Golden era productions

59

60

11 FEBRUARY 1958

something of the sort, so they can't disintegrate. In other words he'll continue them. That's keeping them from going away, isn't it? Prevention of departure by any means or vias.

Now actually, you have to do most of these things, or all of them at once, in order to get the command totally executed. So that he executes parts of it before he executes it totally shouldn't be a matter of surprise to you at all. As a matter of fact, it's the common course of processing on it.

So we get the other process that is the hot process. The other process. One process here was simply the whole process, which is survival. We get the idea of continuous survival. The fellow will give up a reactive bank that he's possessing reactively and obsessively if he can have any bank.

So you have to make him sure that he can mock things up, you know — and so that these things that he mocks up will continue, that he does have the ability to continue these things—before he'll give up obsessively created pictures, don't you see? It's just a matter of mass. He doesn't want insanity or anything else. He doesn't want conditions. It's all a matter of mass, energy, space and time. These are the things he wants.

And as a result—as a result—the idea of help must be straightened out so that he won't destroy. And then you have to straighten him out on the basis that he can create and possess and pull to him other things—masses.

Quite remarkable, but he has to have an assurance that he can do this. Otherwise, he won't come out of the woods and he won't give up all his automatic gimmicks and gewgaws and so forth that he's been keeping around. And his anxiety is always an anxiety about havingness; his anxiety is always an anxiety about continuous survival, continuance and so forth. Those are his basic anxieties — all of them center around this one thing.

So you got to have survival and havingness in the processing. And the individual himself has to be fully aware that he is creating something and that he himself is keeping it from going away before we get a breakthrough on a case. He doesn't dare give up the automaticities of yesteryear before he's got them today, you see?

Now, you can take Help all by itself and you can produce a new brand of human being. So here is another method of arrival. There is a method of arrival on this, then. I mean, it's someplace you can go which is a direct approach.

Now, oddly enough it's a possibility that clearing Help, all by itself, would make a Clear. (I told you there were lots of routes.) And there's a possibility— and this has been done previously—that simply having him mock things up and keep them from going away, regardless of "Hold it still" and "Make it solid," will make a Clear. Got that?

Now, it's an oddity, but in running Help you have to sustain it with running a bit of Connectedness here and there. You have to run some Trio; you have to do something else. You got this? Because if you tried to run that for 125 hours, you'd find his havingness was "went."

Just by talking to you it would go, not because he was running Help. Help increases his havingness all the time. It gives him new ways and freedom to contribute, and the freer he is to contribute, the more he contributes, and his havingness will continue to go up.

But just talking to you at the same time he's doing this will take enough edge of it off so that you'll find that you cannot run it on a forever basis without chopping his havingness to ribbons. So you have to run some

THE KEY PROCESSES OF CLEARING

Connectedness or some form of Objective Havingness while you're running it. In other words, he's—needs a booster; it needs an assist of one kind or another.

Now, as we find that this can run the lowest but doesn't reach the highest . . . By the way, its payoff starts to fade out when you get in the range of Release or something like that—I mean, its payoff flattens. It runs a curve of very high gain very early in the running of it, and then that curve eases off, you see? You need another process to pick it up and make it heavier, stronger, up along the line, and you've got the subjective "Mock it up and keep it from going away."

If you get this just straight and you get this squared away in your belfry, you will see exactly how each one of them integrates toward survival, and that we're really processing only the dynamic principle of existence of Book One. Odd enough, but it's in both cases. We're putting the man, however, in charge of it.

Now, having to be in charge of it low on the scale is itself an expression of anxiety. And when he gets good enough and he's secure enough, he won't care who's in charge of it, and we've gone to OT above cause and effect.

Now, the key processes that you're running, then, are all based on survival. The first one is Help. It takes care of destroy, which is simply an alter-isness and still another effort to have something. And the other one is "Create it." Now that, by the way, if you wanted to get real, real good, you would—you'd recognize something about this "Create it," and that is that it itself could be a step all by itself. You know, just getting the fellow to create it and know he's creating it, and the form is simple and so forth.

But it's part and parcel of the broader step "Create it and keep it from going away." "Mock it up and keep it from going away." Now, we have slipped a little bit when we realize that "Mock it up" still means "Create it," you know? Some people think it's a sloppy "Create it" but it's not. It's really "Create it."

And you have to establish his ability to do any of this "Create it," and he keeps it from going away and so forth, before the step works out.

And it could be said that if an individual could be reassured sufficiently concerning the survival of his possessions, that he would be Clear instantly and at once, and that is probably the only one-shot Clear there is. But in this turbulent world, I don't think it's going to happen in the absence of your processing, since it hasn't happened for the last umpteen billion years.

Thank you.

61

A LECTURE GIVEN ON 11 FEBRUARY 1958

Well, I hope two things from that lecture: that, one, you do not instantly assume that this can be run very sloppily because there are only a couple of important points to it. And the other one, you don't overly give value to the other processes in it. And I hope you don't do either one. There's a nice middle ground, there.

Now, I've seen them over in London sweating away on flattening SCS. It has nothing to do with clearing—nothing.

Why are you running it? Well, you're going to run a subjective process on the guy, aren't you? And you sure better have him under control. Well now, if I tell you—a good theoretician on this subject that knows some of the reasons why—just: get the preclear under control before you start running a subjective process. See, you should actually be able to proceed from that point.

But the other day an auditor was unable to do so. He didn't proceed from that point. Do you know what he did? He had a preclear who was sitting there juggling the cans of an E-Meter like they were dice boxes: The cans were banging together, the preclear was crossing his legs one way and then the other leg, and then they'd all of a sudden have to lay down one can and scratch one side of his body, and then he'd scratch another side of his body. And I took a look at this preclear, and he was just going like a whirling dervish. It's just incredible that the man could have been in this much tumultuous motion and never have noticed it.

But what was much more incredible, the auditor didn't look there and find out he had a factor which was totally out of control. In this alone, he would have seen that the preclear was not under control—preclear didn't have his body under control at all. And, actually, I had to tell the auditor, "For heaven's sakes run, 'You make that body sit in that chair' until it is flat." Horribly enough, it had to be run for—let me see, I don't know the exact period of time—it was somewhere between fifteen and twenty hours. "You make that body sit in that chair."

And after a while, the fellow could sit there and approximate the conditions necessary to auditing. So you could say all these other processes are necessary to make somebody approximate the conditions of auditing, you see?

Now, there are lots of ways you can do that. And I would be thoroughly ashamed of you if you didn't suddenly pull one out of the hat that you already knew. And you say, "Look, this guy can't create energy," you know? "He's doing something weird here, and he just doesn't—it's an automaticity of form

63

64

11 FEBRUARY 1958

and energy" and so forth. And you just use one of—I could think of a half a dozen processes where you could handle energy just as such. It's kind of a dangerous thing to handle, but you could handle it, don't you see? The creation of energy: You have him mock up an energy particle, you know, just a little, tiny energy particle, and know that he mocked it up. And move it around and change its color until he knew that he mocked it up. And then have him mock up a couple of energy particles. And then have him mock up some masses of one kind or another. And he would have been able to mock up energy, wouldn't he?

So this is a sentient activity, this business of clearing, isn't it? You know the important points. The important point is survival. I just covered it. And subjectively the thing that undoes a bank is, "Mock it up and keep it from going away."

Then, of course, you get the two chief methods of doing this—and he'd certainly better be good at them—which is, "Mock it up and hold it still," and, "Mock it up and make it a little more solid." You got that? Those are the two principal methods of doing it. And he's got to be good at those because those are the ones he's going to be using most of the time. But those are just drills on what he's already been doing. Right?

But you should be able to put the rest of it together. You actually shouldn't have to have—beyond the exact outlines of those processes, you shouldn't have to have a big scale that says it goes from this to that to this to that, in order to get somewhere else. You see? If you know the conditions you've got to create in the preclear or bring about in the preclear, then you certainly should be able to bring them about. Right?

If you were just going by rote and some kind of a formula, it'd be like a pilot flying blind that never knew where he came from or where he went to, you know, or what passages he should be taking in order to get there. Wouldn't it? And if you haven't got a good grip on exactly what you're trying to do, then you'll do one of two things: You will either wander over and suddenly specialize in SCS—say, "Well, it's SCS that's doing it, and we'll do SCS," see? You could do that. Or you try to do the exact clearing processes without doing any supportive processes to make a gradient scale of possibility, and you give the preclear a big lose. Get the idea?

Now, we have about the best rundown you can get of this in the procedure that you're using right now, but—pardon me, in the one you're using, the one that's been modified. And the procedure on which we are doing our best work is HGC Procedure of February 6, 1958. That contains all of these steps.

Now, that is going to suffer a modification. And we're going to drop out Union Station, Destroy. Had some careful tests made on this, and it doesn't particularly answer the situation. It's answered faster by Survive. And we find out that you never have to process Destroy if you don't want to. But spotting people and being able to brace up to doing something to them was quite beneficial. Don't you see?

Okay. Well, I'm not continuing the lecture. This is your half-hour.

Yes?

Male voice: These Clears that have already been made without having the Help bracket flattened, do you think that Help bracket will turn up null on the E-Meter with them, or will that have to be flattened?

THE KEY PROCESSES OF CLEARING: Q&A PERIOD

I think it's pretty null. Because, remember, we've had the Help button here for a long time. And the fellow always hits that with CCH 0 if he's doing a thorough job. And all of these Clears have had that hit.

Now, you understand that this Help button is simply being punched up like mad . . .

Male voice: Yeah.

. . . brackets and all the rest of it. But you should realize that for eight months it has been riding in our drills. This exact process you're doing is eight months old, on Help.

Now, when an auditor at the HGC ran into a wiggle-woggle on Help, he just beat it to death, see? We didn't understand that he could beat it to death and get a Clear. You understand? That—didn't know until a relatively short time ago. But the material itself was sitting there. Evaluation of importance is what took place.

Now, I can answer that in this way: is, these people were null on Help in the rudiments. And we found that all of those cases, finally, that had been hanging up, that had fields and all of this, weren't null on the Help button. I had to do a fast look and find out what was the common denominator of no-null here. And the common denominator of no-null—I didn't do this systematically; I did this theoretically and then went and looked, and sure enough, it's the common denominator—is the Help button.

Did I answer that. . .

Male voice: Yes.

. . . clumsily, or ...

Male voice: Mm-hm.

All right.

Male voice: Thank you.

You bet.

Any other questions, here?

Oh, come, come, you don't know all there is to know about that yet, do you?

Male voice: This new procedure at the HGC of processing only with Clear as a goal—would you like to say anything on that?

Well, they shouldn't be processing—the auditors themselves shouldn't be processing with only Clear as a goal.

Male voice: Right.

They should be processing as only OT as a goal.

Male voice: Yeah. But what I mean is not accepting a preclear for anything less than Clear.

That's correct. I'll tell you why: they won't go anywhere else. That's really Q-and-Aing with the—with the people. They walk in, say, "I want a week's processing." Registrar says, "Well, what do you want to do in this week?" The guy has got a black field four or five light-years thick. He's — can't make mock-ups, gets an impression of something or other, so on. He says, "Well," he says, "a week. I'd like a week's processing so I can be cleared."

Well, now wait a minute, see? It'll take—it'll take a week or two to get this boy under control, to get his machinery straightened out, and then maybe you'll get started on a project. But he won't settle for anything else. So we have to answer up to this reality. We know this guy is going to "free-week" on through to Clear—scream, scream, scream, you know? "Well, I didn't make it this week" and so on. Well, you have to sign him up for what's real.

So, therefore, it comes about that we can only go in one direction—Clear. He's going to say Clear. Well, in order to get him to Clear, we've got to say OT.

65

66

11 FEBRUARY 1958

We're going to go toward OT as far as we can go in five weeks. We therefore have two new—brand-new auditing packages. We always had one week and three weeks, didn't we? We have one, three, five and seven, now. And we even know about what the condition of case would have to be in order to boot somebody through at one of these levels—read it from the E-Meter and so forth.

The Director of Processing now takes an incoming person and boots him through a rather simple series of tests, completely aside from the APA and intelligence tests, and pegs it. And this fellow might have signed up with the Registrar at one week, but it's contingent upon acceptance by the Director of Processing. Director of Processing looks him over, knows very well he'll go for Clear.

And this has happened, every case that walks in: "Yes, well, what's your goal?" the Director of Processing will say.

"Well," the fellow says, "nothing, I ... Nothing, I just wanted to be cleared." And he's signed up for half an intensive or something. So we just let the Registrar sign him up for anything: Sign him up for an hour, sign him up for a month. It doesn't matter what. The length of time is decided by the Director of Processing. And the Director of Processing then sends the preclear back to the Registrar with a reality of sign-up, and will not accept him for auditing unless he has established the length of time necessary to clear him. Because halfway through, he's going to start talking to students, he's going to start talking to other auditors, other preclears. The next thing you know he's, "What is this thing, Clear? Oh yeah, I want to go there myself. That's where I want to go."

Well, you certainly better have enough time to put him there. Now, that's exactly what we're doing.

Yes?

Male voice: On the process "What action could you take against that body?"—that is working on the Destroy button, right?

Not necessarily. That is a command which is susceptible to tremendous rephrasing: is "With what could you touch that body?"

Male voice: Well, that's a different process.

No, it's practically the same process. It merely means willingness of inflow. The process would be better stated if it were described this way: "Increase the preclear's willingness of inflow toward the body."

Male voice: All right, that clears it up.

Got it? Okay.

Yes?

Male voice: What processes above Rising Scale do you have and recommend for above mest Clear? OT processes above mest Clear?

Well, a continuance of the exact processes that are being done will get a very long distance. The next process above that is Rising Scale, and that happens to be the highest process there is in Scientology. There is no process higher than Rising Scale because it is straight change of postulate by the pc, which basically is all there is, anyhow.

Male voice: And that then is an unlimited process?

Very much so.

Male voice: Okay.

Yes?

Male voice: I had one pc at the Guidance Center, you remember, that went awful high on throwing stuff away.

Mm-hm.

THE KEY PROCESSES OF CLEARING: Q&A PERIOD

Male voice: "Mock it up, throw it away."

He took over an automaticity which, of course, gave it to him. You have to have these various adjudications. If he's got a machine that's mocking— that throws away everything that is mocked up ...

Male voice: Well, it wasn't quite that. I had to convince him that he could throw something away.

Yeah. Well, you're talking about a Remedy of Havingness. You get the same thing if you run enough "Mock it up and keep it from going away." But there are the lower harmonics. Remember when we were running Trio and we had to run the third button of "dispense with"? And one case was reported to me, I think, of two hundred times "dispense with," to five "continue its," to one "have it."

Male voice: That's about what this case ran on.

Yeah. Well, a case will run these things. A case will run these things. And my explanation for it has been that you're exercising an automaticity, and if that automaticity existed that got rid of all of his havingness and you took it over, then he would have more than he was having before. You got the idea?

Male voice: Yeah.

But because this hasn't worked out in every case, and Keep It from Going Away has worked out in every case, see, we have to decide in favor of the "Keep it from going away" as the constant denominator, and the other one as inconstant in its results. You'll find cases that will throw things away happily and apparently get much better because they were throwing them away. You'll find cases. But all of a sudden it comes and grinds to a halt. And, boy, they'd better not throw away one more pinpoint of flyspeck. See? They've had it. They're right there.

Now, you have to run the other. One of the basic discoveries been made in the last few months is that "Mock it up and keep it from going away" or "Hold it in"—he does it on his own automaticity—solves all of the throwaway processes. And that's an interesting thing to have discovered: that the common denominator was "Keep it from going away" and the sporadic was "Throw it away." You got it? Got it—okay.

Female voice: We all have some idea on how to diagnose a level of case, but is there going to be any specific information written on that?

Yes, there is. There's an FC Policy Letter of, I think, February the 8th or 10th which gives the number of weeks per case and the type of case for each one of those assignment of weeks. It hasn't been broadly publicized. As a matter of fact, it's just, I think, been issued—only two or three copies of it.

What I intended to do with this, by the way, was let this thing drift for two or three months and then cook up an exact scaled test whereby we had an exact estimation then borne out by processing. You know? When we get more data, we'll make a more accurate one. Now we've, now, have just approximated it, don't you see? And then been generous, see, and so as not to be caught in the soup.

We sell somebody three weeks, you know? And you as an auditor sell somebody three weeks, you see? And you're going to do these wonders in three weeks, and then you didn't quite make them at the end of three weeks. You all of a sudden find yourself having to give him a week, don't you? Just to complete the contract. Well, he's upset because your estimation was incorrect, and we'd better make a generous estimation and sell him the right number of weeks in the first place, regardless of whether he took them or paid for them.