at first with help, we missed a point. The preclear does not know what “help” means. And he does not know what beingness means. He is below cognition level on them. All help or beingness actions he undertakes are reactive, not analytical.

To overcome this, one enters the case of the pc at the Inhibit end of the DEI Scale. He has the pc waste the item in brackets. He asks the pc to waste help, to waste the help of another, to have another waste help for himself and so on.

Thus it is with beingness. Have the pc waste it.

Man tears his idols apart trying to get a bit of desirable beingness. Every thetan wants to heal at sight; so they crucified Christ. And sold pieces of the cross.

A pc who assumes the aches of another wishes to be that other. He is short on beingness. He accepts it obsessively.

Wearing Empress Eugenie’s hats is understandable. What woman wouldn’t be an empress? But wearing the crooked back of the Hunchback of Notre Dame isn’t quite so comprehensible—if you don’t know Scientology.

One follows knowing assumptions of beingness with unknowing assumptions. The thief knows not why he steals. The bishop knows little of why he cherishes the bit of the True Cross.

And none of them know, so invalidated has it become, that each has a basic beingness, complete. And that beingness is important to you. It is the best beingness there is. And it is important to me, how important can only be viewed through these eyes that see the magnitude of the job. Why should anyone steal when he can have the best there is for the asking? And why steal from me and thee for we alone in all Man’s history can give him the priceless gift of himself.

Just as the thief knows not why he steals, so does the archbishop fail to know why he dons a robe.

To abandon life is to waste all beingness. There is the preclear who sits at succumb.

Try it on a pc. You’ll be surprised.

This is one of the OT steps on which I am working for the 20th ACC.

L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:rs.ms rd Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MAY 1958



SPECIAL BULLETIN


STANDARD CLEAR PROCEDURE
AND
AN EXPERIMENTAL ROAD:
CLEARING BY VALENCES



There have been many roads to clear.

The first was the most simple in description but the most difficult to audit. I never succeeded in teaching it to anyone. All one did was renew the pc’s confidence in being able to face sonic, visio, tactile, etc, in the bank by gradient scale and at long last he would be able to confront a bank wholly. When that happened he didn’t have a reactive bank. He was clear. It required a very gentle touch. That was the way I made all the early clears in 1947 to 1949. Then I had to explain it all to the “scientists” and the fact of clear was lost in the mire of the roadway for some years. I’ve been accused of wanting it that way to tell the sheep from the goats. The point remains that this route was the first successful route. We did not know how much there was to a bank or its anatomy. We had to know the worst before the sun came up again. It came up in December of 1957 with my development of “help” and Step 6. Suddenly we were making clears. Making them out of both high and low profile cases, out of occluded cases and wide open cases.

Clearing is now an accomplished fact for any well-trained validated auditor using a central organization E-Meter.

The further in miles from the central organization the attempt to clear is tried, the more difficulty is being experienced. First the word goes out that clearing is being done, then the how-to-do-it. By the time it gets to Alaska or the Bronx or some distant place, the auditor is uncertain as to the right way and even the fact of clearing. He tries it (or thinks he does) (his version anyway) and laying an egg or two, gives up or thinks it isn’t real.

For such an auditor an HAA clearing course is indicated. (1) He’ll learn right and (2) he’ll see some clears around and begin to understand what one is. And he’ll know there is at least one valid road to clear that he can take and do.

Therefore we do not really need right now more roads to clear and certainly we need no roads to OT while the path to clear is still a thin blazed trail. Good Heavens, what’s happened is wonderful enough—and nobody far away has any reality on that yet. However I am still on the job looking for (1) Alternate clear roads and (2) Roads to OT.

Standard Clearing Procedure, the procedure that is making clears in skilled hands, is a very set SCP indeed. It alone has made all clears to date by persons other than myself.

SCP is aided here and there by other techniques used to cross a block or two faster. But all older techniques only assist the steps of SCP (and sometimes impede

SCP). Of course there are some people who would rather walk in the swamp alongside the causeway just built—that’s up to them. If they know there’s a causeway and still walk in a swamp it’s power of choice. If they haven’t seen the big causeway beside them and walk in the swamp, that’s stupidity.

Standard Clearing Procedure works as follows:

Requisite for auditor—Validated certificate.

Tools: A quiet room and clearing E-Meter from D.C. or London (not some tin quivering together on the hopes of some tinker nor yet an old Model T E-Meter made in California).

Publications: Clear Procedure available from the HCO. [See page 172.]

First Action: Start session CCH 0.

Second Action: Search out by meter a p.t. problem and run it by finding “What part of it pc can be responsible for” as a repetitive command, formal auditing.

Third Action: CCH 0 b. Clear help in brackets with a meter, running meter toward a freer needle. Don’t over-run a leg of the bracket and get the pc stuck or anaten.

Fourth Action: Run Step 6 of the book Clear Procedure and run it flat.

Fifth Action: Reclear help.

Sixth Action: Step 6 until flat, flat, flat and needle free.

That’s SCP. It is assisted by SCS and Connectedness on some pcs.

SCP is an accomplished fact only if the auditor has good training and validation. He doesn’t have to be clear. But he has to be accurate. The HAA-BScn course teaches Validation and Clearing. HCA-HPA teach the basics of Scientology—you have to know those first.

Thus an experimental road to Clear is today a luxury. But you know me—I’m always cutting corners.

So here is an alternate, still in theoretical stage, which promises to be the 3rd successful road. However it requires even greater auditing skill and understanding than SCP but may be faster for lower cases.

It is called “Clearing By Valences”.

Its theory is simple. One can assume that a thetan has all the attributes of clear in his basic personality (see Book I, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health for a discussion of Basic Personality). The action of clearing gives a person back to himself. Therefore the bulldozing of rubble from the basic personality would give us a clear.

I have known for some time that an APA or OCA profile was a picture of a valence or of valences—artificial overlays. I have also known that there is a basic personality. When you clear someone you don’t get a ghost or a god—you get a distinct personality. Men are not equal even if the highest courts in the U.S. so insist. And neither are clears. It is Commie-psychiatric thinking that each is equal to the next like grains of mush. You can generalize by saying clears are good and able. But some are gooder than others and some are distinctly differently able. So people are different.

But valences (borrowed, artificial personalities) overlay the real self and weaken it. Valences are the sum of overwhelmings of the pc. Whenever he lost he got one.

His basic personality was invalidated so he sought new ones. These were invalidated so he sought even newer ones. Like standing between two mirrors facing each other we achieve the multiple pc. But where is the clear? We find him when we scoop away the thousands of others he is being.

The first straight wire run at Elizabeth, N.J., in 1950 succeeded when it knocked off a sick valence. Well we can knock them off wholesale today—with skilled auditing.

The clue is the Curiosity-Desire-Enforce-Inhibit Scale run on valences.

That which the pc erases with difficulty is misowned by him. Therefore it is a valence. In the presence of valences he cannot change his mind easily when he misowns the consideration. Therefore all fixed, harmful ideas or aberrations stem from valences.

The process on this would be “Tell me how you could waste a (male) (female) (other) valence.” This would have to be cleared as a command thoroughly and often. That’s the skill.

An auditor can ask a pc about an aberration and spot a valence possibility. And then run it by waste, etc.

People usually have to waste before they can have. A person who can have a valence isn’t subject to it.

This type of command is rounded off with “What part of that valence could you be responsible for?”

The general rules of auditing must be observed. The basics of Scientology must be understood. And great skill and understanding are required of the auditor.

“Tell me how you could waste father’s valence” “. . . a fat valence” “. . . a defeated valence” etc. The list is enormous.

Well there it is in the rough. When it’s made some clears it will be an alternate probably and have a highly polished form like SCP. Right now it is used as an assist to SCP on a difficult case as per the next HCO B.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :-jh
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED














[PAB 138, Standard Clear Procedure and An Experimental Road: Clearing by Valences, 15 June 1958, is taken from this HCO B.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MAY 1958


SPECIAL BULLETIN No. 2

AN EXAMPLE OF CLEARING BY VALENCES

An Experimental Process
Experimental Case C by V No. 2.

Auditor: LRH Pc—Experimental Case. Nervous, restless, heavy somatics.

I started session by attempting to clear a p.t. problem. First he had to clear the command. The pc, very restless, defined a problem as “Something that can’t be solved.” “You can keep trying but of course you can’t solve it.”

I tried in vain to get pc to as-is that computation. It would not change.

I was faced by this: One cannot audit successfully up against a p.t. problem. If one tries to do so without clearing the problem the whole case hangs fire. Every unchanged profile or case after auditing is unchanged because the auditor left a present time problem partly or wholly unflat and in restimulation. A pc whose definition of a problem is “something that can’t be solved” and who yet has a p.t. problem could not be audited successfully unless the computation altered.

Trying “What is a problem?” as a repetitive question for half an hour only made the pc nervous, restless and tearful. Obviously the consideration would not change. Therefore, obviously, the consideration was mis-owned. It was a valence, another person the pc was being with complete tenacity and total error. Process abandoned. Decided to strip the valence off.

A discussion of what was a valence finally bore fruit. Pc understood term as meaning a mental package of ideas and considerations really belonging to another person and unknowingly borrowed by pc.

Started in to run a process to at once give greater reality on valences and to hit at the computation.

If pc would fight help so hard then the valence had four considerations that were known to me. (1) It couldn’t be assisted; (2) It considered a problem as “something that could not be solved”; (3) It was steeped in defeatism; and (4) The pc thought of the valence as self.

Just to ease into valences I ran a process as follows “Can you get an idea of somebody that cannot be helped?” Pc could. “Describe the person.” Pc did, thus getting a detached idea of a personality in the mind. “Now what would you say that person’s definition of a problem would be?”

The first dozen people so imagined all had definitions of problems identical with pc’s own. But then there began to be a change in the definition.

Possibly this process would have gotten further but pc was looking brighter and a flat place was reached and I was really trying to clear by valences.

Therefore I bridged, started in on valences directly. I called the valence in which pc was stuck “that valence” (pc thought of it as self). I used the repetitive command “Tell me how you could waste that valence”. Now and then I asked where it was. Pc didn’t know sometimes, sometimes did. (At first it was just back of pc’s eyes and was pc’s thinkingness.)

Terrible somatics cut in after fifteen minutes, all chronic with pc.

I went right on with process for some time (over one hour) when pc suddenly began to cognite on problems. The somatics had ceased entirely fifteen minutes before.

As a process can be left when (a) an ability is regained, or (b) three responses are given with equal comm lag or (c) pc truly cognites in line with process, I could then leave it and bridge.

I bridged over to “What part of that valence could you be responsible for?” for twelve minutes to round process off and keep pc from making “that valence” an enemy if any bit of it remained and to check out somatics. Pc felt very dazed for a moment or two (typical of a separating somatic) but came out of it very bright. Process flat.

Bridged into earlier commands for a few commands each to flatten them and bridged out to begin clearing of session.

Pc could not now consider any of the five initial problems listed as problems now . . . they all seemed simple and routine parts of life.

Ended session.

Time of auditing 2 1/2 hours approximately including one short break.

Goal of session was to clear up problems on the subject of problems. Goal was attained.

Added bonuses—Loss of main thinkingness circuit, loss of chronic somatic and service facsimile, increase of potential, new zest to continue on to clear.

Pc heretofore desiring little auditing, hard to control in session, reactive toward help offered by others. All changed.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



















[PAB 139, An Example of Clearing by Valences, 1 July 1958, is taken from this HCO B.]

P.A.B. No. 137
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology


From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 June 1958

SOME MORE CCH PROCESSES

Compiled from L. Ron Hubbard’s Research Writings and Taped Lectures to the
18th American Advanced Clinical Course


CONTROL TRIO:

After one has run CCH 0 to 5 and has brought the preclear’s body and attention under control, there are various ways of handling the case from there on. Here is a series of processes which undercuts Trio and is called “Control Trio.”

The commands for Control Trio are:

1. “Notice that (auditor indicates object) and get me idea of having it.”

2. “Notice mat (auditor indicates object) and get the idea of permitting it to continue.”

3. “Notice that (auditor indicates object) and get me idea of making it disappear.”

The processes should be run in that order and each one must be run flat before the next one is attempted. It is very necessary to clear the command before embarking upon the process. Preclears simply understand that “having” means that they must possess something, carry it with them wherever they go—without just leaving the mountain, chair or whatever it is, in its own space-time continuum. He gets it confused with ownership and so forth.

In Fundamentals of Thought there is an excellent definition of havingness: “The essential definition of having is to be able to touch or permeate or to direct the disposition of:”

During the running of the first command the preclear will come up with cognitions regarding the necessity of having or not having things, its goodness or badness, and will in general run out his earlier training regarding this point. It will change his conceptions which earlier religions may have implanted, such as it is “bad to have,” and run out the compulsions of “must, must not, got to, can’t have,” etc.

Find out what the preclear is doing and how he is doing this, for he should get havingness from this process and his tone should rise considerably. A change should take place within a very short period, otherwise (a) his body and attention are not under control or (b) he doesn’t understand the command and is running a different process than that which you intended.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

There should be no qualifications or conditions such as “If I had the money I could buy that object and then have it,” or “I don’t like it and thus don’t want it,” or “What shall I do with it once I have got it?” It is just the ability to have without other considerations of goodness, badness, ownership or beauty going with it, and the auditor and preclear should clear such conceptions through good but non-evaluating two-way communication.

The second part of this trio brings the preclear’s sense of active participation of creativity and responsibility out, for he must grant that particular object sufficient life and beingness to allow it to “continue within its own space and time.” Preclears come up with the considerations that they have either tried to not-is objects and/or people or “withheld” something from them or tried to push them out of their environments because they didn’t like them or agree with them. This is an interesting process to put their ideas about what they should have around them back into proper perspective. They will find that there is no harm in permitting the sixth dynamic to continue in present time right where it is.

The third part of the trio is the most effective and more will be said about it in a following PAB. It is a very good exteriorizing process and the preclear will come up with many cognitions on his own and the rest of the dynamics. Here the idea is just to “get the idea of making the object disappear” instead of to dispense with it or not-know or not-is it.

This cycle can be run over and over again until it is flat, within a few minutes after the command has again given the preclear some gains.

After this, Trio (old-time Terrible Trio) can then be run with great advantage on a case who couldn’t do it before. Control Trio, which undercuts Trio, will bring out its reality level.

GOALS:

With every preclear it is most necessary to establish goals that are REAL for the PRECLEAR. You want him to have some goals which are HIS and not what grandma, father or schoolteacher desires for him. Preclears who have no real goals are working on other people’s determinism and we have to (a) establish the certainty of a future for the preclear, and (b) get him to put things in that future that he WANTS, so that he can have a future.

There is a gradient scale of processes which will establish goals which are REAL to the preclear by casual two-way communication, using the following questions:

1. “What are you absolutely sure will happen in the next two minutes?” one hour, three days, one week, three months, one year, etc.

Complete certainty on each time span is necessary before the auditor continues to the next time span. This is done by two-way communication, and the auditor must all the time be sure that the preclear is certain that these things are going to happen in the next two minutes (or whatever the time span is) to ensure that the process really bites.

2. “Tell me something that you would like to do in the next two minutes,” one hour, etc., is the next process that would put doingness and more time into that future.

On some preclears the following questions may be realer and bite faster. This is putting the accent on have instead of do, since we work from the bottom up on the Be, Do, Have triangle. They are:

3. “Tell me something you are sure will be there in two minutes, etc.,” and

4. “Tell me something you would like to have in two minutes, etc.”

The last two processes really undercut the above and are thus lower level processes and it is advisable to run them on preclears whose ability to communicate and reality level are low.

Watch out for the preclear attaching all sorts of conditions to his answers. Also work towards positive goals of “things” and not conditions such as “I want to get rid of my fears and somatics.” The latter type of preclear is working towards nothing rather than towards something. (A more positive goal of something would be “I want a stick of candy or a glass of water.”) Check for certainty at all times, for certainty strengthens reality and the reality of a future for the preclear is most essential if auditing is to succeed all the way.

LOSSES:

Why doesn’t a preclear exteriorize easily and stay exteriorized? And “Why does he get sick when one asks him to conceive a static?” is the accompanying question. The answer to this is “Losses.” The preclear associates a static with loss, and he says, “All right, if there is nothing there I’ve lost it.”

Conceiving a static is therefore painful, and whenever he lost anything something disappeared. An individual cannot conceive a static if he associates static with a loss-if it is painful. So we have to cure him of the painfulness of loss, consideration of, before we can exteriorize him easily.

We do this by going back to automaticity. The universe has been taking things away from the preclear. It has become an automaticity known as “time.” Time itself is a consecutive series of losses. So we have to cure this preclear of losses before we can get him to appreciate time, otherwise he would be so afraid of losing it that he’d park himself on the track, and this is the “stuck on the track” phenomenon.

This is done with the process “Recall a moment of loss,” sandwiched with havingness (Control Trio, Trio or Locational Processing). This gets the preclear to take over the automaticity of all of the losses which he has experienced unwillingly.

When an individual has no visio, has never seen anything, couldn’t see anything, the only thing that he is looking at is a “stuck” loss.

Recall a Moment of Loss and Goals are a lower harmonic of running Then and Now Solids and are at the moment making a bid for our chief exteriorization processes. Recall a Moment of Loss should be run with two-way communication, but not too much outflow of the preclear. Communication must at all times remain two-way. Ask the preclear “when” this happened now and again, unless, of course, he told you when he recalled the loss.

Control Trio, Goals and Recall a Moment of Loss are a combination of processes and should be run as a combination to secure the best gain for the preclear.


A Scientologist is one who controls persons, environments and situations.


Scientology means knowing in the fullest sense of the word.


Scientology is used on Life and its forms and products.


A Scientologist operates within the boundaries of the Auditor’s Code and the Code of a Scientologist.


The chief uses of Scientology are in the fields of education, organization, mental disability and religion. Scientology is the first to give scientific meaning to these.


A Scientologist is considered a professional if he uses Scientology in any of these fields and has been thoroughly trained in Scientology.


A Scientologist is a first cousin of the Buddhist, a distant relative to the Taoist, a feudal enemy to the enslaving priest and a bitter foe of the German, Viennese and Russian defamers of Man.


The religion of the Scientologist is freedom for all things spiritual on all dynamics which means adequate discipline and knowledge to keep that freedom guaranteed.


We are the people who are ending the cycle of homo sapiens and starting the cycle of a good earth.


There is no barrier on our path except those we make ourselves.


Our ability belongs to all worlds everywhere.




Issue 76 [1958, ca. early June]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



“Offbeat” Processing


L. Ron Hubbard



Experimental auditing has its place. Indeed, we got where we are because of experimental processes. Every process was once experimental.

BUT when you want results you had better use standard techniques and procedures. After all, I have sweated through their testing for years and we now KNOW what will ease or clear a preclear.

Most clearing “failures” are caused by use of non-standard techniques and procedures. Also, such failures can be caused by ignorance. An auditor thinks he is using standard material. He isn’t sufficiently trained to know.

Such an auditor who has had failure, should take a leaf from New Zealand. Frank Turnbull wasn’t getting the results he wanted way “down under.” So he grabbed a plane and came halfway around the world for a two-day briefing. Frank was right. They weren’t using techniques properly—and their old-style E-Meters weren’t even working and they didn’t know it.

Now if a smart, clever auditor like Turnbull can doubt his command of the subject, I am sure other auditors would experience no disgrace in following through and getting squared around. For clearing is easy if you know how.

Such stories as an auditor who “clears his pcs each week” are more tragic than funny. And rather costly to luckless pcs.

Some auditors don’t understand “What is a Clear” and get confused with their own cases—but that doesn’t mean a Clear doesn’t have a precise definition, an exact and distinct beingness—and very worthwhile, as any clear can assure you.

Perhaps the saddest case of experimental auditing to come to my attention was the case of a young man whose wife was depressed. She was making such difficulty in the family that he could not work. He had had training as an auditor but felt he could not help her. He had no money for auditing from a professional.

I reviewed the case and asked him why he did not at least try to help her, and recommended he use standard auditing and procedures. This he did with adequate results and his efforts succeeded very well so that he was able to resume his work, his wife sharing his responsibilities.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

And then it seemed to him that he might go a bit further faster. That is the usual stumbling block—anxiety to do it all at once.

But preclears cannot do it all at once and the thoroughly experimental approach he used, born out of his own basic lack of reality, was not successful. He “audited” his wife downward into a condition almost as low as she had been in before, thus canceling over two-thirds of his gain.

Now none denies his right to undo what he had done to help her, but his intention was to help her swiftly and spectacularly. Had he read his PABs he would have found as of three years ago a mention of his “discovery” as an unworkable approach, in defiance of the principles which make Scientology function.

Once more he had to quit his job and his wife has lost confidence in his willingness to assist her.

Fortunately, another auditor has now volunteered to assist—and he will use standard, proven, tested techniques and procedures.

You see, there is a thing called Scientology. It has axioms. It has principles. It has the goal of empowering a thetan to overcome his own problems. This standard Scientology we don’t change every day. The uninformed, not knowing that a standard exists see in each new release a new subject. So they say, “Why don’t I experiment on my pcs?” And they experiment with the standard background, not with a further reach of old, tried, principles.

Without a guiding central organization Scientology would fall into an anarchy of opinions in a week for there are too many who can go through the motions of auditing who do not know their basics. They think a new thing, Scientology, is an experimental thing. It is not. The basics are inflexible and have been for years.

We know now just exactly what clears people. And we know exactly what a clear is. And we know exactly how to train and process. These are hard won riches. Don’t waste them and your time, too.

This is the way out! Are some people so fond of the trap they avoid the flaming beacons which show the entrance? Or are they afraid to set Man free?

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JUNE 1958



RUNNING VALENCES


1. Never leave one half flat. Stupidity is then in restimulation.

2. Always run a specific valence.

3. Past track valences are preferable to run over present life valences.

4. Thetan valences are preferable over body valences.

5. “Invent a (valence)” is a milder form, less effective but often more real to PC than “Waste a (valence).” Commands for Invented valences: “Invent a (specific valence).” “Think of a problem that valence could have.” “Thank you.”

Commands for Wasting Valence: “Tell me (Think of) a way to waste a (specific valence).”

“Does that really waste it?” (occasional use) “Thank you.”

Types of valences that can be run: Formula—Invent and/or Waste valences on eight dynamics from 8 to 1.

Goals for Clearing by Valences: Uncover basic personality. BP is, of course capable of all attributes of clear. OT is an educated BP.

Wind up all valences you have run with “What part of that could you be responsible for?” which puts him back at cause (since he elected as cause any valence you ran).

Clearing by Valences is probably the 3rd step (with Help and Step 6) of Clearing. C by V doesn’t neglect or supplant Help or Step 6.

Always pick bad or contra-survival valences. Never run pro-survival. Differentiation is on this basic:

A contra-survival valence physically injured pc.
A pro-survival valence never did.

Pcs pick out for their randomity stuck flows on help.

E-Meters don’t register well on valences. They stick and several valences mentioned will only stick more. A valence sticks. It must be freed up on meter.

8th and 7th Dynamic area of valences produce wildest results.

Chief characteristic of formula 8 to 1 is to produce judgement.


LRH

LRH :-.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JUNE 1958


STANDARDIZATION OF CLEAR PROCEDURE

FOR GUIDANCE AND USE OF THE HGCs

(a) Stress 4 pts of error.
(b) Run Help, Step VI.
(c) Standardize Valences.
(d) Eliminate Wasting Help.

(a) 4 pts of Error

1. Profile, IQ unchanged = PT Problem left in restim, or not located at all. Cure = Understand, Locate and Flatten PT Probs.

2. Profile dropped = Auditor code break, real or imagined, unrepaired by auditor. Cure = Repair any code breaks with 2-way comm & Help.

3. Unstable Gain = Too many processes or processes not flattened. Cure = Increase confidence on auditor’s part. Get him off of a total effect need.

4. Auditors unable to produce good results = Introduction of new processes which auditors then use without sufficient reality. Cure = Use only processes on which auditor personally has a reality.

(b) Clear Procedure

Clear Procedure consists of Help in Brackets on any terminals and Step VI. There are no other certain processes at this time.

(c) Standardize Valences

Valence splitting is most reliably done by running Help in Brackets on the valence.

There are two valence processes now under test which seem to be better than others. They are still experimental.

Experimental (a)
Invent a being who could not be helped.
What problem could that being have? Ack.

Experimental (b)
Invent an unconscious being (person).
What problem could that being (person) pose? Ack.

All other tested valence processes have so far failed.

(d) Waste Help

This process violates rule of terminals, “Run terminals, not conditions”.


LRH:bt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 77 [1958, ca. late June]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.


Learning How to “Clear”


L. Ron Hubbard


In December of 1957 the first Clear was made by another than myself.

This was the gain. This was the fruit of the years.

Now we can have many clears. We can have thousands of clears. And if we can have that, we can have a civilization.

So this was the bottleneck—other auditors couldn’t really clear people. And this bottleneck is splintered to diamond bits.

Other people can clear others. And so we’re on our way.

However, it wasn’t so much the technique that counted—it was knowing how to apply it—knowing fundamentals, knowing procedures.

THERE IS A KNOW-HOW IN AUDITING TO CLEAR.

It won’t be picked up out of books. It won’t be taught by word of mouth. It will be taught where Scientology teaching itself was evolved—the Academy.

The procedure of teaching to clear is as much part of clearing as the techniques of clearing. We must face that fact. And there’s no real text on it because the text would be too long.

There are very few people who know this teaching procedure. But brighter than that, there is at least one place where the combined know-how can accomplish the fact—and that place is Washington, D.C.

So now that we’ve got clearing and clear people, we also have a course, enrolling every Monday, that teaches clearing and only teaches clearing.

That course is the Academy course leading to the grade of HUBBARD CLEARING SCIENTOLOGIST.

This is the old BScn Course and replaces the grade of Hubbard Advanced Auditor, which certificate while still valid, will not be issued again at this time.

The Hubbard Clearing Scientologist Course is five weeks in length. It is taught by L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. It is taught only at the Academy of Scientology. It will continue to be taught.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard All Rights Reserved.

The prerequisites of the course are Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist and Hubbard Certified Auditor certificates.

The cost is $285.00 unless taken consecutively with an HCA Course where there is a discount.

The grade of Hubbard Clearing Scientologist will be the only validation stamp grade below the ACC Course.

We have found that an aspiring auditor does better in school if he first has a Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist Course, preferably under a validated field auditor, of which there are many. However, this course is taught at the Academy as well. This is a two-week course at the Academy.

We have found that an auditor goes nowhere if he does not know his basic Scientology and the fundamental activities and procedures of an auditor. These are taught in the Hubbard Certified Auditor Course. How to analyze problems, handle preclears, apply Scientology to life, give assists, do spiritual healing, handle the mind and a multitude of skills are all basic in this HCA Course. It is the Key Scientology course.

It lasts eight weeks and contains 575 hours of personalized instruction. This is the course that really makes a Scientologist. It is a requisite to the Clearing Course.

The Hubbard Certified Auditor Course is constructed as a wholly practical course, more on the order of a laboratory than a lecture series, in which every important aspect of livingness is taken up part by part and demonstrated with simplicity and clarity. Until such a thing has been done with a person, his attempt to clear others would meet with failure. But, even more importantly, successful living would be questionable without a modern HCA Course.

The new Hubbard Clearing Scientologist Course follows a long tradition. Called the BScn Course and later the HAA Course, it has always taught clearing in one form or another. Earlier courses stressed exteriorization and other routes. Dr. L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. and Dr. Richard F. Steves have been the principal instructors in the past. The length and schedules have not been varied greatly from its earliest beginnings. The only things new about it are the title of the certificate and the actual, precise, welded in-place, embedded-in-concrete stable data and procedures surrounding the new fact of clearing.

People who complete this course will be able to clear people and that’s all there is to it. The possibility of clearing somebody without such a course is, on the average, not very probable since clearing is a new reality. That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t try. A person attempting to clear will do more for a preclear than he’s been able to do before, but to really reach the ultimate fact of clear with a pc would be quite a feat indeed without the auditor being specially trained.

We want people who can routinely clear people—and fast. We want no false prophets who, unable to really clear, degrade the definition or results of Clear. We want clearing auditors. We’ve made them in the HGC, I made them in the ACC, so we can make them in a five-week course—if they are good HCAs already.

The public will buy Clearing from an auditor. Even the dullest seem to understand what you mean when you describe “Clear.” So an auditor selling clearing had better be sure he can. And we can make him sure—not only of the fact of clear but his own ability to clear.

In an Advanced Clinical Course after 1958 I am going to teach only Operating Thetan technology. The goals of an Advanced Clinical Course are to clear the

students who aren’t and teach all the students how to audit toward Operating Thetan.

Thus, as you can see, the ladder of courses we have developed have evolved into their natural places following the natural evolution of people and can stay that way. To develop this ladder we had to have technology about teaching and developed what we needed over these eight years. And we had to have the actual facts toward which to train. And so we obtain the following courses and goals, all of them logical and practical:

1. Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist. —Two weeks of day training. Teaches people how to communicate and handle people. Field or Academy trained.

2. Hubbard Certified Auditor. —Eight weeks of day training. Teaches people the practical parts of life and the fundamentals of handling it, as well as the procedures of auditing. Taught by Academy only.

3. Hubbard Clearing Scientologist. — Five weeks of day training. Teaches auditors to clear people. Taught by Academy only.

4. Hubbard Graduate Scientologist. —(Advanced Clinical Course—ACC.) Six weeks of night and day training. Teaches auditors how to audit toward Operating Thetan. Taught by LRH only.

Those are the grades which have evolved. We see no reason to change the arrangement or the certificates for the next thousand years. There will be other special courses, of course, but these are the basics.

You might ask why all these certificates beginning with the word “Hubbard”— auditors in 1950 and again in 1954 voted it that way, overthrowing my plea to take it easy, and so that’s the way it is. They want it that way. Doctor of Scientology still exists, too, you know.

I am very happy to make this announcement of courses. I haven’t liked the changing around, either. But any Hubbard Dianetic Auditor can have a Hubbard Certified Auditor certificate just by writing in and paying the small cost of preparation and any HDA or Hubbard Advanced Auditor certificate is still valid.

What a long, hard struggle it has been to stabilize the know-how and goals of training. We’ve done it just in time. Not too far off we’ll need to hire a thousand auditors at high pay to take care of something special. So we haven’t missed by much. Preference will be given, of course, to Hubbard Clearing Scientologists—and the training, no matter how many we hire, will have to continue to be at the auditor’s expense—as is true of every staff auditor we have. We, the auditors, built all this ourselves out of our own pockets and so we own it. That won’t change.

A hundred thousand clears would change for the better all the civilizations of Earth.

Say—do you know we’re already doing it?

The Scientologist is today’s Cause point in an embattled world. We’ll win.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JUNE 1958
(Revision of HCO Bulletin of 28 May 1958)






PROCEDURE FOR CERTIFYING CLEARS

This Applies WORLD-WIDE
All Offices and Auditors


Clears are tested by several departments. In only one department does all this data assemble. And only that one unit can pronounce a clear “Clear”.

Testing department gives test. Testing should not tell pc anything which would lead pc to think he has been passed for clear.

Dir of Pr gives an E-Meter test and review of written tests but cannot finally inform pc he is clear. The most he can say is that it seems so, but final declaration of clear is reserved to the HCO Board of Review.

When all papers and data are assembled at HCO Board of Review, this unit then reviews the entire picture. HCO Bd of Review can call for a retest at its own discretion after a lapse of time.

HCO Bd of Review then submits all tests to LRH for a final review. Only after LRH certifies a person as “Clear” can a clear bracelet be issued.

THIS APPLIES WORLD-WIDE. ALL TESTS FROM ALL OFFICIAL SCIENTOLOGY OFFICES.

The issuance of the bracelet by HCO Bd of Review is the first time the recipient is informed finally that he is clear.

This Bulletin is retroactive to the first person cleared by modern Scientology.


LRH:md.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © l 9 58
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[This revision changes the fifth, sixth and seventh paragraphs which in the 28 May 1958 issue read:
“Only when HCO Bd of Review is completely satisfied does it then issue a clear bracelet.
“The issuance of the bracelet is the first time the recipient is informed finally that he is clear.
“HCO Bd of Review should refer cases about which it can’t decide to LRH for personal review.”]





LRH TAPE LECTURE
27 June 1958


** 5806C27 AUDC-18 Processing and Clearing

CLEARING CONGRESS LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
4-6 July 1958

“The Clearing Congress was held at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., July 4, 5 and 6, 1958.

“It began with the presentation by L. Ron Hubbard of fifteen clear bracelets to some of the Clears attending. From this beginning he went on to cover, in nine fact-packed hours of lecture, the entire subject of Scientology and Clearing. Six of the lectures are available in color film. All of the data needful for a complete understanding of the subject was outlined and the data necessary to production of Clears was given in full.”
—Ability 79



5807C04 CC-1 The Fact of Clearing; also available as color film

** 5807C04 CC-2 The Factors of Clearing (Four Elements); also
available as color film

5807C04 CC-3 The Freedoms of Clear; also available as color film

5807C05 CC-4 Evaluation of Importance, Things to Know in Clearing,
Prerequisites to Auditing; also available as color film

** 5807C05 CC-5 Clear Procedure, Part l: CCH-0, Help; also available
as color film

** 5807C05 CC-6 Clear Procedure, Part ll: Creativeness; also
available as color film

5807C06 CC-7 The Magic Button

5807C06 CC-8 The Goal of Auditing

** 5807C06 CC-9 Violence

5807C06 CC-10 Juvenile

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JULY 1958



CONTENTS AND COVERAGE OF HCA/HPA COURSE

Training Activities Please Comply


Required knowledge of an auditor:
Knowledge gives Results.

The Auditor’s Code
Code of a Scientologist
The TRs
The Axioms

The following Scales must be well known:

ARC Triangle (Emotional Scale)
Know to Mystery
Effect Scale

Processes he must know before he runs clear processes:

ARC Straight Wire
Havingness Subjective
Trio
8-C
Thinkingness Processes
Assists
Running Engrams & Secondaries
Handling of PT Problems
Problems of Comparable Magnitude
Opening Procedure by Duplication, earliest style


LRH:bt.jh L. RON HUBBARD




HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JULY 1958


STAFF CLEARING


The Director of Processing is in charge of Staff Clearing.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:bt.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JULY 1958




STANDARDIZATION OF CLEAR PROCESSES

FOR GUIDANCE AND USE OF THE HGCs


(a) Stress 4 pts of error.
(b) Run Help, Step VI.
(c) Standardize Valences.
(d) Eliminate Wasting Help.

(a) 4 pts of Error

1. Profile, IQ unchanged = PT Problem left in restim, or not located at all. Cure = Understand, Locate and Flatten PT Probs.

2. Profile dropped = Auditor code break, real or imagined, unrepaired by auditor. Cure = Repair any code breaks with 2-way comm & Help.

3. Unstable Gain = Too many processes or processes not flattened. Cure = Increase confidence on auditor’s part. Get him off of a total effect need.

4. Auditors unable to produce good results = Introduction of new processes which auditors then use without sufficient reality. Cure = Use only processes on which auditor personally has a reality.

(b) Clear Procedure

Clear Procedure consists of Help in Brackets on any terminals and Step VI. There are no other certain processes at this time.

Supplemental Processes: CCH 0-1-2-34, S-C-S, Connectedness.

(c) Standardize Valences

Valence splitting is most reliably done by running Help in Brackets on the valence.

There are two valence processes now under test which seem to be better than others. They are still experimental.

All other tested valence processes have so far failed.

(d) Waste Help

This process violates rule of terminals, “Run terminals, not conditions”.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH: -.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

20TH AMERICAN ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
7 July—15 August 1958

Immediately after the Clearing Congress, L. Ron Hubbard conducted the 20th American ACC in Washington, D.C.


** 5807C14 20ACC-1 Opening Lecture
** 5807C15 20ACC-2 ACC Procedure Outlined, E-Meter TRs
5807C15 20ACC-2A Question-and-Answer Period
** 5807C16 20ACC-3 Course Procedure Outlined: How to Clear a Command,
Simplicity, CCH-0
5807C16 20ACC-3A Question-and-Answer Period
** 5807C17 20ACC-4 Beginning and Ending Session—Gaining Pc’s
Contribution to the Session
5807C17 20ACC-4A Question-and-Answer Period
** 5807C18 20ACC-5 ACC Training Procedure: CCH-0, Problems and Goals
** 5807C18 20ACC-5A Question-and-Answer Period
5807C21 20ACC-6 The Key Words (Buttons) of Scientology Clearing
5807C21 20ACC-6A Question-and-Answer Period
5807C22 20ACC-7 The Rock
5807C22 20ACC-7A The Rock (cont.), Question-and-Answer Period
** 5807C23 20ACC-8 Special Effects Cases—Anatomy
5807C23 20ACC-8A Question-and-Answer Period
5807C24 20ACC-9 Anatomy of Needles—Diagnostic Procedure
** 5807C24 20ACC-9A Question-and-Answer Period
5807C25 20ACC-10 The Rock
** 5807C25 20ACC-10A Question-and-Answer Period: Clearing the Command

The list of lectures given to the 20th ACC continues in date order sequence on pages 298-300 and 302.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JULY 1958
Not for general use.
HGC Auditors may find
of interest.
20TH ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE


The first day on auditing the student checks out as many other students for clear as possible with Clear Check Out Sheets and E-Meter. Text: Ability and HCO Bulletins. Purpose: To learn to check out clears. The way to learn clear check-out is to check out many non-clears.

How to clear a command. Clear each word once only so that the word means something to pc. Only repeat if the pc says he doesn’t understand. Never ask twice “What does Help mean to you?” Clearing a command is not a repetitive process. There is no other right way to clear a command in any case. Clear the command for all sides of a bracket before running one.

All auditing and check-outs are actual. There is no student coaching except on TRs.

1. CCH 0 with emphasis on goals and PT Problem. Done thoroughly at start of every session.

2. ARC Straight Wire using following type command only—”Recall a time when you communicated with something.” Run as a complete 9 way bracket one command each side. Use communicate only. Run until needle of meter is relatively free. Pay attention to cyclic aspect of answers. Purpose: To loosen up bank and screens and to teach student use of a bracket and give him practice. This permits student to ease into a rather strict and exacting auditing activity without an instruction to him from an instructor upsetting preclear as it would if Help were being used instead. Avoid beefy processes where correction, supervision and general instruction are involved. Auditor requires no verbal answer from pc, only a head nod, but checks now and then as to when the communication being recalled took place.

3. Start-C-S oldest version. Emphasis on start and stop. Run change when the start or stop seem flat and only to unflatten them. Purpose: Smoothness of auditor control; accomplishment by pc of really controlling body. You start that body, etc is emphasized.

4. Connectedness, control version. Sole command: “You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you.” No other side of bracket. Purpose: Havingness, unsticking needle, directing pc’s attention.

4b. Student should scout pc’s track looking for the “rock”, spot it or something like it in minimal time, stick it good and free with Connectedness. Purpose: Giving student and pc confidence that some sticky business can be plowed into and gotten out of readily by use of Connectedness.

5. Help. 5 or 9 way bracket in general to groove pc in. “How could .... help you?” On a sticky item run one side of bracket after another, never repeat any one side twice.

Use whole track type commands, never localized this lifetime.

5a. Run “auditors” and “preclears” as subjects for Help. 5 way bracket. First run auditors, then pcs, then auditors, then pcs, etc. Purpose: Clean up all past auditing.

5b. Isolate whole track “rock” and run 5 or 9 way bracket on it. This is an adroit matter. It requires that one know the pc and audit this particular pc. It doesn’t mean forcing one’s own “rock” on the pc. It requires judgment and a knowledge of valences. It may be necessary to unburden the “rock” with several items before it appears. Free the needle on the “rock”. Command must be phrased to include whole track version of pc’s rock. Purpose: To locate largest reality of pc and to hit squarely on what he is always mocking up obsessively.

5c. Scout Help with a general bracket to see if it is freer.

6. Step 6 as in Clear Procedure. Use simple forms.

Repeat 5, 5a, 5b, 5c and Step 6 alternately until clear.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 JULY AD 8



CARRYING ON


Members from Australian and South African HASIs are here attending the Congress and 20th ACC. They are working hard and learning fast.

In the meanwhile the Australian and SA staffs are carrying on short-handed and doing a very fine job of it.

I know how hard it is to cover additional posts for two months. And I wish to thank those staffs for carrying on.

Best,
LRH

LRH:bt nm
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JULY 1958
All Staff
ACC Instructors
and students
Field Offices
COMMAND SHEET FOR HGC


CLEAR PROCEDURE


ON ALL COMMANDS: BEFORE AUDITOR GIVES THEM, HE MAKES CERTAIN HE HAS PC’S ATTENTION ON HIM AGAIN AND OFF LAST QUESTION.

CCH 0—Starting Session:

“Is it all right with you if we begin the session now?” “The session is started.”

GOALS: “What goal might you have for this session?”

(Be certain to end session with “Have we gained anything of your goal at the session’s beginning?”)

PT PROBLEM: (Caution: Problem itself, not just its terminals, must exist in pt.) “Do you have anything worrying you so much that you will have a difficult time keeping your attention on auditing?”

(If pc has)

“Describe the problem to me.”

(Pc does.)

“Does that problem exist in present time now?”

(If pc thinks it does): “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?”—or, “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” (Repetitive questions.) (No further descriptive name is allowed auditor in this command.)

Auditor frequently asks, “Describe that problem to me now.”—”Does that problem now exist in present time?”

--------------

ARC Break: “Have I done something you feel is wrong in this session?” “Describe it to me.”

Plenty of acknowledgement to pc, no further apology and certainly no explanation. Object is to get pc’s attention on auditor in present time, not earlier in session. Goal of TR 2, of goals, PT Problem and auditing is to get pc’s attention into present time, so don’t stack commands on the track or park pc somewhere in session or leave him in an out-of-session problem.

--------------

S-C-S: (Note: All formal auditing, except for final acknowledgement of cycle, which is Tone 40.) Commands:

START: “I am going to tell you to start. And when I tell you to start, you start the body in that direction. Do you understand that?” “Good.” “Start.” “Did you start that body?” “Thank you.”

STOP: “I am going to tell you to get the body moving in that direction. Somewhere along the line I will tell you to stop. Then you stop the body. Do you understand that?” “Good.” “Get the body moving.” “Stop.” “Did you stop the body?” “Thank you.”

CHANGE: “Do you see that spot?” “Good. We will call that Spot A. Now you stand here. O.K.” (Auditor indicates another spot.) “Now do you see that other spot?” “Good. We’ll call that Spot B. All right, now when I tell you to change the body’s position, YOU move it from Spot A to Spot B. All right?” “Good. Change the body’s position.” “Did you change the body’s position?” “Thank you.” “Do you see that spot?” “Well, we’ll call that Spot C. Now when I tell you to change the body’s position, YOU move the body from Spot B to Spot C. Do you understand that?” “Fine.” “Change the body’s position.” “Did you change the body’s position?” “Thank you, “

(NOTE: Change is run only to unflatten START and STOP, when both are flat.)


CONNECTEDNESS: Use: Only to unstick pc on meter when meter can’t be read well or when auditor desires to clear an object wrongly chosen as rock in order to look for another.

(a) “You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you.” (Auditor points.)
(b) (If pc isn’t looking at object with Mest body’s eyes, use following:) “Look at that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”
(c) (On blind humans:) “Feel that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”

--------------

HELP:

1. SCOUTING. This is a 2-way comm activity.

(a) “How do you feel about .. ?” Vary any object that sticks by asking
about specialized form. If a specialized form frees, go back to object that
stuck. Gradually sort object that consistently sticks from objects that stick
by association with it only.

(b) If pc reads high on Tone Arm, gets inconsistent lie reaction, use following: “What have you had to be responsible for?”

To be sure pc is reacting, turn Sensitivity knob very high.

Guide him carefully around his life until he gets on a sticky point. Then sort it out, attempting to get parts of it to clear up. Do not let pc linger on matters which do not stick.

Responsibility sorts the matter out. His realization (cognition) of various zones is what does him good.

This is not necessarily a repetitive command. It can be varied with “What part of that (discovered area or item) have you had to be responsible for?”

Large area of current lifetime can be freed up and with clues from what he has stuck on repeatedly and using what would not free, return to a standard scout as above.

By using part (b) a pc can be brought down on the Tone Arm and can be made to react more normally on meter.

2. Running Help in general: USE generalized items, not specific people or objects (don’t pin pc in current life).

General Help bracket: 9-way:

“How could you help yourself?”
“How could you help me?”
“How could I help you?”
“How could I help myself?”
“How could you help another person?”
“How could I help another person?”

“How could another person help you?”
“How could another person help me?”
“How could another person help another person?”

Running Help on an item:

“How could you help a .........?”
“How could a ...........help you?”
“How could another person help a .........?”
“How could a ...........help another person?”
“How could a ...........help itself?”
“How could you help yourself?”
“How could I help you?”
“How could you help me?”

Run in sequence as above. Do not give same command twice.

--------------

CLEARING COMMANDS: Clear each word and the full phrase once each with the following:

“What is the usual definition of the English (or other language) word .........?”

Do not ask for definitions over and over as a repetitive command. If pc’s definition is poor, clear command every few commands.

Clear only each different word in a bracket. Don’t clear each line in a bracket.

--------------

STEP SIX:

Select simple non-significant objects. Run:

“In front of that body you mock up a .............and keep it from going away.” “Did you?” “Thank you.”

Then use all directions from the body—”Behind that body...,” “To the left of that body . . . ,” “To the right of that body . . . ,” “Above that body . . . ,” “Below that body ....”

Run 6 objects each on six sides of the body on “Keep it from going away,” then proceed to “In front of that body you mock up a .....and hold it still.” Same procedure, then “In front of that body you mock up a........and make it a little more solid.” (There is no acknowledgement by auditor after pc mocks it up and keeps it from going away, etc, or the “Did you?”—there is acknowledgement only after full command is executed. Otherwise acks will thin pc’s mock-ups.)

Note: The objects should be simple at first, leading on up to complexity. But at first, keep them simple and non-significant.


LRH:md.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[The above section on Clearing Commands has been excerpted as HCO B 28 February 1959, Clearing Commands, page 430. ]



** 5807C28 20ACC-11 ACC Command Sheet, Goals of Auditing
5807C29 20ACC-12 ACC Command Sheet (cont.)
** 5807C30 20ACC-13 ACC Command Sheet (cont.)

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1958
Distribution
All staff
Field Offices


THE ROCK


The Rock is a Reach-Withdraw mechanism and the phenomenon of a stuck needle is the ridge so created.
--------------

The Rock is: That which a person has used to reach people or things with and is determined in value by its creativeness or destructiveness. It is simply the reach and withdraw mechanism which makes a ridge and this causes the stuck of the needle.

The Rock is AN OBJECT—it is NOT a significance. And you determine a scout by what the pc shies away from as well as what he sticks on—and a theta bop always winds up in a stuck needle if pursued in a scout.

CYCLE OF THE ROCK (object) A person (I) failed to communicate himself; (2) started using something to communicate with; (3) put the last item on automatic and it created for him; (4) it failed.

The Rock itself, when first located, will be a solution to many earlier cycles as described above. And so, a Rock is peeled off cycle by cycle as above.

The rule is to find the last cycle that is real enough to the pc to stick a needle and this is true of locating and running any lock of the Rock.

Be careful during a scout not to choose an object which makes the needle rise slowly, as this is an addition to the Rock which is being done gratuitously by the pc. (This factor is an indicator but it must not be run.) The Rock stick does not rise—it just sticks.


LRH:-.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




20TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
31 July—5 August 1958

5807C31 20ACC-14 Running the Case and the Rock
5808C01 20ACC-15 Case Analysis—Rock Hunting
5808C01 20ACC-15A Case Analysis—Rock Hunting (cont.)
5808C04 20ACC-16 Case Analysis (cont.)
** 5808C05 20ACC-17 ARC

Other lectures from the 20th ACC will be found listed on pages 293, 298, 300 and 302.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 AUGUST AD 8
Issue 2 Revised



The basic locating question of the Rock (primary aberrative object) is:

“What is a People Pleaser?”

It can also be run just like this: “How could you help a People Pleaser?” as an item bracket.

Do not “kid around with” or invalidate this Rock.


The new item bracket is as follows. It has been designed to preserve A-R-C and to be used in this exact order one command at a time:

The Rock Bracket:

How could a ................help itself?
How could you help a ................?
How could a .................help you?
How could I help a ..................?
How could a ..................help me?
How could another person help a .................?
How could a .................... help another person?
How could others help a .....................?
How could a ...................help others?
How could you help yourself?
How could I help myself?
How could you help me?
How could I help you?

Command words but not as a whole phrase are cleared often (every three brackets) and the pc is asked for his opinion only of the word “help” and the item. His answer is not challenged.


Only ARC breaks can hide Rock again after found—clear them well. CLEAR ALSO environmental ARC breaks on the Rock between sessions.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:b.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


5808C06 20ACC- 18 The Rock, Its Anatomy
5808C07 20ACC-19 The Most Basic Rock of All Rocks
** 5808C07 20ACC-19A Question-and-Answer Period
5808C08 20ACC-19B Question-and-Answer Period (cont.)
** 5808C08 20ACC-20 Auditor Interest
** 5808C08 20ACC-20A Requisites and Fundamentals of a Session

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST AD 8


ACC AUXILIARY PROCEDURE

For Optional Use

THIS IS A ROUGH DRAFT

1. Start Session.

2. Clear auditor with pc—”Who should I be to audit you?”

“What is it all right for me to do?”

“Look at me. Who am I?”

3. Get pc into session.

Establish goals for session.

“What question shouldn’t I ask you?” Handle resultant answers with Straightwire as indicated.

“Do you have anything worrying you so much that you will have a difficult time keeping your attention on auditing?”

Handle pt problem by Responsibility or Problems of Comparable Magnitude. “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” “Describe that problem to me.” “Does that problem exist in present time now?”

Run two-way bracket on Help. “How could you help me?” “How could I help you?” Flatten for the session. (Every time you audit somebody this should be touched on and flattened so that it will stay flat at least for that session. To flatten it for all time or for all sessions would be impossible.)

Check for ARC breaks. If they exist, take them up two-way comm, and also re-flatten above two-way bracket on Help.

WHEN AUDITOR AND PC ARE CLEARED FOR SESSION, ONLY THEN BEGIN ON CASE. THIS IS TRUE OF ALL SESSIONS AND ALL CASES. KEEP PC IN SESSION WITH ABOVE STEPS, USED WHENEVER PC WANDERS OFF IN SESSION. OF COURSE, DO NOT INTERRUPT UNFLATTENED PROCESS TOO SUDDENLY TO GET PC BACK INTO SESSION. ALWAYS USE COMM BRIDGES WHENEVER YOU CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE SESSION.

CLEAR ALL COMMANDS. ASK FOR OPINION OF KEY WORDS BUT NOT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE THIS ASKING A PROCESS. THE PC’S IDEA OF WHAT THE KEY WORDS ARE IS THE PC’S IDEA, AND A REPETITIVE ASKING FOR OPINION IS NOT A PROCESS BUT AN INVALIDATION.

4. Where pc’s idea of the following words is obviously impossible to make any process move, do the following on the words CHANGE, PROBLEM, HELP, CREATE, RESPONSIBILITY, PLEASED. A mis-definition on these words can keep a whole case from moving. It is not necessarily true that clearing these words clears a person. To reorient these words run the following process: “Invent a person” (and when pc has, do not acknowledge, but add:) “Tell me his idea of (key word).” This is a repetitive question.

5. Clear up psychosomatics as feasible with “What sort of a (limb, organ, body) would please people?” “Tell me a person that that would please.” This is actually one command with two questions which are used repetitively until psychosomatic or illness is markedly alleviated. This is done to give pc confidence in the auditor and certainty that something can happen in processing. It will only work if the first four steps are complete and in good working order.

6. Clear up desires about new or different states of mind with “What sort of a mind (personality as needful with those who cannot understand what a mind is) would please people?” “Tell me a person that that would please.” This is actually one auditing command with two questions. There is no acknowledgment after the first question, only after the second. This is used repetitively.

7. Isolate basic Rock by any method. Run Rock Help bracket on it.

Or, boost out with “What sort of a (Rock as found) would please people? Tell me a person that that would please.” See above for running directions.

8. Run general Help and Step 6 as given, first one then the other until case is clean, taking up any of above as needful to keep auditor and pc cleared and in session.

If you do these things with any case you should wind up with a clear. The length of time it takes depends upon the auditor’s skill in getting the auditing done and is much less modified by “severity of case”.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:md.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



















20TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURE
Washington, D.C.
15 August 1958

5808C15 20ACC-21 Summary of 20th ACC

Other lectures from the 20th ACC will be found listed on pages 293, 298, 299 and 300.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST 1958





PRESENT TIME PROBLEM—RUNNING OF


Auditors are occasionally unsuccessful in running present time problems, life computations and service facsimiles because they themselves are not alert to the definition of a problem.

A problem is two-terminaled. A single terminal cannot make a problem. The basic problem is Postulate-Counter Postulate. Therefore, when the preclear says his wife is a present time problem and the auditor runs “A problem of comparable magnitude to a wife”, he is not running a problem at all. He is running a condition. For this to be a problem the wife would have to include another terminal.

An auditor should make the preclear define the problem accurately as a problem, not as a condition or situation. The problem of “my wife’s desire for another man” is a problem. The problem of “my husband’s fooling around with machinery” is a problem.

Wherever a PT problem arises it is up to the auditor to locate an actual problem and get the preclear to describe it. He then runs “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” Thereafter frequently he says, “Describe that problem to me” and makes sure each time he does that the problem is described as a problem, not a single terminal or a condition. When running a PT problem he also asks, “Does that seem to be a problem to you now?”

Failure to get the preclear to define the problem as a problem will result in a failure to relieve the PT problem and the auditor and the preclear may proceed into the session believing implicitly that they have run the PT problem when, as a matter of fact, they have not even touched it but have in actuality run the conditions of a single terminal.

Probably the biggest holdup in all intensives is this fact of mis-definition of problems.

And in passing it may be remarked that given Clear Procedure the biggest delay on clearing is the failure of the auditor to run PT problems and ARC breaks. It might also be said that the preclear only protests violently about ARC breaks under one of the two following conditions: (I) the auditing is actually very bad and (2) the PT problem has not been run. As a rough rule of thumb it could be said that given well-intentioned auditing, a preclear only protests about ARC breaks when a PT problem has not been isolated and run. The problems connected with “being audited”, “being a preclear”, “the auditor”, have been rather uniformly overlooked by auditors, and cases which tend to hang up in processing are usually hung up on these.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH: md.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST 1958





OUT OF SESSIONNESS


The mechanisms used by the preclear in living to keep his attention off the Rock are: to get involved with many present time problems, and ARC Breaks.

We used to believe that a thetan had to have problems. This is not true. A thetan thinks he needs problems to keep his attention exteriorized from the Rock chain and when the Rock is not run out he will continue to dream up problems in present time to keep his attention enforcedly fixed elsewhere than the Rock chain. A thetan will also dream up ARC Breaks to exteriorize his attention from a present time problem.

The common denominator of all locks on the Rock is ARC Breaks. Therefore, in running the Rock, expert auditing is necessary since in this case as in no other, the preclear will dream up ARC Breaks. When his attention flicks back to the Rock when he is between sessions, he will get himself involved in present time problems and ARC Breaks obsessively to keep his attention from going back on to the Rock chain.

Thus, we have the answer to the fact that a session will not progress unless the present time problem is run and alleviated and we also have the answer to the ARC Break difficulties. If the preclear is unsuccessful in keeping his attention off the Rock by a present time problem, he will then dramatize the Rock chain, which is another combination of motives which explains preclear behavior.

The moral of this story is to run out pt problems and to patch up all ARC Breaks or you will not find and run any Rocks.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:md.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

AXIOMS & LOGICS

by L. Ron Hubbard

Published
August 1958

This soft-cover booklet contains The Logics and The Axioms of Dianetics, which first appeared in Advanced Procedure and Axioms in November, 1951, The Prelogics (also known as The Q’s) as given in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course in December, 1952, and The Axioms of Scientology of 1954, published in The Creation of Human Ability in April, 1955, plus later additions.

It should be borne in mind that these actually form epistemology, the science of knowledge. They cannot but embrace various fields and sciences. They are listed in this booklet without further elucidation but will be found to be self-explanatory for the most part. Adequate phenomena exist to demonstrate the self-evidence of definitions, postulates, logics, and axioms.

The logics are separate from the axioms only in that from the system of thinking so evaluated, the axioms themselves flow. The word logics is used here to mean postulates pertaining to the organizational structure of alignment.

This compilation was published in August 1958 in Ability magazine, number 80, from Washington, D.C. It was also printed as Certainty magazine, volume 5, number 21, in October 1958 from London.

40 pages, soft-cover. Also available in French. Available from your nearest Scientology Organization or Mission, or direct from the publishers: Scientology Publications Organization, Jernbanegade 6, 1608 Copenhagen V, Denmark; or Church of Scientology Publications Organization U.S., 2723 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90026, U.S.A.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 AUGUST 1958


CHANGE AUDITOR’S CODE


6. Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed or who has not received enough rest.

16. Maintain two-way communication with the preclear.

17. Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditor’s own personal profit.

18. Estimate the current case of your preclear with reality and do not process another imagined case.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:b.rd


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 SEPTEMBER 1958



HCA COURSE EXAMINATION


The cost for an individual challenging the HCA Course Examination is $25 for tests and interview and $15 for exam and cert. Exam alone can be given.

They must:

1. Pass HCA written exam 100% given by Academy Administrator. (If this is flunked, no further exam is given. It is always flunked.) (This is an opinion.)

If they passed written, then they have to:

2. Read well on IQ, APA, Tone Scale and Aptitude Tests.

3. Be passed by Comm Course Instructor on Comm Course TRs.

4. Be passed by Indoctrination Instructor on Indoc TRs.

5. Be passed by CCH Instructor on CCH Processes.

6. Be passed by Director of Training and be passed by Technical Director.

LRH:b.rd L. RON HUBBARD


** 5809C01 AUDC-20 How to Run Present Time Problems

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 SEPTEMBER 1958
Staff Auditor Hats

POST CASE ANALYSIS ROUTINE


When pc has been taken to the Director of Processing or case analyst (third party enters auditing picture in any way) the auditor must then

RE-ESTABLISH THE AUDITOR with

1. Two-way comm on analyst person.

2. “Who would I have to be to audit you successfully?”

3. “What am I doing?”

This is to avoid pc transferring to case analyst as auditor and then not coming back to session.

This is also done when pc has coffee shop auditing between sessions.


LRH:bjh LRH
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 SEPTEMBER 1958
Issue II


HAVINGNESS—NEW COMMANDS


The value of havingness has not diminished. However, it needed new commands. I have now developed these. They are remarkably more effective than Trio.

FACTUAL HAVINGNESS

“Look around here and find something you have.”

When this can be left—

“Look around here and find something that you would continue.”

When this can be left—

“Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.”

Then return to first again.

The order may be reversed. Some cases may run 250 of the third before finding one of the first or second.

LRH:b:jh LRH
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1958


MORE ON TRAINING DRILL TWO

Avoidance of Double Acknowledgement is vital if you ever hope to keep pc in session.

Double Acknowledgement occurs when pc answers up, the auditor then acknowledges, and the pc then finishes his answer, leaving the auditor with another acknowledgement to do (and also leaving the auditor with no session).

Wrong:

Command: “What could you say to your father?”
PC: “I could say, ‘Hello’.”
Auditor: “FINE.”
PC: “. . . ‘Father, how are you?’ I could say that.”
Auditor: (weakly) “Good. What could you say to your father?”
PC: “I could say, ‘Are you feeling well?’ “
Auditor: (desperate by now) “GOOD ! “
PC: “. . . ‘enough to go fishing?’ “
Auditor: “Well, okay all right. Now ....”

A pc is not always sure he has answered the question so he often changes his mind. If the auditor gives him Tone 40 or any ack at all in between a pc’s reply the auditor is wrong.

You just don’t “encourage” a pc with a lot of agreement okays and yes in the midst of answers. The pc answers, the pc is sure he has answered and the auditor then acknowledges. After all, it’s the pc that must be satisfied.

There are many ways to mis-acknowledge a pc. But any mis-acknowledgement is only and always a failure to end the cycle of a command—auditor asks, pc replies and knows he has answered, auditor acknowledges. Pc knows auditor has acknowledged. That is a full auditing command cycle. Don’t forget it and expect a process to work, it won’t. The roughest spot in most students is TR 2, not so much how to acknowledge but when.

An auditor running into this with a pc should handle it this way.

Auditor: “What could you say to your father?”
PC: “I could say, ‘Are you feeling well?’ “
Auditor: “Did that answer the question?”
PC: “Well, no. I could say, ‘Are you feeling well enough to go fishing?’“
Auditor: “Did that answer the question?”
PC: “Yes, I guess it did. He always liked fishing and sympathy.”
Auditor: (sure pc is through) “Good! What could you say to your father?”

And there’s the way of it. If the pc is not sure he has answered and that the auditor has accepted the answer, the pc will get no benefit from the auditing. And that’s how important that is.

You can always spot a bad auditor. He does two things: he talks too much to the pc and he stops the pc from properly answering.

Add all the above to all training of students.


LRH: md.rd
copyright ©1958 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[PAB 145, More on Training Drill Two, 1 October 1958, is taken from this HCO B.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1958



VITAL TRAINING DATA

(This Bulletin Changes the Character of Training)


No instructor can train a student unless he follows the Instructor’s Code. This code is learned by heart by an instructor, not read.

Wherever we are making poor auditors, we have confused the role of the Academy with that of the HGC. The HGC processes, the Academy trains only.

Tell every student, tell every class of students, tell every instructor many times,

THERE ARE ONLY AUDITORS AT THE ACADEMY. THERE ARE NO CASES.

Every time you as an instructor get interested in the student’s case, you make him put up his engrams for your inspection. Every time you get interested in his auditing skill only, you make him put up auditing skill for your interest.

From this date:

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES MAY AN ACADEMY TAKE UP THE PERSONAL OR CASE PROBLEMS OF A STUDENT.

We’ve got 2,500,000,000 preclears. We can somehow control ourselves long enough to make a few auditors.

They are made by direct, blunt instruction, the tougher the better. They are unmade by a lot of super saccharine sympathy about their poor, hopeless little cases.

So let’s go, training units. No more clinics where there should be schools. You’ll have nothing but cases forever if you don’t make some auditors!

The week’s intensive formerly offered with courses is turned over herewith to HGCs. No further clinics as such may be run by Academies. Auditing may occur in Academies but there may not be preclear conferences, general or private, about the students’ own cases. This works a hardship on HGCs to some degree but HGCs occasionally are victimized by having to train late students who were not trained but only processed through to HCA/HPA. Thus an HGC has an interest in training quality.

Hereinafter all processing for keeps will be done in the HGC and all training will be done in the Academy.

There is a standard toward which a student is trained. It includes two disciplines. Formal Auditing and Tone 40 Auditing. Formal is taught in Comm Course, Tone 40 in Upper Indoc. Students must know their codes and must know how to follow them—no evaluation, no invalidation.

All of Dianetics, the Anatomy branch of Scientology must be taught.

The six simple types of processing are taught.

The axioms are taught.

Anatomy of the mind is taught, not just a lot of figure-figure theory. The student gets there by finding he can confront in a preclear locks, secondaries, engrams, chains, time track, circuits, machinery, valences, the parts of livingness.

Manifestations of phenomena are taught, overt-act motivator sequences, problems, computations, cognitions, comm lags, introversion, extroversion, exteriorization, A-R-C.

Scales are taught—ARC Scale, Effect Scale. The Academies must now undertake 3 separate courses and adhere to each.

If an instructor won’t confront students he starts a big theory course that avoids all anatomy, takes up the personal problems of the students, excuses every failure to teach by saying it was student case. If case gets in the road send the student to the HGC to pay for auditing or not. If theory gets in the road of training auditors, teach anatomy only.

Let’s go on this.

I am instructing all HCO Boards of Review to examine completely on the above outlined items only and to flunk hard any student who doesn’t know his subject. We care little for the synopses and the paper work. We want auditors who know their business, not a lot of squirrels.

A pc gets well in direct ratio to his ability to confront the anatomy of life, the anatomy of mind and the physical universe.

How do you suppose you’ll ever get any auditing done if the student can’t confront, via a pc yet, life, the anatomy of the mind and the physical universe. It’s easier for a student to confront than a preclear to confront.

I’ve got a big idea for training: to wit: Let’s deliver the goods!


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:md.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 OCTOBER AD 8




ACC CLEAR PROCEDURE



The Goal of the Auditor: to help the preclear re-establish confidence in his ability to confront Thetans, Thought, Time, Life, Energy, Matter and Space.

The theory of auditing: the preclear has lost confidence in his ability to face existence and its parts and has difficulty in participation. He is trapped in many of those things he has failed to confront or has been prevented from confronting or has prevented others from confronting or didn’t exist.

By gradient scales his confidence in confronting Thought, Time, Life, Energy, Matter and Space is improved. The rule is, “Find something the preclear can confront and improve that ability.” This normally begins with some part of an auditor. In less able cases, it begins with a thought of the auditor’s or the preclear’s.

Auditing is not erasure. Erasure dramatizes lost things to confront.

Where an auditor can be confronted and makes corny errors, the preclear stops being able to confront—hence the graph goes down on ARC breaks only. Therefore, the stress on smooth auditing.

A present time problem makes it hard for the preclear to confront the session. Therefore the stress on handling present time problems.

Auditing has as its sole liability confronting on a via—it may look to the auditor that he is using the pc (preclear) to confront things and this can be restimulative if the auditor doesn’t know what he is doing. If the auditor is actively preventing the pc from confronting anything or has as his goal never permitting the pc to confront, there’s trouble to hand.

-------------------

ARC, in auditing, is:

A = the ability to be in or at a distance from something.

R = the ability to co-exist with something.

C = the ability to transmit thought between two or more points.

Thus we see that the minimum of two anything is needed for the conditions of ARC to occur.

In actuality the thetan incurs no liability in confronting or not confronting, being in or not being in things and thus a total confronting or total non-confronting are attainable goals. The thetan believes things about confronting or necessities to confront or not to confront and so becomes aberrated (not straight-lined). To confront, knowing is necessary. Unknown confronting or not confronting, when uncovered, gives us the phenomenon of “cognition”—and that is the definition of it.

Auditing is that process which restores confidence in confronting and undoes necessity to confront Thought, Time, Life, Energy, Matter and Space.

Theory of Auditing

It should be realized that an optimum Clear Procedure should take a preclear from the lowest possible levels up to clear. Earlier procedures (1957-1958) did not attempt to address every case but were content to handle about 50% of the preclears. The remainder had to have special address just as cases. Therefore, auditors adopted the idea that on one hand there was Clear Procedure and on the other hand low level procedure—they did not place one above the other in a gradient scale to clear. This particular Clear Procedure does that.

In use it should be realized that different cases require different emphasis. An easy case would not demand a tedious command clearing, suspicious probing to break non-existent occlusions or emphasis on the lower steps. Indeed, these lower steps could be skipped up to CCH 0.

It is all a matter of judgment, how long and hard to run which. Two errors are potential: both rest on accurate case estimation. The commonest is to overestimate the level of the case. And not uncommon, to audit a high level case with very low level processes. The answer is to audit the case one is auditing, not some other case or one’s own case.

Since estimation and auditor-sensitivity are subject to variety and error one cannot cleanly estimate the length of time required to clear anyone. Only approximations are possible and these are varied by possible environmental difficulties of the preclear during auditing: i.e., daily present time problems of crushing magnitude.

We are not today in the area of thousands of hours, however. We are in the area of hundreds of hours in any case, sane or insane. I cite an example: a woman suffering from a postpartum psychosis was audited 600 hours on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 before she turned sane long enough for the auditor to snap off the case the valence of her dying brother, at which moment she turned stably sane. Only then could she have been audited on less fundamental steps. However, auditors are not concerned with the insane but often address relatively unconscious people. This example is cited as the most extreme time in auditing we have on record with modern technique.

I would not be surprised that, with all variables introduced, some case required 800 hours to clear. On a jigsaw puzzle test such a case would have failed to have fitted a single piece in the first 30 seconds, by our present method of estimation.

There are several means of establishing an idea of length of time in processing from present state to clear. The minimum in any case would be three weeks (75 hours); the probable maximum would be 1,000 hours. Between these extremes, we have most people. The peak of the cure would probably be around 250 hours, as estimated by older clearing methods.

Anxieties to attain faster push-button clearing defeat most research. These speed methods violate the reality of the preclear and too thoroughly evaluate for him. In all cases of clearing it is only the reality of the preclear which milestones the gains. That reality requires a certain speed of advance. While being audited, also, a preclear is living, and his surroundings require his attention. Man is somewhat cautious. He must adjust himself within his own ideas of security. The auditor always knows what is wrong with the preclear long before the preclear finds out. One must permit the preclear to find out! That discovery is only assisted, never blackjacked into being (see Psychiatry: The Greatest Flub of the Russian Civilization, by Tom Esterbrook). The patient is part of the therapy—a lesson the Russ school never learned.

Therefore, Clear Procedure starts where it should, CCH 1.

In running the CCHs, a set procedure is followed not only with the single process but with the series. One will discover that only one of the series of CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 bites the first time through. It is useless to run very long on the ones that don’t bite. Example: An auditor does CCH 1 for an hour—no bite. He does CCH 2 for an hour or

so-no bite. He does CCH 3 and it bites He does it for a few hours and CCH 3 levels off a bit. Now he returns to CCH 1 and finds it bites. He flattens it a bit, does CCH 2 for an hour, CCH 3 for a couple of hours and when he starts CCH 4, now this one bites! He flattens it in a few hours, goes back to CCH 1, etc.

The processes CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 are all of a piece. They are done in series fashion, not as individual items.

CCH 1, 2, 3, 4

Number: CCH 1

Name: Give me that hand, Tone 40.

Commands: “Give me that hand.” Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in preclear’s lap. And “Thank you,” ending cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way verbally or physically. May be run on right hand, left hand, both hands, each one flattened in turn.

Position: Auditor and preclear seated in chairs without arms, close together. Auditor’s knees both to auditor’s left of preclear’s knees, outside of auditor’s right thigh against outside of preclear’s right thigh. This position reversed for left hand. In both hands preclear’s knees are between auditor’s knees.

Purpose: To demonstrate to preclear that control of preclear’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting preclear to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over toward absolute control of his own body by preclear.

Training Stress: Never stop process until a flat place is reached. To process with good Tone 40. Auditor taught to pick up preclear’s hand by wrist with auditor’s thumb nearest auditor’s body, to have an exact and invariable place to carry preclear’s hand to before clasping, clasping hand with exactly correct pressure, replacing hand (with auditor’s left hand still holding preclear’s wrist) in preclear’s lap. Making every command and cycle separate. Maintaining Tone 40. Stress on intention from auditor to preclear with each command. To leave an instant for preclear to do it by own will before auditor does it. Stress Tone 40 precision. To keep epicenters balanced. CCH l(b) should also be flattened.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC, Washington, D.C., 1 957.

Number: CCH 2

Name: Tone 40 8-C.

Commands: “Look at that wall.” “Thank you.”
“Walk over to that wall.” “Thank you.”
“With the right hand, touch that wall.” “Thank you.”
“Turn around.” “Thank you.”
Run without acknowledging in any way any origination by preclear, acknowledging only preclear’s execution of the command. Commands smoothly enforced physically. Tone 40, full intention.

Position: Auditor and preclear ambulant, auditor in physical contact with preclear as needed.

Purpose: To demonstrate to preclear that his body can be directly controlled and thus inviting him to control it. Finding present time. Havingness. Other effects not fully explained.

Training Stress: Absolute auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present time auditing. Auditor turns preclear counterclockwise, then steps always on preclear’s right side. Auditor’s body acts as block to forward motion when preclear turns. Auditor gives command, gives preclear a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not check preclear from executing commands.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1957 for the 17th ACC.

Number: CCH 3

Name: Hand Space Mimicry.

Commands: Auditor raises two hands, palms facing preclear, and says, “Put your hands against mine, follow them and contribute to their motion.” He then makes a simple motion with right hand, then left. “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Good.” “Put your hands in your lap.” When this is flat the auditor does this same thing with a half inch of space between his and the preclear’s palms. When this is flat auditor does it with a wider space and so on until preclear is able to follow motions a yard away.

Position: Auditor and preclear seated, close together facing each other, preclear’s knees between auditor’s.

Purpose: To develop reality on the auditor, using the reality scale (solid communication line). To get preclear into communication by control + duplication.

Training Stress: That auditor be gentle and accurate in his motions, giving preclear wins. To be free in two-way communication.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in Washington, D.C., in 1956, as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant “Look at me. Who am I?” and “Find the auditor” part of rudiments.

Number: CCH 4

Name: Book Mimicry.

Commands: Auditor makes a simple or complex motion with a book. Hands book to preclear. Preclear makes motion duplicating auditor’s mirror-image-wise. Auditor asks preclear if he is satisfied that the preclear duplicated the motion. If preclear is and auditor is also fairly satisfied, auditor takes back the book and goes to next command. If preclear says he is and auditor is fairly sure preclear isn’t, auditor takes back book and repeats command and gives book to preclear again for another try. If preclear is not sure he duplicated any command, auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. Tone 40 only in motions. Verbal two-way quite free.

Position: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.
Purpose. To bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + duplication = communication.)

Training Stress: Stress giving preclear wins. Stress auditor’s necessity to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication developed by LRH in London, 1952.

CCH 0

(1) Start Session by saying “Start of Session”. Don’t discuss things and then start session and startle preclear, who thought he was in session all the time. To do this throws pc out of session. Also, you can’t end a session that was never started.

(2)(a) Establish Auditor. Clear auditor with pc. Discuss any successful auditing in the past, even successful doctoring. Shake pc loose from heavy ARC with past practitioners, not by running down practitioners, but getting pc to realize he has been helped. Develop this into process, “Who should I be to help you successfully?” Get it flat, then run “What am I doing?”

(2)(b) Establish Preclear. Put preclear more in session with goals—”What would you like to accomplish through Scientology?” “What would you like to accomplish in this session?” The foregoing two we care little about. We now hit this hard: “What are you willing to have happen in this session?” We get a final clear answer to this even if it takes an hour of two-way comm. Then we establish, “What are you absolutely certain will happen in (finite period of time such as ten minutes or one hour)?”

(2)(c) Establish problems, if any. Run “Is there any place you would like to be more than here?” When this is threshed out, “Is there any place you should

be rather than here?” This may bring any present time problem to view. If it does, audit it with “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” If pc is too agitated to run this or if two-way comm cuts his havingness badly, run Factual Havingness: “Look around here and find something you have.” When this can be left, “Look around here and find something that you would continue.” When this can be left, “Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.” Then return to first again. (The order may be reversed. Some cases may run 250 of the third before finding one of the first or second.) Factual Havingness can resolve present time problems, which are always and only threats of loss.

If preclear seems hard to audit, is in propitiation, does obsessive agreement, has hypnotic eyelid flutter, or in general seems unnatural about talking or not talking, you can put pc into session and get present time problem most rapidly by spending real time on this: “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” and sort it out on a meter, with two-way comm, then ask question again, etc., until pc is really talking to the auditor. The goal of present time problems or problems is to get pc in session. The goal of this, “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” is not to learn the pc’s secrets but to get pc to talk freely to auditor. Accomplishing this one thing on a hitherto non-advancing pc is a great thing and will make the pc advance faster than anything else. Get the pc to talk to you honestly.

Then take up present time problems directly: “Do you have a present time problem?” Preclear says he does but needle on meter doesn’t move. Ask question a few more times—”Is there anything worrying you?” you can say for variation. If needle still doesn’t drop, forget it. IF NEEDLE DROPS pursue it and run only the problem that drops. Don’t run problems that don’t drop! Keep your eyes on the meter while handling pc with present time problems, expand what falls, not something else. Pc can’t confront his problems, therefore the drop vanishes easily, comes back and drops again. This can fool an auditor badly if he doesn’t watch his meter and take up to run and discuss only the drop. (Note: If the meter is “Stage Four” [idle swing, not clear but pc can’t affect meter, which only swings up, sticks, falls and so forth on same pattern—a Stage Four needle has a stick in the top of its oscillation, a clear needle doesn’t] or if it is too stuck to show a fall on a problem, play safe, run Factual Havingness or Connectedness.)

This exact way to run a present time problem can make a full intensive.

Command (when problem located): “Describe that problem to me now.” Make sure pc does. ACCEPT ANY VERSION PC GIVES YOU, BUT ONLY FOLLOW THROUGH ON A VERSION THAT DROPS ON METER. If the version drops, run the following for two or five commands, “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” Then whether drop on meter vanishes or not, say, “Describe that problem to me now.” If the described problem did not drop, buy it but don’t run it, say again, “Describe that problem to me now.” If you can handle this type of problem-handling, if you got pc to really talk to you, you can practically clear a case on this since it gets out of case the succumb postulates that war against betterment. This is the scale of succumb problems from the bottom up: How to go unconscious; How to feel nothing; How to go insane; How to escape; How to die; How to get shed of responsibilities so one can die; How not to care; How to endure; How to get better; How to Live; How to live better. There are inner levels. The basic problem is a “whether” (all problems are “whether” or “how”): Whether to Survive or Succumb. Decisions to do either are, if obsessive, the stable data in the center of the major confusions. When a pc is sitting there in heavy succumb postulates his goals and the auditor’s goals are on opposite vectors. Therefore, preclears who don’t get better aren’t trying to get better no matter how much they say they are. Hence a whole case can run on this provided some havingness is also run from time to time.

In brief, this is where running a present time problem well gets to.

Remember, a problem is not a condition or a terminal. It is a “how” or “whether”. It is a doingness, not a person. “My wife” is no answer to a present time problem question. “How to live with my wife” is a problem. “Whether or not to live

with my wife” is a problem. “My wife’s illness” is not a problem. “How to cure my wife’s illness” is a problem.

Sometimes a pc will come right down on an old stable decision about the problem and say, “It isn’t a problem to me now.” The auditor must not buy this. He wants to know “Why?” until pc is off the old solution and can go on describing problems.

How to be audited. How to stay in session. Whether the auditor has pc’s interest at heart. Such present time problems are very much in order to ask about.

To completely flatten any problem it is necessary to run not “responsible for” but “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” This is run in the same way as above, but is given more commands for each version handed out by the pc. This is the problem command if you want it flat forever. Don’t lose this process or command from your repertoire.

(2)(d) Getting Auditor and Pc established. Take up any ARC breaks with pc or any breaks between pc and past auditors. Always clear away ARC breaks. Don’t dodge them as an auditor.

Explaining why the break occurred is an Auditor’s Code violation—Evaluation.

Saying that the ARC break didn’t occur or was the pc’s fault is an Auditor’s Code violation—Invalidation.

When an auditor fails to take responsibility for the ARC break he loses the responsibility of running the session—which, of course, causes a session to cease to exist.

The relative destructive value of an ARC break is greater than the failure.

ALWAYS HANDLE CCH 0 in every session well except when giving not a session but an Assist only.

TR 11

TR 11. ARC Straight Wire. That process best calculated to orient pc in his past is ARC Straight Wire.

Commands: “Recall something that was really real to you.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you really liked someone.” “Thank you.” The three commands are given in that order and repeated in that order consistently.

Position: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.

Purpose: To give the student reality on the existence of a bank. This is audited on another student and is audited until the other student is in present time. It will be found that the process discloses the cycling action of the preclear going deeper and deeper into the past and then more and more shallowly into the past until he is recalling something again close to present time. This cyclic action should be studied and understood and the reality on the pictures the preclear gets should be thoroughly understood by the student. The fact that another has pictures should be totally real to the student under training.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951 in Wichita, Kansas. This was once a very important process. It has been known to bring people from a neurotic to a sane level after only a short period of application. It has been run on a group basis with success but it should be noted that the thinkingness of the individuals in the group would have to be well under the control of the auditor in order to have this process broadly beneficial. When it was discovered that this process occasionally reduces people’s havingness, the process itself was not generally run thereafter. It is still, however, an excellent process with that proviso, a reduction of havingness in some cases.

Many cases have achieved their first step upward with the process. It is a process which, known, gives the pc the comfortable feeling that he at least has stopped getting worse and that there is something that permits him to hold his own.

In the 20th ACC Lectures I described how all entheta receives its charge from theta. ARC in the bank makes ARC breaks possible. A re-orientation of ARC can be more important than one realizes. The way to blow ARC breaks can be more ARC. Even a psychotic may rise up to merely neurotic on ARC Straight Wire.

The cyclic aspect of ARC Straight Wire must receive attention.

You don’t want to know what when he recalls something, you want to know when. Ask, “When was that?” frequently and you will see pc slide into past and then return to present time as a regular cycle. Don’t end the process while pc is still in past. Don’t finish the process with a comm bridge that leaves him in the past. Just warn him that the process will soon end, and stop it when pc’s recall was of a near present time thing.

You get lots of past lives in view this way. Buy them.

-----------------------

Lasting and easily obtained results were gained in 1956 by using just two processes. With the 1958 Theory of Auditing (above) it is easy to see why. These are basically confrontingness processes. They were S-C-S and Connectedness.

I developed these two for use in combination for a standardization of processing for a whole firm that was having its employees processed in London in 1956. The results were so good that Mary Sue Hubbard, while Director of Processing London, used the same regimen on all preclears with uniformly astonishing results.

The exact regimen used in that period was as follows: simple S-C-S on objects with pc and auditor seated at a table. Then S-C-S on the body. Then “Keep it from going away” and “Hold it still” on two small objects with pc seated, using first one object then the other and always touching them with his hands at command. Finally, subjectively, on facsimiles, “Keep it from going away,” and “Hold it still.” Throughout, Connectedness was used to bolster havingness as needed with the command, “You make that (indicated object) connect with you.”

The regimen as given here was superseded because auditors, unsupervised, tended to complicate the processes and not until a short time ago did we learn that the best answer to an auditor’s desire for “more information” was a repetition of what he was told the first time. He didn’t understand the original and so wanted a new one. Further, in supervised processing, there has been a frailty in that the auditor sometimes reported, “I did what you said and it didn’t work.” An unwary supervisor then gives him a new process to do. A wary one says in reply to the above, “What didn’t work?” and usually discovers that the supervisor’s directions were neither remembered nor run. This set of factors has accounted for many abandonments of SOPs (standard operating procedures) which were in actuality working like mad, only the people they were given to never used them, only said they did, and fed bad data back. It is the role of a supervisor to get the process he gave out run, not another version of it.

CCH 3(c)

The rationale behind S-C-S was simple: it placed the pc in the auditor’s control. And it placed the pc’s body under his own control. But there is more to S-C-S than this since it is also a confrontingness process.

CCH 3(c)

Name: S-C-S on a person. (Start, change and stop on a person.)

Commands: There are three sets of commands, each one of which is run until it is relatively flat. The commands are as follows: “Now we are going to start the body.

When I say start, you start that body in this (indicated) direction. All right, Start.” The commands for “Change” are as follows (indicating four positions on the floor one after the other): “This we are going to call Spot A. This we are going to call Spot B. This we are going to call Spot C and this we are going to call Spot D. Do you have that? All right, when I say Change, I want you to change the position of that body from A to B. All right, Change.” (The same applies for the other positions.) The commands for “Stop” are as follows: “Now I want you to get that body moving in (indicated) direction, and when I say Stop, I want you to stop that body. All right, move that body. Stop.” Each one of the commands is followed with the question, “Did you start that body?” “Did you change the position of that body?” “Did you stop that body?”

Position: Auditor and preclear ambulant. Auditor accompanies preclear as he walks and occasionally touches him and turns him around manually as needed to assist the preclear.

Purpose: To give the preclear good control of his body and to exteriorize him.

Training Stress: Stress is on precision of the motion and command.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1955 as an exteriorization process. First discovered in 1952 was the fact that a person, which is to say a thetan, stays as close to an object as he has confidence in his controlling of it.

GP-3

Connectedness. The basic form of any havingness process is Connectedness. After one flattens S-C-S, one then runs Connectedness on the preclear.

Commands.

(a) “You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you.” (Auditor points. )

(b) If pc isn’t looking at object with Mest body’s eyes, use following: “Look at that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”

(c) On blind humans: “Feel that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”

------------------------

There is a new version of havingness called Factual Havingness. It is used in conjunction with any subjective process such as those subjective processes which follow.

Factual Havingness Commands.

“Look around here and find something you have.”

“Look around here and find something that you would continue.”

“Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.”

--------------------------

Confrontingness

The earliest clearing process, made more workable by repetitive commands and a broad understanding achieved in the ensuing 11 years, is made part of the most modern (1958) procedure.

I was clearing people in 1947 by getting them to look at locks, secondaries, engrams, circuits and the physical universe. I cleared a lot of people in about 100 hours each. All I did was renew their confidence in being able to “look at” their pictures. I turned on sonic, tactile, the works, with renewing confidence, lessening fear.

Three years later, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was written. Its processes are slanted toward teaching people to audit and are the result of people not doing and saying they did. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health

processes are good. They are the best training processes re banks there are. They train an auditor better than they clear a pc.

We now return to earliest clearing with what we now call Confrontingness. See “Theory of Auditing” above.

In general, we persuade the pc to confront things at his own gradient scale of willingness.

We find an ability to confront and we improve it.


Body Confrontingness

This is close to a specific for a chronic somatic.

Auditor: “What part of that body can you confront?”

Pc: “Elbow.”

Auditor: “What part of that elbow can you confront best?”

Pc: “The wrist.”

Auditor: “Thank you.”

This is the whole cycle of the command. The auditor does not correct the pc when “part of” becomes some other part of the body.


Subjective Confrontingness

General version:

“What mental view can you confront?” “What part of it can you confront best?” “Thank you.”

The above wording allows for dark fields and other phenomena and runs easily on an occluded case.

For a person who has pictures and sensations, a more specific form using “pictures”, as well as “emotions”, “feelings”, “sounds”, “thoughts”, etc., can be used.

There can be and will be many versions of confrontingness given. Suffice here that the above work well and can form an entirety of clearing. They are a refinement, a simplification of the first version of clearing and should work as well today.


Participation

We must not overlook the factor of participation in life. Participation in session is necessary for processing to work. It is achieved by bettering the factor “Confronting”.

Auditing toward the goal of total non-confront is eventually to achieve total non-participation. This is highly undesirable.

Destruction as an impulse has as its goal the removal of the need to confront. When one can confront he does not need to destroy. Unwillingness to confront is the source of most “have to be processed”. One is asking the auditor to destroy “all these horrible things”. Obsessive confronting is almost as bad. “Can’t confront it so I’ll prove I can by confronting it forever—and I’ll keep on creating it to prove I can confront it.” The mechanics of the bank can be worked out on such a basis.

Participation is only possible when one can also confront. Gradient scale of confronting can lead to participation without being overwhelmed.

Survival

All processes since the earliest endeavors in this search have aligned on “Survive”. Continuance in Factual Havingness expresses this factor. The postulate to Survive is invalidative of the fact that a thetan cannot do otherwise. The whole key to brainwashing and punishment is that they make a thetan postulate survival which is “continuous confronting”. This is handled by various versions of confronting.

Creating

A reactive bank comes from obsessive creating. A thetan’s answer to being threatened or struck is to create. His basic training is all aligned along creating something. This factor is used in various ways in processing, usually inherent in a process.


Help

Probably the first thing that will have to be taken up in some cases is the subject of Help. To this degree Help is part of CCH 0 in establishing an auditor-preclear relationship. People who do not volunteer to be audited at all will require help orientation as the first step. Five hours on Help with such a person, using a two-way bracket, is often well spent. But such a bracket must be exceptionally well audited, without ARC breaks, to begin an intensive or to repair ARC breaks.

Aside from the above, Help is of vast importance.

The first burning question, when we approach Help as a process, is, “What condition would you have to be in to get help?” This is usually the condition the pc is in. The repetitive command for this is, “Mock up (or invent) somebody in such a condition that they would receive help.”


HELP ON THE ROCK

The “Rock” is the thing the preclear uses to reach people. It is an object far back on the track. It is confrontingness on a via.

The E-Meter is used to locate a stuck object. This is a “lock on the rock”. (The stuck can be freed by using Connectedness on the room, always.)


Help Bracket on the Rock

Use in this exact order, one command at a time:

How could a _______ help itself?
How could you help a _______ ?
How could a _______ help you?
How could I help a _______?
How could a help me?
How could another person help a _______?
How could a _______ help another person?
How could others help a _______?
How could a _______ help others?
How could you help yourself?
How could I help myself?
How could you help me?
How could I help you?

The command words, but not as a whole phrase, are cleared often (every 3 brackets) and the pc is asked for his opinion only of the word “help” and the item. His answer is not challenged.

General Help Bracket

How could you help yourself?
How could you help me?
How could I help you?
How could I help myself?
How could you help another person?
How could I help another person?
How could another person help you?
How could another person help me?
How could another person help another person?

-------------------------

Responsibility

The basic clearing process using responsibility is, “You make a picture for which you can be wholly responsible.”

This, flattened, can make a clear.

It uses the fact that a person is making his whole bank anyway and it persuades him to realize it.

Some version of responsibility is required to end all clearing.

Assignment of responsibility is at the bottom of the search for phenomena and magic to clear people.

--------------------------

Answers

Everyone who does not change in processing is being an answer. He “has it made”.

Therefore, there is an opposite side to problems. That is answers.

“Mock up a problem for which you are (or your condition is) the answer.”


Origins (Originations)

The original version was: “What origin of yours has been mishandled?” “Recall a time when you were pleased with that person.”

A shorter version is, “What origin of yours has been handled properly?”

Any creation is an origin in a communication line, for the purposes of auditing. Hence the importance of origins.


THE BUTTONS

There are certain buttons which depress clearing if the pc has erroneous definitions for them. These are:

CHANGE, PROBLEM, HELP, PLEASED, CREATE, RESPONSIBILITY, CONFRONT.

Various processes redefine them in action. This is such a process:

“Invent a person who likes (the button).”

STEP 6

A cleared person is no longer in confusion about Help or who makes the mock-ups. “Help and Step 6” were the early 1958 clues to clear. These are still used as tests and even when their running is brief, they must be run.

Caution: It is almost fatal to run Step 6 if the rock is not out.

How to Run Step 6:

Select simple nonsignificant objects. Run: “In front of that body you mock up a _______ and keep it from going away.” “Did you?” “Thank you.”

Then use all directions from the body—”Behind that body . . . ,” “To the left of that body . . . ,” “To the right of that body . . . ,” “Above that body . . . ,” “Below that body ....”

Run 6 objects each on 6 sides of the body on “Keep it from going away,” then proceed to “In front of that body you mock up a and hold it still.” Same procedure, then “In front of that body you mock up a and make it a little more solid.” (There is no acknowledgment by auditor after pc mocks it up and keeps it from going away, etc., or the “Did you?”—there is acknowledgment only after full command is executed. Otherwise acknowledgments will thin the pc’s mock-ups.)

Note: The objects should be simple at first, leading on up to complexity. But at first, keep them simple and nonsignificant.

Read and understand Scientology 8-8008, and use an E-Meter throughout.

A valuable side process here: “Decide to make a mock-up. Decide that will ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” Also this one: “Decide to make a mock-up everyone can see. Decide that would ruin the game. Decide not to do it.”

* * *

In the above there are several roads to Clear. But there are also several levels of case to be cleared. Experience tells one what to run. Auditing skill alone gets the experience across.

The original 1947 processes were defeated in the hands of others by lack of auditing drills and skill.

Help and Step 6 do not work on low level cases to make clears of everyone—hence the CCHs.

By doing all of the above on every case you would certainly have clears in all cases. As your experience increases you can begin to omit steps.

You will finally be able to adjust the processes to the exact cases you do.

Get the preclear in session, run something. You’ll win.


LRH:-.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




[The above was made available as a booklet called ACC Clear Procedure and is referred to as such in various issues. ]

P.A.B. No. 146
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 October 1958

PROCEDURE CCH

(This lecture is a final summing up of the previous CCH PABs [interrupted at PAB No. 138] and should be read after those have been digested. It was given by L. Ron Hubbard to the HGC staff auditors in Washington, D.C. on 23 August 1957.



Thinkingness in general should not be suspected to be under anybody’s control. It is probably more under the auditor’s control than it is under the preclear’s.

When I say or ask “Is the preclear’s thinkingness under control?” I want you to understand that it is less under the preclear’s control at any time than under the auditor’s. The auditor can certainly control the preclear’s thinkingness better than the preclear can. But before you can do this you must first get the preclear’s body and attention under control.

A condition to running Trio is: Is the person and attention under your control? To assume that the power of choice is also under the preclear’s control—much less his thinkingness—is, of course, completely wrong.

This condition then moves Trio way up on the present scale of processes. In order to give the preclear some havingness after CCH 0 to 5 has been flattened, I have developed an undercut to Trio.

Trio is a directive process and should be prefaced by “Get the idea of having that clock.” “Get the idea of having that picture (indicated picture on the wall),” etc. That’s highly directive and would keep thinkingness of a rough case under control.

The second version is: “Get the idea that it is all right to permit that (indicated object) to continue.” It is also just an indicating process.

The third section of this trio is the clincher: “Get the idea of making that (indicated object) disappear.” One runs “disappear” instead of “dispense with” or “not-know.”

Small objects are much easier for the preclear to make disappear than large ones. You have not told him to make it disappear but only to “get the idea of making it disappear.” Preclears usually literally interpret you and try like mad to make it disappear—and it usually does for a short time.

I have solved the enigma of exteriorization. Why doesn’t a preclear exteriorize easily and stay exteriorized? We ask the accompanying question: Why does a preclear get sick when one asks him to conceive a static? Obviously we would have to get

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

somebody to conceive a static before he could himself stay comfortably outside his body’s head.

The answer to this problem is contained in the process “Recall a moment of loss.” Loss prevents the preclear from conceiving a static. He associates a static with loss. He says, “All right, if there is nothing there I’ve lost it,” or “I’ve lost something there, therefore I’d better not conceive a static.”

Conceiving a static is therefore painful. The truth of the matter is whenever he lost anything, something disappeared. All right. The funny part of it is that he never noticed that he didn’t lose totally every time. He still had other objects. He lost his tie pin, but he still has his tie. He’s still got the floor, the room, this universe, space, etc., but he never realizes this in these instances and that is why we run this process “Recall a moment of loss” to accustom somebody to conceiving a static very directly on loss and to get him to exteriorize.

An individual cannot conceive a static if he associates static with loss—if the loss is painful. So we have to cure him of the painfulness of loss, consideration of, before we can exteriorize him easily.

We do this by going back to automaticity. The universe has been taking things away from him. It has become an automaticity, and we find that the universe has an automaticity known as time and time itself is a consecutive series of losses. So we have to cure the preclear of losses before we can get him to appreciate time, otherwise he would be so afraid of losing it that he’d stick himself on the track and we get the “stuck on the track” phenomenon.

The process “Recall a moment of loss” aimed at this, but the third command of Control Trio (as this series of processes had better be called), “Get the idea of making that (indicated object) disappear,” handles it very well. This gets the preclear to take over the automaticity of all of the losses which he has unwillingly experienced.

The universe has been taking the things away from him, and just spotting objects and getting the idea that they are going to disappear or are disappearing takes over the automaticity of losses, and he becomes accustomed to it after a while.

All of the invisible masses that preclears have around them are actually simply symptoms of mass—loss, mass—loss. When an individual has no visio the only thing that he is looking at is a “stuck” loss. He is looking at the nothingness of something that was there.

So one takes over that automaticity with the third command of Control Trio and one therefore has a very highly directional, workable set of processes.

Each part of that Trio would be run relatively flat and go on to the next part, and I would say that one would run each part certainly not a hundred commands each and the auditor should endeavor to stay in that order of magnitude and just run it round and round.

Take somebody with glasses, for example. His eyesight will do more tricks in less time on this third command of Control Trio than one can imagine. Things will go black. Well, why do things go black? Blackness makes things disappear and one takes over the automaticity of blackness to make things disappear. Night grabs, the way of the universe, once in every 24 hours on earth here. This is the process we have been looking for to turn on visio.

If you want to turn on sonic with this you would have to go down to a noisy part of town and just run Trio on sound, but you wouldn’t dare run Control Trio on sound if the preclear did not already have it flat on objects. Visio turns on before sonic.

There are many things one could do with this process. People who have anaesthetized areas in their body—like they have no chest, etc.—do weird things during this process.

I wanted to tell you particularly about this particular process because it is a specific and will be found to be very useful to you. We had to find out if one version of this would run without killing a preclear and that is “Recall a moment of loss.” Actually “Recall a moment of loss” should act as a havingness process because it as-ises all of the lost points on the track and it should be a havingness process all by itself; but we didn’t want to be so bold as to run it with no havingness.

(Until I find out differently, this Control Trio and “Recall a moment of loss” are making a bid for our chief exteriorization processes.)

Now here is a process which is based on our old “Recall a secret.” The version is entirely straight wire. The auditor explains to the preclear that he is not looking for hidden data to evaluate it. He is only asking the preclear to look at the data. He then makes a list of valences, paying great attention to those the preclear considers “unimportant” or is very slow to divulge. Then the auditor takes this list and runs repetitive straight wire ( 1951 ) as follows: “Think of something you might withhold from (valence).”

The auditor repeats this question over and over until no communication lag is present. He never says “something else you might withhold from valence” because the auditor wants the preclear to think of some of these many times.

Before selecting another valence the auditor runs a little Locational or Trio. He then takes the next valence the same way. The list is covered once and then the same list is covered again. The object is speed. Cover many people. Given time the auditor can do the same thing on all dynamics.

There is a variation. Instead of a valence, body parts may be used. “Think of something you might withhold from that (body part).” Leave sexual parts or obvious psychosomatic difficulties until last. Don’t begin on a withered arm, for example.

It is amusing to realize that this process overlords all early psychotherapies, but they, using this effort to locate secrets, thought that divulgence and confession were the therapeutic agents. These have no bearing on workability. Further, early efforts naively thought there was one secret per case. Actually there are billions. It is easy to get into past lives on this. A basic secret is that one lived before.

Whenever you run “withhold” on a valence you finish up with “can’t have” on the valence and “have” for the preclear. It flattens off better that way.

You will often find that it is more advantageous to run Locational Processing than Problems of Comparable or Incomparable Magnitude at times. A Problem of Comparable Magnitude is all right, but it is a thinkingness process and on a case that is having an awful lot of trouble with it, it gives them hell to run Locational Processing, but nevertheless it does run out the present time problem, which is most fascinating.

Any one of the Rudiments is an excellent process. Two-Way Communication is great and does not as-is havingness. You have to keep the reality of two-way comm very high, though, and be willing to interrupt obsessive outflows and silences of the preclear. It is establishing a high level of reality. It consists of the auditor feeding experimental data to the preclear to have him look it over and decide about it one way or the other. You don’t let the preclear in Two-Way Comm as-is everything he knows, thinks, or wants to do.

The latest addition to the Rudiments is “Clearing the Auditor.” Actually the crudest way known of clearing the auditor is “Who do I remind you of?” “Tell me

something you like about me.” The best way of clearing the auditor we know of is in Training 15, which is “Could I help you?” “How?” “Could you help me?” “How?” “Could I help anybody else?” “How?” “Could you help anybody else?” “How?” “Do other people ever help other people?” “Do women ever help women?” “Do men ever help men?” “Do men ever help women?” etc. You beat it to pieces on a big long bracket.

This goes so far that it becomes a fantastic process in itself. You take father and mother valences and they are usually quite hot. You can run this on “Help.” This is usually quite necessary on a case that is going to hang up because the only reason he is sitting there is to waste help.

One has to understand that this case is trying to waste help, and it isn’t a matter of “Find the Auditor” in the Rudiments today, but “Clear the Auditor” and the only point on which he is cleared is “Help”—”Can I help you? Can you help me?”

We use Handbook for Preclears to give the preclear some homework at the Hubbard Guidance Centers and it has been helping out just to the degree that it does some clarification on goals and gets the preclear stirred up. It simply stirs up the case so that it will run out.

I was running over a phrenological questionnaire, and it said people are never permitted to do anything they want to do and this is the best goal of discipline. I got this tangled out in one way or the other. I got thinking about it from the standpoint— this was about 20 years ago—of “I wonder if there is anybody around that could articulate with great conciseness what he would like to do?” And I have found on all hands a failure to articulate was the main difficulty. A person had the feeling that he wanted to do something and that it would be wonderful, but it was all in a sensory capacity. If he could have been made to articulate this it would really have been something. And I experimented on it a little bit and we see that today in the Handbook for Preclears.

If you can get a person to articulate in a session anything about the future you have won the subject of goals. But it must be in the alignment of this person’s frame of reference. It must be aligned with his life—not aligned with something we think he ought to live.

So let’s take a look at the clearance of goals. Goals would not be likely to run on a high generality. In other words, they are specific, personal and intimate. It is “What do you think? What do you want? What is aligned to your life?”

Let’s look at Goals as a process. One could run Goals for 25 hours with the greatest of ease. One could run the Present Time Problem for 25 hours, and we just had a report of a terrific win here on a preclear who was run on Locational for 25 hours. So it looks as though the Rudiments could be the session.

We discover a preclear in the terrible condition of not wanting any auditing, not going any place and all of his goals being somebody else’s goals. Two things can be done immediately: Clear the auditor and then run Goals.

Goals could be run with two-way comm in this manner. You ask the preclear what he is absolutely sure would happen in the next couple of minutes, the next hour, a day from now, a week from now, one month from now and one year from now. We want something that the preclear is absolutely sure would happen.

We are running right there the reverse process of atomic bombs which say “no future—no future—no future.” That is basically what is wrong with a person. Why does he get jammed on the track? It is because of “no future.” He had been denied to a point where his loss was so great that he dared not own.

I had a case, by the way, which was one of the roughest cases I have ever run into. He put on the total appearance of being sane—dramatized sanity—and yet the case would make odd remarks like “I really think people are crazy.” “Well, why do you think people are crazy?” I would say. “Well, because people say they can tell right from wrong and you know there’s no difference.” It was fascinating. He would make odd remarks like this from time to time.

One day he made a remark on goals: “Well, it’s really best to tell people that things cannot happen to them because otherwise they might hope they could and then they would be disappointed.”

This person was stark, staring mad and had no future of any kind. Five hours just this one question, “Is there anything going to happen in the remainder of this afternoon?” “Will anything happen the rest of today?” “Is there anything going to occur any place in the world the rest of today?” was run on him and his confident answer, with great certainty was, “No. No. No.”

Finally we broke through it and I finally got the person to admit that there was some slight possibility that there would be a room here for the rest of the day. That busted the case. It read from total no-future up.

This case was an isolated one as we have had occasionally. Now and then an inspirational sort of process cracked them through. Well, now we see this process of Goals on the basis of futures and a person without futures cannot have a fancy future called a goal and all a goal is is a fancy future determined by the pers