The earliest mention of havingness as a process is in Tech Vol II,
Jan 1954, in an article on "SOP-8C: The Rehabiliation of the Human
Spirit." Formula IV(b)

     "As the pc has rendered automatic his desires and his ability to
create and destroy, and has thus placed havingness beyond his control,
the auditor should place in the control of the pc his automaticities of
havingness and unhavingness and permit him, on his own self
determin-ism, to balance his havingness."

     Perhaps this could be done directly, by asking: "What would you
like to have more (less) of?"

     It then goes on to describe a subjective process wherein the pc
creates 8 anchor points and pulls (later this became shove) them in and
retains the mass.

     This later became two processes, the remedy (shoving in and
throwing away mock-ups) of havingness, and its repair (just shoving them

     PAB 72, Tech Vol II, p.371 has an article "The Importance of
Havingness" which states:

     "..  the only advances worthy of the name of scientology occur when
the auditor repairs or remedies havingness on the pc.  Without the
repair and remedy of havingness no real gains become apparent.  A
preclear will not progress when his havingness is impaired." Up to this
point, we are still dealing with subjective havingness.

     Then in PAB 80, "Scientology's Most Workable Process" on p.395, Ron
     "...  WHAT is there in this ...  mountain of attainment which is
the highest gain?  Amongst all this gold where is the super-gold?  ...
Empirically, the super-gold you have had is HAVINGNESS.  ...  When
havingness is neglected, cases do not improve, that's all there is to

     He continues: "Well, amongst all havingnesses, what is the
super-gold process.  There is one.  It is not very fast, it is terribly
certain, it does not fail in our experience and its gains are permanent.
It is a process known as the terrible trio."

     The commands, each of which are asked a number of times (depending
on the auditor's judgement), are: "Look around the room and tell me what
you could have." "Look around the room and tell me what you would let
remain." "Look around the room and tell me what you could dispense

     Ron also noted that according to report, the terrible trio could be
self-audited, and that periodic use of a havingness process could aid

     In The Free Spirit of Jan 86, p.4, in his article "Which Standard
Tech?" M.D.  Stansfield stated, "Terrific results were obtained in the
early days.  ...  There were many very powerful processes that worked
beauifully that were abandoned ...  whose only fault was that the PC
would go on cogniting and not have to get more auditing!  ...  Processes
like terrible trio ..."

     I've tried the terrible trio on a self-auditing basis, but could
not get it to bite.  So I asked a friend to check variations on the
meter, to see if there was one that would read.  He tried variations of
have, own, reach and handle, and control.  I did find as a result of
this, that I got a "strugglely" frustrated feeling and after an interim
of desultory conversation, "put up with" as one meaning of "have" came
to mind.

     I asked him to try this: "Look around this room and find something
you could put up with." This gave me an immediate line charge and big
BD.  The other two questions could be: "Look around this room and find
something you could continue to put up with." And "Look around this room
and find something you don't have to put up with."

     "Put up with" falls under "endure," along with "survive," and
"tolerate" on the pre-have scale and I have noted previously an
irritation with "survive." This fits, i.e., "survive" as putting up with
a lot, perhaps that I no longer have to put up with.  It also fits a
"strugglely," difficult to articulate feeling I had encountered

     Variations I've found on running this could be: "reluctant
acquiescence," "grudging acceptance," "grin and bear it," and the
postulate "There isn't anything you can do about it anyway, so you'll
just have to take it."

     As a tech note, combining the pre-have scale with the terrible trio
may provide a more effective approach to real havingness.  Since the
terrible trio has fallen out of favor, this may have been one factor, in
addition to those explored by Stansfield in the reference cited above.