

 


THE ITSA LINE (CONT.)

SHSBC 297 renumbered 326

A lecture given on 21 August 1963

(80 min)

[checked against the old level 0 cassettes, omissions marked
with ">"]


[Applause]

> Well you should have a demonstration today you know.
> But Reg was feeling pretty quesy there.  He's having
> good case gain, so we didn't want to have to demonstrate
> on him, you see.  But any of you that are feeling especially
> bad or something like that, we can always give you a
> TV demonstration.

What's the date?

Audience: August 21st.

21st. 21st August A.D. 13.

> New staff member here.  How you doing Joe?

All right. We could cover an awful lot of stuff here. Be
very easy to do.

The main things in which you are involved at the present
moment probably look far more complicated to you than they are.

I'm going to talk to you some more about the tone arm and
the itsa line, and forms of sessions.

Things look to you a lot more involved than they actually are.

Sitting somewhere back of every thetan's bank is some
tremendous insecurity in which he believes implicitly that
the universe is dangerous, or that he himself is in danger
or that he cannot live or survive as a powerful being. And
whatever that state is, and however that state is created
originally is not particularly germane to this lecture.

But the discovery of the itsa line may look to you to be a
highly simple little thing, perhaps even a duplication of
psychoanalysis. After all, they talked. And if you didn't
know anything about the itsa line, you could draw all sorts
of wild conclusions, you see? Make the mistake of saying,
"Well, it's a communication line, and therefore any
communication line is an itsa line, and therefore if you
let anybody talk about anything, why, he will get better."

We already know if you let a fellow talk on an entheta line
very long, he'll run his havingness out the bottom. So the
complexities of the itsa line are really quite something.
It sits on a tremendous amount of technology, but in itself
is very simple to understand. There's nothing much to
understanding it. If you understand it you'd see actions
like this very readily and immediately, and these actions
would be something like this:

Pc said, "I - I don't know uh ... whether it was ...
Let's see, now, it was uh ... uh ... twenty, twenty, twenty 
uh ... I guess about twenty years ago. And uh ... the fellow 
said uh - I don't know what he said, but I know what I think 
about it. I - I - I know that uh ... I - I know I think it 
was a big swindle of some kind or another. And uh ... Come to 
think about it, I don't know whether I said that or he said that."

Auditor: "It reads that he said it."

Oh, wait a minute. What happens at this point? What
occurred there, exactly? Well, you know at once what
occurred, if you know the itsa line. The auditor put in the
itsa with the meter, leaving the pc in a zone and area of
insecurity.

Now, we say, all right, the line plot. The line plot: that
tells the pc what items are in the GPM.

See, just like that, see? So obviously we say, well, this
to some degree puts in the itsa line for the pc. Well, no,
no. That could be said to, but we get across the
proposition of the lesser of two evils. If you've ever seen
a pc wrapped around a telephone pole with undisclosed
charge from running a GPM he knew not what of, or did not
know any of the elements of, you will use line plots.

If the thing is a known line plot, we will use it. Why?
Because that was a predesigned plot in the first place. It
was an other-determined design - you understand that
somebody else determined the design. What's important about 
it is the charge that is on it, and what's important in the 
auditing is to get off the charge and get the pc to identify, 
to his own reality, that itsa.

See, if the line plot you handed him on a sheet of paper
didn't agree with the thing he was running, you will very
shortly hear about it. He can get wrapped around a
telegraph pole with great speed. But that's a shadow of
putting in an itsa line, isn't it? That's a shadow of
putting in the itsa line with the pc - but a necessary action.

Now, I'll give you its similar borderline: Pc says, "Oh,
it's twenty years ago, it was fifteen - no, it's eighteen ... 
eighteen, four ... twenty, twenty-two ... It's
twenty-two year ... I think it was twenty-two year ...
No, no. It - it must have been twenty-five—thirty. No, uh ... 
twenty-one ... I - I don't know. I don't know. I just
don't know when it was. (sniff)" 

He quit, see? He quit cold.

What you going to do? Sit there with a pc who has quit
cold? Or are you going to say, "All right, I'll give you a
hand. Was it more than twenty years ago, less than twenty
years ago? Was it twenty years ago? All right, it's more
than twenty years ago. Is it more than twenty-five years
ago? Less than twenty-five years ago? Less than twenty-five
years ago. You got some idea of it now?"

"Yeah! It was twenty-three years ago."

Or, "Was it more than twenty-five? Less than twenty-five?
It was less than twenty-five. Twenty-three? Twenty-three? 
I'm getting a read here on twenty-three."

"Yeah. It was twenty-three."

Get that? So you didn't totally put in the itsa line. See,
you could start putting the itsa line in and the pc catches
the ball, put it almost totally in and the pc catches it,
see, and get right onto the hour and the minute, and the pc
never caught it, but at least you don't have something
wrong-dated. And those are the gradients of putting in the
itsa line. And the last one - it's a little bit of a lose to
have to put it all the way in for the pc, see?

All right, now, look at the length of time you and other
fellows around have been stumbling around on this planet.
There's a number of thousands of years. And the number of
thousands of years you've been in the Marcab Confederacy
are quite numerous. They probably run up to two or three
hundred thousand years that you've been inside this system.
And let me call to your attention, never during that time
could you put your foot on the first step of the road which
led back to a better life and some happiness and freedom,
see? You couldn't get a foot on that road at all.

All right. Right now you have technology. You have a map.
The map has got all kinds of blank spots in it, but
nevertheless, there's the type of map it is, don't you see?
And those are persuasions toward an itsa line. And the only
time you totally lose - the only time you totally lose - is
when you have to put the whole itsa line in.

Give somebody the pattern for a goal: All right, he has to
list for the actual goal in that sequence and find it. And
he has to list for and get the top oppterm, to make it, in
order to fit the pattern, and then he's got to fit the
pattern together. And this is an awful lot of itsa. See?
Well, all right, so you've got the preprinted pattern. Give
him this, and he just reads it off. You understand? This is
less desirable, but it's still feasible.

All right, now let's put it totally in. Let's put it
totally in. Let's just hit him with a lightning bolt so
that he can't contact any of the facsimiles in it, and we
have medical psychiatry. See, the evil involved in this is
putting in an itsa line in such a way as to have no
self-determinism, no power of choice left in the pc at all.
Total wipeout of power of choice, don't you see?

Now, you can fall short of that in various degrees. Little
kid is going around, see? He's real unhappy about the whole
thing, he's real unhappy about life and he's walking around
in circles and so forth. And you say to him, "That is your
bed." Well, you haven't really done very much for him, but
you have improved his state of mind or his peace, see? Just
to that degree. You understand? You say, "That is your bed."

Nevertheless, you have put in the itsa line. He himself has
not found out that it is his bed, you see? But look, he's
still very happy to have the bed.

Now, when we get down into pure, unadulterated evil, we get
a denial of the itsa line and we go into aberration,
creation of. See, this whole thing inverts, and we get
KUCDEI Zero F - that whole scale of means of perverting the
itsa line.

Now, those means, well, include an inability to ever find
anything, an inability to reach anything, and so forth.
Well now, medical psychiatry (to amend what I was saying a
moment ago) is of the inclination that it is better, you
see, for nobody to have anything to do with anything, see?
See that? Now, look at that as an inversion. That's an
inversion of the fact.

Now, the aberration of this line - perversion of this itsa
line - has to be very direct in order to be very aberrative.
You have to pervert the line, you see - just outrightly put
in something false, or put nothing there, you see, and so
on, or inhibit very directly, and you have to work at it.
It has to be worked at and so on. Given the slightest
chance, why, the pc will start putting in his itsa line.
But what does he put his itsa line in on?

All right, let's take Freudian analysis: He puts in his
itsa line on childhood sexual incidents.

They're not aberrative! Anybody get anyplace? Old Papa
Freud did contribute something. He said there was a
possibility. Great, let's applaud him for that.

But he was putting the itsa line in in directions that
didn't wind up with anything, and then after he got through
he put the line in, totally; the practitioner put the line
in. See, he said, "The reason why you are aberrated now is
we have finally found out that you had a fetish going.

You had a fetishism. And actually, your little brother's
right shoe has aberrated your whole existence, and that is
why you are always talking about the feet on chairs, you
see? And now we've got this all explained, and you are better."

Now, that's all very fine, but he didn't look at the
hypnotic character of the statement "You are better."
That's putting in the itsa line.

All right. We got some guy walking around in circles out
here. (Let's take a look at these various gradients of
putting in the itsa line for somebody; you'll gradually see
what I'm talking about and what I'm driving at here.) Got
some guy walking around in circles and, man, he doesn't
know which way to turn. He's got lumbosis and he's been
aberrated by hearing of a psychiatrist when he was young
and he's got all kinds of things, you see. He's having a
hard time - having a hard time. And you say something can be
done about it.

Well, you've put in some variety of itsa line, haven't you?
And that's what you call a hope factor. And this guy very
often responds to this, and he feels much happier about
this, don't you see? You see that - that the hope factor,
then, is to that slight degree putting in the itsa line,
see? It's not really much an itsa line. But you're saying,
"It is not - it is not hopeless!" See? You're so of putting
in a negative line for him a little bit there, and you
carry him along.

You see, as we look at this problem, we'll see that there
are various degrees of putting in the itsa line for
somebody. See, there are various degrees of this and these
things vary from the very, very evil - which is to say, hand
a guy pomegranate and say, "That's a bomb." See, that's
putting in a false itsa line. They vary from that up to,
well, making it impossible for him to put it in (That's a
lower grade, making it impossible for the person to put in
an itsa line.) Varies up to the little necessary actions
necessary to begin the flow of the itsa line.

See, and these little necessary actions are such as "Start
of session." And the basic intent is what makes the
difference. That's the first fundament difference, although
this, too, can go too far.

But the basic intent is what makes the most fundamental
difference. Do you intend to improve this person's itsaing
ability, or do you intend to knock it into a cocked hat?
Which? So it begins right there with the intention. And
that gives you the difference between the cowboys in the
white hats and the cowboys in the black hats, see? And it's
right there, man, bang! Intention: decrease this person's
ability to itsa - cowboys in the black hats. Intention: by
some or any means, to improve this person's ability
itsa - cowboys in the white hats. That's good and evil,
defined in terms the itsa line. That's the difference
between freedom and slavery, that's the difference between
making freemen and making slaves. You make slaves by the
intention to decrease the ability to put in the itsa line.
That's how you make a slave. And that gives you the whole
textbook of how to make slaves right there, complete with
gold letters and a chain-pattern cover.

And the other way is to improve the person's ability to
itsa. In other words, to identify, to spot, to find out.
And there we have that point from which we can separate the
Scientologist from the medicos, we can separate the decent
civilizations from the lousy ones; we can go right on
through there.

This quarter of the universe, by the way, is suffering from
an overdose lousy civilization. See, that's what it's
suffering from. It apparently has been recently conquered
in recent times (in the last few hundred thousand years) but
those who were conquered had already been - their
governmental action had already been set up for their own
failure, see? They'd been set up be conquered by using,
themselves, mental technology which made slaves. They
implanted their own troops. Oh-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho,
ah-ah-ah-ah-a ah-ah-ah.

"We're going to plant somebody up to be a loyal soldier, to
fight bravely, to never give up his body so long as it is
alive, to be true to the empire."

We're going to plant somebody, are we? Remember, every one
of those items we put in, to stick, has to have a negative
item! And that doesn't just cut it down 50 percent, that
puts it in the betrayal line. It cuts it down enormously
because some empire that would do this to somebody gets
their support lines giving them the itch, see? "Yeah, we'll
help the general out," you know? He him into the car so
that he goes through the other side and falls out the
opposite door, you know? It's an accident, you know? When
the planes take off half their motors don't run, you know?
They're just running up against total sabotage, because
they've already got a slave empire.

And you may be able to force a group by slavery and so
forth into semblance of a civilization, but it's only ever
a semblance; there's never anything to which anybody
freely, wholeheartedly contributes. It has no strength, it
has no power because remember, 50 percent of the implant
is "Don't be a good soldier." And then the fact that the
implant occurred at all, of course, is enough to knock
one's loyalty in a cocked hat.

Let's take an earlier and probably still extant
organization, the Galactic Confederacy: eighty trillion
years, smooth as glass. No implanting. Interesting? I don't
know the exact length of the Espinol Confederacy, but it's
probably something on the order of a few hundred thousand
years. Implants - no empire.

The figures read themselves. Rome died at the hands of her
slaves. That's for sure. She was never conquered by the
barbarians. I know it looked very nice in the history
books, but the truth of the matter is, who wanted to fight
for Rome? You get through with a war, you come home, you
find out the slave civilization has already taken over the
farms. There's no need for your production; there's no need
for a freeman; there was no pay to be a freeman. That was
the reward and the pat on the back for having fought
through the wars, you see?

And it started going into a civil-war situation. And half
of the Roman Empire was always fighting half of the Roman
Empire. I don't remember the exact name of the battle; it
doesn't occur to me. I read it in Gibbon (and it's probably
wrong in Gibbon) and got cluttered up on it - it's either
Messana or something like that.

But the reason the first barbarians got to Rome was
because - she didn't have very large numbers in her armies,
but forty thousand of her first-line troops lay dead at
Messana in a civil war caused by unrest caused by slavery.
And they had no first-line troops. That was practically the
entire call-up of the empire. And historians today trace
back to that battle as the reason the barbarian was able to
conquer the thing.

Well, you trace back the battle, and you find the battle
came because of civil war. And we find out why the civil
war came and it came by slavery.

The American Civil War, that destroyed one of the better
agricultural areas of America, and so forth, was again a
battle about slavery, one way or the other. Every time you
have slavery, you have trouble, see? You don't even have to
be sentimental about it. You don't have to be sentimental.
You can be terribly statistical. You don't have to say it's
good or it's bad or anything else. You don't have to beat
the drum for it, or be a person who wants to reform things
or something like that. Just look at the statistics.
Slavery never pays off. That's it.

That's that. It's dangerous. If anything is dangerous, it's
slavery.

You don't suppose America would be having very much trouble
right now with its race riots and 250 thousand Negroes
about to converge on Washington, and so forth, if they
hadn't kicked off this slavery. And it's very funny, but
the most involved people in American slavery were the
Bostonians. Used to have what they called the "triangle
trade." They'd send ships loaded with rum down to Africa,
use the rum to buy blacks (as they referred to them), use
the whip and Christianity on them to bring them back over,
and they traded in the blacks down around the West Indies,
and so forth, for sugar cane, and they brought the sugar
cane up to Boston and they made rum, and they shipped the
rum to Africa, and they just had that worked out. And
practically the first families of Boston are founded
directly on slavery.

Kennedy missed that. He wasn't there at that - family wasn't
in America at that particular time.

His family got out from underneath another type of slavery:
the landowner, the absentee landlord, the high rates - this
type of economic slavery, and so forth. And these things go
back to roots. In other words, we have catastrophes in all
directions. We have the catastrophe of Boston, the
catastrophe of Kennedy.

We've got a situation here whereby you trace world trouble,
and you trace it straight back to slavery. I'm not trying
to beat the drum for anything. Why do you think Russia
can't get its feet under itself, and why is everybody
having such a hard time with the Russians, and why are the
Russians so silly as to evolve a slave economy such as
communism, and so forth? What's all this fuss?

Well, this fuss goes back to the idea in early Russian
history that a man belonged to the land, and when you sold
the land you sold the man with it.

Well, the European civilisation got out from underneath
that, two or three centuries before, and Russia has not yet
got out from underneath that. She still carrying the burden
of her past chains. And therefore she can't think straight.
She's like trying to get a pc to think in the middle of a
session, you know? Can't do it. That's a little more
touching picture than they actually are painting.

Actually, what I think is, is the White Russian prince and
that sort of fellow, you see, he went back to the
between-lives area and he came back and he picked up a body
and became a commissar. I don't think they've yet changed
their faces very much.

But the trouble with world affairs today is slavery. The
greatest empire earth ever had went down in the dust with
slavery. The British Empire right now is having a rough
time and is staggering around because of its effort to
colonize, and to do this and to do that and do something
about this, and to free man and not to free man, and
somehow or another to hold him in economic duress - don't you
see?—and not let him free but then to let him free, and -
You know?

You got all this trouble down here in Africa running around
in one way or the other. Well, that's the sort of trouble
you get when you suddenly start taking the lid off
something that has had the lid nailed down on for a very
long time, you see? And without anybody around who really
knows much about it, why, we get those boys going back into
slavery too. First action of a new African ruler is
ordinarily to throw the whole opposition in jail because
they are insufficiently enslaved by his regime, you see?
This viewpoint. This viewpoint.

Now, I'm not discoursing on this just because I have a bee
in my bonnet about it, because I frankly couldn't care
less, as far as this planet is concerned it'll never get
out of any mess unless we get it out of that mess, and I'm
using the situation just to show you the liabilities of
slavery. You always get a lash-back - always. Because a
thetan never gives up! That's it. He really never gives up.
He's lying there. He might look awful quiet, he might look
terribly dead, he might look like he doesn't interfere with
anything, you see? But in actual fact, he really never
gives up!

He's got some trick: You can put him in jail, immobilize
him, wrap all up in adhesive tape and electric cord, and so
forth, and he gets even with you: he sits there and thinks
how he's right.

He even goes down to that postulate see? He can hold that
postulate clear on down through the lowest level of
unconsciousness - that he was right. Well, I think that's
very interesting.

Because if he ever gets out of it, he'll go on being right,
see? If he ever get of it, he'll go on being right about
what he was being right about before he got put in that state.

In other words, the effort to dominate, the effort to
dominate and denied power of choice is the road that this 
universe walked toward the hell it became. Fear - the unlovely 
specter of fear—stands ahead of all of those.

Let's trace this out very carefully: To survive. All right,
very good. This guy wants to survive.

Whatever put him in the state of mind that he has to
survive? Because this is your biggest piece of nonsense. A
thetan can't possibly do anything but survive. In fact,
it's probably the trouble with him. That's certainly the
trouble governments and things have with him. That trouble
the Marcabians are having with him right now. How to kill a
thetan is the biggest problem in this universe. See, it's
just not solvable. They thought they had it all solved and
we came along.

See, they just never really are going to whip this problem.
How do you kill a thetan? Well, it's not an elegant problem
to whip.

Now, how can a being - who actually can't be struck at, who
cannot do anything but survive and cannot die, who can pass
through various lapses of memory and that sort of thing - 
how can this being get into a state of mind whereby he's
concerned about survival? Well, it takes quite a lot of
trickery to do that. Usually it's on the extension of self
into a possession, like making a minion. You mock a mock-up
up and then you endow it with some life, you see? And then
somebody comes along and starts to kick its head off, so
you protect it and you identify yourself with it. Or you
construct a civilization and identify with it, and you're
trying to get the civilization to survive, so that
eventually you get worried about your own survival.

You see the mistake which has to be made there? That
mistake actually has to be made directly before a thetan
gets worried about his own survival.

In other words, he has to extend some type of line onto
something that he feels can't survive, and then identify
himself with it to such an extent that he feels his own
survival can be affected.

And this is your first step into aberration.

All right. Your next step forward from this is an
elementary step: Because one is now worried about survival,
one resolves the problem of survival by domination. This is
not any kind of a solution at all. It's a lousy solution,
but it gets used and is probably - that which is not admired
tends to persist. That very definitely applies in this
particular line, because domination is probably the least
admired thing in this universe, and yet, oddly enough, is
continuously successful. But it's really not successful.

So, domination comes in here. And we have thetan A and
thetan B. and the way that thetan B is kept from destroying
thetan A's construction or civilization, don't you see, is
by thetan A dominating thetan B. you see? That is the
formula by which this is arrived at. So thetan A, to
protect something he wants to have survive, therefore seeks
to dominate thetan B. And then being in a frame of mind
where he feels he himself cannot survive, then he just
obsessively goes on and dominates thetans B. C, D, E, F and
G. see?

But he overlooks the fact that if he dominates thetans B.
D, E, F and G. sooner or later, thetans B. D, E, F and G in
their turn are going to dominate. Do you see? Because we've
set up a cause-effect line, and the best thing you know
about a cause-effect line - we may not know much about
overt-motivator sequences; but we know all about the
cause-effect line from which the overt motivator sequence
comes. And the best thing about those things is that
communication contains cause, distance, effect, with
intention and duplication. And because of the duplication
of the intention, then any communication line will reverse.

That's the easiest thing a communication line does is
reverse, because of course it has duplication on both ends.
It's very easy for cause to become effect and effect to
become cause, because there's a duplication in the
communication line. All you have to do is make a slight
mistake of which is cause and which is effect, and you have
the waiters, which at one time through the last century
served people, in black tuxedos - you know, the guests all
wore black tuxedos, and so forth - you have the waiters now
wearing black tuxedos, you see?

And you look at any custom as it comes along in this
universe, you are actually studying the
cause-distance-effect-duplication aspect of a communication
line. It's going to reverse. Well, there's lots of
ramifications whereby we protest and we do this and we do
that. But this fact of any custom you see on this planet at
this time - you could absolutely count on its having been the
reverse custom at an earlier date.

Now, this makes an awfully broad statement, but if you look
into it, you'll see that's the case.

You take the clothes today of women, and the clothes today
of men, see? Well, you don't have to look back very far to
where you see that one flipped, you see? And you look into
almost any custom you can follow it down and you will find
out it slipped. It went the other way to.

So the formula of communication, and communication itself,
then, is the most important factor in looking for aberration.
It's very elementary why; cause, distance, effect with
intention, duplication. The duplication fact then, makes
the C very easily look like the E, and the E look like the
C. So of course the line can reverse around the other way
to. And we get all sort superstitions about overt-motivator
sequences, and we get all kinds of things. Of course,
that's factual, but it's simply based upon the nature of a
communication line.

We beat somebody's head in and we beat somebody's head in
and we somebody's head in and we beat somebody's head in.
Of course, at cause have the intention to beat somebody's
head in, and at effect we have somebody's head being beaten
in. That's pretty elementary. And then one fine day we wake up
with a headache. Where did the headache come from? Well, one
slipped.

One slipped. One made a misidentification of the C and the
E on the line, see? It was quite accidental. You're reading a
book by Montaigne or something, and it said, "And thy
servant, he is a man too," see, something this, you know?
Guy just, you know, just blah ...

(I don't even know if Montaigne said that. But you have to
add the erudite points when you don't have your quotation
dictionary handy. Besides I usually find out I can make up
better quotations than they said anyhow; I figure out their
works were culled. I used to work on the basis that if you
write enough words, you'd say something clever, and that
saying things clever is usually solved in the field of
philosophy by writing enough words. See, just by the law of
averages you would eventually be clever. Anyway... Fifty
thousand monkeys writing for fifty thousand years
apparently by accident would write all the books of the
world, and I think they did!)

Anyway, you see what happens here now? Do you see? There's
a switcheroo on these lines, and you get what looks like an
overt-motivator sequence. So almost any pc you audit at the
level of Homosapiens, and so on, has got so switched so
that you can absolutely count on O/W working. But as I've
told you, it's not a high-level concept. See, it's limited.
It only goes up so high because it depends upon this error of
identification, you see?

But you can always get a case result by saying, "What have
you done "What have you done?" because you've freed up now
some vicious communication line. And it's certain that he
made a misidentification from that point up, see, and so
therefore we can free some somatics or something like that
can practically count on the fact that if some guy has got
a sore neck, if we just find out what sore necks he has
caused, we will eventually tear a off couple of facsimiles
of some kind or another, which will straighten it out he'll
cease to have a sore neck. Because he obviously had given
somebody else a sore neck, you see, if he has a sore neck. 
I mean, it's that elementary.

But what is this really based on? It's based on the
misidentification of a communication line because of the
duplication factor in communication. You can't communicate
without some duplication. That duplication, of course
sneaks up. You can't communicate at all without duplication.

Well, all right, if communication is so dangerous, why is
any thetan communicating at all? Well, he communicates
because he wants to be oriented. And we're back to why he
communicates. He wants to be oriented. Of course I
don't - then, of course, he takes his best tool, getting
oriented, and proceeds to aberrate it by using it to
dominate, to do people in, and to mess up things that he tries
to identify with, see? He messes up his own communication
line. In other words, he misuses his communication line.

Now, the communication line is there because he's lost and
feels the need of orientation. Hence his desire for
communication. There's an insecurity back on along the line
which causes him to use this communication line. As I say,
we haven't got the full answer as to why that is. I'm just
showing you what this comes from. And that gives us,
directly, the itsa line. So don't regard the itsa line as a
low-level concept, it's actually Scientology V. It's not
Scientology 1, but it's used in Scientology 1, and I'm sure
will be used well for a long period of time, will also be
used very blindly in many quarters.

But let's appreciate what we're using. We're rising the
obsession to identify, which lies back of the communication
line. But we're using a principle higher than
communication, coupled with communication, in order to
orient and rehabilitate a thetan. You've made a full
statement of processing at that moment, see, except for
this one little fact: Is there anything else earlier that
gave this guy an insecurity? The original one, in the
absence of communication, is somewhat hard to
understand - particularly at our states of case, see? A
little bit hard to understand. What the devil was it?

This guy, you see, isn't communicating, he doesn't feel
insecure, he is not protecting anything, he hasn't got any
reaching going on, he had no real reason to reach, and so
forth. How did anybody get to him?

You can figure out a lot of answers to the thing, and they
all wind up with a communication line mixed up in them. And
of course the moment a communication line is mixed up in
them you haven't got the answer.

How did he originally feel the need of orientation and
familiarization in order to be comfortable? See, how did he
do this? How was this done to anybody, and how did he do it
to anybody else? And if so, why? So, there is a riddle
still sitting there, see? There is a riddle. But
we have the walkway back to the answer to that riddle. And
what you're walking, on the line of OT, is you're walking
to the answer of that riddle. And the funny part of it is,
when you put your foot on that which lies on the other side
of all of the energy and all of the confusion and all of
the overts and all the misidentification and everything
else - which you're handling right now as cases, and
auditors, see - right on the other side of that, just as it
took one step to get on the road, it only takes one step at
the other end of that roadway to suddenly go OT. OT is a
gradient process for a long period of time with a sudden
fantastic upsurge.

You'll get shadows of that upsurge as you're processing
somebody. You haven't made it yet, but he all of a sudden
will do something peculiar. He'll do something very
OTish - and the next forty-eight hours shake in his boots
because, you know, ha-ha. Blu-uh! Guy starts to reach for
the telephone and it leaps to his ear, you know? Scares
hell out of him.

Next session you'll spend processing it having happened.
But that's processable too. These are just the lines up.

But the realization at the other end, the solution to that
riddle and any of its ramifications, determines more or
less the state attained. In other words, processing is the
cure of having to be familiarized with things and having to
itsa things, and so forth. The end product of processing is
no further need to have to do these things. And as soon as
one attains that no further need to have to do one of these
things, one would find he would suddenly snap back to all
of the power that he possibly could want. At which moment
he probably turns around, and he's so mad at everybody
because of that time he spent there being right that he
rights the various wrongs that he was going to right, and
he probably will take a dip at that point and then he'll
come back up again. And there will be various curves and
toboggans along on this road that will probably look very
dizzy, but that's okay. So that's the way it is.

Now, we're undoing—we're undoing, then - this obsession to
itsa by using it. And because the dependency on it is so
great, you'll never get a bank taken apart, as far as I'm
concerned, until it has been utilized to its full.

Now, self-determinism, pan-determinism, personal beingness,
personal power, restored to the individual, is done on the
road of minimal help, maximum recovery of
self-determinism—or maximal recovery of self-ability to
itsa. See? That's up. Now, as the case goes along, its
progress is measured directly and immediately by the degree
that this is returned into the pc's hands. Therefore you
could get a fantastic number of engrams run - now let me show
you how you can mess this up, see - you'd get a fantastic
number of engrams run and a fantastic number of GPMs run,
and the pc would be foggy and wouldn't be very much alert,
and so on.

Oh, you haven't really harmed him. You've slowed down the
recovery in just this one way, by every time the pc says "Uh 
.. let me see, uh ... there's a picture here, and I
think it's uh " "Oh, all right, I'll date it for you. Is it
greater than a hundred trillion years ago? Is it less than
a hundred trillion years ago? Was it a hundred trillion
years ago? It's less than. All right, is it greater than
eighty trillion years; Less than eighty trillion? It's less
than," so forth and so forth.  "The date, is ..." so-and-so 
and so-and-so and so-and-so.

And the pc says, "Oh, all right. Hm-hm. Okay." See? See the
nonsense involved in this thing.

And it just goes much more subtly, see, much more subtly:
"You know I think I must have been one of the Brobdingnagians."

Little tiny head shake as one looks at the meter and sees
that it did not read on Brobdingnagians, but did read on
Lilliputians, see?

And then, "Oh, well, I didn't mean anything. I was helping
you out."

You actually have the identical problem that a mother has,
auditor. Some mamas solve it and some don't. They help
little Roscoe to a point where at twenty-one, little Roscoe
can't shovel soup into his gullet, see? Of course there's
an equal extreme the other way. They don't help little
Roscoe to a point where little Roscoe, at the age of
twenty-one, shoots them! Puts cyanide in the soup!

See, all of this is a happy mean, you see? And it isn't
constant one the next. That's what the trouble is, because
one pc requires more help another pc, because they're at
different levels of independence. And you get a pc who has 
a very high level of independence and a very deep level of
aberration, and of course you've got trouble! I mean, the
guy can't walk - he keeps putting his feet in the stew and in
the mud and everything else. And you watch this guy
caroming off into doors, and it practically hurts, you know
"Oh, I'll do it, I'll do it!" and at that moment, why,
spills the tureen over his head, you see?

Well, that's all within the margin of an auditor. That's
where his ability to play comes in, is how much does it
take to improve this guy's independence and
self-determinism? How much does it take to improve his
ability to know? How much help does he need in order to
know? And you'll find out that's a varying quantity, see?

Here's this poor guy off the street, he doesn't know which
end the door is you know? And he's helped enormously
because you actually show him where the door is. It makes
him a bit better. You understand, from there on out he can
find the door, he can itsa the door from there on out. See?
So you haven't taken all of his itsas away from him.

All right, well, that's the extreme case. But let's handle
that extreme case wrong. Let's handle this just dead wrong: 
We tell him he never can know where the door is. See? And
let's build him a special set of rails so that when he goes
toward the door he runs into it. And every time he walks
around that particular end, why, he'll collide with the
door, see? Well, at this point, of course, you have
exceeded the degree of. In other words, you haven't helped
him at all. You have deteriorated his ability.

And what you want to do is take what ability you have, that
you find there, don't you see, and gradually uncreate any
dependence that is created. And the perfect formula is
reduce it. See? Give him all the help he needs to get along
and then gradually reduce it. That is always safe.

Give him whatever help he needs to get along and then
reduce it - which makes something like 3N into about four or
five different routines, which is quite remarkable. And
eventually, why, he isn't even given a line plot. But
that's getting pretty adventurous, don't you see, because
he can get himself in more trouble without a line plot.
It's almost a dirty trick to turn somebody loose into a
wildcat GPM before he's run a few that are line-plotted,
you know? You can make a pc fly, but then the pc says, "I
don't think ... I don't think ... uh, I don't think
this sequence follows on through this way. Uh ... I think
it uh ... cuts off someplace here. Something cuts off."

"Well, follow your line plot! Follow your line plot! The
line plot. Give me the next item, the next item. That's
what I want, next item."

"Yeah, but uh ... "

"Next item!"

Well, even if it was there, the pc sooner or later is going
to be right enough to convince you that it isn't - because
you never let him find out.

Now, combining all of this nice sense of judgment is the
extra bonus of your own flubs, because you cannot reduce
them to zero. Don't ever try. Don't ever go beating your
brains out.

Because you get caught in cross-plays of communication
where you didn't quite understand what the pc said when you
thought you did, don't you see? And so you said, then, at that
time - the pc is saying, "Let's see, what was that series we
found? It was uh ... Let's see, I think I found early ... 
earlier that such a series we found ..." and so on.

Well, you say, "Well, you've already found it, you see?
It's been found for several sessions, and it's 25.4
trillion years ago," see? And he's trying to find this
date, you see? He's trying to re-remember what the date is,
and you're just trying to get the series started, see? So
you say, "Well, that was - that - oh, you're talking about 
the 25.4-trillion-year-ago series." (sigh) He says, "Yeah.
Yeah, I guess so. Uh ... I don ... I - I do - uh ... get
.. uh the ... No, you see, uh - that isn't the point. 
Um ... (sigh)"

And you finally let him stagger through this, because
you've, see, flicked his attention and slipped him the
mickey with the wrong communication line because you didn't
understand.

That wasn't what he was saying at all. He's trying to find
that lock incident that defended on the series, and his
communication being a little bit blurry, why, he's not
really communicating what he thinks he is communicating to
you, so you make a mistake on it. And because the pc's
communication line is so often fogged up in session, for an
auditor, then, to do a perfect job of handling the
communication line is impossible, because it depends upon
the pc's articulation and communication being perfect.

Sometime a pc will say something to you like this: "Well, I
suppressed my gains for this session." And what do you do?
Well, is he giving you an itsa? Is he announcing a
catastrophe? Is he getting off a suppression? See? Does he
want you to do something? What's the intention of his
communication? Well, maybe he doesn't even know, either.
And almost anything you answer to this, you're going to be
wrong! See?

So don't go around in fear of being wrong, and don't teach
people to be afraid that they're going to mishandle one of
these lines, because you're teaching them to be afraid of
something that's going to be inevitable - inevitable.

The pc all of a sudden looks up and he gets a starey-eyed
look in his eyes and he says, "Say, I don't think that's
true." You're running a Helatrobus implant, you see, and
"Say, I don't - I don't think that's true."

And you say, "Well, what?"

He says, "That. You know? I just don't think it is."

Well, what do you do? Is he talking about the Helatrobus
implant? Probability not. He's skipped into something.
What's happened here? What did he collided with? We don't know.

All right, to ask him for more data than got is a fatal
auditing error, so we ask him for more data than he's got
and we are in trouble. We don't ask him for the data he
does have, we are in trouble. Don't you see?

Because these are the troubles of handling an indefinite
communication line, and troubles always originate. The
communication line at its source, is indefinite, so therefore
the handling of it becomes a situation. So that makes you
have to get very slippy. And you have to learn various
things about the intention line - which we're not
particularly discussing today.

"Do you want to tell me about it?" Ha-ha-ha-ha - cut your
throat. do you put the pc's attention on anything? How do
you put his attention on a chair? You say "chair," don't
you? How do you put his attention on a house? You say
"house," don't you? How do you put his attention on a date?
You say "date," don't you? How do you put the pc's
attention on the auditor? say "auditor," don't you? "Do you
want to tell me about it?" Clang! Out of session, ARC
break, house falling down, everything going to pieces,
gains all wrapped up, everything betrayed - Christ, what
happened? Ha-ha!

You in vain try to trace back anything you did. Naturally,
you blame yourself for it. Well, you, in actual fact,
didn't do anything except inadvertently direct the pc's
attention in a direction where it wasn't going to give him
a sudden attention shift, because of your misunderstanding
of the thing the pc was talking about in the first place.
Do you see the liabilities of this kind of thing?

So, know how to do it right, and do it right most of the
time! See? Thats the only thing you can expect and hope for.

All right. This pc itsa line is going to get better to the
degree that it's permitted to exist. This doesn't mean to
the degree that you let the pc talk necessarily. It means
the degree that you keep the pc's attention directed by
directions where he can find things to identify in his
bank. And when he's found things in his bank to identify,
let him identify them.

You say, "All right. Now, I want you to take a look at that
incident there that has the robots in it.

Good. All right. That's fine. All right."

And he says, "Say, uh - "

"Yes, I know. They're robots."

Well, I'd just say that was too corny for words, see?

All right, you keep up that sort of thing with a pc very
long, and tell him what he is looking at always—see, it
isn't a 100 percent prop there, either. You sometimes tell
a pc what he's looking at, see? You put attention on the
track to some incident that you know is there, and he can
know is there, well, you're certainly giving him something
to itsa, aren't you. So you've given him something to itsa,
and he'll start itsaing it, has a clam, see? But if you
prevent his itsaing it after you have given it to him to itsa, 
you will see a gradual deterioration over a period of
intensives - not one session, it's a long period - of his
ability to identify. You'll see this deteriorating.

You're creating a dependence on your metering. You can
create a dependence on your recognition, a dependence on
his confirmation as to whether or not he's right. He says,
"Well, I don't know if it was the cowboys in white hats or
the black hats, and cow ... You look on the meter," he
will say. "Look on the meter."

One of the ways an auditor gets this started is
invalidating a pc's data. He invalidates the pc's data a
little bit, and - you know, tends to somewhat, and sounds
doubtful, and the pc sounds this—and finally the pc will
say "Look on the meter." And the auditor cuts his throat
and looks on the meter. See? It's a case of he should say,
"Well, I believe you. l don't have to prove it," see?

"If you don't believe me, look at the meter."

Proper response is, "Well, I believe you. Go ahead, tell me
what it is." Don't look on the meter.

Eventually you'll get a habit started whereby every time
the pc wants to communicate anything to you, he convinces
you by showing you that it bangs on the needle. And his
itsa line will start deteriorating. See, this can be done
in various ways. That's confirming his itsa line, which
leaves him with no positiveness. It leaves him with no
sensitivity as to what's right and what's wrong.

Well, that's an ability that you are trying to improve. And
if you look on it as an ability that you're trying to
improve and as the chief ability which is there to be
improved in a case, you really won't make many mistakes on
it. Your mistakes will be cut to a minimum. But if you look
on a case as something from which significances have to be
removed in any way that they can be removed, regardless of 
the self-determinism of the pc and regardless of his ability 
and regardless of his knowingness and his recognition and so 
forth, oddly enough, you will still make it, but you've 
multiplied your time factor considerably. Time factor is 
going way up - ten to one, something like that - because 
you're  deteriorating his ability.

Now, just auditing the pc in general, you'll see you will
inevitably get an improvement of the ability by the removal
of charge. Now, if at the same time you're creating a
dependency, to the degree that you're increasing ... You
see? You can increase and decrease, and whereby he's
getting more track and more charge in his vicinity, his
actual potential of improvement is being cut back by his
dependency on the itsa of the auditor, see? It improves
anyhow. But the auditor is cutting it back, and he's just
costing himself more auditing time, more auditing time,
more auditing time, more auditing time. More difficulty,
more ARC breaks, more upsets.

There's many a way, many a way by which all this can be
handled in various ways. See, you have what you call an
ARC-breaky-type pc. Well now, this pc probably has a high
degree of independence and probably has a high degree of
itsa ability already, but possibly is a bit swamped with
charge, see?

All right. Now we take this pc and we deteriorate his
ability to itsa, you see, by creating a dependency on the
auditor. You know, by telling him everything, by telling
him everything.

You know, "That read. That didn't read," and so on. of
course, the funny part of it is - there's one other point of
this I should mention in passing - if you don't tell a pc
when an item is finally discharged, in the early stages of
running GPMs, he'll leave items charged, and the mechanics
of the bank will cause him to bounce and ARC break. See? So
that again is one of these factors whereby you're putting
in the itsa line - its a discharge.

Now, but sooner or later the pc is going to start telling
you when it is discharged. Well, that's damn well when you
better stop telling the pc that it's clean. Do you
understand? You just better stop telling him at that point.

Ah, but you've got an interesting problem here. Maybe
you've stopped telling him at the point where he still
can't tell. Now you're going to have hell raised, because
you're going to have him stuck in incidents. You're going
to have RIs live all over the place, you're going to have
his postulates live and so forth. I think I'd start working
on a campaign on him: "Well, run it until you're very sure
it's flat" is the kind of a campaign I'd start running, is
"Get that item until you're very sure it's flat."

"All right," he says, "that's flat."

"Okay, say it again. Good. Fine. You're right, that's flat," see?

And he all of a sudden, "See, I can tell you." You know?

"All right, good. Good," see? "Fine." And wean him. And
gradually don't check, see? Don't check. Say, "All right, I
can depend on you." Because he can tell you, eventually,
when it's flat.

He'll also get very bored with an item and leave it
half-unflat. You can sometimes make a citizen out of him by
letting him do so. Trouble is, he's liable to have bounced
and gone into something else.

Now, there's various problems involved here. I'm not trying
to tell you this is simple. Don't get so involved in the
problems, however, that you miss the basic mechanics of the
situation.

Basic mechanics of the situation: the pc is the one who is
living with this bank, and if he can't tell what's in it,
and so forth, he can't live with it. Obvious? I mean,
that's one of these ne plus ultra things. You're
unfortunately, or fortunately, not going to be at his side
for the next two hundred trillion billion squillion years.
See, you're not going to be there telling him whether it is
a GPM ... you see? Going to have to find this out for
himself. So sooner or later, you're going to have to kick
him off with regard to this bank.

The time to start is when you start auditing him. You start
auditing him, why, start weaning him. Don't increase his
dependency. Decrease it. Give him all the help he needs!
But isn't that a tricky statement? How much help does he
need? Well, you know if he doesn't have line plots and a
design on the track and the concepts of life, and that sort
of thing - if he doesn't have something like that - he'll never
put his foot on the road at all. And we know that if he
doesn't have a line plot for a standard GPM that he's got
to run, and so forth, we know he'll wrap himself around a
telegraph pole, man. He'll practically finish himself off
by giving you wrong items and upside-down items and missing
items, and so forth. And the next thing you know, why, the
penalty is much worse than the cure, here. See?

Well, where do we go? Well, how much help do we give him?
Well, we give him all the help he needs. How much help does
he need? Well, that is something you establish individually
in each pc.

You're going to get ahold of some pc sometime or
another - you know, he possibly hasn't been down here long,
or he got here by accident, or something of the sort. And
this pc cognites on the Axioms, knocks out the bank, does
Change of Space Processing between your auditing room and
the next building for a while, goes around and thanks you
very much; you're left with your jaw dropped because you
haven't had an opportunity to get your meter on and tested.

Well, don't feel so betrayed that you didn't get a chance
to audit. You audited. So, there are various degrees by
which you have to approach this problem, and that's the
difference of pcs.

Now, these very, very ARC-breaky pcs sometimes get a
reputation for being ARC breaky and they get very upset
this way and so on. It's actually where their concept of
their own independence is being invidiously cut up by
people putting itsas in for them. And the charge on the
bank is too great, so that they get into this stuff and
they'll dramatize at the drop of a hat.

And this is upsetting to them. It's more upsetting to them
to dramatize, but how did they dramatize? They dramatized
only because somebody put in the itsa line they were not
able to.

So, what do you do with such a pc? Well, a pc who's
routinely ARC breaky must obviously have something wrong
with the itsa line. Well, he wasn't the result of auditing.
It was probably something that occurred before auditing,
because we are not in the business of aberrating people.
Well, it must have occurred in some aberrative area.

Well, you can do such a thing as give them an
eighteen-button Prepcheck on the itsa line.

Simple. Now, an eighteen-button Prepcheck is not thrown out
by the itsa line because the eighteen buttons are the
select choice, very best, grade A, straight-from-the-ocean
itsas. You realize that a Prepcheck is almost the perfect
series of itsas. Most powerful buttons, so they're [the]
most powerful itsas in existence since the beginning of the
universe. "Since your beginning of travail, has anything
been suppressed?" Wonder how long that would run. But
that's an itsa, because he must have itsa'd by suppressing.
So you're getting off the crisscross, see? If he suppressed
it, then he can itsa it. If you get the suppression off,
then he can itsa.

These are almost perfect itsa lines. The Prepcheck actually
comes into its own. But very interesting about a Prepcheck:
You can prepcheck the itsa line, see, on that. That takes
the cake, man.

Now, you take one of these very ARC-breaky pcs that has a
very great reputation for being ARC breaky, and you put the
itsa line into some comprehensible thing. Very often, if
you just explain to them what the itsa line is and
prepcheck it, you'll be better off than trying to redefine
something, because you won't then be prepchecking the itsa
line. But this takes some doing.

An auditor has always got to be able to interpret the
auditing command and clarify the auditing command so that
the pc knows what it is. One of the best ways to clarify an
auditing command like "Recall an ARC break" is explain an
ARC break and give it to him, because you use any other
word, you'll run into some GPM - almost certain to run into
GPMs. "ARC break" is contained in no GPM and therefore is a
totally nonbackground word. See? Give him a new word, new
symbol.

All right, so you say "itsa line: Well, your - your
recognition of things. Your consideration of things. What
you think life is all about. Your opinions. Somebody says,
'What's a cat?' and you say, 'It's a four-legged animal.' I
mean, your right to do that." You know, go on, go on,
explain it any way you want. Prepcheck the itsa line. Or
get some other designation for it. But prepcheck it.

And you'll be very fascinated that the pc who is the
ARC-breaky pc is not really ARC breaking because of
auditing and bypassed charge. This pc's itsa line is cut
right here and now as his most colossal PTP by something
else, nothing to do with auditing.

I'll give you a marvelous example of how somebody's itsa
line is cut right here and now: He's on this planet, isn't
he? If he tries to get off, he hits the between-lives area.
His itsa line is cut because he can't itsa anything else in
the universe. He can look at the stars, but he can't tell
what condition they're in. See, he's the prisoner on the
island who looks toward the mainland longingly, so his itsa
line is cut.

See, there's all kinds of ways of cutting the itsa line,
don't you see? No reason to dream them all up for the pc.
Put in a Prepcheck on his itsa line. You'll be astonished.
He'll make some case progress - sudden case progress, and
cease to be ARC breaky.

Other ways of attacking this same problem sometimes give us
the very, very fascinating and interesting aspect of
somebody who has found that the ARC break is a solution to
some problem. So he solves the problem by ARC breaking.
There's various ramifications, but he normally runs into
this when you prepcheck the itsa line. 

You have a big piece of understanding here. It's a big, new, 
whole piece of understanding. It's a new piece of the jigsaw 
puzzle which has fitted into place and made citizens out of 
most of the center pieces and has shown us that there's just this
little few out here on the edge, of how come a guy had to
identify and familiarize himself in order to feel alive and
secure? How come a guy got into an obsessed necessity to
itsa? That little piece is about the only piece missing
right now, and it's up here in the corner. And its missing 
just to this degree: You show me a problem, very shortly later,
I'll show you the answer.

Thank you very much.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
view for bookmarking
text only  mail this message to a friend
Sponsored by Fatbrain.com {*}  post reply    << prev · next >>  
subscribeto alt.religion.scientology 
return to search results 

 
 


SHOPPING ·  Yellow Pages ·  5˘ Long Distance 
Free Stuff  ·  Trade with Datek  ·  GET IT NOW @ NECX 
FREE downloads! ·  Auctions & Classifieds  
  
 
Home  ·  Communities  ·  My Deja News  ·  Power Search  ·  Post  
 


About Deja News  ·  Ad Info  ·  Our Advertisers 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1995-99 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved. 
Conditions of use  ·  Site privacy statement reviewed by TRUSTe  

