Female voice:. . . in SCS. That that's sort of what you're establishing — that this control is sort of highly benevolent, and you can control a person's body and thoughts and that you mean well, and all that kind of thing. Is that it?

Well, of course, kindness sort of gilds the lily. Oddly enough you can get there without it, but you sure get there a hell of a lot faster with it. So that isn't the main criteria. The main criteria of it is to get the preclear under the auditor's control, not under the process's control or under the control of some spell. See?

Female voice: Uh-huh.

He must be directly under the auditor's control.

Maybe I'm answering the question wrong, but I did want to make this point.

Female voice: Guess I already knew the answer to that then.

Sure. But the point that you must keep in mind in training people — I'm afraid you've got to keep this one sort of up in lights all the time: If you get them to a point where Scientology can control them, you've gotten noplace. You've gotten just noplace. You've just substituted another magic on the top of too many magics. All right. If you get them up to a point of where the process SCS can control them, you've still gotten noplace.

Why have you gotten noplace there? Well, very simple. The second you're no longer running SCS they're not under control, are they? And you're not going to be running SCS when you're asking them to do mock-ups. And you can't inspect the mock-ups except via an E-Meter. So then they have a much greater tendency to go out of control when they think you can't see what they're doing, so their control must be pretty doggone good. And it must not be an hypnotic control because this would not restore to them self-determinism.

Female voice: Yeah.

So that must be very direct.

Female voice: If they're perfectly willing for you to know everything they're thinking, and to tell you . . .

Oh, you said it!

Female voice: Okay.

There's another method of arriving at that, by the way. There's another cute little process that turned up. I didn't think of it. I was running a lot of withholdings, tremendous number of withholding processes, and we found out that withholding was what raised IQ. And this is pretty gorgeous. That is what raises IQ: the ability to withhold. And a student said, "Well, why don't you ask the preclear what he could withhold from the auditor?" And this, by the way, is a nice, cute gimmick. If you want to get a guy to take his hair down fast, why, have him look around and find out what he could withhold from the auditor for an hour or two, and he'll tell you the works. Cute — cute gimmick. But control in general will arrive at the same point.

Yeah?

Male voice: Would you think it would be practical to take a person who ranges between 1.1 and 1.5, who knows nothing of Scientology, and use this Clear Procedure on him and . . .

From the bottom up; answered that yesterday. What is the best process to run on anybody? It's the exact process which you're running in this Unit regardless of position on the Tone Scale.

Male voice: And one other part to that question: Would this be practical without making any attempt to educate them?

As a matter of fact, at that level you better not. Because every attempt to educate them will be misunderstood.

Male voice: Okay, thank you.

You bet.

Yes?

Male voice: A question as to — would there be any value to running old Route 1 on a Clear, once you got him cleared?

I don't know. Try it. Okay?

Male voice: You mentioned that you would run a mock-up from null to null.

Mm-hm.

Male voice: Or if you were a perfectionist you could run it from tone to tone.

Mm-hm.

Male voice: As of today, what would you recommend?

Same. I don't change my mind every day!

Male voice: Okay. Then this is an auditor's judgment about whether he would — what he would do.

Now, look-a-here: You've got to run it null to null.

Male voice: Right.

Now, that already puts a crimp in session scheduling, see? You want to end up this session at the end of exactly two hours, let us say. See, you're going to end it off right on the button, or two hours and a half, you say. All right, you've got to end it right up there, see? Well, that's nice. It's actually better during the last half-hour to only go over things you've already been doing and getting nulls on. That's the smart thing to do to wind up the session, you see, is to go over something you know is null during the last part of a session — that's the easy one. Never take off on something new during the last few minutes of a session — you find yourself in trouble. All right.

It's kind of neat just running null to null. Now, let's supposing you were running null to null, and you had him mocking up a baseball and keeping it from going away.

For some reason or other a lot of you have chosen baseballs in this processing as a null. I think the number of people who have had their heads knocked off with baseballs is probably beyond count, and it's not a very null subject. But anyhow, it's perfectly all right. You wonder why the guy all of a sudden goes this way while you're running a baseball. He picked a baseball not because it was null; because he got his silly head knocked off with one. All right.

We're busy running this baseball, and we run it. And it was null at first and then it developed a lot of action, and then it dropped back and it's null and all you're getting is a gentle rise on the thing. But — but when you picked the baseball, the tone handle was up here, straight up at twelve o'clock or something like that, and after you had run it for a fairly short time, the tone handle was over here at nine o'clock, see?

Well, you won't do the preclear any great damage by knocking it off when it's again null, you see. You won't do him any great damage, even though the tone handle has only come back to ten o'clock. Now actually, it's not yet null because it started out at a twelve o'clock position for the tone handle and it went to nine o'clock. And it's only returned, now, to a stable ten o'clock. Well now, that's tone to tone. Actually, you can end the session with the thing only returned to ten o'clock without chopping the preclear to ribbons. You could probably even end an intensive in this fashion because he'd come on back up the rest of the way, you see? The tone will readjust itself; the nulls won't.

Now, that is — that is something you should know about tone: that tone can change so wildly; that after the 18th ACC with all of the ardures of Comm Course and Upper Indoc — and boy, were people trained on these things in that Unit, see, crush, crash, bang — we had a situation there, where when they took their final test they had shown an average gain, but they hadn't shown as much gain as I thought they should. So I promptly sent out to everybody — oh no, to a lot of people in the 18th, not to everybody — a new set of tests and had them do them and send them back. And these were all, oh, an inch or two higher on the graph on an average, all the way across, than when they had left here, which is quite interesting. Now, that's actually a readjustment of tone, not a readjustment of nulls. Don't you see?

So a perfectionist, however, in working to do it absolutely perfect, you would bring it back to twelve o'clock, at least. If you were being a superperfectionist, you would probably run the baseball until you had total tone on the baseball, and he was off the top of the meter on baseballs, see? But we don't know that that would give you as good a gain as doing something else, going on to something else, you see? You get this, how this is?

Tone is something that'll recover. Drops: boy, I tell you, you can take somebody who is getting a drop on baseballs and pick him up six months later, and he gets a drop on baseballs if baseballs haven't been handled in the interim, see. That one persists, but tone changes.

Okay, does that answer it? That beat it to death?

Male voice: Yes.

All right.

Male voice: Question on null needle: The last information we got here was if a needle is rising slowly — tone-rise type rise — without any backward motion at all, we could consider it a null.

Well, as a matter of fact, that's all a null you're going to get.

Male voice: Well. . .

It's very, very seldom that you will get a needle simply being motionless except in the early part of a case. It's early in a case, in an intensive, where you will get the needle simply coming back to a null and not moving upward.

Male voice: Well, that's what I was wondering about, because I understand up at the HGC they will accept the rising-needle null when they're finding the null object, but they're insisting that the auditor get it to a still-needle null before they consider it null to leave the object.

Well, this is superperfection, that's all. Same thing I was talking about a moment ago. He's gotten a total rise out of it, and that's really scratching for it.

Male voice: Okay.

You shouldn't compare what's happening at the HGC with what's happening at the ACC, by the way.

Male voice: Okay.

Second male voice: Why?

The best reason for this is that the HGC has a whole ACC to do, while it is doing its HGC job. Do you understand that? And these people that are there are being very closely coached and monitored and so on. They're all pretty good; they all have good records. But remember this: This process was handed them cold just as it was handed you. But they have an auditor's conference every day in which they decide what they're getting the best lift on. Do you understand that? So to this degree, because I don't interfere with their determinism, they think they're getting better rises.

They — after all, they're the ones that are auditing these particular preclears, and they've got some rough ones. They get some awful rough preclears. There's rougher preclears in the HGC all the time than there ever is in the ACC. And they get an agreement amongst themselves on this, and until it is proven otherwise, why, I just let them go. That's the wisest thing to do. But they are being kept very close to this Intensive Procedure that you are doing; they're very close to it. And if anything seems to be taking too much time or they're violating it in any way and so on, why, that gets corrected.

And by the way, their sessions are monitored, you know, very closely, and they're spied on — more than you are. You probably have less looking-over-the-shoulder than an HGC auditor does.

We've done some remarkable things lately in the HGC. I mean, it's absolutely fabulous what we have done. Holy cats, we had one fellow who — every day he was going home and commit suicide. I mean, he'd been doing this for years, and he kept on doing it the moment he came in. He was a total psycho — electric shocks and all the rest of it. And, golly, it took weeks, two or three weeks, to get this boy just out of the idea that he ought to — you know, live till tomorrow. And I was somewhat stonied, I think last — two days ago when I was suddenly passed the word that this boy was — they had him calculated as two days to Clear. I mean, he was two days shy of being Clear. And he hit a PT problem of one kind or another, and I think it extended him a day. That had to be cleared up before he could go on.

Now, something really happened with this guy. From being on the verge of being given the yo-heave from the government, just yesterday — you talk about magic or something of the sort — why, he called up and got a confirmation of his civil service rating at ten thousand a year.

They're using almost exactly the same procedure, but these little, little wiggle-wiggles that you're bringing up are still there.

Any other question here — something about your current auditing now?

Female voice: I have a question. Would you do well if you kept picking items that didn't drop at all?

That's right. That's the best you would do.

Female voice: I thought that's what you'd say to that. Thank you.

That's right.

Yes?

Female voice: Is it preferable to ask the preclear to mock up objects around and round in a certain sequence and stick to that, or randomly?

Well, I always take the same course, but always take the same pattern. Don't do it randomly.

Female voice: Well, I've been doing it at random, and I just wonder if it would be . . .

All right, now give me an example of what you mean by "at random."

Female voice: Above, below. To the right and left. And then change off to…

Oh, frankly — frankly, that's one of these questions that are straining at it. I always do it on the same pattern as well as I remember it, you know? It's not an important point. But you'd better not go in such a way that you get eight "fronts" to one "below," see? The only virtue you have in following fairly — a fairly set pattern is the fact that you won't repeat, too often, one of them. And there is a liability in this in that your preclear, if he isn't under good control, is liable to anticipate you because he knows that after "above" you always get "below." So there is a slight liability. I always postulate the preclear is under control. Got that?

Female voice: Thank you.

Does that answer it?

Female voice: Yes.

That doesn't leave you up in the air?

Female voice: No.

It's not an important point. I'm glad you mentioned it, merely so we can say it's not an important point.

Female voice: I was wondering about the automaticity there, that could be set up if you followed a certain sequence.

No. An automaticity actually knocks apart on a duplication. It's quite interesting. One thing a machine can't do is totally, exactly duplicate. Interesting. You'll find that all the machinery has a tiny variation. If a person is trying to keep his machinery intact, then he does every step that he does a tiny bit different than every other step that he does.

Let's take the machinery of the body. What is this body-building machinery? Well, we don't know too much about it or where it comes from and couldn't care less. The truth of the matter is that no body is exactly the same as any other body. The fingerprints are different, the lip prints, the various aspects of the body are different. In identical twins there'll be a millimeter difference between the length of the tibia, and all of that sort of thing. In other words, it carefully doesn't quite duplicate, see? But at a superficial look it would duplicate.

Now, if you exactly duplicated the position and the place — that is to say the distance from the body and the position in relationship to the body — every time, you would crack up more machinery than by doing it randomly. Do you understand?

Who else had a question?

Yes?

Male voice: On clearing up the field it's really — I cannot believe that somebody can't get a picture if you properly communicate what you want him to get, and I've never found anybody that I couldn't do this with. Now, maybe I've never come across this case. It seemed to me that if you properly cleared with him what you want him to do about getting a mock-up or getting something he can see, that anybody could do this.

Second male voice: I agree.

I found that out in '47. That is one of the first data of Dianetics.

Male voice: Anybody can get a picture.

Anybody could get a picture. And I never ran into anybody who couldn't get a picture until I got into the Foundation. And I went over that data the other day and discovered that it was other auditors who couldn't get people to get a picture.

Now, I'm glad you brought that up because I have something more to say about it. When you ask somebody what he can mock up, you — and clear that — you are actually asking a better question than a suggested question. You understand that? You see, it's actually better for him to come up with it than for you to suggest it. You can still suggest it if he's going too far astray, no proviso against it, but it is much better for him to come up with it.

Why? Because there are some things he can mock up, and he may know about it.

Now, let's take an example of this: I very carefully cleared, in the last twenty-four hours, the auditing command of "Mock up something," on this basis: "What can you mock up?" And the fellow said he never had thought about it. So we went into what a mock-up was and what I wanted him to do, and he made a bunch of little tests and found out he could mock up a little, tiny particle with great clarity but couldn't get anything else. We ran that (and of course we were running some sort of a facsimile), and he had to go through this whole cycle of something being mocked up for him and then mocking it up. And we got a period, as we tried to keep it from going away, of getting a total blur-out of a facsimile and eventually it got back to a point of where it could be done. You see that?

This fellow had a totally black field, but he mocked this little particle up inside the field, and then weird and horrible things happened to the field.

Male voice: Yeah.

Now, in 1947 when people said they couldn't get a picture or didn't have a picture, I didn't bother to inquire — hadn't found this question yet: "What are you looking at?" See? I didn't inquire about that, so naturally would miss any black or invisible field. I would talk them into getting a picture by making them do such things as walk out of the door, and walk in and take a look at the room, shut their eyes and come over and see if they couldn't still get a picture of the room from the point at the door. And they could, usually. And then I would have them erase it, arduously, from the moment they approached the door, and get it all erased and the picture would disappear. And we would continue to do this until we had no picture, and go on with this and go on with this, and it probably never entered anybody's mind, you see? Now, I don't know how they would get a picture of the field or I don't know how they would vanish the field. I don't know what happened to the field.

What you're saying is absolutely correct: If you talk long enough about it and you square it around … I have terrific subjective reality on this, you see, with these people. I had an awful time getting one old lady I remember, getting her to get a picture of anything. And I just considered she was cussed and uncooperative. And I got her working over it, she finally gave up the ghost and gave me some pictures. See, and she'd say, "Well, I got a picture of that." And she'd get a picture of it and then I'd get her to erase it, and away we went again.

Now, therefore, what you're saying here is — must have a considerable validity. So far we have no experience, however, with simply asking an auditor on his own judgment to persuade somebody to mock up something he could then see, and fooling around with it until the fellow could mock up something he could see. But I do know that these black fields can be cleared up. You see, we're on the other side of the picture. I do know that it makes a fairly fast route. It makes for less automaticity, is the only recommendation I have for it. Got that?

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Right.

Male voice: I was saying the other day that I've never yet found anybody who had got a black field who couldn't get a mock-up. In my experience I've taken some of the famous English black Vs, as they were called, and never found one of them that couldn't get a picture. But the confusion usually is — sort of a weirdie — it's a confusion between how you look with your body's eyes and how they look. And they're not willing to look unless they can see anything with their body's eyes as they would with them open. So if their eyes are shut, they don't know how to look.

Yes. They want to look on a gradient scale.

Male voice: Yeah. This is usually the confusion which they — eventually they decide, especially old-time Scientologists — they say, "Oh well, I have got a black field," and they stick with it. All you've got to do is just talk them out of it.

Well, you can even take it away from them when it does that. The main point that we're up against here, is simply the fact that fields do apparently exist. There is a rather fast route of handling them, and when a person understands that the field can be handled and that something happens to it, he ceases to be afraid of them. And if you simply ask somebody, as I was doing in '47, as you were talking about just now — just ask them to mock up something and so forth — the automaticity of having it all wiped out might sometime in the future frighten the hell out of them. That's the only real virtue I can see in cleaning up a field.

Male voice: And it does clear up usually, anyway, in Step 5.

Yes. Yes, it does. You're just, with malice aforethought, taking over a black object and making them handle a black object. And this you might not get around to doing unless it was pinpointed right straight up. You cave in an awful lot of bank awful fast when you tell them to mock up a black object and shove it into the body when they've got a black field. That really manhandles it; that gets it out of the road in a hurry.

I remember — there's several cases I've done this with, now, that were remarkably changed just by having it done. Here they got all these screens up, and they're totally protective in some fashion or another, and they hope no hole will come in their protective coating, and they're going around on this. And you just tear all that up and throw it away and they don't die. And they find out they don't die and after a while they're not scared of it.

Yes?

Male voice: What would happen if in checking for null objects you named a few, say a — oh, a black box or something like that, and found a black null object which you would then use . . .

All right. . .

Male voice:. . . in Step 5?

All right. Perfectly okay.

Male voice: In clearing the field, if you start off with a black field, and six or eight hours later you got a purple field, would you then work with the purple object or stick to the black?

Glad you mentioned that. I've had a note here to answer that particular question from the Director of Training at the Academy. Discussion was on whether or not you should keep Q-and-Aing with the preclear's field. And let me assure you that if a black field turned on a purple field, the trouble is still a black field. Now, we're taking what is the initial field; we're saying, "What is the initial field that the auditor finds?" All right, we take off with that and we clear that up, and you usually discover you've cleaned up all other fields — usually. Q-and-Aing too tightly and too closely — every time the field changes color, the auditor changes the auditing command — we get, eventually, the bank controlling the session, and this we must avoid. Got that?

Therefore, if the purple field didn't clean up although we kept on mocking up black objects — having him mock up black objects and shove them in — about fifty-nine and a half commands later, why, we would decide that we had better shift to purple. But it certainly was no dictation by the bank by that time, was it?

Male voice: Hm-mm.

All right. So don't Q-and-A tightly with the bank — every time it changes, you change — don't do that. Because it leaves the bank in control of the session. Got that?

Okay. There are three conditions of acknowledgment. When the preclear is given an auditing command and originates (that's not a cognition, you understand, he just originates something) the auditor assumes that the preclear thinks he has answered the question. You'll find by experience that you can sit there for some time, and the auditor sits there for some time and there's just no question. So the best thing to do is to understand it — you give the preclear a command, he originates, you understand it, acknowledge it and say, "Now I will repeat the auditing command." Got that?

Second case: give the command to the preclear, the preclear says nothing. He's heard it all right, but he isn't answering it. You keep your mouth shut. You'd just be interrupting him because it's mulling through the works somewhere. You understand?

And if it became, at the end of a considerable length of time, apparent that something was terribly wrong, you might say, "Do you have the auditing question?"

He says, "No."

You say, "Well, then I will repeat the auditing question," and give it to him again. But don't start sawing an auditing question in on top of a comm lag he hasn't broken. Do you see that?

Preclear says something: You say, "I'll repeat the auditing command." But over here on this blank, you let the comm lag ride out — that's less disturbance to the preclear. You can check it eventually, but you check it with, "Have you still got the auditing command?" And then repeat it if he has not. if he says simply, "Yes," then you haven't really been out of communication with him, you see? All right.

And the third case, with regard to this, is where the preclear mutters the auditing command after you say it. He has gone on automatic.

You say, "Put some taffy in that wall."

And he says, "Mm, some taffy in that wall."

You say, "I'll repeat the auditing command. Put some taffy in that wall." You do that right now, see?

He gets a little jog after a while, and he says, "Oh, yes, well, hm." He's doing it on kind of a via whereby he doesn't want to obey you, so he puts the question himself and then obeys his own circuit.

Female voice: Along this line, how can you handle where you give the command "to the right of," say, and the preclear puts "to the left of," on a confusion? How do you handle that?

Well, I would find out where he put it, which you would have to do in order to find out that he'd done it.

Female voice: Yeah.

And then I would say, "The auditing command was, 'Put it to the right of it.'" And he still puts it to the left, then you would say, "The auditing command was, 'Put it to the right.' "

He is not unaware that he is doing it, and you are looking at a circuit which is coming up trying to take care of the session. You understand?

Female voice: Mm-hm.

By the way, the mechanism of these origins is quite interesting. The auditing command itself excites a circuit, the circuit moves in (snap) and the circuit says something. And it's actually something which is geometric. You can watch this thing. Here's the preclear; here's the circuit comes in. You ask the auditing command, the circuit comes in, says something. Then the preclear sits there dopily thinking he has answered the question. This is the wildest one, you see?

Now, if the auditor sits there, he can sit there and for five minutes just wasting time because there's no auditing question. The preclear has "answered" it, obviously.

You said, "Put a bird in the ceiling."

And he said, "Candy bars are cheap these days."

And you say, "Yes, mm-hm, mm-hm," waiting for him to answer the auditing question. You can actually sit there for five, ten minutes, fifteen minutes, twenty minutes. He wonders what's wrong with you — he answered the question. It's quite an interesting phenomenon.

Now, that is all for this minute. We actually are way overtime and later than we've ended up several times, but there were some data I had to give you.

Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you.