Tonight we have some information to go over. The material I have given you so far is relatively easy to follow and understand. Tonight we get into the meat of the thing, and actually get the data. There isn’t very much of all this that you have to know. What you do have to know, you must know well, because you can hit explosive spots in a PC that won’t give you time to go look it up.

We have a situation in auditing once in a while like a pilot in a plane that’s in a spin with only a few hundred feet to go before hitting the ground. The pilot is sitting there thumbing through a book marked, “How to Fly” and saying, “I was sure it was on page 16 ”. Anytime you have to look something up in mid-flight, at the very least it discourages the PC. If only to instill confidence in the PC, you should know your tools well enough to predict what is going to happen.

There are several speeds of knowing. Knowing that the technique you should have used was in a book with a green cover, is too slow for the PC that is lying there with the doctor bending over him saying, “His pulse is very faint.” That is the wrong speed of knowing. Then there is the speed of knowing that most people tolerate, but which should not at any time be tolerated by them in auditing; and that is the speed of knowing where the auditor says, (after the PC says or does something) “Yes, I know what that was.” The auditor is saying to himself, “Yes, I know what he has done or is doing.” That is not good enough. The speed of knowing which you must have in order to audit (or to perform any aerial acrobatics) is to know at least a few seconds before it happens, what is going to happen. You know from what is happening, what is going to happen, and this is the speed of knowing that is called prediction, or prediction speed. Some auditors have a prediction speed of 2 or 3 seconds. That’s not fast; that’s slow. Just 2 or 3 seconds before the PC throws up, he knows, “The PC is going to throw up.” Some auditors have a prediction speed of 30 seconds. That is pretty good. The PC started into this incident and looked a little scared, and a little bit tensed and strained, and the auditor thinks, “Yep, I’ll bet we are now going to hit that thing which has been worrying him so much, and the next motion will be for him to double up in a ball.” If the auditor is any good, he will shoot the question to him right there that will finish the whole job; he is just that much ahead the whole time. Then there is the speed of knowing that goes up above this level and goes into terms of hours. The PC walks into the office, and with this speed of knowing the auditor says to himself, “Oh boy, here is an apathy case that is going to try to run heavy incidents, and isn’t going to want to have anything to do with overt acts, but won’t be very antagonistic about it.” So, you choose your course of action accordingly. You estimate what you are going to do with this PC by putting him on the tone scale. The tone scale will tell you what to do.

When a PC walks in, there are various ways that you can estimate what he is going to do. After a while it gets instinctive, you don’t even have to think about it. The fellow sits down, and before he starts to talk to you, you know that the next half dozen phrases are going to be a good solid backhanded slap. He will say, “I was talking to Mrs. Jones, and she says that you are really good at this (and by being able to predict, you don’t go up scale or uptone on this comment, which would have permitted you to take a down curve on the slap when it came) and so you don’t become an effect of this fellow, that you noted sat down in the chair rather deviously. He is a 1.1 so you know he will cuff you after the big compliment. So he says, “Mrs. Jones says that you know all about your business, and that I should have great confidence in you. You’re pretty dumb if you’re stimulus-response enough to say, “Oh, thank you,” because the next words he utters are, “But of course I always knew that she could never estimate people, and as a matter of fact, the last doctor she recommended had just lost a patient, and of course you can’t be sure about this, because nobody really knows about themind. Of course you probably know a lot about Dianetics, and a lot has been said about Dianetics, but is there anything to know even if you could know anything?”

If you as an auditor knew your tone scale, you would know all about what that fellow was going to do. I had an auditor come to me the other day who had been out among the aborigines, (you people ought to make a point of getting out more among Non-Dianetic people) and he said, “It’s just wonderful, you know it is just wonderful, they act right on the chart!” He was actually surprised. The reason you should go out among humans is, that people familiar with the chart are very careful not to follow it at their own level. I have known some to go so far as to be openly antagonistic and hostile, because they were afraid to be devious.

Prediction speed depends on only one thing. You could say, “It depends on my mental acuteness,” or “It depends on my powers of observation.” Don’t think by practicing powers of observation or awareness in present time that you will get any better at it. Those things just add facsimiles, and the more facsimiles you have, the dumber you get. Big muscles are a sample of this, you get them between the ears too. Knowledge of the subject which is so precise so as to admit no indecision keeps you moving on the track steadily, and you never get any maybes. You actually tend to hang yourself up on the track every time you try to solve a case. Why? Because you don’t have enough data to make a clear decision, so you become less bright about auditing rather than brighter. There are certain basic fundamentals, and I’m trying to cover fundamentals. In addition to that, I have concentrated my attention on the reduction of the fundamentals to a simplicity, so the simplicity will cover a wide area of data When you reduce to a simplicity it permits a kind of thought known as: “Approximation,” one of the earlier new axioms. “Also” is another kind of thinking and these are both the same.

Extrapolation that is to say, you know one fact, so you can derive many facts from this one fact. You’re actually doing an approximation of the whole problem, and you just take this one simplicity and you approximate everything there is out from that, and you’ve got all the answers. That’s a good handy way of thinking. If you persist in looking at text books to give you the answer to every problem that comes up, you aren’t going to be able to do much about it. You develop the facility of being able to know a few data that you know are important, and you extrapolate and approximate your answer. Practice it. For example, “I wonder, what do cats sitting on the back fence have to do with attention unit flow?” You can figure it that way just relate back to simple data. Well, these cats are interested in survival. If they didn’t make new cats they wouldn’t go on in the genetic line. Therefore, they pay attention to each other, and they howl on and on like that well, I guess that’s aesthetics for cats, because they attract other cats around so we can have new cats. So, the attention unit flow comes out as a voice for a cat which is trying to draw in other cats. So, it must be on a vibration level which interests other cats. And sure enough, check up on it and you will find that the vibration level of the howl is restimulative to other cats. Silly, but it shows what I’m getting at. If you think this way, prediction thinking is very easy.

Just go around in the society, and pick out some things (why are cars this way? why are doors that way? etc.) and ask yourself, “How does this relate to the body of knowledge in which I am interested?” Just keep reducing data down to the simple data that you know, and it gets clearer and clearer to you. The next thing is that you won’t have to know the simple data, because you will work it out in reverse (by approximation of the situation) and you will have answers to all sorts of things. So, your PC is lying on the couch, and you know that this and that is wrong with him. How do you know that? Well, you know certain basic data, and you know what shape the PC is in, and all you do is mockup the bridge between what is right and what is wrong. You say, “Well, this and this must be on the bridge.” You know these incidents operate in certain ways, because people operate in certain ways. You know this PC is scared, so you know there is a hollow spot. He says, “ you know, I’ve been afraid all of my life that my moth” You say, “Where is the hollow spot in your body?” He says, “Oh, right here in my neck. A sort of hollow spot in my neck! What has this got to do with my mother?” You say, “Well, can you feel the stuff emanating out from the back of your neck?” It sounds non sequitur to this fellow; he doesn’t know what you are talking about. He’ll think, “Oh, you are dealing in black magic!” Well, deal in all the black magic that you want to for public consumption. Find a guy in apathy and give him sympathy, and agree with him that I is too bad, and the world is in horrible shape.

You can hang up somebody’s mind merely changing the rules on him. Just change the rules of conduct. Keep telling him you should be more polite, be polite, be more agreeable to people, be polite, get socially acceptable, like people, learn to associate with people and get to like them, and get people to like other people. If you really sold this package to someone you would have a psychotic on your hands. He could carry it out to that extent. Why? It is Enforced A.R.C. Actually all possible aberration is involved with ARC at various positions on the track. So, go around and say, “Love thy neighbor; do you hear me? Love thy neighbor. See, everybody is good, everybody likes everybody, and you have to be socially accept able. You will find out that if you like people they will like you.” Oh brother! You can work it in reverse, and it is just as bad. Inhibit people from liking people. Spread a lot of entheta around about people so that people will spread a lot of entheta around about people, so you are inhibiting ARC. Therefore, by inhibiting ARC you have done the same thing, and you will get the same results. I am not kidding with you when I say that you should look at this as a distinct and possible course of action, without wincing or drawing back or anything like that. I’m not advising you to use black practices, but you had certainly better know what black practices are, and be high enough on the tone scale to take care of your own case.

Enforced ARC for example This fellow comes in and he says, “You know every night my wife comes home from work (this fellow has been laid up with a broken leg for 6 months) and she says, “Oh, how I have to work and slave to support you and you’re just no good, and if you were a man, etc. etc. “ and after ; while I feel I’m getting depressed about her saying those things.” And then there is the guy that says, “Of course this has nothing to do with my married life, but every night when I go to bed, my wife starts telling me about the good times she used to have with the boys in college.” You as an auditor must know exactly what is going on here.

Supposing you knew a datum which underlay every ocher datum on the whole chart of attitudes, on all of this conduct, ARC, and so on? That would be a handy thing to have, wouldn’t it? It can be summed up in one word, lNVALlDATlON. Invalidation covers the entire chart of attitudes, and when we say invalidation we don’t mean that invalidation is the reverse of validation. When we say validation, we are talking about a level not very high up the tone scale. “I keep having to validate this fellow. Yes, I validated him, I told him that he was right, and it made him feel much better.” You know what you are saying when you say that? It’s “I gave him a license to survive.” So, validation is just giving someone a license to survive; invalidation is giving him a license not to survive. They are two levels of tone, and we know those levels as: Enforced ARC (for validation and Inhibited ARC (for invalidation).

Invalidation has a mechanical force background, and this mechanical force back ground produces the concepts which are listed at the bottom of the chart of attitudes, such as: I Know Not, I Am Not, etc. Validation isn’t very much above that. So, validation and invalidation presupposes that someone is interfering with the self determinism of another. It actually isn’t too serious. You see, “Every aberrated thought is preceded by a counter effort.” That axiom needs hat extra word in it; put “aberrated” before the word “thought” in the axiom. Thoughts can exist without a counter effort preceding them, but they will be very unaberrated, and way up tone scale on the aesthetic band and above. So, you know this fact: if the PC has an aberrated thought, then there is a counter effort earlier on the track. Not a counter effort that says “that”, but just a counter effort earlier.

Oddly enough, you can get a counter effort right now in present time that would be instantaneous with the emotion or the thought. The emotion would come later, and the thought would come later. It goes: Counter effort, Emotion, then Thought. See Diagram below:

At the bottom (a) the MEST universe with a lot of matter in it. Then up a little higher (b) the MEST universe with some energy in it; free energy, energy flow, and I’m talking about energy that goes through electric lights, comes out of speakers, etc. Then we get (c) free energy of such a fine wave that only a theta being can create it. It’s so tiny it is almost one over infinity wave length. Up at the top is the theoretical or actual theta which has no wave length at all. It exists, and from it comes what we call energy. Understand that we call energy “energy” when it is gross enough to measure on a meter. That is at (a) and (b), and if you had a fine enough meter you could measure energy at (c). The emotional band is at (b), the center o the emotional band being .024 cm. Down here at (a) is matter. Counter effort come into the field of matter, or it’s matter being hit by a free energy field which cause an impact which in itself is capable of being matter, or it’s free energy hitting free energy which creates matter. Volney Mathison was telling me a few minutes ago in regard to ridges and hollow spots, about seeing two hurricanes close together in the China Sea; that these hurricanes were pulling apart leaving a hollow spot, an he said, “You ought to have seen the pattern of solid ridges caused by those two tumultuous currents of air. Where those two crossed and met, there was solid wave formation in the sea” You can take two free energies, and bang them together and get matter. Or you can enturbulate one energy with another energy and get matter That’s at (a). Or you can have free energy flowing along and hitting matter, making an impact, and that’s what we generally mean by a counter effort; matter hits matter or a wave hits a wave, etc. Counter effort is down at (a), Emotion is at (b) in a more or less free energy level, Thought is up at (c).

So, the progress of a counter efforts’ transmission into a facsimile is: the counter effort hits (a), it is expressed as a counter effort, and there is a free energy travel (b) through the body, and this free energy is recorded (c) as a facsimile. What you’re doing is going up the steps (A), (b), (c). Hit, and the free energy travel makes the facsimile, not the counter effort. n other words, the guy doesn’t get hit, and that becomes a facsimile. It’s transmitted in these three stages. Now, when he thinks of the facsimile, he turns it around, it goes through the free energy state and then it records in the physical universe. When he wants to hit something, he takes a thought at (c), it goes through (b) which is the endocrine system (which is the switchboard for this), and he then exerts it on matter. So, there is the thought going one way, or the other at (c). Let me express it a third time even more plainly.

A counter effort occurs, or you have a heavy counter effort somewhere on the track; you can pretty well count on its showing up later on the track as a heavy emotion. There will be an incident there somewhere that will be an emotional incident. Above the emotional incident (later on the track) will be a thought incident. All of this stemming out of this counter effort. For instance, the counter effort could be being hit on the head. Then some sort of an emotional incident comes up.

The counter effort incident and the emotional incident get tied together, and from then on he has thoughts on the subject. By the way, you can also use in concept running, intention running. You can run the PCs intention, or the intentions of others, and it evolves into straight concepts. So, here you have this fellow hit over the head when he is a little boy. Later on he has an emotional upset with his wife, and he begins to get headaches. Pretty soon he decides that women are no good. Those are the three stages. You start to disentangle this as an auditor, and you find out that he got hit over the head when he was a little boy by a girl not dissimilar in coloration to the woman he married. Everything went along fine until one day she said something that angered him, and he suddenly thought, “Boy, I’d like to bash her head in.” An emotional upset has lurking in it at least an overt thought, but he doesn’t do it. He restrains himself, and after that from this chain of events, the only thing he can conclude is, “That women are no good!” because he can’t solve the problem, it’s a big maybe. What is the maybe about women? “Women are maybes. Maybes are no good, so women are no good!” There is an example of simple straight forward thinking. want to stress how reasonable and rational this is for you, because this is what thinking is in our society, and what you will generally handle.

This is what people call thinking. They will say, “Well, I have the very best reasons in the world to completely detest my parents. Do you know that my mother yappidy yap, yappidy yap, and my father beat me with a club 5 times a day. Oh, it was terrible!” You will get some guy who has been divorced, and he will tell you the damnedest things with not a word of truth in them. Or some girl who has just had a big blow up in her love life. She will come around to you, and she will say, “And do you know that he did so and so, and so and so, but what I really couldn’t stand was what he used to do with Agnes.” Oh! They will just go on and on. There is a vague string of truth in the story, he actually did do something like that once in a while, but not to this extent. She has to have reasons why; that is the pattern, and this is what you are looking at when you look at this person doing this, and what you are looking at in their mind. Don’t start getting so human, don’t backslide in other words, to HomoSapien to such a degree that you say, “That’s true, that that is going on in their mind, but the right thing for me to do is to feel sympathy.” Or even worse, “It goes on that way in most peoples’ mind, but this girl is a poor pathetic thing, and therefore this couldn’t be what is going on in her mind.” No, ’m afraid the rules don’t change to fit. This fellow belongs to the YMCA, so therefore his mind couldn’t be caused by this standard HomoSapien pattern set up? No, this belongs to the standard pattern. If you can, out of your own experience see this pattern enough times, and work it out enough times looking at people, you will begin to have confidence in the data. The second you have confidence in the data, it will relate to other data which you have observed, and a lot of that data will blow, rearrange, realign, and the next thing you know, you will handle this instinctively. You just think “Bang” yes, that’s what is happening. And by the way, it’s horrible when that sort of thing starts going on in your mind. If I were HomoSapien I would be scared of any one of you, if I thought this sort of thing could go on in your mind, whereby you could simply look at a human being and know why he is acting that way. Nobody would be able to fool you. Nobody could come in and tell you a lot of lies, and get your sympathy or anything. Furthermore, you would get efficient. You might even do something overt, and that’s not fair. You wouldn’t be restrained all the time, and that’s not good. I’m very glad I’m not in that position when I give you this data.

So, first is the counter effort. Later, whether by seconds, hours, years, or centuries there will be an emotional incident, and then there will be thought, coming for ward towards Now. You get this situation every time you have a counter effort. This is not the invariable pattern, but I will cover that later in this lecture. This is a standard pattern, but not “the” pattern. It is one of three patterns.

Just disabuse yourself of any question about this. It simply says this, when a fellow is hit, struck, or impeded in some fashion so that he receives a counter effort, you can count on this occurring, and this will occur invariably in greater or lesser degree. It can occur so mildly, so slightly, that you wouldn’t even notice it. That would be a very sane person, but usually in a very aberrated person it is quite marked. It is quite severe in what It does to his mental pattern. So, when a person receives a counter effort you can count on there being an emotional incident later on, which will be of a degree that we call a secondary. That is the source of secondaries.

This is the package of thought that comes up the secondary is so worrisome, it just churns, and churns. It is saying maybe, maybe, maybe in one way or another. Did it, could it, should it, couldn’t it, didn’t it, wouldn’t it, etc. When you get that sort of a situation, you get the fellow thinking. He thinks, “Should I have hit Agnes? No, I shouldn’t have hit Agnes, well, if I had hit Agnes, of course it was terrible, she shouldn’t have insulted me that way.” Or, “Poor old grandfather. My life was wonderful until grandfather departed, now things are all so different. If he had only been alive things would have been different.” You hear this in a whole section of the Country, “If Lee hadn’t surrendered at Appomattox, Virginia, I would now own 163 slaves. You see my great grandfather ” Maybe, maybe, maybe! It is sitting as a big emotional secondary. Actually, the counter effort there was Gettysburg. The high tide of the Confederacy got smashed back. The Confederacy almost won that war, right there at Gettysburg. They realized it, and “Bang” there was a big counter effort, but they kept on going and they didn’t get emotional about it for a long time. Almost 3 yrs. and all of a sudden Bing, Lee surrenders, a big secondary, and after that maybe, maybe, maybe, for almost 100 years. That is in a culture, and a culture aberrates in the same fashion. They are snapping out of that now.

So, when you see a person thinking very violently on a subject, obsessively, compulsively, or when you find this person unable to think on a subject, which is the same thing lower on the tone scale. When you find any aberrated thinking going on in this person, or there is something wrong with the way this person behaves or thinks about life (which is non survival) you know that this is the way that persons time track looks on that subject. (Refer to previous Diagram 10) Here is the thought in present time, back on the track a way is a secondary preceded by a counter effort. That is the pattern you are looking at, and to audit it out you have to audit it on the basis of the motivator, the overt act, and the DED. That shows you the various combinations that underlie this. But this Diagram 10 is what you should see as you audit. How you take it apart is: I) the motivator, 2) the overt act, and 3) the DED. You look at a PC and you find out that they are not thinking where they should be thinking, or that they are thinking where they shouldn’t be thinking. Either way, back of that is a secondary, and earlier is the counter effort. This applies to one life too. This is in the first book: “Every painful emotion engram had lying under it a physical pain engram, and you can expect when you audit an emotional engram to find yourself at any moment auditing a physical pain engram on which it’s sitting, although they may be 20 yrs. apart.”

That’s anatomy, that’s mental anatomy. That’s the way facsimiles pack up on the track, you might say in ridges. These are 3 ridges, and each of the incidents could be considered a ridge separated by a hollow spot. There are pushes and drives and other things; in other words, the 3 patterns of attention units are visible here. The fellow receives the counter effort and tries to use the counter effort, and it is a very smooth outgoing flow. All of a sudden something stops him from using the counter effort. Then grandma dies, and after that “life feels so empty” to him, (a hollow spot) and as far as thought is concerned, it’s just another ridge. You will find a Key Incident sticking him on the track for each of these lines: Counter effort, Emotion, and Thought. The key incident that you find may be so bad that earlier track (way back) is supplanted, and there is another incident there that may be 200 yrs. back, and then an even earlier section of track has 3 or 4 kinds of incidents, and it is all balled up with the original counter effort. As this all balls up together you get the aspect of confusion, or a MEST pattern of matter. So, way back is an even earlier section of track which is balled up with one or both of the other earlier sections, and with what the fellow is thinking about in present time.

And there is a simplified picture of his, time track. To take this time track out and get it untangled, you have to know just the data I am giving you now. This is a picture. You should be able to get a map of this in your own mind any time you see this sort of thing occurring in your PC. Maybe it is of minor magnitude. Maybe you wont find it in this lifetime in sufficient magnitude to separate the incident and line up the track. Don’t be surprised if that is the case. You can always straighten out a track in 4 or 5,000 hrs. of light auditing, or you can do it with 20 or 30 hrs. of old kick ’em in the teeth auditing. But this is the picture of the pattern.

The thought is out in clear view. You know if you are running a ship through a channel you look for the channel marker buoys. I mention that because it is of the same order of simplicity of logic as what I am giving you here. You sail down the time track, and standing right there in present time are all the buoys you need to run the channel. If you don’t know this, you just aren’t going to make any progress.

It is absolutely senseless for you not to recognize that you are looking at sign boards when you look at this PC. You aren’t looking at something that has to be detected minutely. Your first look at this PC should give you some sort of clue to the sign boards. You don’t need a magnifying glass for this. In fact, there will be times you sort of wish you could back off from it a certain distance so that you would not have to look at it so closely. Once you have gotten these clues, your best method of unraveling the case is on an E-meter, because he doesn’t know what he is telling you. Only you know what the things look like, and you should know what to ask him.

Look at the Diagram, and you know that the 3 big sign boards should be there, You know that the PC has a dent in his shin, he talks incessantly about the stock market, and everytime you say the word “father” he gasps. These aren’t exactly mild signs, so you should know that he is packing a strange injury which he is holding on to for some reason. If you were doing a one life time job just to give him some relief or alleviation you should say, “Well, when did your father go broke in business?” “How did you know that?” he says. Then you could ask, “When did you kick him in the shins?” He would say,” Oh, I never did a thing like that well, once maybe.” And again he will look with wonder and say, “How did you know that?”

You people go out among the aborigines with a book, and you know how to read and they don’t. You read that book to them and boy, you are a genius. So, you look at your PC, and you just read him like that book e is obsessed by what? The stock market, making money, trying somehow to be a success, and never seems to be able to make it, but he tries and tries that is his thought level, his computational level. Well, what got him with such an obsession about money? You know he feels bad about his father, because you asked him about his family, and he pointedly didn’t mention one of them, or stresses one al out of proportion to the others. If father is pointedly there or not there, and you spot the emotional reaction when you get to father as you are running down the list of family, and there is some obvious deformity. You add those 3 things together, and they may be on the same chain. They sometimes are not this obvious, you may have to dig around for quite a while. But in the process of searching around for hours, even with an E-meter, don’t lose sight of this map. It isn’t that the map has gone wrong, or been thrown away or changed, or this man has a different brain. No, the map hasn’t changed, you are just running a denyer. So, don’t get upset about not being able to find out what is wrong about the PC, for you are just running an inhibited thought line.

It is something he can’t think about. You put him on the Emeter and you ask him this and that, and he feels fine. When that doesn’t happen, you ask him the questions, what about father, mother, sweetheart, etc. and you get no surge (read) on the Emeter at all. You get no action at all. You ask him about accidents, and he tells you he has never had one or been unconscious. He says he never lost anybody, makes a practice of not feeling bad, and just gets along fine in life. (You notice he has dermatitis over 90% of his body!!)

Don’t be dull about this thing. There are still groupers, denyers, bouncers, and holders. Actually a bouncer and a denyer are mechanically the same thing. So, he has one of 3 kinds of a continual thought computation. It’s either

1) “I must think about it”,

2) “I am unable to think about it,” or

3) “I have to avoid thinking about it.”

A guy can be awfully obsessed on the line, “I’ve got to keep thinking about this, so I won’t think about it.” Or he is just completely dodging it, it’s way off to the sides; he won’t have anything to do with it, it’s just gone.

You just ask him what he can’t think about, and you will get the drops just as big. You have had him on an Emeter for quite a while without getting any computation on the thing, and so you start asking him what he mustn’t think about or shouldn’t think about. “Is it true you shouldn’t think about your family?” Bang! “What member of the family ?” Bang! And you are off to the races. So, he had to avoid thinking about father. You will find him avoiding father, father is missing on the track. You will find overt acts that he scared his father, that his father scared him, all sorts of ball ups on the thing, and all on the denyer basis; fear, run away, leave, can’t stay around basis. Of course that is what his thought processes are doing, and so what kind of an emotional situation do we have? We have a departure. Somebody left somebody on the subject of papa. You may find a divorce when he was five. A big terrific scene, and Oh, Boy! You just start to talk about this thing, and he starts to leave. This is something he must avoid at all cost, he must not think about this. So what do we find it lying on as the counter effort? Don’t think there isn’t one, there is. If you are auditing one life you will find out it is generally very early in infant life or in the prenatal area. And you will find it is a real bang crash situation that is on the same chain of leaving. So of course you couldn’t get at any of the 3, because the attention units are just bouncing from them. And how can the PC have done any thinking? Everything he thought about was leaving. He’s got to run, he’s got to go, he’s got to go somewhere else, it doesn’t matter where he is going to run, or go, or do. Or he may be on the second phase of it, “I must go, but I can’t go, and I have to sit here.” Those 3 incidents are the pattern. Always! Eventually this pattern balls up with motivators, overt acts, and deds until he just gets completely blank. This is true of one life, but why is it you have to audit so far back to really get releases on cases? And why is it that everybody is so sensitive to invalidation? And what is invalidation? The technical definition of invalidation is: “Invalidation is a condition occurring from the cancellation of any thought, emotion, or effort by any counter thought, counter emotion, or counter effort. That is tremendously basic. Invalidation is cancellation of thought, emotion, or effort. One’s own thought, emotion, or effort is invalidated when one’s own thought, own emotion, or own effort meets an exterior thought, an exterior emotion, or exterior effort sufficient to cancel out his, or tends to cancel his. That’s invalidation.

Demonstration with Bud E. on stage. Bud tries to put his arm down from a raised position, and is denied this by a counter effort from Ron. Ron’s effort tends to cancel Bud’s effort. Bud says, “What are you trying to do, invalidate me?” Bud successfully put his arm down, therefore he was not invalidated. This emotional set up takes place. Bud made the statement when he succeeded. He was, in essence, saying to LRH, “Now do you feel invalidated?” See, it’s forward motion antagonism. The emotional surge followed the successful effort, followed by the stated thought.

The reverse of this would be in this line. Bud tries to lift his hand and fails.

Emotionally he would go down scale towards “I know not, I am not, I can’t believe it, I distrust it, It is not,” and he would become effect and be invalidated. Now, here is validation, “Try to raise your arm Bud.” (While telling him to try to raise it; Ron is lifting Bud’s arm up for him.) Notice that in either case, ARC was in play. That is the whole play on the tone scale as far as force is concerned.

In the columns of the Chart of Attitudes (beautifully arranged and ready to spin the reader.) You know, I have seen people read that chart and spot themselves at a certain level, and spin down to that level, because that’s where they thought they were. They weren’t at the level they thought, because a person doesn’t spin, dive, or get unhappy about it, if they really are where they think they are. It’s just that they pick a harmonic down from where they are, and spin down to it.

Now, take the various columns of the Chart of Attitudes; down along the bottom is, “invalidated”, up a little bit is, “validated”, and well up the column is self determinism. Self determinism is composed of ARC in a gradient scale, and all the other gradient scales on the chart. All of this is dependent upon magnitude and force, and all of this goes back to counter effort. If one overcomes his counter efforts he is winning, and If he isn’t overcoming his counter efforts he is losing, and he would “know” or “not know” accordingly; “believe” or “can’t believe” accordingly, etc.

The reason that you must know this pattern is so that you know the value of a counter effort, and the tremendous role it plays in aberration. The reason you have to know, this is very simple. It is because every time your PC gets into a heavy effort situation you know what is happening. We are talking about HEAVY effort (which is not a this life situation) we are talking about REAL counter efforts, not the mamby pamby situation of being run over by a truck, etc. A heavy incident could be heavy, successive, crowding waves of unmanageable, untamable force hitting a person over and over, and he can’t do anything about it. He starts to run away, for it is invalidating him. How invalidated can you get? DEAD! The amount of force that can be exerted against a being that can’t die demonstrates to you adequately why sooner or later that organism invented a way of looking awfully dead. You take a being that can’t die, that has immortality natively built in the amount of force that you can throw at it is so great, and the time that it can endure that force is so long, that it will pretty soon invent some kind of symbol called a body, that it can kick off and say, “It’s dead. I don’t even know about it; leave me alone now.” We have it refined down to a point now where a single rifle bullet going through the head will kill a person; he will actually abandon his body at this slight scratch. There fore, when I tell you there is order of magnitude of effort on the track, and that it doesn’t compare with the effort that hits the physical body; you had better take it into account in auditing. The point is, that your PC in each one of these incidents, goes through the whole cycle. As he is depressed by counter efforts overcoming him, he goes through and down every column on the Chart of Attitudes (simultaneously) until he gets to apathy at the bottom. And he goes through (simultaneously in each column) every concept on all these columns as the force hits him; in other words, that thing which forms these things, all these columns, and so forth.

Each one of these columns is first the emotion (low on the scale), and then the thought manifestation coming from any counter effort doing anything to a person. In other words, it is an extrapolation from invalidation. It is what counter effort does to a person, and that is described as the simultaneous lowering on all columns of the Chart of Attitudes, and he goes down to the bottom as he is being invalidated.

The first thing you know, your PC is saying, ”this doesn’t have any reality to me any more; I can’t believe it; it isn’t true; thanks for auditing me this far, but I can’t believe this.” What is he going through? He is just going through the strata Can’t Believe on the Chart of Attitudes, very simple. You should keep on slugging him through, and the first thing you know he will get brighter and brighter, and he will go on up the tone scale. But, you could audit him through an incident with things getting less and less real, and he doesn’t believe it, and he knows less about it, and he feels less about it, and he is more and more effect, and less and less cause. He is just going down the tone scale as you run these successive waves of force, until he is really down into apathy, but you just keep on auditing him, and he will come up and up. Some of these incidents have such magnitude and force that you had better know all about motivators, overt acts, and deds, otherwise, you can’t even touch them. They are almost as solid as a human body. (joke).

Now, where we have this invalidation (any invalidation) on the thought level, it is merely a person giving another person a symbol; a symbol of words or thought saying, “I’m smashing you in a little bit; I can smash you in.” Emotionally it is, “I can overcome your free energy.” And on a MEST level, “I am knocking the devil out of you.” That is invalidation all up and down the line. You will find people that become uncertain of their own survival (low toned on their own survival) and all they can do is invalidate. They are just saying, Be dead, be dead, be dead.” You say, I was working on a PC the other day and got pretty good results.” He will say, “Well, they very often spin in afterwards, you know.” Or you will say, “I sure feel good these days,” and he will say, “Well, you do look awfully good; you look like you might last 3 or 4 years.” You start to cheer him up; he answers in a funeral tone. People will do this. Here is something that you have had a 1.1 do to you, and you didn’t even know it; you start through the door, and he is in your road. You start to take a chair, and he is in it. Have you ever had that happen? You just start to make a motion in any direction, and you can’t quite figure out why, but for some reason or other he is in your road. Of course it’s no overt act on his part, and boy would you be a dog if you started to ball him out for it. This is the lower, insidious method of invalidation, but it’s just on the tone scale of invalidation, and follows the natural course. He is escaping (via attention units) from a hollow spot from the posit ion you are in, but he Is being there too. He is escaping from it, but he is there too. In other words, he is just starting the eddy of an outflow. He is at that point on the tone scale. If you really jumped him, he would collapse or run, one way or the other on the tone scale. As it is, you generally think the best way to handle him is not to notice it; sort of avoid it, keep on letting him do it. That is dull by the way because it keeps you in ARC with a 1.1 which is very non survival. What you could do is say, “What the hell are you doing in my road?” That would be one way, and the other is to say, “You poor fellow, you don’t look well today.” Or you can validate him by saying, “I’m going to help you out. Any of these things will change his tone scale position.

Now, here then is the essence of this: you see this fellow thinking or not thinking up here in some level; you know there is an emotional pattern behind that (a secondary) and earlier than that there is going to be counter effort. I won’t say how much earlier, but there is going to be a counter effort incident earlier than that. One stems out of the other, and each one is an invalidation. If you have ever been bruised, it was an invalidation of the continuation of your existence, something that light. If you are very sure of your own survival, you are almost impossible to invalidate. If you are not even vaguely sure of your own survival, if anybody even looks at you, you tend to feel invalidated.

The best way to invalidate somebody is of course to really manhandle him, because that starts the whole bottom of the chain going, and then it can go through the vicious cycle of later on getting emotion, and even later on it can get thoughf obsessions.

Invalidation plays it’s most important role in the fact that it tells you at firs glance where your PC is on the tone scale, by: How invalidated does he feel? This is the amount of counterefort in restimulation He has got as much countereffort in restimulation as he has a feeling or a tendency to feel invalidated. His sense of reality, or his willingness to accept or belive an incident when he is being audited, is in direct ratio to the amount of countereffort he has in restimulation. His ability to perceive is in direct ratio o the amount of countereffort he has in restimulation. All of this is invalidation, and it goes straight on down the tone scale.

Here then, is your job as an auditor. You recognize that he has a countereffort in restimulation. You must know that he may have SO MUCH countereffort in restim ulation that you could only audit a secondary, or you could hit the emotional level of the countereffort. Or he might have so much countereffort in restimulation that you can only hit the thought level (straight wire), but by hitting the thought level you can reach the emotional level, and from there you can hit down towards the counter effort level. That should tell you practically everything you need to know on the sub ject of diagnosing the case. An Emeter will sit there, and tell you everything you need to know as to where the incidents are You just have to know that this is the patern of incidents, and that this patern of incidents does not vary.

We have to know the anatomy of a thing before we can neatly disect it. This is the basic anatomy of aberration 1, 2, 3. Then we have to know - To what peculiarities is this anatomy subject to? How many growths? How many complications can this anatomy develop? The answers will be covered in the next lecture.