Okay, what questions do we have here?
Male voice: Question regarding Group Processing: What rationale would one use on Group Processing today and what general process would one do?
The last and most effective Group Process that came out was issued in a PAB.
I don't say that that is the best one that could be dreamed up in view of what we know now, but I will tell you definitely that it's good.
Yes?
Male voice: Do you think that "be as you are" and "do what you're doing" would lend itself at all to Group Auditing?
Oh yes. Oh, for heaven's sakes, you're Scientologists, you can do anything in a Group Auditing session. But you certainly had better not go into any fancy, high-flown group clearing, because I'm sure it won't work.
Male voice: Another part of the question was, how does this new data that we have…
It doesn't.
Male voice: It doesn't apply at all to groups?
Hm-mm. Would apply in your understanding as you handled a group.
Male voice: I see.
But you're touching two hot buttons — they're too hot. You can run them on a Scientologist who is rather blase toward processes, you understand? You can run them up here in sessions. But the normal reaction in the HGC is what makes HGC processing a little bit different than our co-auditing here or staff co-auditing or something of the sort — is people are coming in there and sitting down and it's just one long "Wow, gee, for Christ's sakes, my god," and other blasphemies, you know? And it's just blowing them — they blow and they threaten to blow and they fall apart and they do this and they do that, and the dramatics of it are too high for a group.
Male voice: Okay.
Male voice: Yeah.
Anything that we've been over here, except maybe engram running or Lock Scanning or something — maybe even Lock Scanning could be done by a group, but I don't think any of these later clearing processes are adaptable at this time.
Jack, you had a question; you seldom ask one.
Male voice: Yeah, after the eighth inverts and you get a society like India, is there anything lower except savagery?
Boy, that's pretty savage. When the oneness of it all lets them down . . . You certainly put your finger on something, that is true. I'm not observing that, you observed it. But that, I think, probably is what happened to ants. Maybe they were all running along, running railroad trains at one time or another.
Possibly every strata of life has gone out that bottom. Of course, the oddity of it to us, is evidently Buddhism picked it back up from savagery, and that was a higher concept than they had. But that's not very high, is it?
Anything else?
Male voice: No, that's all.
Does that answer the question?
Male voice: Yeah.
All right.
Yes?
Male voice: What would you recommend for a Clear project — for a clearing project for a field auditor? How would you recommend as a stable datum for setting it up?
How do you mean this now? You mean you're going to take a field auditor and audit him, or he's going to audit somebody else?
Male voice: No, for a field auditor to go out and set up a clearing project somewhere in the field.
Yeah, what about it?
Male voice: Not just as he is going to audit somebody, but get people to co-audit to Clear. I want to know, do you have any . . .
Oh yes.
Male voice: . . . stable datum for it?
Yes, yes, yes. That's why you had your HAS Manual published recently. You make a technician out of them. It's all been worked out. Thank you for asking. But you make a technician out of them. And you make damn sure you make a technician out of them. Don't try to get them to understand anything. You say, "You shuttle this cube of sugar into that bowl and you're all set." And you don't give them any difficulties to jump across, you don't tell them what they can run into, you just say, "You do this." And it becomes a monitored project. There will have to be somebody around who isn't a technician before you can do that. But we've been running that way for years — what's so different about it, see?
Director of Processing, somebody like that, he can actually have people on staff, sometimes, that he just steers. Of course eventually as they go along, why, these people themselves move out of the grade of technician and — in actual practice — and they become a theoretician. And they get pretty hot about it and they start picking cases to pieces and putting their fingers on this and that and so forth and generally people go around then and they ask them for a while, and then they get the dope. And — you know? And that's the way it goes.
But that project has been laid out and that's why the HAS was started as a degree, you know? We even thought of making another certificate but we had too many certificates already and we never activated it. We mentioned it in a publication, I believe — HTS or something like that, or technician.
Actually, an HAS should be pushable right in that grade and unit up to technician, and I would consider, however, that a clearing project would start out with schooling. And you're running a model of a clearing project right here in this particular Unit, plus one single fact which makes it an ACC, and that's the fact that I'm giving you lectures. Got it? Which tends to boost you out of being technicians, see?
Yes?
Female voice: I'd like to know if clearing Help could be used as a standard way of — in opening in a session, in an intensive, to use it each day . . .
Well now, just a minute.
Female voice: . . . for a short while.
It is CCH 0.
Female voice: Uh-huh.
And you never bypass CCH 0 to start an intensive or to start a session.
Female voice: Yes. Well, that's what I mean . . .
Now . . .
Female voice: . . . to start the session every day for a few minutes, to just have…
Oh, that's for true.
Female voice: That would be good?
But it is actually better to take the button and beat it to pieces if there's anything wrong with it at all. And you've got to make up your mind whether or not you're running two-way comm . . .
Let me say a word about this, may I? I'm glad you brought this point up — not because you need this, particularly. But when you're running clearing, all of the CCH 0 processes have two versions. One is two-way comm and the other version is a repetitive command. See, it's one version as two-way comm, and it is another version as a repetitive command — formal auditing.
Don't mix the two up. I found somebody the other day who thought that two-way comm was a sloppy repetitive command audit. And it is not. And this person was not bridging, was not standardizing the command, was not clearing the command, wasn't doing any of the things that you would do in formal auditing. And, wow, was Help going down for the last time!
Now, if you're going to clear Help utterly, you're going to have to do it as formal auditing and as a process which runs as a bracket and which is cleared — each command is cleared as you go; you bridge carefully between each point of the bracket and you run it as a process.
Now, early in the intensive, if it apparently needed it, you understand — early in the intensive, you would undoubtedly run it, if it was needed, as a repetitive command, formally audited process, you understand? But day by day, you would simply check it as two-way comm. You got that?
Female voice: Yes.
So there is a slight difference there between the two. I'm glad you brought that up.
You can really beat this one to pieces — this thing called Help. And actually you run his havingness up all the way. It's one of these processes which — like destroy: you can run an awful lot of destroy without, you know, as-ising destroy, and get havingness. You can also run Help and get havingness. But it is a little bit more critical, and therefore the auditing of it has to be more careful, and it has to be a better formal audit.
You start just clearing the word help in the auditing command and you're liable to have a picnic. Clearing a word isn't explaining it to the preclear, either, by the way. You want to know what he thinks it means, and his considerations of it are what you're trying to get. You're not even trying to get him to get it straight. You're trying to get him to get some idea of it, and he's liable to get an awful lot of cognitions on clearing Help.
And as you go up the line, if you're sloppy enough to use "others" — you know, "Do you think others could help you?" — this is a highly improper command, by the way. "Do you think others could help you?" Boy, you're liable to run into more trouble than a pack of monkeys, because you've gone onto the psychiatric-communist school of thought.
You, by the way, probably think I beat this psychiatric-communist join-up — it's not a piece of propaganda — more than is necessary. But the truth of the matter is, they're the same breed of cat. You only have to talk to a psychiatrist to realize that he does believe there is a "people," there is a "mass" and there are "others," and he's protecting those "others" by victimizing the individual. And that is the rationale on which he proceeds.
It's the same as communism: "You mustn't ever have an individual. The cult of the personality is something that must be crushed and squashed at once. You must never have an individual. You must only have a mass." "The masses," see? This whole idea of "the masses." It's just a big, blurred identification, don't you see?
Well, you try to run "Do you think others could help you?" and a fellow is liable to answer this auditing command four or five times before he starts to chunk into it and realize that it can't be answered. It's rather weird. "Can another person help you?" "Could a doctor help you?" And the plurality of the bracket, to that degree, is something that is very unproductive of results. Because you're auditing against a consideration, not a terminal. And it immediately violates the idea that you run problems, you run other things, most beneficially against terminals. You do not run them against considerations. And this thing — "others," "masses," "the people" — these things are simply considerations, and in essence do not exist.
So clearing up these various commands one way or the other is actually necessary. You clarify every side of the bracket, you use it — a repetitive command, you scrupulously use bridges between them. You use a bridge between "Could I help you?" and "Could you help me?" or "Is there any way you could help me?" or "Think of a way you could help me," or "Imagine a way you could help me." We're not trying to give you the magic incantation here on Help because after you've cleared the command you may find out that it has to be phrased in a certain peculiar, particular way in order to get across. This is the hottest button on the case and you're running it first when he won't even sit still. Get the idea?
A field will stay in suspense evidently, by actual test now, just as long as a person doesn't believe there's any help. Of course, we've got all sorts of nonsensical stupid ideas in this society. We have phrases which are (shades of Dianetics) fantastic. Our phraseology, our cliches are wonderful. "I can't help it," the fellow says about a habit. There are dozens of these phrases. They're just gorgeous. And your pc will get stuck on these faster than anything else because he mustn't touch it. And it's a not-touch phrase, which is something — wasn't embraced in Dianetics. A "destroy" is a stuck on the track, but a "help" is simply a not-touch.
One other thing I'd say about this: you can also clear Help by the dynamics. You can also clear a case by the dynamics. Just pick them up — one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight — and run Help in a sort of a bracket on every one of them. Of course, when you say "man" you're into what? You're into "others," aren't you, as far as a runnable process is concerned. It actually depends for its action on the idea of mankind getting busted down to some individual men. So you'd still run it just to break it down. You'd run it usually by clearing it — by clearing the living daylights out of it.
This thing called God: if you ever try to clear the word God with a preclear, you'll have a picnic. Best way to clear God with a preclear who is not clear on other dynamics, simply have him mock up gods — then he at least has a little mass — and know he's creating them.
Okay, what other questions are there?
Yes?
Male voice: These cases that get lobotomized, like the manic-depressive, fellow who thinks that he caused the world war, you know — goes around dramatizing this — his main button of course is Help. But would you also handle "destroy" on them?
A "destroy" can always be handled.
Male voice: You know what sort of case I mean?
Yes. But you know this — you know this about destroy — please know this about a destroy: destroy is a not-is, and when you're running a not-is, it runs without very much profit. Help is quite therapeutic. Destroy is not.
Male voice: Then you handle help first and unstick it — would you then just take a look at destroy?
Yeah, that's right. By the way, the longer you run destroy, the further down the APA you'll go — actual test.
You can run it for some hours with profit, and disentangle it, but you're expending graph.
Yes?
Male voice: Speaking of lobotomies, I don't suppose . . .
I wasn't.
Male voice: No, I know, but he mentioned it.
All right.
Male voice: I don't suppose you have any data since this clearing procedure's gotten into full swing, so to speak, but do you think it would be possible to clear a person who had had brain surgery?
Yes, I'd rather imagine. We've already done some remarkable things with brain surgery cases. That's very maddening to the psychiatrist: the brain very usually grows back together again in some fashion or another.
In view of the fact the control mechanisms of the body are not at all dependent upon the brain — it's the shock of the engram itself, somebody trying to reach him, a thetan dead in his head, that is a shock to him — not what happens to the tissue. But we've already done a lot with that, and I'm sure that we could do something very dramatic with that here.
Yes?
Male voice: The area of, we'll say, near Clear, Clear, tested Clear and then on up: Can you give us a little bit more stable data on this whole area? What the hell goes on?
What's that?
Male voice: Well, one of the sort of things that's confusing me at this particular time is where exactly does exteriorization, with — I mean, real 3-D present time visio . . .
You're talking about OT now. You're not talking about Clear.
Male voice: Right.
Exteriorization has nothing to do with clearing.
Male voice: Right. Now . . .
A totally accidental factor.
Male voice: Mm-hm. And the second point of. . .
Yeah, we're not interested in exteriorization when we speak of Clear; 'tisn't within the definition line. Why? Because the individual as Clear is not being asked to confront the totality of the physical universe as viewed by everybody and anybody.
Now, Clear isn't a gradient scale, however; it has certain definite things.
And what happens is quite interesting — is that a person can come near Clear and then go for a few weeks and get the rest of the cognitions. You get him on his road, you don't have to finish the job, and he will actually go on to this point within a few weeks. Now, whether he's exteriorized or not has nothing to do with it.
Now, when we're talking about "Clear" — we are just clearing this word "Clear" — we are talking about that exact definition. I'm talking about no other definition.
Now, what he can create, or the variety of it or the solidity of it or any other thing, is unimportant. One of his cognitions at this point is simply and exactly this: that he's got a lot further to go.
This state you'll find a lot of people discussing and talking about as a gradient — that there are people "more Clear than other people," and so on. And this horrible fact comes out in the wash, is there is somebody who is almost, and there is somebody who is more than, Clear. But there isn't somebody who is clearer than others. You get the idea?
Male voice: Yeah.
All right.
Yes?
Female voice: Do we want our pc to just be able to mock up something he's seen, or do we want him to be able to mock up something like he's doing it and he never saw it?
Well, you should be able to get him to create. Individuals whose creativeness comes up gradually takes over the automaticity of form.
Female voice: I got it.
And so he will be able to mock up things.
Female voice: And if you got him to doing that, then you wouldn't have to worry about whether you've gone back ten thousand years or a hundred hundred thousand years into facsimiles.
Right.
Well, you have to understand this about facsimiles: Facsimiles are all in present time, they are all being mocked up in present time and the thetan never at any time is anywhere else but present time, but facsimiles have a time tab on them. And this consideration alone makes him feel that he is elsewhere than in present time.
If you can get the picture of a fellow standing on a country railroad station and a train going by, and the train is moving in time and the fellow is not moving in time, that is exactly what a thetan is evidently doing all of the time.
Female voice: That's right.
Now, the parade of mest gives him various considerations, and he gives it various considerations, and the facsimiles he mocks up of it contain these considerations, so we have a time track. But it is quite a misnomer as far as the thetan himself is concerned. Actually he's never been anyplace, he's never going anyplace. He is not located anywhere, actually, except by consideration. You got that?
Female voice: I was wondering, like, whether my pc last week could have mocked up a dinosaur if I'd finally said, "Well now, they look like this."
Sure. There's even a drill that takes this over with a dull crunch, and there is no particular reason to take it over, but there is a drill. And you say, "Mock something up with the consideration that it happened ten thousand years ago. All right. Good." "Mock up something with a consideration that it is happening." And you'll get all sorts of weird time jumbles. He's making all the time there is, you see?
Female voice: And I was making a problem . . .
Right.
Female voice: . . . the pc.
All right.
Yes?
Male voice: I'd like to know if there's any definite way stop between Clear and OT.
Yes, yes. Obviously you would get your exteriorization mechanism popping up in there as a very forceful point, where the individual was exteriorized to a point where he didn't re-interiorize. In other words, he was untrappable. And it's a point that you had better call "untrappable," however, rather than "thetan exterior," because it's a consideration that he would have to make the consideration to be trapped in any event anyplace. And that is a way stop.
Male voice: Yeah.
Yes?
Male voice: Would you please explain the phenomena we come against in getting null objects? You ask the preclear for an object, he mocks it up, it's null. He looks at the facsimile, it's not null.
What's the phenomenon?
Male voice: That you're looking for a null object.
Yeah.
Male voice: If he mocks it up and tells you about it, it's null.
Right.
Male voice: He looks at a facsimile and tells you about it, it is definitely not null.
Yeah. Well, the facsimile is usually misowned and reassigned to the body. And the facsimile will change body densities, and mock-ups don't.
Male voice: Well, it — would you then, if he just mocked it up, accept it as a null object?
If he just mocked it up, you'd accept it as a null object? Yes. And up to the time when he got up to the point where he realized this facsimile was something he was mocking up, too. And it'd go blip, and that would be the end of that.
Male voice: I see, thank you.
You bet.
Yes?
Male voice: Would there be any possibility when you get up near that area of sort of cognition-fishing on this facsimile a bit, by having him pull up a facsimile and look at it and then do whatever he wants to with it, and then mock up a copy of the facsimile?
Yeah, you can do a lot of things. Now you're talking about grooming one up.
Male voice: Yeah.
You can run him — you can run him to a point of where he's null all over the darn meter, and you can be fairly sure in the next few weeks he'll blow Clear, see?
It's funny, they only have to be started about halfway and they start to go. It's a very — evidently a very difficult thing, as I've always said, to keep an aberration in place once you jiggle it.
Yes?
Male voice: Back to this Help business: I was getting this sort of feeling: when you receive help and get the feeling that you can't give help, that is quite aberrative, and . . .
Mm-hm.
Male voice:. . . would you care to discuss that a bit?
No, except that these imbalances in help are responsible for it, and are considerations of what help is: "Help is something that is given to the indigent," "When you are helpless you have to have help" — all of these considerations, you see?
Male voice: Like charity.
Yeah. Yeah. "Charity is help." These identifications of one kind or another. You get a clear view of this in the preclear, and he'll start rebalancing these things. But up to that time, that he has no — when he has no clear view of it at all, why, you'll get many imbalances, and it varies from preclear to preclear how it's imbalanced. That is to say, you'll have a preclear with a consideration that help is something he receives — that is all it is. It's not something he gives anybody. It's something he'd — be impossible for him to give anybody.
And you'll get somebody else with the consideration that help is something he gives, but it'd be impossible for him to get any. These are extreme considerations and these are imbalances in terms of flows. These are stuck flows; they obey the flow mechanisms and manifestations. So as you work this out, I'd say there are probably hundreds and hundreds of variations with regard to considerations of help. A thetan — what best thing he can do is consider, and one of the hottest things he can consider on is help.
Male voice: Yeah.
Right.
Male voice: You know something? I think there are a lot of people that just don't like L. Ron Hubbard because L. Ron Hubbard helps them and they can't help him, you know?
Well, I haven't met too many of these people. I've been spared to a large degree, of that difficulty. Mostly, I guess, because I don't go looking for them.
But anyhow, when it comes to these boys, they are, themselves, incapable of receiving help. And the manifestation which you're discussing I've already investigated in a couple of preclears who were very squirrelly, and their manifestation was simply this: It wasn't that they couldn't help me; it was that they couldn't receive help. And they usually only take off on this basis.
Casewise, they're pretty gummy. And they have a bad time of it casewise. And the whole fact of the case is that it would require a considerable impasse and a considerable upset if this basis of my being helped could not be established easily by them.
You see, it's the easiest thing in the world to help me. You see, there's nothing easier. That would be the easiest thing in the world — if a fellow could see it. You see, that's just nothing, because what I accept as help, you see, is any third dynamic activity.
I myself was running Help one day and I realized what would help me most at this moment — if somebody would simply become an able, bright leader in this government and run it. Now, that actually would help me like mad, for the excellent reason it wouldn't put me up against economic stresses all the time with regard to people and research and other things, and wouldn't get parts of my staff all outraged and upset and so forth, simply because they read the morning paper.
Now, this is not a highly personalized view of the matter, but it would directly — and I could show you mechanically and actually how it would be an enormous help, don't you see?
So actually, it helps me simply if a fellow does his job.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
And it's an interesting thing, you see? Of course it helps you, too, if somebody does his job, but I am factually enough first dynamic that I accept it as a personal favor very often.
Now, a person thinking that — a person thinking that could be cleared up very easily on this button. You say, well — he says, "It's not possible to help Ron Hubbard," see? He says that's not possible. Just have him dream up a way or two to do so, and all of a sudden he'd come up with the same damn consideration, you see?
Now, if he has a consideration that I have to have a broken leg before he can help me, he's liable to try to give me one. (laughter)
Yes?
Male voice: I was thinking about this thing, like in this country, the acceptance of charities used to be a very bad thing.
Yeah.
Male voice: And yet people used to be able to give and receive help much better.
Oh yes.
Male voice: Seems to be an inversion now . . .
Yes.
Male voice:. . . of this.
Yeah.
Male voice: The two are just opposite.
Well, charity is an accusation to some degree — or was to these people — but help wasn't. It's a symptom of a frontier society, however, that when you fall off a horse and break your leg and you go on lying there, and there's nobody going to turn up — just like space opera, you see, you're in the — such wide space that's not heavily populated, you do run into difficulties with no assistance. And this happens sufficiently often, and this follows the rules of havingness. In other words, consideration of help disappear — or changes — considerations of help change to the degree there isn't any or is some. In other words, scarcity and abundance monitor this thing called help. And a person who has a black field might get a black field just by the terrific scarcity of help, you see, all by itself. So it's monitored by that consideration of scarcity. But what you say about charity, that again is very true. But who defined charity, you see? "Charity is something that carries an insult with it."
Male voice: Well, the thing is nowadays if a person can wheedle something out of the government — you know, like beating them on the income taxes, something like that — it's all right. In a way, that's sort of charity but it seems that now everybody has the idea that they cannot help the government.
Oh, that's for true. The government seems to have made very sure of this. It will get individuated from the people sooner or later, having nothing to do with the Constitution or the things that make America, there will be a group here which becomes totally individuated on the basis of help. And they will neither help the people nor expect any help from the people and they'll think they have to fight the war all by themselves. When any regular can tell you that it's a good thing, when a war comes along, that he doesn't have to fight all of it. That's for sure.
Male voice: What are the mechanics of a problem collapsing on an individual when he solves the problem?
What are the what?
Male voice: Mechanics.
Mechanics of it?
Male voice: Yeah.
Well, the mechanics — evidently, that you're stuck with any alter-isness. It goes back to the Axioms. When you alter something you stick it. You see, it's no longer a pure creation, it's a changed creation, isn't it?
Therefore, an individual who is fighting against stuck things snaps on it. Now, the actual mechanic is that he brings it in to do something about it. To fix a clock, you take the clock in your hands, don't you? And you get a trained mechanism in a person that every time he solves something, he pulls it in on himself and he gets this going as an automaticity. And it is one of these automa, this is one of the automaticities which is taken over by "Mock it up and keep it from going away," you see? And . . .
Male voice: No, I don't see.
You don't see that?
Male voice: No.
Well, there is an experimental test which you should probably make with regard to it, and that is simply "Mock up a problem. Now give me a solution to that problem." This is on a preclear. "Mock up a problem." All right.
Now, you have him mock up the problem and ask him where it is, and he'll say, well, it's out there five feet away from him. And then you say, "All right. Solve the problem. Give me a solution to the problem." And you ask him where it is now, and he'll tell you that it's about three feet away from him. And you say, "Solve the problem" again, and he's got it — right here. See, he's got it. All right.
Now you say, "Mock up a problem of comparable magnitude to it," and it moves out three feet. "Mock up a problem of comparable magnitude to it," it goes out five feet. "Mock up a problem of comparable magnitude to it," and it goes phoof.
Now, the automaticity involved in this is simply his continuous pulling it in, in order to solve it. And he finally gets the consideration that it must be closer to solve it. It comes under the heading of control. People go into bodies to control them, you see, when they can no longer control them at a distance. This is the same mechanism. This is also taken over by "Mock it up and keep it from going away."
"Mock it up and push it into the body" — same — almost the same mechanism. Got it now?
Male voice: I don't quite see how the "keep it from going away" ties in with the other.
You don't?
Male voice: Mm.
Well, "Keep it from going away" had better be cleared with you as an auditing command. Now, that's no insult or anything of the sort, but maybe you are doing something else than keeping it from going away. Because the direction and vector is exactly the same.
Male voice: Oh.
They're exact parallels. I didn't mean to chop you.
Male voice: No.
All right.
Look — we've had it.
Female voice: Okay.
And you're about to run out of time. Your day must proceed.
Audience: Yeah. Yes.
To tell you this late in the date that help is a clearer for fields is excused only by this: your difficulty made me review a lot of records.
Male voice: Thank you.
Thank you.