Refund and Reparation

  The reality scale refers to the individual's hold on reality and his agreement with others on what reality is.  Reality breaks are actually disagreements on reality, usually resulting only from a different viewpoint and not from actual differences in reality itself. The communication scale refers to the individual's ability to communicate with other people.

Reality	Communication
Tone 4 Search for different viewpoints and changes in reality in order to broaden own reality — complete flexibility in understanding, relating and evaluating different realities	Ability to communicate completely, withholding nothing; ability to create and construct through conversation
3.5 Ability to understand, relate and evaluate reality, regardless of change or difference in viewpoint, moderate flexibility in realities brought to view without eager searchfor new ones	Swift exchange of deep-seated, deeply felt beliefs and ideas
Attempts to reconcile own reality with conflicting reality—limited flexibility	Tentative expression of limited number of personal beliefs and ideas
Tone 3 Awareness of possible validity of different reality (viewpoint without relating it to own reality)	Casual exchange of superficial chatter
2.5 Indifference to conflicting reality—"Maybe —who cares?" attitude	Indifference to communication of others—"Let's not argue about it" attitude—dismissal of communication—if toward environment, not trying to get perceptics clear
Refusal to match two realities, rejection of conflicting reality "So what?" attitude	Refusal to accept communication of other person (or environment) — turning to other sources of communication
Tone 2 Verbal doubt — defence of own reality, attempts to undermine others	Indirect pot-shooting, nagging, nasty cracks, invalidating other person or situation
1.5 Destruction of opposing reality, wrecking or changing it, knocking out props from other person's reality — "You're wrong!" attitude. If reality is environmental, destruction is accomplished only through change	Shutting off other person's communication, destruction of it — "Shut up!" "Drop it!"
Doubt of opposing reality, non-verbal disbelief, refusal to accept disbelief, refusal to accept conflicting reality without trying to fight back	Stubborn silence, sulking, refusal to communicate further, rejection of attempted communication by others
Tone 1 Doubt of own reality — insecurity; attempts to gain reassurance; if reality is environmental — appeasement of gods or elements	Lying to avoid real communication; can take the form of pretended agreement, flattery or verbal appeasements; or simply a false picture of person's feelings and ideas; false facade, articial personality
0.5 Shame, anxiety, strong doubt of own reality with consequent inability to act within it, must be told what to do if person is to act at all, afraid to act himself since he has no way to assess consequences	Evasiveness to avoid communication; hiding person's own thoughts and feelings superficial communication built on accepted standards without relation to person's real feelings; or shizoid secrecy
Complete withdrawal from conflicting reality; refusal to test own reality against conflicting one; Locked in own rigid reality — psychotic	Inability to communicate, completely unresponsive
Tone 0

For example, if you take a girl who has been jilted or something like that, you will find she has a tendency to leave herself. She has been left and this says that she is not worth much. The interposition says she has been left, and there is charge on it; her own self-determinism is filtered by this action that she has observed, so she treats herself as somebody that she would leave.

This doesn’t mean that she goes into the valence of her former lover. In the past you have treated all of these manifestations—mostly all of them—as manifestations of valence, and I am showing you that just plain, ordinary, run-of-the-mill circuits and locks act in this fashion too. Because this is not valence; she doesn’t go into the lover’s valence. "I want to stay home tonight and sew," she says to herself. All of a sudden she will have a feeling like maybe she shouldn’t stay home tonight, maybe she ought to go out someplace and walk—she just ought to sort of leave; but when she leaves she may walk faster and faster. What she is trying to do is leave herself—all this is perfectly rational conduct—and she will go on trying to leave herself to a large and remarkable degree.

But that is not so observable in people as, for instance, their treatment of their physical person.

When loverboy shoved off he invalidated her, and in addition to invalidating her he went through this dramatization of leaving which laid in a lock—a charge—and sometimes a secondary. This invalidated her. Her worth and value is not as great as it was before because he showed her that it wasn’t, so she has a tendency to regard herself and her person with the same disregard that she was shown by the person who left her. After this person leaves her she has a tendency to neglect herself. She thinks, "I will dress up," and instead of dressing up she just lets herself go. She is treating herself as other people treated her, as another person treated her.

More important than this, her self-determinism when she was a child was interrupted, let us say, on the subject of clothes. She was made to keep her clothes clean. So now when she comes along in life and gets her clothes dirty she gets mad at herself. She forces herself to keep her clothes clean. Let us say that her natural response to a beautiful day would be to get out and walk, sit on the grass and enjoy herself. But she can’t sit on the grass and enjoy herself because she might get her clothes dirty. It doesn’t even matter if she is wearing old clothes; she still has this slight reaction in this regard. She cannot extrovert because she is being forced, although the person who did this forcing may have been dead this long while. She forces herself into certain activities, but "I" doesn’t do the forcing. "I" just starts to-do the action and she gets a filter reaction of forcing herself to do what she has been forced to do.

"Let’s take a bath. All right, take a bath. I’m going to take a bath, but I have to force myself to take a bath. I don’t want to take a bath, but I’ve got to take a  bath." You see how schizophrenic this begins to sound? Nevertheless, schizophrenia—multiple personality—only starts to take place when these interruptions get built up and charged to a point where the person has enormous valence walls. Everybody has tons of these little tiny shadow valences.

Where does the charge come from? The charge does not come from the exterior world. The charge is not a transplanted emotion from somebody else. It is not transplanted from Mama via the umbilical cord. The charge is a very simple thing to locate. This analogy is not necessarily true, but consider that “I” plus reactive charge equals a constant. In other words, let’s say that this “I” is 1,000, and that there are 200 units of reactive charge on this case, so that “I” (the individual himself, the awareness-of-awareness unit monitor) and the reactive charge on the
case total 1,200; the constant for this case would be 1,200 units. For another case we could say that “I” was 2,000 and the reactive charge during the case’s life was 500, so 2,500 would be the constant for that case. In this way, every case could be considered to have a constant. One individual has a constant of 1,200. Another individual has a constant of 2,500 and somebody else has a constant of 300. That is the life units of the individual summed up.

[...]

So you could get a case, finally, where "I" had been brought way down and then received another jolt in life which sent "I" down to 0 units and the reactive charge up to 1,200 units.

Now that person would really be insane. He would never be in contact with any kind of reality; he would have no reality, no communication and no affinity. This person would be in a bad state— probably a catatonic schizophrenic in the last stages. According to old standards, the person might be said to be hopelessly insane at this point.

Your job is to get some of these units back up to "I," and you do that by knocking out the first few units of charge that you can, getting one or two units at a time. You finally run some kind of a secondary engram, a grief discharge or something. You get this off the case, because you can see, obviously, that there is something there. The charge is so great on the reactive bank that the case bleeds quickly. You can hardly even start to put this person on the track before the charge explodes.

This is the screamer. A screamer is not necessarily getting rid of charge, however; he might be merely dramatizing. 

Actually, the cases you work are unlikely to be in that bad a state. This is the extreme. But here we have measured this in terms of maximum charge and minimum charge.

However, the difficulty of the case does not depend upon maximum and minimum charge. The difficulty of the case depends upon control circuitry and other types of circuitry—which are also control—but, pointedly, the main offender is the type that says "You’ve got to control yourself," "You’ve got to keep yourself down," "You’ve got to keep yourself in hand," "You’ve got to get a grip on yourself." The other types of circuitry just stretch out from there.

This does not change the maximum-minimum-charge picture but it certainly does make it difficult to release that charge, because these circuits absorb a lot of the 1,200 units; there are other individuals and all sorts of things in there. If "I" goes down to 0, you definitely have an insane person. The method of proceeding on such a case is to try to pick up some of that circuitry.

A circuit could be considered as a structure with only one vulnerable point, being almost impregnable on all other points. The Achilles’ heel of every circuit is the phrase which created it. Any attack on this circuit that does not include the phrase which created it has a tendency to charge it up.

The maximum charge case is not hard to crack unless there are circuits on it. This presents a strange picture. If you were to go into an institution and work people there, you would be completely fascinated to find that you would get a remission in every few persons as you sent them back down the track, blew grief charges, gave them a little dressing-up and then brought them up to present time. All you would have to do is say, "Well, let’s go back to the engram necessary to resolve your case." The person may be gibbeting to a point where he doesn’t know where the engram is, so you say, "Well, let’s go to the incident, the moment of pain in your life, necessary to resolve your case." He won’t be able to stay out of it and he will
explode into tears and sorrow and all the rest of it. You can then run a few more incidents off  he case, get some line charge off the track and bring the person up to present time.

In fact, you will find cases which are wide open with actual perceptics, real pianola cases, in an institution. They are not rare either—perhaps twenty or twenty-five percent. So the maximum-minimum-charge picture is what you are looking at in these people.

The difficulty of working the case is brought about by circuits. You won’t find any
schizophrenics who don’t have circuits. They are loaded with circuits. Neither will you find a paranoiac who doesn’t have circuits. 

The manic-depressive is a very rough case. I have had to redefine the term manic-depressive so it would make a little more sense. A manic-depressive is somebody who is caught on the track in a manic engram which has a depressive aspect. For instance, a person is caught and fixed solidly somewhere on the track in an engram that says "I’m strong, I am wonderful, I am so happy, I am so cheerful, but sometimes I get so depressed." That would be a ridiculous simplification of it but it is that kind of an engram. It has a manic in it. It punches up his analyzer to the limit to do exactly what the engram says the analyzer is to do. It is a directed, concentrated, fixed state.

Manic-depressives sometimes make good salesmen, but they make much better salesmen after you get rid of the engram. I almost broke a salesman’s heart once. He found out that all this beautiful sales talk that he had been giving to people all his life was Papa trying to sell Mama on the idea of getting rid of him! The person was very convinced he was a great salesman. I was interested enough in this case to call up his boss, and I found out that the person’s sales record was so poor that he was on the verge of getting fired. Yet he was certain that he was a great salesman—it said so right in the engram. We got rid of the engram when he wasn’t so convinced, and he went back and for a short time he had his old job, and then he went on to something else because this was not his purpose. He had been fixed in an engram which didn’t particularly agree with his basic purpose.  So that is a manic-depressive.

A manic-depressive caught on the track can get supercharged if the engram in which he is caught gets charged up. And if there are some circuits on this engram in which he is held and they are charged up very high? that makes it very tough. Trying to get a manic-depressive moving on the track and out of it theoretically should be very easy, but as far as I have been able to learn in Dianetics so far, the manic-depressive forms our roughest case.

We know what the circuits and central computation are on the paranoiac, so he is an easy case.  But that is only because we know the combination which opens the door; it is an "against me" engram which is laid in very heavily. Lots of people have "against me" engrams who are not paranoiacs, but when the "against me" engram is there and when it gets charged up, and when it is laid in very heavily, that person becomes a paranoiac.

So there are two things at work here. Engrams contain a lot of circuits potentially, but the circuits are not set up. When this case is given a lot of charge the circuits repress the charge so we can’t get it back.

A schizophrenic is someone who is supercharged by secondary engrams up to a point where he is mainly circuitry with precious little left of "I." Therefore "I" is never in control. His personality starts changing because the circuitry "I"s are laid in by other personalities than his own. He has been usurped by other people.

Thought is trying to conquer MEST. In the process of aberration, thought, in   attempting that conquest, gets human beings confused with MEST, tries to control them, and ends up by doing so. But this control is resident in a live mind. Being resident there, it plays havoc, because the thought lines and harmonics are disrupted and this person is trying to apply force. That is the normal picture of a schizophrenic.