Golden era productions

101

102

13 FEBRUARY 1958

all sorts of things — all sorts of things. "Is it true that never in your life, have you ever—you've never helped anyone? Is that true? Oh, well, they're wrong about you—you have helped someone? Well, how would you go about helping someone? What would you—what could you do, for instance, to help another man?" He's in-session!

Now, the funny part of it is that there are instances on records where psychos have spoken of help and have broken out of their psychosis by being asked to help. Just that.

Now, there are also instances on record of them breaking out of psychosis and so forth on many other things. And the psychiatric profession has filled the books full of records where everybody "got well" the moment you shot them with 110 volts between the ears. Knowing what we do about cause and effects, we can doubt that.

So, it isn't that this is well backed up in the field of insanity and as far as I know it's never been tested with a Scientology-type approach in the field of insanity. But I'd think it would be one of the first things you would think about if you were trying to handle an insane person—how you would handle this Help button.

Well, if it works in these levels and if its opposite side is Destroy, then you can anticipate this sort of a reaction on the third dynamic: that violent, and to many people incomprehensible, reaction will occasionally take place in your direction because you say you are helping people. Violent reaction with this beautiful dividend: Nobody will be able to understand that much violence. It's just as you pull off a wolf skin and find a werewolf underneath it, so this Help button unmasks the reaction to help.

This is quite important. And we get this type of possible approach in the dissemination of Scientology: We now have something that is safe to disseminate because it kicks out the liability of dissemination. So we can talk. And one of the books which will be published in the very new—near future will be called, "Help One Another." In other words, on the third dynamic you put this button right in their teeth, somewhat in this wise. Now, this is a very casual rundown and I won't try to read it like a radio announcer. But here's just the text rapidly written here of a radio advertisement:

"Scientology helps people help one another. An activity, a family or a government which does not take into account the spiritual part of life cannot but fail. Loud words and large weapons have never solved a problem wholly nor made a nation great. The poor, the stupid, the afraid alike need help. The way of a strong man is to help his less fortunate fellows. The essence of all spiritual life is to assist those too weak to help themselves. Scientology helps people to help one another. This is the message of all prophets in all ages: Help one another. It is a formula for life that cannot fail. It is the message of Scientology.

"Books on Scientology can be bought at bookstore."

(applause)

Thank you.

Now, I would say that that was a machine-gun approach, wouldn't you?

Very well. Very well. Now, I say that we have hit several very interesting and important points of Scientology here just recently. We've made major breakthroughs in the processes and techniques we have used. These major breakthroughs are quite apparent. They are very spectacular. And I will tell

OTHER PROCESSES, THE HELP BUTTON

you the other side of this now. They do not in any way wipe out anything that we have known. And if I wished to tell you anything, I certainly want to tell you that.

We have gone on and on to higher and higher echelons of knowledge. What you know today very easily makes understandable much that was known yesterday. An elucidation of what we used to know is much easier today. But what we used to know is true, too.

And very often you will find somebody unable to reach, all at one swift flight, the high points that you know are the high points. And the funny part of it is, you'll have to start him in, in the cellar. And you may very well find, sometime in the future, somebody having to climb these stairs just as we have climbed them, in order to eventually know his subject.

I can see now, in a few years, somebody getting a brilliant idea: that a study of Scientology should be undertaken over a period of eight years. For sure the student would arrive; he'd arrive with an enormous amount of understanding which he would never otherwise have. The mind is more or less stacked up on its entrance to the labyrinth, and the labyrinth itself, on this same course that we have traveled.

We were tremendously well along the way, let us say, in 1952, 1951. You listen to some of those tapes now, you say, "For heaven's sakes, we knew all this then." Oh no, we didn't! No, we didn't! No, we didn't. But we sure knew an awful lot then. And the things which couldn't be done then can't be done now. Particularly the negatives are true. The things that we could not do then we cannot do now. We had so many cannots, however, that they themselves made a labyrinth in which one could get easily lost. There were lots of cannots.

Today we have swept these aside to a large degree with the communication formula and the TRs. And these TRs, as we see it today, are very simple things. Oh wow! The vast enturbulent sea of wrongnesses in which each one of these stable data in the TRs sits is much larger than the TRs. There are so many wrong ways to audit, it would be almost impossible to catalog them.

Therefore, it is necessary to hold on to certain stable data in this subject and to continue on a certain plotted course until one can look around and coordinate all of the other things that are wrong, and then he'll understand why this certain plotted course is right.

But unless you gave a student the opportunity to look around and find that there was something else in the world beyond this certain plotted course, and let him understand that this certain plotted course was right simply because other things were wrong in the attainment of the goal, you would have a very weak, wobbly, poorly informed student.

Furthermore, a great many processes and techniques have enormous validity. So much so that an HCA/HPA Course today does not teach people clearing. We feel that would be a mistake—a thorough mistake. You could make a technician. You could teach him the drills indifferently and give him the formula of clearing, but don't—don't think that an HCA or HPA would ever be a professional auditor if he only knew clearing.

Therefore, the basic professional certificate has this very definite requirement: that an individual know his TRs thoroughly, know his theory, know his publications and know the six different types of process there are. Because we never know when one of them is going to pop up and become very useful.

What are these six types of processes?

103

104

13 FEBRUARY 1958

Well, this is not a lecture on HPA and HCA. You'll find them on the wall of the Academy in Washington and in London. There are six different things or approaches. Like an Objective Process. Like a Creative Process. Like a Thinkingness Process. You see?

He must be taught these various categories. He must be taught the parts of man. And I would say it'd be a pretty sad professional auditor who had never run an engram. So there are various things—there are various things here which would have to be known basically.

Similarly, because you know a high road is no reason you cannot occasionally walk in a valley. There are other things to do with a preclear than use these exact processes you have been taught here—many other things to do.

Supposing you took the Expanded GITA list in Scientology 8-8008 and item by item had the individual waste and desire these items. Don't you think you'd make a change in a case which would be quite interesting?

Well, I'll give you an example of a process. Do you know that you can watch a clerk at work in an office and spot exactly what he's trying to waste? Listen, he's always trying to waste something! And it will be the main fault that is found with him by his boss, although his boss will never quite have noticed it. Perhaps the thing he's trying to waste is quite significant, but he will be trying to waste it.

The driver driving on the highway is trying to waste something. The housewife cooking over the stove is trying to waste something. And you watch them and it becomes rather amusing after you've been with this for a little while to spot exactly what they're trying to get rid of. It's very apparent. Very amusing.

I have watched a file clerk talking to the file clerk's boss—just watched the file clerk at work—and found that the file clerk was trying to waste names. It's an interesting thing for a file clerk to be wasting, isn't it? But it's probably why the person could only be a file clerk, which is most striking. The person was attracted to the position by this great opportunity to waste names and identities. I watched this file clerk at work and he was doing several different things, all of which added up to wasting of names. It was quite a little puzzle and an amusing little contest on my part to see if I couldn't find him out.

So I said to his boss after I had this spotted, I said, "What do you do about the files that turn up missing?"

"Oh, god," he says, "it's just horrible," and on and on. And all of a sudden he looked at me and he said, "How did you know?"

One of the symptoms: The person could never remember anybody's name including his own. Had a miscellaneous file—he chucked all names he didn't quite know how they were spelled. Pretty wild. Pretty wild.

So I said to this file clerk (before I left I cornered him) and I said, "Can you get the idea of wasting a name?"

"Oh yes," he says, "oh yes. Yes."

I said, "Well, good. Now, waste a name. Waste a name." No auditing session, you know? Just "Waste a name. Go on."

"Well, it's so-and-so and so-and-so."

"Well, go on, tell me another way you could waste a name. Go on."

"So-and-so and so-and-so."

And I left. Ruined the man's game. He quit a couple days later.

Isn't this fascinating?

OTHER PROCESSES, THE HELP BUTTON

Now, here's a technique and an observation that doesn't seem to quite fit within the perimeter of clearing. Well, as a matter of fact, you bypass things like this in clearing. You bypass them. Clearing in its processes takes care of these things somewhat automatically.

But there's a tremendously interesting segment of spiritual, mental behavior. No reason to forget about it. In fact, there's no reason to forget anything in Scientology 8-8008. It's probably our most compact, scientific work.

But let's look—let's look at another technique. Another technique. Another process: Problem of Comparable Magnitude.

Now, one of you asked me the other day, "What is this mechanism of problem closure? What is this mechanism of problem closure?"

I tossed off the question because it actually answers mechanically on "Mock it up and keep it from going away"—you actually undo problem closure. The mechanism is this: As a person solves problems, they tend to close with him. This is the explanation for that very, very baffling Freudian mechanism of healing somebody and getting his illness. We cure somebody's headache, we find we have a headache. Now, that is problem closure. We solved his problem and it closes.

Now, the funny part of it is, it closes solution by solution, which is quite interesting.

Now, almost anybody who has a problem can give you a geographical location for the problem if you ask him. Let's say just that morning—as I was, yesterday afternoon, threatened with arrest and being thrown in jail for offering my services and pretending to be a registered engineer of Washington, DC. I don't know what it's all about. Neither does the people who complained. Our public relations man evidently wrote a radio ad or something of the sort, and said in it that I was an engineer. There's nothing wrong with saying I'm an engineer, I don't care how many district laws they've got. But one of the members of the board, evidently, driving to work, heard this description of me and promptly wrote me a mad-dog letter—the fact that it was a five-hundred-dollar fine and a year in jail to represent yourself as a registered engineer.

Well, of course, he wouldn't stand a prayer. He couldn't prosecute this for a moment because you'd have to prove that I had advertised it. You would have to prove that I wasn't an engineer. Now, that would take some doing. And you would have to prove that there was an intention there to offer services in engineering.

Well, we're straightening him out and getting him un-mad-dogged, and then I'm going to write him and ask him to pass another law in the district that heads of churches will never be permitted to offer their services as engineers!

There's just some nutty people out there, that's all you can say. You see? Nutty people. All right.

Now, let's say this was run as a problem—just give you a problem out of the hat here. The preclear on whom it was run (not me) would have said it was over there somewhere. See? He'd have a place it was.

Now, if you said to him, "Give me a solution to that problem."

And he said, "Well, I could write my congressman."

You'd say, "Now, where is the problem?" And he would give you another, nearer, location.

And then you said, "All right. Solve that problem again."

105

106

13 FEBRUARY 1958

And he would say, "Well, the Potomac River could be totally concreted over, and I could get the credit for it, and then they'd have to admit I was an engineer."

You'd say, "Where is the problem now?"

It's closer, and it still has a geographical location.

And now on a final solution that he would give you, the problem would go thunk!

You'd say, "Well, it's gone somewhere."

It certainly has. It's collapsed on him. All right.

Now, let's reverse it. Let's use our therapeutic version here. You say, "Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to being threatened with arrest because you were practicing as an engineer when you weren't," or any such thing. "A problem of comparable magnitude to that letter you received." Any way you want to word it. We don't care how.

And he'd give you a problem of comparable magnitude. Didn't matter how ridiculous or disassociated it was.

And you'd say, "Where is the problem now?"

And he'd point right out here in front of his face and say, "It's right there."

You'd say, "Good. Give me another problem of comparable magnitude to that."

He'd dream one up one way or the other. Proper command is "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude." And he'd give you another problem of comparable magnitude. He'd say, "Well, all the dogs in Washington, DC, screaming like mad, and my being arrested because I stepped on their tails," or something like that.

And you'd say, "Where is the problem now?"

And he'd say, "Well, it's out here about a yard."

And with problem of comparable magnitude after problem of comparable magnitude that thing would go out, out, out, out, out, phoof, phoof, phoof, phoof.

Now, if it goes out far enough, oddly enough, you say, "Give me a solution to it. Give me a solution to it. Give me a solution to it. Give me a solution to it," and it doesn't appear again.

Obviously, the proper process is "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem." Right? That gets rid of it.

Very valuable. Very often this, worked on a present time problem, is tremendously efficacious. And if "Tell me some part of that problem you could be responsible for" fails, you've got Problems of Comparable Magnitude. And it might very well fail, by reason of havingness, by reason of problem closure. Problem of Comparable Magnitude is longer. The "part of it you could be responsible for" is just a quick brush-off. And if you don't get away with it, you don't.

And remember, auditing is something . . . Auditing is auditing if you get away with it. Auditing is that with which you get away. Any way you want to define it, it's the result that counts. It isn't how you held the pinkie on your left hand, it's what you did with the preclear that counts. Very often you overshoot, and in tremendous desperation you chew him up and spit him out. Well, you didn't get away with that.

Scientology in its key processes now could be described as a method of getting away with auditing. All right.

OTHER PROCESSES, THE HELP BUTTON

Here's this Problem of Comparable Magnitude. All by itself it does all kinds of things. It'll blow valences, it'll move ridges. It's quite an amazing process. Funny part of it is, Help at first glance seems to violate this if you say that every time he answered "How could another person help you?" he was solving something. Do you see that? See, apparently you'd get problem closure there, wouldn't you? Apparently these things would be solutions.

Actually they aren't. And they don't work out that way very often. But beware. An individual could very well get down this track and run into the problem closure mechanism. And you'd be sitting there with your hands in your pockets wondering what the score was.

You say—the individual is feeling worse and worse, and his chest is getting very sore. "I must have done something wrong." No, you didn't do anything wrong. The fellow just didn't have the right pitch on the process. He was doing something else and he had a specific problem, and usually a present time problem, which he was not talking about, you know? And when he started solving Help, he was thinking all the time about a PT problem that was worrying him, and it closed in on him. It wasn't much of any other thing that closed in on him but a PT problem. And a fellow always could have some minor PT problem, an auditor could miss on the thing.

Don't get baffled, then, when the fellow's field gets blacker and blacker and thicker and thicker and inkier and inkier the more you run Help. You simply have not properly cleaned up a PT problem before you embarked on it.

Well, all right. How about this fellow you're going to audit under duress?

You grab him by the nape of the neck, you put him—sit him in the chair and you start talking about help. You broaden the session out into Help Processes. He isn't sufficiently under control to run a problem of comparable magnitude on. He does have one, it walks in, it glues itself to his chest and so forth. Well, after the intensive is over and so forth, straighten it out. That's the answer to it.

You overestimate consistently the value of discomfort and its importance— always overestimate it. Now, that isn't a bloody-minded remark. There isn't a person here who isn't too careful about hurting somebody else. And all it is, is a diffidence about communication. And a horrible conceit on your part that you can split his brain asunder with a single, solemn glance. It's a very conceited attitude, having to be very careful in handling somebody.

You know that in training new auditors, a very good Instructor gets them over this early and thoroughly. And if you're auditing somebody, that's one thing; if you're training him, that's something else. These are two different things. They're not substitutes for each other, by the way. Training will not clear. We put it to test and it didn't come through.

We also found that an auditor is always senior to a Clear, which is interesting. If an individual wants to be cleared, let him be audited; if he wants to be trained, let him be trained. And if you're training him, then you train him. Don't be diffident about it.

The iron constitution of the wits is greater than you think. It's much harder to drive a person stark, staring mad than you believe. As a matter of fact, it's very hard to make a person worse. Some people manage it, but it's very hard to do. It's very hard to do. What a person can stand up to, how much abuse he can take without worsening, is something you should understand. That doesn't give you a wide-open invitation to be technically incorrect, to use bum communication and do all the rest of it. But it does tell you that you