A careful study of staff auditors’ reports reveals that the only advances worthy of the name of Scientology occur when the auditor repairs or remedies havingness on the preclear. Without the repair and remedy of havingness no real gains become apparent. A preclear will not progress when his havingness is impaired.

What are the symptoms of loss of havingness? Running any as-ising techniques the preclear may become anaten, slightly nervous, agitated, want a cigarette, or seem to break out of the session in some fashion. In either case, he is “down on havingness.” In other words he has burned up, used up, or as-ised, too much of his physical body energy in the auditing itself. In view of the fact that every subjective technique puts a sort of hole in the middle of the electronic mass surrounding a preclear, parts of that mass then begin to cave in on the preclear. Thus running an as-ising technique on a preclear beyond the ability of the preclear to sustain the consequent loss of havingness will bring on in the preclear many new engrams which he did not have before. A technique which as-ises energy, if used without a repair or remedy of havingness, will bring about a worsening of the case of a preclear.

Now exactly what is happening is very simple. A preclear starts to go anaten and the auditor keeps on running the process. He hasn’t realized that he ought to interrupt a process at any time if the preclear demonstrates a loss of havingness. Anaten is such a demonstration of loss of havingness. All right, another example: the preclear becomes agitated or upset; he reaches for a cigarette; he begins to twitch; his foot begins to wobble; he begins to talk excitedly; he begins to cough while being audited. All of these things demonstrate a loss of havingness. These same conditions, by the way, can result from the preclear believing that the auditor has broken the Auditor’s Code in some fashion or has overcome his power of choice. Both a repair and remedy of havingness are immediately indicated on the observation of anaten or agitation on the part of the preclear. In addition the auditor should carefully go over the session itself to find out, if anywhere, the preclear believed his power of choice was being overcome, or if the preclear believed the Auditor’s Code had been broken. You understand that the auditor didn’t necessarily have to overcome the preclear’s power of choice or break the Auditor’s Code in order that the preclear should believe that this has happened. However, this could be overlooked entirely if the auditor had been careful enough to repair or remedy the havingness of the preclear.

The slightest drop of alertness on the part of the preclear, or the slightest agitation or somatic, should immediately indicate to the auditor that havingness has dropped and must be immediately repaired or remedied. A great deal of time can be spent on the subject of repair and remedy of havingness, and it is time spent with great benefit. It is better to “waste” time spent repairing and remedying havingness than to blunder on through. Now there is another thing I have noticed with regard to this. Auditors are running these days toward cognition. Very well, if they expect a preclear to cognite they should not expect him to pull in a bank upon himself. If an auditor runs a very obvious process which should bring the preclear toward cognition, runs it several auditing commands and then stops and repairs and remedies the preclear’s havingness, and then after that asks him the same auditing question two more times, he will discover that he has blown a cognition into view. In other words you could remedy the havingness of a preclear while his mind was on one particular subject and bring a cognition into existence.

This becomes particularly important today, since a few months ago I discovered that you could remedy the havingness of anybody, and I mean just that!! You can remedy anybody’s havingness and you can turn on mock-ups on anybody. The fact that the preclear who has a black field can be caused to mock up blacknesses or invisibilities and shove them into his body brings us into an era of being able to make anybody turn on mock-ups. Getting the preclear to postulate that the mocked up blackness is bad for the body will cause that blackness to snap into the body. By getting the preclear to postulate that the invisible mass he has mocked up is bad for the body it will snap into the body. Of course, after this has been done a few times, the consideration of the preclear will change. Then perhaps the blackness or invisibility will only snap in when the preclear postulates that it is good for the body. He may also have a residue left. It is very important to get rid of these repair and remedy of havingness residues. By various postulates such as that the residue is a threat to the body, it is good for the body, it is bad for the body, the residue too will snap in.

Let’s differentiate at once here the difference between a repair of havingness and a remedy of havingness. We used to call repair of havingness “giving him some havingness.” It needs a better technical term. Therefore let us call this “Repair of Havingness.” It means having the preclear mock up anything he can mock up, and in any way it can be done get him to shove (never pull) that mock-up into the body, and by similar means to get rid of the residue which went along with the mock-up. That is a repair of havingness. It is a one-way flow; it is an inflow.

Now a remedy of havingness is getting him to mock up and shove into the body enough masses to bring him to a point where he can eventually throw one away. In other words repair of havingness is simply having him mock up things and having him shove them into the body, and a remedy of havingness is having him mock up and shove in and throw away the same type of mock-up. Remedy of havingness is always a superior operation to a repair of havingness. Repair of havingness is a very crude stop-gap, but can be used any time. However, a preclear who is working well, and on whom havingness can be remedied, should, at all times, have his havingness remedied, not repaired. In other words any type of mock-up should be both shoved into the body and mocked up and thrown away. This should be done in considerable quantity until the preclear is quite relaxed about that particular type of mock-up. One does this, remember, every time the attention of the preclear drops, or he becomes agitated.

There is one other little point connected with this which is quite important, and that is, auditors very often audit a preclear into an area of time when the preclear exteriorized. This, on a preclear who does not exteriorize easily, brings on a considerable grief and sadness. The way to get rid of this is, of course, to remedy the preclear’s havingness or only repair it, and to ask the preclear to recall times when he was not exteriorized. This will bring up at once times when he did exteriorize and where fear of exteriorization was built up considerably.

I have noticed another special condition regarding this exteriorization phenomena which is quite important. A preclear will occasionally repair and remedy havingness up to a point where the body disappears for him. He doesn’t quite know where to put the mass he has mocked up since he cannot find the body. This is particularly true of preclears who have a very low threshold on havingness. An auditor would be stupid indeed to simply plow along beyond that point where the preclear has already said that he couldn’t find any body to push any havingness into. The moment the preclear does that the auditor should suspect that the preclear has gotten into an exteriorization type incident. It is not, however, necessary that he immediately flounder around and try to find this incident as recommended in the paragraphs just above. He can also repair and remedy havingness in this fashion, and it is very important to know this. Although it is disastrous for a preclear to be asked “What could your body have?” since he will simply strip the bank of various old facsimiles, it is a very, very good repair of havingness to ask a preclear “What is there around this room (area) which your body could have?” and then have him pick out specific objects in the environment which he says the body could have. If he does this he will come up the gradient scale of havingness, and his havingness will be repaired immediately or directly on the Sixth Dynamic. With a preclear who cannot get mock-ups and where the auditor has either been too clumsy to get the preclear’s mock-ups turned on or it really was impossible, more or less, the preclear’s havingness can be repaired by having him do this process. So this is a very, very important process, and one that ought to go down in red letters.

This whole subject of repair and remedy of havingness and its effect upon auditing, and the fact that it has not been stressed at all in training, being up there at Level Six in the old Basic Processes, brings us to SLP Issue 8. The entirety of Level One in SLP 8 will be devoted to the repair and remedy of havingness.

In SLP Issue 7 we have a great many phenomena associated with the remedy of the body’s havingness. The reason for their position is to bring about an adjustment of the condition of the body before one goes on to other and more complicated ways of processing. Now, in Issue 8, all of these various things will be retained, but they will be paralleled with a complete remedy of havingness and that particular level of SLP will be gone over. In actual experience it is better to remedy the havingness of a preclear, no matter where he is on the tone scale, and no matter by what process, than to run any significant process. Further, if a preclear cannot at least repair his havingness, to run Waterloo Station is to invite disaster, because in this particular process of Level 2 he is liable to get himself into a “down havingness” situation and of course will not be able to not-know anything. He may be chewing up too much energy while trying to not-know. Thus we would have the failures which have occasionally occurred in Waterloo Station. They were simply havingness failures, not a failure of Waterloo Station. Further there has been a new command suggested for Waterloo Station: “What would you be willing to not-know about that person?” This seems to be a better command, at least for the British Isles.

We also take care of the vacuums and separatenesses and everything else with repair or remedy of havingness and running it in with certain other things, such as problems, etc. When we discover by two-way communication a weak universe, we could then ask the individual preclear, “Invent a problem that person (weak universe) could be to you.” Then, watching him very carefully, and repairing his havingness on the subject of that person’s possessions, get a very rapid separation of universes. I have noticed that the weak universe came about when the person elected by the preclear to be a weak universe first began to put mest anchor points around the preclear. In other words, valuable presents.

I am as pleased as can be to get a finger on this point and I know well that if East, West, North and South would begin to repair and remedy havingness and stop specializing in significances without repair or remedy of havingness, we are going to start shooting people up to the top of these Scientometric graphs. We can’t help it.

Let me call your attention specifically to the old phenomena of the emotional scale and the engram. We found out that when one engram was keyed in, it fixed the emotional tone of the individual. Then we had him run this and as he converted the engram to usable havingness, we found that his tone rose. We discover on these Scientometric charts that the “unhappy” section does not move if we don’t change the mass of the preclear.

The latest news from the research front has to do with the fact that the GE demands and requires and has to have, evidently, sacrifices. The GE does not run on an overt act-motivator sequence, which makes one suspect he is not a thetan. A GE runs exclusively on being sacrificed to. If you have the preclear mock up sacrifices to the GE, you will find these become very readily assimilated.

On a lower level the body accepts motivators; as soon as it is through this motivator band, it accepts sacrifices and finally comes up to a point where it will accept live bodies. When one considers that eating is entirely a matter of absorbing death, one sees this death hunger in processing by running Sacrifices. A person who has had bad legs should have a sacrifice of legs run on him and so forth. This is astonishing material. It is almost unbelievable that the GE will not be sacrificed to anything, but will only be sacrificed to, and this phenomenon that the GE is thereby demanding death tells us at once that the atomic bomb will be used and that there are people in the world who will actually crave this sacrifice of cities and even nations.

Aside from being a fantastically workable process, more of which anon, this matter of sacrifices tells us at once a great deal about the future. There will be no moral restraint where the atomic bomb is concerned. For about the highest level in some areas of the world, as to case, is “operating GE.” This tells us, too, why soldiers will go to war. This explains a great deal of conduct.

The GE evidently operates on the postulate that as long as anything else is alive it can’t live. However, it is becoming more and more doubtful that there is any more life in the body than the thetan puts there, and that the body is a single machine operating on some implanted postulates contained in the energy masses which are activated by the thetan somewhat on the order of the old “pole” theta trap. Many of these considerations can be changed around rather easily. Nothing changes them quite so fast as these sacrifice processes.

In mocking up sacrifices the auditor should use all the skills of creative processing and ensure that the preclear is actually mocking up and is not dragging in old facsimiles from the bank and restimulating genetic line incidents. This can be obviated by having the persons in the mock-ups dressed in modern clothing; mocking up the incident as happening tomorrow; altering the mock-up in some manner, such as turning the face green or something of this nature. Any reasonable way in which you can ensure that you are dealing with mock-ups and not past track facsimiles.

This gives auditors another tool with which to handle chronic somatics.

There is another process which has a great deal of workability with chronic somatics. I know that some months ago and earlier than that it seemed rather fatal to us to continue to fixate the preclear’s attention on the chronic somatic. But that is not a problem with us right now. It ceased to be a problem the moment I invented an auditing command exactly as follows: “Invent a problem that (leg, arm, nose, eye, body) could be to you. “ Running this command, which is in itself a sort of remedy of havingness, and repairing and remedying the havingness of the preclear as we go, we will discover that practically any and all phenomena associated with the service facsimile will come away and clear up, and the limb, nose or eye will get well. This can be used as a word of warning: Only on actual terminals. Never use this command, and I mean never, on actual conditions. Never ask him to invent problems lameness could be to him. Never ask him what problem blindness could be to him. Lameness and blindness are conditions. We want to know what problems legs or eyes can be to him, since legs and eyes are terminals. In running this command we reduce havingness too rapidly whenever we are stressing conditions. Therefore we run it only on terminals. In running it use only terminals. Handled in this way we do have the answer as of this moment, to chronic somatics. With these processes in SLP and the adequate repair and remedy of havingness we can push our preclears right up through the top.