Thank you. I take that applause for some of these processes. You were saved from a fate worse than death this morning. There was — one of these regimens was just offbeat enough that it was unworkable. Well, we’ve got one now, the substitute for it works like mad.

This is what? This is 2nd of September, 1st Saint Hill ACC. You probably have decided now that you can’t make it — won’t be possible to do so. I’m supplying the apathy you don’t feel.

Now, if you can make it in a unit of this type: nonaltitude auditing, the heart not being particularly bared, you know, in the rudiments because the room is too noisy anyway, and the auditor probably wouldn’t hear it, you get some very — well, there are liabilities on the running of a case under these circumstances, of course. We should be able to — you know, I, looking across you people — you know that some of you people are restimulated? Should be very easy to do this in an HGC. There’s nothing much to this.

HGC results, now, for several months have been very, very excellent as you watch the profiles coming through. Those excellent results were simply being obtained on Presession I which was no more, no less than Help usually run on a two-way basis or a comm basis; Control, discussion of; communication of, a little discussion of overts and then an assessment on — in Model Session — on a terminal with Help being run directly on that terminal.

This, plowed through for about three weeks, has shown a very, very few cases not responding. As a matter of fact, I think the number of nonresponses are something on the order of four or five for the whole world for several months. That’s pretty good.

Now, what they were doing was going from bottom of graph — the very difficult bottom-of-graph cases were coming on up at the end of the first twenty-five hour intensive, coming about to the middle ground of the graph or not quite; the next one going just above the middle ground of the graph, the second twenty-five hour intensive; third twenty-five hour intensive finding the case very high. This was happening all over the world. This is in HGCs of course. And HGC auditing is very stiffly 8Ced type of auditing on the part of the D of P, or should be and when it isn’t, his results go immediately off.

Now, where this particular regimen and that Presession I, was being used, we were getting wins. These wins were very good. This was, in effect, clearing.

Now, it was Help on terminals in the first ACC where a lot of clearing occurred, which was in Washington there, ’57, ’58. The Help button did run E-Meters down to a Clear reading, and so on. I think that was something on the order of — I’ve forgotten what the statistic is exactly — but some fifteen out of sixty or something like that, it was somewhere in that vicinity, or about a quarter of the people on that ACC made MEST Clear.

Now, subsequendy, on some of the others — some of the others checked out too. But this was the first checkout. Now, some of those people were stable, some were only relatively so and went on and off and back and forth and around and about, and on subsequent processing were not particularly run on Help. Their cases stabilized out to some degree, but they had a long distance to go. They realized they were just a MEST Clear.

Now, what gets in our road — now, you understand that this is Help on a terminal, see, Help on a terminal is what did this. You must remember that because I found out that there must be something else involved here that didn’t give us the results on the remaining 75 percent, you see? There’s something — something was wrong that didn’t reach up into all the cases and straighten them all up, too.

So for a couple of years, I put in a great deal of study on this and managed to get all of the phenomena sorted out in connection with overt-motivator sequences, and whether you ran the pc at cause or not, developed the technologies of OT, and so forth (which again didn’t get a lot of people off the launching pad). It didn’t undercut everything, but it gave us the definition which would go on up the line with it So we ran the pc at cause, like you got in O/W, overt-withhold, and this then, combined with Help used in HGCs, has gone ahead and done a good job of it. So it’s Help on a terminal.

Now apparently, Two-way Help on a terminal, which is to say not running the pc totally at cause, was introducing a variable into the rationale because it was evidently as good as Help O/W. Overt-withhold on Help (which is to say, Help, Not-help) or “you help him, he helps you,” were giving apparently equivalent results.

One night, why, we were going over these HGC results just before this class started to try to determine this once and for all. Suddenly fell out of the hamper that Help apparently can violate — it’s possibly the very rare case — that can violate this cause angle because any Help finds the pc at cause. So it doesn’t much matter whether you run it in two-way flows or brackets or O/W — you still find, if you’ve got help in the command, you still find that the pc at least has to consider that it is or is not help, and you still find the pc at cause. By far and large, Help O/W produces the most consistent result, but Help is sufficiently good that it can be run without too much attention to the rules and still work. This is pretty good. I don’t know whether you consider that data of any importance or not, but it may not have any importance particularly, but you can fairly well count on a gain any way that Help is run on a terminal.

Well, we did it in — couple of years ago, and we’re doing it in the HGCs now. And now we’ve shifted off onto a Whole Track Clear. Now, we’re doing something else here. We’ve made the grade pretty well, but a Whole Track Clear, Book One definition, would apply to all facsimiles on the whole track, you see? I just wanted to call it to your attention that you’re going further than anybody ever thought of going before, you see?

Now, I dare say that here and there right now in this unit we could probably get some — one, two, three — candidates on the old MEST Clear test that would answer up. They possibly would, I don’t know. We have had no intentions of checking it out.

But this isn’t what we’re striking for. We’re striking for a Whole Track Clear. So you can just stop hiding that time when you were one of those, because we want to see that cleared up, too.

Now, Help on motion is apparently Help on a no-terminal. Quite interesting, it’s not directed immediately at a terminal, so you would say, perhaps, that it classified as a significance. It doesn’t classify as a significance, however, because actually it frees up terminals. It gives the pc more terminals than he’s had before, so it’s not really a significance you’re running it at But the peculiarity of Help is that it’s sufficiently good that it can be run at a significance.

Don’t try it on a pc you’re really trying to do something for — but I’m just giving you a statement You could probably run Help on an Axiom and get away with it That’s right You certainly could on somebody who has exceeded MEST Clear because these people don’t have that much trouble with havingness.

But on a case which is having a great deal of trouble with the sixth dynamic, about all you can do is to bring about havingness on the sixth. The way you unravel a case is to bring about this one fact Now, you understand that Help is terribly important. And we may some day get some kind of an objective combination of Help or something of the sort that introduces this into the lower-scale factors. But right now, as far as we’re concerned (and even if we used Help, this would still be true), all we are trying to do with somebody who’s having an awful lot of trouble is to get him to be able to have. And that’s it That is the horrible simplicity of it.

The resolution of the sixth dynamic, which we are taking off the seventh dynamic in our theory and rationale, is simply that if the pc cannot have it, he will not-is it Therefore, you get a disappearance of anything and everything that is wrong with him. You get such things as an invisible field: “I don’t have any facsimiles, I don’t know what Ron is talking about, I never see any pictures.” Well, what is that but some kind of a very heavy not-is. Now, that is cured — and this again is as important as or even, for the bulk of people, more important than — that Help on a terminal, cleared, and so forth, people. Because this is how you get a case off the launching pad, and that is to bring about a condition in the case where he can have things on the sixth dynamic.

Now, there are several factors which monitor this, and first amongst them is that Subjective Havingness, “Think of something you could have,” “Think of something you could have,” this kind of a process, you see, it’s no good. Should be all right, but it’s no good. It doesn’t work.

This was tested about the time, long time ago, about the time the HGC was set up in Washington when it was over on 15th Street We ran several weeks of tests on pcs, one kind or another, and they were all Subjective Havingness on the standpoint of “What in your bank could you have?” — whatever the command was, don’t you see? And this sounds like it’d be the answer, and it isn’t Believe me, it leaves those profiles lying quietly just where they were. If any advance took place, it was totally occasioned by simply the regimen of auditing, and the pc was getting some attention. And it would be so microscopic that a psychologist would have been insanely proud of it And if any retardation occurred on it, it could easily and quickly be traced to an ARC break during the processing, and that was all that changed it.

So Subjective Havingness — this you understand is not the old mock-up or the Remedy of Havingness or Repair of Havingness or any of those old ones, they’ve not been lined up against profiles. To tell you bluntly, I don’t run on the vast research monies that they have down at Cape Canaveral to find out how you take a mechanic apart before you pour the fuel in, or something of this sort I imagine they have research projects down there on how to shine brass — and in view of the fact that they don’t have any, and so forth But we just don’t have the vast and ample sums necessary to mm auditors loose, you know, just hire a half a dozen people, auditors, have them recruit pcs, run administrative office and simply run dud processes and flub processes. But some day, I assure you, we’ve got to set up such a unit and just take the whole file of everything in the book from beginning to end and sort it all out again.

These projects are rather mad by the way — sometimes. I started one in Washington (we had a little extra cash) and put a couple of boys on the test files just sorting good profiles out of the test files and finding out what was run on them, you see, just to coordinate it — just a filing project, nothing more nor less. We do this, one character of another of filing projects, very often. And the highest gain profile they found in a whole mass of files (something like a great big file drawer), the highest one in that (not the highest one that’s ever been done) — thirty-five processes were run in one twenty-five hour intensive. Every one of them was a figure-figure process, every one of them. There wasn’t a sensible process in the lot, you see, that made any sense to anybody at that time.

And what had happened is, we’d hired a field auditor onto the HGC and just turned him loose on the old rationale of “What have you gotten results with?” And this is usually the way an HGC auditor is broken in. It’s an exact regimen, “What do you have confidence in?” In other words, “What have you gotten results with?” And while he is learning other technology, don’t you see, we don’t gum him up. We try not to anyway, although it happens occasionally. We don’t gum him up with teaching him and making him use the new all at the same time and abandon the old that he did get results with. So this was one of those cases.

And he’d come in, what had he gotten results with? Well, he’d evidendy gotten results by asking almost random questions on the pc and all based on some kind of a rationale of what he thought the pc’s case was all about, you see? Oh, that was a wild-looking profile.

We sorted out these — they were all processes that had existed at one time or another, but run consecutively or together or something like this, nobody had ever seen the like of it.

Now, in that potpourri, he must have unlocked this rather low-scale pc’s havingness. He must have done this, you see? So that’s well worth studying — that profile would be well worth studying. We’ve got it there still to study, and so forth. But that must have been what happened. Now, he must have asked the exact question necessary to resolve the case, you know, and must have blown some sort of a circuit, a can’t-have circuit of some kind or another — either, otherwise the case would never have made this kind of an advance. Very interesting.

But remember this was one case. This was one auditor. This was one random address to the situation.

Now, I dare say anybody could get a result if he worked hard enough on the pc without very advanced materials or anything else. If he’s willing to sweat it out, why, he could get that — making the processes add up to the various difficulties the pc was having right that moment. Got the idea? Just fit anything he knew of Scientology into the resolution of just one case. Now, how long that would take is its first barrier because, boy, that’s long. And the other one is, he would very far from get all the cases — his percentile of win would be too low, but he could do some spectacular things.

Now, if we went along some old healing regimen, why, we would advertise all the spectacular things. Do you notice that we seldom put out “We have cured this and cured that and cured something else.” It’s only when we could do something consistently that I mention it Yet, we have tons of these things. People are always writing us in wild ones and we hear about wild ones, and so forth, which would probably make very exciting reading and probably you would like to have them, and so forth But the difficulty is trying to assemble them — short-staffed — and weed them out and coordinate them and verify them and put them all out on such a line as this, it’s a rough lot of work, and we don’t do it.

For instance, a young man has a withered arm. Well, I asked one time — there were four or five staff members standing around, and somebody had offered a thousand dollars for a miracle. So these staff members — they weren’t HGC people, some of them were administrative, and so forth — and I just picked this up, a thousand dollars for anybody that could prove that miracles did or didn’t exist, something of that sort. And I just asked these fellows at random, “Have you boys done any miracles around town here? Is there any miracles handy?” and so forth. And one of them that hadn’t been on auditing or technical or anything else says, “Yes, I got one over here a few blocks away. There was a little five-year-old boy and he had a withered arm, and I processed him and his arm grew out normally, and we have the medical certificates about it.” This he’s hiding, see? Well, nobody had ever asked him for it He just thought it was interesting. We have X-rays evidently sitting all over the world of — before, no head; after, head.

But as nice as this might sound, as a book its value would be questionable because these were isolated results out of tremendous numbers of cases, don’t you see? What we’re after is to be able to make our postulates stick. We want to take ahold of a case, and there’s something wrong with this case or right with it, and we want to straighten up this and that’s what we do and that’s what happens. Bang, bang! Now, that’s the research line. We can always find the random cases.

Very many schools of healing look awfully good because they have gotten a lot of results. Well, 22Vi percent of their people will get well simply when they walk in the door of the office. And the doctor, or whatever he is, says to them, “Well, well, isn’t that very interesting. Take three of these tablets every two hours.”

And the fellow does. He gets well. He says, “Life is wonderful, and the practice of something or other — that’s a great practice.” But that’s 22Sk percent.

How about the llxk that don’t? That’s what makes a science, that llxk percent Now, that we could clear something like fifteen out of sixty looks suspiciously, don’t you see, like that 22Vi percent. And I have been banging away at the remaining 75, see? They, to me, were more important on a final resolution than the 25 percent because of one fact: We knew we would get the 25 percent faster if we could get the 75 percent We’d immediately have data that would give us the 25 percent very easily and simply.

Now, we’ve gone on that track, and two years later we’ve got the failure line trimmed down to about 10 percent. It’s gone from about 75 percent to 10. All right Now, this 10 percent studied carefully demonstrates this terribly interesting fact, is they are people who were never gotten into a state of being able to have anything.

Now, that’s the apparent common denominator. They’re so wound up in the bank, so stuck in time on rest points, so incapable of creating an impression on their ridges or hanks (according to their consideration), that almost nothing you do for them, apparently, has any real effect on an E-Meter and an E-Meter doesn’t shift.

Ah, but look, it’s come down — well, it went clearing, because we’re not going to consider what I can do with a case, because my processing of a case very definitely compares to that field auditor’s that came in and processed this fellow with thirty-five processes, you see, and took him out the other end. It’s all fitted up. My percentages are good, but they’re all individually tailored. You know, it’s all tailor-made. It’s a brand-new science. It’s — that’s right, that’s right I used to have to do this in the old Foundations. With everything else I was doing, I would see some case lagging in the clinic, and I would simply say, “Well, send him in here.” And they’d bring him in the office, and I’d look him over and see what he was stuck in and say, whirr, clank, shift the bank, one way or the other, give him back to the auditor and away they’d wheel. And the auditor would come in afterwards and say, “What did you do?” Well, I did what was necessary to resolve that particular case. Well, that didn’t have anything to do with any of the other cases. They were all highly specialized, don’t you see? Obviously, it didn’t have a common denominator. I was running — flying by the seat of my pants. You see how that would be?

Well so, perceptivity was having to make up totally for lack of technology if you wanted that. I was just running on pure obnosis, as we eventually began to call it. And you can see the fellow was stuck there trying to run away from a savage dog or something of this sort, and therefore he’d go up and down the time track to get away from the savage dog. And every time he’d pass the savage dog, why, the circuit would bark, or something stupid like this would be going on. And you’d make him make the dog bark or something like that, you know? And you eventually get rid of this dog, you stop running up and down the time track and he could run facsimiles, and they’d process him. That was the way it went.

Well, that’s all very exciting, but two years ago 25 percent stable runs, stable MEST Clears, leaving 75 percent. Right now we probably skinned this thing down to under 10 percent in HGCs and here.

Well, what cooks with this remaining 10 percent? This remaining 10 percent is the “no-have.” That’s the common denominator of the thing. They cannot have the sixth dynamic Well gee, that brings us in awful dose to it You’ve got the sixth and so forth. Now, they might be prevented from having the sixth by a bug on beingness on the seventh. So you’ve just got two zones of approach there. Well, is this really narrowing the sights down. Just look at that There are just two dynamics you’re going to hit: You’re going to hit the sixth; if they don’t crack on six, you’re going to hit the seventh.

Havingness is your target If you can get this person to have, if you can stop his obsessive no-have on everybody, if you can separate out the circuits which tell him that havingness is impossible and all MEST is horrible, if you can just crack that, then you can change the character of his bank. And if you can change the character of his bank, he then gets into a state where he can perceive that he can handle it to some degree, and you can increase that ability right on up to the top. And the only thing, of course, that you’re doing for a pc is to demonstrate to him that he can handle his bank.

Now, there are certain things in the bank he’s shying away from, and there’s trick ways to handle these things, and as you audit him, he of course handles these things. It’s a, you might say, reassurance. It’s a regaining of confidence.

Now, you could possibly — it’s very interesting, I set up one just not too long ago, asked somebody what they could trust me to do. They were being very suspicious of me, I set them up on this basis “Just go off someplace and sit down and figure out some things that you could actually trust about me,” see?

Well, just that little piece of confidence, don’t you see, just that little regaining of confidence there, to some degree, altered for the moment the attitude of this person toward me. See, slight, but it did do it — something. So that confidence, regaining of ability, surety, and so forth, is still your common denominator: the feeling that they can do something without immediately, catastrophically failing. Now, that’s the state of mind you’re remedying in a pc — “If I do anything, it’ll just flop anyway, I know.”

You get the idea? The fellow said, “If I was appointed the judge, the sole and single judge of the Adantic City Bathing Beauty Contest, I know what would happen — I know what would happen. I would break my leg the night before.”

Now, what tells him this? Well, he’s got a long record of failure. That failure is his bank, but his first and foremost failure is simply MEST, failure to handle; beingness, failure to handle. And failures to handle and assist or do anything with MEST, failures to handle and assist, do anything with beingnesses or other life-forms, finally stack up to a point where he has a bank, and this bank is a record of failure as far as he can see.

But, of course, it isn’t a total record of failure, and you have to get him back to a point where he can confront those failures, take it apart and get the show on the road again. And the first and foremost failure, and the commonest failure that can be attacked on a case that’s having difficulty is havingness — failure to possess sixth dynamic, MEST.

Now, if you can unlock havingness in any way that it can be unlocked, you will get some of these 10 percent And if you can unlock beingness — those that are pushed off into the seventh, why, you’ve got that one started, and you should have the remainder, except those that are totally unconscious. And you still got the CCHs. It’s quite important.

Right now, we’re at a point where, without any regard to the upperscale advances of cases, we are at a place where the lower echelons, and so forth, can be moved rather definitely — just this one little process: “Point out where you’re not being confronted,” that’s not its wording, but that idea. Well, the individual, of course, is unwilling to let anybody else have anything, and he’s allergic to beingness, and it unlocks the sixth and seventh at the same time. And of course right here in this unit some cases ran this thing and went, “Wow!” See? And they hadn’t been moving on the meter much before that Well, that’s a dead center, see?

The overt is not giving the other fellow something to confront. So it runs an overt, it takes off obsessive nonconfronts and at the same time, of course, it takes off repressed havingness for the other fellow. And one represses havingness for the other fellow, he of course represses havingness for himself. So this combination sits oddly enough exactly in the center of our theory. And what do you know? It ripped up and threw away most of the cases that were dragging their heels.

There must be something to the theory on which we’re operating at this present moment I would say to that degree that it’s probably well worth some study and observatioa.

Now, what about somebody that it didn’t straighten out? Well, this person must be preventing without being able to prevent anything. They must have some kind of an effect going here, a no-effect going, to such a degree that it must be so stuck that the havingness factor cannot alter. So we now have Regimen 6 which knocks at that.

What’s the matter?

Well, when I get them off the launching pad, man, they fly. Them sticky rockets, I don’t like them.

Now, that is aimed squarely and directly at — of getting a fellow off of his obsessive prevent by giving him some wins on it, oddly enough. Letting him win. Such a rationale is based on the old process, the original Phoenix ’54 — is, “What around here is having an effect on something?” or “Find something that’s having an effect on something around here.” That’s the original pattern of the process. All right.

Now, that gets shifted over to giving a person a win. “What effect could you prevent?” “Look around here and find an effect you could prevent,” or “What effect could you prevent?” Some such spotting process in the immediate environment, no matter how it’s run. And what do you do then? You’re going to give him some wins on preventing something and stack it up. And once more you have a good opportunity of pushing past the no-have block.

Every case that’s locked up is locked up on a no-have. That’s the common denominator of all those cases that we haven’t been able to launch swiftly. And we are shortly going to run out of percents. I think you will admit we’re doing pretty good though. We went 0 percent by others clearing, to 25 percent by others clearing, and now we’re moving it right on down because basically the people we couldn’t dear, those were the people we didn’t get off the launching pad either. They were the little-progress case that went on for years.

Well, nobody had unlocked their havingness. So this is what we’re trying to do, and that’s how we’re getting cases going. And our theory is apparendy very good, it’s apparendy working out very well. And I want to compliment you on both the auditing you’re doing and on the results you are achieving with the material.

Thank you.