Author: Hubbard, L. R.
Document date: 1955, 14 September
Document title: Postulates 1, 2, 3, 4 In Processing â€“ New Understanding of Axiom 36
Document type: lecture transcript
Event: Conquest of Chaos
Location: Washington, DC
Document ID: 5509C14
Description: Hubbard discusses the "semantic difficulty" as "an inability to resolve the auditing question."
Now, there’s an alternate process which an auditor can throw in at any time. Let’s say that the individual cannot grasp these syllables. They’re going whirr-clunk. Something he doesn’t know. “Uh — something I don’t know, ummm — something-uh — what did you say?
Uh — let me see, that’s a real interesting question you asked there. Uh — I don’t mind knowing anything about the person.” You’re having semantic difficulty, an inability to resolve the auditing question. Now, if you don’t think that’s important, you’re not a good auditor.
Sooner or later a question — an auditing question won’t communicate. You can actually run a person for half an hour doggedly, bullheadedly, stupidly on your part and the individual doesn’t know what you’re saying. He’s never rationalized it.
For instance, you tell somebody, “Invent a game.” Somebody right in this room I had to tell that to one time — and this person went on for fifteen minutes describing various known games to me and I kept saying, pointedly, “Invent a game” and the person would say, “Well, tennis — tennis — checkers.” “Good. That’s fine. Invent.” I was darn near getting that word up in neon lights. But to this moment that person has never flattened that process.
You know why? The person never started on the process. Isn’t that a real good reason for never flattening one?
Hubbard, L. R. (1955, 14 September). Postulates 1, 2, 3, 4 In Processing — New Understanding of Axiom 36. Conquest of Chaos, (5509C14). Washington, DC.