RUDIMENTS, VALENCES



A lecture given on 17 August 1961



Hello.

Okay, this is 17 August, AD 11 and I had a very nice lecture to give you

today; and I'm not kidding you. I had it all taped and was going to explain

to you all about valences. Instead of that, I'm going to rack up an overt

on auditors.

Because I've just caught you out. Man, have I caught you out. All summer

long we have had one god-awful problem. Why the hell can't you find a goal

on a pc. When it takes me one hour and fifteen minutes to find the goal and

the terminal and it takes Mary Sue about two and a half hours, why can't

you find a goal on a pc?

And now I know why. And I'm going to twirl my long black mustache and look

right down your throat.

There is a phenomenon - that an E-Meter ceases to register in the presence

of an out-rudiment. The E-Meter tone arm will cease to register on any

process you are running when a rudiment goes out. You can be fooled by

thinking a process is flat when actually all that is wrong is that you've

got a rudiment out. The tone arm will cease to move; the needle will cease

to move; everything will cease to move except the rudiment that is out -

that will move.

In other words, if you ask for the rudiment that was out, you'll get a

response on the needle. But all other things in the presence of an

out-rudiment do not move. Now, can you get that real clear?

All right, you've got Mr. Pc, and Mr. Pc is moving very well on the tone

arm and the needle is moving very well and suddenly the tone arm slows down

and stops, and it stays stopped for twenty minutes. So you say the process

is flat. Flat, my hat! A rudiment went out which caused the process no

longer to operate. The only thing which will now operate is the

out-rudiment.

Now, if you get the rudiment off that has gone wrong and you get that

rudiment in promptly and properly, the process will now pick up the motion

of the tone arm and will now, in addition to that, move the needle. You got

that now?

Now, don't make a mistake on this because this is the most important part

of auditing there can be. There is no more important part of auditing than

what I'm telling you right this minute.

A process can appear to be flat just because a rudiment's out. You're

running "How often have you failed to leave something?" And all of a

sudden, why, it's sitting there at 4.0 and it just sits there at 4.0 and it

just doesn't move. And then you say, "Well, that's the end of the process,

ha-ha!" Mmmmm. Rrrrff Aw, you had a rudiment out and the process appeared

to go flat and the process was not flat at all. And the only thing which

will now move the E-Meter is the out-rudiment.

You can find the rudiment, the rudiment now will operate, but it's the only

thing that'll operate the E-Meter. ARC break, present time problem,

something wrong in the environment - these various rudiments, you see, will

move the E-Meter. You flatten that with a rudiments process then you move

back over onto your process. And what do you know, this process that was so

flat, is not flat at all, but it wobbles the tone arm and it lets the

needle fly around and so forth, and there it is.

So, two things have been happening, and this will become more horrible to

you as I go along. I think very often auditors - not just here! I'm not

scolding you here. You're better supervised here than elsewhere - but I'm

talking about auditors elsewhere in other classes, in other areas, in HGCs

and so forth. Here's where your HGC Clears aren't getting made, right here

on this exact point I'm telling you.

These people are leaving Prehav level processes unflat on the pc. That's on

the running of it. Just because they get the rudiments out, then the Prehav

level looks unflat so they assess for a new level. Ah, but the old level

isn't flat, so, of course, the pc doesn't go anyplace. So they just grind

and then they not flatten the next level, you see, and then not flatten the

next level and then not flatten the next level and we just go on grind,

grind, grind, grind. Do you see what can happen here? You got that? Have

you really got that?

Audience:       Yes.

You really see this?

Audience:       Yes.

All right.

The same thing will happen on a Goals Assessment. And I think your

preclear's goals lies in the first hundred and fifty goals the pc gave you

and I think it is knocked out by an ARC break. And I think the pc's goal

has already been given to you, long ago, and now appears to be flat because

it's ARC broken out of existence by some technical flub. Them's hard words.

But I think I could take any person in this unit and in the matter of a few

minutes get the ARC break off by auditing off the auditor who is doing the

assessment and find in the first hundred and fifty or two hundred goals on

the list that one of those goals is still alive and is still sticking and

won't go out.

Interesting. I think I could do it with every person, not only here, but

Australia, America; anybody who's had trouble finding a goal. I think that

is it. I may be wrong because I've not put this immediately to test. I do

know that I could find your goals. But I am pretty sure this is the

phenomena that's getting in your road.

And you know what makes me sure? Because there is something - there is

something in the South African regimen of Goals Assessment that hasn't been

in any other unit or course. And what is it? I made sure that they had

every student there checking the rudiments on every other student's pc,

regularly and continuously. Isn't that right? And it aren't been done

since. So the answer must be rudiments. There is the one difference, and

that's why I think that is the difference. Follow me?

Seem logical?

Audience: Yes.

That if everybody, every twenty-four hours or something like that, was

getting rudiments checked by another auditor on his pc, and that they were

always finding them out, and that this isn't now being done anyplace - a

piece of the lineup has been knocked out.

If the Director of Processing of a Central Organization does not, every

single day, check the rudiments on every pc in the shop, he's a

knucklehead. Well, he's a friend of mine, but he's still a knucklehead.

Because, in the first place, the pc very often doesn't go live for the

auditor easily on the rudiment where he will go live for another person on

the rudiment.

And you can sit there and you can say to the pc, "Do you have an ARC break,

present time problem? Is it all right if I audit you?" and so forth. "Have

you got a withhold?" and so on. And they're all apparently null. And then

somebody else walks in on the thing and says, "You got a present time

problem, a withhold, an ARC break?" Ka-wooww! They're all live.

You should have seen Richard Halpern's face one day when I took one of his

pcs and found every rudiment falling off the pin. "But!" he said to me

plaintively. "But," he said to me, "I just checked those fifteen minutes

ago and they were all in." And it's true, he didn't get a fall on them

fifteen minutes before. Isn't that interesting?

All right, two auditors should always audit as a team. Auditors shouldn't

be out in the brush country of lower south Slobovia, upper north Manitowoc,

Wisconsin, auditing by themselves. Anyway, auditors ought to audit in

pairs. Wolves should run in packs, auditors should go in pairs. Oh, I

didn't mean there was any comparison between the two. I didn't say mice!

Anyway, auditing in pairs - should check the rudiments on each other's pcs,

every session. Sounds arduous, doesn't it? Sounds like an awful lot of

administration, doesn't it? Sounds like an awful lot of people falling over

an awful lot of chairs and so forth.

Well, actually you don't have to do it very formally in an auditing

session. You can almost lean the guy up against the mantlepiece, prop the

meter on the mantlepiece and say, "All right, take ahold of the cans. Now,

do you have an ARC break with your auditor? Do you have - been audited with

a present time problem? Is it all right if you're audited in that auditing

room? Do you have any withholds from the auditor or anybody else including

me?" And so forth. Fall. Fall. Fall.

Well, you don't do anything about them. You say, "Joe. Joe. Get on the

ball. The rudiments are out on your pc."

"Well, which one?"

"All of them."

"Oh, no!"

You know, that kind of response.

It's a new look. The soothing drone of the auditor's voice has not got the

PC into a super control where he mustn't be out of order. Get the idea?

That was in the South African lineup. And Jean, I'm sure, did it.

As a matter of fact, she had two cases that were banging her head in. And

she finally, herself in person, went in and they've been running null on

present time problems.

"Do you have a present time problem?"

"Oh, no, no, no.

And they did it all the weeks of the course. And she extended the course

over a week just to make sure that it was better. And she grabbed hold of

the meter on them and she found both of them had such fabulous present time

problems that each one of them broke down and wept the second she put her

finger on the present time problem.

Ah, they'd been audited. But she was saying Routine 1 does not work, you

see, and something else is going on here. We must be doing something, you

know? Yeah, they were running a Routine 1, but it should have been picked

up during the Security Checking. But it wasn't picked up in the rudiments

on the Security Check, don't you see? And so those people had actually gone

six and seven weeks without anybody probing in to find out if there was

something wrong with the PT problem. And there was something wrong with the

PT problem, and that comprised almost 50 percent of her class. Do I make an

impression on you?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Out of kindness to the pc and yourself, for heaven sakes, start

cross-checking rudiments. Ka-now! See? Start cross-checking rudiments. By

which I mean, get somebody else to check the rudiments on your pc. You

check them perfectly soundly and run your sessions just as before, but

always get somebody else to cross-check the rudiments on a pc. You got it?

And do it often; do it frequently! If not every session, at least every

couple of sessions, for heaven sakes. See?

Now, I'll tell you what you do with these endless goals lists. I could tell

you what you do in a colloquial marine fashion, but I'm not going to tell

you that.

You get you-self, the auditor, off of the case. That is to say you go on

auditing a case, but just get any charge that you may have built up on this

case with your Goals Assessment, off. Run yourself on the Prehav Scale. We

don't care how, see? In other words, get that - get that flat and then take

the original goals list. The original, and find out if any of them are

still alive and work it over and find out if there's been an ARC break

around any of these goals and so forth. Get slippy about it. I'm tired of

giving you a mechanical robot activity, it's time you graduated up into

body class Il - half human, half robot. Okay?

Now, let's just work over that original list and let's find out what is

there.

You know, I know at least one person who probably is spooked because Mary

Sue, operating I think with another auditor, shook that down in a part of

an afternoon. And I think this pc doesn't trust his goal or terminal,

because it was that easy, it was that fast, you see? It was that quick. And

everybody else takes so long. Well, of course, it must be something wrong

with that particular terminal and goal. No, there's nothing wrong with that

terminal and goal, nothing at all. They were running just dandy.

There might be an unflat level someplace on the past run, but that would be

about the only thing. Actually, a past run has been a little bit lengthy,

so I would suspect there was a rudiment out on the run not on the

assessment, and I'd check that over very carefully. But get your rudiments

checked. Get your rudiments checked well, get them crisscrossed, get

somebody else to check the rudiments on your pc and that's going to speed

up all this nonsense about assessment. And don't be so anxious to rub out

goals. You're trying to find a goal, you're not trying to erase all the

fellow's goals.

Now, it doesn't take very long to find a goal on a pc. Just disabuse

yourself from that - it just doesn't. Williams was almost staggered into

the - . Who was the - the wife - the wife of Lot that went into a pillar of

salt out of frozen shock from watching Sodom and Gomorrah go boom, or

something. I've forgotten. It's some fairy tale. And anyway, he turned in -

he went to Australia and he started his course and everything was running

all along, and he practically turned into a pillar of salt from shock at

the length of time it was taking these goals to be assessed. Because it

never happened to him in Aus - in South Africa. Well, I was riding him

awful close. And we were - and that was the missing factor, and I'm sure it

hasn't been done since.

The American ACC managed to go all the way its length with tremendous gains

- tremendous gains. A great deal of instruction took place, everything was

fine, all the students happy, and without one single goal being found in

six weeks. A record, man! Well, they weren't cross-checking rudiments,

that's for sure.

So, put that in as part of your auditing rundown, because it is a missing

piece. When we had all these gains and got all this stuff whizzing and

going down in South Africa here in this spring, that was part of the

rundown - is everybody was checking everybody else's rudiments. Isn't that

right? How often did they do it?

Female voice: We did it every two days.

Every two days they checked the other fellow's pc's rudiments. I'm sure it

hasn't been done since.

You get these little tiny pieces of stuff that get left out of the pudding,

you know? It's a beautiful pudding - it's a beautiful pudding except nobody

put any yeast in it or anything. See, it just lies there like a pancake.

All right, that was part of the rundown. Rudiments out means Goals

Assessment not done.

Now, I've given you some other tricky ways of getting around Goals

Assessment. There's a lot of - this hasn't been in vain by a long ways

because you've learned a lot of tricky ways of getting goals and all that

sort of thing. You know more about that now and I've had to dig up a lot

more about that and that's had to be articulated from one end to the other.

But I am sure, just as sure as I'm sitting here and just as sure as there's

a body in this chair - I'm pretty sure of that - that it is simply a matter

of you get the rudiments out maybe on one or two goals. Just as slightly as

that, you see? You're going on down the line erasing goals and you get the

rudiments out on a goal and then out on another goal, and maybe one of

those goals was it. You see? And you get the rudiments out. And then maybe

on the remainder of the list, why, of course, they all null with a great

speed because the pc is chopped up or ARC broke or got a PT problem. You've

got in other words, an inoperative E-Meter on the subject of goals. It'd be

very operative on the subject of rudiments but it's very inoperative on the

subject of goals.

Now, if this isn't correct and if this doesn't bear fruit, I will find out

why. Don't worry. But I'm pretty sure that this is it. And what makes me

sure is it is the one piece of stuff that was missing from the South

African course. That was missing. And it's now missing here at Saint Hill.

And it's now missing in Australia, I'm sure. And it certainly was missing

over in Washington, I am sure. See? It's the missing item. Somebody else

looking over your shoulder and checking the rudiments on the pc

repetitively and often, making sure that those things are in. Okay?

You have a whiz at it here. And you go back over that goals list that was

first given to you, or that you first got, and you cover that list again

after you have gotten any possibility of an ARC break off or a present time

problem off or anything else off or any anxiety off or having - finding

one's goal as a present time problem off. You got it? Just get all of those

things straight, as straight, as straight, as straight, even if you have to

run yourself on the Prehav Scale, don't you see, on - off the pc. And I'm

sure that you're going to find the goal was in the first couple of hundred.

You hear me?

All right, I'm pretty sure this is the case because, you see, I'm not

having the trouble you're having in finding goals and terminals. I'm just

not having this trouble and it's just something that has got me saying,

"What? How? How are they managing this? What has entered into this?"

Well, now here's another oddity: I get goals and terminals without checking

the rudiments. Hm! You've seen me do it - repetitively. But you can assign

that to altitude, because I'm in no uncertain toned voice when I'm getting

off goals and terminals. "Is it this, is it that, is it the other thing?"

You know, bang, bang, bang-bang-bang-bang, so on. There's a great deal of

certainty concerning this. And also it doesn't seem to be very important. I

don't make it very important. But I've even said to the fellow, "Well, do

you have ARC breaks and that sort of thing?"

And the guy said, "Oh, yes, yes, yeah, yeah."

"Do you have any overts on me?"

"Oh, yes, something like that."

"Well, skip it."

So, that is an invalidative part of this analysis. But I think if you look

this over very, very carefully, I think you will find that that will

deliver into your paws. I think you have slid over the goal and I think,

long since, it's in the background. Because you're also doing something

else which is wrong, as wrong, as wrong. You are asking for more goals

before you go over the goals list at the beginning of every session, see?

I never want any more goals off the pc. I got enough after he's given me -

after I've gotten writer's cramp writing fifty or sixty of the things: I

got enough goals. It's almost by postulate one of those is going to be it,

you know? I should be careful saying that because you'll think I mean it.

But I just sort of look him over, you know, and, "Hm-hm-hm. One of these is

it. One of these is it. Must be."

But then, there is this factor: is I've actually never known a pc to lie to

me. When I ask them for something, they deliver. See, which is all I mean

by altitude.

I say, "What were your childhood goals?"

"Burrhm."

"Thank you."

"Burrhm."

"Thank you."

"Burrhm."

"Thank you."

"Burrhm."

"Thank you. All right, that's good. Now, what are your antisocial goals?

You know, like burning down the town or something like this."

"Burrhm."

"Thank you."

"Burrhm."

"Thank you."

"Burrhm."

"Thank you. All right. Now, what artistic professional goals did you ever

have?"

"Well, Burrhm."

"That's it."

"Burrhp."

"That's it. Oh, that's enough, to hell with the rest of them."

I don't want him to have an artistic goal anyhow. And then I say, "All

right. Now, what withheld goals do you have that you just wouldn't ever

dare tell anybody about?"

"Burrhm."

"Thank you."

"Burrhm."

"Thank you."

"Burrhm."

"Thank you."

I wind up with a list of thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty -

something of this character. That's it, I don't look over more goals.

Now, the difference is that because everybody was chewed away from this we

had more methodology invented than was actually being employed originally

on Goals Assessments. And the original Goals Assessment, it was quite odd

that the one goal you made fall there actually will continue to fall.

That's quite a discovery, but it's true. But you don't even have to do it.

There's one goal there going to fall more than the rest of them, and

that'll continue to fall unless you get an ARC break in the road. You

understand?

Of course, this thing - altitude is one factor, but only one factor of

holding a pc in session while you are doing a Goals Assessment. And you can

hold him in session like he felt he was cast in concrete, you know? It just

doesn't ever occur to him to have a present time problem or an ARC break.

That's about the - that's the real secret of auditing.

If you yourself are sufficiently matter of fact, sufficiently relaxed,

sufficiently in control of the situation and know your business well

enough, there is never any doubt enters your pc's mind from one end of the

session to the other but what he should be sitting there getting audited.

But if there's a bunch of doubts around, then you've got to keep your

rudiments clean, clean, clean.

So just as they have a large forty-seven foot wastebasket at Times Square;

it's "cast your ballot here for a clean New York" - I think that's awfully

cute - forty-seven foot wastebasket. That's just what Times Square wants. I

can see it now. It was so outrageous that a bunch of businessmen have now

chipped in to make a park and a grass plot and so forth there, and so on.

But just with that type of corny, corny, corny advertising we should hang

up little signs all over HGCs and classes and so forth: "Keep your

rudiments clean for a Clear." Pretty corny, but it's true.

Now, the amount of importance which you are giving an assessment is quite

interesting. But a person can be assessed straight through to Clear by

Assessment by Elimination, providing the rudiments are all in. If you use

the other data which I have now dug up and given you. That is, get all the

not-knows out about it and find out why he had the goal and so forth.

Another - another side of the coin - an entirely different side of the

coin.

Okay? You had enough hell for one day? You mean you haven't?

Female voice: Did you say hell or help?

Just hell.

Go back over and check it, and I think you'll find it's true, that your

pc's goal long - occurred a long time ago for running. I think so. This

would be the only way that you possibly have missed somewhere.

There's the other road and the other road is you can assess a pc straight

through to Clear. You get rid of all of his goals, he comes out at the

other end; you get rid of all of his terminals and so forth, and he comes

out at the other end and that's, that's it. That can happen, too.

Apparently, they're practically two different processes.

And now I will give you the lecture I was going to give you today. All

right?

Audience: Hm-hm.

Well, this is an important lecture. It summates the findings of a great

many of years and particularly a great many of the findings of this summer.

And the name of this lecture is "Valences." And I should start it with a

definition of a valence.

There are several types of valences. In some other old PAB you'll find them

classified into various types. But a valence is a synthetic beingness, at

best, or it is a beingness - what the pc is not but is pretending to be or

thinks he is.

Now, that beingness could have been created for him by a duplication of an

existing beingness or a synthetic, which was a proper term, beingness built

up by the descriptions of somebody else. That just as Horatio Alger, Jr.

built up a synthetic beingness called "Local Boy Makes Good by Hanging on

the Coattails of Rich Man" (which was his total motif), a synthetic

beingness could be created which everybody would believe in and try to

become. Or, Mama can run Papa down so continuously that Junior never, under

any circumstances, ever meets Papa or sees Papa but becomes the synthetic

beingness of Papa. All of which is an interesting thing.

One of the basics of this, by the way, is the first lecture of the first

congress I ever gave in England. That - there's a tape on this. It's what

you think the other fellow is, not what he is, that is the other fellow's -

your trouble with the other fellow.

Now, this is a valence. A valence is, then, an artificial beingness of some

kind or another. But with that we don't have, factually, "own valence."

There is no such thing as one's own valence. This was thrashed out in 1950

and went loose through the middle of the fifties and people refer to it,

and I may have even said it a few times - his own valence so forth. But it

is not correct - it is just not correct. Because a person's own valence is

silliness. That is a silly statement, because a person is himself or in a

valence. You see, it's one or the other. He is either himself or in a

valence.

Now, a valence is a package. And one of the earliest observations

concerning this when I started to come to grips with this thing we now call

a profile or a graph, I analyzed it from all sides and came to just one

conclusion regarding it. And that is that it was a picture of a valence and

that is all that graph is - it's a picture of a valence. And any change

that you got on a pc was because you shifted his valence.

Now, you've already read that years ago. It's an old datum but now it

merges up into first order of importance. Pardon me, it shoulders its way

up through other data to stand on top as a king-of-the-mountain datum.

That's a picture of a valence and you're never going to get another picture

until you've done something about valences on the person. And this boils

down to this didactic statement which can now be made, which makes this a

very important lecture: The pc will not gain in any way, shape or form

through any effort to alter the characteristics of a valence.

Swallow that one, because it's a very important statement and it's a very

factual statement. A pc will not change in any way by reason of processes

which seek to alter the characteristics of the valence he is in.

He's in the valence of an ogre. All right, you're going to change the

characteristics of the ogre and this is going to make a better pc. No-no.

No-no, no-no. The pc will alter only if you change the valence as a whole

package.

And why is this? It's because the pc cannot take any responsibility

whatsoever for any of the package of characteristics known as a valence.

They are somebody else's. And he takes no responsibility for any of these

now-I'm-supposed-to's that go and make up this package called a valence.

A streetcar conductor, of course, as a valence, has a number of

now-I'm-supposed-to's, right? There he is ding-donging up and down the

line, letting on the passengers and taking first crack at the nickels and

sixpences. And after that the company gets what's left. And whatever it is

that the streetcar conductor is doing, he's got a now-I'm-supposed-to. He's

supposed to get up in the morning; he is supposed to go to work; he is

supposed to see the passengers on and off; and he is supposed to collect

the fares and make change. You see, now-I'm-supposed-to's,

now-I'm-supposed-to's. He's supposed to wear a cap; he's supposed to wear a

uniform. You get the idea? I am supposed to, I am supposed to, I am

supposed to.

All right. Now, somebody gets into the valence of a streetcar conductor and

all of these now-I'm-supposed-to's, are now the now-I'm-supposed-to's of a

streetcar conductor, they're not anything that can be touched or reached by

the person. All the person could reach is the knowingness or identity

called a streetcar conductor.

Now, let's get down and find out what use does a thetan make of a valence.

This is the only use he makes of a valence. Survival. The road out. The

modus operandi of getting on in life surmounted by knowingness. Valence is

a solid knowingness; a body is a solid knowingness.

You see a streetcar conductor, you "know" he is a streetcar conductor, so

therefore all valences are knowingnesses. They're an effort to get somebody

else to "know" that you're there and efforts to get somebody else to

"recognize" something. And therefore they are a road out. They are a road

out of unwanted areas.

This fellow is slogging around in the mud firing off Mannlichers, Lebels,

Lee-Enfields, Springfields, Garand Mark-1s or whatever other asinine thing

the infantry is supposed to do. And just as he catches the trench mortar in

the midriff, he discovers he does not want to be there. He is in the wrong

valence called "a soldier." Wrong valence. That knowingness is now

invalidated, it must become a "not knowingness." So he exteriorizes and he

says the only way to fight a war is as a general. Obvious, isn't it? So his

next lifetime he's going be a general.

I'll give you a big joke on me with regard to this sort of thing. I always

said that in the event of another war, I'd be a war correspondent. I'd be

sitting there with a blonde on each knee and a bottle of whiskey in front

of me and a typewriter - real tough picture, you know? I used to tell my

friends this around New York City. And I'd - we'd hear the horns go and

then I would lean over and say, "Sit over on the settee a moment, honey."

And I would pound out on the typewriter, "Our brave boys, today, went over

the top," you see, and put it on the wires to Associated Press. But some of

my friends had bad luck in the Ethiopian - ha - war and so on. So, when the

war came along I didn't do that. But nevertheless, that's just an example.

You know, the trench mortar catches him in the midriff and he says, "In the

next war," he says, "I had better be a war correspondent because the last

war correspondent I saw was in that nice thick dugout eight miles to the

rear of the front lines." You got the idea? He says, "That's the thing to

be," you see? ''That's dandy."

So the next war comes along, and he tries to be this thing and he can't be

this thing, so he's very unhappy about the whole thing. He can't be this

war correspondent but he tries. And how he will go on a long cycle of

tryingnesses if this is really one of these plowed-in sort of valence

pictures, not as - not just a joke as mine was. And he's trying like mad

and he'll go war after war, you know, life after life, and somehow or

another he'll eventually familiarize himself enough with the tools of the

trade. And sure enough a war comes along. And so help me Pete he gets to

sit in this dugout and pound out this deathless line, "Our brave boys,

today, went over the top," see, while he's sitting there.

All right, that's fine. That's fine. He goes along like that; is very

successful. Time goes on, you see? And they have run out of war criminals

by a few lifetimes later, you see? They've run out of war criminals

utterly. They've hanged everybody, you see? And they find out they can no

longer charge presidents, kings and things, and generals with starting

wars, so they assume quite - probably quite rightly - that it's the fault

of the press. So immediately after this war, the fifteenth life that he's

been a war correspondent, he finds much to his horror that all war

correspondents are now being arrested and being shot in a painful manner.

So just at the moment when twelve bullets, straight and true, hit him in

the chest, he decides he had better not be a war correspondent anymore.

This is something he had better not be. So he decides that the best thing

to be in a war is Mata Han, you see, or something like this. So over years

then and ages and so on, he'll go on working uphill and upgrade to solve

this confusing problem called war, to become a Mata Han, you see? He learns

how to be a woman, you see? And he keeps picking up female bodies and he

becomes enticing one way or the other and he gets himself well endured to

certain horizontal activities, and - excuse my French. But he moves on up

the line and he finally makes it, you see?

And then lifetime after lifetime, why, he's just happy as a clam, here,

being Mata Harm. And every time there's a war, why, he immediately becomes

an espionage agent and everything is just dandy, and time goes on and so

forth. And then he finds out that the G-2s of all of the armies - this one

particular war - have gotten together and found out that this is how all of

their information is getting across the lines. So every person who is a

camp follower, vivandiere, call girl, anything associated with it, ever

looks at a general, is promptly picked up and shot. And as she stands there

in the courtyard, you see, with twelve bullets going through her chest, she

decides at that moment to be nothing after that but a peacemonger. Now,

that's the thing to be - a peacemonger. You get the idea? Still trying to

solve this silly problem, you see?

Valence, valence, valence, valence. Valences are calculated to do

something. They are calculated to solve a problem. And every valence picked

up is a solution to a problem.

So therefore, you can say, if you'll excuse my rough talk, that these

identities as they are passed by on the track are old antiquated solutions

to confusions. They're antiquated solutions to confusions.

Now, the goals which go toward beingness are of course the much more

definite goal. And the goal which is much more profitable in auditing is

the beingness goal because it goes at once toward identity.

Now, a person is not himself, he is a different knowingness the moment that

he is a valence. And the auditing truth which emerges is this: You can

patch up a valence's broken leg providing the valence is supposed to have

nonbroken legs. Got the idea?

And if your auditing of a valence does not violate any of the vital

now-I'm-supposed-to's of the valence, it'll work. Therefore, you can do

assists on almost anybody, but every once in a while they're bemused and

amazed on an assist that should have worked but it didn't work. It worked

on everybody else but it didn't work on this particular person. Well, you

can chalk it up just to this and this alone - this alone: You have violated

a now-I'm-supposed-to of that valence. And the pc can do nothing about

these now-I'm-supposed-to's, they are not under his control.

So your effort to patch up the broken leg was of a valence and the valence,

oddly enough, was a crippled war veteran. Well, a crippled war veteran is

supposed to have broken legs, so of course you get nowhere. You break your

heart, you know? You say what's all this? Well, what all this is, is you're

auditing a hidden valence.

Now, any pc is being dominantly, at any given time, one valence, but may be

tortured or upset by other valences which are the - only the concern of the

valence he is being.

So, any pc's troubles are only the troubles of the valence in which he is.

And those are a pc's troubles. And the troubles of the valence are part and

parcel of the now-I'm-supposed-to's of the valence.

So, this tells you bluntly and obliquely and straightly and helicopterly

that there ain't no remedy of a valence's difficulties. There just is no

such thing as being able to take valence A and remedy the difficulties of

valence A. You can get rid of valence A but you can't get rid of the

difficulties of valence A, because they are outside the power of the pc to

touch, because they're now-I'm-supposed-to's which belong to something

else, which he doesn't fully control, called a valence.

So we take a girl who is all geared up - she's all geared up; she's

carefully grooved in war by war, you see; she's carefully grooved in and

she knows the proper solution of this. And if another war comes along, she

knows what she should do. She's got this solved, you see - Mata Han. And

she just is horrible to get a withhold off of. But she's awfully good in

getting secrets off you. She seems to have a total promiscuity as a

viewpoint; something that's incomprehensible. And no affair she ever has

seems to have any real point to it. That's so mysterious.

And you try to figure this thing out and of course you have not got the key

to the closet, so what skeleton is in it must remain, therefore, a mystery.

The key to this closet of course is, in event of another war, she's going

to be Mata Han. And a war is so dangerous that she mustn't let go of any

part of this solution. But she would like to feel better. You get the

anomaly about it? She'd like to feel better but she can't let go of any of

the things that are wrong.

So you get this oddity of "Please audit me, but you better not make me

well." That's what it looks like. But actually it's "You better get me over

the bumps so I can take care of myself without having to be a Mata Han in

the next war," don't you see?

"These holes that keep appearing and disappearing on my chest while you're

auditing me tell me that I had better not be anything but a Mata Han in the

next war." So, you'll sometimes have a somatic turn on in a pc and go off

and turn on and go off and turn on and go off and turn on. You never seem

to be able to get rid of it. It's part of a valence package that keeps them

from becoming something else, and they know better than to become that,

see? And so they'll actually keep around the somatic, to the degree that

they

can, to prevent themselves from becoming an unworkable solution to a future

problem.

So this girl's attitude toward men is unresolvable because it's part and

parcel of survival. And just as you would be able to get your head torn off

or get somebody very upset by you by walking in on a grizzly bear and

taking his rations away from him, don't try to take that solution away from

a pc so long as it seems absolutely vital that it be a solution.

What you've got to do, quite on the contrary, is to get the pc to face up

to the various factors which make that a valence.

I wander afield. The only point I'm trying to make with you is just this

one single devastating point, just one, and that is: You cannot make a

valence well. You can move a valence. So this tells you that any process

run at random on a pc has a very small chance of success.

You take Mr. A and you say, "All right, now we're going to solve your ideas

about problems, Mr. A. And we're going to set you up, Mr. A, so that you

can reach and withdraw, Mr. A. And we're going to get you over breaking

your legs, Mr. A. And we're going to get rid of those funny red marks that

appear and disappear on your chest, Mr. A."

Ah, but the trick is you're not auditing Mr. A. You're auditing a luckless

person who has it all taped in the next war to be Mata Han, but he's a man.

So this life is a total loss as far as he's concerned. Wrong sex. Wrong,

wrong orientation for a proper solution to the goal. And if a war came

along, he would be utterly flabbergasted, because he could just see himself

drifting back into this war correspondent, who of course is blamed for his

war crime. Okay?

Move valences, don't audit them. Now, that just strips down your bag of

tricks, as the effective bag of tricks, to a very small bag - the really

effective tricks. This preselects them for you, left and right.

Is this process going to change, familiarize, accustom the person to

identity; or is it going to handle environments which make identities

vital; or is it going to alter, in other words, valences?

If this process is going to alter valences, it will work and work rather

rapidly and smoothly and stay worked; and if it is not going to alter

valences, it is not going to work and it is not going to stay well and

solved. Do you follow me there? That's a big piece of information all in

one batch.

Now, what makes a valence stick the way it sticks? What makes a valence

stick the way it sticks?

Let us define a psychotic. Let's newly define a psychotic in terms of

knowingness. A psychotic does not know what is going on in his environment

and does not know what is going on inside himself. It is all unknown and

therefore unobservational - unobserved. He doesn't know what's happening

inside himself and he doesn't know what's happening with himself, and he

doesn't know what's happening where he is, and he doesn't know what's

happening in front of him or behind him at any given time of the day or

night. This is the one common denominator of all psychosis:

Not-knowingness, what is happening around him in his environment and not

knowing what is happening where he is.

Now, let's take neurosis. Neurosis is he's got some idea what's happening

where he is on some things and some faint idea what's happening in his

environment on some things. But, generally, unknowingness overbalances the

knowingness and so you get a neurosis.

Now, let's move it up scale a little bit and let's take you. You know

what's happening where you are but you don't know what's happening in

somebody else a few feet away - exactly what's happening at all times of

the day and night. You don't always know what's going on with everybody.

You got the idea? So, that makes a slight unknownness, doesn't it? So, just

look it over now. Just get this as a pictorial picture, just as something

to be graphed very easily. There you sit right where you are, and you know

what you are, you know where you are, and you've got a good idea what

you're doing right where you are.

All right, now let's take it to extreme. Do you know what is happening a

hundred miles straight ahead of you? All right, do you know what's

happening three feet straight ahead of you? Yeah, in this particular

instance you do. Do you know what has happened within a few feet of you all

of your life, at all times of your life?

Oh! There's some spots in your life where you didn't know what was going

on, a few feet away. You did know what you were doing but you didn't know

what was going on there, is that right? All right, those are the stuck

spots of your track, because it's a disagreement - total disagreement. You

knew, facing an "unknow." See, it's a "know" versus an "unknow," and these

two things are out of agreement.

You never be surprised - a whole bunch of cheerful idiots all of whom are

stupid and they all know everybody is stupid. You know, they get along

beautifully? Look at a communist cell sometime. They're all happy and they

all know they're stupid, you know?

But if a fellow gets up to a point where he has the least power of

observation of any kind whatsoever, he starts to run into this one. And

that is, immediately in his perimeter there are things he doesn't know,

which makes an inequality.

Well, now, these unknowingnesses can get so overwhelming that one will

adopt a valence to resolve them. He'll pick up a valence which knows about

these things. They do it so often that in the United States a great many of

the scientists today are content to let the valence know everything that a

scientist should do and know.

I got the Polar - my Polar Times this afternoon and it's got a bunch of

pictures in it and of course the polar regions are now being absolutely

infiltrated and butted into and so on. Everybody is charging into the polar

regions and anybody who is a member of the Polar Society gets to know all

about what snowdrifts they're jumping into now. And man, let me tell you

they're really jumping into a lot of snowdrifts. The boys are having a

ball.

And here's a photograph, here's a photograph and here's a bunch of

perfectly valid human beings, but they've just invented a motor that will

chew up snow. It's a ten-horsepower motor, and a fan blade goes underneath

the snowbank and it just keeps chewing up snow. And it's all very nice, and

so forth. But you look at the guy who is standing there posing with the

picture, you see, of it and he is a scientist one way or the other. He

isn't doing anything. He's testing it. And in all the midst of all these

parkas and everything, here is the perfect mock-up, you see - up there at

about 89 degrees north - here's the perfect mock-up of a scientist. They've

got to have the old school tie; they've got to have their diploma signed

just right; they've got to have all of these various things; they've got to

be just so; they've got to belong to the right societies in order to be

these things. And they get that - that beingness has got to be just exact,

you know? It mustn't vary a hair.

And if anybody comes along and thinks a thought in the field of science who

doesn't have this exact beingness these boys almost go mad! They just go

berserk! Why?

Also, this doesn't add up. The boys who invented most of the civilization

in which we are now confusedly involved and who laid the fundamentals of

it, were not one of them scientists. Firestone, Ford, you know, Edison.

These birds were about as far as you could get from this particular

mock-up.

But this other mock-up is a kind of a whole track mock-up. Actually,

they've got a scientist all mixed up with a technician. Oh yes, a good

scientist always demands of his technician that he have the right old

school tie and that sort of thing because he doesn't want him running off

with the uranium pot.

But it's a sort of a body running without a head now, because they're

calling scientists technicians and that sort of thing, you know? It's all

messed up. But it's an exact beingness - it's an exact beingness. And the

moment you try to shake that beingness even the least little bit and you -

just by a question, you know?

Yeah, I asked one time, I asked a "scientist," who was being hired at vast

expense on a government project to develop jet propulsion - atomic jet

propulsion. And I said, "Well, have you ever made up an orifice - an

optimum orifice pressure table for jet orifices?"

Well, this would be the most fundamental thing you would ever dream up if

you were doing a jet propulsion job, you see. Because it says how big is

the cylinder and how fast must the velocity of particles go out of the

cylinder to give you the maximum horsepower - foot pounds of thrust. And

this bird was absolutely turned into screaming, squirming jelly. They

hadn't done it, you see? They were still using the Chicago Fire

Department's hose tables. And I had suddenly, inadvertently exposed to

view, you see, the fact that they were being about as thorough, you see, as

somebody throwing bits of paper in the wind.

And I actually wasn't trying to invalidate the boy. But he just went all to

pieces and he became absolutely savage about me - just real bitter, you

know? Because, obviously, he's living the life of a mock-up.

You see, you've got the right old school tie; he's got the right letters;

he's got the right this; he's got the right that; he is at a right desk; he

is wearing the right pipe; he is, you know, he's got it all taped; he reads

the right papers and everything else. But, of course, he isn't doing

anything. See, all he is, is a package of now-I'm-supposed-to's operating

with Chicago Fire Department's hose pressure tables. This becomes a very

solid valence.

They seldom send the scientists out to fight the wars, by the way, and it

could be just another Mata Han dodge, you see? But the guy evidently really

isn't thinking up anything; he really isn't adding anything. He's adding up

figures and standing around and posing with a... One of the hard cases in

the parka, you see, is the fellow who set this snow eradicator going and

then stepped aside so the scientist could pose there by it, you see -

manipulating it. Marvelous!

You can see on all sides of you these outrageously artificial valences

which are pretended valences, and you see the level of pretense of the

valence. And when you see it to that degree, of course, it immediately

becomes spotted for you and you say, "Ha-ha! Yeah, that's very artificial."

Ahhhh, but Suzy Glutz sits down and she is not in this type of

artificiality and you say, "She is real." Yeah, George Aloysius Doakes sits

down and you say, "He is real." See, no pretense here, this man is a

downright matter of fact - well, maybe that's the valence: downright,

matter-of-fact. He's identified himself hasn't he? Well, if he's identified

himself by a bunch of tricks such as clothes, hat - well, you must be

looking at a valence. You must be looking at a valence and a package of

valences.

Now, the obvious valence that the fellow has a body does not necessarily

condemn him at all. It's the valence that he is being and is using the body

to be, that is the auditing target. So a human being has a body. All right.

So a thetan has a body and it's following the current mode. Well, this

doesn't actually make a valence. You know, it's not plowed in; it's not

below his level of consciousness. He's just soared down from Arcturus and

he picked up a body and he's walking it around and he sits down.

Now, you say to him, "Who are you?"

And he says, "Well, I'm - I'm X54 and just came in from Arcturus."

The only trace of valence there is "X54" because he knows it. See? But of

course a psychiatrist would lock him up.

I've always been going to write another Ole Doc Methuselah story, you know,

about this type of crisscross.

Anyway, what I mean by valence, as far as an auditing target is concerned,

is more on less the mental-image-picture package which the person has

composed to resolve the problems of existence which he doesn't know

anything about. He knows practically nothing of this valence. He cannot

really identify the valence. He has fixed it up so that it is really

unknown and really hidden. Because this thing, apparently, was surviving

and it was totally unknown to him. He picked up the package and he's going

on with the package, because its a survival package. This he's fairly sure

of.

He notices that this drunken, bum uncle of his, who flops around all over

the place and gets sick regularly Saturday night all over the living room

floor, is cared for. He doesn't have to work; everybody steps very light in

his vicinity; he is just leading a perfectly easy wonderful survival life.

And then we wonder why the little boy in the family all of a sudden grows

up and is practically his exact image.

Well, one: He doesn't know why this fellow is leading this life, you see?

And two: He's got all sorts of confusions himself that this fellow doesn't

seem to have. So to escape from his own confusions, he could pick up the

valence of this stumblebum uncle, you see?

And it's always easier to pick up a weaker valence than a stronger one. So

your more logical target is the weaker valence.

Now, if the pc has a bunch of chronic somatics of one kind or another,

these are part of the valence picture; these are not the pc. These are part

of the valence picture. So somatics are part of the valence picture.

Somatics are not pant of the pc.

There's - even the mechanics of this has been worked out some years ago. I

worked it out so you've got to have actually two identities counter-opposed

in order to get a smush and to keep a valence in. You've got to have a

couple of identities pinned up. In other words, you've got the pc being

himself versus this thing in order to feel pain. A pain phenomenon has to

be highly artificialized. In other words, to hurt, why, you've got to have

a couple of valences kicking around which are this way and that. I won't go

into the torturous methodology of how this was worked out. I think it was

Washington, 1957.

But it works like this. This fellow - to have experience, he says to

himself - he will have to survive. This is the way he's got it worked out

backwards: To have experience, he'll have to survive; to survive, he has to

be this package.

You've got somebody who's convinced that he could not survive as himself or

experience as himself. He has to be something else in order to experience;

he has to be something else in order to survive; he has to be something

else in order to live. And he is so sold on this idea of having to be

something else in order to live, don't you see, that you haven't a chance

until, all of a sudden, he realizes that he could live without it.

And of course his total game or his games condition is the "know -

not-know," "have - can't-have," "be - don't-be," "do - don't-do,"

arrangements of this particular valence. And that's its relationship to

some environment. And of course the tragedy of it is, it's usually measured

up for an environment which no longer exists.

You get the boys going around - the Teddy boys, you know, or the Edwardian

jackets, you know, that sort of thing. They think this is pretty good.

They've got themselves all rigged up.

Now, you get the other crew that's going around these days in the slick

motorcycle jackets - these leather motorcycle jackets, you see? They're all

rigged up to live in space opera. Of course they're just waiting. They're

just waiting.

Russia and the United States are going to have a ball sooner on later, and

they're turning into space societies now, the like of which you never heard

of, you know? Socialism. All these things are pant of these: Balanced

economy, slave dictatorships. And they're getting themselves all fixed up

to be rocket jockeys. They're going around acting like they ought to act,

you see, if the society were a space opera society. Well, they're getting

familiar with it and they're getting in practice and that'll be a very good

solution.

It's true too. You'll be able to put them in a spaceship and say, "All

right, Arcturus or bust!" you see, and they bust.

And you'll see these various stratas with you right now as classes. You'll

see whole classes of things.

I don't know what the girls of today are being, particularly. I haven't

looked it over very thoroughly lately, but I will say this - I will say

this, that the society has got practically every woman a bit out of

arrangement, you see? Because here we had a perfectly nice society going

along, which was an agrarian society, and its values - male, female,

familial - they were all figured out, they were all taped, everybody knew

where they stood, you see? Might have been rough, but everybody knew where

they stood.

Now all of a sudden you have coeducation and "Girl sniper does for eighteen

hundred Germans," you see? And what's she supposed to be doing? Well, she

doesn't know.

So she picks up all kinds of oddball valences of how women fit into other

types and classes of society. And you find some real wild ones, you know? I

mean not necessarily a wild girl but you find offbeat valences of various

kinds or another.

And a woman tends even more so in a society which is in a state of flux and

which hasn't instantly and immediately found a specific use on need for a

woman at any given instant, such as an agrarian society where it was all

comfortable, you see - everything was taped. Now you're in a society where

it isn't all taped and the exact specific need for a woman isn't quite

manifest. You know, she's supposed to get married; she's supposed to have

children; she's supposed to work.

Now, wait a minute, let's see. She's supposed to work. Yeah, but she's

supposed to work at home? No, not really. Where's she supposed to work?

Well, she's supposed to work out and contribute her money to the family

coffers. Aw, now wait a minute. Now wait a minute. This doesn't make sense.

Now let's see, how can we figure this out?

Well, the girl goes half-balmy trying to figure this out and all of a

sudden says, "Well, there's a much better solution, you see? I had a much

better solution 1,266,000 years ago and a much better solution to the whole

thing, you see? And that was to be a ballet dancer." Yeah, well, there's

still uses for ballet dancers, that's for sure, you know? Well, there you

go, that's the best thing.

Only difficulty is she can't dance at this particular time and she's going

to have to go several lifetimes grooving in, grooving in, grooving in.

She'll eventually pick up a mock-up, then she'll be able to carry through

this ambition. But right now it's on sleep, see? It isn't manifest, it

doesn't solve the thing, therefore she's quite unhappy about it. Her

now-I'm-supposed-to's get thrown aside so she then picks up a package of

now-I'm-supposed-to's, you see, to get her out of situations which oddly

enough she isn't in either. You get how the confusion merges and how it

spins around.

All I'm trying to tell you is just that you've got to find and move

valences in order to straighten out cases. You've got to do that. And you

can't straighten out a case without moving a valence.

When you have moved a valence you have changed a profile. When you have not

moved a valence, I don't know what you've done.

All right, let's look this over. How would you apply this directly? All

right, fellow has a toothache. You don't say to him, "What valence would

find a toothache profitable?" You could ask him that. But you could say -

this is just a quick one, you see, Who had a toothache?" That was the

oldest one, 1950, June. "Who had a toothache?" Bang, bang, bang. You

remember several people who had toothaches and it tends to split the

valence.

That is more valid than putting him in communication with the tooth in his

head because that isn't his toothache. In the first place, this tooth can't

ache without another tooth aching plastered on top of it in some kind of a

mental image picture. Ah-ha! It can't ache, that's what's interesting,

without another picture valence splattered on top of it. Got it?

All right. We're going to say to this fellow. "All right now uhm..." He

just keeps having this problem about cars; he just can't seem to keep a

car. Every time he gets a car, why, somebody takes it away from him one way

or the other, and so on. All night. You say, "When did you have difficulty

with a car? When did cans have difficulty with you?"

Uh-uh. A car isn't really a valence. Could be. There's some engineers -

I've got an engineering firm. They're a very good engineering firm, and

both the son who is about forty-something, and the old man who is close to

seventy, talk to you. And when they start talking they start the motor. And

they do. They say, "Rar-rar-rar." That's right. Well, Peter - he's heard

them over the phone. Yeah, they say, "Rar-rar-rar." And both of them have

been to the hospital for repairs lately.

So, we might - we might get someplace unexpectedly on this subject of a car

because it might, itself, be a kind of a valence, you know? But we say,

"When did you have difficulty with a car?" and, "When did cars have

difficulty with you?" Well, if it was a valence it would work, but it would

be much more profitable to say, "Who would have difficulty with cars?" See,

"Who would have difficulty with cans?" "Who would have difficulty with

cars?" "Describe a person that would have difficulty with cars," you know?

Process it right there at "Be." And all of a sudden, you'd find a fantastic

thing.

All right, I'll give you the night and wrong one again, here, that's a

little plainer. You say, "When have you hidden? Thank - ." This guy is - we

find him on "hide" and we say, "When have you hidden? When have you hidden?

When have you hidden? When have you hidden? When have you hidden?" Yeah,

you get some kind of a result and you have a lot of somatics, and so forth.

And he comes back the next day and he's got the same somatic, the same

package. So we say, "When have you hidden? When have you hidden? When have

you hidden?" Same somatics, same package, the next day. You, well, you're

processing a valence, see? He isn't there to be processed, practically. You

see, he's overwhumped in some kind of a valence and the valence is supposed

to hide.

And you'd say, "Who would find it necessary to hide?" "Who would find it

necessary to hide?" "From what confusion would who hide?" You know? That's

an awful tough one, it's a divided split-double-question. But - it wouldn't

ordinarily be used - but that's what you're trying to find out. You know?

"Who would try to hide from what confusion?" "Think of somebody who is

always hiding." "Who else would be always hiding?" "Think of a person who

hides." Because that valence has got the confusion, he hasn't got it. But

you could double it in brass and you would produce probably more bombastic

results. You would be processing the condition in which the fellow found

himself, and so forth.

You could go at it this way. You could say, "What beingness would be a good

solution for an environment where it couldn't be? What beingness would be a

good solution for a tough environment?" - better one. We had this a long

time ago. We had "Who would survive what?" you know, that sort of thing.

Process your who's; process your valences.

All night, now let's get a little bit further and let's go upstairs a

little more into the high school aspects of the thing.

Got a guy with a toothache. All right, you're going to cure this toothache.

You'd say, "Who would want to cure a toothache?" And you do an assessment

on terminals. You'd say, "Who would have a toothache?" "Who would want to

cure a toothache?" "Who would have a toothache?" "Who would want to cure a

toothache?" "Who would have a toothache?" "Who would want to cure a

toothache?"

He's given you the goal. He's got a toothache and he wants it cured. You've

got your goal. So your goal is understood so you're jumping right off from

there. But make sure he wants to cure this toothache, you know? And you

just run two sides of it and do a terminal assessment on the thing.

It might not last to a terminal. The thing - whole thing might blow before

you got a terminal, do you see? "Who would have a toothache?" "Who would

cure a toothache?" Cause-Effect line of the goal.

You get a whole terminals list on the thing: Don't be a bit surprised if

it's blown. But if one of them doesn't blow, you've got it - you've got the

valence. You've got it right there, bongo! bongo! and it's a real stuck

valence.

So open up with your Prehav Scale and you do an assessment on that valence

and you run it at that level of the Prehav Scale, not even bothering to

mention the toothache again. You see?

You're not now running the Prehav Scale against a tooth. See, you're

running the Prehav Scale right directly and immediately against the

terminal you've found. So what did you do? You did a Routine 3 operation to

do an assist.

Now, if you can see that a Routine 3 operation can operate as an assist and

is workable as an assist, your faith and ability in doing Goals

Assessments, of course, would increase enormously, wouldn't it?

Now, if you can find a hidden standard on your pc - and this is quite a

legitimate operation, having not to do with an assist: Having to do with a

present time problem. You find a hidden standard on your pc. "What would

have to happen in order to know that Scientology worked? What would have to

happen in order to know this processing was working? What would have to

happen?" Oh, you'd get a whole list of these things and you'd do an

assessment on the thing. These are goals; these are present time problems.

You assess them down, you find one that bongs real good and real hard,

bang-bang on the meter, you see? You take that one, take that one all by

itself and there must be a goal of some kind associated with that

particular hidden standard. And if it isn't inherently stated in the thing

that fell, you're still going to have to get the terminals for it.

All right, let us say, well, he's got a shoulder ache and that's what it

is, you know? And when the shoulder ache gets more, why, he knows he's

getting worse; and when the shoulder ache gets less, why, he knows he is

winning in auditing. And this is the standard he uses in order to measure

his auditing - worse or better on the sore shoulder. Good.

All right. Well, you could still go at it on both ends, "Who could have

it?" and "Who could cure it?" "Who would have it?" and "Who could cure it?"

or "Who would cure it?" or "Who would try to cure it?" or "Who has it?" If

you just did an assessment on "Who has it?" you would win. Or if you did an

assessment on "Who would handle them?" you'd win. You see? Just get your

list of terminals that have to do with sore shoulders if that's what fell.

All right, do your terminals assessment, move it over onto the Prehav Scale

and you get the terminal, if the shoulder is still there, and nun it on the

Prehav Scale - with your rudiments in. You follow this? All right, there

would be a method of handling a hidden standard. Right? Using this rule of

handle the valence, don't handle the significances.

Now, I will say this as a final word here. For a long, long time I had the

question: "Should you handle solids on significances? Should you handle

conditions? Should you handle solids?" And I knew even last year that you

had to handle solids. You'd better handle solids if you're really going to

get anyplace.

But this was not the full picture. No, the picture is this: Do not handle

the conditions of the valence, handle the valence. Now that, clear-cut and

well-stated, you'll find is far more workable than conditions and solids

because some conditions can appear to be solid. "Think" to somebody could

be a black blob.

No, let's make it much more workable than this. Don't handle conditions of

a valence. Don't audit at those things. Don't say, "Well, how could you

cure a son - shor - uh - a sore shoulder?" Boy, try to say that one as an

auditing command. And so forth and so on. "Now reach from the shoulder,

withdraw - ." Even though assists work and that sort of thing.

This is the limitation, by the way, of a Touch Assist - is explained to you

right there. And you know how limited it is. Well, its limitations are the

limitations of the valence. You're trying to cure a valence of some kind or

another. It's the valence that's got a bad one, not the other. So the

condition, the condition, the condition. No, because it's the condition of

the valence.

In order to handle this thing, handle the valence. Handle the terminal.

Handle the terminal. Always handle the terminal and you've got it. And this

thing will wrap up and I think you'll find this will hold true very, very

nicely and very easily.

Now, that moves Prehav - a Prehav 13 sort of an activity right up into the

limelight. The tremendous success you had on Failed Help by making a long

list of terminals of everybody the person had even known in this lifetime,

and then assessing those down, and then running on the one that seemed to

be the livest - Failed Help; is of course, simply expanded into this other

area of you assess the terminal on the Prehav Scale and you - not just

Failed Help - but you take any level of the Prehav Scale that this terminal

falls on.

So you get Prehav 13, is an exceedingly profitable type of activity if you

went right at it and did it hammer and tongs. You have a person make a list

of everybody they have known in this lifetime. And then you go on and add

to this list the way you would do a terminals assessment. And you just take

everybody they've known. And then you assess that list to get the one that

falls the most this time. Now, you don't assess it by elimination, you just

assess it by the steepest and biggest reaction. You assess it by reaction

of the needle.

And it turns out to be Mama or Grandpa or something of the sort. All right,

don't pay much more attention to it. Doesn't matter if you miss. Take that

particular terminal that you found by the greatest reaction and you move

that particular terminal over into the Pnehav Scale and assess that

terminal on the Prehav Scale. Find out about Grandpa all up and down the

Prehav Scale and you finally find that Grandpa is falling gorgeously on

Failed Abandon. And then you run a five-way on Failed Abandon and you've

got this thing pretty well set up.

Now, that was the original Prehav 13. Of course, you don't nun any

twenty-minute rule with Prehav 13. You run the needle quiet, and the tone

arm doesn't seem to be moving too much, and you run the needle quiet. But

it's just a little - very short period of time that you observe it. Do you

see? And then go over and take off another one. Take another terminal and

assess this - this lifetime terminals for the now livest terminal and run

it on the Prehav Scale. Assess it on the Prehav Scale. Do you follow? And

as soon as you've got this set up, run it and promptly get the charge off

of that one.

And all you're trying to do is take charge off of these terminals, one

after the other, and you'll find your pc will make a tremendous jump.

Now, a pc who has always got the rudiments out should probably be run for a

while on Prehav 13, because you're running valences. You're running

valences pure and simple. These are the people they're tangled with up and

down the track.

Now, you'll find some of those are pretty tangled. And some of those might

require a session or two to run, but the pc will emerge at the other end of

this thing feeling much better, always - consistently and continually.

Now, when you're trying to clean an auditor off, you use this same

procedure. You take all the auditors the fellow ever had, do a Prehav 13

type of assessment, get the auditor that falls the most, move him over onto

the Prehav Scale, get the idea? And then you run that level flat and you

take the next auditor and - any way you wanted to go about it like this.

You could take any Scientology personnel on any people in Scientology and

make a list and run it the same way. You have another type of action, and

it'd be very beneficial. You'd get all this.. . That, by the way, is how

you would get off all the auditing a fellow ever had. And also, if you used

all Scientology persons, you'd get off all the auditing he'd even given,

too. See? Not that you'd get them both off. That's for sure. It's an

interesting thing.

A fellow could have been run on a thousand processes and all of them wrong

and this rather short - short activity knocks out all the auditing he even

had. Leaves him with the gains and takes away all the losses. Interesting

thing to know, isn't it? If you do it by valences.

So, just look at this as a valid activity: That anything you can do by

valences is going to get you someplace and things you can't do by valences

won't get you anyplace. If you want lasting gains, do it by valences.

All right now, goals - goals. You can run lots of goals on a pc, one way or

the other. And I'm sure you can find goals on a pc, left and right. But if

you just ran goals, goals, goals, goals, goals, for weeks and weeks and

weeks and weeks and weeks without finding any kind of a goal at all, you'd

never get a crack at the valences. You only want the goal to get you into

valences. See?

Now, you could probably do an entirely different type of Goals Assessment.

You could just take a list of the fellow's goals and find - do a valence

assessment for each goal. Then check the goal and it's blown up. And that

would be auditing by assessment.

Do you see how you'd do that? You'd just take a list; he gives you forty

goals; you say, "Fine." You run down the thing; you find one of those

things is hot. Well, let's do a terminals assessment on it right now. We

don't bother to erase it. Just do a terminals assessment. Well, the thing

is going to blow up on a terminals assessment. You'll probably never get to

the Prehav Scale with it.

If you just took goal after goal, find out "Who would do that?" and "Who

would it be done to?" and so on; and just shook down all the terminals and

got him to remembering people this way and that; and got the valences all

stirred up on the thing, even a minor goal would produce a considerable

case change, don't you see?

So he's got this silly goal, well, "To eat my dinner better." All right.

Almost starting from the first goal that he gave you on the list, say, "Who

would eat their dinner better?" and "Who would force somebody to eat their

dinner better?" You know, something like this. And you get a list of those

people, you know, and you'll find out that goal - that goal is cleaned up,

man. That cleaned up slicker than any platter he ever cleaned. Got the

idea? There would be a different way of attacking this.

Until you've got a clean-cut idea in your own mind of exactly what the

put-together is - exactly what the put-together is in the mind - the

put-together is a very simple thing. The fellow found himself to be

inadequate. That must have meant that he was in some kind of an environment

which was horrifying to him. So he adopted a beingness of some kind or

another to get him out of it or to be something else, don't you see? This

is going on. But he also had a goal to get him out of it.

So he went out of it with a goal and he went out of it with a beingness -

sort of a double action was going on here. Now, he doesn't want to go back

into that again and he'd just better not ever go into it again. So, of

course, you start picking up goals and you start picking up terminals, and

you pick up goals and you pick up terminals. Well, you get all of his

escape points and he has to look at them sooner or later. He has to see how

he got started along this particular - was going. He starts as-ising bank

like mad. Right?

All right, I'll give you one more thing, one more thing here, and that is

you can always put a Not-Know bracket after a Know bracket on the Prehav

Scale.

You've got a five-way bracket and it has to do with Grandpa - a grandfather

leaving. Well, now find out on five different legs what isn't known about

Grandfather's leaving, you got the idea? So that you run the five Know, the

five Not-Know. And that'll just about treble your speed of run.

Now, the mechanism by which people used to be able to recall on ARC

Straightwire - and then they'd recall the same incidents over and over

again and then they'd never get any further than this - they - you know -

they'd just recall those same cycles of incidents and no new incidents

would turn up and you were whipped. Well actually, what was standing in

their road was the not-know - the not-know. What did they not know about

this particular thing, you see?

So if you were to have added Not-Know on any Recall Process of any kind

whatsoever, you'd have plowed out more track. Simple?

"Well, let's see," you'd say, "With whom have you communicated?" or "Recall

a time you communicated." And then, "What don't you know about having

communicated?" or "What communication don't you know about?" And you'd find

out that your ARC Straightwire would not then cycle on the same span of

track. It'd be more and more track, and more and more and more and more and

more and more and more and more, as long as you were running Not-Know

alongside of the Know. Right?

So we look oven this, then, we find out that we could as easily put in

Not-Know or some version of Not-Know in every command bracket, five for

five - run the Knows, run the Not-Knows. And you'll plow more and more

track, more and more track, more and more track and speed the run.

Give you a model of that sort of thing: Well, it's just "What don't you

know about Grandfather leaving? What wouldn't you know about a grandfather

leaving?" or "What haven't you known?" or any way it works out on your

command sheet. Get the idea?

Those commands - package commands are very unsafe. It's very unsafe to run

an exact package command with no check for the pc against the E-Meter. You

should always clear your commands against the E-Meter and find out if

they're all live and all answerable before you settle down for any kind of

a run. Okay?

Well, now, you have tomorrow and a whole weekend in order to digest all

this and after you've digested it, probably somebody will change your

valence and probably it was only the valence remembering, so thank you.

