Second American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures Camden. New Jersey • November - December 1953
Volume 5

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	December 1953
54.	SOP 8-C: Formulas	1
55.	Space Opera	15
18	December 1953
56.	The "Only One"                          •	31
57.	Beingness	47
19	December 1953
58.	SOP 8-C: General	61
59.	Mass	77
20	December 1953
60.	Communication	93
61.	Auditing by SOP 8-C, Formula H	109
62.	Reach/Withdraw	125
21	December 1953
63.	Ability to Accept Direction	143
64.	Knowingness and Certainty	159
22	December 1953
65.	Remedy of Havingness	175
66.	Postulates	191
Appendix:
SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit	209
This Is Scientology, The Science of Certainty	223
Standard Operating Procedure 8	245
Tone Scale [1953]	255
About the Author	257
Glossary	261
Books and Tapes by L. Ron Hubbard	303
Address List of Scientology Churches and Organizations	321

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

SOP 8-C: Formulas
A lecture given on 17 December 1953

And this is December the 17th, the first lecture of the day. Today we're going to cover at least part of formulas of the steps of SOP 8-C. Before we do that, however, I want to give you a little further integration on the last talk I gave you concerning the communication line: C to E.
Now, when we summarize communication, we find out that it essentially is duplication in space. And duplication in space on a relay system is a communication system. That's what a communication system is: ways and means of making something at C repeat at E is a communication system.
Now, we can have a parallel line to that when we have a conversation, so that we get one line which is, let us say, C on the right side and E on the left side; and then we have the reply line, which is C on the left side and E on the right side—a reverse to that. In other words, there's a C and an E together, and a C and an E together at the other end of the line, and two lines going back and forth. Communications, then, always go on two lines, not one line.
And we get this effect: we get C going through to E, and then E turning around, changing slightly, and becoming C in its turn and going back forward to the first C, making it into a slight E. And then we get that turning into C and going back through the first line again, and then the E on the first line turning into a C on the second line and going back to the E. And we get this picture, then, of a—you might say, a complementing system. And that gradient scale, as you went along, would form the woof and warp of logic also, the slight changes—that makes a C into an E and so forth.
After a while, somebody who's communicating begins to wonder who source is and they begin to worry about authorities. That's a symptom of both the C end and the E end getting enmeshed slightly in the lines and considering themselves particles, rather than cause and effect on the line.
Now, this is important because we get into, immediately, duplication. And the one thing you mustn't do—I repeat this—the one thing you mustn't do is "duplicate nothing." If you don't believe that this is onerous and upsetting, just speak to somebody and get no answer. You can't duplicate the nothingness you get at the other end.
And that is the anatomy of not having caused an effect. It's very disturbing not to have caused an effect. Because if you don't cause the effect—if you get nothing at the E you are heading toward—why then of course you, becoming E where you have just been C, have to duplicate nothing. And you can't duplicate

1

2

17 DECEMBER 1953
nothing, you feel. That's the one thing you mustn't do—duplicate nothing—and so you become very disturbed. And that's "no answer" on a communication line.
This is so bad and, by the way, so basic, that if you take a person who is neurotic and you have them sit in one chair and talk to the other chair—an empty chair—and then have them go over to the empty chair and talk from the empty chair back to the first chair they were sitting in, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, why, they'll eventually get into fairly good condition. They have had the trouble of insufficient answers, which makes it necessary for them to duplicate nothingness.
Now, we take duplication on all dynamics and we find out that duplicating nothingness on any dynamic is a very difficult process for the thetan. It's actually the simplest process in the world, but it's the one thing he thinks is the most difficult process. And so we get our highest button: The highest common denominator in terms of aberration is the compulsion to have something and the inhibition of duplicating nothing—the compulsion to duplicate something, the inhibition to duplicate nothing. One must not duplicate nothing; one must duplicate something. And between these two things, we get the difficulties of the dwindling spiral.
Therefore, things become more and more solid, one resists more and more, one gets smaller and smaller, one feels he has less and less power and so forth, simply because he has, each time, refused to duplicate nothing. Makes him quite upset to duplicate nothing.
We get various practices and manifestations in life this way. Nothing, in terms of a place in space, early on the track, was so abhorrent to the individual that he was certain, after a while, that he himself was nothing. He had compulsively become nothing. You see how he'd compulsively become nothing? He had refused to duplicate the nothingness around him in space, and refused to duplicate the nothingness around him to a point where he became more and more solid, more and more solid, and more and more solid, and then finally he vanished. And that's the first inversion. He vanished and became nothing. And sure enough, in the preclears that you will be processing here on Earth, you will find they are all beautifully sold on the idea that they are nothing.
Well, actually, they are fighting the truth of the matter; and anytime you start to fight a truth, a basic truth, you're in for trouble. He only became nothing, you see, because he could become nothing, and it wasn't true that he was anything at all. And so he fought the idea that he was nothing and so denied himself, which you get as the only ethical and moral crime. One says—keeps insisting that he's something, you see; he insists he's something and refuses to duplicate nothing. And in such a way, why, he's trying to say that he is something when actually he is nothing. And he comfortably is nothing handling somethings, but after a while, he handles these somethings, and then he begins to believe he is the something. And so it is with a thetan who takes hold of a body. He at first is a nothingness exterior to the body, merely guiding and directing it, and then after a short time becomes a body. He thinks he is a body, he's sure of this.
Well, we get these inversions and counter-inversions, and inversions and counter-inversions, and it's all on a something-nothing, something-nothing, something-nothing problem. And so, with our dwindling spiral, the place to arrest the dwindling spiral is on that button "duplication of nothing"—"cannot duplicate nothing."
Now, how would you run that? Well, you'd run that with Matched Terminals, by moving the idea around, by getting nothingnesses in the walls, and nothingnesses here and there. And just duplicate the idea that you can't duplicate

SOP 8-C: FORMULAS
nothing, going right on duplicating it, and some interesting things will occur in a case. These people who are so super, supersolid, who can't get out of their bodies and that sort of thing, are fighting this with desperation.
And some of the people on a further inversion who exteriorize very easily but do an immediate bunk for Arcturus, they are on a further inversion than the fellow who is merely solid in a body. They're disabused of being the body. The body unmocks at the least provocation. Bang! It disappears.
They have become, you see, this something in terms of a body, and now this body is something which they try to duplicate and try to duplicate. And now they can't duplicate the something and they begin to duplicate the nothings, through not having any answer and other reasons. And the next thing you know, why, the body's nothing and they have become sort of something again. But they are a much lower order of something than they were priorly.
And thus we lay apart the anatomy of the thetan in terms of somethingness and nothingness. Certainty, somethingness, nothingness and duplication, then are our highest working tools.
Now, in the formulas of the steps SOP 8-C, you'll find that this winds itself through rather continuously, rather consistently, and is a background to all the other material— duplication, nothingness, somethingness, must duplicate something, mustn't duplicate nothing.
For instance, I dare say when you're duplicating a mock-up, one after the other, you'll never duplicate the space around it, you duplicate the mock-up. You'd be much better off, as far as processing was concerned, to duplicate the nothingness around the mock-up—and just skip the mock-up.
When one starts fighting this—whoa, he starts fighting this madly— why, after a while, he can only mock up nothing. That's the case of no mock-up, you see—he's compulsively duplicating nothing and fighting against doing so. Whereas the only thing that's real salvation for him is, of course, to just go on duplicating nothing for a while. He'll get mock-ups.
Now, all of this—formulas of the steps SOP 8-C—is integrated on the goal of action. We want to get somebody back into action. We're not too interested in the theoretical side of life, beyond giving an individual enough understanding of it so that he can construct and work and survive and live ably in it.
Step I—Step I is Location. It is based on the Prelogic: Theta orients objects in space and time. Now, you know the Prelogics are, "Theta orients objects in space and time and creates space and time in which to orient objects which it creates." And this is more or less—all five of the Prelogics simply come down to that.
Well, now in Location we have, particularly, "Theta orients objects in space and time."
And we have the Axiom pertinent to that: In life experience, space becomes beingness. That's out of 8- 8008. "In life experience, space becomes beingness." An individual then, plotting himself around through spaces, and locating and orienting himself and so forth, has as much beingness as he can have space.
Now, you see why that is? You see how this duplication of nothingness weaves its way in there. If a fellow can't duplicate nothingness, he can't have space, of course. It isn't that space is a nothingness; space is actually a viewpoint of dimension. But it adds up to a "no energy deposit."
The formula of this is: Permitting the preclear to discover with certainty where people and things are not, in present, past and future recovers sufficient orientation to establish his knowledge and certainty of where he is; and negative orientation of beingness, havingness and doingness on each of the eight

3

4

17 DECEMBER 1953
dynamics in the present, past and future—is the basic formula on which this is worked out. And you can work out nearly all possible processes from that formula.
I'll repeat that formula: Negative orientation of beingness, havingness and doingness on each of the eight dynamics in the present, past and future. "Where isn't God?" That would be a very rough one on somebody who's been taught thoroughly that God's everywhere. But nevertheless, if you've handled the other dynamics, he can tell you where God is. He comes to know that.
Now, of course, in a formal write-up of this matter—this is just a rough draft of this—in a formal write-up, we have the actual steps, a Step Ia and Step Ib, just as you have it on the mimeographed sheet. And we have, then, ways and means of using this—many ways of using it. Lots of variations on Step I: Location, lots of them. Okay.
We go into Step II. Step II, the handling—is handling bodies; you can call that such. And the Axiom: In life experience, energy becomes doingness.
A person uses a deposit of energy called a body to move through space and time and so forth. And he gets so accustomed to being moved around by this body, which isn't himself, that he believes it is himself and there he is trying to duplicate something, and trying not to duplicate nothing. And in this wise, he becomes very interestingly confused.
And the Axiom on this is: That which moves the preclear can evaluate for him. Anything which changes the preclear in space can evaluate for him.
Another Axiom: Compulsive positioning precedes compulsive thinking. Hence, education—constricted space, fixed. Then they fix ideas and get all sorts of interesting things.
Well, of course, there are other things which appertain to this handling of bodies, which is the matter of automaticity. The biggest automaticity there is, is a body, in terms of this planet here, right now.
Now, the formula for this is Formula II: Permit the preclear to discover that he handles bodies and allow him to handle bodies in mock-ups and actually— which is to say, fixing them and moving them in mock-ups and actually until he recognizes that he handles bodies. At the same time, you start remedying scarcity of bodies by running End of Cycle—dead bodies, bodies dying and that sort of thing. You could do that if you were just handling bodies in every way, shape and form.
One preclear I know of did not exteriorize until he had mocked up his body and cut it to pieces about fifty times. Mocked it up and chopped it to bits, and mocked it up and chopped it to bits about fifty times, and then stepped out of it. All of a sudden realized that he could destroy a body. He was compulsively held in a body. He was there because he thought the body was superior to himself, simply because he couldn't destroy it. Okay?
Now we go over to Step III—Spacation. The Prelogic of Spacation is: Theta creates space and time in which to locate objects. And the definition: Space is a viewpoint of dimension. And the Axiom involved here is: Energy derives from imposition of space between terminals. Energy derives from imposition of space between terminals.
That isn't a statement of all the ways that energy derives. Energy also derives simply because you say it's there. That's the primary way energy derives. But all—energy also derives from imposition of space between terminals. And you can take a mass of solid energy and another mass of solid energy and interpose space between them, and if you will—are able to maintain that space,

SOP 8-C: FORMULAS
regardless of anything they're trying to do, there will be an interchange of energy in there. In other words, a free energy flow will result.
And we get into Formula III, which is that for Spacation, which is: Permit the preclear to regain his ability to create space and impose it upon terminals, and regain his security concerning the stability of mest space. And that's all there is to that step.
Of course, in the edition you will get, that merely also contains, why, he holds on to the two back anchor points of the room, and that gives him a sensation of the stability of mest space. And you have him mock up his own space and you have him do space in brackets and so on, till he can handle space.
Now we get into Step IV and the name of Step IV is, from here on down actually, Havingness. And we find this resting on the Axiom: In life experience, matter becomes havingness. Also becomes time, by the way.
Formula—that's Formula IV: The remedy of problems of havingness is accomplished by creating an abundance of all things.
So we have various processes which have come in under this step; we've had GITA, Expanded GITA and we have this automaticity.
Now, it's actually an automaticity which gives the preclear havingness. And so we get it down to a little bit finer level, and we remedy automaticity under this step.
The preclear has rendered automatic his desires and ability to create and destroy and thus has placed havingness beyond his control. Havingness is beyond his control, he has an awfully hard time having. And the formula—Formula IV is: 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.
That's the formula for that. Don't forget to balance somebody's havingness. After you've gotten rid of Lord knows how much energy, and discharged it in various directions and—you just don't neglect to give him back some, because he'll want some.
The main difficulty you run into right there is this button "mustn't duplicate nothingness" which gives him a craving for havingness.
Now we get Step V—Terminals. And the Axiom—first Axiom applies there: 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 potential source of flow.
Axiom: Effect is potential receipt of flow.
Axiom: Wrongness in terms of flow is inflow.
Comment: The mest universe exists as a continuous potential outflow in its vacuums and a continuous potential inflow in its atmospheres, when viewed by the thetan. mest universe is ... You get out there in a vacuum of space and you have some havingness, and the pressure in this havingness, of course, has to be greater than the space around it—the pressure in it—and the mest universe, which is to say the vacuum, will just go pshew! and you haven't any mock-up.
And so the mest universe, apparently, out in space takes things away from you faster than you can possibly create them. Which has a tendency to bring you into a state of sort of a defeat, you know? Get the idea after a while that this isn't so good.

5

6

17 DECEMBER 1953
And down in the atmospheres—that is to say, down on planets and in heavy gravities—and by the way, a planet can be totally without atmosphere and yet have such a heavy gravity that this same condition can exist. Gravity is actually "put your attention on the center of the Earth." That's the definition of gravity. You'll find the GE has got his attention on the center of the Earth like mad. And every once in a while, you get a thetan out who's having gravity trouble—that's because he's got his attention on the Earth. And he gets that inverted after a while, and his attention goes exactly the opposite direction, and then after that he falls up, as a thetan. Very curious. You'll see somebody flop around like this.
Change of Space Processing from one place to another—the Moon and so on—will often reveal in a thetan a latent fear of gravity, which is a pull, which is quite interesting. They get sick on it and everything else; and then they get heavy and—they're not heavy, a thetan isn't heavy. They've just got the idea of gravity to such a degree that as they move around from one planet to another—you say, "Be on the Moon, be on the Sun, be on the Earth, be on the Moon, be on the Sun, be on the Earth, be on the Moon, be on the Sun, be on the Earth, be on the Moon, be on the Sun, be on the Earth, be on the Moon, be on the Sun, be on the Earth." And the fellow all of a sudden is— "Ooohhh," he can't get away from the Moon or he can't get away from the Sun easily or he can't get away from Earth easily. You just keep on drilling him, and all of a sudden, why, he can move away from them with great ease. He just—you clicked in his idea of gravity.
Well now, gravity actually takes something away from somebody, if it's pulling down. And if one falls, gravity will take something away.
But in terms of atmospheres and so on, sunlight hitting somebody, sound— you see, what makes an atmosphere bad is sound. And the sound hitting somebody—and everything is hitting a person from a 360-degree sphere. You know, all around the edges. It's hitting him everywhere, from all sides at once, continually, and so it gives him havingness. It just makes him a present, every split instant, of new havingness. He gets to a point after a while, where he thinks he has to have. He gets compulsive havingness.
And then he thinks he has to duplicate somethingness, and so on and so on and so on. Of course, that'll invert eventually till somebody will compulsively try to duplicate nothingness. Birth control: manifestation of duplicating nothingness—big dramatization.
You'll find more people who ought to be worrying about something else squawking around worrying about the birth control situation. I know a lot of people in the US government right now—Public Health Service—are desperately worried. And the Public Health Service is actually appropriating more money than you could easily count in a couple of weeks, in the problem of birth control in India. What business this is of the US government. . . Last time I talked to a couple of Indians they weren't worried about birth control. They weren't even vaguely interested in birth control.
But US government is sold on the idea of—evidently, of duplicating nothingness. You look at one of the bureaus down there, you sure believe it. And they keep duplicating nothingness and duplicating nothingness so they—it even goes into the second dynamic in the Public Health Service and then they want India to duplicate nothingness.
And I tried to tell the director of the project down there once that I thought, it just seemed to me, that this was probably a problem of culture rather than a problem of test tubes. And he couldn't get this. I said, "You'd really have to move in there on a cultural level before you could move in with a test-tube

SOP 8-C: FORMULAS
level." He didn't buy this at all. He went right on talking about some handy, jim-dandy little injection that you put in the left hip of every Hindu and after that he couldn't have babies. And therefore that solved the whole problem of Hinduism.
Well, India is on a compulsive "must duplicate something" basis—which, by the way, is a bit healthier. And this "must duplicate something" is pretty widespread. So much so that you walk down the streets, most of the symbols which you see are somewhat related to the second dynamic.
And a fellow is as—you'd say, would be as poor—he would be as very, very poor as he would have mouths to feed and couldn't procure more food, and this'd be a ratio in that. But no, no, your Indian thinks he's wealthy—if he had eighteen, twenty, thirty-five, forty kids, he'd think this was—life had really graced him with a few bonuses.
American workman gets two kids, he thinks he's cursed from there on out. Just slight difference of viewpoint. It's actually a difference of inversion. When you get lots of food in a country, people think they can go on as the first dynamic. All right.
So we just look at that and we find out that—as far as the formula's concerned, this condition in Step V—that in space, a person is threatened by outflowing. Space makes him compulsively outflow. Well, he doesn't like that because that's compulsive outflowing. Actually, he's only healthy as long as he outflows, because he continues to create energy.
But space makes him outflow. Well, he gets tired of that after a while, and so he resigns from space opera and turns in his VM, and he hits a planet, and for a while there on the planet, why, he'll go through a cycle of being inflowed at.
And the difference between a space opera character (that is, the character of people in space opera) and the character of people in planets, are just this difference—it's just this difference, there's no other difference: The space opera people are compulsively outflowing, and the atmosphere people, on planets and so on, get compulsively resistive toward inflow, but they get inflowed on all the time. And so, their mode of operation and action and so forth is inflow.
And you get the essential difference: You get these people being rather peaceful, in the atmospheres, and accepting things and having things and so on. You get space opera guys trying to throw everything away and shoot everything up and blow everything down and—action, action, action, action, more motion, more motion—all very compulsive. This doesn't mean one is better off than the other, but it simply means that thetans like a change once in a while.
Now, outflow is registered in these emotions. By the way, in 8-8008 there are two lists. One is an inflow list and the other is an outflow list. Well, outflow, amongst many other things, is joy, enthusiasm, antagonism, loss, criticism, ridicule, overtness—all in terms of experience. Outflow, in terms of experience, then, is an outgoing type of action. And we have then, of course, joy, enthusiasm, antagonism, loss, criticism, ridicule, overtness. See, that really characterizes a boy in space opera, by the way. That's just him, right down the line—bam, bam, thud.
Now we have inflow, and we get atmosphere-type people. It's only when these two things are arguing against each other in the same preclear that we start to run into very much trouble. All these people you're having any trouble with, I don't care whether we're talking about para-Scientology or anything else, all we're really having any trouble with in these people is their space opera is so doggone space opera that they're just—it's just dazing. They've got more engrams and more automaticities built up on the basis of outflowing, and then

7

8

17 DECEMBER 1953
they're stuck here on a planet where nothing can happen but an inflow, and they don't like this because they're sort of—"they hunger for them good old days." But you get them to think about them very much and they say, "Gee, they sure were hectic!" Because in their present frame of mind they couldn't possibly contemplate the frame of mind that goes along with living in the vicinity of vacuums.
Earth is a—is of course an atmosphere planet and is an atmosphere problem. And the mest universe only has those two types of problems: It has the problem of nothingness and the problem of somethingness. Well, inflow is sensation, havingness, trying to understand, betrayal, apathy. That's inflow, which makes atmosphere people, and people on planets and things, pretty mild. They're always a pushover for space opera boys.
Now, don't think I overtalk this business of space opera until you get on your E-Meter and start talking to this nice, quiet, calm old lady who seems to be sort of betrayed somehow, and you find out that you are looking—in this nice, calm, quiet, if somewhat betrayed and apathetic old lady, you're looking at the "Scarlet Rogue" wanted on five planets! (audience laughter)
You wonder why this person doesn't exteriorize easily. Well, they're wanted too badly elsewhere, amongst other things.
Well, we have a condition, then, and the condition is: A preclear at Step Level V in SOP 8 has an energy starvation and space scarcity caused by inflow, resulting in desire to have other energy and failure to manufacture energy. He believes himself uncreative, wrong, betrayed, under criticism, and has shut out much inflow with curtains. And that's the condition of a case in SOP 8.
Now, the condition to be remedied is energy starvation, and this condition is remedied in various ways. The condition, however, which is even more intimate as far as this—because see, this SOP 8-C isn't particularly treating this SOP 8 black level case. However, there is that step level condition, and this person is compulsively duplicating nothingness. And he'll go right on duplicating nothingness, duplicating nothingness, duplicating nothingness. And he'll try it in various ways. He won't get mock-ups, he won't change, he won't get better. He's having a strenuous effort also to unmock things—his automaticity is set up on unmocking things.
The condition is remedied in a thetan—because any thetan's slightly subject to this noncreative condition—by Formula V. And Formula V is: The thetan is rehabilitated as to energy and terminals by remedying his postulates about inflow and outflow, and giving him drills relating to outflow and inflow of energy.
The table on that's SOP—I mean, is 8008. And he's got postulates about all this and he has automaticities about all this—outflow and inflow and "can't create" and "mustn't be at cause" and "mustn't be an effect."
Now you get outflow and inflow in terms of effect: A person being inflowed on is being an effect, and a person outflowing is being cause. And a thetan has this pretty well nailed down. So he gets unwilling to be an effect, in many cases, and starts keying himself in on overt act—motivator mechanisms and so on.
But above all this other, he's duplicating nothing. Now, you wonder why something doesn't happen with a case. Well, nothing can happen with a case because that's what's wrong with the case—the case is nothing. And you ask the case what's happening and the case says, "Nothing." Of course he says, "Nothing," because that's what happens with his case—nothing. Because that is what is wrong with his case—nothing. And that's what he keeps duplicating— nothing.

SOP 8-C: FORMULAS
The most irritating thing that you can do to a Step Level V in SOP 8 is tell him nothing is wrong with him. That happens to be the level truth, but he doesn't interpret it in exactly the same way. "What is wrong with him is nothing" is a clean statement of it. He's unwilling, you see, to be an effect, and he tries to be cause and he gets caught between.
Well now, you'll find a thetan—any thetan gets into this condition to some degree. He's unwilling to be certain causes, he's unwilling to be certain effects. So he's—he has to be drilled with regard to this. Well, you get him to change postulates and shift postulates around and so forth, with regard to outflows and inflows.
A little bit earlier in this step you have here, cause . . . Oh, "Wrongness in terms of flow is inflow." See, that's what he interprets inflow as—as Wrongness; and he's very loath to be inflowed on very hard. And yet he persistently pulls in on himself. He has, compulsively—he has to have, and so forth.
Now, any thetan gets this remedied, and as I say, remedy it in terms of postulates. And what are the exact postulates to be remedied? Well, again, "duplicate nothing"—he has to be willing to duplicate nothing. And he—show him a nothing, have him find a nothing and then have him duplicate it. You go on with this for a while and all sorts of interesting things occur.
When he gets mock-ups, have him duplicate the nothingness around the mock-up and neglect the mock-up. By the way, you can just hear the wheels grate on some preclears when you do this. They just can't keep their eyes off the somethingness, and just can't put their attention on that nothingness. It just goes snap! snap! And I was telling you much earlier in this course about this scissors effect. Their attention will close in on the somethingness so tightly that it will actually go out beyond the somethingness. You know, it'll just—the two attention beams from them, two beams that they put on it, will just overlap and they will see beyond the object, rather than see the object. Or, and as it declines, they will see narrower than the object or closer than the object. In other words, the object itself—now that gets worse until at last they try to see the object and it disappears—pong! They can look at the nothingness around the object and the object disappears. In other words, it's closed all the way out.
Now, you could draw up a very interesting and highly educational and informative table on the subject of this, but you see the obvious conditions to be remedied there. It's just that they're compulsively putting so much attention on somethingness that they unmock it. And they compulsively are avoiding putting their attention on nothingness.
Now, remember that duplication and communication are necessary copartners. Duplication and communication are partners. Communication cannot exist without some semblance of duplication. So if a person will not duplicate nothingness, he cannot see nothingness. That which a person cannot duplicate— that which a person cannot duplicate—he will not see. See that? You want to know why people can't see something, well they can't duplicate it. That's why they can't see it.
Perception is not something which simply stands there doing something for you. You have to duplicate what is there to be perceived before you can perceive it. Perception always requires action and volition on the part of the perceiver. All right.
Now let's get into the next level there, and get what that Step Level V is now: that's just—that's terminals and energy. The fellow's got the idea he has to have terminal? in order to make energy. And, oh, he has to have something in order to have a something—the something of energy; and he has to have

9

10

17 DECEMBER 1953
other somethings to have somethings or others and so forth. And he just is completely unbalanced. He doesn't realize he can make out of a nothing anything he wants, including another nothing. Just never occurs to him that he can make a nothing out of a nothing, or originate a nothing, or transfer a nothing. He's avoiding this, and he's going on to terminals.
But at the same time you have to drill a preclear until the preclear— exteriorized in SOP 8-C—is able to make terminals, fix terminals, get them to interchange, have energy flow at him, have energy flow out from him and so forth. You just exercise him in terms of energy till he's happy about it.
Now we get into Step VI and we get symbolization.
Definition: A symbol is an idea fixed in energy and mobile in space. It's an idea fixed in energy and mobile in space. Any symbol you ever ran into was mobile. It's the main thing wrong with symbols, they don't stay put. And yet they are fixed ideas. So it's a fixed idea that won't stay put, and this is upsetting to people. So symbols get them into trouble.
You can never say to a preclear, "Now, where is that symbol at this moment?"
And he says, "Which symbol?"
And you say, "The symbol called 'where.' Now, where is the first 'where' this minute?"
If you go out into outer space and send it out on a radio signal, you could probably get in a spaceship and beat the signal and get around in front of it and receive it again. And you could find out where it was and you could probably plot it.
But you can't do that here on Earth, things move too slow. You ask somebody where the "where" is that you first uttered on the end of the sentence and he becomes completely discombobulated. What it was is a symbol fixed in energy and he cannot thereafter establish its location. So when a person becomes too fixed upon symbols, he becomes fixed on the idea that he can't establish the location of anything.
So he gets lost. You really get somebody lost if you make him concentrate entirely on symbols and never concentrate on nothingness and never concentrate on somethingness, just have him concentrate on a symbol. A symbol is a tricky somethingness that manages to make a nothingness out of itself with great ease, and make a nothingness out of you with great ease. It's mobile. You take the printing in a book—the book is mobile.
Now, Formula VI is: The thetan who has been moved about by symbols is strengthened by mocking up and moving about and fixing in space ideas. The best part of a symbol is an idea, and so you have him handle ideas that way and you'll find out they're very heavy.
Of course, Step Level V, you handle ideas mainly about outflow and inflow, just specific ideas.
And in Step Level VI, you handle these in terms of ideas like symbols. You'll find people are very sold on symbolization. The more you validate symbolization, though, the unhappier your preclear is. There are people around who are very sold on symbols and they just won't move until you do something about it.
You say, "Mock up a man out in front of you there." He gets mock-ups perfectly well, you see—"Mock up a man."
"Well," he'd say, "you say a man. Now, do you mean an old man or a young man? What kind of a man do you mean?"
"Well," you say, "just a man."
"Well, yes, but you want him big or small, how do you want this man?" See?

SOP 8-C: FORMULAS
What he's trying to do is fix an idea; he's trying to establish this idea man. He is no longer capable of concentrating on nothingness around the symbol man. He doesn't get a big classification called man. He can't just dip into the bin and say, "Man? A man's a man. Let's see, there's all kinds of men." And his idea of getting this big class called man, and getting one particular man out of this big class or just putting up something and say, "This is the class of things known as man"—he's beyond that, he has to be specific about it. So he'll sit there and hem and he'll haw about it; he'll want to know exactly what you mean. He's looking into the core of this mobile thing, a symbol, all the time, and trying to fix it in space. And he's getting frantic about fixing this in space— he's been frantic for a long time. Words keep flying; he can't stop them and fix them in space. He tries to take your words, then, and fix them in space. They don't fix.
He's—tries to cull out of the library esoteric and forgotten lore and fix those symbols in space. He wants to know exactly where they came from. Did they come from the later Neon Period or the earlier Pliocene Period? He is more taken with whether or not celluloid was originated in the early nineteenth century in Boston or where, than he is at looking at the celluloid. He always looks for the significance under, simply because he's trying to fix an idea in space. Simply because symbols, horribly enough, won't stand still long enough. They just keep moving around. They're ideas in energy, and they're in motion. The fellow becomes frantic about this after a while and this is very upsetting to them. All right.
Let's get into Step VII. And Step VII, although we've called it many things before, best descriptive term for it is probably "barriers."
Axiom: The mest universe is a game consisting of barriers.
Definition: A barrier is space, energy and object, obstacles, and time.
Those are all barriers. Time's a barrier, space is a barrier, energy's a barrier and objects are barriers and all of them are obstacles. mest universe is sort of an obstacle race. Not anything is wrong, you see, with the obstacles—actually happiness is the overcoming of not unknowable obstacles toward a known goal. People have got—you get somebody doing that and he becomes very cheerful about the whole thing.
It's not a bad game, it's a good game. But people get so bogged down in the obstacles . . . They're like the hurdle racers, you know—they go running around the track, and hurdle racers three, four and five all trip on hurdles. And after they've tripped on two or three hurdles, why, they sort of stand still and they don't finish the race. And they stand there and get kind of peeved at the last set of hurdles that went down. Whereas runner one and runner eight just sailed over the hurdles and came on home. Well, runners one and eight are perfectly happy and these other runners, they're not happy—they're standing around wondering what the significance is of the hurdles falling over.
You just get somebody back into action again and he'll be perfectly happy to play this game called "obstacles." Up to the time when he's a loser in this game called "obstacles," however—if he's been a long loser in it, he's not happy about it at all.
It's not just a difference of mind about the thing, it's his conviction that he's going to win or his conviction that he's going to lose that makes it possible for him to go on or makes it necessary for him to stop.
Now, Formula VII is: The problem of barriers—the problems of barriers are resolved by contacting and penetrating, creating and destroying, validating

11

12

17 DECEMBER 1953
and neglecting barriers, by fixing and unfixing attention upon their nothingness and somethingness.
Well, that's not just a big mouthful, you've been doing that—Six Ways to Nothing. You neglect barriers, you put them up there and fix people's attention on them. Now, the invisible barrier is something you put up there and don't let him look at it, and so on and so on and so on.
It's quite interesting that barriers and terminals are very closely associated. There's many a fellow has sat in front of a barrier long enough so that it became a terminal. And the degeneration of a barrier is for it to become a terminal after a while.
Well, let's take somebody who works at a machine lathe. He works at this lathe every day down there at this plant; and he works this lathe, and it's a barrier. He can't walk through this thing. It's also a communication system. Well, he can't duplicate the lathe. The lathe doesn't quite duplicate what he has in mind. The fact that the lathe doesn't quite duplicate him makes him logical, by the way. Logic is not quite duplicating—it's similarities.
Duplicating in one space, continually, is in itself identification; that's what identification is. The difference between differentiation and identification is one of position in space. Differentiation are big positions—wide-apart positions in space—and identification is a whole lot of things in the same space; as far as space is concerned, energy's concerned. All right.
When you get—this fellow's with this lathe and this lathe doesn't quite duplicate him and he doesn't quite duplicate it but he will after a while—he'll have wheels in his head. That's because he's standing there getting an energy interchange. He's got a terminal. He no longer has just a barrier—he's fixed his attention on it so long that it's become a terminal.
Well, it works this way with somebody who's been overeducated. He's in a schoolroom so many years that he eventually starts to use school walls as his terminals, and he gets unhappy after a while at having to graduate. Now, there's a problem of a barrier degenerating into a terminal. When a barrier degenerates into a terminal, it has a tendency to fix the individual in that spot in time.
So we have this fellow at the lathe, when he's home at night in bed he's still running the lathe. Years after he's lost that job, he doesn't run lathes anymore, you try to work him as a preclear and you'll find out he's still standing there at the lathe.
Any case that's having a little bit of a bad time of it here has had—at one time or another used a barrier, particularly one which had to do with communication—has used some sort of a barrier. Communication. Anytime you put mest on a communication line, you effect a barrier, even though it pretends to be a relay system. And the more MEST you take out of a communication line, the faster the communication flows and the more exact it is. The more mest you put into a communication line, the less duplication there is.
So we get an individual sitting there or standing there at a barrier so long that it at length becomes a terminal, and then we take him away from the thing and he's got a terminal missing. And you'll get a manifestation like the front of his face is gone. You'll get something like that. He'll get the idea that his throat's gone or he has a nothingness. Sure—he lost a terminal. He used mest so long that it became a terminal, and then he lost it. And you can spot the tool or implement on any preclear that's having trouble. The tool, implement or position—something that was a barrier and so on.

SOP 8-C: FORMULAS
It's not a person, by the way, it's a mest object. And by the way, he doesn't duplicate the nothingness around it. His concentration is always upon it, his attention is never on the nothingness surrounding it.
Six Ways to Nothingness, Reach and Withdraw from the walls, that's— reach through them, any such technique—"What's the realest thing in the room?" that all comes under that formula. "What's the realest thing in the room? All right. Reach for it, look at it, feel it. Okay. Now withdraw from it. Let's— what's something else real in the room?" That's Contact. Well, of course, that's just barrier—contact with barriers.
Before a fellow can go ahead on a game of obstacles, he has to find what obstacle he is confronting at the moment. It isn't enough for you to simply knock out or wash out all past obstacles that stopped him—this is not what's worrying him. What he's worried about is what are the obstacles which are just now confronting him? Well, he's been stopped so often that he knows anything can stop him—he thinks.
So you have to give him a certainty that he is in an area where he's not necessarily stopped.
As a matter of fact, it's a much bigger trick to stay in the mest universe than it is to slide out of it. Your preclear who is sold, though, on the fact that he can't duplicate nothing, will find it almost impossible to slide out of the mest universe. "Mustn't duplicate nothing," you see. If he can't duplicate nothing— that's what this universe has got the most of—and if he can't duplicate it, then it's senior to him, so it commands him. So nothingness commands him. He has problems of security, he has to work so that he won't starve. He has to work so that he won't starve, well, he has to worry about starving because he can't create energy and around and round it goes. All right.
Let's take up Step VIII. And we get in Step VIII, "Communication by Duplication," which, of course, is a title there which is simply put down to rub your nose in it real hard. Now, you can say duplication, you've said communication; when you've said communication, you've said duplication. Well, unfortunately, when you've said duplication, you've said a lot more than communication. See, communication is a smaller subject than duplication—that's a bigger subject. But they're both interdependent. It's like calling this thing "Step VIII by Step VIII." All right.
And we find the fundamental involved in it is: The basic action of existence is duplication. The basic action of existence is duplication. Whereas we might have the prime principle of existence where far—far as life forms is concerned is survive, why, we've got a higher action than that. The dynamic principle of existence is survival. Okay, but that's as far as life is concerned and life forms.
Now we no longer worry around with life forms, we've got the upper level of this. And that's "the basic action of existence is duplication" and that's much, much senior to survival. A fellow only starts surviving when he stops duplicating. All right.
And we've got a Logic that applies here, is: All operating principles of life may be derived from duplication. All operating principles of life may be derived from duplication.
And we have the Axiom: Communication is as exact as it approaches duplication.
And we have an Axiom: Unwillingness to be cause is monitored by unwillingness to be duplicated. You won't be cause if you won't be duplicated. See, if you're afraid that by being cause you'll be duplicated, why, you won't be duplicated, so you won't be cause.

13

14

17 DECEMBER 1953
This fellow goes around saying he doesn't want to cause anything bad and that sort of thing, that he doesn't want to cause anything—he's afraid he'll be duplicated. People standing around mocking him, saying things after him and so forth, this really drives him mad.
A person would much rather be betrayed than ridiculed. A person's afraid to be cause—for instance, he's afraid to write a story for fear he'd be ridiculed.
And: Unwillingness to be an effect is monitored by unwillingness to duplicate. If a person won't duplicate something, he isn't willing to be an effect. So a person gets stuck halfway between—he doesn't want to be cause and he doesn't want to be effect. The reason why he doesn't want to be cause and doesn't want to be effect is he doesn't want to be duplicated or he's afraid he will be duplicated. So if a fellow is in the state of mind wherein he is afraid he will be duplicated and he is unwilling to duplicate, he is exactly in the middle between cause and effect and he's stuck but good. And he's going noplace and he won't move out of his head easily at all.
The 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. Inability—impossible to stay, and "won't duplicate," see, is "won't duplicate time"—won't be there in two times. See, he won't duplicate time. So geographical location is immediately associated with unwillingness to duplicate and be cause and effect.
So a person who has been moved all over the place and shoved all over the place and can't stay anyplace and so forth, he has a trouble with time. He also has trouble with being cause, with being effect, so forth. It's impossible for him to stay and he has to go and he has to stay—these are bad things.
Axiom: Inability to duplicate on any dynamic is the primary degeneration of a thetan. Inability to duplicate on any dynamic, primary degeneration point of the thetan.
Axiom: Perception depends upon duplication.
Axiom: Communication depends on 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 enforcements and inhibitions relating to duplication.
And that's your duplication step. You got to fix it up so he can duplicate something and duplicate nothing and not duplicate it and duplicate it and remain in one position or go away.
Now, if you just start putting up in the walls—have somebody start putting up in the walls "Impossible to stay," and put up in another wall, "Impossible to stay," in another wall, "Impossible to stay"—he'll get frantic after a while.
And we'd put up in the walls, one—the first wall, "Impossible to go. Impossible to go. Impossible to go. Impossible to go." And he gets frantic on that, see? He mustn't reach away from and he must stay on the ground and so on, and this way he gets all fooled up.
Now, if he is unable to remain in geographical positions, his time track gets jammed. You see that, because he's—impossible for him to duplicate time. Because he can't duplicate time—the way you duplicate time would be in the same position twice—two, three, four, five, six times.
Okay, you've got an awful lot of stuff there. I don't know whether you're more confused or otherwise, but I would say that you were probably relieved to know that that's all there was to it.

Space Opera
A lecture given on 17 December 1953

And this is the evening lecture of December the 17th. And this evening we are going to cover some rather hit-or-miss material. It's hit-or-miss because it belongs in the education of an auditor.
Auditors should know an awful lot of things. Actually, the optimum auditor— and we could give a long and very learned conversation here, monologue on the subject of the optimum auditor and how he should have a beard eighteen feet long or something of the sort, and something, you know, about that. But actually, the optimum auditor is one who's done some living. That's rather desirable, to have done some living. Because as you see an awful lot of preclears come by, you see an awful lot of people who have neglected to do any. They've done lots of dying in their life, but very little living. And when it comes to you understanding a large number of people, if you've done a large lot of living, you can understand a large lot of people.
That is to say, if you've done enough living, let us say, to cover eight or ten people, why, it's fairly certain that you'll be able to understand some of the people who come to you. Otherwise, they're liable to be rather incomprehensible, and you're liable to find yourself in a state of—well, let's say, criticism or something— about their life. Or you're—the state of noncomprehension: "What's the matter with this jerk?" you're liable to say to yourself. "What the heck's the matter with him?" and so on.
You just don't realize that in Hollywood it's "the thing" to slap people's wrists. You know, I mean, it's just not done, anything else. I think there was a—if you'll pardon this crude interjection into an otherwise scholastic moment— I think there was some natural intercourse in Hollywood one time, and it got out and it got into the Los Angeles Times (which will print anything) and do you know that they sued the paper and banished the people from the state. They didn't send them to the gas chamber—they were, there at first. I mean, this is a real area of the world: Los Angeles is the world's most aberrated city. I wouldn't say that in Los Angeles, mostly because there isn't hardly anybody out there in Los Angeles that'd understand the fact. They've lived there most of their lives.
But if you really want to get some living in, or some processing in or something like that, you ought to go in some of these areas once in a while. Just make a trip and look around. Because you'll find out that not all areas of the world are being all areas of the world. That isn't just bitterness on the subject of Los Angeles, that happens to be nothing but the solid truth.

15

16

17 DECEMBER 1953
Port Said is supposed to be the world's wickedest city. The second up and second runner for that is Ketchikan, Alaska, and it's—catches all the sewage from Seattle, Ketchikan does.
Everybody who gets in trouble with the state police and the Feds and everybody else will eventually turn up somewhere in the backwoods of Alaska— if they can make it. Nobody goes by his right name and they have a murder every morning for breakfast. It's not quite that bad, because they're not murders, they're suicides. And they find a fellow with his head blown off by a shotgun— no sign of a shotgun, footprints all around, sound of tremendous struggle, the fellow's pockets emptied. The sheriff comes out, he takes a look at the body, and he says, "Huh! Suicide."
They have there in Ketchikan the only stream in the world where the fish and the fishermen go up to spawn. It's a red-light district. (audience laughter) It stretches up around the curve of really a very beautiful little stream. But the buildings have trapdoors. Most of Ketchikan is built over water and a very fast tide, and nearly every building there has trapdoors. And the fishermen—it's mostly fishermen that come in there with any money—wear rather heavy rubber boots, and water gets into these boots rather quickly and they go down rather fast. You see, the air is in the boots at first, you see, and that holds the boots up till the fellow drowns, and then the water fills, and then the boots hold him on the ground. And then the tide there is rather fast, and it sweeps the body out past Chacon, the cape there, and nobody ever knows anything more about it.
But when the police do find a fisherman drowned or floating there in the straits, without anything in his pockets and so forth, they look him over very carefully and say, "Hm! Suicide." Wonderful place of the world.
There—the FBI had an agent up there for some time, he was a nice, innocent young boy. He didn't understand the facts of the world. And I remember— he didn't know me, he had never seen my credentials or anything vaguely resembling it—and he was going over to pick up a German who was incautiously operating a radio station giving weather reports, and he decided his gun was in his road. And he didn't know me, and I had spotted this radio station in for him, and he handed me the gun—loaded, dark night. Interesting. So I put a fatherly hand upon his shoulder and I said, "Son"—I was about his age— "Son," I said, "let me tell you something. I happen to be that man's confederate and the tide is swift down there, so just walk quietly ahead of me now."
And he turned sort of white, he didn't even say, "You're kidding," because he actually had learned a little bit in Alaska. Shock was very educational to him. Gave him his gun back and we went up and picked up the guy, see. But that was a very educational shock. I think six or eight months later if anybody had asked this agent for his gun, why, he would have reached for a blackjack.
No. No kidding. All kidding aside, there's a lot of living goes on in the world, and sometimes a person has a tendency to believe that all hands and everyone has lived in a rather hothouse atmosphere.
Actually, the people who are the worst off, normally have done the most living. It isn't that living itself is terribly aberrative, but the world gives you to understand that it is. And these people have had two things happen to them: They've done a lot of living and then somebody has taught them carefully that it was all wrong. And when this has occurred, you have an interesting case. He takes you quite a little while to process. But you can dig him out, eventually.
Now, there's nothing like living, in other words, to teach somebody about living. Short of a good, wide and vicious life, a little bit of tolerance will do a

SPACE OPERA
lot of substituting. And you'll find that the preclear—any preclear who sits down in a processing chair, no matter who he is and no matter how sweet she looks—remember that this is a Homo sapiens. And remember that in Africa if a very sweet, innocent girl straight off the sidewalks of New York were to show up, it would be the animals who ran.
The animal kingdom is pretty bright. That's—this is no kidding about that. The animals the world around, when they know anything about man, run. The only thing that's a little bit aside from this is a Kodiak bear.
They used to kid me an awful lot I—in the "Explorers Log" and so on. The—let's see, I think it's one of their yearbooks called Through Hell and High Water, why, somebody tags me in there about this. But I roped a Kodiak bear one time on the basis of... He was swimming, you see, and he had a very small head, and the head was—you know, hair all plastered down—you couldn't see that he was a big bear. And a Kodiak bear goes about sixteen hundred pounds; the world's largest carnivorous animal.
Well, he's a little bit different than the animals of Africa in that he has it in for man, and he doesn't care what happens to him. And he will sit behind trees and wait for men to pass by just so he can knock them flat. He makes a specialty of it. Once a man has done something to a Kodiak bear, why, then the bear will sit around and brood about it and so on. Well, anyway, it's beside the point.
When an individual has a preclear in a chair, he doesn't have an uncomplex, tame, "won't harm you," "no viciousness in you" character. This is not what's sitting there in the chair.
It's true that in the fairly civilized area of the world, that certain behavior patterns can be expected, such as, "How are you?" and "Am I on time for the session?" and "Goodbye," and that sort of thing. I mean, that these things can happen.
But as far as this preclear's past and present, and what his future will be—well, that's pretty much in your hands. And you will handle it as well as you realize that—not anything can happen, that's not the thing to realize. But if you realize that about 80 percent of the time, your having mixed yourself up with this preclear is going to result unfavorably, you'll be right. You'll be 80 percent right if you figure that out.
Why? Well, it's because people who are bad off, if you are foolish enough to specialize in these characters, people who are bad off, they have a lot of bitingness to come up through. And you start pulling them on up through the line, you see, and you're pulling them up through an awful lot of strata of snap and snarl and crunch.
Some of my adventures in auditing have been very remarkable in that—I processed a dearest old lady, she was the sweetest old lady. She just was strictly lavender and old lace, you see. And golly, she was apparently very, very grateful till I began to wonder who was ruining my reputation in the neighborhood. She was.
And the reason for this was, is I had stopped processing her before she thought I should have stopped processing her. Well, the point is, I got her up to where she wasn't dying in agony and I thought, "Well, that's good enough, we'll go on to somebody else." Well, that wasn't the way she saw it. And the next thing I knew, why, all sorts of interesting phenomena was occurring, such as the people of next door passing me by and carefully looking the opposite direction and so forth. Well, now I had kept a dear, sweet old lady from kicking the bucket. This is the truth of the matter, and yet here was my reputation ruined in the neighborhood.

17

18

17 DECEMBER 1953
Now, if an auditor expects that his life is going to be entirely free from such shocks and incidents, he is going to be 80 percent wrong.
The most satisfactory critters to deal with are the young'uns. And that's mainly because they haven't been able to develop sufficient viciousness. But the meanest ones, the meanest ones to deal with, are actually the older ones. They've got a lot of accumulated orneriness. And these boys, they very often take it out on you.
Now, if an auditor's in pretty good condition, this never kicks him around. He simply carries the case on forward up through the band and over the top, and the fellow is very cheerful and everything is lovely.
But if an auditor is—has the feeling that he's going to sort of cave in on the line and it's—you know, I mean, he's worried about restimulation, and he's worried about what this preclear is going to do because he fears the preclear was going to do something wrong and damaging or something, to the auditor or to himself, why, he of course doesn't kick the preclear all the way up on the line. He suppresses the fellow on the way, you see? So he just doesn't get the same result.
The auditor will probably be listening to himself with amazement someday saying, "All right, now be three feet back of your head. Now let's see through, and select page 214 of the book that's on the table. Now you—now read that page there without opening the book—oh, you can't do that? Well, let's see, now go down to the city hall and find the license number of my car. Ah, you can't do that. Well, let's see now . . ."
And he'll say, "Wait a minute, what am I doing to this preclear?" It's almost that much of a basic response till a person is in pretty good shape. Mostly because the preclear gets up along the line and starts kicking the auditor to pieces. You know, he starts bearing down and so on.
There was one boy in the First Unit—we haven't heard from him since, but he's—good condition. But he got audited, and he came up—pretty up the line, and he hit a level of overtness which was terrific, you know? I mean, you ask him a question or something like that, and if you didn't hear his answer or something, why boy, he'd just about snap your head off. Bang! And the case was progressed on up through that. For some little time there, for a couple of weeks, it was about as much as your life was worth to cast a shadow in this fellow's direction. Well, we'd dragged him up out of apathy, actually, and he'd gone up through the anger band.
So when you think of this thing called "human nature," well, throw all that aside and just don't worry about that anymore. And just sort of start in from scratch on what you know, and fully expect that as you pull this person up along the line, he's probably going to be ornery, mean, insulting, damaging, biting, probably going to gossip about you, rumor things around, say mean things behind your back. I mean—and don't be so surprised if they do. Only reason— I'm not trying to tell you all men are bad, I'm just trying to tell you, "Don't be so surprised!" That's all.
It's that chart right up there on the wall, that Chart of Human Evaluation: You'd be amazed, but you generally find people—when you start to process them, you generally find them well, well, well below 2.0, and they come up through just those manifestations.
Now, the techniques we have move them up there rapidly; they move up rapidly. You sometimes don't quite see them go by some of these states, because they're going by rather quickly.

SPACE OPERA
But if you take a case who has a large amount of hold and has done an enormous amount of living and has done a lot of resisting of the mest universe and is a—bad perception, and that sort of thing, he's liable to come up slowly. Well, he'll pass through these states. Well, don't be so surprised. It says so right there on that chart, and your experience will tell you so, and so on. There's no reason to have bad morale about it.
Now, you bring him up through those bands, and you bring him up there and you get him above the general highest level of Homo sap, which is around 4.0, and you've got quite a guy on your hands. But you won't bring all of your preclears up there.
You'll do a lot of coffee shop auditing, a lot of hit-and-run auditing, a half an hour's session here or there. The boss doesn't feel good that day, and you say, "Well, why don't you be three feet back of your head," you say, very charmingly, and he does. And you say, "All right, now just straighten out that earache." And he does. And you say, "That's fine. Now, duplicate something or other," or something. You know, I mean, do it totally—very careless session. And then at noon he's mad as hell at you. He's mad as hell at everybody and so on. You just bumped him up the Tone Scale. The guy's been in fear for years, and all of a sudden you just slapped him up into 1.5, and there he sits.
Well, you just helped him out, see? Why should you rate this? You're totally put upon now. All you want to do is cure the guy's earache and here he is mad all over the place and so on. Well, don't be surprised, because this type of auditing quite normally results in that kind of result. Fellows don't appreciate it. You fix up something real well for them, and they just don't appreciate it.
If you're going to audit somebody, well, audit toward a finite result, and give it some time and do it on schedule. And you'll find out you get along a lot better with auditing, rather than use it as a parlor trick. Auditing used as a parlor trick will wind more people up mad at you. And they're only mad at you merely because you just processed them just a short distance.
Well anyway, just in—just optimum knowingness on the part of an auditor, it's good practice for you always to suspect the worst, and then process as though that was the truth. And if the past of the preclear isn't sufficiently lurid for you, well, during the session while he's running something that doesn't require too much attention for you, well, mock it up a little more lurid. Don't try to get him to buy it—just satisfy yourself, satisfy your own dramatic urge in the matter. Because the definition of drama, preclear by preclear, each time is different; and human beings have come along distinctly different tracks.
Which is to say—let's take the problem of somebody who walks out of this room and walks down to the corner and walks back here again. Well, he accumulated some perception during that period, and he has accumulated, you might say, a little experience. It's just the experience of walking down to the corner and coming back here again.
Well, all right. Then the next fellow leaves this room and goes down to the corner and walks back here again. You know he had an entirely different experience? I mean, given the same body, given the same equal conditions, same background, they would at that moment become different, just by having walked down to the corner and back. See, two different tracks have now been established.
Well, now let's take—make it a little more complicated here. People have been walking down separate tracks for seventy-six trillion years. And if you took two of them and they walked side by side through a hundred thousand years—you see, I mean, they each would have had a different viewpoint on what

19

20

17 DECEMBER 1953
was happening. And by that I don't mean consideration. They just would have seen it—because one would have seen it two feet or three feet over from the other one—see, he'd have had a slightly different view of the situation.
Well, that's an incredible thing—somebody walking along with somebody else for a hundred thousand years. Well, there's seventy-six trillion years on that track. So you get different—you get a different pattern of experience person by person.
People can live in the same family and live all their lives together on the same farm, and yet each one will come up at the end of one lifetime with an entirely different pattern of experience than anyone else.
Now, this is not the essential difference amongst people, the essential difference—that's just amongst experience. The essential difference amongst people is established in the basic personality. The basic personality was never so real as it is today. You pop a thetan out of his head and you put him through enormous numbers of drills and you snap him through this and you snap him through that, and he's still the same guy. And you knock out engrams and automaticities and chew up energy and throw it away and give him different abilities and make him able to haunt ably and do all sorts of things and so on—he's still the same guy, as far as his basic personality is concerned.
That is to say, he's sort of—his life—his forward push in life is motivated by more or less the same concerns as they were before. This will mystify you a little bit as an auditor. Sometimes you'll think a person has changed wildly until you look very closely, and you will find out: Well, they were interested in building things, they were interested in creating things, they were interested in this and that, and their interest patterns stay pretty much the same.
What happens is, they get more intense and become much more vivid. They are able to accomplish, then, the things which they were only dreaming about before. Which makes, at first glance, an entirely different person. See, but it's only at first glance that it's a different person. Once you've stripped off all of the aberration off of a person, you find a personality. It happens that you find more personality than before.
Indian teachings would have you believe (they unfortunately did not have the experience of observation of people)—Indian teachings would have you believe that everybody sort of wind up as the—wound up as the same gob of goo. That everybody got peeled off or shucked off the same stack and this was it.
Well, let's say that this was true. You'd still get one thetan coming off the north side and another thetan coming off the south side of this primary entity that exploded. I mean, you'd still get that difference between the two of them, and it's quite a difference.
There is, by the way, an incident on the track—two kinds of incidents I might mention in passing. One is the basic explosion. Now, this is a real funny one. It's the basic explosion.
Everybody was part of this one guy. I mean, they're—not everybody but, you know, quite a few people were—not quite a few people, but there was one guy, you see, this big fellow. And all of a sudden he went boom! and people went in all directions. See, there was just one guy, and then there was boom! and then people went in all directions.
In other words, you've got a bombastic or explosive duplication. And people will occasionally find this one, and that tracks back immediately to these Indian beliefs. It's—was quite amusing to me to find that explosive duplication on the track because the Hindu had described everything about it but the explosion itself. And you'll find it from preclear to preclear.

SPACE OPERA
Now, there's another kind of incident on how the thetan accounts for being here, and something he will run rather consistently. And someday, who knows, in processing we may make use of this fact. It may turn up to be a much more significant fact than it is at the present moment. I mean, it might be much more useful. And so it's one—there's these disrelated little pieces, you know, I kind of like to keep my eye on them. I don't like them to get off under the desk; if they're going to fall off the desk, let them fall out there on the plain floor. And this is one of them.
The mock-up gets in trouble and he goes down to fish it out. That's about all you can say about the incident, see? The mock-up gets in trouble and he dives down to fish it out.
Down from where? Well, he leaves a somethingness of which he was a part, and becomes a separateness to fish this mock-up out of trouble. And the mock-up usually gets into trouble by going into a chunk of blackness or something, and he can't see it and he can't observe it. And he—possibly before that time he was sort of monitoring it from a telephone booth or someplace. And he just dives down to bring it out of trouble, and after that he's part of the mock-up. Well, that's a very interesting, interesting thing. You'll find that case after case. I see a couple of smiles here, people have run into it here.
[to student] You have? Yeah.
Well, it's a sudden decision. And there's a decision: "Well, I'll go down and get it out of trouble." And it's a big postulate on the track, nice big postulate. You could run this on preclears. I don't know, because I haven't done it very widely or generally, but I've produced results with this: "I will go down and get it out of trouble," you know? Just push that postulate around, move it around like you do any other symbol, and have something blow on the case. Because the fellow's still running on the determination to get something out of trouble. Quite fascinating.
There's an awful lot of machinery, rather creaky machinery in spots, and complex machinery, which stands in back of the scenery. Don't blind your eyes just because you've got something like SOP 8-C that bails people out. Don't forget that we are neglecting machinery. We're neglecting it because we ordinarily don't have to do anything to it at all.
Now, when I say machinery, I mean machinery—I mean, just—not automaticity. I mean, just as though you looked behind the main curtain of the stage and, you know, you see all these sandbags that raise and lower the other scenes, and you see the propmen standing around there and the electricians and the switchboards and piles of costumes and dressing rooms. You know, it's quite a—if you've stood out in front or sat out in front in a large theater in a tremendous production and you've seen this enormous illusion and it's just so gorgeous. And then, if you've ever done this, walked around to the stage door and walked in, seen all these fellows in derby hats and shirt sleeves, and old battered props standing around, and stuff that a vaudeville act back in 1890 forgot to carry away, and the bare bricks that stand back of that beautiful painted scenery. And you see the rhinestones close up and they're sure rhinestones— cracked, too. And it's a different view, just a different view.
Well now, all of that sort of thing still stays around in life. There's all kinds of odds and ends. People will come up and confront you with some of the darnedest things in terms of this bric-a-brac. Call it bric-a-brac, the stuff's not significant, particularly. You can get him out of any kind of an automaticity he gets into, any kind of an incident he gets into, just with Step Ia—just key it out, you see.

21

22

17 DECEMBER 1953
But he's liable to get real interested. You'll find somebody in one like this: he'll be—you just know this preclear isn't there. And you keep locating him and locating him and locating him. Instead of locating somewhere around his body, he suddenly locates himself standing in front of a huge switchboard with his hands on a railing and with somebody standing behind him, and he's got a black suit on.
Now, this is just—this is not preclear by preclear, this is just bric-a-brac, see, not significant. But he's standing there with a black suit on, and he's got somebody behind him telling him what to do. And this will occasionally vary itself so he's got something that looks like a television screen in front of him. He's running a mock-up with it.
Well now, if you run into that one and you were to tell the preclear, "Now look down at your hands" he would get quite ill. Because the hands of this particular type of detached body and so on, are the most horrible-looking things in the world, and he is actually electrically pinned to this switchboard. He's standing there at a switchboard and his hands are a horror to him. And every once in a while, you get some preclear who can't look at his hands or if you asked him to look straight at his hands, he would get kind of sick.
Well, if you run it down very far, you'll run into this incident, bing-bang! And you tell him to look at those hands and he gets sick, but thoroughly. Well, what you do is make him mock them up in quantity and throw them away until he ... If he runs into something like that, he runs into strange phenomena, what do you do with it? Well, you use the various means you have to hand: Creative Processing, create it-destroy it, get lots of them, key it out—oh, get into communication with it and do all sorts of things. Put it in various places, make walls out of it and look through each successive one at the new facsimile of it, you know?
But it's easy to confuse one of these incidents with a facsimile. That one doesn't happen to be a facsimile. Now there is a reality, you see, back of all this which is better than facsimiles. And it would be just like the preclear suddenly finds himself up against this wall up here—standing there. He thinks he's been running around Earth all this time and he hasn't been. He's been standing up facing a black wall, with somebody behind him telling him what to do. And that's reality. I mean, he just suddenly finds himself there, that's it.
But you're still in communication with him, because you're in communication with the mock-up. Now, the trick in that case is just to keep your head, you see. And he exteriorizes out of that body, which is hanging on to the rails, as fast as he'll exteriorize out of anything. You've at last found what to get him out of. So you just exteriorize him out of that body and get him down here.
Now, one of the ways to do it is "Now be the space of that body. Now be the space of this body. Now be the space of that body, this body, that body, this body, that body, this body, that body, this body" and creak, creak, bong and spong, and he will be elsewhere.
You get the kind of thing that could happen in processing? It doesn't happen very often, but sometimes it does and that's the machinery.
Now, one of these days, I fully expect that you will run into somebody who belongs or did belong to the planet builder temples. And those boys ran on an implant that was up there at about a hundred thousand volts, you know, I mean it was a big implant. And they went around doing fantastic things and so on, but they could be easily degraded by losing their power and they went along on a lot of superstitions and—quite an interesting study.

SPACE OPERA
You see, in seventy-six trillion years, with the imagination of all hands going at full blast in order to create randomity, you're liable to get quite a few strange and different situations.
It is the fashion of today that when one writes, for instance, about the year 1870, one talks and has his characters talk, exactly as they talk today— which is flat, offhand, unemotional, undramatic and rather bored. Well, that's true of any age—that they write about all other ages in the same tenor as the age in which the writing is being done. Don't overlook the fact that 1870 conversation between a man and a woman would have sounded to you like somebody was kidding somebody. You just wouldn't believe it, that's all—the tremendous stress on the dramatic and the emotional. And as a matter of fact, this was as late as 1915, it was still being done: the stress on the dramatic, the stress on the emotional.
If anybody had half a chance to make a superdramatic production out of something, they promptly did it, with no shame or embarrassment, you see. They just made a dramatic production on the spot. Everybody was his own best producer, you might say, and the women swooned with great ease. Men stood up and actually did say, "You cur, sir. Do you realize that you have uttered a foul word in the presence of a lady? Well, go back to your common kind, sir." Just routine conversation.
You hear some word spoken in the presence of a lady today, why, she laughs. (audience laughter)
So, we have a problem of differences of periods, differences of periods. And differences come about in the preclear as you process him because he's in an agreement with a society which isn't emotional. And this society must appear bored and rather diffident about everything. And all of a sudden, you start roaring into stuff that's even like 1870, you see, and—gee, different picture.
So your preclear isn't quite able to make an acceptance of reality, because the bridge is too great between the tenor or drama of the moment, and the drama contained in the incident.
For instance, the amount of high tension that you find in space opera doesn't compare dramatically. Space opera—the level of viciousness of space opera was such ... I wrote a story one time called Final Blackout, many years ago, and its tenor is a mild shadow of space opera—I mean the same mood, to some degree. The villain of the piece and the way they looked at things and so forth, was rather—more or less the same. All right.
Now, that story, Final Blackout, published here, received a great deal of mail on the subject of its excessive brutality. If you have read the story, you wouldn't—you'd be amazed at the number of protests on its excessive brutality and their incapability of understanding such a character as the hero of that piece. Entirely different character, he was completely out of their orbit.
Now, he would have been considered a fairly mild, routine character in space opera. It's not a story of space opera, by the way, it's a story of the next war. And the character was not particularly modeled from that, but I just give you the idea. Here is a story of a similarity of character, and we have a protest; we have protests from the American scene because a person is too brutal.
Well now, every once in a while a preclear will run into this. You know, he'll run into periods when he was all-out, you might say, or going full blast or at high speed, and he disowns himself. You see, his current experience and what you expect of him as an auditor and so forth, are all so out of disagreement to that. So he can't hang his track together. His emotional moods have too great

23

24

17 DECEMBER 1953
a disparity. And his reality has to come up on an awful lot of things before he starts to hang anything like Straightwire recall on his whole track.
But it does things to him in terms of this present society; and this is a little bit of a liability in processing. This society has about the same level of drama as a cow snoring on a somewhat foggy day. Just about the same level of drama. Even the teenagers—even the teenagers, the best they can do now is steal a few automobiles. Well, I mean, that's about the top limit of anything they dream up or do. It's fantastic.
I see them down around—but at the same time, the teenagers are getting, year by year, a little tougher, and you can watch it coming up. We're going into a new era, believe me. And the main part of that is, is all the space helmets and rocket pistols that are being sold down in the toy stores.
Now, that's—it's odder than it sounds, because I have now to date taken two little kids, both of them below ten, out of space opera incidents. I just keyed them out without talking any more about it, see, and located the incident and keyed them out. And they became well, and they'd been desperately sick right up to that moment.
Well, space opera had a tendency to sort of lay it into people. You didn't just shoot somebody in space opera. I mean, pooh! The whole gag was to get a bigger gun and a—with a larger blast and let them explode even more beautifully out in vacuums. And hang them up in ships and let them do a perihelion around a planet for a while and roast them alive. And I ran—have run the most interesting incidents out of preclears. There isn't any reason to my—keep on dodging with you this way, because you people are coming on up toward Theta Clear. You get up toward Theta Clear up there, and you get out into outer space and you'll see that things are still happening, things are still going on.
A ship is—a liner or something like that, in space opera—grabbed off, somebody wants to know where that thar bunch of gold is it's supposed to be carrying. And nobody talks, so the—one of the boys on the boarding crew gets ahold of one of the crewmen on the merchant vessel and takes a crowbar—I mean, just a routine crowbar—and pries out the lower part of his backbone. And the amount of implant is so great on this crewman that he never utters a whimper or says a word or betrays the hiding place of anything. In other words, they take it kind of seriously.
Sounds very far-fetched and far-drawn. Well, that's the whole thing this society at this time is trying to do: It's trying to find everything far-fetched and it's trying to find everything overdramatized.
This stems mainly from having had in its midst, the movies, for now— let's see, almost half a century of movies—and entertainment in the form of the written word to this length of time that they've had it. Because the movie screen says to them: "Elsewhere—be elsewhere, be elsewhere, be elsewhere." And the truth of the matter is that you could, at this moment, produce a movie that would take—I mean, just without saying anything about clearing—that would actually remove over 50 percent of the audience from the theater and send them elsewhere. Yes, you could make such a movie.
So here's the individual threatened with being pried out of his head. That is to say, "Now we are going to go to the Bahamas." Just take a travelogue, see. Well, he's in the Bahamas. Only he's not in the Bahamas. He's in the Bahamas though, but he's not in the Bahamas. So he—that's the maybe that has to set in there immediately—bing-bing-bing-bing-bing-bing. You know, "I'm not in the Bahamas, I'm looking at the Bahamas on a screen." Because there's no trick at all to being in the Bahamas. Why keep looking at it on a movie screen?

SPACE OPERA
The fellow says, "We are now in Bahamas, the beautiful," and ping! he could be sitting in a palm tree as far as that's concerned. And little kids, if they didn't make so much noise, and ever listen to the screen, they probably are every once in a while. Only nobody ever checks up on it. And you don't ask questions, you don't get answers.
Well anyway, here's the problem: The audience sits there and is sent visually—see, that's a lot different than being sent verbally—but they're sent visually all over the darn universe. There's space opera and everything else now in pictures, see. And they're just shot visually all over the place at the same time having to hold themselves still in a theater seat. And you could actually run this on a preclear. You can get the impulse as the screen flashes one way or the other. Just get him to get an idea—even if he has no visio or anything, it doesn't matter—get the idea of a theater screen up in front of him.
I'll do it right now. I'll show you what I mean: Get a theater screen up in front of you there, and get the idea of it sending you someplace, and you not going.
Now it sends you someplace else, and you don't go. You stay there and look at the screen.
Now it sends you someplace else and, again, you don't go.
And it sends you someplace else and you don't go.
Now it's got a picture of a highway unreeling on it, and you aren't going anyplace.
And that's the modern automobile. There's the highway unreeling and you not going anyplace—except you are going someplace, except you're not going anyplace. Look at that highway unreel—you see that highway? You get the idea? It's got an invisible barrier in front of you. Here we go! See that?
Well now, throw that one away.
And we got the—we've got some sort of an idea of why a preclear gets nailed down in his head, you see. Many suggestions are thrown at him on comm lines, and he seeks to duplicate, see? The screen says Bahamas, he tries to duplicate—not picture Bahamas, but he starts to duplicate Bahamas. But it's not polite to leave your family or leave the theater, you see. So then he has to stay there in the theater seat and look at the picture of the Bahamas.
This is the snakiest trick of all, you see, is something like that. And then the movie starts showing never-never land that doesn't exist geographically at all, and this is real good. The audience breathes a huge sigh of relief and relaxes and enjoys it. Watching the feature pictures is a duty. And watching Walt Disney, of course, is always welcome because there's no such place to go to. So they can sit there and watch it. No check, no counter-check on it.
You ever notice, an audience always—they just nearly always cheer when anything of Disney's is shown on. Little short feature—audience cheers and claps their hands. There's only two or three other pictures that get the same response, and they're all cartoons. There's those Tom and Jerry cartoons, and an audience—always glad to see them.
Well, this is never-never land, and that's real welcome. Therefore you'd say offhand that fairy tales were less aberrative than costume historicals and geographically accurately placed pictures—just offhand.
But you'll find many a preclear—and this is not a process to get them out of their heads—but you'll find many a preclear really stuck in and unable to move simply because he's checked himself from leaving so often while he was sitting looking at pictures and reading books. See, the book says someplace; it'd be real nice.

25

26

17 DECEMBER 1953
Well now, costume historicals try to send him up and down the time track. And they're very interesting. Now you want to get somebody out more easily that you're having a little trouble with—this is not a springing technique, but it's one that gets them there—is "what movies aren't they?" and "what books aren't they?" and so forth, and "what scenes aren't they?" And "Get a time when you didn't go to the Bahamas," you know? "Now recall a time . . ." Well now, you see, this stuff is all lying on the same track.
Well, in processing a preclear, you'll run into an awful lot of phenomena. If you wanted to boil all this rambling dissertation down this evening, you could just put it onto the basis of, the optimum auditor—the optimum auditor goes on using processes which resolve the case, and while interested in, is not detoured by, phenomena and the back-of-stage props that turn up.
You can go chasing off wildly on this track. I know—I've been over what is contained in the genetic bank and what the thetan's carting along with him and so forth, and it's considerable. Believe me, it's really considerable.
Well, the hump that your preclear hits is to find himself fully equipped for drama in an undramatic world. He's in good shape, he's in good motion, he can get all sorts of things done, and all of a sudden he looks around and he says, "Gee-whiz."
Well now, he can go in two directions there: He can sort of monitor himself down and live a life of quiet desperation thereafter, or he can simply engage in some of the more dramatic aspects of existence. You'll normally find him doing the latter.
SOP 8-O is, of course, a technique which simply drills up the capabilities, on a gradient scale, of the thetan so he can see, hear, speak, get out electricity, throw out postulates, control bodies other than his own, and do other things which are well within his abilities. It's quite routine for a preclear to get out of his body and not be able to make a single sound. Well that should appear peculiar to you, not the reverse. He doesn't need all this machinery, for instance, like a voice box.
That's the silliest thing of all: to have a machine that talks, you see. He doesn't need this machinery like a voice box. But it startles people a great deal when they're talked to, and they're apt to go, at this society level at this time, straight into hypnosis. They hear a voice talking to them from nowhere, they just go bong. I know, I've done it. And it's just very upsetting to people. Done it with preclears, too, and they always come back and report the same action: they say they didn't... "I had to stop it because the bus was about to be wrecked." Yeah, people get excited about it. I don't know why they should, but they do.
Anyway, you can do all sorts of things like this and the first thing your preclear starts to add up his capabilities to is mischief. That's the first thing he thinks of; he thinks of these capabilities in terms of mischief. Rather undignified proceeding. And if he just uses them for mischief and then he doesn't see any further goal at all in doing such things, or he doesn't realize that there are other parts of this universe too and there are other universes and lots of other things—if he just gets up to a level of mischief, why, he'll get tired of mischief rather quickly.
You know, he keeps going in and out of the gatekeeper's house and every time you're saying, "Now be inside the tollgate house. Now be outside over the river. Now be inside the tollhouse; now be outside over the river." And then you suddenly find out that every time he goes into the tollhouse, he's giving the bridgekeeper's—back of the bridgekeeper's head a good kick, and the fellow is

SPACE OPERA
getting, by this time, pretty frantic. Preclear might not mention this to you, but he does that rather routinely.
Well, SOP 8-O boosts him on up to a point of where he can at least be interested without mischief. Not to get the mischief out of the woods, because that's always happening, but mostly to give him a little broader look at something.
Now, you won't ever get anybody up to a point where he's exteriorized, able and very, very concerned with existence. These factors just don't fit. They don't go together. It's like saying, "All right, we're going to build this iron bridge out of feathers." You're not going to build an iron bridge out of feathers, and you're not going to build a serious person with exteriorization.
You could, however, of course, get him into another body and bop him with enough voltage and show him how serious everything was and—but what would you have then? You'd just have another guy. Well, you've got lots of them.
And the point I have here is, is he is capable of an enormous amount of constructive action. He's capable of great creative action, and his field—this one you're liable to ignore, don't ignore this one—his greatest surge forward will be when you rehabilitate him artistically by taking out of him all of his uncertainty about his own beauty and the beauty of his own work.
In other words, when you take art criticism out of him. And when you remove artistic criticism out of him, he will rather definitely change. Now you don't get somebody who's going to go off and fight wars just because everything is so horrible. You're not going to get him doing that. But you will get him engaged in things that are very interesting.
Now, he is perfectly willing to look at things and inspect things and do that sort of thing, but if you rehabilitate his artistic, creative ability, he's doing the finest thing that he does on the track, and he gets very, very interested. If you were to do this possibly with only a few dozen people, you would have a renaissance on Earth. You just wouldn't help it, because it's almost completely missing here on Earth today.
When one looks at the ruined towers and walls of former glories, and when he reads about the Seven Wonders of the World ... By the way, did you ever read about the Seven Wonders of the World? Might cross your mind some time, what manner of people were these? For instance, the Colossus of Rhodes was built out of, I think, tin and bronze. And it stood with one foot on a headland and the other foot on the shore and the ships passed in and out under the giant's legs. This was a long time ago. And everybody knows nobody knew anything about iron and steel and bronze and tin in those days. They also knew that nobody ever went to Great Britain.
By the way, it was finally bought by a junk dealer after many ages had passed and it had crashed and so forth. They—bought for salvage. That was the Colossus of Rhodes. But it took that fellow an awful long time to try to get some means of hauling some part of his buy away.
Well, here is not so much artistic construction as—think of the frame of mind of somebody who decided he was going to have a beautiful statue in the harbor. Total utility: a beautiful statue in the harbor. Total—no further utility. You get less and less utility, yet less and less application for these things. And as you do that, you get the tone of the society higher and higher and higher up.
Somebody said once—some old Arab philosopher, I think it was. Oh no, it was Omar Khayyam, isn't it? "When you have two loaves of bread, sell one and buy white hyacinth for your soul's sake."

27

28

17 DECEMBER 1953
Who said that?
Male voice: Omar Khayyam.
Is that Omar Khayyam? Yeah. I don't know why they didn't sell both loaves. I don't know what good a loaf of bread is, truth of the matter.
Female voice: Maybe it was good then!
So you have a lot of latitude with a preclear that you may not look at, merely because of the boresome level of the society today. The only thing beautiful in this society today is the body of a car (oh, and I shouldn't add this worldly remark to this group) or a beautiful woman. This is about the end-all of the whole proposition when the—when you consider what's being done artistically today: it's nothing.
You go up to New York and you look and you'll find the better artists— the better artists are in commerce. And they're doing a pretty good job of a glass of Schenley's with some ice in it, but it's very utilitarian. Very.
And you look at what's being considered art, and you'll think you've walked into the local sanitarium. Art has gotten to be something which is fantastically unreal. Well, that's art now. And never occurs to anybody—let's say a bunch of millionaires get together up there and they're going to build a new building up in New York. And they worry and worry and worry about what the cost of it is, and who they're going to rent the thing to, and how they're going to acquire the ground, and who are they going to get on the city hall to condemn it all, and they're going to worry about everything. And they throw into the lap of some kid or some firm that's related to the mayor, the plans of the building. And you get something that shouldn't happen, ordinarily.
Just forget it. The skyscraper today is built to last about twenty-five years. After that it's not supposed to be standing there anymore. Somebody's supposed to tear it down or something. And it's remarkable that there's so much latitude between utilitarian today and the beauty that is possible. I mean, it's one of these infinity tracks. We don't have any gradients, see? I mean, there isn't anything to look at, in terms of span, that give you how much there is up the line up here toward beauty.
Right where you have beauty and the society level today, you see, it is something like—well, you travel from the beginning of a yardstick, you see, up to the first eighth of an inch, you know. And then you operate between that first eighth of an inch and the beginning of the yardstick. And you got the rest of the yardstick to work with, see, and nobody ever notices there's another there—that there's any yardstick there. Everybody's totally convinced that there's only the first eighth of an inch. Well, that's about the way it is.
And an auditor will be plagued continually by preclears saying—if an auditor neglects this artistic factor, why, the preclear will plague him continually. "All right, so I can do these things, so what? So what, so I can do these things. So what? I mean, it. . ." And the auditor is rather nonplused sometimes if he doesn't realize where the root lies there. But the root lies toward art. You rehabilitate his artistic ability, and believe me, he won't be telling you "So what?" Because that's the best there is in him. And when that is eclipsed, then the best of the thetan is eclipsed.
And he can do all sorts of things. You never saw a thetan get so busy as trying to build some kind of a mock-up all by his lonesome—not by just saying it's there, you see, but by taking masses of energy which he creates and putting it in there and shaping it up there and looking at it this way and looking at it that way and beaming it up here and stringing it up there and getting some color

SPACE OPERA
into it over there, you know, and so on. You talk about busy! He just gets busy and serious and so forth. He can get real serious about art—real serious.
And by the way, what he considers good art would rather exceed the imagination of most of the boys—it's rather tremendously variable, but it's rather overcolored and so on, to the dingy school of artists who are now operating today.
Well, it's something like that school of Dutch painters which flourished here in the last century or two, and I think is still flourishing, and that one of our American magazine cover painters, Norman Rockwell, studied for a while.
It's very wonderful. What they do, you see, is you take yellow and you get some brown—you kind of thin it down, you know, so it won't be gaudy. And then you get some red and you get some brown and you kind of thin it down, you make it real thin. And then you get some blue and you throw some brown into it, you know, and get it thinned down real good. And then you paint it with a dirty brush, you know, so it won't be too bright. And I think he—the four . . . The paintings he did for the four slavery—I mean, the four freedoms are done in that tradition.
Well, a thetan doesn't work in that tradition. I don't know what happens to him, but he just seems to go all out. He thinks color ought to be color, you know, and so on. He gets gaudy. And most anybody today would tell him that he should be more restrained. Restraint is the greatest expression of art, according to the modern school. Trouble is, they restrain themselves down to the point where they're using mostly soot on dark paper.
So, as an auditor you have quite a breadth of experience, quite a large piece of living you're looking at. And if you keep on comparing it to today's livingness— keep on comparing being a thetan to today's livingness—your preclear's going to be completely flabbergasted. I mean, he's not going to know why he's been exteriorized. He's not going to know what to do. You're going to be in a state of confusion.
And I hope tonight I've to some degree answered the question of "Well, I'm theta cleared, what do I do now?"
Well, you can do anything that was done on the track, or you can do it wilder. Or you can go into any span of art there is, and the universe itself is wide-open, even though the saloons close at ten o'clock in most of the towns in the US.
Okay.

29

The "Only One"
A lecture given on 18 December 1953

And this is the first lecture of the day of December the 18th. You have today something to put your head around.
The name of this lecture is "The 'Only One.' " Please don't take it in the line of an insult. It's a game you're playing.
The mest universe has as its basic unit, two. The whole confusion of man's logic, of his difficulties, of all of these various things that he runs into mathematically, the only thing he ever really argues about in religion is just this—the "only one," when it should be the "only two."
Now, anybody that's going around having a hard time and being jealous and being upset and being liable to this and that, and worrying about getting knocked off and that sort of thing is playing the "only one."
If you wanted a thetan to stay on the ground and be a good boy, you would find that you would have to get him so that he invested something, which he then after that would have to protect. Or you would, if you couldn't really get him to invest anything he really cared about, you'd have to make him think that he had something there which he had invested. So you would get him to confuse something with his own. And then you would tell him that he had to have this something, because it was his own.
In other words, you would get him in a state of mind where his "only two" computation—which is his basic computation; his basic computation is "only two," you see—so that the "only two" computation would have to fit himself and something in the mest universe. You perform with him, then, a marriage between himself and the universe. You take something that belongs to the universe, that doesn't belong to him, and you make him understand completely that this is his, and this is part of his makeup.
Well, he knows this is true, because he's running on an "only two" computation. You see, he knows there's two of him. So we get such ballups as we face immediately, of a thetan inside a body. This is weird. I mean, this is impossible— a thetan inside of a body.
Well, a thetan could be outside a body, with his other self inside the body and manage it just handsomely. But if there's only one of the thetan, then his other self must be, of course, the body.
A thetan is the "only two"; that's the minimal number. And it goes from there on multiples of two: the "only four," the "only eight," the "only sixteen," the "only thirty-two," the "only sixty-four," the "only hundred and twenty-eight." He doesn't go on the basis of the "only one."

31

32

18 DECEMBER 1953
You see, the secret of this universe is really that there's no secret at all. That's the main secret of this universe. The main thing about hidden influences is that there's no secret about hidden influences. And you can go on like this.
But there is a datum which is too obvious to be observed; and that datum that's too obvious to be observed is so obvious, that it becomes, of course, a secret. And that is that there's only two anywhere you look, and that the universe is incapable of operating on one of anything. It's utterly incapable of operating on one of anything.
The only thing that runs a thetan downhill is his inability to impose space between two terminals.
Now, I refer you to 8-80 and I refer you also Step V, SOP 8-C. I refer you also to the occluded case. I refer you also to marital difficulties. I refer you also to God and the Devil: They say there's only one God, and then they give you two.
They say there is only one—this fellow keeps going along his whole life saying, "There's only one of me"—and he's married, and everything he has to do, he has to consult the wife. This girl goes along and she says, "There's only one of me," and she feels completely lost and unbeautiful and upset and everything else unless she's got a guy somewhere. And this is the way the universe rolls.
This super, super obviousness just keeps parading along in front of everybody's face, and they never look at it. Everybody says, "I'm the only one. John Jones—there is only one John Jones. The FBI says there's only one set of fingerprints on John Jones and this is the only John Jones there is." It's interesting, isn't it? And we come along and exteriorize John Jones. Well, that's kind of silly. That thetan doesn't have any fingerprints and that's the only motive power in John Jones, and this is very interesting.
Now we have the preclear who pops out of his head and pops back in again. He pops out of his head and tries to play the "only one" outside of his head. And that's what we've got to take up here—he can't do it. I mean, the agreement with the mest universe—see, you could actually be sitting out in the middle of your own universe, being one. See, no second terminal to discharge at. You could emanate energy. You could say, "There is energy going out from me now, and it doesn't even have to have a second terminal."
But the laws of this universe insist—and this is a universe which really specializes in law. I mean, the only people in the universe who are respected are police and attorneys and so forth. The—this whole universe operates on law. And then people who know the law well enough, in physics and so forth, they pass and get to make atom bombs. And if everybody knows the law, why, he just gets along fine. You see, the law is the main thing.
Only if you look over the law—if you look over the law, you'll find out that everybody who is with—inside the law is despicably beneath one's contempt. When one gets too close inside the law, he's done! Oh, but done! I mean, thoroughly. I mean, I couldn't put enough exclamation points there.
You get some attorney, he's been goofing around and fooling around with judges and lawbooks and so forth, and he comes to you. Heh! Take a look at him and take Step XVIII, SOP 8-C and start in. You'll finally get him to a point where he will admit he has the responsibility of moving his thumb. The guy's a lost dog.
Now, law. Law says, in this universe there must be two terminals for energy to occur. The trouble with your thetan is he hasn't got any energy. We've gone over that before—we've said energy is responsibility, is this, is that, is something else and it's all of these various things. Well, in this universe, in order to make energy, to have a generator or a motor, you have to have at least two terminals,

THE"ONLY ONE"
and space has to be imposed on them. The terminals aren't important, but the space is.
And we just look it over—fast review of this datum. Here sits an electric generator. Why does it run? Well, space is being imposed magnetically upon two terminals and these two terminals have space imposed on them by the base of the motor. Now, that's the most important part of the motor—the base of the motor—now, because it's imposing space on these two terminals. If it weren't there to impose space on the two terminals, you could have all the magnetic fields you ever dreamed of around and just nothing would happen. There'd be no juice come out of this generator—simply because the terminals were close together, you see? They would be together, no space between them.
So space is necessary, and its imposition between these two terminals. So we'll just find this universe out by looking at an electric motor. We know that the—actually, it's a condensed form of electricity that makes up these walls, it's a condensed form of electricity which makes up any matter; and electricity itself, one way or the other, is part of any energy. You can mechanically translate electricity out of chemicals. It isn't done today here on this planet because it isn't economical, but there are ways and means of just taking up shovelfuls of chemicals and throwing them into a battery and running motors. You know, they just give a direct electrical flow.
Well, electricity is very common to all of these things, so one of the first data that the universe tries to bury is "what is electricity," and they try to bury that madly. The physicist is insane on this subject. And I mean just that—he's insane on the subject.
He'll get some kid that he's trying to teach in high school or—even goes back to the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scout manual on electricity—they teach 12-, 13-year-old kids—it starts out with, "The first thing you have to learn about electricity is that nobody knows what electricity is. And if you have that datum down solidly, then we will teach you from there on, but if you don't swallow that one, to hell with you." I mean, it's just as blunt as that: "The first thing we know about electricity is that nobody knows what electricity is."
Now, that's a fine point of defeatism to start from, isn't it? Well, they start from that point of defeatism and then it gets worse. You know what electricity is—anytime you push your hand against the desk or your foot against the floor or something like that, you have force. Well, electricity is a flow manifestation of force, that's all. It behaves exactly according to the laws of force. The laws of force behave exactly according to electricity. You even get torque, and the Ohm's law and everything else. You start applying Newton's laws, for instance, none of these fall down when you come up against some electricity. They're the laws of motion and the laws of electricity. Well, you can say electricity is condensed and conduited motion. There isn't any reason to be upset about it, it's a flock of particles on their way someplace.
And there's two kinds of electricity, only nobody's ever noticed this one, is there's the kind of electricity that stands in one place as a particle and gets kicked by its neighbors—see, that's that kind of electricity, and the other kind is the one that—the particle that runs like hell. You see? There'd be two kinds of particle behavior.
So we have two kinds of particle behavior, and actually have two manifestations of electricity. Well, in any other motion law that you can find in the universe, you will find a comparable behavior in electricity, because you're looking at a motion when you're looking at electricity.

33

34

18 DECEMBER 1953
And the fellow who says, "The first thing you've got to learn about electricity is that nobody knows what electricity is," he might as well be saying, "The first thing you've got to learn about motion is nobody knows what motion is." Bull. Any little kid walk down a hall, he knows what motion is. He's moving. He's a particle or he's moving a particle. Simple. Only this, of course, would escape everybody.
It's like: Space is a viewpoint of dimension. One thing they don't know about—about space is "nobody knows what space is." You see, if you can just thoroughly enough bury one of these data and take it away from people so they won't thereafter inspect the thing, you can get away with the stupid tricks like this "only one" trick.
The thetan loses one of him by failing to impose space between two terminals. And it's all right for you to sit there and say, "Well, I don't know anything about electricity and he's talking about physics," and this sort of thing. And "That's very deep, and that's very horrible." It's all right for you to say that, but you'll have to face up to it sooner or later that if you've agreed with the universe, then you've agreed that the place where you're going to get your electricity or motion is by imposing space between two terminals, which is to say, you and the person you're talking with. Or you as a thetan and you as a body.
Any weakness there is comes after you've agreed to this: that it takes two terminals to generate electricity.
You see, it doesn't take two terminals to generate electricity. You simply can say, "Let there be electricity!" Zoom—you got it. It doesn't even have to go to another terminal. You don't even have to be an energy mass in order to generate this.
But after it's—now get this one: after it has already been generated and an automaticity has been set up to make the generation reoccur (in other words, after you have a mass; you know, you have mass of energy, like an object), after that step has been taken, then interchange of energy between two such masses is the sole method of recovering from that mass further electricity.
Now, let's be very specific about this. Let's take that microphone there and this microphone here. All right. Now, there isn't any reason why a thetan—and he can—he simply says, "There's a microphone there," and boom, there's a microphone there. One terminal. It doesn't exchange with him for the good reason that he isn't mass; he doesn't have any mass. All right. He says there's a microphone there. Okay?
Now, if he is so lazy or if he wants to get so involved that he doesn't want to go on generating some electricity, all he has to say is ... And this is the simplest experiment you can make—put out two terminals. Even a guy who's very occluded can get something like two terminals out, and start a flow flowing. He can say, "Boom! There's another microphone." Now he's got two microphones standing there together and what do you know? There will be a current flow from those two mock-ups, one to the other.
As a matter of fact, if the current flow continuing between those two mock-ups is put into another thing, even an E-Meter dial—I mean, put two mock-ups and then lead a line over to an E-Meter dial—you can read the discharge between those two mock-ups.
Well, what's discharging? It's what the thetan said was there, that's what's discharging. He can at any time make a new one. He can make a new mass, he can make a mass eighteen times as big.
Now, he can also do this trick: He can take hold of those two mock-ups, see, those two microphones, and he can wobble them in, you know, in and out,

THE "ONLY ONE"
toward each other, zing-zing-zing-zing, and materially increase the flow. By putting—what?—mechanical energy into the terminals, by changing the amount of space between the two terminals. And that essentially is what a magnet does when it—imposed in between.
You can make electricity by making two terminals magnetically come together and depart from each other. You can have two masses, you see, and they charge each other, and you pull them apart. And they charge each other, and you pull them apart. And you—you know, they rush at each other and you pull them back, and you rush at each other and pull them back—you've got a basic motor when you're doing that. It's all you have to do. I mean, it doesn't even have to be a big magnetic setup or coils or anything else. You'll get a flow if you do this.
The point I'm trying to make here is we've taken the second step, which is conserve energy. We talk about the conservation of energy. Well, the thetan who doesn't want to keep saying there, "All right. There is now a continuing flow here," because he thinks this is going to be very bad—he thinks it's very, very, very bad, you know, to have to have a continuing flow. Well, he's going to put a big deposit of energy there, which is thereafter going to act on another deposit of energy, and forevermore there's going to be a flow as long as— pardon me, as long as there's masses, two masses there, there's going to be a flow of energy take place between these two things. That way, he can set up an automatic piece of machinery.
And the difference between a thetan doing this and an engineer setting up a coal steam-generating plant is not observable because exactly the same laws are being obeyed in either case.
Now, the thetan who believes he shouldn't create anything, of course is going to start picking up all of the old energy masses he can find around and putting them in proximity so that he can have current. Now, there is behavior, and you're looking straight at behavior.
Well, he sets up all kinds of things to do this, you see. Now, the next thing that happens to him is he himself conceives himself to have mass. He has a name. He becomes a symbol. A symbol is something which is wrapped around with energy, and it's mobile. So he's a symbol now: His name is Joe. Doesn't matter what significance he gets out of this name; the deepest significance out of the name is that he's given himself an identification as a symbol and wrapped himself around with energy.
Now he gets in the vicinity of something like a— anything—he gets in the vicinity of this, and he starts discharging. It discharges at him and he discharges at it. He gets a flow, in other words.
And you can set up all sorts of strange arrangements this way. You can set up the terminal that is the left side of the body and the terminal that is the right side of the body and they will thereafter, if fed once in a while— surreptitiously by the thetan or overtly through the stomach—if these terminals are fed in terms of mass, they will keep on discharging and you've got a motor.
Happens to be a body, and the body sits there and the left side discharges to the right side, and you've got a—an actually, an alternating-current machine. That's what the body is. It runs at 98.6 and it's—the fuel which continues this alternation is described as carbon-oxygen—carbon-oxygen engine. It breathes in air and this takes care of the oxygen and so on, and the bellows of the lungs go back and forth, and it's lots of fun. It's a very unfragile motor, really. It's very low temperature, highly efficient—much more highly efficient than any steam engine. But basically one is putting in mechanical energy in order to get electrical responses.

35

36

18 DECEMBER 1953
And every once in a while, somebody's right-side terminal or left-side terminal ceases to operate; you know, gets torn down or knocked down. And he has a stroke or he has paralysis or something or other happens with regard to this.
It's a very rugged motor, but we're not trying to be mechanistic. The one thing we mustn't fight is being mechanistic about something.
The—I don't know where they got this completely irky word, this phrase, but they call themselves "pastoral psychologists." Isn't that wonderful? You can just hear the panpipes and the baaing of little sheep as they graze out across the brush.
The pastoral psychologist fights viciously against any mechanistic approach to the problem of mental operation. He doesn't do anything, either. I mean, he doesn't achieve any results. His main effort is to fight this mechanistic approach.
Well now, why should he fight a mechanistic approach? What bridge is he trying to recover? What bridge is he trying to get back to? He's trying to get back to the bridge of the individual. . . He doesn't know anything about this, I mean, it's like saying what does the motor—why does the motor fight? The bridge, however—mechanistic. If you keep fighting this mechanistic thing or the idea that one is mechanical or—and so on, that is an effort to get back to the point where you simply create not only the mechanics but the laws, too. You get back to the point where you say, "There is now a stream of energy," and there's a stream of energy and that's that. You're trying to keep from getting into this two-terminal superproposition.
Well, all right. A thetan, individual, operating as an individual, could get away with it as long as he himself was not mass. Well, in view of the fact that he's totally capable of being eight people, sixteen people, thirty-two people, sixty-four people, a hundred and twenty-eight people, and basically should be two people—he basically should be two. And, by the way, every once in a while somebody slips on this one, and they compulsively re-become two people and you have a schiz—-what you call a schiz personality and so on. The fellow is being two people madly inside of himself and is trying to rehabilitate this ability of "two-ness," you see. So he gives himself two entirely different personalities and he gets it all fouled up and so forth.
Being two people—that is to say, being two thetans—one would co-know. He would know each—in each of his beingnesses, or he could know separately but with great ease, and at any time he could co-know.
What's happened to a schiz is he is no longer able to co-know. He's tried the trick of being two, which he should be, and then he's forgotten how to co-know. So he has two violently opposed personalities, both of which is himself.
Well, we're not interested in insane manifestations. You know, trying to study the mind by trying to study the insane is something like trying to study electrical motors after they've been worked over with hammers. They just don't look the same. The best study that could be made of the subject is to make a Theta Clear—somebody who is super, supersane and then take a look at this; and this is what you get. All right.
The thetan, then, protests at length, against this idea of having two terminals. And he fights the idea, he doesn't like the idea. I mean, he—"What do you mean? You put up two terminals there, two masses of energy, and they afterwards discharge and this runs something else. Well, why should this do that, because for the good reason that—look-a-here, there's no reason why it

THE "ONLY ONE"
should do this, because you can all—you can just say, Well now, a current will proceed to this and will run this thing.' "
"Well, that's—you just don't do it that way here."
You know, big argument.
Now, a thetan who can be persuaded to set up these energy masses on the basis that he himself can no longer generate energy is almost a done dog. He's pretty bad off. Because the original reason he set up two such terminals is just for fun: It was fun to look at these things and have them automatically run something else, and oh, you could string it around like mad, and it's very interesting to look at. But this wasn't compulsive. But this was the D of the DEI cycle. It finally got enforced on him that he do this, he did this so much.
Well, when he has lost his ability to create, he starts falling back on this two-terminal mechanism. And instead of being two himself—in other words, perfectly willing to be two—he starts fighting double- or matched-terminalism. He starts fighting terminalism. And when he does, he sets the example, thereafter, by being only one. Are you with me?
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Now he's—he protests. And what you fight, you see, you have a tendency to unbecome at first and then become. So a fellow starts fighting two terminals by saying, "Well, I'm only one terminal." Well, that's because he's failed so many times to make two terminals come together.
He sees some motor operating—he doesn't like this motor, so he slaps it from side to side. He tries to take the space out from between the two terminals so it will cease to operate.
And there's the Frankenstein monster effect, in essence. He set something going and then he didn't like this and so he decided he'd take the space out from between the two terminals and it won't operate, and he failed to do this. So in protest on this, he becomes one.
Well now, actually, there are several cycles. In view of the fact that basically there's a choice that he be one or be two—you see, he can be one or two or eight; he can be any number, you see—why, he possibly was busy being two (friends of himself), and he set up two terminals and these two terminals started to jar one against the other and it set too much current going, which spoiled some mock-up he'd just made or something of the sort, see, so he slapped them together. Only he didn't slap them together—they won.
Well, perhaps then he was slightly compulsively two. You see, he'd lost his power of choice—we're just kind of scouting over the ground here a little bit. He'd lost his power of choice of whether he was one or two. He's supposed to be two now, to that degree. You see, he becomes what he fights. All right.
Now, we take these—this two-terminal proposition, and it operates forevermore. It's what he has to accept. But they're both his terminals; he's both himself. He's slightly compulsively two, there for a while, and then one day one of him—he gets it changed around so that he loses the power of control over one of him. Now, how would he do this? Various ways; various things could happen. He could be playing chess with himself and get mad at himself—see, that's the simplest sort of a mechanism on that—and sends himself away.
Then when he recovered himself back, he wouldn't have himself—he'd have somebody else. Now, he could make that basic error. And if you're looking for an error anyplace to correct, that's the error you'd correct, see? One of him went away and somebody else came back. Or somebody else reached in real quick and grabbed one of him and substituted another one of him for it. And after that, he went on the delusion that he was this two—this is his basic delusion—

37

38

18 DECEMBER 1953
he is this two. Any two with which he's operating, you see—the man, the woman, so on—his beingness, he has a double beingness there. He operates on the basis that any other terminal which confronts him—because he's now operating as a terminal, not a creative unit—any other terminal which confronts him is the other one of him. And so you can just throw that away at random. And just keep picking in new terminals and throwing them away and picking in new terminals, throwing them away.
Each time, then, he loses a second terminal, he feels that he's lost that much more of himself. Because he's already in the cycle, if he's sitting in a terminal— he's already in the cycle that he can't create.
The only two there is within him. That's real silly, see? He's sitting right there inside of his head, two—basically he's potentially, he can be, he compulsively is two. The only way he'd ever have any conversation, communication with himself, the only way he can send himself to India and back is to be two—tell himself to do something. Everybody does this all the time. There's nothing wrong with that. Be relaxed about it, because that's two of you, you see? And he'll set up automaticity and forget about the other one of himself and all kinds of beautiful, interesting combinations occur because of this two-ness.
But the mistake comes about when he considers that any terminal he faces is his other self. He forgets that he himself is two or can be two or eight or sixty-four. And then he starts facing this terminal and he gives it beingness, as far as he is concerned. It never feels the beingness which he has there. You see, it doesn't feel this beingness. It's being two, too. And so men and women seldom understand each other. The man looks at the woman and he feels his own beingness coming back from this woman. The woman looks at the man and feels her own beingness coming back from the man. They're totally out of communication. They're two terminals operating there.
Well now, when—his first breakdown into weakness, real weakness (what I mean—I mean, this is a real saggy, horrible sensation, this sensation of weakness) is when he has failed to impose space between two terminals or failed to take the space out from between two terminals. Wanting a man to stay with her who didn't stay with her, you see, is failing to take the space out between two terminals. She failed to be able to hold two terminals together. Wanting the man she loved not to be with the other woman, was failing to be able to put space between two terminals.
Now, when a person has failed enough to put space between two terminals or failed to remove space from between two terminals often enough, then they can't back out of their heads because they can't put space between themself— however plural—and the body. See, they can't impose enough space between themself and the body. You get all sorts of manifestations.
They don't impose enough space. You say four feet, you get five feet—pardon me, that's a dispersal case. You say five feet, you get four feet of space between, you see? It's—can't put enough space in there. That's the whole manifestation.
And in view of the fact that the thetan is busily running this thing called the "only one," why, he's in a dreadful state of mind. Because he can't put space there, you see, and yet he can be the only one, so he has to have other terminals repetitively.
Now, the body is playing the only one. The body—the most multiple creature imaginable in terms of beingnesses—tries to play the only one. That's in protest against two terminals, which is in protest against the universe. And it plays the only one and so compulsively has to have two terminals to do anything.

THE"ONLY ONE"
So you get fellows going around being terribly jealous. They get into competition with the mest universe, they get into competition with other guys; girls get into competition with other girls and in competition with the universe at large. They don't think they can put up anything beautiful, because something else can put up something more beautiful.
And this all comes about because of the computation, the "only one." The only one. That means, "I'm only one terminal. Therefore I've got to stay—for any energy I'm going to generate—if any energy's going be generated around here, it'll only be generated if we have a second terminal." It's "we," you see. Anytime a thetan speaks of himself singularly after he gets up just a little bit toward Clear, he starts to feel strange. He thinks he means the body and himself there, but after he goes on up to SOP 8-O and so on, he gets this duality and that's the echelon we're moving on into right now.
"We," he says. He can't quite conceive "I" as a pronoun.
You see, "I" is no fun; there's no randomity. You can't make your other self change your mind. You know, you can't have a conversation. You have to go around and talk with strangers. See, I mean . . .
So, thetans kid themselves all around about this. But "we" is much easier than "I." "I" is almost—"I" in this universe is an almost impossible, untenable situation. It is so untenable, it is so impossible, that an individual having recognized its untenability and impossibility fights it down to the point where he becomes the only one. And then to have any energy at all, he has to join forces with other terminals and other terminals and other terminals endlessly.
And he knows he can't impose space between two terminals, and he knows he can't take space out from between two terminals, and yet he is the only one and so on. He just becomes a pawn. He can be a little straw blown around by any breeze. And this is the way it goes.
Well, so much for theory. I am afraid that the process involved with this is heroic. There are several processes involved. The process on this, really, if you run it on somebody who's not exteriorized—it very well may be that you have to run it on somebody who's not exteriorized in order to exteriorize him. I mean, there can be a case that bad off. He just can't impose space between two terminals, that's all. Just can't do it.
And you say, "Be three feet back of your head," and he just doesn't move. He's got to keep space from getting between two terminals, in other words, so he won't lose something. And so he holds on and holds himself in. And it's possible you do this.
Well, if you have to do this, this is the way you would do it on somebody interiorized: You'd have him get the idea of trying to hold a man and a woman apart. How long does it take to run this? Oh, I would say a couple of hours, at least. Well, not just that one facet of it, but I mean this as a process. And you would run it with an E-Meter. You'd put him on an E-Meter, because you as an auditor shouldn't miss, and leave him hung up on this.
You put him on an E-Meter, and with this E-Meter, you watch and make sure that you keep that needle rising. And when the needle sticks or begins to jerk, why, he's hit the limit on this particular step and you go to the next one.
And the first one is, impose—he tries to impose space between a man and a woman. He tries to keep a man and a woman apart—you know, in mock-up form. And I don't care if he can't get mock-ups—just have him get the idea, he'll get weaker than a cat.
Now, as soon as your needle stops rising on that. . . Just let him hold that and keep on trying to do it—and duplicating it, you know. This is essentially—

39

40

18 DECEMBER 1953
I'll go over this again. You put—get him to get the idea of a man and woman out in front of him and he's trying to keep them from coming together; he's trying to keep space between them. And he gets that and you ask him after a little while to duplicate that elsewhere. And then, after a little while, duplicate it elsewhere.
Now, don't be surprised if he is unable to do anything. You've asked him to do this and he becomes unable to do anything. You just make it—him hold that first one he has there, as nearly as he can, because the most nauseating waves of weakness may shoot over him, and you watch him on a meter. This is very, very—this is very, very particular, neat running. It really requires a lot of auditor alertness. It's nothing you dope off on, because the feeling of weakness in there, I mean, is just murderous; it's just agony.
Did you ever have to swim, some time, a long, long while and so on, and then your muscles just all went to pot at the end of it, and you just couldn't stand it you were so tired? Well, that's the kind of feeling comes over many a preclear on this. Not necessarily, but it's not unusual.
Now, as soon as you've got that feeling of weakness discharged, you go to the other condition, which is trying to keep space from occurring between two terminals. First one is you want these two terminals to stay apart, and the second one is you want them to come together, see? You want them to come together. You're trying to keep space from occurring between these two terminals, and you'll get the same feeling of weakness will come over him. And then after he's—soon as you can, you ask him to duplicate it. And you just have him duplicate it and duplicate it elsewhere and duplicate it elsewhere and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it, until he can handle that somewhat.
And as soon as the needle stops rising, you go from one of these conditions that you are running to the other condition, see? You just play these back and forth across each other—between each other.
First, you try to keep a man and a woman apart, and then you try to keep a man and a woman from parting, and then man and woman apart, and then a man and a woman from parting. And you run it, each one, as long as the E-Meter will rise, and then you get the effect of duplicating it—while the E-Meter's still rising, as soon as your preclear's able to duplicate it a little bit, why, you let him duplicate it, you see? And after a while, he'll run out those sensations of weakness, but it may require quite a little while for you to do so.
It's a—this is real tough. This is real tough auditing, by the way, because it requires alertness on the part of the auditor. And it's got underlying it, of course, such a thing as the Assumption. That lies right under there, because that's inability to impose space, because it's an unwillingness to impose space between one's old Fac One body or whatever he's using for an Assumption body, you see, and the mest body which he has. He isn't imposing space between these two things. He doesn't want to. There's a desire there to grab that baby right there at the beginning, which means no space, which means that we're going to collapse terminals right here at this point, boom! Well, there's the basic postulates on "we have to collapse terminals." All right.
Now, after you've discharged this pretty well, so that he is no longer concerned about holding men and women apart or holding men and women together (and of course, that can be himself, you know—holding himself and another woman or holding herself and another man), you start to run it in terms of duplicating the only one. And you do it this wise: You mock himself up as the only one, with an invisible barrier between himself and the mock-up.

THE"ONLY ONE"
And you keep this up until it has—till it discharges. You got that now? You see why that is? Ah, let's be a little smarter this morning. It's a mirror, of course. The only other time he's seen another one of himself is a mirror and, of course, he has that barrier between the other mock-up and himself. He's seen this in the mest universe—mirrors.
So you have him mock up something as the only one, with an invisible barrier between himself and it. And you'll discharge the insidious effects of mirrors; and you may take his glasses off of him in a very short time. But you're not going to describe to him about mirrors. You're not going to worry about this, because there's earlier material than mirrors on it.
So you just have him keep duplicating the only one, with no space around the "only one" mock-up every time is the second stage. First you—mock-up of himself as the only one. Another mock-up of himself as the only one, mock-up of—you just get it going, you see—another mock-up of himself as the only one. Now, mock-up of the only one with a visible—invisible barrier between you and the mock-up. Another mock-up of you as the only one with the invisible barrier between you and the mock-up. Another mock-up of you as the only one, invisible barrier between you and the mock-up. Got that?
And you'll start running out all the mirrors. You see, the mest universe, because he's only looking at one object at a time, tells him, visually, that there's only one. Shows him only one in the mirror, doesn't show him two. mest universe lies to him, in other words, with a mirror. All right.
Have him just keep mocking up the only one, till there's no further charge on looking through mirrors and so forth.
Then we start handling the only one in terms of: the only one with no space around it, the only one with no space around it, the only one with no space around it. And after he's run this for a short time, we run the only one with— and the space around the mock-up, the only one and the space, the only one and the space, the only one and the space. You just keep him duplicating that. And the only one and the space. Now duplicate it, now duplicate it, now duplicate it, now duplicate it.
Now you go back and run the only one without the space. And now the only one without the space, and the only one without the space, and the only one without the space around it.
Now the only one with the space around it. And if all of this is too much for your preclear or too much for you, you just boil it down, then, to this process: "The only—now mock yourself up as the only one with no space around you. Now duplicate it, duplicate it, and duplicate it, and duplicate it, duplicate it."
"Now mock yourself up as the only one with space around you. Now duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it."
"Now mock yourself as the only one with no space around you. Now duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it."
"Now mock yourself up as the only one with space around you. Duplicate it, duplicate it, and duplicate it."
And all this time he'll be doing this to the body, you see? The only other thing you would do, if you were going to run it in its simplest form, which is what I'm now giving you, is you just—"Now get yourself mocked up as a dot of light with no space around you. Now duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it."
"Now mock yourself up as one dot of light with space around you. Now duplicate it, now duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, and duplicate it."

41

42

18 DECEMBER 1953
"Now one dot of light with no space around you. Now duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it." You do it—he would do it as a body—you don't have to tell him to do it as a body; he will do that. And then you do it as a thetan.
And then you'd handle the postulate "I am the only one." And you'd move it around all over the place, and you would duplicate it, and you'd throw it upstairs and downstairs, and push it around, and even match-terminal it and so forth. And then you would go through drills with the pc of putting a couple of mock-ups out in front of him and moving them apart, and then putting them slightly closer together and then moving them further apart, and then putting them together again—in other words, have him impose any distances of space possible on these two mock-ups.
Now, doing this on a thetan exteriorized is the easiest process you ever wanted to run into. You merely have him impose and change and take away space from between two and then four terminals until he's got terminals out of his system. That's the way you do it, if he's exteriorized.
He's exteriorized, and you just have him mock up two mock-ups and you put more space—have him put more space between them and then take some space out from between them, then put more space between them and then less space between them and more space between them and less space between them. And move them around and then fix them up so they're good and rigid. And then have him test them to make sure that they're rigidly spaced by having him have tanks hit them and try to knock them together. And have horses try to pull them apart and they won't move, and so on. In other words, rigidity— fixation in space—really fixed, see?
And then you run him on drills of "Move something real fast toward some other object and stop it suddenly." And you just keep running these drills: "Move something real fast toward an object and stop it suddenly and make it rigid as far as the space is concerned."
Now, the funny part of it is, a thetan, earlier on the track occasionally was going to run into a brick wall or a planet or something or other, would put out a pressor beam and stop whatever he was doing from doing it. In other words, he actually did have the power, in this universe, which today would amount to seeing that your automobile was going to hit a truck and you impose a pressor beam between your automobile and the truck, and scree! They don't move any closer together, period.
Now, a thetan who thinks he's a body and gets into an accident is going to assume the idiocy that he as a thetan, operating and duplicating a body is going to be able to put up a pressor beam. He isn't going to be able to put up a pressor beam. He can't sit inside of a body and be a body and think he's a body and so forth, and then suddenly at the last instant recover his own knowingness and say, "Well, this has gone far enough; this masquerade's gone far enough," and put up a pressor beam, in an emergency, which will keep him from hitting a tree when the car he's in is going sixty miles an hour. He's just not going to do that. So of course he gets hit by the tree, and this tells him, "I cannot impose space between two terminals. Ah, me! All is lost. I am weak. I am dead."
Now, a little bit later on maybe, in life, why, this same thetan—still thinking he's a body, inside, not using his own energy, using the systems of terminals and eating food and devouring energy so that energy will terminal against other energy, and doing all this complexity and so on—gets left by a marital partner or a sweetheart. So he puts up a great big tractor beam. You know, just at the last second he's decided to recover some of his knowingness. You'll find

THE"ONLY ONE"
he's actually done this—anybody. And he puts up this big tractor beam and wraps it around the departing sweetheart, see, in order to hold those two terminals together. Nuh-uh. Didn't work. They kept right on walking. So now he knows he can't keep two terminals together either.
And this'll leave him in a state of either com	, oh, it's an unbalanced
state; it'll leave him chronically trying to hold two terminals together or chronically trying to keep two terminals from going apart. The latter is a dispersed case, and the former is a fixed case.
The person who is just—"everything has left, everything has left," is just ready to abandon anything at any moment. You would say, "I want that," why, they'd give it to you. You'd say, "Let's move," and they'd move very rapidly and swiftly. They'd feel that there was danger involved in staying still. You know, they can't hold things in to them, and they're stuck on incidents whereby things have departed even though they've tried to hold them together. So any suggestion they hold something together makes something depart.
You say, "Now, why don't you remember this?" Boom! it's gone. See, the suggestion that they try to pull in a thought is enough to make the thought depart. Suggestion they should hold on to anything is enough to make them abandon it. Because the one thing they're super sold on is the fact they can't hold two terminals together or pull a terminal in.
Now, there's the other kind of case which is certain that he can't ever hold two terminals apart. Every case has both of these conditions. So something comes in toward this case and this case will just stand there. He won't move. He knows he can't hold it apart.
If you were to pick up an anvil and throw it at him and it was the least effort imaginable for him to sidestep it, if he were feeling kind of low that day, he'd just stand there and take it. Have plenty of warning, everything else. You could say, "I'm going to throw this anvil at you." Well, he knows he can't hold those two terminals apart.
He has the feeling that if he did move his body aside from the path of the anvil, the body's magnetic abilities or something would move it back into the path of the anvil. See, he just thinks those two terminals are going to come together inevitably. He will also fall up at the ceiling and do other things.
See, he just knows he can't hold two terminals apart; that's what he's sold on. He also knows he can't hold two terminals together. He can't hold them together, he can't hold them apart and that is a complete weakness. And that is itself where this person—that's the mechanics, this is the mechanics behind "I have to have energy," and "I have no energy," and so on.
Well, let's go a little bit further on this and cover the subject of sensation, which is a sensational subject. And we realize that all sensation is energy.
All sensation is energy. A person who has made an enemy out of energy and energy development and so forth, will eventually get caught on the inversion and have to have it. You start resisting, you cave in, and if you don't resist— it's rigged both ways. All right.
And we find this fellow is unable to hold terminals apart or pull them together, there's one thing that we know will also go along with it. That is to say, this guy or this girl—either way—this person has to have sensation. This person mentions sensation coming from the body or the need of sensation from a body, be advised—they are talking about the second terminal.
Now, you don't run it on a person bluntly or before an audience, because it'll embarrass them. But you have another—in a session, you have another terminal. You're not talking about them as a body—you're not talking about

43

44

18 DECEMBER 1953
this preclear as a body and the preclear as a thetan needing the sensation in this body. You're talking about the preclear as a thetan, needing sensation via the body which he normally has—via it—from the opposite sex. Interesting, huh?
The missing terminal that permits—that makes it impossible for this character to exteriorize is the opposite sex. Needs sensation from the opposite sex. All right, you're auditing a man, you run the opposite sex, you see?
And if you were going to use a postulate, now, on this person—this person is hung up on sensation and they couldn't have any sensation of their own, so therefore they don't dare depart from the body, and they can't have any energy because they have to have energy from elsewhere, and all that sort of thing. And we're running into this computation (this person's a man), "Why, you have to have—I have to have a woman to have sensation." See, he's a man, and he's got a man's body, but he has to have a woman to have sensation.
You'll find out that that postulate, by the way, is wrapped up in pig iron. That's like moving around a Mallet locomotive. That's a big, heavy symbol. And you'll find he'd creak and groan at it for some time until he finally gets that thing mobile. And then he—push that around for a while, why, he gets rid of a lot of the burden.
Now, you take a girl—you say, "I have to have a man to have sensation." So we have to have another body besides the body he already has in order to have sensation. In other words, we've got a two-body terminal proposition. Two terminals, you see, because there's two deposits of sensation which discharge one against the other, and only then can the thetan have sensation.
So what's missing there? You're not trying to exteriorize the thetan from one body; you're trying to exteriorize him from two. You're trying to get him back off of two terminals on which he depends for sensation feedback to himself, for energy feedback to himself, mechanical effort, all the rest of it. You're always trying to exteriorize two thetans from two bodies when you say to one person, "Be three feet back of your head." That's cute, isn't it?
And it's the only reason, actually, that you fail in exteriorizing somebody. You're trying to exteriorize them out of two bodies. And in the case where he's got multiple difficulties in the past and where he's got a lot of bodies in restimulation and he's had a lot of losses in terms of bodies and so forth, in effect you may be trying to exteriorize a thetan from eight bodies or ten bodies. And at—all at one fell swoop you're going to do this by saying, "Be three feet back of your head." Oh no, you're not. The fellow is unable to impose space between two terminals, much less between himself and this body. So if he can't impose space and if he can't maintain space between the two of them, he will be in a difficult situation.
Now, there's another condition which comes up and bangs you in the teeth as an auditor once in a while, and that is you get somebody outside and they can't get back in again. They get desperate about it. This doesn't happen as often as the other way, but it happens. You can do it in many ways. You can merely be gentle and persuasive and finally kick them back in their heads. This is not difficult.
But recognize this as the other condition: Here's a person who can't get space out from between two terminals. This person can't take the space out from between two terminals, so he can't get back in his head. Here is the case that does a bunk; here is the case that leaves for Arcturus. They're not really compulsively leaving at all. Once you've started to put some space between, they can't lessen it.

THE "ONLY ONE"
So there's the case that can't lessen space between two terminals and the case that can't lengthen space between two terminals. And between these two things you get all the conditions involved in Theta Clearing which are difficult, and these are remedied by the various techniques which you have. If you understand this very thoroughly, why, you'll understand the exact difficulties the person is having and it won't look anywhere near as necromantic when I start to throw somebody out of his head and he starts getting more and more stable outside of his head.
Because what I'm trying to do is just that. I'm trying to work them around one way or the other so that they can have a little more space; they can handle space better.
Basic technique for somebody who's interiorized, and the one which you possibly will find yourself using more than any other is "Mock up yourself now as the only one with no space around you." By the time you pull—forty or fifty bodies have flown off of this mock-up or other strange things will have occurred— you just keep on with the technique: "Now mock yourself up as the only one with space around it. And duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it. Mock up yourself as the only one without space around it. And duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it." And then finally say, "Mock yourself up as the only dot of light with no space around it. And duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it. Now, the only dot of light with space around it. And duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it." And you just keep this up back and forth, you'll get all these other manifestations one way or the other.
But the horrible weakness that comes over a preclear who is interiorized makes this technique a deadly. So handle it with an E-Meter and try to get him to get a couple—have a couple of people there—a man and a woman. And have him try to keep them from going apart, and then have him keep them from coming together. And work with them until the restimulative material comes off of it.
There will be a—oh, maybe two, three major incidents in this person's life, and these exactly agree with occlusion. The black curtain is simply a manifestation of needing energy manufactured for one by terminals, and then not having the power to set the terminals there anymore.
That's all you need to say about it. That's just—he needs the power manufactured for him by two terminals, and then he doesn't have the terminals anymore. And this condition cut in at a moment when he had to accept a terminal too violently, or one left him and he thought it was himself. And he will thereafter tell you that he lost part of himself when Gracie left. She lost part of herself when Joe shoved off. They'll say this.
Well, that is over this basis of they think they are the only one, and so you have to solve the only one, too. They think they're the only one, and actually they're the only two.
The trick of the universe is to make somebody invest something in the universe—himself—and then lose it, and then take substitutes thereafter.
Okay.

45

Beingness
A lecture given on 18 December 1953

This is December the 18th, second lecture of the day.
Tonight, I'm not going to tell you that this talk is epochal or monumental or something like that, but what I am going to cover in it is fairly important to you. And this talk is on the subject of beingness. You wouldn't think there was too much to talk about on this subject of beingness, but I hope you have digested a great deal of the material which we have had to date. Because you're going to find it, to some degree, dropping into its proper categories and much of the theory dropping into a second echelon as you begin to look at life and understand it from this framework that we have here.
And this framework is the Factors. Truth of the matter is that the Factors contain, actually, just about all you need to know. But at first glance over, it doesn't add up into processes. And I myself can read it over every once in a while and suddenly find out what's wrong with some case that's hanging fire.
Well, the trouble with simplicity is it's too simple to be understood easily; that's the main trouble with it.
When we have the Factors in action, and where we're able to go over the Factors and put them into action, I don't think there's any problem or any case that can stand up very well before such an onslaught. And so I'm inviting you to evaluate what you have now in terms of the Factors.
We've talked here—just the last few talks have been on the subject of cause and effect, which is the first line in the Factors. And now we're on the second line in the Factors. The first decision: to be.
Well, there's a lot more to that than just "to be." One of the factors that would be the most important to anyone, would be beingness.
Now here today, shortly after the first talk of the day, I gave you a short demonstration on the subject of beingness. Had somebody put a dot of light out in back of him and give it beingness. And he said right away, why, he had kind of—he was out there and snapped back in. And this should have seemed very strange that a person could move around that easily on the subject of beingness. It's just a word—be. It's a two-letter word.
And yet, in essence, all other things—all other things, including cause and effect, are symptoms of beingness. And life itself, in all of its randomities, consists of whether or not one wants other things to be or other things want him to be, and that itself establishes the randomity. That itself establishes the game.
And all the things—all the things of life have some bearing on beingness.

47

48

18 DECEMBER 1953
Everything has a bearing on beingness. And this beingness is the stuff of life itself.
A thing that is alive is below the level of a thetan. You see that—a thing that is alive. A thetan is something that grants beingness.
Now, let's take the ant kingdom. The ants have been granted beingness. The ants themselves are not a beingness—that is, an independent beingness, such as a thetan. And here we get an oddity; we get an oddity in behavior in terms of ants. You go around and trifle with an ant. As a thetan, you go around and you start pushing around an ant: put a beam through his head, short-circuit out some of the working parts, make him walk in small circles, and you immediately start getting this—the idea that there's something someplace that is getting awfully mad at you. Funny, isn't it?
Now, you go down in the sea—it seldom occurs to an auditor to send a thetan into the sea. And yet there you have more life and otherwise ... An auditor is so sold, ordinarily, on the fact that this person is a body that's sitting in front of him, he momentarily forgets that he is exercising a thetan, and that a thetan doesn't have to breathe.
And a thetan can go all sorts of places. One of the more interesting places I have sent thetans has been into the volcanic lava, the boiling lava of Kilauea. It's a very interesting place to go. You'd be surprised what's going on there about five or six miles down.
And you go out into the Philippine deep and there's some of the most interesting fish that you ever ran into. And there are coral snakes—deadly poison to a human being, but of course completely ineffective against a thetan— and they are very colorful, they're very pretty. And there—the reefs of the coral islands of the Pacific are really gorgeous under the interplays of sunlight when seen from below. And there are some of the most mysterious beasts that roam the ocean, a mile or two down—very mysterious beasts. They've never seen light. And you get into a world of—way down, you get into a world of phosphorescent, you might say, life. Everybody's carrying his own flashlight. And they are—they're swimming around carrying flashlights. And they eat each other up just as thoroughly down there as anyplace else.
Well, anyway, all this leads up to is that this type of life has a granted beingness. Something has granted beingness to it. And you start to trifle with it, and something starts to get mad. Well, you can go right on trifling with it— nothing's going to happen. But you'll get this kickback emotion, because you're actually operating up against a comm line of whatever it is that monitors things like fish and coral snakes and so on. And you hook into that beast or being and you start to disturb his beingness, and you upset the general beingness of that class of merchandise. Quite interesting; it's well worth your study.
More important than that, you as a thetan have walked in on genetic entities which are not as low in order as ants and not as low in order as fish, but are definitely hooked up and dedicated in a certain direction.
Now, there isn't any statement here that the body is a degraded thetan. I have never said that; I don't say it now. It's one of these things as a possibility— a body is a degraded thetan. Personally I don't think this is true. I think it's a different class of beingness entirely from what I have, but—it's a higher class than ants and fish and so forth, but is nevertheless something that has been granted beingness. It is, in other words, a second-stage somethingness about this.
And we don't know all there is to know about this anatomy of life forms in this universe. We don't know that. Mostly because we don't have to know that.

BEINGNESS
But now, there's a great deal of speculation can go on about this and a great deal of lookingness. The way to settle a speculation is to start looking. That's always a good idea.
And if you start looking at mest, you will find that mest itself seems to have a beingness about it. There seems to be a certain determination in an electron, and that's—it's quite interesting. As a matter of fact, you had a theory advanced here the other night about electrons and so on, so that you had doubly opposed forces in the intention of an electron. Well, we needn't go into that.
You know, it's one thing to do something and another thing to inspect what is being done by life. Now, life can do anything until it becomes completely dedicated to a single communication line. Any being can do anything until he becomes dedicated to a single communication line which he then considers invariable. The only excuse for the communication lines of Scientology are that they undo communication lines and restore the ability to create communication lines, forms and randomity.
Now, automaticity—automaticity takes place by granted beingness. One grants beingness to—oh, an area of space or something, and thereafter says that this beingness will now act in such a fashion.
Now, that is a second order of beingness to the thetan, or the third order of beingness. So in essence, he has set up an ant or something or other that doesn't have the same concrete form, you see? He has fixed an idea. When one fixes an idea, he has granted a beingness to a space—you see, a fixed idea.
So what is this idea? Now, we get around to what the—what life does that is quite different than mest. And we get immediately up to this point: that MEST doesn't get ideas and life does. Life can get ideas. Well, getting an idea is something like granting beingness. And by granting beingness to something, one has to that degree given it life. And now when one starts to tear down his automaticities, he is in effect destroying life. You see that? But he's destroying life that he put there.
It's like the entities of the body. You can do a lot of speculation about the entities of the body, but in essence they are fixed ideas—at least they've degenerated down to fixed ideas. Now, they measure up, answer up, talk and do a lot of other things, but the point is that they're just fixed ideas. Who put them there? Well, that's unimportant.
You get the most weird and fantastic story, by the way, off the entities themselves, just with an E-Meter and its responses. You get this story rather invariably. Once upon a time, a thetan was in command of a crew. This is the story you get: A thetan was in command of a crew, and he let the crew get more and more out of hand, and more and more out of hand, and more and more out of hand, and controlled them less and less and got less and less done; and became at last completely sloppy, and so was packaged up with all the entities and shipped down here. And that's the story you'll get off the entities themselves. But they will tell you anything, of course, because being fixed ideas, you can fix almost any idea in them that sounds likely. But you do get that as a response on the E-Meters: that the thetan finally doped off to the point where he let everything go wild and so he was shipped to Earth.
Well, the deterioration of the thetan is on this cycle: He grants beingness and then is sorry he did so. And so, having granted beingness, saws connections off with that beingness and believes that he himself has—and he wouldn't do a thing if he didn't believe this too—he believes he has cut down his own beingness. So he believes that every time he grants beingness—the person who gets on the idea of quantity, such as we discussed today, you see, on the terminals and

49

50

18 DECEMBER 1953
so on—the person who gets this idea on quantity, believes that when he gives some beingness to something he cuts himself down. This isn't true. A person becomes more and more and more and wider and wider and wider. He has an unlimited supply of grantable beingness. And so he gets bigger and bigger and bigger, you could say.
Now, he can grant beingness; a thetan can do this. And he can take it away— as long as he does not insist on resisting what he has already set up.
Now, the way not to go about it is to grant some beingness to something and then decide to fight it. But this is one of the first things that a thetan does in order to produce some randomity: He makes the other chess player. And having made the other chess player, he then plays a game with the other chess player. But if he goes on with this as his pattern of operation, he will eventually wind up with having created all of his own enemies. And they will be—these ideas that he has created can be real living beings, or they are simply sailing around in the air, or as—fixed in the space or his space, as things which he has refused to take any further responsibility for. And so we have this problem of the man and his ideas. We could say, "the man and his subordinates." We could say, "the thing that grants being and those things to which beingness has been granted."
Now, a thetan has granted being to the body. And where that beingness is granted, the thetan will do it to such a degree that he believes the body, after that, has a beingness of its own which is quite like his own. And so you get the thetan matching the ridges of the body. Of course those are his ridges, those are his ideas, his automaticities, and so he thinks he is the body.
Well, a thing which grants beingness and can grant beingness endlessly, can bring to life and animate anything, that comes to believe at length that something has granted him life and beingness, gets into very bad shape. Because the finest thing that a thetan can do is to grant life and beingness. That's the finest thing he can do. And the worst thing he can do is to set it up as otherness and combat it. Because then that's the story of man fighting himself.
Any preclear you have is simply a drama of a being that can grant beingness, fighting the beingness he has granted. And that is the story of your preclear. Now, he is surrounded on every side by things to which he will not grant beingness, things he is convinced won't do any good if he grants them beingness. He thinks he has to go through some communication system in order to grant beingness, and this kind of beingness is secondary. Why? It's because it had to go through a communication system to grant beingness.
Let's take a carpenter: he's going to grant beingness to wood by taking a saw and a hammer and a chisel and put together a chest. Now he has made a chest; he has created a chest. Now, that's granting beingness via a communication system. Now, what is the kind of beingness he would grant to something if he simply sat down and granted beingness to it? He probably could create in that fashion a chest of wood—probably. But he doesn't believe that he can, and so he goes through the reliable, he thinks, communication system and creates it with a hammer and a chisel and a saw.
Now, granting beingness—for instance, you can look around you immediately and see two or three items to which you would not readily grant beingness, or which you believe you couldn't grant beingness to. You take a piece of paper or a clock—you say, "Well, it's silly for me to grant beingness to that clock because it runs. It runs if whoever owns it turns it on or turns it off." Well, you see, beingness has already been granted to the clock by a communication system. And a thetan comes along late in the game to something which is already dedicated on another beingness line and starts to grant beingness to it and it doesn't

BEINGNESS
respond. Because the one thing it mustn't do—that's right in the clock: It must resist all effects.
The factory in Connecticut that makes such clocks makes them with that postulate in them. And the fellow who planned and designed them made them with that postulate in them: resist all effects. And that was the first thing we took up when you came here, was "resist all effects."
So the thetan thinks, then, that he cannot get into adequate competition with the mest universe because he appears on a scene, the beingness of the scene is already granted. And there, too, is where an individual has a very difficult time of it in a new community—all the beingness is granted, he thinks.
See, it isn't true that it actually is, he just thinks it is. And he goes into this new community, and the courthouse and the residences and so on are all strange, and they've already had beingness granted to them, and everybody is telling him continually, "Well, now that's Judge Morton's house and that's Bill Suds's bar. And that's the county courthouse, and we built that back there shortly after the fire." And he sees everyone around him has granted the beingness to this town, but he hasn't.
Well, he realizes this very, very sharply because everybody in town is very, very anxious to keep him informed that they granted beingness to the town— he didn't. He's a stranger.
Now, you take a young child—the child's born in this town, the child's been raised in this town, the child's gone out exploring. He's sort of left his mark on the old oak tree, and he has broken windowpanes in that house and he's been chased by the old lady in some other house. And some other house—that was the one he always bedeviled in Halloween. And he has more or less left his claw marks all around the town. And from the earliest youth, he had his own ideas about this town; and he had them, fortunately, two or three years before anybody thought he had any ideas about it and began to educate him.
Or by this time he knows they're wrong. He knows that house up on the hill is haunted—it's always been haunted, it always will be haunted. And even if they take it down, he knows there's where the haunted house used to stand. He has granted beingness to it. In other words, he's identified it, he's classified it and he has haunted it.
And in such a way, an individual inhabits the entire community where he is raised. So that people who are moved around too much early in life get to a point where they believe they cannot inhabit the community. Here's a question of being space—but there is more to being space than just being space. There's granting space beingness.
It is a very funny thing, you know—some fellow comes over the top of a hill and he sees a town lying out in front of him and he says, "What a horrible, ramshackle, mean, ugly, vicious place that is." And the next fellow comes over the top of the hill, and he takes a look at this town and he invests it with beingness and then he says, "There's a town there."
Well now, the first fellow goes down into the town and nobody does anything for him, and if they shoe his horse or fix his car or do something to him, they'll put the shoe on backwards or patch the tire up in some outlandish fashion that won't last very far and things just kind of go that way—and he'll be overcharged for it.
And the next fellow comes through, that's granted beingness to the town— well, there's probably nothing wrong with his equipment anyhow, but he goes down there and he finds everybody's real nice to him and he gets a good room in the hotel and the chow's good and everybody's happy and cheerful about the whole thing. That's what he runs into continually through life.

51

52

18 DECEMBER 1953
Well, it isn't that one has manufactured his own future to this degree simply by considering things are bad. It's because he doesn't manufacture it at that long range, he manufactures it in terms of split seconds. From moment to moment he manufactures his own future. And if he won't grant it any beingness, his future isn't live. It has no life in it at all. A split second after he utters the postulate, no life occurs. That's because this individual is unwilling to grant beingness or is afraid to.
We have run into here, the "Frankenstein effect." He is afraid to grant beingness to anything, he's afraid to grant life to things. The "Frankenstein effect"—because he has granted life to things and then they've become too live, and instead of just taking the beingness out of them or putting the beingness elsewhere or doing something intelligent like that, he started to fight Frankenstein's monster and so it fought back. And in view of the fact that he built it and put "resist all effects" into it, the one that it will fight hardest is himself.
So, the "Frankenstein effect": One is unwilling to be cause because the effect is that he won't be able to stop what he has started. So he gets afraid to grant beingness to things. He says, "Well, I don't know, I loaned my car to those kids last week and they did this and that and so forth. And so I won't loan my car to anybody this week because they'll do the same with it." Of course they will, but he shouldn't be afraid of it. What's the idea, only having one car? You know, I mean, that shows a certain pauperishness right there— I mean, in creative ability.
The fellow's probably trying to play the "only one." I noticed a well-known motor company in the United States recently started advising everybody to sell their big car and buy two of these little cars, and that was better off for all hands, and they were running it—advertising to show that then the wife could go out too. They don't realize that men buy one car so she can't.
They didn't look back into—vastly into the past and find out in the caves that men very commonly broke the woman's leg just to make very sure that she didn't leave. As a matter of fact, women are still resentful about it—it crops up every once in a while. And this fight between the sexes is mainly a refusal to grant beingness to the opposite sex, rather than an actual war which has to do with dissimilar parts.
Now, it has two sources. Once removed from beingness, it has the mechanical source of two different terminals which are necessary for the creation of a certain type of sensation. And a person believes he is two and then he's lost the other part of him and he goes on through life this way.
Well, riding above this, there is a senior part of the computation, and that is beingness. If one is unwilling to grant beingness to those people to whom he talks—he's always trying to keep from granting beingness to those with whom he talks, and in trying to keep from granting beingness to them and yet talking to them—oh, no! You see what's going to happen? He is beginning to fight his granting of beingness. You see that? He talks to somebody and he grants them beingness; he does this at the same time. Now, we're talking about something that's very, very necromantic and demonological right now. We're not talking "practically" at all. We're not talking, in other words, about an engineer's mest or a Western Union telegraph operator's communication system. We're talking about what life does best: It waves its magic wand and says, "be" or "live" or "exist" and things do. And that's what life does.
Now, here you have an individual who's made several things exist and he's no longer willing to make anything exist. So everything he has ever made

BEINGNESS
attacks him. And the things right around in his vicinity will attack him. They refuse to grant him beingness. When a person has too often been refused beingness by the environment around him, he himself will begin to refuse the environment beingness.
All mechanics aside—viewpoint of space and everything else aside; opinions, considerations, mechanical communication systems, mest, double terminals, postulates, processes, SOP 8-C and everything else aside—by one means or another, this beingness will manifest itself to the disqualification of the individual who will not grant beingness. Disqualifies him, sooner or later. In this universe, it disqualifies him in terms of less and less space. He has to have less and less space, you see, because he can't extend himself over any further space because he can't grant beingness to those things there.
Now, you'll see this mirrored on the bodies of the people you process. You will see to what degree people have refused to grant them beingness, and as they are processed you will see to what degree they refuse to grant beingness.
One of the first questions that you will ask them—quite often if a case is in terrible condition you'll get this: One of the first things you might ask is, "All right. Put some life in that pillow over there on the couch."
And a person would look at you, and they would say, "Put some life in the pillow? Well, it has no life! You know, it's not alive." Hm-hm! You're looking at somebody you're going to process for a long time if you keep on processing.
Another symptom is, is when you start to run a bracket on them "others for others," they will tell you immediately, "That doesn't concern me." You see, you run the bracket. Now you say, "Now, waste a machine for yourself. And waste some blackness for yourself. And get somebody else wasting some blackness for himself. Now get somebody else wasting some blackness for somebody else."
Well, they'll waste it those first two steps, and on that third one, somebody for somebody else: "That doesn't concern me. I haven't any concern with that." Why? They refuse to grant beingness to it, that's all. Or they have rigged up some kind of a system—a super, super, super, super system—for the granting of beingness.
In European countries people have rigged up a method of granting beingness to beggars without letting beggars live. They give them alms. They give them coins. That is a method of granting beingness. It's a communication system. It's a present of money, it's a tip. And thereby they don't have to look and actually do anything about this beggar or notice him otherwise. They pay him to go way— and he goes way.
All such systems of pushing people off or doing something with them are based upon this: that people don't want other people to exist or be—an unwillingness to let other things be, let them exist. You see, I have just tripped over here—there's a cliche in English of "let it be." You know, in other words, "leave it alone." That's an interesting twist, isn't it? Yeah, that's a very direct foul-up on a phrase—very aberrative.
Anyway, these people have invented the most remarkable systems by which they won't have to grant beingness. They have this wonderful system rigged up. There's the social system—of course, that has deteriorated in the world today almost unbelievably. It's gotten down into Willy Randolph—the late William Randolph Hearst's—papers to a society column. And what he defines as society is anybody who has a larger bank account than anybody else. And the last part of the society that has anything to do with society there is just in that—in those columns, believe me, that's all. And I think there's a club in New York called "The Baby Club" (I won't give it any advertising) where

53

54

18 DECEMBER 1953
people can go in and pay enormous checks for no service. And these people, of course, can be classified this way.
Well, that's the last surviving remnants of a system for not granting beingness—the last surviving remnants. That really is the last dregs of a system which tyrannized man for thousands of years. Systems which fell upon "who was your father"—they all ran it on the GE line.
They were so used to breeding horses that they followed men with the same pattern. They knew every famous horse, and they knew who his sire and dam was, so they thought, "Well, men are horses, and bodies are bodies," so they were sort of driving these bodies around as though they were horses. And they—his father was so-and-so, and his mother was so-and-so, and they might as well have said, "Well, he was out of Trotting Bess by King Henry the VIII" or something of the sort. I mean, same deal.
Well, this is a system of beingness. Now, they've tracked—genealogy is the system of tracking beingness that has been granted down the genetic entity line. It's not important. Not for a thetan, it isn't even vaguely important. It's what pedigree has the horse got that you're walking around—what is the pedigree of your Seeing Eye dog—is genealogy.
And when they go fully upon this—this basis of granting beingness—a society becomes very fixed. Birth and death themselves become communication systems far more important than the ability of the individual to grant beingness to something.
So, the canaille, the masses, the beggars, the Communist cells . . . The way the Communists do it today, they become party members and after that they don't have to grant beingness to the workers, they just parasite off of them; and that's the Communist system of aristocracy which is built up. And they don't have to grant beingness. They say, "You're all alike and you're a mass of ants."
Well, this is all right except the people they're doing this to don't happen to be ants, they happen to be independently capable of granting beingness. And man, realizing this sporadically, continually revolts against these systems which artificialize and make it unnecessary for people to grant beingness.
This would evidently be quite a crime—granting of beingness. It would be seen as quite a crime because it's invented, in the number of penalties—it has invented in these penalties some of the greatest cruelties man has. In other words, "somebody has talked to a commoner." Oh well, a fellow could be tried by his peers sometimes for crimes of that character, at one period or another of the human race.
He has, very recently in the United States Navy, a type of aristocracy. There is a crime known as "association with enlisted men" which is—for which an officer can be tried. And I think the maximum penalty on that— I might be wrong, but I think it's seven years in Portsmouth and reduced to apprentice seaman or seaman second class and—they don't call it "and extras," it has some legal term, but it means loss of citizenship and everything else. For what? For associating with enlisted men and you see, they granted some beingness to an enlisted man, and this is the penalty for it. Well, maybe that's necessary to keep things in line—if you need a military force, it's probably a good idea. But you see, the existing military force exists because one country is unwilling to grant beingness to another country.
You get into any argument, then, and you'll find that this argument merely—usually stems around something that one or the other party will not grant beingness to, or—and the two parties will wind up eventually by refusing

BEINGNESS
to grant beingness to each other. And that's what's known as the deterioration of an argument. These two people won't any longer grant beingness to each other.
But they start out by one of them saying, "Well, Fords are no good."
And the other one says, "Oh, yes they are some good."
And the other says, "No, Fords are no good."
Well, one of them is trying to grant beingness to something, the other's trying to keep from granting beingness to something. And if they keep this up very long they will immediately stop granting beingness to each other, at which moment they become insulting, and they go right on down Tone Scale.
The Tone Scale is a scale of life. It is also the scale of the amount of beingness a person thinks he has. Each level of the Tone Scale—4.0,1.5, 0.5 — is the amount of beingness a person thinks he has, and it reflects by the amount of motion which he thinks he can control. It's—reflects in a lot of things. So you find anybody who's having difficulty getting out of his head, difficulty with terminals, difficulty with this, regardless of the mechanical lines, somebody has refused to grant him beingness—oh, on a major scale. And he has insisted on granting himself beingness, since that's been contested. And he has refused to grant somebody else beingness.
Now, what is this "granting of beingness"? It's just a set of words. It wears out in a hurry. They're symbols, they go to pieces in a hurry. But the actual operation does not.
And you start running this on somebody who is having trouble with it, and the words just kind of wear out before he really gets the idea. If you were to run it abruptly on mest, why, you might have a very rough time of it. One of the better ways to run it would be with regard to people. You can take somebody something like him, and just have him get the idea of him granting beingness. Take him over to the window and show him the street and get him the idea of granting beingness to somebody down on the street. And he'll have to look around for a long time and do an awful lot of this, but he will actually be doing it.
It is a describable and nonerasable ability. And it increases as the individual begins to contact it and understand it. It also develops terribly heavy somatics— very heavy somatics. Refusal to let you have beingness, on the part of somebody who is in front of you, is liable to result in all sorts of tractor beams which are pulling your body to pieces, practically, these body—these beams will. And a person quite often will run "people refusing to grant him beingness" or something like this (this is a technique—a valid technique and quite usable), will get tremendous suction or pressure on his face or chest. And where somebody has desired sensation a great deal, they have had to say that "The thing I want sensation from has greater beingness than I have, since I want the energy which it creates." And so we get beingness standing above energy as a postulate.
Well, these people, when you start to run granting . . . Let's just take— let's take a man, and you get "granting beingness to women," and the next thing you know, he starts coughing. Well, you've put into effect the demand for energy from the woman—demand for sensation, you see.
Anytime any being grants beingness in order to get sensation back, he's liable to get a misalignment of energy and create a seniority above himself which doesn't exist, but he only thinks it does.
The granting of beingness and the refusal to have beingness: All the words of man, and all of the things which an individual runs into in life are summable under that. That's it.
Now, the first decision—decision is "to be." Well, where life is concerned

55

56

18 DECEMBER 1953
in this universe, one has decided to be. But above that level is the granting of beingness, and that is an exercisable function.
Now, a fellow has to decide to be, and if he decides to be and decides at the same time not to grant further beingness, he runs immediately into the "only one." And so we get the earlier lecture today being more intelligible. He has run inter this, he's decided to be something, and not to let other things be.
Now, he can be something and grant beingness to other things. But where a person has lost his ability to grant beingness, he has lost his ability as well to create. And so in the rehabilitation of creation, this is the first place we look in the preclear: the willingness to grant beingness.
Any artistic work must live. Now, there's no effort here to hedge over into the field of mysticism or necromancy or skulduggery or algebra with this. But you'll have this experience from time to time, and don't consider that it is a peculiar experience. You may do this sometime while you're processing a preclear.
You tell him, "All right, now put that postulate, whatever it is—put that postulate in the front wall of the room," and then you put the same postulate into the front wall of the room. Do you know that you'll get the wording of his postulate? You'll put your postulate in, but you're in communication with him. And that is a senior communication system.
This business of reading minds can be a very indefinite thing and a very upsetting thing. But where you have a meeting of beingness directly in this way . . . You know, you've made—put an idea into the wall, you see, and— after the preclear has put his idea in the wall, immediately afterwards, see. I mean, the preclear's still got his idea in the wall and you put up an idea in the wall right along with it, you'll get his wording. There's nothing wrong with this, but it's very unpositive. The less able the case is to exteriorize, the less positive this gets. But you're immediately into a thetan-to-thetan communication system and such a system exists independent of words.
The only trouble is, people are out of that communication band. More or less fortunately, because it'd be a—amongst man, it'd be a terrific chatter and hubbub communicationally, for everybody's ideas to be intelligible to everybody's ideas. People shudder away from this. They consider this is too much of a good thing. But they only shudder away from it when they are unable to adjust their own wavelengths. And when they can't adjust their own wavelengths, they'll get thoughts coming out of people and all sorts of strange things happening, and they say, "I don't want to read minds. I don't want to do anything more about this, people's minds. I just don't want this ability."
Well, what they shouldn't want is an inability—they shouldn't want this inability to be so fixed on beingness—I mean, this inability to shift beingness. They shouldn't want to be so fixed on one level of receipt.
Because there's a terrific band. This is the widest band there is—it exceeds all known bands. Goes into the black band, it goes in ... Oh, you talk about light—light is the tiniest, tiniest part of the band of energy wavelengths of which a thetan is capable of emanating. And you look at the plotted band in terms of centimeters and it gets very interesting that a thetan exceeds it so far and is so variable in it.
Now, you can take two things on the same band and you can so mix their wavelength—that is to say, you can so meet the wavelengths, one to another— that neither one is hitting. You can dovetail them into each other like a couple of sine waves, one riding slightly above the other wave and so on. So—it's pretty hard; you have to be really exact to get it in there.

BEINGNESS
Well, when somebody is completely stuck on being human, and he is stuck on being nothing but the wavelength of those immediately around him who are human and he's really fixed there, he has had trouble with granting beingness to anything else but humans, and so therefore he's sort of closed his band in.
But the artist who can paint without granting to his artwork its life, is— he's a pretty bad artist. He's just throwing paint around on a design.
When Mike Angelo painted something or sculpted something, it was quite perfect in its form. But if it was just form that we were going on today, just form alone—see, we're right up there on the border of not quite able to talk about this. mest language sort of goes by the boards. The form and line of the painting and of the statue is good. It's good enough so that you see a photograph of it and you think that's fine. And it isn't until you confront an original Mike Angelo, vis-a-vis, that you realize that the fellow who painted this thing really meant it. The amount of life in the statue itself, which is being controlled and held down in some fashion or another—the thing is just about to become a nova or something. It's—the amount of vitality. Now we are into, practically, necromancy. In other words, that thing is alive, and its life is quite apparent even to a street urchin.
Now, I saw one time a very beautiful white statue by an artist, or by a sculptor, whose name I haven't any inkling of at all; and it was in a perfectly strange and peculiar part of the world that you wouldn't expect an artist to have lived in; and it was so simple as to form that it was hardly guilty of being a statue at all—which yet had impressed into it so much vitality, of a sort of a calm and pervading nature, that it was actually filling up a whole patio full of calmness.
The thing was alive. There was no doubt about that at all. And this was not something which a gifted few would perceive. Those people who are completely dedicated to the plow might not have seen it very easily, but every beggar and peddler and maid and person and gentleman and clerk on that street would come over by that patio and sit down and look at the statue for a short time almost every evening. There were many better places to sit. But they would come in and they'd look at the statue, see? It was alive, there was no doubt about that. And of course, one could even say that they themselves by looking at it and granting it further being, it kept up the tradition of its existence. And so you had a living something.
Have you ever seen a house that nobody lived in go to pieces and lose its beingness? Have you ever seen a town lose its beingness? Or have you ever felt directly the beingness of a town? People keep up this beingness.
Now, an artist can come in—a writer, a poet, something of this sort—and grant a new beingness to a town. Sort of out of whole cloth, he just looks around and he says, "Why, you have a beautiful town here," and so forth, and he tells the people all about it. And they've never granted any beingness at all. They're so busy trying to keep each other from eating each other up, they've never noticed this; but this is something they can agree upon, this town. And the town comes to life, just to that degree. It is alive then.
It's rather remarkable, by the way, to do this in a town. It is a capability which any human being has. And I have often been delighted with the immediate results of, for instance, being in a rural community which had a weekly newspaper and writing—oh, considerable doggerel, considerable verse or something like that, about its town or writing descriptive essays or giving them quotes from the leading magazines concerning their towns—which I wrote, you see. And gave them—no idea of how famous their town was until they read it in

57

58

18 DECEMBER 1953
their local paper. And then go back through the area a year or two later and find the town was noted for being something or other.
Man discourages this. He believes this is a swindle or something. It's not. An artist has very—very, very little to do with the facts. The more he has to do with the facts, the more of a hack he is. What he has to do with is direct beingness. And if he can breathe the breath of truth into anything, he's an artist. And if he can't, he's not an artist. And I don't care how many degrees he has or who he studied under.
Now, it's easy to release this. It's not a God-given, untapped talent, one that an individual is unable to assume. You are here, you are alive. When you were small, you granted beingness to your dog, your wagon—in other words you brought this to life—a doll, these things came alive. And to this day you grant beingness to a car, a favorite book, possessions. And you—sometimes you have perhaps even run into this: You have been wearing certain clothes when an unpleasant experience occurred and the next day, and maybe for three or four days afterwards, you didn't care to wear that suit or you didn't care to wear that dress—you put that aside. That's because you imbued it with a certain beingness.
Now, this beingness is more than simply time, space and energy. It is a livingness; and it rather exceeds inspection until a person inspects it. I talk about it, you know what I'm talking about.
Now, it's—one is alive to the degree that individuals have granted him beingness, and that he has granted others beingness. He is alive as a group to that degree. But he is really as alive as he himself is perfectly willing to grant beingness, can grant beingness and is willing to have others grant beingness. That's how alive he is. He's no more alive than that. I don't care what moods come over him or how drunk he can get or how much heroin he might take down; he'll never get any more alive. And no artificial stimulant or love affair or anything else can present to an individual this level and characteristic of existence. Because that is life itself.
A preclear, very often, when he is processed, is completely unintelligible about what he wants. You ask him, "What do you want?" And he'll say, "I want to be happy." Well, that is the biggest—the biggest swindle in this universe. That is the great swindle: that one can live in this universe and twenty-four hours a day, twelve months of a year, or a hundred units of galactic time, be happy. He can't. It's impossible. Because he'd be miserable if he were.
He himself is seeking drama, strain. I have never seen anyone enjoying life so well as some girl playing the beautiful sadness of having been jilted. It's only when she can't play the beautiful sadness of having been jilted that the beautiful sadness overcomes her and you have to start processing it.
As an auditor you run into this in a case—this case has had the most remarkable love affairs and it's done this and that, and is perfectly happy to tell you about them, rather proudly. But always watch for that glint of pride under this; this is not aberrative material. It's the time when they couldn't put out any kind of beingness and so stopped and dammed it in its flow that they got into trouble. People then were working to refuse them the ability to be some specific thing. They were refusing beingness.
This person—they'd say, "Well, that's all phony. That's that emotion that you're exhibiting, and you're just story-acting and you don't really mean it. And those tears don't mean anything and you're just trying to get away with it. You're just trying to get something." And you know—refusal to let an individual exist, in other words.

BEINGNESS
Existence, actually, is that entire range on that chart and a great deal more. That Chart of Evaluation—existence is that entire range. Where one can do this freely, however, where one has volume, where one can live, where one can express his emotions, where one can express the drama and engage it in it—all of these things are the woof and warp and the breath of life.
But above all those things is an individual's ability to grant beingness to the moment. Grant beingness to the past, to the future, grant beingness to others, grant beingness to his own objects. And grant beingness and then not be afraid of it. And having granted beingness, why, go right on granting more beingness, rather than stop granting beingness simply because some of it bit him.
The main beingness that bites him is that which he granted, but that's no reason not to grant beingness. So? That merely makes it so that one has a lot of drama. There's no drama like the drama you get into having granted beingness to something which then bites back.
One cannot become able in life by fearing to live it. Never. And he can't be himself without being willing to grant beingness, because he's the only one that can grant beingness to himself.
And so we get to a level of processing which, in itself, tells us a great deal and which in its own theory, is its own process. Any technique or communication system we have uses and applies to this system of beingness. They all do. You can use it anywhere.
You can ask—start asking somebody, "All right, what in this room aren't you willing to be?" And you ask a person who's very bad off, and you'll just get the whole room. And you will ask somebody who's in pretty good condition and so forth, and he'll pick out an item or two and—oh, he's perfectly willing to be that.
And then, contra this, you get the apathy case and he'll pick out three or four things in the room that he says, "Well—well, I'll just say I'm not willing to be those. It doesn't matter, but. . ." Of course, he doesn't know whether he wants to be or not to be and that's all that's wrong with him.
Now, you take Shakespeare's quotation in Hamlet: "To be or not to be." That's what man is fixed on—"To be or not to be." That isn't the question. That isn't the question. To grant beingness or not grant beingness is the question he is hung up on all the days of his years.
Okay.

59

SOP 8-G General
A lecture given on 19 December 1953

And this is December the 19th, the first lecture of the day.
Want to talk to you today about SOP 8-C some more and I want to talk to you about uses of. There is a couple of minor things here that aren't in this brief form for student use. They will be in the finished copy and probably those people listening to this tape later will find them in the finished copy, but that's beside the point.
The—symbolization, of course, is where you put the person's name, and that's under Step VI. You use his name, you shift his name around and double-terminal it and match it until he can handle his name. And under Step V, of course, you handle terminals, as well as that data given in this earliest form. That will be in later forms.
Now, when you look at SOP 8-C in its final form—not its final form, but in its complete form of all the Logics and Axioms that go back of it—why, a great deal of additional use will come to you who know theory and can practice it; additional uses will occur to you, many additional uses. And—because out of these Axioms and out of these Logics and so forth, we can get an enormous number of processes. Now, what we've tried to do here is get the most effective and easiest to use processes—that's been the main thing. Also, in—under Step I, by Location, of course granting beingness is also under that.
The first experience of beingness—you see beingness isn't space, but the first approximation of it, in terms of the mest universe, is space. You see, the word beingness is bigger than space and it has more to it than space. But in terms of the mest universe, the first expression of it, in mest terms, is space. And when an individual encounters space, he interprets space as beingness. This is not necessarily correct or right or anything else, it's just what he interprets in human experience. So that if you are trying to deny somebody space, you are actually trying to deny him beingness. You see that?
When you try to deny somebody communication, you try to deny him beingness. When you want to deny somebody beingness, you deny him space, and so on and so on and so on. Hence jails—I mean, the police deny somebody beingness by putting him in a constricted space which is fixed. In order to deny somebody beingness, it's really only necessary to upset his mobility. If you upset somebody's mobility, of course he cannot shift his viewpoint—he thinks. So, unable to shift his viewpoint, why, he is constricted in space.
Now, the beingness of an individual is then suppressed by the number of

61

62

19 DECEMBER 1953
anchor points which are close to him, which aren't put there by his own determination. Now, we've got self-determinism and other-determinism. He can put as many anchor points close to him as he wants to; under his own self-determinism, it won't upset his beingness at all. But if anchor points are forced upon him without his choice, which is to say, if he resists this "forced upon him-ness" of the other anchor points, why, his beingness is reduced. And actually, if anchor points which he has determined will be in one place are shifted, either closer to or further away, you get an alteration in his space which upsets again his concept of beingness.
Now, the—it's much worse to be ridiculed than to be betrayed. If somebody is betrayed, it must have been assumed immediately before the betrayal that he was powerful enough to merit betrayal. You see that? He had to have some power in order to be betrayed.
But ridicule is quite something else. Ridicule says that he mustn't have any power; he didn't have any power and so on. So therefore, pulling out anchor points away from him which he is determined should remain in close, results in a drop of beingness. Because one fights their going away and—in other words, he's fighting space itself. Because, of course, as they go away, they make increasing space. So he gets to fighting increasing space.
Well, if he fights increasing space, then his—the lesser of two evils will be decreasing space. The truth of the matter is, you see, without an inversion, increasing space simply gives somebody more beingness, in terms of the MEST universe. But by the time it gets inverted, when other-determinism has insisted upon his having wider space, that is in effect, ridicule, because it's saying, "Look, you can't occupy this much space. Nyah, nyah, nyah!"And the fellow agrees to it and says he can't, by pulling back from that much space. So ridicule does not grant power to an individual. People who are ridiculed are immediately assumed to be weak, and then they are ridiculed.
So ridicule is much the worse of the two. So much so, that individuals who are hooked into the betrayal circuit are very often completely neglective of the subject of ridicule. An individual who is without space won't even consider ridicule, he will just neglect it—and it's much, much more aberrative than betrayal. Although betrayal—the end-all of betrayal, of course, is to become completely nothing in terms of size or beingness or anything else.
And yet he will concentrate on betrayal in his auditing, in running—say if he were running himself, he would do nothing but concentrate on betrayal. Just nothing but betrayal—betrayal, betrayal, betrayal, betrayal, betrayal, betrayal. And never occur to him that ridicule was what would really start turning on the works.
You get an individual who is solidly ridged, who is very, very packed down, who is packed tight—he's been patted in place by the forces of all until he is practically solid plutonium, but he won't explode. And there he is, terribly small in terms of existence—you know, in actual beingness—but big in terms of energy. Not even in energy, that's again the wrong phrase—matter—because he isn't very energetic when this happens to him. And here he is, packed down tight.
Well, now this individual of course has to have space. Space is something to him that water is to a thirsty horse. But a horse, theoretically, could get so thirsty that he won't drink. And so this fellow is so thirsty for space he won't drink. And he fights away from further space because he has been unable for so long to impose any space between terminals; so long he's been unable to do this, that he doesn't consider it can be done.

SOP 8-C: GENERAL
Quite in addition to that, he is terrified of ridicule. That's the one thing he
mustn't have. And ridicule is the im	, and is the emotional—in the emotional
band, is imposing too much space on somebody. That's ridicule.
You could throw some criminal down in the middle of the Great Salt Lake Desert and you could say, "Now there you are, operate your syndicate here." Now, it would finish him being a criminal. Of course, police aren't this smart. That's why they're police. They give a fellow a small place, and this fellow already is on the inversion, and so they put him in the cell which actually tends to confirm his criminality.
If they really wanted to get rid of crime, what they would do, would be to take one of the large Western states that's kind of going to ruin, and just dump criminals in there. Put barbwire all the way around it—more space than anybody could possibly employ, you see. And they just keep dumping criminals in there—and those boys would have to measure up or otherwise. Because they're fond of being betrayed, criminals are, but they sure can't stand being ridiculed.
If newspaper reporters, for instance, in writing about gangsters who were shot down and big murderers and that sort of thing, were to put it in the comic section, the decline of crime would be rapid. But they don't, they put it on the front page. They say, "Pretty Boy Floyd Triumphs Again." Yes—big importance, big importance.
As a matter of fact, the thirst for betrayal is such that it can turn a man to crime just so that he will be betraying and be betrayed. The story of man is a story of betrayal. But the important story that runs through that is the story of ridicule. And between the two things, why, man—man is at his best with betrayal—I mean, Homo sapiens, average line of.
This is where he gets in there and pitches, one way or the other. He starts thinking about betrayal. It's—somebody raises up a standard and said, "I have been betrayed. I am really the king of Bavaria and I was betrayed." And more people will rally to that standard, because they're brothers, you see, and they've all been betrayed and so they've got to go betray somebody.
And in terms of mest, this is worked out—you see, thought is above MEST, but in terms of MEST, this is worked out so that people are always readjusting space. And life is a sort of a hectic contest of readjusting anchor points. Out they go and in they go and around they go and out they go and in they go and around and round and round and round. There are anchor points which you have to have close to you and anchor points which mustn't be close to you; and anchor points which must be put away from me but won't go away; and anchor points which won't come close to you but have to come close to you; and anchor points which insist on being close to you when they ought to be in back of you; and this round-round-round-round-round-round. If you'd get down to worry, it's this interchange of energy caused by misplaced anchor points.
If you were just to say to a preclear, "Now put all your anchor points where they ought to be," if he understood the meaning of that single word anchor point, he could have a picnic then for a long time. "Now, put them all where they're supposed to be," and it's the first thing he'd tell you—he can't.
"You put these terminals where they're supposed to be . . ." Terminal and anchor point—a terminal, you know, is just a massive anchor point. And you get—round and round, I mean, he'd go.
He—a person who starts self-auditing is just trying to adjust anchor points. I mean, he's trying to pull them in and push them out and do this and do that with them. And of course, he isn't going to get very far because the one

63

64

19 DECEMBER 1953
anchor point he won't look at to process is the anchor point that should be processed. Furthermore, he'll always insist on using heavy techniques when he ought to use light ones. And where he ought to use a heavy one, he'll use a light one. He is reversed on the subject. And quite in addition to that, all he does is process, ordinarily, the GE, which is fun. We're not interested in processing the GE, because it doesn't happen to result in any great improvement on the part of the individual.
There are certain concepts which an individual can get. He can always increase his knowingness and therefore increase his beingness—always. And therefore, educationally, an individual can self-audit himself, so to speak. He can find something out, or know something more, or suddenly know some untruth was untrue or something like that, and therefore, educationally, he'll do a tremendous springboard. But when he starts operating on his own beingness, he's liable to be busy taking out his appendix when he ought to be sawing that arrowhead out of his temple. He won't look at the arrowhead in the temple, you see, because that's too obvious to anybody else and it's not obvious to him.
Now, another thing, an auditor will very often fail to audit out of a preclear what ought to be audited out of the preclear but insists on auditing out of the preclear what ought to be audited out of the auditor.
Now, a test made in this, whereby several co-auditing teams which had failed had been accumulated in one area—Volney Mathison made this test. And he got several pairs of Dianeticists who were failed auditing teams, and he put the auditor on one E-Meter and the preclear on another E-Meter and didn't let them look at either E-Meter, and then started going over what the auditor had audited on the preclear. There was no registry on the preclear—preclear's E-Meter just sat there—and the auditor's E-Meter went wild. And a little further questioning of the auditor demonstrated that he'd been handing the preclear his case. Of course, this is merely an effort to duplicate.
So, for Homo sapiens to co-audit, it's necessary to get something that is wrong with everybody, in order to permit everybody to duplicate. If they're going to do it on stimulus-response basis, that permits them then to duplicate what's wrong with them on the preclear and have it solve the preclear's case, which is the reason and the need for the highest common denominator in auditing. And this works out very, very smoothly. On a technique where you have somebody using Location—well, Location, that's adjustment of anchor points, getting somebody to adjust his anchor points. And as these things come along, everybody needs his anchor points adjusted, so an auditor will go in for this with great enthusiasm. He knows his anchor points need adjusting and he can duplicate it on the preclear.
Now, this doesn't necessarily apply to you people that are coming on up the line, but it certainly does apply when this material is being far more generally used.
We have, however, failures along this line. You take techniques just a little earlier, they weren't quite generalized enough in their—that is to say, they didn't apply to every case. There were several techniques you could use, you see, and they didn't apply to every case, so this wasn't quite high enough common denominator.
And auditors would go sideways off the techniques and they'd do such things as, they would say ... I got a report the other day here from somebody in Great Britain who had done this: He was showing the preclear his facsimiles and having the preclear show him the preclear's facsimiles. Ha, ha, ha—you see, that's very nice. That won't upset a preclear very much, you know, because

SOP 8-C: GENERAL
the main sorrow of his life is that they have ceased to be visible to other people— let's just key him in but good!
That's why you never tell a preclear that you're seeing his facsimiles and he's never telling you, because you'll get him set on this thing of visibility of what he's doing. And he has become so sad about being invisible that he has decided "to be invisible" is the thing to be, and he wants to remain invisible and he'll get terribly upset if you talk about visibility.
If you were to take a little kid, for instance, and he was telling you— you say, "Well now, imagine yourself eating some candy. Now get a picture of yourself eating some candy." And then you say to him, "Oh no! Not that piece. Don't pick up that piece." You know, you can turn his mock-ups off for a day or two—just boom! You know? Start directing him in mock-ups? Oh no!
So he doesn't want to be directed that way. Art criticism can go too far. Of course, it's gone too far—when a fellow becomes an art critic, it's already gone too far.
I'm reminded of—this also goes into just that, art criticism—I'm reminded of Kipling's rather interesting poem, ballad. It goes along: And when they work on the great canvas and so on—after death in heaven, why, they'll be painting this great canvas and after a while, why, the Devil will walk up and take a look at it and he will say, "It's pretty, but is it art?"
In such a wise, man gets very upset about things which are seen—if man already is having difficulty with criticism. Of course, criticism is the tiniest, lowest level, you might say, of invalidation. And invalidation is the thought level of being hit—or being hit is the MEST level of invalidation. And criticism— about the lightest concept that you can get on the bank is not wanting to be critical. This is pretty low. Everybody does it.
Well, now let's look at the variations of Step Ia, and we find out that what we're doing here is actually direct differentiation in terms of getting more space between anchor points. See that? Direct differentiation.
Now, differentiation could be said to be that process which imposes space between two anchor points—two or more anchor points. That's differentiation. Identification is that process which takes space out from between anchor points. When things become more and more similar, one has less and less space, you might say. Or something is simply duplicated all over the place when they're more and more similar.
Well, we look this over and we find that we have, in all of the processes, differentiation as a goal. An individual is supposed to get things better differentiated. So let's take a method of just variation on this: We ask the preclear for places where he's not in present, and where not in the past, and where he isn't in the future. And where others are not in the present and past and future; and where objects are not in the present, past and future; where pc is not thinking in the present, past and future.
Well, let's just get a variation on this, and we find out that we can get him something like this: Let's take it real close to home, see? Let's take it on identification. Now, when you're asking him where things are not, you're asking him for wider space. And sometimes you won't find a case entering on this level. He can't differentiate that well on this particular subject. He has a nondifferentiation about something or other, and the way you'd get a nondifferentiation would be to take it right close to home. "Give me three people you are not."
See, this is—this is what? This is treating a possible identification. It doesn't say that the person is these people, but it just makes him differentiate by saying they're not right here in this spot. And therefore, not being here in

65

66

19 DECEMBER 1953
this spot, they must be different. A differentness, then, is not being on this spot. A thing is different from another thing when it doesn't occupy the same space. Now, that is the first differentness. And differentiation in terms of thought in an individual who is straining at agreement with the mest universe, comes about in terms of getting things a little further apart, which gives him more space.
So we work with this: "Give me three people that you are not." Now, you run a bracket on such a thing. You would just go on this process like this: You'd say, "All right, give me three people you're not. All right. Give me three other people you're not."
You're not talking about past, present or future, you see. Don't run that differentiation in on him; because you see, when the present and past and future have collapsed, you again have time becoming a single terminal. You know, they've sort of collapsed, and time is identified. And to every preclear, he has some periods of time identified. He has the past identified with the future in "it mustn't happen again"; see, he's—right away when he says, "It mustn't happen again," he has the past identified with the future. And your effort to get these things apart is directed toward any barrier. So we get all the barriers there are, you see, as barriers which we're trying to make separate.
And we have immediately the two fundamentals. We have the reactive mind—A = A = A = A. The reactive mind is totally identified and therefore you get stimulus-response. And when you get total identification and stimulus-response operation and so forth, you of course get insanity. The GE is nuts. I mean, that's—you might say that was a qualified way of saying, "Well, is he enough to be crazy?" That's about the only way you could qualify it, because he is, essentially—the GE and the form itself, if you start to take it apart, you find out that it's very obsessive. It thinks it has to have attention from others to the point where it doesn't live unless it consumes other energy. That's real interesting, isn't it? Well, by our own definitions, that demonstrates a pretty low level of operation.
All right. He has to continue to make identifications with other animals and other things in terms of eating. Well, now when somebody is too terribly identified with a GE, we'll just give him a level of processing which will spring him out of his identification with the GE right where it's worst—which, of course, is eating!
And so you'd start him off on, "Give me three people you're not, and three more people you're not," and—you know, get him into the swing of the thing and so forth.
"Now give me three animals you're not. Now, three more animals you're not, and three more animals you're not. Now give me three people who are not you, and three more people who are not you. Now give me three more people who are not you. Three more people who are not you. Now give me three people who are not other people."
And he's liable to flub that one. He's liable to answer that one, "Well, Joe and Bill and Toosie."
And you say, "Joe, Bill and Toosie what?"
"Oh," he says, "uh—they're—they're not other people."
"Look, what other people aren't they?" That's what you want to know on that.
"Well, let's see . . ." Oh, well, this will put a big strain on the brain. He'll say, "Let's see now, mmmm-hmmm-mmmm-hmmmmmmm. Let me see. Let's see, Joe isn't—Joe isn't Agnes. Ha-ha!" Fooled you, he really thought of it.
See, he'll come up like that and then so on, and then, "Bill isn't—ummm-

SOP 8-C: GENERAL
mmm-mmm-mmm, he . . ." Gee, is he at all? is what's going through his mind, you see—real, real dim.
And then the next thing you know, why, "He isn't my top sergeant I had during the war. Yeah, that's right. And Toosie? Well, would it count if I said he wasn't a dog I know?"
And you say, "No, we want a person."
"(gasp)"
You're liable to get into a quarrel with your preclear anywhere along with this, because the preclear is going to complain and is going to get upset and is going to insist upon this and that. And he's going to insist that he's running out of names. Now, that one you want to look at. Want to be very, very interested in that one—he's running out of names. In other words, he's running out of easy looking. And as soon as he starts to run out of easy looking, he's got to do some harder looking.
And he's liable to have to look at the very person he mustn't look at. He's liable to look at the situation that he mustn't look at. And after you've gone just so far with any one—any part of this process of "who are you not," which is the identification part of Step Ia, why, just—you just go just so far on it, and he's going to run fresh out of material.
Well, that isn't the time for you to quit! It's just like in the old days, running an engram up into boredom wasn't good enough. You have to keep running it until he comes all the way up. Because you've just gotten on the hot spot right there. You're just entering the door of where you want to go, the moment that he sticks on names. Soon as he starts to run out of places, why then you start bearing down. You start being very casually insistent on even more places and more people and more differentiation in this wise. And you just keep on asking for it, and he gets into a very desperate state sometimes. But then all of a sudden, why, he's perfectly on it, he'll. . .
He's been giving you one reply every minute or something like that—way slow. I mean, his response was all right at first and then it got slower and slower and slower and slower and slower, and then he just—once every minute or something like that.
And after he's done this for a little while, you know, if you keep at it, why, his response will speed up and he starts going, "Well, and Bill isn't Joe and sab-dadabada-dada-dabada-dadada." He's got lots of names now. All of a sudden there's lots of people in the world. There's lots of places in the world. Now, you see why that is? The individual has run out of places he can look without having to look at something. And that's what he—why he's run out of places to look, because he's getting around too close.
You see, there is scarcity itself—and there is the entering wedge of scarcity, in terms of mest, is lack of places to look. So your patter would go on, then, "What three people aren't other people?" And they would have to be specific other people.
Now, he'll try to deal in large classes of people. This is his specialty. Well, that is a superidentification. He'll say, "Well, Joe isn't a member of the Boy Scouts." That's great. That means that there's several million boys that Joe is not. In other words, he evidently has several million boys in one condensed unit called the Boy Scouts. This fellow was a Boy Scout, that puts him in a condensed unit and that classifies him. Man is wonderful at this. He thinks something classifies by assigning it to a group.
Science is so jammed down on identification, it thinks a datum is classified if it goes into chemistry. "Oh," he says, "that's a chemical datum"—that disposes

67

68

19 DECEMBER 1953
of it. It's something like in the field of medicine—if they give a long Latin name to something that's incomprehensible, then they can understand it. It has nothing to do with it at all, but they have at least pulled it out by giving it a special label. So that, too, is a type of identification, isn't it?
It's a type of differentiation, actually, to give something a long label just so it could be differentiated from something else. They pulled it out of the general class of things. Science is at its best when it's differentiating one datum from another datum, and at its worst trying to form groups of data. They don't form groups of data.
The next thing you know, you have physics and chemistry both studying the same thing: nuclear physics. Only the electrons and atoms and molecules of the chemist today don't even vaguely resemble the atoms and molecules and electrons of the physicist today. And they don't argue about it; they're both— both have buried the hatchet on the subject. And you'll get a chemist saying blandly to the physicist, "Well, my structural picture operates for chemistry," and the physicist says, "And mine operates for physics, so let dogs live, you know, and we won't quarrel about this any further."
Truth of the matter is, they're wildly divergent. Well, certainly there's something wrong with physics if physics doesn't work in chemistry, and there's certainly something wrong in chemistry if chemistry—you see? There's something wrong over there. Physic—if you can't take a chemical atom and work with it in physics . .. Well, you mean that chemistry is now going to disobey all the laws of physics and physics is going to disobey all the laws of chemistry and they're both exact sciences? Huh! Hardly.
But yet they group a datum and lose it. They just group it, lose it, let it drop out of sight because it's part of a group.
Well, now that's what your preclear's been doing all of his time track, see? He's been saying, "This is I. This thing which associates with horses is I. This other piece of energy over here was you, and the world is therefore divided into three classes: I, which is one class; and you, which is another class; and them, which is another class. So, we have a world full of people and their names are I, you, and them. Now, how many other people are there in the world? There are no other people than those. There are just three groups, and it's the group of I and the group of you and the group of them."
And you'll find people talking like that. And they'll talk right along, they go right along talking, they—making sense to each other. And when you use English and when you use colloquial American, you have to use "they think that." You see, there's no other classification. The language itself is pauperized. There are only about six pronouns, and this is nowhere near enough—nowhere near enough. All right.
There are—I think if you had maybe five or six hundred pronouns, it would possibly work out and people would know what they were talking about.
Well, so that you—you're working, then, to unidentify somebody, and if you work this out, places where the preclear is not in the present, where he's not in the past and not in the future, of course, you'd have to go into where others are not in the present and not in the past and not in the future, too, you see? And that's that much of a bracket.
Now, theoretically, there's another part of the bracket—not necessarily used, but there is another part of the bracket there. It's "where others know others are not" in the present, the past and the future. See, "where others know others are not." "Now where does Bill know that George isn't?" But you're so far exceeding, at that point, the level of knowingness of your preclear, that

SOP 8-C: GENERAL
you'd just bog him—if you could communicate the concept to him at all. He'd just get very boggy right at that point.
Well, similarly, you're often going to get into a spot where you just simply ask, "All right, give me three places in this room where you're not."
And the fellow says, "Oh . . ." Bog. See, boom!
Well, there's a lower level of operation. And incidentally this lower level of operation is one which you would also include in this step—it just doesn't happen to be here in this brief form, but it's in later forms. And that is just this problem of where others—"Who . . ." "Give me three people you aren't." See, that's asking him to push these terminals out just a little bit.
"Now, give me three people who aren't you. Give me three people who aren't other people. And now give me . .." Of course, you see, we're dealing just a little bit more in significance and just a little bit more in terms of thought when we're dealing with "who you're not."
And we get then, "Give me three objects that you're not. And three objects that are not you. And three objects that are not other objects." That's the next bracket, on objects.
And now, if you're dealing with identification, you'll find that the individual is pretty snarled up with a GE, if he isn't getting it fast—he's really snarled up. And so we've got to hit it where it hurts, which is eating. Because the GE is always trying to eat something. He's trying to identify himself with something else. As a matter of fact, if man's concourse was simply left to the GE, it would simply consist of everybody would eat everybody else, and that's all there is to it. I mean, that would be the end-all of existence, is everybody would eat everybody up. And your cannibal is either an unmonitored GE or the thetan that's degraded down to the level of the GE, so he just eats everybody up, and that's the way he runs. No other concept is possible there except devouring in order to get attention.
And, by the way, on that chart over there, you'll notice the Applause Scale. Well, eating belongs on the Applause Scale. It's just the lowest level of the Applause Scale. That's really enforcing people to give you attention. That's enforcing the fact that you get attention. So eating belongs on the Applause Scale.
And therefore, you have to take into account in this Straightwire process, then, animals. Not even necessarily edible animals, because man has eaten the darnedest things all up and down the track. And let's just take into account, then, animals.
"Now give me three animals you're not. Three other animals you're not. Now give me three animals that are not you. Three others that are not you." Get the difference between that. And that is the patter you use, it's just that: "Give me three animals you're not. And three animals that are not you. Now give me three animals that are not other animals."
And boy, he'll get scattery. He'll consider fish or birds. Animal—the word animal to him will just gunshot, see? Some preclear who is terrifically identified with eating and so forth, will gunshot this badly.
Whereas some other one will want to know—"Now, animals." And you'll find him just stringing right along with animals. He's talking about deer and cows and horses and anything that is formally classified as animals. And you'll have to then ask him, "Give me three fish you're not."
So just remember, if the fish don't appear and the birds don't appear, for goodness sakes, get the fish and the birds in there. "Give me three fish that you're not. Now give me three fish that are not you, and three fish that are not

69

70

19 DECEMBER 1953
other fish." You'll find him running out of fish very fast. I mean, he'll run out of fish almost right away sometimes.
He says, "Well, let's see—uh, umm-mumm-mummum, a shark. Um-mum-mum, I'm not a shark. Um-mm-mum-mummmmm, I'm not a—not an octopus now. And I'm not a trout. Yeah, that's right. Okay."
Now, he's waiting for you to go on to the next step of the process, and you gay, "Give me three more fish that you're not." This is brutal! (audience laughter)
Now he's getting pretty well up on that, a little sticky, and you suddenly say, "Now give me three fish that are not you."
Well, you'll notice that the indivi	, the person is unwilling to duplicate
in ratio to the way they will never repeat the name of a fish. Their willingness to duplicate is in ratio to this, you see that? A person will every once in a while use trout or he'll every once in a while use this, and this doesn't worry him, the fact that he's named the same fish—doesn't worry him too much.
But if he keeps on using it, he's perfectly willing to duplicate trout, see? That's what it tells you. Or, on the other side, he has trout completely identified. Now, there's two answers to that constant repetition of "shark," let's say, or constant repetition of "cow"—two answers to it. All cows are a cow, or he's perfectly willing to duplicate cows; there's no scarcity of cows. Well, it's up to you to find out this, and the way you do that is, when he has used "cow" now for the fourth time, you say, "What particular cow isn't you?"
This is liable to really stick him. "Cow? Why, there's only one cow in the world." And he'll say, "That's very peculiar, but that cow—its name is Jezebel, and hooked me once when I was a small child and it's standing right here in the room this minute!"
So, because eating has included people—yes, any one of the GEs on the line has indulged, I'm afraid—because eating has included people, we have our eatingness, then, rather difficult to differentiate sometimes with an individual.
Now, there's what's known as a "stomach case." It's where the genetic entity that is running the stomach—you see, there's some part of the being—of the genetic entity which is another entity. It's—the genetic entity is a composite. It's a large number of entities. And that one that's running the stomach will sometimes, because of the scarcity of food and anxiety and worry on the part of the preclear about his future and so forth—that entity will sometimes practically take control of the whole being. And he will start to digest, you might say, the whole body. You'll see—and you'll find the preclear in a state of being unmocked. You know, he—but he isn't quite responsible for unmocking it, and he's very puzzled as to why his body is half-unmocked all the time and so forth. His body is being digested, you might say, via the entity of the stomach. The entity of the stomach, then, has become so overt that it just—real upset, and it starts to eat the body up.
There's been a scarcity of food—food is very important to this case—and there's several ways to do that. One is to feed the stomach entity motivators and mock the fellow up eating himself up. Mock the fellow up with the stomach eating him up just an awful lot of times, and you get considerable relief on the case. But this is—other technique which I've been telling you about, this variation that resolves identification—this variation that resolves identification here is aimed straight at this type of disidentification.
Differentiation, you see, is a little bit different than disidentification.
Disidentification is, you're pulling them apart when they're all piled up in the same space.
And differentiation, in essence, would be lining them up in different places.

SOP 8-C: GENERAL
So you've got a disidentification there of the fellow with his stomach. Gertrude Stein said, "A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose when I was a little girl." This case is recognizable, though. You as an auditor can—will be able to spot this one, boom! You'll start spotting all sorts of things now that you know what you're looking at. You can just go right ahead and spot things and spot them and spot them, very easily.
And here you have the genetic entity stomach case. And gee, you start running this case and boy, he has to have like mad. You can't pry an engram or a lock off of him or get anything released or anything. It's all pulled in, pulled in, pulled in, pulled in. You just can't get him to—not only can't you get him to step out of his head, but you can't get him to do anything else. And you couldn't—now, you could say to this case, "Now, what are you willing to give me?" And he wouldn't find anything he was willing to give you.
Well, it's not necessarily true that all people who are pulled in to this degree are genetic entity eating cases—it's not necessarily true, because really, you could take a person and zap him hard enough with an electronic beam or you could walk around and shoot him hard enough from enough angles with gunpowder and he would get this same "reduction down to one terminal" sort of an idea, which would also make him eat hard. But the technique to use on that person is the one which I'm giving you here of Step Ia. That technique will take that case a long way.
He's always duplicating something, he's never duplicating nothing. That's a keynote of the technique. And he doesn't have any space and he doesn't have a lot of things, but when it comes right down to it, on the Applause Scale up there, he is at eating. How would you applaud this fellow? You'd feed him. It's the only way you could applaud him.
And sometimes he's below that level, where the only way he could be applauded is being fed, but he can't be applauded. He's inverted on it again, you see. He couldn't even be applauded by being fed, you see. He'd be upset or disturbed at the idea of your feeding him. This person, by the way, could waste praise. You'd probably start him wasting praise until he could have some praise and you'd find out that his condition would materially improve. Why? Because this identification is on the Applause Scale. Because eating is on the Applause Scale.
The problems of the beast of the jungle are that nobody takes time to applaud. The—if anybody does anything to him, it'll run a long way off and ridicule him. And he doesn't like this and so he'll eat them up.
Imagine the state of mind of an entity—let's just get off the basis of structure and it's all built that way and that's how it works. Just let's imagine the state of mind of a being which became ravingly in agony in the absence of applause. That would really be something, wouldn't it? Where would you spot this person? I mean, what other conditions would you say went along with this being? Well, he's playing the "only one" like mad, wouldn't you say? Must be so overbalanced and tipped over on the subject of beingness that everything in the world had to grant it beingness. I mean, he must look at anything around— that thing must have to grant him beingness. He can grant nothing beingness. He knows this, he's convinced.
You get a level of depravity, by the way, which would make a police informer look like a saint—the character of this being. If you get this, the—it is so craving applause, it's just in agony and pain when it's not received. That's the stomach entity, and that is a good index of the sanity of the GE. It's unimaginably crazy. You've never seen a whole being that crazy. That's pretty crazy.

71

72

19 DECEMBER 1953
The way stomach entities are made might interest you. They put them on a board and they stab them and beat them at irregular intervals, and make it completely unpredictable how they're going to be beaten next. That's the way that stomach entities are made. They are beaten and zapped and pounded in and hammered at unpredicted intervals and so forth until they're inverted and then reinverted and then reinverted and then reinverted down to a point where they're in agony unless they get applause. They can't exist for three days unless they're applauded—in other words, zapped again. See, that's the condition of mind of a stomach entity. I say "how they are made," "how they make them"—that's interesting, they actually are made. They're not evolved, they're made.
Pattern. There are seven major entities to the body and these are the structural ridges of the body. And you take a little beingness, you see, and you put it into the midst of some energy and then you hammer it down and you convince it of its personality and then you keep zapping it in and pounding it around and—it's quite interesting. Nothing much to it.
Some fellow one time said, "You know, this business about ridges—why couldn't you take a little piece of a ridge, you know, and set the thing up and, you know, it'd compute? You know, it'd be a much better computing machine than you can build out of metal."
Yes, that's true! That's the—that's what they do.
Now, a fellow can be made to worry so much about food and his daily bread, that he will begin to agree too thoroughly with the stomach entity and by agreement alone, just by contagion, begin to take on the characteristics of the stomach entity. So he has a certain hectic sort of madness about him and if this is the general thing that's going on throughout existence, why, naturally it's the accepted thing.
What to Audit is the one piece of work which has anything, really, about this in it. It talks quite a bit about the genetic line and so forth. It's actually just a survey or a history of the genetic entity rather than a history of man, but it talks about the thetan and so on. What to Audit was written at the end of a cycle of investigation which had continued, actually, for a long, long while. It consummated a cycle of investigation in Dianetics which told one this story—it said man is not the body. That was the inevitable conclusion about all of man, simply because he doesn't resolve as a case as long as you treat him as a body. And it said also, there are too many types of engrams on a case for the case to possibly have exhausted on it.
And as a result, What to Audit closed the investigation of the genetic entity. It's there for somebody to open sometime if somebody wants to go through data on it. The essentials of the data discovered are there and in Electropsychometry Auditing, that other little book—little manual—the method of the analysis of the GE, is taken up. That's the—those two books, Electropsychometry Auditing and What to Audit, are the two of them, more or less companion pieces. The E-Meter, What to Audit and Electropsychometry Auditing—a trio.
Now, anybody that wanted to do any interesting investigation work on this thing would be able to take that trio and they would discover, I am afraid—I am very, very much afraid that they would discover more or less the text of What to Audit after they got all through it again. That was a long, long piece of work. It was very amusing and it was very interesting; there's tremendous things on it.

SOP 8-C: GENERAL
Well, today, in the processes that you do, these things will show up. And when they show up, it's because the thetan has had a similar experience on his own track. See, the thetan has a different track than the GE. And the thetan has had this similar experience, you might say, and so gets at that point a facsimile agreement. And we get this thing called a facsimile agreement, you see. He has a facsimile in common with the GE, and therefore because it's happened to him .. .
Now, did you ever see two old guys and they meet down at the corner store and they're kind of fencing around at each other and not particularly interested in each other, until they both find out that they went through the blizzard in Cheyenne in '97, and that they both know Doakes. And now we go on from there and we get an endless, pointless conversation. Same way between the thetan and the GE—the thetan is the one that makes the error, though. The thetan says, "Well, do you know that this GE has—went through the blizzard in Cheyenne too."
Well, it's—a mechanical sympathy sets up; and that in itself is sympathy— similar experience. And on that basis alone does the thetan come into agreement with the GE. And that's the basis on how they get into agreement. And after that, the woes of the GE are the thetan's woes.
Now, you hear me very often when I'm exteriorizing somebody and I've had them mock up a body a few times and duplicate nothing and do this and do that, and "where they're not," and so on. Well, I'll come around to the basis "Now, pat the body on the head and say, 'Poor body.' "
Every time I do that, somebody will get a little pain or a shock or they'll snap in and out real quick or they do something. Because what you're undoing there is the possession on the part of the thetan of an incident which has happened to him, similar to the GE's incident. And you're just undoing those one at a time. And you undo them by, "Poor body." And then have the body say, "Poor thetan." You know? Just sympathy.
What is sympathy? Sympathy is the same size and shape alongside of, and that, in essence, is a terminal in operation. Sympathy is a terminal in operation. An electric motor won't run unless its two electrodes are one in sympathy with the other one. You got to have them on the same voltage and same amperage and tuned up the same way in the same magnetic fields, otherwise you'll get no interchange.
Well, it's just these similar incidents: "We both went through the blizzard of Cheyenne." So that you get a person in later life and you start to exteriorize him—well boy, he's been through a lot with this GE, you see. He has a lot of similar experience. He has the same set as the GE has, so he thinks of himself more or less as a GE, rather than ... He thinks of himself as one thing, whereas his health and beingness depends on not agreeing with something that is so goofy that it gets to—it gets—it will commit murder in order to get applause.
It's interesting that the GE has an area around its mouth which is "there." I mean, the phrase "there" fits it more than anything else or "has arrived" or "know." These things all sort of fit around the GE's mouth.
Why? Because everything it's ever eaten knows. See, when he's eaten things alive, boy, that thing knew right at that moment that it had arrived, that it was there, and it knows now. What's it know? It knows it's going to be eaten. See, there's no further doubt in its mind when the teeth go crunch!
So these things all work out. It's almost impossible to exteriorize somebody without running into some of this phenomena. But regard it as phenomena— and you can do something about it, so we shouldn't be too concerned with this

73

74

19 DECEMBER 1953
phenomena. It doesn't interrupt a case. It isn't different from one case to another. Before you do much processing, though, you better read What to Audit and Electropsychometric Auditing, the two of them, and run a few tests on this. Because after that you won't be surprised. Your preclear will then become predictable to you and it'll make you a lot more comfortable about auditing preclears.
So this fellow, all of a sudden, he gets a horrible, horrible burning pain in the side of his head. You're auditing him, you're just using these techniques, and you start to worry about that. You think he's going to bust a blood vessel. Oh no! You just ran into a Fac One cap or a zap. Oh, and he keeps telling you he has a sort of a knob back here on the back of his head and it hurts, it hurts every once in a while. It's just an old nip. I mean, it's—thetan hit this body one time or another on one side and on the other side simultaneously, and it's made a—laid in a nice big ridge and it's sitting right there. That's all that is. It processes out. Do you suddenly detour and process that all by itself? No, you just keep on with the process. But it's so comfortable to know what it is and know what to expect next.
For instance, if you start to get a zap in one part of the endocrine system— that is to say, that all of a sudden the guy feels a pressure, piercing pain in one part of his endocrine system. You're processing a girl, all of a sudden she feels this piercing pain in an ovary—bang, you know—went out, bang!
Well, hold your hat, because you're going to get it in the other side too— she's going to get it over there, too. Only there's no reason to tell her about this. And if you process her after a while and she doesn't get some of it on the other side too, then you stuck her in the Fac One, because that's the knockdown of the endocrine system.
First thing that was hit in the endocrine system was a zap on the pineal. The next one is a zap on the pituitary. And then they zap some of the thyroid and then the ovary system, the pancreas and so on. A zap goes in each one of these places and quite often the piercing pains which people come in with, they—medicine calls it "bizarre pains" and so forth—are out of something like the Jiggler or the Tumbler or Fac One, or a nip or something; they're very explainable. You ought to have some conversance with these things, not because you agree that they are terribly aberrative—because they're curiosa and you run into them.
Well, now in covering this Step I, anytime that your case does not do a very fast spring up the line on just "places where he's not," well, I—and you don't get him back of his head right away and his perceptions aren't on, you'd better go into identification. And I've given you the patter for that. You'd better go in for identification in terms of people, in terms of objects, and in terms of animals. Them animals is awful important. Of course, you hit it for all dynamics, but those are the most important things that you'll find. And remember to run the other part of the bracket on that one, which is "What objects are not other objects? What animals are specifically not other animals."
Your patter on this is very simple and it's very easily done, and I don't think there's a case present that shouldn't have it run. Not because all the cases are in bad shape, but because you, particularly, have done the compression of an awful lot of data.
You've compressed your knowingness considerably and you've looked at a lot of these things and so on. It's about time you did the most overtly differentiative process which we have—the most basic and overt process we have. And therefore,

SOP 8-C: GENERAL
you should go into that and do some of it, because you'll find out it'll make you feel a lot better. Less differentiation, okay—pardon me, more differentiation is—less differentiation inevitably results from crowding a lot of data in a short period of time. Okay.

75

Mass
A lecture given on 19 December 1953

And this is the second lecture of the day of December the 19th.
I'm going to go over with you now, a little bit more on auditing patter. I talked about it today; gave you a new little process in the bargain.
The auditor does well, when he is processing, to get communication from the preclear; and he does not at all when he fails to do so.
A preclear is not very communicative, and unless an auditor keeps him communicating, the preclear sooner or later is going to lapse off.
Now, we get all sorts of problems with regard to communication. The first and most obvious thing is the lag. This means that too many things have entered into the line.
Now, whenever you get into mest communication, you get into a lag. You get— well, Q and A. You get the positive—the statement—the causative statement which is followed, then, by the effect. And when there's a big distance between these two points—if one is bogged into mest, he thinks it takes a long time to get between those two distances. If one is involved solely with thought, however, it takes zero time. Time does not enter into communication. Actually, time enters into communication only as much as one enters MEST into communication. So it tells you how (quote) "bogged down" a preclear is at any time: How slowly he communicates. Bogged down—that's how much mest has he got in him? How much mest is between him and it?
Now, let's take up here—we've had Step Ia, the patter—you know pretty well what it is, discussed it on earlier tapes. And let's go here to Step IIa, and we say, "Mock up and unmock own body in room until perception betters." Well, that's handling bodies.
Well, you must realize that an individual gets out of his body with difficulty in exact ratio to the amount of mest he has entered into the idea. See? Communication is as slow as one has entered mest into it. Therefore, one can space terminals as well as he takes mest out of the problem.
Now, let me give you a very quick example of this: I have had, organizationally, from time to time (mostly because the people available simply weren't doing their job or they had something else in mind), I have had difficulty sometimes in getting adequate material out on Dianetics and Scientology. So I sat down one day and studied this problem of communication just from that angle—how am I going to get more material out and get it out better? And I studied the number of steps that it took for me to write something and for it to arrive in hands, even of staff. And I found out there were a lot of steps there.

77

78

19 DECEMBER 1953
I would, let us say, put it on a dictation machine or type it on a typewriter and hand it over to somebody to duplicate on a stencil. And then this duplicator— this stencil was put on a duplicator and the duplicator was run through, and then the material was collated and then it was passed out to people.
That was just the staff. I said, "All right, let's take some mest out of the line and get some information out. Now, where are we going to take mest out of the line? Well, we evidently have to take a step out here someplace."
So I bought myself a big stack of stencils and ran them into the front of a typewriter. And we had a stencil then, and all we needed to do was run the duplicator, that was all. And yet, I found it was difficult for people to run the duplicator, so I got a duplicator. And I was actually, for a while there, operating just like this. And we had lots of information and lots of this and that during that period.
I would put stuff—compose it onto the stencil. Sometimes people would say, "Well, this isn't well proofwritten—look, there's some commas out of shape." Commas—you know, terribly important things! I mean, gee, how's anybody ever get along without a comma! Uhh! Shades of Korzybski.
Anyway, you can't worth a nickel compose on a stencil and proofread them at the same time. It's quite a trick. You'd have to put them back into the machine again, and usually when you put them back into the machine again they don't line up quite, you know, and they overstrike and understrike and so forth. And the whole lineup was just trying to take time and mest in general out of the comm line. So I'd just throw them onto the stencil. And then when I got them off of the stencil, I'd throw a wad of paper on this duplicator and pin the stencil onto the duplicator sheet, just turned around a couple of times till it sat right, and then let it roll. And sit down at the typewriter and get out the next stencil while it was pocking off, see?
And what do you know, it wasn't anybody could stop the communication line. People started going frantic—there were several people resigned from the organization. (audience laughter) That's right! You think I'm exaggerating. There was just too much communication there, too suddenly, and it drove several people frantic.
Well now, compare this to a few months earlier: I had written a bulletin on how you give an intensive process and why people spin under processing. We'd found—and you could use this as a datum, by the way, I'll just give it to you in passing—that this was the condition under which an individual had been worsened while being processed. These conditions, one or more of them existed, if a case became worse during processing.
One: The processing was done too late at night.
Two: There were too many auditors on the case.
Three: The preclear was hungry—too hungry, bad diet.
And four, which really sums up to the earlier one: The preclear was not getting enough rest.
And the last one: The preclear was suddenly deluged with environmental problems, such as divorce or something like that, just hitting him in the middle of processing.
And we found out that these conditions were the conditions which attended— practically all of them attended—every break we had in terms of processing, and we were processing some terribly bad-off people at the time in Elizabeth. And nearly every one of these conditions was disobeyed on any case which had gotten into severe difficulty because of processing. All right.

MASS
I wrote a bulletin on this, and also described how you gave the thirty-six hour intensive run—what you hit for and what you did. And it was about— typed up, oh, I imagine, it was about five or six pages; and it gave this material and other material, and it was a good rundown. Actually, it was the forerunner of that Standard Operating Procedure which came out in an early bulletin following Book One. I believe it was released in about July of 1950.
And many, many weeks went by, and I asked one day an auditor—his preclear looked a little bit dazed and I said to the auditor, "That preclear doesn't look like he had sleep. Haven't you read the bulletin on this subject?" And, "You're not supposed to process this fellow, he looks like he's dog-tired."
"Well, aren't you supposed to process people when they're tired?"
"No."
"Well, I never read about that anyplace."
And I said, "Haven't you received an intensive run bulletin—how do you give an intensive run?"
"No."
So I went around and I asked a couple of other guys if they'd received it. And it was sitting in the manager's safe in its original form because it was too valuable to be duplicated. He couldn't trust it to the secretary, you see. Now, that's what he told me; that's wonderful, isn't it?
So anyway, we were taking him out of the communication line amongst other people.
So many times horrible things would occur businesswise around, and you say, "My God, there's—material has gone out on that. The formula with which that's supposed to operate has already been released, everything is squared around on that." No, never been put around anyplace.
So, for processing and business alike, the stuff was running—and as I said, people resigned from the organization. People just left in all directions on the business line. And not because I was being nasty about it, but simply because bulletins and material and lists of names and things like that would appear on people's desks—because I went around afterwards and dropped them on people's desks. It was deadly, utterly deadly. It knocked practically all the chaff out of the early organization. Didn't knock it out quite soon enough, but it knocked it out. Because they couldn't stand the idea of fast communication. There wasn't anything wrong with this communication, it was just routine, you see, but they couldn't stand fast communication.
You'll find that an individual—well, let's take Johnny Q. Public out here— he thinks this book is a good book because it took seven years to write it. No, I can tell you right away that's a lousy book. It took seven years to write it. That clunk! I mean, the fellow never got wound up. He obviously never did get wound up; never got started.
"Gee," the public would say, "gee, what would happen if he'd had fifteen years to write it?" I can tell you what'd happen—nothing. It never would have gotten written.
Now, there's many a book kicking around—I could name several notable examples—which are kicking around as classic literature merely because they took thirty-five years to write or seventeen years to write or something like that. And these books are terrible! I mean, they don't even vaguely compare with anything.
Communication speed—it's not that I'm sold on communication speed, it's just—I'm just pointing up here a fairly fast size-up on a case. How much mest has he got between him and the communication he's trying to put out? How

79

80

19 DECEMBER 1953
much mest has he interposed? Because he's interposed in exact ratio to the amount of time he thinks he's stretched over.
Now, some people think they're stretched over a fifteenth of a second and some people think they're stretched over a couple of minutes. And some people who are real bad-off think they're living simultaneously in a couple of hours. That's right, only they're in the sanitarium.
Now, there's communication lag, and that's what you're looking at when you look at a case.
Well, all right, you're also looking at a body here with Step IIa. Well, that's made out of mest. And we were talking about the genetic entity today. Well, when you get something that's that much effect and depends that much on applause, in the form of food, you're going to get a big communication lag— real big lag.
This process of stepping somebody out of the back of his head is just that kind of a thing. You're—he can step out of the back of his head as much as he doesn't have any mest on his communication line. I mean, these two things are proportional. He has as much difficulty in stepping out of the back of his head, you see—this is a rough proportion, this is not a straight law—as much difficulty there as he has comm lag.
Well, now if he gets his comm lag down to practically zero, why, he'll step out of the back of his head. Well, he's got as much comm lag as he has energy.
Now, we're talking more crudely. It is exactly proportional. The amount of mest the fellow has on the communication line is the difficulty which he is having in communication, since all communication is supposed to be instantaneous and he's having that much worry about being cause and effect, and about distance and about, everything else. He's having this much difficulty. How much mest has he got on the communication line? Okay.
Because it is to that degree (that he has mest on the communication line) that he believes that he himself is a piece of energy. His communication lag is as great as he believes that he himself is a piece of mest. And the slower his communication lag is, the bigger the piece of mest he thinks he is.
Well, now how many techniques are there to resolve this? How many processes to resolve this?
Well, the reason Step IIa is sitting there and the reason Step II of SOP 8 is sitting there the way it is, is simply because in the process of processing we have found out that that, to a large degree, belongs there as the next two: "Be three feet back of your head," he can't be; the next thing you would do in SOP 8 would be to say, "All right. Mock up your body in front of you and now step out of it." Well, this is elementary.
But here in SOP 8-C we go a bit further into this, and we find out that the body—the amount he believes he is a body—has a great deal to do with his ability to step out of his body. And he believes he's a body to the degree that he believes that he is matter. It isn't that he believes he is a body, so he is matter. This is different than that. He has the same difficulty of getting out of the body as he believes that he himself has mass. We don't care whether he thinks he's the body or doesn't think he's the body, that happens to follow as an accidental result. The more mass he has, the more likely he is to think he's a body, but this is incidental.
What we're interested in is, as always throughout these processes, we're interested in a thetan. And the thetan has a communication lag as great as he thinks he is himself mest. So there you are. He isn't something that's causative or creative, he believes he is mest. So he's effect.

MASS
Now how much of an effect can he get? mest. That's effect—it's total effect.
If you don't believe it, go around and hit a wall and stand there and wait for it to hit back—it never will. Go around and slug some space, it won't ever hit back. It's only when you set it up in some combination of accident, for instance, so that you hit a wall and the roof falls on you. See, you'd have to kind of set that up, or not notice it's set up that way, in order to have mest hit back. But it uses no volition.
So the difference being an effect and being at cause—being pure cause is being total volition and being an effect is being no volition—total no volition. And then you've got mest. mest can be made to look like it has volition, as in an explosion. That's why a thetan worships an explosion. If he worships anything, it's an explosion he worships. So it looks like it has volition.
Now, engineers and many others and other religionists, other people in other cults, worship lightning. And back in the days of Jove, when people were leaping full-armed from the brow of Jove—they had to stop that, it was giving him a headache, I think—anyway, they worshiped lightning. And man has never really stopped worshiping lightning.
People down in Greece, for instance, they worshiped amber and it looked like lightning. Electra—it generates electricity and so forth.
It got them into endless trouble in South America because the Inca has a worship of gold—had a worship of gold. And the Spaniards came down there and—it's just because gold has some resemblance to lightning and because it's bright and so forth. This is a worship of energy. And that is carried forward today, and there is a church up to the north here known as General Electric; that's carried along in that church. And there's another cult, there's a communication cult—its god is Mercury, I think; it's named Bell Laboratories, and they have a goddess in there called Ma Bell.
And there—it's a—well, I don't mean to turn this off into strange religious practices, but these people do worship lightning. You can't get away from that. If you've ever watched an engineer drooling over his valves and test tubes and wondering just how much inductance to put into what resistance, we get this beautiful picture of the worship of lightning.
Well, that's a communication lag any way you look at it—it has a finite speed. And anytime you get anything pinned down into mest, it gets a finite speed and that finite speed is c. And we're not quite sure what c is since it has to be evaluated by itself. C is 186,000 miles as—per second or something like that, but it takes something—some mechanical means to tell you what a second is, and that mechanical means is in terms of motion. So we come around to find out that light is moving in terms of moving light. And that's very hard to figure out, but they manage to get complicated about it in some formulas.
You understand, I mean that very clearly: How can you say c is 186,000 miles per second and then compare it to anything, if that thing to which it is being compared is the second, which of course it makes. You see, it—you—no clock will wind or run or do anything else unless you apply motion to it, and you're measuring motion versus motion.
It takes so long, somebody says, for this particle to get from A to B in space, and that is c. Well, that's all very well. But you know, if you didn't have a clock running at the same time, it'd take forever, wouldn't it? I mean, there's just no comparative link here.
It's like the fellows try to play the "only one" with the Hebrew god Yahweh. They say he's the only one. And well, how great is God? Well, he's as big as he

81

82

19 DECEMBER 1953
is. And how small is he? Well, he's as small as he is. And you say, "Well, how mad is he?" He's as mad as he is.
You see this—none of this runs on a double terminal, so they have to throw in the Devil in order to make enough commotion there to tell you how good God is. How good is he? Well, he's much better than the Devil. Right away you understand what that's all about. Very simple.
Now, when we go into all of our problems of reason, we have to go into dichotomies. And that whole business of the dichotomy is really these two terminals, which is the single unit of this universe, which is a unit of two. And that, in essence, is a communication line, isn't it? So the first terminal can be A and the second terminal B. Or the first terminal can be cause and the second terminal effect. And then the second terminal can be cause and the first terminal effect. And then the first terminal can be cause, and the second terminal effect. And so we get an electric current going zippity-zap, zippity-zap, zippity-zap. And we have a generation taking place, and it moves in proportion to the amount of space which is moved between the two terminals. You could take these two terminals and move them at each other. And move one—move the first terminal at the second terminal, you see, and then pull it back into place; and move the second terminal at the first terminal and pull it back into place. Every time one was cause, you would move it. And if you had two massive terminals there, you would get, whether you liked it or not, an electrical current with the application of this mechanical motion.
Mechanical motion then boils down to the ability to impose space, and that's all mechanical motion is. All right.
When space gets imposed on a communication line for a thetan, he begins to believe he's stretched out or he's elongated or he has a certain size or that he has to pay a nickel in order to talk to somebody—dime now, in most cities. The goddess Ma Bell, there, is demanding a bigger tithe. Practically everybody pays tribute to that temple, by the way. It is one of the more famous temples. It has sub temples all over towns and people go in there and they worship; they pay a dime and worship a few minutes. And they insist they can't communicate any other way than on a piece of copper wire with some electrons in it. That's kind of silly, but that's the way they do it. You'll have to become accustomed to the usages and customs of people here on Earth. They may be strange to you, but they—nevertheless, they do have these customs and believe in them thoroughly. And they think you're mad if you don't believe in them, which is their definition of madness.
Now, when we go into the whole problem of communication and communication lag, we're into the problem of stepping a thetan out of the back of his head.
We say to this fellow, "Be three feet back of your head," and he goes chunk! and he's right where he is. What's his problem?
Well, Mr. Anthony, it is like this—he thinks he's mass. And if you asked him real quick, he would get the weariest feeling at the thought of moving a mountain. You'd say, "All right. Now you get the idea now of taking that mountain over there and pushing it three feet further on." He wouldn't like that. You'd say, "Now get the idea of the pyramids. Now get the idea of picking up one of the pyramids and shoving it into another pyramid." He wouldn't like that.
No. His—he's chosen as his randomity, work and effort. And he's thinking, then, in order to avoid work and effort. And if his thinkingness is to avoid work and effort, he's going to, of course, avoid terminals. He can't have—take two terminals and pull them apart, like his head and the body, because he'd get— immediate resultant of energy. And if he has to have energy before he can

MASS
move anything and the energy has to be exteriorwise, why, he cannot possibly be three feet back of his head. You see how this would be? There's nothing to that. It's just how much space can he impose between two terminals, he thinks. He makes that mistake himself, you don't make it for him.
Well, he knows he can't hold two terminals apart, that's his problem. He can't hold two terminals apart, so he can't hold two terminals apart. So what? Does that really have anything to do with his being three feet back of his head? Well, not a darn thing, because a thetan doesn't have any mass. No mass. The thetan is not a terminal.
Well, how can't he be three feet back of his head? Well, he must be dragging something with him that is mass. That's what you immediately assume, and in practice it works out that way. He's carrying along an old Fac One body, or he has some clanking chains or something that he scared somebody with and thinks—still thinks he has to have around.
In other words, he's got a lot of mass which he is salvaging. And he thinks he is that mass, and he has agreed with the mest universe, and agreed with the mest universe. The more he's agreed with the mest universe, the more he thinks he has to have something from an exterior source, and the less he believes that he can create it when he needs it. As a result, he's bogged down. So you ask him to be three back of his head and he can't be three feet back of his head.
You get the "yoyo effect"—he goes back of his head maybe and snaps back in again. And he goes back of his head and snaps in, and out and in and out and in and out and in. What's he doing?
Well, if you didn't realize this factor about communication and mest, you might have a hard time doing it, unless you realized that he's trying to work with a problem of two terminals. And as he's trying to work with this problem of two terminals, he isn't a terminal; and there is where he—his logic breaks down. It only breaks down because he thinks he's a second terminal. If he's a second terminal, naturally there is energy and gravitic influences in terms of the body which are at work upon him, and sure they snap him back into his head. But this is just a matter of agreement with the mest universe.
Well, now how good is his perception? His perception is as good as he knows he's him. That's how good he is. That's how good his perception is. Because if he thinks he's a terminal, of course, he thinks all perception will be done on the basis of being hit by particles. And that isn't the way a thetan perceives, you see? So he's in bad shape there.
Furthermore, if he thinks he's mest, he becomes afraid to touch things, and so we get in immediately to reach and withdraw. And let me call your attention to that button, reach and withdraw. Formula H—the action of reaching and withdrawing, being the basic and native action of the thetan, when done in terms of processing, recovers material that is hitherto untouchable.
Reach and withdraw. You have people reach and withdraw for material, material reach and withdraw for him. And so we get—in all of the actions which the thetan is undertaking, we get him able to reach and withdraw, him able to take pictures of things or not take pictures of things; and we don't get a blessed thing which looks even vaguely like a valve or a rheostat or a resistor or a transistor or a biscuit—none of these things. He just doesn't look like an electrical gimmick. He isn't an electrical gimmick. He can create electrical gimmicks and he can create, better still, electricity.
But yeah, I can see somebody in public service saying, "Gee-whiz. Now let's see, how much could we cut down our coal consumption bill if we got this guy to (mumbling) so we could make a lot of money and pull in a lot of energy

83

84

19 DECEMBER 1953
that we don't need." That's how they'd think, too. Anyway . . . That's the way they thought early on the track.
So here we have this problem of mass versus mobility and you could— anybody knows that he who travels lightest, travels fastest. And in the case of a thetan it goes up to instantaneousness. He can travel instantaneously who isn't packing mass. But he travels as uninstantaneously as he's packing mass around—in other words, as he has mest entered into him.
Well, so let's just get into this business of bodies, and after a thetan's been hanging around the universe for a while, don't think it was just bodies that made him believe he was mass. Distance was the first thing he confronted—it wasn't a lump of energy. He looked at distance and he says, "Oh, no!" And you'll run that on some preclear and that's just the reaction you get: "Distance? Huh-uh!"
The body—he's got to have a body so it can cover distance, and the better mechanical transport systems occur on Earth—the better the transport systems, the more comfortable it is to have a body; otherwise, the body is a terrifically limited thing. It can only walk at about four miles an hour and it tires itself out fairly rapidly at that. It can only trot at about eight, and I think it—the world's record is about half that of a running horse. I mean, it's not much of a vehicle. But it's better than nothing, and so the fellow gets around in this vehicle.
Well, to the degree that it will cover distance, why, he's fairly satisfied with it, and he only begins to get impatient with it when he realizes he'd like to go up to the nearest star and find out what's going on. And then he starts thinking in terms of the amount of mass it would require to lift a ship with enough supplies of air and water. And the reaction engine computation of the amount of mass necessary to boot that ship forward demonstrates to you adequately that it would have to pick up mass en route.
Furthermore, although I understand that his laws aren't effective beyond the stratosphere, there's a fellow by the name of Einstein passed some laws relating to the speed of light. And you get up to the speed of light, I understand, and you stop right there. And I hope that they don't hear about this out in the outer planets there, because they'd have to drop those speedometers off. Because these boys going two or three times the speed of light there, as they just start to travel, would be embarrassed if they knew they couldn't do that. And so somebody'd better inform them before they're embarrassed by having this discovered about themselves.
But the point is that no amount of mass will solve the problem of distance. There's no sense in just getting more and more mass into the problem—I mean, that's the wrong thing to put in it. What you want to do is start taking mass out of it.
It's like communications. Now, you could use—just to show you how workable this is, because those laws which work in the field of theta also work in the field of mest if you look close enough. If you could go down to the telephone company and just start looking through their equipment, ready with a pair of snippers and a truck to carry away the trash, you know you could probably speed up the whole comm system of a city quite markedly just by throwing out relays and pieces of equipment.
Now, this is just a guess, I haven't looked at it lately. But the tremendous amount of mass interposed in such a system is wonderful—it's just wonderful to behold. And what you'd be trying to do would be to take time out of the system. The more time you could take out of the system, the less traffic you would have to handle. But people normally don't look at it in this way.

MASS
The "traffic engineers" as they're laughingly called—they are people there who are hired by cities to keep the traffic in the streets as long as possible so the people can look at the automobiles. These fellows routinely and regularly do the most fabulous job of holding up traffic.
Now, if you were to zone a city or fix it up in such a way that it had one-way streets and the traffic poured down these streets this way and back on the other streets this way . . . If you were to look—if you were to map up, rather, a bunch of particles or marbles that would do the same thing, you would see that they would eddy. And it would take a long time for particles to straighten themselves out in those eddies. And so it is.
So you go over and you want to stop at a store; and you come down the street and you want to stop at that store. And then you go round the block, and then you go around another block, and then you have to come back around two blocks and then go over kind of quick to the park and go around the turntable— and all this time all you were trying to do was to get back on the other side of the street; this was your total. . . And yet they have kept you on the street for a dozen blocks, or at the—more reasonably, four or five blocks sometimes you'll have to be on a street. You shouldn't have to be on a street those extra blocks, because that's just that much more traffic. So they have actually succeeded in multiplying traffic, these traffic engineers, all the time being very systematic about how they were multiplying traffic.
Sooner or later, if somebody wants to handle traffic in an American city, he'll have to find out how to take the traffic off the street and keep it moving while it's on the street. If you've got to do something about traffic—I don't know why people do, there isn't any reason why you can't park a car in the middle of the intersection, the way you do down in Texas, and hang one arm out the window and have a good long talk with the traffic officer. Nobody ever blows his horn at you, it'd be impolite. You just leave your car right where it is, you see, just back of his car, and walk over to the post office. And that's the easy way to do it—that's Fort Worth, Dallas—that's the way they do down there. They handle traffic down there quite well. Nobody ever goes anyplace.
But, the main thing you'd have to do is like Pittsburgh: One time I was going through a tunnel in Pittsburgh . . . They made an accident or something in Pittsburgh—a sign painter made an error in painting a sign and I think he said, "Nothing under 65." It was an accident, and of course it was on the city budget and so it would have had to come out of some politician's pocket. And everybody knows you can't get anything out of a politician's pocket, so they never could repaint the sign, so they had to enforce this law on one of their tunnels up there.
And I was going through this tunnel—I was traveling in a sport roadster and it was a rather fast little car. And I was traveling along, I thought, a pretty good speed. And I heard a siren go whining and roaring behind me, and a guy comes up alongside of me and sticks his brass-bound cap over the side of the car and he says, "Get a move on!" And I thought I'd misheard him and so I started to slow down, and he said, "No, get a move on!" And so I got a move on. And I looked at the speedometer and I was doing 60 when he said so. I was five miles under the speed limit, I think. So I put the thing up to 80 and he was very happy. So I've known since that the cops are crazy in Pittsburgh, in some fashion or another, because they're not like that in the rest of Pittsburgh— it's just in this area. There's some magnetic influence in the middle of the tunnel which affects their sanity.

85

86

19 DECEMBER 1953
But the point is that you've got to make traffic move. In France, by the way, they have no trouble with traffic—they never can find any. Traffic on the highroads there travels at the top speed of the car. There is no speed limit in the country. None. And you see stuff going by which would normally be traveling, and should be traveling, in a safety margin of about 25 kilometers an hour and it's going by at 200 kilometers an hour. They don't drift around—and that in amongst of a bunch of donkey carts and so forth; it makes life interesting. They love to live dangerously.
Well, but it does keep a lot of traffic moving. Of course, till you get to the outskirts of Paris, and there are enough American tourists in Paris to jam all the traffic there anyhow, so you can't get into Paris.
But traffic in any way, shape or form that you're trying to cover distance with mass, becomes a problem which is almost an unsurmountable problem, because it's in terms of a problem with communication. The more mass you put into the basic communication, the more difficulty there is in receiving it.
Now, we take an old-time spark set: At one time or another, they laughing— they had what was laughingly referred to as a radio transmitter. And these things, on a clear day, with conditions absolutely optimum and only burning, I think, something like about twenty-five hundred volts or something and about ten amps—or maybe it was a hundred amps ... By the way, they had a transmitter that had a couple of big electrodes here, like some of the kids do up at MIT when they duel with those swords—they step on a metal plate with metal shoes and wired-up swords and they have this lightning bolt, and they'll duel with this lightning bolt and the public is much edified. Anyway . . .
The boys—whenever they introduce any mass, you don't get any distance. And this spark set is definitely such a condition. Because with this enormous input, why, on a clear day, they got about forty miles out of it. Boy, you talk about heavy juice—they were just trying to put it through raw, between two electrodes, and hope somebody got the magnetic vibration of it someplace. It was transmission by gravity or something—if you could move the Earth over to the right or the left. . . And, of course, nobody got anything.
Now today, they give you a little tiny transmitter and it's got practically no mass, and the signal has very little push behind it, and the darned thing— counting on skip distances and other things, boy, there's no telling where you'll wind up with one of those little tiny transmitters—a mobile transmitter and so forth.
During the war—last part of the war we had FM, and—FM telephones. They cost about thirty-six hundred bucks apiece, I think, or something like that. Industry would never duplicate them—it's only something that you could afford in an emergency. So these FM telephones, though, they're clear as a bell, they're just gorgeous. And the amount of juice in them, was just nothing.
You get these TBX, TBY—I don't know what that stuff was called—the early stuff, it didn't work, that we had. Walkie-talkies—the Army's still using them, doesn't work. Anyway . . . They break down—why, they're eight pounds of batteries to one pound of set; they're nice and heavy, you know? But these FMs weren't like that, they were tailored down. That's merely because there was a very—it was very accurate where it was going. It very accurately went to where it was supposed to go, and it very accurately was received when it got there. See, the accuracy was the point—not mass.
Now, the Army walkie-talkie—the first of those that we had anything to do with, they just plain went everywhere, and they got pulled in from everywhere. You were liable to be talking to pilots when you should have been talking to

MASS
the sergeant and all sorts of things was happening there. That's because they weren't that directional. It wasn't that these things were directional, you understand, but I mean, it's just—it was only supposed to go so far and it was supposed to do just that, and so the engineer designed it so it would just go so far and so it would do just that, and it was a wonderful piece of equipment.
Well, get that in the line of theta: If the guy has accuracy, if he knows which way he's going and knows how far he's got to put it and he can tell with accuracy what's going to happen when it gets there—in other words, if he can predict the arrival of a couple of particles—boy, what he can't do with beams. He can also be three feet back of his head with great accuracy. Why? Because he's not thinking of himself in terms of mest.
Every time a fellow thinks of himself in terms of mest, he gets into bad stuff.
So we have here the handling of bodies. The most intimate connection he has with mest is a body. There is only one difficulty with this step and that is that it validates bodies.
Experimental procedures as they come along, and as they will be released— things that are still in an experimental stage—include exteriorization from other things than the body and various methods of doing this. And you, as auditors, now that you've got that much of a clue can go on and do it when it'll work. It has certain limitations. But it's interesting to exteriorize somebody out of a table. Getting the idea that he's in the table and all that sort of thing—it's a terrifically limited technique, by the way.
But here is a better technique—also one of these same experimental techniques. It's not that it's in an experimental stage, but it's just that it has not been released, it isn't up there to the front of the line. But it belongs right here in Step IIa, and I might as well tell you about it.
It runs on the basis of disabusing an individual from being mest and time, that's what it is. And what do you know, it comes under the heading of handling bodies. See? Communication lag, communication thing. He—this fellow that you're having trouble with is having an awful lot of trouble simply because he's walking around believing he's mass.
Well, you get him out of there as not being mass, and he'll be perfectly happy. But he just—all of his reality is tied up in being mass. And by the way, he can see all right when he's exteriorized and he'll very often exteriorize as a piece of mass. He's liable to exteriorize with a great big black body; he's liable to exteriorize with electrically rigged fingers. I think there's probably one or two people here that have probably done that. You know, exteriorize momentarily and flop back into the body again and say, "Oh my God, life's too dangerous and I'm liable to get destroyed."
How can a thetan be destroyed? He can only be hit as—in the ratio that he has mass to hit. So he's holding on to this body and protecting himself— what's he protecting? He's protecting something that needs no protection. He is the thing that needs no protection, so he must be protecting somebody else.
So it comes up on the line that there must be some kind of an affinity or sympathy between himself and this kind of a body for him to have this mass. So his sympathy for mass, in the final analysis, becomes his agreement with the mest universe and becomes in itself the reason why he believes he's mass. Sympathy for mass, believing that he is mass—same thing.
Well, a method of exteriorization which I'll give you now in its most elementary form, is simply you have the individual point around and find three objects which he is not. And you just keep this up in brackets until he's so damn mad at you, he could kill you. But you do it very mildly and you do it

87

88

19 DECEMBER 1953
very pleasantly, because he'll get bored with this. Of course, he can't be three feet back of his head either—always remember that. He can only be three feet back of his head if he is not mass.
So here's an example of it. I'll give you that example immediately by giving you the process:
Give me three—three material objects in this room which you are not.
Three more material objects which you are not.
Give me three material objects in the past which you are not. All right.
You notice we've got this handled to some degree up here at Step Ia, but not to this final, horrible degree. Because here we're handling very specifically and specially the problem of mass, and there are other ways to handle it than just this way. We're trying to disabuse him from the fact that he is an object. So you could separate objects, as of in Step Ia, but you go further on this, you go further on this:
Have him mock up an object which he's not.
Mock up another object which he's not stuck in.
Mock up another object which he's not stuck in.
Mock up an object in which nobody else is stuck.
Now have somebody else mock up an object in which nobody else is stuck.
Interesting process, isn't it? Okay.
Now, we would just cover it from that basis and then we make him lie. The mest universe tells the truth, and here's where that step would vary from Step Ia. Step Ia, you're just going along on the basis of he's not here and there and so forth. Now we make him lie.
Give me three objects in the room which you insist you are. Sort of point at them and say, "I'm that. I'm in that, I'm in that, and I'm in that." All right.
Three more objects which you insist you are.
Male voice: Oh, no!
No! (audience laughter)
Male voice: I saw Shannon's pipe!
Okay.
Now point to three objects in the room which you insist somebody else is in. Okay.
Now point to three completely empty spaces in the room which you insist you're in.
This would be the way it'd go until you've just plowed a guy out, that's all. You make him insist he's mass. You make him determine that he is mass, and then you make him determine that he isn't mass. And then you make him determine that he is mass, and then you make him determine he isn't mass. And you just go back and forth that way. And you do it as much of a bracket as you can possibly put your imagination to, but you just keep this up. And you run the dichotomy, "I am certain I am the object. I'm certain I'm not the object."
But how do you do it? You do it in terms of spatial locations, and this is how you get him out of his body.
You also can have him mock up bodies and insist he's in those and insist he is not in those. Only you don't tell him modus operandi, you just keep going that way: "Three objects that you're not in. Three objects that you're in."
Now, so much for that—communication and the amount of mest in it.
Last night I talked to you about the granting of beingness. I want to show you that in action as a process.
Get three spaces out in front of you and get them granting you a license to survive.

MASS
Female voice: That's funny.
Get three objects in the room giving you permission to survive.
Three more spaces in the room giving you permission to survive.
And this is a real silly one: Make three motions with your hand that will give you a license to survive. There is symbolism coming up—hand rituals, hand signals and so forth—there's a lot of them. Enter doingness into it in terms of that. All right.
Now, here in Step II—that's part of Step Ia, but—where it would fit. But here at Step II, there's another one. There's another one. And boy, this is so much like Effort Processing that it's really remarkable. Here we've got—here we've got bodies needing applause. And this is why I didn't bring up this developmental-stage technique to amount to anything, merely because it hasn't been run enough, on enough people here at this time. But I want to give it to you so that you'll have it to work with.
And that is, you take the Applause Scale up there on the chart, and the Applause Scale is a very interesting piece of work, actually, if you start looking over this Applause Scale. Because you have up here under "applause"—up here at the top, let us say, going somewhere in the vicinity from 40.0 down to 0.0— starting at the top and coming down, you have at the top that an individual performs for an effect and knows it is an effect. And a little bit lower down, he desires applause but he's unconcerned if it doesn't come. And a little bit lower down, he invites and requests applause. And a little lower down, he becomes angry in the absence of applause. And lower than that, he gets fear, grief and apathy because of the lack of applause. And below that is eating.
See? His applause now is getting condensed; it was condensed enough at fear, grief and apathy. Well, what's this but introducing mest into a communication line, see? And so we get down to eating, and you finally get into the final apathy, which is also starvation in the realization that there will never be any applause for any effect. Can't eat, so he dies.
Okay, in such a wise, you get a process which runs out, directly, eating. Now, I say it's very experimental, but it is useful. All right. Because applause, attention, see—I mean, we haven't got any real difference between those two things.
Let's get three spaces around you demanding attention from you.
Now let's get you demanding attention from three spaces.
Now let's get three objects in the room demanding attention from you.
Now let's get you demanding attention from three objects in the room.
Now let's get somebody demanding attention from somebody else in the room—I mean actual people. Put a feeling there. All right.
Now let's get you demanding attention from three objects.
Now three objects demanding attention from you.
And let's get an object demanding attention from another object.
Now let's get an object refusing attention from another object.
Now let's get three objects in the room refusing your attention.
And let's get you refusing attention to three objects.
And you refusing attention to three objects.
And you refusing attention to three objects.
And you refusing attention to three objects.
And you refusing attention to three objects.
And you refusing attention to three objects.
And you refusing attention to three objects.
And three objects refusing attention to you.

89

90

19 DECEMBER 1953
And three objects refusing attention to you.
And you refusing attention to three objects.
And you refusing attention to three objects.
And three objects demanding attention from you.
And three objects being bored while you demand attention from them.
And you being bored while three objects demand attention from you.
Now, that in essence, actually belongs under "beingness" in Step I. However, you run into somebody start having trouble with the body, he's having trouble with eating. So you be sure that you ask him what three animals he isn't. And just beat that one to pieces. And what three animals aren't three other animals. And if he can stand it, and if his sanity will stand it and so forth, why, you run this other one, about attention.
Now, granting one beingness is very often something that just turns on the lights in all direction and practically blows the guy Clear. So just don't— don't neglect it. And the way you run that one is:
Get three objects in the room—I've already been over this a moment ago. Give me three objects in the room giving you beingness.
And three objects in the room refusing to give you beingness.
And you giving beingness to three objects in the room.
And you refusing to give beingness to three objects in the room.
And get this conceptually: You refusing to give beingness to a preclear.
And a preclear refusing to accept you giving him beingness.
Of course, the final run of this is the basic aberrated postulate on this whole line and that is, "Nobody can give anybody beingness but me"—that's the aberrated postulate that anybody makes on it. And the other one is, "Nobody's going to give me any beingness." That's the other line. "Oh, help me, will you? I'll cut your throat."
Very often—this, by the way, is very high scale as an aberration. You very often find this in its most heightened form in a child. There is, by the way, the basic mechanics of independence. That's not the basic mechanics of self-determinism, that's the basic mechanics of independence: "I must get along by myself. I can only do it myself," and so forth. See? "I can only do it for myself" and that sort of thing. That's refusing to let somebody else give you beingness.
By the way, I ran into a pc not too long ago who had the most interesting angle on all of this. The pc was sitting there trying to find out what the auditor was going to do. You talk about a present time lag on this pc. The auditor was doing it, you see, but the pc spent his whole session trying to find out what the auditor was going to do.
As a consequence, the pc didn't do anything he was told to do because he just wanted to see what the auditor was going to do. Well, the auditor wasn't going to do anything, the auditor was there and so forth. And I explained this to the pc, with absolutely no change in the case: "All the auditor was trying to do was to get you to do the things the auditor was asking you to do." And this was over the head of the pc.
Well, now what's this boil down to? It just boils down to the fact that sometimes a pc is being so darn protective, which is to say, the only one that's going to grant any beingness or prevent—he's the only one that's going to prevent beingness from being granted, that could be another twist on it—that he just never seems to get any processing. And that is above the level of "resist all effects." Many a preclear will sit around, and just sit there to resist all effects.
Now, sometimes a preclear will consider the auditor too enthusiastic— you know, the auditor moves and breathes, and this is too enthusiastic for them

MASS
and so on. Well, when this is the case, the preclear's rocklike aspect has been assumed early in life in protection against somebody who just leaped at him all the time. You know, Mama or Papa or somebody—leap at him suddenly, beat him around, boot him around, do something, jump here, jump there, correct him, nervous tension, lot of anxiety and all that sort of thing roaring around. And the fellow, just to survive at all, he just sits into a stony, rocklike beingness, see? He isn't going to respond to anything like that.
And although this preclear may even dutifully run what you're telling him to do, he's running it with his primary concentration on "I mustn't give any beingness to this motion the auditor is making. I have to hold myself this way so the auditor won't go any further with this." In other words, he's running a "restrain the auditor." The auditor's alive, he's breathing. That's enough for many a preclear.
So you want to look at a preclear and see if he isn't putting out a few ten-ton beams for communication lines, so as to prevent you, an auditor, from stampeding him in some fashion or another. And this pc is liable to look very solid. He's liable to be a very solid citizen. He's liable to be solid enough to be measured as a cube. That's about the score on it.
Now, when you detect on an E-Meter that a pc has had in his past a very, very nervous, hysterical parent—one or the other—you can detect at the same time that he's going to assume this sort of a hard, solid aspect when there appears to be any slightest commotion. And he's liable to consider "a commotion" the fact that you're talking. I mean it's liable to be that bad.
But you learn to—you learn by looking. And you look at some preclears, and you see the way they look when they're processing. And then you just kind of think to yourself, you just say, "Well, now look-a-here, it says in the textbook this and that, but here I am sitting here looking at this preclear. All right, and the textbook isn't looking at the preclear, I am. Now, one, this preclear doesn't look to me like he's alive enough to have 8-C run on him."
Well, what do you do then? You just grab for some of the lighter processes, like "Let's remember something real" or 'What's the realest object in the room?" You just fall back to SOP 8, something like that, feel your way through the thing.
Another thing is to establish communication with the preclear.
Now, there's another aspect that you're going to miss occasionally. This rock-hardness has an opposite pole, it has the supernervous person. A person who doesn't necessarily giggle, but appears to line charge. Appears—this person appears to line charge on something. You think you as an auditor have hit a button, see? And you just don't progress. Now, why, why, why? This case doesn't progress. That's because what needs to be run on the case is just that—just that. The case is very tensely holding you off, and is readily showing you that an effect will be made so you won't go any deeper—and you won't get any deeper either. This is another method of resisting. You see that as a method of resisting? All right.
You could have such a case put that very nervous feeling in the walls, with considerable benefit to the case. You'll figure this case is line charging, but the case really isn't line charging, there's something wrong going on here. As an auditor, you just look it over and adjudicate it and just have what the case is doing and put it up in the walls. Duplicate it, you know, till the fellow's kind of discharged on it a little bit, and then he'll settle down to some processing.
But there's many a time when you won't get results on a preclear, when you could swear to golly that this preclear has gotten rid of more locks and done more things, merely because the preclear laughed and appeared relieved

91

92

19 DECEMBER 1953
and agreed with you and said, "That's great," and so forth. All they're doing is agreeing with you. They're showing you that you're producing an effect, and their main concentration is upon you producing an effect. You see, they want to make sure that you're successful, so they let you produce an effect. And they just let you go on producing the effect. It has nothing to do with the case. Because that's what's wrong with the case—they let people produce an effect.
Well, there's a thousand ways of handling it, lots and lots of ways of handling that. You've got all kinds of technologies which permit you to handle it.
But let me give you this: In the line of communication, your preclear is in—uniformly introducing as much mest into the communication line being used in auditing, as the communication lag of the preclear is actually, and as much mass as the preclear himself actually has. He's introducing as much mest as is actually in the communication line.
In other words, he's putting up barriers between you and him. The first thing you should do, in looking over a case, is to pick up those barriers, whether— no matter what they are, and throw them away and then process the guy. Because by throwing them away, you take the mest out of the communication line. He's demonstrating it to you right there in front of your face, so why not take the MEST out of the line? Throw it away.
Hysterics? Rocklike stability? What is this mest that he's putting into this line so that you can't process him? It's up to you to throw it away. He offers it to you right at the first part of the session, right immediately. Why don't you just pick it up and throw it away? You got lots of means by which to do it. You can double-terminal it, you can do all sorts of things. You can put it in the walls, you can move it up as an idea, shove it around, do anything you want to with it.
But always make sure you're doing this with a case: Make sure you aren't processing somebody that's eight steps below Step VIII. And if you're processing him, strictly "What room?" and when you've finished "What room?" go off into the next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis: "Remember something real." You'll always win if you do those things.
Okay.

Communication
A lecture given on 2O December 1953

This is December the 20th, first lecture of the day. Today I want to give you some odds and ends of material which might make you a better auditor. First thing I want to go into is communication.
Communication is a manifestation of cause and effect. Maybe some of you are still wondering why Q and A works—why things are what they are in this universe. Of course, Q and A Processing is simply the basic mechanic of communication itself; so we don't have anything there to worry about. The question and the answer has gotten into the communication channel.
Well actually, in order to make a thing different, it's necessary to put a slightly different mood on the two different ends of the line. Well, people have violated the rules of communication and failed to duplicate so often that an individual is then bettered by simply running the two ends of the communication line. It is not the best process in the world, and yet it is a very demonstrative process and does get some results on an individual. Now, an individual who is suffering with a certain problem is quite often bettered by this.
But this is one of these processes which gets an effect rather quickly. And sometimes it's up to an auditor to have a few of those around. You'll get somebody who's pulling a—you know, there are lots of preclears in the world, and some of them are very nice people, and some of them are people, and some of them are people. And these people who look at you and say, "Go on, do something, I dare you to," all the time saying, "Yes, yes. Ill do that—but go on, just try and do something," are actually in some kind of a fight dramatization, something like that. That's what's wrong with these people—they're out of communication and they can't receive an effect and they can't change. They're resisting all effects, and it shows up immediately as a dare or a jeer.
Well, they're the first to tell you immediately afterwards that nothing happened. You're going to save yourself an awful lot of trouble as an auditor if you put in your pocket a few things which "blow up bombs in their heads." Mm. It's an awfully good thing for you to do. It's one of the best ways to change somebody's mind who is sure that nothing can happen, is to forthrightly make something happen. Well, Q and A is such a process. Formula H, with its reach and withdraw, is another such a process.
But an auditor who is using 8-C in practice came up to see me last night and told me what some of his problems were. And amongst these problems was one problem of getting into the case. It has sometimes taken him from six to eight hours to get a case starting to roll. And the case has just hung up

93

94

20 DECEMBER 1953
there and hung up and hung up, and he wanted to know how I did this—how I got a case.
Well now, I've already told you much earlier, and told the First Unit, what I do with a case that quite routinely doesn't pop out of his head and begin to perform. I mean, what I do with that case who is sitting there resisting all effects, resisting all effects, resisting all effects, wanting to see what I am going to do with him—I'm not going to do anything with him, all I'm going to do is ask him to go through these exercises and by gradient scales get him up to a point where he's presentable and can operate instead of slogging around on two feet. So what I'd—I've mentioned this before, as I said—what I'd do with such a case that I perceive is immediately going to impose a little bit of a problem, is I give them a drill which permits me to evaluate for them right away, and having posed such a drill, then put that evaluation somewhat into their own hands.
And here's the way that's done: You take an individual, you tell him, "Be three feet back of your head."
And, "Nyah-yo-nyah-nyah-nyak (mumble). And what are you going to do to me now? There isn't anything to be done for me anyhow. I'm just here because— because my wife said I ought to be here and so forth. There's nothing wrong with my communication system and so forth. Nothing wrong with me, wrong with me, wrong with me, wrong with me."
Well, I don't brain him (that's your first impulse), because if this fellow's so bad off as to realize that if he's just sitting there in a body, totally enslaved by an economic and police system called a MEST universe—if he's just sitting there and he doesn't think anything is wrong with him—oh boy, have you got a case on your hands! I mean, just that, see? That makes about 50 percent of the people walking down the street here quite a case, doesn't it?
Well, here's what I do to him, exactly. I generally process somebody in a fairly large room—and I haven't done too much ambulant processing as a demonstration, simply because when I do it in a room full of students, see, you just can't do this process. I make him go to one corner of the room, and then go to another corner of the room, and then go to another corner of the room, and then go to the door, make him do something with the door like open it and close it, make him go to another corner of the room, make him go to another corner of the room—each time on the basis that I want him to touch something. And I just make him move around.
I say, "Now, what's . . ." Now, one of the ways to go about this, and the easiest excuse you can have to do this, is just to run Contact Processing, Step VII. Not because the fellow's psycho, because you're simply trying to get him into the works. You confuse that Step VII just because it says that's what you do with a psycho—well, the reason it says "psycho" is that's the only process that works on everybody, including psychos. That's a little bit different than it being a step which is relegated entirely to the psychotic. We don't have anything to do with a psychotic. The guy's crazy, why, tell him to go look up the local witch doctor or something, or the other psychiatrist in town—anything. You haven't any business dealing around with the psychotic, because this is a specialized piece of mest, it belongs to the state, so forth, I mean . . . Anyway—besides, it'll take up a lot of your good time, because they don't process rapidly.
When we have this character walking around, then, we just get him to walk around to various parts of the room. And I don't say you do this just—to a person just to be mean or something—this is a case you're having a little hard time getting into, you know? You're just getting a little bit—difficulty in getting it rolling. Well, you just have him walk around and feel this and feel that.

COMMUNICATION
Now, you don't have to ask him, "What's real to you in the room?" but it's usually best to do so, just to be on the safe side. You say, "What's the realest thing you see?"
The fellow says, "Everything's real."
You say, "Well, that's fine. Walk over and touch the doorknob. Okay. Now turn around and walk over to the other side of the room and touch the wall. Now walk over and put that picture out of adjustment. Now put it back in adjustment. Now go over and sit down in that chair. And now go over to the other side of the room and touch the wall there." And I will—liable, just liable, to keep this up for about twenty minutes. Sounds like a long time. It's not a long time.
And you'll find out that his communication lag begins to drop out. Interesting, isn't it? His communication lag starts to get better. All right.
Next thing I do is I tell him, "Now—all right, now you're standing there in that corner of the room. Now send yourself to another corner of the room by deciding what corner of the room you're going to send yourself to, and then tell yourself to go."
So he does, and he goes to another corner of the room. And you—when you're—when he's there, why, you say, "All right. Now decide to go somewhere else in the room, and then send yourself there." And he does.
Now, you remember the process I was giving you whereby I said you'd— you make him decide to pick up the ashtray and move it to a certain location, and then not to move it till he decided where he was going to move it to? Well, that's in essence the same process, but handling the body.
And so then, you can get fancy if you want, but you'd keep that up for another twenty minutes. Now, you'll get fancy on such a thing once in a while, just to vary the monotony as far as the preclear's concerned, not really for any other reason. And you'd say, "All right. Now you decide to send yourself to a place in the room and then change your mind. And now send yourself—decide some—on some other place. You know, you've got that. All right, now send yourself to the second place. And all right. Decide to go someplace in the room, decide that's the wrong place to go and decide on another place, and go there."
Well this, of course, is working out the big maybes, the decisions. Because on anyone, the indecisional point is simply deciding to go one place and deciding he has to be one place, and then going to another place. Which of the two places to go to is the biggest indecision you can hit on the track. So you just work that out in that way.
But in the meantime, you're the person who's telling him to make up his own mind and decide to go. And there's the little slicker, right there. He'll process after that. And his processing will work quite rapidly.
Now, this case very well may have been sitting there saying, "Well, this is the way I want to do it and so forth. And I don't think you can do anything for me. And nobody can do anything for me anyhow and so forth." And he says, "Yes, I've got the mock-up. And yes, I've got this, and yes, I've got that. Can't do anything for me and rawrr-rawrr sthrumm-thrmm."
Well, it sure gets that out of his system. Because you just manually pushed him all over the room, you see? And by moving him—changing his position in space permits you to evaluate for him. And then by running the other process, you permit him to give himself orders.
Now, up to this time, he has been moving like an automaton. Something pushed a button and he went in that direction. Never occurred to him to make up his own mind to go in a direction and then go in that direction. He never

95

96

20 DECEMBER 1953
thought he had this right. Now, you would be surprised how many people this will work on.
Any thetan that's been swamped by a body has this problem, you know? He kind of wonders what did make up his mind. Well, this fellow really knows you made up his mind, because you told him to. So therefore, there's no doubt about the source of the initial response. So that gives that a certainty. And then there's no doubt that he told himself to go to that corner. Now he can wonder why, and get the deep significance of why he told himself to go to that corner and so forth if he wants to, but he still is sitting on top of a certainty, which is to say, you told him to make up his mind. So he decides that he has made up his mind, simply because you told him to. And in this wise, you will very often get a communication lag that is as much as thirty seconds down to five seconds. And that's quite a triomphe, believe me. That's very fine.
Now, I'll give you an example of that. I had a case that was hanging fire quite some time ago, and had been hanging fire for some time. And I couldn't quite understand—although this case apparently had a very fast communication reaction, apparently was doing all right in a number of ways ... I was getting something which you, at this stage here and there, haven't got it quite yet that you have to get, every five or ten minutes—a communication change. And you're not getting a communication change every five or ten minutes, you're not processing the case. You're processing somebody that's processing a case, or you're doing something peculiar.
It isn't that the techniques aren't working. They will work if they are used to process the case. You see? But if they are being used by a preclear who doesn't know much about processing in order to process a ridge, why, they're not going to do much for the preclear. You see this? So what tells you that this is not happening is a communication change. And if you don't get a communication change every five minutes, really, and certainly every ten minutes on a case— and I mean a communication change, bad or good; a difference of perception, a difference of speed of talk—and if you don't keep nagging them for it, I don't know what you're doing. You're not auditing by SOP 8-C. You're just sitting there reading a book or going over a drill or trying to memorize your lesson or something, but you're not auditing.
Because in the essence of auditing, under present work and procedures, is a continuous nag, nag, nag, nag on "All right, now, can you see any better? Are you there with any more certainty now?" and so on.
Now, this will respond on the preclear who is bad off, as putting a doubt in his mind as to what he's doing, if you phrase it wrongly and if you don't do it delicately and gently. But if it does, what do you do? You can just run some Q and A—you asking how things are, and him "how things are" answer, something like that. It'll clear it right up; it's nothing to bog down over.
So let's get that very securely, right now. I've said it several times, and every time some pc comes to me and says, "During the auditing session, so on and so on and so on," I will say, "Well, what technique was used?" and in—and so on.
And they say, "Well, I went on for—we've been using now for two sessions now, almost three hours, we've been using so on and so on, and it hasn't done me any good and yet the auditor keeps on using it, and he does this and he does that."
And when I get down to the final question, I should have asked this question: "Has the auditor been checking you for communication changes?" Because it's the one that finally settles the argument. "No!" See, in each case, "No."

COMMUNICATION
If what you're doing isn't changing the perception of the preclear, it isn't resolving his case. Because the case of the preclear is a problem in communication. You could say it was a problem in an awful lot of things, but it's in essence a problem in communication.
Communication is by far the most important part of the ARC triangle. For a couple of years I never said what was the most important part of it, merely because I wanted to be darn sure what was the most important part of it. Guys ram around and scream at you and say, "Oh, that reality, that's what's important." And you look at them and you say, 'Will you please mechanically define reality?"
"Oh, that's very easy: What's real is real is real when I was a little girl is a rose is a rose is a rose." (audience laughter)
The only thing you know about reality is communication and affinity, which in essence makes up an agreement, and we call that reality. Well, we better call it certainty—it means much more. Means a great deal more. And we could call it knowingness—we could call the ARC triangle, knowingness, communication and affinity. Only that would be improper, because knowingness stands above the whole triangle.
Knowingness in terms of mest is made up—understandingness and so forth, is made up—of ARC. Any mathematics can be computed out on the basis of ARC. Mathematician made the unfortunate challenge one day in my office, of saying that "This is impossible and so forth and so forth and so forth."
And I says, "It's what?"
And he said, "Well yes," he says, "mathematics," he says, "that's a science. That's a pure science."
And I said, "Well, that wouldn't have anything to do with life, then."
"No!"
I said, "Well, what uses mathematics?"
"Oh! It's a pure science."
"Oh, you say—you mean nothing uses it."
"Why, of course, everything uses it."
"All right, what uses it?"
And he finally, in kind of a beaten fashion, says, "Life. Life. Yes," he says, "but mathematics can exist with—in the absence of life."
I said, "I've never seen anything use it in the absence of life."
And this is that axiom there . . . And by the way, on the introduction of that mathematical axiom in the Logics and so on, do you know that three of the roughest problems that the mathematicians had, stacked up around these days, cracked? And three mathematical prizes were awarded. The boy applied that Logic to the solution of these problems. Oh, you know, it's like the Heisenberg uncertainty quadramatics as the reason why bosses wear toupees, or I don't know—you know, something important—and it had been baffling everybody for a long time.
But "the human mind is a servomechanism to every mathematics" immediately resolved the problem, when somebody says, "Well, the human mind probably can understand this, but of course the equation just goes along this way." And every one of your mathematical wizards takes this dodge.
You see, the human mind can undoubtedly resolve a syllogism, but a syllogism does not resolve a problem. It's not good enough to resolve a problem— the human mind can probably understand this.
Well, the fact of the matter is, the human mind is standing behind every mathematics with something like Boolean algebra, which is really too complex

97

98

20 DECEMBER 1953
to be worked out on anything less than about five notebooks for one formula. Boolean algebra is wonderful stuff—it's what your telephone relay switchboards work on and so on. All it is, is "yes is greater than no, no is greater than yes, yes greater than no, no greater than yes." And it all works out and it performs a very fine answer in terms of averages.
Well, the mind does that. That's evidently the way the mind works when it is sorted down to what it is actually doing with facts and when you get into mechanical computation on the part of the mind. Of course, sitting right above that's just plain knowingness.
We take ARC, then, and we find out the component parts of ARC are mathematics. And they run this way: A mathematician is trying to find what symbols agree with what symbols. He's trying to find what symbols duplicate what symbols, and which part of an area or what portion of a quantity are represented in another area or another portion of a quantity. That's communication, just per se.
And as far as affinity is concerned, he wants to know what's like something else, and that's all there is to affinity. Well, what's like it and what isn't like it, so he's dealing with similars and dissimilars, and that in essence is affinity. Because you get two similars, they will not only have affinity for each other, they'll—if they're so—entirely similar, they merge. And you get the thetan with his experience in common with the body's experience as a sympathy between the thetan and the body. It's just a—solely a matter of similar experience. Well, this can be monitored in terms of how much agreement there was on a bad or good experience. And you get your consideration and you get your opinion interjected in there.
But these three together . . . That's a very, very superficial rendition of this, by the way. Went over it one time and found out that after I'd written about ten thousand words on it, I was still writing, so I threw it in the files. It Was— it goes from too many directions to too many directions.
Understanding, then, is an effort to combine A and R and C, and that is understanding.
Now, an auditor who is neglecting C, or communication, you see, is going to be neglecting certainty (which is reality—certainty and uncertainty make up reality). And he's going to be neglecting, at the same time, the A factor. If the case just stays at a constant C (a constant communication), and—it's going to stay at a constant A, and it's going to stay at a constant level of certainty. If you want to change its certainty, you'll have to monitor communication.
Now, that's the one thing where you can stick your foot in. You can get into that triangle in terms of communication, and you got it. And you change the communication of a pc, you're going to change his affinity and you're going to change his reality. That's what you're trying to do. And of course, what your preclear is trying to do, basically, is not change. And so it becomes a little bit of a contest.
Any case that's—is resistive is simply resisting effects, which is afraid to change. All right.
When we go into this problem of ARC in terms of auditing and the auditor doesn't hammer and pound away, and get the reaction for the case, he just might as well be home smoking a cigar or down in the park riding on a swan or almost anything. He isn't doing any good as an auditor.
Now, he can use the most indifferent techniques, intelligently. That is to say, let's equip an auditor, now—let's equip him with just three techniques. Let's give him Formula H (Reach and Withdraw) and let's give him Q and A

COMMUNICATION
(see, these are pretty poor techniques, simply because they do nothing but produce an effect, and they're very limited; they're quite limited as techniques), and then let's give him Ten Minutes of Nothing. Now those three, by the way, would balance somewhat. And if you wanted to give him a fourth one, you'd give him "Hold the two back corners of the room." That's too good for him, though. We'll just say we just give him Ten Minutes of Nothing and Q and A and Reach and Withdraw. And after the fellow has reached and withdrew for a while, why, we'd give him nothing for a while. And just vary them around. And that's all this auditor knows. Doesn't know anything else. All right.
Now, that'd be a very limited assortment, wouldn't it? A very, very limited assortment. All right.
One auditor sits down with these techniques and he tells the fellow to reach and withdraw for present time. The fellow does it.
"Have present time reach and withdraw for you, and you reach and withdraw for present time. Okay. Now, how's that? Your perception any better or any . . ."
Guy says, "I'm practically going blind."
So the auditor says, "Well, all right. Now, reach and withdraw some more for present time. Have present time reach and withdrawing from you." And he does that a few more times and he says to the fellow, "Well, how are you now?"
"Well, I really am practically blind. I mean, I can't see a thing."
And the auditor says, "Well now, let's reach and withdraw some more for present time. All right. Let's get present time reaching and withdrawing from you. And present time reaching for you, present time reaching for you; present time withdrawing from you, present time withdrawing from you." And then he'd vary it by saying, "Now, get you reaching while present time withdraws. Now get present time reaching while you withdraw. Okay, and now—how's your perception now?"
"Oh, it's—it's terrible, you know? I can't—I—are people supposed to get this pain in their eyes?"
"Well, that's fine. Now get you reaching for present time and present time reaching for you—same time. Now get you withdrawing from present time, and present time withdrawing from you," and so forth. And, "Now how is it— how is it now?"
"Oh, there's the most beautiful golden light standing just behind my head."
"Oh there is, yeah? Well now, let's reach and withdraw for present time. Now let's get present time reaching and withdrawing from you," so forth. And he goes on like this for another three, four minutes, and he says, "Well, how is it now?"
"Well, I've popped into the light. It's blindingly white, and the world— I just can't see a thing but this beautiful light, but that's all I want to see."
And the auditor says, "All right. Let's reach and withdraw for present time, present time reach and withdraw from you." Does three, four minutes.
And the fellow all of a sudden says—he says, "Everything's gone black!"
And the auditor says, "Okay. Okay. Let's reach for present time, and let's get present time reaching for you. Let's get present time withdrawing from you, and you withdrawing from present time," and so forth, "Now, how is it?"
"Well, I don't know," the fellow says.
"What don't you know?"
"Well, it isn't as black as it was, but gee, I feel kind of shaky."
"All right. Well, let's reach for present time, let's get present time reaching for you."

99

100

20 DECEMBER 1953
He'd just go on using it as long as he was getting a communication change, in other words.
And then finally the fellow says, "Well, I'm seeing pretty fair. I'm seeing pretty fair now."
And the auditor says, "Well now, let's reach for present time. Now let's get present time reaching for you, and you reaching for present time, and present time reaching for you. Now you withdrawing from present time, present time withdrawing from you. Present time reaching for you, present time withdrawing from you. You reaching for present time, present time reaching for you. And how is it now?"
"Oh, it's about the same."
"All right. Let's get present time reaching for you and you reaching for present time. All right. And let's get you withdrawing from present time, present time withdrawing from you. Now, how is it now?"
"Oh, it's about the same. I mean, it's about the same."
"Okay. Now, let's get you reaching for present time and present time, at the same time, reaching for you. You got that? All right. Now let's get you withdrawing from present time, and present time withdrawing from you. You got that? All right. Now let's get you—make an effort to reach and withdraw from present time now. Now, how is it now?"
"Oh—oh, about the same," so forth.
The auditor says, "Okay. Now sit back in the chair. Sit back in the chair, and let's reach in all directions—six directions, there—and just reach out for nothing. Just nothing in all directions."
And he does that for a little while, and all of a sudden, he—the preclear does that for two or three minutes, and the auditor says, "Say, what's happening?"
Preclear says, "I get an awful pain in my shoulder."
"That's fine," you say, "just get nothing there—nothing in all directions. That's fine. Now how is it?"
"(groan) This is real bad—you know, it feels like my shoulder's being cut off."
"Well, just—all directions toward nothing. Don't pay any attention to the shoulder. Just concentrate on that nothingness. Just get a nothingness of the body and a nothingness of the shoulder and a nothingness of the ceiling and a nothingness of space and no Earth. All right, let's see if we can get that."
Fellow does, and sits there for two or three more minutes. And the auditor says, "All right. How is it now?"
"Well, the pain in the shoulder's gone."
"All right. Just get nothing in all directions."
Fellow says, "What do you know?" He says, "I really am getting nothing in all directions. There's no body here."
"Well, that's fine. That's fine. Now just get all directions toward nothing, now. Now, are you getting behind you? You getting nothing behind you?"
"No, I was kind of omitting that."
"Well, let's get nothing all the way behind you now. And let's get just nothing as far as you could go in all directions there, just nothing."
And the fellow says, "Ouch!"
So the auditor says, "Just—remember, just behind you, too, and all around."
Fellow sits there a couple more minutes; the auditor says, "All right. How is it now?"
"Well, I'm not getting any pains now."
"Well, how's your perception?"
"Uh—what do you mean?"

COMMUNICATION
"Are you getting nothingness any better?"
"Oh, it's about the same."
"Oh well, take it for another minute. Now how is it?"
"Oh, about the same."
"Well, fine.
"Now let's get me sitting here asking you about perception, and get that as a question. Now turn it around on you as the answer. Okay, you got that? Fine. Now let's get that again: me as a question, turned around on you as the answer. All right.
"Now get me here as position, question mark, and turn it around on you as position, exclamation point. All right, let's do that a few times.
"Now let's put position on you as an answer and turn it around on me as a question." You know, backwards track—you're making effect go to cause. "Okay," after you've done that for a while, "now how's your perception now?"
"Uh—no different. Should it be any different?"
"Okay. Now, let's get me sitting here blind as a bat. Now turn that around on you as an answer." Now, just after you've done that a few times, now—"Any perception change?"
"No, nothing, umm .. . No, is it supposed to do something? No, it didn't do anything," so on.
"All right. Now let's get you reaching for present time." And here we go again.
But all through this entire process, you've got nag, nag, nag, nag, nag. Just that—"How's your perception? Any change?"
Of course, what's communication? Communication is a somatic, communication is a field of light, communication is a field of blackness, communication
is the fa	, how fast they speak. This is what communication is. And so,
you're getting changes in this, okay!
But if you as an auditor are willing to go fifteen minutes without a marked communication change, using the powerhouse of techniques that you're using— oh boy, do you not want something not to happen! Mmmm! That indicts you for mopery and dopery on the high auditing bench. Just because, you see, you have a wealth of technique, is no reason you can sit there and neglect communication change. That is something like saying this guy's got a billion bricks, and he isn't even vaguely building a house with them, he's just got a billion bricks. And there's some other fellow, he's only got fifty bricks, but he's building something with them. So it's better to have some guy with only fifty bricks than to have a guy with a billion bricks who just sits there. See?
It isn't (quote) "the intelligent use of techniques." You're shooting the moon too far from that. You can use patter that's as backwards as you ever heard of and still get there. It isn't the magic touch. It isn't the way you delicately hold your little pinkie in the air as you ask the question. It isn't any of these things. It's just: Did it change the communication level of your preclear? That's all.
And if you sail along in—as I have been processing here the last, I don't know ... By the way, the only case I've had any—really any difficulty with for a long time, was a person that I couldn't get to move around. Person was too lame to do any moving around, and too heavy, and it was very, very difficult. And the case was very difficult simply because the most obvious technique had been bypassed. We were already down to that—down below that point. And it was kind of rough trying to fish this one up a little bit. I got her up and got her up so that she had a greater stability and a better certainty and she was a little bit happier about life. Didn't break her all the way on through on

101

102

20 DECEMBER 1953
out the way everything should have, mostly because it was just so doggone much time devoured in trying to get over the inability of—as far as mobility was concerned. That was this case's trouble, was just the mobility. And you had to process like mad and get her up toward a point where she would even get the idea back—even vaguely get the idea back—of mobility itself. So you see that little entering wedge there.
Now, there is a way where you could get around that, but you'd have to have a better equipped office than I have. You would put somebody in a wheelchair and have them roll themselves around to the points of the room. And if somebody was lying on his back or something, on a—one of those lie-down type of wheelchairs, you could move them around. But you'd just be fascinated with how much difference it'll make in a case. It'll make a big difference in a case.
I remember one of the first times I ever used this—a long time ago. I got to sawing away on this case, and boy, I was pulling all the tricks out of the bag, you know, and one after the other, they didn't work. Nothing was working, nothing was working. This case was—oh, just having a real rough time, and yet evidently fairly intelligent, but with a fairly long communication lag. You know, "All right now, let's put up two terminals." (pause) "Have you put them up?"
(pause) "Where do you want me to put them?"
About that type of communication lag. And boy, when it... I just used everything, everything you could think of, just to try to bust that case out. And finally just broke down into mauling the body around, which is what I call this technique to myself—although you don't maul anybody around, you just move them around. You could also call it a close-order-drill technique—it's how sergeants get so they can evaluate for troops to the point where the troops will go out and get shot, the damn fools.
Anyway, just move the fellow around, move him around, move him around, move him around and move him around. And when I started moving this case around—after, actually, hours of work with every fancy technique there was and every plain one and every effective one—after hours of work, why, I used this mobility technique. I just moved them here and there and home for it, and then gave it back to them again. And I didn't use it for any forty minutes. I used it for about ten minutes on moving that person around the room, and then I used it for about five minutes on making himself move back around the room, and all of a sudden he broke into the first healthy laughter he had ever laughed— heard him. He thought that was very funny. And his communication lag all the time he was doing this was coming up, and he was beginning to walk faster. And he was walking less hectically and walking faster, see? Walking with more competence. And we were just making him put a point in conjunction with other points. With one, namely a body, and put in conjunction with other bodies.
And I then sat him down—up to that time he had, you know, exteriorized without much perception and not quite sure he was there. That's where he was hung up, you know, and I couldn't seem to change that state of beingness until I just made him drill all around the room.
Well, what brings this to mind is I did it again last night as a demonstration to this auditor that came to see me late last night and—with a case that was sitting right there. I didn't know it until after I'd processed this case—this case had gone through a rough time since the last time I had touched them. Had real big upsets. So when I started to process the case, the comm lag was large—it was very wide—and zinnng! down it came right away.
But it didn't come down—this was a repeat performance—it didn't come down on the other techniques I was using on the case to show this auditor. It

COMMUNICATION
didn't speed up, in other words, till I made the case walk around the room. And then halfway through the time when I was making them walk around the room—"If you say just one more order, just one more order, I'll scream"— words to that effect. "That's one thing I could—never could stand. You realize I'm about to leave! One more order!"
And I did some Q and A, or words to that effect, and a little Matched Terminal on the people who gave this person orders. You know—Papa, Mama, a teacher, something like that. And just mocked them up and threw them away, and mocked them up and threw them away, and mocked them up and threw them away. And then mocked them up and made her move them in mock-up and so forth, and then went on with the process. And communication lag went right up and person brightened up quite markedly.
But this technique had evidently conquered, to some slight degree, upsets which have evidently been accumulating over a period of a number of days. Very violent upsets—the kind that you look back and find the E-Meter stuck on, see? Evidently pulled this case right out of it. But that was just—I'd had no intentions of doing this with this technique.
Now, that's about, I would say, about the twenty-fifth or thirtieth time (I don't know quite how many it is) that I have seen this process break into a rough case. And as I said, the only case I had trouble with is one that I couldn't get into mobility.
Now, there's possibly some gradient scale technique whereby you could get a person who was relatively immobile and get them to move parts of the body or something like that, or move their hands around or do something on that order which would break up into it. But I haven't, as a matter of fact, studied that level of case that is immobile enough to tell you for sure whether or not it'd have any great effect. But it's something for you to remember if you run up against a problem.
I have processed, for instance, deaf people—have processed them with a slip of paper, writing the commands. I have processed a person who was deaf and blind, and that's—was very interesting, because to get the whole process of what we were doing across, it was necessary for the material that I was using to be Brailled. The person could read Braille, and I got a Braille typewriter and knocked it out on Braille, and established a wrist-tap code with the individual. And just established two very, very minor techniques and got those very clearly understood, and then had all the signals on them understood, and rehearsed the signals a little while against the textbook, and then we went into processing on the thing. And the person regained hearing in one ear in about an hour, so the—we just could throw the whole thing away, see. It was a case that had not been deaf from birth, so language was still there.
This is the case of a soldier, by the way, caught in a shell blast. And—classic case of hysterical blindness and hysterical deafness. And had been labeled as "organic blindness and deafness." Because "there's part of the optic nerve actually destroyed, and there's—the eardrums have been burst and the scar tissue will not" so on, and they just laid it in with a club, see? This person's— so that's the way that one went.
But anyway, when we get into tough problems of processing, generally our own ingenuity can get us out of them. Because the problem which presents itself is simply a problem in communication. It always, always is a problem in communication. The difficulty you have is a problem of communication. All right.
Now, right here in trying to train you in these techniques, it—I have a problem in communication. You see that? Many of the experience which you

103

104

20 DECEMBER 1953
have had in life have directed your interest or your attention and so forth in one direction or another and given you a certainty—a good or bad certainty— on some point in existence. And you're—you maybe had some tremendous experience one time; maybe either a—whether it was a love affair, or immediately following a nitrous oxide operation, or a sudden recovery when you were young of the use of some limb or something, and it was a tremendous, exhilarating experience. And you may be evaluating everything I say as a means and route of getting back to such an experience. You may be retransposing material, you see, and all the time you're up against the horrible fact which could make you—if you didn't recognize some of these points and you weren't right on this level—it could make you, some of you, intensely antagonistic toward me.
Just the fact that—the fact that I am telling you things that you really should know (since the mechanics of life are natively known to you)—that I am telling you these things would occur to you, possibly, as a hammer and pound on "You don't know." So the fact that I am trying to communicate this material to you might stir up the fact that you have a low level of knowingness—you might think of this, so on—whereas this is not the case at all. All this is, is an invitation to a higher level of knowingness, which is: Let's put in this training as a possibility of making a lot of people well. And in yourself, let's use it as a substitute up to the time when you yourself have recovered that level of knowingness. And one of these days, you'll throw all this away—I hope so. But it's a leg up.
It's very hard, for instance, to get out of a tide-race sometimes unless somebody throws you a life preserver. And yet, quite unreasonably, I have seen men fished out of the drink, one way or the other, and have seen them curse their rescuers. This—of course, the fact they had to be rescued came at them as a direct insult to their power and pride. I have seen a rescuer very nonplused by this. He expects to be thanked, you know, and so forth.
So you see here we have a communication problem. And this is a problem simply of rephrasing the material of life itself and of knowingness itself, this way and that, and trying to code it for you this way and that, so that it becomes useful to you and useful to others because they know you, or because you process them.
Now, in the problem of communication, some of your work has been done for you, in the problem of trying to communicate to a preclear what you're trying to do. This is one you mustn't overlook. We get back on communication again, because you have two problems of communication. And don't you ever overlook this problem again—not anybody present, please. Because I'm so tired of preclears that you're processing right now coming to me and saying, "And so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on, and this was wrong and that was wrong and so on." In no time did they have a legitimate complaint except about one thing: The auditor didn't ask for the communication changes. That's the only complaint, really, that they had as a legitimate complaint.
And if the technique you're using isn't giving a communication change to the preclear—better or worse—why, you're just not getting anyplace. And if it's getting too worse, and you've decided that it's not going to break on this technique because it's getting too worse slowly . . .
By the way, getting too much worse slowly is a bad one. They just kind of plow in on a down curve. And when that starts happening—let me give you one little tip on that, that may save your bacon for you someday on a preclear— when they get too worse slowly and they're chugging in harder and harder into it, it may only be that you're neglecting one side of a bracket. I mean, just

COMMUNICATION
as little as that, as far as the technique itself is concerned. But certainly you are neglecting the physical endurance factor of the preclear. You have exceeded it somewhere along the line. And although a preclear can sure stand an awful lot and so on, if they keep on getting consistently worse over a period of about a half an hour and the technique you're using isn't making them any better, you're get—go on and get your communication changes, you'd better slide off into something else.
Don't keep making them charge up against the unwillingness, because eventually the preclear identifies you with what the preclear's trying to fight. And when that happens, you're no good to them as an auditor.
I have, by the way, seen somebody process a preclear at one or two o'clock in the morning, just insisting the preclear go on through that particular charge, and the preclear more and more unwilling, and the preclear red-eyed and groggy and very upset, and getting more and more tired and so on, finally refuse and just practically kick the auditor out, on a line. That's very stupid auditing—believe me, that's real stupid.
Remember the conditions I told you under which people had bad things happen to them? Well, one of them is auditing them late at night and another was auditing when they're too tired. Well, an individual doesn't necessarily get too tired when they're being audited, but they can get beyond a point of their ability to endure. Body too badly kicked around.
You see, there's some very, very harsh, hard techniques that you can use on a preclear, and if you kept up with one of them too long, you'd just wear him out. Not likely to happen with 8-C, but it can happen—and one of the lighter techniques of 8-C, by the way, produced a condition of weariness in a preclear, mostly because it was repetition without a communication change. Preclear merely got bored. Real bored.
He—how bored can you get? Agony. That's how bored you can get—agony. Agony is the deep emotion of boredom. Boredom, in essence, is the warning signal that agony is on its way. Boredom is not just not doing anything—boredom is an eddying back and forth which, on its lower harmonic, becomes pain, and on a lower harmonic becomes agony.
Pain is a misposition and an idling around—an eddying—of attention units. And it—you get down below 2.5, and—2.5 they're just eddying, and then as it gets more solid, why, it becomes pain.
People who are afraid of pain are afraid of being bored. So when you start to bore somebody and so on, you've got a problem of fear of pain on your hands. Lots of ways to do it. If you start to bore somebody, it's an interesting thing that you can just turn around and waste pain in brackets and you can snap them right out of it.
Pain, boredom: Pain the lower harmonic of boredom, boredom's the upper harmonic of pain. Pain is at just half of boredom on the Tone Scale. Yeah, there are several lower harmonics, and the rougher harmonics are way down.
Now, part of your work of communication as an auditor has been done for you. It's been done for you to the degree that there exist some relatively simple statements of Scientology. And it is not your role, particularly, to train a preclear merely because you're processing the preclear. The preclear keeps insisting that they want to know more about it and so forth, and what you're doing— well, there are several things that you can do. I am presently at work on an "information for preclear" pamphlet which will probably be available by the time anybody else hears this tape.

105

106

20 DECEMBER 1953
But there are several things—one of the best things you can do for them is to give them a work which they can use to exercise themselves, or turn around and do what you're doing on a minor scale. You'll find out that this will be very intriguing to a preclear if he hasn't had very many interests in life, and you—he sees that you're doing something for him, and he wants to turn around and do something for somebody else, well, you have a route to do that.
That's why Self Analysis in Scientology stays in the run. Now to date, Self Analysis in Scientology has sold in excess of twenty-eight thousand copies and it's still going up. And by the way, the book has never been sold. I mean, nothing ever happened to this book except it just sits there.
But what it was—let me tell you about this little book. It—what it was, was a statement in the reference of people who were not technically informed. I produced the text of this book by having it read by several people who did not have high-school educations, and found out from them what they didn't understand in the text. And then each time shifted the text till they did understand it, and then had somebody else read it. And I had several people do that, and I finally got back what is in the early part of the book here: a statement of getting to know oneself and the problem of consciousness and unconsciousness, and all is just a statement of survival, and the less conscious you are, the less aware you are, so the worse you see—and great simplicity. And it goes on with its simplicity; but more than that, it gives them exercises they can employ on themselves.
Now, originally this book was written as recalls, and was shifted off into mock-ups—and was shifted off at the time it was being published, the British edition. And as a result, there are two or three places in the book that don't quite jibe to imagine a scene about. But that's all right. In later editions, this is corrected; earlier editions aren't.
Well anyway, a person can take this and he can have a lot of fun with it from the basis of life and behavior. He's got this chart here, and this chart will tell him a lot of things if he wants to figure those things out. But you get how elementarily simple this book is, at the same time appearing to be rather technical. But it's real simple.
Once in a while, somebody will come to me (ah, I love this little trap; I lay this trap for them)—somebody will come to me—when somebody says this, I really have it backfire on him. And he says, "Well, I don't know, that book of yours, Self Analysis—it's very, very complicated and so forth," and so on.
I say, "Yes. Yes, well how did you like the dissertation on the likening of life to horticulture in the second chapter? And—you know, likening it to flowers and so forth, and how we learn from plant life about how we ourselves live. How did you like that in the second chapter?"
"Oh," they say, "that was all right. I understood that all right. But there's some other portion . . ."
And I'll say, "Well, why don't you go read the book, huh?" That's—is of the essence. Because there is no such chapter on horticulture.
Now, you'll find that when the book has been misunderstood, it just hasn't been read. But instead of you burning up a tremendous amount of processing time trying to instruct somebody, you'd better give them an elementary statement which they can maunder over, and some exercises which they can do. Because they're always asking you, "Now, what can I do between now and the next session?" something like that.
Well, if you've got a book Self Analysis, you say, "Well, between now and the next session, why you do . . ."—and you must be very specific about this— very, very specific. You could look at this book very carefully and you say, "Now,

COMMUNICATION
all right. Now, you do—you read from—you read from page 13 to page 20, 20—uh—20 . . . Yes, from page 13—no, to page 15, and you do the exercises between page 66 and 69. And be sure you do all of those." And they'll be real happy. And it'll do them a lot of good.
A theatrical troupe once took this book, and in the interests of becoming a better theatrical troupe, they simply took this book and they sat down around backstage in the morning after rehearsal—this sounds incredible to you, but they slugged it for two hours a day. Two hours a day.
Now, there was one case of the group that was strictly "What head?" Couldn't get out, Resistive V, had been processed, and without success, on very early techniques. And they did it for three months. Sounds horrible, doesn't it? But three months they kept at that. And at the end of that time, it had never occurred to anybody to say to this fellow—because he was a famous case, you see—never occurred to anybody to give him any further processing.
Well, they told him one day—a friend of his said to him, "Well, let's give you a session." And he starts in routinely with no hope at all, he says, "Be three feet back of your head," the fellow was—with perception. He had just gone there on this book.
So your homework on the preclear at this level won't get you in any trouble beyond this: some somatic that's liable to turn on and it frightens him and he doesn't keep on long enough to run it out. If he just ran two or three more mock-ups, believe me, he'd run it out.
Now, let me tell you something about you as an auditor. Any time some case is really baffling you, you just steady it down and you take a copy of Self Analysis and you give the case the next-to-the-last list in Self Analysis, right over here where it says, "Remember something real." And that's the second list to the next—the bottom list on page 145: "Recall a time which really seems real to you," and so forth, and is continued over here on page 146. And you just start in the case right there. And then you go back over here to an early session, like on page 66, 67, and you just start in on the preclear. And look, I'll guarantee you something—I'll absolutely guarantee this will happen: That in that short space of time, within an hour's processing, your case will be flying straight and flying level.
And if you think you—some case is loused up beyond anything ever redeeming it and so forth, just do that. You've got a security in this book, and that's been tested over and over and over. I don't think that an auditor realizes that fact, because maybe he himself is not such a tough case. Maybe his values about existence are not as upsetting as the preclear's.
Now I'll tell you one thing about it that is quite interesting. I myself have taken this advice about five times. And each time, I found that I had been overshooting the case. And the case suddenly relaxed and got good communication changes and snapped into it and took some responsibility in existence and so forth. In other words, I wasn't giving the case any kind of processing that equaled that processing.
Well, the reason that book is there is because it will hit the upper-range psycho, the lower-range neurotic, it'll hit the kid—it'll keep kids going, so on.
(Recording ends abruptly)

107

Auditing by SOP 8-C Formula H
A lecture given on 2O December 1953

This is the second lecture of December 20th—December 20th, second lecture.
Tonight we're going to take up just a little bit more about auditing. It do seem to me—and as I browse around and park an ear against this and that, and listen to what is being done, I can tell you—that here and there it's not being done at all; simply because the auditor has overlooked a few of the most fundamental fundamentals imaginable.
Now, it's too bad that a technique which is capable of doing something for a case—it's too bad when that technique is used without understanding. Because when he uses it without understanding what it's supposed to do, why, he doesn't find out whether or not the preclear's doing it. And if the preclear's doing something peculiar, if the auditor doesn't understand what the technique is supposed to do, then he will never know whether or not the preclear's doing it peculiarly.
And let me assure you that a preclear is the world's greatest dodge. I tell you that comets don't dodge the way preclears dodge. You've practically got to—and excuse my colloquialism—but you almost have to rub their noses in it sometimes.
Now, let us see what reach and withdraw do, in terms of the clarification of understanding—Formula H.
There is no step in SOP 8-C, even though it has eight steps, which has reach and withdraw in it. But, you could write on the border—you know, vertically— you could write on the border, all the way up the border, "reach and withdraw," see? And on the other border, opposite, you could write "doingness," you see, and you'd just about have it. There aren't specific doingness steps. All of the steps are doingness. And there isn't a specific reach and withdraw step, because all the steps are reach and withdraw.
Now, there are several other definitions that could be scattered around, but they happen to be included in SOP 8-C. Amongst them, the definition of space, which is "viewpoint of dimension." A person has as much beingness in terms of the mest universe as he can occupy space. He has as much beingness as he has space. He has as little beingness as he doesn't have space. He's having as much difficulty as he doesn't have space. And here we go. Viewpoint of dimension.
Well, that could be scattered around there pretty liberally too, but doingness would be on one border and reach and withdraw on the other border.
Now, why doingness? Well, if the preclear isn't doing the steps, the process isn't going to do him any good. There isn't any specific step in there which

109

110

20 DECEMBER 1953
devotes and dedicates itself to doingness. You notice there's beingness in there, and there's havingness, but there's no step that says doingness. That's because all the steps have doingness in them. So he's supposed to do the steps.
And you as an auditor are supposed to make sure he does the steps. But you as an auditor have some understanding of what highest denominators you're working with. And amongst those denominators is this one of reach and withdraw; and the other one, space is a viewpoint of dimension.
Now, if you keep that pretty firmly in your grasp, it's almost impossible for your preclear to do something wild and peculiar on you. Almost impossible for him to do so, as long as you check him up and get what he's doing every little while as he does it.
Now, you—just don't look for just communication changes. That's the most important thing there is to look for, but every time you tell a preclear to do something, you better find out immediately afterwards how he's doing it. Because let me assure you, he's probably doing it wrong because that's what's wrong with him—he's wrong. That's the most thing that's wrong with him— he's wrong.
And so in view of the fact that he knows he's this wrong, when you tell him, "All right. Now take that pencil and duplicate it. Get a picture of it and then duplicate it again, and then duplicate it again and duplicate it again," it's always a good thing to say immediately after you've done that—very early in the processing till you got this fellow real settled down—it's pretty much to the point to say, "Now, what did you do?"
"Oh," he says, "I—I did what you said."
Oh no, that's not good enough. You want to know exactly what he did. Well, there was this pencil lying out in front of him there and you said to duplicate it. All right. The first thing you want to know is, is where did he duplicate it? And why do you want to know where he duplicated it? Space is a viewpoint of dimension. This has everything in the world to do with his case. Where'd he duplicate it?
You, knowing where he's supposed to duplicate it, naturally assume he duplicated it there. But that's because I've pounded around and hammered around and we've talked around to a point of where we've driven you somewhere in the direction of being right about this, see? Well, this preclear hasn't been under this duress, and so the place he duplicated it was in his head.
And you say, "Well now, why didn't you—where did you get that picture?"
"Oh, in my mind. Of course, it's just my imagination."
Oh boy. You say, "Now—in your mind. Now I want you to put a picture of the pencil just like the pencil out there on the desk alongside of the pencil. That's where we want the duplicate."
"Oh, I couldn't do that," he'll say.
"Well, why don't you try it?"
"Well, there isn't any second pencil there."
Well, you say, "Well, now let's see. Give me some places in the room where there isn't any pencil."
Now, he'd say, "Well, over in the corner and over there and over there. There are three places—no pencil in these three places," so on and so on.
And you again would pull a blank on this case and could go on by rote if you didn't do this: "Now where did you say there weren't three pencils in this room? Now get the first place. Now where is that?"
"Well, I just know there aren't three other pencils in the room, there's just this one lying in front of me."

AUDITING BY SOP 8-C, FORMULA H
"No, no. I want you to tell me the three places in the room where there isn't any pencil."
"Well, three places—any of those places."
Now you say, "Give me them one at a time and give me ..." I was listening to one auditor's session here in particular, I really felt for her.
Female voice: I hope so.
You suddenly recognized it, huh?
Female voice: I hope you did. (laughing)
I was there Charlie, yes. (laughing)
Now, you'd say, "Now I want where the first pencil isn't."
"Well—well, there just aren't any other pencils in the room."
"Let's find out where that first pencil isn't."
"Well, it's not over there in the corner."
"Now, where do you mean 'over there in the corner'? Exactly what part of the corner do you mean?"
"Oh—oh, over in—anyplace on that side of the room."
What's this preclear doing? Reach and withdraw. This preclear's running like mad from his environment. He says, "No—all right, three pencils in the room? No, there's na-na-na. That's all there is to it. Ha!"
Of course there's none there. Boy, there's no room there either. This person is withdrawing so madly from everywhere, that the thought of putting something someplace or not being someplace, of course, is beyond the person's capability until you really coax them.
Now, you remember, this place then—space is a viewpoint of dimension. A person has as much beingness as he has space. Okay. So this person can't find three places where it's not. Why? Because he can't contemplate any part of this room. Cannot contemplate any part of this room. That's interesting, isn't it? So this preclear looks and acts like a jumping jack to you. That's about as bad off as they can get. Why? Just any time they put their thought or concentration on one point or another, they've got to come off of it—right away, quick.
Now, that is just withdraw. Every time they perceive, they have to withdraw. If they perceive, they have to withdraw. So they say, "Oh, there's no other pencils in the room."
See, just the thought of having to look out through the room makes them go ssllrrp back. See? That obvious to you? Space is a viewpoint of dimension.
Now, let me give you something here about this technique that you might not have suspected. This technique, as the technique which puts emotion in things, builds space for the preclear. It builds space for the preclear. By finding places where something is not, he finds places. So it isn't enough just to get someplace where it's not; get the place, too.
So this individual that you're processing along, you say, "All right. Now give me three places where you're not in the room."
And he says, "Mm, mm-hm. Okay."
"And give me three more places where you're not in the room."
He says, "Mm-hm, okay."
And you say, "Three more places in the room where you're not."
"Mm-hm, okay."
And you don't say anything, about that time? I don't care if he's been working well an hour before, you better check up.
You say, 'What were the three places where you weren't in the room?"
"Well," he says, "well, there's—no place in the room, I'm not anyplace in the room."

111

112

20 DECEMBER 1953
This person is unwilling to make space and this is a covert method of making him make space—telling where things are not. Make space in the past, make space in the present, make space in the future by getting exact places, geographical locations. Make him make space if you have to kill him.
When you get places are not, things are not, you want to know the place. You don't want to know whether he knows they are there or not. You want the place they're not. This case will surprise you—just amaze you sometimes—if you start to check up.
Now, here's this perfectly orderly old fellow, and he's just so nice and he's just so mild, and is nothing wrong with him, except he just doesn't happen to be able to see, that's all. And he's got lumbago and sciatica and he's had bad stomach trouble, of course, and his recreation is beating a cat or something. But he's a nice, mild fellow. And you say to this fellow, "Now give me three places where you are not."
You, in your innocence, suppose that the quietness with which this person is seating himself in that chair has anything to do with what he's doing. So— and this is, by the way, why cases very often start slowly. It takes an auditor a long time to get onto this preclear. He processes him for five hours and then he finds out the preclear isn't doing anything like what he said. Of course, the preclear thinks he's obeying, he thinks he's being very compliant.
So we ask this nice old man, we say, "Give me three places in the room where you're not."
"Okay," he says.
Well listen, he hasn't looked at one of them. And the essence of the technique is make him look and see whether or not he is there. Because he doesn't look there real quick and he knows real fast, for the good and excellent reason that he better not look too close because if he does, he'll find himself. That's one of the things that'll happen to him.
So if he can just kind of—sort of skate through life without looking at anything, he's all right, see? That's the way he figures. If he doesn't pay any attention to anything, nothing will pay any attention to him. He's withdrawn.
Now, there's what's known as a negative withdrawal. The fellow withdraws, withdraws, withdraws, withdraws, withdraws and then he gets in too tight, and the more he withdraws, he starts to go out again. That's what's known as an inversion. And you see that? Everything turns upside down. Then after that, as an auditor, you process him and you say, "All right, put some emotion in the wall." The second he pushes out toward the wall, he gets it back in his face— I mean instantly.
Any motion out—every time he starts to make a motion out, he gets a motion in. You know, he starts to pull something in, it goes out. This is real peculiar, he thinks. Well, he's reversed on reach and withdraw. That means other-determinism has taken over, but completely. The only thing he can dramatize is other-determinism. And other-determinism, of course, reaches when he withdraws and when he reaches, it withdraws. So, of course, when he starts to reach, he withdraws. And then when he starts to withdraw, he reaches. And this will baffle him sometimes. Well, it better never baffle you as an auditor—the fellow's just inverted.
You keep him working until he can actually make something go in the same direction he intended it to go. You can do it in many ways, by having masses of things go, or by getting down to the most basic techniques, such as this very technique of "Where are three places in the room where you're not?"

AUDITING BY SOP 8-C, FORMULA H
So he looks over in the corner finally, under your browbeating and your hammering and your insistence, he looks over in the corner. And he—this time he inspects it rather critically—you told him to. And you get an entirely different reaction out of exactly the same question, exactly the same technique.
Fellow looks over and he says, "I—I don't think I'm in that corner. And no, my body probably isn't in—well. . . No, it's not in that corner." You threw his guard. And now he's got to produce. He's got to look at these corners.
You'd get another reaction if you told him to close his eyes and find the three corners. Tell him to close his eyes, "Now give me three places in the room where your body's not." He's lost.
"Room, what room?"
See, it's all gone out of focus and direction and location. See that? So we get a constant and recurring problem with every preclear, and that problem eventually boils itself down to whether or not the auditor makes sure he's getting a communication/perception change out of the preclear. That's one, see? And it's the most important of it, but possibly—hardly of the same order of magnitude, since one assumes if he's checking for communication changes, that the preclear is doing what he asked.
And the other important job of the auditor is to find out what the preclear's doing. And it isn't going to make any sense to the auditor unless he knows what's supposed to be happening with the techniques. Well listen, by the time a fellow has looked at corner A and corner B and corner C of a room, he's made a piece of space.
Covertly, yes, but he's—nevertheless, he's got a piece of space out there. It doesn't stay there, he didn't form it, he knows nothing about viewpoints, he knows nothing about the mechanics of what you're doing at all; but they happen to be the mechanics he's operating on. So you don't have to worry about whether he knows it or not, he'll ask you, "What are you doing this for?"
Well, you tell him, "I'm doing this because I'm doing it. Seems like a good idea to me, it'll seem like a good idea to you after a while, let's keep it up."
So you say, "Give me three more places in the room where you are not. All right." It's all right for him to know he's not at these places of the room. It's all right for him to know this; nothing wrong with that, except it'll never get anyplace. Because he's going on a thin-ice sort of a thing, very often. He's skating along on thin ice, and if he answered your questions directly, he'd crack through. And he'd go into exactly what you want him in, so that you can get off this thin ice. You're trying to show him he isn't going to fall through into ice-cold water. He's just so scared of water that isn't there, that he skates all the time, very thinly.
I've seen some of the most obliging preclears be obliging up to the time where I finally hauled out an E-Meter, and they became something less than obliging. They became rather cross, rather irritated and rather impatient.
Why? Because I'd turn the dial to me and give them the electrodes and say, "All right, now will you please do what I was asking you to do?" The main reason I would do this is because the fellow's been processed for forty-five minutes without a communication changed. And I've suddenly realized he isn't even vaguely doing it, because he's not telling me what he's doing. This person is beyond the point of informing me what he's doing. He just isn't giving me the dope, that's all. This person is skating around and so forth, and maintaining a good, acceptable level of calm in the face of screaming hysteria which is liable to break through at any minute. Or he's trying to do this or he's trying to do that—but he's not doing what I asked him to do, that's certain. And even after

113

114

20 DECEMBER 1953
I explained what I wanted him to do and he still said he was doing it, he was getting no comm change—well, that's the time for the E-Meter.
And then we find some of the most interesting things. We say, "Now, did you do the last process I gave you?" The E-Meter goes chonnk! It didn't move while he was (quote) "doing the process" (unquote).
And you say, "Well, now how about going over this again and let's do the process this time, huh? You know, just for sake of change and excitement?"
And so he starts, actually, this time, doing exactly what he was asked to do. And he does that just about so long, and he'll start to crack up. And he'll go into other things. And he's liable to track all over the track before you can get him out of it again. He gets in real miserable shape, one way or the other. And then comes right on out through it again, and all of a sudden gets calm. And boy, that's the first calmness he will have seen for a long time. He'll be calmer than he was before.
But he'll only get calmer than he was before if you as an auditor know what you're doing. You don't have to know too much—really, really, honest. In spite of all the billions and billions and billions of words I have poured into your poor ears—in spite of that, it boils down to different manifestations of the same thing.
You get the preclear to do something, that's the first thing. You get him to do something under direction. Well, believe me, that alone is one thing that a very few preclears, when you first get hold of them, do. They—it's one thing they hardly can do. It's about—practically all he can do, to do something under direction.
They have fought and used . . . Get this: exterior direction is their basic, number one randomity because exterior direction and other-determinism are the same thing. And you'll get preclears that have reversed on this.
So, exterior direction and other-determinism—same thing. Self-determinism, self-direction are the same thing.
Now, they're preserving the last tiny drop of their self-determinism as though it's a quantity, by heavily resisting exterior direction; which will of course—will inevitably gobble up that last drop of self-determinism they're exerting. It's being encroached on them with every inch of effort that they put out. And so you're—you come along and you say, "All right. Now let's use some of this and build some self-determinism." Okay, well how do we do this?
Well, the guy's got to have some space and he's got to have—be able to reach and withdraw, and he's got to be able to face things in his existence and see that they aren't bugaboos and whatnots in the physical universe. There's a lot of things that he can do to do this. But the point is, the first thing he's got to do, is right under that heading "exterior direction." He has to be able to carry through a routine, rather simple, command and discover that it doesn't kill him. And there your processing begins.
Now, if he does it in a flighty fashion or a stubborn fashion, so on—we don't care. We just get him to do that one thing.
Now, it doesn't matter whether that's Step Ia or Step VIIa. We don't care what it was, we get him to do one thing. Ordinarily and routinely, just having a fellow walk around to the corners of the room would be one of the easiest ways in the world to get him in the groove, because he's taking exterior direction. He still thinks he's a body, and he's this and that, and you get him to go around to one corner of the room, to another corner of the room—he's taking, then, exterior direction. And he's found out that it doesn't kill him.

AUDITING BY SOP 8-C, FORMULA H
So he starts resisting just a little bit less. So he takes a little more exterior direction and he finds that doesn't kill him, so he resists just a little bit less on this business. You're getting him away from resisting other direction; because the—listen, the resistance to other direction is going to kill him. If he resists it hard enough, it's guaranteed it'll swallow him up.
Because that's all this universe can do—this universe can only engulf that which fights it. If it can't get somebody to fight it, it's done. It can only engulf that which fights it.
Now, an individual, then, has to be gotten into doingness on terms of direction. Let's just take this up in the most rudimentary fashion. And so we get "doingness" written all up the side column of SOP 8-C. It'd cover all the steps.
Essentially, the auditor does one thing—the auditor does one thing—which the preclear can never do for himself. The auditor can furnish exterior direction. The auditor can furnish something to resist the preclear, you see, which doesn't murder the preclear. And when the auditor gives the preclear direction and the preclear discovers that he's not dead thereby, you've jumped over the first hurdle of the case. And the more you do this, the better your preclear's going to get.
Now, there is what was being talked about in the most interesting nomenclature and terminology you've ever heard, read, seen or that could be invented, I'm sure. And that was in Freudian psychoanalysis. Dear old Freudian psychoanalysis. They said, "You've got to get—you've got to get the patient to transfer!"
And you said, "What was transference?"
"Well, that's where the will of the predenominator upgluts on the wittlewaf," and they went off into necromancy. I mean, there's no—was never any sound reason why they had to have this transference. As matter of fact, they were trying for something else. They thought they were trying to supplant something or the—they were trying to make the id boop the ego or something.
That's a very—I studied this stuff. I tell you, my respect for the world of learning, by the way, is, fortunately enough, no greater and less than my respect for my own learning—and it's not great. And when I was very, very young I studied Freud. And I'm afraid that I was too young, at that time, to appreciate with proper reverence what should be done about that. The same way with psychology, it—I didn't have enough reverence about this whole thing.
But that was one of the first things that struck me in it, was the very able teacher I had—he'd just gotten through studying under Freud—that was the one thing which I couldn't quite justify myself, was why I couldn't be told or find out what was being instructed. You know, that seemed to me—I was young, you know, and ignorant, of course, and it seemed to me to be a vital step in the process of instruction. It just seemed to me to be vital. And they kept telling me it wasn't vital. They said, "You'll understand when you get older," and I don't know, gave me a lot of other things, but they didn't tell me why this was.
Well, that's because they didn't know. And it's taken me an awful long time to try to figure out why this thing of transference occasionally was beneficial. Well, evidently they effectively, some time or another on the track, got the individual to realize that other-direction was not going to kill him.
Well now, the defeatist school of analysis finally got what they called "permissive psychotherapy." I talk about psychotherapy merely because it's a problem in handling people's minds—we might as well be talking about armies. Except this one really fits, because here was man trying to grope around and

115

116

20 DECEMBER 1953
do something for man. And he was really trying to do something for man. Old Man Freud was dead set on it.
And so here he, however, was degenerated by people who were trying to study in that, by this: These people got down to what they called "permissive psychotherapy," which is nobody ever said anything except the patient. And the patient went on yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap for an hour, and dropped his money on the desk and left. And he came back the next time and said, "Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap" for an hour and left.
Now that's—that, by the way, is advocated in certain schools. It's known as—Freud had something to say about this too, but he didn't go quite that far— they call that "free association," I mean, amongst other things. Only there's something wrong with that phrase "free association" because every time I use the phrase "free association," somebody that hasn't read as much of this as I have gets into a bog on it, and he can't define "free association" for me, but he always defines it some new way.
Free association to me was associating one idea with another in chain fashion, until a fellow finally had a mental catharsis and so on.
It's sort of a—this technique was a sort of a psychotherapy Ex-Lax. And after a fellow had done it for a couple years, then he didn't know what he was associating with, but very often it'd work. His free association chain would lead him down to spring—now, let's be technical now with what we know and can do— and this free association chain would lead the guy into a gradual unburdening of an unpleasant incident. You'll hit the same kind of an incident in any—that he hit in two years, you'll hit the same kind of an incident in any fifteen minutes of "Where are you not in the past?"
I mean, if there's anything going to happen like a mental catharsis as a result of suddenly springing into view hidden incidents, you're going to reach it in fifteen, twenty minutes of "Where are you not in the past?" You're going to hit it. And you'll get it, too. All right.
There's a faster technique, by the way. There's Reach and Withdraw in the exact direction he isn't reaching and withdrawing. You just take an assessment of the case and you find out on what dynamic he's shuddering—where do you get a needle wobble—and then you take that one, you get him to reach and withdraw for things related to that dynamic and all of a sudden the thing he's shuddering away from will show up.
How long does it take to do that? Well, it all—that one just depends on how fast you are as an auditor in setting up an E-Meter and putting it in his hands and talking to him. Because the preclear doesn't have to say anything.
And he just keeps holding the electrode and the E-Meter does the registry, and you sit there and pound the questions at him. Doesn't matter how flighty he is or whether he's concentrating or not, the bank's going to trip him. He'll get a needle wobble.
And you take that needle wobble, then—let's say it's on the fifth dynamic. Okay, animals. And you just go over animals—snakes, birds—birds, beasts and fish is one of the easiest ways. And it wobbles on beasts so you say, "All right. Domestic beasts? Wild beasts?" Wobbled on wild beasts. So you say, "Beasts of the Western Hemisphere? Beasts of the Eastern Hemisphere?" It wobbled on the Western Hemisphere. Okay. So you say, "Ferocious beasts?" and it doesn't wobble. And you say, "Cute beasts?" and it wobbles. And you say, "Ah, must be something like wild rabbits or something of that sort."
And you say, "All right. Geographical area on cute beasts—east of the Mississippi? West of the Mississippi? North of Milwaukee? South of Milwaukee?"

AUDITING BY SOP 8-C, FORMULA H
You finally narrow it down. It's the state of Maine, and it's the time the guy up and shot a rabbit. That's what he's avoiding. He shot a rabbit, and the rabbit lay outside the tent all night and screamed in agony and he didn't have nerve enough to go out and shoot it. That's the incident we want, just at the moment, see? Then we'd go back and we'd find another incident just by doing a reassessment on all the dynamics. Reach and withdraw.
What would we reach and withdraw for? Well, we'd just sort it out somehow on the E-Meter so that we knew something to reach and withdraw for, and we'd get it down to a point where we knew it was cute wild animals and we would start him reaching and withdrawing from cute wild animals. Well, you don't even have to go that far on an E-Meter. You just get the fact it's wild animals and you'd say, "Reach and withdraw from wild animals." And then he'll get flocks of them come up and finally he'll find the—you'll find the rabbit screaming outside of his tent.
Ah, but he's—they sometimes go into the overt act—motivator sequence whereby he's screaming because lions are eating him or something and he starts reaching for that sort of thing, but it's actually the rabbit screaming outside the tent. That'll show up too. See that?
Here we just have a mechanism which speeds through in a hurry and hits the same thing we were trying to hit with the mental catharsis. We're way out beyond psychotherapy—we're not doing psychotherapy. But I'm just going over a back track historically and showing that these same techniques apply in a same way. All right.
What's the difference between making space and asking a person where three things are not? It's because you don't compel him to put anchor points in the places he looks. But you do compel him to look. And when an individual looks at three places, he's got three places which in themselves compose a piece of space. He's the fourth place. There's some depth to it, so you've got some expansion involved in the thing.
But if you say, "All right. Give me three places in the room where you're not," and he's—glance around the room and he's, "That's—that's right, I got them." And he glances around the room—swish again, he's got them. Swish, he's got them. Swish, he's got them.
Well, that's the way he's traveling through life—swish. He—if he didn't look real quick and if he looked real fixedly at the pavement, do you know that boa constrictors would appear on it or something? Something's liable to happen if he looks hard. "You mustn't look" is one of the things he's running there. So he's doing a chronic withdraw.
Now, there's the opposite case that you'll run into, of course, which is the super-reach case. And you'll run into this case all the time, and he isn't withdrawing, he's reaching compulsively and he can't stop himself, and this fellow is (quote) "buttered all over the universe."
You say, "Give me three places where you're not."
"Hm! Well," he says, "I'm not here." That's really, if he were being honest, the first thing he'd come up with.
So instead of that, you're getting him to establish space more solidly and with better confinement. So you say to him, "Give me three places where you're not."
And he says, "Oh, yeah."
You say, "Where were they?"
"Well, (mumble) mm-hm."
"Where were they?"

117

118

20 DECEMBER 1953
"Hmmm! What do you want to know for? Er . . ."
You say, "Point to them."
"Okay, mm-hm."
"Well now, point to them with your hand—the three places where you are not."
"All right. I didn't get three places."
"Well, why didn't you get three places?"
"Well, I don't know. I get an idea I'm not there and I put my body there and it slides out into the corner of the room and it's not so good. That doesn't make sense, it shouldn't do that."
Or he's on the turn of the thing and he says three places he's not. They were all in his head, see? So he's got three places he's not. He's nyyhh—only he never articulated them. He doesn't dare articulate a place. He's got maybe some machine that if he articulated a place he'd go to it or he's got to—so that if he doesn't hold in, he'll splatter out or something. And you, you dog, you— doing a good job, you've tripped this guy's favorite mechanism by simply being so doggone persnickety as to actually inquire into his personal affairs which is where are the three places he's not—you want them!
You're not just asking him to—for exercise, you want these three places. So he says, "All right, there's nothing to it. I don't know why I'm doing this technique, it's these three corners of the room, I'm not in any of them."
And you say, "Well now, check each one of them and get that you're not in them as you check them."
"Rrrzzz, my ex-wife," he says.
This is real, real interesting—this is real wild stuff sometimes. But the preclear's avoidance is one manifestation, and their fixation is the other manifestation.
Now, they're avoiding a place. Now, that's fairly easy to cope with because you can always spot it. They just fly off the locations. Very easy to do. They've got to do it all too quick. They know they can't stay there, if they did their feet would grow roots and they'd turn into a tree or almost anything could happen. But they're not going to stick around and spot these places because if they did, then they'd, you know, be liable to be shot for looking or one of the other great crimes. So instead of looking, they just glance over the whole thing—swish, see? Swish, real quick.
"Everything is quicksand" is the motto of such a case in its extremities. All is quicksand.
Now, the other case is "It's all a rock and I'm it too." That's the other extremity. So you say to this fellow, "Give me three places where I am not."
With great deliberation he can tell you exactly that "he is not over there and he's not over there and let's see now, well, he's not over there. Mm-hm, that's real easy."
Now, do—you say, "What did you do as you did that?"
You see, now you apparently—see, he's working just fine, he is. Like hell he is. Let's take what he did. He's not over there and then, you see, after he put his attention over there, he kind of had to pick it up, you know, and pull it loose and then look at the next place, and put his attention there, you see. And he's perfectly willing to put his attention there, but now it's going to persist there for some time, and now it's over here. Well, he'll tell you after a while that he's used up the three corners or something. If you keep asking him, he would tell you he now has to do it some other way because he's got these corners

AUDITING BY SOP 8-C, FORMULA H
completely full of bric-a-brac. They're all full. Full of what? They're places where he's not!
Well, he—you see, he has to put something there in order not to have anything there, because if he looks at someplace fixedly, why, he gets something there, of course, but it's not him, so that's all right—what he's getting there is really a dog. Or what he's getting there is a big hunk of energy. Or what he's getting there is something else, you see.
Now, he's building space with anchor points—compulsively. Every place he looks, he gets some energy. He can't take his attention off of one place and put it onto another place at all. What do you do about that case? You just keep it up till he quits it. Or you handle it as an automaticity. But you know what he's doing now, simply because you played it smart and asked him what he was doing.
Now, this fellow who just does this, he—evidently he's perfectly all right. He said, "Didn't get it there, and then not there and I'm not there."
"Okay. Another three."
"I'm not there, I'm not there, I'm not there."
"Okay. Another three."
"I'm not there."
And "Three places where other people aren't?"
"Well, there's nobody there, nobody there, nobody there." He's evidently checking these places, you see? He's looking and he's apparently just doing everything just dandy. Well, he is. Except after he does it for five minutes, he gets no communication change.
What do you go on doing? You sure don't go on doing that, you do something else. You see why you do something else? Just because he didn't get any communication change.
He evidently, for some fluke or peculiarity, can get away with doing this process. It doesn't enter into his immediate trouble. His immediate trouble will show up sooner or later. And it'll always show up under the heading of reach and withdraw.
Present time happens to be—I had a preclear do this one time. He— I processed him and I processed him, and he'd do all these exercise techniques and he—he's just beautiful. He could do Self Analysis and oh, he was just fine and he was—he took so much pleasure at being processed. This was the only thing that had me really suspicious: the great pleasure he had in being processed. I got real suspicious about this, because the only time he'd ever have a happy smile on his face was when he'd sit down to be processed. Otherwise he was grumpy and he was upset and so on.
So I asked him one session, because he—oh, he was progressing, but very slowly. And I asked him, I said, "What about this processing we're doing? Where are you putting those pictures?"
"Oh," he says, "I'm putting them right here."
I said, "Yeah, well, where's here?"
"Oh," he said, "right here in this room. This nice, comfortable room." He said, "It's so nice to be able to sit down in a chair and to have you there, you see, and so forth and then I can contact present time so nicely and everything, and it's a warm, comfortable feeling of human companionship." And he went off into this long dissertation on the subject, and I come to find out he spends every night in chattering terror with his head under his covers because he just doesn't dare be alone and so on. The one place he mustn't depart from is the places he can immediately keep his eye on. Boy, is this fellow suspicious, see.

119

120

20 DECEMBER 1953
If he can see those walls and see the room and see you there, why, he knows it's all right. But the second he can't see you there and the second he closes his eyes and he can't immediately see those walls—oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh. And, of course, this other—this case was still manifesting rather—other peculiarities, which was making me rather critical of the case and I was gradually working it out with Future Processing.
Well, we weren't able to get a tree which wouldn't be dying of some disease. He would sit there with the sweetest smile on his face and he just couldn't get a tree that wouldn't be dying of disease. And when you talked of him dying, why, everything was very pleasant, and this was real fine.
You see what was wrong with this case? He was just—the only time he ever came aware or alive was, he was being reassured because there was somebody there caring for him.
Now, you—always tell you there's somebody stuck on a track, they're always stuck on a track someplace. I wasn't using any past techniques of any kind on this case. And we were gradually, little by little by little, pulling him out of one incident: his mama taking care of him when he had measles. And when his mama would sit there and read a book to him, why, the horrors didn't come. But when she went away and they pulled the blinds down and it got dark, then he got horrors. And boy, he was stuck but solid at about three and a half. Real interesting, huh?
The fellow's only pleasure in life was being processed. Not so it'd do anything for him but because it gave him "human companionship."
Well, now what settled this case and what tripped this? It was just my getting suspicious, after a relatively short time of processing, of somebody who took so much pleasure in being processed and was obviously so bad off right after the session. See, there's something wrong here. And this was all keyed out, but I tried in vain to get a good, solid communication change. He was just getting progressively just a little bit better. But that case would have told me anything to have kept me there processing him. Anything. He would've been agreeable to almost anything. I could have probably sat there and cursed him during the entire session for two hours solid with the vilest things I could lay my tongue to. I could have hired a marine sergeant to have cussed him for two hours and he would have just sat there with the same happy smile on his face.
Otherwise, in the rest of his waking days, when he wasn't getting direct and immediate comforting attention designed to make him well—you know, companionship and to make him well with attention immediately centered on him—he was thrashing around in a nightmare, rather perpetually, of measles, with the shades drawn and everything dark.
So here we had the case where the processing immediately fitted for the dramatization. And you'll find this happens every once in a while, because people who have had lots of attention only when they are sick tend to come around and find an auditor to give them some attention when they're sick. Well, it's a good thing to spring them out of it. I got him out of it very easily. I just had him reaching and withdrawing for present time and objects in the past. And the horrors occasionally would hit him in the processing and so on, but then we, by matched terminals and other means and so forth, fished him out of the incidents. You have much more direct methods than I was using at that time. Three places he's not in the past. Only get him to spot them.
Now, any locational technique, then—you can put this down—any locational technique is limited to spotting. If we called these techniques "spotting practice," we would know exactly what we were doing with them. So you can

AUDITING BY SOP 8-C, FORMULA H
call all those techniques "spotting practice." If your preclear doesn't spot the space, it's not doing anybody any good.
Now, let's get the other side—I said on the other side of SOP 8-C, there's this reach and withdraw. He actually reaches and withdraws from every space he looks at. So you're making him all the time, with the process, reach and withdraw. And if he's not actually, actively, really looking at the place and then taking his attention off it, he's not reaching and withdrawing from it, and so you're not exercising him as a thetan.
So one side of it, if he isn't looking at the spaces, he isn't making space. And if he isn't reaching—looking at them and inspecting them and spotting them exactly and then withdrawing from what he has spotted, he's not reaching and withdrawing. You see that?
So a case which doesn't progress under these techniques is doing just exactly what he shouldn't be doing. He's probably saying, "Yeah, I know I'm not there, I know I'm not over in the corner and so forth." And generally when
a case is doing this he is really inverted on with	, reaching and withdrawing
or he's very upset on it. And you never bring it to his attention at all. You just insist that he spot the corner.
I'll give you an example of this: "Now get that you're not at the forward part of the room. Now get that you're not in those two upper corners of the room."
Well, now let's do it this way. Let's do it this way just to exaggerate this, to show you really what we're doing.
"Now let's get that we're not in the left-hand upper corner of that room to the degree of inspecting it very closely. Now let's get that we're not in the upper right-hand corner of this room and inspect it very closely. And get that you're not in it."
Well, you see, we're making the fellow reach and withdraw as a thetan, aren't we? Okay?
Now, you could go a long time with those processes on a preclear and not gain any vast advance in the case, if you scouted these two things—you weren't trying to make him make space and you weren't trying to make him reach and withdraw.
So I say reach and withdraw doesn't now appear in any of the steps of SOP 8-C. Doingness doesn't appear in any of the steps. We have one assigned to space—space is a viewpoint of dimension. But every technique there reaches and withdraws, is in itself doingness which addresses the subject of energy— directly addresses the subject of energy, and every one of them there, one way or another, assists the individual in controlling space. He can get more space or get less space. And you just make him do it under all these various eight conditions. So there's these eight conditions, you see. And we've got those listed under 8-C.
There are eight ways of making him reach and withdraw. Eight ways of making him spot and make and control space. And if you look at these techniques that way, under that frame of reference, all of a sudden you know a lot about what you're doing. And if he doesn't look at it in this fashion, why you'd certainly better know it.
Now, where you have, in the main, difficulty with the preclear, the primary difficulty is a communication difficulty between you and the preclear. And we won't mess around and try to avoid the fact that trying to get into communication with some preclears is about the roughest thing there is.
You say to this person, "All right, now see if you can't get a picture of this."

121

122

20 DECEMBER 1953
And this person sort of flies in your face—well now, he's one way or the other. You know, "Well," he says, "I can't do that." Or "I don't know whether or not that exists." Or "Yeah, I can do that but, of course, you realize I'm just thinking it up."
And he's got all these reservations about it and then you—if you have that much communication difficulty with the preclear, this is probably what happened: The preclear finally agreed with you in order to get rid of you. He didn't do it. They will do that. They will do that.
The reason you are processing them is that they do not know how to communicate and they couldn't convey truth to you if they had to, because they themselves can't recognize it. And it isn't that truth on the subject of agreement with the mest universe is terribly desirable, but it is that truth itself, which is good operation and so forth, is desirable.
A fellow who communicates only by agreement with the mest universe, very—is often having a rough time of it. You know, he is compulsively telling the truth.
Then there's the fellow who tells the truth but not—and puts it on MEST universe lines, but not because he has any necessity to—he just tells the truth because it's the most exact communication system with which he can operate. All other communication systems are more complex.
And then there's the upper level line that there is such a thing as truth. And it's very much easier to deal with it. Unfortunately, the fellow who has the upper level can also imagine like mad. Unfortunately for the society at large, because if he starts to imagine, then he starts to create his own future.
And gee, he starts to change things and gosh, he's liable to make more money and he's liable to be better professionally than somebody else and you won't be able to eat him. He becomes less edible, so, of course, less desirable to have in the community. That's the way some people figure on it.
But a great truth, a great truth is in itself pretty self-evident, unless people have learned how not to know it. Most everything that people know about the world, they have learned the other way, you see? They've learned how not to have the world. They've learned how not to do something.
People who have difficulty with communication have learned arduously and at great length how not to communicate.
Did you ever see a baby with very much communication trouble, really? I mean he looks, and he lets you look at him, and as a matter of fact, if you fool around with many kids you'll find out they'll look at you very overtly. They'll look right straight at you. And it's very upsetting to people, but they do. And— that's no communication difficulty there. And a puppy, before he's kicked around, is usually very proud of himself and he's very cheerful and he's smiling and he just communicates wide-open in all direction. And then he learns how not to communicate. So one never learns how to communicate, one learns how not to communicate.
Your auditing, in essence, is unteaching the guy on communication. And if you can unteach him well enough, why, he will get to a point where he can really deal with truth. And the less he deals with actual communication, wide-open in all lines, why, of course, the more lies he enters into it.
One of those lies, of course, is stuff like Ohm's law. That's, in essence, a communication breakdown of one sort or another because it's gotten a rigidity, an arbitrary restriction—it is an arbitrary restriction upon current flow and so on. And, of course, arbitrary restriction on a flow is in itself a—means less flow. But, of course, that arbitrary is a constant arbitrary. It's there, so electricians,

AUDITING BY SOP 8-C, FORMULA H
electronics men work with this arbitrary and they make the arbitrary behave. Because they found the arbitrary—found by Mr. Ohm. And Mr. Ohm having found the arbitrary—or was it found by Mr. Ohm? Anyway, they, having found the arbitrary, can employ the arbitrary to control similar arbitraries. But those are all arbitraries.
A lie, for instance—a compulsive lie is an arbitrary. Well, your preclear is generally pretty bogged down on the subject of rote communication systems and his case doesn't alter until you've altered his communication system. If he's unable to do certain things, those are just inabilities of communication.
And, of course, the thing he can do—there's two conditions of communication. There is potentially wide-open communication which is at the same time controlled. It's potentially wide-open. There isn't any reason, other than just controlling it, why it's restricted. And then there's the communication system that has to be controlled because something dreadful might happen. There's the communication system controlled because we have to have secrets.
So we get: Communication system that has to—that can be a potentially wide-open communication system that is being controlled, is a desirable state of communication. Then you simply channel it in any direction you want to channel it and there's no restriction and there's nobody saying you couldn't channel it there except you. And you say you can't channel it there, just so that you can have a randomity of communication.
Now, when you can't communicate because somebody else wouldn't appreciate your communication or because of arbitrary laws which have to do with wopenglop and yup-yup or something, when these arbitrary laws all enter into it, they are forced upon you because you're unable to communicate in that fashion, so you have to communicate in a very restricted and constricted fashion. Well, that's the state your preclear's in. He knows that if he communicates in the ways you're asking him to communicate, he just—if you just suddenly asked him to communicate the way he would be communicating after you'd given him twenty hours of processing, he would know completely that you had posed him an incapability that was so far beyond him, that it was so far beyond any human being, that he would seriously doubt, really, if it was the thing to do.
So, in essence, you sneak up on his communication lines; you open them up little by little, while he still has control of them. And as they open, little by little, you'll get these communication changes. They better, they worsen, they do this, they do that. He's progressing as long as you're altering his comm lines. When you cease to alter his comm lines, he's no longer progressing. Because the only direction he can progress is toward wide-open communication.
You see, he spent an awful long time learning how not to communicate, because if you said this or you said that, or you did this or you did that, or you thought this or you did that, why, you got knocked on the head or sent up to the front of the room with a dunce cap or you got ostracized or you got shot. For instance, you—if you start thinking it over, there are just tremendous numbers of things which you must not say verbally under various conditions.
Let's take the things you mustn't say to a police officer, as the most obvious one. Well, there's just a lot of them. They go on and on; they—can't say those to a police officer.
In a country which has the greatest freedom of speech in the world—and I possibly could be accused occasionally of taking more than full advantage of the freedom of speech offered the United States. No. No, I'm not being near as outspoken as my own forebears. This country always insisted on being able to state its opinion. It's only recently that its opinion's been constricted very

123

124

20 DECEMBER 1953
much. Their—they've got freedom of speech now retranslated into freedom from speech.
And however, the society, even though it talks about freedom of speech— and by the way, having done my little bit to ensure that we kept on having freedom of speech, I still reserve the license myself to use that all I please. Comes down to a basis of freedom of speech which is not to the point where the general level of decency is offended. In other words, people don't become ill or offended and so forth.
Well, that's an acceptable freedom of speech. But there is no such thing as a wide-open, complete freedom of speech if we only verbalize it to the direction that there's only so many words in the English language. There aren't enough words in the English language to furnish every concept of which anybody could think easily.
Well, just from that alone, a paucity of imagination imposes a limitation on free speech. And then there's a great deal of vocabulary, second dynamic vocabulary, used by the declasse which is not printable nor speakable, but, by the way, is not even—that isn't, by the way, much of an encroachment on freedom of speech. Because you know that practically at any time I've used the proper English in the most public places for almost anything you know of in the whole second dynamic vocabulary. It's totally acceptable.
I mean, people sit there and they listen to you without blinking an eye. It's— what they object to, then, is crudity of speech. So they have certain classifications which are under the heading of abuse of vocabulary and these become restrictions on speech.
Well, your preclear is under just these restrictions if he's under no other restrictions, but believe me they're way beyond that. Papa, Mama: "Shut up." Schoolteacher: "You mustn't whisper, you mustn't talk, you must speak. You mustn't talk, you mustn't rrrahh-rrrahh-rrrahh-rrrahh"—all his life.
Now you come along, and you covertly—by making him do something and find out that he doesn't get killed for it, making him reach and withdraw and making him create space—why, you finally bring him up to a point where he has a completely free communication line, which at the same time is completely under his control. And that is the desirable condition you're trying to attain with the preclear.
If you don't know what you're trying to do, however, you can muff the preclear and the techniques will just go through your fingers like so much sand.
Okay.

Reach/Withdraw
A lecture and Group Processing session given on 20 December 1953

We have here this special lecture, December the 20th, third lecture of the day. A lecture and processing session on Reach and Withdraw.
Today we talked a little bit after class about Reach and Withdraw and I think we ought to talk about it a little more.
It appears in one of the PABs—Professional Auditor's Bulletins—as Formula H. The discovery of Reach and Withdraw itself marked a definite peak, because here was the activity in which the thetan was engaging.
What does a thetan do? A thetan reaches and withdraws. What does the mest universe do with relationship to the thetan? It reaches and withdraws— reaches for and withdraws from the thetan. So we have this as an operating basis. And when the thetan is reaching and withdrawing on the same wavelength as the mest universe, he is of course trapped by the mest universe to that degree that he insists that he is meeting resistances in his reaches and withdrawals.
The whole process of trapping something would be to convince it that it was surrounded by barriers. Now, how do you make a barrier? You get the mest universe—in the mest universe, you make it this way: You get the mest universe reaching and holding its reach out. See, in other words, it reaches to a certain level. Well now, you could say it was reaching to a certain level and withdrawing. It was reaching and trying to withdraw in a such a—trying to reach and trying to withdraw in such a stability that you had a wall.
Now, a thetan can come along and see this wall and he can reach and withdraw on exactly the same wavelength, but he can, again, try to reach and try to withdraw at the same time, and he'll get a matched wavelength against that wall. And if he just holds it there and freezes it there, why, he would feel he was really stuck. Why? Because he's met a resistance.
Now, the resistance to anything brings about the cycle of inversion. So a person inverts simply because he's been overreached. Something has reached him faster than he could withdraw and has turned him backwards, and he's now going on its determinism. So we get something reaching him and overreaching him and now he's using something else's reaching. So there we have overreaching on the part of an other-determinism to the point which the individual becomes the other-determinism.
In other words, we overcome the ability to reach and withdraw on the part of the individual and compel him to reach and withdraw at the behest of an other-determinism. So the other-determinism is what the preclear is using. And when you find somebody that's really, really out of his mind or something

125

126

20 DECEMBER 1953
of this sort, he is operating entirely on somebody else's or something else's determinism.
Now, there are many, many mechanical means by which this occurs. There's the engram. The person has had something reach him so powerfully while he was trying to resist it, that he was pressed right straight back down into apathy; and then in apathy, of course, pushed into a situation where he could only accept this inflow, so he has the inflow. Now, the MEST universe reaches so well—and then he operates, of course, on this inflow, and he uses it to reach and withdraw.
So we find an individual using facsimiles, and being dictated to by facsimiles, because they've been overcome by energy so often that even their own energy can turn against them. That's not too hard to understand, particularly if you drew a—well, if you took your hand, for instance, and reached past a certain point, you could see how it would reach right on out the other side, and the individual then is running backwards. You get these direction shifts on the part of people. You wonder why is left right and right's left? Well the person is running on one of these inversions. He's been overreached. And he's running on the overreach.
Well, a person who has agreed heavily with the mest universe has had to have been overreached first, and several times, in order to bring about a condition where he would only go in the same direction that it goes.
Now, I won't go into a bunch of theoretical stuff because this stuff I'm giving you is terrifically practical, but it opens up, in para-Scientology, an awful lot of doors. And one of these doors is which way does time travel?
Well, you'll find the thetan who is going along in the mest universe time stream must be traveling there backwards for him. And that's just para-Scientology, see? He's traveling backwards. In other words, he's going from, what is for him—into a state of destruction. Well, a thetan would never under his own determinism destroy himself. In the first place, he couldn't. But he is apparently degenerating as he hits the universe, so therefore a thetan going forward would have a tendency to become more and be more and so on. And you get a thetan to run backwards any engram or run backwards any time span, and he gets regret, and he gets regret and so on. He's trying to stop time; this is definitely true. And he gets stuck on the track as a reason why. He tries to stop particles.
Well, as I say, it opens up the door to a tremendous amount of speculation— just reach and withdraw. Reach and withdraw—he's overreached and so after that, he uses the motion which he's been granted. And after that, he's stuck in a time stream, and you can say all sorts of things. It leads off into lots of speculation, and it wonders whether or not the composition of energy is as it looks, and there's lots of things you can go into there. But we're not trying to go into that, we're just trying to go into this simple action. What's a thetan do? He reaches and withdraws; he is reached for and withdrawn from.
That's—in terms of any action, then, that's what he's doing. Now, how many ways can you phrase reach? Well, actually, the word reach has been used advisedly. Because a thetan reaches for, more often than he reaches to,
In other words, he's his own best space limiter and so on. And actually, a person who is unable to reach adequately is unable to arrive. And for your thetan that you're practicing on, why, he, of course—the one thing he probably can't do is arrive. Because in this universe, to arrive is to die! And that's the final arrival. See, anybody that's having trouble with arriving is having trouble reaching. So he's trying to reach.

REACH/WITHDRAW
Now, an individual who's having trouble with perception is trying to withdraw.
Now, I've brought up the case, and I'll state it again, of the individual whose perceptions turn on and then suddenly turn off. You work, and—like mad and you decide that the best thing in the world to do is to get this fellow's perceptions on. You work, you work, you work, work—oh, you decide that's real good, and he decides that's real good, and you think you're very triumphant— and then you see him on the next session and his perceptions are off.
And you say, "Well, the son of a gun, he just made up his mind and he turned his perceptions off." No, he didn't. But that's what it looks like. And you're looking at the basic mechanical fact of occlusion. You're looking at a problem of havingness, you're looking at a problem of ownership when you're looking at the problem of turn-off perception.
Now, he's been educated in the field of ownership. He's been educated there's certain things he can't have. Ownership is a problem of havingness. If you own something, you can have it. If you don't own it, you can't have it. That's the way the police systems of the world operate. And therefore, if you don't own something, ordinarily you mustn't touch it. And if you own something you can touch it.
So a preclear who's occluded is having ownership trouble—always having ownership trouble. He has to have it real nailed down, and deeds of title and all sorts of things to convince him that he owns something, and only then can he touch it.
Well, when he's been overcome too often with other-determinism, he of course believes that even the pictures he sees—because they are pictures of other things—he believes they aren't his. But they're pictures of things he can't touch, so he can't touch his pictures.
So you turn on beautiful visio of a facsimile and he flinches and he comes right straight back out of the perception of it. Why? Because he doesn't dare touch it.
In order to perceive anything, a thetan must be able to touch it. See, he must reach it. And he reaches out and reaches something and then brings it back in as a picture. Now, if he's depending on a photon flow and everything to come to him, then he's agreeing with the inflow of the mest universe and it's just reaching him all the time and so forth. Well, it can reach him and go straight through him.
You can get anybody to reach out—just close his eyes and reach out toward an object and he will come back with a picture of it. Ordinarily, this is true. And then he'll take a look at the picture of it and flinch and it'll go black. That's because he can't have it. He mustn't touch it. It's one of the most aberrative— single action on the track would be people trying to convince you that you mustn't touch things. But that is enforced by pain.
Pain is the result of having touched something which was not supposed to be touched. And after a person has touched things and been hurt many times, then he recoils the moment he sees something—he won't touch. So then he gets problems of ownership. There, too, is problems of protection. Protection is don't touch.
Well, now in phrasing "reach," you can phrase it as "touch." As in phrasing "withdraw," you can phrase it as "run away" or "leave alone" or "mustn't touch." And in phrase of "reach," you have "perceive"; in "withdraw," you have "don't perceive."

127

128

20 DECEMBER 1953
And in terms of an occlusion, you have withdraw into what he at least owns, which is the old burned-out residue (nobody else wants that, he can have that) so he can get back into the blackness. So he's seen something and flinched. The second he's seen something and flinched he's, of course, back in the blackness again, so off go his perceptions.
Actually his perceptions are there all the time. Only he isn't on the other side of the black curtain. So he's having reach and withdraw trouble.
Now, there's something he mustn't perceive, which is something he mustn't touch. Now, let's just take an analysis of a case, and let's take him on an E-Meter and let's take him over the eight dynamics and let's find out what dynamic he mustn't touch something on. In other words, what dynamic are you supposed to leave alone? Well, you'll get several flicks on a meter. And you just take these, then, and have him reach and withdraw from that class of things, and those things which he mustn't touch will eventually show up and his perception will come on. Now, Reach and Withdraw in a desperate case will turn on perception.
If you have to sit down and run Reach and Withdraw until you turn on perception, you just do it, that's all. But it's formula. Now, another thing which—it's Formula H and it's very applicable.
So what is the modus operandi of perception? The modus operandi of perception is sending out some energy—in terms of reach and withdraw— and taking some pictures of something with that energy, and then examining it. And that is a safe way of doing it for any thetan. Another way to do it is throw a viewpoint out there and look at it. Well, he's doing this with his eyes.
Now, a person who's having trouble with this, you say, "Now reach for the clock. Now withdraw from it and take a look at what you've got." And he does, and he has a picture of another clock. See, he reached for it all right, but he gets a facsimile of another clock. He retailors it before he gets it back, because it might bite. He mustn't duplicate, if he's doing this, you see?
He reaches for the clock and he gets another clock. Well, he can't duplicate the clock. A person who can duplicate very easily, of course, just reaches for the clock and gets a picture of the clock, that's all.
Reaching and withdrawing has a great deal to do with perception. So there are things he mustn't touch, which means things he mustn't reach for and withdraw from. And that comes under heading of reach and withdraw and that's why perceptions are off if you want the most basic rule—mustn't touch.
Mustn't touch is mustn't have. Those things which are protected are those things which others mustn't touch. You can almost index a preclear simply by touching him on the shoulder. If he flinches and has to run it out after you've done that, why, you know that this boy is having an awful lot of trouble and he's probably an occluded case—nothing to that, see?
So here we have with great ease, a (quote) "diagnosis" (unquote) of the thetan. How much can he reach and withdraw from?
Now, oddly enough, one of the first things that a thetan recoils from, in terms of reach and withdraw, is space—because there's nothing to reach.
Now, did you ever stand up and fight nothing? Well, you can get a preclear with the idea of fighting nothing, and he gets kind of sick. The terrific satisfaction of a bull during a bullfight when he finally gets his horns into that horse—it's wonderful. Up to that time he's been able to butt nothing but capes. And boy, that bull will take anything to just butt good and solidly at that horse—oh, it's anything. That's satisfactory. You can practically hear him purr as he gets those horns into that blanket and twists them around.

REACH / WITHDRAW
At the same time, there is really why he can later on be befuddled further and transfixed by swords. Because he's gotten this terrific engram: All the time he's butting the horse, he's being knifed. He's being piked, really. He's being piked so thoroughly that after that he doesn't dare butt. And this, in essence, is what has happened to the thetan.
He's fought nothing and fought nothing and fought nothing and then he finally did fight something—and, by golly, he fought it with a great satisfaction and boy, did he get a kickback from it, but solidly. And he got enough kickback from it so after that he doesn't even want to fight something. So now he won't fight something and he won't fight nothing.
Well, the first perception problem was perception of space. You get unlimited space—he threw up some unlimited space and then tried to see something in it, you see? He put a mock-up up in it or put something in it and then somebody took it away and then he tried to see it again. And he tried to fight whatever took it away and he couldn't see this. And so he was left fighting nothing. Now, this is insidious and horrible.
Another thing is, space doesn't give you a bit of attention; all you can do is—to space, is give it attention. You get some preclear to get the idea of black space giving him attention and you get a terrible problem in terms of reach and withdraw. That's why most of your occluded cases are space opera people. They've been out there in black space often enough and long enough trying to reach some destination or withdraw from some destination (because the action of travel is reach and withdraw simultaneously; and—yes, you withdraw from what is behind you and reach what is in front of you) and you get a point of apathy, as far as they're concerned, on ever reaching anything or ever really getting away from anything. Because they have no—no points with which to compare their travel, and they are apparently just motionless but still trying to reach something, still trying to withdraw something.
You tell such a person, "Now reach. Withdraw." He gets blackness. He's stuck, in other words, on trying to reach and withdraw in black space. And you show him something and he has trouble with havingness too—that's another part of space opera. And so anytime he sees anything, he'll flinch. If he sees a mock-up, why, maybe three or four mock-ups later, he'll all of a sudden go black again.
So as a consequence, when he loses anything, everything goes black. The idea of loss turns everything black. That's a not-havingness—that's again, he has failed. He put up something there and he said, "Nobody else should touch it," and by golly, they did. He can't even protect it and so he must be back there in black space where it was all so very, very interestingly upsetting. He just says this to himself.
He flinches away from the object, and he doesn't want to see it again. Well, all right. We have in our categories of thetans many manifestations, and all these manifestations are reach and withdraw. Let's take that Tone Scale up there. And we find out that every emotion on it is a manifestation of reach and withdraw. How do we do this?
Anger is "must reach, can't reach."
Insanity itself, the emotion, is "must reach, but unable to reach." And you run that on a preclear, "must reach, unable to reach," and he'll eventually turn on the emotion of being insane. It's just a certain portion of the Tone Scale up there rather than a condition into which one degenerates—he gets a reach and withdraw lock-up. All right.

129

130

20 DECEMBER 1953
Now we get the individual who is afraid, and the whole environment, to him, is saying, "Withdraw, withdraw, withdraw." And the tiniest little reach that he makes will make him afraid. See, he makes a little reach and he gets scared. Why? Because the environment tells him he has to withdraw. He can't make the environment withdraw, so he has to withdraw.
Hence we get this little process you can use on a cat: You make the cat cuff at your fingers. You coax him into cuffing at you and slapping at you, and finally—you withdraw every time, you see, and he gets the idea he could make the environment withdraw, which makes him very cocky indeed. He gets to be a very healthy cat. Oh, he gets to be a tough cat. Just that's—dangerousness then, is whether or not you can make something withdraw when you tell it to, and control is whether or not you could make something withdraw or come to you. In other words, if you can reach it and withdraw it from its former position, or move it sideways. So there's "hold and let go," go along with that, and— holding something still or letting go of it.
Now, a lot of your preclears have a trouble with "hold" and "let go." They'll get out of their heads and they'll get hold of something and can't let go. And this really upsets them. They go back in their heads and after that, they're just—they're sunk.
So reach and withdraw, naturally, bring about the conditions of hold and let go. If you've reached something and grasp it, you have to let go of it before you can withdraw from it. They've got this, but it gets tangled and confused in them. And now a preclear who's done this is simply drilled on the basis of reaching something, grabbing hold of it and then letting go of it and withdrawing from it. You put those two steps in there.
You ask some of these people right here, by the way, whether or not they've had this happen to them, and two or three of them will tell you they have. And the thing that gets it over that is just take their MEST hands and just make them reach things, hold on to them, let go of them and withdraw from them mechanically over and over and over and over and over. And they all of a sudden say, "You know, I don't have to be stuck to this stuff."
They're usually in some kind of an Assumption body or an old Fac One body that holds on or sticks to something. Well, they've just been in too much combat with the mest universe and they measured up its wavelength too well, and they're on a "not have" and they're generally an occluded case and so forth.
But here is reach and withdraw manifested all the way up and down the Tone Scale—all the laws of motion have to do with reach and withdraw. And all the laws of terminals have to do with hold and let go and reach and withdraw. When we get into this subject, then, we're pretty well into the subject of life behavior. And it's the most important one.
Now, it isn't the most important because I said it's so—not because I just said so, that's not the reason it's the most important one. Could be, you understand—I'm totally capable of doing that. But it doesn't happen to be the most important reason why. It's because it works. All right.
Now, when we look over our preclear, we'll find out that those things at which he cannot look—now, let's integrate this into look, feel, effort, think. Those things which he has to think about but can't look at are those things which he doesn't dare reach. He can't touch them, in other words.
And those things which he obsessively remembers are those things which can touch him any time. He's realized he's powerless to forbid things from touching him—certain things. So therefore, he gets touchy. Fits right in with the language, by the way. He gets touchy to the point where you tap him on a

REACH / WITHDRAW
shoulder unexpectedly and he jumps about four feet. He just doesn't like that—not at all. He wouldn't even like a friendly pat—it upsets him a little bit, a tiny friendly touch.
Because things can touch him any time. Well, of course, the darn fool's got a body—of course things can touch him at any time, but that's beside the point. He thinks he's the body, so therefore, if anything can touch the body, they can touch him and he just gets more and more convinced.
And we get the highest echelon of all of this: The fellow is as convinced about being able to reach and withdraw as he is convinced about being able to reach and withdraw. That's about the end of it. So you just exercise him long enough to be convinced he can reach for these things with impunity—as himself, not as a body. That's nonsense to reach for them as a body.
A body, of course, is highly destructible and is almost total inflow. The body doesn't do any reaching and withdrawing, all it does is withdraw.
Now, let's get somebody being pounded and hammered and booted around, and booted and hammered and pounded around, and bing-banged and thud-thudded, and do you know he eventually gets a craving to have something. In other words, his own reachingness has been turned into withdrawingness to such a degree that he has to have. In other words, the pounding has given him a desire to own.
He has been overcome often enough so that the desire on the part of the thing overcoming him was eventually translated into the energy units which he has still about him. So he turns around, you see, and goes the opposite direction, and when he tries to reach, he'll pull in.
A fellow who has—just has to have things. You'll run into that, because you get a preclear to give up an aberration—boy, he doesn't give up an aberration worth a nickel. Well, that's something he has to have. Well that's because he's been overcome too often by things reaching to him. They can touch him, they can overcome him, they can reach him at any time. He's convinced of all this.
Well, this is any of your cases from IV down to VIII. This is any of them, from IV to VII. And your—the problem there is just a problem of having been overcome.
What is self-determinism? Self-determinism is whether or not you're reaching and withdrawing or whether or not something else is reaching and withdrawing, and that's about the end of it. That necessitates space before any of this can take place. Okay.
Well, I just want to give that to you real solidly, because a lot of you are having trouble with—having a little bit of trouble getting a session really rolling and getting somebody really in the groove so they're easy to process.
Well, you use some Reach and Withdraw and you'll find out they're not so hard to process; because they know something can happen because this technique does produce action. And this is a formula, this is Formula H. And whether sentimentally or otherwise—I mean, whether the word is too sentimental, it nevertheless ... I called it Formula H just so it'd stand for "hope" and— because it'll give the preclear some. So you just remember that's why it was named that way. And it was named that way so that you might remember that if your preclear appears to be very despairing about what's happened to him, you reach and withdraw for a while.
Now, I've run this on many cases on specific things and achieved very interesting results. One fellow reached and withdrew for basic-basic for about ten hours and turned on all the perceptics on the line. Another fellow—he actually found it; it actually is there. Another fellow did some other things on

131

132

20 DECEMBER 1953
Reach and Withdraw and recovered most of the aberrative material on the case in a very short session.
But the use of this, of course, is to some degree—unless you yourself address it straight out to the MEST universe and direct it in that fashion, it has a tendency to be a subjective technique. That is to say, you can have the fellow reaching and withdrawing in terms of his own universe, toward his own facsimiles and toward his ideas, long enough and it becomes a limited technique. It practically spins him. So you can't carry this on forever without making him reach and withdraw in this universe.
Well, you can do that—you can make him do that forever. You can have him reach and withdraw from these walls and through these walls and so on.
Well, in essence, that's the whole of technique of Step Level VII of SOP 8-C— is just reach and withdraw. Now, as I've said earlier, it's the whole of all the other techniques. Okay.
Now, let's take a long breath here, and I'm going to run some processes here on you as a group and just demonstrate this. This is one technique that just by telling you about it isn't going to hurt it in its processing, because the fellow that can beat this one isn't alive.
And when I say reach, I actually mean reach. Get as close to it as you can. If you don't get to it, at least get toward it, and spot where it is. See that? I mean, let's not shorten up on it. Let's try to get to it. And when it reaches for you, if there's effort there, okay. If there's just lookingness there, okay. It just doesn't matter what is there, you run whatever seems to be there in terms of reach and withdraw.
Now, we're going to do this fairly rapidly. And if you get caught on—you've just started to reach and we've already gone through a reach and withdraw cycle, why, you just skip that reach cycle and grab the next one I give you. Because you actually can't mess up a bank with this one. Anybody whose bank can be messed up with this one is already so messed up there's no hope for him, so let's go. (audience laughter) All right.
Now let's reach for present time.
Now reach for present time behind you.
Now reach for present time below you.
Now reach for present time to the right of you.
Now reach to the left of you. Okay.
Now withdraw from present time behind you.
In front of you.
Above you.
Below you.
And otherwise.
Now let's get present time reaching for you from in front of you.
Now let's get present time reaching for you from with—behind you.
Reaching for you from above you.
Reaching for you from the right side.
Reaching for you from the left side.
And withdrawing from in front of you.
And withdrawing from behind you.
Withdrawing from above you.
Withdrawing from the right of you.
And withdrawing from the left of you.
And now get it in a sphere, withdrawing.
And get it withdrawing some more.

REACH / WITHDRAW
And get it withdrawing some more.
And now as it withdraws, get you reaching for it as it withdraws.
Reach for it around as it withdraws.
Reach for it behind you as it withdraws. Get its feeling of trying to withdraw at least, while you reach for it. All right.
Now as it continues to withdraw, you withdraw from it.
And you withdraw from it even harder.
Now you withdraw from it even more.
Now reach for it.
Now have it suddenly reach for you.
Now withdraw from it and have it withdraw from you.
Now have it reach for you and you reach for it. Okay.
Now put what you've been doing out in front of you as a sort of a hit-or-miss mock-up and duplicate it.
And duplicate it.
And duplicate it.
And duplicate it.
And duplicate it.
And throw it away. Okay.
Now, those of you who can, be three feet back of your head and continue this exercise there. Or twenty-five feet or twenty-five miles—be back there, outside. If you snap in, that's not very important.
Now, if you're inside, try and get this, too: Get the body reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Get you reaching for the body.
Withdrawing from it.
Reaching for it.
Withdrawing from it.
Reaching for it.
Withdrawing from it.
Reaching for it.
Withdrawing from it.
Get the body reaching for you.
And withdrawing from you.
And get it withdrawing from you.
And withdrawing from you.
And withdrawing from you.
And withdrawing from you.
And withdrawing from you.
And you withdrawing from the body.
Now get it reaching for you.
And you reaching for it.
And it withdrawing, and you withdrawing from it.
And you reaching for it while it withdraws.
And you withdrawing from it as it reaches for you.
Now get it reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Get you reaching for the body.
Withdrawing from it.
Reaching.

133

134

20 DECEMBER 1953
Withdrawing. Reaching. Withdrawing. Reaching.
Withdrawing. Okay.
Now where you are, contact present time. Okay.
Now reach for a baby—that's very unspecific, but you just reach in the direction of a baby. Now withdraw. Now reach. Now withdraw. Now reach. Now withdraw. Now reach. Now withdraw. Now reach. And withdraw. Get a baby reaching for you. Withdrawing from you. Reaching for you. Withdrawing from you. Reaching for you. Withdrawing from you.
Now duplicate what you've just been doing in whatever fashion you care to. And duplicate it again. Duplicate it again. Duplicate it again. Duplicate it again. Throw it away. Okay. Now let's get you reaching for a group. Withdrawing from one. Reaching for a group. Withdrawing from one. Reaching. Withdrawing. Reaching. Withdrawing. Reaching. Withdrawing. Reaching. Withdrawing. Reaching.
Withdrawing. Okay. Let's get a group reaching for you. Withdrawing from you. Reaching for you. Withdrawing from you. Reaching for you. Withdrawing from you. Reaching for you. Withdrawing from you. Reaching for you.

REACH / WITHDRAW
Withdrawing.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing. Okay.
Let's get you reaching for a group.
Withdrawing from one.
Reaching for a group.
Withdrawing from one.
And reach for two corners of this room.
And withdraw from them.
And reach for the space—the middle space of the room.
And withdraw from it.
And reach for it.
Withdraw from it.
And reach for it.
Withdraw from it.
All right. Now let's get the middle space of the room reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
You reaching for the space immediately above this building.
Withdrawing from it.
Reaching for it.
Withdrawing from it.
Reaching for it.
Withdrawing from it.
Reaching for it.
Withdrawing from it.
Reaching for it.
Withdrawing from it.
Get the space above this building reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Get the space near the Moon reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Get you reaching for the space near the Moon.
Withdrawing.
Reaching.

135

136

20 DECEMBER 1953
Withdrawing.
Reaching.
Withdrawing. Okay.
Now let's get you reaching for an animal.
Withdraw.
Reach for an animal.
And withdraw.
Reach for an animal.
Withdraw.
Reach.
And withdraw.
Reach for an animal.
Withdraw.
Reach.
Withdraw.
Now get an animal reaching for you.
Withdrawing.
Reaching.
Withdrawing.
Reaching.
Withdrawing.
Reaching.
Withdrawing.
Now get you reaching for a spirit.
Withdrawing.
Now reach again for a spirit.
Withdraw.
Reach.
Withdraw.
Reach.
Withdraw.
Get a spirit reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Spirit reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
A spirit reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Now you reach for God.
Withdraw.
Reach.
Withdraw.
Reach.
Withdraw.
Get God reaching for you.
Withdraw.
And God reaching for you.

REACH / WITHDRAW
And withdrawing from you.
God reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Now reaching for you.
And you make him withdraw.
Reaching for you.
You make him withdraw.
Reaching for you.
You make him withdraw.
Reaching for you.
You make him withdraw.
Now get a spirit reaching for you.
You make the spirit withdraw.
Spirit reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
Spirit reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
Spirit reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
Get the mest universe reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
Universe reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
Universe reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
Universe reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
Now let's get mankind reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
Mankind reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
Mankind reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
Mankind reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
A group reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
A group reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
A group reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
A group reaching for you.
Make it withdraw.
A member of the other sex reaching for you.
Get you withdrawing.
Get a member of the other sex withdrawing.
With you reaching.
Other sex reaching and you withdrawing.

137

138

20 DECEMBER 1953
And get the other sex withdrawing.
And get a member of the opposite sex reaching for you.
And make it withdraw.
Get a member of the opposite sex reaching.
You make it withdraw.
Member of the opposite sex reaching.
You make it withdraw.
Member of the opposite sex reaching.
You make it withdraw.
Member of the opposite sex reaching.
You make it withdraw.
Member of the opposite sex reaching straight on through you and keeping on going.
Throw that one away.
Member of the opposite sex reaching for you.
Make them withdraw.
Member of the opposite sex reaching for you, reaching straight through you and keeping on going.
Throw it away.
You reaching for a member of the opposite sex. Reach for them, reach straight on through them.
Throw it away.
Member of the opposite sex reaching while you reach.
Opposite sex reaching while you reach.
Opposite sex reaching while you reach.
Reaching while you reach.
Reaching while you reach.
Now withdrawing while you withdraw.
Withdrawing while you withdraw.
Withdrawing while you withdraw.
Member of the opposite sex reaching.
Make it withdraw.
Member of the opposite sex reaching.
Make it withdraw.
Opposite sex reaching.
Make them withdraw. Okay.
Get your body reaching.
Get it withdrawing.
Get it reaching.
Withdrawing.
Get you reaching for your body.
And withdrawing.
Reaching for your body.
And withdrawing. Okay.
Reach for the four upper corners of this room.
Withdraw.
Reach the four upper corners of this room.
Withdraw.
Reach the four upper corners of this room.
Withdraw.

REACH / WITHDRAW
Now be well away from your body if you can. And within yourself, see if you can find the capability of doing this: You as a thetan, whether interior or exterior, get the idea of reaching for yourself—not your body, for yourself.
And withdrawing.
Reaching for your other self or yourself.
Withdrawing.
Reaching.
Withdrawing.
Reaching.
Withdrawing.
Now get your other self—however you've mocked it up, located it, actually found it—get it reaching for you.
And withdrawing.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing. All right.
Now mock up yourself as a thetan—wherever you want to mock it up— splitting in half, and the halves withdrawing from each other.
Let's throw that away.
Get yourself as a thetan again, splitting in half, and the halves withdrawing from each other.
Throw it away.
Splitting in half, and the halves withdrawing from each other.
Throw it away.
Now duplicate that.
Throw it away.
Duplicate it.
Throw it away.
Now get you as a thetan holding two halves of you together, pulling in, withdrawing inward.
And duplicate it.
Duplicate it.
Duplicate it.
Duplicate it.
Duplicate it.
One pair at a time. Duplicate it.
Throw them away. Okay.
Get you as a thetan finding which direction it is easiest to reach and withdraw. Which direction is it easiest to reach and withdraw?
Now locate that and orient that very carefully.
Now reach and then withdraw, the easiest direction.
Now reach and withdraw again.
Now reach and withdraw again.
Now reach and withdraw again.
Now reach and withdraw again.
And now you know the direction you've been reaching and withdrawing— that was the easiest direction—now let's take exactly the opposite direction. The—exactly the other side of what would be a sphere, exactly the opposite direction. Now reach in that direction, and withdraw.

139

140

20 DECEMBER 1953
Reach.
Withdraw.
Reach.
Withdraw.
Reach.
Withdraw.
Reach.
Withdraw.
And check it up to make sure you're still reaching the same direction there.
Reach.
Withdraw.
Reach.
Withdraw.
Reach.
Withdraw.
Reach.
Withdraw.
Now let's pick out what's now the easiest direction for you to reach and withdraw in—let's just select a point and let's reach in that direction.
And withdraw.
Reach.
Withdraw.
Now let's take the exact opposite pole to that and let's reach in that direction.
And withdraw.
And let's reach in that direction.
Withdraw.
Reach.
And withdraw.
And reach.
And withdraw.
Now whatever you found there or didn't find there, whichever way it was, duplicate it.
And duplicate it.
And duplicate it.
And duplicate it.
And duplicate it.
And duplicate it.
And duplicate it.
And throw them all away.
Now let's reach for your childhood home.
Let's withdraw.
Reach for your childhood home.
Withdraw.
And get your childhood home reaching for you.
Withdraw.
Reaching for you.
Withdraw.
Now get the most dangerous thing in your childhood home—whatever it is that occurs to you at this instant—and get you reaching for it.
Withdrawing from it.
Reaching for it.
Withdrawing from it.

REACH / WITHDRAW
Reaching for it. Withdrawing from it. Reaching for it. Withdrawing from it. Get it reaching for you. Withdrawing from you. Reaching for you. Withdrawing from you. Reaching for you. Withdrawing from you. All right. Now let's just reach for the childhood home. Withdraw.
Reach for your childhood home. Withdraw. Reach for it. Withdraw. Reach for it. Withdraw.
Reach for your childhood home. Reach right to it if you can. Withdraw.
Now get your childhood home reaching for you. And withdrawing. Reaching for you. Withdrawing. Reaching for it. And withdrawing.
Now if there's more than one, take the earliest one that's turned up and reach for it.
And withdraw.
Reach for it.
Withdraw.
Reach for it.
Withdraw.
Reach for it.
Withdraw.
Reach.
Withdraw.	'
Now get it reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
Reaching for you.
Withdrawing from you.
You reaching for your earliest childhood home.
Withdrawing from you.
Now reach for your entrance point to the mest universe.
Withdraw.
Reach for your entrance point to the mest universe.
Withdraw.
Reach for your entrance point to the mest universe.

141

142

20 DECEMBER 1953
Withdraw.
Entrance point to the mest universe. Withdraw.
Get it reaching for you. Withdrawing. Reaching for you. Withdrawing. You reaching for it. And withdrawing. Reaching for it. Withdrawing. Reaching for it. Withdrawing.
Now reach for the four upper corners of this room. Withdraw. Reach for them. Withdraw.
Now pick any building in Camden—any building in the city. Withdraw. Reach for it. Withdraw. Reach for it. Withdraw. Reach for it. Withdraw.
Get the four upper corners of this room, hold them for a moment and don't think. (pause) All right. Withdraw from them. Now let's remember something real.
Now a time when you were in good communication with somebody. Now let's recall a time when you felt some affinity for somebody. And let's recall something that really seems real to you now. And a time when you were in good communication. And the beginning of the session.
And the four upper corners of the room right this minute. Now reach for the end of session. And here you are. End of session.

Ability to Accept Direction
A lecture given on 21 December 1953

December 21st, the first lecture of the day. Today we are going to go into some material here with regard to auditing and the use of SOP 8 -C.
First thing we're going to examine is directional matters, such as accepting direction. Now, accepting direction is, of course, receiving orders; which is, of course, having postulates which must be obeyed or having postulates which one might or might not obey.
A preclear is as good as he can make a postulate and execute it or have it come about. Now, he's as good as he can make a postulate come true and he's no better than that, and he never will be any better than that. He says, "It's going to be green," and it turns green. Now, that's that.
Now, a preclear who can't put a mock-up out there and say, "It's now going to be green," and have it turn green, is having difficulty with directional control from this standpoint: He starts to resist orders. And from resisting orders, he of course deteriorates into resisting his own orders. His self-determinism, then, is put up, as such, to resist the self-determinism of others—which is other-determinism—and to keep it from encroaching upon him.
If you could envision a preclear as standing there with his own self-determinism as an arrow which he is ready to shoot in any particular direction, and he has a free choice of directions, and then if you will envision another person coming up with an arrow with which he's going to shoot the preclear, we'll find both arrows classify—one for one person, one for the other person— both arrows classify as self-determinism.
But now supposing our first person there is going to use his arrow to prevent the second person who came up from shooting. Now, it doesn't matter whether this arrow is going to be shot at the first person or shot at game the first person was going to shoot or simply shot away and wasted, if the arrow or the threat of the arrow is going to be used to deter the flight of the second person's arrow, and if we're calling these arrows self-determinism, we'll see that a person is employing his self-determinism to interfere with or resist the use of somebody else's self-determinism.
Now let's put this in terms of flow. Here's an individual, he has some flow, which we will call self-determinism. Another individual comes up and he has some flow which for him is self-determinism. Well, for each one of these individuals, the other's flow is other-determinism. And so they decide to use their flows cooperatively and so overcome some obstacle—no conflict. Actually, they

143

144

21 DECEMBER 1953
can take orders from each other with great ease and without being even slightly aberrated.
But now they turn around and begin to use these flows against, each, the other flow, and of course you'll find out that it will lock up and fix. The main thing that will fix is that there will be an exact point of meeting of the two flows. And if one is concentrating all of his self-determinism in one direction only and fixing it in that direction only, he is then unwilling to unfix it since he feels he would be overcome by the other-determinism he's holding back, and so does not free his own self-determinism at that spot. And not having freed it at this spot is, of course, to some degree, left without the benefit of this flow we were calling self-determinism. Now, this doesn't happen until he begins to use his self-determinism to overcome somebody else's self-determinism.
Now let's take the mest universe as a unit which overcomes self-determinism. We find out the individual. . . Let's see self-determinism in terms of a flow again—a stream of water or something on the sort—if the individual turns a fire hose against a building, he fully intends that fire hose, however, to go right on through the building and out the other side. And lo and behold, it doesn't—it hits the front of the building and stops right there; so we have a limited distance.
Now, the next thing that happens is that he is liable to decide that the best thing to do is to turn on more water with the fire hose, so as to blow down this barricade which is facing him with this fire hose. And he dedicates his action to ridding himself of the wall which is stopping him from using his fire hose as he wanted. The fire he was trying to put out or something of this sort, was eight blocks away, but the stream of water had to go through a building before it got there. So he just stands there and tries to go through the wall. Now, that would be stupid. You'd say the best thing to do is just go over to where the fire is, eight blocks away, and put it out. But individuals don't do that. They find a wall interposing between themselves and their goal and they decide they'll devote all their time to the wall.
This is a failure in terms of End of Cycle and is in itself End of Cycle. The individual does not accomplish with his self-determinism what he has intended to accomplish with it, and so fails to reach a goal.
Now, there's a first goal on the track that an individual turned aside from. And that first goal, of course—that's the most aberrative cycle on the track. It's the first unfinished cycle on the track. And it was at that time when the individual set out to do something, decided to use energy, power or space— whatever he was going to use—and discovered there was an obstacle in his path, and out of his own self-determinism simply stopped going toward the goal he had first chosen and without altering that postulate or without saying he wasn't going toward that goal anymore, turned aside to batter down an obstacle he thought was interfering with his attainment of that goal. And then devoted all of his time to the obstacle, and the obstacle itself became the end-all of existence. See, then he spent all of his time on the obstacle. And his life from that point there on, all down through the spirals, is a consistency in terms of that.
He decides he's going to go toward a certain goal and then he discovers there are a lot of interposing obstacles. He takes his self-determinism and crunches it in against the first obstacle and tries to get rid of it so that he can get to his goal. And maybe he succeeds, that's all right. And he goes to the next one, and crunches against it.
An individual going—the shortest line is that line between two points, so the individual who decides he's just going to go through these obstacles will occasionally find himself standing up in front of an obstacle and just chewing

ABILITY TO ACCEPT DIRECTION
away at it endlessly until he forgets where he's going; and after that, he just chews away at the obstacle. Any preclear who sits down in an auditing chair is chewing away against an obstacle he at one time or another decided to clear away so that he could reach a goal. Hence the efficacy of End of Cycle Processing.
In End of Cycle Processing you merely keep mocking up a finished, completed task—a goal. You mock him up dead, life completed, and so on, up to a point where he's attained that goal. Life in itself is a sort of a battering ram against obstacles. It's only when the individual drops away from his original and basic purpose and begins to fight those things which were merely interposed, and then makes it an end of all existence simply to fight that obstacle or those obstacles, that we get an aberrated condition.
Now, here is an individual who is using his directional control, his own self-determinism, his commands, you might say, his ability to make postulates (these are all the same thing, you understand—directional control, ability to make postulates, self-determinism), he's using that now to clear away an obstacle from a path which he has forgotten.
Always, in any track, you will find this taking place: that the individual is not fighting the goal toward which he is originally dedicated; he's fighting some sub-sub-subobstacle. Well, he's fighting these obstacles to a point where he thinks he has mental obstacles. And, of course, the only kind of an obstacle there would be, really, would be a mental obstacle, but he has his mind confused with a system of walls, and he begins to believe himself entirely hemmed in.
That's because he's used his self-determinism to batter against obstacles that he might well have passed around or just gone through. It's very amazing. You get some preclear out of his head and you send him up around the Moon— there are about thirty thousand meteorites a day land on the Moon up there, so there's always a plentiful supply of them flying through the air—and you tell him to find a meteorite and get in front of it and move along in front of it so that it won't hit him. And oh, even his body in the chair and even his beingness— you could just feel the awful strain of trying to keep ahead of this meteorite.
And well, that's fine up to the point where you tell him—he goes on a strain right up to the point where you tell him—"All right, now just pass through it and be behind it." And he smiles or giggles, he feels silly. And, of course, there is no obstacle there for him. There's an obstacle there. Anybody could find that as an obstacle, but it's no obstacle for him. He just passes through it and he's on the other side of it. And you tell him to follow the meteorite for a while and he's very amused about this. He can do this with great ease, but it's something that doesn't occur to him in a moment of stress.
What I'm showing you there—you say, "Be in front of that meteor now." He's in front of the meteor and he's scared stiff of it. The thing starts coming in—he's got to ride just a few feet ahead of this plunging thing through space, and he knows that he'd just be knocked to pieces if he ever let up. Why does he know this? Well, let's look at communication. It's because when he forced self-determinism against walls and barriers, they blew up, didn't they? Very often they blew up. Well, on a communication line, if he has done this many times, of course, he expects it to happen to him. And yet you have him out of his head and, of course, he doesn't have any mass, and so you just tell him to pass through it.
Well, the first thing he learns from that is that he doesn't have any mass. But the point that is most important is it shows him that he doesn't have to worry any further about those overt act—motivator sequences against the mest universe and against a lot of things, because he can be the effect. He is not damageable.

145

146

21 DECEMBER 1953
Well, an individual forgets this and he begins to fight these obstacles, like the preclear fights the front of the meteor. And he fights obstacles, and he puts sweat and strain into it—he, a thetan, actually starts putting sweat and strain into stopping an obstacle and—or battering one down that's in his path and so on. And he forgets—let's say he went out to rescue a beautiful damsel who was in the upper part of a castle. And he got down to the lower door of the castle and he found out that door was really battened down; he couldn't anywhere enter that door. And instead of just flipping out of whatever he was using for a body and flipping up into the upper category of the castle, up—part of the keep—and simply making the girl walk down the stairs and open the door (which is locked from within, probably), why, instead of doing that, he stands there and hammers and pounds at the door, you see, and bang, bang.
And you know, he'll do that—this is a real silly one but it's true, a thetan will do that—he will do that until he forgets that he was doing it in order to rescue a girl. He can't get in and he'll get to a point where he considers that doors are to be battered. That's finally what he has learned. In other words, the mest universe has taught him this. Well, he's permitted himself to be taught. It's only because he forgot the end goal.
Well, I have just made that terribly exaggerated. I doubt very many thetans would for—would turn aside from rescuing a beautiful damsel. But they very often will turn aside from something which doesn't have the same aesthetic drive, and they don't have quite the same lure at the goal line. And they'll just stand there and batter obstacles, and after that the end-all of existence is to batter obstacles. And then finally, because they've battered enough obstacles— on communication, you see, a fellow slips around and becomes the effect of his own communication—they think the end-all of existence is to resist being battered. That's the best they can do—resist being battered.
Now, you say to the fellow, "Be two feet back of your head." He can't do that. Why? He is something which must resist being battered. Well, how did he get that way? Well, he got that way by overt acts against the mest universe and he has no motivators unless he himself is something that has to resist being battered. mest universe resists being battered if you decide that you're going to go on the wavelength which will be able to batter it.
Well, there's the way—that's the way a thetan gets into this situation of self-determinism-other-determinism. Well, battering a wall is about the same as resisting other-direction.
Now, here's the wall standing there and the wall says, "You go elsewhere."
Well, the guy says, "No! I'm going to go through you."
And the wall says, "You go elsewhere." Any wall is just saying that to you: "I'm not—I'm going to resist all effects. You're not going to have any effect on me, effect on me, effect on me."
That's what the wall's for. That's what it was built for. I mean, that's— everything in its beingness has to do with just that. It's going to resist all effects and the fellow has to go elsewhere. And it's telling him that. It's saying, "Beat it. Use the door. Do anything, but don't try to batter me."
And the fellow after a while—overt act-motivator—he goes away, and he didn't go through the wall, you see. He decided to batter his way through the wall instead of move through the wall. And he goes away someplace and he says, "Well, don't you try to batter your way through me. 'This great rock from its base shall fly as soon as I.' " (Lady of the Lake)
We have a situation where a fellow's going to "hold this line in spite of anything that happens." What's he holding the line for? Well, probably there's

ABILITY TO ACCEPT DIRECTION
some havingness behind him which he is trying to protect. He—there's a havingness there. Well, he thinks he can't duplicate the havingness and he knows he can't have any more, and it's all scarce, and the drama is real good, so he stands there and holds this line. Well, to a point where it drives a person into an aberration where he thereafter will hold all the time, this thing is idiocy— strictly idiocy.
Well, let's take—you know there was a very single-minded general once. Probably the only single-minded general who ever had a mind that you really could call a mind, was a fellow by the name of Alexander—Iskander of the Two Horns. In India today they still frighten their babies to sleep by saying Iskander of the Two Horns will get them. And they still remember him, and that's 300-and-something b.c. that he took a slight excursion over into India.
Well, it wasn't because he was so horrible, it was just because—he was a very beautiful young man—and it was just because he was so single-minded. And the laws of war of that time insisted that you put up two lines of men who then resisted each other. This did not fit with Alexander's frame of reference. The Germans say, "Alexander was no strategist." They frown on this whole thing. He just kept winning every battle he was ever in, you see. We find lots of strategy, but they don't call it strategy unless there's two lines of men resisting each other, and that is the definition of war and "we must fight by the definitions."
Iskander had his single-mindedness crop up many times, and he had the idea that the war was being fought between the opposing ruler and himself— this he had figured out. And he had a group of cavalry known as the companion cavalry and these people had the greatest mortality rate of anybody in the army. But Alexander would look around and he'd line his men up and he'd go through all this nonsense and rigamaroles, and he had a lot of good generals and so he had them all line up the men and get them resisting other men and so on.
All he was interested in is where's that king? "Where—where is he? Where is he? Where is he? Oh, there he is! Let's go!" See? And he'd swam-bam, lance-point straight through the enemy line, straight through the bodyguards of the king, and straight through to the king. And that was, of course, the end of the war. You see? He was a single-minded young man. He didn't believe in this barrier problem. But he's been condemned ever since by military strategists because he was never a strategist, you see; he didn't—just didn't fight by the rules of war.
Well, let's get these two solutions. It's an interesting fairy tale, but there's also something there for a thetan to look at: The place to be when you're engaged with a directed force is behind the directing force of the obstacles which confront you, and have him move them! This is very simple.
You know, if Alexander had really been smart, he simply would have flipped out of his head and flipped behind the head of Darius and said, "Sound retreat," and he would have had Darius's body say to the trumpeters, "Sound retreat and surrender." Then he wouldn't even have had to have bothered to clean up the battlefield. But of course that would have meant his men wouldn't have gotten the baggage and so forth, so he didn't have them do that, I guess.
But the point is that there—there's almost a perfect solution. See? I mean, it—obstacles just all melt away. Well, in any problem any individual has ever confronted, the obstacles themselves would melt away. There are no obstacles. But there's an awful lot wrong with his modus operandi in overcoming them. There's no obstacle that cannot be overcome. There are obstacles—but there is no obstacle that cannot be overcome. What is wrong there is that the individual doesn't go about overcoming them properly.

147

148

21 DECEMBER 1953
This even goes down to the point of the fellow—he has ten thousand pounds of gunpowder and all he has to do is get rid of this wall and it doesn't matter how he gets rid of it. And he's got the gunpowder there and he can blow up the wall anytime he wants to blow up the wall, but he decides the best way to do it is to train an ant army and give them a terrible appetite for the type of stone in the wall and have them chew it away.
Well, really, that's three times as sensible as most of the solutions that you'll run across in people. If you asked them what they were trying to do, they probably couldn't tell you. That's the first thing they wouldn't be able to tell you.
The first four Acts, by the way, of the Handbook for Preclears are still very good. They take up a point which this later—later techniques haven't repeated. And in the Handbook for Preclears there, you have some Acts there with regard to goals.
And I saw a preclear one time that had been audited for quite a while, and I gave her the Handbook for Preclears —very resistive case, very resistive case—I gave her the Handbook for Preclears and told her to work out the earliest Acts. Well, actually, it's Act Two and Three that are important there. And she sat there with a pencil, and she just went into a fog. This was the first time she'd ever been confronted with the subject of what are your goals. "Three things in the past that you meant to do and didn't do" and so forth—words to that effect. It just asked her, searchingly, what she was trying to do, you know? And it asked her in such a way that she could understand this.
And she wrote there, and she got more and more dazed and then all of a sudden, the brightest lights of comprehension began to appear in her face. (I wasn't talking to her, I was sitting over at the desk writing some papers while she just sat there and did this.) And she—all of a sudden, she just started to brighten up and, why, she just remembered what she was trying to do in life. And she was spending all of her time battering away against the obstacles.
Well, in auditing, if you please, she spent all of her time simply battering away against the obstacles. But what did she pick as an obstacle in auditing?
Now, a thetan after a while gets terribly shortsighted. He should have, very early in processing, some very strong glasses—I would say about eight feet thick at least—because is he lost in terms of shortsightedness!
The first thing such a person picks up in auditing, no matter how they react, is the auditor, as an obstacle. The auditor is other-direction. And such a case sets himself simply on this basis: He makes it the end-all of existence to try not to be directed by the auditor, but to try not to be directed by the auditor to the extent that the auditor doesn't find this out. That's usual state of case. That's covert overcoming of obstacles.
Well, they overcome the obstacle of an auditor's direction either by not doing it or by doing something else or by doing it wrong, and in such a wise, getting themselves beautifully messed up.
Well, what's getting messed up there? Basically, it's the system of postulates. This person's forgotten where he's going, he doesn't know what he's doing, he doesn't have any purpose in life. The obstacles he's been confronted with are too great for him—they are unsolvable. And he figures that they were so important—they're unsolvable and he computes that they're so important that he, of course, just has to stand there on an unsolved obstacle. And that's where you'll find him on the track—on all of the unsolved obstacles.
And you'll find him as a preclear, very usually and very standardly, not doing what you're doing as an auditor. Because the first and primary barrier has to be crossed before the preclear will (quote) "work." And if that first barrier

ABILITY TO ACCEPT DIRECTION
on the case is crossed by the auditor immediately at the beginning of the case—right away—you won't have any further trouble with it.
Now, we're trying to restore self-determinism, and life itself is a process of self-determinism, and low on the Tone Scale it's self-determinism—you know, rrrrrrr-rrrh! And up on the Tone Scale, it's really self-determinism.
Now, you're going to run into a lot of fellows that say, "All I—oh, all I have to do is be self-determined to be Clear? Rrrrr, rrrhh! All right, let's see, you're in my road and I'll have to knock you off, and you're in my road and I'll have to knock you—I'm self-determined! Oh, you're going to accuse me of not being self-determined, I'll show you!" Self-determinism operating amongst Homo sap. He gets up to that point very easily. He gets up to a fine 1.5 which is total obstacle. The definition of 1.5 would be just that—total obstacle.
All right, what are you trying to do with this preclear? Well, you're trying to get this preclear self-determined. You're trying to get him to a point where he'll follow his own direction, hm? He could make a postulate and make it come true. Well, he—at the time you pick him up he can't get mock-ups, he can't do this, he can't do that. He's unable to make things go away and come in and he's not able to put space amongst terminals and he can't take space out and he can't duplicate nothingness and ordinarily he's having some difficulty of some kind or another all the way along the line. And furthermore, he's in competition with the mest universe and he's losing. Well, that's because, you see, he's chosen these obstacles as things he has to resist instead of things to admire or play with or so on.
So you've got this character, he's on your hands, and the first thing he can't do is follow your direction. Why? Because any other-determinism either swamps him and just becomes his determinism in an apathy case . . . That, by the way, is the state of hypnosis—that is hypnosis: it's swamped by other-determinism so that anything the other-determinism does, says, is of course—becomes the person's own postulate.
If you want to put somebody into a deep trance, you would just make them resist to a point where anything the resistance did, stuck. And that is an engram and that is hypnosis, that's electric treatments and so on: They merely overcome all the self-determinism and plow through, so thereafter anything that anybody does or says is the self-determinism of the preclear.
Now let's look at that in terms of the dwindling spiral of self-determinism. The dwindling spiral of self-determinism is the introduction of other-determinisms. So a person is more and more other-determined up to a point of where he looks at a wall and he feels like a wall, he looks at a tree and he feels like a tree, he looks at a dog and he feels like a dog. A preclear runs an engram and he's restimulated. See? I mean this same breed of cat, all along. This "everything is an obstacle," but these obstacles are something which he doesn't resist anymore—these obstacles are something he obeys. He is a case of obedience to obstacles. Well, that's apathy.
Now, we go up there a little further along the line, in grief, and any obstacle is—has to be held against, weepily. And it's all obstacles, but they all have to be held against weepily, you know. Grief is a hold. Grief is a lower harmonic of anger, 1.5.
Now we go up just a little bit higher on the thing and we find out that obstacle is something we run away from. As soon as we see an obstacle, we flee. That's because we know we can't overcome an obstacle, you see. We have to withdraw.

149

150

21 DECEMBER 1953
Now let's take it in terms of reach and withdraw. Down in an apathy case, the fellow's been reached to a point where he's convinced he can be reached at any time. And if you ask this apathy case, "Now, look-a-here, eighteen years ago you were a member of a gang of kids. Now, today if they wanted to, could they look you up and find you just by thinking about it and ruin you?" He's liable to say yes. Why? He can be reached.
Now there's, by the way, the way you define the integrity of an individual. You—it's whether or not he can be reached. It's a colloquialism. So any obstacle reaches him, anything reaches him, and space collapses on him with great ease. I mean, he looks around and space all collapses; nothing to that. Down comes the space, crash. The second he sees an obstacle, he's it. All obstacles reach him. Well, that's apathy and in that vicinity of the band. All right.
Now, fear—the thought of an obstacle makes him weak and frightened. He is in a constant state of precipitate withdrawal. He's almost withdrawing all the time, you see? Almost. But lookit there, that's way up on the Tone Scale. The fellow actually thinks he can withdraw before he can be reached. He still has a little hope there. So there's a little hope introduced into reach and withdraw. You see, he does withdrawing—he doesn't do any reaching.
A person is covert in all of his reaching at the fear band. And I mean just reaching. When I say reaching, I mean reaching with a hand, reaching with a letter, reaching with a vehicle. He's covert about reaching. He'll start in to go to Kokokomo, you see, and he'll find a real good reason why he should stop in, in Bayville. And then that night, surreptitiously, he'll catch himself driving down to Kokokomo, you see. He tells everybody he was going to Bayville and he winds up in Kokokomo, but he really intended to go to Kokokomo. You'd be surprised! I mean, this isn't for any reason at all, rather than the tone level of the case; this is just the way he behaves. Says he's going to Bayville so that he can get to Kokokomo. And he'll play all sorts of tricks on himself this way.
Now we start up the line a little bit further and we find out that 1.5 is the fellow that can't reach and he can't withdraw and he's darn sure nobody else is going to with—reach or withdraw either. That's 1.5. Hold!
And we go up a little higher than that, we get antagonism. So we get reaching with anger because the fellow knows it's an obstacle. He knows it's an obstacle. He doesn't have to be convinced, he doesn't have to be told.
You say to this person, "Good morning."
"What's good about it!"
Why does he say this to you? Well, it's very simple; nothing to it. He just knows you're an obstacle, he knows the morning's an obstacle, he knows he'll have to reach these things. He might as well slap at them a little bit, preparatory of pushing them over.
And then we go up a little higher and we get to boredom at 2.5. And boredom is, "Well, I—what's the use of reaching it? I know it's an obstacle and it'll probably reach back," and it eddies around a little bit and they're not quite stable. And "There's not much point in trying to go toward any particular goal because, heck, there's just more of these obstacles and I can reach them all right. But you know, there's no point in it because they're just there and there's nothing much you can do about it but they're—there they are, and—why be interested?" I mean, you see, if you demonstrate that you care, somebody's going to shove another obstacle in front.
And then they run on a computation of "I don't care." You'll run into this on a case: "Well," case says, "yes, I could do this, I can do that, I can do something."

ABILITY TO ACCEPT DIRECTION
And all this—they're just happy, no communication changes and so forth. And you'll find out what they're into: they don't care.
They'll do anything you say, really, and they're quite cheerful and they're in fairly good shape. They don't care. They're sort of a dish towel or something that's being pushed around or a New York society debutante or an old mop or something. They—just anyplace you sort of put them around, they stay.
Well, it's not an apathy case because they constantly communicate and chatter and reach and withdraw and so forth. There's action there, there's motion there, but it's all meaningless. And if you crowded them just a little bit, you'd know immediately they had no goal.
And that problem's first entrance, really, is in terms of goals. They come up scale—you make them recover a few goals they once had and they come up scale. End of Cycle and so forth will get them out of that real fast. Or Handbook for Preclears —just open it up, the first few Acts of the thing, and let them do it.
That, by the way, is merely a searching investigation of this life's goals, the early steps there. And they'll all of a sudden—you've made them confront a fact. You've made them look at something, and that is the one thing which they mustn't look at. And that is that they're not going anyplace anymore. They can reach, they can withdraw—obstacles reach and other things reach and other people reach and withdraw and so forth. And all this time there's—underneath all of this "don't care" is a terrible sorrow. They don't care because they know they're in the same room all the time or they're in the same cube of space all the time; they're never going to get out of it. And they hide that from themselves by saying, "Well, I don't care. Doesn't matter if I don't get out of it. Oh, well, here today and gone tomorrow. Well, nothing to it. Might as well. What a bore. Ho-hum."
They're not bored, they're frantic. And the first thing you'll meet up with in that case, by the way, is you'll hit a higher harmonic of fear. It's not the lower harmonic of fear, it's a—there's a higher harmonic of fear. And that higher harmonic is somewhere up there—they'll sag from 2.5, which is just riding above it, to 2.2, which is the upper harmonic of fear—2.2. And they'll just sag there, down there to 2.2.
That antagonism rises up into a higher-grade fear, and the boredom case will sink down to 2.2 before he rises up any, and he will go up there above enthusiasm. Just above enthusiasm there's another much higher harmonic of fear. The fellow says, "If we try hard, if we get in there, if we make it good, if we get these obstacles just right and if we go through, why, gee, we can have everything just fine!" And you get him up just a little bit higher than that and he realizes that there are obstacles, see? And he figures out, well, it's—momentarily, if he just gets up enough speed and enough steam, why, he's all right; but he's liable to have to withdraw, you see? But he's perfectly prepared to do that and charge again, but he—you know? That's enthusiasm. It lies just above enthusiasm. All right.
Here we go in terms of reach and withdraw, in terms of obstacles, in terms of determinism—we have to get clear up out of those bands before we get anything like freedom. And those are the basic harmonics and emotions of man. And they are listed from 0.0 to 4.0 not because they exist only from 0.0 to 4.0, but those are the compulsive levels. And from 0.0 to 4.0 what you see listed there is Homo sapiens, and he is at these points compulsively and without an understanding of why or where. He doesn't direct those emotions; he is the result. He is being an effect in that band, and that's Homo sapiens. All right.

151

152

21 DECEMBER 1953
Now, where does this lead us as an auditor? Well, we've got the problem, immediately, of the self-determinism of the preclear. He has to be able to get up to the point where his postulates stick. In other words, he has to decide, "I feel fine today," you see, and then feel fine. He has to be able to decide, "Well, let's see, I think this afternoon we'll go down and cut a record and make it real good and so forth—enjoy ourselves down at the studio. Yeah," and that afternoon be down at the studio enjoying themselves. He's got to be able to say, "Well, I guess I'd better make it all right over there in Keokuk and square that around over in Keokuk," with some assurance that he's going to go over to Keokuk and straighten it out, whatever is all wrong.
That's making a postulate stick, and that's represented with an individual when you say, "Put up a mock-up out there. Now turn it green." He puts a mock-up out and it's green. He may want to know how green, and you say, "Very green." He'll get a very green mock-up. Not because you said so, though.
But do you know that there's a level of case where you can run the mock-ups? I hate to have to throw you that one, because you're going to be sure you're looking at it much more often than you are. That's a real low case. It is a hypnotized subject. You can make him see mock-ups because you tell him to see them. And that's your hypnotized subject—mock-ups.
You say, "All right, now see the kangaroo," he'll have a kangaroo. He's just a spectator; total effect. But that fellow's in a deep hypnotic trance and that's unmistakable—his eyes are dilated and so forth. But you'll see him walk in as a case. Once in a while, you'll see him in as a case, but he's unmistakable.
What would you do? How would you detect this case? This case, you see, will (quote) "work" (unquote). He'll do everything you say—he'll do it all—with no communication changes. That's your first cue. If you were stone-blind to everything else, that would be your first cue: He never gets a communication change. He just goes on doing exactly what you say.
"All right, now," you say, "get a pink rabbit. Now turn it purple."
Well, the constant repetition of the command phrases in there would jar him sooner or later into the realization, "You know, I might be turning this purple myself." But he'd be at a level where he's—he'd be there looking at the pink rabbit that you just put in front of him and turned purple. You did it, he didn't do it. No responsibility, no responsibility, no responsibility. Well, this case is in a trance. And I'll tell you what other shapes this case is in so you won't think you're looking at him more often than you are.
He walks into the office and he stands there and waits to be told where to go in the room. And then, if he goes there and he sits down and so on, if you were to stand up and take off your coat, he would stand up probably and fumble with his. And if you were then to sit down and cross your legs, he would then probably sit down and cross his legs. Or he would be in such a stupor that he would merely sit there with his eyelids fluttering and if you were to say, "You are now a dog—bark!" he would go, "Woof, woof." And that's how bad-off that case is. Because you're going to be sure you're looking at this case when you're not. But there is that case.
Now, you can put a person into that trance artificially with drugs, you can put him into it with hypnosis itself and so forth. You can make almost anybody do that by monotonously making him combat you as an other-determinism. If you can make him consistently and continually combat you as a self-determinism, eventually everything you say to him will come true for him.
There's why commanding officers have to be beasts. They make the crew fight them, fight them, fight them, fight them, fight them. The guy's tough—

ABILITY TO ACCEPT DIRECTION
fight him. After a while he said, "The sea is red today." It's red. I've even heard sailors on ships and boys in companies of men make such statements about it: "He says it's green, so it's green." Corporals are very fond of making this remark. And what he's saying to them all the time is, "You're in a state of trance, don't forget it." Now we wonder why when people come out of military services they're not quite in good condition. They had a four-year dope-off. Anyway . . . There's nothing wrong—nothing wrong with the militarism that demobilization and disbandment won't cure.
When we're looking at any command system, we're essentially looking at cause-effect. Now, what's really good condition? Is good condition resisting all effects? No, because that would result—a person who was resisting other-determinisms would of course, you see, eventually get his other—his own overcome. If he set up his own determinism as its resistance to all the determinisms around him, he would eventually lose his own determinism. Because he's fighting other-determinism, he will become other-determinism. And that is an inversion—call that an inversion. He's become another determinism. All right.
Is it optimum for an individual just to simply obediently and slavishly do everything he is told? No. Because he's already become other-determinism.
Well, is it optimum for an individual to obey any order? Shouldn't he just go on being completely independent and just neglect everything that's said to him and everything around and so forth, and just throw it all aside and so on? Wouldn't that be the best way? Nope.
Because he would have moved to that perilously tenable, if at all, goal— antisocial. He would have moved out. He would therefore, in order to exist on the same plane with the rest of the society, have to engage in entirely different and separate pursuits, which of course means that he would be avoiding many areas. He would be avoiding many, many, many areas, and in such a wise, would be entirely constricted, restrained—so that's not self-determinism either. You know, he goes around concentrating all the time on, "Well, we'll neglect all these orders and we'll just—so on, and we'll just leave that alone and we won't fight that, we'll look over this way and smile, all the way knowing it's over there on the right side." No, that keeps him from looking over on the right side. No.
What's an individual in real good shape? An individual in real good shape is able to take orders, give orders, work cooperatively with orders, see where they're going—even perform unreasonable orders, give unreasonable orders, watch other people perform them, so forth—as a complete interchange of self-determinism. He's perfectly willing to work in the lines or he's willing to work at a command post. He can just work anyplace. And when an individual is really free, he is able to be anything.
One of the basic drills is: "Be your body, be the space back of your body, be the room." All right.
A fellow has a somatic. You want to know how to turn a somatic off? The fastest way I know of to turn a somatic off with the least after-repercussion is simply to say to the individual, "All right, now be your body." See, he's in a body—I mean, he doesn't know anything about this—techniques or anything else. And you say, "Be your body. Now be the pain. Now be the body, be the pain. Be the body, be the pain. Be the body, be the pain." Say it slowly enough so that he can be both of them.
If he's seeing a picture and this picture's bothering him, say, "Now be yourself, now be the picture. Be yourself, now be the picture. Be yourself."
And he says, "Oh, the heck with it."

153

154

21 DECEMBER 1953
Because this is the basic of randomity. Randomity is the ratio of predicted motion to unpredicted motion; that's all randomity is. And how does this unpredicted motion come about? Well, it can be bad to have randomity or good to have randomity; that would be all in whether or not the individual was resisting these incoming motions or not, whether he could go with them or not.
Below on the Tone Scale, in the tone of apathy, you'll get the individual being entirely wishy-washy—entirely wishy-washy. He just (mumble). He can't play the role he's in. He just—other-determinisms hit him and he just goes this way and he goes that way and he goes the other way.
Well! Well, on the—up on the Tone Scale we get somebody who can play any role and continues to know he is playing a role, even though he is playing it with complete sincerity. He knows it's a game and he can enjoy the game. He can be a real good private; he can be a real good king. When he's playing the role of a private, he plays the role of a private. And when he plays the role of a king, he can play the role of a king. And if as a private, he feels that his rights are being encroached on as a private and he should do so-and-so about them, he should be able to do that with verve. And when he is a king and feels that he ought to execute—that the state expects him to execute the umpteen-bumpteen prisoners who have just been delivered, he should say, "Off with their heads! I'll have a cup of tea now."
It's when an individual takes it upon himself to be the "only one" with this postulate with it, "Ever afterwards, I'll never be anything else but the one I am." He doesn't see life as a continuing script. You see, he feels sometime or other . . . There's a great author someplace, he figures, and this great author is writing a script of which he is the effect and he can even faintly hear the patter of typewriter keys in the sky, you might say, and he's kind of scared of the script. And he knows that he'll be cast in one role and he will never be in another role. So in view of the fact that he succeeds or fails in a role, will have to do with the judgment which elects him to the new role.
Honest, really, there isn't anybody that interested in him. Where did he get this conceited? His—the total reward, his entire pay, will be the ability to play any role with verve. To be the most convincing private in the regiment— as far as dramatics—with no strain. And be perfectly willing to unbecome a private when that role seems to be running out. And with great calmness, become a general. And as a general, hate privates like mad; and as a private, hate generals like mad—and never pile up a single ridge.
Now, there you would think, "Well, gee! There's—life is not serious now. And you don't take life seriously, then you can't. . ."And the fellow won't be able to finish it because of just that: If you don't take life seriously—um-bumph. Well, if he understands that you can't unsurvive, he hasn't the brass to go on with it.
Now, is it more fun to be in a play—a production on a stage—or to work in a meat market sweeping up the floor? Now which is the most fun? Huh?
Now, would it be more fun to play the part of the disreputable janitor in the meat market on the stage or to play it down at the meat market? Now, which place would you enjoy most? Now, down in the meat market, you know, you have to make it survive and keep it standing by and go through the same motions and so on and so on and so on, and on the stage, why, the—you have an audience.
But let's just forget the audience and throw the audience out. Did you ever see a group of actors put on a play without any audience? Have you ever seen a group of actors in a rehearsal? Of course, that's the hope and expectation

ABILITY TO ACCEPT DIRECTION
of audience to some degree. But do you know I have seen more darned actors sitting around enjoying themselves hugely—and by the way, these are great actors, I mean, as far as—not great in terms of total track, but certainly great here, within this little breath of the moment and the various mediums of the theater which we have.
And one of those would amaze you, because most of the people who are really good, who have their name in lights—they're really good. I mean, there isn't anything that helps success like being a success. This just is wonderful. And there's nothing helps being a success but just doing what you can do about eight times better than anybody else. That really just helps out. Not necessarily because you're in competition with other people, but just to do a good job. There's a terrific satisfaction in doing a good job—terrific. Most people get distracted from it.
But here's your individual, here is your individual—three or four actors and this one guy who is real good. They're sitting down—I've seen them do this—they're sitting down and they're reading Shakespeare. My goodness! You know, the ability to read straight off a script which you don't ever know and speak it with perfect expression, and to speak something like Shakespeare in a totally natural voice, is fantastic! It takes quite a trick to do this. An artist has to work a long time to do something like that—or he does it right away quick because he knows how—either way. And these boys—just enjoying themselves hugely.
One day this was happening and I went into the room where they'd been, and it was about ten o'clock at night. And I said, "Isn't it about time Hamlet had some coffee?" And they woke up, you know, and they said, "It's ten o'clock! Boy, we'd better get out of here. We have to be on the set tomorrow morning." Do you know, they weren't even rehearsing a part. They had no reason whatsoever— they weren't practicing, they weren't trying to make themselves any better— nothing. They were just enjoying doing exactly what they were doing. And the people that were there are big names, they're big names in lights—they're good. Well, of course, they had no great worry and pressure on them, you can say. Oh, yes they did. There's nothing quite as onerous and horrible as having your name in lights in terms of people pawing and clawing.
But here these people could do a superlative role and enjoy just being the role without any audience at all. When you can be your own best audience and when your applause is the best applause you know of, you're in good shape. And when you can play a real good role—when you can go down here and be the mule or be the general with equal verve, in the total spirit of play, and do it with terrific sincerity—you're living!
Now, here on Earth, everybody knows they can't have it, so they make it expensive and you pay for watching people to do it on the stage. But that's life. That's existence. It isn't a serious grind that we all have to take very seriously and be very, very careful about and be very careful of the obstacles and resist everything that comes up—that's existence. All right.
Your preclear will never get up there so long as he thinks he has a serious vested interest in resisting everything which happens around him. The guy doesn't even have enough presence to play the role of preclear. Now, when you've got a guy who hasn't even enough presence to play the role of preclear, after he's elected to be a preclear, or after you've started processing him, you've got a problem on your hands. But you've got the problem of all existence sitting right there in the chair. That is the problem of existence: This person is unwilling to play a role—not the role of preclear—he's unwilling to play a role.

155

156

21 DECEMBER 1953
Why? Because he has to resist all exterior direction. He has to do something else, because his life, which he has to protect, is in great danger because he accepts another order. If you were to say to him, "Put out your cigarette," he'd probably be offended and leave. You know, you've insulted him. You've given him an other-direction. Well now, that's what you're going to run into preclear after preclear after preclear after preclear.
Now, you can run into it in another fashion: This preclear is bored and doesn't care. Well, you've got Handbook for Preclears to solve that, to some degree. I would just go into it if the fellow obviously didn't care whether he could do these things or didn't do them, otherwise, and kept laughing at you and chattering and, "Oh, well, it's kind of pointless anyway, and so forth. Yes, I can do that. Why am I doing this? It wouldn't do me any good. I mean, you know, it doesn't do any good."
You're dealing there with somebody who is eddying around in the middle of the most horrible obstacles they ever heard of. And they don't know it. They've even forgotten what obstacles they were fighting. Well, you better show them a few goals toward which they were headed and it'll level them out enough so that they can at least play a role.
But your first job as an auditor, whether it is by—in terms of overcoming the goals, or in terms of making it possible for this individual to do this: to discover that by following the order of another, he doesn't cave in—discovering that it is safe, that it is perfectly all right, to follow the direction of another person. And when the individual discovers this, you as an auditor can then go on and push him the rest of the way up and give him back to himself. And until he's discovered that, you won't be able to do it.
If he's just sort of onerously doing these drills because he hopes they'll make him better, you see; and if he does the drills, then he'll get better and he won't have to go on resisting all of life around him. And he's willing to just not resist quite so hard while he's sitting there in the chair just for the sake of your commands coming through, he'll tolerate your telling him to do these things— that's just about all he will tolerate—you're just going over against a problem of other-direction.
The fellow is a problem of obstacles. When you say other-direction, you mean problem in obstacles. See? Other-direction is obstacles. Anything that is an other-direction is an obstacle to him; he has to fight it or back away from it or do something about it. That's why your preclear doesn't follow your auditing commands and why they refuse to get well for you, when they refuse to get well.
Well, we're very close to a level of technique where you can just keep slugging away and the fellow will get well anyhow—he'll come out of that. Because we give him space, we show him there's no obstacles there, we demonstrate to him that he can look around, he can find places he's not. He locates himself as not facing that wall at Antietam or something of the sort—he's not there yet—he's not still there, that was a hundred years ago. And he isn't being run into by a fire truck, and a lot of things aren't happening to him we find—he finds, as he goes through this, so he gets less and less obstacles, so he gets better and better on the subject of direction. But your first job is to get him to take direction.
Now, in the past we have erroneously simplified this by calling it "in and out of communication.""The person is somewhat out of communication with the auditor. How do we get into communication with this very, very, very bad-off case?" and so forth. We've made it a problem of communication instead of a problem of postulates. So let's put it into the field of postulates and we find out it's a problem of other-direction. The individual can understand every word you say,

ABILITY TO ACCEPT DIRECTION
he just simply cannot bring himself to follow through. See? He can't obey your direction. It's a problem of other-direction.
So your first problem in that case is to do just this: Make it understood to him, by directing him to various places in the room, to precise, exact spots in the room, making it very, very clear to him that he can go to those spots, that he can arrive, that he can reach those spots—you see, this is all being done at once—that he can move himself around, but most of all, that you can move him around. And when you have taught him that you can move him around without any great damage occurring to him, then you can teach him that with your direction senior, he can move himself around by sending himself places. And you can even show him that he can decide to go places and then change his mind about where he's going and go to an entirely new place, without falling apart.
You've finally shown him not only can he follow direction, but he can follow directions even wrongly and still arrive and not be damaged. He can follow directions wrongly and still not be damaged.
He's fighting madly not being wrong. He mustn't be wrong, he has to be right. And as long as he has to be right, he's fighting being wrong. So he's afraid of being wrong. So you can even solve that for him, to some degree.
And when you've done this for a case for a while, you have—well, sometimes you do this for somebody, though, that's—call that Opening Procedure. And you'd just do that, one way and the other, drill him around—have him move around the room, actually move around the room, and then have him move himself around the room under your direction—tell himself to go places and then decide to go there and arrive there. You just do that for an hour, and in an awful lot of cases, you'd find they'd start falling apart in your hands.
You've got a problem of other-direction on any case you process, and the end goal is a return to the individual of his self-determinism. Well, self-determinism means the ability to direct himself, so therefore his postulates must be rendered out of danger.
Okay.

157

Knowingness and Certainty
A lecture given on 21 December 1953

This is December the 21st, a second lecture of the day.
And this evening we are going to cover something that you may have heard of before: We're going to cover knowingness and certainty. And we are going to cover this so that you can orient what you know about this material in terms of where you're going with the material.
Now, if you will look into Issue 16-G ... If you haven't got a copy of 16-G, why, we've got plenty of them at the HAS. You can get any quantity of them. I mean, the little book is very—was printed up in that fashion so it could get very wide distribution. They're only fifty cents. And actually, in trying to convince people what this is all about and so forth, well, that's a very handy one to have.
Now, Issue 16-G has in it a lot about somethingness and it has a lot about nothingness and it has a lot about certainty and so forth. Now, certainty as itself and added to somethingness and nothingness makes quite a process— just as it is there in 16-G, it makes quite a process.
But let's go a little further right now, and take that same material and see where we get by taking the material in the Doctorate level tapes, 8-8008—and I believe that's mentioned in that book, too—convincingness. Convincingness. And you'll find that proof and convincingness and certainty are very often on an impact, inflow basis. And the individual that you're auditing wants desperately— I couldn't make this too strong to you—he wants desperately a convincingness, but he is interpreting it in terms of being hit. So he is overjoyed to get a somatic.
And you're trying to fix him up so he doesn't have to have all those somatics, and he wants a somatic. So you're going one way, and the preclear's going the other way. Well, never the twain shall meet if this keeps up. Because the certainty you want to give him has nothing whatsoever to do with reaching over and hitting him a poke in the nose.
Now, by the way, there is a lot of things like a friendly poke in the nose. Men are always wrastling around and shoving each other and so forth. Actually, they're handing certainty out, in their own fashion; and that is, by the way, their method of reassuring each other. I've seen a couple of guys go a long way with this. They have gotten to a point of always poking each other. That's just saying, "I'm here, you're there," and so on. And in a good humor, a person will take a lot of punishment.
Did you ever notice a little kid on a change of mood? On this—the change of mood: You're playing with a little kid, and you rough him up and you drop him and you push him around, and he falls down and he bumps himself and

159

160

21 DECEMBER 1953
he's all perfectly happy because you're playing with him. You know, you're just horsing around, the way men call it, and the next thing you know, you decide you've had enough of this, and you say, "No, no. Go away." And you give him the lightest, lightest push imaginable, which immediately becomes agony to him, and he breaks into tears. But he's just got through almost having his brains knocked out. Now, what is this? What's the difference between these two things?
Well, the basic difference between them is, of course, the intention of the inflow. And you have run on him the usual curve of DEI. First he wanted this inflow because it was perfectly cheerful, and now you're enforcing a slight inflow on him. So you and he were cooperating. You were cooperating. Your beingness, your other-determinism and so forth was—your determinism and his determinism, both self-determinisms were aligned in the direction of having a little action and having a little motion. And your little push toward him was in the direction—that hurt his feelings, as he says—your little push was with the intention of stopping motion and stopping the fun. Now, you see the difference between those two things?
Now, actually, that's the only difference between harmful or contrasurvival or bad other-determinism, and other-determinism at large.
Now, a person can stand up to an awful lot of beating and punishment in life as long as he doesn't begin to interpret it that life is trying to stop him. And when life starts to stop him, he feels that life is playing against him. And in a severe state of this, you will find somebody with a paranoia, they call it. By the way, that's—that simply has engrams at the bottom of it, mostly. There are other ways to work it out, but it's just too much inflow and the engrams at the bottom of it are uniformly "against me." Now, "Everything is against me," the fellow says.
Well, of course, if everything is against him, all the obstacles are against him. This is pretty tough.
You know, they—I can usually tell a person who is in this condition merely by looking at his chest. A person who has everything against him has a very, very flatly formed chest—very, very flat. And there isn't anybody present that has this kind of a chest so just stop worrying about it. And those people who will hear this tape later—they haven't got flat chests like that either. (audience laughter)
But here we have a problem in, "Is life stopping me or is it helping me go?" That's all. You see that? Life stopping me or is it helping me go? And you know, you can help a guy go so fast that it stops him. Put him in front of a blast of dynamite and turn his back to it and set it off and he'll go all right—but that's a different kind of goingness.
Now, as long as life helps him go, life assists his livingness, and it's all a fine game and so forth—punishment? Good heavens, you can run into the sides of mountains and plow into planets and have all sorts of things happen, you see, and you say, "Ha-ha," and dust yourself off and that's—just nothing to it. But then somebody gives you the idea that this wasn't in fun, that it was really meant for you personally and that it was really an effort that was going to stop you, and that you should be stopped and so forth and that is why all this is happening to you, and after that, you completely reevaluate intention on the part of the mest universe. You don't treat the mest universe, then, as something you made, or an ally, you treat it as your randomity. And it's your randomity. It's the other team. You start to fight it.
It's about as sensible to start fighting the mest universe as it is for a football player in the middle of the game to go over and start kicking the goal posts. That's just as sensible. And—or to go rushing out and scuffing up the

KNOWINGNESS AND CERTAINTY
white lines. It's an improper randomity in terms of the laws of games. He's gone out and found the barriers, you see, and he's decided to do something dreadful to the barriers, merely because he can't win.
Well, a preclear who's having a difficult time of it has chosen the MEST universe for his randomity, which is to say, he considers that all these little taps and pokes which he's received are now personally intended to stop him. And it's mostly a matter of mood, and that's about all it is—a matter of mood.
The basis of all that sort of thing is a postulate. A fellow says, "I'm against you and you're against me and let's have a game—and you're the enemy. Bang, bang, you're dead."
And the other fellow says, "No, I'm not dead." Little kids do this all the time when they wrastle around.
They do it in college—the university today, for instance, has managed to make a fine go of it. They couldn't make education pay and they've made football pay. And they don't have to educate anybody anymore. They just get that big stadium there that is surrounded by ... A college—what is that? A college is a—a university is a small number of decrepit buildings surrounded by a million-dollar stadium.
Well, anyway, the point is that the serious part of life (now, you know, serious—that means nobody's your friend and so on) starts in on this basis: "Well, you lost, and your team lost and there was something very wrong and unbeautiful about that. There's something very wrong with you having lost."
And you say, "You mean there's something wrong about the losing side of win/lose?" Well, this, by the way—sometime on the track—boy, that was a new idea to you. I bet you went and you just thought this over and thought this over. So—you didn't quite believe this, so he proved it to you, and then you were convinced.
Now, the only convictions that are bad convictions, then, are convictions on the basis that losing is wrong. And that Wrongness is an untenable place to be. Wrongness is something you can't have and you must avoid it and you must fight being wrong and you must fight losing. Now, the main thing about a game is to fight losing.
The devil with fighting losing! There's plenty of opposing players— fight them.
"Well," you say, "well now, wait a minute, wait a minute. Win and lose. You see, the score is up on the Scoreboard, and when they have more points than you have, why, you lose. And that's disgraceful and nobody will look up to you. Because you aren't as big, because you must have lost because you aren't as big."
That'd be a brand-new idea to you early on the track. The only way he could prove it to you—the only way they could prove it to you that losing was disgraceful was not afterwards to talk to you or notice you. You were nothing then, you see? So you're liable to become nothing if you lose. And people proved this and proved this until you were convinced of it and that became a certainty.
There's nothing wrong with losing. Do you know that the finest part of strategy is in pretended loses? Hm.
You take somebody like George Washington and put him up against the dame-hungry generals that they sent over here to fight the Revolution—this fellow was so high-toned he had to get a parachute to go down to strike high C. And—he was quite a fellow.
And his reputation, by the way, as a militarist is fabulous in Europe. In European military academies and so forth, they teach all about George Washington; teach all about Robert E. Lee—these are the tacticians and the

161

162

21 DECEMBER 1953
strategists. Because a man without much of an army and without a popular support from the people and with practically nothing of the sort, kept a war going against one of the greatest, if not the greatest, military power on Earth. And without a navy and without anything at all, kept a war going and won it, for years—by going on and losing.
Now, he lost often enough so that the British, who were already sold on this, thought they had to win, you see. And they couldn't win—they couldn't really win—they were kind of fighting against nothing, and they'd keep striking at this.
And when it was obvious that Washington had lost, just obvious—I mean, if he'd gone in and talked to Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne or if he'd gone down there and talked to Howe, Howe could have shown him on tactical maps, by textbooks, he could have shown him—he could have had numerous aides-de-camp around to prove to him, completely, that he had lost.
And unfortunately, Washington never went down and had the conference. And he just kept on losing. He lost with perfectly good spirit. And he lost with enough good spirit that nobody could prove to him this was disgraceful, so he eventually won. He just wore the heart out of the attacking and occupying troops. He was known as, and is known today in military textbooks in Europe, as the great Fabian of modern times. He just melted away.
Now, that's all due respect to the British—the British are very good fighters. But they had difficulty here with this war because it wasn't popular at home either, and they kept sending over troops.
And as I say, these generals could have proven adequately to all these Colonials and to Washington they'd lost the war. And it was—they'd go out, you know, and they'd knock off half an army and they'd raid all sorts of country and they occupied the principal seaports and they'd tie up all the shipping and they cut all the communication lines and so forth, and the Revolution was still in progress. See, they couldn't reach deep enough to convince. Took them years and years and years to fight that war out. But you see how that is?
I don't think Washington had the word in his vocabulary, as far as lose is concerned, because he wasn't insisting on winning all the time. Now, if he'd listened to the Continental Congress, why, he would have gone in there and fought pitched battles and tried to win all the time, and he would have been fixed on winning or fixed on losing to a point where the American Revolution never would have finished up the way it finished up.
Now, you'll get some football player, and you just convince him he's got to go in and you give him a big sales talk: He's got to win, he's got to win, he's got to win. And this apparently is something that'll give him an enormous amount of verve, see, and it'll make him hit that line real hard. And it'll make him resist, you know, and use force and use a lot of effort. And it never occurs to anybody in the football world that these games are lost or won in terms of lightness and lightheartedness. When these teams start to get real grim, why, they start to lose. Because they think the goal posts—they get—after a while they'll think the goal posts are against them and luck's against them and so on. It's a game. And they forget they're playing a game and it becomes very, very serious and so they get very, very tired and other things happen to them—a lot of things happen to them.
And what is this seriousness and tiredness and so forth? These are the mechanisms of convincing people that they can lose. Now if you can just convince somebody that he can lose, he can lose. And until you convince him he can lose,

KNOWINGNESS AND CERTAINTY
he can't lose. This may be a little bit hard to grasp offhand, but it happens to be the living truth.
Here we have conviction, proof, convinced. Now, I saw this operation played once on an industrial leader of some magnitude. And this industrial leader had no concept of losing. It just never occurred to him to fight or do anything else in terms of win or lose. And he married a girl who started to get very sympathetic about how tired and overworked he was, because she didn't like him down at the office all the time. She liked to go out to Sun Valley and up to the Canadian Rockies and meet some young fellows and so forth, and so she wanted him to— pull him around the country, so this was the operation. And this is the way it went: "Oh dear, you're so tired, and you look so upset. Now, you must be very careful of yourself. And why don't you go down to the doctor's office and get yourself a physical checkup and so forth."
And, of course, the doctor tipped off in advance to say, "Oh yes, you need a rest. You do, you need a rest. And I'd say that you should go to the Sun Valley and the Canadian Rockies." This man became a ruin, he became a walking ruin.
Well how, then, do you convince somebody he can lose? You say, "You poor fellow, you've lost. See? Look how slow I am at the thought that you have not triumphed. So, because you have not triumphed, then I am sympathizing with you, and therefore, you're slow." See how hard you'd have to work there? You see? Poor fellow. He's lost. "Well, even if your friends won't talk to you anymore because you've lost—even if your friends won't talk to you Anymore, I will. I'll stand by you loyally to the bitter end—even through this."
How's it done? It's done on the basis of sympathy.
And you want to start taking apart a case, you take it apart at the—at sympathy. If you really want to take apart a GE or take apart almost anything, you just get that sympathy out of there. Because you get all sorts of things and combinations of just this: "So sorry you've lost." "I'm so afraid for you now, you've worked so hard. Are you sure you're not going to have a nervous breakdown?" This has never occurred to the fellow.
By the way, I know about this industrialist for the good reason that I processed him. That was the end of a beautiful marriage. I—as I was processing him—I didn't know what was wrong with him, I was just processing him along using relatively routine techniques and so on, and life was going along, and nothing to it. And finally, when he suddenly—I realized he was coming in, there was something about his wife, and more and more and more, and he was starting to damn and fume, and he was coming uptone like mad. And we were just springing him loose on various combinations of co-action.
Now, you understand that duplication itself, with a certain intention, is sympathy. And the more we'd run this sort of thing and the more we'd duplicate forms and so forth, the sorer he got; because he was just artificially and temporarily suppressed into that band—very, very artificially and very temporarily. And I tried to persuade him, now, to be a good chap and send his wife around for a bit of auditing.
"Hm-hm-hm! In the gutter first!"
She didn't, of course, go into the gutter, she married one of the nice young fellows that had been hanging around, and I think now is working as a waitress someplace supporting him. But anyway ... So she had a happy ending. (audience laughter)
Now, the point I'm making is, is here we have—here we have operation number one, which remains the most disguised as an operation and that's just

163

164

21 DECEMBER 1953
this: Co-motion brings about enough commotion to eventually cave somebody in. He, at length, doesn't know which direction he is going.
I watched this happen to a little child not too long ago. I'd seen this little baby around, and it had been wonderful to me that the baby had—was evidently made out of India rubber or something, you know? Baby come tumbling down the steps, crash, you know, and pick up—"Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!"—very funny. And go out and bump into something and get a big gash on his head and "Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!" See? It was going along all right.
Well, that was because the person closest to the baby didn't ever pick the baby up. Never said anything about it. Didn't say, "Oh, you poor thing. Oh, it just must be terrible and oh, does it hurt urns? And here, I'll kiss it all and make it so well," and so on. And—this sort of thing had never gone on in this baby's life, so the baby could practically have cut the top of its head off and probably grown another one.
And the baby wasn't doing much falling, by the way; but when the baby fell, it didn't know what it was to be upset about this, because it never interpreted falling in a term of loss. It merely accepted falling and so forth as an inevitable consequence of trying to learn how to run a mock-up. And just inevitably, that's what would happen—fall. All right. Well, that's good sense isn't it? If you don't learn how to run the mock-up right away, of course, you're going to drop it a few times. And it's not destructible, you can always get another one—sort of the baby's attitude about the whole thing—and just doing marvelously. And then they got a nurse.
Well, I knew they'd gotten the nurse a day after they'd gotten the nurse— just the day after—without being told they'd gotten a nurse, simply because I saw the baby crying and being very upset about having tripped. Sure enough, the baby tripped, started to cry and I said, "Oh-oh, some of the relatives have moved in, or the personnel of the house has changed—oh, they've got a nurse." And here she came and she swooped down the steps and she swooped the poor little baby up and said, "Oh, you poor little thing. Oh, did it hurt ums?"
And the baby wasn't hurt. And the baby was going, "Waaaaaa!" Had been taught to lose, see?
Havingness. Sympathy is good to eat, if you've had so much of it forced upon you with force that you have to have it and have entered the lower DEI cycle. But get that—a person has to have entered the lower DEI cycle before he wants sympathy. He's had to have enough sympathy forced upon him so that he wants sympathy.
Any person present basically has no desire whatsoever for mest or sympathy or physical sensation, so on—basically none of them. But if any of these things were of—in the past. . . You can strip these off, by the way, in processing. But if any of these—any of you, in the past, hadn't had sympathy thrust upon you so suddenly that you couldn't withdraw from it quickly—if you hadn't had this happen, you never would have desired sympathy at all. See?
A duplication of you or a duplication of what you were doing, in terms of energy, was thrust on you so suddenly and so quickly that you couldn't very well escape from it. And you, overt act-motivator, have thrust upon either— other people, so suddenly and so quickly this, that of course, you implanted a desire to go have more.
Now, this works out in terms of accidents. You know, there's some fellows around that just drool at the thought of having a nice, juicy accident. And that's because they've had enough—they've had accidents pounded into them so often. They become accident-prones. You meet some of these boys—they become

KNOWINGNESS AND CERTAINTY
very, very bad stuntmen and so forth. You run into them in Hollywood sometimes, and they—they're practically always out of employment because all they're out to do is kill themselves.
You see, they've been banged around so often that it becomes desirable to be ruined. You know? Well, that's the desire for it. They're in a hectic state.
And another thing, up the band, the stuntmen they do have ordinarily— these fellows are marvelous. One fellow, for instance, I ran into one time, had to run through a burning building. And he stood there and he looked over the sets and he showed them where he wanted this and that and so forth, and they were getting all set to film it and he turned around and he said, "Is that all the fire you're going to have? Well, that isn't going to make much of a show. Go on, turn up the fire." And they looked at him, because it was roaring so hot then it was practically melting the celluloid on the film, you see? And he says, "Put some coal on it." And he walked over and got a coal oil can and heaved it into the fire.
Well, you know this Christmas tree and curtain liquid that they use that makes things noninflammable? You know, they spray curtains and Christmas trees and things like that so they won't burn? Well, of course, he was saturated with this stuff and—just saturated, his hair and everything else. And he took this big can of fuel, see, and gave it a yo-heave so he'd really get some flames. As a matter of fact, he walked into the beginning of the fire before the take, and just threw it onto the fire. And of course it burst and roared and so forth.
And he ran through the fire and caught on fire in a couple of places, and walked over and put out his hair and—because he'd burned a little bit, and put out his—a couple of spots in his clothes and so forth, and dusted himself off, and in general, he was not hurt! He had gone through practically everything you could think of in terms of stunts.
Now, a few days later he was supposed to dive off the top of a high building and fall for a considerable distance. Well, they had a net down there. He didn't like the net. He thought the net was constrictive or something of the sort. And so he just got them to move the site of the set over to where he could fall into water—you know, fall off a cliff into a river. Shallow river, but he said, "That's easy to fall into." Down he goes—zoom, crash, see? Nobody expects to see him alive again. They picked him up, he wasn't hurt. Nothing wrong with him.
Now, another fellow trying the same stunt knows so well, you see, that he can't do it or he can't live through it and he knows he'll lose—he's convinced that he can lose and so he manages to lose. Well, this is a certainty. But it's not really a certainty that a fellow's going to lose. What it is, is a certainty that one has a certainty.
What kind of a certainty is it, though, that he has? He's been convinced. He's been convinced with sympathy that this is the way the game is played. He's in terms of agreement. It takes this sympathy itself in order to bring about one of these hectic, heavy states of agreement through a large mass of people.
You call it sympathy. I don't care what you call it. Being sorry, now, is a form of sympathy—and we get into shame, blame and regret. Regret runs the time track backwards. It holds the fellow up on the time track, then. He's trying to withdraw from an incident. Shame, blame and regret.
"Sorry" is the first entrance into shame, blame and regret. A fellow walks up to somebody and hits him, then he sees he hurts the other person. Now he doesn't want to duplicate that communication and so he says, "I'm sorry" instead of duplicating it, you see? He doesn't want to duplicate it, so he tries to

165

166

21 DECEMBER 1953
substitute there a duplication and he says, "I'm sorry." Well, what happens? He's sorry he used force. Oh-oh.
If a man is sorry he uses force, we get into the most fascinating problem in the world, which is he's going to run a shorter and shorter cycle. Any time he applies effort to any problem, he's going to feel sorry. And so we get an inability to use force leading to the feeling of degradation: shame, blame and regret.
What are shame, blame and regret? What's guilt? Guilt is "I'm sorry I used the force." See? Now, that can't come about—and this will become very clear to you right now—that can't come about unless a fellow sees something wrong in being the effect of force. And if he is convinced that there's something wrong about being the effect of force, he thereafter can't use it. And his only salvation lies, as I told you a week or so ago—the only salvation he'll ever run into, really, is to be strong. And so he's sorry about his own force.
Well now, you can recognize that. You can see—well, there's something wrong with being a dead body. I am sure that early on the track any of you could have run into this experience.
Fellow walks up to you and shoots you. And you sit there and you say, "Huh!"
And you reached around, or your friends took care of him or something, and then your friends said, "Oh, you poor fellow, you're wounded."
You said, "I am?"
And they said, "Yes. Why, look at that! You're bleeding."
And you said, "I am? Well, so I am. Well, well! Well, as I was saying . . ."
And he'd say, "Wait a minute, you're supposed to be—you're wounded too badly, you've got to be dead. You're dead. I mean, you can't go around that way again, your mock-up's only got one arm." And he said, "It's bleeding to death," and so forth.
And you say, "What are you talking about?"
And, "Well, you're dead."
"Well, what's being dead?"
"Well, you can't use that mock-up anymore and you don't know anything about the mock-up anymore and you know, it's—you're dead. You're dead."
"I am?"
"Well—uh, yeah, it's part of the game. And we won't speak to you anymore, we won't play with you anymore, because you're dead."
And you probably said, "Well, all right, I'm dead. Let's see, where can I find another mock-up?"
And that was the way it went. You wanted to be friendly about the whole thing. But that couldn't happen unless you wanted to be friendly about the whole thing, or you thought that there was a scarcity of games and you thought you had to stay in that one.
So now, after a while, why, you came up against a fellow and he'd had half his leg shot off or something of the sort, and you said, "Hey, I just shot you and you're dead."
And he says, "Yeah?" Meantime reaching for his VM pistol or something of the sort.
You said, "But you're dead." And you—so you shot him again and you said, "Now, you see? You're dead."
And he said, "I am not. I am not dead."
And you said, "Yes you are!" And so you started to shoot him again, at which time he drilled you between the eyes. And you already knew you could be dead, you see, and you'd failed to make him dead, so you realized you'd been betrayed. And having been betrayed, you pulled back in your anchor points on

KNOWINGNESS AND CERTAINTY
this whole subject of being dead and that made you dead, you see? This whole mock-up going on in that fashion.
Well, this would all be very difficult to attain—an understanding of this— if one didn't recognize that communication setup. We got A at one end of a communication line and B at the other end of the communication line. Now, let's just change the A and the B to cause at one end of the communication line and effect at the other end of the communication line. A person who wants to be cause must be willing to be the effect of what he's causing.
A person is unable to be cause and get away with it, to the degree that he is unable to contemplate being the effect. And if he can't be the effect, he can't be the cause. So he winds up in the middle of the line; he doesn't want to be the effect, he doesn't want to be the cause. He doesn't want to reach for anything and he doesn't want anything to reach for him, just because it's all so confusing, and it all started in because somebody wanted a friendly atmosphere and so on.
Well, now it'd be a little bit difficult there—you see, whatever he puts in at cause, has to duplicate at effect. And if he can't duplicate it at effect or if he's unwilling to duplicate it—what it is, he's unwilling to duplicate it at effect. He wonders after a while, "You know, I keep saying a new body will now appear out in front of me." And you know, no new body appears out in front of him. Why? Well, he can't be cause. What is cause? Cause of everything.
He can't be cause of a new body appearing out in front of him. He has to go steal one. Why does he have to go steal one? Because he can't cause one. Why can't he cause one? Because he's unwilling to be an effect.
A person who is unwilling to be an effect will then be unable—not just has a difficulty, but he'll be—if he's unwilling to be an effect, he'll be unable to be a cause. So he says—if a person's perfectly willing to be the effect of a dead body and bodies being shot and hanged and chased and so forth, why, he can say, "New body will now appear"—boom, it'll appear.
In other words, you have as much abundance as you are willing to be cause. And you are as willing to be cause as you are willing to be an effect. Because this always happens on a cause-effect line: The fellow says, "Boom, you're dead." And he's unwilling to be around at the other end of the line and get dead.
So he says, "Boom, you're dead"—hold back from being dead! So his cycle of action is: "All right, boom, you're dead. Now I've got to hold myself back from being dead. Now I finally killed him, didn't I? I sure did. He's dead, he's no good. But he's just kind of pathetic lying there." What'd he do? He pulled in a part of the mass of energy of this fellow who was so sorry at being killed. So it's by contagion.
It's tricks that thetans enter in. So the second he pulled back, right after he was cause—he pulled back, actually, and narrowed his space—but he actually pulled back, regret at being killed. Cause in killing amounts to, then, regret at being killed—boom.
So the next time he starts to shoot somebody, his draw is a little slower. He's unwilling to be cause. He has to think it over. He thinks maybe he'll go down and talk it over with the boys before he does this, and the next thing you know, why, he sends for the sheriff. And the next thing you know, why, I don't know—he's a dishwasher in a restaurant or something. I mean, he thinks life's all agin him. See, he's unwilling to be an effect, and boy, is he. He gets to be the effect of every moment of the clock. Just because he can't be an effect, you see, he has to be an effect. He has to resist being an effect.
Well, that which you resist will inevitably overreach you. So if you resist being an effect, you become an effect. You got to be able to be willing to duplicate

167

168

21 DECEMBER 1953
what you cause. And if you're willing to duplicate what you cause, then you, of course, are willing to be an effect.
Now, a lot of people will say, "Well, now look, pain is very undesirable and that isn't anything we want anything to do with at all. Nuh-uh, pain's—pain's not desirable. No. Work is not desirable. Effort is not desirable. These are very many undesirable things. These things are bad." Well, we get right back to the Factors and we take a look and we say it's evaluation—consideration only.
Evaluation is consideration. Consideration is what says something is bad and something is good. And if a person agrees with a consideration that a lot of things are bad, they wind up bad.
What do you know? You start running on an individual just this one and no other thing—you just start running this one thing on him: wasting pain in brackets. And if you work at it hard enough, you'll discover that pain is desirable. And if you run wasting work in brackets, you'll discover on your preclear— he'll discover that work is valuable. It's something you want.
And if you run it a little bit further, you'll find out it's kind of inhibited again because it's going to run back up the DEI cycle, which is a repetitive cycle, so it'll go IED. And work, then, is not desirable, but it's less onerous. And you'll get him up to a point where he's perfectly willing to work like mad. There's nothing wrong with work. Why—work? Why, the—you don't work to retire, you work to work. That's why you work. You work in order to handle effort. Because the handling of effort, is itself, the essence of motion.
Therefore, if we can't have work, we can't have motion. If we can't have pain, we can't be an effect. What's it amount to, then? Pain is so scarce, we can't have pain.
You'd be surprised how hard you tried as a little kid to get some pain. Everybody kept yanking you away from hot stoves and yanking you out of radiators and yanking you out from underneath the wheels of cars. Oh, you wouldn't have gotten run over very often! But the point is, you're valuable.
Now, there is a cruelty—there is a cruelty; it's "make them live." Which is "make them realize that pain is"—this is a simultaneous statement— "make them realize that pain is awful stuff. That's real bad. That makes you lose, pain does." See? "Because you can't develop spontaneously enough effort to win, you poor fellow, and we feel so sorry for you." See how that works out?
So if you can make pain scarce and make effort scarce, you've made energy scarce so a fellow can't get big mock-ups and he can't replace everything.
Some people, by contagion, you see, get hectically engrossed in winning. It's an insanity. "Let somebody else win once in a while," some guy fairly high-toned says, "I'm tired of watching the same deal." Even a fight crowd is high enough toned every once in a while to start booing the champion. They're tired of seeing him win. Let somebody else win for a change.
Well, the point is that this fellow goes on and he wins and wins and wins. He thinks the end-all of existence is winning. It isn't. It's living.
And you take an—then you get to some fellow—some kid, he won't do anything. He doesn't dare do anything. You say, "Why don't you dare do anything?"
He says, "I might lose."
And you say, "What's wrong with losing?"
"What's wrong? I mean, that's bad."
You say, "What's wrong with being wrong? I mean, what's this business about being wrong? Is something going to happen to you if you're wrong?"
By the way, writers and athletes alike, musicians, get to a very interesting— an interesting state. They fight being wrong. They fight making that error. They're

KNOWINGNESS AND CERTAINTY
afraid they'll make that mistake. They're afraid they'll make that error. They must say the right word. They mustn't say the wrong word. They mustn't say the wrong word. That just spins them right on in.
They mustn't pitch that ball a little bit too far. They've got to pitch that ball exactly where they pitch it. They'll be wrong if they pitch it a little short. This is what eventually caves them in. Their competence goes to pieces. Why? Because they're fighting being wrong. Is there anything wrong with being wrong?
A writer every once in a while can sit down and start forcing himself to write gibberish. Just gibberish—I mean, being wrong as wrong could be. I sat down one time and made myself write some gibberish—this never happened to me, by the way, but I heard of—I ran into a couple writers who did have it happen to them. I straightened them out on the line and I thought, "Gee, you know, I bet I've got a lot of verbal accumulations whereby I'm afraid to be wrong. Lot of verbal accumulations on the line, a lot of symbolical errors that are liable to pop up. I just wonder if I shouldn't wash those out. Let's see, how will I go about it? Well, let's do it from action."
So I sat down and I started to write gibberish, you know? I was going to be as wrong as you could get, see? And boy, I sure got wrong, you know? I mean, real wrong—I wrote the wrong words and spelled them wrong and I hung the sentences together wrong and I made the villain the wrong villain for the wrong story and made the hero the right villain and got them all snarled up one way or the other and then disrelated paragraphs and so forth and sent it in. And I'll be damned if they didn't print it.
[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]
Well, you've got a problem any time you get an individual fixed on an idea and unable to change the idea. You get him fixed on the idea that he can lose, and the one thing he mustn't do is lose—he'll lose. See how—what the trick is? Merely because you can overreach him by so many inflows.
So let's get back to this certainty: If an individual has to be certain, if he has to know—why does he have to be certain? Why does he have to know? Well, because he can be uncertain, of course.
Well, how could he be uncertain? Well certainty is composed of somethingness and certainty is composed of nothingness. And these two things together compose a maybe. And that maybe is a certainty. So the fellow doesn't know whether there's nothing there or something there, so it must mean that it was, at some time, terribly important whether there was a somethingness or a nothingness present—terribly important, somewhere.
Because he's gotten into the addled state now, when he says there's something will appear, nothing appears. He says nothing will appear, something appears. That's an inversion.
Or he gets into the addled state of, "All right. Now, let's put a mock-up out there"—the auditor says, "Let's put a mock-up out there of your father."
And he says, "I get it, it was very flickery and wavery—boy, and I think it's one of my mother, I'm not sure."
Well, he's just fought being wrong and fought losing and he's just fought being bad and fought being inaccurate and so forth. Well, when you get him up the line, if you get him up the line to a good, high point, he'll be so relaxed that it won't occur to him that there would be anything wrong with misplacing a paving brick, if he were laying paving bricks. That wouldn't—there's nothing wrong with that. If he were driving a car, it wouldn't give him a great deal of concern that he'd throw the thing into the ditch. And what do you know, he'd never throw the car into the ditch. See?

169

170

21 DECEMBER 1953
It's what you must not do. "These are the effects which you must resist." Society tells you all the time, "These are the effects you must resist. You mustn't at any time have these effects. These effects are very bad, and you mustn't have these effects. You've got to resist these effects, and you've got to fight these effects. And the more you fight these effects, why, the better off all of us will be—because you'll be dead, sucker!" They might as well just add the words, just like that, because that's the way they were basically intended on the track.
Now, somebody comes along and he finds himself capable of being much more capable than he ever was before. He finds himself extremely capable. And he finds out he has a right to be nothing as well as a right to be something. He has a right to lose as well as to win. He has a perfect right not to know, as well as a right to know.
What have you done there? Other-determinism. So the intention of other-determinism gets up to a point of "we must have a game." He's perfectly willing, then, to engage in a game. If people consider the game that they're playing terribly serious and awfully onerous and very upsetting and full of lots of liabilities and traps that he may fall into, well. . . You say, "Gee, what do you know, a bunch of broken pieces."
By the way, have you ever stepped on a blade of grass? You know that you probably hurt it? Now, just think of that for a moment, now. You hurt it. Mm-hm.
What if you were floating so high above life that when you stepped upon somebody's tender feelings it was like stepping on a blade of grass? Now, you've never considered that hurting grass was very, very dangerous or very damaging to existence. You're perfectly willing to go out and hurt grass. And I bet none of you have gotten down and clawed a lawn and stripped it all down and tore up all the grass and thrown it all away.
Well, I'll tell you—if you got—you could do this as an experiment. You could just get ahold of somebody and convince him how horrible it was to hurt grass. That grass is composed of little cells which themselves are very, very vital little cells and they feel pain and they work hard. All these years, they work hard to make this little blade of grass. And they fight there through snow and through rain and so on. And they're out there exposed in the weather all the time, see? And if you have a—you don't even have to have a violin playing in the background "Hearts and Flowers." You just don't have to have anybody doing that, because eventually it'd get him.
And he'd think, "Gee, isn't that something," and he'd be walking down a walk, you know, and he'd very carefully stay on the walk, you know? He'd be— very carefully stay on the walk. But now he's got a reason why he's staying on the walk. Up to this time, he stayed on the walk simply because one walks on walks. But now he has a big, deep significance about staying on walks. He stays on walks so that he won't hurt little blades of grass.
And if you went on harping on this with him—it might not even be necessary to even mention it again, but the next thing you know, this individual would be saying, "Grass. Grass—it's keeping me on walks. It's restricting me." Stamp! Kind of covertly. And he might have been wearing white shoes that day and the grass got them a little bit green when he stamped—chlorophyll in them, you know—motivator. Here we go.
This man will eventually wind up—he'll wind up going around the world getting new kinds of lawn mowers that chew grass up very painfully. And after a while, he'll get down to a point of where if anybody wanted to really get him in line, anybody really wanted to get him in line, they'd just have to say to him—you know he's being very overt at the moment, he's saying, "I want some

KNOWINGNESS AND CERTAINTY
too, and I can play in this game and I'm not dead," and so forth—that's all somebody'd have to say to him is, "Grass." At that moment he'd fold up and go into apathy and you'd win, you see? Real cute trick.
Well, that's the cycle of how it would go. Well, now just look at it in terms of bodies. Now let's just put a body there instead of a blade of grass and see how this works. See that? And you've got the same story. Except you aren't quite likely to look at it in terms of bodies, because you got a supereducation on the subject of bodies.
Well, the reason men go around hacking them to pieces, the reason men go around distributing them in wars and chewing them up and being insane on the subject; the reason they throw them onto operating tables when all that's wrong with them is they need a bean taken out of their ear or something like that—they chew up a couple of ribs, and cut their throats and then tell the relatives they bled to death—I mean, almost anything can happen, see? You get a big drama going on here, all on the subject of trying to crush blades of grass.
Why? The basic entrance on it is, "Those poor little bodies. You know, there they are. They work, and they work hard and they try to get along in life and so on. And there you are, you big bully, you—you thetan, you. You big bully. You went along and that body—do you realize that that body had to be raised for about fifteen or twenty years before it got up to the point where it had that much sexual sensation in it and so forth? And you went along and bow! you hit it and there it is, and you killed it. Do you realize it will never be beautiful again? You realize you've spoiled something that you can't replace?"
You say, "What do you mean I can't replace? I can replace it. A body will now appear." One does, but it's kind of shaky. See? You got no confidence now in the fact—you've destroyed something that's irreplaceable.
That's the biggest argument that can be leveled to anybody—against anybody, is that he destroys things that can't be replaced. Many a conqueror has gone down in history simply because he's destroyed things that can't be replaced. Attila the Hun, I think, guaranteed his position in history just by this operation.
Well, that may be or may not be—we're not interested in whether or not— what the moral values are of bodies, but we're interested in the thetan. And we find out the individual is the thetan, and that he has been sold a bill of goods which has to do with "it has been proven to him that he should feel bad about his force and power, so that he will not harm bodies because they're kind of sacred and he can't replace them." And he's—it's been proven to him. He is convinced that this is the case and he feels sympathetic to it.
Now, you notice when I exteriorize somebody, I always have them pat somebody on the head and say, "Poor body. Poor body." That's just to get rid of some of that sympathy. You do this sometimes, by the way, and quite usually— I think you've seen it here in a couple of demonstrations—individuals say, 'Yes, I had a somatic." Well, that somatic will immediately follow. Because in order to get a thetan really sold on this, you'd have had to—you've set up a booby trap like a body—it'd have implants in it which would cause people to feel this way.
So the thetan sees the body behaving on a stimulus-response mechanism in a certain way, and he thinks he caused the behavior. Never occurs to a thetan that he wouldn't cause something, till after a while, he looks at all the things he causes, he notes they're all wrong. His values are all backwards, as far as he's concerned. He's got to preserve things which he can't replace. You see, he knew he could replace them, so why preserve them? And he gets into

171

172

21 DECEMBER 1953
a dreadful state and he gets stuck in the body and you have a hard time getting him out of the body and so forth.
Well, "sorry to be so convincing" is an entering wedge on this sort of thing. There's a—we were talking about it the other day—there's an implant I discovered a long time ago, whereby a fellow has a dome and it's got lightning in it and a black sky and thunderbolts and so forth. Well, it's fitted over him and turns on more or less at his wavelength, or it simply forces at him long enough to be his wavelength, and the energy in it is terribly forceful but not necessarily unpleasant. And the feeling that goes with it is "sorry to be so convincing," that's the way it adds up in English—the implant, of course, is not in English. It's not words that are in it, it's just that: A fellow is overcome by something which is an unpleasant sensation to him, probably, just because it's somebody or something else's sensation; but it's not unpleasant, really, and it just keeps—pushed in on him until he himself has a desire for it, and that is sympathy.
And the basic implant on sympathy in the GE is probably this "sorry to be so convincing," you know? "Here I'm using all this force on you, and I'm awfully sorry for it." Now, there we go.
Now that gives an individual a certainty about force, that he'll get sympathy for it. And Homo sapiens has agreed that when force has been applied beyond one's ability to resist, that one will then get sympathy for it. And so Homo sapiens goes around trying to get force applied hard enough so that he'll get sympathy for it. And we call that motivator hunger.
Many a preclear is holding on to engrams because he doesn't have enough motivators. Well, that's just because he's been cause, cause, cause and he's been unwilling to be the effect and unwilling to be the effect, till he's left vacuums on the other end of the comm line. And he'll flip the comm line someday, and he'll become the vacuum. He could become the effect. He's fought it and fought it and fought it; and he didn't want to be in there and he didn't want to be in there—and he's in there.
So that's in terms of flow. And as long as one plays around with flows, he gets into these odd and various manifestations. What has this to do with certainty?
Well, it's what has one been taught he must have, in terms of impact, to have certainty. Certainty is not an impact, certainty is knowingness. So one must have sold out his own certainty and knowingness in return for a system of impacts which themselves pretended to be certainty.
Why'd he do this?
Well, so he could win. See, if you win you lose, in this universe. If you worry about winning, you're going to lose. And if you worry about losing, you're going to win. What you should be thinking about—"Is it an interesting game I'm engaged in?" you should be thinking to yourself. "Is this interesting?"
"Gee, what do you know—real interesting game we were playing and so on, and we were—just terrific action. We were out there in a storm and we all got killed and drowned."
"Well, what are you doing with that body?"
"Oh, I mocked it up. It isn't very experienced yet and so on—it really isn't."
Well, that's lots of fun, that's lots of randomity. And from down the line, somebody gets an idea that he'd better be much more convincing than anybody else, and that's part of the game, too. But the entering wedge of that game is, is you get so convincing that you actually convince people.
You convince them what? That things are bad. That certain things are bad. And that it's bad over there, and you'd better not go over there because

KNOWINGNESS AND CERTAINTY
it'll be hurt, and pain is bad. You'll be hurt, you'll hurt something. Pain is bad. Work is bad.
You take a whole culture which is sold on the idea of retiring—they're sold on the idea of no motion and no action. You see that? Because work, in essence, is simply the handling of effort. The use of effort. And if using effort is bad, why then, of course, one goes toward a time when he won't have to use any effort. Well, that's sure backwards. Because the only fun there is, is using effort or action or so forth, and moving around in space and so forth. That's fun. And when it becomes a goal not to do that, of course you've got everything backwards. Because the goal is then not to have any fun.
'Well, if I work hard and save all of my money, in the future, I will be in a point where I won't have any fun." That doesn't sound logical. And yet, the fellow's saying the same thing when he's saying, "Well I'll work till I'm fifty-five and then I can retire, and I can go have my orange grove and then I can have some fun."
Did you ever run into these fellows who had bought an orange grove at sixty-five or seventy or something of the sort, and they'd retired and so on and they didn't work anymore? Did you ever run into any? I mean, it's real grim, real grim. They blow their brains out every once in a while. They die quick, too. Their wives generally outlive them.
Unless the fellow was doing this—now, this is a different goal: "I'm going to work for a while here until I accumulate enough money so that I can invest it and get an orange grove that I can really work on. You know, I'll just raise more oranges than anybody else, and that's what I'm going to do, see? I'm going to work at this job until I get all that money and then I'm going to buy this orange grove and then we'll really get to work. And we'll raise all these oranges and we'll do this"—he keeps going toward the goal of effort. As long as he goes toward a goal of effort he's okay. As long as he goes toward a goal of "loaf," why, he's not okay, in terms of motion.
And when I say effort, I don't mean so much "effort" on the motion—I mean, on the looking band, and so on. He's perfectly willing to handle objects and handle energy and so forth. He sees nothing wrong with this—boy, he's in real good shape. You can tell the tone of the culture to the degree that an individual can work.
And you can tell something else: You can tell whether or not a person is neurotic and potentially psychotic on the basis of whether or not they can work. And if they can't work, why, you're going to have a rough case. You're going to have to ride them right on up through.
Now, way above this, there's another one. "Sorry to be so beautiful, look what it has done." Because the first conviction is the conviction of beauty. And so you go way up above the line of force and reach for that one.
Now, it's seldom you can run it straight out of a preclear because you'll hit force first—"sorry to be so convincing." But "Sorry to be so beautiful. Look what I have done by being so beautiful. I convinced them to a point where they're all slaves."
Okay.

173

Remedy of Havingness
A lecture given on 22 December 1953

This is December the 22nd, first lecture of the day. I want to talk to you today about prediction.
It can be said that the sane person is in present time, that the neurotic person is either hectically in the future or slightly in the past, and the psychotic is well into the past. And this shows up in terms of prediction. The mind could be said to be a computing instrument for the future.
Well, as soon as an individual has an experience which must not happen again, he believes then that his future depends upon keeping that incident suppressed, in line, squared away and so on. And as a consequence he is incapable of making a decision without having reference to the destructive datum; and so he takes a reference to the destructive datum before he acts in the future.
Now that, at first, is just on selective subjects; and after a while, it begins to blur with the individual and the blur becomes more and more pronounced.
And by blur, I simply mean that the individual relates too many data; he consults too many data in order to predict a future action. And having consulted this data, he of course is so now armed with data that he knows that everything can happen in the next minute or so and that it's all going to be bad. The reason for this is he's consulting only bad data.
He has tried to store data of unpleasant experience in the past so that he will not repeat an action in the future. As a consequence, as an individual gets into more and more blur, that is to say, more and more of these incidents have to be consulted—he sets it up just as an automaticity, you see—and more and more of these incidents have to be consulted, and more and more of them.
Well, of course, at length he is just drifting back, you might say, on the time track because the mean of all these incidents would be back of present time. By the mean, I mean the earliest and the latest all averaged out would put him back into the past—it'd put him back into the middle of the past. So that by the time he's consulted all this bad data, then his prediction, of course, is that things are going to be bad.
As a result, an individual comes to you and they are unable to be happy. Why are they unable to be happy? Because they know the future's going to be bad. We have in this person a storehouse, a warehouse full of bad experience which must be consulted before the future.
Now, I call to your attention, the little dog goes down the street, he's got his ears up and his tail up and he's feeling very cheerful and he sort of says hello to everybody and people will stop and they'll pet him. And dog goes into a

175

176

22 DECEMBER 1953
restaurant and he sniffs around and he smiles at everybody and, why, somebody's liable to put him up on the stool and feed him a hamburger—there's no telling what'll happen to him. It's usually all good, you see? And he just has a perfectly good time about it. He doesn't know anything. He is completely ignorant as far as the past is concerned; he has no accumulated experience. He is running along on his GE facsimiles that tell him how to walk, run and smile. Well, that's about all. When he gets a little older, bad experience may have stored up to a point where he has to consult bad experience before he goes into the restaurant.
Now, let's take a bum. He walks down the street, he's all in rags, he is filthy, he knows that man is bad. He has had many bad experiences—he has lost twenty or thirty wives and eighty or ninety businesses and that sort of thing. And he goes down—he's got lots of experience; he's holding on to all of it—he goes into the restaurant and they throw him out. He says something to somebody on the street and they sneer at him. Well now, he's—has bad experience, I mean he stored it. He stored it real well, and he's got it right there and he's wearing it all over him.
People try to avoid what they classify as bad experience, and so close terminals with it. "I want to avoid a bad experience," the fellow says. So he closes terminals with all the bad experience he's had. That which one resists, one becomes. And as a result, we have the difference between the puppy and the bum. And the puppy knows nothing, absolutely nothing, and—about the future and everybody's nice to him. And the fellow who "knows all about life"— he gets thrown out of the restaurant.
Well now, let's make it even worse—let's take a young kid—let's take a three-, four-, five-year-old kid: Can you possibly imagine a child of this age walking along by himself and not having people look after him? Well, that isn't any strange and peculiar urge so much as it is people like the bright face of the world they see reflected on the child's face. The child can see a bright world for them.
If you yourself wish to bring to people a feeling of security in your presence and a feeling of pleasure that you are there, then you reflect the bright face of the world to them. They can't see it as well as you can.
Well, when you have the future hectically in view, and when you have the past in continuous suspension, well, it's just a puzzle, then, of time that the fellow isn't in the time of. Here he sits in present time—none of these things are going to happen to him. He doesn't happen to be in the middle of the war, he doesn't happen to be here or there, he doesn't happen to be on an operating table. He isn't any of those places, and yet if you were to E-Meter him, you'd find flick, flick, flick, flick, flick, flick, flick—all these incidents were right there, and just as though they were happening.
In Dianetics it was necessary, in getting an entrance into an understanding of this problem, to have an individual reexperience the bad experience. Well actually, the bad experience will reexperience just as though you were running it off on a phonograph record and it's quite interesting that it will.
But this is a mental therapy, it is a successful mental therapy but it is a limited mental therapy. And it is limited, in a very marked degree, because another factor enters in to all this. There is the matter of loss. And there is the matter of havingness.
Now, let's look at space and we find out that space is beingness. The human experience equivalent to space is beingness. The human experience equivalent to energy is doingness. The human experience equivalent to time is havingness.

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS
Now, time and havingness: You understand that if a person has something, then—he has something of this universe—then he can see by the co-action of the particles of that, that there is some motion taking place. And this in itself is time. So that time becomes impossible in the absence of havingness. If you simply had—if all that you had was simply your potential to generate energy and make space and so on, why, you wouldn't have any time; you'd be completely timeless. And so havingness is time.
Now, that is a very good datum to remember. It just isn't one of Ron's wild ideas, it happens to work out. You'll find an individual in every case who is having trouble with havingness, is having trouble with time. And when an individual has trouble with time, he's having trouble with the most noncombatable barrier we have.
So time, in essence, is the only aberrative barrier. You can overcome all the rest of them, but where's that gun you lost in 1720, hm? You just don't have it anymore.
"Well," you say, "well, why don't you go over where it is and pick it up?"
"Well, it's not there." Those particles have co-actioned until they're dispersed in one fashion or another.
Well now, let's take a closer look at this. And we find out that time is one of these—well, it's the great charlatan. People say time is a great healer. If you just don't have any of the particles around anymore to remind you, why, then of course you won't be ill. Well, that's—has a very, very limited application, because it is fought immediately by this: If you keep putting the particles away from you, you're occasioning yourself loss. Havingness. It comes down to havingness.
Why does time exist? And let's go into a human experience now, which is greater than time. Time itself is simply a humdrum pocketa-pocketa-pocketa of particles. Let's go into a greater experience than time and we find that form, aesthetic form, is in essence a far more important factor. Why do you have to have energy, huh? I mean, why do you have to have any of these things? Well, the motion and the form. And a person who has a problem of havingness is having a problem of time. And if a person is having a problem of havingness, then his problems in terms of time become insurmountable to him.
Well, the problem in terms of time, of course, bring in: Is this Tuesday or is it when I was being operated on? The moment he starts to have a severe problem in time, he begins to get then into this problem—"Well, I'll hold on to this bad datum in order to get the good data in the future."
Well, now in view of the fact that there isn't any such thing as a classifiably total bad datum—there aren't bad data and good data, there isn't a good experience and a bad experience—there is a consideration of a datum and there's consideration of an experience. And that's all there is. A fellow considers an experience; he considers a datum. All right.
One fellow tells another that something is bad. And when he says "bad," he means it's a "you shouldn't have." That's bad. Now, when he says something is good, he's saying it's a "you should have." And it's an effort on the part of one thetan to present to another thetan or take away from another thetan, havingness. And that is bad and good. It is also forgetfulness and remembrance.
Memory here—when a person can pull in or be in the area where something happened, of course he can remember it. And when a person pushes something away from him, then he can forget it. So we have the effort on the part of individuals to forget that which is gone from them. See?
So they want to know why they forgot what was gone from them, and of course this, then, is bad. Must have been. But if they consider that what was

177

178

22 DECEMBER 1953
torn from them was good, then they're into a very severe problem and that is, that they can't have good things. And that—you're looking right straight there at a dwindling spiral.
Then it works on an inversion. If this keeps being torn from them all the time, they keep losing this all the time, therefore it must be bad. So we first get the fellow into the line where he can't have good things. And then we get him into the thing that the things that are torn from him are bad. And so we get evaluation changing, changing and turning continuously.
[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]
Whenever we have a problem in havingness, we get restimulation of engrams. Well, why is this? A problem in havingness brings about the restimulation of engrams. A person resists that which he becomes—he has to resist it first before he becomes it. But an engram is a pattern of constantly made—and for your purposes you can simply consider it a piece of energy—constantly made energy, but you can consider it a piece of energy.
And we have this engram. Here we have an engram and it is havingness. It has form, and it has, usually, an aesthetic value, it has certainly a dramatic value, and it certainly is havingness. So an individual gets things torn from him this way and that, he loses things, he takes things away from others and throws them away and at length, he begins to develop a deficiency in havingness. He can only develop a deficiency in havingness because he has started to consider that those things he can't have must be bad for him, and then that he can't have; and then he considers that those things he can have must be of a very low order indeed.
And if he had, scattered across the universe but able to reconstruct, a very large number of engrams and he had some very, very beautiful facsimiles, he at length, because of this constant belief—continuous, continuing belief— that he can't have good things because they're taken away from him, he would choose out of these things . . . This is a very good one for you to remember because this in its essence is Acceptance Level Processing, this is what's back of it. He gets into the state of mind where he can only receive the very bad things. And he gets into a dreadful muddle.
Well, what's a very bad thing? Well, there'd be this consideration of beauty. But let's just take it in terms of what's colorful, what has a smooth, flowing line, and he would take things that were dun-colored or even black-colored and had no smooth, flowing line of any kind.
Now, that's interesting. Because an individual then begins to accept from life all sorts of odds and ends and horrible things that somebody else wouldn't think of. Do you know that an individual, if he ran his parents—if an individual is having a rough time of it, if you run his parents accepting sick children, he'll all of a sudden recognize something, it'll flash to him very quickly: He's—the level of acceptance of his parents is sickness. And so he has to be sick, otherwise he can't be accepted by his parents. In other words, what kind of havingness do his parents desire? Well, they desire sick havingness. In order to stay with his parents and so forth, he has to be sick. And the person sits there in the auditing chair sick.
Acceptance Level Processing in the PABs 13, 14, 15 is mostly a demonstration or an understanding technique for the preclear rather than something which immediately clears things up; because it can be run for many, many, many hours. And it's not particularly the end-all of techniques. But it's demonstrative of this thing called havingness.

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS
Well, the process of receiving something and putting it away and not being able to have it again and only being able to have the things which are not as smooth a form and as—so on, and having less and less desirable things in terms of just an aesthetic, whatever the consideration is, these—this cycle goes on and is itself (please note this), it is itself time. The process of throwing things away and pulling things in and getting them forced on one and forcing them on others and so forth, brings about the agreed-upon condition known as time.
So havingness in terms of human experience is senior to this pocketa-pocketa-pocketa pattern, second hand going round and round and round, I mean just that—time. Now you wouldn't have any of this time because time gives you the hope that though you can't have, you may be able to someday. Time is the great hoper; it's the great reassurer.
A person looks at it and he says, 'Well now, look at that, that's—that calendar there. Here it is the 2nd of December, and I don't have anything very much right now, but on the 25th of December, somebody's going to give me a present." Hopeful havingness.
Now, hope in itself goes about two ways: It's the desire that sometime in the future one will cease to have something which he no longer wants but can't seem to get rid of, or that one will acquire something he wants. And that is hope.
And there is a condition of beingness that goes along with this, of course, and that is, an individual has exterior things—he has things which are other than himself (that is to say, they're made otherwise than by himself) and these things which are made otherwise by himself, they come against him and to him and so forth. And the harder they hit him and the more often they hit him . . . That is to say, the harder they hit him—the harder they hit him, the more often they hit him—I mean, you're just getting the same phrase. You see, you don't assume time merely because you have time. If you're dealing with something that would be timeless, you wouldn't assume time in order to explain it.
So you just say to the fellow—fellow's hit by something and he's saying all the time, "I don't want it; I don't want it"—and he's got it. Well, he can't be wrong; he mustn't be wrong. He must have already gotten into this to be in bad shape. So if he can't be wrong, why, of course it must be that he wants it. Well, you get your DEI cycle: Desire, Enforce, Inhibit. He begins to desire it, but what does he—what happens immediately before he desires it?
Well, if you can inhibit something—if you can inhibit something from going into a fellow and if he's trying to inhibit it same way—if he's trying to inhibit something from coming in which somebody is trying to push in (which is your E into I), why, it'll become him eventually. Unless he has an awful lot of force to resist it.
Now somebody's trying to give him something and he decides he doesn't want it. Well, believe me, right below that first DEI as it goes down is another D, so he desires. He desires that which has been forced upon him to such a degree that he can't do anything about it. And that's other-motion coming in on him, that's other-determinism coming in on him. And we know instinctively that acquisition of other things is in itself bad. Now, that even applies to knowledge.
A person quite often is difficult to process merely because he has the idea that other-knowingness can itself destroy him. And if a thetan (quote) "knows anything" (unquote), he thinks he knows that. It's not true—it's not true. A whole group of people can know something and be happy about it and prosper. But an individual who's had too much knowledge forced on him which he found indigestible after he receives it runs into this DEI cycle, and after a while the most desirable information imaginable—somebody could walk in and say

179

180

22 DECEMBER 1953
to this person the most desirable information imaginable—would be something he couldn't receive.
Now, a person could walk in and say, "You've just inherited a million dollars." And this is a piece of knowingness, you see? Information.
And he's just liable to sit there and say, "Well, could I have a quarter?" so forth.
And you could tell him in vain, "You've just inherited a million dollars," and he'd keep on asking you for this quarter.
Well, his request for the quarter is his idea; so he thinks that his request for the quarter is senior to what you're saying. You're trying to tell him he has a million dollars, you—and that—he'd never get into communication with you. He's unwilling to receive the effect of knowingness.
And you'll run into that with preclears, you'll run into it in trying to instruct. Most everybody has had this forced down them. Now, a little child . . . You'll use a little child because a thetan is pretty well swamped up when he picks up a baby, he's perfectly willing now to roll on the line again. And he's doing a good job of having thrown away his past havingness. Although if you will carefully notice, by the way, a little baby that is one, one-and-a-half, something like that, they're a little bit spinny; they're just a little bit spinny. And if you'll watch them, you will see that they have not settled yet into a comfortable feeling about what their loss has just been. And they very often have old people's or other— you know, sort of former people's characteristics. They will go around and do strange things, they will go around and mop or try to do something to make themselves useful or something. And they appear to be a bit in a fog. And as a matter of fact, they are a bit in a fog. You take that much havingness away from anybody and he's in a fog.
Well, they suddenly wake up, sooner or later, to the fact that they've got a new mock-up, and they accept this utterly, and about that time, you get an entrance into childhood. And up to that time you just get a sort of a fog. This new mock-up works, they get intrigued in running it, they see that the people around them are not too desperately horrible, they see that it's a bright new world and they've decided to make the best of it.
Well, they haven't really decided one way or the other to make the best of it usually because of the between-lives sequence. But the loss of havingness, the sudden loss of havingness, brings about a considerable degradation; and the individual goes down below the level of being able to remember—he just goes down to zero—I mean, zoom! Because he's so associated himself with havingness itself, you see, he's so closely linked this together, that a sudden loss of havingness is a sudden loss of self. All right.
When we get a problem in terms of knowingness on the part of a preclear, we're in immediately into a problem with the preclear of time, too. But basically, we're into a problem of havingness.
All right, now let's look at it another way. We try to instruct somebody. We try to give him a somethingness. Well, as a little kid he was eager to learn— tremendously eager to learn. And then they taught him things he didn't want to know. And then they spanked him so he'd learn, and they did all sorts of things. And he got to school and when he got into school, why, he went into a sort of a cage, so on. It's very often children like school, but not—but it's very, very much up to the instructor more than anybody else.
And a lot of information's handed him, handed him, handed him—he doesn't know what to do with it, he can't correlate it, he doesn't see that this has anything to do—so it's a havingness he doesn't want. And he eventually

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS
gets down to a point to where he figures out, "There's knowingnesses that I don't want."
How could there be a knowingness that you don't want? Just—that's impossible. I mean, you want to know about everything, of course. You—there— you haven't any finite capacity, you haven't any finite storage capacity for information. You can't hold just 674,000 data, and the 674,001 datum won't crack your skull. Total knowingness is shunned by a great many people because they know so much of it is bad.
They've been into this experience of having—they're holding on to all these past experiences that are bad so that they can predict the future and so forth, and they don't want to know about the past experiences after a while because they've gotten into the DEI cycle. See, they desired to know about bad experiences and then after a while they had to know about bad experiences and then after a while, why, they inhibited themselves from bad experiences and then they closed with the bad experiences and had one. And that's the way you get the cycle going. All right.
Here's a person who has a shut-down knowingness. Well, if he has a shut-down knowingness, he has a shut-down space. There's a bunch of data he doesn't want to know about. He feels that this would ruin him if he ever confronted it. And so he would much rather handle energy patterns or something, you know? I mean, knowingness would be bad. That—there you see, that's the one thing that can't be bad!
So you know everything there is across the face of the mest universe. Knowingness is actually a form of havingness because you have to be able to have some space in which something's occurring, you have to be able to go through some of the actions and so forth—at least to experience knowingness. But knowingness itself—theoretically, you could simply say, "I am the entire mest universe, and now I will know everything in it; I wish to know everything in it." Zing — you'd know everything in it. I mean, you could theoretically do that. It's an impossibility, but I mean you could theoretically do that. You see that then— you'd certainly be indestructible if you could do that.
Well, and here's some fellow—some preclear: You're trying to show him something about his own life by making him process it and so forth, and he's sitting there and, boy, he's running "I don't want to know, I don't want to know, I don't want to know, I don't want to know."
You'll find yourself instructing people in Scientology and you'll find them— they're just sitting there, they don't want to know. They—it's horrible. You say to yourself, "Well, how could they possibly miss this? We just got through saying that if you put two pictures of your mother out in front, why, you'll feel better about your mother."
And this fellow just got through saying to you, "Well, you can't get two pictures of your mother in your pocket."
And you say, "What?"
And he says, "That's right."
He just didn't want to—he didn't want to know about this because he didn't want to have these bad experiences with his mother, and you connected the bad experience about his mother and so forth, well, he's going to take the knowingness and throw it away.
Well, knowingness, actually, is the most senior thing in the whole category of SOP 8-C. It stands over the top of everything. And as you have solved problems of havingness so that the individual at last can have, you'll get knowingness.

181

182

22 DECEMBER 1953
But if you think that it would simply be a matter of just flipping out a few postulates—just bing-bing-bing, you know, flip out a few postulates—you see, basically, all havingness is, is a few postulates. Well, you think if you could just flip out a few postulates, bing-bing-bing, that's all there is to it and so forth, well, this fellow would change his mind. Well, he made these postulates in the first place, didn't he? Well, all right, if he made them in the first place, let's let him unmake them right now and then all this havingness that he's worrying about and so forth, and the bank would disappear and so forth.
Well, it doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that way because you can't make him unhave that fast. And if you make him unhave that fast, he will go down into a degraded state. And that is why you mustn't reach over with a pair of theta shears and start chewing away at somebody's engram bank, because you reduce his havingness. And if there's anything—if there's anything I wish an auditor would pay attention to in processing, it's the amount of havingness, and what you call the balanced havingness of the preclear. If you don't pay attention to this factor, you'll have cases dragging, you'll fail to understand why some case is hanging fire. Well, it's a matter of time, isn't it, on a case. This case— you don't want to spend in this much time on the case.
Well, people who can have your time, sort of have some of your havingness. They can have you if they can have your time. All right.
Now you say, "I just don't like to spend this much time on this case." Well, yeah, but what you just said is you don't want to spend this much havingness on this case. And the reason you'll have to spend time on the case ordinarily is because you haven't paid any attention to a problem of havingness the case has. And that's what makes the case slow.
What's slow? Well, the greater the scarcity, the less—that is to say, the greater the scarcity, the longer the time. That's what makes a timespan span. What makes a timespan span? Scarcity makes it span.
Now, the more he has—you see, it doesn't quite work the way it looks there—the more he has that's actually his, the less time will affect him. But you can't solve it in the mest universe. Because the more you have that is actually yours, actually, the more you move out into your own universe. And you're not going to take any piece of this universe with you—it's rigged, booby-trapped. So you'd have to have havingness which was strictly your own. I mean, you'd have to know it was your own so that you could pry it loose from this universe, and only then would you get out of the time stream.
Now, that's confused with the fellow who acquires and acquires and acquires and acquires in this universe, you see, until he's got a responsibility for a tremendous quantity of material. And this materiel itself is, each piece of it, going pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa and it's saying, "You have to be responsible for me, you have to be responsible for me, you have to be responsible for me; you have to agree with me, you have to agree with me." And the more you agree with it, of course, the more you go pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. So you've agreed with this co-motion of particles which is this particular universe, but that is a sort of a false havingness, if you want to know the truth.
A person who will possess more than he can actually use is a foolish person indeed—just in the business of agreeing with the economic, cultural strata. If you really want to worry, why, throw a hundred thousand dollars into the bank and save it. If you just want to worry, you want to worry yourself frantic, that's a wonderful way to do it. That, of course, is—you enter that on the D end. And you say, "Gee, that's desirable." And it wouldn't be if you went right straight

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS
through and actually did it, because you would find out that people enforced the fact on you that you had a hundred thousand dollars.
The streams of inventors who would go up and down your porch steps demanding that you invest, the streams of stockbrokers that would call you, the amount of mail you would receive would all demonstrate to you rather clearly that this hundred thousand dollars was being forced on you.
And then there'd be the government, and it'd start inhibiting it. And the government would say, "Well, you really can't have a hundred thousand dollars; we have—now we have instituted, very recently . . ." You see, the second you had a hundred thousand dollars you'd have to get interested in the government. And you have never—all of your life you've been perfectly happy. You've never read a Congressional Record, you have never read the newspapers, you don't know what the political columns are, you don't know whether you're a Republican or a Monotonist. And all of the problems of your life have just been solved beautifully without knowing anything about politics. But you get a hundred thousand dollars, you'll be interested in politics. You have to be. Because the government, sooner or later, might turn into a socialistic state and everybody'd divide the wealth and there'd go your hundred thousand dollars!
That which you have, when it is under raid, you might say, has to be protected. And one realizes so easily in this universe that havingness is short, that he realizes that any real havingness he has, has to be protected. The way many people solve this problem is to have poorly; and they have moldy loaves of bread and poor clothes and so forth—nobody would steal them. Well, they learn, sooner or later, that somebody will even steal these. And so they get moldier loaves of bread and then they get moldier clothing and then they're dirty themselves—and they make themselves as unhaveable as possible, just so they can covertly have a little havingness. That's their main problem.
So we have in our economic structure a great deal of protectiveness of havingness. And the less you protect in the structure, the more you can have. And the more you protect, the more you get nailed down into a static state— that is to say, not a theta static state, but just an immobile state where you can't protect. The biggest lesson anyone learns in this universe: that there is a certain fatality connected with having something which can be attacked. If you have something which is very obvious, if you have a huge house that has a lot of goods in it, you've got something there that you've got to guard. And the more you have to guard, the less you're going to win.
I call to your attention the Japanese for instance, were able to raid Pearl Harbor and able to raid all kinds of installations all over the Pacific until they acquired enough so that they had to guard everything they had. The fools didn't know that what they should do was simply to remain in a raiding force. Well, this is because they already had the Japanese islands so they really didn't dare go so far. But actually if they'd just retained and concentrated their troops as a raiding force, they could have easily won the war.
And we didn't even vaguely find ourselves in a position to do anything about Pearl Harbor or about the Japanese because we were spread all over the map. We were guarding everything. We were guarding the entire Orient and had no pile of personnel or ships or anything else sufficient or adequate to suddenly raid Japan, swish! So the war dragged on for years. Everybody had something they were trying to guard.
Well, it was obvious that when the Japanese had spread themselves that thin, they could then be rolled up. Why, of course—you could hit their installations and you found the guards very thin and so you could take their installations piecemeal.

183

184

22 DECEMBER 1953
The Japanese empire was guarding beyond its potential of guarding. It had. And here is havingness which stretches time.
But no amount of philosophy will get around the fact that you have, in your preclear, first and foremost, a problem of havingness.
Now, it would really amaze you that havingness will run out Book One problems. I give you something quite significant in this. There was a case last night whom I audited for a few minutes. I'd audited him before and—one of you was there. It was an interesting review of a case. This case, by the way, had run off, priorly, in Dianetics some of the charge and so forth on several engrams, and one particular engram, a tonsillectomy, had been run with Dianetics.
The only thing that was wrong, the only reason it didn't work well on the case, was because the case had such a terrific problem in havingness that the reduction of any havingness was unthinkably horrible. And as a consequence, everybody trying to take something away from this fellow who already had so little that he was right at a perishing point, was pushing a case in the direction of less havingness; whereas the only place you had to push the case was in the direction of more havingness.
It's one of these simple identity problems—I mean it's Q and A. The condition is there, you see it very clearly. We look at this person and we see he is terribly thin, he's emaciated. Well there's a problem of havingness, see— havingness in terms of food or havingness in terms of a lot of things. All right.
Well, let's solve the case. How we going to solve it? "Well, let's run an engram and erase it and let's—well, I tell you what we do, we get in and we'll cut off a large portion of his bank and throw it away . . ."
If he landed in doctors' hands, they would say, "Well, let's see. If we could saw off his left arm or something . . ."
See, an auditor who would think like that—I mean, he sees this person with no havingness, and then promptly gives him less havingness, almost negative havingness—this case is going to go frantic. And sure enough, the case would actually, and has in the past, gone into a convulsion when a little bit of havingness—just obediently do the technique which would reduce some havingness and go into a convulsion just like that.
Why does he go into a convulsion? Well, because his havingness is not adequate to his control of the situation. He doesn't have enough havingness to keep things stopped and keep things this way and handle things that way, and so as a consequence, the case would go out of control.
The body itself would drag on any energy of the thetan to such a point that the thetan was unable to control the body. The thetan would just be completely upset. Anything the thetan had would just be pulled off of him by the body with this little havingness. All right.
What's the proper way to run this case? Give him something. Well, how do you give somebody something? You make space in terms of anchor points. You have him put out eight anchor points and then pull them together and at that moment, then neglect it. Don't have him pull it together hard enough so that it'll explode the anchor points. Then you put out eight more anchor points. Put them out anyplace—in front of him, around him, it doesn't matter where. Put out eight more anchor points and pull them together. But, again, not so hard they'll explode. You see, just pull them tightly together.
What do you do with them then? Well, you can have him crowd them into his body or you could have him just merely drop them. Because there are sufficient unhavingness vacuums in the vicinity of the body that will actually pick up that piece of energy. And you as an auditor could count on that automaticity.

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS
But you could stuff it into his chest or something after this had happened if you wanted to do something with it.
Well now, he will get so hungry for this havingness that he will start to beg to manufacture it. He's learned how to manufacture some havingness now (only he doesn't realize what he's doing). You just told him eight... He said— he'll start telling you (this is invariable) that he can do it now, he can do this now and he wants to do it faster; he can do it a lot faster than you're doing it, you see? You've got him up to a thirst point. And it'd be like giving a man who had been dying of thirst a little sip of water, you see; and then you wait for a little while and you give him another drop of water and so on. He'll start telling you, "Oh, I think I can take much more water than that." Well, this is the same phrase, the same reason, same rationale behind this. All right.
Let's take this havingness, then have him put up eight anchor points and have him pull them together. Have him put them aside or put them in his chest or just drop them or just anything with them. And put up eight more anchor points and pull them together and so on. And you know what's going to show up? All the engrams he's caught in.
And what are you going to do about the engrams? If you're a real bad auditor that doesn't know about havingness, you're going to try to run one. What's he got these engrams for? They're a level of havingness he can have. He knows he can have these. He can't have anything better than that, merely because he's so short on havingness. If he has anything good, it'll be taken away from him—he's been taught that very adequately. Well, he can at least have engrams, even though they give him agony. Nobody else is going to take one of these engrams because they'll hurt him. Well he can have, as—even though it hurts him, he can still have them. And they're more valuable to him than no engrams. Something is always better than nothing. Anything is better than nothing. The thetan has this as a motto: "Anything is better than nothing." And boy, if you look over some of the "anythings" some thetans have, you'll certainly realize the truth of this.
And so, here you have this individual sitting there and he's starting to go into convulsions and he's starting to do all sorts of things simply because you're pulling in eight anchor points on him. See, you're telling him to put out eight anchor points and then pull them in.
Well now, there's—you can get tricky about this; you can change his interest. If you found that early in auditing while you were testing out the case or you were doing something about the case, you said, "Now, get a picture of your mother," and it threw him into an immediate convulsion; you put up eight mothers, so—the corners of a cube—and pull them all in to a point (you know, crowd them together) and stuff them in his chest or throw them away or anything he wants with them. But the point is that those eight mothers crowded together in that fashion are going to go into his bank, ssllrrp! And you'll actually—if you were to look at this, you'd just simply see him pulling into his bank all kinds of bric-a-brac of this character. All right.
We have then our problem in havingness solving in terms of the fellow, now with a superior grade of havingness, perfectly willing to surrender a few engrams. And how will he surrender them? Well, they'll start coming off of him. In other words, they (quote) "go into restimulation," as far as you can see. Well, they're below a level of restimulation at the time you contact them. And you'll find him stuck on the track somewhere. And one main engram, two or three engrams will come up if you repeated this and continued it.

185

186

22 DECEMBER 1953
Well, he's making what he now has, so it is his. You're showing him he can make it. This is a source of great relief to him. And he starts to give up, then, the engrams he's caught in. Because he wants them; he wants them on a DEI cycle. But he only has them simply because they're something nobody else would possibly take. This is a problem of the fellow wearing dirty clothes so nobody will steal them. He has very, very little; he cooks out of an old tin can because nobody's going to steal that tin can off of him. We're not going to get into a problem of havingness as long as we have very poor and bad things. So he's got an engram, and he's got it all wrapped around him. It's horrible! I mean nobody's going to do anything with this engram.
Now, any rationale that stems from this is perfectly valid, but it's a lower order of rationale. It's a much less reason why. You're dealing with about the seniorest reason why anybody has an engram when you're dealing with this right now—havingness.
Well, how do you amend havingness? It's by giving him new mass. Now, every once in a while you're going to run into the same thing—you're going to run the most interesting problem with a preclear. You're going to give him some processing and then after you've given him this nice processing, he doesn't feel good.
And you say, "What's specifically wrong?"
"Well, nothing."
"Well, what happened? I mean, you found all those incidents I told you and you contacted all those recalls." And he did everything you said and, gee, he was kind of stable up there as a thetan and yet you gave him this processing and he just doesn't feel well. He'll sit there and look at you glumly.
You've reduced his havingness. And that's always the answer. I mean, that's one of those "always" answers. You don't know what's wrong with this case? Well, his havingness has been reduced.
Well, how much havingness can a thetan have? Oh boy, that's real big. Why doesn't a thetan mock up a body which is visible to everybody? Well, it's because somebody will steal it, of course. He's got to have some covert method like the genetic entity line. He'll say, "Let something else do it—let George do it." He couldn't make one.
Well, someday you'll be running some preclear, he'll be going along pocketa-pocketa-pocketa just wonderful, you know. I mean, he is doing beautifully and all of a sudden he will put up the classiest facsimile—oh, what a beautiful facsimile he puts up there—and he goes pong! on a can't-have, a mustn't-touch. Because he's said so often about a beautiful facsimile that nobody else must touch it, that he mustn't touch it now; and he just goes occluded. And you go along pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, you're just having a fine time, he puts up this beautiful facsimile and then he looks like he's sort of scared, he flinches back and it's gone.
Well, it's "nothing else must touch it, so he mustn't touch it" and this is too high an order of havingness. Because everything he has will get stolen— that's the one he's working on—everything he has will get lost. He won't be able to retain what he has. A lot of problems associated with havingness come up and he can't have anything that is going to be stolen. So he'll have bad things or he'll have poor things or he'll have something else.
Well, of course, an individual who has a problem of havingness has a tendency to get jammed on the track. He starts pulling in all the bad things because nobody's going to steal those. And so we've got another rationale going to work here.

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS
And when you have processed somebody and they don't feel well, you ordinarily have reduced their havingness.
Now, I said a thin fellow a while ago, and you know, you may get ahold of somebody who is terribly fat—oh, just terribly fat; eight hundred pounds or something—and you'd say, "Boy, that's sure a problem of too much havingness." Oh no, it's not—it's a problem of too little. See, he's—there's his trouble: problem of too little havingness. He knows it'll be taken from him and he sort of lets it slop around and he doesn't try to constrict it; he's not trying to hold on to it anymore. If he has some havingness, that's no responsibility of his—somebody will take it anyway. So fat or thin, old or young, why, you've got problems in havingness in a preclear.
And as I said, this preclear may finish this session feeling terrible. Well, you may only have blown a half a dozen little ridges or something. You may have only blown something that was quite painful to him, he thought. And you thought, "Gee, that's good, we really got rid of that somatic." And you said, "That's real good." No it wasn't. You reduced his havingness down to a point where he's not interested. Because the way to knock his interest down in creating things is to demonstrate that they can disappear. Well, a guy won't go on endlessly creating if he thinks everything he creates could be stolen even before he gets a chance to look at it. That's a real waste.
And by the way, there's a law goes along with that. A person is trying to waste in the mest universe what he should be wasting in Step IV. And you look at this fellow, he has a fixation: He's always trying to clean up rooms and attics and throw them—throw everything out and so forth. Well, he's trying to waste junk. Well, you wouldn't think that was an aberrative condition or a place of entrance on a case, and yet it will be. You can enter the case there—you don't have to—but you can enter the case there by having him waste junk. Oh, my, he'll feel a lot better—waste it in brackets. He can't have junk, that's what he's demonstrating. And so if he can't have junk, that means he's got too little junk and it's gone on an inverted havingness, so he'd have to waste it before he could have it. That's your DEI cycle running backwards. Whatever a person can't have, he generally has to waste first.
Oh, you can solve lots of cases like this. I mean, this is auditor judgment. And you could just solve more cases like this. You waste things in brackets that people are trying to waste in the mest universe. They won't waste in the mest universe—they just won't, that's the horrible part of it. But they'll waste in his own universe. And they waste in his own universe, and then he can waste them or have them in the mest universe; but he only tries to waste things that he can't have. Very important, that Step IV there. What it leads to in terms of processing is something that an auditor, once he has—once he's come up against a case, the case is moving slowly, and the auditor just keeps on slugging and slugging and slugging—the auditor's up against a case of havingness; something wrong with the guy's havingness. Well, find out what it is and do something about it. And you'll get a higher tone jump by doing that than any other single process I know.
Well, how do you give him things back? Self Analysis gives him things back. You just keep having him mock up things, and his havingness starts improving. That's all. He just gets more and more, and more and more, and more and more— his havingness. You won't ask him sometimes what's happening to the things, you'll just keep on calling them off; that's why there is never any in Self Analysis— you don't say, "Now, throw it away." You read them a line of Self Analysis and then you read them the next line of Self Analysis. It's sort of their business

187

188

22 DECEMBER 1953
what they did with what they created, see? And you'll normally find out it snapped into the bank or snapped into some kind of a ridge out in front of them someplace or it gradually withered away in some fashion or another that they can't quite explain.
You'll run across some cases that can only mock up four or five things, and then they all of a sudden can't mock up any more. Well, this fellow thinks— he's already sold on energy has to be produced at a certain rate and so forth— he thinks he's run out of energy. That is of course, the main trouble with a case, is he's out of energy. Because energy, condensed energy, becomes havingness. And when we're talking about havingness, we're talking about matter.
Now, I ran across a case one time that really felt degraded. Oh, he felt so degraded. That's terrible. We ran across a facsimile that told us a great deal. This case had been—well, this is a—interesting facsimile, it sounds more or less like a fairy tale, but we shouldn't worry about that. This case had accumulated a tremendous amount of radioactive material, just as a thetan, you see. Just tremendous amount of it, you know, tons and tons and tons of this stuff, and it was suspended—he had it suspended, you see, and he collected it; it was mest universe stuff. And somebody came along and made fun at him and he threw it at them. And you know, we figured for a long time over that facsimile trying to figure out—well, what the dickens was the sudden degradation and the sudden memory cutoff, and it cut off the past and it cut off the future and it just stuck right there. And that facsimile was the one that brought into being—I finally took that facsimile, and by comparing it around and looking around with it for a long time, was able to nail down this problem of havingness and what happened to havingness.
That was a year ago, and we've been making fast progress ever since. And here—he'd thrown it away and, of course, this much sudden cessation of havingness was just too much loss, that's all. He just—sudden cessation of havingness; it was too much can't-have. So, of course, can't-have—he couldn't have anything. Actually the mass of this radioactive material took off and took the rest of the bank with it. Mass—just a problem in mass. As I say, it sounds like a fairy tale, but it's just an entrance on a case.
Here you had a case in tremendously degraded condition, this is the only facsimile you could find—what are we going do with this facsimile? It was the only facsimile there; evidently contains within it the explanation of what's happened to the case. So we patched it up. We made a radioactive mountain, simply by doing this: putting out eight anchor points and snapping them in without letting them explode, and setting that one aside and snapping eight anchor points in again.
This boy was exteriorized, by the way. I mean, we were trying to pick up and make healthy a thetan who was flying around and had real good perceptics, but he was real sad. He was a sad thetan. This is the only facsimile he was doting on.
And we just snapped things together and put them in a pile and snapped them together and put them in a pile, and then we put—made—started making radioactive anchor points and snapping them together and putting them in a pile, till we built a mountain out of this stuff. Big lot of it—oh, tremendous amount of it and so forth.
And then he started taking the stuff cautiously, one little anchor point at a time, see, and he would test to find out whether or not he could throw that away. His recalls turned on for the whole track. Real interesting, huh? Real recalls turned on, on the whole track, got very cheerful, got very happy, was

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS
finally willing and able to approach a body and didn't care whether he did or not— you know, no anxiety about it. Well, it was a problem in havingness. All right.
This case of which I spoke earlier, of the fellow whose—who, facsimiles showed up (and I say just processed him last night, another case of it), practically anything has been done to this case that you can describe, and the case boils down to a problem in havingness.
And when I said in the congress tapes that we've got a problem of energy starvation at anywhere around IV and V, that's right—that's all there is there, it's a problem in energy. And that's a problem in havingness. And the basic thing that—go out of gear on it is time. And if time goes out of gear on it, memory gets misplaced because memory is incident per time. So if havingness is upset, memory gets upset.
You find anybody who has got an occluded field stuck in a loss. How do you give him the loss back? Well, it's very easy. All you've got to do is snap the thing lost together, make space with it as the anchor points and then pull it in and set it aside; and pull it in and set it aside, and pull it in and—make it, you know, and pull it in, set it aside; make it, pull it...
All of a sudden he won't care he lost this girl—the most beautiful girl that ever lived and so forth, and he'll never get over it and so on. Blow the grief charge of being gone? No, thank you. Now, that guy will keep the facsimile of a loss around because he's at least got that. And facsimiles will fly off and do you do anything about them? Nope.
Well, now what's this got to do with prediction? Every one of you is being very alert, probably, and every human being is being alert as to what people will say. Trying to predict what people will say, particularly people of the opposite sex, because that in itself predicts havingness. And about the lowest level of it is trying to find out how people will react. What will they think? Well, boy, that is the shadowiest shadow that you have ever seen in your life. What will they think? That's real silly. But it predicts your future havingness. And you're protective of your future havingness to a degree—what the emotional reaction and what people are going to say and how they're going to greet what you do and greet what you say and all of that, that's very important.
Sometimes a case will have a face somatic—you won't know what it is— or a complete face numbness. It's just them trying to find out what somebody else is going to think. That's all. Why is he worried about that? Merely because it's going to influence terrifically the individual's problem in havingness.
And that's all there is to it.

189

Postulates
A lecture given on 22 December 1953

And this is the second lecture of the 22nd of December, 1953.
Tonight I want to tell you a fairy tale. And a fairy tale which I'm sure you will find very touching, and which even might make you weep. Only you won't be weeping for the characters in the fairy tale, you'll be weeping for you.
I always save, on such occasions as this, as you know, thirty thousand or forty thousand processes and eighteen or twenty million shortcuts, but this time we're going to have something that is usable, very usable. And it starts out with this fairy tale, and how it ends, I myself am not too sure. That's mostly up to you.
You see, once upon a time, there was a very, very bad fairy—and a very, very wicked fairy, a very vicious fairy. And this fairy came over and saw a fellow, and sat down—he was minding his own business, he was in a park—and the fairy said to him, "Would you like to have three wishes?"
And the fellow says, "Go away." He says, "You're just an illusion." He said, "You're something out of Scientology."
And she says, "No, no. Seriously, would you like to have three wishes? Just three, that's all."
And so, he thought it over for a moment, and he thought, "Gee. You know, that'd be real nice of you."
She says, "They'll all come true. Every one of them will come true."
And he says, "Well, now, let me see . . . You mean they really will come true?"
"Yes, sir. Yes, sir."
So he got his three wishes, and he's still in the mest universe. His wishes all came true.
That's all that's the matter with a postulate: It's got with it the desire that it must come true.
And when you were little children they came in and pulled this gag on you too, you know?
They came in and said, "Now, here's a nice fairy tale. And it's all about these nice little fairies. And they asked this little boy if he wouldn't like to have three wishes, and he said yes, so he used up two of them getting the first one cancelled. Well, you still were left with the impression that it might be very desirable to have a wish which would then come true.
I point that out to you: It would then come true, after you had wished it. It immediately supposed that time would involve itself with the wish.

191

192

22 DECEMBER 1953
So, the wish, therefore, could appertain and apply to nothing but havingness. See—time, come true, havingness, and there we are.
So, when we look over the problem of a postulate, we find out that everybody is interested in postulates simply and solely for this reason: They want something to come true.
Competence is the estimation of effort. Effort is making two things coincide at one point or stop coinciding at a point or change coincidence at a point. In the final analysis, that's the basic.
Now, that's why it's a "two" universe. There can't be a "one" effort. Now, every time you start to make a "one" effort, you start reaching out and fighting nothing. Therefore, you don't like nothing.
So, if you estimate an effort into space and nothing is there—you have walked down the stairs and you've decided there's another step at the bottom of the stairs, and you take that extra step. Well, all right. That's fine, but jars you up some.
Now we walk downstairs and we get to the next-to-the-last step and decide there are no more steps; and immediately one gets shaken up rather badly. Those are misestimations of effort: making two points coincide in the wrong place. In the MEST universe that's being wrong, really—it's failing to make two points coincide. So, estimation of effort.
Now, when one looks at two particles which are going to coincide, he in essence has to make a wish. You see? But at first he says they're going to coincide and that's all, and they just coincide.
And after that he says, "Well, they're going to coincide."
And after a while he says, "They'd better coincide." And he gives a lot of other particles to shepherd them around and push them together or pull them apart, and just make just exactly happen there what he wants to; he's really got it protected and estimated.
And after a while, he just wishes he could.
So a fellow is only trapped in this universe at the point he starts wishing and stops doing. And when an individual wants his postulates to come true, he eventually gets bogged down in what is known as "truth" in a scientific textbook. And this "truth" only has to do, really, with one thing—and that's to fix an idea, to make it endure. And this idea, then, must endure one way or the other until it comes true. And then you've got the entire cycle of this universe, because then wishes never come true. When you start wishing and you stop acting, why, nothing's going to come true after that.
So a fellow hits that bridge point, and beyond that point he has nothing to offer but hope. He wants from others reassurance. He helps, and has to help, because he's in a coincidence whereby all by himself he can't cause something to happen. He's got to be very determined about it happening, and he's got to do this and that.
Well that, in essence, is the degeneration of a thetan. If you want to know how to do SOP 8-O, why, it's along that line. You put him into a position where he can do, not just hope he can do. Where he can fail and not give a darn that he fails. Where he can lose and just finds losingness the part of a game. And when an individual can do that, he is in wonderful condition. He's also happy, which might have some bearing on the situation.
That's because he's free. But what's he free of? He's free of a cycle of action. He doesn't have to have a cycle of action. First, because when he starts a cycle of action, he brings one off. He doesn't have to worry about it. And next, he doesn't

POSTULATES
have to worry about a cycle of action because if he doesn't complete one, why, it doesn't mean his wreck and ruin forevermore.
And below that bridge point, which you might call the break point, way back on the track, the individual has this as a very, very important thing: effort—estimation of effort to make two points coincide. He wants to make one point be at one place in coincidence or in relationship to another point in another place, or two points come together at one place, or any combinations that you could make out by taking a couple of cubes of sugar and pushing them around in a piece of space. Any combination, then, of those two cubes would be what he's trying to do. You can pull them apart, and you can push them against each other, and you can change them, you can start them toward each other and then make them swerve off, and—in other words, all these patterns of motion.
Now, let's look at this cycle of action. What happened to him? What happened to him? He just got into a longer and longer cycle of action. And he'd start on a cycle, and the break point was when he got down to a point of where he hoped it'd happen. And he doesn't know the end, he never knows the end of the story; that is lack of confidence—complete lack of confidence. Of course, it spoils an awful lot of amusement for you to know the end of every story that you happen to look at. Well, you can bar out some of that knowledge and still not cave in.
But it is not a sad and sorry and horrible thing to know the end of the story. That's not a sad thing. There's nothing wrong with knowing the end of the story. Because you don't know that you are entirely dependent upon amusement. You don't know that you have to have this stretched-out time factor of "What is the end of the cycle?" Since you're in a perfectly wonderful frame of mind as long as you can make two particles coincide.
You ever make a hole-in-one in golf? I imagine you were kind of pleased about that time. Well, you've made two particles in essence coincide. You made a ball go into a cup and you completed your end of cycle.
Now, way, way back on the track, a fellow didn't complete his first cycle and somebody sympathized with him, and somebody told him how sad this was, and somebody told him that they were very sorry that he couldn't reach the end of cycles, and etc., etc., etc., and he sort of got paid for not reaching the end of a cycle. In other words, he got some sensation, he got some effort of his own—not of his own production. And so he began a dwindling spiral.
The end of cycle, then, becomes the most important single curve which we can draw. It starts, it changes, it stops. It goes there. And in the mest universe, it's create, survive, destroy. It gets that long.
Well, what happens to a fellow who reaches for a doorknob to open the door? He estimates the effort, he reaches for the doorknob, he turns it, he pulls the door. All the way along the line he is estimating effort. He's estimating coincidence.
When he feels he can no longer properly estimate effort, he can't see. He doesn't see anymore. Why? Well, seeing is in essence a matter of particles. It's a matter of motion, it's a matter of energy, and therefore a person who cannot estimate effort is unable to handle energy and so he can't perceive. He can't reach and withdraw the way he should in order to make a coincidence of himself and a scene so that he can perceive it. He can't stop a pattern in midair, you might say, and look at it. Lots of things he can't do. But they all boil down to: He can't predict the position of particles. And if he can't predict the position of particles, he develops anxiety. He develops all sorts of interesting dodges.

193

194

22 DECEMBER 1953
We have this condensed curve—look, and when that's condensed we get into emotion, and when that's condensed we get into effort, and when that's condensed we get into thinking of a computive variety.
A fellow who is thinking hard about the future is a fellow who has already admitted that he cannot control the future. He has to think about it. He needs to compute and use Boolean algebra or something, in order to predict the future. That's because the particles that he is trying to make coincide or part or change, he's trying—the particles he's trying to start, stop and change—these particles are not within his control, because he can't reach that far. They have a time, because they move away. And he feels he doesn't have the power to predict them all the way.
So he just says, "Well, I wish they'd be over there." And of course that requires, then, future. And that stretches longer and longer until at last he's getting born, and hoping he'll get through with it somehow. And if he hopes hard enough and he wishes hard enough and he makes everything come true and he says everything with sufficient determination, why, eventually he'll get to die. And that's his reward for wishing so hard.
All his wishes come true. That's what—in essence, what a thetan starts to do very early on the track, and that's one of the things he starts wishing. And that's one of the things he hangs on himself, and it's about the most vicious thing he could hang on himself: that his postulates will take place.
A careful analysis of any case will demonstrate that he has wished on himself everything that has happened to him. You don't think so offhand, but this isn't trying to shove into somebody's lap an entire responsibility for the entire universe all of a sudden.
But the truth of the matter is, as you backtrack it, you will find that the sickness which he is now fighting, he once wished for.
An individual will say, "No, no, no! This never happened. I never wished for this sickness. No, no!"
And you say, "Well, did you ever wish you were sick?"
"No, no! Not me. I want to be well. I mean, I never wished for a sickness."
And you say, "Well, now let's take school. Did you ever try not to go to school? Or did you ever get sick so you wouldn't have to go to school?"
And the fellow says, "You just whipped me, fellow."
Because anybody that's sick today hoped he'd be sick some day in the past.
But earlier than that is "all of his postulates must come true." He's going to prove that he's right to everybody by making his postulates come true. Any way you look at this, he's going to make his postulates come true.
And he makes them all come true. He says to himself one fine day, he said, "Gee, everything I do is wrong." That isn't very much. Wouldn't be anything. See, he's not a bear that's about to eat himself up. He just sits behind all this "postulates must come true" and he keeps trying to operate with that one on the track.
"What I say goes!" is a colloquial phrase. "What I say must go!"
And so if the fellow says, "Well, everything I do is wrong, and I never do anything right, and I hate myself," and so on and you start processing him as an auditor, you could actually by—just strip his track down to a point where he first said that and look it over and they'd blow. And you could do that if this wasn't basically effort. Because the effort he has made to make the idea stick, to fix the idea in space, or to keep it moving in space—the idea itself is cloaked in such heavy determination that it itself is a lump of effort, and your preclear can't handle effort anymore.

POSTULATES
So what are we going to do about this fellow? He can't handle effort anymore and he doesn't dare handle it because he can't predict. All right, if he can't predict he can't handle effort. Well, if he can't handle effort, well, you see, he doesn't dare tamper around much with fixed ideas, because if he tampers around too much with fixed ideas, they'll just collapse on him and there he'll be! Upsetting, isn't it? I mean, he's caught there in a trap.
He won't be well unless he can regain his force. All right, if he can't regain his force then he won't be well, will he? And if—all that's wrong with him is he can't regain his force. Well, that's simple then—all you do is make him regain his force. But he can't regain his force because he can't touch any part of his force. And you can't find a gradient scale, you think maybe sometimes, to give him a sufficient entrance into it so that he can possibly come up the line on force.
If you were able to turn on a few thousand watts in your preclear rather rapidly, let me assure you, he wouldn't have any trouble with creation. The only thing he does with creation that's troublesome to him is run out of material. He'd be very happy to construct a body—lump! bang! crash!—mold its head together and put it all up and make it operate. He'd be very happy to do that. A body you could see and a body I could see—a body everybody could see.
But you see, that unfortunately requires a very heavy mass of force, see? See, a very heavy mass of particles. Particles in essence are force.
What is force? Random motion of particles. What's energy? Energy is particles. And if he doesn't have any force, why, he can't handle these particles.
Well, the horrible part of it is, if he doesn't have any space, he can't handle particles either. And so you say, "Well, the best way to do is let's go into this problem and let's rehabilitate his space and then he can have some particles." But we find out by rehabilitating his space, it tears to pieces the particles which he has and you upset his havingness. You know, we do—make too much space with a fellow, and it starts blowing holes in the hard energy which he has around. And blowing these holes in this hard energy is very hard on him, believe me. Because, the next thing you know, why, all of his energy's kind of gooey.
Hate is all right in its place. Take out in space where there's very little energy—you go into good old space opera, and what do we find in space opera? We find an awful lot of hate. That's because nobody's got any barriers. If they hate hard enough, why, they'll make some. That's about all there is to that.
Then you get down on a planet and everybody is trying to love each other like mad so they'll dissolve some of these barriers because they've got too many. The two never get together. When spacemen hit planets and when the planet people hit spacemen, why, they just don't mix very well—between the two you get religion. Well, anyway . . .
Love and hate—love melts everything down, hate makes it all solid. Well, you say, "Well, let's handle it in love and hate, then, and that's the best way to go about this problem. We'll handle it in love and handle it in hate and so forth, and we'll get him over having to hate everything, and we'll get him over to— so he doesn't have to love everything but he can. And we'll give him freedom in these two emotions, and it'll all straighten out"—and they've been doing that for a couple of thousand years, and that failed too. They haven't even been doing it with our processes, but at the same time, it hasn't been successful. And with our present processes it isn't successful.
So all right, well, that's tough, that just leaves us in a horrible spot, because—by this time we get kind of lost, because if we try to get this individual to handle a couple of particles and that sort of thing, the progress he makes is

195

196

22 DECEMBER 1953
so slow. We start to remedy his havingness by making him pull eight anchor points in—we have to remedy the havingness of any case because he hasn't got enough mass—and we find out that that will go just so far, and he keeps on after a while. And then the GE—if he's still in the body, God help him—if he's still in the body and he keeps remedying his havingness while being stuck in the body, after a while the body itself will develop its own appetite for the energy thus being generated and he just winds up sort of feeding the body. So that isn't too good either.
Furthermore, he starts up flows that almost knock his head off and he does other things that are rather difficult; and so they—all these techniques have a successfulness, they have a—you can go up the line, only they travel a little too slowly. Because what are you trying to do all this time? You're trying to rehabilitate somebody's ability to make two points meet or part or change, and—in other words, you're trying to make him predict. And there is your prediction cycle. If you can't make him predict, why, you can't make him make two points coincide, because he knows better than to handle energy. He knows better than to look at anything. He can't predict what's going to happen to it.
Now, you stand up talking to somebody, and you try to predict what they're going to say back. And if you've been around somebody who said a lot of nasty things to you—lots, and suddenly, and kind of took your head off, bang! and you weren't looking for it at all—why, after a while, you get very fixed and very alert on what people are going to say to you, because it's very, very violent. Because there's an emotional impact behind it.
Some people have ridges just back of their faces which are as solid as can be and the whole face is gone, simply trying to predict what people are going to say. You know, they're sort of holding back while they push forward. They are reach and withdrawing at the same time because of what people liable to say to them, what people liable to feel, the emotion they're liable to have hitting them all of a sudden. It isn't nice to have all that emotion hitting you suddenly— boom! So, people might shove it at you, so you have to be careful of what you say, and you have to be careful of what you do and so forth.
Why? Because you can't predict.
You go down and talk to a lion, and you go—walk up to the lion, you put your hand in his mouth, he's going to bite. Particularly if you laid a problem out like this: You're going to put your arm in a live lion's mouth and then you're going to kick him in the chin, you would certainly get a tooth scratch. Well now, you could predict that that was going to happen. But all of a sudden one day you're walking down—you know, you're walking down the path and it's a beautiful spring day and there's nothing at all occurring, and you just feel happy as can be with life, and somebody tugs you on the sleeve and says, "Your house just burned down and everybody's dead," you know? What's commonly known as a tone drop. You know, runs a curve on you—sudden curve.
You're walking along and minding your own business and you cross a street and halfway across the street, why, a car hits you, and you're in the hospital for six months. You sure didn't predict that—the coincidence of that car and your body—you didn't predict that at all.
So a person's prediction becomes shorter and shorter and shorter and so time appears to be longer and longer and longer because his prediction is getting shorter and shorter and shorter. He can only predict a sure thing.
You ask a preclear, "How far can you predict into the future?"
And he'll say, "What do you think I got? A crystal ball?"

POSTULATES
You just said future—that stuck him. He immediately assumed the future was when? You say, "Well, what is the future? How far away is the future?"
Somebody got the answer here, "A couple of minutes."
Well, that's about it. Future's two minutes away. Two minutes from now, I could, without too many qualms, predict that I would be standing here—two minutes from now, without too many qualms. Two minutes from now you could predict that you'll be sitting there—two minutes from now. Two minutes from now we can predict that the world will still be here—we hope.
But the longer this goes and the harder it is to predict, the less and less confidence a person has in an existence continuing. So a continuation of existence becomes his entire fixation, and this in itself is survival. And so he fixes on survival. He doesn't fix on creating; he doesn't fix on destroying, really, he merely fixes on surviving. Why? Because his anxiety is such that he doesn't know for sure if Earth is going to be here a minute from now. He can't tell you for sure if this house is going to be here a minute from now.
You just pin a fellow down and start really pounding him with the—you want the answer to that question. And he'll have to confess that he really actually can't tell you. It's just a slight probability.
So, what's he predicting now? He's able to predict in a small particle line. He can say, "If the universe is here, and if the house is here, and if this room is still here, and if I am still here, why then, a moment or so from now, I will be able to pick up this match and put it at this corner of the desk. And if the universe is still here, and if the house is still here, and if I am still here, and this desk is still here, then in a moment from now, I can pick up the match on this corner of the desk and move it other—to the other corner of the desk. And that is a lead-pipe certainty!"
He's—right there he's dealing with certainty. And so we move into that very thing: certainty. What is certainty? Certainty of the coincidence of particles, certainty of their coming apart. In other words, certainty of a start, stop, change of at least two particles. And that's certainty. That's prediction.
Well, as long as he's ahead of that and he says, "These two particles are going to meet," he could also say, "These two suns are going to meet at a little— some little time in the future."
And that's essentially the only difference between you and a planet builder who is still working. He can say with some certainty, "When I take this mass of particles here the size of Jupiter, and throw it into that mass of not-yet-condensed particles, I will then have a sun here and it will glow."
Now, he can say that with the same certainty as you can say that the match will be at that corner of the desk. Now, it's a big certainty, but it's a certainty of prediction.
Well, how long does it take to move that much mass? A planet the size of Jupiter into a sun—of course, I'm just stating a hypothetical, rather interestingly fantastic idea that anybody ever built these planets. Everybody knows that they just sort of happened. They "aggloomerated." I think that's the latest scientific theory—the "aggloomeration" of planets. They call it that because it's so black out there. Anyway, when we have . . .
It's very scientific, this whole thing. And the truth of the matter is, they were just built. How's a fellow build a house? Well, he gets some material together and knocks it together. And that's the way you build something. You don't have to be as technically exact building a planet as you do building a house. You have to—don't have to know about mortises and jointises. Ah, no.

197

198

22 DECEMBER 1953
But again, we're into prediction of particles. How much presence do you have? How much basic presence do you have? You have as much basic presence as you can occupy space. You have as much space as you can span time and predict it.
Well, is there any solution to this? I mean, here you are—here you are only able to control a matchbox full of space or something like that, and stuck inexorably, and completely incapable of doing anything about it. You can't predict whether your preclear is going to be out of his head in the next couple of minutes, and there's two particles you're trying to predict and—the particles that the preclear is still holding on to, and the particle of the body. And you want those two things to uncoincide in space, and prediction of that happening and so forth.
Well, we get into a matter here of an endless cycle, obviously. I mean, here we are. I mean, everything has gone on to a point of anxiety where it has to survive. It becomes an obsession: survival, survival—that's the obsession. It's terrible, but we must survive. Mustn't destroy bodies, mustn't die and so forth. And mustn't create something! That's kind of a shaky thing for an individual to do. If he creates something, why, it might turn out bad and it might cause somebody not to survive or something, and so he'd better not create because he can't predict what's going to happen.
We get into what we call the "Frankenstein effect." The Frankenstein effect: You create this thing—perfect innocence—you create it, it walks down the road, and then you say, "Stop!" you know? It's just about to pick up a small child or something and break it in half.
That was a wonderful picture I've run out of preclears several times, of Frankenstein walking down a stream bed, and he finds a little girl on the bank of the stream and—but just before that he's seen somebody, if I remember rightly, picking the petals off of a daisy and throwing them away. And he sees this little child, so he plucks its limbs off—of the child, you see—and throws them away. It was a very charming picture. It was a great contribution to psychotherapy. (audience laughter) They got the Menninger award for it.
Anyway, when we have a problem in a preclear—we're saying we have a problem, then there is an answer to the problem. He is offering us a problem.
Well, what's a problem? A problem is ways and means of predicting an answer. The way you work a problem is you use certain symbols and you combine them, or you use certain past experiences and combine them, and it all winds up to the same thing: You want to have the answer. That's the first thing you'd say. But you wouldn't have any problem if you merely said, "I want to have the answer. There's the answer." See? I mean that wouldn't be any problem.
So it works out this way: "I want to have the answer. And here is the experience of the past. And if I can associate together the experiences of the past and be warned about certain conditions which may take place in the future, then I will be able to have the answer to the problem."
You've gone down into symbolisms, you've also gone into mathematics, you've also gone into what man considers knowledge in the form of data—data knowledge. Now, that's data knowledge.
Data knowledge is there merely so one can predict a result. And when he says "predict a result," he is saying he wants a couple of things to coincide or uncoincide in space; and that's a result.
So somebody wants to predict a result, and that means future. Future coincidence of particles or uncoincidence of particles.
The reason a fellow learns how to drive is so that he can predict the moment when his car will swerve and hit the truck. The reason why they teach little

POSTULATES
children safety in crossing streets and so forth, is they'll know what crosswalk to be on to be hit. That isn't exactly the reason why, but they're trying to teach them how to make two particles uncoincide. See? Safety.
They're trying to make them not be on the crosswalk when they're not supposed to be on the crosswalk, and be on the crosswalk when they're supposed to be on it and so forth. In other words, coincidence of particles.
Time has no other bearing or relationship or existence than this: coincidence of particles. And that, of course, adds up immediately into havingness. Because you get a lot of particles coinciding, you get a big particle; and that, in itself, is matter made out of energy. So we get time. We get time, and time is composed of the past, the present and the future.
We use the past for a data bin. We use the present for something to perceive immediately in front of us, and we use the future in order to have something to predict for.
And, well, all it amounts to—it's a game of the coincidence and uncoincidence of particles, and it's a very easy game so long as one can predict.
Well, what's predict? It's how wide a piece of time can one occupy.
Now, an individual is in his best state when he's slightly in advance of present time. In other words, he can know the future; he is slightly in advance of present time. He knows the future simply by being in the future and regulating the behavior of particles in the present. That's as far into the future as he's going to get. He can do that any time, however, simply by being a little bit in advance of present time. A thetan works in advance of present time. When he gets back of present time, he isn't working; present time is working on him, then.
That which is effect is after that which is cause. That's the primary definition of cause and effect: That which is effect is after that which caused it. And so cause always precedes effect. And therefore cause is in the future of the effect.
If you look that over carefully, it's very clear. There's nothing difficult about it.
But what do we mean as an effect? Well, we mean the coincidence of particles, of course.
So, when it all boils down, we're talking about the estimation of effort all over again. And we're talking about the prediction of the future, and we find out that an individual is trying to survive simply because he has an obsession about knowing the end of the story. He's got to keep these things all coincided or all uncoincided, and we find this individual in a strongman stunt all down through the ages: He's trying to keep particles apart and he's trying to keep particles together and he's trying to keep particles moving and he's trying to keep particles stopped.
And by the time the preclear sits down in your auditing chair, he's done a lot of this. And he is parked, variously, at any point of the cycle of motion that you could name. The cycle of motion in terms of the universe is create, survive, destroy; and the cycle of motion in terms of motion itself is simply start, change and stop. This is very, very interesting. I mean, hardly anything to that.
For instance, I take this, and it's in a stopped condition right now. And so we start it, we change its motion, and stop it. Start it, change its motion, stop it. That's what you mean by a curve. That's why a curve has always got a curve on it, not a straight line. That's a "curve of motion." It is changed in the middle. Its direction is changed in the middle. And people study curves because nearly all directions change in the middle. There's hardly anything like a straight line anywhere to be found, anywhere. Well, you could also—there's various other things about curves, but they all add up to that: start, change, and stop.

199

200

22 DECEMBER 1953
When you think about reach and withdraw, it is a condition where a centralized point is trying to attain and then reach away from another particle; so in essence, we have reach and withdraw as a part of that motion curve of start, change and stop.
Your preclear who can't arrive: He simply knows by this time he can only hope. That's what many a preclear is doing who is just sitting in your auditing chair, and that's practically all you're trying to do, is keep up his hope. Hope that what? Hope that he'll arrive, of course.
What's wrong with him? He can't arrive. See, it's elementary. The fellow can't arrive, that's why he can't get out of his head. You tell him be three feet back of his head, that's a finite point, and he can't arrive there. Why? Because he can't arrive. Why? Because that's the end of a cycle of motion. Why? Because he can't predict being three feet back of his head, so he can't be there, of course. Why? Because he can't arrive.
And so we get circular logic. Nearly all logic is circular in the end. But fortunately, it has its own uses. All right. So much for that.
I hope you understand the problem. And I hope you understand it very well. And I hope you understand that the fellow who is sitting there hoping is a person who is sitting there not predicting.
It was a very wicked fairy indeed who made man want wishes to come true. He's sitting there wishing; he isn't doing. And if you sit there and wish too, as an auditor, why, he can go on wishing and you can go on wishing, and you after a while, why, you'll both wind up in the—as members of the same sympathy club and that's about as far as it'll go. You'd probably have fun, I mean, so on—both hoping, both wishing.
That's essentially what praying is. People can't predict at all and so they say, "Well, something else must be able to predict by this time. There's certainly something predicting something around here. The sun is still shining, and the particles of light are still hitting Earth, so something's predicting."
And so they get together—they get together and wish. Only you call it "prayer." They just wish something won't hit them. And they wish that something else won't happen. And they wish that something good will happen and so on.
A horrible pun could be put in there—I've been associating with the wrong people here lately—a person gets "wishy-washy." (audience laughter) Isn't that terrible? You see what you've done to me in this unit? That's really dreadful!
Well, anyway, you see there's no escape. I mean, just—you might as well quit. Just no reason even to hope—Hubbard's even destroyed hope now.
It's like the fellow—saw a cartoon one time, fellow had a great big blackboard, huge blackboard, and it had a long column of figures, and equal sign and then zero. And it had a long equation, and then an equal sign and a zero. And it had another long equation and a longer equation and a longer equation, and they all added up to zero. And there's two professors sitting there looking at the blackboard, and he says, "Well, you've got to hand it to him. He really wrapped it up this time!" Yes, sir!
So everything equals nothing, and there you are. I mean, that's science. And no better description could be made of it: Everything equals nothing, or nothing equals everything. You get—have to get halfway between that to have anything.
So, well, I hope you fully appreciate, then—and I hope you fully appreciate that the problem is hopeless. I hope you appreciate that your cases are hopeless. I hope you appreciate that you can't wish yourself out of your heads. I hope

POSTULATES
you appreciate that you're done for. There's nothing you can do. I hope you appreciate the human race is lost, and that you'll never be able to do a thing for it. I hope you appreciate that.
Because you've been appreciating it for a long time. And it's about time you stopped!
Well now, every once in a while, I have a process I hold back to process auditors with. Well, I'm leaving here now. I don't have to do any sudden emergency processing. You can always count on me having a half a dozen ahead of what you got, simply because you get into trouble, see, and then I have to bail you out; and if I don't use something surprising and startling on you, why, you just don't bail, you see. So that's the only reason I keep inventing new processes—it isn't that they work any better, you see? (audience laughter)
Actually, it's—"He just changes his mind. All this stuff—all of his stuff is contradictory anyway, and it all contradicts everything. I mean, after all we're not solving anything now. I mean, first lecture of the day here today, we were just merely solving Book One, and this stuff's all changed; changes all the time anyhow. You can't predict it. No prediction—let's all pray." (audience laughter)
Well, essentially that's the only reason why we can have a church now is because we can do the only effective praying there can be done, which is predict the coincidence of two particles—pam! Yeah. Sure. All right.
So there must be and might be a technique that'd bail a preclear out of this and wouldn't bog him down, wasn't hard to use, that you could use on yourself and that you just take that and it'd kind of clean a case up all the way up along the line and that would be that. There might be such a technique, you know.
And, of course, if I had it and I didn't pass it along to you, why, that would be upsetting, wouldn't it? So I've decided not to tell you about this one, I've decided to hold this one back. Because some of you might get high enough up the Tone Scale so that I wouldn't know more than you know, and then that would be fatal, you see. And if I held back this piece of information, then of course I'd always know more than you know and so on, and then that would be—that would—well, let's see, what would it do? Just a minute, I'll have to figure out something it'll do. Must be something that it would do! Well, anyhow, there it is.
Well, such a process isn't, however, sufficient into itself. Sometimes you neglect to realize how much you do know about Scientology—quizzes aside. You neglect to know how much you know; and you think, "Well, gee-whiz, why didn't I have that some time ago? And if he'd just come out in the first place a few years ago and said that, why, then you'd know all about it and I wouldn't have had to worry about it, and I wouldn't have fussed and stewed and my case wouldn't have bogged down, and I wouldn't have gone through all this agony," and that sort of thing.
By the way, it isn't true. It isn't necessarily true at all that you could get away with knowing a single line of data—just one thing. Let's take an extreme case. Let's take you, and we're going to invent the culture of Upglotta. It doesn't live on a planet. It doesn't have any kind of language that is detectable. It doesn't use symbols. And however, the people there are so crazy they think the people of Earth are going to kill them; and you're all of a sudden there, and you're going to process them. And you do have a little line that you realize that all you have to say to them is, "Upglolla, upglolla, upglolla," and that will promptly clear them, and they will be in good shape and they won't attack Earth.

201

202

22 DECEMBER 1953
Well, you could do that, theoretically; but you see, you don't know the language and you don't know what their behavior might be, you don't know what their customs are, and you don't know what the inner workings are. And so you sit there with about 99 percent of your attention on what might happen, and you forget to say, "Upglolla, upglolla, upglolla," because after all, there's no telling what they're doing. Now, that would be that sort of a problem, you know?
You just take an auditor and you put this "Upglolla" in his hands, and he goes out and he says to a bunch of people, any—expect anything to happen, merely because he doesn't have the other fundamentals to back it up. If he doesn't have these fundamentals, why, he's in horribly deranged condition with regard to an individual.
Supposing you didn't know anything about an engram. And you go up to this fellow and you say, "Well, all right"—and supposing you just didn't know a thing about an engram; you thought a fellow—you know, that brains were born in cabbage patches or something. And you didn't know anything about this, and you went up to some fellow and used this technique and—"gs-gmm-gugy" and he all of a sudden started to have a slight convulsion and then passed out. You knew nothing about havingness; you knew nothing about convulsions that might occur; you knew nothing about a facsimile. What would you do?
Well, he obviously can't go on running this technique because if he—it'd just ruin him, you'd think maybe. Or maybe there's something new and wrong and terrible and strange which has just occurred and somebody's changed all the laws of the universe.
Well, you could always think somebody was about to change the laws of the universe if you didn't know them. If you didn't have any inkling of what the laws of the universe were, why, you could think day to day they'd been repealed and shifted.
People could come along and tell you, "Well, people have changed their mind today, and the laws of the universe are all changed." And you'd just simply have to say yes, because you don't know what they were yesterday. And when they don't even tell you what they are today, why, you'd sure have to agree. Wouldn't you?
Well now, you'll get some character walking around, and you all of a sudden find out that this person can't even vaguely keep his mind on your processing for two minutes; he just can't do it.
You give him a little technique and he just is incapable of it. He keeps flying off the handle, and all of a sudden he'll break down and cry, and he'll do this and he'll do that. There's no consistency, and you don't seem to be able to get any control over him. No control. I mean, just—you keep saying things to him and other things keep happening, and you're not predicting that particle worth a nickel.
Well, that's because you wouldn't know that this individual might have a name, for instance, which caused him to bounce all over the track, or he might have a very deteriorated condition. He might have a deteriorated condition in the terms of arrival, to a point where he couldn't actually walk to a point in the room. You don't have any means or know why he isn't obeying you; you don't have any means of making him obey you just enough. You don't know anything about exterior direction. You're just lost about all these things.
And yet you'd have this little line. Just because you get something new that's a little bit faster, why, don't promptly forget what I've been teaching you here the last few weeks, because you're going to need it; you're going to need all of it. Sooner or later you'll run into it—crunch! And it isn't that you have

POSTULATES
to carry it around with you in your pocket, but you take a look at this data and you know what it is. All right.
What's this technique? This technique is Step Ia, first line. You almost sprung it out here the other day. It's quite obvious; it sits right in the material.
It's Straightwire on unfinished cycles of action. Now, isn't that a terrible thing? You've been learning all about cycles of action, and you've been doing it in Mock-up Processing and so forth, and yet didn't occur to you that you could do that by Straightwire. That's tough, isn't it?
And yet it's the most effective process there is. That's right, that's the seniorest process there is. That's why it's the first line of Step Ia.
And I've known for a long time—known for a very long time—that prediction, Straightwire on prediction, was very good. And I all of a sudden got it into line today on a tested basis and so forth, so I can give it to you; and it's just at the time when you need it.
You get the fellow to name three cycles of action he hasn't completed.
And then get him to name three cycles of action somebody else hasn't completed.
And then get him to name three cycles of action that somebody else hasn't completed for somebody else.
And you don't have to have in that three cycles of action for himself. Or himself having three cycles of action for somebody else. You don't have to do it that way.
Just three cycles of action for himself—uncompleted cycles of action for himself; three uncompleted cycles of action that somebody else has; three uncompleted cycles of action that somebody has for somebody else. And you go round and round and round and round.
Well, that's not very intelligible, is it? I mean, you ask this—you sit down, this preclear sit down there, you know, and he says, "Say," he says, "what are you talking about?"
You say, "Now, give me another uncompleted cycle of action."
And he says, "What? What are you talking about?"
And you say, "Well, it's very simple. The basic curve of the universe is start, change and stop." You could go on and on there, not be able to do that at all.
So the next one you have to run into is some kind of nomenclature that'll put this across to your preclear. Well, there's a lot of things—the way you can say that. Well, that's the basic way you can say that.
Now, one of it is, "Give me three things which you meant to complete which you never did." That's your patter.
And "Give me three things somebody else meant to complete but never did." That could be your patter too, couldn't it?
"Now give me three people you wanted to reach you—three people you didn't want to reach you," you could put it that way, too.
Well, there's a simpler way of putting all of it, see, a much simpler way. You could say, "Give me three goals which you never achieved; three goals you never accomplished. Somebody else, three goals you never accomplished. Three goals that somebody else had for somebody else that were never accomplished." Round and round and round and round and round and round.
Well, we're ready for that right now, because we've been talking enough about havingness so that you won't do the horrible trick of breaking up somebody's little red wagon. Because this technique would break up somebody's little red wagon rather fast. He'll start to run out engrams on it, because you're rearranging his havingness.

203

204

22 DECEMBER 1953
What's his havingness hung up on all over the track? Incomplete cycles of action. Well, if you have incomplete cycles of action, there you are—hung up.
What's "stuck on the track"? An uncompleted cycle of action. You know all this—I was talking to you about this a long time ago.
Well, the patter that best serves on something like this would be almost anything that would fit the frame of reference of the preclear, but it'd be just Straightwire.
And many a preclear can get this who would not be able to tell you where he is not. So that's why it's first on the line. He couldn't give you three places where he's not. But he can give you three things he meant to do that he never did.
See, you can use any kind of patter: "Now, give me three things you meant to do and never did. Somebody else, three things they meant to do and never did. Now somebody else, three things they meant to do for somebody else and never did," and so on. And you go round and round and round and round and round and round.
Now, you can Straightwire yourself on this, because you know what you're reaching for. You know what you're reaching for. Basically you only want this: incomplete stops, incomplete changes and incomplete starts; incomplete creations, incomplete survivals, incomplete destructions; incomplete reachings and incomplete withdrawings; incomplete duplications. And that's the "woiks" as they say in Brooklyn.
So your formula for that runs into all of that.
Now, it'll sort of run out and evaluate for the preclear automatically. But you would be surprised, if—that is to say, if he's a fairly bright preclear you could kind of start him running on this, you know, and he'd find out a lot of this in the course of the next fifteen or twenty or thirty hours of processing. But if he's steered just a little bit, you'll steer him right out of the engram he's in.
Why? What's an engram? It's normally in suspense because it failed to complete a cycle of action. He had an operation; he had an operation for "blugwug." And he had this horrible disease "blugwug," and after the operation he still had "blugwug." You'll find that in suspense; you'll find that engram sitting there, just waiting. You find it right there. All right.
We'll get into this one: He had, for instance, sinus trouble. He was operated on for sinus trouble; didn't end his sinus trouble. He was well for many months after the operation, and then all of a sudden got the same old sinus trouble again. Incomplete cycle of action. And that, in essence, is a failure.
A failure is a cycle of action which one thinks he has completed, which suddenly is demonstrated not to have been completed. That's a big failure— big, big failure. Because that's got a sort of a double-barreled effect on it. And those are the ones you find the individual stuck in—the double-barrel failures— because there's such a terrific tone drop.
You remember the emotional curve and emotional curve processing? Now, you have it in Advanced Procedures and Axioms and you have it in the Handbook for Preclears —you got material on this—emotional curves. There's a lot about it in there. That's very early material and quite vital.
Because this is the cue: it's how much difference of havingness per unit of time, is the formula of the emotional curve. Rate of change of havingness. When it's real fast, a fellow can get awfully upset by it.
Now, let's take the fellow who receives eight million dollars. He's poor, he's very poor, he knows he'll never have any money, and somebody walks in and dumps eight million dollars on him and it's all in cash. You know where you'd find that fellow? You'd find him in a hospital. You'd find him in an insane asylum.

POSTULATES
That's just as bad as the fellow sitting there with eight million dollars and his secretary walks in rather casually and says, "Well, the bank just failed and you're completely broke." Honest, he'll just keep sitting there. You've stopped time for him. Because the rate of change of havingness is too great.
I was telling you a little earlier about this fellow and the—throwing away all this mass of radioactive material. His rate of change of havingness—he did it, but his rate of change of havingness was so great that he got a tone drop from high exaltation down to annoyance (slight annoyance, but way up scale annoyance) and then all of a sudden he gets rid of that huge mass, and he went from strong, able, everything, to complete degradation—lower than a tramp or a bum. And he stayed that way for some thousands of years, which gives you some kind of an idea of what the rate of change of havingness will do to somebody. It will park him, but quick. Because it's too much mass, and no prediction with relationship to it.
Now, some fellow has just lost his father, and you've got the horrible job of telling him so. So you walk around and you catch him when he's sitting there—you sort of cheer him up, you get him to a point where he's being very cheerful about life, he's built up pretty good, he's real happy, and then you look at him and you shout at him suddenly, "Your father just died." Well, you'd probably kill him. That's probably what would happen to him.
The way to tell him would be to tell him slow. Let him find out there was something wrong. And then get him thinking about that, and stir it in a little bit more, and then tell him slow and tell him low and don't tell him all at once, because if you can stretch it across a little time, he won't get any emotional shock from it; he won't get a shock. If you let his tone come down a little bit, a little more concerned, a little more concerned, he can hit rock bottom and come back up again. That's because you haven't robbed him, in terms of rate of change of havingness.
Now, he has a father, you see, that's a mass. And you all of a sudden tell him this huge, powerful mass—this thing that carried him around when he was a little baby and supported him most of his life and so forth—you told him this huge, powerful mass is suddenly missing. And you tell him that quick and it's just liable to jar him completely out of orbit; he's never liable to get back into orbit. Preclear comes in, sits down in the chair, and never gets back into orbit.
You can say, "Three uncomplete goals. Give me three uncompleted goals. Give me three goals somebody else failed to complete," and you'll get into the same thing. But know its basic mechanic before you start running into it. But you can just run it and run it and run it.
What kind of cycles of action do we specialize in? Well, I've already covered that: start, change, stop, reach, withdraw are the most important ones offhand. You don't have to run emotion, you don't have to do much of anything with it. You permit him, then, to have unhavingness and havingness.
Now, incomplete cycles of action—a very important level of this is incom-pleted cycles of action on havingness and unhavingness. And you'll track right straight back to the basic curve on the case. And that basic curve is the service facsimile. The fellow has been running over this for ages. And you can Straightwire with this incompleted cycles of action on havingness, incompleted cycles of action on not-havingness, or unhavingness. And you can go right straight back through the emotional range of the individual down through the ages. And you get, in essence, a stripped case.
And this is why the fellow's upset—why he has ridges and why he doesn't have ridges. Now, I covered havingness a little earlier today, and I covered the

205

206

22 DECEMBER 1953
ridge problem many times, and I told you something was wrong with the fellow's havingness.
Well, when a fellow gets down to the strata of being a Homo sapiens, his rate of change of havingness has all been unhavingness. In other words, it's unhavingness; and so he can't have hardly anything. So it's just at this level in Homo sapiens and a little bit higher that you find it's always a problem in havingness, never a problem in unhavingness.
But his basic cycle is liable to be a curve on unhavingness.
Okay.

Appendix
SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit	209
This Is Scientology, The Science of Certainty	223
Standard Operating Procedure 8	245
Tone Scale [1953]	255

 

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

209

210

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

211

212

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.

213

214

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.

215

216

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.
StepV
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.

217

218

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

219

220

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.

221

222

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

223

224

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
conies 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.

225

226

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

227

228

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.

229

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

230

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 comes 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

231

232

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.

233

234

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.

235

236

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

237

238

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

239

240

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

241

242

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.

243

244

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 comers of the room easily with his eyes closed, go to Step IV.

245

246

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.

247

248

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

249

250

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.

251

252

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.

253

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
254	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

255

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."

257

258

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.

259

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.
A=A=A=A: anything equals anything equals anything equals anything. This is the way the reactive mind thinks, irrationally identifying thoughts, people, objects, experiences, statements, etc., with one another where little or no similarity actually exists. Everything is everything else. Mr. X looks at a horse knows it's a house knows it's a schoolteacher. So when he sees a horse he is respectful. See also engrain and reactive mind in this glossary. We have the reactive mind—A=A=A=A. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
aberrate: affect with aberration. See also aberration in this glossary. / mean, this is a real area of the world: Los Angeles is the world's most aberrated city. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 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. And so we get our highest button: The highest common denominator in terms of aberration is the compulsion to have something and the inhibition of duplicating nothing—the compulsion to duplicate something, the inhibition to duplicate nothing. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
aberrative: tending toward or capable of causing aberration in a person. See also aberration in this glossary. It isn't that living itself is terribly aberrative, but the world gives you to understand that it is. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)

261

262

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
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. This is a very good one for you to remember because this in its essence is Acceptance Level Processing, this is what's back of it. —Remedy of Havingness (22 Dec. 53)
Act: a stage of processing, as found in Advanced Procedure and Axioms and Handbook for Preclears. The term applies solely to the particular process in use at a certain case level. See also Advanced Procedure and Axioms and Handbook for Preclears in this glossary. The first four Acts, by the way, of the Handbook for Preclears are still very good. —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 53)
Advanced Procedure and Axioms: a book written by L. Ron Hubbard, published in 1951. It is a manual which gives an outline, definition and description of the types of cases and the points of address in any case. See also case in this glossary. You remember the emotional curve and Emotional Curve Processing? Now, you have it in Advanced Procedures and Axioms and you have it in the Handbook for Preclears—you got material on this— emotional curves. —Postulates (22 Dec. 53)
"aggloomerated": a variation of agglomerated, meaning "collected or gathered into a cluster or mass." They "aggloomerated."I think that's the latest scientific theory—the "aggloomeration" of planets. —Postulates (22 Dec. 53)
agin: (dialect) against. I mean, he thinks life's all agin him. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
Alexander: Alexander III (356-323 B.C.), also known as Alexander the Great; king of Macedonia, an ancient kingdom in northern Greece. By conquest, he extended an empire which reached from Greece to India. Probably the only single-minded general who ever had a mind that you really could call a mind, was a fellow by the name of Alexander—Iskander of the Two Horns. —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 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. Of course, in the edition you will get, that merely also contains, why, he holds on to the two back anchor points of the room, and that gives him a sensation of the stability of mest space. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
Anthony, Mr.: humorous reference to John J. Anthony (real name Lester Kroll), host of "The Goodwill Hour," a radio show which aired from 1937 to 1945, on which Anthony dispensed personal help to the in-house guests of his studio. Anthony set himself up as an expert in all areas of human relationships and claimed to have three university degrees. The majority of the guests on his show were women, and Anthony's standard opening line was, "What is your problem, madame?" Throughout its radio run, "The Goodwill

GLOSSARY
Hour" was heard on Sunday nights, and the slogan "Ask Mr. Anthony" became a household joke. The show went off the radio in 1945, but returned four years later in a television version. Well, Mr. Anthony, it is like this—he thinks he's mass. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
Antietam: reference to the Battle of Antietam, the bloodiest battle of the American Civil War, fought between Union and Confederate troops at Antietam Creek in the state of Maryland on 17 September 1862. He locates himself as not facing that wall at Antietam or something of the sort—he's not there yet—he's not still there, that was a hundred years ago. —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 53)
Applause Scale: a scale which starts at the top with an individual performing for an effect and knowing it is an effect, and going down through desiring applause, becoming angry in the absence of applause, and down to eating. For a full description of this scale, see lecture 19 December 1953, "Mass," in this transcript booklet. And, by the way, on that chart over there, you'll notice the Applause Scale. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
apprentice seaman: an enlisted man in the US Navy or Coast Guard ranking above a seaman recruit, which is the lowest rank in the Navy or Coast Guard. And I think the maximum penalty on that—I might be wrong, but I think it's seven years in Portsmouth and reduced to apprentice seaman or seaman second class and—they don't call it "and extras," it has some legal term, but it means loss of citizenship and everything else. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
ARC: a word made from the initial letters of Affinity, Reality and Communication which together equate to understanding. These are the three things necessary to the understanding of something—one has to have some affinity for it, it has to be real to him to some degree and he needs some communication with it before he can understand it. For more information on ARC, read the book Science of Survival by L. Ron Hubbard. Communication is by far the most important part of the ARC triangle. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
ARC triangle: a triangle which is a symbol of the fact that Affinity, Reality and Communication act together to bring about understanding. No point of the triangle can be raised without also raising the other two points, and no point of it can be lowered without also lowering the other two points. Communication is by far the most important part of the ARC triangle. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
Arcturus: a very bright star in the northern sky, located approximately 194 trillion miles from Earth. And some of the people on a further inversion who exteriorize very easily but do an immediate bunk for Arcturus, they are on a further inversion than the fellow who is merely solid in a body. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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. You just take an assessment of the case and you find out on what dynamic he's shuddering—where do

263

264

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
you get a needle wobble—and then you take that one, you get him to reach and withdraw for things related to that dynamic and all of a sudden the thing he's shuddering away from will show up. —Auditing by SOP 8-C, Formula H (20 Dec. 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 it's got underlying it, of course, such a thing as the Assumption. — The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
Attila: (406?-453) king of the Huns, a nomadic and warlike Asian people who devastated or controlled large parts of eastern and central Europe. Attila and his soldiers were feared for their cruelty and vandalism. Attila the Hun, I think, guaranteed his position in history just by this operation. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
audit: apply Dianetics and Scientology processes and procedures to. See also processing in this glossary. But he got audited, and he came up—pretty up the line, and he hit a level of overtness which was terrific, you know? —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
auditing: another word for processing. See also processing in this glossary. Well, don't be surprised, because this type of auditing quite normally results in that kind of result. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 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. Auditors should know an awful lot of things. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 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. Well, of course, there are other things which appertain to this handling of bodies, which is the matter of automaticity. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
Baby Club: humorous reference to the Stork Club, a famous nightclub in New York, opened in 1934, which was frequented by celebrities and gossip columnists until the 1960s. And I think there's a club in New York called "The Baby Club" (I won't give it any advertising) where people can go in and pay enormous checks for no service. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
bacon, saved (one's): (slang) saved (one) from injury; helped (one) escape from a danger; spared from loss or harm. The expression comes from the care taken by people of earlier times to save the bacon, which was laid up for winter use, from the dogs which frequented their households. And when that starts happening—let me give you one little tip on that, that may save your bacon for you someday on a preclear—when they get too worse slowly and they're chugging in harder and harder into it, it may only be that you're neglecting one side of a bracket. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
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. And criticism—about the lightest concept that you can get on the bank is not wanting to be critical. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
basic-basic: the first engram of the first chain of engrams. For more information see the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health by L. Ron Hubbard. One fellow reached and withdrew for basic-basic for about ten hours and turned on all the perceptics on the line. —Reach / Withdraw (20 Dec. 53)
Bayville: a village on the north shore of Long Island in New York. He'll start in to go to Kokokomo, you see, and he'll find a real good reason why he should stop in, in Bayville. —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 53)
beam: an energy flow. See also pressor beam in this glossary. You know, it'll just—the two attention beams from them, two beams that they put on it, will just overlap and they will see beyond the object, rather than see the object. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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. Well, they haven't really decided one way or the other to make the best of it usually because of the between-lives sequence. —Remedy of Havingness (22 Dec. 53)
biscuit: (electronics) a small circle or square of solder or epoxy punched out of thin sheets. The biscuit (also called preform) is placed on a spot to be soldered or bonded, prior to the placing of the object to be attached, to aid in soldering or adhesion. . . . and we don't get a blessed thing which looks even vaguely like a valve or a rheostat or a resistor or a transistor or a biscuit—none of these things. He just doesn't look like an electrical gimmick. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
black band: a band of sound waves of high intensity which have a very destructive effect on living organisms. This is the widest band there is— it exceeds all known bands. Goes into the black band, it goes in . . . —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
blow (one's) brains out: (slang) kill (oneself) by a shot through the head. They blow their brains out every once in a while. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
blugwug: a made-up name for a disease. He had an operation; he had an operation for "blugwug."—Postulates (22 Dec. 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. Actually, it was the forerunner of that Standard Operating Procedure which came out in an early bulletin following Book One. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)

265

266

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Boolean algebra: a mathematical system in which quantities are expressed using only two symbols (0 and 1), named after English mathematician George Boole (1815-1864). Boolean algebra was originally devised for solving problems in logic, and has been used in designing parts of telephone switchboards and electronic computers. Well, the fact of the matter is, the human mind is standing behind every mathematics with something like Boolean algebra, which is really too complex to be worked out on anything less than about five notebooks for one formula. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
boresome: tending to be a bore; boring. So you have a lot of latitude with a preclear that you may not look at, merely because of the boresome level of the society today. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 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 you have him mock up his own space and you have him do space in brackets and so on, till he can handle space. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
breed of cat: (informal) type; sort; variety. Example: The new airplane is a completely different breed of cat from any that has been designed before. I mean this same breed of cat, all along. —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 53)
bunk, do a: (British slang) to run away; to leave, especially when one should not; to desert. And some of the people on a further inversion who exteriorize very easily but do an immediate bunk for Arcturus, they are on a further inversion than the fellow who is merely solid in a body. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
Burgoyne, Gentleman Johnny: John Burgoyne (1722-1792), British general and playwright. During the American Revolution, Burgoyne was involved in several key battles in New York. In one, he captured Fort Ticonderoga (6 July 1777), but shortly thereafter he lost the Battle of Saratoga (17 October 1777), one of the pivotal battles of the war. His most popular play was The Heiress (1786). And when it was obvious that Washington had lost, just obvious—I mean, if he'd gone in and talked to Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne or if he'd gone down there and talked to Howe, Howe could have shown him on tactical maps, by textbooks, he could have shown him—he could have had numerous aides-de-camp around to prove to him, completely, that he had lost. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 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

GLOSSARY
thinks he is anyplace rather than where he is. And you'll run into this case all the time, and he isn't withdrawing, he's reaching compulsively and he can't stop himself, and this fellow is (quote) "buttered all over the universe." —Auditing by SOP 8-C, Formula H (20 Dec. 53)
button: (1) an item, word, phrase, subject or area that causes response or reaction in an individual. You think you as an auditor have hit a button, see? And you just don't progress. —Mass (19 Dec. 53) (2) any of those things in particular that each human being finds aberrative and has in common; any of the major difficulties people have. Examples include survival, rightness, responsibility, ownership, truth, faith and the other buttons on the Chart of Attitudes. See also Chart of Attitudes in this glossary. And so we get our highest button: The highest common denominator in terms of aberration is the compulsion to have something and the inhibition of duplicating nothing—the compulsion to duplicate something, the inhibition to duplicate nothing. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
c: (physics) a symbol for the speed of light, approximately 186,000 miles per second. And we're not quite sure what c is since it has to be evaluated by itself. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
C: abbreviation for cause. That's what a communication system is: ways and means of making something at C repeat at E is a communication system. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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. Now pick any building in Camden—any building in the city. —Reach / Withdraw (20 Dec. 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. And just duplicate the idea that you can't duplicate nothing, going right on duplicating it, and some interesting things will occur in a case. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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. But if an auditor is—has the feeling that he's going to sort of cave in on the line and it's—you know, I mean, he's worried about restimulation, and he's worried about what this preclear is going to do because he fears the preclear was going to do something wrong and damaging or something, to the auditor or to himself, why, he of course doesn't kick the preclear all the way up on the line. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
Chacon: a cape (piece of land projecting into a body of water) south of Ketchikan, Alaska, at the southern tip of Prince of Wales Island. And then the tide there is rather fast, and it sweeps the body out past Chacon, the cape there, and nobody ever knows anything more about it. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)

267

268

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
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. Change of Space Processing from one place to another—the Moon and so on—will often reveal in a thetan a latent fear of gravity, which is a pull, which is quite interesting. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
charge: harmful energy or force contained in mental image pictures of experiences painful or upsetting to a person. Have him just keep mocking up the only one, till there's no further charge on looking through mirrors and so forth. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 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. Definition of button:... truth, faith and the other buttons on the Chart of Attitudes.
Chart of Evaluation: reference to the Chart of Human Evaluation. See also Chart of Human Evaluation in this glossary. That Chart of Evaluation— existence is that entire range. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
Chart of Human Evaluation: a chart which displays the various characteristics of people at the different levels of the Tone Scale. It can be used to evaluate human behavior and accurately predict what a person will do. For more information, read the book Science of Survival by L. Ron Hubbard. That chart right up there on the wall, that Chart of Human Evaluation: You'd be amazed, but you generally find people—when you start to process them, you generally find them well, well, well below 2. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 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. Anytime a thetan speaks of himself singularly after he gets up just a little bit toward Clear, he starts to feel strange. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
close terminals: collapse into or identify oneself with someone or something. See also terminal in this glossary. People try to avoid what they classify as bad experience, and so close terminals with it. —Remedy of Havingness (22 Dec. 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. Now, a test made in this, whereby several co-auditing teams which had failed had been accumulated in one area—Volney Mathison made this test. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
coffee shop auditing: auditing done casually out of auditing rooms, sometimes in public places such as coffee shops. You'll do a lot of coffee shop auditing, a lot of hit-and-run auditing, a half an hour's session here or there. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
Colossus of Rhodes: a huge bronze statue that stood near the harbor of Rhodes, an island in the Aegean Sea. The statue honored the sun god Helios, and stood about 120 feet (37 meters) tall. It was built over a period of twelve years during the 200s b.c. by the Greek sculptor Chares. The hollow statue was supported by stone blocks and iron bars. It was destroyed by an earthquake in 224 b.c., and the metal supports were sold for scrap in a.d. 653. For instance, the Colossus of Rhodes was built out of, I think, tin and bronze. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
comm lag: short for communication lag. See also communication lag in this glossary. He has as much difficulty in stepping out of the back of his head, you see—this is a rough proportion, this is not a straight law—as much difficulty there as he has comm lag. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
communication lag: the length of time between the posing of the question and the receiving of the answer, regardless of what intervenes. Now, there's communication lag, and that's what you're looking at when you look at a case. —Mass (19 Dec. 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. And this all comes about because of the computation, the "only one." — The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
congress: reference to the First International Congress of Dianeticists and Scientologists, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from 30 September through 4 October, 1953. And when I said in the congress tapes that we've got a problem of energy starvation at anywhere around IV and V, that's right—that's all there is there, it's a problem in energy. —Remedy of Havingness (22 Dec. 53)
Congressional Record: a government publication containing the proceedings of the US Congress, which is issued daily while Congress is in session. You've never read a Congressional Record, you have never read the newspapers, you don't know what the political columns are, you don't know whether you're a Republican or a Monotonist. —Remedy of Havingness (22 Dec. 53)
costume historical: a costume-piece, a dramatic play, movie, etc., in which the actors wear a historical or other costume different from that of the present era. Therefore you'd say offhand that fairy tales were less aberrative than costume historicals and geographically accurately placed pictures— just offhand. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
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. Well, you use the various means you have to hand: Creative Processing, create it-destroy it, get lots of them, key it out—oh, get into communication with it and do all sorts of things. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
daily bread: (informal) a person's food, or the money he needs in order to live.

269

270

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Now, a fellow can be made to worry so much about food and his daily bread, that he will begin to agree too thoroughly with the stomach entity and by agreement alone, just by contagion, begin to take on the characteristics of the stomach entity. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
Darius: Darius III (died 330 b.c.), last king of ancient Persia (now called Iran) from 336 to 330 B.C. He was defeated by Alexander the Great in several major battles. You know, if Alexander had really been smart, he simply would have flipped out of his head and flipped behind the head of Darius and said, "Sound retreat," and he would have had Darius's body say to the trumpeters, "Sound retreat and surrender." —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 53)
darnedest: (informal) a euphemism for damnedest, most extraordinary; most amazing. People will come up and confront you with some of the darnedest things in terms of this bric-a-brac. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 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. But this was the D of the DEI cycle. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
determinism: feeling determined about something; having a feeling of determination. Something has reached him faster than he could withdraw and has turned him backwards, and he's now going on its determinism. —Reach/Withdraw (20 Dec. 53)
devil with (it), the: (colloquial) I, we, etc., do not care about (a person or thing). The devil with fighting losing! There's plenty of opposing players— fight them. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
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. It consummated a cycle of investigation in Dianetics which told one this story—it said man is not the body. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
Disney, Walt: (1901-1966) movie animator and producer, and the creator of numerous famous cartoon characters, such as Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. Starting with simple cartoon advertisements that were shown in movie theaters in the 1920s, Disney expanded into full-color cartoons with sound in the 1930s, and released the first full-length cartoon feature, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, in 1937. Disney's studios are especially known for meticulous craftsmanship in animated films, particularly those of full feature length. And watching Walt Disney, of course, is always welcome because there's no such place to go to. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
Doakes: a made-up name for an acquaintance. Now, did you ever see two old guys and they meet down at the corner store and they're kind of fencing around at each other and not particularly interested in each other until they

GLOSSARY
both find out that they went through the blizzard in Cheyenne in '97, and that they both know Doakes. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
Doctorate level tapes: reference to the Philadelphia Doctorate Course, given by LRH in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1-18 December 1952. The sixty-two lectures he delivered to the students of the course were recorded and preserved on tape; they provide a wide analysis of human behavior and data on the handling and control of Homo sapiens. But let's go a little further right now, and take that same material and see where we get by taking the material in the Doctorate level tapes, 8-8008—and I believe that's mentioned in that book, too—convincingness. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
done dog: (slang) a combination of the phrases done in, meaning "ruined or destroyed" and gone dog, meaning "someone who is hopelessly done for or in a hopeless situation." Now, a thetan who can be persuaded to set up these energy masses on the basis that he himself can no longer generate energy is almost a done dog. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
dope off: to experience dope-off. See also dope-off in this glossary. It's nothing you dope off on, because the feeling of weakness in there, I mean, is just murderous; it's just agony. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
dope-off: a condition of feeling tired, sleepy or foggy (as though doped or drugged). They had a four-year dope-off. —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 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 use his name, you shift his name around and double-terminal it and match it until he can handle his name. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
double terminals: something or someone mocked up facing its duplicate, with another such pair beside, in any position, the first pair. See also double-terminal in this glossary. All mechanics aside—viewpoint of space and everything else aside; opinions, considerations, mechanical communication systems, mest, double terminals, postulates, processes, SOP 8-C and everything else aside—by one means or another, this beingness will manifest itself to the disqualification of the individual who will not grant beingness. —Beingness (18 Dec. 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, we take duplication on all dynamics and we find out that duplicating nothingness on any dynamic is a very difficult process for the thetan. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
E: abbreviation for effect. That's what a communication system is: ways and means of making something at C repeat at E is a communication system. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)

271

272

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Effort Processing: a type of processing done by running moments of physical stress. These are run either as simple efforts or counter-efforts or as whole precise incidents. Incidents which contain physical pain or heavy stress of motion, such as injuries, accidents or illnesses, are addressed by effort. For more information, see the book Advanced Procedure and Axioms by L. Ron Hubbard. And boy, this is so much like Effort Processing that it's really remarkable. —Mass (19 Dec. 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. But an auditor who is using 8-C in practice came up to see me last night and told me what some of his problems were. —Communication (20 Dec. 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. Now, I refer you to 8-80 and I refer you also Step V, SOP 8-C. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
8-8008: short for 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. And we have the Axiom pertinent to that: In life experience, space becomes beingness. That's out of  8-8008. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
8008: short for Scientology 8-8008. See 8-8008 in this glossary. The table on that's SOP—I mean, is 8008. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
Einstein: Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German physicist and US citizen from 1940 who formulated the theory of relativity, a series of conclusions concerning the interrelationship of time, space and the motion of objects. Furthermore, although I understand that his laws aren't effective beyond the stratosphere, there's a fellow by the name of Einstein passed some laws relating to the speed of light. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
electra: reference to the Greek word elektron, meaning "amber." Amber is a hard yellow or yellowish-brown gum which is the resin of fossil pine trees. It is a good electric insulator, so it easily holds electric charge—a fact discovered by the ancient Greeks, who observed that when amber was rubbed with a cloth, it attracted bits of lightweight material, such as feathers or straw. People down in Greece, for instance, they worshiped amber and it looked like lightning. Electra—it generates electricity and so forth. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
Electropsychometric Auditing: a book written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as the first operator's manual for the E-Meter. For more information see

GLOSSARY
Technical Bulletins Volume I. The essentials of the data discovered are there and in Electropsychometric Auditing, that other little book—little manual —the method of the analysis of the GE, is taken up. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
Elizabeth: a city in northeastern New Jersey which is a residential suburb of New York City and was the location of the first Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, 1950-1951. And we found out that these conditions were the conditions which attended—practically all of them attended—every break we had in terms of processing, and we were processing some terribly bad-off people at the time in Elizabeth. —Mass (19 Dec. 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. Now, don't think I overtalk this business of space opera until you get on your E-Meter and start talking to this nice, quiet, calm old lady who seems to be sort of betrayed somehow, and you find out that you are looking—in this nice, calm, quiet, if somewhat betrayed and apathetic old lady, you're looking at the "Scarlet Rogue" wanted on five planets! —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
emotional curve: a drop on the Tone Scale from any position above 2.0 to a position below 2.0 (on the realization of failure or inadequacy), or the rise on the Tone Scale from below 2.0 to above 2.0. Emotional curves and their address in processing are fully described in the book Advanced Procedure and Axioms by L. Ron Hubbard. You remember the emotional curve and Emotional Curve Processing? —Postulates (22 Dec. 53)
engram: 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. They've got more engrams and more automaticities built up on the basis of outflowing, and then they're stuck here on a planet where nothing can happen but an inflow, and they don't like this because they're sort of—"they hunger for them good old days." —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
engram bank: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. See also bank and reactive mind in this glossary. And that is why you mustn't reach over with a pair of theta shears and start chewing away at somebody's engram bank, because you reduce his havingness. —Remedy of Havingness (22 Dec. 53)
entity: an injected personality; actual other life injected into a person's theta beingness parasitically. The operation involves fixing up a person's theta beingness in a certain way so that it can have another thought implanted on it. That thought can be injected as a whole personality, a beingness. It's like the entities of the body. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)

273

274

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
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. And the Axiom on this is: That which moves the preclear can evaluate for him. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
Ex-Lax: (trademark) brand name of a laxative. It's sort of a—this technique was a sort of a psychotherapy Ex-Lax. —Auditing by SOP 8-C, Formula H (20 Dec. 53)
Expanded GITA: Step IV of SOP 8. For the full procedure, see Standard Operating Procedure 8 in the appendix of this transcript booklet. So we have various processes which have come in under this step; we've had GITA, Expanded GITA and we have this automaticity. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
Explorers Log: reference to a regular article in the Explorers Journal, a periodical of the Explorers Club, a private club based in New York City and founded in 1904 with the main object of promoting the science of exploration and dedicated to the search for new knowledge of the Earth and outer space. They used to kid me an awful lot I—in the "Explorers Log" and so on. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 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. You're not going to build an iron bridge out of feathers, and you're not going to build a serious person with exteriorization. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
exteriorize: to move (as a thetan) out of the body; place distance between oneself and the body. See also thetan in this glossary. And some of the people on a further inversion who exteriorize very easily but do an immediate bunk for Arcturus, they are on a further inversion than the fellow who is merely solid in a body. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
Fabian: reference to Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (died 203 B.C.), Roman general (known as "the Delayer"). In battling the superior forces of the Carthaginian general Hannibal, Fabius pursued a policy of "masterly inactivity," preferring to harass the enemy by cutting off his supplies and to avoid a direct battle. Hannibal remained in Italy fifteen years but, largely owing to Fabius' tactics, never gained decisive victory. The word Fabian has passed into the English language, meaning "of or relating to the caution and avoidance of direct confrontation typical of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus." He was known as, and is known today in military textbooks in Europe, as the great Fabian of modern times. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 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 hoods and heavy goggles. And if you process her and after a while she doesn't get some of it on the other side too, then you stuck her in the Fac One, because that's the knock-down of the endocrine system. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
facsimile: a three-dimensional color picture with sound and smell and all other perceptions, plus the conclusions or speculations of the individual. Put it in various places, make walls out of it and look through each successive one at the new facsimile of it, you know? —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
Factors: a summation of the considerations and examinations of the human spirit and the material universe completed by L. Ron Hubbard between 1923 and 1953 a.d. The Factors can be found in the book Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics by L. Ron Hubbard. And this framework is the Factors. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
FBI: abbreviation for Federal Bureau of Investigation, a United States government agency established to investigate violations of federal laws and safeguard national security. There—the FBI had an agent up there for some time, he was a nice, innocent young boy. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
Feds: (slang) officials of the federal government, specifically a member of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. See also FBI in this glossary. Everybody who gets in trouble with the state police and the Feds and everybody else will eventually turn up somewhere in the backwoods of Alaska— if they can make it. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
fell swoop, at one: all at once or all together, as if by a single blow. The expression dates from the sixteenth century; the word fell was Old English for "fierce" or "savage." And at—all at one fell swoop you're going to do this by saying, "Be three feet back of your head." —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 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. You find anybody who has got an occluded field stuck in a loss. —Remedy of Havingness (22 Dec. 53)
Final Blackout: a novel written by L. Ron Hubbard, first published in 1940, envisioning the consequences of a future war. It is the story of a small band of "unkillables"—soldiers who have survived the bloodshed, plagues and starvation of thirty years of incessant war—led by the Lieutenant, the most professional of professional soldiers. Betrayed by the creeds and the politics that started and perpetuated the war, it is up to this handful of survivors to salvage what they can of their lives and their civilization. / wrote a story one time called Final Blackout, many years ago, and its tenor is a mild shadow of space opera—I mean the same mood, to some degree. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 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." There was one boy in the First Unit—we haven't heard from him since, but he's—good condition. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
Floyd, Pretty Boy: Charles Arthur Floyd (1904-1934), American gangster, bank robber and killer. He grew up in Oklahoma and was nicknamed

275

276

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
"Pretty Boy" because he wore his hair slicked back and was never without a pocket comb. He committed his first major crime (robbing a post office) at the age of eighteen, and went on to rob more than thirty banks and murder at least ten men. He was killed in a gunfight with US government agents. But they don't, they put it on the front page. They say, "Pretty Boy Floyd Triumphs Again."—SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
Ford: a car made by the Ford Motor Company, a US automobile manufacturer founded in 1903 by American industrialist Henry Ford (1863-1947). It is one of the largest automobile companies in the world. But they start out by one of them saying, "Well, Fords are no good."—Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
Formula H: a technique developed as a basic resolution of insane impulses, neuroses, obsessions and compulsions. For more information see PAB 9, FORMULA H, in Technical Bulletins Volume II. Formula H—the action of reaching and withdrawing, being the basic and native action of the thetan, when done in terms of processing, recovers material that is hitherto untouchable. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
four freedoms: the four freedoms that US President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated, in 1941, should prevail throughout the world—freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. The paintings he did for the four slavery—I mean, the four freedoms are done in that tradition. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
4.0: the numerical designation for the level of enthusiasm on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. Now, you bring him up through those bands, and you bring him up there and you get him above the general highest level of Homo sap, which is around 4.0, and you've got quite a guy on your hands. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
40.0: the numerical designation for the level of serenity of beingness on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. Because you have up here under "applause"—up here at the top, let us say, going somewhere in the vicinity from 40.0 down to 0.0—starting at the top and coming down, you have at the top that an individual performs for an effect and knows it is an effect. —Mass (19 Dec. 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. And there's the Frankenstein monster effect, in essence. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
Future Processing: a method of processing the future in which the auditor has the preclear mock up, repeatedly and in great quantities, horrible things happening to himself, to others, and others making horrible things

GLOSSARY
happen to others, all in the future. One holds on to things in the past on the postulate that they must not happen in the future. This sticks the person in the past. Inaction and indecision in the present is because of fear of consequences of the future. Once one has made the preclear mock up these consequences in quantity, he can more comfortably face present time. And, of course, this other—this case was still manifesting rather—other peculiarities, which was making me rather critical of the case and I was gradually working it out with Future Processing. —Auditing by SOP 8-C, Formula H (20 Dec. 53)
GE: abbreviation for genetic entity. See genetic entity in this glossary. You'll find the GE has got his attention on the center of the Earth like mad. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
General Electric: short for General Electric Company, a large US manufacturer. General Electric and its associated companies design, manufacture and sell almost every form of apparatus and device for the generation, transmission, distribution, control, measurement and consumption of electric energy, and maintain numerous research laboratories. And that is carried forward today, and there is a church up to the north here known as General Electric; that's carried along in that church. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
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. More important than that, you as a thetan have walked in on genetic entities which are not as low in order as ants and not as low in order as fish, but are definitely hooked up and dedicated in a certain direction. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
GITA: abbreviation for Give and Take Processing, in which a long list of key items is used and the preclear is asked to waste, accept and desire these items at will. So we have various processes which have come in under this step; we've had GITA, Expanded GITA and we have this automaticity —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
goofy: (slang) stupid or crazy; silly; dazed. He thinks of himself as one thing, whereas his health and beingness depends on not agreeing with something that is so goofy that it gets to—it gets—it will commit murder in order to get applause. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 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 that gradient scale, as you went along, would form the woof and warp of logic also, the slight changes—that makes a C into an E and so forth. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)

277

278

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Great Salt Lake Desert: a low, flat, arid region in northwestern Utah in the United States. The desert covers about four thousand square miles (ten thousand square kilometers), and acted for many years as a barrier to westward travel. You could throw some criminal down in the middle of the Great Salt Lake Desert and you could say, "Now there you are, operate your syndicate here."—SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
grief charge: an outburst of tears that may continue for a considerable time in a session, after which the preclear feels greatly relieved. This is occasioned by the discharge of grief or painful emotion. Blow the grief charge of being gone? No, thank you. —Remedy of Havingness (22 Dec. 53)
groove, in the: (slang) into good form; working smoothly and well. Ordinarily and routinely, just having a fellow walk around to the corners of the room would be one of the easiest ways in the world to get him in the groove, because he's taking exterior direction. —Auditing by SOP 8-C, Formula H (20 Dec. 53)
gunshot: a variation of shotgun, meaning "to cover a wide area in an irregularly effective manner without concern for details or particulars; tend 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. Animal—the word animal to him will just gunshot, see? Some preclear who is terrifically identified with eating and so forth, will gunshot this badly. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
Hamlet: a tragedy by William Shakespeare about a young prince who avenges the murder of his father. The play contains the famous lines: "To be, or not to be; that is the question: / Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer / The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, / Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, / And, by opposing, end them." See also Shakespeare in this glossary. Now, you take Shakespeare's quotation in Hamlet: "To be or not to be."—Beingness (18 Dec. 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. The first four Acts, by the way, of the Handbook for Preclears are still very good. —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 53)
hanging fire: delaying 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 I myself can read it over every once in a while and suddenly find out what's wrong with some case that's hanging fire. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
HAS: abbreviation for Hubbard Association of Scientologists, the general membership group of Scientology at the time of this lecture. It was open to individuals who used Scientology procedures to improve themselves and

GLOSSARY
others. It has since been replaced as a membership group by the International Association of Scientologists (IAS). If you haven't got a copy of 16-G, why, we've got plenty of them at the HAS. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 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. I'll repeat that formula: Negative orientation of beingness, havingness and doingness on each of the eight dynamics in the present, past and future. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
Hearst: William Randolph Hearst (1863-1951), US newspaper and magazine publisher, noted for yellow journalism. (Yellow journalism is journalism that exploits or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers. The term came from the use of yellow ink in printing "Yellow Kid" [1895], a cartoon strip in the New York World, a newspaper noted for sensationalism.) Hearst began his publishing career in 1887 when he took charge of the San Francisco Examiner, owned by his father. By 1925 he owned twenty-five newspapers in seventeen cities. It's gotten down into Willy Randolph—the late William Randolph Hearst's—papers to a society column. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
"Hearts and Flowers": a sentimental popular song written in 1899 by Theodore Toban. The tune was often played to accompany the weepy bits of silent movies. Accordingly, the phrase is used to describe anything of tear-jerking appeal. And they're out there exposed in the weather all the time, see? And if you have a—you don't even have to have a violin playing in the background "Hearts and Flowers."—Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
Heisenberg uncertainty quadramatics: humorous reference to the uncertainty principle, discovered in 1927 by German physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976). This principle states that both the position and the momentum of a subatomic particle cannot be accurately determined simultaneously, because even the best methods of measuring the position and momentum of a moving particle disturb the particle. Quadramatics is a made-up word. Oh, you know, it's like the Heisenberg uncertainty quadramatics as the reason why bosses wear toupees, or I don't know—you know, something important—and it had been baffling everybody for a long time. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
hell with, to: (informal) an exclamation expressing disgusted rejection of something. "And if you have that datum down solidly, then we will teach you from there on, but if you don't swallow that one, to hell with you."—The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
high C: a musical tone of a relatively high frequency—1760 vibrations per second. You take somebody like George Washington and put him up against the dame-hungry generals that they sent over here to fight the Revolution— this fellow was so high-toned he had to get a parachute to go down to strike high C. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)

279

280

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
hold your hat: (slang) a variation of hang on to your hat, meaning "get ready to hear something shocking or amazing." Well, hold your hat, because you're going to get it in the other side too—she's going to get it over there, too. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
Homo sap: short for Homo sapiens, the Latin word meaning "modern man; mankind; a human being." Now, you bring him up through those bands, and you bring him up there and you get him above the general highest level of Homo sap, which is around 4.0, and you've got quite a guy on your hands. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
Howe: William Howe (1729-1814), British general who fought in the American Revolution. Though he captured New York and defeated George Washington in several battles, Howe failed to follow up his successes to decisive victory, and finally resigned in protest at lack of home government support. And when it was obvious that Washington had lost, just obvious— / mean, if he'd gone in and talked to Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne or if he'd gone down there and talked to Howe, Howe could have shown him on tactical maps, by textbooks, he could have shown him—he could have had numerous aides-de-camp around to prove to him, completely, that he had lost. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
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." And those boys ran on an implant that was up there at about a hundred thousand volts, you know, I mean it was a big implant. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
intensive process: a large number of hours of auditing in a small number of consecutive days to the end of opening a case and advancing it as far as possible within this limited time. The standard intensive run being described in the lecture was thirty-six hours of auditing delivered in six consecutive days at the rate of six hours per day. Well now, compare this to a few months earlier: I had written a bulletin on how you give an intensive process and why people spin under processing. —Mass (19 Dec. 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. Of course, criticism is the tiniest, lowest level, you might say, of invalidation. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
Iskander of the Two Horns: the Persian name for Alexander the Great (356-323 b.c.). The "two horns" referred to his headdress, as worn during the fourth century B.C., consisting of a helmet with two horn-shaped protrusions coming out of the top. See also Alexander in this glossary. Probably the only single-minded general who ever had a mind that you really could call a mind, was a fellow by the name of Alexander—Iskander of the Two Horns. —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 53)
"It's pretty, but is it art?": reference to a poem called The Conundrum of the Workshops (1890) by English writer Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936). The poem covers a number of different situations in which man creates a work of art, and the Devil criticizes it, asking variations of the question, "It's pretty, but is it art?" It goes along: And when they work on the great canvas

GLOSSARY
and so on—after death in heaven, why, they'll be painting this great canvas and after a while, why, the Devil will walk up and take a look at it and he will say, "It's pretty, but is it art?"—SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
Jiggler: a theta trap in which the thetan was placed over a post and moved up and down rapidly and eccentrically for some time. He would try to hold on to and stop the post, would go into apathy and finish by being entirely invalidated as himself and would think of himself as the post, that having become cause. A zap goes in each one of these places and quite often the piercing pains which people come in with, they—medicine calls it "bizarre pains" and so forth—are out of something like the Jiggler or the Tumbler or Fac One, or a nip or something; they're very explainable. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
Johnny Q. Public: a made-up name for an average person in the society. You'll find that an individual—well, let's take Johnny Q. Public out here— he thinks this book is a good book because it took seven years to write it. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
jointises: a made-up word using the ending -ises, which means nothing in itself but rhymes with "mortises," and the word joint, meaning "a place or part where two things or parts are joined." You have to—don't have to know about mortises and jointises. —Postulates (22 Dec. 53)
Jones, John: a made-up name for a person. John Jones—there is only one John Jones. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
Judge Morton: a made-up name for a local resident. And he goes into this new community, and the courthouse and the residences and so on are all strange, and they've already had beingness granted to them, and everybody is telling him continually, "Well, now that's Judge Morton's house and that's Bill Suds's bar."—Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
Keokuk: a city located on the Mississippi River, in southeast Iowa, in the mid-western United States. It had a population of about 16,000 people in the early 1950s. LRH uses the name of this town frequently to mean a small out-of-the-way town. He's got to be able to say, "Well, I guess I'd better make it all right over there in Keokuk and square that around over in Keokuk," with some assurance that he's going to go over to Keokuk and straighten it out, whatever is all wrong. —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 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. So he gets unwilling to be an effect, in many cases, and starts keying himself in on overt act-motivator mechanisms and so on. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
key out: release or separate from (the reactive mind or some portion of it). See also reactive mind in this glossar}-. You can get him out of any kind of an automaticity he gets into, any kind of an incident he gets into, just with Step Ia—just key it out, you see. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)

281

282

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
kickback: (colloquial) sharp, violent reaction. He's fought nothing and fought nothing and fought nothing and then he finally did fight something—and, by golly, he fought it with a great satisfaction and boy, did he get a kickback from it, but solidly. —Reach / Withdraw (20 Dec. 53)
King Henry the VIII: a made-up name for a horse. Henry VIII (1491-1547) was the king of England (1509-1547). The most well-known fact about him is that he had six wives. Two of these (including his first wife) he divorced, two he executed, one died in childbirth and his sixth wife lived on after Henry's death. And they—his father was so-and-so, and his mother was so-and-so, and they might as well have said, "Well, he was out of Trotting Bess by King Henry the VIII" or something of the sort. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
Kokokomo: a made-up name for a small town, coined from Kokomo, a small city in north central Indiana in the United States. He'll start in to go to Kokokomo, you see, and he'll find a real good reason why he should stop in, in Bayville. —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 53)
Korzybski: Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950), American scientist and writer who developed the subject of general semantics, a philosophical approach to language, exploring the relationship between the form of language and its use, and attempting to improve the capacity to express ideas. Commas— you know, terribly important things! I mean, gee, how's anybody ever get along without a comma! Uhh! Shades of Korzybski. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
Lady of the Lake: a poem written in 1810 by Scottish author Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832). Set in the Scottish Highlands in the sixteenth century, the full-length narrative poem recounts the banishment and eventual restoration of a noble family. One of the frequently quoted lines from this poem is "Come one, come all! this rock shall fly / From its firm base as soon as I." And he goes away someplace and he says, "Well, don't you try to batter your way through me. 'This great rock from its base shall fly as soon as I.' " (Lady of the Lake) —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 53)
lead-pipe certainty: (slang) something doubly sure or certain. The phrase is a variation of the expression lead-pipe cinch. Lead pipe refers to a mid-western and western US form of galvanized iron pipe (which looks as if it were lead). For saddling and cinching (fixing a saddle securely) the sort of horse that expands its belly, a short length of this so-called lead pipe was slipped under the saddle strap and turned like a tourniquet, the work assisted by a few knee jabs in the belly. Thus the horse was forced to deflate and the saddle was cinched tight, that horse now being double (lead-pipe) cinched. "And if the universe is still here, and if the house is still here, and if I am still here, and this desk is still here, then in a moment from now, I can pick up the match on this corner of the desk and move it other—to the other corner of the desk. And that is a lead-pipe certainty!" —Postulates (22 Dec. 53)
leaping full-armed from the brow of Jove: a humorous reference to the fable from Roman mythology of the origin of Minerva, goddess of wisdom, arts, industries and prudent warfare, who was said to have sprung, full-grown and dressed in armor, from the forehead of Jove, her father. And back in the days of Jove, when people were leaping full-armed from the brow of

GLOSSARY
Jove—they had to stop that, it was giving him a headache, I think—anyway, they worshiped lightning. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
let dogs live: a variation of let sleeping dogs lie, a colloquial expression meaning "don't look for trouble on purpose; don't interrupt or trouble a person, situation, etc., when this is likely to cause disorder." And you'll get a chemist saying blandly to the physicist, "Well, my structural picture operates for chemistry," and the physicist says, "And mine operates for physics, so let dogs live, you know, and we won't quarrel about this any further."—SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 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. He'll say, "Let something else do it—let George do it."—Remedy of Havingness (22 Dec. 53)
line charge: experience 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. A person who doesn't necessarily giggle, but appears to line charge. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
little red wagon, break up somebody's: a variation of fix someone's little red wagon, meaning "to thwart or frustrate another; to engineer his failure." Well, we're ready for that right now, because we've been talking enough about havingness so that you won't do the horrible trick of breaking up somebody's little red wagon. —Postulates (22 Dec. 53)
Location: Step I of Standard Operating Procedure 8-C. For more information, see "SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit" in the appendix of this transcript booklet. On a technique where you have somebody using Location—well, Location, that's adjustment of anchor points, getting somebody to adjust his anchor points. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 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. You can't pry an engram or a lock off of him or get anything released or anything. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 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. And by the way, on the introduction of that mathematical axiom in the Logics and so on, do you know that three of the roughest problems that the mathematicians had, stacked up around these days, cracked? And three mathematical prizes were awarded. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)

283

284

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
look-a-here: an everyday-speech expression meaning simply "look here." "Well, why should this do that, because for the good reason that—look-a-here, there's no reason why it should do this, because you can all—you can just say, Well now, a current will proceed to this and will run this thing.'" —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
lookit: (colloquial) an extension of "look" demanding attention to something that is being described or pointed out. But lookit there, that's way up on the Tone Scale. —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 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. After you've gotten rid of Lord knows how much energy, and discharged it in various directions and—you just don't neglect to give him back some, because he'll want some. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
lost dog: a variation of gone dog, one of various colloquial phrases that start
with "a gone	" and denote someone who is hopelessly done for or in a
hopeless situation. A gone goose, a gone beaver, a gone horse and a gone gander are other examples of these phrases which all have the same meaning. The guy's a lost dog. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
Ma Bell: nickname for the Bell System, a major telephone company in the US, owned by American Telephone and Telegraph Company. Bell System was the first telephone company in the United States, and over twenty local telephone operating companies grew out of it. And there's another cult, there's a communication cult—its god is Mercury, I think; it's named Bell Laboratories, and they have a goddess in there called Ma Bell. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
make the id boop the ego: a humorous phrase with no particular meaning. Id is the Latin word for "it," used in psychoanalysis to mean "the part of the psyche (soul) which is thought of as being made up of unconscious desires, instincts, drives, etc." Ego is used to mean "the part of the personality that is conscious, most immediately controls behavior and is most in touch with external reality." They thought they were trying to supplant something or the—they were trying to make the id boop the ego or something. —Auditing by SOP 8-C, Formula H (20 Dec. 53)
Mallet: a type of locomotive steam engine originally built in France in the 1900s. Its name comes from Mallet, the French designer of the engine. That's like moving around a Mallet locomotive. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
Matched Terminals: a process in which one has the preclear mock up something or someone facing its duplicate. These two things will discharge one against the other, thus running off the difficulty. For more information, see Chapter 7 of the book Scientology 8-8008 by L. Ron Hubbard. See also mock-up in this glossary. Well, you'd run that with Matched Terminals, by moving the idea around, by getting nothingnesses in the walls, and nothingnesses here and there. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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

GLOSSARY
more information, see Chapter 7 of the book Scientology 8-8008. And you'd move it around all over the place, and you would duplicate it, and you'd throw it upstairs and downstairs, and push it around, and even match-terminal it and so forth. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
Mathison, Volney: 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. Now, a test made in this, whereby several co-auditing teams which had failed had been accumulated in one area— Volney Mathison made this test. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
mechanic: technical aspect or working part; mechanism; structure. Of course, Q and A Processing is simply the basic mechanic of communication itself; so we don't have anything there to worry about. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
Menninger: Karl Menninger (1893-1983), American psychiatrist who, with his father, founded the Menninger Clinic in Topeka, Kansas in 1920. They got the Menninger award for it. —Postulates (22 Dec. 53)
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." Of course, in the edition you will get, that merely also contains, why, he holds on to the two back anchor points of the room, and that gives him a sensation of the stability of mest space. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
Mike Angelo: reference to Michelangelo (1475-1564), Italian sculptor, architect and painter who was one of the greatest and most influential artists of all time. When Mike Angelo painted something or sculpted something, it was quite perfect in its form. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
MIT: abbreviation for Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a leading technical school of university level, with schools of architecture, engineering and science. It is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. By the way, they had a transmitter that had a couple of big electrodes here, like some of the kids do up at MIT when they duel with those swords—they step on a metal plate with metal shoes and wired-up swords and they have this lightning bolt, and they'll duel with this lightning bolt and the public is much edified. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
mock up: create a mock-up (of). See also mock-up in this glossary. When one starts fighting this—whoa, he starts fighting this madly—why, after a while, he can only mock up nothing. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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,

285

286

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
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. For instance, I dare say when you're duplicating a mock-up, one after the other, you'll never duplicate the space around it, you duplicate the mock-up. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
Mock-up Processing: another name for Creative Processing. See Creative
Processing in this glossary. Now, isn't that a terrible thing? You've been learning all about cycles of action, and you've been doing it in Mock-up Processing and so forth, and yet didn't occur to you that you could do that by Straightwire. —Postulates (22 Dec. 53)
Monotonist: humorous made-up name for a political party, from monotony, meaning "tiresome sameness or uniformity." You've never read a Congressional Record, you have never read the newspapers, you don't know what the political columns are, you don't know whether you're a Republican or a Monotonist. —Remedy of Havingness (22 Dec. 53)
moon, shooting the: (informal) going for everything or nothing; making an all-out effort. It isn't (quote) "the intelligent use of techniques." You're shooting the moon too far from that. You can use patter that's as backwards as you ever heard of and still get there. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
mopery and dopery: a made-up term from mopery, a violation of a minor or imaginary law, and dopery, a humorous rhyming alteration of dopey meaning "stupid; idiotic." That indicts you for mopery and dopery on the high auditing bench. —Communication (20 Dec. 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 prompt that one pays it back—it "motivates" a new overt. See also overt act in this glossary. One is to feed the stomach entity motivators and mock the fellow up eating himself up. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
Neon Period: a made-up name for a prehistoric period. Did they come from the later Neon Period or the earlier Pliocene Period? —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
neurotic: (psychiatry) exhibiting 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). This is so bad and, by the way, so basic, that if you take a person who is neurotic and you have them sit in one chair and talk to the other chair—an empty chair—and then have them go over to the empty chair and talk from the empty chair back to the first chair they were sitting in, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, why, they'll eventually get into fairly good condition. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
never the twain shall meet: reference to a poem entitled "The Ballad of East and West" by English novelist, short-story writer and poet Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936). The poem contains the well-known lines: "Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, / Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat; / But there is neither East nor West, border, nor breed, nor birth, / When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!" Well, never the twain shall meet if this keeps up. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
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. And if you're processing him, strictly "What room?" and when you've finished "What room?"go off into the next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis: "Remember something real."—Mass (19 Dec. 53)
nickel, worth a: (slang) at all; in the least degree. A variation of worth a damn. Anyway, you can't worth a nickel compose on a stencil and proofread them at the same time. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
nip: the effect of nipping, a practice exercised by thetans of sending out two energy streams, like hands, and slapping both sides of a victim's head. This mildly shocks a thetan to which it is done. It can kill a mest body. This slap is notable for causing ringing in the ears. It's just an old nip. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 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. And you're—you maybe had some tremendous experience one time; maybe either a—whether it was a love affair, or immediately following a nitrous oxide operation, or a sudden recovery when you were young of the use of some limb or something, and it was a tremendous, exhilarating experience. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
Ohm's law: (electricity) the law (formulated by German physicist Georg Simon Ohm [1787-1854]) that for any circuit the electric current is directly proportional to the voltage (measure of force to move the current) and is inversely proportional to the resistance. In other words, if you feed a certain amount of voltage into a circuit, the amount of current that will result is dependent upon how much resistance there is in the circuit: the more resistance there is, the more voltage it will take to move the same amount of current through the line. You even get torque, and the Ohm's law and everything else. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
Omar Khayyam: (ca. 1050-1132) Persian poet and mathematician. His most famous work is the Rubáiyát (which means "quatrains"), a collection of verses recommending enjoyment of wine, poetry and love. Somebody said once—some old Arab philosopher, I think it was. Oh no, it was Omar Khayyam, isn't it? —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
1.5: the numerical designation for the level of anger on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. The guy's been in fear for years, and all of a sudden you just slapped him up into 1.5, and there he sits. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 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. Now, anybody that's going around having a hard time and being jealous and being upset and being liable to this and that, and worrying about getting knocked off and that sort of thing is playing the "only one."—The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)

287

288

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
other-determinism: a condition of having one's actions or conclusions determined by something or someone other than oneself. Now, we've got self-determinism and other-determinism. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 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. Well, how did he get that way? Well, he got that way by overt acts against the mest universe and he has no motivators unless he himself is something that has to resist being battered. —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 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. But the point that is most important is it shows him that he doesn't have to worry any further about those overt act-motivator sequences against the mest universe and against a lot of things, because he can be the effect. —Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 53)
PAB: abbreviation for Professional Auditor's Bulletin: one of a series of issues written by L. Ron Hubbard between 10 May 1953 and 1 April 1959. The content of these bulletins was technical and promotional. Their intent was to give the professional auditor and his preclears the best possible processes and processing available at the moment it became available. It appears in one of the PABs—Professional Auditor's Bulletins—as Formula H. —Reach/Withdraw (20 Dec. 53)
PABs 13, 14, 15: Professional Auditor's Bulletins issued in November and December 1953 covering the theory and technique of Acceptance Level Processing. They are entitled "On Human Behavior," "On Human Character," and "Acceptance Level Processing," respectively. All three of these issues can be found in Technical Bulletins Volume II. Acceptance Level Processing in the PABs 13, 14, 15 is mostly a demonstration or an understanding technique for the preclear rather than something which immediately clears things up; because it can be run for many, many, many hours. —Remedy of Havingness (22 Dec. 53)
para-Scientology: a category of data in Scientology which includes all greater or lesser uncertainties and questionable things; things in Scientology of which the common, normal observer cannot be sure with a little study. Para-Scientology would include incidents on the whole track, the immortality of man, the existence of God, etc. All these people you're having any trouble with, I don't care whether we're talking about para-Scientology or anything else, all we're really having any trouble with in these people is their space opera is so doggone space opera that they're just—it's just dazing. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
pastoral psychologist: one who practices pastoral counseling; the use of psychological principles by a clergyman trained to assist members of a congregation who seek help with emotional problems. The—I don't know where they got this completely irky word, this phrase, but they call themselves "pastoral psychologists."—The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
patter: the special vocabulary of a particular activity. So your patter would go on, then, "What three people aren't other people?"And they would have to be specific other people. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
pc: abbreviation for preclear. See preclear in this glossary. And then you would go through drills with the pc of putting a couple of mock-ups out in front of him and moving them apart. . . —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
Pearl Harbor: a major United States naval base in Hawaii that was attacked by Japanese aircraft at 7:55 A.M. on Sunday, 7 December 1941. At the time of the attack, most of the ships of the US Pacific Fleet (including eight of the nine battleships) were at anchor, making them an easy target for the Japanese planes. There had been a number of warnings prior to the attack, but all were either delayed in transmission or ignored; thus Pearl Harbor was completely unprepared, resulting in a great loss of American lives and ships. The attack on Pearl Harbor catapulted the United States into World War II. I call to your attention the Japanese for instance, were able to raid Pearl Harbor and able to raid all kinds of installations all over the Pacific until they acquired enough so that they had to guard everything they had. —Remedy of Havingness (22 Dec. 53)
perceptic: any of the sense messages such as sight, sound, smell, etc. One fellow reached and withdrew for basic-basic for about ten hours and turned on all the perceptics on the line. —Reach I Withdraw (20 Dec. 53)
Philippine deep: reference to the Philippine Trench, the very deepest part of the Philippine Sea which is 34,578 feet. And you go out into the Philippine deep and there's some of the most interesting fish that you ever ran into. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
picnic: (colloquial) an awkward adventure, an unpleasant experience, a troublesome job. If you were just to say to a preclear, "Now put all your anchor points where they ought to be," if he understood the meaning of that single word anchor point, he could have a picnic then for a long time. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
pitches, gets in there and: (slang) makes an effort; works diligently; refuses to be defeated. This is where he gets in there and pitches, one way or the other. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
Pliocene Period: the time period from ten to two million years ago on Earth, characterized by increased size and numbers of mammals, by the growth of mountains, and by global climatic cooling. Did they come from the later Neon Period or the earlier Pliocene Period? —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
pocking: (informal) a variation of pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, an imitation of the regular sound made by a smoothly running internal combustion engine. And sit down at the typewriter and get out the next stencil while it was pocking off, see? —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
Port Said: seaport city of northeastern Egypt, on the Mediterranean Sea at the northern end of the Suez Canal. It has been one of Egypt's chief ports since the early 1900s, handling the traffic of ships using the canal as well as exports from other parts of Egypt. Port Said is supposed to be the world's wickedest city. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)

289

290

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Portsmouth: reference to Portsmouth Naval Prison, a US Navy disciplinary center located in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. And I think the maximum penalty on that—I might be wrong, but I think it's seven years in Portsmouth and reduced to apprentice seaman or seaman second class and—they don't call it "and extras," it has some legal term, but it means loss of citizenship and everything else. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
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 he's got postulates about all this and he has automaticities about all this—outflow and inflow and "can't create" and "mustn't be at cause" and "mustn't be an effect."—SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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. And sure enough, in the preclears that you will be processing here on Earth, you will find they are all beautifully sold on the idea that they are nothing. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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. Now, you know the Prelogics are, "Theta orients objects in space and time and creates space and time in which to orient objects which it creates."And this is more or less—all five of the Prelogics simply come down to that. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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. One auditor sits down with these techniques and he tells the fellow to reach and withdraw for present time. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
pressor beam: an energy flow which can be put out by a thetan which acts as a stick and with which one can thrust oneself away or thrust things away. The pressor beam can be lengthened, and in lengthening, pushes things away. Pressor beams are used to direct action. Now, the funny part of it is, a thetan, earlier on the track occasionally was going to run into a brick wall or a planet or something or other, would put out a pressor beam and stop whatever he was doing from doing it. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 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. Now, we take duplication on all dynamics and we find out that duplicating nothingness on any dynamic is a very difficult process for the thetan. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53) (2) to apply Dianetics and Scientology processes to. And sure enough, in the preclears that you will be processing here on Earth, you will find they are all beautifully sold on the idea that they are nothing. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
processing: the application of Dianetics and/or Scientology processes and procedures to individuals for their betterment. The exact definition of

GLOSSARY
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. You'd be much better off, as far as processing was concerned, to duplicate the nothingness around the mock-up—and just skip the mock-up. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
proofwritten: a variation of proofread, meaning "read through and marked for correction of errors." Sometimes people would say, "Well, this isn't well proofwritten—look, there's some commas out of shape."—Mass (19 Dec. 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. That's a little bit different than it being a step which is relegated entirely to the psychotic. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
Public Health Service: a division of the US government which works to protect and promote physical and mental health in the United States. Begun in 1798 as a health service for merchant sailors, the agency was formally established as the Marine Hospital Service in 1870, and became the Public Health Service (PHS) in 1912. Included within the PHS are individual agencies which conduct and support research into the causes, prevention and treatment of diseases; conduct programs to provide health care services to people who do not have access to, or cannot afford, health care; conduct programs to prevent disease, disability and premature death; and support research on aging. / know a lot of people in the US government right now— Public Health Service—are desperately worried. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
pulling all the tricks out of the bag: (informal) using all of a collection of special techniques or methods; employing the whole of a means toward a result. The phrase is an allusion to a conjuror's bag in which he carries the various properties he uses for performing his tricks. I got to sawing away on this case, and boy, I was pulling all the tricks out of the bag, you know, and one after the other, they didn't work. —Communication (20 Dec. 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. You get—well, Q and A. You get the positive—the statement—the causative statement which is followed, then, by the effect. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
Q and A Processing: an auditing technique which has the preclear locate the past and the future, and thus addresses condensation of lookingness and the aberration of time. See also Q and A in this glossary. Of course, Q and A Processing is simply the basic mechanic of communication itself; so we don't have anything there to worry about. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)

291

292

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
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. You see, in seventy-six trillion years, with the imagination of all hands going at full blast in order to create randomity, you're liable to get quite a few strange and different situations. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
reaction engine: an engine, as a jet or rocket engine, that generates thrust by the reaction to an ejected stream of gases produced by burning fuel in the engine. And the reaction engine computation of the amount of mass necessary to boot that ship forward demonstrates to you adequately that it would have to pick up mass en route. —Mass (19 Dec. 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 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 engram and aberration in this glossary. We have the reactive mind—A=A=A=A. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
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. Now; there is a reality, you see, back of all this which is better than facsimiles. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
recalls: a type of process in which a preclear is asked to recall (remember) some time, etc., in the past. Now, originally this book was written as recalls, and was shifted off into mock-ups—and was shifted off at the time it was being published, the British edition. —Communication (20 Dec. 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. Now, there was one case of the group that was strictly "What head?" Couldn't get out, Resistive V, had been processed, and without success, on very early techniques. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
restimulation: a reactivation in the present of a past mental recording of an unpleasurable experience due to similar circumstances in the present environment approximating circumstances of the past. But if an auditor is—has the feeling that he's going to sort of cave in on the line and it's—you know, I mean, he's worried about restimulation, and he's worried about what this preclear is going to do because he fears the preclear was going to do something wrong and damaging or something, to the auditor or to himself, why, he of course doesn't kick the preclear all the way up on the line. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
Revolution: the American Revolution, a war between Great Britain and its American colonies, 1775-1783, in which the colonies won their independence. You take somebody like George Washington and put him up against the dame-hungry generals that they sent over here to fight the

GLOSSARY
Revolution—this fellow was so high-toned he had to get a parachute to go down to strike high C. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 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 so you get the thetan matching the ridges of the body. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
rising: (of an E-Meter needle) moving toward the left of the dial. See also E-Meter in this glossary. You put him on an E-Meter, and with this E-Meter, you watch and make sure that you keep that needle rising. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
Rockwell, Norman: (1894-1978) American illustrator whose depictions of idealized, nostalgic, everyday scenes of middle-class America were enormously popular. He is best known for his cover illustrations for the magazine The Saturday Evening Post. Well, it's something like that school of Dutch painters which flourished here in the last century or two, and I think is still flourishing, and that one of our American magazine cover painters, Norman Rockwell, studied for a while. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
rose is a rose is a rose: quotation from the poem "Sacred Emily" (1922) by Gertrude Stein, which also contains such lines as "It is rose in hen" and "which is pretty which is pretty which is pretty." See also Stein, Gertrude in this glossary. So you've got a disidentification there of the fellow with his stomach. Gertrude Stein said, "A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose when I was a little girl."—SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
run: to perform the steps of a process, procedure, etc., on (someone or something). See also process in this glossary. Now, how would you run that? Well, you'd run that with Matched Terminals, by moving the idea around, by getting nothingnesses in the walls, and nothingnesses here and there. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
runs a curve on you: reference to an emotional curve. See emotional curve
in this glossary. What's commonly known as a tone drop. You know, runs a curve on you—sudden curve. —Postulates (22 Dec. 53)
sanitarium: an establishment for the treatment of people suffering from a condition (such as alcoholism, tuberculosis or mental disease) requiring care over a long period of time. And you look at what's being considered art, and you'll think you've walked into the local sanitarium. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
Schenley's: brand name of a type of whiskey made by Schenley Distillers, a company founded in New York in 1933 which was a leading US distiller in the 1930s and 1940s. And they're doing a pretty good job of a glass of Schenley's with some ice in it, but it's very utilitarian. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
schiz: (slang) short for schizophrenic, a person suffering from schizophrenia, a major mental disorder typically characterized by a separation of the thought processes and the emotions, a distortion of reality accompanied by

293

294

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
delusions and hallucinations, a fragmentation of the personality, motor (involving muscular movement) disturbances, bizarre behavior, etc. The word schizophrenia means "scissors" or "two" plus "head"—a two-head, in other words. And, by the way, every once in a while somebody slips on this one, and they compulsively re-become two people and you have a schiz— what you call a schiz personality and so on. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 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. The only excuse for the communication lines of Scientology are that they undo communication lines and restore the ability to create communication lines, forms and randomity. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
seaman second class: the rating given an enlisted man in the US Navy upon completion of indoctrination at recruit school. And I think the maximum penalty on that—I might be wrong, but I think it's seven years in Portsmouth and reduced to apprentice seaman or seaman second class and—they don't call it "and extras,"it has some legal term, but it means loss of citizenship and everything else. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
Self Analysis: reference to the auditing processes given in the book Self Analysis. See also Self Analysis in Scientology in this glossary. He could do Self Analysis and oh, he was just fine and he was—he took so much pleasure at being processed. —Auditing by SOP 8-C, Formula H (20 Dec. 53)
Self Analysis: See Self Analysis in Scientology in this glossary.
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 Creative Processing in this glossary. That's why Self Analysis in Scientology stays in the run. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
self-determinism: a condition of determining the actions of self; the ability to direct oneself. Now, we've got self-determinism and other-determinism. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
servomechanism: any system used to aid or control a mechanical device or a larger system. But "the human mind is a servomechanism to every mathematics" immediately resolved the problem, when somebody says, "Well, the human mind probably can understand this, but of course the equation just goes along this way."—Communication (20 Dec. 53)
Shakespeare: William Shakespeare (1564-1616), English poet and dramatist of the Elizabethan period (1558-1603), the most widely known author in all English literature. Now, you take Shakespeare's quotation in Hamlet: "To be or not to be."—Beingness (18 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
Shannon: a student attending these lectures. Male voice: I saw Shannon's pipe! —Mass (19 Dec. 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. If you haven't got a copy of 16-G, why, we've got plenty of them at the HAS. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
Six Ways to Nothing: an auditing technique which invalidates barriers. It is run by having the preclear look in a specific direction, find barriers, look through the barriers, find black space, then find nothingness, and then sit back and know. The process is done using six directions: straight forward, straight back, to the right, to the left, above and below. Well, that's not just a big mouthful, you've been doing that—Six Ways to Nothing. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
skip distance: in radio, the distance between the position of a short-wave (high-frequency) transmitter, and the region where its signal can be received after one reflection from the ionosphere. The ionosphere is a layer of ionized (electrically charged) air between one hundred and four hundred miles above the earth's surface, which plays an important part in radio because it reflects the waves back toward the earth so that they can be received at a distance from the transmitter. Radio transmitters send out two types of waves—ground waves which travel along the earth's surface and follow the curve of the earth for a short distance, and sky waves, which spread up into the sky and are reflected back to earth by the ionosphere (and may also bounce off the earth, travel up to the ionosphere and be reflected back again). The phrase doing a skip distance is used figuratively in the lecture. Now today, they give you a little tiny transmitter and it's got practically no mass, and the signal has very little push behind it, and the darned thing—counting on skip distances and other things, boy, there's no telling where you'll wind up with one of those little tiny transmitters—a mobile transmitter and so forth. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
slicker: someone or something which is clever and crafty. But in the meantime, you're the person who's telling him to make up his own mind and decide to go. And there's the little slicker, right there. —Communication (20 Dec. 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. It also develops terribly heavy somatics —very heavy somatics. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
son of a gun: (slang) fellow. 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 you say, "Well, the son of a gun, he just made up his mind and he turned his perceptions off."—Reach / Withdraw (20 Dec. 53)

295

296

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
SOP: abbreviation for Standard Operating Procedure, a sequence of steps to be taken by an auditor to make a Theta Clear. See also Theta Clear in this glossary. The table on that's SOP—I mean, is 8008. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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. Well, we have a condition, then, and the condition is: A preclear at Step Level V in SOP 8 has an energy starvation and space scarcity caused by inflow, resulting in desire to have other energy and failure to manufacture energy. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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. Today we're going to cover at least part of formulas of the steps of SOP 8-C. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
SOP 8-O: abbreviation for Standard Operating Procedure 8-O, an auditing technique which drills up the capabilities of the thetan on a gradient scale so he can see, hear, speak, get out electricity, throw out postulates, control bodies other than his own and do other things which are well within his abilities. Well, SOP 8-O boosts him on up to a point of where he can at least be interested without mischief. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 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. Well, he gets tired of that after a while, and so he resigns from space opera and turns in his VM, and he hits a planet, and for a while there on the planet, why, he'll go through a cycle of being inflowed at. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
spark set: reference to a spark transmitter, an early type of radio transmitter that used the electric discharge of a condenser across a spark gap to provide its alternating-current power. Now, we take an old-time spark set: At one time or another, they laughing—they had what was laughingly referred to as a radio transmitter. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
spinny: (slang) in a state of mental confusion. Although if you will carefully notice, by the way, a little baby that is one, one-and-a-half, something like that, they're a little bit spinny; they're just a little bit spinny. —Remedy of Havingness (22 Dec. 53)
Stein, Gertrude: (1874-1946) American poet, novelist and critic. She was the subject of wide literary controversy in the 1920s because of her writing style, which was characterized by the use of words for their associations and sound, rather than for their literal meaning, and by an emphasis on the presentation of impressions and a particular state of mind rather than the telling of a story. Gertrude Stein said, "A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose when I was a little girl."—SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
Step XVIII: a coined name for a process that would be used on an extremely

GLOSSARY
low-level case, based on the Steps given in Standard Operating Procedure 8. (The lowest-level case addressed by SOP 8 was known as a Step VII.) See also SOP 8 in this glossary. Take a look at him and take Step XVIII, SOP 8-C and start in. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
stick (one's) foot in: (slang) a variation of get (one's) foot in the door, meaning "establish an initial point of or opportunity for entry." Now, that's the one thing where you can stick your foot in. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
story-acting: a variation of play-acting, which means "behaving in an over-dramatic or artificial manner." That's that emotion that you're exhibiting, and you're just story-acting and you don't really mean it. —Beingness (18 Dec. 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. And his reality has to come up on an awful lot of things before he starts to hang anything like Straightwire recall on his whole track. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
Straightwire: use straight memory, as in Straightwire. See Straightwire in
this glossary. Now, you can Straightwire yourself on this, because you know what you're reaching for. —Postulates (22 Dec. 53)
Suds, Bill: a made-up name for a man. Suds is slang for "beer." And he goes into this new community, and the courthouse and the residences and so on are all strange, and they've already had beingness granted to them, and everybody is telling him continually, 'Well, now that's Judge Morton's house and that's Bill Suds's bar."—Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
Sun Valley: a resort town of south-central Idaho in the United States. Its lodge, opened in 1936, was built by the Union Pacific Railroad to attract passenger traffic to the West. She liked to go out to Sun Valley and up to the Canadian Rockies and meet some young fellows and so forth, and so she wanted him to—pull him around the country, so this was the operation. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
syllogism: an argument or form of reasoning in which two statements or premises are made and a conclusion is drawn from them. Example: All mammals are warmblooded (major premise); whales are mammals (minor premise); therefore, whales are warmblooded (conclusion). Aristotle used the syllogism as the basis of his system of logic. You see, the human mind can undoubtedly resolve a syllogism, but a syllogism does not resolve a problem. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
TBX, TBY: reference to the designation for a type of American military radio set used during World War II. Messages were transmitted over radio frequencies between surface craft or submarines using a set called the TBS-3, and the Marines used one called the TBY-1. You get these TBX, TBY—I

297

298

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
don't know what that stuff was called—the early stuff, it didn't work, that we had. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
Ten Minutes of Nothing: a process in which the auditor has the preclear get nothing for ten minutes. It isn't ten minutes of "relaxation" or "relief" or "rest." It means ten minutes of no body, no engrams, no walls, no mest universe, no sound, no thought, really nothing. The preclear discovers sooner or later he can be nothing, that he doesn't have to strive to be. Let's give him Formula H (Reach and Withdraw) and let's give him Q and A (see, these are pretty poor techniques, simply because they do nothing but produce an effect, and they're very limited; they're quite limited as techniques), and then let's give him Ten Minutes of Nothing. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
terminal: a person, point or position which can receive, relay or send a communication. And the Axiom involved here is: Energy derives from imposition of space between terminals. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
thar: (dialect) a variant of there. A ship is—a liner or something like that, in space opera—grabbed off, somebody wants to know where that thar bunch of gold is it's supposed to be carrying. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
them: (dialect) a nonstandard way of saying those. Them animals is awful important. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 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. It is based on the Prelogic: Theta orients objects in space and time. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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. There isn't any reason to my—keep on dodging with you this way, because you people are coming on up toward Theta Clear. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
Theta Clearing: the process of bringing a being to the state of Theta Clear. See also Theta Clear in this glossary. And between these two things you get all the conditions involved in Theta Clearing which are difficult, and these are remedied by the various techniques which you have. —The "Only One" (18 Dec. 53)
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. Now, we take duplication on all dynamics and we find out that duplicating nothingness on any dynamic is a very difficult process for the thetan. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
Through Hell and High Water: a publication of the Explorers Club which consisted of adventure stories as told by club members. The 1941 edition contained a story written by LRH entitled "It Bears Telling," in which he recounts how he mistakenly roped a Kodiak bear that was swimming in a channel in Alaska (thinking it was a small black bear, because all that could be seen of the animal was its head) to tow it back to shore, and the disastrous consequences to the boat he was on when the bear decided it didn't want to be towed. The—let's see, I think it's one of their yearbooks called Through Hell and High Water, why, somebody tags me in there about this. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
tide-race: a swift tidal current. Tide means "the ebb and flow, especially of the sea twice daily, caused by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon." A race is a swift current of water. It's very hard, for instance, to get out of a tide-race sometimes unless someone throws you a life preserver. —Communication (20 Dec. 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. Now, if he is unable to remain in geographical positions, his time track gets jammed. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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. 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. You just bumped him up the Tone Scale. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
top sergeant: (colloquial) first sergeant, the officer who serves as the chief administrative assistant to the commander of a military company or similar unit in the US Army or Marine Corps. And then the next thing you know, why, "He isn't my top sergeant I had during the war."—SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
track: short for time track. See time track in this glossary. Nothing, in terms of a place in space, early on the track, was so abhorrent to the individual that he was certain, after a while, that he himself was nothing. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
triomphe: (French) triumph. And that's quite a triomphe, believe me. — Communication (20 Dec. 53)
Trotting Bess: a made-up name for a horse. And they—his father was so-and-so, and his mother was so-and-so, and they might as well have said, "Well, he was out of Trotting Bess by King Henry the VIII" or something of the sort. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)
Tumbler: an incident on the whole track in which the individual was dumped down a cylinder and made to spin over and over while being hit in every

299

300

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
quarter by multiple emanating points. He ended up being plastered all over at varying ranges with somatics. For a full description of this incident, see lecture 24 July 1952, "E-Meter Behavior versus Flow Lines and Patterns" in Research & Discovery Series Volume 11. A zap goes in each one of these places and quite often the piercing pains which people come in with, they— medicine calls it "bizarre pains" and so forth—are out of something like the Jiggler or the Tumbler or Fac One, or a nip or something; they're very explainable. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
2.0: the numerical designation for the level of antagonism on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. You'd be amazed, but you generally find people—when you start to process them, you generally find them well, well, well below 2.0, and they come up through just those manifestations. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
2.5: the numerical designation for the level of boredom on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. And it—you get down below 2.5, and— 2.5 they're just eddying, and then as it gets more solid, why, it becomes pain. —Communication (20 Dec. 53)
umpteen-bumpteen: a coined phrase for an unspecified large number, from umpteen, a slang term meaning "a great number of; very many." And when he is a king and feels that he ought to execute—that the state expects him to execute the umpteen-bumpteen prisoners who have just been delivered, he should say, "Off with their heads! I'll have a cup of tea now."—Ability to Accept Direction (21 Dec. 53)
ums: a baby-talk pronunciation of "him." "Oh, it just must be terrible and oh, does it hurt ums? And here, I'll kiss it all and make it so well," and so on. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
unmock: make nothing of. See also mock up in this glossary. He's having a strenuous effort also to unmock things—his automaticity is set up on unmocking things. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)
viewpoint: a point of awareness from which one can perceive. It isn't that space is a nothingness; space is actually a viewpoint of dimension. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 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. The villain of the piece and the way they looked at things and so forth, was rather—more or less the same. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 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. Just get him to get an idea—even if he has no visio or anything, it doesn't matter—get the idea of a theater screen up in front of him. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
VM: short for VM pistol. See VM pistol in this glossary. Well, he gets tired of that after a while, and so he resigns from space opera and turns in his VM, and he hits a planet, and for a while there on the planet, why, he'll go through a cycle of being inflowed at. —SOP 8-C: Formulas (17 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
VM pistol: a pistol made by the Smith & Wesson company in the United States before and during World War I. "VM" stands for "Victory Model."And he says, "Yeah?" Meantime reaching for his VM pistol or something of the sort. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
Washington, George: (1732-1799) US general and political leader. He was the commander in chief of American forces during the American Revolution (1775-1783) and first president of the United States (1789-1797). You take somebody like George Washington and put him up against the dame-hungry generals that they sent over here to fight the Revolution—this fellow was so high-toned he had to get a parachute to go down to strike high C. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
Western Union: an American telegraph company formed in 1856. We're not talking, in other words, about an engineer's mest or a Western Union telegraph operator's communication system. —Beingness (18 Dec. 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." What to Audit is the one piece of work which has anything, really, about this in it. —SOP 8-C: General (19 Dec. 53)
"When you have two loaves of bread, sell one of them and buy white hyacinth for your soul's sake": reference to an ancient Persian saying by an unknown author: "If you have two loaves of bread, sell one and buy a hyacinth." "When you have two loaves of bread, sell one and buy white hyacinth for your soul's sake." Who said that? —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
whole cloth, out of: (figurative) completely out of one's imagination. Whole cloth is a piece of cloth of the full size as manufactured, as distinguished from a piece that may be cut off or out of it for a garment, etc. Sort of out of whole cloth, he just looks around and he says, "Why, you have a beautiful town here," and so forth, and he tells the people all about it. —Beingness (18 Dec. 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. And his reality has to come up on an awful lot of things before he starts to hang anything like Straightwire recall on his whole track. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
will of the predenominator upgluts on the wittlewaf: a made-up phrase which sounds impressive but has no actual meaning. "Well, that's where the will of the predenominator upgluts on the wittlewaf," and they went off into necromancy. —Auditing by SOP 8-C, Formula H (20 Dec. 53)
woiks: (New York dialect) works. And that's the "woiks" as they say in Brooklyn. —Postulates (22 Dec. 53)
wopenglop and yup-yup: a made-up phrase with no particular meaning, used as an example of subjects one could make up arbitrary laws about.

301

302

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Now, when you can't communicate because somebody else wouldn't appreciate your communication or because of arbitrary laws which have to do with wopenglop and yup-yup or something . . . —Auditing by SOP 8-C, Formula H (20 Dec. 53)
wrastling: (dialect) wrestling; fighting by trying to hold or throw one's opponent. Men are always wrastling around and shoving each other and so forth. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
yo-heave, give (something) a: to throw or 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 he took this big can of fuel, see, and gave it a yo-heave so he'd really get some flames. —Knowingness and Certainty (21 Dec. 53)
young'uns: (slang) "young ones" or children. The most satisfactory critters to deal with are the young'uns. —Space Opera (17 Dec. 53)
0.0: the numerical designation for the level of body death on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. Because you have up here under "applause"—up here at the top, let us say, going somewhere in the vicinity from 40.0 down to 0.0—starting at the top and coming down, you have at the top that an individual performs for an effect and knows it is an effect. —Mass (19 Dec. 53)
0.5: the numerical designation for the level of grief on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. Each level of the Tone Scale—4.0, 1.5, 0.5—is the amount of beingness a person thinks he has, and it reflects by the amount of motion which he thinks he can control. —Beingness (18 Dec. 53)