Well now, we were talking on and on about this here chart. I hope you've still got a copy of this chart.

Audience: Yes sir.

Told you something about ownership. This is lecture number nine. I'm going to tell some more about this chart and some more about these various buttons. Let me go in for a moment of review here. This is a chart of communication and thereness, of goals — succumb or survive, of knowingness or unknowingness.

Now, you understand a person could be on that chart all the way to the top unknowingly. It's a good thing to understand, see. He's not cut off on this chart. He doesn't go down this chart, you see, and only stay at this level. He's on that chart unknowingly all the way down to the point where he's on the chart knowingly.

And this today we say in processing the preclear: "Find his reality level." In other words, find out what he knows he's doing. That's an interesting thing, that we've got to find what he knows he's doing.

Now, all the way up from there, he's doing everything else, one way or another, to some degree or another. I never saw people hide so enthusiastically in my life. But he doesn't know he's doing these things.

And so we have the basic definition of Scientology, which is "the science of knowing how to know," very, very thoroughly obeyed on this chart, see? Scale of knowingness.

Now, as you look at your preclear and plot a preclear on this chart, you're actually scaling all the way down on what he doesn't know, down to the point where he does know something. Now he knows something, and that's his reality, and then we can expand that reality.

And here is the oddity about this chart. Once we have found his level of knowingness and we have started to expand it, he will then, uniformly and rather routinely, give us the next step up.

This chart, then, is not a piece of guesswork which was picked out of the blue while sitting on a mount. Maybe it was that, too. But it did occur — it did occur — that preclears in processing did demonstrate these various things.

Now, a staff auditor of the HASI, while I was still in Phoenix, was giving a report one day. This was the first time that she had used this chart, and she said, "You know, the funniest thing has happened. I ran the preclear on 'hide,' and they started to talk about protecting. And I ran him on protecting, and started to talk about owning. And ran him on owning, and he talked about being responsible. And ran him on responsibility, started talking about control. And after we got all through discussing control, we got into the subject of death." She says, "This is very strange."

Well, the old Dianeticist, in erasing an engram, would watch a person come up Tone Scale, up the emotional scale; that's the upper scale. Well now, as these processes are actually attaining some agreement with the reality of the preclear, we're finding where the lower scale is. And the person comes up the lower scale just as they used to come up the emotional scale.

So you run the process long enough — you could go on and run the process flat if you wanted to, until there was no comm lag of any character in it, but somewhere before you accomplished that, the person would start talking about the next button. They don't know this chart. They never read it. They're not looking over your shoulder, they're dead in their head. And here we have this person telling us about this chart. Now, that seems to me to be, then, a good prediction mechanism if our people start telling us what we're doing.

Matter of fact, an auditor in England many years ago was very startled, extremely startled, to have a preclear he exteriorized and ran through what existed then — more or less the equivalent of modern-day Route 1 — this preclear starts telling him about the whole track. And might as well have been talking straight out of the pages of What to Audit (or A History of Man, as it's known in Great Britain), and started telling him all about this and added some new ones. Filled in some blanks. And this auditor was very edified. Made proper and immediate notes, and came over and told me about the blanks.

There was a college way back down the track, seems like. A thetan used to get outside of a huge bank of energy — unformed gases, planets to be and so forth — and he'd hang off the edge of this, you know, for a million years or so, because he didn't want to go into it until it solidified enough to give him something to fool around with. And people just didn't seem to know — thetans just didn't seem to know — that they could be anyplace else with any ease. So this fellow, this preclear, was telling his auditor all about this college that used to operate back there to teach thetans to be somewhere else instead of moving somewhere else.

Of course, this borders over into para-Scientology. But here is an auditor being taught about Scientology or taught about some phenomena by the preclear.

Another auditor — and many auditors had this experience — fellow sits back and says, "Yeah, yeah, yeah," and then imparts one of the Axioms to the auditor. Completely uncoached preclear, you see, imparts an Axiom to the auditor and says, "Well now, that's the way it is."

Well now, this chart has this similar characteristic. If you're going down a track of truth, you certainly are going to have preclears coming up with the data which you have in your hands. That's why you've got the data in your hands.

So, in this chart you start to run people, and they'll come up scale. Now, by the way, they sometimes do it in jumps. You know, the harmonics of the scale. They start doing it in jumps. They'll skip and apparently go fairly high on the scale, only to be found lower on the scale — the funny harmonic characteristic that Hide has all other buttons in it; so does Protect have all other buttons in it, you see, sort of squashed down. So these buttons will release, one by one. The person is apparently going up scale much faster than they're going up scale.

The test is the cognition of the preclear. Now, by cognition — we process today more by cognition than anyplace else. Where does the preclear alert to the fact that something is occurring, or that he knows something? That's cognition — he recognizes it. But we're not asking him to recognite; we're merely asking him to cognite. Because we're more interested in creating human ability than we are reviewing what the guy was once. By the way, did you ever run a preclear who "had been"? It's a much safer thing just to run him to "will be." All right.

Where we look over the chart there, we got down and discussed ownership. Now let's go a little bit further south, and find another button that is apparently a button very germane to, and is the lower harmonic of, Control. And that button is Protect. You see? Protect right down there.

All right. Protect comes about through an inability to move, but an ability to screen. See? Unable to move, but able to screen. We can't move this object, but we can put some barriers around it. We can't control it or predict it, but we can put some barriers around it.

Very often we do this with children. Child's running around in circles and going this way and that way and so forth, and we just simply put a bar across the front door or something so they can't run out in the street. We're not controlling the child, but we are protecting the child. So, that's the lower harmonic — the sort of "give-up" on control. All right.

And we drop below that and we get to what is marked there as the bottom button, which is Hide. Now, what is a person who is thoroughly interiorized doing but hiding?

Here's the primary thing that in those lower buttons of this chart is become quite interesting, is the mechanism of punishment.

Was talking to you yesterday about the fact that if people are enthusiastic, there must be a reason for them to be enthusiastic. Well, if a person is being punished, there must be a reason why he's being punished.

Now, this is where aberration sets in, and we're more into the field of psychotherapy than we are in the field of Scientology when we're talking about punishment and guilt and making somebody well and getting them over a bunch of wrongs and so forth.

But let's look at this oddity that if a person is struck, he feels he has done something. Now, look at that as a mechanism. If he's struck, he feels he's done something.

A person walks up to him, they're not even acquainted, all of a sudden the other guy hits him. And he feels he did something. He's being punished, therefore he must be guilty. If he's being that thoroughly punished, then he must have done something. And he'll get into this state of mind: "I wonder what I did?"

We run into somebody with a car, we injure him, we break his leg, dislocate his back, leave him in a hospital for a few weeks and get him out. This person after a while — no articulation, you see; it's just a sort of an obsessive whir-whir-figure-figure, you know — "You know, I must have been an awfully bad boy."

When they go too far along this line, just out of nothing more than maybe an automobile crash or something, they're liable to start telling you, "You know, I have the definite feeling that I must have murdered somebody when I was nine or ten." See, they're trying to find out of what they're guilty. And you're looking right there at the whole root of psychotherapy, which is why we don't pay any attention to psychotherapy anymore. If the person is struck, if he is punished, if he is occasioned loss, he then supposes that he must have done something to justify it. And he does this obsessively. He doesn't rationalize it at all. He feels, very certainly, that he did something. And so he goes around wondering about the crimes of childhood. He goes around wondering and worrying about the — all the bad things he did when he was young.

Why is he doing this? Because he was punished. But maybe there was no intention to punish of any kind in the blow he received. Maybe it was simply a car, somebody left its brake off and it ran down the hill and it hit him. It didn't even have a driver. And then without articulating it even to himself, as time goes on, he will begin to consider that he has done something. Might not happen right away — it just follows that if he was punished, he must have been guilty.

The public itself assumes this immediately that anybody is jailed or sued or anything of the sort. They assume, "Well, the fellow must be guilty of something." This is not true at all. Not true.

We take a city, it's — Rotterdam. The entire business area of Rotterdam was bombed out by the "Fuftwaffe" or whatever they called it, just because they bombed it out. Hitler was running loose all of a sudden and having a fine time, and these boys didn't have anything else to bomb, so they bombed Rotterdam. A conviction continued to exist in Rotterdam that it had done some-thing to the German Reich. It hadn't done anything to the German nation, it had tried to stay in good diplomatic relations. And there was a great deal of recrimination amongst its leading citizens as to who had betrayed Rotterdam. Some bombs fell on it, so something must have happened to cause the bombs.

And we're right back to what I was talking about: "There must be a reason." And man, the spirit, being very handy at posing and resolving problems, can dream himself up a reason. But that isn't the right reason, so he'll dream himself up another reason. But that isn't the right reason, so he'll dream himself up another reason.

You know what the end product is? There being no right reason, no reason dreamed up will fit. And we get figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure. Well, that's very germane to livingness and to a thetan and behavior and life in this universe, but it has been made peculiarly the province of psychotherapy.

And what I'm just talking to you about is one of the reasons why psycho-therapy has such a terrible time trying to advance or get anyplace or do anything for people. Because they're looking at these reasons, you know? Figure there must be a reason — there must be a reason for this, must be a reason for that. And we get dear old Dr. Freud, sitting there listening hour after hour, week after week, month after month, hoping that sooner or later the patient will suddenly turn up a satisfactory reason. And continuing fully in a belief that sooner or later the patient will. And they don't.

But what is this tremendous conviction that the patient is going to remember something which will then relieve some sort of a condition? It's because it happens every now and then that if a fellow communicates long enough and often enough or with enough, he will experience a greater freedom. Do you see that if the psychotherapist had always said "Okay" and "Yeah" and so on — in other words, if he'd gone into a province which belongs more germanely to the Scientologist, and if he'd kept the patient in communication on a two-way communication basis — something inevitably, in every case, would have happened.

An auditor in Scientology can talk to somebody, and — if that person would talk back — and get a considerable resurgence of case.

Let me tell you one of the cute tricks that a staff auditor does now, we dreamed up in Phoenix. We have a big assessment. We ask all kinds of questions of the preclear, for the very, very brief early part of an intensive. And we just ask these questions, ask these questions, we get the preclear to talk.

And we have another sheet of paper. We give it to the preclear for him to fill out on the auditor, which contains a lot of pertinent, germane questions the preclear might be worrying about. But we're not interested in whether or not the patient is worrying about these questions. All we want to do is have him originate a series of questions to the auditor. In other words, get a two-way communication going.

If we checked that up very carefully and right after that was done, we'd find out that some change had already taken place in the case without the rest of the intensive continuing. It's not that a one-way flow of communication is going to damage anybody particularly, but it is that by two-way communication we certainly resolve an awful lot of difficulties.

So where the analyst consistently looked at this "there must be a reason" and waited for some adequate explanation to occur, he was looking at an effect, or a phenomenon which was not germane to any recovery the patient was going to make. The patient would have made the recovery as a consequence of having somebody interested in him, and talking. The patient never had to discover any reason about anything.

But we do a little bit different thing than this — did a little bit different thing than this (quite different in Dianetics, world of difference) — where we had a process known as Straightwire. We were actually straightwiring out the impacts and talking about the various knocks and pounds of life. We were putting the person into communication with his past on a wholesale scale. And it, of course, in terms of impacts, pain, unconsciousness and so forth, would then tend to disintegrate. See, we were putting the person in contact with his past; and he was, in other words, introducing communication into his past. And we had just in that all by itself, a very superior psychotherapy, if that's what we have. All right.

Let me tell you just briefly here an interjection — not particularly germane to what I'm saying, but just as an interjection. One process that exists in Scientology which is a cousin to that old Straightwire process, and which is modern Straightwire Processing. We get the person to recall with a picture, and then say hello and okay to the picture until it disappears, and then make the person get the picture back, and then say hello and okay to it till it disappears.

In other words, "Do you remember anything about your father?"

The fellow says, "Oh, yes."

You say, "Have you got a picture?"

The fellow says, "Yeah. Come to think about it, there is. There's a picture of my father there."

You say, "All right. Tell it hello. Now have it tell you okay. Now have it say hello to you. Now you say okay to it. How's the picture?"

"Well, it's gone."

"Oh, get it back."

And we finally make him recover it and throw it away, and — blow it away with communication, recover it and blow it away with communication, until he can get rid of his pictures with postulates. Commands. Just like that.

You say, "Have a picture of your father appear." Bang. "Have it disappear." Bang. "Have it appear." Bang. "Have it disappear."

"Have a picture of birth appear." Bang. "Have a picture of birth disappear." Bang.

In other words, we just work him up scale on a gradient scale using communication, until we've restored his confidence in being able to handle his mental images.

But in view of the fact that we're not treating his mind or brain, it's not psychotherapy. It's a spiritual exercise — couldn't be anything else. And the reason it couldn't be anything else is because if you tried to get his brain to do this, you'd be working yet.

Now, here we have a condition of "there must be a reason." An occurrence has occurred, therefore there must have been something which caused its occurrence. And this method of thinking tears apart more thetans than you could easily put back together again.

What does he do, this thetan? Something happens. He himself feels impervious and all-powerful, so he says, "I must have had something to do with this originally."

Then they get him shoved down scale and they finally start saying to him, "Heh! All right, go ahead and say you're responsible for it. Go ahead and say you caused the accident. That's fine. You're in jail. All right. Now everything is going to go easy with you, bud. All you have to do is really tell us what happened, we'll help you out and we'll give you a break. That's right. Just sign right there. That's right, thirty years."

After a while he says, "You know, this game backfires. I'm going to stop communicating all this stuff, although I know I'm guilty." Is he?

He's guilty of one thing — a spirit is guilty of just one thing — of being alive. So the obvious cure for this is to be dead. And so he goes down scale.

All right. Let's pick it up there at what is marked the bottom of that, and we get Hide. Now, the boys last night were proposing that there is another button below Hide. I agree with this. Known about this button for quite a while — and that's Waiting.

If your preclear can't get any reality on hiding, he can certainly get a reality that he's waiting. And what have many of your preclears been doing as they sat there in the auditing chair? They're waiting. We used to have a process on this. So this button Waitingness probably belongs below Hidingness. So we get development even now.

We have, on this whole scale, a successive series of reasons why the thetan is not exteriorized or able to control the body or objects while outside. We get a series of reasons why, and those series of reasons why are the reasons closer to the reason why than other reasons.

Now he's made a postulate — that's why it's become a reason. For some reason or other, the agreements of this universe cause him to make this series of postulates which go right straight on down from Serenity clear on to the bottom, to Hide.

If a person is punished and punished and punished — there's no reason for it, see — he's just punished. He's punished, he's hit, he's run into, meteors collide with him, he gets shot, he gets drafted — all kinds of cataclysms occur — and he decides that somebody or something is after him, that there must be a reason why he's being punished and therefore he's guilty, and his final conclusion is that he must hide.

Well, after that all he could do was wait, of course. What if you couldn't hide anywhere or anything? Well, you'd wait for something to happen, it's all you could do. So we pick up the preclear at his level of reality.

Now let's look at the side scale, and we find what we've called for a long time the Know to Mystery Scale at right angles to the Tone Scale proper. Now, actually these two scales are not an exact mesh, and they are somewhat duplicative. Yet they become very, very easy to plot. And you can plot your preclear there.

He refuses to know anything about hiding — negative knowingness about hiding. He doesn't want to know a thing about hiding. And that would be way over here to the left bottom corner: negative knowingness about hiding. Then negative lookingness about hiding.

Now, what's interesting about negative lookingness about hiding is you ask a preclear to close his eyes and you say, "Now, what are you looking at?" (By the way, a preclear today isn't a body — it's a thetan.) And you ask him, "What are you looking at?" and he'll say, "Nothing."

You'll say, "What are you looking at?" and he will say, "Nothing." You say, "Come on. What are you looking at?"

"Nothing!"

You're running into negative lookingness about hiding. He won't even look at where he's hiding.

And you ask him this a few more times, and he'll finally say, "All right. I'm looking at this mass of blackness." You've moved him one more button over. And he will go through that panel, more or less, until he moves over to hiding.

He'll finally say, "I don't want to know why I'm hiding. It's too dreadful."

Then he'll finally say, "What the devil am I hiding for?" And he's gone over into the right-hand parallel. See how that would be? He changes his mind from one to the other. He doesn't want to know, and then he wants to know.

Now, as you move on across to the right, you get the gains. And he'll say, "Well, if I hide . . . You know, sex, if you hide, you know, and you really aren't, you know, saying that you're there, and that the body's doing it all, and — yeah, that's not bad. That's a good idea. If people knew I was here, then I wouldn't get any sexual relationships at all." They'll tell you goofy things like this. They've got it rationalized beautifully.

And you'll get them over finally to a point of "Well, where the devil am I?" And they will really start looking around.

Now, understand that this is a subzero scale. This applies to a thetan. This does not necessarily apply to a body at all, it applies to a thetan. And this is the state of mind he's in, and why people have a hard time exteriorizing thetans, because they just haven't gone far enough south.

Now, actually, if this Waiting button is good and valid, it would simply be drawn in below the Hiding button, and you would have a person not wanting to know anything about waiting as the extreme low point.

Now the extreme low point of that chart is all the way to the left and all the way down. So if we put another line down below that, we would have "not wanting to know anything about waiting." And you could mark that in simply by remembering it's there and putting an "X" below the Hide line, if you wanted to plot your preclear.

Now, as your preclear is being processed, you could actually mark him right on this chart, and you can also keep track of processes run on this chart. You can just mark him right on in. He'll fit in there someplace. And that will be his level of reality.

Now, where he has a problem or a puzzle that he's talking to you about (now, here's the trick of using this chart), where he has a problem or a puzzle — you know, a confusion — and he knows there's a confusion there, he already has something known about it, and you might say you undercut the preclear by going down one step and to the left one step from the confusion. Down and to the left one step, and you've got a reality. Your preclear should be able to attain a level of reality there. If he can't, go one step further down and one step further left and you will get his reality.

But he probably has, unless he's a very strange preclear indeed, a level of reality just below and to the left of the point where he's got a worry — a confusion or a worry.

Now this person comes to you, and this person says, "Well, I don't know what I'm going to do about my wife. She just buys, buys, buys everything. She's just spending me poor. I've got to do something about her. She just buys everything in sight. It's just something I just can't understand," and so forth. And "Of course, I really don't want to know exactly why she wants all these pretty clothes, but that's generally what she's buying. But it's her buying that I'm worried about."

That, of course, is an extreme sort of a case. But you would be surprised how many classes of worry are presented to you as you listen to people. And you just stew around and puzzle around on that chart until you find them, and then you cut down, and you will find some point where he can talk with relief.

Now, let's use it just as two-way communication. Tricky chart. Let's use it as two-way communication.

This person says, "Sex has become a horrible burden to me. I feel upset in the presence of a member of the opposite sex. I don't feel comfortable at all."

You got negative Sex, Hide, haven't you? Well, if Waiting were down there, you would go down to Waiting, and you would go over to the left one pace, and you would have a comfortable topic of conversation.

You could talk to them about Egyptian pyramids and things like this, and they would find it a very engrossing subject. You see how that would be?

Well, what they tell you they're concerned about, they're telling you what they are unknowingly confused about. And you have to find his reality level, you go south and to the left.

And you'll find a lot of high-toned people around, too. You'll find a lot of people that go way up the line. They say, "Well, I just don't know what I'm going to do with my husband. He's in and out and around and about. Always into things, doing things. Doctors keep telling him, I keep telling him, he's going to work himself to death. He's got to take a rest, you know. Can't understand why he keeps on all this work." Where's that person worried about? Trying to stop somebody and can't.

Well, what would this person talk about? Let's just take it on the broad scale and just go down vertically just one step. Trying to stop somebody — couldn't control them, can't even stop them now, so let's go down one step. All right. Now let's go over to Sex, that being in — closest in to the marital picture. You could run a process on this person or you could talk to them on this subject with great ease. But you could certainly talk to this person about ownership. See, they'd have a cognition about owning things. Why? They're in a confusion about stopping things. So you would find them, very probably, intelligible on the subject of owning things. And you could have a good old talk with them and they could go into two-way communication with you real good on what they bought yesterday and the day before and what she owns and they own and so forth.

This is an interesting key. If you were to merely use the vertical scale, you could find yourself in a two-way communication with almost anybody. First you get them to sort of voice or articulate something about the worries in life or what's bothering them or something of this order, if you did make them articulate that, or if just in listening to them — if you were really an expert, you wouldn't ask them what's wrong, you'd just listen to them and spot them on that vertical scale. And you want to know what to talk to them about so you will have a nice, quiet conversation? I just go down one point and talk. And you'll find them very eager to go in communication with you on this point. How to talk to people. It's tricky. You want to try it.

All right. The salesman has a great many problems in two-way communication — trying to get somebody into two-way communication. This chart solves it for him. You want to know why traveling salesmen always used to have to tell dirty stories all the time? (audience laughter) They thought they did, which merely told you where the traveling salesman was. Being in motion and on trains all the time without any great contact with his family or wife or something of the sort, he got down and stuck at that level — Sex. He didn't feel free about it. He was sort of obsessed on this line. He would have talked easily, then, one down and to the left.

Now, the oddity is, is this will usually take place: They will talk any down and any to the left, which just opens the doors wide for conversational topics for two-way communication.

Well, let me tell you now something that is of great interest to the auditor. A preclear who is not processed within his realm of reality will make such an insignificantly tiny advance that both the auditor and the preclear will believe nothing is happening. And where do we get this "nothing happens"? Where do we get this "no change of case" — from change itself? No. Addressing the subject of change is usually too high-scale and out of the reach of the individual who can't change. You understand? He can't change, so therefore he can't talk about change. All right.

What about the preclear that you can run any process on, that never gets a communication lag. (The length of time between the posing of the question to the person and the answer to that question, regardless of what intervenes — that's the definition of a communication lag.) He just always runs everything flat, doesn't seem to be affected by anything one way or the other, and just keeps on running very easily and always has flat lags. And any new process that comes out, you just use the process on him and he has no — flat lag and he gets no change, but he's usually sometimes very happy to go on being audited. What about this person? Well, we've solved this person with that piece of paper you have in your hands.

I've solved him on this basis: He gets no communication lag when you're processing him above his level of reality. That sounds fantastic, doesn't it? You mean this fellow would go on and talk to you about mice and goats in enthusiasm, and football games, and you process him on all kinds of buttons and trick processes and everything, and nothing happens. And he goes on and he just talks back and forth and he's evidently doing things all right in life, and he is just going on just beautifully. And you say, "Well, huh! Something wrong here. Process seems to work on Josie and Anna and this one and that one, but isn't working on this person. Because the person isn't getting any better." You begin to suspect this after eight or nine thousand hours.

You couldn't look into this person's head and see the poorness of the person's reality. Most of their responses are machine responses. The world is not very real. Communication is not at all real. You're not really there. And yet they have only one thing by which to judge reality, and that's their own reality. They don't have two realities — not until they exteriorize. Sometimes they exteriorize, they'll have reality as a thetan and then, plus the body, they get another reality. This is the routine. This is why many thetans who are actually in very poor condition have quite a high — they have an apparent reality. They know walls are there. They can drive cars. They can get elected to government and so on. They have a fairly high apparency, you know. But it's just the body and its size and the automatic response that carries them on.

But actually in this combo, there is only one reality and no other reality with which to compare it. So what is the person's actual reality? Well, you can't compare his reality with his reality so he can't tell you how things real — how real things are, and you really can't judge how real things are unless you go sideways and look at another metering thing, like communication.

Well now, the oddity is, when a person's going on machine responses, you're getting the communication lag of his machinery, which is usually pretty good. You see? You're not looking at the preclear at all, you just — machinery goes on, it's the communication lag of the school he was educated in. You know what the communication lag of somebody who was educated at Oxford would be? It's the communication lag of Oxford. Somebody educated in Boston, the communication lag of Boston. And this would be routine — nothing much to that. He'd just go on, on these social responses. But don't ask him suddenly some searching question which would be in his level of reality, because you're going to produce a communication lag that'll just go from here on out — wham!

So we just look this person over and find out where he is obsessively unknowing — where he doesn't know. There's some level that he gets troubled at — a little bit bothered, doesn't know about it. And then let's undercut it and move over one to the left and talk to him about that, and you will all of a sudden be talking to the preclear.

Looking at this chart, you can take this person who goes on and on and on and on and on, gets audited forever and forever and forever and apparently no change, and realize that he's probably being audited above his level of reality the whole line. And therefore, it's up to you to find his level of reality. His level of reality sits just below where he's worried — just below where he's unknowingly upset.

Now, this person doesn't have to say, "Well, I am worried." We don't have to find something wrong with him. We just look at him, we find his position on the scale. What have we got here? He isn't going to say, "Well, I'm worried about this," or something of the sort. We just happen to notice that he is just doing fine in life — he does things just swell in life — in every department except children. He's in wonderful condition, the fellow's practically a Clear, we know that, he's successful — but boy, does he hate kids! Get the idea? Children are already above his level of reality.

We ask him, "What's wrong with kids?"

"Oh, I don't know. You know — motion, noise, confusion, no control, no control, no control, see."

Boy, we could sure have a heart-to-heart talk with him on responsibility for the original sin; move down, not very far to the left. We could certainly talk to him with great reality about hiding. We could talk to him with great reality about what we had to protect in the way of our rights in this society. See all the various things we could talk to him about? They'd just be anywhere down and anywhere to the left.

Now, when you've moved to the left on one line, move all the way to the right on the next line. It's that mechanical. Go down a line and move all the way to the right. Let's say we have negative knowingness: doesn't want to know anything about how you go about owning anything — a tramp, see. Now, where's the next step down? It'd be all the way to the right on Protection. You see that? You'd move all the way over to the right on Protection and then start going down scale to the left again. And then you'd move all the way over to the right and then down scale to the left again.

Well, let's look that over just as a test. You realize that somebody who would want to know nothing about ownership would be a tramp. And his level of reality would be how he got protected. He'd want to know about protection, and then successively right on down scale from there. Just drop down and over. Well, let's say we found his level of reality over here on negative knowingness or anywhere along that line — we would go to the left and then go to the right, just like you read in English. This way we find realities; and this chart is most useful in discovering the reality of the preclear.

Now, we have some preclears around — which is why I'm glad Waitingness suddenly shows up — we've had some preclears around who have flunked out of Hiding. They didn't want to know anything about hiding. So we weren't quite far enough south, and I imagine these people could process on waiting. All right.

Let me tell you, now, the uses of this. Now, there's several processes listed on there. You see that down in the corner? You could check these off as they were run. Those processes are actually not stated in the order that they should be run. "Think a thought about " is the auditing command. That's the first: "Think a thought …" "Think a thought about hiding."

Now, actually, the senior process to all this is simply "Think a Thought." You just say to this person, "Think a thought." That's much too tough a process for a lot of preclears. We say, "Think a thought."

"Gahhhh." Or, very glibly, "Oh yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah." They got a goat out here — a facsimile of a goat — and it says "baaah," and that's thinking a thought or something. Something real wild like this going on.

So "Think a Thought" is quite a tough process. There is a process that undercuts "Think a Thought," which is you give the preclear a thought to think. You know, he's having a hard time trying to think a thought, so you give him a thought to think. And you say, "Buildings are big. All right, can you think that thought?"

And the fellow says, "Sure, I can think that thought. Buildings are big."

And you say, "All right. Now place it there and place it there and place it there and place it there and place it there, place it there and place it there and place it there." After he handles this, he gets to a recognition that he can handle the thought that all buildings are big. So he can handle a thought. And after he can handle one for a while, you've got him up Tone Scale a little bit and he possibly can think a thought. This is an extreme preclear, however. But that's one of the ways of handling him.

But just — you ask anybody, "Think a thought. Think a thought. Think a thought. Think a thought. Think a thought." It's a fantastic process, but it's a tough process. They're supposed to independently think this thought and know they're thinking it, is what you begin to drum into them after a while.

The next one is "Problems and Solutions." Now, that in its entirety is contained in The Creation of Human Ability — "Problems and Solutions" — one of the Route 2 steps. And it's definitely not to be undervaluated.

The basic definition of the performance of thinkingness in the original thesis is: "The function of the mind is to pose and resolve problems" — its first statement was; I believe it appears differently in the book — "pose and resolve problems relating to survival." And that process, which is R2-20, is right there — right there. And that process — its value on a case cannot possibly be overestimated. Wouldn't care how long it continued.

And the way we've been running that is to ask a person just to think of a problem. Or "What kind of a problem could you be to yourself?" And then ask them this question several times, and then ask them, "All right. Can you think of an answer?" And then don't take the answers to the problems they've been giving you. Don't let them answer their own problems.

And don't ever run it consecutively. That is to say, "All right. Now, can you think of a problem? All right, give me an answer. All right, think of a problem. Give me an answer." They'll just start talking back and forth and solving their own. We're not interested in them doing that. We want them to have a great number of problems.

Just as it says in the old Greek grammars, "The animal, man, is unhappy without laws," we could say, "The animal, man, is unhappy without problems." And you can run your preclear as fresh out of problems . . . Did you ever solve a terrifically weighty problem for somebody and have them hate you? Huh? Did you ever work and work and worry and worry and worry and finally get Joe's problems all solved and give him the answer, and then have him not speak to you for days? Well, the poor guy, he just had one problem. Pauper — you made a pauper out of him just like that. (snap) You just said, "That's easy. Why don't you leave her?" He realizes this is the answer. "Duh!" All right.

Now, as we look over problems and solutions, we discover that an individual's brightness depends upon his ability to arrive at solutions. But his sanity depends on his ability to invent problems. Got that? A great oddity. Actually, answers themselves will cure panic. You could just say, "All right. Now, can you think of an answer?"

And the fellow says, "To what?"

"To anything. Can you think of an answer?" And you say, "All right. Think of another answer. All right. Think of another answer. All right. Think of another answer. All right. Think of another answer." He says . . . Doesn't matter to what problem he's trying to answer — he'll start answering a lot of problems in his bank and then all of a sudden start to dream up answers just in general. You'll find his panic or feelings of fear or insecurity will rather melt away.

Answers. The most valid answers are answers in relationship to location. But you just ask him answers: "Answers. Give me another answer. Give me another answer. Give me another answer to this problem."

But if you haven't run problems to a point where he realizes he can invent them, you will make a pauper out of him and he will get very unhappy. And he all of a sudden will pull in some of the most fantastic problems from way back on the track — "I'm being chased by demons." See, he'll start pulling in irrational problems because he has a shortage of problems. There are evidently quarts or pints or tons of problems. It's quantitative and he makes them up.

Now, a problem is very closely related to an object. You can't possibly have an object without having a problem, because a problem was basically an object. Very curious. If you don't think this is the case, just think of one of the last objects you acquired of any size or shape — just think of it for a moment — did it create any problems? All right.

So we have to have a great plenitude of problems, a great plenitude of solutions. But instead of letting the guy wander around all over the place, let's just take "Think a thought about hiding." Or "Give me a problem about hiding" or "an answer to hiding." You see how you could use the chart there? Or, and this is the key process for this chart, "What would happen if/What would happen if not?" because that includes the future. "What would happen if you hid? What would happen if you didn't hide? Well, what would happen if you hid? Well, what would happen if you didn't hide?" And that's all the auditing there is — acknowledging, of course, the replies of the preclear. Making him think up the consequences of hiding and not hiding — one of the more powerful processes.

But these processes which are listed there are interlocked. You don't do them independently. For instance, you realize that if you keep on asking a person about the consequences of this and that, he's keeping on giving answers, isn't he? He's giving you answers, answers, answers, answers, answers, answers. And if you say problems about not hiding, he'll start giving you problems. See, "What would happen if you didn't hide?" And he'll give you a problem and a problem and a problem and a problem. Well, problems and solutions and consequences are then interlocked. And you simply use them with the terminology I've just given you and your preclear all of a sudden starts to come on up Tone Scale, if you've undercut his reality one pace.

For instance, this individual is interested in controlling all the taxicabs in his town. And you say, "Well, look-a-here" — here's the common fault of an auditor — you say, "Look, this guy is real hep. He's real interested in the subject of owning — or pardon me, controlling — all the taxicabs in this town. Therefore, we'll process him on it." Oh no, you don't. Because he hasn't any reality on what would entail owning all the taxicabs — or controlling all the taxicabs in town, or owning them. You better start talking to him about protection or ownership — preferably probably about protection. He's got a reality on that. He's trying to own or control, he's not able to, so therefore it's a big problem and a mix-up and a confusion to him. But he knows he could protect. If he were interested in controlling all the taxicabs in town, I'll give you 10 to 1 that this individual has originated a number of devices by which taxicab drivers and the passenger persons and the bumpers and so forth of taxicabs, can better operate to protect the taxicab business. He'll have a lot of solutions that he's already manufactured on the subject. If he's entirely sold on owning and controlling taxicabs, he's already taken care of protection of taxicabs. And there's where you can talk to him, where he'll relax and then he'll get into communication with you and realize you're there, too, and he'll go on up scale from there.

Now, these are the key processes — just going over them lightly. If you were to take a preclear and you were to ask him, one after the other, "Think a thought about hiding. Think a thought about hiding. Think a thought about hiding." Or this lower button, "Think a thought about waiting. Think a thought about waiting." And then you were to say, "Well, give me some problems about waiting; some problems about waiting; some problems about waiting; some problems about waiting," got this rather flat. "Give some answers to waiting; some answers to waiting; some answers to waiting; some answers to waiting." "What would happen if you waited? What would happen if you didn't wait?" — those two, alternation — believe me, you'd be bringing him on up scale.

But for you in all practical purposes — having nothing to do with auditing — with this chart, you can always establish ARC with anyone. After you've listened to them or looked at them a short time, you can see exactly what they're trying to do. And if you want them to listen to you and if you want them to know you're there, if you want them to know that you are married to them or that they are supposed to buy a tractor, or if you want them to give the church a better contribution, you'd better undercut what they seem obsessed about