I’m wearing a tie today in celebration — in celebration of the tone arms. This is ‘Tone Arm Monday.” All tone arms of the class are responding. I don’t know how you feel, that’s beside the point.

The immediate rationale of processing on which you are working at this time began shortly before the Melbourne ACC when I found the tone arm. The tone arm up to that time was something to adjust the needle with.

Later on, we discovered that — I found out that male and female Clears read at two different positions on the tone arm. Now, that was fine. But we went on adjusting the needle with the tone arm and talking about high arms and low arms, and so forth. But in the early autumn of 1959,1 began to look at this tone arm as a thing that indicated and registered state of case — not just Clear — registered state of case during processing.

Now, the first effort on this was not made in relationship to the tone arm of the E-Meter. That was an effort to mm on people’s pictures before you ran engrams, and that happened in the 6th London ACC and was quite successful in a number of cases. And the process being employed was Confront-Alternate Confront I don’t think Alternate.

Confront came out till Melbourne. But we were just trying to mm on pictures with straight Confront, then running engrams with Confront and Responsibility. And then in Melbourne, by this time I had worked up a tremendous amount of rationale on the subject of overts and withholds and had been successful before Melbourne — that was November, 1959 — had been successful before that already in taking cases and breaking them down to Clear with Overt-Withhold.

So, it became rather obvious that if you could get the withholds off a case and the overts off of a case, you could bring a tone arm down to the Clear read.

Now, sometime during the Melbourne ACC it became apparent to me that it was folly to audit a case which had an off-read tone arm. And that is the datum which you are operating on and which is being successful here. Now, you might think a lot of other things are being successful, but I’m telling you what is actually the center line of operation, the developments which have led up to this remarkable achievement.

Now, here is the idea of a person being audited who isn’t ready to be audited. Now for some time, since the fall — the autumn of 1959, I’ve registered that that was folly. You had to do something to get the case vaguely into PT and vaguely into session before you started running a process on the bank.

Now, get this as a double operation in which we’re engaged: you set the case up to audit it We have that in presession.

By getting a person into the auditing chair, then processes which advance them, as far as disentangling the broad view of their past and raising the potentiality of their future, can be achieved. But you first get them into the auditing chair.

Now, how do you know they’re in an auditing chair? How do you know they ever get there? Well, we never had anything to tell us except just the judgment of the auditor, the state of the profile. All right, that’s where the tone arm comes in. When I say that I found the tone arm, that’s what I mean. The tone arm tells you that the fellow is present Now you can do something with the bank. You got the idea? So there’s two things you do.

Now, Alternate Confront and some other processes were used in the Melbourne ACC to establish this factor. And oddly enough, we were successful in quite a few cases in the Melbourne ACC in bringing the tone arm to the Clear read before we really started to straighten out the entirety of the person’s existence, see? We were successful here and there with Overt-Withhold. But it was unfortunately not broadly successful. There were some hung-up cases as a result of this. So it became obvious we needed another rationale.

Now, for many years I had been very concerned about the basic theory of processing. I wanted to know what role significance played. Was it the thought or was it the MEST? And this just went on for years as an unanswered questioa Did you work on the thought or did you work on the MEST?

1956,1 was beginning dimly to realize that cases which were being run on a great deal of significance weren’t getting anywhere. So we softened this off and started running terminals, and that was when you saw terminals start to come in very heavily. And they stayed with us pretty well up right till now and are still good.

Don’t neglect a terminal as a possibility. You assess somebody on something or other and get a grandfather or something like this. You can run Help on a grandfather or a wife or something like this and straighten out some interesting relationships.

There’s another way to run that now. You run Help and Not-help on the motion of the terminal. That’s the fastest way to do that And you’ll find that the terminals which engage in the least motion are those which give the most trouble. A person more easily flips into being a wife than being a husband. There’s more motion in space to being a husband than being a wife. Get the idea?

So that — here we had a point which needed resolving. And it wasn’t until the exact center of this ACC that this point — I finally, really came down on it with a thud and said, “Well, all you do is take the sixth off the seventh. And if you take the sixth off the seventh, why, then you make a very rapid — case gains.”

But, of course, there are some people who are so pinned up on beingness, and so forth, they can’t even see the sixth until you do something about the seventh, see? So you have now a regimen which concentrates on beingness and a regimen which concentrates on MEST. Both regimens have a lot to do with either, but nevertheless these are.

Now, when I said “regimen” that was incorrect on our terminology, it’s “presessions.” We’ve got a presession, in other words, that opens up a case that is fixated on the seventh. We’ve got a presession that opens up a case that’s fixated on the sixth.

We have at this moment five presessions, all of which have done a certain amount of work in this particular unit It’s Presession VII, however, that did the final level up. Now, it’s senseless to go into these things because they’ll be the subject of bulletins. But anyway, I give you the background of this.

Here we have the thing that tells us that the case is sitting there. Now, if you’ve got somebody parked obsessively at some point of the track where they cannot have, they cannot look, they cannot reach, they cannot be, they can’t accept you as the auditor — it unlocks with processes which don’t run the whole case. It requires a mild, gentle, little process to unpin them from that point on the track and start moving them up into PT and getting their bank stripped off so they are not now totally out of session.

I’ll tell you, somebody that is murdering somebody or being murdered in seventeenth century — this is terribly simple on one of these cases, it’s — such a case is usually in the middle of, oh, I don’t know, eighty thousand murders as overts and twenty thousand motivators, all of which are different times and place which may have the common denominator of having occurred in years which begin with 160 — 16 billion, 16 million, 16 trillion — you get some kind of an idea like this. There’s a harmonic on the date or something of this sort and it’s some weird common denominator in all these dates, and there’ll be a common denominator in the type of incident Only trouble is, it won’t read. What they’re really in won’t read on the E-Meter because it’s just nyaaah. That’s it They have no effect upon this incident whatsoever. It’s something they can’t touch, can’t have, can’t be, can’t reach, see? And there they sit All right.

To have achieved processes which unlock the person from such a situation without making them face up immediately to that exact situation, getting them into present time and getting the tone arm down to a Clear read has been heroic, let me tell you. We have five presessions, any one of which would do it now as long as the person will sit still.

Now, we can also wipe out this idea at this time, that the CCHs are useful on people who will sit still and answer questions. You can just wipe that out The CCHs are most useful on people who cannot sit still, cannot answer questions, won’t volunteer for any auditing. You got the idea? Wouldn’t even walk in. So this is your extreme case. You can say at once that if you can’t get this fellow to talk about help, discuss it in any way, shape or form or get him to stay in the auditing room or hang around or come in or volunteer, well, you’ve got the answers in CCHs. But look at the extremity. Don’t worry about the CCHs if somebody comes in, sits down and argues with you on the subject of help. You’ve got him! You got the idea? That’s easy.

Now, we’ve got undercuts. Now, I don’t go so far as to say that we have exhausted all undercuts because I know a bunch of undercuts that we haven’t even touched yet I generally get tired of going down for the oil, you know, and well, after you get five or six miles below the surface of the Earth and that sort of thing, you get to worrying about the length of cable or something like this, you know? I can dream up more undercuts than I have in this particular level.

The oddity is that by changing the theory to take the MEST off of the thetan or the MEST off of a thought — by changing over to this as an exclamation point that is the rationale — don’t let the pc think and don’t worry about his thinkingness. Straighten out his MEST. As long as you’ve got that rationale, a lot of undercuts show up. And with this theory I was able to go back over ten years of odds and ends of processes, and so on, and figure which one of these MEST — because, you see, it was just MEST — which one of these MEST processes (of course you’ve got a couple of new ones too), but which one of these MEST processes had bitten rather heavily on one or another cases, you know, and just sorted out the MEST processes. Because we frankly weren’t depending on MEST processes earlier; we were depending on significance processes.

You see, it’s so easy for me to sit and look at a pc and know what’s wrong with a pc. And it’s obviously his thinkingness. Obvious! And it’s so easy for you to sit and look at a pc and know what’s wrong with a pc. But very often it takes a pc a long time to find it out It’s just like the fellow I’ve mentioned already in lectures and so on who comes in with the bad leg, and so forth, and when you ask him what’s wrong with him, he sits down in the chair and tells you that he has an itching ear or something, you know? See, obviously what’s wrong with him is he had a bad leg, see? All right He has no reality on what’s wrong with him.

Now, we’re led astray by this: thetans in attacking MEST have inverted, see? Whatever else they attack, they attack via MEST and therefore also attack MEST. So they attack it and attack it and attack it. And they are inverted and they think of themselves as MEST, you see? And something else is something else. And they thought of this so often that now that we know the truth of the matter, we are prone to overlook this inversion.

Obviously the person mocked up the MEST. Obviously it’s his postulates. Obviously it’s his intentions. Well, if it’s his postulates and intentions — well, obviously, you should audit them. That’s what’s wrong.

But that isn’t how a case unwinds. A case unwinds through the inversion. So I’ve been fooled to this degree: the case unwinds through the inversioa He feels he’s more MEST than thetan even when he thinks he’s a thetan. See, it’s got to come out through MEST.

So your original steps in adjusting a tone arm … Well, naturally, somebody is going to come along and say, “Well, of course. Of course, processing MEST changes the tone arm because the tone arm and the E-Meter measures the amount of MEST that is in the pc. So, naturally, that would be a misleading thing. What you should do is process thought, you see, because the pc is actually thought and thinkingness and postulatingness. And even though it doesn’t make the tone aim, E-Meter change, and so forth, of course you’re changing the pc.”

Now, somebody’s going to say that. I don’t care if it’s maybe a couple of centuries — somebody sooner or later is going back on this rationale because it’s so attractive. It’s a marvelous rationale. Well, it’s kept me fooled for ten years. But now that we’re undoing it, it’s only because we’ve come off of that rationale and we’re on the other rationale, which rationale lays down bluntly, immediately and instantly that you can take the MEST difficulties of the pc and by correcting them, correct the thought of the pc.

Now, what you’re doing here is running a Failed Help. Let’s look at this. You find somebody in a fruit store and you say to this fellow in the fruit store, “Do you think anybody could help you?”

And he says, “Oh, no!”

“Well, do you think you could help anybody?”

“Oh, no, no, no.”

Your next immediate question would be, “Whom have you failed to help?”

And you get your answers, brrrr. “Oh, my brother, my father,” so forth. He’s in-session on what? Failed to help. Failed help.

Now, that’s quite important because his attack line being through MEST collides with MEST before it reaches another beingness. And if we’ve got Overt-Withhold, we’ve got to run failed MEST off this case. If we don’t run the failed MEST off the case, then the person’s postulatingness and abilities, and so forth, are pretty well tied up and messed up. You see how this is?

If a case is stuck, the case is stuck not because he really failed to help Grandpa and Grandma, and so forth, but basically because he failed to help MEST. Because while he was helping Grandpa and Father and anybody else, he of course was helping them via MEST, so MEST was a common denominator to all failures to help. So by taking the MEST off, you’re actually taking the failed help off of the case at about its lowest and most fundamental level. That’s a rationale that could be used to illustrate this particular point and give you some better understanding of it.

It isn’t really that the fellow is MEST. It isn’t really that you can totally neglect the thinkingness of an individual. Because while running MEST, if the fellow doesn’t cognite once in a while, you’re not running MEST. It’s very simple. If he doesn’t cognite, if he doesn’t have any ideas, then you’re not freeing up a thetan. Beware of this case that just slog, slog, slog, slog, slog and does the process and does the process and does the process and doesn’t cognite.

I think you’ll also find this case won’t move the tone arm. Because he’s not getting free. He is chewing and masticating and not even digesting MEST. Processing is an activity of stirring up MEST; it’s changing confusion A to confusion B and going on in this fashioa All right.

Therefore, the individual comes free on the degree that . .. Well, it’s — broadly, it looks like this to you: The way to let the prisoners out of the prison is obviously to give them a brand-new idea of being imprisoned or to take the prison down. Well, I’ll point out to you, the only way France ever got free from the Franks was to tear down the Bastille. They took the prison apart That’s not a good simile or metaphor, but it’s good to remember: you tear the prison down. That’s the MEST, you take the MEST off the prisoners.

But that isn’t exactly what you are doing either, it just merely serves as a handy illustration to an HPA student.

What you’re really doing is rehabilitating his ability to handle MEST. And that’s all he’s interested in. Apparently he’s never had too much trouble handling beings even though he tells you on Alternate Confront on Beings that he has all of his difficulty with beings. Of course, beings are very difficult to handle.

Without MEST intervening or without MEST being made sour to Thetan B, Thetan A finds it very difficult to keep Thetan B from snapping in on him. That’s how you get your valence phenomena — the idea they’re absolutely certain that Thetan B snaps in on him. There’s nothing that could keep Thetan B out there. If there’s no matter, energy, space or time, the conviction is that Thetan B would be right here with Thetan A, see? Tch. Boom!

So when you invalidate MEST — which also includes that space that keeps Thetan B out there, you see — when MEST becomes invalidated, of course there’s no space between the two and you get a snap-in of the beingnesses. But there must have been overts on MEST if MEST won’t stay there. See, if he can’t handle MEST, he can’t keep any beingness off of him. You got the idea? So you have to rehabilitate his ability to handle MEST.

Now, however you go about handling this MEST and whatever you do in taking the MEST off the person — I don’t care how you explain it to somebody to get him to do it — the truth of the matter is, that you’re rehabilitating Thetan A’s control over MEST. That’s what you’re doing — rehabilitation of his control over MEST, taking off the liability of MEST. Getting him to look at, front up to MEST, of course, would be the gradient scale of taking some responsibility for it And naturally as soon as you do that, why, you’ve got space and you’ve got the ability to keep things at a distance and choose the right amount of effort concerning things, and so on. Now, it’s a rather simple problem.

Now, this becomes a very simple problem after you’ve looked it over, because all you’ve got to do is rehabilitate his control of MEST and you’ll rehabilitate his control of beingnesses.

This, however, still indicates that we may occasionally run into somebody who is so obsessed with beingnesses, one way or the other, that we have to run some presession that takes care of some part of beingness just to get it off. It’s kind of like a PT problem. Well, where a person has that difficulty, why, the auditor himself, being a beingness, is of course such a problem. So the auditor is going to do something? Oh, I’m afraid not, because all the pc is doing is trying to prevent the auditor from snapping in. And the total concentration on the pc is the avoidance of the auditor, which includes, of course, an alter-isness or neglect of the auditing command.

Now, an auditor who will permit his commands not to be executed — well, he ought to go back and take an HPA Course. But one whose pc somehow or another won’t execute the auditing commands, well now, that auditor should recognize that there’s something wrong with the beingness of the auditor with regard to the pc. And where something is wrong with the beingness of the auditor or that an auditor is sitting there, no command is going to be executed. This is a fairly extreme case, but is a point where beingness would have to be taken up. You got the idea? Because it is, after all, a being known as the auditor who is giving the auditing commands.

So you’ve got this regimen, the “Where is .. .’’ — one of them, Regimen 7 — the “Where is. .. ?” and “What am I not doing to you?” see, whatever the proper command is, see?

“Tell me something I’m not doing to you.” Pc nans off all the automatidties of the liability of having a being sitting in front of him enough so that they can confront up to the MEST sunrounding him.

Now, it doesn’t necessarily mean that a person is spinning, crazy, upset, knocked in the head or anything else simply because they have to be run on presessions and undercut to get the case on the road. This has very little to do with it.

I remember a professor, one time, that — he was a very angry sort of a professor. He used to walk up and down the platform and damn and fume, and small douds of smoke used to come out of the top of his skull, and so on. And somebody would wiggle a foot in the dass and he would come down on them with an avalanche of verbal javelins. And finally some brash young student — a young man that should have known better — said to him as he left the dassroom, “Professor, I… I do wish you’d control your temper a little bit better in the dass,” because the girl next to him had gotten to crying because of the javelins, and so forth.

And the professor said, “Young man, I control more temper in fifteen minutes than you will in your entire lifetime.”

Well, it takes a fairly tough thetan to mock up a tough bank. That’s one for you to remember, see? After all, a thetan is doing it.

After you’ve had, as you possibly will one day, had some experience with psychotics, this will become much more meaningful to you. You walk through the wards, and you say to the various psychos who are spinning in and doing this and that — you just tell them to come up to present time, something like this. Be a large number of them which instandy snap out of their psychosis. Instandy! Certain percentage of them will. I don’t know what that percentage is, but it’s significant enough so that it always works. If you walk down any psycho ward, you’re always going to get three or four of them in the course of your walk, just by telling them to come up to present time. They give you speeches on how glad they are to be here and all that sort of thing.

Well, I’m afraid there’s a certain level of contempt for a practitioner if he finds the fellow was that incapable of maintaining a good full-blown psychosis. Couldn’t have been much of a psychosis if it was that easy to blow, see? And, generally, you’ll find out the person is just kind of that weak. You know, they really don’t maintain much of a tough bank or an easy bank or get much done or otherwise. It isn’t the quality of a thetan particularly, it’s other factors that make this.

But you shouldn’t develop a fantastically high-critical towards somebody simply because his case won’t get on the road right away. Because I think you’ll find some of the roughest cases in some of the more capable people in industry and places like this. You walk in and you say, “How can this man live?” Well, it takes a tough thetan to mock up a tough bank. Now, they’re well worth salvaging.

Now, an undercut of such a case, getting some elementary process that runs it, is of course directly contrary to your inclinations. First, you sit and look at the fellow — you know what’s wrong with him: his thinkingness is obviously wrong, his postulates about MEST are wrong. So therefore you say, “Correa his postulates or ideas.” Well, that’s a booby trap, you’ll never get anyplace doing it. Get the idea? You got to correa his postulates directly about MEST by correcting MEST, that’s the proper one.

And the other one is — you’ll sit and look at some fellow, and you’ll say, “Well, his case is moving. Of course, the tone arm doesn’t move, but his case is moving.” I’ll let you in on something, those two facts never go together. If you can’t get his tone arm down to Clear read, you haven’t undercut the case. And you can just put that in letters of gold, edge them in fire and hang them up in rhinoceros tusks on your wall. If the tone arm isn’t wagging, the case isn’t moving, and eventually the person may tell you that they feel fine and it’s all changed, but all you’ve done is make them into a propitiative person.

Don’t audit the character thoroughly and strongly until you’ve got it down to a Clear read for the person, no matter how long it takes. And then when you’re auditing a process on that particular person, make sure that that process is real to the person and is moving that tone arm at least three divisions of the dial an hour. If you’re doing that, you’re getting results. Because it’s measuring the amount of consideration change they have on the subject of MEST. And all that tone arm measures is what considerations have changed with regard to MEST, and that’s all it measures.

And if they don’t change their considerations with regard to MEST, they’re going nowhere. Nothing is happening. No matter what else appears to be happening, you’ve either got a no-go or a slow-go, and you don’t want either one sitting in the auditing chair.

Now, anybody who is squirreling, anybody who is saying, “Well, I think now that I’ve studied some Scientology, I think I’ll take up theosophy just to have a rounded consideration.” Well, that’s all very well. By all means, let them go to study theosophy. But theosophy has been failing ever since they copied the Buddhists. It hasn’t gotten anyplace yet The superdisciplines of this and that, those guys are kidding themselves. They know it If you sit in one place and do this and that long enough, you can always grow moss. We don’t find these people dynamos of action in life. We don’t find them getting anything done. Those are the criteria.

No, when you’ve got that kind of thing — when you’ve got that kind of thing where somebody is worrying about doing something else or going something else or doing something else because they might possibly find something some day, they haven’t found themselves yet. You got it? Just haven’t found themselves yet In other words, they don’t have a subjective reality on what they’re all about.

So I don’t care if processing made them grow a second head — they didn’t find out about it And the odd part of it is that Dianetics and Scientology have enough velocity in them and enough rationale to them that you can actually practically grow a second head on somebody without his ever finding out about it Who said that you couldn’t mock up a body — as an auditor? And that’s just about what you do. You shove the fellow’s bank this way and you shove it that way and you remold it some other way. And the pc is sitting there answering the auditing question. And the second head begins to grow.

And what you get amazed about is the fellow tells you afterwards that you haven’t helped him really or tells your friends this. Well, that is so true: you didn’t help him, all you did was grow him a second head. You made him healthy or you changed his habit patterns or you made him run on different machinery. But you, for sure, didn’t change the general state of beingness of this particular person. You got it?

Well, when you look into this sort of thing — when you look into this sort of thing, you will find the subjective reality of the person will change to the degree that you have their tone arm moving well under auditing. Because it’s their opinions about MEST, their ability to change MEST and their ability to do things through MEST that you are trying to alter. And you alter that by giving them practices and exercises on the subject of MEST. And that works.

Now, theosophy and the poor old Buddhist — that we shouldn’t be tough on because he was carrying forward quite a rationale — these people warned everybody to stay away from MEST and to think right thoughts. And in theosophy you have, I think, the eleven points of how to be crystal glue. And it’s all ideas, ideas, ideas, ideas, ideas, change your ideas, change your ideas, change your ideas.

Well, some years ago we caught up with Freud and we said under no circumstances would Freud ever have been able to produce a result. Well, just look at his “auditor’s code.” It’s all totally in reverse on anything that we’re able to produce any results with, using our Auditor’s Code and auditor technology. Freudian auditor technology was exactly opposite, 180 degrees different And on that alone, we know somebody has been kidding somebody. All right.

Now, we’ve struck something new. We sit here today with all tone arms moving. They’ve shifted; they’ve shifted their pattern, they’re moving closer and closer into the Clear read and they’re stabilizing. All right That’s very good. That’s very good. But remember we did it by familiarizing the thetan with MEST or altering his opinion about a beingness that is sitting immediately across from him, which beingness is just MEST to him at its first rurt.

Now therefore, we know that all of those philosophies — if we can do this by addressing MEST, by taking the MEST off the person — we know that every philosophy, which specialized in avoidance of MEST, failed. And it failed all of the people who were part of it.

So now we know something else. We know that philosophies which overtly address thought alone and say, “Leave that nasty, dirty MEST alone,” we know that those philosophies were real traps.

Now fortunately, we’ve kept enough MEST in the line in Dianetics and Scientology, enough MEST processes — and there’s been lots of them, and Havingness is one of the keys, oh, 8C and Havingness and Spotting Walls and doing things of this character, and so on — that people have made progress. And only to that degree have they made progress. And changing their ideas around directly by taking their ideas out of the MEST has not succeeded.

So that is where we are right at this moment on the fourth Monday of this ACC. And that is where we are going.

Now, your immediate goal is to get that tone arm down there into the Clear read for the pc, with a loose needle for a lot of commands and then get on with the auditing of the pc with greater familiarity of MEST. You can step it up and make it hotter; you can get much hotter.

But remember that if your pc bogs and goes high and doesn’t get your three-tone-arm move: that which got his tone arm down in the first place will get his tone arm down again. Do I make my point?

Audience: Yes.

So what you would do would be to fall back on the presession — if your pc wasn’t getting adequate tone arm change in an hour’s worth of processing, fall back on that presession that got the tone arm down. You got it? And it’ll come down again. And then take off on not quite a steep gradient next time. Got it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

So if you’ve ever been able to unlock a case, you can always unlock the case again. If the case does not unlock easily or smoothly, it must be because overts or ARC breaks. Well, you can also get those off the case, see? But you can always start a case that has been started, providing you’ve undercut the case adequately.

Now, the process that started the case will eventually have to be totally flattened on the preclear. Got that? Somewhere along the line this process has got to be totally flattened.

So by the end of this unit, I want you please to give your pc a slip of paper marked, “The 1st Saint Hill, Seventh London,” that says, “This process got this case started,” and write the exact commands that did, so that somewhere up along the line, if this case isn’t totally finished off to Clear and somebody else is auditing the case, don’t you see, there’ll be a record in the hands of the pc as to what was started the pc — and what was continued to be run on the pc and what requires to be flattened. Because we don’t want anybody getting out of this course without — well, we got them all started now, but some of them probably won’t be totally Clear and this datum should not be lost for the pc. Do you understand? This is quite valuable to the pc. Okay? All right.

I want to compliment all you auditors because you’ve really been in there sweating over the hot or cold brains. And you have done very well. I know it’s hard to audit where it’s noisy and a lot of other things, but you’re doing fine. Amd if you can do it under these circumstances, why, the sky’s no limit when you get out of here. The sky’s no limit.

Now, you’ll have all of the presessions in your possession by the time you leave this course. And every process that has been run in this course will all be mimeographed up for you, and so forth, so that you’ve got the works. Because, believe me, they’re valuable. Here on Earth they’ve only been looking for them for fifty thousand years, you might as well have a copy of them. Okay?

Thank you.