The twenty-third lecture of the seventeenth ACC, March the twenty-eighth, 1957. And the title of this lecture is Valences and Control.

We must first understand something about the mechanism of introversion, extroversion, denial of the havingness of the environment and denial of havingness of a body, before we can investigate valences very deeply.

The whole subject of beingness has been with us for a very long time, but has not been well clarified. It has not been well clarified because we weren't undoing it positively. We were undoing most of it, we were making it known, we were clipping the edges of it, it did exist, all these other things are true, but to totally divorce a valence from an individual was, I confess to you, not entirely within our power. Some fragment of this remained.

Studying beingness all by itself was not enough. Beingness. The whole subject of identity. Identity is very sub-order, and very way down below games conditions. After games conditions are in there for a long time and very hard and so forth, we get identity. We can have a game without identities, but when a game has gotten down to total identities, why we've had it.

Now let's take a subject which depends entirely for the authority of someone. The subject just depends entirely on authority only. And we find out we don't have a subject. Quite interesting. Let's take the world of art critics. And the world of art critics are totally based on authority. In other words, identity. They only have art to the degree, in many areas, to the degree that there is an authority, an identity present who says art exists in that quarter. See this? You get a subject here which itself is terribly loosely hung together, and hardly anybody knows anything about. And it's as much as your life's worth to go into the field of the arts, because at every hand somebody is telling you that they are or are not art. The authorities here and the authorities there say this and say that, and we get one of these weird, weird thing where opinion itself rules to the degree that an authority exists.

Well now, here is identity and authority. And what we get in identity; now this is very, very important, I'm going to tell you now; what we get in an identity is simply an effort to control automatically, or without much attention, or without much thought.

Now let's take the western bad man. He got a reputation, and after that, people, he thought, would not fight him. In the first place a bad man is very interesting in that his efforts to control depend on the use of very low order mechanisms. And yet they're probably higher than the citizenry at large, but they're very low order mechanisms. They are still an effort to control directly by force, one way or another. Whether he's saying, "Your money or your life," or trying to get riches for himself or something else, he is still trying to control a sphere of influence, whatever motives he assigns to it.

Alright, now this is, this is one thing, but when he puts it on reputation, you see we're going down scale in games now. He puts it on reputation, he becomes Jesse James, and just the whisper of his name causes everybody to give up his money or his life, you see? Bang! We at once get another complexion on the situation, because he is no longer working at control. He has set something up to be the control factor, the name or identity Jesse James. Wild Bill Hickcock. It's quite interesting that Wild Bill, or Wild Bill Hickcock the, probably the greatest of the western bad men, didn't kill a man for years before his death. And one of the last men he killed was his own deputy, and that cured him. He ran into the back of a saloon to stop a fight, told his deputy to stay in the office, deputy heard a couple of shots; Wild Bill went in and shot somebody's hat off or something of the sort; the deputy raced in the back door with no warning, and Wild Bill, not expecting anyone to appear behind him, simply whirled and shot, and killed his deputy dead. Very fond of his deputy. So that was practically the end of his killing career. But his name persisted for a very, very long time without adding any new kills. And here was a name that depended almost exclusively on skill with firearms and kills. And eventually, why a little fellow named McCall walked up behind him in a poker game, and blew the back of his head out. Now, if that was the fellow. I've forgotten.

The substance of the thing is though, that his name did coast for years, but only for years. See? There was a finite end to that authority.

Once a person starts to lean on an identity, to be the authority in his stead, he's in very poor condition from there on out. And this is, in reality, what valences are. When a person himself has a very poor command of the situation he will attempt to pick off an identity from the back track and put it into position in present time to act in his stead as an authority. And that is a valence.

Now when we realize that people go into the weaker valences we will have to classify weaker valences as not quite what they seem. It was obvious to the child that the crazy aunt was the one who controlled the household. Everybody was scared to death of her. The drunken uncle, something on this order. This person controlled the household, one way or the other. Whether with rages, dramatizations, or whatever. It was certainly an obvious control. And one day our preclear discovers, he thinks, that he himself is not being well controlled, and he is himself not exerting good control, so what does he do? He reaches back on the back track and he picks up one of these valences which held everybody else at bay. And he puts them on. And that's valence.

We have to re-classify valence from a standpoint of a non-selective, not reasonable, non-comprehensible, totally random, slip and slide, in and out of beingnesses, into a direct, overt act by the preclear, in order to control somebody. Now he must first realize that he himself cannot, before he has then quote "valence trouble", unquote. He must realize that he himself is no longer capable of controlling or being controlled. He must realize, according to his viewpoint, that all of the items that he has used, or that he considers his pet tricks, are at end. They're no longer there. They no longer work. The control mechanisms are themselves a very, very low grade control, so he's already gone downstairs on control to a point where he's using dips, dodges, mechanisms, he's lying about things, he's sliding around sideways from the situation, he's using mechanisms of control which are already subordinate to actual control, and he's controlling others with tricks by being sad or bad or not talking to them, or something. He's using a lot of things which are very inferior to simply start, change and stop. He's doing start, change and stop in a conditional, significant fashion. And he's trying now to stop significances, he's no longer trying to stop objects when he's using these. But they're still his, you see? They're still his. He's dreamed these up. There is no doubt in his own mind when he says, "Oh dear. How apathetic I am now that I realize that you have been untrue to me." And he goes sigh, and gets apathetic. Only he knows that he himself is not being apathetic. See, he merely appears to be apathetic. And he does this in an effort to control somebody.

Well now, that mechanism fails. The other person's not impressed, it does not result in control. Any other of a thousand deliberate mechanisms no longer result in control, and at this time he believes, and comes to believe at this long gradient scale, of downward scale winding up in these mechanisms, he believes that he is no longer capable of controlling anything. And he thinks to himself at that time that it's high time that he looked around and found a controlling identity. And he does so. And he reaches back on the back track and he picks one of these things up. The handiest one is the present life time controlling influence, and his idea of control is already quite aberrated, and he no longer has a clear view of what he's trying to do. His intentions are all clouded, and he picks up merely somebody who puts other people in fear, or stops them, or fixates them, or causes them trouble. And he picks up this control and he puts it on just like a girl puts on a new hat. And then he no longer does it. But he's already so low on the tone scale he doesn't quite know what he's doing. His knowingness at this level is quite slight.

Now, what do you suppose an auditor would have to do to undo this? Well I'll tell you, the best thing to do in order to undo this of course is to find the valence, and then run it out of the preclear. Well the funny part of it is, we've been doing that with some success. That's an oddity, it's an oddity that it's had some success, but it has. We knew what the trouble was but we did not know the basic motive of a valence. And evidently we now have it. I'm perfectly prepared also to say that we don't have it. But we evidently now have some insight into this which has heretofore been missing.

We've been hitting it on the idea of scarcity of beingness. No. It's scarcity of control factors, patterns and abilities. It's not scarcity of beingness, it's not scarcity of identity. Those things don't work too well. They work somewhat, but they're too low. And let's just move upstairs into control and be controlled, which is an interchange of positive import, and we'll find out the valences have a tendency to go away. It's as simple as that. See? We really don't have to spend too much time identifying them. The preclear will identify them for us, or he'll lay them aside, or he'll cognite on them somehow.

Alright. Now where we have valence difficulties with an individual we have an individual who has already failed at the last rung of the control gradient scale. He's already below that point. And only then do valences cut in. Now I can give you mechanical ways to handle valences which are superior to valences we have had before. But the only way they can be made to work would be on the control factors. We almost had it when we said, "Invent an individuality that could cope with the situation." That's almost it, you see? And it had great workability. We'd get a fellow in the middle of a problem, and we'd say, "Well, invent an individuality that could cope with it." We had a tendency to remedy a scarcity of individualities. This is still not as good as cope with it. Much more direct, cope with it.

What other mechanisms are involved here? And how is it that he has one of these valences in storage? And how is it that one of them can become so thoroughly locked into the case? And this is extroversion/introversion. He has conceived that that person which introverted him the most must have controlled him the most thoroughly. Not true at all, but he conceives this. And it's just how wrong can you get? Well, be on Earth at this time and you'll get a pretty good idea. You cannot be right and be human. That's a subject that we've covered a few times way back when. We figured it all out. An interesting exercise in logic, by the way, is figuring out how you can or cannot be right and be human. And you'll find out the answer is you can't be human and be right. This is not possible. Well this is another one of these.

He felt that the person who introverted him the most, didn't do anything else for him, but the one who introverted him the most and the most thoroughly, must perforce have been the person who controlled him the most. This is gorgeous, but this is the postulate which lies back of all control aberrations and valences. The person who aberrated him the most, in other words the person who controlled him best, this is a pretty wild game. In other words, that person who stood up and screamed at you loudest perforce must be the person who is the best valence to have if you get in a tough spot and you yourself can't control it anymore, so you scream the loudest, you see? It's a very sour method of control.

For instance, I once detected an hypnotic drug operation whereby one person was hypnotizing another person under drugs, and was even going so far as to use light electric shocks, in a marital situation. It was quite interesting. The wife went into the valence of the correspondent. And the correspondent had actually been waving the needle around, actually had drugged the girl and given her light electric shocks and all the rest of it. And it was quite interesting. But, I was doing this more on instinct than knowledge, because the wife went straight into, one hundred percent, the valence of the correspondent. Talked like him, acted like him, used the same mannerisms and everything else. Well this was quite fabulous. Quite unreasonable. Just because some girl has gone and shacked up with some guy doesn't mean there's going to be a complete swap of personalities. What is this all about? So in this particular case in auditing the preclear, I at length became very tired of battling around with an absent, low order, homo-dumpians. That's below homo sapiens. And; that's one that's been to UCLA. Anyhow; and I just started to strip this valence off by what mechanisms I had. Creative Processing and two or three other things. They work pretty good, you know? And the next dog gone thing, somatics started turning on like mad! And my, that preclear was on the floor rolling in agony before I got through with this, but I kept up the process of the remedy of havingness of this person. You know, mock up the person going into the body and so on. And this girl finally said, "Well I didn't have any idea he did all these things to me!" It all started with the demon rum, you see? He'd get her drunk, in a kind of a thick state, and push in her buttons, and so forth. Pretty wild. Pretty wild to run into something like this, suspected merely because of this mechanism. But the valences had done such a terrific closure, a hundred percent, and turned around! See? She was the person, one hundred percent! See? No longer a woman.

Now the only reason she consented to this happening is she conceived that this man could control her husband. In which, by the way, she was dead wrong. But this was part of the mechanism, and I see now that that is what gave just a passing permission on the part of the preclear for such a thing to happen. She wasn't a total pawn then. She thought she was having a hard time controlling her husband, and she conceived that this person could control her husband, and she needn't have had a hard time controlling her husband at all, but she was awfully disturbed anyhow. Pretty loopy. And then when this other fellow started to work on her, then she turned into the other fellow you see, and it just all messed up. Well now why did she become the other fellow? Well it's because the other fellow, to be colloquial, chickened. He failed to control the husband, you know? She counted on his doing it, and then he turned out to be less than heroic in size. He was just, he was just breakfast cereal package size, you know? He was just a fake. And so she went ahead and finished the job anyhow in a complete confusion, you see? And then she didn't know where the devil she was. She didn't know whether she was going or coming by this time. In other words, all of her computations were non-computational, but they all added up to an endeavor or an activity directed toward controlling the husband.

Now this person herself was incapable of controlling anything, not even a small object. This was a psycho of course, a hundred percent. We quickly ran off a number of other mechanisms which had come up. And I, not until recently, understood this. Not until recently did I understand this. I now see that there was method in all this madness, because after we got this correspondent in the action off, we had a dog, we had the husband's mother, we had the husband's father. Why not her own mother and father, you see? And I just never answered this question or added it up until we got our teeth into control. She ran all the rest of these people off too. These were all identities she had reached for, grabbed, put on a hundred percent, in order to control the husband. And it never occurred to her at any time simply to run control on the husband. And the odd part of it is, she couldn't control him because he was sane. He'd listen to reason. And this was completely outside of any band she ever understood to be control. She didn't have a good enough reason. She didn't advance any reasons at all. She never consulted human beingness, she never consulted decency, she never consulted any other of the factors that one would normally consult to get the compliance or cooperation of somebody else in carrying forward certain actions. She was even worse off than this, and she didn't know what action she wanted to carry off. But the motivation of the thing was death. An inability to kill the husband, clearly arrived at after an overt intention to do so, had then wound all the way down into all these other things. In other words, here was not any other control than obliteration, which is hardly control at all. But obliteration comes in when one's own ability to control goes out. When one conceives that he no longer has any slightest possibility of controlling something else, not the slightest possibility, not the faintest, he then thinks in terms of obliteration, like I do about psychologists. You see?

You think in terms of obliteration because there is no control factor left. And that is very clear. I mean, I'm now speaking seriously. You offer any logical approach, you offer any proof, you offer any validation, you demonstrate any personal reality, and you have on all these channels arrived nowhere with a psychologist in the field of the mind. He is not susceptible of proofs, even of his own material.

Alright, now that is obliteration however, only in the direction of psychologists. I would never doubt our ability to control this individual as a person. And so we're actually talking about the obliteration of a nothingness. You know, it's a span of study or knowledge, which goes out and makes people do less well than they should. And we're attacking a flock of textbooks. A flock of textbooks and dead men, because there'd be any doubt really, if we got our hands on a psychologist today, but what we couldn't put him through every hoop there is. And he would be better for it in the long run. We could probably cure him of being a psychologist. Cure him of anything. But it'd have to be on an individual approach, and when we got through he wouldn't be a psychologist. He wouldn't necessarily be a Scientologist, but he would certainly be something else. He'd first have to give up his idea that control is thoroughly bad. See, he'd have to give that idea up at once.

No, when people think in terms of obliteration they have conceived a failure, as far as some field or other is concerned, or a person, or anything else. I imagine there's been many a psycho who's been running around threatening to kill god. I don't know quite how you would go about this. I suppose he meant by that the christian god that lives in a trunk down in the Middle East. By the way some people accuse me now and then of being irreligious, and I'm only ir-christian. It's an interesting thing that there exists on Earth a cult which believes a hundred percent that it has the only god there is in this universe. And this is quite an interesting thing. See, this is terribly interesting. Anybody who says he has a total monopoly on all there is of something, which you can't weigh, see or measure, is suspect.

Alright. Christianity at large is, it's gain in the world and its departure from its own announced principles were in the main in the direction of control. I mean, the principle church of that particular group; a relatively small group. It is not even a major group today in European and American spheres of influence. It keeps telling you that it is, but it isn't. The majority of the white races today are not members of the christian church. And there are about ten times as many Buddhists. Oh I don't know, two hundred times as many Buddhists or something. Rather overwhelmingly big. But that was an effort to control. And an interesting effort to control, because when it failed in its own basic tenets it then departed from its basics. And our quarrel with it is, that in practice it isn't what it says it is. That's our only quarrel with it. It is something that tries to appear one way when it is something else.

Any basic organization which would go in for Torquemada's torch light festivals, burning up all the heretics and so; what was an heretic? Well very early, very early you had the Hemusians and the Hemoisians, and you had the Arian heresies, and you had this and that. They caught most of the barbarians as they swept down into Europe, and stole slaves and stole people and so on, and they caught up a lot of christians. And these christians, more or less, brought civilization to these barbarians. Not just christianity, they brought Roman civilization to them. How to make pottery, and live under a roof, and make weapons, and things like that. They got them; they put shoes on them, in other words. And it so happened however, that the church at that time almost ruined the work which had been done by these early captives by pronouncing the philosophy which had been taught to the barbarian, as an heresy. So that made all the barbarians heretics, and they thought they were good christians. That was an awful shock, and as a matter of fact the barbarism never quite got over it. And that probably is probably major in the factors that destroyed christianity.

In fact every time it did a good job someplace, why somebody down in Rome jumped up and called it an heresy. You know? It was against the local creed. The difference I think of that, was the father, the son and the holy ghost were consubstantial. I think according to the Arian philosophy that was taught to the barbarians. But the truth of the matter was, I think the church at that time was holding up the fact that the ghost was slightly lower. I think this was the big difference. Or maybe god was not quite the son, or something of this sort. It was tiny, a tiny difference to make this much upset. But these were control mechanisms.

Now look, it did work as a control mechanism against the barbarian. Chinese did it much faster and much more thoroughly, with lots less destruction to China, some hundreds of years earlier. Not even a new mechanism. It was an old mechanism at that time. All of the Tartars and Huns, and other breeds of cat that were sitting up just north of where the Chinese built the great wall had been ruining China for a long while with their incursions and raids, long before we have any signs of Genghis Kahn or any of these later Johnnie-come-lately conquerors. And the Chinese, in the, oh somewhere in the neighborhood of about the first century BC decided they could control these barbarians simply by pouring in upon them civilization. Somehow or another they could do something to them. So they did. They shipped them silks, and saddles, and even Chinese princesses. They married Chinese princesses from the Chinese court to some of these fellows, who were of course all in; oh I won't use that. But I wouldn't say the odor of the barbarism up along that line was any better than the horses he associated with. And these poor princesses. There's one; the way I got a lead on this by the way, was listening to an old man endlessly. He was playing this endless, endless song at a feast. I can't stand Chinese feasts. I love their food, but they send in sing-song girls and musicians, and they sing. And a song goes on for about two or three hours. And it's really, it's really wild. And it gets on my nerves after a while. And possibly because I believe the theme repeated too often can be worn out. Probably my fault.

But one of these songs was a Chinese princess who had been shipped by the emperor as the wife of one of these Hun overlords who had been sitting up there in Mongolia and raiding into China. And her plight was the subject of this song. I became interested in this after a while, after about the hundred and seventh-five thousandth quaver, and finally made my host detail this thing to me in full. And I got interested enough to, "What is a Chinese princess doing married to a Russian, or somebody up in that category? What is this all about?" I discovered later references in other ways. But they went, and they shipped these people, they shipped civilization, weapons, arts, things like that. And they went on like this for about a hundred years, pumping the civilization into them, and their own religion. And at the end of that time, a hundred and fifty thousand Chinese soldiers took off, went over the wall and went north, and although only thirty thousand of them survived, they so deeply impressed the weakened barbarian with the might of China, that they then caused the entirety of what you study about so hard, about the Austrogoss and the Visigoss and the Wizigoss and the Jisigoss, and how they all wuffle-wuffle down over the wump-wumps, and cause terrible destruction to this two hundred thousand man empire.

Anyhow, that whole march of the barbarians that you read about as taking place from the earliest centuries AD on forward, was all prompted by the action I have just told you about. Because when they moved out, they didn't want the Chinese for neighbors anymore. They had no idea that they should live anywhere close to where any Chinese nation could eat them up anymore. And they were still so much more ferocious than the people who lived closer to Europe than them, that they chased everything in front of them. And it was those people who were chased in front of them who were the invaders of Europe, and the destroyers of the Roman Empire. And you never have seen these Huns that were chased out of China. They are now occupying Russia. They're still at war with them somewhat. That's interesting, isn't it?

Here was civilization used as a control mechanism to blunt the force of somebody. Well now that idea came along a little bit later, and it was used, christianity was used to blunt the force of the entire Roman Empire. It was then used to blunt the force of the barbarians who were pouring out of the Steppes. And it was used to recruit slaves, and it was used to do this, and used to do that. And everybody became so dependent upon this control factor that when somebody else comes along and says, "There's some other way of controlling people," nobody knows about it. See, all you had to do was tell somebody it was a slick one. Very slick. "You don't do as you're told, you're going to go to hell. And then you'll burn forever, and you don't like to burn, do you? Now I'll prove to you that burning is bad, 'cause we're going to burn some heretics come next Tuesday. And you'll see, they'll scream, and you'll see that burning forever is no good. And that's the way we're going to fix you up." Well boy, that's a real degenerated control level. That is very degenerated.

In other words, everything had gone by the boards, all I'm trying to tell you, east and west on the subject of control, by about the second century BC. We had no more pure control, we merely had control by civilize them, control by weaken them, control by destroy them. And we have lived in a world here now that for two thousand years or more has been sold one hundred percent on this method of control. Not come here, go there, do this, do that, stop, start. See, that is not in any of these civilizations. The only thing that is in them is, well let's see. "If you don't do so and so we will do so and so." I figured out today, by the way, that a government should have nothing to do with business, economics or people. That seemed to me to be reasonable. And I'm going to beat the drum to get a law passed to that effect. They can do anything they please, but they shouldn't have anything to do with business, economics or people. Seems to me to be a reasonable solution, because the governmental method of control which deteriorates to threat of war, threat of war, threat of war, where a president can't get anything passed by the congress unless he threatens them with war, threatens them with war, unless they do so and so. And that's all we hear coming out of the White House. "If you don't pass this budget of seventy-one trillion, billion, skillion dollars so that I can buy helicopters to fly in to my local golf course…" By the way, some news reporter was just now almost had his head blown off by Eisenhower yesterday afternoon, just inferring that some of that budget was going to go for helicopters to permit Mr. Eisenhower to get to golf courses faster. He says, "You're going to have war and you're going to have trouble if you don't do so and so." Now that's a very deteriorated control. Do you see that? I mean, he doesn't have to use a threat to get anything done, because by using a threat he won't get anything done. He's saying, "I am not dangerous, but some other situation is." Now about as bad off as you can get, and still control something, is to say, "I personally, not my body, not my valences or anything else, am terribly dangerous." See, that is just about as low as you could go and get anything done. Beyond that you just effect what you have already threatened, which is destruction. You get the idea?

Now that would just be about the lowest order of control that we could call control and get away with it. But it is not a control which has any future. "You should do so and so because I am terribly dangerous." Has no future. Some day somebody's going to call his hand. Some day somebody's going to say, "Wild Bill, go ahead and shoot." And Wild Bill'll prepare to play poker, and he won't be shooting. Somebody's going to call his hand, somebody's going to do something that says, "Alright, bite." This is actually a dismaying thing to do to a wolf or a dog, or a savage animal. It's an interesting thing to do, you just stand there and say, "Alright, bite." Without any rancor or malice. And they put down their teeth and go away quietly, a large percentage of the time.

I had a dog rush at me ferociously the other day, and I said, "Hello." He looked kind of silly and wagged his tail. I didn't do anything very fantastic, anything more than any of you would have done, because there was no necromancy involved, no spiritualism involved. I just said, "Hello." He didn't expect anybody to say hello. You were supposed to say at that moment, to play the game of how dangerous he was, you were supposed to say, "Yaaa! Don't bite me!" And that record immediately got broken the moment that you said, "Hello."

Quite amazing, there's a story. This ability to control a ravening beast is what the world has used for a very long time to make out the spiritual character, power or strength of the individual. You always have various things like this. You have Romulus and Remus and the wolves, and you have many other fairy tales of this character. Now Buddha, the first; well not the first Buddha, but Guatama Siddartha is reported to have stopped a raging elephant dead in his tracks. And this is supposed to have been something. And one of the reasons that says he's a buddha is because he stopped a raging elephant. Some rival or somebody of the sort had set loose this elephant upon him, and he did something or other, and the elephant said, "Woah." And probably all he said to the elephant was, "Hello." And the elephant says, "Well there's something wrong here. Somebody just called for a showdown of tusks. And I find myself unwilling to use mine at this moment, because if I did use them, why then my bluff would have been called, and it would be discovered that they are too long and too curled to do anything to anybody. Or, it would be discovered that something else was wrong around here. You see? And I've played my last card. Now I am a killer, and so I will get killed, you see?" So the last rung that anybody could reach would be, "Obey me because I am dangerous."

Now what is workable? ARC. It's all that's workable. What if it doesn't work? Well, it always works on that toward which it's directed. It always does work. But because ARC is not the thing which works against a mass, as though the mass had intelligence, when the mass doesn't have intelligence; cannon ball rolling at you so you throw some ARC at it. That's a silly thing to do, isn't it? You get the necessity to oppose the cannon ball with something of the order of magnitude of the cannon ball. What's a cannon ball's idea of ARC? Now if you're going to oppose the cannon ball, without getting any other life form to cooperate with you in handling the cannon ball at all, I'm afraid you're going to have to oppose the cannon ball with something on the order of an armor plated shield, or something of this nature. The funny part of it is, that you possibly could go far enough and high enough, just to as-is the cannon ball. But boy, would you have to be up on isness. You'd have to look over there, you'd have to be very aware of your surroundings, and you'd say, "It is a cannon ball." There'd be no cannon ball. You see that? That is a; but until you yourself can exert as much force as a cannon ball, you won't be able to do that, because you can't as-is the cannon ball without conceiving the force of the cannon ball. And you have to conceive it a hundred percent in order to see, is it. See? There's nothing much to it.

People riding around being pulled by automobile engines is one of the more interesting things that people do. There's nothing wrong with riding around, as a matter of fact it's a wonderful game as long as you realize it's a game. I do it myself. I like to be pulled around by motorcycle engines. So I get a motorcycle engine and pull my body around. I mean, fantastic. A fast car. What will it do? It's a sort of a problem you set up for yourself, you know? And you say, "This thing is supposed to go a hundred and thirty-two point eight miles an hour, and I can only get it to go a hundred and twenty-seven point one miles an hour. There must be something wrong." And you change its crank shaft, or do something minor.

Now there's the, that's a game. If you conceived as-is, if you could conceive the isness of a motor, you yourself would be capable of, before you conceived the isness of the motor, of the force, power, action and motion of a motor, and you would then have no use for a motor. See? But that's a little bit different than this thing called ARC. It actually is. It's just a little bit different. It has a magnitude above what we consider to be ARC, even though its elements are totally the elements of ARC. We think of ARC as needing a friendly feeling. No, exert enormous force with a light touch. That is where that goes. It's not the friendly feeling. You could have the friendliest feeling in the world for a motor, and nothing would happen, except the motor would be there. Got the idea?

No, when we're speaking about the interchange of friendly feelings and that sort of thing, we're speaking about live forms. And we're speaking about life. So when you have a body which is being run by a life form it's easy to conceive that the body itself is alive. See, it's easy to consider that it then responds to totally nothing else but ARC. Oddly enough a body, not being run by anybody else, does not respond to ARC worth a nickel. It just lies there, sits there. And it's necessary for you to is it. In other words, you'd be surprised how much ising of it you do when you pick up a body. You think you are ising your own body to pick up another body. Now that's an interesting thing that you do. And you think that to pick up a box you is your own body, you see, and the body picks up the box. And if you look it over very carefully, you'll find out that you pick up the box too. People get tired only when they put what they lift on automatic. It's quite an interesting thing.

This is all of the field of isness, which you get up to. That's isness. Well now control cuts in below the concept of isness, and the concept of have. Therefore it approaches is. But it's still there, way up along the level of isness. When you can conceive the force, pressure, everything else of the wall, a hundred percent, you certainly can still control the wall.

So, when you look over; that's one of the troubles, by the way, your people have when they're running making things more solid. Just this passing a remark here. They all of a sudden get a glimpse of how much force, how much pressure, how much mass, how much creation is in something like a wall. And you say, "Make it a little more solid," and the say, "More solid than it is." In other words, they get the concept of isness, and then you are asking them, they think, to make it more solid than it is. And boy, they can't get the isness even, much less better than the isness. And they interpret your command as, "Give me better than the isness of the wall." And so your command at that time should be, "A little more solid than you conceive it to be." That lets you off.

You say, "Oh you've got a; mock up your grandfather. Now make him a little more solid." "More solid than my grandfather?" Uggh! "He was a solid man." Alright, somebody's got a touch of the isness there, and they fall right away from it and they say, "I don't think I can do this." Now you would have to size this up and modify it with, "Make the mock-up more solid than you conceive it to be right now." That's easy. And then he can graduate up to the isness. Otherwise you've stopped him, because he has already seen the isness of it, and he knows that he cannot approach it. It's only that case that cannot at all conceive the isness of it, that can't even conceive the solidity of anything, that you really have trouble with. But this other person, the higher on the scale, does have this trouble which I just remarked to you.

Alright, now we're conceiving the isness of something, and that is a little bit different than the ARC which we're accustomed to talk about, because ARC and two-way communication and that sort of thing is something that takes place between two livingnesses. You have isness with a motor, and ARC with a livingness. At least, if we differentiate to this degree, rather arbitrarily on my part, we'll get into a lot less trouble.

Now if you use anything less than a light touch, belief in the fact that that other livingness can control things too, then you are having to maul around the things which maul him around. In other words, you are down stairs into his machinery, and you're down stairs into this object, and so forth. If you were perfect with ARC theoretically, he could then, in your presence, control his body rather well. And you would never have to touch him with your hand. That' theoretical only. Could be, you see. One of these ultimates that we look at and don't necessarily ever attain, although I have seen psychos just suddenly un-psycho. One of the more amazing things. You just talk to the livingness which is running that spin. You just talk straight to the person, you're not talking to the body or something like that, and you'll just see him not spin. It's quite interesting.

I, amongst auditors, I have once in a while erred. I've given some auditor a, you know, kind of a growl. "Ah, you can do better than that, you know. You're doing alright, but the way I would put it, but you could do a little bit better than that. And what's the idea this person keeps on spinning?" I have an interview with the person, the person feels perfectly amenable, there doesn't seen to be anything wrong with the case. The person runs, runs almost anything. And I say to myself, "What's wrong with this auditor? You know? It's not running." The only thing the auditor wasn't doing is, he just wasn't bringing enough ARC into the session to permit the person to run anything. And when the auditor was auditing the person spun. Don't you see? I mean, he didn't have the same control or confidence that somebody else might have. That'd be the only thing that was wrong. Mysterious factor.

Now directing an ARC, good ARC, to the livingness of the person assists him in his control. And you have to come down stairs into a concept that everybody is MEST before you go into this maul basis. You can't conceive a spirituality, or you can't conceive something as being believable, or you could believe in something and another person or something like that, and still have that person go completely by the boards. One of the more remarkable things. About the only thing parents do wrong, you might say, in American at this time, flagrantly wrong, is they seldom believe that children are capable of anything. They're always taking the fact that the child falls down stairs, breaks a glass, spills his milk, does other things as evidence that the child cannot control his environment. And a good parent just never accepts this evidence. Just never accepts the evidence. A glass of milk spills, the parent doesn't immediately leap up with a towel and say, "Now you ought to be careful of the milk." And at the next meal moves the glass of milk back out of reach so that it can't be spilled again. The person has conceived that the little one spilled the milk.

You can even be so stupid as to make him spank the glass for falling over. In other words, you don't believe that he'd spill milk. Must have been something fantastic that happened for the milk to fall over and go out of the glass. And that's about the only thing that you could express and still stay in good ARC with the kid.

I've asked a kid, "Now how did you do that?" on some such action. "No, no, don't touch it with your hands. I want to know how you did it without touching it." You know? Huh. It's, I've accused him of necromancy, of magic. "Go on, move the glass. Go on, sit back, don't touch it with your hand, now move it. Oh you're just fooling me. You didn't move the glass that way." Now this is just kidding. This joking and so forth. That a kid conceives that I conceive that he could move the glass without touching it, which is totally true. Therefore he gets the idea that my idea of him is much greater than his idea of him. There's a completely reverse look, you see? Child will stop spilling milk. That means the "here we go way upstairs". We're on dangerous ground when we're on this quasi, not quite positive, subversion of factors and so forth. We're on dangerous ground because it can too easily fall off into a no-control. And just keeping it on high ARC is better. The other is simply funny or fun, and it's something you can sometimes get away with.

I have asked a psycho to explain to me how he went about getting a body that crazy, because I had several people I wanted to get even with. And I've had a psycho tell me, just as soberly and as well articulated as any sane person you ever talked to. I wanted to know how this was done. I granted him the power to do it, with very high ARC. But the ARC was what unspun them, not the granting of the power to do it. The ARC. And that is maintained with poise, dignity, friendliness, very direct communication. It has a lot of things connected with it. But tone 40 is quite something. Never undersell it. When you see it fail, it wasn't. When you see tone 40 fail, it really wasn't. There was something else present.

Now this is an awful way to classify, one kind of a tricky way to do so. Nevertheless, I've searched into enough of this just lately to find out that that high ARC I thought expressed was not high ARC at all, but just a voice tone which lay above a very vicious desire to slit somebody's throat. "Alright, go over to the wall, you son of a bitch. I'd like to knock your eye out." See? That wasn't ARC.

Alright, when we look into this situation we find out there's nothing wins like direct control with high ARC. Now your direct control goes toward the isness of something, and the ARC goes toward the livingness of something. And you're carrying on two routes, not one.

Isness is controlled, unfortunately, by effort and force. But you have to be capable of, or willing to, exert the effort to control anything.

Alright, now what is this other mechanism of introversion/extroversion that fits along with these valences? Well it doesn't really merit very much remark, because simply control by itself will do this. But I explained to you the introversion mechanism, and said that somebody should make the room around him, the hypothetical room, more solid. It's workable. The valences he has borrowed show up. They do, they jump into view. You don't have to fish for them anymore. I mean, there they are. Now the funny part of it is, there's a much more direct method than this just on the basis of, "Make your body more solid."

Now we have a second mechanism of valences. The second mechanism of valences I told you was not anywhere near as important as the first one. And I didn't remark any further on it yesterday. And I'll tell you what that is now. I said there's an extrovert ARC. The person is way out there, and he doesn't have anything where he is. You got that one? That's a secondary mechanism. This is the one that carries the valences to a very marked degree. He gets this sensation with the valences. He's looking out there in the other valence, not where he is; and his own body, having no attention on it and no solidity in it, tends to disappear. He gets an introversion into another person because he himself isn't. And you get an is-not of self being supplanted by an is of somebody else. And you get a valence shift as a result. That is the simplest of the valence shift mechanisms.

You see, you're looking at the room all the time, you're never looking at you head. Here's the simplest version of this. So therefore you went along through an awful lot of time track without any isness where you were. You got that? So facsimiles of your own body, and so forth, tended to pile up right where you were. That tends to jam a track. This is the other mechanism. Now that puts everybody in a kind of a vacuum situation right where he is. See? I remarked this years ago in a PAB, by the way. It's, "This is how bad it is over there. There is nothing here." And he gets a sort of, he carves a vacuum out of existence. Here's a non-existence. And other valences, when they're pounding in your anchor points, you haven't got any places to go, you go into them. You got it?

If you were to introvert into yourself you would go nowhere, but they at least are there to be introverted into. There, that's kind of the way it adds up. And you'll get this valence closure mechanism. There's many, many subordinate phenomena, nearly all of which we have detailed at one time or another. But they all seem to be subordinate to this phenomena: That a person loses his havingness when he introverts, and then on the extroversion basis where he's too far extended, there isn't anything where he is. These two things combine into a jammed track, where he is trying to put havingness where he is, he's got havingness out there. When he's got havingness out there, you see, when he has no havingness out there he has something here. You get two incidents, both of them opposite, which stack together, to give him something here and something there. And you get incident closure, just on a remedy of havingness.

Now this is only curiosa. But this becomes terribly important when a valence shows up who is there, and he introverts you, and you have no place to go, so you go into him. In other words, you pick him up.

Now making the outside of a body a little more solid, or making a valence body, another person, a little more solid, has a tendency to unjam a track. This is phenomena I'm demonstrating to you. This is not then and now solids, 'cause this all takes place under then and now solids. But if you want a closer look at it, that is what is happening. And you can just tell a preclear to sit right where he is and make his body, the outside of his body, all of it a little more solid, and just continue to do so. And the valences which he is not suspecting will fly out in front of his face, and other things will occur. All of these are very interesting. It's not necessarily good processing, but it is certainly very demonstrative processing. If you want to know what valences he was stuck in, that would be one way to do it. Have him make the outside of his own body a little more solid, and Aunt Jemima or somebody'll fly out in front of his face.

OK? I hope you have a good grip in this subject now, of control in relationship to valences, and control in relationship to havingness and why we use ARC.

Thank you. Thank you.