Thank you.

This is the 26 of August, 1st Saint Hill, 7th London. We are at course middle. You have, as far as you’re concerned — we have a considerable amount of material which has been whipped out As a matter of fact, at 7:00 this morning, I think I put some finishing touches on some of the research material that’s being used here.

Now, a great many processes have been checked out of one kind and another. And as far as can be told at this moment, a good presessioning — having to do very thoroughly with the reorientation of help, control, communications, interest, followed by the running of motion, Alternate Confront and Havingness — should be just about the bill of goods that a case will buy.

Now, you’ve got to go into fundamentals here when you look at cases. If you were being a very clever auditor, you would audit the case more or less where it lived. You would find what rationale or computation and so forth was absorbing most of the interest of this case, and you would audit it out in some wise — wouldn’t much matter how. And you’d get the case unstuck off its exact stuck spot That requires very clever assessment, and it requires very clever running.

To expea broad results from that type of an attack on a case is not anything but optimistic. Because over a period of years that exatt approach of finding out where the case lived and auditing it through that area and getting it to confront that part of existence and so forth, has not been generally applicable by the field, HGCs and auditors in general. That’s a pretty well closed door as far as I’m concerned.

Now, that is an interesting statement for me to make. Instead of that, it is better to go into generalities which find where the case lives and continue on with those to move the case through its zone of fixed interest and onto a wider area of track.

Now, that is a better approach — that is a better approach. It’s a different rationale, but it is a broadly applicable rationale which pick up an enormous number of cases.

Now, that’s more important, you see, than sticking to the theory. You find out that most research fails because of the scarcity of theories. A person gets a theory and thinks that is a wonderful theory, and then they take all the data and move it over to fit the theory.

Now, we’re not calling names; I’m stating a fact The psychologist research failed on that rock. He threw away all the data that didn’t fit his theory. That’s truthful. I’m not just throwing mud.

The psychiatrist has known about exteriorization for a very, very long time and throws it away. All of the data of past lives is seen by him at one time or another in his practice, but it doesn’t fit his theory, and he throws it away.

The various approaches to a solution of man’s immediate difficulties have all, more or less, gotten crossed up on this very point that I am telling you. The theory was the thing; the theory was the precious and valuable thing. And above all else that theory had to be safeguarded because it was very scarce. These boys couldn’t possibly dream up another theory.

Well now, we succeed because we utterly reverse this idea. And I don’t know anything cheaper than a theory. I can get millions of them. I could sit down in a bull session with you and give you probably eighty-five brand-new, beautiful, polished, very rational, reasonable theories of the approach to the human mind, each one of which is very convincing.

I think, perhaps, if there were no economics in communism, it would probably be in its pure state, but they had to make the producer produce. And therefore, they kept curving their various theory lines and so forth on this hidden theory, which was that a man can be made to work by the state for no reward. Now, that’s hidden theory, you see? And that introduction of that arbitrary produces an enormous curve in the application of a philosophy.

Now, we are not a political philosophy, but that one is very much in the papers and so forth. If you look this over, it apparently stems from a perfectly good theory, but it has a hidden monitor. And that monitor is that the state has the right to make a man surrender his labor or produce for nothing.

Now, nearly all the philosophy being advanced now in states, which employ this philosophy of communism, are various curves on the original philosophy in order to produce that exact result.

I don’t ask you to take my word for it; just look over some of the rationales which have been written about modem communism — that is to say, that are put out by various states, the things they want their workers and so forth to believe. And you’ll find their common denominator is that you must be a good boy and work very hard, and you must never be paid by the state or expect pay by the state, and you must surrender all of your labor and produce and dedication to the state.

Now, if you look that over, you’ll find that the entire basic philosophy of this vast political area, which has now captured about better than a third of the population of Earth, is curved — it’s curved around that point No matter how brilliant — no matter how brilliant its early concept might have been or might not have been, there’s a pitch — a pitch on the line which actually makes the theories, then, somewhat less than chaff.

Now, they’re fixed on this other theory right now. See, that’s a precious theory of the powers that be in those particular nations, and it puts a curve on the whole line.

Now, where you are auditing, you have a person who started out, was doing perfectly all right, had a good idea with regard to creating masses in the physical universe, had a good idea to getting on with it, had a good idea to keep various creations from becoming discreditable and carried along in that fashion, and then, sooner or later, adopted some oddball theory, some idea fixe.

I’ll give you an example of one: A fellow conceives a plan. This is a brilliant plan. It is a very good plan. It’s only for good people. And only if people are very good can they execute this plan. Then instead of executing the plan, he went about making people good.

And the theory became “Make people good,” which required, (to quote) “fantastic viciousness” on the part of its executor. All right.

The theory now became “How to make the plan work.” That had nothing to do with the plan, don’t you see? And if you could just make everybody good, why, then this plan would work, but the plan actually never got off the ground. See, because all things had a new theory introduced into them, which is: “People are basically bad,” which the original plan didn’t have in it at all.

Now, the theory, then, of any philosophy or of any life or of anything man is doing, becomes, somewhere along the line, perverted by the introduction of an arbitrary. People try to make it work. This is not condemnatory — what I’m saying. People try to make this work. They try to make it work in every possible way, and they very often despair of making it work and so revert onto some regimen which simply makes it work and has nothing to do with the theory. And the theory is forgotten, so it isn’t working anymore, but this new regimen is working. Do you understand?

Now, we must never do that in Scientology. We are a free people. That is to say, we have no political commitments. Every once in a while some HCO Secretary is in trouble trying to keep peace someplace or another, or get some situation straightened out, and they ask me for a policy. And once in a while, I give them this policy which is, “Make them happy and keep peace in the family.”

Well, that’s actually an introduced arbitrary, but it certainly is not very corruptive of what we’re doing. It’s a very good philosophy from a standpoint of that, because, you see, nobody is trying to make everybody be good. We’re trying to make people become more able and get Clear and not be sick and have a better time of it So, therefore, any additive philosophy to this, such as shoot everybody down in their tracks if they won’t, you see, is obviously something that would detour the original intentions of the organization.

We are only interrupted by people who sometimes will come rushing up — they’ll come rushing up madly and throw something into the office, you know, and bare their chests and say, “Shoot me.” And you have to be careful to get their name spelled right, you know?

And you say, “Who are you and where did you come from and what are you doing?” And they say, “Oh no, you don’t get the idea. Shoot me, shoot me, shoot me.” They go around and tell everybody all the awful things being done to them and that sort of thing.

Well, recendy I passed those people on to you, to a remarkable degree. I said, ‘Well, somebody’s kicking up a lot of entheta. You’re the only people that can get the person processed so they aren’t causing all this upset”.

Since that time, I regret to say, one of them has been madly suing me because Association members are mad at her. It’s quite interesting. What’s this got to do with it? This hasn’t got anything to do with it but that’s how non sequitur you can sometimes get when you are trying to carry forward a certain rationale. People just don’t get the word.

Now, looking over processing, we realize that there are certain frailties in processing which can occur and which interrupt its progress. And these are based upon this: that you have a being who is surrounded by matter, energy, space, time, form and location and, of course, other ideas. And this being is a seventh dynamic being, and if you considered his ideas part of the seventh dynamic, which you could do, being very sloppy about it — you would say that these things get packaged up in the sixth dynamic. And in order to free this person from his ideas fixe, it is much more beneficial to take off the seventh than to pull out the sixth.

Now, we learned that in the days of exteriorization. We can exteriorize anybody. We can do some pretty wild things, but it isn’t very good for them on a long haul. We could make somebody Clear probably — oh, my goodness, maybe up to seventy-two hours — do it in just a moment, something of this sort. And at the end of seventy-two hours, he’s so confoundedly unstable, he doesn’t know where he is going, he doesn’t know what he’s doing, everything looks horrible and new and strange to him.

Well, amongst other things, a thetan living in a body is very used to 98.6 degree temperature. So you blow him outside of a body and he prompdy — he’s usually too insensible to recognize it at first, but he gets cold. Furthermore, he’s used to milk and coffee and tea, and things like this. And he gets no pay for these things — for being outside of his body, you see? So he says, “Well, it’s better to be in the trap, in prison and get fed and stay warm than it is to be out here in the cold blizzard,” which is what the gentle summer breeze feels like to him.

Now, what you’d have to do is get him more capable of viewing — experiencing — his immediate surroundings and more capable of changing his mind about what he himself can experience, and take the MEST off of the top of him. Now, which of those come first is beside the point. They both got to be done.

Now, if he’s got masses of various colors, hues and constituency stuck to him — not to the body, don’t you see — then he never does feel free. He says, “I’ve got to kill this body off in order to get free of this horrible sensation.” So he drops the body in a river or does something else impolite (ignoring the litter signs) (laughter) and sails out and finds out that he’s still got this abominable mass pushing up against his thetan physiognomy. Oh, he didn’t win on this. This gives him a lose.

Now, he sails around and gets free of this for the moment And then he picks up another body, and then something else happens and he keys it in. And he says, “Condemn this body. Look at what this body is doing to me!” you see? And, “This is a very bad body,” and so forth. So one way or another with smallpox or medicine or something of this sort, he knocks it off, because he says, “Now I will be free of that mass.” And he exteriorizes and he’s cold and he hasn’t got any saucers of milk, and he hasn’t gotten rid of the mass either. And the mass is still with him again. And he goes on this dizzy cycle because he’s dropped below being able to immediately cope with the situation in which he finds himself.

Now, the situation he finds himself in, though, in spite of all of its complexities, can receive a rather basic statement: The thetan has become wary of experiencing things.

Now, this experience factor is not one we should overlook. It ranks with confusion and the stable datum in importance. We are not doing anything to amount to anything with this particular factor except as it may occur from running motion in this particular unit We’ll see these experiences.

But there is a great deal to know about experience and its factors in relationship to a thetan because it’s the basic rationale of why he is permitting himself to be penned up in the middle of physical energy in the physical universe. It’s to obtain experience — that’s his fundamental. That’s his theory, that if he just gets himself involved enough, he’ll have lots of experience, and that will be “whee.” And so he chucks a spear into somebody’s chest, gets one in his own chest, decides he doesn’t like it; therefore, doesn’t want that experience again. And from wanting experience, he goes up the line into consecutive unwanted experiences, wanted experiences, unwanted experiences, wanted experiences, unwanted experiences. And he becomes some sort of a dizzy package of what he will have and won’t have.

And he likes ice cream, so he wants to make something out of ice-cream vendors and factories, don’t you see? And he gets selective, and he gets so that he wants to make nothing out of certain things and something out of other things. And you’ve got this something-nothing proposition running along continuously. And this is basically his power of choice with relationship to experience. He’s telling you what he doesn’t want to experience and what he does want to experience.

Now actually, his havingness factor is he believes that he will not have any further experiences with regard to police if there are no police. And he will never have a scarcity of ice cream if he continuously makes something out of ice cream and ice-cream vendors and factories.

So the obvious solution of how to run a case from his viewpoint is to obsessively not-is all of the things he doesn’t want to experience and obsessively “is” all of the things he thinks he does want to experience. So his bank is a series of obsessed not-isnesses and obsessed, really, is-nesses.

So you’ve got these things; one, two, one, two, one, two. But after a while he loses control of this, and he starts to not-is what he wants, and he starts to make something, you see, out of what he doesn’t want — and now he’s confused.

He’s a little boy, he gets lost The sergeant down at the station, as sergeants will do, is very nice to him. So he changes his mind about police. He’s been running away from police in space for a long time, but now he thinks police are nice. Well, this doesn’t compute.

Now, what I was saying about theories — he’s departed from his original theory. Got the idea?

His original theory is that if you just made nothing out of police, you’d be all right But now he’s making something out of nothing, (sigh) He gets confused. Experience changes. What is good experience in one environment with one beingness is bad experience in another environment with another beingness. So as he changes environments and occupies different spaces, he finds his evaluation of experience is shifting. And these experiences, of course, after a while become so entangled that he says, ‘Well, the dickens with the whole ruddy lot There’s nothing more we want to do with anything called experience. We will just sit here.”

Well now, this is entirely foreign and contrary to every other philosophy he adapted earlier on the track and is in their teeth. So you have a case winding up as a series of problems which are postulate-counter-postulate, desire-counter-desire. You have, “Make something out of police,” being met by, “Making nothing out of police.”

And then one day he eats too much ice cream and decides ice cream is terrible and goes on a horrible vendetta against ice cream. Or he starts up an ice-cream plant and finds out that he’s being overwhumped by a competitor. So he makes nothing out of the competitor’s plant, and then wonders why he can’t get along with his own plant. He conceives himself guilty of making nothing out of an ice-cream plant. In other words, he gets confused. His values change.

Now, to pull values off of a case (now let’s get very technical) — to pull values off of a case continuously, continuously, continuously, and to as-is or knock out the postulates or values out of the MEST of the bank and the universe and to leave nothing there, is to collapse these various areas on him.

Let’s look that oven If we continue to pull out postulates, we collapse MEST because the postulate is holding the MEST in a certain framework, you might say. And when we remove it, the framework goes voom. So beware of stripping a bank of all of its ideas because the idea is that thing which is there confronting the MEST forms — matter, energy, space, time, form, location — these things are there, don’t you see? And if you pull those things out continuously, you can strip a whole bank of its ideas.

Now, it’s taken me a very long time to find this out I hope you find the datum valuable. We knew something about this a long time ago, but I had gotten no further on this particular problem than in 1956 when I wrote down the research question, “Is it better to handle physical material in a bank or handle the significances in the bank?”

Now, you had some shadow of that coming along saying, “Don’t audit supersignificances,” or “Don’t audit significances.” We knew there was something wrong with directly and immediately auditing significances, don’t you see? It’s better to audit a terminal. You’ve heard that many times.

Well now, that’s the earlier rationale of this. And I give you a new one now: It is better to audit off the MEST. It’s better to take the motion off of the case than the ideas out of it. You got that? Because when you do so, he can reorient his evaluation of desirable experience.

His evaluation of experience is being blocked by the enormous numbers of confusions which greet him each time he tries to enter some sphere of experience. Now, he tries to enter that he’s already taught himself, “This is very bad,” so automatically, he claws himself up for entering it You see?

Some fellow walks down the street and he just sees somebody’s back. He’s feeling all right, but he’s walking down the street, and he sees somebody’s back. And he gets the idea of that person’s back. But just as he starts to get this idea, and actually before he realizes that he gets it at all, he has a horrible pain in his stomach. Obviously, it was something he ate. He attributes it to something else, don’t you see, in order to continue to warn himself against this bad experience, as irrational as that bad experience is.

Now, basically, cases do not trust themselves, so therefore they put things on automatic. When a person has a tremendous number of overts of one character or another, they will tend to put the whole control of those overts on automatic because they say, “I can’t trust me anymore.”

So trust is a factor which comes in here which is expressed in self-confidence, “I feel that it will be all right,” other various factors here that all center around this thing called trust or confidence.

Now, costing other people their trust and confidence, proving to other people that experience is bad, come under the heading of overts, and you get into the overt-motivator sequence, which is all part of the experiential package.

Therefore, a case which is very bad off or is having a sticky time of it, I think you will find, will respond better to the handling of material things than to the stripping or changing of ideas.

I’ve come to that conclusion. It’s taken — I know I’m occasionally accused of being very hasty, but that one is not very hasty, you know? That’s been about twenty years on the road. I have to make up my mind now that this is the way it is — that it’s better to take a case which is having a rough time and handle material than to handle its ideas.

Now, the reason for this is that — is just this: Because of circuits and because of the machinery of the case, a reduction of the havingness of the case brings in and activates circuits.

Now, that’s a very valuable datum, and I haven’t mentioned it, I think, since the 4th London ACC. But that is a very valuable datum. As the havingness goes off of the case or gets as-ised — by which we could say, as the case’s ideas are pulled out and the environment has collapsed on the case (we could also make that statement, you see) — unwanted experiences cause him to believe he shouldn’t have. When you pull in these unwanted experiences, you pull in along with them the circuits he’s set up to tell him not to have them, tell him not to do them. You got the idea?

He’s got circuits there that give him advice concerning women. So if you reduce his havingness of women by any mechanism, you will pull in a circuit which advises him not to have any, and you’re auditing a circuit. You see that?

Just put this down as a datum that has nothing to do with high-flown philosophy on the line, it has a lot to do with just straight technology: is when a case is not advancing or misbehaving, it is in the influential area of a circuit which is giving it advice not to have something. And the case comes along a little bit, and you knock some of the significances out of the case, you see, and some MEST collapses on the case. But it’s the type of experience the case doesn’t want, and therefore the havingness of the case goes down, you see? That’s the mechanism. You can watch it work — one of the most fantastic things you ever saw. All right.

Down goes the havingness, in comes the circuit. Now the circuit activates. And a circuit becomes as active as havingness is low on the case. And when you can audit the pc directly, you can get someplace. But when you audit the pc via a circuit, or when you audit a circuit, you’re not going to get anyplace. You follow that?

Audience: Yes. Mm-hm.

Probably the best way to crack, then, a very, very difficult case that is not responding at all, and a good approach — and by the way this approach is going to come in on a new regimen here very shortly — is that you open up presessioning with Havingness. You start auditing with Havingness, and watch the case’s behavior while running Havingness, and make up your mind what to do about the case because of your understanding of a case’s reaction to Havingness. You got that?

Now, that’s very smart because it’ll keep you from ever getting a case enturbulated or upset before you find out what’s — the case is all about. Got the idea? Which is actually terribly safe for an HGC or something like that. It’s very safe auditing; it’s playing it to an extremity, true, but is nevertheless interesting.

Now, something is liable to occur to a case just running Havingness. And you’ll find out that when the person cannot easily have objects of the room, he will have the significances or maybe spaces or very near objects or something, but won’t have any heavy masses. You see, these heavy masses are unhaveable. And you should always run Havingness until the case can have heavy masses in his vicinity. Make it a law.

We keep losing this Havingness every few years, you know? Yes, we lose Havingness and we get Havingness back, and we lose it again. Now, I’ve had to study this very hard.

Now, obviously, if his havingness were up — if his havingness were up, he might not yet be up to confiding in the auditor to any great degree, so you would have to take your choice amongst the various processes to run. But you just ran a process which was objective and out there, didn’t you? Havingness.

Well, why not run a very close MESTwise thing, in dose, in here (you got the idea?), subjectively, which is the greatest sanity manufacturer you ever had anything to do with. Some cases can just feel themselves go sane on this one. It’s quite a remarkable process, and that’s just straight Alternate Confront It’s a bearcat of a process. And it gets scanted; it gets slighted simply because it doesn’t produce enormous profile gains. Well, it makes the valence that’s there happy, anyway.

Now, it will also tend to shake out in a reticent case the PTPs and the ARC breaks. It tends to shake this out So does Havingness, too, by the way. So if you are doing a very, very cautious, very thorough auditing approach, particularly on a strange pc or on a pc that wasn’t moving well, your smartest possible forward progress would be Havingness, Alternate Confront Havingness, Alternate Confront Havingness, Alternate Confront Havingness, Alternate Confront until you got the needle running.

Now, once more I’ve had the experience in this particular unit of watching people not move when the significance was stripped out of the bank. Once more I have seen this. And it’s just one — it was enough. You see, that makes it enough — gives it an. abundance as far as I’m concerned.

I’ve been watching this for a number of years — wasn’t quite sure of what I was watching. Now I know — following what you’re doing; now I know what I’m watching. I’m merely watching the seventh dynamic enclosed in the sixth dynamic. We pull the seventh dynamic out of the sixth dynamic; the sixth dynamic goes on irresponsible. The place to address a case is on the sixth, which frees the seventh. Now, that’s a formula of progress — address the sixth and free the seventh. Got that? You address the sixth and free the seventh dynamic Got it?

Audience: Yes.

All right.

I’ve watched your inversions and backwards and forwardnesses and so on. And yes, you can make some progress and you can move a needle. Yes, you can do some interesting things by pulling significances. But look, it has to be the exact significance because you can’t afford to miss. And if you just pulled significances in general, you would miss so often that it’d ball the case up slightly. Got the idea? You can’t afford to miss. All right.

I’ll just put old Betsy back over the fireplace again, as far as I’m concerned, because I can hit these things which has led us astray. I’ve never been willing to believe that you couldn’t sharpshoot these things out of a case, but you’ll find our course of research is absolutely studded with techniques which sharpshoot them — you see, which exteriorize the thought out of the MEST. I’ve been trying to get you to do it.

And now I’ve got a confession to make to you. I’ve run into a case where I couldn’t do it You’ve run into a lot of them. I’m good at it, but I couldn’t do it on this case. I had the point necessary to resolve the case; I had the exact point that all you had to do was do a flip between the thumb and forefinger and blingo! That would have been it And the case was already so far down in havingness that the only thing which would answer the auditing question was a circuit having to do with this exact thing. Yeah, I moved the case around, but the case couldn’t get off the launching pad because it was through a circuit.

Now, this isn’t just one experience, but it’s a signal failure as far as I’m concerned. And I have to admit you’re right, that there’s a possibility of not doing it.

If you run the exact engram necessary to resolve the case, my, my, my, you’ve got it made! Works to this degree: I can find them, you can’t And now, when I flunk finding one, well, I realize there’s every possibility of flunking one, that it doesn’t work case for case. I have found a case on which this didn’t operate.

Now, this becomes very, very interesting from your viewpoint, because it changes ] the rationale here on this 26 of August 1960. It changes the rationale of processing, and that rationale shifts just to this degree: life has put the sixth in control of the seventh. You’ve got to put the seventh in control of the sixth. Got it? Very unaccustomed to communicating this to you. You got this?

Now, that is done by addressing the sixth — MEST. Got it? So the case could be expected to get more spiritual if you straightened out his MEST. Got it?

Audience: Yes. Mm-hm.

Be expected to be more able and more anything else and more free if you took care of considerations of MEST because these are the common denominators of experience. Okay?

Audience: Yes. Mm-hm.

Now, with Regimen 2, which has just been released to you, we have, along with that, Presession II which has not been issued to you. And Presession II is fantastic in its simplicity because what it does is it runs Havingness and then discusses help, control and runs Alternate Confront as the communication step and then starts a session. Do you understand that one?

Audience: Yes. Mm-hm. Yeah.

You run Havingness, then you can cover the subject of Help, you can cover the subject of Control — because these have to be mentioned — but you don’t audit them particularly, you just cover these things and see what the person’s lineup on this is — more so that you can get an index of case progress. And then you run some Alternate Confront Got it? Then you start a session and run into your rudiments, which sounds fantastic, doesn’t it? But it keeps anybody from beating the rudiments to death on a case which has no Havingness. Got that?

Now, the way — the patter that goes along with that is, “Is it all right with you to begin a presession?”

The guy says, “Yes.”

You say, “Thank you. First command is: Look around here and find something you can have.” Get into it very quick. No window dressing, got the idea?

Now, if you were auditing somebody who was just in off the street or something like this, this would sound very weird to them. So you would vary it to some degree like this — it would have a variation just for this: You could say, “All right. Now, let’s begin our first checkouts on your case. I have to make a long test of your ability to have things. Is that all right with you?” “Thank you very much. All right Here’s the first command. Look around here and find something you can have.” Got the idea?

Female voice: Yes.

And then, you run that until he can have large objects.

Now, some cases it may take seventy-five hours. You can be prepared to have that happen. That’s the most extreme thing I can think about, see? You’re not going to run it by time, you understand? You’re going to run it solely just on this one basis: Can he have large objects in his vicinity? Soon as he can and this seems to be a constant thing — not just, “Well, I could have the wall. I could have that scrap of paper.” Right? That’s no good. “I could have that wall and I could have that wall and I could have the ceiling and I could have the floor and I could have the room.” See, that’s real good havingness response. Then you’re perfectly safe on the matter.

Now, havingness ebbs and flows between large objects, small objects and distant objects and near objects and that sort of thing. And you can overrun Havingness for your purposes because it isn’t a fast, stable case changer, see? You could overrun it.

You could get the fellow up to a point where he could have some large objects in the room, and then keep on running it on your basic thought that he should be able to have the whole building or something like that, before you stop, you see? All you want is three or four commands in which he had large objects, and that’s it And that’s it All right.

Now, you’d say to a person off the street, “Well, I have finished now my checkout on this. How do you feel about my helping you?” And by this time, you should be able to talk to the person. You should be able to. There’s no sense in talking to the person until the person is kind of unmasked. You got it? All right.

And you’d say, ‘Well, do you feel it’s all right — I’ve been running some control on you here now, you know, and you feel it’s all right if I go on giving you these orders and that sort of thing? How do you feel about this? What is control?” Anything you’d care to say but a very brief discussion please. And you’d say, “All right The next thing we’re going to do is raise communication level.” “All right. That’s fine. Now, what we’re going to do is do that now. And look around here and find something you can have.” “You see, you have raised your havingness. And this one is going to raise your ability to talk to it or to see it you see?” “All right Now, what could you confront?” “What would you rather not confront?”

By the way the child version of that should be interesting to you. There is a child version. I worked it out And the child version is a very short attention span version, but it says, “What would you like to look at?” “What wouldn’t you like to look at?” And that communicates to even the very little ones. If they can talk at all, they can run that one.

You presession that one with who they’re trying to help. And they run it as an Objective Process which runs actually Havingness and Confront all at the same time. They almost never give you subjective answers at first They go around pointing to things, and they’ll run all over the yard, and they’ll do all kinds of wild things with this process. But that’s the child version of this, and it’s one of these superpackage processes — actually is a sort of a package for a child which includes, more or less, the presession you’ve got But you can get someplace discussing things with a child on the subject of Help, which is something else that you should know. I just interject that in passing.

Now, do you see this? You see the rationale I’ve been trying to give you here which is don’t try to take the seventh out of the sixth. Try to take the sixth off the seventh, returning to the seventh its ability to cohabit with the sixth. Got it?

Now, we have to make up our mind along this line as to whether or not that isn’t a good thing to do or is a good thing to do. And you yourself are perfectly free to make up your mind under inspection because you’re now going to run that on cases that you are auditing right this minute. Okay?

Audience. Yes.Mm-hm.

You can make up your mind as to which one of these rationales is correct. And you had better make up your mind independently of my thought on the matter, just because I don’t intend to overpower you by saying, “Well now, thirty years, man and boy, I have been hmmmm,” because I don’t happen to have pomposis. But the point that we’re making here is simply that I have finally come to the end of track as far as the examination of significance on a case is concerned. And you have been of considerable help in pointing that up because I have been watching what you’re doing.

It’s been quite interesting. You’ve been trying to straighten up cases here by taking the seventh out of the sixth, don’t you see? And you haven’t been getting anyplace — I mean, those of you that were trying to do just that.

Now, the remainder that were already running fairly okay are taking now the sixth off of the seventh, and I think you’ll all agree you’re getting somewhere. You’re running motion — or should be.

Now, you can run motion in connection with a terminal if you wish, but remember you’ve limited the scope of the answer. Got it?

Audience: Yeah. Mm-hm.

And somewhere along the line a case gets other-determinism hungry, gets upset about other-determinisms and so forth. And way up the line, after you leave Regimen 2 and so forth, you’d run your Confront on the basis of confronting determinisms. And the basic shift there, which is feasible and workable, is (well, this is the model, not the actual auditing question, but the model type of command) is, “What determinism could you confront?” or ‘What being could you confront?” That isn’t the way you’d phrase it It would be “What person..or “What being..or something of that sort you see, .. could you confront?” “What person or being would you rather not confront?” Some such word there.

Well, what you’re trying to do is run, “What other-determinism do you think you’ve got in your cotton-picking bank, mister?” Okay?

Audience: Yes. Okay.

All right.

Well, I wish you good luck now. And I want you all really taking off by Monday morning. And you still got your half a day’s session here, which I am busy cutting to pieces, so you better get to work.

Well now, you have, today, an instrument which is far more valuable than you think — much more valuable than you think — called an E-Meter. Now, that E-Meter, properly tuned up and balanced and doing right and used with a good comprehension, selects out for us, without any further observation or argument, the case that isn’t going anywhere and the case that is making a little progress. Now, these cases are spotted by this meter, and you shouldn’t, in a spell of overwhelming optimism, argue with the meter. You just shouldn’t.

Now, this is one of our frailties in Scientology. An auditor’s report very often is completely optimistic and the pc’s report is completely glum. Now, this is not a majority situation, but it happens to all of us sooner or later. We say, ‘Well, we really, really did that case good, you know? And he was really whizzing,” and so on.

And then we talk to the pc again, and it’s all “Nyeaa. ” Or the graph didn’t change.

Now, the bane of our existence is the unchanging graph. Actually the only serious one is the graph that lies on the bottom and just keeps lying there, you know, ninety fathoms down and the air pump shut off. This used to be.

Now, we’ve had that out of the muck and had its lead shoes off here for some time. I think it’s something on the order of two, three months now, this particular case been giving us no trouble just on Help on an assessed terminal.