All right. I want to talk to you about the Remedy of Havingness. Remedy of Havingness is one of the more important subjects which you will have to cope with in a preclear.

It could be said that if all we knew about the human mind was the Remedy of Havingness, and that's all we knew about the human mind, and that's all we knew how to process, we would know more than the Vedics, the Aesculapians, the faith healers of Christianity, the demon exorcists of the Middle Ages, Freudian analysis, psychologists, psychiatrists or medicine.

Now, I just want to give you the slight stress — I didn't want to over-rate this, you see — I wanted to give you the slight stress on this particular process.

Now, just because some new process comes along, you know, or because I happen to write something saying this and this happens with a preclear, does not mean that the Remedy of Havingness disappears as a process. In fact, I can tell you very, very bluntly and very frankly that there are seven things that are not going to disappear as a process.

And these seven are: two-way communication, Elementary Straightwire, Opening Procedure of 8-C, Opening Procedure by Duplication, Remedy of Havingness, Spotting Spots in Space and the Chart of Human Evaluation. And these are not going to vanish. These aren't something you're just looking at for a minute, and then going to be out of communication with at some time in the future. Every single process there is evolves one way or the other from these seven things.

Now, that's a very, very important thing, then, for you to know all of these processes. But amongst these is Remedy of Havingness. One of the reasons you have to know the Remedy of Havingness is to understand human behavior. That's just one reason you have to know it. Another reason you have to know the Remedy of Havingness is to be able to tell, in Scientology, why and what the awareness of awareness unit — the thetan — is trying to do or is doing, or how he feels when he's trying to exteriorize.

And havingness, as a subject, is the key to exteriorization. And havingness itself, as a subject, is a major key, if not the major key, to psychosomatic illness. Havingness, of course, is part of the scale Be, Do, Have.

Beingness is space. Doingness is energy. Havingness is matter. And we're here living on earth, which is a very solid planet. And we're associated with bodies, which are quite solid. And we deal every day with tools and vehicles and houses and other things which are quite solid, don't we?

Well now, how exactly do these things influence human behavior? Well, they influence it very, very intimately indeed. You are under a stress, by reason of havingness, of which you are very unaware consciously. You have been under this stress for so long that you pay no further attention to it. That's gravity.

Gravity is a manifestation of havingness. When you have a solidity, such as a planet, it itself is in continuous and continual terminal exchange with a body or another mass. And people get that on an unconscious level. They're not conscious of this at all. And they begin to dramatize it by having to have and wantingness. It's a flow, a terminal manifestation. And that is gravity.

So much mass is there that the mass itself attracts to it other masses — that's gravity. And that's also wantingness. That's appetite. That's why here on earth people eat people, animals eat people, people eat animals, all other kinds of manifestations.

I know three or four of those you don't think of as routine or ordinary. But that's merely because you live in a civilized part of earth where it is frowned upon — people eating people.

Sex, by the way, is simply a substitute for eatingness. It's the lower-scale substitute for eatingness. Oh, you wonder about that? Well, I advise you sometime to run a preclear on the basis of men eating women and women eating men. And he will have more ridge manifestations than any other technique I can call to mind right offhand.

So after a while they decided they would have something to put out which would continue into the future, and a big figure-figure took place and they got sex. But eatingness and gravity and havingness, and all of these other manifestations are very, very closely intimated, very intimate, one with another. They are very closely associated, and the manifestation which you normally see in a preclear is that of havingness.

Now, let's take up one of the manifestations of havingness, and we call it loss. You know, when somebody loses something he feels so very bad. You want to know what degradation is: Degradation is nothing more nor less than loss.

If you were to take somebody who was very accustomed to and subjected to gravity and put him out there in the sky a hundred-thousand miles, you would discover that he would be suffering from such tremendous degradation that he would be unable to remember where he was or to what body he be-longed. Now, we're talking now about the awareness of awareness unit, the thetan. If you were to put him hundred-thousand feet up in the sky — bing! — he would be so degraded he would not really know what body he belonged to or anything else. He would have no recall on the basis, unless you remedied his havingness with mock-ups, something of the sort, and then he would remember.

Well now, what would happen if you put a person in a rocket ship? He's in a body and he's in a rocket ship, and here he is, subjected to all this gravity, and he has this big mass of earth — this big planet — and you lit the fire to the rocket and he went out there at many G's acceleration and got way out into outer space. What do you suppose would happen to him, hm?

Very much the same thing as though you suddenly exteriorize somebody a hundred-thousand miles away from earth. See? Loss of mass would bring about a feeling of degradation.

Now, what would happen to a sailor who was fighting a war and he was on a battleship? And he was on this battleship, and a great many torpedoes hit it and it sank? Boom! He'd have immediate feeling of great degradation.

Now, what would happen if he were on a destroyer? Ah, it goes by ratio. He would not feel quite so degraded. And if he only lost a rowboat he would probably merely swear.

Now, what rationale is there behind this? What possible rationale lies behind this? There is no rationale behind this. There are no reasons why.

But a thetan can add a lot of reasons why to havingness. You see, he can add a lot of them. But the fact of the matter is, it is a problem in havingness.

Now, havingness works the reverse. We take somebody who is a hundred-thousand miles outside earth, and we take him and we just shove him down on earth, you see, and here he's subjected to all this gravity, and so forth. Very many things could happen to him. One of the things that could happen to him: he'd get a tremendous resurgence and he'd feel awfully good. But at the same time he could also feel awfully degraded.

Not the same feeling of degradation, however. He would feel glutted. Have you ever eaten too much? Feel torpid, stupid, sort of hypnotized? You ever felt that way from eating too much? Be the same thing if you took some-body out here, a hundred-thousand miles out, and you suddenly and immediately put him on the surface of a planet.

Now, havingness originally was the simple matter of mock-ups, and so forth, but this went into a further consideration, and havingness and impacts became very intimately connected. And so we have havingness and impacts being, to all intents and purposes, the same thing.

You go up and hit the wall and you will have some havingness. The havingness is the impact itself. Now, basically, the awareness of awareness unit does not need this impact and really does not want this impact. But after it's been given a few impacts then it has to have. See?

What's happened is its resistance has been overcome, so that when it tries to outflow, it inflows. That's an inversion, and that's what's meant by inversion: The person tries to outflow, he inflows. In other words, he exactly reverses his consideration on the thing.

Then, somebody has to have an impact. You say it's idiotic that some-body's driving out the road out here who just absolutely … Did you ever see anybody who was real hungry, or … you know, real hungry? If he saw a piece of food he would slaver at the mouth? There are people driving on this highway out here who are so hungry for impacts that they're actually quiveringly eager to smash something. It's just eager. Yeah, that's insane.

Well, they might be insane, but they're still licensed by state police all over the United States. They walked in; they give them a license to have impacts.

You see, at first they don't want impacts. They don't want them, don't want them, don't want them, don't want them. They'll start outflowing against them — rigid, rigid — and then that screen will get in closer and closer. They mustn't have this impact. They mustn't have this impact. They .. . oowwwmmm — apathy. "Well, I guess I'll have the impact." Now, at the same time the person starts to desire to have an impact, you get a shift of valence. Now, you know what a shift of valence is from Book One. That merely means taking on the identity of another mass. Taking on the identity of another mass is an inversion.

Here's an awareness of awareness unit, it is caught in a mass of energy. It's in a large mass of energy. After a little while it will begin to think of itself as energy. You run Beingness Processing on this person as an experimental process, and you will discover something quite curious. You will discover that the person believes himself to be the mass of energy. He believes it so implicitly and so thoroughly that no argument on your part could ever convince him otherwise.

Now, we ask him, "Be yourself. Be the energy mass. Be yourself. Be the energy mass. Be yourself. Be the energy mass." He is one thing after the other.

And the first thing you know, the most horrible feeling of apathy and degradation, and so forth, will come over him. He's just now gotten onto the Tone Scale! Just that moment got onto the Tone Scale, you see?

You're actually causing him to lose that mass of that trap, or that body or that energy mass, you see? But the manifestation is that he was the energy mass. Now, as we start to ask him to "Be the mass. Be yourself. Be the mass. Be yourself. Be the mass. Be yourself," the first thing you know, he's aware of it.

One of the curious things is as you start that process — as an experimental process — if you start that process, you get into this kind of a manifestation with the person: He will tell you, if you are processing him with Scientology, "You know, there's a thetan in here someplace? There is a thetan in here someplace. I just know that." And similarly, individuals who fight this idea of being an energy-space production unit — an awareness of awareness unit; a thetan, rather than a body — these people who fight the idea and say, "I am a body. I am a body," actually, if you processed them a little while, would start to tell you about some demon or something of this sort that was chasing them or that haunted them, or they had a thetan in the front of their forehead or in their stomach, or something like that. They're talking about themselves.

And if you were to run them on this process or other processes saying, "Be a body. Be yourself. Be a body. Be yourself. Be a body. Be yourself," the fellow would just say, "Well, I am being a body, so I'll be myself," and so on. He'll gradually start to differentiate.

First thing you know — wham! He becomes this demon or something or other that he claims has been haunting him, and boy, will he feel degraded.

Well, actually it's loss of mass that causes the degradation. You see? He shifted his identity, and he will go back — if you don't run it very long after-wards and run that on up the line — he will just suffer to go back and be that body, rather than to have that horrible feeling of degradation. Oh, he will suffer. That's a horrible feeling — degradation.

Until a person has been run through something like that they wouldn't have any idea of how degraded maybe some tramp or general or bum might possibly feel. By the way, just take a general, for instance. You take a general and detach him from his army. See? Loss of havingness, he immediately feels degraded.

This is so much the case, that we expect it as a normal course of human events that a great loss will immediately result in the person feeling he has failed — so that if you were to take something away from somebody suddenly, he would then tell you he had failed. He hadn't failed at all. He'd merely detached himself from a mass.

Now, he could go back and attach himself to that mass again, you see, and then he would not have failed.

Most thetans have the motto "Anything," in terms of havingness, "is bet-ter than nothing. Anything is better than nothing." As a result, you get such manifestations as the Freudian hoarding of excreta. You know, people will actually cache this stuff, and so forth. You get people who are terribly constipated. You get the fellow who cannot possibly empty his desk. You get the electrician whose entire workshop is completely littered with old, burned-out tubes and busted transformers and completely unworkable pieces of junk. But boy, it's there. It's mass, you see?

And we get a woman and her purse. Ever look into a woman's purse? Well, you'll see some interesting things.

Now, as a person starts to deteriorate, they begin to attach great importance to any havingness there is. And they will save little slips of paper, and get masses and masses and masses of paper. You know, they get as psychotic as General Electric. I imagine General Electric has files that go back to ten years before they began. And they save these little pieces of paper.

Now, one poor psychotic lady went so far one time to give to somebody a very precious despatch, which this other person trustingly sent on to me. "Well, this was for Ron," you see. And it was sent registered, special delivery. And it was insured for a very large sum, and when I got it out, it was old grocery receipts that had been scribbled all over — years old, you know. But it was this terribly valuable package, these pieces of paper, see, awfully valuable. Just a piece of mass.

Well now, what can a person have? This is the first question you ask of a preclear when you're processing him on havingness. You ask him, now, what could he really have? By the way, that isn't the process. I mean, the auditor simply looks at the preclear, you see, and he asks himself, "What could this person have?" Or he could even ask the preclear as a Straightwire question, "Now, what could you really have?" And the preclear will flounder along. And, by the way, a five-hour comm lag would not be extraordinary on this, and the individual will finally get down to realizing that he could have the shadow of an old inner tube. He couldn't have the inner tube. He could have the shadow of an inner tube.

And an auditor doesn't realize or recognize when he's processing most preclears that he's dealing with this sort of thing. He sees them sitting there. He's looking at all their social responses. He believes they can have a body. He believes that they can have possessions. Because they're wearing clothes, why, he thinks immediately they can have clothes, they can have shoes. Be-cause they drive a car, he thinks they can have a car.

Well, the funny part of it is, they can't have a car quite ordinarily. The car is going to pieces under them, and strange things are getting wrong with it. As far as their shoes are concerned, well, this is just social. We wear shoes. They would actually not either be happier or unhappier if they were suddenly to lose their shoes, but they might not be anywhere near as concerned as you would think, because they're not their shoes. Everything they have, every identity that they possess, all their possessions, and so forth, are really kind of foggily somebody else's.

Now, the police, by the way, are always trying to take possession of people's bodies. As any race of demons operating in a civilization will do, they're always body hungry. And they try to find reasons why they can take people's bodies and do things with them, you see.

And you think, by the way, there's a big rationale to the operation of police — there isn't. There isn't. They go according to certain laws and people frown on them if they step too wide. But they want to put bodies into closed cubicles or into electric chairs, or something. But they want to possess or own these bodies. And it's just a matter of mass.

Now, speaking of the less respected strata of society — here we have an admiral. Here we have an admiral, and we set him up, and we do the unfortunate thing of appointing him to head a naval base. This naval base was getting along all right. It was doing all right. Maybe the country was at war, and something of the sort, and this admiral gets in charge of this naval base.

Now honest, he won't send any ships out of there. Every ship that comes in stays there, you see. You say in the war this couldn't happen; not when they need ships on the high seas to fight submarines and all that sort of thing.

No. No. They will accumulate ships, for instance, like little yachts from private yachtsmen — this admiral will. And he'll accumulate those, and he'll rig them up, you know, and put a naval flag on them which means they're owned. And then they sit there in the harbor. And they're heavily manned — men, you know, mass. And the next thing you know, why, you start transfer-ring drafts and they're for retransfers to ships. And you find out that you just can't get them retransferred to ships.

And you can't get ships dispatched out of that area. In other words, it's getting a bigger and bigger lump. Well, you'll discover after a while that this naval base has to have additional land in this direction and additional docks in that direction, and additional anchorages out that way and more warehouses down that way to house more things in there that won't be issued either.

Now, trying to get something out of the admiral's supply officer becomes almost impossible. So, it is the routine thing that combat ships coming into that area — they recognize this — they have to bribe or steal what they need to go on and fight the war.

I have seen an admiral seated in this capacity accumulate to himself a thousand seamen first class, when there was such a scarcity of ships at sea fighting a war, that it was hardly possible to find anybody to steer. Now, a seaman first class is able to steer. They'd send you apprentice seamen, or something of this sort, or seamen second class. But you say, "Where are all of the seamen first class?" And I saw an example of this one time. Seamen first class had been ordered to this base, you see, with this admiral in charge, and he, of course, had accumulated them. And then he couldn't let them go.

And he had them there sweeping a dry dock. There was one dry dock, and he used a thousand seamen first class to keep it swept. It had to be swept every couple, three weeks when new ships went in, you see. Very important.

Look at their offices. First they hire somebody to expedite their des-patches, and then this person has to have a secretary, and then that secretary has to have secretaries, and then there have to be other departments. And now there are more departments and havingness, havingness, havingness, accumulative. And the more mass there is, the less outflow.

Now, how many ships, airplanes, space wagons, bodies, and so forth, do you suppose have left the surface of earth in the last ten days and gone out into outer space? Hm? Well, there just haven't been any, have there?

This is called gravity. When it gets that big it gets a dignified name called gravity. When it's a little kid wanting a sucker, it's called selfishness or greediness. No essential difference between these two things.

All right. Our psycho sits there on the couch. You want this psycho to discharge the charge out of one lock, see? Their husband brought them in, you see, and there they sit. And you say, "Well, this . . . get the idea of your husband bringing you in this morning." Oh, no you don't! Nope! That lock won't discharge. They can remember it, but it's solid. Their memory is solid. They can't have anything else, so they can have engrams, so they can have blackness, so they can have locks. And these things are held to them by this same manifestation which you might call gravity. They have become very solid.

And you try to get them, by straight recall and Elementary Straight-wire, to release one lock — "a time that you really wouldn't mind forgetting" — and this person is just … They can remember it. But it doesn't release. And this is what used to drive Dianeticists mad.

This fellow could run an engram and he could run it and he could run it and he could run it, but it never desensitized. The answer to that was havingness. His havingness was very low. He had lost too much in life, and he couldn't give up a memory.

Worse than that, there sits that psycho and you ask the psycho, "Would you hand me your . . ." Let's be very unsmart, and say, "Well, hand me your purse."

"Hm-mm." Right straight up to her chest, clutch, clutch, clutch, see. There's an old Kleenex in it. So you as an auditor say to her, "Well, how about giving me that old, used, secondhand Kleenex?"

"Ho-oh, no!" I've seen an auditor work at this for an hour, and finally get the person to trust the purse — which was being clutched in this fashion — to trust the purse down alongside of the couch; in other words, let it out of her hands so that she could snatch it. But no further distance than that.

Well, all right. There is acquisitiveness. There is havingness. There is a person compulsively and completely holding on to engrams, locks, black masses, screens, all these other manifestations that we know about through auditing in Dianetics. Here's this person holding on to it. And you think you are going to get this person to give up an aberration or an idea or a psychosis or anything of the sort? Oh, no. They're just going to grip-grip-grip-grip-grip tighter and tighter and tighter.

Now, they will invert — you think that's bad — they will invert so that they obsessively cannot have anything near them. You get the inversion and a reinversion and a reinversion. When they pull out to reach, they actually pull in.

Well, that will invert to a point where they obsessively push away. And you will find somebody who is quite mad throwing … You'll find these lighter manifestations of the bank in sane people, but in mad people it's quite obvious. This person, if you dressed him, would throw his clothes away from him. You see, he'd throw everything away from him.

Now, this person also is liable to obsessively exteriorize. And because the psychiatrist has seen this occur, he knows exteriorization is an insanity. It's a manifestation of "psychiatric paranoia schizaboola." Actually, the person isn't exteriorizing at all. The person is just obsessively fighting away from the body and doesn't want any contact with it — really is not outside with perception, which is what we call exteriorization.

Well, in Dianetics you will see somebody, then, doing this trick to you as an auditor. This is the other side of the picture. This is unhavingness, see. And you sit down to audit them, and they just start throwing engrams at you — zoom-zoom-zoom-zoom!

You start to run an engram and you get at the beginning of birth, you know, and "All right. Now, let's take up what the doctor said." But they're running an incident two years old. "Well? No, let's take up birth." Now it's a prenatal. Now, we start in to run birth again. Now it's a sixteen-year-old incident they're running. See what they're doing?

Now, watch that other manifestation. This is the "throwaway" case. They're just all over the bank, just obsessively "I've got to get rid of this. I've got to get rid of that. I've got to shove this off. I've got to get rid of the other one." Now, you'll get cases that have these two things in sort of combination. They will shift. At one time they've got to grab everything to their chest, and the next time, you do anything about it, they're going to throw everything at you, see.

They will even go so far as to pick up things and throw them at you in the auditing room. The other person will take things of yours with them when they leave the auditing session.

Now, to a person whose havingness is in poor condition, a word becomes a precious object — a word is an object; a symbol is solid. When a person does not have sufficient havingness and has a craving for havingness, symbols be-come solid. That's why engramic commands have such a terrific force upon such people. They're preserving and holding every word that comes their way.

Somebody walks down the street to them and says, "How are you?" Well now, as you know about as-isness, as-ising things erases them. This person, then, in order to possess this thing, can't look at the salutation "How are you?" They have to do this. They hold "How are you?" to their bosom, and then they don't look at this. They look beyond it, under it, on the back side of it, something of the sort. "What did he mean when he said 'How are you?' " In Latin countries, and amongst Californians where you have very hot sun, it wouldn't matter what you did — if you picked up a fork alongside of your plate and put something in your mouth, there would be somebody in the restaurant wondering what was the deep significance of this. See, their obsessive havingness is such that they just can't look at anything. Because if they looked at something directly and straightly, it would erase, you under-stand, and then they wouldn't have it. So, their way of keeping these things and holding them and not letting them erase is to always say they are some-thing else.

Now, you say to this person "How are you?" And this person, then, has something else as his primary motive in dealing with you. You say, "How are you?" and he will want to know why you were asking him that. You see, what deep motive is there?

Now, let's tack this onto cause and effect and discover that all he's really trying to do is find basic, original cause (which is never attainable), or find basic, last effect (which, again, is never attainable).

And so when he goes to deal in researches in the field of the mind, he wants to know the reason why all of this universe came into existence. He wants to know from what it stems.

He's not interested in getting well or anything of the sort. All he does is inquire as to what was the expression on God's face when he first made Manhattan — it's beside the point. You'll see these people around. They're doing this with everything. Nothing is as it is. There is no as-isness to existence at all.

Now, you ask this person in Opening Procedure of 8-C, "Touch that wall," and his concept of the wall is that there's something else there, really. And you ask him to touch a wall and finally after he's done this many times and many hours, he finally discovers, by touching various walls and objects, that it is what it is — a wall. That's all you are trying to teach him.

You're getting him over this idea of trying to avoid as-ising everything. This person is low on havingness. Almost any human being there is will get into this sort of a condition. Sooner or later, he will lose something, he will feel that something is irreparable to him, and after that he feels he can't have things of that order but can have things of a lower order.

This is acceptance level I give you. In one of the PABs — acceptance level. They're a very, very good thing for an auditor to know. His acceptance level deteriorates. He can't have the better things, he can have the worse things. And then amongst these worse things, he can't have the better of the worse things, you see. And he only can have worse things than that, and so we get a dwindling spiral to where somebody will actually associate with the lowest dregs of humanity and would not associate with somebody who was in pretty good shape.

Now, they see something beautiful, they try to make nothing out of it. That's because they can't have it, you see? They say, "Oh, no, I don't know. That's . . . uh . . . mm … Something wrong with it." Now, if you were to go down, and you were to buy the best-looking suit and the best-looking tie and the finest-looking car — you were to dress your-self up looking real good — you would drive most of the people you ran into immediately afterwards into a sort of a shuddering fit, because you've con-fronted them with things they can't have.

But their expression is not a conscious expression. Their expression is simply, "I've got to get rid of this somehow. See, I've got to cut this down somehow." And they'll find something wrong with your haircut, your suit and your car.

Now, if you were to drive up to these same people in an old, broken-down jalopy, wearing old, stained clothes with your hair shaggy, and so forth, they'd say, "My friend!" You're acceptable to them.

Now, to Daddy and Mama, who never gave any interest to the healthy child, but always hovered over the sick one, we have a child convinced that he cannot have good health. The only thing he can have is ill health. So that interest actually lies as a background music to this.

All right. Let's take up some of the factors involved in this, and we find the Scale of Substitutes. When a person loses something he can only have a substitute for it. I'm not going to read you this Scale of Substitutes now, be-cause it is lying right in front of you in the printed edition of the Auditor's Handbook, and toward the end of the processing section there, under "loss," you discover the Scale of Substitutes. And it's a very interesting scale. It's not terribly important to you, but it just demonstrates to you what are these different kinds of cases you're looking at.

Well, the kind of case is what the person is substituting for. That's just what he's using as a substitute.

All right. There's the Hide to Curiosity Scale. Now, this is one of the more important discoveries of Scientology. And this is quite, quite vital that you know. The Scale of Substitutes, that's merely interesting. But this one you've got to know.

Did you ever hear of the DEI Scale? Desire, enforce, inhibit. It goes, actually: curiosity; a person is curious about something, and then he desires that something, and then his desire is enforced and then his desire for it is inhibited. You see that?

In other words, he desires it, he has to have it, he can't have it — desire, enforce, inhibit. That scale continues downward, and these two scales, which were previously considered two scales, are actually only one scale. There is another scale, and it goes (bottom up) hide, protect, own. Now, you know that scale. That's the subzero Tone Scale.

The DEI Scale joins the subzero Tone Scale so that you get a scale that goes like this: Hide, Protect, Own, Inhibit, Enforce, Desire, Curious About. And that is the scale.

Now, it's an odd thing that these two scales that stood independently so long actually belong together, one below the other. And I'll repeat that scale for you again. It's Hide at the bottom, then Protect, then Own, then Inhibit, and then Enforce, and then Desire, and of course at the top of that we would have Curious About. And this is the Scale of Havingness.

Curious about what? Curious about an object. Enforcing what? Enforcing an object, in havingness. Could be a flow, too. That would be in the doingness part of this. And we're studying havingness right now as the more important manifestation. And then, we would have Inhibit — can't have it.

In other words, anytime you enforce somebody into having something — you force him to have this thing — he sooner or later will find that he or you will inhibit his havingness.

And after that we have to have ownership. That's "decide who owns it." You see, now we have to have ownership. Up to that time ownership was not vital. But now, we can lay deed of title to these things. We could say, "That's your shirt, and these are my shoes," you see. And then we don't get into this desire, enforce, inhibit. You don't have to wear my shoes and I'm not inhibited from wearing your shirt. We've just settled the whole thing: You own your shirt and I own my shoes.

And now, after a person no longer can own, he has to start protecting. Now, wait a minute. Below Own you get Protect? You certainly do. You don't really protect something that you really own. You just have it, it's yours to use.

But then you become worried about it. And you own it, but now you've got "protect it," too. And so you've got a tie that you like real well and here is what happens, eventually, to that tie. You like this tie and then your father or somebody takes it out of the closet and wears it. And you come up to him and you say, "Look, that's my tie. Now, I … That's my tie," you see?

You've gone out of just hinting that he shouldn't wear it, you see, and into "That's my tie. I own that tie, and you're not to wear it." Okay. You're at a party. You're at a party and a girl spills some wine on it or something of the sort, you know. So you decide "I'll kind of wear it like this, you know, and stick it back into the shirt." You're protecting that tie now, and now you find out, when you put it in the closet — just so your father won't get it and wear it again, you see … You've failed to really establish any of your points all the way down the line. This is the clue of this. You never do establish any of these points. You put it at the back of the closet, not with the rest of your ties — that's to protect it. The motive was to protect it. But you have hid it.

It is now hidden. And the first thing you know, you don't wear that tie at all. You'll protect it to the degree that you have hidden it utterly. And it'll do nothing but stay in the closet. And twenty-five years later, when they're assembling your effects to send them home to your fifth wife, somebody'll run across this tie.

And he'll say, "What do you know? A tie!" Curious, you know, "What's that thing? Well, I guess I'll keep it. I'll wear it. I'll wear the tie." And the fellow wears the tie, and then somebody says, "You know, that is a lousy looking tie," and so on.

"Well, I am going to wear this tie whether you like it or not!" See, he wears it anyhow. And his wife doesn't like it or something. And she keeps nagging at him, you know. Finally, he says, "Now, look. It's my tie and if I want to wear it, I will." And somehow or other, inexplicably, this tie gets lost for a week. She loses it for him. So, it's protected now. And the next person who got the tie put it in the drawer and it's hidden again.

Twenty-five years after that, when somebody is sending his effects home to his eighth wife, why, somebody finds this tie.

We can assume that this was a cast-iron tie to have lasted this long, but that's the way things go. And that is the history of an object. And that is therefore the history of havingness. And this is the dwindling spiral of havingness. We look over this and we will understand an awful lot about what people are doing.

All right. Let's get into Expanded Gita. You've got that in the printed edition of your Auditor's Handbook under SOP 8, Step IV. You should know that step; you know that step real well.

But there's more today, to Expanded Gita. We apply this whole scale that I've just told you about, to Expanded Gita. And we will specialize — specialize on most people when they're having a difficult time with something — to find hidden manifestations of it. And when their communication lag comes off on this … You know, they're lacking in cars, let's say — they can't have cars: "Point out, find some hidden cars." You know, point them out, point them out, point them out. Pretty soon their communication lag will get flat.

All right. "Now let's look over some protected cars," you know. And they point these out and point these out and point these out and point these out. And their comm lag comes off of that.

"Let's look over some owned cars." Point these out, point these out, point these out. Communication lag comes off of that. Now we'll have to get into some inhibited cars. And we point those out and point those out and point those out and point those out; the comm lag comes off of that.

Now, some enforced cars; and we point those out, until the comm lag comes off of that. Some desired cars — well, it really isn't necessary to run it then; he'll want a car. But you could run it further, and he would even run out his curiosity about cars.

What we are doing is improving his consideration. Any process which does this, by the way, is a process known as Improving One's Consideration. That is the name of that type of processing. You merely have him point out things or remember things, each time better than the last, until he's as-ised from the bottom up to the top, and his consideration is free. That's how you get out of a trap: You better your consideration about the trap.

All right. Mock-ups and engrams are also a problem of havingness. And when you take the Scientology edition of Self Analysis, or take the old Dianetic edition of Self Analysis, and convert it by telling people to mock these things up called for on the list … See, rather than ask them to recall it, just every time you find the word recall in Self Analysis — the Dianetic edition, you see — anytime you find the word recall in those lists, just substitute the word mock up and you've converted the whole edition. There's no further trick than that.

And you just ask him to mock these things up and mock these things up — some interesting things will occur if you just did that. But there would be a better way to go about it. You ask him to mock this thing up which is called for there, and then pull it in on himself. Mock them up and pull them in, and mock them up and pull them in, and mock them up and pull them in, and mock them up and pull them in, and mock them up and pull them in.

And what do you think flies off the case? Engrams! Well, how could en-grams fly off if you simply pulled in mock-ups? It's because it's a problem in mass. It's not a problem in consideration; it's a problem in mass! Now, get that straight? It's a problem in mass.

Any time you think in terms of havingness, for heaven's sakes, think of it as a problem in mass, not a problem in reasons. The guy's got reasons to justify the fact that he has or doesn't have. But the main thing is the mass. And reasons or no reasons, there's the mass.

So, we get this process, then, supplanting actually the held-in-suspension engrams. Why are these engrams in suspension? It's because they are pictures taken of the environment by putting out a flood of energy against the environment and getting a print at moments of loss. A fellow outfloods at the environment. The cells, you know — they admire; they try to surrender; they say, "Look, I'll be good." And they take a picture of their assailant. You know, they're trying to resist it and they put up that much energy, and so forth, and they get a picture. They get a motion picture. And this, you could say, gets filed.

Now, that is a protest against havingness. Every time you get one of these things, which is a protest against loss or a protest against havingness — either way … Protest against loss, by the way, is a tractor effect. They take pictures backwards. You see that? They try to pull things back to them, and they get a print of the other side.

They'll hold on to these things, because each one of them was held on to at the moment of loss or acquisition of something undesirable. And so here these things are.

And that's an engram in its basic fundamentals. The cells still keep on taking pictures after the analytical mind goes out. And you get these masses of pictures, and havingness itself encysts. You see, the fellow begins to believe he wants. And he actually pulls in upon himself the most undesirable considerations, simply because he has to have that mass.

And he pulls that mass in on himself and he holds it to himself, and so he gets Fac Ones and he gets anything you can think of in restimulation there, because he's pulled these masses in on him.

Now, if you want to run out somebody's havingness, let's exhaust en-grams, exhaust engrams, exhaust engrams off a case. Don't be surprised if they're getting harder and harder to exhaust. Because you're reducing somebody's havingness by exhausting those engrams, you see? You're erasing them.

And therefore, the erasure of engrams is limited as a process. What limits it? It's because you run out of the bank just so much energy, and the individual will then begin to seize large masses of energy and hold them in. And he'll hold them stronger and he'll hold more of them.

That's why, obviously, every time that we have done a lot of erasure on somebody in the current lifetime, we would get past-life engrams. Inevitable, wasn't it? See, he had to remedy his havingness somehow. So the easy way to do it was not to create anything, but was simply to pull in the old stuff on himself — not to get new pictures, but to pull in the old pictures. And so he started doing this.

And he was doing that. He was using this set of pictures. But the basic use of all this, if you want to understand a service facsimile, is simply to have. And that's the total explanation.

Now, you run Remedy of Havingness on this individual and we get the most interesting release of engrams you've ever wanted to see in your life. Honest, it's quite remarkable to see somebody who has been audited for a long time suddenly have engrams that are half or all erased (he thinks) flying away from him, caving in, disappearing. You're remedying the havingness.

How do you remedy havingness? You could remedy it two ways. If a per-son had too much, you could have them throw things away. You know, the dispersal characters? Well, you just have him mock up things and throw them away and mock them up and throw them away, and the first thing you know, he'll stabilize. He no longer does it obsessively.

That's remedying havingness. That's why we don't call it "grabbing on to havingness" or "pulling in energy" or "pulling in masses" or "adding mass." We don't call it any of those things. We call it "remedying havingness." One of the remedies of havingness is throw something away. And the other side is to pull something in. So you'll get a preclear on either side of this.

You would ask him to mock up something and throw it away, and mock up something and throw it away. Or you would ask him to mock up some-thing and pull it in on himself.

What do we mean by himself? His body, of course, at first, and then as a thetan, something else.

Now, he very often, if he's one of these "reason why" fellows, has to have a big reason why. So he has to have substance and reason and meaning in the mock-ups he makes. He'll get over that after a short time.

Another manifestation of Remedy of Havingness is simply this: the starting of avalanches. And you must know something about this. You have the fellow mock up a small planet, or something of the sort, or a grain of dust, and he pulls it in on himself. See? He mocks it up and pulls it in. "And mock up another one. Pull it in. Mock up another one. Pull it in. Mock up another one. Pull it in."

"Now, can you mock up a pebble? Mock up a pebble. Pull it in. Pebble. Pull it in. Can you mock up a rock?"

"Yeah."

"Rock, and pull it in. Is it good and dense?"

"Well, it's fair."

"Mock up a rock and pull it in. Mock up a rock and pull it in. Now do you suppose you could mock up a small satellite?"

"Oh, yes, there's one."

"All right. Why don't you mock up a couple of those at a time and pull them in. You do that?"

"Sure. Sure."

"Now, let's start mocking up a planet." Black planets, by the way, work wonderfully well. Boy, when you run into a black planet, you really know it. You see, the reason a black star or a black planet is black, is because the energy which it is emanating goes out just so far and then its own gravity pulls it back in on itself. So, of course, the light doesn't escape, so you don't see it. If photons hit it they'd stay there. That's a black planet.

All right, you'd have him pull some of these in. You pull a … "Mock up another black planet and pull it in. And mock up another black planet and pull it in." Don't be surprised if all of a sudden, with a tremendous roar, the whole heavens start to fall in on this fellow. Planets, stars, moons — anything you could think of — just start coming in with a roar.

What do you do in a case like that? Just have him add to the mass coming in. Have him add to it, as he can. You know, just add to it and bring it in faster and add to it and bring it in faster. An avalanche may last an hour — may not happen at all. It may last an hour; it may last three days — just roar.

Well, what will happen while that avalanche is roaring? You've broken through some kind of a resistance, and the resistance now is being drunk up by the inflow. And engrams will appear — the time his mother slapped him, and so forth, will appear. If you were to stop while you were running a Remedy of Havingness on somebody to treat an engram, oh, you've just missed the whole point of havingness. See?

All right, all of a sudden you've got this avalanche started on this pre-clear, and boy, those engrams are flying off like mad in all directions. And suddenly here's this big facsimile of his big brother about to choke him. The facsimile is right in front of his face, and maybe it's the first one he ever saw and is he upset about this, you see?

The auditor who would process that would be in direct disobedience to the Auditor's Code, where it says: Just because the preclear changed the auditor shouldn't change.

Pull in some more planets and you'll see that whole facsimile blow. It will actually disintegrate. It's mass will no longer be so precious that it will be held to the preclear. See that?

Now, there can be an outflowing avalanche, too, and those things'll sometimes start going obsessively. And they'll just run and run and run and run and run. Let them run. Only have the preclear add to them, add to them, add to them.

The general law back of all auditing — now get this — general law back of all auditing: Make the preclear do what is happening. Whatever's happening, make the preclear do it.

You know, he's got a whirling dervish dancing in front of his face. Make him put another whirling dervish there, or make the same one dance.

And you say, "But I can't control it at all." Well, every once in a while, every few ticks, make his left leg jerk while he's dancing. And the first thing you know, he'll make both legs jerk. And the next thing you know, he's got the whole dervish under his control.

Getting something under control, then, is merely accomplished by having the preclear do it. It's a very important piece of auditing.

All right. So we start an avalanche, you have the preclear do it. See, an avalanche starts — inward or outward — you have the preclear do it.

Now, the basic auditing commands of the Remedy of Havingness are simply this: "Put something out in front of you." "Get a mock-up of something." Now, you don't care how thin it is, how unsubstantial, how unreal. Certainty has no place in the Remedy of Havingness. Remember that. This is one place where it has no place.

Because things get real and unreal and back and forth while you're remedying havingness on a preclear — no certainty involved in it at all. You say, "Get a mock-up out in front of you. Get some kind of an energy mass. Mock up one" — any command of that character. "All right. Now take that and pull it in on yourself. You say you can't do that? Well, can you take that and throw it away? Oh, you can? Well, mock up another one and throw it away. Mock up another one and throw it away. Mock up another one and throw it away. Mock up another one, and another one, and another one, another one, another one, another one, another one." The guy says, "You know, I'm feeling better." He's gotten rid of some of them. Or, if it went in on him, mock up something . . . It didn't matter what, see. He may want to mock up something very significant. You as an auditor know that it doesn't matter a damn what he mocks up. Density and mass are the only thing you want.

But, in order to make life more palatable for him or something of the sort, you will permit him to add significance to it. So you will permit him to mock up his mother or a cash register or something, and pull it in on himself. Pull it in the other way, you know — pull it in, pull it in, pull it in, pull it in, pull it in. Mock it up. Pull it in. Mock it up. Pull it in. You don't care whether it flies in automatically or not. Don't depend on an automaticity in auditing anyway. Have him mock it up and pull it in, mock it up and pull it in. Now have him mock up two and pull them in, two and pull them in, or two and throw them away — see, whichever one he was doing, outflow or inflow — two.

Now, let's see if he can get real hot. Make it four. Now, if you're going to make it four, make him put it up in the corners, in the shape of the corners of a box. Because now you've got space starting there, see. So, the top corners of the box would be the first four, and you want him to get those other four in there, too, so that you get eight corners to this box. And preferably, you want these eight corners, each one equidistant from him, so he's in the center of the box. And having mocked them up, you pull them in. Have him mock them up and pull them in. Mock them up and pull them in. Mock them up and pull them in.

And that is really the only way you remedy havingness on somebody when he's exteriorized. You simply have him put up . . . Build him up to a point where he can put up eight anchor points — eight masses, eight black planets, eight anything — and pull them in. Put them up and pull them in. Put them up and pull them in. And your thetan, when he does not have any havingness at all, gets very unhappy indeed. He gets unhappy. So you remedy that unhappiness and you'll be all set.

Now, very often, some of the cases you will audit will become cheerless, unhappy, upset and so forth. If they do get upset, you as the auditor — one way or the other, or no matter how unwittingly — have upset their havingness. So remedy some havingness.

Now, you use this step anytime — anytime, any place. Doesn't matter where. But it goes along with the next one you have, which is Spotting Spots in Space.

Now, Elementary Straightwire or any kind of Straightwire is actually remedying havingness to some slight degree. By remembering these things he frees energy masses. You see that?

Your talking to him remedies his havingness. You're there, aren't you? You're in communication with him, aren't you? Well, therefore, you're a part of his havingness at the moment you are talking to him.

The reason people won't talk to other people is because they don't want to unlatch that much havingness — you know, get rid of that word. A word would be a very valuable thing.

Now, the difference is scarcity and abundance. There is a scarcity of things, there's an abundance of things. But how does something get valuable? The mechanics of something becoming valuable are the mechanics of it getting scarce. When you see something that is valuable, you will have to assume immediately that it is scarce; that it got valuable because it became scarce. The way to make it unvaluable would be to remedy the havingness about it.

Supposing this fellow was in love, he was desperately in love — just unconquerably, horribly "bashed in the head" on the subject. "The only girl in the world," he will tell you. That makes her real scarce, doesn't it? Have him mock this girl up and remedy his havingness with her. You know? Mock her up. Remedy his havingness. Mock her up. Remedy his havingness. Mock her up. Remedy his havingness.

He'd say, "Yeah, she's a nice girl. I've always had nice girls." Mock her up. Remedy his havingness. Mock her up. Remedy his havingness. Mock up eight of her. Remedy his havingness with her. See? The next thing you know, he can take her or leave her alone.

"Oh," you say, "we mustn't do such things as completely upset love affairs and families." Well, whether you know it or not, you will. In the wake of Dianetics and Scientology there are a lot of broken marriages, which never should have been consummated in the first place.

We bring people up the line to a point where they can fight, and then they get divorced. Okay. I don't say that divorce is an inevitable consequence of being processed. As a matter of fact, twice as many people have settled into a happy married state through processing as have blown up the other way.

But marriage is an unstable situation. You take dynamite like Dianetics or Scientology and throw it at it and God knows what is going to occur.

All right. We look this over and we find out there's one other fact that you have to know about this, and that's overt acts and motivators. When a person does something, he puts some energy out, he expects the energy back. So when he does something bad, he expects something bad to happen to him, doesn't he? That's simply under the heading of Remedy of Havingness. See that? Overt-act — motivator sequence.

Now, we have flows and terminals. When you set up two terminals, they will discharge one against the other. We already have mentioned that. And we have this process, "Two things can't occupy the same space."

"What wouldn't you mind occupying your same space — the same space you are occupying?" is a tremendous process, and actually boosts a person out of having to have havingness. Very important process. It's in the printed edition of your Handbook. A very, very important process, because this is the background of havingness.

Havingness can only exist as long as two things can't occupy the same space. Havingness is the antithesis of affinity. You see where affinity is? Now, we already talked about affinity. Let's fit that into havingness.

Significance and problems, of course, are secondary, really, to havingness — really are. But there can get such a scarcity of problems that your pre-clear, who can only have problems and can't have objects — look at your Scale of Substitutes — your preclear who can only have problems and can't have objects or even mock-ups or engrams, and so forth, won't let go of a problem unless his havingness in terms of problems is remedied. So this goes into havingness, too, doesn't it?

Now, this is a big subject. It's a big process. It doesn't matter how real or unreal the objects are that you use to remedy havingness. I have done some very fantastic and wonderful things with this process. And every auditor around here has done some wonderful things with this process.

Some of the strangest and goofiest things have happened to people on the Remedy of Havingness. And what do you think is happening to somebody who's just got to have a body, who's just got to have a body, and so forth? He's just got a scarcity of bodies, that's all. The person that won't exteriorize has too great a scarcity of bodies.

Okay? Well, I hope you know all about it now.