Thank you.

Well, today is a very practical lecture, with no theoretical nonsense about it.

This is the 14th lecture of the 3rd Joburg ACC, Tuesday, 14 February, AD 11, Happy St. Valentine’s day. [Laughter] There are two girls here [who] didn’t accept that.

The fundamentals of auditing of course are totally designed to handle fixations and changes of attention, as I have told you in a recent lecture. And attention is fixated or in a constant state of flux of course to the degree that the person is creating and is counter-creating. That’s what the attention gets fixed on. Creates and counter-creates.

If you know these fundamentals and you understand them for what they are, you shouldn’t have too much trouble with a case. Because all other things such as the rudiments, such as havingness processes and all this sort of thing tend to fall into line on that understanding. It’s simply a matter of the case is fixed on masses, circuits, energies, or is constantly fluctuating amongst them. And of course these masses and energies and so forth are of course created by the case. And the things that put them out of existence and make them unreal and so forth are of course created by the case. You have a man at war with himself. You have a girl at war with herself.

Ah, the reason the process “attack” of course in the HAS co-audit works is because the more an individual goes down-scale, the more obsessively he attacks on certain levels and points. Well, an attack of course is a method of counter-create. And you can count on most cases having more counter-create than they have create. They are more dedicated to counter-creation at this day and time than they are dedicated to creation.

Now, in view of the fact that the case is in a state of unreality about the fact that he is doing it, that he is mocking these things up on which he is then fixing his attention — a thetan is very clever. You also got such a situation as an individual knowing he’s doing it or knowing he’s not doing it. But of course everybody knows he’s not doing it. And so you have a level of processing in doingness, doingness and creating. And one of the processes that you can get away with there is: “What wouldn’t you mind creating?” “What would you rather not create?”, that sort of a process.

Now, doingness — beingness, doingness and havingness we have known about for a very long time, and you find out that we are dealing very strongly these days with enormous success at the level of havingness. And doingness, just above havingness, of course has its own levels. The axiom of aberration is: All doingness harms self. Everybody’s been trying to prove that in this universe for a very long time - all doingness harms self. And you get doingness processes addressing this fact.

You could even, this… thinking scientologically, you could just ask somebody, “What… what liability would there be to doing something?” Most elementary process, it sits right on the button of aberration. Or, “What could you do that wouldn’t be harmful to you?” Directly developed processes which are developed immediately and at once from theory at a level of simplicity like this have occasional astonishing workabilities. And they also fall flat, because the person is so much more involved and is doing so many more complicated things than this, that he has got to come up to these basic realities. So you can’t expect such fundamental processes, “What are you willing to create?”, “What would you rather not create?”, “What doingness would be harmful?” or “What could you do that wouldn’t ruin you?”, you cannot expect these things to always buck in on the case, because the case is more complicated than this. It has taken these elements and has made tremendous complexities out of them.

But if you know in which direction you are going, at least you have that in your favour. Now, beingness processes are more easily run than you think. And you can run a whole engram just by asking somebody, “What in that incident would you be willing to be?” — it’ll run a whole engram. But of course we have to have primarily and fundamentally the ability to be something. It’s got to be there in some slight shreds before this thing can be used at all, and you would be utterly amazed, there are a great many people who can’t be anything. So before you run such a process as that beingness process, you have to make a test. You have to say, “Look around here and find if there’s anything in this room that you could be.” And the individual, if he can’t answer this in under two hours, of course he can’t run an engram that way.

Now, beingness, doingness and havingness are the three zones, areas, levels of processes. Each one of them is so strong and so good that you could probably develop the entirety of processing rationale at beingness level. You could again develop the entire rationale of processing at doingness level. And once more you could develop the entire rationale of processing at havingness level. These things are quite pervasive. But after a while one of them merges into another one. And the invidivual begins to see the connections amongst them and actually [will see?] all three of them.

Now, where the individual doesn’t move under elementary rudiments, [?] rudiments, going down the line on them, where you get no tone arm action, where you get no change of case or response, it isn’t necessarily true that the person is withholding having robbed the bank of England in this lifetime. It is not necessarily true that this is the case, but it is probable. There is something there and they don’t want the auditor to know anything about it.

The pc who doesn’t move under a relatively thorough line-up on the rudiments has some unusual or secret goal he does not wish to impart on the auditor. Or is just sitting there — a total PTP. It is just a hundred percent present time problem. So going over a case on the basis of rudiments, one takes it easy until he finds out that the pre-havingness scale as you have been taught to use it does not move the tone arm.

In other words, why ask for trouble until you’ve got it? You go over the rudiments, you know, pretty well, [?] you don’t get any marked wild drops, the withholds don’t seem to be there to any tremendous degree — you pass on into a search of the pre-havingness scale. Now you find where the pc lives, and you get one of his principal goals aligned, the formula is just… you got the pcs goal, and it gets a nice drop as a goal does which is probably real to the pc, you convert this goal into a terminal. You make sure your terminal is dropping as well as the goal dropped, put the terminal over on the pre-havingness scale and assess the pre-havingness scale with that terminal and then run anything that fits that level.

Now you’ve been given commands — actually your instructors were more insistent on having commands for this than I was — but the truth of the matter is that there are basic commands on the pre-havingness scale. This commands are the simplest possible command. It’s “what was _____ (blank)” to the positive points of the scale, and “What _____ (blank) failed” to the “failed” points of the scale or the negative points of the scale. Now, that’s just a general command. Now, for a terminal, it’s “what…” — let’s see now — “What man” — let’s say “man” was what was assessed as the goal’s terminal — “What man was _____ (blank)“ and, er… it’ll be “What man failed”… I haven’t got these in front of me here, just dreaming them up again — but these two commands would merely include the terminal. Let’s take “protected — failed to protect”. “What man was not protected?” is as good as you wish to get there, or “What protection failed a man?”

Now, you’re always trying to move in toward a repetitive command while these happen to be the all-bracket commands and could be just repeated over and over and over for one level. In other words, “What man was protected?”, “What man was protected?”, “What _____ (blank) was _____ (blank)?” Now, there’s literally dozens and dozens and dozens of ways that you could run the pre-havingness scale against the terminal.

You got the pre-havingness scale — well, you could run fifteen brackets against it, if you wanted to! “When have you protected a man?”, “When has a man protected you?”, “When has a man protected a man?”, “When has a man protected another?”, “When has another protected a man?”, “When have others protected others?” We are getting real fancy brackets here. There’s ways and means of making up commands, don’t you see, and you could make them up into a bracket, now that bracket — I won’t quote the rest of the bracket — there’s a potentiality of 32 commands without a repetition, to get in all possible brackets. Did you know there were that many? Well, it’s fantastic. Factually, above five it becomes rather far-fetched, and a five-way bracket is about the most of those you’d care to have anything to do with.

Alright, let’s say that you found the pc’s long-standing, long-suffering goal, you wanted to do something hurriedly and immediately for the pc, giving him a lot of hope and enthusiasm, get the show on the road, you’d go right on down through the rest of the rudiments, don’t pay too much attention to the wonders whether he has a present time problem or not, if it doesn’t fall off the pin, why, skip it, you know? And get him right on down into the pre-havingness scale, assess that terminal and run the basic or fundamental command at that level. You gonna have somebody taking off.

So now that’s gonna apply to about — varying in different localities — but it’ll apply to pretty close to 80 or 90 percent of your cases. The fellow knows something is happening. He is convinced of this. You hit it right on the button. Now, what do you do? Do you flatten this man to death, this terminal that you’re running, and so forth? Well, it’s not necessary to do so, but I’d certainly run it until the tone arm slowed down. The tone arm is going to get a lot of motion at that level, and you had better run this, until you take the motion out of the tone arm. Now, if you want to be a little fancier about it, you make a formula out of it, so that you don’t take just the level that you found the fellow at — you take that and you take the level just below, and you run ten minutes of one and ten minutes of the other, and you will find that these two between them will clean up an awful lot more track and bank. You’ve undercut it by one — that’s making a formula out of it.

Now, that’s fine, nothing wrong with that at all. Next thing you do would be to run another goals assessment with the greatest of care, convert that next falling goal into a terminal and take that thing to pieces and take most of the tone arm motion out of it. Now, the tone arm motion comes out actually when the needle no longer falls when you say the thing to the person. You say, “Man”, and you get no needle reaction. Well, the probability is, the tone arm isn’t going to react much, you get no needle reaction. And that’s safe to believe, but you keep saying “man”, and the thing keeps theta-bopping. You just better run it, that’s all. And if you found out you were wrong in just taking the one level, you can always add the other level, the one just below, and make a formula out of it and run it more thoroughly, when this thing is giving you trouble.

Now that is a very satisfactory way to run a preclear. It’s a brand-new way to run a preclear, but it’s very satisfactory of preclears. They get very excited about this. You’ve heard some of them, and some of you haven’t.

But let’s say that we assessed it, and we couldn’t get much fall, and the goal we didn’t get much of anything, […?] and there wasn’t very much action, and not much recognition on the part of the pc, and there wasn’t any motion on that tone arm — that’s the test. When you ran this thing, you just didn’t get any motion on the tone arm. Oh, now is the time, now is the time to go back and just beat those rudiments to death. There is no reason to beat rudiments to death on somebody who’s perfectly willing to talk to you and who’s in session. But you can be fairly well convinced — if you’ve done your job well of assessing a goal and trying to run it on the pre-havingness scale with any command — I don’t care what command you use on the pre-havingness-scale by the way.

I just don’t care — you gonna find commands are real to the pc or they are not. And at the complex level of cases that you run into, you’re gonna have to shift commands occasionally. You gonna find somebody who can’t possible conceive doing anything to a man. But who can sure conceive automaticity galore of a man doing something to him. Well, you’d better run it in some fashion that permits it to go either way. You got the idea? Not “What did a man do to you?”, “What did a man do to you?” — no, that would be very wrong. But at least run it, “What did a man do?”, “What did a man do?”, “What did a man do?” — got the idea? Pc wakes up and finds out after a while he’s a man. [Laughter] You can adjust those commands. The commands you’ve got work on the bulk of the cases you’ve got.

But let’s get back to this rudiments thing. Alright — you did everything right right up to this point. If you were an excellent auditor, you always have the benign satisfaction that if the case didn’t move with what you did, it’s not wrong with you, there’s something very unusual with the case. That’s the satisfaction of being a good auditor. You don’t sit around wondering if it’s wrong with you. You know, can’t find it well at this stage — it must be wrong with the case. There is something you missed when you went over those rudiments, but this is wrong with the case, and it must be something very unusual if the case didn’t progress from that point on. There must be some secret goal, there must be some tremendous withhold, there must be some fabulous present time problem or some huge ARC-break. Something wrong, they [?] let you in on something.

If goals, terminal and pre-havingness scale don’t work and if the pc didn’t get interested at that stage, he isn’t [?] to be in session, because this is the most powerful case interest sequence that we’ve ever had. It throws people in over their heads with a crash. You pick the goal they are most interested in, and then find a terminal that fits that goal, that falls the same way, so they’re very interested in that terminal, too, and then fit it on the most interesting processing scale we have ever had, the pre-havingness scale — and the pc is still out of session? Oh, no. Mm-mm. There’s something wrong here.

Now is the time to beat your rudiments to pieces. Let’s find out, let’s find out if there’s a secret goal or withheld goal of some kind or another. Let’s find out if there’s a great, big present time problem the pc had better not mention. Let’s find out if there’s a huge ARC-break or great, big withhold of some kind or another. You will find them. That I promise you, you’ll find them. For they sit right there. Now, the first time you went by, you were perfectly willing to buy this case as an ordinary run-of-the-mill case. But the second time you go by, you are not willing to. Because you didn’t get tone arm action. And you have missed something.

The case is not [on the] level with you, because you have used the most powerful mechanism of getting the case in session that is now known, and the case didn’t go into session — then something is keeping this person out of session. And that’s all there is to that.

The reason for this is, is the attention of pc was inadequate to do anything to the bank. The pc could not in any way, shape or form control bank or attention, and that’s why you didn’t get any pre-havingness scale terminal working. And this is why you couldn’t get any withholds or secret goals or anything else off the case — that’s why. Because your command has nothing to do with the pc. This pc is a total no-effect case, and nothing that you say has anything to do with the pc. And nothing the pc thinks has anything to do with the pc’s case. Got this?

What’s in your road at this case is simply the mechanics of how far South — and the common denominator of all very, very, very rough cases is nothing they think has any effect on anything. They’re all on automatic, and what they’ve got left under analytical control is so scrappily tiny that it’s a wonder they [?] at all. And what’s the best thing? The best thing is to give them an example that control can exist, and that duplication can exist. And when they see control and duplication can exist, the very thing that they know can’t exist, you of course increase the person’s havingness, but you also increase their alertness, you also increase their effectiveness.

And you do the CCHs, but you never do the CCHs for less than, oh, 10, 15, 20, 25, 50 hours — I mean, that’s a long haul. CCHs are a long haul, let’s make up your mind to it.

Now you come back and you start right in where you started before. Go through the rudiments, find pc’s goal, work on the pre-havingness scale before that goal fits, run it as a single line or a formula, and you’ll find the tone arm will move. The case is changed. And the most powerful crowbars we’ve got to change them with are of course the CCHs.

Now this means, if the auditor somehow or other never could get anybody into session, even though the case were [a] fairly good case — this means that the auditor just somehow or other couldn’t make much of an impingement on the pc; this means also that the CCHs aren’t gonna work on the pc either. Because they depend on a tone 40 reach. That’s why you’ve got to be good as an auditor, why your presence has got to be good as an auditor. When you say something, why, the pc knows, they better answer up. And your presence is adequate to make something happen.

Now, the reason I think cases are easier than you do is because I make a heavier and harder impingement on a pc than you do, even a stranger that doesn’t even know me. Why? Basically familiarity, certainty, certainty that something’s going to happen, not scared to confronting. Got the idea? You can get these things, too. They are not a monopolized commodity.

I don’t think there are psychiatrists in the world who are mad at me personally. I don’t have very many enemies, fortunately. But… I’ll ought to get back into space opera one of these days just to remedy my havingness of enemies. [Laughter]

The only things they hold against me is the fact that I show other people it can be done. And they, in their only one ivory towers would rather have the world believe it requires an intuitive skill, something that is beyond the kin of man. [Laughter] So they will tell you, well, Hubbard undoubtedly has [missing words in the tape] …

…in the newspaper much like your test people do. There’s no altitude involved. So it couldn’t be anything else but just the action of auditing. That’s all it could have been. Somebody interested and somebody made an impingement and somebody actually changing his bank around. Not with anything, just be audited. Got the idea?

Now it’s true, the technology is very important, and how to move the mind around, and how to change it and how to better it, these things, we couldn’t do without these things, don’t underestimate this. But at the same time you, all by yourself, can do tremendous things for a pc. Just you sitting there in a chair, asking the pc questions, can do a tremendous amount. Don’t ever underestimate what you can do, because I don’t underestimate what you can do, and I get disappointed in you every once in a while.

You at least got to get your 22 ½ %. [Laughter] So act like you gonna get that anyhow. And take off from there. Presence, confidence, interest. What you say goes. The CCHs depend on auditor presence more than any other set of processes. So if the same auditor has failed to break the case down and is yet capable of running the CCHs, it must be a pretty rough case, a-ha?

Well, that’s the kind of a case you would go back to the CCHs for. But we are now talking about something on the order of about 6 % of the cases that are walking around, it must be some very low percentage. The remainder of the cases, why, if your first pre-havingness rundown didn’t work, getting a goal, you didn’t get motion on the tone arm and so forth, you know you’re up against rudiments. And you get those rudiments straightened out, you get this pc at the level with you, and all of a sudden Mr. Pc is in session.

Now go back and do the same thing again. You don’t have to be [crying ?] all the way down to the CCHs. But if in four or five hours you don’t get anything significant off this case in the way of PTPs or secret goals or anything else, just figure out you got no place else to go but the CCHs and that’s it. Because this PC hasn’t got any command over his bank, and there is no significance on Earth that will get in command over his bank. There is the action of control and duplication — that will get in control over his bank, and it’s got to be action, it’s got to be doingness. You understand?

You, you have such…overwhumping processes here on this pre-havingness scale, that… wow! How … how can any fairly adept job fail to move even a fellow with a heavy withhold? If you’re going at it on goals and so forth? So you see you’re talking about a very small percentage when you’re talking about the CCHs. Alright.

Now what happens after you get this terminal that you have first chosen for the goals — just to straighten out your minds on which way it goes: The lowest of course is the CCHs, your next is a thorough knock-down of the rudiments — it isn’t which one you do first, this is how they stand on the difficult[y?] level of cases — CCHs, heavy rudiments, goals, searched out, run on the pre-havingness scale and flattened down to a point where, when you say “Protect a man”, you get no reaction on the needle. You’re with me this far?

Assess man again, and you very possibly will find it lower on the pre-havingness scale than it was before. You say, “Good heavens, I’m making him worse!” No, you’re just freeing up attention, and of course the lowest zones of attention on any given terminal are not in sight when you first start auditing. The pc can actually experience a flub if you indifferently run the pre-havingness level you first found and didn’t run it flat.

He’ll just go fine, he can even get on a manic and be splendid for two days and then fall on his silly head. You didn’t flatten it, see. You just kind of restimulated it. You gave him a hope, and then his hope expires. So you flatten the level that you’re at or the formula that you’re running to a point where it doesn’t react when you say, “Protect a man”, or whatever the formula levels were, doesn’t react. You don’t get a needle drop. You say, “Dandy!” But don’t think you’re through with this “man”. You are not. Re-assess it. And you very possibly find it at “no effect” now. You’ll find it at someplace else. Make up a brand-new formula and run “man”.

You can go that way just as such and keep on doing it over and over and over and not get in too much trouble. Not get in too much trouble. And the only trouble you gonna get into is getting the guy out of PT, getting this pc out of PT too thoroughly. And if you run one formula flat, it would be a very good thing if you found the pc’s havingness command and introduce that at regular intervals into your auditing. And you got the case whizzing and he’ll stand for something now, he knows you can do something with him, so you got time to sit on your [?] a little bit, and of course the way you find the havingness command is a very simple thing.

You will find havingness commands in order of tests for pcs — now the pre-havingness scale and the havingness command scale are entirely different things. These are havingnesses. And if you got one formula flat, you’d better find the havingness for this pc. I don’t care what the formula you flattened was, you just better now go all out and do this. This is a very simple thing to do. To give you a very solid formula on this — you run about five commands, can find out if it loosened up the needle. Havingness expresses itself on the needle. You ask the pc to squeeze the cans, and you notice how much the needle dropped. You run it five… I don’t care whether you change the tone arm, ah, the sensitivity knob or not. You just find out how much it drops on a squeeze of the cans, you run a few commands out of this havingness thing, the havingness group of commands, and have him squeeze the cans again. If it drops further, you’ve got it. If you got the wrong one, it’ll drop the same but usually less.

And you get off of it right now, you don’t bridge off of that, he understands what you’re doing — you’re scouting for havingness command. You don’t say, “I will give you two more commands and end this process”, and — look, you have already reduced, you have already reduced his havingness by tightening up the needle, you see, you gonna give him two more commands of this thing, eh? Oh, no, you’re not. No, you get off of it right now. You just go to the next one.

There’s another way of doing this, using the pattern formulas, like 13 and 15 and so forth, and that is, you keep running failed help between the two, if the case is running on failed help. That was another way of doingness. I’m just giving you a simple, flat, straight-forward way of doing it. You got one goal cared for, and the terminal flat at one point on the pre-havingness scale, now — before you go on and re-assess that terminal, you gonna find this pc’s havingness. You got it?

Or even before you got it flat, you decide this pc’s havingness is getting too bad, case progressing or… “I’m going to find this pc’s havingness.” I don’t care when you do it [?] Don’t leave it for the last dog. Run havingness — the only mistake you can make is letting it go too long.

Find his havingness. You’ll find it someplace on this scale. If he’s responding well on the pre-havingness audit, you’ll sure find his havingness command on this scale. It’s there. The only things that are not there are the pcs who don’t move at all with the tone arm, and that you would have to run the CCHs on anyhow.

So because you’ve already gone through this bath of fire with the pc, because you have already gone through that, you gonna find this rather easy now, to find the pc’s havingness commands. It’s … they’ve been arranged in order of frequency. This frequency was based on thirty-some English cases. Therefore it isn’t the last word of frequency. It’s good enough. You’ll find out the bulk of the cases will loosen up on “Point out something”. They just will, that’s all. Because that hit the most of those cases that were tested.

Ah…the next one is “Look around here and point out an effect you could prevent”. And oddly enough, the rougher South-African male cases apparently do beautifully on that one. I’ve had experience with this now on South-African cases. It works out about the same [?] on English cases.

You’ll find out the most prevalent havingness command is way down scale — I won’t read all these things, you’ve already got them on a list — em, “Where is ....” If the case has got a relatively uncontrolled bank that’s going flicker-flack, and you couldn’t run an engram on this case or something of this character, you find “Where is…” is usually the one that cuts in there — can’t run an engram, they can still run “Where is…” and get havingness gains.

These commands have a few odds and ends about them that I’d better tell you about; I will go down the list. “What is the emotion of that (indicated object)?” Now it is very weird that this things exists as often as it exists, that people are walking around in a universe that is mad at them, which feels apathetic about them, which this, which that, which something or other, you know? And as you run this, “What is the emotion of that (indicated object)?”, the person — guess what happens — the object goes down-scale, and the pc cuts in across the bottom and comes up-scale. Now, when the pc is all the way up-scale about the object — well, this [?] thing is flat in its present wording.

Now I don’t know how many hours it would run or how many times you would run it to have this thing finally move over into the other command, but the command changes because the emotion disappears out of the physical universe. It is a rather temporary condition, but this is the only condition… this is the only command or process known that alters this odd condition. So you have to say, “What is the condition of that (indicated object)?”, after emotions are gone, you have to find the condition of that indicated object, and you’ll find out that continues to work ordinarily as the havingness process of the pc. “What is the emotion of that (indicated object)?” expires as a workable process. Well, he gets up to a point where he is serene about it. And after that it doesn’t have any… well, when it gets down to apathy, the object is in apathy, and then it doesn’t have any emotion, you still better run it a while because his emotion is coming back up. No matter how he finds ways and means to answer the auditing command, that’s up to him. They do, they find ways of answering. And his emotion — you see, the emotion goes down-scale in the object and goes up-scale in the pc.

And after that you [have] got to run “What is the condition of an (indicated object)?”, and that continues to run as the havingness command. However, it ceases to work as the havingness command, you’d better find another havingness command. That’s always the case, by the way.

You see, cases change. And the havingness commands somewhere up along the line of run might be now less effective than some other havingness command, you got the idea? So, if he become dissatisfied with the havingness or it’s no longer loosening up the needle, find out if there is an ARC-break first about the havingness command. And if it still doesn’t loosen up the needle, you’d better re-assess for a havingness command. You got that as a little proviso there, I’m sorry it sounds complicated, but it’s true.

Now, oh, TR-10 is a very common havingness process, “Notice that (indicated object)”, to which is added, “What aren’t you putting into it?” There’s no acknowledgement there.

The next one is “Look around here and find something you could have”, “Look around here and find something you could withhold”. Oddly enough the basic havingness command is “Look around here and find something you could have”, but there are cases on which it doesn’t run unless you also ask, “Look around here and find something you could withhold”.

The next one is, unfortunately, an outside process. The only havingness of this [?] with people, it will run in an ACC. But after you get out of the ACC, how you gonna…you are in an auditing room with just you and the pc. “What is the condition of (that person)?” Alright…great. [Laughs] Let’s hope you don’t find that one very often. Check it though in an ACC.

Now the two small objects in the auditor’s hand is a kind of a CCH thing. And you just hold your hands out here in front of you with a small object in each one of them. And you simply open them up one at the time, one after the other, you see, you open up your right hand, and you see, “Look at this. What around here isn’t this duplicating?”, and he answers this, and you close your hand. And then you open your other hand, and you say, “Look at this. What around here isn’t this duplicating?”, and you acknowledge of course. Got the idea? It’s open-close the hand. Open-close hand. Don’t move your hands around. Because pcs are allergic to motion, you just open your hand — close your hand. Open hand — close your hand, the hands are lying on your knees, got the idea?

You find there’s various difficulties with havingness commands and e-meters. You put a Kleenex or something between the two electrodes and let him hold them in one hand while he does pointing processes, don’t you see? Well, this is a difficulty, this is a difficulty here — by the way, please don’t read any significance into the fact that the e-meter reads differently when he’s holding two electrodes in one hand. The instructor’s aware of it, I’m aware of it, everybody’s aware of it, and it means nothing. PCs liven up on the right side of the body, liven up on the left side of the body, both sides of the body balance out, you get the most weird reads. Study up on the old entities of “8-80” if you want to know what’s happening. It’s very curious phenomena.

But all you’re interested in is how much the needle falls, for of course one squeeze on both cans is a perfectly good test, one hand on both cans squeeze. You get a fall.

By the way, on e-meter behaviour, squeezing cans very often flips — ah, not very often, once in a blue moon — when they squeeze the cans, the needle rises. It’s pcs in reverse. [Laughter] You find out this pc won’t lie-check. This pc has heavy withholds, maybe as low as inverted interest. It’s quite diagnostic when they do this.

Handle the pc the same as you handle any other pc. I’m just giving you the idea — but how would you run the havingness command? It’d be how much less does it rise. [Laughter] That’s sufficiently peculiar that I’d better make mention on it.

And then of course we have “Where is the (room object)?”, “Look around here and find an object you are not in.”, “Look around here and find something you can agree with”, that, by the way, when that thing works — it’s true of all these havingness commands, boy, when they work, they’re really marvellous. “Point out something around here that is like something else.” “Where isn’t that (indicated object)”, “What is that (indicated object) not duplicating?”, “What scene could that (indicated object) be part of?”, “What bad activity is that (indicated object) not part of?”, see, we are just pointing at these things, we’re calling their names off — “Look around here and find something you could have”, now, that’s just the most frequent ones, and there are more havingness commands there than this, as a matter of fact there are thirty-six, and they are part of the very complete list that are pre-sessions in HCOB October 6 1960. The reason it’s arranged this way is that very seldom does anybody have to go any further than this.

Now, that makes auditing very complicated these days, doesn’t it? Oh, it’s very complicated. Some case is very satisfactory though, I’m sure. But cases have their attention fixed on different things and cases are computing differently one to the next, although they all have the same fundamentals, they get more complicated, and they get computing this way and computing that way, and they have to have certain significances carrying along.

Now, there are various other things you can do with cases; you just can’t seem to cure the ARC-breaks for this case, the case is ARC breaking all the time — “Who would I have to be to audit you?” Various little ways of curing this thing up. Ah… all oddly ways that you tackle cases all add up to the same thing. You want to get havingness, loosening the needle, and you want to get a terminal run of any kind, early in the case, moving that tone arm. A terminal run on the pre-havingness scale — you want to get that moving that tone arm. If it isn’t moving the tone arm, it’s either flat, or nothing is happening, or the command is wrong, or something is haywire here. Got the idea? Or the pc’s got to have the rudiments beaten to death, and if that didn’t work you got the CCHs. This is deteriorating down-scale to pick up the case where it lives.

Now, as you look over auditing you find out that all we have right now is a condensation of what we have been picking up for about eleven years. It’s simply put together in some kind of order that it bites. You’ve got an e-meter — you know if it’s biting. The case could be bad enough off and have an auditor that he didn’t, wasn’t in good rapport with, to a point where too much run on the pre-havingness scale, too much run on the pre-havingness scale, on and on and on and on, carries him out of present time, that’s why after you’ve got it flat or sometime in the process of flattening that you find his havingness command. This will keep him in present time.

Now, what are you doing basically? You’re running subjective havingness with the pre-havingness scale, and now that you find his havingness command, you’re running objective havingness. You got that idea? Subjective-objective. They’re both havingnesses. So, this havingness command, in order to test for the pc, or the whole lot of them in HCOB October 6, 1960, which is composed of both the havingness and the confront command — which we will take up later, the confront command — you understand that those 36 havingness commands, are how to determine the objective havingness of the pc. The objective havingness of the physical universe around him. And the new pre-havingness scale is how to determine the subjective havingness of the pc. They’re two scales, they both determine havingness, they are run in different fashions, that’s because subjectively it works differently than it works objectively, but it’s one scale for the subjective, one scale for the objective. You’ll find that the subjective all by itself, no, no assessed goal, no assessed terminal, you see, all by itself run at where the pc fell from assessment from the bottom up, just run, not against a terminal or anything, just the command that’s given for this level, will do something subjectively for the pc’s havingness.

See, we’re getting very fancy, when we are assessing for goals and assessing the terminal of that goal and so forth, we’re doing about eight jobs of processing all at the same time. Let’s look at it in its most simplified state. You assess from the bottom up, he falls at “protect”, you simply run the auditing command “protect” — you run subjective havingness on the pc. Now this is quite a technical problem, it has been some five or six years in solution. “Think of something you could have” does not work. It simply as-ises the havingness of the pc. So there was no subjective havingness process until this ACC. But now we have subjective havingness processes. So you assess for the subjective havingness process, get it established — you can run the goal, and so forth, to run it flat, you really get the case on the road — that’s just, if you just established it and ran it, you’d run subjective havingness, and then, now that you’ve got that going nicely, you assess for the objective havingness, you then run subjective-objective. You’d run of course far more subjective than you run, than you would run objective.

Now, how long do you run objective havingness? Now, I don’t want to leave you any doubt, you should assess for the goal, you should run the level of the subjective havingness against the terminal, ‘cause you’re really getting the case somewhere now, you’re not just plowing along. Now, on the other, your objective havingness is run just long enough to loosen the needle, and that may only be eight or nine commands, and you come off of it. You don’t run it any further than that, because the objective havingness will begin to run the bank subjectively, and you’re trying to run objective havingness, not run the bank. You’re trying to stabilize the pc in present time, not try to make the havingness run the bank, you understand?

Because havingness will run the bank — and it’s very fascinating that it will on a long haul, I don’t know what it [?] duplicate, but it always increases and improves one, but you only want eight or nine commands of the objective process before you go back to the subjective one. Okay?

Alright, thank you.