The Unification Congress Lectures • TRANSCRIPTS & GLOSSARY

Golden Era Productions®
A HUBBARD® PUBLICATION

Golden Era Productions
6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 1305 Los Angeles, California 90028-6313
© 1978, 1998 L. Ron Hubbard Library All Rights Reserved
These transcripts have been prepared from the recorded lectures
and written materials of L. Ron Hubbard in accordance with his specific
directions for the publication of his recorded lecture materials.
Dianetics, Scientology, Hubbard, OT, E-Meter, LRH, Book One, The Bridge, NED, New Era Dianetics, Clearsound, Purification, Purification Rundown, False Purpose Rundown, Personal Achievement Series, Saint Hill, Golden Era Productions, Celebrity Centre, Flag, Freewinds, the Scientology
Symbol, the Scientology Cross, the Clearsound Logo and the Golden Era
Productions Symbol are trademarks and service marks owned by Religious
Technology Center and are used with its permission. Scientologist is a
collective membership mark designating members of the affiliated
churches and missions of Scientology.
NEW ERA is a trademark and service mark.
Printed in the United States of America Any outness found in these transcripts should be reported to:
LRH Book Compilations
Tape Transcripts Editor
6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 1006
Los Angeles, California 90028-6313

In studying these lectures, be very certain you never go past a word you do not fully understand.
The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood.
The confusion or inability to grasp or learn comes AFTER a word that the person did not have defined and understood.
Have you ever had the experience of coming to the end of a page and realizing you didn't know what you had read? Well, somewhere earlier on that page you went past a word that you had no definition for or an incorrect definition for.
Here's an example. "It was found that when the crepuscule arrived the children were quieter and when it was not present, they were much livelier." You see what happens. You think you don't understand the whole idea, but the inability to understand came entirely from the one word you could not define, crepuscule, which means twilight or darkness.
It may not only be the new and unusual words that you will have to look up. Some commonly used words can often be misdefined and so cause confusion.
This datum about not going past an undefined word is the most important fact in the whole subject of study. Every subject you have taken up and abandoned had its words which you failed to get defined.
Therefore, in studying these lectures be very, very certain you never go past a word you do not fully understand. If the material becomes confusing or you can't seem to grasp it, there will be a word just earlier that you have not understood. Don't go any further, but go back to BEFORE you got into trouble, find the misunderstood word and get it defined.
Definitions
As an aid to the reader, words most likely to be misunderstood have been defined in the glossary included in this volume. Words often have several meanings. The definitions used in this glossary only give the meaning that the word has as it is used in the lecture. This glossary is not meant to take the place of standard language or Scientology dictionaries, which should be referred to for any words that do not appear in the glossary.

The year was 1954. Atomic bomb testing was in full swing in the United States, and an explosion had even been televised for the public to demonstrate its devastating effects. War droned on in Indochina while the Soviets strove in the race for power, announcing their development of a new and even more destructive atomic weapon. Out of communication, the planet was well on its way to Armageddon.
In the midst of this maelstrom, one calm, bright ray of hope shone through: L. Ron Hubbard had just completed writing the book Dianetics 55!, and was about to unveil his breakthroughs on the technology of communication— exactly what the world needed.
At the end of December 1954, Dianeticists and Scientologists would gather at the Little Theater in Phoenix, Arizona, for a congress later described as "the most important thing that ever happened in Dianetics and Scientology events." Promoted broadly and anticipated for months beforehand, prospective attendees were urged to make reservations well in advance in order to be certain of a seat. A large part of the excitement was the promise that Ron himself would deliver Group Processing to those present—and you'll understand why for yourself when you hear the Group Processing sessions they received!
Communication was the theme of the congress—not only in terms of people talking to each other, but also as regards the individual's communication with himself, his body, the physical universe and the traps and pitfalls thereof. In the lectures of this brilliant series, you will learn why the physical universe persists, the mechanics of games and entrapment, how a thetan creates time, and many more datums essential to successful existence.
Though these lectures and Group Processing sessions were originally recorded on equipment that is now long since obsolete, Ron's Clearsound state-of-the-art sound technology has been employed to restore their former clarity and presence—the closest thing to having been at the congress yourself.
We are proud and honored to present to you "Communication! Freedom & Ability."
—The Editors

28	December 1954
Introduction	1
Group Processing	13
History of Dianetics	71
29	December 1954
Dianetics 1955!	83
Communication and ARC	95
Games	109
Group Processing, Part I	123
Group Processing, Part II	137
30	December 1954
Terminals and Communication	151
The Aims and Goals of
Dianetics and Scientology	165
Communication and Problems	179
Group Processing, Part I	193
Group Processing, Part II	215
31	December 1954
Problems and Games	227
Group Processing	241
Pan-determinism	255
Appendix	269
About the Author	281
Glossary	285
Books and Tapes by L. Ron Hubbard	317
Address List of Scientology Churches and Organizations	337

STUDENT USE OF TRANSCRIPTS
The tape transcripts in this volume serve a vital purpose for students. With a written text of the tape in hand, students can follow the tape rapidly and spot their misunderstoods.
Such transcripts do NOT supplant the tapes, as how the words were said and how preclears in auditing demonstrations actually responded are quite important.
L. Ron Hubbard

 

A lecture given on 28 December 1954
Hiya.
Thank you. Gee!
Thank you. The first congress that was held here in Phoenix was a long time ago in a very small store building down on North Central. And the last three congresses have been held here in the Phoenix Little Theater, and each one of them has been more successful than the last.
We looked across this crowd right now, and realized that we're way up there in terms of people present and parts of the country represented.
Technically, this is the 5th International Congress of Dianeticists and Scientologists, and we can say with complete confidence: Dianeticists and Scientologists.
We have had a lot of things happen here in the past six months since some of you were here. I'm going to try to make it my business during this congress to tell you about some of these things, to let you in on some of the things that have been happening and perhaps during this congress we might be able to get in a little bit of Group Auditing. If we don't, it won't be my fault, (laughter)
The type of Group Auditing which I will use during this congress has been tested thoroughly, Wednesday nights at the 403 East Roosevelt. And it's been found uniformly to be a type of processing absolutely and completely unexcelled in all the annals of man. Practically nobody has left these sessions sane, (laughter)
And so this vast amount of research and investigation done on Wednesday nights will be given to you without further garnishment. There's a process which some of those who were present on these Wednesday nights will remember, perhaps with some nostalgia. The process' name is Okay Mama. And there is some feeling that one didn't acknowledge Mother quite enough. You'll know more about that later. Some of you looking puzzled— you'll feel wiser.
This congress has as its principal business the delineation of the materials in the book, Dianetics 1955! A very, very peculiar thing has happened: Utterly unheard of before, we have a book and a congress arriving simultaneously with all the data that is in the book right up-to-date, and all of the material which the congress will be given, entirely and completely in parallel with the book—unless I get a fast idea, (laughter)
This congress also has as its business the signalizing of the reunification of Dianetics and Scientology in view of the fact that the Hubbard Dianetic

1

2

28 DECEMBER 1954
Research Foundation, the first Foundation in Elizabeth, New Jersey, straight on through, has again come home to Phoenix and is in operation now at 507 North Third Street in Phoenix.
This organization, complete with its materials and so forth, came to us rather unexpectedly and permitted us to put together a very interesting puzzle for everyone: What is Dianetics and what is Scientology?
I have worked for a long time trying to disentangle these two words and I have found that both of them summate into an understanding of life. And if we were to substitute for either one simply this: an understanding of life, we would then know what both these words meant.
We can subdivide them somewhat because Dianetics is really a study of man. Dianetics and its goals are outlined in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, published on May 9th, 1950, subsequently read by over a half a million Americans. Published abroad. And this material occasioned a great deal of interest because, primarily, it posed the hope to man that he could in some fashion disentrap himself from some of the difficulties in which he found himself.
It delineated certain phenomena of the mind which, when used, when dealt with, brought about a considerable return of ability to the individual. Dianetics was a subject addressed to man for man, and as such, still goes forward.
On page 401 of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, you will find under Plan C, Scientology completely outlined. It states there under Plan C that after we had established a foundation and after we had put Dianetics into operation, to at least to some degree in the society, that we would be very happy to go on and investigate some of the origins, or origin and destination of life, the character of life, and the various problems that life itself as life is facing.*
And when we said, "life," of course, we meant all the dynamics. But if you will notice and if you'll remember, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health details dynamics 1 to 4. These are as follows: the dynamic of self, the urge towards survival as oneself; dynamic 2, the urge toward survival through sex, which is divided into two parts: children and the sexual act; dynamic 3, the dynamic of groups: urge towards survival as groups; and dynamic 4, the urge towards survival on the part of the individual and mankind, as mankind. These four dynamics were those undertaken in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.
There are four more dynamics. The 5th dynamic is that dynamic concerned with life in all of its forms. Here are animals, birds, fish, insects— their urge toward survival. Then we have dynamic 6 which is the urge toward survival of the physical universe itself: matter, energy, space and time which we call, in Dianetics and Scientology, mest. Then there is 7, the urge toward survival as a spirit; and finally 8, the urge toward survival as a Supreme Being—8 is simply infinity turned upright.
Now, we have then, really, two spheres of operation here. One is the sphere of Dianetics which takes up the first four dynamics and which intimately applies what we know to one life species, man; and the remaining four dynamics which are Scientology and which apply these principles to life at large.
If there's anyplace else to go, we haven't found it yet. I am in the unhappy state of the explorer who stands at length upon the end of something without finding either a bridge or a necessity to have one. And that is the state in which
* Plan C is in Book 3, Chapter 10 of DMSMH.

INTRODUCTION
we meet today. And what I wish to announce to you is the accomplishment of certain goals and the processes which make that accomplishment possible. And I think that the Advanced Clinical unit now in progress here, and the Hubbard Professional College unit now in progress here will, all of them, tell you that: "Aberration? Who ever had any difficulty with that? Clears? You want one? We'll give you one."
I remember in 1950—let's do a little bit of reminiscing here—in 1950 people used to come into the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation in Elizabeth, New Jersey; first at Aberdeen Road—42 Aberdeen Road, and then 276 Morris Avenue. And we—every morning open the doors not having closed them the night before, and we would discover a great many people there that we had never seen before, but who had read the first book, and half of these people, at least, said, "Where are all the Clears?" They looked at me, they said, "Where's the Clears?"
But they still came in and got well. Dianetics doesn't work, you know— and according to Life, Time and other organs of the American Medical Association, like Reader's Digest—a doctor no longer reads anything but Reader's Digest, you know. According to all of these authoritative sources, each and every one of them, Dianetics didn't work. Well, that's an amazing thing because so many people thought they got well through it.
Somebody was sitting down in my office yesterday and said, "You know with all that bad auditing and all those bad auditors, I just had an awful time a couple, three years ago. I had pernicious anemia and a bad heart and several other things, and so on, and with all this bad auditing, and it probably was very bad auditing, I still got over all these things." Quite remarkable, isn't it?
All you "bad auditors" did do some very interesting things with Dianetics— very interesting—and are still doing interesting things with Dianetics.
I heard from somebody the other day who was at some far end of the country, some little town—little town, you know ... What's the name of the town? Oh, Los Angeles 28, known as Hollywood. (laughter) He's parked in this little town completely out of communication with the world. And he hadn't heard that we'd moved from Elizabeth, New Jersey.
And he'd been sitting down there making people well. Lord knows, he had enough fodder in that area. And he had no other understanding of anything but Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.
He kept a copy of it carefully enshrined upon his desk and would dive into it hastily whenever something new showed up that he hadn't noticed before. He was still running birth, prenatals, conception. He was still doing all of these things and he was having a marvelous time of it, and I had never come along to disturb him in the even tenor of his ways. In his childish naivete, he still believed that Dianetics worked. (laughter)
Another chap now in the HPC course came in here and he had never read very much of Book One, but he'd gotten as far as asking questions. You know— "Locks?" And sort of with two-way communication and Straightwire, why, he's just been having a wonderful time. And he didn't know anything else existed until fairly recently and he hastily came out here to Phoenix and he's been confused ever since. (laughter)
All over the world—and I do mean that—all over the world, people are still using Dianetics. And Dianetics now has its second book. This might strike you as odd. Weren't there some other books in addition to Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health? Well, I tell you no. And I wrote them, so I ought to know.

3

4

28 DECEMBER 1954
The second book was normally considered to be Science of Survival, but Science of Survival was not a book intimately connected with Dianetics. It starts immediately with the theta-MEST theory and goes branching out into enormous theoretical ramifications about life, doesn't it?
Female voice: Yes.
And there we go.
That's Book One of Scientology. And the remainder had a little bit of Dianetics in them, but they were mostly speculative on the subject of man. And they were definitely investigatory on the subject of life itself. So it's about time we wrote the second book of Dianetics, isn't it? We're only overdue about four years.
May 9th, 1950 to—I guess the publication date on this book is, really, today—Dianetics 1955!
This book takes those things which have been discovered in the overall research and investigation of life and applies them immediately and directly to man and to preclears, and that is exactly what it does. And it doesn't do anything else. It gives just enough theory so that there will be some comprehension of what the individual is doing with the preclear.
The processes given in it are the six basic processes which are: Two-way Communication, Elementary Straightwire, Opening Procedure 8-C, Opening Procedure by Duplication, Remedy of Havingness, and Spotting Spots in Space. Those are the six basic processes and in addition to those six basic ones, it has one maybe one-shot Clear (one-command Clear) and another maybe one-command Clear. You know, I mean, it's good if your preclear doesn't spin in; (laughter) and Communication Processing which is the hottest news we have had for four and a half years.
Communication Processing—fabulous stuff—those are not my words. That's what the people are doing with this around Phoenix.
People who have degenerated to office work are again getting interested in auditing just because they see what these six basic processes and Communication Processing does. Fantastic!
Now, you have, in Dianetics 1955!, then, a very, very small bomb. If we'd had Dianetics 1955! in April, May, June of 1950, we would all be sitting here telling an entirely different story, or maybe we wouldn't be sitting here at all. Maybe we would all be so Clear that we were not even visible. (laughter)
Now our next point with this material is that the Clear delineated in Chapter 2 of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is the thetan exterior delineated in Scientology. And anybody coming along from Dianetics saying, 'Thetan exterior, exteriorization, bup-yap-yup-yup-yup-yup-yup," he's talking about a Clear. Only, Clear doesn't evidently communicate very well. But the way to make a Clear is to exteriorize somebody. And so, for 50 percent of the human race, we do have a one-shot Clear. And how we wanted that in June of 1950! Oh, my! One-shot Clear—think of that.
The fellow would be all out of his engrams and uninfluenced by his reactive mind just (snap) that fast. And that would be workable on 50 percent of the human race.
The average percentage of gain in the past by reason of therapy has been, on the average, 22 percent. Whether or not it was conducted, this therapy, by witch doctors, by psychoanalysts or by anyone else in the field of healing, 22 percent of the people treated would get well, whether on flour and water or a bebop rhythm from a gourd rattle or for some hocus-pocus about his libido. All you had to do was give him a little attention and a little interest, and he got well. That was about 22 percent.

INTRODUCTION
And the oddity is, is that has held constant for the last few thousand years. Isn't that fascinating? So you'd have to alter this to do anything at all, wouldn't you? In order to demonstrate that you had done anything, you would have to alter this 22 percent.
In other words, you'd have to get a much better percentile of recovery than 22 in order to have done anything because, obviously, something else was at work all this time if any therapy could achieve it. All right.
"Be three feet back of your head" happens to be workable on about 50 percent of the human race. Fantastic.
We had one that nearly approached this many years ago called, "Come up to present time." Do you remember that?
Audience: Yes.
We used to use this at the end of sessions.
However, some of our people have gone through insane asylums simply walking along—patient there, you know—a patient walking along and the auditor would say to him, "Come up to present time," and this patient would go on walking this way, you know.
Next patient would come by. The auditor would say to him, "Come up to present time." And this patient would walk on looking the same as before. And then, for the next patient, "Come up to present time." Clang! Just like that weight that they have in the fairgrounds, you know, that goes up and hits the ball. The guy comes up (finger snap) to present time and is well.
One such case gave a speech that night to the assembled patients—how good it was to be there again. Seven years in an institution, incurably insane— auditor says, "Come up to present time"—they're sane. And then they've stayed so. I got a letter from this person the other day.
Now, wherever man deals with man, man will find some objection to man, won't he? He will find that his fellow man should be changed and should do better. And the horrible part of it is, that's the truth.
No matter where you look, no matter what you do in life, you could do it better, couldn't you? No matter who you're working with, they could be a better partner, couldn't they? This intolerance may be very onerous to some of us, but it's all there is that makes civilization—is that very intolerance: intolerance of somebody not doing well or being well, intolerance of people not being up to the point they should be.
All the work we have done actually measures up alongside of this intolerance of incompetence, inefficiency, wrong thinking, catastrophe and chaos that is called, today, modern living.
In Dianetics and Scientology, alike, we cater to that small minority that believes some good can come of man after all. We appeal to this small minority in the hope that they will appeal to somebody else and at length bring about some condition of affairs which is good enough so that we won't have to be quite so intolerant of it.
But remember that the day that we become tolerant of frailty, that day we become vegetables.
All the work that we are doing, no matter how we phrase it, is still dedicated to the survival of man on the various dynamics. That individual who believes that he can survive by himself and alone has a lesson to learn. He still has a lesson to learn. Just as that individual who believes that he can survive without paying any attention to himself has a lesson to learn.
Extremes in both directions become unworkable. And it has been the task

5

6

28 DECEMBER 1954
of Dianetics and Scientology, it has been my work, actually, for over a fifth of a century now, to discover something about man that would permit man to better man. And it would permit man to live better with himself.
The goals of Dianetics and Scientology still persevere. They will continue to persevere because they are sincere goals. It's all very well for the uninformed reporter to come into the Foundation, interview the switchboard girl, and go off and write a learned article about Hubbard and all the bum auditors around there. That's okay, you see. I mean he can do that if he wants to. He's still just trying to find some fault. He's still a little, small voice, no matter how big his print, that is crying out, "Let's be a little bit better about this."
But he selected out the wrong enemy. He selected out the wrong thing to fight. If you were to fight every movement in the society which sought to make the society better, you wouldn't have much society, would you?
But Dianetics and Scientology after four years of hammering and beating and chewing on and pounding on, of going forward and being praised, are still here—both of them. And they're still here because their goals are quite sincere and because the research and investigation which was undertaken had no other point whatsoever than to get somewhere close to an answer to this riddle called the involvement of man in himself.
And somebody came in the other day and he says to me—he says to me, "All the auditors"—I mean, I love the broad, the sweeping generalities that we get on something like this—"all the auditors in Great Britain think you're completely incomprehensible." (laughter) It's a statement like, "Jewelers never go anyplace." It's just. . . (laughter)
So I asked him, "Well, what did they think?" Well, they just couldn't understand what I was doing. Well, that's a real hard thing to understand— real hard. Let's just take Great Britain. What are we doing? What are we doing in Great Britain? Well, our task is to bring Dianetics and Scientology to a society. And the unfortunately necessary via on the line is an organization. You understand that? I mean that's an unfortunate via. That's clear over here.
And when the organization itself becomes more important than the message, you no longer have a message going to the public, right? It goes in the little trapdoors and goes round and round from file basket to file basket. To, from, via, signed, forwarded, endorsed. From, to, via, detour, file, acknowledge, scribble—I'm describing the Ford Foundation now.
Ford Foundation has had in its files now, for two years, the fact that Scientology is the answer for which the Ford Foundation was founded. An official of the Ford Foundation was sent to Hubbard College here in Phoenix a couple of years ago. And he was sent here to discover just one thing: What is this stuff called Scientology, and does it work?
And he took a complete course of training in Scientology, and wrote out his reports as he was supposed to do, and forwarded them via the proper channels, and a report that reads just like this: "Scientology is what it represents itself to be and is the answer for which the Ford Foundation was founded. After some weeks of training, questioning and observation, it is obvious to me that we should train many of our investigators in Scientology so the Ford Foundation can get on with its work." And that message is probably still going from file basket to file basket.
And I suppose in 1958 we will probably receive a rush emergency telegram saying, "Set up at once a training school for our investigators." But of course, it'll take another five years to get the contracts and bids arranged.
Anytime that we lose sight of the fact that we are trying to bring a

INTRODUCTION
certain amount of information to the public, to society, that we are trying to do certain things amongst mankind, and put our attention instead on administration, typewriters, typewriter ribbon bids, typewriter eraser bids, we're done.
Another thing, the incomprehensibility of the things I do probably is easily arrived at because I see somebody out on the street looking at a puddle, and he's calling for a mop, and he's saying, "We've got to have a mop to mop up this puddle here."
And I say, "Come on."
And the fellow says, "But where's the mop?"
And I say, "Come on. We're trying to get the street paved."
Well, there's an incomprehensibility, isn't it? I just won't mop up puddles.
Now let's take the immediate, overall planning and the policy with regard to such an operation and a very good and large operation it is at this time and getting better—the London office.
And let's look at that on its policy, and we find immediately that what I'm trying to do and what the board is trying to do, what we're trying to do with the London office is to accumulate enough funds so we can write a book especially adapted to the English speaking people on that side of the ocean and have enough thousands of pounds left over to put an ad about that book on every lorry, in every underground car and in every newspaper so that we can then accumulate enough finance to better and more widely train auditors, and to provide the HASI in London with its own quarters and sanitariums for the use of Europe. And that's what we're trying to do in Great Britain and that's what's incomprehensible.
We don't care how many messages have how many vias on them if any of those messages obstruct the general course of these goals. All right.
Let's look a little closer to home here and let's look at the United States. What are we trying to do in the United States?
One of the things that you probably think we're trying to do, is we're trying to figure out as many organizations as possible in order to get people as thoroughly confused as possible. And that's true.
You know why we're doing that? Because people think by attacking or by setting up an organization, they're fighting some kind of a battle. They think the organization is the thing, and it's not. And if I can invent enough of them, then after a while just the name "organization" will put everybody in hysterics. (laughter) And auditors will stop worrying about the organization and get out there and start processing preclears and the bigger organizations of the society.
Somebody walks up and he says, "I am a Scientologist." And the person he's talking to says, "Well, do you want to know where the plumbing is supposed to be fixed? (laughter) Or do you want the old newspapers? Or are you here to see about baby's teeth?"
Well, they don't know. They don't know exactly what a Scientologist is or should do. And by the way, I may be talking back time track right now.
A very astonishing thing happened the other day. An official of the United States government ran into a boy who was a Scientologist and had him into his private office and shook him by the hand and said, "You boys are doing a good job," or words to that effect, and gave him what he wanted for nothing and sent him on his way, you know, just because he was a Scientologist. Somebody was at dinner the other day with the governor of this state and started to tell him all about Scientology; he was way ahead of him. He knew all about it.

7

8

28 DECEMBER 1954
So I may be talking back further on the track, but the point is that when you go in to a head nurse, they pay attention to ministers. In fact, they pay enough attention to ministers so that the minister never gets a chance to work on the patients, but is followed around by head nurses telling them their troubles.
With the Church of Scientology, which is legal as the flowers of spring unless they become illegal to the Atomic Energy Commission—the legal aspects of the Church of Scientology are as sound as the Rock of Gibraltar— maybe sounder.
The incorporation of the Church, its officers, its conduct, its conduct of services, all these things—I mean it's there. It is a church. Oddly enough, it is the church that a poll demonstrates America thinks it has already. That's the most peculiar thing. We conducted a big poll and we went around to everybody and found out what they thought ministers should do—gorgeous. It's utterly fascinating. The public said a minister should teach his doctrine. He should heal the suffering and follow in the footsteps of Christ. And that's what the American public said that a minister ought to be doing.
I got a lot of good friends that are ministers, a lot of good friends that are priests. They used to beat me at chess and so forth. They figure-figure harder than other people. But I've never had any of those boys tell me that they ought to be out there healing the suffering.
And the last time I talked to anybody from the AMA we used sign language. He gave me to understand that he'd be real upset if all the ministers of the country thought their role was healing the suffering. And yet we read the primary book of religion here in the United States, the New Testament and we go into the New Testament, and we discover that Christ told us that man should have wisdom, good health and immortality. He said the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. We say it's three feet back of your head.
So why isn't it a religion? It's also a science. It's also almost anything because it's an understanding of life, and these things are compartments of life.
You can call it anything you want to and be as legal, again, as the flowers of spring if the Atomic Energy Commission has not repealed them.
And where we have a Church of Scientology and where we actually ordain a minister, we only do it when we know that man knows his Dianetics or his Scientology real well. And we open the door of every institution, hospital and clinic in America by issuing him that little card. And that's all there is to it.
A lot of people come around to me and they say, "Oh. The idea of being a priest—being a minister—I mean I couldn't possibly face that. That would be the most terrible thing!" And you'd say, "Oh, go ahead. Just stand there now. Now mock yourself up as a minister."
"Ow!"
You say, "Come on. Mock yourself up as a minister."
"No!"
It's painful—gives him somatics. We don't know where they've been a minister but there's some connection in there somewhere. All right.
Big objection there—but there isn't any reason there should be an objection there—no real reason. Because a minister is supposed to, according to the American public, teach his doctrine, heal the suffering and follow in the footsteps of Christ. And following in the footsteps of Christ means, according to the New Testament: wisdom, good health and immortality.
Somebody told me one time I could argue the devil out of his false teeth.

INTRODUCTION
I don't believe it. I don't believe it. But I believe that religion as it's being conducted today is going to take the teeth out of the public but good. And it won't give him any false teeth at all back!
If you go around and tell everybody, "Look: Repent, repent, repent." What do we know about this, huh? Shame, blame, regret. Shame, blame, regret.
Shame, blame, reg	. You can play this hard enough, fast enough and long
enough and you'll make men sick, won't you?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
I don't find anyplace that everybody had to be a dog just to be good. I can't find that written anywhere.
Now wherever we look organizationwise here in Phoenix, we discover experiments—little experimental setups, trying to discover if there's a communication line existing in that particular field of endeavor. That was to find out if any communication lines existed there. And they do—fine. We set up several other organizations. They don't have any communication lines.
Show you how mean—how mean and how vicious we can be, I am contemplating the writing of a book right now. And this book will be called, The Home Treatment of the Insane, or, The Science of Psychiatry. (laughter) It won't have anything in it but 8-C Opening Procedure.
And it will go on with tremendous significance. We might even get that book so significanced that even the psychiatrists would read it. But we mustn't get it so significant that it won't work.
And you see, we do have a process in the Opening Procedure of 8-C which does knock out most of the cases to which it's addressed or that you can get into communication—knock out insanity. We have other processes which have varying degrees of success on the insane. The insane are a hard problem merely because they're a problem directly in communication. They're out of communication and they—whatever they're doing, they offer to the auditor at first glance the same task he would have in auditing a pillow. It would be the same thing. No matter what the psychotic is doing, he's doing no more rationally than a pillow is doing. You know, I mean, there isn't anything—no respond.
Well, organizationally, we've come quite a long ways. And all of a sudden the other day found that we had not come any distance at all but were sitting here with the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation—straight back from the beginning right straight through.
Now the name of the organization was shifted around a couple of times,
and so forth, and its general mock-up was changed and its address is changed,
but actually it sits here today just exactly as it sat in Elizabeth, New Jersey.
Even has the same number on the board of directors. And, you know that
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is still selling in the book
stores of the nation to the degree that most books sell when the audit	
when the author thinks they're doing well. Do you know that? It's still selling to that degree out in the bookstores.
"I am buying it," the publisher says. I didn't say anything about it at all. I just sat there and kept my mouth shut. And one day a royalty statement came in, and it says there were so many thousand dollars left to go before the book became mine. This is a New York publisher, so you can expect anything. But he has done the fascinating thing of subtracting its royalties from a rather large sales price.
He put a big sales price on it, and now he's subtracting the royalties from this sales price, and this lets him stay inside the copyright law. As long as he

9

10

28 DECEMBER 1954
keeps reporting the sales to me, I can't do a thing. And as long as he declares that this is pursuant and consequent to a sale which is all agreed upon—he never agreed with me. He agreed with somebody else to sell it but he didn't agree with me, so—why, it's perfectly legal. So Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is in an interesting state right now. It's still selling in the bookstores and the royalties are still being subtracted from a royalty statement and one of these fine days, I will own it and its electroplates and what remaining books there are outright—not having done anything about it.
That day is not very far off, by the way. It's only about $1500 to go, or something like that. And then Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health becomes the property of the Foundation outright. So it's got everything— everything.
All the books, all the copyrights, and so forth, of Dianetics all came home. No question about them. No argument anymore. Nobody's suing anybody. Nobody mad anymore. Everybody has made friends now and we decided we were all wrong. And as a result, we're going to publish the first book again. Isn't that a horrible thing?
The sales of the first book are being badly hurt right now by the way the publisher has gotten it lined up. It's got Standard Operating Procedure 1950 in there before it has any text in there. Have you seen one of these modern books?
Well, that is one of the sillier things to do—because the public walks up to the bookstore, sees this book—says Modern Science of Mental Health, opens it up, and says you send the preclear to the ruddy rod on the left-hand side of the whumph-whumph.
And he says, "I don't want that book."
The old edition, if you remember, when you opened it up, it said this is an adventure and so forth. Remember? Well, that is all preceded now by about that much text. So we'll chop that all up, and we'll chop out the therapy section, and maybe put in there Dianetics 1955! in the therapy section—some such thing—put it between hard book covers, and call it Dianetics: The Science of Humanity or something like that and send it out again. And there it'll go. And I'm afraid we'll be in for it. As a matter of fact, I'm afraid we're in for it right now. Let me give you now . . . I've been talking rather generally about organizations and telling you nothing, but let me tell you something right now that's quite interesting.
The volume of letters which were being received by the very early staff at Elizabeth, New Jersey, is coming close to being approximated today at 616 North Third Street, Phoenix. In other words, what made news was the tremendous volume of mail which came in to 42 Aberdeen Road and later 276 Morris Avenue. This made news. It made news enough so the New York Times ran a couple of pages on it. This much mail because of an activity in the field of the mind was very unusual.
We are coming right up toward that volume again right here in Phoenix. Only there's a difference. This time we've got all the publications back to scratch—this time. This time we have, very importantly, ways of training auditors so that they do learn auditing and they do know how to audit and they do get results. That's important. It was—an auditor in the old days in training was pretty much on his own, as I think you'll agree.
Well, now—now we beat them. And we give them the material which works, and we give it to them in such a way that it will continue to work for them. All right.

INTRODUCTION
Do you know that we even trust HPC graduates now? (laughter) We even put them on preclears, and I'm looking for one of them to put on the staff. But I'll get into that in a moment.
The problem that we faced before was primarily this: We could not depend upon an auditor, even when he was trained, to produce a Clear. We couldn't thoroughly depend that anything like this was going to occur. The idea of Clear had been so thoroughly oversold we were all groggy, including me.
And today that is a different state of affairs. That is so different that a six-months-to-live multiple sclerosis case in a wheelchair is now a Dianetic Clear. Now this won't sound like many hours to you: It was at the end of about 150 hours of auditing. That sounds like a lot of hours to us today, a tremendous number of hours—awful lot. All right.
Think if we could have said that a guy in a wheelchair whose body was absolutely ruined could be Clear in 150 hours. Supposing we did that in 1950—impossible. It's not impossible today. If it takes us 150 hours for each case that we get, simply to make a good, stable exterior out of them, we'd quit today. That's a lot of time.
Of course, one auditor or another auditor has difficulty in trying to do this or do that. Some auditors take longer than others. We don't anymore require that delicate, artistic intuitivity which was supposed to be so necessary, once upon a time, to a good auditor. All we require is persevivity. And attention to the school solution. The marines have a song about the school solution.
"Bill McGrim he died with a grin. Because he used the school solution."
Well, that's true of our auditors today. They're indoctrinated into purity of process regardless of consequences. (laughter)
And so, today, with the Foundation here, again, we have in our hands a great many riches. Riches in terms of accumulated volumes, all of the pamphlets, all the material, the research notes of the Foundation and the HASI, and the Office of LRH. We have a tape library which goes back to June 1950. We have processing tapes clear back when. And, boy, would they sound strange to you now: "When I snap my fingers, a phrase will occur. The somatic strip will go back to birth. End of session."
Now we have, actually, a tremendous quantity of literature and materials, letters, files, contacts and good friends.
And these organizations today are actually all working toward an understanding of life. But the subject itself, due to these many years of solid, invested labor, alertness, observation, has come up to a point of where we know we are really dealing with highly specific things and processes, and that if we deal with them properly and adequately that we'll win with the preclear, we don't care who.
I've been accused of being very optimistic. That we're so at grievous fault. But that optimism has been justified, I am afraid, because even auditors on the staff are interested in auditing today because they can get results from their auditing today. And this is very, very important to them. They like getting auditing results. For some reason or other, this seems like a good idea to them. And people who previously have simply done a great many things and talked a lot and so on, are getting in there auditing today. They're auditing groups and individuals, and they're obtaining results. That's a good symptom, isn't it?
Well, you know how good auditing is today? Right out of one of the existing units, or certainly within the next five or six weeks, we are going to appoint a staff auditor for this organization, and we're going to appoint one for

11

12

28 DECEMBER 1954
London from London, and we're going to clear the whole staff of the HDRF, the HASI, the Church of Scientology, ad infinitum. We're going to clear everybody. Don't you think it's time we did?
Audience: Yes.
So you know it must be good now. All right.
Well, so much for a preamble. I haven't told you anything. I've just been getting acquainted with you again after a long time of not seeing a lot of you. Tremendous number of familiar faces here. Tremendous number I'd like to talk to personally, and probably will.
Right now I want to give you my own welcome and that of the staff and the auditors in Phoenix. And all of us welcome all of you, and that takes in several continents of Earth. So that is a big welcome, and thank you very much for being here.
Thank you.

 

A Group Processing session given on 28 December 1954
I think it's high time we got down to business here. Usually it's hour three or something like that before we start processing anybody. What would happen if I started to give you a little Group Processing now?
Audience: (applause)
Well, before I give you some Group Processing, I want to tell you something about Group Processing. May I?
Audience: Yes.
Group Processing has been variously announced as being unworkable, workable, too workable, not workable enough, practiced by the wrong people, uninteresting if the same processes are duplicated; it has been pronounced as the savior of the human race and as something that will never get anywhere, and I have been quoted as saying that it has now been abandoned. But none of these things are probably true. None of them.
All right, Group Processing. Group Processing is just as workable today as it ever was. For an organization such as Operation Phoenix in its experimental thrusts into the society, it was found to be temporarily rather unworkable because the people came in and they sat down and they did the Group Processes and they went away well and we never heard of them again.
It was a horrible thing! They—it's terrible. Particularly when the HASI was paying all the expenses of Operation Phoenix.
They would walk in, they would sit down, they would get processed, they would get well, they would go away—and their friends were so out of communication that nobody ever learned the church was there. It was too good. It was too good. It didn't give individual auditors any practice at all. And so we started to concentrate for a little while on individual processing. Why? Well, we just wanted to get into circulation in the society.
Now, Group Processing is the answer for such a thing as a veterans' hospital. It is the answer for a sanitarium. It is the answer for an army unit, a bunch of jet pilots, for the AMA. I wouldn't go so far as to say you could get the AMA to sit still long enough to be group processed, but we could try!
One of these fine days I'm going down to the American Medical Association local county something-or-other in some state or another, and I'm going to say, "I'm a physicist and I'm trying to destroy things, too. (audience laughter) And so how about me giving your local luncheon—you know, your get-together—a little talk?"
And I'll go in and talk to them at their local luncheon about their knives

13

14

28 DECEMBER 1954
and their forks and their spoons and their plate, and about the ceiling and the wall back of them and the floor. And who knows? Somebody might get into communication so that he would look and say, "My God, Hubbard!" (audience laughter)
Now, you can do all sorts of things with Group Processing, but it's pretty hard to oversell. Pretty hard to. Some auditors manage it. I've managed to oversell things occasionally—but not out of innocence. (audience laughter) Not accidentally.
Now, Group Processing had its origin, actually, in 1947 when I had a practice in a little small town—a typical small town in the United States: Hollywood.
Now, I had a practice in Hollywood and nobody knew my name. And if they wanted witchcraft, they got it. Witchcraft was ... A strange kind of witchcraft—they laid down on the couch and you started snapping your fingers. (audience laughter) All right. If they wanted spiritualism, they got that, too. Only it was a funny kind of spiritualism. They lay down on the couch ... If they wanted mysticism of some kind or another, they got that, too. Only it was a funny kind of mysticism . . . (audience laughter)
But I had lots of friends. And one fine day an old lady walked into the Los Angeles Foundation. Just walked in, big as life. And she'd seen my picture in the newspaper and she was looking for me. "You're that fellow who was out in Hollywood. And I've been looking for you for two years to tell you that I am still alive even though they said I was going to be dead. And you moved and disappeared before I could find you and thank you. So I've come down now to thank you. So thank you." And she turned around and walked out, and I've never seen her again to this day.
One time and another, quite a few of these people have shown up. Quite a few. But very few of them with curses.
Group Processing started in that stage. How? I had too many preclears. How did I process them? Well, you put two of them down in chairs and you say to them, "Remember something. Remember something else. Remember something else. Remember something else. Now let's see if you can hear something." And that was Group Processing.
And I've done it to as many as three people in this fashion and it's quite remarkable what has occurred. But for long years, nothing much was done with Group Processing, until actually some of it was tried over in London, and then I started in in earnest in Philadelphia.
Some of the Group Processing which has been done on people, one should have been arrested for! But very few people who have been group processed ever have the complaints or the upset that people have from individual processing, for some peculiar reason. I never hear anywhere near the upset by reason of Group Processing—mostly because we're not in intimate enough contact with the people so they can talk to us. (audience laughter)
But we have an interesting thing in Group Processing. The Freudian people for many, many years looked for low-cost therapy, and industrialists all the time are looking for ways to cut down absenteeism, and all sorts of material would show up that could be group audited. But it's too simple. That's the main trouble with it—it's too hard to sell.
You go in and you say to an insurance man, you say, "Now look. We could take your staff of salesmen and we could probably increase their sales if I would come in here every Thursday and for one hour group process them."
But they say, "Nothing could happen that way." Apathy. Apathy. "Salesmen

GROUP PROCESSING
can't be any good anyhow. I don't know any that are. It's outside their range of experience." But one very well-known Scientologist who actually did have a staff of salesmen working for him did process them and according to a letter he wrote me, their sales went up five hundred—or a factor of five, I think it was. Five hundred percent, something like that. Whee!
Not very much Group Processing either. Just regular, consistent Group Processing for a short space of time.
So the workability of Group Processing is not much in question. Trying to get people to come in for Group Processing is the main problem faced by Group Processing.
Now its history is only a couple of years long, really—active use of. And it's only during the last year that we've really been doing Group Processing in earnest. But we have found that audiences will take the simplest processes and take to them best. An auditor often makes the mistake of thinking he has to go on and invent or rearrange processes in order to keep the interest of his audience while group processing. And this is not true. Quite the contrary.
George Wichelow over in London is—he's quite a showman. George knows a lot of things; what he knows best is showmanship. And when he was told that he was going to be permitted to run on free Group Processing sessions, just Group Opening Procedure and nothing else, he immediately registered a tremendous protest and he says, "But we won't have anybody, because nobody will come and run Group Opening Procedure week in and week out." And they did. And he had a much larger group by just doing that than he had by doing variations of processes. Real curious, isn't it?
Well, Group Processing has been very successful in many of these congresses. It has done some very interesting things for cases in congresses. The type of Group Processing which we're going to run during this congress is not necessarily designed to make you feel any better; it is not necessarily designed to teach you anything; it is not necessarily designed. (audience laughter)
So with your kind indulgence and cooperation, would you like a little bit of it right now?
Audience: Yes! (applause)
Okay. Well, let's start out in the more elementary stages. I'm going to give you an auditing command. You see if you can follow it out. It's just as simple as that. A little game we'll play here right now called "the floor."
Let's find the floor beneath your feet. (stamping noises) Let's find the floor. Is there a floor beneath your feet?
Audience: Yes.
You sure there is?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a floor beneath your feet?
Audience: Yes.
Come on now. Don't be an "only one," some of you people that haven't been telling me so. Is there a floor beneath your feet?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure of it?
Audience: Yes.
Is it a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a floor beneath your feet?
Audience: Yes.
You sure of it?

15

16

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Does it feel like a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Okay, okay. Now is there a floor beneath your feet?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure there's a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Okay, okay. Is there a floor beneath your feet?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a chair under you?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's find out if there's a chair back of you. (pause) Is there a chair back of you?
Audience: Yes.
Chair under you?
Audience: Yes.
Is there?
Audience: Yes.
Well, let's hear about it. Is there a chair under you?
Audience: Yes!
All right. Is there a chair back of you?
Audience: Yes.
Chair under you?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a floor under the chair?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure the floor's under the chair?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure the chair isn't above the floor? (audience laughter) Well, okay. Okay. But is it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, is there a chair there?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
You sure there's a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Well, let's find out if there's a floor there. (stamping noises) Okay. There is a floor there, then?
Audience: Yes.
Fine. Is there a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Fine. Is there a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor there?
Audience: Yes.

GROUP PROCESSING
Is there a chair there? Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a chair there? Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a chair there? Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a chair there? Audience: Yes.
Are you sure there's a chair there? Audience: Yes. What's there? Audience: A chair. Okay. What's there? Audience: A chair. Okay. What's there? Audience: A chair. Okay. What's there? Audience: A chair. Okay. What's there? Audience: A chair. Okay. What's there? Audience: A chair. Okay. Is there a floor there? Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor there? Audience: Yes.
Are you sure there's a floor there? Audience: Yes.
Are you sure there is a floor there? Audience: Yes.
Are you sure there's a chair there? Audience: Yes.
Well, okay, okay. Is there a floor and chair there? Audience: Yes. Is there a floor there? Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a chair there? Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor there? Audience: Yes.
All right. Now we sure have got some acquaintance, I hope, with the floor and the chair. Right? Audience: Yes. You sure? Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand? Audience: Yes. No. Yes. Okay. Have you got a right hand? Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand? Audience: Yes. Have you got a right hand?

17

18

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Louder. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes!
Okay! Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes!
Okay! Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes!
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got the floor?
Audience: Yes.
You sure that's the floor?
Audience: Yes.
You sure you got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
You sure there's a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure there's a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
You sure you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you absolutely sure you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Whose left hand is it?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Mine.
Okay. Whose left hand is it?
Audience: Mine.
Are you sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you sure of it?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got two hands?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Good. Have you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Whose floor is it?
Audience: Mine.
Good. Whose floor is it?
Audience: Mine.
Whose floor is it?
Audience: Mine.
Okay. Have you got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Whose chair is it?
Audience: Mine.
Okay. Whose chair is it?
Audience: Mine.
Okay. You got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Whose right hand is it?
Audience: Mine.
All right. Whose right hand is it?
Audience: Mine.
All right. Whose right hand is it?
Audience: Mine.
All right. Whose is it?
Audience: Mine.
You sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Whose left hand is it?
Audience: Mine.
Okay. Whose left hand is it?
Audience: Mine.
Okay. Whose left hand is it?
Audience: Mine.
Okay. Whose left hand is it?
Audience: Mine.
Are you sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you sure of it?
Audience: Yes.
Have you got hands?
Audience: Yes.
You're sure of that?

19

20

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Have you got hands?
Audience: Yes.
Have you got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got hands?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Okay. Are you sure you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Whose head is it?
Audience: Mine.
Okay. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have one?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Did you have one?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a head?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Do you have a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have hands?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Do you have a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a hall?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a hall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a hall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Do you have the floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Okay. Do you have the floor?
Audience: Yes.
Do you have a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Okay. Do you have a chair?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Do you have a chair?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Do you have a chair?
Audience: Yes.
You sure you got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you sure you got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
You sure you got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you sure you got a chair now?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is it your body?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure it's your body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You sure you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you sure you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you sure you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
You absolutely sure you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You sure you got a head?

21

22

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
All right. You're sure you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got hands?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a hall?
Audience: Yes.
Sure you got the hall?
Audience: Yes.
You sure you own the hall?
Audience: Yes.
All right. You're sure you own the hall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You sure this hall's yours?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Good. Have you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
What are you doing in it? (audience laughter)
All right. All right. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Let's find out. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.

GROUP PROCESSING
All right. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a body?
Audience: Yes.
Do you have a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Okay. Do you have a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Do you have a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
You sure you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you sure you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Sure? You sure?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.

23

24

28 DECEMBER 1954
Okay. Have you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you got a hall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a stage here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. 7s there a stage here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. 7s there a stage here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a stage here?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Is there a stage here?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Is there a stage here?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Are there any lights here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are there lights here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are there lights here?
Audience: Yes.
You sure?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Are there microphones here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are there microphones here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are there lights here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are there lights here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are there lights here?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Am I here?
Audience: Yes.
Thank you. Am I here?
Audience: Yes.

GROUP PROCESSING
Am I here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Am I here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Am I here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a stage here?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Am I here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you here?
Audience: Yes.
Where?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Am I here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a chair here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is the back of the room here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You sure the back of the room's here?
Audience: Yes.
You sure the back of the room's here?
Audience: Yes.

25

26

28 DECEMBER 1954
Okay. Is the back of the room here?
Audience: Yes.
You sure the back of the room's here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is the front of the room here?
Audience: Yes.
You sure there's a front of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a front of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a stage here?
Audience: Yes.
Are there lights here?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a chair here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a chair here?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a front of the room here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a front of the room here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a front of the room here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a front of the room here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you hearing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you hearing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you hearing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you hearing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you hearing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you seeing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you seeing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you seeing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you seeing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you seeing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you being anything?
Audience: Yes.

GROUP PROCESSING
Okay. Are you being anything?
Audience: Yes.
What are you being?
Audience: Me.
Good. What are you being?
Audience: Me.
Where are you being it?
Audience: Here.
Good. What are you being?
Audience: Me.
Where are you being it?
Audience: Here.
Good. What are you being?
Audience: Me.
You sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
What are you being?
Audience: Me.
Where are you being it?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you being it?
Audience: Here.
Okay. What are you being?
Audience: Me.
Okay. Who am I being?
Audience: You.
Good. Who am I being?
Audience: You.
Good. Who am I being?
Audience: You.
Good. Who am I being?
Audience: You.
Good. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you hearing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you hearing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you hearing anything?
Audience: Yes.

27

28

28 DECEMBER 1954
Good. Are you seeing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Well, look it over. Are you seeing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you hearing anything?
Audience: Yes.
Good. What are you hearing?
Audience: You.
Okay. What else are you hearing?
Audience: (various responses)
What else are you hearing?
Audience: Us.
Oh, okay. What else are you hearing?
Audience: Us. Noise.
Okay. What are you hearing here?
Audience: Noise.
Good. What are you hearing here?
Audience: Noise.
Now what are you hearing here?
Audience: Noise.
Good. What are you hearing here?
Audience: You. Noise.
Good. What are you hearing here?
Audience: You.
You sure?
Audience: Yes.
Good. What are you hearing here?
Audience: Us. You.
What are you hearing here?
Audience: Us. You.
You hearing sound here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. What are you hearing here?
Audience: Sound.
Good. What are you hearing here?
Audience: Sound.
Good. What are you hearing here?
Audience: Sound.
All right. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a chair here?
Audience: Yes.
You sure there's a chair here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. What is there here?
Audience: A chair.
Good. Is there a floor here? (audience reactions)
Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a chair here?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Well, look at it. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Come on. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
You sure there's a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure there's a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure there's a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure you're here?
Audience: Yes.
You sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. What do you see?
Audience: You.
Okay. What do you see?
Audience: (various responses)
Okay. What do you see?
Audience: (various responses)
Okay. Do you see?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you see?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Do you see?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you see?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you see?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you see?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you hear?
Audience: Yes.
How do you know you hear?
Audience: I hear.
Okay. What are you doing?
Audience: Hearing.
Okay. Can you hear?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Can you hear?
Audience: Yes.
Can you hear?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Can you hear?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Can you hear?

29

30

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you here?
Audience: Yes.
Can you hear?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Can you hear?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Can you hear?
Audience: Yes.
Good. What's here?
Audience: You. We are. We all are.
Okay. Do you have a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Do you have a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Do you have a head?
Audience: Yes.
Do you have a head better now?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Do you have a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front of the room here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there lights here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there noise here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there noise here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there noise here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there any noise here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there any noise here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there any sound here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there any sound here?
Audience: Yes.
Are there any voices here?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are there any voices here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you sure there are voices here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are they your own voice only?
Audience: No.
Okay. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are there curtains here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a stage here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a back of the room?
Audience: Yes.
You sure?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Good. Good. Good. Good. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a floor?

31

32

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
How do you know it's a floor? Audience: (various responses) Is there a floor there? Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you sure there's a floor there? Audience: Yes. What kind of a floor? Audience: (various responses) Good. Is it a floor? Audience: Yes. Do you agree it's a floor? Audience: Yes. Ah, then it's a floor. Good. Okay. Is there a chair there? Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a chair there? Audience: Yes.
You sure there's a chair there? Audience: Yes.
Well, some of you are awfully reticent about it. Now let's speak up. Is there a chair there? Audience: Yes! Good. Is there a floor there? Audience: Yes.
Is there a back of the room there? Audience: Yes.
Is there a front of the room? Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a back of the room? Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a front of the room? Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a right-hand wall? Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a left-hand wall? Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a right-hand wall? Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a left-hand wall? Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a right-hand wall? Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a left-hand wall? Audience: Yes. Good. Is there a floor? Audience: Yes. Good. Is there a ceiling? Audience: Yes. Is there a ceiling? Audience: Yes. Oh, come on. Is there a ceiling?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Whose ceiling is it?
Audience: Ours. Mine.
Good. Whose ceiling is it?
Audience: Ours. Mine.
Good. Whose ceiling is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Whose ceiling is it?
Audience: Ours.
Is there a ceiling there?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is it real?
Audience: Yes.
Who says it's real?
Audience: Us. We do. I do.
Good. Then it must be real. Is there a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure there's a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
You sure there's a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
You sure?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Are you certain there's a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Is that a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is that a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is that a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure that's a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure it's a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure it's a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Are you certain it's a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Are you positive it's a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Who says so?
Audience: I do.
Do you agree it's a chair?

33

34

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Then it must be a chair.
Audience: Yes.
Is there a ceiling there?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a back of the room there?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a front of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a back of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a front of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Are there any people here?
Audience: Yes.
Are there people here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are there people here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are there people here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You sure there are people here?
Audience: Yes.
Do you agree there are people here?
Audience: Yes.
Well, wonderful. There must be people here.
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Am I here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Am I here?
Audience: Yes.
Well, thank you. Am I here?
Audience: Yes.
You all agreed I am here?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. I must be here. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a front of the room here?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a front of the room here?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a front of the room here?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure it's a front of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are there lights here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are there lights here?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are there sounds here?
Audience: Yes.
How do you know there are sounds here?
Audience: We hear them.
Okay. Are there sounds here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is anybody nervous here?
Audience: No.
Is anybody nervous here?
Audience: No.
Okay. Well, just listen for a moment.
Is there any silence here?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now let's listen for a moment. Is there any silence here?
Audience: No.
No. Okay. Is there a room here?
Audience: Yes.
You nervous?
Audience: No.
Why not? (audience laughter)
Is there too much noise here?
Audience: No.
Are you sure there isn't too much noise here?
Audience: No.
Well, okay. Isn't there too much noise here?
Audience: No.
Oh, there's too much noise here, isn't there?
Audience: No!
Okay. Is there too much noise here?
Audience: No!
Are there too many people here?
Audience: No.
Are there too many people here?
Audience: No.
Well, okay. Okay. Okay. There aren't too many people here.
Audience: No.
Good. I'm glad. I'm glad. Am I here?
Audience: Yes.
Thank you. Am I here?
Audience: Yes.
Thank you. Am I here?
Audience: Yes.
Are you here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you here?
Audience: Yes.
You sure you're here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you here?

35

36

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Please tell me. Where are you?
Audience: Here!
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
All right. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
All right. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Are you sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
You're not someplace else?
Audience: No.
Are you here?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Where's present time?
Audience: Right here.
Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?

37

38

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where is present time?
Audience: Here.
Where?
Audience: Here.
Point to it.
Audience: Right here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Are you just agreeing on it or are you here?
Audience: We're here.
Okay. What's the difference?
Female voice: None.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a chair here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a chair here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a body here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a body here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a body here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Did you bring a body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Did you bring a body?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is your body on straight?
Audience: Yes.
Let's look it over. Is your body on straight?
Audience: Yes.
Well, let's look it over again. Is your body on straight?
Audience: (various responses)
Huh?
Audience: (various responses)
Is that better? Is your body on straight?
Audience: (various responses)
All right. Let's look it over. Is your body on straight?
Audience: No.
Well, let's look it over. Is your body on straight?
Audience: (various responses)
Well, let's look it over. Is your body on straight?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Is your body on straight?

39

40

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: (various responses)
Okay. Is your body on straight?
Audience: (various responses)
Okay. Is your body on straight?
Audience: (various responses)
Okay. Is your body on straight?
Audience: (various responses)
Okay. Is your body on straight?
Audience: (various responses)
Okay. Is your body on straight?
Audience: (various responses)
You sure your body's on straight?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you sure it is?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you sure you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
Oh, sure. Whose body is it?
Audience: Mine.
Sure. Whose body is it?
Audience: Mine.
Sure. Whose body is it?
Audience: Mine.
Sure. Whose body is it?
Audience: Mine.
Sure. Whose body is it?
Audience: Mine.
Sure. Whose body is it?
Audience: Mine.
Sure. Whose body is it?
Audience: Mine.
Sure. Who are you?
Audience: Me.
Good. Good. Who are you?
Audience: Me.
Okay. Who are you?
Audience: Me.
Okay. Who are you?
Audience: Me.
Okay. Who are you?
Audience: Me.
Okay. Who are you?
Audience: Me.
Okay. Who am I?
Audience: You.
Good. Okay. Who am I?
Audience: You.
Good. Who am I?
Audience: You.
Good. Who am I?
Audience: You.
Good. Who am I?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: You.
Good. Who am I?
Audience: You.
Good. Who am I?
Audience: You.
Good. Who are you?
Audience: Me.
Good. Who are we?
Audience: Us.
Good. Who are we?
Audience: Us.
Good. Who are we?
Audience: Us.
Good. Who are we?
Audience: Us.
Good. Who are we?
Audience: Us.
Good. Who are we?
Audience: Us.
Good. Who are we?
Audience: Us.
Good. Who are we?
Audience: Us.
Good. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Good. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Now I'm going to ask you this in confidence. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
You sure there's a ceiling here?
Audience: Yes.
Sure there's a chair here?
Audience: Yes.
Sure there's a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Sure there's a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
You sure there's a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Okay. Okay. Now how do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Feel pretty good?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Feel good?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You really feel good?
Audience: Yes.
Who feels good?

41

42

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: I do.
Good. Who feels good?
Audience: I do. We do.
Good. Who feels good?
Audience: I do.
Are you sure you feel good?
Audience: Yes.
You sure you feel good?
Audience: Yes.
Well, who feels good?
Audience: I do.
Good. Who feels good?
Audience: I do.
Fine. Who feels good?
Audience: I do.
Fine. Who's got a ceiling?
Audience: I do.We do.
Good. Who's got a body?
Audience: I do.
Good. Who's got a floor?
Audience: I do.
Good. Who's got a right hand?
Audience: I do.
Good. Who's got a left hand?
Audience: I do.
Good. Who's got a right foot?
Audience: I do.
Good. Who's got a left foot?
Audience: I do.
Good. Who's got a head?
Audience: I do.
Good. Who's got a back of the head?
Audience: I do.
Good. Who's got a head?
Audience: I do.
Good. Who's got a back of the head?
Audience: I do.
Who's got a back of the head?
Audience: I do.
Who's got a back of the head?
Audience: I do.
Okay. Okay. Okay. You got a back of the head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a back of the head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is that your head?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure that's your head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a floor?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a hall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Whose hall is it?
Audience: Mine. Ours.
Good. Whose hall is it?
Audience: Mine. Ours.
Good. Whose hall is it?
Audience: Mine. Ours.
Good. Whose stage is it?
Audience: Mine.Ours.
Good. Whose stage is it?
Audience: Mine. Ours.
Good. Whose science is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Whose science is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Whose science is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Whose science is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Whose science is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Whose science is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Whose science is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Who owns it?
Audience: We do.
Good. Who owns it?
Audience: We do.
Good. Who owns it?
Audience: We do.
You sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Who's got a body?
Audience: I do.
Good. Who's got a science?
Audience: We do.
Who's got a hall?
Audience: We do.
Good. Who are you?
Audience: (various responses)
Good. Who are you?
Audience: (various responses)
Good. Who are you?
Audience: (various responses)
You sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Who are we?

43

44

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Us.
Good. Who are we?
Audience: Us.
Good. Who are we?
Audience: Us.
You sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Are we here?
Audience: Yes.
Who's here?
Audience: We are.
Okay. Is there a floor here, too?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a ceiling here, too?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a front wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a stage?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a back wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a right wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a left wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Hooray! We've got walls and floors and ceilings. What have we got?
Audience: Everything. Walls and floors and ceilings.
Got a hall. That's right. Who's got a hall?
Audience: We do.
Whose hall is it?
Audience: Ours.
You sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Are you real sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
What have you got?
Audience: A hall.
Good. Who's got a hall?
Audience: We do.
You sure we got a hall?
Audience: Yes.
You sure we got a hall?
Audience: Yes.
Have we got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have we got a floor?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have we got a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have we got a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have we got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a body?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Where is the body?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's the body?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's the body?
Audience: Here.
Good. Are there other bodies here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Where are they?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are they?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are they?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are they?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are they?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are they?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are they?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are they?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are they?
Audience: Here.
You sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Is there anybody else here?
Audience: Yes.
Who's here?
Audience: You are. We are.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a hall?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a front of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a back of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a front of the room?

45

46

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?

47

48

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Which hand?
Audience: (various responses)
Which hand?
Audience: (various responses)
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?

49

50

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Have you got a right hand?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
How do you know?
Audience: (various responses)
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
You sure?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Good. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Good. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Good. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Good. How do you feel?

51

52

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Good. Fine.
Good. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Good. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Good. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Good. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Good. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Good. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Good. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Good. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Good. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a floor here?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a chair here?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a ceiling here?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Left hand?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Okay. Have you got a right hand?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
You sure you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Good. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left foot?

53

54

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a left foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a right foot?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Sure?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Oh, boy! What bodies! You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
And you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Wonderful. Have you got a front of your face?
Audience: Yes.
Got a back of your head?
Audience: Yes.
Got a front to your face?
Audience: Yes.
Got a back of your head?

55

56

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Got a front of your face?
Audience: Yes.
Got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a front to your head?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a front to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a back to your head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got feet?

57

58

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Sure?
Audience: Yes.
You sure you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
You sure you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got feet?
Audience: Yes.
You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Well, well, well. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a front of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Good. Good. Is there a back of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a right-hand wall?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Fine. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there a front of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a front to the room?

59

60

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. I got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got feet?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you look?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you look?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you look?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you look?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you look?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you know?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you look?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you emote?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you know?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you look?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you emote?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you work?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you work?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you emote?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you look?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you know?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Can you know?

61

62

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You got a head?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a room?
Audience: Yes.
You got a room?
Audience: Yes.
You got a room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a back to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Is there a back to the room?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a back to the room?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a back to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a back to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a back to the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front to the room?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you alive?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you alive?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?

63

64

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Where's that?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's that?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's that?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's that?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Come on. Really now. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Oh, come on. Really. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Oh, where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?

65

66

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you now?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. We got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
We got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. We got a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. We got a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. We got a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. We got a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. We got a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a back of the room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a back-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a back-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a front-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a ceiling?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's present time?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Oh, where are you?
Audience: Here.
All right. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
All right. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
All right. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
All right. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
All right. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
All right. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
All right. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. What shape are you in?
Audience: Great. Good. Fine.
Okay. What shape are you in?
Audience: Good.
Okay. What shape are you in?

67

68

28 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Good. Fine.
Okay. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Okay. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Okay. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Okay. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Whose hall is it?
Audience: Ours.
Whose floor is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Whose front of the room is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Whose back of the room is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Whose right-hand wall is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Whose left-hand wall is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Whose ceiling is it?
Audience: Ours.
Whose chair is it?
Audience: Ours.
Okay. Whose hall is it?
Audience: Ours.
Okay. Whose science is it?
Audience: Ours.
Good. Where's the hall?
Audience: Here.
Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Where's the hall?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Okay. Where's the hall?
Audience: Here.
Okay. How are you?
Audience: Fine.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello and end of session. Thank you.
If there are any casualties, Emergency Auditors are present. If you can't find them, it's because they're casualties. (audience laughter) Thank you very much. Thank you.

69

 

A lecture given on 28 December 1954
Thank you.
Well, do you all feel worse?
Audience: Yes! No!
You do?
Audience: No!
You sure?
Audience: Yes!
The copies of Dianetics 1955! evidently didn't last, and there will be some more up shortly.
I want to talk to you now about an entirely different, new aspect of Dianetics and Scientology, something that may not be news to many of you but which, nevertheless, is something you could bear hearing again if you've heard it before—which is doubtful, by the way. We started in here a long time ago into a field of endeavor which had nothing to do with aberration.
The history of Dianetics is a very simple history. I started to study, along about 1932, nuclear physics. Many people ask the question every once in a while, "Is Ron really a physicist?" Well, I don't know what they mean, really, by "a physicist." Today it's quite hard to tell what a physicist is, whether he's a government prisoner (laughter) or a genius or just a plain damn fool. To have studied it, does not necessarily mean that one is. One has to subscribe to some degree to that which one studies—to some degree. And I never did subscribe to physics or the physical sciences.
When I was much younger than that, I had had quite a dose of Asia-tosis— a malady known in the Orient as I-don't-knowism, I'm-not-sure-itis, the I-don't-entirely-believe-that school of thought. I had been taught long before I had much contact with physical science that man was important, and that the spirit existed, and that the human race had some life in it.
And in 1930, when I first took up the basic courses of the physical sciences, it was without benefit of very much high-schooling and I walked straight in, not warned, perfectly innocent—went in to the registrar, signed up, didn't know what I was getting into and the next thing you know, somebody was saying to me, "Mathematics are themselves and the peer of everything. And life—well, life . . . But mathematics . . . But life . . ." Something wrong here—something wrong here. They think mathematics is a thing, not a process.
Well, we had a collision about that and after being expelled a few times

71

72

28 DECEMBER 1954
and—I had the lowest grades ever registered for a student still continuing. (laughter) For me a condition was excellent. But when I got along the line to the point where they were teaching atomic and molecular phenomena, which is the proper name of nuclear physics, they no longer had a student on their hands; they had a revolutionary. Because it seemed to me, for instance, just in the field of physics, that a particle was a wave motion and not a particle, but a wave motion which had solidified into a particular form, but was still a wave motion. And I couldn't get this out of my head!
And the professors tried and the instructors tried and everybody tried. And
on the final examination in one particular course they said, "Is an x-r	"
this is the total question: "Discuss whether an x-ray is a particle or a wave." So I wrote. And it said to discuss, so I discussed it. And I came to the conclusion that wave motion must be it! And that's wrong. Only, that was right five years afterwards. Only, three or four years after that, that was wrong. And a couple of years ago, that was right. And now it's wrong again. And so much for the exact sciences.
Well, I actually couldn't take anybody very seriously, particularly when, in chemistry, they demonstrated that you could put certain pieces of mud together and they would grow crystalline forms. Very interesting—but I kept pointing out to them they stop growing. Although they go just so far and although it looks like a life form, it stops growing. And a life form keeps on growing, and you've got one thing which is very missing here—the second dynamic—only I didn't call it that then. This thing doesn't procreate.
"Oh, no! But you see, we can demonstrate just this far that you take just so much mud and put it with just so much mud and you get something made out of mud and that's man. And he has no spirit! He has no goal! He has no purpose except to be a mathematical machine of some kind or another which, when it goes crazy, invents philosophy."
Well, this didn't make me happy. And I don't know why I would take it upon myself to go out and combat the accepted theory except that I hadn't been born into, entirely, that accepted theory. I'd had something else intervening. So in 1932 I made up my mind that there was something about energy that wasn't entirely known yet. That's a sort of an humble thing to make up your mind to.
That seems like I was about the only one that did make up his mind, at least in that atmosphere and arena, that we didn't know all there was to know about energy. And I decided that there was probably—if life was an energy, it must be a kind of energy that maybe we didn't know all there was to know about. And this sort of doubtfulness was not acceptable. When I'd put it on examination papers and things like that—answers like that, they'd flunk me.
But I decided to investigate human memory. I'd had a touch of the brush from Commander Thompson of the navy who had studied with Sigmund Freud, and who was a very swell guy, and he taught me there was something called Freudian analysis. We actually didn't get much further than that. But I find out I know more about it today than most analysts.
But anyhow, that was mostly because I didn't have much of a via there, you see. I had this one officer who had studied with one man who had originated a theory. And this officer was perfectly willing to relay that theory directly since he just went over there to pick it up so that it could be put into the United States Navy as a practice, and perhaps used in flight surgery.
Flight surgery is the practice of mental health in the navy—in the Naval Air Force and so forth. They call it flight surgery: it amputates flights from people or something.

HISTORY OF DIANETICS
Now—and started to investigate this solely on the line of energy. "And mental energy, so called, must be very small," I says to myself, I says. "It must be very small because we don't have any cameras or anything that will take pictures like the mind will take them."
I realize, now, I was probably the only wide-open case in the midst of a bunch of black Vs. I kept talking about these mental pictures and nobody knew what I was talking about.
Well, I got myself a Koenig photometer and a couple of other crude apparatae and started to measure the cadences and the impressions made by poetry. Why poetry? Well, I reasoned this way: These syllables seemed to produce a certain reaction upon human beings. And if it was just the syllabic action or the wave form in the air that would produce this reaction, why, then, probably, when the fellow recalled it (shades of the E-Meter)—when the fellow recalled it, you'd get the same pattern back again. But my apparatus was too crude. I couldn't prove it one way or the other. But I did find out something astonishing which has come to us recently as a new theory from Austria.
William Randolph Hearst, when he used to run the American Weekly, always had a page in there devoted to things that happened in Bavaria, you know. "Woman Grows Two Heads." "Spirit Haunts Castle," and it always happens somewhere in Bavaria or Austria or someplace like that. If you look back over the files, you'll see that. There was always—these things always happened there. Well, now we find this theory happened in Austria. I wonder if it has comparable truth.
That is the theory of molecular storage of memory. If we take a molecule and consider that it has a bunch of holes in it—let's say it has a hundred holes in it, and we can put in ten memories in each one of these protein molecules— why, how many memories would that make, that the body could have? And we find there are ten to the twenty-first power binary digits of neurons in the body.
And we figure it all out by our god mathematics—mathematics is something that sits on a pedestal with a stuffy smell—and you figure it all out mathematically and you discover that all anybody could ever remember was three months' worth. Maybe this was acceptable to the mathematician who was dug in, Case Level XII. But I could distinctly remember enrolling in the school! So either I had more punched protein molecules in me . . .
But the long and the short of it was—is by any known wavelength of energy, there was insufficient memory storage in the mind to bring about the phenomena of memory. By everybody's understanding of it, we were up against impossible phenomena. It couldn't occur. Memory couldn't occur.
So therefore, if life was only energy, if life only came from mud, if there was nothing else beyond life but this, we could only remember three months. To coin a metaphor taken out of Congressional Records: I smelled a mouse. I saw him floating in the air, and I determined before the hour was out to nip him in the bud. It's out of the Congressional Record. They're wonderful people.
Now, that was sort of the beginning of this sort of thing. And I didn't have anything much to do with human aberration, didn't think much about human aberration, didn't see how human aberration had much bearing on it because I couldn't find sanity in life, and that's what I was looking for! We had aberration everywhere. That was easy to come by. But what about these other commodities? Well, they must exist somewhere, somehow. And the years went by.
Very easily, I have done the crudest, most inexact, complicated and probably wrongly concluded biological experiments ever performed on this planet. In biology they teach you how to read long words, not how to culture

73

74

28 DECEMBER 1954
germs. And if I'd known a little bit more about how to culture germs, this would have been a very easy thing. But I found out that any colony of cells learned, generation to generation—fabulous!
Take a colony of cells in a culture—you know, jelly, and breathe cigarette smoke on them. The nicotine in that cigarette smoke is intensely destructive to those cells. And after you've breathed the cigarette smoke on them, watched them under the microscope, and so forth, and watched them shy away and pull away from that smoke, you then put cool steam. And they go, yow. And you put more steam, and they go, yow! They don't want it.
And just about the time they're getting tolerant of the steam, you give them some more cigarette smoke. Now you can put a breeze of the same air, you know, just plain air on them, they don't shy away. Oh, this is real mysterious— you mean, cells have an intelligence of some sort. Now, take that culture and very carefully breed it long past the one lifetime of one cell, several generations down the track, and put steam on them. You know, a little cool steam in their direction, and they go, nyaa! Fantastic. You mean a cell can remember generation to generation?
And then I sat back and I said whatever was colloquial in those days for a dope, "How could cells fail to remember, because the body goes on building a body like the last body, time after time after time after time, according to the same blueprint, age after age after age, but modifies according to some experience? Of course cells have to remember. Or we have to credit something that stands around and builds something out of mass."
Well, anybody could have thought that thought, couldn't they? That we have men here, and we dig up the graveyard and find out there were men just like them a hundred years ago, so some cell is remembering something someplace, or we have a bunch of ghosts standing around with putty knives and sculpting tools. Take your choice. Science had never taken either choice, and so was very "exact."
Well, this was horrible. So I started a further investigation; discovered by 1938 that there was a dynamic common denominator to existence, and that was survival. It seems like we could talk if we wanted to, about survival of the fittest; that was the modus operandi of some sort or another, and that wasn't necessarily true. But we just talked about plain survival. The urge toward survival.
And if we looked at things, understanding that what it was doing was its aberrated idea of trying to survive, things got real plain. So then I subdivided survival and tried to find out how many alleys things were surviving in as well as how many boulevards. And I found out that we could categorize life in at least four different channels as far as man was concerned—the first, second, third and fourth dynamics. All right. Okay. We couldn't explain everything by sex though—didn't work.
It was 1938 and I'll be darned if some of my friends in Japan didn't get careless with their national sport of hari-kari and commit suicide. And their writhings around while they were still drawing the sacred design with the knife kept me busy for four more years—just as it did lots of us. But it got on the track, you know—crunch!
Well, it was not without benefit. I spent a year in a hospital at the end of that and—no other reason than cussedness. By taking off one collar ornament, I found out I could very easily be mistaken for a medical doctor. I even set it up so that as I would speak to the librarian, a marine or two would come by and say, "How are you, doctor?" And that gave me access to the medical

HISTORY OF DIANETICS
libraries of the hospital. And gave me access as well to all of their experimental data which was in progress at that time.
So I studied for a year in the field of biochemistry: antibiotics and glands of one kind or another; endocrine system, alarm reactions, testosterone, pituitary fluid, oh, all kinds of odds and ends. Messed up an awful lot of experiments for the people because I would take the guy that I had the experimental record on—look at all these men working for me. Look at the—all these laboratories and so forth—working, working away.
And I'd get one of their boys whose case I knew about, and I'd take him down on the park bench. Knowing a little bit about psychoanalysis, we would plow out a few psychic traumas—you know, Straightwire—plow them out. And then we would find out that the glandular fluids being administered to him would now bite; they would now work quite according to the records. You know, they'd test him afterwards without knowing I'd done anything.
Young doctor there saw me on a—doing this one day with an old marine and (I even got something out of this marine)—and he saw me and he said to me, "You know, that fellow is a part of our experimental series."
And I said, "No!"
And he said, "Our records have been behaving strangely lately. But," he says, "you're only doing something in the field of psychotherapy, so we needn't worry."
That was actually the first time I found out I was doing something in the field of psychotherapy. It never occurred to me before I was engaged in anything like psychotherapy. I was trying to find some life and sanity.
Well, the results of that year were extremely plain. They demonstrated that life was the servant of function. And that structure was monitored by function. And that structure, when altered, simply was altered structure, and didn't necessarily even vaguely alter function—fascinating! There's something there that is functional, that is monitoring all this mud they've been teaching me about all these years. What is it? What's its wavelength? Didn't seem to have one. Fantastic enough, it just didn't seem to want to be immediately measured.
Well, the years followed along and finally, I got to a point where, again, in trying to locate this, in trying to establish something about it, I discovered certain processes which, when applied to an individual, got him over a lot of these psychic traumas a lot faster than anybody had done. All right.
And then again we were slightly into psychotherapy but still trying to find and isolate this unit, this production of life, the thing which made the wavelength or whatever it was. All right. Fine.
It wasn't until just three months ago, since I have seen you last, those of you who are here from the last congress, that I was able to say with considerable conclusiveness, as far as I was concerned, that we had achieved something which increased the ability of life to be alive. And we moved at that moment out of the field of psychotherapy and moved into the field of human ability. We're no longer interested today in psychotherapy. And I'll tell you why.
Ability is our sole measure of livingness. And disability is our measure of death. And we are not interested so much in being dead as being alive, and therefore our accent should be and can be, today, on ability. And that is our accent.
Now, let's see what this does. Let's see what this does. Let's take the first dynamic. And let's find immediately what is wrong with an individual who cannot be a good first dynamic. Well, let's draw the first idiotic simplicity on it and say, he is unable to be himself.

75

76

28 DECEMBER 1954
Well, the direction of repair is not to find out why he's unable to be himself. The direction of repair of this, if you were in the field of repair, would simply be to make him be himself, wouldn't it? Well, let's get him up there to a point where he can be himself, you know, just bang! Well, we find out we don't have to pay any attention to the disability at all in order to attain the ability—fascinating.
Now let's take this second dynamic. Freud in 1894 stated very, very conclusively, resoundingly and repercussively, which repercussions are still reverberating slightly. Catholic church, for one thing: Index Expurgatorius (all Freudian analysis)—papal bull—have it about two years ago: "You analysts better be careful. We'll frown."
And so the second dynamic becomes less surviving or less of a survival drive in the individual. In other words, we have less ability. Let's not look for anything else. Why bother? There can be ten thousand factors involved in the disability of this individual. Why bother with all this disability, since the ability is only a small number of factors.
And if we could directly increase this ability, then any disability on the second dynamic would, of course, vanish, wouldn't it? Now we find out that an inability on the second dynamic would have to do only partially with the sexual act or sexual performance. It'd have a lot to do with the raising of children— the future generations and so forth.
Well, let's look around right now and supposing that we put down all of the reasons why the youth of the country is not in good shape. Supposing we just went on and accumulated reasons why. I don't think we've got enough sheets of paper to start writing down all these reasons why. But we have one fact there. We could be more able in handling the youth of this country today. We could be more able in this. We agree on this: that certainly we could be more able on this. All right.
How could we be more able? Well, by increasing ability. Of what? Well, of youth to be youth, for one thing. Sounds idiotically simple, doesn't it? All right.
Third dynamic—what's the matter with somebody who can't associate with his fellows in a group? What's the matter with this man? That he can't associate with his fellows in a group, that's what's the matter with this man. Well, what's the remedy of this?
Well, to fix him up so he could associate with his fellows in the group, of course. But you won't do that nearly as fast by subtracting all the reasons why, as you will by simply making him capable of associating—easy as that. Let's just go straight to the point and make him capable of associating. And we find out all this other rationale falls away.
Let's take the fourth dynamic. Do you know that we are so far, so entirely far from a fourth dynamic today, that I'll bet you there isn't anybody, really, out in the country that you would pick up at random that would think he could do a thing about the atomic bomb or the age or the destruction of continents by reason of atomic weapons. Let's just take a service station attendant. Let's say to him, "By the way, what are you doing about nuclear fissions, you know, new weapons and restraining them from being dropped?"
But do you know that there's no reason why you shouldn't ask that man that question? Fourth dynamic would immediately contain enough responsibility to knock out or inhibit or divert something which threatens the destruction of mankind's civilization. This is an incredible thing that you have a world full of people today, including the leaders of these nations, who are standing around saying, "Huh?" on the subject of the atomic bomb. Or like the Secretary

HISTORY OF DIANETICS
for Air, Talbott, not too long ago: "We have such horrible weapons that we can wipe out a whole continent. And not even the men who invent these know anything about their destructive strength. So you better pray."
Well, where is this man's fourth dynamic? Must be fairly high—at least he's insinuated himself into the government. This is the man you'd look for to do something active and dynamic about one of the most pressing problems man faces. He doesn't face it. Where the devil is his fourth dynamic?
Well, I'll tell you where it is. It's all wrapped up in being a nationalist, something which was new on the face of Earth a couple of hundred years ago and which is still violently with us and which, in most of our memories, has brought about three wars. Just a generation ago, young Americans and young Englishmen were mucking through the mud of France, stepping over dead Germans who had Gott mit uns on their buckles.
They spent four years in some fields which I crossed rather recently, and as near as I could find out, the only things the Germans were after must have been the only things there. They must have come out of Germany into these plains across which they were fighting in order to obtain something. So I had some fast vehicles and I looked real thoroughly to find out what was there and I found some milk cows were there. And as near as I can figure out, it's sort of cattle rustling going on, but certainly not very much fourth dynamic going on.
When we look around and we see that the insect population of South America is a very, very able population: there are thousands of acres of Brazil which are utterly uninhabitable because of ants. And the last time a fly bit you, told you the fourth dynamic was not making entirely on the subject of the fifth. It said man did have some enemies who weren't men.
The Four Horsemen haunt man, and yet he goes out and makes rifles to shoot other men. For some years, some of us got bitter about this. And then most of us got over being bitter and said, "The devil with it."
But it's nevertheless not true that the fourth dynamic cannot exist. The fourth dynamic can exist. But how far are we below that existence? How able are the individuals on the fourth dynamic? How able are they? We'd have to answer, to some degree, how able could they be. And that we don't even know, bless it. We don't know how able a man could get on the fourth dynamic.
Man's usual way of handling this is some individual elects himself as Caesar or Alexander or Napoleon, and he goes charging around on a white horse doing what, we're not sure. History is called the "Mississippi of lies" by Voltaire. We know such men existed. They were trying maybe to get up to a fourth dynamic, maybe, and maybe not. We don't know.
And we find some philosopher someplace writing plaintively on the subject of the fourth dynamic, and another philosopher writing not quite plaintively, such as Schopenhauer, who said that the best solution of the whole thing is just refuse to have anything to do with life, or to let it go on living, and that solves the whole works—the creed of Schopenhauer in The Will and the Idea. The fourth dynamic. No. It becomes silly.
We say first dynamic—yes, we can survive as ourselves. We're able, you see, on the first dynamic. Second dynamic—yes, we can have children. We can raise them. We're able on the second dynamic. And yes, we have groups and we get along together all right as groups, so we're able on the third dynamic. And then all of a sudden we get entirely disabled on the fourth dynamic, and we haven't got groups, children or selves!
Somewhere along the line we could stand an increase of ability, not on the part of some individual singled out by chance or wit, but by all of us. We could

77

78

28 DECEMBER 1954
stand an increase of ability on such a thing as the fourth dynamic because if we don't increase our ability on the fourth dynamic, we're not going to have the first three.
The accent is on ability. The abilities that were taught in the physics laboratories of George Washington University were absorbed differently by the several people present. Some of them absorbed the knowledge which was there and which had been developed earlier by people like Halley, Einstein— absorbed this novel information, the different purposes and usages. The bulk of my classmates today have gone into service to the government and have been excommunicated—been kicked out. They couldn't stand it either.
But they could stand it in 1932. They used to talk about blowing up the planet as something you might do at a picnic some Sunday afternoon. They could talk very easily about this because they'd had no recognition of what was happening. And then one of these gadgets developed by these same men was dropped on Hiroshima and seventy thousand men, women and children died just because these boys had applied their formula with no responsibility on the fourth dynamic! And now that they've applied that formula with no responsibility, where are going to be their third, second and first dynamics?
Well, I applied it in a different direction. I said, "Someday there's going to be a fight between humanity and science." Someday, somebody is going to have to know enough in order to stand up to and against the forces which look upon man as cheap, worthless, expendable, erroneous and unnecessary to the planet called Earth—someday.
I didn't have any responsibility on the fourth dynamic really. I was just going along the line, sort of, you know, following the chalk line of what I had been taught earlier in my life. Such men as the last magician of those brought into China by Kublai Khan, a man who had eventually become—by lineage, had been part of the Court of the Empress dowager and when that court broke up after the Boxer Rebellion, was thrown out to be a street magician—he was my friend. He had good grip on this idea.
He said, "One way or another, we're responsible for everyone and everything that walks, lives and breathes out there—one way or another. And the way we walk to our doom is to take our feeling for our fellow creature away from him and hold it to ourselves. And so we die." And as a boy of sixteen I wouldn't have known too much of what he was talking about but it sort of hit me, you know, as being a strange way to look at life. But maybe there was some value in it.
Yes, there is some value in it. You suffer today from the disabilities of others. You could have more to do, more games to play, if those around you were more able. That is certain, isn't it? You could look toward more security, you could look to a happier life, if you could depend better upon the reactions and actions of those around you. That's true. Well, your life doesn't depend upon their disabilities. It'll never be better because of their disabilities, ever! So why concentrate upon their disabilities? Why not try to find something about their abilities and increase them?
Here you are driving down the road, minding your own business, driving a car. Suddenly somebody drives along, moves over the white line and runs into you—thud! Routine occurrence. Nothing strange or peculiar about it. But you were driving easily, comfortably, with skill, but you didn't predict the fact that somebody was going to turn across that white line at sixty miles an hour because he's supposed to be on the other side of the line. What are you fighting there?
Let's get the things you could do. It's really not your cue to go out and

HISTORY OF DIANETICS
legislate against drunk driving and perform tremendous penalties on people who would drive when they're drunk. Because the next time you're driving down the road and somebody steers across the white line, it's because he didn't have but one hand on the wheel and had another one on a blonde. So then you'd have to go out, in addition to being against drunk driving, you'd have to go out to driving with one hand on a blonde.
But you've got this all boxed up. You've got laws now on the subject of drunk driving and blonde driving. You're all set. So then you're driving down the road minding your own business and a car hurtles across the white line and goes into you. You're still alive by this time. Your insurance company will still issue your insurance, so you've still got a car. And you find out the reason this happened is because the left front wheel of the oncoming vehicle came off! Mmm!
So you figure and you figure and you figure. So you decide what you'd better do. What you'd better do is get legislation passed in order to make the manufacturers of automobiles inspect their left front wheels before the car is released for public use. But you discover this won't work because the reason that left front wheel came off was because of a service station attendant who didn't bolt it back on. So you decide that you will get legislation to prohibit service station attendants from touching left front wheels. You sure got lots of laws, now. Haven't we got lots of laws? All right.
So you're driving down the road and a car goes across the white line and hits your car and when you get out to protest, it's a cop. And you say, "How did this cop get here?" I'll tell you how he got here. You wanted laws against drunk driving, didn't you? You wanted laws against blondes, didn't you?—and the manufacturers of cars and the service station attendants. And there's where you got the cop, only he's after you now. And you can say then, "I have no responsibility." That's where the cop came in.
Cops, by the way, go down scale. At first they start to arrest criminals and then they wind up having only to associate with honest citizens. And today it's illegal for a cop to arrest criminals—it is, practically. We've had a couple of things with police and, each time, the only people that got questioned were the people who complained about being robbed. They didn't do anything else about it. All right.
So there's the cop. After a while, you're driving down the road, and you've got cops behind you and cops in front of you, and you've got cops all over the place. The only reason you're driving at all is just so the cop in the back seat won't have to drive.
We got a police universe. What is it? How does it get to be that? By shedding off responsibilities for the various dynamics. By backing up from them and saying, "I have nothing to do with them." By looking at disability and not looking at ability. By looking to repress, inhibit disability. By looking in the direction always of doing something about disability and never doing anything about ability. And that's how it gets that way.
What was the solution in the first place for all these accidents? You were driving down the road and a car came across the white line and hit you. Instead, then, of looking at how drunk this fellow was, if you'd gone out and established a driving school or made it necessary or invited people to drive better, or if you had put people who are issued a license into a condition that they could always drive, be able to drive, you wouldn't have had any more accidents to amount to anything.
Because a man that can drive and who is able with driving, certainly would know when the left-hand front wheel of his car was loose. And a man

79

80

28 DECEMBER 1954
who could drive, could also drive dead drunk, and he could also drive with one arm around a blonde. Let's make him even able to do that. So that the road toward freedom and out of a policed universe is the road toward ability. And that road toward ability is never followed by fixating on one disability after another.
Now, does this work in processing? Have we discovered that there is something definite in these principles which apply intimately to life? And believe me, there is. Give me an auditor who will only process a chronic somatic, who will only process in the direction of bad sight or a bad leg, and I'll show you an auditor that takes a long time on a case—real long time. He'd probably make it.
But give me an auditor who will concentrate 100 percent on making the preclear more able in the level of conduct of the process, and wasn't—care anything about the disabilities, but he just goes on plugging to make this preclear more able and more able and more able to do this process, get the comm lags out of it, and I'll show you an auditor that makes people well in a hurry. Strange part of it is, is the bad leg, the bad sight, the chronic somatic, drops away in as much as one hundredth of the time. Fascinating, hm?
The evolution, then, of Dianetics was simply, at the beginning, trying to single out what was the ability, what could life do? What could it do? What was it and what could it do? How did it behave? That was the primary thing. And the next thing that followed immediately after that was an observation of life itself to find out what it was doing and then finally, way late in this research and investigation, we walked into the field of psychotherapy. What were we doing in psychotherapy? Well, it's because we could be so darned able in the field of psychotherapy; that's what we were doing in it. And because man likes to categorize everything and label everything, so he kept coming around to us and saying, "What are you doing? What are you doing?"
And we said, "Well, we're . . . Well, we're running engrams."
And he says, "What?"
"We make people feel better. That's what we're doing."
"Nobody else ever has—couldn't be true."
But yet, we were there in the field of psychotherapy for quite a while. The only processes we had, actually, were those processes which would eradicate a disability. And the eradication of a disability was not very important. And when we came all the way through this cycle, it was time to write Dianetics 1955! It has a great deal to say about accent on ability. We're almost back where we started, with the single difference: We know what we're doing. "Slight" difference!
Now, if I were to tell you that, "All research and investigation in the field of Dianetics and Scientology today has been successfully concluded," I'd be a liar. I could no more tell you that—I couldn't even tell you that with a straight face. Every time I say to myself very quietly, "Well, gee-whiz, you know, a little fit [bit] further in that direction probably wraps that up," I go a little bit further in that direction and I keep looking for the wrapping—not there.
It's because there probably is no upper ceiling on ability. Research and investigation into disability could be forever with enormous phenomena— tremendous quantities of phenomena! Catalogs. Catalogs. Catalogs. Because these are all barriers life uses in its various games. It makes itself unable, one way or the other, and then forgets why it did it and what game it's playing. It gets all mixed up. Any case that we used to call a "what wall," actually is a "what game" case—they're busy playing kindergarten games maybe. Maybe

HISTORY OF DIANETICS
they're playing games from way back somewhere or another.
And we don't know why they're playing these games and they've forgotten, even, what games they are. If we go plumbing into it, we find out that strangely enough they're playing a game of one kind or another. A game called limp. Or a game called headache. Peculiar. It just gets snarled up, loses its direction. But we could catalog these disabilities just endlessly. In any month, in Dianetic and Scientology research, more phenomena has been cataloged than turned up in the history of almost one hundred years of psychology. Why?
I'll tell you why. Because the research and investigation started out basically to increase ability. And every time you try to increase ability some of these things which were disability would pop up and announce themselves and say, "Hey! Look how able I am. I can stop this preclear from remembering. When he tries to close his eyes and see, I can give him a black wall. When he tries to walk, I can hurt him. When he wants to hit somebody, I can make his chest hurt."
Phenomena. Phenomena. Phenomena. Phenomena. They wouldn't have turned up, don't you see, if we hadn't been going in a direction of ability. We're trying to discover ability, so naturally, disabilities continue to announce themselves and all the phenomena there is, actually, could be cataloged under disabilities. So you see the direction of research? Do you see why we got someplace in Dianetics and Scientology? We're going in the opposite direction. We just reverse things.
And instead of trying to write down, "The number of insanities are . . ." (fellow by the name of Kraepelin did this)—number of insanities are catalog, catalog, catalog, catalog, category, category, category, catalog, catalog, catalog, catalog, category, category, category and unclassified. It's real cute. That's the most enormous list you ever saw in your life.
It didn't get anybody on the road. Why? What was he doing? He was going around looking for disabilities, looking for disabilities, looking for more disabilities. And of course he'd find a disability; he'd simply fix on it because that's what a disability does—gets attention fixed or it unfixes your attention from everything. That's what a disability does. So research and investigation of disabilities would continually wind people up in trouble and with set ideas—with catalogs. It would wind them up with an enormous variety of disabilities, were they able to take their attention off the last disability they'd found. But they don't.
Let's get a case. He starts into examination of himself and he goes right straight along. He's doing fine, by the way, he's just swell. He's a hit at parties, he can play the piano with his shoes on, he can do all kinds of things. And he goes into his case on self-examination to discover what is wrong with him since the last five girls that threw him over has given him some clue there must be something wrong with him.
So he says, "Let's see, what's wrong with me?" And all of a sudden he turns his attention a little bit introverted and he hits some kind of a psychic trauma.
He wants to increase his ability, you see, and he hits this little trauma, and it says, "The thing that's wrong with you, Joe, is you're no good."
And he says, "Well, I'll look around and see what else I can find."
There goes your case, fixated on one idea. Everywhere he goes, he has that idea in front of his face. What happens, though, if you actually, actively start increasing his ability? His attention comes right off that circuit—ping! And of course, another one will pop up. You take his attention off that one,

81

82

28 DECEMBER 1954
another one will pop up. Off that one—another one. Off—another one!
This is the reaction of the mind going toward freedom. Freedom lies beyond barriers. And as soon as you start to go in the direction of freedom, you'll find some barriers. And the trick is not to stand around and look at these wonderful barriers inside the head.
Let's find out how able a fellow can be and how free he can be. And if we discover this, we will discover immediately why research and investigation in the field of Dianetics and Scientology will continue to expand—because the direction toward ability is the only direction it has ever really had. The more able we can make a person, the freer he is. The more dynamics he is surviving along, the more beingness he is. And so we are able, if we pursue ability. If we pursue disability, we are disabled.
And the first and foremost of these abilities is communication. But I will tell you all about that tomorrow.
Thank you.

 

A lecture given on 29 December 1954
Thank you.
And I'm trying to see if anyone was a casualty in the seminars.
Today we have a book to talk about: Dianetics 1955! We have summated in this book a small amount of material which was gathered at odd moments and which covers, as far as I can tell, man. This small subject and this small book very possibly will have a collision—I wouldn't doubt a bit—or if after they had read it, something happened.
Now, I want to tell you something about writing this book. Want to hear something about writing this book?
Audience: Yes.
Well, I started to write this book about twenty-so years ago. And I've been trying to write this book ever since. But a few things interfered. I see there are a couple of authors present. They can appreciate this.
People keep interrupting writers. They rush in and they say, "Where's the time payment for the furniture?" And the wife keeps coming in saying, "No shoes—none." And the federal government keeps coming in and saying, "Greetings." And a writer's studio begins to look like a couple of Grand Central Stations moving through each other.
And at last you decide you're going to work real hard and really get at this book, now. And you're really going to write it and you're really going to get there and so forth, and at that moment, why, they tell you you're bankrupt. The number of human beings that were pulled apart in order to make this book actually likens it a little bit better to a Roman circus. But it's perfectly safe to open now. No lions will jump out, but the fact of the matter is, that's only true if you don't read it.
The actual writing of this book was interrupted by such things as a publisher demanding that the text, which was the preliminary text to a good solution, be popular. Well, I don't know really how you could fail to be popular if you were showing somebody what he was all about. This is a very hard thing to do. But the first text had to be popular. If you'll notice, this book is very concise. It says what it says when it says it. And it is no masterpiece of literature. It is simply a lot of data strung together in such a way, hopefully, that when read, a minimum of catastrophe and a maximum of result will occur.
The actual writing of this particular volume, then, has quite a lot of history behind it, as I suppose you could say about any one of the volumes which have been written on Dianetics and Scientology. But this little book

83

84

29 DECEMBER 1954
here had to be written fairly rapidly in order to meet the congress date. And we had quite a time getting this book out.
It was rather fabulous —rather fabulous, the speed with which the actual words were thrown together. This had nothing to do with the slowness with which the notes were gotten together so that one could throw the words together. This took a long time to get the notes and the data together. The actual writing of the book was a very rapid affair. I know I kept going into my office for two or three days after I had finished—and two or three days, wondering where I had to start to complete the book. I couldn't get any reality on having finished it.
The book was written on a tape recorder—on a little Echo tape recorder, straight onto recorder and taken off by my secretary, and she took it off onto aluminum Multilith plates, just like that. I mean, there wasn't any interim transcription. And these aluminum Multilith plates simply went onto the Multilithograph and that kept spewing out pages which kept stacking up and the Hubbard Professional College people were under the belief that they were there to study.
But a few days later they had the definite impression that they were there simply to put these book pages together. And day after day, while people were putting up new barriers in my office, as though there weren't enough, I could see—I could see the HPC people in there walking around a table. Well, now you would—the way you collate one of these books is you have each separate page laid on a table, something like that, and then you get a parade of people, and they walk around the table, each one picks up a piece of paper into little packages, see. This was Opening Procedure 1955. (laughter)
And I want to thank the people for the actual production of this book. So, thank you very much. We had one copy immediately sent to London. And this copy is to be photolithographed in London to be ready for the January 16th Congress in London. And I hope they make that dateline over there with this book.
Well, it took a long time to write the book. Fortunately, it doesn't take very long to read it or to work with it. A very funny thing, however, is that no phenomena covered in the past, has ceased to be absent just because we've written a new book. You know, the overt act-motivator sequence is still there. Black and White phenomena is still there. Just because we wrote a new book, man didn't change.
To listen to some of our critics, we would come of the opinion that we're always discarding all the old data. It's not possible to discard all of the data, because it was arrived at by observation. And it was then compiled, observation having occurred. So the data did not get thrown away. But more intimate, more applicable data did get discovered which very often explained half a hundred phenomena which had been discovered before.
You see how that would work? You have a sort of a pyramid. And when you start out on that, here is a tremendous number of phenomena all unknown. No phenomena known, except that man walks, eats and seems to get into fights. He also seems to get sick and he also seems to read things like How to Win Friends and Influence People in an apathetic effort to do so.
Now, here we have tremendous quantities of unknown data. We take a look at that—all we'd have to do to start in on that is simply to start looking around at the people with whom we were connected and write down their eccentricities, their conversation and so on. And we would really have a book about man. You see that? Just by looking around in what our own private,

DIANETICS 1955!
personal experience was about man, why, we would then have a considerable fund of information.
A fellow by the name of Charles Dickens did this. Dickens described with great accuracy what he had learned as a young man in the streets and courts of London. But that was exactly what he was doing. He was observing man and writing about him. All right.
Now we get into a more technical echelon when we say, "What factors do these men, each one, hold in common with all these other men?" Well, we could write a big book about that. What factors do they do in common? We could say, well, they eat and they do this and they do that. Each one of them does this thing. And then describe how each one of them did it, demonstrating slight differences, but the fact that they all ate. And this we could consider quite conclusive. We have discovered that they all ate.
A fellow by the name of Sigmund Freud did this, only he wasn't talking about eating. And he observed that all men were engaged, one way or the other, on the second dynamic, or were trying not to be engaged. And he wrote a book about that and demonstrated that there was a common denominator.
Now whether or not this book did anything therapeutically—he wrote several books on this subject—whether it did anything therapeutically or not, we would not be prepared to say at this moment since the mere fact of talking to somebody about his illnesses will quite often produce a marked and beneficial result.
So you see, we don't know whether that survey was actually a terrifically beneficial survey beyond this point: He pointed up to the Western world the fact that such a thing as psychotherapy could exist independent of (1) surgery and (2) demon exorcism. He pointed that up. And he gave a hope to man that we had some possibility of arriving at a conclusive answer whereby man could understand his own problems and could regain some of the vitality which he thinks he has lost somewhere. All right.
We take another such survey conducted by one of his people. Let us say Jung or Adler, the squirrels of his day. And we find out that these people departed a little bit from reality and that they didn't intimately observe man. They weren't too interested in observing man. They were much more interested in, I don't know, stringing words together. Some of their literature is very, very good as literature but not very informative. The terrific difference that we get in all such studies and works is the introduction of too much art. You know, instead of data, instead of translation, interpretation, we get art.
If you want to read art at the extreme and information at the minimum, I invite you to read—I think it's a fellow by the name of Pope—Alexander Pope. I have a little volume of his work, and somebody somewhere back on the time track (it's a very old volume) has written, "Apathy, apathy, apathy," which I occasionally quote.
But even Alexander Pope said, "The proper study of mankind is man." That may or may not be right since the solution of man did not come about by too intimate a look at man but a look at man's relationship to life in general. And we found out man was alive too.
We then go across the pages of history and philosophy and we find that a great many people have been writing on this subject. But the oddity is, is the amount of benefit the writing has had has been in direct proportion to the amount of looking that was done. Thinking about this subject has been of very little benefit. Looking and observing and applying those theories which were formulated after observation has been of considerable benefit. That is a

85

86

29 DECEMBER 1954
singular difference in the work which we have at hand here. It was derived by observation, not by theory. The theory was derived after the observation had taken place—fascinating difference.
We get a slight difference between this work and the work of a fellow by the name of Zeno, who was one of the popular writers of the later Roman Empire. Zeno wrote a book called Apathia, where I think is where we get the word, or where we use it that way, and he said—he proved conclusively in this book—this book is all figure-figure. There isn't a single observation in the whole book. It's just figure, figure, figure, figure, figure. Think, think, think, think, think, bong. And he proved conclusively in this book that you can't win.
And his conclusion, and the philosophy which he gave his day, and which was bought by the Roman Empire, and which is overlooked as one of the factors by Gibbon who describes the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and attributes it to Christianity—Gibbon completely overlooked Zeno. He didn't pay any attention to Zeno. But how about a popular writer who proves conclusively that you can't win and then proves overwhelmingly that you mustn't even try, then. And that was Apathia of the later days of the Roman Empire. That's a figure-figure sort of a book.
Now, we get an observational study compared to a figure-figure study. And we'll see that the observational study has considerable benefit, and the thinkingness study, just pure ivory towers, has very little application.
Now, one Professor Wundt back in someplace in Europe, a little less than a hundred years ago, dreamed up the idea that the problems of man should have applied to them scientific methodology. And he invented a word called "psychology." That was very sound, wasn't it? He said that this is what should happen.
And then he didn't do it and no psychologist really has done it since. They've looked at rats, they've looked at college students but they've never looked at man. They live in a figure-figure of unreality. They collect statistics; they collect endless statistics. A statistic never told you anything except that some numbers were in front of you. That's about all a statistic will tell you.
Now, if I'm stepping on some toes when I say psychology has not gotten there, and when I say that psychology has not arrived simply because it didn't look, it only thought—I know I am stepping on some toes here and there across the world because there are very many sincere men have devoted a great deal of time and study in the field of psychology believing that they were resolving some of the problems of man. But psychology has been with us almost a century at this time, and the cure for psychosomatic illness, for back-wardsness in class, has yet to emerge from the field of psychology—which I think proves my point quite adequately. Having stepped on some toes, I now tromp.
Now, some people criticize us because Dianetics and Scientology have changed. They express a great deal of change. There's a great deal of vitality in them, and the factors alter from time to time and new conclusions are reached. The amount of change in a science is actually the test of the amount of life in that science, the amount of validity it has. Those things which have practically no validity never change. In this matter of change, here we have Freudian analysis released in 1894, practically completely unchanged to this day. In other words, sixty years here of an opportunity to change, and no change. That's fabulous.
Let's take a companion science to the humanities: nuclear physics. That never suffers from lack of change—never. And it's a very, very live science. The principles of physics are utilized today in almost everything that you contact.

DIANETICS 1955!
Any piece of transportation, clothing, food and so forth—all these things have a high dependency upon man's ability to understand the material universe through or via physics. And he is learning continually. Take chemistry. That is another live, very live science. And it is in a constant state of change.
Now we can joke about these things if we want to, but the fact of the matter is that where they do not go to war, where they do not assay a widespread destruction of man, these are very beneficial things. But the moment that they start to move in on the humanities and say, "Look, man is a gimmigahoogit that goes whip-whip whenever we punch the geeter button," they're out of order, they're out of place, because they have given themselves a license to use their weapons of destruction against man as they would use it against some old cars. Get the idea? The frame of reference is wrong.
They prove that they can use desperate weapons or develop them and so forth by proving that man is just a machine after all, and this gives them ample reason and excuse to go ahead and use these weapons against man. Just like nobody needs a license to blow up a wrecked car, you know, and smash it up further, so you wouldn't need any license to smash up man. And that is the rationale behind neurosurgery, electric shock and every other barbaric and despicable practice in which various personnel in this society happen to be engaged. "We don't have to respect the individual. We don't have to respect his rights. We don't have to do anything for him because after all, we know he's just a machine."
Well, there is the science of physics moving way out of order. Let's have physics for the matter, energy, space and time of this universe and let it be very content to handle these things and leave man strictly alone. Similarly, chemistry, to use a colloquialism: More boo-boos have been pulled in the field of healing by adapting chemistry to healing, than can easily be counted. These boo-boos started way, way back when we had patent medicine. Fellow used to come around with a banjo and a wagon and a big sign on the side of the wagon, and some white man fixed up like an Indian with a headdress, and that was Chief Wamgutta, and Chief Wamgutta was the chief of the Swamese and he had a special formula for swamproot oil which he was going to purvey for the small sum of a dollar a bottle, while Mr. Jinks played on the banjo. That was chemistry invading the field of the humanities. And I don't know that even when we look at the ads of Abbott or the claims of the AMA that we have departed any distance at all. Except now they do it through Reader's Digest. They don't paint the sign on the wagon anymore; they paint it on an advertisement.
Now I wouldn't hold ourselves open to libel, here, by mentioning the names of some of these organizations like Abbott or Lilly. I wouldn't say that these chemical organizations or these insurance companies like the AMA— the AMA, by the way, is an insurance company. That really wowed us the other day. We found that out—fantastic. The American Medical Association is an insurance company. That's what it is. We've often wondered what it was. Now we know. I won't say any more about that except four or five hours toward the end of the congress.
And we find that the invasion of chemistry into the field of psychotherapy or healing is, as the cowboy said as he fell off the horse, a bum steer. Now, wherever you think that the injection of a dozen molecules will utterly cure psychotherapy, you might as well take up crystal ballizing, because it has the same degree of validity. The theory that chemistry can resolve the problems of man is a bad theory because from the days of patent medicine, from the days

87

88

29 DECEMBER 1954
of herbs on forward till now, it has never been demonstrated to be true.
We read in the materia medica that cinchona bark is a cure for malaria, that it will prevent malaria—Peruvian bark. Must be: Somebody sold it to the king of France once for, I think, 250,000 louis (louis d'or). That much that formula was worth. That was in the days when they could have gold and when a louis bought something—not like now.
Now, cinchona bark, Atabrine, let down more of our troops in the last war than you could easily count in a ward. You could take this stuff and it made your ears ring, and of course if you've gotten malaria after that, it had to be classified as dengue fever because nobody can get malaria if he's full of cinchona bark. We call it quinine. That's been with us since sixteen-hundred-and-something and its curative powers have more or less run out in the race. Once upon a time, it might have been terrifically effective, but that isn't necessarily true today. And there is the liability of chemistry.
You find them doing this with penicillin. Penicillin at one time cured everything—just cured everything across the boards. All you had to do if you had hay fever was get a little shot of penicillin, your doctor told you, and you were fine. If you had a cold, if you had the flu (these, by the way, were not even evidently carried by bacteria but by virus, and penicillin was active against bacteria)—if you had the cold, if you had flu or if you had anything like that, well, all you had to do was get (shss-shss) a couple of shots of penicillin, (snap)—perfect. If you had a sore throat, why, put some penicillin in a lozenge, and suck it. But it says on all the bottles, "No topical application will prove efficacious." Those words are too large. It means don't put it on the surface of anything, it won't cure anything if you do that. So that's why they used it in lozenges to cure people's sore throats—won't work. And as the years have gone on, more and more bugs have simply crossed their arms purposefully and said, "Penicillin—ha-ha-ha!" Similarly, with sulfa.
You have a problem of life forms fighting life forms when you have the problem of fighting bacteria, and the one thing that life can do is to learn to accustom itself to and accommodate itself to any chemical. I imagine one of these days we will probably raise a race of people, if the physicist has his way of it, who are not affected at all by radioactivity. You know, go around with your ears glowing this far out. Life can accustom itself to chemistry. That's the big, big rule. It can always accustom itself, and so the fighting of one life aberration or form on the part of another life aberration or form with the weapon of molecules, molds, drugs and so on, is of course doomed.
We had a wonderful thing called DDT. And that was going to kill all the insects in the world. Before we went into Saipan we sent fighter pilots over with DDT tanks, sprayed the whole island. Nobody was going to suffer from malaria or other insect-borne diseases such as yaws and so on. Nobody, none of the ingoing troops were going to suffer from these things, so they just plastered the whole island with DDT and when the marines finally got ashore, bzzt-bang, bzzt-bang. Flies, flies, flies. And DDT today is so ineffective against insects, as far as flies and so forth are concerned, that you can just put a fly in a box of it and take him out. He feels fine! He says, "Thanks for the pick-me-up."
Any poison man has—any poison is really ineffective and will go up through the most astonishing thing you ever saw. It will come up to a point where it's a stimulant. Did you know all poisons would get into a category of merely being a stimulant? Strychnine, for instance, is—gotten to be a stimulant for many people. They take a spoonful of it a day.
Well, once upon a time the witches of Europe (an organization which was

DIANETICS 1955!
fighting the Roman Catholic Church—the witchcraft—and which lost) once took arsenic. And you know this old saw about the—you knew whether or not this fellow was a werewolf by the fact that when you opened up his grave, why, there he was evidently in the pink of health, and the only way to do for him was to drive a stake through his chest. You know that old superstition? Oh, dear, the Frankenstein-type movie should have taught you that.
Well, this old superstition was born straight out of the fact that the witches took arsenic. They'd take it in very, very small doses and they'd build up these doses and it actually made them proof against an enormous number of invading bacteria. See, it was a preventive—preventive medicine. Very many diseases, then, could be held by the public at large, but not by a witch. So they apparently lived a charmed life and of course after they died they'd been embalmed already. But a witch would get up to a point of where they could take a spoonful of arsenic, you know, "Yum-yum." Like the fly and the DDT—nothing to it, (slurp). Wonderful stuff!
Life can accustom itself to any chemical preparation or compound. So I guess that chemistry is kind of let out, sooner or later, isn't it, as a weapon? And Abbott and Lilly have to keep inventing new things in order for them to go on working. Well, if this is the case, then we would look into the field of function for any kind of an answer to illness, to misfunction, malfunction or even the combat between life form and life form. We'd look for another answer than chemistry; we'd look for another answer than physics. We'd look at life itself and try to understand something about that. And that is what we have done in Dianetics 1955!
One of the primary things that people have had difficulty accepting—oh, wait a minute, let me go back in some history. Well, if I told you the primary thing people had difficulty in accepting was a prenatal engram, we would sound right at home, wouldn't we? 1950. How often have you tried to tell somebody about a prenatal engram? Or have you quit long since?
Audience: Yes.
Yet a prenatal engram is there. There's a full recording on file of incidents which have occurred prior to birth. It's not very difficult to isolate them or demonstrate them. It's not very difficult to run them out with a considerable change in human form.
For instance, we had a fellow the other day as a preclear who was an astonishing example of somebody stuck at two months' postconception. He was right in that engram. I mean, he was in it! We didn't run it to date, but it was there. And the auditor and I had quite a talk—a research auditor—and he and I had quite a talk about this case. And we were trying to figure out exactly where this fellow was stuck on the track, just for old times' sake, not because it was any good to us in processing at all, but we were just trying to find out where he was stuck on the track. And all of a sudden it came through to us just about where he was stuck. Why? Because he had the physiological aspect of that particular form of life. He was there perfectly. All of his various functions and everything else that he was going through; they were stuck right there—bing!
Every time that we have had anything to do with cancer, for instance, we have found that the individual for one type of cancer was stuck in conception. For the other type of cancer was stuck in mitosis, which is the splitting of the cells. An individual, then, can dramatize one of these engrams. He can dramatize a prenatal, but we don't even bother to run them anymore—not because we can't run them and not because they aren't true but because we don't have to.

89

90

29 DECEMBER 1954
It's as easy as that. We don't have to run them anymore.
But this fact of the prenatal engram was tremendously unacceptable to one and all in spite of the fact that a few generations ago, it was the commonest belief imaginable that children were bad off when they had had a bad prenatal experience. This was a common belief. It is believed today by the farmer folk out from the big cities.
They say, "Well, little—little—little Tildie's not in very good shape, you know. Her Ma got an awful scare from that cow." And they believe this. And it's true. And if you as an auditor wanted to take this boy or this girl and run back down the track, all of a sudden the preclear would be telling you all about it being in the dark and being frightened because of some words, and something about a cow. You could find the incident. You could erase it—fantastic! Here was phenomena lying there waiting to be discovered, waiting to be looked for. And wherever we looked, we had no acceptance of this data.
It took a couple of years for this to leak through somebody's skull. And then we had original articles on the subject in Time magazine, the Ladies' Home Journal, Reader's Digest—from time to time have printed, without credit, anything they could think of on the subject of prenatals. This is a fascinating thing. They did accept these things eventually—mostly because they were true—long after we'd abandoned them. The conquered territory which we hold will someday be conquered even by medicine. I mean, we'll be far enough off of it and have abandoned it to that degree.
Now, wherever we have phenomena which is unacceptable, we get into a lot of argument, a lot of sputification and argumentation. And maybe this is fun in the drawing room, but if you were to get much closer to truth, theoretically, you would get into much less argument, wouldn't you? But this would only be true if your truth was agreement. In other words, if you had to do with what was agreed upon only, you'd never get in an argument, would you? Well, supposing something was once agreed upon and once true, and is still true but is no longer agreed upon? You're going to get in an argument. This is a certainty.
You once believed such and so, and so-and-so, and so-and-so, but that's not believed anymore. You'll get into an argument if you voice it. Such an example as that is that—the religious causes of once upon a time. Think of the pilgrims' argument on the subject of religion over in Europe and England. Well, let's say you were there. And you certainly believed very heavily and strongly. But if you stood up today and started to voice the principles of Calvin without the slightest variation from the words of Calvin, I'm afraid you'd be in an argument. You may not remember them, but you would probably be in an argument because they're no longer agreed upon. But they once were agreed upon and that agreement alone is what made them true. So, old agreements become new disagreements. All right.
We're not even any longer interested in the prenatal engram. Yet you could probably get in less or more of an argument today than before. There are some other data of that same magnitude. But first and foremost, there's this matter of the thetan exterior. That is a subject for argument. That is a subject for argument. As far as the public at large is concerned, it must be a subject for argument. Or is it?
Let me tell you something fascinating. A door-to-door survey demonstrated that a little less than half the people asked, knew they were themselves and not a body. Oh, you didn't know it was that general. Well, neither did we. These people knew they were themselves and not a body. They knew that they were a sort of an energy production unit of some kind or another, only

DIANETICS 1955!
they didn't quite know what or how, and they thought of themselves as being a soul which was inhabiting a body. This is incredible. This is a little—almost 50 percent—if you took the same average and if it were to hold, this would be 50 percent of the population believe they are their own souls. They are the soul which inhabits a body. Well, this is fantastic. If everybody believed this strongly, why didn't they ever talk about it? Why wasn't it ever mentioned in church?
Yet the church itself couldn't believe this. You know why? Because it talks in such terms as you hear from some very spinny preclear who, when he thinks he's exteriorized, tells you,"I'm over there"You got that one?"I'm over there." Because the church says, "You have to save your soul," see. You are over there. And yet not quite 50 percent of the population, according to this survey, knew they were their own souls. And it wouldn't—couldn't possibly be a question of saving their souls. You see, it would be to them a question of saving their bodies which I think religion has specialized in for a long time. Since every punishment they level is not really in the direction of a soul but in the direction of a body. Burning at the stake, chaining in a dungeon, penance, drag yourself some sackcloth and ashes, push a peanut around the block or whatever religious punishment is assigned, is addressed to the body, not the soul. So I don't think religion has believed in the soul at all. And I don't think it knew anything about it. I've had access to a tremendous number of publications for the instruction of such things as Catholic priests, and nowhere in there did I find the words, "Be three feet back of your head."
But I found a lot about bodies, a lot about chastisement and "You've got to convince the congregation that they must save their souls." This is one of those twisted statements. It can't even be made, really. They've got to save their souls. And yet at death, they believe in the departure of a soul in some particular direction—or they used to.
Now, where and how do we have some sense out of that particular muddle? We didn't even want to go into the field of religion. We weren't even interested in going into the field of religion. What education I've had and you've had on the subject of religion was mostly bad. We have been taught to a very marked degree that religion is a mechanism by which a public can be better controlled. Haven't we?
Audience: Yes.
This we have been thoroughly educated into.
Let us take the situation in England a few years ago. We had the Roman Catholic Church lording it in all directions and being overthrown by a popular revolt just to get rid of that particular religion, and then we got the Church of England. All right.
Now as we get this new factor, it starts to collect tithes in all directions. And it didn't get overthrown by popular revolt; it got overthrown by neglect, if it's been overthrown. But it's not a popular subject anymore. It isn't anything anybody even thinks about anymore to amount to anything. "Am I going to heaven? Am I going to hell?" This is not a pressing problem to most people.
You walk down the street, you probably wouldn't get an extra heartbeat out of anybody if you suddenly stopped him and asked him, "Now, brother, are you really sure that you're going to heaven?"
He'd say, "Ha-ha-ha-ha." He's not worried about this old story.
The spiritualist, with his astral walking, his collection of spirits; his—the magician with his—and by the way, there are a very few people know very much about the basic magician. They think in terms of the stage magician.

91

92

29 DECEMBER 1954
But the actual mission of the magician is to make various circles and designs and incantations and by various practices, control and bend to his will, spirits who then go forth and do his bidding. And that is the basic practice called magic.
Nowadays, why, they take a rabbit out of the hat. They say, "See, a spirit"—put it back in. The practice of spiritualism has been almost entirely swept out of existence by charlatanism. They get somebody who's just lost the dearly beloved departed. They bring him in and for a couple of quick bucks they: "Hocus-pocus, we have a message, now, from your dear departed—says, 'Dear Maggie, I am happy here. Joe.' " And if the spiritualist is a good forger, it's even Joe's handwriting.
And by these practices, the field of spiritualism has become debased whereas maybe once upon a time, maybe in Greek times, there was something to spiritualism—might have been something to it. And so we look to find that man has abandoned the three fields, religion, spiritualism and magic, which were most closely acquainted with the idea that man was basically a spirit. See, these three fields had that very intimately. And man has now put those pretty well into the past. He's gotten them nicely forgotten. And all of a sudden, we come along and we say, "Be three feet back of your head"—the fellow is.
And we say, "Okay. What are you looking at?"
He says so and so, "It's a big black wall."
You say, "Copy. Copy it. Copy it. Copy it. Push them all together and pull them in."
The next thing you know, this fellow who was on crutches, this girl whose endocrine system was all out of balance, this person who couldn't live with his fellow man, is just doing beautifully. You know, he's just doing fine. Looks to me like the road out was booby-trapped one way or the other. Looks to me, with design or without design, that somebody had an intention that man necessarily—wasn't necessarily going to get free, if we find the three fields most intimately connected with the right answer to be entirely debased and discredited as of now. That's interesting, isn't it?
How did he ever get into a state where he completely lost his own concept of his own beingness and his ability to handle his beingness and identity and individuality? Well, it must have been too wild a game for him as long as he knew as much as he knew about himself. And so he probably managed to forget it all.
But here we have a controversial point which appears and stares at us out of Dianetics 1955! In Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, we were perfectly willing to accept the idea of a Clear and his abilities—perfectly willing to. And yet a little later on, when the actual measurement of a Clear— how many millimeters wide is a Clear—when the actual measurement of a Clear was announced, people got nervous. They didn't quite like the idea. They didn't quite mesh with this one.
And yet what had happened? All that had happened is the fact that the Clear had been dimensionalized and located and further described in Scientology. The thetan exterior and the Dianetic Clear are exactly the same thing. There is no slightest difference between the two except the thetan exterior, developed by the processes of Scientology, is achieved without erasing every facsimile and engram in the bank.
Therefore, what has occurred today? The goal which we all knew was a good goal in 1950 has been achieved without the necessity of erasing eight billion, seven hundred and sixty thousand, nine hundred and forty-three,

DIANETICS 1955!
cubed, engrams. And this is not a bad achievement—not bad.
By discovering that the individual and his individuality was that thing which produced the energy which made the facsimile—gave us, then, the working basis that it was not necessary to take this individual and erase everything which barriered him. It was only necessary to take this individual and teach him how to handle barriers. And the moment he knew how to handle barriers, the moment we have processed him in the direction of ability, as I've already talked to you about, we could then have a Clear without any further ado. Well, the longest time I know of that it has taken a good auditor with modern processes, given in detail in Dianetics 1955! has been one hundred and fifty hours with a terribly rough case. That is the longest on record.
We have made an awful lot of Clears with the material in Dianetics 1955! And the longest period of time has been a hundred and fifty hours. Wouldn't that have been a terrific thing in 1950? Think of it, 1950: We'd said it, "The maximum we could look forward to in the making of a Clear is a hundred and fifty hours." You wouldn't have believed me—no more than you do now.
We have this liability in the idea of the Clear, in the thetan exterior—we have this liability, and the only liability there is this: it makes people sick at their stomach to look at nothing and makes a certain amount of people actually violently ill to look at the idea of having nothing. And so when we say to them, "The Clear is a thetan exterior"; when we say to them, "All you have to be is three feet back of your head and run your body from behind you; all you have to do if you want energy is to make some," they say, "Bluaaahh."
Now, I'll give you a demonstration of this that you can do and that you can use that will show to you intimately and immediately why certain people object to this idea of the Clear. You take somebody who doesn't look to you like he's easily exteriorizable. You know, take somebody who looks like he'd be your kind of a rough case. You know, got a lo—lo—lot of—lot of comm lag, ga— ga—got a lot of b—b—you know, barriers. Take somebody like that and you say, "Locate a spot in the air of this room."
He'll say, "All right."
You say, "Put your finger on it."
He'll say, "All right."
"Okay. Now locate another spot in the space of this room."
"All right. I'm getting sick."
And about four spots later, he'll be sick. He'll be sick at his stomach at least, and probably in terror, if you kept up this, just, "Spot spots" without doing another thing. And that tells you immediately, if you want to conduct that experiment, you will see just exactly what I'm talking about. You make this fellow locate these spots in the space of the room, you make him do it for a while, you don't remedy any havingness, you don't do anything else with him, you see, and you will find out why he argued with you before about a thetan exterior. You've made this person visualize something sitting in thin air without any mass.
And the moment that you made him visualize a spot without mass, the thetan exterior (the Clear), he got sick when you did it on processing. Only when you didn't process it, when you were just talking about this, this guy got the queasy idea and he just started to enter into that feeling of queasiness and illness, you know, and he backed right off of it, and then he said there isn't any such thing. And he said this rapidly and he said it hard and he hoped that you would argue back real hard, so as to, by this counter of terminals, give him some more havingness quick! Because the way he could get havingness was to

93

94

29 DECEMBER 1954
have a fight with you. And that's the only little barrier there is on relaying the idea of a thetan exterior.
Now, those people who do not exteriorize easily, and who when they are exteriorized a little bit, sort of yo-yo and don't stay out very much, are still having this same trouble. They've gotten completely entrapped and into the idea that it'd be impossible to have nothing.
Yet, if you just ran somebody on the concept—we don't run concepts anymore, but this is just experimental—and you said, "Get the idea that you have a perfect right to have nothing. Get the idea again. Get it again. Get it again. Get it again," he'd all of a sudden start to heave a sigh of relief.
"(sigh) You mean I don't—I don't have to work? I—I don't have to get a paycheck? You mean—you mean I wouldn't have to live up to the fact that I was supposed to be a great painter? You mean I have a perfect right to be nothing, too? You mean I don't have to amount to anything in life? How wonderful!" Because he's entirely sold in the other direction.
Now, what if a man did have the right to be nothing and to have nothing? He'd probably be a very busy and efficient person because the obsession to be, the obsession to have, are the only destructive factors there could be—the obsessive part of it. He's doing something unknowingly and unwittingly. All right.
Dianetics 1955! talks about the Clear and goes forward immediately into making one. Actually, you'd have to know more about it to make something that we call an Operating Thetan. That's another book.
But as far as making anything that we conceive to be desirable in the terms of a Clear, in 1950, the answers are in Dianetics 1955! and they work. And I leave that up to you to discover, to look over, to use and to find out. Now, I have no doubt that you will.
Many things have been discovered. Many things that are quite old to us have been rehashed and looked over again, but the main thing that has come out into the clear is the ability to make a Clear. And what Dianetics 1955! does is to clarify how one does it and makes it possible for all of these hard times we've been having with cases to be over, so we can have easy times with them now.
And that is the purpose and basic theme of this book.
Thank you.

 

A lecture given on 29 December 1954
You want some data?
Audience: Yes.
Want a chart, too?
Audience: Yes.
Female voice: We want anything you'll give us. (laughter)
This lecture is on the subject of communication, which has to do with the text in Dianetics 1955! and which clarifies something we have known about for a very, very long time—the ARC triangle.
Now, you know about that ARC triangle: affinity, reality and communication. This triangle was first conceived in July of 1950.
I was being audited at the time and I all of a sudden said, "There's an awful lot to do between affinity and reality—and a—terrific amount." I sat up and went back into session again and I said, "Communication has a lot to do with affinity and reality."
Well, we walked around with this one for days. I tried to find some other factor that probably fitted in here. Affinity, reality and communication went together, and there must be something else went in there, but there wasn't anything that's gone in there. There's just that triangle. And here, four years later: affinity, reality and communication—still the triangle.
Now, that triangle is a very, very simple triangle. A very basic statement of it is that—have you ever tried to communicate with somebody for whom you felt no affinity at all? And have you ever tried to communicate with somebody with whom you had no agreement of any kind whatsoever? And have you ever tried to reach an agreement with anybody you couldn't communicate with? And have you ever tried to communicate with anybody who didn't feel any affinity for anything?
Well, it's sort of obvious, isn't it, that these three factors must be present for interpersonal relations to occur. Well, if this is the case, then a great deal about life is probably contained in this triangle.
Now, I never came out flat-footed and said one corner of this triangle was more important than another, until now. The most important corner of the triangle has been isolated and understood much better, and that corner is communication.
And communication is so, so superior to reality and agreement, and is so superior to affinity, that by communication alone, reality and affinity occur— fascinating. By communication alone, reality and affinity or some degree of, occur.

95

96

29 DECEMBER 1954
And by affinity alone, nothing happens. And by reality or agreement alone, nothing happens.
Now, as an example of the nothingness which occurs when you only have reality, let us take the fate of a contract. The contract is the basis of a social agreement. It is the social agreement, you see, expressed in relatively solid form. And it's expressed in solid form in the hope that it will continue along the time track and continue to be a communication. And that is why a contract is so expressed. But if this is the case, and if agreement all by itself could stand or were very important, then we'd never have a court of law.
The contract is there, it's signed, and then communication between the two parties cease—ceases, and they go out of agreement. And the fate of a contract is almost always litigation. Because a contract is an effort to maintain an agreement without further communication. And it won't work. And so we have courts.
The court is a necessary communication terminal when a contract has been signed too long. And the inevitable fate of any agreement where communication becomes absent is to cease, quit and go out of existence.
And where you have two contracting parties, the first thing they start complaining about is communication. They've contracted about this and that, and you'll find inevitably that the next thing they start arguing about is the fact that they're out of communication on something.
Contract: the one party is out of communication with the account books of the other party. And he wants to get into communication with these account books to find out how much he's being gypped. Or they want to get into communication to modify the contract. Or somebody wants to get out of communication so he won't have to follow the contract.
Now, let's take citizenship and the criminal. Citizenship is a contract no matter how the state likes to look upon it. Citizenship is a contract entered a—R into—between the individual and the group. And this individual declares himself to be a party to a contract known as citizenship.
And when he's no longer willing to carry forward his part of the contract, all he can think of is to get out of communication with the group—the criminal. All that a criminality is, you might say, is the abrogation of the contract of citizenship.
And if the group goes into communication again with the criminal, we discover he becomes less criminal. But when a group goes out of communication with an individual, we get the individual going into a criminality.
Whether or not that criminality is that of a Hitler, or Greek tyrant— when the individual is pulled away from by the group, when communication is broken between the individual and the group—that individual goes out of communication with the group. And thus we get the queer acts and the strange things done by the leaders of people. They go out of communication with the group.
Marie Antoinette rides along in her carriage and says, "You say, 'They're short on bread.' Well, let them eat cake." Then somebody comes along and cuts off some heads.
It could be said that the effort of a society to handle criminality by imprisonment is simply a dramatization of keeping the individual out of communication with the group.
And the jailing of the criminal will never resolve anything. And the insistence of the group that it remain out of communication with a leader or a military conqueror will never resolve that person's aims and goals or make them more real to the group.

COMMUNICATION AND ARC
It's a fascinating fact that where communication ceases, reality and affinity cease. This is so much the case, that if you at this moment were to go off and leave your body utterly and completely, cutting all lines on all dynamics, considering the body was your only communication media, you probably wouldn't have any memory at all of what you'd been doing or how you'd been doing it, or who you know. Why?
You depended upon a certain thing to be a communication media and this is no longer the media, and so the reality and the affinity cease, and when you say reality and affinity, you say memory.
Memory is the effort to communicate with the past. And memory is a very, very frail thing because when the past is no longer there, when there's nothing there to communicate with at all, and while the individual still believes that he has to have something in order to communicate with something, we get a difficulty. We also get the facsimile.
An individual's effort to communicate with his own past is the facsimile, the engram. The individual's effort to break communication with the past reverses reality and affinity. And an individual is as bad off as he is attempting to break communication with the past.
Hence, Freud's fixation upon the past; hence, the fixation of many philosophers upon the past, and so on. Their effort is to get into communication with the past in the belief that if you could permit somebody to get into communication with the past or if he would permit himself to get into communication with the past, he would get in far better condition. He'd be more able.
This effort to communicate with the past rather leaves out of existence the present. And people can become so frantic and so fixated on the idea of communicating with the past, that they'll leave the present entirely disregarded. And so they will go back into time. By doing what?
They made a facsimile of something, knowing they wouldn't have it the next moment, and now they say this facsimile, this image picture, this memory picture, is the thing. And if it is the thing, then they believe, when it goes into restimulation later, that they are in the past.
They are not in the past. They are wrapped up in a picture or terminal of the past. Hence, we have an old man's fixation upon youth. He's trying to pick up those terminals in the past. He hopes there are some there. People make these facsimiles just to have a terminal in the past. They want something to communicate with.
Well, if this is the case, then it must be that there's a scarcity of something in the present to communicate with. Well, if you don't think that wall is there, of course you have a scarcity of something in the present to communicate with and much more important than that, if you don't think anybody else is alive but yourself, you have nothing to communicate with and so couldn't be anyplace else but into the past.
So where an individual suffers from a lack of interpersonal relations or interpersonal communications, where an individual is no longer free to go out and talk to anybody he meets or to have a lot of people to talk to, he of course has a tendency to believe that this has become so scarce that he has to start making pictures of everything he really contacts. So he contacts Joe, and he makes a picture of Joe.
Later on, in the many hours ensuing, he feels—Joe's gone, you see. Joe is way away. Joe is really gone. He's miles away or blocks away or something. He's no longer communicating with Joe. Therefore, he will take this picture of

97

98

29 DECEMBER 1954
Joe or just the knowingness memory of what Joe said, you see. And he'll think, "Well, little old Joe is really right."
Of course, if he's away from Joe a week or two, he'll think, "Old Joe is probably wrong." Get the idea? But he'll get these pictures, and he'll use these pictures as substitutes for actual communication.
In the entire mechanism of the mind, in making and then picking up again facsimiles, image pictures, engrams, is its belief that there is a scarcity of things with which to communicate in the present.
Thus, we find a desert rat in not too good a condition. If he talks at all, it's probably to his burro. I can almost index the sanity of a desert rat by finding out whether or not he has a burro—something to talk to.
Now, after a while, an individual starts talking to himself. You wouldn't credit that in the middle of New York City there could be an absence of people with which to communicate—yet there are. I have lived in an apartment house on Riverside Drive and not known the names of the people who lived in the apartments on either side, or the floor above or the floor below. Knew nothing about these people whatsoever—fantastic.
We went into communication, though, one day. This was back in the old days when this fellow, Hitler, was yow-yow-yowing and l.5ing at the German people and saying, "The German, he is separate from the rest of the world. He is different. He is a superman. He is a superman. He is a superman. He is a superman. He can't go into communication with the rest of Europe. He can't go into communication, so he has to kill everybody." Nice philosophy, but not entirely workable from the standpoint of the other people.
So, every afternoon I'd sit down to put in a period of writing—I'd sit down and write on my typewriter, bangety-bang. I was running a big electric, and it had spark gaps that acted something like one of the old spark transmitters. And every time I'd press a key, why, we'd have a large gap occur in there, you know. And the people next door turned me in to the New York light company to trace down this static which was occurring.
And I had been aware sometime previously, fascinatingly aware, of the fact that Hitler was talking around in that building somewhere. You could hear this, "Yow, yow, yow. Mein garbage. Mein herring." And however, when I'd turn on the electric typewriter, of course, that made enough noise to drown out anything, even Hitler.
So they turned me in, and the next thing I knew, why, the light company was knocking on the door with their cute little radio detector device—a little radio detector device, a little antenna coming out of it—and they says, "Aha!" As soon as they brought it near the typewriter, why, the dial went clang, clang, clang.
And I said, "Well, that's right. I write on this typewriter."
And they said, "Well, you'll have to get a spark suppressor and hook it up to the typewriter so that this won't happen anymore."
So, I did, at vast cost—a couple of bucks. And was able to suppress this. But, I hadn't realized it but that typewriter during my writing hours with its spark gap had been keeping off the shortwave program of Herr Hitler every afternoon. And now that I had the typewriter dumb, "mein herring, mein garbage" was into my apartment with many decibels.
So, I bought an electric razor and every time I would hear "mein herring," I would shave him.
The electric light company came many times to the door with their little antenna and found nothing—spark suppressor okay, everything okay.

COMMUNICATION AND ARC
And one day I was walking out in the hall and a fellow who was a refugee from Germany because of his race met me there, just going into his apartment. And he says, "Please," he says, "you are making us miss all the programs."
And I said, "Why don't you listen to some American programs?" New thought—clang!
This man had fled that many miles, clear across an ocean, and was yet so fixated on the thing which had turned him out of his homeland that he had to go on listening to it. How's this for a circuit? He couldn't abandon Hitler's voice.
Well, I talked to him. I was the first person, except the immigration officers, he'd talked to in America. We had gotten into communication. How? Spark gaps and electric razors. And although we were very mad at each other and he was very mad at me and I was very mad at him, the anger just disappeared when we got to talking about the whole thing.
And you will find it is the case with man, if you can just get him to communicate with man, that the anger against man ceases.
What, then, are we doing putting a criminal in a cell? We know that this system, first adopted in Philadelphia in 1825, has never worked and was abandoned after it was first tried, and was subsequently reassumed, and that every state and most of the nations of Earth have adopted this system of putting the criminal out of communication with the society in the silly attempt to make him non-aberrative to the society, whereas the only salvation at all along this line would be to go into communication with him in some fashion or another.
And so it is with a preclear. A preclear's been locked up in a little prison called a skull—out of communication on all sides. And his anger against his— man, his anger against himself, against his body, turns in on himself and he gets sick. And there's no reason he gets sick other than this one reason.
He's even stopped communicating with his body. He's communicating with himself if he's communicating at all. He's a sort of a desert rat walking around without a burro, even. At least a desert rat with a burro talks to the burro. This individual for a while talked to his body. You know? He said, "Foot, what are you doing, itching?" You know? He said, "Well, I don't know. I guess I'll—my fingernails look pretty good now. You look pretty good, don't you." You know?
After a while, as a energy production unit, mired down in a lot of energy, he was talking in circuits to himself. He would send out a communication impulse and bring it back into his skull again. The communication impulses which went out came right home again.
But he had to have some terminal to talk to of some kind or another so he'd talk to terminals of his own manufacture. And thus we get circuits, thus we get voices or silences or blacknesses that we find in people's heads. They are communication points, in absence of communication points. They are substitute communication points. That's all there is to it. That's all there is to aberration. It's really as simple as that.
It isn't that he is mad at the world or that he is in disagreement with the world. It's that he's out of communication with the world.
Now, you as an auditor sit down. You start to talk to this man. He's talking to somebody about a rather intimate thing: his personality, his ability, his disabilities. And simply talking to somebody is a benefit. So we have two-way communication as a process. Simply talking to somebody is a benefit. And if there was any benefit to psychoanalysis, it was just that. He could talk to somebody. You see how the therapy of this would work itself out?

99

100

29 DECEMBER 1954
He would start abandoning these set-up, mocked-up terminals to the degree that he actually had somebody to talk to. And so there would be some tiny, small workability in any process which just let a guy talk. That's all. I mean, if he could just be permitted to talk and he could get an answer now and then, that would be fine.
It's like the old lady I knew of that had a husband who would be put in a little rocking chair with a shawl wrapped around him, and he'd be taken off to bed every night, and every morning she'd put him back in this rocking chair. He never said a word or anything. But he was at least, she said, something alive around the house. All right. How much better—how much better it would have been instead of something which potentially could talk, he had actually talked to her occasionally. Why, then, she would have been perfectly happy about it.
Now, you are told when you're young that silence is golden. Huh! I don't know who's responsible for that. I'd like to get the guy. I have a Mauser bullet with his name on it (laughter) because he's the fellow that's causing us an awful lot of trouble. Silence is so far from golden, that if you hit it, it gives an awfully brassy sound.
They teach children it is better to be seen than heard. Somebody is so far out of communication, evidently, they can't stand the thought of being in communication. You see that? How it could invert? The individual gets to a point at last where he doesn't desire any further terminal. He knows they don't exist and when they come in and they say, "Look, I exist. I'm a terminal," they say, "Ah, I know better. This is all unreality and hallucination. Be quiet. Silence is golden."
We used to have a little legend in school,
"A wise old owl sat in an oak,
The more he saw the less he spoke;
The less he spoke the more he heard,
Why can't we all be like that bird?"
You remember that one?
Audience: Yes.
Well, give it the bird, will you? (laughter) Not true!
Now, you wouldn't think in a city like New York City that I just told you about before, that somebody could sit there having arrived in America, and be entirely out of communication with everybody in America to such a degree that he could only sit listening to the person who had driven him out of his home country. It was at least a communication terminal.
See, he could still listen to Hitler anyhow. Hitler was somebody who was talking. And that is the motto of life: Somebody talking is better than nobody talking. And anything talking is better than nothing talking. Get the idea?
But after it goes completely out of reality and it goes out of affinity with the world, it doesn't believe anymore that there's anybody that could talk to, or with. And so, of course, nobody exists anymore. And everything looks sort of unreal. And there's nobody to talk to, or with. So they go around muttering at their circuits which mutter at them.
I've known fellows, every time they accomplished something, a little voice jumped up and said, "Heh, heh, heh, heh. You think you're pretty smart, don't you? Heh, heh"—little voice. And some fellow that, after he'd think of a good idea, why, a little voice would pop up and say—or a little idea would occur, "Well, you might think it's good, but..."
Well, just chalk it up to this: there's no significance in this, other than the

COMMUNICATION AND ARC
fact it's better to have some communication than no communication. If it came to a choice between no communication at all and a scathingly critical circuit, take the circuit. See how it works? All right.
We get somebody that's been moved all over the world, who has lost many friends, he gets into a state of unreality after a while. He doesn't believe there's anybody to talk to anymore. You'll find many people are in this condition. They have lost so many friends, they've lost so many allies, they've lost so many things they did think were good to communicate with, that they can no longer communicate at all. And they just drop out of communication. And you'll get what is known as a comm lag. Well, a comm lag might as well be called an agreement lag.
A communication lag is a technical thing. It is the length of time intervening between the making of a statement or asking of a question, and the answer to that statement or question. It is exactly that time regardless of what happens in between. It isn't necessarily silent in between.
The person might talk about something else. He might answer some other question. He might just talk completely disrelatedly or he might try to get the semantics straight on the question that was asked. That's another communication lag, you see. He didn't answer the question or answer the statement made. So a communication lag of ten seconds would be as follows:
The fellow says—you walk up to this fellow and you say, "Hello."
(pause) He says, "Hello."
You get that? That's a communication lag of ten seconds.
This is also a communication lag of ten seconds: You walk up to the fellow and say, "Hello."
And he looks at you, "Huh! What have you got on? What are you doing? Oh, uh, how are you?"
See, that's also a communication lag of ten seconds. See, other things intervene between the thing. But no matter what intervenes, it's a communication lag of that many seconds, minutes or hours.
Now don't think you can have communication lags only of minutes. We have seen them of 150 hours. Communication lags can be real long.
Did you ever walk up to some fellow and say, "How are you?" And he said, "I'm fine." And then an hour and a half later, apparently just from no reason whatsoever, this fellow says to you, "You know, I feel terrible."
A social machine jumped up and said, "I'm fine." And he himself got the question and got to thinking it over and pushed it through enough circuits, filters, resistors, transistors and tubes, and got it back to a point where he really did get an assay of his beingness at the moment, and finally did get the answer sorted out that he felt terrible. And then he gave you the answer.
Well, there's such a thing as shock as a communication lag. Individual gets in an automobile accident, jumps up right after the accident, carries out the four other people hurt, puts them in the ambulance, fills in all the papers for the police, so forth, goes home and all of a sudden says, "Nyaaa!" That's a communication lag in another line.
But to an auditor it just means this: It's the length of time, regardless of what occurs in between the making of a statement or question, and the answer to that exact statement or question.
And it could be said that the physical universe is itself simply one long communication lag. You probably at the beginning of the physical universe said, "Hello" to somebody, and you're still waiting for him to say, "Hello" back.
The only reason anybody gets stuck in a trap is a communication lag—

101

102

29 DECEMBER 1954
lack of an answer, or lack of an originated communication.
He snaps terminals on everything that doesn't talk. Isn't that interesting? It couldn't be that somebody wanted you to stay in school when they said, "A wise old owl sat in a golden apple." They couldn't have wanted you to stick on something, could they have? One of the reasons people teach you out of books is because if they taught you live, it would be fun. All right.
So this is a communication lag at work. Well, let's take that communication lag and translate it over to another corner of this triangle.
Here we have chart 1. [See chart 1 in appendix] We have here, communication, reality, affinity.
Now, if we have a lag in time here, [tapping on chart] then there's probably a lag in time here and probably a lag in time here. Did you ever meet anybody that you liked right away when you talked to them? Well, that would be a no affinity-lag.
Do you know there are people around who, you bring up somebody's name, and you say, "Well, Bill," one fellow says, "Yeah, frmmm-drrr-frmmmm-zruhhh-da-zuh-zit. Yeah, um—Bill—um—yes. Sorry, I haven't met him, as a matter of fact, so-and-so and so-and-so. Bill, you know, zuh . . ." you go on and he talks this way, and so on, "(sigh) Well, he isn't such a bad fellow, I guess."
If you kept at it for a little while talking to him about Bill, he would finally come through and say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know Bill, nice fellow."
That's a fact, you see. That's an affinity lag—an affinity lag. Now, how about this fellow that only really likes people he's known for a long time? Just an affinity lag, that's all it is.
Well, what about this reality lag up here? Must be something about reality, and there is. Reality lag is known as a judicial answer. It is the decision which has to be reached after the weighing of a great deal of evidence. That's a reality lag. Do you see it as a reality lag? In other words, the answer, the solution or a reality on an agreement is only obtainable after an awful lot of yak-yak and walla-walla.
The fellow who is being impartial, who is waiting to see, who is waiting to find out, who always depends upon his impartial opinion as a guiding light, is crazy!
Therefore, when you have Professor Whoomfguttle writing and saying, "Well, I don't know, but according to Professor Whampfguttle writing in the Whampf Journal some years ago, he said . . . But of course there's always Professor Dud .. ." and so on. And when you read columns of this kind of thing, you're not reading any reality or agreement, believe me. It has nothing to do with reality. All right.
So we have here communication instantaneous, reality instantaneous and affinity instantaneous in order to obtain an instantaneous reaction from life or to have no time lag in reaction.
If we had an individual in fine shape and an individual who really could drive a jet plane, his communication lag would be zero, he could make his decision immediately and instantly, and his affinity for the world and things around him would be instantaneous. And that individual could then drive a jet plane better than anybody else could drive a jet plane if they didn't have these figures.
Now, why is it that a combat pilot has more accidents than a transport pilot? Is there any relationship between these two things?
You bet there is. A combat pilot is taught to hate. He's taught to stay out of communication. He's taught to destroy and he's taught to kill. And what do

COMMUNICATION AND ARC
you think that does with his A? And that's why he has wrecks. And that's why military equipment is so hard to maintain. Decision cannot exist in the absence of affinity—good decision.
So we can't have the standard villain of fiction. He doesn't exist—this standard villain of fiction. He is something that has been put off upon the world and the public by writers such as a couple in the audience and myself.
This cold, calculating, inevitably and always right villain does not exist. If he is cold and calculating, his A is missing. And if that affinity is missing, R, the ability to make a decision, is also missing. And so the decisions he makes will most often be wrong decisions. And there goes this villain—Dick Tracy's stock in trade.
If a detective has a hard time solving the activities of criminals, it's because the detective is stupid because there's nothing quite as stupid as a criminal—unless it's a general.
Now that triangle contains in it a tremendous number of answers, but the key to all of its answers, really, is communication. If you can get anybody into communication of whatever kind or how, you will inevitably improve his decision and improve his love of his fellow man.
Therefore, you could say any kind of communication is better than no communication. And you can bless your preclear for at least having a few circuits. If he had none at all, he'd be entirely out of communication and he'd be very overt in his hatred or completely dead.
How dead can a person be? Entirely out of communication.
Somebody said one time, also in an effort to misinform the young—that, by the way is quite a game: the misinforming of the young. They have a club, I think, of fellows who sit around and dream up answers—it's right next door to the physicists club—who dream up answers on how to destroy soldiers and how to misinform the young. And they say, "Well, we'll invent spelling."
Sometime after preclears have gotten fairly well up the track, you ought to go back and find out where they first became concerned with such things as spelling—just as an adventure. You'll find out that it was after Shakespeare's day. Shakespeare wasn't even vaguely concerned with spelling. The boys who sat around the Swan used to have an interesting contest: You were as bright as you could spell a word differently.
Well, this information would be very interesting if it were just information but it's just a little bit more than information. Out of it comes applicable formulas. And we discover, then, that of all these factors, an isolation of each one, of all these factors, the most important scarcity there could be, would be communication—not communication terminals. The most important scarcity would simply be communication—not even communication sounds but communication ideas. The idea of something alive communicating, whether it has mass or has no mass, is the most important datum to be derived out of all this material.
Now, let's take a good look here, chart 2, [See chart 2 in appendix] and let's draw a communication.
Here would be one lobe of a communication, and this would be "A." [LRH drawing on chart] All right.
Now, this lobe starts in over here with a fellow by the name of Bill. [LRH drawing]
Bill says, "How are you?" And he's talking to a fellow by the name of Joe. So we have Joe over here as something alive to be communicated to. He's something alive to be communicated to. But at this point of the curve, Joe's

103

104

29 DECEMBER 1954
total action is being a recipient of the communication. You actually at this point have cause. And you have here distance. And over here you have effect. So we have cause, distance, effect there but we don't have a really complete communication yet because we've got to have, in order to have a full cycle of communication, we have to have Joe answer.
So we get Joe prime. And Joe prime says, "I'm okay." But we haven't got a full cycle yet, because who does he say "I'm okay" to?
He doesn't say to this Bill here who is emanating, "How are you"—"I'm okay." We have to have time in there: Bill is now Bill prime.
So, he says, "I'm okay."
We've got to have Bill prime over here acknowledge the fact that he has received the answer and so we've got our second line of cause, distance, effect. Only this is cause prime and this is effect prime.
So we've got a full cycle of communication and it went this way:
Bill here says, "How are you?"
Joe receives it, and then Joe prime answering says, "I'm okay."
And Bill prime just nods, you know, he gives some signal that he's received it. All right.
But that isn't a complete communication yet. That is not a complete communication yet. Let's look at what has to happen to have a really complete communication here.
In graph B, we've got Bill here. Joe communicates to Bill, and in his turn says, "How are you?" [LRH writing on chart]
Bill receives it. And now we've got Bill prime here, who says, "I'm okay." And we get over here now to Joe prime, who receives it.
And that is a two-way cycle of communication, and that contains the most important parts of communication.
By the way, if you feel kind of spinny after you've listened to this graph for a while, just imagine the state I was in when I was trying to write this stuff down in Dianetics 1955! You start following and plotting the communication graph very, very closely and you sort of feel the wheels start to go.
Here we have, as the first cycle, we have Bill saying, "How are you?" Joe receiving it.
Joe saying, "I'm okay." And Bill receiving it. That's one-half of the communication.
The other half of the communication requires an origin by Joe of a communication, its answer by Bill prime, and its acknowledgment by Joe prime. So, our principal parts of communication here, in just so many words, are contained on that two-way graph.
And we look over here, [See chart 3 in appendix] we find our next parts in communication then, or the principal parts, are origin, [LRH writing on chart] answer, acknowledgment. And that's all you have to remedy the scarcity of, to solve the problem of the human mind.
It's just as simple and elementary as that. You have a two-way cycle of communication. We find out if there's a scarcity of communication, then there must be a scarcity of origin, a scarcity of answer and a scarcity of acknowledgment of answer.
There's also one more scarcity which isn't expressed: a live form. See, that was what was at Joe. Joe, in that first graph A, was no more, no less than somebody standing there alive to be talked at. That's a necessary part of it.
But if we take these two cycles and we take them apart, we find out that we have origin, answer, acknowledgment in a live form. That's the works. Let's

COMMUNICATION AND ARC
remedy the scarcity of origin. And let's give you a proper example here of what we mean by origin.
Here's a fellow who is a writer. And he's been writing for years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years. He hasn't been reading anything written by other writers to amount to anything—not in proportion to the amount of stuff that he's putting out.
And after a while, we get him on a stuck flow. What is a stuck flow? A stuck flow is any communication flowing in one direction without completing the cycle. Anytime you don't complete the communication cycle on both two cycles, you get some tendency to stick—see, a scarcity, a waitingness. A person starts waiting for the communication. All right.
We have this fellow being on graph A, this writer. And he's sitting there and he originates and he originates and he originates and he originates and he originates and he originates and stick, stick, stick, stick. This manuscript gets lost and that one doesn't get answered, and he gets no acknowledgment from the public, but more important than that, there isn't any graph B going. He doesn't have another writer there who is also writing, see?
The missing point is he's missing the whole second cycle. He doesn't have intimate contact with another writer who is writing—fantastic. What will happen to him: He will eventually become obsessed with the idea of writing. His stuff will go down in quality and then, as will happen, he will stop writing and writing itself will become a sort of a solid ridge and that is his fate if he does not complete the two-way cycle of communication—if no one else is writing in his vicinity. You follow me?
He isn't reading. He doesn't recognize that other people also write. He maybe thinks the books just occur except those that he himself writes. He knows somebody alive writes those. But he doesn't know any other writers are alive. He'd get into a horrible state of affairs. You see, he'd get a stuck flow and then he would get so stuck that it would all get sort of solid. And that is the way you make a ridge.
Now, I've just spoken of a writer because that's kind of an obvious example. Let's take a less observable example. Let's take somebody who is completely out of communication. You've got this person around the house, completely out of communication and you walk up to them, and you say, "Well, how are you today, Bess?" You really didn't care how Bess was today. You just thought it was a good question, you see. No answer.
So you say, "Well, mm-hm," and you walk off. And next time you see her, you say, "Do you like your—those new gloves you got, Bess?"
Well, the next morning, you're rather unguarded about the whole thing, and you say, "How are you, Bess?"
Do you know that you will get obsessed on how she is? You'll get frantic on the idea of "How are you, Bess?" Well, that's the most obvious thing. And you will begin to be sure there is some horrible secret about her health.
And you just get a stuck flow. You're liable—if you don't watch it, you're liable to go around saying, "How are you, Bess? How are you, Bess? How are you, Bess? How are you, Bess?" Get the idea?
And you'll get stuck on Bess, and if Bess leaves or goes away, for years you'll carry around an image of Bess here, hoping it someday will speak. All right.
Let's, then, look at what else is missing. Bess never came up to you and said, "How are you?" Just never happened. Bess never came up and said, "How are you?" No originated communication there. And even if Bess answered all

105

106

29 DECEMBER 1954
the time—you said, "How are you, Bess?"
And she said, "I'm fine."
And you said, "That's good," and went on your way.
And the next time you said, "How are you, Bess?" she said, "I'm fine."
Go on your way.
Even though this happened all the time, after a while, you'd start to get very, very suspicious of Bess. What would be missing? The whole second cycle—the whole graph B—the whole thing is missing.
See, Bess never originates the communication back at you. As a matter of fact, you will only find people in a somewhat hypnotized state who will answer you immediately and never originate a communication themselves. A person has to be in pretty good shape to answer you immediately, or completely hypnotized. If they're hypnotized, they never originate a communication.
You could say, "How are you, Bess?"
She'd say, "I'm okay."
And you'd say, "That's good."
"How are you, Bess?"
"I'm okay."
"That's good."
"How are you, Bess?"
"I'm okay."
"That's good."
After a while this cycle—keep going—if she'd never originate a communication, oh, she would just be in a sort of a social automatic response situation. "I'm okay." Because if she were really alive, she really couldn't stand not some time or another completing the cycle.
Now, did you ever have anybody give you a Christmas present and you not give them one? You suffer, don't you?
You say, "Hey, by golly, we—we—we didn't get Joe anything. I think maybe we'd better go out and find him something and say we bought it before Christmas and forgot it." You feel bad, you see? You didn't get a two-way cycle of communication going, even with an object.
It's perfectly all right, he gave you something, you gave him something. Well, that's the way universes get made. You know, you're sort of in communication on an intuitive basis with some thetan and you say something to him. And you say, "Hello." Or you make a small mock-up or something, you know.
And then he makes one for you and you get this kind of a picture: [See chart 4 in appendix]
Here's your graph A. [LRH writing] And here is graph B. Now, here is your cycle of communication, which has your origin, answer, and acknowledgment. And here is your origin and here is your answer and here is your acknowledgment.
You know what these two people are doing? They're making space. And that's how you get space. One fellow originates some space, and the other fellow says he has done so. This fellow says, "I originated some space," ("How are you," you know)—"I originated some space to this fellow."
And this fellow says, "Okay, you originated some space."
Fellow says, "So I did."
And they got some space, too. See that? But when they stop communicating, we get down here at graph C, no space. See, that's snapped terminals.
And over here in graph D, this fellow keeps saying, "How are you, Joe?" And Joe never originates any communication. So you have an imbalanced

COMMUNICATION AND ARC
space. This fellow gets the idea that he must be talking across some terrific, fantastic difference, and nobody else is making any space but him. And so he gets stuck on the idea of insisting that somebody else make some space, for heaven's sakes. He keeps going around here.
Graph B over here never gets finished, so the guy keeps going around saying, "Hello. Hello. Hello." And he'll acknowledge and so forth, but he should be saying, if he wanted to put it into words: "For God's sakes, make some space. Please, somebody else make some space. Why do I have to make all this space?" You get the idea?
So, he's not—he doesn't have somebody else making space. Well, after this fellow said, "How are you?" at origin here, and he's gotten his answer, "I'm okay," and he's gotten his acknowledgment here, we go over on this side and we find out that the fellow he talked to originally here, now originates a communication to which this fellow can now answer and give an acknowledgment.
The other fellow in graph B is now saying, "Okay, I'm making some space."
This fellow says, "You did."
"Good."
So, the communication goes this way:
"I'm making some space," in graph A, "I'm making some space."
"You did. Now I'm making some space," in graph B.
"You did." See that?
"Now I'm making some space."
"You did."
"Now I'm making some space."
"You did."
"Now I'm making some space."
'You did."
"Now I'm making some space."
"You did."
Get the idea? They got distance, they got particles, they got space, they can have some affinity, they have different individualities and they can have a game. And a game can be played without affinity. And a game can be played without reality. But there wasn't ever a game on Earth played with no communication. That's the most essential character, then, to the making of space and the making of universes—communication.
And if you ever felt bad about anybody, it was because he didn't balance out your efforts to make space by making some himself. Or it's because he never said, "Okay, you made some space."
And reversely, you might feel bad because you just never told somebody, "You made some space." See, you just never told him this.
He comes around and he says, "Hello," you ignore him. He says, "Hello," you ignore him. He says, "Hello," you ignore him.
He's saying, "I made some space."
And you're not saying, "You made some space." See, you just ignore him.
And the first thing you know, he snaps terminals on you and you're never rid of him. See why? See, he's saying, "Hello." He's saying, "I'm making some space here. Hello, I'm making some space here."
And you're not answering him.
"Hello. I'm making some space here." He's liable to come up and sock you after a while. You see why? He's insisting you give him some kind of an answer so he'll have some space.
And in the absence of communication, there is no game, there is no

107

108

29 DECEMBER 1954
universe, there is no affinity and there is no agreement. By processing and remedying the scarcity of just that, communication, alone, you can remedy anything that is wrong with a case.
So, rightly or wrongly, I have some feeling that we are at least well on our way to solving cases rapidly.
Thank you.

 

A lecture given on 29 December 1954
Thank you.
This evening we will have some Group Processing. Right now I'd like to talk to you a little bit more, if you want.
Audience: Yes.
We have quite a bit of data here in Dianetics 1955! which is compressed— pretty thoroughly compressed, actually. It deals, basically and primarily, however, with two things: It deals with the existence of the energy-production unit which we call life, on the one hand. And it deals as deeply into mechanics as the ARC triangle, on the other hand.
We're looking at two things here. We are looking at the production unit of space, energy, matter, time; and we are looking at, on the other hand, the thing which produces them. And this is quite a trick. I don't know where that puts us, really, because there isn't anything else.
We are dealing at once with quality and quantity. And the only time anybody, in studying existence, has made a serious error or has gotten into trouble, has been when he has confused quality and quantity. In the physical universe we can have things which have both quality and quantity. We see a car. That is a quantity of matter occupying a quantity of space with the quality known as car. See? So there's quality and quantity.
So here we have a form. We have a form and we have something here, say this piece of furniture here, and it has a quantity of space and a quantity of material and it's occupying a certain quantity of time (measurable) and it has the quality of being a piece of furniture. And it's thee and me which assign the quality to it. And it was thee and me which put the quantity into it. We made the quantity possible for it now to occur. But you've done that, and that's across a nice long period of time. So all you have to do now is assign qualities to it.
And we find the essential difference between life in a pure state, if you want to call it that, and life in a mechanical state. We have in life, before it has produced anything or when it's just stepped back from producing something, we have it in a state where it is totally quality. It is all quality. You see, it has abilities. It doesn't have quantities of abilities; it has just that—just abilities. It doesn't have quantity of time, it has the ability of making or experiencing time but not a quantity of time.
When the fellow comes around and he says to you, "(pant, pant) I haven't got enough time to do anything, (pant) I just don't know how I'll have any time to do it. (pant, pant)" He's being an object. And he's not being very alive.

109

110

29 DECEMBER 1954
Because that individual has the potentiality, the quality, of making time. And thinking, then, that he has a quantity of time to occupy, is something like the Fleischmann yeast plant itself feeling bad because it's not a yeast cake.
Now, here we have something, then, that is capable, able and has quality but which does not have any quantity. And this is a very strange thing for somebody who is entirely quantity oriented, who thinks in terms of money, in terms of so many dollars. Money is a fait accompli, not something which you can make or create or become possessed more of. Money is just so much, you see? His idea of security will be "How much money do I have in the bank?" That's his idea of security. That's an awfully poor idea of security.
I'll tell you how secure he is. He is secure as he can bring into existence, wealth. And when he loses the ability to bring wealth into existence, even though he has saved a great deal of money, although he has a lot of quantities of money scattered around, he's liable to find himself a pauper.
Now, there is such a thing as a fellow who has a million dollars in the bank and who is a pauper. There's many a fellow been picked up in some old decayed house full of newspapers and bric-a-brac with a hundred thousand dollars in a tin can sitting on a shelf, dead because he hasn't eaten for three or four weeks. See? This fellow then—his security or longevity really didn't depend on that hundred thousand dollars.
Well now, we look at it from a highly—what we call practical, sense and we say, "Well, that's all very well for you to talk, but it'd be awfully nice right this minute to have a couple of thousand bucks in my pocket."
Well, why haven't you? It's because you can think in terms of "It would be awfully nice to have," saying at the same time, "I don't have," saying at the same time, 'To some degree there is some obstacle between two thousand bucks and me."
Now, if you think it over, you realize that money is the attention unit of the society. That's about all it is. They scatter these attention units around, and society does the astonishing, the marvelous, the fantastic trick of actually taking pieces of paper—not any longer silver and certainly not gold, (that would be too nice for everybody to have, so they don't issue that anymore)— and they take this stuff and they actually can convert it. You take a whole stack of these pieces of paper, you know, and you go bing, and you got an automobile. That's a magic of some sort or another, and it is so magicful that people become criminals and acquire the automobile without making the money go boomp. That's what's known as criminality.
But on the upper band, the impossibly high band from our standpoint at this time, an individual theoretically could be sufficiently able not to make the money go boomp, but to simply say, "Automobile—zing." And you'd have an automobile. See, that's an impossible height.
But by the introduction of a via called money into every transaction, then a group can monitor the individual of the group by giving him, on rations, just so much of this stuff which is convertible, whoomp, into automobiles and food.
So, by introducing this via, you put in a barrier; a barrier to acquisition, a barrier to havingness. It's not a bad barrier. Did you ever play an old game, years and years and years ago, called Monopoly? That's a fantastic game. People sit up all night long, converting these little houses and little pieces of paper just as though that wasn't what they were doing all day long, too. That wasn't a game, that was a dramatization.
Well, here we have—here we have, then, a game called money. And a game is something in which two or more life units—get that now—two or

GAMES
more life units to be a game. It becomes a stuck flow if you have less than two life units playing this game. And it becomes nothing at all if there are no life units around. But we have a game defined as an activity engaged upon by two or more life units. And that's—we just define it quickly, loosely; we could say that's a game. All right.
Now, these two or more life units, in order to have a game, also have to have some barriers. The first barrier is space. Although they might coincidentally occupy exactly the same space. And they can, you know, occupy the same space and still communicate. The perfect communication is not no-communication; that's death. The perfect communication is total communication. And this would only be achieved if you were occupying exactly the same space as somebody else. But if you have total communication, you've got no game.
So the first step of the game is Joe and Bill occupying the same space and in good communication and good affinity and everybody all happy and cheerful, and they've got good agreement and everything's fine. They're going to have a game now.
Well, Bill says to Joe or Joe says to Bill, "Hey you. You get over there. I'll stay over here. And we'll have this much space between us. And then I will say, 'How are you?' And you say, 'I'm fine.' And I'll nod. And then you say, 'How are you?' And I will say, 'I'm fine.' And then you nod. Okay? Let's go."
And the cycle starts. We've got a communication going. So actually the first entrance into mechanics is communication. But it's a game. And as long as a game is going to continue, and as long as you occupy a universe created for or by games, and as long as you're alive, and as long as you're part of that game in any way, shape or form, you have to go on communicating. Why? The second you do, you will continue action and life. And the second you don't, you'll be dead and you will fall out of the game.
But to make a more complicated game, we break or interrupt this communication. And it makes a much more complicated game as any program director knows who has just had his program cut in half to announce the fact that: "Bulletin—President Eisenhower has just sneezed." You see, this type of interruption—that makes a game. He goes around afterwards and he says, "What's the idea, coming in and interrupting my broadcast that way?"
And the fellow says, "Well we had to, it was an important public bulletin."
And he says, "Well," he says, "you shouldn't have done it."
And they, "Yow-yow-yow-yow-yow," at each other.
"Well, who's program director around here anyway?"
"Well, whose program is it? I'm the one that's trying to sell Easy-wheezy Soap Flakes, you're not." And "I'm the fellow the sponsor pays for and you're just the mechanical gimmick around here."
"I am not."
"Who are you talking to?" Back and forth.
And if they keep this up very long, why, they'll get at a very tolerable sort of a game. It'll be a sort of a bicker. But if they stop talking about it, they will just get madder at each other, and madder and madder and madder and one of them will quit and that's the end of the game. You recognize that? Well, that is the evolution of games.
The game goes all to pieces when you stop communicating, and you're not playing a game when you're not communicating to some degree. But the first step of any game is communication.
So therefore you could say a couple of terminals communicating are to some degree a barrier. You bet they are; they're a barrier of space. First barrier. And

111

112

29 DECEMBER 1954
then they also have to have the barrier of time, they have to do this weird and impossible thing. Do you know they have to pretend the other fellow isn't talking so they can talk, and then vice versa pretend that the condition has reversed? And so we get time.
The Sun shines. It doesn't shine. It shines. It doesn't shine. And of course if you stand around waiting for the Sun to shine all the time and don't shine any yourself, you'll get stuck on Earth, too. That's a cinch.
But where we look over games, we find out that game is essentially a communication. Well, don't let two teams play consistently against each other too long. They won't have a game there anymore, either, because they won't be antagonists; they'll be friends.
Such a thing has happened many times in wars. Some isolated sector of the line—they forget a division, you know, or a regiment or a squad or something, and they leave it out in some isolated corner of the battle and there's—the enemy leaves another squad there and they're supposed to be shooting at each other. And they'll shoot at each other for a while and they'll shoot at each other and they'll shoot at each other.
And then one will put up some washing or something like that, a little bit, you know, and that will remind the other fellow, "Say, you know, we haven't washed our kits for a long time." So they get their long underwear and they wash that. And they go on this way and that way.
And the next thing you know, my golly, the trouble some general has, he comes down here and these guys are sitting around in the same dugouts swapping lies. That is the awfullest thing a general has to put up with, by the way, is they go into communication.
And do you know that they shoot people in time of war for going into communication with the enemy; they do. They stand up a man and shoot him because he's gone into communication with the enemy. I'd like to know what they're doing when they stand up on a parapet and fire a rifle, except communicate. Of course, it's kind of a hard crude way of communicating but it's nevertheless communication.
It's a cinch that if you shot at a fellow long enough and he shot at you long enough, you would wind up bosom buddies. That's a cinch.
Now, the only way you could really keep a war going and keep things really hot, anywhere in the world, would be to put up a communication barrier which admits of no communication whatsoever. And that would be a perfect solution to an end of game or a continuing war.
The war would not continue beyond a certain point because that thing which has been barriered out of communication just so long becomes unreal. It ceases to exist. So, actually, if you could hang a—it isn't a good solution but it's a partial solution. If you hung up an iron curtain here on Earth—you hung up an iron curtain and wouldn't let anybody communicate on the other side of the iron curtain—nobody communicate on the other side of the iron curtain (nobody communicates over here), one day somebody would walk up to you, say, "Say, you know about those Russians . . ."
And you'd say, "The what?"
He'd say, "The Russians, the Russians, you know who I'm talking about."
And you'd say, "No, I don't know. Where are the Russians? What are the Russians?"
"Those people over there beyond that iron curtain."
And you'd say, "What curtain?"
See, there'd be no reality here on the fact that Russians existed. Similarly,

GAMES
if somebody in Russia would come around and said, "You know all those capitalists?"
And the Russian would say, "Capitalists? Go on! Where?"
"Well on the other side of the iron curtain there."
"Oh, you silly little muzhik you know that the world ends at that iron curtain. The world is totally flat, Lysenko says so. And you fall off into a nothingness and never, when you walk across that iron curtain. There's nothing over there whatsoever."
That's right. That's what happens when you cut a communication.
But, of course, a total cut of communication is almost impossible in present time—a total cut. You still get things leaking through like C-A-R-E. Like the United Nations' manifestos that are issued by the Kremlin. You get all kinds of little fragmentary communications. They keep tapping the world on the shoulder and saying, "Hey, there's some Russians over there." And they keep tapping the Russians saying, "Hey, the outside world is over there somewhere." You know, just a little bit of a trickle of communication. And that is absolutely dynamite. There's not enough communication to make any A or R— just enough to nudge them into an existence of something.
Just like a guy with a circuit; it taps him often enough so that he knows that it isn't quite nothing there. And he'll get awful mad at that after a while; he's out of communication with it but he's not really—was in communication with it but he is in communication with it because he gets—some impulse or instinct somewhere, somehow comes through to him that he is a bum. Every once in a while he has a feeling like something is saying, "You're a bum."
He's saying, "You know there's something wrong with my mind." All you have to do to solve the thing would be to either totally cut communication, you know, put him way out back, or go the other way around and put him into communication with it.
Actually, the best route is to put him out of communication with it and then put him into full communication with it, at which moment it will cease to give him any trouble whatsoever.
A fellow with a broken leg is just fooling around, you know. It's nudging him, he's nudging it. He isn't in full communication with it. The way to get him over a broken leg would be to pull him off from the broken leg so he's no longer in obsessive communication with this broken leg. And then put him into communication, full communication, with the broken leg at which moment it'd heal quite rapidly. You get the idea?
We're not interested, then, in a partially cut barrier unless it's simply to promote the game. But the game is a very, very important thing. In order to have a game, you have to have mechanics. In this universe, we have to have space, energy, matter and time. Life in any universe has to have at least some of that.
So that we get the quality which says, "I can produce and play a game," and then we get the byproducts of that unit which would be the playing field, the gimmick they're playing for, the quantities of stuff they've got to cross or handle in order to have a game. So we have something that wants a game and we have the mechanics of the game. And when we go in and look over life, we find out that we shouldn't confuse these two things. We should simply say, "Well, now there's something that is capable of a game, has the quality of playing a game, originating games, continuing games, participating in games. And then there are all these byproducts over here which make games." And that would be a very marked division between two things, and we could understand things very well.

113

114

29 DECEMBER 1954
Now, this thing which can play the game or participate in a game or continue the game or originate the game, has quality only. It can, by its own consideration, be a quantity. It could say, "I am a private soldier. I don't know who else I'm fooling but I'm really fooling me," he'd say, you know, "but I am a private soldier. I am a quantity of army. I am one private soldier over army worth of army. I'm a quantity which is a part of a game."
And now if he were utterly and absolutely and entirely sold on the idea that this was all he was, you would find an aberrated person. He'd be an aberrated person. He would take no fun whatsoever in being part of the army or playing this game. He would not be aware of the game being in progress, the moment he is totally and only one private soldier.
Now, you get people in times when the civil populace has surrendered itself up to the military and a lot of civilians are walking around in uniform and getting a war fought, you get moments like this: Individuals who are supposed to be just one private soldier according to the rules will actually tell you, "Well, I'm a newspaper reporter. I was a newspaper reporter on the Clarion Bugle Gazette of Sioux Falls and that's really who I am," you know. He's got a reserved identity.
And you go around and you try to get a reserve officer to confess the fact that he is just a lieutenant or something of the sort, he never tells you this. He says, "I am a lawyer. Before I got in the service, I made 850 dollars a month. I'm a big wheel where I came from." See, he is reserving his identity. He's not quite in the service. But you get a lot of high-toned action when this happens. You do actually get a period when in an army and a navy there are people around who do not entirely and only hold motion. (laughter)
These people are capable to some slight degree of playing a game and they do the darnedest things. The War Department goes slowly mad trying to keep track of the darnedest things they're liable to do. You know, they'll see an enemy someplace or another and they'll figure out something or other, and the next thing you know, why, they sneak around the hill and capture the division or something—like Sergeant York.
They do the darnedest things. They all of a sudden discover they're out of rations, you know, or they're liable to be out of rations, and they see that they can only have rations after they've signed eighteen hundred slips of paper in quadruplicate or quintuplicate so they decide to short-cut the whole thing and they have rations. And nobody can quite explain where all these rations came from, but boy, is it "legal"—typical activity. And everything just goes to the devil. These fellows introduce more randomity than anybody can stand so they have to end the war. (laughter) And they finally get to the point and they say, "We can tolerate any action which will put a stop to this sort of thing—even peace."
Well, so we get a game in which nations play, called war. And it's only when these people get completely dredged down to the idea "I am a German." "I am a Russian." "I am a private." "I am a captain." When they've got this one hundred percent fixed, and they are that thing—that we can find these wars with tremendous quantities of brutality, very little understanding, no sympathy and nothing but destruction. And when those things occur when everyone gets superfixed in his identity, "I am a duke." "I am a prince." "I am a colonel," we get something like the Hundred Years' War.
We wonder what happened to knighthood. They got killed in the Hundred Years' War. Nobody knew how to end that one. Everybody was being himself, one hundred percent, which is to say, he thought of himself as a piece in the

GAMES
game called the Hundred Years' War, you know? Boy, did they have fixed titles and identities. Mmmph! They were really that.
There was no flexibility in which they could become responsible for any other dynamic than themselves. You see that? They'd have just the fixed responsibility and they had no further responsibility from that. So they could pick up some civilian and torture him. So they could burn a village without even thinking about what happened to the kids in it. Here is game without any responsibility.
War fought by people who are capable of responsibility is a skylark. War fought with no responsibility for the enemy, no responsibility for any other identity, is simply a slaughterhouse madhouse.
Where you have a game breaking down into brutality, where you have it breaking down into a slavery where nobody can change his identity, everybody's fixed utterly and so forth, only then do you get cruelty, brutality, criminality on the part of its participants. These things are not present in the position where individuals have still some freedom to choose that they are playing a game.
Have you ever noticed some little boy in the neighborhood who couldn't play the game? Who goes into a fighting fury with other children over their toys? This person who can't play the game. They're going to play a game of marbles, so somebody breaks out some marbles and lays them in the sand and they're all set and they draw a ring, and then all of a sudden this little guy comes up and he grabs all the marbles and shoves them in his pocket and runs. And the other kids say, "No, Henry." And after they've said, "No, Henry" five or six times, they go out and get him and punch the devil out of him. And then they really fix him, they say, "You can't play with us anymore." They really fix themselves, too. Every time they try to play marbles, little Henry will be up there with a BB gun. This is the degeneration away from playing a game.
Now, the big difference—let's get very close to fact with this—the big difference between the preclear you had an easy time with and the preclear you had a hard time with, was the preclear you had an easy time with could play a game. He could still play a game.
And the person you were having an awfully rough time with had gotten so fixed in some kind of an identity that he says, "This is entirely, completely, real and serious, no matter how aberrated or cockeyed it appears," and "it's not a game, this is reality, this is sincerity," see? And he's fixed, and he can't change.
And the first thing you notice about him, he has difficulty playing a game. That's the first thing you notice about him. First thing that seems out of order about him. You'll notice that by saying, "All right. Now, let's walk over and touch your finger to that wall."
So, the fellow walks over, says, "Why should I?"
You get some little kid who's totally capable of playing a game and you say, "Go over and touch the wall," so he goes over and touches the wall, bang.
And he says, "Now you touch a wall." He can sometimes play too much game for some auditors. All right.
We have a gradient scale of being able to play the game and that gradient scale is the gradient scale of fixed identity as a part of the game or quantity. It's a gradient scale of "How much quantity am I in this game?—identity/quantity. I am one man, you see. I am one person named Jones and that is all I am.
Now, all due respects to thee and me, that's not a very good condition. A person who can't be Smith sometimes isn't really aware of playing a game. It's all for sure, for sincere, see? You know, it's brutal. It's earnest. It's real. "Tell me not, in mournful numbers ..." (laughter)

115

116

29 DECEMBER 1954
Now, it's an odd thing that a person only gets latitude of action when he has freedom to play. When a person feels that he chose to play this game, then it's a game. And when somebody else chose the game for him and put him in there, one way or the other, he has no freedom to play this game but is playing the game under duress. And a life unit that plays the game of having to play the game under duress will be in pretty sad shape in the auditing chair— have a rough time. You know, "I'm playing this game under duress. What wall?" Playing the game under duress.
You say, "Go on over and touch that wall."
"No."
Now, the odd part of it is, this freedom of choice is so significant in auditing that we find individuals, who are brought in by Mama or Papa and given auditing with no idea of what's happening, get well much more slowly than the fellow who thought it up himself.
He says, "You know I think I'll go get processed. I'm not so well off these days—I keep going like this . . . (laughter) and I'll go get processed." So he walks in and he sits down and he says, "Process me." And you go ahead—and so on. You see, he still has a freedom to change his role. He changes his role in life. That's why he can consent to come in and be processed.
The difference is not whether or not the fellow chose. The difference between these two people—the fellow who won't be processed even when he's sitting in the auditing chair and the fellow who just comes in and wants to be processed—the difference is actually a case level difference. It is not simply difference of attitude. It isn't that one chose to be there and the other one didn't chose to be there, (laughter) you know, that makes the difference in auditing. That's not what makes the difference in auditing. The difference in auditing is made this way: This fellow can choose to be somewhere and to change his role in the game. And this fellow, way down here, can't change his role in the game anymore. So he thinks this auditor is going to make him change his role in the game, and he knows he can't change his role in this game.
Now, if we were to take somebody and fix him in a chair and go "Swami, swami, hypnoanalysis, pooey, pooey," and shoot him with a little bit of narco— well, I wouldn't say what came up just that moment, but anyway... (laughter)—anyway, we shoot him and then we give him a slight little bit of shock, all the time saying to him, "You are a jockey. You can never be anything else but a jockey. You are a jockey." Bzz, bzz, bzz. "You are a jockey. You're nothing but a jockey. All you could do is be a jockey. You'll never be able to change being a jockey." And we just kept that up with this fellow for a few hours and repeated the treatment for a few days . . .
We bring him into an auditing session. We'd have to drag him in at the end of a leash or something. We'd have to drag him in, we'd have to force him to sit in the chair, so forth. He was unable to change his role, you see? This he's convinced of: "I can't change my role. So therefore auditing is going to do me no good. I am a quantity of game and I am not a quality of anything beyond just this one thing: The only quality I have is 'jockey.' The only quantity I have is this body, and this funny little silk cap." All right.
This would make a real rough preclear—real tough preclear. Don't think that you can't break such a case, you can break such a case. You have to do all sorts of action to get into communication with him because this person won't go into communication. He's a jockey. The only way he communicates is on a horse, this way . . . (laughter) And it goes round and round the track, that way . . . (laughter)

GAMES
Psychodrama is that effort to get jockeys to be jockeys, on the theory that if you can get them to be jockeys long enough, they'll get unhorsed. But again, unless they chose to decide to be a jockey, they wouldn't become anything else but a jockey.
Now, there is a process you could run on this fellow, if you could ever communicate it to him; that is the difficulty. You see, he's fallen out of communication. The distance they fall out of communication is the distance they fall away from the game into a fixed quantity of something.
And the more they go into communication, the more they're able to change the game, change the role—they don't have to necessarily, they just can, you see, quality, the ability—until they finally get up to a point and they say, "Well, hey, what do you know, hah, I can play any kind of a game I want to. Guess I'll go on playing the same kind of a game I'm playing, but that's fun." They didn't think it was fun when they started in getting audited; they didn't think so even vaguely. But now it seems to be an awfully good joke to go down to the office and write on little pieces of paper endlessly. It's very funny.
Everybody comes in, bug-eyed, how important it is, see? You say, "That's fine. Let's play this game some more." And these people become very hard on the people around them because these people think they're playing hard, you see. And this individual sees—"Gee, here's an interesting game," and he starts to play about eight times harder than anybody else in his vicinity, and everybody gets worn out. Because this guy is playing a game, and the others are there because they have to be—difference of viewpoint.
Well, we get a fellow who is able to play the game as he can go into communication. There's nobody quite as out of communication in a football game as the water bucket. Yet all the players come around and drink out of it. But it never positions itself; it's always positioned. It's filled, it's emptied.
Now, there's an interesting kind of a water bucket that will fill itself and empty itself, but it has two legs and it's called a water carrier, to a game. And generally this is some bug-eyed kid full of hero worship, you know, "Hey, Joe, can I give you a drink now, huh?" He's playing the game. He'll be in there playing the game left and right. He hasn't yet gotten the fixed idea that all he will ever be is a water bucket.
Now there's the ratio of age to aberration. You say people who are older are harder to process. No, they're not. That is not even vaguely a true statement. I know lots of kids that are harder to process than old people. I know lots of old people that process just like anything; just—it's nothing to it. I've never found much coordination of age. Because psychology pretended to is no reason for us to believe it's true unless we can see it and demonstrate it.
I have found people, however, who are quite old who are hard to process, just as I have found people who are quite young who are hard to process. But there is some tendency in this" direction: An individual becomes more and more fixed in his role. At twenty-one he could choose what he was still going to be and he could still get away with this swindle: He could say, "Well, I really don't want to be a bank cashier but I'll just be a bank cashier here until I learn how to play this piccolo. And then I'll be a piccolo player. And I'll become very, very famous."
Now look, we have confused goals and dreams a little bit here, and thought they were an end in themselves. When a person has goals and dreams, he's merely expressing this one fact: He can change his role in the game. He is expressing his confidence that he can change his role in the game. You see that? And the manifestation of it is goals and dreams.

117

118

29 DECEMBER 1954
Don't ever try to process anybody in the direction of ideas alone. Because any thetan, even when bad off, can get different ideas. A life unit can do nothing if not get ideas and shift ideas around. It's how convincingly it can get ideas, that counts. If it can really get convinced of an idea—it's really fixed in some kind of a role—it has very few goals and dreams because it doesn't have to have. There isn't any reason to. It's fixed in this idea now.
Now, here we are, a bank cashier. And here we're going to be forty-nine and a half years from now, a bank cashier. Of course, he doesn't recognize that till he's thirty-five. And he's noticed that the fellow who married the boss's aunt and the fellow who married the boss's daughter have both been promoted over him; although he always did all of their work because they couldn't do it. He's forgotten how to be a piccolo player because he missed out his installments on the piccolo and they took it back. And he's—recognizes at last that he is fixed into the identity of being a bank cashier. And if he sells himself on the idea "I will never be anything but a bank cashier," why then, of course, he's ended his goals, dreams, future time track and he has become a quantity of something. He's become a quantity of bank cashier—one bank cashier, you see? Not a capability of becoming a lot of things, if he really put his mind to it.
All a thetan has to believe is that he can do a lot of things and be a lot of things—he doesn't even have to do and be them—he's in good shape. But the second he gets the idea that he can only be one thing and he'll never be anything else but that one thing, he's dead! How dead can you get? Believing you can only lie there.
When you believe at last you can only lie there and that's all this body is capable of, is simply to lie still and grow a little bit cold and worm-eaten at the edges, you shove off—so would anybody. Because that is end of game as far as you're concerned for that particular cycle, you see. It's a totally fixed identity. You're no longer even able to change the position of the body in space. It just lies there. See that?
So change comes first in the ability to change one's ideas, then in the ability to change one's location and position in space at will. That's a mechanic, you've moved into mechanics. And now at last, when one loses even that, he's dead. When he's lost the ability to change his location and position in space at will, he says, "I'm dead." There's probably nothing more to death than that.
I imagine you could take this jockey after he had been a jockey for a while and then convince him he couldn't move and he'd know he was dead, and he'd leave and he'd be dead. You get the idea? All right.
We look over the anatomy of games, we look over the anatomy of communication, we find out that communications are necessary barriers in order to continue a game. In the absence of communication, you don't have any space or time. And when you get no communication at all, space and time collapse, and so you get collapsed terminals.
Have you ever had the experience of some fellow having to walk right straight up to you and talk to you, you know, "Say ya, Joe, uh, uh . . ." They often enforce this by eating garlic or something first. They say, "Hiya Joe"— collapsed terminals.
Well, that fellow has a hard time. He snaps terminals. He is so close to no communication at all, he has to be that close in order to perceive that there is any. See, he has to come up real close to find out if there is some. He can only make a couple of inches of space, when he should be able to make a few yards, anyhow. All right. He snaps terminals, he has to come close.
Then there's the fellow who gets on the inversion of this who doesn't dare

GAMES
have anybody near him. And you walk up to this fellow and he's standing there, you know, and you walk up to him. He's on the streets, perfect stranger, you're going to ask him for a match. And you walk up to him and you say, "Say, buddy . . . Wonder where he went!"
That fellow is so certain that he can't make any space that a couple of inches be darned; he does a compulsive reversal. The second that you come up, he knows you're going to make lots of space and he can make none. So he accommodates it by creating the lots of space you would make. He has to get out there far enough to agree with his idea of how far he has to be away to answer you.
In your neighborhood you probably had some little kid that used to come around and throw sand down your neck or something of the sort. He'd run way off from you and he'd say, "Nyah, nyah, nyah," you know. And you try to close terminals with him, he just goes further away. He's separated out of the group. Henry who couldn't play marbles. He knows he can't play the game and he runs away from anytime he sees a game occurring.
There's your criminal. The criminal, I swear, is totally and entirely on the run or totally entirely fixed in one place. See, he just goes from one great extreme to the other.
He hasn't done anything criminal for five or six years, he's living in this small town, he's got a job in a garage. And one day a police car drives up to the garage and all that was wrong was he has a soft spare tire he wants pumped up. When the criminal starts breathing freely again, he has moved to Los Angeles. He went out the back door. Just the appearance of this symbol called "police car" is enough to send him hundreds of miles—immediately.
Well, this is a curious manifestation, isn't it? It all has to do with the ability to play a game. The fellow who has to talk very close to you, he has a tough time having any game at all, but remember he's still got a game of some sort. And then the fellow who's got to run like the dickens every time you start to communicate, he's getting close to not having any game at all. He's trying to preserve what game he does have because he knows you're going to eat him. Then we get down to the fellow who doesn't close terminals and doesn't run. And we have, at that moment, the catatonic, and they just lie still. And you pick up their hand, you drop it. ...
Had a nurse one time in an insane asylum show me how bad off this particular catatonic was. She says, "She doesn't even respond to needle jabs."
And I said, "No?" I said, "That's very interesting." (Reverend Hubbard was talking to her.) And I said, 'That's very interesting."
And she says, "Yes, look." And pulls a safety pin out of her garter belt and jabs it to the hilt in this catatonic schiz. Catatonic schiz didn't twitch. She says, "You see?"
I says, sort of green, "Yes, I see."
And she says, "She doesn't even jab [respond] when you do it here," bang!
The only thing people find wrong with those people that run away, that snap terminals, that lie still, is they're kind of hopeful there might be an opponent there and they're sort of trying to shake somebody into existence so they'll come alive enough to play, you know?
And the only thing you really feel bad about, about an ally, is the fact that he has quit when he's died. You know, he's no longer there to play the game. He ran out on you. That ended that game, woof. You weren't through, there were still fifteen or twenty chips in front of your place—a broken communication.
Now, a game is only possible as long as there is communication of some

119

120

29 DECEMBER 1954
sort. You will find that as you monitor the communication rather poorly-pardon me—sporadically (it's occasional, it's sometimes surprising and so forth, back and forth, it's not good you know, but it's still communication), why, you will have an antagonistic sort of a game where you've got two sides playing. They will fight. That's war. You know, surprising, occasional, unpredicted heavy masses being exchanged back and forth, one way or the other, and you have a war. All right.
A game, then, is monitored in its quality by the communication involved. Now let's see that we have not—we haven't actually excluded bullets or teapots when we've talked about this communication formula.
Now, a complete communication between two soldiers would be as follows: Bill shoots at Joe. Joe prime shoots at Bill prime. Misses all around. So Joe shoots at Bill. Bill prime shoots back at Joe prime. They both shot both ways. They both originated an attack. You watch out, they're liable to wind up as friends. It's only when Joe was careless enough to shoot Bill in such a way that Bill couldn't shoot back, that we get serious about it. And that is bad marksmanship. That ends the game, right there.
And when enough Joes and enough Bills have either failed to originate communications in return, or have failed to answer communications, we get law and order: No shooting—no shooting allowed.
We get a state of affairs, by the way, exactly in the number of years which have elapsed, which is the most curious thing. It's the number of years which have elapsed—give us the amount of law and order which will occur on the subject of who shoots or how much you're permitted to shoot, something of the sort. Let's take New York City—oh, let's get a little older than that, let's take London. I imagine the fellow who walked down the street in London with a six-gun buckled down and in plain sight would not be arrested. He would probably be taken over to Bedlam and locked up. Or the bobbies would want to know what show he was in. That would be about all there would be to it. Nobody would really take it as a crime. I'm sure that nobody would really think of it as a crime anymore.
You walk down the street with a gat buckled down in New York City, you're going to be, not credited with insanity, you're simply going to be thrown into the hoosegow unless, of course, you're a known criminal, at which time they'll just take your gun away from you and set you free. And we get the fact that, if in New York, you possessed a gun and kept it in your desk drawer, you could be arrested and sent to the pen. That's a fact. If you had a gun, you kept it in the car, you'd go to the pen. If you had a gun, if there was some gun rust around anyplace, you could still probably go to the pen.
Now we move a little further west, we get the condition of affairs in Chicago. You actually would not excite much attention in Chicago if you were to take a rifle down the street, or even a gat. You could possibly have a gat, and again, it'd be the same condition: If you were a known criminal, you'd probably get your gun back after they'd arrested you. "Tools of the trade," they call it in Chicago. All right.
And now we get Arizona. And we walk up to—in a hardware store in Arizona and we see all these gats and these revolvers and pistols and so forth, and rifles, and they're all laid out on the counter and so forth. And there's a little slip of paper up in the corner of the counter, and it said, "Anyone under eighteen years of age must have the permission of his parent or guardian in order to purchase and have firearms." And "This will not, in any way, be construed as a law demanding the licensing of firearms."

GAMES
And you say to this clerk, "Well, you see that .38 Smith & Wesson there? Well, I'd like to buy it. Load it up." Then pay your money over, take the Smith & Wesson, put it in your pocket, walk down the street. Cop found you—if a cop found you with that weapon concealed, and so forth, he probably wouldn't think very much of it. He'd merely think you were being polite. You were not offending the public view—something like that. But if you had it concealed or buckled on or shoved in your car or in your pocket or anything of the sort, the police would not think very much about it.
But the very funny part of all this is, is these guys are still willing to play a game. Couple of fellow—the police are still willing to play a game. The police in each one of these places have drifted away from punitively playing a game.
We get into an interesting state of affairs whereby very little attention is paid to petty crime in Arizona. Sheriffs get interested only when it gets adventurous. They can do something that looks fairly interesting to them, they'll go ahead and do it. But the rest of it—skip it.
For instance, there were a couple of boys held up—an armed—armed robbery, it was, of a service station. And they drove down the road like mad, and it got out on the police radio in the next county and so on. Couple of deputy sheriffs jumped in a car and formed a roadblock. These two bandits saw the roadblock, turned their car around, drove it way off the road and into the brush, got out of the car and ran like the dickens across sand and rocks and so forth.
And all these deputies got together and they said, "Hm." And they carefully tracked, Indian-tracker fashion, these guys, clear across this desert. They found their car, they tracked them halfway across nowhere. And they sat down and waited until—they realized these guys were probably taking a sleep up there someplace, you know. And they sneaked in on them real carefully. And they took their guns away from them and then woke them up—good game. Wouldn't have been played that way in New York.
In the first place, you wouldn't have gotten anybody to have dashed out and formed a roadblock. That would be adventurous. That would be doing something to mess up your forthcoming pension. Furthermore, you'd have probably gotten bawled out by the commissioner for going into that much motion.
Now, when a game drops from communication, it drops into motion and it first drops into rather fast light motion and then it goes into heavier and heavier motion, until nobody can move the game around at all and it's just stopped. And that's Earth. Earth is a pretty solid game—very solid. It's a fixed identity. It's a place called Earth. The number of times this planet has changed its identity in the last twenty-four hours are very few.
The playing field in this case has gotten awfully solid. And people have started to get mad at all things, they've started to get mad at the playing field. Now, what would you think of a bunch of football players who got daffy enough to get mad at the area between the goal posts? And they stopped playing football and started to sit down and pound on the ground. What would you think of these people? Be pretty batty, wouldn't they?
What do you think the physicist has done? What has he done? He kept looking at pieces of energy and matter and so forth, and it refused to move and it refused to obey and it refused to be good and it refused to do things, you see? And it didn't give him answers. Of course, it couldn't give him answers; it isn't alive.
Go into the exact sciences someday and you will find around you, guys that are pretty hectically obsessed with trying to get mest to answer up. The physicist and the electronic engineer build things that talk, build things that

121

122

29 DECEMBER 1954
think. "We'll do anything to make this stuff answer." Their wife is standing there all the time going, "Gab, gab, gab, gab, gab, walla, walla, walla" but they know she's not there.
And the physicist gets more and more fixed. This stuff doesn't answer up. It just won't answer. It won't answer. And of course, they say, "Well it might be this theory and it might be that theory." That's their way of saying, "Well maybe it'd answer this way, maybe it'd answer that way." They're kind of mixed up. They're using the stuff through which you communicate, to communicate to: an inanimate terminal.
Well, almost anybody has some of this inanimate-terminal fixation. You can get them over a lot of this by simply having them touch walls. And they say, "See, there is a terminal right here. What are you hanging on to that old one you've got for? What do you want that old garden wall for? You got a perfectly good building wall right here." That's what 8-C does, Opening Procedure.
But your physicist has gone out of communication to the degree that he now believes that no communication is the best possible communication, so let's get rid of the playing field. "Everybody get rid of the playing field. We can't get it to answer. But we can get far enough to blow it up. And at least it'll say, Taang!'"
Now, the only secret there is about secrets is the lack of an answer. I'm not just identifying answer with answer, this is true. The answer, when absent, makes a secret. What is a secret? A secret is an absence of an answer. How do you get into secrets? By saying, "How are you Bill?" (pause) (sigh) You say, "Bill, how are you?" (pause) "Bill, how are you?" And at that moment, you become absolutely certain that he is holding one of the deepest secrets you ever saw in your life. Why? Because he doesn't answer. And that's the only secret there is—no answer. That's all the secret there is—no answer.
You look that over, you'll find out it's true. The people that you will believe to be very, very secret people, simply didn't answer you very often. And if they answered you little enough, then you became convinced that they must be very wise, secretive people indeed.
And so you get the wise old owl who sits in an oak. And the less he spoke, the more you figured he had some secrets to hide. And maybe he did once, but I'll give you a tip: He's forgotten them.
All of this material summates into just one thing. We have been looking for answers to what? The answers to answers. What is the answer to an answer? It's an answer. That's what it is.
And we take somebody who's convinced there are tremendous secrets in everything and we simply process him by making everything he thinks is secret, answer. And the next thing you know, he knows all about it. Because he knew everything there was to know in the first place. This is very simple.
So we now, by this process alone, actually can obtain any answer we want out of anything. We can actually make anything talk, whether it's space, matter, energy, time or Mama.
We get fixed on things simply waiting for an answer and after a while, they become secret. And that's what we've been looking for in Dianetics and Scientology. And if you think it over, I think you will agree with me. We have the answer to secrets. And the answer to a secret is an answer. Supply the abundance of answers, and you don't have any secret anymore about life, or about anything.
Okay, I'll see you this evening.
Thank you.

 

A Group Processing session given on 29 December 1954
We are going to find out something about communication now, I'm afraid. So brace yourself.
Attention, seminar leaders. Don't worry if they dope off, but make sure they do the process, huh? We don't want anybody halfway through this to knock off, quit and soldier, and say, "Oh, no more." Because the way out is the way through.
The universe is won by the brave at heart.
So let's find out if there's a floor beneath your feet. (stamping noises)
Now let's ask ourselves this question. Are you in communication with that floor?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure you're in communication with that floor?
Audience: Yes.
Well, let me ask you a much more direct question. Are you in communication with that floor?
Audience: Yes.
Are you in communication with the floor directly or via your feet?
Audience: (various responses)
Both. That's an encouraging answer. Let's communicate with the floor. Is that good and easy? Hm? All right. Let's communicate with the right wall over there. You communicating with it?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's communicate with the left wall over here. You're communicating with it?
Audience: Yes.
You sure?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Now let's communicate with the back wall. Are you communicating with it?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Let's communicate with the front wall. You're communicating with what they're using up here for a front wall?
Audience: Yes.
Huh?
Audience: Yes.
You're communicating with it real good?

123

124

29 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Are you communicating with it? Or is it communicating with you?
Audience: Both.
Well now, which?
Audience: Communicating with it.
All right. Have that wall communicate with you. That front wall communicate with you.
Have the right-hand wall now communicate with you.
Now have the left-hand wall over here communicate with you.
Does it?
Audience: No. Yes.
Does it?
Audience: Yes. No.
Does it?
Audience: Yes. No.
Does it?
Audience: No.
No kidding.
Now have the front wall communicate with you.
Does it? Without any action on your part?
Audience: No.
Oh, we're agreed. (audience laughter)
Now take that right-hand wall over there. Does it communicate with you without any action on its part?
Audience: No.
All right. Let's take this left-hand wall over here. Now does it communicate with you without any action on your part?
Audience: No.
Doesn't?
Audience: No.
Are you sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Let's take the floor. Does it communicate with you without any action on your part?
Audience: No.
It requires some action on your part?
Audience: Yes.
Well! Find it.
Find the ceiling.
Find the floor.
Find the ceiling.
Find the floor.
Find your chair.
Find the floor.
Find your chair. Okay.
Find the floor. Okay.
Find the chair. Okay.
Find the floor.
Is the floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Find your chair.
Now let's really find that chair.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Is it there?
Audience: Yes.
You sure it's there?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Find the floor.
Is the floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure the floor's there?
Audience: Yes.
You sure the floor's there?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Find the chair.
Got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Now just for a trick, find another live thing in the room.
You sure that there's anything live in this room?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Find something else in the room that's alive.
Come on. Let's find something else in the room that's alive.
Audience: Yes.
Find something else that's alive?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Find something else that's alive.
Audience: Yes.
Find it?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Find the floor.
Is that different than finding somebody alive?
Audience: Yes.
Oh, it is.
All right. Find the chair.
Find your chair.
Is it there?
Audience: Yes.
Is it really there?
Audience: Yes.
Is it actually a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Find the floor.
The floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is the chair there?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Find somebody alive in the room.
Find somebody else alive in the room.
Okay. Find somebody else alive in the room.
Got somebody else alive?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Let's find somebody else in the room that's alive.
Audience: Yes.
You sure?
Audience: Yes.

125

126

29 DECEMBER 1954
Okay. Find somebody else in the room that's alive. Audience: Yes.
Okay. Let's find somebody else in the room that's alive. Come on. Really find somebody else in the room that's alive. (pause) Did you? Audience: Yes. Okay. Find the floor. Find a chair. Find the floor. Okay. Find your chair. You sure you got a chair there? Audience: Yes. Okay. Find the floor. Sure you got a floor there? Audience: Yes. Okay. Find your chair.
All right. Now find somebody in the room that's alive. Did you? Audience: Yes. You sure? Audience: Yes. You sure? Audience: Yes. Okay. Check it. You sure now? Audience: Yes. You're real sure? Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Fine. Good. Good. Now you're sure that person was alive? Audience: Yes. You know that now? Audience: Yes. Okay. Find the floor. Is the floor alive? Audience: No. You sure? Audience: Yes.
Okay. Find your chair. Got a chair? Audience: Yes. Okay. Find the floor. Got a floor? Audience: Yes. You sure? Audience: Yes. Okay. Find your chair. All right. Is your chair there? Audience: Yes.
Okay. Well, now let's find somebody in the room that's alive. Did you do that? Audience: Yes.
Are you sure that person's alive? Audience: Yes. Are you absolutely sure? Audience: Yes.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Well, check it. Okay. Was that person alive? Audience: Yes. Oh, you know that now? Audience: Yes.
Are you more sure than before? Audience: Yes. No. Not really.
Okay. Let's find the floor. Is the floor alive? Audience: Yes. No. Okay. Let's find your chair. Is that chair alive? Audience: No. You sure? Audience: Yes. Okay. Find the floor. All right. Find your chair. You got it? Audience: Yes. Still there? Audience: Yes. Did it change any? Audience: No. Good. Find the floor. Okay. Find your chair. You got a chair there? Audience: Yes.
Okay. Did you receive that "okay"? Audience: Yes. You did? Audience: Yes.
You didn't look like it. (audience laughter) All right. Let's find the floor. Okay. Let's find the chair. Audience: Okay. Okay. Find the chair. Audience: Okay. All right. Find the chair. Audience: Okay. All right. Find the floor. Audience: Okay. All right. Let's find the chair. Audience: Okay.
Oh, you're getting the idea now, huh? You were leaving it up to me to discern whether or not you could answer the communication. Well, that's interesting. All right. Find the floor. Audience: Okay. Yeah. All right. Find the chair. Audience: Okay. Got it. Good. Let's find the floor. Audience: Okay. Found it. Good. Let's find the chair.

127

128

29 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Okay. Found it.
Fine. Now let's find somebody alive.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Is that person alive?
Audience: Yes.
You know that now?
Audience: Yes.
You know it for sure?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. All right. Find another person that's alive.
Now, did you do that?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Good. Now we're ready for a little communication processing.
Now I want you to say, "Okay, Mama."
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Go right ahead, now, and start saying "Okay, Mama."
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Say it aloud.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Say it aloud.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Say it aloud.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Let's have it aloud.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Let's have it aloud.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good. Let's have it aloud.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Let's have it aloud.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
One down.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Two down.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Come on. Let's have it.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Good.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Come on.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Come on. Let's say, "Okay, Mama."
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Okay, Mama.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Okay, Mama.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Come on now. Let's communicate with Mama.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Come on.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Come on.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
All right.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
All right. All right. Who are you saying it to?
Audience: (various responses)
Who are you saying it to?
Audience: (various responses)
Are you saying it to Mama?
Audience: Yes. No.
All right. Let's say it to Mama. Come on. "Okay, Mama." Let's go.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good. Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. Okay, Mama. Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Fine.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Fine.
Audience: Okay, Mama. Okay, Mama.
Come on.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Come on. Let's say "Okay, Mama."
Audience: Okay, Mama. Okay, Mama.
Say it aloud. Come on.

129

130

29 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
You, too.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Okay.
Audience: Okay, Mama. Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Okay.
Audience: Okay, Mama. Okay, Mama.
Come on. "Okay, Mama."
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Fine.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Come on.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Fine.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Come on. Let's go.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Fine.
Audience: Okay, Mama. Okay, Mama.
Fine.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Come on.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
All right.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Come on. Only five minutes to go.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Everybody.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama! (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. Okay, Mama.
Come on. Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Fine.
Audience: Okay, Mama. Okay, Mama.
Good.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Come on.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Okay, Mama.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Okay, Mama.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Okay, Mama.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
Okay, Mama.
Audience: Okay, Mama. (repeated responses)
All right.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Okay.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
Okay.
Audience: Okay, Mama. Okay, Mama.
All right. All right. All right. All right.
Audience: Okay, Mama. Okay Mama.
All right.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
All right.
Audience: Okay, Mama.
That's fine.
Audience: Okay, Mama. Okay, Mama.
That's fine. That's fine.
Did it get quiet all of a sudden here?
Audience: Yeah.

131

132

29 DECEMBER 1954
Everybody alive?
Audience: Yes.
Male voice: Got a somatic.
Got a somatic, huh? Well, I tell you what I want you to do. I want you to get a spot out in front of your face that says, "Okay, (your name)." And you don't have to vocalize it, but the spot does.
Have a spot out in front of your face, and all it says is "Okay, (your name)." What a nice, quiet, restful process. (audience laughter)
Have a spot now out in front of your face that's saying your name. It's saying "Okay, (your name)." Nice, calm process.
That's fine. Have this spot out in front of your face saying "Okay, (your name)."
Saying "Okay, (your name)."
A spot saying "Okay, (your name) ."That's good. Let's roll it.
You have this spot do it now.
That's fine. Have this spot out in front of you. One spot. Now it doesn't have to have any mass with it. Just a spot there. Doesn't have to be in sonic. You don't have to hear it. Just look at it and have it say "Okay, (your name)."
That's fine. Just have that spot out in front of your face saying "Okay, (your name)."
That's fine. Have this spot out in front of your face saying "Okay, (your name)."
Now we don't care what energy manifestations start up. We just want this spot to say your name.
"Okay, (your name)."That's fine.
That's fine. Just have the spot there in front of your face saying "Okay, (your name)."
Let's make sure you do that. Nothing else now.
A little bird will tell me if you're doing something else. A sea gull.
Small spot in front of your face and have it say "Okay, (your name)." All I want you to do. So simple.
Now, we don't want anybody there in particular. That's fine. Nobody in particular there. Just a spot saying "Okay, (your name)." We assume the spot's alive.
That's fine. Just have that spot in front of your face saying "Okay, (your name)."
Don't get interested in energy moving around. We just want the spot to say "Okay, (your name)."
That's fine. Now let's check to make sure that you are having this spot appear and say "Okay, (your name)" in the space of this room. Let's make sure that the spot that's talking is in the space of this room. No imaginary space. We just want it in the space of this room. That's fine.
That's fine. Just have a spot in the space of this room saying "Okay, (your name)," right in front of your face.
Now let's make sure you know who's putting it there.
Who's putting it there?
Audience: I am.
Okay, you know that now. You're putting it there. And it's saying "Okay, (your name)."
A spot in the space of this room. That's fine.
A spot in the space of this room right in front of your face saying "Okay, (your name)."

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
That's good.
That's fine. Just a spot—front of your face saying "Okay, (your name)," over and over.
All right. Let's make sure this spot is still saying "Okay, (your name)."
And let's make it say "Okay, (your name)," many more times now.
That's real good. Now let's have that spot say "Okay, (your name)," many more times.
That's fine. Now let's have that spot right in front of your face say "Okay, (your name)," many times.
That's fine. Now, don't slack up now. Let's have that spot right there out in front of your face in the air of this room, the space of this room, saying "Okay, (your name)," over and over.
Okay. Is that real good? Hm? Doing it easily?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now let's change it just a little bit and have it say "Why, (your name), hello." "Why, Joe, hello."
"Why, (your name), hello." Real, real surprised and happy. Have this spot right out there in front of your face say "Why, hello." "Why, (your name), hello."
That's real good. Now have that spot right out there in front of your face say "Why, (your name), hello."
That's fine. Now have it get real enthusiastic about this. "Why, (your name), hello. Gosh!" Come on. Real enthusiasm there.
That's fine. Now have that spot out in front of your face say "Why, (your name), hello!" Have that spot right out there in front of your face say "Why, (your name), hello!" Real enthusiasm.
That's good. You're doing fine. Now let's have that spot right out there in front of your face, "Why, (your name), hello! How are you?" you know.
That's good, but you could make it more enthusiastic than that.
That's fine. Now have this voice right out there. It doesn't have to be vocal, you know. It's just putting up this idea. Have it say "Why, (your name), hello!"
All right. Now let's check up and see if you're following the auditing command closely. We want a spot in the space of this room right out in front of your face saying over and over, "Why, (your name), hello."
That's fine. Now, let's have that voice say "Hello" a lot of times now.
All right. All right. All right. Have it say it just two more times now.
Good. That's fine. That's fine. Good. Now, did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Well, fine. Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Did you do it?

133

134

29 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Good. Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you done it?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Find the floor.
Find the chair.
Find the floor.
Audience: Okay.
Find the chair.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Find the floor.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Find the chair.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Find the floor.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Find the chair.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Find the chair.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Find the floor.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Find the chair.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Find the floor.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now say "Hello, Ron."
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Good. Say "Hello, Ron."
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Good. Now say it a lot of times.
Audience: Hello, Ron! (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Good.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Now . . .
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Good.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello, Ron! Hello, Ron! Hello, Ron!
All right.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello, Ron! Hello, Ron!
Okay. Now do you feel better?
Audience: Yes.
How much Scientology went through the bank while you were saying that? (laughter)
Did any?
Audience: No.
No. Well, just so that you won't be lacking replies. Hello, hello, hello cubed. Hello, hello, hello cubed. Hello, hello, hello cubed.
Okay. Let's take a half an hour break.
Thank you.

135

 

A Group Processing session given on 29 December 1954
Let's right now find the floor.
Okay. Now, let's right now find the floor.
Audience: Okay. Okay, Ron.
Good. Good. And just for variation, let's find the floor.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Good. And just for variation, now, let's find the floor.
Audience: Okay, Ron.
Is that a floor?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, good. Have it say "Okay."
Audience: Okay.
No, you have it say "Okay," just that floor right there—start saying "Okay" to you. (pause) Have we got that now? The floor saying "Okay"?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Have the floor say "Okay" some more. (pause) That's fine.
Now let's just have that floor say "Okay" some more. (pause) That's good.
Now let's have that floor say "Okay." Now let's not go varying it around. Have that floor say "Okay" some more. (pause) Good. Is that easy to do?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Where's the floor?
Audience: Right here.
All right. Feel it. You got it there?
Audience: Yes.
Is it there?
Audience: Yes!
Well, all right. Have it say "Okay," over and over. Have the floor say "Okay," over and over. (pause) That's fine.
Have the floor say "Okay" some more times. (pause) Do that real easy?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, fine. Fine. If you do that so easy let's have each foot say "Okay" simultaneously. Have them both say "Okay," same time. (pause) That's fine.
Have each foot say "Okay" to you. (pause) Good. You doing that?
Audience: Yes.
Fine. Fine. Have each foot say "Okay" to you, not one after the other but both at the same time. Two "okays" at a crack, now. Let's speed this process up. (pause) All right.

137

138

29 DECEMBER 1954
Now what are you doing?
Audience: Having my feet say "Okay" to me.
You doing it?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's have those two feet say "Okay" to you. (pause) All right.
You doing that easily?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's have those two feet say "Okay" to you some more. (pause)
Have those two feet say "Okay" to you. Both of them at the same time, two "okays," wham, wham. (pause)
Is that real good?
Audience: Yeah.
Hm? That fine?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Have those two feet say "Okay" to you some more. (pause) That's fine.
Have those two feet say "Hello" to you some more. (pause) All right. Okay, now. All right.
Now, let's find the floor.
Audience: Okay. Okay.
All right. Is that floor more real now?
Audience: Yes.
Is it or isn't it?
Audience: Yes. (various responses)
All right. Have your two feet now say "Hello" to you. Simultaneously, have them say "Hello." (pause) All right. You getting so you can do that more easily now?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Have your two feet, each one, say "Hello" to you at the same time. (pause) All right. Is that getting real easy?
Audience: Yes.
Is it getting easier?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Have your two feet say "Hello" to you. (pause) Okay. How's that now, huh?
Audience: Fine.
Is that real good?
Audience: Yeah. Yes.
All right. Is it getting a lot easier?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Have both feet now simultaneously say "Hello" to you. (pause) All right, is that pretty easy now?
Audience: Yeah.
Is it getting easier?
Audience: Yeah.
Or is it getting harder?
Audience: Harder. Easier.
No.
Audience: Harder.
Well, all right. Have both feet now say "Hello" to you, over and over many times. (pause) Now how's that?
Audience: Fine.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART II
That real good?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, good. Good. Now have both feet say "Hello" to you. (pause) All right. Now how is it?
Audience: Harder.
Is it getting harder?
Audience: No. Yes.
It is? Getting harder?
Audience: Yes.
Getting easier?
Audience: Harder. Yes.
All right. Now let's have both feet say "Okay" to you. (pause) All right. That's fine. Now how's it going?
Audience: Fine.
All right. Now let's have both feet say "Okay" to you. (pause) All right. That's real good.
Now let's have both feet say "Hello" to you. (pause) Okay. Okay. How's that going?
Audience: Fine.
Going good now? Is it harder now?
Audience: No. Yes.
Oh, is it easier now?
Audience: Yes. (various responses)
Well, well. Have both feet say "Hello" to you. (pause) That's fine.
Now have both feet say "Hello" to you. Many times over and over. Both at the same time. Let's make sure now your feet are saying "Hello." (pause) All right. That's fine.
Now have both feet say "Hello" to you. (pause) Now, how's that?
Audience: Fine.
That getting a lot easier?
Audience: No.
All right. Good. Now let's have both feet say "Hello" to the ground. Have both feet say "Hello" to the ground. Put them down on the ground. Put them down on the floor. Just put them down on the floor. Now have them both say "Hello" to the floor. (pause) All right. Now is that pretty easy?
Audience: Yes.
Hm? That pretty easy?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now have both feet say "Hello" to the floor. (pause) Okay. How's that working now?
Audience: Fine. Better.
That getting easier now?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now let's have both feet say "Hello" to the ground. (pause) All right. Now how's that?
Audience: Fine.
Getting along real good?
Audience: Sure. Yeah.
Well, all right. Now let's have the ground say "Hello" to both your feet. Have the ground say "Hello" to both feet now. (pause) All right. How you doing now with that?
Audience: Fine. Good.

139

140

29 DECEMBER 1954
Well, good. Now let's have the ground say "Hello" to both feet again. (pause) Okay. How's it going now?
Audience: Okay. Fine.
Doing better?
Audience: Yes.
Doing a lot better?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Now have your feet say "Okay," each foot at the same time, say "Okay" to the ground. (pause) Okay. How's that doing?
Audience: Fine. (Various responses)
Are you actually having your feet say "Hello" to the ground now?
Audience: No. Yes.
Or do you find your attention getting distracted from it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Now let's have your feet say "Okay" to the ground now. (pause) How's that working, huh?
Audience: Good.
All right. That's working pretty good now?
Audience: Sure. Yes.
All right. Now have the ground say "Hello" and your feet say "Okay." And then have the ground say "Hello" and your feet say "Okay," and the ground say "Hello" and the feet say "Okay." Okay? (pause) You doing that now?
Audience: Yes.
All right. What are you doing?
Audience: Having the ground say "Hello," and the feet say "Okay."
That's right, ground says "Hello," feet says "Okay." Let's go now. Have the ground say "Hello," the feet say "Okay." (pause) All right. Now how's it going?
Audience: Fine. Good.
Well, good. It getting easier to do?
Audience: Yes. Yeah.
All right. Now everybody do it; include that—anyone coughing. Let's just do the process, not worry about the cough. Ground says "Hello," the feet say "Okay." And then the ground says "Hello" and then the feet say "Okay," and the ground says "Hello" and the feet say "Okay." (pause) That working real easy now?
Audience: Sure. No. Yes.
Is it harder?
Audience: No. Easier.
Oh, it is easier, huh?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Good. Now let's have the ground say "Hello" and the feet say "Okay," back and forth. (pause)
Now remember now, the ground's got to say "Hello" twice. Once to each foot. Come on, now. None of this fudging, getting economical. Two "hellos."
Male voice: Can they say "Okay" together?
Yes sir. Two "hellos" together, two "okays" together. The feet saying "Okay," each one of them. One "hello" for each. There's no rationing on these "okays." Make the ground say "Hello" twice now. That's all I'm getting at. (pause) All right.
Has anybody gotten any somatics in his feet?
Audience: Yes.
All right, is there anybody who has gotten no somatics or aches or pains or tirednesses in his feet?

GROUP PROCESSING, PART II
Audience: Yes.
Oh, there are some that haven't gotten any yet?
Well, I'll tell you just for the sake of novelty, those that haven't gotten any yet, do the next process also. And that process is this process. This is a new process. You got it now? New process. Got it?
Audience: Yes. Got it. Yes.
Got it real good now? You all set for this process?
Audience: Yes.
You all set for it?
Audience: Yes.
Say your name.
Audience: (various responses)
Say your name—much more familiar name for yourself. What is the most familiar name for yourself?
Audience: (various responses)
All right. Now say "Hello, (that name)."
Audience: Hello, (various names). Hello, (various names), (various responses).
Good.
Audience: Hello, (various names). (repeated responses)
Come on, let's say it out loud. Let's get verbal here.
Audience: Hello, (various names). (repeated responses)
Good. Let's say it some more.
Audience: Hello, (various names). (repeated responses)
Good. Good.
Audience: Hello, (various names). (repeated responses)
Good. Hello, Ron. Hello, Ron. Hello, Ron. Come on.
Audience: Hello, (various names). (repeated responses)
Fine. Fine.
Audience: Hello, (various names). Hello, (various names).
Okay. How's it going?
Audience: Fine.
Getting any somatic or anything?
Audience: No! No!
Oh, you mean this is a real easy process?
Audience: Yes!
You mean you can do this?
Audience: Yes!
Well, fine. Fine. Your name has now been changed, let us pretend, to X.
"Hello"—is that good?
Audience: Fine. (various responses)
Huh? Is that all right? Now say "Hello, X."
Audience: Hello, X. Hello, X.
Good.
Audience: Hello, X. (repeated responses)
Good. Fine.
Audience: Hello, X. (repeated responses)
All right. All right. Now, how's that going?
Audience: Hello, X. (repeated responses)
How's that going, now, huh?
Audience: Fine.
Is that a better thing?

141

142

29 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Oh, you mean you answer up better to X than your own name? No! All right. Let's continue the process now, "Hello, X."
Audience: Hello, X. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Hello, X. (repeated responses)
All right.
Audience: Hello, X.
Fine.
Audience: Hello, X.
Fine.
Audience: Hello, X.
Fine.
Audience: Hello, X.
Is that real easy to do now, huh?
Audience: Hello, X.
All right. Is that real easy to do?
Audience: Yes.
That's real easy to do?
Audience: Yes.
Well, is that a fact!
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now have your body say "Hello, X." Have it say it aloud. Have your body say "Hello, X."
Audience: Hello, X. (repeated responses)
Okay.
Audience: Hello, X.
Okay.
Audience: Hello, X.
Okay.
Audience: Hello, X.
Good. Now what's your name?
Audience: X.
Oh. Good. You got that real good?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now have your body say "Hello, X."
Audience: Hello, X. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Hello, X. Hello, X.
Fine. Fine.
Audience: Hello, X.
All right. Now how's that now, huh?
Audience: Fine.
Now what's your name?
Audience: X.
Good! Good. You finally found out your name. All right. Now have your body say "Okay, X."
Audience: Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X.
Good.
Audience: Okay, X.
Fine.
Audience: Okay, X. (repeated responses)

GROUP PROCESSING, PART II
Okay.
Audience: Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay.
Audience: Okay, X.
Now, who's making your body say "Okay, X"? Audience: I am. Well, all right! Now who's X? Audience: I am.
Good! Now have your body say some more, "Okay, X." Audience: Okay, X. (repeated responses) Okay.
Audience: Okay, X. Okay.
Audience: Okay, X. All right. Now what's your name? Audience: X.
Is that really your name, now? Audience: No. Yes. Good. What's your body's name? Audience: (various names) Good. And what's your name? Audience: X.
Good. And what's your body's name? Audience: (various names)
Good. Now who is your body speaking to when it says "Okay, X"? Audience: Me.
That's right. That's right. Now, let's continue, now. Let's continue with this. Make your body say to you, "Okay, X." Audience: Okay, X. Good.
Audience: Okay, X. Good.
Audience: Okay, X. (repeated responses) Okay.
Audience: Okay, X. Okay. Now how's that going, huh? Audience: Fine. That going much better? Audience: Oh, yes. Yes. Going real good? Audience: Oh, yes. Yes. Well now, who are you? Audience: X!
Good. What's your body's name? Audience: (various names)
Well, fine. Fine. Now have your body say "Hello, X." Audience: Hello, X. Good.
Audience: Hello, X. Hello, X. Good.
Audience: Hello, X. (repeated responses) Good.

143

144

29 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Hello, X.
Good.
Audience: Hello, X. Hello, X.
Now who is X?
Audience: Me.
Now what's saying hello to X?
Audience: Body.
That the body? What's the body's name?
Audience: (various names)
Is that the body's name?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, good. Let's have the body say, now, "Hello, X."
Audience: Hello, X. (repeated responses)
Okay. Okay. Now how's that?
Audience: Fine.
Is that better?
Audience: Yes.
That doing all right now?
Audience: Yeah.
It's very easy now, huh?
Audience: Yeah. No.
Well, fine. Well, fine. Now, you really feel much better?
Audience: (various responses)
You feel pretty good? You feel like you'll survive?
Audience: Yes.
You do?
Audience: Yes.
Well, maybe we can remedy that. (audience laughter) Have your body say, now, on the same level that you would get, "Yes sir, yes sir, yes sir." You know, just terrific, "Yes sir, yes sir, yes sir," you know. Have it say "Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay," very obedient, terrifically obedient. Got that now?
Audience: Yes.
And have it say "Okay, X" with terrific obedience, you understand? You got that now?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Let's go. Okay, X.
Audience: Okay, X.
Okay, X.
Audience: Okay, X. (repeated responses)
Okay, X.
Audience: Okay, X. (repeated responses)
Okay, X.
Audience: Okay, X.
Okay, X.
Okay, X.
LRH and audience repeating together: Okay, X.
Okay, X.
Okay, X.
Okay, X.
Okay, X.
Okay, X.
Okay, X.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART II
Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X.

145

146

29 DECEMBER 1954
Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay,X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay,X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART II
Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X. Okay, X! (applause)
Is there anyone around here that ain't in present time? (audience laughter) Okay. Okay. Audience: Okay. Okay.
Audience: Okay! Okay!
Audience: Okay! Okay!
Audience: Okay! Okay!
Audience: Okay! Okay!
Audience: Okay! All right.
Audience: All right! All right!
Audience: All right! All right!
Audience: All right! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!

147

148

29 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!
Audience: Hello! Hello!

GROUP PROCESSING, PART II
Audience: Hello!
Hello!
Audience: Hello!
Okay!
Audience: Okay!
All right. Is anybody in horrible condition?
Audience: (laughter)
You're in horrible condition? Well, I have some advice for you. Tomorrow at 1:00 P.M. in this corner we will have an auditor who will audit you some more upon these processes. (applause, cheering)
Two falls out of three and the best man wins! (laughter, applause)
Thank you very much, and I will see you tomorrow at 1:00. Good night.
Audience: Good night.
Good night. Goodbye.

149

 

A lecture given on 30 December 1954
Thank you.
How are you?
The program today is kind of flat because I haven't got anything to tell you. (laughter)
Now, in the matter of processes, actually, the oldest processes we have and the newest processes we have, actually, are on one channel. There's one common denominator to all of them. And that is two-way communication. Where two-way communication was missing, the process was unworkable. And thus we had the difference between a bad auditor and a good auditor. A good auditor was one who could maintain two-way communication with his preclear.
Let's reminisce for a moment. Have you ever had an auditor sitting there, he looked perfectly smiling, perfectly cheerful, he obviously had lots of ARC and he ran this process on you and told you to do this, and you did this and, at that moment, 8,000 Christmas tree lights suddenly appeared out in front of you out here; or your mother suddenly showed up as having stood here for the last twelve years; or some other phenomenon of some kind showed up, immediately—bing.
And you said to this auditor, "Say!"
And the auditor said ... (silence)
And you said, "But right out in front of..."
And the auditor said . . . (silence)
And you said, "But now the somatics are going all up and down my back!"
And the auditor said . . . (silence)
And you said, "I don't think I can stay in this engram anymore!"
And the auditor said . . . (silence)
At which moment you felt more like sending for the wagon for yourself and a .45 for the auditor. (laughter)
Now a very funny part of it is, is the processes which we have today, worked on a Scientologist, actually, sooner or later start to unwind all these moments when he was on the time track waiting for the auditor to say something—anything. They start to unwind, these instants, and the time track starts to straighten out as we supply the acknowledgments, the replies and originated communications which should have been there.
And when a technique will straighten out auditing without much ado, we must be there somewhere—somewhere because Communication Processing

151

152

30 DECEMBER 1954
on two-way communication, as the common denominator to all processes, demonstrates to us very adequately why individuals get stuck and fixated on things.
Well, this might be a joke. It's true, however. They are fixated on anything simply because they are waiting for a reply. Or they're waiting for somebody to originate a communication. Or they are waiting for an acknowledgment. Or they are waiting to make sure that they're talking to something that's alive. And that is what your preclear is doing.
And when he sits there and you run Technique 97, Technique 64, technique this and technique that and the preclear simply sits there, we might say he was waiting for a change to occur. He is, but that isn't the full of it. You might say that he is waiting for some effect to take place. He is, but that isn't all of it. You might say that he had some idea that you were going to do it for him, and he has, but that isn't all of it. All he's doing is waiting. He's not waiting for an effect or anything else. He is simply waiting for one of these four parts of the communication formula to be fulfilled.
And that's why, when preclears get in worse and worse condition, that they comm lag worse and worse. Their communication lag gets worse and worse. They are simply waiting longer and longer and longer. You follow me?
We have in, then—four parts of two curves. We have these two communication cycles which make two-way communication. One is originated by self and the other cycle is originated by others. Now oddly enough, there is a third cycle. It isn't three-way communication but it's three-cycle communication. You could actually wait for somebody else to talk to somebody else—two more curves out there, you see. See, you could originate, or somebody else could originate to you and then there could be an additional curve out there, you're waiting for somebody to originate a communication to somebody else, or that somebody else to originate a communication back. Now we've got four, haven't we?
Now, you might be waiting for somebody else to wait for a communication or receive a communication from somebody else through somebody else, and we start to stack up these cycles around here until it would become a high number. So let's be satisfied with two-way communication.
Now, there are just four parts: origin, answer, acknowledgment, live form. Now, "live form" actually belongs in the second place but I've put it last because I've saved it up to tell this congress about it. It isn't in Dianetics 1955! It isn't in The Creation of Human Ability. I want to tell you about this vis-avis. And that is the problem of live form. It takes a lot of telling, actually.
Why does somebody get any relief at all on touching a wall? Well, one of the things he finds out—it isn't alive. That's one of the things he finds out. He gets relief from touching a wall. On communication, we also have the problem of terminals. We get flows, discharges and automaticities occurring because somebody puts up a couple of electrodes and we get a current between these two electrodes.
An individual gets a lot of these terminals in his bank, one discharges to another, discharges to another, discharges to another and he gets an electronic relay system. And that, developed to the full, is the human brain: an electronic relay system. The reactive mind, for instance, is nothing but an electronic relay system consisting of a number of these terminals. All right.
The individual's attention is fixed on these terminals. We can, to some degree, get him to put his attention on the wall. We put him—attention on the wall and we say, "Look. There's a more solid terminal called present time that you can discharge against" and this makes him much happier. But that is

TERMINALS AND COMMUNICATION
actually a very simple statement. It's a true statement. But there's a little bit more to it. How did the wall get there in the first place? Well, it got there in the first place because somebody wanted a game. And it stayed there because it didn't answer.
Now, the question of live form comes in here and furnishes, actually, one of the more fabulous processes. We see this communication curve goes: origin to somebody there, to answer, and back—acknowledge. It goes in that cycle. We walk up to somebody, we say, "How are you?" He's there, you see.
And he says, "I'm fine." And you acknowledge the fact, one way or another, you know, by a nod or just looking at him, that you have received this communication. Well, actually, there's a preliminary communication that involves live form and that is getting the attention of something so that you can communicate with it.
Now, before any communication can take place between two ships, somebody has to stand up there and wag a couple of flags or blink a light very rapidly or do something in order to attract the other ship's attention. Eventually the other ship will go blink-blink and then you're in communication. You'll send a message back and forth.
Well, there's a sort of a little preliminary on communication and that is to have the attention of. And the formula of communication itself includes attention, intention and very, very juniorly, interest. Two people not interested in each other can still communicate, and mostly do. So that we have—we have communication taking place between two terminals. All right. If the communication is to take place between two terminals then attention must be procured between these two terminals. And that is not quite a communication but it is very, very necessary to communication.
And I ask you to think, now, of someone that you have known, was impossible for you to attract the attention of. Can you think of anyone that you used to have an awful hard time attracting the attention of? Can you think of anyone like that? (pause) I'll give you a little example of this: Now have that person turn around and look at you and say, "Yes?" (pause) Get the idea? All right.
Now, whether you thought of anyone or not, I want you to have a little spot out in front of your face look at you now and say, "Yes?" (pause) Go ahead. Okay.
Now, let's have that little spot say, "Yes" some more in that sort of a tone of voice, you know. "Yes?" You know, "Yes? What do you want?" (pause)
You get that very easily? Can you have that? All right.
I'm not processing you. I just want you to see what I'm talking about. That's what's known as "live form." You want a live form out there to communicate with. All right.
Let's have it say "Yes" a few more times. "Yes?" You know, just like you'd said, "Hey, you!" and it said, "Yes? What do you want?" (pause)
Have it say that a lot of times. Fine. Let's have it say it a lot of times. "Yes?" (pause) Okay.
Is that very easy to do now?
Audience: Yeah.
Yeah? That real easy to do? Have you thought of anybody who didn't do this? Have you thought of somebody who didn't do this? Have you known somebody that didn't? Impossible to attract the attention of. Okay.
Let's find the floor.
Let's find the chair.

153

154

30 DECEMBER 1954
Let's find the right wall.
The left wall.
The front of the room.
End of session. All right.
Now, we see this little trick here? That is live form. There is no substitute whatsoever for something live to talk to. There is no substitute for it. The idea of attracting the attention of something is paramount and primary above communication.
Let's look back at the Factors. We've had no reason whatsoever to change the Factors. The Factors are still there and they still ride pretty well as they are. We could add a couple of things to the Factors but it really isn't necessary. And we find that, to create an effect is the primary intention. All right.
We get that as a primary intention. How are you going to create an effect on something that won't pay you any attention, if that something doesn't have very much mass that you can mess up? If you can't touch somebody or push somebody or shake somebody to attract their attention, then you're going to have an interesting time of it, indeed. You will begin to believe that they're not quite there, or they're not quite alive, or that they're not alive and they're not there—live form.
Waiting for something live to show up is what we're doing. You see, it's very easy to go into communication with something that's alive but if something isn't quite alive or something of that sort, then it's not going to reply or signify that it is there so that you can go into communication with it.
Now, you can go over, if you'd like, and punch holes in the wall, and somebody is liable to get an effect from this, but if you went out someplace to some old abandoned temple nobody cared about and you punched a bunch of holes in the wall, it might momentarily give you a little satisfaction, until you suddenly realized that—nobody there to watch it, nobody there to feel it. You were just punching some holes in a wall—so what?
State of mind artillery gets into after a while: They never see the enemy and they just keep firing. I've talked to some artillerymen who have really raised havoc with barrages and so on, and these people were totally convinced that they hadn't done anything to anybody. You never saw such a conviction in your life. I mean—"Well, you just keep throwing it over there, you know, and you just keep throwing it over, that's the job. The actual thing we're doing is making a noise, as far as I can understand it," you know—this sort of a frame of mind. The enemy isn't alive. They don't see him. They don't get any response.
Now, we have two live forms. And one of them addresses the other one to cause an effect upon it. And then this one who had an effect caused upon him, turns around and causes an effect upon this first one. And you have a game going, and that's the basic anatomy of a game. That's the basic intention of a game: to create an effect, then backwards, create an effect; then the other way, create an effect; then the other way, create an effect.
Now, when you get a scarcity of effects, you have very many interesting mental conditions occur. But it's based on scarcity of live forms—scarcity of living beings, scarcity of living things. So, we have somebody come up and he says, "Oh, terrible, terrible, emergency, emergency, disaster, disaster, crisis, crisis." What's he trying to do? There's no crisis. There's no emergency. He rushes in and he tells you, "All of Scandinovia has just gone into revolt," and you find out that somebody issued a bulletin that said he didn't like the mustache of the existing king.

TERMINALS AND COMMUNICATION
This person has become frantic about, "Yes . . . ?" you see. No live form turns around to him and says, "Yes? What do you want? What are you going to say?" or "Yes, I'm listening." You see? And every time he's tried to create an effect, this live form has simply said .. . (silence)
And then he went ahead and created the effect but he didn't have the live form's attention. If he didn't have its attention, of course, he couldn't create an effect at all. So out of this, we actually get an evolution of a communication lag. And of course, when we get a communication lag, we get a reality lag, an agreement lag, we get an affinity lag. All out of what? Waiting for somebody to say they're there so that you can get on with the game.
So that we have these games which are composed of a known terminal and a hidden terminal: known terminal, hidden terminal. Such a game is cops and robbers. And the cop eventually becomes utterly frantic because there are very few criminals around waiting to say, "Yes? We're listening." But the cop knows that he has to discharge against something, somebody, some terminal, and he can't go and find this criminal, you know.
And a robbery is committed and the next thing you know, why, the police are scattered all over the place trying to find a robber and he doesn't show up. He doesn't walk in the police station and say, "Yes?" You'd be surprised, the police would probably dramatize and go almost psychotic if robbers and so forth, started to make a practice of walking into police stations saying, "Yes? I'm listening. What did you want to say? What do you want to know? Yes, I'm in communication."
So we get this hidden terminal. We get the known terminal and the hidden terminal. Every time you lose something you may feel a little bit frantic. You feel a little bit frantic; you say, "Where is that? Where is that? Where is that? Where is that?" And one of your reactions is, "I'll just get dozens of those things," you know, "I'll get dozens of them and put them on the shelf. I can't find those combs. I'll go down and buy a whole display card full of combs and I'll put those up there and then—then, that will work."
When an individual gets into this frame of mind, and if he loses too many combs and he is unable to get display cards full of them, or even after he does get display cards full of them the kids keep eating up the card and so forth, even if he does all this, why his next move, of course, is to leave his hair uncombed. He doesn't even look for a comb. He knows there's no comb there. Every time he thinks of combing his hair he thinks he'll have a cigarette. See, he can't have a comb, so he can have a cigarette.
And then the government comes along, puts a sufficient tax on cigarettes so he can't even have a cigarette to quiet your nerves. Only way a cigarette would possibly quiet anybody's nerves is simply by being there. You know, it's a handy object which can be a nice substituted object and you'll always make nothing out of it, too. And so as a result, you'll get this hidden-terminal affair. All right.
The police go out—what do they eventually do? The police go out, they're looking for the burglar, they're looking for the criminal, they're looking for criminals, burglars. Who did it? Those terminals are not available. They're not standing there saying, "Yes?" So the police, to keep from going utterly psychotic, start questioning somebody, and they usually wind up questioning any honest citizen they can lay their hands on.
This is sufficiently severe and significant in this society or any civilized society that police will eventually get into a state where the "criminal" is the honest citizen. They will just invert. And they will be very punitive.

155

156

30 DECEMBER 1954
They will graduate into government, and you get a fascist state. You could say by new definition that the definition of a fascist state would be that state in which the police became so frantic in their inability to find criminals, that they eventually, in an effort to find somebody who would listen, started to look at the private citizens who were honest. And then because they didn't listen with any great degree of patience—became the government of those people. That's what could be called an evolution of a fascist state.
By the way, there are a couple of such states have formed; one was in Germany, one was in Spain—now, just that way, the police graduated into the governing role. Missing terminal—so they have to find a terminal. They have to have a terminal.
And let's look at this communication formula again. Let's find in this communication formula here—let's just take one lobe of this and let's take here, [See chart 5 in the appendix] the first point, up here, that we will call Bill. And this point over here we will call Joe. And then this point here we will call Joe prime, and this is Bill prime. We get our parts of communication—just to go over this with you again—this first Bill up here is "origin" (O), and this first Joe here is "live form" and this Joe prime here is "answer," and this Bill prime here (the final Bill prime) is "acknowledgment."
Now, these people—these two people engaging in communication with each other would have an awfully hard time of it if they didn't use a little bit of energy to represent themselves. They themselves do not have any real mass or energy but they can mock up some, agree that it's there, across a space that they are making and agreeing upon with communication. So we have cause (C), distance (that line), (E). Cause, distance, effect. And then we have cause prime, distance, effect prime. And we get one cycle of communication.
Now this necessitates, we see, lower here, actually two terminals. When this gets real solid and when people start really working on it we get these two terminals. We could call this terminal "B" and this terminal over here "J." It wouldn't matter what we call them, "A" and "B," Brown and Smith, or two electrodes on an electric motor. You'd have the same thing. Let's take alternating current. And we find out that alternating current is a communication flow going back and forth.
Electricity is a dramatization of what life does. Life is not doing a dramatization of what electricity does. Your electronics boys are good boys, there's no doubt about it. Their scientific methodology and so forth has been of enormous assistance. The scientific methodology which I have applied in scientific research in the field of the mind is extremely useful.
It's a practical way of thinking about something. But why is it a practical way of thinking about something? Well, it's because what life—that's what life's doing. And after a while, particles wait long enough and get solid enough and are mocked up solid enough so that you have this fascinating condition known as terminals—two terminals: "B" and "J."
You can do anything with these terminals. You get them fairly close together, run a little wire in between them here and you're liable to find a slight difference of charge. If you were to take any pieces of iron—any two pieces of iron not hitherto connected, and run a wire between them—no way you connect them, you see, but you just ran a little wire between them, you'd find there was a momentary flow, ordinarily. You know, they'll equalize, then, their potential.
But if we keep insisting that one of these pieces of iron is hotter than the other or is—by pounding on it, is more active than the other—you will find

TERMINALS AND COMMUNICATION
that you get a little electronic flow going across that wire all the time from "B" to "J," "B" to "J." Now if we were to pound on one of these pieces of iron and not pound on the other one, we would find an electronic flow would result. That is one of the older forms of demonstration in physics.
Now, if we took a piece of cat fur and made these two terminals out of glass, something like that, and we rubbed one, we'd find the—if we had a little meter hanging right here on the middle of this line, this little meter would read current flow.
We don't care anything about this. This is just a dramatization as far as—on the part of the mest universe of what life does. The basic mistake that has been made in all of this is a very simple mistake. I've made this mistake too, so I know it's a mistake. And that is that life is mirroring the physical universe, or that it is behaving as it does because it has the example of the physical universe before it. You get the idea? That life behaves as it does because it has the physical universe before it. That is not true. The physical universe behaves as it does because life makes it behave that way. And that's the truth.
Now, why is it the truth? Well, because when you use that principle it works! And when you say, "Well, life is going along acting as a mirror to the physical universe," you don't get anything. You don't get any results. You don't get any results in processing. You take that theory and you apply it, saying that life is simply echoing the activities of, or is derived from electricity, or something of the sort and it just doesn't work at all. So we go at it the reverse, and we say the physical universe is doing pretty much what life wants it to do, and we're pretty close to the truth. And that is the truth.
So that we find this big formula of communication, two-way communication, in which this is one cycle represented here on chart 5. We discover that as it solidifies, you know—let's take a part out of here, let's say, live form missing, and yet the fellow keeps on communicating: "Hammer," you know. He keeps on communicating, but no live form is there. Nobody has said, "Yes?" He'll get into a stuck flow, here. He'll get into this—[writing on chart] I'm drawing very heavy here—he'll get into a stuck flow and he'll be going along like that, and he'll get into this two-terminal activity down here. See? And he'll get a current going straight across that wire and become, who knows, an electronics engineer someday.
Electronics engineers are good men, but they have the frailty of falling into their own trap. They start to depend upon electronic flows. They start to depend upon pieces of brass and copper and glass in order to accomplish these things. And so when they—usually, when then they start to theorize, even as I did when I was first in this work, they will come to all sorts of remarkable conclusions. They will always, inevitably, sometime or another, get interested in the mind.
Your boys at MIT right now, and so forth, are very interested in the mind. They're not interested, though, in the human mind. They're interested in an electronic mind. And once in a while one of them will speculate—I promised Norbert Wiener I'd never mention his name in connection with Dianetics so I won't mention his name but this fellow . . . (laughter) It's too bad, too, because I was quite happy he wrote that book called Cynergetics or whatever it was, and he talks about a neural response system. And this book about this neural response system, Cybernetics, has applied the principles of electricity to life. And it tries to demonstrate somehow that life comes about because of electronic flows. And it doesn't.

157

158

30 DECEMBER 1954
That's the basic mistake made in engineering every time an engineer starts out. And I have gotten finally, even up to my big toe, out of this morass now. I know this. I mean I know that electronics come about because of life. I know that masses and forms, their arrangement, their timing, their continued existence comes about because of life; because life can create these things. And if life can create these things, then life is certainly the boss.
These things, these electronic terminals and so forth never create life— never. And when life lays off of them they stop running—just like that.
One of these days, if we keep up this sort of thing, why, Westinghouse will probably eventually require the morning ritual of the prayer to the god Ohm— if we keep this up—the patron saint of electric terminals. Or they will require that a certain amount of insulation be burned every evening after work to appease—to appease the god Forest who makes tubes—makes tubes work. We might say it's probably the spirit of Edison is all that makes an electric light burn. It's probably true.
I don't know, actually, whether or not this physical universe and all of its laws work because these engineers invent new laws, or because they find old ones. But we know this very well: that when we have two terminals here, we know that a straight communication formula can get into a terminal arrangement.
And instead of Bill talking to Joe over here as a live form, Bill gets convinced that Joe doesn't exist or that he's dead or he's gone or something, or that he can't answer, and so he starts to plug away on this line, plug away on this line, plug away on this line. Something has got to be there, so he'll mock up a terminal over here where Joe is.
Well, he'll get tired of flowing at just a terminal, a wall or something like that, so he will mock up a terminal. Bill will mock up a terminal where he is to flow at where he put a terminal for Joe. You see? Nice automatic system, isn't it? Now he's got a flow between two terminals. He inhabits a body; he hopes that that thing over there is Joe inhabiting a body, and he's got flow between two terminals or two bodies. When you are studying terminals, you might as well say bodies. There isn't any reason you shouldn't because these are the way they act.
Now, what happens after an individual has started this terminal arrangement? You can see how Joe as a body talking to Bill as a body, or Bill as a body talking to Joe as a body, is actually two terminals in action with some kind of a flow going in between. You could see that easily.
Well, what would happen here if Joe didn't have a body at all, and Bill didn't have a body at all? Well, I'll tell you what would happen. They'd have to talk all the time. They wouldn't ever dare set up anything on an automatic response system or anything of the sort. They would have to—in order to continue their conversation, they would have to stay in very close contact with each other.
And rather than do that, why, they invent something called absent-mindedness or other-terminalness or bodiness. So that they set a body there in the chair and Mother's talking to the body, you know. And they say— Mother says, "Now—now, Joe, after this, I want you to realize that you're breaking your mother's heart by getting these bad grades. And after this, I want you to realize that you've got to study harder and you've got to amount to something in the world like your Uncle Bill." And she can go on like this for hours and Joe's body sits in the chair, and he goes off and examines the daisies—very handy mechanism. Life has uses for it.

TERMINALS AND COMMUNICATION
Now, it'll go a little bit further than that. In addition to bodies as terminals, they start getting other types of terminals. They get invisible terminals which nevertheless have mass. They get all sorts of—kinds of terminals that discharge one against the other.
Let's get a picture of this fellow running a drill press down in the factory. And he's got this foot on this drill press, see, and he presses this thing and a bar comes along the assembly line and he's supposed to drill a couple of holes in it. And they're in such and such a place so he comes along and he presses it, moves it up to the next one, presses it, pushes that along. Gets the next bar, presses it, gets the next bar, presses it, moves that along. Gets the next bar, presses it. Next bar, presses it; you know—wuhhh.
After he's done that for a year or two, he's liable to set up a terminal back of his leg here somewhere that, every time this thing goes "click" in a certain way as a signal, this terminal back of his leg will lift his leg and drop it again.
He is no more aware of lifting his leg and dropping it. He's no more aware of his hands fixing that bar in place. He has become a machine.
And you'll find many of these fellows who take jobs of this character have only one ambition: They want the kind of a job where they can set up some sort of an automaticity like this and then dream daydreams—to dream up things and think of things and invent fairy tales for themselves and so on. They like this.
You go around a factory and question a lot of these fellows that are running these repetitive-action machines, and you will find that they are very, very fond of highly mechanical jobs that they can set up on an automaticity, you know, bang, bang, bang. And then they sit there and they say, "Gee, wouldn't it be nice ... and Marilyn Monroe walks in, and then I say, 'Hiya babe!'" You know? They're floating off someplace by themselves.
They don't have to put their immediate attention on these terminals and don't have to give attention to get some kind of an action done and get the rest of the machinery enough food so it will run. Sounds strange, doesn't it? But that's actually what they're doing.
They're doing the work so that they can get enough energy to feed enough energy to the things which will do the work, so that they can get enough energy so as to feed enough energy to the machine so that it will work, so that they can get enough energy in order to feed it back into the machine, so they will feed enough energy into the machines .. . One day they'll come up to you and they'll say, "You know life has no purpose!" That's right, it doesn't—round and round, round and round.
Well now, any engineer has learned to regard with extreme caution anything like a perpetual motion machine because it doesn't happen in the physical universe that he can observe—a perpetual motion machine. By his experience, all machines wear out.
But unfortunately there is one: the life energy-space production unit itself goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on. And having no moving parts, having no mass, having no wavelength, it never wears out. But it can play silly tricks on itself. It can forget. It can channel. It can do all sorts of weird things.
But if you took all the things growing on Earth and had them feeding everything that they were getting, you know, into machinery, round and round, and round, and round, and round, we would have to introduce new energy all the time in order to justify the energy in heat loss which was going on. And we do have new energy all the time. We have the Sun. The Sun goes

159

160

30 DECEMBER 1954
across and furnishes enough energy and there's enough old stuff lying around and old life deposits and things like that, that these machines can keep up.
The reactive mind came about through some breakdown in the communication formula. For want of a terminal, he put one up. He made a facsimile, you see, of some sort. He didn't have enough terminals so he put one up.
Lack of answers eventually makes him anxious about answers. Lack of originated communications gets him stuck on originating communications.
Any time that thing breaks down, it starts to jam and you start to get more and more massy form. Life evolves itself into a necessity to have terminals. It has to have terminals, it thinks, so it evolves itself into tighter and tighter terminals.
And you get all of these crazy phenomena that you find in a preclear— all this mad phenomena. You get circuits and you get facsimiles and you get recording machines and you get things that evidently think and do things. When he thinks of being someplace, why, he has the impression he's there, or when he thinks of being someplace, he actually goes there if he's an exterior.
Gadgets, gadgets, gadgets—all kinds of gadgets: arms, legs, brains, noses, lungs—all kinds of gadgets. They're just gadgets. Thetan gets gadget-happy. And then he gets some ritual involved in it, like chew your food thirty-two times, sleep eight hours per day—rituals, so as to justify his possession of all these gadgets.
Now, a fellow has something. Then somebody comes around and says, "Why do you have that?" Fellow's got an old pipe. It's been lying on the living room table. Old piece of pipe—and there it is on the living room table. And somebody comes in and says, "What on earth are you doing with that piece of pipe on the living room table?"
Well, actually right up to that point it was—simply had some mass, that was all, and it was an interesting gimmick because it had some mass. He's got to invent a reason, right now. And quite often he will be conscious of the fact he is inventing a reason and conscious of the fact that right afterwards, that is the reason it's there.
And he'll do this in such close order that he thinks he had a subconscious reason to have it there. So he says, "What tricks are my mind doing now?" He just invented the reason out of whole cloth. He did it himself. He says, "Well," he says, "I have that to clean my pipe." Person looks at him and he's likely to take him seriously. But he says, "That's right. It's just a gag. That's what it's there for. It's a big piece of pipe and I have to clean my pipe, so . .." This person looks at him skeptically and says, "Hmph." So somebody else will come in, see, and—you see what happened? That was an unsatisfactory communication to the person, you see. They came in. They saw the pipe. They wanted some reason to have a communication or a conversation so they said, "What is this pipe doing there?"
And this fellow says, "Well, I use it to clean my pipe." And this, they didn't— you know, improper responses and it's just not good, that's all.
So the next person comes in, why, he says, "Well, what are you doing with that piece of pipe on your living room table? Look at that beautiful living room table and that old, rusty, ugly piece of pipe lying there. What are you doing with that pipe on the table like that?"
And the fellow says, "Well, I read sometimes, and I use it to hold open my books." And they'll look at this as an impractical piece of engineering. And they'll realize it's dirty and will get the book dirty and so forth and they say, "Humph." Unsatisfactory communication.

TERMINALS AND COMMUNICATION
Another person comes in and sees this pipe lying there and this guy by this time—see what he's doing? He's getting more and more reasonable about this. He figures out, he can't pull a bum joke, he can't give a bad engineering reason, he's really got to have a reason why that piece of pipe is lying on that table.
And it's never going to occur to him to move that piece of pipe. That piece of pipe will stay there. People are objecting to its being there, he thinks, so this makes him dogged. He's going to leave it there in spite of anything.
They walk in—the next person walks in and says, "What are you doing with that piece of pipe on that beautiful table?"
And he says, "As a matter of fact, last night I came down here about two o'clock in the morning and I heard this noise. And I didn't have a gun so I rushed out back and I got this piece of pipe, and the burglar ran out the front door and I didn't see him again. And I just happened to put the pipe down there and forgot about it."
And the fellow says, "Gee, that's interesting." Ah, he's stuck with it.
People who are doubted will always finally make a production out of their reasons—complete production. And after a while, he'll get to believe that any time he wants to explain anything that no reasonable explanation—no reasonable explanation is possible. He's got to invent something. He's got to dream something up.
Well, he'll get tired after a while, of dreaming something up just because everybody comes along and says, "What's that pipe doing there?" He'll get tired of this. So he'll set it up automatically. And he gets a reasoning machine which adds all the factors into this side and pulls them all out that side and they run down the ruddy rods there, and it sorts them all through and it says, "People have not been interested in this pile, people have been interested in this pile. People haven't been interested in this, people have been interested in that. Burglars, robbers ... too exaggerated . .. my age is now such-and-such and therefore what is expected of me is so-and-so," and after it gets all down through the hoppers, people walk in and say, "What is that pipe doing there?" And the machine pipes up and says, "Do you know that is actually a part of the battleship Maine, that was dredged up." And he finds this is the perfect response.
And he finds the machine is more able to give him answers that are beneficial answers to other people, than anything else, so now he's got the machine.
Next thing you know, this machine starts to get more and more active. It finally tells him what to do, what to eat, what to wear, where to go. Next thing you know, he's got it inside of a skull and it's called a human brain. And when he wakes up in the morning he has to bow down to this thing—and burn a little insulation to it every night. And that's what we've been studying all these years.
We've been studying this thing called the human brain—if we were really studying the human brain. Actually we stopped studying the human brain with Science of Survival to a very marked degree because we found out that there must be something else present besides a bunch of machinery.
If you were to walk in a plant which was in full operation, you would be suspicious if you found no living thing anywhere in the plant. And if it was sitting out in the middle of a desert and you were unable to contact anybody who had anything to do with it at all, although you searched day after day, why, you'd decide after a while the place was haunted. Very least, you would

161

162

30 DECEMBER 1954
decide it was haunted. You couldn't conceive of a huge plant running full-gun sitting out in the middle of a desert with nobody running it—just running.
Well, that's actually what an engineer does when he takes a look at this human mind. It's a big plant. It's doing the most fantastic things. It goes on running, running, running, running, running, running, running. Must have some purpose in life so he decides after a while—or at least I decided after a while, it must be haunted. Must be something alive around there. I didn't buy this story about neurons. Last time I invented one anyhow, it didn't work. It kept synapsizing terminals with me. (whistle) (tsk)—terrible, (laughter) All right.
So having decided it was haunted, I yelled into this big plant and I said, "Hey you! Get out of there!" And the fellow did. That's the history of research of Scientology.
Now, you can see—you can see here, if we're up against a problem of fixed terminals, if we're up against a lack of communication parts, lack of communication origins, a lack of live forms, a lack of answers and a lack of acknowledgments—if we're up against absences on these, and if these things do get us stuck and fixated one way or the other, and if these things do become these terminals that we find as demon circuits and other things in the human mind, if they do, then it should evolve that an individual would exteriorize and come off of these terminals and fixations with ease the moment that you reestablished the quantity of these things, these origins, live forms, answers and acknowledgments which should be present. He should just pull right off terminals, just like this. All right.
I have run some experiments in the past, and I've been processing preclears for quite a while, and have run some experiments definitely associated with people fixated on demon circuits, and have run Group Processing here at this congress. And it all demonstrated that these fixed terminals, these missing terminals, invisible terminals, all of these items, gadgets, gimmicks on which people get fixated, came apart—fell apart.
And I found out the body, if a complex one, was just another such ballup of communication terminals. And that by restoring the abundance of origins, the live form, the answer and the acknowledgment, that people backed right on out of their heads. "Say—what was I doing in there?" And when I say people backed out of their heads, I mean it. We ordinarily mean people as somebody who walks up in a body.
Well, let's specialize it further. Let's say somebody who drove up in a Cadillac, that's a people. Now, if somebody couldn't get out of his Cadillac, you'd think he was nuts or something was wrong. Well, you would, wouldn't you?
Audience: Yes!
Well, how about these guys that can't get out of their bodies? Same thing—it's just a vehicle. They're too lazy to walk around themselves, so they eat, and feed a body, so the terminals over on this side will activate against the terminals over on this side which will activate up here and activate across here, and then they'll get a ridge that goes into action there, that opens and closes their eyes, and so they can see that they're not walking into anything. And they get an alarm reaction system in the endocrine glands so as to tell them whether or not they should be scared of what they are looking at, and they take their body down the street, only—big joke—there's no driver anymore. The fellow isn't even driving his body anymore. His body is taking him around.
You know, I see a lot of big cars on the road and I watch them because it's

TERMINALS AND COMMUNICATION
very amusing to me when I discover that the car is taking the person somewhere, and the car is doing all the driving. That's fascinating.
You'll see them go into situations—any situation which is terrifically routine and ordinary—any routine or ordinary situation, they'll just get through fine. But give them a slightly extraordinary situation, which just is a little bit offbeat—like, instead of just stopping down to a certain number of miles an hour to go through a school zone, why, the kids jump out in front where there are stop signs, you know. You know, it's just a little bit offbeat.
And these cars will do the silliest things, and the people in them will look like they've just been awakened from a nightmare. They'll be very startled because all of a sudden they are being asked, of all people, to make a decision for this very wise car.
Now, I dare say, even today, thetans have cars all hooked up. I imagine they have machinery all hooked up to cars, I'll bet you. So that all they have to do is kind of think at the steering wheel and that activates. And they think at this and that will move, and so forth. Of course they're using their hands and their arms to do this sort of thing, but their hands and their arms are under the control of the car's machinery, rather than otherwise.
Well, this is automaticity. But we see somebody going down the street, the car's taking him down the street. All right.
Let's look at this body walking down the street and find out the body's taking somebody down the street. There is somebody there. That somebody doesn't have mass. That somebody doesn't need terminals. But that person is as fixed in his body and as fixed upon his circuits, as fixed upon his facsimiles and his engrams as he has lacked communication parts in the past, and as he is waiting for. He is as fixed as he is waiting for communication. And we have the basic law of this and so we have the resolution of the human mind.
Thank you.

163

 

A lecture given on 30 December 1954
Like to talk to you now about the aims and goals of Dianetics and Scientology. We haven't talked too much about this lately for the excellent reason that nearly everything I was doing was involved in the evolution of processes we could actually trust and count upon.
Lately we have originated a rather original sort of a clinic as such, here at the HASI. We have been having a tough run of preclears. That is to say, we've had some real, real good preclears. So we instituted a daily auditor's conference and so on, and we have been bringing the auditors in and looking the preclears over very carefully, and generally getting people swamped up, so on, that weren't before. And we talk to the auditors, and then they tell us all the boo-boos they made that day, and we straighten them all out. Well, we've straightened them out enough now, and things are going along well because these boys are pretty well trained.
But I am learning, now, that it's time we thought about some organizational goals. Because processing goals are getting very, very scarce. We can do what we set out to do and we can do it rather easily. Of course you get an exceedingly, terribly (well, a technical word)—loused up case—if you get one of these, he can puzzle you a little bit, but it's mainly a puzzle on just how are we going to get this fellow to talk with us for at least a short time so that we can go ahead and process him. In other words, how do we get him into a better two-way communication so we can go ahead and get something done?
Well, this points out to me that organizationally and individually, that we have quite a bit to think about in terms of goals. You cannot possibly sit still and inactive with this much dynamite lying around. It's just not safe to keep doors closed on it. You could very well say, "All right. Now,"—this is typical, typical investigator philosophy—"Well, now that I've solved it, (snore). No further responsibility." Typical.
Look at Edison: He had all this—gimmicks and gadgets, you know. Like we have, he's figured out a lot of things, you know, in various ways, and .. . You got any idea what electric signs say now? You got any idea at all? This man should definitely have laid out a program, what was going to do—at least what people should do with electricity. Look at the—have you seen any television programs lately? Huh? Well, that all happens, that complete chaos, because of no responsibility after an investigation was completed. Have you seen a movie lately?
Audience: Yes.

165

166

30 DECEMBER 1954
Gee. Have you talked to anybody lately? (laughter) Have you failed to get any answers lately?
Audience: Yes!
Well, you don't get any answers from somebody who's been sitting looking at TV for years.
Audience: No.
Not a single answer.
Audience: Right.
All right.
The number of things that we could do with Dianetics and Scientology today are very great. But it is up to us, not to some accident, to determine which way it's going to go. Otherwise, it's liable to take some channel or another which is antipathetic to the best interests of one and all.
Now, it almost, in the past, almost has gotten onto sets of rails where it had no business. Tell you a little story of Washington: The date was May 3rd, 1950. Publication date of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was May 9—actually announced May 15—it really came out May the 9th. Fellow came up to see me from the Navy Department and he says to me, he says, says he, "Ron, the Office of Naval Research would very much like to have you on its payroll."
And I said, "Well, that's fine, that's fine, Sir, but I'm busy."
And he says, "Well, Ron," he says, "heh-heh." You know the false comradery these characters can assume, you know, when they really got you pinned, the dagger's at your heart. They say, "Well, ah-ha, heh-heh-heh, that's all very well, Ron, but, heh-heh, we can call you back to active duty." He gave me a comm lag! And it was true, he could. He actually had it in his power to issue me a set of orders and put me on the job—not as a civilian consultant at ten thousand a month but as an officer at ten cents.
With a book deadline staring me in the teeth, just about, you see, to be published and everything going to go very, very well, very fine—ooh! Then I suddenly remembered that two or three years previously I had resigned, or had tried to. I'd sent in a resignation, and about six months later the Secretary of Navy's 57,000th assistant, I think it was, wrote me a letter saying the Secretary is very sorry, but we need all of you fine boys, you upstanding characters, we need you, and you should think of your country first and your welfare last. And therefore we don't want you to resign.
Well, this had all been gone through with. It's necessary, you see, that you write this letter of resignation and then you're supposed to make up your mind. They don't let you resign. So I all of a sudden remembered this, looked into my briefcase and fortunately I had all the papers. And I went down to the Navy Department, I saw a pal, a buddy, I went over and saw another buddy and I found out that it didn't have to go through my home district, New York, that I could get the Potomac River Naval Command—a vast fleet of one launch which they keep in the Potomac River to keep Washington from being invaded—and I went down there. They have an admiral in charge of that, and I got his signature on that, and I got the Bu Pers signature on that, and it came back— because the fellow said he'd see me next Thursday. Well, he saw me next Thursday there in Washington, and he said, "Well, have you made up your mind? Are you going to come to work for us at the Office of Naval Research?"
And I said, "No!" And he sort of did a comm lag waiting for the "Sir," you know, because he was gold lace from here . . . (laughter) But there wasn't any "Sir" there—perfectly legal now. I said, "No!"

THE AIMS AND GOALS OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY
And he says, "Well," he says, "Ron," he says, "you may be making a mistake," he says, "all I have to do is go down to the Bureau of Naval Personnel," he says, "and, you know, get your orders."
And I said, "Go right ahead. Go right ahead, Admiral." I said, "I've resigned."
"Oh you couldn't," he said, "it takes over six months."
And I said, "Well, we've been through all the red tape and there are the papers, and now wouldn't you like to know something about Dianetics?" I said, "I'd just as soon have you as one of the students here on this subject." And I didn't go in the Navy.
And the book was published on May the 9th, and I was able to keep forward on research and investigation. And fortunately organizations held together with—some people said it was mucilage but it was too thin for that. But somehow there was enough organization, there were enough people interested, there was enough to keep research going, to keep material being published and to bring us to where we are now. And that has been a considerable trick.
And this little story about the admiral is only one of the very few serious derailments which could have occurred: Finance, business, people getting tremendously interested in the profit involved in Dianetics and Scientology. The ninth dynamic: the buck. And any one of these things could have derailed the situation. At any one time almost anybody was willing to sit down—that is, not people who had any sense but people who had business acumen—were willing to sit down and say, "Now we have arrived at a point where we can make money out of this."
I don't know what you do with money. If somebody could just tell me what you do with a large pile of money and no human beings, I'd like to know. When they locked that gold up down there in Fort Knox, they said it was important. Well, it certainly isn't important now. How long has it been since you've seen a gold note or a gold coin? It's become completely unreal; it's no medium of exchange now and so it's worthless. It's a pile of metal.
We go down here to Kingman; there used to be miles—square miles of planes down there. Once upon a time when the enemy would look up at the sky and see no sky but see airplanes, those airplanes were important, weren't they? But sitting down there rotting in Kingman, Arizona, they're not important to anybody. We've forgotten they are even there. They are not in use. And when a thing gets out of use it becomes entirely unimportant.
Well, therefore, the first and foremost thing which we have to do is to keep something in use until it is in general use. Do you understand that? I mean, you—just the action of keeping it in use will eventually bring about general use. But if we don't use it, if we just have no program for its use whatsoever, it will simply be a forgotten piece of investigation.
Now, is there any reason why it shouldn't be forgotten? It's been fun. Well, let's look at the original reason why this material began to be assembled, and we discover that it came out of a physics laboratory. But the other physicists in that laboratory were not interested in applying anything they knew to any betterment of man. They had no idea that this was at all important. They went ahead and developed what was known so that it eventually could be announced by responsible officials of more than one government, that an entire continent can be wasted of life in one attack. That's a goal. Is it? I don't think it is.
Well now, it's a funny direction man is going when somebody could look

167

168

30 DECEMBER 1954
over this formula of an atom bomb, hydrogen bomb, when somebody could patiently collect enough cobalt 12 to add to enough hydrogen bomb in order to kill all life for enormous distances, kill the trees and the grass and everything else. And somebody willing to write a check for three billion dollars so that that bomb could come into existence.
And outside of the good people who are the founding members of the HASI, the people who have been members of the foundations, the people who have attended these congresses and those students who have paid for training and those people who have paid for processing, there was no check for three billion dollars. It's been up to us, it has depended upon us, for the entire financing of a piece of research and investigation which should have cost ten billion dollars and which didn't; which actually has cost less than half a million. And which I think is a little more important than how to destroy life for hundreds of miles in all directions.
Now, the early research and investigation of Dianetics was financed by a typewriter. A lot of you remember Ole Doc Methuselah. (applause) Ole Doc thanks you. But once we had moved into a foundation status, it was you people and what you had and could spend with the Foundation which continued that research and investigation.
We won't go into whether or not the money was wisely or unwisely spent. As a matter of fact, it couldn't have been unwisely spent. The Ford Foundation to date, without the discovery of a single answer of any kind, has spent upwards of fifteen million dollars. And we have done the whole job for probably less than half a million. That's fascinating.
The most important of all this is that having won this much of an echelon, having won to a level where we do have the information, where we do have publications and where we have learned, now, how to train an auditor so that he can go on and get results ... That was quite as important, by the way, as learning what to do to a person. Learn how to train somebody to be able to do it. That was very important. Having learned these things, and obtaining these results, we find ourselves at this date and this time in possession of the only collection of information and formulas which resolve the difficulties of man. You think that isn't a responsibility?
Don't go to the University of Chicago and ask them what to do about the lame and the blind and the halt because they can't tell you. Don't go to the Atomic Energy Commission and ask them; they don't care. But there's a lot of people here on Earth and not all of them are bad people. This could be a very great civilization. It already is a fairly high-level civilization. It has been greater, it can be greater.
But where sits the responsibility? It doesn't sit on just my shoulders. Because one man working by himself, no matter how sincerely, while he might be able to dig up some answers, certainly could not even vaguely undertake the task of education and dissemination of an entire planet of people. Look at it for a moment and you will see that it's a big job. Yet, theoretically, that could be done. You could actually disseminate this information.
We could ask ourselves, "What could we tell them, what good would it do?" Well, have you ever seen an unhappy family that had in its midst one person who was disoriented, who was completely missing, let us say, on the third dynamic? Whether that person was insane or an invalid, or simply cross and unbearable and intolerant, the ability of that family to produce, to be happy, to fit itself into the society, is damaged thereby. Supposing we care nothing about the individual who is sick in that family and who is causing

THE AIMS AND GOALS OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY
that upset. Supposing we care nothing about him. We still would care about the other members of that family, the kids that are growing up in an atmosphere of this character. We'd still care about that, wouldn't we?
And if we were able to place in people's hands just this datum, we would have won a tremendous gain—just this datum: Something can be done about it.
Do you know what state the society is in now? Do you know that a police officer going out here on a traffic run, pulling down cars and handing out people's tickets, completely lacks that datum. He hands out the tickets and he sees, year by year, speeding, wrecks, drunk driving continue. He keeps watching this and sees it goes on happening. Yet he hands out more and more tickets. He knows basically that this isn't doing anything about the situation, he's just trying to hold back the flood one way or the other. He thinks maybe he's helping it out a little bit but he knows he's not solving it. Do you know that that police officer (just consider him as a common citizen if you can), does not know that the person who is driving that car recklessly amongst traffic and causing casualties—does not know that that person in that car is incapable of following orders, laws or regulations. Just give you one thing he doesn't know. The people who have the wrecks are the people who cannot read the speed laws. And if they could read them, couldn't—just physiologically, mentally—could not obey them.
It's only ten percent of the cars out on the road. They're driven by people that, if you started these people into Opening Procedure of 8C and you said, "Go over and touch that wall," this person would look at you and—he'd know he was in session and everything, you know—he would look at you and he would say, "Oh, well, a chair is just as good."
And you say, "No, go over and touch the wall. Come on, let's go over and touch the wall," and you'd set him an example and so forth. He might touch another wall, he might just sit there, he might just object, he might try to throw you off in some other direction. He wouldn't touch that wall. He's psychotic.
And just because he can talk and answer up to his own name and lift a drink off the bar, we say, "He's a full citizen of this great land; he's perfectly sane."
We could go out and hire a bunch of psychiatrists—the psychiatrists come around and tap him with little hammers or something of the sort. And they tap him in the right arm, his left arm flies up (reverse for you). And they say, "Just like I am—sane."
Courts actually, in this land, call in mental experts, so called, to determine whether or not a criminal is insane. And let me tell you that a person who commits crimes on the second and third and fourth dynamic can never be considered sane. And a criminal, by committing willfully and knowingly harmful acts on the third and fourth dynamic, immediately has declared himself to be crazy. But they have to have, in this civilization, a mental expert to come in and find out whether or not his left arm flies up if they tap his right arm. They have to go out and discover and research whether or not somebody has some peculiarity which they can label insane.
In effort to combat this, they pass new laws. And then crime and accidents, unhappiness, marital disarrangements continue, so they pass new laws. And then other things go wrong in the society, and they pass new laws. And after a while they pass so many laws that not even a sane man can read them, much less obey them, because the people passing those laws, getting no answer, go into a somewhat psychotic state. They say, "Nobody's listening to us, anyhow."

169

170

30 DECEMBER 1954
In England, in the late part of the eighteenth century, they had some of the most remarkable laws you ever wanted to read. Every kind of a misdemeanor, any kind of a felony that you could name had after it as the penalty, "Hang him." No matter what it was, "Hang him." If you couldn't hang him, send him to America. That was worse.
So, as you pass new laws, the very people who can't read, who can't follow directions, who are antisocial, simply continue to disobey old and new laws. And by passing more and more laws, by more and more regulation, by more and more effort to control, by more and more suppression in the society, you eventually run a society out through the bottom. And it starts in just because there was 10 percent that couldn't read or follow directions.
Be a good thing to have a good civilization in this society. There'd be nothing wrong with this. It would be a real good thing. But the police officer who goes out there and stops cars now and hands them tickets does not know that anything can be done about it at all. The next thing he doesn't know is that there's any way to predict the behavior and ability of an individual.
It's fantastic, but let's start right down at the bottom. What does the society know? What doesn't it know? And it doesn't know that there is a way, actually, to predict, estimate, the behavior and ability of an individual.
In other words, when they start licensing drivers—just in one small field, or licensing citizens for that matter—when they start this, as these people come up for their little slips of paper, they just deal them out. And yet every tenth person in that line is a criminal. And what is a criminal? A criminal is one who exists for the first dynamic alone because it's not possible to exist for the first dynamic alone—not in a society like this.
We go down to the jailhouse and start looking at the people down at the jailhouse, we'll discover something remarkable: They're existing for the first dynamic alone. We go over to the insane asylum, we'll find something's quite remarkable about this insane asylum: The people in it are existing for the first dynamic alone. They may be stressing, dramatizing something on some other dynamic but they're existing for the first dynamic alone: "There isn't anybody else." And that's the common denominator to all of this kind of nonsense. People exist for themselves alone.
The psychiatrist, the psychologist who comes down the line with the statement that a baby lives in his own universe, he isn't aware of anybody else around, is, himself, confessing that he is incapable of observing his environment. Because a baby isn't existing for his own first dynamic. He isn't; watch him. Do you know that he is so little sold on the first dynamic that when you cease to give him good communication on the third, he gets sick?
Experiments have been tried where the parents left the children in the hospital for a few weeks, and the kids got sick. They always got sick. They felt that they were more or less being abandoned by their parents and the second they got that idea, they became very upset.
Now, I've watched lots of kids, and if you can give the kid the idea that his parent doesn't care for him, that he's abandoned—you could attribute this to the first dynamic if you were terribly centered on one yourself—but the kid wants communication. He can communicate. He becomes very diffident about communication after a very short time, but he still lives on communication. He hasn't yet learned how to set up an enormous number of circuits to communicate this way, inside of his skull, so that he won't need any external communication.
Take a little kitten, they walk up to you, they say "Hello"—always friendly. Little puppies, babies—same way. You really have to cuff a kid

THE AIMS AND GOALS OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY
around to get him out of communication. It really takes some doing to get a kid out of communication. They're alert. They know. They start in usually on a pretty high fourth and then they find out after a while that somebody, (quote, unquote) "has all that nailed down." Nobody has the fourth dynamic nailed down; that's the trouble with it.
And so, here we are in a rather fantastic world. Here we sit with answers, and people don't even know these answers are possible. They haven't even thought they could possibly be possible. "What? Predict, before you gave a fellow a license, whether or not this individual was going to have accidents? Hah, that would be interesting"—new, novel idea.
So we get our line of dissemination outlined for us simply by examining the environment in which we find ourselves. And that is that we are trying to give people a tremendously valuable lot of data without acquainting them with the fact that such data can exist. That would be our first organizational error.
Our first error as individuals would be to cut in too high, to try to tell people too much. Those of us who have been here with Dianetics and Scientology a long time have learned a lot more, just as I have, than we knew a long time ago.
But here we have this problem of relaying information to a public that doesn't know an answer is possible. Now, how much lower can you get than that? Well, you can get that much lower that they don't know a problem exists.
A long time ago—I'll give you an idea of how society can go off—a long time ago in the United States, there was a great deal of child labor used in factories. They took children because they could pay them very small wages and worked the lives out of them.
And so a great many reformers sprung up and they passed child labor laws—laws to undo a wrong. And having passed these child labor laws, they never for a moment suspected that juvenile delinquency would someday occur as a result thereof. These laws were passed solely because people felt for and liked children. And yet today these same laws operate to create juvenile delinquents.
What do you think would happen to a man if you restrained him from working and from earning for twelve years? Do you think he'd work? Do you feel he'd have any responsibility for the society around him, if you restrained him, actually, for twelve years? Let's say, between the age of twenty-one and the age of thirty-three, he were actively restrained from participating in the work and construction of the society in which he lived, what would you wind up with at thirty-three? A bum, certainly. And yet the ages between twenty-one and thirty-three are not very impressionable years compared to those between ten and twenty-one, are they?
Well, we have to send kids to school, we have to do a lot of things. But kids are capable of doing a lot of things. Maybe we have a flood of labor, maybe we have to cut down our labor market, maybe a lot of interests here have to be consulted.
But this doesn't get around the fact that there is such a thing as juvenile delinquency and that the criminals of today in the society are the criminals in the juvenile band. These people, the active crimes committed on the highway out there, are kids who have been taught carefully that their services are not desired and that they do not belong. They have no vested interest in the society. They are prevented from working in the society and therefore and thereby they have no responsibility for it. And they get to be twenty-one,

171

172

30 DECEMBER 1954
twenty-two, they know nobody's got a job for them, they know they can't work, they know that to have anything they can't earn—the answer is to steal.
Another thing: Short time ago we had a thing called—in the US—we had a thing called universal military training. I don't know why they called it that because I looked in vain for any South Africans drafted under that law, but they called it universal military training. And it put on the time track of every boy, along about the age of eighteen, the fact that he was going to be thrown into a barracks and told to cart a rifle around for a couple or three years. And he stopped. He didn't lay any future. He said, "What's the use?" And no more active or criminal act was ever perpetrated upon youth than conscription.
If they want soldiers, why don't they hire them? And that's an answer that no government ever has been able to digest. If you want somebody to serve in the armed forces, hire them! Make it worth their while. Don't make slaves and criminals out of them. That doesn't say that everybody drafted is going to wind up a criminal—only half of them will. When you think of the amount of life that has been interrupted for kids because of this nonsense, you could weep.
But, I've talked to boys, talked to young boys. They couldn't be permitted to work, you see, up to the time they were eighteen, so they couldn't make anything they had to have or they wanted. They had to depend on somebody or sponge on somebody in order to get this money to buy what they wanted. And then at eighteen somebody said, if they were foolish enough to stay in good physical condition—we've had some preclears, by the way, who didn't get well until after the selective service had passed them over—and here we have somebody at eighteen who is suddenly conscripted. Where do the girls go if all of the boys of their age are suddenly picked up and sent into never-never land to carry a rifle—squads east and west?
It's not that I'm against the military. I like the military. It's an interesting game, it's a good game, but it's a game you have to play because you want to play it. Not a game that you play because somebody drives you into it. Nothing is a game that you're driven into. So these kids aren't asked to play a game. They're told they've got to do time. And there's another nice barrier on the track.
Well, recently they've started to repeal this. Finally got the word someplace or another that they had an atom bomb, now, and they didn't need that much infantry. So they cut down on conscription.
Conscription is a great mechanism. One of the earliest boys who did any conscription was a fellow by the name of Napoleon, and his conscription was a wonderful thing. He conscripted, all right. And you had young farm boys going out and cutting off their right trigger finger with an axe on the chopping block so they wouldn't have to serve in little Nap's armies. And he was able, Napoleon was, by this great movement, to reduce the height of Frenchmen one inch—his total accomplishment and his monument to the future. Like to meet Napoleon today and ask him how proud he might feel for having reduced the height of Frenchmen one inch. But that's what all this legislation amounts to.
Now, it's not all wrong out there, by a long ways. There's a lot of it that is tremendously right. The engineer today has come into possession of technology which licks enormous numbers of problems. We ourselves can put into the shade and into yesterday such things as psychosomatic illness.
Man is learning how to build. He's learning how to communicate better. He's learning better means of transportation. He has himself a better world

THE AIMS AND GOALS OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY
right before him—not just around the corner but right up there in plain sight. There's a terrific world.
What's he going to do with it? In 1932 my classmates had decided what he was going to do with it. He was going to blow it up, that's what he was going to do with it. By adding together enough protons and electrons in the right order, they could make a beautiful boom of the hopes and dreams of everybody. But none of the fellows who were doing that are in present time. What they're doing—we're just getting ready to play a good game, you see? And these guys, as their crowning glory, go out and blow up the playing field and burn up the goal posts. The little squirt who used to come in and grab your marbles so you couldn't play marbles with the rest of the boys, you know? He'd come in and grab them and run off, "Nyah, nyah, nyah." That's your nuclear physicist today. Some of these men are my friends; I know them.
And this is a magnificent thing, isn't it? You just get the world into a state of communication. You get the transportation real good. We come up with the answer, even, to psychosomatic illness. Man's getting to a point where his answers in the field of sanitation, his answers in the field of study—he's getting real good, you see? But before we get anyplace, somebody goes boom!
Well, maybe that's one of our organizational goals. It would be, if I thought anybody thought we ought to go in that direction. If anybody thought that we should to some degree make it our business to make sure that the people who handled the weapons which might blow up the playground should be made saner, that some of the people who have their hands on the rudders should get the word, we could have a pretty interesting game of that.
We've learned something in the last few months. I have finally decided, after a great deal of study of this, what a wrong step is. Finally found out completely what a wrong step is. It sounds like we almost have an absolute. Probably there are exceptions to this. But what could we do that's wrong? Actually, could you know that there was something to do that was wrong? Yes. That's to do nothing. That's wrong.
You start auditing a preclear and you discover it's the times when he stopped communicating that he went by the boards—just that: He stopped communicating. He decided he would no longer communicate in that direction or he would no longer communicate with that thing, and that preclear went by the boards. And you can go back in the lives of any one of the preclears you have and you will find out inevitably it's when he decided to do nothing and decided to stop communication that he went to pieces.
So we can tell you by exact clinical demonstration and experimentation that the wrong thing to do is nothing. And if we conceive ourselves even vaguely to be faced with a problem of a world destroyed in the anger of war before it ever has a chance to become really civilized, the wrong thing to do is nothing. We know that. The wrong thing to do is not communicate.
It's not a popular thing today to tell the public out there "Hey, what do you think about this atom bomb?" We conducted a little survey here a short time ago, an interesting survey: What are the reactions of people on the subject of atomic fission? And we found out that they covered up their eyes when atom bombs appeared on the screen, that they left the theater, they walked away, that they were busy doing nothing about it. They couldn't even vaguely face it.
And our governments have been setting up typical homes and dropping their bombs on those, just to impress the public with how gruesome this could be. And the public still didn't do anything about it and won't do anything about it because they don't think anything can be done about it.

173

174

30 DECEMBER 1954
But I'll tell you the wrong thing to do about it: Nothing. That's the wrong thing to do. And I'll tell you the wrong thing—wrong way to handle information on the subject: Don't communicate. That's the wrong way to handle it. We know that. We might not know the right way but we know the wrong way.
Now, let's look over this. Does it mean anything to you, to me and to ours, that a weapon exists in the world today of such force and violence that the continent of North America could be obliterated from Earth? Does that mean anything to us?
Audience: Yes.
Well, you know, I've tried to talk to people about that, in service stations and so forth, and it was a datum they couldn't grasp.
Very interesting conversation I had with one fellow. He was a salesman, he walked up to sell me something. And so I started asking him what he was going to do about the atom bomb, the hydrogen bomb. This was such a new thought that he was completely flabbergasted that he had anything to do with it. And he imparted the information to me that he didn't think he would be affected in any way by the hydrogen bomb or the atom bomb. And I said, "Well, what if the continent of North America, as was announced in the paper the other day, could be obliterated by atomic fission?"
"Well, somebody will think of something. We have weapons, we've been told, that counter this. We could obliterate Asia." This is an answer! But he says, "So, I don't think it would happen."
"Well," I said, "what would happen if it did happen?"
"Oh," he said, "you'd get along somehow."
And I said, "Well now, let's just see, if it were going to happen in the next ten or fifteen minutes, if it would influence you."
"Oh," he said, "I suppose it would—probably have trouble getting communication through to the home office. It's in New York," and so forth.
I said, "Well, let's look at the number of things you're trying to do right now. Let's see, are you paying for a car?"
The fellow says, "No, I bought it, that's my car out there."
"Oh." I said, "Oh good. All right. Now, an atomic destruction of North America would be the end of that car."
"Now," I said, "that suit you've got there, you like that suit?"
And he says, "Well, yes!" He says, "My wife likes it too. I mean, she picked it up."
I said, "Well, that would mean the end of that suit."
"Hmmm. Yeah, I suppose you could say that."
"Now," I said, "your kids—you're going to a lot of hard work . . . You got some kids?"
"Yes, yes."
"Well, you're going to a lot of hard work to keep them clothed and fed and give them an education and so forth, and you hope they grow up and amount to anything, you know, you hope so?"
"Oh, sure, sure."
"Well," I said, "well, that would be the end of that."
"Hmmmm." He was starting to get a little bit unhappy, but it hadn't come home to him yet.
So I said, "Well, let's see your wallet." He pulls out his wallet. I said, "Let's pull out some of your cards there." And he pulled out his Social Security card.
And I said, "Well, all the material you have in your hands at this moment, including that fifty-dollar bill, would all be destroyed."

THE AIMS AND GOALS OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY
And he looked at me, and he shoved the stuff back in his wallet and he pushed it very, very carefully into his pocket and put his hand on it and he said, "We've got to do something about atomic fission!"
Well, it becomes very interesting communicating. But it is possible: Think—think of being able to communicate something like this to a salesman who does nothing but outflow and who is stuck in that direction. It's an impossible task.
The public at large, I believe, the people throughout Earth do not believe that anything can be done about their problems. They've even gotten to a point where these problems are more precious than life. If anything's going to survive, it's got to be the problem. They believe that problems are the finest things to have around because they don't think anything else could adequately occupy their time. It must be this way, otherwise they wouldn't permit a problem of this magnitude to continue to exist in their vicinity.
The worst thing in the world that they could do would be to revolt against any existing regime. Revolution never carried anything with it—never carried anything with it but chaos and the return with more ardure of the same regime that the populace got rid of.
It's the unhappy history of every revolt that ever took place that I know of. They revolt against the King of France and they get Emperor Napoleon. They revolt against the duke and they get a Duke of Lemonade. They revolt against a civil service system called the government of Russia, and they get a civil service system called communism.
So revolution isn't the answer. The answer must lie somewhere in the field of evolution. But evolution cannot take place without better information and more data. And more importantly, this single thing: a hope that something can be done about it.
And if we could tell people today, we could demonstrate to individuals today that something actually could be done about it—I don't care what problem we're addressing, you say something could be done about it—if we could tell them this, and that we could do something about it, we would probably just be getting into the entering wedge of two-way communication on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology.
Well, I'll tell you the wrong thing to do with Dianetics and Scientology is not to communicate it and not to use it. We know that's wrong. What are the right ways to communicate it? Those we can work out but any way is better than no way.
Every once in a while a group of auditors may get very dissatisfied with me or the HASI. It has happened. I hear about these things very seldom, they usually fold up before I get a message about them. But, they get dissatisfied somewhere or another, they feel that somebody's being too punitive or is upsetting them in some direction or is doing something wrong in some direction. And I'm usually appalled by the fact that they don't know what we're doing. They don't know what I'm doing. They don't know what the organization is doing. They haven't bothered to find out. All they noticed was that somebody was communicating. And their dramatization was to stop it.
The only thing that is thoroughly against the law in this universe is to communicate. And the only thing you can do wrong is not to communicate. And between these two factors you get a very big game.
Another thing you can do wrong is to be there. Your parents ever slap you around? Ever say you got muddy shoes, you should comb your hair, why don't you brush your teeth, why don't you mind your manners, why don't you get to

175

176

30 DECEMBER 1954
school in time? Your parents ever do this to you? Do you know what the crime was? You were there! That's the only crime.
And let's suppose that for a moment they didn't notice you were there and you started to communicate. You said, "Mama—Mama, can I have an apple?" Naaahh!—second crime, which is the first and only crime: to communicate. If you cried, don't. If you yelled, don't. Don't communicate.
Well, there's one thing that we will never learn. There are a lot of things we have learned, organizationally. But whatever the aims, whatever the goals of Dianetics, Scientology or the various organizations or people connected with them, there's one thing I know fairly sure that they will never completely learn: They will never learn to stop communicating. Because auditing with the modern processes we have demonstrates to an auditor, time after time, that the only thing wrong with his preclear is the fact that he stopped communicating.
And if we ever get taught any lesson by preclears, if we ever get taught any lesson by aberration, it will be that to stop communicating and to do nothing is wrong. We'll learn that. If we ever make one human being well, we'll learn that one.
Organizational policy would to a large degree dictate what we were communicating. And of course there are lots of ways we could communicate that are better than other ways. There are lots of ways we could communicate that are worse than other ways. A great many opinions could be expressed on how we should communicate and what we should communicate about. But let's not fall into the trap of punishing every time somebody communicates.
If they're communicating about Dianetics or Scientology, let them communicate. You don't have to answer, particularly, but let them communicate.
Organizationally, we conducted an experiment in August. We chopped off a lot of certificates. We put a lot of people out of communication. And I sat back to find out what was going to happen. Did anything get better?
Well, as a matter of fact, we couldn't put these people out of communication. They might not have written us for years but they really started writing us when we cut their certificates off.
One other direct result of this will be amusing to you: We stopped receiving complaints about auditors written by other auditors. Our mail used to be full of complaints from auditors about the horrible, how-bad-it-is-over-there other auditors. Nobody's complained about an auditor since.
A fellow whose name we won't mention, in Great Britain, wrote over a very scathing, damning report on an auditor who had been a member of the Advanced Clinical Unit. So we accommodated him, this auditor that had complained. Without further investigation we simply yanked the certificate of the person he was complaining about. And he almost went into a spin. He told people for weeks, "No, I didn't write anything about her." Practically in the next mail, we restored this person's certificate. But this particular how-bad-it-is-over-there has stopped. We don't receive our weekly condemnation, from that one auditor, of the auditors in Great Britain.
Now, this tells you, then, that there is better ways to communicate than some ways. But even entheta is better than no communication at all. We'd rather have an erroneous report than none. There are better ways to communicate.
But we found out that if we as an organization, started to rap the knuckles of every auditor who was trying to communicate sincerely on the subject of Scientology, that we might as well go out back and cut our own heads off with the axe. And we found that out. We're guided by that practice and principle.

THE AIMS AND GOALS OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY
But as far as auditors in the field are concerned, auditors scattered here and there across the world—and I do mean scattered across the world—I can sincerely tell you that I do not know of one of these auditors who isn't trying to do a good job of communication in his own framework and experience. They're all trying, one way or the other. Some of them think the only way they can communicate would be to shut off all that darn communication Ron does. There's very little of that, fortunately. Most everybody has learned that it's best to let that one run, and run another one, too. They can't stop that one anyhow. But these people are trying to do a job, they're trying to keep on communicating, they're trying to be there and they're trying to resolve some of the problems of man.
And our organizational policy today is to do what we can do to help these people in their job of communication, and to communicate all we can, ourselves. And if anybody finds these organizations hard to understand, it's just because he'd have a hard time understanding communication.
Thank you.
Thank you.

177

 

A lecture given on 30 December 1954
Hiya.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Want to talk to you, now, about human communication. Would you like to know something about human communication?
Audience: Yeah!
Communication is, of course, an inevitable problem in any human society. It's also a problem in ant societies. It's a problem. Because the anatomy of all problems is communication.
When you would take ARC, we then add the intention, the attention, and the reason why we're communicating. But communication all by itself will bring into being—as I was telling you a little while ago, the fellow with a piece of pipe finally dreams up an answer as to why he has it there. Just the fact that somebody sees it and comments on it means there has to be a reason for it. And that's all the reason why there is.
Well, communication and problems are very intimate. And if we have said that every human being is going around playing a little game of problems and that if everybody that we get to process can have a scarcity of problems and can get to a point where he no longer has any problems, and is therefore very unhappy, we then recognize the fact that the anatomy of a problem is a tangle of communication.
Now, in almost any language of which I have any cognizance, the word answer (meaning reply) and the word answer (meaning solution) are the same word. But this is more than an identification. This is more than one of these Dianetic phrases that gets stuck and misinterpreted.
Remember in the old days, "He rode a horse." R-o-d-e, "He rode a horse," would be interpreted, as a psychotic, on a level with "He rowed a horse," r-o-w-e-d. See, it'd mean the same thing just because they sound alike.
Well, answer and answer can get even further confused because they are the same word. But the solution to a secret is an answer, and the absence of an answer gives us a secret. And that's all you have to know about secrets. There isn't anything more to know about secrets.
Now, you can go charging around all you want to, looking for secrets, but what you're seeking is an answer. And in the absence of an answer, you get a secret. All right.
We get this condition: we have, this girl named Grind—works at Burlecue

179

180

30 DECEMBER 1954
Theater. (laughter) Anyway, this girl called Grind is completely out of communication on a verbal level. People walk up to her and they say, "Hiya, Grind. (pause) tsk—huh!"
And then they see her the next time and they say, "Well, how's tricks, Grind?" (pause)
And they see her at a party and they say, "You having a good time, Grind?" (pause)
And after a while they tell each other, "You know, that girl has an awful lot of secrets. She certainly knows something."
And the fact of the matter is that a microscopic examination of her medulla oblongata as well as her skull, which has probably never before been examined, would demonstrate immediately and conclusively that she not only did not have a secret datum but she didn't know nothin' nohow. But she would get a reputation for being a very mysterious person simply by never answering, which would mean that she would have lots of secrets. Follow me?
So people, when they don't have—don't have answers coming back from people, they begin to assume that they have strange motives. They begin to assume that these people have something up the sleeve, or that they mean wrong.
Now, all you have to do is to go out of communication with a business partner to have him hire a set of auditors (of another kind) to audit the books and find out just what you are doing to him. What are you doing to him?
You don't say, "Hello" in the morning; don't say, "Goodbye" at night.
And he will very soon come to the conclusion that there's something wrong with the account books of the firm: "This fellow must be hiding something."
And it doesn't follow at all. What he is doing is adding the R to the triangle. Because the C has dropped out, he tries to put something there on the triangle. You know? "Let's have some triangle, little bit of triangle, please—at least an R. Otherwise, we'll go completely out of affinity with existence." So he tries to get a reason why. He wants the rationality of why this communication is dropping. And because there is no C, then there is no R.
Now, people who have consistently failed to communicate to you probably have become enigmas, they have become secrets, they have become people with suspicious motives, people who have causes which are very strange.
I imagine the failure of the Communist Party to answer up to Senator McCarthy many, many years ago in those dark ages of senatorial investigation, the failure of the Communist Party to tell Senator McCarthy what it was doing, has given Senator McCarthy the conviction, the utter conviction, that they are hiding many secrets. You follow me?
Whereas, if you know any communists, you will know they're incapable of holding anything. That's what's wrong with them. They've got to give it all away, you see, give it to the people, and then they never determine where the people are to be given things to, you see. And everybody has got to own everything. Give it all away. They can't hold anything. They have no secrets.
They hire expert people to take all the secrets we have so we don't even have any secrets from them, now. But just the failure to answer up has given many people, like Senator McCarthy, the belief that communists and communist nations have strange, terrible and peculiar motives which cannot be readily understood in a civilized world.
Now, one of the ways to utterly upset this computation would be if the Kremlin started to answer, or write letters to, or answer all the things that Senator McCarthy was saying. If they just started to pour a flood of communication at McCarthy—supposing this was communication on the basis of:

COMMUNICATION AND PROBLEMS
"We want to put you on our monthly mailing list for the agricultural contest figures for the Four-Star-H." "Here are the statistics of how many nuts and bolts have been found missing on collective farm tractors during the first two months of 1952." "Dear Senator McCarthy, we have understood that you have some interest in bears and we wish to report to you that the Himalayan bear. .."
It wouldn't matter what they said, you understand? It would not matter what they said. Just simply a bunch of communication to Senator McCarthy would find him in this interesting condition of believing that the most open and aboveboard organization of which he had ever heard was the Communist Party.
Japan, by the way, in continuing to negotiate with the United States, was able to apply a surprise attack to the United States at Pearl Harbor. Because the communication was there, nobody in Washington could envision the fact that any lack of affinity was there. And so there would be no reason why anything should occur, like a sneak attack. And that's what we call treachery.
See, the wrong reason why in the existence, and a wrong affinity, actually masked by continuing communication. That's a complexity and a problem. That makes a very neat problem. But what happens to any problem if you start communicating at it or with it or around it?
Well, let's take a very practical application, one which we know of that's very old. We have a fellow who has a bum right foot and we ask him to "Put a communication line through to your right foot." This is a real old process, way back: "Put a communication line through to your right foot." "Now, have your right foot put a communication line through to you." "Now you put a communication line through to your right foot." "Now, have your right foot put a ..."
All of a sudden—boom, bang—something occurs, facsimile blows, something happens and the difficulty with the right foot disappears and that is the end of that difficulty. This was a test process. It didn't work sometimes because a person was unable to put a communication line through to his right foot in the first place. He simply wasn't doing so, so his right foot got in bad condition. Right foot out of communication, still being used by the individual, therefore will get into bad condition.
So, in the absence of communication, we had psychosomatic illness. And that's true. A person who is having difficulty with his body is out of communication with that point of his body, and this we can say very neatly and very nicely. A person who doesn't like his body or who finds something very wrong with his body, is out of communication with his body. We can just draw this instant conclusion. There's no further argument or ifs, ands, or buts about it.
If a person says, "Well, I want to get exteriorized because I've got to get rid of that nasty old thing. I don't like that body, it's dirty and it's awful, and I want to get exteriorized." Well, maybe they could exteriorize on a compulsive or an obsessive basis.
Usually if you said, "Be three feet back of your head" they'd be passing by Arcturus in an awful hurry, they'll—zoom! But that is not a rational action.
The actual way to get them out of the body is to put them in communication with the body, and then get them out of the body. The reason why people don't move easily out of bodies is because they're not in communication with bodies. Get the idea? It's a very simple solution.
Well now, let's take all problems. Let's look over all problems and discover that a problem becomes a problem when communication breaks down somewhere. The birth of a problem would be the break of a comm line. Any time you cut a comm line, you get yourself a problem.

181

182

30 DECEMBER 1954
Now, it's a fact that you could ignore some communication lines. You could ignore quite a few communication lines—you actually could. You could just walk off and forget about them, you know? As long as you weren't really in communication on that line anyhow, you can leave it alone.
But let's pick up the line, let's start to fight it: we're going to have a problem. We could ignore it but if we start communicating and then we cut communications, we thereafter will have a problem. It's a horrible fact because you've gone out of communication with a lot of things, willy-nilly.
You lose a ring; you're now out of communication with a ring. Well, it didn't create much of a problem but one of the things that you will ask is, "Where did I lose it?" I think that's one of the silliest problems I ever heard of. You know, this fellow walks in and he says, "Where's my hat? Where's my hat?" He hasn't got his hat and he's going to leave, he's got to go to the office or something, "Where's my hat?"
And somebody says to him, "Well, where did you lose it?" If he knew where he lost it, he could find it. It's lost because he didn't know where it is. And yet this is the first thing anybody says to you when you've lost something, "Where did you lose it?"
Well, here we have a problem resulting from a break of communication. Now that's the most elementary sort of a problem break—problem lost because of communication breaks.
Now, the problem is lost when the communication is restored or when processing, or some type of processing just breaks it up as a problem.
A problem actually has mass. There are no problems without mass, really—no problems that would ever worry anybody. Take even arithmetic: "two plus two equals four" never worried you until you had to ask this question, "Two what plus two what equals four what?" Now you really have a problem. You only have an equation before that, not a problem. You have a formulary statement of an arithmetical piece of misinformation. All right.
Two plus two never equaled four. I mean, the four is over on that side, the twos are there (two what, you know) so therefore you could make some theoretical statement without having a problem. But you could say two plus two equals question mark.
Well, the formula immediately assumes that you've put the two twos together to get a four. The truth of the formula is, two plus two equals two plus two. But we have changed communication or condensed communication to get "two plus two equals four" so it couldn't be the right answer—and so it isn't the right answer.
More mathematicians are staggering around trying to solve problems, where the initial error in the problem is something like "two plus two equals four" they have said somewhere way back in their figures, you know? And then they've gone on and they've gotten the square root, the cube root and all these logarithms. Then you get over on this side and you take the extrapolation of the hyperbolae and that becomes very hyperbolical, and they haven't got the right answer.
So they just add some figures and wonder whether or not that won't give them the right answer. In other words, they go on adding symbols, adding symbols, adding symbols, hoping some time or another they'll get a solution to the problem. And that's what life's been doing.
Break of communication: "Well, now if we can just add enough symbols over here, see, why .. . Well, that didn't work. Let's add some more symbols over here. Well, that didn't work. Let's mass these things up now. All right.

COMMUNICATION AND PROBLEMS
"Is that right? No, that's awful puzzling. Well, let's put some more symbols on this thing and add that up, and get a higher level of complexity if we possibly can, and then maybe it can be solved by theory of equations and we can just skip trying to solve it by arithmetic. All right.
"So here's some more symbols and some more symbols, and we put some more factors. And now we'll discover some more data and pull that in on the problem, and then some more factors and some more factors and some more factors and . . . All right.
"Now is it solved? Well, we don't know, we've forgotten what the original problem was." That is the way life has gone. It has added more and more data, more and more masses, and more and more complexities to a point of where it's forgotten what the problem was.
And actually, the dynamic principle of existence, discovery of, shouldn't have been any discovery at all. The problems are based on this basis: How long can we play this game called survival? Well, the way you win the game called survival is to survive.
"Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You . . . How long do you have to survive to play this game?"
"Well, you just have to go on surviving."
"Now, just a minute—if we have this game called survival, the winner of the game is one who would survive longer than anybody else. That would be right, wouldn't it? Well, how does anybody survive long enough to prove that he has survived?"
And nobody knows, and that's the joke, which makes quite a game. It's the ideal game that goes on forever.
Now, the problems of that game are the problems we have to solve in order to survive. But the funny part of it is, we actually can't do anything else but survive. It'd be utterly, physically, thetanesquely impossible to do anything else than survive. A thetan has to work very, very hard to put periods on lives and discover everything new again, and run the glorious irresponsibility of being a baby, you know, and say, "I never lived before, I don't know anything— ha, look at me—don't know a thing!"
And we would believe that, and we would buy that if we didn't take—let's say we take ten children. And these ten children have had an equivalent environment and there's never been a piano around any of them. None of them have even vaguely heard of this thing called a piano—theoretical experiment.
Now, we take these children and with a good instructor we start to teach them all how to play the piano. They see the piano for the first time, they see the music for the first time.
We find out one of them who has good manual dexterity, can't play the piano. He can't touch it. It upsets him—the thought of coming near a piano. And another one, he can get near the piano and play bink, bink, bink, bink but he can't read the notes. He can read English, he could learn French, but he can't read notes of music. Whhhh! Well this is a wild variable, isn't it?
Well, there is no sense in looking in his cortextural response which runs between his korgypsky and his oblongata. There's no sense in looking in there because the answer to his inability to play the piano is because he played one once and he lost. He went out of communication with a piano and now he's being expected to pick up communication with a piano again.
He's not going to pick up communication with a piano because if he picked up communication with a piano he'd pick up communication with a life. And the game he has to play is this: "I've got to show myself that I can't

183

184

30 DECEMBER 1954
survive in order to prove that I can survive. We've got to have nonsurvival in order to have survival. And if I went and remembered all this stuff, all the way, then . . ."
"But then look-a-here, you'd win. You'd prove that you'd been surviving."
"Yes, but I wouldn't have any liability on the game of survival," you see?
What's wrong between this kid and the piano? Now we take the remaining eight kids. We found one that just—ooohh—he just even couldn't touch a piano, one that could touch a piano but couldn't read music, and eight more, and they all have more or less equal manual dexterity. And they sit down and they, "Do, re, mi, fa, sol," "every-good-boy-does-fine," "f-a-c-e," and finally get to a point of where they play the piano very nicely—very, very nicely.
Except one of them—one of them is all of a sudden playing Prokofiev, Grieg, Brahms, Mozart, Bach—without the music! But of course we can overlook all this and say the cortextural responses of the korgypsky are such that they replot. And we hope that's an answer, but it's not an answer.
Fact of the matter is that the fellow who couldn't touch the piano at all had some terrible failures on the subject of pianos. He probably tried it many times and was successful once, is stuck in some wins and then he failed and failed, and then he just says, "Pianos—I'm out of communication with them. I don't want anything more to do with a piano." He said this. "Don't want anything more to do with pianos or concert halls—nothing more to do with pianos. Thank you," and he's true to his word a few lives later.
And the next one was a composer, and oh, boy, did it hurt every time somebody put out a new, more popular tune than his. Cost him money, cost him fame and there he is—sniff—his music neglected. So he gets to a point where he won't look at anybody else's music. He won't have anything to do with it. It's completely nonsurvival to touch somebody else's music.
So we sit down and we say, "Now that's f-a-c-e and every-good-boy-does .. ."—this guy can write music, see. And we say, "And now, this is the way you play 'Tom and Ned out in the snow, now they're playing Eskimo,' and that is the way you play this piece. You see? And that's what you do." Blaaa! But he could sit there and go bink, bink, bink; but he wouldn't read music. All right.
Now, let's take this—we have several kids there who merely learned how to play the piano just completely nyaah—you know, set them up: "Now, company, here we want to show you how Roger can play the piano," you know, and everybody has to sit there and listen to these boo-boos—the boo-boo rag. And so, seven of them were like that.
But this remaining one—this remaining one who just played everything, and that's very fine—all of these people have a variation of experience on the subject of pianos. And all of them have a varying degree of communication with regard to pianos. And this last one who could really play everything had never really had a win with a piano, he'd never had a lose with a piano, he had simply studied a long time on a piano, and he was all ready to go and somebody suddenly put him down at a piano and said, "play f-a-c-e, every-good-boy-does-fine," and he was very tolerant of that and went on playing Grieg. But he himself didn't know how come he did this. He would be the most innocent fellow you ever talked to.
But once in a while I will get down on my knees to a little ol' three year old and I'll say, "Hey, what did you do in your last life, bud?" And he'll look at me, "Who wants to know?" And by the time they're four it's usually been beaten out of them so they can forget with glorious abandon. But take any

COMMUNICATION AND PROBLEMS
three, four months old baby, and if you refuse to credit their noncommunication with you, you can go into easy communication with.
The funniest thing I ever saw was a two months' old baby that couldn't understand a word of anything, didn't pay any attention to anything or anybody, but every time you picked this little baby up and said, "Well I think we'll keep you around," the baby would say, "Sigh!"—never sighed otherwise.
And you can do that to almost any kid—pick them up and say, "Well, here's a good one. Think we'll keep him around. We need him."
"Gee!"
But they can't talk English yet—the vinyl plastic sheathing is not yet formed around their neurons. (laughter)
We get into the most interesting series of problems you ever saw in your life when we start to believe that a person is in communication with Earth and humanity for the first time. This makes a fascinating series of problems— problems called eugenics, heredity—and none of them have ever wound up anyplace but the garbage can. These problems are just endless. There are whole libraries to explain this terrific behavior on the part of three of these kids.
We put somebody into a sort of a trance and the person starts to talk French but the person has never learned any French. "Ooooh, how do you explain this?" Well, the easy explanation—it never occurs to anybody—the person can speak French!
Now, wherever we look in the field of humanity, we find that we've got, whether playing a piano or driving a car, a great difference of ability expressed by the individual. This ability could have two sources: One, it would be that people are not necessarily all just as bright as everybody else. This is not necessarily true, but let us assume that it had some basis. Then how do you account for these strange contradictory vagaries, and what would you categorize them under? It would be under this: the make and break of communication. Whenever they have broken communication they have gotten a problem.
These people, these kids we're talking about had broken or not broken communication with pianos. Now what's the proof of this? Now, I mean, we just lay it down like that. Say this person is a bum driver, therefore we assume that he has broken somewhere on the track, somewhere, communication with vehicles—seriously broken communication with vehicles, you know, just chopped it—had communication, then broke communication with vehicles.
We get the army, and we find that this fellow can shoot and that fellow can't shoot. Well, the fellow who can't shoot has seriously broken communication with weapons. And just start explaining all these vagaries and differences of skills more or less in this fashion.
We'd take somebody, then, who really could shoot, he'd go out, he's a kid— a kid did this one time. I never saw so many writers lose so much money in my life. This little shaver, he was about nine or ten, walked into my studio. I had a big studio many, many years ago—had this big studio and at one end of it I had a target rigged up that had a cotton back to it so that you could fire in the studio, you know. And rainy days I'd sit there and bang away at the target when I wasn't doing anything else, keeping my hand in.
And so I had a couple writers come and see me, and then a couple more came down and see me and then three or four more arrived and we had a weekend and we—quite a weekend. So, Sunday morning everybody was pretty bleary-eyed and we were sitting around, and I picked up the small air rifle I was using for target practice and shot at the target, and handed it on to another guy and he shot at the target.

185

186

30 DECEMBER 1954
Well, of course, we started betting on this after a while, and we started throwing in a dime a shot and making a pool, you see, and then the best shot would get this pool. Well, one of these boys couldn't take it very much, so he started throwing in a dollar a shot.
This was getting serious. I was the host, I couldn't object to this, but I did at least have the good grace to abstain right about this point. But my abstaining didn't help his luck out any at all. See, it was my rifle and my target—that wouldn't have done to have won money. Well, that's a fact. Whether the other guys were better shots or not, my experience with that particular target would have made them real sore.
But one of them had brought his little boy along, a little boy about—oh, I guess the kid was about nine—little Mac. And little Mac walked in the door and he heard this going on. Well, of course that was his sort of weapon, you know, small weapon, air gun. And he says, "Daddy, can I have a turn?"
And his father who was losing very heavily at this time says, "Go away, Mac. Go away. Go away."
And the kid says, "Well, just let me shoot once."
So I said, "Go on. Go on. Let the kid shoot once."
Father says, "All right," and throws down a dollar for the kid. I hadn't intended the kid would get into this pool, see.
And he cleaned them! (laughter) I can just see that kid now, back in the Kentucky hills, years before. One of the people that he cleaned was an ex-sergeant of Marines and a distinguished marksman present at matches. You can just see that kid now—because the kid was not shooting the way he should have been shooting. He'd throw the rifle up to his hip and fire, and it'd be right in the center of the target. (laughter) Now, somebody can explain that by environment, maybe, but this kid's environment was a New York apartment.
Now, these differences, on make and break of communication—if this were human behavior and the problem of communication amongst people, why, then we certainly ought to be able to use the dickens out of it, shouldn't we?
Supposing it's just making and breaking communication, not affinity, not any reason why but just make and break communication with the object. Supposing we just reduced these vagaries of behavior down to that. How about it? Supposing we had this thing down to a point of where it was simply make and break of communication in any sphere where the fellow had a disability. Or we use make and break of communication more wisely in any sphere where we wanted to increase the fellow's ability. All right.
Let's take somebody—here was an actual case. Somebody wrote in from London the other day—quite amusing. This lady had gone down and taken a driver's examination, and she'd gotten into the car and she'd said, "What gearshift?" and gone around the wrong way, around a couple of turns, and the examiner had said, "Oh, no." So she'd left. She was feeling very sad about it because she couldn't pass her driver's examination. Now, she'd passed a perfect written examination, something like that, as far as I know, but couldn't drive well enough to suit anybody.
So her husband, a Scientologist, decided that he would do something about this. So he put this into practice. He took her outside and made her touch and withdraw from the car: touch and withdraw from the gearshift, touch and withdraw from the wheel, touch and withdraw from the hubcaps, touch and withdraw from the license plate, touch and withdraw from the motor—a half an hour a day for a couple of weeks. And when last seen she was driving with no assistance, license in pocket, through Piccadilly Circus.

COMMUNICATION AND PROBLEMS
And everybody knows that nobody can drive through Piccadilly Circus. (laughter) All right.
We'd apply the same principle on a little higher, less romantic level—jet pilot. And we would find this jet pilot had lost his peaks, you know. He was still a good pilot, you know, but he no longer quite hit the landing strip straight. He landed once in a while twenty feet above the strip. And his CO is hoping that he doesn't start landing twenty feet under the strip.
And what would we do about this boy, knowing this data, assuming this data is true, what would we do? We're handling two things now—we're handling air, we're handling a vehicle, and one other thing incidental to air, called height. We'd go out there and make him make and break communications with that airplane and every part of it, and we'd do it an hour a day for a week or two. Just take him out there and say, "All right, now you see that stripe on the tail,"—Step A, Opening Procedure 8-C, with an airplane—"see that stripe on the tail, go back there and touch that. All right. Let go of it." You know, we'd chase him around the plane, have him touch it—make, break.
Now, we'd have him touch air. How would we make him let go of it? We'd exteriorize him, of course. There isn't any air up there a couple of hundred miles—not enough to bother with. Three hundred miles is the air layer, they say, but the last time I was two hundred and fifty miles high I don't think anybody could have breathed—fact, it looked awfully like a vacuum. But you could actually make him reach and withdraw, while exteriorized, from air. That sounds mighty fancy but it's pretty easy to get a guy out of his body today—trouble is keeping them in. A black V told me that the other day.
Oh say, some fellow wrote me the other day on the subject of black Vs and white Vs and exteriorization, which was very cute. He wrote me a letter and he was very angry. There'd been something around called a white V. I'd heard about this thing called a white V—it was a person who thought he was out and who could see the room and everything, but he was really a white V.
And I never knew who the devil invented this thing called a white V. It's just a black Vs excuse for not taking the guy on a Route 1 tour or something, you know. He says, "Well that guy really isn't out, he only says so. I mean he isn't out. So I can't see him, so therefore he isn't out."
And, so he wrote in and bawled me out for making a crack about white Vs and said that the crack was deliberately aimed at him, personally and individually, for inventing the word white V. So I wrote back and thanked him very much, I hadn't known who had done it up till then.
Here we have just make and break of communication. Well, you exteriorize this boy. And you make him reach and withdraw from air. Or in a body, you could simply make him feel the air and then not feel the air, and feel the air by moving his arms, by taking him out, by getting some air—air, you know?
And now let's find out about distance. And let's make him find some distance and then not pay any attention to it. And then find some distance and then not pay any attention to it. And find some height and then take his attention off the height. And find some height and then take his attention off the height. And then find some height and take his attention off the height. And funny part of it is, his depth perception, his ability to fly, would come way up above—it was when he was a cadet.
Now, let's supposing this fellow goes down, he wants to belong to the Royal Air Force or something, and he walks down and he gets himself into a place called the Examiner's Office, and they say, "Strip and cough."

187

188

30 DECEMBER 1954
And they get him there and they find he's a perfect physical specimen, he's in good shape. He gets two fingers together and they only miss by four inches. His reflexes are good: they hit in the back of the neck and his big toe jerks. They kick him and he moves. And they say, "This fine physical specimen now is going to be a pilot."
So they send him to ground school and then they send him other schools, they send him other schools and send him other schools and send him other schools and finally get him close to an airplane, having expended considerable sums with time, considerable time which is there to be burned, after all.
And they get him all set up, and he gets one foot on the wing of the airplane and gets airsick. And they say, "This is strange. Well, take him up anyhow, it'll show him right." But after twenty hours of instruction he not only has not soloed, he has also not been able to keep breakfast down. They find out that he can't stand on his bed and look at the floor without getting airsick.
It's like they used to get ninety-day wonders—never occurred to them that some of these boys might get seasick. And very, very often we had to put two petty officers, one on each side of one, in order to hold him up on the bridge long enough to stand his watch.
And we found out it was bad philosophy to let them go below just because they were seasick, because nobody was ever anything else in corvettes, except people with cast-iron stomachs or people who didn't have any stomachs at all, such as mine. It was the only thing that could live on a corvette. But they never asked these fellows whether or not they got seasick or carsick or anything. This was not part of the instruction.
So they get this fellow way up there. What can we assume about this pilot who has been trained at vast expense and now can't stand any height and gets sick all the time? What can we assume about this boy? Well, we can assume that he can't stand communication with an airplane. That's all we have to assume. I mean, we don't have to assume anything else.
But as we're running him, the funniest thing will turn up. It'll turn up that two hundred thousand years ago on another planet which is not too far away from here, they'd had airplanes just like the airplane he's being asked to fly. And this is highly coincidental, but this is the kind of airplane they had there. And the kind of airplane they have here . . . Hmm. And this kind of blows off. But of course we don't even have to pay any attention to that. We don't have to validate it—that a couple of hundred thousand years ago was the last time he cared to have anything to do with an airplane and after that broke communication with them completely.
We start putting him back in communication with the airplane and these things turn up. We don't pay a bit of attention to them today. We don't even vaguely pay any attention to them today, we don't care whether it happened, whether it didn't happen, whether it's valuable, whether it has—nyaaah.
We'll leave that up to the psychologists of the twenty-fifth century to research. I think he will have heard by that time that the reason he's been out of a job for four or five centuries was Scientology. We don't care about these things.
All we know is that people go out of communication with something and then, if that break of communication has been made by them in a final enough state, they won't, further, have anything to do with that or any skill connected with it. All right.
This makes all of us doctors of education—every one of us. We had a boy in here the other day, a very interesting fellow—been with us for a long time.

COMMUNICATION AND PROBLEMS
He's a nice guy. He's been intimately involved with the operations years and years and years and years. And we said, "Learn those axioms." He was a nice guy, he was a prince; but we said, "Learn those axioms!"
And he said, "Noooo!—under no circumstances. Bring on your whips, bring on your chains, cut my throat, give somebody else my post. I can't, I won't." And then we had him mock up textbooks saying, "Hello" for a few hours, and he now knows all the axioms. This man's former training is that of an instructor or teacher in the field of education and he'd just seen himself one too many textbooks, that's all. That was all that was wrong with him. It was causing this much upset.
That's a funny thing, isn't it? But not very funny when you consider that a book is an inanimate object. It's not alive. It's a pretense. It's a fake. It's a pretense that the author is standing there looking up at you from your lap saying, "Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap." And he's not. He's probably off with a blonde somewhere.
And although the information is there, the live communication of that information is to some degree missing. And if that information does not lead intimately and immediately to the solution of the problem of the textbook, sooner or later, that textbook is going to become aberrative—don't care what the subject is.
Now, we all know these perfectly plain things about the— you know, examples like the young doctor: He goes to medical school and the first two years of medical school he has everything that he reads about. We know that. You know, they come in and they say, "Oh, what a horrible disease; your nose swells up and it causes itching, itching—(oh, oh no, my left eyebrow has itched lately), and this happens generally to young men (whistles)—(I'm sick!)"
And that's a fact, that's the history of a young doctor in training. He gets everything he reads about. And don't think that a psychiatrist doesn't. And don't think that an old-time auditor didn't either.
Well, why? Why? Why? Why does this occur? It's just because the textbook is a symbol of life and is not, in itself, life.
Now, here's a very funny thing: The CECS—been kicked around an awful lot but actually shouldn't be kicked around. All it's been trying to do is just exactly what it says: Committee of Examination, Certification and Services.
And its mission is to keep the communication lines as clear as it can. And it actually hasn't taken very many overt steps. It probably intends to take some more. At one of its last board meetings it said that it decided that it could still be punitive, and that all was not sweetness and light everywhere, that it insisted on communicating, and it said so.
So, it isn't dead by any means, but somebody as far away as Australia in one direction and London in another direction, already shudders every time anyone mentions the CECS, and of course they blame everybody but me which is the way it should be, see? (laughter)
But, actually, the punitive thrust, the punishment, is not the mission. And the only thing that's happening is occasionally somebody's been cutting Scientology communication lines. You know, he's actually been cutting a communication line—actively.
By the way, one day there was a publication being published, which a person, we'll call A, thought was very funny—thought this publication was utterly uproarious. And thought, "Boy, that publication was really getting off some quips, but it was really, really needling Ron and the HASI." And this person, you know, thought that was real funny, "Eh-heh!"

189

190

30 DECEMBER 1954
And he came in the other day and he was white and gray, and ready to kill!—ready to maim! He had a fifteen-hundred-dollar preclear all signed up, ready to process, and that preclear got a hold of that publication, decided that Scientology was a lot of bunk, and knocked off the processing and went away.
And now, auditor A no longer has this sweetness and light attitude of, "let everybody talk—even when they cut communication lines." That's the history, then, of the CECS. It doesn't like to see a communication line cut and it knows a communication line could be cut if somebody were too obsessively mauling around the communication lines of Scientology.
Supposing somebody came in the office every day and took all the files and papers and so forth, and threw them all up in the air. You'd have even more of a chaos than you've got now. And that's actually what happens in the society.
When we put out a communication it's the experience of a half a dozen auditors with regard to a certain type of process, and somebody who is a poor auditor, at best, conies in and says, "No, that's a lot of bunk, yap-yap-yap-yap-yap, funny gag," you know, "wa-wa-wa . . ." What's he doing? He's taking those papers and throwing them up in the air. If he wants to say something about it, let him find out something to say. See, that's the difference.
So that's what the CECS is interested in. It doesn't want to see the communication lines of Scientology utterly messed up. Well now, it has a very nice decision to make, doesn't it? Very horrible. Whose communication line is it going to cut if the general policy of the organization is, "Let them communicate."
So if the CECS is in argument with anybody, it's in argument with the organization because it has to keep the communication lines as clean as it can and still stay within the bounds of reason. So this is a rough deal. Anybody occupying that post is going to have some fun anyhow. He's certainly going to have somebody to fight.
By the way, most of the fights that occur of this character really occur for one real reason only, just one reason, and that is that there are insufficient things to fight. There aren't things which are worthy of being fought. Actually psychiatry is not worth fighting, you'd look in vain for a live terminal.
Well, let's get back to books. The book is not a live communicating thing, is it? When you say, "Hello" to the book it doesn't say a thing. You've got to turn over a lot of pages and then one page or another will say, "Hello," if the word happens to be in the book, but it has no intent or direction, does it? It really doesn't give you attention. It is something you handle, that you push around, it is an object, and that's a book.
And after a person has been going just so long at books, whether writing them or reading them and so on, and has to a marked degree stopped looking and talking to and communicating with other life forms, he gets over here with a scholar's squint, fixed upon the printed page and no longer with any attention for life at large. He's simply operating on a scarcity of answers. He thinks that books are going to give him answers. Look at that. He thinks that books are going to give him answers. A book can't answer anything. It can't say a word. You see, a book can't answer anything.
But there can be this strange thing which has occurred: an analysis of what a book can or cannot do so as to actually get an answer out of a book. You have the preclear put a book out here and have it say, "Hello." And if this man has been an instructor or if he's been a writer, it'll practically kill him. It's the most violent thing you could do to him.

COMMUNICATION AND PROBLEMS
Have a book out here say, "Hello" and "Okay" and so on. Or get a real live book and set it up here, and have it say, "Hello," "Okay," and so on. Follow me?
Yet the book is better than no communication! So the first thing the fellow fell out of communication with was life itself or he wouldn't have transferred his attention over here to the book, would he have, hm? He must have gone out of communication with life, over here to a communication with a book as better than no communication. All right.
If this is the case, then we must assume that the main thing wrong with life is not the fact that it is out of communication with existence but that it is out of communication with life. That's the first thing we'd have to assume.
Therefore if we'd want to make somebody well, we would audit him, and we'd put him back into communication with life with a two-way communication. The very fact that you as an auditor are sitting there, a live being, talking with this person, would be sufficient to that degree—put him in contact with existence and life. And that's quite a process all by itself, if it's followed with a two-way communication. We keep the cycles going and just works out beautifully—answers, back and forth; acknowledgements, origins.
Where we have depended upon machinery, energy, space, time of any character, to make up for this lack of communication from life, we've gotten, to some degree, in trouble. There's just that much less communication.
Now, all you have to do with the individual is to restore his ability to communicate in any field where you wish to restore his ability. To restore his total ability, it is only necessary to restore his ability to communicate with and in that field. And this becomes very simple.
Do you know that there's many an announcer who walks up to a microphone and shudders. He is afraid. He's upset. You know why? This happens to them when they've been at it a long time mostly. It doesn't happen to the Johnny newlys.
That microphone has yet to say hello, and yet it's been talked at and talked at and talked at and talked at. And he'll identify the microphone with the receipt-point of the communication line. And having identified it, then he actually will begin to expect this microphone to say something. And it never will.
The worst thing you could do to him would be to rewire or back-wire a microphone so that someday when he's saying, "Hello folks out there. How are you Mr. and Mrs. America?" the microphone would say—a chorus: "Hello, Joe."
The inanimate object becomes a substitute for the live object, and a nonlive thing made out of space, energy, mass, time, will never substitute for life. And fixation upon these inanimate objects will bring about, at length, a break of communication even with them.
So the first thing we do to restore ability is to put a person back into contact with the physical universe itself. That's the first thing we have to do. And having done that, we can put him into communication with something alive. And having done that, we've got a Clear. That's all there is to it. It's real simple.
Now, there is no reason why a Doctor of Scientology, a Bachelor of Scientology, HCA, should not be called a Doctor of Education because with such a process, he, amongst all educators, could achieve education. The very funny thing about it is that it really means education anyhow—DSCN, BSCN, and Doctor of Divinity.
By the way, Doctor of Divinity and Doctor of Scientology mean the same thing—mean exactly the same thing. Divinity simply means knowingness or

191

192

30 DECEMBER 1954
wisdom; how to divine, divining, predicting, forecasting—same word. Divine: how to forecast, how to know. And a Doctor of Scientology is a Doctor of Knowingness. So a DD or a DSCN—one wonders exactly why we've got so many degrees that say the same thing. They look pretty on the wall and they actually have been very, very arduously won, to tell you the truth.
Now, by knowing that it takes a make and break of communication—and that alone—to restore ability, such a person is in command of wisdom because wisdom comes about to the degree that a person can make and break communication with existence. And ignorance and stupidity come about to the degree that a person has ceased doing so. When a person stops communicating, when he breaks off communication and says, "Nevermore," he has established an inability or a stupidity in that particular field.
In order to keep himself from breaking off such communication, he very often keeps around tokens—like the football player, the football star of 1932, has probably still got his football, you know? He's still got a picture of himself and the team. He hasn't completely broken communication with football. That little token there keeps him in.
And then a little bit later, when he's lost the football and lost the picture, and so forth, he'll still keep some facsimiles or mock-ups of some kind or another about this football. And he'll still know that they existed.
And then after a while he hides them utterly and they become completely secret. And after that, in that hidden state, they hurt him or kick back against him every time he tries to reassume communication with the game called football.
And so it is with the game called life. Everybody has hidden the game called life in the form of terminals, unknown and hidden masses in their universes to such a degree that when they start to touch life something hurts. The tokens jump up, they say, "Oh no, we've broken communication with that." And that's why people aren't as alive as people should be.
The entire mission of the auditor is to rehabilitate ability, and the entire method of doing that is to rehabilitate communication in all directions regardless of whether they're broken or not. And so, we know all there is to know to make all the Clears we want.
Thank you.

 

A Group Processing session given on 30 December 1954
Okay.
Put out the cat, oil up your thetan and find the floor. (shuffling noises) Is that a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You sure it's a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. You sure it's a floor?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Is it a floor?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Is it a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Have you got a floor under you?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Now I'm going to put into action some of the principles which I was talking to you about today. I'm going to ask you to take your right index finger and make contact with your nose.
And now I'm going to ask you with your right index finger to break contact with your nose.
Make contact with your nose. Okay.
Break contact with your nose. All right.
Make contact with your nose.
Whose nose is it?
Audience: Mine.
Okay. You got a nose there?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine.
Let's break contact with your nose. All right.
Let's make contact with your nose. All right.
Let's break contact with your nose. Okay.
Let's make contact. All right.
Let's break contact.
Let's make it.
Let's break it.
Let's make it.
Got a nose there?

193

194

30 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Well, let's make sure. Roll it around. You got a nose there? Really?
Audience: Yeah.
You really got a nose there?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's break contact with the nose. All right.
Have you broken contact with your nose?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's make contact with it. See if it's really there. Okay.
Now let's break contact with your nose. All right.
Let's make contact with it.
Let's break contact with it.
Let's make contact with it.
Let's break contact with it.
Let's make contact with your nose. Good.
Let's break contact. Good.
Let's make contact. Good.
Let's break contact. Good.
Let's make contact. Good.
Let's break contact. Good.
Let's make contact. Good.
Let's break contact.
Have you broken contact with your nose?
Audience: Yes.
All right. You sure you have?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have you still got a nose?
Audience: Yes.
Oh, you just made contact with it, didn't you? (audience laughter) All right.
Now without that finger, let's make contact with our nose.
Now let's break contact with the nose.
Come on now, let's try again. And let's make contact with the nose.
And at least to some degree break contact with the nose.
Now let's make contact with the nose. Okay.
Now let's break contact with the nose. Okay.
Let's make contact with the nose.
Got it?
Audience: Mm-hm.
Good. You got it?
Audience: Yes.
You got contact with your nose there?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Now let's break contact with the nose.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now let's make contact with the nose.
Got it?
Audience: Yes.
You know it's there?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's break contact with it. Now how's that?
Audience: Fine.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Fine. All right. Now you may have to close one eye to do this but let's take your right index finger and let's make contact with the right eyeball. You feel it?
Audience: Yes.
You sure?
Audience: Yes.
You sure? All right. Let's break contact with the right eyeball.
Now let's make contact with it.
Now let's break contact with it.
Now let's make contact with it.
Now let's break contact with it. Good.
Now let's make contact with it. Good.
Now let's break contact with it. Good.
Now let's make contact with it. Good.
Now let's break contact with it. Good.
Now let's make contact with it. Good.
Now let's break contact with it. Good.
Now let's make contact with it. Good.
Let's break contact with it. Good.
Let's make contact with it and find out if it's still there and you're really there and so forth. Feel it. Really got contact with it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's break contact with it. All right.
Now let's take the left index finger and you may have to close the left eye a bit to do this but let's see if we can't make contact with that left index finger and the left eye. Got it now?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's break contact.
Now let's make contact with that eye.
Now let's break contact with it. Okay.
Let's make contact. Okay.
Let's break contact.
Now did you break contact with the eye?
Audience: Yes.
You sure of that?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Now let's make contact with the eye. Good.
Now let's break contact with the eye. Good.
Let's make contact with it. Good.
Let's break contact with it. Good.
Let's make contact with that eye. Good.
Let's break contact with it. All right.
Now let's take our right and left index fingers and now we're going to make contact with both eyes and you may have to close both eyes to do this. Some people do. And let's take these two index fingers and make contact with the right and left eyes. Are they there?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You sure you got eyes there under your fingers?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Let's kind of rub them around a little bit and make sure. You really got eyes there?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You sure you got eyes there?

195

196

30 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Really?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's break contact with the eyes.
Let's make contact with the eyes.
Now let's break contact with the eyes.
Let's make contact with the eyes.
Let's break contact with the eyes.
Let's make contact with the eyes.
Let's break contact with the eyes.
Let's make contact with the eyes.
Let's break contact with the eyes. Okay.
Let's make contact. Okay.
Let's break contact. All right.
Now let's make contact. All right.
Now let's break contact. All right.
Let's make contact and make sure it's been made. You sure you got eyes there?
Audience: Yes.
You contacting your eyeballs?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Let's break contact. Good.
Now let's make contact. Good.
Now let's break contact.
Now let's make contact.
Now let's break contact.
Now let's make contact.
Let's break contact.
Let's make contact.
Let's break contact.
Let's make contact. Okay.
Let's break contact. Okay.
Let's make contact. All right.
Let's break contact. All right.
Let's make contact. All right.
Let's break contact. All right.
Let's make contact. Okay.
Let's break contact. All right.
Things get blurry?
Audience: Yes.
Things blurry? All right. Now without the fingers let's make contact with our eyes. Okay. Did you?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now let's break contact with the eyes. Did you, somewhat?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Good. Now again, without the fingers let's make contact with the eyes. Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Let's break contact with them. All right.
Let's make contact with them. All right.
Let's break contact with them.
Easy to do?

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Audience: Yes. No.
No? All right. Now let's just try it some more. Let's make contact with the eyes.
Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Have you done it?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's break contact with the eyes. Okay.
Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
Little bit difficult?
Audience: Yes.
Getting easier?
Audience: No. Yes.
Well, all right. Let's make contact with the eyes.
Did you do it?
Audience: Yes.
You sure?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's break contact with them. All right.
Let's make contact with the eyes.
You do it?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Let's break contact with the eyes. Okay.
Let's make contact with the eyes.
You do it?
Audience: Yes.
Is it easy?
Audience: Yes.
Getting easier?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's break contact with the eyes now. All right.
Now let's make contact with them. Okay.
Let's break contact with them.
Now let's make contact with them.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Let's break contact with them. All right.
Let's make contact with the eyes. All right.
Let's break contact with the eyes. Okay.
Let's make contact with them. All right.
Let's break contact with them. All right.
Let's make contact with the eyes. Okay.
Let's break contact with the eyes. Okay.
Let's make contact with the eyes.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Let's break contact with the eyes.
All right. Now let's look around.
How you doing?
Audience: Fine.
Things get all misty or do anything peculiar?

197

198

30 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: No.
Hm? Your eyes hurt or anything now?
Audience: No.
Anybody's eyes hurt?
Audience: Yes. No.
Good. Let's make contact with the eyes.
Female voice: Open or closed?
Your choice. Open them, close them, it's your choice.
Now let's break contact with the eyes.
Let's make contact with the eyes.
Let's break contact with the eyes.
Let's make contact with the eyes. Okay.
Let's break contact with the eyes. Okay.
They still stinging?
Audience: Yes.
Huh?
Audience: Yes.
They stinging a little bit? Oh, we can't have this. You mean they're not perfect yet? All right.
Let's make contact with the eyes.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Let's break contact with the eyes.
Let's make contact with the eyes. Okay.
Let's break contact with the eyes. All right.
Let's make contact with the eyes. Okay.
Let's break contact with the eyes. Okay.
Let's make contact with the eyes. Okay.
Let's break contact with the eyes. Okay.
Let's make contact with the eyes. All right.
Let's break contact with the eyes. Okay.
Let's make contact with the eyes. Okay.
Let's break contact with the eyes. Okay.
Now let's look around.
Bad as it was?
Audience: No.
Hm? Had any change?
Audience: Yes.
You have?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Do a variation of the same process. Let's look at the right wall. Okay.
Let's look away from the right wall.
Let's look at the left wall.
Let's look away from the left wall. Okay.
Let's look at the right wall.
Let's look away from the right wall.
Let's look at the left wall. Okay.
Let's look away from the left wall. Okay.
Let's look at the right wall. All right.
Let's look at the left wall.
Let's look away from both walls. All right.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Let's look at the right wall. Okay.
Look away from the right wall.
Let's look at the left wall. Okay.
Let's look away from the left wall. Okay.
Let's look at the right wall. Okay.
Let's look away from the right wall. Okay.
Let's look at the left wall. Okay.
Let's look away from the left wall. All right.
Let's look at the right wall. Okay.
Let's look away from the right wall. All right.
Let's look at the left wall. All right.
Let's look away from the left wall. Okay.
Make you feel better?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Eyes still burning someplace?
Audience: No. Yes.
We've got to be careful of that, you know. We've got to be careful here and in view of the fact that we don't want to make any upset here, I want you to tell your eyes "Hello."
Audience: Hello. Hello, eyes.
Now remember it's your eyes you're telling "Hello." You can say it aloud if you want to.
Audience: Hello, eyes. (repeated responses)
Go on, tell your eyes "Hello."
Audience: Hello, eyes. (repeated responses)
Good. Good. Tell your eyes "Hello."
Audience: Hello, eyes. (repeated responses)
Okay.
Audience: Hello, eyes. (repeated responses)
All right. Now, has anybody's eyeballs fallen out on the floor or anything like that?
Audience: (various responses).
Nobody has? Well, I'm going to ask you to tell somebody else's eyes "Hello" now. Look around and tell somebody else's eyes "Hello."
Audience: Hello, eyes.
Remember you're telling their eyes "Hello."
Audience: Hello, eyes. (repeated responses)
Go on, you're telling each other's eyes "Hello."
Audience: Hello, eyes. (repeated responses)
Good. Let's tell somebody else's eyes "Hello." Remember you're telling their eyes "Hello" now. Tell them "Hello" some more. Tell somebody else's eyes "Hello" some more.
Audience: Hello, eyes. (repeated responses)
Okay! Okay. All right. Now how's that? Is that real good? Is that real workable? Huh? Is that okay now?
Audience: Yes.
Anybody got any somatics?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now we know we had a process earlier whereby we had a spot right in front of the face and we have this spot talking. All right. Now, I'm going to ask you to conceive a spot back of somebody else's head. Conceive a spot back of somebody else's head and start telling it "Hello."

199

200

30 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Hello. (repeated responses)
Good.
Audience: Hello. (repeated responses)
Come on, let's conceive that spot.
Audience: Hello. (repeated responses)
Okay. All right. Now how was that?
Audience: Okay. Fine.
That's real easy, isn't it? Huh?
Audience: Yes.
Real easy. Okay. Let's take a spot three feet back of your neighbor's head and have it say "Hello" to you. Over and over.
That's fine. A spot three feet in back of somebody else's head and have it say "Hello" to you. Over and over. All right.
How's that?
Audience: Good.
Good. Now let's find a spot three feet in back of somebody else's head and have it say "Hello" to you. All right.
That's real good. How's it going?
Audience: Good.
Good. Anybody have any energy move around, or anything like that happen?
Audience: Yes.
No, really?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's find the floor.
Let's find the right-hand wall. The right-hand wall. Find the right-hand wall.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Let's find the left-hand wall.
Audience: Okay.
Did you find it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, lose it.
Did you lose it?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Let's find the right-hand wall.
Audience: Okay.
Did you find it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's lose it.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now let's find the left-hand wall.
Audience: Okay.
Find it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Lose it.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now let's find the right-hand wall.
Audience: Okay.
Did you find it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Lose it.
Audience: Okay.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
You sure?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now having lost it, let's find it again.
Audience: Okay.
You got it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's lose it.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Fine. Now let's find it.
Audience: Okay.
Did you find it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Lose it.
Audience: Okay.
Is it lost?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's find it again.
Audience: Okay. I got it.
Good. Well, now let's lose it.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Let's find it.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Let's lose it.
Audience: Okay.
Okay. Is that getting easier to lose?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Let's find it again.
Audience: Okay.
Did you find it?
Audience: Yes.
Is it there?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Lose it.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Let's find it again.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Let's keep it.
Audience: Okay.
And still keeping it, let's find the left-hand wall.
Audience: Okay.
You sure you got it?
Audience: Yes.
Huh? You got the left-hand wall too?
Audience: Yes.
You got them both?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Let's lose them both.
Audience: Okay.
You lose them both?
Audience: Yes.

201

202

30 DECEMBER 1954
Well, let's find both of them again.
Audience: Okay.
You got them?
Audience: Yes.
Make you feel good?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Let's lose them.
Audience: Okay.
All right. You lose them?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine, let's find them again.
Audience: Okay.
You find them?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Let's lose them.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Did you lose them?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's find them again.
Audience: Okay.
Now let's find the ceiling.
Audience: Okay.
Let's find the floor.
Audience: Okay.
Let's find the back of the room.
Audience: Okay.
Let's find the front of the room.
Audience: Okay.
Got them all now?
Audience: Yes.
Lose them! Okay.
Let's find them all again.
Audience: Okay.
Did you find them?
Audience: Yes.
You got them?
Audience: Yes.
You got them real good?
Audience: Yes.
Is there any part you got less well?
Audience: Yes. No.
All right. Let's check it over and get them all real good.
Audience: Okay.
You got them for sure now?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's keep them.
Audience: Okay.
You decide to keep them?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Now let's change your minds and lose them.
Audience: Okay.
You lose them?

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's find them again. Audience: Okay. All right. Did you? Audience: Yes. Let's lose them. Audience: Okay.
All right. Let's find them again. Audience: Okay. You got them? Audience: Yes. Well, fine. Let's lose them. Audience: Okay. You lose them real good? Audience: Yes. You sure? Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's find them again. Audience: Okay. You find them real good? Audience: Yes. You sure? Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's lose them again. Audience: Okay. How's that? Real easy? Audience: Yes. Well, let's find them again. Audience: Okay. Did you? Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's lose them again. Audience: Okay.
All right. Let's find them again. Audience: Okay. Did you? Audience: Yes.
Well, let's check up on it. Did you really find them again? Audience: Yes.
Well, get a good feeling of relief about it: "Boy, I found them. Gosh, I sure got them." All right. Let's lose them. Audience: Okay. Let's lose the works. Audience: Okay. Now say, "Oh boy, I lost them." Audience: Oh boy, I lost them. They good and lost? Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's find them again. Audience: Okay. All right. Let's lose them again.

203

204

30 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Okay.
All right. Let's find them again.
Audience: Okay.
Okay. Let's lose them again.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Let's find them again.
Audience: Okay.
You got them?
Audience: Yes.
Got them real good?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's lose them.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Let's find them again.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Let's lose them.
Audience: Okay.
Did you lose them?
Audience: Yes.
Good and proper?
Audience: Yes.
They lost?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's find them again.
Audience: Okay.
Things looking duller or brighter?
Audience: Duller. Brighter.
Anybody have them look duller?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Let's find them real good now. All right.
Now let's decide to lose them, and lose them.
Audience: All right.
Got it?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's decide to find them, and find them. Okay.
Let's decide to lose them, and lose them. All right.
Let's decide to find them, and find them. All right.
Let's decide to lose them, and lose them.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's decide to find them, and find them.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Have you found them?
Audience: Yes.
You got them?
Audience: Yes.
Things looking duller?
Audience: No.
Things looking brighter?
Audience: Yes.
Is that a fact? Let's find them again. All right.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Now let's decide to lose them, and lose them.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's decide to find them, and find them.
That nice and easy to do?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's decide to lose them, and lose them.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Let's decide to find them, and find them.
Male voice: Okay.
Well, let's decide to lose them, and lose them.
Male voice: Okay.
What you losing?
Audience: Walls.
Are you keeping a facsimile of them or anything?
Audience: No.
Well, good. Let's get them lost.
Now decide to find them, and find them again.
You do that?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, fine. Did you find them real good?
Audience: Yes.
Well, decide to lose them, and lose them.
Did you do that?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's decide to find them, and find them.
Did you do that?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Now let's decide to lose them, and lose them.
Did you do that?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's decide to find them, and find them.
Did you do that?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's decide to lose them, and lose them.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Good. You getting better at it?
Audience: Yes. No.
Getting worse at it?
Audience: Yes. No.
All right. Now let's decide to find them, and find them.
Good. Now let's decide to lose them, and lose them.
Did you do that?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's decide to find them, and find them.
Did you find them?
Audience: Yes.
Well, check up on it.
Did you do that?

205

206

30 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes. How you feel? Audience: Fine.
All right. We're going to pull a real mean one now. Going to pull a real mean one, now, so don't be too startled. Let's find somebody in the audience. You got somebody? Audience: Yes. You sure? Audience: Yes.
All right. Decide to lose them, and lose them. Did you do that? Audience: Yes.
Well, decide to find them, and find them. Did you decide first? Audience: Yeah. All right. Did you find them? Audience: Yes.
Good. Let's decide to lose them, and lose them. Did you do that? Audience: Yes.
Good. Now let's decide to find this person, and find them. Did you do that? Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let's decide to lose this person, and lose them. You do that? Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's decide to find this person, and find them. Did you? Audience: Yes. You sure? Audience: Yes.
All right. Decide to lose the person, and lose them. Decide to find the person, and find them. All right. Decide to lose the person, and lose them. Decide to find the person, and find them. All right. Decide to lose the person, and lose them. All right. Decide to find the person, and find them. All right. Now decide to lose the person, and lose them. Decide to find the person, and find them. Now decide to lose the person, and lose them. Now decide to find the person, and find them. Now decide to lose this person, and lose them. Now decide to find this person, and find them. Did you do that? Audience: Yes.
All right. Decide to lose this person, and lose them. Now decide to find the person, and find them. Now decide to lose the person, and lose them. Now decide to find the person, and find them. All right. Is that going fairly easy? Audience: Yes.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Doing it pretty easily? Getting easier to do? Audience: Yes. More convincing? Audience: Yes. All right. Look at a person. Look away from him. Okay. Look at a person. All right. Look away. All right. Look at a person. Okay. Look away. All right. Look at a person. All right. Look away. All right. Look at a person. Okay. Look away. All right. Look at a person. All right. Look away. Okay. Look at a person. All right. Look away. All right. Look at a person. All right. Look away. Okay. Look at a person. All right. Look away. All right. Look at a person. Okay. Look away. All right. Look at a person. All right. Look away. All right. Look at a person. All right. Look away. Okay. Look at a person. All right. Look away. All right. Look at a person. Okay. Look away. All right. Look at a person. All right. Look away. All right. Look at a person. Okay. Look away. All right. Look at a person. All right. Look away. All right. Look at a person. Okay. Look away. All right. How's it doing? Audience: Good. Okay.
Doing easier? All right. I want you to look at the back of somebody's head. Come on, let's find the back of somebody's head. Did you find the back of somebody's head? Audience: Yes. You sure? Audience: Yes.
All right. Be the distance from it you are.
Let's be the distance from the back of somebody's head that you are. Now be in your own head. Now be three feet back of somebody else's head. Or thereabouts.

207

208

30 DECEMBER 1954
Now be in your own head.
Now be three feet in back of somebody else's head. Okay.
Be in your own head. All right.
Be three feet back of somebody else's head. Okay.
Be in your own head. Okay.
Be three feet back of somebody else's head. Okay.
Be in your own head. All right.
Be three feet back of somebody else's head. Okay.
Be in your own head. All right.
Be three feet back of somebody else's head.
Now if you can or wish to, be three feet back of your own head.
Whatever you're looking at make a copy of it.
Copy it several more times. Whatever you're looking at, in or out, it doesn't matter.
Push all the copies together and pull them in.
Now whatever you're looking at make some copies of it.
Push all the copies together and pull them in.
Now whatever you're looking at make some copies of it.
Push all the copies together and pull them in.
Now whatever you're looking at, black, white, green, purple, or the scenery, make some copies of it.
Push the copies together and pull them in. Okay.
Whatever you're looking at now make some copies of it.
Push all the copies together and pull them in. Okay.
How you doing?
Audience: Good. Fine.
Doing all right?
Audience: Yep.
Anybody bogged down? Anybody wrecked?
Audience: No.
Anybody ruined?
Audience: No.
Oh, what a disappointing evening! (laughter)
Now with your right hand touch the top of your head.
Make contact. Break contact.
Make contact. Break contact.
Make contact. Break contact.
Make contact. Break contact.
Make contact. Break contact.
Make contact. Break contact.
Make contact. Break contact.
Make contact. Break contact.
Make contact. Break contact.
Make contact. Break contact.
Make contact. Break contact.
Make contact. Break contact.
Put your hand on your lap. Good.
What happened when you did that? Nothing?
Well, look, you're free to move without something horrible happening.
Now just let's look this over. You suppose there's a possibility of a greater freedom, huh? Well, let's see if there is. Let's see if there is a greater freedom.
Let's think of something you're able to do.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
You do that?
Audience: Yes.
All right. You do that for sure?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now, let's think of something else you're able to do.
You do that?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now just rapidly one after the other think of a lot of things that you're able to do. (pause)
Doing that real well?
Audience: Yes.
Think of a lot of things you're able to do?
Audience: Yes.
How's that make you feel?
Audience: Fine. Good.
Well, good. Let's think of some more things you're able to do. (pause) Getting some good ones?
Audience: Yep.
Well, fine.
Let's think of some more things you're able to do. (pause) Okay.
How you making out?
Audience: Good. Fine.
Good. Well, let's think of some more things you're able to do. (pause) Finding some good ones?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. You finding more than you'd bargained for lately?
Audience: Yes.
Huh? Well, let's find a lot more of them. Give me some more things now that you're able to do. (pause) Okay.
How you making out, huh?
Audience: Good. Fine.
Good. Fine. Now let's think of some more things you're able to do. (pause) Okay.
How you making it?
Audience: Okay.
Well, good. After all this silence turn around and find somebody and say "Hello."
Audience: Hello. (repeated responses)
Okay. Fine.
Now tell me "Hello."
Audience: Hello!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.

209

210

30 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello!
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello!
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello!
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello!
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello!
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello!
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello!
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron!
Hello.

211

212

30 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello, Ron! Hello, Ron! Hello, Ron! Hello, Ron! Hello, Ron! Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Hello.
Audience: Hello, Ron! Okay.
Audience: Hello, Ron! How are you?
Audience: Fine! How are you? Okay. Now ask me how I am. Audience: How are you? I'm okay. How are you? Audience: Fine. How are you?

GROUP PROCESSING, PART I
Okay. How are you? Audience: Fine. How are you? I'm fine. How are you? Audience: Fine. How are you? Hello.
Audience: Hello. How are you?
Audience: Fine. How are you? I'm okay. How are you? Audience: Fine. How are you? I'm okay. How are you? Audience: Fine. How are you? I'm okay. How are you? Audience: Fine. How are you? Okay. How are you? Audience: Fine. How are you? Good. How are you? Audience: Fine. How are you? I'm fine. How are you? Audience: Fine. How are you? Okay. How are you? Audience: Fine. How are you? Okay. How are you? Audience: Fine. How are you? Okay.
Audience: Okay. How do you feel? Audience: Fine. Good! All right.
We're running way back of schedule this evening, so let us have a coffee break and get back on the job again. Okay.

213

 

A Group Processing session given on 30 December 1954
The processes which we have been using are based upon communication. Whether or not you make and break contact with your eyes directly or with the wall, you are making and breaking communication.
There's a singular difference however, between making and breaking contact with your eyes which are alive, and a wall which is dead.
The process known as Opening Procedure of 8-C makes and breaks contacts with the wall. But the same process could be run on living forms, couldn't it?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Touch the person next to you.
Now, here and there, I suppose somebody is going to shudder and say whooo—no. All right.
Let go.
Now, come on now, don't touch yourself. Touch the person next to you. Good. Good. You touching somebody next to you?
Audience: Yes.
You know you're touching somebody next to you?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let go. Okay.
Touch somebody next to you.
Done so?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Let go.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, touch somebody next to you.
Audience: Okay.
Okay. Let go. All right.
Touch somebody next to you. Good.
Let go. All right.
Touch somebody next to you. Okay.
Let go. All right.
Touch somebody next to you. Good.
Let go. All right.
Touch somebody next to you. Good.
Let go. All right.
Touch somebody next to you.

215

216

30 DECEMBER 1954
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Is that person alive?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Let go. All right.
Touch somebody next to you.
Is that person alive?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Let go. All right.
Touch somebody next to you.
Is that person alive?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let go. Good.
Touch somebody next to you.
That person alive?
Audience: Yes.
You sure?
Audience: Yes.
Come on. Touch somebody next to you.
Let go. Okay.
Now, I'm going to ask you to do something that's very, very interesting. How do you know this person's alive?
Audience: (various responses)
Now, how do you know, huh? All right.
Touch somebody next to you. All right.
Let go. Good.
Now touch somebody next to you.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Is that person alive?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let go. Good.
Now touch somebody next to you.
Is that person alive?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Let go. All right.
Touch somebody next to you.
That person alive?
Audience: Yes.
Not dead?
Audience: No.
Alive?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let go. Okay.
Touch somebody next to you.
Is that person alive?
Audience: Yes.
Do you know that person's alive?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Let go. That's fine.
Now, what we have . . . Sometimes it's a very, very shocking thing to discover that somebody really is alive except oneself. This can be a great

GROUP PROCESSING, PART II
shock. But one of the more convincing things is to feel somebody else's pulse. So let's feel the pulse of somebody next to you.
It's right inside the wrist, right there. Did you find it? Hm? Find it? Is that person alive?
Audience: Yes!
Well, all right. Let go.
Now, there's a little stranger and a little more intimate test than that, which is to have somebody breathe on your hand. So put your hand alongside the person next to you, and have them breathe a little bit on your hand.
Now make sure you get your hand breathed on.
Is that person alive?
Audience: Yes!
Well. Well. All right, touch the person next to you. Okay.
Let go. Good.
Let's touch the person next to you. Fine.
Let go.
Now, is that person alive?
Audience: Yes.
Are these people getting more real?
Audience: Yes.
Now, are they? Huh?
Well, they themselves might be getting more real because you're touching them. Let's see if this isn't the case. All right.
Touch the person next to you. All right.
Let go. All right.
Touch the person next to you. Good.
Let go. All right.
Touch the person next to you. Fine.
Let go. All right.
Touch the person next to you. Okay.
Let go.
Are you starting to find somebody alive around here?
Audience: Yes!
Well, what do you know! What do you know!
Now, let's, if possible, take a different person. Another person. Good. Now, touch that person. Okay.
Let go.
Now, did everybody do that?
Audience: Yes!
No you didn't. Now, come on, everybody do this next one.
Find another person and touch them. Okay.
Let go. All right.
Find another person. Okay.
Let go.
Now is this other person real?
Audience: Yes!
Are they alive?
Audience: Yes!
Okay. Take your seats, and touch the person next to you.
Now is this person more alive than before?
Audience: Yes.
You mean there's more than two in the world?

217

218

30 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
No kidding! Let go. All right.
Touch the person next to you. All right.
Let go. Okay.
Now say hello to the person next to you.
Audience: Hello. Hello. Hello. (repeated responses)
Go ahead, say hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello. Hello. (repeated responses)
All right. Good. Good. Good.
Now tell the person next to you "Okay" many times.
Audience: Okay. Okay. Okay. (repeated responses)
All right. Fine. Fine. Fine. Fine. Now, touch the person next to you. Is this person even more real?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Let go.
Touch the person next to you. That person real real?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let go.
Touch the person next to you.
Is that person real real?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let go.
Now touch the person next to you.
Is that person real real?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let go. Fine.
How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Feel pretty good now?
Audience: Yes.
Well, swell.
Now we're going to play a horrible overt act on you. Now I got you feeling real good, this next is not calculated to do so at all. I want you to have a small spot in the space of the room before your face, start saying "Yes?" "What do you want?" sort of a "Yes?" Have this small spot in front of your face start saying "Yes?" to you. You don't say it, the spot says it to you. (pause) That's fine.
Now have that spot say it a lot of times to you. "Yes?" (pause) "Yes? You've got my attention. What do you want?" That sort of a "Yes." (pause) Now, that's fine.
Now have this little spot in front of your face say "Yes?" over and over. You know, sort of a "You've got my attention now, go ahead and talk." "Yes." (pause) All right. That's fine.
Now have that little spot in front of your face, say "Yes? Okay." "Yes?" a little space, then "Okay." Just as though you'd said something (which you didn't). (pause)
Now, that's fine. Have this little spot in the air of the room in front of your face—not in your bank or in 1776, but right now—have that little spot say "Yes?" and then just as though you said something, "Okay." "Yes? Okay." (pause) All right. That's fine.
Now put your finger right where you had the spot. Put your finger right where you had the spot. You got it now? You got it now real good? Huh? You got your finger where you had the spot?
Audience: Yes.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART II
All right. Now, sit down and get, now, the spot some more saying "Yes? Okay." (pause) All right. That's fine.
Has anybody had any energy move around or anything like that?
Audience: Yes. No.
Is everybody going out in front of his face and back through again or anything like that? Hm? All right.
Anybody had the sensation of the little spot as soon as it says "Okay," start to move away?
Audience: No.
Anybody have the sensation of it moving in?
Audience: No. Yeah.
Uh-huh. In other words, there's a little something happens there incidentally, huh? Well, fine.
Now I want your little spot to say "Yes? Okay," to your eyes. (pause) That's good.
Have it say "Yes? Okay," to your eyes. (pause) That's fine.
Now, when energy turns up or anything like that, or you start working energy around, that's not what we want. We want a little spot out there and it says to your eyes "Yes? Okay."
If any horrible coughs or anything like that turns on, just have the little spot say "Yes? Okay." (pause) All right.
That's fine. Now, everything going along all right?
Audience: Yeah.
Any of your eye somatics disappear you picked up earlier?
Audience: Yeah.
Female voice: No, they turned on.
Oh, they've turned on? They're not going? Any of them turned up or turned off?
Audience: Yeah.
Well fine. Now we have a new process. Now we have a new process. Let's have that little spot out there in front of you if you're exteriorized, or in front of your face if you're not, say "Well, well, well, if it isn't X!" Big enthusiastic greeting. An originated communication. "Well, well, well, if it isn't X!" Enthusiastic. (pause) Okay.
That's fine. How's it going?
Audience: Good. Fine. Okay.
Going okay?
Audience: Mm-hm.
All right. Now remember, this little spot says "Well, well, well, well, if it isn't X!"You know. Enthusiasm! Let's get some more enthusiasm in there now. Real glad to see you. He's caught sight of you before you caught sight of him. (pause) That's fine.
Now have that little spot saying "Well, well, well, if it isn't X!" (pause) All right. How you getting that now, huh?
Audience: Fine.
Well, swell. Now, let's have that little spot say now, "Well, well, well, if it isn't X!" "Okay, X." (pause) All right. How's it going now?
Audience: Good. Fine.
You getting detoured off into some energy masses or anything like that, or chewing on energy or something? Well, just skip the energy and just have this little spot—now it doesn't matter if it's verbal or vocal or anything, it's just got the idea and the enthusiasm in it, and it says "Well, well, well, if it

219

220

30 DECEMBER 1954
isn't X!" and then just as though you'd given it an order, "Well, okay, X!""Well, well, well, if it isn't X!" "Okay, X." (pause) All right. How's it going, huh?
Audience: (various responses)
Going easier now?
Audience: Yeah.
Going any easier at all?
Audience: (various responses)
How's the somatics?
Audience: Gone.
Oh, they're gone, huh? Anybody still got any?
Male voice: Yep.
All right. Now let's have that little spot there, and it spotted you before you spotted it, you see, and it swings in there and it looks, and it says, "Well, well, well, if it isn't X!""Well, okay X!"More enthusiasm, now. (pause) All right, how's that going?
Audience: Fine.
It going pretty good?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Going a lot easier?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Now, let's have it do it a few more times. (pause) All right. Well, now, that's fine.
Now find a person next to you and touch them. All right.
Let go.
Now find a person next to you and touch them. Okay.
Let go. All right.
Find a person next to you and touch them. Fine.
Let go.
Well now, find the person next to you and touch.
Now let go. Good.
Find a person next to you and touch.
Now let go and lose them.
Now find them and touch them. Okay.
Now lose them. All right.
Now find them and touch them. Okay.
Now lose them. All right.
Find them and touch them. All right.
Now lose them.
All right.
Find them and touch them. Got them?
Audience: Yes.
Are they alive?
Audience: Yes.
Well, lose them. Okay.
Find the floor. Got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
You got more floor than you had before? Less floor? All right.
Find your chair.
And find the floor. Okay.
Find your chair. Good.
Find the floor. Good.
Find a chair.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART II
And now I want you to have that little spot out in front of your face invent a game for you. (pause) Okay.
Did you do it?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, all right. Now, just have it invent game after game after game after game for you. And each time it invents a game you say "Okay." No matter what kind of a game it is, you say "Okay." (pause) All right. You doing that pretty easy?
Audience: Yes.
Does it invent some strange games?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Let's make it invent some more games for you, and each time it invents one you say "Okay." (pause) Fine. Now, how you making out there, huh?
Audience: Fine.
Making out pretty good?
Audience: Yes.
Are these games real interesting or real dull?
Audience: Dull. Boring.
Are they real fantastic?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, let's have that spot out in front of your face invent some more games for you to play, (pause) All right.
Now, just say "Okay," to it. No matter what it says, have it invent some more games and you say "Okay." You agree. That's the game you'll play. (pause) All right. How's that working out now, huh?
Audience: Good.
Oh, this spot getting more inventive?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. You agreeing to it each time?
Audience: Yes.
Well, swell. Now, let's have this spot invent some more games for you to play, and you say "Okay," every time. (pause) All right.
How's that going, huh?
Audience: Fine.
All right. Working real good?
Audience: Yes.
You being real agreeable?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Does it go against your grain sometimes?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Now, let's have this spot right out there in front of your face invent some games for you to play, and each time you say "Okay." (pause) All right. Now, how's that going?
Audience: Fine.
That going pretty good?
Audience: Yes.
You sure?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's find the floor.
Let's find the chair. All right.
Let's find this little spot out in front of your face, and it rushes up and it invents a game for you to play, and you say "Okay." (pause) All right. Now, how you doing with that, huh?

221

222

30 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Fine.
Got any energy moving around?
Audience: (various responses)
Hm? You're just doing all right then. Just fine. All right.
Have something come up, invent a game for you to play and you say "Okay." (pause) All right. Now how you doing?
Audience: All right.
Hm? You're still alive?
Audience: Yeah.
Is this getting more inventive?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, fine. Fine. Let's have this spot, now, suddenly arrive and invent a game for you to play, and you say "Okay." (pause) Okay. How's that now?
Audience: Fine.
Oh, is this getting a lot easier?
Audience: Yes.
It is? Well, that's fine. All right.
Now, let's have a spot come up and invent a game for you to play, and you say "Okay." (pause) Now, all right. How's that going now, huh?
Audience: Fine. Easier.
Going much better? Getting easier?
Audience: Yeah.
This thing getting more inventive?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, fine.
Now let's have that little spot come up and invent a game for you to play, and you say "Okay." (pause) All right. Now how's that, huh?
Audience: Fine. Good.
Is that getting good? Or you getting dopey?
Audience: Dopey.
You're not getting dopey, are you?
Audience: Yes. No.
Is that a fact?
Audience: No. Yes.
Well, all right. Let's find the person next to you and touch him and let go.
And find the person next to you and touch him. Okay.
Now let go.
Now find the person next to you. Touch him. Let go. All right.
Find the person next to you. Touch him. Let go. All right.
Let's find the person next to you and touch him, see if any horrible consequence happens, and let go. All right.
Now let's find the person next to you, touch him, let go, and lose him. All right.
Now find the person. Touch the person. All right.
Let go of the person. Okay.
Lose the person. All right.
Find the person. Okay.
Touch the person. All right.
Let go of the person. All right.
Lose the person. Okay.
Let's find the person. Let's touch the person. Let's let go of the person. All right.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART II
Let's lose the person. Okay.
Let's find the person. Did you?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Touch the person. All right.
Let go of the person. Okay.
Lose the person. Fine.
Now find the person. Find the person. Brand-new, now. All right.
Touch the person. Okay.
Let go of the person. Okay.
Lose the person. All right.
Find the person. Okay.
Touch the person. Fine.
Let go of the person. Fine.
Lose the person. All right.
Find the person. Okay.
Touch the person. Okay.
Let go of the person. All right.
Lose the person. Okay.
Find the person. All right.
Touch the person. Okay.
Let go of the person. All right.
Lose the person. Okay.
Find the person. Okay.
Touch the person. Okay.
Let go of the person. All right.
Lose the person.
Did you lose him?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Find the person. Okay.
Touch the person. All right.
Let go of the person. Okay.
Lose the person. All right.
Find the person. Okay.
Touch the person. All right.
Let go of the person. All right.
Lose the person. Okay. All right.
Find the person. Okay.
Touch the person. All right.
Let go of the person.
Fine. Lose the person. Okay.
Find the person. All right.
Touch the person. Okay.
Let go of the person. All right.
Lose the person. All right.
Find the person. Okay.
Touch the person. All right.
Let go of the person. All right.
Lose the person.
Now let's find the person, and let's say hello.
Audience: Hello.
And again and again and again.
Audience: Hello. Hello. Hello. (repeated responses)

223

224

30 DECEMBER 1954
Okay. That's fine. That's fine. That's fine. All right. Okay. Now I want you to say "Hello," and then "Goodbye." And then "Hello," and then "Goodbye," to this person. Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) That's fine. Keep it up. "Hello." "Goodbye." "Hello." "Goodbye." Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) That's fine. Say "Hello." "Goodbye."
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses) Hello. Goodbye.

GROUP PROCESSING, PART II
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses)
Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses)
Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses)
Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses)
Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses)
Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses)
Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses)
Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses)
Hello. Goodbye.
Audience: Hello. Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. (repeated responses)
Female voice: Hello Ron!
Audience: Hello Ron!
Okay. Okay. Well now, how do you feel?
Audience: Fine. Good.
Have you told anybody "Hello" or "Goodbye"?
Audience: Yes.
Do people look any realer?
Audience: Yes.
No?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Well, is there a floor beneath your feet?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a floor?

225

226

30 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a chair?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a left-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Is there a right-hand wall?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Is there anybody alive in the room?
Audience: Yes!
Is anybody alive?
Audience: Yes!
Well, okay. Is there anybody alive?
Audience: Yes!
Okay. Is there anybody alive?
Audience: Yes!
All right! End of session!
Thank you.
Thank you.

 

A lecture given on 31 December 1954
The material which I have to give you at this time of course should be received with reverence, with seriousness, with a realization that life is not play, (laughter) that it is a grim game.
We look over life, we understand very, very completely and conclusively without any slightest quibble along the line, that here and there, somebody at least to some slight degree, gets done in. This is fairly easy to behold, and we restrain ourselves from looking at the grimness of this sort of thing.
For instance, when you sit down to a steak dinner, do you realize that some poor, innocent cow had to die so that you could have that dinner? You realize that? And yet you hold that fact away from you. You try not to look at that fact, (laughter)
Do you realize that when you pick up a piece of celery and start eating on it, that it too was trying to live? And the injustice of it, it was doing good, it was doing well, it was obedient, it was trying to do exactly what it was supposed to do and you up and ate it. We don't even know whether or not a piece of celery feels any pain when you chew upon it.
This is all very grim and very terrible, but I am afraid that studying in the field of Dianetics and Scientology has shown me a couple of factors involved in this, and I would feel very badly about it, if it weren't for these couple of factors.
Now, in SOP 5, in Scientology, we had a very interesting system called GITA, Give and Take Processing. And that became, by the time we got to SOP 8—Standard Operating Procedure 8—Step IV, Expanded GITA. Bears no relationship to the Indian practice Gita, or books. It just does the work they're supposed to do.
And this process said that you could have the preclear waste, accept and desire various commodities. And in that list is the word pain. And entirely as an experiment today, but a workable process, you could take a preclear and have him waste pain—waste pain for himself, waste pain for somebody else and have somebody else waste pain for somebody else, in other words, in a bracket. And at the end of this time of processing, an hour or two, this individual will say, "There's the strangest thing, but you know pain is terribly valuable? Do you know I have actually been covertly sitting here trying to make this body hurt a little bit, here and there?"
And do you know that to see a body writhing in pain is almost sufficient to make the thetan go down and say, "Slurp!" And the reason for this is, is a

227

228

31 DECEMBER 1954
thetan can't really hurt, unless he says he hurts, and it's much better if something else says he hurts. Then it's easier to believe.
So, life would be very grim if it weren't for the fact that the life-energy production unit is actually thirsty for suffering. It's a good game. It's hard for somebody to realize this unless he's had this process run on him. And in want of having the process run on you, you just have to take my word for it for a moment, that it's not quite as grim as life makes it out to be. The grimness is part of a game, too.
I remember when I first tumbled to this fact. I was sitting in a car parked alongside the road. I'd been pulled over to the side of the road by a traffic cop, not to be given a ticket but to get the highway clear. And I pulled over obediently and I sat there not knowing quite what was going on, and all of a sudden, why, I saw the first funeral car and then the second funeral car and then the third funeral car and then the fourth funeral car, and looked at all these people, you know, and they were puddling up the upholstery most horribly, you know? And, "Poor old Joe. Poor old Joe," you know.
And the fifth funeral car and the sixth funeral car and the seventh funeral car and the eighth funeral car and the ninth funeral car and the tenth funeral car, and boy, that upholstery was taking a beating, you know—"Poor old Joe."
And I started to feel a little bit bad about it for a moment. I said, "Gee, you know, that fellow had an awful lot of friends."
And then all of a sudden, an individual that I had known in a Maryland backwoods town came to mind. This was a man that attended every funeral— he attended every funeral. He had a big car, and he'd go to the funeral and he'd pick up people, and he'd go along in the funeral procession.
He was a deacon in the church. He was also the local bank manager. And this individual had the very interesting habit of weeping copiously for the departed husband and foreclosing swiftly upon the left widow.
And this gentleman seemed to me—I just got to thinking about this fellow—it seemed to me he had a sort of a thirst for this sort of thing. And it suddenly occurred to me that his foreclosure upon the widow was just an effort to get more weep. That's another opportunity to cry, you know? Inflict a little more pain, death and suffering around about the place. This fellow had an appetite!
And the twelfth funeral car and the thirteenth and the fourteenth and the fifteenth were going by, by this time and then the hearse.
And we saw this hearse, you know, it was just jammed full of flowers. And it suddenly occurred to me that probably nobody had ever sent this poor guy any flowers while he was alive. But here he is dead, you see, and he's got all these flowers. It seemed to me to be very peculiar.
A very short time before this—a very short time before this I had been successfully completing the exteriorization of a preclear from an endless number of deaths. Now, this wasn't exteriorization from the body, I was merely picking him out of engrams—the process which I had been working with, way back in middle 51, late 51—picking him out of these engrams one after the other, and they were all death engrams. And the individual would be worry, worry, writhe, writhe, agony, agony, dead—way up here, "Well, what am I worried about that for?" Get the idea? And each cycle was that way.
And I hadn't really applied this to life yet. And I suddenly recognized that this corpse riding along there had gone about seventy-five or eighty feet up in

PROBLEMS AND GAMES
the air and had taken a look at the clay that was still lying there, you know, and said, "Why am I interested about that?"
And here were all these people weeping, you know? And I thought, "Well, this is a very strange puzzle. I wonder why they are paying so much attention to this fellow when he's dead, when they didn't pay very much attention to him when he was alive?" The answer finally occurred to me: He was no good to them alive. Dead, there was a wonderful opportunity of experiencing a lot of pain, which was as high on the Tone Scale as they could come—pain and sadness. And so we had this wonderful funeral. But it didn't have anything to do with the departed or deceased, nothing whatsoever.
It's a curious thing. So, life is involved in playing some of the more interesting games.
What Freud called "the subconscious" or "the reconscious"—we have developed by the way a new subconscious called "the resubconscious," and this is just two cellars below the subconscious which is below the reconscious. And this interesting stairway of unconsciousnesses was developed in direct controversion to the "controversial theory," a well-known theory that's used by science. And the reconscious apparently is engaged in being the opponent that you don't know about—while you know all about it.
One of the most damaging experiences to somebody's aplomb about his sadness and sorrow and the grimness of life, is to run one of the Route 2 steps from The Creation of Human Ability, that book which contains all the Route 1, and all the Route 2 steps and all the Axioms.
The Route 2 step is, "Ask the fellow for some problems he could be." And if he runs that very long, he discovers something very horrible, he discovers something excessively terrible: He's making up problems so he can be a problem to himself without knowing that he is being the problem to himself but so that he can retain an interest in existence and in life. And this is one of the neatest tricks anybody ever did.
And you run, "Give me some problems you could be." "Some more problems you could be." "Some more problems you could be." And this datum will inevitably, sooner or later, fall out in the individual's lap—bang. And he'll say, "Huh! My golly! You know what? I'm just making up these problems, so I can be these problems to myself and then not know that I'm being the problem to myself. That's what I'm doing." And he will stay in a state of levity or cheerfulness about this fact for many minutes before he suddenly grabs this as a problem and buries it real quick and gets it out of sight. He almost inevitably will do that.
All life can do, then, is pretend that it's serious. All life can do then, is to make up problems of such magnitude that even it can be interested in its own problem.
And if you come along as an auditor and solve too many of a preclear's problems, you have taken away from him too many games. And having taken away from him too many games, he'll invent a new one. And it will probably be one that has more pain and more suffering in it than the other game you took away. He will now insist that the game is a serious game, all the while knowing that it is just a mockery. All right.
That is the woof and warp of existence. But it has a dependency upon games. Did you ever see anybody paying much attention to psychosomatic aches and pains during a moment of high emergency? What we use as high emergency—all we use for high emergency—is simply some exterior combination of factors which makes a problem in present time, which we can

229

230

31 DECEMBER 1954
say demands so much attention that we are forced to deal with that problem over a priority of all others.
So, therefore you see what we have as "necessity level" about which we spoke in the first book. Remember "necessity level"? Well "necessity level" is simply this: It is recognition of a bigger problem. And when you give a fellow a problem out here, he pulls his attention at least temporarily off of problems in here. He extroverts. And the way he extroverts is because he's got a bigger problem.
Now, during the bombings of London, during the bombings of Berlin and of Japanese cities, it was recognized that the incidence of psychosis and neurosis dropped, and that the incidence of suicide dropped to zero. And it's fantastic.
I mean, you'd think these people would feel real bad about having all these eggs laid on their heads, you know. And instead of that, they just 100 percent extroverted on the emergency of the situation and went around and fought the fires, and picked up the wounded and dying, and cleaned up the rubble and squared things around.
In other words, there was enough of an exterior problem there so that nobody kept his attention on his own terminals. The war is over, there is no further exterior problem of this magnitude, then we would immediately expect a greater incidence of psychosis, neurosis, suicide, psychosomatic illness than prior to the war, and certainly than during the war when it became zero. Fascinating, hm?
So, here we have life set up as a problem or a series of problems, all of which are calculated to obtain the interest of, and invite action in life. And all these problems can be categorized as games. We have then, games.
Let's go way upstairs on such a theory of games and discover that the first thing you need, to play a game, is an opponent. And let's see that as we bring preclears up Tone Scale, that they very often look around and find all kinds of strange opponents. They will look around their environment and find an opponent. If the person is quite psychotic, the first person he recognizes as an opponent is his auditor, and he should fight this auditor. He's liable to do this anyway—the auditor is liable to make him feel a little bit better, he's liable to go out and tell all the neighbors that this auditor is the most horrible fellow that ever lived.
One needs an opponent in order to play a game. Well, that's fine. One needs a lot of other things in order to play a game. But, the first thing you need to play a game is an opponent. You couldn't really have a satisfactory game without an opponent.
Now, let's look at the communication formula and discover that in the lack of somebody at the receipt-point, life quite ably puts somebody at the receipt-point. We don't care whether there was just one thetan and then he went ahead and invented or created all the other thetans. Or whether or not there were other thetans who got in communication with each other. We don't care which way this worked out because it will all amount to the same thing. But it's a necessity, if you're going to have a communication, to have a receipt-point—isn't it?
And the funny part of it is, is nothing short of a live receipt-point is satisfactory. If you could always have had a live receipt-point on communication, you wouldn't have gotten into very many barriers.
But the first thing that you would say about the receipt-point that you have mocked up or which appeared there, was that it was a different person across a distance, and that distance is the first barrier even though you're in good communication.

PROBLEMS AND GAMES
Take a look at this on chart 6: [see chart 6 in appendix] we have here cause, distance, effect. Now, when we play this back on the same communication, we have here cause prime, effect prime. And then to have a full communication here, we would have to have this same thing in reverse: cause, effect, cause prime, effect prime.
And this is the same two-loop cycle as before, where we had Bill, Joe, Joe prime, Bill prime. And over here originating the communication this time we have Joe, receiving it we have Bill, answering it we have Bill prime, and then receiving or acknowledging we have Joe prime. That's the same thing, see?
This, by cause and effect, is how we graph two-way communication. This would be the first opening gun of a game. (tapping chart) You'd have some distance, you'd have some space, and you would have some acknowledgment and you'd have some answer.
Now, in order to even start a game, you've got to have some communication. But after people get a little bit anxious about this game called communication (which by the way is quite adequate as a game—quite adequate), people get a little bit anxious about it as we see here on chart 7, [see chart 7 in appendix] this kind of thing starts happening: we get this first cause, distance, effect, and the individual at effect says—just to make a game, you understand, not for any other reason—says, "I mustn't be an effect of that particular cause." And although there recognizably is space in between, this individual barriers it in some way and puts up some sort of a barrier.
Well, that's all right. But, by duplication here, if he won't—this fellow, at cause 1 here, sees that his effect isn't going through, then he becomes completely unwilling to be an effect, too. He says, "Well, let's make a real game out of this." So, here we are at effect prime.
We have your cause prime now, just to make this a two-way cycle. You know, you understand that this is the curve that we've been drawing all along. He says, "I don't want to be an effect either." And he puts up a barrier. Space wasn't enough of a barrier. Now you get a more serious game. You get a game with secrets in it, with elements, with mysteries and more particularly with particles, and you have descended immediately from space into energy.
And the second you get into energy with a game, you're in trouble. All that's wrong with any preclear—is he doing something by energy that he ought to be doing by postulate? You find that—he's saying, "Muscle" when he ought to be saying, "See?"
And by the way, you've seen preclears play games like this—one kind or another. They sit there and grit their teeth. They say, "Rrruuh, well, rrarragh I'll get this concept run out here in just. . . ffroik!" forceful, you see. And one of the greatest surprises and reliefs they get is when all of a sudden they find out they don't have to try that hard. They can just do it by a postulate.
People handle their bodies by energy lines. They put big communication lines on bodies. It isn't that this is bad, it's simply that it makes barriers. All right.
You ever see the strongman in the circus? I remember there was a very, very upset strongman one time. He was strongman in a sideshow, and he had been pulled on out front, you know, to lift dumbbells and so on. And there was a farmer kid that was along with me, and he got real curious because boy, those dumbbells looked heavy and this kid kept looking at these dumbbells, you know, and the strongman was picking up these dumbbells, you know, and straining every muscle, "Rrurrrrh," was going to ... "ererrruhh" wham! See? And then he'd drop them, bang! "Whew!" Wipe off his hands.
And this farm boy, after the strongman went off—and this farm boy

231

232

31 DECEMBER 1954
pushed one of these dumbbells. Barker was gone, so he climbed up on the side of the platform, and he was not very restrained or bashful, he'd been keeping company with me for a while. Anyhow ... I was, by the way, at the time barnstorming out through the Middle West with a Waco 10, having a lot of fun.
But, anyhow, this kid fell to this thing, found out it rolled quite easily and picked it up and started examining it. And he was reading the balls on the end of it and it said, "200 pounds" on the end of each one of these. And he was looking at it and smiling, and there was quite a crowd around there and they thought that was very funny. They laughed.
But the essential of the act was for the strongman to demonstrate that there was energy, that there was difficulty, that there was a seriousness to all this weight and gravity. And the truth of the matter was, these things were featherweights. All right.
The first time that strongman was ever in a circus, he probably found out the crowd was not at all impressed when he picked up this elephant. He walked over and grabbed the elephant by the loose skin and picked him up and set him down again, you know, and walked off, and nobody was impressed. So, he went around and he says, "Well, it's hard to pick up elephants. It's difficult, and I'm a great guy because I can pick up an elephant, see? You see, it's hard to pick up an elephant—ahh!" And so we got gravity.
And here we have this barrier erected between these two fellows, and we get a body in evolution. A body doesn't come about simply on the communication formula alone. The body comes about by somebody putting up a ridge.
Now, there could be another reason for this ridge. These individuals could say, "Well, although I know perfectly well that Joe is over there, I am going to tell Joe that I don't know he's over there so that then Joe will have to put up an energy mass in order to show me that he is over there. And I will claim that I see the energy mass and can feel it, and that will convince Joe. And after that, he'll have to pack around this energy mass all the time before I'll recognize him." See what kind of a game this could be?
And so, we get a couple of terminals (drawing on chart) which gradually grow arms and legs. And people carry these energy masses around and put clothes on them and so forth, which is not a bad game.
But when it comes down to these two bodies, having to have bodies in order to converse, that is not true. That is a lie. They don't have to have vocal cords, mouths, teeth, vocabularies or anything else to converse. But to make a game, they insist they have to have.
Even speaks, by the way, of "the tongues of angels," in the Bible. There is one, I think it's Corinthians I, Chapter Thirteen, line one, yeah, paragraph one. "If I speak with the tongues of men or of angels and if I have no charity, I am as sounding brass and the tinkling of a temple bell." Well, "tongues of angels"—what would be "the tongue of an angel"? It would be communicating without vocabulary or masses; that would be that. But that would be "the tongue of an angel."
Well, the further back on the track—if people keep going on a dwindling spiral, we could see that further back on the track you're liable to have a clearer state of being here or there or a greater state of awareness on the part of some people that they are exteriorized or can do certain things.
So, these things aren't necessary. All we need here is just C and E, and C prime, E prime. Not even the line is necessary—not even the line—not even the space; but the space makes a good game and it makes the difference between thee and me. But the essential difference between thee and me is simply a space— that's all. Energy masses be damned.

PROBLEMS AND GAMES
Mamie Glutz might conceive that she is better than the other girls at the factory because she has acquired a necklace and they haven't; but they say she's no good because of how she acquired it. And this makes a good game too. But, it isn't the necklace that makes Mamie Glutz. An awful lot of people forget this. (laughter) All right—puns aside.
Well, here we have cause, distance, effect. Cause, distance, effect. And the game, there, is the distance. And when we want to make the game more serious, more complicated or less workable, want to create more problems, we start throwing in these barriers, such as barrier 1 up here and barrier 2. And we get these barriers working up to masses of energy and forms and things like that.
Well, the funny part of it is there's nothing sillier than a barrier when it comes to a solid-mass barrier. This is a silly barrier because no barrier could possibly restrain a thetan. We say to somebody, "Be three feet back of your head." Now, I'm reminded of something in connection with this one.
A British auditor who was not himself exteriorized, and he did one of the more remarkable things. He got ahold of a preclear that didn't know anything about Scientology—just a preclear—no instruction at all. And he sat this person down in the chair, and he says to this person—because it was routine at the time to do so—and he said, "Be three feet back of your head."
And the fellow didn't say anything, so the auditor said, "Well, I wonder, let's see now, Ron has said that if we have a little picture—sometimes they have a little picture of where they are on the track or something like that. So, he said, "Well, I'll ask him what he sees." All right.
So he says to the preclear, "What do you see?"
And the fellow says, "I see a train."
And, auditor says, "Oh, okay. Now what do you see?"
"Oh, I still see a train."
And he said, "Well, all right." Now, he says, "Look around, what else do you see? Do you still see a train?"
And the preclear says, "No."
So the auditor said, "Well, huh, that's good. See, I've cleared up this facsimile. See? Pretty cute." And he says, "Now," he says, "I want you . . ."
"Oh," the preclear says, "Oh, wait a minute, here comes another train."
And the auditor said, "Ron didn't say anything about repeating facsimiles at all."
And so he very, very carefully and quietly with a horrible suspicion asked the preclear, "Where are you?"
And the preclear said, "Why, I'm sitting here alongside of one of the tracks," he said, "here on the railroad station."
And the auditor says, "Let's see .. ." and then suddenly remembered that he had also done other things to this preclear, and the preclear had obviously been outside with full ability to experience the entire physical universe. And had been sitting there waiting for himself to get run over with the train, and had been doing all sorts of interesting things, but had been passing in and out through walls with great ease.
It was this thing, which amongst others mostly struck the auditor as astonishing, as startling, as very fascinating, that the auditor suddenly woke up to the fact that a barrier did not restrain or contain a thetan unless he really insisted on it. So you see, it's really impossible, unless he wills it strongly, for an individual to sit over here (tapping chart) at this first E on the chart, behind a barrier, and get out and keep out this individual, by reason of

233

234

31 DECEMBER 1954
a barrier. And he's not able to do it at all unless this individual at E prime here (tapping chart) in the first graph, has decided to carry around the mass of energy.
Because the thing that won't go through energy is energy. Energy won't go through energy easily—it does things to the other energy it's going through. But a life unit can simply go through energy—zip! It means nothing. Any barrier—Fort Knox, walls, Chateau d'If— wouldn't even vaguely restrain anybody who was not packing around energy.
So, in order to get restrained at all, this individual here has to believe himself to be the energy. He has to say, "I am the energy." Mamie Glutz has to say, "I am the necklace." See? "I am. And the necklace which I am, cannot pass through this wall. Therefore, I can be contained inside these walls. And therefore walls are barriers."
And if we could just get everybody to grab hold of a bunch of energy and say that he had to hold on to it, and that it was precious and that it was valuable—and if we could sell everybody on this utterly—then we could mock up walls which nobody would pass through, and then we could have forts and fortresses and armor and bullets and governments and games of all kinds and descriptions. But there is your entrance point of games, right here. (tapping chart) All right.
If that's the case, and if an individual becomes shy of games, then it's indicated that we have a scarcity of games as well as a scarcity of communication which we should remedy. And you will discover that after you've processed somebody just so long on straight Communication Processing as contained in Dianetics 1955!, you will discover that this individual is getting a scarcity of games.
But the funny part of it is, is that Communication Processing doesn't bring about the scarcity of games which yanking energy away from him does. If you were to make him get rid of every piece of energy he was holding on to (Let's say we made him join a monastery, that's a good way to make an individual get rid of everything. You know, throw it all away, give it to the church, endow the bishop with it, live a holy life thereafter. We could make somebody do this.), he would have a pretty bad scarcity. His havingness would have been injured.
But you can take Communication Processing and by running it on a preclear, you can do the most fantastic thing you ever heard of. You can start taking energy away from him—making energy actually vanish—without influencing his feeling that he has to have. Now this is a little bit interesting, isn't it? It stands separate from the havingness.
But the havingness actually goes to pieces. The masses of energy which he has posted there—these masses right here and here—(taps chart) these masses of energy actually go to pieces. And if you ran Communication Processing long enough, down here, in the second section of this chart, we wouldn't even have a line left.
In other words, we'd start to run Communication Processing, we'd do just this trick—just this trick and no other trick—we'd have this fellow, this preclear say, "Hello." Have a spot out here in front of him say, "Hello." Then have the preclear say, "Hello," and the spot say, "Hello," and the preclear say, "Hello," and the spot say, "Hello," see. And we'd do that bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang.
Up to this time this fellow had a sensation that he had a sort of a mask on. He had energy masses around his face, he had energy around his eyes,

PROBLEMS AND GAMES
various weird things like this, you see? And we'd run this for a while, and he would tell us that he feels these energy masses moving.
But with any other process it would be necessary for you to have him mock up energy masses and pull them in, in order to remedy this havingness which he was losing. He would get sick at his stomach. He'd get real sick at his stomach if you didn't remedy his havingness which is one of the basic and elementary steps of Scientology and Dianetics today.
But we could do this: Have him say, "Hello," and something out there say, "Hello," and him say, "Hello," and something out there say, "Hello," and him say, "Hello," and something out there say, "Hello,"—back and forth, back and forth, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang. And this area up here which we've labeled "area 1" would become this area at the bottom of this Chart 7, (tapping on chart) Now, what do you think of that?
You've still given him a game. The game is communication. So, therefore he doesn't too seriously object to losing all these masses which we had up here as barrier 1 and barrier 2.
Let's give this a more simple look, a much more simple look, and we will find ourselves comprehending it, perhaps a lot better.
Let's make here on Chart 8, (writing on chart) let's make here a nice big barrier. And let's put Bill on this side of it and Joe over here, and let's have Bill start saying, "Hello," and Joe here start saying, "Hello," as an answer in reply, and as an originated communication.
And we have these two fellows say, "Hello, Hello, Hello, Hello." You know, one says, "Hello," the other says, "Hello," one fellow says, "Hello," the other fellow says, "Hello." And we will eventually get this—when I say, "eventually we get this," why, it's very simple. We get Bill and we get Joe and we don't have anything between them, see, here in this second section.
Given enough communication, an individual recognizes with great clarity that he is not dependent upon his ridges, his barriers, masses or individualities or eccentricities. Because communication itself is a game—fantastic.
What I'm showing you here actually works in processing. It's not just a demonstration process. I mean this would occur— actually would occur.
Now, we've already covered the fact that when we remedy C, A and R also remedy. Isn't that interesting? A and R also remedy, these various eccentricities remedy. Well, look-a-here: I want to show you something here before anybody gets scared over this situation too badly.
Chart 9—this chart will go in reverse. Let's start down here at the bottom. And we have here Homo sap. And there we have the ARC triangle. Now, they're really there, I really wrote them there— they're microscopic. That's Homo sap.
Now, remember that a person's understanding is as good as that triangle is big! So, this fellow walks down the street and he sees that an electric light is out. And he says—if he's in pretty good shape he says, "Look, there's an electric light out." His understanding of the situation is good.
Now, somebody else, not quite so good, who's got a pretty good communication lag, also has a reason lag, and they say, "Umm, I wonder why that light is out? What do you suppose we—uh—let me see . . ." Deep significances—do you understand? And, "Somebody had a motive of some kind or another in turning out that light. That's probably—you know, do you suppose that the police department has gone into collusion with the criminal element in order to ..." In other words, his understanding is poor—understanding of the situation is real poor—this electric light.

235

236

31 DECEMBER 1954
And now let's get some fellow that's completely spun in, and he comes around and he says, "Let's see ..." (pause) (laughter) He just dimly senses there must be something wrong in the environment but he doesn't know why. And one step below that, he's dead!
Now, there's his understanding. His A, R, C comprise his understanding. Let's look at that real clearly. ARC comprises understanding. The fact of the matter is that you can work out all mathematics just on the basis of ARC. The interrelationship of symbols, factors, figures, relationships, quantities, qualities and so forth can all be worked out of ARC.
We just take this triangle and we get the relative affinity of this commodity to that commodity, we get the agreement of this commodity or that commodity, you know, whether or not they have a likeness for each other, and we get in the equation itself a communication. But as we look over mathematics, we can actually evolve these.
I'm very, very sorry that in 1950 when I first ran across that—it was in September, I think, that I had a paper, the notes of a paper on this— demonstrated the conversion of the ARC triangle into logic or mathematics. I didn't finish the paper. There was a lot of wild things going on of one kind or another and I had to give them too much attention, and I didn't finish this paper. And when I didn't finish that paper by the way, I turned my back on organizations, the first and foremost thing that had to be attended to. So, right now I would love to have that paper. I could work it all out again, but it was quite lengthy.
And it was quite conclusive that if you don't have these three things present in a mathematical equation, if you haven't measured them to some degree, the reality of the equation is very poor. Whatever is missing in the equation, it would be missing out of the ARC triangle. Reason itself derives from ARC.
But the test of the matter, of course, is understanding in a preclear. Does a preclear's understanding come up as his communication lag goes out? You said it. As his communication lag goes out, does his acceptability to and his acceptance of the environment go up? You said it. And does his affinity for life and those around him increase? You said it.
But more important, does he measure up differently on intelligence? You said it!
So, here we find this man down here who's being an individual; he is a rugged individual. He's straight out of Dickens. He is an eccentricity compounded with a couple of more eccentricities. And we find that as he goes along, his understanding of the life—his life around him is real bad, it's real poor, he just doesn't grasp things easily.
We've got to speed up—we've got to increase his ability to communicate, before we start increasing his ability in the fields of affinity and in reality, and more importantly, understanding. We've got to speed up his communication. We do all this simply by speeding up his communication and furnishing enough communication in there to be speeded up. All right.
We start way down here in state 1. All right.
Now let's go upstairs, and after we've run Communication Processing for a short time, we get state 2. All right.
Now, after we've run Communication Processing—let's be real elementary—after we've run the exact process which I told you about there, you know, we just put a couple of guys together and say, "Say, 'Hello' to each other."
Now, this can be done on a preclear, and done very effectively by having

PROBLEMS AND GAMES
him mock up a "Hello" out here in front of him—something alive out in front of him saying, "Hello" to him. And then where he is, saying, "Hello" to it. And then it says, "Hello" to him, and he says, "Hello" to it, and it says, "Hello" to him, and he says, "Hello" to it, back and forth, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang!
This is the process, the one I am giving you right this minute, that this was tested on. This was tested with IQ tests, intelligence quotients, everything else you could think of, every kind of a monitor there could be and particularly, skill with mechanical objects—speed in taking apart puzzles. There was a lot of little incidental psychometery run—you know, you got a half a dozen Chinese puzzles and see how fast the guy could take one apart.
Well, the preclear this was being worked on looked at it and said—the first time he saw one of these puzzles—he said, "What is that?"
It was explained to him, "It's a puzzle."
"Yeah, well what kind of a puzzle?"
"Well, it's a Chinese puzzle."
"Well, what are you supposed to do with it?"
And this was all being clocked on the amount of time it was supposed to—he was being measured on how long it would take him, see, to work this puzzle. Up to a point—and we're getting to that point now—where he was handling them rather well. So, we'd work it a while longer and we would get this triangle, see? (writing on chart)
And 4 here, we would start to get this triangle, (writing on chart) And then 5, we're off the paper. And at this state 5, this preclear who had now exteriorized on this same process—just in one shot, see? He exteriorized on this process and we gave him the last puzzle which was really, if anything, a little more difficult than anything else—or I gave it to him—and I said, "Well, okay."
And he says, "What are you giving me that thing for?" he said, "All you do is punch the center of it and it falls apart."
In other words, the understanding of the individual had increased. His ability had increased—his ability to reach and withdraw and to do everything else. By doing what? By having a spot out in front of his face say, "Hello" to him. And by him saying, "Hello" to the spot out in front of his face—hour in, hour out, with the only other thing being interposed was, "Find the floor," or "Take a break." Curious, huh?
Now, I conducted that experiment myself for this good and excellent reason: that there might have been a temptation on the part of somebody else to have gone off onto Route 1 or to have done something else or to have just enough broken communication with the preclear to have damped it. It wasn't that I didn't trust anybody else; I merely wanted, myself, an intimate look at this thing evolving.
And so we had the phenomenon of the expanding triangle. And this is the phenomenon of the expanding triangle, and you can watch that phenomenon increase. You can watch that triangle increase, you can watch understanding come up, and you can see incidence of accident and other things falling down, and you can see reaction time increasing.
Now, we're certainly not paying any attention to memory, are we? Well, I ask you, are we paying any attention to memory?
Audience: No.
Well, then the clue of psychotherapy was not memory. The basic undoing of psychotherapy was not memory. And therapies solely based upon memory, and the functions and systems of recall are therapies which depend upon the automaticity of memory machines. Because when I got this boy to this final

237

238

31 DECEMBER 1954
top step (tapping on chart) after about twenty-eight hours of processing, something like that, his face started to fall apart, so we had to do it behind his back for the last few hours of processing. I would have ruined him; he would have disappeared right in my parlor.
This fifth state up here, (tapping on chart) this fifth state produced this kind of a response on memory: "Where were you on July the 17th, 1947?"
"Oh," he says, "I was in the living room."
"What were you doing?"
"I was reading page 27 of a book called Gone With the Wind."
"You were reading it awfully late, weren't you?"
"Yes, I waited until the servants had stopped talking about it." Pang! Pang! Pang!
Now, these cases, as we will have here in chart 10, these cases that you're looking at with a communication lag are fabulously interesting cases, they're fabulous. Let's go on upstairs again on the same graph system as we had before. One: Where you had your little A, R, C down here, see? All right.
We ask this boy a question. We say, "How many chairs are there in this room?" This boy does not start to count these chairs, this boy begins to wonder why you want to know how many chairs there are in this room. Now, that's a fairly average response. That is not, by the way, a high-toned response; it's just the average response that you would get.
If somebody walked in that door at this moment, and I asked him, "How many chairs are there in this room?" This guy would enter into the communication as why did I want to know how many chairs are in this room? Couldn't I count myself? He was not part of this particular congress. You know, yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap. But no communication.
So, we take state 1 here, and let's take a look at this person's bank and let's find that he has (drawing on chart) C, E, C, E, C, E, C, E, C, E, C, E, C, E, C. C, C, C, but out here with no C leading to it, EE, and then CE, CE, CE, CE, CE, CE, CE, CE. And that adds up to no C.
And the actual behavior of a communication lag is something like this: We enter at the first C, and through all of those CEs I traced, this lag tries to go, see . . . (drawing on chart) and comes out here, "What wall?"
And when this man looks at anything, he looks at a bundle, and he says, "There's nothing there." Yet something looked at the wall, and then got lost in this morass here, under 1—just got lost.
And those are the masses that start to fall apart when you say—have the preclear say, "Hello" and then have him have a spot in front of his face say, "Hello" to him, and then, he says, "Hello" and so forth. What happens here?
This thing starts to fall apart and with a slightly expanded triangle here, we get the communication line of "Hello," "Hello" at least only going through a minor amount of ballup here. See?
All these old C's and E's are dropping out. Because we put enough C's and E's in there to resolve this thing here. And we get up here to—well, let's just skip to 5. Where do you think that line has to travel for the individual to know anything, huh?
Male voice: What line?
Yeah, what line? He knows there's a wall there without looking. He doesn't have to look to find out if there is a wall there. He has perfect certainty there's a wall there, but if he wants to look at it, he can also look at it. If he wants to run into it, he'd have to do something else and say, "Now I'm going to run into it" and so run into it.

PROBLEMS AND GAMES
But when you ask him a question, "How many chairs are there in this room?" he would tell you the exact number—bang! And now it might suit his game to find out why you wanted to know that number of chairs in the room.
But there is what happens under these processes. This ball, this mask— sometimes somebody feels like he's wearing a mask all over the front of his face. And you say, "Give me some things you're not trying to create at this moment," that being a stickier sort of a Straightwire question—stickier sort of a question.
He's supposed to point these things out, and he'll go, gong! And he will dope off and so forth. He gets right into the middle of that number 1 ball, and what do you think it contains? Hmm? What do you think is at all those C and E lines and so forth? What are these masses and so forth that are preventing other masses from occurring? Facsimiles. Engrams. And of course he goes into restimulation on those lines and he becomes a very interesting piece of dope-off, he does. But that's his life—dope-off.
Now, as he gets on up to state 5, you'd say, "Well, this individual then would care less about existence." Oh, no, he can feel sympathetic quicker and get over sympathy faster than anybody you've ever seen. But you'd say this individual is not persistent, this individual has no great integrity. No, he has something better than that, he has ethics and honesty.
When we get into the problems of communication, we can find a hundred billion catalogable phenomena and we can put these phenomena under the most interesting microscopes.
We can make ourselves some of the most fascinating combinations and puzzles you ever saw in your life. And we do that simply to have a game, to have something to shoot at.
But, every once in a while we get so immersed in hiding the game and in hiding the terminal of the game, we start playing the game of: We don't know it's a game. And we very rapidly and quickly get lost in all directions.
And the funny part of it is, a fellow can stay lost. Now that's the only slightest liability there is to playing the general game called life. The fellow can get lost; he can stay lost.
What do you think a tree out here is doing? It was a life form once. But it still has something vibrating around it, it still is doing something, it still has a game, doesn't it? So, it looks like having a game is more important than getting lost. A person will even get lost and go utterly unconscious and unknowing and stupid—still, to have a game.
So, along with Communication Processing, we use the processes which increase the number of games an individual can have. And that process is simply—as I have run on you earlier—Invent a Game: "Have somebody invent a game for you." And, "Have you invent games for somebody else," and then, "You say, 'Okay.' " Well, this of course does communication too. And some of the weightier, heavier somatics start to fly off when you run that particular process.
But, here we find whatever we want to know in life revealed simply by running these Communication Processes from the standpoint that life is a game, and getting the individual to remedy his havingness of games. That is to say, make him realize that he can invent so many games that he doesn't have to hold on to these old games. And if he realizes that, then he'll let go of some of these things and he becomes far, far more able.
Thank you.

239

 

A Group Processing session given on 31 December 1954
All right. You said you want some processing, huh?
Audience: Yes.
Well, I'm warning you that I'm going to give you the process which I've just told you about, and because I've told you it works, I expect it to work. (audience laughter) Now, I carefully evaluated for you and told you exactly what you ought to think and feel, and I told you exactly what should come of this, so naturally that's what should come of this. Now, as I say, an hour's worth of this processing probably won't bring you all the way up to Operating Thetan unless you cooperate. (audience laughter)
So if you're not all Operating Thetans at the end of this hour I know you're uncooperative.
Find the floor. You got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Have you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
How do you know?
Audience: I can feel it.
Well, find out. (stamping noises)
Now have you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Are you sure you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Have you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Let's find out. (stamping noises) Okay. Have you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now, have you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
Have you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Is there a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Do you individually know there's a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Do you collectively know there's a floor there?
Audience: Yes.

241

242

31 DECEMBER 1954
Well, all right. Okay.
Now I'm going to ask you to do something which is a little bit complicated. I'm going to ask you to have a little dot out in front of your face say "Hello." And then you say "Hello" right where you are. By the way if you're exteriorized I mean just a dot out in front of you. And you say "Hello" to it. And then it says "Hello" to you. And then you say "Hello" to that dot. You understand? You got that real good? Now, if you're exteriorized, of course we don't want the dot in front of your face to be saying "Hello." But if you're not exteriorized, we want the dot in front of your face to say "Hello." You understand?
If you're exteriorized just pick a point a few feet from you out here and have it say "Hello," and then you say "Hello" to it back and forth. Okay.
All set to play this one?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's pick that spot. Have it say "Hello." Now, you say "Hello" to it.
Audience: Hello.
Not out loud. Didn't mean to cut your communication line.
All right. Now, have that dot say "Hello" to you. Now, you say "Hello" to it. Now, have it say "Hello" to you. Now, you say "Hello" to it. All right. Now, let's do that a lot more. (pause) All right. You doing that?
Audience: Yes.
You got it now?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Have that little dot out there say "Hello" to you. Now you say "Hello" to it. Have it say "Hello" to you. Let's get it going real good now, back and forth. (pause) All right. How you doing?
Audience: Fine.
Now, has anybody found himself plowing around some masses of energy?
Audience: Yes.
Well, now let's not plow around. Just have the dot say "Hello" to you, you say "Hello" to it. All right. Continue. (pause) All right. How's that going?
Audience: Fine.
You doing the process?
Audience: Yes.
You sure?
Audience: Yes.
Doing all right?
Audience: Yes.
Any energy flying around?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Now let's have this little dot say "Hello" to you, then you say "Hello" to it. And then it says "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it. Continue. (pause) How you doing?
Audience: Fine.
Doing okay?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. Any energy mass flying around?
Audience: Yes. No.
Oh, there are some people still have them flying around. Well, now just don't go plowing around that energy. Let's just not bother with it at all. Let's not hold it or do anything with it. Let's just have a little dot out there say "Hello" to you, and then you say "Hello" to it and it says "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it. Okay?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Okay.
All right. Continue. (pause) Okay. How's it going?
Audience: Fine.
Going real easy?
Audience: Yes.
Hm? Doing very easy? All right. Continue it. (pause) All right. You getting real able at that now?
Audience: Yes.
Huh? You doing it pretty good?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Find the floor. Got a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
You sure you got a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Have you got a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Have you got a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. Have you got a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Have you got a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Have you got a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Have you got a floor there?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Now let's have a little dot in another direction—if you're in your body, someplace behind your head. If you're exteriorized, just someplace in the opposite direction of where you had the other dot—and have it say "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it. Have you got that?
Audience: Yes.
If you're in your body, why, it's a dot back of your head, and if you're exteriorized, it's just another dot in another direction. "Hello" and "Hello" and "Hello" and "Hello." Okay. You all right?
Audience: Yes.
Well, good. (pause) All right. How's that going?
Audience: Fine.
All right. Going real good?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now if you're in your body have this little dot back of your head—maybe make it three feet back of your head now—say "Hello" to you and then you say "Hello" to it. And if you're exteriorized, just have this little dot in some direction from you, say "Hello" and you say "Hello" to it. Back and forth. All right? Continue. (pause) All right. How's it going?
Audience: Fine. Good.
Doing good?
Audience: Yes.
Doing better? All right.
Now let's have that dot three feet away from you, in back of your head if you're in a body, and what you might consider behind you if you're exteriorized, say "Hello" and you say "Hello" to it. Okay? Continue. (pause) All right. How's it doing?

243

244

31 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Good. Fine.
You moving masses of energy around?
Audience: Yes.
Oh, there are some?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now, let's just have this dot speak and say "Hello," cordially now, and then you say "Hello" to it, cordially. (pause) All right. How's it doing?
Audience: Fine.
Knocking you out?
Audience: No.
That okay?
Audience: Yes.
Well fine. Fine. Fine. Now, let's find another dot, let's make one, let's create one below you—below you. Got that? If you're in a body that would mean beneath your feet somewhere, and just below you if you're exteriorized— assign some direction to below. Got it now? Have it say "Hello" and you say "Hello" to it. And it says "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it. Okay? Continue. (pause) Okay. How's that going?
Audience: Fine.
That getting easier now?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's continue that process. A spot below you which says "Hello" and you say "Hello" to it and it says "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it and it says "Hello" to you. You can't get the sonic on it, it's not necessary, just make sure you know it's saying "Hello." Okay? Continue. (pause) All right. How's that coming?
Audience: Fine.
Working easier?
Audience: Yes.
Well fine. Fine. All right. Now let's find a spot somewhere above your head if you're in a body, or just above you, if you're exteriorized. Find a spot above your head, and have it say "Hello" and you say "Hello" to it and it says "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it. Now, check what you're doing now, let's make sure that there is that spot there for you to say "Hello" to, huh? (pause) Okay. How you doing?
Audience: Good. Fine.
Doing okay? All right. Now let's have this spot above you say "Hello," you say "Hello" to it and it says "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it. Okay? All right. (pause)
Okay. How's that going?
Audience: Fine. Good.
How's it going?
Audience: Fine.
Is it going okay?
Audience: Yes.
Well, fine. How's it going?
Audience: Fine.
Well, all right. How's it going?
Audience: Fine.
Come on, let's hear it from somebody.
Audience: Fine.
How's it going? All right. How's it going?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Fine.
Okay. Now let's have a spot up above your head say "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it. (pause) All right. How's that going?
Audience: Okay. Fine.
Well, fine. Good. Let's find the floor.
And let's find a chair. Good.
Let's find the floor. Good.
Let's find a chair. Good.
Let's find the floor. Good.
Let's find a chair. Good.
Let's find the floor. Good.
Let's find a chair. Fine.
Let's find the floor. Fine.
Let's find a chair. Fine.
Let's find the floor. Good.
Let's find a chair. Good.
Let's find the floor. Fine.
Let's find the chair.
And now let's put a spot three feet behind you and have it say "Hello" to you. And when I say you I mean a dot. And you say "Hello" to it and it says "Hello" to you. Got that now?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Continue. (pause) Okay. How's that going?
Audience: Okay. Fine.
It going better?
Audience: Yes. No.
All right. Now let's find a spot three feet in front of you or let's put one there, have it say "Hello" to you, and you say "Hello" to it. And it says "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it. Okay?
Audience: Yes.
All right. (pause) Okay. How you doing?
Audience: Fine.
This ruinous?
Audience: Yes. No.
It isn't?
Female voice: Yes.
Very easy to do now?
Audience: Yes.
Is it easier to do than it was before or harder?
Audience: Harder. Easier.
Anybody find it harder?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Well now just to give you a little variation on this, we want you to find a spot now, or put one into your body's stomach and have it say "Hello" to you, and you say "Hello" to it. And it says "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it. Okay?
Audience: Yes.
Fine. (pause) All right. How's that doing?
Audience: Okay. Fine.
That doing better?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now, let's have that spot in your stomach say "Hello" to you and

245

246

31 DECEMBER 1954
you say "Hello" to it. (pause) Okay. How's that going?
Audience: Okay. Fine.
You had any somatics?
Audience: No. Yes.
Has anybody had any somatics?
Audience: Yes.
No, really? You finding it easier to do as a process?
Audience: Yes. No. Yes.
Is it easier to do?
Audience: Yes. No.
Still hard?
Audience: No.
All right. Let's find a spot now, back and behind you someplace or put one there and have that spot say "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it. And it says "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it. (pause) Okay. How's that?
Audience: Okay.
Is that pretty good?
Audience: Yes.
That getting better?
Audience: Yes.
Still got somatics?
Audience: No.
Anybody got bad somatics?
Audience: No. Yes.
Well, all right. I'll tell you what let's do. Let's find somebody right next to you and start saying "Hello."
Audience: Hello. Hello. Hello. (repeated responses)
Okay. How you doing?
Female voice: Fine.
How you doing?
Audience: Fine.
Okay. Now you say "Hello" to me.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.

247

248

31 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.
Audience: Hello. Hello.

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Hello.
Audience: Hello.
Okay.
Audience: Okay.
How you doing?
Audience: Fine. How are you?
All right. Let's find out if there's a floor there.
Let's find out if there's a chair there.
Audience: Yes.
Let's find out if there's a floor there.
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Let's find out if there's a chair there.
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's find out if there's a floor there.
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Let's find out if there's a chair there.
Audience: Yes.
Well fine. Let's find out if there's a floor there.
Audience: Yes.
Well, swell. Let's discover if there's a chair there.
Audience: Yes.
Well, very good. Let's discover if there's a floor there.
Audience: Yes.
Well, very good. Let's discover if there's a chair there.
Audience: Yes.
Well, very well. Let's discover if there's a floor there.
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Let's discover if there's a chair there.
Audience: Yes.
Is there?
Audience: Yes!
You sure?
Audience: Yes!
What chair?
Audience: Chairs.

249

250

31 DECEMBER 1954
Are you sure?
Audience: Yes.
Are you convinced?
Audience: Yes!
All right. Now how do you feel?
Audience: Fine!
Well, that's terrible. That's terrible.
Now, I tell you what I want you to do. I want you to find a spot just back of you and have it say "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it. Okay?
Audience: (various responses)
All right. Now let's have that spot back of you say "Hello" to you and then you say "Hello" to it and it says "Hello" to you, and you say "Hello" to it and it says "Hello" to you. Let's go.
Audience: Okay. (pause)
All right. How's that working?
Audience: Fine.
Anybody still have some energy moving around?
Audience: Yes. No.
You do?
Audience: Yes.
Is that a fact?
Female voice: Yes.
Well, now let's find this spot just back of you and have it say "Hello" to you and you say "Hello" to it. Okay? Now, make sure you're saying "Hello" to that spot, and it's there when you say "Hello" to it. (pause) Okay. How's that going?
Audience: Fine. Good.
Doing pretty good now?
Audience: Yes.
Anybody ruined himself utterly?
Audience: No.
Now, for anybody, is it going harder than it was at the beginning?
Audience: No. Yes.
Oh, there is somebody it's going harder for?
Audience: Yes.
Ah, that's a rough beef. Because we probably won't be able to do anything about that. Oh well, they're lost. (audience laughter)
Find the floor.
Find the ceiling.
Find the floor.
Find the ceiling.
Find the floor.
Find the ceiling.
Find the floor.
Find the height between the ceiling and the floor.
Now find the ceiling.
Now find the floor.
Now find the height between the ceiling and the floor.
Now find the ceiling.
Now find the floor.
Now find the height between the ceiling and the floor.
Got it?

GROUP PROCESSING
Audience: Yes.
Is it getting some more height? Audience: Yes. No.
Well, now how about finding the right wall. The right wall. Audience: Okay. Now let's find the left wall. Audience: Okay. Now let's find the right wall. Audience: Okay.
And good. Let's find the left wall. Audience: Okay. Good. Let's find the right wall. Audience: Okay. Good. Let's find the left wall. Audience: Okay. Good. Let's find the right wall. Audience: Okay.
Good. Let's find the distance between the left and right wall. Audience: Okay.
All right. Let's find the left wall. Audience: Okay. Now let's find the right wall. Audience: Okay.
Good. Let's find the distance between the left and right wall. Audience: Okay. Got it?
Audience: Yes. Is there a distance there? Audience: Yes. No kidding!
All right. Let's find the floor. Let's find the ceiling. Audience: Okay.
And let's find something alive in the room. Find something else alive in the room. Find something else alive in the room. Good. Let's find something else alive in the room. Good.
Now, let's look at the distance between you and something else that's alive. Good.
Let's look at the distance between you and something else that's alive. Good.
Let's look at the distance between you and something else that's alive. Fine.
Now let's just find something else alive in the room. Good.
Let's find something else alive in the room. Good.
Let's find something else alive in the room. Good.
Let's find something else alive in the room.
Are you sure it's alive?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Let's find something else alive in the room. Good.
Let's find something else alive in the room.
Are you sure it is alive?
Audience: Yes.
What is it?

251

252

31 DECEMBER 1954
Audience: (various responses)
All right. Let's find something else alive in the room. Good.
What is it?
Audience: (various responses)
Fine. Let's find something else alive in the room. And let's look at the lack of distance between you and it. Let's look at the lack of distance between you and it. Okay.
Let's find something else alive in the room and look at the lack of distance between you and it.
Did you find a lack of distance?
Audience: Yes.
They might be a light-year away, you know. All right.
Let's find something else alive in the room and find a lack of distance between you and it.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
You did?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now let's find something else alive in the room. Good.
How do you know it's alive?
Audience: It's moving.
You sure it's alive?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Are you sure it's alive?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there anybody else alive on Earth?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Is there anybody else alive on Earth?
Audience: Yes.
Prove it.
Audience: (various responses)
Good. Is there anything else alive on Earth?
Audience: Yes.
Well, let's prove it.
Good. Is there anything else alive on Earth?
Audience: Yes.
Go ahead, prove it.
Good. Is there anything else alive on Earth?
Audience: Yes.
Go ahead and prove it.
Good. Is there anything else alive on Earth?
Audience: Yes.
Go ahead and prove it.
Okay. Is there anything else alive on Earth?
Audience: Yes.
What is it?
Audience: (various responses)
Prove it.
Female voice: You're alive.
I am?
Female voice: Yes.
Well, let's see if you are.

GROUP PROCESSING
Female voice: No, I'm not alive.
Hah! Breathe. (sound of breathing) Yep, she's alive! (applause)
Okay. How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Anybody got any bad somatics?
Audience: No.
Oh, shucks. (audience laughter) Slipped again.
Okay. Let's find the floor.
Find the chair.
Find the front of the room.
Audience: Yes.
Find me.
Audience: Yes.
Okay. End of session.
Thank you.

253

 

A lecture given on 31 December 1954
Thank you.
This is the last lecture of this particular congress. Hope to see you all tonight at the party.
We haven't really covered to the degree that we could have, Dianetics 1955! There's quite a little bit of information in that volume. There is, for instance, a chapter there on another process called Make Some Time. A very interesting process.
A very able auditor I know comm lagged on it for two and a half hours before he finally fell through and started to make some time. This would be a companion process to Make Some Space, Make Some Energy, Make Some Matter. Time is the single arbitrary factor.
There's other information in that particular book we could have covered. And then we could have gone into and covered completely, from beginning to end, The Creation of Human Ability, which only runs some hundreds of pages and contains at this date, I think, seventy-six processes, all of which are of greater or lesser magnitude and which repeats some of the processes contained in Dianetics 1955!
Where it comes to processes we're very rich. There is no doubt about that. If there is any sudden phenomenon contained in the human mind that we have not observed and cataloged, then—well, I don't know, to tell you the truth—it just doesn't seem possible. Because you get out and scout around and look at anybody's machinery and it sort of runs that way.
And on the creation of machinery and games, and things like that, an individual begins to do this rather ably under processing. We don't have in processing, of course, the finest possible process. That will be invented in the year 3627 AAD. That AD, you know, stands for After Dianetics.
The auditors who use these processes should remember to use them in good two-way communication. Communication is very important and the auditor who uses these processes upon the deranged mind—if he wants to do that—should remember that if he employs two-way communication, that he should never validate the bizarre, the weird, the peculiar. When processing the psychotic, validate or mimic or answer only the rational, the average, the agreed-upon manifestation behavior. Any failure anybody has in processing of psychosis is entirely delineated under this heading: They validate the bizarre, the strange and the unusual and they disregard any average manifestation the person has left.

255

256

31 DECEMBER 1954
The psychotic nods his head with a yes—that's a normal manifestation. The psychotic jumps up and down and screams—that's an abnormal manifestation. The auditor in getting into communication can mimic the head nod, but if he mimics the jumping up and down and screaming, he will have given strength and power to the machine or machinery which is driving this psychotic.
Psychosis itself is simply one game amongst many games. That's a fact. If you look on it like that, it doesn't look quite as weird as it has looked. This individual who is psychotic simply believes that he has rendered himself proof against further punishment. He is trying to say, "Well, I've lost and I've lost so thoroughly. You see what you've done to me? I have no further responsibility even for my own actions, and I'm crazy. And that's what you did."
If you could only get a psychotic to mock up somebody saying—communication—"I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry," this individual would probably become sane. There's a thousand ways to tackle this problem.
But they're trying to say to people, with all of these weird and wild manifestations—trying to say, "Look what you did to me."
Of course, in a time and place where death is not allowable—you know, there are such places, you know, death is not allowed; death doesn't occur—an individual can't say, "I'm through and you've won," by falling dead. He isn't able to do that in these places so the only other thing he can do is say, "Look, you have driven me crazy. I am now crazy and I am insane and I am not myself and I'm no further—I have no further responsibility for my own actions. And you've done it. And you've won, so you might as well go away because I don't even know myself anymore." And this, of course, ends a game, too.
The problem of ending a game and of declaring oneself the loser is a much more difficult problem than declaring oneself the winner.
Now, this is so much true that if you were to buy yourself a few yards of blue ribbon and go out on a street corner with this blue ribbon pinned on— you know, the way they put it on bulls and so forth at the state fairs—and you were to say, "Well, look, I won, everybody." Nobody would question that at all. Nobody would go into communication with it either—so unusual for anybody to win. People believe you if you go out and say, "You know, I won. I won. We won. We won." They don't believe you if you say, "I lost." They don't believe you.
Fellow comes out of a poker game and he says, "Well, I've lost everything I have in the world."
Fellow comes out of a poker game and says, "You know, I won everything that those fellows had." People think that's just a good joke and they let it go. They'll accept this. Maybe it's not true.
After somebody has blown his brains out at Monte Carlo—people can always be heard to say afterwards, "Well, just look at that; he must have had something to live for. Must have had something to live for." In other words he couldn't possibly have lost everything he had in the world. Isn't that a funny thing?
One of the easiest things in the world is to win, and one of the rarest things is to win. It is so isolated, these wins, that one would think the scarcity of win would make it incredible, but it doesn't. It's so scarce that everybody just says, "Well, he says so. That's that."
Oddly enough a person's life and time track can get more stuck on wins than loses. People will let him win, but they won't let him lose.
Look at us guys, auditors—look at us. This fellow has worked for years to develop a gimpy leg. He's worked for years to develop some tubercular lungs.

PAN-DETERMINISM
He has slaved in order to dull his eyesight down to a point. And we come along, and we say, "Be three feet back of your head. And do this and do that and so forth and so on." And now after we've gotten him well straightened out, "Is there anything you'd like to straighten up in that mock-up?" And he, of course, will go ahead and straighten it up, mostly because he knows wins aren't obtainable, so he goes on and wins. And look at us, we've taken an exception to the loser.
Life actually doesn't like a loser. It comes around and pokes at him and bothers him. That is one of the dwindling-spiral mechanisms that you'd better understand as an auditor. You actually cannot lose. Not even the insane has lost. There is no bottom in the game. It's a horrible game that has no bottom in it at all. It's got some tops—you can win—but it has no bottoms.
The way an individual gets into this lineup in playing in life and so on is a simple way. He gets into it in a very simple thing. He says, "If I just let that fellow think that he has won, he will go away. If I could just convince him that he's won, he'll go away."
So that if people can convince you that you have won, then you have to leave, don't you? If you want to stick around, you'll have to say, "Well, I'm really not quite that hot. I just had a good day today and that's why I won that fifteen-hundred-meter race," you know. Then we attribute all this to the fact that we have to be modest, or we give it some social grace.
Matter of fact, if you were to hang up the all-time record across the boards in the field of sport and so forth, you'd have to quit. Just like Wild Bill Hickok out here in the West had to quit. You see, at the end there, he didn't even lose at the end. I mean, you couldn't have lost to anybody like the fellow that shot Wild Bill Hickok. I mean, this little guy couldn't possibly have won. He had to catch Wild Bill when Wild Bill was sitting with his back to a door and he walked up to him and blew his brains out. That was hardly a win. But it was so bad for Wild Bill in the later years of his life, it was so bad that nobody would fight with him. And that's the definition of a complete win: A state in which nobody will fight with you.
We have not discussed pan-determinism, but in The Creation of Human Ability there is a little bit of a booby-trap which I would like to point out to you. The uninitiated will not make Creation of Human Ability work as well as somebody who knows the book and knows auditing, for this reason: There are four steps in it numbered backwards.
Isn't that a mean thing for Ron to do? Here he's handing out information in all directions and yet he numbers these four steps backwards. They are supposed to be run in reverse order to the way they are numbered. That actually was on no design, particularly. It just happens that that was the way they were set down and tested and so that's the way they got numbered.
But somebody running The Creation of Human Ability Intensive Procedure might not discover that these steps are backwards and might plunge in to the top-echelon step before he had graduated up to it, and so would discover that top-echelon step not winning. And that top-echelon step is pan-determinism.
This is a very controversial subject: pan-determinism. We have graduated up from self-determinism. Self-determinism is nonexplanatory. It works all right for man. He can say, "Well look, I fight with myself only and therefore I am self-determined." He can say it in some fashion so that himself—he determines himself, but he doesn't determine anything else.
Self-determinism could mean all this, but it really doesn't express it. So

257

258

31 DECEMBER 1954
the invention of this word, pan-determinism. And that means the willingness to start, stop and change—in other words, control—the willingness to control two or more identities, whether or not they are opposing.
If you were pan-determined, you'd be perfectly willing to control the activities of two football teams whether they were playing other football teams or each other. Get the idea? It takes at least two.
Now, when you have somebody say, "Hello" to you in mock-up, you are actually exercising pan-determinism, aren't you? You've got this other spot and you're making it talk. So you're exerting your pan-determinism, and that's one of the reasons why this particular process works as well as it does, because pan-determinism is being exercised.
But there is a graduated scale into this thing called pan-determinism, which is a terribly interesting scale. Because Pan-determinism starts, as far as a process is concerned, with What Are You Willing to Repair? And it goes into the next process up from that: Give Me Some Things That Mustn't or Must Happen Again. And it goes from there into What Are You Willing to Fight? And it goes from there into What Are You Willing to Control?—pan-determinism.
Those steps are just exactly backwards in The Creation of Human Ability. They run Pan-determinism, Fighting, Must/Mustn't Happen Again, and Repair. That is their order. They should be run: Repair, Must/Mustn't Happen Again, Fighting and Pan-determinism. And they make a package of four and a tremendously interesting process, and tremendously interesting results occur from that quartet.
Individuals get to a point where they are only willing to repair—not willing to fight. They are preventing many things from happening again one step up from there. And up—only when they get up above that are they willing to fight. But fighting is not civilized, is it? Well, I'm afraid an individual, to be free, must be willing to fight, and that is not a philosophical opinion that Ron has derived; it just happens to be the way preclears behave.
Now, to leave a preclear in a level where he has to fight is an unkindness, but that's a lot higher than an awful lot of preclears are. He's willing to fight something. When we bring preclears up Tone Scale, we very often find them fighting.
It's quite amusing in an organization to watch several people who are undergoing processing come on up the line. They start fighting their fellow auditors. They start fighting the management. They start fighting each other. And they get a little more processing and so forth and they start determining these things. You see, instead of doing it by fighting and making a game out of it, they start to get something done.
Any team starts fighting itself, inside of itself, before it finally coheses into an operating unit which is willing and able to turn outwards and fight the environment. You've seen this very phenomenon occurring in Dianetics and Scientology in its organizations.
People would get processed; they'd come up along the line. The biggest thing around there to fight was probably the organization, so they start to fight it. Oh, and they'd have a good time fighting the organization, dream up all sorts of reasons why they ought to be fighting the organization, and then process on up through there and start pushing the organization forward as a team.
There's where we're trying to get—teamwork. We'd sure love to have a few hundred horribly effective fighters who operated smoothly as a team. That's an unbeatable combination. We have ways to do that.
What are people willing to control? Well, that lies above what they're

PAN-DETERMINISM
willing to fight, and we come back to the communication formula. We don't know but what Bill on that chart didn't create Joe in the first place.
But there's Joe and there's Bill, and they start building barriers and after a while they are fighting. Makes a game, but after you have all the Bills and all the Joes fighting, then somebody comes along as an umpire and says, "It is now illegal to fight." And the umpire does something horrible enough to Bill and Joe, in their conception, so that they are not willing to have something happen again—a punishment. And having made Bill and Joe unwilling to fight, they have made them willing to prevent something from happening again. And now when they've got an enormous number of things which they're trying to prevent from happening again, their only activity is devoted to repairing. And after a while, they even stop repairing. But at the moment they stop repairing, they're dead.
A person who is busy repairing or who is fixated entirely upon repair is actually unable to create or destroy. Repair would be an activity engaged upon to continue survival as a form—not to create a new form or an end of form.
Now, these people who are pan-determined would be willing to create and willing to destroy. They would probably do far more creation than destruction. Under actual test, this is the case.
But they drop down in their creation to create competitively. You know, "Let's all be writers and in competition with each other." "Let's all be painters; only let's be in competition as painters." Kind of a silly thing, but that they drop into the category of contest—competition.
And man even writes it into his documents—his political documents— such as the Constitution, which says, "There must be competition. We mustn't have trusts and monopolies of any kind."
And they get down below this level of fighting and then they're merely trying to prevent fighting from occurring. They're saying certain such-and-so mustn't happen again.
Well, that leaves them with just one mock-up, usually—a couple of little old moldy biscuits or a spare head would be about the most that they could acquire in addition to just one mock-up. So they have to keep it repaired. It's a sad thing.
Why don't they create another mock-up? Well, you process them enough, and they will.
Of course, keeping a mock-up going that's already fallen apart is sometimes an interesting activity. A mock-up gets some desirable identity which fits into a certain game and set of goals, and instead of creating one like it, an individual is, to some degree, forced to carry along this mock-up. Well, that's the condition most people explain themselves into on this problem with mock-ups.
But wherever we see an individual getting up high enough in tone to fight, we know the next place he's going to go. He's going to be high enough in tone to pan-determine at least his own team.
Now, if you had all the players on a team perfectly willing to control or exert control over, start, stop and change all the other players on the team, you know that they would work in very, very smooth harmony. They wouldn't fight.
But where you get a team full of stars, where you get a team where everybody is the star quarterback—did you ever see an all-star football game? The number of flubs which occur is a fascinating thing to watch. They get all the champions in there and they fall on their faces. Any scrub team could whip them. They're all stars. They are not willing to control the other players on the team. They are only willing to demonstrate their competitive skill in comparison with these other players.

259

260

31 DECEMBER 1954
Now, when they really get up, they're perfectly willing to start, stop and change any other man on the team. And that is a horrible thing to think about—a team like that. That's a horrible thing. You just think that over for a moment. That would be a rough thing for an organization composed of Repair or composed of Mustn't-Happen-Again levels to contest because these fellows would probably never have to fight to win. They'd just go on winning, and the game would be wins, or at least close up to the top on wins.
Now, there is no bottom to the game. Below Repair is an inability even to repair. And below that level would be a slight remaining ability, maybe, if we worked at it covertly to slightly deteriorate something—if we are assisted by time and the physical universe. That's a nice level. And below that's nonexistence.
But how deep is nonexistence? It's unfortunately unobtainable. There's no bottom to the game. Why could there be no bottom to the game? Because a thetan can't do anything else but survive. He can lie to himself. He can change his identity. He can say, "I don't remember." He can say, "It never happened before." He can walk up to this piano and find out that he goes into a screaming rage just at the idea of touching a key on this piano, and then simply explain to himself that, well, it's because of something his dog did in its youth, or some psychoanalytic description of it. And he can explain it all away.
The only real use of psychoanalysis is to explain how all the traumas occurred early enough so that you don't remember them. It isn't true. Doesn't work that way. All right.
If this individual cannot do anything but survive, how could there be a bottom to the game? Well, only by forgetting, only by changing in his existence and accepting no responsibility for it could he alter toward the bottom.
But because it's an unobtainable goal, a complete lose, I'm afraid an awful lot of people tend in that direction. They say, "If I could just lose utterly—if I could just lose entirely, I'd be all right."
They come in and they sit in an auditor's chair and they say, "Now you process me so I'll be outside of my body when I kick off." (laughter) And of course we're ornery people and we know this would be an unsightly thing.
And an old lady who did this—she was a very old lady—she came in, she said to me, "Well, I just don't want to be caught in my body when I die and therefore I want you to process me in such a direction that this can all be very easy." Little further questioning elicited the fact that she actually expected me to have her drop dead as a body in that chair. And this is not the social thing to do. So I fixed her.
I said, "Mock up yourself dropping dead."
So she says, "Gee, he's really going to do it," you know?
"Mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. Now mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. Now mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. Now mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. Now mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. How do you feel?"
Something very bad had occurred. She no longer had an obsession on the subject of dropping dead. We'd run it out with one of the oldest forms of processing we have in Scientology—just plain Mock-ups and End of Cycle.
That was a long time ago and she's still alive. She has a hard time, though. She can see while outside, but she's bound and determined her body is going to do the seeing. And that's the game she's playing. So she gets a double image, one of which is the proper image—the proper and correct image—and the other is very bad.

PAN-DETERMINISM
So if she'd just close her eyes, she reaches, contacts, walks with great accuracy, with her eyes shut. But that's not the game she's playing. I should get a hold of her again and say, "Mock up yourself totally blind. Okay. Mock up yourself totally blind . . ." She's obviously trying to do something in that direction.
Thus an auditor armed with the understanding he has, actually can considerably alter the game that the preclear is playing. As a matter of fact he can entirely control it. It's an interesting thing, isn't it?
But if an auditor is unwilling to control the game the preclear is playing, if he's unable to start, stop and change the preclear, then his auditing is to a very marked degree going to be in vain. Because the most he'll do is get the preclear to patch up a hangnail.
But the horrible part of it is if the auditor's in that condition where that he would only permit the preclear to change that much, if the auditor is so low on pan-determinism that this is all he'd permit in the preclear, he doesn't even effect repair. Why doesn't he effect repair? Because it's the preclear's hangnail.
So he sits there and waits patiently for the preclear to repair it while the preclear sits there and waits patiently for the auditor to repair it while the auditor sits there and waits patiently for the preclear to repair it, and they'll play various games called, "You have broken the Auditor's Code." But they won't get anything else done.
Now, I'm not telling you that case level is the monitoring factor. I'm just
telling you that when an auditor or anyone working with Scientology pulls a	261
remarkable error, you know, like suddenly getting up and falling over the coffee table—preclear is in a semi-boil-off and he falls over the coffee table, you know? Bang. (sigh) That knocked out any gain that preclear had made, didn't it?
Why does he fall over the coffee table? Well, he's playing a game, too, but that game doesn't include letting the preclear change. If the preclear shows any sign of changing, the auditor's liable to cancel it.
Preclear all of a sudden looks up alertly and says, "Good heavens, there's my body!"
And the auditor says, "Touch the wall."
The preclear says, "But I'm trying to tell you. I've exteriorized," and so forth.
And the auditor says, "Touch the wall." The preclear goes pseewww— boomp. Ptock. No acknowledgment. No communication. I guess that auditor won, but whose game did he win? He won his game. And what's his game? No change.
Well, the definition of no change is survival in some people's character, but believe me, if you can't change, you don't survive. That is this universe. When you can no longer make time yourself, you don't survive.
What do you mean, you don't survive? I'm talking about you as the knowing identity that you are at this moment. When you lose the faculty of yourself making time, of making space, of making energy and causing those things to vanish, when you lose that faculty, you're having a rough time. And one of the roughest times you'll have, is you have no choice from there on but to try to lose so that maybe you can get in another game.
And people stand around and won't let you lose enough. Try to jump out of a ten-story window, they come up and pull you back in. They make it illegal for you to buy strychnine. Only in Arizona can you walk into stores and say, "Give me a .45." The clerk says, "Okay, what size waistband do you have?" (laughter)

262

31 DECEMBER 1954
The problem an individual faces on the level of nonsurvival is to try to forget it or muck it up in some fashion so that he could at least pretend he's not surviving. And most of the preclears you get hold of are well along the line—I mean the roughies—they're well along the line on this, you know. They're saying, "Look, I've almost got it nonsurviving. Now with just a little more help from the auditor, I'll have it all the way out."
And the auditor—the dog—says, "Touch the wall." He says, "All right. Now, you see that book? Okay, walk over to it. Look at it. Pick it up. What color is it? See that bottle? Walk over to it. Look at it. Pick it up." Etc.
Fortunately these processes bring him up above the level where he no longer is so anxious to lose, and where he gets some little glimmering that he might win. If a man believes he can no longer win, if he believes he has no chance to win, then he will work actively in the direction of losing, and he will try to lose as fast and covertly as possible so nobody will detect it because people won't let him lose. They think they have a vested interest in him.
But it's only when a man believes he can't win that he goes in this direction and becomes one of these nonchanging cases, you know? He'll change sort of downward, but he won't change in any other direction.
And the auditor at this time can take such an individual that—he could say to him, "If we were playing a game, and I was blindfolded and I had both hands tied behind my back, and there's a checkerboard lying there set up where you had eight kings and I had one piece, could you win?"
The preclear says, "Yes, of course"—one-up. All right.
And we could just go on from there sort of on this basis and all of a sudden the preclear would get some glimmering of this win-lose scale. He'd get some kind of a glimmering, "You know, there's some vague possibility that if the cards were all stacked, the dice loaded and everybody had gone mad I was playing with, that I might possibly have one white chip fall off the table and be disregarded at game's end, and so I'd have a white chip. There's some possibility if the gods, of course, are in their proper houses."
Most people's ideas of what they can win is fantastic. So therefore, we take an auditor who isn't too well up on wins, anyhow, and we give him a preclear who makes him lose—aaaagh! How horrible.
Now, let's take the field of work with the human mind and with human ability, and look at it frankly and give it a good solid stare in the eye. And let's discover something: Everyone has said in the past that if you let somebody fool with your mind, this would be horrible. Bad consequences would result. Psychology has agreed upon that. Psychiatry has agreed upon that. It knows. It has experience. But that observation was based on a lack of information, a lack of data, a lack of a codification and organization of material which would win.
Why was it dangerous with psychoanalysis, psychiatric processes, witch doctoring, to fool around with somebody's psyche? Because it would give the practitioner a lose, every time—except in that 22 percent who, if fed flour and water pills, would have recovered from an acute infection of the corpse. But otherwise it wasn't safe.
And perhaps there have been times in the last four years when it wasn't safe for an auditor to audit. He might not have had in his possession sufficient information to do a good job of auditing. And therefore it wouldn't be safe to audit because he'd have loses. And these loses were very easily come by. Anybody will give you a lose and then prevent you from having one.
You process this fellow. He's had acute lumbosis, that famous disease, and

PAN-DETERMINISM
he's had this lumbosis most horribly for a long time and it starts to let up. You run an engram, you run a secondary, you found out his father had lumbosis and his father is dead, and you spill the secondary on Papa's death and you get that all run out and this individual is in wonderful condition and then he turns around to you and he says, "You see what this Anacin I take does?"
Now, therefore, loses could be real bum if an auditor were fixated solely and completely upon repair, if he would never do anything but repair, if he never thought of restoring ability or raising ability or pulling people out of the mud with regard to various qualities of beingness, if he couldn't conceive an individual as being a better individual, as having more ability, as being able to control life around him much better. If he couldn't conceive of these things and all he could think of was a little mediocre, minor repair of somebody's secondhand anatomy, and he got some loses, we'd lose an auditor. He'd stop auditing.
Let's go at it the other way. Let's take an auditor that has enough wins and enough potentiality in winning in any one of these four brackets of Repair, Must/Mustn't Happen Again, Fighting, Pan-determinism. He knows he can have some wins in these brackets. This is his experience. You take this boy— he can take a very relaxed look at two things. One, the possibility of losing. So, he'll lose! So what? And the other one, he'll dare put into life another individual who is able. And by making another individual pan-determined, the pan-determined character of that other individual might, you see, by cautious extrapolation, cause the person who put him there to lose. Who is to say after Bill has created Joe, that Joe did not create Bill? That's very tricky.
And so an auditor must be in a frame of mind to afford loses or afford wins. This tells you he has to be a pretty go-to-hell sort of fellow. He has to be relaxed—really relaxed.
And we get a psycho in—it's not that psychos are hard or interesting or anything of the sort, we just get a psycho in, you see, and the psycho is saying, "Look, I've lost. I've lost. Don't convince me I could win, please. I've lost. I've lost. Really, I've lost." He'll tell the bedpost or the auditor or anybody that he's lost, and we get this preclear in. And we get an auditor who's there stuck on repairing hangnails as the end-all of existence. And we get this auditor in and we say, "Now, Oscar, see that psychotic? Now you process him."
The fellow says, "Ps-ps-ps-ps-psychotic! Mmmmm! Brrrrr! Mmmmmm! Sure, I-I-I-I will. I will (sigh)." "Supposing I did something wrong?" he's saying to himself. "Supposing I really got this guy lost? Supposing I really let this fellow lose? Gee, how could I possibly make him win, though? He's awfully far gone. It's an utterly impossible thing, to do anything for him! (gasp)"
You know what he'll do with that psycho? He will cross up his communication so thoroughly that he can't possibly have any responsibility for what happened. He's liable to get the window to slam on the back of the psychotic's neck, if possible. See, anything to cross up the line so nothing can be traced through to him. He's scared! What's he basically scared of? He isn't basically scared that he himself is going to go psycho. He knows better than that. He's scared this psycho is liable to lose entirely. That's impossible. Well, then he's scared that the psycho is going to win somewhat! Oh, man, wouldn't that be horrible, to have a completely able psychotic? (laughter)
I asked an auditor that one day, and that was really what he was afraid of. "Think if I built this fellow up. Think of sending this fellow completely recovered and cleared back into the society doing all these things!"
Well, wherever we look we discover a very distinct necessity to know

263

264

31 DECEMBER 1954
what we're doing. And we discover that an individual who knows his materials as contained in The Creation of Human Ability, Dianetics 1955!, even Book One if he knew that well, professional auditing courses, well trained on the subject, we find by experience that this individual can no more get restimulated— he'd have to try hard to get restimulated by a case—because he has become, through experience, completely accustomed to big and little wins and big and little loses. He finds out that he can do these either way. And he also knows what he can do and he can also forecast the fate of the case. Well, so much for auditing. What happens on the remaining dynamics if this is the state of mind one has to have?
Never look to win in a gambling game if you have to have the money— one of the oldest saws of the gambler. Awfully true, too. Naturally, if you have to have the money, your anchor points are far enough in so that you don't even dare look under the other guy's card stack.
You wonder how these great gamblers are always so confident when they're sitting there with two deuces. I used to get a lot of prop wash on this, see. They'd say, "Well, you read it off people's faces. You get their reactions," and so forth. And the best gambler I knew of fell into my hands as a preclear one fine day. And I said, "Be three feet back of your head."
And the fellow says, "Why?"
And I said, "Well, just be a good idea. Be three feet back of your head."
"But why? Why come in that close?" (laughter)
Of course, you can play the game of going and finding a gold lode and then coming back and, by some bird augury as the Romans did it or by noticing that the moon is in such and such a position or by casting some dice or by a witching wand or something—anything you could think of, then let it have the responsibility of leading you to the gold lode. I mean you could play that game if you wanted to. But if you were in real good shape you wouldn't have to play that game. You'd find too many other interesting things to do.
Now, one of the worst frames of mind a person can get into is to think that he has done everything and seen everything. That's a fabulous frame of mind. He doesn't think, then, that there are any other able players anywhere. I'm afraid the guy is in for a shock. If he's had too many wins, if he himself is in pretty good condition, and yet he can find around him no worthy opponents of any kind, he's going to have a hard time. He can't have a game.
Such an individual will start playing games with himself. He'll say, "Gold lode. Well, I know there's one over there—now, I'll forget it," you see. "And now I'll get this witching wand and so forth and I'll read this old chart here, and I'll detribute the fact and reinterpret it that way, and then I'll go get me a burro and I will walk across the desert and I will. . ." so on. "And then quite by accident, I'll look up and . . .
"No, no, that's too simple. Let's see there ... No, let's see, I think there's a float from that lode and it's about eight miles down that crick—oh, say, that's pretty good—dry crick bed and there's a piece of that lode eight miles south of the actual lode.
"Now, if I find that, it'll probably take me months to find a second piece. And then gradually I can work my way down the crick bed, you know, until I run out entirely. Then I can decide that it's up the crick bed. And then I can pass it, you know. And ... well, maybe there's another gold lode someplace that has matching ore, but isn't valuable. I'll go off and look for that." Ehhhhh! Because he doesn't think there's anybody around that's an able player.

PAN-DETERMINISM
The second he really gets up against somebody who's fairly able, this guy's liable to come straight into present time and forget this nonsense. Two of them put their heads together and say, "Well, let's see, we need this gold to do so-and-so in order to play this bigger game. Well, you go out and dig it up and you bring it in, and we'll melt it down. That's fine. That's fine. Now we got that set. Now, get over to this other game," so on—gee!
That's why in war you get such tremendous quantities of invention. All these scientists sitting around playing the game with themselves, "Let's see, I'll pretend that I don't know that this combined with this will do that, but I will experiment for a long time to find out."
They suddenly get their eyes on a bigger target called "the enemy," and they suddenly can—no longer have to play this game with these little terminals. So they say, "Well, you combine this and this and this and you get that. Now here's a cartridge." See? And away they go. See, it brings them into present time. That's actually the same manifestation of a preclear.
But what about the society at large? Do you realize that if tomorrow an invasion of Earth were threatened by some other planet, that you wouldn't have any talk about international or inter-nation-a\ activity like war? Nobody would be worrying about war between Bulgaria and Fulgaria. Nobody would be worrying about war because another game was sitting there.
Everybody would get a lot smarter. The incidence of psychosis and neurosis would drop most alarmingly. See what I mean?
If all of a sudden some of these flying saucers that occasionally flick around here and cause the army so much upset—they found a couple of them crashed, you know, and they say, "Eek!" They've got molecular sealing construction plates, so you can't find any seam and when you try to go into them with a torch, why, you get cohesion of its seams. And then they can't get it open. And they take x-rays of the machinery through the metal, you know, to get pictures to find out what's in there because obviously nobody . . . They've had a lot of fun. Terrific amount of sport they've engaged in this way. They've found some of these things, but they haven't found enough of them, and it's not comprehensible enough to really upset anybody.
If you had a saucer suddenly pull in over Chicago and say, "Your money or your life. People of Earth, we don't come in peace . . ." At-at-at-at-at! Earth would mobilize. We're not quite sure what it would mobilize, BB guns or something, but it would mobilize. And you certainly wouldn't have any more international war.
But after you've got this interplanetary war going, what would you do then? I mean, that's going, and they've finally settled peace and we've got this particular end of the galaxy all straightened out. And war is sporadic and occasional, but we have a police force engaged.
I guess this system would have to go to war with another system in order to make enough fight. And then when that was all straightened out, then this galaxy would have to go to war with another galaxy in order to get it all straightened out. And I guess this universe then eventually would have to go to war with another universe to get it all straightened out.
Or instead of such a silly route, we could just get down to work and process the groups of people so that they would be willing to let others live, and live themselves.
Now, there really is no choice, in other fields, than these two. We either put man into a condition where he can extrovert and play a game here on Earth as himself, as individuals and as groups, or we go off and find ourselves

265

266

31 DECEMBER 1954
a hot saucer and go at-at-at-at-at-at! over Chicago. There's these two solutions. There isn't much other solution. Now, we have a saucer rescue squad ready . ..
We have—all joking aside—I'm joking, you see. We have actually many ways we could prevent an atomic bombing occurring here on Earth— many ways. Atomic bombing, however, is not the sole enemy which we would face. Several things are definitely preventive in the direction of atomic fission, if they are done. And I told you the other day the wrong thing to do was nothing.
Several things could be done in this particular direction. The education of the peoples of Earth, however, is the first and foremost thing that should be done. And they might be taught that they can solve each other's games, that they can play each other's games, that there is somebody else alive here and that Earth can be an interesting place to be and that something can happen to these things which we today call civilization, that they can go on upwards. Somebody doesn't have to blink them out.
Now, wherever we look across the world, we see that man has very, very little hope that anything could be done about anything. The measure of a civilization would be the measure of the expectancy of win by the individuals or groups of that civilization. If they have an expectancy to win, they can play the game. If they have no expectancy of winning, they want to get out of the game and start another game or they start playing games with their thumbs behind their backs—which is goofiness.
And if man at large had an idea that some of these big secrets and incomprehensibilities were no longer secret, or if he just had the idea that somehow, some way, there was some slight possibility that if all the cards were stacked in his favor, that if the dice were loaded in his favor, that at the end of the game somebody might have dropped a white chip under the edge of the rug, that he could then have—if he was just up that high in the direction of a win, then there could be a game here on Earth. There could be an activity that was very desirable to live in.
As I have said before, we are in the unfortunate position or the fortunate position of sitting here with answers. Well, the thing to do with answers is not go on sitting there with answers because that's a very, very fatal proceeding. That's always the wrong thing to do—sit still.
And some of you here have markedly contributed by your experience and by your actions, activities, your letters, your contributions to the obtaining of these answers, and so you share some responsibility for the fact that they exist. And I tell you very frankly and very bluntly that the wrong thing to do with an answer is to sit still with it. The wrong thing to do with an answer is not communicate.
I'm not going to tell you—this congress—what's the right thing to do. All I'm going to tell you is the wrong thing to do. And that would be to sit still, say nothing and do nothing about it.
If you don't use the material which you have been given, you will find yourself, just in the information itself, with a Frankenstein on your hands—a Frankenstein's monster. Because if you put it back of you and you say, "No, I'm not going to use this in life," after your activities, your reports, your contributions have brought this material into being, you'll find out the backlash on it will be terrible.
One of the least things that will happen will be to put you slightly out of communication with your fellow man. The way to go back into communication with your fellow man is not to forget what you know or abandon it; it's to teach him.

PAN-DETERMINISM
The answers you can teach him are now basically simple. The first thing you can teach him is that there's some slight possibility of a win—a win in the direction of a better civilization. One of the ways he'll communicate with: there is a slight possibility of a win in the direction of atomic fission. There is a slight possibility—one white chip caught under the rug and forgotten by everybody—of a win on a wide political front. How? Well, I don't think the nations of Earth themselves are going to be able to sit still and confront the idea of wiping out Earth. I don't think they will be able to completely tolerate this idea.
If you used what you knew, communicated what you knew, you applied it to groups and to individuals and if you went ahead and cut a wide swath of wins in the direction of human lethargy and aberration and psychosomatic illness, you could not help but attain for man a far better civilization.
And the only real message I have for you along any of these lines is the fact that you, through your contributions, your activities, your reports, were actively of assistance in bringing into being the answers which we have been talking about here for four days. They are yours to use. They are yours to work with, and you will find if you use them, they contain a certain amount of efficacity. But knowing this information carries with it a certain responsibility. Communicate it, use it and you can win with it. Don't sit back and forget it.
We have a great deal of future in front of us in Dianetics and Scientology. The way to attain that future is to somehow or another attempt to work as a team against the forces which oppose progress, culture and civilization to achieve a better Earth. Not to fight each other or engage in activities which claw each other's eyes out, but to all of us get ourselves up above the level of having to fight and then enjoying a good fight as a team against any force which oppose the progress of man.
That seems to me to be a real good solution. I myself am putting it into effect in London because very shortly we are hiring the best auditor we can get for the purpose to clear the whole staff there, and here in Phoenix we are going into the same program. It might take months, you understand, but we're going to clear the whole staff in Phoenix as soon as we can get the right auditor for that job. We would, all of us here, throughout the world of Scientology, be a very formidable team if we all did the same.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.

267

 

Chart 1	271
Chart 2	272
Chart 3	273
Chart 4	274
Chart 5	275
Chart 6	276
Chart 7	277
Chart 8	278
Chart 9	279
Chart 10	280

269

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

 

L. Ron Hubbard's many works on the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology reflect a profound knowledge of man's nature—knowledge gained through lifelong experience with people from all walks of life and every part of society.
Ron's quest for knowledge on the nature of man began at a very early age, when he studied the Greek philosophers and other classics. He traveled across the United States and throughout the Pacific and Asia. By the time he was nineteen he had covered more than a quarter of a million miles. And during the course of leading expeditions, on three of which he carried the flag of the Explorers Club, he studied twenty-one different races and cultures around the world.
In the fall of 1930, Ron enrolled at George Washington University where he studied mathematics, engineering and attended one of the first classes in nuclear physics taught in the United States. This background allowed him to apply a scientific methodology to questions of man's spiritual potential. After realizing that neither the philosophy of the East nor the materialism of the West held the answers, Ron was determined to fill the gap.
He financed his early research through fiction writing and soon became one of the most highly demanded authors in this golden age of popular fiction. His prolific output as a writer during the 30s and 40s was interrupted only by his service in the US Navy during World War II.
Partially disabled at war's end, Ron applied his discoveries about the human mind to restore his own health and that of other injured servicemen.
In late 1947, Ron detailed these discoveries in a manuscript which enjoyed a wide circulation amongst friends and colleagues who copied it and passed it on to others. (This manuscript was published in 1951 as Dianetics: The Original Thesis, and later republished as The Dynamics of Life.) As his original thesis continued to circulate, Ron found himself besieged with inquiries from interested readers; and with the first publication of his work on Dianetics in the Explorers Club Journal in late 1949, the flood of letters was so great that it placed enormous demands on his time. It was in response to these requests for more information about his discoveries that he wrote a comprehensive text on the subject.
Published on May 9, 1950, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health made his breakthrough technology broadly available for the first time. Dianetics shot to the top of the New York Times bestseller list and remained there week after week. By the end of four months, 750 Dianetics study groups had sprung up, prompting such headlines as: "Dianetics Takes US by Storm."

281

282

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
Responding to this groundswell of enthusiasm, Ron delivered lectures to packed halls across the country. Before the year's end, tens of thousands had not only read his book, but were readily applying it to better their lives. Meanwhile, he continued his research, and further breakthroughs followed. In 1951, he wrote and published six more books, including Science of Survival, the authoritative work on the subject of human behavior.
In the autumn of that year, and in spite of growing demands on his time, he intensified research into the true source of life energy. This research led him to identify the very nature of life itself, and formed the basis of the applied philosophy of Scientology—the study of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life. This track of research, begun so many years earlier as a young man traveling the globe in search of answers to life itself, was to span the next three decades.
Through the 1950s, Ron continued to advance Scientology techniques with the development of hundreds of new processes, delving deeper into the true nature of man. And as more and more people discovered Ron's breakthroughs, Scientology churches around the world opened to provide services to them. Ron visited many of these churches, giving lectures and guidance to the church members to help them expand Scientology in their areas.
In 1959, Ron purchased a home in England, Saint Hill Manor, where he lectured to hundreds of Scientology students who came from as far away as the United States, Australia and South Africa. A new era for Scientology began with the opening of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course in May of 1961 to train expert auditors. Between 1961 and 1966, Ron not only personally supervised these students, but also delivered more than 440 lectures and auditing demonstrations while continuing his research and overseeing the expanding affairs of Scientology internationally.
He released the Scientology Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart at Saint Hill in 1965, laying out the standard step-by-step route for preclears and auditors. Additionally, because of Scientology's rapid expansion, Ron developed administrative policies for Scientology organizations which have proven to be universal in their application.
On the threshold of breakthroughs never before envisaged, Ron resigned from all directorships in Scientology organizations in 1966 to devote himself more fully to research.
The following years saw the discovery and codification of the technology which allows anyone to move through the levels of Operating Thetan, the highest states of spiritual awareness and ability.
Ron continued to seek out methods to help his fellows. As he encountered ever-worsening conditions in society, he developed procedures to address and resolve a wide range of man's problems. He even refined the techniques of Dianetics in 1978 to bring about faster and easier-to-attain results—New Era Dianetics.
No area of life was left untouched in this search for ways to improve the human condition. His work provided solutions to such social ills as declining educational standards, moral decay and drug use. He codified the administration of organizations, the principles of ethics, the subjects of art and logic and much more. And yet he never lost sight of the man on the street and his day-to-day problems of living in these complex and troubled times. Thus in Scientology one finds solutions to any difficulty one can encounter in life.
This series of lectures represents but a small part of the more than forty

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
million words of Ron's recorded lectures, books and writings on Dianetics and Scientology.
With his research fully completed and codified, L. Ron Hubbard departed his body on January 24, 1986. Ron's legacy lives on through his works which are applied daily by millions around the world to bring understanding and freedom.
Thanks to his efforts, there is today a pathway for anyone to travel to attain full spiritual freedom. The entrance is wide and the route is sure.

283

 

To assist in your understanding of these lectures, hard-to-find terms and other words which you may not be familiar with are included in this glossary. An example of usage from the lectures is included at the end of each definition. These definitions give only the meanings of the words as they are used in the lectures; this glossary is not meant as a substitute for a dictionary.
A: abbreviation for affinity. See also ARC in this glossary. If he is cold and calculating, his A is missing. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
Abbott: reference to Abbott Laboratories, a major US pharmaceutical manufacturer which produces and distributes a variety of medical drugs. And I don't know that even when we look at the ads of Abbott or the claims of the AMA that we have departed any distance at all. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
aberration: a departure from rational thought or behavior. Aberration means basically to err, to make mistakes, or more specifically to have fixed ideas which are not true. The word is also used in its scientific sense. It means departure from a straight line. If a line should go from A to B, then if it is aberrated it would go from A to some other point, to some other point, to some other point, to some other point, to some other point, and finally arrive at B. Taken in its scientific sense, it would also mean the lack of straightness or to see crookedly as, for example, a man sees a horse but thinks he sees an elephant. Aberrated conduct would be wrong conduct, or conduct not supported by reason. Aberration is opposed to sanity, which would be its opposite. From the Latin, aberrare, to wander from; Latin, ab, away, errare, to wander. And I think that the Advanced Clinical unit now in progress here, and the Hubbard Professional College unit now in progress here will, all of them, tell you that: "Aberration? Who ever had any difficulty with that?"—Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Adler: Alfred Adler (1870-1937), Viennese psychologist and psychiatrist who opposed Freud's emphasis on sex and advanced his own theory of the inferiority complex to explain psychopathic cases. Let us say Jung or Adler, the squirrels of his day. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Advanced Clinical unit: reference to an Advanced Clinical Course, one of the theory and research courses delivered by L. Ron Hubbard during the years 1953 to 1961, which gave a deep insight into the phenomena of the mind and the rationale of research and investigation. And I think that the Advanced

285

286

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
Clinical unit now in progress here, and the Hubbard Professional College unit now in progress here will, all of them, tell you that: "Aberration? Who ever had any difficulty with that?"—Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Alexander: Alexander III (356-323 B.C.), also known as Alexander the Great; king of Macedonia, an ancient kingdom located in what is now Greece and Yugoslavia. By conquest, he extended an empire which reached from Greece to India. Man's usual way of handling this is some individual elects himself as Caesar or Alexander or Napoleon, and he goes charging around on a white horse doing what, we're not sure. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
AMA: abbreviation for American Medical Association, a professional physicians' organization, established in 1847, with the stated purpose of promoting public health, protecting the welfare of doctors and supporting medical science. And the last time I talked to anybody from the AMA we used sign language. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
American Weekly: a syndicated newspaper supplement purchased by William Randolph Hearst in 1930 and in publication until 1963. See also Hearst, William Randolph in this glossary. William Randolph Hearst, when he used to run the American Weekly, always had a page in there devoted to things that happened in Bavaria, you know. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Anacin: (trademark) a brand of aspirin. You run an engram, you run a secondary, you found out his father had lumbosis and his father is dead, and you spill the secondary on Papa's death and you get that all run out and this individual is in wonderful condition and then he turns around to you and he says, "You see what this Anacin I take does?"—Pan-determinism (31 Dec. 54)
"apparatae": humorously Latinized plural of apparatus. Well, I got myself a Koenig photometer and a couple of other crude "apparatae," and started to measure the cadences and the impressions made by poetry. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
ARC: a word made from the initial letters of Affinity, Reality and Communication, which together equate to understanding. These are the three things necessary to the understanding of something—one has to have some affinity for it, it has to be real to him to some degree and he needs some communication with it before he can understand it. This lecture is on the subject of communication which has to do with the text in Dianetics 1955! and which clarifies something we have known about for a very, very long time—the ARC triangle. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
ARC triangle: a triangle which symbolizes the fact that affinity, reality and communication act together as a whole entity and that one of them cannot be considered unless the other two are also taken into account. Without affinity there is no reality or communication. Without reality or some agreement, affinity and communication are absent. Without communication there can be no affinity or reality. See also ARC in this glossary. This lecture is on the subject of communication which has to do with the text in Dianetics 1955! and which clarifies something we have known about for a very, very long time—the ARC triangle. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
Arcturus: a very bright star in the northern sky, located approximately 194 trillion miles from Earth. Usually if you said, "Be three feet back of your head" they'd be passing by Arcturus in an awful hurry .. . —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)

GLOSSARY
ardure: a coined word meaning "hardship; difficulty." Formed from the word arduous, derived from Latin ardu-us, which means "high, steep, difficult." Revolution never carried anything with it—never carried anything with it but chaos and the return with more ardure of the same regime that the populace got rid of. —The Aims and Goals of Dianetics and Scientology (30 Dec. 54)
astral walking: traveling through the use of what is known in some forms of philosophical or religious thought as the astral body—a second body said to belong to each individual, formed of a substance which is above or beyond perception by the senses and which pervades all space. Per these beliefs, the astral body accompanies the individual through life, is able to leave the human body at will, and survives the individual after death. The spiritualist, with his astral walking, his collection of spirits; his—the magician with his—and by the way, there are very few people know very much about the basic magician. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Atabrine: (trademark) a synthetic drug used in treating malaria and other diseases. Now, cinchona bark, Atabrine, let down more of our troops in the last war than you could easily count in a ward. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Atomic Energy Commission: a former federal agency (1946-1975) created to regulate the development of the United States atomic energy program. Its functions were transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1975. With the Church of Scientology which is legal as the flowers of spring unless they become illegal to the Atomic Energy Commission—the legal aspects of the Church of Scientology are as sound as the Rock of Gibraltar. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
audit: to apply Dianetics and Scientology processes and procedures to a preclear. They're out of communication and they—whatever they're doing, they offer to the auditor at first glance the same task he would have in auditing a pillow. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
auditing: a special form of personal counseling, unique to Scientology, which helps an individual look at his own existence and improves his ability to confront what he is and where he is. Auditing is a precise, thoroughly codified activity with exact procedures. The exact definition of auditing is: the action of asking a person a question (which he can understand and answer), getting an answer to that question and acknowledging him for that answer. Also called processing. Somebody was sitting down in my office yesterday and said, "You know with all that bad auditing and all those bad auditors, I just had an awful time a couple, three years ago."—Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
auditor: a person trained and qualified in applying auditing to individuals for their betterment. Auditor means one who listens, from the Latin audire meaning "to hear or listen." He is a minister or minister-in-training of the Church of Scientology. An auditor does not do anything to a preclear, he works together with the preclear to help the preclear defeat his reactive mind. Seven years in an institution, incurably insane—auditor says, "Come up to present time"—they're sane. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
automaticity: the action of doing something but being unaware or only partially aware one is doing it; having something "on automatic." An automaticity is something which ought to be under the control of the individual, but isn't. They

287

288

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
want the kind of a job where they can set up some sort of an automaticity like this and then dream daydreams—to dream up things and think of things and invent fairy tales for themselves and so on. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
Axioms: statements of natural law on the order of those of the physical sciences. Full lists of the Axioms of Dianetics and the Axioms of Scientology are contained in the book Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics by L. Ron Hubbard. One of the most damaging experiences to somebody's aplomb about his sadness and sorrow and the grimness of life, is to run one of the Route 2 steps from The Creation of Human Ability, that book which contains all the Route 1, and all the Route 2 steps and all the Axioms. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
Bachelor of Scientology (BScn): at the time of these lectures, the degree earned by an auditor who had completed an eight-week certification course and submitted three case histories and a thesis on the subject of Scientology to the HASI, or who had successfully completed an Advanced Clinical Course unit in Phoenix. See also Advanced Clinical unit in this glossary. Now, there is no reason why a Doctor of Scientology, a Bachelor of Scientology, HCA, should not be called a Doctor of Education. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
bank: the mental image picture collection of the preclear—the reactive mind. The word comes from computer terminology where all data is in a "bank." See also reactive mind in this glossary. There is no slightest difference between the two except the thetan exterior, developed by the processes of Scientology, is achieved without erasing every facsimile and engram in the bank. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Bedlam: an old insane asylum (in full, St. Mary of Bethlehem) in London, infamous for the brutal ill-treatment which was inflicted upon the insane there. He would probably be taken over to Bedlam and locked up. —Games (29 Dec. 54)
beingness: condition or state of being; existence. Beingness also refers to the assumption or choosing of a category of identity. Beingness can be assumed by oneself or given to oneself or attained. Examples of beingness would be one's own name, one's profession, one's physical characteristics, one's role in a game— each or all of these could be called one's beingness. The more dynamics he is surviving along, the more beingness he is. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
bird, give (something) the: (slang) to dismiss or reject (something). The phrase began as "give the goose," meaning to hiss in disapproval at an actor on stage, similar to the way a goose hisses as a threat or warning. Later modified to "give the big bird" or "give the bird," it became more broadly applied to mean any dismissal or rejection. Well, give it the bird, will you? —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
Black and White: reference to Black and White Processing, a type of processing in which the auditor gets the preclear to turn energy flows black and white, the two extreme manifestations of perception on the part of the preclear. For further information, read the book Scientology 8-80 by L. Ron Hubbard. Black and White phenomena is still there. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
black V: a heavily occluded case characterized by mental pictures consisting of masses of blackness. The term black V came from application of SOP 8 (Standard Operating Procedure 8), wherein the auditor tested the preclear at

GLOSSARY
each step of the process to find a step the preclear could do and began processing at that step. SOP 8 consists of seven steps; a preclear who had to be started at Step V of the process was called a "Case V." This level of case could not get mock-ups but only blackness, hence "black V." / realize, now, I was probably the only wide-open case in the midst of a bunch of black Vs. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Book One: Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, the basic text on Dianetics techniques, written by L. Ron Hubbard, published in 1950 and reprinted numerous times in subsequent years. It is also referred to as the first book. Another chap now in the HPC course came in here and he had never read very much of Book One, but he had gotten as far as asking questions. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Bu Pers: short for Bureau of Navy Personnel, the bureau in the United States Navy responsible for the procurement, education, training, discipline and distribution of officers and enlisted personnel of the navy. They have an admiral in charge of that, and I got his signature on that, and I got the Bu Pers signature on that, and it came back—because the fellow said he'd see me next Thursday. —The Aims and Goals of Dianetics and Scientology (30 Dec. 54)
Burlecue Theater: a made-up name for a theater, from burlecue, a slang term for a type of stage show characterized by slapstick humor, comic skits, bawdy songs, striptease acts and a scantily clad female chorus. Also called burlesque. We get this condition: we have, this girl named Grind—works at Burlecue Theater. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
Cadillac: a top-of-the-line, expensive American luxury car, known for its spacious size and smooth ride. Now, if somebody couldn't get out of his Cadillac, you'd think he was nuts or something was wrong. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
Caesar: (ca. 101-44 B.C.) Roman soldier and statesman who became Roman dictator in 49 B.C. Said to be among the greatest generals of history, he succeeded in winning stability for Rome and the provinces, and his dictatorship paved the way for the Roman Empire. Man's usual way of handling this is, some individual elects himself as Caesar or Alexander or Napoleon, and he goes charging around on a white horse doing what, we're not sure. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
CARE: abbreviation of Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere, an American organization that sends food, clothing and medicine in special boxes (called "CARE packages") to places around the world where they are needed. You still get things leaking through like C-A-R-E. —Games (29 Dec. 54)
case: a general term for a person being treated or helped. Case also refers to a person's condition, which is monitored by the content of his reactive mind. A person's case is the way he responds to the world around him by reason of his aberrations. And I'd get one of their boys whose case I knew about and I'd take him down on the park bench. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Case Level XII: a coined name for an extremely low-level case, based on the steps given in Standard Operating Procedure 8. (The lowest-level case addressed by SOP 8 was known as a Case Level VII.) See also SOP 8 in this glossary. Maybe this was acceptable to the mathematician who was dug in, Case Level XII. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)

289

290

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
CECS: abbreviation for Committee of Examinations, Certifications and Services, an organization set up within the HASI at the time of these lectures to guarantee the standard of practice of Scientology across the world. It had programs of retraining and examination to increase auditors' skills and results. See also HASI in this glossary. The CECS—been kicked around an awful lot but actually shouldn't be kicked around. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
Chateau d'If: a castle built in 1524 on the small, rocky island of If off the southern coast of France, long used as a state prison. Many political prisoners were incarcerated on the fortified island, but it is best known as the chateau in which French author Alexandre Dumas (1802-1870) imprisoned the fictional hero of his novel The Count of Monte Cristo. Any barrier—Fort Knox, walls, Chateau d'If—wouldn't even vaguely restrain anybody who was not packing around energy. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
circuit: a part of an individual's mind that behaves as though it were an entity or personality separate from him, that either talks to him or goes into action of its own accord. After a while, as a energy production unit mired down in a lot of energy, he was talking in circuits to himself. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
circus: in ancient Rome, a large, usually oblong or oval, roofless enclosure surrounded by tiers of seats rising one above another. The term is also used to refer to the entertainments given in a circus in Rome. Gladiatorial contests (in which men, singly or in troops, often fought to the death to provide spectacles for the populace), chariot races and beast hunts were staged regularly in Roman circuses. The number of human beings that were pulled apart in order to make this book actually likens it a little bit better to a Roman circus. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Clarion Bugle Gazette: a made-up name for a newspaper. "I was a newspaper reporter on the Clarion Bugle Gazette of Sioux Falls and that's really who I am,"you know. —Games (29 Dec. 54)
Clear: (1) a being who no longer has his own reactive mind. He therefore suffers none of the ill effects that the reactive mind can cause. The Clear has no engrams which, when restimulated, throw out the correctness of his computations by entering hidden and false data. Becoming Clear strengthens a person's native individuality and creativity. It is a highly desirable state that is attainable by virtually anyone through auditing. The problem that we faced before was primarily this: We could not depend upon an auditor, even when he was trained, to produce a Clear. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54) (2) clear: to bring a person, through auditing, to the state of Clear. We're going to clear everybody. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
cobalt 12: humorous reference to cobalt 60, a radioactive form of cobalt, which is a hard, lustrous steel-gray metallic element. Well now, it's a funny direction man is going when somebody could look over this formula of an atom bomb, hydrogen bomb, when somebody could patiently collect enough cobalt 12 to add to enough hydrogen bomb in order to kill all life for enormous distances, kill the trees and the grass and everything else. —The Aims and Goals of Dianetics and Scientology (30 Dec. 54)

GLOSSARY
collar ornament: a pin insignia worn on the collar of a military uniform to show rank or training specialty. By taking off one collar ornament, I found out I could very easily be mistaken for a medical doctor. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
comm lag: short for communication lag. See communication lag in this glossary. But give me an auditor who will concentrate 100 percent on making the preclear more able in the level of conduct of the process, and wasn't—care anything about the disabilities, but he just goes on plugging to make this preclear more able and more able and more able to do this process, get the comm lags out of it, and I'll show you an auditor that makes people well in a hurry. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
communication lag: the length of time from the moment an individual is asked a question to the moment when he actually replies to that exact question, regardless of what comes in between. It does not matter whether the person continues to talk about something else than the question or simply remains silent, it is still a communication lag. A communication lag is a technical thing. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
communication line: a line on which particles flow; any sequences through which a message of any character may go. Now wherever we look organizationwise here in Phoenix, we discover experiments—little experimental setups, trying to discover if there's a communication line existing in that particular field of endeavor. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Communication Processing: a series of questions which process communication directly and specifically address originated communications, answers and acknowledgments. For further information see R2-76 in the book The Creation of Human Ability by L. Ron Hubbard. You know, I mean, it's good if your preclear doesn't spin in; (laughter) and Communication Processing which is the hottest news we have had for four and a half years. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
cortextural: a humorous coined word meaning "of the cerebral cortex, (the part of the brain associated with higher brain functions such as voluntary movement, learning, memory, etc.)." Well, there is no sense in looking at his cortextural response which runs between his korzybski and his oblongata. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
Creation of Human Ability, The: a book written by L. Ron Hubbard, first published in England in 1954. It contains processes designed to restore the power of a thetan over his own decisions and to understand his nature as a being. It isn't in The Creation of Human Ability. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
Cybernetics: a book written by Norbert Wiener and published in 1948, about cybernetics, a science developed by Wiener dealing with the comparative study of human control systems, as the brain and nervous system, and complex electronic systems. And this book about this neural response system, Cybernetics has applied the principles of electricity to life and it tries to demonstrate somehow that life comes about because of electronic flows. And it doesn't. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
Cynergetics: humorous reference to Cybernetics. See Cybernetics in this glossary. ... / was quite happy he wrote that book called Cynergetics or whatever it was, and he talks about a neural response system. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)

291

292

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
demon circuits: circuits which give thoughts voice, or echo the spoken word interiorly, or who give all sorts of complicated advice like a real, live voice exteriorly. See also circuit in this glossary. ... if these things do get us stuck and fixated one way or the other, and if these things do become these terminals that we find as demon circuits and other things in the human mind... —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
desert rat: (slang) a prospector in the deserts of the western United States. Thus, we find a desert rat in not too good a condition. If he talks at all, it's probably to his burro. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
detribute: a humorous coined word from attribute, meaning "to think of as caused by; regard as an effect or product of" and the prefix de-, meaning "to do the opposite of." "And now I'll get this witching wand and so forth and I'll read this old chart here, and I'll detribute the fact and reinterpret it that way, and then I'll go get me a burro and I will walk across the desert and I will..." so on. —Pan-determinism (31 Dec. 54)
Dianetics 1955!: reference to the book Dianetics 55! by L. Ron Hubbard, which deals with the fundamental principles of communication and contains processes designed to increase a preclear's ARC and raise the preclear on the Tone Scale. This congress has as its principal business the delineation of the materials in the book, Dianetics 1955! —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health: the basic text on Dianetics techniques, written by L. Ron Hubbard and first published in 1950. The work is divided into three major sections: Book One, The Goal of Man; Book Two, The Single Source of All Inorganic Mental and Organic Psychosomatic Ills and Book Three, Therapy. Dianetics and its goals are outlined in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, published on May 9th, 1950, subsequently read by over a half a million Americans. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Dickens, Charles: (1812-1870) prolific English novelist of the late nineteenth century whose books are noted for picturesque and extravagant characters in the lower economic strata of England at that time. After his first novel was published in 1836, he never stopped writing. He was always busy, writing for hours every day on novels, short stories and magazine articles. A fellow by the name of Charles Dickens did this. Dickens described with great accuracy what he had learned as a young man in the streets and courts of London. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
dickens, like the: (colloquial) very much, hard, fast, etc. Dickens is a euphemism normally used in place of "devil." And then the fellow who's got to run like the dickens every time you start to communicate, he's getting close to not having any game at all. —Games (29 Dec. 54)
Dick Tracy: the main character of a popular American cops-and-robbers series which originated as a comic strip in 1931, and was made into a number of film serials and feature films in the 1930s and 1940s. Dick Tracy is a clean-cut plainclothes detective with a hard, jutting jawline, who uses his own cunning and a variety of high-tech gadgets to eradicate crime in his city. And there goes the villain—Dick Tracy's stock in trade. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
Doctor of Scientology (DScn): at the time of these lectures, the degree earned by a graduate of an Advanced Clinical Course unit who had produced excellent

GLOSSARY
work in the Advanced Clinical Course and considerable field work after graduation. See also Advanced Clinical unit in this glossary. Now, there is no reason why a Doctor of Scientology, a Bachelor of Scientology, HCA, should not be called a Doctor of Education ... —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
dope off: get tired, sleepy, foggy (as though doped, or drugged). Don't worry if they dope off, but make sure they do the process, huh? —Group Processing, Part I (29 Dec. 54)
Dud, Professor: a made-up name for a person considered to be an authority. Dud is an informal term for a person or thing that fails or is ineffectual. "But of course there's always Professor Dud .. ."and so on. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
Duke of Lemonade: a made-up title for a duke, possibly a reference to William, Prince of Orange (1533-1584). In 1568, William led the successful revolt of the Netherlands against Spanish rule and the Catholic religion, as represented by their tyrannical Spanish governor, the Duke of Alva. During William's subsequent rule, however, his Protestant followers forcibly introduced regimes which were as intolerant toward Catholics in the Netherlands as the Spanish regime had been toward the Protestants. William was assassinated in 1584. They revolt against the duke, and they get a Duke of Lemonade. —The Aims and Goals of Dianetics and Scientology (30 Dec. 54)
dynamics: the eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These are motives or motivations. A dynamic is a surge of energy within a person which is seeking to promote the survival of something. Life or existence can be subdivided into these eight main divisions, known as the eight dynamics: (1) the FIRST DYNAMIC is SELF. This is the effort to survive as an individual, to be an individual. It includes one's own body and one's own mind. It is the effort to attain the highest level of survival for the longest possible time for self. This dynamic includes the individual plus his immediate possessions. It does not include any other people. It is the urge to survive as one's self. Here we have individuality expressed fully. (2) the SECOND DYNAMIC is CREATIVITY. Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity. The second dynamic contains the family unit and the rearing of children as well as anything that can be categorized as a family activity. It also incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival. (3) the THIRD DYNAMIC is GROUP SURVIVAL. This is the urge to survive through a group of individuals or as a group. A group can be a community, friends, a company, a social lodge, a state, a nation, a race or in short, any group. It doesn't matter what size this group is, it is seeking to survive as a group. (4) the FOURTH DYNAMIC is SPECIES. Man's fourth dynamic is the species of mankind, meaning both men and women. This is the urge toward survival through all mankind and as all mankind. Whereas the white race would be considered a third dynamic for a white person, all the races of man together would be considered the fourth dynamic. All men and women because they are men and women seek to survive as men and women and for men and women. (5) the FIFTH DYNAMIC is LIFE FORMS. This is the urge to survive as life forms and with the help of life forms such as animals, birds, insects, fish and vegetation. This includes all living things whether animal or vegetable, anything directly and intimately motivated by life. It is the effort to survive for any and every form of life. It is the interest in life as such. (6) the SIXTH DYNAMIC is MEST or the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. MEST stands for Matter,

293

294

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
Energy, Space and Time. These are the component parts of the physical universe. The sixth dynamic is the urge to survive of the physical universe, by the physical universe itself and with the help of the physical universe and each one of its component parts. (7) the SEVENTH DYNAMIC is the SPIRITUAL DYNAMIC, the urge to survive as spiritual beings or the urge for life itself to survive. Anything spiritual, with or without identity, would come under the heading of the seventh dynamic. It includes one's beingness, the ability to create, the ability to cause survival or survive, the ability to destroy or pretend to be destroyed. A subheading of this dynamic is ideas and concepts and the desire to survive through these. The seventh dynamic is life source. This is separate from the physical universe and is the source of life itself. (8) the EIGHTH DYNAMIC is the urge toward existence as INFINITY. The eighth dynamic is commonly supposed to be a Supreme Being or Creator. It is correctly defined as infinity. It actually embraces the allness of all. And when we said, "life," of course, we meant all the dynamics. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Easy-Wheezy Soap Flakes: a made-up name for a product. "Well whose program is it? I'm the one that's trying to sell Easy-Wheezy Soap Flakes, you're not."—Games (29 Dec. 54)
Echo: brand name of a type of small portable tape recorder and player. The book was written on a tape recorder—on a little Echo tape recorder, straight onto recorder and taken off by my secretary, and she took it off onto aluminum Multilith plates, just like that. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
egg: (slang) a bomb dropped from an airplane. I mean, you'd think these people would feel real bad about having all these eggs laid on their heads, you know. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
Einstein: Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German physicist and US citizen from 1940 who formulated the theory of relativity, a series of conclusions concerning the interrelationship of time, space and the motion of objects. His work is said to have led to the development of nuclear fission and the atomic bomb. Some of them absorbed the knowledge which was there and which had been developed earlier by people like Halley, Einstein—absorbed this novel information, the different purposes and usages. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Elementary Straightwire: a basic process with two commands: "Give me something you wouldn't mind remembering," "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting." The processes given in it are the six basic processes which are: Two-way Communication, Elementary Straightwire, Opening Procedure 8-C, Opening Procedure by Duplication, Remedy of Havingness, and Spotting Spots in Space. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Emergency Auditor: an assistant who helps an auditor delivering Group Processing. In groups receiving Group Processing, there are commonly people (particularly those whose cases are being addressed for the first time) who become misemotional or otherwise distract the rest of the group. Such people are cared for by the Emergency Auditor (also called the Assistant Group Auditor), who takes the person out of the group to a nearby place and helps him over his difficulty, then returns him to the group as quickly as possible. If there are any casualties, Emergency Auditors are present. —Group Processing (28 Dec. 54)
E-Meter: short for Electropsychometer, a specially designed instrument which helps the auditor and preclear locate areas of spiritual distress or travail. The

GLOSSARY
E-Meter is a religious artifact and can only be used by Scientology ministers or ministers-in-training. It does not diagnose or cure anything. It measures the mental state or change of state of a person and thus is of enormous benefit to the auditor in helping the preclear locate areas to be handled. And if it was just the syllabic action or the wave form in the air that would produce this reaction, why, then, probably, when the fellow recalled it (shades of the E-Meter)—when the fellow recalled it, you'd get the same pattern back again. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
engrain: a mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content. An engram is a complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness. See also reactive mind in this glossary. The fellow would be all out of his engrams and uninfluenced by his reactive mind just (snap) that fast. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
entheta: theta which is enturbulated (turbulent or agitated and disturbed); especially referring to communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group. See also theta in this glossary. But even entheta is better than no communication at all. —The Aims and Goals of Dianetics and Scientology (30 Dec. 54)
every-good-boy-does-fine, f-a-c-e: sayings used to help children learn the sequence of notes corresponding to the lines and spaces on a staff used in writing music. The staff has five parallel lines, and each line represents a certain note. The notes corresponding to each of the lines, from the bottom of this staff to the top, are named E, G, B, D and F. Thus the saying "every good boy does fine" is used to help children remember the sequence of the notes that correspond with the lines. The spaces between the lines represent the notes F, A, C and E. Spelling the word "f-a-c-e" is therefore used to help children remember the sequence of notes corresponding with the spaces. And they sit down and they, "Do, re, mi, fa, sol," "every-good-boy-does-fine," "f-a-c-e,"and finally get to a point of where they play the piano very nicely.... —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
Expanded GITA: a process whereby the preclear is first tested to see if he can get a mock-up that he can see, no matter how vague, then is asked to waste, accept under duress, desire and finally be able to take or leave alone each of the items on a list of certain isolated factors—these factors being those which are more important to minds than others. The term GITA comes from Give and Take processing. For more information on Expanded GITA, see the book Scientology 8-8008. See also mock up in this glossary. And that became, by the time we got to SOP 8—Standard Operating Procedure 8—Step IV, Expanded GITA. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
exterior: a thetan who is outside the body with or without full perception, but still able to control and handle the body. The term is also used as a modifier to describe a thetan who is in this state or condition. When a person goes exterior, he achieves a certainty that he is himself and not his body. If it takes us 150 hours for each case that we get, simply to make a good, stable exterior out of them, we'd quit today. That's a lot of time. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
facsimile: a three-dimensional color picture with sound and smell and all other perceptions, plus the conclusions or speculations of the individual. There is no

295

296

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
slightest difference between the two except the thetan exterior, developed by the processes of Scientology, is achieved without erasing every facsimile and engram in the bank. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Factors, the: a summation of the considerations and examinations of the human spirit and the material universe completed by L. Ron Hubbard between 1923 and 1953 A.D. The Factors can be found in the book Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics by L. Ron Hubbard. We've had no reason whatsoever to change the Factors. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
figure-figure: a coined term describing a particular type of aberration consisting of always having to have a "reason for" or a significance. Given a fact, there must always be a reason for the fact. Hence we get figure-figure. Zeno wrote a book called Apathia, where I think is where we get the word, or where we use it that way, and he said—he proved conclusively in this book—this book is all figure-figure. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
first book: See Book One in this glossary. So, therefore you see what we have as "necessity level" about which we spoke in the first book. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
Fleischmann: Charles Fleischmann (1834-1897), emigrant to the US from Austria-Hungary who helped found Gaff, Fleischmann and Co., the first company in the United States to produce compressed yeast for baking. And thinking then that he has a quantity of time to occupy, is something like the Fleischmann yeast plant itself feeling bad because it's not a yeast cake. —Games (29 Dec. 54)
float: in mining, ore that has been washed downhill from a bed or vein of ore and is found lying on the surface of the ground. "No, let's see, I think there's a float from that lode and it's about eight miles down that crick—oh, say, that's pretty good—dry crick bed and there's a piece of that lode eight miles south of the actual lode."—Pan-determinism (31 Dec. 54)
Ford Foundation: a large private trust established in 1936 by American industrial and pioneer automobile manufacturer Henry Ford (1863-1947) and his son Edsel (1893-1943). Its original stated aim was to found a scientific study of man. I'm describing the Ford Foundation now. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Forest: reference to Lee De Forest (1873-1961), American inventor who patented a type of vacuum tube in 1907 which made possible amplification and easier detection of radio waves, leading to the foundation of the radio industry. De Forest is sometimes called "the father of radio." Or they will require that a certain amount of insulation be burned every evening after work to appease— to appease the god Forest who makes tubes—makes tubes work. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
.45: a pistol which has a barrel with an inside diameter of 45/100ths of an inch. At which moment you felt more like sending for the wagon for yourself and a .45 for the auditor. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
Foundation: short for the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation, the first organization of Dianetics. First opened in Elizabeth, New Jersey in June 1950, the Foundation soon had offices across the US, including Los Angeles; New York; Chicago; Washington, DC and Hawaii. And one fine day an old lady walked into the Los Angeles Foundation. Just walked in, big as life. —Group Processing (28 Dec. 54)

GLOSSARY
403 East Roosevelt: the location of the Church of Scientology in Phoenix, Arizona at the time of these lectures. The type of Group Auditing which I will use during this congress has been tested thoroughly, Wednesday nights at the 403 East Roosevelt. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Four Horsemen, The: reference to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, four riders on white, red, black and pale horses, symbolizing the pestilence, war, famine and death which are prophesied in the Apocalypse, or book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament in the Bible. The Four Horsemen haunt man, and yet he goes out and makes rifles to shoot other men. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Four-Star-H: a variation of 4-H, an educational program that helps young people develop new skills, explore possible career choices and serve their communities. The four H's stand for head, heart, hands and health. The program began in the US in the early 1900s, and was originally directed toward rural and farm children—projects included canning, raising livestock and poultry, and growing crops. Later, clubs added projects of more interest to city youngsters, such as career studies and automobile care and safety. If they just started to pour a flood of communication at McCarthy—supposing this was communication on the basis of: "We want to put you on our monthly mailing list for the agricultural contest figures for the Four-Star-H." —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
Frankenstein: reference to the main character in the 1818 novel Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (1797-1851), and the subject of numerous motion pictures. In the story, Dr. Victor Frankenstein creates a manlike monster from parts of dead bodies and brings it to life by the power of an electrical charge. Frankenstein's monster is larger than most men and fantastically strong. Longing for sympathy and shunned by everyone, the creature ultimately turns to evil and finally destroys its creator. Though "Frankenstein" is actually the name of the doctor who created the monster, the name is also commonly used to refer to the monster itself. If you don't use the material which you have been given, you will find yourself, just in the information itself, with a Frankenstein on your hands—a Frankenstein's monster. —Pan-determinism (31 Dec. 54)
Fulgaria: a made-up name for a country. Nobody would be worrying about war between Bulgaria and Fulgaria. —Pan-determinism (31 Dec. 54)
gat: (slang) a revolver or automatic pistol. The term derives from a Gatling gun, an early type of machine gun consisting of a cluster of barrels that, by use of a hand crank, revolved around a central axis. Each barrel was automatically loaded and fired during every revolution of the cluster. Named after American inventor R. J. Gatling (1818-1903) who perfected it. You actually would not excite much attention in Chicago if you were to take a rifle down the street, or even a gat. —Games (29 Dec. 54)
geeter button: a made-up name for a part on an imaginary machine. The word button also has a figurative use, as in the phrase "press the button," which means "to perform an action that automatically brings about the required state of affairs." But the moment that they start to move in on the humanities and say, "Look, man is a gimmigahoogit that goes whip-whip whenever we punch the geeter button," they're out of order, they're out of place ... —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)

297

298

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
George Washington University: a large university (where L. Ron Hubbard studied engineering during the 1930s) located in Washington, DC, capital of the US. The abilities that were taught in the physics laboratories of George Washington University were absorbed differently by the several people present. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Gibbon: Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) English historian who wrote The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, one of the classical works of historical literature in the English language. Published in six volumes between 1776 and 1788, the work spans the thirteen centuries from the second century a.d. to the fall of Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, in 1453. And his conclusion, and the philosophy which he gave his day, and which was bought by the Roman Empire, and which is overlooked as one of the factors by Gibbon who describes the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and attributes it to Christianity—Gibbon completely overlooked Zeno. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
gimmigahoogit: (informal) a made-up word for an item or object. It is possibly a variation of thingamajig, meaning "a gadget or other thing for which the speaker does not know or has forgotten the name." But the moment that they start to move in on the humanities and say, "Look, man is a gimmigahoogit that goes whip-whip whenever we punch the geeter button," they're out of order, they're out of place . .. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
GITA: abbreviation for Give and Take Processing. See Give and Take Processing
in this glossary. Now, in SOP 5, in Scientology, we had a very interesting system called GITA, Give and Take Processing. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
Gita: reference to the Bhagavad-Gita, a major sacred work of Hinduism. The name Bhagavad-Gita means "Song of God" or "Song of the Beloved." It consists of a philosophical dialogue between the warrior Arjuna and his chariot driver, Krishna (who is actually the god Vishnu), in which Krishna instructs Arjuna in spiritual wisdom and the means of attaining union with God through selfless action, knowledge and devotion. Bears no relationship to the Indian practice Gita, or books. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
Give and Take Processing: processing in which a long list of key items is used and the preclear is asked to waste, accept and desire these items at will. Now, in SOP 5, in Scientology, we had a very interesting system called GITA, Give and Take Processing. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
Glutz, Mamie: a made-up name for a person. Mamie Glutz might conceive that she is better than the other girls at the factory because she has acquired a necklace and they haven't. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
Gott mit uns: (German) "God [is] with us." Just a generation ago, young Americans and young Englishmen were mucking through the mud of France, stepping over dead Germans who had Gott mit uns on their buckles. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Grand Central Station: one of the two major railroad stations (Grand Central Terminal and Pennsylvania Station) serving New York City. Before the rapid growth of air travel in the 1950s, hundreds of thousands of railroad passengers from all parts of the country passed through Grand Central and Pennsylvania stations each day. Though cross-country rail traffic has diminished, these two busy stations still serve hundreds of thousands of local commuters. And a

GLOSSARY
writer's studio begins to look like a couple of Grand Central Stations moving through each other. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
ground school: a school that trains aviators in subjects such as aerodynamics, map-making, photography, etc. So they send him to ground school and then they send him other schools, and they send him other schools and send him other schools and send him other schools and finally get him close to an airplane, having expended considerable sums with time, considerable time which is there to be burned, after all. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
Group Auditing: same as Group Processing. See Group Processing in this glossary. I'm going to try to make it my business during this congress to tell you about some of these things, to let you in on some of the things that have been happening and perhaps during this congress we might be able to get in a little bit of Group Auditing. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Group Opening Procedure: a Group Process consisting of three steps. The first step has the group members reach for things and let go of them; in the second step, the group is asked to decide things and then carry out the action they decided to do; the last step has them decide to do things and then change their mind and do something else. For full information on this process and its exact commands, see The Group Auditor's Handbook by L. Ron Hubbard. And when he was told that he was going to be permitted to run on free Group Processing sessions, just Group Opening Procedure and nothing else, he immediately registered a tremendous protest, and he says, "But we won't have anybody, because nobody will come and run Group Opening Procedure week in and week out."—Group Processing (28 Dec. 54)
Group Processing: Scientology auditing techniques administered to groups of children or adults. See also auditing in this glossary. What would happen if I started to give you a little Group Processing now ?—Group Processing (28 Dec. 54)
Halley: Edmund Halley (1656-1742), English astronomer, best known for his study of comets. He concluded that the comets of 1531,1607, and 1682 were in reality a single body and accurately predicted its return in 1758. The comet has since been known as Halley's Comet. Some of them absorbed the knowledge which was there and which had been developed earlier by people like Halley, Einstein—absorbed this novel information, the different purposes and usages. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
HASI: abbreviation for Hubbard Association of Scientologists International: the company which operated all Scientology organizations over the world and was the general membership group of the Church at the time of these lectures. The Church of Scientology International has replaced HASI in the operation of organizations, and the International Association of Scientologists (IAS) is the current membership group. And let's look at that on its policy, and we find immediately that what I'm trying to do and what the board is trying to do, what we're trying to do with the London office is to accumulate enough funds so we can write a book especially adapted to the English-speaking people on that side of the ocean and ... to provide the HASI in London with its own quarters and sanitariums for the use of Europe. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
havingness: the concept of being able to reach. By havingness we mean owning, possessing, being capable of commanding, taking charge of objects, energies and spaces. Havingness also refers to various processes designed to increase the preclear's affinity, reality and communication with the environment, and

299

300

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
to increase his ability to reach and get him stabilized in his environment. You make this fellow locate these spots in the space of the room, you make him do it for a while, you don't remedy any havingness, you don't do anything else with him, you see, and you will find out why he argued with you before about a thetan exterior. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
HCA: abbreviation for Hubbard Certified Auditor, a person who has completed the Hubbard Certified Auditor Course. At one time this was the course which an auditor did to attain professional certification in a Central Organization, except in Great Britain. Its equivalent there was called the Hubbard Professional Auditor (HPA) Course. Now, there is no reason why a Doctor of Scientology, a Bachelor of Scientology, HCA, should not be called a Doctor of Education ... —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
HDRF: abbreviation for Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, the first organization of Dianetics in the United States. See also Foundation in this glossary. Right out of one of the existing units, or certainly within the next five or six weeks, we are going to appoint a staff auditor for this organization, and we're going to appoint one for London from London, and we're going to clear the whole staff of the HDRF, the HASI, the Church of Scientology, ad infinitum. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Hearst, William Randolph: (1863-1951) US newspaper and magazine publisher noted for journalism that exploits or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers. Hearst began his publishing career in 1887 when he took charge of the San Francisco Examiner, owned by his father. By 1925 he owned twenty-five newspapers in seventeen cities. William Randolph Hearst, when he used to run the American Weekly, always had a page in there devoted to things that happened in Bavaria, you know. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Hickok, Wild Bill: James Butler Hickok (1837-1876), frontier settler and United States marshal known for his pursuit of some of the worst outlaws of the old West. Estimates of the number of men he killed ranged from two or three dozen up to more than a hundred. Matter of fact, if you were to hang up the all-time record across the boards in the field of sport and so forth, you'd have to quit. Just like Wild Bill Hickok out here in the West had to quit. —Pan-determinism (31 Dec. 54)
Himalayan bear: a Central and East Asian bear that has a glossy black (sometimes brownish) coat, with a whitish mark shaped like a crescent moon on the chest. It is considered sacred by Japanese aboriginals, and is sought by the Chinese for the supposedly medicinal effects of its bone and flesh. "Dear Senator McCarthy, we have understood that you have some interest in bears and we wish to report to you that the Himalayan bear. . ."It wouldn't matter what they said, you understand? —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
Hitler: Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945. In rising to power in Germany, he fortified his position through murder of real or imagined opponents and maintained police-state control over the population. He led Germany into World War II, resulting in its nearly total destruction. He is also known for killing millions of Jewish people in the belief that they would "contaminate" the German people. Whether or not that criminality is that of a Hitler, or Greek tyrant. .. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
Homo sap: short for Homo sapiens, the Latin word meaning "modern man; mankind; a human being." Let's start down here at the bottom. And we have here Homo sap. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)

GLOSSARY
how's tricks: (informal) (used as a greeting) how are you; how are things going for you? And then they see her the next time and they say, "Well, how's tricks, Grind?"—Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
How to Win Friends and Influence People: a book written in 1936 by American lecturer and author Dale Carnegie (1888-1955), which stresses the importance of getting along with everyone you meet, and gives advice on how to make people like you, such as "Talk in terms of the other man's interest," "Make the other person feel important" and "Talk about your own mistakes first." He also seems to get sick and he also seems to read things like How to Win Friends and Influence People in an apathetic effort to do so. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
HPC: abbreviation for Hubbard Professional College. See also Hubbard Professional College in this glossary. Another chap now in the HPC course came in here and he had never read very much of Book One, but he'd gotten as far as asking questions. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Hubbard College: a graduate school for auditors originally established by L. Ron Hubbard in Wichita, Kansas, to deliver advanced auditor training. In mid-1952, LRH moved to Phoenix and relocated the Hubbard College there, where he continued his tradition of lecturing to students and personally supervising the instruction of auditors. An official of the Ford Foundation was sent to Hubbard College here in Phoenix a couple of years ago. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Hubbard Professional College unit: reference to the Hubbard Professional College Certification Course, an eight-week advanced auditor training course taught at the time of these lectures. The graduate of the Hubbard Professional College Certification Course was awarded the certificate of Bachelor of Scientology. And I think that the Advanced Clinical unit now in progress here, and the Hubbard Professional College unit now in progress here will, all of them, tell you that: "Aberration? Who ever had any difficulty with that?" —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Intensive Procedure: a series of processes contained in the book The Creation of Human Ability, by L. Ron Hubbard. The goal of Intensive Procedure is to bring about a complete tolerance and comfort on the part of the preclear for the physical universe, his exteriorization, and general rehabilitation. It is to rehabilitate his communication, his affinity and his reality up to a high enough level of knowingness so that he can communicate or not communicate at will. But somebody running The Creation of Human Ability Intensive Procedure might not discover that these steps are backwards and might plunge into the top-echelon step before he had graduated up to it, and so would discover that top-echelon step not winning. —Pan-determinism (31 Dec. 54)
Johnny newly: a variation of Johnny-come-lately, meaning "a recently arrived person or thing, especially as compared with the more seasoned." It doesn't happen to the Johnny newlys. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
Jung: Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), Swiss psychologist and psychiatrist; one of the main psychiatric authorities of his time. He differed with Freud in regarding the libido (energy or driving force) as a will to live rather than a manifestation of the sex instinct, and holding that a neurosis is to be understood more by analysis of the patient's present problem and inadequate "adjustment" than by unearthing childhood fixations and conflicts. We take

301

302

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
another such survey conducted by one of his people. Let us say Jung or Adler, the squirrels of his day. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Kingman: a city in northwestern Arizona. A storage depot for airplanes was established in Kingman in 1945, and for the next two years, more than 7,000 planes were stored there and salvaged for parts. We go down here to Kingman, there used to be miles—square miles of planes down there. —The Aims and Goals of Dianetics and Scientology (30 Dec. 54)
knowingness: awareness not depending upon perception. One doesn't have to look to find out. For example, you do not have to get a perception or picture of where you are living to know where you live. Therefore, he will take this picture of Joe or just the knowingness memory of what Joe said, you see. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
Koenig photometer: a sound impulse measuring device. It has a small flame and a spinning mirror. By channeling sound impulses at the flame and spinning the mirror, one gets a pattern or graph of reaction of the sound. Named after its inventor, German physicist Karl Rudolph Koenig (1832-1901). Well, I got myself a Koenig photometer and a couple of other crude apparatae, and started to measure the cadences and the impressions made by poetry. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
korzybski: a humorous made-up name for a part of the brain; from Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950), American scientist and writer who developed the subject of general semantics, a methodology that attempts to improve human behavior through a critical use of words and symbols. Well, there is no sense in looking at his cortextural response which runs between his korzybski and his oblongata. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
Kraepelin: Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926), German psychiatrist who developed a classification system for mental illness. He made distinctions between disorders he felt were of external origin and were thus treatable (such as manic-depressive disorders), and those which he thought had biological causes and were thus incurable (such as schizophrenia). Throughout his career, Kraepelin continued to refine his classification system, issuing several revisions of his multi-volume psychiatric textbook; he was working on the ninth edition when he died. And instead of trying to write down, "The number of insanities are ..." (Fellow by the name of Kraepelin did this) . .. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Ladies'Home Journal: a monthly American magazine for women. Founded in 1883, the Journal is one of the longest-running magazines in the country, and was the leader of all American women's magazines in circulation until the mid-twentieth century. And then we had original articles on the subject in Time magazine, the Ladies' Home Journal, Reader's Digest—from time to time have printed, without credit, anything they could think of on the subject of prenatals. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
"let them eat cake": a saying that shows insensitivity to or incomprehension of the realities of life for the unfortunate. French philosopher and author Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), in his autobiography Confessions, tells of a great princess who, on being informed that the country people had no bread, replied, "Let them eat cake." This statement is often attributed to Marie Antoinette (1755-1793), queen of France (1774-1792). Marie Antoinette rides along in her carriage and says, "You say, 'They're short on bread.' Well, let them eat cake."—Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)

GLOSSARY
libido: (psychoanalysis) sexual instinct or sexual drive. .. . whether on flour and water or a bebop rhythm from a gourd rattle or for some hocus-pocus about his libido. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Life: a magazine in the United States, founded in 1936 by Henry Luce, containing many photographs and articles of current activities. Life was published weekly from 1936 until 1972, when it was discontinued. It was revived in 1978 as a monthly publication. Dianetics doesn't work, you know— and according to Life, Time and other organs of the American Medical Association, like Reader's Digest—a doctor no longer reads anything but Reader's Digest, you know. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Lilly: Eli Lilly and Company, a major US pharmaceutical manufacturer founded in 1876 which produces and distributes a variety of medical drugs as well as highly dangerous and destructive "psychiatric" drugs. Now I wouldn't hold ourselves open to libel, here, by mentioning the names of some of these organizations like Abbott or Lilly. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
lock: a mental image picture of an experience where one was knowingly or unknowingly reminded of an engram. A lock does not itself contain a blow or a burn or impact (as does an engram) and is not any major cause of upset. It does not contain unconsciousness. It may contain a feeling of pain or illness, etc., but is not itself the source of it. For example, a person sees a cake and feels sick. This is a lock on an engram of being made sick by eating cake. The picture of seeing a cake and feeling sick is a lock on (is locked to) the incident (unseen at the moment) of getting sick eating cake. Another chap now in the HPC course came in here and he had never read very much of Book One, but he'd gotten as far as asking questions. You know—"Locks?"—Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
look-a-here: an everyday-speech expression meaning simply "look here." But then look-a-here, you'd win. You'd prove that you'd been surviving. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
Los Angeles 28: a postal code used at the time of these lectures which indicated the Hollywood section of the city of Los Angeles. What's the name of the town? Oh, Los Angeles 28, known as Hollywood. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
lumbosis: a made-up name for a disease, coined by LRH and used humorously in many of his lectures and writings. He's had acute lumbosis, that famous disease, and he's had this lumbosis most horribly for a long time and it starts to let up. —Pan-determinism (31 Dec. 54)
materia medica: reference to De materia medica, a five-volume work by Greek physician and pharmacologist Pedanius Dioscorides (ca. A.D. 40-90). Describing the medicinal properties of approximately 1,000 simple drugs, De materia medica served as the primary text of pharmacology until the end of the fifteenth century. It was translated into English in 1934 as The Greek Herbal of Dioscorides. We read in the materia medica that cinchona bark is a cure for malaria, (that it will prevent malaria—Peruvian bark) . .. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Mauser: reference to a series of widely used military rifles and pistols developed by German arms inventor and manufacturer Peter Paul Mauser (1838-1914). The Mauser pistol, which first appeared in 1895, used a cartridge which became more popular than the pistol itself, as the USSR and several European countries adopted it in slightly modified form as their standard pistol and

303

304

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
submachine gun cartridge from 1930 to the late 1940s. / have a Mauser bullet with his name on it (laughter) because he's the fellow that's causing us an awful lot of trouble. Silence is so far from golden, that if you hit it, it gives an awfully brassy sound. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
McCarthy, Senator: Joseph Raymond McCarthy (1908-1957), American politician and US senator from Wisconsin (1947-1957). In early 1950, McCarthy made a speech in which he claimed to have a list of 205 State Department employees who were members of the Communist Party. Under investigation, McCarthy was forced to concede that there actually was no list. However, for the next four years he waged a smear campaign in which he accused government and army officials, members of the media and public figures of being Communist infiltrators, couching his accusations in vague terms that could not be easily rebutted. These attacks resulted in McCarthy's being censured by the Senate in December 1954. / imagine the failure of the Communist Party to answer up to Senator McCarthy many, many years ago in those dark ages of senatorial investigation, the failure of the Communist Party to tell Senator McCarthy what it was doing, has given Senator McCarthy the conviction, the utter conviction that they are hiding many secrets. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
"Mein garbage, mein herring": humorous alteration of the German "Meine Damen, meine Herren" which literally means "My ladies, my gentlemen," and is a standard phrase used in introducing a program, similar to "Ladies and gentlemen" in English. And I had been aware sometime previously, fascinatingly aware, of the fact that Hitler was talking around in that building somewhere. You could hear this. "Yow, yow, yow. Mein garbage, Mein herring." —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
mest: a word coined from the initial letters of matter, energy, space and time, which are the component parts of the physical universe. Then we have dynamic 6, which is the urge toward survival of the physical universe itself: matter, energy, space and time which we call, in Dianetics and Scientology, MEST. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
MIT: abbreviation for Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a leading technical university with schools of architecture, engineering and science. It is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Your boys at MIT right now, and so forth, are very interested in the mind. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
mock up: create a mock-up of. A mock-up is a full-perceptic energy picture in three dimensions, created by the thetan and having location in space and time. A mock-up is more than a mental picture; it is a self-created object which exists as itself or symbolizes some object in the physical universe. The term was derived from the World War II phrase for miniature models that were constructed to symbolize weapons (airplanes, ships, artillery, etc.) or areas of attack (hills, rivers, buildings, etc.) for use in planning a battle. The term is also used in Scientology to refer to the appearance or presentation of something in the physical universe. "Now mock yourself up as a minister." —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Monroe, Marilyn: (1926-1962) American actress who starred in films during the middle of the twentieth century and became the leading sex symbol of the 1950s. And then they sit there and they say, "Gee, wouldn't it be nice. .. and Marilyn Monroe walks in, and then I say, 'Hiya babe!'"—Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)

GLOSSARY
Multilith: brand name of a type of small printing press used typically for duplicating office forms. .. . on a little Echo tape recorder, straight onto recorder and taken off by my secretary, and she took it off onto aluminum Multilith plates, just like that. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Multilithograph: a variation of Multilith. See Multilith in this glossary. And these aluminum Multilith plates simply went onto the Multilithograph and that kept spewing out pages which kept stacking up ... —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Napoleon: Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), French military leader. He rose to power in France by military force, declared himself emperor and conducted campaigns of conquest across Europe until his final defeat by armies allied against him in 1815. He is reputed to have taken one inch off the height of all Frenchmen through the extensive use of grenadiers in his armies. Originally grenadiers were soldiers who carried and threw hand grenades and only the tallest men in each military company were chosen for this duty. They were typically detached from the main line of troops, forming an elite corps subject to heavy casualties in battle. Napoleon organized entire divisions of grenadiers, resulting in the loss of many of the taller men in his army. Man's usual way of handling this is some individual elects himself as Caesar or Alexander or Napoleon, and he goes charging around on a white horse doing what, we're not sure. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
New York Times: one of the largest circulating newspapers in the United States, published in New York City since 1851. This made news. It made news enough so the New York Times ran a couple of pages on it. This much mail because of an activity in the field of the mind was very unusual. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
ninety-day wonder: (informal) an officer commissioned in a branch of the armed forces after an unusually short training period, especially after a three-month officers' training course during World War II. It is usually used sarcastically and is based upon the phrase nine-days' wonder, a marvel of rather short duration. It's like they used to get ninety-day wonders—never occurred to them that some of these boys might get seasick. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
oblongata: short for medulla oblongata, the lowest or hindmost part of the brain, continuous with the spinal cord. Well, there is no sense in looking at his cortextural response which runs between his korzybski and his oblongata. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
Okay, Mama: a process in which an auditor has a preclear say a phrase such as "Okay, Mama" over and over to improve the person's communication abilities. This process was used during Group Processing in several congresses. See also Group Processing in this glossary. The process' name is Okay, Mama. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Ole Doc Methuselah: the main character in a series of stories written by L. Ron Hubbard. Ole Doc Methuselah was a physician who fought the enemies of disease, old age and psychology. He was the most famous member of an elite organization of the cosmos called the Soldiers of Light, whose members "dedicated themselves to the ultimate preservation of mankind no matter the wars or explorations of space." A lot of you remember Ole Doc Methuselah. —The Aims and Goals of Dianetics and Scientology (30 Dec. 54)

305

306

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
l.5ing: manifesting anger, which is the level of 1.5 on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. This was back in the old days when this fellow, Hitler, was yow, yow, yowing and l.5ing at the German people and saying, "The German, he is separate from the rest of the world. He is different." —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
one-shot (or one-command) Clear: a single phrase or action given once, or repeated, which would bring into being the Clear as described in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Those are the six basic processes and in addition to those six basic ones, it has one maybe one-shot Clear, one-command Clear, and another maybe one-command Clear. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
"only one": an individual who is operating on only the first dynamic and is not actually aware of or operating on any other dynamics. In this state the individual must have no effect on self and total effect on everything and everybody else. See also dynamics in this glossary. Don't be an "only one,"some of you people that haven't been telling me so. —Group Processing (28 Dec. 54)
opening gun: (informal) something that begins a major event or proceeding. The term comes from the gunshot often fired as a signal to begin a race or other contest. This would be the first opening gun of a game. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
Opening Procedure by Duplication: a Scientology process which has as its goal the separating of time, moment from moment. This is done by getting a preclear to duplicate his same action over and over again with two dissimilar objects, such as a book and a bottle. The processes given in it are the six basic processes which are: Two-way Communication, Elementary Straightwire, Opening Procedure 8-C, Opening Procedure by Duplication, Remedy of Havingness, and Spotting Spots in Space. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Opening Procedure 8-C: a process which consists of having the preclear move his body around the room under the auditor's direction until (a) he finds he is in actual communication with many spots on the surface of things in the room, (b) until he can select spots in the room and know he is selecting them and can communicate with them, and (c) select spots and move to them, decide when to touch them and when to let go. The processes given in it are the six basic processes which are: Two-way Communication, Elementary Straightwire, Opening Procedure 8-C, Opening Procedure by Duplication, Remedy of Havingness, and Spotting Spots in Space. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Opening Procedure 1955: humorous reference to a process in which the preclear moves his body around the room and directly contacts items in the physical universe, such as Opening Procedure 8-C or Opening Procedure by Duplication. This was "Opening Procedure 1955."—Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Operating Thetan: a being who is knowing and willing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. Not the least of the qualities of Operating Thetan is personal and knowing immortality and freedom from the cycle of birth and death. A real OT has no reactive bank, is cause over matter, energy, space, time and thought and is completely free. Actually, you'd have to know more about it to make something that we call an Operating Thetan. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Operation Phoenix: an experimental program being done in the Phoenix area at the time of these lectures, in which ministers of the Church delivered Group

GLOSSARY
Processing sessions for the public as well as going out to hospitals, prisons and the homes of parishioners to provide assistance with Scientology technology. For an organization such as Operation Phoenix in its experimental thrusts into the society, it was found to be temporarily rather unworkable because the people came in and they sat down and they did the Group Processes and they went away well and we never heard of them again. —Group Processing (28 Dec. 54)
overt act (or overt): a harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group. When a person does something that is contrary to the moral code he has agreed to, or when he omits to do something that he should have done per that moral code, he has committed an overt act. An overt act violates what was agreed upon. It is an act by the person or individual leading to the injury, reduction or degradation of another, others or their beingness, persons, possessions, associations or dynamics. It can be intentional or unintentional. You know, the overt act-motivator sequence is still there. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
overt act-motivator sequence: the sequence wherein a person commits an overt, then believes he's got to have a motivator or that he has had a motivator. For instance, if he hits somebody he will tell you immediately that he has been hit by the person, even when he has not been. See also overt act in this glossary. You know, the overt act-motivator sequence is still there. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
pan-determinism: the ability to determine the action of self and others. It means wider determinism than self. Pan-determinism is across determinism or determinism of two sides. We have not discussed pan-determinism, but in The Creation of Human Ability there is a little bit of a booby-trap which I would like to point out to you. —Pan-determinism (31 Dec. 54)
Pearl Harbor: a major United States naval base in Hawaii that was attacked by Japanese aircraft at 7:55 A.M. on Sunday, 7 December 1941. At the time of the attack, most of the ships of the US Pacific Fleet (including eight of the nine battleships) were at anchor, making them an easy target for the Japanese planes. There had been a number of warnings prior to the attack, but all were either delayed in transmission or ignored; thus Pearl Harbor was completely unprepared, resulting in a great loss of American lives and ships. The attack on Pearl Harbor catapulted the United States into World War II. Japan, by the way, in continuing to negotiate with the United States, was able to apply a surprise attack to the United States at Pearl Harbor. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
persevivity: humorous variation of the word perseverance. Ml we require is persevivity. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Piccadilly Circus: an intersection of six streets in downtown London, England. (Circus is a British term for a round open area where a number of streets come together.) This area is filled with theaters, restaurants, nightclubs and shops. And when last seen she was driving with no assistance, license in pocket, through Piccadilly Circus. And everybody knows that nobody can drive through Piccadilly Circus. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
Pope, Alexander: (1688-1744) English poet and satirist whose work is characterized by technical finish and wit. One of his well-known poems, entitled "An Essay on Man," includes the lines: "Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; / The proper study of mankind is man." If you want to read art

307

308

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
at the extreme and information at the minimum, I invite you to read—I think it's a fellow by the name of Pope—Alexander Pope. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
preclear: a person not yet Clear, hence pre-Clear; generally, a person being audited, who is thus on the road to Clear; a person who, through processing, is finding out more about himself and life. See also Clear in this glossary. This book takes those things which have been discovered in the overall research and investigation of life and applies them immediately and directly to man and to preclears, and that is exactly what it does. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
prenatal: an engram received before birth. See also engram in this glossary. He was still running birth, prenatals, conception. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
process: (1) a set of questions asked or directions given by an auditor to help a person find out things about himself or life and to improve his condition. There's a process which some of those who were present on these Wednesday nights will remember, perhaps with some nostalgia. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54) (2) to apply Dianetics and Scientology processes to. See also auditing in this glossary. ... they would get processed... —Group Processing (28 Dec. 54)
processing: another word for auditing. See auditing in this glossary. And it's been found uniformly to be a type of processing absolutely and completely unexcelled in all the annals of man. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
prop wash: (informal) short for propeller wash, which means "the backwash from a propeller; a backward current of air behind propellers or jet engines." Used figuratively in the lecture. I used to get a lot of prop wash on this, see. They'd say, "Well, you read it off people's faces. You get their reactions," and so forth. —Pan-determinism (31 Dec. 54)
R: abbreviation for reality. See also ARC in this glossary. And if that affinity is missing, R, the ability to make a decision is also missing. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
reactive mind: that portion of a person's mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. The reactive mind is where engrams are stored. The fellow would be all out of his engrams and uninfluenced by his reactive mind just (snap) that fast. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Reader's Digest: a pocket-sized US magazine, founded in 1922, that reprints in condensed form articles from other periodicals. Dianetics doesn't work, you know—and according to Life, Time and other organs of the American Medical Association, like Reader's Digest—a doctor no longer reads anything but Reader's Digest, you know. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
reconscious: a made-up word for an imaginary aspect of the mind; a take-off on the terms "conscious," "subconscious," "unconscious," etc., used as a humorous reference to the complex and meaningless terminology of psychiatry. What Freud called "the subconscious"or the "reconscious"—we have developed by the way a new subconscious called "the resubconscious," and this is just two cellars below the subconscious, which is below the reconscious. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
Remedy of Havingness: a Scientology auditing process which remedies a preclear's native ability to acquire things at will and reject them at will. The

GLOSSARY
auditor has the preclear mock up a mass in front of him and shove it into his body, and mock up another mass in front of him and throw it away, over and over. When the process has been done thoroughly and completely, the preclear should be able to reject or accept, at his own discretion, anything in his environment as well as anything in his engram bank. See also mock up in this glossary. The processes given in it are the six basic processes which are: Two-way Communication, Elementary Straightwire, Opening Procedure 8-C, Opening Procedure by Duplication, Remedy of Havingness, and Spotting Spots in Space. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
restimulation: a reactivation in the present of a past mental recording of an unpleasurable experience due to similar circumstances in the present environment which approximate those circumstances of the past. And if it is the thing, then they believe, when it goes into restimulation later, that they are in the past. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
ridge: a solid accumulation of old, inactive energy suspended in space and time. A ridge is generated by opposing energy flows which hit one another, and continues to exist long after the energy flows have ceased. His stuff will go down in quality and then, as will happen, he will stop writing and writing itself will become a sort of a solid ridge and that is his fate if he does not complete the two-way cycle of communication—if no one else is writing in his vicinity. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
Riverside Drive: a thoroughfare along the west side of New York City next to the Hudson River. Many historic apartment houses are located there. / have lived in an apartment house on Riverside Drive and not known the names of the people who lived in the apartments on either side, or the floor above or the floor below. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
Roman circus: See circus in this glossary.
Route 1: a series of advanced processes, run only after a person has been exteriorized. It is designed to reacquaint the thetan with the physical universe and improve his perceptions and abilities. For more information, see the book The Creation of Human Ability by L. Ron Hubbard. It's just a black Vs excuse for not taking the guy on a Route 1 tour or something, you know. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)
Route 2: a series of auditing processes which are part of Intensive Procedure as contained in the book The Creation of Human Ability by L. Ron Hubbard. Route 2 processes are used (a) before Route 1 on a preclear who cannot be exteriorized or (b) on a preclear who can be exteriorized, after all the Route 1 processes have been completed. See also Route 1 and Intensive Procedure in this glossary. One of the most damaging experiences to somebody's aplomb about his sadness and sorrow and the grimness of life, is to run one of the Route 2 steps from The Creation of Human Ability, that book which contains all the Route 1, and all the Route 2 steps and all the Axioms. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
ruddy rod: a made-up name for an item or object. And he gets a reasoning machine which adds all the factors into this side and pulls them all out that side and they run down the ruddy rods there, and it sorts them all through and it says, "People have not been interested in this pile, people have been interested in this pile." —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)

309

310

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
Scandinovia: a made-up name for a country. He rushes in and he tells you, "All of Scandinovia has just gone into revolt," and you find out that somebody issued a bulletin that said he didn't like the mustache of the existing king. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec, 54)
Schopenhauer: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), German philosopher of pessimism. He maintained that the desires and drives of men, as well as the forces of nature, are manifestations of a single will, specifically the will to live, which is the essence of the world. Schopenhauer asserted that since operation of the will means constant striving without satisfaction, life consists of suffering and that only by controlling the will through the intellect, by suppressing the desire to reproduce, can suffering be diminished. And we find some philosopher someplace writing plaintively on the subject of the fourth dynamic, and another philosopher writing not quite plaintively, such as Schopenhauer, who said that the best solution of the whole thing is just refuse to have anything to do with life, or to let it go on living, and that solves the whole works .. . —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Science of Survival: a book by L. Ron Hubbard, published in 1951, which covers the different aspects of the Tone Scale and how this technology can be used in processing and in life. The work gives a detailed analysis of each of the columns of the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation. The second book was normally considered to be Science of Survival, but Science of Survival was not a book intimately connected with Dianetics. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
scratch, back to: a variation of up to scratch meaning "up to standard; acceptable; good." This time we've got all the publications back to scratch—this time. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Secretary for Air: reference to the Secretary of the Air Force, the head of the United States Air Force, responsible for air warfare, air defense and the development of military space research. Or like the Secretary for Air, Talbott, not too long ago: "We have such horrible weapons that we can wipe out a whole continent."—History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Selective Service: short for Selective Service System, the federal agency in the United States charged with the administration of compulsory military service according to age, physical fitness, and other qualifications. And then at eighteen somebody said, if they were foolish enough to stay in good physical condition—we've had some preclears, by the way, who didn't get well until after the Selective Service had passed them over—and here we have somebody at eighteen who is suddenly conscripted. —The Aims and Goals of Dianetics and Scientology (30 Dec. 54)
session: an auditing session; a period of time during which an auditor and preclear are in a quiet place where they will not be disturbed, and the auditor processes the preclear. Practically nobody has left these sessions sane. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Sioux Falls: a city in southeastern South Dakota, US. "I was a newspaper reporter on the Clarion Bugle Gazette of Sioux Falls and that's really who I am,"you know. —Games (29 Dec. 54)
six-gun: a revolver from which six shots can be fired without reloading. This type of gun was used frequently during the American Civil War (1861-1865) and in the pioneer days of the American West. I imagine the fellow who walked down

GLOSSARY
the street in London with a six-gun buckled down and in plain sight would not be arrested. —Games (29 Dec. 54)
skylark: a frolic; a carefree or spirited adventure. From the verb definition of the word, which means "to play actively and boisterously." War fought by people who are capable of responsibility is a skylark. War fought with no responsibility for the enemy, no responsibility for any other identity, is simply a slaughterhouse madhouse. —Games (29 Dec. 54)
Smith & Wesson: See .38 Smith & Wesson in this glossary. And you say to this clerk, "Well, you see that .38 Smith & Wesson there? Well, I'd like to buy it. Load it up." —Games (29 Dec. 54)
snap terminals on (or with): collapse into or identify with (something or someone). He snaps terminals on everything that doesn't talk. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
somatic: a physical pain or discomfort of any kind. The word somatic means, actually, "bodily" or "physical." Because the word pain has in the past led to confusion between physical pain and mental pain, somatic is the term used in Scientology to denote physical pain or discomfort. It's painful—gives him somatics. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
somatic strip: a mechanism in the mind which can be sent by the auditor on command to any point of the preclear's life, unless the entheta on the case is so heavy that the somatic strip is frozen in one place. The somatic strip is so called because it seems to be a physical indicator mechanism which has to do with time. The somatic strip can be sent back to the beginning of an engram and will go there. The somatic strip will advance through an engram in terms of minutes counted off by the auditor, so that the auditor can say that the somatic strip will go to the beginning of the engram, then to the point five minutes after the engram began, and so forth. See also engram in this glossary. "When I snap my fingers, a phrase will occur, the somatic strip will go back to birth. End of session."—Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
SOP 5: abbreviation for Standard Operating Procedure, Issue 5, a series of processing steps taken to improve a person's spiritual abilities. Standard Operating Procedure was first released in November 1952, and subsequent refinements came out as numbered issues (Issue 2, Issue 3, etc.). Now, in SOP 5, in Scientology, we had a very interesting system called GITA, Give and Take Processing. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
SOP 8: short for Standard Operating Procedure 8, an auditing procedure which emphasizes positive gain and the present and future rather than negative gain of eradication of the past. The goal of this procedure is not the rehabilitation of the body but of the thetan. Rehabilitation of a body incidentally ensues. For further information see the book, Scientology 8-8008, by L. Ron Hubbard. And that became, by the time we got to SOP 8—Standard Operating Procedure 8 — Step IV, Expanded GITA. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
spin in: (slang) to go into a state of severe mental confusion. You know, I mean, it's good if your preclear doesn't spin in; and Communication Processing which is the hottest news we have had for four and a half years. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)

311

312

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
Spotting Spots in Space: a process with the goal of bringing the preclear to a point where he can spot locations in space which do not have color, mass or shape, but which are simply locations, and spot that same location repeatedly without variation. As a result of doing the process commands, a person becomes cognizant of the fact that what he is spotting is a location, and the more certain he becomes of these locations, the better off he is. The next thing you know, he is able to tolerate space. The processes given in it are the six basic processes which are: Two-way Communication, Elementary Straightwire, Opening Procedure 8-C, Opening Procedure by Duplication, Remedy of Havingness, and Spotting Spots in Space. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
sputification: (colloquial) a coined word meaning "disputation, especially about something petty or merely for the sake of disputing." Now, wherever we have phenomena which is unacceptable, we get into a lot of argument, a lot of sputification and argumentation. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Straightwire: a straight memory auditing technique, called "Straightwire" because one is stringing a line between present time and some incident in the past, and stringing that line directly and without any detours. In other words, the auditor is stringing a straight "wire" of memory between the actual genus (origin) of a condition and present time, thus demonstrating that there is a difference of time and space in the condition then and the condition now. The preclear, conceding this difference, can then rid himself of the condition or at least be able to handle it. And sort of with two-way communication and Straightwire, why, he's just been having a wonderful time. And he didn't know anything else existed until fairly recently and he hastily came out here to Phoenix and he's been confused ever since. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
swamped up: cleaned up; cleared out. So we instituted a daily auditor's conference and so on, and we have been bringing the auditors in and looking the preclears over very carefully, and generally getting people swamped up, so on, that weren't before. —The Aims and Goals of Dianetics and Scientology (30 Dec. 54)
swamproot oil: a variation of snake oil, any of various preparations advertised as medicine supposed to cure certain ailments, such as rheumatism, colds, baldness, etc., formerly sold by peddlers posing as scientists, doctors, or the like. Fellow used to come around with a banjo and a wagon and a big sign on the side of the wagon, and some white man fixed up like an Indian with a headdress and that was Chief Wamgutta, and Chief Wamgutta was the chief of the Swamese and he had a special formula for swamproot oil which he was going to purvey for the small sum of a dollar a bottle, while Mr. Jinks played on the banjo. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
Swan: reference to the Swan Theatre, one of the great theaters of Elizabethan London. It was built about 1596; the last known mention of the Swan was in 1632. The boys who sat around the Swan used to have an interesting contest. .. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
sweetness and light: (British slang) the state, quality or exhibition of unusual tolerance, understanding or sympathy (often used ironically). At one of its last board meetings it said that it decided that it could still be punitive, and that all was not sweetness and light everywhere, that it insisted on communicating, and it said so. —Communication and Problems (30 Dec. 54)

GLOSSARY
synapsizing terminals: a play on the phrase snapping terminals. A synapse is one of the minute spaces between a nerve cell and another nerve cell, a muscle cell, etc., through which nerve impulses are transmitted from one to the other. / didn't buy this story about neurons. Last time I invented one anyhow, it didn't work. It kept synapsizing terminals with me. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
Talbott: Harold E. Talbott, United States Secretary of the Air Force at the time of these lectures. Or like the Secretary for Air, Talbott, not too long ago: "We have such horrible weapons that we can wipe out a whole continent." —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Technique 97, Technique 64: made-up designations for auditing techniques. And when he sits there and you run Technique 97, Technique 64, technique this and technique that and the preclear simply sits there, we might say he was waiting for a change to occur. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
'Tell me not, in mournful numbers": the first line of the poem "A Psalm of Life," written in 1839 by American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882). The first stanzas of this poem read: 'Tell me not, in mournful numbers, / Life is but an empty dream! / For the soul is dead that slumbers, / And things are not what they seem. / Life is real! Life is earnest! / And the grave is not its goal; / Dust thou art, to dust returnest, / Was not spoken of the soul." (The word numbers is an old term meaning "metrical lines; verses.") A person who can't be Smith sometimes isn't really aware of playing a game. It's all for sure, for sincere, see? You know, it's brutal. It's earnest. It's real. "Tell me not, in mournful numbers ..." —Games (29 Dec. 54)
terminal: anything that can receive, relay or send a communication. It is something which originates, receives, relays and changes particles on a flow line; thus, an individual can be a terminal and a post in an organization can also be a terminal. In a communication cycle, both the source-point and the receipt-point of the communication are terminals. And he said this rapidly and he said it hard and he hoped that you would argue back real hard, so as to, by this counter of terminals, give him some more havingness quick! —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
theta: the life force, life energy, elan vital, or by any other name, the energy peculiar to life which acts upon material in the physical universe and animates it, mobilizes it and changes it. The term comes from the Greek letter theta (Θ), which the ancient Greeks used to represent thought or perhaps spirit. Theta is characterized by reason, serenity, stability, happiness, cheerful emotion, persistence and the other factors which man ordinarily considers desirable. [Definition of theta-MEST theory] the theory which states that theta, or life, is impinged upon the physical universe and that these two things together, theta and MEST interacting, give us life forms.
theta-MEST theory: the theory which states that theta, or life, is impinged upon the physical universe and that these two things together, theta and mest interacting, give us life forms. See also theta and mest in this glossary. It starts immediately with the theta-MEST theory and goes branching out into enormous theoretical ramifications about life .. . —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
thetan: the person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. See also theta in this glossary. You know, you're sort of in

313

314

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
communication on an intuitive basis with some thetan and you say something to him. —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
.38 Smith & Wesson: a handgun using a cartridge approximately .38 inches in diameter, manufactured by Smith & Wesson Revolver Company of the United States, one of the world's largest handgun producers. And you say to this clerk, "Well, you see that .38 Smith & Wesson there? Well, I'd like to buy it. Load it up." —Games (29 Dec. 54)
Thompson, Commander: Joseph Thompson (1874-1943), a commander in the US Navy Medical Corps who studied with Sigmund Freud in Vienna and was a friend of L. Ron Hubbard when Ron was a boy. But I decided to investigate human memory. I'd had a touch of the brush from Commander Thompson of the navy who had studied with Sigmund Freud, and who was a very swell guy, and he taught me there was something called Freudian analysis. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Time: a weekly newsmagazine in the United States, co-founded by Henry Luce in 1923. Time has a history of presenting biased articles, tailored to fit the editorial slant of the magazine. Dianetics doesn't work, you know—and according to Life, Time and other organs of the American Medical Association, like Reader's Digest—a doctor no longer reads anything but Reader's Digest, you know. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
time track: the consecutive record of mental image pictures which accumulate through a person's life. The time track is a very accurate record of a person's past. It is the continuous record of time of the individual since the first moment he began to experience, straight on through till now. / have a little volume of his work, and somebody somewhere back on the time track (it's a very old volume) has written, "apathy, apathy, apathy," which I occasionally quote. —Dianetics 1955! (28 Dec. 54)
Tone Scale: a scale, in Scientology, which shows the emotional tones of a person. These, ranged from the highest to the lowest, are, in part, serenity of beingness, enthusiasm (as we proceed downward), conservatism, boredom, antagonism, anger, no sympathy, fear, grief, apathy. An arbitrary numerical value is given to each level on the scale. There are many aspects of the Tone Scale and using it makes possible the prediction of human behavior. For more information on the Tone Scale, read the book Science of Survival by L. Ron Hubbard. When we bring preclears up Tone Scale, we very often find them fighting. —Pan-determinism (31 Dec. 54)
track: short for time track. See time track in this glossary. So / may be talking back further on the track, but the point is that when you go into a head nurse, they pay attention to ministers. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
two-way communication: the precise technology of a process used to clarify data with another for the other. It is not chatter. Two-way communication is an inquiry of the preclear as to what is going on and an invitation to him to look at it. It is governed by the communication cycle as discovered in Scientology. And sort of with two-way communication and Straightwire, why, he's just been having a wonderful time. And he didn't know anything else existed until fairly recently and he hastily came out here to Phoenix and he's been confused ever since. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)

GLOSSARY
via: a relay point in a communication line. And the unfortunately necessary via on the line is an organization. You understand that? I mean that's an unfortunate via. —Introduction (28 Dec. 54)
Voltaire: pen name of Francois Marie Arouet (1694-1778), French author and philosopher who believed in freedom of thought and respect for all men, and who spoke out against intolerance, tyranny and superstition. In 1717, he was imprisoned in the Bastille (a prison in Paris, France where many political and other offenders were held and tortured) for his satirical verses against the government. During his eleven months in prison, he finished his tragedy Oedipe. The success of this play in 1718 made Voltaire the greatest playwright of his time. History is called the "Mississippi of lies" by Voltaire. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
Waco 10: a biplane manufactured in the United States starting in 1927. The Waco 10 was very popular with private owners, and was used for recreation, charter trips, instruction, etc. Waco comes from the original name of the company that made these planes: Weaver Aircraft Company, started in 1919 by George "Buck" Weaver. I was, by the way, at the time barnstorming out through the Middle West with a Waco 10, having a lot of fun. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
wagon, the: (slang) any vehicle used to remove a person to a place of restriction, as to an insane asylum. At which moment you felt more like sending for the wagon for yourself and a .45 for the auditor. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
Westinghouse: short for Westinghouse Electric, a diversified company dealing mainly in electrical and electronic equipment. One of these days, if we keep up this sort of thing, why, Westinghouse will probably eventually require the morning ritual of the prayer to the god Ohm—if we keep this up—the patron saint of electric terminals. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
Whampfguttle, Professor: a made-up name for a person considered to be an authority. Therefore, when you have Professor Whoomfguttle writing and saying, "Well, I don't know, but according to Professor Whampfguttle writing in the Whampf Journal some years ago, he said .. ." —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
Whampf Journal: a made-up name for a publication. Therefore, when you have Professor Whoomfguttle writing and saying, "Well, I don't know, but according to Professor Whampfguttle writing in the Whampf Journal some years ago, he said ..." —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
"what wall": reference to a condition of such low reality or confront as to leave an individual unable to find even the wall. A person in such a condition, when asked to look at a wall, would say, "What wall?" Any case that we used to call a "what wall," actually is a "what game" case—they're busy playing kindergarten games maybe. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
white chip: a white disk used in the game of poker as a betting token having the lowest value. And if man at large had an idea that some of these big secrets and incomprehensibilities were no longer secret, or if he just had the idea that somehow, some way, there was some slight possibility that if all the cards were stacked in his favor, that if the dice were loaded in his favor, that at the end of the game somebody might have dropped a white chip under the edge of the rug, that he could then have. —Pan-determinism (31 Dec. 54)

315

316

COMMUNICATION! FREEDOM & ABILITY TRANSCRIPTS
whole cloth, out of: (figurative) completely out of one's imagination. Whole cloth is a piece of cloth of the full size as manufactured, as distinguished from a piece that may be cut off or out of it for a garment, etc. He just invented the reason out of whole cloth. —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
Whoomfguttle, Professor: a made-up name for a person considered to be an authority. Therefore, when you have Professor Whoomfguttle writing and saying, 'Well, I don't know, but according to Professor Whampfguttle writing in the Whampf Journal some years ago, he said . .." —Communication and ARC (29 Dec. 54)
Wichelow, George: a Scientologist in England in the mid- 1950s. George Wichelow over in London is—he's quite a showman. —Group Processing (28 Dec. 54)
Wiener, Norbert: (1894-1964) American mathematician and pioneer in cybernetics, a science dealing with the comparative study of human control systems, as the brain and nervous system, and complex electronic systems. And once in a while one of them will speculate—I promised Norbert Wiener I'd never mention his name in connection with Dianetics so I won't mention his name but this fellow .. . —Terminals and Communication (30 Dec. 54)
Will and the Idea, The: reference to The World as Will and Idea (1819), the principal work of Arthur Schopenhauer. The first and third books are concerned with the world as idea, while the second and fourth are concerned with the world as will. See also Schopenhauer in this glossary. . . . the creed of Schopenhauer in The Will and the Idea. —History of Dianetics (28 Dec. 54)
woof and warp: (figurative) the underlying structure upon which something is built; a foundation; base. Literally, the woof is the horizontal thread in a woven fabric, and the warp is the vertical thread. Together they make up the whole of a woven article. That is the woof and warp of existence. —Problems and Games (31 Dec. 54)
Wundt, Professor: Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920), German psychologist and physiologist (specialist in the study of the functions of living things and the ways in which their parts and organs work). In 1879 he established the first formal psychological laboratory at the University of Leipzig in Germany. Now, one Professor Wundt back in someplace in Europe, a little less than a hundred years ago, dreamed up the idea that the problems of man should have applied to them scientific methodology. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)
York, Sergeant: Alvin C. York (1887-1964), celebrated American hero of World War I. Behind enemy lines in a patrol which was pinned down under heavy German fire, York assumed command and single-handedly attacked a machine-gun nest. He rapidly killed 25 enemy gunners, prompting those remaining to surrender. En route back to the American lines, York captured still more Germans, to a total of 132. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor and similar honors from France and other countries, and a movie of his life, entitled Sergeant York, was made in 1941. . . . they sneak around the hill and capture the division or something—like Sergeant York. —Games (29 Dec. 54)
Zeno: (3347-261? B.C.) Greek philosopher; founder of Stoicism, a school of philosophy holding that human beings should be free from passion and calmly accept all occurrences as the unavoidable result of divine will or the natural order. We get a slight difference between this work and the work of a fellow by the name of Zeno, who was one of the popular writers of the later Roman Empire. —Dianetics 1955! (29 Dec. 54)