THE ITSA LINE A lecture given on 20 August 1963

THE ITSA LINE A lecture given on 20 August 1963

Сообщение Timecops » 27 дек 2015, 13:43

Web auditing in any place on the planet


A lecture given on
20 August 1963

How are you today?
Audience: Good. Fine, thank you.
All right. This is what?
Audience: Twenty August.
Twenty August AD 13. Thank you.
Well, this is a lecture on the itsa line. About time. The itsa line. Why is it called the itsa line? The auditor says, „Whatsit?“ and the pc says, „Itsa.“ It is the pc’s communication line from pc to auditor. And it isn’t necessarily pursuant to the auditor’s whatsit; it is sometimes pursuant to the pc’s whatsit-pc very often puts in his own whatsit.
Okay. There are numerous communication lines between the auditor and the pc and the Aggregate of these make up the-what you call the auditing cycle. The auditing cycle is made up of several communication lines. A communication line is cause-distance-effect. I call your attention to Dianetics 1955! for the full definition of a communication line. What is a communication: intention, attention, duplication at the point of effect, and so forth.
All those are quite important and technically accurate, but what you’re mainly interested in is cause-distance-effect. Cause-distance-effect is a communication line. A communication line is not cause-distance-effect, cause - distance-effect-that’s two communication lines.
Now, a communication line can be very faint, and one of those that you’ll find out routinely on an auditor is the attention line: line 1 minor; line 1 minor, the attention line. And that is just consistently out. But as I say, there are numbers of these and we’re not particularly going into them. That’s the first line. That’s-get the pc’s attention; how do you get the pc’s attention to cause the pc to put his attention on the auditor? And that line is the one that is put in.
Now, that line itself can be complex and become two lines or three lines. Pc sitting there and he’s saying, „Gob-gob, walla-walla,“ something, and the auditor wants to get his attention on him. See, it has to have attention on the auditor. Now, the auditor can’t really give an auditing command or do anything with his command unless he gets his attention line in. Now, that can be done very crudely. You can drop the E-Meter, you can cough loudly in the pc’s face, tip over your chair, get angry. There’s, in essence, numbers of ways to get this line in very, very wrong. And the line has to be put in, however, and very often you find a pc fogging around at the beginning of session and his attention is not on the auditor, it’s really not on his case, it’s not on anything you’re trying to do, and so forth. Well, how do you get it there? Well, one of the ways of getting it there is, having an attention line already extant, you then convert it to an itsa line.
Now, this is the whole trick, because there’s another attention line. There is attention on what, see? And this looks like another attention line - it’s actually 1 minor. It just isn’t putting the attention on the auditor, it’s putting attention on something else. And this is a little trick I used to do that used to baffle everybody in ACCs. They used to get baffled, and everybody would drop his jaw and look at me dully when 1 would try to get them to do this-and it’s been wholly unsuccessful-but by dividing down the auditing cycle into these various communication lines and component parts, I will bravely take another crack at it.
It’s slippy. I know if I give this to you, it’ll become a repetitive-command process, which it isn’t. It’s slippy, that’s all - is you just very adroitly, without really putting the pc’s attention on anything except what his attention should be on, just flick the pc’s attention over to what it should be on. I’ll give you an idea.
Pc is saying, „Oh, I just-just-just can’t stand-can’t stand these-these wild parties. Just can’t stand them. Had one last night and just can’t stand them, and so forth. There’s just too much-too much music and everything. And I’ve got an awful present time problem, because this guy’s-this-this - this girl’s b-b-boyfriend came over and wanted to pop me in the eye because I was getting too familiar ... and it’s terrible.“ And present time problem, present time problem, present time problem.
And you know you’re running the GPM „to be sexual,“ see? This you know about the case. This is-this I’m giving you, also, is the itsa line.
Hey, we’re getting a nice storm tape here too, Peter. We’ll cut the storm off of it, and so forth, and sell it. They go great in the Middle West. They love storm tapes. It reminds them of home.
I had a green tornado one time in Kansas-never been back since. Twenty-five-pound blocks of ice were falling out of a pea-soup-green sky, and the visibility had dropped down to about fifteen feet-bright green. Never quite recovered. Was impossible. Couldn’t have happened-but it did.
Now, your pc’s attention being all over the confounded place, the auditor sits back and says he’s going to put in the itsa line. Now, usually by this - unless he is well trained and has this data, and so forth-this means he’s going to sit back and leave the pc’s attention totally uncontrolled. The itsa line, when you first start giving it to people, is just never doing anything but listen. And that’s because people think it is simply a communication line, and it isn’t. But we will go on to this in a moment.
Now, therefore this pc is running on and on and on about this party - and this is slippy auditing. I can sit and do this by the hour. PC never finds out about it, and there’s no command process being run and everything else, and tone arm moves like mad, and so forth. It requires a certain estimation of effort, you understand? And I actually, years and years ago, despaired of getting anybody to control attention that lightly. This is another effort to do so, see?
So, you say-he’s going on and on, „And this guy came over and he almost bopped me, but this was a nice-looking girl, and so forth. And I had a terrible problem because of my wife, you know, and so on, and . . .“ Here we go, see?
Now, the auditor who is not well informed and who is not well skilled just sits back and listens to this whole thing. Now, to do anything about it suddenly is to put line 1 minor in on the auditor. Clank! And boy, the pc will ARC break, see, because it’s a sudden shift of attention. So the whole thing is the skill by which you can take line 1 minor and flick it over onto what you were doing or want to do in the session-the skill with which you can do this. And, believe me, this is a skill maneuver. And when you are really skilled at this, you could almost sit down and run a full auditing session, and even a casual observer would think you were simply listening to the pc, which you weren’t at all; you were actually directing the pc’s attention very closely. The pc was talking exactly about what you wanted that pc to talk about and nothing else, and the pc never realizes that their attention has been grooved on it.
Now, that would be the tremendous difference between psychoanalysis listening and Scientology auditing. You see, these things could look quite alike.
The psychoanalyst (1) did not really know what to direct anybody’s attention to, see? He didn’t know the anatomy of the bank. He thought if he could direct somebody’s attention to sexual incidents in early childhood, he had it made. Well, now, a pc-a pc-actually follows in his case, at any given moment, the least-charged line. A pc will always follow the least-Charged line. Get this. Get this good, because that’s one of those remarks that goes by in the night and you wonder someday-you’re sitting there auditing somebody and you don’t know what to do, and so forth. And it’s one of those things that if you knew that well, you’d know exactly what to do. He always follows the least-charged line with his tone arm action. If you’re going to get tone arm action, it is on the least-charged aberrative line-not the least-charged thing he could talk about, but the least-charged aberrative line. The tone arm action exists on the least-charged aberrative line at any given moment in a case progress-always the least-charged aberrative line.
Now, give you what I mean by that. Let’s take dynamics. You’ve got eight dynamics you could audit on the pc. The third dynamic is what the pc is always coming up with. Well, if you kept the pc on the third dynamic, you know, you would get tone arm action because this happens with the pc to be the least-charged line. You got it?
Now, the other lines do not give tone arm action, and this does not mean they are not charged; it means they are overcharged. There is too much charge on them. Got that? So you’re always trying to snake through the minefield on the least-popping firecrackers to get your tone arm action. You got that? You want little ones that’ll just tingle his feet; you don’t want those
that’ll blow his legs off You understand?
Well, the mind is so regulated and safety-valved that it will not release charges which the pc considers over his ability to tolerate. Now, an auditor can actually punch these charges into view; he’s got all the materials in his hand. And therefore he could actually throw the pc into areas which are overcharged areas to be run-the areas are overcharged.
The result of an overcharged area is a stuck tone arm. Stuck tone arms have many peculiarities and particularities. You can say that if you want to really get tone arms moving you have to get the GPMs on a case run; that’s the most likely to give you tone arm action. Because it’s the most aberrative in terms of time. You can say a lot of things about tone arm action. You say tone arm action sticks because of time-these things are all true. But with regard to charge, what you really want to know with regard to charge is that in the presence of too much charge, too much charge, the TA ceases to operate. TA action ceases when you have too much charge.
That doesn’t say that you couldn’t bleed it, that you couldn’t work your way around it, that there aren’t means of getting off the charge anyhow, and all that sort of thing. But when you see a TA ceasing to operate, and ceasing to act, then you have entered an area of too much charge-particularly on an extremely high or an extremely low TA. Do you follow that, now? Too much charge.
It’s not because there’s nothing there to run; it’s because there’s too cockeyed much there. See that? And if you don’t get tone arm action, then the charge that holds the significances and ideas, postulates, cognitions, and that sort of thing, in place-just the corny electrical charge, you understand, no other significance connected with it-this thing packed up and held in facsimiles, masses, all of this sort of thing, won’t then let the case advance. And you get no case advance in the absence of tone arm action. That is-that’s it! I mean, there aren’t any ands, ifs, ares or buts about it. No tone arm action: no case advance!
I don’t care if you erased a somatic, I don’t care if the pc has ceased to have lumbosis, I don’t care about any of these things-because you’re not auditing a body. As far as this pc is concerned-no tone arm action: no case advance.
Now, can you worsen no tone arm action? Yes. You can bring about no needle action on top of no tone arm action. Hu-hu-hu-hu. And if you insist on running a pc without tone arm action, you soon will begin to see it expressed over here in the needle, which will get tighter and tighter and tighter. And after a while everything locks up. And then if you use real desperate measures, why, you can just freeze the pc into something that’ll feel to him like solid rock.
The longer you run a case without tone arm action, the more you will freeze the case into no tone arm action. And the more the case is frozen into no tone arm action, the less chance you have of getting charge off by any means. You see this? I mean, you’re walking away from the point of resolution. The further you go with no tone arm action, the less likely you are to fortuitously produce some. So it’s not just „Well, he’s running without tone arm action,“ and brush it off, you see? It’s „Oh, my God! He’s running without tone arm action! Whew. Huh. Hey, hey, hey! Bo-bo-bo-bo! No tone arm action! Hey, hey, hey, hey! No tone arm action. Get some tone arm action. Ha-ha.“ You know? It gets that type of emotional response, you know? Not „Well, he’s running without tone arm action, so he isn’t getting any better,“ and so on, see?
Guy being run without tone arm action is somebody you’re watching go down the big toboggan. And the longer this goes on, the harder it’s going to get to get tone arm action.
Now, the most likely way to get tone arm action on any Condition, any case or any anything, is getting in the itsa line. This has processes connected with it. These processes are designated Routine 1C (C for communication). Routine 1C: this is the soft-touch process. This is the process that will be given to Scientology One Auditors, and after you’ve studied it and used it a year or two, you’ll find out that there’s a lot more to know about it.
It is at once the clumsiest use-it’s the workhorse, you see? You say, „Well, you’ve got two processes to make an OT. You’ve got 3N, you got R3R.“ No, you’ve always got three processes. See, if you’ve got two like that, then you’ve always got one more, and that’ll always be the itsa line, or 1C, see? This is the workhorse. This is the workhorse.
And, yeah, somebody in a co-audit; yes, sure, somebody in a-doing a book-auditing job; yeah, somebody, some student in the Academy; yeah, these people, oh, yes, these guys will be able to make progress with this thing. But before he’s gone very long in the Academy and before he’s done very much auditing, he’ll all of a sudden begin to believe-he’ll do one of two things: either, „Well, I just get tired of just sitting there listening to him talk and talk and talk and talk, you know? I just get tired of this. So this itsa line isn’t so good.“ See? He didn’t even know what it was in the first place, see? Or he will all of a sudden begin to realize that there is a certain deftness required here or one will just continue to sit and listen and listen, and the pc goes on and talks and talks.
Well, look, they talked for five years in psychoanalysis without getting anyplace. See, we don’t know that they had tone arm action, but we sure know they didn’t get anyplace. They did. They did-pardon me, pardon me. That-I’m maligning the boys. I’m maligning them. They got careful. They did get someplace.
Well, look-a-here. You learn, then, that an overcharged case can most easily be bled down by the itsa line, and you’ll restore tone arm action. So the best way to restore tone arm action to any ease that has become overcharged through being run in the wrong departments is getting in the itsa line. Now, that’s your base process. You can restore tone arm action, no matter how badly the case has been jammed up, if you are clever in handling the itsa line.
Now, when I say „itsa line,“ and when I say „clever,“ yes, they’re very definitely joined together. Clever. It is not a process; it’s a cleverness. And the biggest trouble you have anything with is (as we’ll come back to this) line 1 minor. Why put the attention on the auditor when all you’ve got to do is shift it slightly in the pc?
This guy is saying, „Well, and so forth, and we had this big-big hassle at this party and I-this-my wife bawled me out, and everybody bawled me out and so forth. And I’ve got this terrible present time problem. I got this awful hangover and I’m having an awful time in this session,“ and so on and so on and so on. Yeah, under a long series of runs you could probably take apart this present time problem, but you were running on the pc the goal „to be sexual.“ The pc is having trouble with being sexual, that’s for sure.
Well, that’s where the cleverness is, is was there anything that happened-you know, is what the pc’s talking about got anything to do with what you were doing, see? So, of course, the adroit question practically walks up and hits you in the head. The adroit question is-pc takes a long breath and momentarily he isn’t going on any further. Just momentarily, see? He actually hasn’t run his communication line out terribly, but he’s just been floundering, you’re getting minimum tone arm action. And you say, „Did our last session have anything to do with this?“
„Oh. Let’s see, what the hell were we doing in the last session?“
„Well, I don’t know. Just review what we were doing.“
„Well, let’s see, so and so on, so on, then we had an ARC break and we were doing something or other and so on. We were running out some kind of items; there’s this backtrack and there’s this stairs or something there. Let me see, now. I - I’ll - I’m gettin’ it now,“ and so forth. „Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, we were running-you see, I-I really can’t get anywhere near this, I’m so worried about my present time problem-but we were-we were running some goal, some goal, some goal, some goal, something along this line and so on. Oh, yes, ‘to be sex-’ say, what do you know! Yeah, I sure do have a lot of trouble with - with this thing ‘to be sexual.’ I ha -. Yeah, I sure do. Yeah, I-1 have a lot of trouble with that.“
„Well ‘ „ you say, „well, what items did we have there, right toward the last?“
„Well, I think we arrived at this point on the line plot, and I think it was-I think it was-’absolutably’ no, it was ‘nix’-yeah. Well, all right. There we are.“ And you’re starting to see your tone arm move and your needle start to twitch.
And he never knew what happened. Magic, man, magic! It’s gently taking line 1 minor, without actually putting it on the auditor, and putting it back to the subject of the auditing. And, you see, there’s no process that you could announce that will do this, because the auditing is tremendously variable and the pc’s worries and concerns are fantastically agglomerate.
Now, sometimes, the pc has legitimately had a present time problem and something catastrophic has occurred between sessions, something like this - this is just using this factor for just a present time problem-and it’s something way off. And the only thing you can do is to keep flicking that attention line. Flick. It’s really not a whatsit line; your whatsit’s already in, you see? And you just keep moving it around till the pc will ventilate the PTP that he’s worrying about.
Now, the crudest, but still acceptable example of this is simply „Tell me about it.“ See, that’s crude. See, that’s something like we’re going to build a house so we pile up some bricks. That’s crude. That’s about as adroit as the cow doing the twist, see? But nevertheless, it’s functional. You do get some motion. I couldn’t forbear to milk that gag.
Now, so there’s the pc, see? And the pc can’t get his mind on what you’re doing because something else has happened. And this something else is real worried, and maybe it’s worried down to the level of grief charge, or something like this, see? Well, all you can do is move the-move this little attention line around onto things that’ll give him itsas. And you can cut it down from-well, actually, failing to relieve the situation, that’s how bad it can be, see? You just didn’t really relieve his problem, or you relieved it somewhat, or you-next grade is you spent the session making him feel better about that present time problem. See, we’re well into the acceptable band, if we’ve got to be. Or, we handled it in the first two hours of the session, or we handled it in the first hour of the session, or we handled it in the first fifteen minutes of the session. And that difference of time has very little to do with the seriousness of the problem; it has everything to do with the cleverness of the auditor-without putting the attention line on himself, without cutting the itsa line-adroitly shifting that little attention line there to this and that.
„Well,“ the person says, „but this-but I don’t see-I don’t see why we had to fight half the night after we got home. I told her I just was attracted by blondes, and so forth, and she just wouldn’t listen,“ and so forth.
And the auditor says, „What have you found out about arguments like that with your wife?“
„Well, itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa.“
„Well, that’s-that’s fine. All right. Now, how do you feel about this problem now?“
„Well, the problem is all right.“
Well, he’s still a little bit fluttery, so, „Well, let’s review now what we were doing on something or other.“ Got the idea?
„Well, we were doing so-and-so and, well, you know what we were doing as well as I do.“
„Well, all right, yeah, probably. But I may not have full records here of this. There might have been something that came up during the session, or something like this, or between sessions you might have thought of something else.“
„Oh, yes! I did, as a matter of fact.“
You’re away, see? Got the idea?
Actually, it’s just about as skilled as building a watch, but because there is no apparent skill there, don’t you see, it gets slightly into disrepute. People can watch a session in which this is occurring, and they really never even hear the auditor say anything, see? And the pc never really hears the auditor say anything, because the attention line isn’t „All right, now. All right. Okay. All right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I-I got all that you’re talking about. Now, all right. Now we’re going to give you-going to give you the next-the next - next auditing command-the next-the next-the-the next auditing command. You got that now? Got that now. All right. Here we are, now. All right. Do birds suffocate? Okay? Got that now? Do birds suffocate?“
Now, you’ve restimulated some charge. I won’t say what charge you’ve restimulated.
See, now that can grade on down from just too much, you see. That can grade on down to „Do suffocating birds have anything to do with this?“ „Were there any birds suffocating in that?“ See? To „Well, do you think your processing has bettered this situation?“ Now we’re really getting feather-light, aren’t we? Pc hardly heard you say it and neither would anybody else, you see?
„Well, let’s see. Let’s go over what we’ve covered so far in auditing. Well now, you had a couple of cognitions in the last session there that had something to do with this. Have you had any other cognitions with regard to goals, and so forth-these implanted goals?“ This is getting awful adroit, see? You’ve actually got something he’s already been talking about, and you put it in by the duplication factor. You duplicate what he has been talking about and you just pull his itsa line a little bit further and put it on something, see?
I’ll give you an idea of doing this. He says, „Well, auditing, auditing. I get these awful headaches in auditing and that sort of thing.“
„Well, have you particularly gotten them while we’ve been running goals?“
Few sessions later-he’s forgotten all about these headaches, and so forth-we’re having a hard time getting his itsa line handled: „How about these headaches? Are they troubling you as much now? When we run these goals and that sort of thing, how are these headaches?“ Sounds merely solicitous. It isn’t; it’s a itsa line, see? See, you’ve taken a dead-ended communication line someplace back down the line and you’ve repeated its subject, so therefore you have made a duplication, so you’ve created a communication line. It’s all very technical. And the person’s attention goes back on to this and he has to make a comparison. He has to say his headaches are better or worse or there’s no change, and while he’s doing this he has to put his attention on GPMs, or whatever you’re trying to run on it.
And you say, „Well, with this last one that we were running in the last session-the last one, ‘to be nutty,’ ‘to be crazy in the head,“’ so forth, something like that, „how were the somatics in the head getting along there? Were they turning on and off, and so forth, while we’ve been running that?“
„Oh, well, you shouldn’t really remark on this, because I had them pretty well off.“
„Well, what item did they go off on?“ „Well, they went off on-Well, I really don’t know. Someplace in the first part of it. Um-um-um-I had an item in there-is-’idiotably...’I think it was ‘idiotably nutty.’ Yeah. Yeah, that was the one. Hey, I got that headache again, you know?“
You say, „Well, give me ‘nix idiotably nutty.’ „ You’re away, see? See? He doesn’t know what hit him, see?
It’s moving that attention line adroitly, adroitly, see? Adroit. With the little pinky-the little finger, you know-raised just right on the teacup, See?
Now, you’ll see an auditor who really hasn’t got much feeling for it, and no tools and so forth, why, he’s got this teacup with both paws wrapped around it, you see? And you’ll see somebody else has poured the tea into the saucer with both paws wrapped around the saucer and inhaling at a very large number of decibels. See? So, that you’ll see this in all of its shades of gray, you see, down to outright black.
But before you understand anything much about the itsa line, you have to understand that there is such a thing as an attention line-line 1 minor - and unless you can handle that attention line slightly, adroitly, greatly, smoothly-you’ll curse yourself sometimes. Even the best of an auditor will say, „Well, let’s get to running this GPM now,“ or something like that. Cut your throat, you see? You spend the next fifteen minutes getting out of this hole. See, it was just too much in the wrong place, see, and it just smashed everything up and the pc is busy explaining to you that he is eight thousand light-years from that GPM and his attention wasn’t on it, you know?
You find yourself making these mistakes. Don’t knock yourself in the head and say „Well, I’m terrible at this“ and run a big make-guilty on self because you don’t handle this well always. Just, those times you have been clever, pat yourself on the back. That’s the one to pay attention to. I’m not kidding you, because ... Well, I gave a session last night and I dropped - three times. Once I dropped a handful of anvils on the floor-shook up the session most interestingly-and another time I put off a whole chain of firecrackers in the middle of the auditing table, and another time practically ran the mains voltage through the cans, see? But that was three, see? That was three. But there was two hours’ worth, and probably something on the order of 150 that were handled, you know, with such aplomb, man, that nobody ever found out anything about it, and it got the pc out of the woods gorgeously. See? Quantitatively, see? ‘Course what you put your attention on are those three that had to be patched up, see?
„Oh, oh. Well, your attention wasn’t on it. Well, I’m very sorry, and so on. Have I cut your communication?“ You know, „Sorry,“ and so forth. „Well, what would you have said if I hadn’t have interrupted that?“ See? Good recovery, see, level, and so forth. Nevertheless, if you really were self-critical to a vast degree, you would have been practically kicking your brains out for having pulled any one of these three.
Pc is going on and saying, „Well, I think I have blown that last GPM. I think I have blown that.“
„Well, all right. All right. Good. Let’s check some of its items.“ Oh-oh, cut your throat, man, see? Just put the pc’s attention on the wrong thing, the wrong place, it’s all going crash, the pc’s needle goes dirty. Get the idea?
You see, you’re split between wanting the pc to think well of you, and getting your job done. And these two things are very often at-they’re dipolar phenomena. You try and get your job done sometimes uphill against something and in the final analysis it just merely depends on, did you get your job don , see? That’s what it really depends on in the final analysis. But in the process of getting your job done, you happen to have ARC broke the pc and cut the pc’s communication line several times. Well, the difference between a good and a bad auditor is not whether the auditor always audits smoothly with never cutting an itsa line, but whether or not he attains his eventual objective without creating so many ARC breaks that the pc’s case has not improved. That’s the test!
If you go around training people on the basis of „You must never cut an itsa line; you must never create an ARC break; you must never upset the pc“-all of these things, you see-it’s something like laying in a GPM, you know? Oh, in the first place, it’s an impossible attainment. Always train them with „Be as clever and adroit as you can,“ and „You can be a little more adroit than that.“ He dropped his E-Meter in the pc’s lap halfway through the session. Poor handling of the attention line. Why? Pc’s attention went on meter, not on own case.
All right. Now, how many dozen ways are there to shift the pc’s attention? I don’t know-dozens, thousands. Thousands. I’ll give you an idea. You got an alcoholic. You’re trying to process this alcoholic, see? Alcoholic’s drunk most sessions and you know you’re not supposed to audit somebody who’s drunk. All the alcoholic’d do is sit there and say, „Well, Alcoholics Anonymous will tell you you can’t cure anybody of alcoholism.“ That’s all he’s going to say, see? He knows you can’t help him. He’s saying, well, it’s impossible, see? And you say, „Well, the case is unauditable.“
Yes, the case is unauditable to everybody except those who are surpassingly skilled with the attention line and the itsa line, see? The whatsit line is practically missing.
„Now, what have you learned about Alcoholics Anonymous?“
„Oh, well, that’s something else. Well, I met this fella down the street, this fella, and so forth, and he gave me this book, see? And I read this book and I threw it in a garbage pail. Couldn’t teach me anything. But I learned better after a while.“
„When was that?“
„Oh, in about a few days later I learned better, see? I had this awful hangover, and I just got fired and I was being sued for divorce, and I found out they were your friends. That’s what I found out then.“ You’re going to see that tone arm starting to move, man.
He has just told you that you can’t possibly audit him. He has just told you that you can’t possibly help him. So you just-Hhh-hhh-polish up the fingernails, audit him, help him, and somewhere up the line he finds out about it as a major cognition.
But all the way up the line he’s improving. Because if you can get tone arm motion and get the guy with the session, see, by flicking that little old attention line right where it lives, parallel what the mind is doing, and it will do everything you want it to. Nothing new-that’s the beginning lines, I think, of one of the first-book things. But nevertheless, this gives you the anatomy of how that’s done. You just find out about what this guy’s mind is on, see? And if you can produce tone arm action by having him locate things about it, then he will recover from any obsessive or compulsive tendencies about it or toward it. It’s the tone arm motion that takes off the compulsion, not the significance of what he digs up. Given enough tone arm motion on any given subject, and that subject will right itself in the head of the pc. And man, I’m talking from hard-won experience. I’d say, if we’ve learned anything in the last thirteen years, man, we’ve learned that. ‘Tisn’t the significance alone.
It’s the tone arm motion that can be obtained in relation to the significance that brings about the recovery.
Now, that’s, the fastest recovery is, of course, the tone arm motion plus the right significance to be run. Now, that’s your fastest recovery. But your recovery takes place somewhat and eventually if you just produce tone arm motion. That’s all you have to do, is produce tone arm motion on the case, regardless of what’s run, and eventually-at some vast distance-why, this pc is going to recover from these various targets and so forth in the case. He’s going to recover from them. That’s for sure. But if you audit the right significance and get no tone arm action, the pc will never recover. See, those are terribly important data.
Well now, the most overcharged areas of the case are the case’s-parts of the case that give the high TA. The high TA and the overcharged area compare. The least-charged aberrative area gives tone arm action.
You very often will find some alcoholic that gets no tone arm action on the subject of alcoholism, but he’s got corns. You can get tone arm action on the subject of corns, you see? In other words, he can’t face that highly a charged approach. So that sometimes the absolute direct approach to a compulsion or obsession of some kind or another will get you nowhere at all, because it’s such a highly charged area that it’s over the pc’s head, and you get no tone arm action on that.
Well, the answer to that is don’t abandon it; just get tone arm action! See? That’s the thing to do. Just get tone arm action! Very remarkable. Because the mind is stacked up the way it is, if you continue to get tone arm action, he’ll all of a sudden walk up on that thing, do you see?
Now, undirectedly-that’s just not directing him toward any specific target or goal or aberration or anything else, or any reason he’s not able or anything at all, anything-you get tone arm action and he’ll eventually collide with something. And he will know processing is helping him!
You’ll be utterly flabbergasted sometime. You have this surprise in store for you, if you haven’t collided it already. Knowing the idea about tone arm action, you sit there and this pc babbles on and on and on, and it doesn’t have anything to do with anything you can see, but my God, that tone arm is moving. You’re getting up and down motions on that thing-not a quarterdivision every twenty minutes, man. You’re getting-it’s got to be a bit healthier than that for a pc to know something about it-but it’s certainly getting a whole tone arm division every ten minutes, and that’s pretty fair tone arm motion, see? And that’s acceptable. I wouldn’t buy much less than that myself-tone arm division every ten minutes. And that would say only down, but you realize that it also has to rise in order to go back down again. So if you added the plus and minus, that’d be two tone arm divisions, you see-one up and one down-in ten minutes. Well, that’s-that’s just barely, marginally acceptable, see, to produce this phenomena.
You get that?
All right. Pc talking about his grandmother’s jam making. Well, cripes, you know? This is about as aberrative, don’t you see, as petting the pup. But, my heavens, you’re getting tone arm motion on it, man. Well, you can’t do anything else much. You’ve tried something else and gotten a stuck tone arm, so let’s let him go on, see? And just completely neglect your attention line. If you were very skilled, you would be unable to totally neglect it. You would punch it around a little bit and increase your tone arm motion, see?
Pc leaves the session feeling fine-feeling fine, wonderful. Pc always makes gains if they have tone arm motion, see? If they have real tone arm motion, they always make gains. If they don’t have tone arm motion, they don’t make gains.
Now, I can tell you at the three-quarter point of a session whether or not the pc will have anything to say decent in the goals and gains. It’s just how much tone arm motion has there been during that session. That’s all; it’s a direct monitoring factor, see?
So this becomes burningly necessary to produce tone arm motion. At any cost, produce tone arm motion. And now you come into your own about the itsa line, because tone arm motion only occurs when the itsa line is in, and tone arm motion does not occur with the itsa line out.
Now, a lot of you think the itsa line is a communication line. It’s not. That’s a surprise, isn’t it? Just because it’s labeled C-distance-E and because it is a communication line, well, why don’t we just call it the preclear’s line to auditor? That would make it a communication line. But we don’t. We call it the itsa line. Why the itsa? Why? Why?.
Well, one of the ways to get this across is to give the student a drill. Just imagine a thetan in various circumstances, you know, like a guy in jail. All right, now how is his itsa line cut? See, it isn’t just on the graph. That isn’t the only way you can show how the itsa line is cut-in an auditing session. Let’s just take it out in life. And we say, „All right, this guy is in jail. Give me a number of ways this fellow’s itsa line is cut.“ And you may get some awful comm lags on the part of the student, but he’ll eventually dig it up, see? How’s his itsa line cut? Well, let me give you some notions, then, for definition of the itsa line. Well, he can’t go anyplace else to see if „itsa.“ He can’t go anyplace else to itsa. He’s right there in jail, isn’t he? Let’s say he was up in London in jail. All right. Well, he couldn’t go down and itsa the coast, could he? He couldn’t say „Itsa water, and itsa beach, and itsa resort, and itsa Brighton,“ could he? He can’t get there. How the hell can he itsa it?
Well, he can itsa it on a via, if somebody’d give him a map or a book or a novel that’s about the coast, or something like that. That’s itsa on a via - substitute. Itsa by substitutes. So it’s a kind of an itsa. Well, itsa by facsimiles is an itsa by substitutes, too. So this is not ineffective. But his itsa line - direct itsa line-is sure cut.
Now, there are other ways his itsa line can be cut by reason of being in jail. I won’t go into those particularly.
We have a fellow sitting at a table. We put a blindfold on him. How is his itsa line cut? Do you see how his itsa line is cut? He can’t itsa! That’s what an itsa line is.
What’s a nightmare? What’s a nightmare? A nightmare is the inability to itsa, followed by mocking up something that can be itsa’d that’s wrong.
A thetan likes to be oriented. He orients himself. How does he orient himself? Itsa. „Itsa ceiling, itsa floor, itsa wall itsa ... Therefore, I’m a . . .“
You hide somebody. You hide somebody- The itsa line is cut on himself. Nobody else can say itsa. Nobody can say itsa. Do you see that?
Disassociate somebody from his identity. How’s his itsa line Cut? He can’t say „Itsa me. Itsa me, Joe Jones,“ see? Can’t be done. He hasn’t got an identity now.
Well, we get into a whole tangled web of aberration and we find out that that’s the basic aberration: inability to orient or declare or identify or recognize. Not just solve, you understand. It isn’t cure versus cure versus cure. That’s also itsas, but that’s only part of the picture. How do you know you’re here? Well, that’s easy. That’s easy. You say, „Itsa chapel, itsa chair, itsa notebook.“ Where you are, „Itsa body.“ Up here, „Itsa Ron,“ see? You know where you are. Your itsa line is in. You’re oriented, so you feel happy about the whole thing, see? Fine. You know where you are.
It isn’t necessarily how dangerous the environment is. You could be out in the jungle, and you’d be surprised how happy some hunter looked when he says „Itsa lion!“ Hasn’t really anything to do with safety, security, and-none of these. These are just extra considerations, see? So you just shred all these extra considerations off and itsa. See? „Itsa jungle, itsa me, itsa gun, itsa lion, itsa bearer up a tree. Well, at least I know I was killed by a lion. My itsa line is in on the subject of that death.“
Well, look, if this is so important to power, and it is; and if this is so important to sanity, and it is; and if this is so important to memory, and it is; and if this is so important to ability, and it is-then we would expect the major tricks on the track to comprise of cutting itsa lines one way or the other.
So, you’re standing up there loud and clear on the parapet, gripping dramatically the flag of the lilies of France, being shot at in shot and shell, and all of a sudden there’s a snick, and you is disconnected. Well, you at least know how you died. You got some idea that it was a flying object, unfriendily directed. And by God, in the next half an hour or something like that, they’re telling you you died some other way. Correct? Spoils your itsa line.
And then in the ensuing actions that take place on it, why, they give you a completely false position as far as you’re concerned and a false situation and a false here and a false there and they throw your itsa out on time and they give you a little GPM to carry home with you very happily, give you some nice somatics to go along with it. You’re an idiot to ever go back, you know?
I mean, you move right around the corner of the thing, and itsa where? If it’s 70.6 trillion-seven years ago, which is right now, that itsa is certainly for the birds, isn’t it? You understand, they’ve misdated a somatic on you, because they say, „Now we’re going to give you your future,“ and somehow or another restimulate your facsimiles of the past and say they’re in the future and ...
What’s happening here? Well, enough happened so that everybody on this planet believed they lived only once. And that’s how serious the cutting of an itsa line can be. You combine this with plenty of force and you got it made, man!
I can see it now, the development of a new psychiatry. A new medical psychiatry can be developed out of this. You can get people so mixed up that they’d report back to the medical doctor every time. They do. Insane patients are always reporting back for their shocks, and so forth, see? Well-known fact. The report-back mechanism is just used and used and used and used and used by these nuts.
By the way, I thought of a difference between a Scientologist and the world at large on this particular planet. The people think that what we’re doing is unreal, but we know the substance of their unreality, which of course makes us top dog every time. We know the substance of their unreality.
In other words, we know where their itsa line is out. See, they know what-they’re not identifying. See? Their itsas are just for the birds, you know? „Man is an animal. He is a biochemical protoplasm which goes no place. At death there is a cessation of cellular commotion.“ That’s a good itsa, isn’t it? That just immediately makes nothing out of everybody.
Ah, so there’s a formula. There’s a formula involved here. And that is, your itsa line can be out on ARC and KUCDEIO and F. How many ways can an itsa line be? Well, it’s that whole scale I gave you for R2H. Known, unknown, curious, desired, enforced, inhibited, none of it and false-absent and false. This is how many itsa aberrations there can be, see?
Well, false, that’s the easiest one of all. You hold up somebody-you say, „Here, have a piece of candy, sonny.“ Give him a piece of chalk, see? He bites it. His itsa line is out, man. Got the idea?
You say, „There is nothing here, boys. There is nothing haunting this planet; there is nobody after you; nothing happens. I mean, you’re just here and just natural and there’s nobody after you, see?“ That itsa line is for the birds, see? „You’re paranoid! You think people are pursuing you!“ Of course, nobody is pursuing us-they don’t have to. They got us, man!
So they say something isn’t, which is. Well, of course you can get the reverse of that. They say something is which isn’t, such as the Darwinian theory, which is just an old implant.
Inhibited. Inhibited: Give a guy a pair of distorting glasses or make him look at things in a twisted mirror, like a fun-house mirror. His itsa line is inhibited. Tell him he must not examine such-and-so and so-and-so because it is very dangerous, and of course his itsa line is inhibited at once.
And of course, enforced itsa: „You better damn well know about this or you will be shot tomorrow morning without cigarette or blindfold.“ Enforced itsa.
Desired itsa-see, that’s a „want to know“ sort of itsa: Somebody is very happy to know that you’re all right. You see? That’s a desirable itsa.
And the itsa of curiosity is not just being curious about what is; it’s an itsa which is curiosity. It’s a curiosity itsa, don’t you see?
Now, you go up higher than that and you get an unknown itsa. Hey, you know, there is an unknown itsa. I just gave you an example of one. You have a complete reality on the unreality of people on this planet. See, the itsa is their unknownness, see? You recognize they don’t know! Well, that is an itsa. And it’s pretty high-scale stuff for a thetan to be able to recognize that it is an unknown. This thing really boxes him around, because, of course, it mixes in with the actual desire to make something known which can be known. And amongst that, you get the accumulations of unknownnesses that are just unknown and will always be unknown, will never be anything else, because they’re tailored to be unknown. And if you don’t think that can’t be, look at the word unknown. See, there’s a perfect example. Yes, there is such a thing as an unknown. There’s a word, there’s the concept that you back it up, u-n-k-n-o-w-n, unknown, and that is a something which is unknown, isn’t it? I mean, this is getting idiotic.
There’s many a religion, man, which is built 100 percent on a beautiful building which houses a non-existence. And they have created an unknown. That’s what they have created! See, it is something that can be created. And a thetan’s tolerance, as it rises, eventually gets up to a point where he can actually confront an unknown without doing a thing about it. He can recognize that it is unknown; it’s a manufactured unknown.
Like x, in algebra. There’s another example. Somebody writes x. All right, he can confront the fact that x is unknown. Of course, if he’s nowhere near an algebra teacher he probably won’t even be forced to find out a known
for that unknown, either. He probably won’t even do the equation x + y - z = 0. Of course, you don’t even know what the equation applies to and neither does anybody else. A mathematician is somebody who’s gone overboard on the Subject of unknownnesses and he has to solve all of these unknownnesses.
Now, if you don’t think that isn’t prevalent-if you don’t think that isn’t prevalent-there is one of the things that holds up auditors in auditing, is they get so upset about the pc being in an unknown while he’s trying to itsa that they eventually grab hold of the meter and they say, „Oh, well, let’s see. Is it twenty years ago? thirty years ago? It’s thirty years ago. Yeah, well, we know about that now.“ They say they’re just helping the pc. It’s just they can’t confront that „Well, and so, and so, za-za-za, za-za, za-za-za I don’t know. I just don’t know. It couldn’t have been so.“ And they think, „Oh, my God, if this goes on a minute longer,“ you know? And they get the itsa line in for themselves.
And then, of course, an itsa line can be too known. Every once in a while some murder-mystery characters ... The thing is out because it is known. Every once in a while, some murder-mystery writer has the postman do it, because nobody ever sees a postman. See? It’s too known. I bet there’s crime after crime on the books down here that remains unsolvable because it was committed in too known a fashion. See? It’s a known itsa. Itsa of knownnesses.
Every once in a while you’re doing an ARC break on some pc on R2H and can’t quite find out what it is, and you eventually will hit „known communication,“ you know? Known. Well, of course he knows it. He thought it was something else. Why? Because he knew it. So you get how slippy that can be, see? That’s this „everybody knows“ that is talked about in Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, you see? Everybody knows these things-that’s known itsas-so you never examine them. That’s another way of having a known itsa.
But the pc’s attention with his itsas rise up and down this whole new version of the CDEI Scale, see?-goes up and down, each one in those various stages. And he picks out this and he picks out that and he picks out something else, and all he’s doing is saying „It is a. . .“ He is identifying, in other words. He’s identifying something. And when he cannot identify something, then he identifies by classification-identification by classification. „This is a type of. . .“
Psychiatry does this all the time. They say, „This is dementia praecox case. . .“ They’ve gotten so idiotic with it now that if somebody goes to that Chestnut Lodge, where Graham-that publisher of Newsweek and the Post that was so against Scientology-where he went, and went home on vacation and killed himself He went home for a day; he was supposed to come back. Up there at Chestnut Lodge ... I’ve told you about it before. That’s actually the name of the joint; it’s up around ...
And it’s very remarkable. But it’s very remarkable up there. But if a person is transferred to Chestnut Lodge, regardless of their symptoms before, they now have schizophrenia. And I have asked this several times, trying to get the answer. And I finally did get the answer and understood it was the answer, and after that it didn’t plague me. But it’s a very interesting example of an interesting Variation of itsa, see? And that is, they are a schizophrenic because they were transferred to Chestnut Lodge, because that’s all there are at Chestnut Lodge!
Well now, that’s by classification plus idiocy, see?
When you say „It is a cupboard,“ you have a pleasant sensation of familiarity and knowingness. You seldom stop to think that you have classified something. You know something because you know of a similar something, and so you get your gradients. Your gradients of classification establish familiarity in that particular direction.
Every once in a while this familiarity gets betrayed or something like that and you get an ARC break with it. You say, „It is a cupboard,“ and you open it up and find out that it’s a mouse home, or something, see? Somebody’s using it to breed white mice for something, or something. Or „It is an automobile,“ and you get into it and find out it’s a stage prop. A little minor ARC break there of false itsa, don’t you see?
That’s quite common in GPMs. Pc goes halfway through the GPM and all of a sudden does the right itsa. „Ha-ha, ha! These are just railroad carriages with a painted backdrop of a train going off in the distance. They’re not trains.“ See? Identified the character of the itsa.
This is all, then, on the subject of identification; it’s all on the subject of familiarity; it’s all on the subject of finding out; it’s all on the subject of-of making oneself comfortable with what he is looking at-, it’s all on the subject of straightening out one’s various grades of ARC with the universe. Now, what gives a thetan such a passion for this, this is something else and not the subject of this lecture, nor, actually, the subject of cases at the present moment. But it opens up a very interesting channel of research. What’s this passion to itsa? See, that’s an interesting question.
But, that you do get tone arm action when you itsa and the case does improve, this is well established. And this is germane to all cases. So getting the itsa line in has nothing to do with getting the pc’s communication in. I say „nothing to do,“ that’s another action. That’s more apt to be the attention line-to you, or something of this sort. Don’t you see? That’s getting his communication in. That’s not the itsa line. No, getting the itsa line in is getting the pc to identify, separate, compartment, differentiate, inspect, decide about, things in his bank-or, in an objective process, in the room.
You want to see a tone arm fall, you could probably produce it normally by saying „What’s that? What’s that? What’s that? What’s that?“ and have the pc itsa.
You say, „What’s that?“ pointing at the fireplace.
Pc says, „It’s a fireplace.“
Actually, you run it for a very little while ... This is not a broad, general thing, because there are other factors involved here. Pc is so introverted that it’s painful for him to extrovert his attention, and he can only extrovert his attention on a broad via. And other special conditions arise here that doesn’t make this a pat process, you understand? It’s a pat process, though, as far as his bank is concerned, always-not necessarily objectively. But I’m giving you the objective version here, which is a limited version of it.
And you say, „What’s that? What’s that? What’s that? What’s that?“ See? Every time the pc says „Itsa.“ Normally, if a pc is not having too bad a time and he isn’t fouled up and you haven’t got him stuck on the track someplace and interested in something else, you’ll see your tone arm fall.
You can also see a pc getting very interested. All of a sudden, he - „What is it? Yeah, it’s a fireplace, but-but . . .“ And he’ll want to go over and take a closer look at the thing to make sure it’s a fireplace built out of a certain kind of brick, see? His itsa’s getting sharper. You will see his identification rise.
Now, this is so good that a Touch Assist works. Familiarization processes permit people to get driver’s licenses who couldn’t, by just touching cars -you know, „Itsa, itsa, itsa car“ is all he’s running, you know? He thought it was a buffalo for a while or something. Well, listen, if he couldn’t drive the thing, he must have thought something weird-that I assure you.
So itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa-that’s familiarization.
You want to teach some girl to type. Well, just have her familiarize herself with the tools of the trade. Very funny. She can get up to an itsa, itsa, itsa to a point, and her ability will rise, rise, rise along with it, which is very peculiar. But then this has something to do with charge. The change of case has to do with the release of charge because of the itsa. There’s two things happen: The individual who is really itsaing things is also blowing off encysted charge caused by former confusions about them. And that charge is encysted, and that is a force aspect and a mass aspect with regard to this.
Here’s the phenomenon, see? Here’s this encysted little thing here, see? And you said, „What’s in there?“ see?
And he says, „Oh, sfoo-uh-zoo, and zoo-oo, zoo-oo, zoo-oo.“ Tone arm is moving, see? Picking up those fingers one by one off the clasped hands, you see? And „Well, that’s off. Well, that’s off also. I don’t know. Let’s see, see what-what it is, what it is ... Oh! Palms!“
You didn’t think anything was in there, did you?
That’s just charge. And you see that tone arm start moving; well, that’s charge coming off of one of these bundles, and the guy is looking and it’s just a method of as-ising.
Now, while he’s doing this, what drives some auditors around the bend is he puts in a lot of additional itsas. Why, that’s of no great harm, see?
He says, „Itsa house. No, itsa car. No, itsa. . .“ See? „Itsa fingernail-no, oh, no. No, no. Oh, I know what this is! I-I know what this is. I know what this is. A watermelon!“ And then (as an auditor said to me last night) we get all set and we’ve both got a watermelon and then all of a sudden he says, „No, it isn’t a watermelon, it’s a diamond ring.“
And the auditor starts feeling kind of confused, because, you see, his itsa line is being thrown around by the pc. But only, only if the auditor doesn’t completely understand what he is doing. He’s trying to find something and then be content with it. Well, that isn’t auditing, man. An auditor’s superior knowledge should be that if the guy says it’s a watermelon, he for sure is going to call it a diamond ring shortly. And if it really is a diamond ring, he’ll never mention it thereafter, because it’s itsa’d.
But until it is itsa’d, he’s going to call it all sorts of things. It’s going to be at a billion years, and it’s going to be 5 years into the future, and it’s going to be back trillions-five years, and it’s going to be 465 years ago, and it’s going to be yesterday, and it’s going to be now, and it’s going to be fifteen minutes ago, and it’s going to be trillions-ten ago, and it’s going to be 18 trillion years ago, and then all of a sudden it settles down to 125 billion trillion years ago. Period. Bang-that’s it.
You don’t hear about it anymore than that, because he got it, see? It’s itsa’d.
So, a lot of apparent itsas come off in the process of obtaining an itsa. And you almost could say that all the running of a ease, from the first moment of its processing on through to the final cognition of the case, consists of conditional itsas. Conditional itsas. That’s the way it is for that circumstance and that certain place, you see? An auditor should never have any thought that he’s got to get nothing but permanent itsas. Naturally, you go through a GPM, you tear off the items according to a plot. Well, that’s the itsa of it!
Reason I don’t have any trouble running a GPM is I have no doubt about the itsa of a GPM, see? That’s it. It just is what it is. There was nothing there to understand. It was put there to louse you up and immobilize you and cut down your power and ability, you see, and it’s a bunch of electronic circuits which go into a couple of boxes, and they have a couple of things that fire on both sides of the thing, and they start you in the top, turn you upside down at the bottom, and that’s all there is to it. And you go through and you say, „Pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow,“ and that’s the end of the GPM. No false itsa, see? Actually, in most cases, not even much of a protest. You know, not saying „It should be some other way.“ Once in a while a spotted intention with a false idea of the intention will hang it up for a moment. But that’s an itsa, see?
You don’t have the immediate and direct itsa of „How come I got into a situation where I started getting these things in the first place?“ you see? Well, that’s one of these big itsas, see? This finally starts dawning on the pc. „What the hell was I doing delivering myself up to a comedy like this,“ you see, „every few trillion years?“ You know? „What’s the matter with me? What’d I do? What happened to me? Well, what’s wrong with me ‘ead? How come?“
And you’ll find most pcs will start chewing on this after a while, and they chew on it and chew on it and chew on it and chew on it and chew on it and-they sometimes chew on it for two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight hundred hours, see? How come? There’s no reason to blow your brains out about it or stretch your medulla oblongata all out of shape. It all of a sudden will rise up in your midst and there it will be: the itsa of „It is . . .“ See? „Oh, that’s why!“ you see?
Now, the adroitness with which an auditor can use the little attention line to put the pc’s attention into areas that can be explored, that are easy enough for the pc to see into, that will produce tone arm action ... is a very skilled auditor. And that is what is known as getting in the itsa line. Getting in the itsa line does not consist of sitting back and letting the pc talk for hours about nothing. You understand, we do not frown on that if you can’t do anything else. You understand? But there is a much more adroit level by which you put his attention on things that can be identified by him, and which he will therefore unsnarl the thing called a problem or the bank or that aberrated area.
And it’s the degree that you can obtain tone arm action-that you can do that-that marks the skill of the auditor. That is the most skilled center and zone of auditing. It’s almost so skilled that I hesitate to mention it again, because I’ve had loses along this line.
Now, if you can do that, there is its anatomy. If you can do that, you would be known as this fantastic thing called „the touch,“ „intuition“-all these other things would mount up back of this. It’s quite awesome. So getting in the itsa line isn’t just sitting there. It’s actually doing something else.
Now, letting the itsa line exist is descriptive of the lowest level of auditing on this, you see-just letting the itsa line exist. We’ll get somewhere, see? We’ll get somewhere if we just do that. But don’t go speaking carelessly of getting the itsa line in unless you’re doing just that. You’re taking the pc-to-auditor communication line, and you are putting it right into zones and areas where it will find itsas. You’re putting the pc’s attention in there to where that line will be „itsa a . . .“ and a „itsa a . . .“ and „Rur-rurrumdaummmmm. Well, itsa a...“ you see, and „rrrrr ra-ra-ra-rm, and so on, and so on, and so on. Well, I guess-I guess it was my complacence in college. That’s what got-Yes, that’s right. That’s what really got me in trouble. I was complacent about everything. I was-that’s it!“ Bang! You will all of a sudden see your tone arm go right on down, see? You see the charge come off of the case in the bucketloads.
This is actually so skilled that it’s the production of cognitions. You can produce cognitions if you want to. You can be that skilled. This is something that takes some familiarization with yourself You should know what the tools are: The tools is the line 1 minor, and that is used to produce a searching attention on the part of the pc; your whatsit line is left there more or less alone, to produce this kind of phenomena. Why? Because the universe is full of whatsit lines. The pc is suffering from too much whatsit and too little itsa. And the net result of this is of course to jam his itsa line. And you, the auditor, by letting it flow, pull him out of the soup.
Of course, the direction of significances as powerful as a GPM, as powerful as a super-duper engram, as powerful as this sort of thing on the way backtrack, God ‘elp us, and so forth-man, that’s putting in the itsa line on a significance with magnitude. And that thing actually requires considerable skill. You’ve got to have line plots and the idea of cross listing, and the doingness of the auditor is considerable. The skill is considerable, his drills are considerable, and so forth. Nevertheless, even those fail if you don’t let the itsa line exist. You got to leave that itsa line alone and let it rove.
Now, it also consists of not cutting it, and there are numerous ways the itsa line can be cut in auditing. It’s a good drill to get somebody to come around and show you that August 4 plot. Have him find the number of ways you can cut that pc’s itsa line. Then make him pass the drill: How many ways could you aberrate somebody by cutting the itsa line? And then he has to find out what the itsa line is. That’s an awfully good drill, and that drives it home with a thud.
All right?
Audience: Mm-hm.
I hope you get a good grip on this one, because it’s a slippy one. And of course it’s-trouble with it is, it’s so known, see? It’s an „everybody knows,“ you know? Itsa line-obviously it’s the pc’s communication line. Even though we went on saying „itsa“ and calling it an itsa line-well, why is it called an itsa line, and so forth? And you’ll see this one drift on through Scientology and always, forever, in some part of Scientology, this one will be too known. That I know, for sure.
But the very skilled auditor and the very well reputed auditor and the auditor who gets terrific results will be the auditor who has this one down cold. He knows an itsa line backwards and forwards. Pc sits down with a present time problem-it isn’t necessarily a speed factor involved-but the pc talks to him for a while and mysteriously this present time problem blows up and the pc is sitting right exactly in the middle of exactly what the auditor wanted him to be in, and the pc is running on exactly what they ought to be running, zippety-bop. And the pc is happy and the auditor is happy and everything is going as smooth as glass.
Naturally, there will be some jolts on the line. Every once in a while you’ll wish you had never opened your big mouth. And I hope you don’t get into as many of those as I have in the last thirteen years.
Thank you very much.

Web auditing in any place on the planet
Последний раз редактировалось Timecops 28 ноя 2016, 16:59, всего редактировалось 1 раз.
Сообщений: 1946
Зарегистрирован: 25 июн 2011, 15:42

Re: THE ITSA LINE A lecture given on 20 August 1963

Сообщение Timecops » 27 дек 2015, 13:45


A lecture given on
21 August 1963

What’s the date?
Audience: August 21st.
Twenty-first. Twenty-first August AD 13.
All right. We could cover an awful lot of stuff here. Be very easy to do.
The main things in which you are involved at the present moment probably look far more complicated to you than they are.
I’m going to talk to you some more about the tone arm and the itsa line, and forms of sessions. Things look to you a lot more involved than they actually are.
Sitting somewhere back of every thetan’s bank is some tremendous insecurity in which he believes implicitly that the universe is dangerous, or that he himself is in danger or that he cannot live or survive as a powerful being. And whatever that state is, and however that state is created originally is not particularly germane to this lecture.
But the discovery of the itsa line may look to you to be a highly simple little thing, perhaps even a duplication of psychoanalysis. After all, they talked. And if you didn’t know anything about the itsa line, you could draw all sorts of wild conclusions, you see? Make the mistake of saying, „Well, it’s a communication line, and therefore any communication line is an itsa line, and therefore if you let anybody talk about anything, why, he will get better.“
We already know if you let a fellow talk on an entheta line very long, he’ll run his havingness out the bottom. So the complexities of the itsa line are really quite something. It sits on a tremendous amount of technology, but in itself is very simple to understand. There’s nothing much to understanding it. If you understand it you’d see-you’d see actions like this very readily and immediately, and these actions would be something like this:
Pc said, „I-I don’t know whether it was-let’s see, now, it was-twenty, twenty, twenty-I guess about twenty years ago. And the fellow said uh-I don’t know what he said, but I know what I think about it. I - I - I know that I-I know I think it was a big swindle of some kind or another. And-Come to think about it, I don’t know whether I said that or he said that.“
Auditor: „It reads that he said it.“
Oh, wait a minute. What happens at this point? What occurred there, exactly? Well, you know at once what occurred, if you know the itsa line. The auditor put in the itsa with the meter, leaving the pc in a zone and area of insecurity.
Now, we say, all right, the line plot. The line plot: that tells the pc what items are in the GPM. See, just like that, see? So obviously we say, well, this to some degree puts in the itsa line for the pc. Well, no, no. That could be said to, but we get across the proposition of the lesser of two evils. If you’ve ever seen a pc wrapped around a Telephone pole with undisclosed charge from running a GPM he knew not knot of, or did not know any of the elements of, you will use line plots.
If the thing is a known line plot, we will use it. Why? Because that was a predesigned plot in the first place. It was an other-determined design-you understand that somebody else determined the design. What’s important about it is the charge that is on it, and what’s important in the auditing is to get off the charge and get the pc to identify, to his own reality, that itsa.
See, if the line plot you handed him on a sheet of paper didn’t agree with the thing he was running, you will very shortly hear about it. He can get wrapped around a telegraph pole with great speed. But that’s a shadow of putting in an itsa line, isn’t it? That’s a shadow of putting in the itsa line with the pc-but a necessary action.
Now, I’ll give you its similar borderline: Pc says, „Oh, it’s twenty years ago, it was fifteen-no, it’s eighteen-eighteen, four-twenty, twenty-two-. It’s twenty-two year-I think it was twenty-two year-. No, no. It-it must have been twenty-five-thirty. No, twenty-one-I-I don’t know. I don’t know. I just don’t know when it was.“ He quit, see? He quit cold.
What you going to do? Sit there with a pc who has quit cold? Or are you going to say, „All right, I’ll give you a hand. Was it more than twenty years ago, less than twenty years ago? Was it twenty years ago? All right, it’s more than twenty years ago. Is it more than twenty-five years ago? Less than twenty-five years ago? Less than twenty-five years ago. You got some idea of it now?“
„Yeah! It was twenty-three years ago.“
Or, „Was it more than twenty-five? Less than twenty-five? It was less than twenty-five. Twenty-three? Twenty-three? I’m getting a read here on twenty-three.“
„Yeah. It was twenty-three.“
Get that? So you didn’t totally put in the itsa line. See, you could start putting the itsa line in and the pc catches the ball, put it almost totally in and the pc catches it, see, and get right onto the hour and the minute, and the pc never caught it, but at least you don’t have something wrong dated. And those are the gradients of putting in the itsa line. And the last one-it’s a little bit of a lose to have to put it all the way in for the pc, see?
All right, now, look at the length of time you and other fellows around have been stumbling around on this planet. There’s a number of thousands of years. And the number of thousands of years you’ve been in the Marcab Confederacy are quite numerous. They probably run up to two or three hundred thousand years that you’ve been inside this system. And let me call to your attention, never during that time could you put your foot on the first step of the road which led back to a better life and some happiness and freedom, see? You couldn’t get a foot on that road at all.
All right. Right now you have technology. You have a map. The map has got all kinds of blank spots in it, but nevertheless, there’s the type of map it is, don’t you see? And those are persuasions toward an itsa line. And the only time you totally lose-the only time you totally lose-is when you have to put the whole itsa line in. Give somebody the pattern for a goal: All right, he has to list for the actual goal in that sequence and find it. And he has to list for and get the top oppterm, to make it, in order to fit the pattern, and then he’s got to fit the pattern together. And this is an awful lot of itsa. See?
Well, all right, so you’ve got the preprinted pattern. Give him this, and he just reads it off. You understand? This is less desirable, but it’s still feasible.
All right, now let’s put it totally in. Let’s put it totally in. Let’s just hit him with a lightning bolt so that he can’t contact any of the facsimiles in it, and we have medical psychiatry. See, the evil involved in this is putting in an itsa line in such a way as to have no self-determinism, no power of choice left in the pc at all. Total wipeout of power of choice, don’t you see?
Now, you can fall short of that in various degrees. Little kid is going around, see? He’s real unhappy about the whole thing, he’s real unhappy about life and he’s walking around in circles and so forth. And you say to him, „That is your bed.“ Well, you haven’t really done very much for him, but you have improved his state of mind or his peace, see? Just to that degree. You understand? You say, „That is your bed.“
Nevertheless, you have put in the itsa line. He himself has not found out that it is his bed, you see? But look, he’s still very happy to have the bed.
Now, when we get down into pure, unadulterated evil, we get a denial of the itsa line and we go into aberration, creation of. See, this whole thing inverts, and we get KUCDEIOF-that whole scale of means of perverting the itsa line.
Now, those means, well, include an inability to ever find anything, an inability to reach anything, and so forth. Well now, medical psychiatry (to amend what I was saying a moment ago) is of the inclination that it is better, you see, for nobody to have anything to do with anything, see? See that? Now, look at that as an inversion. That’s an inversion of the fact.
Now, the aberration of this line-perversion of this itsa line-has to be very direct in order to be very aberrative. You have to pervert the line, you see-just outrightly put in something false, or put nothing there, you see, and so on, or inhibit very directly, and you have to work at it. It has to be worked at and so on. Given the slightest chance, why, the pc will start putting in his itsa line. But what does he put his itsa line in on?
All right, let’s take Freudian analysis: he puts in his itsa line on childhood sexual incidents. They’re not aberrative! Anybody get anyplace? Old Papa Freud did contribute something. He said there was a possibility. Great, let’s applaud him for that.
But he was putting the itsa line in in directions that didn’t wind up with anything, and then after he got through he put the line in, totally; the practitioner put the line in. See, he said, „The reason why you are aberrated now is we have finally found out that you had a fetish going. You had a fetishism. And actually, your little brother’s right shoe has aberrated your whole existence, and that is why-that is why you are always talking about the feet on chairs, you see? And now we’ve got this all explained, and you are better.“
Now, that’s all very fine, but he didn’t look at the hypnotic character of the statement „You are better.“ That’s putting in the itsa line.
All right. We got some guy walking around in circles out here. (Let’s take a look at these various gradients of putting in the itsa line for somebody; you’ll gradually see what I’m talking about and what I’m driving at here.) Got some guy walking around in circles and, man, he doesn’t know which way to turn. He’s got lumbosis and he’s been aberrated by hearing of a psychiatrist when he was young and he’s got all kinds of things, you see. He’s having a hard time-having a hard time. And you say something can be done about it.
Well, you’ve put in some variety of itsa line, haven’t you? And that’s what you call a hope factor. And this guy very often responds to this, and he feels much happier about this, don’t you see? You see that-that the hope factor, then, is to that slight degree putting in the itsa line, see? It’s not really much of an itsa line. You’re not saying-but you’re saying, „It is not-it is not hopeless!“ See? You’re sort of putting in a negative line for him a little bit there, and you carry him along.
You see, as we look at this problem, we’ll see that there are various degrees of putting in the itsa line for somebody. See, there are various degrees of this, and these things vary from the very, very evil-which is to say, hand a guy a pomegranate and say, „That’s a bomb.“ See, that’s putting in a false itsa line. They vary from that up to a-well, making it impossible for him to put it in. (That’s a lower grade, making it impossible for the person to put in an itsa line.) Varies up to the little necessary actions necessary to begin the flow of the itsa line.
See, and these little necessary actions are such as „Start of session.“ And the basic intent is what makes the difference. That’s the first fundamental difference, although this, too, can go too far.
But the basic intent is what makes the most fundamental difference. Do you intend to improve this person’s itsaing ability, or do you intend to knock it into a cocked ‘at? Which? So it begins right there with the intention. And that gives you the difference between the cowboys in the white hats and the cowboys in the black hats, see? And it’s right there, man, bang!
Intention: decrease this person’s ability to itsa-cowboys in the black hats. Intention: by some or any means, to improve this person’s ability to itsa-cowboys in the white hats. That’s good and evil, defined in terms of the itsa line. That’s the difference between freedom and slavery, that’s the difference between making freemen and making slaves. You make slaves by the intention to decrease the ability to put in the itsa line. That’s how you make a slave. And that gives you the whole textbook of how to make slaves, right there, complete with gold letters and a chain-pattern cover.
And the other way is to improve the person’s ability to itsa. In other words, to identify, to spot, to find out. And there we have that point from which we can separate the Scientologist from the medico, we can separate the decent civilizations from the lousy ones; we can go right on through there.
This quarter of the universe, by the way, is suffering from an overdose of lousy civilization. See? That’s what it’s suffering from. It apparently has been recently conquered in recent times (in the last few hundred thousand years), but those who were conquered had already been-their governmental actions-had already been set up for their own failure, see? They’d been set up to be conquered by using, themselves, mental technology which made slaves. They implanted their own troops. Oh-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho, ah-ah-ahah-ah-ah-ah-ah.
„We’re going to plant somebody up to be a loyal soldier, to fight bravely, to never give up his body so long as it is alive, to be true to the empire.“
We’re going to plant somebody, are we? Remember, every one of those items we put in, to stick, has to have ä negative item! And that doesn’t just cut it down 50 percent, that puts it in the betrayal line. It cuts it down enormously, because some empire that would do this to somebody gets their support like giving them the itch, see? „Yeah, we’ll help the general out,“ you know? Help him into the car so that he goes through the other side and falls out the opposite door, you know? It’s an accident, you know? When the planes take off, half their motors don’t run, you know? Just-they’re just running up against total sabotage, because they’ve already got a slave empire.
And you may be able to force a group by slavery and so forth into a semblance of a civilization, but it’s only ever a semblance; there’s never anything to which anybody freely, wholeheartedly contributes. It has no strength, it has no power. Because remember, 50 percent of the implant is „Don’t be a good soldier.“
And then the fact that the implant occurred at all, of course, is enough to knock one’s loyalty in a cocked hat.
Let’s take an earlier and probably still extant organization, the Galactic Confederacy: eighty trillion years, smooth as glass. No implanting. Interesting? I don’t know the exact length of the Espinol Confederacy, but it’s probably something on the order of a few hundred thousand years. Implants-no empire.
The figures read themselves. Rome died at the hands of her slaves. That’s for sure. She was never conquered by the barbarians. I know it looked very nice in the history books, but the truth of the matter is, who wanted to fight for Rome? You get through with a war, you come home, you find out the slave civilization has already taken over the farms. There’s no need for your production; there’s no need for a freeman; there was no pay to be a freeman. That was the reward and the pat on the back for having fought through the wars, you see?
And it started going into a civil-war situation. And half of the Roman Empire was always fighting half of the Roman Empire. I don’t remember the exact name of the battle; it doesn’t occur to me. I read it in Gibbon (and it’s probably wrong in Gibbon) and got cluttered up on it-it’s either Messana or something like that.
But the reason the first barbarians got to Rome was because-she didn’t have very large numbers in her armies, but forty thousand of her firstline troops lay dead at Messala in a civil war caused by unrest caused by slavery. And they had no first-line troops. That was practically the entire call-up of the empire. And historians today trace back to that battle as the reason the barbarian was able to conquer the thing.
Well, you trace back the battle, and you find the battle came because of civil war. And we find out why the civil war came and it came by slavery.
The American Civil War, that destroyed one of the better agricultural areas of America, and so forth, was again a battle about slavery, one way or the other. Every time you have slavery, you have trouble. See? You don’t even have to be sentimental about it. You don’t have to be sentimental. You can be terribly statistical. You don’t have to say it’s good or it’s bad or anything else. You don’t have to beat the drum for it, or be a person who wants to reform things or something like that. Just look at the statistics. Slavery never pays off. That’s it. That’s that. It’s dangerous. If anything is dangerous, it’s slavery.
You don’t suppose America would be having very much trouble right now with its race riots and 250 thousand Negroes about to converge on Washington, and so forth, if they hadn’t kicked off this slavery. And it’s very funny, but the most involved people in American slavery were the Bostonians. Used to have what they called the „triangle trade.“ They’d send ships loaded with rum down to Africa, use the rum to buy blacks (as they referred to them), use the whip and Christianity on them to bring them back over, and they traded in the blacks down around the West Indies, and so forth, for sugar cane, and they brought the sugar cane up to Boston and they made rum, and they shipped the rum to Africa, and they just had that worked out. And practically the first families of Boston are founded directly on slavery.
Kennedy missed that. He wasn’t there at that-family wasn’t in America at that particular time. His family got out from underneath another type of slavery: the landowner, the absentee landlord, the high rates-this type of economic slavery, and so forth. And these things go back to roots. In other words, we have catastrophes in all directions. We have the catastrophe of Boston, the catastrophe of Kennedy.
We’ve got a situation here whereby you trace world trouble, and you trace it straight back to slavery. I’m not trying to beat the drum for anything. Why do you think Russia cant get its feet under itself, and why is everybody having such a hard time with the Russians, and why are the Russians so silly as to evolve a slave economy such as communism, and so forth? What’s all this fuss?
Well, this fuss goes back to the idea in early Russian history that a man belonged to the land, and when you sold the land you sold the man with it. Well, the European civilization got out from underneath that, two or three centuries before, and Russia has not yet got out from underneath that. She is still carrying the burden of her past chains. And therefore she can’t think straight. She’s like trying to get a pc to think in the middle of a session, you know? Can’t do it. That’s a little more touching picture than they actually are painting.
Actually, what I think is, is the White Russian prince and that sort of fellow, you see, he went back to the between-lives area and he came back and he picked up a body and became a commissar. I don’t think they’ve really changed their faces very much.
But the trouble with world affairs today is slavery. The greatest empire Earth ever had went down in the dust with slavery. The British Empire right now is having a rough time and is staggering around because of its efforts to colonise, and to do this and to do that and do something about this, and to free man and not to free man, and somehow or another to hold him in economic duress, don’t you see?-and not let him free but then to let him free, and-you know?
You got all this trouble down here in Africa running around in one way or the other. Well, that’s the sort of trouble you get when you suddenly start taking the lid off something that has had the lid nailed down on for a very long time, you see? And without anybody around who really knows much about it, why, we get those boys going back into slavery too. First action of a new African ruler is ordinarily to throw the whole opposition in jail because they are insufficiently enslaved by his regime, you see? This viewpoint. This viewpoint.
Now, I’m not discoursing on this just because I have a bee in my bonnet about it, because I frankly couldn’t care less, as far as this planet is concerned. It’ll never get out of any mess unless we get it out of that mess, and I’m just using the situation just to show you the liabilities of slavery. You always get a lash back-always. Because a thetan never gives up! That’s it. He really never gives up. He’s lying there. He might look awful quiet, he might look terribly dead, he might look like he doesn’t interfere with anything, you see? But, in actual fact, he really never gives up!
He’s got some trick: You can put him in jail, immobilize him, wrap him all up in adhesive tape and electric cord, and so forth, and he gets even with you: he sits there and thinks how he’s right. He even goes down to that point, see? He can hold that postulate clear on down through the lowest levels of unconsciousness-that he was right. Well, I think that’s very interesting. Because if he ever gets out of it, he’ll go on being right, see? If he ever gets out of it, he’ll go on being right about what he was being right about before he got put in that state.
In other words, the effort to dominate, the effort to dominate and deny power of choice is the road that this universe walked toward the hell it became. Fear-the unlovely specter of fear stands ahead of all of those.
Let’s trace this out very carefully: To survive. All right, very good. This guy wants to survive. Whatever put him in the state of mind that he had to survive? Because this is your biggest piece of nonsense. A thetan can’t possibly do anything but survive. In fact, it’s probably the trouble with him. And that’s certainly the trouble governments and things have with him. That’s the trouble the Marcabians are having with him right now. How to kill a thetan is the biggest problem in this universe. See, it’s just not solvable. They thought they had it all solved and we came along. See, they just never really are able to whip this problem. How do you kill a thetan? Well, it’s not an elegant problem to whip.
Now, how can a being-who actually can’t be struck at, who cannot do anything but survive and cannot die, who can pass through various lapses of 9t memory and that sort of thing-how can this being get into a state of mind whereby he’s concerned about survival? Well, it takes quite a lot of trickery to do that. Usually it’s on the extension of self into a possession, like making a minion. You mock a mock-up up and then you endow it with some life, you see? And then somebody comes along and starts to kick its head off, so you protect it and you identify yourself with it. Or you construct a civilization and identify itself with it, and you’re trying to get the civilization to survive, so that eventually you get worried about your own survival. You see the mistake which has to be made there? That mistake actually has to be made directly before a thetan gets worried about his own survival.
In other words, he has to extend some type of line onto something that he feels can’t survive, and then identify himself with it to such an extent that he feels his own survival can be affected. And this is your first step into aberration.
All right. Your next step forward from this is an elementary step: Because one is now worried about survival, one resolves the problem of survival by domination. This is not any kind of a solution at all. It’s a lousy solution, but it gets used and is probably-that which is not admired tends to persist. That very definitely applies in this particular line, because domination is probably the least admired thing in this universe, and yet, oddly enough, is continuously successful. But it’s really not successful.
So, domination-domination comes in here. And we have thetan A and thetan B, and the way that thetan B is kept from destroying thetan A’s construction or civilization, don’t you see, is by thetan A dominating thetan B, you see? That is the formula by which this is arrived at. So thetan A, to protect something he wants to have survive, therefore seeks to dominate thetan B. And then being in a frame of mind where he feels he himself cannot survive, then he just obsessively goes on and dominates thetans B, C, D, E, F --and G, see?
But he overlooks the fact that if he dominates thetans B, D, E, F and G, sooner or later, thetans B, D, E, F and G in their turn are going to dominate. Do you see? Because we’ve set up a cause-effect line, and the best thing you know about a cause-effect line-we may not know much about overt-motivator sequences; we know all about the cause-effect line from which the overt-motivator sequence comes. And the best thing about those things is that communication contains cause, distance, effect, with intention and duplication. And because of the duplication of the intention, then any communication line will reverse. That’s the easiest thing a communication line does is reverse, because of course it has duplication on both ends. It’s very easy for cause to become effect and effect to become cause, because there’s a duplication in the communication line. All you have to do is make a slight mistake of which is cause and which is effect, and you have the waiters, which at one time through the last century served people, in black tuxedos-You know, the guests all wore black tuxedos, and so forth-you have the waiters now wearing black tuxedos, you see?
And you look at any custom as it comes along in this universe, you are actually studying the cause-distance-effect-duplication aspect of a communication line. It’s going to reverse. Well, there’s lots of ramifications whereby we protest and we do this and we do that. But this fact of any custom you see on this planet at this time-you could absolutely count on its having been the reverse custom at an earlier date.
Now, this makes an awfully broad statement, but if you look into it, you’ll see that’s the ease. You take the clothes today of women, and the clothes today of men, see? Well, you don’t have to look back very far to where you see that that one flipped, you see? And you look into-into almost any custom you can follow down and you will find out it slipped. It went the other way to.
So the formula of communication, and communication itself, then, is the most important factor in looking for aberration. It’s very elementary why: It’s cause, distance, effect with intention, duplication. The duplication factor, then, makes the C very easily look like the E, and the E look like the C. So of course the line can reverse around the other way to. And we get all sorts of superstitions about overt-motivator sequences, and we get all kinds of things. Of course, that’s factual, but it’s simply based upon the nature of a communication line.
We beat somebody’s head in and we beat somebody’s head in and we beat somebody’s head in and we beat somebody’s head in. Of course, at cause you have the intention to beat somebody’s head in, and at effect we have somebody’s head being beaten in. That’s pretty elementary. And then one fine day we wake up with a headache. Where did the headache come from? Well, one slipped. One slipped. One made a misidentification of the C and the E on the line, see? It was quite accidental. You’re reading a book by Montaigne, or something, and it said, „And thy servant, he is a man too,“ see, something like this, you know? Guy just, you know, just blah ...
(I don’t even know if Montaigne said that. But you have to add these erudite points when you don’t have your quotation dictionary handy. Besides, I usually find out I can make up better quotations than they said anyhow. I figure out their works were culled. I used to work on the basis that if you wrote enough words, you’d say something clever, and that saying things clever was usually solved in the field of philosophy by writing enough words. See, just by law of averages you would eventually be clever. Anyway ... Fifty thousand monkeys writing for fifty thousand years apparently by accident would write all the books of the world, and I think they did!)
Anyway, you see what happens here now? Do you see? There’s a switcheroo on these lines, and you get what looks like an overt-motivator sequence. And almost any pc you audit at the level of Homo sapiens, and so on, has got this so switched that you can absolutely count on O/W working. But as I’ve often told you, it’s not a high-level concept. See, it’s limited. It only goes up so high because it depends upon this error of identification, you see?
But you can always get a case result by saying, „What have you done?“ „What have you done?“ because you’ve freed up now some vicious communication line. And it’s certain that he made a misidentification from that point up, see, and so therefore we can free some somatics or something like that. We can practically count on the fact that if some guy has got a sore neck, that if we just find out what sore necks he has caused, we will eventually tear apart a couple of facsimiles of some kind or another, which will straighten it out, and he’ll cease to have a sore neck. Because he obviously had given somebody else a sore neck, you see, if he has a sore neck. I mean, it’s that elementary.
But what is this really based on? It’s based on the misidentification of a communication line because of the duplication factor in communication. Can’t communicate without some duplication. That duplication, of course, sneaks up. You can’t communicate at all without duplication.
Well, all right, if communication is so dangerous, why is any thetan communicating at all? Well, he communicates because he wants to be oriented. And we’re back to why he communicates. He wants to be oriented. Of course, I don’t-then, of course, he takes his best tool, getting oriented, and proceeds to aberrate it by using it to dominate, to do people in, and to mess up things that he tries to identify with, see? He messes up his own communication line. In other words, he misuses his communication line.
Now, the communication line is there because he’s lost and feels the need of orientation. Hence his desire for communication. There’s an insecurity back on along the line which causes him to use this communication line. As I say, we haven’t got the full answer as to why that is. I’m just showing you what this comes from. And that gives us, directly, the itsa line. So don’t regard the itsa line as a low-level concept, it’s actually Scientology Five. It’s not Scientology One, but it’s used in Scientology One, and I’m sure will be used well for a long period of time, will also be used very blindly in many quarters.
But let’s appreciate what we’re using. We’re using the obsession to identify, which lies back of the communication line. But we’re using a principle higher than communication, coupled with communication, in order to orient and rehabilitate a thetan. You’ve made a full statement of processing at that moment, see, except for this one little fact: Is there anything else earlier that gave this guy an insecurity? The original one, in the absence of communication, is somewhat hard to understand-particularly at our states of ease, see? A little bit hard to understand. What the devil was it?
This guy, you see, isn’t communicating, he doesn’t feel insecure, he is not protecting anything, he hasn’t got any reaching going on, he had no real reason to reach, and so forth. How did anybody get to him?
You can figure out a lot of answers to the thing, and they all wind up with a communication line mixed up in them. And of course the moment a communication line is mixed up in them you haven’t got the answer.
How did he originally feel the need of orientation and familiarization in order to be comfortable? See, how did he do this? How was this done to anybody, and how did he do it to anybody else? And if so, why? So, there is a riddle still sitting there, see? There is a riddle. But we have the walkway back to the answer to that riddle. And what you’re walking, on the line of OT, is you’re walking to the answer of that riddle. And the funny part of it is, when you put your foot on that which lies on the other side of all of the energy and all of the Confusion and all of the overts and all the misidentification and everything else-which you’re handling right now as cases, and auditors, see-right on the other side of that, just as it took one step to get on the road, it only takes one step at the other end of that roadway to suddenly go OT. OT is a gradient process for a long period of time with a sudden fantastic upsurge.
You’ll get shadows of that upsurge as you’re processing somebody. You haven’t made it yet, but he all of a sudden will do something peculiar. He’ll do something very OTish-and the next forty-eight hours shake in his boots because, you know, ha-ha. Blu-uh! Guy starts to reach for the Telephone and it leaps to his ear, you know? Scares hell out of him.
Next session you’ll spend processing it having happened. But that’s processable too. These are just the lines up.
But the realization at the other end, the solution to that riddle and any of its ramifications, determines more or less the state attained. In other words, processing is the cure of having to be familiarized with things and having to itsa things, and so forth. The end product of processing is no further need to have to do these things. And as soon as one attains that no further need to have to do one of these things, one would find he would suddenly snap back to all of the power that he possibly could want. At which moment he probably turns around, and he’s so mad at everybody because of that time he spent there being right that he rights the various wrongs that he was going to right, and he probably will take a dip at that point and then he’ll come back up again. And there will be various curves and toboggans along on this road that will probably look very dizzy, but that’s okay. So that’s the way it is.
Now, we’re undoing-we’re undoing, then-this obsession to itsa by using it. And because the dependency on it is so great, you’ll never get a bank taken apart, as far as I’m concerned, until it has been utilized to its full.
Now, self-determinism, pan-determinism, personal beingness, personal power, restored to the individual, is done on the road of minimal help, maximal recovery of self-determinism-or maximal recover of self-ability to itsa. See? That’s up. Now, as the case goes along, its progress is measured directly and immediately by the degree that this is returned into the pc’s hands. Therefore, you could get a fantastic number of engrams run-now let me show you how you can mess this up, see-you get a fantastic number of engrams run and a fantastic number of GPMs run, and the pc would be foggy and wouldn’t be much alert, and so on.
Oh, you haven’t really harmed him. You’ve slowed down the recovery in just this one way, by every time the pc says „Uh ... let me see, there’s a picture here, and I think it’s a . . .“
„Oh, all right, I’ll date it for you. Is it greater than a hundred trillion years ago? Is it less than a hundred trillion years ago? Was it a hundred trillion years ago? It’s less than. All right, is it greater than eighty trillion years ago? Less than eighty trillion? It’s less than,“ so forth and so forth. „The date is so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so.“
And the pc says, „Oh, all right. Hm-hm. Okay.“ See? See the nonsense involved in this thing
And it just goes much more subtly, see, much more subtly: „You know, I think I must have been one of the Brobdingnagians.“
Little tiny head shake as one looks at the meter and sees that it didn’t read on Brobdingnagians, but did read on Lilliputians, see?
And then, „Oh, well, I didn’t mean anything. I-helping you out.“
You actually have the identical problem that a mother has, auditor. And some mamas solve it and some don’t. They help little Roscoe to a point where, at twenty-one, little Roscoe can’t shovel soup into his gullet, see? Of course, there’s an equal extreme the other way. They don’t help little Roscoe to a point where little Roscoe, at the age of twenty-one, shoots them! Puts cyanide in the soup!
See, all of this is a happy mean, you see? And it isn’t constant one pc to the next. That’s what the trouble is, because one pc requires more help than another pc, because they’re at different levels of independence. And you get a pc who has a very high level of independence and a very deep level of aberration, and of course you’ve got trouble! I mean, the guy can’t walk, and he keeps putting his feet in the stew and in the mud and everything else. And you watch this guy caroming off into doors, and it practically hurts, you know? „Oh, I’ll do it, I’ll do it!“ and at that moment, why, spills the tureen over his head, you see?
Well, that’s all within the margin of an auditor. That’s where his ebb and play comes in, is how much does it take to improve this guy’s independence and self-determinism? How much does it take to improve his ability to know? How much help does he need in order to know? And you’ll find out that’s a varying quantity, see?
Here’s this poor guy off the street, he doesn’t know which end the door is, you know? And he’s helped enormously because you actually show him where the door is. It makes him a bit better. You understand, from there on he can find the door, he can itsa the door from there on out. See? So you haven’t taken all of his itsas away from him.
All right, well, that’s the extreme case. But let’s handle that extreme case wrong. Let’s handle this just dead wrong: We tell him he never can know where the door is. See? And let’s build him a special set of rails so that when he walks toward the door he runs into it. And every time he walks around that particular end, why, he’ll collide with the door, see? Well, at this point, of course, you have exceeded the degree of. In other words, you haven’t helped him at all. You have deteriorated his ability.
And what you want to do is take what ability you have, that you find there, don’t you see, and gradually uncreate any dependence that is created. And the perfect formula is reduce it. See? Give him all the help he needs to get along and then gradually reduce it. That is always safe. Give him whatever help he needs to get along and then reduce it-which makes something like 3N into about four or five different routines, which is quite remarkable. And eventually, why, he isn’t even given a line plot. But that’s getting pretty adventurous, don’t you see, because he can get himself in more trouble without a line plot. It’s almost a dirty trick to turn somebody loose into a wildcat GPM before he’s run a few that are line-plotted, you know? You can make a pc fly, but then the pc says, „I don’t think-I don’t think, I don’t think this sequence follows on through this way. I think it cuts off someplace here. Something cuts off.“
„Well, follow your line plot! Follow your line plot! The line plot. Give me the next item, the next item. That’s what I want, next item.“
„Yeah, but . .
„Next item!“
Well, even if it was there, the pc sooner or later is going to be right enough to convince you that it isn’t-because you never let him find out.
Now, combining all of this nice sense of judgment is the extra bonus of your own flubs, because you cannot reduce them to zero. Don’t ever try. Don’t ever go beating your brains out. Because you get caught in cross-plays of communication where you didn’t quite understand what the pc said when you thought you did, don’t you see? And so you said, then, at that time-the pc is saying, „Let’s see, what was that series we found? It was-let’s see, I think I found early-earlier that such a series we found. . .“ and so on.
Well, you say, „Well, you’ve already found it, you see? It’s been found for several sessions, and it’s 25.4 trillion years ago,“ see? And he’s trying to find this date, you see? He’s trying to reremember what the date is, and you’re just trying to get the series started, see? So you say, „Well, that was-that - oh, you’re talking about the 25.4-trillion-year-ago series.“
He says, „Yeah. Yeah, I guess so. I don-I-I do-get the.... No, you see, that isn’t the point. Um...“
And you finally let him stagger through this, because you’ve, see, flicked his attention and slipped him the mickey with the wrong communication line because you didn’t understand. That wasn’t what he was saying at all. He’s trying to find that lock incident that defended on the series, and his communication being a little bit blurry, why, he’s not really communicating what he thinks he is communicating to you, so you make a mistake on it. And because the pc’s communication line is so often fogged up in session, for an auditor, then, to do a perfect job of handling the communication line is impossible, because it depends upon the pc’s articulation and communication being perfect.
Sometime a pc will say something to you like this: „Well, I suppressed my gains for this session.“ And what do you do? Well, is he giving you an itsa? Is he announcing a catastrophe? Is he getting off a suppression? See? Does he want you to do something What’s the intention of his communication? Well, maybe he doesn’t even know, either. And almost anything you answer to this, you’re going to be wrong! See?
So don’t go around in fear of being wrong, and don’t teach people to be afraid that they’re going to mishandle one of these lines, because you’re teaching them to be afraid of something that’s going to be inevitable - inevitable.
The pc all of a sudden looks up and he gets a starey-eyed look in his eye and he says, „Say, I don’t think that’s true.“ You’re running a Helatrobus implant, you see, and „Say, I don’t-I don’t think that’s true.“
And you say, „Well, what?“
He says, „That. You know? I just don’t think it is.“
Well, what do you do? Is he talking about the Helatrobus implants? Probability not. He’s skipped into something. What’s happened here? What’s he collided with? We don’t know. All right, to ask him for more data than he’s got is a fatal auditing error, so we ask him for more data than he’s got and we are in trouble. We don’t ask him for the data he does have, we are in trouble. Don’t you see?
Because, these are the troubles of handling an indefinite communication line, and troubles always originate. The communication line at its source is indefinite, so therefore the handling of it becomes a situation. So that just makes you have to get very slippy. And you have to learn various things about the intention line which we’re not particularly discussing today.
„Do you want to tell me about it?“ Ha-ha-ha-ha-cut your throat. How do you put the pc’s attention on anything? How do you put his attention on a chair? You say „chair,“ don’t you? How do you put his attention on a house? You say „house,“ don’t you? How do you put his attention on a date? You say „date,“ don’t you? How do you put the pc’s attention on the auditor? You say „auditor,“ don’t you? „Do you want to tell me about it?“ Clang! Out of session, ARC break, house falling down, everything going to pieces, gains being wrapped up, everything betrayed-Christ, what happened? Ha-ha!
You in vain try to trace back anything you did. Naturally, you tend to blame yourself for it. Well, you, in actual fact, didn’t do anything except inadvertently direct the pc’s attention in a direction where it wasn’t going and give him a sudden attention shift, because of your misunderstanding of what the pc was talking about in the first place. Do you see the liabilities of this kind of thing?
So, know how to do it right, and do it right most of the time! See? That’s the only thing you can expect and hope for.
All right. This pc itsa line is going to get better to the degree that it is permitted to exist. This doesn’t mean to the degree that you let the pc talk, necessarily. It means the degree that you keep the pc’s attention directed in directions where he can find things to identify: in his bank. And when he’s found things in his bank to identify, let him identify them.
He says-You say, „All right. Now, I want you to take a look at that incident there that has the robots in it. Good. All right. That’s fine. All right.“
And he says, „Say, . .
„Yes, I know. They’re robots.“
Well, I’d just say that was too corny for words, see?
All right, you keep up that sort of thing with a pc very long, and you tell him what he is looking at always-see, it isn’t a 100 percent proposition there, either. You sometimes tell a pc what he’s looking at, see? You put his attention on the track to some incident that you know is there, and he doesn’t know is there, well, you’re certainly giving him something to itsa, aren’t you? So you’ve given him something to itsa, and he’ll start itsaing it, happy as a clam, see? But if you prevent his itsaing it after you have given it to him to itsa, you will see a gradual deterioration over a period of intensives-now, not one session, it’s a long period-of his ability to identify. You’ll see this deteriorating.
You’re creating a dependence on your metering. You can create a dependence on your recognition, a dependence on his confirmation as to whether or not he’s right. He says, „Well, I don’t know if it was the cowboys in the white hats or the black hats, and cow ... You look on the meter,“ he will say. „Look on the meter.“
One of the ways an auditor gets this started is invalidating a pc’s data. He invalidates the pc’s data a little bit, and-you know, tends to somewhat, and sounds doubtful, and the pc sounds this-and finally the pc will say „Look on the meter.“ And the auditor cuts his throat and looks on the meter. See? It’s a case of he should say, „Well, I believe you. I don’t have to prove it,“ see?
„If you don’t believe me, look at the meter.“
Proper response is, „Well, I believe you. Go ahead, tell me what it Don’t look on the meter.
Eventually you’ll get a habit started whereby every time the pc wants to communicate anything to you, he convinces you by showing you that it bangs on the needle. And his itsa line will start deteriorating. See, this can be done in various ways. That’s confirming his itsa line, which leaves him with no positiveness. It leaves him with no sensitivity as to what’s right and what’s wrong.
Well, that’s an ability that you are trying to improve. And if you look on it as an ability that you’re trying to improve and as the chief ability which is there to be improved in a case, you really won’t make many mistakes on it. Your mistakes will be cut to a minimum. But if you look on a case as something from which significances have to be removed in any way that they can be removed, regardless of the self-determinism of the pc and regardless of his ability and regardless of his knowingness and his recognition and so forth, oddly enough, you will still make it, but you’ve multiplied your time factor considerably. Time factor is going way up-ten to one, something like that - because you’re deteriorating his ability.
Now, just auditing the pc in general, you’ll see you will inevitably get an improvement of the ability by the removal of charge. Now, if at the same time you’re creating a dependency, to the degree that you’re increasing-you see? You can increase and decrease, and whereby he’s getting more track and more charge in his vicinity, his actual Potential of improvement is being cut back by his dependency on the itsa of the auditor, see? It improves anyhow. But the auditor is cutting it back, and he’s just costing himself more auditing time, more auditing time, more auditing time, more auditing time. More difficulty, more ARC breaks, more upsets.
There’s many a-many a way, many a way by which all this can be handled in various ways. See, you have what you call an ARC breaky type pc. Well now, this pc probably has a high degree of independence and probably has a high degree of itsa ability already, but possibly is a bit swamped with charge, see?
All right. Now we take this pc and we deteriorate his ability to itsa, you see, by creating a dependency on the auditor. You know, by telling him everything, by telling him everything. You know, „That read. That didn’t read,“ and so on. Of course, the funny part of it is-there’s one other point of this I should mention in passing-if you don’t tell a pc when an item is finally discharged, in the early stages of running GPMs, he’ll leave items charged, and the mechanics of the bank will cause him to bounce and ARC break. See? So that again is one of these factors whereby you’re putting in the itsa line-itsa discharge.
Now, but sooner or later the pc is going to start telling you when it is discharged. Well, that’s damn well when you better stop telling the pc that it’s clean. Do you understand? You just better stop telling him at that point.
Ah, but you’ve got an interesting problem here. Maybe you’ve stopped telling him at the point where he still can’t tell. Now you’re going to have hell raised, because you’re going to have him stuck in incidents. You’re going to have RIs live all over the place, you’re going to have his postulates live and so forth.
I think I’d start working on a campaign on him: „Well, run it until you’re very sure it’s flat“ is the kind of a campaign I’d start running, is „Get that item until you’re very sure it’s flat.“
„All right,“ he says, „that’s flat.“
„Okay, say it again. Good. Fine. You’re right, that’s flat,“ see?
And he all of a sudden, „See, I can tell you.“ You know?
„All right, good. Good,“ see? „Fine.“ And wean him. And gradually don’t check, see? Don’t check. Say, „All right, I can depend on you.“ Because he can tell you, eventually, when it’s flat.
He’ll also get very bored with an item and leave it half-unflat. You can sometimes make a citizen out of him by letting him do so. Trouble is, he’s liable to have bounced and gone into something else.
Now, there’s various problems involved here. I’m not trying to tell you this is simple. Don’t get so involved in the problems, however, that you miss the basic mechanics of the situation. Basic mechanics of the situation: the pc is the one who is living with this bank, and if he can’t tell what’s in it, and so forth, he can’t live with it. Obvious? I mean, that’s one of these ne plus ultra things. You’re unfortunately, or fortunately, not going to be at his side for the next two hundred trillion billion squillion years. See, you’re not going to be there telling him whether it is a GPM, you see? Going to have to find this out for himself So sooner or later, you’re going to have to kick him off with regard to this bank.
The time to start is when you start auditing him. You start auditing him, why, start weaning him. Don’t increase his dependency. Decrease it. Give him all the help he needs! But isn’t that a tricky statement? How much help does he need? Well, you know if he doesn’t have line plots and a design on the track and the concepts of life, and that sort of thing-if he doesn’t have something like that-he’ll never put his foot on the road at all. And we know that if he doesn’t have a line plot for a standard GPM that he’s got to run, and so forth, we know he’ll wrap himself around a telegraph pole, man. He’ll practically finish himself off by giving you wrong items and upside-down items and missing items, and so forth. And the next thing you know, why, the penalty is much worse than the cure, here. See?
Well, where do we go? Well, how much help do we give him? Well, we give him all the help he needs. How much help does he need? Well, that is something you establish individually in each pc.
You’re going to get ahold of some pc sometime or another-you know, he possibly hasn’t been down here long, or he got here by accident, or something of the sort. And this pc cognites on the Axioms, knocks out the bank, does Change of Space Processing between your auditing room and the next building for a while, goes around and thanks you very much; you’re left with your jaw dropped because you haven’t had an opportunity to get your meter on and tested.
Well, don’t feel so betrayed that you didn’t get a chance to audit. You audited. So, there are various degrees by which you have to approach this problem, and that’s the difference of pc’s.
Now, these very, very ARC breaky pcs sometimes get a reputation for being ARC breaky and they get very upset this way and so on. It’s actually where their concept of their own independence is being invidiously cut up by people putting itsas in for them. And the charge on the bank is too great, so that they get into this stuff and they’ll dramatize at the drop of a hat. And this is upsetting to them. It’s more upsetting to them to dramatize, but how did they dramatize? They dramatized only because somebody put in the itsa line they were not able to.
So, what do you do with such a pc? Well, a pc who’s routinely ARC breaky must obviously have something wrong with the itsa line. Well, he wasn’t the result of auditing- It was probably something that occurred before auditing, because we are not in the business of aberrating people. Well, it must have occurred in some aberrative area.
Well, you can do such a thing, as give them an eighteen-button Prepcheck on the itsa line. Simple. Now, an eighteen-button Prepcheck is not thrown out by the itsa line because the eighteen buttons are the select choice, very best, grade A, straight-from-the-ocean itsas. You realize that a Prepcheck is almost the perfect series of itsas. Most powerful buttons, so they’re most powerful itsas in existence since the beginning of the universe. „Since your beginning of travail, has anything been suppressed?“ Wonder how long that would run. But that’s an itsa, because he must have itsa’d by suppressing. So you’re getting off the crisscross, see? If he suppressed it, then he can itsa it. If you get the suppression off, then he can itsa.
These are almost perfect itsa lines. The Prepcheck actually comes into its own. But very interesting about a Prepcheck. You can prepcheck the itsa line. See, on that? That takes the cake, man.
Now, you take one of these very ARC breaky pcs that has a very great reputation for being ARC breaky, and you put the itsa line into some comprehensible thing. Very often, if you just explain to them what the itsa line is and prepcheck it, you’ll be better off than trying to redefine something, because you won’t then be prepchecking the itsa line. But this takes some doing.
An auditor has always got to be able to interpret the auditing command and clarify the auditing command so that the pc knows what it is. One of the best ways to clarify an auditing command like „Recall an ARC break“ is explain an ARC break and give it to him, because you use any other word, you’ll run into some GPM-almost certain to run into GPMs. „ARC break“ is contained in no GPM and therefore is a totally nonbackground word. See? Give him a new word, new symbol.
All right, so you say, „Itsa line-well, your-your recognition of things. Your consideration of things. What you think life is all about. Your opinions. You know, somebody says, ‘What’s a cat?’ and you say, ‘It’s a four-legged animal.’ I mean, your right to do that.“ You know, go on, go on, explain it any way you want. Prepcheck the itsa line. Or get some other designation for it. But prepcheck it.
And you’ll be very fascinated that the pc who is the ARC breaky pc is not really ARC breaking because of auditing and bypassed charge. This pc’s itsa line is cut right here and now as his most colossal PTP-by something else, nothing to do with auditing.
I’ll give you a marvelous example of how somebody’s itsa line is cut right here and now: He’s on this planet, isn’t he? If he tries to get off, he hits the between-lives area. His itsa line is cut because he can’t itsa anything else in the universe. He can look at the stars, but he can’t tell what condition they’re in. See, he’s the prisoner on the island who looks toward the mainland longingly, so his itsa line is cut.
See, there’s all kinds of ways of cutting the itsa line, don’t you see? No reason to dream them all up for the pc. Put in a Prepcheck on his itsa line.
You’ll be astonished. He’ll make some case progress-sudden case progress, and cease to be ARC breaky.
Other ways of attacking this same problem sometimes give us the very, very fascinating and interesting aspect of somebody who has found that the ARC break is a solution to some problem. So he solves the problem by ARC breaking. There’s various ramifications, but he normally runs into this when you prepcheck the itsa line. You have a big piece of understanding here. It’s a big, new, whole piece of understanding. It’s a new piece of the jigsaw puzzle which has fitted into place and made citizens out of most of the center pieces, and has shown us that there’s just this little few out here on the edge, of how come a guy had to identify and familiarize himself in order to feel alive or secure? How come a guy got into an obsessed necessity to itsa? That little piece is about the only piece missing right now, and it’s up here in the corner. And it’s missing just to this degree: You show me a problem, very shortly later, I’ll show you the answer.
Thank you very much.

Web auditing at any place of the planet
Сообщений: 1946
Зарегистрирован: 25 июн 2011, 15:42

Вернуться в L Ron Hubbard original LECTIONS, TAPES

Кто сейчас на форуме

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 13