Two-way communication: This is the most basic process that we have. And this process of course underlies all auditing of whatever kind. For in-stance, it is a two-way communication difficulty when you, an awareness of awareness unit, direct your body to lift its leg and it doesn't. That's an immediate breakdown of a two-way communication.

Well, what about the leg telling you that it can't be lifted? Well, it not only doesn't lift, but it doesn't tell you why it can't be lifted. Doesn't give you a communication back at all. That would give you a one-way communication, wouldn't it?

Immediately you'd have a difficulty. First there would be this difficulty in communication — not two-way communication — of now your leg not moving when you told it to move, and the other difficulty of your leg not saying why it can't move.

These difficulties would be immediate and manifest, and would lead people to believe, who have been giving their body orders for a long, long time, that a body cannot talk and does not have ideas. A body does talk and does have ideas, if they are only circuitry ideas, if the speech is only circuitry speech.

So anxious is the individual to have two-way communication, that he will mock up somebody to talk with him. You'll see a child do this. A child will go out and mock up strange playmates. Thirty years later we discover this individual having trouble with a demon. If we're not auditors, we don't connect the two experiences. If we're auditors, we know what happened: he set up a circuit and then it closed terminals with him.

Now, in view of the fact that the thetan can create another thetan and give it life, don't be too surprised if, on a much lower scale than this, he can simply set up some sort of a machine that will talk back at him, that apparently has a separate life and intelligence. I refer you to circuitry, demon circuitry, in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. There's quite a discussion of demons there.

So here is your preclear, as an awareness of awareness unit, having a difficulty in communicating with the body — one of his primary difficulties, he quite often communicates with a body verbally; he tells it what to do, and so forth — and having difficulty trying to get answers back from the body, and so forth. This is a very involved situation, and it is about as low as you can get. You will find it in all preclears of whatever kind. In all preclears this will be discovered. But it is uniformly discovered in the very psychotic.

The very psychotic are in such a two-way communication with demons and devils and things that go boomp in the night that they have no time to talk to you as a human being, another human being. Now, their proper target in conversation and communication is, of course, another living being. This is their proper target. And they no longer use this as a proper target.

Does this mean that they are no longer trying to communicate? No, it does not. It means simply that they are in communication with things usually of their own creation, and a suborder creation, such as a machine or a circuit, and their body and they are in a conversation. No matter how one-sided or two-way or otherwise, you have a complete communication setup, to-tally alive, on a very, very condensed basis.

Everything to which the psychotic is communicating is so close in that you yourself cannot observe it. We validated this to some extent in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health with flash answers. We had something that we called — and it always operates in a preclear but is just a circuit — we had something called the "file clerk." You remember the file clerk? Well, that is a circuit. Everybody has this circuit.

But it is a low order of circuit. A person who is getting into good condition, or even vaguely coming up toward optimum or Clear, is going to pass this point of a file clerk. He's no longer going to ask himself questions and get answers. The confusion is that he believes these things are himself simply because he created them. Let's not confuse the awareness of awareness unit with the products of the awareness of awareness unit.

Now, every time a thetan goes into communication with a product, he is asking for a slight difficulty, because this product is not going to be able to perfectly duplicate the thetan, or it would be nothing. Now, a thetan can of course simply mock up another thetan. All right, fine. There's another chess player there. Somebody to play games with. That's all right. And this would be all right unless he gave it form or he himself had form. You see, here would be a difficulty. The thetan, believing that he is a form — a body — is trying to communicate with a nothingness which he has mocked up. And this would be a very difficult thing for him to do, because it would have to follow that the communication formula in any communication has to be obeyed.

Now, what is this terrifically important thing, this communication formula? It is cause, distance, effect, with duplication at effect of what emanated from cause. Cause, distance, effect, with a duplication at effect of what emanated from cause. And with the intention of getting some attention. Duplication must occur.

So a thetan talking to something is always going to get into difficulty of one kind or another since a thetan is nothing. And something talking to nothing is always going to get into difficulty.

But what's going to happen? A duplication is going to be attempted of one kind or another. Now, let's say the somethingness is cause. It's cause as far as intention is concerned, and it is trying to talk to a nothingness. Well, in order to talk to this nothingness adequately, it will believe that it itself had better mock itself up as something that can be duplicated — a nothingness.

So here you have a person being a body, talking to God, or talking to a demon or a spirit which he conceives to have a nothingness of form, while he himself has form. He would have to then — he would feel, to get into an adequate communication to God or a spirit or something of the sort — be, himself

(a somethingness), nothing. This body in trying to talk to God would have to mock itself up some way so that it could be better received by a nothingness, which means it would have to degrade itself toward nothingness.

It's quite one thing, you see, to be an awareness of awareness unit, exteriorized — quite one thing. It'd be quite something else to believe that you were utterly a somethingness, a body, and try to communicate with a nothingness. If you did that you would cave in. You would have to go around and tell everybody what a sinner you were. You would have to rush around madly and convince everybody how degraded you were. And you would have to dress poorly and have no money and crawl in the gutters of life. That's the way they do it. They start communicating with a nothingness out there and in-stead of becoming ennobled, these people who believe that they themselves are a somethingness become degraded.

Similarly, an auditor who is dead in his head, trying to communicate and drill an exteriorized preclear, is up against the identical communication difficulty, and will himself try to degrade, one way or another, his physical beingness — make nothing out of anything he has — in order to continue this communication.

An auditor not exteriorized, then, is to some slight degree asking for it in processing somebody who is exteriorized. And he will counteract eventually, and he will react badly against this, and he will say, "Look, I am really just processing that body that's sitting in the chair across from me. It's too painful to reduce myself to the nothingness necessary to get a perfect communication through to this so-called exteriorized person. So of course he can't be exteriorized; he isn't really there. In fact, I can prove it to him with very little difficulty that he really is not exteriorized. And if I invalidate him hard enough and fast enough, then I will be in the optimum position, as far as I'm concerned, of processing a body." And auditors quite commonly process people to their exact case level. This is simply a problem in duplication and a two-way communication. He's trying to make it easier.

Therefore, an auditor very often will process out of the preclear what should have been processed out of the auditor. And a demonstration on a couple of E-Meters will show you rather clearly that wherever you have had a co-auditing team failure, it was where the auditor was running what should have been run out of him, out of the preclear. We'll put the auditor on one E-Meter, and the preclear on another E-Meter, and then just go over the things run by this auditor formerly upon this preclear; and do you know that you'll get a big jar on the needle out of each one of these items, on the auditor's E-Meter, but none out of the preclear's E-Meter.

It isn't that you have done a transfer there, it is simply the individual knows what is wrong with the world because this is what is wrong with him. This is quite common. It is so common that the manifestation has defeated uniformly all former endeavors to solve the problem of life.

You have Nietzsche with his terrific fixation on superman and all that sort of thing. Nietzsche was trying to philosophize to the rest of the world everything that was wrong with Nietzsche. And it didn't happen to fit the rest of the world.

And we have old "Skip-Skop-Skopenhauer" with a tremendous command of how we must all lie down and die. Well, Schopenhauer merely wanted to lie down and die. And he said this is the way you went about it: You just defeat all life; the way to defeat all life is simply to die yourself. Don't procreate.

This is clearly represented, not as an isolated idea, but as the central motif of his philosophy and is represented in his publication The Will and Idea.

Now, here is a case of somebody who was quite aberrated and unable to get a clear view of things, trying to tell the rest of the world what is wrong with it, when we find that is what is wrong with him. So we very often find Papa raising the devil with his son because his son cannot save money, be-cause he's indigent, because he can't keep a job.

Who is "can't save money, indigent and can't keep a job"? Papa! That's the one. Two-way communication problem, isn't it? Papa's trying to mock himself up while he's being cause so that he will be received as an effect.

So we very often find people running around, oh, having an enormously impressive time, convincing people how immoral they are. Don't look! Don't look very close at that person. Don't pick up a slight layer on top of that person's secrecy screen and look in. I can demonstrate to you on every vice squad more vice than there is in the rest of any city — every time.

Beware of your reformer who says the rest of the world is evil and he's trying to reform it. The person he's tried to reform basically was himself, and having tried to reform himself, failed, and thus had to reform others.

All right. In view of the fact that to a very marked degree we started out on Dianetics and Scientology on a synthetic, totally synthetic study .. . Here was nuclear physics on one side and mysticism on the other side, and they were both very interesting subjects. Both of these subjects were interested in seeing how far we have to look in order to find a solution to this situation.

Nowhere up the line, actually, is everything being condemned as being bad. As a matter of fact, there is a premise in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, very early in it: "Man's basically good," it says. Yes, he is; he's basically good. But he has certainly been convinced long enough and of-ten enough that he's bad, and other people have tried to convince him long enough and often enough that he's gotten into a terrific smear-in on the subject. Bad, bad, bad; it's bad over there; it's bad over somewhere else.

Until you can get an individual to make the postulate that something is harmful, nothing can happen to him. Remember this: Nothing can happen to an individual until you can get him to make the postulate that something is harmful.

Auditing never is and never will be anything else but a game. As a method of getting along in the world, it's optimum. It is something that is interpreted as a tremendously, tremendously serious activity. It can be a sincere activity without being a tremendously serious activity, can't it?

Men want to be processed and get upscale to being something better, right? Okay. Let's put them up there. Do they have to be up there? No. There-fore, it becomes an amusing game. And only if tackled in that bracket, just as the research itself was done, can an auditor be totally free, even though auditing.

Two-way communication difficulty would not enter in if he understood what communication he was trying to put through to the preclear. If he understood this, he would then not have to mock up horrible things one way or the other to try to communicate back and forth with the preclear.

I want to make myself very clear on this. Auditing is not a serious down-to-the-grave effort to reform the world because it is bad and evil. That is not the goal of auditing. It's a game, and a very interesting game — very, very interesting — particularly since the end product of the game is to make far more able players.

And as a person comes up Tone Scale, he finds himself confronted by an insufficient quantity of able players. This is a fabulous thing. It is one of the roughest problem l that any coach ever had in trying to teach and play foot-ball: not enough good players. And if he has an excellent team, he runs into the next problem: not enough excellent teams to play.

There was some football team a few years ago down in Texas or some other foreign country, and this football team was so good that nobody would play this football team. It just dropped out of all leagues everywhere. Nobody would match a game with it. I think they won consistently and continually every game played for a long time.

Better known is a basketball team that consisted of some boys who were about six foot eight or something, and they had to recruit another team similar to themselves and simply go around the country playing exhibitions. Why? Because nobody would engage in a game with them. They always won. Fantastic scores: 180 to nothing, and so forth, just continually. Nobody even cared to look at these games. I mean, nobody could possibly even make a showing in the face of such expertness.

Well, their main problem was the fact that they couldn't have a game. And they couldn't have a game because there were insufficiently able players.

And if you've got everybody sitting around in beautiful sadness believing utterly and completely that life is an unhappy and dolorous affair and that it's all bad over there every place, just try and get him interested in a game of marbles. He'll play a game of corpses with you. He'll play many other kinds of games with you, such as "Let's all sit down and weep." That's a game too, you know: "Let's all sit here and cry." That's a Russian game. "Let's all go down in the basement and be morbid so we can be happy." But it's hardly the kind of game that anybody wants to play as he comes upscale and gets into action. As soon as you're able to move around rather freely through this universe, you will start to look around rather in vain for players. But there is this hope for you.

So auditing does have this serious side of it: There is this hope that you will process a bunch of people here and now — and maybe on another planet or two — and you'll process some of these people, and they'll come way up Tone Scale and they will do fine; they'll have a good understanding of life.

And then while you're doing this you will maybe forget who you've processed, or they will exteriorize and get a different body or something of the sort. And one day you will run into a very able player that will really put you on your mettle. And you'll say, "My goodness, where could this fellow possibly have-come from? I didn't have anything to do with this. Why, look at this game he's playing here!" Get the idea?

Along that strata, there is a slight seriousness: lack of a game. But if we had broadly any intention, all across the boards, of simply reforming every human being because he's so evil and bad, I wouldn't be here talking to you. That's a game that you and I played out a long time ago. And that game's really dead.

That's the Christian era — early Christian era. We, I'm sure, convinced the entire Roman Empire it was so evil it finally caved in and after that wouldn't even build a gold palace. It'd build them out of mud or something.

The point I'm making here is that a game comes down toward the end of game, and along about that time, somebody's got to come along and pick it up again. Well, a game is essentially a problem in two-way communications.

All right. There you are, you see, and you're doing all right in life, really; you're walking around. And you talk to Joe the banker, and Joe the banker is saying — 1.5, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5.

Well now, there are two ways in which you could communicate to Joe the banker: Either with total knowingness — see, you'd just know what a 1.5 is and what he'll listen to, and in total knowingness you 1.5 at him. Oh, and boy, are you in communication! Or you obsessively are influenced by his communication and you turn 1.5ish simply because you're talking to a 1.5. In other words, you could do it knowingly or unknowingly. You start doing it unknowingly, and you're in trouble. That's restimulation.

Doing something unknowingly is restimulation. What is restimulation? Doing something unwittingly, unknowingly and without any understanding of what you're doing. That's a restimulation — no matter whether it's because of engrams or anything else. It might be just because of the communication itself.

Somebody 1.5's at you, and you don't have any engram bank on the subject of 1.5, and you all of a sudden 1.5 back to him, see? You just unknowingly, unwittingly do this because of the pressure of that. But you look at him and understand what he's doing, you understand clear across the boards what this man's reactions will be — that itself becomes an amusing game.

Anybody who knows can make putty out of anybody who doesn't know. And that in itself is one of the games. You fix it up so nobody knows, except you, see. And then everybody's real stupid and then you make putty out of all of them. And that game will continue for some little while, till all of a sudden you come to your senses and realize there aren't any players involved. You might as well have done a bunch of mock-ups of your own and pushed them around in the first place. See what a silly game that would be? It's a game that ends itself.

Maybe such a game was played around earth here. Maybe such a game was played here. And if such a game were played, then one would start looking in vain for any able leader throughout the society. This could happen you know. But it'd be a problem in two-way communication again.

A game is essentially a problem in two-way communication, whether it's two football teams passing a ball one to the other, and lining up in formations and butting each other down, or whether or not it's the pitcher and the catcher and the batter. No matter what these are, these are two-way communications, except some communications are more solid than others. That'd be a nice wisecrack for you to remember if you're ever hit by a bullet: "Some communications are more solid than others." There is no real, essential difference. The person who fired the bullet, unwittingly, as he raised his gun — to communicate to you perfectly — would have found you standing there with your gun raised to fire at him, see. That would have been a close duplication. And, as such, soldiers don't feel very bad about shooting at soldiers.

But you take an army and have it start beating up on the civil populace and you find out you have a very unwilling sort of an army. They have to become something else. They have to become police or something. And they very often do not take it at all, because there's no duplication involved.

So the next thing you know, the army obviously, in trying to control a civil populace, has the right answer: it throws the entire civil populace into a militarism. The way to do this is declare war on some other country. And then the police force, being army, has army it can go into contact with within and without the country.

You will find people uniformly trying to solve all their difficulties, one way or the other, by attempting either a duplication of themselves or trying to duplicate that with which they're going into communication. No greater simplicity can be uttered on the subject, and that simplicity is a very true simplicity.

They're trying to solve any communication problem they have, either by getting whatever they're communicating to, to duplicate them, or by mocking themselves up to duplicate whatever they're communicating to.

You see, a cause-point, well knowing what it was communicating toward, could mock itself up as something like the effect-point. Thetans are very good at this.

For instance, if you ever were to influence the Vatican, it would be very wrong to go in there in the shape of the devil. You would have to go in in some other form, you see? And a good mock-up would be to go in as the Virgin Mary — preferably one of the Virgin Marys they have painted around the place.

Now, there's an essential difficulty in this because you have an intention and a consideration always messing up the duplication. And that's the only additive thing that you could put on it.

Any thetan is liable to mess things up in a communication line by adding a few new considerations to the line. Such is a thetan, an awareness of awareness unit's avidity for a fight on low scales, that if you were to show up mocked up as the pope, you would discover yourself with a fight. The existing pope would fight you if you were to mock yourself up almost exactly as him.

Why would he do this? Well, that's the lower ranges of the scale, and he has found the exact opponent.

People on the lower ranges do not assume brotherhood because of a complete duplication. They assume that they have another player. The basis of the thing is a game, not a brotherhood. And people just go all out for a knockdown, drag-out, yank-'em-down-to-the-goal-post sort of game the second that they get somebody who is an exact duplication. Now, I didn't say a perfect duplication — an exact duplication.

Two-way communication, then, is a curious thing. Something that you could well investigate. It's a fantastic sort of a thing — trying to get some-thing on the order of a duplication at effect. And the whole problem of the thetan is to get a duplication at effect of whatever he's putting into the line at cause. And that's his problems, and that categorizes the basic problem that he faces.

All right, two-way communication is. all well and good, as theory, and we could talk about it for a long time and say many extravagant things concerning it, but it does come down to these basic laws — the formula of communication: Cause, distance, effect, with an intention to have attention, which of course enters in our figures of interest. You know? Interested is at cause; interesting is at effect. A lot of other descriptive conditions can be, but the basic formula is cause, distance, effect, with a duplication at effect of that which emanated from cause.

Now, in order to effect a duplication at effect, cause will very often mock itself up to be close to what it wants duplicated at effect, having recognized that effect is limited in its ability to assume new forms. So you talk to a 1.5 banker, you could mock yourself up as a 1.5 — better a 1.6 — and you would discover that you were in communication with this individual, because you had already assumed the principle and primary ingredient in the communication line which he could echo to. But in view of the fact that he cannot freely change his position on the Tone Scale, it is up to you, knowingly, to of course shift yours if you want a communication. This is an interesting thing. Salesmen do this all the time without all this technical verbiage. Only, if they really knew what they were doing, they'd stop messing themselves up.

After a fellow has sold for a long time with a very unclear idea of what he's doing, he starts to go downhill. He's just mocked himself up as too many different people, you see, and he didn't really know he was trying to. He was just sincerely trying to sell and trying to be understood and it's all kind of foggy. And he winds up one day as nobody being everybody, or something.

Well, we look over two-way communication and we discover that if this is underlying all auditing, we discover that it is the most basic process there is. Well, how many types of communication could there be? Well, I remember I told you some communications are more solid than others. Therefore, you could have manual, tactile, olfactory, thermal communications. You could have verbal communications or communications of form — all kinds of communications.

Now remember, the total definition of communication is cause, distance, effect, with a duplication at effect of what was at cause. We didn't describe the particle or the message or the going-down-the-line, did we? Hm? Well, that is what is variable. And it has enormous variation, because it varies to the degree that there can be an intention. You could have all kinds of intentions for this duplication to take place. And there could be as many intentions as there could be postulates — which is a great many.

So there could be all kinds of messages, but how are these messages proceeding? They are proceeding from cause, distance, effect with a duplication at effect of what emanated from cause. That's the basic picture of the message and the basic intention of the message, is to create an effect.

All right. We look over some preclear; we find out one of the most salient things about him, the most obvious thing about him — whatever preclear it is; any preclear — will be his communication lag. Why "lag"?

Well, he has as much lag proportional to the amount of vias and relays he has on his communication line. That is his amount of lag. That's the exact amount of lag.

And therefore, a person will require time to digest, understand and re-turn a communication. The amount of time required is his communication lag. A communication lag is the amount of time necessary or intervening between a question and the exact answer to the question.

Now, that's a one-way shot, isn't it? But it has to go into two-way form of some degree, because he's going to use words. And he's going to say back the answer. Well now, does it matter what intervenes and fills that time? Remember, it's the question; the exact answer to that question is the back-turn, see? — the question and the exact answer to it. You follow me? This is all that's important.

Now, therefore, a great deal of outflow, agitation, diversion, cross-questioning, muddlement, stupidity, ignorance or even silence could be the intervening factor. But as you process people you will find their communication lag changes. If the process is effective it will discover a long communication lag, and then discover the communication lag flattening and then the communication lag becoming almost zero. And you've taken just that many vias and relays out of this person's communication line.

Here you have a person who is supposed to be, and really should be, outside of a body to communicate — or to communicate well with the body. And to be outside the body would be thetan (a nothingness, you see), distance to the body, effect (the body, see) — cause, distance, effect.

Now, the thetan can mock himself up as, or simply assume that, he is being the body every time he orders it to do something. And he can effect a perfectly reliable, completely booby-trap-proof communication system. He'll say, "When I order this thing around, I'm a body." That doesn't mean he has to be in the body, you see? He just assumes he has the same form of the body and the body'll obey. But he has to do this knowingly, he can't do this unknowingly, the way he's doing it.

All right. We're trying to string a straight line. That's why we call Straightwire, Straightwire. We're trying to string a straight line from the thetan, a viewpoint of dimension, to a destination. And we're trying to string this as one line.

Now, the trouble with a person who can't exteriorize is he is not at cause-point. You see, he's at a number of relay points, and he's buttered around, and when he puts an order into the body it goes through here and there and over to there, then transfers at this point and then switches back at that point. And a person gets to a point where he no longer conceives him-self capable of being cause, because he never seems to be able to get at the cause-point of a communication line. So he thinks he's taking orders from the right and orders from the left and orders from behind and orders from before.

So having mocked up a great many of these demon circuits, he himself will take orders from these demon circuits or even let these demon circuits handle and run the body. He's no longer at cause. He doesn't know who is doing this. And one thing a preclear who's having a tough time will tell you is they don't know who's doing this. The way to test this is run Opening Procedure 8-C and introduce this interesting little line: "Who's doing that?" you ask him every once in a while. The real bad-off ones will say, "Well, my finger did it." And somebody else will say, "My arm did it." And somebody else will say, "My body did it." And when they really come out of the mire they will simply say to you with complete certainty and recognition, "I did it." See, other things did it.

All right. I've even had preclears look at me and say, "Well, you did it." They touched the wall, you see, and you say, "Who touched the wall?" and they say, "You did." This guy, you know, he includes the whole environment into his circuitry.

All right. When we're dealing with a two-way communication system, we should be aware of the fact that it has liabilities when nothingness tries to communicate with somethingness, or when somethingness tries to communicate with nothingness, see. These are liabilities on that line. Nothingness most easily communicates with nothingness, naturally, because of the duplication factor. Somethingness most easily communicates with somethingness. So again, we have the same communication factor. Duplication is native in the somethingness or the nothingness of the situation. Right?

Okay. No matter how many times our preclear has communicated, or with what he's communicated or how he's communicated, his difficulty to-tally sums up into this something-and-nothing difficulty with communication. It isn't a progressive difficulty; it's just something he has to know.

And knowing this, why, he is then capable of carrying it forward. This is something he has to know. He has to know that he has to assume that he's an ant in order to communicate with ants. But he also has to know that he's assuming that he is. In that way you can make a perfect communication to an ant.

I've made ants jump two, three inches straight off the ground, and also blown them apart, by assuming I was an ant blowing up or I was an ant jumping off the ground, or something like this, you see — without being an ant, and having no mass or form. I simply assumed mass and form, which assumption was perfectly adequate to control an ant.

Now, if you as an individual were to assume that you're a body — willfully and knowingly, assume you were a body — you would then be able to communicate much better to a body. Particularly, if you knew you weren't a body.

It isn't as involved as it sounds. You just knowingly assume. You know you're not, so you assume momentarily that you are a body, and then you communicate with it, and of course you can do wonders. The person who can't exteriorize is somebody who is obsessively assuming that he is a body, not knowingly assuming it. See, he's obsessively assuming that he is a body. And having assumed obsessively that he is a body, naturally, how can he possibly get out of it if he is it?

And this is the proposition which you offer somebody who doesn't exteriorize easily. How can he get out if he's it? "Get out of it? What is to get out of it? You mean my body gets out of the body? You know two things can't occupy the same space," and a lot of other chitter-chat.

Well, let's go further on this two-way communication. Is there a specific process just involved in two-way communication? Well, if two-way communication underlies all other processes, would there be a process right there with two-way communication and no more? Yes, there'd be a technical, mechanical process. It would simply be: exercise out of existence the communication lag between you and the other person in your common conversation. That would be it. You just knock flat the communication lag by insisting on an answer to what you said.

Now, on an elementary form of this would be you say Götterdammerung and the preclear says Götterdammerung. And you say Götterdammerung and the preclear says Götterdammerung. A relatively senseless word; not likely to restimulate anybody but Wagner — who committed the overt act. And so we would get this bouncing back and forth; you'd have the fellow in communication, wouldn't you?

Now, on a little bit higher level, you could say, "What's your name?" And the person would say, "My name is Jones." That's fine.

You'd say, "Well, how old are you?" And he'd say … Don't ask a lady this. If they're over six, why, they're sensitive about their ages. You say, "How old are you?" "Where do you live?" And they answer these questions, and you go back to the first part and say, "What's your name?" They say, "Name's Jones."

"How old are you?" And they say, "Eighteen." And you say, "Well, where do you live?" And they say, "664 Hellcat Avenue." And they'll look a little puzzled about that a moment, and you say, "Well, what's your name?" And they say, "Jones. Jones! Jones is my name." And you say, "Well, how old are you?" And the fellow will say, "Well, I'm eighteen."

And, "Well, where do you live?" Is he really duplicating?

Now, you see, that is a slight twist on the communication line, you see. To answer the question is a slight twist. You got that? That's not a perfect duplication, is it? But yet, that's communication lag.

Now, somebody who is sane — this should represent something to you terrifically — somebody who is sane, who is all right, can very easily do this, see. He can carry on a conversation and be just as happy as a clam for hours at a time, and he's never saying the same thing, he's never really duplicating what you're saying at all. You can go on and carry on this conversation with all sorts of complexities.

So it isn't just duplication; it's the ability to be able to duplicate and do something else. But that's way, way, way higher than most people can go. They've got circuits set up. When you say, "What's your name?" They say, "Jones." You say, "What is your full and complete name, including your middle name?" And they say, "Oh . . . uhm … Do you have to have that?" You think they're sensitive about their full and complete name. This isn't true at all. You've just stopped talking to a circuit at that moment and you asked the guy, and it — nobody asks him what his full and complete name, including his middle name, is. See, he's either Lawrence O. Jones … But to tell somebody he's Lawrence Oswald Jones is something else.

Once in a while somebody who's been in the service will say, "Jones, Lawrence Oswald." He's happy to do this because he's done this before and he's got a machine set up to keep him from doing this duplication.

And that is really the total purpose of a machine: to keep somebody from doing duplication. That is the total purpose of a circuit: to keep some-body from duplicating. This is the total purpose of a body: to keep a thetan from duplicating. This is the total purpose of a wall: to keep somebody from duplicating. And this is space. The total purpose of space is antipathetic. It's to make it possible for somebody to duplicate. Space makes it possible for this type of duplication to take place.

All right. So a person has as little space as he has machines. Go further: He has as little space as he has possessions. Space makes duplication possible, you see. Machines are there so he won't have to duplicate. See, he sets them up so the machines will duplicate, and they'll do things, you know, and he doesn't have to. This therefore doesn't engage his attention, and does other things. It's a way to keep it from getting attention.

Well, all right. We'd say on a very low level then that simple, simple, very elementary, simple duplication would be an indicated process, wouldn't it? Now, it could go both ways and still be therapeutic.

Now, I've run this on a monkey. I won't tell you about the monkey I ran it on. But a fellow who filmed the Dennis Roosevelt expedition in Africa told me this very, very amusing story. Because every morning a baboon would come up to the edge of the clearing where he had a hut there. And the baboon would squat down and raise one hand like this, you see, and then would go like this to wave his hand. And this photographer would be sitting there editing something or doing something with his equipment, and so forth. Every morning, you see, just before the photographer went out on safari this would happen. It kept on happening because the baboon obviously found it so terribly therapeutic to be able to motion at something that was vaguely similar to him, you see, and not have that thing run away or attack him. And so the baboon would make this motion. And the photographer would turn around and raise his hand the same way and go like this to wave to the baboon, see.

And they developed an enormous friendship over this whole thing. Back and forth they were having this busy communication system. And one day the photographer was very impatient and very upset because he was having to go out much earlier than usual, so when the baboon showed up he simply waved his hand at him for the baboon to go away. And the baboon just got raging mad, rushed over to the tent, picked up the guy's camera and busted it into smithereens and dashed off into the brush and that was the last he ever saw of him. Broke the Auditor's Code.

Well, you could say that actually a transfer of intelligence and knowingness had been taking place along this line. Certainly, certainly could have happened.

Now, old Frieda Fromm-Reichmann — "the great" Frieda Fromm-Reichmann — has a process which is intensely successful. If she knew where to go from there she would be a great psychiatrist. She is the greatest in the United States, in the world almost today, but that doesn't make her a very great psychiatrist.

Anyway, Frieda Fromm-Reichmann will go into the cell with a madman who is standing there gibbering and raging, and if he will reach down and pick up a handful of excreta and throw it against the wall, why, Frieda Fromm-Reichmann — this dear old lady — will suddenly reach down, pick up a handful of excreta and throw it against the wall. Anything the psycho does, she'll do. And they all of a sudden start talking to her. Isn't this peculiar?

Then, God help her, she goes on and uses analysis. There's the effective process! Not just to get somebody in communication. Any time you think that two-way communication as a process is simply to get somebody into communication, you're going to forget that the rest of your processing is basically two-way communication all the way through. And any other significance added to the line whatsoever is simply froth added to an already frosted cake. See this? So we're just adding something more.

So basically, fundamentally, two-way communication is the most important auditing area. Most auditors, if they fail, fail in the field of two-way communication because they forget this. They deliver their communications mechanically, disinterestedly, they forget about the duplication, and so forth.

I ran a preclear out, one time, of coming in to the beginning of every session and going over how bad he felt and how bad auditing made him feel, and everything else. He walked in one afternoon, walked in the front door, and says, "I'm . . ." — just starting out — and I said, "I feel terrible. Auditing you has just about ruined me. Every time I audit you I feel worse, and you're not doing me any good, and I don't know why I'm letting you come here...." And I just laid him out, practically in the same tones of voice. And the fellow — apathy. So I simply laid him out, and I said, "Every time I audit you I feel worse …" I went through the same dramatization again. "(Sigh.)" Real apathy. So I went through the same dramatization again, and I went through the same dramatization again. And all of a sudden he started to cry.

Now, we know the Tone Scale. It starts with apathy and goes up to grief. Next step would be fear. Most people would think that we were just violating the Auditor's Code across the boards and caving him in, see. So I went through it, all the way through again, and the guy started to look like he was scared, and then before I got through the dramatization he was angry with me, and he got antagonistic with me, and he started to yap at me rationally for the first time on an antagonistic line — instead of just a dramatization and then sit still like a little doll and do the process, you see.

I don't know what circuit I was processing with that preclear. Never found out, because it blew along about this point. I got him up, pushed him on through boredbm simply by running his chronic dramatization. I reversed it just to this degree: How bad auditing him made me feel — and this after six consecutive sessions where an individual had walked in and told you, "After being audited by you, I just feel terrible. I don't think I can go on. Last night I almost killed myself …" almost the same words, you see. He had just dubbed in auditing into the engram he was using as a dramatization record — and quite non sequitur. I reversed the tables on him. Not a recommended process, but just demonstrating what you could do with just two-way communication as a process.

Now, I've had a preclear sit, and they had a habit of tapping the arm of the chair. And I would start tapping the arm of the chair. You understand, I get very rough preclears. I don't get any of these cream-easy ones. They never come my way. It's almost like being the famous Western gunman, you know; he's got to be better than everybody else that shows up. Well, he only gets the tough boys in the area. Similarly, I only get the tough cases.

So, this dramatization on the part of the preclear who had been out of communication, I started to echo. And this preclear got very nervous and up-set because I was echoing this. You know, I just tapped the arm of the chair. So they stopped. So I stopped. We were apparently going on talking, but I was evidently talking to a circuit or something. Because the actual attention of the individual started to center on me and my hand to see whether or not I'd start that again. And they tapped a couple of times experimentally just like with the monkey. And I tapped a couple of times experimentally. And then I tapped three times, and they obsessively tapped three times.

So I said, "What do you know! We've done a lot of talking, all of it non sequitur. This person disassociated badly. And what do you know! For the first time we're in communication." We went through, then, all sorts of idiotic motions. I stepped on their toes three times very lightly, and they stepped on my toes three times very lightly. And we went round and round a chair and so forth. And this wild, insane light started to show up in this individual's eyes. And it went on out. It went on out, and they started talking, and that night ran a terrific fever.

This would scare an auditor who didn't know these types of manifestations: ran this terrific fever, and smelled like he was dead — according to his wife. And they actually do this sometimes. There's an odor of fear that comes off a preclear once in a while. Horrible. And also the glee of insanity. You can see it shine on somebody's face. It's really something interesting. Anyway, ran a terrific fever, and went into this horrible odor stage and terror, and the next day, for the first time really reported for the session with alacrity and speed, although in horrible condition, and so on.

And I just went on, and we went round and round the chair again, and round and round the sofa. And then we took a Ping-Pong ball and tossed it back and forth between us, and so forth. And then I'd wave my right hand and then wave my left hand, and they'd wave their right hand and wave their left hand, and we'd do this several times. Then they'd start bobbing their head … Just as monkeyshines as you possibly could think of, but it was all two-way communication, and it was all duplication, every bit of it. This per-son came right on out of a psychosis.

An auditor can actually sit there and repeat the words of an engram enough times over to run it out of the preclear. Not, again, a good technique, because it's too rough — just like this other technique was too rough for this psycho. It was too rough to go into two-way communication over a long period of time, but it did break the psychosis.

So, round and round you go with a two-way communication. But which-ever way you look at it, you are looking at the primary difficulty of the individual.

Now, communication lag as you could see, in its most perfect form, would simply be how long it took the other person to wave after you waved, see? But in verbal speech amongst relatively sane people, you can measure two things with a communication lag. One, whether or not they can sanely rationalize and assume the cause-point in order to emanate a new communication at you, you see. That's their answer, you see. That's a new communication. Al-though it's sequitur to your question, they have received and duplicated your question. They didn't say so; they didn't do it physically, you see. But then, they were at cause-point, and now at cause-point they put the answer back on the line. And you with your ears and recording mechanisms duplicate it, you see.

So a two-way communication lag is a direct measure of this. But as I say, optimumly, the length of time it took you to get them to raise and wave their right hand after you had waved and raised your left hand, you see, making a mirror duplicate, would be the optimum definition of communication lag.

Now, all you would actually have to do to use this as a process, well it's simply just keep on asking the preclear questions, and making sure that you never ask a new question until the old one had been precisely answered. Just keep at it, puppy to the root; drum away, drill away, see.

You say, "What is your name?"

"Well, I don't know, I made one of those out for your secretary. Uh .. . there's an enrollment here, you know, and so forth. I mean, an application. I . . . I … I did make one of these out, and I gave you my name, you know, in the letter. The letter which I sent you some days ago, I think my husband [wife] wrote you this letter. And your name … the name was in that too. And you also have the name in your files because I've received several of your . . . of . . . of letters from you when you've sent out circulars in the immediate area."

"What is your name?"

"Well, as I just said, I just gave you the name, you know? I mean, after all, I mean it's … you . . . you have it all around here and so forth. If you didn't know my name you wouldn't be sitting there processing me, would you?"

"What is your name?"

"(Sigh) I uh … I . . . I just told you. It's in the files. And . . . and you .. . (sigh)"

Just watch them. They'll start heaving sighs, and groaning and moaning. Now, these sighs, these groanings, these moanings, and all the rest of the thing that goes along with it — you, as Homo sapiens would consider this is the way Homo sapiens acts. These are his peculiarities of actions, his explanations, his justifications, and everything like that. Every one of them is simply a communication lag of one kind or another.

You finally say to him, "What is your name?" He says, "My name's George. (Sigh!)" You'd be surprised how fantastically relieved he will be when he finally gives you his name. And what would you do then? You've only asked the question once and gotten one answer. And it took you fifteen minutes to get that answer. What is the communication lag at that time? Just because you had to repeat the question several times to keep his attention back to it does not shorten the communication lag, does it?

All right. So the fifteen-minute period there was the communication lag from the time the question was asked, to when it was answered. So naturally, you'd simply ask his name again. And this'd start driving him out of his mind, because he can't duplicate.

The first thing, the most immediate thing he'll tell you — "I just told you! I just told you my name. What's the matter? George is a common name .. . uh … and so forth." He didn't answer you, see. "George is a common name," he said. He didn't tell you his name was George.

You say, "What's your name?" Finally he says, "(Sigh!) George Palmer." You say, "Good! Fine. Fine." (Keep affinity in that line, you know?) "Fine. Fine. What is your name?"

"Nooooh! But I've just given you my name, and you had it in the files and letters and leaflets, and it's all in waoo . . . My name is George Palmer!" "What's your name? Come on, what's your name?"

"(Sigh!) I just told you!" You say, "Well, what is it? What's your name?"

"(Sigh!) George Palmer." Finally stack it down by doing this. And you will watch him come up every manifestation of the Tone Scale. You'll see him dive out of the machine-social position on the Tone Scale, straight down to apathy, the second he starts to cross over from a machine to himself.

And then he starts going in through apathy. He'll go up through higher ranges of apathy, and he'll hit grief. He'll hit fear, he'll hit anger. He'll hit antagonism, he'll hit boredom, he'll hit enthusiasm. He'll hit apathy — lighter this time. And then jumping upscale and missing a few, anger, enthusiasm. You'll watch him go over that. Each time they go over, it's shortening. And finally you'll get into communication with him.

I've taken a very, very tough preclear who was unwilling to give me any computation or anything else except, "You know, my father abused me so much and everything abused me so much, and I felt . . ." And I would say, "Well, what did you think specifically that we ought to do today?"

" … and my father abused me so much and (sigh!). It's just terrible. I mean, he used to beat me, had sexual intercourse with me when I was four or five years old, you know, and I think that's a terrible thing for a person like that to do, don't you?" And you say, "Well, what can we accomplish here today?"

"Well, I just want to tell you about my father … and he's terrible, and . . ." and so on.

Actually, this is so chronic in psychotic and neurotic people that psycho-analysis had to make a complete fetish out of it. They got beaten into apathy themselves to a point where they would simply go back into apathy and let the preclear talk.

Psychoanalysis, if it lasts two years or ten, is one long communication lag. It's nothing but a communication lag on the part of the preclear. You could shorten that up simply by asking the same question many times.

Now, there's a duplication drill that could be carried out amongst individuals. Duplication drill (would be a very, very good one) whereas you, talking to an individual or a group, you'd say a word, and have them say the same word. And you'd say the word and they'd say the same word. Or you'd take two words and you'd say one word and they'd say it, and then you'd say the second word and they'd say it. You'd say the first word, and then they'd say the first word again, and then you'd say the second word and they'd say the second word.

And then, after a while, have them say the first word and you say it — flow back and forth, any way you wanted to do it, you see. You do that many times, always keeping up with the same words. Merely … And you will notice the differences of response on the part of a class, particularly, or unit or a group, and in particular, an individual preclear. A unit preclear — one preclear — responds much faster individually than a group. Your reactions are much more violent because he's not being supported and duplicated on every side. He has to take responsibility for what he's doing; he can't shove it off on the rest of the group.

Okay. Two-way communication is quite a process, then, isn't it? There's a lot of processing to it. It's the one thing that underlies all other auditing. Until you understand communication lag, and two-way communication and its uses as a process, you would miss many, many things and manifestations in a preclear which you ought to be able to catch and recognize and improve in the preclear.

Okay.