We’ve covered a lot of material concerning affinity, reality and communication, and in this lecture we’ll go over how you use this data and how it is applied, and coordinate it with Standard Procedure.
If you look over the chart of survival that was published in the Handbook, you will see it is graded in tones 0 through 4. There is an arrow pointing upward for survival, and one pointing downward which represents the suppressor factors. The survival arrow has three components which are the “how” of survival; those three components are affinity, communication and reality.
There is one of these tone scales in every person for each dynamic.
The first dynamic tone scale could be called the first dynamic graph on an individual, and similarly with the second, third and fourth dynamics. And each one has affinity, communication and reality as its component parts of how it is surviving.
This tone scale has application, then, to the individual, to the progeny and the future (sex), to the group and to mankind.
For instance, one could draw this up just for mankind about mankind and one would find, as far as reality is concerned, that races are badly out of agreement with one another about how they should conduct their business of surviving. So there goes reality as far as mankind’s attitude toward mankind is concerned. Of course, with man not knowing many of the facts and not having very much truth, one could not have expected a reality to have existed there anyway.
Looking at the languages of mankind and their methods of communicating in general, we find out that they all see, feel, hear and so on — they do have that in common — but their languages are so polyglot that from group to group they are really out of communication. For instance, how many Americans speak Russian?
Regarding affinity, a great many organizations from time to time in the history of man have jumped up and said, “Well, man is a very evil character with no love in his soul, but we are going to try to make him love his fellow man. We have to teach man to love man.” (That’s a manic, by the way.) Then in order to convince man that he must be taught to love his fellow man, they first have to convince him that he is a dog and that he hates his fellow man — and there goes affinity.
That is war, because there is no affinity, no reality and no communication. This says no survival.
I wouldn’t give a plugged copper for the survival value of mankind at large if he continues along a highly mechanistic line of action with guns, tanks, atom bombs and so forth. It predictsthat his survival is extremely poor. Compare this, which is theoretical, to the real world, and we find people slogging through the snow and drizzle of Korea, shooting up other people, and we find the development of bacteriological warfare and so forth.
No one is putting any effort into raising the level of affinity, reality and communication between nations. The way to do it is to speed up and increase communication lines. Today there are very sophisticated means to communicate. We had better use them.
On the reality side, somebody had better find out what the reality of all this is. Should the world go to pieces because of somebody’s cockeyed idea? How real is the idea, for instance, that the way for Asia to survive is to have two hundred thousand Chinese troops stream into Tibet and shoot everybody they can get their hands on? That certainly is not very real.
How do we go about establishing the truth of the situation? A body exists at this moment which can examine the truth of such situations — if it would ever permit itself to hear truth and not parliamentary protocol — and that is the United Nations. They could find out what the reality is and by communication spread it around, and affinity would pick up.
I can sit down with any dozen Russian officers and have them in perfect agreement that the only way to run the world is by a democracy. I have done it. I just never used the word democracy. They agreed perfectly with the political principle that no government which is unsupported by the majority of its people can long exist. If they agree to that, they have agreed to democracy, immediately.
The sloppy ideas people have of all of these ideologies are very interesting. Ask them to define these things and they can’t tell you the first fundamental of any one of them.
Actually, democracy is a method of organizing. It can’t be called an ideology because it is an organizational plan. It says the best and smoothest way to run the country is to let the people make their own decisions about how they want to run it. Then if there is any beef it is their fault, so why should they revolt? It is the safest way to run a government.
As a matter of fact, the Foundations were having a bad time here and there, and people were getting out of agreement with one another and so forth, until the people in Elizabeth put together a staff meeting. The Foundations had been running on a management line, and a couple of the board members were just frantic at the idea of employees suddenly setting up management. Well, maybe Western Electric or the Chrysler Corporation can get scared at something like that, but not the Foundation. It belongs to the staff anyhow. I got back to Elizabeth and looked over their staff conference, and simply issued orders to let the staff go on and manage. The place is now running like a clock.
On top of a democracy you can build almost anything you want. A nation which is running on democratic principles — that is to say, the principle that the people have a good right to say what goes on in the country and that they have individual rights which must be safeguarded — can go ahead and do just about anything it wants; on that basic it can start putting in economic pins.
A common meeting point of all governments would be “Do your people agree that you should govern them?” If the fellow answering says “No, we have to take great punitive measures in order to keep them in line,” you can absolutely guarantee that that government is shortly going to cease to exist. Look back along the historical track and you will find out that governments cease to exist when they disagree with too many of their populaces. There is no weapon to date that will stop a mob. They can kill the whole mob off, but then they haven’t got anybody to govern. All governments have been up against this sad fact.
So that is where these elements fit in on the basis of the fourth dynamic.
On the third dynamic, the group, one can look over the problems of any group in terms of finding out how much affinity there is in this group, one for the next, and to what degree people in this group are able to talk to and be with, in general, other people in the group. Then find out what the agreement is of all of these people in the group on the subject of the goals of the group.
If we look over those factors and analyze them, we will be able to predict the survival of the group or its nonsurvival.
For instance, take a new corporation that is going to build washing machines. It gets going and they get what they think are the right people to handle manufacturing and sales and so forth, but they don’t get anybody to handle personnel. They expand, and one day you find that their washing machines are not coming off the end of the assembly line. They have the very best production manager that they can get hold of; he sits and makes beautiful graphs and blueprints and so forth, and still no washing machines come off the end of the line.
Do an analysis on that company with regard to the three factors of ARC, and you will be able to spot the trouble and fit in the missing factors which will create these things in the group. As soon as these are created in the group it will start to function as a live group, and washing machines will start to come off the end of the assembly line.
The main trouble has been that the big corporations did not understand, for instance, communication and the necessities and needs of communication between management and employee. One of the things that they failed completely to understand was that the aggregate mass of employees were doing the most work. So the employees tried to tell them this and management would not listen, and all of a sudden there were these two camps of management and labor, and they have been going to the races ever since.
It is an unreal idea, anyway, that these two entities — management and labor — exist in a big corporation, because the fact is that management comes on down the line in a sort of spectrum. Everybody is doing some managing, and everybody is doing some labor.
If you ever saw anybody labor, it is the managers of a big corporation. That is really a midnight-to-midnight task, trying to keep up with a large organization.
Those companies which have provided a house organ and have social activity programs and so on get along fine, because their people are getting into communication with one another. Companies which do not have a highly punitive attitude toward their employees, of course, have a chance for the affinity to build up.
I saw a ship go all to pieces once. A captain went on board who hated enlisted men. (He had been one himself too long and he hated them.) But it never really got through to the enlisted men because, after all, this ship was built out of 160 years of tradition to keep the thing together. It was going pretty well until one day when all the men were being sent out on maneuvers at dawn. The captain went up on the bridge and said, “Why aren’t these boats away from the side? They were supposed to leave here at 5:45 A.M.”
Somebody tried to tell him that the galley ranges had broken down at about 4:00 A.M., and that the electricians had gotten them fixed by about 4:50 A.M. and they were trying to get some hot food into these men before they sent them out, because they were going to be gone all day.
The captain, standing up on the bridge, replied, “Well, I don’t care whether they get any hot food or not! They’re a bunch of dogs anyway. Get them over the side and into those boats, and be quick about it!” Quite by accident, somebody had leaned on the public address system. The second the captain recognized it had been on (the man was not what you might call a courageous lion) he immediately dived into his cabin and locked the door. He spent the rest of the cruise on his bridge, expecting at any time to be thrown over the side. This completely broke off communications.
Actually, if he had had nerve enough at that moment to have gone down and given those men a personal growl and said “What’s wrong with you people? Go on, get over the side,” it would not have had very much repercussion, because he would still have been in communication with them.
You can look into any organization and find out what factors are breaking it up.
A house organ that is published regularly and is handed to people to read may have a modifier in terms of reality. A lot of house organs don’t quite deal in what one might call complete truth. And the second anybody begins to find that house organ to be untrue in any way, it is chopped off as a communication channel. The management can spend a million dollars on it, getting the best editors, the best paper, printing it in the best time and handing it out to the employees, but that magazine or house organ is dead. It is not a communication line.
A person cuts off a communication line which proves itself to be false. For instance, there is the story about the little boy who cried “Wolf.” Several times he cried “Wolf,” and each time people found there was no wolf. Then the last time he cried “Wolf” there were wolves, and the sheep and the little boy got eaten up and it was all very sad. He had proven to be a false channel for communication, so he was cut off.
We were putting together a newsletter for the Foundation and somebody rushed down from the management level and said, “What on earth! You have so-and-so writing this newsletter? Good heavens, don’t you realize that he will have to be thoroughly supervised as to what he says?”
When the editor came in I immediately gave him a little chit which said “The editorial policy of this newsletter shall be what the editor says it is. The news which is written in this newsletter will be what the editor puts into it,” because if that newsletter had gone under a barrage of censorship it might have gotten to be a cheerier organ, or gotten up to the point where nobody would have mentioned the fact that Doakes, the other day, when auditing, let a preclear bounce out of eighteen consecutive engrams — it might have omitted these items and been very cheery — but that would not have been communication.
Communication would include the reality of everything that is going on. That is how it has to be done. It has to be true or it is not communication. The second it is discovered not to be communication — that is, it’s discovered to be false — nobody pays any attention to it anymore and it cuts right off.
That is one of the reasons why the American press is declining. They have been having a very hard time in terms of circulation. They have blamed it on the radio and on almost everything, but they never thought to blame it on themselves. The quality of reporting is bad. The whole American press seems desperately to want to slant itself in favor of this and that.
About the only way that one could put out a news organ that would be a news organ that people would accept well and constantly would be to tell the truth bluntly as one saw it. And if one couldn’t arrive at the truth in any other way, then he would write a pro story and a con story on the same subject, and then people could read them both and make up their own minds. This adds to the self-determinism of an individual, if he knows that he is getting truth and he is permitted to make a selection of what seems most likely to him.
One of the main things that happens to a police state, a totalitarian state, is the fact that it warps its press, and the press, which is a main line of communication amongst people, is so consistently full of lies that it ceases to exist as a line of communication and the society goes out of touch with itself. Because it is a lying press nobody believes it. By cutting reality, one chops communication and then affinity goes, and the country will start to fall apart. That is what happens with a group.
Let’s take up the second dynamic. Here you have two individuals who, together as thought entities, are going to create the vehicle of new thought into the future — hence the pleasurable aspect of sex. The reverse on this is two people who are going to murder the future, and we get pain. It is whether or not thought is permitted to perpetuate itself or is stopped in its perpetuation. Death stops it; death is pain. The creation of new vehicles for thought to exist in the future, of course, makes for a great deal of pleasure. So here is where we get the intensity of sex, because it takes two people to come together.
They are in very intimate communication, perceptically, so affinity goes way up. Reality then, of course, and for other reasons, goes way up. Dedication to purpose goes way up, and the truth of that purpose is not even slightly questioned by them in their actual states. Aberratively, it is questioned. So on the second dynamic we get a great intensity of these things.
A family, which is part of that same dynamic, overlaps from “group” back into the second dynamic. So a family is a very strong unit because it fits on two dynamics: the sex dynamic for the future and the group dynamic for mutual defense and aid. If a family is going forward and bringing the children up into good men and women, and really doing a good job of it, the affinity amongst that family is going to increase and the communication lines of it build up, because that is dedication to a natural purpose and it happens to be true. Everybody will agree on this fairly well, except for some very aberrated people.
The main thing that happens in deteriorating marital relations is the breakdown of understanding, a breakdown of communication. One person cannot understand why the other person would not, and they finally fall out of a direct relationship to each other and you get divorces. Most of these things are based on the most confoundedly aberrated misunderstandings, and the two people just break off communication. That is the first symptom of a future divorce.
Then there is the first dynamic, the dynamic of self. It may seem odd that one would have affinity, communication and reality with himself and about himself, but without these things a person is not very sane and certainly is not very happy. “I,” in an unaberrated state, would be very close in purpose to the central purposes of little theta — the universe of thought which is attacking the universe of matter. “I” is little theta in this attack on the material universe.
But start pushing “I” away from these dedications to purpose and its effort to control, and start dropping collision and pain in on “I,” and the more this happens, the more “I” is forced into a situation whereby it cannot forward little theta’s plans, and it gets driven into a very bad state and breaks with the body, which is big theta.
The various portions of the body are in themselves sections of thought and life, and they break apart leaving the organism without unity. The organism has many identities within it. There are the cells and the various functions of the body, and they can be seen to go to war with one another when there is a great deal of pain present. So it gets out of line. And individuality starts cutting in, in direct ratio to the amount of pain experienced.
This postulates a very interesting thing. Possibly, long ago, little theta in its attack on the material universe was simply little theta. It was doing a good job and was very much in communication with all of its unities and entities, and then it started to collide with the material universe. It lost ground here and gained ground there, and it lost ground someplace else, and this was a pretty hard job. Little by little, pieces of little theta started to break off and individualize.
Of course, if little theta was just little theta, and there was just the universe of thought alone with no identity and no individuality in it, it would never get the job done. But if everything was completely individual action, operating highly independently, it would not get the job done either. So the optimum working state lies somewhere between those two points.
What happens, however, is it breaks down to the unit of the individual. But the unit of the individual does not function well unless he functions with a thought for the future and his group, and he functions best when he has a thought for his species and a thought for all life. This is an expanding idea.
Now, here is how this thing contracts. Mankind collides with the material universe and then starts colliding with men. As a result we have mankind breaking down into groups, and we get the groups themselves breaking down into small units, families. And we get those units breaking down into individuals. Then we get the individual breaking down into other individuals.
For instance, take arthritis. Arthritis evidently comes about through some sort of a disturbance in the endocrine system and the avoidance of the injured part by the blood. The blood is flowing through the area in a limited fashion, and calcium deposits form. Actually, the injured area is being avoided by other cells and there is a deterioration of that area. Or sometimes too much attention is focused on the spot by other cells and over-healing occurs. Thus individuality comes about through this breakdown.
In a state of terror in an individual, for instance, the red blood corpuscles lake in the stomach. They leave the extremities and conserve themselves. This is an overall survival mechanism for the body up to a certain point, but after that it destroys the body, because the blood cells have considered themselves as individuals and said, “We don’t have to work with the whole organism,” and so they don’t and the body dies.
One cannot go all the way up this line and get to nirvana with little theta, because nirvana would never get anything done. But when it breaks down to the point where the individual starts to go to pieces, it has gone too far. The individual has to exist as a unit within himself. Because a pain in the leg is liable to affect by shock some other portion of the body, the body has a tendency to consider the leg as an individual. Medicine tends to practice this. Some fellow hurts in some portion of his body so they chop it off. If he has a pain in his liver they cut his liver out! The amount of surgery that is being done is not justified, and many doctors will tell you this. They are taking parts off the individual because those parts have become enemies of the individual.
An aberrated individuality starts to get breakdowns within the body, first of agreement — ”My stomach disagrees with me.” Agreement as to the overall function in the organism starts to break down because of pain, and therefore communication — nerve flows and so on — begins to jam up. The affinity within the body, the cohesive life force which holds it together, begins to break down and the person is less and less alive. The aliveness of the person depends upon a smooth functioning of all the parts in unison. When that is being done a person is very much alive. There is affinity at work, and that is how this works on the first dynamic.
So, there are a number of possibilities you have in administering processing for finding the central point that you must first reach in order to resolve the case. We have to discover where, in all of this multitude of possibilities, do we find one which, when touched, will begin the case upon a resolution of its difficulties.
A person’s mind can be reached on any one of the four dynamics, or any one of these three parts of any one of the four dynamics. If you can just bring reason along any of these lines, you will be doing something.
You can talk to a fellow on the subject of politics and pick an agreement with him and straighten something out along this line, and he will actually become healthier in himself. People make the strange mistake of believing that there would be no physical repercussion on themselves just because there is an upset in politics, but actually this is not true. A physical repercussion in the individual is inevitably attendant upon a political upset. These things cannot be separated out that completely.
It is incorrect to direct too much processing toward the first dynamic, forgetting that the other three dynamics are in this being as well. It is just as much inefficacious to address only the first dynamic as it was for psychoanalysis to address only the second dynamic. There are four dynamics to work with. Use them.
So we can rehabilitate a person from the standpoint of mankind. Look at the fellow who continually tells everyone around him that man is an evil beast. If we can just find out in processing where he picked that idea up, if we can find a point in this fellow’s life where he is being convinced that all man is evil, we can key it out.
There is an enormous amount of love and affinity talked about in Christianity, and here and there you find people who are going along with this and getting along fine. But you find someone else who has read nothing but the Old Testament of hellfire, damnation and brimstone, and he is not getting along fine. Look at a person who believes that life is good, it is worth living, and that man is good, and you will find this person is usually fairly healthy. Then look at the fellow who believes in hellfire and brimstone and you will generally find a lot of psychosomatic illnesses. The one who is talking only hellfire and brimstone is blocked on the fourth dynamic, and it is some of that fourth dynamic interruption which is causing his inaccessibility.
One can pick up factors of any one of the four dynamics and resolve them by straight memory, by running the locks and by running engrams themselves, and by picking up circuits.
There are many kinds of circuits, and they cover every one of these four dynamics. There is a whole set for each one. If you don’t believe this, sometime when you are processing someone who simply doesn’t like things, don’t just work on the first dynamic by asking him “Well, who told you that you didn’t like things?” or “Who told you that you weren’t any good?” Deal with it on the fourth dynamic instead; ask him, “Do you know anybody who used to say men were no good? Or that things were always sour and would run wrong?”
And the fellow may answer, “Well, yes, my grandfather.” You start getting the feedback on what his grandfather used to say and you will discharge locks. These locks are not particularly addressed to the individual. They happen to be resident in him, and they would have to be part of his engrams in order for them to have any enormous effect upon him. But remember that what Grandfather said was usually implanted in either Papa or Mama, depending on whose father he was, and this would have come straight through into the preclear’s engram bank. And you can break these locks and get this person into good shape.
Anything which would tend to break down any part of any one of the dynamics can be addressed therapeutically and rehabilitated, with attendant recovery of the individual.
I ran into one of the nastiest bunches of circuits I have ever contacted in one individual: “You can’t trust men,” “You can’t trust anybody,” “You don’t dare trust anybody,” and so on. This was all on the fourth dynamic. It ran on down the line to “You can’t trust governments,” and it finally came down to where he couldn’t trust himself. This fellow was practically wiped out by this one series of circuits and was badly out of valence. These circuits were found resident in some of his basic engrams. We took some of the tension off the locks and then off the engrams themselves, reducing them as far as they could be reduced, and suddenly his sonic turned on. Because he couldn’t trust anybody or anything, his affinity, communication and reality had naturally been wiped out. Sonic, tactile and visio were all off, but sonic particularly had been wiped out.
Sonic was not off in this case because somebody had said “You can’t hear.” It was off because of the mechanical aspects of the case. It is true that the statement “You can’t hear” would have a lot to do with turning off sonic. There were a lot of these in the case, but they didn’t prevent sonic from turning on. In this case we rehabilitated the person’s trust — his trust in men and in existence, which was his primary circuitry, and as soon as this was done we were able to get into the basic area, and sonic turned on. We didn’t have sonic all the way up the line but we did have it in the basic area, and before that, there was nothing.
The general deterioration of the individual occurs in the mechanical line of continuous pain and shock on any one or on all of the four dynamics. If you have learned that lesson, you have learned a great deal, because you have suddenly broadened your periphery into an enormous fan, so that you can look at an individual and say, “Now, what is wrong with this individual with regard to men and women in general? Or with regard to his relationship to families?”
One preclear had had some marital difficulties, and I started giving her some Straightwire on the subject, running this back down the line. We found that the grandparents were in violent disagreement over everything and that they hated marriage, each one of them, but were somehow or other allies of hers. And just by putting her attention onto it and blowing out locks, I blew a line charge with Straightwire. She laughed for about twenty minutes! It wasn’t funny; it was just the reversal of line charge up the line.
What had been rehabilitated in this person? One of the strongest things that you can have in this society — family, and regard for it. For her, this strong unit of family, which lies on both the third and the second dynamics, had been destroyed so that her belief in it and her affinity, reality and communication about it had all been interrupted. We had a sick girl on our hands who, years afterwards, had married some luckless young man and then wondered why they finally had to get divorced.
She was simply following in the pattern of her grandparents. And she had started breaking down, by contagion, her husband’s reactions. He had probably had just enough of that type of material in his own bank for it to really shake him. As a consequence, there went a marriage.
We just handled that with Straightwire. She didn’t go back down the track or anything. We picked up the grandparents quarreling on the subject of marriage, saying marriage was no good, and that triggered the case, which was then accessible.
I had mentioned something to her about Dianetics, but as far as she was concerned there was nothing wrong with her. After this happened she wanted to know if there wasn’t something more to Dianetics. She had moved right up on the Accessibility Chart.
There is such a thing as selective restimulation. A person has a “standard issue engram bank, American society, 1950.” First he lives with somebody who has one particular set of aberrations. Later on he lives with someone else who has a different set of aberrations, and then he lives with yet another person. When he is married to the first person, a certain section of his bank is in restimulation, certain phrases out of the engrams and so forth. One phrase in an engram can restimulate in the business of living, and the rest of the engram might not restimulate. So he has one type of aberration that’s cutting in to his engram bank and restimulating certain portions of it. Then he leaves this person. That set of aberrations doesn’t completely go out of restimulation, but it drops in its intensity because it is not being super- charged all the time by new locks. Then he lives with a second person who has a certain aberrative pattern of action, and this selects new aspects out of his aberrations, restimulates those engrams more than others, and picks those up considerably. Now when he lives with the third person, the second person’s activities have a tendency to sort of die out in him, selectively. So one gets the aspect of a changing aberration pattern with the individual, depending upon his environment and upon whom he is with.
Therefore you can say in this wise that it is perfectly valid therapy to change the environment of an individual. And changing environment is a valid therapy because it will permit the things which the environment is restimulating to go out of restimulation. Actually, if a person could change environment often enough, nothing could remain in solid restimulation very long, because of the selective restimulation of his engram bank.
Several doctors of psychosomatic medicine, who do nothing but change the environment of the individual, have tremendously effective practices. As long as the patient stays well in the new environment they will let him stay there, and if he doesn’t do well in that one they will push him over into another environment. However, they haven’t completely realized that the people in the person’s periphery have more effect upon him than any other factor, so if the doctor sends this fellow with his mother from here to there and the fellow keeps on getting sick, it seems to indicate that changing a person’s environment doesn’t matter. But has the environment been changed? In this case, no. So changing environment would include changing personnel.
Occasionally in your career as auditors you will be sorely tempted to change the environment of the individual, and may even do so. You will be working uphill against an unfavorable environment in which your preclear lives, and your work is being rendered ineffective, and you’ll want to change his environment. It is valid therapy and it does work.
There are three valid therapies. One is processing. That is the valid therapy because it will stay that way. The next is education. Education permits the analytical mind to reevaluate its data and in this wise the engrams are differently restimulated than before, because it is only the data in the standard bank and the ability of the analytical mind which is used by the reactive mind. The reactive mind has no mechanics of its own beyond just using what the analytical mind can do.
For instance, it is not the reactive mind which makes a manic capable of building a bridge — it is his analytical mind. The reactive mind is merely able to say “You’ve got to build a bridge.” His analytical mind could build a bridge anyway, and if building bridges is what he ought to do he will go on building bridges after you pick up the engram, and he will do a better job of it now that the manic is gone.
In the educational line you can effect considerable change in an individual. But you must not confuse this fact with what they call group therapy in big institutions, where they get a lot of psychotics together and have them discuss a particular book or something. Immediately, of course, these people have gone into communication with each other on the third dynamic, and when that happens their whole tone will pick up. Any way you can pick up these tones is a valid therapy.
So there is education, which consists of teaching people. Children, for instance, by learning new skills and by learning how to handle themselves in various ways, get up to a point where they are actually overcoming their engrams. A person can work up the line on this educationally.
The third valid therapy is environ, which also includes food. It is quite often true that bad nutrition as part of the person’s daily life can render him susceptible to psychic ills that would not otherwise be restimulated. I studied this in Oak Knoll. l I was studying Americans who had been Japanese prisoners of war and had been thoroughly maltreated on the subject of nutrition. It was odd what this had done to their aberrative patterns. When they were under the onus of very bad nutrition their ethic level fell to pieces.
We think of our brave boys being over in a prison camp in Manchuria during the last war and acting as heroes. No, they did not. As soon as they were helpless and their nutritional lines came way down, their aberrations restimulated to such a degree that the bulk of them behaved practically no better than beasts. It was gruesome. I don’t think one would ever write any part of that saga; it would be bad material to have around in the society. It might be contagious.
These, then, are the three therapies.
So what does education complement? Education immediately complements reality, because it has to do with truth — what is true, what isn’t true, the agreement and the selection of data. And because one is communicating with other people, with subjects, with the material universe, with man and so on via this educational process, communication picks up. And of course if those pick up, affinity is going to increase too.
There is also a limiting factor on how education should be administered. Any education administered which is false or about which the person himself is not permitted to think but is told “You’ve got to believe this, that’s all there is to it” would be actually an interruption on this line.
Why do children start hating school? People are interrupting their communication lines continually in school. Education should do exactly the opposite. It should build up all their communication lines. If that were done children would not hate school. Start breaking down the child’s own communication lines that he considers important, and naturally his affinity goes down, so he hates school. So education at work as far as environ is concerned would be trying to get the person into a friendlier environ, or one in which he himself or his group can triumph.
Thought is in contest in trying to take over MEST.
Sometimes, if one can get a man to a point where he is doing an active job, handling material objects, is up against material dangers which are very easy to locate and do something about, and he can win in this process, it will very often so completely rehabilitate him that no other kind of processing is necessary. He simply goes into communication with MEST.
A fellow sitting in a Morris chair reading a book is not very much in communication with the material universe. He is not out there feeling it, seeing it, hearing it, and so on. He is merely taking a secondhand bite on it. So if he gets out there, all of a sudden his sense of reality goes way up. There is nothing which improves a person’s sense of reality like a fifty mile-an-hour gale in the face. Let him argue with that! He is communicating on tactile, and his various other perceptics start increasing, because he is right up against these things; and he becomes more aware of himself, so inevitably his communication and his affinity for himself go up.
One might even go so far as to say that the deterioration of the mind of man began to take place when man as an individual no longer had to combat the elements, because at that time he started to go out of direct communication with the material universe, and by starting to ease up on it, his necessity level wasn’t kicked up there continually.
The environment which would be most favorable to this individual, then, would be one which would absorb his external attention, and by doing that get his sense of reality, communication and affinity going up on all the dynamics.
His education can be done on any one of the dynamics, and his own environmental change can be done on any one of the dynamics.
Then there is the strength of the environmental aspect of the various dynamics. Take Stalin’s fourth dynamic in terms of environment as an example. He is heavily guarded. He is contacted only by the same people, continually. Material is very tightly screened as it comes through and he is continuously in the same environ. Because of the rigors of management, which have mostly to do with thought, he doesn’t have a chance to go out and ride a horse or take a look at the countryside. He is too pinned down. So Stalin’s environmental aspect on the fourth dynamic is very bad.
It is people with that level of communication, affinity and reality who are controlling nations today.
So we see this whole pattern through one individual, and we have to regard him as being influenced by all four dynamics and impinged upon by these three things in each one of the dynamics — breaks of affinity, breaks of communication, breaks of reality and agreement, along each one of the four dynamics.
When we do that we can derive an enormous number of new thoughts with regard to treating preclears. Let’s not worry about this one little narrow periphery of the preclear’s first dynamic or whether or not he likes his sex life, but let’s take a look at the whole sphere of life. Then we can see how these things have affected him and what people in his vicinity were suppressors on these various points. For instance, who were the suppressors on the subject of man at large? Who was the suppressor about the group, about politics, about the church, about various institutions in his vicinity, such as that of marriage? All these things had an effect upon him.
Anybody who was breaking affinity, communication and reality on any one of these subjects was potentially dangerous to the sanity of this individual, if this material lay in his actual engrams. Remember, all this comes down to the physical pain and unconsciousness of an engram.
The mechanical aspects of the engram and the statement side of the engram combine together to lay as underpinning for all of this, and we are trying to get to this underpinning and remove it.
But we have got to have ways and means to unburden this mind and gain accessibility to it to a point where we can run these engrams out rapidly and successfully. Never take your eye off that ball — that in the final analysis you are trying to get engrams.
Real case erasure occurs by running engrams out with the preclear in his own valence, to complete and true erasure of twenty-six perceptics in every engram, and that is what you are evolving toward as you do therapy on this person.
All of this I have been giving you is material you can look for in the form of locks, so that you can pick up more and more attention units to put this person better together and brighten up his sense of reality, and so that you can reach circuits. And I am giving it to you so that you can have some comprehension of how many kinds of circuits there are and how many things these circuits can suppress.
A circuit does not only come under the category of “Control yourself” or “I have to tell you what to do.” It can be on the basis of “Nobody in a labor union knows what he is talking about.” Think of what this sort of thing does to a company, being in the banks of its manager. Circuits broadly influence the various dynamics in this way.
There are many factors that influence the sanity of people, yet those factors are infinitely simple when you resolve them down. There aren’t very many of them; the basic factors are few. There are four dynamics, and each one of the four dynamics can be graphed and broken down into affinity, communication and reality. The auditor is looking for what broke those three things and suppressed them on any one of the dynamics, and it is very easy to find.