Well, okay. As usual the lecture I was going to give you isn't. But I'll think of something — think of something as you go along.
You probably haven't yet related training in the ACC, which is Academy type training to the ARC triangle. You probably haven't related it because the A is missing, the R is unstable at best, and the C which you expected to be inflow is almost total outflow.
Affinity, reality, communication.
I suppose you think we've left this a long way behind, huh?
Audience: Nope. No.
I don't know if you realize it, but A and R were designed and came about in July 1950 in Elizabeth. And C followed within twenty-four hours.
The ARC triangle is our next-to-the-oldest property. Our oldest property is a bank — the engram, the mental image picture.
But the ARC triangle recently did a terrific resurrection, not after seven days or three days or something, but after seven years it rose sturdily from the dead and again took its place. Only this time we call it control, having-ness and communication.
Affinity, reality and communication are an excellent description of the three basic things on which the universe is built, but without which in balance, life cannot exist. Affinity, reality and communication.
Without affinity — that is, some emotional or felt consideration of proximity — affinity is basically a consideration of distance, but it's that consideration which says that one likes it or doesn't like it. In other words, without some liking or disliking, having some things to avoid and some things to go close to, there would be no game at all.
And reality of course is that sequence which begins with postulates and ends with mass, which we originally defined as an agreed-upon thing. Reality was an agreement. And communication is of course — everybody knows what communication is, it's just communication. Everybody knows that. I mean . . . We didn't have to do any work on communication in Scientology because it was already well understood.
L equals MV squared by the square root of the sine gives you the electrical output of the input on the other side of the ruddy rod. It was the basic formula of communication that was used in the first half of the twentieth century. It was a very well worthwhile communication. It added up of course, naturally, to the fact that if you wanted to communicate with anybody you gave them an electric shock. At least this is the only extant text on communication.
If you go down to the library and look for texts on communication you will find electrical gimmicks and Western Union, and you'll find formulas and you'll find all sorts of things but no discussion down there about one being talking to another being because of course nobody had ever done that. So we had to introduce with this new simplicity this radical idea that one being could talk to another being, that an interchange of ideas could take place.
But if you notice, an interchange of ideas is not very feasible unless there is an agreement of some sort or another. The agreement can take the form of having a mass to talk to, so that we've got a communication via. At least we know what we are talking to if there is something there, and that is reality. And we can simply postulate something is there and talk to it — people do this in New York all the time. We see them walking up and down the streets talking to nothing.
But it works best, really, if we have a reassuring backdrop for our deathless prose. It works best. At least we can get the echo. So talking to something is preferable to talking to nothing, of course.
Well, when two beings are talking to each other here on earth you normally see the oddity of two bodies standing there, not confronting each other and not talking. But there's a lot of words going back and forth. But this is — the reality part of that interchange would be the mass. That is, the platform, whether it's earth or a sidewalk or something of the sort the two bodies are standing on, and the two bodies standing there.
Now space, so far as location is concerned, enters into this. Those are located somewhere — those two bodies are located somewhere and therefore we know where the communication goes to. And whoever receives it knows where to send the answer back to — very necessary part of communication.
And then we get this business of affinity. How far away does a fellow have to be to talk to you? Well, there's more to that under affinity and we have learned there is more under affinity than a consideration of distance.
Yes, affinity is liking and disliking and all the rest of it, but there is more to it. But nevertheless, therefore you have the basic bones of understanding.
Understanding requires affinity, reality and communication. And if any corner of that triangle ARC is lowered, the other two corners lower accordingly.
Now, any Scientologist knows this. It's the most interesting trick in the world that all you have to do to raise somebody's communication level is to hit the A corner of the triangle, affinity, or hit the R corner of the triangle. For instance, you see a policeman out there, he won't talk to you. Why, pick up a hammer, hit him with it — that's introducing some R, and he'll say something — at least "Ouch," something like that.
If you introduce reality into a situation, you could do it just this way. We know that reality is basically an agreement. We used to say it was basically an agreement. Actually we have today the Reality Scale. And that's quite important.
But we've always known all we've had to do — in Scientology we've always known it — all you had to do was introduce some agreement into the situation. You had to agree at least on what you were talking about in order to talk.
It's the most wonderful thing in the world to see a conversation being conducted without any established agreement about what it is being con-ducted on.
It's rather interesting. You go into a — oh, I don't know — I was up in the middle of a skyscraper one time, found a men's club that was about halfway up the skyscraper. They had soft-footed waitresses and so forth. It was very soothing, very soothing. After the fellow had lost his pile in a bull market or something of the sort, why he could go up there and, you know, cry in private.
And so you go in there, and one fellow would say, "Well, I sold 25,000 shares today of American Can."
And the other fellow would say, "Well, my wife doesn't like mink." And …
The next fellow would say, "Well, my rug cost $10,000 — bought it in Brussels."
Very interesting place — I enjoyed the liquor. I didn't know — I didn't know that these fellows had hideaways of this character. I thought that they had them other places; I thought they had only love nests, but they have these places too. And anyway . . . Anyway, it was quite interesting, there wasn't any communication in progress simply because there's no agreement on anything. You'd have thought, well, they're all interested in the market or something like that and therefore they would talk about the market. Yes, you heard more comments on the market than you heard about any other thing, but none of them were sequitur. It was very fascinating.
And these fellows didn't know that the other fellows were there. You got that? Now, you would have had to have established the existence of one of the other people before a communication could have occurred.
It's quite interesting as an experiment to see three or four people sitting around in a room at a party. I did this, by the way, when I was over in London in April, and there were a couple of Scientologists present, and there were some other people too. And they thought this was very amusing — the Scientologists — but the other people didn't realize anything was happening.
I introduced a Miss Jones to a Mr. Smith, six times. I just kept introducing these two people. And they didn't notice anything peculiar about my introducing them six times — because that was the bet I had on with these two Scientologists. Will they notice? They didn't see anything — the girl at first explained to me, "Yes, I — I've met Mr. er — uh — uh."
And I would say, "Well, well, well, Miss Jones, I'd like to have you meet Mr. Smith." All over again, you know.
"Uh, oh, oh, yeah! Well, I-I've met him and so forth." That's all.
Mr. Smith says, "Yes, I — I know Miss er — uh — uh Jones."
"Now, Mr. Smith, I would like to have you meet Miss Jones."
They became inseparable! Nobody could get a word in edgewise the rest of the evening! They just snapped terminals, that was that!
Just a simple demonstration of the practical uses of this very, very old triangle that we have. We just put more R into the thing. We finally got an agreement restimulated in both of them that the other one was there. And they agreed upon the fact they were both there and both located, and thereupon certainly must have had some affinity for one another, and therefore could talk. See, two people couldn't be that close together without liking each other. That just — you know, it just follows. It just follows.
On the last couple of introductions I will admit that I moved Mr. Smith closer to Miss Jones. So it wasn't a pure test. Some A was being thrown into it there. But there we had it. Communication occurred simply by R. And a tiny little hint of A, you know, by getting them close together. All right.
ARC. Well, anybody knows about this. I had a girl who was weeping all over the HASI London. She was over from Ireland, and the hall porter came to me and he said, "Doctor," he said, "is there something you can do about these puddles of tears that keep occurring in the hall?" No, he did tell me, "She feels awfully low." He was Irish too.
Anyway, her father and her mother would no longer speak to her. They wouldn't write her. They didn't want anything to do with her. So I took her under an ironclad discipline on what she was to write to them in Ireland. And I merely told her to write a simple letter through saying that she was in London and that she was working and that everything was fine and she hoped everything was going well at home.
She says, "Under no circumstances would they receive such a letter! They couldn't receive such a letter because they are furious with me!" She had, I don't know, I think she had taken up the piano or something of the sort, and she wouldn't go through with her career and so they had thrown her out into the streets of Dublin. That's quite something to happen to somebody. Anyway — that's really something to happen to somebody. That's why we're having something to do with Ireland. We think there ought to be a country there.
Well, anyway, we wrote that letter and I said, "Now," I said, "just don't do anything about this. Don't worry about it." And she told me a few days later she hadn't had a reply yet, you know — spitting out her fingernails. And I said, "That's okay. That's okay. Now, write them again and tell them you are particularly enjoying your job here. And tell them how the weather is in London."
And so she didn't know about that, but I Tone 40ed it and she sat down there and she wrote the letter and she sent that off.
She got back the most carpingly critical, 1.1 series of slashes you ever saw, and she promptly went into tears and she was going to explain it all to them — explain it all to them, and she was going to dash off this long epistle. And I said, "Nope. Nope. Do you live with anybody?"
She says, "Yes. I have a roommate."
I said "Now, you write her that your roommate is a very strait-laced girl, and that you're very glad to have this roommate and so on."
And so she sat down under a great deal of Tone 40 auditing, wrote this fact back to them. And she received a letter in return saying, "Dear Blank, we are very happy that you are doing well. And we don't feel, however, that you should be rooming with that person." They had changed off any rancor they had to another person they didn't even know.
Well, this girl had seen through this — she had seen that it was totally a mechanical operation, that I was making her do certain things, and she all of a sudden realized that her parents could be handled, and — that was that. She stopped worrying about it and they continued to correspond and everything was all right.
Nah-hah! Well, there is more method than madness in what I am telling you right here. Because A, affinity, necessitates a control of attention. Well now, it's all very well for us to theorize and use in the workaday world, ARC, but let me assure you we've had an awful lot of processes more or less founded on ARC, and they have not in themselves produced tremendous results. They produce good results, but not just spectacular results.
We have seen a lot of things happen by reason of using just plain ARC. But we haven't seen anybody step out of the graveyard and doff his hat. There must be something about ARC which is workable, then, but there must be some counterparts to ARC which are more workable than ARC, since if we know ARC is true, then how do we — and those are basic considerations, very basic — then how do we make it work in this universe, on this planet at this time?
Well, ARC is all very well for thee and me. We can understand A-R-C. We know that the three things add up themselves to understanding. We know how to promote a — understanding with them. But there are very few of us, in spite of our self-criticism and so forth, who have not been able to some degree to handle people before Scientology.
In other words, we were minded in this direction. And then we improved the direction we were minded considerably by understanding ARC and its understanding. Now, you know that's true. It simply clarified our understanding of understanding and its component parts.
But how would you make it apply to this fellow who is just about to be slid into the coffin or the lady lying up in the hospital with her head bashed in, in a comatose state, or the one-day-old child? Now, how do you get it into a processing level?
Well, in the first place you have to realize blindness when you see it, and you have to realize that south is an awful long way south. And the basic entrance of the ARC triangle breaks down to control for A. Bodies and the GE respond to this beautifully. Any preclear therefore would respond to it regardless of his tone level if you were processing him via a body, because this is the body's understanding — it is solid. So therefore A is control.
Somebody comes along and says, "Stand up straighter. Get your heels together. Suck in your guts!" You say, "The guy loves me."
Now, you might phrase it in some other way. You might say, "Damn that sergeant, I could kill him!" Which means, of course, at a GE level, "I love him dearly."
And we have havingness or solid mass in the place of reality.
And we have verbalization in the place of communication. Got that now?
I mean, so understanding takes place in terms of control, mass and communication.
Two nations wish to speak to each other, they start firing bullets. See? They're always surprised that they did that much harm, because they reduced or disorganized the mass. And they say that "We shouldn't have done that." Always after a war they shouldn't have done that. Just like they just that moment discovered, you know, that bullets made holes in walls. I mean, any fool knows this. But the — nations periodically find out that bullets make holes in walls. Someday they'll find out that they make holes in men too, and they'll stop recruiting armies.
Anyway, here we have at the level of mest what understanding is. Understanding, MESTwise, always takes place in the framework of mass and location thereof, verbalized or electrical or vibratory interchanges. Got that? And for affinity, control.
Now, if you dislike somebody on a mass level, you could simply refuse to control him. That sounds silly. I mean, the choice at the level I'm talking about is to control or not to control. See?
But unfortunately where you have people very firmly connected with mass this is the level of interchange. So if people are going around in bodies, then this is the level to which cases respond.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rephrase or redo the ARC triangle, I'm simply telling you the action level of the ARC triangle when it is in action, or you are going to work with it on a MESTy level.
And A, affinity, becomes control or lack of it.
The R becomes mass and its location or lack of it. See, the complaint is about no mass.
And C is some sort of a vibratory, electrical, particle interchange. Symbols flying back and forth and so on. Solid.
Ballantine Beer sort of thing, you know. They know how to communicate. You brightly, electrically ignite a sign and you slam it over TV and so forth. And I'm sure if you walked into their advertising agent, some punk up on Madison Avenue that got the account executives of the company fooled into thinking he knows something . . . Madison Avenue: that avenue of deceit where advertising is not done, but which we get on TV anyway. They work two or three years to find out that people responded to the fact that when you said "Dove soap is creamy" they bought another brand. Anyway . . .
I don't know if you've read the recent raves about the tremendous advertising job that was done with this new brand of soap, it was just wonderful. A Scientologist could have worked it out in about fifteen minutes and thought it was the least interesting puzzle he had ever had anything to do with. He would have simply shown people that it had mass and you would have told people that it existed, where to buy it, and you would have tried to get some attractive mass to go along with it so that it would communicate, you know. Then we'd try to give them some kind of a bonus for buying it. You know — you know? We would have just said, "Buy it."
I've listened to TV ads recently, and I was thinking in terms of what if we Tone 40ed a TV ad? I've been listening to the horrible 8-C they run. They say, "Mercury cars are so smurkery. Why ride when you can glide? Your Mercury dealer is located at a certain spot." And this is a communication? Get the dispersal connected with it. It's the same dispersal that we were suffering from when we were running 8-C the first time.
We said, "Do you see the wall?" You know? "Do you see the wall?"
The fellow says, "Yeah, I guess I see the wall."
And you say, "Well, fine." You know, all backwards. You know, don't offend him. Don't move in on him. You know?
And if you'd translated the ad into Tone 40, you'd simply say, "Buy a Mercury car from such-and-such a phone number, such-and-such an address, the price is so-and-so. Call at once, please."
Male voice: Thank you.
See, that's a communication. And people would. It's quite interesting.
Now, you start adding too much directness, however, at this very, very low level that I'm talking about, and you are liable to blow the mass up. Now, a thetan learns that. Every once in a while he loses a favorite piece of bank or service facsimile or something of the sort. He said exactly what he meant to the fellow, directly, with no vias. Got himself fired or something.
Well now, he was trying to communicate directly on a mest level. Andyou throw any particles straight out with no slightest via on them at all andsomething is liable to explode. You have to have some intention with it. Therehas to be some livingness connected with it and so forth. In other words, youhave to upscale it in order to make it.
So people who stick around at the lower end of control — don't want it. Mass — can't have it. Communication — it'll be said for me. People at this level when coaxed to put out a control, when coaxed to put out a communication which is absolutely direct and straight, discover something fantastic: that in order to do this they have to go way up scale or shatter themselves in the process. And after they've been shattered a few times they hit the higher tone range. They say, "I belong up here. What am I doing grubbing around down here in the mest?" That's basically what a fellow understands when he starts these training drills. It's quite interesting, quite fabulous.
After he blows pieces off of his bank, he finally says, "What am I doing talking through a bank? Why am I moving particles of electricity or something from here to here and saying it's intention? It's possible just to have them appear over here. Why shouldn't I do that?"
Well anyway, that's beside the point. The point is that ARC, to become extremely workable, has to be couched, where you're dealing with masses, in terms of control, havingness and communication.
Now, we've said CCH, by which we mean control, communication and hav-ingness, or communication, control and havingness. And we haven't lined them up so that it's instantly discernible that this is another side to the ARC coin.
But you follow ARC down scale as per the Chart of Human Evaluation in Science of Survival — and if you go down, there is an area below the chart, about 1,000 feet below the bottom line of the chart — now, that has to do with mass.
We already knew that this chart went down to mass. See, we knew the lowest rungs of the chart would be getting solid, but when you get that solid, you know — when you get that solid you're about 1,000 feet below the chart.
In other words, to wrap up this whole thing, the only responses still extant at the bottom can still be phrased in terms of control, havingness and communication. That is, those responses do not entirely disappear. They get very coarse, they get very massy, they get very a lot of things, but they don't entirely disappear.
If life can be awakened into a presence, it will be awakened into a presence or a location by control, havingness and communication handled in one fashion or another.
Now, the first CCH process is a very, very old process, and hardly anybody has recognized its antecedent. We used to process — in 1949 I processed a cat until he'd eat an editor. It was a very remarkable thing. I mean, he'd eat the editor up and spit him out. Anyway . . .
I used to invite writers around to the house and they'd sit around and watch it happen, you know? He really did. I mean, I processed this cat up to a point where he would strike at my fingers. And he was a very timid cat, and I got him to reach for my fingers. And then I'd — each time he'd reach for my fingers, I would withdraw my fingers slightly and he would reach further. And he got more and more and more ferocious, and more and more and more ferocious, and more and more and more ferocious. And so I invited an editor over and he ate the editor up. Anyway . . .
Yeah. That's an exaggeration, an exaggeration really. He ate the editor's thetan. Anyway …
Yeah, this is documented. Documented. The cat's name was Countess Motorboat.
Now, here we find ourselves processing an animal — a cat — just by inviting the cat to reach out, no matter how timidly, and strike at our fingers. And then, gradually, so as not to startle or surprise the cat, we make our fingers retreat and we get the cat striking. Well now, that's a communication line. Lines are solid at the bottom of the Reality Scale — lines are solid. So we are right there at the cat's reality. Cat can't have mass; the cat is below mass, and the cat is actually trying to connect antagonistically with a solid communication line. And so the cat does reach. Well, Give Me Your Hand is just processing the cat, that's all. Only it's a way to do it.
You say, "Give me your hand," and then the fellow doesn't, and we reach over and take hold of his wrists and we take his hand, and we thank him for having given it to us. And after a while he says, "You know, there is some dim, vague possibility that I might have had something to do with that. I wonder if I could possibly reach that far." Not, "Could I control my body?" but, "Could I reach that far over to your lap?" See? "Could I reach that far?"
Well, he finds out all of a sudden there. When he finds out he can reach that far, you've done it, you see? Now you got to get him reaching for the environment — 8-C sort of thing. Well, you'd better reach for the environment in terms of barriers because you just got lines kind of recognized, so let's move him up now to barriers. So we have 8-C on walls; they're good barriers.
Now, when we get him up above that, well up above that, we put him back on lines again and we have Hand Space Mimicry, you know? Get him to locate the mass of the auditor. You got him to locate the environment, now have him locate the auditor.
Now we take him back up and we run such things as Location by Contact and other things. That's "Touch that (object in the room)." We're just making him reach again, aren't we? But he can't disobey these commands, and there's no thinkingness involved in it because there isn't any thinking-ness at that level, and if you're processing any it's a figure-figureness, not a thinkingness.
So that's what ARC becomes. After a long time an individual becomes a body; he isn't anything but a body, people are never anything but bodies, and bodies are dead too. And that's the way it is. A body is mass, so if the body is mass and one is a body, then the realest thing there could be to a body (providing he still had a body — you know he can be below that, we'll go down there in a moment) would be control, just outright control. If he had a body then control would be affinity. If he could control something, he would like it. I'm not talking about your parents. I'm not talking about some of your friends that stopped liking you when they stopped controlling you.
I never made such an enemy in my life one time. I knew a fellow, apparently he and I got along fine in a rather distant sort of way, and one day he said, "Well," he said "get your hat, we're going out to dinner." And I said, "No, I have to wait for somebody." He's been my enemy ever since. In other words, affinity was whether or not control could occur.
Well, now an individual who finds out control isn't killing him winds up liking his auditor somewhat. See that? That's an establishment of a reality level there, and the affinity level at that reality level is control.
Now, he can be way below that (being able to accept control) and kick back against it, and find out that it doesn't kill him and that he can't get rid of it, and he'll wind up liking you too. But it's upscale, it's not downscale. In other words, we use a good Tone 40 control on him, he'll come upscale to having mass, and he can have mass.
All right. Now let's look at what this does to communication. The individual, of course, is willing to talk, willing to say something and so on. He's also willing to receive objects and give objects away and so on. Interchanges can occur.
Now this is what we're looking at when we're looking at far-south processes. This is what we're looking at. We're looking at the ARC where understanding takes place only in the presence of control, havingness and communication on a mest level. Do you see that? Do you see that?
All sorts of cliches should at once become explicable. "I don't know what's gotten into that boy, I can't do a thing with him." That's a weird remark if you analyze it on a high tone. "I can't do a thing with him, so I couldn't know, of course, what's gotten into him. If I could do something with him, then I would understand what's in him." That's the reverse of it, and that doesn't make sense at all. But nobody notices that the other doesn't make sense, you see? State it in the reverse and it just doesn't make sense at all.
All right. This is the level at which machines of a mest nature, automobiles and so forth, have to be run. An individual cannot adequately control his car, he doesn't like his car. What does he mean by "like"? Does he mean an emotion? No, he does not mean an emotion, he means an ability to control it. It's as solid and MESTy as that.
You wonder why some married couples don't get along, although she apparently does everything he says, exactly, snaps and pops at once, and yet you say, "Well, she seems sort of beaten down and so forth. And then you decide that you will get her out from under him or him out from under her or bust this up one way or the other. And then you find out they — there seems to be some feeling for each other. You know, just absolute control going on all the time and so forth. Yet they're not detachable. You know, you say, "What is this phenomenon? I just can't understand how she stands him or he stands her," or something of the sort. But what's the phenomenon at which you're gazing? You're gazing where control is affinity. That's how they express their affinity — they kick each other in the pants. Trying to gain control over each other by fighting, below that level, is lovemaking. "I'm going to control you or know the reason why." And the other one says, "I'm going to control you or know the reason why." And this is the sum total of the conversation. Upscale is "I love you dearly." You can understand a lot by just looking at what is understanding at the level of mass. What is understanding at the level of mass? It is control — controlling and being controlled. That — mass itself and communication, and that is understanding.
You know, like a calculus professor wants you to do, or something. No, that's lower than that, excuse me. Excuse me, that's lower than that. There's no mass involved there. That's an inverted figure-figure. "DY, DX — what is the purpose of this subject, professor?" "Humpfff!" You say, "Excuse me. How come the 'Humpff'?" Well, he just told you there isn't any understanding it. And you, being somewhat high-toned, go on with your stupid expectancy that things that are offered are understandable.
I used to try to teach people that psychotics were not understandable, which was what was wrong with psychotics — that's all. I can tell you right now how to understand a psychotic like mad. I can tell you what psychosis is all about, very rapidly, right out of exactly the same material I'm giving you at this moment.
Psychosis is something mocked up so that it cannot be handled. Psychosis is something that cannot be handled. You got that as the control factor? Some thing — now, that gives you the object that cannot be handled, that gives you the control. And of course "mustn't get in and handle it" gives you the communication factors, you see? But of course there's not much mass there, if there is any — psychos try to make nothing out of their mass all the time. They're a mocked-up nonhandleability.
Now, there's many a spook ally or character you have in the past that you run across every once in a while in session. Quite amusing. You run across this fellow in session, you say, "Oh, now there's Uncle Joe again. I'm sure he had some sort of an influence on my life, but I can't understand what it is." Well, that's what's the matter with it, you can't understand what it is. That would be the shallowest look at it, but that's still a look.
Every once in a while this person will pop up and you'll say, "Well, I know this person influenced my life somehow or another, but I can't possibly tell you how." It's just a little dim feeling you have that there was something there.
Well, that individual, I assure you, was always mocking up to you or around you things that couldn't be handled.
Dear sweet Grandma, you know? She says, "Now, don't go out in the rain because you'll get a terrible cold. Don't eat all that junk before supper because . . ." Got this sort of thing? Well, now that's bad enough, but there's still some affinity in it. She was trying to control it, but she kept mocking these things up that couldn't be handled.
Well, if there was some reason in it, or it seemed to — so that you'd be a better boy or a better girl or something of the sort, why, you didn't terribly object to it. You sort of took it with a small snarl.
But the person I'm talking about is a little further afield. This person that you can't quite tell what's wrong. You run across this person every once in a while in processing and you say, "Well, he — I know he was doing something, and — but nahahh." This person was capriciously mocking up things that couldn't be handled. Tell you about spiders, you know — spiders are under the house, spiders are poisonous. Or he'd tell you about there are snakes in the grass, or they tell you about diseases. "You know, there's a terrible disease known as polio. It must be pretty bad because the president had it."
But sometimes this person was sufficiently adroit that it didn't sound like it was bad over there. It was just that every part of the environment seemed to have in it things that couldn't be handled at all! You know, you better stay on the good side of this or you better steer around that or something. And they never paid you the compliment of thinking you could handle a cockeyed thing! So we get, theoretically, above 2.0 and below 2.0, and people who are below 2.0 mock up things that can't be handled, and people above 2.0 mock up things (when they do) that can be handled or try to handle anything. Now, there's the dividing line on this control.
People below 2.0 mock up things routinely and only which can't be handled and then brag about it. "Ah, these terrible headaches, they just come and go all the time. And I just can't do a thing about it! They sent me up to Mayo brothers and charged my husband $8,672.23. I'm not cured yet, it's just terrible! Ahhh, it's terrible!"
Well, it's a very funny thing. Those people are way much further down-scale than you think they are. We say it's above 2.0 and below 2.0, which seems to be a precise line. But it's almost as if we're talking about two different universes.
Boy, when they go around mocking up things that can't be handled and bragging about it all the time, they give an auditor a pretty bad time. They sit in an auditing chair and mock up things that can't be handled. That's all they're doing. And they're just daring the auditor to handle them.
Now, you start sawing through with "Give me your hand. Thank you. Huh." And they say, "This can't be handled" — something. They keep offering things that can't be handled and all of sudden this — so on, nothing is happening. Something happens there. You got it?
People who would do that sort of thing — don't go straining at gnats here, because the truth of the matter is, these people are pretty bad off. They are never really successful at anything. They're terrifically destructive. Sort it out, don't just assign this to everybody who walks up the street. Go up on Capitol Hill before you start assigning it. "Can't be handled, can't be handled, can't be handled, can't be handled." See? It's below apathy, it's a sort of a big brag, you know?
Well, that's what this mest does all the time. They've Q-and-Aed with mest, they become mest, they do what mest does, mest does all sorts of wild things, you know? You could learn the laws on which it is built as in physics and you're still nowhere. It's always doing something that can't be handled. Mountains are always falling over on people and, you know — I mean, hurricanes come along and so forth. So much so that nobody even gets sensible about these things anymore. They just say, "Oh well, that's nature." (Not meaning Serutan.) Now . . .
There isn't any reason why that hurricane, by the way, chomped up that much of the Gulf here recently.
But here we — here we enter our understanding of life in realizing that there are people around who have no slightest desire to handle anything. Everybody has got something in his life that he doesn't think can be handled, or he doesn't think he can handle. But these people just mock it up all the time, something can't be handled, can't be handled.
Listen to some psychiatrist going on about psychosis. After you've been auditing for a long time you completely forget the actual mid-twentieth-century viewpoint on these things. Boy, "They cannot be handled." I mean, that's the thing, you know? "There's just nothing can be done about it."
Well, we had Book Auditors that were handling psychosis in 1950, but a psychiatrist knows it can't be handled! See, he's just Q-and-Aed with the whole thing, so he'd better electric shock it.
And you say, "Well, why do you electric shock it?"
And he says, "Well," he says, "well, you have to keep scientific records." I had one say that to me one day.
"No, no. Why do you shock the patient, doctor?" I said indulgently. I mean, I was talking at him just as though — could understand.
And he says, "Well," he says, "I-that's it!" He says, "You keep the records!" And he was getting frantic.
And I said, "No. No, no. Why do you shock the insane people who come in here? Because you've told me yourself they get out earlier if you don't."
"Well," he says, "I keep the records!"
I gave it up. That's really the only reason why. Somebody had told him to keep the records, so he had to shock them to get a record.
Now, you go around, you dope, and you say, "Why doesn't this fellow understand something? Why can't he see my viewpoint?" Well, he — he's just goofy. That's being goofy in another way, not to recognize somebody who can't see a viewpoint. See, you just — you have to look at it and that's the proper estimation of it. The fellow is stone-blind and stark, staring mad. You say, "Okay, stone-blind, stark, staring mad." If you said it with a loud enough recognition, he would probably turn sane or something.
And you go on burrowing into this, you know, saying, "Why is this guy so crazy?" Well, I don't know why he's crazy — he's crazy! Who cares why he's crazy? I could think up more reasons why he was crazy than he ever could before he went crazy. We're not short of reasons why. You don't even have to get the right one. If you want to do something for him, why, run Give Me Your Hand, Tone 40 8-C, plow him around, square him up.
But he'll go on mocking up things that you are dared to handle. And the preclears that have given you a bad time have done that and only that. You cure them of one thing, so they mock up something else you can't handle.
Their whole game is the avoidance of control. Now, they know how to control other people. You get a service facsimile — you get a service facsimile, of course, which is unhandleable. And you handle these people by not permitting them to handle the service facsimile, don't you see? Sounds smart, doesn't it? That's reactive enough for any reactive mind.
Well, you can roughly divide people then, above and below 2.0. Some of them mock up things which can be handled, and try to handle other things. These are the people who keep the world running. They don't build clocks that can't be fixed. And the rest of the people who are trying to get membership in the human race — that's pretty interesting, trying to get up high enough to take membership in the human race. A fellow needed a stepladder to reach bottom. These fellows simply keep on mocking up things that can't be handled.
And every doctor, and every asylum, every practitioner of any kind is confronted by these people all the time. Because this is the dare.
"Ah, there's somebody going into practice over there. Ah, ha, ha. No, no, heh-heh-heh! He'll never be able to get to Aunt Bessie's cough. Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh!" "Well, it's no better today, doctor. Ah-huh."
Now, you recognize this as human behavior at the slimier end of the human scale, don't you? All of us have something which we hope nobody can handle. Keeps thetans from getting into our skulls. Once in a while we — once in a while we miss and we forget how to handle them ourselves. Everybody plays this game to some degree, but I'm talking about a dedicated profession. Very well.
ARC becomes control, havingness and communication. Now, you recognize that control, havingness and communication are not the bottom because they invert and become no control possible of any kind. Now, this is the "can't handle it," see? No mass admissible or viewable. And no communication of any kind acceptable; therefore no understanding possible.
Now, that's where it goes. But the funny part of it is, is we've discovered that rung which solves the inversion.
Now, just as we can raise anybody's communication by raising his affinity and reality, just as we can raise anybody's reality by raising affinity and communication, just as we can raise affinity by raising their reality and communication, so can we do all of these tricks at the bottom.
We can remedy control, inability to handle and so forth in his life and vicinity, simply by remedying his havingness or by talking to him or by using straight control.
We can raise his lack of mass by control and communication. He can't have anything, and we want him to be able to have a few things in life — at least our processing — and so we just run control and communication on him. Just — that's all. And we'll find out his havingness will pick up.
You'll find some odd considerations, very complicated, are in the road of all this, and will blow off as cognitions which he probably will never mention. But he will eventually come up to CCH.
Now, if a person has got to be identified as mass and connected with mass, he's in terribly good condition when he is at CCH. He's in terrific condition when he's at CCH if he is there as mass, identified as mass enough to have a condition. So therefore, CCH is pretty high, not low at all. But CCH handles all the inversions of CCH, and this whole mysterious strata, the bottom substrata of the ARC triangle is revealed to view and becomes workable in the hands of an auditor.
Control all by itself will level out all lower inversions on the subject of control, havingness or communication.
Now, the right kind of communication all by itself will do something for havingness and control. Hand Space Mimicry is a solid line. He'll eventually have an auditor.
And Can't-Have on Others, and Have on Self, or the three steps of Trio run one way or another on somebody, "Touch that wall," that sort of thing is a Havingness Process — it's also a Communication Process and so forth, but if you could run "Tell me something your mother can't have," and get a straight answer, why the havingness comes up, so comes up his ability to control and the ability to communicate. So you can hit CCH at any one of its corners and get the other two to some degree. Which is quite remarkable because it permits the auditor to directly address the body and have something happen to a person.
Now, people have tried to do this a number of times in the past. They've put bodies on white tables, put masks over their faces, dropped some ether in and cut out their gizzards. And the fellow is supposed to say afterwards, "I feel much better." And get a big bill. Well, it made him feel better to the degree that somebody took him and placed him, and then lost him, and didn't speak too crossly to him while they were administering the anesthetic, you see?
He got an awareness that something was happening, and just to that degree the operation probably did him some good. Oh, standing them up in the corner and kicking them in the shins for a half an hour would do the same thing as the best operation on earth. The fellow — the fellow would recover from it much more alert. You think I'm joking now, but that's true. I said it's better than an operation.
Now, CCH then should be viewed by you as simply the workable factors at the lower end of the mass scale. You get to — talk to you about reality scales and a lot of other things of this character, but you're just studying this rather high level which solves all of its lower inversions. A fellow who can communicate, who can have, and who can control and be controlled, and is still a fellow and identified as such, and not exteriorized worth a damn, would still be in so much better condition than Homo sapiens that we could call him right there Homo novis. But he'd certainly be at the borderline; he would be a terrific guy compared to most people walking out in the world today.
So CCH is a pretty high level, but it's a description also of all lower levels, the harmonics of which are processed by straight CCH.
Thank you.