All right. Just a little discussion here.

We have an old lady with clumpfugosis. We've only got an hour to audit her.

This is conditions of processing. A little drill, a little question-and-answer here. I'm going to turn one of these microphones around so that it faces you.

And we've only got an hour to audit this character. She's very, very urgent on the subject, for her clumpfugosis is horrible. And actually, the medical profession has delineated her condition as obstetrically orthopedic. And this has worried her a great deal.

And you are the auditor. And she only bought processing to the degree of twelve dollars and a half. Or at best, you're doing it on charity. And you've only got an hour to do this. You only got an hour to do this process.

Well, let's find out what the Hubbard Professional College visitor here has to say. What would you do?

Male voice: I've got an idea.

You've got an idea?

Male voice: Yeah.

That's more than these boys have. What is it?

Male voice: Have her spot a spot in space in the room and move her clumpfugosis into it.

You would, huh?

Male voice: And then out of it. And then back into it.

Boy, you guys are being real fascinating. I'll tell you what you'd do with it: you'd leave it alone. That's what you'd do with it. You wouldn't monkey with it. That's what you'd do with it. You'd give her standard auditing. That's what you'd do with it. And I guess you guys all went overboard on that hook question. Tricky guy, this Hubbard. He's mean.

What would you do with it? Do you realize that she's holding up in life something of vast interest and you, you sucker, come along and validate the fact that this is the most interesting thing in the world, this clumpfugosis. And do you suppose she's going to let go of it now? Brother, she's not! She's going to clutch it to her over-developed bosom.

So what do you do with this? I'll tell you several things you could do with it. You could say, how she was and how old she was and how young she was or anything else; you could get her into communication with you. You could ask her what seemed to be her problem in life, or if she's having any problems she would like to discuss with you. And of course, she will tell you about her clumpfugosis.

Now, it'll be a great temptation on your part, at this moment, to keep emphasizing this; be a great temptation. And so you would ask her, "Well, how do your problems seem to you now?" This is a very, very covert method of getting her attention off of this. "How does it seem to you now?" Make her as-is some of it. Do something.

But your mission is to get her talking in a two-way communication. And if you could simply get her talking in a two-way communication, and not mentioning clumpfugosis, she would recover from it. But if you audited it, you would go on talking about clumpfugosis for the next eighty-five thousand hours of processing, if she is maybe sixty or seventy years old. These people have learned how to persist, if they've learned nothing out of life.

Now, do I make my point adequately and amply clear? Hm?

One of the reasons I bring this up at this moment is one of the Instructors this morning came in with a horrible somatic and wanted to know what you would do for a specific somatic — thinking back to those good old days in Dianetics when we let people be interesting — and I validated it for him; it didn't let up. I made my point. Tomorrow sometime he's going to all of a sudden realize that the point was made.

If I had asked him … If I'd been in a kind, mild mood and felt that humanity included Instructors, I would have had him spot some spots in the room. Because listen, listen here, he couldn't possibly have a somatic unless he were holding it to himself. Do you understand this?

Now let's get this in a much sillier-looking way. This fellow is standing there with a big box. He's got his number twelve glove-sized mitts wrapped around the outside of this box. And he is pushing it in solidly against his chest and he is saying to you, "How am I going to get rid of this box? How am I going to get rid of this terrible burden which I have here in my hands? Because I'm not holding on to it." Do we see something here? He's saying, "I'm not holding on to it. I have nothing to do with it. Not me. All I can notice is the part of the box which is pushing my silly face in. And I haven't got hold of it." You're standing there and you're looking at him, and he's got his two hands on the outside of the box and he is holding it.

Now, of course, if you've got it in a material-universe situation you'd just say, "Well, just let go of the thing. Go on, let go of it." And he'd let go of the box and maybe it'd hurt his toe or something as it fell, but it would fall.

Now, let's say this somatic, this chronic somatic, is a big box. And your preclear comes into the room, you know, lugging it into the room, you know, and lugs it in and says, "You've got to let me let go of this box, because some-thing is holding it to me." And you could come around here and try to pry their fingers loose, and so forth, and they'd just hold on tighter.

Now, supposing you paid attention to this fantastic fallacy that only one end of the box, the end closest to their face and chest, was known to them. Supposing you just paid attention to the fact and then you tried to erase, in some peculiar fashion, one end of the box. Listen, you'd still have the other end of the box, wouldn't you? Hm?

And that's why chronic somatics don't release — because guys are holding them to their chest.

Now, let's get this fellow with a crooked spine. He's got a crooked spine and he wants you to straighten out his spine for him. That's what he's really interested in. That's the only thing he's interested in.

If you could see this fellow as a large and ambitious thetan with a human body with one hand at the base of the spine, and the other hand up here around the neck, pushing like mad to condense the spine, you are getting a proper look at the preclear. What you've seen is a human body walk in with a thetan holding that spine in a distorted situation.

Now, through the body — a ventriloquist's dummy; a sort of a seeing-eye dog for this thetan — this ventriloquist's dummy says to you, "Would you please do something about my crooked spine?" The body has no volition with regard to this crooked spine at all. But the thetan — the one you're really talking to — is holding it there in a crook.

And then you could go around and say, "Crooked spine. Well, it sure is crooked." The thetan, you know, he'd say, "Hm. Now I'm doing it." But you're talking to all there is there. You're talking to all there is. There is no other unconscious motive.

What's happened here is the guy grabbed on to his spine one day — his body's spine, you see — and went crunch! and then forgot that he did it. That's really what has happened. He's done this and he said, "That hurt," and it kind of blurred him a little bit and so on, and he went on holding on to it, saying, "If I let go, it'll hurt twice as hard." Listen, does your face hurt — to give you an explanation of this — does your face hurt when you run into a wall at the moment of impact or when you have withdrawn from the wall? Which place does it hurt? The exact instant of impact or a moment afterwards? Hm?

Male voice: After.

So people get trained response that it is the recoil mechanism which is painful. Letting go is what is painful, not holding on or hitting. The bounce is what's painful. It didn't hurt when you hit the ground, but when you bounced, that hurt. It didn't hurt till you got up. Do you get this as a training pattern? Hm? And that's the way they think of pain: "It isn't the impact that's responsible. It's the fact that I unimpacted; you know, I backed off." "So I'm not going to back off anymore" is the obvious solution. And there's the mechanism that lies under this "chronic somatics." And that lies under all chronic somatics. They turn them on and now they're scared to back off.

Now, remember in Part C, letting go: "Make up your mind when you're going to let go and let go; when you're going to touch it and touch it; now when you're going to let go and let go." It's a very curious thing. If you ask somebody to take hold of an object, now to make him take his other hand and make his fingers let go, it's rather fabulous that many guys in excellent condition will do some interestingly cohesive actions with that hand which is holding on.

Now, you see, a hand could go on and hold on to a doorknob forever, unless some volition was administered to make it let go. Hands do not automatically let go. There's always some volition mixed up in it. When one expects them to automatically let go, they won't let go of the doorknob.

All right. How about this guy who's got his spine — base and neck of his spine — and he's just got it crunched, see? He knows better than to let go; that would hurt. Well, the very funny part of it is, it's a facsimile that — of the hold-on — that's what you're looking at; you're looking at a facsimile.

All right. Let's just make him contact some things in the environment and get up to a point where he can make up his mind to let go and let go. We'll get him into present time at the same time, and we'll have him letting go of things. He'll let go of his chronic somatics, too. Do I make a point of that?

Now, if you validate the fact that he's holding on to the somatic and you get very interested in it, he'll just go on holding on to it. Nothing will happen to the case. Oh, you'll get freaks. Every once in a while somebody will have something happen because you were processing directly at something.

But when attention — and all this is, is a problem in attention — becomes terrifically, harshly fixed on something, the best way to handle it is get the attention off of it, not put more attention on it.

Now, what's wrong with this crooked spine? What's wrong with this box?

Let us say his hands, holding the spine crooked or holding the box to his chest, are simply giving a condensed attention — known as a hand — to the box or spine. You see? That's a condensed attention. When you take the attention off, the box will fall, the spine will straighten. Follow me?

All there is that can exert any pressure — all there is that can exert any pressure — is attention. If you consider as condensed attention the reinforcing steel in a concrete wall or the wall itself, as just condensed attention, then you'll see this thing very brilliantly. You see?

Now, putting more attention on something is simply going to add attention to it. Completely aside from the computation of interest, you're just making the box heavier. You'll say, "Well, grip it harder." See, "Let's put two more hands up there and hold on to it." Now, the auditor is going to put his hands up to the outside of the thing and hold it on. You see?

The moral of this little story is, when they have a chronic somatic, they're holding on to it. They might have grabbed it and then gone to sleep, you see, and so then they might not know they're still holding on to it.

Well, one of the hottest things you ever ran into for release of chronic somatics, and so on, are Parts A, B and C of Opening Procedure 8-C. They're real hot for somatics. Why? They drill a guy in touching and letting go, touching and letting go — bouncing, in other words. They let him bounce off walls and move the body around, and that sort of thing — a fantastically work-able process.

Does it take more hours — now, let's be factual — does it take more hours to eradicate a chronic somatic with the Opening Procedure of 8-C than it does to eradicate the chronic somatic with a trick process which eradicates chronic somatics?

Yes, it takes many more hours with a trick process which eradicates chronic somatics — many, many more hours. It takes an indefinite number of hours and the chronic somatic is very liable to return.

But if you let them really let go and bring them uptone, wake them up on all the dynamics all the way up the line, the chances are it will stay gone.

Now, if you really wanted to get somebody stable and keep him that way for a year, five years, ten years — whatever it is — if you really wanted to snap somebody out of it and get him in good shape, one of the best ways to do it would be to run fifteen hours of Opening Procedure of 8-C on him, regardless of what was wrong with him, regardless of whether he could move around the room or not (get him into some state of mobility so that he could do it), and then five hours of Opening Procedure by Duplication. Duplication runs out "It must not happen again." Now, the other thing he's doing with this hands-on-the-box or hands-on-the-spine — he's doing one other thing: he's saying, "This is so horrible that I must not forget it. Therefore, it mustn't happen again. And the way I'll keep it from happening again is to keep it always present. And that will be a beautiful object lesson to me." So if you make him have things happen again and again and again and again and again — no matter how simple the motion is, particularly, transfer-ring his attention between at least two objects — why, he will get to a point where he will let things happen again.

You realize that somebody who is saying "It mustn't happen again" is also saying "I mustn't be happy again"? This just identifies clear through the bank. "I mustn't be young again." Age itself is simply a process of "It mustn't happen again." So there he sits. "I'm not holding on to it," he says, gripping it firmly in order to demonstrate that it mustn't happen again. And this is what keeps it happening all the time, because it mustn't happen again. It can only happen once. You get the squirrel cage of nonsense that he is involved in — just a squirrel cage.

All right. Let's look over this now, as a problem in addressing a preclear. And let us go over this whole question again. The old lady has epiglutis, a new disease. The old lady has epiglutis and you only have an hour to audit her. What do you do?

Male voice: Get her attention completely off that epiglutis.

Well, you see, if you validate it just to the extent of getting her attention completely off her epiglutis by validating the epiglutis, you would have kept her attention on the epiglutis, wouldn't you?

Male voice: Uh-huh.

Yeah. What would you do with technique?

Male voice: What technique?

Uh-huh.

Male voice: Well, first, I'm going to get into communication with her. That's right. That's right.

Male voice: Get her talking.

That's right.

Male voice: The more she talks, the more she'll realize that the epiglutis is not going to be there or stay .. .

You got a gun? We've got a Freudian analyst in our midst.

Male voice: Here we go! Number Two, Auditor's Code. Yeah.

You reduce her comm lag. Let's be factual.

Male voice: Yeah.

Not get her talking.

Male voice: That's what I meant.

We would get her communicating. Do you know that talking isn't communicating? Hm?

Male voice: I meant .. .

Awful lot of talking. Ah, well now, what you meant and what you said .. .

Male voice: Yeah.

All right. Now, let's go over it again. Now, exactly how are you going to handle this old lady?

Male voice: I'd get in two-way communication with her.

That's right. Now, what is a two-way communication?

Male voice: Two-way communication: cause and distance to effect .. . That's right.

Male voice:… making duplication of effect .. .

That's right.

Male voice:… back through distance to cause .. .

That's right.

Male voice:… making the cause effect.

Um-hm. What's this got to do with communication lag?

Male voice: Well, communication lag from the direct question to the direct answer.

That's right.

Male voice: Flatten it out.

That's right. Flatten it out. Okay. This is what you do.

Do you realize if you had only an hour, it might be that you merely got her into conversance? Well, obviously, just getting her into two-way communication isn't going to do anything for her, is it? You've only got an hour so you'd have to condense the case and change the character of the case so it'll respond like some other case. That doesn't work out quite well, does it?

This comes down to the question — the question — very, very precise and distinct: How many hours does it take to process a case?

Male voice: It doesn't take any hours. It might only take five minutes. Oh, it might only take five minutes. You're right. How many hours does it take to process a case, then?

Male voice: It takes as long as it takes to get rid of the .. .

Yeah. Oh, good. Good. Now, what kind of processes are desirable on what kinds of cases? Come on, what kinds of processes?

Male voice: Well, the … Two-way communication?

Well, what kind of a case is that desirable for?

Male voice: Any kind of case.

You've got a toughie back here; he insists on being right. That's correct.

Now, cases are sometimes worse off than others, and therefore the lowest-ranking processes run on them with great rapidity. But because it runs on them with great rapidity is no reason you wouldn't use them.

You actually do Dianometry, Scienometry, whatever you want to call it, on this case. We mustn't call it a diagnosis; we wouldn't muddy up our sciences with medical terms.

The one thing an auditor can't do, by the way — you can't be trusted to do, clear across all the auditors there are — is diagnose. And it was one of the early solutions in this thing — was to make diagnosis unnecessary. And what do you know, that happened to be in the direction of truth; diagnosis is not necessary.

All right. So we don't diagnose. Now, therefore, our insurance policy, and things like that that we use, has a fallacy in it if we're asking an auditor to diagnose. A very cute one — there is an insurance policy that can be issued with the greatest of ease: If a person doesn't feel happier about life, why, you refund his money. And the guy says, "Well, yeah, but what about guaranteeing my arthritis?" And you say, "Well, if you have your arthritis are you happy about life?" "No!"

"Well, all right." That's very legal. That's as legal as the flowers of spring. So diagnosis leads into more than one pit.

But, let's look over this now with some care. I mean, let's take a look at diagnosis. And let's recognize in these six processes everything you need in diagnosis. Somewhere or another the preclear is going to run into trouble. Just say this. You know, someplace he's going to run into trouble.

Now, he might not really run into trouble if' he got well on his way on Route 1, but somewhere he's going to develop a comm lag. You'd only know when he got into trouble by his development of the comm lag. See? Comm lag tells you he's in trouble.

All right. Now, let's take the gradient scale of rough processes — I mean, the roughness of processes, the roughness of cases and so forth. This gradient scale is, first, the roughness of processes. The easiest process is two-way communication. A slightly less easy process, a little rougher process, is Elementary Straightwire. And more complicated Straightwires are even rougher. Now we get into much rougher ground when we get into the Opening Procedure of 8-C. What do we know! That is. It can be very rough.

I had a student the other day, had a discharge out of his ear. He was just doing 8-C. He'd studied it, he'd had it run on him, you know — sort of like, well, "find a wall and a point, and so on," you know sort of … I don't know how it was run on him. But at the second that it was run on him properly here in the school, all of a sudden his ear went kind of ping! and the discharge came out of his ear — a scalding, burning discharge which left the whole lobe of his ear scabbed. That's not a pleasant thing to talk about, but isn't that interesting that he just had a short period on 8-C — well run by a well-trained student — and all of a sudden this happened.

Well now, this man had had many hours of sloppy auditing — Lord knows how many hours. Nothing like this had happened, and he'd never really been aware of the fact that he had trouble with his hearing. But he'd always had trouble with his hearing, and it suddenly occurred to him that he had. And this trouble was busy clearing up as a result of having 8-C run on him.

All right. So 8-C can be tough. All right. The easiest thing to do with 8-C is Part A. And a little bit rougher is Part B. And a little bit rougher (so much rougher, by the way, that some psychos can't do it for many, many hours) is Part C — because that has decision in it and that's one thing a psycho can't do; he can't make an independent decision.

You say, "Decide when you're going to take your finger off the wall." And the guy's liable to stand there whipped. Or he takes it off at the moment you say your last word, several times.

And you say, "Are you making that decision?"

"Well, uh … Hm." Now, you won't see this, by the way; you won't see trouble here unless you've neglected Parts A and B. If you've been sloppy with A and B, you'll run into trouble on C. Let that serve as a little motto there.

All right. Now, Opening Procedure by Duplication is much rougher than 8-C. But if a person has an awful lot of trouble with it, he should have been run on more 8-C before he was shoved into Opening Procedure by Duplication. You see this?

All right. The next thing that's rough, and can be extremely rough, is the Remedy of Havingness. Many complexities can occur in the Remedy of Havingness — none of them destructive, but it can be very rough on the preclear. They get all kinds of somatics sometimes.

And if you were just to take somebody cold — you know, grab somebody in off .the street, and start remedying havingness on him — you'd maybe get away with it with that fellow, you know. The next fellow you might get away with it, and then all of a sudden this person — boy! Headaches and bells and epiglutis and all kinds of weird diseases turn on just because you're trying to remedy havingness. What you did, the second you started to remedy havingness with them they just got an avalanche, an inflow of engrams, see. It re-ally upset them.

All right. So now, a rougher process than that would be Spotting Spots in Space. By the way, let me say something about that process, because I see you're doing something sloppy with it. Spotting Spots is a general process, of which Spotting Spots in Space is a particular part. Now, the most interesting of Spotting Spots is done without ever saying [anything] about "spotting spots": "Give me some places where you are not," and you make the guy spot the places where he is not. See, that's a very indirect, covert sort of a method of Spotting Spots.

All right. The next thing about it is, is you'd have him spotting Los Angeles, spot the town he's in, Los Angeles, the town he's in, Los Angeles, the town he's in. "How far away is Los Angeles?" That's Spotting Spots. Do you know that that's not as hard to do as spotting a spot in the middle of the room? Hm?

I've seen a guy get violently sick at his stomach when asked to spot a spot in the middle of the room, who just had a ball with me spotting New York and Montreal and London and Kristiansand. He was having a good time, see — nothing happening to him — and I all of a sudden called him up short, you know, and say, "All right. Now let's spot a spot in this room."

"Okay," he says.

"Go over and put your finger on it." He's sickened — right there, gets sick.

All right. So the Spotting Spots is a whole category of techniques, actually, of which the two major techniques are simply "Point out Los Angeles. Point out this room. Point out Los Angeles. Point out this room. How far away does Los Angeles seem to you now? Are you getting a picture of Los Angeles? Point it out. Point out this room. Point it out. Point out this room." That's the easiest kind.

The next one — a little bit rougher — is to add a specific significance to pointing out Los Angeles. See? We do it this way: "Point out a spot on earth where you were unhappy. All right. This room. Where you were unhappy. This room. Where you were unhappy. This room." Bring both spots up to present time, you see. That's another one on Spotting Spots.

And now the next one on Spotting Spots, you just ask the fellow to "Spot spots in space." You got that as a highly particularized level?

And now, after that, you could have him move his body around into spots in space. And you could do all sorts of things like this. But that's a pretty rough process. So if a guy had trouble with it, why, he would have trouble with it.

All right. Now let's take those processes and let's look them over again. I'm not telling you how much you don't know, I'm telling you something now that you do know. There are some preclears that are rougher than others. Now, let's take this gradient scale whereby some processes are rougher than others — you know, the gradient scale of roughness of processes. Now, let's take the gradient scale of roughness of preclears, and we find out one scale is inverted to the other scale. The roughest preclear takes the easiest process.

So we would find the roughest preclear in there with a two-way communication. That two-way communication might not be verbal, you know. You're just tapping him on the knee until he taps you on the knee. There's the roughest case, you see, and there is the easiest, least-rough process. It fits right with him, you see.

Now, your next case up the line — who is not quite so rough, but pretty rough, you see — he could do two-way communication all right, but he would bog on Straightwire, see.

Now, the next less-rough case would probably fit in very nicely with Opening Procedure of 8-C. You know, he'd — pardon me, he'd bog on that, but he wouldn't have any trouble at all with two-way communication, and so forth. He wouldn't have any trouble with two-way communication and Elementary Straightwire — no real trouble. And all of a sudden you get him into 8-C and chug! See?

All right. Your next case level, not quite as rough, would have no trouble with 8-C, Elementary Straightwire, Opening Procedure 8-C, none of these things. And the place where processing really gets rough for him is Opening Procedure by Duplication.

Now we get the next level of case, and this case is a real … Oh, he — everything's a breeze, you know? He can do Opening Procedure, Duplication. You know, very little trouble; I mean he's easy to process. These … What little lags he develops, they straighten out very, very nicely.

And you get him in there and you all of a sudden would start remedying havingness with him, or something on this order, and he gets an uncontrollable avalanche where all the planets of space suddenly start pouring in on him, or something weird starts happening, or he can't quite get anything in, you know, and it sticks. And, boy, he's having a furious amount of trouble right there.

All right. You get him over this trouble very nicely and he would be all right. But his case was not rough until he got clear up there to a very rough process — Remedy of Havingness.

Now let's go to a rougher process and discover that a much better-off preclear would have no trouble anywhere up the line until he started to spot some spots in space.

Now, the test is, if an individual could do all of these six things without developing any particular comm lag at all, believe me, it would not take you very long to discover this, would it? Hm? You'd just run them off, one right after the other, and you'd say, "Be three feet back of your head." Now, if you wanted to play processing on the safe side, remember that all of these processes, all of these six processes — which is two-way communication, Elementary Straightwire, 8-C's Opening Procedure, Opening Procedure by Duplication, Remedying Havingness and Spotting Spots in Space — all of them will result, sooner or later, in exteriorization. None of them hinder or harm exteriorization. Remember that. You cannot harm a person with these processes. His ability to exteriorize is not harmed by doing these processes. See that?

Well, supposing you did all these things — you really wanted to play auditing on the safe side: You'd simply start in at the beginning with two-way communication, go right on through the list. Try to find someplace where he would get into trouble, something of this sort — where he'd bog. And if he got all the way through and he could do all these things, you'd say, "Be three feet back of your head." You've got a very confident, exteriorized preclear, you see; he's real confident.

Now you'd simply go into Route 1 and go right on down the list of Route 1, and you'd work yourself right on up toward an Operating Thetan — because you'd turn over to Route 2 then, and make him do everything on Route 2 while exteriorized. And you could go right straight on through in this fashion. In other words, there's a safe way of going about it.

What's diagnosis?

You'd say, "This preclear was a bog on Elementary Straightwire." This would tell somebody immediately that you had a neurotic on your hands. You see?

"This person was a bog on two-way communication." That would tell you instantly that you have something like a psychotic on your hands. See?

"This person was a bog on 8-C." Well now, that would not be too horrible.

But the fellow would be — he would not be very successful in life, believe me. You could categorize just this way.

Now, we used to have steps in the Standard Operating Procedures. Re-member these steps? And we'd say this person was a Step VII or a Step VI. Supposing (just throwing that old classification out of the way; and this is not a proposed classification, it just is an example here) we called these processes, two-way communication, number one; Elementary Straightwire, number two; Opening Procedure of 8-C, number three; Duplication, number four; Remedy of Havingness, number five and Spotting Spots, number six. This would be a reversal procedure, you see, to what the other one is.

We used to say Step I … I'm not trying to give you nomenclature. We would say this preclear was, not a Step I but a Bog I, see? That would just completely describe the preclear to another auditor. He was a Bog II, see; something on that order. What you do say, right now — the way you handle this — you normally say, "Well, this person couldn't do two-way communication"; somebody else knows that you're talking about a psycho, see. Get how this would be?

So here's your categories — categories of cases. What is the test? The test is not whether or not this worried him or whether or not he thought about it or any other thing than communication lag.

In other words, two-way communication runs all the way through these processes, and somewhere he's going to develop communication lag. Opening Procedure by Duplication, he'll develop communication lag in physical action. In 8-C, he develops it in physical action.

I had a fellow who thought he was running 8-C just fine. And he didn't know that the fellow who would go over to the wall, you know, and put his finger within an inch of the spot and then suddenly dive at the spot — that there was anything wrong with this fellow. He just thought that was routine, not that this fellow was doing it peculiarly, and so forth.

Now he knows enough that he would be very alert to the two-way communication he had with this preclear, and he'd find out that it'd never been flattened — he wouldn't really have been in communication. There's a holdup here. Any physical manifestation of that character is a comm lag.

So we run comm lag all the way through. The auditor is not looking for difficulty, he is looking for ability. But the difficulty, if he runs by this system, will simply come up and slap him. All of a sudden it'll slap the preclear and the auditor will be aware of the fact that he is not proceeding.

Now, the auditor, when he is aware of the fact that he's not proceeding, has done what?

Actually, he did not flatten entirely an existing communication lag of the prior process.

Let's say he ran into a big bog on Opening Procedure of 8-C; just ran into a big bog on Opening Procedure of 8-C. There must have been something awfully wrong with Straightwire. This individual couldn't possibly have re-membered something real. So if this is the case, why, he must have been in trouble with two-way communication — you know, the fellow probably was not even talking about the same thing. See? You could actually track back, usually to an oversight.

Otherwise, what would happen would be this: very slight communication lags would develop, would be readily flattened and the preclear would go on winning, see. He'd get an Elementary Straightwire communication lag and that would be amusing to both himself and the auditor. And the auditor would go right on ahead working and flatten that communication lag. He'd find the individual with the next indicated process having no trouble.

That's theoretical. It does not hold good in all cases because you have very specialized cases. But here is, more or less, a rule of the thumb that you can go by.

If you've done a process of these six processes real well on a preclear — in other words, done it expertly and flattened every comm lag with it — you will be able to, generally, arrive in the next process with considerable success.

This doesn't mean, however, that you would go on running Elementary Straightwire. The only curve there is on this whole line is Elementary Straightwire. It's not necessarily true that Elementary Straightwire belongs at point two. It's just by experience we have snapped enough people out of neurosis with Elementary Straightwire, and so forth, that we don't dare abandon it. It doesn't quite belong after two-way communication because it validates the past. But actually, it goes two-way communication, Opening Procedure of 8-C — straight.

But there's another little hook at this number-two point that you must be aware of. There's another little hook there. And that is the fact that if a fellow has no comm lag to amount to anything on ARC Straightwire, he'll exteriorize like that. And you just go on — you save time — just go on and run him on exteriorization drills.

And there again, you have to throw in Elementary Straightwire as a test. And there again, the very, very safe thing to do: simply do the first six processes. See, that'd be the safest thing to do rather than snap him out of his head at that moment.

All right. So you have some choices along the line. But the general rule is, just as we started out with this lecture — let me ask the question again: A kid named Willie, and he has a broken arm and you only have an hour to process him. Now what are you going to do?

Male voice: Well, I would run him the same as you would run anyone else. I'd just start him on two-way communication, ask him if he has a present time problem, flatten the comm lag, go into "Problems you could be," flatten the comm lag .. .

Mm-hm.

Male voice:… so on. And flatten the comm lag on that.

Mm-hm.

Male voice: And go into Elementary Straightwire, maybe some ARC Straightwire.

Mm-hm.

Male voice: Flatten the comm lags on those.

Mm-hm.

Male voice: Go on to 8-C. Flatten the comm lags on that. Keep going. Duplication. Flatten the comm lag on that, so on.

Right. Good. That's absolutely correct. All right. You guys know that now? Hm?

Now, remember that there are some stunt processes where you just take potluck. They're called Assists. They're stunts. They sometimes only take five, ten minutes and do some fabulous things.

Don't expect the results of stunt processes to remain stable. When you process from two-way communication right on through to Spot Spots, you're processing in the direction of stability. When you get that person up to that level, by God, he's going to remain stable at the level that you have yanked him up to. On a stunt process — which is Laying On of Hands, Places Where the Condition Is Not (something of this level); remedying the havingness quickly of broken arms (that's a stunt process; very spectacular!) — don't expect it to remain stable. The guy's going to feel better right away. But some-body's going to have to get in there and pitch in a couple or three days with some real processing. That's a curious one, isn't it?

On the contrary to what you think you're doing with Assists, actually processing somebody when he's pretty anaten is a tossed coin. It might be good and it might be bad.

I only start processing somebody, when he's terribly bad off, if he's actually in danger of kicking the bucket. And then I'll — anything is valid, you see. It gets down to an emergency basis. Let's say this fellow was lying there in a terrific, stiff, cold shock, you know. He might lie down and remain alive, but if he got moved around very much, such as thrown into an ambulance going … Oh, I don't know; how fast do ambulances travel these days? I think they travel at the rate of about five decibels of sound, don't they? Or something of the sort.

You always see these ambulances running around with the sirens going. Do you know that there's probably not, in one year, any necessity for an ambulance to travel over about twenty-five miles an hour? Do you know that it does the patient more harm to travel at a fast rate of speed — much more harm to travel at a fast rate of speed — than to take it easy? In the first place, there's almost always an intern with the ambulance who's already sutured the arteries. And something on that order has occurred, so all of this speed and so forth is just somebody having a good time showing off. They used to say in Washington, DC, when one went by, "Well, there goes an intern out for a pack of cigarettes." Anyhow, here's a man in cold shock. The man can lie down and stay alive, but if he were moved around very much he would probably die. Certainly if he stood up he would die. That's a strange and peculiar thing. Blood lakes in the middle of the body; various things happen. Very often — until they really learned this in the war — a man would be shot, wounded, apparently only slightly, and then get up, you know, and walk or run. People would let him get up. One of the things that they don't do now — they just don't let the guy stand up, don't let him unbalance that blood situation in his body, and wait till somebody gets some plasma to him and overcomes the shock.

Because the blood has left the arteries and veins, and he isn't running on any blood at all. And if you wanted to complete his death you'd simply have him stand up, that's all. Just stand up and there he goes — bang! dead! — such a case as that.

You might do something for somebody. What would you do?

The best thing you could possibly do would put him in contact with his present-time environment, which would reorient him in time and shove him out of the instant of impact. But, again, this is best done by two-way communication. Again, we really haven't violated the rules of the game.

But sometime, if you really wanted to be spectacular on somebody's sprained ankle, use Laying on of Hands. You know, "Look at my fingers. Look at my fingers. Look at my fingers. Put your attention on my fingers." And just put it around the vicinity of a sprained ankle and watch the sprain go down. This will work unless he's in horrible condition. But if he's got a bad, bad, bad two-way communication lag, he's in horrible condition. You might be reducing his havingness with that laying on of hands. You might be doing a lot of other unpredictable things.

The safe thing to do is two-way communication, Elementary Straight-wire, Opening Procedure of 8-C; even if he's lying in bed. You know how you do 8-C with a guy lying in bed? You just point out spots in the bed for him to contact.

And Opening Procedure by Duplication … San Francisco area, recently, they started to run — very funny; they're always getting new techniques — they started to run Group Duplication on individuals. The only time this is warranted is when you're operating on a group. Group Duplication simply is to take an object in your right hand, take an object in your left hand and then inspect these objects, one after the other — weight, color and so forth — silently. This is Group Duplication, and that's all it is. And it is no-where near as good as Opening Procedure by Duplication as you know it. It's a stopgap because you run it on a group. Well, they've started running it on individuals and they found out that it worked. But they would also have found out that Opening Procedure by Duplication worked, if they'd tried it. See, of course this works. But Opening Procedure by Duplication done very, very correctly works much better.

All right. These new techniques that come up — this one is very much to the point. Here we have, in Group Duplication, a manifestation where the auditor is really taking . . . he's taking a nice chance by running anything as rough as Group Duplication. Just as they did in the congress; here and there in the audience, somebody teeters outside and falls on the neck of one of the auditor attendants. You know, they just go nyaaow, doing this Group Duplication.

So any one of these processes could be of vast benefit to a person, you see. Let's say you just specialized in Remedy of Havingness and that's all you were going to do to anybody; you were just going to remedy their havingness. Oh, you'd be fabulous. I mean, you'd get all kinds of results — except, maybe 60, 70 percent of the people you ran into, and life would look more interesting for a while than otherwise, but you'd probably get away with it. You'd probably get away with it; yeah.

Supposing you did nothing but spot spots in space. You wouldn't get away with it. That one you wouldn't get away with — if that's all you did to anybody who came to you.

You'd probably get away with it very, very well if all you did was Opening Procedure of 8-C, and never did anything else. You'd probably do fairly well. You'd probably do pretty well; you wouldn't get into trouble clear across the boards. But once in a while a case would evade your grip or understanding — definitely. You'd find some losses. And certainly it would take you longer if that was all you were going to use. There's a disadvantage in that.

Supposing all you had was a two-way communication as a process. You would find out that although it took you an enormously lengthened course of processing, you would probably, however, eventually arrive with the process, because this process is a common denominator of all processes. See that?

Spotting Spots, that would not be workable on everybody; but actually, two-way communication would.

But here (in the interest of time, and the interest of alignment and experience, and the number of things that could be wrong with somebody; the number of things you can overcome), you've got six processes — stacked in that line, done in that line, you'll discover, will shorten the length of time that a person is being audited, and it will give you a very, very, very high batting average.

I don't expect any auditor to get 100 percent batting average. Too many other things enter in. The preclear goes home, he's feeling pretty good. Some-body calls you the next day and tells you he's in terrible condition, and so forth. And you say, "What have I done to him?" And then we don't hear very much more about it, and it sort of drifts out of our mind, but we chalk up a failure.

You didn't chalk any failure up. When he went home his wife knifed him. He went home, he was feeling very overt and the whole family jumped on him, see. A lot of terrific environmental factors can enter in. And every once in a while some preclear starts to get well and his family becomes infuriated with you. And they will not rest until they have broken off all further appointments with you. All kinds of interesting things occur which knocks it down from 100 percent.

But I'll tell you something that is not knocking it down from 100 percent today. If the preclear will report for his appointments, or if you can see the preclear during certain appointed, regular hours in the absence of tremendously influencing exterior stimuli, why, you will get 100 percent results. See? But you see what knocks it down from 100 percent? You would have to control the entire environment and his entire family and everything that could influence this preclear in order to bat 100 percent.

Well, actually, these — the incidence of loss of preclears or loss of good results is even getting lower. Why? Because we make them well faster.

Now, that's the other thing I want to tell you: make them well fast. Don't dilly-dally around. If a fellow actually has a good two-way communication, don't sit there like a bump on a log, feeding him a two-way communication process. He's doing well with it, he can handle it. See? So let's not waste time on it.

Same way with Elementary Straightwire. We just hit "Something you wouldn't mind remembering; something you wouldn't mind forgetting," and we flatten this out. "Time that's really real to you. Time you were in good communication. Time when things were in good communication with you." You know? And we find out he's very flat on this, and he's okay.

We run him through Opening Procedure of 8-C. He does A like a breeze.

He stumbles a little bit and then recovers and does B like a breeze. He stumbles a couple of times while doing C, but he does that just nicely, finally, and you get it nice and flat. You think that's just swell. Go into Opening Procedure by Duplication, and this is the only place you should watch out.

Opening Procedure by Duplication requires some duration. I would never do it, never, never do it less than an hour, because the preclear who's been kidding you, that somehow or other skidded by — who, by straining every faculty and ability he had, to be social, to be nice, to be a good preclear, to measure up, to do what you said — can't take it.

That's the trap that'll catch him every time — Opening Procedure by Duplication. He won't be able to take it. He might be able to take fifteen minutes of it, see. He might be able to take a half an hour of it; he might even be able to take forty-five minutes of it. He won't be able to take an hour. That's according to my experience.

So I'd play it on the safe side and give it at least an hour, preferably a couple of hours. That's the point I'd really be sure about. Because it'd knock his body back into balance, and his body therefore wouldn't be arguing with you at the time when you want him to exteriorize and behave himself. Sudden energy masses won't move in after you've done this one well. So there is a time limitation on that process. Maybe there shouldn't be, but there hap-pens to be.

And as far as Remedy of Havingness, unless he can handle energy masses and so forth, his case won't remain stable.

And as far as Spotting Spots, unless he can spot spots in towns at a distance, significances in spots, and spot spots in the room, in space — unless he can do all of these things, he isn't going to exteriorize either and remain exteriorized.

There's many a guy who's been exteriorized that couldn't spot spots in space. This is a real cute one. And so, of course, he reinteriorized immediately. He all of a sudden noticed, after he'd been out for a half an hour or something like that, that he was actually being a spot in space or something like this, and this alarmed him greatly and smack! he went back into the body.

So it'd be something that you would straighten out. And your percent-ages would go up very markedly, very interestingly. And that's what we're shooting for. We're shooting for the 100 percent as far as you're concerned. Trying to get you to be 100 percent right as far as delivered processing is concerned. This doesn't mean 100 percent of the cases processed, because, as I say, there's environmental factors will occasionally enter in — not as often, because the processes are faster.

The faster you can process a preclear, actually, the better off you are. And the better off you are as an auditor, because you process him up rapidly up the line, and the environment can't get at him before he's high enough to handle it.

A slow process puts him a leg up, and he goes home and the wife puts him two legs down. Or she goes home and the husband puts her practically under the sod. It's a losing process, you see. You're processing too slowly, the gains are too slow.

So you want a fairly rapid gain if you can get one. And if you could get a preclear to sit still and go through all of these processes in, let's say, eight hours before he went back and saw his loved ones, and you got him nicely and stably exteriorized before he went home — boy, that would be a nice accomplishment. That would be just dandy. He'd have a far better chance of remaining stable.

Supposing you got him, though, halfway through Opening Procedure by Duplication, and he was going to come back for his next session. Mm-mm. See, he goes home, the world falls in on him. He can't handle it.

Now, the world will fall in on him anytime that he appears to be more overt and more dangerous than he was before. Many people are very afraid, so the increase in ability on the part of an individual becomes a great concern of theirs. They're running on a reverse computation. And this reverse computation is simply that the freer a person gets, the more dangerous he is. If they said, "The freer a person gets the more powerful he is," they would be correct. But that does not mean that the freer a person gets the more dangerous he is to somebody else. That is not true.

Man, being combative, is something on the order of a cornered rat. And if you beat him around enough he will eventually fight, he will eventually get mean enough to be a cop. See? You get him in a corner and he will eventually fight.

Supposing there were a guy like Michael the Archangel around. I don't think the fact that somebody spoke nasally or had a bad accent or made an incorrect statement, and so forth, would alarm him. Would it? It wouldn't worry him a bit, as a matter of fact. It would be nothing to him. So what would he have to fight about?

He could be very, very tolerant of things which he did not think could harm him. And if a person doesn't think things are going to harm him, he can be awfully tolerant. It's only the fellow who knows things can harm him that has to be intolerant. And if he knows things can harm him, why then, boy, does he get intolerant.

So sending your preclear back into the society with his case only half-run is always dangerous. You will always be doing it, but remember it's al-ways dangerous.

All right. Now, let's start in here just where we were before, and so on. And now, what would you do with an old lady who had very, very poor eye-sight and was very upset about her eyesight? How would you start processing her? And by the way, you've only got an hour.

Male voice: Well, get in two-way communication with her. Some ARC Straightwire.

Would you let her discuss her problem at all — about her eyesight? Male voice: No.

You wouldn't validate it.

Male voice: No.

You'd let her talk about it.

Male voice: Well, yes but I .. .

But you wouldn't ask questions to validate it.

Male voice:… later on.

That's right. Good.

Male voice: And then do 8-C. Get … reducing comm lag on 8-C with a little Step A, Step B. And .. .

All right. Now, are you answering this question (which you're answering absolutely correctly) simply because I told you to answer it this way or be-cause you see some good reason to do this?

Male voice: Well, I've seen, in what happened here, and I feel these steps are necessary.

Yeah.

Male voice: For myself.

For yourself.

Male voice: For myself.

You've seen this working on.

Male voice: Yes.

Okay. That's the right answer. That's what you'd do. You'd go on and process a preclear. And anytime they start stringing up this vast emergency to you or some freak setup like "She has cancer. She is about to die. And you've got to get her exteriorized, you've just got to get her exteriorized so that she will at least be able to leave her body and be happy after she's dead." I've heard that one. What would you do with that case?

Male voice: Same thing.

Same thing. That's right. This terrific emergency that they run in on you is actually sort of a destructive mechanism all by itself, by which you're supposed to fail.

There isn't any such emergency in the first place. You could tell her — someday, maybe tell her with great experience on your own part — but you could tell her for me right now that she will be able to back out and go her way after she kicks off. And whether processed or not, by the time she's eighty feet from that body, her level of concern for that life will not be any-where near as great as her relatives so fondly and introvertedly suppose.

Now, that's very good. All right. Let's take our visitor here today. What would you do if a lady was supposed to be dying over in the hospital and somebody called you up immediately and rushed you over there. What would you do?

Male voice: In that case, I think I'd just use emergency measures. What would be your emergency measure?

Male voice: Well, make some attempt to do the best I could to establish two-way communication with her by whatever means possible.

Mm-hm. But again, we're on two-way communication even with Laying On of Hands, aren't we?

Female voice: Uh-huh.

The first thing you'd have to do is get her in communication with you. Let me tell you a trick on this. There was a lady lying in a coma, expected to die, and an auditor was summoned over to take care of her. The auditor did snap her back. But you know how he did it? He found out that she would answer a pressure on her arm with her hand. In other words, he could touch her arm and, holding her hand, would touch her on the arm and she would close her hand and he would say, "All right. Two for yes and one for no," and ask her questions. And the first thing you know, she was coming out of it.

He was driven off by the medical doctor in charge of the ward — now, this is the same case I've mentioned before; mentioned it in a PAB — and the lady went out of communication then and died.

But this was a successful case. As I say, this doesn't interfere with the 100 percent just because somebody came along and shot the preclear — that is, the rest of the world is going on too.

All right. That's absolutely right. Now let's look at this again. What would you do if you were called over to the hospital and somebody was dying?

Male voice: Establish a communication with this person.

Go on, what would you do? This is what you're going to do if this situation ever comes up. I mean, you will do what you will do. Well, tell me actually, honestly what you would do.

Male voice: By whatever means I could, establish communication with this person.

That's right. That's right. Get them in communication with their environment is a better statement of it.

Okay. Got that? All right.

Supposing an Instructor walked into the kitchen and he says, "I have a terrible chronic somatic. Now, isn't there some way to process this chronic somatic?" What would you tell him? Supposing he was an Instructor, which means, of course, you'd want to be mean to him. What would you do? What would you do if you really wanted to be mean and overt?

Male voice: Grant some attention.

You'd process the chronic somatic, wouldn't you? Hm? And what would you do if you wanted to be effective and efficient about it?

Female voice: Have him spot a spot on the wall.

Sure. That's right. You got that? I want you to see this work out in life. I want you to look at this in life.

There is such a thing as Descriptive Processing — never forget it. If you can make a person discuss long enough and arduously enough and answer enough questions about any part of their body, they'll practically as-is it into nothingness. And they'll certainly as-is any kind of chronic somatic connected with it. You see that?

And there are significances which are more punchy than others. But, actually, they should be run on somebody who can spot spots. There are punchy significances that do terrific things for a case. The Unimportance from Mystery to Know is a fabulous process — Unimportance from Mystery to Know; oh, that's a terrific process.

All right. There are all these things that you could know, that you could do, and so forth, but amongst all of them I only want to teach you one lesson while you're around here, just one lesson, and that's be effective.

Okay.