And this is the twentieth… (Twenty-fifth. Oh, twentieth lecture.) Twentieth lecture of the seventeenth ACC, March the twenty-fifth, 1957. And the name of the lecture is The Uses Of Control.

As I've just been telling you, off the record here, control is the datum that everybody knows is wrong. Everybody knows that control wouldn't do anything for anybody. As experimental, self auditing process; you got that? Experimental, self auditing process, since I don't believe there are any self auditing processes. Anything that is wrong, you know, is wrong with the other fellow. It's not wrong with you. Every problem you've got is somebody else's problem. You know that. We haven't changed our minds on that at all. As an experimental, self auditing process, you might look around and label how the wall could control you. Obviously this is a sort of a no game condition, reverse effect, spinner-inner. Obviously. But what do you know? It must be that control is above games. We've evidently found several things lately, which I will remark in passing, which are above games. And for some reason or other, out of control is part of a game, but control isn't. Therefore you can control your own teammates and they control you, but the second that you go into a game with somebody you have to put him on automatic. So, games are below control, and so they prove to be, evidently, in processing.

So we look around and find how the wall could control you, and how the floor could control you, and how chairs could control you, and so forth, at a moment when we feel a bit in bad shape. And what do you know? A thirst for control will turn on eventually. I don't say that it's therapeutic. It's just, it's just a thirst for control.

If you are worried about anything, there's not enough of it. That is, that is it. If you're worried about anything there's not enough of it. If you're having trouble with anything there is not enough of it. At some time or another there's been so little of it that you have conceived it to be unreal, non-existence, unobtainable, or bad. So only in the absence of control would you get control being bad. It's true of significances as well as objects, and spaces.

Now, let's look over this. Let's look over this with care. If you had enough control over you, you wouldn't consider it bad. See, we're going against this upper datum, if there's not enough of it you will consider it bad. Or, if you consider something bad or undesirable or unreal or wicked or something of this sort, then there's not enough of it. I know this might lead you into some terribly interesting logical impasses at once. AAs. Attempted abortions. Well, a person objects to them. So we'd have to, by this rule, say, "Well there just aren't enough of them." Well of course if there'd been enough of them there wouldn't be any human race. And so you're going on a negative line there of some kind or another, that just doesn't apparently add up, but if you remedy somebody's havingness with AAs, who has experienced one, the attention of it goes off. So obviously there's not enough of it.

Now really, within the bracket of man's experience, if his parents had attempted abortions enough, then he would have no responsibility toward them, and he would not have to cherish them and take care of them, and love, honor and oh-baby them. You see? So it becomes a rationale. And a person holds it in as part of this rationale. It's quite fantastic, but if you attempt to go up some of these lines you sometimes have to scramble around in the bushes for quite a while to find something is bad, because there isn't enough of it, but you always can stretch logic across it, which is one of the more interesting things. It's not true that you can stretch logic across everything either.

Now it so happens that control, if conducted all the way along the line, would have resulted in no games. You never would have had any games at all. But the funny part of it is, that the use of it doesn't put somebody in a no game condition. Now that is the mystery. And if that is the case, then we must be dealing with postulates superior to, and prior to games. So not only, not only is axiom ten after the fact of games, but a whole series of processes lie before the fact of games. And we find games then subdivided at axiom ten, and control must belong up there in the earlier axioms. Fantastic, because only when we disobey or deny that earlier postulate; it must be part of one of the earlier ones; only if we deny it or disobey it do we then get into trouble. Well we find out that a general rule of all conduct and behavior is that only those things which have been denied are aberrative.

We have to assume we need something, and then be denied it, before it is upsetting. And this is what havingness sits on. This is the keynote of havingness. Denial of something was much more important, evidently, than merely needing it. One really cannot get into a state of total dependence unless he has been made to make the postulate of denial. He makes the postulate of having to have it only when he has been denied it. Go ahead, down to the middle of the Ungabonga Tribe, and deny all of those Ugabongans, deny them patent egg beaters. You're not going to be able to, they don't have any. They've never seen one, and they don't know what it is.

Alright, so let's take a carload lot down to the Ungabongas of egg beaters, and let's show them how they work, and how they can fasten them in their hair, and all this sort of thing, and show them lots and lots of egg beaters. Alright. And we could back there in a few months or years, and we find the egg beaters have been more or less neglected, and they've been rusting around in the grass for a long time. They were a piece of havingness that didn't have any importance attached to it of any kind. We'd have to pull another operation on the Ungabongas, and that would be this operation: We give them the egg beaters, and then we tell one of the people in the tribe that he has been a bad man, so therefore he cannot have an egg beater. Ah. It's with some rationale. We say, "Now look, the reason you didn't make your poi-poi thunga-wugs so rapidly is because you didn't use a patent egg beater." We infer that it has been denied. Every way we look at it we find out that to achieve a necessity we have to first achieve a denial. This is one of the more important, one of the important, interesting facts. So that denial of control results in a necessity for control.

So therefore a games condition would have resulted immediately a scarcity of control. You can follow that through rather interestingly. It's, you don't have to go this far afield, all you had to do is process the fact as itself and it becomes a pure process. The control apparently goes all the way north and south, and is probably the only factor which has been the illuminating factor in some technique. The fact that somebody was being controlled probably explained the usability of the technique.

You could run a bad technique that was totally aimed at effect, with tremendous control, and have somebody get a bit better. The technique would cut them back a little bit, but the control would push them up. So this was the sleeper, this was the sneak factor. This was the factor. This is the factor which makes the difference between the auditor with vast insight, delicacy, great skill and learnedness on the subject of Pavlov's dog wagging, and somebody who laid eggs all over the place. We could have a thousand accomplishments on the part of an auditor. He could be so psychic that he could read any existing mind in the Pentagon, if there is one. The Pentagon the other day took up psychic reading. It did, as an official activity, by the way, in order to read the minds of the Russian general staff, and get their plans. Telepathy. They were advertising for telepathists. I guess a telepathy, third rating, I think it was a third class civil service appointment. Now you think I'm joking, but I don't happen to be. This is the leaden truth of the matter.

Now here, here we have, here we have a thousand accomplishments. Is it how well he knows his axioms? Is it the way he poises his little pinky as he addresses the preclear? What is this? What is this? What is this factor? Is it that he dresses nicely? I knew a whirling dervish one time who was a miracle worker. He was an interesting fellow. Whirling dervishes, by the way, are the fellows who monitor the fightingness and livingness of the Tarhis, the Taregs, of the blue veiled, blue eyed, veiled people, who used to rob all the caravans unless they were paid properly in north Africa, and so on. This whirling dervish was an awfully interesting fellow. These whirling dervishes swing in out of the nowhere, and all of a sudden beat the tribes up. And the next thing you know somebody's at war with somebody. But he was an awfully interesting fellow. He could practically cure anything. I've heard a tale about another one just like him. It's quite interesting, is the French in trying to arrest another one, were quite astonished to have him disappear, melt away and vanish in his chair, as he sat there in conference with them. They said, "We will imprison you unless you do so and so." And he said, "Oh will you?" And vanished right where he sat. That left them completely discombobulated.

Well this whirling dervish I knew could cure miraculously. He was evidently a bit higher than the school of Ju-ju, which is normally practiced in Africa. And Ju-ju of course is a bit higher than psychiatry. You get the idea where Ju-ju sits. But a Ju-ju activity is very interesting. They take a horse tailed switch. You know, a horse's tail mounted on a little stick, and they fill that switch full of fleas. And then they come around and they shake the fleas on you. And while you're busy trying to brush them off they shove in the stable datum, "You will die, Bwana!" You never notice this, you're too confused with the fleas. They use the confusion and the stable datum. And it's almost a complete activity on their part. They also; there's snake down along there in north Africa and south Africa too, by the way, which goes into a catatonic state. And you can use it as a walking stick. And you throw it down on the ground and the shock makes it recover, and it wiggles away. This is very effective magic. I've forgotten who used that. There was; it seemed like some fellow in the Egyptian court used that one. But anyhow, other Ju-ju artists along the line have employed most of these startling, surprise mechanisms. They think it's surprise. It isn't surprise. That's confusion and the stable datum.

Alright, now what's this whirling dervish got to do with it? It's the fact that he had the foulest breath, the dirtiest clothes, the most lice, the worst table habits I have ever seen in a man. And I've seen some peaches. I've seen some champions. I've seen men that were so holy you could smell them for a hundred and fifty yards, just as plain. And this fellow could effect a cure every time on little children, if he was paid enough.

What did all his physical attributes have to do with his ability to cure? I suppose you could say it was in reverse. He startled them so that they couldn't help but either die or get well. But the point is that it didn't have anything then to do with whether or not an auditor brushed his teeth. Didn't have a thing to do with it. Whether he audited somebody in his shirt sleeves or underwear or in a loin cloth, it just didn't have anything to do with it. Whether he wore his hair as badly long as I do mine, or bobbed it off to fit up a Roman legionnaire, which I hate to be. Whatever it is, these thousands of factors, none of them told the story. If it is learning that makes people well, then I assure you there is not one insane man in the country, since the psychiatrist is trained for twelve years. So learning alone wouldn't make somebody well. Even learning on the wrong subjects would still be learning.

We have had people who could recite the axioms and processes and so forth, backwards and forwards, you turn them loose on a preclear and well, so you turn them loose on a preclear. You couldn't see any obvious action ever having taken place. And we have isolated this datum. First and foremost it takes a desire on the auditor's part to do something, and the willingness to stay in there and pitch. This is, this is of course the first and foremost requisite. Next in the line, however, is control, ability and willingness to. Ability and willingness to control. Things, people, situations, objects. Now that's, that's it.

Right next door to that is a thorough knowledge of the subject and the willingness to accept it and its simplicities. That's quite a trick all by itself. If he can't accept the subject in its simplicities he certainly can never accept control in its simplicity, because it's stark.

Alright, so what makes a good auditor? Well that is it. And we get to this definition. A Scientologist is one who controls people, environments and situations. Now that sounds to be a very strange definition. That you would say was limited. Well the only limitation on it would be create, absence of. And if you said a Scientologist was one who creates and controls people, environments and situations, you have god. So we will be smart enough to leave the create out. Just leave it understood there.

Well this is up around axiom three. And it's probably around axiom three to the extent that it almost should be axiom three and a half. We've already found there was a coordination between create and control. A person who could not control things was not willing to create things, because they might turn into a frankenstein effect. Well, he created something, it gave him the frankenstein effect, and it went out from underneath control, and it did a lot of damage. And he said, "Well I mustn't create things like that." And that is the history of creativeness. When you were a little child you were perfectly willing to create a complete chaos in the house, until you found out that is had a very bad effect on your mother, that you were fond of. And so you didn't create this. So you; controllability. Controllability, order, that sort of thing, is all in there in the same basket.

Now you can have a person create confusions, and have him recover from some things. But it's a limited process. You have to have a person create order to make him well. And control is the absolute brother of order. Without control there is no order, there is chaos. And chaos and confusion are the antipathis of control.

Thus this factor, as I have told you before in this course, does wind itself up into something of great interest to the auditor. And it's fascinating. Now if you walk around the block until you are looking at things, and not thinking about something else, you will feel better. You could come home from a long day at the bread line, or whatever we're going to have in the future, and look around as you walked around the block, until things seemed more real to you, and be all over your tiredness and upset. This is the best single; I was talking about self auditing processes. This is the best single self auditing process. This is about the only one there is that is utterly dependable. Is, walk around the block until you notice things. 'Til your noticing of things is much better. Quite interesting. It's just the mechanism of bringing you into present time with a covert use of havingness. And it works in almost any level of case.

Alright, if that is true, is there any control involved in it? Oh yes. It requires that you take that body which is tired and saying, "No, no, no. I don't want to, I want to…" And you take it by the scrap of the neck and you make it walk around the block. And there is the control factor. And it is probably the fact that you made your body get out and walk around the block that made you feel better, not that you saw anything. Got that? Quite interesting.

The discombobulation experienced by certain college students who were put into a blindfolded, soundless, dark chamber for any number of days, and who came out very discombobulated, caused the ratologist to conclude, conclusively of course, that human beings needed the stimulus of the environment in order to remain happy and sane. Well, this is so close to being a fact that it undoubtedly will stay along for a long time. Fact of the matter is these people were uncontrolled for that period. When you lay your body down to sleep, did it ever occur to you, when you lay that body down to sleep in a bed, and sleep for eight or nine hours, that the body is not out of control during that period? Hm? It only disturbs you, and you only try to orient yourself with nightmares. Nightmares are a mechanism by which one seeks to orient himself. By the way, that's a definition, if you want to know what a nightmare is and what it's all about. He hasn't got anchor points, and he thinks he'd better orient himself, so he orients himself with a nightmare, which is a silly thing to do. But he does it. And nightmares respond to this definition. You can process on that definition, and you'll find out all he was trying to do was locate himself. Which is quite interesting, quite interesting. But the body lying in the bed is not out of control. You put it into the bed and you were satisfied that it would stay there, until you picked it up again. Quite simple.

So if unconsciousness is the aberrative factor, clear across the boards in every case, then we would have to conclude that an eight hour's sleep would drive you a bit batty. But it doesn't. At the end of this time your resumption of control may be clumsy. People will get out of beds and fall on their heads quite often. They stagger around trying to orient themselves. But it's not aberrative. It's not aberrative. That is because you're under control.

Now if you have been forcefully tied down on a bed, against your will and with violence and with very bad ARC, I'm pretty sure you won't get much rest. You did control something when you controlled the body and made it lie down. Conversely, if you can get a psycho to sleep he generally recovers, but if you put him under restraint and make him lie motionless he deteriorates. How do you reconcile these two facts? That has something to do with control.

Control by inhibition is a very poor control. Control by inhibition. You make the man; look at the level of trust that would do this. You make a man walk down a straight line by putting a high wall close on either side of him. That's really silly. That's control by inhibition. Now you make him walk down the line by jabbing him with a spike, and you have about what control is supposed to be here on this planet at this time. Control is usually cruel. But control in the absence of ARC is not functional. You could even say it's better than nothing, but that's a very adventurous statement to make. You have a circumstance here which, in punishment, which removes the ARC. And with high ARC control becomes very therapeutic, even though you have to take the fellow by the arm and lead him down that straight line. And even though this requires a considerable grip on your part, your intention and expression is high ARC, he will be better for having walked down the line. He will not be better for having been bounded by two walls, and jabbed in the pants with a spike.

See, the absence of the ARC is then something that tells us a great deal. In ARC there is strength. The higher you go in ARC the more strength is indicated. Lower, misemotional tones demonstrate fear of failure, one way or another. They admit the possibility of failure, lower emotional tones, and are not strong. Strength goes out as we go down scale through the misemotions, until we finally reach apathy, which can move nothing. Or below zero, where we do not even know it is there, even if it did move us.

So; did you ever read Ambrose Bearce's The Thing of No Color? Terribly interesting story for a Scientologist to read. A statement of below apathy if I ever saw one. The Thing of No Color would be something a person below apathy would not observe, even though it was there. Quite fascinating. Ambrose Bearce is best known of course for his Devil's Dictionary. But this Thing of No Color is a horror story. It's one of the milder, more pleasantly written horror stories I have ever read. And it's the object as it would appear to a person who is below apathy. He would feel there was something there, and he might be quite terrified of it. But he wouldn't know what to be terrified of, because he wouldn't be sure that something was or was not there. So as we go down misemotionally, it is a matter of losing positive things which control us, or that we can control. And the dwindling spiral, stated in terms of control, is simply those things which become more and more distant from a possibility of control. Therefore they become less and less real.

So the possibility of controlling something does lend it to reality. Does lend to the reality of a something. Visa versa. You say, "Well a thing has to be real, and then we can control it." No. The possibility of controlling it is a factor which immediately increases reality, and we have in control something which directly and deliberately effects reality.

We can monitor reality with control. This is fabulous. Providing it is done with high ARC. Now you'll find the higher the ARC you use, the less you'll have to wrap the fellow around with your arm and walk him down the straight line. The less the ARC, the more you will have to. So the optimum is a terrifically high level of ARC, and a terrifically positive, no possibility of not doing so, state of mind. You bring about the fact there's no possibility of its not happening.

Now we were licked many years ago when we could not touch a preclear. We had to sit there and give him the command, and if he didn't do it, that was us. Now is it true that ARC bypasses control? Yes, it is true if you want to spend enough time at it. You can say to a psycho, "How are you?" enough times to have the psycho at length reply to you in pretty high ARC, perfectly sanely. And I don't care what psycho this is. But not being able to duplicate, the phrenologist, who I think is the; isn't that the profession today that's in charge of all mental institutions? A phrenologist. Yeah, I knew it was one of those words. These fellows wouldn't be able to duplicate a greeting that often, nor maintain a high enough pleasant ARC, or they would not have the persistence to continue with such an action. That would take a Scientologist. And it would only be a Scientologist who would understand this, who had already had Op Pro by Dup kind of flat, and who wouldn't get edgy or nervous on just the repetition of a command, and could maintain a high ARC with the person who was spinning all around the place, just lying flat and doing nothing. But if you said, "How are you today? How are you today? How are you today?" to a psycho enough times, he will eventually say, "I'm fine."

Well the tests made on this to date are exceeded, my guess, enough so that my early understanding of this was blighted by the fact that I didn't think it would happen. I didn't think it would happen at all. In other words, I thought, "Well we haven't got the psycho's attention, therefore it wouldn't matter how often or how long we went at it." And so we wouldn't ever get a response from the psycho. It's in the terms of about seventy-five to eight-five hours. You knock off one evening and go back the next morning and start it all over again. Repetitive, high ARC greeting will eventually elicit a reply. We're looking at an ultimate in processing to have a high enough ARC so that even if you did say, that if you once said this once to a psycho he would say, "I am fine," and instantly be well. And that would be miracle healing. But in between these two, the inevitability of his eventually replying to you, if you maintain your ARC, not touching him in any way, and speaking to him from such a high level of ARC that he simply would reply, in between those two things we have positive control. And it's close enough to a miracle right now to suit me right down to the ground.

We didn't know when we were first handling people, that this comment would eventually get through and be answered. Even when we studied comm lag a few years ago, and went over that. We didn't realize that it would some day flatten, even though we apparently never did have the person's attention. The attention factor is minor in this, that a person will eventually reply. But we were handicapped much worse than this. If the Dianeticist in 1950 had told a person, "Alright, sit up," and the person had not sat up, the Dianeticist would have sat there and figured out something else to do. That's because we didn't know with the high level simplicity what we know now. Truth of the matter is, the Dianeticist should have simply reached over and with great ARC made him sit up, with his hands. That, that was it.

What was Dianetics but the ability to control somebody's somatic strip? To control his pictures and somatics. Fantastic what you could do with it. But there must have been very few auditors who could do a fast case, because these auditors were not all of them positive enough on the control. We were on an entirely opposite kick. We said, "Everybody should be self determined, and should be permitted to do as he pleases to the end of time." Completely inaccurate statement. That he would never reach any end of anything if they were all permitted to do exactly what they wanted to do, because they would then have a scarcity of this thing called control. And a scarcity of it is much more deadly than a scarcity of freedom. You could have an awful scarcity of freedom and still get out of the soup, but you evidently won't get out of the soup with little or no control.

Self auditing, self auditing is a question in point. I know an indifferently effective technique in self auditing where an individual, well he runs stop CS on himself. It's quite an interesting technique. But he never can quite be sure whether he's controlling the body or what. This is, he has to get up above this level, evidently, of worry about control of the body, before he can run good SCS, and then why run it? This is an imponderable, you see? You have to be able to do it before you can do it.

Now what is this, what is this control factor useful for? We know something here. We know something nobody else knows. I don't think; I think we've even gone to a point of no longer even suspecting it anywhere in our literature. I think thousands of years of literature. The last remark I know of was written in I think 1790, by Edward Gibbon, when he said, "The discipline, when the discipline of the legions was lost, that was the end of Rome." But look what kind of statement this was. This says that if you no longer had an orderly effective army, why you got caved in. So that's not informative. It's almost a statement that when control disappeared from the Roman Empire, it was dead. Well you can't really read the remark I made into Gibbon's remark. But it's the nearest mention of it I have seen anywhere in literature. Now I'm not very well read. A great many volumes in Russian I haven't read. I haven't read any psychiatry in its native Russian. I haven't. I mean, I've just looked at the pictures.

We have an interesting boy over in England. He's an RAF interpreter, in Russian. And, very amusing when he came lugging in the basic textbooks on psychiatry. I didn't know they existed. They're all in Russian. Printed way back when. The late nineteenth century. And all the old boys, 1870, 1874. Terrific text on the subject, all called psychiatry. And now nobody knows where psychiatry came from, you know? It just descended from above.

So he brought this over and he demonstrated conclusively as far as I was concerned, that I was not literary. There were a number of books I had never read in their native tongue, and I actually to some degree abandoned literature at that time. It made me feel hopeless, because the thickness of the books and their illustrations as how to hang psychos up and whip them, how to lay them down and put galvanic batteries to their temple, heh heh heh. Electric shocks, brand new. It was invented by a fellow by the name of Medina, I think, in 1941 in Chicago. Ha ha ha. I've forgotten the date, but it's supposed to be Medina. He goes around popping his suspenders all the time, which he doesn't wear, on having invented it in this country. But, here was a series of books I hadn't read. But I did gain something out of it. That the Russians had an awful time trying to control people or they wouldn't be trying this hard.

The utter, raw violence which was being thrown at the uncontrollable patient demonstrated a considerable anxiety on the part of the practitioner to make that person do something. But do what I couldn't quite figure out. Just what did they want these psychos to do? What did the Russian want them to do? Well Pavlov wanted dogs to slaver. We know that. He had an intelligent goal. You get a dog slavering, you've really got something there. You've got it. No, he's at least going somewhere. But the amount of raw violence which was involved in these quote "therapeutic" activities, demonstrate a certain anxiety. And I wasn't even tipped off then, to be honest with you. But what is a psychotic but a person out of control? Look at their motions, their actions. And right along with it goes an inability to accept direction of any kind. And that is the common denominator. We were working on that when we got Step C of 8-C. It was trying to get a person to accept direction. So it's right back there.

We have recognized all the time that it had to do with direction, and with making, giving postulates and making commands, and we have been working on this for years. But we never summated it and said very positively, "It is control, direction, and there are three parts of it." And one is stop, and one is start, and one is change. Or one is start, one is change, and one is stop. Or one is change and one is start and one is stop. We don't care in what order they go, by the way, 'cause we're not plotting cycles of action so much as we are making direction positive. Now if we stop somebody's attention and no longer let it wander anywhere, if we stop it we will eventually hypnotize him. And that is hypnosis, and that's all there is to hypnosis. Hypnosis is called hypnosis because so many people are hipped on it.

The unfortunate part of control is that it must be exerted, it must be exerted on a third dynamic level. You control something. Now for you to control yourself doesn't happen to be feasible. You are the giver of control, not the receiver of control, but by being something else than yourself you become controllable. And if it becomes thoroughly enough controlled, you recognize you aren't it, and so you exteriorize from it. And it's that simple. If you are something that can be controlled, you aren't you. It's like the old lady ran home, and she'd been beaten up by robbers and she was all tattered, and her dog barked at her. She didn't even know she was herself anymore. Well that's most thetans. "Can this really be me?" she said. Dog didn't know her so she didn't know her either.

Now in this particular case, this particular case, if you can be controlled, evidently you aren't you. Now possibly that is the way a thetan unwinds it. I wouldn't be adventurous as to say exactly what took place, but what does take place is quite fascinating. You can be controlled or control. And it seems to be therapeutic both ways.

Now, there's a highly specialized form of control being used here. It is control based on this premise: That control itself is defined as positive direction in starting, changing and stopping. Positive direction in starting, changing and stopping. If you wanted to amend that any you'd probably put knowing in there. Positive, knowing direction in starting, changing and stopping somebody. Boy does it ruin games. But you say at once, "Well therefore it would bring about a scarcity of games." And the next thing you know, the preclear'd just spin in, and he doesn't. So it bypasses again scarcity of games, so we can again say that is undoubtedly bypasses games. An important factor, nothing else does. As soon as you've got free, good, positive control running in all directions, boy you haven't got any more game than a rabbit. But you have a terrific potentiality for games, any time you want to drop off controlling something. And the more things you can control, the more things you can cease to control, so the more games you have. Fascinating.

Very well. If we look over the factors of control we discover that all an auditor has to do is positively, knowingly direct the three available things in the preclear, starting, changing and stopping them. Interchangeably or at will. The three available things in the preclear are attention, person, and thinkingness. Those are the three things which are available for control. Part of thinkingness is the engram bank. And it is the bridge between thinking and person, and so it somewhat a part of each. So, the process of auditing is the positive, knowing control of the attention, person and thinking of another being. And that is auditing.

I'll repeat the definition for you because it becomes a terrifically precise definition. Auditing is a positive, knowing control of the attention, person and thinking of another being. And almost incidentally to that you would add, along certain preconcerted, well conceived plans of action, resulting in his betterment. That's awfully incidental. If you do the first the second will happen, so why even define it. Unless of course people coming along will wonder what this is all about, and that would be merely an explanatory line.

…a riddle of long standing. What's auditing? Well it's auditing somebody. Well what's that? Well it's improving him. People seldom go any further, but you have not yet achieved an action definition. And this is the first action definition of auditing, seven years after the first book, within six weeks of being to the day. Six or seven weeks.

Seven years. That's auditing. And that's all it is. Right along with that we have practically all of the trick teaching techniques necessary to put somebody into an ability to do so, which is the dog gondest thing that ever happened. All roads lead to a goal, bang. And there they meet, because we've been developing indoctrination so as to teach them communication, we have been developing various things such as the preclear must not stop the auditor. The preclear must not stop the auditor. Of course in some cases, by stopping the auditor enough the preclear has practically made himself well because he's exerted some control. but not very well. He'd had to do it enough, you know.

Here we have the preclear floundering along, mucking along in life, being handled by his bank, being handled by this, handled by that, pushed around here, pushed around there, and not knowing any part of it. Not knowing he's being controlled by his mental image pictures, not knowing his wife was controlling him, even though she at every tea party rather laughed about this with her friends, about the methods of control. And methods of control, and we worry about thinkingness and they worry about this and that, and we worry about, "Let me see. Let me see now. How could I possibly get my father and mother to buy me some candy? Oh, kill myself of course." Well that controls them. You see? You get how dispersed control gets? It gets fabulously dispersed. So much so that if you look at a service facsimile you will know you are looking at a package of the last ditch of controlling somebody. So why does control make anybody well? That's because a service facsimile itself is a mechanism of control. So you give a person a positiveness on the subject of control, and they can come up with a very definite slackening or abandonment of the service facsimile. So control mounts right there with the top of the service facsimile. Just plain, ordinary, routine control.

Now in view of the thing, in view of the fact that you have three things to control, you should never be impoverished. But if you don't control to some degree all three of them, you're going to flop. To some degree. You have to control all three. The last one you will seize control of is thinkingness. Had a preclear this morning was worrying about what thinkingness was. What is it? Psychologist says it's a string of words. I don't know what it is. "Well, now look at that wall. Now think something about it, you know? Get an idea of it. Did you?" "Oh yes." "Well what did you think?" "Well I didn't. It was just an all, big blank. I really don't know what thinking is." You will run into this, but you can bring it into view simply by exerting control on attention, control on a person.

Now we know that repetitive control of attention, such as duplication by attention, that was a sort of a killer. But the trouble is, it had too much stop in it. Too much stop in it in terms of a, in terms of fixation. However the thing even then did run out hypnosis. The reason people thought they were being hypnotized is this was hypnotism. And it started running out hypnotism, you know? Look at the corner of the desk, look at the other corner of the desk, look at the next corner of the desk, look at the other corner of the desk, look at this corner of the desk. Daaa. A person after a while feels, "Well there I go, there I go. I mean, I'm going hypnotized." No, old hypnotism was running out, as was demonstrated by a continuance of the project. But direction of attention, direction of attention did win in the direction of person, and both win in the direction of thinkingness.

Now you'd certainly love to know how to change somebody's mind at will. That's the last secret. How do you change somebody's mind at will? Bang! Well you have a road straight to it, and that road begins at once with attention, person, and thinkingness. And when you have all three of those things entirely under control you'll change his mind. But the funny part of it is, about the time you had all of them under control one hundred percent, he'd be able to obey his own postulates too. This is a trick mechanism. With ARC; you see how the specialized control going forward here, it's specialized. It's high ARC, start, change and stop. That's what you got, of attention, person and thinkingness. Fabulous. Really fabulous in the amount of spade work this undoes in a case. You'll find out that somebody, if he fixes his attention on anything very long, you do something to him. You just say, "Sit there and look at that lamp." You say, "No. Look at that lamp." "I know but my eyes burn." "Look at the lamp." Yet a very interesting technique, why do his eyes burn? Fascinating. When he looks and fixes on something he goes, or some part of his anatomy is liable to go, into a dispersal. Why does it go into a dispersal? It's just mis-control. When you go to stop you get change, when you go to start you get change. Get it? When you go to change you stop. When you go to change you start. You get this? It's just mis-control. SCS, every time you hit the first S, why you get the last two, and every time you hit the middle one, why you get the end two. And every time you hit the last one you get the first two. That's just un-positive control, isn't it? So that's a dispersal, that's franticness, and that's everything else.

He starts to do one thing and he winds up doing something else. So you ask a preclear to change his mind and his thinkingness stops. You get the randomity involved here? And that's all there is to it. Under positive, knowing control you win. But there's all kinds of other kinds of control. Oh there's lots of them, lots of them, lots of them, that are known as control, which aren't. So we are on a specialized definition.

For instance, you don't want to go to the show, so your friend says, "Well let's go to the show." And you don't want to hurt your friend's feelings, so you say, "I've got a headache." And your friend says, "Oh that's too bad. Well I'll stay home and read a book." And that's what you wanted to do in the first place, and so therefore your headache has controlled your friend. Oh come now, is this a high level of reality? No, he even had to enter a lie into the situation. And that's true of every kind of control that is not positive. It contains to some degree the ingredient of a lie.

Pain and duress are of no value of any kind, since they admit of a weakness and a weakness cannot control. If you have to threaten anybody, then you have lost your hope of positive, knowing control of that person. You've just written it all out in a confession, and put your name and seal on it. You've said, "If you don't give me that in a couple of minutes I'm going to knock your brains in." You've just written a complete confession, and said, "I cannot control you, Joe." Signed it, sealed it, everything. And when the state says, "Now if you kill anybody we're going to kill you." And this is "Now we're going to keep you in line," at once everybody goes out of line. And this is what's fabulous about the world! Is they couldn't possibly be proceeding on a route less beneficial in accomplishment. No hope of accomplishment lies along the line of punishment or duress. There's no accomplishment possible.

Everything is an immediate gain with an eventual kickback. We say to a little child, "If you don't be quiet we're going to spank you." He's not quiet and we spank him, he sits in the chair totally un-crying. Oh have you ever seen this happen? Have you ever watched this little drama? It's quite an interesting drama. We say, "Johnnie is going nya, nya, nya." And we say, "Johnnie if you don't be quiet we're going to spank you." And then we spank him. Boy, he isn't any longer being that quiet, you know? It goes up to high C. In other words, we did not accomplish the goal at all. We wanted quiet so we said, "Johnnie, if you're not quiet we'll spank you." Johnnie was not quiet so we spanked him, and then he really made noise. There's only one way you could accomplish it. Just one way that you could accomplish it. Is just make sure you've processed him before hand.

Alright. But the funny part of it is, if you tell Johnnie often enough, friendly enough, nicely enough, to sit there and be quiet, there's the possibility that he will simply do so. But it might take you five or six hours. You understand, he did have the long look at this situation, he can't help but react to the amount of power evident in that much ARC. But the use of force in the handling of mass is a nasty habit man got into when he could no longer postulate mountains where he was, or where he was not. And when Muhammet went over to the mountain and the mountain didn't come over to Muhammet, and a bunch of other things happened, why that was just telling you that you could no longer handle mass with postulates, you had to now use force. And that has managed to keep the Arab world convinced for a long time.

Alright. We have a problem in control whenever we enter duress. And duress has no part of control, because duress is an unbelieved potential of control. Which of course it then becomes non-positive control. We do not any either have control in malconditions. We say, "Oh well, don't beat me up. You mustn't beat me up." We want the fellow to stop whatever he's doing, we want him to stop. So we say, "You mustn't beat me up because I wear glasses." We haven't even got any on, see? There's many a girl, there's many a girl back through the world of Earth who has said, "You mustn't strike me, I am a girl." And has said this in vain. You see, that's a method. That is a reason why. That is a threat of punishment, but if he hasn't been punished for striking a girl, then nothing is going to arrest him, or if he has been struck for punishing a girl there's still nothing going to hit him anyhow. It wouldn't matter how you'd look at this situation. In other words, she is trying to say, "Stop." Her method of control of the situation is too low in ARC.

I saw a bully on a street one day grab a hold of a girl, who was quite a nice girl. I had some cognizance of this girl. And before I could walk the fifteen or twenty paces up, to something done, why this fellow had tipped his hat and so forth, and walked away. Girl was a Scientologist. She already had a good grip on this situation. This rough, tough guy had simply grabbed her by the arm, and he was going to drag her off into an automobile, and she simply handled it with high ARC. You say, what significantly did she tell him? Inferring it would have to be some technique, but it wouldn't have anything to do with that at all. She simply re-directed him by looking at him and smiling very, very brightly, and it scared him stiff. She'd brought him up to fear and he quit. That's all that happened. A rather hard thing to realize. But she was feeling perfectly cheery and he didn't scare her a bit. How could she? How could she be scared? She was perfectly used to handling psychos, and he didn't look half as bad as most of the psychos she was mixed up with.

In postulated control, where you are unwilling to do the action yourself, you again fail to control. Therefore, he who would command must learn to do all the things he's telling people to do. Not he who would command must first learn to obey, that's just one of these nonsense, lamb chasing its tail in the field… No, he who would command must be willing to, and therefore must know how to, do things which he is commanding to be done. Therefore, the king sitting in the palace saying, "Workmen, dig me up a couple of pyramids," who is shuddering to himself at the thought of lifting a block of stone, or of spending any time pitching in on the granite, made himself just that much weaker. And so at length, he said, "Boys, those fellows building those pyramids aren't working fast enough. You'll just have to get out there with some of those scourges and whip them around." How did that come about? The dwindling spiral is, he ordered people to do things which he was unwilling to do.

I had a command of which I'm sure I've mentioned before, one time. It was totally composed of convicts out of Portsmouth. Been released to active duty because there were so few people in the war yet. Few trained people. I never knew until just the other day, clearly and brilliantly, why none of these people ever got out of line. It wasn't that I was not afraid of them, it hadn't ever occurred to me to be afraid of them. I was a little bit dispirited when I first saw them, because I knew it was going to be a little bit harder to do, I thought. But I was willing to do everything they were doing. You see, I was perfectly willing to do anything they were doing, and I had some knowledge of what they were doing. And more importantly is, I did not think it meet, just because a fellow had been thrown into the clink, that he should thereafter be treated with anything less than good communication. I didn't think it put me out of communication with him. I hadn't been in the clink. Wouldn't have minded if I had been in the clink, but it seemed like something that might happen to me too. You know?

I mean, it's not; there are people walking around who would reassure you and tell you, assure you positively that they would never, under any circumstances ever wind up in jail, and that they would not go to jail. There are. I'm sure these people will tell you this and believe it too, and be the most surprised people in the world when those iron doors slam shut. The favorite thing that cops do these days is to, if you complain about somebody beating you up they throw you in jail. I mean, that's the usual thing that happens. It's totally reversed. That's right, you think I'm joking with you, but for anybody to believe that he could not himself wind up in jail is a sort of a christ like attitude that I'm not accustomed to. So that, why would there be any barrier of communication?

I talked to these people as my friend, I talked to them in a perfectly relaxed state of mind, and I was perfectly willing to recognize what virtues they did have. And they had quite a few. And the joke is that there wasn't any miraculous handling of a hundred convicts. See? That isn't what took place. There was a routine and ordinary handling of a hundred men, because as long as they were aboard I never talked to a single convict. And I get puzzled once in a while, because I have never met one of them. I have met a lot of people who have been in jail, and who have bad reputations, but I have never myself talked to a convict. Are you digging this?

See, I haven't talked to convicts. And therefore, I have been a little bit incredulous and have not felt that they existed. But other people seem to feel they exist, and the people who have the hardest time handling them are the people who are least convinced of their better nature. The people who believe they're convicts can't handle them. And so the final thing about control is simply this: If you believe your preclear cannot be handled, he won't ever get well in your hands.

Now you don't have to believe that he is perfect or good or unaberrated, or something of this sort, but if you believe he's not there to be talked to, if you're always looking for an un-processable case, and if you talk exclusively to unprocessable cases, you will find yourself having some. Why? Because you won't talk to them. The ARC factor will be missing, so therefore your control will break down just to that degree.

Had a wild man once turn around in the middle of an escape across a yard. Things get pretty wild in institutions, you hang around institutions very much. I always am wearing a collar on backwards and walk around institutions. A wild man escaped across a yard, and that sort of thing. And everybody wanted to stop him. And he didn't stop. But I didn't want to stop him particularly, I wanted to ask him a question. I didn't think it'd be hard to stop him, I didn't think that it took about fifteen keepers, by the way, running along with each one of them dragging a great big one of these restraint things. I thought it was a very funny sight. But I wanted to know very positively from this fellow an answer to my question. I wanted to know why he hadn't run away sooner. So that's what I asked him, and he and I stood there for several minutes in conversation. And walked back to the cell, and everybody said, "Boy reverend, how did you do it?" Reverend, you know? "How'd you do that?" Well I hadn't done anything, see? I hadn't stopped a dangerous convict, I mean, I hadn't stopped a dangerous psycho. You see? They were stopping a dangerous psycho, I wasn't. Get the tremendous difference?

So therefore he stopped rather easily, because I didn't feel it was any question but what he would. He looked to me like somebody who was scared to death. That was the worst opinion of him. You got the idea? Am I putting this factor across?

If you always process uncontrollable people, you'll find some. If you always are trying to process an un-processable case, you'll find some. This is for sure, because this is what, in the final analysis, the hard case is. He is a case that people believe is un-processable. And something in your communication line will show that up. It isn't an esoteric factor. It shows up very positively in your tone of voice. The amount of doubt, the amount of hope, the amount of weariness which you express to this person. The number of sighs which you sigh the fifteenth time he's told you that he couldn't do it. It's the amount of bother and worry which you're going to express over the fact that he is screaming. So what? So he's, something is screaming. And if one of them were to ask me now, say to me, "I hope all the screaming I'm doing doesn't bother you." And I would be likely to say, "Oh, are you doing that screaming? I didn't know that. Now give me your hand." I wouldn't even pay much attention to him.

It's a funny thing. You ignore the mis-emotion. We were on this once before years ago, and by golly we couldn't make it jell. It didn't jell. If you acknowledge the mis-emotion you're dead. It's just not going to go from there on. Not well. Now an HGC auditor has just had an hour and a half conversation before the session started, with all the reasons why the preclear could not be audited that day. Now I did not slap the auditor's wrist, but I really should have. I didn't slap the auditor's wrist on this, 'cause he'll learn better. He's learning all the way on this one point. The idea, letting some; standing there and letting some circuit run off for an hour and a half, when you're supposed to be auditing somebody? He didn't know he wasn't talking to the preclear. Now he'll have to raise his sights in his ability to recognize a preclear.

Somebody comes in and says, "Well I can't be audited." He's there, isn't he? And the guy's standing there. And you mean at that point that you just can't go right on into session? No, he'd listen for an hour and a half. I wouldn't let the guy outflow that long. It might have spun the guy in completely to talk unrestrainedly for an hour and a half. You see, that's a dangerous thing to let a preclear do. Well I would have taken him by the hand, shaken him by the hand, dropped his hand, would have said, "Alright, now give me your hand." You know, testing the action. "That's fine. Thank you." And drop it. "Give me your hand. That's good. Thank you. Give me your hand. That's good, thank you." And he would have been greeting me for about ten minutes, and then he would have broken down and gone into session. I mean, why? Because he was under very heavy, positive control. Pam, wham, wham. And if he'd shown any signs of running away I simply would have backed him around to a point of where he was in a wedge in the wall. So the person couldn't run away. See, I'm already directing his attention, but the person might go somewhere. And you can take care of that.

You get the idea? You get the ramifications that fit along with this? They're quite fascinating. This is easily the most fascinating vista I have ever looked across. Now you know the old one where you take the book, you sit facing the preclear and you make the preclear do everything you do with the book, on a mirror image? And you take the book and you go in a circle. Then you give it to the preclear and you have him do it. You are controlling at once his thinkingness, because he has to figure out how to turn the book to get a mirror image. You're controlling his person, because he has to follow a motion. And you're certainly controlling his attention, because he has to look and see what you did with it. And for these very weak, uncertain, very obliging, never get anywhere cases, that's a killer. But so is any kind of control.

The control which embraces all of these factors wins across the boards, as long as it's positive, as long as it's high ARC, as long as it's …, and as long as you know you can do it. And the methods which we have teaching control today are phenomenal. But they're only as good as they do teach you how to control things. But this unit is learning very well. I'm very proud of it.

Thank you.