VALENCES, CIRCUITS



A lecture given on 18 October 1961



Yeah, you see, that's all for Mary Sue. That's good. That's good.

All right, this is what? The 18th of October, AD 11.

Now today, you are dealing with Problems Intensives, and so forth. And the

modus operandi which we are following, very ordinarily, can be considered

to be finding somebody's goal; finding somebody's terminal; giving them a

Problems Intensive; giving them runs on the Prehav Scale on the found goal;

flattening off two/three levels; spotting and assessing some engrams that

have been turned up during that period; running those; flattening some more

levels on the Prehav Scale; and then probably giving a whole track Problems

Intensive; and then flattening off a few more levels on the Prehav Scale.

If they're not Clear by that time, run a few more engrams, and then run

some more levels.

Now, the truth be told, they had a barnyard one time and they had an

election. I thought that would wake you up. And they had decided that all

animals were equal. And this is perfectly fine, but they had decided all

animals were equal and they're having an election, and the pigs were

finally elected as chairmans and governors of the barnyard. So, life went

on along the barnyard way, very nicely and smoothly and everything was

going along fine, except most of the animals began to notice that the bulk

of the feed was going into the pig trough. And so they complained about it

and were overruled by a point of order. And then they noticed that the pig

quarters had been moved to the warmest part of the barn. Oh, by this time

it got a little bit rough. And finally it got to a point where there wasn't

anything to eat anyplace but in the pig trough, so they had a big meeting.

And the animals wanted to know why, if all animals were equal and all had

equal rights, the pigs should be living in the warmest part of the barn and

should be getting practically all the food in the barnyard. So, the pigs

had a considerable meeting amongst themselves as an executive committee and

finally came up with this conclusion, which they published: that some

animals are more equal than others.

This thing about equality comes up amongst preclears. Are some thetans

tougher than other thetans? Are thetans all of 61.1 grasshopper power, or

you see, and so on. That is by the way, an unanswered question. But the

basics of the thing are that some people are certainly - all cases are

rough, but some cases are more rougher than others. And in this particular

wise, all cases will now be found to respond to what we know, but some

require more of it than others.

And regardless of the equality of thetans and how some thetans might be

equal to some thetans and all thetans are more equal than other thetans -

in spite of these problems, which are unanswered - you'll find that all

thetans who are here at this time on this particular time track in this

universe (you must qualify it in that wise) are suffering from exactly the

same levels of aberration.

The difference is magnitude. And that is the only difference. Now, this is

an important conclusion because it doesn't give you Kraepelin's - I think

it's probably pronounced differently, but I prefer the pronunciation of

"Craplin's" - Index of Insanity. Now, his Index of Insanity goes on for

some pages, and it's all the different kinds of insanity that people have.

And it's very interesting, and it was developed many, many decades ago in

Germany, and then was exported and arrived almost simultaneously on Park

Avenue and Madison Avenue. On Park Avenue it was applied to the rich and on

Madison Avenue it was applied to the advertising world.

And they expanded it. And in most insane asylums in America - I prefer

that, too. I prefer that derogation of "insane asylums." I think they're

insane, don't you? And they have expanded this. Believe it or not they've

expanded this almost unexpandable list. Well, it begins to look like

Kraepelin's list originally was quite simple compared to the list which

they now have of the numbers of types of insanity.

Well, these different types are only manifestational. It's how does the

basic aberration manifest itself? And that is the only question which is

answered by a long classification of types of insanity or aberration.

Manifestational - they manifest themselves differently; they are the same

aberrations. So you have different manifestations and different orders of

magnitude and you have no difference of insanity.

In other words, this is what we have been working for, for some time in

Dianetics and Scientology, is to understand all of these various types and

responses. But basically, you have the condition of all aberration arising

from the same causes, but manifesting itself differently and manifesting

itself to greater degrees of magnitude or lesser degrees of magnitude. It's

the same thing, you understand, but it can look different and it can be

greater or lesser.

And what are these manifestations? Well, we've talked about them for many,

many years; there have been many points of address to them. But the reason

why we are clearing people, broadly today, and the reason why you can clear

people, is because you are taking people out by the same process that they

went in. At the beginning of Book One, Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental

Health - actually its third volume, not its - I think it is - not its first

volume; it's the third book of the first book. It says if you can just

parallel what the mind is doing, why, you can lick most anything. So you

have to parallel what the mind is doing. That's one of the fundamentals.

Actually, the fundamentals with which we operate are expressed in that

book. And also many of them, of research, are expressed in Dianetics:

Evolution of a Science, and Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, as a little

short essay, is basically more important than it looks, because these are

the various indexes which are used in sorting out data, and it's the only

place they've ever been expressed. But here today, we have a process in

Routine 3 of becoming aberrated - the process of becoming aberrated. And

we, in Routine 3, you see, reverse the process of becoming aberrated.

And it sort of works like this - it does work like this: A thetan, doing

and acting in this universe, loses confidence or conviction of his own

strength, independence or power. A thetan loses confidence - basically in

himself. He loses confidence in his ability to do and to survive. Having

lost that confidence, he then assumes an identity which he considers will

stand instead of self. He himself goes down into degradation.

Now, what he is overwhelmed by or what he has overwhelmed consistently is

adopted by him as a full package of behavior, and that stands in lieu of

self. And that is a valence. And that's - technical terminology for that is

a valence: A valence is a substitute for self taken on after the fact of

lost confidence in self.

Now, as a thetan sinks into degradation - lost confidence in self - he goes

down into personal oblivion, so that he himself has no further memory of

self, but has only memory as a valence. Now having - having taken on this

valence, he then carries it on as a mechanism of survival. This is the

thing that is surviving. He is doing a life continuum actually of what he

has overwhelmed or what has overwhelmed him. This is a valence.

Now, at the point of degradation you will find it backtracking this way:

Now, just before he assumed the valence he had a problem concerning his own

survival, which he himself could not solve. He could not solve it as

himself Now, just before that problem, there was a tremendous confusion in

which, by processes of overts and withholds, he became enturbulated as

himself. Usually these overts and withholds were - well, always these

overts and withholds - were against the various dynamics.

Now, that was the route by which he went in. He missed his way and he had

some overts and some withholds, particularly against the mores of the group

in which he was operating. And then he lost confidence in himself

completely. He felt he couldn't go on as himself, and this gave him some

tremendous problem relating to survival. He felt he couldn't solve this

problem and he adopted a valence to solve this problem. He adopted an

identity he thought would stand as a solution to this problem and then he

went on as that identity.

Now, that identity in turn, as the millennia progressed, submerged by the

same cycle. As the identity, while a member of a group, the thetan

committed overts and had withholds from other members of the group, and

this finally mounted up into a tremendous unsolvable problem. And this

problem, of course, was solved by him by actually the acceptance - usually,

not of another valence - but the acceptance of a change or a different

status.

Now, there are several ways with which he can face up to this situation.

Now, I've described the most basic one. The most basic one is represented

by Routine 3, which is to say he had a certain goal line of some kind or

another, he did not succeed in this particular goal line, while part of a

group he accumulated overts and withholds, and this amounted to a

tremendous problem. This problem was solved by him by the acceptance of an

identity.

Now, he is in trouble because he himself has gone into oblivion and the

identity knows, the identity knows, but he doesn't. All right, that's the

most fundamental. But how many ways can this then work out thereafter? Now,

having committed that basic error, how many ways can this work out

thereafter? Fortunately for us there are not very many of them, but the

cycle is always the same: While a member of a group having certain goals,

he commits overts and has withholds from other group members, from which

arises a confusion, which summates into a problem, which he then solves

by... Now you name it, see? And there's the only variable, is what does he

use to solve the problem.

Now, he has always used a valence, early on the track, to solve the

problem. He always has done that. That we're sure of. So that you always

have a thetan that you're processing who has adopted a valence. That's for

sure. See, you know that. And you can take a look at any person, any human

being, anybody walking around, and you know that he's had some goals and

he's - as a member of a group, he's had overts and withholds, and this has

amounted to a tremendous problem. And that he has solved this by assuming a

valence, and that this valence is greater than himself, and that he himself

has disappeared into an oblivion while the valence is dominant and

paramount. This we know about every human being we meet who is not Clear.

That's fundamental.

But remember now, as this valence, with certain goals, while a member of a

group, he has developed overts and withholds which have culminated in a

problem which he then solved by... And we've got the next variation; we've

got the next thing he did.

Well, now, the common denominator of it all is change. And of course he's

always solved the problem by changing. By changing what? See? We don't have

to say what. We just say he solved the problem by changing. There change

came about in his lifetime.

Now, that is equally true of the first assumption of a valence. You see,

that was a change of identity. And life after life, as he's gone along he's

shucked the old identity - the dead body - and he left it lying there in

the coffin with the relatives weeping about, or left it stashed up

underneath the dashboard, rather poorly preserved meat. He's done something

with this body and he's gone ahead and he's picked up a new body.

Now, the whole of the Buddhist concern was the life - death cycle. The

birth - death cycle of Buddhism is their total fixation, and actually is

probably the greatest wisdom that Earth had up until we came along. It

wasn't much, they ran it kind of backwards. But nevertheless it was a lamp

burning.

Now, here, an interesting thing: The whole goal of the Buddhist is to

escape this cycle of birth - death, birth - death, birth - death. And he's

very afraid of making a change. The Buddhist is afraid of causing

something, and he is afraid of making any change in life because he might

then change somebody else, and he might then become responsible for broader

changes. You see? Now, actually he's doing all this on the basis of "If I

shirk enough responsibility, why, I will somehow or another float out of my

'ead." Well, unfortunately, it doesn't work very well. If Buddha did it

sitting under the Bodhi tree, he didn't write it down on rock. He wrote it

on men's minds and that is writing as upon quicksand, because there's

something, something missing.

Now, it is true, that occasionally, accidentally, a thetan can sit down and

be very quiet and go out of his 'ead, bong! You know how he does it? He's

so concerned about escaping from dead bodies that he will actually set up

an ejector mechanism, like a fighter plane ejects the cockpit and all at

the press of a button, you see? The fighter pilot in these modern jet

planes - the better governments build them this way at least - presses a

button and the whole cockpit flies out into space on a shot, and a

parachute bangs open and he floats to earth.

Now, you'll find every once in a while - while you're processing a thetan,

you'll find one of these things. And you'll know when you find it because

he got an awful start, something happened, he exteriorized, it's all very

mysterious, it's exactly what happened. We are hard put to find out unless

we know that we have simply run into one of these ejector mechanisms.

Accidentally we've pushed the button.

Well now, they don't work. Usually they're - most of them are broken and

they haven't been functional for ages and they're quite silly, actually.

Now, one fellow was so afraid - . You see, they get all mixed up. If they

got into severe pain they should be able to die and get out of their heads.

See? So they will set up some kind of a mechanism like a guillotine right

above their foreheads - actually, it's a mocked up, heavy-energy

guillotine. And at a certain time, when they experience enough pain, they

feel they won't be able to think while they're doing this, so they trigger

this to respond to pain. And they get enough pain and this guillotine will

go - clank! And it's supposed to knock off the body. And nearly everybody

has wound up at this stage of the track with the belief that you have to

kill the body before you can get out of it. That is very interesting - you

have to kill a body before you can get out of it. And people will just work

like mad trying to kill a body so they can get out of it. And, of course,

it has nothing to do with it - it is a via.

If you didn't have that many overts against - on the body, you would float

out of it anyway. You'd have a hard time sticking with it, unless you had a

few overts on it. So in trying to get out of the body, they try to kill the

body, and they're - they're just all mixed up. And this is a silliness.

They - they're doing the exact thing they shouldn't be doing.

All right. You find people are gimping around, being ill and that sort of

thing. They very often have triggered some of these ejector mechanisms.

Mysterious how these things occurred. Here they are, twenty years after

they triggered something that was supposed to blow them out of their heads,

or knock off the body or something like this. And they're still in their

heads, and it didn't blow them out. And this is a big defeat and it's a -

wow! - it's a problem the solution of which failed. It's a failed solution.

Do you see now, there is the birth-death cycle. And the Buddhist believed

that he could escape this cycle. He could leave this vale of tears and woe.

Now, it's one of the mechanisms of that particular series of truths that

they believed that the world was horrible and poverty-stricken and that it

was pretty well all bad over there. Now, the basic truths which they were

putting out are so interlarded with these other exaggerations, overts and

unkind thoughts, criticisms, alter-ises, and so on, that it operates as a

self-trapping mechanism. If you get a guy to be still long enough you will

key him in like crazy. All motions of the past will come in and kick him in

the head.

Well, why do you find your pc sitting in the middle of a problem? Or why do

you find him sitting there with that solution? And why is it such a still

solution? Well, it's a still point on the track. And every time the pc has

tried to rest he's practically been overwhelmed. And then as soon as you

get the problem out of the way and you look back for the motion and the

confusion, the motion and confusion runs and, the still spot disappears. In

other words, the still spot is held there because of the pressure and

duress of an active spot behind or earlier than the still spot. Do you see

that? So therefore, every time the man tries to rest, the motion threatens

to overwhelm him. You see, the still spot is there to hold back the motion

earlier. So, every time he goes still, of course he restimulates the

earlier motion.

You run into somebody, he can't rest, he can't rest, he can't rest, he

can't rest. He doesn't dare! He walks down the street, he doesn't even dare

stop in the middle of the block to look in a shop window. All of a sudden

something goes merrrrmmmmm! He knows better! And a traffic light stops him

as he's driving the car, he hasn't got any place to go. As a matter of

fact, he's sitting alongside of a pretty girl; he would just love to have a

moment to chin-chin, you'd think, you know? And there's the traffic light -

perfectly good excuse to stop, you know? Does he talk to the pretty girl?

No. He says, "Well, damn the police department! Rrrrrr. And these traffic

lights and so on - . And look-it, there's nobody on the side streets

anyhow. Rrrrmm." and so on, you know? And he finally throws it in gear and

jumps the last instant of the light and goes roaring across the thing. Why?

Why? Because it's upsetting to him to be still. Because the second he goes

still he starts getting overwhelmed by all the former motion. The former

motion restimulates on a still. And this is an oddity. The still is there

to prevent former motion. So of course, then, the still becomes the

restimulator for former motion.

Every thetan is subject to this. The Buddhist, he wanted to go out of his

bloomin' 'ead, 'e did, and sail around in the sky. Now, the last time I was

sailing around in the sky, do you know I was bored stiff! Interesting. I

was just bored stiff. Interesting! There was nothing to do! There was very

little to look at. There was nothing to participate in. But, of course,

there's enough former motion to make me feel like maybe I ought to be in

motion, or ought to be doing something.

That's all beside the point. The point is that there was nothing to do. So

the basic goal of the Buddhist must have been "do nothing." That is the

defeatist goal. Whenever you have people in defeat, they are telling you

that they wish to do nothing. Now, they will gauge it in many, many ways,

and they will say it in innumerable ways and justify it in a thousand,

thousand ways; but it still adds up to the fact that they want to do

nothing. That's what they think they should be doing.

Now, of course, the nothingness is the point of overwhelm. So people who

yearn for nothing inadvertently yearn to be overwhelmed - inadvertently, by

mechanism. They get overwhelmed. And so you have every great culture

working hard to achieve peace. And they achieve more peace and more peace

and more peace, and it gets terribly peaceful. It's awfully peaceful

everywhere. And then up jumps one barbarian with a busted slingshot and

knocks over the whole ruddy lot. They finally achieve no motion. And, of

course, that is synonymous with death.

So a thetan's ambitions can often be contrary to his best interests. But

this is not surprising in view of the fact that there are no real

liabilities to being a thetan, except the liability of inaction, of no

interest, the liability of nothing to do, the liability of nothing to have,

no place to go, nothing to be. Those are all liabilities. And when you see

people around preaching these, you are seeing people in the finest possible

games condition. That is the ne plus ultra of all games conditions.

When you see somebody preaching to everybody that they must be very still,

that they must be very good, that they must be very, very peaceful, that

they mustn't move around much, that they should settle down on the farm and

never again do anything else, that they should content themselves with that

little swivel chair in front of the desk, that they must not do anything

else. Whenever you see somebody preaching this - or "What you need now, Mr.

Doakes, is a long rest." The fellow strokes his blood-stained lapel and

gives you the business, you know? What a finer, finer way to kill a man,

there isn't. That's the medico - his advice is always in this direction,

you see?

But when you see these people talking about peace, peace, peace, quiet,

still, stay in one place, don't move, the best life in the world is for you

- is to stand there like a lamppost; look at the wonderful life a lamppost

leads - especially with dogs!

Anyway, you're ask - . You're seeing somebody there who is in a games

condition. He is playing a game in which he wants the other fellow to get

overwhelmed. And he's using basically and fundamentally the mechanisms of

the track which will best overwhelm the other person. It is not at all in

the interests of helping somebody out. That is all part of the game. "The

best way we can possibly help you out is to give you a long rest."

Now, the proofs of this are quite interesting. The proofs of this are all

over the place. You take a soldier wounded on the firing line, and you put

him in the first-aid shop, which is right hard beside the 155s that are

slamming away, and you would think offhand that that would be the worst

place in the world (because you see the propaganda is otherwise) for him to

recover from his wounds. But what do you know! The death rate in the

first-aid station alongside the guns is much lower for the same wounds than

the death rate in the base hospital. Why, that's fantastic!

They move the guy back to the base hospital and they say, "Peace, peace,

rest, rest. Now you take a long rest." And - poof! There he goes! They got

rid of that one right now!

Yeah, but what kind of care does he get in the first-aid station up

alongside the guns? "Is this one gonna live, or is he gonna kick the

bucket? Oh, well, tie him up a little bit, move him over there, we got

three more in the tent! How you doing Joe? All right."

You know, just not, "You poor dear fellow. How are we possibly going to

save you?" You know? People practically walking on them with hobnail boots

and the characters get well. Because nobody up to that moment has

introduced the idea of quiet. Nobody has introduced the idea of

motionlessness.

Now, they've attributed it - the "psyrologists" of yesteryear - attributed

it to the fact that he did this. They had no explanation, except perhaps he

felt he was still participating or something. But this is one of the great

puzzles, because the medical figures are so directly contrary to what the

medical doctor does. If you leave him in the first-aid station between a

couple of slamming guns, he gets well. And if you send him to the rear, he

dies - same wounds, same type of case. They know this, so they keep sending

him to the rear.

Now, there are many instances of this. You take old Mr. Doakes. Well, he's

worked hammer and tongs in that lumberyard for the last forty-five years,

man and boy, and he built it up himself, he did. Splinters in all ten

fingers. And here he is, he's working on the thing. And truth of the matter

is he does know more about the lumberyard than the other people around

there, and he's going around just having a time.

And one day he gets gallbladder trouble or something - one of the splinters

got in his gallbladder. And he finally has to go down and he unluckily

lands in the middle of "Peace, peace," you see? And he gets a bit sicker.

And he keep - first few days he's there he keeps fretting away, you know,

and he's saying, "I wonder if that damn foreman is going to load that pine

up on the wrong truck again, and do you suppose they remembered to get the

oak out of the rain?" You know? And worry, worry, fuss. And every time he

starts worrying about it, what operation is run on him? Is "No, no, they'll

get along all right. Be quiet now, and don't fret yourself" Can't you just

hear it running off?

Well, it's an operation. It doesn't do him any good. The best possible

thing that could happen to him is for the telephone call actually to come

in, and the foreman has left the oak out in the rain. And they loaded the

pine, not only on the wrong truck, but sent it to the wrong continent. No

peace going on. Next thing you know, he says, "Well, hell with this

gallbladder," and goes back to work.

Well, now, you see examples that are pointed out to you as fellows who are

dying from overwork. These are examples of fellows that are killing

themselves with work. And the whole society subscribes to this. You see how

a thetan lays the red herrings? He doesn't throw red herrings across the

track, he throws flats of red herrings across the track. Dumps truckloads

of them - because the evidence isn't there. He's dying from stills; he is

never dying from motions.

How does a thetan - how does a thetan get sick? You know yourself that the

moment that you release the still that he is stuck in, he'll get well. What

is an engram but a still, you see? He'll get well if you can release that

still. Now you - he's lying there with a broken leg and it's going to take

him six weeks for the leg to get squared around - well, all right, how

about this? This is wh - . We've done this so many times it's just routine,

practically. If you go in - we go in and we get rid of the engram of

breaking the leg, and we get all holds out of the thing and all resistances

out of the thing and so forth; he's out of there in about a week or so and

the doctors are flabbergasted. They can't believe it.

You've been around - if you've been around where they've given lots of

these assists, or if you've given some yourself, well, you recognize that

you've run out what was holding him in the accident. Now, that's well

within your own reality.

Well now, he was suffering from a broken leg because he was held in the

accident - not because there was too much motion, but because there was too

much still. It's this motion before the still, don't you see, which is

crowding the still into being a still. And you could release it better by

getting the motion before it.

But what has happened to him that he is not any longer in this condition?

That he falls off a motorbike, hits the pavement, several limbs bend the

wrong way to, he picks up the body, puts it back on the motorcycle and

rides home. The punctures close in the flesh, and the bones go instantly

back together again - what has happened to him that he cannot do this? He's

been leading too quiet a life, that's all. That's all that's happened to

him.

Now, you get around, you get around very active people, you will see them

taking fall... Well, get around a circus. That's not too good an example

because they're on display. Another factor is entered into it, if they're

giving other people mock-ups all the time. But you'll see these fellows

take falls and flops, and so on, that would kill you. And they just pick

themselves up again and they never think twice about it, you know? Of

course, every once in a while their, the bull elephant, or something like

that, will lean into an elephant man, and he will lean until the elephant

man is pasteboard. But that's not the type of accidents I'm talking about.

But I also could add: what's the matter with the elephant man that, having

become pasteboard, he now doesn't resume his former shape? Why is it that

when you hit a body and knock it out of shape, what's the matter here that

it doesn't come back to shape again instantly? Well, we say immediately,

"Well, it's broken. Well, it's like a toy, or it's like a piece of wood, or

something like that, it's broken." No, toys and pieces of wood are not

alive.

Why doesn't the body come back to shape? Because we know the body comes

back to shape slowly, why doesn't the body come back to shape rapidly?

Because of stills. Because it is held out of shape. And that should be well

within your reality as an auditor that if there is something wrong, it is

being held that way with considerable magnitude of force. Those things that

are wrong with people are held wrong at the expense of considerable energy.

How a man can stay crazy has often been a great deal of mystery to me. The

effort it must take to stay crazy must be fantastic. And true enough, if

you get the exact unknown spot in a person's craziness, you undo him

utterly. He goes zooom, and he goes sane. I've seen it happen time and

again.

The most fruitful source of these sudden recoveries of course are

withholds. Withholds best overcome stills, because they're the motion

before the still. The motion before the still was going on while the person

was not participating with the motion. See, the person was withholding

himself from the motion already, so while in motion he was being slightly

still, in that he was withholding himself from the motion. Get the idea?

He's practicing withholds.

So he's already dragged himself back out of the motion. And eventually he

drags himself back so hard and so thoroughly out of the motion and he makes

so many overts against the rest of the participating elements of the motion

that he is no longer part of the motion. And what is there left for him to

be but still?

When you haven't any right to longer be part of a motion, you have only one

other choice. If you are - cannot be part of all available motion, you can

only then be still. If the only motion available to you in a group is

motion A, B, C, D, E, F, you know, and yet you've withheld yourself from

the group, and have overts against the motion of the group one way or the

other, of course where can you go but still? There's no place else to go.

If that's all the available motion there is, is the motion of this group,

and you withhold yourself from that, you go still. And, of course, that is

the basic mechanism by which you get a confusion, overts and withholds,

winding up in a problem.

Well, the problem is the still. It's postulate - counter-postulate. It's

idea - counter-idea. It is a held and timeless mechanism.

Now, everything I've been talking about problems this past summer is

totally applicable. We haven't gone astray a bit. What we've done in a

Problems Intensive is find just a better way to handle the same mechanisms.

There have been a couple of new discoveries on the exact anatomy of those

mechanisms. Exactly how do - how does a problem hang up? That's what's been

found. Very closely stated that the confusion comes before the stable datum

on a time plot. The confusion and the stable datum are not in the same

instant of time. It's the confusion, and then time lapse, and then the

stable datum. The stable datum is always after the fact of the confusion,

and that the overt and the withhold eventually culminate in a still. And,

of course, that still can say it's a problem, it can say it's a this, it

can say it's a that.

But immediately after the problem is a solution to the problem. Now,

because the problem is held motionless in time, of course the solution

becomes continuous in time. So you have a thetan with a terrible problem:

how to get some motion, how to have some excitement, how to do something,

how to stop sitting on this condemned cloud.

Now, you could say, earlier, well, he must have had motion earlier that

prompts him into this. No, we have to accept the fact that although moving

is quite aberrative - obviously - thetans like to do it. And we sort of

have to accept the nature of the piece that thetans will move around, and

that they are happiest when in motion, although motion is apparently very

foreign and to them and very bad for them. It's something on the order of a

child gets sick every time he eats ice cream, but he does and will eat ice

cream. You can say, well, motion is very bad for a thetan, a thetan likes

to move. You c - the Buddhist adds it up, of course, and these other people

who are practicing this games condition are saying that motion is very bad.

That is their first lesson: motion is evil, evil is motion.

So we get the concept of the Devil, of course, is fire and the concept of

God is nothing. But the Devil is at least something, and the Devil is

always up to something, and the Devil is always in motion, and the Devil

will find something to do for idle hands, and nearly every - and nearly

every phrase that we associate around, around Lucifer has to do with

doingness and motion. So, the lesson which we should of course gain out of

this is that if we want to be godly, we'll stop dead-still and do nothing.

And that is the penalty. And, of course, the second you stop dead-still and

do nothing, everything you have been doing then overwhumps you. That's the

way it is.

You see, if you hadn't been going at - taking Reg's new car - if you hadn't

been going at 165 miles an hour, having your bumper up against another

car's bumper - nothing wrong with that, is there? You've got a bumper

against another car's bumper. But if you add to that, just prior to it -

that you were doing 165. Reg would have to get a new Jag! You get what I'm

talking about, see? It's the motion before the fact that makes the impact.

And there you have the - the mechanics of existence - you have the motion

and the still.

Well, now, there's nothing wrong with a still, actually, if there hasn't

been some motion. And there's actually nothing wrong with motion if a - if

a still doesn't occur. But like oil and water, alcohol and petrol, these

things don't mix. Motion is motion and stills are stills. And if you're

going to live a life as a priest, for heaven's sakes, live a life as a

priest! But if you're going to live a life; if you're going to live a life

as an alpineer or an airplane pilot or something of the sort, well, for

heaven's sakes, live a life as an alpineer or an airplane pilot. You got

the idea? Unless you can adjust.

Now, if you can tolerate motion and if you can tolerate still, you never

get into any of this trouble. But those are the two things that a thetan

cannot do. There are certain motions he cannot tolerate and there are

certain stills he cannot tolerate. Do you know that if you just put a huge

boulder in the middle of a courtyard in an insane asylum, and just let this

boulder sit there, and put a lot of seats around, and the patients could go

out and sit and look at the boulder... Doesn't have to have any further

significance than that.

You could blow this up and make it a temple, you see? You could have a -

you could have an idol there, or you could have a piece of architecture or

something of this sort there, but just as long as it's a big massive still.

And they go out and they could sit and look at this still. Well, some of

them would at once be sort of overwhelmed, and some of them at once get

terribly enturbulated. But I assure you that if they were permitted to do

this, day after day after day after day after day after day, after a few

years, in the wildest state, why, they'd all of a sudden go more or less

sane. You're familiarizing themself with a massive still, you see? Just

familiarize them with a still, familiarize them with a still, familiarize

them with a still. You could do that and you'd blow - you'd blow them up

the track. You'd move them around and so forth, without ever processing

them. It's something to do.

But you say, never process a still. All right, that's perfectly correct.

Don't process a still directly. But that hasn't anything to do with

familiarizing somebody with an actual still. Processing a still in the bank

and making somebody observe a still in the physical universe are two

different actions.

Now, observing a still in the physical universe can be quite therapeutic,

and observing stills in the bank without blowing them can really louse a

thetan up. His bank has limited quantity and he loses havingness and other

things happen when he observes bank stills.

Now, if we look carefully over how a thetan got aberrated, we will see that

he went through a cycle of: action, confusion. Confusion is caused by

overts and withholds against the people he's in action with or the things

he's in action with... And of course he was in action because he wanted to

do something. The mores of the group, his goal, the goal of the group, and

so forth - this is all part of motion and action; it's a goingness -

doingness proposition. That is followed by overts and withholds, and that

culminates in a problem which is a stop. And the problem which is a stop is

then followed by a change which is a solution to the problem. Now, we get

that anatomy repetitive. It goes over and over and over and over and over

and over and over. And it's been going on for the last two hundred trillion

years.

Thetan wanted to do something and he was in motion, and then while in

motion along with others he developed overts and withholds from the others,

and this culminated in a problem. Which problem he then solved by changing

in some fashion, and having changed in some fashion he of course went off

and set himself all up for a new cycle.

And he always set himself up for a new cycle, and every cycle is like every

other cycle. And this is the - this is the sameness which runs as the woof

and warp of life. That is the cycle of action of a thetan's aberration and

a thetan's doingness and so forth, but basically the cycle of action of his

aberration. And it doesn't matter what aberration he winds up with or how

that aberration manifests itself, it all goes back to the same anatomy.

There's no difference of the anatomy at all.

All right. Early in the game he adopted a valence. That was the change

which solved the problem. He had a goal, and that was a basic goal and that

has been going on ever since. And then he got a problem across this goals

line, and then this valence came along and this valence solved this goal.

And here he is now. He's now somebody else.

Now, while being this somebody else, ever since, he still picks up new

bodies who are somebody else. Oh, well, this masked the whole show. This

really made it complicated. The thetan already is not himself. No, he's a

valence. And as a valence he then picks up new bodies, each one of which is

an identity. So he apparently would just stack up endless and endless and

endless valences on top of his basic valence. Funny part of it is, he

doesn't. That's what's amazing. The basic valence is in there so solid that

transient valences from lifetime to lifetime don't overwhelm it. That's

what's going on.

So while living these lifetimes he could subscribe to the identity which he

had in the lifetime, but it still was underlaid by his valence - the - see

- key, central valence which was motivated by a basic key, central goal.

And although he gets other goals and these goals come and go, he still has

that valence; he still has that basic goal.

Well, that is the biggest single shift; that is the biggest single change

that takes place in a lifetime that is available to the auditor. Now, that

is a big one, and it is available on anyone with whom you can communicate.

That's available on anyone with whom you can communicate. That is a

requisite.

Because you wouldn't have much chance getting the basic valence of a Chinee

while you were speaking Portuguese and he was speaking Japanese. I mean,

this is - get rather adrift. So some communication is necessary to the

resolution of this situation. Given that communication, you'd be able to do

something about it.

Now, to a limited degree, you would be able to process the Chinee with the

CCHs without the benefit of communication. So you have a whole strata of

processes which one way or the other will work out things for somebody,

called the CCHs, which are without much benefit of communication. Those

things will work on - those things will work on animals. You probably could

process insects this way, maybe you could even process a stalk of corn or

something this way, who knows. But it would be a CCH proposition. And we've

got that whole band pretty well taped, and it's an important series of

process, because it means processing in the absence of communication - that

is what that gives us. And that is really what the CCHs are used for, is

processing in the absence of communication.

If you can communicate to somebody, or with somebody, and get that person

to answer your questions, even somewhat laboriously, and so forth, you have

no business using the CCHs. That's about what that amounts to. And the CCHs

can be categorized in that fashion now only because we can get rid of

hidden standards. Now, until 1A came along (1A did a little bit), and until

prior confusion came along (which did it much, much more), we had only one

method of getting rid of a hidden standard, and that was the CCHs.

Now, in view of the fact that we have Problems Intensives, you can relegate

the CCHs back to where they came from, which is processing in the absence

of verbal communication - you can process somebody you can't talk with. And

that's where the CCHs belong. Well, therefore, they are important.

But now, what else could happen to this thetan? Remember, he's still going

to go on this same cycle - going to have a goal to get something done; he's

going to be part of a group; and then he's going to get overts and he's

going to get withholds from this group; and then he's going to get a big

problem; and then he's going to change.

Well, what other changes are available asides from valences? Well, the

first and foremost one that you run into, as far as body line is concerned,

is he can pick up new bodies. He runs into an awful problem in life so he

decides to die. The solution to that, of course, the change of that, is a

new body. And you have the Buddhist cycle of birth and death. And that is -

the Buddhist cycle of, of birth and death is simply the problem of "How do

we keep going after the fact of an unsolvable problem?"

You could say that every death is accompanied by, preceded by - that every

new life is preceded by an unsolvable problem. Somewhere in the vicinity of

that death is an unsolvable problem. Death was a solution to the problem.

And then new life was the solution to the death. Because in between the

life and the death he ran into the brand-new problem. Is - that is being an

unemployed thetan. So he solves that problem.

And he goes ahead, then, by his action - desire for action and

accomplishment culminates in overts, withholds which produces a problem

which he then resolves. And then - we're talking now about - specifically

about the resolution point. Well, it can be solved by death, couldn't it?

And all illness - all illness of whatever kind - derives from unsolved

problems. All illnesses dissolve - resolve or, or evolve from unsolved

problems. That you must know pretty well, because that is the key to

illness.

There is no illness in the absence of a wish to live. Illness is always a

gradient scale of dying. Illness is always a gradient scale of dying. It is

- expresses a resentment against life. It can be traced back to that.

The person is so overwhelmed by it he can no longer tangle it out, and we

say, "Well, that person is ill because he wants to die." Well, it's a

rather careless statement of it, because you're saying that only reactively

does he wish to die. It's a reactive problem, and therefore not exposed to

his analytical consultation.

So the person gets ill. He wins a football pool and they come around and

after the government's had its cut, why, they stuff his pockets full of

five pound notes, and shovel them into his living room and say, "Well, you

won the football pool," and he gets very ill - in spite of the medicos. The

medicos occasionally have written essays showing that every time you win a

football pool you get well. Well, that is not - doesn't follow. It's too

much change there. This fellow's goal line, long ago, was set up that you

were safe as long as you were poor. And if you could just be good and poor

then nobody would want anything you had, and so you wouldn't get stood up

in the corner of the basement and hung up on raw ice tongs and be bled to

death - which was the last time he had anything - what happened to him, you

see?

So he solved this problem by saying, "I should be good and poor." And he's

gone along being poor, and he's been a very successful poor man. I have - I

feel like shaking a beggar's hand sometime, and when he's a really, he's

really a mess, you see, and congratulating him, you know, on being such a

successful beggar.

You'd be amazed, if - if you congratulate somebody who is pretending to be

a victim, congratulate them on being such an excellent victim, you suddenly

do something - bwww! of course, because they are doing that reactively.

It's intentional, reactively.

So where you have this beggar being very proud, reactively, because of

accomplishing the act of beggary, you'd have somebody who was being very

proud of being a poor man. And then somebody fills his living par - living

room up full of five pound notes. Ooooh!

Oh, boy, this is the one thing - this is the one thing - that he shouldn't

have. We are - had case - case here. I seldom quote cases out loud, but

this - this - this fellow came into possession of something and has been

sick ever since. But most everybody would consider that it was good luck to

have come into this possession. And medically, and by all other rules, this

should have made him well. But it didn't, it made him good and sick

because, of course, it made him unsafe - he felt unsafe. Somehow or another

the possession of these things threatened his survival.

All right. So havingness is also the consideration of how much havingness

should you have in order to survive. And, of course, you have lots of

fellows that if you just filled their pockets full of gold they would be

terrified. That is too much havingness to survive. And although they might

say, "I'd like to have a million dollars," hand them a million dollars. And

they go "Duhuh! Oh-oh! Um-hmm!" Just hand them a million dollars in

one-pound notes, you see, or one-dollar bills. Whew!

The guy. .. Well, preferably do it about dusk, five or six miles from the

fellow's home. And he doesn't have a car. Just do that to somebody, you

see? Oooh! Why, the fellow wouldn't be fifty - fifty yards from the house

before he'd have a nervous collapse. Why every sparrow in every tree would

be lining up its beak on him to drill him dead, you know? It's unsafe.

I just give you that as an exaggerated aspect of what normally happens.

Some child suddenly finds itself part of a rich family and is terrified.

How did he get there? Family wasn't rich when they were born into it, but

got rich afterwards, and now the child's a nervous wreck. It's too much

havingness.

Now, they'll solve the problem some other way: by dying, by getting poor,

by wasting things, by - by trying to make everybody else poor. I'm sure

that Edsel Ford over in America, considers himself utterly overwhelmed by

the magnitude of the Ford Motor Company, because ever since he's had

anything to do with the Ford Motor Company he's done nothing but boob. He's

a complete idiot. They've got a Mercury, so he builds another more

expensive Mercury and calls it an Edsel. He's torn up every textbook and

policy of the Ford Motor Company wherever he operates so as to do exactly

the wrong things. You see? It is not safe for him to be in that position.

So he can't destroy himself - that's bad, so he's got to destroy the

position in some kind of a fashion. How else would you account for the

fellow?

The whole country is starved for a cheap car. The compact is on the way up

so he builds a clunk that is exactly like another Ford Motor Company car,

and calls it the Edsel, and sells it for too much money, and the dealers

all go broke, and he goes broke, and everything goes broke in all

directions.

Now, these - thetans aren't stupid. That's the other thing you must

recognize about thetans. One of their aberrations may be stupidity. But

according to the computation on which they are living, what they are doing

is very clever. And you will always ha - always find, inevitably, that the

very stupid have the most fantastic belief in their great cunning. And you

often find somebody who is very bright who has great belief in his own

stupidity. But these are mostly survival mechanisms of one kind or another.

These are ways of getting along, ways of surviving, ways of living.

All right, not to be torturously long-winded about it. How many changes

could occur - how many things or ways of change could occur - at that point

just after problem? You know, problem! exclamation point. Now, how many

types of changes could there be? Well, you could think of billions of them

in life. But how many mental changes could there be? Well, actually, very

few. They could suppress or enhance certain characteristics or they could

get rid of or adopt certain manifestations. And you've just more or less

got the whole package in those two things - you could get rid of or adopt

certain manifestations. Characteristics, manifestations - there aren't even

two, see? - there's just two of them.

You could get some kind of a manifestation or you could get rid of some

kind of a manifestation, and that's about all a thetan could do mentally.

And what's the earliest step of this? Well, he takes on a valence. He takes

on his valence. And that, of course, is a manifestation. A valence both

limits and exaggerates a person's own skills - exaggerates some, limits

some others.

Anything a thetan has, a thetan can do. Anything a thetan is doing a thetan

can do. You can put it down to that. A thetan can be stupid. It isn't

thetans are always smart but they get aberrated and get stupid. No, thetans

can be stupid. Thetans can be bright. If a thetan can fix up a circuit of

stupidity, therefore a thetan can be stupid. You see? He can only set up

what he can do. He only can do that. That's all he can do. That's his basic

limitation. A thetan can never do any more than he can do. And a thetan can

always do as much as he is doing.

Fellow comes in and he lifts a thousand-pound weight by his little finger

on the stage and twirls it around his head a couple of times and drops it

on the - on his toe, and flexes his muscles and walks off, and so forth

and... Well, that's very interesting. You say, "Well, he can do that

because he has such a strong body." No. No, the body is just a via. That is

just a via. No, a thetan can walk on a stage and pick up a thousand-pound

weight and twirl it around and drop it. That is all there is to that. But

he is so dedicated to the idea that it requires a strongman's body to do

that, that he only walks on the stage and does it when he has a strongman's

body. You see that?

All right. Now, your next little step on the thing is he only walks on the

stage and does that in a strongman' s body when he is feeling - when he -

when he is in training. See, a strongman body has to be in training. Then

he can lift the thousand-pound weight. You get the conditions he's adding

on to these things?

All right. Now, he can only do that when he is in a strongman's body, when

he is in condition, when he is well. Get the additional conditions that are

added on to this. All right. Now we get this additional condition: He can

only walk on the stage and do this when he has a strongman's body, when he

is employed to do it, when his agent has permitted it, when the billing has

been perfectly okay for him to do this, when he is in condition, when he

does not have any problems with the manager or the family; when, you see,

he believes in himself.

He's got - now got a new circuit. You see, he feels powerful tonight. But

on another night he doesn't feel powerful, so you see, he only picks up a

five-hundred pound weight, you see? And he gets very prima donna-ish about

all this, you know? And this gets wilder and wilder. But these are all

vias.

And in actual fact the basic truth of the matter is that a thetan can walk

on a stage, pick up a thousand-pound weight, twirl it around in a circle

and put it down on the stage. That's what this all basically comes down to.

A thetan can do this. But these conditions - limiters, limiters, limiters -

are each one of them the solution to a problem he couldn't otherwise solve.

So limitations or exaggerations are always solutions to problems which are

otherwise relatively unsolvable and which are hanging up. And the problem

got there because of: they wanted to get something done as part of a group,

and in that motion had overts, had withholds, and these resolved in a

problem. And that whole story goes back of each one of these problems which

results in a solution like, has to have a strong-armed body, see? Has to

have a strongman's body. All of these things are just more and more

complicated, more and more complicated, but it's just a summation of

problems. And each time that whole cycle has had to take place for him to

wind up at the other end with some kind of a wild solution.

Now, the solutions you are interested in, as an auditor, are not very many.

You are not particularly concerned that he is in a body, because he's been

in bodies before and he's gotten out of bodies before or he wouldn't be

here. So there can't be very much wrong with him in this particular

department. But what is he doing with this body? Now, that gets very

interesting. In the first place he isn't being the body he is in. He

basically and fundamentally, way back when, is being a valence which is in

a body. Ah, he is not a thetan in a body, he's a valence in a body. He is a

thetan who is a failed thetan, who is a valence which is a failed valence

which is in a body. You get where this goes?

All right. Now let's move ahead just a little bit further, and recognize

that there are new things that enter in which put you out of communication

with him. Now, up to this point we'd find it very easy to communicate with

him. There'd be no difficulty in communicating with him. But these new

problems and solutions with their changes that come after, interpose such

things as constant somatics.

A constant somatic is a solution to some problem, and you're auditing him

through the problem. You've got a constant somatic so there you've got a

problem, and you're auditing him through the constant somatic because his

attention is on the constant somatic because it's on the problem. And his

attention is not on valences so you can't run Routine 3.

Oh, you could find his goal, and you can find his terminal. But I fully

expect there are some people that you'd actually have to run a Problems

Intensive on before you could find the goal and terminal. You will not find

them in Scientology, or able to do any kind of a job of auditing or

anything else. They're really bad-off people. But you could find that

condition. Now, they're just a total circuit, you know? And the valence

just wouldn't be available, nothing else, you see. You won't find those, I

repeat, in somebody who can walk up to the front door and say, "Here I am."

Now, he could be in a circuit. Well, what's a circuit? Well, a circuit is a

kind of a subsidiary valence. A circuit is a mechanism which modifies a

valence. A circuit is a solution to the realization that the valence can

often be wrong, so therefore needs dictation to or needs things hidden from

it. So you've got a circuit. And you set up a valence that can think,

allegedly, and then you set up a circuit to modify the thinking of the

valence. All of which happens, of course, when the - the thetan, as a

valence, has run into a problem where the valence has failed. Do you see

what could happen here?

You see, after the fact of the thetan failing, now everything he adopts

after that is susceptible to failure. And each one of them becomes a

barrier to processing. And a circuit is something which modifies the

thinkingness and doingness of the valence. It's a dictational machine. It's

like you set up a tailor's dummy or something in a window, and the tailor's

dummy is animated. And it's supposed to be able to turn its head backwards

and forwards and shake its finger at the people who are looking outside,

and it's doing this all the time. And now you set up a circuit to keep it

from turning its head quite so fast. See, it's already built in so that it

will turn its head at a certain speed, and will raise its hand at a certain

speed. Now we'll put an entirely new machine over here. We will modify this

dummy, see, with an entirely new machine over here, and wire it in to slow

down the turn of the head, see? Of course, this is rather uncomfortable

because the machinery in the thing is to speed the turn of the head at a

certain speed, and then you put another machine on top of it to turn it at

a slower speed, see?

Now, there's another machine there that, because it is turning its head so

slowly, this new machine is fixed to turn the head up rapidly. So while -

while it is turning its head at this speed, it's got a machine which turns

the head at this speed, but this machine over here turns the head this

speed. And after a while the dummy starts wearing out.

You see what these circuitry things are, you see? They're things to slow

down or speed up. They're things to show or to hide things. They're

occlusion circuits or demonstration circuits; they're picture circuits.

They are all kinds of wild things. They're secondary thinkingness apparati

that modify the basic thinkingness which is built into the valence.

Now, if those circuits get too wild and there's too many of those and it's

all too complicated one way or the other, then the person can modify the

circuit with a somatic in some fashion and do something there. So that,

frankly, if he gets some kind of a circuit that goes operative, he gets a

somatic, and that sort of makes him turn the circuit off. Soon as a circuit

gets operative, and the somatic comes on, and off goes the circuit. And

it's - all kinds of this weird via, via, via, via, speed it up, slow it

down, hide it, show it, do this with it and do that with it.

Now, you get somebody that has this amount of - of bric-a-brac, additives

and subtractives... You get this amount of bric-a-brac which is modifying

the modifier, you see? You've got something that modifies and then

something that modifies that, and then something that modifies that, and

something that modifies that.

Somewhere down along the line, about the level of the somatic I mentioned a

moment or two ago, or any one of these circuits, you would have a hidden

standard. You could have a hidden standard. It knows more than the valence,

which of course knows more than the thetan. Of course, the valence itself

could be crudely classified as a hidden standard, but we don't so classify

it because it is a whole package of thinkingness, doingness, beingness -

that is a valence. It's a whole package. It's complete. You see that

package when you get a profile. And when you don't move off that package

you don't get a profile change. That's all there is to that.

Now, the modifications can be many without becoming hidden standards. A

hidden standard is only qualified this way: It's what knows better, to

which the thetan is paying attention. See, a fellow could have a hidden

standard to which he was paying no attention, therefore it wouldn't be a

hidden standard. You see, you could have a circuit that he never gave any

attention to. Well, it has all the qualifications of modifying his

thinkingness, but it would not slow up processing at all unless he paid

some attention to it. Hey, if he paid some attention to it, then it would

have a modifying characteristic on processing.

Now, the difficulty is this: A concentration on this item - whether it is a

circuit or a somatic or anything else - the concentration on this item can

be so heavy, so thoroughly concentrated and the dependency on that

particular circuit or item could be so tremendously heavy that the thetan

only knew if it knew and if it tells him it's true, but if it doesn't tell

him, it isn't true. And that is what we exactly mean by a hidden standard -

must be a very heavy concentration on it and it must be what tells him.

Now, when you're auditing him, he goes into the cycle of only consulting

it: He does not see you really; he does not hear you, really; he - it's all

set up on vias to such a degree that you're really processing some kind of

a piece of circuitry. It knows, he doesn't.

This produces some of the greatest oddities you ever saw. I mean, an

individual could - he could be standing in the auditing room, as you often

see a newspaper reporter do, and he'll see some demonstration and not even

see it. But such a person could be standing in the room; a person comes in,

sits down in the chair, you take two passes with your hand, and they grow

two legs that they didn't have before, you see? And they walk out of the

room, and the person would ask you, "What was the price of. . ." You expect

him to say, "an intensive," or something like that. He wants to know the

price of the cigarettes you smoke.

This used to absolutely drive me daffy, you know? I'd give some kind of a

demonstration. It'd be a fantastic demonstration, some wild thing would

happen or another, and some newspaper reporter would ask me, you know, very

searchingly and so forth, what - what - what state was I born in. You see,

he'd say - like it just had nothing whatsoever to do with anything

observed, and it was non sequitur to anything he had observed. And seeing

this originally got me onto the track of this sort of thing - not because I

was not getting proper recognition from such people - I began - I began to

wonder if they could see anything.

To some degree everybody's attention is absorbed in various parts of the

bank, to some degree. To some degree they're absorbed. But where a person's

total overwhelm exists, attention is so absorbed that only it knows. So,

they walk into a room, the person who is in the room sets somebody down in

a chair, they throw a sheet over the body. The person who threw the sheet

over the body picks up the sheet, and nothing - no change has occurred. And

says, "There you are." And the person walks out. And you turn around to

this person with a hidden standard and you say, "Isn't that wonderful?" And

he says, Yeah, I guess it is," and so on. "It's probably very wonderful."

He doesn t even know what he's seen.

That is how you can fool such vast numbers of people. You can fool people -

you don't really ever do anything. Why? Because they don't see.

Now, this is more real to you in this wise: If you had any difficulties

with your parents of any kind whatsoever, you had them because you were

assuming they knew you. You were assuming they observed what you were

doing. You assumed they heard what you said. They - you assumed that the

basis of their judgment was based upon the actual fact of your activities.

And after a while you became very confused. Because if you were having very

much trouble with their parents - your parents, they never observed

anything you ever did and they didn't know anything about you at all. They

had somebody else there entirely different.

If you had asked them for a recount of what you had done in any given year

of your life you would have gotten the doggonedest potpourri you ever heard

of. It would have had nothing to do with any part of the fact - not because

you didn't have a different memory, but because they didn't observe

anything you ever did.

Now, their adjudications of what you did do - should do in life are usually

based on not having observed anything you could do in life. So you get into

a hell of a lot - if you'll excuse the French - get into an awful lot of

confusion. You've demonstrated conclusively that you can't dig ditches, and

your parents absolutely insist that that is the very career for you. And

you assume, then, that they have observed that you cannot dig ditches. And

the joker in the deck is, is they've never observed this. They have not

seen you. They have never met you.

What have they met? They are running on a social circuit of some kind or

another. They're running on a whole series of now-I'm-supposed-to that is

dictated by some kind of circuitry. And it runs this way: "If I have a son

or if I have a daughter, why, that person should go to a certain kind of

school and they should do this and they should do that and in life they

ought to do this and the best way for them to survive is that and so

forth.. ." And if you don't compare with all these I'm-supposed-to's - the

pity of it is, you see, you don't even know what these I'm-supposed-to's

are - if you don't compare exactly with these, of course, you're a great

disappointment to your parents. You're an enormous disappointment to your

parents.

Of course, you get baffled in that you might be quite successful in doing

what you are doing. You might be going along fine and be driven half out of

your mind all the time because they keep telling you you're not doing well.

Child goes out, wins a contest of some kind or another. Comes home just

overjoyed, you see, covered with laurels and so forth, and Mama says, "You

know your feet are muddy." And the little girl looks at her feet and, by

George, she doesn't have any mud on her feet. And she - "What is going on?"

and she gets kind of confused along about this point, you see? The truth of

the matter is, Mama has a circuit that says "Children have mud on their

feet." See, it just happens that "You should take care of a child's

appearance at all times," or "A child should always be polite." Or there's

something - some I'm-supposed-to circuit operating like this, you see?

Hasn't anything to do with it.

And you could sometimes appear, you see, in total dishabille - never a

word. The next time you appear, you're neat as a pin, you see, and you get

all, all scolded. Why? Because what the circuit protests against, of

course, activates the circuit. Now, a child is supposed to have good

appearance. So any child who has good appearance gets criticized. You - the

circuits are idiotic, see? They're set up on the basis that the thetan

didn't know, so, what is set in its place is usually pure idiocy. "A

child's appearance should be very good." So a child has very good

appearance and he's criticized. But if his appearance is very bad he's

ignored. See, it's an A = A, you know, it's not the reverse.

And this confuses children, and they don't understand what they're doing

right and when they're doing wrong. You trace it back and you'll find out

that it's just the awfullest mishmash of 8-C you ever heard. It's all

reversed 8-C, and so forth. Little Johnny's sitting in a chair, and he

hasn't made a noise for an hour, and all of a sudden his mother comes in

and says, "Johnny, be quiet now!"

"Well, what have I been doing?" you see, big protest, injustice, betrayal.

All of these things follow immediately in the wake of this sort of thing.

But a circuit is most likely to go into activation on the thing it is

trying to achieve. So a circuit most ordinarily protests when it has won.

It'll protest its own end product at any time.

The basis of this is most circuits are set up on overts and withholds

resulting in a problem and going over into, then, a change of some kind or

another. And of course the circuit will dramatize the problem, or dramatize

the overt and the withhold.

Most things that are protested against, the person will do. We call it

hypocrisy. This fellow goes around, he's always on the platform, he's

always beating the drum, he's always screaming at people, he's always

jawing about secret drinkers. Well, he's got a circuit about secret

drinking. He drinks secretly. See? It's all A = A = A = A. It defies logic

because it isn't logical. Because circuitry is an escape from knowing. It

is knowingness in a substitute for lack of knowing.

When a thetan escapes from knowing he sets up a circuit. When he no longer

wishes to confront life he interposes circuits between himself and life, or

valences between himself and life, or identities between himself and life.

Get the idea? He makes an interposition of some sort. He has thinkingness

done for him. He has beingness and doingness done for him. He wishes to

divorce himself just a little bit from life. So he sets up an interposition

of some kind or another. And when you start to audit him, this gets

terribly important because you are part of life. Aren't you? You're right

there in the room, aren't you, as the auditor? And if you were there in the

room, as the auditor, of course anything you are saying or doing is liable

to get an interposition.

So he sets up the interposition between you the auditor and himself the

case. And you are auditing a circuit from there on. And that is why you

cannot do a pure Routine 3. That is why only a few people go Clear on

straight Routine 3 without preparation.

Now, by getting off his present time problems, his ARC breaks, by

accustoming him to the room and getting his rudiments in, of course he is

less susceptible to this particular phenomenon of an interposition between

himself and life. You cut those things down and you can talk to him for a

while. And that is the most powerful general and common mechanism to make

it possible to talk to the pc, not a circuit. Because circuits go into

action on PT problems and ARC breaks - withholds, that sort of thing, pop a

circuit into view. So you're talking to the circuit, you're not auditing

the pc when the rudiments are out. You get the rudiments in, and for a

short time you'll be talking to the pc.

But people have problems of such magnitude on the immediate backtrack that

it sets up as a permanent circuit. And you're always auditing at the

circuit. And you are making very slow progress. Well, you now have a tool

or a weapon with which to get this out of the road. Understanding the exact

cycle that a circuit comes into being on, you can then get a circuit out.

You find any self-determined change, trace the problem immediately behind

it, flatten that, get the confusion, the withholds and the overts out of

the confused area immediately ahead of it, and you will find out that a

circuit will disappear if done right. And that is a Problems Intensive.

Now, all a Problems Intensive does is pave the way so that you can at least

audit the pc out of the valence he is in. It keeps scraping the top off so

that you can actually pull the bottom out. Okay?

That is the system of aberration which has been operative on the whole

track, and that is how it works and that is what it is, and you have the

tools that get rid of it. And it's never any other cycle, but you have, of

course, different tools that are effective on it. Okay?

Thank you.

Audience:       Thank you.

