Thank you.

Well, maybe you will really appreciate this lecture today because it's practical for a change. None of this theoretical stuff. And the name of it is "Havingness and Anaten and Flows in Relation to Clearing." You poor people, there's so much you don't know!

That's a terrible thing for me to say, isn't it? I should tell you, "Well, you know it all," — this is my usual tone — "you know it all, but I'm just fixing up a few rough edges."

Truth of the matter is when I get into this particular subject I say, "Wow! How am I ever going to get anything even vaguely resembling this across?" Because it has taken years to sort this one out. This is totally technical, totally mechanical. But it has taken years to sort it out.

What is boil-off? I refer you to Scientology 8-80, 1952. Boil-off is a How which is run too long in one direction. Doesn't matter whether that's up, down, backwards or forwards, from the guy's head to an infinity behind him or from his face forward, it for sure is a flow that has run too long.

Now, this is quite remarkable. You are busy talking to somebody, and he never says a word. You know, we say, ". . . and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so, hm?"

And he says . . .

And you say, "And so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so."

And he says . . .

And you say, "And the fact of the matter is the ruddy rods go on the other side of it."

And he says . . .

After a while you start to go downscale. But if you're far enough downscale already, you start to go anaten. Unconscious. There's no backflow. No backflow occurs. Don't you see? I vaguely mentioned this in passing the other day, in electronic terms.

There are some electronic data of comparable support to this. But the phenomenon of stuck flow is not well understood, but it's probably why you have to have capacitors and resistors and other bric-a-brac and feedback and so forth in an electronic circuit. Probably is the reason if you analyzed it from that basis. But I don't know that it's ever been analyzed from that basis. And it might be if it were, you would get a better electronic setup.

But the point is, flow is flow. And it means (always a very good thing to define what you're saying; at least I do, I mean, we'll leave it up to the nuclear physicist to skip defining what he means), you get particles traveling in a similar — not necessarily the same — direction, is a flow. Now, the flow does not include a terminal and is in essence a communication line. In a perfection of definition, it is just the line.

Now, we have the Reality Scale. And it goes as follows, from the top to the bottom — a scale which is very important.

There's another scale like this called the Effect Scale, which is equally important to you today.

And there's a Tone Scale which is important, too. And if you don't know that, you'll really get baffled sometime. But all of you know that.

The Reality Scale starts at the top with a postulate. You graduated up to "Operating Genie" — "Operating GEs" can't do this — but say, "Appear!" and something appears. You see? There's no flow connected with that. And after the fact of the postulate, however, you have a terminal. A person making a postulate says, "It is!" and it is. It makes people who have to make things with their hands sometimes very impatient. They grub-grub, scrape-scrape, plane-plane, whittle-whittle, paint-paint and they say, "Why can't I just say 'Appear,' and the painting appears?" Oh, I don't know, it's more fun the other way. And this is lower on the Reality Scale. We used to call it effort.

And right below a postulate — having something appear just because you say it appears — right below a postulate is agreement. Now, as a matter of fact, agreement is just one method of confirming a consideration. So we'd say that when a postulate becomes a consideration then you have agreement. A postulate which endures, a postulate which has survival, a postulate which has continuance — that is a consideration. But a consideration is normally considered on the backflow side by most people — they have thought it over, so they consider it. You get the misnomer, here, in semantics. Somebody considering something.

Well, actually, this is not what we mean by this word consideration. We mean that somebody, you or somebody else, made a postulate which is enduring; it continues to exist. Well now, the happiest way to do that is by another postulate that says it will continue to exist. But there are a lot of mechanical bric-a-brac, and all of this mechanical bric-a-brac goes around to confirming and continuing in existence postulates.

If a form or mass continued to stand there, it would merely be that the postulate was continuing, right? So it's basically all postulate, and then odds and ends of phenomena which look good. But they're still held there by the postulate. All right.

Now, a postulate goes into a consideration. And one of the ways of confirming a consideration is an agreement. And we get, now, into two or more parties or objects, or — it's two or more. A postulate all by itself is singular, and it moves from singular at once into plural. So we have this scale actually being Postulate, Consideration, Agreement, if you wanted to write it down with great precision. But it really isn't proper to say that, because the consideration goes all the way down the line — a continuing postulate. Postulate-Agreement is the pure scale. But you might understand it better if you use Consideration in there.

Now, agreement: that continues something. You get a contract. A contract is merely an effort to continue a couple of postulates. See? All right.HAVINGNESS, ANATEN, FLOWS IN RELATION TO CLEARING

When we get this, we then move into a couple of terminals — two or more terminals. Now, when we get a couple of terminals we, of course, have an incipient or a potential line. And as we see the terminals fade out, the line becomes plainer. You could get two terminals discharging against each other. (mest, by the way, dramatizes all this. mest is a dramatization of this particular scale — practically all that it is.) And eventually there's no terminals but there's line. And below that there's nothing.

This becomes fascinating as a scale because it gives us an excellent estimate of what will be real to somebody. Now, as a person moves up and down the Tone Scale, he gets greater realities on one or another part of this particular Reality Scale. A person who's in pretty good shape would have a lot more reality on the exact postulate than he would on the rest of the scale. But if it was that real, boy, would he have reality on the rest of the scale, too. Don't you see?

But let's say somebody had to mount a ladder on a snake's back and somehow or other climb to bottom. First thing he'd run into would be a line — a communication line. And as he climbed a little bit higher, he would get the idea that there was at least a vacancy of terminals on both ends of the line. There's probably something should be there, he would say. And as he climbed a little higher, the line would be less distinct or less fixating to him, and he would see the foggy outlines of a couple of terminals.

And then as he came up the scale a little higher, climbed a little higher on this ladder, the terminals would now be much plainer than the lines. The terminals would be fixed and obvious and very much in place.

And as he came up the line a little bit further, he would see that the terminals existed out of some agreement with each other.

And if he went up a little higher, he would see that the terminals got there in the first place and the rest of the phenomena proceeded from a postulate.

Of course, he'd have a reality on all the lower stages.

Now, a person who has no position on this scale, who is below this scale, has a reality on none of it. And we get the average preclear. His first grip on a reality is a line.

Now, there's an interesting process which is just a little test process. It does a couple of goofy things. One of them is kick somebody's prediction into high gear for about ten or fifteen minutes. "Look around this room and find something which is having an effect on something." Or "Look around this room and find something which is being affected by something else." I think the actual test process was, "Find something that is being the effect of something else." See, you're just running effect, effect. You're not looking for causes, you're looking for effect.

Next thing you know, a person will move onto the bottom of this Reality Scale, running this. And he'll all of a sudden conceive the room to be crisscrossed with big lines. Usually they start in black and they eventually get golden. He'll wonder where all these lines are coming from — an odd, optical, subjective piece of bric-a-brac.

Now, if you kept up such a process, just concentrating on effects only, why, he would go upstairs a little bit further and he would get the idea that these lines all had terminals that they — he'd begin to speculate on what was at the end of these various mystic lines that he's seeing. Of course, you know I'm really talking about lines; I mean, I'm talking about great big energy ropes that are hanging around the room, festooned in all directions. Amazing.

Well, he'd eventually find the terminals and he'd eventually go on up the scale. But that process won't take him all the way there, as far as I know. The other processes do. He just gets . . . You can turn this thing on full automatic as long as you start talking about effects, in other words. Of course, you want to process a preclear at causes. I'm merely giving the experimental process.

What's this mean, then? It means that the first thing that becomes real to your preclear is a line. It means that when you run CCH 3, CCH 4, which have a lot of hand motion in them, eventually your hand will become quite real to the preclear. Not because it's a terminal but because it's the beginning of a line.

Well, what begins to show up on one of these lines? The center of it, of course. And if you have your palm pressed against the preclear's palm, the hands and wrists eventually show up. And as he goes up higher, he will eventually get the idea that an auditor might be there. And he will wind up, as he proceeds on up this Reality Scale, with the realization not only that an auditor is sitting there but that he is sitting there, too. He'll get both things more or less at the same time.

Now, that is why that one works. You make agreements with communication bridges with preclears all the time. I can tell you that that communication bridge is courtesy where most preclears are concerned when you're picking them up from bottom.

Why is it courtesy? Because they wouldn't have the least idea what an agreement was.

Men never break their agreements. That's an interesting thing. Men never break their agreements — providing they know about them. But you sign a contract with Mr. Swizzlepuss, and his reality would be on a small particle caroming off the walls — nuclear physicist's level of reality — small particle caroming off the walls, no terminals anyplace, nothing ever made a postulate to create it, we're all descended from mud. This fellow, yeah, he'll sign a contract with you to do some of the darnedest and most outrageous things — to deliver a million tons of saltpeter in your backyard at two o'clock Tuesday. He doesn't even know what the stuff is. See, he'll make a contract with you; he'll agree to anything.

And you say, "Well, if I've got a contract, I can always enforce it." Oh, can you?

I have a maxim, by the way, which drives people crazy sometimes because they can't shake me off this point. I will look at them with very innocent blue eyes and say, "Why is a contract necessary?" And if they keep on explaining to me why a contract is necessary, I know I'd better not sign one. Because agreement isn't real. And I have this liability in (quote) "doing business," whatever that is, because I feel that if it's necessary to sign a contract we shouldn't be in that business.

Sounds rather outrageous, doesn't it, on the face of it? It says we must operate, then, on pure trust. No, we must operate higher upscale than pure cutthroat. Get the idea?

A contract in a solid form is perfectly all right, and get everything down and understood. There is nothing wrong with this at all because it's liable to go glimmering somewhere along the line. That's perfectly all right in theory. But if a man has no reality above Lines and above Terminals, then a signed contract has no reality to him, either.HAVINGNESS, ANATEN, FLOWS IN RELATION TO CLEARING

And if you expect a court to do anything about enforcing a contract, you've got another "think" coming. You usually walk into a court these days as the injured party and walk out fined. That's right. I mean, you should read the cases.

There was a football player here a couple of days ago who was attacked by a gunman in a car, who was going to kill him dead and shoot him and so forth. And this — coach, he was — and the coach said, "Well, son, your number is up." And as the guy was trying to shove a gun in his ribs and so forth, he simply reached over and paralyzed the fellow, you see, and stopped the car. And when he let go of the guy — he hadn't had a witness, by the way, that this fellow was struggling around — and when he let go of the fellow, why, the fellow was dead. The gunman was dead.

They looked up the police record of the gunman and found out that he was responsible for other holdups and difficulties. As a matter of fact, he had bragged to the coach that he'd done it twice that day. He'd held up two other people that same day.

So who did the police hold but the coach? Holding him for close questioning.

Well, you figure out why. I wouldn't be able to figure out why. But you don't think that the (quote) "forces of law and order" (unquote), unless they're in awfully good condition, are ever going to enforce an agreement that wasn't real to anybody in the first place. Get the idea?

So you audit somebody and you say, "Now, is it all right with you to … ?" It's a contract, isn't it? Well, as far as you're concerned, it's a contract. But the very amusing part of it is, it won't be a contract to most preclears until you've audited them for one awful long time. "Word is his bond" — that applies only to a very, very high-toned fellow.

You can almost measure the tone level of a society as to how much business in it is done on verbal exchange only. Fairly high-toned society, a fellow calls up and says, "Joe, let me have ten thousand dollars till Tuesday."

And Joe says, "What'll you give me for it?"

And the fellow says, "I'll give you a couple of hundred bucks."

And he says, "Fine. I'll send a boy over with it."

He gets it back Tuesday.

A low-toned society, fellow says, "Joe, I'd like a couple — I'd like ten thousand dollars till Tuesday. And how much will it be?"

The fellow says, "Well, I'll get my attorney, you get your attorney, and we'll have a meeting this afternoon. We'll sign a … What — what security do you have?"

See, here we've got a full production. The guy could have gone out and made ten thousand dollars while he was writing up the papers, see?

The only thing that always kept me out of debt as a young writer is I could turn out a novel while I was waiting for some bank to make out the loan papers. It'd only take me a couple of weeks and I'd have the dough.

Now, you should understand what you're dealing with here. You're dealing, basically, with the average bad-off case, with lines.

Now because lines don't seem very important to you is no reason to lay off of them. Have you ever tapped somebody on the shoulder and had him cringe and practically go to the mat? Or touch somebody in a crowd and had him jump back as though he was going to fight a duel and mark a — Zorro-fashion, with his umbrella?

Well, this fellow had no reality on you as a terminal at all. He was afraid that a line might occur. And he was trying actively to not-is all lines. Couldn't stand contact. Well, that doesn't mean he knows you're there or knows he's there. It's the possibility that a flow or a terminal might occur.

The fellow who goes around all the time with a little piece of paper putting it on doorknobs and so forth, he has no reality on doorknobs, no reality on himself or his own hand. This fellow is afraid of a flow. See? He's afraid of the line. And you ask him, "Why do you do that?"

He'll say, "To prevent germs."

Get the idea? Of course, such a person being the effect of all these things, naturally, can be victimized by all of them.

So this thing called flow should grip your attention because it's one of the first phenomena to be encountered by a preclear when you're starting him out from scratch. He gets his first reality — remember this is a Reality Scale — he gets his first reality on finding out there's a particle somewhere. And that the particle can move. And as Help is a highly potent button in itself, it actually starts flows running. And therefore you get all the phenomena of flows. And there's plenty of it. A lot of it is covered in Scientology 8-80, and you ought to look at that again. That was the earliest look at flows. You see this?

Now, if you don't adequately handle flows as you bring somebody up the line, then his reality on what you're doing is going to get very poor. But if you bring him up the line smoothly and raise him in tone smoothly, then his reality is going to get — be very good. And it will improve. And after a while he'll find an auditor.

Now, a man who can only see flows — this is a later piece of data, last year sometime — a man who can only see flows does not have any stable data. Got that?

Now, when I say, "He didn't find the auditor," I mean that he never got up to Terminals on the Reality Scale. Now, that gets to be very, very important. That tells you that the auditor did not well handle or expertly handle flows, and that's what it tells you, right there — bang, thud! See, it just tells you he flubbed. Something went wrong with flows, and therefore the reality of the preclear was never led forward into any further adventure than getting clonked.

Well, I'll rapidly as possible, then, enumerate these phenomena of flows. First and foremost is direction of flow. The phenomena connected with that is that when it overruns, it creates unconsciousness. Any flow which runs too long in one direction will result in anaten, whether out or in. Now, that's — that is anaten. There aren't other causes of anaten.

I can take a preclear who is going dyaaaah, and he's just passing out, and by handling flows — flip, reverse flow — bring him right straight back up again. Darnedest thing you ever saw.

Now, we haven't paid too much attention to this phenomena for a number of years. So you better start paying attention to it now because it enters into one of your key clearing processes.

If a flow is overrun it sticks, and you get a ridge-like phenomenon. If you run it too long in one direction it sticks.

Now, you were asking me earlier, what is a stuck needle on this E-Meter? And how do you free it? And I told you, you could run Connectedness or you could run almost — this or that — free it up with two-way comm. You could do other things.HAVINGNESS, ANATEN, FLOWS IN RELATION TO CLEARING

It wasn't because I didn't want to go into flows at that time. The truth of the matter is I didn't think I'd have to talk to you about them at all. But it's now become very necessary because a number of people are falling into this one. So I will tell you that a stuck needle on an E-Meter is a flow which has run too long in one direction. And that is all it is. It's kind of trying to make a terminal on an inversion, so it gets sticky.

Now, this fellow has listened to some music. And he listens to some music and he listens to mus. Sometimes, by the way, it takes years for one of these flows to really knock a guy loopy. But he listens to music and he listens to music. And maybe a whole lifetime he spends listening to music, and he's real — very interested in music and the beautiful sonatas of Brahms, and etceteras — in they go, in they go, in they go, in they go, in they go, in they go. He never touches a piano, he never whistles a tune, he never tries to compose something. You know? But it's inflow, inflow, inflow, inflow, inflow, inflow.

Next lifetime: Walks into a living room, somebody's playing the Moonshine Sonata. He goes dyeeh — thud. Wife drags him to the opera, he says, (snoring); she says, "Shhhhhhh!" Knocks him out; knocks him out cold. It's very fascinating. That's the flow; it's a flow run too long in one direction without any backflow. All right.

Let's take an outflow phenomenon. They use the same thing, music. This is a very intolerant young man. He's a pianist and he plays the pinaner. He's intolerant of all other pinaner playing. He doesn't care about the beautiful artistry of any other artist. He's there to play a piano. And he goes on playing a piano and playing a piano and playing a piano. Gets to be about forty, hasn't played for several years for some reason or other. Somebody says, "Bill, why don't you play us a piece?" So he's pushed into it. And he sits down at the piano and he goes (snoring) — whump! That's the end of that. Anaten.

Now, the first symptoms of it would be he feels a little bit groggy — he's just a little bit groggy. "When I think of playing, it makes me tired." Got it? This is true, then, of any stuck flow.

Now, the flow can be stuck up and down, too. An elevator operator who only went up, or a janitor who only went down, would get in a similar state.

But I firmly believe that gravity is the phenomenon of having always fallen. Take anybody in space opera, kick him out of the space wagon, eventually some planet will influence him in some way with its gravity and pull him to it. And he'll have the sensation of falling down. And eventually he gets the idea that it's always down. And no matter which direction he's going, he will fall "down" until he'll finally stick. And then he has mass and so forth. All set.

The proof of the matter is, all you had to do is start taking over the automaticity and you get some of the weirdest sensations. For instance, "Hold your chair down on the floor." Or try to start the flow in the other direction by, "Pick your chair up off the floor." Just get the idea of picking it up off the floor. Now, you'd probably have to hold your chair down on the floor, pick your chair up off the floor, hold your chair down on the floor, pick your chair up off the floor, in order to get this flow joggled enough so that it'd start doing something else. You got it?

If you want to levitate, if you want to levitate, probably — this is not the result of experiment; totally theory — "Hold your body down on the floor, pick your body up; hold your body down, pick your body up; hold your body down, pick your body . . ." You'd have to do one and one, see, one and one. Not because you're adding to, numerically you see, the number of downs and trying to counter them with a number of ups — it's the fact that it's a stuck flow and requires some jiggling before it shakes loose. Get the idea?

Well, any time you see a stuck needle on a preclear, you're looking at a stuck flow.

Now, the oddity is, is the nature of the beast very often establishes where he's stuck. Man is quite often — this is not infallible, but he's quite often stuck on an outflow. The nature of the beast. A man to a marked degree is an outflow object. A woman is an inflow object. And she is quite ordinarily stuck on inflow. And from that rule alone, I would select which side of Help to run. If I was running a girl, I'd know she was stuck on inflow, I would suppose without even bothering to look it up very much — no E-Meter. I would simply start running her on "How could you help me?" And I wouldn't run it very long. I'd follow it up very rapidly with a nice bridge over to "How could I help you?" And I'd ask a couple that way. And then I would come back the other way again with quite a few, don't you see? And then I'd give it a little bit of inflow with a lot of outflow.

Now, you understand inflow and outflow are directions. These are the most standard directions. But there are directions from right to left and left to right, too. These are — also get stuck-flowed. You don't have to worry about that too much unless you get into the Black and White body phenomena. You'll see this show up as a stroke. An individual has a stroke with half of his body paralyzed; well, he's got a stuck flow thataway. And you can theoretically jiggle this flow and get it started back to the right in some fashion, or back to the left.

Well, this tells you when you ought to shift — tells us when you ought to shift a flow. It's when a needle is loose or the flowing is occurring. You don't shift flows on nulls — a null needle. You shift it on an active needle.

Now, let me give you a very good example of this. We sit down and we're going to process Joe. And we don't think about flows or try to figure it out or ask a few questions either way. We see that he has a very sticky needle; it's very sticky. We're going to shake it loose somehow or another. So we say, "Well, we'll just run this for an hour for each one of these questions and see where we are." We choose at random, "How could you help me?"

He's been a YMCA secretary for years, see, been helping everybody everywhere, you know? You say, "How could you help me?" You're going to run this for an hour? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! And you say, "How could you help me?"

And he says, "Well. . . (long pause) Seems utterly impossible." See? He's run into the flow phenomenon. He finally answers you. And he answers you some more. And he answers you some more. And he's having a devil of a time answering this. And all of a sudden he goes, dyeeh — thud. You knock him right out with the question. Well, if you'd sorted it out on the E-Meter, used your head about it and figured out where it was . . .

You can be fooled, you know, because there is such a thing as an inverted flow. The fellow, long after it got stuck, decided to reverse some. Only he wasn't being audited, he just — he just went the other way.

YMCA secretary eventually said, "I've helped people for years. Now, some of these blankety-blanks have got to help me!" Then he never accepts anybody's help because it isn't auditing, see? Only he's trying to run the other flow. He can get awfully wound up doing this, too. "I've given my all for years, now somebody can do something for me." You get that. That's an overrun flow at work.HAVINGNESS, ANATEN, FLOWS IN RELATION TO CLEARING

You sort this YMCA boy out and you say, "Now, how could I help you?" See, you just figured out where he was. Yabble, yabble, yap, yap, yap. You get the idea? You're liable to get something on this. You're even liable to get an automaticity. This is set up to run automatically reverse-end-to or something of the sort. Something's liable to happen.

But if you ran that very long, you'd start one of these irregular patterns going. So you'd have to ask him how he could help you. In other words, you couldn't run very long on, "How could I help you?" You'd have to run, "How could you help me?" a time or two, or five, you see? And then get back on your end of it for a half an hour or fifteen minutes or something, before you could flip this thing the other way. You get the idea?

You'd eventually see the needle behave in this fashion: At first it would be very stuck. And it would become stuck, and as you worked the case — the tone handle didn't drop very much but started to rise, and it could rise with considerable rapidity. And then soon you notice that you had to have the sensitivity straight up at twelve o'clock in order to run this particular case at the beginning, and you suddenly realize you have too much sensitivity.

Well, by rule of thumb, eventually, when you are no longer working with constants and you can keep the sensitivity in mind and know exactly what it does and so forth, you would reduce your sensitivity. But the point is you've got too much sensitivity — the needle is flopping too far.

At the beginning of the session, why, the can test isn't too good, but he was getting a normal drop for various things. And then the needle would come back up, sort of slow and sluggish; it wasn't rising any to amount to anything. Sticky. And you say, "There must be something wrong with this meter action, it's become gluey lately. Maybe there's some dust in it." Yeah, there's some dust in it all right. There's a stuck flow in it, in the preclear. All right.

This needle is — you know, you get a drop. And the drop is — well, you know — and it comes back up again just somehow. Well, you run it after a while, and you say, "Well, you mentioned the word girls a moment ago. What did that mean to you?" or something, or some irregular auditing question. And you get, whoosh, whoosh. You know?

"Oh, I hate women" — whoosh. See? Down, up. Tone arm, two points — two points up. A moment or two later, he's liable to tell you, "Oh, women are all right. As a matter of fact, I've always loved them. I love women." You know, his opinions are almost as wild and changeable as the tone handle.

Well, don't think he's gotten over something. He's just centralized one of these flows. That's all. You're just somewhere near the middle. And it's a good place to quit. That's a good place to bridge because you could run the flow you're running sufficiently long to free it up and take it right downstairs and stick it again, and stick it but good.

Now fortunately, the mechanics of auditing themselves, your presence, the havingness, your attention upon him and numerous other factors, are at work. The significance of the button itself is quite interesting in its action here. And as a result you will overcome a sufficient amount of this so that you will not notice in running this process, pure phenomena. You'll get vagaries of phenomena.

In order to notice this pure phenomena, you'd have to say, "Get the idea of giving me a pen," or something like this. "Get the idea of giving me a pen. Get the idea of giving me a pen. Get the idea of giving me a pen."

"Yaah, dyaah . . ." Pretty soon the guy says, "Well, I can get the idea of giving you a pen." And about two more times he goes dyeeh.

Now, you say, "Get the idea of my giving you a pen."

Grog, grog. You know? "The idea of giving me a pen . . ."

And finally, "Yeah. Well, I don't know what we're being dopey about."

Now, that, you see — that has no therapy involved in it beyond the repetitive auditing command, so you would get a pure look at phenomena. You'd get the phenomena of flows there, purely.

But where you're running a process which has considerable value, where you're doing a good job of auditing, where — or all of these other things are occurring there, you will sometimes find that all the other things overcome this flow phenomena. You get the idea? So you can go ahead and override it. So you can stick the needle stuck and it still comes free. You get the idea? You only wasted a couple of hours of an intensive — the only thing that you did wrong, you see? It just wound up as not a worse result, but just wasted time. You spent a half an hour kicking the preclear awake, you know, something like this — and keep on running the flow that's putting him to sleep.

You'll eventually run on by it and move things around. All you're doing is putting time on an intensive. In the final analysis, today, if you just, I guess, audited by formula, we'd get there someday. You'd get there someday. You audit — you know, without any understanding or any ramifications, and audit without an E-Meter. And you didn't — you just ran the thing to be sure that it was flat, you know? You audited two more hours on the thing after it was null, but you were sure sure it was flat!

Everything that you do in the way of understanding and expertness actually tends to shorten the intensive, don't you see? So the more expert you are, the shorter a clearing job you will do. You see that?

Now, in view of the fact that we're not running a contest in any way except to stay in the finite area of time, it's senseless to take two lifetimes to clear somebody. You won't make it. The truth of the matter is if you don't audit somebody for a week, you never get to know him. You see? I mean, there's a social limit on the bottom of it. And as a result you could — you could have extremes here, and it tends to fix itself. And all that's demanded of you is to clear somebody in a few weeks. And we'd say, well, if you couldn't clear somebody in a few weeks, certainly with the top of seven or eight weeks, saying it was a very, very spun-in case, or something like that, then — then there would be something wrong with your procedure or your grasp of the mechanics of the thing. It would be doing it somewhere too much by rote or without understanding or without — without a sufficient grasp of it. Don't you see? So, all errors lengthen.

In surveying, you know, there's no such thing as a shortening error. There's only lengthening errors, if I remember rightly. Any error you make tends to lengthen. Similarly, in auditing, any error you make tends to lengthen.

Now, nobody is saying you've done anything wrong because I'm sure you have all looked at and run into this in the last day or so in auditing. You've known something else was going on here. So I might as well — now that most of you are off Help and won't get a look at it again — I might as well tell you what the phenomena that you were looking at was.

But the time to bridge is when the needle is free. Time to bridge is when the needle is free. If a needle frees and you continue running in the same direction — that is, "How could I help you? How could I help you? How could I help you?" and the needle eventually gets free — remember the needle will stick again if you keep on saying, "How can I help you? How can I help . . ." orHAVINGNESS, ANATEN, FLOWS IN RELATION TO CLEARING

"How could I help you? How could I help you? How could I help you?" You'll eventually stick the needle once more. It may take you a long time to do so, and it is not critical. You merely have to know the gross effects of it; you merely have to know that it doesn't much matter when you're running Help in brackets when you bridge.

You're not going to upset anybody unless he's getting a whopperoo of a drop. If he's getting a terrific drop — you just, now, "How could I help you?" and it went five dials down. You say, "Well, I guess I'll bridge now." You'll probably be in trouble.

But the preclear looks like he's doing all right, and you bridge.

Now, supposing a preclear started to go anaten. It's much better to let him go right on anaten, isn't it, and keep on going? Aw, the hell it is. So if he starts to go anaten, you bridge. Got it? And get the flow running in the opposite direction. "How could I help you?" is, of course, opposite to "How could you help me?" See? "How could you help your wife?" is opposite to "How could your wife help you?" See that? "How could you help that leg?" is opposite to "How could that leg help you?" Get the idea? "How could that leg help somebody else?" "How could somebody else help that leg?" These are opposite flows, no matter where you are on the bracket.

Pc starts to go anaten, you're actually wasting time, and it's a lengthening error not to bridge (snap) right now.

But you're not going to get into trouble if you don't, beyond perhaps having a preclear who's totally anaten for about three or four minutes and is actually unable to respond, and you have to shake him up and so forth. There's no necromancy going to happen. You're not going to kill anybody.

If you do overrun these things and you do plow them through and you do stretch the thing, it's not a — it's not a stand-up-and-shoot-'em case. It's just in the direction of being neat. You know? It's just being neat. It's the difference between auditing somebody a half-hour and auditing somebody a couple of hours. You get the idea?

The sharper you are as an auditor, the less time you will spend clearing somebody. That doesn't mean you're in a speed contest, it just happens to be true.

You'll clear somebody anyhow, eventually. Wait until you are running a whole bunch of people who are running a whole bunch of people. And you will watch this happen. Your fingers will itch. You'll say, "(Dzzz! Why can't I get ahold of him here?) Listen, is it all right with you if we say this process just one more time, and then change to another one? How are you getting along? That's very fine. Now, how could you help me? Ah! (pant, pant)." Catch that preclear before he went down for the last count, see? You'll die as a supervising auditor sometimes, to watch somebody just overrun this and overrun it and overrun it and not know what he's looking at, not know what he's looking at, and all of a sudden, thug, somebody's gone. He's "went," he'll be "went" for the next hour or two. You see? And that would just be an overrun flow.

If you were there and you were being smart, you'd just free the devil out of the needle until it was a very loose needle. You'd bridge and get onto another one. Free the devil out of the needle, get onto a very tight bridge to the next part of the bracket. Free the needle up, get onto the next part of the bracket. Free the needle up some more, get onto the next part of the bracket. After a while just have the needle so it just revolves emptily around the pin. You got it made. You got — you got somebody who's clear on that process. All right.

There's another influence that will walk in on you, or apparently walk in on you, particularly when you were supervising somebody auditing who isn't too good at the TRs and so on. And that is, you will look at nervousness, agitation, anger and so on in the preclear, which has nothing to do with the clearing but has everything to do with the auditor because of difficulties in handling the communication formula and in handling the preclear — boo-boos, misstated commands, that sort of thing. And these all make it look as though the process is running havingness down.

Now, the process, "How could I help you?" — CCH Ob — that process does not run down havingness if perfectly audited. But for it never to run down havingness demands a job of auditing more perfect than practically anybody is able to 100 percent, all the time, turn in. You got that? Because some of the perfection of auditing is the consideration of the preclear, don't you see? So you could do a perfect job of auditing and the preclear could still know that you'd done something wrong. You got it? So there's 50 percent of it on automatic, right? — as far as the consideration of the perfection of auditing.

And whenever you get an idea that it isn't right — in other words, every time you get a critical idea — you get a havingness difficulty. Critical — havingness. Just think of those two things hand in glove, and you won't make a mistake of turning somebody loose who is (quote) "Clear" (unquote), who is in a terribly critical state. Person obeys all of the rules of being Clear and just chopping everybody up. His havingness is out the bottom. Something has happened to his havingness, one way or the other. Got that?

Naturally, what would you patch up? You'd run some Havingness Process. And that is the answer most of the time.

Now, when you see an agitation or a fogginess or a don't-careness or an out-of-sessionness or something of this sort, you can add it up to flows if it's anaten. But if it's agitation, the rest of this — distraction, sarcasm and so forth — don't always add it up to the fact that an aberration is coming to the fore. The preclear, because of his aberrated state, looks at you and considers that something has gone wrong, that you have done something wrong. And it's necessary for you at that time to patch up the ARC or repair his havingness. You can do either one.

I patch up the ARC, preferably. If that doesn't work, I soak into it with some Havingness. If I patch up the ARC, I generally conceive, also, that he is low on havingness, and at the earliest possible moment bridge into some Havingness, give him some Havingness and then get on with the process. You got the idea? This is a system. It's no better than a system; it's just something you do.

Possibly an equally workable system from your viewpoint: Instead of wasting hours of yak-yak of "What did I do wrong?" and getting into an argument with the preclear and losing your own temper (which you would never do), possibly it'd just be faster to bridge into some Havingness and then bridge out back into the process again. You got the idea?

Now, Help, run jaggedly, will just cutlass havingness to ribbons. It'll practically finish it. You never saw the like of it. You're running the wrong side of the flow. All it does is make the preclear groggy and nervous and upset. He basically feels something is wrong, so therefore he says something is wrong with you. Don't you see?

Well, one of the ways to get him over it is not necessarily to be more technically expert in running flows — that too! — it's just to run some Havingness. Got it? When in doubt use Havingness. When in doubt remedy Havingness. Remember?HAVINGNESS, ANATEN, FLOWS IN RELATION TO CLEARING

Now, if you ran somebody who was highly critical, his APA was — Critical was ten points below bottom, or actually anyplace between there and the middle and the first quarter of the graph (you know, that'd be a -50 Critical) — and you wanted to run Help, you actually would probably get there fastest by choosing exactly the proper leg of Help to run, getting it a little bit flat, (snap) bridging to Connectedness — got it? (snap) Get that so he's not comm lagging too badly — he can still talk — (snap) bridge to the next part of Help, (snap) bridge to Connectedness, (snap) bridge to the next part of Help, (snap) bridge to Connectedness, (snap) bridge to the next part of Help, (snap) bridge to Connectedness. Got the idea? All right.

How do flows influence "Mock it up and keep it from going away?" Do flows have anything to do with it? The automaticity of flows may influence it, and you may get phenomena. But you're handling terminals, aren't you? And the funny part of it is that you are out of the field of flows.

Now, I've told you exactly why, in this lecture, a preclear cannot mock up something and see it. Got that?

I've also told you exactly how you make it possible for him to see something. You equalize his flows, don't you? Hm? And he'll see something. And that is one of the reasons Help is working.

Now, let's say a fellow has some great big screens out in front of him. Boy, is he resisting an inflow, you would say. Funny part of it is, his resistance to an inflow is only a quantitative violence of outflow. Got it? You would be merely critical, and not technical or therapeutic at all, if you said this fellow was resisting all inflows. It's a remark, it describes the situation, but it doesn't describe the basic remedy for it and therefore is not an adequate description. This fellow who has a big bunch of screens, who is resisting all inflows, is in actuality over-outflowed. He's on a stuck flow. And what you see is the black wipe-out of no further flow. He can't flow any longer in that direction. Got it?

Now, you can do some weird things with this — you can do some weird things with this, but the best one that we have so far is the Help button.

Now, let's supposing somebody has been there standing at the drill press. Got it? He's standing at the drill press and he has got a one-way flow going. Get the idea? It's a one-way flow. It's going thataway. See, it isn't just mass — the drill press to himself — it's actually, he's got a bunch of metal or something that is flowing in one direction. It just keeps on flowing in that direction, endlessly. Well, maybe it can go on flowing if you get enough and wear out enough drill-press men, but the funny part of it is that his mind will get stuck on it. He'll get stuck on it, mentally.

Well, although the direction is over here to the right and although you could remedy it in the pure field of energy, you better not. You better not. He has a field. He's got a great big screen over here to his right. Got that? If you were to ask him how that metal strip could help him, you'd have to shake it up by how could he help it — question for question, don't you see — because it's really stuck. "How could it help him? How could he help it? How could it help him? How could he help it? How could he . . ." Get the idea? Back and forth.

And then all of a sudden, "How could it help you? How could it help you? How could it help you? How could that metal strip help you? How could that metal strip . . ." And all of a sudden you'll see the bank go, vroom — flip! And great black blankets of things fly around in the air, and things go purple and green and white and so forth.

Don't think anything has happened beyond the fact that he has the consideration that he's outflowed too long in that direction and will not do so anymore. Get the idea? It's basically considerations, even though it's mechanical. But these considerations add up to this mechanical phenomenon. You got it?

Now, I've told you why fields get black. The reverse phenomena of total automaticity, total cave-in of mock-ups, and sometimes invisible fields, are a reverse flow — too much inflow. You'll see there are various phenomena that go along with too much inflow. They haven't all been cataloged. But we easily see the outflow phenomena of too much outflow — that's black or gray.

You shake that up by running a flow process like Help. Shake it up. Do well with it on the E-Meter, just run the needle idle — you got it made.

And if the individual seems quite cranky and antagonistic. . . Actually antagonistic, not that he's answering — he's still — you know, he's still answering the question, but his answers are antagonistic. You know that's not an antagonistic preclear. But he is not answering the question and he is being antagonistic to you, that's an antagonistic preclear. Got it?

So he's being antagonistic to you, the session is going haywire, he appears to be out of session, he appears to be nervous, appears to be some other way — it's havingness that's the trouble, not flows. You understand?

Anaten, it's flows. Now, anaten also proceeds from ARC breaks and is a surrender on the break line. But it remedies by flows. It comes from an ARC break and remedies by flows, so long as you're running Help. That's why Help is a valuable button.

But the preclear gets agitated, upset, seems to be out of session, irrelevant, hard to control, so forth — you can always remedy havingness.

Now, we don't care what Remedy of Havingness you do, just do one that the preclear can do and be real about it. Okay?

I think, by the way, this handles the majority of problems that you will run into in clearing people.

You learn anything on it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

All right. Thank you.