 
Subject: FZ Bible 8/9 LEVEL 1 TAPES 
Date: 1999/06/27 
Author: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net> 
   Posting History    
 
FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST
 
LEVEL 1 TAPE TRANSCRIPTS (SHSBC LECTURES) 8/9
 
**************************************************
 
Contents 
 
1 Contents + Appendix HCOPL 10 Oct 61 Problems Intensive
2 SHSBC-18  renumbered  20  22 Jun 61  Running CCHs
3 SHSBC-21  renumbered  23  27 Jun 61  CCHs-Circuits
4 SHSBC-46  renumbered  50  29 Aug 61  Basics of Auditing
5 SHSBC-64  renumbered  68  10 Oct 61  Problems Intensive
6 SHSBC-65  renumbered  69  11 Oct 61  Problems Intensive Assessment 7 SHSBC-295 renumbered 324  15 Aug 63  The Tone Arm
8 SHSpec-17 renumbered 379  21 Apr 64  Problems and Solutions
9 SHSpec-42 renumbered 405  13 Oct 64  Cycles of Action
 
Based on the modern clearsound academy cassettes plus 6 of the 8 lectures were also checked against the old pre-clearsound cassettes (omissions marked ">"). 
 
Note that two of the tapes posted by Zenon in the FPRD cassettes are also often included in level 1.  These are:
 
SHSBC-61  renumbered  65  3 Oct 61  The Prior Confusion
SHSpec-12 renumbered 374  19 Mar 64  Flattening a Process
 
Note that two of the Freedom Congress lectures are also
included in the modern level 1 academy cassettes.  We will
be doing these as part of the complete Freedom Congress
later this summer.  They are
 
FC-4  5 Jul 57 Basic Theory of CCHs
FC-15 7 Jul 57 CCH: Steps 1-4 Demo
 
A complete list of Freedom Congress, SHSBC, and all other tapes
can be found in Pilot's tape master list available at fza.org.
We recommend it for use in keeping track of tape renumbering.
 
**************************************************
 
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 
 
Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.
 
The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.
 
They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics.  By their standards, all Christians, 
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.
 
The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.
 
We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.
 
But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.  
 
We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.
 
We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.
 
Thank You,
 
The FZ Bible Association
 
**************************************************
 
 
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
 
A lecture given on
 
21 April 1964
 
SH Spec-17 ren 379 21 Apr 64  Problems and Solutions <L1 cass> 
 
[rerecorded at WW]
 
[Checked against the old pre-clearsound academy cassettes,
material missing from the clearsound version is marked ">"] 
 
> [applause]
>
> It's all his fault, its all his fault. (audience laughter) 
> He keeps promising me to set this clock up.  He gave me this
> clock for Christmas, it's running slow and he hasn't done
> it so its all his fault.
 
How are you doing today?
 
Audience: Fine.
 
Good. This is the what?
 
Audience: 21st of April.
 
21st of April.
 
> And we have a lot of wind blowing out here today.  21st
> of April AD14, and we have a new student.  Stand up and 
> take a bow.  Elyse Lupton Smith. [applause]
> 
> Here's a student, I can't quite make out this name
> here (laughter), he's someplace or another here.
> 
> Guy Eltringham stand up! (applause)
 
 
All right. Well, you're going to get a very complex,
offbeat lecture here today - very complex, very offbeat.
Nothing simple today. Tired of talking about simplicities,
you just never seem to latch on. Talk to you about a
complexity here, and see if we can't do so.
 
As you may know, not contained in the body of Scientology
but standing aloof, there are a series of research maxims,
or data, which I have really never bothered to collect.
You'll find some trace of them in, of all things,
Dianetics: Evolution of a Science. It's got quite a few of
them in it. You know, the rationale and the how of how you
figure it out. There's a whole book that was devoted to
this - was "Excalibur," is how you went about figuring it out. And every once in a while one of these things cracks
through and you get a grip on the put-together of
existence, and that sort of thing, which is extremely useful.
 
These things vary. I'm not giving you a big mystery. These
things vary all over the place; they go from the sublime to
the ridiculous. One of the maxims - I'll give you an idea - is
take a body of knowledge which has produced very bad
effects and results, and if that's the case, then you move
it out and don't pay any further attention to it. Take the
one which is least productive of results and rule it out,
and you can eventually corral truth on this type of an
approach.
 
Let's take all those things that haven't worked and let's
throw them out, see? That's this type of data, see? And
this is of assistance on analyzing cases, you know, like
mad. You do it all the time. You say, "Well, this fellow
has been run on this and he's been run on that and he's
been run on something else. and nothing happened in those
instances, so it must be something else." See? Well, this
can be done on a broad philosophic basis.
 
> This is very very nostalgic seeing your face again Guy.
> Some of these others that drift back - the retreads that
> drift back here and so forth, they all come in, they're 
> all looking very bright and shiny and sassy and so forth,
> well we calm them down after a little while. (laughter)
> 
> Apropos of nothing.
 
But let's take something of an unworkability and let's
throw it away. Now, that's a research datum. Doesn't sound
like much, does it? But it has a broad workability. The
reverse doesn't happen to be true: Because something has
worked on a case is no reason it will work on all cases.
Isn't that an interesting thing? That is to say, because
something is true in one instance is no reason it's true in
all instances. You've got to have it applied in several
instances and directions before you have any confidence in it.
 
That's one that an auditor misses all the time. He gets a
tremendous win. He's got "Recall being drunk," see? And he ran this on this old lady, and she got a tremendous "send" out of this whole thing, and it gave him a big win. And now
he fails to apply this little research datum, this truth of
the matter. You see, he's only gotten a workability on one
case here, series of one, and he has no real idea yet
whether or not that is applicable more broadly. And yet out
of the enthusiasm of his win, he goes ahead and runs
"Recall being drunk" on this one and that one and the other one, the village parson, and all of these sort of things,
and he doesn't get any more wins with it. You see? So he
feels very defeated.
 
Well, what he's done is fail to apply the other side of the
thing: Just because it had a workability in this instance is 
no reason it's broadly workable, see? That's the maxim that 
goes back of that. There are a lot of these, a lot of these. 
They're sort of idiot's-delight sort of things, and rules of 
thumb by which you progress.
 
But once in a while one of them turns up that has
tremendous value. And this may or may not have some value
to you. (This lecture, by the way, is about Levels.) This
may or may not have some value to you as a technical datum,
but it certainly has tremendous value as a research datum,
to such a degree that I was able to crack through some of
the wildest web work that I think I have ever gotten mixed
up in, with this.
 
You see, you can get certain things to read on a meter. You
get in the vicinity of "create" GPMs - let us just mention that in passing - and you can get, on Monday, this
combination to read; on Tuesday, this other combination to
read; on Wednesday, this other combination to read; and on
Thursday you get an entirely new combination to read. By
that time, you're pretty caved in, so the only thing you
can run on is whether or not you've got a creak. So you try
then to rule out the creak, and you go back over these
things. And it just gets to be one of the wildest swamps
that you ever got mixed up in, trying to pilot through the
basic morass of the individual, because you can get so many
things that contradict so many things.
 
Now, in view of the fact that a pretty well-off auditor, I
doubt very much could pilot his way through a goals plot
and still have a PC sitting across from him. PC would
probably be dead by the time he got the goals plot half
finished and there wouldn't be any point in finishing it.
This is grim. This is real grim. I mean, you see the tiger
here; he's got teeth, see? You get everything checked out,
and then it doesn't check out tomorrow, see; it's something
different. So I had to have a datum which would pilot
through this, and I finally managed to tailor-make a datum
which piloted through this. And we get a maxim that doesn't
sound like very much to begin with, but it's very, very
pervasive. And that is: A problem is as complex as it
presents potential solutions. A problem is as complex as it
presents potential solutions. How many wild ramifications
has this problem got? Well, you want to know how many wild
ramifications it's got; how many potential solutions has it
got? And that gives you an immediate index of how complex
the problem is. That's interesting, isn't it?
 
All right. Well, let's say this perhaps has some
workability - there's some more to this which I'll just go
into in a moment. But let's dispose of this first one
first. Let's say this PC - this possibly has use in the field
of figuring out what's wrong with a PC. So the PC comes in
to you, and he's been to the chiropractors and he's been to
the doctors. And a last result, last, last, last result,
why, he went and saw - something practically nobody who is
decent would do - he went and saw a psychiatrist. And he went
even further downscale and he saw a medico. And he's taken
up good-luck charms and so forth. Well, all of this kind of
thing, don't you see, is - those are all potential solutions,
aren't they? Potential solutions.
 
Now, medicine just gets rid of this fellow by saying he's a
hypochondriac. And I've run into a lot of hypochondriacs,
and they were sick. They were sick enough to be worried
about. I remember one famous case of a very dear lady, and
her husband was practically ruined through this. He was
quite a famous writer - and she always used to be worrying
about her health. And she'd worry about her health and
worry about her health, and all of his writing friends and
all of their wives simply wrote her off as a hypochondriac.
And he was dearly devoted to her and doted on her, and
probably only the [the only] reason he kept on writing was
because she encouraged him, you know, and she - so on. But
nevertheless she was always worried about her health. And
everybody was very sure that she was a hypochondriac - 
labeled it as such, brushed it all off as such - right up 
to the moment when she up and died on them. It's quite 
interesting.
 
That was the end, by the way, of his career. He went down
and went to work for the government. He started writing
Herbert Hoover's "Reorganization of the Government," or something like that, and he quit writing. And the clique
that this girl more or less held together all broke up, and
so forth. But it left everybody absolutely stunned, you
know? 
 
She WAS sick. You know? Well, she was.
 
Some people are sicker than others and some people talk
about it more than others, you see? And a handy way of
getting rid of it, you see, if you can't solve it or do
anything for it yourself, just say "Well, he's a
hypochondriac," you know, and dust the whole problem off,
you see? And in this case, this was all very handy, but the
patient died, do you see? Kind of a grim look at the situation.
 
You get awful tired of somebody who keeps nibbling around
and worrying about this, that or the other thing. And you
get awful tired of this person and so forth. But the
problem they're presenting can be measured by the complexity 
of the solutions.
 
So this hypochondriac who has tried everything under the
sun - "hypochondriac" - he's actually got a problem that's that complex. Do you follow that? I mean, there's that
complicated a thing wrong with him, see? You got the way
this works. This is another way of looking at it.
 
All right, now this defeats forever the idea that you're
going to slip somebody Pill 62 and have an OT. Now, you see
the error? This used to be introduced to me about once a
week or once a month. And we even have a clich that comes
forward from that time. It's called a one-shot Clear, see?
It means a one-process Clear or something like that, see?
And for years, why, I was interested in this particular
line and everybody was always dreaming up with this. A
beautiful dream: all you did was sock somebody in the
gluteus maximus with a couple of cc's of "whizzo," or
something, you see, and they immediately went bing!
 
Won't ever happen. Why? If this datum is true, it never can
happen. In other words, the problem they've got is complex
as the number of solutions that are pushed in its
particular direction, or have gone around its edges, you see?
 
The problem of government, then, must be terribly complex,
because you think of the number of solutions. Look at the
number of political solutions there have been to the
problem of government. Well, that gives you an immediate
index of how complicated is this problem of government. How
complex a problem is it? Well, it must be terribly complex,
don't you see? Now, this thing which has just one little
old "whizzo" solution, don't you see, and it surrenders to that, that must have been a very simple problem. In other
words, there's a comparable line between the complexity of
the problem and the number of solutions. See, it isn't the
complexity of the solution, it's the number of solutions.
Solutions, quantitative, and complexity in the problem. I
want you to differentiate that rather cleanly, see? It's
not "big solution, big problem," see? It's complex in the problem, and numerous in the solution, see? Something you
should look at.
 
So this tells you at once that when a PC comes in there and
sits down in the chair, and you have to start running up
the solutions to his case, you see, and it isn't
surrendering easily - you always blame yourself on the basis
you haven't used the right process or something of the
sort, whereas you merely may be looking at this mechanism.
This is a terribly complex case. It's a very complex case
and therefore is going to require numerous solutions. Do
you see? So you're just defeating yourself. You say you're
going to run one process that's going to resolve this
particular guy's problem in life. See, you're defeating
yourself, because you're going to run that one process, and
that's not going to defeat his problem in life. Just make
up your mind that if his problem in life has received many
solutions, then it is itself a complex problem and will
therefore require a complexity of processes to resolve it.
See? Elementary.
 
All right. And let's go on from there. Now, a solution must
be as complex as the potentials of the problem. There's the
other "whizzo" here. Now, we'll look at it in reverse here. How complex does a solution have to be? Well, it has to be
as complex as the potentials of the problem. In other
words, here is, again, not a one-for-one. Here you have the
solution being complex, don't you see? This is another view 
we're looking at, another maxim: The solution has to be complex because of the potentials of the problem. You get the idea? 
 
Now, what do you mean, potentials? Well, let's just take old
"survive." This problem has this potential of knocking out of existence survival along various fronts or in various
areas, you see? It's a threat. See, here's a problem that
is a big problem. So, the thing to solve that: you look for
a simplicity in the solution to solve this big threatening
problem. And here's a way you get defeated like that: This
bird comes in and he's got this dangerous problem. Now,
we're talking about a dangerous problem, see - potential of
the problem, dangerous potential. He comes in and he's got
this very dangerous problem, you see? They're going to
throw him out on the street tomorrow - very dangerous; going
to throw him out on the street tomorrow, and he's going to
lose his job as a result, you see, and he'll probably be
sued in court for something or other.
 
But he comes in and he tells you he's going to be thrown
out on the street tomorrow. All right, now you give him a
simple solution. You say, "Well, I'll loan you five pounds
or five bucks," you see, "and you can pay your rent." 
 
Did you ever have it happen to you, that you found out that
he all of a sudden told you then, "Well, yes, but then how
does this take care of Maizie?"
 
"Well, what about Maizie?"
 
"Well, she's pregnant."
 
You get it? So you've set up a defeat for yourself. He's
got a dangerous problem: You offer him a simple solution.
That's an immediate way of setting up a defeat for
yourself. You're going to be defeated in this. You can sit
and talk to these fellows. Eventually you say they're
completely ungrateful. You just sit there and you give them
solution after solution after solution, and they can't seem
to buy any of them because they always say, well, there's
always this other thing, too, see, and then there's this
other thing, too, and then there's also this other thing,
too. And then they finally shyly look at you and say, well,
actually, the reason they can't marry the girl is because
they're already paying alimony to a wife elsewhere, you
see? You never knew this either. This all has to do with
their being thrown out on the street tomorrow.
 
See, this thing just travels miles. In other words, nothing
ever really becomes a dangerous problem which is very
simple, or the guy would have solved it in the first place.
 
Problems only become dangerous that are quite complex. They
require, then, a complex solution. "Well, what we have to
do, I guess, is so forth, and we ..." Your level of
solution - this guy is going to be thrown out on the street
tomorrow, and so forth. "Well, let's see, maybe I could get you a job with United Fruit, and we could change your name.
Take a little doing; we have to get you a forged passport.
And then, let's see, I happen to know Joe -  that will
require that. And you better - in order to get financed for
this, you better rob a bank tomorrow," and so forth.
 
I mean, you get the idea, this thing is going to mount up
into this. If you were going to be real in your solution,
to match the thing, see, well, it's got to be - this is a
dangerous problem - if you're going to be real in your
solution, why, give them a real complex solution, see? It's
got to take care of all these ramifications this way and
that, and it's a put-together the like of which... Because 
in order to become a dangerous problem, the thing had to 
coast practically into an unsolvable condition, and therefore 
it must contain many "unsolvable" points.
 
It's quite amusing to look at advising human beings from
the basis of these maxims, see? If you recognize those two
maxims, you'd always be a whiz. This girl comes in and she
says, "Well, I'm going to leave my husband. I'm going to
have to leave my husband, because ... so forth - things
have gotten too tough."
 
For you to say at once, like a marriage counselor, "Oh,
well, no, I think we could just patch all this up" - you 
better watch it, man, because this is a complex solution 
required here, because that's a dangerous problem. Well, 
she's got two kids. She has no means of support. She's 
going to leave the guy. She's going to have no home. 
Well, let's just look at this, look at what she's 
threatening to do, here, see?
 
It isn't just a matter of blow, don't you see? It's a
matter of she's got this very, very dangerous problem: she
can't stay with him and can't go, don't you see? But this
thing is pretty grim, see? Not just grim in her own mind,
it must be that grim. Then your solution to that must be
very complex. So if you just say "Well, I'll just run a
little O/W on him and her and then straighten it all out,"
you're going to get yourself in for a lose, see? Because
there's a tremendous number of things surrounding that problem.
 
She's not saying "Well, I'm mad at Joe and I'm not going to serve him any supper," see? That's not very dangerous. See, it could be a few pots and pans blow up - but this is going
to be a bust-up of some kind or another. This is big stuff.
 
Well, a marriage counselor always gets it when it's right
on the edge of the precipice, don't you see? So you offer
any simple solution, you know, to this, you're being a
fool, and you're going to have a big lose. It necessarily
requires a very complex solution - nice, complicated
solution. So the thing you had better sit down and do is
not give her a little "bing," you know, and say "I'm going to do that." Sit down and find out all the items that have
to be solved in this problem.
 
Now, that would be your real action. How many angles to
this are there? See, not just a glib "Oh, well, I'll just
run a little O/W on it; you can go home," and so on. No,
no. There's Gertrude, his former wife, who is in
Tallahassee, and then there's the matter of his mother and
father, and so forth, and they're bringing pressure on her
mother-in-law, because, you see, they own the mortgage on
the house. You get the idea?
 
This thing builds up, and you'll just be stonied to find
out how many dead ends, see, that there are in this thing.
It's big! See? It's not little. So if there's a big
problem, dangerous problem and so forth, then you can just
count on the fact that this thing has a tremendous number
of little things begging to be solved, out here in the
woods, that you're not aware of at all. And we get that
just out of this maxim here: A solution must be as complex
as the potentials of the problem.
 
You can get yourself a big win on this sort of thing, you
know? This person comes in: Oh, God, they're going to blow
their brains out, see? Well, man, that's a pretty wild
solution. It's all right for you to say "All right, he's in GPM 'destroy self.' All right, that's all. So we'll just
fix that up, and so on." Maybe so, and maybe you would get
to first base on it, except for this: The individual is not
up to running at this level, and the individual has
personal pressures in his immediate environment which would
distract his attention to such a degree he probably
couldn't sit still. And what are we dealing with here?
We're dealing at Level 0, aren't we? So he's going to come
in and he's going to blow his brains out. Good. He's going
to blow his brains out. Boy, that's a dangerous solution,
you know? People get hurt doing that! You didn't get that
gag! And you just better decide at that point, just better
decide that this is begging for a very complex solution,
very complex. This solution is going to be awful complex by
the time you get through with this threatened suicide.
 
My God, this goes back to World War II and the orphan
asylum and the girl who is writing letters that unless ... 
And it goes to this and it goes to that, and it's
something else, and it's over here someplace.
 
Well, why - why get all worn out by saying, "Well, there's
just one more." See, you're getting in the same frame of
mind he's getting into. Just take your original assumption,
which is the correct assumption to begin with, and then
work with it.
 
Well, it's a very dangerous problem this guy is involved
with. Well, let's see how complex the solution is here. 
Let's just find out how many things have to be solved in 
this problem. Let's see, let's roll them off here. All right. 
"Well, all right, let's begin. You're going to blow your 
brains out. Good. All right. Now, now - ahem. What's the 
immediate and direct pressure that's causing you to do that?" 
 
He won't give you the immediate and direct, but he'll give
you something or other. Well, he's worried about his income
tax. He keeps figuring it out and the government keeps
unfiguring it on him, and so forth.
 
And you say, "All right, very good." Well, you say, "Well there's got to be some solution to income tax, is that it?" And you don't offer a solution. There's got to be a
solution to income tax for him.
 
"Oh, yeah. Yeah, but definitely has to be one."
 
"All right, fine. Now, let's see, what's the next one here? Is there anything" - take it by dynamics, you see? "Any group you're connected with, or anything like that?" and so on.
 
"Oh, well, yes. I haven't paid my union dues, and they're
going to beat me up next week if I don't. I've already been
posted for being thrown out, and of course that makes me
lose my job," and that sort of thing.
 
"Ah, well, there has to be some solution there too. How
many - how many of these are problems? Being beaten up? Is
that all one problem, or is that several problems?" 
 
"Well, being beaten up. Well, that ... that's a problem, yeah, and uh ... yeah, there's two or three problems involved
there. And I'd have to go and get a job in some house that
uh ... doesn't insist that it be union members, and so forth." 
 
"And you been posted, and so forth, for your dues, and that requires money - that comes down to there. All right, now,
how many... how many solutions do you think we have to
have here?"
 
And he adds it up, see? All right, that's fine. You got
that out of the road. "All right. Now, let's see, is there
any - there any sex mixed up with this? Any sex mixed up with
this threatened suicide?"
 
"Oh, well, yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what
it's all about." 
 
And, "All right. Well, how many things are there there?" and so forth.
 
And there has to be this and there has to be that, and
there has to be something or other.
 
"Oh, all right. Fine. Now. Now, is there any other
condition? You about to" - go up to the sixth dynamic, you
see? "Are you going to lose your possessions, or you're
trying to hold on to possessions, or ... ?"
 
"Yeah. Well, I ... three-quarters completed for the
payments on all the furniture in the house and they're
going to take it away."
 
"Ah, there has to be some solution to that, doesn't there?
All right. Solution to the payments, time payments, on the
house."
 
By the time you finish up, you've got a big sheet of paper
here, see? It's just scribbled all over.
 
But the funny part of it is, he won't be blowing his brains
out. You didn't give him a single solution. You just said
where they were needed. Takes him out of the confusion, of
course, because it puts up the buffer "needed solution" in front of every one of these problems, don't you see?
 
And he'll come down to it, then, and he'll be able to think
his way through to that, and then you can pull it off.
 
"Well, let's see, we could start these things one by one,
couldn't we? We could take these things one by ... Which
one of these things could be solved now?" See? And then run a gradient scale on the thing. Straighten out his whole life.
 
See, if you know this, you could handle Level 0 like a
breeze. And Level 0 is the rough one to handle, man. What
makes it rough? Well, these guys' problems are so great
they don't even know they got them. That's how great that
problem is. This fellow is walking around in a body! He
thinks he's an animal! He doesn't even know he's a spirit!
He doesn't even know his right name! He doesn't even know
where he is or what he's doing, and he doesn't look at the
fact of the importance's in his vicinity at all. He's
looking at a bunch of cotton-pickin' little pieces of
nonsense here that wouldn't have anything to do with
anything. See? Level 0. This guy's in trouble!
 
"But that's the way it is. That's life. Huh. Everybody else is like this, so I couldn't possibly be in trouble, because
everybody else is like this, see? I'm not in trouble.
Blah-lah-ruh-ruh." So, you see, his problem is so complex,
he doesn't even know he's in trouble. No solutions possible
in any particular direction, and the man's state is that
way because no solutions have been possible in any state.
 
All right. Now, any time you dream up a simple solution to
a complex problem you're going to go appetite over tin cup,
square on your cranial capital. Simple solution to a
complex problem.
 
Nyaaaa. This is how guys go politically bug-eared, see? You
got to have something complex, as complex as the problem.
 
I want to point out to you that the International
City - International City, and so forth: you start looking at
this confounded thing, it's terribly complex. You start
getting into complexities, you see, my heavens! You're into
economics, and you're here and you're there, and banking,
and, boy, this thing is complicated, see? Well, actually,
if you just blow up each one of its simple mentions into
all the potential complexities, you've got the size of the
problem it's trying to solve. And it might have a show.
 
Now, let me show you the simple solution: "Vote Republican. We have a Democrat in, vote Republican. Now, that solves
everything, and that's all you got to do, see?" And we have another four years with things just going worse, see? "All
right, now the solution is to vote Democrat. Get that
Republican out and get the Democrat in. That is the
solution to all our affairs!" See the idiocy of the simple
solution? See? Complete idiocy.
 
First place, you'd have to go find a statesman someplace. I
don't know where you'd find him; going to have to find him.
Then you might set him up with a big team of guys that had
some inkling of what they were doing, and they might figure
out for a little while. And if they worked for a year or
two like beavers, they just might be able to cut the fringe
off of the problems that the country has. They just might
be able to come into something.
 
Now, all right. This is Levels. Do you recognize I'm
talking to you about Levels? Now, as you go on up through
the Levels, you're actually apparently confronting more and
tore complex problems and more and more complex auditing.
But that is not the case at all. You're actually
confronting less problems, and you have less demanded
solutions.
 
Now, previously, people in motivation - I mean,
psychoanalysis - people have been asking me for years, "Do
you have any contacts with industry, or doing any work for
industry?" I never really realized that they were asking me (psychologists and that sort of ilk, whenever I ran into
them, and so forth; I go slumming every once in a while, I
have to admit it) -
 
> And these birds - we wouldn't let this tape go to Honululu
> where they're our friends -
 
- but they're always asking me, they're always asking me, if 
we're doing work for industry. I didn't quite understand what 
they were talking about until I read a review of what psychology was doing for industry.
 
Psychology is big business now, because it's moved in
hand-in-glove with industry. It is a little bit into
government, but mostly into industry, and it's hiring and
firing their employees for them, and it's selling all their
goods for them. And it's telling them how to advertise and
package their goods. And that's what it is doing. And that
is all it is doing. It isn't doing anything else for
anybody. Its testing services and so forth are all in this
line. Now that's where its money is coming from, and of
course we're cutting their throat on testing by simply
giving it free in several large cities. This really upsets
them.
 
The point here, however, is not any rant against the
psychologist. He, after all, has his cross to bear. This
bird is not even vaguely concerned with any of the problems
of existence. He's completely out of touch, man. But he
thinks and the psychiatrist thinks that you go down in
man's psyche.
 
Now, let me introduce to you a brand-new principle, a
brand-new principle: You don't go down through three levels
of subvolitional unawarenesses and so forth to rock-bottom
motivation, and that sort of thing, the way they've got it
dreamed up, see? You're there, man.
 
That's the one point they've never grasped. They've not
grasped that point. The guy is there.
 
You have to go up through heightened awareness in order to
progress through these "deeper states," as they call them. In other words, a guy has got to be more and more aware of
these various levels of awareness. He's got to have a
better insight into existence before he can see it at all,
see? In other words, his perception has got to improve.
 
He's at the bottom rung of the ladder, and the only route
he has available is up. He really doesn't have any down
route left. There isn't any hidden, deep motivation. All
you have left is the individual and he is motivated. You
have a motivated individual. You don't have somebody who is
unaware of his "motivations." He really is at no point where he is motivating anything; he is being motivated. And
that is it. What are these areas?
 
Now, the psychologist and the advertiser, and so forth,
trying to stir up these things which motivate the
individual: to that degree they are aware of this but they
think that they are proceeding through lower levels of
awareness, of less awareness, to reach these things. No.
 
These things are reached through heightened awareness. In
other words, as they try to research to find out ...
 
This is why they never get anyplace with processing, why
they dead-ended in the whole field of therapy and actually
jettisoned it. It had been jettisoned, if you want to know
the truth of the matter.
 
Now, this fellow hasn't got an unconscious to be probed.
He's unconscious. You see? He hasn't got one to be probed.
He is simply the effect of all of this. There isn't any
place you go below his level of awareness. They get this
idea because a person can go to sleep, you see.
 
And they get this all mixed up with the fact that he can
not be aware and be aware, and they've got "sleep" and "awake," which has nothing to do with it.
 
Now, they want to know what motivates this guy, so they put
him out further, or they search "deeper," or they plumb into the hidden recesses of his - "hidden?" Gone, man! He's the fellow that's hidden! See, they're looking for the
wrong thing. They're looking for the deeper areas of
unconsciousness, when as a matter of fact, they already
have arrived there, they've got it sitting in the chair in
front of them.
 
Now, in order to discover anything more about this
individual at all, you can only go up. You can't discover
more about this individual, you see, by putting him in
deeper, or something like this, you see? It's hard for me
to make this point because it's so ingrained in us that we
go deeper all the time, see?
 
Now, let's look at it from another point of view. See?
You've got to make him more aware in order to find out
anything about him at all. So there is no shortcut, as we
have eventually learned - we even jettisoned Dianetic
reverie - but there is no shortcut by which you can get this
guy half baked up on peyote, or something like this, so
that you get to a deeper level of awareness, which you can
then examine to find out what's wrong with him. You see
that as a complete detour? You're going exactly no place.
 
I'll give you an actual experiment on this thing. You could
run this experiment on almost anybody. You say, "What have
you been upset about lately?" or "Why are you nervous?" There's a good one. "Why are you nervous?"
 
And then the fellow says, ahh ... I - I don't know. Am I nervous?" 
 
"Well, you look so. You keep going like this all the time." 
 
"Uh ... well, I - I - I - I don't know. I - I didn't - don't - I do - don't know what's making me nervous. I - I - if - if I am
nervous, I don't know what's making me nervous!" Run this
little test, like this: "Well, what considerations have you had about your state?" Run it for a few minutes and then
ask him what's making me [him] nervous, and he tells you at
once.
 
Well, that's very interesting, because, in other words, you
had to heighten his awareness by pulling charge off of this
subject of his state of beingness. And now he knows. He can
tell you. Well, this isn't him going into his subconscious,
you see? This is opening up a little bit upper strata above
him. You've made his awareness a little bit better so he
can look better, and you've gotten him up to a point of
where he can look at a little higher condition of beingness.
 
And that's the route that you take with a PC. And you can
very easily get terribly confused and upset by current
nomenclature, Freudian nomenclature and current
understanding about having to go into the lower levels of
consciousness of the mind in order to ... No, there is no
spook.
 
There's no bogy sitting down below, you see?
 
It's like on a ship, you see? It's like you'd walk down
through all the ladders of the engine room, and you finally
run into this black, grimy character, covered with coal
dust, and he is sitting there staring into a huge, roaring
maw of a fire. And you say, "I'm looking for the fireman." And he starts accommodatingly looking all over the whole
fireroom to find the fireman.
 
You see, this is the exact idiotic thing that they're doing
with regard to the mind, see? And he will be very
accommodating. He'll go into every corner of that fireroom,
he'll go all through the engine room, he'll look under the
gratings, he'll look in the bilges, and he'll cheer you up
on the road and everything else. And he's looking for the
fireman.
 
Now, if you were a Scientologist and you just ran a few
considerations about his identity, see, made him a little
bit more aware of things, and so on, he'd say, "Ha-ha. Oh!
I'm the fireman!" You see what's going on here, you see?
 
So we must be careful not to fall into this same parallel
line of balderdash. You're looking for man's spirit, see?
Great! Men will accommodatingly walk with you almost every
place to find man's spirit, you see? And there he is, right
there! See, he's it!
 
Yet how many times have you had to explain to somebody,
"We're not interested in your soul. You are your own soul!" See?
 
Everybody says, "A what? I - duh-uh!" See? That's the same gag as the fireman. Duplicate gag.
 
No, the guy is there, see? There are no rungs - try to go
further south than the bottom plating of the ship. There's
no ladder going down there because there's nothing there!
So, the fellow is almost at total effect. He has lost his
identity, he's lost his true beingness, he's associated
himself with other things. Now, you've got to increase his
awareness to find out anything.
 
There is no reason why - and by the way, I've made tremendous
experiments in this particular direction, in all ways and
directions. You can't shoot him full of scopolamine or
truth serum or something like this, or hypnotize him and
ask him something or other. All you'd restimulate is the
GPM "to create the past," or something like this, you know. And he'll create a nice past for you, because he's less
aware now than he was before.
 
See? So you reduce awareness, you find less person, and
you're looking for the fireman and you already got him,
see? And that's all there is there. And you're at the
complete bottom rung of the ladder.
 
All right. Now, how do you get anyplace else? This is your
problem as the auditor, see? Well, there are seven Levels
up. And these Levels are determined only by this - only by
this: an increased awareness of his beingness and his
relationship to existence, and the problems and solutions
of life. You just increase his awareness of this. What is a
problem to this man? And if you simply ask that of each one
of the seven levels as you go up, you could draw those
levels very nicely. What is a problem to this man? And when
you raise him up the line, in some horror you get up about
four levels up - oh yes, he's calmer about everything now,
but he can take a look at the problems he has got, man.
He's better able to confront them so that he doesn't
shudder with horror. But if you were to pull him out of 0
and put him at Level IV with one dull thud, and say "Now
look at the problems you really do have, brother," he is
not going to be able to look at those problems at all.
 
One, he has never climbed a single line of the stairs,
because you've never increased his awareness of his
relationship to existence. Only by increasing the
individual's awareness of his relationship to existence can
you bring about any heightened condition of ability,
performance, livingness or anything else.
 
Now, this seems to be argued with by the fact that some guy
can fill himself up full of Bromo Seltzer or heroin or
something like that and perform very fantastic feats in
some direction or other. And you know, I think they're all
fairy tales? l did a tremendous amount of research with
drugs back in '49, '50, and so forth. 
 
> Old Joe Winters, my god, I had him around filling people
> full of drugs like that.  He was a great man on this.
> He was very good.
 
And the only thing that ever happened people went to sleep.
 
I've never seen any of these marvelous experiments that I
see witten up with such glibidity. I never see the results
of these experiments. I read all about them, but a
scientific experiment is something that can be duplicated
in a laboratory, and apparently none of these experiments
so advertised can be duplicated in a laboratory. That's an
interesting one, isn't it? Yes, you hear about this fellow,
he drinks a half a gallon of rum and therefore he can lift
up a horse, you know? I've seen guys drink half a gallon of
rum. I've seen them think they could lift up a horse. I
haven't seen any horses rising off the ground, man. Their
coordination gets worse.
 
There are some writers that think they can write better
when they have some drinks. Old Dash Hammett used to have a
ring, one of these fancy service things that has a shot
glass in six or seven holes all in a little wheel, and all
of the thing beautifully rigged up here, so all you had to
do was turn it around and you could pick out the next shot
glass, you know - these little salon presentation pieces of
stuff. And he used to set that down the side of his desk;
and when he would finish a chapter he'd pick up the next
shot glass, you see, and down it, and go so ... I heard
all about this and how well he did it.
 
But I ran into some other writers that weren't so good this
way. And one finally put the cap on the whole thing: He
says, "You know," he says, "I can't write when I can't spell." That actually wipes out the whole theory of "how much better I write when ..." A guy thinks he writes
better because he's less aware. If he were a little more
aware, he'd realize that what he was writing stunk! I don't
know if you've ever risen in the middle of the night and
written some deathless prose or poetry. Let's say your
sense of appreciation was heightened by being half out.
 
See, we hear about all these things, but in actual
performance, and so forth, we don't see these things get
delivered. We don't see the half-drunk guy suddenly capable
of magnificent feats of something or other, and we don't
see this and we don't see that. But we see guys saying that
they are this way. See?
 
So we can see here that there's a bit of a hole in some of
the logic that is presented to us whereby "if we just
became a little less conscious of everything, why, we would
be a lot better off." Well, naturally, that rationale is a
very current rationale, because it's been extant since the
beginning of this universe, and is probably the basic
rationale that lies back of solutions to all problems -  is
"become unaware of them." And that is the final solution: become totally unaware.
 
There's one just before you become totally unaware, and
that is "Whatever you're doing makes you right." Regardless of how irrational what you're doing is, it's this last
point of assumption that, well, you're doing right, you
see? Completely irrational action.
 
Well, just below that, as the next solution down, is simply
"become unaware." That's the gradient scale of solutions, if you want to know the truth of the matter.
 
Now, where you've got, then, an individual who is trying to
improve himself, and so forth, he has two routes open. One
is to become more aware of existence so as to cope with it,
and the other is to become less aware of existence: Become
less aware and hope that you don't get run over. Or become
more aware and be jolly sure that you don't. So the
dwindling solution, the solution which is going out the
bottom, and so forth, is full of hope, full of a lot of
things, but actually doesn't lead anyplace. And it is a
very treacherous solution, because it is simply hoping it
will be all right. "Well, I'll just forget about it and
hope that it doesn't bother me." We see this type of
philosophy: "If you want to know why you are overworried,
remember what you were worried about yesterday and realize
that you aren't worried about it today. And I'm very glad
that all the things I have been worried about never
happened." This kind of philosophy. Well, it's very witty
philosophy, but is it at all factual? How do we know that
that fellow's worry and the actions he took in relation to
that worry did not prevent the total catastrophe? See,
we're not sure of that at all. So this other solution is a
complete slipshod one and is hardly any solution at all,
which is just become less aware.
 
As one is standing there and the lion is charging down on
one, of course it's always offered as a solution: faint.
See? In the nineteenth century, it's practically the only
solution womankind had. She was not in a position - she was
still in a state of chattelism. She was not in a position
where she could fight back in any particular way. Her word
wasn't really very good in court and that sort of thing.
But she could still faint. She fainted like mad and she
fainted by degrees.
 
She "Camille'd," also.
 
So, this is a solution of sorts, don't you see? If you
can't confront it, and you can't move away from it, why, you
can become unaware of it. The black panther mechanism, I
think we used to call this in Dianetics. Some such -  "ignore it," you see? This is worse than the black panther
mechanism; this is just become unaware.
 
Now, therefore, it becomes somewhat terrifying to people
when you reverse the flow on them.
 
And this is one of the reasons why it's difficult for you
to do this. Although you can do this as an auditor very,
very easily, it's still sometimes quite terrifying. And
you'll have some people wondering whether or not they should 
run out their GPMs, or something like this, see? Almost 
anybody will hit that one. You know you've got him running 
pretty good if about the third time you start to audit him 
he becomes not quite sure that this is a good idea.
 
You're asking him to reverse the flow of the universe,
which is gradient unawareness. This universe has simply
been a progress of less and less awareness. It's the route
to the total sleep.
 
And the trick of the whole thing is, it's so rigged that
you never get to sleep. The lower you go, the more problems
you've got, because now the littler problems seem bigger.
And nobody ever looks at this parallel route as they go
down the route of unawareness.
 
Actually, their becoming unaware of the big problem brought
them less power or force, it reduced their confront - and so
now they are less able to confront little problem at that
level. So therefore it seems as big now as the big problem
seemed, and just one stage back. And it seems far more
dangerous and threatening and - because it is! What's the
condition of some individual who, because there's a slight
wind blowing, goes into terror? What is this condition, you
know? There's a little bit of wind blowing, not much, just
a little bit of wind, and this individual is in white,
blanched terror.
 
Well, now let's map exactly what happened to this fellow.
There was some bigger problem, on the same gradient, that
he ceased to confront. He became unaware of it - almost
purposely -  and this put him into a confront of a slight
wind. See, he came down to where he could only confront
this little breeze. But the big problem was full of terror,
so the breeze is full of terror.
 
And there's your trick when you uncover hidden memories,
and this is the big invitation to go uncover hidden
memories; because you often can uncover a hidden memory,
and incidentally increase the individual's awareness
slightly, you see - and uncover this memory by some kind of
trickery - and the individual will lose this particular
little fear. That he shifts over to another fear now and
doesn't go any further than this, is something they never
really bothered to investigate.
 
Well, I could take almost anybody who had a phobia, and
most of you too, put them on the meter - you old smoothie - 
put them on a meter and start figuring out, "Well, what are you afraid of?" you know? "Oh, you're afraid of this. Oh, all right." And let's just find the bigger fear that made them
prone to the lesser fear. See? This that I'm telling you,
then, has direct application -  actually wraps up
psychoanalysis. Freud can go back quietly to sleep in his
grave. This was what he was looking for. This mechanism I
am telling you right now is what he was looking for - the
only mechanism he was really looking for.
 
All little fears are irrational and are based on a bigger
fear. That's what he considered, see? He said the little
fear is irrational, so therefore we've got to find the
bigger fear that promotes the littler fear. And he went off
into all kinds of symbolism and everything else. He got
lost in the rat race; he got lost in the maze before he got
through. But he nevertheless was on this thing.
 
Now, why does that work? It works because the individual
solved the bigger fear by becoming less aware. That's the
solution to the bigger fear. And let me tell you - because
I've practiced in the field of psychoanalysis - you can throw
the individual back into the bigger fear and knock him
galley-west!
 
You can sit here with your meter and you can smoke the
whole thing out very carefully - not processing him, see, not
getting any charge off, no TA action or anything like that;
just sort it out on the meter.
 
"This fear you have of cheesecakes: now, does this
associate with your mother? Your father? Okay. Cheesecakes,
and so forth. All right. Were you afraid of your father?
Did your father ever eat cheesecakes?" And all of a sudden
the PC has got two directions to go: One, cognition, he
blows some charge, you see, and he feels better about it.
That's almost totally an accident from your point of view,
because - I'm talking to you out of experience - you can just
as easily throw him over into a complete gibbering terror.
 
And the reason why, in psychoanalysis, 33 1/3 percent of
their patients commit suicide is because they've put their
foot into the wrong bin. They have accidentally pressured
the individual's awareness up to a point of intolerance,
and the individual explodes. Without increasing his ability
at all to become aware, they suddenly confront him with the
tiger. And he goes boom!
 
See, there're two things he can do. One is suddenly blow
some charge at this point - becomes more aware and says,
"Oh-ho! I'm afraid of cheesecakes merely because the old
man hit my mother over the head with some when I was two.
All right, fine. That's - that's - ha-ha! Pretty good. Yeah,
oh, that's -  that's very good. Yeah. Yeah. Feel much better
now; I don't have to be afraid of cheesecake. I can be
afraid of tie pins now."
 
See, that's one route. That's one thing that could happen
to him. But remember this other thing can happen to him,
too. You're steadying him down, you're saying "Father," and so forth, and "Mother." All of a sudden, a horrified look comes into his eye and he begins to shake.
 
"What's the matter?"
 
"I don't know! I'm really just terrified!"
 
See, you could play hell trying to push him any further
down that track, now. He got some horrible idea, "Oh, my
mother is dead!" and all of a sudden he starts screaming
and howling and goes into a complete dramatization and
crawls up in a ball, and you call the men in the white coats.
 
I'm not saying you could do this accidentally, because you
don't process this way. I'm just giving you a little bit of
warning about "processing" this way: "Reaching into the deeper states of consciousness in order to discover the
fears that motivate this individual." Blooey! That's from
nowhere. There's no route.
 
Because the dwindling spiral of consciousness has brought
him to ignore his problems, see? And the bigger problems
are less and less and less.
 
Ah ! Let me give you a practical example - not boxing around
with nothing here. Let me give you a very practical example.
 
First time I binged out of me bean in recent times here and
started looking around about three hundred miles up and
that sort of thing, I thought, "Hey, what do you know," you know? "Ho-woo-woo! Wait a minute, you know? And aren't
these clouds high. Everything's fine," you know? And all of a sudden a problem hit me about eight miles high, see? I'd
forgotten about that. This was one of the prices of freedom.
 
Well, it was totally unintentional getting out of me 'ead
anyhow, see? And it was just a flip in that particular
direction, and we were taking off some charge in another
area. And I got hit in the face with a problem that I had
buried beautifully! It had sod all over it. I wasn't in any
gradient up to being able to confront this problem, see?
"Oh, look, I'm free! Hurray! Hurray! I'm free. Everything
is fine. What the hell is that?" Interesting, see?
 
Another instance of this: I'd forgotten that some time ago
I'd had a fear of being drawn into the sun - a reverse light
vector. See, I'd forgotten this. Completely unbraced, all
of a sudden there's the sun - here I come, you know? Beams
screech, you know, rubber burning. What's this, you know?
No gradient. See, that was just me being unwontedly brave.
 
Now, of course, one ordinarily retreats.. . The reason a
person exteriorized, see, and then went back into the head
and you couldn't get them out again with a can opener - I'm
giving you what exactly this mechanism is, see? - without 
taking off the charge of why they were in their head, you 
took them out of their head, and they suddenly confronted 
the problems that they had long since dwindled down on 
unawareness, so they're no longer aware of these problems.
 
They had those nicely handled. You all of a sudden bang him
out of his head, he all of a sudden looks these problems
square in the teeth -  like, you know, little things, like
"How do you keep yourself centered in a room? I don't know. I can't keep myself centered in the room. I keep going one 
side of the room. What's all this black stuff around here? 
I didn't know I had all this black stuff around." Pang! Back into his head, see?
 
Or, "Gee, there's my body down there and my car is caught
in a traffic jam. What am I going to do?" Bang. "I'm liable to suddenly lose my car and lose my body too. To hell with
this racket!" You see? He'd forgotten that he had to retain a certain skill to run a body remotely, see?
 
So back into his head he goes. Now you try to get him out
of there again. Bluooh, no. He knows better now. Ho-ho, he
knows better. He's smart now!
 
"Come on, just one more time out of your ..."
 
"No! No."
 
He even sometimes gives you tremendous reality being
outside just vivid, see? Everything 3-D and all set up,
man. He's all set. He's all roaring to go. Something like
this happens to him, you see, he confronts some of the old
problems that he'd become unconscious of. Carefully, he
made himself less conscious so he wouldn't be aware of this
problem. He never solved that problem; he just became
unaware of it. He took that line of "solution," see? So, back into his head he goes when he confronts that problem
again, only this time he now has the awareness that there
was some reason - this still sticks at him - there was some
reason he went into his head. He can't quite spot what it
is, but there is some reason.
 
So now you give him the business, you see? You say to him,
"All right. Now, but you had a good reality on it while you were outside. You know, then, that you are a spirit, that
you are not a body. You know all this. You've got this all - " 
 
"Ho-ho, no. I haven't got any reality on that. Outside?
When was that? When was that? I didn't do. Not - not me! Oh,
I know we thought something happened, but probably just my
imagination." You ever have anything like this happen?
 
Well now, this is why this happens. It's the dwindling
spiral of unawareness.
 
Now you're all of a sudden going to take this individual
that you've walked down into the bowels of the ship and
asked him where's the fireman, and he accommodatingly
searched for two hours when he was it - you're going to take
this individual, and you say, "All right, it's very nice in the crow's-nest. You can see every place. Now, we're going
to put you in the crow's-nest." Swump-glump, into the
crow's-nest.
 
Crow's-nests have their disadvantages. They reel. They are
not warm. They are lonely. They are dark. When one falls
out of them, one splashes. You haven't got him in that
crow's-nest two minutes: He's saying, "Why, hey, look how
nice it is around here!" you know? He's saying, "Gee whiz, oo-oo, I'd forgotten there was such a thing as the sea.
Gosh!" you know? "And all this fresh air. Golly, I - no - no coal dust in it. Hey, what do you know!" And he's enjoying
all this, and all of a sudden he's starting to look sort of
haunted and he says, "Take me out of here."
 
And you say, "What's the matter?"
 
"Oh, don't bother with what's the matter; take me out of here." 
 
You get him back down in the stokehold; you could come down
and offer him a thousand pounds cash to sign on, not back
in the crow's-nest, but even on the deck force, and he
wouldn't have anything to do with it. What happened?
 
Well, actually he didn't become aware enough of what
happened for him to really be aware of what happened. He
came to an area of something he didn't understand. And this
was alarming to him, and he saw that his position was
insecure and he was very unsafe, and that he compared it to
how safe he had been - if uncomfortable - down there in the
bowels of the ship.
 
So his vote is in, with a great big X on the ballot box,
for "in front of furnace door, coal dust everywhere; I at
least knew, by experience, that I survived there, and I
know that it's impossible to survive in a crow's-nest."
 
This is his total rationale. In other words, you put him
into a higher level of awareness. There is no deeper
subconscious for the individual to go in.
 
You put him in this higher level of awareness, one of the
things he becomes aware of is the problems he has not
handled. So this alone makes it necessary for the forward
progress of the individual to be by gradients. And you can
make it, as long as you gave him a chance to sit down
occasionally and admire the new view.
 
In the first place, he's a victim of charge - self-created,
tremendously restimulated, or quiescent, masses of charge.
He is not aware of these things, really, at all; but the
second he becomes more aware - he starts to get aware of
them - he doesn't really want anything to do with them, so he
ducks out on them again. You do nothing about these things,
you do nothing about this charged-up atmosphere, you do
nothing to take - "just take charge off." What am I talking about? I'm talking about you process this guy without tone
arm action. Take charge off: get tone arm action on this
individual. As he is getting tone arm action, he gets about
so much tone arm action, he's moved up to a new level of
awareness. Having moved up to this new level of awareness,
he's able to look around, and he is perfectly comfortable
where he is.
 
Actually, the preclear who is progressing just looks a
little better and a little better and a little better. It
is not a spectacular activity. Now you've got him up to a
point of where you can take more charge off per unit of
time. And the charge is more fundamental. That's why you
have Levels.
 
Now, actually, the charge which you can take off at one
fell swoop at Level IV would practically kill somebody if
you tried to do anything about it at Level 0, see? Now, as
they move up the line, their problems are apparently
greater. No, their problems aren't greater, they can see
better. Actually, their problems are less, and they are
more capable of handling them.
 
And so it stays in better balance. They're more satisfied.
But they can handle more breadth of problem than they could
before. As they go up they can handle more problem; the
problem is less upsetting to them. As they go down they can
handle less problem, and these problems are more upsetting
to them. That's just the awareness of the problem, as you
go up and down.
 
Now, the complex individual who requires the complex
solution is the guy at Level 0. There is the boy who has to
have the complex solutions. His problems are terribly
complex, and his solutions have to be numerous. And the
potentials of the problem are dangerous in the extreme to
him. And therefore the solution that is handed to him must
be relatively complex.
 
Now, how do we get around all this? Just let me give you
this in a very, very rapid rundown here. How do we get
around this? You know that solving somebody's problems
doesn't do anything for him, because the new solution
becomes a new malady. The old solution is all he is sick
from now. Everything is a cure for a cure. Cures cure
cures. It's a gradient scale of curing somebody's old
cures. I can tell you what fellow has been a
man-o'-warsman, or something like this, by his reaction to
rum. This was about the only cure he had. It was a cure for
fear, and it was a cure for this and cure for that, cure
for being wet. Never had any dry clothes, they just gave
him a drink of rum.
 
Rum now turns on chills, gives him a cold, and makes him
terrified. Why? It restimulates rising to the zone of these
old problems, which it cured. So now you have to put him
through a course of treatment to cure him of rum.
 
Now, what gets us away from this? It's just this: we are
not giving people solutions. What is the only thing that
divorces us from this in processing? How is it that we can
get around this at all? Well, it's elementary how we get
around it. The basic error is the most fundamental part of
the problem that can be as-ised. The basic error that you
want to as-is is a fundamental part of the problem, because
of this chain of solutions.
 
You, as an auditor, are attacking it at a problems level.
You are not giving the PC new solutions for his livingness;
you are taking out of existence old solutions which now
exist in the form of problems. In other words, you're
as-ising past solvents. You're as-ising what has been
solved in the past. You're taking him in the same direction
up, see? See, you're backtracking the same track he came
down. You're not giving him a new solution to the condition
he is in. But you're taking out of his think the old
solution which made him drop down and become more unaware.
You're taking this out of his perimeter of existence.
 
In other words, you're not attacking the problem by giving
the PC new solutions. You're attacking the problem by
as-ising old problems. That they, in their turn, were
solutions is beside the point. From an auditor's point of
view, just for simplicity, simply attack the problems the
fellow has had. Well, you run this gorgeously in, what, 1C,
1CM - R1CM and so on - problems, solutions: What problems has
he had? What has he done about these problems? What
considerations has he had about these problems? Any such
action as this - and particularly, how has he solved these
problems? What solutions has he had to these things? And
you start backing the guy up, and you're actually backing
him through yesterday's problems.
 
When you start running solutions on somebody, you're
running yesterday's problems. See, if you run it as a
problem, you are running it below its point of awareness
and it won't as-is.
 
I'll let you in on a little trick, here. You have been told
that you must not run problems at R1C.
 
Well, that is simply a blunt technical statement, and it's
perfectly true and valid and workable.
 
But let's ask "What the devil is a problem?" You're told that you can only run solutions on this person. Ah, but
what's a solution? A solution is a way you don't have to
confront the problem.
 
And a problem is something you don't want to confront. By
definition, what is a problem? A problem is something you
don't want to confront. That's why it's a problem.
 
So your effort to handle it is solve it in some way, and
when you solve it in the direction of becoming less aware
of it or turning your back on it - when that comes in as a
solution - you have now moved into less levels of awareness.
So the way you as an auditor are backtracking this thing,
you're actually looking at yesterday's solutions. And you
start to ask the PC, "What problems have you had?" "What problems have you had?" "What problems have you had?" He's just saying, "This I couldn't confront, that I couldn't
confront, this other I couldn't confront." And so you don't get any meter, see? You don't get this
 
But you say, "What solutions have you had?"
 
He's saying, "This problem and this problem and this
problem that I could confront." Do you see that? It's the
difference between running no-confront and running confront.
 
See, today's problem was yesterday's solution. So you
inevitably are running solutions regardless of whether you
call them problems or not. But if you call them "problems," then you're saying the individual couldn't confront them;
if you're saying "solutions," then you're saying he could confront them. You see this?
 
You got to backtrack this boy's solutions, because then
you're getting rid of the problems which he set up so that
he couldn't confront anything. And this is how this all
degenerated. So you're actually cutting in at an entirely
different area. You're cutting in at the solutions the
fellow has had, which of course in their turn were problems.
 
And therefore, processing can solve the way back up the
whole track, you see? And he becomes more and more aware,
he's more and more capable of confronting, so therefore
these terrifying things - you know, like going out and seeing
the street - these terrifying things are less and less
terrifying to him. And what's the final there? He just
graduates up through these various levels of awareness, up
to a point of where he can confront the problems that made
him start getting unaware in the first place, and he finds
those, in turn, were solutions, so there he's all set. And
he moves on out to freedom.
 
And this is the route to freedom, through becoming more
aware; it's expressed on your tone arm, it's expressed on
the fact that you're attacking the various solutions of the
past. And this holds through even to GPMs at Class VI.
 
What were these things but very complex solutions?
Extremely complex solutions. Well, there must have been a
hell of a problem back of it, man. That's obvious! There
must have been quite a problem back of all that. Well, the
problem back of all that and so forth was only a problem
because the individual wasn't confronting it. So he took an
extraordinary-solution way out called a GPM. It was a
pretty wild thing to do. But there's where the areas of
confront go.
 
Now, he got himself so thoroughly bogged down in all the
charge and mass that his chances of becoming aware enough
to even know what this problem was became very remote
indeed. If he were suddenly to walk back and face this old
problem, he'd fold up like a tent with its tent peg pulled.
Crash!
 
Just ask him "Go ahead and face this old problem."
 
Hhahh!
 
You say, "Get rid of these GPMs." You got rid of the charge now, which were the solutions, and all of a sudden he
suddenly turns around and confronts the problem that he
had. He will confront that portion of it that he can
confront. You start handling this and work him through that
and he can confront more and more of it, and then he'll
finally laugh at himself.
 
But that's what Levels are, that's why they're there. And
it just behaves on this basis on the operating principle
that the individual, at any given time, is at his lowest
level of awareness, no matter what level he's in. And
you've got to walk him up into further awareness, further
comprehension, understanding, for him to be able to hold
his own in the environment that he has now entered.
 
That's the rationale of Levels, and why you bring the
individual back up. That's how to process an individual.
That's how you keep from stampeding an individual in some
particular direction. That also explains why you
occasionally turn on a manic on a PC: "Oh, it's wonderful!
Every - wonderful!" And three days later the PC collapses. He was put in there too fast, too quick, with too much.
 
You see, you don't need tougher processes now, see? You
need more adroit use of the processes you've got. And you
walk an individual up this track. He might tell you he
wants to become OT tomorrow, but that's a solution. What's
an OT? "It's a person who's totally unaware of anything and has buttoned the problem up." You see how that would work?
So when we look into this, when we look into this, we see
how an individual can be made better, how an individual can
recover, and we see the direction we're trying to put him;
and we see that trying to put him there in a disorderly
fashion and not knowing what we're doing would arrive at 
very little gain for the individual and a lot of loss for 
the auditor. If you just realize that you're simply increasing 
the individual's level of awareness, you're getting off the 
charge which debars him from confronting the problems which 
he had deserted - and if you look at it from that point of 
view, with that degree of simplicity - then it doesn't matter 
how complex a problem is. It doesn't matter how complex the 
solution is. But always remember that a problem is as complex 
as it presents potential solutions. And the man down there in 
the firehold, you'd be surprised how many solutions it takes to
keep him alive and keep him going.
 
Man, they're just fantastic.
 
These start to drop off as you walk the individual back up.
The most complex being that you confront is the PC at his
lowest level. And therefore this requires the most complex
solutions.
 
But you bypass that as an auditor by having the key to the
gates. You start getting rid of the solutions he has had,
and therefore the complexity of the solutions he is now
adding on reduces - reduces because the problem all the time
is less and less complex. See, reduce the complexity of the
problem by reducing yesterday's solutions. And this is how
processing works, and this is what handles it and this is
the direction you steer it. If you steer it in any other
direction, you will have a severe loss.
 
But this way, if you understand it this way, then - let me
add one little point here, now: The thing it takes to drive
this home real good is to ask that little proposition I
gave you. Ask some individual for an answer to something
(he won't give you the answer), then take some charge off,
his considerations or solutions he's had to it, and then
ask him again for that datum, and he'll give you the datum.
Well, how come he could give you the datum now, when he
couldn't give you the datum then? He was barred from the
datum before, he had retreated from the datum before; you
raised his level of awareness, you got the charge off, you
got him - upped his confront, upped his awareness, and he all
of a sudden could give you the datum.
 
Nothing is more positive than this than trying to get an
individual to understand an item, or something like this,
in a GPM. You start this one, and the guy will sit there,
"How do dogs bring about masters?" you know?
 
"I couldn't imagine that. What do dogs have to do with
masters? Dogs don't have anything to do with masters, and
so forth. Doesn't ... dogs doesn't ... bring masters ... 
Oh, it doesn't make any sense to me at all! Dogs.
Masters. No connection. No connection whatsoever." You say, "What considerations have you had about it?" (In other words, what solutions have you had to this and what have you been
doing about it?) And you run this for a few minutes and
say, "All right, would dogs bring about masters?"
 
He says, "Of course, you fool! Anybody would know that." 
 
Well, you say, "What was that all about?" Well, what that was all about, a very simple thing.
 
Overcharged area, too mucked up with solutions: guy
couldn't think, he couldn't see, couldn't be aware in that
particular area. And for you to get him anywhere at all,
you had to take him through the charge.
 
So the road out is not by a spectacular open sesame or a
wave the wand, or something like that.
 
