I'd like to talk to you about two-way communication. This might possibly be a good moment to bring to you some small inkling of the fact that a number of centuries ago, there was a man — number of centuries ago — in a small town in Bavaria, who could communicate. But since that time, there's been very little of this, and it is in an effort to bring the auditor into cognizance of this condition amongst man, and so perhaps bring at least one more man into communication and get him to communicate, that I dedicate this particular talk.

Now, I don't want you to get an extreme idea about two-way communication; there have been many examples of this. I don't want you to get this idea that two-way communication is common, commonplace, is undertaken, is done, and so forth, amongst men, because to do so would be a lie.

But you, as auditors, are pretty well trained by social usage and action throughout most of your lives to believe that you are communicating with human beings. And, I wish at this moment to knock that flat.

It is highly improbable that you have communicated actually and accurately on a two-way basis with more than one or two people in your entire lives. Now, you can tell me who these people are right now.

Two-way communication has to embrace a certain amount of under-standing. The fundamental parts of understanding are A-R-C. If you were really in two-way communication with anybody, it would be denoted solely by this fact: you right now can think — if you've ever been in two-way communication in this lifetime with anybody — you could think of somebody with some affection.

Now, if there's any person right now that you can think of, in your whole life, with some affection and an affectionate feeling right at this moment, you have been in two-way communication with that person.

And you will note as you remember this person that there are a great many things that you can remember about this person, and a great many things that they have said would come rather rapidly into mind.

I do not say that you have had such a person in your lifetime, necessarily. Because it is not a common thing in man in this twentieth century to be in good communication anyplace.

But real good communication is a lot different than what you think of as communication. Do you follow me? Good communication is a lot different than your casual and common experience with education and communiation — a lot different.

So, the possible high of a two-way communication, may or may not have been attained by you sometime in this lifetime, but if you can think of any person you have known in this lifetime with some affection, then you are approaching a good two-way communication with that person.

Now, am I putting the point across to you?

Now, isn't it odd and peculiar that with such a person, you would have a considerable recall — if you thought it over for a moment — on what they'd said and what you'd said to them, and so forth. You'd have quite a recall; quite a lot of stuff there.

When a mother has been very, very affectionate to a somewhat reluctant son, you get a communication inflow so strong that it practically occludes. This is a one-way communication.

Son, very reluctant, doesn't like all this affection from women — you know, stand-offish. Baby talk, they kissed you, fooled around, carried you around, very affectionate, worried about you, wouldn't let you climb the back-yard fence, very concerned about the time when you decided to take up the air force or flying or diving, or something of this sort — quite concerned for your well-being.

You will get a different manifestation where you yourself felt no great affection. That's ARC: affection — with affection/affinity would go reality and communication, of course. And where you had somebody feeling very affectionate toward you, where you didn't feel very affectionate back, the very funny part of it is, the material is liable to sit there with you as thoroughly occluded, but very, very, very "control" — on you; a control factor.

When this sort of thing takes place, you have the individual giving as his opinion of his own past what he's been told his own past was. You follow this?

Let's take a daughter, and Mother was very affectionate toward the daughter, and the daughter was rather stand-offish, see; maybe had a couple of other children in the family, and they sort of knocked the daughter around. There were a lot of other manifestations took place — a lot of ridges, you might say, of one kind or another. But you had Mother very affectionate to-ward the daughter, and you had the daughter, then, twenty years after child-hood, telling you about her childhood.

And she would say, "And when I was two, so-and-so and so-and-so and yap-yap-yap. And when I was five, yap-yap-yap, and so-and-so and so-and-so. And when I was ten, I was so-and-so and so-and-so. And we lived there at that time, and it was a very beautiful house." Do you know who you're talking to? You're talking to Mama. You say, "Now, where did you learn that was what you did at two?" Because you'd think, as an auditor, this is pretty good for this preclear to have a straight recall back to two.

"Where'd you learn about this?"

"Well, I …" (comm lag) "Oh, my mother told me." And you'd find it out that what her mother told her about when she was ten was what she was telling you; and what her mother's told you [her] about when she was twenty — that's her life.

Mother could come up and tell her that she was married to another man, and she would have to have a comm lag before she could reject it. Why? Here you have this big flow from one terminal — high affinity, see? Mama may have had very high reality, too. And Mama certainly did communication to this child. But the other terminal was only resisting.

And when you have a familial situation where the child is resisting a parent, they can only resist them just so long. And they only usually resist them only the first two or three, four years of their life. And after that they become affinity (same terminal).

The basic definition of affinity is actually lost in antiquity. The word was chosen, by the way, from the ancient days of magic, The magicians, the ancient magicians, used this word consistently and continually. It actually means "occupying the same space." A complete, total affinity would mean "occupying the same space as." But, where we have distance intervening, with spatial occupation still possible, we have perfect communication. Now, follow me on that. We have the possibility of occupying the same space, you see, but a distance intervening. We get communication; we get duplication.

What is duplication? Duplication is simply cause-distance-effect, you see, with the same thing at effect as is at cause. Well, that's duplication.

Now, let's take the most complete duplication there would be, which would be a perfect duplication, and we would discover, then, that cause and effect could occupy the same spot. And the moment they occupy the same spot — no ridge, no energy, no space, no universe. See?

No energy manifestation or spatial manifestation, then, takes place when you get a perfect duplicate. So therefore, you could have two people standing facing each other with the possibility in either one that they could occupy the same space — see, as thetans; awareness of awareness units — and what would we get? We'd get a very curious manifestation. They would both know what they were saying before they said it — both know this, see? They'd have an instinctive understanding. They could converse with a minimum of words. One of them would say, "Hey, Joe. Uh … Hm." And Joe would hand him the spanner. But these two people would make a considerable team against life; they would be very, very hard to combat.

Did you ever know a pair of twins? And did you ever try to fight a pair of twins — fight one individually? You'd find yourself fighting two twins. See?

When they try to talk to each other, they have very high understanding of each other and considerable affection. So much so, quite often when one twin is killed the other one simply kicks the bucket. I mean you get an immediate duplication on a bad situation.

You never see one twin of a pair of twins — identical twins I'm talking about, not fraternal — who are operating very individually. One gets sick; the other one gets sick.

Well, this is a communication on a lower level. But if both of them felt in high affinity for each other, they would have, as a pair, much less chance of getting sick. They'd as-is everything, you know, that was bad that was coming in. They'd talk it over and it'd be gone.

Quite in addition to that, if they themselves could maintain a fairly high communication and affinity line to their environment, you would discover that their entire environment would be improved by the fact that they were present.

Two terminals are always better than one. Six are better than two. A thousand are better than six — if they're in high affinity.

Now, we get into this factor in the military when we talk about esprit de corps. If you have a unit where everybody is fighting everybody else in the unit, you'll have bad communication inside the unit — real poor communication.

You give them an order, "Squads right," and they will all have a tendency to rag it up, and training might, and force might, carry them through. But if you ever put them on a parade ground in competition or something like that, gee, they'd be terrible. I mean, they'd just … No matter how long you drilled them or trained them they would never come through. Training is no substitute for ARC or understanding.

Now, an individual could have such high ARC with his environment that he would not have to learn about any part of the environment; he would simply know all about it simply by observing it, because he could occupy it's same space with no liability to himself. You see that clearly?

Now, the first oddity about which I talked to you was where you have a high-ARC outflow from one terminal hitting another terminal of a low-ARC potential. The low-ARC potential gets swamped up. It just plain, ordinarily gets drowned.

Now actually, a person — Mother, in this case — would not have to be very affectionate to accomplish this if the other terminal, the child, were way down, see? So that all we'd have to have here is a difference of potential to get a flow.

Let's take a battery and put ten thousand volts on it, and let's take an-other plate or battery and put two volts on it. And now let's connect the two of them together. Which battery gets swamped? The two-volt plate, of course. Right?

Life and beingness and the granting of beingness, and so forth, are all phrases or descriptions which simply describe this thing called communication, or an outflow of understanding or an activity of understanding. See?

We could say granting of beingness: we mean high-potential ARC. See? He can grant high-potential understanding, or he can flow out to. We'd say he can also make live and make alive. Get the idea here? See? We say high ARC: We're also saying high potential of granting beingness; we're also saying high potential of granting life; we're also saying high knowingness, and we're also saying — right along with those things — that this individual can under-stand or can be understood.

Well, believe me, an individual like that's liable to be understood; he's liable to be understood thoroughly — to such a degree that a low potential facing him is liable to understand nothing else. You see this?

Now, let's take a look at life at large, and we find out that the successful life forms are simply being successful relative to other life forms.

Now, we have a study in relativity — and not Einsteinian relativity, but Hubbardian relativity. And that's of more use to man, I'm afraid (all due respect to Professor Albert and his umbrella). I don't quite see how he's done very much for existence, except maybe to speed it on its way.

You know, I don't think anybody would have gotten real serious about the atom bomb if somebody like Einstein hadn't given it a good hard shove. And you notice right after they built one, Einstein was one of the first boys jumping in to try to organize in order to help and save humanity, and of course he just didn't have enough on the ball.

He lent his name to a couple of organizations, and they flopped, and it was a sorry mess. But this was not an outflow of high life except in relationship to other mathematicians, other electricians and other engineers. Isn't that right? So Einstein has a terrific outflow or potential, and so forth — compared to others in his field.

Sister Kenny probably has so much more life potential or ability to grant beingness or ARC and actual understanding of life and its problems than Albert Einstein, that it's very doubtful if the two of them could converse without Mr. Einstein suddenly buying anything and everything that Sister Kenny said. Get this high — low potential?

But now, Einstein can't talk to a bunch of mathematicians or engineers or government political lads without getting them swamped. Get the relative factors involved here — just taking people's name in vain. And maybe it might be the most useful thing he ever did was to be included in the conversation. That's a hell of a funny thing to say, but let's look at it. Let's look right up to it, and let's see that right out here in Nevada there's a quarter-of-a-mileradius hole in the sand which is green glass, which to this moment is radio-active.

And this might be a high understanding compared to that stove, but you see we've almost moved out of the life band?

Did you ever write Mr. Einstein a letter and get an answer? No, you never did, and you never will. Now, this is an interesting fact, isn't it? — that here we have somebody who is exclusively making MEST produce an effect upon MEST.

There's even medical doctors in this town who have a higher understanding potential of life than Albert Einstein — I don't mean in the field of medicine; I mean just at life at large — who can grant more beingness, who are more worthwhile to be alive. Life itself is happier to have them around. You see? Because they can produce an effect upon living beings which is a good effect or an improving effect with a higher ARC.

And I just said we were talking about medical doctors! I mean, let's really crawl over the threshold and slime up on the first mark on the ladder, because these boys are not high in that particular direction. Actually, today, the minister of the gospel is right there. He isn't even vaguely starting to climb that ladder.

Now undoubtedly, around town, you could probably pick up a guy or two who could produce an optimum effect or something more optimum on the subject of life than any medical doctor in town — who hasn't even studied medicine. You know, he sort of walks in and says "Hello," or something like that, and people feel better.

There's undoubtedly somebody circulating like that. Maybe he's a sales-man out here; maybe it's a girl in a library; or maybe he's a plumber. We don't care what this fellow is doing.

The ability to understand life, and life's assignment of labels to life forms, are two different things. Life assigns labels to forms, which are there-after supposed to perform on this level. I am reminded of Mark Twain's Visit to Heaven, I think it was — Mark Twain. And he saw this tremendous line of men standing there, and they were all lined up to get signed up, or some-thing of the sort, and they were in order of precedent.

And Mark Twain said, "Who's this?" And his conducting angel said, "Why, those are the greatest generals that earth ever had." And he says, "They are? Well, who's that fellow up there in front?" He didn't recognize Napoleon or Alexander the Great or anybody.

"Oh, he's . . ." I've forgotten the man's name out of the book but, "That's Ebenezer Smaltz from Poobah, Vermont."

"Well, I never heard of this general. You say he's the greatest general ever lived?"

"Yes, yes, he was actually easily the greatest general ever lived, but he just never got around to doing any generaling." The success label assigned by life, as represented by a race or a government, is not necessarily the actually-borne label of the individual. You see, if you were asked to believe all the signs that you see around, that everybody is carrying on his chest, one way or the other, you would get an entirely erroneous idea.

But I tell you how you could get an erroneous idea corrected: You could get an idea about the value to life or actual position on the gradient scale of importance to life at large when you get the understanding and ARC of the individual. And the understanding and ARC of the individual is a direct monitoring factor on how valuable that individual is to the remainder of life. And that's the only factor there is that's worth measuring.

So, we don't care if Doris Duke comes in to see you as a preclear or whether this person is Dr. Jow, of the Jow Clinic or whether it's Menninger or Mayo or the president of the United States. The label on this preclear, put there by social agreement, has nothing whatsoever to do with his value to life at large — it has nothing to do with it at all. There is a way to measure it, and that is his understanding and his ARC potential.

If you exteriorized at a tremendously high potential — I mean, you're exteriorized and really swamped up — your ability to understand that at which you look, your ability to have ARC, would be so high, could be made so high, that your communications would have no slightest symbol value. But you could be so high that you would not even be observed by the rest of life, and you would simply find them caving in (as far as you were concerned) and simply accepting your ideas with no critical eye of any kind whatsoever. And you would make a race of slaves.

Difference of potential? You could get yourself up to a point where it would be enough for you to think a thought to have everybody run around and move like puppets to that thought, because you've assumed an ARC potential of such magnitude that your just thinking toward them caved them in.

Now, every once in a while somebody comes up and says, "Well, why do you talk to us, Ron? See? I mean, why do you put these things in words and phrases? Why do you bother to teach them in this arduous fashion?" Infer-ring: "If you were really on the ball, you see, you would just think a thought, and then we'd all know it." You see?

Well, if I ever were up that high and adopted this method of education or training, I'm afraid there would not be much individuality or self-determinism or life or power of any kind on the part of any auditor I trained. Now, you boys don't feel particularly reduced in your ability to get on in life through being trained by me, do you? That's because I'm training across the face of your own decision and criteria, and through your own experience, right?

I'm not saying I simply could think a thought and then everybody'd walk around like puppets; that's not my inference. That's a lot of malarkey. But it's a theoretical possibility. But to train in that way would be an error, wouldn't it? Hm? It would be an error. Then, all of a sudden, whoever trained you might get bored and go off to Arcturus or something of the sort, and that would leave everything on a completely robot basis.

If an individual cannot stand, by his own inspection and criteria — if he can't stand alone and function alone without support, he is not worth training. It's not worth training him unless he's going to be able to stand alone and practice and utilize what he's learned.

See, to train a man and take away from him, at the same time, his individuality, would be a very horrible thing.

All right. We're right here in the field of communication, and I invite you to observe the fact that we are also in the field of hypnotism.

High ARC, low ARC — the potential can be sufficiently different that the low-ARC potential will simply become a robot. See this?

There's why your Freudian analyst thought it was necessary for his patient to assume the valence or personality of the analyst before he was well.

What was he trying to do? One way or the other, he was trying to over-power this personality and make a socially adapted robot. Do you see that clearly? Because this is the goal of Freudian analysis.

You will have to read, before you get out of here, by the way, the twenty-seven lectures of Sigmund Freud — in a booklet which will be issued you — which are his basic teachings.

And where he couldn't get a man to do this transference, he said the man could not be helped. I would like to know how the man has been helped by having lost his individuality or personality.

One of the greatest fears there has been in this universe was that some government would form with some terrifically accurate, useful therapy which would then depersonalize and remove the individualities of the persons under the control of that government. There would be no greater tragedy, and no government would collapse faster. The duration of that government could probably be measured in two winks of the eye.

People are afraid of this, but it can't happen. Because any race so governed would perish; because they would be leaving up to the government the exact method by which they move the spoon full of food from the plate to their mouths; the exact number of times they masticated; and the audible audibility of the gulp when they swallowed. It would all have to be monitored by the government if you stripped them of their personality.

So let this be a lesson to you as an auditor. Please don't just overwhelm your preclear. You won't ever get anyplace with him. You'll wonder why he stays overwhelmed for three days — you'll see this occasionally; three days he'll feel wonderful, on the fourth or fifth day, all of a sudden, he'll collapse. Why sure, all you did was overwhelm him. This doesn't mean hold back your ARC. It merely means establish the other guy's.

Two ways you can set up this two-way communication then, isn't there? You could set it up on a high-potential-, low-potential-terminal basis, and have it simply go from the high potential to the low potential so overwhelmingly that then the low-potential terminal would become the high-potential terminal with all of its individualities and peculiarities. Right?

There would be another way you could rehabilitate this, wouldn't there? Take two terminals and — not by reducing one, but by increasing the low potential — you could make a two-way communication possible between these two, couldn't you? And that would be two-way communication then, wouldn't it? Comparable terminals.

All right. Let's say you, as an auditor, you can control a mind, you can control aberrations, you know that you can make people well. Your case is high. It has stayed high. You've remained in good self-possession. You are perfectly willing to grant beingness, life or ARC — whatever we want to call it. You're perfectly willing to grant this to other people, and so forth. And you audit this fellow, and you gradually bring him upstairs as a terminal. You found him in the basement someplace. You got him up past scientist; you got him up past medical doctor, up past psychoanalyst, up past a parson, up past a yellow dog out here in the alley, up past scorpions, upstairs higher and higher and higher and higher, and you got him up there somewhere in your realm of flight.

You think this person is going to be effective thereafter and that life is going to benefit? You said it! And all this is tested solely by his communication ability, isn't it?

The main thing you will see that is visible is the communication speed. His communication lag will be the quickest test of this. When he has a bad communication lag, he then and therefore cannot have very high ARC, cannot have a very high potential, cannot have much granting of beingness — all these things are consequent to this communication lag. See that clearly?

All right. Then underlying every single process that you will ever learn is two-way communication.

Two-way communication cuts in at the Tone Scale at minus 8.0. Down at that level it would just be a hunt-and-punch system, mimicry-in-the-dark sort of thing. It would get on up the line, and it would cut out as the only process possible — the only process possible — at 1.0.

It would go all the way from minus 8.0 on the Tone Scale clear on up to 1.0 as the only process possible. Will you learn that for my sakes, by observing it?

A preclear walked out of here the other day after thirty-two hours of processing, who still had a communication lag. You know why he did? Be-cause he came in here at .5 on the Tone Scale. And the auditor processed him on Opening Procedure of 8-C and Opening Procedure by Duplication for thirty-two hours. Thirty-two hours of improper processing, done by an auditor who is a pretty good auditor.

(1) This auditor had never studied Science of Survival; did not know his Chart of Human Evaluation even vaguely,

(2) had evidently never completely learned what a communication lag is, and

(3) had never understood that two-way communication is itself a process. He thought it was something which introduced processes. But it is a process, just as clearly a process as Opening Procedure by Duplication.

Let's take the rest of this scale and just look at it in passing. Now, I'll mention it to you again. The rest of the scale would be that from about 1.1 up to 1.8 on the Tone Scale — right in that range on either side, you see, from covert hostility, just almost into antagonism — there is only one other process which really has a lot of value, and that's Elementary Straightwire. From 1.1 to 1.8, Elementary Straightwire has a great deal of value. But Opening Procedure by Duplication will be found to fail — all too often. He wasn't in communication in the first place. You see?

But when you've really got him up to 1.1 he will communicate with his past and your past and other people's pasts. You know, it's past; it's safe.

So, you have to get him up there to where he can look at life before you do much else with him. But the past is nagging him so much, he's way back in the past somewhere.

So actually, the most facile method of processing him, according to my experience has been — 1.1 to 1.8 — has been Elementary Straightwire.

I'll give you a process for Elementary Straightwire that is a murderous process — just murderous. And there's a little quirk on it that's equally murderous. And another process — there are two of them in there. Elementary Straightwire, of course, is simply "Something you wouldn't mind remembering; something you wouldn't mind forgetting." I doubt if there's anybody present that's run Elementary Straightwire long enough to do any good on a preclear. What's long enough? Oh, a couple of hours; three hours, four hours, something like that, at a stretch. And you'll see some changes made — there'll be some changes made in that case.

Well, let me give you the other switch — another switch on this. I mean, this is a process. Put in the Mystery to Know Scale on Elementary Straight-wire: "Give me a mystery you wouldn't mind remembering. Another mystery you wouldn't mind remembering. Another mystery you wouldn't mind remembering. Another mystery you wouldn't mind remembering. Another mystery you wouldn't mind remembering. A mystery you wouldn't mind forgetting" (you got that lag flat, see, on one of them), "And a mystery you wouldn't mind forgetting. And a mystery you wouldn't mind forgetting. And a mystery you wouldn't mind forgetting. And a mystery you wouldn't mind forgetting. Give me another one and another one and another one. Okay. Some sex you wouldn't mind remembering. Some sex you wouldn't mind remembering. Some sex you wouldn't mind remembering." Now, finally, "Some sex you wouldn't mind forgetting. Some sex you wouldn't mind forgetting." In other words, people at that level of the Tone Scale are pretty doggone wobbly. They've got to have a lot of significance, see? So, if you asked them "something they wouldn't mind remembering; something wouldn't mind forgetting," they actually are so complicated as people that they don't really swerve in toward anything, and they just sit there sort of "Goa."

But there's a big liability of processing this individual on a technique that you can't observe inside his own bank, isn't there? Hm? You can't look in his head. Well, actually, yes, you can, with a communication lag. That communication lag will vary and change. If it stays the same but is slightly laggy or is fast, he's kidding you. Now, Opening Procedure of 8-C could be used in such a case, just to show him that you were boss around there, not to get him well.

Now, let me give you another quirk on this — I said there were two. "Something you wouldn't mind remembering; something you wouldn't mind forgetting" is Elementary Straightwire, with ARC Straightwire, as being right in the same band. But, "Something you wouldn't mind remembering," and "Something you wouldn't mind forgetting" on the subject of mystery, sex, eating, symbols, thinking, effort, emotion, looking and knowing — you just run it in there, and it gives them enough significance to keep them going for quite a while. And you'll see some change is made.

Now, there's another way of running old-time 8-D: Pick out the fellow whose universe he's interiorized in. Mama — all right, let's go to town. "Give me something real about your mother. Time when you were in good communication about your mother." In other words, the specific person out of whose universe you're trying to exteriorize him.

See, you're trying to pull him out of this universe. So something real about him — something real about that other universe, you see — and you'll see him go brrrrrr pop! Why?

Because he's as-ising the connecting communication lines which still remain to his mother. Mother was obviously of a higher potential than he was, or otherwise he wouldn't be in that universe.

All right. Let's take a look here. Let's take a look and see and find out that Elementary Straightwire is intensely usable. But it will depend upon you and your ability to observe, to know whether or not the preclear is actually remembering anything or not, won't it? And therefore, it takes a sharp auditor to use that.

It'd also take a knowledge on your part of the Tone Scale as given, and nothing more than is given, in Science of Survival.

You'd have to know that great big Chart of Human Evaluation, and you'd be able to look along here and see by various factors where he actually is on the Tone Scale. You really find him there too.

Now, the communication lag will change, and he will rapidly improve. Maybe in a hour or two he will become quite improved. You'd jump the band then; you'd get upstairs — up to 1.8. And about 1.8, then you would be able to run Opening Procedure of 8-C. And you would be able to run Opening Procedure of 8-C until he finally hit about 2.3 on the Tone Scale or 2.5 — in other words, the boredom range — and then hit him by Opening Procedure by Duplication from there on up and through conservatism. And you'll knock him out on conservatism on this.

Remedy of Havingness actually does not take place as a very, very effective process until you have somebody at about 3.5 on the Tone Scale. And then it becomes intensely effective.

And Spotting Spots in Space cannot be done by anybody who is not, at least once in a while, at the band of enthusiasm.

Well, these are the processes you have there, simply plotted on the Tone Scale. But let's take a good look at this and recognize that the widest band we have — 1.1 on down south through 0.0, through minus 4.0, on through minus 6.0, on down to minus 8.0 — the only possible process anywhere on that range would be two-way communication.

Well, if this is the case, for Christ sakes, how do we use it as a process? Well, we have a particular question we ask, that's how we use it as a process. That is Elementary Straightwire. If this disagrees with anything I have said before, what I'm saying now is true.

The only reason you've ever been fed a question to go along with two-way communication is just so that you can at least get in there and stir up a communication lag — you understand? — so that you can understand the communication lag! But that isn't what you're expected to run on a preclear for the rest of your life.

Let's look at it. Let's take a good look at this, and we'll find out that from minus 8.0 up here to 1.0 on the Tone Scale, we've got no business using anything under the sun except two-way communication. Two-way communication means he's got to say things, and you've got to answer them too.

Most curious thing ever happens is when an auditor tells some preclear that he's fishing up out of the rain barrel — out of some medical school. Don't ever attempt one out of a psychology-major class. Oh, don't do that to your-self. Just don't bother, because two-way communication is too well shielded in that particular case. Freud says, I think in lecture twenty-seven or twenty-eight, at the end, "And these people then cannot be healed by us." We can say this about psychologists: "These people then are not desirous of being healed by us." You know why? They sit there and observe the effect. They're trained to sit there and observe the effect. Anybody who's been trained in psychology will sit back in an auditing chair and observe the effect.

Once in a while, I get real brutal with them, grab them by the nape of the neck, make them go over and touch the wall and then sit there and see if anything happened. They're not there to be processed toward being any bet-ter. They're not there to be processed so as to become Clear. They're not living in order to attain any goal or be happy or anything else. They're just living in order to observe an effect. Not create one, you understand! No, no, no. Just observe one.

Out in the street a blade of grass moves. That's an effect, so they write it down in the book. That's the way they're trained.

One of the best ways to get rid of that is to just butcher them on this basis of a two-way communication — only, you make two-way communication with them, one way or the other. But ask them to observe an effect, or what effects can they observe or anything like this that taps the circuit. It's a very curious thing.

Now, let's in this last fifteen minutes really get down to cases on two-way communication. Just what is two-way communication?

It is you asking a question and receiving the exact answer to the question. It is also the preclear asking an exact question and receiving an answer to that question. Got it?

And it is being used, ordinarily, on people who are so full of significances that any communication on anything is either aberrative or a process. Do I make myself very clear here? It's either aberrative or a process. Any-thing they're doing in life would fall in these two categories.

They meet some fellow, tips his hat to them in the morning and they think, "Let me see. Let's see, did he … No, what did he mean? No, I guess I'm in good … I don't know." See, figure-figure-figure-figure-figure — the least it'll do. Or apathy — an emotional reaction on their part. Somebody has actually tipped their hat to them and they're so degraded, you see, and they're just caved in by this whole action. You think I'm exaggerating things, but this is the way these people live! They cover it up with some social machinery now and then. But when they're rough, they're rough.

How do you know? Well, there's a thing called disassociation that you certainly better get cognizant with. And I would advise you that you put on your little medallion dong-dong around your neck and take a walk down to the local spinbin or any home or sanitarium. And you just talk to some of those patients in there. And you won't be asking anybody after that what somebody being out of communication means. You'll see tremendous varieties of it.

And one of the varieties you'll see is this sort of thing: Statement on your part — zong-zong-zong — and then they dodge their own … They dodged yours and then what they said, although it wasn't on the subject, now has to be dodged, and now anything that they said then, now has to be dodged. In other words, dodge-dodge-dodge-dodge-dodge.

See, they're dodging everything in life. They are trying to avert ever being at the effect point of a communication line.

So therefore, anything you say, they change the subject. And then, having changed the subject, they then have to change the subject for sure in order not to have a straight line there. And this is called disassociation.

It is almost impossible for a sane person, unless he simply memorized an actual transcript of one of these people, to even mock up this type of disassociation. It's almost impossible to. I've tried it several times, and I just never really get a grip on it.

Therefore, any rendition that I would give you would be a poor one on this subject. Because the second I start into that kind of logical traveling, and so forth, I will at least add a significance of making it funny or some-thing like this. And they don't do this. It's just perfectly dull.

You say, "Is that chair comfortable?" And you would expect, then, the person to reach down and touch the chair or do something in connection with the chair, but these people do not do that — not even vaguely. They will look over at the window.

And then you expect them to tell you that the window is open. But they don't say anything about the window. They talk about the stove which they now have their back to. You see? And having talked about the stove, now something comes up about some relative — only there's nothing sequitur anyplace. And it's just a lost circuit that you see these people walking through.

Listen, to get a straight stimulus-response on these people — such as, you ask a question, and they give you an answer — is one of the most fabulous things you ever heard of.

So you know what you do with them? You shake them by the hand and squeeze their hand twice. And the first time they squeeze your hand once. And you shake it again and you say, "No," you know, and, "squeeze it twice." See?

Don't be surprised to see a fear charge come off. They will finally squeeze your hand twice in reply. You see some relief on this basis — two-way communication.

You go in and you salute them, and they salute you — exact duplication, by the way. I mean, they're not perfect duplicate, but they're mirror duplicate, you know? They salute you with the same hand on the other side — a rapport, something of this character.

If you ever get a patient of that character to do anything like that with you, and you don't salute back so they can salute you back, and you don't salute them back so they can salute you back, back and forth, back and forth, and recognize that you really got a process going here, you ought to be examined by Steves.

In other words, that's a process, isn't it? So what's this communication? It's cause-distance-effect with a duplication at effect of what is at cause, and cause changing position on the line. You finally get them to a point where they'll salute you, and you salute back.

Now, people always miss on little kids. They go, "Goo-goo, bla-bla-bla and nya-nya-nya-nya. Wave bye-bye," and they pick up their hand, you know, and wave it bye-bye like mad, and so forth. And then the next day the little kid comes in and steps on their toe or something like that — does some-thing, you know, in this line — they don't two-way respond to the kid at all. They pat him on the head or, you know, say, "Goo-goo, da-da, wave blye-bla-bla." What are they doing? They're doing a compulsive-obsessive outflow, obviously to a being who cannot register or recommunicate.

You want to get into good ARC with a kid so the kid will mind you and not fall in the garbage can and do other weird and strange things, and be successful in life, so forth, don't go pounding them around, for heaven's sakes.

There's just never anything happened in that direction. But let them communicate to you once in a while, you know? They walk up to you and they say, "Glub-glub-glub." Well for heaven's sakes, say at least, "Yes" or "No." You know? Or say "Glub-glub" in response. But let them originate a communication once in a while.

And if you don't let anybody originate a communication ever, you get on one of these stuck-flow bases, and there you are — either get swamped or pay no further attention to you. In either case, they go out of communication with you. See, they go out of communication.

Now, parents wonder — where their children get to be four, five, six — wonder why, when you take them out to a soda fountain or a movie or some-thing like that, they sit there and yell and scream, and they want something, and they whine and moan and victimize their parents at every … Why they don't mind. And they wonder when they're twenty-one and twenty-two why they've gone off and married the wrong girl or the wrong boy and — you know — and why in college they didn't study, and why they never answer any mail.

Particularly, you'll hear parents always complaining about this: Johnny never writes them a letter.

Now, I've seen a few slaps administered to a kid, just a few slaps administered to a kid to put him out of an emanation band; just drop him out of an emanation band — you know, it's around the house. He can take it from life, you see, but taking it around the house, that would be something else (from a maid or somebody like that). You see, just a few cuffs, all of a sudden go out of communication — just out of the communication band — get sick, stick some-where low on the Tone Scale, stay there for a day or so, see, sick, and then finally rebound.

You've just watched a person go down Tone Scale and up Tone Scale again. Well, you actually could produce the same effect just by letting him reach, and you withdraw. See, if he happened to reach toward you just accidentally, you back up. And you get an astonishing thing.

Now, I know of a case where a person finds it utterly impossible to make children or dogs obey — utterly impossible. This person cannot understand it. No dog or no child has ever been trained by this person satisfactorily, and yet this person has tried and tried and tried. Never worked. Can't train them. Doesn't matter what dog it is. Even if a dog is trained at a kennel someplace, you know, and is then turned back to him. He says, "Heel," the dog runs away.

He says, "Lie down," the dog jumps up on his chest and licks him in the face.

He just can't figure this out. But he never could figure this out either: Let's say a dog's playing around, see? Just chewing around and chewing on an old shoe, you know, and you walk in the room, and the dog comes over and looks at the shoe you've got on and says, "Rrrrr-rrrr-rrrr-rrrr-rrrr," you know, and grabs hold of your shoe.

Now, the person I just talked to you about would say, "Get away. What are you doing chewing on my shoe?" See? Not, "How are you, Rover?" In other words, under his conditions, with life exactly arranged the way he wants it, he will talk to the dog.

The dog offered a communication, didn't he? He actually offered a game. Dogs play four or five games as just standard games of dogs.

All right, he came in and he offered a game, hm? He didn't inquire whether or not your shoes had just been shined or not. But then you didn't inquire whether or not he'd just scratched his ear when you fluffed up the hair on the back of it.

He bit you. If you were in good communication with life in general, your — not an analyzed reaction, but just your instinctive reaction would be, "Ouch! Don't do that! Get away from me you beast! What are you trying to do to me?" You're letting him emanate, because you're not basically scared. You can play a game. See that? This dog would think you're wonderful. You're a stranger. He's done this. Next time you come to the house he'll think you're wonderful, and so forth. He'll come out, and he'll look at you, and he'll wag, and he'll go "Hha-hh-hha-hh-hha!" And you look at him and you go, "Hha-hh-hha-hh-hha! How are you?" "That's a great guy, great guy," you know? Two-way communication in all directions, and so on.

I've had people say to me, "What do you do to animals?" It's nothing mysterious what you do to animals. "What do you do to kids? Every time you come over here, Ron — every time you come over here these children just go completely out of control. What's the matter with you?" I have been so mean as to say occasionally, "Completely out of control? Are you sure they were in control before I came?" But they've certainly come to life on this kind of a basis.

And I've seen kids get beaten down enough so that any playful push in their directions, or attack in their directions, they just instinctively cringe away and try to go out of communication. In other words, a reach in their direction is enough to make them go out of communication.

Now, you understand that I'm also talking to you about preclears when I'm talking to you about children and dogs? I'm just talking about living forms; same thing would apply to ants, plaster saints, anything. I'm just talking about life.

All right. The surest measure you ever had is your preclear's willingness to play a game with you. He's as bad off as he can't play a game.

A lot of preclears come in, sit down, you start processing, they'll run anything for you. They'll give you any kind of effect you can think of, all over the house. They're in good shape anyhow. Say, "Be three feet back of your head," they probably would be without any trouble at all. They'd go through a drill, they'd do this, they'd do that. Look at this person's life. Life is a game. Earth is a playing field — no more than that.

All right. This other preclear comes in, he says, "I don't know, I feel pretty bad today. Your auditing session last week really didn't do me very much good. You know?" He's just announced to you at that moment he can't play a game.

How's another way he announces to you that he can't play a game?

You say, "Well, let's see if we can get down and finish off that Straightwire we were running last week."

"Oh, well, that really didn't do me too much good. I actually had a dream. Hm-hmm-hmm."

See, he isn't in this Straightwire game at all, see? I mean, he's out of communication with you. You, being educated as a social animal, are liable to believe that you're talking to somebody who has a rational reason why he doesn't want to run Straightwire! All you're talking to is somebody who can-not answer your question! The sooner you learn that, the sharper you'll get! They sound so reasonable!

Well actually, the band between about 0.75 on the Tone Scale, and about 2.2 — in that band right in there — my God! Reason? Oh! Why, they could give you a total explanation, probably with all the physical laws involved, of exactly how a sun got created. But by God, they could never walk in the sun-light!

Do you get the sudden difference here? Hm?

Oh, can they be reasonable. And they keep on fooling you as an auditor by being so reasonable. You're guilty of an overt act all the time, too, along a certain part of this band, see, just by being there — your thereness. If you want to know what your overt act is, your thereness is the overt act.

You are in a mass, in a form, you are visible, and that alone is the overt act to people in that Tone Scale band. And you're going to run these people on Opening Procedure by Duplication and precision, and expect them to get in touch with their environment.

Well, once in a while you'll be lucky, and that luckiness — that one lucky one — will sell you on the idea that then you could run this Opening Procedure on anybody, anyplace.

You could get this person to drill around like an automaton, and go over and touch walls and that sort of thing, and then after you'd given him a couple of hours of session you'd say to him, "How do you feel now?" And he'd say, "You know, I really didn't get through. There was one spot up there that I didn't . . ." Grrrr. See, he was willing to go through like a little doll, all wound up. He'd go on and . . . You're not in communication with him.

Did it ever occur to you that you have a high enough ARC to run a body around a room just by dropping a nickel in the slot? And that there's no pre-clear walking around the room? Did it ever occur to you, that you could animate a body into 8-C? You sure can! And the only way you can really tell whether you're doing it or not is two-way communication.

Can that person put out a communication that you can answer? Can you put out a communication that he can answer? Can you talk about something that is interesting in order to get life a little bit uncomplicated and as-ised and get some of these lags out?

Just get him talking at first, and let him get you talking — any way. But remember, the only communication there is isn't talk. There are other ways to communicate, too, you know? All the tactile sensations can be used in two-way communication.

And then you finally get him up to a point where he'll really talk to you. You had to see him several times, you know, and he finally is really talking to you, and you're talking to him. There's where analysis misses every time. You know? It takes two-way communication.

It isn't the preclear sitting there puking words year after year — doesn't make anybody well. To match that two-way communication, the analyst would have to do the same thing.

All right. Back and forth we go here, back and forth we go. We could then get him up to Elementary Straightwire.

When we can run Elementary Straightwire on him, then we can run almost anything, you see, when we get him through that lag. He can contact his past, his past is still there; he can still live; life will become more clear to him; you'll break him out of that band and then hit him on 8-C.

This is the way I've been running them lately, with a tremendous amount of success — just overwhelming quantities of success with them.

And the only place I've been watching auditors failing is they forget that they can run a body by their own willpower. And they get a person who is not in two-way communication; they run his body around the room through 8-C. And I don't know how many thousand years they could do it, but they'd get awfully expert in running two bodies at once: the body that's sitting in the chair, and the body that's going around the room.

Okay.