Second American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures Camden. New Jersey • November - December 1953
Volume 1

Golden Era Productions®
A HUBBARD® PUBLICATION

Golden Era Productions
6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 1305 Los Angeles, California 90028-6313
© 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,
Standard Tech, 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 Golden Era Productions Symbol and the Freewinds Logo 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.
Bridge Publications, Inc. is a registered trademark and service mark owned
by Bridge Publications, Inc.
NEW ERA is a trademark and service mark owned by NEW ERA Publications International, ApS.
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

Important Note
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 as a substitute for a dictionary.
The Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary and Modern Management Technology Defined are both invaluable tools for the student. They are available from your nearest Scientology church or mission, or direct from the publisher.

Introduction
"Be surprised at nothing!"
And with this advice, Ron began the Second American Advanced Clinical Course in Camden, New Jersey.
It was the end of 1953 and Ron's research and investigation into exteriorization and freeing beings was in full swing. The First American Advanced Clinical Indoctrination Course* had just completed, and within days the Second American Advanced Clinical Course began.
Twenty top-notch auditors attended the Second ACC and received the fruits of Ron's research firsthand. They audited each other using processes he had newly developed, and experienced the return of abilities and perceptions no man had known prior to this.
It was during this time Ron discovered how a thetan reacted when exteriorized, and developed exact procedures to make it easier for a thetan to operate outside the body.
The sixty-seven lectures of this series ended a year of great forward strides in the technology of Scientology. Building on the OT data from the Philadelphia Doctorate Course and the First ACC, Ron's research into the spiritual nature of man had advanced to all-new levels, and was more direct and more applicable to individuals.
During the five weeks of the Second ACC, Ron revealed extensive information about the abilities of a thetan that was previously unknown. He explained how a thetan got himself into the situation he's in today, how he sets something up as an automaticity in order to create randomity, how the decisions of the thetan put that automaticity out of his conscious control and what he needs to do to take back control.
In this series, Ron detailed the results of the exteriorization processes being run at the time and brought to light the importance of electronic structure and anchor points in exteriorizing a thetan, how one rehabilitates the ability to cause the future, and vital data on havingness and beingness that has everything to do with the rehabilitation of a spiritual being.
Presented in this series is the game of life itself—how it was mocked up, how it went out of control and the exact mechanics of what has kept man at the low level of Homo sapiens. But most importantly, it presents the precise knowledge and technology to bring one out of these mest universe traps, exterior
*The "Exteriorization and the Phenomena of Space" lecture series.

to laws of the physical universe and with restored abilities as an Operating Thetan.
Originally recorded on long-since obsolete equipment, these lectures were restored with advanced audio technology and meticulous care at each stage of production. The highest possible sound quality was achieved using Clearsound state-of-the-art sound-recording technology, which was developed under the personal supervision of LRH.
We are proud to present to you "The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit"— the lectures of the Second American Advanced Clinical Course.
—The Editors

Contents
17	November 1953
1.	Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale	1
2.	SOP 8-C: First Lecture	17
3.	Getting Up Speed, Part I	31
4.	Getting Up Speed, Part II	47
18	November 1953
5.	Step I of 8-C: Orientation	63
6.	Black Mock-ups, Persistence, MEST	81
7.	Step II: Automaticities	93
8.	Waste a Machine	109
19	November 1953
9.	Effects, Reaching End of Cycle	123
9a. Footnote to Effects, Reaching End of Cycle	137
10.	More on Machines	141
20	November 1953
11.	Resistance to Effect	157
12.	Plan of Auditing	171
Appendix:
SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit	187
This Is Scientology, The Science of Certainty	201
Standard Operating Procedure 8	223
Tone Scale [1953]	233
About the Author	235
Glossary	239
Books and Tapes by L. Ron Hubbard	279
Address List of Scientology Churches and Organizations	297

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

Opening Lecture Emotional Tone Scale
A lecture given on 17 November 1953

And this is November the 17th, first morning lecture, Second Unit.
We have this morning several things to do. One of them is to divide the black sheep from the white sheep. And another one is to get some sort of an idea on how we start co-auditing and so on; but, if anything, more important than this: what we are going to use for a technique. That has some bearing on the situation. So I want to see this Second Unit get into good shape in a hurry and dispense with the testing.
Now, with—the first group was processed and trained on the basis of "We're going to get into the experimental-technique line"—the first. And "I'm going to give you subjective reality on the techniques," I said to the First Unit going through, and carried forward that program. I overestimated, I overestimated. One, underestimated the techniques and overestimated—if any First Unit people here, please plug your ears—the auditing skill of those present. Because cases in the first couple of weeks just didn't move. Didn't move at all.
So we're going to start right off—right off here with this Second Unit, and we're going to put the throttle into the instrument panel, and going to hand out the (quote) "hot dope" right away quick, and expect you to apply what I give you to apply, specifically, and nothing else, and get these cases, zing!—good shape, and get that out of the road very early in the Second Unit's history. And that will leave us some time, which we didn't have with the First Unit, to process some outside preclears who react remarkably like human beings and not like Scientologists.
Now, just following that up, I'm going to give you right now a summary of what is important in technique, and the "last resort" sort of a technique, Step IV: waste, save, accept under duress—that's enforce, of course—desire, and curious about, in brackets. One takes each one of those things in brackets.
And now let me just make one little side remark on that step about brackets, is for God's sakes don't run half a bracket, because you hang cases up. You run part of a bracket and go to the next item on the list; and you run part of a bracket, the next item on the list; part of a bracket, and the next thing you know your preclear is—he's seven light-years out in the stratosphere and you don't quite know what happened to him. Well, what happened to him was, is you didn't run a full bracket.
Editor's note: The procedures LRH covers in these lectures were published in Journal of Scientology Issue 16-G, 'This is Scientology, The Science of Certainty" and Journal of Scientology Issue 24-G, "SOP 8-C, The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit." Both of these articles have been reproduced for your reference in the appendix of this transcript booklet.

1

2

17 NOVEMBER 1953
A bracket takes care of another factor: it takes care of the factor of agreement. And that is one of the most important factors in auditing. You run out the agreement on a case. If you could just run the agreement out of a case, the guy'd blow Clear. And that's a theoretical technique. I was doing that on the Second Unit yesterday. All right.
The other thing is, is you run—that's a basic technique; that isn't the best technique that we have, but that is a basic technique. And it is worked in this fashion: You just simply start—you got preclear, all right. You start at the top of the list, if you're just going to work SOP 8 without assessment and so forth (which can be, by the way, almost fatal on a very bad-off preclear), but if you're just going to dispense with assessment and E-Meters and everything, all you're going to have to do is just start at the beginning: Step I, doesn't react—couple of minutes on it, a minute on it; Step II, no reaction; Step III, can't; and here we go.
Now, the test on Step III is not given in that text. The test on it is: can he hold a ball motionless before him in mock-up form that neither walks in nor walks out—if he can do that.
And the test on Step IV, oddly enough, is the same old test there was, which is: does he get easily a mock-up of the childhood home? They'll— normally do. There are many other ways to handle a childhood home, but you just see if he ... Then you don't do anything else about it. You go ahead and run the rest of it. You figure out this guy is all fouled up on the track anyway.
And you do Step V just as it's given, VI, VII—in that order.
Now, let's say, that at Step I or Step IV or Step VI or something of the sort, you popped the guy out of his head. See? Let's just say you did that. What would you do now? Well, please, please don't ever come up with the wrong answer on this. Because what you do now is a very simple thing: You start at Step I on the exteriorized thetan.
Now, there are trickier ways to go about this, but this is the safest way. You just start with Step I on the person exteriorized. And you go Step I, and then you do Step II and then you do Step III and then you do IV and V and VI and VII.
Well, what do you know? Why do you do these things reverse on the thetan? Oddly enough, the easiest thing to do for an individual in a body is the hardest thing for a thetan to do. Why? The body is in complete agreement with these barriers called the mest universe. The body's in complete agreement with it, and so it very easily finds "What room?" The guy pats around for a while—"Yeah. Hey!"
Well, you got a thetan exteriorized—boy, he's got to be in remarkable condition, just remarkable condition, to be able to feel around and say, "What do you know—mest. Tff!" No, he doesn't. He says, "Nyaah. Oh, no, no. Huh, not today; tomorrow, when we're a little stronger." That's the fact of the case.
Now, there's many people who have been exteriorized, and who consider themselves in good condition, and who are in remarkably good condition—they know it. This is—be no shock to them. They know that they're looking—they're taking a facsimile, ping! and then looking at the facsimile. And that is the favorite way of a thetan to avoid contact with a barrier.
First place, he isn't sure the barrier is there. In the second place, you shouldn't even try to convince him it's there, for—because in the third place it's not there.
You see, what the thetan feels is the body feeling the wall. See? He—this is a different thing, rather than there being a "feel" to the wall. See, this is different. There is no "feel" to this wall. If the wall were there, without any second wall, and no other contact point, there'd be no wall. See, it takes a

OPENING LECTURE: EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE
dichotomy. In order to be convinced of a barrier, you have to have something that will be convinced that it will stop when it runs into the barrier. That's the essence of all of this limitation, barrier stuff. So there is SOP 8.
Now, SOP 8-C is tremendously refined over this. But, believe me, SOP 8 works. It has limitations—it very definitely does. It is defined as the safest technique, broadly, in people's hands who are not specifically trained, that has been devised out of the material which we now have. It's the safest technique. That is to say, it won't get people in trouble—too much. It'll still get them in trouble once in a while, if an auditor really puts his mind to it.
But now, SOP 8-C is a more delicate sort of a tool. By misusing one step on SOP 8-C, which I did on purpose one day—I just did it on purpose. I had a case in a remarkably good condition, you see, and I practically spun him, see, and then unspun him. It's awful easy.
You start dealing with the dynamite which we can deal with now, and you can blow preclears up pretty easy. For instance, if you—all you've got to do is to start to handle the Assumption on somebody who has it somewhat in restimulation (and you handle it on some of these techniques, some of the expansions of SOP 8)—you just handle the Assumption and then forget about it. Oh, no, no. He'll be hot and cold, and have fever and chills, and think he's in the middle of Fac One and Easter and Christmas. And yet what did you do with the technique? It is very, very remarkable. You just—a process which is (well, we might as well give it a name and designate it, but that is—it doesn't need a name), it's "Being Space Processing." You just have him be the space in front of his face and be the space of his body, and the space back of his body, and the space in front of his face, and the space of his body; and now be the space in front of his face from the right side, be in the space in front of his face from the left side—uhhhhhhhhh, this gets real wicked.
See, if he's got an old Fac One body, you might say, he's—if he has—what they very often run into: I've had a person get out of five bodies. See, they get out of their head, and then they get out of the body they got out of their head with, and then they get out of this body, and they get out of that body and so on. I had a fellow do this three times one day in an Exteriorization by Scenery. He got out of his mest body, and then he got out of the body he got out of the mest body in, and then he got out of that body.
What was he doing? Well, he was just so sold on bodies, that he had three of them. Well, I've had them with as many as five of them. You see, you've got these layers and layers and layers. And this accounts ... A fellow can actually step out of his body, and very often does, in a complete rig-up. I mean, boy, you'd think Buck Rogers or something. A fellow will look around and say, "I'd better not be out."
"Why not?"
"Oh, I'm just an invader from space; I'm no good!" Bang! In he goes. I mean, he's really convinced, see. He's convinced on a negative line.
Well, you'll run into all kinds of phenomena like this. You don't have to worry about that phenomena. That isn't worrisome, it's just stuff you run into. There's a motto which you could have as an auditor which is: Be surprised at nothing.
That's an old family coat of arms that I saw down in Charleston, South Carolina. And this enormous rook, who is about eight times as big as the castle, is sitting on this little tiny turret, which is the castle, and the scroll on it says, "Be surprised at nothing." That's very good for an auditor.
And as far as discovering new phenomena is concerned, I'm afraid it's getting dull for me. For about two years now, we've been over this ground

3

4

17 NOVEMBER 1953
pretty thoroughly. When we got through with What to Audit phenomena— overt act-motivator sequence, all of this—once that ground was gone over, why, the stuff that shows up after that is just fabulous. But the second you evaluate it against whole track Theta Clearing, it becomes quite natural.
And these are the principles against which you evaluate phenomena. One: Knowingness exists above space. There is a condition of knowingness where a person really knows. He actually knows without looking, and so on. This is very easily mistaken by people who have been in mysticism, in terms of telepathy and other things. It is not like telepathy, it is just a high, crystal-clear certainty. That's all. He knows it without looking.
And then we get into the first echelons of perception. Now, the second we get into perception, we get into space. The definition of space is viewpoint of dimension. And that is easily our most important definition. What is space? Viewpoint of dimension. Dimension is made by anchor points. You have four anchor points and you have a piece of space. You arrange them as a tetrahedron, and you have a piece of space. Now, that—easily the most important viewpoint there is, as far as we're concerned, in terms of definition. The most important viewpoint definition: space.
And here knowingness, knowingness, comes into the first of the phenomena which (I almost said degenerated)—which regenerates or something, into the mest universe. That's the first phenomenon. Out of this, and the fact that there are three universes, we get the entirety of everything we're doing.
Viewpoint of dimension: In order to have a viewpoint of dimension, you have to have the location of the viewpoint with regard to the anchor points. And this is a mechanical definition of location.
Now, just pure knowingness has no definition. It is a feeling of certainty. You can best define this by knowing that one knows. And when we say Scientology, that's a science of knowing how to know; that means the science of knowing how to be certain, which actually is a track-back of the agreements which have culminated in the state of the individual at this level. Certainty is what marks this level of knowingness. It is unmistakable. You needn't ask me any more about it, because that's actually all there is to know about it, is it's unmistakable.
Now, we have prospectors and they go out, and they're always willing to laugh at the tenderfoot, because the tenderfoot goes and he pans gold, and he turns up some iron pyrites and looks at it fixedly and knows that he has gold. And he does this, and he pans fool's gold and saves it in a poke, fondly believing that he has gold, until one day he strikes—no matter how microscopic—a real "color" (what they call a fleck of gold picked up out of a gravel bed). He just is panning, and all of a sudden he sees a real color—he sees a real piece of gold, a real flake. He never makes a mistake afterwards.
How do you teach somebody to distinguish gold from iron pyrites? Well, you certainly could probably put several university courses together, and you could probably do an awful lot of analysis of iron pyrites, and you could say gold dissolves in aqua regia, and iron pyrites dissolves in both the aqua and the regia, and you could go through all sorts of chemical definitions and oh, back flips and high dives and deep textbooks and formulas and everything else, and you still wouldn't have taught the guy the difference. See? It'd be a big long communication system which you'd invented, so that now he was really confused. So just get this similarity between that real fleck of gold and certainty.
You'll be processing a preclear, and all of a sudden it's like something goes kind of click or flip or something there. All of a sudden, he knows something.

OPENING LECTURE: EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE
How does he know it? Does he know it because it's been defined? No. Does he know it because you told him? Well, that's the time he won't know it. And you go right straight on through, and you'll find out that there—this thing is defying reason. And so it does. If you're going to define it any further at all, you would say: Certainty is something that requires no further reason.
When you've gotten into reasons, when you've gotten into reasons why, and when you've gotten into "who"—that's the end-all of—that's really in the slums, that's really back in the slums of knowledge: "who." And yet, we find all of our entire history and everything else is made up of "who." And it's "who, who, who" until they get everybody playing the "only one" and so forth.
A thetan can only have a good time when nobody knows who the hell he is. And when he's certain enough about existence and about himself, he doesn't have to have a name to be certain of it. He goes flying around . .. You can't get around this universe with an identity. The state police and the cops in general, and the FBI and the IBF and—oh boy, it's real, real cruel. They've got photographs and they've got fingerprints and they've got the wavelength of your breath, and they've got all sorts of fabulous ways and means, and one of these days they will probably have a "lie detector characteristic beat" or something. Be real good, see.
Well, way back on the track you'll find people being registered by their wavelengths—thetans were. That was a last-ditch attempt on the part of a society to get some law and order and some police action, regardless of what.
All right. An identity is going to crop up in the preclear continually, continually, continually. He keeps asking, "All right, but who did it to me? Who is God? Who? Who? Who? Who?" To hell with it. For every "who," listen— substitute "where." Not who are you afraid of, but where are you afraid of. Because you've gotten, then, workable—you've gotten it workable; and we get into the first Prelogic.
Now, you see there's no substitute for this thing called certainty. A person knows he has it. All of a sudden he becomes certain one day of something or other.
Well, one of the basic, base ways to make him certain is to hit him. And then he knows he's not there. And this is a certainty. You see how just insipidly silly this is—how an impact works, you see? Here the fellow is, and all of a sudden—he's got a face, see, and let's say this is his face, and a baseball hits him in the face—bam! it goes, you see? And makes a terrific impact, and just before the impact, he says, with all the force at his control, he said, "I'm not there!" See? That's supposed to stop the baseball and he's supposed to be out of there. First it's, of course, "It's not there. It must stop." And then, "I'm not there." And that's the sequence of a certainty by impact. It's—the certainty which is derived by impact is, in a final analysis, the certainty that one is not there.
And so we have—practically anybody in this room right here at the present moment, the first thing he would tell you as a thetan, is "I'm not there. My name is so and so, and I was born such and such a place, and . .." The devil he was. See? But he's playing straight through to the bitter end, "I'm not there; I'm not there; I'm not there. Here I am, see?" and he puts forward this body. See how cute this is?
Now, a body is composed 100 percent of other-determinism. A body has no self-determinism. It is shaped and molded: one, the criteria of aesthetic of the being who made it originally or designed it, as modified by the consideration or aesthetic of the thetan. But it is actually shaped and molded, even into its

5

6

17 NOVEMBER 1953
primary form, by impacts. And the body is other-determinism, but royally. It is being hit twenty-four hours a day by mest waves. It never turns back any of these waves. Real interesting, isn't it? And so it can only deteriorate, and you have the one-way cycle of the universe.
You just get a pinpoint being hit from 360-degree sphere—all angles, twenty-four hours a day—by photons, cosmic rays, light waves, heat rays; here we go. Now, the body does radiate, to some slight degree, heat. But it's radiating something else. Heat is radiated at it far faster than it radiates at heat.
Now, we have no real problem because of this—I don't want to give you the idea that a body is essentially a—very, very upsetting and very dangerous and something you mustn't have around. They're cute, and they do odd tricks and so forth, and they're interesting to keep along and make survive, and it makes a game.
But when it gets down to a point of "I am a body. That's who I am. And I can't be anything else. And when I'm dead, I'm dead, and that is the end of me and it," you have the end result phenomena—phenomenon of a thing which cannot be effect.. . This is real interesting, but a thetan, in the final analysis, has to have something before he can receive an effect to it. He has to have something.
He's got to put something there before he can get an effect. And a thetan is primarily cause. Oh, he can feel the effect and all that sort of thing—he can do all sorts of things. But he's primarily cause. And of course he joins something which is primarily effect, and so we have a communication terminal collapse which goes from cause to effect. A communication is essentially something that starts at cause and goes to effect. And so we've got the thetan as cause, going to a body which is effect. And somebody who is in his head too solidly, of course, has gotten the idea that he is the body, and he can only be an effect now. You see? It's very simple.
And it's very simple to unravel, in the final analysis of the thing. Well, how did he get this way? Well, he must have made himself this way. We all suspected that about ourselves, except we always are saying it was somebody else that did it. Well, it was somebody else helped it along. We did it—no question about that.
For instance, we ever slammed anything into a stone wall, we had to elect to be on the seat of it first. So cause precedes effect. And man goes along saying less and less "I'm cause" and more and more "I'm an effect" until he finally practically disappears.
Now, in order to have a game—and the highest echelon is a game—we have to have a balanced condition of 50 percent and 50 percent. An infantry force in a war is composed of 50 percent attack factors, and 50 percent defense factors. When it is not so balanced, roughly, it will be unable to hold those gains which it achieves, and if it's too defensive, will not be able to achieve gains to hold. And so the army will lose.
You can see that this imbalance of 50 percent is responsible, by the way, for many "who were they's?" to become past tense. The Greek finally got down to a point where he was about 85 percent holding force, you see, and about 15 percent attacking force. His phalanxes were very difficult to maneuver at last, because his people were getting weaker, and they were being more and more an effect.
The Maginot line was the death throe of France in 1940—'39 and '40— 100 percent defense. And they were surrendering... There we had a war which was an interesting, fast war in its early inception, because the Maginot lines—

OPENING LECTURE: EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE
large sections of it and huge cities which it protected—were surrendering to a couple of Germans on a motorcycle. Just pang! The Germans come along, they had a motorcycle and a machine gun mounted on the sidecar and so forth, and they'd say, "Well, here we are. Surrender." And everybody would lay down their arms and run like hell.
That was that blitzkrieg. It was fabulous. Fantastic. Nobody could possibly believe a blitzkrieg. But they were up against people who had been indoctrinated, first in World War I, that all they could do was hold a ditch. And they had then developed holding a ditch into the finest piece of nonsense anybody ever had, and after that they had no mobility. So having no mobility, of course, they were imbalanced.
I want you to draw that parallel between the body and the person. The thetan has 100 percent attacking force. See, he's 100 percent attacking; he has nothing to defend whatsoever. And he goes from that down to 100 percent holding; no attack potential at all—just defend, defend, defend, defend, defend. Having a lot of vested interests for instance, may wind up—does not necessarily—but may wind up in merely defending and no longer attacking.
There are the two extremes. And there you have an example of plus and minus randomity. It's too much—too much entirely self-randomity—that is, one can engage in too much random motion, when he has nothing to defend, and one can engage in too little for himself when he has everything to defend. And neither state is desirable.
And we get, then, a condition where the environment—other-determinism— for the person who can attack anything, is insufficiently random. He can attack anything with impunity. He can't be hurt, he can't do anything else but survive, and so he attacks the entire environment—he can if he wants—but it's no fight. How is it any fight? And so you have a condition where you have minus randomity on the part of the environment. And that goes down to, when a person is only defending, it gets plus randomity to the point where people start blowing their brains out merely because somebody misplaced a period on the ration card. See, super-super plus randomity—it gets down to that.
Now, your individual who is getting defensive, who is very static, who isn't moving very much and so on, has merely come down to the point where he's too much effect and there's too much motion going on around in his vicinity. And he has to be on a cause line—more cause, you see?
All you have to do is build up his cause. And when you've built up his cause, why, he gets into better shape. So your techniques, actually, leveled on the lower echelons, are simply toward and directed toward building up causation on the part of the individual. You see that? All right.
We have, then—for the first three steps, we have somebody who is still capable of causation. In other words, he can put some distance between himself and a body and still control it, because he has sufficient causation . . . He has sufficient—he's sufficiently causative (let me use a word very properly); he's sufficiently causative to be able to control things at a slight distance— short distance. And then we get—in those three steps, we have people who can do this. And in the remaining steps, we have people who have—who are insufficiently causative. But remember this: it's a ratio again—it's how much randomity surrounds these people.
See, they probably started out being terrifically causative, and they built themselves up enough randomity to have whipped a small army, and they finally wind up defending everything bitterly on every front. And they've still got lots of horsepower left, but they're in the bad situation of having all their

7

8

17 NOVEMBER 1953
randomity, other-randomity—they're under attack from everywhere. So they've lost their causativeness and they can no longer attack, handle, control a body at a distance. They've got to be right inside, holding on tight, and guiding it very, very carefully. Because they've really got to defend this body, you see? Because if they didn't defend this body, all these random motions in their vicinity would put them in bad shape.
Actually, anyplace that you're processing anybody, your individual is too little causative. His amount of causativeness involved is too small. What's optimum? Well, optimum is somewhere around 20.0 on the Tone Scale. That's almost on a basis of 50 percent holding, 50 percent attacking. Here's where you have an individual who can spend half of his time in causative action and half of his time in defensive action. He has to have something before he is interested.
Now, how does a person get into this sort of thing in the first place? How does he ever start drifting down below 40.0, below 20.0 and so forth? Well, he starts drifting down below 40.0 merely because 40.0 is a condition where he is enormously random and there is no randomity, as far as he's concerned, exterior to him. He can do anything.
And you finally get a condition where—a wrestler who could whip every wrestler in the world, recklessly tying one hand behind his back and whipping people with one hand; and if he still whips them with one hand, he ties two hands behind his back and fights them with his teeth. He's got to have action, he's got to have motion. It isn't necessarily true that a thetan has to have action or motion as represented in this universe. Nor does he have to have an identity. But it is motion and it is fun.
You'll find out that when a thetan peels down to a point where he knows he is just a concept, he is—and he has not yet attained any huge certainty for himself, but he knows this now—that certainty he has attained in that he isn't a piece of energy, he isn't a thing, he has an identity.
And if he encounters this fairly low on the Tone Scale, there's only one thing really to do for him, and that's have him start mocking up ridges, and have him start mocking up anchor points, and pulling things in on himself, and building up piles of energy and masses of ridges and so forth. All of a sudden he's happy and cheerful; yeah, he's got something to do now. Boy, is he bogged down, see—relatively speaking, compared to what he is. Now, any being that can simply be where he wants to be, anyplace in the universe, it's just— phooey! See? I mean he—it's just nothing to do.
And probably the first concept he gets that makes him go a little bit off, is not the concept of "interested in something." The first concept he gets is undoubtedly—has to do with aesthetics. First, there is an aesthetic thought— just the thought is sufficiently aesthetic. And that degenerates down to an aesthetic object. And then that generates down to a contest amongst objects and individuals as to what is and what is not aesthetic, and this consideration carries solidly through to the end of track. But after a while, they don't even think they're thinking about aesthetics—they have to have reason. They've gone into effort and so on. Now, that's the highest thoughts on this.
Well, boredom was the traitorous emotion. Somewhere up along the line there, he hit the emotion of boredom, and he became deathly afraid of boredom. And he thought that if he were to be completely certain and to know everything, he would be tremendously bored. And he's got these two things confused. He thinks that knowing everything and being able to do anything would, of

OPENING LECTURE: EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE
necessity, bring about an emotional condition we know as boredom, and he's terrified of it. And there's the first fear.
And below that, he is afraid of being afraid. That's all he can be afraid of. But above that he is afraid of being bored. He's desperate. You start to take away from a thetan—even when the thetan is pretty badly bogged down and the body has psychosomatics and he can't generate any interest in anything else, and you start to take something away from him, he'll say—oh, the thought will suddenly strike him, "Oooh, if I—if I—if I lost that, I might not have enough random action." He'll say, "I'd be bored." And he gets a terror; he gets sick.
Now, a little test of this is to put a couple of people—mock—you have him mock up a couple of people, both of them being bored, in front of him. Don't do it just because I told you to, because people sometimes become deathly ill on this. Another thing is, is he got into contest with mest space—space. He got into contest with space, and space won. Because space was something, and he was nothing. And so the space told him he had to be something, and he has locked horns, you might say, with space and space has won. So he—the thetan believes completely that he is nothing.
But the trick that has been pulled on him—that he's pulled on himself— is: he doesn't have the right to be nothing. So, another thing that'll unlock a case every once in a while . . . Did you ever run across some girl that says, "My parents trained me and I went to school and I did this, and they had so many hopes for me; and everybody was so nice to me and they expected me to be a great pianist, and (sighing) I can't." And you search in vain for the Freudian symbols and so forth—just some clue to this person's character, some hidden significance, something of the sort—to account for this feeling of ennui and inertia and horror about life.
Well, she's already stated it. I mean, there isn't any hidden significance to it, beyond the fact that they expected her to be something—to be a thing, you see. And she tried and tried and tried, and she couldn't be a thing.
There isn't any thetan—this is the one impossibility, evidently, is there isn't a thetan that's ever been created or has ever created himself or just with a small puff, came into being—there isn't one of them who can be anything. You see, he really can't be a piece of energy. Why? Because he's causative—he generates energy. And every time he tries to be a piece of energy, he then has to be awfully quiet; because if he suddenly—suddenly huffs and puffs, he'll blow his house in—right away.
You get the worst V (resistive V level case, occluded and so forth) that you ever ran into, you get the very worst one and you start breathing a little bit— have him generate some energy—and he will find all kinds of emotions and reasons and everything why he mustn't generate any energy. Because he, you see, is being a thing, and that thing will be destroyed if he actually generates any causation. And there's his anatomy, you might say, right there. But he, being an effect, is convinced that he is the thing which has had the effect upon it. In other words, he is a thing which can be an effect.
He isn't any such thing. That happens to be impossible.
You get somebody who is getting electronics—electronics is keying in, keying in, keying in and he's got facsimiles flying all over the place. In other words, these energy pictures are slapping him all over—it's energy starvation. The energy starvation, however, on the part of a thetan is—he must be something. See, that's the—that's what makes energy starvation. He has to be something—he can't relax. He has no right to be nothing. And that sounds backwards, but that's

9

10

17 NOVEMBER 1953
what's—what's wrong with an energy starvation case. Anybody that's having trouble with energy starvation, you can even use as crude a technique as match-terminaling in brackets "the right to be nothing." And all of a sudden, "Gee, you know, I don't—I don't have to be anything. Gosh! I—I could be a— I could be a bum. I could be—I could walk down the street, I got a perfect right to lie down in the gutter and starve to death. I—I can go around the back doors and beg. I can wear rags. I can be impolite to people. It doesn't matter what I do, because I have a perfect right to be nothing."
Very often a case relaxes, just on that. Because that is an essential truth. And when he realizes it, of course, it is a piece of the greatest certainty there is.
And it—far from being terribly upset and discouraged and immediately afterwards becoming a bum, why, he immediately brightens up, and starts to comb his hair and clean his fingernails. Takes a little pride in things and so forth. But he's operating on a latitude.
I one time talked a fellow out of suicide when I was a kid, very interestingly. Talked him out of suicide simply by explaining to him that "Look, the death penalty—the death penalty is meted out to people who have done the extreme crime in the society. And it is the extreme penalty—they no longer torture people. And so that if you did the worst thing that you could do against law or society—you did the worst thing you could do—why, the worst they could do to you was give you the death penalty. Isn't that so?"
And the fellow says, "Yep."
So I said, "Well, what do you want to give yourself the death penalty for, without having earned it?"
And he thought that over. So he parked it on the time track. He had "committed suicide" in reserve. At any time now in the future he could, of course, complete the act; it didn't matter, you see? But he had self-determinism and a width of action for the future. He became very law-abiding. You see, it didn't matter anymore; whereas he'd had slight criminal tendencies before that time. He's been perfectly relaxed about the thing. He went on for years, and became quite successful as a radio entertainer. You might know his name.
Anyway, this man, you see, had achieved a higher margin of causation. You see, he was more causative. And these are just tricks, just tricks by which you all of a sudden make a thetan realize, one way or the other, that he is cause.
And a process falls short when it produces the thought and the conviction that the individual is an effect. And it wins when it raises his conviction about his being cause. What's a good process? What's a bad process? Well, there you are.
You could be very obtuse about it and talk about randomity and automaticity and so forth. But these are—that's bric-a-brac compared to this other: certainty.
Now, what's certainty? Causation. Now, here's a low-level certainty: A swordsman takes a rapier and is able, while he is standing some feet from the target, to pick up his right foot and drop the rapier immediately into a pinpoint bull's-eye. That is certainty. That is competence. In essence, that is the measurement of the efforts and locations and distances necessary to make two points coincide at a certain instant in time. And that is really a low-level certainty. That is certainty in terms of motion.
Now, there is above all this certainty in terms of motion and certainty of geographical location—you see, he has to know where something is before he can perform such an act—is the certainty of "whereness." And above that certainty of whereness, is the certainty of just being certain.

OPENING LECTURE: EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE
Certain of being certain. Are you certain of being certain? And if there's any fast process under the sun, it is just simply the process of being certain that you're certain. I mean, if you could just all of a sudden adjust a setscrew or something in the left radar lobe of the thetan and he would then immediately become certain that he was certain, why, he would do all right.
So, things like prefrontal lobotomies, electric shock, automobile accidents and so forth, are tolerated in the society. Why? He at least gets the low-level— the lowest level certainty there is, of course, is the certainty of impact: He at least gets awfully certain all of a sudden that he's not there, see—which tells him he's not.
Now, if you have an occluded case, you can run this technique with some success on the case. It's quite interesting. "Now look into that blackness," you tell him, "and find four points where you are not." And of course, there's an infinite number of points in that blackness where he isn't. "I'm not there. I'm not there. I'm not there and I'm not there and . . . Gee, you know, I'm not there! What do you know! I'm not there."
Now, if you think about it for a moment, one doesn't do this well with MEST eyes, because mest eyes aren't too adequate as locaters. But nevertheless, you get a person who is real—real, real poor, real bad off, and you start to say, "What room?" and he all of a sudden has to look at the room, and he finds some real object in the room, what he's actually saying is, "Look, there is a wall, and I am not in it." You see, "I'm not in the barrier" is the game—"I'm not there." And this is the—in the final analysis, is the whole drill: "I'm not there. I'm not there. I'm not there. I'm not there. I'm not there." So on, so on, so on, so-and-so. Real simple.
Now, that of course gets him out of impacts. It also has a tendency to occasionally flip an impact through—swish, crunch—and he gets a lovely somatic. But the person who can't see as a thetan prefers somatics, because they tell him again where something is. He has a certainty that he has a somatic, and the somatic is that geographical direction from him. When he's real bad off he thinks he is the somatic. But even that is better than being nothing.
Anything's better than nothing according to his . . . He has become so terrified of being nothing—because he might be bored, because he has no right to be nothing—that he just overbalances the whole problem.
Now, the reason he doesn't remember past lives is again on this same vein: he doesn't because he's had to be convincing. And this is the other thing which everybody's demanded of everybody else—that they be convinced. "Convincing" is just a reason why. It starts originally as an impact and winds up as a logic. So we've got a reason why—a reason why of this, and a reason why of that and so forth.
And if you want to beat to death any piece of logic—I don't care if it is in the field of physics, I don't care where it lies, or if it applies to railroad bridges or anything else—it has an essential frailty: there is an unreasonable assumption at the beginning or the end of any chain of logic, completely unreasonable assumption. And you can take any piece of engineering, any piece of chemistry, and just run it back to the completely unreasonable assumption, and the fellow says, "Oh well, you're going too far!"
You say, "Well, just a minute," you say, "the science of physics is a science and so on, and it starts from this and that." And you just run it back one step further than they started it.
And of course they say, "That's unfair."

11

12

17 NOVEMBER 1953
Why is it unfair? Well, it exposes the fact that it is simply a chain of assumptions. And what it is, is a chain of the agreements which we have come to realize—realize is reality. And that chain of agreements as it goes back, of course, is very beautifully laid out.
Physics is the study of barriers. If they—if anybody had ever classified it as the study of barriers, it would be about eighteen times as workable as it is right now. The study of barriers.
You take weights and balances and so forth—well, what sort of a barrier is required to, and what sort of a mass is required to? In other words, what do you have to dream up to dream up something else so that you could dream up something?
The test of this is, is people who go into physics and science—all due respect to people present—people who go into it, keep going into this "There's got to be something; there must be something; there must be something and it must be reasonable."
Now, actually, a thetan is totally capable of doing this mock-up. I mean, thetans are good at it and bad at it, but they're totally capable of doing the most fabulous mock-ups in terms of agreements. And boy, can they prove things! And so we get this concatenation of logic which finally winds up as a very concrete science. But why is it concrete? It's because it's the science of barriers. It's, how do we agree to make agreements which will convince us at last that there are limitations and barriers, so we can have a game.
Now, as we go down in physics and we get down to the electron—they're being very careful these days not to look too hard, because of course there isn't any electron there. Have to be real careful of that one! They get down to the biggest something they have ever encountered and find nothing, you see. And a physicist is—if he's really convinced that physics is physics and that is all there is and so forth, he gets convinced that he's an effect of this stuff, and that it's real, and he knows he's nothing. And then he gets down and he starts looking for the basic somethingness, and he's indulging in a search for something. And it's always a search for something, rather than a search for nothing. And he gets down to the base of it, and he's up against that conclusion—he's got to conclude somehow or other.
Sir James Jean for instance, he "sciencifies" all of his life—lovely word, terrifically descriptive of such a guy. He "sciencifies" all his life and when he gets down to the final notch, he says, "Well, think I'm screwed up anyway— all must have happened on the explosion of an atom."
"Hey, where'd you get the atom?" you can say immediately. Only he never quite answered that question. He never dared wipe out that possibility that there was one atom. He'd reduced the whole universe to one atom. Well, where'd he get the atom? Where that come from? And you're immediately at the unreasonable assumption—even of Sir James Jeans.
All right. Oh, most scientists just toss in the sponge, buy thick glasses, try not to perceive anything real, and say, "Well, in the final analysis, the prime mover unmoved—God—started it all." They get to this point. They run through complete atheism finally back to an inverted eighth dynamic and lie there over their test tubes cowering slightly at having tampered with God's material. And there sits God right in the middle of the test tube—themselves!
Oh, a thetan can do wonderful and marvelous things. What he survives that he himself does to himself is far more remarkable than what he survives that is merely done to him from some outside source. How he can survive what he does to himself—I'm very puzzled. I am. I've seen fellows going in for hypnotism and

OPENING LECTURE: EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE
going in for this and going in for that; and then I pop them out of their heads, finally get them out, you see, and they don't like this. So they immediately start mocking up more machinery and more complication, and they're all bogged down about three days later.
That's why somebody took a license and said, "Well, now a fellow has to make up his mind to be Clear and then he's Clear. And if he'll just make up his mind to be Clear, then he'll be Clear, and that's all he can do. But at first he has to make up his mind to be Clear. And that's what's Clear."
Gave a talk on that one time—the first hour I said all you had to do was make up your mind to be Clear and you could be Clear, and there was no reason why you couldn't do this. And then spent the second hour of the lecture— which nobody has ever played since—and it's stating the innumerable reasons why one just simply can't make up his mind to be Clear and be Clear. Nobody ever listened to the second tape. (audience laughter)
Now, it hasn't very much to do with it. You'll find a person coming up the line sooner or later, if you process him, he'll make up his mind, "Yeah, why not!" He kind of looks around carefully and cautiously and he says, "There's enough randomity around. Yeah, I can sacrifice a little bit of randomity, little bit of identity. I'll be cleared—providing it isn't too unlimited." And then he says to somebody, "Now the trouble with clearing is it's an absolute term. And you've made an absolute term out of it."
Of course, anytime you try to move anything even vaguely resembling an absolute in on a thetan, you are moving nothing in upon nothing, and you've really got a bad time of it. All right.
Just giving you some basic essentials here as we go over this. Giving you some sort of an idea of the character of the beast and the direct target of processing. And that target is to increase the causation of the thetan. Not necessarily decrease the effect—we can just neglect that. If we really want to, we can just neglect it utterly, and our boy will be in good shape. But if we neglect his being causative and specialize over here in effect, we might as well just neglect the boy, because we'll bury him. You see that?
So let's take the first three steps and see that they're somewhat causative, and then they start concentrating on geographical locations and making space and so forth, and the last four are trying to get him out of being an effect. And the whole kit and caboodle is designated in one direction, is to give him some certainty. And the whole thing is characterized by the fact that in Scientology, we have various kinds of barriers. And as these barriers arrive, knowingness becomes lookingness, becomes feelingness, becomes effort, becomes thinkingness, becomes lookingness, becomes feelingness.
You get the DEI cycle as we go down this Tone Scale? See? Desire, Enforce, Inhibit. Desire, Enforce, Inhibit. Desire, Enforce, Inhibit. Each one: stage, stage, stage, stage, stage—we got the cycles of action there. Your basic cycle of action is in terms of perception and motion. And of course, perception is communication, because we have a transfer of particles. So we were right there on: Feeling is condensed looking. Effort is condensed feeling. Thinking is condensed effort. So far we go—we've got thinkingness now, but it's not very serious until thinkingness starts to get down here below 4.0. And boy at 4.0, you start in on the basis of looking with mest eyes, feeling with mest emotions—and here we go, see. Now we get thinking, and of course that's a circuit.
"Well, I get along all right," the preclear says, "but—except I hear my mother's voice all the time cautioning me, you know, about it."
And you say, "About what?"

13

14

17 NOVEMBER 1953
"Well, just about things, you know. I say something and then this other little circuit tunes in and somebody says, 'Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh,' and repeats it."
So we get down that far, we're too deep into an effect. And you're trying to move a preclear—not at the top—to top at knowingness: you won't ever audit him up there. You won't audit him from 20.0 up. He'll be gone by the time you succeed that. He—one day, without probably even shaking you by the hand, he'll all of a sudden not be present. You'll call up his wife and— something of the sort, and you find out that—well, there's—he went on a trip and so forth.
I mean, everybody comes around and says, "Show us a Clear."
I say, "Well I've got one in a cage, right here. He consented to be in a cage and . . ." (audience laughter) Oh yeah?
There's two classes of this. On a lower harmonic—I don't want to give the idea all your Theta Clears will shove off, they won't. But on a lower harmonic, he's so anxious to get out of the body, and so frightened of being an effect, that he does—to be British—he does a bunk. He just scrams.
You say, this perfectly sweet girl; she's generally—generally—or boy, and generally they're a little bit nagging about life, a little bit plaintive about life, but you hardly ever suspect. And all of a sudden you say to them, "Be three feet back of your head"—there they go past Arcturus! And you'll sit there, pleading with them for a half an hour, "Move your hand. Come back enough to move your hand."
"The hell with it. I don't want anything to do with that body. It's a body. Somebody gave me a chance to leave and I'm gone!"
One preclear in particular, that—his auditor said, "Think of your child. Think of your child. Get your . . . You know, how will your baby get along if you don't come back?"
The body just—plop, see. Completely inert. Just completely deserted.
"Think—think of your husband. Think of your mother. Your father. Your obligation to the society." For half an hour, see, he goes on talking to this inanimate body that's just plopped, like it was stuffed with rags or something.
And finally, at the last, the auditor got a tremendous inspiration and he said, "Well, think of your poor auditor!"
And the person straightened up and said, "All right." (audience laughter)
That's doing a bunk. Nobody's done a bunk on us over here. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. Swish! Two light-years past Arcturus, and still going!
Another thing is, they very often—and this has happened over here, they—very often you say, "Be two feet back of your head."
They say, "All right." And then, splash! and they stick on the ceiling or something, and they get involved in the light fixtures, and they don't know which is right side up and which is upside down. And every time they start to move back toward the body or in any direction and so forth, the room will invert again. And their gravity—they've done an inversion on gravity, and up is down and so on, and they're having an awful time. That's real bad state of confusion—everything is inverted.
Those are the only things you're liable to run into that might be perplexing early in the course. If you run into anything like that, why, just give me a ring. I'm always available, and I can audit somebody back. Put the telephone up to their ears. I've done that often enough.
Well anyway, the next thing I want to give you here in a hurry is the immediate drill which I want you to take up today. We're going to break the

OPENING LECTURE: EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE
class into two units, just to speed cases in general. But we're going to do, not Group Auditing on this assignment, we're going to do individualized auditing— team auditing. And we're going to do this drill. And we're going to do it until everybody in the Second Unit is perfect at it—and I mean perfect! And it may take us a couple of days, maybe three days, but let's get real perfect at this.
Put the whole Tone Scale as represented in the Handbook for Preclears — you know that chart in there? It has, over on the margin, it's got several extra emotions. Put the whole Tone Scale and feel it back from any and every mest object you could possibly contact and connect with. And hang out the window and throw it into—make, put that—emotions, various emotions, into people, and each time get it to a point where you can feel them back; until you're absolutely certain the emotion is in that person, and that you do feel it back. And so that one can put the second dynamic sensation into mest objects and people, and feel it back with such liberality as to leave no slightest doubt in his mind that it is really—there's lots of it and it's not scarce, and he doesn't have to hang on to a body until the end of time just because of it.
And that will speed up Theta Clearing like bullets out of a gun. That's right, because that's a lot of the reason people are being very careful of the body. And it's a lot of reason why people have bogged down, because of that doggone second dynamic sensation. It's a condensation of lookingness which inhibits people from perceiving.
I'm not knocking it apart, you understand. But I'm just saying the idea of trying to get this—trying to get it out of a body is, boy, that is—that's really a complicated problem for somebody. I mean, that was the silliest idea anybody ever had. The body has—it's fairly condensed, and lots of it. And the first time a thetan hit a body, pam! You see, that's the basic on blanketing. And an individual has to be very—you as an auditor have to be careful of that one, to make sure that the person is making it into these objects.
And how do you do it? You do it on just gradient scales. That's all. You just put a little bit of these various basic emotions, which are very easy for the preclear: center line—little bit of resentment—you know, take it easy. Little bit of resentment, little tiny bit of boredom, so on, until you're real—build it up. And then get the extreme emotions finally, like enthusiasm, apathy, terror and so on. Boy, what it does for a case to all of a sudden be able to look at a MEST object and it's radiating terror—but I mean radiating terror!
Of course, the final analysis of this is, you go down—you get real good at this, as good as you're going to have to get in the next two or three days. You get as good at this—I don't care whether you do it interior or exterior. If you can do it while exteriorized, wonderful; if you have—aren't exteriorized yet, well, do it anyway, because it won't mess up the bank. You can get to a point where you will suddenly look at somebody that's walking down the street and you say, "Terror," and feel it back.
(Recording ends abruptly)

15

SOP 8-G First Lecture
A lecture given on 17 November 1953

Okay. Second section of the November 17th morning lecture to the Second Unit.
We have this drill. All right, now I've given you the basic basics on this drill. I want to give you a little more and I want to give you why we're doing this.
You could take a preclear, by the way, and simply have him double-terminal blackness, each time "What is the significance of it?" and he'll line charge like the devil and won't get rid of his blackness, because he's got a machine that keeps making it all the time.
By the way, nothing is permanent unless he's got a machine making it permanent. You got the idea?
He can't send himself anyplace, really, just straight out, unless he says to something, "Now, you indicate that I am going there, and I go." So you find nearly everybody's got one of these silly machines that every time he thinks of someplace, he's there or has a facsimile of it.
After a while, he gets a machine that says, "Every time I think of it, I'll get a picture of it." And that accounts for these—the fabulous skill with which the thetan throws these facsimiles at himself and so on. He makes them and throws them at himself. The tremendous ability of a thetan is just beyond— oh, you can't describe it!
Well, now we have this list and it goes from this column over here on the Chart of Attitudes from the bottom to the top—just the emotional list. And we put that emotion into everything.
Now, how do we do that? We say, "All right. Now take a look at that case. Now let's put the emotion of 'slight resentment' in it." And then we put the emotion—"Now change that to the emotion of 'diffidence,' of not quite wanting to be there." Diffidence, you know, something—just something terribly faint, you see? That, of course, is the faintest one of cowardice. And—in other words, the faintest kind of emotions a person puts in there—nothing dramatic. You start him out and say, "All right, put terror in that case," see—he can't do it, so you made him fail. And the process to get him certain is just let him have wins, on a gradient scale, until at last he can win.
So we start over in this column, and we take the faintest variety of these emotions and we simply put them into anything and everything. Put them into the corners of the room, put them into screens, put them into drawers, floors, put them into the right foot, put them into the left foot, put them into

17

18

17 NOVEMBER 1953
shoes, put them into windows across the street. And just go on directly looking, with mest eyes, at the object—or if exteriorized, simply looking at the material, exteriorized. But if he has any difficulty looking at it exteriorized, have him do it with mest eyes.
All right. The reason why we're doing that is to regain the control of those anchor points which he mutually owns, and which comprise the barriers of the mest universe. We're returning him into his first feeling of ownership, and then certainty they don't have to be owned, see? Those are the two stages.
Now, people who are way down have a feeling that they have to own something or it isn't theirs. Now this is an immediate—a direct statement that they can't create it.
If a fellow—I tell you, if a fellow could create a jacket, (snap) you know, another jacket, (snap) another jacket, (snap)—he sure wouldn't care how many people came up and took the jacket. He'd think it very amusing. As a matter of fact, early on the track he was very upset when people didn't come along and pick it up. But later on he got upset when people came along and picked them up. So he got the idea that although he had things which he had made scattered all over the universe—these things being held out against him—he yet didn't own the universe as well as he should, so he went out on campaigns of conquest in order to own what he didn't have to own.
A child, for instance, owns his hometown. You never ask him about it, but he simply does. If he's moved around too much, after a while he runs into enough people that convince him it's some other place, you see, and all of a sudden he doesn't own—he's moved to San Francisco, he doesn't own San Francisco. Why? Because he met some kids in San Francisco and they own San Francisco. It never—never occurred to him, you see, that anybody did own it until that happened to him.
Well, by doing this drill, one reverses being an effect into being a cause. One is causing things to feel, rather than being an effect of things which feel.
The basic terror in interpersonal relations comes about because one feels emotions from people. That's the basic. They just don't like that.
You can take somebody who is supercharged with hate, something like that, and may be all right if he's blasting it over to the right or left, but when he starts to blast it straight at you—wooww, no, no! That's real bad.
Now, the mest universe is evidently mutually created, and it is the second universe. And we have three universes, and one is one's own universe, and one is the mest universe, and one is the other fellow's universe. Now, the mest universe is a mutual system of barriers on which we have agreed so that we can have a game. And one's own universe and the other fellow's universe are those things which moderate and monitor the condition of the mest universe. But the mest universe has gone along to a point where it, being a mutually agreed-upon thing, has decided, on its own responsibility, apparently—you see, I mean according to the thetan—that it can't be destroyed.
And you get every physicist coming along the line—this is really why your physicist is in horrible condition—his cant and his creed, the affirmations which he eats with breakfast, lunch and dinner, is conservation of energy. Morning, noon and night—conservation of energy, conservation of energy.
Well, as you go up scale, if a person can't destroy, he can't create. He's afraid to create endlessly if he can destroy nothing. So you get people trying to come back into their own, sometimes, with tremendous, chaotic, emotional splurges of destruction. They try to destroy, destroy, destroy. That's all they can think of. They're in an anxiety state which is horrible.

SOP 8-C: FIRST LECTURE
That's Hitler—that's his anxiety state. He—in order to create anything like Germany, he had to destroy endlessly in all directions, so that he could create something—he thought! Why, his intelligence service and German science had almost achieved the ownership of Earth. There was nothing like German chemistry. It was fabulous. And when I was a kid in engineering school, if a fellow wasn't able to read in original German, he might as well quit. Because nobody began to print anything like the number of reports being issued from Germany.
How many reports are you getting from there on science now? None. You go over, and everything is being made on an American pattern. Isn't that cute? Their whole economy is American. Because America is still at the level of creation—in terms of mest objects—where it doesn't have to destroy everything before it can put something American down in its place. And I don't believe Germany was on that Tone Scale. But I believe Hitler and the clique which took over from an exhausted state, were. So they just had to destroy, destroy . . . This was the most asinine gesture of this century. They owned the world—the thinking world, the intellectual world, the mechanical world—all the worlds there were to own here on Earth, were being slowly, more and more, dominated by German equipment, German chemistry, German machinery, so on. And then all of a sudden, why, somebody has to break out a rifle. Yeah, utterly, utterly silly.
But there is the psychology—if we must use that word—of a criminal. Psychology is used because it's Homo sapiens' effort to make himself more complex. And he has gotten to a point where he has to destroy mest, somehow or other, in order to own it.
I've read some accounts of pirate ships, where always the kids are led to believe that piracy was something very colorful. Well, it was colorful in terms of lots of motion. But their equipment told a story: It was as much as a ship's rigging was worth to be used by pirates for a month or two—as much as her hull was worth, her guns were worth—anything. She was a ruin—enMEST, enturbulated mest. They had to mess everything up that they touched in order to have anything. Now, you see?
Now, you will see this—that's the mockery level of the Tone Scale, down there around 2.0 and so forth, that mocks everything that is higher on the Tone Scale. Because we've got a repeating cycle as it goes down. Everything is—goes down in reverse geometric progression. All right.
We've got up at the top of the Tone Scale this feeling, "Well, let's see. Let's make it run a little bit wrong so we can make it run right again." Good. More people are doing this with their bodies: "Let's see if we can make it run a little bit wrong, so we can make it run right."
Way up, the fellow says, "Now, there's a nice mock-up. Whssh! There's another nice mock-up. Now we'll take this mock-up which we have now and we put another mock-up there, and we'll get these two mock-ups interested in each other. That's good. That'll be good for so long. Now let's turn them around so they fight us. Oh well, we have to make somebody to be us." And here we go. "Now, we'll have to get some kind of destruction going here, otherwise we can't create unlimitedly."
Time is a wonderful mechanism of uncreation. Time uncreates, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa—automatic destruction. "Nothing 'gainst time's scythe can make defence / Save breed to brave him when he takes thee hence." Well, Shakespeare's eleventh sonnet—you're pretty good this morning! Time is the great destroyer. And the thetan comes up against

19

20

17 NOVEMBER 1953
time, which he has set up and which he's agreeing with madly, and then he decides he'll let time do it. Not "Let George do it"—his motto should be "Let time do it."
And you know that you can very often get somebody who can't destroy a mock-up easily and just say, "All right. Now let time do it."
"Okay. It's gone."
You should wonder a little bit at this tremendous force time has. You say, "All right. Let it age a hundred years."
"Okay, it's gone." Time to destroy.
So we have, then, the automatic destructive mechanism in this society. Well, anytime he depends on any automaticity, he's—gets in bad shape. Because that's a dependence on something. And when it goes to a point where he can no longer be causative and no longer engage in motion, when you start salvaging him, why, these dependencies he has, these automaticities—depending on automatic machinery which he's forgotten about and depending on this and depending on that, rather than doing it himself—he's at the point where the motorcycle is taking him down the road, he is not taking the motorcycle down the road anymore.
And in order to make him take the motorcycle down the road, why, you just have to give him drills which makes him own and control motorcycles, not motorcycles own and control him. Simple, isn't it? (Completely irrespective of a couple of motorcyclists in this class; I've been using that for some time.)
The anchor points of the room—these anchor points here—are looked on as somebody else's anchor points by most people, do you see? He never recognizes that they belong to him. They belong to him and others, or everybody else, see?
And if we're going to create more causativeness on a case, we have to at least give him some sort of a lease on the space he's occupying. Otherwise, the space keeps catching up with him all the time, and we have this system of barriers here. You see, a game is composed of limitations, and limitations become barriers, and these barriers are such limitations to him that he just looks at it and he says, "Well, I know that stuff is real. I know it's real. It is real." And as a matter of fact, it's a lot realer than he thinks it is.
That's what's remarkable about all this mest, it is much realer than any thetan thinks it is, and it isn't real at all. See, he's got to go up through the band of its tremendous reality, and only then he's getting up to a level of certainty where he can put up more barriers. Then you ask a thetan to dispense of all of his barriers? Oh, no! Hm-mm! There's things like privacy, there's things like this, things like that.
A lot of people are engaged totally in maintaining a distance. They use their words, they use their gestures and so forth, to maintain a distance. Such a case, you say, "All right, now what is your zone of occlusion?"
The fellow says, "What do you mean?"
And you say, "Well, how far don't you see away from you? Where can you put a mock-up up?" something of that sort.
"I don't know," he'll say, "there seems to be some kind of—if this is what you're talking about, there seems to be a sort of a shell out here, right out here."
And if you'll notice, it's just at his fingertips, see. He knows he can shove something away that close to him, you see? But something that's three inches further out, he can't do it. So his zone of occlusion is actually the motion of his arm. And you ask somebody to trace it out—it comes right straight in up against his back; he can't reach back there. That is not an ordinary case, that's

SOP 8-C: FIRST LECTURE
a case that's pretty far down on causation. He can't, in other words, cause a repulsion or create a space wider than that. See, he's lost further ability to do so.
Space is a viewpoint of dimension. It doesn't exist without a viewpoint. The problem of space was not solved in physics and is not even defined in physics. This is—ordinarily and routinely says that it is a problem of psychology. And psychology didn't solve it and so, more or less, isn't here. Find psychology is a perishing (quote) "science" (unquote). Why? It had two basic things it had to solve in order to resolve the human mind, and one of them was time and the other was space.
Time is the co-motion of particles—planned co-motion of particles. That you're in agreement with other people on how these particles are moving is fabulous. I mean, that's—you agree that the particles move in such a way and they do. And you go on.
Of course these bodies are all in tremendous agreement. As long as you stick with a body, you stick with the agreement. You exteriorize somebody, bing! and some weird things start to happen—space starts to go wrong on him. Now, you start putting motion in people and you'll notice this—at least two or three people present will notice this—they start this exercise I'm giving you, they will suddenly see buildings lean toward them. Aaaaaaaah! And other strange things are liable to happen to the scenery. But the stuff always goes back again the way it should be. And you might not think it will, but it does.
Now, you run this scale, and then the second dynamic, and then these two, very important: disgust and ridicule. Almost anybody backs off from these. They'll run betrayal by the hour; they will say, "My parents and my thetan have betrayed me"—anything like that. "My parents have betrayed me. Life betrayed me. Everybody betrayed, betrayed, betrayed, betrayed, betrayed." But, by golly, they never come around and tell you, "You know, everything I look at ridicules me." I've never heard anybody say that in social conversation. "The whole trouble with my life is that everyone ridiculed me." Hm-mm. That's the deadly stuff. What is ridicule? It's somebody grabbing hold of one of your anchor points, claiming it and holding it away from you.
If you want to turn on the emotion of ridicule automatically with an individual, is just give him the idea of somebody grabbing his mock-up and rushing off at a distance, and then holding it so that it can't come back in again. And he'll get this nyaaaaaah-urk.
So he wants to be able to put ridicule—disgust and ridicule, for himself and for other things—in every tiny section of the environment.
I've had a preclear get so angry doing this, that although he's been completely unemotional about everything else in processing . . . He's just going along and life has been—he's just dutiful, obedient, you know, do everything you ask with no emotional changes, a little bit of interest, sort of a sweet, sad smile on his face the whole time. All of a sudden start putting ridicule in something, and have the guy get madder and madder and—he's putting it in! And get madder and madder: "Why this stuff? Ruff-rrr-rrr-rrr."
One exercise I hadn't done with an individual, and—I don't know, I did this with him and all of a sudden he says in a rage, he says, "If that stuff ridicules me anymore I'll bust it into little pieces." To most people, its very "stationariness," its very "held-outness," is in itself a ridicule. Okay?
So we have these items. You can also put, if you want to, betrayal. But that kind of has a tendency to sort of collapse it in on somebody. You can add it in if you want to, and see how it acts.
But the important one is the second dynamic. And when you get through

21

22

17 NOVEMBER 1953
with the rest of the emotional list, you just beat that second dynamic to death. And then, "second dynamic ridicule." It is a specialized emotion all of its own. Got that?
And that is the drill on which we will drill. Now, we've only got a couple of days to get this real good, see. Get this real good, so that anybody here can simply look across to a windowpane or something like that, and get its agony. You know? Real good, hot agony. And real good, hot pain.
Now, you try to exteriorize somebody ... By the way, I didn't mention those, but pain, of course, is on that list. I think it's on the Chart of Attitudes, isn't it? Pain is at 1.8 on the Tone Scale, it should be on that. No, it isn't on the Chart of Attitudes. So add it in—pain. Pain, in all shapes and forms, such as aches and so forth: "Just make this microphone ache." You get the idea? "Now just make it ache a little bit more." And pain is condensations of lookingness.
Now, you'll notice as you run these—later on, you'll notice that all these emotions have to do with motion. Very early, you may have heard a 1951 tape, fall '51, on motion and emotion, which gives the fact that the fellow in apathy— you come along, he can put his hand on something, you move his hand and he'll leave his hand where you moved it to.
And the fellow in grief has a tendency to just flop about it and kind of hold on.
And the fellow in fear, which is covert hostility—about same tiny gradient in there, they're very close together—you come along and you push his hand away, and he'll say, "Yeah well, that's very interesting." And when you've looked the other way, he'll put his hand back again—when you've looked the other way.
And then you get the fellow in anger, and you come along and you start to move his hand . . . You can do this with a chair; dumping a fellow out of a chair is another test too. You just come up—it sounds very impolite and it doesn't make for good communication with a preclear, but it's a terrific assessment. Just walk in the room—just walk in the room and get the back of the chair and give it a push. What he does tells you he—where he's on the Tone Scale right now, and you just process him accordingly, and it saves you lots of time.
Anyway, anger: You start to grab the fellow's hand, and he looks at you meaningly and you don't move his hand! The harder you try to move his hand, the more it sticks.
Now, on resentment: You walk over and you start to move the fellow's hand and he flips his hand up toward you. And that's the first outgoing motion that you run into. That's at 2.0 on the Tone Scale.
And next is, with the resentment, now we get up to boredom. And the fellow starts—you move his hand, and he'll say, "What do you want to do? Why?" He'll engage in a controversy about it. But his hand, in the meanwhile, was sort of idle around the place, so on. He'll turn it over and look at it and put it back and move it around. There's motion there, but it's a sort of an eddy, like a stream goes around a steep bend, it leaves an eddy in up against the point.
And now we get conservatism and we reach over and we say, "All right, now let's move your hand," or something of the sort, and he'll say, "Well, yes. Now what's the significance of—why—where do you want me to move my hand to?" and so forth. Well, if you touched him a little bit too rough, he'd be very dignified about it, but he'd push your hand back. In other words, we've got a mobility and we've got choice.

SOP 8-C: FIRST LECTURE
In enthusiasm—the fellow's enthusiasm, we reach over and start to move his hand—"Yeah, well what do you want me to do with my hand, huh? You want it there? You want it there? Where do you want it?" He's doing it! You haven't got much to do with this.
That is motion and emotion. Now, you get this on beams. If you want to turn on the feeling of sadness as a thetan, put a beam against the wall, and then just slowly extend it. That's just—that's it. I mean—a writer, by the way, knowing this, or a cinematographer knowing this and so on, could actually kill America in its tracks to the motion on a screen. It's just the motion of people is exactly what's translated to the audience.
You could just have this thetan put a beam up here and then just slowly draw away. Just slowly lengthen the beam. And he gets the emotion of sadness out of that.
Now, by other speeds of withdrawal and so forth—these speeds are all comparable in comparison with mest—we can get every other emotion on the band. It's just the speed with which he rushes up to it, the speed with which he draws back from it or the speed with which the beam vibrates. And we've got all of these emotions. Because we're in the field of feeling, and feeling is a condensed lookingness.
So, now you have this drill down? Real easy drill. Real easy. And remember "Old Man Gradient Scale" as we do this. Let's not make it too tough on somebody. And let's keep it building. Now it's your contest to find out: how high can it go? And you're going to be very surprised; you're going to take what you normally consider to be a human emotion, and this flabby, almost emotionless piece of machinery known as the body—the amount of emotion which can be taken out of a body even in a high state of ecstasy, so-called, is so flat as to be almost indistinguishable from complete flatness. And it's just how close can you get to zero, really, compared to how much . .. Now, you know how much emotion can be turned on by a body. And as a thetan, early on the track, you were obviously quite surprised by the amount of emotion which would suddenly generate from a body being blanketed.
By the way, the first ded on the track is a blanketing. And it is against, usually, the kind of body which the preclear has. And if the preclear is mixed up in his sexual relationships, it's against the other kind of body—the other sex. You see, he—the thetan first blanketed a male, you'll generally find he's a male thereafter. And if he first blanketed a female, he's generally female thereafter. And where he's got his sexual relations mixed up, he is in this life a male, but the first blanketing, female—so on. So he envies, very much envies, the opposite sex. You, by the way, find that turning up more often than you'd think in preclears.
As we run various emotions, we find out that they turn on much, much hotter than we thought these emotions could run.
Now, there's one more that we will—might as well run into this category, but run it in there last, please run it in there last—is light and electrical energy. Put light and electrical energy into mest objects and bodies.
Now, let me give you a little word of warning and a little word about the ping meter. I'll have to demonstrate this ping meter to you someday, but I haven't got the—all I've got right now is the Mathison model, and the Hubbard-Mathison model is coming right up. I got ahold of this ping meter, and Volney got himself a very nice piece of equipment there. The only trouble is, went over it with the first class, and we were puzzling around about what was happening to it, and gee-whiz, this is very remarkable—very remarkable.

23

24

17 NOVEMBER 1953
But—it's supposed to detect pain—it's the machine that cries for you. Put this little probe on some hurtful point in the body and the machine goes "Waaaaah."And you take it off, put it on some point that isn't in pain, and the machine says nothing. Interesting, isn't it? Only trouble is, it's detecting the only points in the body where the thetan is in communication, and pain is obviously the highest communication he can get on the body. And so if you turned around to take that piece of pain away, that would spoil a communication point.
But after you've massaged him or processed him over a certain area . . . For instance, a person took his prefrontal nerve up here and just cleaned it all up real good, see—took off all the screens and bric-a-brac and junk and just cleaned it up real fine so his forehead was in beautiful electronic condition, see. And put the ping meter on it—and felt wonderful, you see—he put the ping meter on, it goes, "Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah." According to the ping meter, he was in agony.
And, another pc there—I cleaned up the Assumption on him and all of a sudden got his face live. Whole face got real good and live and he felt good.
So you see what the machine detects is—actually, what it detects is points of communication. It's where is the thetan in communication on the body, where is the communication good on the body? And it's just designed for people too low-toned to react the right way. And the button was backwards, and the machine ought to be registering where you hit anesthesia. Wherever you hit anesthesia, the machine ought to cry and say, "You're dead." See? It should just say that, right out loud—"Dead. Dead. Dead." And really, it's a death meter, not a pain meter. As long as it's a pain meter, it's a life meter. So it's turned all around and it's got a switch on it now that's anesthesia, and you just turn the switch the other way and it'll register on pain. Also, he's putting the second meter on it. This thing is strictly terrific.
But it did this—it did this: the first meter which has ever demonstrated the fact—the first electronic equipment that ever demonstrated the fact that one human being can influence another human being emotionally. Because you put the ping meter on a dead spot on somebody's body and just leave it there, it won't ping. And you, as the operator, all of a sudden snap a beam through from the center of awareness of the individual to the ping meter—at the exact instant you snap the beam through, the machine goes "Waaaaah." And you put it all around on the body, and you just look at the body fixedly thetawise, see, keep snapping these beams through.
In other words, it is registering, incontrovertibly—I mean you could go over this and beat it to pieces, physics and everything else, and you'd still have to come up with the conclusion that one human being is monitoring another human being's electrical contacts. That gets real interesting, isn't it?
I said several times on the congress tapes, there is no actual interchange. I understand that is misunderstood a couple of times. A couple of people have spoken to me about it. For God's sakes, please get this straight. There's no actual wall here either, but it's good and solid and it sure registers on meters made out of the same stuff. But remember, a meter's made out of the same stuff.
Now, here we have done the incredible thing of getting a meter made out of just nothing more than this stuff, you know, which registers the fact that two life units can influence each other. Well, I throw that in on this processing— don't start using members of the class on this target. Don't necessarily refrain from it, but look out the window and pick up passersby. Because you actually

SOP 8-C: FIRST LECTURE
can turn on various emotions in individuals with the greatest of ease. The greatest of ease.
In regard to that, I quite often and usually refrain from doing this. It'd be the easiest thing in the world for anybody, with a little drill, to simply take a crowd or an audience or something like that, and just fill them full of enthusiasm, you know? Just go fsshhew! The best ways to do it is just to throw back a handful of anchor points against the back wall, get it exactly the right location, make it your own space, wipe out all other anchor points there, see, and just drop enthusiasm, crush! This would be a magnetic personality.
So I am very sorry that we're taking up a first stage—our first instant of play here—that thing which is actually practically the total of personal magnetism. We solve more of these doggone things en route, that we all of a sudden remember that there was something called-—at one time or other talked about, called "personal magnetism." But nobody could contact it very easily, so everybody kind of abandoned it. And the best way to contact it, they used to say in the old days, was you sat with your feet soles pressed together and your—the outside of your thighs flat against the floor and your head held in a certain position and your ears wiggling at a slow beat, and if you sat that way for eighteen or twenty years you would then be able to control your emotions. You sure can! But it's not advisable.
And there were all kinds of systems. There's various systems, such as you take a certain pill and it does it. And there's other systems where if you get your handwriting analyzed, you will then be able to improve sufficiently so that you have personal magnetism of some sort or another.
This is the entire fight of the society: to be acceptable to one another. And yet the way to clear somebody—you could clear somebody just by running huge crowds agreeing with huge crowds agreeing with huge crowds themselves. It's interesting, isn't it? I mean if you just sat down and kept putting this up and putting this up and putting this up, putting this up, the person would get out of a slavish, propitiative agreement and come on up into an antagonistic agreement, and he'd actually run the whole Tone Scale in Mock-up Processing. Real slow method of doing it. Real slow.
That's much faster than anything we envisioned in Book One but it's too doggone slow, but it's a last resort. But that just gives you some sort of— because he has to be in agreement in order to have time, in order to have communication.
But the first thing he's got to have is anchor points. And the best anchor points to get back for you, right now, are the anchor points which comprise ... When I say an anchor point, now, I mean any kind of a point, any kind of a particle, any kind of an electron or anything which anybody believes is an actual point. There is nothing more real than a real anchor point. It's tremendously real. It exists as much as anything will ever exist, and that exists as much as anything does exist, because it exists and it is a havingness type of existence. Let's not go off on the basis of "all is illusion," and we're just kidding ourselves that we see it. This is the reverse english, the inversion on the truth of the matter.
The fact of the matter is, is you're pretty doggone good—you can see it. We can make, out of a complete illusion, a complete reality. And that is the greatest gift a thetan has.
So we're trying to rehabilitate, then, the ability to take over, control, handle and alter the emotion and condition of any particle in the mest universe or any space in the mest universe. And remember that this is most handily worked,

25

26

17 NOVEMBER 1953
not segregated against the corners and points of the room or anything like that, but whole objects and whole spaces.
Take the street now, and from end to end (this you wouldn't start out with), from end to end on the street down there—a street full of cars and so forth, and three blocks long, this street is, that your preclear can see—now fill it completely from end to end with ecstasy. Pssshhhew! (snap) And you, as in the auditor, looking—if he was real good, would be able to look over there, and the taxi driver would start to get a sort of a noble look in his eye. That's right.
So, let's find out now with the easiest one we've got—this is still probably one of the most effective techniques we have. I mean, it's right up there on effectiveness because a person can audit himself, you see. I mean, he doesn't have to depend on somebody else to do it. He's trying to take out of the hands of things doing it for him, and take it on back to himself.
This is following and obeying this rule: that in order to remedy an automaticity, it is only necessary to make the preclear do it himself often enough to regain entirely his control over his ability to do so.
We take anything that's running automatically, we take the fellow with purple spots in front of his eyes, and we say, "Put five more spots there." Now, widely get him to a point where he's the one putting the purple spots there— which is the truth. He is the one putting the purple spots there. That he can, by—merely by making a postulate, "There are now purple spots in front of my eyes," pang!—he's seeing purple spots. He hasn't got himself hypnotized. I mean, that's his native ability.
What he wants to get out of is just because he says there are purple spots, they don't have to appear. He can say, "There are now purple spots in front of my eyes, but I don't see them." Okay, so he doesn't see them. "Now I see them." So he sees them. "Now they don't exist." So they're not there. See, this is real active.
Now, how do you mock up something somebody else can see? Well, believe me, that's way up the line. That's way far in advance of anything we're trying to do right now. So let's not worry about these odds and ends. Let's just simply look at mest, and even with mest eyes, and get the stuff to emote.
When you've got that, a lot of your preclears who will otherwise be a little bit rough as a case (and that is, they'd take some smooth handling by somebody who knew what he was doing, so forth), you find out they learn how to do this, they say, "Body, body? There's lots of emotion, I don't have to have a body for emotion."
There's one other factor that you can put into things. Put the feeling of beauty and the feeling of ugliness into them. Sometimes this registers with a preclear far better than some other emotions.
If anybody is starved for anything in this MEST universe, it's beauty. You can take the toughest, roughest boxer, the meanest, orneriest clown, the most debased thief, and beauty registers on him one way or the other. But it's very odd that when a person is very disgraced and very degraded, the one thing which instantly puts him to just sweeping shame, and just sweeps him back down the sewer in a hurry, is to be confronted suddenly with something beautiful. So there's a great deal to aesthetics which we mustn't neglect.
I wrote about it in 8-80, and you have the book—old 8-80—"beauty and ugliness." Now, although we were running it there with dichotomies, it has actually never slackened off on its importance.
You can ask some preclear and make him break right down and cry, "Where are you not being beautiful at this moment?"

SOP 8-C: FIRST LECTURE
Well, this is the first thing we're going to do. We're going to handle feelingness, so on. As far as SOP 8 is concerned, this is your fastest, smoothest approach on SOP 8-C because it'll hit anywhere up and down the range of case with which you're trying to operate here. It won't hit all the cases you will run into in the society; not until you've patched them up somewhat and done this and that with them.
I've seen people shriek when you ask them to do this. You say, "Make that feel a little resentful."
"What? Make that feel any way at all? It can't feel."
Well, that's really the truth of the matter, but you press it a little bit. You say, "Oh, well, go on and make it—make it—make it think a thought."
"It doesn't think!"
"Well, make it. . ."
"Well, it doesn't do anything. And nobody can do anything to it. And you should know that. What are you trying to do with me?" And have them get up and try to walk out! Real upset! And your bottom-rung cases get into that kind of condition.
We will take up—as soon as you've handled emotion adequately, we will take up with regard to that, thinkingness and lookingness with regard to that. And on some of the cases that have hung fire we find out that it's—they're so convinced that something should be able to look but mustn't look, and they're all hung up on viewpoints. mest has viewpoints, so you have to be able to hang up viewpoints pretty good before you're very able. Okay?
Now what questions do you have to ask about all this?
Male voice: Is that related to the ability of personalizing? You see a little dog and you practically make him talk.
Yeah.
Male voice: I mean, you put into him . . .
The thetan does that. That's the best thing he does. A little kid does this all the time. A happy tribe, happy natives, across the world do this all the time. Everything is superpersonalized. But then they, by the way, they build it into an automaticity.
Male voice: Yes. It always answers.
Yeah, so ... Any other?
Second male voice: Ron, like sec	, running the emotions on the second
dynamic there, just how far shall we go? Like sexual emotions and things like that?
Hm.
Second male voice: The gamut of maybe puppy love or things like that?
Oh, sure. Sure. There's quite a wide band there. I just leave it to your imagination. I point out to you that there's a nostalgia comes into the second dynamic, too. And there's a high—sort of a high whine ecstasy that sounds like an airplane in a power dive. And there's a tremendous gamut of these emotions there.
You understand that these characteristic emotions, as they go down scale—you go from 40.0 down to 0.0, why, and -8.0, you've got your emotions going over and over and over. And most everybody is to some slight degree in the effort band, or below the effort band and in the thinking band. So it's of great importance.
Now, if somebody hangs up and he's having a real hard time in this class, just make him make the things think a thought, and you'll get along better. And put something else into them—effort. "Now put some effort into that

27

28

17 NOVEMBER 1953
microphone," see? "Now put laziness into it. Now put some effort into it." That's real low band.
Male voice: How about putting the minus Tone Scale into things? Hiding.
Well, all that emotion down that line is wooden—pretty wooden. I'd rather get a stronger emotion on the upper band. But that's a good suggestion. Good suggestion. Anybody can stretch that out that wants to. There's that old minus scale there. "Put a protective feeling in this table." And of course, there's one danger in that—that's what this stuff is: barriers to protect; to protect and to protect other things.
You can put minus scale in there and you can put the whole band from top to bottom if you want to—including effort, including thinkingness and so forth. But specialize in the Tone Scale as it goes from 0.0 on up the line, the second dynamic and ridicule. That pays off, very heavy. And disgust, which is about the same as ridicule.
Only you'll find out that if you start running much disgust, you'll find out the fellow is starting to be an effect slightly. This is a double-terminal process. This really belongs—if you want to know where it belongs in SOP 8, it belongs at V, really. Because it's a double-terminal proposition. It solves a person from discharging against emotions and being an effect of them.
But you're not trying to process him so as to run out a bunch of emotions, so he will discharge against these things. You're trying to make him do it independently so he doesn't discharge. And you're trying to give back to him the control without running a single thing out, and without any anything in the bank. You don't want to even worry about it. If he starts worrying about being an effect of it, well, you just overlook it and keep pushing to make him a cause on it.
You find many people, they say, "Well, I know how that stuff feels."
And you say, "How does it feel?"
And they say, "Well, it feels disgust."
"It does?" you say.
"Yeah. Sort of a disgust for itself and a dirtiness, yes."
Oh boy, climb the nearest fence, boys, here we go!
Okay. Any other questions about this?
Male voice: Yes, after you spoke about putting the second dynamic emotions into things, and spoke about disgust and ridicule, you mentioned, Ron, something about light and electrical objects.
No, light and electricity.
Male voice: Light and electricity.
Yeah.
Male voice: Putting it into . . .
Well, I'll give you an example. Put some light in that wall.
Male voice: Oh good. Thanks.
Well, do it.
Male voice: Yeah.
Got some light in it?
Male voice: Yeah.
Now put some electricity in it.
Male voice: Yeah.
Okay. Put some light in it now.
Male voice: Yeah.
Put some electricity in it.
Male voice: Yeah.

SOP 8-C: FIRST LECTURE
All electricity is, is light with effort in it. You get the idea?
Male voice: Yeah. Thanks very much.
Did it kind of flare up for you?
Male voice: Yes.
Good. Good. If you get real hot at this, you can short-circuit out E-Meters.
Okay. (You have to provide your own, though.) (audience laughter)
All right. That's the end of this lecture.

29

Getting Up Speed, Part I
A lecture given on 17 November 1953

Okay. This is the second session, the—afternoon session, November the 17th, the first hour on it.
This morning I gave you some things to do with regard to putting emotion in things. And I found out that many—many were neglecting the "emote" and putting some "shun" in. Ha-ha, joke!
And, it's a very funny thing. I'll tell you a operating—a operating principle, which you should "hoperate" with. And the motto of a case is, and the significance of and the reason why of a case is, is they can't look at it. And if you take any case anywhere, you'd think offhand it's a problem of "they don't know it."
Now, this is not an attainable—an instantly attainable goal for people: they can't just suddenly, pang! for some reason or other, "know it" because they want to carefully let go of the stuff they've got their hands on, see? They want to let go of it very carefully.
Now, for instance, there are a couple of techniques you can run on people which will just stop their clocks, completely. (I should tell you these for the benefit of humanity, some of which has been going on too long already!) But one of these is a button, it's a magnificent button, there's nothing wrong with this button at all except it stops people's hearts. And you could, of course, say that this was a fine button to have around, but watch who you're trying to treat with it. And if you double-terminal "constancy"—just that, just double-terminal "constancy" in a bracket for a while, ha-ha! All of a sudden the guy's ticker goes pocketa-pock, pang-pang, pocketa-pock-pock-pockpocketa-pock-pock, pang, pang-pang. Because he ordinarily is running it on his body, you see? And that's the one thing the heart does: be constant. That's the only order it's got, is "do-don't, do-don't, do-don't, do-don't." Only it says, "do-dup, don't-dup, do-dup, don't-dup." And that's all it does, you see?
Now, I'm not mincing matters with you—tell you that you can simply take the human anatomy to pieces and strew old bones around with what we're doing here. So you can go too far with one of these techniques. There's nothing to be afraid of with the techniques we have, but you can actually go too far with them. And one of them is this button "constancy."
"Persistence" doesn't process that way for some reason or other; the idea of persistence. But "constancy" brings in the second dynamic nostalgia, the genetic line—boy, it just runs on constancy. If you want to turn on beautiful sadness on somebody, just start running constancy. You'll find out that's the

31

32

17 NOVEMBER 1953
one thing that's been demanded of them all their lives—they must be constant. And this, of course, is persistence, and persistence is the one—anything that is not admired, persists.
But let's get back to simplicity—real simplicity. There aren't very many of these buttons, there's just constancy and two or three more—they're relatively unimportant. What you can say is the common denominator of all preclears is: they don't look, they think.
Now, there's a world of difference between thinking and knowing. Thinking is that process in which a person engages by which he hopes he will someday come to know. Now, the funny part of it is that he knows already, and the more he thinks the less he knows.
They used to talk about that noncommunicative owl—you remember in grade school, this noncommunicative owl. He must have been set up by the Fourth Invader Force in this universe. I think they invented the tune, and so forth. It was:
"A wise old owl sat in an oak,
And the more he saw the less he spoke;
And the more he spoke the more he heard;
Why can't we all be an effect?"
And this made him very learningful. We're assured of this—made him very learningful.
And the only trouble is that unless you were talking directly on the line of agreement which brings people into the state they get into finally—where they're more effect than they are cause; unless you're talking on that, boy, there's really darn little excuse for education. But if you're talking on that, you are undoing—you are undoing the agreement.
Now, it's something like a large and complicated watch. And this watch has to be taken apart. It can be taken apart solely and strictly on the same basis of you take apart a—a baby takes apart a watch, you know? He takes it apart with a hammer. Well, anybody can take a watch apart with a hammer. If you want to take a watch apart—meaning you don't want a watch—with a hammer, why, I advise you to go down and find a big electric shock machine or something like that. That takes watches apart with hammers. And that's not the right way to go about it, because after the parts get that strewn around, it's very difficult to take the watch apart in an orderly fashion. And to some degree we are taking a watch apart.
The trouble—only trouble with this watch, however, is that it has four balance wheels, eight mainsprings and no handle to wind it; the handle to wind it has disappeared. And then people run down and we can't wind them up again.
So the thing we do, is actually start taking balance wheels and mainsprings and things—excess mainsprings and other things—out of it and all of a sudden we've got the neatest, best-working watch you ever saw in your life.
But if we take it apart with a hammer we don't get that effect, we just simply get—well, we get psychiatry or we get a lot of things. Atom bombs— that's taking a watch apart with a hammer. "The way to settle the political affairs of Earth is not to solve underproduction and overconsumption, and overproduction on the second dynamic and so forth. These are not the problems to solve. The way to solve that, is you get a formula, see, and it's got a lot of wild figures in it, but it all adds up somehow or other if you put enough figures in it. And then you put this to work on uranium and you get some plutonium, you

GETTING UP SPEED, PART I
put that all together and put it in the hands of an idiot and tell him to press the buttons." And the watches come apart. Believe me, they just strew their mainsprings all over the place.
I saw a cartoon, one time, down at Cal Tech—one of these small trade schools on the other coast, they teach carpentry and things there. Anyway, they had a nice cartoon, and this professor is standing in front of a very large class and he's saying, "Gentlemen, I have here the end product of all science. In this capsule is enough explosive to destroy the universe." They haven't been admired for this, obviously, or they wouldn't go on persisting.
Well, it is not a very orderly thing to do, for instance, to solve a society the way somebody solved Arsclycus. If you want to run back on the track and examine facsimiles with "yes" and "no" on an E-Meter, why—it'd be very pleasant for somebody who's in good shape to do this, and very horrible to somebody who's in bad shape to do this, by the way, because they bog in it. You'll find that there are facsimiles floating around you or the GE and someplace, and you can contact them. They have to do with this place known as Arsclycus, which was just built without planets. It's just endless roads going through the sky, you see—they just went in all directions.
And there's where we picked up boredom and monotony on this track. Oh, oh, oh! I mean, you could just run this for a couple of minutes on a pc and he just gets tireder and tireder and tireder. He has no idea why he's getting so tired. But it's the fact that nobody could ever stop working. And a person went about ten thousand lives there, returning back to a body and then using that body and wearing it out. And he—each time he'd come back he would be assigned—and he had a cross mark on him and they had him by the wavelength, you might say. And they had a piece of the body which they'd given him, and when he tried to escape, of course, they'd put pain in that piece, and that would hurt that part of the body so he would come right back. And when his body was worn out, or if he sassed a guard or something like that, they'd just knock off that body and he'd report back again and they'd say, "This is a Tilemaker, Third Class. He's all trained," see? And into the body—next body that's coming out of the vats—pang! out he'd go. Biological society, built in the sky.
Well, when that thing went to pieces because of an overdose of gravity, it really went. It scattered pieces all over the universe. And you sometimes run—get a tumbling sensation in a preclear. We're not going to audit facsimiles— this is just fun just to show you what might have been going on, on the track.
Well, this made a person very insistent about being dead when he was dead. There is basic on being dead when you're dead. You're just not going to run any kind of nonsense about checking back in and being assigned a new number. You're going to have some randomity, see? And when a fellow's dead, he is the most insistent person you ever saw.
I dropped by a funeral parlor one day. I kind of sailed in one afternoon and I—I noticed lilies of the valley, and it was very nauseating all up and down the street and it was getting more and more nauseous. So I decided to pick it out for some randomity (I didn't have anything else to do), and I went in one window and so forth, and the thetan was still in the body—it was a funeral parlor.
They had a guy laid out on the table, and you could bat the body and get back an electronic reaction—pow, pow, see. And he was just absolutely frozen, see? And in a mad rage, "I'm dead, you understand! Dead!" Because they'd kept trying to revive him, evidently, with Pulmotors or something of the sort. The body was all scarred up—he'd been drowning or something and they'd keep

33

34

17 NOVEMBER 1953
trying to revive him and trying to revive him and trying to revive him and working over him and so forth. And that means he wasn't being convincing, you see? And boy, it was the deadest thetan you ever saw. Of course, when they finally embalmed and buried the body and so forth, he finally said, "Well, you're convinced!" Shove off!
He hides this from himself by occlusive screens and so forth. He doesn't let his right foot know what his right frontal lobe is doing. He doesn't get these things into communication with each other. He has to break communication in order not to know. See that? Has to break communication in order not to know. See, he breaks communication with the body, and now he doesn't know anything about the body. And there's the system of breakdown which he uses. Now, he's gone through this system of breakdown constantly and continually.
How does he do this? In order not to know, if he's already perceiving (see he gets into a perceiving band)—in order not to know, it's only necessary not to look. He can think about it and suppose about it.
Most everybody is going around—while they're traveling through life in this direction, their head's over this way. And they're going ninety miles an hour in that direction. Well, they can think about it and they can say, "Well, you know, I think there's a turn up here someplace." But that system comes all the way down the track.
Now, if they didn't look at, feel any emotion about, feel any effort about and finally, didn't even think about something on the Arsclycus band, why, once in a while they figured they might skip a cycle. That was—that's really true. They kept a vat full of stuff and when they gave the guy the body, they took a piece of this body and they kept it alive in a solution. (This is science at work!) They kept it alive in this solution over here, and that was a piece of a body and it matched him, of course, and all they had to do was torture this piece and he hurt.
You can do that, by the way, if somebody is madly Russian-doctoring around sometime—we'll get a nice big laboratory. Be sure and get somebody that builds the Frankenstein equipment for the Frankenstein pictures, you know? The kind of big drums that go bzzz, bap, bzzz, bap—you get some of that in there just to convince the public of what you're doing. You can conduct all sorts of experiments of this character which are fabulous.
You can hypnotize somebody and say, "All right, you are now Malenkov." Just like that, you can say, "You are now Malenkov. And be in the same position there as Malenkov, be in the same space. That's right." This guy is drugged— you know, drug hypnosis. "All right. Now have a terrible headache. You now have a terrible headache." You know that you could actually detach him to the point where he would go on monitoring Malenkov. You'd actually say, "Beat it," and he would leave enough in the body to keep this one tick-tick-tick, and go over and monitor somebody else's body. This is politics earlier on the track. Now, this has gotten to be almost a habit on the track line. All kinds of weirdities come up.
Fortunately, we don't have to have anything to do with these weirdities. I mean, it doesn't matter in our processing today what these things are. I'm just talking about a laboratory lineup. If you really wanted to make a society stand on its ear and become completely fogged about the whole thing, you just start doing things like this and you would get these effects. I mean, Malenkov would have a headache. That's all there is to that.
Mysticism, by the way, is actually an effort to suppress this kind of technology by reversing it. You know, if you deny hard enough and if you resist

GETTING UP SPEED, PART I
evil and—that's not truly mysticism, that's Christianity more than anything else. That was the greatest invention of the last two thousand years, by the way—the resistance to evil. And I'll say a little bit more about that.
But let's get back on this "look" thing. All right. As long as this preclear you've got drugged on the table doesn't know where he is, you can convince him he's someplace. You see that? See the principle? Well, the only way he can be convinced that he is someplace, is by not permitting him to look. You see that?
If he doesn't look, if he doesn't see, then he can be told he's anyplace, and he has to believe one. So hypnosis is just simply the matter of confusing a person to where he looks too hard at something, and then you don't let him look at it, and that loses him. There are any number of techniques can be born out of this "fix or unfix attention" hypnotically, you see?
The whole subject that we're studying is actually attention fix-unfix, where viewpoints and space are concerned. But that requires lookingness.
So we can take a person and actually have him be someplace else when he is right there. See, he'll still keep this body, but he'll actually be and operate someplace else. Now, you'll run into this every once in a while with a preclear. We call this inverted dynamics.
What dynamic are they inverted on—they inverted on one, two, three, four, five, six, or seven, eight? Actually there's about ten cycles of inversion. At least ten. They just keep inverting and then reinverting, and then inverting and then reinverting, and each time with less horsepower until you get them just completely run on down the line.
Now, any one of the oddities and the phenomena which you observe, below the level of knowingness itself—just spontaneous knowingness . . . How would you—what do I mean by that kind of knowingness? It is simply, you'd sit right there, you wouldn't look, and you'd know that there was a telephone number somewhere else. In other words, that is just instantaneous knowingness. Would you know by looking? No. It's a type of pervasion without perception. But boy, don't ever mistake it—a guy who can't see doesn't pervade without perception.
This fellow who can pervade without perception, boy, he's got Superman whipped the way he can look through walls. Oh, that's terrific, you see. And that's way, way up.
Every once in a while you walk into some sad apple—pardon me, some gentleman—who is utterly convinced that he is telepathing all over the shop, see. Oh boy, he telepaths but good, he does. They sit down and they concentrate and they do this to influence other people's minds.
I'll tell you how you influence somebody else's mind. That drill you were doing this morning will do more to influence somebody's mind, because you can transfer thinkingness the same way. And we'll do some drills on that later. You just simply handle and monitor somebody. He thinks what he thinks and so forth. That's all there is to it. That's telepathy. What do you care what he's thinking? Make him think something else.
Anyway, people who go around and practice telepathy so they'll know what other people are thinking tells—that tells you what? It tells you immediately the fellow must be bottom-scale, because he's interested in what somebody else is thinking. Well, boy, when you go around and listen at Homo sap thinking . . . This is really the most enjoyable thing you can do, is just sort of go down the street and—or drive a car or something of the sort, and pass a lot of people and pick up what they're thinking about. Most of them are thinking kind of a

35

36

17 NOVEMBER 1953
"mental-audio" sort of a"Dum-juh-duh-zu-zow—so you know, if I do so-and-so, and so on." Most non sequitur stuff you ever listened to. I mean, the fellow says, "Well, now, let's see ..."
I ran across one, one day while I was driving into town, and I got so entranced with it, I forgot to get out of the car till I'd gone beyond my destination. But my body had turned, but I thought the body in the car was ... Strange. But this person was doing the most fascinating job of driving: "Now I step on the throttle." He was driving with all of his mechanical motions and so forth planned, audio, in advance. Oh. this is real fine. And I kept expecting the car to run into something. And I was minus randomity that morning and decided I'd love to see a good wreck. (audience laughter) So I just rode along. Very fascinating.
Now, this sounds wild to you, but people do think like that. They just talkety-talkety-talk, bom-bom-bom-bom.
Now, you listen to people talking and they—boy, they sure sound reasonable. You listen to people—two people talking across the store counter while they're buying something. And you'd—you just merely assume that those two people are being reasonable. The possibility is that you haven't listened to them. If you were to really sit down and listen to these two people talking across the counter, it's—just run-of-the-mill Homo sap today—you would hear some of the most fascinating non sequiturs you ever heard in your life.
Where do these non sequiturs come from? Now you've got "not look" on a symbolic basis. If a person can know everything, he can look at everything. And there's the test between the top and the bottom of the scale: If he's got instantaneous knowingness, boy, he's sure got instantaneous lookingness. He can do such tricks as look up eighteen pages deep in a phone book and read the whole column aloud to somebody else—relay it to a body and read it aloud. That's real high, see. And you can get perfect imagery, while exteriorized, on anything.
You start fooling around with this stuff very much, it keeps saying, 'There's a barrier. There's a barrier. There's a barrier. There's a barrier. There's a barrier." And you have to dim that down and keep it dimmed pretty well, in order to get any randomity or be anyplace.
Now, what's "not looking"—not looking, not feeling, not effort, not think, see? First it's not look, so we feel. Now it's not feel, so we have effort. So it's not effort, so we think. So it's not think, on that band, you see, and it's again some lower order of looking, such as with MEST eyes. Now it's not look, and again a lower order of feeling, such as with a body, see? Well, then it's not feel with the body, so effort with the body. And then it's not effort with the body, so it becomes think with the body. And then it's not think with the body, and we got Homo sap. All right.
Now, a symbolical level takes up on this, you see, and it's just one of these cutting out, one right after the other, on that band. Now, we can just add up— to the side of the Tone Scale, up here—a scale which starts up at the top with "know." Complete certainty on everything and anything, anywhere at any time; that's just complete know. An almost unobtainable height if one stays in an area where, to produce any randomity at all, he has to pretend he doesn't know. Because we immediately cut down from that and go to 20.0 on the band. All right.
Now, our next step, then, that we get interested in, as far as people and beingness is concerned, would be ... I mean, the highest step in which we really get interested, is in "look and not look." See, it would be "know and not

GETTING UP SPEED, PART I
know" way up at the top there. He'd have to not know on something and this produces a randomity. In other words, he's got to choose something out to fight it; and that gives him action and motion. And he gets into action and motion and he's happy about it.
It isn't true that everybody everywhere in every universe, you know, has action and motion. That's just a peculiarity in this universe. You have to learn all kinds of weird tricks, and these weird tricks are motion. It's real peculiar when you first run into motion; it's quite interesting because it produces emotion, which is quite different than you run into elsewhere.
I had a preclear one time, he would just sit and he wouldn't think or anything of the sort. And what he was doing, I didn't quite know. But I put him on an E-Meter and it didn't wiggle; nothing wiggled. And I started batting him with just random dates. Good old electropsychometry, you just start hitting them with dates—dates, dates, dates—billions of years ago and present time. And all of a sudden present time started to wobble around. I ran into a duality. Some kind of a weird situation of Lord knows where or what; there was someplace where everybody merely sat around and knew. And he was stuck there. So I unstuck him and got him in motion. Probably a terrible disservice.
But the point is that not everywhere do things go into motion. But here in this universe they go into motion. If you could avoid just all motion and get a process that had nothing to do with any kind of motion, you'd be way ahead of yourself. But there is no such process that I know of, because you've got to track the line of agreement somewhat in order to take the watch apart smoothly.
So we've got a problem in taking the watch apart of, in some cases very low, and in some cases a very slight bit of "not look." In other words, "not perceive"— it's just a better phrase. It's the gradient scale of perception in reverse, then, which marks the Tone Scale band in which we're interested from 20.0 down. The gradient scale of nonperception.
The essence of perception is the definition of "what is space?" Space is a viewpoint of dimension. Now, a viewpoint of dimension, then, requires some kind of a perception. Immediately we have space, we have some kind of a perception understood. As soon as this perception is understood, we are able to proceed.
Now, the less perception a person is able to attain, the lower he would fall on this band. But remember, this band inverts and then reinverts and then reinverts and reinverts on each dynamic. So it's not a smooth track down—I mean, it's a complex band. That is to say, for every level on the Tone Scale, you have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight dynamics. And for every band down, they turn over again.
So that you have a fellow who is inverted—you'll see what I'm talking about a little bit later when you do some of this processing. When you invert an eight... We start out with a fellow at eight. What is symbolical of this superknowingness way up at 40.0? Well that's—superknowingness is, of course, what you would call "He's God and knows it." It doesn't necessarily mean he's God of the mest universe. That's a different thing. But as far as he's concerned he's God and he knows it. The eighth dynamic, sure. Seventh dynamic, he could make spirits, why sure. Sixth dynamic, he could make mest. And we go on down the line and we fall down again.
And then we get to an inversion. And it goes in—now he slips out of one, so he becomes a particular god. Now, as he reinverted down, he'd probably get into the Olympus sort of a standard, like Athena or, well, Jove—that is a particular god of something, you see? We've particularized. Well, this is an inversion again.

37

38

17 NOVEMBER 1953
See, we've gone—we've gone—he's turned away from himself to be "the something of something else." And in each case, as you go down, you finally get all the way to the bottom and you'll find fellows in insane asylums insisting madly and wildly, if they're pretty high on the band, that they are God; and pretty low on the band, so forth, why, you'll just have them merely praying to God all the time—just incessantly, incessantly. God is finally other-determinism again.
They take over as they own things—to make this easier to understand— as they own and are things, they then unbecome them. So you've got an inversion of becoming and unbecoming and becoming again and unbecoming, each time in a lessening scale.
See, on the upper band he's God and knows it—this is in the psychotic bands and when we get to where one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight— eight inverts again; now we've got somebody who is the effect of God. So we get "become and unbecome." And in each one of these things he's cause—this should explain, by the way, a manic to you. He's cause, and then as it inverts, he becomes the effect now of what he was cause before, see? So he just keeps on going down this way, cause and effect, cause and effect. And as you go down the Tone Scale, he slides to the left, and he goes over to the right, and he slides to the left. He is something which he isn't. And then he unbecomes what he hasn't been— what he thinks he's been, but hasn't been. You get the compounding delusion? He is—you make that very clear—he is. See, he decides he is something.
Well, he isn't anything. I mean, he's himself, that's all he is. That's plenty. If he really were himself, that'd be terrific. But he becomes something else, and then as he is cause in that, he gradually involves himself until he has to unbecome it, and he becomes the effect of it.
The second law of magic is "Do not be hoist by thine own petard." In other words, don't blow yourself up with your own bomb. Don't knock your silly head off with your own wand. Because—cause and effect, cause and effect.
Well, this gives us inverted dynamics. This makes the fellow one, and then we go down a whole row of dynamics and we get to a point of where he's the effect of one. Now, this would start him out as a thetan in good working order and would finish him up on one cycle as a thetan who was being affected by a thetan that he had been. And this is a person's past sneaking up on him. This is people's avidity for studying this past.
But unfortunately the past is nearly always up Tone Scale. A few generations ago, people were moving faster.
So here we have "not look." Now, let's get how we get "not look" out of this "become and unbecome." It's very simple. If a thetan is looking at sixty miles an hour—now, just to be real crude about this, let's say his lookingness is traveling sixty miles an hour, and it meets something coming at him ninety miles an hour, his lookingness is coming back at him now thirty miles an hour. Is that right? It's real simple. If he's looking at an angle, he will simply get his attention brushed off. And the matter of fact, if he looks head-on on anything— he just starts to look head-on—his attention will be thrown off of it.
Now, you can run this experiment with any individual. You can tell him simply to look around a 360 degree sphere ... You want to get somebody who is wearing glasses and tell them to do this, because he'll get it right in the face. You just tell him to look around at various depths until he finds an impression of something somewhere. And he'll say, "What kind of an impression?"
"Well, just an impression. Just search very carefully across this sphere, see, and look very carefully up this way and really look up there."

GETTING UP SPEED, PART I
"What do you mean, look at the walls and so forth?"
"No. You know, kind of into the ether. You know? Just up this way." And just use some strange word so he won't look straight at mest. "And just search it very carefully."
And he'll start looking, you know, and he'll look upon it all of a sudden, he'll look—bang, see? Right in the eyes. Nearly every time.
I've done this on people and they've cursed me for an hour. "Look at various distances." There's stuff waiting out on the fringe of consciousness, you see? Perception has to do with impressions and particles and so forth. And when that velocity hits one of these ridges sitting out there—we don't have to know too much about ridges, that's just another barrier.
People get happy about ridges, by the way, and they start validating ridges and validating ridges, and they just get more and more ridges, and the ridges get heavier and heavier and thicker and thicker and more of them. Anytime you start validating something too heavily it has a tendency to become real, because that's the way things are created. So this stuff up here can get solider and solider and solider and solider until, boy, a fellow can't move. He can make air—you can actually, by concept, make air so solid that you kind of have to walk through a room as though you were at the bottom of the sea. You can just get real solid, I mean, everything can get. . . What are you doing? You're just packing it up.
All right. Now, this not lookingness—he gets off there and he takes a look up here someplace, and he looks up here someplace and he looks up here someplace, and all of a sudden he'll hit one of these ridges and it'll discharge. Because it's only his perception that can discharge it. It's set up there to discharge. When? Some past date. And he's just carrying it forward and he probably has a machine mocking it up all the time, see? Real smart. Real cute. New automaticity. And he looks at it, and he sets this thing off.
Well, the way this thing was set up to operate was every time his perception went across a certain subject, he has a bunch of lighted relay stations ... If you figured out the perimeter around a preclear as the coast of the United States with the preclear in the center of it, and every time his attention went on certain subjects or looked in certain directions, that attention—because he saves energy, you see—is then shunted to every lighthouse on every coast in the United States and activates every machine that's there. And that's the way he triggers all these things off and keeps going. Oh, he's a complex piece of machinery, that's right. By blowing up the United States you would, of course, dispense with the lighthouses, but this is a little rigorous. Because he can't dispense with all these lighthouses instantly. You can simply get him to take over control of these lighthouses. It doesn't take too long to get them in fairly good working order. He's—there's only a few lighthouses that get him into trouble. He swears they're lighthouses, too—they're "real important," and they're "just what he needs," and so on.
But what do you know, that perimeter—if you could just set down a bigger United States, with bigger coasts, in addition to the first one, with a whole new set of lighthouses, they're getting slightly activated too. Now we get a bigger United States, you see, and we get more coasts—this is actually apparent if you get up above some preclear and tune up your wave band, you can see these things—get more coasts, and that's a third ring now. And they get slightly activated, too, every time he thinks some kind of a thought. But if he thinks a thought that is really in that direction, why, boy, these things are going around like a pinball machine. It's real, real interesting.

39

40

17 NOVEMBER 1953
This is not anatomy, as far as the body's concerned, but this is actually a thetan's—to some degree, his anatomy. All right.
We get a bigger United States, and we put it down on this whole picture, you could see how this goes. Because it goes out there a couple of light-years in both directions as far as he's concerned. I mean, it's not small. It's the area he's covering, because it's his own space. See, so this is pretty big—he's a big guy.
Well, now we get into this lookingness. Gradually he has to—in order to turn off the automatic machinery, he has to look closer. You get this? He can't look as far. Or if he has some automatic relays all set up electronically, right in close, he has to look way out all the time; he doesn't dare look up here. The second he does, he gets pinged. It's an actual physical blow that he would receive. But he receives just a trickle of it, you see. Just enough to take his attention away from it. Totally mechanical. It's as though you were asking somebody to look into the teeth of a fire hose. And this is just not going to work as far as he's concerned. So every time he starts to look toward some kind of a subject of any kind that has some automaticity and a relay station on it, his attention just goes zoonnnng, and he's off of it.
So you try to explain to the preclear, "The trouble that is wrong with you, Mr. Verypretty is—the trouble is, that you are having difficulties domestically and this upsets our processing."
Do you know that you'll occasionally run across one—he could, see, have a black eye, he could have his shirt half torn off him every time you called on him. He could have the police over to quiet the riot three nights a week, and he just looks at you very calmly, and he says to you, "That couldn't possibly be the trouble with my case."
And you look at this boy and you say, "God's sakes. Well, what's wrong with him?"
Well, I'll tell you what's wrong with him: he's got so much commotion, every time he tries to look at it his attention flicks off of it. He's got a complete occlusion on it. You ask him what he had for breakfast—if he's having a rough time in the family or something like that, he doesn't know what he had for breakfast. "Well, all right. What gas station did you last stop at to fuel your car?"
"Oh, well down there at 9th and Chester, and I—and so forth. Attendant down there named Joe. Got 9.1 gallons and the cost was so many dollars and so many cents. Ha-ha! And it was 10:32 in the afternoon and the date was the 8th. That was a Wednesday."
You say, "Boy, what a sharpie!" And then you say, "Well now, to take up your domestic affairs."
"I'm not having any domestic trouble."
Well now, that is putting something in a highly extreme form—very extreme form—with a pc.
But let's just narrow this down into what actually occurs with regard to this—I mean, that does occur, but this person goes around all the time—all the time, I mean, he's got this button. You just have to run the button on him. Just tell him, as an auditor, that he must run this button, see. We say, "All right. Now run this button of 'people's wives departing from them; people's wives and people's husbands departing from them.'And that's the button you should run on this next case. Now, when you finish up the session and so forth, want to make sure by the time you finish the session that you at least run that button."
He'll say, "Sure. You betcha. Yep. Yep."
And you run against the preclear a couple of days later, preclear's walking

GETTING UP SPEED, PART I
around, "Huh, what wall, what room?" See? And nothing's been done for him, you see.
And you say—go out, get ahold of this auditor: "What'd you run in that session?"
"Oh just what you told me."
"What did I tell you to run?"
"Oh, you said to do a little bit of Straightwire, next-to-the-last list. And you said to run some Step I, Orienting Straightwire, and I did that. And then I double-terminaled his difficulty with his liver and so on."
And you say, "Well how about husbands and wives departing from him?"
"Oh, I—I guess I just—there wasn't time in the session." Now we've got a reason, see? He's got to justify it. "There wasn't time in the session"—and he may even invent one to make himself completely right and say, "I tried to run it, but so-and-so."
You can take auditor-preclear teams that have failed and get two E-Meters, and you can ask the preclear what the auditor's been running on him, and the auditor's machine will clong, clong, clong and the preclear's machine will sit steady even though it hasn't been run out.
The auditor, because of this—unless he's snapped well up the line—is always running out of preclears what should be run out of the auditor; because of this difficulty of lookingness.
Now, let's take lookingness in symbols. We can understand human behavior in terms of lookingness; we've advanced an awful long way—that's what I'm trying to show you here very briefly. We say to this person, "Where did you get that hat?"
And they say, "Oh, hats are brighter colored this year. And I asked my aunt about hats. And you know, she used to be in the style business. She was in New York and she—long time she was a dress designer. She has some of the loveliest dresses and so on, and she used to particularly take a great deal of pains in matching them up with shoes and so forth. And by the way, I think I've got to go down the street and get a shine."
What you said was, "Where did you get the hat?" See, this is real fun.
Now, if you just look at this in Homo sap, it becomes very, very amusing as a game. You ask him, "Does this streetcar go to Poplar Place?"
"Oh, it's about twenty-five minutes."
"Twenty-five minutes to where?"
"Well, it's about twenty-five minutes out on the line here."
"What is?"
"Poplar Place—oh, we don't go there, that's the other streetcar."
You say, "Ahhhhhh!"
You've just asked him about something that he just couldn't look at, that's all, which is locational position. Locations, positions and so forth. So he went off into time and he went off into something else.
Well, if you look at people who are real bad off, if this is their attention, they're going this way, here's the center of the case—here's the buttons and buttons and buttons. So we look at them and their attention . . . We say, "Look at the ashtray" (and we'll just say that "ashtray" is really what should happen on that case), "Look at the ashtray," and his attention—this hand line here, see—goes up here and psheewww! Over here is a connecting thing which says, "cigarettes," and he'll say, "I don't know. When I was quite young I used to play with matches."

41

42

17 NOVEMBER 1953
You say, "This is probably an ashtray. Now, take a look at this ashtray and let's see whether or not we can't pick up something about your mother, and get a little Straightwire on your mother and so forth. All right. Now, just let's recall a time . . ." See, his attention, all the time you're talking since the word "mother," is idling like this, you see. "Now, let's get a time when your mother spanked you."
"Well, I don't think that's what's wrong with my case. Actually, it's a question of matches. I remember being punished and then afterwards I was sick for a long time."
Now, an auditor will do this. He'll have a case in progress, the case will be coming along very well, case will be doing all right in terms of communication. The auditor adjudication of the speed of communication of the case says the case is progressing. That's all an auditor needs to know. And boy, before very long we ought to know real well what this is all about, so we don't have to ask somebody how he feels. You ask people how they feel now, to be courteous, not because you don't know. You know and then you ask. Just to be courteous; just because man talks that way. Not because you have to find out. So we ask him, "Do you feel better today?"
"Well, I don't know. I had an awfully bad night last night. I haven't had a bad night for a year."
Is he trying to be insulting? No, he sure isn't trying to be insulting. The fact of the matter is you've asked him about his condition and that's one thing he can't face. He's totally justifying, trying to look for some justification of condition. Why is he looking for justification? Because he's got logic machinery sitting around. And he flips in this direction and it shoots him off over in this direction, and he pings a couple of these relay stations and that clicks a couple more things and above all this—"How wrong can you get? Dead." So he has to be right somewhat, so he has to tell you he's alive and this means he has to be right, so he explains to you how right he is.
And you ask somebody, "Are you going to the theater tonight?" And he'll very often tell you how alive he is. Just routinely. And you ask somebody if he's eaten yet, he'll tell you how alive he is.
But if he considers this discourteous, he will tell you about how dead he is, kind of threateningly, or needing energy or sympathy. In other words, he goes off into computations, pang! pang! pang! All of this thinkingness sets up because his lookingness collapses on a certain subject. So he thinks. And then he doesn't know what he's thinking about. And then that inverts and he finds himself looking at something else. And then eventually that other thing inverts, and so he's looking at something else.
Psychology, our unlamented predecessor. We have nothing to do with psychology. Psychology is the study of the human brain and stimulus-response mechanisms, and its code word was, "man, to be happy, must adjust to his environment." In other words, man, to be happy, must be a total effect.
It was almost fatal, by the way, to run into that and tell somebody he has to start making the best of it and putting up with things and taking a rest, and that'll fix him right up.
Well, anyway, we have this problem coming up continually where you have distracted attention. This is one method of distracting attention. The other method of distracting attention, of course, is to pull it in, in some other direction.
Now, in psychology they neglect the factor of causation, because they neglect— they're treating the human body and trying to understand the human body. So

GETTING UP SPEED, PART I
they, of course, are not looking at that thing which monitors a human body. It's the thetan, so they never would have found the thetan. Furthermore, the thetan works like radar. Radar is much closer to it than MEST eyes.
mest eyes depend on light coming in and hitting and agitating something or other for the GE to see. But what do you know—you never look at what the GE sees. I don't know why you use one. You don't feel what he feels, see what he sees, nothing. See, this is a real weirdie. You've got viewpoints dropped over the iris, and you've got hearing points over the eardrums and you've got feeling points over the fingertips and along the nerve lines you've got stations set up so that you can feel what he feels, but you never get a relay from the GE. That's real interesting, isn't it?
You can monitor a GE if you want to and turn him into nip-ups because he's a total effect—practically total effect. So that you generate any kind of energy, you're going to affect him one way or the other. But you're not doing anything with the energy, normally, that you have to have in order to run the GE and that sort of thing. Once upon a time you could probably just run one. You know, it didn't have to eat, nothing—you just mock up a body.
There's a certain shame—the first shame on the track, by the way, is when a person no longer is able to generate enough energy to run something— when he starts to eat and get the energy from someplace else. Eating is your first dog down; then below that level he can't make up new mock-ups just pang! pang! pang! so sex is invented as a substitute for eating and to continue lines of mock-ups.
All right. When we look at lookingness, we are looking at the same time at its collapsed states, which is feelingness, effort, thinkingness, and not thinkingness. And every time we look at lookingness, we're looking at geographical position. And you'll get so darn sick and tired of geographical position. Because as far as this universe, and as far as three universes are concerned, the key to them is contained in the Prelogics.
The first thing theta does is create space and time and objects in them, and—creates, see. And then the next thing it does is locate things. See, it just creates these things. But that is locational itself, and then it locates things in space and time.
You get a preclear to start locating things in the barriers of the mest universe. It's just as valuable to get him to locate things in other people's universes, by the way.
We have three universes, all locational. Viewpoint of dimension. The moment we're into space, we're into location. And the second somebody tells you that he is "lost mentally" or "feels lost," it's because he's not looking at something. You see, first he didn't know, and then he had to look. First he said he didn't know, and he said he'd look, and then he didn't know and he did look, and then he couldn't look, and then he decided that he'd better feel, and then he wanted to feel so he couldn't really look anymore, and he started on down— and here goes your pc. Each time he tries to look, his attention is shunted off someplace else.
So I give you buttons to run this morning—that's what we're getting around to—and, of course, here and there you avoided running the key buttons, see? You run the Tone Scale buttons because they were all written down. Well, a very important button there is "ridicule." You see, you—here and there, in the offices over there, you dropped ridicule. I mean, it's very neat. That's— "Huuuuhhhh! No, not ridicule!"
Now, instructing on any such subject as this, using the symbols which

43

44

17 NOVEMBER 1953
comprise the English language, which of course is a symbol relay system itself (it's quite remarkable that we get across anything on a symbol relay system), we use these buttons and point them up and we get drills in progress, and the next thing you know we're running into one of these "not looks."
Well, you could be very, very uncomfortable if you simply were crushed into looking. Boy, we could bust the watch real royally—smash! And the way to really get a busted watch is to have somebody else look for you. You know, go around and clean up somebody else's bank for them. You can do that.
You can go down the street and a little crippled boy is hobbling along and you all of a sudden turn his leg red-hot, stretch out the bones, straighten it up and he goes, throws away the crutch. You can do this if you're hot enough. But it—does it do him any good, really, in the long run? No, it doesn't. Wonder why? Boy, has he been an effect, but royally! You made him more of an effect than he was before; so you crippled his own self-determinism to some degree. He'll have a straight leg, but he'll wonder after a while if it isn't better to have a broken back.
So when you interfere with self-determinism to that degree you get into trouble. That doesn't matter, it doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. I mean, I'm just telling you what I know so ... You can sure produce an effect.
Now, we have, in any of this instruction, the process of reversing the line of agreement, which comprises a state not as able as it should be. Now, somewhere up the line, one attains a state of balance on cause and effect which gives him a sufficiency of barriers to enjoy the game. And not so many barriers that he's now not enjoying it, see. If you have too many barriers, why, it's being in jail. And if you have not enough barriers, why, no motion, no action.
So as we look up the line here, we're going up against the past. The past is running at higher speed than the present. Why is this? Let's take the fellow who runs a piano. He learns to run this piano; this is in the year 1722. Now, by the way, he's dead—he's wanted to be real convincing now—he died in 1745. He died real dead. Boy, was it convincing, his body was tramped by a horse and he was completely mangled. There was no doubt in anybody's mind he was dead. By the way, you'll find him holding on to this impact and so on, occasionally, when he needs to be reassured. See, it's: He's not there, he's there, he's not there, he's there, he's not there . . . You've got a "maybe" at work, but you also, between these two things, have the certainty of impact. No doubt in anybody's mind that they were hit.
You can go back down through a person's lifetime and you'll find a lot of these impacts sitting around—boy, there's no doubt in their mind that they were hit. In other words, something produced an effect upon them. They're more certain about what they hit, though, if they're in pretty good shape, because they've certainly produced an effect on something else.
Well anyway, this fellow could play this piano back here in 1722, and he played the piano very beautifully and he was very fast—clavichord or something of the sort. And he—just gorgeous, you see. I mean he—artist. Real fast and terrific virtuosity, and the best there was and all of that sort of thing. And that life's all gone. That's laid away. Doesn't remember. We only live but once, the beautiful sadness of that. He's been very convincing.
Death is a sort of an accusation. You say, "Boy, did you produce an effect upon me and a bad effect too. And all of your effects are bad, damn you. Because look how dead I am." Of course a person who can remember is not dead, see? So, of course, a person who's dead is dead, if you want to really be convincing.
So in 1940, why, Mama puts this person down to the piano and says, "Now, you've got to practice for two hours a day and you'll be a good piano

GETTING UP SPEED, PART I
player. And I've got a good teacher for you, and it cost a lot of money to buy this piano. We're paying five dollars a month for it. And we're paying umpteen dollars for the course of lessons. Now practice on the piano." And the kid— very happy, see.
And he starts monkeying around with the piano. Bum-bum-bum-bum, bum-dum-dum-dum. He starts monkeying around and they show him a piece of music he's supposed to play, and he looks at this music, and it sure doesn't look right to him—looks awful funny. He doesn't pay any attention to the music, to hell with the music. And he finally gets it down to where he's got a boogie beat down here, see, on the bass; and he gets this boogie beat and he's getting real interested and the piano teacher says, "No!"
And Mama says, "My God! We're trying to teach you to be a concert pianist, Oswald." And he tries this a couple of more times, you know, kind of speedy, and he'll just have to slow down. He's supposed to read music and he's supposed to do this and he's supposed to do that. In other words, instructingly, they're making an effect out of him—crush, crush, crush, crush, crush, crush!
All of a sudden he starts to play the piano one day, and he gets sick! He gets real sick. He doesn't know what on Earth has hit him. Nobody else does either. But he doesn't look at the piano; he can't tell anybody it's the piano. He doesn't know it's the piano. And this is your mechanism of the hypnotized subject unable to look at the tie signal of the hypnotist, as you'll find in Book One. You know, the fellow says, "When I touch my tie, you'll take off your left shoe." The hypnotized subject never sees the motion; he just doesn't look at it. All right.
We have this poor kid there, sitting in a fast ridge of terrific automaticity. Oh, if just left by himself, he could have sorted through so he could have learned a piano without ever contacting that ridge. But now, by being an effect—this "he has to learn"—they've got to set up all of his piano playing automatically, and as soon as it's being set up automatically according to music, in comes the old ridge. And the second we've got an old ridge coming in on him, it's moving faster than he is, and it goes boom! And boy, don't think it doesn't go boom. All of the automaticity about piano playing—he can't play that fast.
Then we get, every once in a while, a child wonder. He sits down at the piano, two years old, and pangity-pang-pang, Mozart and Brahms, zing-zing-boom-bong.
Or you get a kid four years old, and he all of a sudden starts talking ancient tongues. Somebody listens to him for a while and says, "My God, do you realize that you're talking algebra?" And he doesn't see anything peculiar about it at all. Just some old automatic ridge.
Well, sometimes they can handle them; mostly they can't. And when it caves in, it caves in but hard. It's running faster than they are. All right.
In the course of study, as we go up along the line, we are continually pushing the preclear to look at things which are running faster than we have the preclear running. So if your cases hang fire at any time, you're just auditing too slow, and using too slow a technique. Speed has everything to do with it. So that the fellow can't look quickly, you see—he doesn't look speedily, he doesn't carve through anything, his attention goes off in some other direction.
Techniques, as they are developed, make a very integrated picture. Extremely integrated, actually, since they are all designed to pick it up at the easiest end and reclaim with the least excitation of unhandled automaticity.
You know, a fellow's memory starts going to pot by handling automaticity and so forth, unless it's being handled by an auditor, and handled very well.
(Recording ends abruptly)

45

Getting Up Speed. Part II
A lecture given on 17 November 1953

This is the second part of the afternoon lecture. Giving these to you rather quickly so that we get enough in the brisket to digest here.
We have speed as the determining factor of the pc. And what do we mean by "speed"? Low on the Tone Scale, you get almost a complete stop. Once the person sits, he doesn't move very much, he talks rather slowly, and as we go up on the Tone Scale, we get faster and faster motion, and faster and faster motion. But all of this motion is controlled motion.
Now, we inverted from just sitting—it's very possible that a person goes into frantic and insane motions, which is not controlled. But as we go up the Tone Scale, we get faster and faster, until actually, at the top, we get speed as instantaneous.
Now, get the difference between instantaneous positioning—because one travels so fast between two places he's in two places at once, or meets himself coming back, (that's an inversion of it)—and being in one place stopped. You get the tremendous difference between these two points.
I wish to impress this upon you, because you're going to run into, when you go out of here, you're going to run into people who claim they are operating very, very quickly and who are talking very, very quickly and so on, who are not running on a positive speed, they're running on another speed. It's uncontrolled speed. They say they—"Oh, yeah, I get mock-ups, mock-ups. Oh yeah, I get them, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah."
You say, "What color are the buttons?"
"Oh, they're pink! Ha-ha! They went blue then. Ha! They're pink now! Yeah, yeah—green!"
Oh-oh. On terrific pieces of automaticity—almost anybody has some automaticity showing up with them because we're right now processing straight at some pieces of automaticity. But where we have this showing up on a frantic, hectic, uncontrolled speed, we're getting an automaticity running the person, so to speak.
But remember this: person's goofy, they're real crazy, unmistakably crazy. You want to understand that; I mean, let's not just say—see somebody who is just moving fast, and he's sort of on a hectically—say he's on a manic because he's moving very rapidly, he's talking very rapidly. He's trying to get a lot of things done very quickly and so forth—like your high-pressure supersalesman and that sort of fellow. No, he's running on positive speed; he's usually a pretty bright boy. We're talking now about when this goes off—anybody gets some of

47

48

17 NOVEMBER 1953
this automaticity, but when the entire preclear becomes automatically fast, they're real crazy, they disassociate.
They'll talk about. . . They look in all directions fast and they're doing a dispersal and their attention isn't fixed anyplace, and they look at a window and they say, "Well, now the window and the radiator and the desk—uh— when we all have—do you know, I think it isn't going to snow." And it's just about as reasonable as that; just no justification at all. It's really crazy, you understand.
So let's not look at just a manic—let's not look at a manic state and consider it sane. And reversely, please, let's not look at a person in fairly fast motion and immediately brand him as a complete goofball. Because a person in very fast motion doing an awful lot of things is not necessarily justifying all of his actions either. So, there's an inversion on speed, which is that you can get a nice charge out of a preclear (I don't recommend you run any such a button— I say "constancy," other buttons; button running is kind of passe), because you get this very nice reaction on an individual who is sitting around, he's sitting very carefully around and he isn't moving very much—you just get him to double-terminal "repressing insane motions." Nyowdodododoh!—right away, see. I mean, his automaticity suddenly starts up. He has machinery to repress motions because they might be crazy: "repressing crazy motions," and that sort of thing.
Almost anybody has got a tiny little bit of this, you see, because they have had to repress what their family considered to be "wild and uncontrolled motions." So that set in, to some degree, an automaticity.
But the big difference that we're looking for is the person almost stopped, up to the person being almost instantaneously.
Now, mest language does not keep up—does not keep up—with a person who is running at a really high, acceptable level of speed in Scientology. Can you imagine anybody auditing at this rate of speed: "All right, get a mock-up of your father. Blow him up. Now, get a mock-up of your mother. Put her behind your back. Put them in front of your face. Put them over your head. Put them behind your back. Now blow them up. Now, be in the childhood home. Be here. Be in the childhood home. Be here. Inspect the childhood home very carefully next time. Be in the childhood home. Here. Home. Here. Home. Here. Home, here. Home, here. Home, here. Home, here. Home, here. Okay." Imagine somebody auditing that fast. I hope you'll audit that fast.
Because as you come up along the line, you monitor your auditing. . . Please remember this: Your auditing is not monitored by your own desire so much as it is monitored by leading the preclear slightly—always lead him slightly. You run him just a hair faster than is comfortable—just a hair faster. You wait for his "yup" and "uh-huh" but you give him the command on the "uh" not on the "huh," see that? You give him the command on the "y-" not on the "-up." And if you do that, he has a feeling of being under just slight duress, just slight pressure, which makes him quite alert—and which, by the way, speeds up his attention.
Now, by speeding up his attention, it is possible then to get him to look straight through ridges, straight past barriers, and you get a much wider scope of action.
The auditor who continues to audit at this rate of speed: "All right, now you got that mock-up? Mm-hm. Well. . . Mm, put it behind your back. Mm-hm. You got that now? Mm-hm. Well—uh—mm, put it over on the right side. You got that now? Mm-hm. You got it on the right side? Mm-hm. Well. . . Put it

GETTING UP SPEED, PART II
over on the left side." Preclear starts to slow down. The next thing you know, your preclear is incapable of running the stuff that he could run at the first part of the session.
A smooth personal relationship can be established by the most ordinary politeness—the most ordinary and routine politeness. I have, by the way, made another little test again. I test this every once in a while just to convince myself it's so because it seems so incredible to me that people can be shattered by something—the two "shuns": invalidation and evaluation.
Well, of course, you're actually evaluating for a preclear when you're moving him around. And that's all very well, because you're moving him around fast enough so that his speed is coming up swiftly enough, so he starts running at speeds which is self self-determinism; that's fine, that's fine.
But every once in a while I invalidate somebody during a session by simply giving him more than he can do, or evaluate for him—say, "Now, I want you to think about this and give me the answer in the next session." They're always much worse—always! I mean, I do this every once in a while, once in a blue moon.
Every month or two, I'll just take a little check on it, because I hope to find out someday or other some way that you can evaluate and invalidate against a preclear where it doesn't completely cave him in. But every preclear I've ever done this to has simply caved in. I'm very disappointing to people; I've tried to do it very lightly and it doesn't seem to matter how lightly I do it—crash! All right.
These things aside, slow auditing is the next big crime—it's a real crime. And that's why Step Is should audit Step Is—their speed is up there pretty good. And that's also why Vs should audit Vs, as long as they're Vs.
Of course if somebody sells himself on a step, and says, "Well, I'm that step" and tries to hold on to it desperately—it's been quite a contest getting techniques which really just take a scoop shovel and move him out of the classification he thinks he's in, and put him in another classification, but we can do that now.
But those things are all very well, but the most ordinary and routine politeness will carry you the rest of the way—no evaluation, no invalidation. Like, "Well, your mother probably cared for you anyway, you probably just didn't understand her"—something like that, you know? Evaluation and invalidation of his own decision and his own certainty. "Oh, I really don't think you are certain of that. It's quite obvious to me that you're not certain of that," and so forth. Well, you can shake somebody up this way a little bit.
But it doesn't seem possible that this is so, but you'll find it to be so: that the third crime on the list that's a real crime—a real crime—is auditing slowly. Now, a V will audit a V at a speed which is comparable to what the other V is running, so that's not too bad. But a V starts auditing a I, and the I starts to go crazy!
"Be there. (pause) You there?" (audience laughter) Hell! The I's there and been back and looked around and twiddled his thumbs and went up and took a look at the moon and came back down again and is waiting for the next command, and he's lost track of what you're trying to do—he's nuts, you see. Pang! There we go.
So the test which you use on cases is communication. Now, communication essentially is this, it is ... Well, let's take and mock up a cube of space with eight anchor points and then somewhere in the middle of it draw a diagonal line, not parallel with the cube, but just a diagonal line, and name—inside

49

50

17 NOVEMBER 1953
this cube somewhere, just floating inside the cube—and mark one end of it "A" and the other end of it "B." Now we have a picture of the travel of a particle through space. Now, the travel of the particle is from A to B. It is not from A to B to A. The travel of the particle is from A to B, and that is basic communication.
Now, communication going both ways, both-way communication, is another line right alongside of the first line we drew inside the cube. Now, this first line—the upper, that is to say, the higher point of this little line—was called A, and the lower point B.
Now, we'll draw this other little line right alongside of the first line, and we'll put at the bottom of it A and the top of it B, see, so we'll put A' is the lower A, and B' is the upper A. And your communication then, will go A-B; A'-B'. A-B; A'-B'. And the people miss the second side.
A communication line has two channels, not one channel. If you insist on using one channel for a communication line, somebody just completely bogs— they just go batty.
That's probably what's wrong with Bell Telephone—they're always crowding that one line. There's probably more to that than meets the eye—we don't have to go into it very deeply to assume this—because look, you see, they use actually two lines for one wire and they're both in the same cable. That's—they just use that back and forth in an electronic flow. But there is still—there would be something—some improvement would take place if they had two lines.
Here we have a problem in repetition. All right. We say A to B. We send this particle from A to B. Then the same particle, the same identical particle, suddenly comes right back from B to A. Now, if you don't believe this is upsetting, try to be around somebody that talks like this: "Well, I guess you're going down to the store, aren't you?"
"To the store?"
"Yeah, to the store."
"Oh, to the store."
You say, "I don't feel well today."
And they say, "I don't feel well today."
Dzzzz! Then you start saying, "Well, I don't know, I kind of feel like I'm getting old."
And they say, "I feel like I'm getting old."
Mmmm. It's like yelling into a well or something.
There's some—the greatest advancement that was ever made by psychology was a machine which repeated everything you said into it a fifth of a second later. And people talking to that machine used to get quite squirrely, and this was quite a development. There you're using the same particle flow, same particle pattern, and that essentially is "no randomity," you see. No, it's just— it's a question of randomity rather than the flow lines.
But a true communication goes A-B, A'-B'. Not A-B, B-A; A-B, B-A. Because a person has his own communication line, and when the other person starts using his own—the same line, why, you get a jam on the same line, just by contrary wavelengths. You start to work this out in electronics, you couldn't possibly see how you could get a reverse wave coming on the same wave. You'd have to alter the wave in some fashion or another, and as soon as you've altered the wave, you have actually a different pattern, so you'd have two patterns running on the same carrier wave—which is two waves, you see.

GETTING UP SPEED, PART II
So your preclear actually could be marked on this little line we've just mocked up here as—not starting, see—he just A, A, A. And B—totally arrived—B, B, B. See? No flow, no motion. And then we get the fellow who has just left A, but he knows he'll never arrive at B. He's a message. He is not the cause of the communication, he is the communication. He has become the particle. And of course, you try to get flow lines out of this, it gets real silly.
And the more a person is unable to get to B, and the less he is able to start at A, why, the slower his communication gets. Because each time he has to check through all of the circuits to get himself back up here somewhere, approximating some phony A—A prime, prime, prime, prime, prime, you see— in order to follow a circuitous route to get through part of this line or parallel it. And he finally will arrive not at B—he'll finally arrive talking to somebody in the next block. I mean, he's just missing—missing any communication.
Well, this slows a line down because you—essentially you have a problem there in speed. Now, that's basically the problem of speed.
How long does it take a particle to get from A to B? Well, of course, it's the shortest. . . The shortest line in this case would be the fastest line. And if you really had a superinstantaneous line, why, a fellow would be at A and B simultaneously, so that's a real fast communication without a particle. That would be "super-telepathy." And about the only way telepathy really works, is you're just two points at the same time, meaning the same thing in two different places. When you do that, believe me, you get messages through.
Or you just put a point where somebody else is, and you're at the point where you are, and you get those two points pang! simultaneously, although they're at different places in space.
And the other one is a collapsed terminal: The person is a particle and he doesn't go from A to B; he says, "A is at B" and he says this all the time, "A is at B; A is at B." Now, this fellow, to communicate, thinks he has to be very, very close in. When they talk—such people talk over a long-distance telephone— they shout. They know they are talking from Boston to Los Angeles. And they'll stand at the phone or sit at their desk, and they can be heard five offices away just because they know they just can't arrive down there—that's impossible! See, so they just—fighting this impossibility.
When they come off the phone, you find hands wet, terrible strain, awful sweat, and complete certainty that they weren't understood at the other end. And they'll sit down and write a big letter about it, then they'd be doubtful if that got there. They'd be shaken for days, merely by trying to go beyond their level of distance.
And it's—you've seen this sort of thing happen. If you were on a longdistance or transatlantic switchboard for a while or listened to monitored transatlantic call lines—I've done that, lines going down to South America and so forth—you'd see what I mean.
The fellows who are very orderly and in pretty good shape and are getting something done abroad and all that sort of thing, these boys—oh, they just talk over the line, they're very sequitur and so on.
But these other boys that are yelling across the line and having an awful time and repeating four or five times—when the other fellow's heard all of it, the connection is perfectly good, you see—they're really in a frantic state. The things that they're saying are completely non sequitur, and the call itself concerns itself with some triviality or double-checkup of certainty, the like of which you would think any baby would be able to trust, but they're not able to

51

52

17 NOVEMBER 1953
trust it. So their line of trust, line of everything . . . Why? It's just a problem of speed; they can't arrive.
In this universe, it is synonymous . .. They get on this cycle: this is the cycle of creation, growth—of persistency in that state—and then decay and death, and that is the action cycle. So, from A to B, you have any action cycle you read about in Scientology 8-8008. All those action cycles actually fit from A to B.
Actually, A to B could be cut up in lots of little cycles, and you could put the inverted dynamics on from A to B. The closer he is to B, the more he is an effect, and the closer he is to A, the more he is cause.
A person who can start easily . . . Oh, by the way, this is an interesting test. A person who can start easily has third-dimensional visios with great ease. And a person who is finishing, or having difficulty about finishing, has flat visios. You can check it just that fast (snap)—you can tell just where he is on this A-B line.
Now you say, "Get the idea of starting something. Get a picture of you starting something," and for the first time in his life, he'll get a third-dimensional visio. This is very simple. "Now get a picture of you ending something," and it's flat. He'll think this is very peculiar indeed. It's not peculiar, it's just the fact that everything kind of piles up at B.
Well now, if he's at B and he's trying to be cause, of course everything he does flops back at him. You get that? In order to be cause at all, he has to be on his own communication line shooting things somehow out of B and they hit A and hit him at B. You follow that?
Now, the test of this is every time he—you get him to throw a mocked-up ball out in front of him and it keeps hitting him in the face. This isn't because he's been hit in the face with a baseball when he was a kid; it's just the fact that he's at B—he's arrived one way or the other.
You going to get this fellow out of his body? No, there isn't any depth, any distance, nothing of the sort—he's going to have a rough time of it. He needs space. He's short on space. He's short on comm speed. He's short on an awful lot of things.
Now, we get some silly combinations work like this: the body is just in horrible condition—oh, it's really caved in, ridges and everything else—just because the body's in horrible condition. This fellow's lived a heck of a life and he's been banged around considerably and so on.
Well now, let's take a look at A to B with regard to this, and we find out that as a thetan he's in the middle of some kind of a theta trap, and he's really high cause but every time he gets a particle out it hits this body which is immediately there, which is effect. And you get an instantaneous effect, and the fellow can't back out of his body because the body is so much of an effect, it's kind of a vacuum. And he's tuned up enough on this vacuum so he just keeps snapping back into the body. Such a fellow very often will get out of his head and bounce back in. You know, you'll say, "Be three feet back of your head," and he goes zup-up! He was out for an instant. You see that?
And some of them, when they've hit too many things too hard, can be quite powerhousey, but they hit too many things too hard. Their body's convinced that they're at B, they're in facsimiles at the rating of B, their speed levels are at B, and here we go, you see. The fellow is—he can't move; he can't cause his own motion. So he has trouble doing that.
And all of this is indicated by communication speed—not reasonableness of the communication. That's a very, very poor test—whether it's reasonable or not—for the good reason is, that there isn't any reason.

GETTING UP SPEED, PART II
The—it's just like, the significance of the microphone is the microphone. Now, we do a lot of things for the sake of randomity. We have a microphone, it goes in and it puts some things on tape, and we use a voice to impel certain things into air, and it carries them along through; we do those things. That's a— that introduces a randomity. That is something to do, rather than the reason why we have a microphone. So again, we're back to motion of a particle as explanatory of something to do.
There isn't any reason to have any motion beyond the fact that there's motion. They used to kill writers in my day by sneering at "action for action's sake." You get some perfectly good writer and start beating him around about "Well, he was all right, but he wrote action for action's sake." Well, actually, there's no better reason to write action, than action for action's sake.
No, what they wanted was something deeply significant. Symptomatic of this was a story called Big Brother, it was written in, I think, Dial Press about 1930 or '31—'32, somewhere in that band, and Dial Press published this story. Honest, it starts slow, it moves slower, and it goes noplace—but boy, does it have significance! Gee, it's significant! It's so significant that you can think about it for hours without arriving at any slightest reason why it was ever written—real, real hidden.
Now, what makes a person's speed deteriorate? That is agreement— continuous agreement on certain speeds. And continuous agreement on these speeds brings about a condition of running at the speed of his environment. And if he can't run faster than his environment, he will pretty soon be running slower than it. He has to run a little faster than the environment to be cause—not much faster. It's not quite as bad as Lewis Carroll said it was. He says you run like the dickens just to keep up, and run like everything just to get anyplace.
Well, that isn't necessarily true; there isn't this much exertion, thank God. But if a person thinks he's just going to drop motion forevermore, and think a thought and all of a sudden be and blossom like a rose, he's going to have to at the same time desert this body and this universe and just sit on a pink cloud for a long time before he's really sure that it's sure. But he can simply walk back up the agreement track little by little, and shed a few of those extra balance wheels and cogwheels and throw out a few mainsprings that he was just sure he needed.
And the big trick in this is exteriorization.
Too often an auditor puts a great deal of concentration on a technique which exteriorizes. You know, he really gets to straining, like this is a big goal. Exteriorization is a big goal; as a matter of fact, it—in some cases, it's a bit of a trick. But the case starts pretty much there.
If you give anybody the impression that just by exteriorizing them, all is going to be well in their case forevermore and they will never have to be touched again and so forth, this is a little bit erroneous. Because if you just faintly exteriorize them after a great deal of trouble, they'll go back in—smack! See, you haven't shed enough balance wheels.
But the moment you exteriorize somebody, this is the single biggest leap that the case is liable to take. Why? You put him outside the environment of the body.
But actually—actually, I lately have been working on a couple of techniques which simply vanquish a person right where he sits. You know, you don't ever say, "Be out of the body," you just tell the body, "Disappear for a moment" and—it's an interesting technique line. I've been working on that—I haven't got anything thoroughly developed on it yet, but it has possibilities.

53

54

17 NOVEMBER 1953
There's no real trick to exteriorize somebody. But you're asking somebody to move himself or you're trying to move somebody, you see, that is reluctant to move. He's probably at B or something, and you—of course, you get a person who is exactly at A and isn't anyplace else, and you tell him to be out of his head, and this comes to him as a great surprise because of course he's not in it.
You'll find out, very peculiarly, if he was working in a factory or something of the sort, he used to—managerial position or something—he used to sit down and shove off. Put his body carefully in the chair of the office and shove off and go sit on the factory roof someplace for a while, and figure it all out and be calm and happy about the whole thing, and then come back and pick up the body.
You'll also run into a bunch of people who are completely frantic about getting into the body. You see, they're trying to arrive. And they're completely frantic and they're very upset and they're saying, "You know, during operations and so forth, I'm never able to get near the body. I just can't get near it. And other times, it's almost as bad; I can only get within a couple of feet of it, usually."
"And this guy has trouble?" you say. Well, of course, they're on the— they're completely upset; their information is very poor indeed. They think that getting into a body is—that makes them be a body.
Well, I'd like to ask you how a thing which creates space can itself be energy. This is not possible! This is not possible for the thetan to be a piece of energy. He makes energy, but he can't be energy. Now, he can also say he's energy and that's lots of fun. Now he can be something—he can be an identity— but he can't be a thing! See, energy—something built out of energy; that's not possible.
And how a person manages to stay in a body—it becomes very puzzling to somebody who stays out of one for a while. "Ha-ha! How'd you ever get in that body? That's funny—very peculiar. You mean to say when they tell him to be three feet back of his head he isn't? What's the matter? Has he got chewing gum on him? Bubble gum? He couldn't have any bubble gum on him! It's incomprehensible. There isn't anything there to put bubble gum on." He's a spark, or whatever you want to call him. But he's causative—always causative. If the fellow's alive and even faintly warm, he's capable of more cause than a body ever will be. So, he's an individual.
So speed is what you ask if you've done anything in the session. That's how you ask if an auditor is progressing, if a case is progressing. It manifests itself in two ways: one, aesthetic of motion, and the other way, rapidity and sequence of communication.
There's something wrong with a case where these do—don't improve.
Now, speed and perception are, the way we can look at it here, almost the same thing; because you have willingness to let particles move. A person who's willing to let particles move can perceive and a person who is unwilling to let them move can't perceive. That's the long and short of perception. That's your people who are very deeply occluded very often—boy, they're still trying to hold still. See, they're trying to hold still like mad because they—it'd just be fatal, they figure, if they started moving in some direction; they'd just never come back. Something would happen that would be bad.
Well, the point is, then they start worrying about not being able to see. Well, they've got more barricades, barriers and machines to make them, that will stop flow and stop particles from bouncing around, than you could count during a session if you suddenly started counting them and treating them one by one.

GETTING UP SPEED, PART II
Because they've got machines to prevent other machines from being touched, which prevent other machines from preventing, which protect the machines which mock up machines in case any machines are lost out. They're real thorough about this whole thing, you see.
Well, they caused their own slow. But a "case of slow" was ordinarily a very fatal disease in the old West. They used to very occasionally, they—the boys would get out there and somebody would develop a case of slow. And they'd bury him naturally in Boot Hill. He was a fifth of a second back of the draw, where the other fellow had already fired three shots—and that was a case of slow.
Well, it's not quite as deadly as that, what we're doing here, not anywhere near as deadly, but an auditor or a case that—an auditor who isn't auditing with great success and a case not progressing are both cases of slow. You can just add it up that way and it'll make sense to you.
And perception: a person whose perception is poor, is again, another case of slow. See, he just won't let those particles move. He won't put them out and get them back. That's the way a thetan looks. He actually has to put something there in order to receive something there. And he receives it on a different— if he receives it on a different channel as it comes back, then it's amusing to him. But if he just puts it out there on one lobe and gets it back on the same lobe, he's sort of spitting in his own eye.
Very often thetans have arrangements whereby they put out a beam, it makes a facsimile simply by taking a plaster cast, you might say, energy-wise—Lord knows how tinily thick, you know, just very thin—and they just make a cast of the environment and you call this a facsimile when they pull this back in. And they look at it instead of putting a viewpoint out and looking at the real thing. Nothing to it, they've just got a machine that makes it for them. They energize the machine instead of putting a beam on the environment, and then the machine puts the beam on the environment.
Every once in a while they forget about the machine and it runs out of energy, and then all of a sudden their occlusions start cutting in and then they don't know what they're doing. The machine can't make energy—they can.
So, we'll hear in this unit probably more complaints about "I get out all right, but I can't see." We'll hear that more often than "I can't get out." "I can't see," and "I just don't perceive very well," and that sort of thing. But the person will normally be saying it, "Well, I get out all right, you understand, but I just don't perceive very well, you know, after I get out." That's just a case of slow. Speed of particles—he doesn't want them to move.
Well, when a case starts this sort of thing, he's got himself stacked up into a facsimile, and what you just do is you just do an assessment and find out where he's stuck on the track and knock him loose from it and generate a few other things. Or you do the kind of drills that speed him up.
What drills speed him up? The technique which I gave you to do this morning is an excellent technique; no doubt about it whatsoever. It's really a very excellent technique. It has one drawback. Any technique which too thoroughly validates barriers—a drawback.
So I'll give you the other part of this technique. You understand Validation Processing—remember Validation Processing—what you validate has a tendency to come true? That was years ago, a couple of years ago. Well, it's true that you can validate the sixth dynamic, MEST, up to a point where you're in better shape than you've ever been. But all you've succeeded in doing is inverting the sixth dynamic.

55

56

17 NOVEMBER 1953
That's real good, you understand, that—all of this holding on to the two back corners of the room and so forth is doing that. It's a long technique, and it works good, and a lot of people exteriorize on it in an hour or so, and it's a perfectly good technique. But remember what you're doing: you're inverting the sixth dynamic. You're getting a person up to a point where he can perceive mest. He was below the level of being able to perceive it.
Now that you've got him able to perceive mest, for heaven's sakes, take him on up the line. You're going to move him now into the fifth, fourth, third, second, and first. This stuff he can see again.
People who are wearing glasses are below the level—they're having a hard time seeing this on an inversion line. They think they're not putting it— perception there. You see, they expect it to kind of do 90 percent of the perceiving. And they put glasses on, and then they put glasses on the glasses, and glasses on their glasses and get fancy light bulbs and go see their obstetrician and in short, foul up completely.
You see, they're just insisting, "Look, we just have got to hold on to this stuff somehow!" And of course, the harder you hold on to it, the more it disappears.
I'll give you a little example of this—going to give you a good example of this. I want you to run this concept: How real that wall is. Just get that real determinedly, how real that wall is.
Good. Take a look at it. (pause) What did the wall do?
Male voice: It disappears.
To whom did it merely become more real? (pause) That's an inverted sixth.
Now, get an idea how imaginary it is—how completely unreal that wall is. (pause) Who'd it practically smack in the face?
Audience: Here. Here. Here.
That's what we know as an inversion, as an inverted sixth. Found in any case that that looks . . . You say how imaginary it is, how unreal. . .
Now, get again—get again, just get with great determination that it isn't there, that wall. Determine that it isn't there. (pause) Did it appear good and solid?
Audience: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Male voice: Mighty solid.
That's what's known as an inverted sixth. A person gets into that and they get—mest waves start in reverse. Very often they start to put out flitter, out in front of them, and the flitter—their own flitter hits them in the face. Well, that very often happens.
The technique which you're doing right now is a terrific technique to invert, and that's why we're running it. But remember that "what ye validate comes true to some degree."
Now, early on the track a person can say, "I hate Joe" and Joe promptly and immediately dies, perishes and passes by the boards. This startles him into being less assertive.
So when we get into a proposition of an inversion, you can run this technique that we have there, you can actually run the thing for an awful long time and it'll keep you real good and stable in this universe. But you're validating a barrier, validating a limitation. And limitations are necessary to games. A game needs first, somebody else to play with, and second, barriers—even though they're rules or just mental limitations.
You can't have a game without having a limitation. You understand that? You ever try to play chess by yourself? You make a move and then you run

GETTING UP SPEED, PART II
around the other side of the board and make a move? This gets real silly. This is real dull. You have to be on both sides of the board and forget you're the other fellow, which is a sort of a "thetesque mitosis," or you just find another— somebody to play chess with you, and this provides sufficient randomity so that your interest in the game may possibly hold up slightly.
Now, if you work this a little bit further, you see that if you had somebody else to play with and you didn't have any game—the second we start making up a game we have to have some kind of a rule, so we have to introduce an arbitrary. This is one of the primary principles I ever encountered way, way, way, way back, fifteen years ago—a study of the introduction of an arbitrary.
What happens when you introduce an arbitrary factor into a problem? We have one plus one equals two. So we just introduce six into the problem. We have one plus one plus six equals two. Oh, let's take that six out and put it on the other side. One plus one equals sixty-two. No, it doesn't work over there. You can't get anything but a wrong answer when you introduce an arbitrary. In other words, no game ever produced a right answer. Do you see that? They just don't produce right answers unless you're trying to do the one thing that you can do in a game by artificial means, is recover and vanquish arbitraries so as to discover the rules of the game. Now, when you've got the rules of the game discovered, then you can unmake, to some degree, the position of people in games. You can shove them up the line into a higher echelon of game, and you can make a better game.
But it's pretty hard to make a new game while the old one is still in full roar with all of its arbitraries in. This they discover in atomic physics. They have what they call quantum mechanics, which is laughingly supposed to be a mathematics. And quantum mechanics runs like this: C plus Q plus 8.269 equals psi. And these are all factors that mean certain things.
You say, "Yeah, that's a very interesting equa	. What's this 81269?"
The fellow says, "Well, I tell you impolitely what they call it; it's a "bugger factor.' " And he says, "This is a—well, you have to have that in there to get the equation to balance."
"Well, does it always balance when you do that?"
"Yes, except when psi is above two billion. And when it goes above two billion, then you have to have 1,873 in there instead."
And you say, 'Why? What—where does the figure come from, you know? Where does it—where'd you get that?"
And he said, "Well, it has to be there to balance." (He doesn't tell you anything about where he gets it, you know.) "Well, if you put that in, then you can make the equation say what you wanted the equation to say, and so you have a working equation so that you can work on atomic physics, you see?"
In other words, quantum mechanics is so far down the line that you even have to introduce arbitraries into arithmetic to get what is commonly supposed to be right answers. Now this is real weird! Yeah, we even have to take arithmetic and algebra to pieces and do something else with them in order to achieve any kind of a goal. Well, that's a game being added to a game being added to a game, and all we get at the end of that is an explosion. We sure take that watch apart.
Now, when you try to use anything to straighten out—we're not trying to straighten out anybody's mind. You want to disabuse yourself right there, right now, then—nobody has got any mind to straighten out. He's a spirit with a bunch of automatic machinery trying to run a body. And all we want him to do if he's going to hang around bodies is not be so susceptible to, and to know

57

58

17 NOVEMBER 1953
a little bit more about handling them. And when he knows this, and when he can do that, his own communication speeds are better, why, he's in real good shape, and as far as Homo sapiens is concerned, why, you've got a much better guy.
But we're not straightening out anybody's mind.
We take psychotherapy now. Let's take the most basic and the best advancements that have been made in a couple of thousand years: Sigmund Freud. It was only by introducing new arbitraries that he could create a new game called "Freudian psychoanalysis." We had to have all kinds of arbitraries. And if you want to see symbols, boy, just start looking at Freudian psychoanalysis and they just go on page after page after page: there's "id" and there's "bid" and there's "sid" and "did." It's gorgeous!
Now, you notice, is the closer we come to home plate the less language we're using. I mean, in all this talk I've been giving you, I've been using very common English words, extremely common. We're talking less and less in technical terminology.
Of course, when we have a technical terminology, it simply tells us there's something there to be solved, see. We don't know all there is to know about that because we have to call it something else than what it is. For instance, right now, we can put thought, emotion and effort together—we don't have to classify that, we know that's common English. Now, we don't have to reclassify it.
Now, but look at this: look, feel, effort, thinkingness. Is there a single arbitrary word in there? No, these things mean just exactly what they say there. Now, we just get the idea of a beam of lookingness, and we suppress it and we've got thinkingness. See, it's that elementary. If you do shoot off at odd angles and so forth, it's because again, this is getting so simple that there must be a deeper significance to it. And that's just what the trick—there isn't any deeper significance to it: cause, effect, attention, look, feel, mote, body, thetan.
All right, now we've got the question of anchor points, and we've got to take them over.
So, we mustn't validate, however, any type of barrier; we want to get him to a point where he can invalidate barriers. So that tells you that right after you get this stuff so hot that it'll practically go up in smoke just because you're looking at it, tells you we sure have to learn how to unmock. And that's a type of validation too, saying something isn't there. So we've got to get a preclear up to where it doesn't matter whether it's there or not.
There are people who have to walk—who when they walk, have to mock up the street in front of them. This is not undesirable. These people, when they get up that level are so capable they don't mind mocking up a few streets.
Down scale, a person gets into the feeling like he's the "only one," you know? That all this is being mocked up for him by somebody else who suddenly disappears.
I call your attention to the story Fear—it's quite a popular paperback these days in Great Britain, by the way. I had two novels in one book; one of them is Fear and the other is Typewriter in the Sky. And it came out in a paperback edition over there and it's been just having a fine time with sales records and so on.
But in Fear it talks about the—that's ten years after the fact of writing it—there's a little section in there that talks about the fellow being the "entity." Well, that describes this business of being the "only one." I recommend it to you if there's a copy lying around anyplace. Maybe I'll dig up a copy of it and write it up. Because that was a spontaneous description of the feeling of

GETTING UP SPEED, PART II
somebody I had run into in the field of investigation. And it was right fresh in my mind at the time I was writing that. And everybody was putting the world there for him, and the people—the second that he turned his attention away from the people, he knew what they did—they suddenly slumped over, see, and they stood there, see. Then when he looked around, they came to life and went into motion, and went into action, and pretended they were buying and selling and hauling and driving taxicabs and so forth, but if you peeked right around real quick, see, why, you'd find them all stopped again the second that you weren't looking.
And he'd go down a row of buildings, he would always suppose there were backs to these buildings, but you knew very well, all of a sudden you look real quick, and you found out that they're taking the block down that you had just passed and putting it up way up the line, so that you would see it when you went past there. And no backs to the buildings and no rooms back of the windows and nothing under the manhole covers—didn't know what, see. Everybody was putting it there and changing it just for you.
Well, you see the degree of effect that is? Boy, look at that as an effect, see? The world being put there for you? Boy, that's a lot different than walking down the street and saying, "Well, I'd better put some more paving blocks."
Why are you putting paving blocks there? You'd go on down the street anyhow, as far as you were concerned. You'd do an awful lot of things. But you put paving blocks there to be agreeable and you're off into the track of agreement again.
It always takes a certain amount of agreement to get along anywhere or do anything, to stay in communication with anybody. In other words, to have other players. Too much agreement and boy, you're a broken piece.
You find people who are deteriorating badly—they're just "Mm-hm. Mm-hm. Mm-hm. Mm-hm." They go walking down the street agreeing, kind of... (audience laughter)
Well, many people a little bit up the line, they've had a hard time with this, see, so they're saying, "Disagree, disagree, disagree, disagree, disagree."
And then we come to the Christian principle which is the one thing that was introduced into the society by Christianity. You will develop the idea as this course goes along that I'm not entirely Christian. Well, this is not true; it says right on my birth record that I'm a Protestant. And so I've taken that very literally and so forth, and I've been protesting ever since. (audience laughter)
And here we have "resistance to evil" as the motivator back of religion. Oh, boy! How mest universe can we get?
We take this ashtray, and we take this ashtray: these two ashtrays can sit apart on the desk very happily, not in contact, not in conflict, and they would probably sit there for a long time. But all of a sudden we just say, "This ashtray now thinks that this ashtray over here is evil." (clank) Now we say, "This ashtray must resist."
Now, you just noticed this wall up here disappear when you said how actual it was and get real solid when you said it was imaginary. All right.
We say to this: "This ashtray must not approach the area of the second ashtray." And when you've got an inverted attention on it, here it goes—(clank) there it goes.
"Crime. You must fight crime." What's the best way to make criminals? Fight crime. Oh, yeah? Well, what's the best way in the world to make juvenile delinquency? Get all the kids fighting it. You'll have the next generation so

59

60

17 NOVEMBER 1953
darn delinquent nobody will be able to bail them out. They'll have to start penitentiaries for the two-year-olds. See?
You get the—get this resistance to evil. There is a Devil, and he is much more powerful than God obviously because we have to fight the Devil, and we could completely neglect God. He merely says, "Be good" and "Be nice" and so forth. "That Devil, he's real mean, see, and we're not quite sure what he's mean about, but it has something to do with fire. And fire is light, and so I guess the best thing to do is be a fireman so we can fight the Devil." And that's something peculiar. (I ran into a preclear one day who was being a fireman just so that he could fight the Devil, and he was a very bad fireman.)
Anyway, we get this principle of resistance to the Devil, and wind up as devils. See? (clank) There we go—clunch! And this is the principle of resistance to evil in the mest universe, and this universe is a religious universe.
Now, one of the tricks is, they take the best spirit that happened along— that anybody is writing about in the last few thousand years—and you take the best spirit that happened along, and we find out that this spirit was crucified, couple of thousand years ago we're told, and they keep displaying his body on a cross! Rurrrhh! Isn't there something funny with this? They keep putting this body on a cross. So everywhere you look there's this body. Well that says—kids, that says, "You done it. You done it."
You'd be surprised the amount of sexual excitation, for instance, which is motivated by Christianity—terrific amounts of it. Because you mustn't have that too—you must resist that. And you see, that's—eating is the basis on sex, and that's dead bodies and so we're—(clap) here we go.
But here, for God's sakes, is a body. Why, they've done that in every religion that they've invented here on Earth: They've given a god a body, hoping that the thetan would simply move in and he couldn't get out. And that way you could keep bodies from being zapped. And it's a highly efficient system. But the only trouble is that sooner or later somebody's going to come along and bust it to smithereens. And I'm afraid somebody after that is liable to get zapped. But that's not your lookout or mine either, we're just victims, all, of the same thing—no responsibility for this.
The last period where there was any kind of a real renaissance on Earth— where things were really running good—they still had plenty of thetans on the loose. But the period before that when things were running but royally, they had lots of thetans on the loose. And just before that, in the Greek civilization, the place was practically monitored by thetans. Everybody said, "Please, can I spit?"
And the thetan would say, "Well, let's see," check over the altars, sacrifices and so forth, "let's see. Well, I'm not too sure. Not too sure about that. Now, my brother, you didn't put anything in—during his holiday, you made absolutely no gift." Crunch! Lightning bolts strike.
And now we're told that this is all myths and fairy tales, see? It's just going out of sight forever. I don't know what count they're going down for just now, but it's sure not the third.
Well, we won't talk about that particularly, because that of course, is on the lines of self-determinism, morals, ethics, responsibility for the society, deep significance of societies, deep significance of culture, deep significance. Actually, we're not interested too much in deep significance. We want to know the "wheres and why-fors" of life, and have a little more to each of us and roll along. And I'm afraid that things will all work out for the worst in this worst of all possible worlds; but that's somebody else's lookout, not ours.

GETTING UP SPEED, PART II
If you are very motivator-hungry, though, and you got to thinking it over very hard, you'd find out that you would approach with grave misgivings any idea of turning loose a bunch of thetans on this society—grave misgivings. And the way to solve that is to run enough motivators on yourself till you're no longer motivator-hungry. That settles the moral aspect of it.
There isn't any great harm, however, results from this; but you will get people up the line to a point where they will pop back in the body. They'll be pretty cruel. They're up the line where they will pop back into the body, though. They're only up the line that far. If they're basically very cruel and very inverted on that, and they're very mean and sadistic and so forth, they'll do a high dive back into the body.
I know. I've worked some real lulus and so on, and you couldn't bail them out very far before they took another dive; unless you simply just bailed them out until they were pretty relaxed and thought the world was a pretty good place and people weren't so bad. And when you got them up to that state, what do you know, they stayed very stable. Why? Resistance to evil—they think a body is evil, they think people is evil, they start resisting the body, and the next thing you know, flip! in they go again. Okay.
We have then, resistance to evil as one of the prime motives of not Theta Clearing but "theta sticking." And we needn't study "theta sticking" beyond as it will assist us in Theta Clearing. But the body is essentially nothing, if not a good theta trap. And this theta trap is something we are solving. It's just another way for a thetan to get too much randomity for his own sake. Now, we can solve this and we are solving it. Okay.
Resistance to evil. He who thinks bodies are evil and thinks that everything is going to go to hell if anybody gets exteriorized and so forth, and bodies are evil and they ought to be fought, and the reason he wants to get out of his body is to kill somebody—it's very, very amusing: pop! in he goes again. It's no kind of a mechanism that is a punishment mechanism, it just happens to be built that way. He's just built that way; it just happens that way.
So it means that the worst people on Earth disappeared first. What do you know? A lot of you are going to have a lot of moral connotations with regard to this sort of thing. Does a person become a better being because of clearing and that sort of thing? Think about it, wrestle around with ethics, wrestle around what is ethical, what is unethical?
I tell you the only unethical thing I have ever been able to discover is for an individual to deny himself. And if an individual thoroughly enough denies himself, believe me, he's unethical because he'll wind up by denying himself and everybody else and everything across the eight dynamics, pang! So that's real unethical—also immoral.
And you'll find out the downgrade of everybody was when he denied his own strength, truth and power. And so you have to solve that. But it's a solution that comes rather easily.
There are even many people just say, "Well, is it right to be cruel?" And they will writhe around and they will beat their skulls in, and that's the answer they finally come up with.
Okay.

61

Step I of 8-C Orientation
A lecture given on 18 November 1953

This is November the 18, first morning lecture.
We're going to have, this morning, a very fast rundown on Steps I and II, Clinical Procedure. We'll find as we develop this material that it falls more and more into a highly formalized shape now.
There isn't a technique which we have here, which I haven't had in operation for over eight months. Not one of these. But these techniques fitted into the proper frames of reference for communication and delivery to the understanding of an auditor who's expected to use them, and an application upon an individual's case and so on, is still in the process of development and will continue so. These are—processes are old, but they are not old in terms of their arrangement.
Let's take now, very rapidly, a rundown on Step I. A Step I is somebody, of course, who can step immediately back of his head. This shouldn't confuse you for a moment on this subject. After somebody's stepped in back of his head, you run Step I. And then you run II and III and IV and V and VI and VII. Now that's actually what they're designed to do. It happens, with their arrangement that if he doesn't do Step I, you go to Step II, Step III, Step IV, Step V, until you spring him. And then you go to what he can do exteriorly. And the safest thing to do is simply run I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII exteriorized. Because the technique is designed for, now, exteriorized processing—the processing of an exteriorized person—not with its emphasis on exteriorizing somebody. Do you understand that?
Now, Clinical Procedure is simply this development: that you could just start processing somebody and actually to some degree omit the step, as such, of exteriorization—because he'll exteriorize. Well then, he's being exteriorized without being forced into exteriorization.
Well, Step I is orientation. It depends upon this Prelogic: that theta creates space, time, energy, and locates it in the space. And its second operation, of course—a secondary operation—is to locate things in space and time. First couple of Prelogics.
Now, that's "pre-Logic," by the way. Those aren't just something we thought of, you see, after we thought of the Logics. Because the Logics are Logics. And if you want to make somebody who is having a good time think-think-think-think-think practically spin, just have him double-terminal logic. Just have him put logic out there in front of him four times, and you'll see more action than you've ever seen before, because there is the bottom rung of automaticity. Really

63

64

18 NOVEMBER 1953
gorgeous what happens on logic! That's not a recommended procedure, that's just a demonstration procedure.
Two kinds of procedure—there's three kinds. There's investigatory, demonstration that phenomena is there, and then practical processing procedures. And many that would belong—were in practical and—practical processing procedures have moved into the other procedures. All right.
Now let's take this Prelogic—that's before Logic. That's exactly what it says. It isn't an Axiom; it isn't a self-evident truth; it isn't a basis on which you can evolve something, as you can in the Logics. It just happens to be phenomena which precedes logic.
And then we get logic proceeding dually: one, simply from knowingness; and two, simply from these Prelogics of locating things in time and space.
You can reduce practically the whole language, if not the entire language, simply to action in space. Action or lack of action in space. For instance, the language is very limited because its use is communication of space—is what can we mutually observe? Those things which we have observed are in space and are objects in space and are motion in space, and as a result we get a communication. That is the basic communication, is motion in space, and different kinds of spaces. So that is, essentially, communication. So the mest language has a tendency to relegate itself entirely to this. But we can take this language— fantastic thing—we can take this language and talk about something that is completely out of its definition.
Language is something we can mutually observe, which has become symbolized in terms of words. Now, we can take these words, because we've symbolized them, and we can simply move out of it by saying, "Well, we don't mean that symbol. You see, we mean the opposite of that symbol." And there must have been an opposite to the symbol or otherwise there wouldn't have been a symbol, and people understand what you mean.
But the communication of this material has been the problem to be resolved, more than anything else. All right.
Now, in Step I, we are attacking not just somebody who exteriorizes and is three feet back of his head and knows it and is very certain and so on. Don't classify that step as an operation or action step. Let's classify it on more of what it is: that is the step of Location. And anything and everything that has to do with location past, present and future, belongs in Step I. Specifically location—not change of location, that belongs in Step V; but just plain, ordinary, routine, run-of-the-mill location.
Where is the microphone? It is so many inches from this corner and so many inches from that corner. And that is the position of the microphone. And this room is such and such a distance from such and such an object, and so on. Because all locations are relative. They are relative to other locations.
And soon as the person realizes there is no hitching post in the MEST universe which is suddenly sitting—to be found by a preclear, suddenly sitting there, which is immovable, irradicable and entirely fixed without relating itself to any other post, that it's the "prime post unposted," you've actually lost your grip on the whole subject of logic. The reason for this is, is every logic is related to some other logic, every datum is related to some other datum. Data can only be evaluated in terms of data of comparable magnitude and so forth. And we go right on off into all of the Logics and Axioms.
But there is no "prime post unposted" in the universe to which everything else relates. People have a tendency . . . You know, when I was running, you know, "Touch the statue," on arrival—you know, I would just run this as,

STEP I OF 8-C: ORIENTATION
"In the future you have touched the statue." Well, naturally people have the idea there ought to be a "prime post unposted" to which everything else is related. That there is a location which is independent of any other location. No such location exists. All locations are there because they are related to other locations which are there, because they are there because they are related to other locations which are there. And around and round we go.
And people get into these silly things like "It must be a circular time track," and "It must be a circular universe." This is only because if they beat everything to pieces, they would find out it finally related to itself. They would find out that after they've related everything to everything that was related to everything, they would get back to the first thing that they started relating things to.
I'll give you an example of this. All right. We take the microphone: it's so many inches from that corner, so many inches from that corner. And the room: it's sitting in a room where those corners—those corners in relationship to the courthouse over here—there's so many feet over to the courthouse, and it's so many feet down the line to a certain river dock. Okay, where's the courthouse? The courthouse is related in a certain location to Washington, DC and that is—and the courthouse is also in certain relationship to Los Angeles. All right. Where's Washington, DC, and Los Angeles? They're at the extremities of the United States, which is located between two oceans. Where are these two oceans? They are located on Earth and the Earth is located in relationship to a sun. But this sun is in location to Polaris, Betelgeuse, Arcturus and certain other stars. And where are these located? They are located in their relationship to the positions from the center of this galaxy. Where's the center of this galaxy? The center of this galaxy is the mean location and centering of all lines which would be drawn inward toward it. That's the center of the galaxy. It's very simple. All right.
Now, let's just take the galaxy. We say, "Where is the center of the galaxy?" Well, the center of the galaxy is related at such and such a distance from that microphone. See, people think they know something. Science is always engaged on this. They say, "The railroad track goes from Hoboken to Sloboken. It starts in at Hoboken and arrives at Sloboken." Then they never ask, "Where's Hoboken?" and "Where's Sloboken?" They think they've located a railroad track. Well, actually they have, because that's the—all the location there is.
The greatest secret of the mest universe, you see, is there's no secret. It is there. But it's there because you say it's there. And this doesn't mean it isn't there, merely because you say it is there. Because, you see, you happen to be all the authority there is for the location of it.
And people who want to minimize people's authority say, "Well, it's all illusionary because you just think it's—you just imagine it." Oh, boy, what a cancellation. Rrrr! You're nothing because that which you imagine, then, has no validity. And when all the validity there is, is that which you imagine . . . See? In other words, your imagination can make things awful doggone real real. See? Real good.
The way to look at it—it's just a difference of viewpoint—is whether you take the motorcycle down the road or the motorcycle takes you down the road. They say, "It's all illusory because you thought of it." All right, that's the motorcycle taking somebody down the road, see? Everybody knows they're nothing, and so on. So let's turn this around and say that "It's really real because you thought of it." Entirely different angle on the same thing. Well, that belongs, actually, in terms of knowingness.

65

66

18 NOVEMBER 1953
So locational activities have to do, of course, with limitations and barriers. And this is the first step out of knowingness. We immediately move out of this certainty which is knowingness. Certainty is not data. It's not data, it's just knowing—knowing one knows. And that is actually a state of beingness.
But the first observable state of beingness has to do with space. And the second we get into space, of course—in order to have space, we have to have a viewpoint of a dimension. Well, how is the dimension achieved? The dimension is very simply achieved by having barriers on the space. But why and how is the space there? The space is there because it has barriers. So we're into an interrelated thing. We're into: Barriers make location possible. Location only becomes confused because of barriers. See? See, it's one of these—it's Q and A. It is what it is; the way to cross the river is to cross the river; the way to eat breakfast is to eat breakfast.
Now, here we have somebody looking at barriers which he put up. Then looking at barriers which he and somebody else put up. Then looking at barriers which somebody else put up. And you've got about all the kinds of barriers there are. Of course, there's the barriers somebody put up for him, and the barriers they put up for other people. So we have another classification, and we have a bracket of five. Actually, there are six brackets in space. We'll go into that later.
But when we have location, we have to do with barriers. You understand that the more we validate barriers, the more barrier they become. And the trouble with your pc, he's got too many barriers. Don't, however, miss this fact: unless you backtrack the track of agreements, you're not taking the wheels delicately, and the excess balance wheels and so forth out of the watch, you're just smashing the watch. You can just suddenly say, sneeringly, "Well, there's no barriers and the barriers don't have any validity and so forth, and it's all unreal anyway and we're all set." This is the way it works.
He's convinced there are barriers and then he's unconvinced, which is an involution, you see? At first he's real convinced there are barriers, and then he gets unconvinced of these barriers of which he's already convinced. See, this is real unreality now. I mean, he was absolutely sure that when he banged his head into the tree, it found an impact between the head and the tree. You see, an impact was there when he banged his head into the tree. When he stamped his foot on the concrete walk, a foot contacted a concrete walk. He's very sure of this. Now, time goes on and he overdoes this and he becomes so sure that he's really sure, and he's sure beyond sure beyond . . . Well, it's—I don't know, you stamp feet into concrete walks, you have to have feet and they're very, very scarce; and maybe we'd better not stamp so many feet into so many concrete walks, and the way to do this is not to have so many feet and not to have so many concrete walks because they're scarce. That's about all there is to logic. But that's direct logic, that it actually assaults one's credulity that it could go this way. But after a while, why, he doesn't have feet to stamp against concrete walks.
Now, what have you got to do? You've got to give him a concrete walk— not necessarily, but the fast-working technique gives him a foot and a concrete walk, shows him they're real, and then shows him they aren't real again. But that's bringing him up scale, not down scale. It doesn't show him, "Look, here's a foot and a concrete walk. Now, you're sure they're there? Now we're going to show you they're not there at all. Uh-huh! And we're going to show you not only that they're not there, but that you're a very foolish person for believing they ever were there." And we just wheel the guy off in a wheelbarrow to the local spinbin. And that's the way it's done.

STEP I OF 8-C: ORIENTATION
That's the big operation in this universe, is you convince somebody something exists, and then you unconvince him by showing him it doesn't exist. And you do this, and if you do this on a line where he is merely being confused by it, and is still carrying his old existences, why, he's in terrible shape. So, again, we have the validation of barrier. The validation of barrier precedes, by impact, the invalidation of barriers.
And people invalidate barriers. This works like this: A fellow is convinced that a blackjack will meet a skull when wielded against a skull. He objects to this and he objects to it and he objects to it and keeps getting slugged with a blackjack. So finally he goes to the point of where he says, "Because of this, there is no blackjack and I have no skull, really." See, that's his defense against this. He says they don't exist. In other words, he tries to scramble backwards—and all the time he is madly holding a skull away from a blackjack, and a blackjack away from a skull. Although he's convinced they don't exist— he says.
So your preclear is madly holding the foot above the sidewalk and not letting it meet, the head from smashing the tree, all over the time track—and at the same time saying, "I'm not there. I'm not there. It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. No. No, it isn't real."
"I can't see well," he says, "you know, I can't see well. I look at the walls and they're kind of thin. Kind of seems to me sometimes the whole universe is liable to disappear." This is real sad. Well, all you do to reverse this is to give him back the barriers which he already had, and then undo those, so he's no longer holding something.
And how do you go about this? You show him by a process—Step I, actually—that there is no barrier to hold. Now, the way you show him, however, is by showing him there is a barrier to hold, and then showing him there isn't a barrier to hold, on this basis: self-determined.
See, there are two ways to go about it. The way he goes down scale is it's other-determined assurance, you know? Blackjack against the skull, blackjack against the skull, blackjack wielded by somebody else, skull belongs to something else, and there they're coming together madly and he's trying to say all the time, "They're not there," and something else is saying very authoritatively, "They're not there," and then somebody comes along later and tells him and convinces him utterly that he has no skull. This is other-determinism at work.
Now, self-determinism at work, you simply show him, "Look, you were making the barriers in the first place," and he realizes this suddenly. But if he doesn't realize this on his own power, you have not unmade it, you have just pushed him down scale. You get the two differences?
So by locating him in time and space all over the shop, you eventually show him that he has the power to locate himself in time and space. And you take away any of the automaticity which he had and was trusting and had forgotten about. You've taken away the automaticity which is doing all this locating for him. You just locate him, you see. You get him located in three universes: his own, somebody else's and the mest universe. And you get him well-located and well-oriented, and you get him well-oriented in time, you find present time for him and that sort of thing. And then on his own determinism—because he's gotten rid of this automaticity and a few other things (but that all takes place in Step I, just automatically; again, the step itself is somewhat automatic)— he gets up to a point where he can start looking through the barriers; but he can only start really looking through them when he knows he put them there. You get the idea?

67

68

18 NOVEMBER 1953
First, he knows they're his, and he knows he at least had a hand in putting them there. And then he can banish them. And then he can put them there at will. And then he relaxes about the whole thing. You see?
If you put it the other way around, whereby you just start hammering and convincing him and then saying, "You see, you know it isn't there," why, you're just being other-determinism. He'll simply go down Tone Scale.
People get over arthritis, by the way, by going into apathy. Yeah, you can move somebody from anger down into apathy, he'd probably lose his arthritis. Interesting, isn't it?
You can do things to somebody by pushing them down scale as fast as you put them up scale. That's right. Just as fast. Of course they're not much there anymore and so forth, but they're not any trouble to anybody either. Psychiatry works on this basis to some very marked degree. They "treat" patients so that the patient is less trouble to his environment, and that's their goal.
And our goal neglects the fact that the patient may be more trouble to his environment. Just neglects it utterly. Because, by test, we have discovered that after he's been troublesome to his environment for a while, he gets to a point where he's assisting his environment, and we figure that's better.
It's all a point of view, whether everybody succumbs or everybody survives. And it's just difference of viewpoint. And probably a lot of argument in favor of everybody succumbing, except the person who wants them all to succumb. And it's just a point of view, you might say. It comes under the heading of the "only one." If a fellow has to play the idea of the "only one," then everybody's got to succumb. See, everybody else must succumb because he's the "only one." It's very simple. All right.
What precisely does Step I consist of? Consists of direct location.
Now, when you tell somebody, "Be three feet in back of your head," you, of course, are telling him to locate himself. And you've got him out of his own wavelength and bailed him out of energy sufficiently so that he is able to, actually, process things by sort of changing his mind. He can sort of change his mind there, from there out—within the limits imposed, which are resolved by Step II.
Now, what else is there to this step? Well, you see, that's just one brand of location.
Now, because he has been so dependent upon impacts in the past for his conviction, it becomes more important for the auditor to discover where he is not, than where he is. And on this case, you never go in on the basis of, "Now where are you?" If you were really doing a smooth job of auditing, you wouldn't even ask him, "Are you three feet back of your head?" See? Now, you would say, "Are you in your head?"—you say, "Three feet back of your head. Now where are you not in the body?" That would be the next question.
And he'd say, "Well, I'm not in my feet. I'm not in my stomach. I'm not in my shoulders. See, I'm not in my—oh, I'm not in my head! Ha-ha!"
There you go. You've suddenly delivered into his hands a certainty.
Now if you ask him, "Are you three feet back of your head?" he looks around and doesn't see anything. Of course it's he that is looking around and him he is expecting to see. And of course he can't see him, so he's in a state of unknowingness to a point where he's very uncertain. And when somebody's back of his head being very uncertain—you know, he knows he exteriorized in there for a moment and then he becomes very uncertain—it's usually because the auditor is asking too many puzzling or upsetting questions about his location.

STEP I OF 8-C: ORIENTATION
Because this person, if he's going to be uncertain, is already trying to make come true this line: "I am energy. I am an object. See, I have become something." And anytime somebody's trying to make that line come true, we're having a little trouble. Because the fact of the matter is, he's thought and he is personality and so on. But he doesn't think he's a personality and he thinks he's just a concept and he's real upset, and life looks very confusing to him at that moment when he suddenly arrives three feet back of his head, pong!
Very often people arrive three feet back of the head and the auditor asks them, "Now are you three feet back of the head?" And the fellow thinks for a moment, "I wonder if I am, let's see." And he starts looking around for himself or he starts looking at the body. Well, we don't even want him to look at the body.
There's nothing wrong with his looking at the body. But the technique would even work better if you were to suddenly ask him, "Now are you in the upper right-hand corner of the room?" Just completely removed, see? "Are you in the upper right-hand corner of the room? Are you in the upper left-hand corner of the room?" It's where are you not that we're interested in. "Are you in the lower left-hand corner of the room? The other lower left-hand corner of the room? No? Well, are you in the back upper right-hand corner? The back upper left-hand corner? The back lower left-hand corner? The back upper right-hand corner? Oh, you're not in any of those points? You're sure of that now?"
Well, the guy says, "Well, of course, there it is! I can't be in it because I'm where I am because I'm not in it!"
See, it's very simple. He's very, very happy about this.
And if you were to process a preclear whereby you didn't let him look at his body .. . You see, here's the chance of it: you can take a guy who's in terrifically good shape already and say, "Be three feet back of your head. Now are you there?"
And the fellow says, "Sure."
And then say, "Well, be here and be there and be someplace else." But you're already treating somebody who has a remarkable sense of location.
So let's just alter the technique and the understanding of the technique to a point where you can take in the fellow who's uncertain and then never pay any attention to whether people are uncertain about it or not. Don't validate all this uncertainty and "I don't know," and "Is he sure?" and so forth.
And if you were to take a Step V and you were just to ask him that and he did it—you see, very uncertain, very nebulous, as sure of his form—he's standing in back of his body with another body. You can ask him to put his hands on his body's shoulders sometimes. I find out they can usually do that. They put their hands—they've got a body, you see, a mock-up of a body, and they operate the second body instead of the first one.
Well, that's all very well, but you might have that case. And just on the chance that you might have that case, we'll just throw aside any opportunity to spoil that case. If a guy is well located, it's all right to say, "Now, are you back of your head?" See? That's all right—if he's well located.
But supposing you took somebody that was a Step XVIII and you says, "All right, now, be three feet back of your head," and he was feeling pretty good that day, and he was, and then you said, "Are you there?"
He says, "Oh, I don't know. Let's see, I don't see me anyplace. Well. . ." See, because his whole orientation is a complete dependency upon barriers in which he isn't. His orientation depends upon knowing where he is not.
So if you're going to run this step generally and smoothly in a clinic where you're just going to start gunshotting people and not going to worry about their states of case beyond particularly this and that—you're just going

69

70

18 NOVEMBER 1953
to walk right in on this one. You're going to say, "All right, now be three feet back of your head. Are you in the upper right-hand corner of the room?"
Well, the fellow would kind of think—might be upset by the abruptness of the question, but he'd look at the upper right. . . "No. I'm not in it. What's the matter with you?"
"Are you up in the right-hand corner?"
"No. I'm not in it."
"Well, give me the back upper left-hand corner. You in it?"
"No. No!"
"Are you in the floor? Are you under the chair?"
"No. No. No. No."
All of a sudden, why, he announces to you without being asked, "I'm three feet back of my head." Or you can mention to him, "Be there."
Now, there's a very covert way of running this. That, actually, is the best way of running it. But there's a very covert way of running it whereby you say—you just don't tell the fellow to be out of his body, you simply say, "Are you in the upper right-hand corner of the room? Upper left-hand corner of the room? Are you in the lamp?" you know? "Where are you not in this room?"
And let him name off a few places and look around and he names off a few more.
And then you ask him a few more where he is not, and where he is not, and then you say, "Well, are you in your feet?"
"No."
And, "Knees?"
"No."
"Elbow? Either elbow?"
"No."
"Hand?"
"No."
"Shoulders?"
"No."
"Nose?"
"No."
"Chin?"
"No."
"Back of your head? Are you in the back of your head?"
And the fellow's saying, "I don't know."
"Well, are you in front of your head?"
"No."
"Are you in the middle of your head?"
"No."
"Are you in the back of your head?"
"No."
"Are you on the back of your head?"
"No."
He's out of his head. How'd he get there? You just moved him out by a gradient scale of where he isn't. Because every time you asked him about this, he looked to see if he was there. Cute, huh? And then he found he wasn't there.
Now, you can take the darkest case that ever walked in and ask him to find four places he is not, in the darkness. He'll start to get somatics and things; because he knows he's not in the darkness, because he can see the darkness.

STEP I OF 8-C: ORIENTATION
By the way, most occluded cases, you say, "Can you see anything?"
And they say, "No."
You say, "Close your eyes. Can you see anything?"
And they say, "No."
And you say, "Now look, close your eyes. Now look around and see if you can see anything."
They tell you, "No."
Well, don't pick up an inkstand, an ashtray, a lamp and hit them with it. Say, "Now, come on, can you see anything—black or white or blur . . ."
"Oh, well, yes. I got tremendous clouds of blackness."
They never looked at it before. That's anything, that's something. See, and they keep telling you, "No, I can't see a thing. No, I can't see a thing."
They're looking right straight at huge white clouds or huge black clouds or blurred fields or something, right straight on through. See that? That's real silly. They are looking at something—they're looking at a black field. Well, there's something.
All right. As soon as a case suddenly decides that everything is black when he's got his eyes closed, and he's very befuddled as to why you're beating him around about looking—he'll be in the corners of the room with his eyes shut—why, he will generally fess up and tell you, "Well, the field is black. It's black, I can't see anything." Providing you've run this exteriorization type of drill—locational drill. You've made him look or feel enough so that he is aware of—he has some sense of location. He knows he is not somewhere. Well, boy, that's more than he knew two seconds before you asked this question.
And this is good enough when applied to past, present and future, in brackets—this little technique of "Where are you not? Who is not here? Who is not in the past? Who"—so on. "What other people aren't here that think somebody else is here?" That, by the way, is—you very often get a little flip on that because that's the rest of the bracket. When you ask all around the clock on this, that's a good enough technique—that's one of these "all by itself" techniques— that's a good enough technique to fish Homo sapiens out of his spinbin.
Now, you understand the process? The process is "Where are you not in the past? Where are you not in the present?" And "Where are you not in the future?"
Now, there's something else: "Where aren't you thinking?" must accompany this, to a person who is having any slightest difficulty. Because they may be thinking all over the place.
We've been using a phrase to characterize this, which is "buttered all over the universe." Somebody's buttered all over the universe. Well, you collect him by finding out where he isn't. And when you first start in, you'll find the damnedest things are—in some cases are present, and other people are present, and he's in the past and there isn't anyplace in the past where he's not. And he'll start agreeing with you. You—and one of the methods of using this, by the way, is picking apart the childhood home. All right. "Are you in the linoleum of the kitchen of your childhood home?"
The fellow will say, "Yup." Be the normal reaction. I mean, that's normal, almost.
"Are you in the wall closet?"
"Yes. Yeah."
"Are you in the window in the front room—in the glass itself?"
"Yes. Ow!"
You found him. He, fifteen minutes, at two years of age, had his hand

71

72

18 NOVEMBER 1953
pinned down under a window which had dropped on his hand. Scared stiff. And he's been there ever since. You sprung him. Sometimes you have to be terribly covert to get them out of places—you have to name the most unlikely spots.
Now, that's just "Where you are not," past, present and future. Now, you could actually just go right ahead and clean up a whole track on this negative location. Take you a long time. But it'd be a technique which would carry you through. It'll snap out somatics, so on.
The fellow says, "I have a headache."
You say, "All right. Where don't you have a headache?"
"Where don't I have a headache? In my feet, of course."
"Well, all right. Do you have a headache in your feet?"
"No!"
"Well, do you have a headache in your right ear?"
"No."
"Left ear?"
"No."
"Do you have a headache in the back of your neck?"
"Well, slightly."
"Well, do you have a headache in your collarbones?"
"No."
"Well, do you have a headache in the back of your neck?"
"No."
"Do you have a headache in your chin?"
"Nobody has 'headaches in your chin.' What's the matter with you?"
"All right. Do you have a headache in your nose?"
"Mm, no."
"Well, do you have a headache?"
"No. Wait!" (audience laughter)
You just put him in present time by calling his attention on negative reaction to present time. That's real covert, isn't it?
Well, it's not a technique that wears out. Now many, many of the older techniques used on somebody once or twice would find him in a null. In other words, he'd learn how to resist these techniques. Actually, we ought to call 8-C "American procedure," because Americans are far faster at figuring out and countering effect. Now, that's the only difficulty I've been having since I came back. And so I just boosted it all up into techniques which can't be nulled. And that one can't be nulled.
Also there is the technique we have, and are using right this minute on blackness, cannot be nulled. And the reason why: It is the reason there is blackness. It is the specific reason there is blackness.
Now, there's the specific reason why people aren't exteriorized, is the one which you're doing as a drill right now. Sensation—you've got to be an effect. So we just get rid of that. And we'll get rid of that.
By the way, somebody asked me yesterday ... I hope he doesn't mind if I tell this story. Where is he? Well, aha! Somebody missing a lecture?
Male voice: His fault.
Mm-hm. Just like that. All right, we'll tell it on him! That's always a good time—that's always the way to get somebody to come to a lecture. It's like the old boys—nobody'd ever leave the barbershop first.
Well, anyway, plugging along—"When are we going to get into some actual processing?" he says.

STEP I OF 8-C: ORIENTATION
And I said, "You are doing actual processing."
"Well, no, no," he said, "I mean real, real actual processing."
"But you are doing actual processing now. This is actual."
"Now," he says—walk along a little bit further, and he says, "why don't you clean up the cases first and then give the data afterwards?"
And I said, "You have the specific data right now which you are using to clean up cases. Now that's what we're doing, we're cleaning up the cases first and we're going to get into theory afterwards."
Very unconvinced. He was very unhappy about this. He sat around the waiting room for a few minutes sort of champing a little bit and snarling quietly to himself. He goes into room one—you guys know what happened; he all of a sudden—never seen a wall on this technique.
He'd always looked at a facsimile which was standing immediately in front of the wall. Outside of the fact that this was—for the first time had returned to him an actual mest contact, we weren't getting anywhere with processing. But he'd only had two or three hours of the stuff and he was seeing mest. All right, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that, is there? That's actual processing.
So you're apt to treat these techniques as being very light. Because they are very high echelon, but they are very pervasive and they are not nulled. Now, you can't null these techniques. The only way you can null them is just refuse to answer. Just refuse to act. Just sit there rigidly and say, "I won't. I won't. I won't." And then you'll run that out. So that's why I say that we should call this "American procedure," because we're down to a basis of "What can't you know?"—not "What can't you know" but "What can't you null?" It's very important.
All right, so we've got this past, present and future. The reason why a person doesn't escape this technique easily is because they get too interested. Because there is their primary interest: their primary interest is where they are. You see, they're mainly interested in that, the second they become interested in barriers. And they're much more interested in not being places—if you're going to get a case that's going to resist processing, they're much more interested in not being places than they are in being places. So you've just agreed with them a hundred percent across the boards. They practically feel like gripping you by the hand and pumping it up and down for half an hour without stopping. Boy, you really get agreement right there with your pc: "Now, where are you not?"
"I'm not at home. Ha-ha!"
All right. Now, there's two tricks that go along with this one which you should know. Location—you'll need these; you won't think right now in this class that you need them, but you'll need them sooner or later—is "Negative Location by the Impossible." Now, it sounds like an impossible title, but you'd better call it that because you're liable to skip it. And that is "Are you in the office next door" or "Is your body in the office next door while it is in the dentist's office?"
The fellow says, "No, of course not."
But you might have been beating your brains out for ten minutes trying to find out where he was not during that operation or during that period of time, see? And then all of a sudden you have to just resort to the impossible in order to give him a certainty. And that certainty carries him forward. Impossible, see?
"All right. Were you in 1930 while you were in 1950?"

73

74

18 NOVEMBER 1953
"Well, I don't know."
"Well, all right. Were you in 1900 while you were in 1930?"
"Huh! Well, I don't know. Might have been. Let's see, 1900 . . ."
"Well, was your body in 1210 while you were going to college in 1940?"
"No. Of course not." (See? Now, you have to get that wide out sometimes.) "No."
So you've got location by the impossible. Now you just start narrowing it down. And he starts spotting himself all over the time track, see? Real, again, covert—it's by the impossible.
And the other mechanism is that it's "by the incredible," which is, is his body lying on the ceiling during the operation?
"No."
All of a sudden you'll find out the fellow has no body in this operation. He's told you—the E-Meter—you've done an assessment on this case. This case got real sticky on you, you see, and so you did what you should have done in the first place, only we never seem to do it, is break out the E-Meter and just start naming dates. You know, and all of a sudden the E-Meter goes whong! And then you start naming different kinds of people that have been associated with him—children, women, men, so on—until you get a pong. And then you run that down and you chase it down—a date. In other words, you're finding out where he's stuck, where is he latched up on the track.
Remember Book One didn't happen to be wrong, it just didn't readily solve immediately this, because its techniques could be nulled by a preclear. That's the only disadvantage it had. But he—they're still stuck on the track somewhere and sometimes you'll process all over the place madly and find the case keeps slumping. Well, why does the case keep slumping? Well, he's stuck on the track and you've never freed him.
Well, you have to really address the incident where he is stuck. There's some other reason why he's stuck. He's fresh out of space and all sorts of things that a lot of indirect techniques—which will free him eventually, but you just get sick and tired of this case. A case has to be real bad off in order to do this. You do yourself a thorough assessment, find out what date he's stuck in. Just that, what date? And if you can't find it immediately this life, well then, damn it, what life?
He'll all of a sudden give you this wonderful piece of data that he should have given you very, very early in the session and that was, namely, he is always sitting there looking at his grandfather's face in the coffin. He has this visio all the time. Well, and he thought probably everybody had it, see? Everybody sitting there looking at Grandfather's face in the coffin. Doesn't strike him as unusual. It's too concentrated an attention so he can't think of where his attention's concentrated. You see that? So you find out where he's stuck on the track, and now you have to enter the incredible. If you said, "Are you there in the coffin with Grandfather?"
"Yep. Sure."
"Well, is Grandfather's body on the ceiling?"
"No. It's in the coffin. It's not on the ceiling."
"Is it in the lampshade?"
"No, it's in the coffin!"
You finally get Grandfather's body well enough located—so sure enough located—by the incredible; just by having it in the wrong places. You see, the impossible is to have two different times or two entirely different spaces

STEP I OF 8-C: ORIENTATION
simultaneously. The incredible is just to have in a space or a time which is not quite possible.
So he finally gets Grandfather's body to the grave, and then gets the town back where it should be, a thousand miles away. But you find out if he's in the coffin. Well, you can't.. . He'll tell you yes, he's in the coffin. Well, is he in the lamp? No, he's not in the lamp there.
By the way, I've found people in very weird places. I have found them in a picture in the living room. Found them all over the place, see? I found them in a picture of the living room. And the childhood home is the worst offender. It's a bad enough offender that, very often, if a case is starting to get laggardly or a little sticky on me, something like that, I'll just simply take the childhood home and start beating it up. You know, "Are you in the woodwork? Are you under the front porch? Are you in the chimney?" and so on. "Where are you not? Where are you not? Where are you not? Where are you not? Are you in the dish cupboard?" And you all of a sudden find out he's in strange places, in that moment. You'll find out you narrow it down to the room, and then you narrow the room out. And every once in a while you have to jump in with a new impossible. "All right, are you in the living room while you're in the dining room?"
"No. That's two places. Impossible."
"Well, all right. Are you in the childhood home? When was it built?" you say.
"Oh, it was built about 1890, I guess."
"Well, are you in the childhood home in 1870?"
"No, obviously—it wasn't built."
So that's very tricky auditing. You'll see more of that. But actually, it's very simple auditing even though it permits a lot of imagination to be used.
And remember it's used in a bracket. "Who else isn't present?" Well, by golly, you'd be amazed how many preclears have somebody else right there in front of them.
Now, there's another method of dispensing with this. It's just "certain they're present; certain they're not present." That's in 16-G. This is a better method, this method I'm giving you. You just have—"Well, is this person in Washington, DC?"
"No."
The person is present, they've just told you that.. . You just start going over the family. You've done an assessment and you've added up all the relatives and everything, and you just start going through them and you say, "Is so and so here? Is so and so here? Is so and so here?" You find their stuck moments this way too. You say, "Is your grandmother in the room?"
"Yes."
"Grandfather in the room?"
"Yes."
"Is your dog in the room?"
"Yes."
"Is your aunt Martha in the room?"
"It seems like everybody's in the room," they'll say. "Yeah. Full of people."
One case I had recently—there's one I was running to develop this procedure on how far south can you get, and I went as far south as I could get. When I hit that technique, I had: "Is there a TWA aeroplane, 10,000 feet up, on the chair immediately beside you?"
And the answer was, "Yes."
Huh? Real cute, huh? So we had to have her practically—we had her feel all over the chair and finally—then she tried to turn it all off by saying, well,

75

76

18 NOVEMBER 1953
she was just kidding. She wasn't kidding—that room was full of people when we started out, and we got it emptied. How? By making her feel all over the place and make sure. Well, her case did a quite remarkable—not an alteration physically, it did an alteration on the basis of orientation. The case is blind, so orientation is of the utmost importance there.
Well, you find these people that will surprise—even some of you right now when I say, "Is your dog in this room?" (pause) And who got a "yap-yap-yap"? (audience laughter)
So you see that? You just get places parked in the proper places. And it doesn't take very long. And I don't run this technique very long in order to produce a result with it.
"What other person here thinks somebody else is with them?" And that's a real weird one. You start—really, straight out—you just start stripping out entities by you doing that. Until you've asked that question, it never turned up that Grandma was present all the time. Well, Grandma is there, and she thinks Grandpa is there. And this was when the old lady was sort of senile, she used to go around talking to her departed husband and the kid heard them all the time and this was quite impressive. So the kid sort of kept Grandma when Grandma departed this life, and Grandma is keeping Grandpa, and here we go, see? And it opens on that third bracket, third part of the bracket. All right.
"What person present doesn't think you're here?" is another variation.
And they're liable to say, "The auditor." Quite routinely, people will say— "Well, who isn't here?" and quite routinely, just almost give as a flash answer: "The auditor." See? Almost as a flash answer. I—it probably has deep significance, but I've always neglected it.
That's location: "Who isn't in the past? Who isn't in the future? Who isn't in the present?"
Now, you want to know where they are and also where they are thinking. Got that? "Where aren't they thinking in the present?"
"Oh," the fellow says, "all around." He's got some sort of machine that lets him think elsewhere when he is there—when he thinks he might be there. And oh, he's all around.
"Well, are you thinking down at city hall?"
"Yeah."
"Are you thinking in 1892?"
"Yeah."
"Are you thinking . . ." you say, "Ulp! Are you thinking in last August?"
"Mm, yeah."
"Are you thinking in this room? (pause) Well, are you thinking in your head?"
"No."
"Are you thinking in your body?"
"No."
This is what's known as a negative dynamic. "All the way out" on spiritualism produces that one. They're not in their body, and that's one place where they are not, only that's the only place they've got to think with. And you have to do quite some considerable coaxing, you have to go a long way out and start chipping it off and so forth, and they'll finally find out they're thinking in their head. They're just working with so darn much automaticity, that the one place they're not thinking is where they are thinking. See, a complete reversal. That's an inversion. So you'll run into that problem every once in a while. Not a very important problem. You just strip it off. All right.

STEP I OF 8-C: ORIENTATION
"Are you thinking in . . ." There's another category there, and that's "by the dangerous"—where are they not, by the dangerous—dangerous location.
"Are they in the middle of a cutting machine?"
"No."
"Are they in the Camden sewer system?" Well, they might be.
"Well, are you down in the powerhouse, glued to the switchboard. Is that where you're thinking?"
"Oh, no!" (Big certainty, see?)
"Are you thinking in the—around the corona of the sun and into the corona of the sun?"
"No, no."
"Are you thinking in the Bureau of Standards chill room where they have a 273 degrees below zero centigrade?"
"Do they have one down there?" they'll say.
"Yep."
"No. I'm not thinking there."
See? And that gives you, by the way, the immediate clue as to how people take an impact. See, that immediate clue. That's why people prefer an impact. It tells them where they are not because it puts a dangerous place they mustn't be. And these people who have been having a tough time gathering themselves up and keeping themselves in one piece prefer to be driven into one piece. They think they have to be driven into one piece. They're in one piece in the first place. All right—or in six or eight or a hundred billion, as they prefer.
Now, all you're doing there is discovering where the preclear is by letting them discover where they are not. And the modus operandi of the whole process is just on the basis that he can't be where he is looking at. And you'll find out that people have big trouble with the body, and when you ask them to step out of their head and immediately look at the body, you very often completely collapse a case. They can't see their body. Well, you're asking them to see the one thing they've never seen. See, they can look at mirrors, do all sorts of things—tricky techniques involved with this, but nothing very workable. But they've never seen their body, they don't know what they look like, and it's a great surprise to them what they do look like.
Did you ever show anybody a photograph of his own profile? If you have, you will get some idea of what would be his reaction when you exteriorized him. Because he always tells you that doesn't look like him. He has never seen his own profile. He doesn't customarily stand and look at mirrors which converge and show him his profile. He has an entirely different idea of what he looks like.
In consequence, you ask him, "Look at the body," the surprise is generally too much for him, and he will immediately occlude it and shut it off. And then the body goes occluded, and then he pops back in and goes in kind of apathy about the whole thing. So you don't ask him to look at the body. Ordinarily, if you have any doubts about the case at all, why, you just don't ask him to look at the body. Not for a long time, not until you—you pop him out, if you can, right away, and then, "Where is he not?" Then if he doesn't go out, you say, "Where is he not?" You see that?
You do this anyway, and that gets him localized. And that's by location— location where he's not—and you'll find out that he's most not in locations that are dangerous to him, he feels.
And then he's in, then, those that are incredible to him: like, is he under the mattress on the upstairs bed? And he knows he's not there. He thinks that's silly of you to ask, but of course, he immediately turns up a little more

77

78

18 NOVEMBER 1953
horsepower—immediately afterwards. He can't quite account for this, but he does. All right.
The next part of location that you would want anything to do with is simply—actually, it goes on down to Step VII, which, of course, is, "What room?"— that's by actual contact. Now, we don't, however, have to treat that; because we are treating it with putting emotions into and out of things as a technique, which although we're covering it in advance, and very early in the case, it is not an early technique in the procedure itself.
So the next point is, you have him actually be in places after you've found places he is not in. You have him be in various places. He's out of his head and you get him—little unpleasant places, you know, under the radiator where it's kind of dusty or under the bed or under the icebox or back of the chimney or something of the sort. That'd be about the limit of the dangerous places you'd send him into.
Then you send him into very pleasant places. And you finally send him into more and more dangerous places, actually be in these dangerous places, until eventually he's perfectly willing to be in any of these places.
But quite often a case, you will discover, is unable to be in very many places. So you have to build this up by a gradient scale. And you've asked him to be in a place, and he can't be in that place, then you have some place very similar to it, but one tiny shadow of it, and you just build him on through into the place. In other words, if you couldn't possibly get him into the corona of the sun immediately, so forth, you could at least get him to mock up a candle and be near its flame and then finally be out near a gas stove that's being on and then finally into a gas stove.
And the technique of being in the corona of the sun finally is achieved by being what? Just gradient scale on up the line. A very simple process. A process I could very easily talk too much about—very easily.
Now, you should know this part of this process on Step I. You should know it quite well and you should become able to use it quite well. Because if you're going to do any coffee—what you call "coffee shop auditing," you know, you meet this fellow and he says—you ask him how he is and he tells you that he has a neck pain, and he expects you to turn it off or something of the sort— well, this is the fastest, easiest way to do it. That's no kidding. "Where isn't he?" And you can run "Where isn't he?" all over the darn track. And quite rapid in the therapeutic value, if you're going into therapy of aches and pains.
That's a dirty trick, by the way. If you only knew how a thetan has to work to get a little bit of an ache or a pain and then you, you beast, comes along and turns it off! Psychotherapy went into complete apathy on this. They said, "No"—they made this announcement many times—"No psychosomatic illness is curable because the person simply becomes psychosomatically ill in some other manner." Apathy, apathy, apathy, apathy, apathy, apathy. End of paragraph. Apathy, apathy, apathy.
The fact of the matter is, the remedy for the situation is a very easy remedy. You just make it possible for him to get walloping big loads of tremendous, creaking agony, and he won't bother with having a little old—little old psoriasis or something like that, that occasionally gives him a twinge. He's interested in having a satisfactory amount of pain. Well, if he can't manufacture it—a satisfactory—pardon me, an "acceptable state of ill health" in this society. How wrong can you get? Homo sap. You have to be a little bit wrong to be polite, and it goes down from there. You have to be a little bit sick to be acceptable. People figure this.

STEP I OF 8-C: ORIENTATION
And you start running Acceptance Level Processing—which is an educational on a process—and you start running it, you know, and my God, Papa and Mama, the only thing that was acceptable to them was a sick child. The only time they ever were nice was when the child was sick—horrible state. All right.
That's a rundown on this locational material there. This can become very, very complex. But, by golly, learn its simplicity.
All you're doing is getting relationship of the individual with regard to barriers. And it's achieved by getting barriers which he isn't in. And then you can have him around in barriers, and he'll know he's in them. See? Tricky.
But remember all the time you're running this, that you're only running barriers and validating barriers so he can recover the barriers which he has validated, and which he has then had invalidated for him to a point where he lost them. And you've recovered a barrier for him good and strong, don't just dust your hands off and say you got this barrier strong. He knows the barrier's there. Then we get onto the technique that you're doing right now: you finally get him to a point where he knows he's putting it there. And that's the drill which you're doing these first couple, three days.
Well, you got to get it real good. Because, you see—not just emotion, that isn't our goal there. We're going to get so we can put the barrier there, where we can move the wall of that room around, so we can not have it there and have it there and so on. That's what we're trying to do.
All right. Step II of this will, of course, be the subject of the next lecture.

79

Black Mock-ups, Persistence, MEST
A lecture given on 18 November 1953

All right. This is the second hour and just a—it's not an hour, but just a second rundown in this morning's work.
Now, you understand why we're doing this technique of putting emotions in barriers. We're trying, in the first place, to invert barriers.
We haven't come to Step II yet, very much, but that's the automatic machinery which unmocks barriers. And I showed you some of that yesterday. That's a little bit advanced. But the point is everybody perceives a little bit differently. They've got various mechanisms by which they can demonstrate to themselves that it's not safe to perceive, and in this wise they rather cut things from under themselves.
We've got to get this very good on being able to put thought, emotion and all kinds of effort, including light—which I gave you yesterday—and today, blackness.
I mean, you can close your eyes—I want you to shut your eyes right now and do this trick. I don't care if it sticks you on the time track—you can unstick later. Doesn't matter.
Close your eyes. Now make the forward wall of this room black. Okay.
Now make the outside of the wall behind me—the other side of the wall behind me—black, and with effort in it, no matter how tight or weak, but get that wall black and with some effort in it. The opposite side.
Now get the back wall of the room, the outside back wall of the room, black. The other side away from you. The other side away from you. Get it black. Now get a little effort in it.
Now get the roof of this building, the upper side of the roof of this building, black, and with some effort in it.
Now get the four outside walls of this building, the outside of the walls, black, and with some effort in them. No matter how faint that effort is, but get them black and get some effort in it.
Now get the floor under your feet. . . I'm not asking you to unmock any of this, the devil with it. Get, if anything, an effort to make it persist. Under your feet, the floor under your feet, the underside of it—get it black and with some effort in it.
And the upper roof again, black and crushing down. Lay a black sheet across there real good.
Now let's lay a black sheet on the outside walls of this building, crushing in against the building or even pushing in faintly—I don't care how much effort,

81

82

18 NOVEMBER 1953
but get some effort in that blackness. Now let's make it persist. Definite effort to make that persist.
Now get the ground underneath the whole building with a definite effort to make a black sheet come up against the underpinning of the building. And get an effort to make that persist now.
Now get the outside walls of the building black and pushing in.
Get the roof of the building black and pushing in. Get it real black. Make it persist.
Now get any building on the street—whether you can see it or not, doesn't matter—but just get a black shroud over it, pushing in against it. And make it persist.
And get another building, any other location, and get a finite direction to it and make it covered with blackness with a little effort in it. And make it persist.
Try and get the push in on that building now. All right.
Let's get another building someplace, I don't care at what distance away. Cover it with blackness, and have the blackness have some effort in it to push the building in.
Now mock up a black tree with some effort on the side away from you— towards you. A black tree.
If you've been having trouble getting effort in it, put some tiredness in this black tree—the effort called tiredness.
Now let's mock up, anywhere around, a small black doghouse with a little effort in it.
Now let's mock up the front wall of this room as black. The whole thing black. A little effort in it, even if it's the effort of tiredness.
Now the side wall over there, mock it up as black. Put some effort in it. Make it persist.
The other side wall black. Put some effort in it.
Now the back wall of the room black, with some effort in it. Pay particular attention to the outside of that wall, but let's get the whole wall to some degree. And get the idea of making that persist.
Now let's take the front wall again, and on the opposite side of this front wall, let's put a sheet of blackness. The far side of the front wall, put a sheet of blackness.
And now, like you were blowing bubble gum, pull a bubble of that blackness through into the room so it comes right through the wall.
Now cut off the bubble and drop it on the floor, so it'll persist.
Now reach through the wall and get another bubble. And drop it on the floor so it'll persist.
Reach through the wall and get another bubble. Bring it through so it'll persist.
Now reach through the wall another place and get another bubble. And another one. And another one. And another one.
Now just yank the rest of the black sheet through the last hole. Make a big bubble out of it and fix it up so it'll persist.
Now put this bubble on yourself. Yeah, make sure it'll persist. All right.
Now let's put another black sheet up there on the out—or—of the wall.
Now let's unmock the wall in some small portion—just unmock it so there's a hole in the wall, and let that stuff come through.
And let's get another portion of the wall unmocked, and let it come through there too.
And another small portion of the wall, unmock that and let it come through.

BLACK MOCK-UPS, PERSISTENCE, MEST
Now let it come through while you insist that it doesn't.
Now pull the rest of the black sheet through into this room.
Another bubble, and put it on yourself—very carefully, so it'll persist.
Now get somebody else mocking up a big black ball with plenty of effort in it, and dropping it on you.
Another big black ball with plenty of effort in it, and squish it down over you. And help it cave you in.
Another big black ball with plenty of effort in it. Have that dropped over you by somebody else. And let them cave it in.
And get this stuff now being very gluey. Now take two—a piece of it, like taffy, and pull it like taffy.
Plop the two ends together and pull it again like taffy. Make sure it stays black and make sure it persists. All right.
And when you got that real good, (if you have to, make some more of it) drop it over somebody else—very carefully, so that it persists.
Now find some somebody else and drop it over another one so that it persists. All right.
Now just mock up, all the way around this room—have somebody else mock up all the way around this room, a big black sheet which completely encompasses the outside of the room; have them put enough effort in it to make it persist.
Now mock up a big black envelope and drop Earth into it. And pull the strings tight. Fix it up so it persists.
Now another big black envelope. And you hold it open while somebody else drops Earth into it. Pull the strings together.
Now get a big black envelope with plenty of silence in it, and slide it over this building. And have somebody else nail it in place.
And have somebody else come along and drop another envelope over the top of your envelope for somebody else—as though you weren't there at all. All right.
Now let's mock up a tree out of this blackness.
Mock up, now, a signboard—completely black.
Now mock up the moon as black, and keep dropping blackness on it until you really get it black.
Get somebody else giving you some assistance in putting some more blackness on the moon.
And have somebody else cover the sun so it's entirely black. And have them say they're doing it for somebody else. Okay.
Now get two people, entirely black, with some effort in them, agreeing with each other that it must be all black.
And get two of you, entirely black, agreeing with two other people, entirely black, that it must be all black. Get a definite effort to make that blackness persist. All right.
Throw away any mock-ups and blow up anything you've got there in the matter of residue.
How many people are fouled up like fire drill right this minute?
Male voice: The sun won't obey.
Huh?
Male voice: The sun comes through.
Sun keeps coming through?
Male voice: Uh-huh.
And how many people feel just completely nyaaaarrhh? Huh? Everybody? (audience laughter)

83

84

18 NOVEMBER 1953
Male voice: No worse than I felt before.
No worse, huh? What happened as you did that? Did you get any of the blacknesses?
Male voice: Oh, yeah.
Did you get them outside the room?
Male voice: Very strong sensation of the—all these manipulations.
Mm-hm.
Male voice: Felt like hell. Much worse actually during the period . . .
Well, that's all right.
Male voice:. . . of the run than I feel now.
Yeah. Who feels real bad on it? Anybody feel real bad on it? No? All right.
Now let's put out a couple of huge black beams to reach present time with. (audience laughter)
Now let's withdraw the black beams from present time.
Now let's get present time putting a couple of huge black beams to locate you.
Get it withdrawing them.
Get you putting out huge black cables in all directions to locate present time.
And present time putting out huge black cables to locate you. Okay.
Now let's get a huge spider web that you're putting out to locate present time—really black and nyaaah—to locate present time with.
And have present time send out a duplicate spider web over the top of this one, to locate you, so that you got two spider webs.
Now let's get present time dropping black football helmets on you.
And get you dropping black football helmets on everybody in the room.
Now put black jerseys on them.
Paint their faces black.
Put black pants and skirts on them.
Now take some black cones and drop one over each person present. Now, you've done that?
Now put some effort in the cones—squish!
After you've done that, claim somebody else did it.
Okay, throw all that away.
And let's reach for present time with a couple of black beams. Good, persistent beams that'll be here for the next eighteen thousand years.
And get present time reaching for you with some black beams that'll be here for ninety-eight thousand years.
Get a truck to carry them around with. Okay.
Now turn the walls of this room black.
And then look at them as they are.
Did they un-black?
Male voice: Little bit.
Make them black again. Now insist they don't turn back the way they are.
Now make them real black and insist they're lost. A beautiful sadness of the drama of the black barrier that's lost.
Now throw the blackness away.
Throw away all the blackness you've got. And throw it all away.
Now make another little cube, just in case you need it.
Throw that away too.
Another little cube, just in case. An expandable type of blackness this time.
Throw that away.

BLACK MOCK-UPS, PERSISTENCE, MEST
Now make the little tiny machine there, the little tiny one that'll make blackness any time you have to get hidden, when you don't know you have to get hidden.
Be very careful of the little machine. Put it in a golden casket now.
Throw it away. You can save the casket. All right.
Get another little cube of blackness that'll produce black-producing machines.
Now keep that. Save it.
And get another little cube of blackness with which to work. And save that one too.
And get another cube of blackness. Try this one on just to make sure it will occlude you. And having tested it, save it carefully.
And make another cube of blackness. And save that.
And another cube of blackness. And save that.
Now throw the last one away.
Now throw them all away.
Now throw away any remaining blackness that you have around.
And you've just about got it.
Okay? How you feel?
Male voice: Oh, I doped off several times.
Did you get any somatics?
Male voice: Well, I—well, I've been getting them all morning. I was feeling them.
Yeah. Did you get any of those blacknesses?
Male voice: Well, it's not completely black, it's more of a gray. And I...
Did you get anything black?
Male voice: Yeah. I'm getting them, mocking them up, yeah.
You're getting black things, mocking them up. Okay. Did you get any outside the walls?
Male voice: Putting them on the out — yeah, I got some. I got some blackness there.
Uh-huh. With some effort in it.
Male voice: Plus I had a purple light turn on again for a while.
You did, huh? The Martian excursion number! (audience laughter)
I'm not evaluating for you. Just because I tell you that's the gate to Mars is no reason why it is the gate to Mars. It's—the truth of the matter is, it probably isn't the gate to Mars. It's probably the other gate to Mars. (audience laughter)
By the way, another thing that is far more deadly than blackness—ask somebody to do it—is just what you're talking about: Have them mock up everything in ultraviolet light. They don't like this one because a thetan becomes visible with it.
Second male voice: He becomes invisible?
He becomes visible with it. At least he thinks he does at this time. Okay.
Did this leave anybody bogged down utterly? Or with terrific somatics? Hm? Well. . .
Third male voice: Licorice all over the walls.
Hm?
Third male voice: There's licorice all over the walls.
Well, throw it away. Blow it all up. Blow it all up.
Make you feel better?
Male voice: Little bit better, yeah. Uh-huh.
What did that do to you?

85

86

18 NOVEMBER 1953
Fourth male voice: Oh, it didn't hurt me any.
It didn't hurt you. Well. . .
Fourth male voice: No. I got the effort real good.
Got the effort good.
Fourth male voice: First rattle out of the box—effort to persist.
Mm-hm.
Fourth male voice: Before you even mentioned it—that's the effort. That was the effort.
That's right. It's the effort to persist. And many people are running on this effort. And some are running on the effort to persist—they're having to trust the effort to persist which they have made, see? And there's where you catch the lower rung of the case. But there's no sense in putting everybody through that wringer.
Fourth male voice: It was a desperate effort to persist at first. But it kind of smoothed out.
It smoothed out. Sure.
This is fascinating, in fact, but that of course—I didn't get into machinery this morning, but I talked a little bit about machinery yesterday, the day before. And it's a wonderful fact that this is just machine-made stuff. And I can tell you that bluntly, without you suddenly changing postulates on it, because that's what it is. You got a mock-up machine which makes black. That's all there is to it. And these people that have things "suddenly disappear on them" have got machines that unmock the universe.
There are two ways to handle machines. You waste them in brackets or you create or destroy them in brackets. You waste them, save them, accept them and desire them, be curious about them—in brackets. Now what's a bracket? We've heard a lot about this bracket. Let's make sure you know what a bracket is. A bracket is: person does it for himself, somebody else does it for himself or herself, another person does it for another person, and somebody else does it for the preclear, and the preclear does it for somebody else. And that is a bracket of five.
When we start dropping space around people, we do a bracket of six. And the additional bracket is somebody creating space for somebody else with somebody else in it, and somebody creating space for somebody else with the preclear in it. You can look that over as a pattern and you'll get the idea of what that is. That bracket is quite important to you at this time. And you can blast through without using brackets, but it's not very easy on your preclear. And very often a case just sort of hangs up because some part of the bracket hasn't been run on something.
Now, in view of the fact that I ran blackness on you in irregular brackets this morning, may possibly park somebody—that's why I was being careful at the end of the session, but it evidently hasn't. Okay. Because you see, you should run people making the walls of the room black for other people, and people making the walls of the room black for you, and you making the room— walls of the room black for others, and you making them black for yourself, and somebody else making them black for himself. See?
You can also hold corners of the room this way: the preclear holding them for himself, the preclear holding them for somebody else, somebody else holding them for himself, somebody else holding them for the preclear, somebody else holding the four or eight corners of the room for somebody else. And there you've got a bracket.
Female voice: I'm beginning to feel very funny at this point.

BLACK MOCK-UPS, PERSISTENCE, MEST
Funny?
Female voice: Yeah.
What's the matter?
Female voice: I don't know. I'm shaky all over.
Hm?
Female voice: Sort of shaky and faint all over.
Well, mock yourself up as shaky and faint. Again. Again.
Make sure each time that you make it persist. Again. Again.
Mock yourself up shaky and faint.
And now mock yourself up in the future, shaking yourself to death.
And again in the future, as having shaken yourself to death and being buried.
Got that? Come on, mock yourself up now in the future. Get yourself in the future, dying because of such shakiness and sickness.
Now mock yourself up in the immediate future now, as no more than walking down the steps than you pass out on the street. And then the people come and find you dead.
Make you feel better?
Female voice: It's a little more under control.
Good. Now mock yourself up as completely out of control.
Female voice: (laughing)
Just flying all over the place. Shaking, flying all over the room. Completely out of control.
Female voice: (laughing)
Somebody trying to control one of their own machines. It's always a silly picture. Machine is supposed to move, and they're trying to keep it from moving but it's their machine so they can't stop it.
All right. Mock yourself up out of control.
Mock yourself up going downstairs utterly out of control, flying off the walls and banging against the stairs.
Female voice: (laughing)
Got that? You feel better now?
Female voice: Mm-hm.
That—there are three basic rules on the resolution of automaticity. You just make the preclear do it all by himself, and—if you just make him do it instead of having it done for him—and he'll recover from that automaticity. That works in any universe. See, I mean, it works in the MEST universe, his own universe and other people's universe. But make him do it himself. Now that's the basic law: You make him do it, and he owns it.
Now, if you can't make him do it right away, you can make him change it or you can make him alter it, some slight fashion.
Now, another way to handle automaticity is to merely create and destroy the mechanism which is doing it. You mock up a mechanism which you say is doing it and then destroy it. Create it and destroy it. Now, you can do that on a gradient scale. You can mock up a little piece of the mechanism and you can destroy a little piece of the mechanism, see? Until you could mock up the whole mechanism, create and destroy it. That's very direct.
But don't omit this one, please. It's much more effective to waste, accept, save (it doesn't matter which way you run those two), desire, be curious about—in brackets—the machine.
Male voice: Anytime.

87

88

18 NOVEMBER 1953
That's in anything. Anytime you want to run something that's going to make a case feel better quick: waste, save, accept, desire and be curious about— five of them—in a bracket of five, works much, much, much better in the usual run of preclears. You understand that? And they have to know they're really wasting it—that's the test.
My God, sometimes you'll get a communication lag that you'd think— require a time clock or something. You feel like setting the clock and coming back tomorrow and we will get it. But the pc really has trouble sometimes wasting something.
"All right, now, let's waste Mama." You just say to some preclear, grandly, "Let's waste Mama. Okay?" Bog!
You almost always enter that one on a basis of gradient scale. You waste on a gradient scale: "Let's waste Mama's shoe."
"Waste Mama's shoe. (sigh) Mama's shoe. No. I couldn't possibly . . ."
"Can you waste a footprint in the garbage dump where she walked five years ago?"
"Yeah. Yeah. Hrmph. She wouldn't have walked in a garbage dump. She's pure. She told me so all of her life. And I gave her so much trouble at birth. I tore her to pieces. Everybody said so. And that was why she was sick all the time. My, if I could only immolate myself upon that altar." (audience laughter)
Yes, Ed?
Male voice: Ron, when you say "extend cables to present time," I don't get that. I am present time. And that means that some source of present time's a thing somewhere I'm putting cables to. How am I mixed up in that?
Okay. Where is present time?
Male voice: It's what I am.
Okay. Where else is present time?
Male voice: Well, the other fellow's universe where he thinks he is, or feels he is, or is.
Mm. Nomenclature here. We're talking about—when we talk about present time and we just say present time, we mean mest universe instantaneous nowness.
Male voice: That's what I mean.
All right. . .
Male voice: You said put cables to it.
But that—you couldn't be present time. That stuff can be, though. You can be present time too, for a moment, if you want to be. But that's the stuff that regulates it. It's a coordinated motion that's going forward and backwards across the whole universe simultaneously. We'll go into that a little bit more.
When you say reach for present time, you might as well say reach for the corners of the room where they are this instant. Got it? So that puts you in contact with MEST.
Now, of course, the only criterion about time is the preclear. But you're asking him to reach for an arbitrary time. Present time is an arbitrary time. That's the agreed-upon time. And it's the instant—the same instant, across the whole universe. It isn't later at some part of the universe than another part just because the universe is in motion. That confusion gives people the idea of a communication lag. Okay?
What else do we find ourselves bogged into right this minute? Nothing very horribly serious? All right.
Now, I'll give you a little bit of the patter here of what we should be pattering about. All right, I'll just give you this as a whole, as a drill right now.

BLACK MOCK-UPS, PERSISTENCE, MEST
Let's put some thinkingness in the forward wall. Let's get the forward wall to think a thought. Any part of it.
Now let's get one of those chandeliers to think a thought.
Let's get the other one to think a contrary thought. (audience laughter) I didn't say an insulting thought! All right.
Now let's put some effort in the first chandelier up there. Put some effort in it.
Now let's put a little tiredness in the other chandelier. (Sometimes a little bit tricky because there's light emanating from them and people have the idea of light as a symbolical.) All right.
Let's put a little tiredness in the top upper corner of the door up here. Put a little tiredness there.
Now let's put some effort there anyway.
Male voice: (laughing)
How many people blew a lock on Mama? Okay.
Now let's put, into that door, some apathy.
Let's put a little grief into it now.
Male voice: (laughing)
Okay. Now, let's put some cowardice in it—timidness, anyway.
And now let's put a little bit of fear in it.
Male voice: (laughing)
Now let's make it be angry.
Let's put some resentment in it.
Male voice: (laughing)
You getting good this morning?
Male voice: (laughing)
Now let's put a little boredom in it. Put just a little tiny bit of boredom in it.
Now let's put a little bit of indifference in it.
Now let's put some desperate boredom in it.
Male voice: It is not, then, sleepy.
Just bored—just doesn't know what it's going to do! All right.
Now let's put some conservatism in it—some impartiality, some doubt.
Now let's put a little enthusiasm in it. (audience laughter) Okay.
Now let's put a little bit of ecstasy in it.
Now some serenity. (audience laughter)
And now put a little pain in it. (audience laughter)
Some pain in it there real good? (audience laughter)
Male voice: Yeah!
All right. Now let's put some frigidity in it. (audience laughter) Sexual frigidity. (audience laughter)
Now let's put some sexual conservatism in it. (audience laughter)
Now let's put some sexual longing in it. (audience laughter)
Now let's put some sexual anticipation in it. (audience laughter)
And some sexual happiness.
Now let's put some sexual sensation in it—raw! (audience laughter)
Now let's make the door happy.
Now let's mock up a broom. Now, you see, this is one's own universe we'll go into now. Mock up a broom, or anything that you say is a broom, or any concept of a broom. Have it ridicule you.
Now mock up a car and have it ridicule you.
Now get the idea of somebody else's mock-up of a broom—other person's universe—somebody else's mock-up of a broom and have it ridiculing you.

89

90

18 NOVEMBER 1953
Throw it away.
And get the front part of the room ridiculing you—mest universe.
Get it disgusted with you.
Have it be pleased with you.
Now have your nose ridicule you.
The tip of your nose ridicule you.
Put some frigidity into the tip of your nose. All right.
Let's put some frigidity into the tip of somebody else's nose. Okay.
Now let's put some darkness into the first chandelier. I don't care what part of it. Put some darkness into it.
I'll give you a real hot, good game. There's a light—now put some darkness into it.
Male voice: That's effort.
That's an effort, isn't it? Any one little tiny part of it. I don't care what part of it you put some darkness in. I didn't say make the whole thing dark. All right.
Now have it think a thought that relieves it of the darkness. Feel its relief.
Well, this comes very close to being your drill. Now, you see the variations on this.
Now, the ones I didn't point up and run a full scale on is on mock-ups. And let me tell you where that goes. That can go as far as and as rough as a mock-up of Mama—we shouldn't attempt this with anything like a group at this time— but a mock-up of Mama, and you simply have the preclear change emotions in it, clear all up and down the emotional band, including the second dynamic, including ridicule, love, affection, hate, so on. And the two things you start beating to death are love and hate—in terms of people in your own universe. See that? Mock-ups of brooms, mock-ups of dustpans, of stoves, of cats, of dogs. Anything—even a thought of a mock-up on the thing, you see? And you just change the emotions in the mock-up of the thing which you have created.
A good drill on this is just to put this new list I've given you on all the emotions—ridicule, love, hate, sexual sensation and so forth—and just do some Self Analysis and just put those emotions into the mock-ups which you get. Just in routine. See that? See? Oh, yeah?
Male voice: Sexual sensation—/ cant get no concept on the thing.
Well! (audience laughter) Can you get the idea of frigidity?
Male voice: Yeah. And sexual longing and sexual disgust and . . .
All right. Well, you just work those enough then and all of a sudden this thing will turn on with a roar. That's right. Okay?
Now, you could, as I said, just do some Self Analysis in—with this list, and put the emotion, in turn, in each one of those. However, that's rather—a little bit in advance of some of the people present. We're right back into the worries about making up mock-ups and so forth.
So, to some slight degree, we'd be neglecting one's own and other people's universes. And we probably won't unneglect them until we have done something of Step II, which is get rid of these damn machines. And we're not ready to do that step until you've got this mest around you here in remarkable condition.
So the only new thing or variation which I would really ask you to do today—now, I've just given you a pattern on the whole process, you see, but as of—what I'm asking you to do today here is a little bit different: put it into mest, all these things, and blackness and effort and so forth. Put it into mest, in a bracket—bracket of five. You putting it into MEST, somebody else putting

BLACK MOCK-UPS, PERSISTENCE, MEST
it into mest, somebody putting it into mest for you, you putting it in mest for somebody else, other people putting it into MEST for other people.
Now, you got that routine? Boy, it's sure awful self-evident, that routine there.
Male voice: For the moment being—neglecting own universe and the other fellow's universe.
Yeah. Well, I say. You—because we'll run—rattle into and bog down on: "Can we get some mock-ups and can't we get some mock-ups?" And the only reason you can't get mock-ups ... I beat my brains out wondering—trying to why—find out why people couldn't get mock-ups. And honest, I almost am at the point of strangling somebody when I find out all of a sudden how easy it is to undo this one. The only thing that's wrong with it is we've worried about it so hard right now, see? You got machines that wipe them out faster than you can make them, of course. Because when you put up a mock-up, you'd be located! And if you got located you might go to jail. And there's somebody still looking for you in the ninth ward of Arcturus. I mean, that's what it amounts to. Grrrrrr! (audience laughter)
Another thing is, is we've got to solve, we've got to solve—I repeat this— before we do any further auditing: the primary reason for a tacit consent of nonadvancement of cases amongst the people of their own class. You see how you solve that? People are afraid of emotion and they're afraid to look. And if they're afraid of emotion and if they're afraid to look, then they're scared of turning on any real hot run in somebody else, and they're afraid of emoting themselves. So they haven't sufficient volatility to respond to very much processing. Well, we've got the technique which unlocks this. Believe me, this is the technique which unlocks it. So let's unlock it!
If I were auditing you personally, vis-a-vis, you on the couch or in a chair, and me sitting at my desk and so forth, and we were going at it by the hour, this is exactly what we would be doing. Wouldn't be doing anything else. It'd probably have a lot of frills on it and it'd probably surprise you to death where it went occasionally, but at the same time it would just be the deadly proposition of making awfully sure that you could enter some gradient scale which would put blackness and lightness and—we'll go into that this afternoon, shouldn't try it this morning—colors. Miscolor things. Different color things. And a blackness-lightness, effort-thought, on all the emotional band, into any and every kind of a mest object, in terms of brackets, so that you're willing to let somebody else put it into mest too. See? Get that?
And you'll find out that a person's been getting along horribly and all of a sudden he's perfectly willing to let somebody else put it in, but he won't. And you'll find somebody else is in—gee, he was just getting along fine as long as he was putting it in, but all of a sudden other people putting it in for other people, well, nowrrrh! Or other people put it in for him—he can do it himself! I've had people get real mad. You just run them on a bracket, see? Not particularly surprising.
So I'll be real mad at you if you don't get real good at this. And if you don't get real good at this, if I get real mad at you, it'll create a terrible effect upon you. You realize this? (audience laughter) You understand then? You're doing this in self-defense, you realize this? Oh, dear. Gee, I haven't gotten mad at a preclear since 1950—that is, not seriously. (audience laughter)
Okay. In the next two minutes, why don't you all step—the Second Unit—step in the other room and let me snap a wide-angle photograph of you.

91

Step II: Automaticities
A lecture given on 18 November 1953

And this is November the 18th, the first afternoon lecture.
The first thing I want to tell you is that while I appreciate the fact that sooner or later you may feel you're going to instruct in this subject, I hope I'm not teaching your notebook. I hope I'm not auditing your notebook. That's a fact. That's right, I hope you're not auditing on that basis.
When you sit down in front of a pc, you want this stuff in your head. And I'm trying to cover it over and over, backwards and forwards over the same ground and so forth, to put it in your head. Savvy? I want you to have this material so when you sit down and the preclear starts to scream, scream, scream and jump up and jump out the window and so forth, and go through the normal American evolution of being processed, that you got the data, pang! right there—verbally. And if you've got the data right there verbally, by that time, you'll be having no trouble with your case either.
Now don't get self-conscious. If you still want to put down notes in your notebook, that's all right with me. I'm not telling you not to put notes down in a notebook. Go ahead. But make sure that I'm putting it in your head and not your notebook. A lot of people have a beautiful circuit, and some people have gone all the way through a university teaching a notebook. When they get all the way through a course, sometimes some goofball professor says, "Now, let me see your notebooks and make sure that they're thoroughly taught." (audience laughter) That's right.
I know one professor, used to grade solely on the notebook. So we had a system: We just handed him in the same notebooks at the end of every course. He took them. Nobody ever bothered to appear in class, he never noticed. He'd gotten it—teaching—down to an automaticity the like of which we'd never heard of before.
But this morning, by George, while I was processing you, we had some of the processing going down in a notebook. Well now, by golly, I didn't like auditing that notebook because the person doing it needed processing. All right.
Now, let's understand the purpose of these lectures I'm giving you. They aren't actually what you would put under the label of "I'm trying to teach you something." The truth of the matter is, I'm trying to unteach you. If I'm doing anything, it's that. And if I can succeed in unteaching you a lot of automaticities and preconceptions and so forth, we'll be successful.
You wonder why I said we ought to have something called "American

93

94

18 NOVEMBER 1953
procedure." We ought to have something called American procedure very, very neatly, because this is the most automatic country on the face of the earth today.
Talking about space opera. Space opera used to be a lot of fun, you know. You'd spend two hours getting into your suit, and you get all this equipment and you get it all here and there and you stuff it and fill up your pockets, and then you climb up with this two hundred pounds of stuff, up a ladder that's about thirty feet tall, to get into some kind of an airport. And you get inside this ship, you see, and then you regulate about five hundred switches and you have to pair—repair four or five electronic circuits and you patch some things together with chewing gum and you strap yourself down in a seat and take off. And then you navigate like mad, going three times the speed of light, trying to navigate by stars that are invisible for some days. And then you land someplace for the skin of your teeth, and boy, you really knew you did something. That's right. You really knew you did something. All right.
Space opera toward the end of that time got into this kind of a circumstance. (You did this over and over and over again.) A fellow went down and he climbed aboard a little trolley and he got in this trolley and it took him on up and he landed in the ship, see. And he'd sit down in the chair, and the chair strapped him in and adjusted his oxygen and so forth. And he—finally it just—the chair decided that he was well enough seated and well enough strapped in, and the ship took off on a prearranged course to a prearranged destination, at a prearranged speed. The chair and instruments and so forth took very good care of him, fed him and breathed him until he got there, and landed him safely at the spaceport. He got out. Nobody'd knew he'd done a thing because he hadn't done anything—it was all automatic. The people who had done it was the technicians. All right.
Let's compare that with what we're doing with a preclear. And we find out that in those areas where an individual is accustomed to having everything done for him—you push a button and so on and that happens—we're going to get rough cases. And we're going to get the roughest cases out of the person who's pushed the most buttons. Just like that. He—his life is running on a push-button basis. It means that the society itself is busy keying in all of his automaticity. And one of the first things it keys in is occlusion. Pang! There he goes, see? It's all automatic. He knows he didn't do anything.
Now, if you could just get a preclear to go out—just get him to go out and take an axe and knock a fence to pieces, all the way down the fence—the end of that time he'd know he'd done something. Wasn't any fence there anymore, there's just a bunch of splinters. See? He'd know that he'd done something. You get that?
Now, this automaticity goes further than that. It goes viciously further than that. It goes to the point where they expect the auditor to do it all. They think somehow or other if they punch a button on the auditor, the auditor will run for a certain number of hours and they will be Clear. The hell they will! They won't, and that's the end of it.
So it's up to you as an auditor to knock out the second stage. And it comes under Step II of SOP 8-C, which is automaticity. And the way you do this ... You see, the earliest shadow of this is, "Mock up the body." You have him mock up a body—mock up the body several times, till he's used to having the body outside him and he doesn't collapse a terminal on it the second he stands outside. And then he's outside.
Why are we doing that to a body? Been doing that to a body in areas where I've been around for about eight months. The reason why is, he's setting up

STEP II: AUTOMATICITIES
the most automatic thing he's got. It talks for him, it squawks for him, it speaks and sees and hears and it even has gotten to a point where it combs its own hair, and it drives properly without direction and so on. Cause level of the body may be pretty good on a number of subjects. But a person stops causing them.
Having a hobby is simply being cause level over some kind of an automaticity. It's being a supercontrol over the top of something that is supercontrolled. You see that? Somebody takes up the hobby of postage stamps; well, that's not very automatic. But the fellow that takes up the hobby of ham radio is at least being cause level over a terrific amount of automaticity. And you know, he keeps on being cause as long as he keeps building and rebuilding equipment.
If you go into a ham radio shop or if you go into a ham radio shack, you'll find equipment and machinery and everything lying around all the time, and it's—"he's going to build" and "he has just fixed." If you'd happened to clip the switch and listen to a couple of hams talking, what are they talking about? Are they talking about their wives or children? No. Those poor people, the wives and children, have been forgotten long since—except when Irma comes in, is permitted to say, "Hello Joe. Yes, I'm glad that you installed the 6018 like you did. Mm-hm. Well, goodbye, Joe." The wife's permitted to step into the thing to that degree. (She's kind of automatic too by that time.) And when we have a conversation, it is a highly technical conversation about what they did to make something else more automatic. And a ham radio quits—he just quits cold—one of these boys stops when he can't build it any better. I swear, some of them, if they really thought they were reaching that goal, would at least plug in something on the wrong power line and blow it out. And you can trace back most of the accidents and so forth they have to just this anxiety "not to have it work too well."
Now, some people run bodies that way. The body starts to work all right and then they get afraid that it's going to get too doggone automatic and they start clipping off the various things it can do and making it tough for themselves. They wreck it in order to repair it. Nearly every case you have coming in has been pushed into this category. (Except somebody who has been directly PDHed. And he's had an automaticity set up for him that is simply dependent upon an earlier automaticity that he'd like to be unconscious. That would be fun too.)
All right. What's this amount to in auditing? It means that you, as an auditor, have got to be prepared to be cause.
How can you be cause? Well, the best way to be cause is to use the most basic mechanisms that you can possibly use to resolve a case. If you want to resolve a case of occlusion, the best thing to do is to take the very mechanism which takes occlusion and makes occlusion and continues occlusion. And what is that? It's an automatic machine that makes conclusions and occlusions and it makes exclusions and it's got all of these various things and it keeps jamming them in on the pc. He was happily using this machine on other people and other people and other people and other people, and this was all swell; except one day the darn thing got busted and wouldn't go, and worked all of a sudden on him! The machine's working on an "other person" target when it's working on his body.
When he thinks he has lost somebody that he needs—get this—he then has lost somebody he needs. Is that so? So the machine which is set up to run on "lost," clicks in. That's real simple, isn't it? The relay switches on these— basic machinery is Q and A. It's—"Lost?" The machine goes, "Lost!" see? "Crunch, crunch, crunch." So it loses him. See? And it makes him invisible.
Now, he's got other machinery that'll set up the same way. He drives somebody insane, so forth, he's got a machine there that he's going to use to

95

96

18 NOVEMBER 1953
drive somebody crazy. He keeps using it, keeps using it, and he keeps using it. And then all of a sudden, he suddenly realizes he has driven somebody a little bit off, he has reduced somebody's sanity, and the machine goes to work—on him.
He goes to college and decides the best way to do and get through college real hard is to concentrate like mad. And he concentrates and concentrates and concentrates until he gets cross-eyed. You can always tell this boy because when you tell him to look at the space around an object, his attention immediately snaps to a point beyond the object, slightly beyond the object. It doesn't even converge on the object. It's no space in the object, is what he gets. See, a scarcity of space—concentration. Too concentrated an attention. So he sets up this machine so that he can study. He sets it up so he can go into a lecture room and sort of push a little button, sit there, and he'll come out and at examination time he expects this machine to unreel for him three and three-quarters meters of chemistry. School system sets it up so he'll do that too. They keep telling him: "A student has to learn how to study. And the most part of that is concentration." So he sets up machines that do this.
And then one day he has to concentrate too hard on life. How does he do that? Well, he gets into an automobile accident and just before the accident, a glaring headlamp is right between his two headlamps, and he's looking right straight at that glaring headlamp, and then there's a sudden crash. He's convinced by now, but it turned the machine on. What machine? Thorough concentration turns on the machine which thoroughly concentrates. This is an actual machine. Does it have nuts and bolts? No, it doesn't. It has just as much nuts and bolts as that microphone has nuts and bolts. In other words, it's just the real universe and so it is something he put there with postulates. This is all there is to that machine. But he recognizes it in terms of automaticity and machinery.
Why does he want automaticity in the first place? This is very simple. He wants automaticity because of the subject of randomity.
What is randomity? Randomity is the amount of predicted and unpredicted motion which a person has. That's all. It's a ratio. The amount of predicted motion in ratio to the amount of unpredicted motion which the individual has. And he likes to have about 50 percent predicted motion and about 50 percent unpredicted motion, and that's his idea of tolerance level on randomity. What is randomity? Unpredicted motion.
You go down the street. You go down the same street every day. Nothing ever happens on the street. You walk into the same gates. You ring the same doorbell. You go into the same house. You eat the same dinner. And so forth and so on, and, boy, there's nothing unpredicted there. And you go down that street every day, so forth. And after a while, you're driving around, and you suddenly decide you'll drive down that street and have a wreck; at least put something on that street that is an unpredicted motion. So you've got to pretend you didn't predict the motion in order to have an unpredicted motion.
That's the tombstone which sits over the head of every unaware thetan: "I've got to pretend that the motion is unpredicted in order to have an unpredicted motion." And that is the basis on automaticity. The basic problem is he wants to be surprised. Now you get a thetan to take—mock up a box: "Now put something in the box that you don't know is there, so that when you lift the lid you won't know it's there and you'll be surprised." So he'll do that. And then he lifts the lid and it goes pang! And he's very happy about it. That's unpredicted motion.

STEP II: AUTOMATICITIES
Now, when you give a person all unpredicted motion, or nearly all unpredicted motion, boy, he gets real frantic—he hasn't enough predicted motion to stabilize him. So he doesn't know where he is, he gets lost. Why? He has to be able to predict where the eight corners of this room will be tomorrow morning to know there's a room here. Right?
All right. Supposing you fixed it up, or fixed him up, by processing machinery till the eight corners of this room started appearing all over the universe. Now, he wouldn't know where this room was going to be, so he didn't know where he was supposed to be the next morning. Rrrrrr! But that is super-unprediction. Now, that is too much randomity.
Now, as far as automaticity is concerned, it immediately springs out of this: You have to say, "I pretend I don't know anything about it," so that a certain effect will occur. In other words, a person wants to be partially an effect as well as partially cause.
Well, he starts out with a chessboard. He mocks up a chessboard. And he decides to play chess with himself. So he sits on one side of the board, and then he moves around to the other side of the board and then he moves back to the first side of the board and moves a knight. And he moves to the second side of the board and moves a bishop to counter the move of the knight. And he moves back to the first side of the board and he moves out a pawn in order to guard the knight. And then he moves over to the other side of the board and puts a knight up in place in order to check the bishop and so on. And he looks at this and he knows, each time, what the motion's going to be. Of course, chess is a very unrandom game.
You can forecast chess practically with the first—given the first three moves of the game and two average players, you can always predict the end of the game, poom! That's a very unrandom sort of a game. It's a very interesting game, I guess. But they had lots of time in India. So, anyway, even with a game like this, a person says, "Lookit, somebody else has got to be on the other side of that board." All right.
So he goes over on the other side of the board, and he sits down on the other side of the board and he says, "I am somebody else." That's the first stage. Then he comes back to the first side of the board.
Little kids do this. You can observe this. And they sit down the first side of the board and say, "Now my name is Bill and I'm making this move. And I go around to the other side of the board, now my name is Joe and I'll make this move. Now I'll go around here," and he'll—pretty soon you'll hear—you'd hear the person saying, as he was being Joe, "Bill, that was too clever for me."
Well, the next real stage of this is a very simple one. He sits on one side of this board and he says, "Now there is a person on the other side of the board." And if he's a real able thetan, he simply mocks one up, endows it with life and then occludes its identity. But gives it an identity and occludes its actual origin. And its actual origin is that he made it.
Occlusion of actual origin is the first break over into an automaticity. An automaticity is something that will be done that something doesn't want to know anything about. The heck of it is, that there is not a thetan who can still make a body twitch, who himself is not capable of doing everything one hundred times better than some cockeyed apparatus that he set up that would trigger when he thought a random thought. He could always do it better. And yet he's got machines that make his mock-ups, he's got machines that unmock things, he's got machines that unmock the mest universe, he's got things that occlude the mest universe, he's got things that unocclude it, he's got things that make

97

98

18 NOVEMBER 1953
it solid, he's got things that put up barriers where barriers are not supposed to be. He's done these things all the way down the track and he's still got all his machinery. And he wonders why he's in a dwindling spiral.
And the final end product of all of this is a body. And now you ask somebody to get out of the body! The body has been eating for him, thinking for him, spitting for him and doing everything for him—giving him all of his sensations, so forth. As far as he's concerned, this thing called a body is the most automatic gadget he ever heard of. It's learned how to play bridge, it's learned how to play chess, it's learned how to play the piano.
And you get some boy in his last stages, he will simply tell you, as he sits down to the piano, "Well, I don't pay much attention to it—my hands do all that." Sure, and he's got a sheet of music in front of him where Brahms is doing all the music. What's he doing sitting at the piano? (Probably is nobody listening to him either.) I mean, so it goes from "all ability to do everything," such as look at a piano and say, "Let's see, the way you play the piano is so and so, and probably melodies could come out of the—and let's see those strings. Those strings are—ah! very interesting, those strings are various wavelengths and they probably chord in this fashion, and that's probably going—goes on a cycle of eight, doesn't it? That's very fine. All right." Crash! Something twice as good as the "Moonlight Sonata." You think so? You think not.
Probably this looks very horrifying to you: the thought of looking at the doggonedest biggest truck with thirty-two speeds forward—and maybe you couldn't even drive a car, and you look at this thing and you say, "Let's see, now, the motor and so forth burns some kind of fuel or something. Yep. It's got wheels—they could probably go round. And let's see, the steering wheel goes this way, and now all you've got to do is slide it in. There must be some way to make it go forward and there must be some way to make it go backwards. The connections are so and so. Oh, those make it go forward and (mumble) backwards. Ah, that's all we need. Okay. Now that goes down there and there's some kind of a storage—there's juice down there someplace. Yeah, that connects up with a little, and one of them starts circling in, and there's got to be a flow of fuel over here so it comes out. Now, push the button there, throttle her here, push it in," and go off down the road. Doing a far better job than a truck driver.
You see how foreign that philosophy is to the current philosophy that if you just study real hard, and if you drive one to get the experience, about fifteen years, you will eventually know something about a truck—at least to the degree of being an assistant driver on a transcontinental run.
And of course we all know that an airplane pilot has to have four thousand hours in the air on all types of multiengine aircraft before anybody would trust him to sit in the passenger seat, practically. We know that.
All right. Contrast that with a fellow who goes out and he says, "Hm. Hm. Hm. Yeah, there's (mumble)—mm-hm, mm-hm. Gee, this thing must take a nice line of balance. Well, all right, let's take it into the sky and find out." And then he'll say, "What the hell am I driving it from here for anyway," and go outside and put a beam on it and lug it across, the same system. Super-super-superautomaticity.
The more automatic things get, the less the individual. There's a definite law. The less automatic things are, the greater the feeling of accomplishment and the greater the knowingness. The more automaticity, the less the knowingness. The more automaticity, the less the certainty. The less automaticity, the more the certainty. The less the automaticity, the less the impacts. The more the automaticity, the more the impacts. Savvy? It's a very simple problem.

STEP II: AUTOMATICITIES
So we're taking Step II. And Step II consists of knocking out the machinery.
And let's just knock it out and to hell with it—you can always put it back! This is one machine that if you take it apart even vaguely in an orderly fashion ... If you at least pull the balance wheels out of this watch on the order of the first balance wheel that shows itself, one after the other—if you'll just go about it in that orderly a fashion and so on, it'll come out to the smoothest, slickest, cleanest job you ever saw in your life. Well, you'll be able to do anything. This doesn't mean you have to be permissive and let the preclear do anything he wants to do; because his favorite machine is the one you're gunning for.
What do we get at the end of all machinery gone? We get somebody who can do anything. Just literally anything.
Somebody was talking to me the other day that—who has no bearing on this, particularly, but this shows you what, on a relatively low level, a person can do. As a kid I used to have a lot of fun picking up the know-how on something else to do. And I'd pick up the know-how and then I'd be bitterly criticized by somebody—oh, but bitterly! You'd have thought I'd robbed the mint or something, you see? Because I could then do what I had picked up to do, but insisted that I could do it. And of all the arguments! Brother! They knew it took experience and so forth, and that fact I never found out.
And nobody was ever able to teach me this until sometime during the war I was running a corvette, and I had been called one time too many on an attack in the dark of night.
The favorite time for the subs to attack was around twelve, one o'clock, when it was nice and dark, you know. A little bit later in the war they were getting even worse. They used to attack at twelve or one o'clock after the captain of the sub had finished breakfast—after a late breakfast, you know, they'd attack the convoys—when he had good light, you know, and could see them. But early in the war they were still being foolishly cautious. I've never found out why they were being cautious early in the war, because there was certainly nothing attacking them!
Why, I'd just been called one too many times at one o'clock in the morning. You know, when you're called—you've been up all day and then you're called first at eleven o'clock, but that was a log that your sound operator picked up; and then you were called at 11:22 (you'd just gotten back to sleep), and this time it was an empty lifeboat. And no fight in it, so you'd go back to bed and at 12:01 (oh, you were really asleep that time, you see), ring! and up you would go again to find out, of course, that it was merely a message which had come in on the battle channel that there was a battle going on just to the south of you. You didn't have anything to do with that, so you went back to bed again.
Well, the only trouble with this, and the way that the automaticity got laid in was, of course, I wanted it to be laid in, but I remember this sequence very vividly: at first, I merely had one call buzzer. You know, they hit it twice and I would hit the bridge. That's all, I mean, it was very simple. They hit it twice, I'd hit the bridge and then I'd hit the general alarm gong—if there was anything wrong. But war was speeding up a little bit, so we finally got up to two bops on this buzzer, which would simply go bzz-bzz rather calmly up above my bed, and they would hit the general alarm simultaneously.
Well, it was quite interesting because the general alarm gongs which
they were issuing in World War I were merely automo	, World War II,
were merely automobile horns. They weren't general alarm gongs at all. They were stuff that they'd taken out of Buicks and Packards and automobiles, you

99

100

18 NOVEMBER 1953
see, and they'd just park them all the way around the ship and these horns would suddenly open up.
Somebody'd throw a big lever on the bridge and that'd switch on all these horns all through the ship. And one, of course, would sit just outside my cabin. Bong! see? On would go the horn, and then two buzzers. Well, it was getting difficult to get out even with that, you see? That's—you get really staggery after a while and kind of sleepy. You know, your body isn't hitting too well, and you're supposed to be in the state of beautiful sadness of exhaustion because it is a war, and you're supposed to be doing something.
So a telephone was run in. So the telephone bell, the buzzer, and the general alarm gong were hitting then, see? Well, that was quite adequate and got along for a while—until I missed one. So we put in another one. We put back into operation the old whistle tube. So another lookout would—on the upper bridge—would get on this whistle tube; and it screamed in my ear, right there, and I'd be out on the bridge with the whistle tube. Well, that was all right. But I got through all of those, and one time didn't turn out for GQ and neither did the executive officer. It was, I think, our fifth GQ of the same night, and so they—after that they sent a messenger down too.
In other words, we were actually building an automatic system. I was trying not to be there, you see, and the war was saying "be there." And my God, I never realized that an automatic system had been worked up until about 1946. About the spring of 1946, I was walking down the street, and a Buick pulled up to the curb, right near me, and blew its horn. And it set off this machinery. It set off the whole cockeyed works. And I got sleepy and I—I got sleepy and I got groggy and I got a sort of a frantic feeling, and I looked around and couldn't find what I was looking for, which was, of course, the bridge steps, and they were not in Los Angeles. And we got this thing, and it just got worse and worse. Every time I'd hear an automobile horn after that and so forth, I'd get nervous. It's a—upset. I knew I was supposed to go someplace, and I couldn't quite locate where I was supposed to go or what was supposed to happen. So I'd take it out on the automobile. And I'd say, "Well, that goddamn fool, what's he doing sitting there honking his horn!"
All right. I've only told you this for one reason. I want to show you that Los Angeles is not in the North Atlantic. Nor yet, is it in the North Pacific— even though in the Pribilofs some gay soul, during the war, planted the sign: "Los Angeles City Limits." They really aren't out there, they're actually just before you reach Hollywood. But they had it in the Pribilofs. Los Angeles is a small village which is located very close to the Salton Sea. They have some interesting press relations with the rest of the world, but that's about all.
Anyway. Here we have, all across the line, automaticity. It's the right signal in the wrong place, making you reach for and try to attain a goal which geographically is not present. And when an automatic machine starts doing that, we get anxiety, demand for motion, feeling of danger in the environment. All of these things come right on in: tiredness, semiunconsciousness—all of these things. What are they coming out of? They're coming out of one of these darn pieces of machinery. That's all there is to it.
But the only machine on that whole channel that would count even vaguely is probably back there, for this body, a couple of hundred thousand or a couple of hundred million years someplace, where it's all indoctrinated, see? It's supposed to answer to a certain stimulus-response.
Very early on the genetic line—even an anthropologist, a Darwinian, has long been recognizing this—that there's a sudden screech at night, and a

STEP II: AUTOMATICITIES
fellow turns around and starts to go into action with his teeth or something. Very often he will roar.
By the way, did you ever do that? Be startled at night and turn around and yell? Roar like an animal? Something like that. I've seen people do it. They are jumped suddenly, or startled. Well, an automaticity goes on in the body which tries to repel things away from it with sound.
Well, I imagine that you'd see that the fingernails tried to shoot out a little bit longer and get a little sharper right about the same time. Certainly this action happens: the palm of the hand develops sufficient sweat to permit a person to hold on easily to rock. And the soles of the feet develop sufficient moisture to be able to stick to what they're on, so that a person can get traction.
And you find anybody who has moist hands, he's in a state of perpetual signal saying, "Danger. Danger." And the equipment for him to put the automatic machine into action isn't present. There's no bridge ladder. See, something like the automobile horn is saying, "GQ-GQ-GQ," and he isn't able to find the bridge ladder. So he's half-unconscious, he's stumbling around, he's in a state of what they laughingly call "nervous anxiety." It's just "unable to finish a cycle of motion." Not nervous anxiety, that's one of these complicated definitions— doesn't mean a thing. It's just this thing: He can't finish the started cycle of motion. This machine is set to start running at any time "signal X" happens in the environment, see? When signal X occurs from the individual or the environment, the machine starts running.
Yeah, but the environment's shifted! And what do you know, man has progressed as well, in this society, as he has been able to continue to be cause over a changing environment. He's never adjusted to the environment. He's adjusted ahead of the environment, where he has survived. And so we have a continually changing environment, so the bridge steps are never present. The fellow is not in that locale all the time. The situation is never the same the second time.
So you get your overt act-motivator sequences. The situation: He's got a machine set up to whereby he's learned how to box. So when somebody takes a poke at his jaw, even though he's unconscious, why, he hits the other fellow in the solar plexus. See? That's an overt act. Now the other fellow goes down.
So someday, somebody comes along and hits him in the brisket, and he of course knows what he's supposed to do now. What? Go down. See, the other— it's—the machine's rigged so that's the way it happens, you see?
But somebody, fellow—some fellow comes along someday and hits him like that, where's he supposed to fall? He's supposed to fall in the exact geographical location where the first time he dropped a guy. That's where he's supposed to fall. So ever since, he's trying to fall down on "spot X," which is a thousand miles away from where he is. He's never going to fall down on spot X, that's all. So an overt act-motivator sequence stays in suspension.
The machinery of attack and offense, defense and getaway, and apology, is in continual restimulation. Just continual. So a fellow goes along the time track saying, "What time track? Where am I? Just—if I could just get my feet down someplace and say, 'This is X.' Ha-ha-ha! Maybe I'm supposed to pass out when I reach X. But that doesn't matter as long as I've at least got X." Because it takes X to get the machinery running again, see? Then he feels it'll all come out all right.
But it's never going to. An automaticity never answers a second occasion. And the prime mistake that a thetan makes when he sets up all these beautiful gimmicks and gadgets, is that no matter how wonderful it was, it will never act for the second occasion.

101

102

18 NOVEMBER 1953
He puts machines away and forgets them so that they will act for a second occasion. But they never act for the second occasion. Some modified version— contradicted how many times, checked and counterbalanced—make it poorly workable the second time. And it goes on in this purely workable fashion.
You sit down at the wheel of a racing car, and if you've got lots of experience as a race driver—tremendous experience as a race driver—and you drive that car automatically, some kid is going to come along who's sixteen or seventeen and this is his second race, and although every veteran driver on the track is going to say, "My God, who let that goddamn fool on this track! He ought to be shot, outlawed, the three A's ought to throw him on his ear," and everything else, the kid still wins the race! Why?
Now, people go through this second stage—they realize that they have become too unalert. It's all too automatic. And they all of a sudden give the machinery a kick and step back and take a look at what they're doing. And just by the process of consciously doing it.
Here's a guy, he becomes a veteran driver. All of a sudden he realizes he just lost his fifth consecutive race. Something's wrong. Well sure, it's wrong. So he looks this thing over carefully and decides to drive in another fashion. And this time he decides to drive the car, not to rely on the training that old Bill Wheelwright slipped him when he was a kid, because that seems passe. He's now going to drive the car.
So he drives the next race and he's a little better. And then he consciously drives the next race, and he's a little better. And then he real consciously drives that next race, and the quivery feelings he was having by changing over style and things like that—these things are going by the boards. He isn't laying in another pattern. He's becoming more and more in command of the automaticity, simply by doing it in the mest universe.
If you can just coax somebody to climb up the side of the Empire State Building—outside it—he would lose, I assure you, about the fifth trip up, all fear of height. By doing what? He's just taking command of and keying out all of his machinery.
So, you see, we have this truth, sitting back of this, about training. But people think that this is training. That's not what's happened. The person sets up a machine to do something, then depends upon the machine, then the machine lets him down. Then he decides to hell with this automaticity and he simply decides from there on to be cause.
For instance, I was taking your pictures there a short time ago. I had some of the most beautiful, beautiful photography machines you ever saw. I mean, I just—it was just gorgeous. I mean, they checked over everything automatically and saw that it was all right and it's all wrong and that the time was proper and the bulbs were set. It just checked it over beautifully. And then as time went on, why, the flashbulb wasn't in, the shutter was set at the wrong speed, and—I mean, what was happening? The machine was breaking down. Because the machine is only as good as the person is conscious of it, and no better. And as he becomes less and less conscious of the machine, he becomes worse and worse.
So all of a sudden I just decided to take pictures again. I go around and each time I look at the camera, I say, "How the hell does this thing work," see? Ss-ss, boom. "Well, and this is—slides, so on, that's right." Why? It's obvious how the mechanism works. You can look at it. You go around the front and you look in the lens to see if the shutter is open or closed. Not is the thing on "T" or a fiftieth of a second.

STEP II: AUTOMATICITIES
I would have royally loused up the picture I was taking of you this morning because the camera—this beautiful piece of automaticity—was jammed on wide-open, no matter where you turned the shutter. Well, immediately that you looked at the camera, you could see that the shutter blades were wide-open. This is immediately apparent. But if you looked at the dials that were supposed to tell you about some other dials, which are supposed to tell you about some other dials . . .
Reminds me of a fellow that taught me something about diesel engines one time. Yeah, we all had to learn something about diesel engines because diesel engines they made during the war didn't run. And they were stationary— they'd take big, huge, stationary, light-plant engines, you know, and strip all of the iron off them, supplant it all with aluminum, and then put them on a derrick and put them into a ship, and we run them at variable speeds. Ha-ha! Real cute trick. So you had engines 50 percent of the time. And sometimes even during an attack on submarines or something, your engines would keep going long enough for you to get away from the depth charges you just dropped. And the few times that engines would stop, well, ships were expendable because the navy yard and shipyard workers have to work, you see? So it all worked out for the best in this best of all possible worlds.
But it is embarrassing when engines keep stopping like that. So they decided that anybody going aboard this new type of corvette was going to have to—to skipper one—was going to have to learn its engines too. This is an insult to—of any bridge man, you see?
But I got to listening to this guy. He was an enlisted man and he knew what he was talking about—almost synonymous. And this fellow had worked with these engines a long time. And he says, "Now," he says, "I want to teach you about gauges. I want to teach you all about these little 'pyrometers.' The name of the gauge is a pyrometer. It tells you hot—how hot the engine is. Now, you know that a diesel engine has to run at a certain heat level in order to produce enough combustion on the injection." So he says, "Now, you—this pyrometer, you put it up there—you can put up this pyrometer and," he says, "you pay close attention to the pyrometer." And he said, "And after you've carefully read the pyrometer, which tells you how hot the water is and so forth, and after you've gone around and read all the rest of the meters," he says, "then you go around and take a look at the engine." And he says, "You put your hand on the water intake pipe and find out how hot it is. Now," he says, "you should have a big tub sitting somewhere near the engine so that you can throw the valve open and fill the tub halfway in order to see how clean or how dirty the water is that's pouring through that thing, and whether or not you can put your hands in it. Then," he says, "you go around to the other end of the engine and you look at the bearings on it to see whether or not they have oil on them because this glints in the light." He says, "But be sure and read those meters!" (audience laughter)
As a consequence of just that piece of instruction, we were all broken down outside of a harbor one day, and I kept yelling down at the engine room—trying to use words to effect something in this society, heh-heh!—and kept yelling at the engine room and finally said, "Oh, to hell with it," and went down there.
"Camshaft on the starboard engine won't budge. No oil. Must be bent. Must be warped."
Just looked at it—nothing, nothing. "Nothing wrong—getting oil."
"Must be warped. That must be what's wrong with her."

103

104

18 NOVEMBER 1953
I said, "No. There's probably something dry on it, if it's not turning. It's probably frozen someplace along the line. Probably frozen."
"Well, if you did get it unfrozen, you couldn't do anything about it because this gauge over here that says it's getting oil. . ."
I just remembered this guy just in time, see? And I took a look at this gauge, and sure enough, the engine was not running, and the oil pressure pump was not running—which the engineer has neglected to note—and the oil pressure gauge was reading sufficient pressure. Wasn't that cute! The pump wasn't running that gave it the pressure!
So I sent for a couple of big pipe clippers and cut the pipes of it off and jammed the two ends together on a piece of rubber hose so that no oil went through the gauge. And got a piece of crocus cloth and held it on the shaft, while somebody rotated the shaft down at the other end, took an oilcan and squirted it full of oil, we started the engine and it ran.
You know, after that I suddenly realized that everybody that went aboard one of those ships that wasn't willing to go down in the engine room every once in a while, would have trouble with his engines; and I never had trouble with another one of those engines. Never did have any more trouble with them.
Why? Because every once in a while I'd go down in the engine room and take a look at them. And they'd sit there and they'd run. Furthermore, I'd often go along the side of the ship and take a look at their exhaust ports, and if they started pouring out vast clouds of black or green or white smoke or something like that, why, I'd get on the phone and say, "What the hell is happening down there now?"
"Oh, sir, we—we just—we just turned on the—the air injector too quick. That's all. We won't do it again."
On the ball, see? Well, as long as a skipper was willing to let his engine room run automatically, his engine room didn't run. Why? Because you didn't have very many people that could run engines. Tells you any ship in which anybody's not interested goes to hell.
And it tells you any body—body, now—in which the fellow isn't being cause twenty-four hours of the day, goes to hell. And I don't care whether you're talking about its eyesight or its liver or anything else, it goes to hell just like a ship because it's just a complex organism which is set up automatically.
Now, that doesn't mean that you should do all of your breathing. But it's a good thing, once in a while—what do you know—to stop your breathing and start it again. It'll make you live for a while, you know? Breathing machine is never going to go to pieces if you do it.
I'll show you what I mean. If you—here's a beautiful example of automaticity.
Now, take a breath.
Mm-hm. Now let it out.
Now just take the normal kind of a breath that you take.
Now let it go a little quicker than you ordinarily do.
Now take another normal breath.
Now let it go.
Now take another normal breath.
Now let it go.
Another normal breath.
Now let it go.
Normal breath.
Now let it go.

STEP II: AUTOMATICITIES
Now take a normal breath and hold it a little longer.
Now refuse to let it go.
And let it go. (pause)
What's happened to your breathing now? Did you go on having to breathe? Huh? Did it really lapse back into automaticity or just go on breathing? Or did you have to go on breathing?
I'm very unwilling that upsets your breathing for the rest of the day. But do you see that I very well could, with that process? It could just set it up for the next month—you'd have to remember to take every breath. Boy, you'd consider this a real hardship. And you'd say, "Well, gosh, all of my attention would be occupied, then, with breathing."
Oh, would it? You mean you'd have that much more attention, is what it means. Anytime you can find something to put your attention on that you're regulating, you have that much more attention. And nobody ever realized that—they think it's the reverse. They think attention is a finite quantity. They think a fellow is born with two and a half quarts of attention.
You can get, finally, so that you can go clear across the boards with this. You can make the heart beat. You can make the blood flow. You can do all of these things.
Mystics in—not mystics, but the lads over in the mountains over in India used to do this. Well, they did it wrong way to, and to the opposite ends of the poles, as far as I could see, when I was a kid. They would take over these functions, one by one. Yogi is the process of trying to take over these functions. They try to make this the end-all and regainment of. And then they write a book saying, "The various centers of awareness of the body are . . ." And then they name seven of them, and one is the serpent and one is the dog, and it's very interesting and very complex.
But one's the "corona" and I don't know whether they thought the corona was the thetan or not, but I know there is a ball of fire in where they say the corona is, that used to be an old eye. And here we have the—how to actually liberate these centers. You start at the furthest one from the thetan, and they bog you down with the problem of can you exteriorize an entity? Urrrr! By the time anybody has worked on one and two and three and four—you see, he's number seven—why, he's got himself so doggone thoroughly out of control and in restimulation that he'll never get out of his body.
It's very simple. I know, because I worked this. I just—with malice aforethought. I saw the book of the chakra and looked it over and—oh, gosh, I must have been about fifteen—I got real curious about it, I started asking people about this darn book. And I ran across it not too long ago—gorgeous pictures and so forth—ran across it and I said, "I wonder ... Now, that's very interesting. It's very funny that a person answers up on the meter to the names given to these areas. And the meter bongs every time you answer him up on one. It's very curious."
And so I started to exteriorize somebody in that band—they didn't talk about exteriorization, they merely talked about the rehabilitation of that center. Well, I thought, "Well, the best rehabilitation that center could have is give it a boot. So let's just exteriorize it one right after the other on up the line." And I got to center number three and the whole case fell in on me. I was doing it very nicely too, very carefully, well within the Auditor's Code and everything else. Real grim. In other words, it really pinned the fellow down.
It's like Bishop Sheen the other night. (He doesn't have very much sheen, so don't hold it against him.) He was talking about everybody had to have a

105

106

18 NOVEMBER 1953
hard head and a soft heart. The brain had to become solid. That was it. And what God really wanted people to have was a completely solid brain and a completely soft heart. Now, this is great. I mean, this is wonderful allegory. The only trouble is, that seems to be straight into the teeth of clearing, isn't it? And, of course, no tradition has ever come down the line that people mustn't be free! There mustn't be such a—never would be, naturally. I mean, nobody of that character who was trying to sell saints would ever try to unconvince other people that they weren't. So, you see, naturally, that supposition is very libelous against the Church.
That's an inverted seventh dynamic. Very often you don't get anyplace with an inverted seventh dynamic unless you waste ghosts. Somebody's been into spiritualism, something, well, you waste ghosts in brackets. All right.
Now, we're not off the subject two inches when we're talking about this. Because we're talking about Step II and we're talking about automaticity. When this fellow—you ask this fellow to get out of his body, he—who has gone into very deep automaticities, and he's actually down below III or IV or V, you wouldn't ordinarily do very much to this case but just go on down the line. Except with Clinical Procedure. And you have to know all this about all the case levels on a Step II basis.
In other words, what is Step II to all cases? Well, Step II to all steps is the automaticity of that step. And somebody who cannot bring himself to discard this much automaticity—one body—is going to require a little more work before he exteriorizes. And that's what Step II tells you, and that's why: "Mock up the person's body. Mock up his body. Mock up his body."
Normally, if you just kept on mocking up his body for five or ten minutes, he'd exteriorize. If you just kept this up—unless he's in the effort band. You got to put lots of effort into things, you got to just get him so he's real good on effort and thinkingness into everything under the sun. And when he's real good at that, he'll be able to exteriorize. Because why? He can't work, because the body does all the work.
And the one common denominator of all cases difficult to exteriorize; the one common denominator, difficult to exteriorize—and below that level, what they have called neurotic, psychotic personalities—they have one common denominator that goes clear across the boards is, is they can't put out much effort. And the less effort a case can put out, the worse communication the case is in—communication state the case is in—and the less he will exteriorize. Can you follow this? He can't put out effort if he can't handle effort. So when you get a case there, he is either fixed on the idea that he's got to handle effort—in other—he's got to work, he's got to put out effort, or he's in a position where he can't anymore. So you fall into the two categories of work, which immediately mean effort. And there is your index. There is a beautiful index.
You ask this person to discard a piece of automaticity. What automaticity are you asking him to park off of there for just three minutes or two minutes or one minute? You're asking him to park that piece of automaticity called a body off there. If he can't put it away from him four or five feet for a minute or so, believe me, he thinks he has to have it to do practically everything for him. It has to think for him and work for him and sweat for him and do the emoting for him. And he gets convinced on this one way or the other, and the thing for you to do is simply to bust the conviction.
Now, we can actually actively bust a case and run a case with just Steps I and II. But we can't take one of these steps and carry it along independently of the other step because we keep running into the machinery. We ask this

STEP II: AUTOMATICITIES

fellow, "Now, all right. Now, where aren't you in the room?" and all that sort of thing, and all of a sudden he's outside of his head.
And he says, "I'm looking—I must be looking at a facsimile of the body, but I—I know the body is out there someplace. I'm certain I'm outside, but I just can't really see the body very well and I don't quite know several things about the body," you know? He's just in a situation there where he has a failure because of a machine that hands him facsimiles rather than hand him the real McCoy.
Now, you can go complete reverse and say there's a reason for it. Anytime you say, though, that there's a reason first and an action second, you're trying to reverse and invert this "Looking-as-condensed-feeling Scale." See? You're saying the thinkingness down here is senior to the effort which is immediately above it. See? So the reason for: this fellow doesn't want to get out of his body, so he does so-and-so. Oh, that's a fallacy, it's a fallacy. You're making a mistake when you do that.
He doesn't have any reason why he wants to get out of his body—he's lost all of his reasons. He's got lots of reasons now, and he'll tell you lots of reasons, but these are justifications and they're merely after the fact. And the fact is, one, he starts to lose himself geographically by setting up automaticities. In other words, he keeps looking around for the bridge ladders and the bridge ladders aren't there. See that? He's nowhere there is a bridge ladder anymore.
There are people all over here who are thoroughly trained for space opera. Oh, just gorgeously trained for space opera. They're gorgeously trained to be couriers on another planet. They're just wonderfully trained and their bodies are wonderfully trained to be hunters. And the only thing they can hunt is something in a hat and silk stockings now. Nothing to hunt, see? Here are all these mislocated beings: They're mislocated in place and they're mislocated in time, and the culture is not the kind of a culture they're trained to be located in, and so they're completely lost. And they've been saying for thousands of years, "Where the hell am I?"
That's the first thing anybody says when he's been knocked over his head. You could drive a little dog insane simply by banging him on the head, and while he was unconscious, moving him into the next room and standing him on his head in the corner and letting him come to in that fashion. The little dog, the rest of his life, would go around saying, "You know, I didn't go—I—I just know I didn't go out with my head down in that corner in that room." So the two places are trying to be collapsed by these two dogs. He's here, while he's here, but this first room must be then this second room.
The dirtiest thing you could do to a guy is slip an anesthetic mask over his face in one room, operate on him in another room and let him wake up in a ward. Why not just shoot him? Unless he gets processing he's going to be lost for the rest of time. Where? Just where you found him stuck on the time track— in an operation or something of the sort or in an accident. All right.
The fellow hits with a terrific impact, goes unconscious, and the plane or the car bounces and goes someplace else, and then somebody drags him out of the thing while he's unconscious, and they put him in a car and they drive him to some town. No wonder when people have been knocked out, the first question they ask is, "Where am I?" First question they can think of when they come back. Because they've got a machine—all their machinery is set to go on geographical locations and positions; and as soon as they're transferred suddenly from one geographical location to another geographical location, they lose their sequence of positions. And when their sequence of positions are gone, they can no longer

107

108

18 NOVEMBER 1953
get from one stage of the machinery to another stage of the machinery, and the automaticity is lost and so they must be somebody else. They're living another life.
Death to another life is just that mechanism and no other mechanism. Now, this person—you ask this person, "Well now, if people have lived before, why, they of course know their name and so forth." Well, no, they don't even know where they went to school in the former life. I mean, they're bad off.
Here they've got all this automatic education which goes into fine furor and fury every time they try to study something. You know, it just blasts them. Now all of a sudden this person, they just can't study arithmetic. They—no accounting for this, see, and can't study arithmetic. Well, if you went back down the track or something or other, they were one of the most well-known authorities on Newton or something of this sort at some other university in some other time.
Arithmetic be damned, they were mathematicians. You start them up now with new stimulus-response mechanisms, new automaticity; the second he starts to make arithmetic automatic—he's all right as long as he's still cause where the arithmetic is concerned—he starts to make it automatic so that he knows the multiplication table automatically and pang! he loses his geographical positions because he's already lost them on the subject of mathematics. These geographical positions mix. He thinks he's, after that, someplace else with regard to arithmetic. He can't study arithmetic. He goes mad. You say, "One plus one equals what?"
And he says, "Six, I guess. Is that right?"
See what happens on automaticity and mixture of geographical positions. You can't take the subject of automaticity and throw away the subject of geography. And the only place you lose an automaticity, become really unconscious of one, is when you set one up in position A and start using it from position B. And your preclear that's holding on to some part of the track, is trying to hold on to the connective sequence between his automaticities, so he doesn't lose his sequences of geographical positions.
If you restore to him his sequences of geographical positions, they can fall into line. Then the time track unravels, and all of his machinery stretches out into time where it belongs.
I don't know how long it would take to do this, but it's plenty long.
(Recording ends abruptly)

Waste a Machine
A lecture given on 18 November 1953

This is the second period this afternoon. This afternoon, I'm going to give you the integration of these two things: geographical location and positioning— positive and negative positioning—in auditing terms.
Now, every time you try to position somebody, you run into the fact they may start thinking or start being where they are—they might start being where they think they are. You get that?
You ask somebody, "Now, are you in Paris?"
And he says, "Yup."
You say, "Hm. Are you in South America?"
And he'll say, "Yup."
"Hm. Are you at the North Pole?"
"Well, yup."
Now, right there, without going into the impossible and the incredible and the dangerous methods of relocating him, unless the case is very far down . . .
When a case is real far down you've got to go much further than this. I mean, you've got to go into the impossible and the incredible and the dangerous—just shake them loose. Because they're not in shape where they can run anything like, or understand what you're talking about.
But this is merely the case that doesn't understand what the devil you're talking about, and is pretty foggy and gropes around, and so forth.
Any case present here, you would follow into this kind of a position: You would say, "Now, let's waste a machine that sends you someplace." That's actually, you think, maybe Step IV. No, it's not. That's Step II. This guy is not going to exteriorize well until he can be located well.
Exteriorization, inability to, has immediately under it this heading: "Not located." That's all the reason there is to why a person can't exteriorize, actually—they're not located. Their abilities are somewhere else, see? Simple. Everything they know or can do or can feel—all these things are elsewhere. And every time you ask these people to get into locations of this or that or "where are they not," they either get occluded or the mock-up disappears or they disappear or the body unmocks or everything gets very solid or they suddenly fix.
I had one case here, I asked him to disappear and he probably never, at any moment, felt more solid than just at that instant when I asked him to be three feet back of his head. And he all of a sudden fixed.

109

110

18 NOVEMBER 1953
All of this comes under the heading of, and we use—just use the word machinery in lieu of postulates and facsimiles, see? We use the word machinery. Because they very happily mock all this up in terms of a machine. But their mothers show up and their fathers show up and so forth, because these are machines, too. They're facsimile machines. They're biological machines. And they're all basically postulate machines. That's the most basic machine there is, you see, is a postulate machine.
But you just don't walk into a case and say, "All right. Clip out all the postulates now which make you forget about all your automatic machinery. Now clip out all the postulates that hide all your automatic machinery. Now clip out all the postulates to protect all your automatic machinery. Now clip out all the postulates that keep your automatic machinery from appearing. Now clip out all the postulates that made your automatic machinery in the first place." And say, "All right, you're Clear. Five dollars. Next case." Don't do that. People like to drag it out longer. (audience laughter)
You want to know what this stuff is up here in the wall—this MEST is up here in the wall—it's a postulate. That's no reason it isn't real, though. The realest thing there is, is a postulate.
Don't go into reverse on this and say, "Well, the most unreal thing there is about it—it can't be real because I just thought so," you see? He keeps saying that every once in a while, "Well, I just think so, so therefore it isn't real." Waaa! Boy, that person is an inverted one, see? Because he thinks so, it isn't so. The only reason anything ever got so is because he thought so. See what great simplicity we have here. All right.
Let's take this thing very logically—illogical basis—which is, is. It's merely a geographical location. Now, a geographical location depends upon the fact that we have to assume that there are barriers. So any machine that makes barriers is the most senior machine there is. Because that has to precede the machine which unmakes barriers. So you have machines that mock up barriers and machines that unmock barriers as your two fundamental machines.
Now, there are various other machines which stem from these. There are machines that make barriers disappear by covering them with blackness. And there are machines which fight other barriers by covering other barriers with blackness. And that cancel other barriers by—make them intolerably full of effort. Now, these machines are just basically these two machines: one, the machine that makes barriers and the machine that unmakes barriers.
See, viewpoint of dimension—the second you put out eight anchor points, you put out actually, in essence, eight barriers. And you've got space if you've put out eight barriers. You haven't got any space till you put out eight barriers. Space doesn't exist till you do. No reason to be tangled up about this, it's just—it doesn't exist, that's all.
So don't think that you can go on agreeing with the mest universe forever and have an excellent case. The reason why you can't do this is because the MEST universe is composed entirely of barriers. You've just asked the fellow to go on agreeing with barriers forever. And it's an automatic machine that you're validating.
So you keep punching this machine and punching it and punching it and punching it, and all of a sudden the barriers get thin and they shiver and the rooms start going out of plumb. And the Walt Whitman Hotel (which is one of the favorite things they were using up in 726)—boy, it took a beating during the last six weeks. (audience laughter) It all of a sudden is out of plumb. It grows in height. Well, these things—that isn't—nothing's supposed to happen that way.

WASTE A MACHINE
You ask a guy to hold on to the back corners of the room and not think, that's real good. If you ask him to hold on to the back corners of the room and think, that's real bad.
What's the difference between these two? You ask him, 'Well, just hold on to the back corners of the room and just relax." In other words, let the machine called George do it. He's out of contact with that machine anyhow, and if he doesn't think, it's all right.
But now if he holds on to the two back corners of the room and thinks, he starts energizing all kinds of machinery. And so this machinery goes into action on the machinery which he's using to mock up the MEST universe.
And it's very funny about these machines. One day—one day not too long ago, I ate a smelt that probably did, a little bit, when it came from the butcher. And it made me a little bit sick at my stomach, just for a little while, until I went out walking around—walking around. And I located the machine that makes smelts, very simple, and kicked hell out of it. And the smelt disappeared. It's very simple. Wasn't anything to this.
But, of course, the most direct thing to do was simply to unmock the smelt. And the next most simple thing to do is, of course, to not eat smelt. And the next most simple thing to do before that, is to not have a stomach or a body which needs anything like energy to motivate it. Simple, isn't it? All right. Now you get no randomity, see? Simple! Okay.
So let's look over the problem of automaticity and geographical locale, and we find out there's no geographical locale unless some automaticity's been set up in the first place. As long as a fellow simply knows he is, he also knows where he is. If he just knows he is, then he knows where he is. But boy, a lot of people have come down the line on validation of automaticity to a point where they don't know where they are. See, they don't know where they are. And the reason they don't know is very simple: is because the machinery is superior to them. And the machinery tells them they have to have a location. So if the machinery tells them they have to have a location, then where they are has to be located for them by things which they create. But that's on automatic . . .
You know, one of the weird double-terminal buttons that you can run is— the least admired thing I know of in the whole universe is just this one, that's why it's so persistent—is "setting up something so it will continue to run with no attention." And you mock up yourself doing that in four positions and you'll find out it gets mighty hectic and erratic because you've walked into the center of automaticity. Real erratic, such mock-ups get very often. All right.
What's the process then? Well, you play Step I against Step II. And you could actually just keep doing this Step I against Step II until a person gets cleared. Step I is "Where are you with relationship to the barriers?" And when we get to II, he didn't exteriorize easily and well on I, so when we got to II we merely assume—and we—remember, we'd do all these things with the person exteriorized too; it isn't just to get him out, that isn't our emphasis. When we get to Step II, we find out that we have located him by things which he had a hand in creating. See that?
We locate him, he just feels fine about it, and then we're immediately into the echelon that he has exited and is located in—he's now located in space which he has a hand in creating. The essence of simplicity.
So at Step I we find out that he is not located in the space which he has created. In Step II, why, we start to make it unnecessary to be so dependent upon this space which he himself created and now thinks that somebody else is creating, see? So that's Step I and Step II, the values of.

111

112

18 NOVEMBER 1953
Actually, II is a much higher echelon step than I. But while a person is still inside, you find you have to go all the way down these steps to find someplace to start unmocking this maze—this mirror maze—which he's got fixed up and which he's lost control of.
Now, lost control would be the one thing that you can say is in general and in common with all automaticity. He hasn't any control. It's where he doesn't have control that something is automatic.
And for instance, pc this morning did a couple of shivers, and—threw it a little bit to make her make a machine which would knock her out of control. Well, of course that's fun too. So somewhere back on the track they have a machine that knocks somebody out of control. That's the basic machine. But later on, a pc—earlier lives and that sort of thing—starts getting hit by freight engines and running through The Perils of Pauline in general, and this earlier machinery gets a lot of facsimiles piled up on it. And these are all barriers.
Now, you understand that running a facsimile is validation of a barrier. People start validating the barrier called the facsimile to a point where that energy becomes, if anything, more real than mest energy. And that's why after, at the most, a few hundred hours of auditing, Dianetic processing starts to cave in. You see why that is? It's very simple. It's just that you validate the barrier of the engram.
If you validate barriers which contain unconsciousness, only—you can only do this for a few hundred hours and then all of a sudden this starts to become a new reality. Because you've set up an auditing machine which is— has as its prime purpose the correction of barriers. And the correction of barriers, of course, can only take place when you say, "I've got barriers." And this can only take place when you say, "I have no responsibility for the barriers," which is to say, "I didn't make them."
When you take complete full responsibility, it is the willingness to mock or unmock barriers at will. Any barrier, no matter what it is.
Now, people go around all the time with mental blocks. They can't think of this, they can't think of that, they can't remember this and they can't do this. And they wouldn't dare get on a stage and do something because—and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
All politeness, manners, social culture, is based upon validating series of invisible blocks. So these invisible barriers—these blocks, barriers, same thing— these invisible barriers themselves becoming validated, get more and more real, more and more real, and start to supplant the reality of the situation.
You get somebody being very polite while the house is burning down. You see, he's rushed in to pick up the baby, and he brushed by somebody suddenly on the stairs and knocked them a little bit, you see. And he stops to apologize and excuse himself before he goes on and rescues the baby! Oh yes, that's more important than rescuing the baby! And so things go out of balance.
And by the way, as I talk about this sort of thing, I'm kidding it merely because it doesn't deserve anything more than a little smile or a joke or a laugh. But I'm not trying to tell you that all this is real bad. As a matter of fact, it's a wonderful way to get randomity. It's real good. But you carry it too far and then say, "I've forgotten how I'm doing it," and then you've got other people around with whom you're in constant communication who think it's just wonderful that you started doing that out, that way, because he knows the only chains you can put on yourself you put there yourself. All I'm trying to do is tell you: "Now, look, if you throw away a few hundred pounds of these chains, why, you'll be lighter." That's all. It's a supersimplicity.

WASTE A MACHINE
Now, a failure to exteriorize is a validation of a barrier called a body. You know, you've said, "It's there, it's there, it's there." After a person passes a certain point in this, all of a sudden it's not there anymore, see? The—that's automaticity for you. As soon as you've completely decided, and as soon as you're completely assured that the automaticity which you've set up is itself utterly dependable, from that moment on it deteriorates in dependability. So you set this body up and you get it beautifully trained and it's just like getting all dressed—training is something like getting all dressed for the show, with no show. You get to a point of where it's all automatic, and after that you don't put on a performance. That's quite a button, by the way—quite a button to run.
As a little kid you were always doing this. You'd say, "Well, gee, I could be Buck Rogers dead easy if I just had a space helmet and a space gun and . . ." You needed the equipment. In other words, "havingness before movingness." That's just reversing it. You've got to have movingness and out of movingness comes havingness. And if you haven't got enough sense . . .
Alexander had enough sense. One part of his campaigns way back there in the fourth century before Christ—he made his troops burn their baggage. And then he didn't have much sense after that, and he forgot to. And he got less and less motion. Believe me, he got less and less motion till they finally all said, "We want to go home." And they went home. And there went the end of the world conquest. Why? Well, when havingness has to come before doingness in each and every case, you get less and less havingness, really. Really. Because what comes before havingness is doingness. The postulate of motion exists before the particle is moving.
And so, you've gotten all dressed up with a body and you have a recognized identity, and everything is swell, but no play! This is silly, see?
And now if a fellow's buried this fact away from himself, he's saying, "I'm having no fun." Of course he's having no fun, because he forgot what show he was supposed to be in! Very simple. He finds himself going to the office every morning and sitting down at the office, or going through the same motions every day. And because he no longer—he found it was—well, it was dull to just flip from place to place and be in this place and be in that place and look at this and look at that. He finally conceived it was dull or he let himself be talked into the fact that he conceived it was dull or something of the sort. And as he did this, he said, "Now, the best thing to do is give myself some limitation of motion. And the best way to limit motion is to be carried various places by something which is itself destructible."
Now, he forgets this and he starts walking up and down the street with a body. And you see, he takes the body here and he takes the body there, and then after a while the body's taking him there, and the body's taking him elsewhere. And you ask him to be three feet back of it, and he sits there waiting for the body to move him out of the back of his head. You actually can exteriorize somebody once in a while by saying, "All right, now have the body put you out back of your head."
I was exteriorizing a case like this not too long ago .. . (You mind if I tell this?) And—exteriorizing a case not too long ago, and was getting along fine and used that technique: "Now have the body put you behind the head. Now put you back in your head." "Now put you behind your head," and so forth. A lot of effort on this case.
And all of a sudden, he said to me, he says, "My body isn't doing it!" See, he was real, real determined about this. And the determination, it was a great

113

114

18 NOVEMBER 1953
certainty. No, his body wasn't doing it. And after that, why, with a little more work with effort and so forth, why, he exteriorized.
But after—I shouldn't tell this! This is the darnedest thing that ever happened. After he was well exteriorized and so forth, why, he was sitting back of his head very nicely, and he was fine. He reached up like this with his hand and all of a sudden goes, crunch! He tried to catch himself with his own hand, and he saw his hand closing on him, as a thetan! (audience laughter)
Now, that gives you some idea about the validation of the body to a point where the piece of machinery, you see—it's supposed to work on an automatic basis and it goes on a different circuit. But that is only a very humorous part of the same thing.
This happens quite ordinarily in Theta Clearing. The body has done so much for somebody, and it is so much a piece of automaticity, that he has this problem of, it must move him out. And then when it can no longer do anything for him, then the auditor somehow or other must move him out.
There isn't any reason why he really just can't be out, beyond this: he's set up this machinery. Well, it's set up to run that way, and so it's got to be undone the same way it's done. You undo magic by running, vaguely—but not in a time sense—but you've got to run somewhere close to a parallel of how it was done. And you just undo it, just backwards. So now he's got to have somebody else move him around or something else move him around, which is characteristic of an automatic society. He has an auditor, and the auditor's moving him around. Because when a fellow sets himself up as an auditing machine, that is really something.
And if you want to get some line charges out of some of these people present, just have them run, on the second step, "auditing machines." And if somebody's been self-auditing a lot, have him run "a self-auditing machine." Believe me, he's got one—it's his body. And you wonder why he doesn't get out of it. Well, he's automatically auditing himself.
Well now, here's this darn machine that moves him into various places. He wants to be told to go. So he, long ago, has set up a machine which will send him to places where he thinks of. You know? He thinks of Paris, and the machine sends him to Paris. In other words, he sets up a relay that puts him in Paris when he thinks of Paris. Because he has the idea of having to be moved. There's no reason why he can't just say, "Paris." He knows if he wants to be in Paris, and he's in Paris. That's all there is to that. So you just clip out the machine. Otherwise it'll continue to baffle you on Step I—"Where do you think you're not?" You get that now?
"Where do you think you're not?"
And the fellow says, "Well let's see, Paris? Yes."
Well, this starts to get very mysterious to him, too. See, it gets peculiar to him after a while. He doesn't realize the machine's in action.
Now, you're going to tell some preclear to unmock something and it'll promptly disappear. And nobody will be more surprised than the preclear. The thought to make something disappear, on his part, when given to him by the auditor and translated into his energy, triggers his machine and away it goes!
Now, one of the reasons a person wants to be so darn secret about his machinery and his equipment and what he's really doing, and why he's hiding even from himself and from a body and from everything else, is because you could actually walk around and trigger people's automaticities.
And you wanted to look hard enough and search hard enough and tune your wave bands up delicately enough, and if you were good enough, you'd

WASTE A MACHINE
simply be able to trigger their automaticities. They run like a bunch of puppets on a string when you do this. You can walk down the street (pardon me, walk down the street—you sail down the street and—just above people's heads or something like that) and every once in a while shift your beam around till you find it, bong, you see? And set somebody's automaticity up that tips their hat. And they, right out in the empty air, will tip their hat. Most surprised preclear ...
When I was first researching this—I should give you a little research case that happened on that. I found out that they were using ridges—instead of moving their arms, people were using ridges to move their arms. People have two or three different kinds of systems to handle the body. And one of these cases of handling ridges, I told this person to simply put a beam—they were outside and in front of themselves, so I said well now ... That's, by the way, a difficult position to get most preclears in. When they're real good off, why, they go into it easily, but a lot of them have the Assumption in restimulation. They've got an old theta body right in front of their face and it has a vacuum in it. And other people occupy this space all the time out in front of you, you see, so you begin to think of it as other people's space.
Well, anyway, this girl beamed this thing on her shoulder and almost dislocated her right arm. "Well," I said, "with a little more caution, put some energy into the little ridge which is on the left shoulder." And she put some energy into it and the arm flew up again. So I said, "Now selectively start beaming these various ridges on these arms." And, of course, the motion was very random and very hectic for a short time, but she was able to sort out the exact ridges which she energized in order to lift teacups, in order to do this, in order to do that.
And this preclear got more fascinated—they practically could see them out in front of their body, you know, sitting there saying, "Gee, that's interesting," and punching another ridge. "Gee, that's interesting," and punching another ridge and seeing what happened to the arm, see? Examining their own anatomy—just as though they hadn't set it up.
Of course, after she'd done this for a little while and got back into her body again, she fully expected, having blown up a lot of these ridges, that the body couldn't do this. So she had to concentrate, for a very short time, in order to lift a teacup—a split second.
It's very funny. We found out afterwards this ridge was so darn prominent and so on, that in washing dishes she very often broke cups. Fascinating, wasn't this? She very often broke cups. She had a ridge that lifted a teacup delicately and gently while she conversed elsewise. Blew it up, and she stopped breaking teacups. Okay.
The gain on this is apparently a negative gain, meaning you have less, but actually have more. So these two systems interlock.
And I told you this morning how to run out a machine. One of the first things you have to do is find out what kind of a machine are you looking at. And you tell the person to "Be here" and "Be there" and you all of a sudden find that he's going automatically or that he's just fixed—he's going noplace. He can't get out of his head. Well, that's "attention too dispersed, attention too fixed." It's being done on an automatic principle—what is he doing?
You ask him to put his attention on space and it collapses on the object in the center of the space. Or his attention on the space and it collapses immediately in front of the object, see? What's he doing? Or you ask him to put his attention on the space on either side of an object and all of a sudden the object disappears. What are you basically dealing with, with those three tests?

115

116

18 NOVEMBER 1953
Now, what are the tests? The test, very simple, is "Now put your attention on the object. Okay. Now put your attention on the spaces on either side of the object. Now put some emotion in those two spaces on either side of the object." That really puts his attention on it.
And he says, "I don't know, every time I try to do that the object becomes brighter," or "the object splits in half," or "the object gets smaller," or "my attention seems to snap in just beyond the object."
This is merely a symptom of how much space he's able to spread his attention over. That's all it's a symptom of. That means he's gotten barriers to the point where he hasn't anything else but barriers. He hasn't got any space between barriers anymore. He's got lots of barriers and nothing between the barriers.
Now, you want to give him something between the barriers. The best way to do that is to make it possible for him to handle barriers. All right. So we put his attention on either side of it, find out what he does. And you will just have to guess what the machine is, that's all. Don't ask him. He won't look at it. That's the one thing he's trained not to do.
He—always with a great surprise—great surprise, his attention snaps together. Just—you see, this is a very simple thing you're doing here. His attention snaps together on the far side of the object, and you say, "Well, now let's run a machine. Let's waste a machine that concentrates for you." And he does that very happily.
But he's very puzzled as to how you possibly guessed this. Concentrates, be damned. You're just looking at a superfixed attention, which is so superfixed it doesn't even hit the object, it sort of squeezes the object in and locks on the other side of it, or locks on the near side of it. "Now let's get a machine . . ."
Now, this other fellow: you say, "Look at the object." He doesn't. Every time he looks at the object his attention flies out on either side of it. What kind of a machine is that? You tell me.
Male voice: No-concentration machine.
That's right. A machine which keeps him from concentrating.
But that's rather condemnatory. "A machine which makes it possible for you not to concentrate" is the polite way to, you know, tell the preclear. And that's it. "A machine that makes it possible for you not to concentrate all the time." Because that's his automaticity. That's real cute, see.
He could run this machine over here, and he doesn't have to look at it. So he gets the machine set up that fixes it up so that some attention will go on to this machine; he doesn't have to look at it and he's got it all rigged up so he doesn't have to look at anything. Whoo! All of a sudden, why, that's what happens. But he tells you, "All right."
You say, "Put your attention on either—on the space on either side of the object." What happens? The object disappears. What's he got? What's he got? Puts his attention on either side of the object and the object disappears. What's he got?
Male voice: I'd say he's got a machine that keeps him from putting his attention on the object.
Well, that's basically true. But what would you say he had?
Second male voice: A machine to make things disappear.
That's right. See, it's simpler than you've said. Much simpler. It's something that unmocks things.
And a person like this feels that he has to look solidly and hard at mest and keep his attention on it very carefully, or it'll disappear. And he's sort of

WASTE A MACHINE
got the feeling like he's got one finger in one corner of the room and one finger in the other corner of the room, and if he suddenly released his fingers the whole mest universe would collapse. It won't.
So he's got this, and mest disappears when he takes his attention off of it. And he wears glasses in order to see MEST or he has corneas so he won't have to see mest. He's trying to handle a machine that is handling something, by handling it with another machine. He's got a machine starting something and another machine stopping something. He always has this. Anything you can say about any machinery, he's always got a machine doing the opposite someplace. It'll show up sooner or later.
So, all right. We have any one of these machines. Now, we tell him to put his attention on the object and he says, "Yes. Yeah, all right."
"Well, does your attention snap in when you put it on either side of the object? Does it snap in on the object?"
"No."
"Well, put it on the object. Does it slide out any?"
"No."
"Does it converge in front of it?"
"No. What are you trying to do?" he'll say.
"Converge behind you?"
"No, it's just the object," so forth.
What's the matter with him?
Male voice: He's got a mock-up machine.
No. He's just real satisfied with that mest universe machine he's got. He wouldn't disturb it for worlds. You know? He's all very complacent about the whole thing. Of course he doesn't have much motion or action, see? In other words, he isn't having any trouble with attention—he thinks. All he can see is the mest universe. Remember that.
Now, don't come around saying to somebody after he gets out of his body that it's dull. Of course it's dull. The only set of barriers he has are mest universe barriers. He can't interpose or eradicate barriers at will. And if he can't do that, he can't pick up any randomity anyplace. You see that? He's satisfied with a barrier. In other words, he's got an automaticity in perfect balance. But yet, that would be a real good Homo sap. Kind of bored, but real good Homo sap. And that would be so high above normal or above average in the society that you could hardly reach it with a rocket plane.
Male voice: What had the preclear ought to see?
Hm? What's this?
Male voice: What had the preclear ought to see? What's the right one you ask him to put his attention on then?
There is no right one. Of course.
Second male voice: It'd have to be right.
Male voice: See an improvement.
The next thing you would ask that fellow is say, "All right, now as you sit there, see if you can't—there's a bolt there on the side of that machine—now see if you can see the machine without the bolt being there." Gradient scale, see?
He'll say, "Yep."
"All right. Now see if you can see the machine without the upper part of it there—being there. Just make it go thin. See if you can get that a little bit thin—the upper part of the thing. Now let's see if you can make it thicker. Now make it thinner. Now make it thicker. Now make it thinner. Now make it thicker. Thinner. Thicker. Thinner. Thicker."

117

118

18 NOVEMBER 1953
And all of a sudden, pang! he has control of the thing. He can say, "It isn't there," and it's not there. And he can say, "It's there" and it's there.
Soon as he's controlled this type of an operation, he can mock and unmock a mest universe barrier at will, at least for himself. And you do this with walls, and you do this with people, and you do this with other things, and then you can do it with his own body.
Or you can start out with his own body first—"Now get your nose not being there. Unmock your own nose." See? You can unmock the whole body and just leave the preclear sitting there two feet above the chair. There's the essence of the situation. Because he's depending on this to locate him so thoroughly, that his whole track is jammed. You see how that is? This person's very satisfied with this—that's just fine—that tells him where he is.
He shouldn't need this to tell him anything about where he is. He should be able to see it or unsee it at will. Right?
Male voice: What's the scoop when your auditor asks you to unmock it and nothing happens, and a split second later you forget that he asked you, and then it unmocks?
I would say this was just difficulty in shifting attention. I—tell you what I did to somebody that had this "lag" happening, very short time ago—this little lag, little lag. He kept remarking on these little lags. "Now get a machine that checks it over and makes sure it's all safe before you do it." Does that hit you?
Male voice: Yeah.
Okay. That's an automatic checking machine—little time lag in it.
Well, now there's a tremendous variety out of these simplicities. But it's just—you just hit it on the button. Or hit it way off the button—waste any kind of a machine.
Now, what ways do you use in doing this? First, is you can make the preclear do it and then not do it, and do it and not do it, until he's thoroughly doing this at will. Got that? That's the first step, always. In other words, you just make him do it instead of the machine do it. The machine will do this, sooner or later.
By the way, he's got a machine that sets this up, this tells you that sooner or later that damn machine is going to stop setting it up for him. You get that? He's very satisfied with the way that sits there. Well, that's just fine. What childish dependency. Sooner or later, why, he's going to start looking around, when he gets to be a few years older or something like that, and he's going to say, "What wall?" He doesn't garnish this in any way—he doesn't—it's just there. This is the practical, matter-of-fact person. And as he goes along in life, the whole universe starts to slide out from underneath him because he's just stopped leaning on it, he's just lying down completely. It tells him what to eat and what to wear and where to go and what to do. It evaluates for him.
Now, evaluation is this—evaluation, the definition of evaluation, is changing position in space. That's basically evaluation, see? If something can change a person's position in space, then, that person—depends on the intention—but that person, of course, can then evaluate for the individual.
You don't get this very much—an auditor—there's Change of Space Processing. An auditor says, "Be here, be there, be someplace else," and so forth. For the first few minutes after the session, if the preclear's been very concentrated on the session, the auditor's word has carried a lot of weight with him. It fades right away because, of course, the intention behind it is simply to return self-determinism, not to interrupt it. So you get—a guy will get another postulate in the road of the natural consequence of this.

WASTE A MACHINE
Well, why do you think Mama evaluates for the body? The body was carried around in a womb all over the place by Mama, then packed all over the place as an infant by Mama, and then Mama finally says, "Well, I remember when you were a little girl, such and such happened and so-and-so happened," (and it didn't happen at all, by the way) "and you were so-and-so, and I was so-and-so and you said so-and-so, and you used to have curls until you were nine."
And the fellow says, "Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Yes, Mama. Yes, Mama. Yes, Mama."
His memory is a thousand times better than his mother. You process some preclear, you run through birth, you find out there was nitrous oxide used in birth and so forth. Preclear goes home. Mama says, "Why, there wasn't any anesthetic used at all in birth. I just lay there and screamed, and they didn't pay any attention to me."
And the preclear comes back to you and says, "Well, you couldn't have run birth. It must have been a delusion as far as I was concerned, you see, because actually, I..."
And you say, "Did you talk to your mother about this?"
He says, "Yes."
Well, you're not in a position to evaluate for him the way Mama can. Because Mama's carried him around all over the shop. You see that?
This stuff is saying, "Here you are, there you are, there you're someplace else, now you're someplace else, now you're someplace else, now you're someplace else," all the time, see—100 percent evaluation! Boy, after a while this stuff becomes thick, heavy. You don't have to make any effort at all to keep from seeing through it. And as a matter of fact, once in a while you'll be a little tired . . .
The way it ought to be is once in a while you're a little tired, something like that, you have trouble watching a television set. Because you're thoughtless about the whole thing—in other words, you don't have any real intention—just go over and sit on the television stage and watch the actual play rather than look at it coming through the set. Just rack around until you've got the actual television stage, look at it. It's in color, no flicker, no interference. Much better.
And then you go a further stage than that. If you sit there, and you're bound and determined to sit there in your own home and watch a television set, which is the purpose that you're doing, why, you're liable to—if you're a little bit tired and aren't watching quite what you're doing—simply actually watch the television, not the screen. In other words, look at the cathode ray emanation point a foot or two back of the front screen. And you're—you watch this terrifically concentrated tiny scanner. There's a picture back there. I mean, it looks just as good as any other place.
And by the way, you have other troubles with television: if you get too concentrated on the screen itself, you'll start wiping it, if you've got any power. I mean, that is MESTwise.
I mean, you can set up enough vibration in the thing to upset it. Or you can turn the screen on and off, after it's been turned off. That is to say, you can make it glow. Get it in a dark room—you can make it glow and then go faint and glow and go faint—actually glow and go faint. Somebody else comes along, you know, and sees the thing and there's the television set lighting up and going dark again. This is very upsetting to people. Well, it's not much of a trick if you've watched a lot of television, because you're fixed on that wavelength. Easy, huh?

119

120

18 NOVEMBER 1953
But as long as this stuff is all there is evaluating for you, you of course get completely mest values across the boards. Then you've limited your ability to this limit: that anything you use or believe in has to be constructed by the same methodology that constructed this. And that, in essence, is what's wrong with the engineer. See that?
There's no reason why, for instance, you can't mock up a motorcycle and go down the road at 185 miles an hour on a motorcycle that runs far better than any motorcycle you ever ran into that was built out of this stuff. Might run a lot better. You could probably make out a noisier one too, oddly enough.
Male voice: Wouldn't break any rods either.
That's right. You could probably make a noisier one. Oddly enough you could probably make a far noisier one than people would tolerate in your neighborhood. Of course that's not in the bargain, not in the contract here— I'm going to teach you all how to be noisy ghosts and clank chains. But we can. That's a real trick—you just mock up the sound waves.
How do sound waves mock up? Well, you have to know what they look like. Well, how do you find out what they look like? Well, you look at them, of course.
Now, the motto—the motto in this First Unit was: "Don't think about it, look at it." Second Unit too. "Look, don't think. Look."
You find out every time you make a mistake around, it will be because you didn't look. Every time you've made a mistake with machinery, equipment— busted something, something of the sort, it's because you didn't look at it. You should have looked at it. You know, just get back and say, "I am now looking at it." And then let a machine look at it for you, such as ... (audience laughter)
The body, for instance, is an automatic seeing eye dog. And you know how you actually see with a body? You drop a little gold plate over the front of each eye. And you know how you hear with it? You drop a little hearing point over each eardrum. Real cute. And you know how you feel with it? You drop a feeling point over each fingertip and along each nerve course. Then you forget that you dropped them there, and your eyesight deteriorates, and you try to beat up the mest eyes in order to see better. And what's pushed them in is the anchor points which you've got tied in there too tight.
Now, you say to somebody, "Why don't your eyes get better?" all the time. And the fellow goes on trying to adjust his body's eyes. And up to the time when you finally work him on a drill, and where you mock up a couple of eyes, couple of viewpoints, a little disk—or you mock up a couple of viewpoints, and send them here, and then mock up an optic nerve from the viewpoint to where he is and let him look into the end of the optic nerve, and he sees the viewpoint, he says, "What do you know!" And then have him put a couple out here on his nose or a couple on his ears and look with those, simultaneously, down an optic nerve and around the corner, so on, on the other side of a barrier. And he looks down these things and he looks through these and, gee-whiz, he's looking out of each ear, and he's seeing a lot better than he ever saw with mest eyes. Why, he gets sort of—"So what the devil am I doing!"
So at last he will take a look at what he's looking with, and it'll be a couple of these disks. Only they're all twisted around and all upset and all wedged and driven in, in some fashion or another, so that he doesn't see well with them anymore. Because he's not taking any responsibility for them anymore— he's letting them all run automatic.
When perception is done automatically, it deteriorates. When perception has deteriorated, it's been done too long automatically. That isn't, though,

WASTE A MACHINE
letting the body see for you. The body never did see for you. It never will. It's just a system that is utilized, and you know where to place these anchor points because it's made out of mest. So you put your viewpoints on the front of the eyes and go on looking through them. That's funny, isn't it?
Once in a while somebody has—the body puts one on a knee or something of the sort. And a preclear will have an interesting time—he's running around the body looking it over, and all of a sudden he's looking at the room. He's found one of the GE's viewpoints. It's real cute. Real messed up when it comes to straightening out perception without hitting automaticity.
Now, a process I want you to be—pay attention to, is you just diagnose what kind of a machine is interrupting beingness, see? Just interrupting this beingness.
What kind of a machine is it that keeps a person from turning on a sexual sensation in the wall? Simple? Now, you can remedy that simply by running a gradient scale and keying out the machine. You can run it by creating just— or just getting the preclear to do it, you know, gradient scale, until he can do it. Next, creating and destroying such a machine. Next, creating and destroying it in brackets. Next, and probably best for you, wasting, accepting, saving, desiring and being curious about, in brackets—bracket of five—such machines. Pang! Out they go. Boy, they're the easiest destroyed things you ever saw in your life.
Now, wiping out occlusion without treating the machines that make occlusion, makes a rough go for a preclear. I showed you that this morning, morning processing. Put the blackness on things. That's making the preclear do it.
We're bucking right straight into the teeth of all automaticity with this process of putting emotion in mest. Right into the teeth of it.
But it's time now that you put it into mest in brackets. Put emotion and all the things I've given you into mest in brackets. And where somebody is clearly bogged, why, the group involved and so on, should simply get him to waste the proper kind of a machine to square it up. And let's take out these reluctant pieces of machinery, the reluctant dragons, and give them a yo-heave. Got it now?
I want you to do that the rest of this afternoon and this evening. Okay.

121

Effects, Reaching End of Cycle
A lecture given on 19 November 1953

And this is November the 19, first morning lecture. This morning we're going to talk about cause and effect.
It's about time we talked about cause and effect as it applies immediately to space and flows. Anytime processes put a person too deeply into space and energy, they have a tendency to fail. They give the preclear a very rough time, because he is immediately into the problem of cause and effect.
The definition of cause would be source. The definition of effect would be receipt-point and what is received at receipt-point. The word is dual, in that it can be descriptive of what is receiving (a person is an effect) and of what he is receiving (the material produced an effect, you see, or was effective). You just use it in those categories, and then apply it immediately to communication. Communication: he who writes and mails the letter is cause, and he who reads—receives and reads the letter is the effect on a communication channel. That's very simple, isn't it? All right.
There isn't any reason why there has to be any distance between cause and effect. Distance is an arbitrary: it is introducing the matter of location.
So, let's look at this very sanely and recognize that where the MEST universe is concerned, it is an effort toward the separateness, stretched apart between cause and effect by a distance. And the maintenance of this distance is one of the primary efforts on the part of an individual. A maintenance of distance. Then after a while, he has too much distance and he starts to close distance.
The first downfall of any individual comes about when he desires to be an effect. And there is a postulate sitting on anybody's track, in this lifetime and in earlier lifetimes again and again, and the earliest severe postulate on the track, which is "I want to be an effect." And this is immediately preceded by the "curiosity about an effect."
A thetan does not need to be an effect. He operates primarily as cause. But if he is continuously cause, continuously cause, he begins to suffer from a lack of randomity.
We do not know that randomity is absolutely necessary. This, again, is a matter of space and motion. A thetan does not get along well with motion. Because his attention is so fixed upon motion in this universe—upon space and upon motion—it is difficult for him to conceive a state of beingness which does not depend upon space and motion. This is a matter of too much fixed attention. Yet such states exist. He immediately characterizes such a state, however, as a motionless state, you see? Again, we've got an absence of motion

123

124

19 NOVEMBER 1953
as the descriptive state. Stillness is defined as something which is not moving. And in this universe we batter around from one corner of it to the other fighting along with communication channels which have to do solely with cause and effect in terms of space-energy factors. A thetan doesn't do well on them. But that's all right, he could be rehabilitated so he does do well on them.
Now, if one were to get a number of people—mock up a number of people agreeing with a number of people on the subject of "must have an effect," he has keyed the prime button of all buttons. Now, I told you that a 50 percent offensive potential and a 50 percent defensive potential were necessary to something like an optimum randomity. This is demonstrated in infantry action, it's demonstrated in national defense, it's demonstrated in any kind of activity in the mest universe which is activity, because it's a characteristic of motion in this universe: 50 percent holding, 50 percent attacking. When that ratio is overbalanced, a person begins to lose. And when it's overbalanced toward all attacking, a person begins to suffer from boredom. And when it's overbalanced on the basis of defense, he begins to suffer from an overdose of effect. And they just hold harder and harder and become more and more rigid.
Optimum mental, physical, spiritual, whatever you want to call it—but beingness, certainly—in this universe consists of 50 percent attack and 50 percent defense; 50 percent cause, 50 percent effect. If you understand that thoroughly in all of its implications, the entire field of behavior will spread out before you like a map. It's the first line of the Factors.
Now, a person begins to resist being an effect, and here we go! There it goes! He begins to resist being effect. It will eventually put him in a situation where every facsimile he has, every effect he has caused, will itself collapse on him. You see that? Because he resists it, he has to match its wavelength and if he matches its wavelength he has to fight it off. But he has machinery which is causing him to be an effect, and so he's fighting his own machinery. And that means he's putting his energy into it; and the more energy he puts into it, the more the machinery goes into action and operation, and the more of an effect he becomes. This should be tremendously obvious.
A person has had this great difficulty with effects in the past. Let's take a being who is surrounded by enormous space. There is space and space and space and space. And he puts out a wave and it just keeps going forever and it never comes back. Oh, no! A fellow operating in space opera gets into the most—he gets into the most frantic sort of a condition that you could imagine. He gets to a point where he starts using electronics, zap guns, heavily contained, armored ships. The crews go in and get automatic implantations the moment they step through the airlock after leaving the planet. I mean they just walk up off the planetary ground and into the ship and pang! they get an automatic implant that tells them they're loyal, they're not supposed to go beyond certain points in the ship, that makes their wavelength so-and-so and so-and-so. Or they just fall into their bunks and the first moment they're in their bunks, why, a gadget-gimmick opens up right over the bunk and it starts giving them a good, solid effect. It gives them barriers, in other words, it gives them bounce boards—they love them. Hate is the thing; it's hate that characterizes space opera.
Now, down here on Earth where a person has—is being subjected to the effects of bodies, gravity, all the rest of the solider aspects of energy, he of course has to specialize in love so as to melt some of this stuff down. So you get the farmers and the good people on planets and so forth, and they're all sitting around trying to figure this religious universe out from a basis of love,

EFFECTS, REACHING END OF CYCLE
love, love, love, love—be kind to your neighbor, don't do unto others what you don't want undone, and so on. And they go around, and they mock up big brassy halos for themselves and they talk about love, love, love, love, love.
And then somebody amongst them gets into restim or somebody lands out of space opera, and brother, all hell breaks loose. Restim: somebody just gets . . . Not just space opera, that's just—I just throw that in to give you some kind of an idea of the desperation of men who have—the shortest little jaunt they take is four or five light-years, see. You know, just down to the grocery store to get a cup of coffee. No bouncing boards.
Well, on the planet they've been trying to melt down all barriers because they've got too many—too many limitations, too many sounding boards, too much bounce, too much echo. And where they don't have any, they're trying to put them there. And you put them there with hate and you take them down with love—if you've got to use energy. If you have to use energy. The value of energy is overstrained. (coughing in audience)
Now, I didn't expect this to—the talk I'm giving here this morning is going to restimulate a few coughs. You know, I never worry too much about coughs early in the course, but I begin to wonder about them a little bit on into a course. And I'd better tell you what a cough is. (This is not any mean effort and I hope you won't take it as a gibe.) But I better tell you what a cough is because people will go around and they'll run every technique in the book trying to get rid of some cough, see. They'll just run it and run it and run it and run it and run it. And it just hasn't any—these techniques just don't seem to be effective against this cough, see.
Well, get the idea of a cough being—in terms of effect—(slurping sound). See? The guy is saying, "Give me. Give me. Effect. Effect. Got to be an effect. Got to be an effect." That's the only button he's on. Well, of course, when he gets it in effect he says, "Boo!" and then he'll rig up a machine that'll say, "Boo!" at him. (coughing) It'll return to him (audience laughter)—it'll return to him all of his effects because he can't waste any effects. And of course, the primary one—you think I was going to say sex, but it's not sex; I'll get around to that in a moment—the primary one is aesthetics. Starvation for beauty causes a cough. Secondary, when a person can't have beauty anymore, he can have sex and it comes in on the second dynamic. Those are the two things you process, in that order—beauty and sex—in order to get rid of a cough. Or you process them, for a person who has a really bad cough, sex and then beauty. You see that? Very illustrative of this. A person is pulling in all of the effects which he has put out. And it's very surprising, every once in a while somebody comes along . . .
By the way, a wonderful way to throw somebody's automaticity just down the spout is to ask him: "How do you do it?" Isn't that cute? Guy's got a wonderful machine, he's—for years he's gone on learning to be a bricklayer. You see, he's gotten to the point where he can slap the mortar up there and slap the bricks on and slap the mortar and slap the brick and slap the mortar and slap the brick—very artistically. The mortar has, you see, a certain curve as it comes by and takes—I mean, the trowel, as it takes off the excess mortar, you see, and it pats everything into line, and it breaks bricks just so, and so on. He goes—he's a beautiful bricklaying machine. And he's been doing this for years, and suddenly somebody comes along someday and says, "How do you do that?" And the worst thing happens, somebody gives him an apprentice who keeps saying all the time, "How do you do that? How do you do that?" see. After a while the guy wonders how in the name of God he possibly ever laid a brick in his life, see? Dependency on automaticity. All right.

125

126

19 NOVEMBER 1953
Let's take up the question of the actor. Oh, the nuances, the thisas and thatas—he's got every role he ever played set up as an automaticity. So he goes on the stage and robotizes for an hour or two—or in Hollywood, thirty seconds or a minute before the camera. Oh, and boy do those poor Hollywood actors have Fac One keyed in. Oooooh! Cameras, cameras, cameras, cameras, Fac One, Fac One. They all answer up on it just perfectly. And it's very funny that Superman—the boy that's playing Superman on TV has the Assumption in full restimulation. Yeah, fat! Anyway, he's really caved in. Look at him next time. He—that guy'd have no more chance of getting out of his body than if you put a—I mean, he's about the worst thetan they could have found to play the role. Anyway, a lot of people have asked him, "How do you do it?"
Now, that's the way you cave in automatic machinery. If you ever feel disturbed or if you can remember a time in your life when somebody disturbed you by suddenly looking at you and saying, "How do you do it?" and that disturbed you, you're clued right there.
How do you get rid of that? Create-destroy. Waste (usually in this sequence)— waste, save, accept, desire, be curious about, in brackets, the machine that was doing it for you. And then create and destroy the machine. And then make them that really work and throw them away, and that automaticity has blown up. You probably—each one of you probably has a time, if you just thought it over, when somebody said, "How do you do that?" and disturbed the devil out of it.
I know I ran into that in this lifetime. I—evidently someplace down the line, something I was doing had to do with sculpting, and I was doing an excellent job of sculpting. I was about—oh, I don't know, five, six years old, and I had made a whole menagerie. And a complete menagerie—was made out of clay, baked and so forth. And I draped them around and painted them up and so forth. But never occurred to me that this was strange, unusual or that anybody should be wondering about this menagerie. But the tigers were tigers, you know, and it was a menagerie, and all of a sudden my mother, of all pieces, asked me how I did it. It caved me in. I haven't touched a piece of clay since! You see? Just an automatic machine.
How do you blow up somebody else's automatic machinery? Just be very solicitous and very sympathetic about how they're doing it. Also be very solicitous and sympathetic about what's wrong with them. That caves in their automatic psychosomatic machinery. Being solicitous about their health, you see? That makes them think their health isn't under their own control, and it sets it up an automaticity on the subject of illness. You see that?
All right. Now somebody comes along to me every once in a while and says, "How do you keep on giving all these lectures and talking always about this and that and so on?" The funny part about me, I'm perfectly willing to listen. As a matter of fact, I probably listen harder than anybody else. Because very few people say anything to me, truth of the matter is. People speak to me sort of on the fly—hello, goodbye and so forth—and nobody ever sits down and says to me, "You know, I think that Alden yachts sail terrible." Nobody ever says that sort of thing to me, you know. I never get in an argument about things anymore. This is very bad. Because every time you do a lot of talking, you're going to get the effect of all of your own words—they'll just start hitting you in the teeth when you've done too much talking.
Oh, I didn't ever have much of a problem on this. It never came up as such, as a writer, on words, till an awful lot of people started showing up asking me, "How do you manage to write the number of stories you write? How do you

EFFECTS, REACHING END OF CYCLE
do this, you know?" Heh-heh! And boy, I had enough automaticities set up there— wham! see? And talking and lecturing never bothered me, and Scientology, Dianetics never bothered me, till somebody started popping up in front of me saying, "How do you possibly keep coming up with data? And how do you keep on talking about it so long?" And I did a couple of blinks. It caved in a couple of ridges.
And so I went around trying to figure out a little bit just how the dickens you undid this. I'm in a—I have been, all during this processing and so forth, since the beginning, in a little worse state than somebody who is getting a process for which they're not responsible.
They always talk, you know, about "physician heal thyself," which is a sarcastic backhand slap. Because history tells you that anybody who has originated anything in the society has been blown up by it. The boy who discovered puerperal fever, by the way, died from it, and so on. Anybody who pioneers in the society goes by the boards sooner or later. Well, I don't evidently seem to be going by the boards—this makes people curious. (audience laughter)
That's simply because in the past, as rough problems have turned up, I was working on very secure basics and it was only necessary to throw together the ingredients of the secure basics and move the things out. Furthermore, I was in the fortunate condition where normally it was just a matter of changing my own mind about something, and that was effective as a process. That's all there was to it.
But when they talk about the number of ridges you've set up, see, and say, "How do you do it?" and then a couple of ridges cave in and you don't quite know what's happened to you, well, the best remedy would, of course, be the one that picked up—one of the best ones on any of this is just "end of cycle." You don't quite see how end of cycle and beginning of cycle might apply as a solid process to almost anything, but it does. It's a wonderful test process. You just start throwing things, as a finality, up until one works. And I found out that in this case, eating reels of tape was the end of cycle. So I just mocked up my stomach full of tape, that's all, and digested the tape. And it keyed right on out. As a matter of fact, the next few times that I talked, why, I was more lucid than before. I wasn't tired and had no somatics at all.
Why is this? I mean, why would you have such a simple process as this? Well, it's just that, you see, you put out an awful lot of stuff and nothing ever comes back in on the channel. And nobody stands around telling me about Dianetics or Scientology, which makes a stuck flow. The stuff goes onto tapes and goes into facsimiles and that sort of thing, so you just make yourself eat it—simple. I mean, you get back the thing. After I'd eaten a couple of thousand reels, why, I was having, for a short time, a hard time remembering what the hell I'd ever talked about.
And it was very interesting that the—I could get this facsimile speedup. I get this very easily—run facsimiles at ten, twelve, fifteen times the speed that they're supposed to go at. You know, run off birth: First labor pain, bada-zuzz-zuh-rmm-um-umm-mmm—eyes, bang! See? With all the voices going at that same pitch, see? Which makes the doctor's voice, the nurse's voice, something like that. Pick up one of these facsimiles and just pull it through very quick in order to speed up time on it. And it's yub-ya-dub-dewa-dee-wowo-ja-geewowo— goes through. If you want to know how it sounds, it sounds just like a tape recorder which is running about five, ten times its natural speed; just a scream of high uneven vibration. Anyhow, it's quite intelligible and runs out.

127

128

19 NOVEMBER 1953
Well, when I did this I found, oddly enough, that the only times that really turned up as aberrative was when somebody had accidentally kicked a tape back at me. You know? Somebody turns on a tape recorder as I'm about to talk, or something of the sort and there's—he turns it on to play and the thing has still got some tape on it of what I was saying and it comes back and it says, "Baba-wawa-wawa-sum-tum-hum-hum." I'm about to talk and something else talks which is exactly on that wavelength. And these things showed up just crash, crash, crash, see, the second I started to eat some tape. Because it all wasn't on the subject of tape. You'd have thought that eating audiences or having audiences leap at you or something would have been the remedy. That is, for an actor. If you'll just have him mock up audience leaping across the footlights and eating him, he generally reaches his end of cycle on the thing. That's what he's been expecting to have happen for some time. But it isn't as general as that.
The only aberrative things are those things which come closest to Q and A. Because those are the only actual things there are. What is a microphone? A microphone is a microphone, see? I mean, that's the right answer. On cause and effect, you only get a restimulation when the same wave comes back and hits you. You see that?
Now, a person, then, has to be willing, he has to be able to put out so much cause, he has to be able to put out a lot of cause to live! And he has to be willing to receive an equal amount of effect. Now, you got that?
Now, you noticed when you were first doing this exercise of putting something in the wall, you might have said you put it there but you didn't feel any of it back. No, thank you! You didn't even think you put it there because you didn't feel it back, a lot of times, on various things. Is that right? All right.
The only reason you don't want to put it there is because you're liable to get it back. Get the difference? And when you yourself are putting in, as cause, an effect into something which is now going to come back to you—mm! That's what's wrong with the whole track.
Now, the dirtiest tricks were in the earliest portion of the track. And you find somebody putting up an aesthetic mock-up and he'd just put it up, you see, and then start to get a look at it, when he'd be hit by what he got confused about, which he thought was the effect he got from it. I want you to get this one very carefully, because we're going into the field of aesthetics and they lie instantly and immediately below knowingness. Aesthetics—an aesthetic thought can exist and an aesthetic object in space can exist. So we take a look at this thing, and we see this fellow put up an aesthetic mock-up—this is a process I'm telling you about, not an illustration. He puts up an aesthetic mock-up and somebody that he didn't know was there, hits him in the teeth with blackness. Hits him or anything else he has in his vicinity. You got this? They don't just hit the mock-up. So he thinks that his own effect from a beautiful mock-up is to be hit in the teeth with blackness.
And that's what's wrong with a case that's starved for beauty. They'll put up something and they're scared stiff if they suddenly see it. Every once in a while they do this, you know, they see this—all of a sudden a three-dimensional mock-up that they've put up there and they said, "(gasp) No!" Well, that would come under the head of successive engrams, whereby practically everything they have has been knocked flooey. They've put up a beautiful mock-up.
Now, what is a thetan trying to do in terms of space? He's trying to, actually, to put up as beautiful a mock-up as he can put up, whether he makes it out of mest or his own energy—put up as beautiful a mock-up as he can put up

EFFECTS, REACHING END OF CYCLE
and have it go through graceful evolutions. That's what he's trying to do. And he is, to some degree, particularly when he gets a little antagonistic about it, at a little bit lower than that, he's trying to keep others from putting up mock-ups so beautiful that his won't get any attention. And between those two combinations, you have motive.
And don't go looking into the dung heaps of life for a motive. Leave that up to the boys that have been back on the track. Don't go looking into the sewer systems and the sordid byroads, so on, of people's lives to find out what aberrated them. They were unable to put up something beautiful. And when they had bad consequences for having done this, they caved in. And there's where you find cause and effect basic-basic. And that's what we're looking for.
The first thing that they were doing was they were trying to think a beautiful thought or something, you see. And the next in, they were trying to be more convincing by putting up something that was beautiful that had an effect on themselves. The evolution of. You see how this is? Fellow puts up a beautiful mock-up and he's hit in the teeth with blackness. And he thinks, after a while—he gets so goofy and his attention gets so knocked around by this operation, that he is afraid to put up a beautiful mock-up. Because he puts up the beautiful mock-up and he gets hit in the teeth with blackness. So he gets it crossed. He actually is working on a short circuit and this is the short circuit the mind is working on. Not any other more important short circuit. It's just the fact that he thinks if he puts up something beautiful, why, he's going to be hit with blackness from it. You see, it was a hidden influence that hit him with the blackness, but he can't be sure that it wasn't that beautiful mock-up.
Actually, all the protection he will ever have is beauty. The protection he will have has nothing whatsoever to do with a strong arm. He who lives by the sword is said to die by the sword. Of course, he who doesn't live by the sword dies much faster. But he who lives by beauty lives.
Now, the most horrible button that I've run on some preclears—just horrible—is "Every time I put up something beautiful, it's spoiled." That is the button amongst buttons. It's generally so rough that you have to play it back and forth in many variations. Many variations, such as, "Every time somebody else puts up something beautiful, I can't destroy it." And back and forth in all of its ramifications, in order to knock it to pieces. Otherwise he simply runs away from the button itself. He just does the most tremendous duck and dodge imaginable. But I've spilled grief off of preclears with that button.
Now, how do you do it? When addressed toward something which has to do with beauty, it's terrific. Because the basic purpose of the machinery is to, one, set up something beautiful, and two, destroy something competitively beautiful. That's the basic modus operandi on the most fundamental machine there is.
Now, that was automatic then. Now, the next thing he does is he wants to receive an effect from something beautiful. Now, he'll receive an effect from other people's beautiful things with great ease and aplomb until those things are used in order to trap what beautiful things he has and smear them in.
In other words, a contest starts out—a sort of a beauty contest at the beginning of track—and it starts knocking around and after a while, every time he puts up something beautiful, somebody hits him in the face with ink or plows him in. And after a while he gets to a point where he'll only put up beautiful things as facsimiles. And after a while, he puts up only beautiful things as a memory of facsimiles. And he finally gets a machine that makes pictures of effects which he has had so as not to have to enter into the contest of.

129

130

19 NOVEMBER 1953
Now, you'll see immediately that most people are worried about a dwindling spiral on this basis: the dwindling spiral is itself a mean and vicious thing. Well, how does it come about? It's trying to pull in as much effect as one has put out as cause. And this inevitably winds up as what? This winds up as the inflow of the mest universe on one hand, and it winds up as a pull-in of the whole bank on the other hand. You see that? So it's always a shortening distance. It's like surveying: in surveying you cannot make a lengthening error. There's only shortening errors possible. For instance, the survey chain, when put a little bit off the pins of the survey stations which are being measured—anytime it goes immediately off an exact straight line, from pin to pin or station to station, it's shorter. So it's one of these continuous shortening errors.
Well, similarly, we have a shortening error: when we put out a cause and we want to get back an effect, we find out that the weaker the cause, the less distance one can achieve from effect. See? I mean, if you have a weak cause and you try to put it out there eight miles, you are not going to get the effect back from it. A weak cause has to go out there two feet, or something, you see. Very weak cause has to go out there two feet, and a person can receive an effect from something two feet away. Then they get along to a point where they can only receive effect from zero distance. Well, that's cause-effect instantaneous. Impact is cause-effect instantaneous. And when a person can only trust what he feels, he's into that band—instantaneous cause and effect. That's effort.
Now, we have then, as a drill, first putting out this anything—blackness, ridicule, anything else you can think of in terms of energy—into the wall until people are perfectly willing to stand up to pretty darn strong causes. And we do this on a gradient scale. They can stand up to their own strong causes. You see, they were originally convinced—what crossed up their machinery originally: They thought they were being the effect of their own cause, consistently and continually, and that their own cause—every time they tried to put out beauty, they got ugliness back, you see? They put up something beautiful and they got hit in the teeth with blackness or they got hit in the teeth with ugliness of some sort. In other words, they were convinced that the effect of their own actions was bad, by somebody short-circuiting or misevaluating or misinterpreting their actions.
That's why people hate to be responsible. It means—being responsible simply means you have to have the effect you have caused. The whole police of the mest universe, in whatever uniform, wearing whatever tin star and chewing whatever tobacco, are interested only in one thing—just one thing. And they're saying, just like a lot of puppets: "You must be the effect of what you cause, unless it's desirable, and then you can't have it." Their motto is "Anything bad that is caused must find the person the effect who caused it." And as it's left up to them to say what's bad, the sky is the limit. But you find all sorts of things against the law.
You'll find, in this society, anything beautiful against the law. Just check them over and you'll find out somehow or other there are terrific limitations against doing anything that is very graceful or something. People get real mad in this society, you see, if you go on and try to live an aesthetic or graceful existence. Well, you just try it—you get your throat cut every time. You're supposed to be— you're supposed to be socially acceptable.
In view of the fact that many things are inhibited, you run Acceptance Level Processing, you'll find out what is acceptable to most people in terms of what mock-ups suddenly are absorbed by their bank. This is what they'll look

EFFECTS, REACHING END OF CYCLE
at and this is what they'll pay attention to. And it goes down lower and lower and lower. What is forbidden, in other words—that thing which is forbidden becomes a scarcity and at length becomes so scarce that one can't have it at all. Because he doesn't think it exists, after that he can't have it.
So people have machines that unmock their own beautiful things. Because if they're put up there and somebody sees them, the person himself, the viewpoint or anything else which he has, will be under attack. This society dramatizes that just gorgeously. Real crazy people do nothing but just prowl on the outskirts of anything that has dared to put up anything beautiful.
And they just prowl on the outskirts of it, just waiting. Grrrr! Bunch of saber-toothed tigers—if they were that strong—but they're not. They're about the same strength level as worms. And their idea of destroying something beautiful is to rob its planking. mest universe is very good at that. Very good at that.
Now, this is a sort of a punishment sort of a thing, when a fellow gets into a universe which is almost total inflow. And of course he goes down scale like mad. The only thing to do is to know how to balance it out. And there are many ways to balance it out.
And this drill, which we're running here, is strictly a matter of cause and effect. And actually has the exact purpose of expanding the distance over which a person is willing to be cause and receive an effect. Let's get it, then, close up and far away. What he considers to be bad effects—rage, apathy, terror, all these low-scale effects—let's get them real close up till he's able to get them in his teeth, see, right close up, his nose and his ears and his toes, and get mock-ups full of seething rage an eighth of an inch from him as a thetan. I mean, just torrents of rage. And so he—it pours through him. And he finds out he can stand that.
And let him be willing to have beautiful things out there about twenty light-years and still get an effect back from them. You see which direction we go? Because right now, anything beautiful he has is held so privately and so close, that he can't display it even to himself. You see, that's got to be held real close in, and anything evil there is must be an awful long way away. So we're just going to reverse this with this process. If we've got to handle distance in terms of cause and effect, and we'll have to be able to if we're going to stay in this universe, why, the best way I know of, at this time, to go about it is simply this drill. And you start running the higher-scale emotions further out and the lower-scale emotions closer in.
Now, for instance, we make the ashtray which is sitting right next to the preclear—we have it full of apathy and so forth, until he gets that real good. And then we put the window over there that's three or four feet away from him with some joy in it. See? Actually, this is very easy to do, because the longer distances are the higher tones. Very easy to do this.
It's hard to do it the other way. Some people all of a sudden recognize this as they run it: "My God, I may be doing this the hard way. I'm trying to hold all the beautiful things in, you see, and put all the ugly things out, and keep them out and push them out there and hold them out there—can't do it." Because what he naturally is able to do is put beautiful things way out and beautiful things close in, and ugly things way out and ugly things close in. Because it's just his consideration of what's beautiful and what's ugly, that's all. It's very simple.
Now, I don't want you to be super-puzzled about this thing called cause and effect. A person in the same instant and instant-space can be cause and

131

132

19 NOVEMBER 1953
can be effect. In the same instant, you understand? Has nothing to do with distance.
But now we get the universe in there and we find out by introducing the factor of distance that we have in this now, an arbitrary. It's a barrier of space. And that is the first barrier: distance. You see, no bouncing boards. Got distance, and that in itself is a barrier. And you'll find out most people will get exhausted if you start running distance. Because that's the first thing there is on the track, is too much distance and too few walls. And so they have been remedying that ever since. And boy, they remedy it up to a point where they've got all of their ridges within an eighth of an inch of themselves inside their skull and there isn't even any ridge lying outside the body. They have condensed, shall we say. And this is actually a fear of this distance without any barriers.
There are some excellent drills on this. And some of the drills which are run can be run while the preclear's in motion, which is an interesting thing. You have him walk down the street. Processing him—he's walking down the street. And he walks down the street and he—here's a little drill I was doing last night, it was very effective. There's thousands of these things, I mean, this is just one of them.
Walks down the sidewalk and as he walks down the sidewalk, off to the edge of the sidewalk, he puts a brick every five or six inches, see? Just as he walks, he puts a brick every five or six inches. All right. Now, when he's got that real good and he can put those bricks down real fine, why, you have him put them on the edge of the sidewalk, on the sidewalk itself—brick every five or six inches, you see. Then have him put two bricks every five or six inches. And then three bricks every five or six inches—till he gets the idea that he can build a little tiny wall, see, on the sidewalk itself.
And then have him put bricks in a chain across the sidewalk, so he actually is walking into these continuous mock-ups of bricks. And then you have these be about five feet high, and just have him walking on through them as he's putting them down, you see—repetitive walls—until he's walking through solid walls.
Now, if you've done your earlier drills better so that he can unmock and mock things in terms of walls easily, so on, you can have him unmock the MEST universe, and just leave the brick walls and keep walking through them. In other words, you're—it's just practice in penetration of barriers. Give some guy a real weird sensation to do this. But he has to be perfectly willing to walk through barriers, have barriers and not have barriers.
So let's get on to the second portion of our drill. The second portion is to pay attention to mocking up bad things, right close. I mean bad emotions and sensations right close, and get the good ones further and further and further away.
The third portion of it, of course, is just to reverse that again. Get the bad ones a long way away and the good ones right up close, until a person has this independent of distance. All right, that's the third step.
Now, let's get into the next real process, which is after you have mastered putting emotion, blackness, light, ridicule, so forth, into an effort, and thinking-ness into all these objects at these various distances. When you've managed that, let's go into "selective unmocking." Rather than "selective mocking."
I can assure this class that it will have a much easier time "unmocking" than "mocking." Self Analysis just simply overrides the machine and eventually keys the thing out so there's a tinkle of broken parts and a person can do mock-ups. Because he's simply taken over the operation of doing mock-ups,

EFFECTS, REACHING END OF CYCLE
that's all. But let's take over unmocking and bust that machine first. Because he's got a machine that unmocks things. And he's got a machine that unmocks beautiful things, but swiftly. Anytime he puts up anything that's really pretty, something like that: "No! Don't want anything to do with it." See, because he'll be hit in the teeth by it.
The fact of the matter is, he won't be. There's nothing going to hit him in the teeth. It's true that somebody's liable to steal it or take it away if he starts making them too good. But he's never really thought of this solution, merely because he's wanted to be ornery about it, is why doesn't he make enough of them to make them a drug on the market? That'll teach people to steal his mock-ups. That is, in essence, the only safe solution. Now, people have taken that solution in other universes. They're not here. The only people that are here, have taken the reverse solution, which is "make less of them." That as a cure for theft. Theft and destruction. And that's what makes this a peculiar universe. And you can immediately see that there would be another kind of universe. All right.
You see what that drill is? Now how would you run that drill? You just run all the things which you've been running, the complete list which you have, and make sure that early on the list—that is to say, running all these ugly and mean, wicked things and so forth that have some bite in them and so forth—you let those things get closer and closer to the preclear. Till we get resentment coming closer and closer to the preclear, see? By this: We put some resentment over there in the window, which is five feet away. Then we put some resentment in the ink bottle, which is about two feet eight and a half inches away, and a little resentment down here in the ashtray, which is only a couple of feet away. And then we put some resentment on the end of his nose and then we put some resentment in his nose, then we put some resentment in his eyes, and then we put some in his hair and we put some in his ears, then we put some in his mouth and some in his teeth and some inside his head. And we fill up the whole inside of his head with resentment—all of which he's the effect of, see? This is resentment which is an effect. And you get it as though somebody else is putting it in.
Then, of course, you go a little bit higher on the scale, why, you say, "All right. Put some beauty in the end of your nose." By the way, most people find this impossible. Beauty that close up—I mean, that's got to be so much closer up that it doesn't exist. You'd get it much faster by: "Get the idea of no beauty exactly where you are." You just—ping, see? That's where he's got his beauty. It's gotten to "no beauty" where he is. You know, as a thetan, by instantaneous thought, no beauty where he is. That's the amount of beauty he gets. That beauty he gets out there, so forth—well, that's not real. It's nice to look at and it's attractive and the colors baffle his attention and so forth, but it isn't really real to him. The realest beauty he'll get is no beauty right where he is.
Now, we sort of go from that on up to the point where he's really creating something—the sensation or the feeling of beauty. Because, you see, that's senior to having something beautiful so that you can look at it. The sensation of beauty or the thought that there is beauty is senior to a beautiful object. You know, space is always senior to objects.
Now, we cure up this whole thing about space. Don't be surprised if your preclear, the second you start to run extreme distances, starts to get sick. Because he's liable to. And you start running beautiful things and you get beautiful things until he's perfectly willing to mock up beautiful planets five light-years away.

133

134

19 NOVEMBER 1953
Some people, of course, are inverted on the inversion on the inversion on the inversion and they just keep involuting as they go down the track and they turn over on this. So that the ugly things are all up close and the beautiful things are all far away; and then the beautiful things are all up close, and the ugly things are far away; then the ugly things are up close and the beautiful things are far away, so on. We won't pay any attention and validate that involutionary proposition. We just do this arbitrarily and just do it. Because we pick the highest echelon on the line.
And it's time that we started putting things in things, in terms of brackets. Brackets. Now, as I said, this resentment conies right on up close to him, then you have—start having beautiful things: the idea of beauty, the feeling of beauty, in the ashtray. The feeling of beauty, peace, serenity, calmness, excitement, enthusiasm—in all—other words, everything above boredom, going further and further away as an emotion, until boy, can he get that moon up there enthusiastic. And he gets over his scarcity of emotion so that he doesn't have to have this tremendous effect all the time. And he doesn't have to have it from somebody else. But do it in brackets.
Now, how do you do it in brackets? Have somebody else put some resentment into the ashtray for you, you put some into the ashtray for somebody else, somebody else puts some resentment into the ashtray for somebody else. See? You put some in for self, have somebody else put some in for himself. And that's your bracket of five.
Now, what's the main goal of this? Again, the goal is not to be able to do a trick. The goal is to reassume command of automatic machinery. And I expect you now, when a piece of automaticity shows up in a member of the processing group, when a piece of flagrant automaticity shows up, I expect that group to plow up that machine. Plow it up, throw it away, beat it to death, kill it, murder it, see? Finish it. It'll give you some confidence. You'll tackle two or three of them and you won't do anything to them. I mean, they'll just persist. Then you attack the fifth one, or something like that, that you've tackled in the group, and all of a sudden, boy, it blows up. And mock-ups come on and the mest universe gets bright, and the fellow exteriorizes and says, "What am I doing in the head?" You know, poom! poom! and there's a little more confidence in it, and a couple of the other machines will break up. You get the idea? For instance, all sorts of things happen and all sorts of perceptions turn up.
Now, the test of whether a technique is doing anything for you is not a test of whether or not the mock-up is behaving better. That's not a test. Whether or not you can do this and whether or not—the ability, in other words, isn't the test—it's the perception or communication change. The perception change or communication change. Things get brighter to the preclear. Does he talk more readily? and so forth. This is the test.
The fellow keeps complaining about the fact that every time he puts up a small dog down on the lower left-hand corner of his dark field, the dog immediately arrives at the upper right-hand corner. He keeps complaining about this. So what? So he's got a machine that does that. Is it important? No! That's not important.
But a machine that is wiping out things he's trying to see or giving him things to see when there isn't anything there to see, these machines are quite important. Machines that make facsimiles are important. Machines that send him places are important. Machines that keep him staying where he is are important. Machines that make him concentrate are important. These things are important because they're perception machines.

EFFECTS, REACHING END OF CYCLE
The behavior that he perceives tells you, by its erraticness, of an automaticity. It doesn't even tell you the fellow's goofy. It merely tells you that he's triggered one way or the other, a machine, which does something to mock-ups. This is not serious. Not serious that he has an automatic field going. That merely tells you there's an automatic machine.
And if I do anything with you folks, it's sure going to spoil your respect for this fantastically complex object, the automatic machine. I want you to be able to make these things and bust these things. Make them so they work, so you can forget about them and they go on working all day. And make them and bust them and duplicate them and so on. With just endless success.
Now, let's take one more little tiny glance at cause and effect in terms of automaticity, and you'll see what kind of a machine is the worst kind of a machine. That machine—there is a worst kind of machine—it's that machine which duplicates effects. That's the worst kind of machine there is. Not a machine that unmocks. Not a machine that mocks up. It's one that duplicates effects. Because it sooner or later will turn around and start kicking its owner. And it will reduce the amount of space the owner has and it will cave in the entire engram bank and it will collapse his time track.
Now, how does it do all that? It's just that it duplicates all of the effects. Well, that means somebody else can always come along and give the machine a kick. And there is stimulus-response: duplicates an effect. And there is overt act-motivator sequence and is the overt act-motivator phenomenon. The machine that duplicates an effect.
He does something to somebody, and a little bit later on, he has the feeling it ought to be done to him. Why? The machine duplicated the effect on this person out there, see? And he started resisting the machine after a while, and boy, he's got that machine as practically his sole randomity. His entire concentration will start going onto this machine. He starts resisting getting effects back which he has once had, which of course is a resistance to this confounded duplicator. And he's selected something out for randomity.
How do you select something out for randomity? Pang! Just select it out for randomity. Thereafter you have no responsibility for it. And boy, when you haven't got any responsibility for a duplication of effect, you haven't got any responsibility for the whole track. Nothing you ever did, therefore and thereafter, you will have any responsibility for. Somebody comes around and says, "Did you read the paper this morning?"
The fellow says, "No."
He did. He read the paper this morning. But he can't be responsible for an effect. Paper was an effect, wasn't it? So, he'll just say he didn't. He'll disclaim any action or any motion. He starts walking around in circles after a while. It's a machine that duplicates an effect. Now, I leave it to you in running that machine.
Give you another method of running automaticities. Running anything. Randomity depends upon . . . This is a rough technique; this is not an easy technique, it belongs way down the line. A rough one—is, "Be the machine. Be yourself. Be the machine. Be yourself." Because the way you select things out and produce, as I was telling you yesterday, randomity, is to say—do something and then say it wasn't you. And that brings you about to randomity. So you're not being the other chess player, and that brings about randomity. So that's the basic one.
So anything that you're fighting, you have selected out for randomity. Anything that is fighting you has selected you out for randomity.

135

136

19 NOVEMBER 1953
The way to really whip a burglar who is holding you up and is about to shoot you is be him, and blow your own brains out. (audience laughter) Then the police don't even think it in terms of self-defense. You see how easy this is?
"You be the machine. Be the fellow. Now be the space around the person. Be the space inside the person. Be the space around the person. Be the space inside the person," see? Plenty of that. "Be the space of the room. Space of the body. Space of the room. Space of the body. Space of the room. Space of the body." These are effective techniques. "Be the automaticity. Be yourself. Be the machine. Be yourself." You'll find the guy flying around all over the place.
Don't think it's a light technique, though. And don't use it on a case that's having trouble.
You could have "Be the space of your body. Be the space of the room. Be the space of the body. Be the space of the room," just invalidating energy barriers, as far as his own energy bank barriers are concerned, and get away with it. But you have him start being one space that belongs to him actually, but he doesn't own anymore, and another space that belongs to him, and these spaces. And you start rocking him around in his own periphery and his own bank and his own universe, and you—on a low-toned case you really wreck him. You'll turn on somatics the like of which you never heard of.
Okay.

Footnote to Effects, Reaching End of Cycle
A lecture given on 19 November 1953

November 19th. This is a footnote to the first hour, morning lecture.
If you want to understand a little bit more about this—you were just asking questions and so forth, seem a little bit puzzled. Get this learning technique: One has the idea that if he goes through the motions enough times, he will then know how to do something. You get that as "duplication is learning."
Male voice: Repetition.
Repetition. Duplication.
Male voice: Practice.
That's it. Now, that's what I mean by duplication. Continuous duplication. And it sets up machinery which then lets a person do something automatically.
Let's apply this to driving a car, and it becomes very intelligible. You simply drive a car and drive a car and you repeat the motion; in other words, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, and pretty soon you have done it enough times, you feel, that the machine will now let you drive a machine. You see that? That's inherent in our learning pattern.
Now, this is insisted upon in schools. Insisted upon—that you must remember or recall, see, the effect which you have received. You must remember and recall—so repeat, repeat, repeat. Actually, one has to do this in the first bridge of getting across information, merely because it is so thoroughly agreed upon. Oh, the biggest agreement we have: that repetition will eventually produce a smoother operation.
So this machine is considered to be very necessary, and there are billions of these machines in the bank. You just start knocking out one or two, however, and the rest of them kind of start folding up.
But a person will think twice or six times before he'll give up the—why, it took him years, he just went through the motions just continually to learn how to run this spaceship! There are no more spaceships around here now, but you see, there might be. And he'll hold on to anything he has learned how to do, or any experience. He'll go around saying to himself, "If I could just learn how to do something or other, I would be happy." You see that?
Now he has the idea that the datum is the important thing. Knowingness and certainty is the important thing, because when one can do it there, he can do anything. But if one has to learn it through repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, why, then he has this horrible, sneaking hunch all the time that he'd better repeat it a little more often.

137

138

19 NOVEMBER 1953
For instance, nothing would teach you more about auditing—nothing would teach you more about auditing—than to be at a level of certainty yourself where you look at the preclear and you say to the preclear, "All right, now, I want you to look around until you see enough of your ridges, machinery and so forth." And you give him a little boost there, see, he can look around, and "You see all that stuff? Now take a good look at it and see what it's all for. Now blow it up!"
A fellow could do that to a preclear—and a preclear did it, you'd sure know all there was to know about auditing.
Male voice: Teach him to walk all over again, too.
That's what everybody starts putting the brakes on about.
Male voice: Well, I learned how to walk. I learned how to breathe. I spent thirty years learning to breathe.
That's right. We've got your case right there.
Male voice: Well, let's crack it. (audience laughter)
You see? "Boy, am I convinced!" is the motto, see? "I'm convinced I have to duplicate to learn. And I am convinced I have to have a machine to do it." A person gets convinced that he has to have an automaticity to permit him to breathe, to permit him to walk and so forth, see? And the amount of conviction he has is actually what's wrong with his case. Just that—the amount of conviction on repetition.
So the machine which duplicates the effect, necessity to have, is the worst machine in the bank. And it's apparently the finest machine in the bank. It's a good, big wolf in sheep clothing. You see that machine? Well, that's what you just have to work forward until you can get.
What we're trying to create—re-create—is a state of mind in which a person's creation potential is so high that he can, at any moment, perform an action after a glance. That's what we want to create. That's what we want in the preclear. We don't want to create in the preclear a new pattern.
People in Scientology, studying Scientology, create a pattern of being audited. They've learned how to be audited. And their cases just go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Well, it's real silly.
You take somebody off the street and you say to him, "Okay. Now double-terminal Mama. You know, put up Mama four times there. Now how do you feel about Mama? Oh, you feel fine. Good."
But this learning pattern, the machine which duplicates the effects, keeps coming up and coming up.
Now, people have machines which will prevent an effect which is too strong from being duplicated twice. That's "it must not"—"it won't ever happen again" and "it must not happen again." You see, the machine—the dangerous effect, this machine immediately cuts in and makes you swerve off from doing that, and that is learning through pain.
Child comes up and puts his hand on the stove, and the stove burns his hand, and he's found out that's a real bad effect. Well, what a dumb brat! See, he just can't look at the barrier called a hand, and look at the stove and measure the heat of the stove, without touching the stove with his hand. Well, he's already way down scale: he's got to touch the stove to measure the hand. You see, he's just being random cause and effect. He just flubs around, and he thinks this is the way to do it. If you just sort of dump yourself into life, life somehow or other will shape you up one way or the other, see. If you just kind of dump yourself in, it will shape you up. Life itself has been set up as an automaticity which, by its very randomity will produce you a machine. You see how that is?

FOOTNOTE TO EFFECTS, REACHING END OF CYCLE
Well, I tell you, it doesn't take very long to learn any new item. Learning rate is quite important, but learning rate, oddly enough, is best when it's gone to zero—zero learning time. And that would be infinity lookingness. And an infinity of lookingness—there isn't any reason why you have to memorize the contents of the Library of Congress if you can read out of any page in any book in the Library of Congress, any quotation which you want to read without going to the Library of Congress.
The wrong way to do it is to make—read the book and make a facsimile of it, and put the facsimile in your pocket. That's an unwillingness to look at mest. You can look at the books of the Library of Congress. There isn't any slightest theta trap around there anyplace, and there isn't any reason why you should get—ever get caught in any theta trap. You don't even have to go down the stacks. You don't even have to read the book—you can simply know it. You don't even have to look to know. It's so easy.
I just beat the ivory off my teeth on this, just trying to tell people this is real easy; and they keep coming up with good reasons—good reasons why they shouldn't find it easy.
Male voice: Did you have this in this lifetime, this ability?
What's that?
Male voice: Were you born with it?
No. No. No, I didn't ever know I had any ability. I right now run on a level of—it defies study. Every once in a while I decide, well, why don't I study myself and then I'll learn a lot about Homo sapiens. I just bog. I just sit there and—just doesn't seem reasonable. And it isn't. That's why, not too long ago, I took a case which I considered as far south as you could possibly get, and started just looking at the basic mechanisms and the workable mechanism. This summated a long series of cases, and I'm just handing you the fastest, most workable techniques which came out of that case.
The technique isn't the thing. The technique is the thing which strips off the machinery. Now, we just get to that, why, we're all set, see? And we can do that. I already know what we can do. Because I know what I can do with a case.
I'm unwilling to blow up everybody's bank and just de-identify everybody, and you would be too—just completely. Why, that's the most silly thing in the world. The equivalent of doing an operation, that line, or doing an operation with force and fear, is the same thing as suddenly blowing up the playground. This is real silly, you know?
You wouldn't go down into the fifth grade school and blow up their swings, would you? If they had some swings down there that had nails on them, and they were not getting any fun out of the playground because the slide there was nothing but solid barbwire all the way down the slide, you'd have a tendency to take some hammer and nails and a pair of pliers and try to fix up the swing. Or give them a new swing, even. But you wouldn't blow up the playground.
People have a hard time understanding that one, too. I've had people argue with me more times on this subject. And I find out later that they were almost invariably on this one: "Let's blow it all up!" (audience laughter)
Okay.

139

More on Machines
A lecture given on 19 November 1953

Okay. And this is the first afternoon hour of November the 19th. And this afternoon I wish to assure the ladies and gentlemen present, they better get in and pitch.
In spite of your feeling of irresponsibility towards your people, just roll up your sleeves; because I think everyone of you is absolutely, completely and wholly and totally and only responsible for the states of case of everybody else present. That is something that would be calculated—if you didn't look at it the right way—to bog everybody down. Well, it'll bog you down unless you bog everybody up! So this is a case of bootstrap lifting. Operation Bootstrap that you hear going around the field, I was talking about a couple of years ago. And I said, saltily—we were out there in Kansas—it's boots with stuff on them. (audience laughter)
Anyway, we have a little problem, a little problem. That problem consists of
just that effect. And when we analys	, give an analysis to this problem—we
look it over from every angle and we hold it up and we try to shoot significance under it and over it and around it—we can look straight back to the answer at the first line in the Factors: "Cause to produce an effect." All right.
When people slide over onto reception of effect, they don't exteriorize, because they're on the receiving end. Just that. I mean, what do I mean by receiving end? If I picked up a—took off a shoe and threw it at the wall, the wall was on the receiving end, see? Well, I'm throwing the shoe at the wall. The wall's on the receiving end; so is the shoe on the receiving end. Now, the shoe is on the sending end at the moment I throw it and on the receiving end at the moment it hits the wall, right? Any thetan who considers himself a communication particle, or who is himself more anxious to receive effects, so forth, is analogous to that shoe. He wants somebody to throw him and receive him.
Well, how do we bail somebody out of this state? We push him up to being more cause and less effect. The final analysis, all this is based on postulates.
I was working on something this morning that I've worked on many times before and it was as successful this morning as it has always been, and that is on the basis of postulates—of effect that mustn't be unmade.
How do you suppose this stuff keeps standing up? Why do you suppose a preclear starts breathing a sigh of relief on this stuff every time he finds out it doesn't fall down? Means his postulates are good, that's all. It's mocked up and not supposed to be unmocked.

141

142

19 NOVEMBER 1953
You're mocked up as cases and you're not supposed to be unmocked. And the basic postulate on this whole line is "Mock it up so good that it can't be unmocked." And then you never added also: "It can be unmocked by me." You just never added that. Slight omission!
It's a lack of trust. A lack of trust, in the final analysis, in yourself. You're afraid someday you'll carelessly fall over a tomato can or something and accidentally unmock everything and then not know how to mock it up again. And you'll know how to mock it up.
How do you know how to mock it up? Well, if you're unwilling to look at somebody else's universe or through somebody else's perceptions—if you're unwilling to do this, you'll never know how to mock it up again, will you? Isn't that a grim thought? You won't ever know how it looks.
People, when they're fairly high on the band, like very much to have other people around. They'll always know how to mock it up. All they've got to do is to take a squint at the universe and pang!
Now, a lot of people are playing the dirty trick of hiding their own universes to such an extent that nobody else will know how to mock it up. And a lot of other people are playing it to such an extent that they have chosen themselves out of groups to such a degree that if they ever forget now, they're done. Because they can't look at somebody else's conception of what it is and so get it mocked up once more. So, for lack of trust in self and so on, people say, "All right, now it is mocked up and it will resist all effects. It is mocked up and will resist all effects." Unmocking it is an effect.
In fact, the only effect it can receive after it's mocked up is to be altered or unmocked. Those are the only effects it can receive, see? It can't be mocked up again, once you've set up something that mocks it up. It's real cute—you can take a piece of mest and you can go this way, and you say, "Look, it's real." All right, that big postulate there—"It will resist all effects." It's sitting on your right ear, on your left ear, on the tip of your nose, on the top of your head and tips of your toes, in your shoes, in the clothes closet, in the bedroom, the attic, the skies, the heavens, all the stars—everyplace. It's sitting up here. It's sitting there for everybody else. Mustn't be unmocked, which is, "It must resist all effects."
Now you expect somebody to carve into your bank and by preferably necromancy, unmock it? The compound of machinery, the compound of effects, which now must never receive another effect. "It must never happen again" is another variation of stating "It must resist that effect. I must resist that effect."
You run into a brick wall, and it damages the skull and it injures the beauty or something of the sort, and you pull off of it and you say, "Boy, that must never happen again." And so it becomes a landmark. "It must never happen again. I must resist that effect." And then you go on a little bit further and, you see, something else happens and you say, "Well, I must resist that effect. That effect must never happen again." Resist the effect. Resist the effect.
And so we have these postulates. So a person cannot even unmock his own postulates. I've tested this once more, and it was very delightful to me that this is still holding true. And it's been going on for many months. I, every once in a while, test out this postulate and then I kind of have a tendency to forget it and then I'll pick it up again because it seems so obvious to me.
As a matter of fact, I upset the preclear I was working this morning for the excellent reason that I almost have hysterics every time somebody does this. It's so weird! It's like giving somebody a glass of water to drink and then have them getting very puzzled over this glass of water. They—what are they

MORE ON MACHINES
drinking? And they start holding a long dissertation, or something of this sort, on whether this is water or isn't water and so on.
Do that trick this way: You have a person sectionally unmock his body where it's sitting—after you've had him unmock enough other things in the room around him and in the universe around him so that you're sure he can unmock things. So you have him unmock a lock of hair and then one ear and so on, and put it back each time, and then unmock it and mock it up, and mock it and unmock it—and go on with the body, gradually, until he's perfectly willing to see a completely empty chair. And of course, that's the trick: the chair is completely empty. All right. It is. It's—for him, the chair is completely empty. If he unmocked it for you, too, you wouldn't see him at all. But you don't bother to go into that end of the technique because that's just adding more to it.
Now, the point we have here is that as you unmock the body and mock it up again and unmock it and mock it up again, have him mock up several more bodies of various kinds in the chair, and then you go on this one: "Now mock up a body that will resist all effects." You just shoot this to him, see? You get various reactions on the first one. Sometimes the body doesn't appear again. So you say, "Now mock one up that resists all effects," and they just get no body. Of course, that is the best body in the world to resist all effects.
And then you insist that they put a body there that will resist all effects, and they will put some kind of an idea of themselves there—the thetan. See? That's real good. Now you say, "Unmock it." They stay there, of course. And then it's like you've handed somebody a glass of water who is very thirsty and they keep asking you, "Well, what do I do with it?" And it just gets that silly.
I—every time I do this it just appears to be very funny to me. They try to unmock it and they try to unmock it, and you, actually, every once in a while have to call it sharply to their attention—which is why I'm lecturing on it rather than giving you the Group Processing—call it to their attention: "Look! Hey! Well, what postulate did you mock it up with?"
"Well, it will resist all effects," they'll say.
"Is 'unmocking' an effect?"
"Oh, yeah ... Yes."
"Well, now unmock it."
"It doesn't unmock."
You want to see somebody not look at something, why, just pull this on a pc that knows nothing about it at all, and boy, you talk about not look at something—that just keeps eluding them. Keeps eluding them. You put this red sign in front of their face and say, "Look," see, and they just don't look at all.
So after a while they suddenly catch on, "Oh, yeah, I said it would resist all effect. And unmocking it is an effect, and if it resists all effects, why, then of course I can't unmock it. What do you know!" It should be, "It will resist all effects except my efforts to unmock or change it." Except my efforts. See? Never add that.
That's because, you see, they're in a desperate condition, usually, when they make this. Every once in a while they get real desperately bored, see—they make something like this. Put up some barriers and limitations, and now they're going to resist all effects, see, that's part of the game. Screens, barriers. Now, back of these black screens and so forth, some of you've been running this morning and so forth, there is that: "It must not be destroyed," which is, "resist all effects." Now, when you put "must not be destroyed," and you alter that to "must resist all effects," you see, then, why it doesn't unmock.

143

144

19 NOVEMBER 1953
Now, when you go down the track, then, and you just start shooting this postulate out, you could—there's many ways you can handle it: You can double-terminal the darn postulate. You can start making it up in bales. Of course the best thing to do, is just have the person continue to unmock something and then mock something up in its place which must resist all effects, and then make him unmock it. And you'll just continue to do this. And you do it with mest and you do it with other people, you can do it with everything until he just keeps busting his own postulate. And all of a sudden he says, "Well, the heck with it, that postulate isn't that rigid. (snap) Great." See? You're returning to him, with this drill of mock and unmock: "Now you mock something up to resist all effects, and then unmock it."
Now, sometimes you have to slip it to the preclear pretty strong. You say, "Now resist all effects. Now get real determination there. You're going to— that's really going to work now. Okay." And then get him—unmock it.
That's why this stuff gets so permanent. That's why your own bank gets so darn permanent, why the case doesn't want to alter and so on.
Well, if something is going to resist all effects, and you've got a machine which duplicates all effects, and that machine is going to resist all effects, it's just going to keep on duplicating, duplicating, duplicating each and every effect, isn't it? So when a bad effect happens to you, why, it'll duplicate you, just as nice. Duplicate. Duplicate. Duplicate. Duplicate. It'll make facsimiles and they cave in on you, and it'll make ridges and they'll cave in on you, and everything. And all these things that it makes probably are going to resist all effects too. It probably makes everything and puts the postulate into it secondhand, you see. Well, that's real good. Okay.
Right here early with this unit, let's just do the basic drills, whether we understand them or think they work or don't think they work or anything else. And let's do them in a group, so that we bust the third dynamic at the same time. Let's bust through on that third dynamic. Because anybody who's playing the "only one," to any degree whatsoever, best medicine I can hand him at all is to share with the group this process. Now, you bust the three then, without even looking at it further. Pick oneself up by the scruff of the neck and shove oneself into the group and do the group some good, and be done some good. And you've all of a sudden given the guy back a new pattern in case he forgets it all. See, he's perfectly willing then to enter somebody else's universe and take a look: "Oh, well, that's the way it looks!" Bang! Duplicate! "There it is again (panting)—mest."
Now, how do you make something unmock? Well, you don't just tell the fellow, "Now look at this room. Now unmock it." First step, see? Bog! You tell him to look at some simple object which has very little value in the room and have him make it get thinner and thicker and thinner and thicker and thinner and thicker; less visible, more visible, less visible, more visible, on a tiny gradient scale until it gets thin, thin, thin, thin, thin, thin, now thick, thick, thick, thick, thin, thin, thin, thin, thin. He'll begin to argue with you after a while: "Why don't you let me make it disappear!"
You say, "All right. Unmock it."
He will. After that he has very little trouble unmocking MEST.
Now, he does this best with his eyes shut, because the mest eyes are so convinced. And they're really convinced—there's no sense in putting that additional arbitrary in it. If he's still in his body, let him do it with his eyes shut. You'll find out all these processes are more effective with the eyes shut than they are with the eyes open. All of them. If the world is so black that a

MORE ON MACHINES
fellow can see absolutely nothing with his eyes shut, just have him start mocking things up black—it won't stay that way very long—because he's taking over the automaticity which is making the whole world black. All right.
So we've got this problem of gradient scale again. If you can't do it all, do a little of it. You see? And nobody can do it all. All right, let's do a little of it. How little is a little of it? It's as little as he can handle and win. How much is too much of it? It's as much as he can't handle and win. That's how much too much of it is concerned. It's enough to make him lose is too much. How much is enough? Enough to let him win. You say, "Unmock it." All right, the guy can't unmock anything in the room. Boy, he's got persistence like mad, you see? He can't unmock anything in the room. Well, have him mock something up and say it isn't there.
"Well, you didn't unmock it, it wasn't there in the first place. Well, you said it was there, so there's an implication that it was there."
"Well, yes."
"All right. Now put something else up, and say, quick, that it isn't there."
And in such a wise you can get him to unmock some mock-ups. Or you can just start in and have some tiny part of mest disappear. Once in a while he'll catch himself—he'll find out that the way he's making things unmock is by putting fog around them or he is squinting his eyes so that he won't look at that part of them, you know. Or he's dropping a black band in some fashion or another.
Now, a person who has blackness—is handling blackness—is using it to use an occlusion instead of an unmock. Now, they don't think they can unmock something, so they're damn well not going to let anything appear because there's too much there already. They have chosen their own machinery for their randomity. In other words, everything has gotten so automatic they can't handle it anymore. But sitting back of everything is that postulate, "must resist all effects."
"All right, I now create this room and it must resist all effects." Then somebody comes in and paints it. Fellow walks in the next time and he looks at it and he says, "(gasp) Urrrh, I'm wrong!"
You go down the street, knock on any door, and ask the family if they get upset when Mama moves around the furniture. They all do. You see? They had it all mocked up to resist all effects and then somebody changed some tiny little portion of it.
There's nothing unhappier than a preclear from whom this hasn't been clipped, if you've changed him any. He's mocked up to resist all effects. Now you, you dog—you come along and, over his already-for-many-years-dead body, produce an effect. And he doesn't like you! That means your postulates are tougher than his postulates, and this mustn't be. So we have a contest of whose postulates are going to "out-postulates" the other postulates—on this basis alone: The pc, actually, has lost track of what's wrong with him. That's all. He's just lost track of the channel of agreement that got him where he is.
Now he tries to go back—he's like a hunter who encounters a strange wood and dispenses with any guide whatsoever, and goes thrashing through the woods and doesn't leave any blaze marks. Steps off all the trails, forgets all of his woodcraft and wood lore, and frantically, suddenly, finds himself in a clearing half starved to death. And doesn't know which way is north, south, east or west—or if he did know, he wouldn't know where the settlement is, and if he didn't know those two, he wouldn't be able to survive in the woods. He's just lost, and thrown away all of the guideposts because, you see, he didn't

145

146

19 NOVEMBER 1953
trust himself. So we have a situation obtaining there where everything must resist all effects. And, of course, that's—includes him.
You see why we're doing the drills of turning things various colors? Turning—pardon me, I'm going to add that today: into the emotional line and so forth, you must put all the colors. In addition to emotion and ridicule and love and hate and so forth, these other emotions, then just start changing things different colors. I mean mest objects. And then change them different colors in brackets, and you'll learn quite a bit. You find out that you'll object to Joe suddenly becoming chartreuse. Because that's this postulate. And by these drills we're just going to bust that postulate out of the whole flam-damn track, that's all.
You can't unmake a facsimile very easily—can't unmake a facsimile very easily—if the facsimile is sitting there and you're still convinced that your postulates are stretched out in time, and that on this mysterious time track (which you have never traveled, never will travel) everything must resist all effects. That's the conservation of energy.
I told you because particles wouldn't be destroyed, the engineer, the scientist—who wines and dines through all of his days, living hard by this conservation of energy—we can channel it, we can conduit it, we could make it into different compounds, but it must resist all effect! Day by day, he's sold on this "it must resist all effect." He goes around and proves it to everybody. He says, "Now look, we take this log of wood, and we measure it carefully, we weigh it carefully, and then we burn it and we save its ash and we save the residues of its smoke, and we put these all in a pile and we demonstrate to you absolutely and conclusively that it weighs just the same as it did before."
By the way, it doesn't. He accounts for this with heat loss. He just—just begs this stuff to resist all effect. And then he goes on happily working with it, trying to produce effects with it, trying to produce an effect with something that's supposed to resist all effects.
So he's at once validating and invalidating himself and he rides this tremendous maybe to a point where he can't undo his own postulates. Because that's the basic postulate. He's validating it all the time. He and his fellow engineers are around showing each other, "Look, isn't this cute: it resists all effect. Well, yep." The way to have an automobile is to have it go along very fast and resist all effect.
Persistence is our motto. You see, persistence is actually the center of the curve. There is create, survive and destroy, as the curve of action. And that's create, persist, so on. So the mission on which life is engaged, is apparently, while life is being lived, "survive." But it will end on a curve with destroy—it will destroy or it will be destroyed—and it begins, of course, with create. And you want to get off persistence, you've got to rehabilitate creation. If you want to rehabilitate creativeness, you've got to get off persistence. So, you've got to be able to alter things.
Well, the more we chug into this, and the more we alter directly, and know we are altering, the flavor, color, shape, size and particularly the emotional pattern and appearance (see, you're ready for color now, because we're up into appearance), why, he just starts breaking out of the line that beautiful postulate: "must resist all effects"—conservation of energy. "Must have an effect," he thinks, "must have an effect, must have an effect, must have an effect."
And then after a while, he gets to the point—when the case is bad off, he's gotten to the point where "I must resist all effects," and he keys that in, and the effect "to have an effect," keys out. So he starts losing all of his sexual

MORE ON MACHINES
enjoyment, he starts losing all kinds of fine things which he had in the past emotionally, and these things disappear and he complains about it.
He deserted one postulate for a new postulate, and now he's got both postulates. He must receive an effect after—after he's gone along, he's lost contact with create-create-create, and so he's—then turns around and he must receive an effect, receive an effect, receive an effect, and now the effect must persist, the effect must persist. Now he must resist all effect. And there's about where everybody who is—doesn't exteriorize easily is hung up, right there.
How do you break this down? Just alter the stuff, alter mest, alter bodies, change their color, and then be able to unmock them enough till you can mock them up well.
When somebody is using blackness to render other things invisible or to make things disappear—instead of making them disappear he covers them with blackness—he certainly gets an interesting-looking bank. It's a real mess. And he's unwilling to part with it, because he still might have something there. But he's unwilling to part with the blackness because he might have to make something invisible some time or another, you see, and he wouldn't have a supply of it; he has to keep that around. And the blackness was put up there originally to resist all effects. You know—protective screens. So that's the way it goes. So it's one of these problems that's a circular problem.
How do you break out of it? By altering. Change.
Now, I show you you can unmock something by making it thinner and thicker and thinner and thicker and thinner and thicker and thinner and thicker and thinner and thicker, and all of a sudden it'll disappear. So, all right, he's made something disappear. You can actually get somebody up to a point where, with his mest eyes, he sits right there and he looks at something like this microphone and he says, "Thinner, thicker, thinner, thicker." You finally get it to a point where it doesn't get thick when he says, "Thin," you see. And eventually he'll be able to look right at—not only at the microphone but through the microphone with his mest eyes. He finds this disturbing unless he can have it back again, so you have to drill him many times into having it back again, otherwise his attention will arrest right on the point where he's supposed to see it. In order to keep from seeing it, he has to resist it, so it's still there to some degree. So you actually have to let him get it back several times before he's really willing to look right straight through it.
The action is taking place when it's there. There is no action taking place when it's not there. And he tries to put action there when it's not taking place. Yes, he wants to hold it invisible; that's real dopey, you see—it isn't there! Yet you'll see guys being very careful to keep something invisible. Well, what are they doing to it? Holding up a whole series of mirrors or something. You're trying to look at it in a crazy fashion in—so that they don't see it while they're still looking at it or ...
It's just like the fellow, at first, he starts putting up fog around objects or he starts occluding his eyesight or he starts stretching bands of blackness across things in order to make them disappear. So there it is, and that's the way it goes.
Now, as far as the process and the patter of auditing alteration is concerned: when you alter something you make more of and less of, on a sufficient gradient scale so that the preclear can win. So he's certain there is more of it and certain there is less of it. And that's all. You work him on those scales. If he's not really certain about it, well, by golly, work with him until he—you've got

147

148

19 NOVEMBER 1953
it certain that there's really less of it. Not by beating him—just make him work at it.
And every once in a while, one of these machines will show up, or something of the sort. Well boy, when they really show up, why, blow them up. Well, if he can't blow them up, well, have him dispense of them by wasting them. It's real interesting to—you would try all too fast to make an exact rote procedure out of something that is actually too high-level to be much of a communication system. See, we're trying to destroy a communication system so that we can create it at will, see? Communication systems.
People use words to hold mest out after a while, you know. You ever see somebody who was an hysterical, non sequitur conversationalist? Well, they're holding the walls and other people away from them—particularly the other people away from them—with a barrage of words. They're using it something like a pole vaulter would use a pole sometimes, too. They're holding the wall up, they're holding the door shut and so forth, with a stream of words. The other person might fall at them if they stopped talking. It's just a state of beingness.
There he's using a symbol. That's really goofy. (There was a time when people were using symbols to keep the mest universe apart.) You start mocking this person up with having things fall in on him—nyahh! nyahh!—he doesn't like that. And you let things fall in on him enough till he finds out he can let things fall in on him. See, you have to let him find out so he can be certain what he's doing. The essence is simplicity.
Well, all right. You ask somebody to turn something blue, and he can't turn it blue and this worries him a great deal if this thing won't turn blue. Well, have it be less blue. He's got a machine, see, that makes things unblue. He can't get it blue, so he's got something that says, "Look, it can't be blue," well, just make it less blue. And that'll put the machine into line for about a half of a turn, see, clank! It'll be less blue. Make things less black. All right, and after he's made it less blue and less blue and less blue, well, he'd make it a little more blue until you've got it back to its original color of blueness; now make it less blue again. Make it less blue. All of a sudden, he can make it blue as hell.
Some people who are deeply immersed in symbolism—words will produce the most fabulous effects. They're—once in a while somebody turns up that all during his youth, for his entire youth, why, the atmosphere around Mama was blue. Every time he saw Mama, the whole atmosphere turned blue. And the auditor immediately, you see, jumps to the conclusion there must be a phrase or something there—Mama used to keep saying how blue she was. He considers that this is probable and so forth. No! This is probably not what's responsible for it. There is a deeper significance, actually, to everything being blue around Mama— it's just a shifted band, that's all.
Now, people who have a fixed wavelength can unfix with color. Color is different waves. So you make them shift into blue, and you make them shift into this, and you make them shift into that. The actual symptom is, is the kid wanted to run away—he kind of wanted to leave. He'd shift wavelength trying to tune Mama out. Kid didn't like Mama, see? And he'd try to shift wavelength up toward the invisible band—his effort to unmock. This is quite common, you see. It isn't the phrase at all, it's just—they just wanted to leave and didn't dare leave, and so they just shift wavelength.
Well, everybody gets—people get upset when they're not looked at. See, they get real upset about it. So our problem here is to simply get somebody to shifting wavelength which, of course, permits him again to change. After he's made something red, it is supposed to resist all effects. All right, it's supposed

MORE ON MACHINES
to resist all effects. Now you suddenly tell him, "Make it blue."
"Hmmmm! It's red, isn't it? It's supposed to resist all effects—if it's MEST, it's supposed to resist all effects. Well, that's real good, see. Huhh! You want to make it blue?"
"Well, make the shadows on the redness blue."
"Hm . . . Well, what do you know? Well, they are blue."
"Well, all right, make them red."
"They are. They're red."
"Well, now make them blue again."
'They're blue."
"Now make them red. Now make them blue. Now make them red. Now make them blue."
"Hey, I'm doing this!"
See, this is real upsetting. That's how little a scale is necessary to accomplish this.
Now, a person can do this with his mest eyes wide-open. But it doesn't work near as good as with his mest eyes shut; because they're more convinced. See, they're a mock-up that is just going along at a great rate too.
So the alteration of color and running the band of color—blue, green, red—doesn't matter whether you go up scale properly, so forth. There is a scale known as black. There is a—ultraviolet, you go up into black light. And it's an interesting scale up there.
Well, when the person thinks he's a communication particle, when a person thinks that he is the shoe and not the wall and not the person who threw the wall [shoe], he expects the auditor by some necromancy to reach into his skull and turn a small switch which will shift him, as a thetan, onto a different wavelength. Or because a magic word is spoken—abracadabra or abraca-Hubbard or something of the sort—he expects that this magic word will suddenly alter, see, alter the state of case. And he will be very surprised, believe me. So would I! I would be amazed.
Now, an auditor can sweep down on a preclear and by making him numb, null and void practically, and wiping him out almost completely, be able to alter him utterly. This is easy too! (audience laughter) Real easy.
So the technique line which is indicated and which does consistently produce results, is making the preclear exercise those capacities and capabilities—his potentials, in other words—as near to the basic potential as one can reach. And that is the basic law of evolving processing. Use those potentials which are nearly as possible, the most pervasive and basic things which the thetan has. And if you get something more basic, use it.
But use the most basic thing you have in order to what? Make it possible for him to change his own postulates. Because he's the person who's keeping himself from changing his own postulates. And as long as he keeps himself from changing his postulates by having the postulates in such a form as they can't be altered—must resist all effects, you see—you're going to have a picnic. You're really just going to have a good time. I don't care what step case he is.
Now, you come along with a sweeping piece of knowledge, which is the fact that he is not his body. That's a big step, see, because you can step him outside of the center so you have him out of the location in which he has postulated himself—some of his postulates have already been immediately overcome, and he's out of the vicinity of those things which he says he's manufacturing all the time, and so he can change his mind. But if he's in the middle of this maelstrom, it really becomes a maelstrom, because every time he tries to change

149

150

19 NOVEMBER 1953
a postulate he'll cave something in or push something out, one way or the other. So it's rather rough to process.
So we have a different method of exteriorization, and this I will tell you about. We have people unmock things in the environment by this gradient scale: make them thinner, make them—so on, and change them in various colors. And then we start them in—and this I want you to be very particular about; in addition to colors today, I want you to go through this exercise today—we make the various parts of the body emotional, on all of the things you've been working with: the left foot, the right foot, the left knee, the right knee, the right shoulder, the left shoulder, the right hand, the left hand, the right elbow, the left elbow, the right ear, the left ear, the nose, the right eyeball only and so forth, until we get the skull completely encompassed, and then we start whole emotions on the body. And then we start colors on the right foot, colors on the left foot, colors on the right knee, colors on the left knee and so on, until we have changed the color from this to that and back to normal again. Remember, when you say, "Make your right foot red. Now its natural color. All right. Now red. Now a natural color. Now make it blue. Now a natural color. Now turn it yellow. Now a natural color." You'll find a guy will jump about six feet, by the way, the first time he ever realizes his foot is red or blue or yellow. And he gets this real good.
You're bringing him up toward what? You're bringing him up to the point where he can unmock his body. And instead of exteriorizing somebody, we change whatever he sees of energy around of his own—whatever he sees of the body, or would be greeted with with the body—or somebody else's universe; we keep altering those colors, and keep altering the emotional tone, and altering the colors of these items: his body, other bodies, mest universe, so forth, and unmocking. After you've done a lot of color drill, you see—you've done enough thinner, thicker, thinner, thicker—you changed it enough so that now he can unmock a tiny portion of it and you get it thinner, thicker, thinner, thicker on this until he's sitting there without his right big toe. You give it to him back fast enough so he doesn't worry about it, and then it's gone. And then after a while it goes and he doesn't miss it. "Well," he says, "no right big toe. That's real interesting!" See, completely relaxed about it being gone, then give it to him back again. And then you go straight on through a "body unmock," leaving the thetan in thin air. Very simple. Real coy.
There are two processes which you're using. One is this process which I've been giving you here for couple of days, and which you've been doing, however poorly but with some continuing success along the line. (You have been getting success with this because I've been checking up on you.) Continue with that, with the addition of color, and the addition of changes in the environment and changes in the body and then a little bit of unmocking in the environment. And finally our end product is, we're going to unmock the body till we can unmock it this way: unmock a body, put an entirely different body there and then unmock that body and have a completely empty chair, and then mock that body up and unmock it and mock it up and unmock it and mock it up and unmock it until it's with great rapidity one can do this—have it, not have it, and so forth. Leaves the thetan sitting in empty air.
Now, if he finds himself surrounded by ridges, he ought to be able to make pieces of the ridges he sees—if he's looking at ridges; it's not necessary that he does, you know—until he could make his whole bank disappear and come back at will. That gets real interesting too.

MORE ON MACHINES
There is no energy interchange because there isn't any energy. Well, it's very, very interesting, but people bog—people are sometimes much happier when they've got some energy. You see? I mean, people aren't very happy when they've got just nothingness. If you don't believe this, go down in the poorer section of town, see. You won't find people very happy, in spite of legends and sayings and maxims to the contrary. And havingness, that's something to do, that provides a randomity. If you had no havingness, there isn't anything to move in this universe, so of course we have no randomity. And that, of course, is minus—too little unpredicted motion and is a state of beingness which each thetan doesn't particularly like. There is a higher state than that, that you can push right on through and do without energy. But we're not anxious to get there—what the hell.
So he can unmock anything he sees of his own bank, such as facsimiles. Tell him to get a facsimile. "All right. Change it blue. Change it red. Change it pink. Change it purple. Now make a corner of it disappear. Now bring the corner back again."
Facsimiles are all there on the basis that they must resist all effect. Every one of these facsimiles "resist all effect." Real cute, huh? So, of course, somebody tries to erase the facsimile, you could actually make him erase one. That'll change the effect—it really will. But unless you know the higher echelon and the in-between steps, actually, that were tremendously valuable before we got to cause and effect—before I got that information beaten out of the bank, the interim information—very usable, no doubt about that. But it didn't make for a terrifically fast process. And I don't care how fast this process is, this process works. I've been tearing case after case after case just to pieces with it—just knocking it to pieces. It—all of a sudden they can put things there and perceptions turn up, my God—keep right on going. So you just have—don't have them sitting there.
Theta Clearing, body unmocking. Body and bank unmocking and Theta Clearing would be the same thing—pardon me, thetan exterior.
Now, you notice I haven't been talking too much about being three feet back of your head, and this is the reason: we just remove the body while you sit there. It's very simple.
Now, let's see somebody here who is a pretty good . . . Who's a pretty good Step I? You a pretty good Step I today?
Male voice: As far as I know.
As far as you know? All right. Why don't you be up—back of your body there for a moment, and make your hair thinner.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Thicker.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Much thinner.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Much thicker.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Much thinner.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Much thicker.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Now make it thinner right on down to about the nose.
Male voice: Okay.
Your head right thinner down to the nose.

151

152

19 NOVEMBER 1953
Male voice: Yeah.
Now make it thicker.
Male voice: Yeah.
Now make it thinner.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Make your head thicker.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Thinner.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Thicker.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Thinner.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Now kind of include in your ears.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make your ears thinner.
Male voice: Yeah.
Thicker.
Male voice: Yeah.
Bigger.
Male voice: Okay.
Smaller.
Male voice: Yeah.
Bigger.
Male voice: Yeah.
Smaller.
Male voice: Yeah.
Now make your head—your whole head—thinner.
Male voice: Yeah.
Thicker.
Male voice: Yeah.
Now thinner.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Thinner.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Thinner.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Thinner.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Make it disappear.
Male voice: Okay.
Okay. Now make your shoulders thinner.
Male voice: Yep.
Now put your head back on.
Male voice: All right.
Good?
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Successful?
Male voice: Yeah.
All right. Now make your head disappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
And appear.

MORE ON MACHINES
Male voice: Yeah.
All right. Make your shoulders thinner.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
And thinner.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Make them disappear.
Male voice: Yep.
Put your shoulders back on.
Male voice: Yep.
Now make your head and shoulders disappear.
Male voice: Yep.
Okay. Now make them appear again.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
All right. Make the upper torso of your body very thin.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make it very thick now.
Male voice: Yeah.
Very thin.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Very thick.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Thicker.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Thinner.
Male voice: Yep.
Thinner.
Male voice: Yep.
Thinner.
Male voice: Yep.
Thinner.
Male voice: Yep.
Make it disappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Okay. Put it back in place again.
Male voice: Head and the shoulders are still there.
Hm?
Male voice: Head and shoulders are still there.
Okay, that's all right. Fine. How selective! All right.
All right, put it back there.
Male voice: Yeah.
Now make your entire body disappear down to the waist.
Male voice: Okay.
Now put it back on again.
Male voice: Yep.
Make it disappear again.
Male voice: Yep.
Now put it back on again.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Now make your entire body disappear.
Male voice: Right foot won't go.
Right foot. Okay, put two right. . .
Male voice: Now it's gone.

153

19 NOVEMBER 1953
Gone?
Male voice: Yeah.
All right. Make your whole body appear again.
Male voice: Yep.
Disappear.
Male voice: Yep.
Appear.
Male voice: Yep.
Disappear.
Male voice: Yep.
Appear.
Male voice: Yep.
Disappear.
Male voice: Yep.
All right. Now in your body's place, put the body of a two-year-old child.
Male voice: Okay.
Make that body disappear.
Male voice: Yep.
Now in the place of that body put a six-year-old child.
Male voice: Yep.
Make that disappear.
Male voice: Yep.
Now in that body's place that was, put a ten-year-old child.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Make that disappear.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Fifteen-year-old child.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make that disappear.
Male voice: Right.
Now put your own body in the chair again.
Male voice: Yep.
Make it disappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Put it in the chair.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make it disappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
All right. Be in your head.
Male voice: All right.
Make your body disappear.
Male voice: Yep.
Look around the room.
Male voice: All right.
Perception pretty good?
Male voice: Yeah.
All right. Make your body appear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make it disappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make it appear.
Male voice: Yeah.

MORE ON MACHINES
Make it disappear. Male voice: Yeah. Be five feet back of your head. Male voice: Mm-hm.
Now are there any energy ridges of any kind that you perceive there? (pause) Around your body.
Male voice: From where I am?
Or around you. From where you are.
Male voice: Yeah.
Got one?
Male voice: Mm-hm.
All right. Make a corner of it turn blue.
Male voice: Hm.
Make the whole thing turn blue.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make it turn red.
Male voice: Yep.
To green.
Male voice: Yeah.
Blue.
Male voice: Yeah.
All right. Make it turn its—color it was originally.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make a section of it disappear.
Male voice: Okay.
Make it appear again.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make it disappear.
Male voice: Yep.
Make it appear again.
Male voice: Yep.
Make half the ridge appear—disappear, rather.
Male voice: Disappear. Yeah.
Appear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Disappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Appear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make the whole ridge disappear.
Male voice: Okay.
Appear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Disappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Appear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Let's find out if there are any other ridges around there.
Male voice: Yeah.
All right. Turn them red.
Male voice: Yeah.
Blue.

155

156

19 NOVEMBER 1953
Male voice: Yeah. Green.
Male voice: Yeah. Blue.
Male voice: Yeah. Red.
Male voice: Yeah. Blue.
Male voice: Yeah. All right. Make them . . . Male voice: They're different colors. They're different colors. Male voice: Yeah.
Good. Turn back the same color they were. Now make one small section of the remaining ridges disappear.
Male voice: Okay, I knocked out half of them.
Hm?
Male voice: I made half of them disappear.
All right, make them reappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Disappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Reappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make all the ridges disappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make them reappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make them disappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make them appear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make them disappear.
Male voice: Yeah.
Okay, make them appear again.
Male voice: Yeah.
Be inside your head.
Male voice: Yeah.
Make the ridges in the body disappear.
Male voice: No body.
(Recording ends abruptly)

Resistance to Effect
A lecture given on 20 November 1953

This is November the 20th and the first morning lecture, and this morning we're going to talk about duplication.
If I start lecturing you in French in a couple minutes, don't be surprised, just click your own French ridges in and we'll carry on!
The processes which you have learned to date you may regard as introductory or elementary. I have simply been wheeling up the sixteen-inch guns and letting you have large explosive shells in the belly. Because we're dealing with the essentials, we are not dealing with the fundamentals. We are dealing with the very stripped-down workability, we're not dealing with the theory. We're dealing with intense practicality.
And as far as you are concerned, we are dealing with the way you open a Case—yours. And even though we are using it so that it is—amounts to— although these groups are very small, we're using it, essentially, just as a group type of process.
But that doesn't mean that you can escape individuality in processing. But individual processing comes about on a Step I. The shape most of you people are in, it doesn't matter. I mean, these processes will just keep gunshotting and they'll just keep working, you understand?
Well, let's get it up to a point where you can unmock the body and be elsewhere. You get that—what we're trying to do? Now, let's just get to a point where the body vanishes, and you can put it there and not put it there and put it there and put it—not put it there, and where you can handle your own bank: where you can put it there or not put it there, or put it there and not put it there. And then certainly you are free to be where you please without the interruption of flows or anything like it. And that's what we're trying to achieve.
From there on an individual has to have some individual auditing. But you can get up to that point without individual auditing, because the same doggone thing is wrong with every single one of you. The same thing, straight across the boards. It's wrong in varying degrees. But the variance of those is so slight as to be almost undetectable.
Practically anybody here, except those that are already Step Is, will find themselves flicking in and out of blackness as they're processed. Bing-bang, bing-bang. On go the lights, off go the lights and so forth.
Well, we're dealing with the essentials. Why does this happen? Automaticity.
The machine. Which is, at the same time, "no further responsibility for that
machine," which in itself is the definition for automaticity. Something set	,

157

158

20 NOVEMBER 1953
up automatically to run without further attention from yourself; which means immediately that you've selected it out as a randomity. See, you're not any longer predicting its motion, so therefore, it's predicting your motion. So it's unpredictable as far as you're concerned.
And as you run this, these randomities click in and out, become uncontrollable and so forth, and then controllable again. You make a person do what the randomity is doing, and make him handle it and he takes over ownership of it, it ceases to be automaticity.
Now, understand this: Anything in your environment which has apparently been out of control, itself had a tendency to set up as an automaticity. You understand that? The sea, for instance, sets itself up as an automaticity. Why? Because men don't control it. You see what other insidious ways there are to set up an automaticity? We won't go into those particularly, because that's not important. Men feel they don't control it because they have gone down to it in ships and have raised other barriers and limitations upon their control of the sea. The actuality is, is they have to put the sea there to sail upon it.
Now, here we have our problem. Everybody—everybody who is alive and can perceive anything, is sitting on the postulate "survive." But how do we state "survive"? We state it: "Something, to survive, must resist all effects." So everybody is sitting on this postulate: "Resist all effects." And that's the highest limiting barrier. All other barriers are junior to that barrier. Because that in itself is survival.
Now, it also means that there must be a conflicting postulate in there that other things which one has to combat in order to survive must not resist all effects. And everything is set up to resist all effects.
And so you wonder why, when you've been processing a preclear, he kept sitting there like a log of wood. He's got to resist all effects. But because he was resisting your auditing effect, he became a randomity to you because he was not controllable. You see that? So the reason why your Scientologist finds himself a different kind of case is because he has set up another "resist all effects" machine.
The pc is sitting there resisting all effects. So he has "auditing, resist all effects of." And he's had these pcs in front of him who were resisting all effects, and this of course, keys in the bank on change of ridges and mental attitudes. And because we've been shooting so high into this stuff, we, of course, without triggering out that postulate, throw things into restimulation which just simply stay in restimulation to some degree.
Now, that has been, to some slight degree, the danger in this. I knew this factor existed, but to find an easily communicated process which would in itself care for it—easily communicated—I could do this, have been able to consistently here. But how to get that down so that we could really communicate it and say, "These are the essentials we're working with." All right. That's what I'm telling you in these last few days and just giving you those essentials. I don't expect you to understand them even vaguely, just use them. Because by using them, you will understand. And you'll understand the whole gamut of human behavior.
There it is—"survive" which means "resist all effects." Which means, at the same time, you must reduce all other effects which are contrasurvival. An individual, to survive, must, in every portion of his beingness, resist the bulk of the effects. He feels, at last, that he has to have effects from somewhere else on the DEI cycle. See that? He's inhibited other effects to a point where other effects have inhibited him, till a point where he started to cave in.

RESISTANCE TO EFFECT
Acceptance Level Processing is wonderful. You'll find an actual thirst for such things as excreta, disease and so forth. An actual hunger is built up for this simply by inversion of the enforcement. It gets down to inhibition and then, pang! here the fellow goes. He's got a hunger for this stuff and you'll be amazed what happens.
But, by the way, Acceptance Level Processing does not get you there. It is an educational process. Comes under SOP 8-L. You want to teach somebody about life, you run all these odds and ends which are demonstrating things, you see. It's not a good process for a class to use, because you're right straight up into the stratosphere, kicking in postulates continually on "resist all effects," until the case gets rougher and rougher, you see. So we just have to turn it around this way and process straight on its heaviest essentials.
Now, you don't have to process the public that way. You can go out to the public, you can match-terminal this and run a concept and et cetera, and things happen. But the funny part of it is, is they get down into exactly these same strata when they're real bad off. They've triggered everything in on "resist all effects."
And you'll find some girl who is having a terrible time on the second dynamic—oh, just real rough—and you'll find out she's in the middle of a second dynamic "resist all effects," but she must have the effect, but she can't have any effect and here we go!
You don't have to worry even about the anatomy of maybe. You don't even have to worry about the anatomy of a ridge. You don't have to worry about anything like this. Let's just take these essentials: Survive is resist all effects; but then you've got to make an effect on other things which are resisting all effects, in order to keep them from existing. You get how this is? It's a tug of war between a set of postulates which resist all effects and which must cancel other effects, against a set of postulates which themselves must resist all effects and cancel other effects. We get persistence out of this. But we get persistence which is automatic.
Now, what is responsibility? Responsibility is the—not necessarily the action of operating something, but the feeling that one can operate something. If one feels that he can handle or operate something he has responsibility for it.
So where is the responsibility of your pc going? It's going down the drain into automaticity. Because he has delivered over some function of his life and beingness into other-responsibility. Of course, it's still his responsibility, but he has said, "It's other-responsibility." And so this goes into a dwindling spiral where, at last, an individual feels he can't be responsible for anything and he has to start assigning "other cause."
What is the actual "other cause"? What is the villain of the piece? Himself. He's the villain of the piece. And the "other cause" that he is combating is his own automatic machinery. And that automatic machinery has, underlying each and every portion of it—every ridge, every type of training which he has, every piece of energy which he's hoarding, has under it—"must resist all effects."
This is survival. This is how he keeps going. He has a feeling like he is moving along a time track because he thinks of himself as a communication particle. He is not a communication particle, he is actually motionless. The particles are moving. He is not, and never will move.
There is no such thing as a progress through time on the part of the thetan. But time progresses past the thetan. And you can get the sort of an idea of you with a bird's-eye view of an enormous number of particles which

159

160

20 NOVEMBER 1953
are shifting and changing continually. You don't shift and change ever. But you can sure shift and change the location of the particles with relationship to you. But the particles never change you. You never age. There is no age. But the particles age. Why do they age? Because you say they do. This is simplicity itself.
Now we've got the cycle of action which is the cycle of action of a thetan, which is create, persist and destroy. Now, that cycle of action is cared for— when we say, "Resist all effects," we've cared for exact middle of it. And anybody who is alive or conscious is running somewhere in the middle of that band—close to one end or close to the other end, but he's somewhere in the middle—which is, "survive; must resist all effects." Of course, he gets along the line, he mingles that up. "Must cancel all effects which are leveled against me" is "resist all effects," you see?
So let's get over here to create and find out what's there. And create is the ability to make a postulate. If you can unmake postulates, you can make postulates. So we've gotten over here to destroy. So we've got both ends of it there immediately in the same statement. In order to make postulates, you certainly must be able to unmake postulates. But unlimited making of postulates, without unmaking any postulates, is chaos—that's you!
And we get over here to destruction: the unlimited effort to unmake postulates without making any. That's a real rough one. And that is a sort of a frantic state of trying madly to knock all the mest to pieces, when all one should do is knock the postulates to pieces. That's terrifically simple in the final analysis. All right.
So to solve the problem, we must solve that proposition on postulates: "Must resist all effects." You don't have to handle any other postulate than that, you see. Survive, persist, must resist all effects, must retain effects—all of these things come under the same statement and heading. You state it in various ways, any way under the shape of the sun that you want to, but it's still that postulate "survive," which is "must resist all effects," which is "persistence," which is "no effects must have any effect upon me," "nobody is cause but me," "everybody is trying to be cause but me and I have to resist their causes." You could just go on and make a dictionary full of statements and it would become the English language—or the French language, or the Russian language.
Where we have a preclear, we have these problems. And where we have persistence—because nothing does endure and because there's nothing but a postulate—we have the other one: duplication. There isn't a single particle in that ashtray that endures for a split second. No endurance. So one has to set up postulate machines to make postulates, which postulates will say, "Exist. Exist. Exist. Exist. Exist. Exist. Exist. Exist. Brrp-brrp-brrp-brrp."
And you start running this sort of thing and a person very often feels the mest universe going all out of plumb, himself all out of plumb and his head disappearing and his body disappearing and this going this way and that going that way. So what? He can put it all back together again.
You're always, at every moment, with these processes we're using right now, dealing with an echelon which a person can handle. A psycho can handle this if you can even vaguely get in communication with him, just vaguely. Of course every—every time you make him duplicate anything to parallel a machine of any kind, you've put him more in control of his automaticity. His somatics inevitably—although they'll flare a tiny bit—they inevitably progressively get less.
Now, you can fully expect them, however—because you're knocking out various types of machinery—that if you don't hit somewhere close to the

RESISTANCE TO EFFECT
machinery they're actually trying to make resist all effects, if you don't get somewhere close to that, it's going to key, but heavy. So sometimes you want to ask somebody what he's been doing, you know? And if he's getting into trouble with highly generalized techniques, just ask him what he's been doing. Get a specific account of what his primary interest has been in this lifetime, and you'll find it's been this or that or something of this sort.
You find out he's been a painter—and boy, has he been trying to get paint to resist all effects. And then he's trying to keep paint from resisting all effects. And then he's finally decided it was bad for business for his paint to save the surface and save all, because he could paint more often and that'd be more work, so he doesn't want paint to resist all effects. Basically, paint must resist all effects. That's why he starts to paint the walls and so forth. And then afterwards, changes the postulate around—just the dwindling spiral—so that paint must not resist all effects. And then it gets into, he must resist all the effects of paint. You see how that is? So he's gotten down to the bottom.
And here you have some fellow's been standing on scaffolding for twenty-two years, something like that, and you're processing him and his primary automaticity—the one that's really live and sitting there ready to trigger— has to do with paint. So you just have him start putting up paint. If he can only get blackness, have him put up black paint that must resist all effects. Or black paint which must not resist all effects. Or black paint which mustn't affect him. And you just keep putting it up.
But how do you put this up? Well, remember duplication. You've got to have a machine going pocketa-pocketa-pocketa—you think. You don't. But you think you've got to have a machine going pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, duplicate-duplicate-duplicate-duplicate. So let's take over the essential elements of automaticity. Now, we do that by creation and destruction, or by wasting the machinery itself and, of course, saving, accepting, desiring, being curious about the machinery, and duplicating it. Duplication is the essence. Duplication, because Step II is automaticity, falls right under Step II—pang!
Unless you permit a continuous duplication on the part of the preclear, why, you're going to—the case is going to come up just so far and it's going to level off, see? You're going to wonder why the case leveled off. Well, it leveled off just because you were letting him let something persist, and then he sits there and lets it persist, see? You tell him to match-terminal something, and he puts up two beings and they stand there. He'll do this very happily if he's down around the level of V or VI, and you're solving him with these I and II level processes. Ooh! He'll put up somebody, he'll just leave it there. He puts up a black curtain, he'll hold on to it.
I made a test on this one time, and one of them was perfectly agreeable to hold a black curtain for five hours. In other words, obey its postulate that it must persist. Well, the second that you make him obey its postulate, his case does not progress, does it? You see, he's obeying the mock-up.
So let him put the postulate in there and put a black curtain that "must persist," and then immediately put up another one that "must persist forever." And then put up another one that "must persist forever." Put up another one that "must persist forever." Put up another one that "resists all effects forever." Put up another one that "must persist." Another one that "mustn't affect him." Another one, that "must resist all pain." Something on this order. You know, this person's . ..
Now, what's this tell you? Another one was "resist all tiredness," or something like that. You can get terrifically specific. But, by the way, you can get far,

161

162

20 NOVEMBER 1953
far, far too specific. You can think too much with this. If you just obey this fundamental material—duplicate it, get it so that it resists all effects and keep putting it up—you've got it licked.
The essential difference between your own universe and the other fellow's universe and the MEST universe is that you're making yours. And that part of it which you're doing a good job on is the mest universe, and that part of it which you're doing a lousy job on, you see, is your own universe. And then you try to go into competition with mest. Oh! How can you go into competition with you? You'll only be on two sides of the chessboard. As soon as a person starts to go into real arduous competition with mest, he goes into real arduous competition with himself, of course. And so he's defeating himself all the time, because the best thing he's doing is the mest universe. And the worst thing he's doing is what he's calling still his. It's just a problem in automaticity.
You can tell somebody, "Be the mest universe. Be your own universe. Be the mest universe. Be your own universe," and he'll go, "Rarrrwwhh!" Not a recommended process. All right.
Now let's take this and see how duplication affects this. Remember that to have an ashtray here, over a period of time, requires this matter of duplication, see? You got an ashtray, you got an ashtray, you got an ashtray, you got an ashtray. Every one of you who can see this ashtray as I hold it up has got a machine saying, "There's an ashtray. There's an ashtray. There's an ashtray. There's an ashtray. There's an ashtray."
At what speed is it saying it? Boy, that's really interesting: the speed is one over c. That's real fast. That's just gorgeous. But, of course, that isn't fast unless you say it's fast. You can speed some preclear up remarkably, so that he'll consider that slow. You can actually speed somebody up to a point where he, out of his body, can watch a photon going by. "Well, it's gotten five feet now." It's very interesting, you see, he just doesn't consider it's fast—he can run at any speed. All right.
So this ashtray here has a persistency which depends upon duplication. So persistency depends upon duplication. You get that? You don't put up something and then it just persists. If you put up something and then it persists, it's because you're saying, "Duplicate. Duplicate. Duplicate." So there's essential part of the machinery you're not taking control of, which is "duplicate, duplicate, duplicate," see? So you must duplicate it in order to take over an essential part of the machinery. Because the essential part of automaticity is "duplicate." All right.
Now, let's get an idea here of what this is. Now just look at this wall and get the idea of your putting it here, and you can blink your eyes or something of the sort, and just get it here, duplicate it, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate. You keep that up very long, the walls start to wobble on you—which is, of course, upsetting to people because they haven't taken over the basic controls of duplication.
So let's go about it this way, which is not even vaguely uncomfortable:
Let's put some sadness in this wall up here.
Now let's duplicate it.
Now let's duplicate the sadness.
Now let's duplicate the sadness.
Now let's duplicate the sadness on the side wall over here.
Now let's duplicate the sadness over on this wall.
Now let's duplicate the sadness in the ceiling.
And let's duplicate the sadness in the floor.

RESISTANCE TO EFFECT
Possibly much too fast for some of you, but there's the process. See? And this is "chronic sadness machine." And you're just shooting it to pieces.
Now, there's people who have "chronic apathy machines." Are they actually in a state of apathy? No. They have a machine which duplicates their apathy. All right. Now, if they've got a machine which duplicates—remember that the basic machine is always some kind of a simple postulate rig—but other people have come along and used the machine later, so there's all sorts of locks come flying off of these machines. But don't think for a moment that those locks belong to anybody but you. You have to have a basic agreement with your basic postulates with the rest of the universe, or you wouldn't see it at all.
So let's tamper with the mechanism with a pc slowly and give him assurance. Don't make his whole body vanish—just say, pang! "Make your body vanish"— because he's actually liable to. He's liable to—body gone—and all of a sudden say, "Oh, my God, it's gone!" And now you've got him all upset, and some auditor has to come along and spend an hour or so with him trying to get him over this fright.
Yeah, some fellow mocks up some terrific mock-up—he just gets going just fine—and some auditor then says to him, "Well, all right, now mock up a big robot walking towards you." He does. See? And he does have a big robot walking toward him that's going clank, clank, clank. Ohhh! Well, somebody will have to work with him for maybe two or three hours, see, to get him out of this startlement. He was told to make a robot, and he didn't believe he could still make robots like that, and by gosh, he did! And, of course, he immediately had to say—at the instant he made it and it surprised him—that "it's somebody else's robot." Why? "Because it scares me."
So, you see the essentials of this?
Now, we can put this down very simply. You put emotions into mest and into mock-ups. You can put it in in brackets. And as a matter of fact, today you'll start putting it in in brackets, and duplicate it. Now, we don't, then, today, from here on—now that we've gotten our—the tip end of the large right toe damp with this, let's go into a point where it'd at least cover the nail of that toe. Which is, whenever you put up something, duplicate it in all the walls and in any other part of the scenery, exteriorized—I mean, outside the building. You know, a person can be in his head, by the way, and do that outside the house—it's quite fascinating. Lot of times—whatever you've got there, put it out a lot of times. And then put it out in a bracket—each time, several times. See?
Now, here'd be an example: "In all four walls of this room, floor and ceiling, put sadness," see? Then, "Somebody else putting sadness, all four walls of the room, floor and ceiling." See, they do that one after the other, not just put it all in there because that's just one time, see? We want a duplication. We want some sadness in that wall and sadness in that wall; and we have somebody else putting some sadness in the back wall and sadness in the front wall. All right.
After he's done it a number of times, we have somebody doing it for somebody else: "Have somebody put some sadness in the walls for somebody else. Have them put it in the side wall, front wall, back wall, top wall, bottom wall and so forth, for somebody else."
Now, "Have somebody else putting some sadness in the walls for you." And we, again, run this front wall, back wall, right side walls, left side wall, floor, ceiling.
Now, "You putting it in the walls for somebody else." And again, sadness— "You putting sadness in the side wall for somebody else, sadness in the other wall for somebody else, sadness in the back wall for somebody else, sadness

163

164

20 NOVEMBER 1953
in the front wall for somebody else, sadness in the ceiling for somebody else, sadness in the floor for somebody else." See that?
And those of you who are still having a fearsome problem with occlusion, you know, that one is solved with a bracket with black panels.
Now, although we're still working squarely with the MEST universe, you'll find out that some of these work with their own universe much more easily. That's quite all right, because they built their own barriers. Their barriers are, to them, more remarkably strong than the barriers of the mest universe. And so, when you run brackets on them remember to run it in their own universe and in the mest universe. Each one with a bracket. In other words, get a mock-up— a black mock-up—and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it.
Now, there's an exercise for just straight blackness which is quite remarkable—you just put it up in a bracket. You put up about five, six, eight, ten—doesn't matter how many—for each part of the bracket of five, a black panel that must persist and resist. Get the feeling of effort to persist and resist in it. Now, they'll get the—they get the postulates into it more easily with a feeling. You know, they make it feel that it must resist, instead of think that it must resist. And boy, you'll have more blackness and somatics flying around than you care to run into for a long time. You keep making it persist, keep making it persist, you see? All right.
And you do it in this fashion:
All right. "Have you put up a black panel for yourself that must persist. Put up another one. Put up another one. Put up another one."
Now, "Have somebody else put up a black panel for himself that must persist. And have him put up another one." (And, of course, they'll just get the vaguest and foggiest notion that there's somebody else doing it, but that's all you want.) "Somebody else putting up a black panel. Somebody else putting up a black panel. Somebody else putting up the black panel. All right."
Now, "Let's get somebody putting up a black panel for somebody else. Now have the panel resist. Get him putting it up resisting. Have him put it up resisting all evil. Have him put it up resisting all effects, resisting all evil. Okay."
Now, "Have somebody put up a black panel for you. All right. Now put up another one. Now put up one that resists all evil. One that resists all effects. One that resists all pain. One that resists all tiredness. Okay." (You vary it enough to keep up their interest, but you're—what you're doing is duplicating a black panel.) All right.
"Have you put up a black panel for somebody else now. Now put up a black panel that must persist. Another black panel that must persist for somebody else. Another one that must persist for somebody else. Another one that must persist for somebody else. Okay."
"Now get you putting up a black panel for yourself." And here we go, see?
"Now let's put up this black panel with some effort in it. All right. Put up another one with some effort in it. Put up another one with some effort in it. Another one with some effort in it."
"Now have somebody else putting up a—black panels for himself. Have him put up one with some effort in it. Another one with some effort in it. Another one with some effort in it. Another one with some effort in it."
About this time some member of your group suddenly says to you, "Gee, I keep stringing these things on a row of beads. I don't know," he says, "they keep stringing on a row of beads."
You say, "Are you getting rid of any of them?"

RESISTANCE TO EFFECT
"Well," he says, "they're on this row of beads and it flies off into the far distance."
You say, "Well, after this, see if you can't make them fly off into the far distance after you've mocked them up."
Now, you can just stop in that particular unit—should, perhaps—and handle this individualized problem of automaticity. Because there is your automaticity. And boy, it shows up on black panels the like of which it never shows up on anything else. You can have mock-ups flying all over the room and kicking up their heels and jumping over the roof and so forth. It's never as—quite as much as what happens, really, when black panels start to break up and the automatic machinery for them starts to key in. They'll fly away to the right and fly away to the left and string themselves on beads and pile themselves up as mattresses and change themselves into doll carriages and do all sorts of things—zing, zing, zing! And unless your pc has triggered that very automaticity and so forth, he hasn't done too much. But remember, you're doing a process which undoes automaticity, so the tenure of the automaticity should be very brief, it should come under control rather easily.
And one doing the process should recognize an automaticity when he sees it and just duplicate it—make it a little more so, is all he has to do. And all of a sudden it's under his control. Somebody really starts bogging down with a terrific automaticity, just turn around and fix them up in the group. But a man should be able to just—if he sees a lot of purple dots all of a sudden, they're swinging around in front of his face, have him throw a few more in there. And all of a sudden, why, he—got that under control.
Now, what's the rest that you should do with this blackness? All right. Here's your next drill on it:
You make the front wall black with effort in it.
The side wall black with effort in it.
The back wall black with effort in it.
The other wall black with effort in it.
The ceiling black with effort in it.
The floor black with effort in it.
And each time with a feeling "it must persist." Effort. And they all of a sudden realize effort is the postulate you've put in about a persistence. That's what effort is. All right.
That's your next stage. Now, you vary this with a person who is running it by throwing in, every so often, something about emotion. And you duplicate it each time. Any kind of a basic emotion like tiredness, effort—it's not an emotion, of course, but you just have them put effort in these walls without any attention to blackness for a little while.
Now, there's another drill that comes in there: Have the walls of the room telling the preclear where he isn't, and refusing to tell him where he is. Very specifically, it works best when—have the walls of the room refuse to tell him where he is. You run that right now:
Have the front wall refuse to tell you where you are.
Side wall refuse to tell you where you are.
The back wall refuse to tell you where you are.
The other wall refuse to tell you where you are.
The ceiling refuse to tell you where you are.
The floor refuse to tell you where you are.
Now have the upper corner of the room there refuse to tell you where you are.

165

166

20 NOVEMBER 1953
The lower corner of that room refuse to tell you where you are.
Now have the upper corner of the room refuse to tell somebody else where he is.
Of course, you'd go on through the corners of the room with that and then go into: "Have the upper corner of the room refuse to tell you where somebody else is. And refuse to tell somebody else where you are."
That would be your total bracket. Got that?
Well now, you vary that with your V level or occluded level case. You vary the processing, because he gets pretty flighty.
Now, if somebody who has a great deal of occlusion starts to get too flighty, for heaven's sakes, remember that I read you an Abbott company piece of advertising that said that Bl did something for blackness and occlusion. And that it said specifically, "When the preclear becomes very restive and his legs start to jerk," it said, "according to Dr. Hubbard, who insists now that he be called Mr. Hubbard," it said, "you must feed him with Abbott and company's handy jim-dandy little b1 pills to the amount of about 200 cc, preferably 200 cc"— well, yes, that would be a little bit, wouldn't it? Well that was their misprint. (audience laughter) Two hundred milligrams and some calcium in milk probably. If you can take them in milk it's much better—couple of hundred milligrams. "Somebody's occluded," it said in the folder, "somebody occluded starts to get jumpy under this, why, pump it in."
But there's another method which I can give you now which is just as good, and that's put franticness in the walls. But if you're going to start putting franticness in in brackets for a case that's down the line and fresh out of space, boy, you just make sure if you're doing the auditing at that moment, or you start to get groggy and somebody else starts doing the auditing at that moment in the unit—boy, you make sure that you beat that to death, you understand? I mean, don't start in on franticness and then skip it. You understand that? Because it'll actually throw a pc—some pcs—into convulsions. And they'll run right on out, just as nice as you please, if you just keep on duplicating the feeling of franticness in the various walls. See that?
Now we have a specialized one. And, of course, this is still under Step II. Put up a body to resist all effects of auditing. Put it up a couple of times, in brackets. Now, boy, don't forget that. That's for everybody. That's for everybody. Putting up a couple of bodies, in brackets—as I say, run it in a bracket, each time two bodies up there—to resist all auditing. All of your pcs will blow up and disappear, and you'll feel so much better, you'll wonder how the devil you ever got to feeling bad about it. You understand that?
Now, you could vary that. And there is a different method of varying it which is very simple, is "resist all effect of engrams." But remember, "all effects of auditing" is the main one. Resist all effect of engrams, resist all effect of other people's thinking, resist all effect of other people's control mechanisms— you can go on and on with that if you want to, but the one which is closest and most pertinent to you is this matter of auditing.
Yes, "must persist." Now, you must remember to put that up there, "the auditing must persist," to you. Because you've gotten a lot of—you've got a lot of that down into the effort band. All right.
What is duplication?
Male voice: It's like—duplication is continually mocking up what you have, over and over again.
Well, you mock up something new over and over again, but you just say you're duplicating. Yeah, that's very good. Very good. Why do you do duplication?

RESISTANCE TO EFFECT
Male voice: Because you have automatic machinery which keeps doing it and you want the preclear to assume control of the automatic machinery.
Good. And how does the automatic—what's its prime functional operation?
Male voice: Of the process or the automatic machinery?
Of the automatic machinery.
Male voice: It's to make everything persist.
That's right. And how do you make anything persist?
Male voice: By duplicating it all the time.
That's right! That's right. All right.
What's blackness doing?
Second male voice: Covering me up. (audience laughter)
What's it doing?
Second male voice: All I get out of it, it covers me up.
Mm-hm. That's all you get out of it?
Third male voice: Helping me resist all effects.
That's right. That's correct. What is blackness doing?
Fourth male voice: Helping to resist all effects.
That's right. That's right. Okay.
What does this have to do with survival?
Male voice: Well, it's just contrary to survival.
What is?
Male voice: The—having you be an effect instead of being able to control it. Because to survive, you must get it under your own control.
Go over that again. Let me make the question much more specific. What does resisting all effects have to do with survival? (pause)
Male voice: Well, it makes you wonder if you can survive while one is resisting all effects.
What does duplication have to do with survival?
Second male voice: Duplication is trying to make it persist all the time.
Mm-hm. Can persistence occur without duplication?
Male voice: Hm-mm.
That's right. You see that clearly? What is automaticity?
Third male voice: Turning it over to the machine, not having control of it.
Mm-hm.
Third male voice: Seeing that it's other-responsibility.
That's right. Why do people do this? (pause) Why do people do this?
Male voice: So they can be an effect, and not cause.
That's right. Why do people do this?
Second male voice: I've got a machine that throws away the answer every time, so ... (audience laughter)
Audience: Randomity.
Ah! That lost word—randomity. Somebody picked up this word, by the way, early in Scientology for their randomity. People have had trouble with it ever since. It's simply a way of stating the ratio of predicted to unpredicted motion necessary to interest an individual. They have automaticity to produce randomity. When a case has too much randomity, it is because he has set up too many things in automaticity. When he does not have enough randomity, he has not set up enough automaticity, or he has set up too much automaticity which cancels itself. Simple?
What are the essential parts of the process we're doing here? Just give me in—four essential parts of the process we're doing.

167

168

20 NOVEMBER 1953
Male voice: We're doing a duplication. We're doing the freeing of the emotions with the full realization that we place the effect and we get—and receive it back again.
Right.
Male voice: Four. We're becoming aware of our automaticity.
Right. Let's restate that one: we're taking our automaticity under control.
Male voice: Yeah. Well, that's becoming clear to me.
Yeah. But let's take . . .
Male voice: Once you're aware of it, then you have a choice.
No.
Male voice: Well, when I said permission . . .
No, just roll up your sleeves, get your hands dirty because you're going to take over every automatic machine we can lay our hands on here. And we'll just put you in a condition whereby you could set up new ones. Okay, give me one more.
Male voice: Hm?
One more.
Awareness is not taking control of.
Male voice: No, no. You . . .
You can look at something without grabbing it.
Male voice: Yeah.
Okay. Let's go, one more. It's the one you're doing right this minute.
Male voice: Thinking machine?
No. No.
Male voice: Duplicating . . .
You've got that.
Male voice:. . . well, I am, in a way, yeah.
Come on.
Male voice: Seeing black ?
No.
Male voice: I'm guessing now.
Resisting all effects! (audience laughter) You see how—what a sneaky one that is?
Male voice: And Ron, when you—on awareness, that was an analogy, a beautiful analogy, for me when you said—about the black curtains? Tom worked with me last night on that and in creating them, duplicating them, this morning this analogy came: the photographer puts in a black something because he's never quite ready to take the picture. And we're never quite ready to see clear. ..
Hm.
Male voice:. . . the postulate there.
Mm-hm.
Male voice: Not quite ready to see clear because the subject isn't—oh, in the form in which we'd like it.
That's right. That's right.
Male voice: That was a clear analogy, we will attest to.
All right. Now let's look at those four essential parts, what you're doing. First one: survival and the necessity if one survives, then, to resist other effects which don't want him to survive. And one puts that in so strongly that he simply says, "Resist all effects," and that becomes in the mest universe, conservation of energy. See that? Conservation of energy is just "resist all effects." There's a lot of energy around that does too. That's—asbestos—you can't burn it and so forth. But people do manage to put it out in sheets. There's

RESISTANCE TO EFFECT
all sorts of things. There—nearly everything is tailored up to resist a majority of effects. And here that is survival. Resist all effects. Which is persistence, which is why the case persists, which is why the case doesn't change.
Now, if you can start altering a piece of automatic machinery, by the way—if you start altering a piece of automatic machinery, you start taking control of it. You take control of it a little bit by changing an emotion, by changing a color, by altering the effort, and always by duplicating it. You start duplicating the machine, and the machine will stop duplicating. That's a little motto for you.
So that's the next one, is duplication. You start duplicating the machine and it'll stop duplicating. People have these automaticities and that is other-responsibility. They have these automaticities. The way they get them back is to create and destroy symbols of the automaticities. Or waste, save, accept, desire, and be curious about, in brackets, the same machinery. Or create and destroy it.
And there's another process which you will run into later on, and I might as well mention it because I use it in auditing all the time, is throwing postulates into the things and blowing them up. It's real cute. I hadn't done it for a long time, was doing it this morning and happened to call it to my attention. See that? It must persist. Now, mock up some black curtain and put the postulate in it, "it must persist." Okay. And now you put the other—another postulate in, "it must persist." After a while it gets silly that you keep putting this postulate in there. And then you can blow up one of them. Or you can blow up a postulate that must persist. Well, you'll blow up the whole darn bank.
Now, the other one, another little caution here is—remember this by the way, the next one on that little list I was giving there is just location. That's a covert one, but every time you're putting something up, you're locating. See, that's sneaking in on the process. We got a process that does a lot of sneaky little things. It slips into the cogwheels. All right.
You start doing these things in brackets, and even more will start happening than has been happening.
And wherever you employ your Steps I and II, just remember what you're doing. With Step I you are locating. You are locating. And the purpose of your doing that location is to get the preclear so high on the Tone Scale he does not have to be located and that is the goal of Step I. He knows where he is and knowingness is sufficient location for him, and when he sees location and points and so forth, boy, it all gets brighter than the—oh, it's real bright! I mean, this really gets polished. He really is certain where he is. Now, that's the goal of Step I, see? You get him up to a point where he knows where he is all the time, then his sole interest in location is locating other things with relationship to other things. It has no effect upon him. As long as he's being affected by location, he's in poor shape. All right.
Now, let's get the goal of Step II. The goal of Step II is being capable of handling and controlling, being part of or detached from, any and all automaticities. That's the goal of Step II.
We're going to solve these goals just like we've been solving them here.
(Recording ends abruptly)

169

Plan of Auditing
A lecture given on 20 November 1953

This is the afternoon lecture, first part of the lecture. November the 20th. This afternoon I want to give you a little rundown on plan of auditing.
That isn't plan of auditing here, this is auditing plan, which is to say, that process or communication system which we can utilize in order to resolve the problems which we have essayed to resolve in ourselves and amongst—and in others.
The problem with which we're confronted is a very simple one. What is complex is the communication system which has been erected on these simple fundamentals.
For a long time, I've had a very interesting time of it trying to understand a case level like V, VI, VII. A IV, III—oh, I could understand these somewhat. But looking at the complexity which was presented by a Resistive V was somewhat baffling. To know exactly what was wrong with him and not be able to state it in terms which were comprehensible to him, and not be able to hand him a process which he could handle with ease—this was difficult. This was the difficulty. So we find as we progress along that we handle with great ease Step Is, and then worse and worse cases being handled better and better.
Now, the progress of what we're doing is an evolution of techniques which handle an even more resistive case than we have handled before. Well, if they had just been in that direction only, the oddity is that we would have had very slight increase—we would have had very little better results—even on the occluded cases. If we were just trying to do that.
So the emphasis has actually been in quite the opposite direction and has been reaching the resistive cases simultaneously. Which is, how do you make an Operating Thetan better in his operation? And the more you could learn about that, you see, why, the happier one and all would be—within the certain limits that, of course, if you turn loose too many good, functioning Operating Thetans in a society in a universe which is entirely conditioned to religion, you have an almost immediate opportunity for slavery on the part of one and all— almost immediate.
The whole machine is rigged, in this universe, in the direction of religion, superstition and so on. Well, it gets a certain distance, you see, and then unscrupulous, very uncleared, extremely fouled-up characters can come along, and unless you can produce quite a few—quite a few—Operating Thetans fairly easily, you just have no business triggering this figure-seven trap that is already set to trigger, called religion.

171

172

20 NOVEMBER 1953
There's a fellow, for instance—fellow a long time ago—evidently appeared to the multitudes (and everyone is supposed to speak at that moment in a very reverent state of voice); the guy was a pretty good Operating Thetan, see. If you see it in that bracket, you all of a sudden understand what could happen. All right.
This fellow shows up, pam-pam, he's able to do all sorts of weird things, such as take the body along with him after he's let somebody mess it all up. And gee, it sure was surprising. They hadn't had a live god around, probably, since the days of Homer.
And "when 'Omer was smoting his bloomin' lyre," it was a pretty routine and ordinary problem, didn't stampede anybody. But they managed to set up enough temples and get the thetans around to accept an identity sufficiently so that they were damping out anything resembling an Operating Thetan. And then all of a sudden this wild one pops up in the Middle East a couple of thousand years ago, and the net result of that visit has been an uncounted number of dead. An uncounted number of dead. An uncounted number of broken thetans.
Let's take just one incident: the Crusades. Now, this was very colorful and made a very nice game, as long as you had on an iron suit. But all the boys who went to the Crusades didn't have an iron suit on. But not even an iron suit was good enough, since in the Crusades, fever, bacteria accounted for casualties on the ratio of about ten to one over battle casualties. That's just one little short period.
Let's take now the activities of a fellow known as Torquemada. I know of a book on him, in Latin, which is bound, symbolically and truly enough, in human skin. (And it's in the library at Pacific Groves, near Monterey in California.) This fellow accounted for Lord knows how many victims by fire, stake—all in the name of what? In the name of an Operating Thetan who was unwise enough and ambitious enough to suddenly show up, hand out some technology—just that, no more—which was the inverse of self-determinism, and pull the house down. Real nice operation—it was not!
Right now, today, that machine has accounted for wealth and riches and maimed and dying—just as an automaticity, a machine, something to carry on, a symbol, something to carry forward in the society, to the support of its worst elements and its most despicable ends. It is a despicable end to tell men that they must continually repent, repent, repent, that they are evil, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. This is despicable. It is beneath contempt. Because it speaks of a craven terror on the part of several—many—degraded thetans and their fear of others such as themselves.
Nothing I am giving you here is blasphemy—it's truth. Because you can look back through the history books at two thousand years, and find out that evidently an Operating Thetan, or something of this variety, appeared suddenly in the Middle East, accomplished a few miracles—a handful of miracles—it didn't take very much. No more actually than showed his face, let his body be nailed up, and two thousand years resulted—the first part of which saw the slavery and degradation of the greatest empire on Earth and replaced that empire with a rule by slaves for slaves, where "dirt" was the biggest motto they had. Dirt, disease, starvation, despair could have well been the mottoes of the first few hundred years after the appearance of this Operating Thetan.
How many and how much—how many lives and how much suffering is one man willing to create? One being—just how much is he willing to create? Well, if he's awfully degraded, he will create an awful lot, with a tremendous amount of statement as to how he isn't doing it.

PLAN OF AUDITING
Let's take Adolf Schicklgruber as an example: it wasn't his fault. He was angry because everybody had gotten upset with Germany, and Germany really had to do this, and it wasn't his fault. He wasn't doing anything. If you want to read his private conversations, he had good reasons why. And the reasons he had were because everybody was so degraded and so depraved—you see, everybody was so degraded and so depraved that they had to be conquered by supermen. Well, that's fine, that's a nice mockery end of the Tone Scale.
We're not interested in conquering things with supermen. But we are very definitely interested in the fact that we don't want supermen popping up before we can uncreate that astonishing scarcity of one superman. You have to be able to uncreate that scarcity. That means that the cultures and civilization of this game called Earth could gradually evolve into a higher game, a better society, a better civilization and something very well worth doing and being.
My viewpoint on this may be very far from the best viewpoint on this. I know it would collide head-on with the (quote) "wisest" (unquote), and (quote) "sincerest" (unquote), and (quote) "authoritative" (unquote) opinions on the face of Earth today.
It is an amazing thing that the very ones who talk the most about "peace on Earth, goodwill to men," carry forward actively themselves the seeds of war, starvation, marital unrest and all the other ills which have made, really, life pretty untolerable on at least one planet. It's remarkable, isn't it? That those people who should have been, and who talked the most about, doing these wonderful things for all these people are actually carrying, clutched to their bosom, you might say, but ready to hand out on every hand, the very germs of chaos.
You start to lock up and shut up the second dynamic and hide it from view and make it scarce and then wonder why the divorce rate of a nation starts soaring. You wonder why—you make MEST itself scarce in its prettier forms and wonder why you have an incidence of criminality so great that the major activity in the United States is a business known as "cop." It's wonderful!
How do you go about making these things come to pass? Well, you go about making them come to pass by taking some mockery of the Tone Scale and saying, "It's the real thing," you see? Some debased, cowardly thing and you say, "Now this is it. We want peace on Earth, therefore everybody must be abject." It doesn't follow. You've never had any peace from an apathetic man. Never. The only time you really have any peace is when you're amongst strong men.
Justice is an invention, according to the Greeks, wherein the weak are able to reduce the strong. That is the invention of justice, according to the Greeks. They probably knew what they were talking about. And if it only ended there, that would be all right. That happens to be the mechanism of the perpetuation and creation of "weak." It's real great, isn't it?
It isn't that men should have certain rights safeguarded by powers and forces stronger than themselves. That is—doesn't happen to be the question. It's, are men worth being safeguarded?
And when the incidence of insanity, criminality and sexual depravity of a whole planet gets to the level of this one, I think that almost anybody has a perfect right to take a hand in the game. The wrong way to take a hand in the game would be to suddenly arm, with mysterious and wonderful appearances, an entire Earthful of organizations, any one of which is all ready to take over and capitalize on a miracle. You better make miracles real unscarce. They're real astonishing at first—be able to follow them up.

173

174

20 NOVEMBER 1953
Well, I've been trying to do that. If we couldn't solve cases uniformly up to a much higher level of Operating Thetan than ever before, well, we'd certainly better keep our mouths shut about it. At the same time, we had better reach down for the lowest rung we could reach in terms of workable processes. These two things actually would come about concurrently—the high and the low. They would, naturally, because they're both based upon a simplicity.
Now, for a long, long time I was willing to sit around and listen to all the reasons why Vs, VIs and VIIs "couldn't." I just—so on. I give you a warning on this, if you're ever being processed by me. The last preclear who said to me bluntly, "I can't do that," got a book right in his chest. He didn't even know it was coming. Horrible thing to do to a preclear—complete violation of the Auditor's Code. But I've listened to it so much that I won't take it anymore. And the technique which I was using on this preclear—the book just happened to be on my desk and it was a good, heavy book—and the preclear had his eyes closed. "I can't do that," he said in an apathetic voice. And bang went the book! And while he was suffering from that shock, I said in so many words, "Don't you ever, when I am around again, don't you ever tell me you can't do something. Just do it." And I'll be a son of a gun if the preclear didn't! (audience laughter)
I don't advise this in any way. I was just showing you how thin my patience had worn, finally, in listening to all the "cant's." Because the funny part of it is that they can. They can. Level of necessity was what jumped up in that case. All right.
When you have something that will fish people out of any rung they happen to be on, as long as they're vaguely in communication, you'll find out that anybody can do it. It takes some a little longer than others.
Now, as far as the lower rung is concerned, exactly the lower rung—exact mechanisms that are inhibiting the lower rung are those inhibiting the Operating Thetan from being higher himself. You follow that? It's the same mechanism, up or down. There isn't any more difficult mechanism in that. And if you think next week I'm going to suddenly turn around and tell you that the answer is something different, you're going to be very surprised. Because I listened too long to the reason why they couldn't. I listened much too long. But it was very, very good that I did, because I kept working for what they could do, consistently and continually working for what they could do, and in that direction.
The only place today that requires any real slippy, clever auditing is on a Step I who has gone so high toward Operating Thetan—oh, they're real complicated way up at the top, they're not complicated down low. They're real complicated where the guy is afraid to let go of any more automaticity for fear he's going to be bored for the next eight or nine billion years. And you have to remedy that. And you remedy it by having him build up automaticities and forget about them until he is very able in it; and then he loses this fear.
But sometimes this requires a little bit of clever auditing. Because, in the first place, when a person gets up that level you actually don't have any real business auditing them with the spoken word. It's too slow, it is just endlessly slow. But he won't look at many things which he should look at. He is not in a state of motion he should be in yet. And yet he believes if he goes into any— if he lets go of anything more, or releases any more havingness in terms of postulates, he believes that he'll be stuck with it, because he's had the experience of being stuck so many times. So he's got to resist all effects on the subject of "He mustn't be stuck with boredom anymore."
These things sometimes require pretty fast communication and pretty fast operation on the part of the auditor. But that's the case that requires fast

PLAN OF AUDITING
operation. Guy out of his body—body in pretty good shape, not terribly interested in the body— perfectly able to take over another body, perfectly able. Along about that time if you started to push the case any higher, we get into a slight bog.
Give you an example of that. I had a fellow one time, he was troubled with gout. So I had him turn some gout on in one of his feet, and then turns the gout over to the other foot. (He was exteriorized and he was—pretty good shape, see.) He could only turn on just so much gout. You know, he wouldn't turn on a real case of gout.
So every time he would turn it on, all that I would—could make him turn it on, I'd have him blow up another machine which reduced pain or reduced something—another automaticity which reduced something. I'd have him mock it up, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it and blow it up and blow it up and blow it up and blow it up. And then mock it and unmock it and mock it and unmock it and unmock it—and each time, why, I could tell him then, "All right, turn on gout in this foot," and it would come closer to real gout, until we finally turned on the most splendid case of gout you ever saw. And he turned it on and off at will. And he turned it on and off so that the flesh was swollen, discolored, and then the flesh was not swollen or discolored. See? Pang-pang, pang-pang! Oh, it was real gorgeous. And he went down to his doctor, foolishly, and turned it on for him and turned it off again so he could thumb his nose at the doctor. In other words, the doctor was his randomity. This was real good.
But look at that—automaticity stood in the line of his further increase every time. He could turn on just so much gout, then we had to handle so—little more automaticity on the subject of pain, gout, sickness or something of the sort. We had to handle a little more automaticity. Some other kind of mechanism he had built in. We'd blow that out, and he was more able to handle automaticity. Now, he'd become, somewhere up the line, unwilling to handle automaticity, see, because he says, "Well, if I handle any more automaticity I'll just expose my whole hand of cards right out here on the table." And then Lord knows what will happen to him. So you remedy that automaticity simply by making it possible for him to make things automatic.
In other words, you make him build machines that work— machines that really work. It's this kind of a machine: "All right, let's take a machine that will mock up—anytime you want to mock up anything, it will turn it green and then black, in spite of anything you do about it. All right. Now, let's make the machine. Let's hide it. Let's bury it. Let's forget about it. Okay. Get it really forgotten about. Now mock up a bird."
"Yeah," he says, "it's going to go green and turn black."
"Drag out the machine, blow it up."
Okay. We keep making this machine, he keeps forgetting about it and so forth, and you think he had that in his mind all the time, till we finally get a machine out whereby he mustn't forget about machines. This machine following after it, taking precedence over all the machines he must forget about, see? But it never worked. His machinery being at cross-purposes with itself—his automaticities being at cross-purposes with other automaticities—has failed him. These things have failed him many times. And he is unable to make one machine unwork while he made another machine work, and so he's put in counter-machines.
Then he's forgotten the counter-machines he's putting in, and he's gotten in the most dreadful complexity and hotchpotch of machinery you ever wanted to look upon. Well, of course, all these machines come apart in the same way. All of his postulates come apart in the same way. They must resist effects, and

175

176

20 NOVEMBER 1953
they're there to produce or inhibit effects. The machine must resist effects, and the machine itself must produce or inhibit effects.
Well anyway, we kept doing this to him and finally he made a machine and actually forgot about it, and it startled him half out of his chunk of space to see a mock-up turn green and then black. And he looked at me rather pathetically and he says, "I got a black mock-up. What are you doing?"
I said, "I'm not doing anything." I said, "Throw it away." I said, "Throw it away. And get a mock-up that isn't black."
"All right," he says, "I'll get a mock-up that isn't black." And he got a white nurse and mocked her up. Pang! she went green and then black. And he started to get real mad at me. And then he dug it up and threw it away.
A person had to be willing to fool himself in order to be interested. And the one thing he's got a machine set up for is a machine that will prevent him from fooling himself. He's got truth machines. These truth machines are so terrifically workable that everybody uses them. Everybody insists everybody tell the truth. What the hell is the truth? Well it's simply: "Let's establish an agreement that doesn't go out of line all the time"—that's with the basic machine. And the basic machine is, "I don't want to establish an agreement which is so wide from other people's agreement, that then I'd have no interpersonal relations."
Now, a person to whom this happens—it happens most often to a person who considers himself at a level where he will have no association with the techniques which he can do with anybody else. He's convinced at two levels that a group—one, upper level, he's convinced that a group is not attainable. An Operating Thetan gets upset about this. No interpersonal relations as an Operating Thetan—he gets real upset—which leaves him wholly at the mercy of his own automaticity. That's his only randomity, see, and no others to play a game with. And then down scale, a person is so convinced that others are going to do him wrong, that he moves out of the group. And two things happen there: He becomes perfectly willing to be a group of two, because he can still control this group to some degree, but he won't be part of a group of five, because he doesn't think he can control five.
You try to audit somebody outside of a group who is like this, and he gives an auditor a bad time until he has been audited with enough others—a group larger than he thinks he can control—to a point where he actually caves in his own aberrations on himself and has to handle them. See, he's not in control of the group. There's where Group Auditing pays off. See, he can be in control of one auditor, but not in control of a group. This is a basic mechanism.
But upstairs, they're scared of being lonesome. They're just frightened to death of being lonesome. No randomity and so on. Well, they don't realize how far down Tone Scale they had to go to get to a point where they worried about being lonesome. Quite something else—they didn't realize how far down Tone Scale they'd have to go to be afraid that they were unable to produce anybody else for randomity.
But the point is, is people coming up in this wise solve their own problem— they are more willing to go up on an operating level if there are going to be others at that level. Doing it the "only one" way is almost an incredible thing— very, very bad. Earth with fifty or a half a thousand Operating Thetans, you'd still be startling the yokels, believe me. But there'd be enough so that the pastors that got out of line and said, "Well, this is the second coming of Yahweh; and drop your insurance policy and your front plate in the collection box .. ." as a result—they wouldn't get very far. But here, let's put it on a basis

PLAN OF AUDITING
of—where you've got, oh, I don't know, twenty-five thousand. What you get then is a better society, see? Follows, doesn't it? All right.
What's the parallels then? The techniques had to wait to a point, actually, where you had an opportunity to put out a mass operation, not a single, "only one" operation. In the first place, the single, "only one" operation is one on the lower scale which fights against any improvement, and on the upper scale, simply moves in terror that he's going to cut all personal relations. It's just no good.
So you could get, theoretically, some guy who would play the "only one" computation as a low-level thetan and who would go around and bemuse the multitudes instead of just trying to make some more Operating Thetans. And, of course, a guy who would do that wouldn't have very much understanding of what was going on. He probably didn't understand himself very much. He had a flair for the dramatic and he played it out and had a good time about it.
And now, in some quarter of this universe, you have the Assumption as the prime modus operandi of providing bodies with souls. Don't care how you call this—no reason for you to keep on wincing at the use of "spirit," "soul." Except a lot of people—a lot of people, you have to waste ghosts before they're willing to be a thetan, you see. Waste ghosts and waste spirits. They're so scared of ghosts and spirits, they're scared of themselves.
Anyway, this . . . Well, just—now, just let me give you the best example I can give you of this:
Get an idea of a cross up here. Get a cross up here.
Now nail a body on it. Nail a body on it.
Throw it away.
Let's put a cross up here now and nail a body on it facing the cross. Reversed crucifix.
Now throw it away.
Now let's put a cross up here, nail the body on it backwards.
Throw it away.
Put a cross up here, nail a body on it backwards. Make the body black. All right.
Now turn the cross into a baby.
Throw it away.
Take a cross, nail a black body on it, and turn the cross itself into a man.
Throw it away.
Take a cross, nail a black body on it.
Turn the cross itself into a man with his arms spread out, with a black body nailed on the front of the man's body.
Throw it away.
Now take a cross, nail a black body on it and turn the cross into the body of a man. Now turn it into the body of a baby.
Throw it away.
Do you like that?
Audience: (various responses)
What do you suppose that is, that we're doing there? You know that almost any person who's pretty badly off that you run into, is out in front of his face? Every once in a while it shocks a thetan half to death to find himself out in front of his face. Why should he be so startled at being in front of his face—his body's face? Why? Why? Why?
Audience: Assumption.
Let's put up a cross, nail a body on it and turn the cross into a man's body.
Throw it away.

177

178

20 NOVEMBER 1953
Are anybody's teeth hurting them, by the way? Did I ruin anybody's teeth there? Okay, good. All right.
Why do they use that symbol? This couldn't be—possibly be tied in with the outfit that sends people down here. This body couldn't possibly just be tailor-made on this same basis. That couldn't be a religious implantation, that between-lives implant, could it? No, nothing like that! Hm-mm.
That symbol isn't around all through the society to get your Assumption in restimulation, is it? Oh no, nothing like that! This isn't why dentists have such remunerative practices, is it? This isn't why people's teeth cave in, is it? No, no, no, no! This isn't why your thetan has a rough time perceiving, is it? Why we're having a hard time exteriorizing him? Certainly not. Never!
I wouldn't say that that cross—that cross is used in this universe from one end to the other. The Christ legend is used in this universe from one end to the other. You find it as an implantation in preclears a million years ago. It just keeps happening. But who do they hire, for what pay, to kick this thing off every time? Who hires, for what pay? I wouldn't do that myself. Just the general idea.
Now, you'll find people who are in pretty poor condition—they've gotten messed up with something they're calling "the Hierarchy" or the "They," some group of alleged thetans and so forth. Well, I can tell you without going into space opera or whole track or anything else, but just going into the pure field of spiritualism, that you wouldn't spit on them. They have to be so damn degraded—get the idea, get the covertness of this operation and then mark them on the Tone Scale. Get the covertness of an operation which brings about the Assumption—get the terrific covertness of it—and then hides everything there is to do about it, and then takes no responsibility for it, and then blames it all on space.
Where do you suppose the people who would dream up something like that, where do you suppose they're sitting on the Tone Scale? Well, they're sitting just there. No kidding. They're on an almost 100 percent defense operation. That's real, real interesting. The area in which this is done is 100 percent defense area. Zero attack. It can be gunned out anytime anybody wants to knock out one of its installations—it's just sitting there like a duck. Could just go in and blow it out. No opposition. They're so sold—they've sold this so often they're terribly sold on it. And this is, actually, your between-lives operation.
Now all that, of course, is incredible. It's just as incredible as the fact that you don't become visible when you're three feet back of your head. That's incredible! It speaks of a refusal to show oneself, for reasons one doesn't quite understand, of really remarkable magnitude. That's remarkable! Now that's what's remarkable, not that you're in a body! So what are we shooting for here, huh? Being in a body is now very easy to solve, see? Well, that other one isn't hard to solve now. It isn't hard to solve, but you have to be much slippier to solve that one.
Somebody was trying to make an Operating Thetan the other day and unfortunately, in trying to get this person to speak in a room, you see, without a body—without using the body's voice—had this pc chasing around the neighborhood and so on. And the fellow—he made a noise all right—all the auditor wanted him to do was make a tiny noise that just he himself could hear, if that was all he did. He made tiny noise, using waves and so forth. It was like the squeak of a mouse. He got a mouse squeak. That's about all the noise he could make while he was outside. And he, from what I—the way it was told to me, the second he did this—he did it outside and he did it right

PLAN OF AUDITING
near another person. And the other person went into a state of shock and fright. And the pc popped back into the room; it had to be audited out of him and squared around and straightened up, and then he was run into it some more. And he could make a little noise like a mouse squeak—you know, "Eek!" Yeah, well, that's remarkable—the fellow's lost his voice and we're trying to give him his voice back.
Now, anytime you try to play this thing out on, "Let's see, now, the important part of this problem is how do I get out of a body"—see, that's real dumb. I mean, that's like a fellow sitting down and saying, "Let's see, the important thing about this apple"—which is right in front of him and he's kind of hungry too and he'd just love to eat that apple—and he says, "the important thing about this apple is the box it came in. Now, if I just knew more about the box this apple came in, I could eat this apple." I mean, just as circuitous as that, you see. And you have this fellow sitting there studying for a long, long time trying to figure out what kind of a box it was that the apple came in before he dared take a bite of the apple. Real nutty.
What we're interested in—we're not going to crack all these problems in three minutes, by a long ways, with any one pc. But the point is, what we're interested in is good operation; be here and be there at will; be able to be free; be able to put in enough automaticity and so forth, and really make it work, to produce sufficient randomity to make life worth living; to be able to recover a visibility, if you please; to be able to speak in the open without the use of vocal cords; and to be able to generate energy, which is unquestionable energy, which would register on any meter or short out any light bulb or start or run any light bulb. Or which could put sufficient calories into a body to make it go on pocketa-pocketa-pocketa without eating, particularly. General Foods won't love us for that last one. The electric light company certainly won't love us for generation of energy of that character. You get the idea? We're flying in the teeth here of a lot of things.
Now, I don't say that there's even any vague possibility of your ever being able to do that as an individual. Possibly only one or two of you be— after carefully coached and audited by myself endlessly, might possibly be able to get up to a point where you weren't scared to show yourself, but of course, didn't. (audience laughter)
And there's where we're headed, busy loafing around—it's just where do you put the emphasis on a problem? And that's the most important thing in auditing: Where are you putting the emphasis on this problem? You're putting the emphasis on the problem, right now, as we have perforce had to in the past, on this: a body—being in a body. There's something very wrong with being in a body, because one doesn't easily get out of one, you see? And as long as we hang with that as the most important thing we have, why, we of course have a little trouble with the thing because we've said a part of the problem is important which isn't important. So we're bound to have trouble with it.
Now, what we're trying to talk about now is, after you get out of your body, we can get to work. And it's somewhat on the order of—anybody who is Step I-ing around and in good shape and so forth has sort of this attitude about it, and you'll see that attitude sooner or later: "Well, that's all very well, that's fine." But it's sort of the attitude toward—that possibly Pop has about a school—high-school kid that isn't getting up in time to get to first class, you know? I mean, about the same level of—well, you don't—you can understand it, you know, but "Well, come on, get up Johnny. Drag out, get dressed, beat it,

179

180

20 NOVEMBER 1953
get to class. Let's get going so you can . . ." You know, it's just incredible— there's the kid lying in bed.
To a Step I, it's there's this thetan lying in this body: "It's really weird— what's he doing in a body? He says it's hard to get out of the body." Well, a Step I starts to get kind of upset about this after a while, and he starts to get impatient about it. And any moment he feels like all he ought to do is just mock up a hand and reach over and take ahold of the guy's shoulder, see, and reach into his skull, like you do for a goldfish in a bowl, and go flip! He'll get people out that way. You can always get people out that way—pang!
The guy says, "My God, where am I?" Now he is lost! And you have to take him and straighten him up and keep your eye on him real good, and straighten him up and now say, "Change your mind about seeing, and blow up some machinery. Oh, he's got some automaticity over here," so you blow up some automaticity on the guy. He's getting loster and loster. And you say, "What's the matter with this guy, he's so darn lost?" And he's just having a worse and worse time of it. So finally, you actually do take hold of him and shove him back into his head again and turn him around so he can find what he happily considers he should look through—the optic nerves. He orients himself. He's very dazed. But he knows something has happened, and after that he treats you with such abysmal respect that it's disgusting. Doesn't do him any good.
That's why I was telling you that story about this other pc there this morning. The only reason I'm processing this pc: one, rather interesting pc and two—or one, I had to go a long way south on this case and, two, rather interesting person. That's the reason I'm processing him. No other real reason. But I do something for the pc which is a little bit out of line, to just say I flip an energy beam around there and try to clear up an intolerableness in the pain, and the pc slumps. Works every time. I mean, it's great surprise to me that this happens. The limits—no, really, the limits of being able to do something for somebody are quite finite. You can do an awful lot for somebody as long as you don't exceed the bounds of making it very, very difficult for him to help himself. And the second you exceed those bounds and begin to make it difficult for him to help himself, he's injured rather than helped.
A government, for instance, which steps in to help a populace plant enough crops so that they can thereafter be self-supporting people is a good government; because they will be self-supporting people. But a government which starts in on the basis of corn, games and WPA will inevitably cave in the people because they're helping them in such a way to make it almost impossible for the fellow to help himself.
Let's take WPA. Fellow could get on the job at WPA—you know, during— back during the good old Depression. I learned about a lot of things in the Depression, including stupidity—it was the first time I ever encountered it very heavily, and it was real stupid. And these people who got on WPA, works projects of one kind or another: Do you know that as long as they were on WPA they couldn't lay off of WPA for a week to take a part-time job or any other kind of a job? It was impossible for them to do so. They—in England they were permitted to do so; here they were not. And once they took another job to help somebody out, or got a little pay on the outside in addition to the WPA, they were out as far as WPA was concerned. In other words, the government would only help them as long as they were continuing to be slaves.
The immediate result of that was when they—was trying to get boys for the army in 1940, and which brought down on our heads, finally, the thing which is humorously called Universal Military Training. I don't know why they

PLAN OF AUDITING
call it Universal Military Training—they're not training a single guy from Mars. I know, I know! I looked around through the armed forces and those things I thought were from Mars were second lieutenants! (audience laughter)
Anyway, the problem there is they help a person to a point where his self-determinism caves in. And that is help him to a point of no return, or toward a point of no return. If you boost a fellow too far toward a point of no return, why, he doesn't come back.
What is the point of no return on helping somebody? It's a nice question, isn't it? Freudian self-analysis answered the question with a wrong bracket— they said the way to help somebody is to get him to transfer completely. I'm not quite sure what they ever meant by transference, and I would be ashamed of that if they knew—they don't happen to know what they meant by transference either. I know because I've heard too many arguments on it. Now, these people helped people to the point where they would transfer and identify with the analyst. That was helping them too far.
One boy walking three miles—he doesn't have any cash at the moment, but he's got an appointment with his analyst—he walks three miles just so the analyst won't be put out with him. No, no. The analyst is there to help the boy, the boy isn't there to help the analyst that way—it's different. So that's helping them too far.
Well, how far can you help them? You could help them as far as giving them good sound auditing of the kind I've been giving you. Because that auditing, every single piece of it and every five minutes of it—except occasionally when a guy gets red-headed and hits him in the head with a book or something of the sort—is assisting his determinism. Every second of it is assisting his determinism. You're not helping him at all. You're making it possible for him to help himself, which is entirely new definition. It's real interesting, isn't it?
Now, where do we get—how far south do we go to bail out a case? Well, we bail them out and then we get busy auditing. That's about what it amounts to. Do you know that every single drill that we're doing on low-level cases right now . . .
Do you know we're not interested in psychosomatic illnesses right now? Not even vaguely interested in a psychosomatic illness. People's glasses come off in the normal course of making an Operating Thetan. You just run the "seeing eye dog" on them enough. You have them set up an automaticity so they'll— you just get them to set up seeing eye dogs. "Now set up blind seeing eye dogs. Now set up more blind seeing eye dogs. More blind seeing eye dogs." You just do this and the guy—"Now let's waste sight by letting a body look for you." Crash! Glasses? You do that a few times, glasses come off. But you're not doing it to take his glasses off. It just tells you the state of the case. The case is not up to that break point. The case is not perceiving itself well enough, because it's still having to have something perceive for it.
It's pretty hard to orient a person who is very, very accustomed to being only a body until a very short time ago, to the turn of reasoning that: "Well, when you get out of the body we'll go to work—on you. Not your body. On you—we'll go to work, now, we'll fix you up so you are again." Because the guy is a terrible case of "ain't." Real interesting case of "ain't." Anytime you can't look up with mest eyes and see a thetan, that's a bad case of "ain't" right there. I mean, with mest eyes, not imagining you're seeing him.
Do you imagine, for instance, that you see that ashtray there? Well, that's—that'd be about as solid as the thetan ought to look to you. It's not any faint thing, if you're going on up the line toward this.

181

182

20 NOVEMBER 1953
Well, I don't know how long it takes you to get to that point of willingness and unwillingness to be perceptible and so forth. Auditing each other, I can tell you you can kick it on up there, though. It's a very finite number of hours. We're not even going to pretend to get up to that point here in the next few weeks if you—unless, however, you really get down and work.
But there's where the slippy auditing comes in. "Why ain't you visible, fellow? What's the matter with you—you ashamed? You got warts? You got theta warts, huh?" That's the way it goes.
So, although we get this apple in a case, the less we worry about the case in which the apple comes in—which is, I think, why they call it a "case"—and the more we worry about the guy, the better off we are. And if we just change the emphasis of our auditing to: "Say, fellow, that's very curious—you're not visible today. What's the matter, you ashamed? Did you have a date last night? What's the matter with you?" You get the idea? Well, that's—that as a point of view permits you to solve a lot of cases.
The other one is, "Let's fix up this body's legs." I have occasionally, lately ... I, by the way, knew this very, very early in the business—knew it very, very early—that if you started to work a chronic somatic and only a chronic somatic, the case made practically no progress. You might get rid, temporarily, of the chronic somatic, but the case itself, if you concentrated on a chronic somatic, made no progress.
You'll find tapes clear back to 1950 which are stating this. It's a very observed thing. And it's the same way today. That's because you're validating the barrier called a body, and you're not paying any attention to a thetan who needs a barrier called a body—his own barrier. He must be able to make a barrier to stop light so as to be visible. And as long as you validate the fact that he has a barrier, he's not going to work to make one.
Have you ever been down and seen somebody that had a hundred million watermelons in his front lawn who would buy a watermelon off of you? No matter how good a watermelon you were trying to sell him—you trying to sell him a much better watermelon than any watermelon he had—he isn't going to buy it.
Same way if you find somebody who has a super-ridged, hydraulically impeded, rigged and distorted barrier to stop and reflect light that—boy is it a barrier and boy, it's good, too. It'll stop the front bumper of an automobile for a moment too. Do all sorts of things, this barrier will—a very interesting barrier. And now you're going to sell him a barrier called a body. Why, you're not liable to, as long as you keep on validating the barrier.
But the only trouble is, the barrier he's got is not quite his. He's depending on a lot of other things to make a barrier for him—he thinks. And out of these great duplicities and so forth, he has no responsibility for his body. Until he'll build a body, he'll never own one. Until he himself creates a body, he'll never have one. And, of course, it'll keep going wrong, and things will keep getting wrong with it, because it's not his body. He stole it.
Did you—I mentioned earlier in this—to this class the matter of the condition of a pirate vessel after it's been used by buccaneers for a month or two. Did you ever have an automobile stolen? Did it ever come back to you in good condition? It's a very funny thing, but it always comes back wrecked. Why? The fellow who took the automobile obviously needed transportation. The best way to get to someplace was simply to keep the machine intact and arrive at the destination. That's true, isn't it? But the machine's always wrecked. There's always something all ruined about the car. Made enMEST out

PLAN OF AUDITING
of it. There's what happens to whatever object a person knows, basically and truthfully, he doesn't own—it gets to be enMEST.
What care, really, do people take with these bodies which they really don't own? They don't take any care of them at all. Because they don't patch them up and don't rebuild them fast, these bodies grow old, deteriorate, become unbeautiful and die. That's a hell of a condemnation of a being. You mean he can't maintain and keep going a body? This guy must be nuts! He must be crazy! And you mean that he has to steal a body? Why, if he has to steal one to have one, gee, he's bad off! The poor guy. What a terrible case of "ain't."
Now, you're going to work on a chronic somatic in this body, huh? Well, how can he repair the chronic somatic in this body? He doesn't own the body. That's the one thing he hasn't got—a body. He's borrowed one, kind of. His personal relations—interpersonal relationships with the rest of his family are based upon that fact. He stole a body off them. He kind of tries to start running away at the age of one. He starts falling down when he's running away, and not getting away very well when he's two. He manages it two or three times when he's three. By the time he's five, they've got him broken. He'll leave the body there and sort of pretend he's using it, meanwhile saying it's using him. You're going to work a chronic somatic, huh?
Another thing is you're going to just validate a new barrier—the barrier of pain. Anytime you start validating the barrier of pain, you're setting up something which must resist all effects. What's going to resist all effects in this case? Pain is. Faith healers get in that bracket; doctors get in that bracket— they start resisting pain, resisting somatics, so forth. And eventually they get sick—of course, poor guys. All right.
Where are we trying to cut in on a case? Where are we trying to start a case? We want an invisible being whose attention is not so distracted, and we want to make him visible. That's where we start in on the case: making the thetan visible, not making him sane. We're not even vaguely, vaguely interested in what he's doing with his present body. Because as soon as he learns to mock and unmock with great rapidity, that body will change around and shift around and alter—oh, much more radically, I suppose, than changing your lumberjack jackets and shirts and Hollywood sports clothes and business suits and . . . See? I mean, that's very easy.
There's where we're trying to enter the body. And that's why we want to— the barrier we want to validate is the barrier of his own creation. So we needn't really try to validate other barriers which he doesn't believe himself to be created.
Two ways to do it. One way: to put him in possession of every barrier in sight. You eventually get that, he'll make some barriers of his own. Don't think that unlimited space is a wonderful state of being—it isn't. That's what I told you about space opera, it specializes in hate. Hate's so lovely—it condenses and makes barriers that are so thick. Nobody—you couldn't get anybody to love anybody in space opera. All right.
Have a little better understanding of all this now? The drills which you are running are those drills gauged toward the fact where you can mock and unmock a body, which means you can mock up a body. If you could mock and unmock the body you've got right there, you will eventually be able to, with continuous drill and so forth, be able to creatively mock a body and unmock it. It'll be good and solid. Do you understand that now? And you've started, right at that point, on making a thetan visible. You understand that? You make visible his

183

184

20 NOVEMBER 1953
own barriers and make invisible the other fellow's, as far as he's concerned, see? And you've got it!
So you're starting right now, you see, on this case level of creating visibility, beingness, perception, as a thetan. And just because you're sitting in the midst of some other buddy's body is no reason why you're not working on this project. You're not really working on the project of exteriorization, you see that? You're working on the problem of visibility.
So let's get going with that slight change of viewpoint and maybe you'll make a little bit better progress. Because we've got you resisting a body to the point of, you see, "I've got to get out of this body and then we can get started." To hell with resisting the body—let's just learn to mock and unmock bodies so we can have a body. That's all. Simple. Do you understand me now? Got it?
You're working on the project this minute, just with the drills you're doing. But I've just shown you that—let's not have the goal of, "I've got to get out of this body." To hell with that. Let's start working—it doesn't matter where you are, you just start working on the idea of having bodies of your own. Do they look any different when you finish up with the body you have? Boy, they sure do. But you learn how to change bodies to that degree, you could sure change your appearance.
If anybody'd been tracking with a pc or two that I've been processing now and then for the last five, six months, if anybody had really had any kind of a visio record of these pcs, he'd certainly see somebody remodeling a body. And never at any time have we talked about getting out of bodies. We just talk about making and unmaking bodies, and they don't think about it anymore. They're out of a body most of the time. They almost never get near one. But they have one, which is a good contact point and it's more and more theirs and more and more theirs to alter.
You see, your body, in essence, is not something for you to pick up as randomity, but it is an automaticity point. As soon as you pick it up and start to resist it, the more you resist this body, the less you'll get out of it.
Okay.

Appendix
SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit	187
This Is Scientology, The Science of Certainty	201
Standard Operating Procedure 8	223
Tone Scale [1953]	233

 

Published by the Hubbard Association of Scientologists, Inc.      Issue 24-G       Jan. 1954
SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation Of the Human Spirit
Scientology, the science of knowing how to know, has been developed for various applications in the field of human experience.
Where it is utilized by skilled persons to enhance the personal ability and knowledge of others, the recommended process is Standard Operating Procedure 8-C.
SOP 8-C was developed after almost a year of observing SOP 8 in action in other hands than mine, and after observing the frailties and talents of human auditors. SOP 8-C might be called SOP 8 modified for clinical, laboratory and individual human applications.
The goal of this system of operation is to return to the individual his knowledge, skill and knowingness, and to enhance his perception, his reaction time and serenity.
It is entirely incidental that SOP 8-C is effective on "psychosomatic" illness, on human aberration and social difficulties. It is not the intent or purpose of Scientology to repair. The science is a creative science. If the fact that human illness, disability and aberration uniformly cease to be, because of Scientology, the effect is not intended to be primary and the goal of SOP 8-C is not their remedy. Indeed, if SOP 8-C is used to remedy these only, it fails as a system. SOP 8-C succeeds only when it is addressed toward higher knowingness and beingness—ironically, in using it, human ills vanish only when the auditor concentrates on the goals of the system and neglects the obvious physical disabilities of the preclear.
In that one creates that which one concentrates upon, a treatment of illness which validates it in treatment will always tend to be unsuccessful.
SOP 8-C was the subject of the Camden Indoctrination Course B,* from 16 November to 23 December, as well as the subject of the Phoenix International Congress of 28 December 1953.

187

* The Camden Indoctrination Course was the Second American Advanced Clinical Course.

188

Specifically, the use of these processes obtains, when correctly used, without further evaluation for, or indoctrination of the preclear, the knowledge that he is not a body, that he is a creative energy production unit, and demonstrates to him his purposes and abilities.
This energy-space production unit we call a "thetan," that being a coined word taken from a mathematical symbol, the Greek letter "theta." This is the preclear. One does not send "one's thetan" anywhere. One goes as a thetan. When a preclear is detected being in one place and finding "his thetan" in another ("I'm over there"), he is not exteriorized. To be "exteriorized" the preclear must be certain that he is outside his body. An uncertain "exteriorization" requires more work before it becomes an exteriorization.
SOP 8-C brings about a condition designated as "Theta Clear." This is a relative, not an absolute term. It means that the person, this thought unit, is clear of his body, his engrams, his facsimiles, but can handle and safely control a body.
The state of Operating Thetan is higher than Theta Clear and means that the person does not need a body to communicate or work. It is accomplished with SOP 8-O.
The highest theory of SOP 8-C is that the being is engaged upon a game called physical universe. This is a game requiring barriers, which is to say, walls, planets, time and vast distances (which last two are also barriers). In engaging upon this game he has at last become so conscious of barriers that he is limited in his actions and thoughts. He thinks, in the case of Homo sapiens, that he is a body (a barrier) hemmed in by vast distances (barriers) and pinned in a time stream (a system of moving barriers) so as to reach only the present. These combined barriers have become so formidable that they are not even well perceived, but from being strong have become unreal to him. The matter is further complicated by "invisible barriers" such as the eyes or glasses.
In actuality, the thetan is a knowingness, total in a cleared state, who yet can create space and time and objects to locate in them. He reduces his knowingness only to have action. Knowingness is reduced by assuming that one cannot know or knows wrongly. Knowingness is reduced by assuming one must be in certain places to perceive and so know, and that one cannot be in certain places.
Space is, but does not have to be, the first barrier of knowingness. With Scientology we have the first definition of space: Space is a viewpoint of dimension. Given a viewpoint and four, eight or more points to view, one has space. Space is a problem of observation, not of physics.
There is no question here of whether space, energy or objects are real. Things are as real as one is certain of their reality. Reality is, here on Earth, agreement as to what is. This does not prevent barriers or time from being formidably real. It does

not mean either that space, energy or time are illusions. It is as one knows it is. For one makes, by a process of continuous automatic duplication, all that one perceives. So much for theory—in application this theory obtains results of considerable magnitude in changing beingness.
The thetan is continuously engaged upon cycles of action. The basic cycle of action is "Create, resist effects (survive) and destroy." This can be stated in various ways: "Create an object, have it resist effects (survive) and then destroy it." Or, "Create a situation, continue it and change it, and destroy or end it." When a thetan leaves a cycle which is important to him unfinished, he tends to strive to finish it elsewhere or later in disrelated circumstances. Further, he can become overly concentrated upon creating or persistence (surviving) or upon destroying and so form an unbalanced state of beingness.
Time exists in those things a thetan creates. It is a shift of particles, always making new space, always at an agreed-upon rate. A thetan does not change in time, but as he can view particles (objects, spaces, barriers) from many viewpoints, he can consider himself to be in a "time stream," which he is not. A thetan's ideas (postulates, commands, beliefs) change; particles change; the thetan does not change either in space or in time.
Just as he is making an effort to do something he cannot help but do—Survive— he is also fighting against doing the only thing he does: sit fixed in one "position."
The thetan, to produce interest and action, operates as a paradox. He cannot die, so he firmly insists and proves continually that he can die. He never changes location, but only views new locations and constantly lives in horror of being fixed in time and space. Above that, he knows the past and the future and all of the present, and so fights to obscure the past and guess the future.
Less theoretically, the individual who is processed is at first, usually, "in" the body and perceiving with the body's eyes. When exteriorized (placed "three feet back of his head"), he is actually out of the body and still "in" physical universe space. He can, exteriorized, move about and be in places just as though he had a body, seeing without eyes, hearing without ears and feeling without fingers—ordinarily better than with these "aids." This is not like "astral walking" which is done by the individual who "sends a body" or a viewpoint to some other place and perceives with it. A thetan is as much present where he is as if he were there in body. He isn't "somebody else" than the preclear moving dimly about. He is the preclear, he is there. At first he may be uncertain as to what he is seeing. This faculty becomes better as his ability to look, hear and feel while exteriorized improves. SOP 8-C improves this perception. Because the body only perceives what the thetan is perceiving anyway, looking, feeling, hearing of the body is also better with SOP 8-C but this is only incidental.
When a thetan believes too thoroughly he is a body, he is generally unhappy, afraid, doubts his own (and validates the body's) existence and worries about his

189

190

inabilities. When he is out of the sphere of influence of the body (a very small one) he becomes serene, confident and knowing. He can handle a body better, can act faster, can recall more and do more while exteriorized than he can while in a body.
Society, thirsting for more control of more people substitutes religion for the spirit, the body for the soul, an identity for the individual and science and data for truth. In this direction lies insanity, increasing slavery, less knowingness, greater scarcity and less society.
Scientology has opened the gates to a better world. It is not a psychotherapy. It is a body of knowledge which, when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual.
It could be said that man exists in a partially hypnotized state. He believes in other-determinism in many things, to his detriment. He will be as well as he is self-determined. The processes of Scientology could be described as methods of "unhypnotizing" men to their own freer choice and better life.
THE USE OF SOP 8-C
This process is designed to be administered by one person (the auditor) to another (the preclear).
SOP 8-C is first used step by step from Step I on, until the person to whom it is addressed knows he is back of his head and no longer in the body. If the preclear is very difficult to exteriorize, the person should be referred to an auditor trained at the HAS Clinical Center (for there are special methods of exteriorization for difficult cases which are contained in but are not at once visible in SOP 8-C). The first three steps are exteriorization steps. They should be repeated over and over until certain exteriorization takes place.
The auditor can go through the first steps many times one after the other with the preclear until exteriorization occurs. Doing Steps IV to VII on a person not exteriorized should be minimized. (Earlier SOPs used all seven steps for exteriorization, a practice not followed in SOP 8-C where only the first three steps are used.)
When the preclear has exteriorized one then begins again with Step I and continues to Step VII, in order, with the preclear exteriorized. Here in SOP 8-C the emphasis is upon an exteriorized thetan. When the auditor has taken the exteriorized preclear thoroughly, and correctly, through Steps I to VII at least twice, one has then what may be considered a Theta Clear.
To repeat, one uses SOP 8-C Steps I to III in that order. On one of these, the first time through, the majority of people exteriorize with certainty. As soon as exteriorization takes place, the auditor starts with Step I again, does it thoroughly on the exteriorized preclear, then the auditor applies Step II thoroughly and so on until all seven are done.

The auditor knows when the preclear exteriorizes by asking him or by the preclear volunteering the information.
CAUTION: Do not ask the preclear to look at his body.
If the preclear fails to exteriorize sometime during the first three steps, the auditor should simply do them again. If the preclear fails the second time, the auditor patiently goes through them a third time, and so on. If the matter then seems too difficult, contact an auditor, trained during late 1953 at Camden, by the HAS itself.
The least possible result in going over these first three steps many times will be a considerably bettered condition of the preclear, superior to all past results. Only a very few preclears fail to exteriorize after Steps I to III have been several times repeated.
CAUTION: Although this process is as foolproof as it can be made, it can be maliciously used in this wise: by giving the preclear constant losses; by giving him no chance to win; by bullying him; by evaluating for him; by insisting he is "outside" when he is not; by invalidating him; by pretending to see him or his mock-ups or saying that one does if he does.
SOP 8-C FORMULAS AND STEPS
Opening Procedure: (Ten minutes to two hours—with mest body)
a.	Send preclear to exact places in room, one place at a time.
b.	Have preclear select places in the room and move to them one at a time,
still under auditor's direction.
c.	Have preclear drill in physically holding on to and letting go of objects and
spaces on his own decision to hold on, decision to let go.
Step I: Location
Prelogic: Theta orients objects in space and time. Axiom: In life experience space becomes beingness.
Formula I: Permitting the preclear to discover with certainty where people and things are not in the present, past and future recovers sufficient orientation to establish his knowledge and certainty of where he is and they are; the application of this is accomplished by negative orientation of beingness, havingness and doingness on each of eight dynamics in the present, past and future.

191

192

Step I
a.	Ask preclear to be three feet back of chair. Ask him for things, people
which are not giving him directions (orders). For things, persons he is not
giving orders to. For things, persons which are not giving directions to
other things. Ask preclear for goals he does not have. For goals others do
not have for others. For goals another does not have for him. For goals he
does not have for another. For persons he is not. For animals he is not.
For places where he is not. Where bacteria are not. Where objects are not. For
places where he is not thinking.
Note: All of the above are done in "brackets" for present, past and future.
b.	(If exteriorized) Have him drill while exteriorized into holding on to and
letting go of objects on his specific decision. Ask him to be in places which
are safe, dangerous, pleasant, unpleasant, beautiful, ugly.
Step II: Bodies
Axiom: In life experience energy becomes doingness.
Axiom: Compulsive position precedes compulsive thinking.
Axiom: That which changes the preclear in space can evaluate for him.
Formula II: Permit the preclear to discover that he handles bodies and allow him to handle bodies in mock-ups and actuality; and remedy his thirst for attention which he has received by contagion from bodies.
Step II
a.	Have preclear mock up bodies and unmock them. Have him get some-
thingnesses and nothingnesses of bodies until he feels better about them.
Ask him to be three feet back of chair.
b.	(If exteriorized) Have him complete IIa many times and then move body
while he is outside.
Step III: Space
Prelogic: Theta creates space and time and objects to locate in them. Definition: Space is a viewpoint of dimension.
Axiom: Energy derives from imposition of space between terminals and a reduction and expansion of that space.

Formula III: Permit the preclear to regain his ability to create space and impose it upon terminals, to remove it from between terminals and to regain his security concerning the stability of mest space.
Step III
a.	Have preclear hold two back corners of room and not think.
b.	(If exteriorized) Have preclear complete Spacation.
Note: If not exteriorized return to Step I.
Step IV: Havingness
Axiom: In life experience time becomes havingness. Observation: To a thetan, anything is better than nothing.
Observation: Any preclear is suffering from problems of too little havingness and any reduction of his existing energy, if not replaced, will cause him to drop in tone.
Formula IV:
a.	The remedy of problems of havingness is accomplished by creating an
abundance of all things.
b.	As the preclear has rendered automatic his desires and ability to create
and destroy, and has thus placed havingness beyond his control, the auditor
should place in the control of the preclear his automaticities of havingness
and unhavingness and permit him, on his own self-determinism, to balance
his havingness.
c.	How to make havingness: Have preclear put out eight anchor points of
size, thus creating a space. Have him pull in these eight to the center and
have him retain the resulting mass. Do this using large and various objects
for anchor points. Do this until he is willing to release such old energy
deposits as engrams and ridges but still continue to make havingness.
Step IV
Have preclear remedy problems of havingness by mocking up and pulling together sets of eight anchor points. Do this many times. Do not have him make anchor points explode in this fashion. Have him save masses thus created. Have preclear adjust anchor points in body.

193

194

Step V: Terminals
Axiom: Space exists by reason of anchor points.
Definition: An anchor point is any particle or mass or terminal.
Axiom: Energy is derived from mass by fixing two terminals in proximity in space.
Axiom: Self-determinism is related to the ability to impose space between terminals.
Axiom: Cause is a potential source of flow. Axiom: Effect is a potential receipt of flow.
Axiom: Communication is the duplication of the receipt-point of that which emanated at a cause-point.
Axiom: Wrongness in terms of flow is inflow.
Formula V: The thetan is rehabilitated as to energy and terminals by remedying his postulates about outflow and inflow and drills relating to the outflow and inflow of energy according to the above axioms.
Step V
a.	Ask preclear for times he could do something. Times when he couldn't do
anything. For things he can do. For things he can't do. For things other
people can, can't do. For things other people can do for others. For things
another specific person can't do for him. For things he cannot do for
another or others.
b.	Ask preclear for objects, actions, persons, ideas he is not destroying. For
objects, actions, persons, ideas he is not making survive (persist). For objects,
actions, persons, ideas he is not creating. Present, past and future in brackets.
(Note: Ideas are the most important here, in brackets.)
c.	Ask preclear for objects, persons, energies, times which are not touching
him. Which he is not touching. Which are not reaching for him. For which
he is not reaching. For objects, persons, times from which he is not with
drawing. Which are not withdrawing from him. In brackets.
d.	Ask preclear for sights which will not blind him. For people he will not
blind if they see him. For noises which will not deafen him. For people he
will not deafen. For spoken words that will not hurt him. For spoken words
which will not hurt others. In brackets.

e.	Ask preclear for ideas that will not destroy, cause to survive (persist), create
or upset others. In brackets.
f.	Ask preclear for ideas, sounds, sights that will not fix people or unfix them
from specific places.
g.	Ask preclear for ideas he is not trying to fix in things. For ideas he is not
trying to unfix from things. In brackets.
h. Have him unmock and mock up terminals and move them together and apart until he can make them generate currents.
Step VI: Symbolization
Definition: A symbol is an idea fixed in energy and mobile in space,
Formula VI: The thetan who has been moved about by symbols is strengthened by mocking up and moving about and fixing in space ideas which have formerly moved him.
Step VI
Have preclear create symbols which mean nothing. Ask pc for ideas he is not trying to destroy. For ideas he is not trying to make survive (persist). For ideas he is not trying to create.
Note: The above are done in brackets. Have him mock up ideas and move them
about.
Step VII: Barriers
Axiom: The mest universe is a game consisting of barriers. Definition: A barrier is space, energy, object, obstacles or time.
Formula VII: Problems of barriers or their lack are resolved by contacting and penetrating, creating and destroying, validating and neglecting barriers by changing them or substituting others for them, by fixing and unfixing attention upon their somethingness and nothingness.
Step VII
a.	Have preclear reach and withdraw (physically, then as himself) from
spaces, walls, objects, times.
b.	Have preclear do Six Ways to Nothing.
c.	Have him create and destroy barriers.

195

196

Step VIII: Duplication
Fundamental: The basic action of existence is duplication.
Logic: All operating principles of life may be derived from duplication.
Axiom: Communication is as exact as it approaches duplication.
Axiom: Unwillingness to be cause is monitored by unwillingness to be duplicated.
Axiom: Unwillingness to be an effect is monitored by unwillingness to duplicate.
Axiom: An inability to remain in a geographical position brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.
Axiom: An enforced fixation in a geographical position brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.
Axiom: Inability to duplicate on any dynamic is the primary degeneration of the thetan.
Axiom: Perception depends upon duplication. Axiom: Communication depends upon duplication. Axiom: In the mest universe, the single crime is duplication.
Formula VIII: The primary ability and willingness of the thetan to duplicate must be rehabilitated by handling desires, enforcements and inhibitions relating to it on all dynamics.
Step VIII
a.	Ask preclear for actions, forms and ideas which do, do not, duplicate
specific other people. For actions, forms, ideas by which specific other
people do, do not duplicate specific other people. For actions, forms, ideas
of others which do, do not, duplicate him.
b.	Have preclear duplicate physical objects and people and possess himself
of duplicates.
c.	Have him make "no-duplicates" of objects and people.
d.	Have him duplicate somethings and "nothings."

Group C
"Group C" is a process used on large numbers of people. It is composed of the following steps of SOP 8-C: Step Ia, Step IIa, Step IIIa, Step Va to h, Step VI, Step VII, Step VIII.
GLOSSARY
Pc stands for "preclear," a person being processed. Mock-up: A self-created image the preclear can see.
Bracket is done as follows: For preclear, for another, others for others, others for self, another for preclear, preclear for another. See Step Ia.
Special note: The first three steps of SOP 8-C could be classified as beingness steps. The remaining five steps of SOP 8-C could be classified as havingness steps. SOP, itself, in all eight steps constitutes doingness, thus approximating as described in Scientology 8-8008 the space-be, energy-do, time-have triangle.
Special note: In its entirety, SOP 8-C could be considered as various exercises in Formula H, which involves the most basic action of the thetan, which is reaching and withdrawing.
Special note: It will be noted that the negative orientation techniques are done in such a way as to make the preclear, without his being told to do so, create space. The auditor should pay specific attention when the preclear is discovering where things are not, that the preclear be caused to note specifically each time the exact location and position where the thing does not exist. This calls the preclear's attention to various positions which in themselves, thus located, create space. Thus, throughout SOP 8-C, the rehabilitation of space is also to be found, the definition of space being "space is a viewpoint of dimension."
Special note: In his auditing, if the auditor does not get a communication change on the part of the preclear, whether better or worse, every five or ten minutes, either the auditor is using the wrong step at the time, in which case he should progress on into the steps; or the preclear, even if he says he is, is not complying with the auditor's orders. The auditor, thus, should remain in continuous communication with the preclear so far as possible and should ascertain with great care what the preclear is doing after he indicates that he has complied with the direction and to discover every five or ten minutes if there has been a change in certainties or communication. The commonest source of failure in any step in SOP 8-C is a failure on the part of the preclear to execute the order given as it was intended to be executed, or on the part of the auditor in failing to ascertain whether or not the preclear is executing properly or if there has been a communication change. A careful check of auditors and preclears utilizing SOP 8-C has demonstrated in each case where its

197

198

use was becoming lengthy that the auditor was failing to ascertain from the preclear whether or not there had been communication changes, and it was also uniformly discovered that the preclear who was failing to get results while being audited with SOP 8-C was not doing the steps as directed but was either avoiding by not doing them at all, although he said he was doing them, or was failing to understand the direction and so was executing the step in some other way.
The first goal which an auditor must achieve is willingness in the preclear to receive directions. The condition of the preclear is such, in nearly all cases, that he has chosen, as a main point of resistance in life, direction of himself other than his own. Because the physical universe is designed to resist and overcome that which resists it, a continuous resistance to other direction than one's own results finally in a loss of ability to greater or lesser degree to direct oneself. In that it is the ability to direct himself which the auditor is seeking to return to the preclear, it must be demonstrated to the preclear solely by the process of good auditing that other direction is not necessarily harmful or in the worst interest of the preclear. Thus, to some degree, he ceases to resist incoming direction, and by ceasing to resist it, no longer validates it as a barrier, and so is not concentrating attention on resisting direction but is able to use it freely in his own self-direction. The self-determinism of a preclear is proportional to the amount of self-direction he is capable of executing and deteriorates markedly when a great deal of his attention is devoted to preventing other direction. Directing himself, the preclear becomes capable of execution; preventing direction of himself (resisting the direction of others) brings about a condition where he is mainly devoted to resisting his environment. The latter results in a diminishing of space of the preclear.
The first step in the rehabilitation of the preclear in self-direction is therefore a limiting of the amount of resistance he is concentrating on "other direction" and demonstrating to him that his following of the steps of SOP 8-C under the direction of an auditor is not harmful but, on the contrary, increases his command and control of himself and brings him at last to the point where he can neglect and ignore the continuous stimulus-response operation of the physical universe.
It can be seen clearly then that the auditor who sets himself up to be resisted will fail, for the preclear is mainly concentrating upon resisting the auditor. This is the primary factor in all auditing.
The preclear is brought to a point of cooperation in terms of direction without the use of hypnosis or drugs and without argument or "convincingness" on the part of the auditor, by which is meant overbearing demeanor. At the same time it should be the sole intention and operation of the auditor that his own directions be carried out explicitly by the preclear, and that these be performed with a minimum of communication break and with a maximum of affinity, communication and reality.
Using the formula that that which changes the individual's position in space can evaluate for the individual, the auditor in using SOP 8-C should use, at the beginning

of the first session and in any session where the preclear becomes unreasonably uncooperative in following simple directions, the following procedure. The auditor has the preclear walk to specific points in the room, touch, hold and let go of various specific objects. The auditor should be very exact in his directions. The auditor should do this even on an apparently cooperative case at least twenty minutes before going on to the next step in Opening Procedure.
When the preclear, drilled in this fashion, has at length realized without being told that the auditor's directions are quiet, reliable, exact and to be performed, and not until then, the auditor uses this process:
Preclear is asked to send himself to various parts of the room and do specific things. The auditor is very specific and exact about this, in that he has the preclear decide, on his own determinism and before moving from the spot where he is standing, what part of the room he is going to send himself to. When the preclear has decided this, and only then (but not necessarily telling the auditor), the preclear then takes himself to that part of the room. The auditor must be very exact that the decision to go to a certain part of the room and to reach or withdraw from a certain thing is made before the preclear takes an actual action. And then the auditor should make sure that the preclear has done exactly what he decided he would do before he moved. In such a wise, coached by the auditor, the preclear is led to direct himself to various parts of the room until he is entirely sure that he is directing himself to certain parts of the room and that the orders are coming from nobody but himself. Of course, before each new place is chosen, the auditor tells the preclear to choose a new place and tells him when to go there.
The third stage of this Opening Procedure is then as follows:
The auditor has the preclear be in one spot in the room and then has the preclear decide there to go to another spot in the room. The preclear leaves. The auditor has the preclear change his own mind, and go to yet another spot. This last is done to lessen the preclear's fear of changing his mind, to strengthen his decision and to lessen his reaction to his own mistakes.
The last two steps of Opening Procedure are done at some length. It is profitable by the experience of many auditors to spend as much as an hour on Opening Procedure even in a case which is not in poor condition. When Opening Procedure is omitted or is not carried on far enough, the auditor may discover that it will take him from five to ten hours to "get the case working." This time is saved by the expenditure of much less time in using Opening Procedure. Even when the preclear is complacent, even when the preclear is an obvious "Step I," even when the preclear shows no outward sign of resistance to other direction than his own, the first communication lag lessening which the auditor will perceive on the case will probably occur during the use of Opening Procedure. Further, the certainty of the case is heightened. Further, Opening Procedure is, for any level of case, an excellent process.

199

200

The preclear who is familiar with SOP 8 may conceive that he is doing a step which is "reserved for psychotics." The preclear should be disabused of such a concept, since the step is used today on all cases.
In the case of a preclear who is very resistive, Opening Procedure can be used with considerable profit for many hours. For such activity, however, an auditing room of the usual dimensions is usually too constrictive and the drill may be carried on as well out of doors even if only on a street.
L. RON HUBBARD Founder

Published by the Hubbard Association of Scientologists, Inc.      Issue 16-G      June 1953
This Is Scientology The Science of Certainty
FOREWORD

For nearly a quarter of a century, I have been engaged in the investigation of the fundamentals of life, the material universe and human behavior. Such an adventure leads one down many highways, through many byroads, into many back alleys of uncertainty, through many strata of life, through many personal vicissitudes, into the teeth of vested interests, across the rim of hell and into the very arms of heaven. Many before me have made their way across these tumultuous oceans of data, where every drop of water appears to be any other drop of water and yet where one must find the drop. Almost everything I have studied and observed has been evaluated otherwise somewhere, at some time, in relation to this or that.
What equipment must one have to venture upon these wastes? Where are the rules books, the maps, the signposts? All one perceives when he peers into the darkness of the unknown are the lonely bones of those who, reaching before, have found their hands empty and their lives destroyed. Such a thing is a lonely drama; one must cheer one's own triumphs and weep to himself his despair. The cold brutality of the scientific method fails far back, almost at the starting point. The airy spiralings and dread mysteries of India, where I drank deep, lead only into traps. The euphoria of religion, the ecstasies of worship and debauchery, become as meaningless as sand when one seeks in them the answer to the riddle of all existence. Many have roved upon this unmapped track. Some have survived to say a fraction of what they knew, some have observed one thing and said quite another, some looked knowing and said naught. One engaged upon such a quest does not even know the answer to that most important question of all: Will it be good for man to loose upon him, all in a rush as an avalanche, the knowingness of eternity?
There are those who would tell you that only a fiend would set you free, and that freedom leads at best into the darkest hells, and there are those to inform you that freedom is for you and not for them, but there are also men of kind heart

201

202

who know how precious is the cup and drink of wide, unbounded ways. Who is to say whether man will benefit at all from this knowledge hardly won? You are the only one who can say.
Observation, application, experience and test will tell you if the trek has been made and the answer found. For this is the science of knowing how to know. It is a science which does not include within it cold and musty data, data to be thrust down the throat without examination and acceptance. This is the track of knowing how to know. Travel it and see.
THE FACTORS
(Summation of the considerations and examinations of the human spirit and the material universe completed between a.d. 1923 and 1953.)
1.	Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was
the creation of effect.
2.	In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is TO BE.
3.	The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint.
4.	The second action of beingness is to extend from the viewpoint, points to
view, which are dimension points.
5.	Thus there is space created, for the definition of space is: viewpoint of
dimension. And the purpose of a dimension point is space and a point of
view.
6.	The action of a dimension point is reaching and withdrawing.
7.	And from the viewpoint to the dimension points there are connection
and interchange. Thus new dimension points are made. Thus there is
communication.
8.	And thus there is light.
9.	And thus there is energy.

10.	And thus there is life.
11.	But there are other viewpoints and these viewpoints outthrust points to
view. And there comes about an interchange amongst viewpoints; but the
interchange is never otherwise than in terms of exchanging dimension
points.
10.	
12.	The dimension point can be moved by the viewpoint, for the viewpoint, in
addition to creative ability and consideration, possesses volition and potential
independence of action; and the viewpoint, viewing dimension points, can
change in relation to its own or other dimension points or viewpoints. Thus
comes about all the fundamentals there are to motion.
13.	The dimension points are each and every one, whether large or small,
solid. And they are solid solely because the viewpoints say they are solid.
14.	Many dimension points combine into larger gases, fluids or solids. Thus
there is matter. But the most valued point is admiration, and admiration is
so strong its absence alone permits persistence.
15.	The dimension point can be different from other dimension points and thus
can possess an individual quality. And many dimension points can possess
a similar quality, and others can possess a similar quality unto themselves.
Thus comes about the quality of classes of matter.
16.	The viewpoint can combine dimension points into forms and the forms can
be simple or complex and can be at different distances from the viewpoints
and so there can be combinations of form. And the forms are capable of
motion and the viewpoints are capable of motion and so there can be
motion of forms.
17.	And the opinion of the viewpoint regulates the consideration of the forms,
their stillness or their motion, and these considerations consist of assignment
of beauty or ugliness to the forms and these considerations alone are art.
18.	It is the opinions of the viewpoints that some of these forms should endure.
Thus there is survival.
19.	And the viewpoint can never perish; but the form can perish.
20.	And the many viewpoints, interacting, become dependent upon one
another's forms and do not choose to distinguish completely the ownership
of dimension points and so comes about a dependency upon the dimension
points and upon the other viewpoints.
21.	From this comes a consistency of viewpoint of the interaction of dimen-
sion points and this, regulated, is TIME.
22.	And there are universes.
23.	The universes, then, are three in number: the universe created by one
viewpoint, the universe created by every other viewpoint, the universe
created by the mutual action of viewpoints which is agreed to be upheld—
the physical universe.

203

204

24.	And the viewpoints are never seen. And the viewpoints consider more and
more that the dimension points are valuable. And the viewpoints try to
become the anchor points and forget that they can create more points and
space and forms. Thus comes about scarcity. And the dimension points can
perish and so the viewpoints assume that they, too, can perish.
25.	Thus comes about death.
26.	The manifestations of pleasure and pain, of thought, emotion and effort,
of thinking, of sensation, of affinity, reality, communication, of behavior
and being are thus derived and the riddles of our universe are apparently
contained and answered herein.
27.	There is beingness, but man believes there is only becomingness.
28.	The resolution of any problem posed hereby is the establishment of viewpoints
and dimension points, the betterment of condition and concourse amongst
dimension points, and, thereby, viewpoints, and the remedy of abundance
or scarcity in all things, pleasant or ugly, by the rehabilitation of the ability
of the viewpoint to assume points of view and create and uncreate, neglect,
start, change and stop dimension points of any kind at the determinism of the
viewpoint. Certainty in all three universes must be regained, for certainty, not
data, is knowledge.
29.	In the opinion of the viewpoint, any beingness, any thing, is better than no
thing, any effect is better than no effect, any universe better than no universe,
any particle better than no particle, but the particle of admiration is best of all.
30.	And above these things there might be speculation only. And below these
things there is the playing of the game. But these things which are written
here man can experience and know. And some may care to teach these
things and some may care to use them to assist those in distress and some
may desire to employ them to make individuals and organizations more
able and so give to Earth a culture of which we can be proud.
Humbly tendered as a gift to man by L. Ron Hubbard, 23 April 1953
THIS IS SCIENTOLOGY
Scientology is the science of knowledge. It contains many parts. Its most fundamental division is Scientology itself and para-Scientology. Under Scientology we group those things of which we can be certain and only those things of which we can be certain. Knowledge itself is certainty; knowledge is not data. Knowingness itself is certainty. Sanity is certainty, providing only that that certainty does not fall beyond the conviction of another when he views it. To obtain a certainty one must be able

to observe. But what is the level of certainty we require? And what is the level of observation we require for a certainty or a knowledge to exist? If a man can stand before a tree and by sight, touch or other perception know that he is confronting a tree and be able to perceive its form and be quite sure he is confronting a tree, we have the level of certainty we require. If the man will not look at the tree or, although it is observably a tree to others, if he discovers it to be a blade of grass or a sun, then he is below the level of certainty required and would not be able to grasp Scientology. Some other person, helpfully inclined, would have to direct his perception to the tree until the man perceived without duress that it was indeed a tree he confronted. That is the only level of certainty we require in order to qualify knowledge. For knowledge is observation and is given to those who would look. Things about which there is observational difficulty, such as mirror mazes, items hidden in smoke, objects guessed at in the dark, are outside the boundaries of Scientology.
In order to obtain knowledge and certainty, it is necessary to be able to observe, in fact, three universes in which there could be trees. The first of these is one's own universe; one should be able to create for his own observation in its total form for total perception a tree. The second universe would be the material universe, which is the universe of matter, energy, space and time, which is the common meeting ground of all of us. The third universe is actually a class of universes, which could be called "the other fellow's universe," for he and all the class of "other fellows" have universes of their own. A complete clarity on all three universes would be well above any goal attempted even in Scientology, and it is not necessary that one be as certain as this of three universes before one can be certain of Scientology, for certainty of Scientology requires only the same order of certainty one would have to have to know he was confronting a physical universe tree.
Para-Scientology is that large bin which includes all greater or lesser uncertainties. Here are the questionable things, the things of which the common normal observer cannot be sure with a little study. Here are theories, here are groups of data, even groups commonly accepted as "known." Some of the classified bodies of data which fall in para-Scientology are: Dianetics, incidents on the "whole track," the immortality of man, the existence of God, engrams containing pain and unconsciousness and yet all perception, prenatals, Clears, character and many other things which, even when closely and minutely observed, still are not certain things to those who observe them. Such things have relative truth. They have to some a high degree of reality; they have to others nonexistence. They require a highly specialized system in order to observe them at all. Working with such uncertainties one can produce broad and sweeping results: One can make the ill well again, one can right even the day which went most wrong; but those things which require highly specialized communication systems remain uncertain to many. Because Dianetics is placed in this category does not mean it is disowned; it means simply that it is a specialized thing based on theory which, no matter how workable, requires specialized observation. It does not mean that Dianetics will cease to work, but it means that Dianetics is not easily nor quickly forwarded into a complete certainty. Yet Dianetics is more of an exact science than many which have before borne that name; and Dianetics is an intimate part of

205

206

Scientology, for it is through its special communication processes that the data was won which has become Scientology.
Also under the heading of para-Scientology one would place such things as past lives, mysterious influences, astrology, mysticism, religion, psychology, psychiatry, nuclear physics and any other science based on theory.
A doctor, for instance, may seem entirely certain of the cause of some disease, yet it depends upon the doctor's certainty for the layman to accept that cause of the disease. Here we have a specialized communications system. We may have an arduously trained observer, a highly mechanistic observation resting upon a theory which is not, even at this late date, entirely accepted even in the best circles. That penicillin cures certain things is a certainty to the doctor even when penicillin suddenly and inexplicably fails to cure something. Any inexplicable failure introduces an uncertainty, which thereafter removes the subject from the realm of an easily obtained certainty.
Hypnotism, no matter how certain the hypnotist may be that he is effective on some people, is a wild variable and, even in expert practice, is a definite uncertainty. The use of drugs or shock produces such variable results that they class far down a gradient scale which would begin with a fair degree of certainty and which would end with almost no certainty of any kind.
We have here, then, a parallel between certainty and sanity.
The less certain the individual on any subject, the less sane he could be said to be upon that subject; the less certain he is of what he views in the material universe, what he views in his own or the other fellow's universe, the less sane he could be said to be.
The road to sanity is demonstrably the road to increasing certainty. Starting at any level, it is only necessary to obtain a fair degree of certainty on the mest universe to improve considerably one's beingness. Above that, one obtains some certainty of his own universe and some certainty of the other fellow's universe.
Certainty, then, is clarity of observation. Of course above this, vitally so, is certainty in creation. Here is the artist, here is the master, here is the very great spirit.
As one advances he discovers that what he first perceived as a certainty can be considerably improved. Thus we have certainty as a gradient scale. It is not an absolute, but it is defined as the certainty that one perceives or the certainty that one creates what one perceives or the certainty that there is perception. Sanity and perception, certainty and perception, knowledge and observation, are then all of a kind, and amongst them we have sanity.
What will Scientology do? It has already been observed by many who are not that doubtful thing, the "qualified observer," that people who have traveled a road toward certainty improve in the many ways people consider it desirable to improve.

The road into uncertainty is the road toward psychosomatic illness, doubts, anxieties, fears, worries and vanishing awareness. As awareness is decreased, so does certainty decrease; and the end of this road is a nothingness quite opposite from the nothingness which can create. It is a nothingness which is a total effect.
Simplicity, it would be suspected, would be the keynote of any process, any communications system, which would deliver into a person's hands the command of his own beingness. The simplicity consists of the observation of three universes. The first step is the observation of one's own universe and what has taken place in that universe in the past. The second step would be observation of the material universe and direct consultation with it to discover its forms, depths, emptinesses and solidities. The third step would be the observation of other people's universes or their observation of the mest universe, for there are a multitude of viewpoints of these three universes.
Where observation of one of these three is suppressed, hidden, denied, the individual is unable to mount beyond a certain point into certainty. Here we have a triangle not unlike the affinity, reality, communication triangle of Dianetics. These three universes are interactive to the degree that one raises all three by raising one, but one can raise two only so far before it is restrained by the uncertainty on the third. Thus, any point on this triangle is capable of suppressing the other two points and any point of this triangle is capable of raising the other two points.

207

The Triangle of Certainty of Awareness
This drawing could be called the scale of awareness. It is also the scale of action and the cycle of action. The numbers represent entirely arbitrary levels which

208

yet can be found to mean levels of predictable attitudes. It would be found that humanity at this time hovers, in terms of awareness, at the level of 2.0, slightly above or slightly below; here is scarcely any awareness at all compared to the awareness which is available. It is very puzzling to people at higher levels of awareness why people behave towards them as they do; such higher-level people have not realized that they are not seen, much less understood. People at low levels of awareness do not observe, but substitute for observation preconceptions, evaluation and suppositions and even physical pain by which to attain their certainties. In the field of Zen Buddhism there is a practice of administering a sudden blow by which is obtained a feeling of certainty. Here is a relatively false certainty—the certainty of impact, although all certainty actually is derived below the level of 10.0 from prior impact for its conviction. After a brutal accident or operation under anesthetic, it can be observed that individuals will sometimes react with an enormous conviction which yet does not seem to be based upon any fact. A certainty has been carried home to them in terms of a physical impact. This, then, is not a self-determined certainty and the self-determined certainty carries one into high echelons. The mistaken use of shock by the ancient Greek upon the insane, the use of whips in old Bedlam, all sought to deliver sufficient certainty to the insane to cause them to be less insane.
Certainty delivered by blow and punishment is a non-self-determined certainty. It is productive of stimulus-response behavior. At a given stimulus a dog who has been beaten, for instance, will react invariably, providing he has been sufficiently beaten, but if he has been beaten too much, the stimulus will result only in confused bewilderment. Thus certainty delivered by blows, by applied force, eventually brings about a certainty as absolute as one could desire—total unawareness. Unconsciousness itself is a certainty which is sought by many individuals who have failed repeatedly to reach any high level of awareness certainty. These people then desire an unawareness certainty. So it seems that the thirst for certainty can lead one into oblivion if one seeks it as an effect.
An uncertainty is the product of two certainties. One of these is a conviction, whether arrived at by observation (causative) or by a blow (effected). The other is a negative certainty. One can be sure that something is and one can be sure that something is not. He can be sure there is something, no matter what it is, present, and that there is nothing present. These two certainties commingling create a condition of uncertainty known as "maybe." A "maybe" continues to be held in suspense in an individual's mind simply because he cannot decide whether it is nothing or something. He grasps and holds the certainties each time he has been given evidence or has made the decision that it is a somethingness and each time he has come to suppose that it is a nothingness. Where these two certainties of something and nothing are concerned with and can vitally influence one's continuance in a state of beingness or where one merely supposes they can influence such a state of beingness, a condition of anxiety arises. Thus anxiety, indecision, uncertainty, a state of "maybe," can exist only in the presence of poor observation or the inability to observe. Such a state can be remedied simply by eradicating from the past of the individual first the conviction that the matter is important, next the conviction that it is totally unimportant, next

all the times when he was certain of the somethingness and then all the times he was certain of the nothingness. One merely causes the individual to observe in terms of the three universes.
We face, then, two general types of mind. One is an analytical thing which depends for its conclusions upon perception or even creation of things to perceive and bases its judgment on observation in terms of three universes. This we call the "analytical mind." We could also call it the spirit. We could also call it the "awareness of awareness unit." We could call it the conscious individual himself in the best of his beingness. We could call it the mathematical term thetan. Whatever its name we would have precisely the same thing, a viewpoint capable of creation and observation of things created which concludes and directs action in terms of the existing state of three universes, as they are observed directly.
The other type of mind resembles nothing if not an electronic brain. It receives its data in terms of conviction, delivered by force. It is directed by and reacts to hidden influences rather than observed influences and is, to a large extent, the reverse image and has reverse intentions to the analytical mind. This we call the "reactive mind." It is an actual entity and it operates in terms of experience and theory. It sets up thinking machinery around uncertainties and the course of its thinking is downward. It seeks to direct and dictate out of pain and the effort to avoid pain.
The primary difference between these two "minds" is that one, the analytical mind, is without finite duration, and the other, the reactive mind, is susceptible to death.
These two minds are a certainty since they can be observed by anyone, even in himself. He knows he is aware of things around him, and he knows that he has definite desires which are perfectly reasonable and he knows, if he is a Homo sapiens or animal, that internal commands and compulsions, even those which tell him to eat and tell his heart to beat, are not directly within his control.
All thinking can then be divided for our purposes into thinking based upon direct observation and conclusions from observation, and thinking which has to know before it can be or observe. Analytical thought can be called analytical thought because it directly observes and analyzes what it observes in terms of observations which are immediately present. The reactive mind concludes and acts entirely on experience and with only a fragmentary regard to things present which could be observed. The reactive mind begins and continues with uncertainties; and, where the course of the analytical mind is progressively upward, the course of the reactive mind is progressively downward. The reactive mind conies into being as a servant of the analytical mind, and is set up by the analytical mind to work upon and store data about the basic uncertainty that there might be something and there might be nothing. The reactive mind then continues in growth and from the servant, if the analytical mind does not observe it, tends to become the master.
The goals of the two minds are not separate goals. The reactive mind is a makeshift effort on the part of the viewpoint to perceive things which it believes to

209

210

be unperceivable except by comparison of uncertainties. Both minds are seeking to persist and endure through time, which is to say, survive. The analytical mind can, unless it becomes too uncertain and by that uncertainty has set up too many reactive mechanisms, persist indefinitely. The reactive mind pursues the cycle of life span.
The analytical mind seeks by creation to cause an effect; the reactive mind seeks by duplication, borrowing and experience to cause an effect. Both minds, then, are seeking to cause an effect, and this is their entire motivation for action.
Each of the three universes seeks to persist indefinitely. Each is continuously caused, and each is continually receiving an effect. Each has its own adjudication of what it should receive as an effect and what it should cause.
Time itself consists of a continuous interaction of the universes. Each may have its own space; each has its own particular energy.
The urge of any of these three universes towards survival is subdivisible for each of the three universes into eight dynamics. There are, then, four groups of eight dynamics each: the eight dynamics of one's own universe, the eight dynamics of the physical universe, the eight dynamics of the other's universe, as well as the eight dynamics of the triangle itself.
These dynamics could be subdivided as follows: the first dynamic would be that one most intimate to the universe which could be said to be the dynamic urging the survival of self. The second dynamic would be that one of the persistence of admiration in many forms in one's own and the other's universe. This admiration could take the form of sex, eating or purely the sensation of creation such as sex and children. In the physical universe it would be that light emanation similar to sunlight. The third dynamic could be said to be that dynamic embracing persistence of groups of objects or entities. The fourth dynamic would concern itself with an entire species. The fifth dynamic would concern itself with other living species and would embrace all other living species. The sixth dynamic would embrace, in terms of survival, the space, energy, matter and forms of the universe as themselves. The seventh dynamic would be the urge to survive of the spirits or spiritual aspects of each universe. The eighth dynamic would be the overall creativeness or destructiveness as a continuing impulse.
Each impulse is concerned wholly with systems of communication. Communication requires a viewpoint and a destination in its most elementary form, and as this grows more complex and as it grows more "important," communication grows more rigid and fixed as to its codes and lines. The reason for communication is to effect effects and observe effects.
Each of the three universes has its own triangle of affinity, reality and communication. These three things are interdependent one upon another and one cannot exist independent of the other two. Affinity is the characteristic of the energy as to

its vibration, condensation, rarefaction, and, in the physical universe, its degree of cohesion or dispersion. Reality depends upon coincidence or noncoincidence of flow and is marked mainly by the direction of flow. It is essentially agreement. Communication is the volume of flow or lack of flow. Of these three, communication is by far the most important. Affinity and reality exist to further communication. Under affinity we have, for instance, all the varied emotions which go from apathy at 0.1 through grief, fear, anger, antagonism, boredom, enthusiasm, exhilaration and serenity in that order. It is affinity and this rising scale of the characteristics of emotion which give us the Tone Scale. The Tone Scale can be a certainty to anyone who has seen other beings react emotionally, who has himself felt emotion and who has seen the varied moods of the physical universe itself. The periodic chart of chemistry is itself a sort of Tone Scale.
There is a downward spiral on the Tone Scale and an upward spiral. These spirals are marked by decreasing or increasing awareness. To go up scale one must increase his power to observe with certainty; to go down scale one must decrease his power to observe. There are two certainties here. One is a complete certainty of total awareness which would be at 40.0 on the Tone Scale, and the other is a certainty of total unawareness which would be 0.0 on the Tone Scale or nearly so. Neither end, however, is itself an absolute for the analytical mind, and the analytical mind can go below 0.0 of the reactive mind. However, these two classes of certainty are very wide in their satisfaction of the qualifications of a certainty. Because the two extremes of the scale are both zeroes in terms of space, it is possible to confuse one for the other and so make it appear that total awareness would be total unawareness. Experience and observation can disabuse one of this idea. The scale is not circular.
The characteristics and potentiality of the top of the scale or near the top of the scale are unbounded creation, outflow, certainty, going-awayness, explosion, holding apart, spreading apart, letting go, reaching, goals of a causative nature, widening space, freedom from time, separateness, differentiation, givingness of sensation, vaporiz-ingness, glowingness, lightness, whiteness, desolidifyingness, total awareness, total understanding, total ARC.
The bottom of the scale and the vicinity around it includes death, inflow, certainty, coming-backness, implosion, letting-come-together, pulling together, holding together, withdrawing, effect goals (ambition to be an effect rather than a cause), contracting space, no time or infinite time in a moment, connectingness, identification, identity, receivingness of sensation, condensation, blackness, solidification, no awareness, no understanding, no ARC.
These various characteristics or intentions are observable for any dynamic and any universe.
Between these two extremes is the mean of action where complete freedom to do any of these things of the top or bottom of the scale is exercised. Therefore, somewhere between 3.5 on the Tone Scale and 36.5 there is action.

211

212

The above conditions of top and bottom of the scale, of course, reach away from the extremes and toward each other.
As awareness becomes more fixed, intentions become less flexible in action. Communications systems become more rigid, more complex and less susceptible of alteration. One alters these communications systems, however, by raising or lowering certainty on the three universes.
The principal difference between the analytical mind, in a state of awareness itself, and the reactive mind is that the analytical mind, highly aware, knows that it is not the thing but is the viewpoint of things. Of this it can be very certain as it increases in awareness.
The reactive mind conceives itself to be the thing.
The analytical mind is in a state of becoming without reaching the point of being. The reactive mind conceives itself to be in a state of being and so resists becoming.
Perception is accomplished by the analytical mind in a high state of awareness by its own outflow and inflow or by its receipt of inflows which it can outflow. The reactive mind perceives by inflow only, and makes complete recordings of the inflow.
The analytical mind is capable of developing its own energy. It is the energy of the analytical mind which empowers the reactive mind, but the reactive mind can be empowered as well by the energy of other minds and by the life energy contained in any living thing. Thus the reactive mind can become the servant of all things, it can believe it is anything, it can believe it is owned or has the identity of anyone, regardless of whom it was created to serve. The analytical mind serves itself in a continuing knowledge of serving itself, but it serves as well and knows it serves the other two universes.
The analytical mind extends from it points or observes points extended from it and thus conceives space. Space is only the viewpoint of dimension. The dimension depends upon those points which give it boundary. Within these dimensions called space the analytical mind can create energy and form and thus, by change of form, beget time.
Whether created by or within any one of the three universes, flow of energy is accomplished by setting up a terminal and flowing toward it from a viewpoint a stream of energy or by setting up two terminals and causing a flow between them. Each universe could be said to be a two-terminal universe, but flows can be set up on a basis of more than two terminals. The basic unit of any universe in terms of energy is two. This, however, does not restrict nor qualify the number of viewpoints which any universe can have. A physical universe, however, is observably a two-terminal universe and a two-point universe, and it is also observable that the other two universes set up almost invariably two terminals or more and utilize two viewpoints each.

Very low on the scale in terms of awareness, the analytical mind conceives itself to be the reactive mind and so does not act or perform to put out dimension points so as to get space, and does not generate for its own accountability, energy. It does, however, always generate energy whether it admits it is doing so or not.
The concern of two viewpoints is attention. Each viewpoint is apt to be curious about or desire the attention of another viewpoint. The most valuable part of an attention interchange is admiration. Admiration is a special particle. It is a universal solvent. It is the very substance of a communication line, and it is that thing which is considered desirable in the game of the three universes. Admiration goes into the interplay of the universes in the form of made-up objects or even in the form of bodies. These made-up objects could be called "creative pictures." These, as they become more complex in form, take on the aspect of a life of their own and become animated beings.
Two viewpoints setting up terminals to be viewed by the other viewpoint demand attention one from the other and will invent all manner of "reasons" to command the continuing attention of the other viewpoint. One of the primary methods of operation is to make one's object or action of object so strange that the other viewpoint cannot look away. Another is to make the object or action of object so artistic or colorful or interesting that the other viewpoint cannot look away. Another method is the command by force for attention. Another method is to inhibit the attention so as to invite it solely to one's objects. One can plot this as a cycle of demand for attention with curiosity below 40.0, desire below that, enforcement down to as low as 1.5 on the scale, and inhibition at 1.1 on down. The lowest methods of this scale are quite observable amongst men, and the primary operation, very low on the scale, is inhibition of attention elsewhere. By cutting the communication lines of another viewpoint, an effect is created on the other viewpoint by which that viewpoint fixes with whatever emotion (since any attention is better than no attention) upon the products or objects of that one who cut the communication line. There are many methods of cutting communication lines. A common one could be summarized as "It's too horrible over that way for you to look." Viewpoints are thus given the understanding that they are surrounded by horrible things which they have never perceived and which, indeed, have never existed but which are said to be there so that they will be forced to give attention.
Hidden influences are the commonest methods of enforcing attention. Of course, any analytical mind is itself a hidden influence since it cannot as itself be perceived. Only its energy and objects can be perceived. Thus comes about the worship of the hidden influence, the fear of the hidden influence, the neurosis about hidden
influences.
The goal of seeking attention is to receive the particle admiration. One creates effects simply in order to create effects, but he is given the bonus of admiration when he creates sufficient effect or, what is most important, when he demands, commands and is able to effect admiration by duress.

213

214

It might be said that there was no eating until one was so furious about not being admired that one slew as a punishment. The tiger, walking through the woods with his beautiful stripes, it could be humorously offered, would never have eaten a thing and would not be eating today if some monkey had not chattered insults at him instead of admiring him. The tiger compelled the admiration of the monkey by pinning him down and eating him up. It can be observed that the eating of living flesh or live cells delivers a kind of admiration to the taste, and it can be observed that under torture, duress of all kinds, the tortured one will suddenly, if degradedly, admire his torturer.
Energy pictures which we call "mock-ups" are created things which themselves contain admiration. It could be said that these are prior to bodies.
The acquisition of admiration by pain, by eating or by devouring something that belongs to somebody else was later succeeded by a better communications system which would prevent eating on such a rigorous scale. This thing was sex, which is an interchange of condensed admiration particles which forwards new bodies into being. So far as the body of Homo sapiens is concerned, its desire not to be eaten has been answered evidently by sex, and sex performs the function of continued survival of form. Thus, so long as one has the symbol of sex to offer, one feels relatively secure, and when he does not have that symbol to offer, one feels insecure. But of this evolution of admiration and of evolution itself, we have no high degree of certainty as we first begin to observe, and it is offered here as an explanation of why it is a thing we do not particularly need and a thing of which we will or will not gain a future certainty as we go up the scale of awareness. Many things are nonexistent low on the scale. Many things are uncertain on the scale at low levels, which become high-level certainties up on the scale; but this certainty only depends on the positiveness of observation or the positiveness of observation which says the thing does not exist. It is not the purpose of Scientology to present an uncertainty and then demand that it be accepted, for here is the gradient scale of a process by which one can become more certain. If there be immortality or even the lack of necessity on the part of the analytical mind to be a specific object, then one will find it out in due course as he is processed. If they do not exist, again one will find it out. This would be a matter of progressive observation. Where a thing exists in the form of an uncertainty. it has a tendency to plague the reactive mind, for the reactive mind itself deals only with uncertainties and its convictions are based entirely on blows and pain.
A very basic uncertainty comes about on the subject of applause. High on the scale one performs for an effect and knows that it is an effect, whether or not there is any attention or admiration, which is to say applause. A little lower on the scale, one desires a nod or the actual substance of admiration. If it does not come, he is not concerned. But even lower on the scale the individual actively invites and requests applause. Lower than that, he becomes angry in the absence of applause, Lower than that, he exhibits fear, grief and apathy in the lack of applause. Apathy is the realization that there will never be any applause for any effect.

That which is not admired tends to persist, for the reactive mind does not destroy. One can become fixed upon producing a certain effect simply by insisting that it be admired. The longer it is not admired, the longer one is likely to persist in demanding that it be admired, which is to say exhibiting it, until at length it breaks down scale to a lower level and he realizes it will not be admired, at which time he becomes the effect of it. Here one has become the effect of one's own cause. Here is the psychosomatic illness which began as a pretended infirmity in order to create an effect. Perhaps it was once applauded but not sufficiently, and after a while was not applauded at all, and one was forced to applaud it himself and believe it himself and so it came into existence and was for him a certainty. This, too, is the course of responsibility which degenerates into irresponsibility. At the top of the scale one knows that he is causing the effect. Lower on the scale he says he is not causing the effect (even though he is causing the effect, only he knows he causes it). Even lower on the scale he does not take the middle step; he causes an effect and instantly believes that something else caused the effect rather than himself and that he is the effect of the effect.
One can see cause and effect working in terms of viewpoints. If one has not been applauded for many things, one will begin to take the position of the audience. One does the trick, creates the thing and then goes out front, sits down over the whole theater and applauds it, for one can be a knowing viewpoint from many places. This is often the case with a writer who is seldom confronted by his readers. Indeed, most editors are so low toned that they cut off all the admiring letters of a writer and leave him to wonder. As other things influence the writer, he goes down scale to a point where he believes the things he writes are not admired, and so he has to go out and sit in the audience. This is the first step to becoming the effect of his own cause. After a while he thinks he is the audience. When he does this, he is no longer the writer. Thus with the painter, thus with anyone.
The little child is quite bent on causing effects and getting things admired. He is continually being evaluated in terms of what is to be admired.
Evaluation is the reactive mind's conception of viewpoint. The reactive mind does not perceive, it evaluates. To the analytical mind it may sometimes appear that the reactive mind has a viewpoint. The reactive mind does not have a viewpoint, it has an evaluation of viewpoint. Thus the viewpoint of the analytical mind is an actual point from which one perceives. Perception is done by sight, sound, smell, tactile, etc. The reactive mind's "viewpoint" is an opinion based on another opinion and upon a very small amount of observation, and that observation would be formed out of uncertainties. Thus the confusion of the word viewpoint itself. It can be a point from which one can be aware, which is its analytical definition, and it can be somebody's ideas on a certain subject, which is the reactive definition.
Because the analytical mind and reactive mind in men can become confused one with the other, one is most prone to assume the actual perception point of that person who has most evaluated for him. Father and Mother, for instance, have evaluated

215

216

about art, habits, goodness, behavior, badness, how one should dress, what manners are, to such a degree that the child has no choice, it seems to him, but to assume their "points to look from," and so we will find the child observing things as his father or mother would observe them and even wearing his father's glasses or his mother's glasses as he grows older. He has confused evaluation with actual perception. Where he has been told that he is bad looking, ugly, ridiculous, unmannerly, crude and so forth by somebody else continually, his reactive mind (which, like a prostitute, cares nothing for its master and serves anyone) eventually causes him to lose his viewpoint of himself and he sees himself not by observation but by evaluation as something undesirable. Of course, he would rather be something than nothing. He has, indeed, a horror of being nothing. So it is better to be something ugly about which he is guessing than to be nothing at all, and so he persists and continues as he is. Furthermore, because he has been talked to so much about talking, about looking, about perceiving in general, he has gotten the idea that his communications system is unalterable. His whole business of living actually is a communications system with the motivation of causing effects. Thus the lower he is on the Tone Scale the more he persists without change except downward.
The characteristic actions of the energy produced by the analytical mind are summarized above in terms of the top and bottom of the scale. However, the most important of these seem to be reaching and withdrawing. In the mest universe, we have start, stop and change as the characteristics of motion. The analytical mind, however, with its dimension points, is more concerned with reaching and withdrawing. This is the way it perceives. It can control by creating or using energy such as that in the physical universe, and it uses this energy to start, stop and change other energy. But in itself, its handling-of-dimension-points direction consists of reaching and withdrawing. Compulsive reaching, compulsive withdrawing, bring about many odd and interesting manifestations.
The sensation of pain is actually a sensation of loss. It is a loss of beingness, a loss of position and awareness. Therefore, when one loses anything, he has a tendency to perceive less, for there is less to perceive. Something has withdrawn from him without his consent. This would be the definition of loss. This brings about eventually a condition of darkness. This could also be called an ARC break. If he has lost something, the guilty party is probably in the other two universes. It is either the physical universe or another's universe which has caused the loss. Thus he has less communication since he is unwilling to communicate, which is to say, put out things in the direction of something which is going to take them and carry them away without his further consent. This brings about a reduction of the desire to be aware which is the reduction of affinity, reduction of agreement (reality) and the reduction of communication in general. In a moment of severe disappointment in one's fellow man, the universe around him actually grows dark. Simply as an experiment, one can say to himself that he has the only viewpoint there is, that all other viewpoints are simply mocked up by him; he will get an almost immediate diminution of lightness around him. This is the same mechanism as the mechanism of loss. The result of too much loss is darkness.

Another mechanism of the darkness and unawareness settling over a person is brought about by the loss of a viewpoint which has greatly evaluated for one. One has had a mother or a father who overevaluated about everything, and then this parent or guardian or ally in life, such as a teacher, died or inexplicably disappeared. One was depending for actual looking, seeing, hearing, upon the continued existence of this individual. Suddenly that individual goes and all becomes dark. After that one is not able to perceive one's own universe, for one was most of the time actually perceiving the lost person's universe, and now that universe is no longer there, which gives one the idea that he has no universe to perceive. This even dims his perception of the physical universe, of course, because of the interdependence of the triangle of the three universes.
When one has had an insufficient amount of admiration from sexual partners, the physical body, which depends mainly upon sex for its sensation and continuance to almost as great a degree as upon eating, will actually begin to change viewpoint to the other sex. Thus we find some older men becoming as women, some older women becoming as men. Thus we get the failure of the androgen and estrogen balances and the resultant decay of the body. Here in the matter of sex one finds reaching and withdrawing rising to considerable magnitude. The reactive mind operating the body conceives itself to be withdrawing and does not know from what it is withdrawing, for it perceives itself to be under the compulsion of reaching and does not know for what it is reaching. In terms of processing, it is withdrawing from or reaching toward sexual partners. When it withdraws a great deal, or when it has been withdrawn from a great deal, the reactive mind conceives the body to be covered with blackness. This resolves in terms of sex and eating. It should be fully understood, however, that this is the resolution of the problem of the body and this resolution is employed only when the analytical mind cannot be brought itself into an immediate height of awareness, using SOP 8. When one addresses the body itself, and only the body, one addresses the subject of sex and the subject of eating in terms of reaching and withdrawing. The particular processes used on this are called Matched Terminaling or Double Terminaling. This is done in the following fashion. Even when the individual cannot create forms of his own, he can at least create two ideas in front of him. He can put a form with an idea or an idea itself facing another idea out in front of him, both of them exactly alike, "withdrawing from sex" "reaching toward sex." He will very often find other terminals he did not create suddenly appearing. When he has run withdrawing, those things he puts up will be black and the object from which it is withdrawing will be white. He should get the idea that the whitish object is reaching and the blackish object is withdrawing. He should then run this identical terminal as though it is being put up by somebody else not himself, again with withdrawing for blackness, reaching for grayness. And then he should run it as though somebody is putting it up for somebody else other than himself. These three causations of putting up this identical idea facing itself are himself, another for him and others for others. This is called Matched Terminaling. Double Terminaling simply puts up two pairs of matched terminals. The pairs may each be of two different things but each pair contains one thing the same as the other pair; in other words, husband and wife

217

218

is one pair and husband and wife is the other pair. These, parallel, give one the two-terminal effect necessary for a discharge. One will find that these terminals discharge one against the other. However, this is a physical body technique and it is limited in use. If one becomes very ill in doing it, he should turn to what is called later on an unlimited technique; or he should do the next-to-the-last list in the book Self Analysis in Scientology and do it over and over, or he should simply go straight through Short 8. It has many remedies. This Matched Terminaling for oneself, others for oneself and others for others on the subject of reaching and withdrawing on sex, can of course be considerably expanded as a technique. It can have in it compulsion to reach, compulsion to withdraw, compulsion to reach while somebody else is withdrawing, compulsion not to reach, and it can be addressed in terms of all those complexes and things which Sigmund Freud observed empirically while investigating in his practice.*
Sigmund Freud observed, even as you may have observed, that a person's concern and trouble with his body commonly began at the age of puberty, and that a curve of his ups and downs did sudden changes at those points where he was defeated sexually, where his sexual impotence ceased and where it increased. Dr. Freud unfortunately developed no fast or deeply workable techniques to resolve problems posed by these observations, mainly because the selection of sex as the prime motivator was not the selection of the basic mechanics of beingness. However, the brilliance of Freud's theories and his extrapolations from a limited amount of data, and his courage in standing before a whole world and declaring that an unpopular subject was the root of all evil, has no parallel in history. The complexes he mentioned, each and every one, are discoverable in the mind by direct observation or electropsychometry and are resolvable in the body by the technique of "Matched Terminals in Brackets" which is the proper name for the above.
Where the level of the case is Step IV or Step V or below in SOP 8, it is necessary to free the analytical mind of the grip of the body. The analytical mind cannot withdraw. The body is most swiftly reduced to compliance by running the second dynamic. This is very far from the end-all of processing, but it is the fastest method I have developed for remedying occlusion or accomplishing exteriorization in low-step cases. In sex and eating, the body desires to be an effect most strongly and in these things one does find the strongest desire on the part of the body in terms of immediate accessibility. The analytical mind, on the other hand, can create its own sensation, but it has become dependent upon the body. Even so, it is that part of the beingness which desires to give sensation rather than receive it. Thus one has the conflict of desire to give sensation crossed with the desire to receive sensation on the part of the reactive mind. The body's desire to receive sensation is so strong that an extremely powerful and persistent uncertainty ("maybe") develops, and the primary conflict of the analytical mind and the body's reactive mind comes about. I cannot help but give forth my own admiration to a man who, working without prior art,
*[Editor's Note: L. Ron Hubbard studied Freudian psychoanalysis under the tutelage of Commander Thompson (MC) USN, who was one of Freud's star pupils. Commander Thompson studied under Freud himself in Vienna to introduce to the United States Navy the theory and practice of psychoanalysis, and was sent to Vienna for that purpose.]

without electropsychometry, without nuclear physics, without any broad observation of primitive tribes or ethnology in general, separated from his conclusion by every convention of his age, yet hit upon and set forth with the weight of logic alone, the center of disturbance in the human body. He did not live to see his theory completely validated. He was deserted by his students, who began to write fantastic theories, completely unworkable and far from the point, which yet were better accepted. In discouragement, at the end of his career, he wrote a paper called Psychoanalysis, Terminable and Interminable. Freud, with no method of direct observation, spoke of prenatals, birth trauma, and verbally, if not in writing, of past existences and of the continuing immortality of the individual. No praise can be great enough to give such a man, and the credit I give him for my own inspiration and work is entirely without reservation or bounds. My only regret is that I do not know where he is today to show him his 1894 libido theory completely vindicated and a Freudian psychoanalysis delivered beyond his expectations in five hours of auditing.
The analytical mind can be processed directly, and it improves simply by changing its mind about things. But so long as it believes itself to be closely dependent upon the reactive mind and the body, it cannot change its opinions. These opinions, however, are not simple shifts of mind. They are changes of experience. The analytical mind must discover that it can perceive, that it can perceive accurately in three universes, that it does not need to be dependent upon the body and that it can handle any reactive mind. This is done by increasing its powers of perception, increasing the number of viewpoints it can assume, and increasing its ability to locate spaces, actions and objects in time and space, and by increasing its ability above that to create space, energy and objects. This is done by drills and by the procedures of the first three steps of SOP 8.
It should not for one moment be thought that one is trying to perform by the gradient scale of increasing certainties in Scientology all the tricks and exhibitions of which the ancients speak. We are not even vaguely interested in moving physical universe objects, throwing lightning about or in creating solids which can be seen by others. We are only interested in the rehabilitation of the analytical mind to a point where it can handle any reactive mind, whatever its proximity to that reactive mind. We are not interested, in other words, in the objective reality from another viewpoint of the capabilities of the analytical mind in performing various types of tricks. Whether it can do these things or not do these things falls into the realm of para-Scientology, for it is completely beyond the ability to be certain where the analytical mind is not processed well up and where the observer is very low on the Tone Scale. We are not trying to achieve the certainty of mysticism, necromancy or, to be blunt, the Indian rope trick. We are trying to make sane, well beings.
The analytical mind, when it is in close proximity to the body, is unwittingly continually restimulating a reactive mind which, some say, evolved through very difficult and savage stages. Just as Freud said, the suppression in the mind is the suppression of things so bestial, so savage that the preclear undergoing professional processing is extremely shocked. Almost anything, and almost any impulse, including

219

220

a thirst for pain and a desire to create any kind of effect, no matter how bad, will manifest itself while processing the reactive mind. Cannibalism, purely for sensation, so as to get the last remnants of admiration of the tortured and dying being, becomes a subjective certainty to the preclear who undergoes processing and has to have his reactive mind addressed before he can be himself, which is, of course, his analytical mind. The more suppression this reactive mind gets, the more it restimulates its beastliness. The analytical mind is basically good. It has suffered from this proximity to the reactive mind. It is no wonder that Plato wrote as he did in an essay about the conduct and behavior of man. It is no wonder that states are completely convinced that man is a beast and must be held in check at pistol point. The wonder is that, in a civilized world, so few crimes are committed. Our desire is to reach the basic goodness of the individual and bring him into a level of activity where he does not have to do terrible and gruesome things in order to produce an effect. There are various levels as one goes up scale where these manifestations seem to be the all and everything of existence. One becomes completely downhearted at the thought that one goes up scale simply to get to a point where he can kill and maim and hurt with impunity. One's feelings of honor, ethics, all his finer beingness, is revolted at the idea that this is, in actuality, life. He should say instead that this is life in a stupid conflict of uncertainties. The goal is not to get above such things and ignore them. The goal is to achieve the basic decency which is inherent in all of us.
Although I have given you here "Matched Terminal Brackets" on the subject of reach and withdraw, with particular attention to sex, you must understand that this is a professional auditor's technique. The first three steps of SOP 8, when they can be done, can be done by alert, interested people. From Step IV down, a professional auditor is not simply desirable, he is completely necessary. This technique which I have given you here turns on, when one runs its compulsive aspects, particularly when one must reach and can't reach, the emotion which we see in sanitariums which is called insanity. And although the turn-on is brief and temporary and would wear away in about three days, an inexperienced auditor could become quite frightened. Simply by carrying on with the technique or by getting back to unlimited techniques or by taking Self Analysis with its next-to-last list, these things could be remedied; but these techniques walk on the rim of hell where they are addressed to cases below the level of IV. If the test subject or the preclear cannot make space, which is to say Step III of SOP 8, let a professional auditor have him. The professional auditor, by using "Matched Terminal Brackets" of reach and withdraw with attention to sex, will be able to exteriorize this analytical mind and turn on its perceptions. This is skilled work, however, and is a little too shockingly intimate to the seamier side of life for tender hands and tender minds.
Even the operation of wasting which is contained in Expanded GITA is capable of turning on a vast amount of illness and somatic on the part of the preclear. Expanded GITA is a limited technique, which is to say it can be audited perhaps only for ten minutes, and at the most for 50 or 60 hours, without finding the preclear on the downgrade. One has to turn to an unlimited technique such as contained in Short 8 if the preclear becomes too ill trying to waste things.

Just because an unlimited technique is labeled unlimited, is no reason why it is a faint technique. These unlimited techniques are extremely powerful. They're very simple, but again, when one of them becomes too strong for the preclear, it is necessary to turn to something simpler and easier.
Simply getting the idea in two places, the idea, so to speak, facing the idea "There is nothing," will turn on a sick sensation in many preclears. This fear of being nothing is very great. He will be anything rather than nothing.
A safe technique is that technique which always—I repeat, always—deals in things of which the preclear is certain. When one deals with uncertainties, one is dealing with circuits. One can use Double Terminaling, which is to say, two pairs of matched terminals, of the preclear being certain of things. One never runs things or puts the preclear up against things of which one is uncertain or of which the preclear is uncertain, if one wishes the preclear to come on up the Tone Scale. As an example of this, on any object, thing or idea, on any psychosomatic ill or any numb portion of the body, one has only to run "There is something there, there is nothing there." Have it saying, "There is something here, there is nothing here." One can do a complete bracket on this, having the numb or painful or injured area saying, "There is something here, there is nothing here," having it then say, "There is something there, there is nothing there," having the preclear say about the area, "There is something there, there is nothing there," and then the preclear about himself, "There is something here, there is nothing here." This makes a complete bracket. This turns on and off interesting somatics. A professional auditor could get the somatic or numb area to get the feeling it is reaching while the preclear is withdrawing, the preclear reaching while it is withdrawing, and bring about a change in any somatic.
As one is dealing with communications systems, one must realize that communication depends upon certainty of despatch and receipt, and certainty of what it is that is being despatched and received. Thus one does not deal in uncertainties. There is something, there is nothing, are of course observable certainties because one is top-scale, the other is bottom-scale. One does not say what the something is and, of course, nothingness needs no qualifications.
In the case of the person who has been and is trying to become again, one should run out by concepts the former successes, the triumphs of that person and the times when he was absolutely certain he had failed. One does this with double terminals or "Matched Terminal Brackets." This is a professional technique.
It was mentioned to me by Meredith Starr, one of the great mystics from Cyprus, that Jung had once had a great experience and had sought ever since to recover it. He gave this as another man's opinion of Jung. This gives you some clue as to what happens to someone who has a great triumph. He ever afterwards is not seeking to duplicate the triumph, he is seeking the triumph itself. This puts him back on the time track. This is particularly applicable to old people. One hangs, then, on to certainties. The certainties are important. The uncertainties are important only in their production of psychosis.

221

222

It is possible to take a sick animal and rehabilitate his idea that he is dangerous by dodging every time he strikes out, no matter how faintly, at one. It is possible to rehabilitate an individual who is very low on the Tone Scale merely by coaxing him to reach out and touch the material universe and, touching it, to be certain that it is there, and having touched it, to withdraw the touch and to be certain that he could withdraw.
Certainty is a wonderful thing. The road toward realizing what certainty is has led these investigations through many uncertainties. One had to find out what was, before one could find out what could be. That work is done. It is possible to take large groups and, using Short 8, to bring them, each and every one, into higher levels of certainty. And bringing them into higher levels of certainty brings them into higher levels of communication, communication not only with their own bodies but with others and with the material universe. And as one raises that level of awareness, one raises also the ability to be, to do, to live.
Today this world suffers from an increasing incidence of neurosis brought about by a dependency upon mechanical things which do not think, which do not feel, but which can give pain to those that live. It suffers with an overdose of agreement that there is only one universe. So long as it believes that there is only one universe, that there is only one universe to study, to be studied, only one universe to agree with, it will continue to seek the lowest end of the scale, which is to say, that point where all universes become one universe. Where the triangle vanishes to a single point it vanishes completely, and where one studies but one corner of the triangle and ignores the other two corners of the triangle, and agrees only with one corner of the triangle such as the physical universe, one will tend toward that point where that corner of the triangle is coincident with the other two corners, and this is death.
The curse of this world is not actually its atom bomb, though that is bad enough. The curse of this world is the irresponsibility of those who, seeking to study but one universe, the physical universe, try to depress all beings down to the low order of mechanically motivated, undreaming, unaesthetic things. Science as a word has been disgraced, for the word science means truth and truth means light. A continual fixation and dependence upon only one universe while ignoring the other two universes leads to darkness, to despair, to nothingness. There is nothing wrong with the physical universe; one should not cease to observe the physical universe, but one certainly should not concentrate upon it so that he can agree with it and its laws only. He has laws of his own. It is better, far better, for the individual to concentrate upon his own universe than to concentrate upon the mest universe, but this in itself is not the final answer. A balance is achieved in the three universes and certainty upon those universes.
All control is effected by introducing uncertainties and hidden influences. "Look how bad it is over there, so you'll have to look back at me." Thus slavery is effected solely by getting people to fix on one thing. That one thing in this case is the physical universe. Science, so called, today produces machines to blow your

nose, produces machines to think for you, produces every possible argument as to why you should consider your body frail and unexpendable. Science, under the domination of capital, creates scarcity. It creates a scarcity of universes in fixing one upon one universe only. Those things which are scarce are those things which the individual has lost his faith in creating, in having. An individual who cannot create has to hold on to what he has. This leads him into holding on to what he has had. Where he has had a certainty in the past that something existed, he begins to grip it closer and closer to him; his space lessens, his beingness lessens, he becomes less active. The reactive mind that cannot create children has lost its hope of creation. It then can influence the analytical mind into believing that it can no longer create. The analytical mind creating artistically in the mest universe and not in its own universe at all, and not in other people's universes that it can recognize, goes down scale until it meets on its own level the reactive mind. And here at this level we find the enslaver, the person who makes things scarce, the fellow who uses his ethics, so called, to enforce his crude judgments and to make things out of beings that could be men.
Here, where the reactive mind and the analytical mind have come into a parity, we have the only effect that can be produced—the effect of pain. Where we have an active desire for pain masking in a thousand guises, where every good impulse high on the scale is turned into a mockery, here we have crime, here we have war. These things are not awareness. These things merely act on a stimulus-response mechanism. Upscale is the high, bright breadth of being, breadth of understanding, breadth of awareness. To get there all one must do is to become aware of the existence of the three universes by direct observation.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 8
STEP I: Ask preclear to be three feet behind his head. If stable there, have him be in various pleasant places until any feeling of scarcity of viewpoints is resolved. Then have him be in several undesirable places, then several pleasant places; then have him be in a slightly dangerous place, then in more and more dangerous places until he can sit in the center of the sun. Be sure to observe a gradient scale of ugliness and dangerousness of places. Do not let the preclear fail. Then do remaining steps with preclear exteriorized.
STEP II: Have preclear mock up own body. If he does this easily and clearly, have him mock up own body until he slips out of it. When he is exteriorized and knows it thoroughly (the condition of all exteriorization) do Step I. If his mock-up was not clear, go to Step III immediately.
STEP III: SPACATION. Have preclear close his eyes and find upper corners of the room. Have him sit there, not thinking, refusing to think of anything, interested only in the corners until he is completely exteriorized without strain. Then do a spacation (constructing own space with eight anchor points and holding it stable without effort) and go to Step I. If preclear was unable to locate corners of the room easily with his eyes closed, go to Step IV.

223

224

STEP IV: EXPANDED GITA. This is an extension of Give and Take Processing. Test preclear to see if he can get a mock-up he can see, no matter how vague. Then have him waste, accept under duress, desire and finally be able to take or leave alone each of the items listed below. He does this with mock-ups or ideas. He must do the sequence of waste, etc., in the order given here for each item. He wastes it by having it at remote distances in places where it will do no good, being used or done or observed by something which cannot appreciate it. When he is able to waste it in vast quantities, the auditor then has him accept it in mock-up form until he no longer is antagonistic to having to accept it even when it is unpleasant and great force is applied to make him take it. Again, with mock-ups, he must be able to bring himself to desire it even in its worst form; then, by mock-ups of it in its most desirable form, he must come to be able to leave it entirely alone or take it in its worst form without caring. Expanded GITA remedies contrasurvival abundance and scarcity. It will be found that before one can accept a very scarce (to him) thing, he has to give it away. A person with a milk allergy must be able to give away, in mock-up, enormous quantities of milk, wasting it, before he can accept any himself. The items in this list are compounded of several years of isolating what factors were more important to minds than others. The list lacks very few of the very important items, if any. Additions to or subtractions from this list should not be attempted. Viewpoint, work and pain should be heavily and often stressed and given priority.
Waste, Have Forced Upon, Desire, Be Able to Give or Take, in that order, each of the following: (Order of items here is random.) Viewpoint, Work, Pain, Beauty, Motion, Engrams, Ugliness, Logic, Pictures, Confinement, Money, Parents, Blackness, Police, Light, Explosions, Bodies, Degradation, Male Bodies, Female Bodies, Babies, Children Male, Children Female, Strange and Peculiar Bodies, Dead Bodies, Affinity (Love), Agreement, Beautiful Bodies, People, Attention, Admiration, Force, Energy, Lightning, Unconsciousness, Problems, Antagonism, Reverence, Fear, Objects, Time, Eating Human Bodies, Sound, Grief, Beautiful Sadness, Hidden Influences, Hidden Communications, Faces, Dimension Points, Anger, Apathy, Ideas, Enthusiasm, Disagreement, Hate, Sex, Reward, Eating Parents, Eaten by Mother, Eaten by Father, Eating Men, Eaten by Men, Eating Women, Eaten by Women, Start, Broken Communications, Written Communications, Stillness, Exhaustion, Women Stopping Motion, Men Stopping Motion, Changing Motion Women, Changing Motion Men, Changing Motion Babies, Changing Motion Children, Starting Motion Men, Starting Motion Women, Starting Motion Children, Starting Motion Objects, Starting Motion Self, Omens, Wickedness, Forgiveness, Play, Games, Sound, Machinery, Touch, Traffic, Stolen Goods, Stolen Pictures, Homes, Blasphemy, Caves, Medicine, Glass, Mirrors, Pride, Musical Instruments, Dirty Words, Space, Wild Animals, Pets, Birds, Air, Water, Food, Milk, Garbage, Gases, Excreta, Rooms, Beds, Punishment, Boredom, Confusion, Soldiers, Executioners, Doctors, Judges, Psychiatrists, Alcoholic Liquor, Drugs, Masturbation, Rewards, Heat, Cold, Forbidden Things, God, The Devil, Spirits, Bacteria, Glory, Dependence, Responsibility, Wrongness, Rightness, Insanity, Sanity, Faith, Christ, Death, Rank, Poverty, Maps, Irresponsibility, Greetings, Farewells, Credit, Loneliness, Jewels,

Teeth, Genitalia, Complications, Help, Pretense, Truth, Lies, Assurance, Contempt, Predictability, Unpredictability, Vacuums, White Clouds, Black Clouds, Unattainables, Hidden Things, Worry, Revenge, Textbooks, Kisses, The Past, The Future, The Present, Arms, Stomachs, Bowels, Mouths, Cigarettes, Smoke, Urine, Vomit, Convulsions, Saliva, Flowers, Semen, Blackboards, Fireworks, Toys, Vehicles, Dolls, Audiences, Doors, Walls, Weapons, Blood, Ambitions, Illusions, Betrayal, Ridicule, Hope, Happiness, Mothers, Fathers, Grandparents, Suns, Planets, Moons, Sensation, Looking, Incidents, Waiting, Silence, Talking, Knowing, Not Knowing, Doubts, Fac One, Remembering, Forgetting, Auditing, Minds, Fame, Power, Accidents, Illnesses, Approval, Tiredness, Faces, Acting, Drama, Costumes, Sleep, Holding Things Apart, Holding Things Together, Destroying Things, Sending Things Away, Making Things Go Fast, Making Things Appear, Making Things Vanish, Convictions, Stability, Changing People, Silent Men, Silent Women, Silent Children, Symbols of Weakness, Symbols of Force, Disabilities, Education, Languages, Bestiality, Homosexuality, Invisible Bodies, Invisible Acts, Invisible Scenes, Accepting Things Back, Games, Rules, Players, Restimulation, Sexual Restimulation, Space Reduction, Size Reduction, Entertainment, Cheerfulness, Freedom for Others to Talk, Act, Feel Pain, Be Sad, Thetans, Personalities, Cruelty, Organizations. TRY FIRST: Healthy Bodies, Strong Bodies, Good Perception, Good Recall.
Warning: Should your preclear become unstable or upset doing this process, take him to Step VI. Then return to this list.
Comment: The mind is sufficiently complicated that it can be expected to have computations on almost all the above. Thus there is no single clearing button and search for it is at the dictate of a circuit, the mechanism of circuits being to search for something hidden. Thus, your preclear may begin to compute and philosophize and seek to find the "button" that will release all this. All this releases all the buttons so tell him to relax and go on with the process every time he starts to compute.
Note: Running the above will bring to the surface without further attention the "computation on the case" and the service facsimile. Do not audit these. Run Expanded GITA.
STEP V: PRESENT TIME DIFFERENTIATION, EXTERIORIZATION BY SCENERY. Have preclear, with his body's eyes, study and see the difference between similar real objects such as the two arms of a chair, the spaces between the legs, two cigarettes, two trees, two girls. He must see and study the objects. It is not enough to remember the objects. The definition of a Case V is "no mock-ups, only blackness." Have him continue this process until he is alert. Use liberally and often.
Then exteriorize by having the preclear close his eyes and move actual places on Earth under him, preferably places he has not been. Have him bring these up to him. Find two similar things in the scene and observe the difference between them. Move him over oceans and cities until he is certain that he is exteriorized.

225

226

Then, preferably while exteriorized, have him do Step I.
This case has to know before he can be. His viewpoint is in the past. Give him present time viewpoints until he is a Step I by the methods given for Step V.
(Comment: Present Time Differentiation is a very good general technique and resolves chronic somatics and improves tone.)
Assume other people's viewpoints as a drill—not what they think about things, but as they look at things in the material universe. Attempt to be in the location of a leaf, blade of grass, car headlamp, etc., and view the universe.
STEP VI: ARC Straightwire using the next-to-last list of Self Analysis in Scientology which asks preclear to recall something really real to him, etc. Then use the lists in Self Analysis. This level is the neurotic. It is identified by the preclear having mock-ups which will not persist or which won't go away. Use also Present Time Differentiation. Then go to Step IV. At any drop in tone, return case to Step VI.
STEP VII: PSYCHOTIC CASES. (Whether in or out of body.) The psychotic appears to be in such desperate straits that the auditor often errs in thinking desperate measures are necessary. Use the lightest possible methods. Give case space and freedom where possible. Have psychotic imitate (not mock up) various things. Have him do Present Time Differentiation. Get him to tell the difference between things by actual touch. Have him locate, differentiate and touch things that are really real to him (real objects or items). If inaccessible, mimic him with own body, whatever he does, until he comes into communication. Have him locate corners of the room and hold them without thinking. As soon as his communication is up, go to Step VI, but be very sure he changes any mock-up around until he knows it is a mock-up, that it exists and that he himself made it. Do not run engrams. He is psychotic because viewpoints in present time are so scarce that he has gone into the past for viewpoints which at least he knew existed. By Present Time Differentiation, by tactile on objects, restore his idea of an abundance of viewpoint in present time. If he has been given electric shock, do not process it or any other brutality. Work him for very brief periods, for his attention span is short. Always work psychotics with another auditor or a companion present.
Note: All steps for all cases. If in doubt as to condition of case, test with Step VI.
Note: An Operating Thetan must also be able to manufacture particles of admiration and force in abundance.
APPENDIX 1 SOP 8
(Any alterations in SOP 8 will appear in appendixes, as they are expected to be minor and to make no radical change in the design of the steps in general.)

STEP I: The Operating Thetan must be able to manufacture and experience to his complete satisfaction all sensations including pain in mock-up form, and all energies such as admiration and force. It will be found that some Step I cases will not be able to manufacture admiration particles.
STEP II: Be very careful not to make a lower-step preclear, while still in a body, mock up his own body too long. Any mock-up will appear if it is simply put there often enough and long enough—providing the preclear doesn't spin in the process. The long-term manufacture of mock-ups of one's own body and of admiration may not produce quite the results expected—communication lines which should remain shut may open with bad results. These lines that are shut appear like hard, black cords to the preclear.
There are two types of techniques in general, positive gain and negative gain, as defined in the above text. Positive gain can be administered in unlimited amounts without harm. Negative gain techniques such as the reduction of engrams and locks, Double Terminaling, Black and White, are often limited in the length of time they can be given. After a few hundred hours of early-type auditing, the case could be found to slump. Thus we have in positive gain the unlimited technique which improves the analytical mind. In negative gain we have a limited (in terms of the time it can be audited) technique. In SOP 8 the following steps and processes may be audited without limit: Step I, Step III, Step V, Step VI, Step VII. The following steps are limited and should not be audited many hours without changing to another type (unlimited) for a while, after which the following steps could be resumed: Step II, Step IV.
The following steps can be used on groups: Step III, Step V Part 1 and Part 2, Step VI, Step VII.
APPENDIX 2 SOP 8
CERTAINTY PROCESSING
The anatomy of maybe consists of uncertainties and is resolved by the processing of certainties. It is not resolved by the processing of uncertainties.
An uncertainty is held in suspense solely because the preclear is holding on so hard to certainties. The basic thing he is holding on to is "I have a solution," "I have no solution." One of these is positive, the other is negative. A complete positive and a complete negative are alike a certainty. The basic certainty is "There is something," "There is nothing." A person can be certain there is something; he can be certain there is nothing.
"There is something," "There is nothing" resolves chronic somatics in this order. One gets the preclear to have the center of the somatics say, "There is something here," "There is nothing here." Then he gets the center of the somatic to say, "There

227

228

is nothing there," "There is something there." Then the auditor has the preclear say toward the somatic, "There is something there," "There is nothing there." And then he gets the preclear to say about himself, "There is something here," "There is nothing here." This is a very fast resolution of chronic somatics. Quite ordinarily three or four minutes of this will resolve an acute state and fifteen or twenty minutes of it will resolve a chronic state.
This matter of certainties goes further. It has been determined by my recent investigations that the reason behind what is happening is the desire of a cause to bring about an effect. Something is better than nothing, anything is better than nothing. If you will match terminals in brackets "There is nothing," you will find that a lot of your preclears become very ill. This should be turned around into "There is something."
The way one does Matched Terminals is to have the preclear facing the preclear or his father facing his father. In other words, two of each of anything, one facing the other. These two things will discharge one into the other, thus running off the difficulty. By bracket we mean, of course, running this with the preclear putting them up as himself to himself; as though they were put up by somebody else, the somebody else facing the somebody else; and the matched terminal again put up by others facing others.
The clue to all this is positive and negative in terms of certainties. The positive plus the negative in conflict make an uncertainty. A great number of combinations of things can be run. Here's a list of the combinations:
The button behind sex is "I can begin life anew," "I cannot begin life anew," "I can make life persist," "I cannot make life persist," "I can stop life," "I cannot stop life," "I can change life," "I cannot change life," "I can start life," "I cannot start life."
A very effective process: "Something wrong	" "Nothing wrong	"
"with you, me, they, my mind, communication, various allies."
A very basic resolution of the lack of space of an individual is to locate these people and these objects which you've been using as anchor points, such as Father, Mother and so forth, and put them into matched terminal brackets with this: "There is Father," "There is no Father," "There is Grandfather," "There is no Grandfather." In the compulsive line this can be changed to "There must be no father," "There must be a father." One takes all the allies of an individual and runs them in this fashion.
The basic law underneath this is that a person becomes the effect of anything upon which he has had to depend. This would tell you immediately that the sixth dynamic, the mest universe, is the largest dependency of the individual. This can be run out, but then any dynamic can be run out in this fashion. "There is myself," "There is no self" and so on up the dynamics. "(Any dynamic) is preventing me from communicating, " "(Any dynamic) is not preventing me from communicating" is

intensely effective. Any such technique can be varied by applying the subzero scale as found in Scientology 8-8008, which is also to be found in an earlier issue of the Journal of Scientology.
One runs any certainty out because he knows that for this certainty there is an opposite negative certainty and that between these lies a maybe, and that the maybe stays in suspense in time. The basic operation of the reactive mind is to solve problems. It is based on uncertainties about observation. Thus one runs out certainties of observation. The mest general shotgun technique would have to do with "There is sex," "There is no sex," "There is force," "There is no force." This could be run, of course, in terms of matched terminal brackets or even as concepts, but one must not neglect to run the overt act phenomenon, which is to say getting somebody else getting the concept.
The processing out of certainties would then embrace "I have a solution," "There is no solution." These two opposite ends would take care of any individual who was hung on the track with some solution, for that solution had its opposite. People who have studied medicine begin by being certain that medicine works and end by being certain that medicine doesn't work. They begin by studying psychology on a supposition that it is the solution, and finish up believing that it is not the solution. This also happens to superficial students of Dianetics and Scientology; thus one should also run "Dianetics is a solution," "Dianetics is not the solution." This would get one off the maybe on the subject.
We are essentially processing communications systems. The entire process of auditing is concentrated upon withdrawing communications from the preclear as predicated on the basis of the body and that the preclear cannot handle communications. Thus "The preclear can handle communications," "The preclear cannot handle communications " is a shotgun technique which resolves maybes about his communications.
An intensely interesting aspect of Certainty Processing is that it shows up intimately where the preclear is aberrated. Here is the overall basic technique. One
runs "There is	" "There is not	" the following: Communications, Talk, Letters,
Love, Agreement, Sex, Pain, Work, Bodies, Minds, Curiosity, Control, Enforcement, Compulsion, Inhibition, Food, Money, People, Ability, Beauty, Ugliness, Presents, and both the top and bottom of the Chart of Attitudes, positive and negative in each one.
Basic in all this is the urge of the preclear to produce an effect, so one can run "I can produce an effect upon Mama," "I cannot produce an effect upon Mama," and so forth for all allies, and one will resolve the fixations of attention on the part of the preclear. Thus fixations of attention are resolved by Certainty Processing, processing out the production of effect.
One can occasionally, if he so desires, process the direct center of the maybe, which is to say doubt itself, in terms of Matched Terminals. This, however, is risky for it throws the preclear into a general state of doubt.

229

230

The key to any such processing is the recovery of viewpoints. "I can have Grandfather's viewpoint," "I cannot have Grandfather's viewpoint" and so on, particularly with sexual partners, will prove intensely interesting on a case. "There are viewpoints, " "There are no viewpoints," "I have a viewpoint," "I don't have a viewpoint, " "Blank has a viewpoint, " "Blank has no viewpoint" resolves problems.
One should also realize that when one is processing facsimiles, he is processing at one time energy, sensation and aesthetics. The facsimile is a picture. The preclear is being affected by pictures mainly, and so "There are no pictures," "There are pictures" forwards the case toward handling pictures, which is to say facsimiles.
A person tends to ally himself with somebody whom he considers capable of producing greater effects than himself, so "I, she, he, it can create greater effects," "I, she, he, it can create no effect" should be run.
When one is processing, he is trying to withdraw communications. Reach and withdraw are the two fundamentals in the action of theta. Must Reach and Can't Reach, Must Withdraw and Can't Withdraw are compulsions which, when run in combination, produce the manifestation of insanity in a preclear.
"I can reach," "I can't reach," "I can withdraw," "I can't withdraw " open up into the fact that remembering and forgetting are dependent upon the ability to reach and withdraw. You will find that a preclear will respond to "You must" or "You can," "You must not," "You cannot," "There is," "There is not" forgetting and remembering.
The only reason a person is hanging on to a body or facsimile is that he has lost his belief in his ability to create. The rehabilitation of this ability to create is resolved, for instance, in a person who has had an ambition to write, with "I can write," "I cannot write"—and so forth. The loss of this creative ability made the person hang on to what he had. The fact that a preclear has forgotten how to or no longer can himself generate force makes him hold on to stores of force. These are very often mistaken by the auditor for facsimiles. The preclear doesn't care for the facsimile, he simply cares for the force contained in the facsimile because he knows he doesn't have any force anymore.
It should be kept in mind that reaching and withdrawing are intensely productive of reaction in a preclear. But that preclear who does not respond to Reaching and Withdrawing and Certainty thereon, is hung up in a very special condition: He is trying to prevent something from happening. He also prevents auditing from happening. He has lost allies, he has had accidents, and he's hung up at all those points on the track where he feels he should have prevented something from happening. This is resolved by running "I must prevent it from happening, " "I cannot prevent it from happening," "I must regain control," "I must lose all control."
Blackness is the desire to be an effect and the inability to be cause.

"I can create Grandfather (or ally)," "I cannot create Grandfather (or ally) " solves scarcity of allies. "I want to be aware," "I want no awareness" is a technique which is basic in attitudes. Run this as others, in "Matched Terminal Brackets" or in Expanded GITA.
Certainty there is a past, certainty there is no past; certainty there is a future, certainty there is no future; certainty it means something else, certainty it does not mean anything else; certainty there is space, certainty there is no space; certainty there is energy, certainty there is no energy; certainty there are objects, certainty there are no objects.
SHORT 8
This is a short form of Standard Operating Procedure 8 of Scientology 8-8008. It can be used on any preclear without any survey of the case and will not get him into any difficulties and should resolve his various computations. This can also be used on groups. Just do the lettered steps in order.
A.	Next-to-last list in Self Analysis, Remembering Something Real, etc., until
auditor is certain preclear has done and can do so easily. In a group ask for
a show of hands the moment something real is recalled. Take those hands
that went up in a couple of seconds and use them for the rest of this. Take
the no-hands or slow hands as a special group under somebody else and
simply drill them on this step until their speed is well up. Then put them
back into the main group, or keep all in one group and so on.
B.	Examine and compare two similar mest objects or spaces and tell the
difference. Keep this up for at least twenty minutes. It can be kept up for
hours with astonishing case improvement.
C.	Run Wasting Healthy Bodies, then Accepting Them Under Duress, then
Wasting Them, then Accepting Them Under Duress. Do this for twenty
minutes or an hour until preclear or group shows signs of relief or amusement.
D.	Run next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis for five minutes.
E.	Run Duplication. This process is the basis of making facsimiles. Have
preclear or group look at a mest object, then have him or them mock up a
mock-up similar to it but beside it. Have the mest object and the mock-up
compared to tell the difference. Some people get none of the duplicates for
quite a while but will eventually. Some start making much fancier objects
of the same sort. In any result, keep this up for twenty minutes.
F.	Have preclear or group close eyes and locate the corners of the room
behind them and keep interested in those corners and not thinking for several
minutes.

231

232

G. Have preclear or group move mest scenery under them individually but at the command of the auditor. The scenery is, preferably, that not before viewed by the preclear or preclears. Don't let them invalidate what they see. This is Exteriorization by Scenery. Keep up for twenty minutes.
H.   Do next-to-last list of Self Analysis. Five minutes. I.    Examine and compare two present time objects.
J. Have one of the members go to the window and look out of the window. Have the remainder of the group assuming his viewpoint to see what he sees out of the window. Do this for ten minutes.
K. Start at beginning again and use list over and over. What they waste each time through can be changed to work and anchor points. Avoid pain with this Short 8. Run "Healthy bodies" for it instead.
SOP 8 is a professional auditor technique which deals with the problems of the reactive mind. SOP 8 from Step IV down and including Step IV is a professional auditor technique. Short 8 is done by someone who has been trained, preferably by a professional auditor. It can be done on a group no matter how large. Self Analysis in Scientology is a group technique aimed at the rehabilitation of one's own universe so as to bring it up to a level of comparability with one's observations of the mest universe, and can be delivered to groups of children or adults by a person trained only through the text of Self Analysis in Scientology. Associates have courses in Group Auditing which are given free of charge and which consist of six hours of tape lectures by L. Ron Hubbard on the administration of Self Analysis in Scientology and the general techniques of Group Auditing.
THIS IS SCIENTOLOGY, SCIENCE OF CERTAINTY, was written especially for the Journal of Scientology by L. RON HUBBARD and contains a summary of his work for the use and interest of the general public.

Tone Scale
[1953]
40.0	Serenity of beingness
20.0	Action
8.0	Exhilaration
4.0	Enthusiasm
3.0	Conservatism
2.5	Boredom
2.0	Antagonism
1.8	Pain
1.5	Anger
1.2	No-sympathy
1.1	Covert hostility
1.0	Fear
0.9	Sympathy
0.8	Propitiation
0.5	Grief
0.375   Making amends
0.05	Apathy
0.0	Body death
-0.2	Being other bodies
-1.0	Punishing other bodies
-1.3	Responsibility as blame
-1.5	Controlling bodies
-2.2	Protecting bodies
-3.0	Owning bodies
-3.5	Approval from bodies
-4.0	Needing bodies
-6.0	Sacrifice
-8.0	Hiding

233

About the Author

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."

235

236

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT 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.

237

Glossary

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.
Abbott: reference to Abbott Laboratories, a major US pharmaceutical manufacturer which produces and distributes a variety of medical drugs. Now, if somebody who has a great deal of occlusion starts to get too flighty, for heaven's sakes, remember that I read you an Abbott company piece of advertising that said that B1 did something for blackness and occlusion. —Resistance to Effect (20 Nov. 53)
aberrate: affect with aberration. See also aberration in this glossary. Don't go looking into the sewer systems and the sordid byroads, so on, of people's lives to find out what aberrated them. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
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. You try to audit somebody outside of a group who is like this, and he gives an auditor a bad time until he has been audited with enough others— a group larger than he thinks he can control—to a point where he actually caves in his own aberrations on himself and has to handle them. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
aberrative: tending toward or capable of causing aberration in a person. See also aberration in this glossary. The only aberrative things are those things which come closest to Q and A. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)

239

240

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
abraca-Hubbard: a made-up magic command. Abracadabra is a word supposed to have magic powers, used in incantations, etc. Or because a magic word is spoken—abracadabra or abraca-Hubbard or something of the sort—he expects that this magic word will suddenly alter, see, alter the state of case. —More on Machines (19 Nov. 53)
Acceptance Level Processing: a type of processing which discovers the lowest level of acceptance of the individual and discovers there the prevailing hunger and feeds that hunger by means of mock-ups until it is satiated. The process is not a separate process itself, but is actually a version of Expanded GITA (Step IV of Standard Operating Procedure 8). For more information see Step IV of Standard Operating Procedure 8 in the appendix of this transcript booklet. In view of the fact that many things are inhibited, you run Acceptance Level Processing, you'll find out what is acceptable to most people in terms of what mock-ups suddenly are absorbed by their bank. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
Alden yachts: sailing ships designed by John Alden (1885-1962), preeminent American yacht designer of the 1920s and 1930s. People speak to me sort of on the fly—hello, goodbye and so forth—and nobody ever sits down and says to me, "You know, I think that Alden yachts sail terrible." —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
Alexander: Alexander III (356-323 b.c.), also known as Alexander the Great; king of Macedonia, an ancient kingdom of northern Greece. By conquest, he extended an empire which reached from Greece to India. Alexander had enough sense. One part of his campaigns way back there in the fourth century before Christ—he made his troops burn their baggage. —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
anchor points: assigned or agreed-upon points of boundary, which are conceived to be motionless by the individual; those points which demark the outermost boundaries of a space or its corners for an individual. Dimension is made by anchor points. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Arcturus: a very bright star in the northern sky, located approximately 194 trillion miles from Earth. And all of a sudden you say to them, "Be three feet back of your head"—there they go past Arcturus!—Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Arsclycus: a society on the whole track where beings spent ten thousand lives laboring on the same job, were stuffed like snakes every few weeks to feed them, and where they returned after death because a piece of their own body was held in pawn. For more information, see lecture 16 April 1952, "How to Search for Incidents on the Track, Part I," in Research & Discovery Series Volume 10, and the book Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard. Well, it is not a very orderly thing to do, for instance, to solve a society the way somebody solved Arsclycus. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
assessment: the action of an auditor asking a series of questions of a preclear and noting reactions to them with an E-Meter. This helps to isolate specific areas or subjects to be addressed in auditing. Well, when a case starts this sort of thing, he's got himself stacked up into a facsimile, and what you just

GLOSSARY
do is you just do an assessment and find out where he's stuck on the track and knock him loose from it and generate a few other things. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
Assumption: the name given to the act of a theta being taking over a mest body. This takes place in most cases just prior to birth. For more information, see the book Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard. And, another pc there—I cleaned up the Assumption on him and all of a sudden got his face live. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
audit: apply Dianetics and Scientology processes and procedures to. See also processing in this glossary. Now, a V will audit a V at a speed which is comparable to what the other V is running, so that's not too bad. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
auditing: another word for processing. See also processing in this glossary. So if your cases hang fire at any time, you're just auditing too slow, and using too slow a technique. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
auditor: a person trained and qualified in applying Dianetics and/or Scientology processes and procedures to individuals for their betterment; called an auditor because auditor means "one who listens." See also processing in this glossary. There's a motto which you could have as an auditor which is: Be surprised at nothing. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Auditor's Code: the specific rules, evolved from years of observing processing, that an auditor follows while auditing someone to ensure that the preclear will get the greatest possible gain from auditing. I was doing it very nicely too, very carefully, well within the Auditor's Code and everything else. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
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. You could be very obtuse about it and talk about randomity and automaticity and so forth. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
"A wise old owl...": reference to a poem written by Edward Hersey Richards, which was often quoted in the early 1900s. The full text of the poem is: "A wise old owl sat on an oak, / The more he saw the less he spoke; / The less he spoke the more he heard; / Why aren't we like that wise old bird?" It was: "A wise old owl sat in an oak, I And the more he saw the less he spoke; / And the more he spoke the more he heard; / Why can't we all be an effect?"—Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
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. And we go right on off into all of the Logics and Axioms. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
B1: short for vitamin B1,a vitamin essential to nerve function. Also called thiamine. Now, if somebody who has a great deal of occlusion starts to get

241

242

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
too flighty, for heaven's sakes, remember that I read you an Abbott company piece of advertising that said that Bt did something for blackness and occlusion. —Resistance to Effect (20 Nov. 53)
bank: the mental image picture collection of the preclear—the reactive mind. It comes from computer terminology where all data is in a "bank." See also reactive mind in this glossary. If you can do it while exteriorized, wonderful; if you have—aren't exteriorized yet, well, do it anyway, because it won't mess up the bank. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
basic-basic: the first time something happened on a chain of occurrences. Any similar circumstance, repetitive through a person's whole track, has a first time it occurred. The first time has more weight and is more easily run than any other time it happened. That's the basic-basic on the chain. And there's where you find cause and effect basic-basic. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
beam: an energy flow. If you want to turn on the feeling of sadness as a thetan, put a beam against the wall, and then just slowly extend it. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
beat (one's) brains out: try very hard to understand or think out something difficult; tire (oneself) out by thinking. But you might have been beating your brains out for ten minutes trying to find out where he was not during that operation or during that period of time, see? —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
beat (something) to death: a variation of flog to death or do to death, meaning "overdo or repeat too often; deal with or discuss (a subject) till it is no longer in any way interesting." And when you get through with the rest of the emotional list, you just beat that second dynamic to death. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
beat the ivory off my teeth: (slang) a variation of beat (one's) chops, meaning "to talk or complain, especially to no purpose." Chops is a slang term meaning "the mouth, lips or teeth." I just beat the ivory off my teeth on this, just trying to tell people this is real easy; and they keep coming up with good reasons— good reasons why they shouldn't find it easy. —Footnote to Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
Bell Telephone: reference to the American Bell Telephone Company: the first national telephone company in the United States. That's probably what's wrong with Bell Telephone—they're always crowding that one line. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
best in this best of all possible worlds: reference to the philosophical statement of optimism put forth constantly by the character Dr. Pangloss, a philosopher and tutor in the novel Candide (subtitled "Optimism"), by French author and philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778). In the book, Candide (the main character) and his tutor Pangloss endure a long series of disastrous adventures. Pangloss accepts all these catastrophes—whether suffering, crime, plague, injustice, earthquake or shipwreck—with philosophical calm. His motto is "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds," and he

GLOSSARY
maintains this to the end, despite all evidence to the contrary. And the few times that engines would stop, well, ships were expendable because the navy yard and shipyard workers have to work, you see? So it all worked out for the best in this best of all possible worlds. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
between-lives: reference to the period of time between the loss of a body and the assumption of another. At death, the theta being leaves the body and goes to a particular location where he "reports in," is made to forget everything, and is then sent back to Earth to a new body just before it is born. That couldn't be a religious implantation, that between-lives implant, could it? No, nothing like that! —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
blanketing: an incident on the track which consists of throwing oneself as a thetan over another thetan or over a mest body. Blanketing is done to obtain an emotional impact or even to kill. It is strongest in sexual incidents where the thetan throws two mest bodies together in the sexual act in order to experience their emotions. Blanketing is basic on fastening on to a MEST body or holding a mest body or protecting mest bodies. For more information, see the book Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard. And the first time a thetan hit a body, pam! You see, that's the basic on blanketing. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
blow (one's) brains out: (slang) kill (oneself) by a shot through the head. And that goes down to, when a person is only defending, it gets plus randomity to the point where people start blowing their brains out merely because somebody misplaced a period on the ration card. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Book One: Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, the basic text on Dianetics techniques, written by L. Ron Hubbard and first published in 1950. It is also referred to as the first book. That's much faster than anything we envisioned in Book One but it's too doggone slow, but it's a last resort. — SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
Boot Hill: (Western slang) a cemetery for those who have died by violence, as by hanging or in gunfights. The name alludes to the phrase to die with (one's) boots on, meaning "to die, usually shamefully, by violence, as by hanging or gunfire." They used to very occasionally, they—the boys would get out there and somebody would develop a case of slow. And they'd bury him naturally in Boot Hill. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
bracket: a word taken from the field of artillery, where one fires shots over and under a target so as to make sure and hit the target. Over and under, over and under, and one eventually hits the target. In Scientology processing, a bracket is a series of questions or commands based on the number of ways or number of combinations in which something can occur. A bracket covers the potential directions of flow of an action as they relate to the preclear. Examples of the different flows that could be run in a bracket are: the individual doing the action himself, somebody else doing it, others doing it, the individual doing it to somebody else, somebody doing it to him, others doing it to others, etc. And now let me just make one little side remark on that step about brackets, is for God's sakes don't run half a bracket, because you hang cases up. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)

243

244

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
brisket: (slang) the chest. So someday, somebody comes along and hits him in the brisket, and he of course knows what he's supposed to do now. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
broken piece: in the caste system of a game, the maker of games has no rules, the players know the rules but obey them, the assistant players obey the players, the pieces obey rules as dictated by the players, but don't know the rules, and broken pieces are pieces which aren't even in the game but they're still in the game. They are in a terrible maybe: "Am I in a game or am I not in a game?" They aren't participants, really, they're just kind of used. Too much agreement and boy, you're a broken piece. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
Buck Rogers: the hero of a science fiction adventure of interplanetary travel and battles against evil. Buck first appeared in comic strips and radio shows. Later a television program aired from 1950 to 1951 entitled "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century." Per the story, Buck was rendered unconscious by a peculiar gas which placed him in a state of suspended animation. When he awakened it was the year 2430. A fellow can actually step out of his body, and very often does, in a complete rig-up. I mean, boy, you'd think Buck Rogers or something. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
bugger factor: an arbitrary number entered into a mathematical equation to handle a defect in that calculation—such as a second factor added in to account for another incorrectly included factor. A bugger is an annoying or troublesome thing, situation, etc. The fellow says, "Well, I tell you impolitely what they call it; it's a bugger factor.' "—Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
Buick: a car built by the Buick Motor Division of General Motors Corporation (a US automobile manufacturer). They were stuff that they'd taken out of Buicks and Packards and automobiles, you see, and they'd just park them all the way around the ship and these horns would suddenly open up. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
bunk, do a: (British slang) to run away; to leave, especially when one should not; to desert. But on a lower harmonic, he's so anxious to get out of the body, and so frightened of being an effect, that he does—to be British—he does a bunk. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Bureau of Standards: the division of the United States Department of Commerce that has charge of testing weights and measures, the strength and composition of materials, etc. "Are you thinking in the Bureau of Standards chill room where they have a 273 degrees below zero centigrade?" —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
buttered all over the universe: (slang) in a condition whereby a person doesn't know where he is. The person has used remote viewpoints (those viewpoints which an individual puts out remotely, to look through) and has left remote viewpoints located all over everywhere to such a degree that he thinks he is anyplace rather than where he is. We've been using a phrase to characterize this, which is "buttered all over the universe."Somebody's buttered all over the universe. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)

GLOSSARY
button: an item, word, phrase, subject or area that causes response or reaction in an individual. But one of these is a button, it's a magnificent button, there's nothing wrong with this button at all except it stops people's hearts. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
c: (physics) a symbol for the speed of light, approximately 186,000 miles per second. Boy, that's really interesting: the speed is one over c. That's real fast. —Resistance to Effect (20 Nov. 53)
Cal Tech: short for California Institute of Technology, a privately controlled college of engineering and science, and research institute in Pasadena, California. I saw a cartoon, one time, down at Cal Tech—one of these small trade schools on the other coast, they teach carpentry and things there. — Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
Camden: the city where L. Ron Hubbard gave the lectures of this series, located in southwest New Jersey, on the Delaware River opposite Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. "Are they in the Camden sewer system?" Well, they might be. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
Carroll, Lewis: pen name of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (1832-1898), English author, mathematician and photographer who wrote Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, and other works of fantasy and nonsense. See also run like the dickens just to keep up, and run like everything just to get anyplace in this glossary. It's not quite as bad as Lewis Carroll said it was. He says you run like the dickens just to keep up, and run like everything just to get anyplace. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
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. See also reactive mind and aberration in this glossary. If you could just run the agreement out of a case, the guy'd blow Clear. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
cave in: collapse mentally and/or physically to the extent that the individual cannot function causatively. The individual is quite effect. Cave in is a US Western phrase which symbolized mental or physical collapse as like being at the bottom of a mine shaft or in a tunnel when the supports collapsed and left the person under tons of debris. And when it caves in, it caves in but hard. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
cc: abbreviation for cubic centimeters. Cubic centimeters are the form of measurement used on hypodermic syringes to measure the amount of medicine being injected.... it said, "you must feed him with Abbott and company's handy jim-dandy little B1 pills to the amount of about 200cc, preferably 200cc"— well, yes, that would be a little bit, wouldn't it? Well that was their misprint. —Resistance to Effect (20 Nov. 53)
Change of Space Processing: a process in which an auditor has a preclear be in different spaces, thus enabling the preclear to increase his certainty on where he is. You don't get this very much, an auditor—there's Change of

245

246

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Space Processing. An auditor says, "Be here, be there, be someplace else,"and so forth. —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
Chart of Attitudes: a chart which contains the major difficulties people have. It shows the attitudes towards life taken by people, and comes with the book Handbook for Preclears by L. Ron Hubbard. The chart consists of twelve columns with positive attitudes at the top of each column (such as "Survives," "Right," "Fully Responsible," etc.) and negative attitudes at the bottom (such as "Dead," "Wrong," "No Responsibility," etc.) and a gradient scale in between. Well, now we have this list and it goes from this column over here on the Chart of Attitudes from the bottom to the top—just the emotional list. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
chronic somatic: any "illness" generated by an engram or engrams. The word somatic means bodily or physical. Because the word pain is restimulative, and because the word pain has in the past led to confusion between physical pain and mental pain, the word somatic is used in Dianetics to denote physical pain or discomfort of any kind. /, by the way, knew this very, very early in the business—knew it very, very early—that if you started to work a chronic somatic and only a chronic somatic, the case made practically no progress. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
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. "I say something and then this other little circuit tunes in and somebody says, 'Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh,' and repeats it." —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
clear: audit (someone) to the state of Clear. He kind of looks around carefully and cautiously and he says, "There's enough randomity around. Yeah, I can sacrifice a little bit of randomity, little bit of identity. I'll be cleared— providing it isn't too unlimited."—Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Clear: the name of a state achieved through auditing or an individual who has achieved this state. A Clear is a being who no longer has his own reactive mind. He is an unaberrated person and is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. If you could just run the agreement out of a case, the guy'd blow Clear. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Clinical Procedure: the original name for Standard Operating Procedure 8 -C. See also SOP 8-C in this glossary. We're going to have, this morning, a very fast rundown on Steps I and II, Clinical Procedure. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
clock: (slang) the heart. Now, for instance, there are a couple of techniques you can run on people which will just stop their clocks, completely. —Getting Up Speed, Part 1(17 Nov. 53)
co-auditing: short for cooperative auditing, auditing done by a team of any two people who are helping each other reach a better life with Scientology or Dianetics processing. And another one is to get some sort of an idea on

GLOSSARY
how we start co-auditing and so on; but, if anything, more important than this: what we are going to use for a technique. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
coffee shop auditing: auditing done casually out of auditing rooms, sometimes in public places such as coffee shops.. . . what you call "coffee shop auditing," you know, you meet this fellow and he says—you ask him how he is and he tells you that he has a neck pain, and he expects you to turn it off or something of the sort—well, this is the fastest, easiest way to do it. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
collapsed terminal: a terminal that has collapsed into or identified itself with something. See also terminal in this glossary. And the other one is a collapsed terminal: The person is a particle and he doesn't go from A to B; he says, "A is at B" and he says this all the time, "A is at B; A is at B." —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
communication lag: the length of time between the posing of the question and the receiving of the answer, regardless of what intervenes. My God, sometimes you'll get a communication lag that you'd think—require a time clock or something. —Black Mock-ups, Persistence, mest (18 Nov. 53)
computation: the aberrated evaluation and postulate that one must be consistently in a certain state in order to succeed. A computation thus may mean that one must entertain in order to be alive or that one must be dignified in order to succeed or that one must own much in order to live. See also aberration and postulate in this glossary. So you could get, theoretically, some guy who would play the "only one" computation as a low-level thetan and who would go around and bemuse the multitudes instead of just trying to make some more Operating Thetans. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
congress: reference to the First International Congress of Dianeticists and Scientologists, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from 30 September through 4 October, 1953. / said several times on the congress tapes, there is no actual interchange. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
corn, games and WPA: a phrase likening the US government's handouts to unemployed people during the Great Depression (the worst economic slowdown in America's history, which began in 1929 and lasted until the early 1940s) to the ancient Roman practice of feeding the people and providing official public amusement (circuses in the arena) in an attempt to prevent unrest. See also WPA in this glossary. But a government which starts in on the basis of corn, games and WPA will inevitably cave in the people because they're helping them in such a way to make it almost impossible for the fellow to help himself. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
count they're going down for ... sure not the third: a combination of the phrases down for the count and down for the third time. Down for the count means "virtually defeated or finished; doomed," and comes from the sport of boxing, in which a boxer knocked down by his opponent loses the match unless he can get back on his feet before the referee counts to ten. Down for the third time comes from a commonly held, though fallacious, belief that a person who is struggling in the water and drowning will submerge, come to

247

248

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
the surface and submerge again three times before finally sinking. / don't know what count they're going down for just now, but it's sure not the third. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
crocus cloth: coarse fabric, such as burlap, used especially for making sacks. And got a piece of crocus cloth and held it on the shaft, while somebody rotated the shaft down at the other end, took an oilcan and squirted it full of oil, we started the engine and it ran. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
darnedest: (informal) a euphemism for damnedest, most extraordinary; most amazing. This is the darnedest thing that ever happened. —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
ded: short for DEserveD action: an incident the preclear does to another dynamic and for which he has no motivator—i.e., he punishes or hurts or wrecks someone or something the like of which has never hurt him. Now he must justify the incident. He will use things which didn't happen to him. He claims that the object of his injury really deserved it, hence the word, which is a sarcasm. By the way, the first ded on the track is a blanketing. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
DEI: abbreviation for desire, enforce, inhibit, three points of the DEI Scale. These points, going down, are lowered by failure. Each lower step is an explanation to justify having failed with the upper level. For more information, read the book Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics by L. Ron Hubbard. You get the DEI cycle as we go down this Tone Scale?—Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
determinism: feeling determined about something; having a feeling of determination. And then on his own determinism—because he's gotten rid of this automaticity and a few other things . . . —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
devil, like the: (colloquial) very much, hard, fast, etc. You could take a preclear, by the way, and simply have him double-terminal blackness, each time "What is the significance of it?" and he'll line charge like the devil and won't get rid of his blackness, because he's got a machine that keeps making it all the time. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
devil with (it), the: (colloquial) I, we, etc., do not care about (a person or thing). I'm not asking you to unmock any of this, the devil with it. —Black Mock-ups, Persistence, mest (18 Nov. 53)
Dial Press: a US publishing company founded in 1924 in New York City, which put out a strong list of quality literature, including volumes of fiction, poetry, biographies, collections of essays, works in science, history and philosophy, and a series of popular anthologies. The Dial Press still exists today, as part of Doubleday and Company, another New York publishing firm which acquired the Dial Press in 1976. Symptomatic of this was a story called Big Brother, it was written in, I think, Dial Press about 1930 or '31—'32, somewhere in that band, and Dial Press published this story. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)

GLOSSARY
Dianetics: comes from the Greek words dia, meaning "through" and nous, meaning "soul." Dianetics is a methodology developed by L. Ron Hubbard which can help alleviate such things as unwanted sensations and emotions, irrational fears and psychosomatic illnesses. It is most accurately described as what the soul is doing to the body through the mind. And talking and lecturing never bothered me, and Scientology, Dianetics never bothered me, till somebody started popping up in front of me saying, "How do you possibly keep coming up with data? And how do you keep on talking about it?" and so on. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
dickens, like the: (colloquial) very much, hard, fast, etc. He says you run like the dickens just to keep up, and run like everything just to get anyplace. — Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
don't do unto others what you don't want undone: a humorous variation of the phrase do unto others as you would have them do unto you, which means to treat other people with the concern and kindness you would like them to show toward you. This saying is a central ethical teaching of the Christian religion, and has come to be called the Golden Rule. So you get the farmers and the good people on planets and so forth, and they're all sitting around trying to figure this religious universe out from a basis of love, love, love, love, love—be kind to your neighbor, don't do unto others what you don't want undone, and so on. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
dope off: get tired, sleepy, foggy (as though doped, or drugged). Male voice: Oh, I doped off several times. —Black Mock-ups, Persistence, mest (18 Nov. 53)
double-terminal: run a process in which one has the preclear mock up something or someone facing its duplicate, then have him get another such pair beside, in any position, the first pair. The mock-ups discharge one against the other like electrical poles. You could take a preclear, by the way, and simply have him double-terminal blackness, each time "What is the significance of it?" and he'll line charge like the devil and won't get rid of his blackness, because he's got a machine that keeps making it all the time. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
dynamics: the eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. They are motives or motivations. We call them the eight dynamics. These are urges for survival as or through (1) self, (2) sex and family, (3) groups, (4) all mankind, (5) living things (plants and animals), (6) the material universe, (7) spirits and (8) infinity or the Supreme Being. Now, you'll run into this every once in a while with a preclear. We call this inverted dynamics. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
8-C: short for Standard Operating Procedure 8-C. For full information on this procedure, see "SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit" in the appendix of this transcript booklet. Actually, we ought to call 8-C "American procedure," because Americans are far faster at figuring out and countering effect. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
8-80: short for Scientology 8-80, a book written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 which contains his discoveries and methods of increasing life energy in man. The 8-8 stands for "infinity-infinity" upright and the 0 represents the static, theta. See also theta in this glossary. I wrote about it in 8-80, and

249

250

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
you have the book—old 8 - 80— "beauty and ugliness."—SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
electric shock: (psychiatry) the administration of electric shock to the head of a patient in a supposed effort to treat mental illness. There is no therapeutic reason for shocking anyone and there are no authentic cases on record of anyone having been cured of anything by shock. The reverse is true. Electric shock causes often irreparable damage to the person in the form of brain damage and impaired mental ability. So, things like prefrontal lobotomies, electric shock, automobile accidents and so forth, are tolerated in the society. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
electropsychometry: the practice and techniques of using an E-Meter, especially in auditing. Good old electropsychometry, just start hitting them with dates—dates, dates, dates—billions of years ago and present time. —Getting Up Speed, Part 1(17 Nov. 53)
E-Meter: short for electropsychometer, an electronic device for measuring the mental state or change of state of Homo sapiens. It is not a lie detector. It does not diagnose or cure anything. It is used by auditors to assist the preclear in locating areas of spiritual distress or travail. If you get real hot at this, you can short-circuit out E-Meters. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
Empire State Building: a skyscraper completed in 1931 in New York City. For many years it was the tallest building in the world, standing at 1,250 feet high with 102 stories. It acquires its name from the nickname for New York State, the "Empire State." If you can just coax somebody to climb up the side of the Empire State Building—outside it—he would lose, I assure you, about the fifth trip up, all fear of height. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
english: (sports) the spin given to a ball by striking it on one side or releasing it with a sharp twist. Used figuratively in the lecture. This is the reverse english, the inversion on the truth of the matter. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
engrain: a mental image picture (a mental copy of one's perceptions sometime in the past) which is a recording of an experience containing pain, unconsciousness and a real or fancied threat to survival. It is a recording in the reactive mind of something which actually happened to an individual in the past and which contained pain and unconsciousness, both of which are recorded in the engram. It must, by definition, have impact or injury as part of its content. Engrams are 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. It's just that you validate the barrier of the engram. —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
engram bank: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. See also bank and reactive mind in this glossary. And it will reduce the amount of space the owner has and it will cave in the entire engram bank and it will collapse his time track. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
enMEST: short for enturbulated mest: mest that is confused, turbulent, disorderly. See also mest in this glossary. She was a ruin—enMEST, enturbulated mest. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)

GLOSSARY
entity: a being or existence, especially when considered as distinct, independent or self-contained. One's theta beingness can be fixed up so that another personality can be injected into it; a personality implanted in this way is called an entity. For more information, see lecture 20 May 1952, "Decision: Cause and Effect" in Research & Discovery Series Volume 10, and the book Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard. You start—really, straight out—you just start stripping out entities by you doing that. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
evaluate: impose data or knowledge upon another. An example would be to tell another why he is the way he is instead of permitting or guiding him to discover it for himself. Well, of course, you're actually evaluating for a preclear when you're moving him around. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
exteriorization: the act of the thetan moving outside the body. When this is done the person achieves a certainty of his beingness or identity completely apart from that of the body. See also thetan in this glossary. And the big trick in this is exteriorization. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
Exteriorization by Scenery: Step V of Standard Operating Procedure 8. For more information, see Standard Operating Procedure 8 in the appendix of this transcript booklet. I had a fellow do this three times one day in an Exteriorization by Scenery. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
exteriorize: to move (as a thetan) out of the body; place distance between oneself and the body. See also thetan in this glossary. Because what you do now is a very simple thing: You start at Step I on the exteriorized thetan. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Fac One: an incident known as Facsimile One, or the "coffee grinder," involving the use of a machine which loosely resembled a camera (boxlike, two-handled, with an exit hole for blasts in front and a peek hole in back) to administer a push-pull force beam to the body. This was used by an invader force to tame the population. The people who monitored the machine wore heavy goggles. He'll be hot and cold, and have fever and chills, and think he's in the middle of Fac One and Easter and Christmas. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
facsimile: a three-dimensional color picture with sound and smell and all other perceptions, plus the conclusions or speculations of the individual. You get somebody who is getting electronics—electronics is keying in, keying in, keying in and he's got facsimiles flying all over the place. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
FBI: abbreviation for Federal Bureau of investigation, a United States government agency established to investigate violations of federal laws and safeguard national security. The state police and the cops in general, and the FBI and the IBF and—oh boy, it's real, real cruel. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Fear: a horror fiction novel written by L. Ron Hubbard and first published in 1940. In the book, a professor of ethnology, having publicly denied the existence of demons and devils, suddenly finds that he has lost four hours of his life.

251

252

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
He descends into a macabre world of night without day, of strange figures out of time, and of graves and murder in cold blood. I call your attention to the story Fear—it's quite a popular paperback these days in Great Britain, by the way. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
fess up: (slang) confess; admit the truth of something. As soon as a case suddenly decides that everything is black because he's got his eyes closed, and he's very befuddled as to why you're beating him around about looking—he'll be in the corners of the room with his eyes shut—why, he will generally fess up and tell you, "Well, the field is black."—Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
field: any thing interposing between a preclear and something he wishes to see, whether mest or mock-up. Fields are black, gray, purple, any substance or invisible. See also mest and mock-up in this glossary. They are looking at something—they're looking at a black field. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
figure-seven trap: reference to a figure-four trap, a trap for catching animals, the trigger of which is set in the shape of the figure 4. Well, it gets a certain distance, you see, and then unscrupulous, very uncleared, extremely fouled-up characters can come along, and unless you can produce quite a few—quite a few—Operating Thetans fairly easily, you just have no business triggering this figure-seven trap that is already set to trigger, called religion. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
fire drill: (slang) a confused mess. A fire drill is a practice drill for a company of firefighters, the crew of a ship, etc., to train them in their duties in case of a fire. The fire drill on most ships is usually so bad that it has come to have this slang usage. How many people are fouled up like fire drill right this minute? —Black Mock-ups, Persistence, mest (18 Nov. 53)
first group: reference to the students of the First American Advanced Indoctrination Course. See also First Unit in this glossary. Now, with—the first group was processed and trained on the basis of "We're going to get into the experimental-technique line"—the first. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
first rattle out of the box: (colloquial) at the very outset; at the first chance; as soon as possible. Fourth male voice: First rattle out of the box—effort to persist. —Black Mock-ups, Persistence, mest (18 Nov. 53)
First Unit: reference to the students of the First American Advanced Indoctrination Course, delivered by L. Ron Hubbard in Camden, New Jersey from 6 October through 13 November 1953. The lectures of this course have been released on cassette as a series entitled "Exteriorization and the Phenomena of Space." And "I'm going to give you subjective reality on the techniques,"I said to the First Unit going through, and carried forward that program. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
flam-damn: a made-up word used as an exclamation to mean "damned" or "confounded." And by these drills we're just going to bust that postulate out of the whole flam-damn track, that's all. —More on Machines (19 Nov. 53)

GLOSSARY
flitter: a flow of little golden sparks emanated by a thetan. It is put out on a 360-degree sphere. Very often they start to put out flitter, out in front of them, and the flitter—their own flitter hits them in the face. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
flooey, knocked: (informal) made to end abruptly in failure or disaster; broken down; made to collapse. Well, that would come under the head of successive engrams, whereby practically everything they have has been knocked flooey. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
4.0: the numerical designation for the level of enthusiasm on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary.. . . we've got thinkingness now, but it's not very serious until thinkingness starts to get down here below 4.0. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
40.0: the numerical designation for the level of serenity of beingness on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. How does he ever start drifting down below 40.0, below 20.0 and so forth? —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Fourth Invader Force: the fourth of a series of invader forces. An invader force is an electronics people which lands on a planet inhabited by people who do things by thought, and then starts setting up various kinds of traps and doing all sorts of things in order to control the area. They used to talk about that noncommunicative owl—you remember in grade school, this noncommunicative owl. He must have been set up by the Fourth Invader Force in this universe. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
Frankenstein: reference to the main character in the 1818 novel Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (1797-1851), which has since been made into a number of motion pictures. In the story, Dr. Victor Frankenstein creates a manlike monster from parts of cadavers (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. Be sure and get somebody that builds the Frankenstein equipment for the Frankenstein pictures, you know? —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
GE: abbreviation for genetic entity, that beingness not dissimilar to the thetan that has carried forward and developed the body from its earliest moments along the evolutionary line on Earth and which, through experience, necessity and natural selection, has employed the counter-efforts of the environment to fashion an organism of the type best fitted for survival, limited only by the abilities of the GE. The goal of the GE is survival on a much grosser plane of materiality (concerning the material or physical). See also thetan in this glossary. You'll find that there are facsimiles floating around you or the GE and someplace, and you can contact them. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
General Foods: a large food and beverage distribution company in the United States, incorporated in 1922. It distributes a wide variety of products such

253

254

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
as coffee, cereals, sodas, packaged meat products, etc. Or which could put sufficient calories into a body to make it go on pocketa-pocketa-pocketa without eating, particularly. General Foods won't love us for that last one. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
George, by: an oath or exclamation, originally referring to Saint George, Christian martyr of the early fourth century a.d., and patron saint of England from the fourteenth century. "Saint George" was the battle cry of English soldiers, and from this arose such expressions as "before George" and "by George." But this morning, by George, while I was processing you, we had some of the processing going down in a notebook. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
goofball: (slang) an insane person. The term goofball is also used as a modifier to mean "silly; crazy." And reversely, please, let's not look at a person in fairly fast motion and immediately brand him as a complete goofball. —-Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
goofy: (slang) stupid or crazy; silly; dazed. But remember this: person's goofy, they're real crazy, unmistakably crazy. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
GQ: (in the navy) abbreviation for general quarters, the stationing of all hands at battle stations, and the making of preparations, as for battle or an emergency. But I got through all of those, and one time didn't turn out for GQ and neither did the executive officer. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
gradient: a gradual approach to something, taken step by step, so that, finally, quite complicated and difficult activities or concepts can be achieved with relative ease. And the fellow in fear, which is covert hostility—about same tiny gradient in there, they're very close together—you come along and you push his hand away, and he'll say, "Yeah well, that's very interesting."—SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
gradient scale: a scale of condition graduated from zero to infinity. On a scale of reality, everything above zero or center would be more and more real, approaching an infinite reality, and everything below zero or center would be more and more unreal, approaching an infinite unreality. Absolutes are considered to be unobtainable. And the process to get him certain is just let him have wins, on a gradient scale, until at last he can win. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
Group Auditing: same as Group Processing. See Group Processing in this glossary. But we're going to do, not Group Auditing on this assignment, we're going to do individualized auditing—team auditing. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Group Processing: Scientology auditing techniques administered to groups of children or adults. They try to unmock it and they try to unmock it, and you, actually, every once in a while have to call it sharply to their attention— which is why I'm lecturing on it rather than giving you the Group Processing—call it to their attention: "Look! Hey! Well, what postulate did you mock it up with?"—More on Machines (19 Nov. 53)

GLOSSARY
gunshotting: a variation of shotgunning, which means "covering a wide area in an irregularly effective manner without concern for details or particulars; tending to be all-inclusive and nonselective." A shotgun is a gun with no grooves in its barrels, for firing cartridges filled with small lead or steel balls. When fired, these balls (shot) travel in an expanding, conelike pattern. So if you're going to run this step generally and smoothly in a clinic where you're just going to start gunshotting people and don't want to worry about their states of case beyond particularly this and that—you're just going to walk right in on this one. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
Handbook for Preclears: a volume of self-processing written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951. The handbook is designed for use by an auditor on a preclear, by a preclear between sessions, by a preclear with only occasional auditor help, or by a preclear without an auditor. It contains the Hubbard Chart of Attitudes and a fifteen-step auditing procedure done to increase a person's ability. See also Chart of Attitudes in this glossary. Put the whole Tone Scale as represented in the Handbook for Preclears—you know that chart in there? It has, over on the margin, it's got several extra emotions. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
hang fire: delay firing. After the trigger is pulled, a gun sometimes doesn't go off. This is called a "hangfire" or delayed fire if it then goes off late. Used figuratively in reference to something which is slow in occurring or something which does not bring about the result one might expect. And on some of the cases that have hung fire we find out that it's—they're so convinced that something should be able to look but mustn't look, and they're all hung up on viewpoints. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
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 to increase his ability to reach and get him stabilized in his environment. You've got to have movingness and out of movingness comes havingness. —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
hell, go to: (colloquial) become utterly ruined. Tells you any ship in which anybody's not interested goes to hell. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
hell with, to (or the): (informal) an exclamation expressing disgusted rejection of something. "The hell with it. I don't want anything to do with that body. It's a body. Somebody gave me a chance to leave and I'm gone!"—Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
hitching post: in the old West, a post to which horses were tied; hitching posts were found sometimes in corrals, and also outside houses and other buildings for visitors' animals. And soon as the person realizes there is no hitching post in the mest universe which is suddenly sitting—to be found by a preclear, suddenly sitting there, which is immovable, irradicable and entirely fixed without relating itself to any other post, that it's the "prime post unposted,"you've actually lost your grip on the whole subject of logic. — Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)

255

256

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
hitting: (figurative) operating; working. Literally, the term refers to the action of an internal-combustion engine igniting the fuel in its cylinders, which provides the energy that keeps the engine in operation. You know, your body isn't hitting too well, and you're supposed to be in the state of beautiful sadness of exhaustion because it is a war, and you're supposed to be doing something. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
Hoboken: a seaport in northeastern New Jersey, opposite New York City. They say, "The railroad track goes from Hoboken to Sloboken."—Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
hoist by (one's) own petard: beat with (one's) own weapons; caught in (one's) own trap; destroyed by the very devices with which (one) meant to destroy others. A petard was a metal cone filled with explosives, fastened to walls and gates in ancient warfare and exploded to force an opening. Hoist means "raised or lifted up." The expression is a reference to the fact that the engineer who set a petard was in danger of being blown up by it (an occurrence which was not uncommon in the days before the art of handling gunpowder and fuses was perfected). It comes from a line in the play Hamlet by English playwright William Shakespeare (1564-1616): "Let it work; for 'tis the sport to have the engineer / Hoist with his own petard ..." The second law of magic is "Do not be hoist by thine own petard."—Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
home plate: (baseball) the block or slab beside which a player stands to hit the ball, and to which he must return in order to score, after successfully running around three other bases laid out in a diamond shape. Used figuratively in this lecture. Now, you notice, is the closer we come to home plate the less language we're using. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
Homo sap: short for Homo sapiens, the Latin word meaning "modern man; mankind; a human being." Well, boy, when you go around and listen at Homo sap thinking . . . —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
huffs and puffs, he'll blow his house in: an allusion to a line from the children's story "The Three Pigs," a tale about three pigs, each of whom builds a house to be safe from the Big Bad Wolf. The first pig makes a house of straw, and the second a house of sticks. Both finish quickly and spend their time amusing themselves, while the third pig is building a house of bricks. When the wolf arrives at the door of each house, he boasts, "I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house in." He succeeds with the houses of straw and sticks, so the first two pigs take refuge in the brick house, which the wolf cannot blow down. And every time he tries to be a piece of energy, he then has to be awfully quiet; because if he suddenly—suddenly huffs and puffs, he'll blow his house in—right away. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
IBF: a made-up abbreviation for a police organization; humorous alteration of FBI. See also FBI in this glossary. The state police and the cops in general, and the FBI and the IBF and—oh boy, it's real, real cruel. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)

GLOSSARY
implant: an enforced command or series of commands installed in the reactive mind below the awareness level of the individual to cause him to react or behave in a prearranged way without his "knowing it." / mean they just walk up off the planetary ground and into the ship and pang! they get an automatic implant that tells them they're loyal, they're not supposed to go beyond certain points in the ship, that makes their wavelength so-and-so and so-and-so. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
implantation: the act or result of installing an implant. See also implant in this glossary. The crews go in and get automatic implantations the moment they step through the airlock after leaving the planet. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
invalidate: nullify; refute, degrade, discredit or deny something someone else considers to be a fact. Invalidation is a statement, action or inference that makes the preclear wrong. But every once in a while I invalidate somebody during a session by simply giving him more than he can do, or evaluate for him—say, "Now, I want you to think about this and give me the answer in the next session."—Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
iron suit: reference to the suit of mail (flexible body armor made of small, overlapping metal rings, loops of chain, or scales) worn by knights and warriors from the tenth through the thirteenth century. Now, this was very colorful and made a very nice game, as long as you had on an iron suit. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
irradicable: a coined word meaning "not able to be gotten rid of, wiped out or destroyed"; from the prefix ir-, meaning "not" and the word eradicable, meaning "able to be destroyed." And soon as the person realizes there is no hitching post in the mest universe which is suddenly sitting—to be found by a preclear, suddenly sitting there, which is immovable, irradicable and entirely fixed without relating itself to any other post, that it's the "prime post unposted,"you've actually lost your grip on the whole subject of logic. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
Jeans, Sir James: (1877-1946) English astrophysicist and writer. In addition to doing scientific research on radiation, the theory of gases, and the formation of the stars and the solar system, Jeans speculated on questions of an ultimate nature, once asserting that the universe consisted of pure thought and that it gave evidence of having been designed by a mathematical thinker. Well, where'd he get the atom? Where that come from? And you're immediately at the unreasonable assumption—even of Sir James Jeans. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
key in: to become restimulated, or to cause a key-in of (an engram). A key-in is a moment when the environment around an awake but fatigued or distressed individual is itself similar to a dormant (inactive) engram. At that moment the engram becomes active. See also restimulation in this glossary. You get somebody who is getting electronics—electronics is keying in, keying in, keying in and he's got facsimiles flying all over the place. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
key out: release or separate from (the reactive mind or some portion of it). See also reactive mind in this glossary. He's just taking command of and keying out all of his machinery. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)

257

258

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
last-ditch: made, done, used, etc., in a final, often desperate act of resistance or opposition. The term last ditch means "the last place that can be defended; the last resort," and originally referred to soldiers defending a military position. That was a last-ditch attempt on the part of a society to get some law and order and some police action, regardless of what. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
let George do it: let someone else do it. The expression is said to have originated with King Louis XII of France (reigned 1498-1515), referring to his minister, Cardinal Georges. And the thetan comes up against time, which he has set up and which he's agreeing with madly, and then he decides he'll let time do it. Not "Let George do it"—his motto should be "Let time do it."—SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
Library of Congress: the United States national library in Washington, DC, established in 1800 by the US Congress for the use of its members. The Library of Congress is one of the largest public reference libraries in the world; in the early 1950s it contained over thirty million items. And an infinity of lookingness—there isn't any reason why you have to memorize the contents of the Library of Congress if you can read out of any page in any book in the Library of Congress, any quotation which you want to read without going to the Library of Congress. —Footnote to Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
light-plant engines: stationary engines normally used in light plants (plants which generate electricity for use in electric lights), stripped down and installed in navy vessels during World War II. And they were stationary— they'd take big, huge, stationary, light-plant engines, you know, and strip all of the iron off them, supplant it all with aluminum, and then put them on a derrick and put them into a ship, and we run them at variable speeds. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
line charge: a prolonged spell of uncontrolled laughter or crying which may be continued for several hours. Once started, a line charge can usually be reinforced by the occasional interjection of almost any word or phrase by the auditor. The line charge usually signals the sudden release of a large amount of charge and brings about a marked change in the case. You could take a preclear, by the way, and simply have him double-terminal blackness, each time "What is the significance of it?" and he'll line charge like the devil and won't get rid of his blackness, because he's got a machine that keeps making it all the time. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
lock: an analytical moment in which the perceptics of an engram are approximated, thus restimulating the engram or bringing it into action, the present time perceptics being erroneously interpreted by the reactive mind to mean that the same condition which produced physical pain once before is now again at hand. See also reactive mind in this glossary. How many people blew a lock on Mama? —Black Mock-ups, Persistence, mest (18 Nov. 53)
Logics: a method of thinking. They apply to any universe or any thinking process. They are the forms of thought behavior which can, but do not necessarily have to, be used in creating universes. For more information, see the book Advanced Procedure and Axioms by L. Ron Hubbard. Those

GLOSSARY
aren't just something we thought of, you see, after we thought of the Logics. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
lookit: (colloquial) an extension of "look" demanding attention to something that is being described or pointed out. So, anyway, even with a game like this, a person says, "Lookit, somebody else has got to be on the other side of that board."—Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
Lord knows: (colloquial) an interjection meaning "only someone more powerful than man can possibly know or realize," usually used to express the speaker's inability to understand or foresee something. Also heaven knows or God knows. Very often thetans have arrangements whereby they put out a beam, it makes a facsimile simply by taking a plaster cast, you might say, energywise— Lord knows how tinily thick, you know, just very thin—and they just make a cast of the environment and you call this a facsimile when they pull this back in. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
Malenkov: Georgi Maximilianovich Malenkov (1902-1988) Soviet politician who was Stalin's closest associate and deputy premier of the Soviet Union from 1946 to 1953. On Stalin's death (March 1953), Malenkov succeeded him as premier, holding that position until 1955, when he was forced out of office and made minister for electric power stations (1955-1957). After losing another power struggle in 1957, Malenkov was exiled to central Asia to manage a power station and his name was removed from standard Soviet reference books. You can hypnotize somebody and say, "All right, you are now Malenkov." —Getting Up Speed, Part 1(17 Nov. 53)
match-terminal: run a process in which one has the preclear facing the preclear or his father facing his father; in other words, two of each of anything, one facing the other. These two things will discharge one into the other. For more information, see Chapter 7 of the book Scientology 8-8008. Anybody that's having trouble with energy starvation, you can even use as crude a technique as matched-terminaling in brackets "the right to be nothing." —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Mathison: Volney Mathison, an early Dianeticist who, after listening to a lecture by L. Ron Hubbard outlining the equipment and circuits necessary to detect mental charge, built the first E-Meter, the Model B, in 1951. There were various other models of E-Meters built by Mathison which were used by auditors. The E-Series in 1954 was his last model as his meters had become too complex to be workable. I'll have to demonstrate this ping meter to you someday, but I haven't got the—all I've got right now is the Mathison model, and the Hubbard-Mathison model is coming right up. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
McCoy, real: the genuine article; the person or thing as represented. This phrase originated in Scotland as the real Mackay and referred to people and things of the highest quality, and in particular to a brand of whiskey. Later, in America, the phrase was used in reference to an outstanding boxer by the name of McCoy, retaining its basic meaning of "the real thing." He's just in a situation there where he has a failure because of a machine that hands him facsimiles rather than hand him the real McCoy. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)

259

260

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
mest: a word coined from the initial letters of matter, energy, space and time, which are the component parts (elements) of the physical universe. Also used as an adjective to mean "physical"—as in "mest universe," meaning the "physical universe." And the body is other-determinism, but royally. It is being hit twenty-four hours a day by mest waves. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
-8.0: the numerical designation for the level of hiding on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. You understand that these characteristic emotions, as they go down scale—you go from 40.0 down to 0.0, why, and -8.0, you've got your emotions going over and over and over. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
mock up: create a mock-up (of). See also mock-up in this glossary. . .. you have him mock up a couple of people, both of them being bored, in front of him. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
mock-up: 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 one's body or one's presentation of it. The test on it is: can he hold a ball motionless before him in mock-up form that neither walks in nor walks out—if he can do that. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Mock-up Processing: another name for Creative Processing, an exercise by which the preclear is actually creating the physical universe. It consists of having the preclear make, with his own creative energies, a mock-up. See also mock-up in this glossary. ... the person would get out of a slavish, propitiative agreement and come on up into an antagonistic agreement, and he'd actually run the whole Tone Scale in Mock-up Processing. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
Monterey: a city on the coast of central California, south of San Francisco. And it's in the library at Pacific Groves, near Monterey in California. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
"Moonlight Sonata": a classical composition for the piano written by Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827). Its performance requires the expertise of a skilled pianist. Something twice as good as the "Moonlight Sonata."—Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
mote: (informal) to move; to operate. The term is a verb form of the word motor. And that's just what the trick—there isn't any deeper significance to it: cause, effect, attention, look, feel, mote, body, thetan. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
motivator: an aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics. The reason it is called a "motivator" is because it tends to

GLOSSARY
prompt that one pays it back—it "motivates" a new overt. See also overt act in this glossary. And here we have "resistance to evil" as the motivator back of religion. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
neurotic: (psychiatry) one who exhibits neurosis, a condition wherein a person is insane or disturbed on some subject (as opposed to psychosis, wherein a person is just insane in general). And the one common denominator of all cases difficult to exteriorize; the one common denominator, difficult to exteriorize— and below that level, what they have called neurotic, psychotic personalities— they have one common denominator that goes clear across the boards is, is they can't put out much effort. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
next-to-the-last list: reference to the next-to-the-last list of questions in the book Self Analysis by L. Ron Hubbard, which asks the preclear to recall times which were really real to him, when he felt real affinity, and when he was in good communication. "Oh, you said to do a little bit of Straightwire, next-to-the-last list."—Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
9th and Chester: a made-up designation for a street corner. Both "9th" and "Chester" are names of streets in Camden, but they run parallel and do not intersect. "Oh, well down there at 9th and Chester, and I—and so forth."— Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
nip-up: any sudden motion; jumping jerk. From the use of the term in gymnastics, meaning "the acrobatic feat of springing to one's feet from a position flat on one's back." You can monitor a GE if you want to and turn him into nip-ups because he's a total effect—practically total effect. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
nitrous oxide: a colorless gas that dulls pain, and in some patients produces exhilaration and occasionally uncontrollable laughter; laughing gas. It is used as an anesthetic. You process some preclear, you run through birth, you find out there was nitrous oxide used in birth and so forth. —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
"Nothing 'gainst time's scythe can make defence / Save breed to brave him when he takes thee hence": reference to the last lines of a sonnet by English poet and playwright William Shakespeare (1564-1616). The poem is about time, and ends with the lines: 'Then of thy beauty do I question make / That thou among the wastes of time must go, / Since sweets and beauties do themselves forsake, / And die as fast as they see others grow; / And nothing 'gainst time's scythe can make defence / Save breed to brave him when he takes thee hence." Time uncreates, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa—automatic destruction. "Nothing 'gainst time's scythe can make defence I Save breed to brave him when he takes thee hence." —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
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. And it's "who, who, who" until they get everybody playing the "only one" and so forth. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)

261

262

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Operating Thetan: a state of beingness. It is a being "at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life." Operating comes from "able to operate without dependency on things," and Thetan is the Greek letter theta (Θ), which the ancient Greeks used to represent thought or perhaps spirit, to which an n is added to make a noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. It is also Θn or "theta to the nth degree," meaning unlimited or vast. So the emphasis has actually been in quite the opposite direction and has been reaching the resistive cases simultaneously. Which is, how do you make an Operating Thetan better in his operation? —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
Orienting Straightwire: the name of the process run as Step I of SOP 8-C. For more information, see "SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit" in the appendix of this transcript booklet. "And you said to run some Step I, Orienting Straightwire, and I did that."—Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
other-determined: determined by something or someone other than oneself. The way he goes down scale is it's other-determined assurance, you know? — Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
other-determinism: a condition of having one's actions or conclusions determined by something or someone other than oneself. And the body is other-determinism, but royally. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
overt act: an act by a person or individual leading to the injury, reduction or degradation of another, others or their persons, possessions or associations. An overt act can be intentional or unintentional. So when somebody takes a poke at his jaw, even though he's unconscious, why, he hits the other fellow in the solar plexus. See? That's an overt act. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
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 motivator and overt act in this glossary. So you get your overt act-motivator sequences. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
Pacific Groves: reference to Pacific Grove, a residential and resort city near Monterey, California. See also Monterey in this glossary. And it's in the library at Pacific Groves, near Monterey in California. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
Packard: a car made by Packard Motor Car Company, a manufacturer of luxurious cars in the first half of the twentieth century. They were stuff that they'd taken out of Buicks and Packards and automobiles, you see, and they'd just park them all the way around the ship and these horns would suddenly open up. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
patter: the special vocabulary of a particular activity. Now, I'll give you a little bit of the patter here of what we should be pattering about. —Black Mock-ups, Persistence, mest (18 Nov. 53)

GLOSSARY
pc: abbreviation for preclear. See preclear in this glossary. And, another pc there—I cleaned up the Assumption on him and all of a sudden got his face live. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
PDHed: subjected to pain-drug-hypnosis (PDH), a practice used by ill-intentioned beings and groups in which pain, drugs and hypnotism are administered to cause a victim to become a robot and commit crimes or act in an irrational way. It is not very effective but it is very damaging to the person.... somebody who has been directly PDHed. And he's had an automaticity set up for him that is simply dependent upon an earlier automaticity that he'd like to be unconscious. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
Perils of Pauline, The: the name of a famous 1914 film serial concerned with the heroine's (Pauline's) evasion of attempts on her life by her dastardly guardian. It was one of the most popular serials of its time. But later on, a pc— earlier lives and that sort of thing—starts getting hit by freight engines and running through The Perils of Pauline in general, and this earlier machinery gets a lot of facsimiles piled up on it. —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
"physician heal thyself": a proverb meaning that people should take care of their own defects and not just correct the faults of others. They always talk, you know, about "physician heal thyself," which is a sarcastic backhand slap. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
picnic: (colloquial) an awkward adventure, an unpleasant experience, a troublesome job. And as long as he keeps himself from changing his postulates by having the postulates in such a form as they can't be altered—must resist all effects, you see—you're going to have a picnic. —More on Machines (19 Nov. 53)
pieces, of all: (dialect) of all people. Piece is a chiefly dialectal term meaning "a person; an individual." But the tigers were tigers, you know, and it was a menagerie, and all of a sudden my mother, of all pieces, asked me how I did it. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
ping meter: reference to the beep meter, a machine developed for chiropractors which would beep when the electrode was put onto a painful spot on a person's body. For more information, see the book Understanding the E-Meter by L. Ron Hubbard. Now, let me give you a little word of warning and a little word about the ping meter. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
pitch, get in (there) and: (slang) make an effort; work diligently; refuse to be defeated. And this afternoon I wish to assure the ladies and gentlemen present, they better get in and pitch. —More on Machines (19 Nov. 53)
pocketa-pocketa-pocketa: (informal) an imitation of the regular sound made by a smoothly running internal combustion engine. The term was first used by American writer James Thurber (1894-1961) in his story "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty." Time uncreates,pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa—automatic destruction. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
Poplar Place: a made-up name for a location. You ask him, "Does this streetcar go to Poplar Place?"—Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)

263

264

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
postulate: a conclusion, decision or resolution made by the individual himself to resolve a problem or to set a pattern for the future or to nullify a pattern of the past. And I can tell you that bluntly, without you suddenly changing postulates on it, because that's what it is. —Black Mock-ups, Persistence, mest (18 Nov. 53)
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. A Clear is an unaberrated person. He is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. It is a state of mental well-being never before achieved by man. An identity is going to crop up in the preclear continually, continually, continually. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
prefrontal lobotomy: a psychiatric operation performed on the prefrontal lobes of the brain (the parts of the brain situated just behind the forehead), supposedly for the purpose of relieving symptoms of mental illness. The operation is done by drilling holes in the skull and then using an instrument with a loop of wire at the end to cut the nerve fibers which connect the prefrontal lobes to the rest of the brain. So, things like prefrontal lobotomies, electric shock, automobile accidents and so forth, are tolerated in the society. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Prelogics: statements of the common denominators of knowledge, written by L. Ron Hubbard, also known as the Qs. A full list of the Prelogics can be found in the book Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics by L. Ron Hubbard. Because you've gotten, then, workable—you've gotten it workable; and we get into the first Prelogic. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
present time: the time which is now and which becomes the past almost as rapidly as it is observed. It is a term loosely applied to the environment existing in now. Good old electropsychometry, just start hitting them with dates—dates, dates, dates—billions of years ago and present time. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
Pribilofs: group of four Alaskan islands in the Bering Sea, north of the Aleutian Islands. Nor yet, is it in the North Pacific—even though in the Pribilofs some gay soul, during the war, planted the sign: "Los Angeles City Limits."—Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
prime mover unmoved: a concept originating with the Greek philosopher Aristotle. It means the first cause of all movement, itself immovable. Oh, most scientists just toss in the sponge, buy thick glasses, try not to perceive anything real, and say, "Well, in the final analysis, the prime mover unmoved—God—started it all."—Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
prime post unposted: a humorous variation of prime mover unmoved, from the idea of an immovable hitching post in the MEST universe, as described in lecture 18 November 1953, "Step I of 8-C: Orientation," in this transcript booklet. See also prime mover unmoved in this glossary. And soon as the person realizes there is no hitching post in the mest universe which is suddenly sitting—to be found by a preclear, suddenly sitting there, which is immovable,

GLOSSARY
irradicable and entirely fixed without relating itself to any other post, that it's the "prime post unposted," you've actually lost your grip on the whole subject of logic. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
process: (1) a set of questions asked or commands given by a Scientology or Dianetics auditor to help a person find out things about himself or life and to improve his condition. And a process falls short when it produces the thought and the conviction that the individual is an effect. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53) (2) to apply Dianetics and Scientology processes to. You'll be processing a preclear, and all of a sudden it's like something goes kind of click or flip or something there. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
processing: the application of Dianetics and/or Scientology processes and procedures to individuals for their betterment. The exact definition of processing 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 auditing. Giving you some sort of an idea of the character of the beast and the direct target of processing. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
psycho: short for psychotic. See also psychotic in this glossary. A psycho can handle this if you can even vaguely get in communication with him, just vaguely. —Resistance to Effect (20 Nov. 53)
psychosomatic: a term used in common parlance to denote a condition "resulting from a state of mind." Psychosomatic illnesses account for about 70 percent of all ills, by popular report. They said, "No"—they made this announcement many times—"No psychosomatic illness is curable because the person simply becomes psychosomatically ill in some other manner." — Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
psychotic: out of contact to a thorough extent with the present time environment and not computing into the future. This term is also used to denote a person who is in such a condition. A person may be an acute psychotic wherein he becomes psychotic for only a few minutes at a time and only occasionally in certain environments (as in rages or apathies) or he may be a chronic psychotic, or in a continual disconnection with the future and present. Psychotics who are dramatically harmful to others are considered dangerous enough to be put away. Psychotics who are harmful on a less dramatic basis are no less harmful to their environment and are no less psychotic. And the one common denominator of all cases difficult to exteriorize; the one common denominator, difficult to exteriorize—and below that level, what they have called neurotic, psychotic personalities—they have one common denominator that goes clear across the boards is, is they can't put out much effort. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
puerperal fever: a poisoned state of the birth canal and the bloodstream occurring at childbirth which formerly caused a high mortality rate in maternity wards. A Hungarian physician named Ignaz Semmelweiss (1818-1865) introduced measures to control the spread of the disease, but was ridiculed by many doctors; he ended up contracting puerperal fever through a wound on his hand, and dying himself of the disease he had

265

266

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
sought to cure. The boy who discovered puerperal fever, by the way, died from it, and so on. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
Pulmotor: (trademark) a device that gives artificial respiration by forcing oxygen into the lungs. Because they'd kept trying to revive him, evidently, with Pulmotors or something of the sort. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
put the throttle into the instrument panel: move at top speed. The phrase refers to the throttle of an airplane, which is a lever or knob that is pushed toward or into the instrument panel to speed up, and pulled out of or away from the instrument panel to slow down. So we're going to start right off— right off here with this Second Unit, and we're going to put the throttle into the instrument panel, and going to hand out the (quote) "hot dope" right away quick . . . —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Q and A: an abbreviation of Question and Answer used to express the factual principle that in perfect duplication, the exact answer to a question would be the question. The term has also come to mean an auditor doing what the pc does, or changing when the pc changes. See, it's one of these—it's Q and A. It is what it is; the way to cross the river is to cross the river; the way to eat breakfast is to eat breakfast. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
quantum mechanics: the branch of physics that deals with atomic structure and phenomena by the methods of the quantum theory (the theory that radiant energy, as light, is not given off or absorbed in a continuous flow but in a series of small, separate bits, each bit being an amount of energy called a quantum). They have what they call quantum mechanics, which is laughingly supposed to be a mathematics. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
rack around: ramble or travel around in a casual, reckless way, as in search of excitement. Just rack around until you've got the actual television stage, look at it. —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
radio shack: a small building housing radio equipment. If you go into a ham radio shop or if you go into a ham radio shack, you'll find equipment and machinery and everything lying around all the time, and it's—"he's going to build" and "he has just fixed."—Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
randomity: a consideration of motion. We have plus randomity and we have minus randomity. We can have, from the individual's consideration, too much or too little motion, or enough motion. What's enough motion measured by? The consideration of the individual. And there you have an example of plus and minus randomity. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
ration card: a card entitling the holder to a ration, a fixed official allowance of food, clothing, fuel, etc., for each person in time of war or shortage. And that goes down to, when a person is only defending, it gets plus randomity to the point where people start blowing their brains out merely because somebody misplaced a period on the ration card. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
reactive mind: a portion of a person's mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control and which exerts

GLOSSARY
force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. Also called bank. See also engrain and aberration in this glossary. Definition of case: Case also refers to a person's condition, which is monitored by the content of his reactive mind.
reality: agreement upon perceptions and data in the physical universe. All that we can be sure is real is that on which we have agreed is real. Agreement is the essence of reality. And what it is, is a chain of the agreements which we have come to realize—realize is reality. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
redheaded: angrily excited; hot-tempered (having a quick or violent temper). Because that auditing, every single piece of it and every five minutes of it— except occasionally when a guy gets redheaded and hits him in the head with a book or something of the sort—is assisting his determinism. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
Resistive V: a severely occluded case. A person who is so far gone he can't even see pictures anymore, he only sees blackness in front of him. For more information, see Step V of Standard Operating Procedure 8 in the appendix of this transcript booklet. But looking at the complexity which was presented by a Resistive V was somewhat baffling. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
restim: short for restimulation. See restimulation in this glossary. And then somebody amongst them gets into restim or somebody lands out of space opera, and brother, all hell breaks loose. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
restimulation: a reactivation in the present of a past mental recording, due to similar circumstances in the present environment approximating circumstances of the past. .. . he's got himself so doggone thoroughly out of control and in restimulation that he'll never get out of his body. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
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. And when that velocity hits one of these ridges sitting out there—we don't have to know too much about ridges, that's just another barrier. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
rods: short for connecting rods, the metal pieces that connect the pistons in an engine to the crankshaft. When a rod breaks or is disconnected from the crankshaft, major damage is usually incurred. Male voice: Wouldn't break any rods either. —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
run: to perform the steps of a process, procedure, etc., on (someone or something). See also process in this glossary. And now let me just make one little side remark on that step about brackets, is for God's sakes don't run half a bracket, because you hang cases up. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)

267

268

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
run like the dickens just to keep up, and run like everything just to get anyplace: reference to a quote from the book Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll, in which one of the characters remarks, "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!" See also Carroll, Lewis in this glossary. He says you run like the dickens just to keep up, and run like everything just to get anyplace. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
sad apple: a gloomy person, frequently irritable, introverted, or pessimistic. Every once in a while you walk into some sad apple—pardon me, some gentleman—who is utterly convinced that he is telepathing all over the shop, see. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
Salton Sea: a shallow saltwater lake in southern California, about 140 miles southeast of Los Angeles. Los Angeles is a small village which is located very close to the Salton Sea. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
Schicklgruber, Adolf: another name for Adolf Hitler. Hitler's father, Alois (born 1837), was illegitimate and for a time bore his mother's name, Schicklgruber, but by 1876 he had established his claim to the surname Hitler. Adolf (born 1889) never used any other name; the name Schicklgruber was revived only by his political opponents in Germany and Austria in the 1930s. Let's take Adolf Schicklgruber as an example: it wasn't his fault. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
Scientologist: one who knows he has found the way to a better life through Scientology and who, through Scientology books, tapes, training and processing, is actively attaining it. You see that? So the reason why your Scientologist finds himself a different kind of case is because he has set up another "resist all effects" machine. —Resistance to Effect (20 Nov. 53)
Scientology: Scientology philosophy. It is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life. Scientology means scio, knowing in the fullest sense of the word and logos, study. In itself the word means literally knowing how to know. Scientology is a "route," a way, rather than a dissertation or an assertive body of knowledge. Through its drills and studies one may find the truth for himself. The technology is therefore not expounded as something to believe, but something to do. And when we say Scientology, that's a science of knowing how to know; that means the science of knowing how to be certain, which actually is a track-back of the agreements which have culminated in the state of the individual at this level. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Scientology 8-8008: a book written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 which is a complete treatise of the anatomy of universes and the role played in them by a spiritual being. The definition of 8-8008 is the attainment of infinity by the reduction of the apparent infinity and power of the MEST universe to a zero for himself, and the increase of the apparent zero of one's own universe to an infinity for oneself. It can be seen that infinity stood upright makes the number eight: thus, 8-8008 is not just another number, but serves to fix into the mind of the individual a route by which he can rehabilitate himself, his abilities, his ethics and his goals. So, from A to B, you have any action cycle you read about in Scientology 8-8008. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)

GLOSSARY
screen: a ridge that is formed for a special purpose of protection. See also ridge in this glossary. For instance, a person took his prefrontal nerve up here and just cleaned it all up real good, see—took off all the screens and bric-a-brac and junk and just cleaned it up real fine so his forehead was in beautiful electronic condition, see. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
Second Unit: reference to the students of this course, the Second American Advanced Clinical Course. And this is November the 17th, first morning lecture, Second Unit. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Self Analysis: reference to the auditing processes given in the book Self Analysis in Scientology: an edition of Self Analysis (a handbook containing auditing processes which can be used by oneself or audited on another person) in which LRH revised the processing section for use in Creative Processing. It was published in April 1953 in the United States. See also Mock-up Processing in this glossary. A good drill on this is just to put this new list I've given you on all the emotions—ridicule, love, hate, sexual sensation and so forth—and just do some Self Analysis and just put those emotions into the mock-ups which you get. —Black Mock-ups, Persistence, mest (18 Nov. 53)
self-auditing: the action of running concepts or processes on oneself. And if somebody's been self-auditing a lot, have him run "a self-auditing machine." —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
self-determinism: a condition of determining the actions of self; the ability to direct oneself. A body has no self-determinism. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
sequitur: a Latin word which literally means "it follows." As a descriptive term, it means "pertinent; following logically (from what came before)." The fellows who are very orderly and in pretty good shape and are getting something done abroad and all that sort of thing, these boys—oh, they just talk over the line, they're very sequitur and so on. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
726 Cooper: the address in Camden, New Jersey, where the First American Advanced Indoctrination Course was delivered (6 October-13 November 1953) by L. Ron Hubbard. And the Walt Whitman Hotel (which is one of the favorite things they were using up in 726)—boy, it took a beating during the last six weeks. —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
Sheen, Bishop: reference to John Fulton Sheen (1895-1979), American religious leader and Catholic priest. Beginning in 1930 he became the regular preacher on the NBC network radio program, "The Catholic Hour" and continued on radio until the advent of television. In 1952 his weekly television series, "Life Is Worth Living," made him one of the best-known personalities in the country. It's like Bishop Sheen the other night. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
shop, all over the: (colloquial) all over the place; everywhere. Every once in a while you walk into some sad apple—pardon me, some gentleman—who is utterly convinced that he is telepathing all over the shop, see. —Getting Up Speed, Part 1(17 Nov. 53)

269

270

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
sitting there like a duck: (colloquial) a variation of sitting duck, meaning "a person or thing especially vulnerable to attack; easy target" (in reference to the ease with which a hunter can hit a duck that is sitting still, in contrast to one in flight). It can be gunned out anytime anybody wants to knock out one of its installations—it's just sitting there like a duck. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
16-G: reference to Journal of Scientology Issue 16 -G, entitled "This Is Scientology, the Science of Certainty," a copy of which can be found in the appendix of this transcript booklet. That's in 16-G. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
sixteen-inch gun: a large, heavy artillery gun with a barrel 16 inches in diameter and a range of more than 28 miles (approximately 45 kilometers). I have simply been wheeling up the sixteen-inch guns and letting you have large explosive shells in the belly. —Resistance to Effect (20 Nov. 53)
6018: a designation for an unspecified electronic part. "Yes, I'm glad that you installed the 6018 like you did."—Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
slippy: (British colloquial) alert; sharp; quick. The only place today that requires any real slippy, clever auditing is on a Step I who has gone so high toward Operating Thetan—oh, they're real complicated way up at the top, they're not complicated down low. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
Sloboken: a humorous made-up name for a location, which rhymes with "Hoboken." They say, "The railroad track goes from Hoboken to Sloboken." —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
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 to denote physical pain or discomfort. But the person who can't see as a thetan prefers somatics, because they tell him again where something is. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
son of a gun, I'll be a: (slang) an exclamation used to express amazement, surprise or annoyance, or to add emphasis to a statement. The phrase has been in use for over two centuries and originally was a descriptive term conveying contempt in a slight degree, applied to boys born afloat when women were occasionally allowed to accompany men in ships of the British Navy. Voyages were frequently long and conditions cramped, and any woman about to give birth had to do so beneath or beside one of the ship's guns, behind an improvised screen. And I'll be a son of a gun if the preclear didn't! —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
SOP 8: abbreviation for Standard Operating Procedure 8. For full information on this procedure, see "This Is Scientology, The Science of Certainty" in the appendix of this transcript booklet. But, believe me, SOP 8 works. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
SOP 8-C: abbreviation for Standard Operating Procedure 8-C. For full information on this procedure, see "SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit" in the appendix of this transcript booklet. Now, SOP 8-C is tremendously refined over this. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)

GLOSSARY
SOP 8-L: abbreviation for Standard Operating Procedure 8 -Learning, a version of Standard Operating Procedure 8 that included several additional actions to be done at Steps IV and V. Its name came from the fact that a person has to learn something about life before he's happy about doing anything about it. See also SOP 8 in this glossary. It is an educational process. Comes under SOP 8-L. —Resistance to Effect (20 Nov. 53)
south: down; toward a lower level. One case I had recently—there's one I was running to develop this procedure on how far south can you get, and I went as far south as I could get. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
space opera: time periods on the whole track which concern activities in this and other galaxies. Space opera has space travel, spaceships, spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It is not fiction and concerns actual incidents and things that occur and have occurred on the track. Space opera used to be a lot of fun, you know. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
spin: (slang) to go into a state of mental confusion. And if you want to make somebody who is having a good time think-think-think-think-think practically spin, just have him double-terminal logic. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
spinbin: (slang) a mental institution. And we just wheel the guy off in a wheelbarrow to the local spinbin. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
spout, down the: (informal) into a ruined, wasted or abandoned state or condition. A variation of down the chute. By the way, a wonderful way to throw somebody's automaticity just down the spout is to ask him: "How do you do it?"—Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
stand on its ear: (colloquial) a variation of set on its ear, meaning "to cause excitement, upheaval, etc., in." If you really wanted to make a society stand on its ear and become completely fogged about the whole thing, you just start doing things like this and you would get these effects. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
Step XVIII: a coined name for an extremely low-level case, based on the Steps given in Standard Operating Procedure 8. See also SOP 8 in this glossary. But supposing you took somebody that was a Step XVIII and you says, "All right, now, be three feet back of your head," and he was feeling pretty good that day, and he was, and then you said, "Are you there?"—Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
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. "Oh, you said to do a little bit of Straightwire, next-to-the-last list."—Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)

271

272

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Superman: a fictional hero with superhuman powers (including flight, super-strength, superhearing, the ability to see through things, etc.) who used his abilities to benefit mankind. In order to conceal his true identity as Superman, he adopted the guise of a mild-mannered reporter named Clark Kent. From this job he learned of disasters immediately and was readily available to combat crime by becoming Superman again. Superman was first introduced in an American comic book in 1938 and was later portrayed in a television show "The Adventures of Superman" which ran from July 1951 to November 1957. This fellow who can pervade without perception, boy, he's got Superman whipped the way he can look through walls. —Getting Up Speed, Part 1(17 Nov. 53)
survey stations: in surveying land (determining the form, extent, situation, etc., of a tract of ground by linear and angular measurements so as to construct a map, plan, or detailed description), each of the fixed points from which measurements are made. For instance, the survey chain, when put a little bit off the pins of the survey stations which are being measured—anytime it goes immediately off an exact straight line, from pin to pin or station to station, it's shorter. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
T: an abbreviation for time which appears on the shutter speed dials of many cameras, and simply indicates the setting used to hold the shutter open for an undetermined time until it is manually closed using the shutter release (the button or knob that activates the shutter). You go around the front and you look in the lens to see if the shutter is open or closed. Not is the thing on "T" or a fiftieth of a second. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
terminal: a person, point or position which can receive, relay or send a communication. And of course he joins something which is primarily effect, and so we have a communication terminal collapse which goes from cause to effect. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
theta: life force, life energy, divine 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 spirit or thought. The first thing theta does is create space and time and objects in them, and—creates, see. —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
theta body: a mock-up consisting of a number of facsimiles of old bodies the thetan has misowned and is carrying along with him as control mechanisms which he uses to control the body he is using. They've got an old theta body right in front of their face and it has a vacuum in it. —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
Theta Clear: a person (thought unit) who is clear of his body, his engrams, his facsimiles, but can handle and safely control a body. Definition of Theta Clearing: the process of bringing a being to the state of Theta Clear.
Theta Clearing: the process of bringing a being to the state of Theta Clear. See also Theta Clear in this glossary. And that will speed up Theta Clearing like bullets out of a gun. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)

GLOSSARY
thetan: an immortal spiritual being; the human soul. The term soul is not used because it has developed so many other meanings from use in other religions and practices that it doesn't describe precisely what was discovered in Scientology. We use the term thetan instead, from the Greek letter theta, Θn, the traditional symbol for thought or life. One does not have a thetan, something one keeps somewhere apart from oneself; one is a thetan. The thetan is the person himself, not his body or his name or the physical universe, his mind or anything else. It is that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. Oddly enough, the easiest thing to do for an individual in a body is the hardest thing for a thetan to do. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
theta trap: a means used to trap a thetan. All theta traps have one thing in common: They use electronic force to knock the thetan into forgetting, into unknowingness, into effect. See also thetan in this glossary. Well now, let's take a look at A to B with regard to this, and we find out that as a thetan he's in the middle of some kind of theta trap, and he's really high cause but every time he gets a particle out it hits this body which is immediately there, which is effect. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
thisa ... thata: (informal) various activities, things, etc., (used to give only a general indication of what is being referred to). Oh, the nuances, the thisas and thatas—he's got every role he ever played set up as an automaticity. — Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
three A's: reference to the American Automobile Association (AAA), founded in 1902 to coordinate the activities of various local organizations of motorists. It has become a federation of local automobile clubs, with a combined membership of about 34 million. The AAA. promotes highway improvement and traffic safety and supplies travel information and assistance, insurance, and emergency road service for its members.. . . some kid is going to come along who's sixteen or seventeen and this is his second race, and although every veteran driver on the track is going to say, "My God, who let that goddamn fool on this track! He ought to be shot, outlawed, the three A's ought to throw him on his ear," and everything else, the kid still wins the race! —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
time track: the consecutive record of mental image pictures which accumulate through a person's life or lives. It is very exactly dated. The time track is the entire sequence of "now" incidents, complete with all sense messages, picked up by a person during his whole existence. So he parked it on the time track. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
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, exhilaration (as we proceed downward), mild interest, boredom, anger, fear, grief, apathy. An arbitrary numerical value is given to each level on the scale. Also called the Tone Scale. There are many aspects of the Tone Scale and using it makes possible the prediction of human behavior. A copy of the Tone Scale in use at the time of these lectures is included in the appendix of this transcript booklet. Well, optimum is somewhere around 20.0 on the Tone Scale. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)

273

274

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Torquemada: Tomás de Torquemada (1420-1498), Spanish monk who organized and was the inquisitor-general (highest-ranking inquisitor) of the Spanish Inquisition, a body of men appointed to pass judgment on those considered to have beliefs contrary to those of the Roman Catholic Church. During the eighteen years that Torquemada was inquisitor-general, it is said that he burned over two thousand persons. His name has come to symbolize ruthless persecution. Let's take now the activities of a fellow known as Torquemada. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
track: short for time track. See time track in this glossary. Well, way back on the track you'll find people being registered by their wavelengths—thetans were. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
transfer: (psychoanalysis) experience transference. See also transference in this glossary. Freudian self-analysis answered the question with a wrong bracket— they said the way to help somebody is to get him to transfer completely. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
transference: (psychoanalysis) the process by which emotions and desires originally associated with one person, such as a parent, brother or sister, are unconsciously shifted to another person, especially to the psychoanalyst. I'm not quite sure what they ever meant by transference, and I would be ashamed of that if they knew—they don't happen to know what they meant by transference either. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
TWA: abbreviation for Trans World Airlines, Inc., an American airline formed in 1930 which flies both domestic and international routes. When I hit that technique, I had: "Is there a TWA aeroplane, 10,000 feet up, on the chair immediately beside you?"—Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
2.0: the numerical designation for the level of antagonism on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. Now, you will see this—that's the mockery level of the Tone Scale, down there around 2.0 and so forth, that mocks everything that is higher on the Tone Scale. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)
20.0: the numerical designation for the level of action on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. Well, optimum is somewhere around 20.0 on the Tone Scale. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
273 degrees below zero centigrade: the theoretical temperature at which substances would have no heat whatever and all molecules would stop moving. Also called absolute zero. "Are you thinking in the Bureau of Standards chill room where they have a 273 degrees below zero centigrade?"—Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
Typewriter in the Sky: a fantasy fiction novel written by L. Ron Hubbard and first published in 1940. In the book, a piano player suddenly finds himself part of an adventure novel being written by his friend Horace Hackett. Not only is he in the novel, but he is the villain and destined to die. Frustrated by his boredom when Horace ignores him to concentrate on other characters in the novel, and trapped by Horace's poorly researched plot and characterization, the piano player alternates between enjoying the drama and wanting

GLOSSARY
to murder Horace. I had two novels in one book; one of them is Fear and the other is Typewriter in the Sky. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
under the shape of the sun: a variation of under the sun, meaning "on earth; in the world." You state it in various ways, any way under the shape of the sun that you want to, but it's still that postulate "survive," which is "must resist all effects".. . —Resistance to Effect (20 Nov. 53)
Universal Military Training: a system in which every qualified man receives a general military training when he reaches a certain age. The immediate result of that was when they—was trying to get boys for the army in 1940, and which brought down on our heads, finally, the thing which is humorously called Universal Military Training. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
universe: a whole system of created things. The universes are three in number. The first of these is one's own universe. The second would be the material universe, which is the universe of matter, energy, space and time, which is the common meeting ground of all of us. The third is actually a class of universes— the universe of every other person. Out of this, and the fact that there are three universes, we get the entirety of everything we're doing. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
unmock: make nothing of. See also mock up in this glossary. We haven't come to Step II yet, very much, but that's the automatic machinery which unmocks barriers. —Black Mock-ups, Persistence, mest (18 Nov. 53)
Validation Processing: a type of processing which addresses theta incidents, with the purpose of making the preclear more reasonable and rational on a subject about which he is severely reactive. Validation Processing is based on the datum that that which is validated grows stronger. You understand Validation Processing—remember Validation Processing—what you validate has a tendency to come true? —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
Verypretty, Mr.: a made-up name for a preclear. So you try to explain to the preclear, "The trouble that is wrong with you, Mr. Verypretty is—the trouble is, that you are having difficulties domestically and this upsets our processing." —Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
viewpoint: a point of awareness from which one can perceive. Viewpoint of dimension: In order to have a viewpoint of dimension, you have to have the location of the viewpoint with regard to the anchor points. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
villain of the piece: (informal) the person or thing that is guilty of or responsible for something bad or harmful. The phrase is taken from the theater, where it means the evil character in a play. What is the actual "other cause"? What is the villain of the piece? Himself. —Resistance to Effect (20 Nov. 53)
visio: a thing seen or the recall of something seen, so that it is seen again in the mind in full color, scale, dimension, brightness and detail. Get a picture of you starting something," and for the first time in his life, he'll get a third-dimensional visio. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)

275

276

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Walt Whitman Hotel: a hotel in Camden, New Jersey at the time of these lectures, named for American poet Walt Whitman (1819-1892), who lived in Camden from 1873 until his death in 1892. And the Walt Whitman Hotel (which is one of the favorite things they were using up in 726)—boy, it took a beating during the last six weeks. —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
West, old: the western region of the United States during the frontier period of the nineteenth century when settlers were moving west, claiming land, and later when gold was discovered in California. But a "case of slow" was ordinarily a very fatal disease in the old West. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
What to Audit: the original title of the book now known as Scientology: A History of Man, written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952. It is a look at the evolutionary background and history of the human race, described as "a coldblooded and factual account of your last sixty trillion years." When we got through with What to Audit phenomena—overt act-motivator sequence, all of this—once that ground was gone over, why, the stuff that shows up after that is just fabulous. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
Wheelwright, Bill: a made-up name for a person. A wheelwright is a person who makes and repairs wheels and wheeled vehicles. And this time he decides to drive the car, not to rely on the training that old Bill Wheelwright slipped him when he was a kid, because that seems passe. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
"when 'Omer was smoting his bloomin' lyre": reference to a poem written by English novelist, short-story writer and poet Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936), entitled "When 'Omer Smote 'Is Bloomin' Lyre." The beginning lines of the poem read: "When 'Omer smote 'is bloomin' lyre, / He'd 'eard men sing by land an' sea; / An' what he thought 'e might require, / 'E went an' took—the same as me!" 'Omer is a dialectal pronunciation of Homer, a semilegendary poet of ancient Greece. And "when 'Omer was smoting his bloomin' lyre," it was a pretty routine and ordinary problem, didn't stampede anybody. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
whistle tube: a variation of speaking tube, a tube or pipe for speaking, communicating orders, etc., from one room, area (as on a ship), building, etc., to another. We put back into operation the old whistle tube. —Step II: Automaticities (18 Nov. 53)
whole track: the whole span of the time track (the moment-to-moment record of a person's existence in this universe in picture and impression form) including past track, prior to this lifetime. But the second you evaluate it against whole track Theta Clearing, it becomes quite natural. —Opening Lecture: Emotional Tone Scale (17 Nov. 53)
wolf in sheep clothing: anyone or anything disguising a ruthless nature through an outward show of innocence. The phrase comes from the Bible, in which Jesus taught his followers to "beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." So the machine which duplicates the effect, necessity to have, is the worst machine in the bank. And it's apparently the finest machine in the bank. It's a good, big wolf in sheep clothing. —Footnote to Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)

GLOSSARY
worst in this worst of all possible worlds: a humorous alteration of the motto "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds." See also best in this best of all possible worlds in this glossary. And I'm afraid that things will all work out for the worst in this worst of all possible worlds; but that's somebody else's lookout, not ours. —Getting Up Speed, Part II (17 Nov. 53)
WPA: abbreviation for Work Projects Administration: the former federal agency (1935-1943) charged with instituting and administering public works in order to relieve national unemployment. Originally called the Works Progress Administration. But a government which starts in on the basis of corn, games and WPA will inevitably cave in the people because they're helping them in such a way to make it almost impossible for the fellow to help himself. —Plan of Auditing (20 Nov. 53)
yo-heave, give (something) a: get rid of (something). A variation of give the (old) heave-ho to (from the sixteenth-century sailors' cry of heave-ho when hauling). And let's take out these reluctant pieces of machinery, the reluctant dragons, and give them a yo-heave. —Waste a Machine (18 Nov. 53)
you betcha: (informal) of course; surely. A variation of you bet. He'll say, "Sure. You betcha. Yep. Yep."—Getting Up Speed, Part I (17 Nov. 53)
yup: (slang) yes; an affirmative reply. The fellow will say, "Yup."Be the normal reaction. —Step I of 8-C: Orientation (18 Nov. 53)
zap gun: (slang) a ray gun (a gun or other instrument that is supposed to shoot radioactive rays) or the like. He gets to a point where he starts using electronics, zap guns, heavily contained, armored ships. —Effects, Reaching End of Cycle (19 Nov. 53)
0.0: the numerical designation for the level of body death on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. You understand that these characteristic emotions, as they go down scale—you go from 40.0 down to 0.0, why, and -8.0, you've got your emotions going over and over and over. —SOP 8-C: First Lecture (17 Nov. 53)

277