Сообщение auditor » 22 сен 2016, 10:00


Major 4

[1955, ca. early July]

The Magazine of
Washington, D. C.



L. Ron Hubbard


Modern Straight Wire

On the theory that someone may pick up this book and have only time to read a few lines, or have a constricted ability in amount of material assimilable, right here in a hurry I wish to give you the type of Straight Wire which is today producing phenomenal results on pre-clears.
THE COMMAND: Recall a moment of ______.
NUMBER OF TIMES COMMAND USED: Until the complete flattening of the pre-clear’s communication lag takes place, so that he can readily and at some length and quantity give replies without any difficulty.
COMMUNICATION: Always acknowledge with an ”O.K.” or an ”all right” every an-swer which the preclear gives you. Always let the preclear originate any communication he wishes to originate, or comment on the process, and acknowledge his origin of communication or comment. In other words, do not override his effort to communicate to you as this will con-siderably reduce his tone rise.
DUPLICATION: Make sure that you, the auditor, duplicate the command over, and over, and over until the comm lag is flat, and do not be detoured by any rationale of your own into any other process simply because you are unwilling to continue the duplication of the command.
APPLICATION: In the blank space of the command can be placed any subject of any concern or consideration of the preclear whether theta or entheta.
EXAMPLE: The preclear is studious. The auditor then applies Straight Wire in this fashion: ”Recall a moment of studiousness.” The preclear does so and says that he has or de-scribes the time. It will be observed that the first one may take a considerable length of time and that the length of time intervening between the question and the reply will vary from here on until the communication lag is entirely flat, which means that the process may have to be continued for half an hour, an hour, or many hours. The communication lag is known to be flat when the replies are readily given without pause or hesitation and without any comment on the preclear’s part. The moment the preclear says he has recalled a time or describes the time he has recalled, which is optional, the auditor says, ”O.K.” or ”all right,” acknowledging the fact that he has received the preclear’s communication, at which moment the auditor then places the exact question once more. An additional symptom of a flat process is that the preclear will no longer be studious. But, as preclears do not know how studious they are, it is best to run the process until the communication lag is flat. It is not necessary for the auditor to demand NEW times every time. The preclear can recall the same time if he desires to do so.
OBSERVED PHENOMENON: The time track phenomenon will be observed while de-livering this Straight Wire question. It will manifest itself in this fashion. The first answers of the preclear will probably be relatively close to present time and then will be further back into the past, at which time they will begin to progress (at some time they will begin to progress forward into the future) and will come close to present time again, when they will once more turn around and go into the past and then come into the future. In other words, the preclear will give the time A DAY OR SO AGO when he was studious, then a time A YEAR OR SO AGO when he was studious, then a time WHEN HE WAS A CHILD when he was studious, then a time WHEN HE WAS SIXTEEN when he was studious, then a time LAST YEAR when he was studious, then a time THREE DAYS AGO when he was studious, then a time TWO YEARS AGO when he was studious, then a time when he was THREE YEARS OLD and he was studious, then a time when he was EIGHT YEARS OLD and he was studious, then a time YESTERDAY when he was studious, and so forth. In other words, the preclear sweeps up and down the time track. The caution to be observed in this is, never leave the pro-cess when the preclear is recalling moments which are far into the past. Leave the process when the preclear is recalling times relatively close to present time. Otherwise you stick the preclear on the track.
GOAL OF THE PROCESS: The goal of many processes is to raise the selfdeterminism of the preclear. Memory is an automaticity which is not under the control of the preclear. By taking over the automaticities of memory and forgetting the preclear is capable of greater self-determinism. In view of the fact that all mass could be said to be memory, you will see at once that Straight Wire leads to the control of mass.
PREREQUISITES TO SESSION: Present must be an auditor, a preclear, a place to au-dit and time in which to audit.
WHEN THE SESSION HAS BEGUN: The session is actually in progress and the pro-cess is ready to be administered only when the preclear is aware of the fact that an auditor is present, that HE is present, that the auditing room is present and that an auditing session is in progress. TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION or asking the preclear to locate objects in the room simply by NOTICING THAT THEY ARE THERE (a lower process than Two-Way Communication) should then be engaged upon until such time as the preclear is aware of his surroundings and the condition.
ON WHAT PRECLEAR TO USE STRAIGHT WIRE: Straight Wire can be used on any preclear who is AWARE OF HIS SURROUNDINGS, THE AUDITOR, AND AUDITING SESSION AND WHO HAS REALITY UPON THE GOAL OF AUDITING. This is signalized by the preclear being in fairly good two-way communication with the auditor. Straight Wire should not be employed on preclears who are in very poor two-way communica-tion.
SUBJECTS ON WHICH STRAIGHT WIRE CAN BE USED: Straight Wire can be employed on ANY SUBJECT OR CONDITION. It will be discovered that the straight wire processes are PROBABLY THE BEST RESOLUTION OF BLACK CASES. The resolution of a black case is indeed contained rather succinctly in the auditing command, ”Recall a time when you were looking at blackness.” The entire HIDE to SERENITY scale can be em-ployed with considerable tone change in the preclear. The key to exteriorization lies in the au-diting command: ”Recall a time when you were in or associated with a body.” Peculiarities, physical deformities or conditions of any kind could be used on the above straight wire basis with success.
I have given you this brief rundown on Modern Straight Wire, not because it is all there is to say on the subject, but because I wanted to give you the exact essentials present in Mod-ern Straight Wire as rapidly and as efficiently as possible, so that they could be used without having to go through a great deal of material. However, a person, to use Straight Wire, should know a great deal about Straight Wire. While he could simply use the essentials above and could produce a considerable change in a case on any subject, an auditor who is not skilled would be held up by the duplication factor. He would have a tendency, under, of course, very good alibis of his own, to desert the command itself before the process was flat. He would have a tendency to change the command to something else. He would have a tendency to go on excursive trips into the side roads of the process, since a great many comments, considera-tions and phenomena will come up while Straight Wire is in progress. The self-discipline neces-sary to continue an auditing command over, and over, and over, and over is not a light disci-pline. In fact we could say that an auditor who has not himself had a great deal of duplication run would find himself very resistive to repeating this auditing command to a preclear for a long period of time. However, this does not go to say that an auditor in terrible condition him-self, knowing this fact, could not then grit his teeth and pitch in and go on and continue a two-way communication with the preclear, and go on and ask this auditing question over, and over, and over, and over until the preclear’s case was solved. Not only is this possible, but it has been done very often. And, in fact, we have a great deal of respect for auditors who, although they themselves are in relatively poor condition, yet go on and produce tremendous advances in cas-es. We, of course, get more enthusiastic about auditors who are in good shape, producing good results, but we cannot but admire the stick-to-itivity some auditors have in carrying through processes which are above their own case level.
Now, just because we have a modern Straight Wire which is interestingly exact in its application and very predictable in its results, is no reason why we have to throw away all other processes. The Six Basic Steps, done as they are done today, are, of course, of great value and do not go into the discard simply because we have a more effective, more exact and simpler Straight Wire.
There is one particular caution which should be observed in administering Straight Wire: that A PRECLEAR WILL VERY OFTEN GIVE A NO-COMM-LAG REACTION TO A PROCESS WHICH IS ABOVE HIS LEVEL. He will not get well on the process; he will not improve on the process, but also he does not comm-lag on the process. The process is being done more or less by some circuit. It is being done without any reality and it is not involving the preclear at all. One has to go far enough south so that the preclear develops a comm lag. Now, if you were to run Straight Wire on some preclear and simply get your answers every two or three seconds and keep getting answers for a long period of time, you would discover at length that the process was not improving the preclear. The reason the process is not improving the preclear is because the process is above the preclear and the preclear has no reality upon his recalls or his answers. In such a wise it would be very wise to start in below Two-Way Com-munication and get the preclear to spot objects in the room. Not walk over to them, or perform an 8-C, which is above Straight Wire on the tone scale, but simply to look around and find that there is a chair in the room, that there is a table, and so on. This done for a while orients the preclear and it is discovered that he will go into two-way communication with the auditor. Two-Way Communication, then, about the preclear’s everyday life should ensue, and after this, R2-20, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS, should be run flat on the preclear, for the preclear who is very short on problems and who is incapable of arriving at solutions is not likely to give up any case problem and is not likely to arrive at any solution. So, we understand that there are actually three points below Straight Wire. Now, a preclear who would need Problems and Solu-tions run on him at great length is liable, oddly enough, not to comm-lag on Straight Wire and also not to improve upon it. In this wise, the preclear’s reality on the question or the response is very low and he is simply being monitored by the auditor. The auditor is more or less running all of the preclear’s machinery, an oddity which we observe in some auditing sessions. Alt-hough the auditor is running the preclear’s machinery, neither the auditor nor the preclear is aware of it. The auditor isn’t aware of it because he would rather not be, and the preclear isn’t aware of it because he isn’t aware of very much anyhow.
Just as an automobile doesn’t much care who drives it, so do some low toned preclears not care who is running the circuits.
A variation on Modern Straight Wire, a little older but still quite effective, is ”Give me something you wouldn’t mind remembering,” and ”Give me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.” These two commands are run independently of each other, not alternately, and each is flattened. These are very, very effective commands. It is remarkable that ”Give me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting” hits people who are dislocated so hard that a many-hour comm lag may ensue on the question. These people are afraid to forget anything. This is very, very effective auditing and is not discarded. It can be used a little lower on the scale than Modern Straight Wire, but it is slower.
An auditor should test Straight Wire very rigorously in the recommended form given above before forming any forthright opinions concerning it. He should observe that running this Straight Wire on a very low toned preclear produces no comm lag and no betterment of the preclear. This is the first thing he should learn about it. Then he should learn that run in its proper place on a preclear who is in two-way communication and is in fair condition, it produc-es remarkable, stable results which last for a very long time. It is not a trick process. It is a plow-horse sort of process, but once it has hauled the preclear up the scale it leaves him there. A preclear’s continued stability for a long time after an auditing session is very desirable. The trick momentary flash results sometimes do not last. An auditor should also learn that he him-self is capable of repeating one command over, and over, and over, and over, without varying it, without getting so bored with it that he himself goes out of the auditing session. Remember, when the auditor leaves the auditing session (although he is still there giving auditing com-mands) it sometimes occurs that very little auditing gets done, since an auditing session of ne-cessity has to have an auditor and a preclear present and auditing in progress.
It will be startling to you to know that this process is a specific process for a black case and does relieve the black case’s blackness. And, after and above the black case level this pro-cess is a specific for non-exteriorization and will produce exteriorization if ”Recall a time when you were in or associated with a body” is employed over a long enough period of time.
There is a great deal more to know about Straight Wire. There are a great deal of phe-nomena which occur in Straight Wire and there are many other data to be studied about Straight Wire. However, if the auditor cares to study these, first let him learn thoroughly what we mean by Modern Straight Wire and that is laid out above with exactness.


The History of Straight Wire

The old Dianetic auditor will have no difficulty in recalling the earliest days of Straight Wire.
Once upon a time Straight Wire was one of the most intricate, tricky, intuitive processes known. There were auditors who were excellent at this, but they were alone in their skill. There were many, many auditors who never did make Straight Wire work.
Straight Wire of the old Dianetic type, expertly done, many times produced such fasci-nating results that auditors would then specialize in it, but, because it has often failed, their specialization would be tempered with a restless search for some other process that would do the job with greater exactness.
The genus of Straight Wire immediately followed the release of ”The First Book,” Di-anetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, on May 9, 1950. I developed Straight Wire a little too late to get it into the text of that book, but taught the first ten students at 42 Aber-deen Road, Elizabeth, New Jersey, this process and actually got these students sufficiently expert in the use of Straight Wire that they could straighten out present time problems on pre-clears with remarkable facility.
Here is an example of the earliest form of Straight Wire: A preclear is observed to be possessed of a nervous affliction – the rapid blinking of one eye. The auditor asks him, ”Who had that affliction?” and asks him this with sufficient communication and discussion so that the preclear at length actually SPOTS A TIME WHEN HE OBSERVED THIS AFFLICTION IN ANOTHER THAN HIMSELF. Now, today with our understanding of Ownership Pro-cessing, as covered in the Congress of Eastern Scientologists on June third to sixth [1955] at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., it becomes highly technical, for naturally the afflic-tion, if it persisted, must be misowned. But, it would also be understood that the preclear him-self might be the creator of the condition. If the preclear himself had created the eye twitch at some time in his past, recalling it in somebody else would simply reinforce the eye twitch; thus Straight Wire would not work. As, let us say crudely, this condition exists in about 50% of the cases on whom Straight Wire was used, we certainly would have, by the factors involving ownership, a misunderstanding of the process and a great many failures.
In view of the fact that a thing persists only if it is misowned – if a person himself has created it and says somebody else has created it or if a person is saying he created something which somebody else actually created – we get a persistence of the space or mass. If a person created the condition and then says that he himself created the condition, a vanishment of the condition will occur. If somebody else, a specific person, created the condition and the preclear says that person created the condition, then again we get a vanishment. Only when we misown or miscall the creation of a condition do we get a persistence. Thus we can see that the earliest Straight Wire depended in a great measure upon calling the correct ownership; and recalling the correct ownership by recalling observation of the condition in somebody else would be then sufficient to bring about a diminishment of the condition.
Thus, repeating, Straight Wire would not work on conditions which the person had him-self created, as long as the auditing command was ”Recall a time when you saw that in somebody else.” This would have to be supplemented by ”Recall a time when you decided this was a good thing.” And if those two auditing commands had been used on any condition and if we had also known about comm lag and duplication of the question, then Straight Wire would have been very successful. As a matter of fact it was quite successful and quite startling but had the above limitations.
Now, the earliest type of Straight Wire was interesting in that it did not embrace the case that couldn’t remember. To handle this type of case we invented a variation, which was simply to ask the preclear to remember something, anything, and keep him remembering some-thing or anything until his confidence in his own memory rose to a point where he could re-member and thus could experience the benefit of old-time Straight Wire. An example of this variation was to ask somebody if he could remember something that had happened today or something that he had had for breakfast, and keep on asking him for various things until he did have a solid reality on one recall or another.
But this too was quite limited as to process, and in order to further improve memories we came out with what is now known as the next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis, which is ”Re-call something real,” ”Recall a time when you were in communication with someone,” ”Recall a time when someone was in communication with you,” ”Recall a time when you felt some affinity for someone,” ”Recall a time when someone felt some affinity for you,” which process capitalized on the ARC triangle which we came out with in July of 1950, which was much better described in the book Notes on the Lectures of November of 1950 and ex-panded considerably in Science of Survival which was written in the spring of 1951 and re-leased that summer, the above list appearing in Self Analysis, which was written in September of 1951.
Succeeding this ”next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis” was Validation Straight Wire, the theory of which was to validate all the good moments in the preclear’s past by having him re-call them. An oddity immediately demonstrated itself, however, in the use of Validation Straight Wire to the effect that the preclear would recall just so many moments which were good and would then fall off into moments which were very bad indeed. This phenomenon had, by the way, been observed much earlier as a comment on the running of pleasure mo-ments, a process developed by Parker Morgan in Elizabeth in 1950.
After Validation Straight Wire the whole subject of Straight Wire more or less fell into disrepute and decay, and a great deal of concentration was given to actual incidents on the whole track and an enormous amount of phenomena which had been dug up through my work in Wichita. Only ”next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis” continued to be used right up to the time when we developed ”Something you wouldn’t mind remembering,” ”Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting,” in one of the clinical units of the summer of 1954. Immediately a great many limitations on Straight Wire were swept away and Straight Wire became a much more important process because it was getting much better results. Here for the first time we had entered into the idea that forgettingness was an actual attribute. In other words, it was a skill. A person forgot things so that he could have things. And, realizing that this was a skill and that it was on full automatic we, of course, had the reason why people were not able to remember. They were so anxious to forget.
In the spring of 1955, in the tenth clinical unit, we discovered that ”something you wouldn’t mind FORGETTING” was far, far more important than ”something you wouldn’t mind remembering,” and made several tests which demonstrated a considerable rise in tone as a result of using this single command: ”Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.” However, because many more interesting things were showing up and occurring we did not give this real-ly the attention it deserved, and actually to this moment the process is not as thoroughly tried as it might be. It might very well occur that this process would succeed many other processes as something which would produce a long-continued and stable result.
With the first clinical unit [October 5 – November 16, 1953], which was taught in Cam-den, New Jersey, we made a considerable codification of ”automaticity” and ”randomity,” which had first been introduced in the Philadelphia lectures of December, 1952. The under-standing of these two things demonstrated that THE GREATEST AUTOMATICITY IN WHICH ANYONE WAS ENGAGED WAS REMEMBERING AND FORGETTING. Thus, exercises on remembering and forgetting were, of course, very, very important.
It should be understood, then, that no amount of engram running or present time pro-cesses would handle this highly specialized thing, automatic remembering and automatic for-getting. And in view of the role remembering and forgetting play in everyday living we couldn’t consider the person very thoroughly processed unless we had taken his memory into account. Thus, whatever other processes are run on the individual, something should be done in order to bring this automatic memory factor under control.
We have rather suspected of recent months that it is not necessary to have a great versa-tility of subject in remembering in order to restore memory. The mere act of remembering some-thing is enough to take over the automaticity. In other words, there isn’t an automaticity for every subject you can remember; there is simply an automaticity on the subject of memory. Similarly on forgetting. One might think there was a forgetting automaticity on every type and subject known, but there is only one mechanism behind all of this and that is simply an automa-ticity of forgetting.
Now, if you were to stabilize a preclear in present time and do all sorts of other things with him and yet neglect exercising his memory in any degree it is probable that you would have left the sphere of recall untouched to his detriment and would have left him with this au-tomaticity. And the automaticity of remembering and the automaticity of forgetting could, of course, push him on down again. So, we should say that any preclear who becomes stable should have had exercises in remembering and forgetting.
The actual history of Straight Wire is of course a very old one, much older than Diane-tics. We did not invent Straight Wire. We discovered and observed a great many mechanics about memory which had been neglected hitherto. But, we find that Straight Wire or memory exercises are actually very ancient and have been used for at least sixty-five years.
There were many excursions and experiments made in Straight Wire in early Dianetic days. One of these was Repetitive Straight Wire. Simply asking a person to remember some-thing over, and over, and over again. This naturally succeeded from the running of an engram. Running an engram through, and through, and through eventually erases it, so it was tried with Straight Wire and it was discovered that this was fairly effective, but again was not an answer.
The old Dianetic auditor can probably remember early Straight Wire with affection and probably can remember a great many successes as a result of using it. And strictly as a nostalgic exercise, he should know now that with OWNERSHIP PROCESSING as given in the Con-gress of Eastern Scientologists, he could make old-time Straight Wire totally effective with the question ”Can you recall a time when somebody else had that condition?” ”Can you recall a time when you decided to have that condition?” on all those cases who are already in fairly good condition in the memory department. He would have to ask BOTH of these questions of ANY case in order to get a result and he would have to ask BOTH of these questions MANY, MANY TIMES, until the preclear had flattened his comm lag. This would be a rather crude form of Straight Wire, but it would at least be completing the cycle of action from olden times.
Straight Wire is one of the most agreed upon things in Dianetics and Scientology. There may have been many people who questioned the advisability of running engrams or running secondaries or scanning engrams or doing something else, but, nobody ever questioned very seriously the efficacity of Straight Wire when it worked. It is, and has been broadly accepted as a near synonym for Dianetics and Scientology.


The Theory of Straight Wire

Memory has played an intimate part in existence since the first Thetan. The creation of time and the creation of memory were concurrent incidents. Let us take a single particle. We find that with this single particle no time is possible, since the space occupied by the single par-ticle would be indeterminate in placing the particle. Unless, of course, there were eight particles demarking the space itself, at which time you would now have nine particles, and it would be very simple to have time. But, with one particle we cannot have time. We have to have two particles to have time. And we have to have two particles to have memory.
We have to have two particles to have memory because we would have to have a refer-ence point for establishing where the moving particle had been if one had remained motionless. In other words, let us take a motionless particle and then let us have another particle move in relationship to that motionless particle; we would then be able to tell that it had moved by re-membering that it had been where it was originally. And then remembering successively the positions it had gone through until it arrived at its present time position. The moment that it moved further one would have a situation again of remembering what had been present time for it, but observing what was now its present time position.
MEMORY IS THEN, MECHANICALLY, THE TRACKING OF POSITIONS. Whe-re POSTULATES or CONSIDERATIONS are concerned, however, we must first have the consideration that space, particles in time can exist and then THAT ONE CAN REMEMBER. This latter is more important than the mechanical facts of time. For if one continually makes the consideration that he cannot remember, he is at once making the consideration that he cannot discover the former position of earlier particles, and any advanced student who knows about PERFECT DUPLICATION, or if you care to read about that in The Creation of Human Abili-ty, will find that it would now be next to impossible for the individual to cause the vanquish-ment of the particle. In other words, if the person cannot remember where the particle came from originally, he cannot establish its original position. And being unable to establish its origi-nal position he cannot get an exact duplication of it, which is to say a perfect duplicate of it, and so will get a persistence of the particle. Once one has forgotten its original position, which is the mechanical aspect of this, one is then no longer able to cause it to disappear.
In processing we very often run into a person who has ”heavy facsimiles.” In other words, these facsimiles are so heavy and so weighty that he can barely push them around. This is simply basically a postulate that these things are heavy, that energy is heavy, but next to that it is a consideration that one cannot do anything to them. One cannot cause them to vanish – therefore, one cannot cause them to affect one less.
Observing, then, that things tend to become more permanent and more solid the less one can remember where they came from (though this is not a total truth, you understand), we could consider that ALL OBJECTS ARE MEMORY. Or more accurately, that ALL OBJECTS ARE MIS-MEMORY. If an object is there, one comment you could make about it is that everybody has forgotten when and where it was created. And having forgotten when and where it was created, it now persists. Thus, you might say that objects depend, or persis-tent spaces depend, entirely for their persistence upon forgettingness. Which is to say, mis-memory.
Now, as memory applies to postulates and considerations as well as to spaces and mass-es, it becomes obvious that conditions, good conditions or bad, would tend to persist where they were mis-remembered. In other words, if you knew exactly where all the particles of your car were created and how many movements back they were created and who had created them (the more important fact) and who had assembled them into a car you would not have any car. It would simply disappear. In other words, a perfect memory would bring about a vanishment of all objects and spaces.
Well, at least that is the theory and the theory is borne out by the fact that it is only nec-essary to remember who created something to have it diminish in density, or, in case of a light mass of energy, such as an engram, to vanish.
In that Thetans become very possessed with the idea of making nothing out of every-thing (their primary obsession), memory, an exact and persistent memory, becomes an obsession with the Thetan. He knows that when he no longer remembers the exact genus of all those things in his vicinity he will no longer be able to make them disappear. Therefore, a failure in memory causes a Thetan to be very frantic.
Now, we needn’t go too deeply into just exactly why this is, but I will brush it in pass-ing. ALL THINGS LIKE TO BE DUPLICATED. A THETAN HAS NO MASS, NO SPACE, NO WAVELENGTH, AND NO TIME. Therefore to get a perfect perception of any-thing, he thinks the best choice would be to look at something which has no mass, no space, no wavelength, and no time. Of course, this is impossible. But, this is a Thetan being duplicated, and this, indeed, would be the most comfortable frame of mind for a Thetan – to have no per-sistence or non-persistence of any kind in its vicinity. Thus, when a Thetan begins to see more and more spaces (and he is not space) and when he begins to see more and more masses (and he is not mass) and when he begins to see more and more wave motion (and he is not wave mo-tion) he conceives the fact that nothing is duplicating him, which is to say that nothing is taking a look at his nothingness and becoming nothing. In other words, he’s losing control of things.
Well, it just so happens that a Thetan knows that if he could remember the exact place everything had been generated, the exact time and the exact conditions and the exact person who did it, he would then get a disappearance. Thus, when a Thetan begins to object to life and considers that this idea of masses and spaces is foolish and should be discontinued (as the boys evidently believe in the nuclear physics department) they can only think in frantic terms of making nothing out of everything.
It does not happen to be a healthy frame of mind for a Thetan to be obsessed with mak-ing nothing out of things. We see people around who, themselves, have considerable bulk but who are unable to make nothing out of things but who try all the time to do so anyway. For instance, you tell a joke; they say, well that’s nothing, and they’ve heard that before. You buy a new hat and they say they’ve always liked it. You invent a new dance step and they say it has been done before. They are, on a covert level, trying to make nothing out of something. These people already know they can’t make nothing out of masses and spaces. They are already ob-sessed with the idea that masses and spaces are dangerous to them and therefore, they do have to make nothing out of them. And these people at the same time will be obsessed with prob-lems in memory and will probably develop a fantastic comm lag on the auditing question ”Give me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.” It does not follow that everybody who wants to improve his memory is obsessed with making nothing out of everything. But it does demon-strate how we get these obsessions on the subject of memory. Actually you could probably re-member one-one hundredth of what you are able to remember and still get along. Certainly I know lots of places where people would employ you if you could remember just one-thousandth of what you are able to remember at this moment. The income tax bureau is one of them.
Memory, strangely enough, has very little to do with intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to pose and resolve problems relating to survival. Without some memory, one would have no track of time, but, an absolutely perfect memory does not necessarily connote a perfect intelligence. If one’s memory were really perfect, he would have no objects or spaces with which to pose or resolve problems. So, therefore, a certain amount of mis-memory (or forget-tingness) is necessary to have factors with which to play a game.
When memory is entered as a factor into the posing and resolving of problems one then gets the phenomenon of time track. One conceives through ”experience” the IDENTITIES, SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PRESENT TIME FACTORS AND THE FACTORS OF THE PAST. AND HERE WE HAVE THE KEY TO ABERRATION.
Theoretically, a person could not be aberrated who was not living on a time track, since he would have no need of any kind to associate any spaces or objects of the present with any spaces or objects of the past. Now, naturally, no spaces or objects of the present are ever exact-ly identical to spaces or objects of the past. But, a person through mis-memory will eventually come into a situation where he does actually conceive a present time situation to be identical with a past situation. When he conceives this automatically and with great ease he is then in a fair way to being aberrated.
One could not go so far as to say that no experience at all is necessary to the living of life. But, one could go so far as to say that a total reliance upon experience or hearsay or sec-ond-hand observation in life brings a person into a very frightening state of mind.
Therefore, mis-memory could be of this kind. One sees a certain number of factors be-fore him. One misremembers some factors that happened to him earlier sufficiently to conceive that these earlier factors are now identical with the factors he faces. When he has managed this he has essentially no time. In other words, IDENTITY does not give him PAST. He says the factors I face right now ARE the factors which confronted me five years ago. But he does not conceive this articulately. He conceives this on a mis-memory basis. He ”feels” that the present factors have a significance which is due to nothing but themselves, but it’s actually due to a combination of past factors. This essentially is about all there is to aberration. Aberration is ”NO TIME.” It does not conceive that there is any earlier position for any particle.
Thus, we have the interesting fact that a perfect memory to an extreme and absolute that has never existed would bring about a situation of NO UNIVERSE, NO FORM, NO MASS, NO SPACE. And that a completely IMPERFECT memory, which again has never ex-isted, would bring about a total COLLAPSE of all time, and would bring all factors into the present. Now, somewhere between these two lies the game called SANITY. It is in the effort to attain this game called sanity that the auditor exercises the memory of the preclear. He must exercise the memory in such a way as to uncover a great many similarities which the preclear thought were identities.
Now, here is the subject of valence. By valence we mean personality. Theoretically a person could have his own valence. But, more familiarly the term is used to denote the borrow-ing of the personality of another. A preclear ”in his father’s valence” is acting as though he were his father. The word ”valence” means in Latin, strength (valentia). We use it in Dianetics and Scientology as meaning personality, but it has not escaped the value of strength. A person takes at will the valences of a commanding nature or valences of a very obedient nature in or-der to answer up to various situations. One person may routinely use several valences. In order to handle women he takes the valence of his father, in order to handle students he takes the valence of a bulldog. In order to get drunk he takes the valence of a horse. There may or may not be any sense to the valence beyond the fact that it was a strong valence in a situation relat-ing to the subject. In other words, he has mental image pictures unconsciously experienced by him which have as their dominant or obedient personality things related to the subject which he then identifies with the subject. Many a psychotic is in the valence of a bedpost. Others are in the valence of God. But these are totally stuck valences; any sane person routinely uses in his modus operandi of existence a vast category of valences. To say that somebody is capable of two or three valences would be a misnomer. A person takes many valences. Now, it is not nec-essary to pick up these valences or these personalities or ”strengths” or ”weaknesses” in our expanded understanding of the word in order to handle existence. A Thetan is perfectly capa-ble of mocking up a beingness or valence sufficient to the situation simply compounded from the elements of the situation. If he does this easily he is very intelligent. He has a good imagi-nation. Or you might say a good valencination. Only when he has a tremendous successful va-lence in the past which has enormous command value or enormous obedience value and then when he forgets this and conceives that it is all in the present does he assume anything like a fixed valence. He then is, you might say, ”himself.” The ”himself” or ”herself” is simply a va-lence which is moderately commanding, moderately obedient and which is ”dreamed up” or ”taken out of past experience.”
The automaticities of memory are dependent upon this valence situation. By automatici-ty we mean anything that goes on running outside the control of the individual. This in its sev-erest definition would seem to indicate that everything was automatic except those things upon which the person had his immediate attention. And this is not too far from wrong. It is not bad to have things automatic, it is bad to have placed things on automatic which are detrimental to one’s happiness and life. The more automaticities exist around the individual the less living that individual is likely to do.
This is quite interesting to observe, off the subject a little, in a business office which is determined to modernize with all the latest machinery and equipment. It is the theory that the introduction of all these automaticities will bring down the number of people on staff and will bring up the volume of work. Now, there is a make-or-break point beyond which the introduc-tion of automaticities is detrimental to the business itself and will actually cut down the amount of outgoing communication. In fact, in a great many overly machined business offices the greatest amount of work done is by the repairmen, keeping the machinery in action. But, with-out a certain amount of automaticity in an office, it is true that very little work gets done.
Harm comes from this factor of automaticity only when people have forgotten that something has been put on automatic, for when a thing is put on automatic, which is to say, when it is put in a situation where it is intended to run without any observation of any kind from anybody and without any knowledge on the part of anybody that it is running, we sud-denly find a sphere of deteriorization, and we cannot trace it. We do not know what has bro-ken down since we did not know what was there and had been placed on automatic.
Here memory plays an interesting role. The first requisite to putting something on auto-matic is to forget that it has been placed on automatic. And that in the severest Scientological use of the word is what we mean by a full automaticity. Something is going on and we do not know its cause. We do not know its cause because we have forgotten that we have placed it there. Or, we have forgotten that anyone placed it there. We do not even know that anything IS there. But, something is happening in that sphere.
Now, although this relates to many parts of life we are apt to specialize on the psycho-somatic character of this manifestation. We have forgotten or maybe never did know who put a bad leg into this body. A bad leg is in this body. We try, by moving it around or by manipula-tion, to change the bad leg and find out that we get an additional persistence to the bad leg. Only by discovering the ownership of the decision or idea or mass of the bad leg would we get a complete vanquishment of the bad leg. Now, if we went just a little bit further and remem-bered also who made the leg in the first place, and remembered this fully to the extent of re-membering who made all the particles that went together and made the leg and who made all of the organizations of food which fed the leg, we would have no leg. So, we see that we could carry memory through to a complete vanquishment.
But, automaticity and memory do not happen to be limited entirely and completely to just one factor – psychosomatic illness. In fact, a person who would work memory simply to get somebody over a psychosomatic illness has himself a very bad identification. Life does not consist of psychosomatic illnesses. As a matter of fact, the Scientology auditor who tells pre-clears that he is going to get them over their psychosomatic illness has already created a new automaticity, as far as the preclear is concerned.
Now, the PRECLEAR isn’t going to go do it; the AUDITOR, by some necromancy, is going to do it and we’re likely to get a failure on the part of the auditor to remedy that psycho-somatic illness. As a matter of fact, an auditor has no business at all promising anybody that he will ever do anything about a psychosomatic illness. Not, of course, because he can’t, because of all the professionals in the world, the auditor is probably the one most likely to knock out a psychosomatic illness. But an auditor who says he’s going to knock out a psychosomatic illness and goes in the direction of knocking such things out is limiting himself so woefully that it’s hardly worth while knowing how to audit. When preclears start telling us that they want to get rid of such and such a psychosomatic illness we are apt to gaze at them with a questioning eye since the person has an insufficiency of problems or he wouldn’t have the psychosomatic ill-ness, and if we took it away he would just get another one unless we also remedied PROBLEMS. And all we can see out of this statement of the preclear is that this preclear has his attention fixed on something and he ought to have his attention unfixed off of it. Well, if he has his attention this thoroughly fixed on a psychosomatic illness he probably, on a gradient scale, has his attention fixed on a great many other and unpleasant things. And as a result we have a problem here in an individual who is stuck all over the track. He’s identifying, he’s mis-remembering, he is in, to say the least, an interesting state. And even if we did get him over the psychosomatic illness we probably, if we limited the auditing to this, would not have made him happy. So what we tell such a preclear is, ”Well, I may or may not do something about the psy-chosomatic illness, but I will certainly make you feel happier about it.” Usually he is fairly satis-fied with such an answer.
The earliest coining of the memory exercises known as ”Straight Wire” came from the formula of cause and effect. In 1950 in the early HDA Lectures we described this as the act of stringing a line between present time and some incident in the past, and stringing that line di-rectly and without any detours. In other words, we conceived the auditor was stringing a straight wire of memory between the actual genus of a condition and present time, thus demon-strating that there was a difference of time and space in the condition then and the condition now, and that the preclear conceding this difference would then rid himself of the condition or at least be able to handle it. This essentially was the overcoming of automaticities or the locat-ing of automaticities. The preclear had some engram that had a command value over him and it was necessary to locate the source of that situation in order to bring it under the preclear’s con-trol. The term ”Straight Wire” was used to differentiate between Dianetic memory exercises and those which had been used by psychotherapy in the past. And a great need for such differ-entiation was necessary, because there’s many a Dianetic auditor who permitted ”free associa-tion” and other unworkable techniques to go on in the guise of auditing. Hence the term ”Straight Wire,” and that term seems to be an apt one since it stuck with auditors all during these years.


Straight Wire and Present Time

One of the earliest observations of Straight Wire which we made was on no less a pre-clear than Burke Belknap (then studying to be an HDA) in the small reception room at 42 Ab-erdeen Road in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Burke had come in complaining of a headache and in an offhand way I said, ”I’ll handle that” and asked him to remember who had a headache. He promptly came up with a memory of someone else having a headache and then someone else having a headache and finally of someone who complained about headaches and abruptly his headache was gone. Well, this was very triumphant, but I did not have enough sense to quit at that exact moment but started to run him through the incident he had last recalled, and instant-ly his headache was back.
Now, we are telling you this for more reason than nostalgia. This was the first time we observed the difference between Straight Wire and engram running to the degree that: Straight Wire did not run out the engram but only got it out of present time. Naturally, in theory, we had had this around for some time. But, here was an exact example of this very thing occurring. In other words, you could remember something and feel good, and then could run immediately into the engram and feel terrible all over again. Now, this immediately and instantly gives us the reason why psychotherapy was unworkable before Dianetics. One would get the preclear into present time (and of course the preclear is always in present time but the engrams are there also, so it is more accurate to say, get the engrams out of present time) and then have the en-gram get into present time again and have the preclear in the same state as before. In other words, as long as and as often as we wanted to get these mental image pictures of pain and unconsciousness into and out of present time we would have a change accordingly in the pre-clear. Theoretically we could throw birth into present time and out of present time, into present time and out of present time, and have the preclear as rapidly have and not have the symptoms of birth. Now when we realize that our machinery as a body-plus-Thetan is being continually monitored by the environment and that the machinery which throws engrams into present time is also monitorable by the environment and by others in it, we see that simply throwing the en-grams out of present time and keeping the preclear in present time would apparently be inade-quate processing. Here evidently we would make a preclear well and would then make him unwell just to the degree that we took out of present time and put into present time the engram causing that unwellness.
Now, in view of the fact that an engram contains pain and unconsciousness, it is very likely to become an automaticity. Thus, we are playing tag with an unknown genus whenever we are playing tag with engrams. A preclear does not like to look at things which suddenly make him feel like his head is being torn half off. Thus, he will continue to keep out of exist-ence for himself, and to refuse control over, all engrams.
By old Dianetic standards, then, Straight Wire was merely a patch-up process. It did not do too much for the preclear but made him momentarily comfortable. It did this simply by slipping out of present time, engrams. Engrams were held in present time by the preclear’s mak-ing a bridge between present time and the engram, of locks, which is to say conscious moments which lay on top of the engram. In other words, we could have a sort of a picture of a dark, Lying-in-wait engram, which had happened or had been created at some early date, which had been keyed in by a conscious incident a little bit later, which had been bridged by a repetition of similarities until at last the preclear conceived an identity between the moment of the en-gram’s occurrence and present time. By this bridge of locks we would then have an engram being present time.
So much for the early attitude. What is the attitude about this now? There is no real change. It’s just that THE PRECLEAR CAN BE BROUGHT TO CONTROL A MASS OF ENERGY AS HEAVY AS AN ENGRAM BY THE GRADIENT SCALE OF CONTROLLING LIGHTER MASSES.
Here we have essentially the idea of the person who lifts a calf every day until the calf becomes a bull. Then we have a person who is able to lift a huge animal. Now, I don’t know that anybody ever tried this, but theoretically it would actually occur. Certainly, it is much more likely that this gradient scale of lifting would more workably apply to locks and engrams than to pure bull.
By Straight Wire, on modern standards, we get the preclear to handle the light key-ins. Over and over and over, new incidents or the same incidents until at last he is able to handle the actual genus of the situation, at which time the condition, of course, will vanish.
The great oddity is that a preclear is so wary of a heavy, hidden mass like an engram, that when it comes into present time automatically he will not or cannot throw it out of present time. And this is the main thing which is wrong with the preclear. A heavy mental image from the past comes into present time, then the preclear cannot throw it out of present time. If he is unable to throw it out of present time it will stay in present time, which is to say, ride along with the preclear.
One of the goals of Modern Straight Wire is to get the preclear to throw the engram out of present time or into present time at will. In other words, to teach him that he doesn’t neces-sarily have to vanquish all energy masses – that he can handle these energy masses and get them up to him or away from him at will.
A clear, by definition, is somebody who does not have any engrams in present time with him. By actual practice a clear would have to be a stable Thetan exterior since the body itself is composed of energy masses which unfortunately contain engrams.
We are no longer trying to rid present time of all engrams. We are simply trying to bring about an ABILITY on the part of the preclear to handle energy masses in the past or in present time at will. And by a gradient scale to cure his fright of being confronted with a picture and his compulsion and necessity to obey that picture.


Straight Wire and Pictures

With the advent of communication processing a new method of handling pictures arose. Within minutes after the first discovery that communication alone would vanquish masses we found that communication would handle pictures themselves. In view of the fact that pictures have been more or less a common denominator of investigation since the earliest Dianetic days, we became very interested in this startling new method of handling the bank.
Whenever a person of the usual Mark I Homo Sapiens type is asked to remember some-thing, he gets a picture along with it. This, no matter what names or description you place upon it, is simply a picture which has been taken of an event in the past, said picture now being in the present. This automatic feed mechanism has gone relatively unnoticed but occasionally de-scribed back through the centuries. It seems that this should be considered very usual. Howev-er, it was not until Dianetics that anyone made any kind of a thorough study of these pictures.
In the first place, of what were these pictures composed? It was an old saw in mysti-cism that mental energy was one thing and physical energy was another thing. I suppose this was stated many times out of hopefulness rather than fact. Today enough data has come to hand to establish that this mental energy, such as is contained in a picture, and the energy of earth or of the electric light company, are different only in wavelength. The proof of this is that a person, by remedying havingness, can increase his weight if he only pulls the havingness in, and can decrease his actual weight by throwing the havingness away. Of course, a preclear has to be in fairly good condition and has to be able to throw away or possess havingness at will in order to do this, but in actual experiment weight has been changed many pounds either way by this. And, believe me, if you can weigh mental energy on a set of Toledo scales you certainly have something very intimate to the energy of the electric light company, and you don’t have anything different than the energy of the electric light company, save only in characteristic.
These mental image pictures, then, are actually composed of energy. They have mass, they exist in space, and they follow some very, very definite routines of behavior, the most interesting of which to us just now is the fact that they appear when somebody thinks of some-thing. He thinks of a certain dog, he gets a picture of the dog. When a person is rather far gone, when he thinks of the dog he gets the picture of a house. When he thinks of a house he gets a picture of a cactus. This person’s pictures are not associated with his own thoughts, but are oc-curring on a total automaticity.
But, what do we have in the first place but an automaticity? An individual thinks of a dog and he gets a picture of that dog. This carried on long enough would bring it about where he would think of one dog and get the picture of another dog. And a little bit further, he would merely think the thought and get a picture without any relationship between the thought and the picture.
Well, if these pictures are actually more or less the same stuff as is sold to you for five cents a kilowatt hour by the power company, then you could suppose that they would have some effect on the human body, and so they do. Pictures are continually being taken by the body or the Thetan or the Thetan’s machinery or the body machinery. You never saw such a complete cinematographic plant in your life as the Thetan-plus-body, Mark I, Homo Sapiens. Something even takes pictures when he is deeply unconscious and during an operation.
Not only does a person take pictures of anything and everything just as you right this moment are taking a picture of this page (if you don’t believe it, close your eyes and take a look at the page again) (oh, you didn’t know you were taking pictures all the time?), but also these pictures then react back on the individual more or less as the incident itself reacted on the indi-vidual. Thus, if a person had a bang on the thumb from a hammer, he is certain to have taken a picture of this. Later on this picture gets into present time and his thumb hurts. It is a picture which is impinged upon his beingness so as to reproduce some of the qualities in the picture.
One of the oldest obedience stunts on the track was to convince the Thetan that he ought to ”obey the picture.” In fact, according to the O-Meter, people within the last many generations have taught their children to ”obey the picture.” In other words, made use of these mental image pictures in order to produce a higher level of obedience on the part of a child. Certainly it might or might not have produced a higher level of obedience, but it did produce a much higher level of conscience and it is in itself practically the anatomy of conscience. Overt act-motivator sequence is itself only the action and reaction of these pictures. A person takes a picture and then the picture turns on him.
Thus, the handling of these pictures becomes very important if one’s going to change the characteristics of an individual. One of the first things, then, that an individual ought to be able to do is to handle these pictures. An individual can’t handle these pictures? He’s in bad shape.
Now, let’s take this thing we call a Black Five. This poor fellow is so far gone he can’t even see pictures any more. He only sees blackness in front of him. Well, this blackness may be some kind of a screen; it may be anything; but at least it prevents him from seeing pictures, and he’s very often keeping himself from being victimized by all these pictures by having a contin-uous black screen in front of him. That the pictures reach THROUGH the black screen and do influence him anyhow, he hopefully overlooks. However, remember that THIS BLACKNESS ITSELF IS ONLY A PICTURE, and so we don’t have a special category of (1) people who get pictures, and (2) people who get blackness. We have only one category. We get people who have pictures of various things and people who have pictures of special things. And this is simply a GRADIENT SCALE of how easily does the individual handle these pictures that get into present time. When he handles present time returned pictures very poorly more and more pictures get stacked up in present time and pretty soon he is a fairly ”massive” case.
Hence you can appreciate our excitement when we found a new way of handling pic-tures. There have since been developed, as we became more versed in handling special prob-lems, additional ways, such as Ownership Processing. But to this moment we know of no bet-ter routine way of handling pictures than a combination of Straight Wire and the data which we are going to give you here.
Before we go very deeply into this, you should realize that pictures are not bad, and that blackness is not totally bad. Pictures are used by the Thetan to assist his memory. They are not necessary to his memory, but he begins to play with the idea of taking pictures of every-thing and remembering by pictures as a sort of a game. It is an interesting game. Gives him something to look at. Gives him some mass and makes him happy – up to the point when he collects pictures of great unhappiness; then these moments of unhappiness stay with him simply because he has pictures of them and really for no other reason. As far as blackness is concerned, blackness is usually the protective coating between the preclear and the pictures. Not unusual for a preclear to have a machine, either of his own or belonging to his body, which black-coats every picture that shows up before he looks at it. This keeps him from getting stunned by these pictures. This, by the way, is somewhat different than having blackness in continual and total restimulation. Both of these conditions regarding blackness exist: the machine that makes blackness, and having a black picture in restimulation. There is also simply the blackness of looking around inside of a head, and as yet, the modernness of science has not installed electric lighting inside skulls.
We also get the condition, where these pictures are concerned, of the Thetan’s machin-ery taking pictures and then trying to show them to the Thetan while the Thetan is inside the head. This is a very interesting condition because the machinery cannot reach the Thetan, but reaches the head of the body instead, and if this machinery is very powerful, which it usually is, the body becomes very uncomfortable solely by reason of having pictures shoved up against it by machinery which is foreign to it.
So we get a lot of conditions which are germane to pictures. But these pictures are not all bad, and the whole subject of pictures is not a bad subject.
And again, before we go any further, you should realize that it is not ABSOLUTELY necessary for the auditor to handle pictures in the fashion we are going to outline now in order to have Straight Wire as given in an earlier article work. But, this is the fillip which really han-dles pictures and is called ”HELLOS AND O.K.’s TO PICTURES.”
The technique has limitations. It is limited by the fact that the auditor can audit Straight Wire on preclears lower on the scale than those who can handle pictures with hellos and O.K.’s. In other words, a rather low toned preclear can simply be run on Straight Wire as given earlier, but when he comes upscale and starts to get pictures this process can then be applied.
The anatomy of the process is simple indeed. Every time the preclear remembers some-thing the auditor asks him, ”Did you get a picture?” If the preclear did, which is usually the case, the auditor tells him, ”Throw a shower of hellos at it.” The preclear does. The auditor then says, ”Have it throw a shower of O.K.’s at you.” The preclear does. The auditor then says, ”Is the picture still there?” If the preclear says it is the auditor simply has the preclear complete the cycle of two-way communication with, ”Have the picture send a shower of hel-los at you,” and when the preclear does, the auditor says, ”Throw a shower of O.K.’s at the picture,” which the preclear does. Again the auditor asks him, ”Is the picture still there?” If it is, the auditor simply repeats the four commands given above, which is to say, he has the pre-clear throw a shower of hellos at the picture, has the picture throw a shower of O.K.’s to the preclear, has the picture send a shower of hellos to the preclear, and the preclear send a shower of O.K.’s to the picture. Actually the auditor can have the preclear do this over and over until the picture is gone, for that is the single and solitary goal of the process: to make the picture disappear. It will be discovered that early in processing the auditor will have to make the pre-clear complete several two-way cycles of communication with the picture before it vanishes, but, as processing continues and as the preclear becomes more and more capable, that fewer and fewer two-way exchanges are necessary to make the picture vanish. And at length all the auditor has to say is, ”Throw it away,” and the preclear will be able to do so. Of course, the case which can simply throw the picture away in the first place and get it back at will does not need to use communication processing on this, a fact which most auditors overlook – they ne-glect to test the preclear to find out whether or not the preclear can throw these pictures away. Now, in the case of blackness this is rather foolish, to ask the preclear to throw hellos at the blackness, since these screens are very resistive, indeed. In the case of blackness one would simply use STRAIGHT WIRE with the question, ”Recall a time when you were looking at blackness” over and over and over until the blackness was gone. If the blackness doesn’t go, then it’s a machine which is making the blackness, but this is found to be handleable too by the same process, if it is carried on long enough. And even if that did not work, machine pro-cessing would.
Very well. We have here, by throwing showers of hellos and O.K.’s back and forth be-tween the preclear and the picture, a method of vanquishing the picture. BUT, IF YOU AS AN AUDITOR ASSUME THAT ALL PICTURES ARE BAD AND OUGHT TO BE THROWN AWAY, YOU WILL HAVE IN YOUR HANDS IN A VERY SHORT SPACE OF TIME A VERY UNHAPPY PRECLEAR. If he is fairly upscale he will tell you why he is unhappy. If he’s fairly well downscale he will simply hug it bitterly to his bosom. The fact is, you are get-ting rid of his pictures, and his pictures are not a bad phenomenon, totally. Thus, you were rob-bing him continually. Now, the old Dianetic auditor who is trained only to make pictures van-ish or a person who is obsessed with the idea of making nothing out of everything, is liable to neglect this vital little step, and if this vital little step is neglected this entire process will wind the preclear up in an unhappy state of mind. So, after the picture has been vanquished by either throwing it away or by throwing hellos and O.K.’s back and forth between the preclear and it, the auditor MUST ask the preclear TO GET THE PICTURE BACK. This is, of course, part of the automaticity cycle. The picture got there automatically; well, the preclear had better take over that automaticity – for all automaticities are conquered by having the preclear do what is being done automatically, or by simply sighting the genus of the automaticity.
Thus, having completed this two-way cycle of hellos and O.K.’s, the auditor now says, ”Get the picture back.” This usually startles the preclear, for at first the preclear will be very victorious at having gotten rid of this automatic function of pictures. But the preclear, one way or another, will get the picture back. He may get back some other facet of the scene. He may get back a picture different from the first one, but what you want is that same picture. Of course, don’t badger and hound your preclear until he goes out of communication with you to get the same picture back. You can tolerate a certain amount of looseness at this stage of the processing, but what you really want is the same picture back again. Now, having gotten the preclear to get the picture back, you now have him throw once more showers of hellos at it, have it throw showers of O.K.’s at him, have it throw showers of hellos to him, and he throw showers of O.K.’s to it, until it vanishes again. And when it is vanished, you ask the preclear to get the picture back. Now, before you have handled this picture very much you will find usual-ly that the preclear can simply bring the picture up and throw it away at will, at which moment you go on to the next auditing question on Straight Wire, which is, ”Recall a time when – ” or ”Recall a moment of – ” whatever you were asking before. And once more you ask him, ”Did you get a picture?” You handle it in this fashion. You have him throw hellos and O.K.’s back and forth. You have him throw it away, get it back – you have him handle it, in other words. After a while you will find the preclear will be able to get all sorts of pictures at will and throw them away at will. You will also find that some of his automatic machinery starts to break down. If this starts to happen, why just continue him on the process. You may have to drill him for a short time on mocking up pictures. If you knock out his automatic machinery which is giving him pictures – doing the mock-ups for him – you have made it necessary for you to give him the assurance that he can make pictures, which will again make him happy. Very often a preclear who is unable to make pictures but is getting everything automatically will recover his ability to create pictures once he brings this automaticity under control.
”HELLOS AND O.K.’s TO PICTURES” is a very valuable process. A preclear will work up a gradient scale to where he can throw some hellos and O.K.’s to engrams that pop up and will then be able to bring engrams into present time or throw them out of present time at will. And when he can do this he has no further worries or upsets about energy masses.
You will understand that this process of communication is entirely independent of lo-cating the genus of the picture. The actual knockout of the machinery making the pictures could be accomplished by having the preclear state that this or that CREATED or OWNED the machine, including himself, until the machine was gone. But, this is not a very good process. It is robbing the preclear of something on which he has no reality. However, we expect future developments will embrace something which gives us a superior process along ownership lines.
Remember, now, that our goal is not to make the preclear get rid of every picture that pops up. Our goal is to make him capable of handling those pictures which pop up, throwing them away and getting them back at will.
This process is also used with the technique ”Tell me something you wouldn’t mind remembering,” ”Tell me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting,” and was originally em-ployed as part of this process.


Psychoanalysis and Straight Wire

When Sigmund Freud and Breuer first began working on the theory that if an individu-al could recall enough he could be well, they were working primarily on the assumption that there was something wrong, which they now had to make right, and that the wrongness was a hidden or buried memory.
It is notable to remark today that Scientology does not try to find something wrong in order to make that wrongness right. This introduces a via on the line, introduces an assumption into the case which is not justified. All we assume is that an individual can be more able than he is and we take it from there. We are not looking for hidden memories.
Another thing which Freud assumed was that guilt underlay these hidden memories as their primary propulsive mechanism. This was not necessarily true, for you will discover that anyone, no matter how innocent, who has been struck, if he has been struck hard enough, will begin to believe that he must have been guilty of something. In other words, he gets a reason why he has been punished, which may or may not have any actuality in fact. In other words, any sudden blow or duress can be expected to have as its consequence the feeling that one has been guilty. In order to stay a reasonable or rational being an individual has to assume that there must be a reason for everything. This is not necessarily true at all. Thus, guilt comes about merely from a blow or duress. I imagine if you put a man in prison long enough he would be absolutely certain at the end of that time that he had committed the crime for which he was incarcerated. I suppose that if you questioned a man long enough about his guilt, if this ques-tioning were under duress, he would begin to feel he was guilty of the crime of which he was being accused, which accounts for many of the confessions which are brought forth by third-degree methods. Even the police have begun to question these, having discovered all too often that the person was really innocent although he now believed he was completely guilty. Thus, we have the fact that physical pain and unconsciousness in a memory would produce a HIDINGNESS in the memory, since a person would not want to confront a painful picture, and would bring about a feeling of guilt. All this is resolved simply by MAKING THE INDIVIDUAL CAPABLE OF HANDLING ENERGY PICTURES OR ENERGY MASSES OR SPACES REGARDLESS OF THEIR SIZE, SHAPE OR THREAT.
In performing a psychoanalysis, emphasis was then laid upon memory and upon things about which society expected people to feel guilty. In this alone we have the reason why psy-choanalysis is such a long drawn-out affair and why it leaves a person in such a careful frame of mind.
The psychoanalytic patient was expected to talk long enough – without much acknowl-edgment from the analyst – to disclose hidden memories. The actual hidden memories were, of course, moments of pain and unconsciousness, and if the psychoanalyst had ever gotten a pa-tient into one of these moments of pain and unconsciousness he wouldn’t have known what to do about it. But this was outside the theory if well inside the practice.
In the process of trying to recover hidden memories the analyst was continually in com-bat with the automatic forgettingness of the patient. By asking a person to recall and recall and recall and recall and think about the past, the analyst often got the individual back down the time track and didn’t get him up again. In the first place, the analyst, not being very able in the field of DUPLICATION seldom gave a repetitive question which would have freed the patient from one line of action.
Further, the analyst was insufficiently observant and inquiring. He may or may not have noticed this phenomenon of energy pictures but, being trained in a rather mystic school, he probably did not believe that these energy pictures possessed any energy and so could not do the patient any harm.
But, let us suppose that we were actually trying to uncover hidden memories for the preclear. If this were the case, then, we would have to get his forgettingness off of automatic and into his control.
If you wish to reform the entire field of psychoanalysis, which is not any particular mis-sion for the Scientologist, as Scientology is not psychotherapy, you yet could do so by the pub-lication of this material:
Have the patient relax and become aware of the fact that you, the analyst, are there, that he is there, that the room is there and that you are about to do some psychoanalysis.
Enter into a discussion with the patient concerning his trials and tribulations in the pre-sent-time world, permitting the patient to originate communications and become relaxed about talking with the analyst.
Now that these steps have been accomplished, ask the patient this question, and use no other question aside from incidental and momentary discussions and acknowledgments, no other: ”Tell me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.”
No matter how long the patient took to answer this question, do not abandon it and do not go away from the question. But, at last, still maintaining pleasant relations with the patient, obtain an answer to this question.
Having obtained the patient’s statement that he has at last found something that he is very certain he wouldn’t mind forgetting, the analyst should then say, ”Very well,” as an ac-knowledgment of the fact that the question has been answered. And the analyst should never at any future time omit to acknowledge with a ”Very well” or some such statement the fact that the patient has completed the analyst’s command.
Having received an answer to this question, the analyst must now repeat the very same question and again must get an answer to this question and again must acknowledge the fact that an answer has been received.
The analyst should not go into discussions of the material and should not tell the patient what the material means, for the analyst should be well aware of the fact that if the patient has already reached this depth in his psyche he must perforce be capable of reaching much deeper depths and that better information will always be forthcoming.
Even though the analyst finds himself becoming inattentive or upset by the repetition of the same question over and over he must continue this. He must, each time the patient has complied and the analyst has acknowledged, ask again, ”Tell me something else you wouldn’t mind forgetting.”
This should be the sum total of the analysis and this program should be continued as long as the patient is being analyzed, whether that be four times a week for a year or four times a week for two years. No other interchange or material should be discussed or addressed than these things the patient would not mind forgetting.
If an analyst were to follow this program and if he were capable of repeating this ques-tion or duplicating so often and so long, he would discover that his patient had come into more possession about his life and his beingness than any other program could have accomplished, and that it will no longer be necessary for the analyst to evaluate for or make decisions for the patient.
We recommend that this process be coached to analysts in the hope that the field of psychoanalysis could be made into a successful psychotherapy, for Scientology is not a psycho-therapy and does not intend to take the place of any existing psychotherapy.


How to Do Straight Wire

There is a happy medium of two-way communication which must be present in all pro-cessing, whether that processing be Opening Procedure by Duplication or Straight Wire.
One of the most delicate subjects in all auditing and one of the most delicate skills in auditing consists of knowing HOW MUCH TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION TO ENTER UPON AS AN AUDITOR WITH THE PRECLEAR.
Straight Wire requires this as in any other process. However, many errors can be made in Straight Wire with two-way communication which would have peculiarly detrimental effects. The preclear, you must understand, is indulging in recalling his past, and we can forgive pre-clears for being excited about remembering various pleasant parts or various unpleasant parts of the past. We can also forgive the preclear for trying to justify some of the actions he has sud-denly recalled having entered upon in his past. Thus, we can understand that it is necessary for the preclear to be permitted to communicate about what he is doing; otherwise he will feel sup-pressed and straitjacketed by the auditor who refuses to let him talk. BUT, THE PRECLEAR WHO JUST GOES ON TALKING ENDLESSLY ABOUT WHAT HE IS RECALLING IS NOT DOING HIMSELF ANY GOOD. HE IS NOT DOING THE PROCESS, HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE PROCESS. Thus, to some slight degree he must be checked on this excessive comm lag. The auditor should be very definitely aware of what comm lag is before he does very much auditing. He must also be aware of what acknowledgment is before he does very much auditing.
COMM LAG – COMMUNICATION LAG – IS THE INTERVAL OF TIME BETWEEN THE MOMENT OF THE AUDITOR’S ASKING THE QUESTION AND THE REPLY TO THAT EXACT QUESTION BY THE PRECLEAR. A near reply is not a reply. A reply to some related question is not a reply. The interval between may be occupied by argu-ment from the preclear, talk from the preclear or silence from the preclear. It does not matter what goes on between the asking of the question and the answer to the question; the internal is communication lag. In other words, communication is not taking place during this interval.
A COMMUNICATION LAG IS FLAT WHEN IT IS CONSISTENT. A person may have a habitual lag of ten seconds. He may answer everything after a ten-second pause. If a person then answers after a ten-second pause on a particular process it could be said that his communication lag was flat, since his communication lag is always ten seconds. We say that a question is flat when the communication lag has been similar for three successive questions. Now, that is a FLAT QUESTION. The communication lag might be five seconds, five seconds and five seconds. We would still say with some justice that the QUESTION lag was flat. However, the process lag would not be flat until the actual normal exchange lag was present. The question would no longer influence the communication factors of the preclear when the process is flat. Usually, because these processes are very beneficial, it occurs that the individual under processing talks very rapidly after a process is flat. His basic lag has changed.
There is another kind of communication lag with an automaticity of communication which an auditor should understand. When the question has excited a machine into answer it is quite common for the answers to come very rapidly, often too rapidly for the preclear to articu-late. When this occurs the auditor is advancing against a communication SPEED which is as artificial as a communication LAG, and it will be discovered after the question is answered several times that this communication speed will drop into a normal and will then expand out into a communication lag.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT is a very necessary study. AN AUDITOR MUST ALWAYS ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THE PRECLEAR HAS SAID. This may enter a compulsiveness into auditing for the auditor, but it is nevertheless true that a preclear will keep on talking until he KNOWS he has been acknowledged. Some people would require a sledgehammer in the face to know that they had been acknowledged. One auditor stood in front of a preclear and waggled his finger close to the preclear’s nose for several seconds and said very loudly, ”Good!” and the preclear knew she had been acknowledged. It very often happens that the auditor is saying O.K. but is not acknowledging the preclear because the preclear does not un-derstand or even hear the auditor saying O.K. Thus, occasionally an auditor should ask, ”I just said O.K. Did you hear that?” And the preclear will sometimes look rather sheepish and real-ize that he has not known that his statement was acknowledged.
Very often the crankiness or upset of old people or children simply stems from the fact that nobody acknowledges them. They begin to say something and then can’t stop saying it, and will keep on saying it until it has been acknowledged by someone that they have said it. They would have to know that that statement had been acknowledged before they could ”come off’ the statement. You could say that a thing persists until it is acknowledged. This, by the way, is quite applicable to machinery. Machinery keeps putting up pictures until the pictures are acknowledged, and the Thetan seldom acknowledges these pictures, and so we get into a dwindling spiral of automaticity which ends up in blackness. It is not a cure, however, to simp-ly have the preclear say ”O.K.” to all the machinery.
The auditor should also understand THE AXIOMS as contained in The Creation of Human Ability, particularly the CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE which are outlined in THE AXIOMS. These are quite important. Particularly important are those axioms devoted to ”ISNESS” and ”NOT-ISNESS.” We find that a person very often not-ises his pictures or not-ises his memory. In other words, he meets his memory or pictures with force. He pushes force against force and then we have accumulation of force, and this is not particularly good. The apparency, or isness, condition of existence comes about, of course, through alter-isness. Where we try to change a mass for a long time we eventually get a mass which is persisting and that persistence is isness. So, we see that CHANGING MASSES WITH ANYTHING LESS THAN LIFE OR MEMORY OR COMMUNICATION OR POSTULATE BRINGS US INTO A CONDITION OF PERSISTENCE OF A CONDITION. The auditor who knows this well knows that if he were to try to change with not-isness or alter-isness a deformed shoulder he would find that the condition of the deformed shoulder was persisting greater than ever.
The duplication of questions is something that is very hard for an auditor who has not had much processing to do. He will get discursive, he will go off away from this necessity to duplicate it over and over and over. Thus, many processes are rendered null and void by an auditor failing to complete the process. He cannot stand the idea of duplicating, doing the same thing again and again and again, because he apparently is stacking his time track up. Actually he is not doing so and if he did it long enough, if he simply would go ahead and audit and ask the same question over and over and over again long enough, he would get a drill for himself which would cure him of his inability to duplicate. The biggest stumbling block to auditing is the obsessive change factor on the part of some auditors. Actually, when an auditor has an ob-sessive change factor he seldom makes a good auditor, because his obsession to change gets into his auditing. He has an obsession to change the preclear so he starts to force the preclear into changes which the preclear does not particularly want. The preclear may want changes but not necessarily the kind the auditor wants. The auditor precomputes the case, in other words, and decides in which direction he’s going to change this preclear. That’s all right and an auditor can do it, but when an auditor obsessively has to change the preclear we discover that the audi-tor at the same time will change THE PROCESS. In other words, both of these are inabilities to duplicate. An auditor can also err in the opposite direction. He can use the process so long and so consistently and so far beyond its doing the preclear any good that the whole idea of auditing is defeated. For more data on this look at the new Auditor’s Code, which is printed in The Creation of Human Ability and in Dianetics, 1955! These enjoin the auditor to run the pro-cess as long as it produces change. When it no longer produces change don’t run it. However, an auditor who changes the process and says to himself, ”Well I changed this process because it was no longer producing change,” when in reality it was, and the auditor couldn’t stand the duplication any longer, is, of course, reasoning himself out of good results for the preclear.
The auditor should understand that the discovery of the actual creator or genus of any-thing will bring about its vanishment. This is also done by communication only. Ownership Processing can be used very effectively on preclears and in Straight Wire, but actually using communication as given in an earlier article is a superior activity. Ownership Processing is run by having the preclear state that this owns the condition or that owns the condition, and just have him keep stating that this or that or the other thing, and including himself, and his ma-chinery and the body’s machinery owns or made the condition, or the pictures own or made the condition until the condition vanishes. One has sighted the actual owner often enough. How-ever, if one went on sighting the wrong owner often enough the picture or condition would strengthen. In other words, you would be mis-owning it. All masses, spaces, conditions depend on mis-ownership for their persistence. In the absence of mis-ownership – we own up to the ownership of everything that we did and know the ownership of everything that everybody else did, or has – why everything would disappear. Ownership Processing is declaring the proper owner. It’s a very amusing process.
Ownership Processing is best done using an O-Meter or any type of physiogalvanome-ter. Here we see at once that the principal ownership is the response that we get on the meter. We get greater masses when we get mis-ownership. We get more reaction when we get mis-ownership. All the needle of a lie detector or any such instrument registers is mis-ownership. When mis-ownership is present the needle registers and when it is not present the needle doesn’t register. Thus, a lie detector does not detect a lie; it merely detects the mis-ownership of the picture of the incident. A criminal who says that he didn’t do a thing when he did will of course make the picture of the incident become stronger; thus, it will register. Similarly, the criminal could say, ”I did it,” when somebody else did and you would get an additional lie or the same reaction. If the preclear says that he caused the picture when something else caused the picture the picture will become stronger and the needle of the meter will register. This is about all there is to electropsychometric auditing.
One of the most notably lacking qualities in the unsuccessful auditor is charity. I am re-minded of a section in the new testament which I misquote, because it sounds better, to the effect, ”Though I speak with the tongues of angels or of men, though I have not charity, I am as sounding brass or the tinkling of the temple bell.” An auditor who has no charity, who is continually critical of the preclear, who is trying to change the preclear because the preclear is so bad, seldom achieves very great results with the preclear because he’s out of ARC with the preclear. Mercy, charity, kindness are qualities which are not low scale. They are the highest and kingliest qualities there are. And an auditor should never forget them.


Scientology and Straight Wire

It is a great temptation to call anything a psychotherapy which uses memory. Because psychotherapy has devoted itself to memory in the past. This is a fluke or a freak. Psychothera-py should devote itself to aberration.
Because Scientology has a process known as Straight Wire, which uses memory, it might be very easy to conclude that Scientology was then a psychotherapy. And this, of course, would be true if the goals of Scientology were those of psychotherapy.
The goals of psychotherapy are to eradicate unsocial or aberrated behavior in an indi-vidual.
The goals of Scientology are to create better abilities in the individual.
Scientology is far more closely related to education and its goals than it is to psycho-therapy, but because of the factors which Scientology handles it is perforce not only intimately related to but is basic religion.
If you find anything disturbing about that association – Scientology and religion – we might cockily ask, ”If religion treats of the human soul has there ever been a religion before Scientology?” – since there was precious little information available about the human soul until we took our textbooks in hand.
Naturally when you know the broad principles of anything, such as memory and forget-tingness (these being two different items), you can apply them to almost anything you want to. And, as we have stated in an earlier article, you certainly could take an elementary form of Straight Wire and apply it to the field of psychoanalysis and let the analyst go on and do much of the things he does. As a matter of fact, if I were a Scientologist practicing in an area which contained some psychoanalysts I would definitely make it my business to associate myself with these people, and train them to give the same question as given in an earlier article, over and over, to duplicate, to acknowledge and to get some good works out of their patients. This is a very simple thing to train somebody in a sharp discipline and it would not be out of order for a Scientologist to take this under his wing because, Lord knows, the analyst has a hard time in the society and has a hard time with his patients. Furthermore, it is not unusual for the field of psychotherapy to turn to the church when it is blocked. And we hope it is not unusual for the church to try to make the world a better place to live in.
But, when you are using Scientology as a Scientologist, and you’re employing Straight Wire, you had better realize that your best results come about BY RETURNING SELF-DETERMINISM TO THE PRECLEAR. Which is to say, make him better able to handle and control himself and his environment. In fact, you will not be able to achieve any results of any lasting quality or of note unless you do this for the preclear. Therefore, the degree to which you suppress his self-determinism by finding things wrong with him will depress as well the results of auditing. As a Scientologist you should concentrate on increasing the abilities of a person.
In the field of education memory is of the essence. Unless we could handle memory well we could not educate people well. Automatic forgettingness sets in on a student almost as fast as the textbook is closed. This is because he is on a forced draft of memory. He is expected to remember everything. Until the day comes when he can forget and remember at will he will be no better than the book from which he has studied. Thus, as a Scientologist you could ex-plain this to an educator and use your skills and technologies to train this educator into the ele-mentary steps of Straight Wire. The delivery of the question, the giving of the acknowledg-ment, the duplication of the question. You could train the educator into this as a necessary step to education, since every student he has who is failing, is failing not because of a real antipathy toward the subject, but because the automatic characters of his memory are not properly en-gaged and in gear. Before we would spend years and great quantities of wealth upon the edu-cation of a young man, we would certainly see that he was in shape to REMEMBER OR FORGET HIS MATERIAL AT WILL. We would also see to it, even as importantly, THAT HE WAS ABLE TO POSE AND RESOLVE PROBLEMS RELATED TO ANY SUBJECT. Were he able to do these two things he would always be an honor student. Why should we waste time as educators, and as a nation obsessed with education, in handling minds which cannot remember and forget, which cannot pose and resolve problems? Were we to practice this on an educational level and if we were to be careful at all times with all students to bring them into a state of ability with regard to memory and problems and solutions, before we gave them things to have memory and forgettingness about, and problems and solutions, we could probably place eight or nine foreign languages and eighteen or twenty new majors in any stand-ard educational span and do it with success. Therefore, education would be far more effective and would have much greater duration with the individual, and as a result we would have a much higher culture.
In the field of business efficiency, memory, forgettingness and the posing and resolving of problems are the difference between an ineffective slavey and a powerful executive. With these processes, almost any second-rate file clerk could be moved into a valuable asset, and certainly the moving of a business executive from the lower brackets of ability in memory, for-gettingness and posing and resolving problems to an upper bracket might mean the make or break of that business.
While Straight Wire does not, in any way, supplant any of the other of the Six Basic Processes, you can be very certain that it can stand by itself as a process. It is very important to know this, for it is the easiest process to teach anyone, and it is the easiest way to obtain stable results.
If you were to essay to teach those people who had the handling of other people in their charge the elements of Straight Wire, exactly how to do it as a drill, not to burden them in any degree with any theory, to reassure them about the phenomena and to turn them loose to do exactly the drill called Straight Wire on those intimate to them, you would have Scientology spreading at a very rapid rate.
The only other solution akin to this would be to teach everyone 8-C. Particularly parents who ordinarily run very poor 8-C on their children. However, 8-C appears to be more childish than Straight Wire. Straight Wire appears to be deep and has great significances connected with it and would be done by adults much more easily. Furthermore, an individual could con-ceive himself to be very wise in delivering Straight Wire and listening to the answers he got from it, but do not let your student, of course, get so wise that he will stray from the process.
In other words, I recommend to you that you would take some of the people who have some vague interest in Scientology and take a certain facet of their existence and run the basic Straight Wire question given in the earliest article in this series on that one facet until they un-derstand something has happened. Then teach them how to do the process on others. TEACH THEM THESE EXACT RUDIMENTS:
ONE: Awareness of the auditor, the auditing room, that an auditing session is in pro-gress.
TWO: Two-way communication on a casual basis.
THREE: The delivery of the question.
FOUR: Communication lag.
FIVE: The acknowledgment of the question.
SIX: The duplication of that exact question.
Having taught a person to do these things and having taught him to do them well, you could see that you have expanded his livingness and his beingness. He can MEAN more to more people by this knowledge. This knowledge is not difficult to learn; it is not difficult to teach, and we hope that we have placed in your hands at this time something which will help you to disseminate the information of Scientology and to bring about a better culture than that we have.
Сообщений: 689
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Вернуться в L Ron Hubbard original HCO BULLETINS, POLISIES

Кто сейчас на форуме

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 8