6107C18 SHSpec-30  Can't Have -- Create

     In 1952, the Philadelphia Doctorate Course and Scientology 8-8008 were
the basic texts on havingness.  Havingness is a dominant thing; it is a part
of games conditions.  Now we are back to games conditions and its relation to
havingness.  In Scientology 8-8008, we had the principle that the goal of
processing is to remedy the scarcity and abundance of all things.  But all
that we previously had to do this was creative processing, and a lot of people
couldn't run it.  Now we have come up with a new way to do this and thus clear
someone fast.

     There is a new datum on havingness: its relation to create.  After you
create something, you may have it or not; create doesn't necessarily mean that
you'll have.  All of auditing could be considered prehavingness, hence the
prehav scale.  The relationship between creating and havingness has to do
with the fundamental formation of the reactive bank and is very important:
What a person can't have, he creates.  That is the law on which man operates.
It is the most fundamental law of the bank that has yet been discovered.  This
is how the bank is formed.  E.g.  whenever Italy gets beaten, they have a
Renaissance, or like, when you abuse a plant, it blooms.  LRH wanted a ship
and couldn't buy one, so he started to build one; if a rosebush can't have a
rose (if you trim it off), it creates roses.  If a shipyard can't have ships,
it builds ships that wear out in twenty years, so you can't have the ships
either.  Probably the government punishes everyone for producing in order to
make them produce on a reactive basis.

     There's evidently some cross-relationship that goes further than the O/W
mechanism.  It was described in theory in Scientology 8-8008 plus in the
discussion of games conditions in The Fundamentals of Thought.  Games
conditions concern preventing people from having things.  Things of all sorts
are havingness.  The thetan is only unhappy when he can't have.  His idea of
quality could be reformed.  If you deny him anything, he'll try to obtain it
(e.g. the Prohibition).  Now LRH knows how to make a civilization: decide what
would be good things to have and create knuckleheaded bureaus to prevent each
one of them.  The trouble with economics is that it tries to create demand
with supply.  It should use scarcity.  How do you create creation?  Run a
broad can't have.  The games condition can get so bad that if you insist on
people having something, they don't want it.  Police action creates crime; BBC
creates rock and roll.

     As long as you aren't in a games condition with the people around you, as
long as you don't run a can't have or a must have on them and still have
control, all will be smooth sailing.  It's supposed to be a good thing on this
planet to run a can't have, e.g. with strictness.  But this is the way you
create problems.  Problems may appear to be don't haves, but how did the PC
get into the condition of don't have?  Actually, don't have is the last ditch
of can't have.  Because even with a can't have, you could materialize what you
don't have, maybe even build one.  But the way you got into a don't have was
the overt-motivator sequence.  First you run a can't have on others, then they
don't have, then you don't have.  So if the PC doesn't have anything, it must
be because he denied it.  If he's got a low quality of something, he gets it
thus: he can't have a good one, but nobody wants a bad one, so he's got a bad
one.  The test of his havingness is that he has it because nobody wants it.
If nobody wants it, he can have it.

     Total lack of something doesn't mean that the thetan is without it.
It'll still be obsessively created in his reactive bank.  The covert
creativity of the bank is a remedy of havingness.  That's all it is.

     Now say you run a can't have on somebody on sex; then you find people
running a can't have on you on the subject of sex, and you're puzzled.  You'll
find 2D activities are impossible, so you're likely to do a flip -- to go off
in some different direction and build up various sorts of 2D activities you
could have.  When these also fail, you end up with them hidden from yourself
but still created in the bank.  So we get the downgrading quality.  The
degrade is on the basis of what he can have.  A common denominator of pcs at
the bottom is the complaint of not being able to feel.  A bit higher, they
complain of not feeling as much as they'd like about things.  That's a can't
have on feelings.  Also, the feelings degrade, and go on down the tone scale.
Serenity is impossible, so the thetan becomes enthusiastic, but that's an
overt, so he goes down to conservatism, but that's for bank managers, so he
gets bored, but people won't let you be bored, so ... down to no feelings.  But
of course all these feelings are being mocked up at the back of the bank.

     At the first St. Hill ACC, LRH talked about two routes:  experience, and
the auditing route used at that time.  They are now combined, because the
experiential factor is havingness.  Experience is havingness, so all
experience can be restored.  Beingness and doingness can be junior to
havingness.  [But Cf. p. 42, at upper level strata, beingness is higher than
doingness, which is higher than havingness, so maybe LRH is talking about a
lower level stratum here.]  But beingness and doingness operate on the same
can't have mechanism.  When you hit bottom on your own beingness, you'll mock
up some very desirable beingness, and you will be that, except that you are
not really being that.  For instance, a kid isn't permitted to be a pilot and
fly airplanes, so he mocks up being an ace aviator.  A person may end up
settling for a lesser and lesser beingness.  Finally, he is not being much, so
he mocks up a substitute reactive beingness.  Little kids are not permitted to
fly planes, so what do they do?  They become "aviators".

     What confuses people is that, while can't have produces create at a
reactive level, all this can take place at an analytical level.  Not all can't
haves trigger the obsessive create, but if you communicate the can't have in
an unacceptable (can't have) way, in a good games condition, the guy may well
slip into the reactive create.  Absence of ARC is almost a requisite for a
reactive creation by reason of a can't have.  If you run a strong can't have
on war in the interests of peace, war will result.  Keeping the peace is not
done by running a can't have on war by propaganda, etc.  For instance, at the
outset of World War II, no information was given out about the war; it was not
considered OK to attack the enemy, yet we did get ourselves into it.  When
people run a can't have on things that do exist, we get a delusory state.
Christian Science does this.  Try running 8-C on a Christian Scientist.  The
insistence of a thetan on Axiom 1 is fantastic.

     On some people, if you try to run a think process, they can't do it.
These people must have an O/W games condition on thoughts, because they can't
have a thought.  If someone withholds a thought, he's running a games
condition on you on the subject of "You can't have it." This will put him in a
condition where he has less of it.  If you can get off his withholds, i.e. get
him to give you the thought, you've stopped him from playing that game
condition, and he'll feel better.  But why does he have these discreditable things anyway?  Because they are scarce.  If a thought is scarce, there has been a cut-down of a thought of activity.  So the person withholds telling you about
actions agains the mores of society because such actions are scarce.  If you
can get hold of one, it's his jewel -- a scarcity.  He also holds onto it
because he doesn't want you to have bad thoughts about him.  This is another
games condition.  To handle this, you could run a can't have process on
thoughts, theoretically:

     1. What thought haven't you permitted another to have?

     2. What thought hasn't another permitted you to have?

     You could see another mechanism from another theoretical process.  You
run, "Think of a (say, woman)." At first he gets a generality or nothing, then
he thinks of specific departed women, then dead women, sick women, funerals
too.  You are making him examine the scarcity of women, and it runs backwards
to the point where he could think of a present woman with perfect ease and get
a 3D picture of her.  Whatever it is you find him inverted or nonexistent on,
you develop a process by which you can discharge his propensity for using that
item in a games condition on others and they on him.  Because you are running
out stable data on this, you add a confusion, a problem, or a motion along
with it.  For instance, you could use, "When have you denied another a woman?
When has another denied you a woman?  What problem about women is not present
now?" The "not present now" is because it is the not-is version of problem
confront.  This is a murderous process because it un-not-ises everything
involved.

     A games condition is unnatural since, in such a condition, the person
becomes convinced that there is only that game, so they run the can't have,
and the more they do this, the less they have of it.  Eventually, it
disappears from view, and they have gotten worse, not better.  "Way back,
people wouldn't clear because they thought it meant losing their game.  When
cleared, they promptly went out and aberrated themselves again to have a
game.  They expressed it as, "I didn't want to be detached from existence."
What pinned it down was a scarcity of games.  They thought being aberrated was
the only game going.

     The remedy of havingness of games is broadening the PC's view on the
subject of games.  All you have to do is knock out his fixed attention on
aberrated games, so that he can look around at all the other games.  If you do
this, the PC will blow clear almost at once.

