Thank you.

Do you think you even vaguely are making it?

Audience: No. Yes.

You don’t think you’re making any progress?

Aw, that’s too bad. I’m sorry. We’re wasting cases in this ACC. They’re so nice to study. And when they’re gone, they’re gone. It’d take you another 162 trillion to work up one like that.

Now, by and large, I’m very pleased with the general course of events. You realize, of course, that you made the old man reach into the locker here pretty deep. How can you live with that kind of a condition, you know? Maybe you haven’t.

But here’s the basic on which we are proceeding, and I’d better give you a little rundown on this as auditors. Every now and then you run into an unmoving case, and the case doesn’t move. Well, the more you look, the more complications you see. That’s something for you as an auditor to remember because I have been over all this ground very hard and strenuously for a long time.

When you sit down and look at a pc and say, “Well, what’s this?” of course, what you see is a tremendous complexity. I think it was the 15th ACC when we were going over complexities and simplicities, and so forth. And down through the years this bit or that bit has moved the very, very, very difficult case who refused to move practically under everything.

Now, perhaps ten years ago you would still have been able to move a very difficult case, so you mustn’t lose that fact. There is always some oddball combination that will do something with a difficult case.

Now, a difficult case is simply one that does not change. And that case is difficult because it is so complex. All of the denominators are present in such profusion and confusion, that to lay your fingers on any one thing that will undo the case is an heroic activity.

But all through these years, with brilliance or sudden sights and insights, and that sort of thing, auditors have been moving these very difficult cases. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing because it led me, at length, to find the common denominators of all cases.

Now, you wouldn’t have to have many common denominators to the case to move a fairly easy case that can move. You see, you wouldn’t really need to know all there was to know because everything isn’t wrong with this particular case that might be. Don’t you see? The case is still approachable. So, many times the wrongnesses on the case blow off simply as cognitions.

Now, the most difficult case is the case that will not cognite. You have to do his cogniting for him, and you do it with a process. The common denominator of all processes would be something that gets the pc to look at it and cognite. Got the idea?

To some degree, all processes are, therefore, evaluative. An evaluation, however, which has to do with a law of livingness is not much of an evaluation. An evaluation which has to do with a complexity of explanation as to how the pc got that way is, of course, evaluation as we understand it in the Auditor’s Code — we tell the pc what is wrong with him blundy.

Now, Sigmund did it all upside down and backwards, and I protest against this occasionally, but the funny part of it is, is the man was of enormous service to us — Sigmund Freud. If there were any wrong ways to do anything, why, he had them nailed. Amongst other things, he serves as a background on this.

Now, he did do a lot of observation, and he observed a lot of people. Now, whether he did anything for people or not is beside the point Maybe he cracked up a few neuroses. Certainly he didn’t have any technology he could teach anybody. And this is so apparent today because you go around and ask Freudian analysts what is Freudian analysis, and they give you something else entirely offbeat and completely different and utterly squirreled. Now, this must be a symptom, then, that what they were taught didn’t work. That’s about that — what amounts to there. Now, he chose childhood. Now, at once and immediately anybody running motion has probably run into why anything released out of childhood might make a slight change of case because childhood is highly motional — not emotional — but it’s just in motion. There’s a tremendous amount of motion connected with childhood.

So naturally, of the current lifetime, that would be the period most pinned on the track because it would be those thoughts of childhood, surrounded as they are by childish motion, which would tend to hang up. And if anybody did get aberrated in one lifetime, it would probably be in childhood that it would occur unless he was subjected to tremendous engramic experiences later in life like a war or something like this. But childhood has lots of motion in it.

And as you go over the track, if you haven’t run emotion — struck childhood yet, yourself as a pc — I can forewarn you that all of a sudden it looks like it’s firing off on a total automaticity, you know, bzzzzz, bzzzzzz, bing, worn, worn. On the bicycles, on the roller skates, and back and forth to school, up in the morning, down at night. Bang worn, mg bang through supper because you want to get outside and play, and so on and so oa.

Well, a stray thought like, “All cats are really like pigs, aren’t they?” surrounded by all this motion, tends to hang up and become a much more positive datum when, as a scholar later on, sitting in the quiet of the cloisters, one thinks a thought and says, “Cats are most remarkably like pigs, aren’t they?” And it just doesn’t hang up at all. In fact, it makes no impression on anybody, not even the person who thought it.

Now, the whole cant of immaturity — the whole yap-yap about how people are immature and they really haven’t grown up yet — that is not in vogue today, but it was in vogue a decade or two ago. You heard it in every social conversation — all about the immaturities of people.

Well, naturally, you’re just looking at the motion surrounding the thoughts of childhood. And the fellow just doesn’t move out of it because that is the area with motion in it. And later on, his life didn’t have much motion in it, and so on.

Now, the place to learn anything would be in action, not in a really quiet endeavor and activity. You will see that there is a coordination between motion and thought And so we get to a common denominator which is true of all cases. There’s thought, and there’s motion. And of course motion is something that depends on matter, energy, space and time, and usually form and location.

So, you see, when we say “motion,” we’re saying a package of MEST. It’s a MEST-package actioa So that’s a common denominator. Motion is the common denominator of MEST.

Mass isn’t. Space isn’t. There can always be something else in addition to space, don’t you see? There can always be something else in addition to a location. There can always be something else in addition to mass, even if only space, don’t you see? And to get these things all added up together, you have to say “motion.”

So motion is basically the common denominator of a bank on the MEST side, and thought or beingness is the common denominator on the thetan side. So you have a second common denominator — these two things. The closest thing to any thetan, of course, is a thought And a package of thoughts would be called a beingness.

But the package of thoughts, of course, has to be energized by some livingness in order for the beingness to be a continuance or an existence.

So you tend to get — less facilely, less agilely, since a thought itself can lie in MEST, in a book, let us say — you get, in thought, a beingness which can de-energize and re-energize. I hate to use that MEST term, but it’s the only explanatory term.

Let us say this thought can lie dormant And then one day you take a look at this thought, and it of course goes alive. So that life or livingness is the common denominator of the seventh dynamic — that is the beingness, the ability to create, the ability to cause survival or survive, the ability to destroy or pretend to be destroyed. This is your seventh.

Now, when you sit down to look at this pc, his complexities are such that he has totally exceeded the simplicities, and the simplicities are completely unreal to him.

Now, he might accept something like, “Cats are like pigs, aren’t they?” as his highest level of reality — just to be ridiculous.

Now, they departed so far from the obvious simplicity that it is rather hard to isolate a simplicity in any given civilization because they’re so far from it There’s so many way-stops between the original truth and the final apparency exist, that you can hit any one of these way-stops and mistake them for the truth for the final apparency. Don’t you see?

Now, in resolving problems of life, you’re up against this horrible proposition: You can’t stop at any of the way-stops. This is something that has to be done the whole way. You realize that, so you occasionally get rather impatient with me. You say, “Well, why hasn’t he got it all wrapped up? Everybody knows everything can be done instantaneously,” and so forth.

Now, trying to find a way-stop that is not as unreal as the original truth and is not as aberrated or complex as the final apparency, which everybody can run, is just a little bit more complicated, don’t you see, than discovering the original truth. You can discover the original truth and then you might not be able to do anything about it because it’s unreal.

You sit down, you look at Joe Doakes and you’re just going to estimate this case. Well, now, right now we could say that our case estimate would proceed on this basis — we could conceive this as a fundamental. As we look at this pc, we say, “Here is some seventh wound up in a lot of sixth.” That’s the basic, that’s the fundamental. That’s a fundamental truth That is true. And it is true of all cases. That’s it.

Now, how to take this package apart and get him to see any part of this truth or get any subjective reality on it — that is the task of the auditor.

Now, his convictions are usually so far out of agreement with the commonly held psychosis called life, that we wouldn’t — he is not even in agreement, you see, with the common nuttiness, you know?

How to handle the problems of Africa. You send the UNO down and tell them not to shoot Then you don’t do business with the government of the Congo — because you’re trying to do business with the people of the Congo. So don’t do business with the people of the Congo, but select out somebody who, I think by this time, has been three times removed by the people of the Congo from the government of the Congo, Mr. Lumumbamumba.

He isn’t even representative. He isn’t supported by the Senate. He isn’t supported by anybody else in the government except Mr. Lumumbamumba. So you do business with him, see? Because you’re trying to support the people of the Congo, see? This is politics. It just gets daffier and daffier and daffier.

Now, I’ve got an idea for them. I’m going to forward it around. I think I could popularize it one way or the other — that the best way to handle the problems of Canada would be to select out one penguin in the Antarctic and give him full powers of government. Now, that would seem to me to be just about at the general acceptance level.

Now, listen. Every single pc is probably saner than the general situation, actually, to be factual but is offbeat along some panel of life down some dark alley so that he cannot do a recovery.

Now, just as you cannot have a prosperous Earth where you have large numbers of no-have nations, just as you cannot have a peaceful Earth by ignoring those countries and nations which are at war, just as you can’t have anything by denying your responsibility for it, so you can’t have a civilization with people who are operating below their ability to operate. It’s a very practical consideration.

You can, yourself, put it out on the basis of you are helping people because you are a nice guy or you are expiating your sins of past generations, or you had a hand on the rope when they pulled the crucifix into the slot down there at Gethsemane, anything like that That’s all very interesting, but those again are simply divergences from — the very solid truth of the matter is that a race or a world cannot be peaceful or happy or cheerful or well organized or anything else as long as you have people not included in, don’t you see? It’s a very practical consideration. You got to do something for them if you’re going to have a civilization yourself. Got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

That’s an awfully — somebody will say a very cold-blooded way to look at it And sure enough, it is, because there’s still a great deal of human warmth, and so forth, that goes into the thing, but it’s merely a practical consideration.

Now, you sit down and look at Mr. Practical Consideration — look him in the eye — sitting in the pc’s chair, and you say, “All right Here’s some seventh that’s all balled up and mixed up with a lot of sixth.”

Well, now if you just did that, I don’t think you’d get very far. In the first place, he’d have to know what seventh was, and he’d have to know what sixth was. And the horrible part of it is, is not even the nuclear physicist today can give you the component parts of the physical universe. That’s how far in advance you are. He can’t count them off.

If you were to say, “All right, Mr. Physical Universe Specialist in the grea-a-a-a-a-at foundation institutions,” whatever it is, “name me off the parts of the physical universe.”

He wouldn’t have a due. He’d say, “Well, there’s um . .. There’s space! Space … and all else is motion.”

And you say, “No, no. The component parts, please.” He doesn’t know. You’re not going to get a cognition with him because it’s beyond his level of reality. He can get up to the point by conceiving motion because he has been taught that all matter is motion.

And I could probably go around and, if I wanted an evening of mental exercise just to enjoy myself, sell him utterly on the idea that space was motion. I don’t know how I’d do it right at this particular moment, but teach him that the vibrationness of the nothingness wound up in a containishness.

The other day, just for a gag, somebody had read some Scientology that these fellows in these big foundations have to put out papers every once in a while to keep their jobs, which is quite interesting. They do, because otherwise, they don’t have name enough to rate the pay, don’t you see? So they had to put out these jobs. And somebody must have come along and told this fellow something about Scientology because he got a mishmash on the thing, and it was reprinted in the Saturday Review of Literature. So we sent him all of the Dianetic Axioms. And there has been the most appalling silence from that quarter.

You could hear an old school tie drop . .. And I don’t imagine that it simply didn’t ever really be received by him or was thrown aside by a sneer because this isn’t normally our experience.

He probably got up to Axiom 5 and hasn’t spoken since, or something of that sort, you see? He probably went into apathy or something.

Here was this tremendous overwhelmingness of “He says somebody should isolate the particle of life, so…” and then so forth, and then gives a couple of Scientological definitions. He didn’t understand them. And so you hit him with them, see?

His information was incomplete. Give him the rest of the dope. He went down for the count. You can do that with a pc — you can do that with a pc dead easy. If you were still processing significances, you could say something like, “All right Give me a reason to be crazy.” “Thank you.” “Give me a reason to be crazy.” “Thank you.”

Well, obviously, obviously, that’s a perfectly simple statement that ought to disenturbulate almost anybody. But the trouble of it is, is the basic truths are totally not-ised by life. The average belief of what life is all about has been substituted, and then we have moved out on the individual aberration chain to a lot of highly individuated, greatly different data of one kind or another. Now, to find something all these people can run on — oh! It’s been quite a mess.

All right Mental image picture — that’s fine, you can just do wonders with mental image pictures. You can get a guy habituated and familiarized with mental image pictures to a point where he disenturbulates. This is — various ways to do this. So we run across a certain strata of the society that can’t see them, don’t believe in them, have nothing but little motional fields or black fields or something like that.

You see where Dianetics fell down. It all of a sudden picked up a strata of the population that had never been observed before. How fascinating! I mean, there are guys around that couldn’t see pictures.

Well, probably the reason I never found this out is because the first exercise in making people see pictures was like this: If the fellow didn’t at once run engrams easily, I would send him out to the front door — I’d never ask him what he was looking at and didn’t find out for some years. It never occurred to me. I knew what he should be looking at and that was the reality he lived by, man. I’d send him out to the front door, and I’d have him walk in and sit down in the chair, and then recount to me what was the content of this new picture. And if it was awfully nyaa-nyaa, I’d just figure out he couldn’t look at it, so I’d make him make another picture: “Go out to the front door, look around the room, walk across the room, and sit down in the chair.” And we’d finally run this thing as an engram.

We’d practically install this thing just to be run. It didn’t matter how many times we made the fellow do it You’ll find out that if you worked at it patiently, the fellow eventually would be able to run a picture of doing that It’s quite interesting.

So he’d say, ‘Well, I can make a picture and I can erase a picture. So therefore it is safe both to make and erase a picture.” You get the idea? Drills of this character, running locks — I was aware of the fact that people were awfully enturbulated and very upset but I wasn’t Q-and-Aing with any of the other difficulties they were having.

Well, this is a perfectly good system. It’s perfectly good today. But there’s a difficulty with it — a very apparent difficulty with it. I’ve never gotten anybody else to do it Oh, I imagine I’ve told people about this often enough over the past ten years, but nobody else has done it, apparently.

It isn’t acceptable to the auditor. It’s not sufficiendy fundamental either. It is very, very, very slow and very painful and very painstaking.

We put some sixth on this seventh — let’s explain it this way, according to our present theory, you see? And then we take the sixth off. And we just go through an exercise of putting some sixth dynamic on the seventh dynamic, and then we take it off. And after a while he gets confident that it’s all right to put some on because he can get rid of it Got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Aw, we’re right back to fundamentals. Now we’re in 1947. But it didn’t do any good to beat the drum for that particular technique because we didn’t understand its rationale. And it didn’t really make enough sense — couldn’t explain it Now, I’ve just stated it to you in two or three sentences, see? Bing.

Yeah, but in 1947, my God! What else is there to this person? How many hundred thousand complications still exist that are untouched. What is aberration anyway? See, all these other tremendous considerations. They are so enormous that they overwhelmed us just as they, every now and then, are going to seek to overwhelm you when you’re in an auditor’s chair looking at a very aberrated pc, because all of this pc’s aberrations are all tangled up into a no-change. You can get no change in the case.

Well, you start outguessing the pc, and you’ll go on — maybe you could do it just as well. But, I’ll tell you, you’d have about thirteen years of research ahead of you with that one pc. Got it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, what are the buttons that can be hit? What are the common denominators that will unlock the case so that change can result?

Now, it’s been all these years since 1947 getting an articulateness, getting the thing squared away, and so forth — actually, many more years of research than that. But the many more years was simply this basis: Is there any entrance point to the problem at all? See, it wasn’t even up to the point of sitting down in a chair across from the other person. Got the idea? I mean, that in itself, you see, was something to do. No, it was just speculation, more or less philosophic speculation, trying to find some orientation point which was a common denominator of everything. It was finally found in survival — later on amplified to the cyde-of-action. Progress was made very slowly at first.

Now, there are common denominators which do unlock these cases, which are common denominators which retain their truth to the pc to such a degree that he can run them with reality no matter how aberrated he is.

Therefore, there had to be a common denominator of not only the basic truth, but a common denominator or shade of the basic truth which was in common to all aberrations which the pc had, which when touched would bring about to him a reality of change.

Now, if this has been isolated in this class, then you’re in possession of a rather complicated package of riches because it means that, with your various drills and procedures of one kind or another, you can sit down across from a person, go through a certain series of actions and produce a change for the better, not only registered on your E-Meter but expressed by the person in life.

Now, that is your target And that is what we have made remarkable strides with so far in this unit And we’re doing very much all right.

Now, of course, I had Motion Processing and lots of bits and pieces and odds and ends before this unit began, but the most acceptable forms of undercutting — presessioning, and so forth — had not been tested out, and I’ve had to develop them as we have gone along here. All right.

You have been of service, of course, in doing that by setting yourself up as an unconfrontable case, you know?

We’ve got most of these wheeling, and those that we haven’t got wheeling very fast yet, we have at least started off the launching pad to some degree.

The common denominators, weirdly enough, have been found one time or another during the past thirteen years, and they stand in little bits and pieces, and so forth, but they needed realignment and fitting.

There is one brand-new one — is the unconfrontable beingness. That combination is brand-new. I mean, I picked that out of the hat just a few days ago. But I was trying for years to phrase this thing How could you successfully run no-have on others, have on self? And it comes out as “unconfrontable beingness.” Boy, if that isn’t an offbeat, but that’s a runnable thing.

And then, of course, there’s an undercut to unconfrontable beingness which we had to trot out, which is very old, which is the 2nd ACC, but which belongs in this lineup. It’s old 8C — the real 8C (not just what we call 8Cs today — CCH 1). Oh, “Spot a place you aren’t” is the basic form. “Spot a place where you are not”

Now, we complicate that slighdy, and we get, “Point out a place where you are not being confronted,” and we run into a series of wins. This person has a win every time they do the process.

This person has failed to put up an unconfrontable beingness and when you ask them what unconfrontable beingness could they put up, they tell you, “Well, I can’t” because every unconfrontable beingness they’ve tried, you see, has been a failure.

Well, this other one is the undercut because it points out wins. It gives them wins right along the line. “Point out a place where you’re not being confronted.” That’s your lowest undercut as it exists right this moment.

Your lowest undercut of havingness is simply, “Point out something in this room you could confront,” or “Point out something in this room you’d rather not confront” I don’t think that is the exact commands you are running. I haven’t reviewed its form, but whatever you’re running on that is correct And whatever I’ve told you just is general form.

Now, there’s an undercut on havingness, and there’s an undercut on beingness. There’s — undercut on beingness is unconfrontability. The undercut on unconfrontability is not being confronted somewhere. And this is apparendy, for anybody that you’ll get your hands on to process that can answer up anything — apparently matches up as a common denominator for all the ridges of the bank from one end to the other.

But this still does not oudaw the fact that you as an auditor have to know all of your tools and that you as an auditor have to know what you’re looking at when you look at a pc. And it doesn’t tell you absolutely that from now till the end of the universe, these processes will always be the very thing you need.

We can always find ourselves processing a Martian who has a different set of ridges. If you know the basic laws, if you know the basic laws, however, why, you could pilot your way through on the thing.

But you are about ready to have a great big win. Student class processing is never as successful as field processing because of the lack of altitude. Because everybody knows that everybody else is a smarty because everybody knows more about it than everybody else.

You get out in the field, naturally you’ve got altitude, you’ve got lack of information, you’ve got a case that’s running fairly simply, and so forth. He can’t think up any dodges. And you plow through these things very good. Your field results are your relatively easier cases. These move up, then, to HGC cases, and most HGC cases — not most, but a certain percentage of them — are failed field cases.

The field auditor fails with the case, and then they come into an HGC. So that makes a slighdy tougher grade of case. And then you get to Scientology cases or student cases or something like this. They’re not necessarily tough, but they know all the dodges, and they know how not to do commands and put up apparencies of doing them. And they haven’t got any altitude with each other, and so forth. And there’s no overwhumping going on. And as a result, as a result you get your apparency of types of cases as being rougher in a class like this.

Now, percentagewise, I think we’ve run into more difficult cases in this class than HGCs have run into for some little few months past, which is quite interesting, congratulations.

But you might as well throw in the sponge now. You might as well throw the sponge in because we know how to undercut mass, and run mass off of the case, and so forth. And even if you do think up another way not to do it, why, I’ll undercut it tomorrow. So you might as well just give up. It’s a shame to spoil all these good cases, but I think we can waste them.

I think we’ll have quite a resurgence of profiles in this particular HGC, but I’m basically interested now in you going flat-out from now till the end of class, flattening every one of the processes that have been run — Regimen 2 and 3, 4. These regimens will take care of nearly anything that your pc could run into.

And I’m interested in you coming out the other end of this thing with some — oh, something like Theta Clears or something like that. I’ll settle for MEST Clears. I’ll even settle for a top graph 135 IQ. But you go ahead and do that for me, will you?

Audience: Mm-hm.

We’ve got it mosdy made with this unit right now, but this is no particular reason to coast. Okay?

Audience: Mm-hm.

So let’s go right on up into a steep climb. We’re off the launching pad very well, but Earth is still visible. Okay?

Audience. Yeah. All right.

Thank you.