Subject: FZ Bible SHSBC TAPES PART 1 06/12 [x2]
Date: 2 Dec 1999 08:06:55 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

SHSBC TAPES PART 1 06/12

**************************************************

St. Hill Special Briefing Course Tapes Part 1

Contents

   New #    Old #   Date     Title

01 SHSBC-1    1   7 May 61 E-Meter Talk and Demo
02 SHSBC-2    2  12 May 61 Assessment
03 SHSBC-3    3  19 May 61 E-Meter
04 SHSBC-4    4  26 May 61 On Auditing
05 SHSBC-5    5   1 Jun 61 Flattening a Process and the E-Meter
06 SHSBC-6    6   2 Jun 61 Flows, Prehav Scale, Primary Scale
07 SHSBC-7    7   5 Jun 61 Routine 1, 2 and 3
08 SHSBC-8    8   6 Jun 61 Security Checks
09 SHSBC-9    9   7 Jun 61 Points in Assessing
10 SHSBC-10  10   8 Jun 61 Question and Answer Period: Ending an Intensive
11 SHSBC-11  11   9 Jun 61 Reading E-Meter Reactions
12 SHSBC-12  12  12 Jun 61 E-Meter Actions, Errors in Auditing

We were only able to check one of these (number 6) against the
old reels.  If anyone has pre-clearsound versions of these
tapes, please check the others and post differences.

**************************************************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************

SHSBC-6  renum 6   2 Jun 61 Flows, Prehav Scale, Primary Scale

FLOWS, PREHAV SCALE, PRIMARY SCALE

A lecture given on 2 June 1961

[Clearsound checked against the old reel.  Omissions marked
">", substitution marked "%"]

> Hi ya Valerie.  How are you doing today Kay?  Good.  I've
> said it.  And

% Thank you.

I was just looking at a car outside that's got a hole in
its fender. And I tried to audit it, and it didn't respond.
So - ... It's in apathy. [Laughter.] (That's what you call
line charging one present time problem out of existence.)

Okay. This is what? The 2nd of June, isn't it?

> And what planet is this?  This is sixty-one planet.

All right. Now I trust you have some good questions today,
and what's the first one? Yes?

Male voice: Regard to energies and flows and the Prehav Scale.

Uh-huh? Yeah?

Male voice: Well, sort of a general question. Well, sort
of - Could you give us some - ?

All right. I'll give you some gen on that. That's a very
simple question and a good one.

We have this kind of a situation in a mind where we have a
phenomenon where an individual has flowed in one direction
too long. Whether that is out or in, he has flowed in one
direction too long. Let's take something on which I have a
fair subjective reality: A writer who has written too much.
You know, he's just written-written-written-written-written.
It's out-out-out-out-out-out.

All right. Let's take another example. Let's take a
shipping clerk, and he ship-ship-ship-ship-ship-ship-ships.

And one fine day he wakes up and he says - the writer says,
"If I have to write one more book, I've had it. I think I
will go off and join the French Foreign Legion." And the
shipping clerk says, "Well, I feel very degraded and I'm
going to quit." Why?

Because these things have flowed in one direction. Well,
it's a phenomenon, an electrical phenomenon really, and we
get an awful lot of our material from the field of nuclear
physics, or used to, and now we're telling nuclear physics.
That is to say, we're in a position now where we know a lot
about energy and so forth, that the boys crawling in and
out of the woodwork at the atomic-energy-university-grant
areas never heard of, and are always quite amazed about.
The phenomena of standing waves, of tendencies of flow,
sizes of particles, or if there are any, and such things as
this, are probably getting better known to us than to other
people.

And you get a ridge because, actually, of the inertia of a
particle. It's no more complicated than that. There's a
little bit of Newton's law of interaction mixed up in all
mental activities by people who have gravity effective on
them. Now, if you're affected by gravity and you don't
float off into the air, then to some degree or another
you're affected by Newton's law of interaction.

Well, that's nothing much to you, nor here nor there, but
actually is the basic reason for - and the postulates causing
this thing - are the basic reason for frozen flows. For every
action there is an equal and contrary reaction.

All right, thetan believes this, so when he pushes a
particle out, he also has the reaction, you see, of the
particle coming back, you see? For instance, we push this
E-Meter, and the E-Meter pushes slightly against us.

Well, Newton's law of interaction is not true, fortunately.
It is only true for objects of comparable size and mass.
The reductio ad absurdum is you stamp against Earth, Earth
stamps against you. Well, I've never had Earth stamp
against me, so - except when I was up in airplanes and got
careless and didn't keep the airplane under me or something
like that, and then it was obvious that I was standing
still and Earth was moving toward me. The point is, here,
that for objects of comparable magnitude - a push against
the E-Meter, you can actually feel it in your hand; there's
a slight backpush.

All right. The facsimiles of these backpushes are
neglected. Your attention is on the E-Meter, don't you see?
Be pushing it. Well, your attention - the attention of the
writer is on pushing out the words and pages, and the
attention of the shipping clerk is putting out books, you
see?

All right. So if this is the case, then they utterly neglect
and rarely as-is - because they're not terribly aware of it -
this little backpush. Every time you throw a book in the
mails, you see, why there was so much effort coming back
toward one, and it's neglected.

Similarly, let's say, the colored gentleman who has a good,
high-paid job: sticking his head through a canvas and
letting people throw baseballs at him. I think that's a
well honored profession of one time or another in carnivals
and so on. All right. So here he has these baseballs coming
in at him all the time - the visible picture, you see, is
made of everything, but his attention goes on the incoming
baseball.

Yeah, but as this baseball is coming in, actually there is
a contrary reaction that he pays no attention to, because
he's interested in the baseball. He's not interested in
that contrary reaction. He wishes there were more of it, if
anything, you see, to slow that baseball down. And the next
thing you know, he will have too many baseballs thrown at
him.

Now, he's actually the - it isn't the injuries of the
baseballs or anything; it's just the fact that he's built
up a ridge in front of his face that consists of not the
incoming baseball, but the resistance going back against
the baseball. You got the idea? Well, it's the resistance
back against that baseball that sticks there, not the
baseballs. So he has too many baseballs thrown at him and
all of a sudden gets a horrible feeling of pushing out that
way.

Similarly, the fellow mailing too many books gets a
horrible feeling of a mysterious, undefinable pushing back
against himself. You've got the idea? And he couldn't
possibly explain what this pushing back against himself is.
He feels like he has pressure on himself.

Why, I had somebody the other day talking about she felt
she had pressure on her face, see? Well, it's just
this - it's the reverse push. So therefore it's inexplicable.
He knows it can't be books, you see, because books go out,
and this pressure he's feeling is coming in.

And the fellow with his head through the canvas: He knows
it couldn't be baseballs because baseballs come in, whereas
this pressure makes him feel like he's losing everything in
front of him. You got the idea?

Well, he'll feel like he's losing everything in front of
him up to a point where he can't lose any more in front of
him without it becoming painful. See, he's got an outpush.
See, the reaction of the mind against this incoming object
is this outpush, this outpush, this outpush.

And the next thing you know, he just figures he can't push
out one more thing. If he did, it'd kill him. He's sure of
this. And at this moment he has a stuck flow. If you ask
him to push out one more thing, he says, "That's
impossible." The one thing in the world he knows he can't
do is push out that one more item, and he goes unconscious.
And that is dope-off. It's flowed too long in any one
direction. It's not a simple mechanism where just "flow too
long in any one direction produces a stuck flow." I've
given you the whole gen of it here. It actually produces a
reverse flow. Flow too long in any one direction produces a
reverse flow to it. You got the idea?

So frankly, at that stage of the game it's a toss up
whether he's going to pass out because you throw a baseball
at him, or he's going to pass out because he resists
something or tries to push something away from him.

Get this exercise: "Now get the idea of a baseball being
thrown at you. Now get the idea of throwing away
something." That's as far as it's going to run without
locking up, you see, because you - now you've got to say,
"Get the idea of a baseball thrown at you. Now get the
idea of throwing away something." What are we doing?

In essence, we're running, really, a flow that is all in
one direction, but we're running the flow itself and his
resistance to it alternately, and it goes flip-flop,
flip-flop, apparently.

Now, we say, "Get the idea of a baseball being thrown at
you." "Thank you." "Get the idea of a baseball being thrown
at you." "Thank you." "Get the idea of a baseball thrown at
you." "Thank you." Now, one of two things is going to
happen: Either the field or the energy particles in front
of his face are all going to go black - see, that's a symptom
of a stuck flow - or he's all of a sudden going to get an
avalanche triggered, and the next thing you know, all the
baseballs that have ever been thrown at him, hit him.

That's an avalanche. Brrrrrrrr! - they come in, you see?
He could just as easily get an avalanche of resistance.
But he'd be in awful bad shape to get the avalanche of
resistance, you got the idea? Actually, what we mean by an
inversion is the avalanche of resistance. You see? The
fellow has no longer any effect from it coming in. He's
only affected by resisting it.

Now, if you want to see some guy in this kind of a
state - and they are around, in practically any case you
could find this mechanism on them - you say to this fellow,
"Now get the idea of resisting a baseball," and he gets the
baseball in his face. Now you say, "Get the idea of a
baseball hitting you," and he feels like he's going to fall
over on his face because he feels himself pushing out. You
got the idea? These flows have exactly turned around. And
that's what we know as an inversion, and that's actually
why we call it an inversion. Because it's a flow gone
backwards.

Now, postulates follow this kind of a thing, you see, and
the fellow will change his mind on the postulate. Instead
of interest, he gets a peculiar interest. Well, it follows
down the mechanics of this other thing.

Now, why don't we run O/W, O/W, O/W, O/W. Of course, O/W is
just dandy because that's out, it's in, it's out, it's in;
it's reach, withdraw, reach, withdraw, but only from one
person. And let me tell you something about reach and
withdraw from one terminal: It doesn't account for all of
the motions possible.

Now, as long as the individual is below change, O/W is
effective. And he only runs well on O/W from what he caused
and what he withheld - as long as he's below change. That's
the make-break point of O/W. "O/W, A Limited Theory" - I
call your attention to that bulletin. I give you another
datum right on the top of that bulletin right now, and that
is that the limited theory of O/W stops at the level of
change. There is the point below which O/W is 100 percent
effective, and above which it ceases to be effective.
Change is the explanation of it all. Why?

Well, I'm sorry. I don't feel as glib today as I did the
other day when I explained it to somebody very glibly. But
it was sort of interesting. It's a sort of an involved
explanation, and there'll probably be a better explanation
for it, but I explained it perfectly and then I didn't
listen to myself. And - but it was - it's like this: the
outflow and the inflow gets locked up in some particular
fashion. And then below this level, the individual is
totally individuated: he can no longer change his
viewpoint; he can no longer experience change; and the
moment he becomes very afraid of a change occurring -
leaving him on some individuated point of the bracket -
.. And as they go crazy, they don't go down from O/W.

On a lunatic, a real raving lunatic, you'd probably have to
find the bracket that was live, and it would be way below
O/W. See, it'd be some, oh, I don't know, any one of
thirty-two sides of the bracket, you see. It would be what
others were doing to others that would be the only side of
the bracket that would work. It'd be the others doing it to
others or something like that, and then that would be
terrible. They have great reality on others doing it to
others, and as you shook his mind up about it a little bit,
you'd just shift him around on the bracket and he'd say,
"Well isn't it terrible how I caused World War II." When
you know personally he was - he had a body in pawn on Mars at
the beginning of it, you know. He'll all of a sudden come
up with obsessive cause. Well, actually that's a high
point, but it stays in for quite some time. As long as the
individual is allergic to change, he individuates, because
the change on various flow lines are extremely productive
of these ridges.

Let's say the individual is fluid on the subject of change.
He doesn't mind change. He can handle change; he can
experience change. So therefore, the baseball coming in and
hitting the fellow with his head through the canvas - well,
if he could experience all the changes that were there, he
wouldn't resist it.

But if he starts resisting the changes and starts setting
up this Newton's law of interaction, the next thing you
know, why, he's halfway around the bend on the subject of
O/W. He thinks there will be a consequence of everything he
does. He just knows he won't be able to breathe without
there being a consequence. All he's got to do, therefore,
to go through life - it's a perfect solution - is that every
time you pass a sporting goods store, you don't look in the
window and see a baseball lying there on display, you see?
That's a good one! That's fine! Now, we know that. That's
safe. You know? He knows there's going to be a consequence
to what he does - everything he does.

So he knows better than to walk down blocks that have
sporting goods stores in them. And then he knows better
than to go downtown where there might be that block. And
then he knows better than to go out in the yard, because,
you see, he might see the town. And we get the odd
phenomenon of somebody being stuck in the house, and then
we can't figure out: Why is this man stuck in the house?
And we start running houses. No, it's baseballs.

Now there's the goofball reach of this, and it's
practically unplumbable. But you can follow it down with
an E-Meter and find out why the individual is stuck in the
house: He's trying to avoid being hit in the face with
baseballs that are no longer being thrown at him, and this
is very logical. "All - all horses sleep in bed" sort of a
proposition.

By the way, that's becoming such a stable datum that
somebody told me the other day that they were going to
start making Simmons beds for horses.

Anyway, here's - here is your change. So when an individual
can no longer tolerate change, he becomes afraid of
consequences, because the consequences of change, of
course, are change. And he can no longer stand by
consequences, so therefore, he's going to have
consequences. So the moment that he's worried about
consequences, why, he's into the O/W bracket. And that's
why everybody on this planet can run O/W so easily at lower
stages. But as you go up on SOP Goals, you run out of this.

And I have not burdened your brains, and I have let you
waste some auditing time, by making you run all brackets
from the beginning on everything, because the Prehav Scale
is fairly rapid and it will very shortly catch up with all
brackets. You got the idea? The change gets level for a
level of the Prehav Scale. In other words, a tolerance
comes up. And all of a sudden, instead of it only being
effective on himself to others, it becomes effective on
other brackets.

Now also in view of the fact that the individual can be
stuck on these other brackets and then it'll bring it back
onto himself, for a case below average or a case above
average, it is safest to run brackets. You got the idea?
And for the average case, you waste a little time running
brackets. But you had better not tangle your wits up with
at what point he ceases to have the 0/W mechanism sort of
thing function - cease functioning. At what instant, on
what subject does he have this function? Well, I couldn't
calculate it myself, so I'm not going to expect you to. So
the safe thing to do is run brackets. You got the idea?

So fear of consequence, which is to say fear of change,
results, then, in a resistance to change which brings in
Newton's law of interaction. The guy must resist changes or
motions. So as soon as he has to resist changes or motions,
he starts setting up these ridges as I described to you at
the first part of that - this statement, you see. And when
these ridges are set up, the only way to take them apart is
take them apart on both sides alternately. You take apart
the push out, you take apart the push in. Therefore, it
doesn't matter whether the individual is stuck on pushing
things out or stuck on pulling things in; you're going to
take apart both of it anyhow. And then it doesn't matter if
he's really spinny on some point or another, as most any
mind is, another bracket out here to another. You know,
this interchange out here. He's dispersed outside of
himself and this is really the one he's running and - while
he's sitting over here and not running it. So it's best to
have that bracket functioning too, don't you see? And you
save time and you don't bog a case.

Now, what it requires to run the exact number of commands
necessary to get the exact flow out of the road is actually
beyond your ability to detect at this stage of the game.
But running all sides of a bracket evenly takes care of all
the flows you will encounter without jamming any. So it's a
way out of the rat race.

Now, if an individual goes unconscious - which is to say he
can't confront the change - if he goes unconscious at some
point while you're running a good five-way bracket, one of
two things is wrong: He's either got a bracket that is so
unbalanced that it won't take both sides of it. (So, well,
all right. So what. So he goes unconscious. He'll recover.)
Or more particularly, he isn't doing one of your commands.
And in view of the fact that this is the only one that can
get in your road - that he isn't doing one of the commands of
the brackets somewhere - then when a pc goes unconscious, you
should always check if he is having tremendous difficulty
with and isn't answering one side of the bracket. And if he
isn't, all right! Don't hang him with it. Just check him
over, you know?

The way you do that is you ask - just once around - you ask
him the question, "Did you - ..." not "Have you been answering
it," but "Did you answer that?" Just once around. "Now, did
you answer that to your satisfaction?" And the fellow says,
"Well, uuuh, no, I - as a matter of fact, I never have been
able to answer that leg of the bracket."

In other words, you're - you're inadvertently guilty of
having given a number of auditing commands without getting
an answer, and you must always - one of the basic rules of
auditing is you always get an answer to your auditing
command. One command, one answer. One answer, one command,
also.

Although that sometimes gets disobeyed when you run into a
very looped up bracket that'll avalanche. You know, you're
on some hot subject with the pc, and it goes brrrrrt! and
you've got a whole bunch of them. And the funniest thing I
ever saw was a pc in a staff Clearing Course one time,
sitting there, he said, "I can't answer the what have you
failed to help, you see, because it just keeps going
through my mind..." And he looked very round-eyed at the
auditor and he said, "It just keeps going through my mind:
'Who, who, who, who, who, who.' " You just triggered the
automatic side of the bracket. That's all there is to it.

Now, does that answer your question, Ken?

Male voice: Yes it does. Thank you.

All right. We got another question? Okay. Gee, I'm glad
you're getting smarter. Yeah, Jan?

Female voice: One came up today which was on just how much,
on American meter, the relaxation of the pc's hands while
running a process may influence the tone arm position, and
whether it's just okay to allow for this. And I checked how
much it just was with somebody not being audited, and
whether you could just allow for that relaxation of the
hands as being indicative of some mass shifting, so you
count it as process effect anyway. See what I mean?

Don't worry too much about it.

Female voice: Just don't worry about it.

It's just like I ask a pc, "Now, all right. Now, have you
got a withhold?" And he wraps both cans around his head and
changes the shape of his feet and - and kicks the E-Meter and
backs up and coughs a couple of times and so forth. Well, I
say it read. It read. I ask him again just to make sure. It
always does. Similarly, this is just taken into the gross
error of the situation. Trying to eliminate anything like
that as an error would be nearly impossible.

Female voice: Yeah. It amounted to practically half a tone
on an American meter...

Sure.

Female voice: ... just a relaxation of the hands that
wasn't even visible, particularly.

That's right. I wouldn't worry about it too much...

Female voice: Yeah. All right.

.. because they're not going to relax and tighten their
hands for the bracket.

Female voice: Yeah.

You know. You've got a meter - an inherent error in any meter
that has to do with the pc being connected to it. And it's
not a very gross error.

You can do some weird things. You can have the pc hold to
the tips of the electrodes just with his thumb and finger,
and get one of the highest tone arms you ever cared to
see - nice, heavy, high tone arm with a heavy needle. Yeah,
you can just have him hold - just hold the tips of the can,
just barely touching both cans, and you get a very tough
looking pc. But you can get a workman with calluses and
have him hold onto the cans, and you don't get a tough
looking pc because of the calluses.

The size of the person's hand might have something to do
with it. A lot of factors could enter into it, but actually
it's not gross. It's not enough to bother with. The E-Meter
tells you most everything you want to know. And in view of
the fact that you're adjudicating basically on reaction of
the meter over a given period of time, we can assume that
the pc over any given period of time - if the process is
flat - is more or less static. So you see, it wouldn't tell
you the process was flat or not flat when it wasn't flat or
something of this sort. It's not even anything that you
should watch for but you should do this with an E-Meter,
just like it says in E-Meter Essentials. That it isn't
kidding. That's a whole drill.

You should actually get somebody to sit down and go through
all the body motions that there possibly could be, and
handle the cans in all sorts of weird ways, and lift their
fingers and put them back again, and cough and sneeze, and
just watch what happens to the needle and tone arm of the
meter. And then, that is the best way of sorting out
body-motion reactions on a meter, and you can actually get
so good at them that you don't... The only one I have to
look at is when I'm getting a rock slam, or I start to get
a - I'll get a momentary rock slam of some kind or another.
I will normally look over at the pc's hands to find out if
he lifted his finger, because that can be approximated.
You can lift your finger and get a rock slam, but it isn't
constant enough and you will all of a sudden see that it is
the hands or it is the rock slam. You can differentiate
there, too. But always make sure that it isn't somebody
going - playing Morse code on the - on the electrodes.

Now there's one more point about this. You can take both
cans in one hand, as you do in these "point out things,"
and you will find out that the left side of the body and
the right side of the body, and the right side of the body
versus the left side of the body are all different. And
this is apparently of great astonishment to many auditors,
and it upsets them no end. Well, I don't know. So the - you
remember the old epicenters? It just means the - the guy's
epicenters are out, that's all. If you wanted to know if a
pc's epicenters were in good shape or not in good shape,
have him hold both cans in his right hand, then have him
hold both cans in his left hand - put Kleenex between them,
and both cans in his left hand, both cans in his right
hand - see if the read is the same. If the read isn't
the same, his epicenters are out.

What are you going to do with this today? Nothing. It's one
of those little things we cannot live without knowing. You
know, it's like reading the almanac. But I've seen - I've
seen auditors get quite concerned with the fact this
happens. It also will read differently if you shove them
under the pc's armpits. It'll also read differently if you
hold him down, take his shoes and socks off, and
adhesive-tape the cans to the soles of his feet. It'll read
differently, but only in terms of how much resistance it's
measuring.

Now I can imagine it one day, if this E-Meter ever gets
into the hands of the government, that is about the - 50
percent of the populace will probably be getting their
E-Meter checks that way. The cops will jump on him and the
fellow says, "I won't pick up the cans," and the cops will
jump on him and hold him down and adhesive-tape the cans to
the soles of his feet and find out if he murdered his
grandmother. And because the guy is resenting it... Anybody
who would do that probably couldn't read a meter anyhow,
and if he was a member of one of these existing
governments, why, he'd then, of course, say, "Well, it had
a reaction. Ah-ha! Murdered his grandmother. That's good
enough for us. Hang him!" Actually, they - that wasn't what
they were after him for; it was because he hadn't - he
hadn't not paid taxes. Yeah, it'd be a pretty confused
picture.

Was there another question?

Female voice: Well, it was just that today we found out how
to produce a perfectly steady, continuous rock slam on a
meter with a body reaction.

Good.

Female voice: ... with the cans.

How do you do it?

Female voice: Just take the cans in both hands and keep
rotating them, like this. And you get a beautiful, steady
rock slam that just goes on and on.

Good enough. All right. All right. Take the cans in both
hands and twiddle them, and rotate them round...

Female voice: Just goes round and round.

.. and round and round and round and round, and you get a
rock slam. That's worth knowing. It's a good way to
demonstrate a rock slam. It's worth knowing how to
demonstrate any of these phenomena. Very interesting.
Okay, is there anything else?

Female voice: Ron.

Yes?

Female voice: I would like to have something on tape with
regard to why the various levels are on the Prehav Scale.
Because some people come up to me and they say, "Why is
this Create here?" You see, and I have to tell them, "Well,
this is obsessive create, you see?" And I'd like to have...

'Tisn't, you know? It's reactive create.

Female voice: Well, reactive create, yeah.

All right, that's good.

Female voice: All right.

I'll answer that.

Female voice: Yeah.

Why are the levels on the Prehav Scale on the Prehav Scale?
That's a pretty broad question. I'm not laughing at Suzie
but I just suddenly realized that somebody asking that
question, that would be an interesting question to bring
up. Holy cats!

Female voice: No, I just wanted the levels gone through, so
I can take...

Yeah, well, that's - that's approximately it. That is the
same question.

Female voice: Right.

Boy! How much time we got here? Well, I'll tell you, I've
been studying the mind for a number of years and there are
various phenomena have been noted. And these phenomena are
not necessarily in agreement with a sane and normal
society, the way it thinks it operates. And that's why
we're winning, because with this sane and normal society
that everybody thinks is operating, nobody's winning.

So you see, there would be - basically and foremost, we would
have had to have recovered some of the broad differences
between how people think it ought to be and how it is. Now,
if we've recovered this broad difference between how we
think it ought to be and how it is, then, of course, we can
as-is some of the difficulties and upsets of a human being.
But if we stay with how it ought to be, or how we're
educated to believe it should be; ah, we're hung with these
alter-ises.

Now we've got in the Prehav Scale, pretty close, actually,
the way it is, and we haven't got in the scale the way it
ought to be at all. So it comes in with a dull crash to
find God at the bottom of the Prehav Scale. What? Cause and
then Faith.

Oh, I'll give you an idea. I'll give you a perfect
substantiation. I don't hang around on - on the backs of
auditor's chairs ready to stick out my chest like a pouter
pigeon and pat myself on the back saying I was right. I
merely make a disgusting habit out of being right, and I
sort of take it as a matter of course when it works out
that way - although it's usually very interesting to me
that it did work out. It seems curious sometimes.

But it's like this: A pc the other day in an HGC was
audited on Faith, and he blew straight out of his head, of
course. Where would you think a level was, that the first
moment that an individual touched it, he would sort of,
kind of disappear out of the body and away and gone and
here and there and everyplace else - wouldn't you say that
was a pretty low level?

And yet that has been the most highly advertised commodity
for the last two thousand years that anybody has been
trying to sell. You talk about selling blue sky. Everybody
has been rushing up and down the streets with a nickel on
the drum selling "Faith! Faith! Faith! Faith! You've got to
have faith! You've got to have faith!" We've got something
here in which you don't have to have any faith to have it
work, and that is, of course, the most astonishing thing in
Scientology.

So, here comes Faith: I put it on the bottom of the Prehav
Scale because it belongs there, because it's a
non-observational level. It is the most non-observational
level there is. There is no other level that is as least -
as less observational than Faith. Everybody's got faith.
See?

Well, by definition, faith is accepting something without
inspection or observation, and no checkup of any kind. Now,
that isn't anything wrong with faith. There isn't any -
there isn't anything wrong with doing this. If you didn't
have some confidence in your fellow man and walked around
a little bit blindfolded, you'd never get these surprise
engrams. But I don't mean to be sarcastic. The thing
actually is there. It isn't that Ron put it there. It's
where it is. So there it is. All right.

Now let's take up this next thing - as long as it's amongst
us girls here - let's take up this thing called, if you'll
excuse me, God. All right. Let's take a one-Akhenaton
[Egyptian Pharaoh ruled 1372-1354 B.C.] proposition. See,
there's only one and there he is, and he caused everything.
Get that now: he caused everything. Do you realize what
shape that god would be in right at this moment if he did
nothing but make and create things, and you could never
reach him and never say anything to him? Now, what do you
think would happen?

I'd say that anything - if it was just one thetan that was
called upon to make all these solids and spaces, what kind
of a duress must this fellow be under to have to propitiate
the lot of us that much? I think if there's anybody spun
in, it must be this god.

You look at all the signs and analyze it anyway you can in
running pcs or looking at life, and you'll find out at once
that this cause - you know, just cause, you know? Like that.
"I'm going to hit you with the thunderbolts and you can't
hit me." Brother, what that would do to a thetan! So I
figure God plowed in a long time ago.

Now, that's an awful comment for me to have to make but
that's - that happens to be - actually happens to be my full
belief on the thing. I've looked it all over from every side,
and I can't get away from this opinion that if there was one
God, man, he's had it!

And I even thought one time of, gee, you know, we could
whip together a handy, jim-dandy little religion here in
the society for the resurrection of God, see, on the basis
that the poor fellow plowed himself in helping us all out,
and that we should give him a hand now. I know this all
sounds very loopy and very ridiculous, but that is why that
level is there. It works there.

Now anybody who is on an obsessive cause is practically
nuts. Now, we are talking about, of course, the reactive
reactions. This E-Meter tests reactive reactions and that's
all it tests. So if we had nothing but analytical reactions
on a scale, then the scale would be of no use to us
whatsoever. So we're looking for the deep-seated things.
The Prehav Scale is actually the reactive scale, the
reactive bank scale.

When an individual is at length able to have, he doesn't
have to have a bank. So of course, the bank disappears at
the point Have. So there wouldn't be anything to measure of
any kind whatsoever if we measured it on the analytical
scale. But there isn't anybody in this corner of the
universe that I know about right now that knows what that
analytical scale really is except our Axioms 1 and 2.
That's the best description of it.

So the analytical Have scale - above Have, the analytical
scale would simply be Axioms 1 and 2. Those are the only
basic truths there are. Those are fundamental truths. If
anything is true, then they're true. All other truths are
the result of postulates, considerations and agreements. So
as a result, it would just depend on what a bunch of
thetans got together and agreed would be on that scale.
That's - that's the whole thing. And they'd say, "Well,
this is the scale and we're going to have saucepans at this
level and we're going to have chimney pots at that level
and we're going to have singing 'Dixie' at this level and
that's our scale." And in view of the fact that they were
analytical and could change their minds and weren't very
serious about it anyhow, of course, that would be the scale.

No, we're talking about the fixed, driven-into-concrete,
now-I'm-supposed-to, this-is-it, can't-be-violated,
this-is-why-we're-here scale and that's the Prehav Scale.
And this is the order of the value of postulates which are
fixed postulates and which are not usually changeable and
have never been changeable in the absence of Scientology.
And that's what that scale is all about. But as far as
that's concerned, I think it's a quite remarkable scale.

Now, at some time in the past, at the beginning of track
sometime, this scale must have been dreamed up just about
like that. Now, to recover the scale again is quite a
trick. Now, I'm not trying to tell anybody that all levels
that are on the present Prehav Primary Scale that should be
there are there. There might be some levels that aren't
there. I could think of a dozen to put in offhand, but how
much time have auditors got to assess the Primary Scale?
And they're all on the Secondary Scale anyhow now.

Now, there are also some repeating levels on that scale.
For instance, at Cause, you might not get a fall at Cause
and you would get a fall on Blame and Blame was on the
original scale, you see. So you have to watch that Primary
Scale rather alertly. But there's harmonics. So you'll get
more drops on the new Primary Scale with its sixty-six -
sixty-five levels - you'll get more drops going up and down
it, than you would get on the old scale, because there are
some action words in it, rather than conditions.

There's another use to this scale that I haven't burdened
anybody's wits with yet - by the way, just in passing I'll
comment on it - and that is a combination inside the Primary
Scale. And man, that can get so involved that it is
marvelous. Let's supposing you assess No Motion - this is the
most flagrant example. Let's supposing you assess No Motion
and as you're assessing you found out Agree fell and -
falls and No Motion falls. Now you go into the Secondary
for No Motion and then into the Secondary for Agree, and
you find which two falls on that, and you'll get some of
the most remarkable combinations of commands you ever heard
of. You just try it sometime. You won't believe some of them.

You can't run No Motion all by itself. The pc is just liable
to run into a brick wall. So you can combine it with almost
anything that is on the scale, but it's usually Like,
Dislike, Agree or Disagree. But remember you could combine
it with anything on the Like, Dislike, Agree, Disagree
Secondary Scales, which gets pretty remarkable. And then No
Motion could be assessed all the way out onto its Secondary
Scale, and you'd get some word for No Motion. And you just
look it up when you see these scales and you'll howl with
laughter because it makes some of the most fantastic
combinations. But listen, it's going to make sense to somebody.

All right. Well, now, I hope - I didn't mean to slight your
question in any way because it should be stated. I haven't
given any lectures, done any talking about this Prehav
Scale. It's just sort of grown and the only lecture I know
of about it - or, the only lectures I know of about it -
are in the Johannesburg Congress tapes and it's advanced so
far now beyond those that there's hardly any recognizing it.

Its levels may not be all exact. They might not be the
exact level wherein, but they don't have to be. There's no
stress on this. Now, if I ever find one of them out, I'll
put it right and tell you about it. But it usually is
pretty good. The top of the scale is the top of the scale
and the bottom of the scale is sure the bottom of the
scale. And individuals will start to get a rise as you go
up that scale at certain levels just like they did on the
original Prehav. So all is pretty well with it. I'm very
happy with it.

Does that answer the question?

Female voice: Mm.

Anything else about it?

Female voice: Mm-mm.

You sure?

Female voice: Mm-hm.

All right. Okay. Is there anything else?

All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. And have a very,
very good weekend, will you?

Audience:Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


