6107C18 SHSpec-30 Can't Have -- Create In 1952, the Philadelphia Doctorate Course and Scientology 8-8008 were the basic texts on havingness. Havingness is a dominant thing; it is a part of games conditions. Now we are back to games conditions and its relation to havingness. In Scientology 8-8008, we had the principle that the goal of processing is to remedy the scarcity and abundance of all things. But all that we previously had to do this was creative processing, and a lot of people couldn't run it. Now we have come up with a new way to do this and thus clear someone fast. There is a new datum on havingness: its relation to create. After you create something, you may have it or not; create doesn't necessarily mean that you'll have. All of auditing could be considered prehavingness, hence the prehav scale. The relationship between creating and havingness has to do with the fundamental formation of the reactive bank and is very important: What a person can't have, he creates. That is the law on which man operates. It is the most fundamental law of the bank that has yet been discovered. This is how the bank is formed. E.g. whenever Italy gets beaten, they have a Renaissance, or like, when you abuse a plant, it blooms. LRH wanted a ship and couldn't buy one, so he started to build one; if a rosebush can't have a rose (if you trim it off), it creates roses. If a shipyard can't have ships, it builds ships that wear out in twenty years, so you can't have the ships either. Probably the government punishes everyone for producing in order to make them produce on a reactive basis. There's evidently some cross-relationship that goes further than the O/W mechanism. It was described in theory in Scientology 8-8008 plus in the discussion of games conditions in The Fundamentals of Thought. Games conditions concern preventing people from having things. Things of all sorts are havingness. The thetan is only unhappy when he can't have. His idea of quality could be reformed. If you deny him anything, he'll try to obtain it (e.g. the Prohibition). Now LRH knows how to make a civilization: decide what would be good things to have and create knuckleheaded bureaus to prevent each one of them. The trouble with economics is that it tries to create demand with supply. It should use scarcity. How do you create creation? Run a broad can't have. The games condition can get so bad that if you insist on people having something, they don't want it. Police action creates crime; BBC creates rock and roll. As long as you aren't in a games condition with the people around you, as long as you don't run a can't have or a must have on them and still have control, all will be smooth sailing. It's supposed to be a good thing on this planet to run a can't have, e.g. with strictness. But this is the way you create problems. Problems may appear to be don't haves, but how did the PC get into the condition of don't have? Actually, don't have is the last ditch of can't have. Because even with a can't have, you could materialize what you don't have, maybe even build one. But the way you got into a don't have was the overt-motivator sequence. First you run a can't have on others, then they don't have, then you don't have. So if the PC doesn't have anything, it must be because he denied it. If he's got a low quality of something, he gets it thus: he can't have a good one, but nobody wants a bad one, so he's got a bad one. The test of his havingness is that he has it because nobody wants it. If nobody wants it, he can have it. Total lack of something doesn't mean that the thetan is without it. It'll still be obsessively created in his reactive bank. The covert creativity of the bank is a remedy of havingness. That's all it is. Now say you run a can't have on somebody on sex; then you find people running a can't have on you on the subject of sex, and you're puzzled. You'll find 2D activities are impossible, so you're likely to do a flip -- to go off in some different direction and build up various sorts of 2D activities you could have. When these also fail, you end up with them hidden from yourself but still created in the bank. So we get the downgrading quality. The degrade is on the basis of what he can have. A common denominator of pcs at the bottom is the complaint of not being able to feel. A bit higher, they complain of not feeling as much as they'd like about things. That's a can't have on feelings. Also, the feelings degrade, and go on down the tone scale. Serenity is impossible, so the thetan becomes enthusiastic, but that's an overt, so he goes down to conservatism, but that's for bank managers, so he gets bored, but people won't let you be bored, so ... down to no feelings. But of course all these feelings are being mocked up at the back of the bank. At the first St. Hill ACC, LRH talked about two routes: experience, and the auditing route used at that time. They are now combined, because the experiential factor is havingness. Experience is havingness, so all experience can be restored. Beingness and doingness can be junior to havingness. [But Cf. p. 42, at upper level strata, beingness is higher than doingness, which is higher than havingness, so maybe LRH is talking about a lower level stratum here.] But beingness and doingness operate on the same can't have mechanism. When you hit bottom on your own beingness, you'll mock up some very desirable beingness, and you will be that, except that you are not really being that. For instance, a kid isn't permitted to be a pilot and fly airplanes, so he mocks up being an ace aviator. A person may end up settling for a lesser and lesser beingness. Finally, he is not being much, so he mocks up a substitute reactive beingness. Little kids are not permitted to fly planes, so what do they do? They become "aviators". What confuses people is that, while can't have produces create at a reactive level, all this can take place at an analytical level. Not all can't haves trigger the obsessive create, but if you communicate the can't have in an unacceptable (can't have) way, in a good games condition, the guy may well slip into the reactive create. Absence of ARC is almost a requisite for a reactive creation by reason of a can't have. If you run a strong can't have on war in the interests of peace, war will result. Keeping the peace is not done by running a can't have on war by propaganda, etc. For instance, at the outset of World War II, no information was given out about the war; it was not considered OK to attack the enemy, yet we did get ourselves into it. When people run a can't have on things that do exist, we get a delusory state. Christian Science does this. Try running 8-C on a Christian Scientist. The insistence of a thetan on Axiom 1 is fantastic. On some people, if you try to run a think process, they can't do it. These people must have an O/W games condition on thoughts, because they can't have a thought. If someone withholds a thought, he's running a games condition on you on the subject of "You can't have it." This will put him in a condition where he has less of it. If you can get off his withholds, i.e. get him to give you the thought, you've stopped him from playing that game condition, and he'll feel better. But why does he have these discreditable things anyway? Because they are scarce. If a thought is scarce, there has been a cut-down of a thought of activity. So the person withholds telling you about actions agains the mores of society because such actions are scarce. If you can get hold of one, it's his jewel -- a scarcity. He also holds onto it because he doesn't want you to have bad thoughts about him. This is another games condition. To handle this, you could run a can't have process on thoughts, theoretically: 1. What thought haven't you permitted another to have? 2. What thought hasn't another permitted you to have? You could see another mechanism from another theoretical process. You run, "Think of a (say, woman)." At first he gets a generality or nothing, then he thinks of specific departed women, then dead women, sick women, funerals too. You are making him examine the scarcity of women, and it runs backwards to the point where he could think of a present woman with perfect ease and get a 3D picture of her. Whatever it is you find him inverted or nonexistent on, you develop a process by which you can discharge his propensity for using that item in a games condition on others and they on him. Because you are running out stable data on this, you add a confusion, a problem, or a motion along with it. For instance, you could use, "When have you denied another a woman? When has another denied you a woman? What problem about women is not present now?" The "not present now" is because it is the not-is version of problem confront. This is a murderous process because it un-not-ises everything involved. A games condition is unnatural since, in such a condition, the person becomes convinced that there is only that game, so they run the can't have, and the more they do this, the less they have of it. Eventually, it disappears from view, and they have gotten worse, not better. "Way back, people wouldn't clear because they thought it meant losing their game. When cleared, they promptly went out and aberrated themselves again to have a game. They expressed it as, "I didn't want to be detached from existence." What pinned it down was a scarcity of games. They thought being aberrated was the only game going. The remedy of havingness of games is broadening the PC's view on the subject of games. All you have to do is knock out his fixed attention on aberrated games, so that he can look around at all the other games. If you do this, the PC will blow clear almost at once.