Русская версия

Site search:
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Reality Scale (PAB 123) - PAB571100
- We Are the Free People (ABM-58) - ABM571100

P.A.B. No. 123
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

1 November 1957


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 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.