The Rehubilitation of the Human Spirit volume 4

The Rehubilitation of the Human Spirit volume 4

Сообщение Timecops » 26 дек 2015, 10:19

Web auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/

Second American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures Camden. New Jersey • November - December 1953
Volume 4

Contents
9 December 1953
40. Summary: Failures on Exteriorization 1
41. Examples of SOP 8 -C Patter 17
10 December 1953
42. Knowingness 33
43. SOP 8-C: General Discussion 47
11 December 1953
44. SOP 8-C Patter 63
13 December 1953
45. Force, Part I 79
46. Force, Part II 93
14 December 1953
47. SOP 8 -C Step VIII, Definitions 109
48. Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE 125
15 December 1953
49. SOP 8-C: Step V 141
50. Energy Problems 157
51. Additional Remarks: Energy Problems 173
16 December 1953
52. Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause 181
53. Comm Line: Overt Act-Motivator Sequence 197
Appendix:
SOP 8 -C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit 215
This Is Scientology, The Science of Certainty 229
Standard Operating Procedure 8 251
Tone Scale [1953] 261
About the Author 263
Glossary 267
Books and Tapes by L. Ron Hubbard 311
Address List of Scientology Churches and Organizations 329

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

Summary: Failures on Exteriorization
A lecture given on 9 December 1953

And this is December the 9th, morning lecture. This morning we're going to talk about the various combining factors, and why the preclear fails and why the auditor fails on exteriorization.
We've had a great many factors handed out here in the first few weeks of this course. And these factors, of course, combine into a rationale which is utilized in many ways. The things which have been stressed here are only the most important things.
Those things are: the curve create, survive, destroy—a very important curve; the next is the dynamics, all eight of them, what they mean—they're quite important because a preclear is inverted on one or another of them very badly; the matter of the invisible barrier because this, of course, makes solid the idea that thetans are flying around ready to tear one apart and so forth. And one knows it's solid but he can't see it, and he depends upon his sight to tell him if something's there, and then if he can't see something there, and then he finds something there—and this is the basic confusion.
The next is making something out of nothing, and nothing out of some¬thing. That's quite important, because here is your basic automaticity. A something-nothing combination is, in itself, the maybe of indecision.
So we look over automaticity and we find out that automaticity comes into being and persists in an individual on two methods. That is to say, he uses automaticity to do two things—actually, most specifically, two specific things, which is to mock and unmock things—to create, that is to say, and destroy things.
Now, automaticity itself is laid in to persist. And there isn't much of a methodology to make things persist except postulates to make things persist; and it isn't actually technically correct that an automaticity exists which make things persist, but it appears so. And so we will say that there's—for your purposes and for your uses—there are three kinds of automaticities: those which create things and those which make things persist and those which destroy things.
Now, all that automaticity comes under the heading of handling things. All automaticity comes under that heading. And when the individual is convinced that he cannot any longer handle something, he generally becomes convinced because he set up an automaticity which he has now made more powerful than himself. So the decision that one can't handle something or one can't control something is preceded by a decision to have something be automatic. To have something be automatic is—inevitably sets up the successor decision "I can't handle anything."

1

2

9 DECEMBER 1953
You want to know why the preclear can't control this and control that and control his position in space and so forth, he's set it all up automatically. The reason he set it up automatically, ordinarily, is because he lost interest in handling it. He just didn't any longer care to handle it or he believed he was wrong in handling it.
Now, we have the factors of cause and effect, and one is trying to resist effect in order to be cause. And when we combine these major factors, we find that we have several modus operandi as contained in SOP 8-C which specifically address them. And almost any modus operandi in SOP 8-C addresses all of these, or can address all of these. In other words, any step in SOP 8-C can be applied to all the material there that you've had.
These steps are—you take location—where couldn't he handle something, you see? Where wasn't he cause? So even there you could, by putting in a further significance, use in location all the factors, such as the dynamics. "Where's God?" That's one of the main stumblers: "Where's God?" Well, people have answered this with an abandonment which is glorious by saying, "He's everyplace!" That's real apathy. "The son of a gun chases me everywhere I go, I can't have any space without his space." (laughter)
Now, we take the old triangle of ARC, and we find out that all these factors come into being and become confirmed when they are agreed to. And this agreement itself becomes the reality of the individual. He makes a postulate and he's—finds that this is agreed with. And it's consistently agreed with, and therefore, it becomes a very firm postulate. Methodologies of politeness and so forth are continuous agreement that one really doesn't exist, and one can't amount to very much, and one can't do anything, and one is weak and flabby and so forth, in the present culture.
One of the most virile cultures of Europe—very interesting culture— Germanic culture, the Teutonic. The Romans used to go up and kick their teeth in regularly, burn their villages and so forth, and then the Germans would come out and burn a few on the Roman side of the border. And that's gone on now for about twenty-five hundred to three thousand years. Interesting, isn't it? World War II is just the recurring engram of the Teutonic resistance to Roman invasion.
But what in essence made these people so powerful? And what makes them even today so powerful? They don't say, "I don't amount to nothing. I'm nothing. I'm dirt beneath your feet." They don't say this. They say, "I'm big and strong, and I can lick anybody." And they only started failing when they started saying, "Well, maybe I can lick everybody."
But a German knight back in Roman days had, actually, an ethical standard which was so far out of the Roman sight that the Roman kind of made fun of it. He couldn't understand how anything could be this good; but it in essence was the reason why the German nations and tribes could stand up to the Roman legions so long, and actually are still going in 1953 A.D. Of course, we don't particularly consider it desirable that such organizations go on forever, I'm merely offering it as an example of what is being done elsewhere.
Now, Japan with their negation complex has consistently lost. And, for instance, there was no slightest thought, actually, in the Japanese mind that they would ever defeat the United States. I knew before the war, because I had many friends and knew quite a bit about Japan, I knew what their mood was— and I considered that Franklin Delano Spoofer was more sensible than he was. I figured out he might have some adviser he might listen to, but he only listened to CPs and other people I guess. Because it was inevitable that anybody that

SUMMARY: FAILURES ON EXTERIORIZATION
pushed Japan would get this immediate reaction: "We have to commit suicide." You start shoving a Japanese around, the most horrible thing he can do to you is commit suicide.
Now, by the way, you look this over with some preclears—the most horrible thing they can do to you is to fail to have anything happen. They're trying to get even with you. They don't have anything happen, see. That gets even with you. Isn't this weird? They're clutching to their breasts something like: "They have betrayed me"—which, by the way, is a wonderful postulate to run— "they have betrayed me, see?" And they keep holding up this betrayal. Well, that's getting even with somebody on it. Because that is actually a horrible thing to do to somebody: to hold up a betrayal and then make them agree with it. That's really vengeful, but way down scale, and is not very survival.
So, the Japanese empire with its constant talk of "an insignificant us," "holding our foul (indrawn breath) foul breath from your face," "so sorry," and so on, of course, is a setup. But it's dangerous because it will commit suicide. That's why it declared war against the United States. I knew that. I knew that in 1940, they were going to do this. But it never occurred to me that anybody in Washington would be so stupid as to realize it; because when—golly, that's some suicide—they start firing bullets through their own brains, they ricochet afterwards. And yeah, that was real tough.
So we have these two types of culture on the third dynamic which are demonstrating that the agreement, within the culture, of personal power has a great deal of bearing upon the culture's survival itself.
Now, a culture which is—agrees continually "I can't create, I can't create, I can't create, I can't create," is of course that one which is superdoomed. And that's really doomed, because it says, "We're effect, we're effect, we're effect, we can only be effect." Well, there are two methods of arriving at that end. One is to make everything automatic, which makes one an effect of everything, and this afterwards will reflect in the fact that nobody can create anything; and the other is simply to go around and be apologetic about creating.
Now, a cultural level which apologized for being creative would be one doomed to failure. And we have such a culture, it's called Hollywood—another scene across the world with which I happen to be fairly familiar. And in Hollywood you have a continuous agreement on the part of people that they can't create.
And in engineering you have the same continuous agreement. "We can't create. We're just handling the stuff that's already been created, and we're handling Professor Wumfgutter's formulas, and it's all according to Ohm's law or Poom's law or Boom's law. And we're in agreement. We're in agreement. We're in agreement." And these guys get more and more glasses, and they get more and more Pepsi-Cola or some other disease. And they wonder what on earth is wrong with them. Well, they're just agreeing all the time on the fact they can't create. They also are agreeing on the fact they can't destroy, and they wind up surviving forever in agony.
Well, in Hollywood and amongst (quote) "slick paper magazine circles" in New York, the politeness level of the authors is, "Well, it's not anything, I just knocked it off, it doesn't amount to very much. I'm not very proud of it. And I just hand this stuff out, it's just junk, you know, and we're just filming the . . ."
Actually I can't—I wouldn't put on a tape, standard Hollywood talk about what they call the hero and the villain. And what they commonly refer to in their own work. They do not respect themselves. And nobody who works in Hollywood very long can fail to note that his own respect for himself is declining.

3

4

9 DECEMBER 1953
It's a wonderful world of make-believe, and if it had a few sincere people in it, a few people who realized they could create, it would be a wonderful lot of fun. But it is not that kind of a world. And it is going by the boards. I don't mean on a tipped slide, I mean on a vertical one.
Supercommerciality—one of the finest things they will produce, after a while, will be a commercial for Boo-Boo soap. Because they're all saying all the time—here are these creative artists—they're saying continually, "I can't create. I can't create. I didn't do anything. It's just junk. It's no good," and so on. They're in superagreement upon this inability to create. "We'll make one like Blatz Pictures made last month. That went over good," so on. Because they're asking for the volume agreement of the society at large, which is registered on the box office in terms of figures and dollars. And this is a dependency on the whole society. So these organizations and artists depend upon agreement with the entire society as to what they should be able to do.
These factors are factors which you have to consider in auditing. You may think they're quite far afield, but they're not far afield at all. The thetan is absolutely nothing if he cannot create, and if he cannot destroy those things which menace his creations. He's just nothing. I mean nothing. This is all he's got! And now you're going to wash it all up by letting somebody agree that he can't create. Well, that's suicide itself.
Well, the thetan is in this state of mind of committing suicide. He's not in the state of mind of saying, "I'm tough, I'm big." People will hang around him all the time trying to get him to agree to be wrong. How wrong can you get? Human. You cannot be a human being and be right. It's impossible. You just start looking it over, and you find out that an individual who has to depend upon and put up with all the factors a human being has to depend upon and put up with, is in agreement with so many things that are contrasurvival that he himself is left with no choice about being right.
I don't wish to belabor this or upset you particularly, but an individual who takes the agreement of others with him seriously, is in trouble. And in essence, that's all that's really wrong with your preclear: it's just terrific agreement on the part of his own Wrongness. And he gets this terrific agreement, and doesn't realize it's agreement in terms of his own Wrongness.
The first wrong thing he does is to take things seriously. They're not serious. They can be wiped out overnight. Someday somebody will get bored and yawn too wide and rip the air cover off of Earth. And there's where all these wonderful problems—where will they go? They'll go poof in the vacuum. It's not serious. But your—when a people become insincere and savagely critical and in super-agreement amongst themselves that what they're doing is not worthwhile and that others around them are untrustworthy, and where there's no faith and there's no purpose and there's no goal and there's no reason why, and they get serious about this, you see, you have the difference of agreement level which makes for failure.
And these things all may be true, they just may be as true as true can be, but they shouldn't make any difference. You get the viewpoint: "So these things are true. I mean, should that modify my conduct particularly? No. I don't have to depend upon what I have learned from the physical universe in order to carry on. I can't do anything else but survive." That's your—the way a thetan ought to feel about it to be in real good shape: "I can't do anything else but survive." I mean, why take all this nonsurvival seriously?
And yet he does take it seriously, and so he fools and befuddles himself to a point where he can't even be three feet back of his head. Now, that's really

SUMMARY: FAILURES ON EXTERIORIZATION
remarkable. In view of the fact that he really isn't anyplace, that he can't be someplace, it'd be very remarkable.
Now, I want to call to your attention out of these various factors—you get this agreement, panel of agreement and so forth, hitting him in every side— why is it that preclears fail and auditors fail? Well, they've had to make postulates that they've failed. Where are these postulates? Well, we better look over the anatomy of a body being handled by a thetan. And we find that originally and early on the track, a thetan was handling bodies, if he handled them at all, from above and behind the body. Therefore, there's a great deal of old energy kicking around which can be re-created by any automaticity which wants to make the past last. And all of that deposit of energy has to do with "handle with energy." That's its prime postulate. It says, "Handle with energy."
If you could imagine a tall dunce cap about twenty-five feet long, sitting on the back of a preclear's head, coming to a point about twenty-five feet away— they've got a—much too stylized, much too neat a picture of it, but that's a mass of energy, and every bit of it says, "Handle with energy." All the postulates and everything that had been originated there have been shot down a line of energy to the body. And this accumulation of energy, at length, brings about a conviction one must handle with energy. Because that's the prime postulate in all that mass of energy in that dunce cap.
And then one day the failure postulate starts to come in. The failure postulate comes about when a thetan does—has depended too much upon a body, and no longer considers himself sufficiently strong or powerful to hold apart the terminal of the spot twenty-five feet back of the head and the body itself. He can't impose space on these two terminals anymore, he considers himself weak. He can do it, he just considers he can't do it. And so the body has a sudden pain, and he gets all of these "handle with energy" lines energized the reverse way to. And every tractor beam in there collapses, because it's energized.
Now, a tractor beam, when energized, collapses. A pusher beam—a pressor beam, you know, pusher—expands when energized. But a tractor beam collapses. And so in he comes. And all the way on in he's saying, "I've failed"—the whole length of the dunce cap, see? Pam! He goes into the head. The body gets its— shot in the guts or it gets tripped or scalded or something of the sort, and in comes this thetan—swoosh! And all the way in, he can't put on the brakes. In other words, he can't handle this energy which handles energy. And all the way in he's saying, "I've failed. I've failed. I've failed. I've failed." Pam!
And then where is he? He is sitting on the head end of the dunce cap. And back of him he has all of this stuff up there that says, "handle with energy." And then he comes into a failure in this life, and this stuff reenergizes, and it says—the whole kit and caboodle of it says—"Failure, failure, failure, failure, failure, failure, failure."
Now, you come along as an auditor, and you say, "Now be three feet back of your head, Joe Preclear." And the fellow does, and this horrible sadness comes over him. He gets real sad. Why—what's he get sad for? Well, it's very simple. He's just run into this mass of "handle with energy" and failure.
Now, you should see very clearly here a couple of the most important, immediate goals to handle with Postulate Processing, and why you handle it back of the preclear, not in front of the preclear. That suddenly click, whir and make sense?
And these people who back off from the body and then later on come into the body again and stick, or are upset about it and so forth, are simply running into this failure postulate which is contained in this dunce cap.

5

6

9 DECEMBER 1953
You know, this dunce cap takes many forms. It'll sometimes get around in front of the face. It'll sometimes be to the side of the body and so forth. But they're in—it'll take many forms—they'll be long lines or tubes or small tubes or anything that might look like energy.
Don't try to specialize and say, "It is a dunce cap made out of 20-weight paper," or something, because it's not. It's very different. But the purpose of all these different forms are represented by this dunce cap, and the purpose of all these different forms was to handle a body with energy, and to communicate with energy, see? And as a result, a person got that former postulate, "I have to handle with energy." That's not handle with postulates—"I have to handle with energy." That's the prime postulate in all that mass of energy. And then, with that, he comes in with a crash. And he's done this many times, and other thetans have done this on this same body, so their postulates are there too, and they all say, "Failed." Failed to what? Well, failed to handle the body, of course. Failed to control one, failed to stay outside, but mainly failed to keep two anchor points apart: the anchor point which is way back of the body where the thetan ought to be, and the body. So we can impose position on terminals.
Now, let's look at that electric motor, and we find out that the sole force of the electric motor is the fact that it has space and time imposed upon it. In other words, space—different spaces consecutively imposed upon two terminals. And the base of the motor holds these two apart, and Earth holds the base of the motor apart. And the solar system—gravitic, centripetal, centrifugal system, you know, of the Sun going around and so forth—that holds the Sun and the Earth apart, and we go on up the line until we find that the galaxies are holding apart. And when we move on out of the universe, all we have found when we get all the way out, is the fact that somebody has imposed space on two terminals.
So when it comes down to a problem of a body and a thetan, we again have this problem of can the thetan impose space upon terminals or can't he? And this is an ability, and it is done with postulates, it's not done with energy.
But he has started handling things with energy instead of postulates, and this deteriorates down to a point of trying to keep things apart with energy, and this is very silly, because energy won't keep anything apart in absence of a postulate. I mean the fact that the top of the microphone is apart from the base of the microphone solely depends upon a prior postulate, and that's all it depends upon. You think otherwise, why, you go along with this subject for a while, and you'll find that by pulling postulates out of MEST you can make it collapse or make it move.
Well, we're not up to that point yet, and we're not even vaguely worried about doing that. That'd scare you to death. And by the way, thetans very often completely resign their right to handle postulates and MEST. They just say, "I don't want to do it anymore." They were looking at this very pretty mock-up or this pretty girl or something of the sort, and they yanked the base postulate and so on, and it went poof and there wasn't anything there, and this was very sad and remorseful.
Well, that wasn't so bad as when they yanked it partway so as to make a cripple or something of the sort. And this was real bad, so they didn't like that, so they said, "I don't want to do it anymore." And they said, "I can't trust myself." And that's the basic source of distrust, is being convinced or convincing oneself that one is bad cause with one's own postulates.
And so we have, then, this two-terminal ability—that imposition and so forth—that thetan position which is somewhere outside of the body, and the body. The thetan will stay outside as long as he can impose space on two positions. See,

SUMMARY: FAILURES ON EXTERIORIZATION
he can keep space in between two terminals. Well, he doesn't do it with effort. He just says, "Space between two terminals"—swish, there it is. But he uses all of this energy to do it. And the energy isn't going to do a thing for him. He gets in there and grinds and crunches and so on. And he says, "Rrrh, rrrh — put some space between these two terminals" and, of course—collapse!
Now, it's no very difficult trick to resolve this problem. But you have been running into it and have more or less considered it, I'm sure, here and there, practically insurmountable. You exteriorize a preclear, and as soon as you get him exteriorized nicely and so forth, you say something wrong to him, or you do something that he considers upsetting, his trust level is not too good, and he goes pang! back into his head again. Well, he does that partially in revenge, and—he does it partially so that you'll be wrong and he does it partially because he can't help it.
Now, he's not being willful about this. He's just running into a lot of spooky elements that he isn't quite conversant with. Now, naturally this dunce cap is a sort of an invisible barrier. A postulate itself can make an invisible barrier. You can't see a postulate, and yet you can sense where one is. Thus we get into Postulate Processing, and we find out the postulates I've just been talking about are the most important ones. "I have failed" is a terrifically important postulate. It's not really a postulate, it's a realization, slightly a different kind of postulate. It's a consideration, we were calling it earlier, a realization—"I've failed."
Well, this stuff is fixed in energy. The thetan is trying to fix postulates in energy all the time, and boy, these postulates are sure fixed in energy.
So, "I have failed," and crash, in he comes. Well, it's an invisible barrier. And it's an invisible barrier behind him. And you would be surprised how long a preclear will process in front of him. He will just do it right from here on out. It will just never occur to him to put anything behind him. If you never said anything to him, he'd just keep on processing that way.
Well now, this is because of too fixed attention in one plane: the fore and aft plane of the body. You'll very often find a preclear unable to put anything to the right or left of him, but quite able to put things above and in front of him, and below him. This is because you have this single plane of attention, merely because his attention is mainly concentrated in that direction. Well, this is also reinforced by this dunce cap, this cone, this plane of attention.
And you'll very often find somebody who is—impossible for him to see anything. He'll even consider he has blinders on, or something like that. He'll have big black masses of energy on the right side of his head and the left side of his head. And he can see between these, you see—frontwise, particularly— very easily. But you ask him to look sideways, and he runs into black energy. That's just a fixed plane of attention, that's all.
So we move immediately into the next thing which is important to handle, which is the concentration of attention. And when attention is too concentrated, an individual is unable to release it; and when attention is too dispersed, an individual is unable to concentrate it. What makes it difficult for him to concentrate his attention and not concentrate his attention—unconcentrate it, you might say—what makes it difficult? I told you the other day what makes it difficult. It's the invisible barrier more than anything else. And so you handle this invisible barrier—the eyes, remember? An invisible barrier.
Right back of all of this problem is the immediate problem, "I'm going to be hit." That's right there.
Now, any preclear who can't perceive is a preclear who is preventing himself from being contacted by the energy particles of the room. He conceives that

7

8

9 DECEMBER 1953
these things exist and that they are heavy, and that he depends upon them to give him a vision of the room. So the photons go bouncing off the walls, he thinks, and everything proves it to him that it does, and they hit the other photons which he thinks are there, and of course, he senses the impact between these two.
Now, he decides at that moment when he's—first feels his first photon— you just step him out of his head, actually, he has a slight sensation of being touched. No matter how slight it is, it doesn't matter, that is a moment when he gets very leery. And if the auditor makes mistakes on the subject of asking him to perceive at that moment—if the auditor makes mistakes on this, he's liable to reinteriorize, boom! Why? Because you're asking him to be hit.
You might as well ask him, "Now, put yourself up against the wall. Now you see those fellows out there with that Gatling gun? Now put yourself over a little closer to them. Now attract their attention and tell them to shoot." He isn't going to do that. So you say, "Look at this" or "Look at that," or "Be under this bombardment" or "Be in front of that bombardment," prematurely and too suddenly—just making some colossal blunder this way—you're asking him to be hit. By what? A bombardment of light rays and so forth, which he conceives to be there. All right, these light waves are liable to hit him, and they disturb his balance because he's tuned up to them and in fine agreement with them, and he doesn't want to see.
Now, you wonder what's wrong with your thetan's perception: A thetan in order to perceive must be able—according to his own agreements and so forth— must be able to receive on a 360-degree sphere basis, the emanations of the MEST universe itself. In order to perceive the MEST universe, he feels he must receive all of these particles. He must be willing to receive them in order to perceive.
You want to know what is wrong with your thetan, and why he doesn't perceive and your preclear doesn't perceive, and—he's just in that kind of a condition. The reason he wants to be behind an invisible barrier is so that he will not be hit. The reason why he wants to be at the back of a pair of eyeballs is so that he won't be hit. And with all of this, we get a situation of "superdodge" and "don't look." "Don't want to be hit" and "don't look" are the same statement for our purposes in auditing.
Now, there's a little higher one than that which you have to take into account, is "don't want to hit." He's afraid to hit. And this, of course, is on the basis of consequences; because he thinks if he hits, he will be hit. And so we run into, right there in perception, the overt act-motivator sequence. You see that? So consequences of hitting is being hit.
Parents, by the way, are very fond of training their children endlessly and arduously that if they hit little Johnny, they're going to be hit back—probably by Papa, or something of the sort. And this is not necessarily bad training—it doesn't make good children, but it certainly is a fine key-in on the overt act-motivator sequence. All right.
Some of this begin to make sense to you, exactly why he doesn't perceive?
[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]
Now, in the various considerations which we have, the major one is the consideration of beauty. You have now a process which directly processes beauty and consideration of beauty, in shifting postulates. And it is very necessary for you to handle this in a preclear, no matter whether you think it's tactful or not—it's just handle it. There isn't a creature anywhere in the world that is sane, that believes he or she or it is as beautiful as can be. There is no zenith. There isn't a one. So that here, particularly, one shouldn't take it amiss or feel that tact has anything to do with it. Make it rather impersonal.

SUMMARY: FAILURES ON EXTERIORIZATION
And in processing by shifting postulates, such questions as "Where aren't you being beautiful?" takes up number I. "Now let's get some ugly space, and let's get some beautiful space" takes up number III. In IV, in handling automaticities, so forth, machines which make beauty and which unmake beauty are very important. And in V, you shift terminals, that is to say postulates, in such a way
as to bring about a betterment of this automa , pardon me, of this various
automaticity that shuts off beauty and so on. And these postulates which are shifted, of course, is, "I am not beautiful" or "they are not beautiful" or "they are ugly" or "they are not ugly" or "that is not aesthetic" or "that has no artistic sincerity" or "my beauty will be criticized" or "if I put up anything beautiful it will be spoiled"—anything that would have to do with handsomeness, beauty, charm, grace, gracefulness, good meter (that is to say, rhythm)—any of the factors which represent, themselves, beauty.
Now, you can take this all by itself and just start chewing it up, and you'd have a well preclear. That's how important that wavelength is, because that's how he gets into energy. And the only reason he ever got into energy of any kind or consideration or description was because of beauty. And beauty is a very fine, high, aesthetic wave. And it in essence, apparently, is the gradient scale—is top on the gradient scale from postulate to apathy and MEST. And so I refer you to 8 -80 and the little charts in there that have to do with this. It's a very high wave. And where a person has made postulates on the subject which are very definite, why, these postulates impede his further progress.
He said, "There isn't any use, because I'll never be beautiful anyhow." This sort of thing goes on in his mind. It's a feeling of sorrow—a feeling of sorrow hits him sometimes when he stands up to a mirror or hits her sometimes when she stands up. And I've seen quite a very, very handsome woman be very, very upset every time they looked in a mirror. And they were always consulting with the mirror.
When people depend upon a piece of energy to contain all the beauty of which they are capable, they're almost lost right there. But that's so high above what your preclear's doing that it's almost inconceivable. So remedy this factor of beauty. If you feel you're stepping on some preclear's toes—devil with it. Better to step on his toes, or let him feel you're stepping on his toes, than to leave this fact overlooked.
Now, in the handling of postulates—I want to go over that again with you—preclears will do various weird things when they start moving postulates around. A preclear does not have to know why he is moving postulates, he does not have to know in order for this technique to work. But don't confuse this with other rationale than this—it's the Prelogics: theta locates in space and time, this and that. All right. Now, let's add postulates. He locates postulates and fixes them in space and time, and that in itself becomes logic. So we have joined up knowingness, logic, and geographical position, and the creation of space, and consecutive spaces which themselves become time, with this process of handling postulates.
Now, we used to have a process of putting up a mock-up in front of one, and above one, and to the right, to the left, and below and so forth. Well, that had an incidence of failure which wasn't quite discernible. I looked over why people were failing with this because I wasn't failing with it. And it seemed to me quite remarkable that they were.
Well, I found out they were doing this: They were putting up a mock-up and then they were unmocking it, and putting it in a new position and then unmocking it in the new position, and then putting it in a new position, and

9

10

9 DECEMBER 1953
unmocking it in the new position. No, thank you. That's not the way to do it. What you do is put up this mock-up and move it. Now, just that—move it to the new position, no matter what you have to do—put it in a kiddie car or hitch a truck to it or anything. It doesn't matter how you get it moved, just get it moved to the new position.
You'll find out that when a preclear puts up an idea, his tendency is, if you tell him to move it, is to—it'll be there as an idea for the first inch or two, and then it'll skip all the way through. And then it'll not arrive at all—it'll evaporate someplace, and then he'll put a new postulate at the destination. He won't move this postulate through to a new position.
The first place here, you are dramatizing, straight out, "can't arrive." You just see "can't arrive" all over the place. And the pinpoint repositioning, by motion, of this, is of the essence. Now, there's no reason to just sit there and make the preclear fail on it, it's just give him light enough postulates, easy enough things to shove around, to get the idea. Because in essence, you're using postulates to make space and make anchor points.
And you'll find that if he's well processed, he just gets the postulates a little further out and more certainly located, and he can put them further away, successively, as he goes along. And finally he'll be able to get them miles and miles away with great certainty. But at first he might only have been able to get them between two corners of the room, and was having a hard time doing that. He can move them, in other words. And you're asking him to move a postulate. But remember, you're asking him to move a postulate, not make one appear, disappear, and then reappear, and then disappear again. You're asking him to consecutively parade a postulate between two places. You'll find quite often that he's unable to make the postulate arrive at the destination. Well, you just coax him into it, that's all. Let him do it for a while and he'll arrive finally. And he receives the benefit of the thing of having the stuff evaporate.
Now this, in essence, performs an erasure. Theoretically, you could take an engram which suddenly appeared with a preclear and by moving it—not by jumping it and making it reappear, see, that's a different process—by actually moving it, not moving the scenery up to it and around it and so forth; they'll do that one too. You've just got to pester a preclear to death to find out what he's doing with this technique. And don't just sit there benignly and let him go on and run it and fall on his face and do all sorts of weird things and then afterwards say, "Well, let's see, I guess that technique doesn't work."
No, your auditing didn't work, that's what happened there. That's because you just didn't keep asking him and hounding him all the time, and finding out exactly what he was doing. See, it's much better to give a preclear a completely harassed feeling of just being pestered to death than it is just to sit back and let him run benignly. ARC in a session—it has some desirability, has some desirability. But believe me, look at that C. And if you've got to sacrifice a little A and R to get a little bit better C, you do so—every time, do so.
Although it might be not polite for you to keep saying, "What the hell are you doing now?" and it will jar the affinity and so forth, it would be even better to go in on that level than just to sit there politely and let him fall all over himself and not make any progress in the session. I'm sure some of you must be doing this. I mean, you know, just, "It's not so polite to interrupt, and it's not quite polite to keep hounding somebody all the time, so we'll just kind of let that one coast, and we'll let the next one coast, and what we need is a friendly atmosphere."

SUMMARY: FAILURES ON EXTERIORIZATION
By the way, that's the most gorgeous formula of all, is "what we want is a friendly atmosphere." That leads to cat-and-dog fights all over the place. It is an implant. Part of the between-lives implant in this particular era at this time is "we want a friendly atmosphere." It's a head-on implant, you might say, it's around in front of the body. A large mass of energy accumulates there, and you move that one around and you'll get some weird results on your preclear. And you'll also better his ability to audit like mad. The trouble with an auditor who is doing poorly, he wants a "friendly" atmosphere before he wants a cleared one. And that's a big difference. All right.
Getting the postulate moved to the points where he can move it with certainty is, then, the job of the auditor. The preclear must be able to move. Now, how small a gradient, and how light a postulate? Well, I imagine you're going to have to find some that are pretty light and move them a very short distance indeed. Such as, you could take the postulate—you take—just take the postulate "fingers," you know, "there are fingers," and have him move that.
Have him move it where? Always behind him. You understand? Don't let that postulate get around in front. Move it behind him, and you might be able to move it from one corner of the back of the chair to the other corner of the back of the chair. See, he might be able to get that smoothly. He might only be able to get it one inch. Move it one inch with certainty, and move it back one inch with certainty. But remember, it's got to be moved all the way, and it's got to be there all the way, and so you just drill him on it until he's had it there all the way.
And you'll find him doing some of the darnedest things. After you've got him all straight, see, and he's doing it just right, you ask him three minutes later what he's doing, two minutes later . . . You think this is rather peculiar— you've just been running this postulate, and you've run this postulate for two or three minutes and it doesn't seem to have any letup on it. Just say he's just going on running it, and he's—same communication space, you know, that's one of the ways you tell. Fellow says, yes, he's done it. And then, "Yes." And after a while he's saying, "Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes." It's one of the ways you tell. Also, he might have stopped doing it at all, and he's merely asking—answering you, "Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes," to get rid of you. But the point is that he starts doing it more easily.
Now, you must—all of a sudden you've run this three minutes, no result— "Let me see here, see? What's going on here?" You say, "What are you doing? Now, move it into the basement. Now, did you do that? Now, how did you do it?" And you'll be amazed. The fellow was doing it perfectly correct just two or three minutes before, perfectly right, and now he has it under his arm as a football and is going down to the basement with it and is bringing it back up. Now and then he will be chasing it down to the basement by throwing rocks at it. Now and then you'll find that a little man has appeared—and this is a very handy mechanism—this little man runs from this point to the other point and runs back again, thinking it all the time. I don't give you these just to model it, but believe me!
And now you've got him—you're all content now. You've got this straightened out about he's taking it down to the basement, and he's taking it to the attic. And now you've just—"You've got to move it to the attic, and you're supposed to be right back of your head and move it to the attic, you see?" All right, he does that, he's perfectly content, so forth. And then you say, "All right. Now how did you make out with that?" after it's moved six or seven more times, you know.
And he says, "Oh, that's fine. I'm just doing fine with it now."
"Well, what are you doing with it? Hm?"

11

12

9 DECEMBER 1953
Just terrible that it creates such an atmosphere of suspicion, but try not to sound too suspicious. But this time—this time he has been able to get the whole thing straight. He's running it along a telephone wire, and the telephone company is moving it. Anybody is moving this postulate but himself.
Now, the rationale behind this—and you just get him back to putting it there and moving it. Now, he wants you to—he says, "Do I—am I supposed to cloak it in energy?"
And you say, "No, you're just supposed to put the postulate there."
"Well, what if there's some energy around it?"
"Well, okay, there's some energy around it. Don't pay any attention to the energy, just move the postulate."
Well, this will work out all right until "handle with energy" turns up. And sooner or later on some cases, you're going to have to handle the dunce cap itself, and you just move it around. Now, he's been moving things around with it, and then it became automatic and moved things around for him. So now you ask him to move it around again—that gives him control of it. But move it around. Don't have it skip, skip, skip. See that?
Now, the reason we take up and tell a thetan to "be here," and "be there," and "be someplace else," is this is actually the right way to go about it. But this should not blind you to the fact that a thetan should be able to move from one place to another. You ask somebody to be back of his head, be in his head, be back of his head, be in his head, now be back of his head, now move into his head. Arrrhh-hunh! He can't do it. This'll worry him.
Well, you ask him to be halfway, and then be in his head. Then be back of his head, now be a quarter of the way, be halfway, be three quarters of the way, be in your head. And you're getting the essential elements of motion. Motion is a consecutive appear and disappear, in infinitely small gradients. And if he can do it no other way, why, he can do it by those small gradients. But a thetan ought to be able to move from one end of the room to the other.
Now, he has handled things with postulates, and now postulates are beginning to handle him. And postulates handle him to such a degree that he has demon circuits and automaticities and all kinds of things that are undesirable. So it's of the essence that he handles postulates. He also should be able to handle energy and handle objects by making them move, because they have been moving him so much as a thetan, that he has become unable to move of his own accord. He has to be moved. So we just work this out in terms of making him move the things which move him.
Now, would we run this in brackets? That's not necessary. They didn't go into his bank in brackets, so they might as well come out under his own horsepower. Is this tough on him? You bet it is. The ideas of space went into his bank in brackets, but the idea of postulates, his own postulates, never went into his bank in brackets. No matter how often he tries to tell you they did, they just went in just one way—he said so.
Now, are these postulates in the past? They are only in the past when they accompany the postulate that there is a past. They are only timed when they accompany a postulate which assigns time to them.
Now, preclears who make consistent and continual errors about time may fall into two classifications: One, they've kicked out their automaticity about time, and the other is they've gone up a high enough Tone Scale that time starts to look silly to them. They just don't care about time, and dates and things like that seem to be very nonessential.

SUMMARY: FAILURES ON EXTERIORIZATION
Well, you'll find this will be the case at the moment you start kicking out the time labels—the postulate that one must have time labels on postulates. You'll make somebody feel like his whole bank is caving in to run the time labels on postulates—the idea that every postulate must have a time assigned to it. You just make him feel like his whole—everything is caving in on him. That's because he's tried to fix the postulates into energy.
But you find—he'll find out that this isn't quite as dangerous as he supposes. Particularly if you've made him handle a lot of energy before you get into that time postulate. And it's about the last one you'd kick out of anybody. And it is not in 8-C that you kick one out—that's 8-O. And that's the big difference. But I just want to give you that right now, that it's—these postulates are not timed, except as they say they're timed. Another postulate has to time the postulate. And you'll get various conditions occurring. So you should know what's happening with a time postulate. Supposing his whole track does cave in? Well, you just move a caved-in track around. Just get a caved-in track and move it around.
Now, if you're going right down the line with SOP 8-C on a preclear, and you yourself have no vast experience with it, you better handle it very much according to rote—because there are some hidden designs in it. And one of them is that perception is the last step—it's Step VII. It's not Step II, nor III, nor IV, nor V. Now, he's got to be looking at something. He just can't be getting the idea and staring into the blue space and that's that, when he makes mock-ups and things like that. But you're not forcing him to look at anything. You'd certainly better wait till Step VII—Reach and Withdraw, Contact with, Six Ways to Nothing and so forth, and the other techniques which fit in with VII— contact with this MEST universe, before you tell a thetan to look at the MEST universe very seriously.
Your failures in raising perception of individuals is because you don't orient a person before you start telling him to look. He's so scared he's going to be hit—that's the reason he can't see. If he can't see well, he's scared he's going to be hit. So you'd start—better remedy "fear of being hit" at V and VI before you go into handling (and that's "fear of being hit" and "invisible barriers"; they're both more or less the same thing) —you'd better handle that in V and VI, right there, before you start any long, protracted drills. And if the fellow can look at things and he's perfectly relaxed about looking at them, all right. But he's just looking at things. You're asking him to tell you several places where he isn't. That's a lot different than say, "Look at several places."
So, if we had another name for Step VII in SOP 8-C, it would be "perception"— which in essence is contact, which in essence is barrier. See, perception and barriers are synonymous. So you could call it "perceptions" or "barriers" or most anything. So don't ask somebody to look at something he obviously can't see and give him a big lose. Furthermore, don't give these people too many loses. Don't give people these terrific number of losses. Because that's all he's running on: wins and loses.
Now, I recommend to you, in running 8-C, the Chart of Attitudes in the Handbook for Preclears—top and bottom, negative and positive, you know—for use in handling postulates. And just take that Chart of Attitudes and handle the postulates.
Now, you know old repeater technique in Book One? The old psychoanalysts— why, I remember one down in Washington. These people who don't know are always sure that there's an awful lot of ways to know, and this boy was very, very indoctrinated in psychoanalysis. Oh, boy. And he finally told me, "You

13

14

9 DECEMBER 1953
know, you have something there that psychoanalysis can use." And I looked at this character.
In the first place, psychoanalysis—I was probably undoubtedly a better analyst than he was. He was a boot-eyed kid that didn't know a psycho from a horsefly. He was supertrained, he'd been in school about twelve years or something. And he had all kinds of knowledge and no experience, and he was going to tell me something about this. And I looked at him very amused. And he went on without noticing this quite sudden and intense regard for him.
He said, "That repeater technique," he said, "that's wonderful." He said, "I just took the Book One, and I started getting a patient to repeat things, and the second I got him back, all of a sudden he was right there in the incident." And he says, "His father was scolding his mother for not having changed the baby's diapers, and we went immediately into the problem of toilet training and handled the problem of toilet training at that moment," and so forth.
And I said, "And what happened to the patient?"
"Oh, he's—he was sick today. But that's all right. That doesn't make any . .."
This guy, a complete disconnect that a process and making somebody well had any connection, see? The goal of the process was lost to him. He didn't have any goals of his own. He didn't conceive that anything he was doing had any goals. You could imagine somebody being in the business of psychoanalyzing people who wasn't psychoanalyzing anybody to get them over any mental aberration or make them any more able, or to make them feel any better or anything else? Without the slightest inkling that any of the techniques of psychoanalysis or any other technique would even vaguely influence the health, well-being, or the family, or the status, or the society? Can you imagine somebody doing this? Well, you'd better imagine it because you're looking at psychoanalysts in general.
Repeater technique—we really had something. Well, I've sheered right on off of phrases and ideas and symbols from that moment on. I shunned them, talked them down, never said anything more about them. But it comes back to the point that the trouble with this society is that it has symbolized postulates in the form of language to a point where it is utterly overburdened with symbolization, till everything is a symbol, till everything has supersignificance.
Looking becomes condensed—when condensed, feeling. Feeling when condensed becomes effort. Effort when condensed becomes circuit-type thinking. Thinking when condensed becomes symbols and words. And there is the level at which the society is resting at this very minute—symbolized. The only solid things are symbols. Nothing else is good and solid, but symbols are.
So we get back to repeater technique. Repeating symbols over and over and over did not solve them because they were being more firmly fixed too often in one place, and because of the restimulative character of the automaticity known as the facsimile. Therefore, it required, in order to handle this problem—which is peculiar to Western civilization at this time, very peculiar; it's much more acute, by the way, in Eastern civilizations—is the technique of postulate position changing.
You will find, as the cases roll along, when you're trying to handle something very specific and very pertinent to the case, that if you will handle it on the basis—just on the basis that this case is stuck in symbols; if you just say that when you look at somebody, "This case is stuck in language, he's stuck in symbols, symbols are matter to him"—you will have a better clue to the case than any other one that I can give you. And the way to handle it is SOP 8-C in its entirety.
But the things that you can handle under V was anything that could have been attempted to be handled under repeater technique—anything. And any

SUMMARY: FAILURES ON EXTERIORIZATION
rationale which has been delivered in Dianetics or Scientology can be handled under Step V.
It all comes about the ability to impose and change the space between two terminals. And upon that, depends the power of the individual. And the power of the individual alone is going to set him free. Not his symbols, his power. And that power has nothing whatsoever to do with setting up a machine to give him power. It has to do with his native ability—which is very native—to create space, to create energy, and do the exact things which you are doing on SOP 8-C. And those things, when all added up, give him force and power. And when we get down to it finally, it's the power of knowing a postulate is going to stay where he put it.
Okay.

15



Examples of SOP 6-C Patter
A lecture given on 9 December 1953

Okay. This is the afternoon of December the 9th and we're going to take up some specific examples of patter on SOP 8-C.
In the process of running SOP 8-C, there are many things which you can do right. There are a few which you can do wrong.
In view of the fact that almost any preclear, when you first lay your hands on him is in a "I mustn't be hit," or inverted, "I must be hit" frame of mind— you see, "I mustn't be hit" or "I can be hit"—it is very easy to invalidate a preclear.
Now, let's get this one—just get this one down real good, let's get this down real good: Invalidation by words is the symbolical level of being struck. You got that?
Invalidation by words is the symbolical level of being struck. If a person is afraid of being hit, he is afraid of being (quote) "invalidated" (unquote). You see that? All right.
Now, let's take a look at inversion. You know, things—DEI—the desire, enforce, inhibit. You'll get things inverted. A fellow can run just so long on "I have to have something" until he gets into "I can't have it." Now, he'll run "I can't have it" just so long until it all of a sudden is a terrific desire. He's gone in— down to the lower one, you see?
Now, if he desires it, something is going to see to it that he enforced—that enforced havingness takes place. And as soon as enforced havingness takes place, he's going to be inhibited in having, and so he can't have it again. And after he can't have it on this lower inversion, then after a while he realizes, "I can't have that," he gets a terrific desire for it. He gets curious about why he can't have that, and so he gets a desire for it. As soon as he gets a desire for it, it gets enforced that he must have it, and then this is obsessive and he doesn't like that, so he decides that he better not have it, so he can't have it again.
All the time, he's getting down on a lower grade of "it"—whatever "it" is. In terms of sensation, it starts at the top with a complete serenity, and at the bottom winds up—goes through sexual sensation and winds up at the bottom on an utter, sort of a gooey degradedness. Sexual sensation too greatly condensed is a—is degradation. And force—any type of force of this character will give this symptom of degradation. All right.
Now, let's look at this inverting thing. We realize, then, that a preclear is in a body—being protected by the body after a while, so that he won't get hit. He gets the idea he's in there, he mustn't be hit. Well, that's the antithesis to perception, because in order to perceive, he has to be hit. He has to be hit by

17

18

9 DECEMBER 1953
the wavelengths of the things he's trying to perceive. So if he can't be hit, you see, he can't see. And this is elementary, my dear Watson.
The next point in the line is DEI, see? He mustn't be hit, he mustn't be hit—he's got to be! See? That's the next thing—he desires to be hit. So he sits around waiting for you to invalidate him.
You see how it goes on the postulate line? He says for a long time, "I mustn't be criticized. I mustn't be invalidated. I mustn't be criticized"—and he's got to be. One day he suddenly wakes up to the fact that that's "I must be hit."
And you'll find this preclear going slllrrpp! to every electronic they can lay their hands on. Bong! Bang! Somatics—they've got to have somatics, they've got to come in on them. They have to be insulted. They will work with you until you finally insult them in some way or another—because they'll call an insult, on this basis, invalidation, see?
Now, they get on a "I mustn't be invalidated; I m ," see? In other
words, "I mustn't be hit," is the force level of this. Now, the symbolical level is, "I mustn't be invalidated." And then that goes, eventually, into "I must be invalidated."
Now, there's what we'd call a motivator hunger. Now, when you surfeit a motivator hunger, you have satisfied an appetite which bumps them up one small gradient on the Tone Scale. And you'll find some preclears that you have going through this motivator hunger or overt hunger, and that's just this: "I must be hit" and so forth.
Now, it goes this way too: "I must hit. I must not hit." See, "I desire to hit," then "I have to hit," and then "I must not hit."
And some people will run this cycle in one fight. They'll—oh, often they'll slug somebody—crash, see? Boom! down somebody goes. And the next moment they're being very sympathetic about the whole thing. You get that? See, "I must not hit. I must protect now."
Now, a thetan early on the track ran this with bodies, very rapidly: "I'm— I've just got to knock them off," and then "Poor bodies." And he's run back and forth on this about bodies, and you'll find a preclear doing this under processing: "Bodies—oh, I don't want anything to do with bodies or the MEST universe. I don't want anything—I just want to get out of it, out of it, out of it." You know— he doesn't want anything to do with it. And then the next thing you know, what do you know—"Aw, bodies is just lovely. Oh, yeah. Wonderful. Wonderful."
Now you've bumped him up the Tone Scale, so you're running the DEI cycle backwards: "I can't have bodies," into "I must have a body," into "I want a body," again into "Oh, I can't have one,"—but milder, you see. And then, "Well, I'd better have one," to "Well, it's kind of nice to have a body," and then up we go a little bit higher on the thing and it—"Well, there are a lot of people that—sometimes I don't want a body and ... A lot of people, and they don't want bodies either and . . ."And he goes up a little higher and—"Yeah, I could have a body if I wanted one." You see? You're running the DEI cycle backwards, it's I-E-D up scale.
So that you'll find a preclear suffering consistently and continually from this invalidation trouble—invalidation and evaluation. Now, as we go down scale with a preclear, we find that evaluation becomes more and more harmful because it impinges upon his knowingness.
Invalidation is actually—goes straight up against motion, and knowingness goes into space, and above that, knowingness itself. You see?
So we've got the two things: We've got motion and impact under the heading

EXAMPLES OF SOP 8-C PATTER
of invalidation, and we have cut-down knowingness under the heading of evaluation. See, we've got these two categories sitting side by side.
Now, these two categories are in the symbolical level, too. So there's evaluation by telling a person what his words actually signify. This would be the same thing as cutting his knowingness down, because you're telling him here's something he doesn't know.
The only thing wrong with instructing in anything is that it informs people there are things they don't know. Well, there is a time when you have to tell anybody some sort of a scale of knowingness so that they can go back up grade.
And any class or unit under instruction in Scientology has to fight back up through this one, because they're being told that they don't know when they're being told techniques—when they're being told what these things are. But this is a fast route. And the only excuse for it is, is it's far less harmful to do this because it puts them on a route to being able to know for themselves. So the "what they don't know" turns into—in Scientological instruction— turns into "what you can know." And what I'm giving you is headed that way. It's what you can know—what you can do, what you can know.
But if we cut this down, on some preclears it comes under the heading— they hit pretty low, and it comes under the heading of evaluation. So that they shudder back from—sometimes an auditor will shudder back from being told a workable way to do something, simply because he's trying to protect his own knowingness.
And now, what's the remedy is—for that, is not to refrain from telling him how to do something, but to tell him how to do that which corrects the fact that he's shuddering back from being told something—see, his knowingness.
How does he im , how does he get out of the state of mind whereby he thinks
his knowingness is being cut down by learning how to know, see? How does he get out of that? That would be the way to handle that problem—in the same way, evaluation. We can cut right straight through the whole problem of invalidation same way as evaluation. We cut through the whole problem of invalidation now, very simply, by curing people of fear of being hit.
Now, people are actually afraid of being hit by words. You can take somebody who's terribly bad off, and you can make him utter a word and then reach out and catch it.
Now, you wouldn't think that this technique—that this technique would actually find anybody serious very long. You say, "Now say, 'Cat.' Now say— look at the word cat and say, 'Gee, that'll betray me,' and reach out and grab it and put it in your pocket. Hide it." You know I have seen somebody keep this up for an hour?
I just sat there wondering how long they'd go on with this. They just went right on, because it doesn't—if it doesn't point out what they're doing immediately, you see, why, it's just not going to. What they'd have to do is move the postulate around for a while until it stopped evaluating for them.
Now, the other thing your preclear doesn't know is the difference between a postulate and a word with meaning. There's a big difference. I could throw all of you people on your ear with this one. I'm going to try not to leave you utterly baffled till the end of time. This is a horrible thing to do to anybody.
A statement is a sing , a consecutive meaning in symbolic terms. See,
it's symbolized meaning. A postulate has nothing to do with meaning. A postulate has to do with straight command and determination by it, and it's not made— this is a horrible thing, but it's not made with symbols.

19

20

9 DECEMBER 1953
The place where people over in India go appetite over tin cup a lot of times is that their rituals are perfectly valid but they use them in words, with people who can use only words. So the things which they start stacking up as mecha-nisms and so forth, are word mechanisms—they're not postulate mechanisms. Now actually, you won't know what I'm talking about right there until you all of a sudden see a postulate, see.
Anytime you're moving an idea around, you're ordinarily not moving a postulate around, you're ordinarily moving a symbol around. But by that process, you eventually come out through the top and say, "What the hell am I doing with these symbols?" Of course, this is about the same time that the lightning will flash, as far as that's concerned. I mean it's pretty high.
But a postulate is above force. And a symbol is subject to force. The difference between a postulate and a symbol is position on the Tone Scale. We have to go up through force and be able to handle force before we really recognize a postulate for what a postulate is. Otherwise, it is all 100 percent meaning— significance. Whereas a postulate is a direct command.
You could make a preclear run a postulate out, but a postulate is not a feeling, it's not force, it's not a symbol—you might say it's an intention. And very high, it's an intention which will not be brooked. But that again brings about the idea of effort determination, see—heavy effort determination. Well, that isn't what a postulate is, either. "The mountains will now collapse," dealt with the most serene hand imaginable, would simply be in terms of a whole flock of mountains collapsing. See, it wouldn't be a big symbolized thing, it's just the fellow's self-determined intention that something happens, and it happens.
Now, a preclear can—becomes very frightened of this as long as he can't use and isn't accustomed to handling force. So, again, we have the problem of perception. Perception is a problem of force. He doesn't want to think of something for two reasons: One, if he thinks where he is, they'll know too. You know, he's afraid he'll let it out. He's afraid his mind will be read. Somebody can find him. He's been told this often enough. It's one of the biggest electronic tricks on the track, was to tell somebody that he had to think right thoughts— that he had to think thoughts which were properly protective to the state. And if he thought thoughts which were not properly protective to the state, he could be arrested and things done to him. And if he thought thoughts which were not properly protective, and which yak, yak, yak and so forth to the state, he would be located by the fact that he was thinking them.
So a person gets afraid to think for fear he will be located. And people who are difficult to locate are afraid of being located. And here we have a single problem in fear. So we handle it as a postulate "afraid to be located"—some version of that, symbolically placed and put. And we handle that around, and the fellow all of a sudden realizes it's nonsense, he can think a thought without being located up in the Psi Galaxy where they're still looking for him and have big posters all over the place, he thinks, and where they still have his records and— he's thought the wrong thought up there. Well, that's just another method of making a thetan wrong.
So very often your preclear will become very disturbed, and he's unaccount-ably disturbed. Well now, it'll lie in three spheres only: evaluation, invalidation and location. He's afraid to be located, he's afraid to be hit, and he's afraid to have his knowingness cut down. See, evaluation—he's afraid to have his knowingness cut down because that's less space, in his terminology. He's afraid to be hit, so he naturally is afraid of any symbol which goes counter to his motion. A

EXAMPLES OF SOP 8-C PATTER
symbol which is counter to his motion is very upsetting to him. And he is afraid he will be located—just that.
Now, basically, he was made afraid of his own power. He destroyed things which he desired to persist. Or he built a Frankenstein's monster—and this we call the "Frankenstein effect." The fellow is sure that if he builds something and gets it all beautifully created and it actually would walk and talk and do something or other, it'd go off down the street and while down the street would do something very destructive—but just before it did something destructive, he would say, "Stop!" and the thing won't stop.
Well, we've run immediately into "resist all effects." See, he built it to resist all effects; and then because he desired randomity, didn't put in "except his own." So he builds something to resist all effects; well then, pray tell, why is he upset that it resists all effects? Yet he is. Because it does a lot of effects which are elected as bad cause.
So in auditing an individual, one does deal immediately and intimately with these factors—continually deals with these factors of evaluation, invalidation and location. And he deals with another factor: automaticity. He has set himself up—the auditor—as an automatic machine which directs the preclear. Therefore, he's liable to throw into restimulation that machinery which the preclear has which sends him places. And almost any preclear's got a machine that sends him places.
So we run into a condition where the auditor says, "Are you here?" and points to something, and that puts the preclear there. It—the auditor isn't doing it— the auditor has triggered the machine which sends the preclear to any place the preclear thinks of. Well, the preclear's got that kind of a mechanism, so let's not overlook this.
You can ask a preclear only about four times, "Are you in the corner of the room?" or something like that, and if he's got one of these machines, he'll trigger. That's why we say "not." He hasn't got any machine that tells him where he's not. And that's why we stress "not" as a postulate.
Now, you can set up some preclear this way—you can say, "Are you on the desk? Are you in the chair? Are you here and there?" You're offering him places to be, which keys in the automatic machine that starts sending him places. Almost any preclear has one of these things.
What do you do with a machine? Well, it's—comes under the heading of Step IV—you waste it and so forth. Well, what if it just turns up up here in "by location"? Well, it won't turn up here in Step I if you ask him where he's not. And that's why you ask where he's not in Step I—so you don't key off this machine. He's got it, it's all set, ready to go.
Now, you could be defined as people learning how to use and handle a life unit. And a life unit, at this stage of Scientology, as advanced as we are, could be characterized like a watch. And you could actually put it down in terms of learning how to keep a watch running. But you don't have to be able to build a watch to keep a watch running or repair it.
But the main difference is, the potentialities of the preclear are so enormous that this fact overshadows many other factors in your working with him. You say, "Gee, he is capable of so much." Well, in SOP 8-C, we're telling you how much of him has to be handled. You get that? That's how much of him has to be handled, that's all. And to this degree, he is like a watch. And you, to some degree, are like—if you're doing something for thetans, you're doing something like watch repairing. I mean, it's very predictable, the facts that are going be wrong in this case. And they're not going to be something horrible and huge

21

22

9 DECEMBER 1953
and unimagined that hasn't ever been encountered before. You'll never run into it, I guarantee it. You just won't ever run into it.
You can run into a very imaginative thetan. But unfortunately in this universe, for the purposes of auditing, his imagination, when he tries to throw you for a loop with his imagination, will boil down to these seven steps. Why? Because this is modus operandi of a thetan in the MEST universe. And the MEST universe has got him pretty tame. And there's only certain factors there that the MEST universe is leaning against him on.
So you don't have to handle all this vast array of potentiality that an individual has—his enormous talents, imagination and so forth. Mostly because they can't be effective in this universe.
You're only trying to free him up to a point where he can recognize that he can have freedom. And after that, all the freedom he gets will be given to him by himself. But you get him up to a security where he knows he can have freedom, and he's on his own. I mean, you can't go any further with a thetan.
Now, his individuality sets in, actually, way above the level when you suppose it does. The stimulus-response mechanisms of the body, and of the thetan himself, are very predictable. I mean, you're working with a predictable organism: duplication, creation, survival, destruction, eight dynamics, automaticity, location in the MEST universe, creation of space, handling of postulates, his fight with barriers—being able to go through them and not go through them—and you've just about said it, right there. I mean, this is all you're handling.
What we've done here is take this enormous problem—this problem that was bigger than universes, and it just had so much data in it—and we keep boiling the data down and throwing out the irrelevance.
There's nothing irrelevant in SOP 8-C. The only thing that isn't remarked on the brief form for student use which is issued at this time, is "acceptance level"—processing acceptance level. And acceptance level, of course, should come in down there under perception—and doesn't quite belong, but does belong, in Step VII. Acceptance level: an acceptable state of blindness, an acceptable state of illness, so on, this is—an acceptable state of being afraid.
During World War II, all the young officers had an acceptable state of being afraid. Older officers who weren't this indoctrinated and didn't see you had to have an acceptable rate of being afraid, or officers who actually were officers instead of college boys in cute clothes, they were utterly—I mean, they'd almost vomit listening to these young fellows. These kids would stand around and they'd say how they ducked, and how they got out of this, and how they got out of that, and how scared they would be if they'd been in that fight, and the—boy, were they big—running big agreement on fear.
And you, of course, would assume immediately that young officers and groups—young men at the age when young men are athletic and adventurous and so forth, you'd assume that these people were, you know, just kidding. Well, they might have just been kidding at first, but they weren't as the war went on.
A lot of them did very many brave and heroic things—they got startled out of, by an acceptance level—startled out of acceptance level into necessity level, in many places. And very fortunately, not all the young fellows were like that—very far from it. But they actually had themselves talked into it, so that about two years, three years deep into the war, these boys were green around the gills at the thought of danger. They couldn't tolerate the thought of danger.
I used to heckle this sort of thing. Very—it was very wicked of me, I know, but—something like sound a GQ in officers quarters only, and fire a flock of

EXAMPLES OF SOP 8-C PATTER
blanks out of the Victory model star-gun. It was very effective, it got them out of—eventually broke their fear neurosis on coming up to the bridge. I did start doing things like that after I found out that they couldn't find their general quarters stations till a half an hour after the alarm was over. Credible? Oh, yes, that's very credible.
One fellow really got green. He went down the ladder and decided he would hide in the magazine, and then found out it was his own magazine— he should have known better than that—and the shells were rolling around loosely in it. It was upsetting to him.
After a few things like this happened, we took the only type of processing there was, which was just experience. You know, I mean it's all you could do to some fellow, was experience. Made enough uproar around till we conditioned them.
I think the US Army was doing something of conditioning at the end of the war, but they never got the idea—mostly because the officers in charge of the organizations never would have credited this new level of agreement on "Let's all be scared. Now, that's the way to be acceptable to everybody and the troops and everybody, is just be scared stiff all the time, you see, and say, 'Gee, I'm not brave. I—I wouldn't know what to do if I had to do something and, gee, I was way back of the lines when that happened,'" and patter, patter, patter, patter, patter. See, and it just gradually eats in, eats in, eats in.
You run across a preclear almost anywhere, anytime, he has had certain patterns of agreement on fear. Now, you don't have to know. I'm just giving you an example of how big it can be and how little of it you have to handle. Now, you see, there's a big subject: the war and morale and cowardice and agreement and what would thetans do under that circumstance? Well, you don't have to be able to predict their behavior. Because almost anybody has been in some kind of a situation back up on the track where it was fashionable to be frightened.
In Greece—the days when Greece was really caved in, it had become very fashionable to be very effeminate about everything. "War, well. . ." and one dusted his fingertips daintily with a silk lace handkerchief and put a perfumed apple to his nose and said, "Hm-hm." That was in the days when they'd send over one squad of legionnaires from the tenth cohort of Rome or something, to take garrison at the northern end of Greece and all would remain calm throughout Greece. Greece was a slave at that time.
So fear, in its exhibition and agreement upon what one should be afraid of, is an index to the degree of hypnosis under which your preclear is laboring. Why hypnosis? Well, that must be an agreement on fear, hm? So a deep agreement on any subject is a hypnosis. So he's just hypnotized into believing he's afraid. He doesn't start out as being afraid, you see. He just gets into agreement with everybody, and then he finally agrees that this is the thing to do—start making postulates about being afraid. Well, he's run through society after society after society on the whole track doing this.
Anybody who has formerly been in space opera has finally agreed that it was dangerous and upsetting to hit a meteorite flight with a ship at two light-years per second or something. Anybody—almost anybody has agreed, finally, that this is not an optimum experience, and one should be afraid that it will happen.
Well, what do you know, they didn't start the track early like that—they just reported back to base and got a new ship and body. And said, "What do you know, we were up there on Run 68 and shot full of holes. Why don't you sweep that area up? Where's my body? Oh, a Mark-8 body, okay. I see they've improved the wristlets." That's about as emotional as it was.

23

24

9 DECEMBER 1953
And then after a while, I suppose somebody started a college or some place, and they got scared all over again, and it got fashionable. And then one day, they said, "Gee, I wouldn't like to go on that run because, gee, I might get on Run 68 and there might be a dust speck there that might dent the windshield, you know? So we won't go in for space opera anymore. Where's a nice, safe planet?" Because—see, it's agreements on fear.
Well, if you get a preclear sitting in a chair or being in the center of the room exteriorized, and have him put into the six walls of the room fear, you've got, in essence, an agreement on fear. He has certain banks of fear and certain postulates about what he should be afraid of. In other words, what is sensible. "What to be afraid of" and "what is sensible" are synonymous remarks, you know. And he sits in the center of the room and puts some fear into the wall. Well, you have in essence a double-terminal agreement, see that? So you're running it out. So you make it possible for him to agree on any god's quantity of fear, because what he's basically afraid of is the emotion known as fear.
I don't know if anybody here might have ever had the experience of actually becoming terrified—I mean, really terrified. That's a bad experience. I can assure you he's had it someplace on the track, but in this lifetime I don't know if he might have had this. Because it's a sort of uncontrollable proposition. But what one has started to fight, you see, and resist—one thinks one might be afraid of something and then he starts to resist it and then he resists it harder, and it resists him and he resists it, and all of a sudden he hits—bang! and he blows up a great big piece of fear someplace, you know? He's just got lots of it. And it's overwhelming, fed to him in this much dosage, in this space of time. And it might be set off by a shell, and oddly enough, maybe two or three years after the war, it might be set off by an automobile backfiring in the street— fellow goes into terror. And that is grim stuff! I mean, he goes out of control.
And when he's had one of these experiences and you, as an auditor, are auditing him and you don't know about this experience—oh no. No, that—you're just not going to get anyplace with this case. Not unless you start specializing on fear, one way or the other. You can just start straight out and start specializing on fear, but then you've got that already, it's down here as one of these steps. So we've cut down the tremendous unknownness of his experience and everything down to a rather pat step.
But mind you, if you're dealing with a current lifetime, you're dealing with a dual fear: the GE and he were scared at the same time. So this puts fright solidly on the track in one chunk.
Very often, by the way, a person has been—spent part of his life terrified or scared or very upset about something, and has gotten over it; and will tell you, every once in a while—it's very customary for him to tell you that well, he's all over that, he doesn't have that anymore. Uh-huh. Tsk! That's not true. He has conquered it by suppressing it. And you're trying to set him free, and he's trying to suppress something. So the harder you try to set him free, the harder he's going to recognize that you're this fear charge which is going to— he has to suppress, so he starts suppressing you and suppressing the auditing and so forth.
But again, we're dealing with a central emotion there—fear, terror. It's better to just locate it and be real smart about it and locate it right straight off and handle it and let that go to that, see—with an E-Meter. That's the best way to do it, cuts short the auditing. Or just start handling it and putting it in the walls, that's all. You just recognize your case is not making progress after you've run the first three steps, and you've run them rather rapidly and he

EXAMPLES OF SOP 8-C PATTER
just doesn't show any signs of shaking out of it, you can—you could just say, "Well, to hell with it, put 'fear' in the bulkhead."
Well, he right away is—be kind of upset with you, maybe, at the idea that you've suddenly saddled him with having been afraid of something. Well, I would like to see the thetan on the whole track that had never been scared this way, because he's gone in through consecutive agreements with fright.
Now, you could know all about all the societies he's gone through, but all we're interested—in any society he's gone through, is contained on these two pieces of paper—SOP 8-C. That's the only mechanisms we're interested in. We're not interested in the other mechanisms he's gone through.
But he feels—he is frightened of something, and if you just dig it up and handle it, and fear on that particular subject as postulates and so forth, you'll make lots of space. But there's where judgment comes in, in using these two pages, and that's about the only place it comes in. You have to know what you're doing.
The point is that the human mind is a servomechanism to all mathematics. So the human mind is a servomechanism to all mathematical or symbolical communications systems. Western Union is a symbolical communications system, if you want to know precisely what I mean by a communications system.
A conversation down on the corner depends upon a specific and direct and very, very critically pinpointed communications system between two people. There's one thetan who is using certain apparatus in order to force air in certain directions across certain tensions which makes air vibrate in a certain way against somebody else's—other thetan's eardrums. The information is taken there, is rerationalized, is put into the vocal cords of the second thetan, and they set the air in vibration which goes into the ears of the first thetan, and that's a relay system—and it's a real complex system.
But a thetan gets sold on one of these communications systems and he wants to make it rigid. And that's another thing you might run into that's slightly outside our sphere of interest. But he runs into one of these communications systems— it's so lovely, it's so pat, it's so good—and he'll set it up as a system. He sets it up as something to do, rather than something which will do something.
So you can audit somebody after a while with a specific system that has no surprises in it, and he'll pattern it as a system. And after that you audit what he's audited as a patterned system. You've audited what he's set up as a patterned system, after you've audited him too long.
And the way to really wreck him and upset him endlessly in doing this and throw it out the window, is simply to audit communication directly. We notice this auditing has gotten down to a long grind with some preclear, he's not making any progress, he's just going through the motions. We can assume that he has set up some kind of a communications system on the subject. And if he is being audited patly, over a pat thing like SOP 8-C, why, he's too willing to set up a communications system. What he's unwilling to face is the effort of communication.
Well, why won't he face it? It's because, we go right straight back—see how nice these factors work out?—we go right straight back to invalidation.
Well, why do we go back to invalidation? Because a communications system has to do with the motion of particles through definite relay points. And this means that the individual is afraid of being hit. So he doesn't go near the relay points, he stays on the line. And therefore he's afraid of being hit. So you just handle it as "afraid of being hit" or "must hit" or "must be hit," see? Or "mustn't be hit." Just "afraid of being hit"; and we're back again to fear.

25

26

9 DECEMBER 1953
He's not dangerous to the communications system, the communications system is dangerous to him. So he just sets it up as a system as soon as he can, and then steps off the lines—gets off the lines and skips it. See that? And so after that, you're auditing something or other.
Now, anybody who set—who will self-audit. . . This is something an E-Meter will tell you faster than the preclear—anybody who self-audits rather consistently and continually, runs a liability of simply setting it up as a circuit. He just sets up a communications system on the subject of auditing. And anybody who is audited long and arduously and monotonously, will set up a communi-cations system which in the—eventually, will start to audit him. See, he just sets up a circuit. Then the second the auditor's gone, that circuit is still there.
Well, communications get scarce, and they are the most intimate form of havingness and not-havingness. People don't want communications or they want communications or they must inhibit communications—DEI.
What is a communication? A communication is a meaningful particle. And we go into, immediately, the fact that they are symbolical postulates. So we handle a lot of symbolical postulates and we will stop this self-auditing. That breaks down that easily.
There's an enormous number of things that get cared for without your worrying about them too much. You can care for the preclear—you can care for the effects which have accrued over a thousand different civilizations on one individual. You can just care for it, that's all. You have the technologies to do so.
And there's this enormous randomity—how many things he could do, how many things he could be capable of. There's only a few of them in which we're interested. And they go back again to evaluation, invalidation and location in general, and that's all they go to. And when they simmer down to those, well, it just makes good sense and they sail along.
Invalidation—that's arrival of particles. He doesn't want to be cause, that means he doesn't want to despatch particles. So that's "not starting particles." And he doesn't want to be effect, well, that's "not arriving particles." Well, he'll symbolize this in hundreds of ways—he's just not arriving. You tell him to put something out on something, he doesn't arrive. You have to ask him sharply a few times, if he—if you've got any doubt about his case, he isn't arriving. That's the main thing that's wrong with his case. He's just not getting there. And there are many ways to make him do that, but they're all right here. Tell him to be close to it for a while, and then tell him to be closer to it, and finally let him arrive at it.
Another thing, the—a communication has to start and it has to arrive. And you're essentially dealing with a communications system when you're dealing with a preclear—postulates, symbols and aberrations. So the study of the communications system brings us right around, however, to these seven steps again, and we've still got the factors which we need to have to handle the communications system.
Now, when we say a fellow is not there by location—you know, "where is he not, where is he not, where is he not," why, he'll be happily "not" lots of places, see? That's what he's happiest about. And it'll finally pin him down so he is someplace, but it isn't up to the auditor to put him anyplace. Because if he announces where he is, then he has arrived. So we're up against the fellow who can't arrive, and the fellow who mustn't depart.
Now, the reason people mustn't depart is they have to know before they go. And the reason they can't arrive is the MEST universe cycle is that people who are at the point of arrival of a communication line are hit by a particle.

EXAMPLES OF SOP 8-C PATTER
You wonder what—what's happened to this man's perception? What's happened to this preclear's perception—how can it be so far out? Well, he just never bothers to be at the point where it's being received. He'd just rather set up something else.
So we have people using all sorts of shifty methods of not being at the point where the particles are arriving. They use what you might call a remote viewpoint system. And remote viewpoints are put around and they catch the particles incoming. Therefore, the person's vision is pretty poor—pretty poor. And what they look at is not always what they are looking at, because they'd just as soon be discharged at by a facsimile as by a MEST wall. I mean, they're both very dischargeable things—MEST walls, everybody knows, continually shoot people. Now, you'd think so, the way people dodge off of them.
So when you have a communication difficulty, a perception difficulty, you're right back here on barriers. But remember that the thetan considers himself a barrier, if the thetan has to have barriers. The thetan himself cannot be hit. But if he thinks in terms of barriers all the time, he thinks of himself as a barrier.
He wants to stop other people's attention—you know, he wants to get it himself—therefore, to put up something to catch it. He won't let it go on through, and then he gets afraid of it after a while, because he's put up too many things. Using a body as a bulletproof vest is not successful—doesn't work well.
So as we go through this and look at various parts of this, we discover that perception comes under the heading—perception is as good as a person isn't afraid of being invalidated. A person is afraid of being invalidated just as much as they're scared of being hit by particles, or afraid they'll hit particles, of course. Well, the main puzzler on that line is invisible barriers.
Now, we've got invisible barriers in Step IV and, of course, invisible barriers belongs, very definitely, in Step VII. I notice that it's not written in Step VII. You ought to make a no—a motion of it there. Invisible barriers are far more important to some preclears than others.
Now, I have a preclear who will sit there, and he can run a mock-up with his eyes open, but he can't run a mock-up with his eyes shut. In other words, he's got to look at a mock-up through an invisible barrier. He must be reassured that he has an invisible barrier up before he dares put a piece of energy up.
You'll find other preclears that will sit and look out the window. The invisible barrier has such magnetic attraction for them that they can do nothing but face an invisible barrier.
The air screen of Earth is an invisible barrier. It's nice. It's a cushiony invisible barrier.
If you've ever been up on the moon, you know that about thirty thousand meteors a day hit the moon. Boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom! Crash-crash-crash-crash-crash! It's very, very "meteoratorous" in outer space—very. And if you object to being hit, why, there's no sense in you standing someplace between here and the Sun, because—well, you occasionally see them at night when they come in and hit the outer atmosphere and come in far enough.
They—Earth is a very, very thoughtful—boy, the modus operandi, the way that some of these planets are set up to operate. Some are more tricky than others. Earth is just wonderful. I mean it's got this big screen and that filters the heat of the sun very nicely and—of course, radio engineers think it's put up there exclusively to turn their radio waves back, but it's not true. It was set up there originally to catch meteors. And the meteors come in and

27

28

9 DECEMBER 1953
they burn up before they hit. Because just—many more meteors would hit Earth than are currently hitting the moon if you didn't have an air screen.
So you have this terrific invisible barrier on which you're utterly dependent. Nobody ever pays any attention to it, then somebody comes along and wonders why he has asthma. Do you see that? Air! Air! And the body's got to have a big reason for everything—terrific reason, you know—so they have to breathe the air, and that gives them energy. Or does it? See, I mean there's a big reason— but the point is that air is an invisible and necessary barrier.
Now, we get sound being very aberrative to people—terrifically aberrative. And sound goes through space and hits and—objects. It's the motion of an air particle—bap-bap-bap-bap-bap-bap-bap-bap—that's all sound is. It's motion of an air particle going rappity-rap-rap-rap-rap-rap on somebody's body. You can get a concussion off of sound.
The reason preclears get scared of sound is very amusing. Very early on the track, the only time they ever heard a sound was when it was contained in an electronic blast. It took particles in the electronic blast to convey to them the sound wave. Otherwise, everything was completely silent—the silence of a vacuum. And then somebody would set off one of these big electronic blasts (which is only possible in vacuums—big enough, with that little current) and, of course, when they'd be hit by the electronic blast, they would get a sound. So Earth here kind of backfires, you see—it restimulates electronic blasts on the track.
You don't have to worry about that though, because you start turning on perceptions, and as you cure a person's fear of being hit, you cure his fear of sound. See, it's bap-bap-bap-bap-bap—the invisible barrier, the invisible vibration.
Now, you could have a person move a sound around, by the way—if you can make him get any kind of a sound, no matter how light or how imaginary or anything else, and make him move it around positively and make it arrive in various places, you'll turn on his sonic. Because sound always has moved him around—he's never moved sound around very much.
Big competition in the MEST universe on the subject of sound. You go out here and you listen to these diesel trucks and you listen to ferryboat whistles and all this sort of thing—yeah, that's big sound. And then you go out and you decide you're going to yell that loud when you're a kid. And you don't.
And you go around and you say, "Well, why can't I have a siren on my bicycle?" You go down and maybe you find one, maybe you buy one.
Well, the police are more aberrated than you are, and they are very conscious of the fact that nobody must get into competition with them. Probably the only way to get into trouble in a police state is to imitate the government or the police. That's the only way to really get into trouble when justice begins to deteriorate. In other words, collect taxes or extort money—and if you do either of these two things, you're in real trouble with the cops.
Furthermore, you mustn't use any force against somebody—that's strictly police prerogative. So competition is what they're most afraid of. Well, actually, that's what a thetan is terribly afraid of—he's afraid of competition and superiority like mad.
Now, he'd love to stay in one place if he could. But he can't, because the place would get too bombarded. That's true too, by the way—I mean, if you stayed in one place consistently, being hit by every wave that came in and receiving every wave that came in and letting no waves go through, you would soon have considerable mass.

EXAMPLES OF SOP 8-C PATTER
Well, you see what an awful lot of data there is here? You getting kind of snowed under? Huh? There could just be thousands and thousands and thousands of reasons why, couldn't there?
Well, we've boiled it all down—this tremendously complicated object known as the thetan, we've boiled him all down to certain definite things that he must be able to do. When he can't do them, we remedy the fact that he can't do them and make it possible for him to do them. And then after we've done that, why, the rest of it works out of its own accord. That's what it amounts to.
So we make it possible for him to do things. These are the things—these seven steps—that you'll ordinarily not find him being able to do. One or the other of them will be poor. Well, you improve these abilities and you've got a good guy, got a good girl, on your hands. This follows. This has been following through now for a year—this refined 8-C which you see here is after a lot of study of an awful lot of people working on something. It isn't introduction of a lot of new material—it's new organization.
Organization isn't terribly important to a thetan, but it's terribly important in a modus operandi. It's harder to organize data than to originate it, any day in the week. Because organization is the thing people agree with—they don't agree with the postulates, they agree with the way the postulates are organized. Hence, you have symbols being so heavy.
Now, taking up here all of these things—your own patter, conversation with regard to them, then, should minimize reaching for significances, trying to find out something that lies beyond the something. You know, the invisible barrier is something you look beyond—that's into the future and so forth. Looking beyond is looking for significance. The physical action of trying to find deep significance is looking beyond an invisible barrier. I mean, they're synonymous.
Therefore, you cut your patter down to a point where you're dealing with just this material on these two sheets, and trying to find out what he isn't doing and what he is doing and making it possible for him to do it. The thinkingness and knowingness and lookingness which you apply, then, is consistently—should be delivered toward—relocating, reestablishing for the preclear his ability to do these things.
The only thing that'll interrupt you in this—if you yourself are being hit by one of these dunce caps which has inverted, which has got to fail. If you've got to fail, why, you're just being hit by this fact—you've gone into too many heads, and you're carrying too many coils of stuff.
Now, it isn't that you—there aren't lots of things that you could know with profit. Believe me, you can always know something with profit. But I'm— by snowing you under here with lots of data, see, and lots of stuff. . . I just love to give you a good, broad view, and maybe many of you right now think you're looking at this big, broad view of all of a thetan's adventures and potentialities and what he can do, and that you have to know about all this, and "Gee-whiz, gee-whiz, my gosh!" No sir. It's just these things that's important, and whatever adventures he's ever had, it's just these importances, one after the other, that— which we comb through, and we find out that if we remedy these importances as we go through, your individual is able then to function much, much better. And he can function, because this is generally what's wrong with him that has to be right with him.
Now, when you discover something he can't do—yes, it has a significance for you. It means you've hit a step which has got to be gone over. You'll probably have to go over it with a gradient scale. And there's where your side knowledge comes in. You don't make him lose all the time, you make him win.

29

30

9 DECEMBER 1953
So you keep your patter real simple. You ask him to do real simple things. You don't have to ask him to do anything complicated. If your imagination suddenly dictates that you should do something complicated, always ask yourself, "Is this too much for the thetan that we're trying to do it to?" Because if we give him something that's terribly complex and he gets lost, that's wrong.
There's another one to remember, is don't give him two things to do before he's executed one. That's always a good one. You give him one thing to do and when he has done that, give him the next thing to do. You might know the next thing for him to do a long time before he does. But if you give him two consecutive things to do, or three consecutive things to do, one right after the other, it's kind of poor—and if they're contradictory, it is murder. He isn't tracking with you. In other words, you've gone out of communication with him, which is going out of agreement with him.
No matter how many factors have been gone through in all of this material here in the last twenty-five years that I have handled, has always gone through a boil-down of this material. And where the material which you're holding right in your hands ran through rather cleanly, any piece of information, the information would hold good and would work. Getting rid of information on the subject itself was more important.
Now, this is actually an action—this is a piece of doingness, this 8-C. It's action. And you'll find out, oddly enough, that 8-C will handle anything that's been proposed here in the last three years in the public eye. It will. It'll handle anything in these. And just for your own edification, you ought to go back and get ahold of a copy or take your old copy and—we can get it now, by the way— Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Shortly should have or we have now, Science of Survival. Very interesting. Proposes an awful lot of things— 8-C handles them.
Take What to Audit—very interesting book. There's a lot of preclears, by the way—a lot of preclears have startled very nonbelieving auditors into What to Audit fans. These auditors have become What to Audit fans after they have seen somebody in the Tumbler—somebody in one of these engrams or other, they've seen them. And they didn't have to look very hard to see them, either.
You take old Fac One; that's the most vicious of them all even yet. You find more people caved in with Fac One. It's kind of a relief to a preclear after he's been in a Fac One, and has had some kind of a compulsion toward cameras that he couldn't do anything about—you see, he didn't dare really take a picture, he just had a camera—to be out of Fac One and interested in photography and taking pictures. It's a lot of fun taking pictures, but it is no fun to be in Fac One taking pictures.
And there's all sorts of bric-a-brac around in terms of information there in What to Audit which is fascinating indeed, and explains many of the things which you possibly see in a preclear.
We look at 8-80—old 8-80 is good material. It's better material at this moment than it was when it was written.
And we look over 16-G, that becomes very important.
Most of the Doctorate material—it is in Scientology 8-8008. We have that now in a printed edition. But Scientology 8-8008 contains background theory for most of this stuff and it contains the background theory of the Doctorate Course.
Well, that's a tremendous amount of data, isn't it? It's really true that a person feels he should go over it just so that he can take a look at it. And he should if he's going to know his preclear well, and know a lot of other things.

EXAMPLES OF SOP 8-C PATTER
Because there is a lot of high adventure in it; it isn't a lot of things wrong. It really opens the door to what you can do.
But it's important for you right now—important for you right now to recognize that an apt, brief, in-good-communication use of just this, SOP 8-C and these steps, remedy anything that has been mentioned for three years, and remedy it better and faster than any earlier technique, used in this order.
Now I've gone and gotten you all upset on a couple of loads of data, and I hope at the same time I have given you a bit more confidence. You don't have to know all that. It's darned interesting. What you have to know, and know how to do, is 8-C. And you'll get results if you do it.
The only bad results I have found and had reported in this unit, have been from actually flagrant breaches of 8-C—very flagrant. They're just wild—I mean nobody could do this.
Okay.

31



Knowingness
A lecture given on 10 December 1953

Okay, this is December the 10th, morning lecture. This morning, I'm going to hit very briefly at very, very definite fundamentals again.
The fundamentals involved here which most intimately concern you I just mentioned before the lecture—that is to say, knowingness. People will not-know in order to keep others from knowing. This is also "to be betrayed, so that others will be shamed by having betrayed." This is a reverse vengeance. People keep others from knowing, actually, in order to enslave others and then they eventually—eventually, themselves, believe that they cease to know. And that, brutally and horribly enough, is the history of any person in this room. He has kept others from knowing.
Now, there are many ways to keep other people from knowing. The main way is to tell them that they know wrongly. It will strike some people under training that the material being handed out is an indictment of their own knowingness and is—puts them in a secondary position because they have to be told something about knowingness. But remember, when you talk about knowingness itself, you are not evaluating. You're trying to point out a road toward knowing. Knowingness in terms of things and combination of things is obtained by observation. Knowingness in the individual is native.
The first step, actually, into action and randomity, is a step toward not-knowingness. A person has to say he doesn't know in order to have space. He just has to. Otherwise, he has no randomity whatsoever. The space is not his space.
He has to not-know in order to be surprised, in order to obtain any sensation. And this is all very well at that echelon, but as soon as it starts to move into a lower echelon, individuals begin to obscure even knowingness by observation. And it begins to be past time in every other locale than where the person is and when he is. And it begins to be past tense, so that the only present time is where the individual is, and the only data he has is past time when he was at some other place. This is a direct inability to observe.
Above observation, of course, is simply knowingness. It is possible for you to know the answer to a very complex mathematical problem simply by knowing, not by working the problem in terms of some system of mathematics.
Now let's take up another portion of this. We have in knowingness what may be called, at the same time, certainty. Certainty and knowingness are themselves synonymous. It's the same phenomenon. It's—self-confidence adds in there. People have many names for it because there are many facets to knowingness

33

34

10 DECEMBER 1953
and they've never recognized too well that this knowingness was merely composed of several facets, and was these facets.
Now, the route which we follow here is a road toward knowingness— knowingness of oneself and knowingness on all the dynamics.
People have weird ideas concerning what knowledge will do. Knowledge is dangerous; that is the one message which is handed down from generation to generation.
For about fifteen hundred years, there was the most active and agreed-upon effort here on Earth to keep everyone in complete ignorance. Ignorance was the byword. And as a result, this culture has inherited a vast tradition about the dangerousness of knowledge.
We think of the dangerousness of knowledge in terms of the atom bomb. The dangerousness of knowledge in terms of the atom bomb is the failure on the part of the atomic scientist—with whom I was educated, God blast him— to recognize his own brotherhood with and responsibility for his fellow man.
A person who, for any reason or cause, would suborn his own talents and researches solely to destroy for the benefit of political advantage is beneath contempt. Because he destroys more than he can ever rebuild. And the only reason he will destroy is his failure to recognize his brotherhood with the universe. That is his first big downfall.
Oddly enough, these people pay for this in various ways. It's a singular thing that the overt act-motivator sequence is only effective when one chooses out for randomity his own salvation.
I am often asked why I do not immediately jump on a white horse and go charging down the line to butcher and slit the throat of somebody who has done something to Scientology. I'm very often asked this. Matter of fact, I had an office one time down in Arizona which was going strictly mad-dog on the subject until I suddenly and sharply cut off its outflow of entheta communication concerning an organization which had cost Dianetics and Scientology a great deal both in dignity, in finance, research and materiel. They were flabbergasted. They said, "Why shouldn't you take vengeance on these people?"
And I said, "They've taken vengeance on themselves."
Now, that sounds sweeter than light and all that sort of thing, but it happens to be the horrible truth. It isn't that that person who touches me touches death— no, no. No, that's a very childish way of looking at such a thing. What would you think would happen to somebody who chose an effort—an effort toward knowl-edge, which was really a main line effort toward knowledge—as his randomity? What would happen to him? What would happen to a person who chose the best methodology with which he was ever acquainted (just aside from the point it works or not)—the best methodology with which he was acquainted— for his randomity? Made it other than himself.
What would you think of a person who took sanity and orderliness for his randomity? Now, you know enough about background theory to know that this would be a horrible thing. And so it has been. It is uniformly a horrible thing. People make allies out of this universe very easily, if they're fairly well up the line. This universe will do more horrible things to people in less time—that can be undone easily by a lot of auditors. It's—can get pretty vicious.
And individuals who choose out various things in the society for the sake of their war, or for a war, of course have to immediately push back against anything connected with the other side, and they will eventually succumb to it—eventually. But they will succumb to it. They won't come into possession of it.

KNOWINGNESS
Now, this is not a very happy outlook for man or for Earth. But why one should add punishment, why one should add vengeance to an already over-burdened scene is a little bit more than I at once would be prepared to answer. It isn't that one is unwilling to answer for vengeance, it's just that—well, you look at a glass full of water and I don't think anybody has an impulse to pour more water in it. This is a love-hate universe, and the amount of hate which is generated daily is more than adequate to balance the books.
One goes on the idea that unless one immediately acts to prevent this action or that action, or immediately acts to defend himself wildly and so forth—one is sold this idea by this universe—then one is to some degree doomed.
No, I'm afraid one is doomed at the moment he begins to choose out things for vengeance, because he's immediately resisting them. The way to handle a pickpocket is to be around in back of the pickpocket and have him put his gun in his pocket and go away. But you have to be willing to be the pickpocket for a moment in order to do that. You have to have a little bit broader view than "I am just me and it's only present time here."
Now, completely aside from that rather formidable subject, we have been educated into justice in such a way as to believe that one must have, make or create justice. This is weird. Because men slaughter themselves. Because you aren't right there on the scene, you may not think somebody is caving in because of his own actions, because of his own vengeances and so forth. Well, that is a cut-down knowingness, you see, and it's one's anxiety about this that causes one to press in on the scene and try to create more furor.
It isn't that one shouldn't punish—this is beside the point, too. It's just that one who dedicates himself to punishment and vengeance dedicates himself to a resistance to evil, and if he resists evil hard enough, he'll become it. And this is just inevitable. If he goes into a consideration that this is evil and that is evil, and this is good and that is good and so on, and makes these adjudications the sole method of arbitrating his own existence, then he comes out, in the final run, the loser. He loses because he has narrowed and fixed ideas, more than anything else. He's fixed ideas and said, "This idea is that person's idea; this idea is somebody else's idea."
Now, right along in the line of justice ... I don't want to give you any idea, by the way, just in passing, before we skip over the subject, that I feel terribly "put upon" by the society or by individuals in it for Scientology and Dianetics having been knocked around. It has been knocked around much less—much less than any other newly introduced idea.
And it has been knocked around, I will point out to you, in such a way as to make people face up to it hard. And they face up and fight it hard. It's very interesting what will occur here in a few years. That's not plotted either, this just happens to be the way things work out. Nobody can get me very worried about the vast enemies that we have out there—people tell me all the time all about all these enemies and that sort of thing—it's all right. They—as I said at the congress, the only people who have actively fought us are those that we've brought up far enough on the Tone Scale to fight. It's true! God help us, it's true.
Now, getting on with justice, you'll find that the lowest ebb of any person's life is connected with an inability to punish or react against or set to rights a situation which they believe is very detrimental to their good survival. And that is very, very true. Why? There's a good—real good reason—not one of these Homo sapiens reasons, but a real good reason behind that. Justice has to do with force, and it is at that point where one permitted himself to recognize his complete lack of force.

35

36

10 DECEMBER 1953
Now, when one recognizes that he has a complete lack of force, which is an idiotic thing to (quote) "recognize" (unquote)—because one's force is never less, and no fuel is ever going to build it other than his own.
Those things which are holding apart the ideas—those bodies of energy we call ridges and so forth, which are holding apart his ideas; things like engrams, so on—are composed entirely of energy, and force is energy. And when one believes he can no longer handle force or generate force, and is not permitted—if one is not permitted to generate force, why, then of course there is nothing left to energize those things he is using to hold apart the forces of his bank. And if he can't handle force, if he says, "I can't handle force anymore, and I want nothing to do with force; I want nothing to do with energy," he is immediately running out on his entire reactive bank, just like that, bing! and it caves in.
So if you want to find the prime key-in of a person's life, you merely have to ask him the moment when he recognized that he had no force; that he was not able to bring about a condition of justice as he conceived it. Because he was playing the game MEST universe very, very hard at the time, probably, a sudden recognition that he had not the power to punish at his discretion was more than he could overcome.
Now, getting people to consent to force solely in the form of police is perfectly all right so long as the police are efficient. But a friend of mine, an executive in a—probably the largest motion-picture company (he's the general manager of it, the vice-president), made a very, very, very sane observation one time to me. He was terribly interested in the effect of police on the deterioration of a social order. He had it figured out—from Dianetics, by the way—that the police, being in continual contact with the criminal, brought a contagion through into the society at large and therefore the police were a more responsible agent for the deterioration of a culture than any other single agency. Well, it's deeper than that. It's that people—actually, this has started me on a long line of thought on this direction. It was a very sane observation. It's very true.
You leave a policeman, by the way, in the detective bureau hunting criminals for six or eight months and he begins to become a savage beast. You have to take him out and put him on the traffic squad for a little while. First few days on the traffic squad, why, he's screaming and hammering at motorists, or throwing tickets around and coming down on the pedestrians like mad.
One did this outside a university some years ago. He had just been released from the criminal division. For about three days, he was giving university students tickets. He was stopping them from walking on crosswalks and he was doing all sorts of things. Oh, he was a vicious man! He was handing out more arrests per hour than any cop had ever managed to do. At the end of about three days, a couple of students took him aside and said, "What do you think we are, criminals?" And the fellow stood there, stood transfixed for a moment and thought it over, and came up to present time. And thereafter was about the nicest cop you ever wanted to meet. Until, of course, he went back to the criminal division.
Now we have a problem, you see then, in terms of force and justice and responsibility. Where a person turns his responsibility consistently over to another, he's actually turning his force over to another. Because he's consistently saying, "I can't do anything about it," "I won't do anything about it" or "I don't want to handle it." And we get back to what we were talking about yesterday: Don't want to handle it. "Don't want to handle it, therefore I don't want the responsibility for it."
Well, people pass into this almost insensibly. They first say, "I don't want to handle it because I don't have enough time to handle it, and therefore somebody

KNOWINGNESS
else has the responsibility for it." And after a while, somebody else has it— he doesn't have the responsibility for it, he has all the responsibility. And the person has deteriorated to this degree. He's handed out this responsibility, he wasn't taking responsibility for a certain sphere anymore.
Now, a preclear can look back at a time when just out of plain, ornery cussedness he decided that somebody else was going to do some work. That's that! Well you know you can run that and regain a remarkable amount of energy in the preclear? And this is fascinating! That's where your people who won't work come out of it. Right on such an incident. They won't handle it. And they're just bound and determined somebody else is going to do some work, too. And they will go downhill on that like hitting a toboggan. And there goes their force, because work is, in essence, effort. And work, by the way, is scarce, and effort is valuable, and it is a very nice thing to be able to put out effort. Not toward the goal of not putting out effort anymore—that's the retirement scheme—but it's just the idea of putting out effort.
If you were to take a large body of people and inhibit them from putting out effort for a long time, they would deteriorate morally, physically—their social order would almost disappear. Well, one of the ways you do that is make everything automatic for them. That's one way to do it.
But a person recognizes, once in a while, that the police are not going to do anything for him—he passes immediately out of his agreement. He agreed to turn over, at one time, his own power of punishment to an organization, one kind or another, any one of which comes under the heading of police. And then he recognized a little later that the police weren't going to do anything for him. See, I mean that may be much later, but he recognized sooner or later they weren't going to do anything for him, which leaves him without justice—and that is the dwindling spiral of force and energy and responsibility. There it is, right there. That is the curve you're looking for in the case that won't take any responsibility—power to punish. Agreed somebody else had the power to punish, and that they were fairly safe in that other person having the power to punish, and then—then, no. Of course, way back, the idea that one must punish is what's responsible for this. Resist.
I'm going to talk about something now a little less theoretical, and that is the problem of the avidity of people for being betrayed, and their horror of being ridiculed. And they have a real horror of being ridiculed. Well, why should these ideas sit there like that? Well, there's a little process you can run—not a recommended process, but there's a little process that you can run that'll tell you all about this. There's what's known as the "rebound"—the "rebound hold."
A person is struck, and because some of the particles which were struck are liable to fly away, one seizes the struck area, so that he becomes horrified at the idea of things leaving him. He doesn't want things to leave him now. Why? See, he's struck, and then some of the particles which were struck may fly away in the next blow. And he just doesn't want this to occur—damaged particles—he's trying to hold on to what he has. And the other and perhaps even better reason, is because the fly-away hurts like hell.
This is dramatized by the fact that a knife, going in, seldom creates very much shock—it's merely cold and quite definite, kind of cold and icy. It isn't until the knife is pulled out, quite usually, that a person receives a severe shock. A man, theoretically, could be bayoneted through the stomach and not suffer very much because of it till somebody pulled the bayonet out. That's a rebound. He does a hold on to the bayonet. Now he tries to hold the blow incoming, and that "hold" sits there and resists any outgoing. Well, after a person's been

37

38

10 DECEMBER 1953
struck too often, he gets the idea that he has to hold on to everything—and not only that, he gets the idea that he has to have things. So there is your basic clue, in terms of action and motion, to the person who has to have, has to have, has to have and can't give away anything. He wants something, he thinks.
In the Doctorate tapes there's a discussion about what you want, you can't have, and what you can't have, you want and so forth. Well, this is the basic mechanism behind it.
Now, if you will ask somebody who has been hit to go through an exercise— this is, by the way, an experimental process, is occasionally beneficial—is not a recommended process, but it's a very basic process.
You get the idea of his being struck from all sides, and then inhibiting the rebound, and then being struck and inhibiting the rebound, you have the exact pattern of effort through which he is going throughout his entire life. And that is why loss is so serious. That motion, then, makes the thetan unwilling to put out energy. It makes him unwilling to put out an aberration—and very important to you as an auditor, it makes him unwilling to give up any of his fixed ideas. Because it's going to hurt like that. And they'll sit there and look for somatics while they're trying to give up an idea. Well now, this is the silliest thing in the world and—no somatic's connected to an idea. And yet, he'll sit there and he thinks that he gives up an idea, why, he immediately is going to hurt.
Now, you just run that on such a preclear and he'll suddenly get the point. It's illustrative more than . . . Get the idea of him being hit, particularly being hit by an invisible barrier—that's the worst kind. And hit by a barrier, and then holding on so that the rebound won't take place. And then hit by another barrier and holding on so the rebound won't take place.
I don't recommend your doing this very long with the body, because that's exactly how you build a body. A person, however, who has to have and who will not give up, will be your most difficult preclear. And there is the mechanic. I mean, there's—don't have to dress this up any further—there are the mechanics of how this comes about.
He doesn't want anything in the first place, basically, as a thetan—he can create anything he wants. And yet he's been hit so often, and the body has been hit so often—he's been hit so often that the mere thought of losing something causes an enormous amount of sorrow on his part. So he loses something in life, and he starts to blow a grief charge on this. Well, this is rather silly, to blow a grief charge. What's he blowing a grief charge—what is the basic effort underlying a grief charge? Every grief charge has an effort underlying it. Well, it's just that. It's: In came the blow, and because he didn't want the rebound, why, he held it. And then in came the blow and he held it. And in came the blow and he held it. After a while, he gets a horror of ridicule, which is something being held out from him, and he gets a horror of giving up anything, and he gets a tremendous appetite.
Now, many factors will influence a person to get into this kind of a situation. The principal factor has to do with something else I'm going to tell you about now: the Factors. And I call your attention to the Factors because the Factors are right up top strata. The one thing that isn't mentioned in the Factors is attention, but it is understood between cause and effect, because obviously, you can't have cause and effect without having attention.
When you get there, the second line, "The first decision is to be." Well, there immediately you're handling "can't arrive," and there immediately you're handling energy. The basic intention of any energy is to assist a beingness. And preclears very often carry around themselves a sort of a caul, you might say,

KNOWINGNESS
or a sort of a hood of energy, a—it's out there quite a ways on some preclears. There's a palpable somethingness around their body.
They might not even see it till you tell them to. "Now, concentrate on an invisible barrier. Now concentrate on overlooking it—look out beyond it. Now look at the barrier, now look out beyond." And the next thing you know, the fellow finds a tight band across his mouth or a tight band across his eyes, or he finds, over the top of his head and over his body in general, he finds out he has an invisible barrier all over him, which is quite peculiar.
Now, if he watches this invisible barrier, he will discover this is happening with it: Every time he sees something, the barrier echoes it. That is assisted by mirrors; the mirror gives the idea that the invisible barrier will reflect. But this mirror, really, in essence, is the thetan's effort to be. And you see how that could be? It's—you have something which makes an easy mock-up, it simply reflects some light, and there is the mock-up. Well now, he can be that image, you know, or he can have that image and see what he is being.
Well, this invisible barrier around him will actually take on the color and character of any object which he sees. Why? Because it is an effort to be. But it's a "not arrive." Now, you can tell some medical student who is going through medical school, you can say, "Now, there's this pipsalitis, which is a horrible disease, and it breaks out with small buckaroos on the end of the proboscis." And he promptly goes home and looks in the mirror and gets rather nervous about it, and what do you know? The next morning he does have a—something on the proboscis. Hm-hm! Now, this is the effort to be. He's trying to be something.
There is an interesting story told amongst the Blackfeet Indian. They have a character in the Blackfeet mythology known as "Old Man." And Old Man built everything. And Old Man had a horrible trick. He would come around to some animal and find out this animal wasn't doing this or that and he'd fix him up. And that's how the skunk got his stripe, and everything else. This was just—Indian stories.
But there's an animal out in the Rocky Mountains known as the pack rat. And this pack rat's a large rat—he's very large, he's unbelievably big. And he can carry around an enormous amount of bric-a-brac. And God help you if you ever leave a bright cartridge or a silver buckle or anything—if the magpies don't fly away with it, the pack rat will carry it away.
Well, you fortunately always know when it was a pack rat, so that you have some idea—you can go and look in the attic or someplace and get into the nest and get the stuff back. Because a pack rat could also be called a trade rat and is often called the trade rat, because he always leaves something in the place of this object which he has taken away. And you'll find a little chip of wood or a piece of a pine cone, or a little pebble sitting there where your fancy belt buckle just was, you see, or your cartridges just were. You go up into old abandoned shacks and you look around the roof and you'll find old pack rat nests, and they're full of cartridges and sardine-can tops and so on.
Well the Indian—Blackfeet Indian—tells the story of Old Man coming along, and here was this nice, self-satisfied rat sitting on the corner of a river, minding his own business, having no trouble with anybody.
And Old Man took a look at all this laziness going on, and he says, "Do you have any boojum?" And—pack rat was very upset.
He said, "What?"
"Well, I see that you don't seem to have any work to do."
And—"Oh, well I don't have any work to do. I've got all of my stores in for the winter and I've got a snug nest and everybody in the family's happy and so forth."

39

40

10 DECEMBER 1953
And, "Well," the Old Man said, "but do you have any boojum?"
And the pack rat looked very puzzled and he said, 'What's boojum?"
"Well, it's pretty important," Old Man said. Old Man said, "You know," he said, "I occasionally do horrible things to animals when I find an animal doesn't do things. You know that, don't you?"
And the pack rat thought of all the horrible things that had happened to animals and the way they'd gotten changed and everything else, and he didn't want to get changed, so he said, "Yes sir! Yes sir, I know all about that."
And Old Man said, "Well, the next time I come by, you'd better have some boojum."
And the pack rat yelled after him, "But what is it? What is it? What is it?"
But Old Man never answered.
Didn't mean to run too many Indian tales in on you this morning, but they're occasionally somewhat informative.
Your preclear is in almost a frantic state about boojum, (audience laughter) And he will rig up all kinds of things to imitate objects. And that, in essence, is a facsimile. And that's the cause back of the facsimile, you might say. And he'll carry a mass of energy around which can instantaneously become the impression of a facsimile at any moment.
You should try this on some preclear who's having a hard time—he looks into a saucepan and he goes away, and by George, he has a saucepan over his face. You tell him to look at it, he seldom has in the past—he's got a saucepan. Now he hears a sound, or something like that, and he gets a shuddering away from it, and then it'll echo ptock-ptock-ptock, afterwards. If he listens in that direction, he'd find it doing that. He goes down the street, and he sees somebody who looks extremely ugly, and he goes down the street feeling like that person. He shifts valences on sight.
But he isn't shifting. If he notices this, he can account for very many of the strange surprises he gets—momentary and often very long periods of consistent worry and concern, which immediately trace back to having observed something. And then he says, "I have a facsimile of it." Well, this is another method of having a facsimile.
The preclear is trying to be something. And he evidently can't arrive anywhere—every time he tried to arrive someplace, he became very definitely an effect. And he just decided he just didn't want to arrive anymore, and he stopped trying to be. Because in order to be something, you have to arrive.
Now, a preclear is a viewpoint of dimension, and he's a viewpoint of objects which are themselves barricades of dimension. Well, he could stand back and look at all the objects he wants to, but he only starts to get into trouble the day he flies into one of these objects and tries to be the object, because he can't ever be the object—not ever. He can be himself, but he can't be an object or a piece of energy. And so we find a preclear in his head, surrounded by an invisible barricade which will turn into almost anything.
He sees a car wheel and after that he has a funny impression on the back of his head. If he really—if you really directed his attention to it and asked him what was sitting on the back of his head, he would find out it would be this darn car wheel. He's got a duplicator; and here's where you get duplication coming in.
Now, I'm not just talking about one preclear, I'm just talking about preclears. They either duplicate in terms of facsimiles, very neatly and with big file systems and so forth, or they duplicate momentarily on a barrier sort of a mirror basis, and they get the feeling and pressure of something.

KNOWINGNESS
Now, you'll find preclears looking in at some kind of a machine going round and round and round, and they can sort of feel the machine churning in their heads afterwards. It's not serious, it doesn't worry them—it's just a piece of energy. They're just—there's something else they can be, or try to be.
But they hold it out away from the body and it's usually some little distance from the body—inches, inch or two—three, four, five inches, something like that. And they'll hold it away from the body because they can't arrive at it. See, they want to look at it and they want a record of it, and the thing is scarce and views are scarce and feelings are scarce and sensations are scarce, and so that's the way they go about it.
Now, your preclear who is running one of these perpetual duplicators is doing no more and no less than trying to be the right thing. Because his confidence in being able to pretend to be something—he can pretend to be something always—his confidence in pretending to be something has been shattered. And so he tries to be anything.
Well, here's where you get into names. He'll try to be symbols. Now, this is the silliest thing of all—anybody trying to be a symbol. Now, that's real, real weird.
Now, we go into a symbol, and we get into fixed ideas. Education, crusades, aberration—almost any activity of man is accompanied by a single phenomenon: the fixed idea. And if you're trying to do anything to a preclear, you're trying to unfix some of his ideas. So you'd better appreciate the value of an idea. The one single difference which is the most easily recognized difference—not the single difference, but the most easily recognized difference—between a thetan and a piece of MEST is not whether he's alive or dead. No, it's ideas. The thetan gets ideas and MEST doesn't.
Any machine—computer or something—can only pretend to turn out ideas; any machine, such as a brain, can only pretend to turn out ideas. It can turn out just as many ideas as a thetan is sitting back letting it turn out, and as he is furnishing it to be turned out—which I think is kind of cute. I wonder who stands in back of these big Comptometers and gives them the right answers— it's always been a puzzle to me—because their machinery doesn't account for it.
Anyway, I'm not trying to add spook stuff into you. They are—their machinery does account for it. But it sure never would have unless somebody'd worked out all possible problems in advance first, and after that the piece of MEST can get answers.
But an answer is not an idea. A person who can only get answers has already gone downhill a little bit from just getting any kind of an idea. One of the fondest condemnations made in this culture is, 'You get wild ideas." That's the one thing you can condemn. And that's the way you condemn to death. You condemn a thetan to death with that.
Now, an accident resulting in an engram is, in essence, merely a fixed idea. An idea is located in time and space. And it's fixed. Now, a thetan has a lot of trouble fixing an idea—it's pretty hard to do. You know, you put an idea up in the air and it just doesn't stay there, not worth a nickel—they go whhhh! So, he invents symbols, and a symbol is something which could represent an idea. It is a piece of energy which is agreed to represent a certain idea. And we get immediately into symbols.
Now, symbols come under number VI. That's because people only succumb to them after a long time. They're pretty resistant to them. Actually, symbols are very high in terms of the creative cycle; they come very early. The idea, and

41

42

10 DECEMBER 1953
then the symbol to represent the idea, are evidently both prior to large masses of relatively inactive energy; are even prior to a great deal of space.
Symbols—a symbol is an idea, fixed—to some degree—fixed in space. When an idea becomes too fixed with the individual, it is fixed in time and in space by an energy impact. And by preventing the reimpact, the rebound, he fixes the idea.
So we get the—bang! see, he gets hit. His idea is "I've been hit—I am being hit," and his next idea is not to let go. And he has then, sitting out in the middle of the plains of New Mexico or someplace, he has an idea fixed in time and space. But it's a symbol. And an engram, in essence, is a very crude symbol.
A word is a symbol. You don't think, for instance, that this printer's ink knows anything. It doesn't. Doesn't know a thing. It's only you've agreed upon that this funny-looking stuff here called letters, when added together, form a certain condensed thinkingness known as a symbol.
Well, therefore, people who make crusades in the society, and people who try to sell other people ideas, very often keep themselves pretty well down on the Tone Scale unless they know this. And that's what I meant when I said Scientology is senior to other efforts, simply because it undoes them, and it undoes them if only in this one department—the fixed idea.
So we have an individual who's trying to teach, let us say. He's trying to inform, he is trying to—much, much milder, you see, than merely trying to change ideas and so forth. He has all these students and he ... Actually, there is a skull—they're always talking about beating something into people's heads, you know? And there's a skull which is a mass of energy, and a brain which is a mass of energy, and a being who is himself a symbol called man— and we then are trying, when we teach him anything, you see, to put an idea in his head, we think.
Actually, we'll never put an idea in his head, but what we can do—can do—is offer him an idea which he can fix in the proper space. If he thinks it goes into his head, why, he'll after a while get headaches because of it, because he's not capable of doing this—he will. I mean, that is the source of migraine headaches and so on. It's just too many people have put ideas in the head. You'll find people who have migraine headaches also believe that they are very definitely inside and that they think, oh boy, real hard with their brains, and they can only believe what they have figured out. They follow a very definite pattern.
Well, when it comes to fixing an idea, the student is under the circumstance of having an idea fixed in him, and if he has the background of having had instructors who were relentless in trying to fix an idea . . . You know, they were going—the instructor was going to fix the idea just above the left ear or something, you see; the student had no placement or function for the idea— you get people who under training will be rather apathetic. They won't pick up the idea which is offered and fit it into any frame of reference or categorize it. In other words, they don't use it—just sort of sits there, you know? They're running a "I won't—I can't touch a fixed idea, and ideas which are offered to me in instruction are not for my use, they're just supposed to be there."
Now, you get the role of a teacher who is trying to teach children or grown-ups or anybody else, he is always trying to fix ideas in skulls and so forth, and he's trying to fix these ideas.
Now, anyone who starts going out on a broad crusade across the face of man, of course is in for trouble. Because he's trying to fix an idea on which there is a very low level of agreement, and he's trying to fix it "for people's own

KNOWINGNESS
good." And he's trying to fix it in such a way that it won't become unfixed— and everybody is interested, when they're interested at all, only in unfixing it before it can be fixed. And this becomes very upsetting to a crusader.
People who have tried to do things for man and so forth, have quite uniformly gone mad or had something happen to them. Every once in a while you hear some wild story about me, by the way, now getting personal about this—that I've jumped off the dam or I've done something or other. And then somebody meets me who's been lied to like this, you see, and I seem to talk fairly rationally, and they see me interested in my kids or something like that and they—there's something wrong here. Anybody else who is on a wild crusade and so forth is in bad shape. Why? And they are, too. They get into very bad shape. But they only get into bad shape if they don't know the answer.
Now, you carrying forward Scientology to people, you're trying to fix an idea which will unfix ideas. People really object to this because they don't have the foggiest notion of what their own ideas are, and you come along and plow through all of this and they see you going through all of—everything they're doing like so much—like a big ham slicer, you know, one of those mechanical ham slicers; you're just making hash out of all this real fast, you see. And they're liable to get very upset.
But if you're working in a fair purity of technique and you're not tampering with their cherished ideas, their most cherished notions, intimately . . . You know, like—the psychoanalyst runs into something on this order, or the clergyman is always running into something on this, because they start fishing for guilt. And boy, they don't get accepted worth a nickel by the society. No, sir.
Well, you're not interested in guilt. You're not interested in what he's trying to hide or what the deeper significance of his symbols are or anything of the sort—and you can get away with it. And you can get away with it particularly if you understand very clearly what you're trying to do in terms of fixing ideas.
It's very easy to fix an idea. A thetan believes it's difficult merely because other thetans can blow them up so fast. You can fix a symbol in the sky or in a piece of space, and of course, it'll blow up. And if you say the idea is the symbol, why, it of course can be blown up. So you—first step into purgatory, you might say, is saying that a symbol is an idea. It's not. Symbols can serve and pass ideas, if people insist on having something to have or handle.
Well, drills, then, which unfix ideas are of the essence. But sooner or later you're going to have to run a drill on this preclear which permits him to fix some ideas in space. Well, he can fix ideas in space as well as he can fix anchor points, just about—so you handle it in terms of anchor points. But you'll run across preclears who are perfectly willing to make eight-pointed space out of ideas, and these ideas will stay there.
Well, you shouldn't be too content about this. It means this person has an automaticity for fixing ideas the like of which you've never run into before. You know, he can't fix eight anchor points there, but he can fix eight ideas there, and boy, do they stay there.
Well, you make him move ideas, and this is something he's never done. Ideas have always moved him. You make him move words, move ideas, and so forth. And sooner or later you're going to have to give him a drill which permits him to fix ideas, but it's a very light drill—I mean, that is inconsequential. What is important is moving the ideas. Men are consistently and continually moved by ideas. But they think that an idea is a mass of energy because they think it's a symbol, and therefore they think of themselves as an idea, and therefore they get into a body and get stuck. They've tried to fix ideas so long

43

44

10 DECEMBER 1953
and so hard upon bodies, as thetans, that they will eventually stick themselves in the body because that's the only place that's sticky. "That idea must stick," they've said to the body. "Now listen here," they've said, "if you go near that stove again I'm going to whap you!"
Well, it went near the stove again, and so he just—thetan would take the facsimile and fix it up near the body so that every time the body got near the stove, it would automatically jump back from the stove, you see, because of the heat as a restimulator.
And so we had methods of saving and hoarding, and keeping from getting scarcer than they were, bodies. A thetan has no business under the sun, moon or stars worrying about the scarcity of bodies. He should be able to create them.
Single difference between the thetan and MEST is the thetan gets ideas. Thetans fix ideas into heads, they are themselves ideas, so therefore they get fixed in heads. Have you got that? That's real simple. But you're right on the main track now, you see—knowingness, fixed ideas and so on.
Now, a preclear: the only thing you're trying to do with the preclear, really—there's a whole lot of sort of—a lot of things ought to sort of click into space with you on this. They—all you're trying to do with a preclear is take some ideas he's got fixed—well, you don't know where he's got them fixed. He's got them fixed out in Keokuk and down on the Rio Grande, and he's got them fixed in school and condensed spaces here and there and so on. He's got ideas fixed, he thinks, all over the place.
And SOP 8 - C shakes him out of the places where he's fixed ideas. That's why you run "where is he not," see. And he's out of present time every place but here, because he's fixed ideas all over the place. And you're trying to alter his ideas. You're not just trying to unfix them, you're trying to alter them.
Well, the only way you can alter his ideas—the only way you can really alter his ideas—is of course by demonstrating to him an ability to handle ideas, and demonstrating to him that he is not a piece of energy and that he's not a symbol. And after that, why, he's disabused of some very interesting things, and he can do what he pleases about it. But he has the idea that this or that is going to happen—he has an intimate, imminent feeling of disaster— just daa-dunnn! But—he's just about to get this feeling all the time, you see. And he can't quite have that feeling and this is very upsetting to him, and he will tell you it's in the future and the future is twenty-five feet in front of him. You know, something on that order.
Well, you just have him move the idea around, "The future is twenty-five feet in front of me," and then—then finally you move the idea out toward twenty-five feet in front of him—it's liable to do all sorts of things, including explode. And after that he'll realize the future is not twenty-five feet in front of him. Not because you told him so, but because you permitted him to handle the idea which was formerly handling and positioning him.
So you're unfixing ideas, you're permitting him to unfix ideas simply by getting him to handle ideas, and that is done in several ways. And he is as well as he can have effort, he is as well as he can generate ideas and be creative about life. And he's as well as he can dream, he's as well as he can recognize his own brotherhood with existence. Not on a low-toned "I've got to be" basis, but on a very individualistic basis. Any man should be able to answer, with some satisfaction, the following question: "Is the world or any part of it any happier because I have been through it?" And it's quite terribly interesting that that is the one which makes the preclear saddest.

KNOWINGNESS
If all men were evil, if all things were bad, it wouldn't produce in anybody the slightest qualm that he might answer that question. That wouldn't produce anything in anybody, it'd just pass right over. And yet it does.
Now, back along the track you'll find times when he was trying and decided that things were only worse because he was in action. And he stopped going into action, and after that said, "All things are too evil to be helped." That was his only alibi. And there's where he's stuck with his lack of trust, right there.
Men are as active, as happy, as broadly energetic and capable as they are themselves confirmed in their own belief in their own goodness, and they're just as bad as they've fallen away from it.
Way up topside there is this feeling of a brotherhood with all existence, and way down bottomside there's this feeling that "My God, we'd certainly better press together for our own protection." But the member of the last group is a member of that group solely to get protection—individual protection—from the group, and the group can go to hell. And the member of the top group is a member of the group solely because he can assist it. Big difference between the two points of view.
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Book 1 and 2 and the last chapter of Book 3; Science of Survival, all; Advanced Procedure and Axioms and the Handbook for Preclears which are to be used together; Self Analysis in Scientology (parenthesis) or (quote) "in Dianetics" (unparenthesis); Scientology 8-8008, all of it; and the Journal of Scientology Issues 14-G and 16-G (now to that, will be 23-G, which will carry a rather elementary rendition of SOP 8-C and a Group Process); now your—all of these books could be said to deal with the problem of fixed ideas and technologies for remedying or unfixing them. And within this framework, we can work an enormous amount of change. And it's rather humorous that we have something here which if used for the destruction of man, would have to be released broadly enough to bring about his salvation.
If anybody is given part of this technology to work with it destructively, he is liable to be curious enough about all of it to go on through and work it out again. So if this material is ever buried, they'd better be very careful what they bury of it. They better leave nothing in sight but the prefrontal lobotomy, because out of that you couldn't work anything except the idiocy of a declining species.
Okay, you understand Scientology a little better, perhaps, may chance?
Okay.

45



SOP 8-C: General Discussion
A lecture given on 10 December 1953

Okay. This is December the 10th, and today we have a few more funda-mentals I want to go into—go over them again, really—namely SOP 8-C.
When you are doing SOP 8-C, you will have a tendency to mix up getting the preclear to communicate, and you evaluating for the preclear. Now, evaluating for the preclear is a gradient scale. And if you tell a preclear what to do too specifically, you're to some degree evaluating for him. By this I mean, if you can tell a preclear, "Get five places in the past where you are not and name them," he does. You can then say, "Get five more places in the past and name them, where you are not," and he does. And you get five more places in the past where he is not, and he does, and names them. And then, by the locations which he has named, you realize he's going out too far—he's way out.
You know, he's gotten five places in the past, and every time he's got this galaxy and he's out there on the Moon and he's in all the—what we call the "buttered-around places." The fellow that does this is plastered all over the damn universe, by the way. If he won't get in and look at Earth, boy, is he not looking. This is just a matter of not looking, you see. He just won't look at something, so you get him to find places "he's not there," and he eventually finds places where he is not, and he's more and more and more looking at places which he wasn't looking at before.
But you realize by this, after he's named as the past, the bordering continents, and he's—the Moon, and the bordering continents and so on, you can just speed it up and say, "Give me five places in the past where you won't be, or you aren't, which are closer to home." And he will. And you can ask him to "Give me five more places in the past, closer to home, where you aren't." And eventually, why, he gets down to the point he's not in his grandfather's grave, and he's not here and there.
Actually, if you care to take a little time of it, he will simply clean up the past by this process, as long as you keep forcing him to look in closer by simply suggesting to him that you want places which are closer in, and not by asking him specific places where he is not at all.
Now, I'll give you an example of this. You ask this preclear, you can say, "All right. Be three feet back of your head" (this is the patter, you see, of—first step, "Be three feet back of your head") and he looks kind of foggy and dazed and so forth. Well, you don't worry about that. You can sort of tell by looking at him that he's not too certain where he went or why. And you're not going to pester

47

48

10 DECEMBER 1953
him by saying, "Are you three feet back of your head and—or aren't you?" because obviously he is in a fog.
This takes a little bit of looking on the part of an auditor, but if an auditor can't look, if he insists on looking at his own shoes rather than the preclear's chin, why, he might be left in the dark about this, but the process would be the same in any case. The least harmful process would be to simply start in on the rest of Step Ia.
And the auditor would then say, "All right. Give me three places where you aren't."
And the fellow would say, "Well, let's see, I'm not on Jupiter, I'm not in Galaxy 82, I'm not in . . ." You've got a case on your hands, son.
You say, "Give me three places where you aren't."
And he says, "Well, I'm not in the desk, not in that corner of the room and not in that corner of the room"—Step I. You just keep this up for a little while, and he'll be right on out and stabilized.
So, this is diagnosis by how well is the preclear buttered all over the universe, you see? Or if he isn't, why, he's—pretty good shape. Well, you'd just carry on with the process.
And then you'd say, "All right, give me three more places in the room where you aren't."
"Well, not here, not there, da-ta-dum."
"Well, give me three more places where you aren't."
"Well, not here, not da-da-dum, and . . ."
"Give me three more places where you aren't."
"Uh-huh, rahh, rurrh, rrh."
It's come to your attention by this time that none of these places he's offered you is his own body. Although he's kept to places in the room, he's already spotted himself. He's a real shaky Step I.
Good, solid Step I says, "Well, I'm not in the corner, and not in the desk, not in the upper corner of the room."
And you say, "All right, give me three more places."
"Well, I'm not in my right shoe, not in my left shoe, not in my chest."
You say, "Give me three more places."
"Well, I'm not in my head, I'm not in the back. Um, I don't know, I'm not in my body." That's about the way it'll go.
But you can peel it all down to that, simply by keeping on demanding places where he's not. You just say, "All right. Give me three more places where you're not." Very simple. His lookingness will eventually come in to a point where he will look at something.
Now, a person who's going to be down there at about Step IV, something like that, and you said, "Give me three places where you're not."
"Oh," the fellow says, "well, let's see, I'm not in San Francisco—ha-ha! I'm not in, uhhhh—not in Canada. Not in—uhhhh . . . Mmmmm, not in uhhhh . . ." That's about Step IV.
Well, if you just kept on asking him for "some more places where you're not, and some more places where you're not, and some more places where you're not, and more places where you're not"—theoretically, if you'd kept this up for ten or twelve hours, why, he'd be stabilized back of his head, and that'd be all there was to that. What you're doing there is collecting his attention, concentrating it.
But now let's take the fellow—let's take the fellow, you say, "All right.

SOP 8-C: GENERAL DISCUSSION
Give me three places . . ." or "Be three feet back of your head. Okay. Give me three places where you aren't."
He says, "Well, let's see, I'm not urn, mmmmmm —not on the Moon. Nope, not on the Moon, that's right, there's no air there, I couldn't breathe there. Uh, let's see, and I'm not uhh—I'm not uhhh—not in the Sun." (Big, happy thought there.) "No, I'm not in the Sun"—repeat.
You're hitting a Step V. He won't look at Earth, much less look at his body.
Now let's go out further. And you say, "Give me three places where you're not."
The fellow says, "Must there be places?"
And you say, "Yeah, three places where you're not."
"Mmm —what kind of places?" Step VI. "What do you mean?" he's playing. That's your next reaction down. This is actually diagnosis straight by just what the fellow says immediately after "three feet back of his head." I mean, you can read him much better than you can read the average book. Much better. He's much easier to read. Average book has a plot and the modern book has social insignificance.
So, we've got the next—next step down, Step VII—you say, "All right. Be three feet back of your head." Then you say, "All right. Give me three places where you aren't."
And he says, "Button my shoe, button my shoe, batter-batter-boo" Step VII.
Now, those are steps by SOP 8, you understand. And those are not steps by SOP 8-C. The steps of SOP 8 do have meaning as to the type of case, SOP 8-C they don't have, particularly. It's just a drill you do on a thetan exterior. All right. Although there is some comparison—they've kept almost the same level.
If you were to actually process somebody who would say, "Button my shoe, batter-batter-boo," at you or something like that, the best thing in the world that you can get him to do is plead with him to tell you some object in the room that is real to him. And he will eventually settle on the light switch, if he's had a lot of electric shocks—or he'll settle on you as an auditor, something like that. Then you make him come over and touch you, touch the light switch, something of the sort, and withdraw from it.
But that's SOP 8, which has its heavier emphasis on people who are still interiorized, that's not 8-C. A thetan—you just get him to touch those points that are real to him. You run him the same way as you run a psycho interior, but a thetan exterior is not psycho, he simply can't see. All right.
Now, if he can't see at all—a psycho interior, you know—if he can't see with MEST eyes and MEST touch and he can't orient himself in any way, shape or form although he is in a body and backed out of it again, why, that's real interesting.
Now look what else happens here in Step I. You've had this fellow who's flying around the place with good perception—you don't know anything about it, you haven't discussed Scientology with him, you haven't told him what you're going to do or anything else. You say, "Be three feet back of your head. Now, give me three places where you are not." Just like that.
Fellow will say, "Well, I'm not—not in any of the corners of the room. Or I'm not—not—I'm not in your pocket," something like that and so on.
You could err, just there, to this degree: It would never occur to the fellow to tell you he was not in his body, because it would never occur to him that people got into their bodies. He'd think this was very strange.
He'd look at you—if you said, "You know most people are in their bodies?" he said, "They are? Gee, I'm in a funny place." But he would eventually get around to naming it. And just by carrying forward the same drill.

49

50

10 DECEMBER 1953
Now, after you've had the present dealt with, although he is exteriorized . .. See, it doesn't hurt anybody who's in good shape to ask him three places in the past where he isn't or five places in the past where he isn't—doesn't hurt him at all. And if he's in good shape, why, he'll name them off very rapidly. And if he's in good shape, he will name, more or less, his consecutive time track.
He'll say, "Well," he'll say, "I'm not in—not in Des Moines," even though he was born in Des Moines. "I'm not in—not in New York," you know he was educated there. "I'm not in Washington," you know he was there for a long time. And "I'm not home." Bang, bang, bang, bang—he's just talking about time track. It's what's real to him. Seems quite ordinary and it doesn't seem at all unusual to him not to be in these places.
But we will take somebody now who's going to be way down further steps and you say, "Give us three, four places in the past." Beware, if the fellow suddenly says—starts out by some kind of an incredible. He's way down step. You just— he's volunteering this—you've just said to him, "Be three feet back of your head. And give me these places in the present, these places in the present, these places in the present." You've got him narrowed down fairly well so that he's in much better shape in the present. You've asked him this maybe twenty, thirty times, three more places you wanted. He's pretty well established.
But his perceptions aren't turning on, that he is commenting on—he doesn't mention it if they are, and he's not doing too well. His communication lag is, by the way, what an auditor listens to and tells: how fast does he reply, how long does it take him to consider where he is, so on. These are all indexes to his position, down to a certain point—there is that fellow who merely answers you frantically and hectically, consistently and continually, but not necessarily correctly.
Now, as we get this fellow who is very uncertainly established in the present someplace and we say to him then, "All right. Give me three places you're not in the past."
And he says, "Let's see, the past—three places I'm not in the past—past— let's see, mmmmm. Well, I'm not in Alice in Wonderland in the past. I don't know, where would three places be in the past, auditor? Where would they be that I wouldn't be in?"
Oh-oh, you're dealing, in SOP 8 terms, with somebody between VI and VII. He's right in between there. You can expect to have a little bit of a gruesome time. Although you didn't particularly spot him there with Step I, all of a sudden this came up, the second you said anything about the past. That's gone.
Well now, it gets down to more reasonable past. Your Step III or something like that's going to say to you, "Three places in the past where I'm not? Well, let's see, I'm not—I'm not in—I'm not in Europe, never been there. Not in Africa." Same deal as on the present, only it's just a trifle more significant, if we must have significance. It's just—doesn't have much bearing on what you do next, it's just your estimation of the case.
In other words, you don't have to have a long chin-chin with this fellow, and say, "Now, old chappie, where do you think you are on the Tone Scale," and all of that sort of thing. You don't have to go in for it and say, "Now do you think Hubbard is right or wrong before we start this?" You don't have to say anything about this. Nothing about it at all.
All you do is just start asking him this, and if you have a good grip of theory, you don't even have to have much experience. If you've got a good grip of theory, you just audit three or four preclears and they'll all turn up exactly where they would on SOP 8 with their comparable comm lag, and their

SOP 8-C: GENERAL DISCUSSION
perceptions will be just about that good or that bad, see. SOP 8—it was figured out as seven categories of case and they are plotted against communication lag. But this is a better way to plot them—"where-not lag" is what you'd say.
Now, don't omit the next step with this boy. You say—all right, you've said to him now where isn't he past and where wasn't he in the present—you got the present all disposed of, and you've got some of the past disposed of. And you're going on down the line now, and you're going to ask him right away now— you're going to ask him one that will be a shocker to him, if he's down at III or IV. You're going to say, "Give me three places where you are not in the future."
"Hmmm, hmmm . . . How can anybody tell?" he says. Big new thought has just hit him. Well, you're dealing with somebody down there around V, around IV. Now, this would amaze you that it's that high—that it's only Step IV or V that hits people this way.
But you know, I can swear that an auditor who gets to know 8-C very well and who is operating without it in front of him and who is very handsomely going along at a mad rate—whose own case is not too well fixed up—will consistently omit the future. He'll just skip it. It will occur to him that it's not very important, he'll have other reasons for it, but he just won't mention it. That's right. I know this because I've already seen it happen; and they just skip it. "It's not important."
And yet, when you're dealing with somebody who's down around VI or some¬thing like that, do you know that you can say, "Give me three places where you are not in the future," the fellow says, "I—umm—hmmm, three places where I'm not in the future. Well, the—I can't really tell about that. Now, let's see now, three places where I'm not in the future—hmm-hm-hm-hmm-hmm. Three places . . . Well, uh—uh, let's see, how much future?" something like that.
And you say, "Well, next week."
"Ah, I don't know—how could you tell, really? I mean . . ."
"Well, ten o'clock tonight." Get that future down close to him. Future's predictable in terms of a few minutes, directly.
He'll say, "Oh, ten o'clock tonight? What time is it now?" And "All right, let's see, ten o'clock at night, now—I won't be at work at ten o'clock tonight, the office is closed. (sigh) Now let's see, see just—you said three places. All right, I'll get two more—now don't—no hurry. Let's see, let's see, let's see—um, hmm-hm-hm-hmm-hmmm-hmm-hmm-hmm—what time do you think I'll leave here tonight? Hmm-hmmm. Well, you give me some places where I won't be."
"No, no," the auditor says, "no, you just give me a couple more places where you won't be tonight at ten o'clock."
"(sigh) Let's see . . . Hm-hmm!" He's—really run high gear. All of a sudden of his own volition he'll think, "Do you know I won't be in the White House? (sigh) And Fulton's Fish Market is closed." Just—the thing. Do you know his case breaks right at that point? He does a break up from neurosis at that point. You've made that man face the future, even if it's only ten o'clock tonight. Mmm.
People for many years, when dealing in the realm of the human brain, see, were trying to get people to face reality. They neglected to tell people what reality was, they neglected to define it, they left that to the physical sciences. And the physical sciences left it to the people who were in the study of the human brain. And between the two, their shedding of responsibility was total.
And we know what a reality is today. We know what a reality is and we can make people directly face reality, but once you take their face and slam it into reality, they don't react well. That's the method used by the phrenologist—I think that's taught in American universities, phrenology. And—no, it's chiropracty, isn't it? Study of the human brain. I've forgotten what it is. Anyway . . . Palmistry,

51

52

10 DECEMBER 1953
that's what it is. These boys almost would shove somebody into it: "You've got to face the fact that you really hate your mother, or I won't have anything more to do with your case. And you've transferred and you know what that's done to you now." Typical. I mean . . .
Now, it—just don't go in for that heavy a level because it's not necessary. You want somebody to face reality—reality in—far as time is concerned, the biggest barrier has to do with the present, the past and the future. Not the past, pre¬sent and future—that's not consecutively in a person's command. Consecutively in his command, is the present, past and future. So you ask in that order. And by getting him to spot himself in the biggest barrier of all—time—you can break a neurotic, just bang! You can break an alcoholic, boom! You just keep at it. It's not really hard to do. But it will be as unsuccessful as you are specific about where he is not to be.
Now, occasionally, when I'm dealing with a case level that—stand it easily, I'm very prone to say, "All right. Are you in the window?" or something like that. Just tip-off once in a while down the line. But that's very definitely adjudicated against case level. And the only safe way to do it is just, "Give me three places where you're not."
Now, if you try to be too mannerly about it and say, "aren't," and if you hit a Step Level VI, SOP 8, which is neurotic, the person is too dug in with symbols and he's not going to be sure of what you said. And this will cause him a confusion, and thereby cause a communication break between himself and the auditor. So it's much better practice to say, "Give me three places where you are not in the present."
And it's very upsetting to them to have a little comm break—you know, just a little tiny comm break. He didn't understand you and that—you'll see it reflected through the rest of the session. Because this case is not in the kind of shape that he can easily overlook a comm break. You can overlook one, but he can't. He's got to be puzzle-puzzle-puzzle, so you've actually stuck him on the time track for the eighty-four millionth time, and he's stuck again. He's stuck with that comm break of whether you said "aren't" or "are not" or "are." What did you say? See, that's very important to him. Communication systems and so forth are the big thing. If you ask this fellow to shove around postulates—you'd better not start him in shoving around postulates, because he'll have to get bulldozers to push them. Because they're big and heavy and they're real rough to move.
This person, by the way, you can tell him, you—after you've talked to a person for a very few minutes, and asked him merely for his background, you can tell immediately what trouble he's going to have and where. Once you know reactions with SOP 8-C, you can tell immediately where he'll have trouble.
Let's take semantics: This man has been an avid student of general semantics, he just has studied general semantics and so forth. You don't even have to know that, but you will say, "Well, this is a science which . . ." And he will say, "Well now, a science—the meaning of that word science. Well, how do you mean a science, you mean in terms of the same way that the Christian Scientist says 'science'? Or do you mean, science is it science, is it science, is it science?"
And you will say, "Well, the last time I read Korzybski, this—he wasn't this worried about meanings and definitions. He didn't say, 'Stop four times and don't think before you speak.' He didn't say something like that." Well, the thing about it is—the only thing that's significant is this man's going to be stuck badly in symbols. So when you're—this is what I'm saying, it's very, very sequitur, there's nothing wrong with general semantics; wonderful piece of work.

SOP 8-C: GENERAL DISCUSSION
But as far as your preclear's concerned, if he's stuck on this subject and you say "aren't," and he thought you said "are," but maybe you didn't; well, you might have said "are not"—you got him bogged. And you're bogging a boy who won't stand very much bogging.
You can't immediately tell him, "All right, put that remark and that incident behind you and move it over on the chair." Huh-uh. That's too soon. He probably would not be able to do it. I mean, it's too heavy, too big. Symbols. The symbol is the thing! Also, he's stuck in his head like a piece of—like a bullet in a rock.
Now, you see what diagnosis—if you want to use that careless term—can mean just in terms of the response, the immediate response you get from a preclear. You can read him much better than you can read a newspaper headline. All right.
As soon as you've gone over this "where he is," "where he's not," let's go into, immediately, others. All right, cover this. "Give me three people who are not in this room." There you can be that specific, because you have to be that specific. Because if you ask him, give him three people who are not, you have asked him something that can't be answered. "Give me three people who are not"—you can't do that. "Give me three people who are not in this room."
Now, every once in a while it'll fascinate you to find how many people are present. You thought he was okay right up to this point, until all of a sudden you ask him this "What other people are present?" You didn't ask him, "What other people are present," by the way, because he would tell you lots of people then. But "What other people are not present?" you would say.
And he says to you, "Ohhh," he says, "mmmm-mm, well, she is. Let's see, mm-hm, they are, mm-hm. Yeah, yeah, yeah—and that family is over there. Yeah, and the sergeant, he is. Let's see, who isn't present?"
You know you'll get that on a SOP 8 Step VII? Hey, right away, bang! So, if he does that and he can't find it, you just go back to who isn't in the—where he is not, right in the present and past and the future. Just go over that again. If people turn up, just step back that one step, because you're dealing with a real rough case. So let's handle it very carefully.
But if he says, "Well, let's see, three people that aren't present. Well, Joe, Pete, Bill, Mama," so on.
And you say, "Well, three more."
"Hmmmm-ummmmm-daa-uhm . . . Mm!"
Don't pass that one by. You have discovered a perpetual presence, which he has just discovered. And this will happen to a Step I. That's how common this one is. It will happen to II, III—you can always find somebody around at a Step Level SOP 8 IV, and they just are around there in mobs when you get to V, VI and VII. If you go asking for trouble, you can just turn them up one after the other, see. I mean, you can—and you could also beat it with such an uncertainty, see? You could say, "Are you sure there's nobody else present?"
A Step Level V would say, "Well, I've got a vague impression of some—how do you know thetans aren't present? How do you know that? How do you know something else? How do you know . . ."You get into a big argument right there.
So you just back up one, the second you discover another person present, rather than get into a virtuosity—a big virtuosity of how hot you are with Creative Processing and Something and Nothing, and getting rid of people and so forth.
In the first place, your case may not be ready to have that line of technique run on him. Let's play it safe. So let's—here's somebody else present—there's his ex-wife standing there. You just discovered this—he didn't know it! She's

53

54

10 DECEMBER 1953
been standing around for years, as far as he could tell. She's still alive, she's in some other part of the country, but he's had this picture of her all this time, and he's just discovered it. Now, that's a big stickler.
Well, there are other trickier methods to get rid of her. As I said, Creative Processing, "is—somebody is present, somebody isn't present." At the last resort you can say, "She is standing there I am certain. And I am certain she's not standing there," and break the maybe. You can do this, just the last resort.
But it's much easier, as I said, to go back one step and ask three places where he is not in the present, three more, three more; three more places where he's not in the past, three more, three more, three more, three more; three places where he's not in the future, three more, three more, three more.
Now, "Give me three people who are not present."
"Well, chom-chom-chom-chom-chom-chom." Blew the girl. She left. Because he reoriented himself out of some geographic locale where he had lived with this person. Quite commonly people have their mothers present. When you do Postulate Processing on some people, it's wonderful, it's gorgeous. If you were to ask them carefully, exactly how that postulate was moving back and forth, you would discover, every now and then, that Mama was carrying it. Or you'd discover that something else was happening that's very peculiar—there—a small boy of four himself is carrying it.
And the people who laid the postulate in will suddenly show up out of the engrams and start carrying the postulate around. That's all right, after they've done that just about two passes, it's a dead postulate, believe me. It's not a postulate, see, it's an engram phrase that turned up. You just keep on running the postulate, that—that person would stop carrying it around and somebody else would start carrying it around. Eventually they'd get their own postulate back on the thing, it'll rephrase or do something like that.
So what happens here if you find out somebody else is present? You just back up and find three places where he's not.
Now, you go into objects. The main reason you touch objects is not because it's terribly therapeutic, but because somebody sooner or later will run into a sure-enough neurotic or psychotic who is trying to be a bedpost. And a person doesn't have to be too neurotic, as a matter of fact, somebody categorized as Step II, occasionally—they'll get a sudden flash of insight they're trying to be a washbasin. They don't quite figure out why they're a washbasin, and they can puzzle their heads no end as to why they were, till it occurs to them that their name is Washington. And the closest they've ever been able to be Washington was to try to be every washbasin they ever ran into.
This is completely idiotic, but that's what they're trying to do. This will show up. So you just give objects.
"Now give me three objects which are not in the present." Auditor says, "Three objects which are not in the present. Three more. Three more. Three more. All right. Give me three that's not in the past. Give me five more that are not in the past."
"Fellow by that meant objects that are not in the past. Mmmmm. Mmm." That's real tough, see. "Gee," a guy will tell you, "I don't know how—I don't know what you're talking about. Let's see, well the past is—gee, it's all kinds of things in the past, I mean, there's textbooks, and gee, there's just all these objects in the past—what are you talking about, of course objects are in the past. I mean . . ."
He'll sit there with complete—he just won't fall wise to himself, that's all, the second you start in on objects, if he's going to hang up around III, IV or V

SOP 8-C: GENERAL DISCUSSION
on the track. "Objects are in the past, naturally. They're all in the past, that's right." He's just liable to go on at that rate. Because, you see, he has never given very much direct attention or admiration to objects, and they have certainly never given much attention back to him and they have hung up.
Actually what's the proper answer? Three objects in the past. Three objects that are not in the past—as far as objects are concerned—would be here on this desk: that microphone, that ashtray and the other ashtray. That's all. It's just—those objects are not in the past, they're right here.
Well, a person will pick that up, quite obviously, if he's a high communication level, that'd just be very obvious to him. And the person who's down around III, IV and V is liable to miss this one. And an auditor is liable to miss this one. Because after he's in good shape, it doesn't occur to him that people get into that bad a shape. And yet people are in that bad a shape.
Now, he might not, you see, have had any people in the past because they're more mobile—people can move out of the past. But none of these objects are mobile and so of course they can't move out of the past. They have no will, no volition of their own, they don't move out of the past, they stay in the past. He's stuck all over his own time track when he's done that, and by the time you've handled objects—three more in the past, three more—it'll dawn on him all of a sudden that there aren't any objects in the past. There are no particles in the past. The past is composed of patterns of objects which are in— still in the present, if they exist. That's as easy as that.
And you ask for three more, and three more, and three more, and three more. If he's been even vaguely doubtful about it, why, just chew it to death, just beat it to pieces. Just make him so sorry he thought that there was ever any object in the past—don't just lightly handle it, just murder him. Not because you're jeering at him, but because there is an object in the past which is very important to his case, and he is assigning nearly all the significance around to this darned object. And it may turn out to be a baseball bat he'd lost when he was three or five. It may be a tennis racket of his sister's that he broke and he hasn't been able to play tennis since. It may be this and it may be that. It may be an automobile—it's Pop's automobile that he drove when he was sixteen and smashed it all up, and Pop never let him drive again and so forth. There are all kinds of things, you see.
But here's another question of looking at something: "Now, what objects aren't in the future?"
And the fellow "Ga-ga-zum-za-za, um—let's see, the future—objects not in the future . . ."
Of course, the answer is, there's no objects in the future. What objects aren't in the future? Every object in this room's not in the future.
And he'll give you three objects not in the future, and you may have to peel it off, you say, "Well, let's see now . . ."
"Well, there's . . ." (This is the way that most people hit this and go about it.) "Well there's—well, let's see, there's—well, there's flintlock muskets in the future, because they still put those in museums. Let's see . .." He goes onto this weird one.
If he still fumbles over that, you take him back to the past some more, see, with objects. If he has any trouble with objects in the future, he never got the point about objects in the past. You don't have to tell him or inform him, he'll find it out.
Okay. Now, just so that he was not dazed off in some fashion or another,

55

56

10 DECEMBER 1953
you come back at him this way. You say, "Okay. Now where aren't you thinking right at this moment?"
Now, a very fast way to audit, but actually not an exact or correct way to audit is, "Are you thinking in your right foot? Are you thinking in your left foot," and so forth. This is just to speed up the thing and take a look at it, and get him fast exteriorization. It's not very good auditing. I do it, but I know my case that I'm doing it on, and I'm very alert for any automaticity that'll show up that'll start him thinking every place you indicate.
No, the proper terminology on the line—"Give me three places where you're not thinking just now."
"Oh," the fellow says, "one chandelier, the other chandelier, the corner of the room, no."
"Okay. Well now, give me three places where you're not thinking in the past."
"Mm."
You see, you make this very brief, you don't give it this much time. "Three places you're not thinking in the past."
"Not thinking in the—huh?" Three places he's not thinking in the past. "Well, let's see, the Moon—well, I'm not too sure about that. Saturn—well, I'm not too sure about that. Now, let's see, three places in the past—hang on a second ..."
Well, boy, if you've stuck him at that point, you'll have to help him out sooner or later, because he's all over the place. So you say, "All right. Now, let's be very specific now. Give me three more places you're not thinking in the present," and that's the way you solve it. "Three more places you're not thinking in the present. Three more where you're not thinking in the present. Now give me one place where you're not thinking in the past."
"Building across the street hasn't been built yet."
That stumps you. (audience laughter) And give him two more places, two more places, three more, several more, some more.
Whenever they start slowing down too much, give them one place and whenever they're going like hot cakes, why, ask them for ten. All right.
And right there, after we've got him all squared around in fairly good condition, we have this business of remote viewpoints. And how do we do that? We have him create, use and destroy. Now, he'll just do it if he's fairly low on SOP 8 scale. If he's pretty low on the scale, he'll do this conceptually and it might mean quite a bit to him. But if he—you're having any trouble with this at all, "Now get the idea of putting a viewpoint over by the window and using it."
"Mmmmmm . . ."
Hm-mm. You go on, don't linger. Run, don't walk for the next step, because this is over his head. But remember to handle him eventually and you'll save yourself an awful lot of trouble with somebody who is putting his thetan out someplace. Because that's what that remedies immediately. And the reason it's there is because it's got to be hit, that's all. It would probably be better on this student form—I don't know that this isn't a misprint—it should be, "b. If exteriorized, have him create, use and destroy viewpoints."
But if you use it as you're using it here, you'd use it in that fashion. Probably in the other edition I'll go back and look at that; that should be on the next line. It's okay. Doesn't matter. In that step, you've got to have him create and use and destroy viewpoints, that's for certain.
Now, supposing after all this, why, you found he was back of his head. Just conversation. You talk to him. You know, you finish up that much of it and you talk to him and say, "Be three feet back of your head" or something like that.

SOP 8-C: GENERAL DISCUSSION
He seems to be there. Far as he's concerned, he is there. You'd have him be, then, in pleasant, unpleasant, beautiful, ugly, dangerous and safe places.
Now you have him be in places, but boy, he'd better be certainly exteriorized if you use that step—real certainly exteriorized. Don't bother with the step if he isn't certainly exteriorized, because it'll slow him down.
So, the way this is plotted, you can just ignore this step until such time as you know damn well he's exteriorized and simply skid on to the next one. Say, "Be three feet back of your head. Now, mock up your body." Now you're not asking him to look at his body, you haven't told him to look at a thing. To date you haven't told him to look at a thing, you haven't persuaded him to do anything. "Look at his body"—why, pam! he's liable to go right straight back into his head again.
You say, "Look at that ashtray"—no, he's not likely to like it at all. Well, you could say, "Be in the ashtray" and that's all right, perfectly okay. But "Look at the ashtray"—no, thank you.
And so, as you'd come down the line, you can just go through this by ignoring the "b" step here at every time, until you're darn good and certain this fellow is really exteriorized, and his perception is pretty good. Because Step Ia, Step IIa, and Step IIIa, run over and over and over, will function eventually in this fashion. All right.
So we say, "All right, now mock up your body." You say to this fellow, "Mock up your body." You don't care whether he's inside or outside. "Mock it up. Did you get a mock-up? Okay. Poor one. Well, it's all right. Mock it up. Okay. Now duplicate it." You didn't ask him to destroy it, see? Duplicate it. If you asked him to destroy it and he got a poor mock-up, oh brother.
Even people who get good mock-ups won't destroy their first—their body the first mock-up you give them. So you just have them—"All right. Duplicate it. Now duplicate it. Now duplicate it. Now duplicate it. Now duplicate it. Now duplicate it." And just for the sake of some randomity, "Duplicate it. Now duplicate it. Now duplicate it. Now, take the last duplicate which you made, and make the feet disappear. Now make the whole body disappear up to the waist, now make the. rest of that duplicate disappear."
Supposing he had trouble making it disappear. Well, duplicate it and dupli-cate it and duplicate it and duplicate it. "Now put another body beyond it and look through the first body at the second body until the first body disappears. Now duplicate it. Now duplicate it. Now the last one, throw it away. Okay. Throw away the next-to-the-last one. Throw away the next. Now throw all those away. Okay."
"Now mock up your own body. Duplicate it. Duplicate it. Duplicate it. Duplicate it. Duplicate it. Duplicate it. Now make the last one disappear. Now make the rest of them disappear. Okay."
"Now mock up your own body, make it disappear. Mock it up, make it disappear. Mock it up, make it disappear. And mock it up. Now make its head disappear. Okay. Make the rest of it disappear. Okay."
"Now mock it up, make it disappear. Mock it up, make it disappear. And mock it up, make it disappear."
Well, he's—about this time, he's getting the idea that he can handle this body. If you wanted to be even more specific than that, you would run "moving" in on this. You'd say, "Mock up your body, now move it around." And you would get some sensational results on that with some cases. He'd exteriorize like mad. You've moved the body up to the roof, and you moved it to the corners of the room, you moved it downstairs and upstairs and around. This is the first time he's moved a body for years. Bodies have been moving him for years.

57

58

10 DECEMBER 1953
So—that's not the most important step, however. The main thing is to get him to mock up and unmock his own body until his perception betters. His perception will better on this considerably. But supposing he didn't exteriorize, and it doesn't make sense to him, and he did it poorly, and he didn't get any mock-up to amount to anything, and he's real upset about the whole thing and so forth. Well, I tell you, you just go to Step III. Just like it says here. You say, "All right. Now be three feet back of your head." You've asked him this two or three times and he says at all times, "No."
And you say, "All right. Be three feet back of your head."
"All right. Now find the two back corners of the room"—whether his perception betters or not.
"Go behind the two back corners of the room and get interested in them. Get interested only in them. Now, don't bother thinking, just get interested in them."
Do you know that a very large percentage of the cases that had gotten this far—I mean a large percent of the cases—if you as an auditor just simply sat there and let this fellow suffer through it, the locks will pour off and everything will slide away this way and that. And they quite commonly, even cases that are real hard to exteriorize, just quite commonly slap up into one corner of the room and take a look at their body, take a look at the room. This is a routine action.
And how long does this take? Longer than you as an auditor would actually care to sit still. It's generally in a—terms of a couple of hours. About four hours of this with a Case Level III will exteriorize them pretty well and straighten up their life pretty well. I know one auditor, by the way, who was practically doing nothing else. He had such fantastic good luck with this, the first three preclears he ever latched on to, that I don't think you could blow this auditor off this technique with dynamite.
Anybody comes in to get processed by him, believe me, they sit in that chair and hold on to the back anchor points of the room. And they hold on to it till— we just go on and on and on with this technique, that's all. And life cleans up, and things straighten out. There was one fellow at the Philadelphia congress who had spent forty hours doing nothing else but this technique and he looked lots younger and he felt lots better. That's just its routine report.
Well, you're apt to do it too briefly for it to do too much good. And there's really where you can err. And you're apt to chatter—and there's the other place you can err. This is a silent one, as the auditor can take a breather after all of his hard work in Step I and Step II.
Now, the funny part of it is that an auditor reassures a preclear just by his continual presence. If you ask the preclear to do it while the auditor steps out of the room, it's very possible that you will get no great benefit from the step— very possible. When the auditor gets beyond ten feet—he can get up to eight feet without worrying—eight feet away, you see, without worrying the preclear too much, and he gets up to ten feet, it starts to be a little bit worrisome. And when an auditor gets up to fifteen feet away, he's gone. And if he were to walk on down the hall, this is dynamite. It's only really the feeling that there's somebody there who is competent to suddenly pick up the pieces, that gives the preclear nerve enough to go on and hold on, on some of the things that start rushing through. Because a lot happens when you do this. I mean, this is not a light little process. This is a slugger. You can do it forever, but that doesn't mean it's a light process.
Some time ago when I started calling things "limited" and "unlimited," well, when I said something was an unlimited technique and that it could be

SOP 8-C: GENERAL DISCUSSION
used continually and so forth, why, people of course thought this was very light—nothing much to this technique. And said, "Oh, it's all right, we'll just use it, regardless of what. . ."
And then all—oh my, everything started breaking loose, see? And "Oh, what do you mean, calling that a light technique?"
I didn't call that a light technique. I said it was an unlimited technique— could be used for a long time. So don't make the mistake of thinking that because something can be used for a long time, it is a patsy. It's not a light technique merely because it's usable over a long time.
Those techniques which have to do with—are subjective techniques and validate too much the barriers of one's own energy, are quite—they're poor, they're limited techniques. That is what a limited technique is. It's a technique which can be used only for a short time beneficially, and after a certain period of time will begin to cause deterioration on the case rather than otherwise. Double-terminaling, for instance, is a limited technique.
This is the old master of all the unlimited techniques, though, that Step III.
Well, after he's done that for quite a while—you can just do that—you go on to a more subjective technique, which is brackets of space by eleven commands. Now you have a table of those eleven commands and they're simple commands. You say, "All right. Now put up four balls in front of you in a quadrangle. Okay. Now put up four behind you in a quadrangle. Okay." You find out whether or not he can do that. "All right throw them away."
"Now put up eight balls around you in such a way as to make space in which you can be." Yeah, he can do that. Well, you're all right if he can do that. If he can't hold one there at this time, and yet—don't bother going on with it. If he can't hold up eight anchor points of space around himself or see them or do something about them, why, that's all right—just skip it.
But there's five of them you can use, see, without putting up the anchor points. That's straight on the MEST universe, which is the consecutive technique after this. The five of them you can use, run like this:
"All right. Now hold on to the eight corners of this room for yourself. Okay." Have him do that for a while. I say a while—maybe a minute, something like that.
"All right. Now have somebody else hold on to the eight points of this room for himself. Now have somebody hold on to the eight corners of this room for somebody else. And somebody contact and hold them for you. And you hold them for somebody else." Each time, duration thirty seconds, something like that. And then you start shortening the duration.
But what happens is that you get a gradual approach into anchor points, and then you add the others, eight—I mean, pardon me, the remaining six. Which is, 'You put eight anchor points around you, have—for yourself. Somebody else put eight anchor points around him for himself and he holds it a moment"— and just a moment. Well, it's very brief—three seconds, five seconds, as soon as he gets them up. You throw them away each time, see? Banish them, vanish them, throw them away, do something with them, make them disappear.
"Now, have somebody put up eight anchor points for somebody else around somebody else. Now have somebody put up eight anchor points for somebody else but around you. And have you put up eight anchor points around some¬body else, and somebody else put up eight anchor points up around you." And those are the commands as they go through. He should be able to do that fairly soon.
But, trouble—you might even have trouble with this person communica-tionally. He doesn't get it too well when you say, "Hold on to the corners of the room." And what's he supposed to do, and he's a little bit upset about it. Anybody

59

60

10 DECEMBER 1953
gets upset about something like this and gets too stirred up about it, don't alarm him, don't alert him, don't get him resisting you in any way—just skip it. Go on to the next little line.
Because this next one is pure murder, and even a V or a VI can do that. We just have him put emotions—particularly fear, competition, desirable sensation— in three universes including walls, objects and people in the street.
Now, although that only occupies a line, it may occupy, with a very tough case, fifty hours of putting emotions and sensations, betrayal, ridicule, grief, apathy and all the rest of it—pain particularly. He could just go on this way, and when you say three universes, this is completely beyond them, so you take the mean universe—the average universe, which is the MEST universe—and you just have him do it on the MEST universe, and you just beat it to pieces. See?
Because that's making space with emotion. And if they can't get it in terms of feelings, they can certainly get it in terms of effort. And I gave you, early in this course, some examples of how you did this.
You put the blackness on the outside of the walls and pull it through the walls and push it out again. Doesn't matter what you do with it.
Now, you could also put various thoughts into MEST objects, but that again is merely the dramatization of fixing and planting a thought.
Now, the best results are gotten—on this process of putting fear and so forth in the walls—the best results are gotten when actually the greatest speed is used. Bam-bam-bam-bam-bam-bam-bam-bam! Best results, greatest speed. But a person can do it bam-bam-bam-bam-bam-bam-bam, that isn't putting it in at all. So you as an auditor had better make sure that he's putting it in, putting it in. Okay.
Now we go from that—maybe he doesn't have to do too much of this, you see, but you get him to do some of it, because it'll give you a good index on a case. It's—also improves him.
And any thetan—I don't care, see, if he's outside or inside. This is for outside. These steps are designed mainly for an exteriorized thetan. And if he can't make sexual sensation and tastes and smells while he's outside the body, by himself, he will interiorize sooner or later because he's dependent upon the body to get his effects. So that's why he goes back in. So you've got to solve that. So that step gets much more important as the process continues—till he can mock up admiration by the quart and sexual sensation by the fifty-gallon keg. (Kegs aren't fifty gallons, by the way—I just didn't want to direct you wrong on keg measurement.)
So anyway, the next step, adjust the anchor points in the body. Now, a fellow can be awfully bad off and still find his anchor points. He can be in very good shape and still not find his anchor points—still not find his anchor points. He can be in wonderful shape. If you've run a Spacation, it will make it much easier for him to find the body anchor points. That is, brackets of space around himself and others; it'll be very easy. But even then sometimes, why, you have to coax him along to see his anchor points. He's—always can see some anchor point or other, if you're good at it.
You say look here and look there in the body, and see if he can't find an anchor point.
"What's it look like?"
You say, "Put up a gold ball," or something like that, "and take a look at that. You find any of those in the body?"
And the fellow starts to say, "No," and then all of a sudden gets an idea there might be something like that.

SOP 8-C: GENERAL DISCUSSION
And you say, "Well all right, mock up one, mock up another one, mock up another one, mock up another one, mock up another one, mock up another one. Throw it away, throw them away, throw them all away. All right, now mock up another anchor point. Now throw it away. Now mock up a couple more, throw them away. Now mock up an anchor point and move it into your—side of your face."
Yeah, he throws it away. And all of a sudden, "Say," he says, "there's—are some points here like that."
And if you're failing in this process, it's simply because you're just not patiently sitting down and having the fellow mock up some anchor points in the right place. That's all, you're just not having him mock them up until he can see them. Because you're mocking up things real close in and they're very easy to see.
So you just have him mock them up and throw them away, and mock them up and throw them away. Now, don't let a preclear do this—this is the only danger point that can enter in, in the adjustment of anchor points of the body. The reason he can't get out of his body is because his anchor points are all shot. That won't completely bar him from getting out of the body, but it'll make sensation in the body—too much current, too much this and that, out of adjustment. It's like trying to crawl out of a wrecked building as compared to walking out of the door of a well-built one. And so you just get him to adjust anchor points until he can walk out of the building that's upright.
The point I'm making is that a preclear will very often get into this one: He can make such beautiful anchor points as a thetan. He is so good at it. People who are—that you would think are pretty bad off can do this. They get such sparky diamond anchor points—they're beautiful anchor points. Gee, they're just the nicest anchor points, and they move those into the GE anchor point positions. Oh, brother.
And then you see them about two days after the session, and they've been doing this on their own because, of course, it's just like a fellow would mani¬cure his fingernails. He's straightening up the body. He sees that he can do that easily. And you see him a couple of days later, and he's talking to you very happily and so forth.
Well, you might not suspect what's happening. You say, "How are you feeling?"
"Well, I've got a little headache, but I..." You know he's liable to do this: put his own manufactured anchor point in the place of the GE anchor point. And when he does this, he of course throws out the whole electronic structure of the body, because the GE's anchor points are nicely balanced one to another and he's put some bright anchor points in. You just have him throw those bright anchor points out—no matter how much it breaks his heart—throw them out and find the GE anchor point and reassemble the GE anchor point and put it back in the proper place.
Now, these points go in, click! How many are there in the body? Actually there are probably millions, if you count the little sheets of them, like those under the eyes and so forth. They're in the jaws—every place where you once talked about a control center, there is one central anchor point and actually thousands of other anchor points through the body.
There are many major ones. Anchor points are way out in the front of the body to the right and to the left. There's a big anchor point down just below the abdomen, on which sexual sensation depends to a marked degree. The sensations and twists and shapes to the body are varied by these anchor point positions. And that's when somebody straightens up his body. When you get somebody

61

62

10 DECEMBER 1953
to work on his body, doggone it, don't have him work on muscles and bones and things like that—have him work on electronic structure, which is to say anchor points.
Now I hope you understand this process maybe just a little better than you did before.
Okay.

SOP 8-C Patter
A lecture given on 11 December 1953

This is December the 11th, in the year after Dianetics 1953. The subject of this morning's lecture is SOP 8-C, patter connected with it.
You learn anything yesterday about patter? Did you use what you learned?
Male voice: Yes.
Did it work better?
Male voice: Yes.
All right. Any pat technique of this character, of course, is—if you're looking for hidden meanings and hidden results and so forth, they do. Every time you make a rote procedure of this character, believe me, the hidden significances are in it. I'm not kidding you. I mean, I just wouldn't minimize that for a moment.
Well, let's take for an example now, why one should stay fairly well on the groove until he understands exactly what he's doing with experience and so forth, and seen some of it go wrong.
Let's take this "Be three feet back of the head," and ask the pre , "places
where the preclear is not in present, where not in past, where not in future; where others are not in present, in the past, in the future; where objects are not in the present, past and future; where pc is not thinking in the present, past and future; where others are not thinking in the present, past and future." All right, that's Step Ia—section a.
Goes on there—Step Ib is, have him create—that's if he's exteriorized, have him create, use and destroy remote viewpoints. And ask the preclear to be in pleasant, unpleasant, beautiful, ugly, dangerous and safe places; and in own, MEST and other's universes.
Well, let's take up the first part of this, and we find out that this depends squarely on the Prelogics. And that is that theta can place in space and time, objects, energy. That's that. That just is a direct representation of that and it took a terrific amount of experience and other know-hows sliding inside on it, to make that its most workable form. And that happens to be, at this moment, its most workable form.
Now, various conditions occur. The preclear's buttered all over the universe. He's stuck in the past, as we learned in Book One. He's jammed up with this and that, something else. He's afraid of the future—all of his computing machinery (which is to say, every condensed circuit he has, certainly) got there simply because he was afraid of the future. And he's "trying to be at places" and not arriving at them. By the way, that's a different postulate than "trying to be

63

64

11 DECEMBER 1953
something"—"trying to be at something." That's the "not arrive" postulate boiled down to the last inch.
And the intent of the step is to let the preclear discover where he is, so that he can know where to place things, and then bring him up through that so that he doesn't need MEST objects and directions to orient himself. But it's in that order. You shouldn't try to upset him too much about things and directions and so forth, until he's real stable about where he is.
Well, by asking him where he's not, you make him look. And so we have, sleeping in this, the proposition that feeling is condensed looking, effort is condensed feeling, thinking is condensed effort, and symbols are condensed thinking. And that's underlying that, so this step's also taking care of that—very indirectly. You're asking him to look at places, you see, and he'll incidentally feel about places.
So that's one of the fastest ones out, and that's why it's Step I. Not because it's senior to that, but because if a person can do this adequately, we have him getting the following results: He can accurately place things; he can accurately orient the knowingness which is connected with where he was and what he was doing, which is about all the knowingness there is in terms of data; and where others were and what they were doing, and where objects were. And it disabuses him of worries concerning things suddenly pulling away from him which aren't there. Now, that sounds funny but, you see, he thinks things are there and he's afraid these things are going to be wrenched away from him, and these things are either terribly desirable or it'll hurt like hell.
And so we have him convinced that he is other places holding on to other objects, and this is why he's holding on to things. So we get that just as a side shot through there. And this is all worked out to a point where you make him look, you make him reorient and you make him predict, all by finding out where he's not.
So thinking is a substitution for an ability to predict. One cannot "look at" the future—he can look at a picture he makes of the future. But then one can't "look at" the present either—he can look at the present in terms of the constructed particle positions and changing particle positions in the present. And you see that he's pinned inflexibly in time. So by using this process, we move him ahead.
Now, we—he has to go ahead there, as I said one day to you—the difference between being cause of something and being an effect of something may be as little as a billionth of a second. The fellow who's having trouble with decision would have trouble with this: You're trying to move that fellow around and get him up above effect.
Now, he's being the effect of MEST all the time, that's why he can't get out of his head. So let's just get him a little bit in advance and have him be the cause of MEST, and—by this tiny shift of time. It's not very much, although one auditor told me one day that he's figured he was twenty-four hours out of position because he looked at his body while he was exteriorized, and it had yesterday's shirt on it.
You get this operation here, we say—the fellow—you put some toy or something in front of him and you say, "All right, now decide where you're going to move that toy to on the table in front of you." And he picks out a place, and then he moves it over there. Now he is cause because he's in advance of the motion—he's not in back of the motion, he's in advance of it.
Now, the reason he gets into a situation whereby he is not cause anymore and is effect, is because he's afraid of the future.

SOP 8-C PATTER
He feels that he has so much now to lose that his losses will be impossible to bear, so in view of the fact that he has objects in the past, he'd better go into the past because he certainly can't be certain that he will have objects in the future. Well, of course, the funny part of it is, is that he doesn't have any objects in the past. Any objects he has are straight here in present time.
And the difference between a very sane person and a person who is just a little bit neurotic and a person who is very neurotic and a person who is strictly psycho is this (this is again Book One). A person who is very sane is in present time. He has no anxiety about present time, he can move around things in present time, and he can be a little bit in advance of present time if he wants to be, and he can also remember and be a little bit back of present time. But he can be there flexibly.
Now, a person when he gets slightly neurotic starts pushing the future. "Pushing time," he calls it. Time is that horrible barrier, see. And these people haven't got enough time, they haven't got enough time, they haven't got enough time, they haven't got enough time. This whole society at this time is running on this basis. Nobody has enough time to do anything, yet they're just accomplishing nothing. It's fabulous.
For instance, I went home last night, I didn't get home till 7:15, and I had dinner, and we set up a lot of equipment and took a lot of color pictures, and put all the equipment away—well, it's a tremendous amount of equipment involved in this, you know, I mean, half a truckload—and sat down and had quite a chin-chin about life in general and so forth, and got to bed. Total lapsed time in an entire evening, including dinner, was about two hours and a half; merely because we were in action most of that time, you see? We were doing something. We weren't sitting waiting for something to happen, we were just going on doing something.
And, of course, that made an awful lot of time occur while that clock was going on from one point to another. And that's what you actually do as an individual, you make a lot of time occur.
If you're depending on an automobile to make a lot of time occur, it won't. It'll take just the amount of time that the other particles say it has to take time. But you as an individual could make a lot of time occur.
But this is only if you're not pressing the future. If you have no anxiety about the future—if you went home for instance and you said, "Well, now look, I got to get up at 5:30 in the morning. My gosh, that means I'll have to get that many hours sleep, and let's see—I better do this and I better do that. And I got to get the clock wound. Yes, I got to get that. I got to get the cat out. Yes, I must get the cat out," and so forth. "And let's see now, I better get to bed and get to sleep. Better get to bed and get to sleep because I've got to be up about 5:30. And yeah, I've got to get to bed and get to sleep. Well now, where's my slippers? Let's see, I'll find them and put them alongside there, and get this all prepared, and I get to bed and get to sleep. Yeah, I've got to get to bed and get to sleep." And you get to bed, and you say, "All right. Now, I've got to get sleep. Now, I've got to get sleep. Got to get sleep so I can wake up in the morning. Hrrmmmmm! Got to get to sleep! Hmmmm-himnrn-hmmm!"—two o'clock, three o'clock.
That is exactly what insomnia is. It's just that. It's just—just a pressing future time.
The biggest impatience that a little child has with his parents is do the parents—do these parents ever look at anything occurring in present time? And his adjudication on it is uniformly that they don't. He wants them to go

65

66

11 DECEMBER 1953
to a movie and have a good time. And my golly, they lose their hats, and they lose the car keys and they do this and they do that and they get sore about something else.
Kid after a while gets the idea that any time he plans something it will be spoiled. And that starts driving people out of future time, see? "I don't dare plan anything up there. It'll be ruined if I do. I mean, I postulated that we were going to have a nice party and so forth, and yet Papa came home from the office, and here it is my fifth birthday," the kid says, "and he came home from the office and he was tired, and he tried to play or something, but that— you could see that he was under a strain. And Mother and he got cross about something or other and—so I better have things happen accidentally. See, I mean, because it's probably because I planned it would be good, you see, that it went wrong."
And little kids will sit around and figure just this way. They're forcing a child, first, by not looking at the present time . . . There isn't any reason at all why the house couldn't be on fire, you see, and then you get the fire out and you get that straightened up, but what everybody can't sit down and play a game of checkers or do something else interesting. That's another period of time you've now entered into—another sphere of action.
And yet they don't do that, they sit around and say, "Well now, whose fault was it that so-and-so and zab-zab-zaba-zaba.""And it was a lucky thing we did this. And gee, we certainly were fortunate to have the house catch on fire. And my, we are lucky that we got it out in time," and so on. And they sit around and, "My, I sure am tired, and I..." and this goes on for hours. Well, those people are stuck in the track. See, they've got a big discussion going on about it.
Yet, there is—the house is not on fire at that time. In other words, nothing is happening. Now, a child can point this out to them very rapidly.
If you were to ask a child who was listening to this dissertation and so forth—after it had gotten a little bit tiring—two or three minutes of it's all right. You discuss the fact that the house was on fire, but this is the next day! And you ask him if he doesn't think his parents are a little bit overdoing this affair, so forth, and he'd say, "They sure are." Because his consciousness of time is not so thoroughly pinned down with havingness.
There is future havingness for him. He's more or less squared away, and he feels competent to solve the situation when it arises. And let me let you in on something in case you've never noticed this: The only time you can solve a situation and remedy it is when it arises. That's the time to do it.
There is this proposition of you notice that your car tires are getting very thin and so on. Well, what are you doing with thin car tires? This just isn't— it's not that something will happen in the future just because of the thin car tires, it's actually the fact that the car doesn't run quite as well in the present, doesn't steer quite as well, unbalanced treads and so forth. It isn't riding as well as it might. And furthermore, it certainly isn't braking and stopping the way it ought to. Well, so that's a present time remedy. If you just keep everything up to the nines that you've got all the time, nothing will ever happen. You don't have to sit around and worry about car tires.
And the other thing is money. People sit around and worry about money all the time. Well, someday I'm going to pull this on some parent when he is sitting around fussing and stewing about some boy or some girl being so expensive and so forth, and talking about the scarcity of money, the scarcity of money, the scarcity of money—look at him and say, "What's the matter with you? Can't you get out and make money? What's the matter with you only making

SOP 8-C PATTER
sixty dollars a week? Well, what's the matter with you?" Something wrong with you, see? There's something wrong with the guy. Anytime anybody tries to save and so forth, they're doubting their own ability to accumulate.
It's funny, but you know hardly anybody in this society at this time can own money? You'll find that out as soon as you start processing lots of preclears. They can't own money. You process them for a long time on wasting money and they get up to a point where they can accept a nickel. That's right. I mean, it's that brutal. That's not a sarcastic statement; they can't accept money.
So this money doesn't belong to anybody, and it doesn't belong to them, doesn't belong to somebody else, and it just—it just wanders around.
And if you all of a sudden decide that you're going to have some money, you can go through the necessary magic to accumulate it. You go through magic to accumulate money—various magics. Some people think the way to accumulate money is get down in a ditch and shovel for eight hours or twelve hours. They'll accumulate money—they'll accumulate just as much money as they thought they were going to accumulate. Well, that's their magic.
And other people work only to accumulate money. That is about the emptiest goal I know of.
Other people work only to retire. They work only so they won't have to work. That's the most gorgeous one of all, because they're working themselves out of their job. And then they wonder why, when they retire at sixty-five, they have a nervous breakdown and die when they're sixty-six.
But aside from that, here's this gradient of time. Your little child can tell you any time that his parents press time too hard. Well, after they've pressed the future for a while, you know—anxiety because things will happen—even though they were anxious because things would happen, even though they just knew the house would burn down and it did (they postulated it down one way or the other), then, they have to go into the past to the fact that the house burnt down, because they had postulated it into the future. So their past postulates and their past track is strewn with postulates relating to failures about postulating the future, and only the past is secure. Well, I don't know anything secure about the past. By the way, did you ever eat a piece of past? Nothing is secure about the past at all. It's indigestible.
Now, when you look this problem over, you find out that your preclear is pressing the future or he's stuck in the past, and he's not in present time. And believe me, pressing the future will eventually come up against "I have no time to do anything." See, I mean, you can press the future for a while, and this fellow who's on a terrific manic drive, see—he's going ahead into that future, he's going ahead into that future, he's going ahead into that future. There is no place there to go! What's he doing going into the future?
He could gain maybe ten times as much by simply relaxing in the present and then organizing the present in such a way as to have a consecutive future goal. He doesn't have to get all this effort and this verve and this and that into the fact he's pressing the future. Because he'll eventually wind up by just expressing the verve and doing nothing about the future.
You've seen people like that? They're always talking about the future and the future and the future and they just don't make a single motion. Endless plans. Great plans keep rolling off, of the most exact nature. They just keep rolling off, rolling off—more and more plans and plans—but nothing ever happens. That's what happens to these people.
You see some preclear, he tells you this and that, he's got lots of plans and another preclear who has—oh, tremendous plans. The difference between these

67

68

11 DECEMBER 1953
two, state of health, is will the plans of one of them be executed? If a person plans something up and executes it, why, he's in good shape. And if a person plans something up and then he plans something up, one of two conditions is occurring: either his fun is simply planning, you know—but that's detectable, because he's generally planning completely; not impractically, but he's generally planning just for fun. And the other one is, he's planning practically and seriously, and he's planning and he's planning, and he just never does a thing. He isn't getting any fun out of it.
Now, people all the time—kids all the time are planning for the future— they just do it for fun. I mean, they're going to do this, and they're going to do that and so on. People frown on this being fun. You have to plan for the future seriously!
Well, how do you handle all this stuff I've been giving you here about time? That's Step Ia. It'll blow a person up into being cause. There are some direct processes on this, but this will actually blow a person into being cause.
How long would you have to use that, though, on some people, to blow them into being cause? You're going to underestimate it every time. That's all I can tell you when you say, "How long?" I'll just say you will always underestimate it.
Now, you can right now throw an estimate forward just to make that statement incredible, you see. You can say, "Oh, eighteen thousand hours, you know?" You can say, "Eighteen thousand hours is how long it's going to take." But I'm talking about an actual estimate that you'll make: "How long do I have to give him this kind of Step I—this Step Ia?" And you'll look at this preclear and say, "Well, all right, we'll give him an hour or so." I'm talking about a practical estimate now. You're the auditor and you say, "Oh, we'll do this for an hour." Nuh-uh. Just always count on that you had never given him enough Step Ia. And I gave you an example yesterday of where this thing winds up. It comes into a prediction, and the past and so on.
Do you want to know how "time-bound" an individual is? Just let me ask you at random: Where were you on the afternoon of June the 21st, 1013? Oh, you don't know. Well, I just wouldn't call that a very good memory.
What was the name of your wife three lives ago? What a stinking memory! You mean you don't come up like that (snap) —Adella or something like that. Tsk! All right. You were a girl, all right, you, of course, wouldn't have had a wife, naturally. Well, what was the name of your husband five lives ago? What's the matter, you lost your memory?
Now, you just extend it out of this realm of human agreement into the realm of knowledge. Big difference, you know. You—we get most people and you say, "What'd you do on your third birthday?"
And the fellow says, "Huh? You expect me to remember that!"
"Well, what'd you do on your tenth birthday?"
"My tenth birthday! Why, that was twenty years ago!" He stalls, see.
"Well, what did you do on your last birthday?"
"Oh, but that was almost a year ago!"
This guy is time-bound. And you're going to ask this fellow to be cause now, huh? No, you're not. You're not going to get anyplace asking him to be cause, he won't cause anything.
The biggest stunt there is, is to make a person not be cause. Then we have a nice, unrandom society that can be run, and somebody or other can sit back and say, "Isn't it nice, look at all those ants running." Only men are not ants.
The time barrier. You should have a full and complete recall on seventy-six

SOP 8-C PATTER
trillion years. If you haven't got it, that's—means that you're pretty bum, pretty— pretty bad, pretty bad.
"You mean to tell me you can't even remember three thousand years ago? You can't tell me the name of your villa? You trying to kid me? Not actually— you can't really remember that. Oh gee, well let's try some other Straightwire. We'll try something easy now, we'll try to be better at it. Let's see, What is the—when was the last time you were a governor of something?' Well, I think we'd better go into elementary processes with you—you seem to have a very bad communication lag."
Now, if you ask any one of these questions, do you know that the lag time escapes your notice because it's too long. Do you know that there's always a lag time on a datum of that character? Do you know that the answer does come up? Hm? It does come up. But the lag time is too long for you to notice this is a lag time.
The lag time—the longest lag time I know of on such a question was eight years. Eight years. It took eight years for the answer to come in from whatever outpost it had been parked at. But it came in.
And I know another one that took three and a half months. I asked a fellow, rather in jest one time, "Well, where were you in 816?" You know, he said, "I couldn't. . ." He was telling me—oh, he was being very grandiose—oh, he could remember this, and boy he had his time track spotted all over the place, see. And boy, he was burrowed in there in the last—and he had the five years just beautifully organized, and this was the only thing he was interested in. He wouldn't go back of that, because he'd had a marital upset earlier.
And I said, "All right. Now," I said, "just for fun, let's try some more Straightwire. Now, where were you in 816 A.D.?"
The guy says, "You're kidding me. All right," he says, "I'll pitch in and we'll go into this childhood stuff."
He just wouldn't give me any early stuff till then. Three and a half months later, the fellow called me up on the phone, said, "I was in Florence." That's all he said, hung up. Took me a little lag time then to remember what the problem was.
But there's always a lag time. And it may be a day, it may be two days, may be three days. Quite ordinarily, it's three, five, eight days. Only that's such a long lag time, you don't recognize it as the same lag time as you ask the preclear, "All right. Now, do you recall your mother saying that to you?" You know, good old-time Book One Straightwire. "Do you recall your mother saying that?"
"Well, (sigh) see—yes, she said it to my brother once. Yeah . . . Yeah, she said it to me once. Yeah."
You get that as a lag time? Well, the same lag time takes place over three, five, eight days, three months or eight years. The same operation goes on, but you—it just becomes unrecognizable.
Well, how do you remedy this? It all depends on how much full cause-effect knowledge you want the individual to have, that's all. The many other techniques are directed toward this same thing, and none of them are even vaguely as effective as Step Ia. And it looks so mild. That's why it's effective.
And the fellow thinks, "Well, gee, I run that for two, three minutes, or five minutes or—well, we were just going over Steps I, II, and III now. Okay. Give me three places not in the past, three places not in the present, three places not. . ." That's the end of that step. Now let's go on to something important: 'Hold on to the two back anchor points of the room,' " or something.

69

70

11 DECEMBER 1953
He's missing the boat. Now, you only have to do this for a little while, or long enough to get somebody stable. When you get him stable, help him stabilize himself so he's got a little bit better certainty, you can pass on to the next step.
Tell him to mock up and unmock his own body. And, by the way, after you've done Step II several times, there's a variation on it: have the fellow start mocking up and unmocking bodies and vehicles to carry life around. Because there has been three-headed bodies—there have been three-headed bodies and things like that on the track that he's still frightened of. Weird-looking bodies, bodies completely unaesthetic, ugly bodies, all kinds of bodies. And you just start handling bodies in that Step II, and it's written in this limited fashion, in this brief form here, so it's just for your use. But you just put him up to the problem of creating and uncreating bodies, and making bodies persist and so on.
Well now, the limits, then, which surround a preclear are the barriers of these walls, the barriers of space, and mental barriers. Those are actual barriers. They're embryonic walls, you might say—walls aborning. They are walls in the course of manufacture. Some fellow tells himself every day, "I'm unable to get out of this side of the bed." Believe me, he'll, after a while, not be able to. Because he's fixing an idea in a barrier. And he fixes ideas in barriers that exist or he'll start fixing an idea—in order to fix it, he erects a barrier in a finite space and time. So he keeps on adding to this barrier and adding to this barrier, and that's what you call "training."
That's how you train a dog. You put a leash on him, and you want him to heel, why, you put the fixed idea there of heel as a word, you know, and then make it into an action, and you make that action into a barrier. You let him run against his own leash, and you snap him back of your heel. So he has evidently kind of run into something. And after a while, the symbol itself becomes the barrier.
Now, a thetan will associate a fixed idea—any time, he will associate a fixed idea with a barrier. That's very easy. Because he's trying to fix ideas. His big fixation is to fix ideas. If he is a complete nut—and that goes clear on up all the way back the track, and applies even to an Operating Thetan—he's trying to fix ideas. He's nutty on the subject. He's got to fix an idea. Because if he doesn't fix ideas, then nothing will be self-animate and nothing will be under symbolic control. So he has to fix ideas. See that? You've just got to fix ideas in things—I mean, you can't go on anything—I've got to fix SOP 8-C in your heads so that you can use it, see?
So everybody is engaged on this one way or the other. We want to fix the minimum—the best way to do it is to fix the minimum number of ideas to cover the maximum number of actions, and that's optimum. Not strain the way the Scholastics did to fix the maximum number of ideas for the minimum amount of action. That's the wrong way to train. That should be banished out of the American university. Someday they will get it into an education system rather than into an unknowing system.
That is how you unknow, because you've fixed a vast number of irrelevant material without any action intention. You know, you sit down and tell somebody to memorize, in Latin, the 8,646 separate parts of the body, instead of showing him how to be three feet back of his head.
So, how long do you carry on, on this thing? Well, gee, you can see right away that these objects that are not in the present, past and future—you're dealing with fixed ideas all the way through here, fixed locational ideas, and all of them apply to barriers. That's the simplest technique there is. You can just sit and use that technique on and on and on and on and on.

SOP 8-C PATTER
You would be surprised at how it varies. There's a tremendous amount of randomity in using it. I started using it on a preclear one day with just malice aforethought. Just one thing I was going to do to this preclear—I was going to turn up the year 1200. And I did. I made the year 1200 more real to him than 1953 ever thought of being. Of course, that was easy, because life was more real to him in 1200.
I once determined I would turn up some music out of my own bank that I'd had and composed and so forth, and so I just sat down and turned up this music. Did it on the basis of where I wasn't and where musical instruments weren't and so on, until the music, which was a symbol, was no longer fixed to the musical instrument in the time of the musical instrument, and didn't have to be there.
Well now, I can't be in the year 1000, and have everything in the year 1000, but I can certainly have the knowledge of everything in the year 1000. So you don't have to go astray on this technique, and go way abroad someplace and get over on the side of it. It's just that—it's "Give me three other things that aren't in the past." And you'll start driving this guy batty after a while. I mean, he'll run out of things.
After he's told you three times that the washtub is not in the past, he'll start to get ashamed of himself and he'll have to find something else. And with great relief, he'll say, "The tappet is not in the past." Yeah, that's good, he finally got something else. "And also the rug—the rug along side of the washbasin is not in the past."
He doesn't turn on particularly with a somatic, but he suddenly remembers, "You know, I was almost drowned in a bathtub when I was a baby? Well," he says, "what do you know?"
Now, you don't have to beat that to death, to hit that as a specific incident is to validate it. Skip it, if you want to do a good, long, fast job.
You'll see preclears doing the darnedest things. Because this is again— looking when condensed, feeling, feeling condensed becomes effort, and so on. You're making him look. And by making him look, he's willing then to know. If he can't look, he won't know. He refuses to know.
You can actually see somebody's attention on this use of Step Ia just come out from a tremendously broad, almost flat plain. They can only look—it's just like light spattering up against a target or something. I mean, the rays of it are all going out sideways from the target. Nothing is going through the target. There's something in the road of lookingness, in other words. "Target" is a bad word. Let's put up a shield in front of a target. And the light being shined on the target is hitting the shield and is going out at right angles to the incoming light, you see, and it's just spattering.
And yet, right back of the shield, there's a tremendous suction area. It's a vacuum. There's this terrific desire to look at something which one mustn't look at. So his attention is around there, and yet he's shielding himself from looking at it, and he's in this big complication.
So he'll first tell you on this subject that, yeah, he can—that "Venus is not in the past, and Saturn is not in the past, and uh-uhhhhh the asteroid belt is not in the past, and ummmyahh, da-da-da da-da-da . . ." He isn't down to Earth yet.
Now, you get him down to Earth and he'll start going out on broad continents. Now, when you get out on broad continents, he'll start getting in on nearby cities. And then he'll get in nearby cities, he'll start swinging in on the immediate vicinity. And when he gets into the immediate vicinity, he'll start pinpointing it right where it is.

71

72

11 DECEMBER 1953
Now, even though he knows this technique, he can't fool himself. You can audit this on yourself. You can't fool yourself. You know the third time that you said that, "Well, there's no bathtub in the past," that there's—possibly you're just looking down the line at the bathtub. Something about bathtubs. You're insisting there's no bathtub in the past!
You say, "Yeah, that's an entirely different thing than being completely comfortable about there being no bathtubs in the past."
"Give me three more objects which are not in the past."
So, you could handle that. It's a type of Straightwire and it's very, very easy to audit.
How many varieties of auditing can be done on this? Well, I don't know. Every time I do it, I vary it in some little fashion or another just to take the monotony off of it and so on. But I find out that there are thousands of ways to use this technique. And I find that the best way is just flatly and bluntly, "Give me one thing which is not in the past. Two, three things which are not in the past. Give me three more that are not in the past. Now give me three that are not in the future. Three more that are not in the future."
When I take a case unawares with this technique, you know, I mean, they just don't quite know what's coming, I'll vary the patter just enough. Sketch it around, then come up to the present, then go back to the past again before I go into the future. Then go into the future longer than I go into the past. In other words, vary the rhythms of it. (You can vary the rhythm of the technique, you understand, so that it doesn't become too monotonous.) And hardly ever fail to take a preclear who is just certain that he can go through this just nicely and beautifully—don't care how—never fail to take him on the future. That is the damnedest thing, according to him. Because he's "got no concern about the future, it doesn't worry him. He can take care of himself. He's a self-determined fellow. He doesn't worry about the future—never has, and doesn't intend to start now!"
"Well, give me three more objects which are not in the future."
And he says, "Well, there's—look there's no use giving you any more objects that are in the future." You can just slip right back to the past then again if you want to. There's no reason to be overbearing.
I was quite mean to one of your fellow classmates here yesterday. Yes I was, because it amounts to a communication break to be that overbearing. Rather than be that way, just slip them into the past again. Just ask them three more objects from the past and they'll eventually sort out the future.
But I've never failed to take one by storm about the fifth or sixth time you ask them about objects in the future or people in the future. It's just one of those things.
Been doing this on a type of Straightwire here for some time. It was pointed out—we were applying brackets to 8-C in the First Unit, and applied brackets all up and down this 8-C; it was rather understood there. And I'd only been running it in brackets on the subject of others—where others were concerned— "others not in the past." And it was broadened out in that First Unit, very definitely, so that we could—"others in the past, and the present and the future" and turned out to be terrifically beneficial.
Till yesterday, one of the boys of the First Unit said—I won't say exactly what he said because it was cowpuncher talk and it was—shouldn't go on the tape. But he said, "An auditor ought to hawhuh-huh have his rowrr-rurh if he fails to run 'others not present.'" He said, "Because, by golly," he says, "you know I've had a cousin right along with me all this whole time!"

SOP 8-C PATTER
Well, yes sir! Well, that's his opinion of it. If you—that's omitting a part of this particular technique. Yes, it—an omission, evidently a consistent omission of this part of this technique ever since it came out on his case, had to some slight degree stalled his case.
Look, if somebody is present in the present, he is certainly present from the past. And the past is pinned at that point, and there's the stuck.
A person who can't get out of his head can't be cause. A person who can't get out of his head must be stuck in the past also. Also he must be effect. And any ways you start adding this up, you can make it a sort of one of these mathematical philosophic machines. It comes down to this. When the people— if they can't move out of their head, they've got to be an effect.
Well, all right, if they've got to be an effect, then they must be back of present time, not in front of it. And if this is the case, then they must be having trouble with time, so therefore time must be a big barrier. And this is one of those weird ones. You can just go on, and for your own amusement, you ought to go on and argue around this subject long enough till you see that it exhausts cause, effect, attention, beingness, being at places, unable to arrive, communi¬cation lines, particles and so forth. I could sit down here and just reel it all off—I mean, here you are, and not there.
The fellow can't arrive. Well, if he can't arrive, well, he isn't anyplace. This means probably that he didn't arrive, so there's something there about arrivals and so on. Well, you could tailor up this to hit that specifically: "Give me three messages which are not in the past."
A guy will turn practically green. I mean, "Three messages which are not in the past? Well, damn it, all messages are in the past, of course! It's just silly for you to ask such a question."
"Give me three messages which are not in the—well, give me one. Give me one message which is not in the past."
"Oh, it's so silly! They're—all messages are in the past, they've got to be in the past." And here we go on off into another argument. This is your "can't-arrive" case. He'll argue with you. He'll give you a real bad time when you ask him "three messages not in the past." He just flops. Period!
And yet, you'd eventually sort it out, and you get it on this basis where he can find that messages are not in the past, and he knows lots of kinds of messages are not in the past. It isn't that you're looking for a hidden significance of a telegram, you're trying to get him over looking at the telegram which is in the past. You don't want him to look at the telegram which is in the past—this is a different goal, you see—you just want to get him over having to look at it. A telegram isn't important. It's just another reason. Men got lots of reasons. If you don't believe it, why, read some of the Greek philosophers, they had reasons for everything. Roman philosophers were worse than the Greek philosophers— the Romans all had reasons why the Greek philosophers thought what they thought. The—and if I could expand your scope in any way, it would simply be along this technique. See that?
Now, there's these three things. The first certainties that a person will run into one after the other—who are under training—are data certainties. And then they get the certainty—they get the certainty they've got data, that this data is effective, that it will produce an effect. And their next certainty is—they'll get off on the basis of "is it true or isn't it true," you see—relative truths— that's a trick, "relative truths." It's whether it produces an effect or not. That's what counts. Because that's what the thetan is trying to do. He's trying to

73

74

11 DECEMBER 1953
produce an effect. He's not so much interested in truth. Truth is a chimera— data-truth and so on.
You'll find a lot of people get stuck on Scientology. They—just gets all balled up because they want to know if it's the truth or if it's not the truth or something.
Well, let's look at what they want to know is it the truth about. Will it produce an effect? Well, there's lots of things that'll produce an effect, and anything that'll produce an effect has a relative truth.
Well, will it produce a very broad and uniform effect? Yeah, yeah—broad, uniform and beneficial. Yeah. When he gets this down, why, he knows then he's into that certainty; that's a data certainty.
Now, we go up the next stage: Will it arrest his own dwindling spiral? That's the first thing that he wants to run into. And he gets—finally gets a certainty on this. And then he gets a certainty on "Well, can he exteriorize and remain in such a state or does he have to be audited or . . ."
Gee, I've had more people tell me—I had an instructor in London one time, one of the—I mean, a schoolteacher in London, say, "It's all right, I feel fine, but my Lord, don't tell me I have to stay married to this book Self Analysis for the rest of my life." He says, "I work on it about a half an hour every night, in order to get over the school day." And he says, "I do it very effectively and I feel fine afterwards, but don't tell me I've got to go on the rest of my life doing a half an hour of Self Analysis every time I come home from school."
And yet, you notice he was doing a half an hour of Self Analysis every night when he came home from school—because he'd hit the point where he knew his dwindling spiral was arrested. See, he knew that would keep him from sinking any further beyond where he was. Deterioration stopped. So that's the next certainty up.
And then certainty on the auditor: "Do I have to have auditors or auditing?" and so forth. He gets a certainty on that, and then he gets a stability out there.
Then he's liable to worry about being trained, and does he have to go on studying and thinking and worrying and fussing about it, and he finally gets a certainty on that spiral being interrupted. He's achieved a stability.
Well, now, he'll struggle an awful long time to get up there to a stability, but those are certainties that he hits.
Then he'll get a certainty—he'll fool around with this certainty: Is it good to set people free or not? See, anybody—almost anybody will fool around with that certainty sooner or later. And then he decides one way, and he decides the other way, and he fools around with it, and sometimes he doesn't solve it till his own case is practically solved. The only reason he's worried about it: Is his own defensibleness adequate to having people free? As soon as it becomes sufficiently defensible, and he knows he's not hitting a dwindling spiral anymore because of it, he's free. Because he's free of the worry of whether other people ought to be free or not, which is freedom.
And when it comes to that, by the way, there are—a gradient scale there on the Tone Scale. Right down there from about 0.5 on the Tone Scale down, you get repetitive cycles.
In the first book—you'll notice the Tone Scale's in the first book there. I put that drawing in there. The first drawing of Book One, of Modern Science of Mental Health, has the Tone Scale in it.
And you notice it's drawn in a geometric progression. Well, it's a very funny thing about that thing, but do you know that geometric progressions down toward the bottom of it get so repetitive because they're halving the distances,

SOP 8-C PATTER
you know, distances in half. And you never arrive when distances keep being cut in half. And that's the hideous thing, you see, about hitting death—actual death—or going down toward death. A thetan never arrives at it. See, he just keeps cutting the distance in half.
And there's an emotion down there—there's a sympathy down there, for instance, which is as solid as wood. Honest. It's tiny. In order to get it, you'd have to mock up—oh, two big crowds of little tiny specks, each one feeling very sympathetic. Each little speck feeling very sympathetic inside the crowd, and two major crowds of them, and all of a sudden, you—my gosh, could there be an emotion that solid? Could there be a sympathy that solid? Yes, there is, there's one more solid than that. You see, that's just the other harmonic down. So these harmonics keep doubling over and so on—and they never arrive, because that's the secret of the dwindling spiral. You never really arrive at the bottom of the dwindling spiral. So the certainty comes about when you can arrest it. And that's what—all we're trying to do.
So there are many of these states that an individual could run into and so on. But the final thing that your preclear will solve on the subject of it— you can expect him to solve—is whether or not he could exist alone in his own universe and so forth. Whether or not he could just take himself away from all this and so on.
And this worries him one way or the other, and he eventually finds out that he can. And that is a certainty which is above Operating Thetan. But he'll fool around with ARC and contact with his fellows way up to Operating Thetan and above. He doesn't have to, but can he? And he actually has to be in that state of where he actually realizes he can get along without anybody else in the whole firmament. He can get along all by himself, perfectly comfortably, to be completely comfortable about being with people—because you've gotten him over his dependency on it. And his terrific dependency on this is one of the big bars to his ability to take it, because he gets anxious about it, and therefore he's afraid everybody won't be his friend, and then he's sure everybody's going to be his enemy, and here we go.
So those are roughly the trail of certainties that you hit there. You might mark them down, because you'll see those repeat, preclear after preclear.
Well, now how do you arrive at these certainties? Well, one of the best ways I know of is to try to get in on the level of data certainty. See, that's just you as an auditor. Try to get in on that level. Now you, because you have a data certainty, can put your preclear into a senior certainty. He right away recognizes, if you do a good job, that as long as you're around and this subject is around and so forth, he at least can keep from going on down. He doesn't have to know, because he assumes there are others like you, or certainly there is you. So he isn't after a data certainty, and you would waste your time trying to give him a data certainty. You know, you just waste your time, because what you're trying to do is give him auditor certainty as his point of entrance.
But you as an auditor—because you peculiarly have one problem in common—you have been seeking and you are seeking, and you are seeking for just that: a data certainty. Well, let's end the cycle and goal on it or get some-where close to where we can have a security on it. And right then, an awful lot of the end of cycles which you are fighting personally will blow up, you see, because you—that's end of cycle. Your case is a little bit different than the case that you'll process out in the public, because you are interested in the data, interested in what you have been with in relative truth, and so on.

75

76

11 DECEMBER 1953
And many of you have had the experience of trying to study something in this society which didn't quite pan out, and which was sold with, if anything, even more verve than I have tried to sell you Dianetics or Scientology. Although
that, somebody says is im , could say very well, and probably has said, is
impossible for anybody to use any more salesmanship than I've tried to use on this.
The point is, is you hit an end of cycle on that. Well, the best place I know of for you to start in with an end of cycle is Step Ia, on a data certainty. That's the best place I know of. Mostly because it is an easy process, and because its results are easily viewed and because they happen fast and because you won't have the additional strain of feeling you're going to ruin a preclear because of it.
Now, you can do this wrong. You can do SOP 8 - C Step Ia a little bit wrong simply by keeping on insisting where objects are. Well, this makes the fellow introvert his lookingness. See, he—it doesn't make him look, it makes him not look. You see why that is? You keep up asking him where subjects are, and you're asking him to face up to reality and that sort of thing. And he is going to feel very confused, and he will very swiftly get lost. And you can be specific about specific places and objects to his detriment.
That is to say, you—"Give me—now is there a piano? Now tell me . . ."You just dreamed up a piano out of your own bank, see? And you say, "Where isn't a piano?" This fellow is not stable enough to be—have something particularly clarified. You can start in specifically and start to clear up music, or you can start to clear up poetry, or you can clear up something very specific and intimate to this preclear with this technique by saying, "All right, where isn't there a poem in the past?" And you can go on pangity-pangity-pang right like that, and a good smart, sharp auditor would. But to just suddenly pick up an object with no purpose at all, while the—with the preclear still shaky and so forth— "All right, where isn't there a bathtub in the past?"—just like that, I mean, in other words, be a little less specific.
And the worse off your preclear is, the less specific you be, till you just get general beyond general. You let it take place all automatic-like if you think your preclear is real bad.
If you were treating a psycho with this, you would be so doggone general. It's very, very easy, you know, to be terrifically sharply defined with a psycho. Oh, it's very easy to have to come down on them, to be sharp and forceful with them and so forth, because they're really practically in the state of a piece of MEST. And they're a piece of MEST, and you start regarding them as a piece of MEST, so therefore they're something you should place.
Now, how do you feel about a table when it keeps on falling over when you're trying to stand it up in the middle of the floor? You get pretty impatient with it, and you finally stand it up bang!
Well, you'll do that with a psycho merely because he's so like MEST. But if you're going to make him something else than a psycho, you can't treat him like a piece of MEST. So you just get terrifically general on this.
"All right, name—why don't you name something that isn't in the room?" You know? That's nice—"Why don't you name something. . ." He probably isn't aware there isn't anything else. "Just name something." All right. Too tough for him, see—oddly enough, just too tough. So let's get more general. "All right. Name something that doesn't exist." Too tough for him. "Okay, name something."
"Yeah, we'll call that table 'Joe,' " he'll say. See? Case entrance.

SOP 8-C PATTER
Of course, the case entrance with a psycho is establishing communication with the psycho, but remember that communication is essentially a particle motion. And the psychiatrist dramatizes an effort to communicate with a psycho when he tries to make electronic particles pass through the brain of a psycho. His drilling into the skull of a psycho is a psychotic demonstration—a psychotic demonstration of trying to reach the mind of the psycho. It never yet has done anything for a psycho.
Well, how do you get a psycho into communication with you? By imitation. If he can't do anything else, imitation. If he won't talk to you in any way, you just start doing the same things he's doing. Duplication—well, that's his act, but it has a tendency to match-terminal what he's doing and discharge it to some degree, and he will feel better.
Psycho jumping all around the room and jumping on the chairs and off of the chairs and running around in circles and singing "beautiful flowers and Ophelia" or something, and you jump onto chairs and off of chairs and do it practically at the same moment they're doing it.
Another way to handle a psycho, by the way, is "You can help somebody. Yeah. The reason why I'm trying to get you into good shape is I want you to help somebody." Or "You can help me by getting in good shape."
Big emergency, so forth, something like that—don't worry about a psycho not measuring up to it. Throw him the ball. I would not have the least qualms, for instance, in a—atomic bombing or a civil riot or something of the sort— seeing some guy who was utterly raving mad, just crazy as hell, I wouldn't have any qualms whatsoever of suddenly putting a badge and a gun on him and saying, "Keep these people in line now!" I don't care who he is.
Some girl going around screaming and just left a dead baby behind her and so forth and so on, and say, "All right, now, let's—you got some baby clothes there. Well, let's get in here and get any other baby you find on this street and so forth, and let's straighten them up so they're in good shape." Bang! out of it.
You'd be amazed how fast an individual responds as long as he feels that he can express and be part of this universe; he can express his own beingness in it. The most trouble with most people is they feel they don't dare be part of this universe. See, they're kind of hanging around the fringes and they're not quite welcome. And you all of a sudden, they can—convinced they can help somebody, why, that's terrific.
And once in a while an auditor—an auditor who is real bad off. . . Sometimes some guys are real bad off, you know, they haven't had any auditing, but they go on and audit somebody—do them a terrific amount of good.
We're not interested in the odds and ends and significances of it. It's just that I want you to get now, to some degree, a data certainty. It's too late in coming to most of you. And when we're doing Group Processes, you want to see that that takes a very prominent part in it. Knock it around, knock it around, knock it around.
Now, the only thing that can happen to interrupt this technique is that an automaticity can set in regarding it. And that can only set in if there's too much monotony with regard to the technique. And so periodically, if you were auditing just this technique on somebody, you would push the circuit thus created around. You would move it around until it blew. You just take this technique and push it around, it'll blow.
All right.

77



Force, Part I
A lecture given on 13 December 1953

Okay. This is December the 13th, a special afternoon lecture—Sunday.
What I'm going to tell you today is perhaps going to upset you, from the standpoint of Book One and so forth. However, we're interested in getting individuals to function. We're much more interested in getting individuals to function than we are in being a consistent propaganda line. If you'll remember that and use that datum, why, a lot of things that have happened will be much better understood by you. Much more interested in getting individuals to function than we are in being a consistent propaganda line.
The world at large deals mainly in propaganda, and it's often very difficult for an individual to differentiate, because he is so thoroughly indoctrinated in propaganda, between an effort to convince and an effort to be functional. And in Dianetics and Scientology, if nothing else, we've tried to be functional.
Now, in Book One, I said man was basically good. This is true, at such a terrible seven-league boot step from where you find him, that it becomes almost unattainable utilizing any earlier or, you might say, aforestated techniques. Simply because man has been fooled too often and because man is unable and incapable of differentiating between goodness, truth, decency, trustworthiness and evil, playing the "only one" and so on.
Anyone who is good—or the word good itself—defines himself or the word on the basis of how little harm he does. That's funny, isn't it? So here we have—earlier I talked to you about the redefinition of words: We take freedom— now freedom has become something that one has "freedom from." You know, I mean, freedom doesn't mean "freedom" anymore, it means "freedom from something bad."
That's the way the US government started to redefine freedom not too long ago—a few years ago.
All right, good—let's take the definition of this word good. You were taught arduously, when you were very small, that good meant "not doing any harm." Well, if you don't do any harm to things that are harmful, you're in a bad way. A man who destroys harmful things is not bad; he's good. So goodness can be redefined as "weak," and any individual who is redefining goodness as "weakness" is not going to progress very far as a case.
Now, let's hit on to the basic consideration of bad and good, and we find out that is the basic consideration. And this basic consideration is extremely valuable to you as an auditor, and it includes such thing as "justice" and so forth, and it's valuable to you in the case. That is to say, what is bad and what is good

79

80

13 DECEMBER 1953
to this case? Because those things which the case says are bad he has resisted, and those things which he has had defined for him as good, he has tried to be.
Well, let's take "good and bad art." Nah. I mean it's balderdash. We can't do anything with such a definition. There isn't any such thing as good and bad art. The beautiful, the ugly. Well, it's interesting that the early Christian church redefined nearly everything in the Roman Empire that was beautiful as ugly. They just almost completely swapped. What became beautiful was sordidly apathetic, actually filthy, and what was ugly was glaringly colored and so on. There you had a redefinition of art itself. So there aren't any basic considerations here beyond the individual's own consideration of what he's considering.
Now, I refer to you, the Factors. It would be very, very well for you to look over those Factors, because it says the basic consideration. All right.
Let's find out what's holding an engram in. An engram is a unit of force which is held in because one has chosen force itself for his randomity. First one chooses space for his randomity and then doesn't know any place but where he is. And then he chooses force for his randomity and he starts making pictures of things by resisting things with force. And then finally these very force pictures which he himself made come in on him and begin to press hard against him. And so we have, in this instance, a man choosing force as an enemy.
When you choose force broadly as an enemy, you have also chosen beauty as an enemy, because all beautiful objects are made of force. Just digest that for a moment and you see how far adrift somebody can go by eschewing all force. He will also eschew all beauty.
The sculptor deals with force. He deals with force with his chisel and his hammer, and he is working on a block of stone which is in itself force. Now, if he says force is bad, he is saying it is bad for him to grip his chisel and hit it with a hammer and to make statues out of blocks of stone.
Because we have had the word force redefined for us carefully down through the ages: "Force is something bad." Oh no, it isn't. Force is simply a statement, a definition. It's just energy. It isn't bad, it isn't good.
And they say, "It was a government that used force on its people," and that's a condemnation. I would like to see a government exist without using force. I would like to see anyone put on a play without using force. But force is something bad. And you say to most preclears, "force," they practically jump out of the processing chair. They don't want anything to do with force. "No, force is very bad," they know that. Force has been used on them too often.
And so out of this wilderness of bewildering words and definitions, we get a wilderness of mind. And an individual is at last incapable of knowing what he's for and what he's against, because he's had all the symbols redefined for him this way and that way, and easily, by gradient scales, pushed over into other definitions and so on.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with force, neither is there anything necessarily completely right with force. Force is force—force is energy, it's foot-pounds, it's effort. Anything you want to do—if you want to move your body down to the sidewalk, you will have to employ effort. That's sad. In other words, that—force is just another definition of effort, that's all. But because it has a specialized definition in terms of punishment, individuals become afraid of it. And the moment you can make a man afraid of something, you've made him choose it to some degree as his randomity. And when you have done that, you've collapsed every engram he has, potentially, upon him. In other words, you've collapsed his bank on him. You've given him no space because he can't hold out anchor points.

FORCE, PART I
Now, force depends, in space terms, on being able to hold two terminals apart. And the ability of an individual to hold two terminals apart determines immediately the amount of force which he can generate. I mean, this is the way he gets force. So, if he can't hold an engram off of himself, he can't hold two terminals apart. If he can't hold two terminals apart, he can't hold an engram off of himself. If he thinks there is something terribly wrong and disgusting and horrible about force, he immediately considers, then, that he mustn't hold anything off of himself. He can't hold two terminals apart, and he doesn't have any space.
Am I making myself very clear here? So when we say, "Man is basically good," we're saying, "Man is basically capable." You might as well say that word—that word actually means more than the word good. See that? He's basically capable.
Now, let's take the difference—and don't think that I'm comparing men to wild animals, I'm not—but let's take the most uninterfered-with thing on the evolutionary line, and that is a wild animal. He's not much interfered with except by the MEST universe itself. In other words, there isn't a great deal of consideration, and there are no symbols pushed at him. There are very few symbols changed around for him. Believe me, no tiger has anybody standing around telling him, "The symbols mean this and they mean that."
And we find out that a wild animal, although he may get vermin and this and that, he is still in pretty good shape psychically. That's a fact—he's in pretty good shape. You can say he's—he just meets the situation with its proper mood: He's mad all the time. He meets the MEST universe—I mean, he expects it to be cruel, he is cruel and he dwells in a realm of certainty thereby.
Now, I don't know that you have had much conversation with wild animals. I might know a little bit about this. I have had quite a bit to do with wild animals. And when you compare a wild cat to a domestic cat, you're apt to find a domestic cat rather disgusting. When you compare a wild dog to a domestic dog, you get a picture which is very strange.
The wild dog has his self-determinism, he lives or dies by his own acts, he takes responsibility for what he does. He dwells in a realm of certainty, and that certainty is "Kill or be killed." That certainty is "Run with the pack, and you're as—you'll run with the pack as long as you are useful to the pack. You will run with the pack as long as the pack is useful to you." Terrifically, sordidly, you might say, blunt logic goes along with this.
Let's take a pack of wolves, which is not too far from a pack of wild dogs, and we find out that the wolves will pause in pursuit—if they are starving— pause in pursuit of game sometimes when one of the wolves becomes injured. They'll eat him. Then they'll go on and pursue the game.
A wolf is safe in a wolf pack as long as he has force to contribute to the hunt. That's all. That's as long as he's safe. That's as much as he's good for. When he no longer has any force to contribute to the hunt, he's food.
And the efficiency of the wolf is wonderful to behold. One of—the wolf is one of the most efficient animals imaginable. He is also, in the animal kingdom, the world's best father. A wolf father is a fantastic beast—I mean, he does more things for his family. That doesn't stop him for a second, as far as the family itself is concerned—once that family has run for a little while as a pack, he's finally gotten them up to there—his treatment of his family is just the same as his treatment of any other wolf.
You have to make a pet out of an animal in order to drive it mad. Now, remember that: You have to make a pet out of an animal to drive it mad. And as

81

82

13 DECEMBER 1953
far as bodies are concerned, there is no difference—not one iota of difference— between the GE and any other wild animal. The GE is not even more intelligent. Man is not intelligent because of his great brain.
We'll take the Cro-Magnon and we find out that he was much more stupid with his enormous brain capacity than the Neanderthal who eventually took him over. Brain capacity has nothing to do with this. The brain capacity of the dog, the brain capacity of the cat—these things are—have nothing to do with it. Just bluntly—I mean, so there's a quantity of neurons. It is a measure of how much beating in the head has had; that is a measure of that, because it's formed as much neurone shock cushion as was developed by impact. So we have a direct index between brain and the amount of blows something has had—which would be sideways, to some degree, an index of how much experience something had had—but that's not necessarily true either. You could make something develop a big brain simply by banging it in the head regularly, but it wouldn't make it any smarter.
Now, we have this problem of the wild animal domesticated. And we find
that it loses its self-respect, a domesticated wild animal—I've had considerable
experience with these—not because they're caged up so much, but because
they're taken off of a certainty of what this universe is all about, and they're
put on to a cert , an uncertainty that it might be some other way.
All that's happened—it's not true, you see, that all things are uniformly bad. It's not true that all things are uniformly good. It's not true that everything is a game as a child understands a game, or that everything is work as an adult understands work. These are whole or absolute statements. These are almost arbitrary statements. Life is a mixture of all these things.
But where this universe at this time is concerned, this universe at this time presents an aspect wherein the greatest certainty which can be realized by an individual is that it's a cruel universe. That he will eat as long as he serves, as long as his force is great enough to meet the situation, and he will die when that force is no longer adequate to the problem. And that is very close to the truth.
Now, we take in this society a little child, and we raise them up on sweetness and light: that if you are a good boy, and do not employ any force, the society will take care of you and you will have justice, and you'll this—and it's all love and sweet sympathy.
Now, just because this kid is living in the middle of a bunch of smoke-filled chimneys and narrow streets in something called "culture," does not for one moment remove his environment from the environment of the MEST universe, which is essentially a cruel, dog-eat-dog universe. In other words, he's being falsely trained. He's being trained that he's living in some kind of a special strata.
Well, now let's take an extremity: Let's drop him into the ocean for a moment where we have sharks, and we will find out that not one shark present will ask whether he is sweet or full of light before he bites. The shark will bite regardless.
Not one of the acts of charity of this individual will save him for a split instant between the teeth of that shark. What will save him—if he had the force of prying open the jaws of the shark and eating the shark, that would save him.
So essentially, man is impractical. In his effort to control his fellows, he has fallen into a very dangerous situation, and that situation is "that if one is good enough, and if one is sweet enough, and if one helps enough, he will then be repaid by endless adoration and survival." And this is not true, he will not be.

FORCE, PART I
A man is as good as he can use effort, use force and predict it. And he's as bad off as he cannot predict on his own part, or on the part of others, effort and force. And that's about all you can say about it.
Now, it's true that if an individual—and I've said this often in lectures, but it's generally missed, mostly because I haven't immediately followed it by a process which remedies this—when an individual is way above the ability to generate almost unlimited force, then and only then can he afford the rather expensive luxury of sweetness, light, sympathy, kindness and forbearance.
A man who has two guns strapped on can be sweet. He can be forbearing, and he can follow a noble code which denies himself certain rights. But as he degenerates from this situation of being armor-plated and possessed of unlimited force, as he degenerates from this, another factor enters in. And he has to be careful to be kind, so as to prevent other people from being cruel, because he can no longer defend himself. And cruelty, then, in various ways, becomes a sort of a covert proposition that runs around, and people eat each other covertly. And there's nothing understood or certain about it all, and man almost goes mad from this very fact—he cannot predict.
If you were to forthrightly consider, and if you were to know with certainty, that this universe was a cruel universe—that it was brutal, that it was possessed of potentialities of death and pain above anything that one could imagine— and if he could know that with certainly and count upon that with certainty, he would have a certainty, wouldn't he? And sanity depends upon being certain.
The mind, because of the factor of time, is trying to predict actions. It can predict actions so long as it can be certain. Where does a sense of humor go, for instance? A sense of humor goes immediately when, "well, it's—it is possible," or "anything is possible."
Now, somebody gets a frame of mind "anything is possible." Well, therefore, there aren't enough certainties left there, you see, so that you can throw some¬thing ridiculous in as a certainty. And humor depends essentially upon surprises which depart immediately from the certainties on which an individual is engaged, and that's humor.
And yet, this individual has so few certainties, he considers anything's possible—just anything is possible. He's had so many shocking surprises—in other words, he's failed to predict so often—that he considers anything is liable to happen. Anything!
Now, high on the scale, when he's able to combat this, that's just straight randomity—"Anything can happen! Whee!" Low on the scale—"Anything can happen. Lord help us all."
An individual walks down those stairs and out into the street and sees a real live dinosaur out in the middle of the street eating up people. And do you know that there are a great many individuals who would simply look at the dinosaur and say, "Well, that's that." Anything is possible. They have had too many shocks. Their certainty is too low.
Now, other people would walk down and if they were terrifically high on force, they'd laugh like the devil, because that's a real big joke, you see. And other people, in ratio, would express surprise, and people who were fairly sane would express fear or horror; because this is completely non sequitur—a dinosaur in the middle of the street eating people.
But to an individual who is very bad off, it would not appear either ridiculous or upsetting. He would simply look and he would see a dinosaur and he'd know anything was possible.

83

84

13 DECEMBER 1953
Well, why can he know anything is possible? It's because he can't predict. He doesn't dare predict. He can't know tomorrow. He can't know the next moment. Because there are no certainties. He knows this. And you can't get such an individual to laugh.
Therefore, getting an individual to laugh was synonymous with curing a person of insanity in ancient Italy. They had only one type of insanity—it was melancholia. And if you could get somebody to laugh, why—eventually, why, he was sane, you see.
Well, look at the situation of a person who thinks anything is possible. You of course can't get him to laugh. And so they were on a very, very reliable basis when they said that insanity and melancholia were synonymous.
Seriousness. An individual is serious for various reasons. One, he could only be serious because he's imitating his fellows. And on the other hand, he might be serious simply because he had to be very careful, because too many things were possible. And the more possibilities an individual has in terms of prediction, the less certain he is—the more factors there are in the problem. He can't handle any more than just so many factors.
And if you run in on him this problem "anything can happen"—on any problem he has, rather, "Well, anything can happen"; if he's a little bit tippy to begin with, he will almost go mad.
You can sit and tell an individual who is worried about the outcome of tomorrow's—oh, I don't know, court trial, tomorrow's examinations, tomorrow's whether or not he's going to get fired for having been late for work or something. And you wouldn't make—drive him mad by painting up to him how horrible it was to be out of work and—or how horrible it was that the court trial went against him. Why, you could just go on and on, on that same line of how dolorous and of how ugly and mean this whole thing was—you wouldn't drive him mad.
But you could, theoretically, drive him mad by ... Let's take a court trial: You discuss for three minutes the extremely good possibilities of the thing coming out in his favor. And then discuss for a couple of minutes it coming out in nobody's favor. And then discuss for a moment or two the impossibility of its coming out in his favor. And then discuss the impossibility of its coming out in his opponent's favor. And then discuss the impossibility of its coming out. And then discuss the—how victorious the opponent would feel if he won. And then the possibility that the judge might get sick and it might not be tried, it might be dragged on for a week or two. See? Just keep feeding him factors, feeding him factors, each one of which is variable.
And if you do this rather consistently, he would practically go mad, you see? Because you have shown him anything is possible on something very serious.
Well, it's not true that anything is possible in this universe. This universe runs on a dwindling spiral. The thing that is possible is death. The thing that is possible is cruelty and pain; that's what's possible. That has a greater degree of probability than any other thing—that the outcome of any given situation is going to be bad.
A wild animal knows this. He hasn't been petted as a puppy into believing otherwise—he hasn't been reassured and reassured and reassured and reassured. His own survival factor, then, isn't being betrayed. So he has the certainty that it's going to be bad. And believe me, that's a very low order of certainty, but he at least has that order of certainty.
Now, let's take and cut him below that level by shaking up the fact that it's going to be bad with a bunch of sweetness and light which won't work out, and then let's change his mind on that score every time we turn around.

FORCE, PART I
We find, then, that the individual is being crushed at every turn by the feeling that he shouldn't do it to other people because they don't deserve it— only he does. We can get somebody to repent—how could we possibly get him to repent? By teaching him everybody is good but himself. That's how we could get him to repent. "Everybody else is good and deserving and trying hard, and they're all loyal and noble and swell, and they're just fine people. And you, you dog, you come along and you eat one of them." And you tell him this and convince him of it after he's eaten one of them, and he's been wrong. And there's the finest way to make anybody wrong.
It isn't true that everything has to be cruel and bad and evil—nobody's saying that. But at this lowest level that man is operating in right now, his certainty actually lies much better in the field: "People are mean, they're out for themselves, they're not going to give anybody any quarter. You give them a two-second chance to cut your head off, and they will." And if the fellow went along on that basis, he'd be about 80 percent right. If he goes along on the other basis, he'll be about 20 percent right. We mustn't overlook the fact that he can be 20 percent right by going along the other way. Somebody becomes, however, morbidly absorbed with this problem.
And most preclears with whom you are having any trouble at all are morbidly absorbed in this problem: a problem of justice. The only thing that is wrong with the administration of justice is that you might administer it to somebody who was kind, sweet, loving and deserving. You might administer punishment to the wrong party. That's all that's wrong with it.
Now, you go down the street here and you take out a Sten gun and you start shooting up every pedestrian that you meet. You say, "I'm mad at this town. This town is real mean to me," and you shoot up every pedestrian you meet. You might feel just fine about it, up till the moment you read in—tomorrow's paper, in which the husband of five children who were expecting him home for Christmas, and a pathetic picture of Christmas presents scattered across the sidewalk, met your eye. Your glory at having made nothing of all of these people would at that moment fade.
So here we're looking at the raw, basic mechanism of regret, repent, and the imbalance of minds. We're also looking at how people are civilized.
They are taught that others are more deserving than they are, that people are good, that all things are sweet. And I point to a moment on the track, very, very early on the track, when the individual first met this. It's called the "Dear Souls" area for slang; that's just a slangy term for it. But they caught somebody who was a perfectly good wild thetan—he was a real tough, mean thetan, too. He was perfectly willing to give anybody quarter as long as they'd ride with the pack. He'd serve as long as they could serve, he would go forward, he would do anything constructive that was constructive, and he was running on the complete—running on the beautiful computation that he couldn't die anyway, so it didn't make much difference.
And all of a sudden he got into the "Bubble Gum," and the next thing he knows, he was in the "Dear Souls" area. And everybody was so good—they were so good to him. They'd rescued him out of the Bubble Gum. They had rescued him out of the traps. They were sweet to him, and they had taught him the "good things," and what "good behavior" was, that they were all "nice" and they were "loving"—and they just laid it on.
He eventually escaped from there. Almost anybody coming down this track has been through that area—that's the first indoctrination on the track in this subject.

85

86

13 DECEMBER 1953
And from that moment on, he was completely befuddled. He was really befuddled. What had happened to him? He had realized that everybody was good and that there was something missing in himself. He realized that he had killed a great many deserving people. His consideration of the universe had immediately become incorrect. He had assumed that everybody else besides himself was mortal and could be damaged and could be hurt irreparably, and that he alone had to go on and on and on, and bear it and endure it somehow. And not be cruel, and not be ugly, and never be mean, and never lose his temper, and never do a mean act, because the recipient of the act might be a just, deserving person on whom many sweet things were dependent.
Now, that's of course a very, very low consideration. That's almost only visible with a microscope. It's very, very low. It's on the Tone Scale level that's down there, I don't know in what basement. But from there on, you have cruelty, betrayal, and most important, complete irresponsibility. Because an individual becomes afraid of force, and the second an individual is afraid of force, he can no longer be responsible for anything because he cannot protect or direct it.
So, he goes wandering on. Your preclear who's in this state expects you, as an auditor, by some necromancy he does not mention, to wave a wand over his head and without any use of force on his own part, or responsibility or volition on his own part, to clear him. You cannot clear anyone who is afraid of force, because that person will not take the responsibility of being cleared.
Let's take the preclear who has stepped out of his head and has run into something, has bumped into something, has been frightened, and has ducked back into his head again. He has to be there, because only the body can be responsible—he can't be responsible. He stepped out of his body and immediately recognized that anything he did he was responsible for. He couldn't blame it on the body then. And so his recognition of that: He did make a mistake. He therefore banged back into the body, and since that time when that incident occurred, has been saying, since then, "The body is responsible."
We have a package which works this way—horribly enough, it works this way: A person who is not able to handle force or effort is a person on whom any engram can move in, because any engram or any energy or anybody else's wavelength is his own randomity—I mean, it's an enemy. So therefore he'll fight it, and it will cave in on him eventually. So we have a dwindling spiral right there, and the dwindling spiral is negation of the use of force and energy. Because it's a negation of responsibility, which is less and less space.
You see why it's less and less space? Because of the double terminals. He can't impose space on two terminals. All right.
Let's then look over our preclear and realize that he is as well off as he can take responsibility. But one cannot take responsibility unless one can take over, handle and direct force. You can't give a man responsibility for a car which he can't drive. I mean, he doesn't have enough strength in his arms to drive this car, and you can't hammer and pound at him and tell him he's responsible for its erratic course down the road. It's an impossibility, he sees it clearly, for him to drive the car. He won't be responsible for it—he won't even think of it.
You tell some little kid—you can always get a line charge out of a little kid if you see an airplane pass overhead and the airplane swoops a little bit too low, and you stand the little kid up on a fireplug or something like that and just give him a mock bawling-out like mad for flying so low over the town. It's very funny to him.
A bus goes by and it fails to stop. You can turn around to some little kid standing there and say, "What's the idea making that bus go on by?" He laughs,

FORCE, PART I
it's very funny to him. He knows he hasn't got the force or—of command in any way, shape or form, to have stopped that bus or to control that airplane. But there is only a—too wide apart as terminals. He has some sort of a certainty just out of that. You give him a certainty. He suddenly realizes that he isn't driving that bus, and that makes this very funny to him. Maybe up to that moment, he was pretending he was a bus driver or something.
So force is not something which we must run away from. Force is something we must get the individual to assume to the end of permitting him to be good, which is to say, able. Permitting him to go his way without preying upon others. Because an individual will prey upon others as long as he does not think he can create havingness.
And as long as individuals are disabused of their ability to handle force, as long as individuals think they can't create it, they will go on preying upon others. And there is cruelty, and there's where the game breaks down. That's why animals eat animals. They are parasites upon animals. Each one of them is too low on the Tone Scale to recognize his own ability to create force.
And so we have all of the universe, at this time, devoted to preying upon all of the universe. And thus if you say . . . You can be sure that an individual who cannot handle force and will have nothing to do with force—you can be sure that he will either apathetically conduct his business and really be not responsible for any part of it, or he will conduct it in such a way or a manner, to prey upon people. He has to be capable of handling and using force. Capable of it—that's different, you see, than using it.
A man who begins to use force has immediately admitted that he cannot control without force. When you first have to slug into a company of men or a squad with your fists to line them up and make them do right, at that moment you've lost, really, the largest margin of command over them.
The day a society has to sentence a single man for a single crime, it has admitted its inability to handle the society. Therefore, a society is as bad off as it is court-ridden. It is as desperate as it is employing punishment against its citizens. It requires a society so capable of force that it never uses it.
If any nation of the world today were really capable of the use of force— that is to say, nationally capable of it, not did it just have bombs—if it were nationally capable of force, there would be on Earth today an honorable nation. There would be also peace on Earth; there would not be war.
A huge stockpile of atom bombs is an enormous amount of force. But then, you can buy shotguns in any shop; that's an enormous amount of force, too. Nobody buys those shotguns to use against his fellow man. Nobody will ever use those atom bombs, really, until he is so depraved and so afraid, that he must resort to the use of force.
This is really a very difficult point for an individual to see who is indoctri-nated in a society where sweetness and light and "love thy neighbor" predominate over "get the show on the road." Very difficult to bring it across, because people immediately tell you right after a lecture or something like that, "Well, you believe everybody ought to be in a state of anarchism and everybody ought to be able to cut each other to pieces and everybody ought to be able to shoot each other and so forth, and therefore, this is real bad." Well, that person's really lost; he's really fogged up.
He's depending upon the repression of force in the society to guarantee his own survival. How craven can you get? A person who is afraid of force and who has turned his force over to police, who has turned his force over in all directions, at once will get no justice, and eventually will be unable to forge ahead even

87

88

13 DECEMBER 1953
through his own engram bank. His locks won't release, for one thing. That's your fastest manifestation on the case—the locks won't release.
You say, "Now, do you remember—remember your mother saying that?"— his pat phrase or something; he all of a sudden says, "Yes! Sure! Ha!" Gone. The lock released.
You say, "Do you remember your mother saying that?" and this individual is very low on responsibility, very low in the use of force, he's very incapable of going forward—he says, "Yeah, I remember." You'd have to get him to remember it a dozen times before it'd get beaten down a little bit. That's because it's composed of force. It's an idea fixed in force.
Now, an individual early on the track tried like the dickens to get his ideas fixed in force—you know, give them position. He put an idea up here in space and it stayed there. And then he got it to stay there by putting force around it. And then he got it to stay there and to be effective because it had force around it. And after a while, why, all of his ideas were coated with force. And that in essence is a symbol: It's an idea fixed in space coated with force.
Well, the letter "A" in a book is fixed in space, in force—ink, paper, that's force. The walls of this room are made out of force.
Now, your individual who doesn't get out of his head has this first and foremost: His body must be there to be responsible for what happens. It's just a lack of force, you see. He can't enforce his own responsibility. He doesn't have enough force to enforce his own responsibility. But the body has some capability of doing so, so it's a better cop than he is, and it can be more responsible than he is. And it's visible to others and he isn't, so therefore, the body has to be there to be responsible. That's the first thing you run into in the case.
And the next thing is that the individual has been driven, if you please, rather completely mad with the idea that everybody is better than he is, and everybody is so sweet, and everybody is so kind, and everybody is so good that he wouldn't dare do anything to them. He is going on the 20 percent, compulsively.
No, he's trying to figure out in a wrong certainty: "It's all good; it's all ethical." Now, if you try to figure this universe out "it's all good; it's all ethical; it will all work out justly in the end," you're going to be 80 percent wrong. And yet if you insist on—insist on this as your only adjudication of this problem, that everybody is good, that everybody is so-and-so and that—so on, you're going to have 80 percent of your problems wrongly predicted.
The purpose of the mind is to predict—as far as circuits and thinking is concerned—is to predict the future. Now, if the service of the mind is to predict the future—the circuits there, the mind itself, is to predict the future—prediction with certainty is then the guarantee of the rightness or the Wrongness of the mind. That is the way the mind is measured. How certain is one's mind? Predicting rightly or predicting wrongly? If the percentage of predicting wrongly is too high, the mind becomes unwilling to predict.
So in this universe, we have individuals trying to make other individuals wrong by making them mispredict. The way to make them mispredict is to tell them everything is good, and nothing is going to happen. This is essentially true, you see, way up scale this is true, but in the middle range it's not true— in the animal kingdom, living with a body.
Actually, I don't care how many theaters there are or how many cops there are on corners, it's a society of animals. And the only way to really predict it 80 percent right would be to just bluntly measure it up on the basis that it was all going to work out wrong, and it was all going to come to disaster and so on.

FORCE, PART I
That isn't being pessimistic, that's just being right. You don't have to be—put a sour emotion along with it.
You say, "What's going to happen to this city?" Well, this city will go into ruins. It will probably be betrayed. There will probably be a police state. One of these days, it will be atom-bombed. You don't have to be emotional, you know, about a decision. A postulate is one thing, and an emotion is quite another.
And if you insist that this city is going to go on for the next thousand or two thousand years being untouched by any invader, remain uncorrupt in the face of any government, that it's going to go on protecting its citizens, that its taxes are all going to be just, that it's going to progress and evolve into higher and higher states—you're going to be wrong! You'll probably be wrong within ten years.
So how do you keep from being wrong? That's to make an accurate prediction. Don't be compulsively disabused of your own adjudications. Well, that's a lot of big words, but that's what happens to people. They permit themselves to be disabused of their own actual judgments.
You can track back on any preclear and find out when he solidly considered that his life had certain enemies—and the enemies were probably, he figured out, Papa, Mama. These were enemies.
He had it figured out that—well, let's say she had it figured out that all men were going to be enemies, and that if she paid too much attention to them and didn't take care of her knitting, she was going to come to no good.
And then they got to work on her and "all men were good," and Papa and Mama were doing everything for her that they could, and they were doing everything for her they could, and they had no axe to grind, and they were—had her own best interests at heart, and no time did they mean to do her any evil. No, she came first where they were concerned, and Mama kept walking around saying, "You know, your papa is so fond of you." And Papa kept walking around, "You know, your mother has sacrificed so much for you."
And after she got to be ten, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen—probably the swan song of it was when she was about fifteen. She got into a real hectic state of "No! No! No! These things are not true," and then she kind of caved in and became an adult.
And after that, went along. Then she got to be twenty-three, and she'd married Raymond or somebody and she got to be twenty-three, and here he was. And she had a couple of children and he went off and got drunk—he couldn't stand the atmosphere or something, or he went to war, or something happened to him, or he stepped under a car, as lots of people do. And here she was left with these two kids, you see. And she says, "Well, I always have Papa and Mama." (I tell you, two kids are awful noisy.) She has them for about thirty days, and then they practically cut her throat. They're much more interested in her younger brother. They're just real upset by it.
But they suffer along somehow and sacrifice somehow, and she's put in— more deeply in debt. And then they find out that Raymond has ten thousand dollars insurance or something like that, and boy, they really love her about this time. They really love her—really, she's really the star. And that gets spent, and they say, "To hell with her."
It's real remarkable. I mean, they're running on the same computations as a wolf—on, really, no other computations than the computations of a wolf— if there's prey, you eat it.
Sometimes a person has to live fifty years to find out what the devil his parents really intended. Sometimes he just never finds out at all.

89

90

13 DECEMBER 1953
There are ten aberrative things. They are the Ten Commandments. Nobody's saying these are bad or good, but these are plenty aberrative. These are just fine.
A society of giants—a society of tremendous people would dare adopt these Ten Commandments and consider that they were the things to live by. But what giants they would have to be!
Well, you can go at it several ways. You can either go on monitoring the society as a control unit, controlling it at all times by lying to it—telling it that everybody is deserving except the individual you're talking to, and he's scum, but somehow or other you'll get him through, because not everybody hates him.
You can control him that way, or you can control it on the highly sensible basis that the Roman Empire was using, which was strictly dog-eat-dog: a fellow was as good as he could produce and perform. He lasted as long as that.
There are tribes in Africa—people get up to a certain age, they simply knock them in the head and throw them back of the brush for the hyenas to eat. He—a fellow was just as good as he could produce. Well, that's terribly practical; it's hard-headed, hard-boiled.
Kindness—a man falls by the roadside and he's generally left to die. I have seen this happen to people in north China. I would not say the Chinese were a terribly superior civilization or an inferior one. I've seen fellows who would simply stumble on the street from hunger and fall down. There'd never be a single pedestrian would ever give him a hand to stand him on his feet.
You'd say that would be an awful society. And that society has been surviving now for about four thousand years. It's never changed this one. When a man's down, he's down.
I've seen soldiers who have fought to free their country from the invader in China and so forth, dumped on a railroad siding, wounded, and they just lie there and die without water, without food, with nothing. You can say this is cruelty that's utterly incredible.
You ask a military commander, "Why don't you do something for those troops?"
"What? Tie down a whole lot of troops to make those troops into cripples so that they can go out into the society and starve to death? No."
You'd say, "Well, you should do something about this here. You shouldn't leave men there to lie and suffer."
And he might think about it for a moment and then realize that, well, he had lots of extra bullets, and he'd walk over and put bullets in their heads. That would be his practical application to it.
And one can handle it that way. That's the way the animal kingdom handles it. Or one can simply go up to a height of being so strong that one can easily afford to be just. Now, that impossible dream, as some might call it, is yet the only place I can see anywhere where there's any entrance into the problem.
I consider the forthright cruelty of wild animals unfit for man, but I don't see that there's any progress or anything else for man if he has to fall below the level of courage of a wild animal; if he has to be less sane than wild things. And there's certainly not very much hope for the 1.1 civilization—sweetness, kindness, all so somebody can cut your throat—in which man lives right now. And he certainly lives in that one right now.
The state will support you if you sign the right papers. Who wants to be supported by the state?
So we look at this problem in terms of practical application, and we find out we would have to take a little bit of a chance on the thing and try to get it

FORCE, PART I
up to a point where the society itself was sufficiently strong that it could be ethical and just, and would be.
There is nothing short of the highest level and we can't go any lower than that level, because I think the beast of the field today has more honor in him than men. Remember, I talk from a lot of observation of Homo sapiens.
You and anyone has within him potentials of beauty, ethics, far higher than any philosopher has ever philosophized about. But in an environment which suppresses them, why, not only these can't endure, an individual can't endure either.
Now, what's basically the point of entrance with a great many preclears— not all preclears, but what's a point of entrance? It would be to run, with one technique or another, out—"anything is possible." Masses of agreement on "anything is possible." And then "sweetness, light, we must all be kind, we must all be good." You just take this type of Viewpoint Processing, where you have masses of viewpoints and you mock these up in brackets or not in brackets.
And you use this to clear out of the way the first barrier against force. Usually, this thing called the Assumption gets into restimulation and won't get out of restimulation, merely because the individual feels that having stolen the body, anybody can do anything to him now. I mean, he's used up all his right to harm or injure people.
The truth of the matter escapes him: that body would never function unless he seized it. And another great truth escapes him utterly, and that is, the things on which he preys cannot do anything but survive. That escapes him utterly; never gets into his computations. Everything gets so convincingly dead. It so convincingly convicts him with its stillness and its motionlessness, that he cannot think otherwise than that he has committed some horrible, great crime.
Nobody under any circumstances should deal along lines of vengeance and so forth merely for the sake of vengeance. Because if one has to exert vengeance, one first has to admit that he is afraid. If one goes out on a track of vengeance, he has to first start on a track of resisting something which he conceives to be dangerous to him.
The first step on any track of resentment, and on what we call "justice," is a cowardice. It's a cowardice. It's a fear of being destroyed by something which one must then contest. And there's your first entrance, and that first entrance is fear.
And one might say the first moment that fear appears, is the first moment when man becomes evil. So the solution is to go way up on this problem, not stay down low on it.
Okay.

91



Force, Part II
A lecture given on 13 December 1953

Okay, this is December the 13th, second afternoon lecture. I want to talk about the—about knowingness.
Knowingness is, of course, a remarkable thing when one considers that in English, its synonym [homonym] is "no-ing-ness." Of course, no one would ever try to fool people by making these two words the same word!
But do you know that that single fact alone is the biggest hurdle on the track as far as a preclear is concerned. He has all of his life been taught that he mustn't "no"; he must "yes." I mean, "noingness and yesingness" there. There—that's the dichotomy he's running.
Now, when we try to instruct anybody, we are going up against his lookingness. Because he's going to try to run back the track, thinkingness in terms of circuits, going up into effort and going up into feeling, going up again into lookingness, and then finally, going into knowingness.
Now, you take somebody who is bogged down, you might say, in energy. He considers that he needs energy to fix an idea. An idea must be a thing—in other words, a symbol. An idea which is cloaked in energy of any kind is actually a symbol. That is the definition of a symbol: it's any idea which is fixed in any space, with energy. An idea which is not fixed in space in energy, but is merely fixed in space—understand, it's not fixed in space and energy, but is simply fixed in space—is simply an idea; it is not a symbol. And it is essentially very fluid. It is easily shifted and changed.
An individual who has cloaked his postulates in a great deal of energy has made them, to some degree, immobile. And if he himself has thereafter chosen out energy for his randomity, then his postulates do not release; because all of his postulates are cloaked in something which he dare not touch, which is energy.
Now let's take up the problem of perception. Just completely aside from taking up responsibility and the other things which go along with this, because they all go along with the same thing, let's take up this thing called perception.
Perception as you understand it, and as done by the MEST body, and perception as it is in this universe, uniformly is a flow of particles and is done by a flow of particles.
Thus, if an individual is avoiding force, if an individual is afraid of force, if an individual has eschewed effort, he of course has eschewed at the same time lookingness. He has become afraid of a particle. He's afraid of being hit.
He sets up many things as fixed ideas in space. And then to make sure they stay there and something else doesn't bother them, he begins to cloak

93

94

13 DECEMBER 1953
them in energy to make other things unable to touch them. And he himself becomes able—unable to touch them by becoming afraid of particles. And thus we get the first entrance into "resist all effects," which we covered very, very early in this course.
"Resisting effects" and "being afraid of energy" would thereby be rather synonymous: "being afraid of force" and "resisting all effects."
Now, you actually can, after a preclear has been exteriorized, bring him up with SOP 8 - C rather rapidly into a point where he will handle force, and then get to a point where he doesn't have to handle force—where he can know without perceiving.
But you'd have to take him up through perception. And if you take him up through perception without trying at once to take him up through force, you're liable to fail. Because he is not going to go up against any particles, because he's too afraid of being hit. All right.
Trying to get an individual to take responsibility, trying to get him up to a point where he does—where he can be ethical, is trying to make an individual go over a track which leads through force, energy. Now, that's a very sad thing. Because you try to teach somebody the whole span of Scientology, and it's actually an enforced sort of lookingness to teach him about it.
The easy and kindest way to go about it would simply be to clear him, just like that, you see, and then train him. That would be the easiest way to do it. That way is not practical.
It is better if individuals, as a group, can go through the data on the way up, because they will never, never, never understand anybody afterwards who is bogged down. And you've just created somebody who is up there without any experience of getting there.
You'll do that with preclears. And those preclears will, because they don't understand the universe . . . You've cleared them up, they're in fine shape, they'll remain stable and all of that. They're not sick. You've taught them a few tricks like fixing up their body and about this and about that, but they have no basic understanding of it. They don't know what space is, they don't know what an evolution on the track is, they don't know anything about what we've called the "God trick" (you know, you tell somebody his mock-up disappeared "because God's against him" and so forth), and you've merely set up for him to fall into, again, all of the mysteries which he's already fallen into.
Of course, you've probably put him on the track and made him good for the next five or six million years, and that's good enough. But the point I'm making is, to get an enduring state, you've got to get a state which goes up there with knowingness.
So therefore, it's actually not kind to do it fast. Although it's harder to take an individual up and instruct him on where he's going—although it's harder to do that, although it takes longer for the individual to get there than you just as an auditor sitting down, and somebody who knows nothing about it will therefore put up no barriers to you, you just simply put him through the paces and he is stable. It's not kind. And the chances are, after he's up there, he won't listen. That's right, he's perfectly relaxed about things. You can't get an Operating Thetan worried about straightening out the affairs of this world or anything like it. He—merely amused. You take individuals up there who—show them how far south people are and so forth, after that they'll be able to do something for people.
So if you were to just make somebody happy, it'd be a very simple thing. All you'd do would just be to clear him, and that would be that.

FORCE, PART II
If you're going to start any kind of a spreading, like a—rings, like a rock dropped in a pool that's going to go out, out, out, out, out, you're going to have to take people through the works. And those who have been through the works on it, they'll know where they've gotten to.
But in the first moments of training, one should give out very basic terminology, and should define these things very closely.
Every once in a while, there's somebody out in the field sounds off, says I change my mind all the time, I change my data all the time. You know, I often ask myself, how would they know? How would they know?
Since, if you were to get people saying that and ask them specifically what some of these things were that have been asked of you the last day or so, they wouldn't be able to answer anywhere near as well as you were. They wouldn't— not even vaguely.
You'd say, "What's the definition of this and the definition of that?" They'd just be standing there—they wouldn't know anything about it. So how would they be qualified to say that I was changing my mind? You see, they wouldn't know whether I was or not. And actually, there hasn't been any large change of mind throughout these three years. What there's been is a consistent and steady plow forward on this problem called existence.
The only considerations which have shifted, in the main, have been redefinitions of things—several things have been more clearly understood and have become refined. Amongst those is the word good. "Man is basically good." Yes, he's basically good. How much do we have to say about that, though, to make it a comprehensible statement? We have to realize that a man has to be unafraid to be good. Well, how does a man have to be unafraid? Well, he has to be up to a point where he can know without using space, to be totally unafraid—know without using space or particles—and that would be a serenity and an absence of fear which is unimaginably high. It's not necessarily true that man has to have action to be interested, for instance.
But if you were to—merely to get an individual up above the level where he could handle particles and create space, if you'll just get him just that little notch above that, you would find that your individual had the patience and tolerance to be just.
I'd recommend to you a very, very simple but a very great book which has been completely overlooked by this society, and that's Hendrik Van Loon's book Tolerance. A marvelous book. It just sort of appeared and perished on the stands. It's still available. It's been out many, many, many years. But his Story of Mankind became famous, and other things became famous, and this little book Tolerance was sort of lost. But it is a great book. If Van Loon ever wrote anything that was great—he's dead now—it was this book Tolerance. And the rest of it is rather childish compared to it, to tell you the truth. And his bestseller of all of these books, his last bestseller on the arts, was amongst the poorer books written, and yet it just sold madly in all directions.
This book Tolerance is well worth reading—well worth reading to you as an auditor. It has a greater sensitivity on the subject than any other similar work in English.
Now, to be tolerant—he doesn't say in that book what a man would really have to be, to be tolerant. The truth of the matter is that tolerance is mainly, by men, confused with apathy: "They don't care what is going to happen," that would be tolerance. No, tolerance would be something else. A great tolerance would depend also upon a great courage—one had the patience to be tolerant

95

96

13 DECEMBER 1953
because he did not think that he himself or his works or beingness was going to be destroyed any moment.
You take any being and convince him that he, at any moment, cannot predict what is going to happen in the next moment, and he then will become so afraid, that he will be tolerant of nothing. He will become a rabid fiend on many subjects.
Way, way, way up above this, we get individuals choosing sides so that they can have a game. That's quite a remarkable difference between people being rabid on subjects.
Man, for instance, is suspicious with some reason, against people who wish to reform him. Because ordinarily these people who wish to reform him are merely trying to protect themselves against him—from him.
The early West, for instance, was a very, very bold, big society—they had an awful lot of space. Of course, a lot of the people who came into the early West were themselves incapable of survival in the society they had left. But many of them went west simply to get some more space and get a place they could breathe.
People of the frame of mind of somebody who moves into Texas and establishes a homestead and there—moves because somebody had moved so close to him that he could see the smoke from the fellow's chimney on clear days. That was too close. Neighborhood getting too crowded, so he went west.
Well now, these men had a form of justice of their own which was brought into being later on, and when I say "later on" in Western periods, I'm talking about 1835, 1845 on. You see, there was an awful lot of "West" in the United States that nobody ever really looks at, and that includes all of the seventeenth and all of the eighteenth century, and half of the nineteenth century. All that is overlooked as "West." It's always been West. Two hundred and fifty years of it, before we first got Samuel Colt's little equalizer.
Now, at this stage—the equalizer, called by various names at various periods when different models came out—men could deal out their own justice. And we have this appeal so strong that the movies today play practically nothing, if they want box office, but Western stories. They're dealing in self-administered justice—the fellow who was fastest on the draw and so on.
Well, the West went by the boards, according to the old-timers, in the day when the reformers came. And the reformers came only for one reason, and that was to feast on the West. They came in and stopped all gunplay and made everybody hang up his gun belts in each successive area approached, so that they could set up an orderly method of extracting the taxes. And that's what it amounted to.
The society degraded, actually degraded very, very markedly, because the men who were there at the beginning didn't care much about their own personal survival. They had no real thought about surviving; they merely were going to go as long and as fast and as colorfully as possible, and then hope that they died quick when the end came, and they did.
And then the reformer came, and after that and ever since, they've been dying slow with their boots off with everybody standing around being beautifully sad. And that is a fate I could hardly wish on anyone. But the reformer and the decay of the West were synonymous.
Men who reform ordinarily try to bring about this reformation solely and only out of their own fear.
An auditor who audits preclears merely because he is afraid of people and afraid of what people will do, will consistently fail and will continually be restimulated. He cannot go forward in life being afraid of people and trying to

FORCE, PART II
change them so that they are less fearsome to him, and audit; for the good reason that a good job of auditing done by him makes those people more fearsome. They become more ferocious. They go through periods of—go on up, they get way up Tone Scale to 1.5. They snap and snarl, they become antagonistic, they start to push around. And an auditor watching this who is afraid, of course cannot help but make a slight mistake. Give them a few things that they can't do, upset them one way or the other.
For instance, I took one preclear I had not too long ago, I didn't do him any real harm, but he was doing this—he didn't know this, but he was doing this to preclears. I never told him that he was doing this to preclears, but he would bring them up so long and he'd stop them. So I took him and snapped him out of his head and gave him a completely impossible task—just without any gradient scale, with nothing. Left him in a bog for about a week and at the end of that time, picked him up and sailed him right on up through it. I really didn't do it as an object lesson. I really didn't do it as a test. But the fact was thereafter reflected in his auditing. He didn't suddenly give people things they couldn't do, because he had enough experience with it to know that he could bog a case.
Now, this didn't necessarily make him a better auditor—it's just thrown in there as an example of what you can do to somebody. You can just give him something that's impossible, you can bog him and so forth.
Well, you as an auditor, with any command of the subject at all, can actually send people down as fast as you can send them up. It's no difficulty to make some preclear dive or spin. Just sit there and say, "All right. Now, get the idea of reaching for something. All right. Get the idea of reaching for something. Okay. Now get the idea that you must withdraw from it, but can't. You got that firmly? Fine. End of session." (audience laughter)
Now, when an auditor is doing this totally consciously, this is one thing, but auditors will do this unconsciously. In other words, they will do it because they're—they get afraid, and men who are afraid don't think. Deliver me from men who are afraid, because they don't think—they merely react. And there's the first entrance into stimulus-response.
Now, an auditor who really knows what he's doing and really knows his subject, won't make this kind of a mistake.
Now, an individual who's using a—some kind of a rote process that's just going "one, two, three," you know, down the line, so on, who yet has no founding or experience in the rest of the line, can have an interesting thing occur to him. He can find this preclear getting savager and more savage and more disputive and so forth, and he can say, "Well, this isn't doing him any good at all!" And turn him around and make him run a good, solid, big electronic—"That's probably what we ought to be doing, running an electronic."
And that's why once I had taught people how to run engrams out of people, I couldn't make an awful lot of people stop. Because you can run those things in such a way as to really make somebody calm—you can throw them right into apathy.
You run it through once, and then get at the start of it again, with it nicely in restimulation, and then dust your hands. Run it through twice—take a good heavy one like Fac One, you see, and run it through twice—and then go on off to adjusting some locks about their mother or something, see? Oh, boy. Wow, you can ruin people. You can really fix up people so you don't have to be afraid of them anymore. They won't move.
Now, there are other ways to do it, too. You can do it with a club. That's the way the police do. The police are afraid. If you don't think cops are afraid,

97

98

13 DECEMBER 1953
I invite you sometime to go into a detective bureau sometime on some pretext or another— they are afraid.
They get afraid to a point where their eyes are rather—well, your eyes express this "must withdraw from but I'm going to beat them up anyway" sort of an expression. They go around wondering about what they should put into their black gloves in the way of lead reinforcers and so forth. You see, I know cops, I'm not giving you the television version of a police officer. But of course, these people have a perfect right to be afraid because they're dealing with criminals, and the criminal in this insanity-ridden society is normally insane. You walk up to one (see, this is just a question of prediction)—you walk up to one of these boys and you're going to merely tell him to move along—he draws a gun and drops you, just like that.
The mayor's car is parked at the curb, and one of them gets in it and starts to drive off madly through traffic and runs across two traffic patrolmen en route to the nearest final wreck. These men are dealing all the time with insanity, with no understanding of insanity. And there, the prediction factor is so great in its disfavor—that is, the unprediction factor is so great—that they just go around, finally, in a state of "Well, anything can happen." Only, "We've got to do something about it," is the compulsion.
Now, a lot of other people get into a condition of "Well, anything can happen," but we—they don't think they have to do something about it. But you take a police officer, he's being paid to do something about a situation wherein anything can happen all the time—and he goes down scale.
Now, how do you make somebody afraid? You make somebody afraid by unprediction. This is the whole subject of it. This is the way you make him get away from force, this is the way you make him throw away responsibility— because in essence, this is the only way you can make him wrong.
He's figured out the situation one way, and it comes out another. He can't predict. And you show him consistently he can't predict.
Now, a man is a terribly hard brute to best or beat down. You would be amazed how tough he is! It takes sixteen years of school and family, it takes sometimes military unit training, and sometimes add to that fifteen or twenty years of prison, and just then the fellow starts to show some slightest signs of being amenable to society.
Now, people have watched this continually. They don't realize that the fellow starts out in a fine state of unresponsibility, and then he gets all of these other unresponsibilities on top of it, and the next thing you know, he just keyed in across the boards.
The last thing—the best way in the world to key in anybody is to put him in jail. That's a wonderful way: Fix him in space as an idea that he is no good. Then you've fixed him in space, you see—the idea he's no good.
And, I mean—what would you do to ruin society? You would invent a thing called jail, so that no man would take any responsibility for the society—no man would.
A criminal is only criminal because he has no responsibility for the rest of the society and has been thrown out of it. Any preclear has to some degree this same feeling. He feels he's been sort of cast out from the rest of society, mostly because he doesn't feel he can be effective in it, that he's of no great benefit to anybody and so on. But that's all significance.
Now, let's get into the basic cause behind the significance, and we find out the individual has been made incapable of using force. If he is made incapable of using force, then he—first, he can't have space; second, he can't perceive.

FORCE, PART II
He can't have space because he can't keep two terminals apart. He can't perceive because he can't tolerate the contact of a photon.
His postulates won't blow. If he says, "I'm no good," then he's no good. His postulates won't blow, won't explode, won't release, nothing will happen to them because everything that he sets up is immediately attacked from all sides by the energy which has been set up prior to that.
He is an endless mass of these automaticities, which counterattack one to another until he's so confused he doesn't know what he is doing. And this total of confusion is unconfused only—now get this—only by using things which make it possible for him to achieve greater force, greater effort. And if you neglect greater force and greater effort, and wonder at the same time why your preclear's perceptions aren't turning on, then you're being very foolish— because perception is essentially force.
Now, where do we enter a case to remedy some of these situations? Well, you'll find out Step I, as light as it is—Step Ia, as light as it is—doesn't bring any great amount of certainty to some preclears.
Now, let's just—just look what I've been saying here about force and about effort and so on. This man is so afraid of force that every time he puts up, in any direction, saying "over there," he gets a tremendous uncertainty. He doesn't have any space.
If you ask him to do this with his eyes shut—his tremendous dependence upon his body, you see—you ask him to do this with his eyes shut, he gets an entirely different reaction than with his eyes open. If you drill him with his eyes open on these steps, he doesn't get better very much faster. The effectiveness of the technique is very slow, because you're validating the body—he's using body perception. You ask him to close his eyes and look around and see what he sees. He doesn't exteriorize, you see; however, if he does exteriorize without perception, same thing.
Now, what he really knows at that point, of course, is in excess to what he's perceiving, otherwise he would not even vaguely be sane. He doesn't only know what he can perceive.
But, he closes his eyes and it's all black or it's drifty white or something of the sort, and you say, "All right, tell me three places where you are not." He'll tell you, glibly enough, "Boston; Washington, DC; Savannah." He's not in these places. Why is he not? He can look around the room and see that he is in a room which he has been told is in your town as an auditor. He doesn't know this for certain. He doesn't even vaguely know it for certain that he's not in Washington.
Now, you're trying to fish up some certainty, and as I've said many times, his certainty is dependent upon this singular fact: that he has less—he has no way to gauge how certain he is, because he is only one pole, the way he's operating. So if he's only one pole and he's trying to get how certain he is, then it's in ratio to how certain he is, you see. Now, this is pretty weak.
And you say, "Yes, are you certain?" Well, that's just a symbol and it carries no great weight of meaning. He's as certain of that as he is of anything else, but he isn't certain of anything. If you asked him real closely, he wouldn't be certain of a darn thing.
So he says, "Yeah—no, no, I'm not in Washington. I'm not here, I'm not there."
And you say, "Well, now close your eyes—close your eyes. Now tell me the same thing—tell me where you aren't."
You get an entirely different reaction. He'll say, "Mmmm."

99

100

13 DECEMBER 1953
You've given him a new certainty—a reverse certainty. In many of these cases, he'll close his eyes, and when you really start plowing him toward certainty of location, he can't tell you for sure what room he's in. There is nothing to tell him. You see, there's nothing in the body that will tell him. And yet this person can be perfectly sane. You understand? You're not looking at somebody who's crazy. You just tell him to close his eyes, and he's lost in this blackness. And here's this blackness, and now you say, "Well, give me three towns that you're not in." Well, that blackness is engrams that have gotten restimulated in Washington, in Boston, in Savannah—it—part of them say "this is Savannah"; part of them say "this is Boston."
Another thing may happen: You say—he says, "I'm not in Boston," and he's got a picture of himself in Boston. That's funny. You see, he says, "I'm not in Louisiana"; he's got a picture of himself in Louisiana. So right after he said this to you with such certainty, an enormous doubt came over him. He never told you about the doubt. He just told you a certainty remark, and you—but you'll notice him gradually getting more bogged down. He'll get less and less certain of things in general.
Well, you want to inquire for those—for automaticities. That's just an automaticity. Now, how do you handle that? You put him across the room, and then quick before anything else can, have him put his body there. Or if anything else puts his body there, have him put his body there too. You understand this? All these sudden perceptions and so forth, all they boil down to is how to handle an automaticity, and we've covered that.
And the way you handle one is, anything that occurs, you make him do it, and then duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it, and this phenomenon will kick out.
Well, that's one of the things that happens when you ask him to do this. But if a person's going to do this, actually you're entering the case too high. This case has to have a lower level of entrance.
Now, a lower level of entrance is "Where isn't your body at this moment?" That's a lower level of entrance.
But what do you know, you'll run into a lot of preclears who put on a very, very good presence to you who won't be certain of that either. They'll say, "Well, it's not across the room." To themselves privately they say, "I guess."
Now, so there again, you've entered the case too high. Now, let's get lower than this. And believe me, we can go way deep on this one. We have to start getting into significance in order to reach this fellow at all, because everything has a reason and everything is significant. So we get this low on it—this isn't as low as you can get either, but—"All right. Where isn't your body?" And this is really a wonderful button to run on a case that has black perception or unwieldy perception, is "Where isn't your body being responsible at this moment?"
Now, this is very weird. Because this case wouldn't get out of his body, because then he wouldn't be able to have something to blame, which is the body. If he's got black perception and you start to run Step I on him, and you would— the guy's got black perception, you see, and you just go right ahead and run Step Ia—doesn't matter. But you have to use this judgment on it: You have to enter it at the level where he's actually certain. And you'll get this certainty because his face will suddenly become relaxed and he will be wreathed in smiles before he's done very much of this. You'll hit it at a laugh. You'll line charge it when you hit this level where you should be hitting it. And so we'll go down into that one. That's the first entrance into significance that you should have anything to do with.

FORCE, PART II
"Where isn't your body being responsible at this moment?" That's the first thing you would ask him. After you've asked him a couple of these other things, or you simply asked him—you've said, "Be three feet back of your head," he wasn't; you say, "Well, take a look around—shut your eyes and take a look around."
And he says, "I can't see anything." They'll always say this. You could kick a preclear every time he says it. "I can't see anything," he says.
Yes, he can. He's looking at blackness or whiteness or something, but he's just overlooking that too, you see. And you make him look just to the degree of just insisting that he can see something while he has his eyes shut, and he'll eventually break down and give you, "Well, I see this shifting pattern of dots."
Well, don't do anything more about it than that. You can handle it as an automaticity, but it'll take an awful lot of your time. Because his basic problem is, is that he doesn't dare be responsible; he can't handle or face energy, and therefore he can't look. And if he can't look, therefore, he can't know. So, let's just enter it in at the level which you can enter it in.
Now, a lot of fellows, you just keep on hitting it, "Three places where you aren't in present time," he'll hit some terrific outspread area—"I'm not on Saturn. I'm not in the next galaxy," see—I mean, he'll come in. This'll work out. You could work it out either way, but it's slower. Now, let's get a faster way to do it.
And this fellow says, "I. . ." He can't be three feet back of his head. You just ask him, "What can't you—what are you looking at?" and you finally get out of him the fact he's looking at blackness or something.
He very often, by the way, can't get out of his head, and you say, "Close your eyes and tell me what you see."
He'll sit there for a moment, "Only see you."
Well, this is all right. I mean, the fellow's looking around the room. Then you just go right ahead and run the technique just as stated, see?
But he's got this peculiar problem of blackness or something—he can't see, and this is his main trouble. If you were to go immediately and skip all further nuances into this one, you'd be playing it safe: "Where isn't your body being responsible at this moment?" And you just connect those two things. "Give me three places where your body isn't being responsible now." Oh, he can tell you that. That's got some significance to it—it's less than position.
Now, there's something else that comes in there: He says, as he looks—he finally tells you, "I have this continuous pressure across my eyes." You say, "Give me three places where you don't have that pressure. Three places somewhere in this universe where that pressure isn't at this moment."
You could expect, by the way, to go on for quite a while with that. You could have to ask him this in present time and past, and then in future, and it might take you about five hours of auditing, but you would get rid of his chronic somatic. You could say, "Where isn't the chronic somatic?"—present, past, and future—and it'd take you about five hours, but you'd sure as the devil be rid of the bulk of it by the end of that time. You'd run through all kinds of things in the case too.
That's a—by the way, a side method of relieving a chronic somatic—a very good one, rather than try to run it out or something of the sort, to take the pressure off the case, to change the case around. Or this case that has this automaticity that he keeps talking to you about, and after hours and hours of auditing, he's still got this automaticity. Well, you could have gotten by that simply by recognizing the case was low on force, and all you had to ask him was, "Well, give me three places in the universe where that automaticity isn't. Three more. Three more. Three more. Three more." He'll eventually encounter

101

102

13 DECEMBER 1953
this interesting one: He'll find out that if he looks straight ahead at these places, he puts the automaticity in them, and then can give you the place on either side where it is not. That, too, is a point of certainty. You get this?
He's actually creating it. Any direction he looks, it's there. This you should recognize as a rather interesting condition. It's just an automaticity. So you've got another method of getting rid of one of these superpowerful automaticities that just has the fellow swamped all the time. Just "Give me three places in the universe where it isn't." You use Step Ia on the automaticity. You got that?
There's a case level entrance which is lower than "Where isn't your body being responsible?" See, how far south can we go here? "Where isn't your body being responsible?" He gives you that and he gives you that and he gives you that and he gives you that and he gives you that and he gives you that, and there's— doesn't seem to be very much happening in this case. Don't follow it down.
Let's find out what he's looking at, let's find out what's worrying him. There's something sitting on his mind, something visible, something he can feel— "Give me three places in the universe where it isn't." Because there's where his attention is fixed.
Now do you see what we're doing with Step Ia?
Male voice: Mm-hm.
His attention's fixed on something; he can't get his attention off of it because it's going to bite him. Well, the final resort for you as an auditor, in handling it, is getting his attention off of it. But what's his attention on?
Well, maybe his attention is merely being dispersed all over the universe as far as you can tell. He can't fix his attention on anything. This is the main thing that you're worried with and so on. Same thing, only you don't give it a tricky, "Where is your attention dispersed? Give me three places in the universe where your attention is dispersed." You can get that case on "Three places where you aren't thinking," is one of the lighter ways of going it. "Give me three places where you aren't thinking." That actually is in that step just so it'll never be overlooked by an auditor, because that is a very light case entrance—is "Where aren't you thinking? Give me three places in present time where you aren't thinking."
Now, an auditor before he's been too cleared himself, is liable to say present time, and then past time, and skip the future. He's just liable never to ask about it.
What's the lightest case entrance into the future? Well, the lightest case entrance into the future is getting the fellow real certain about something not being in the past. And what's the lightest entrance into something not being in the past? Something in the present. And the very lightest one I know, off-hand at the moment—that I have used, rather, on a preclear effectively—has been "Where isn't your body being handsome at this moment?"
Now, this has a difficulty—it keeps making him make the postulate that he's not handsome. But it sure makes him feel better. That's true to a girl, too— just where she isn't being handsome. And you'll find out they aren't being handsome all over the place—past, present, future, noplace.
Now, there's a bog spot here that I'd better mention to you. There is a theoretical technique—a theoretical technique which an auditor could get real smart and figure out and start to use, is "Where don't you know something in this universe?" Now, that of course, he would gunshot as knowingness, you see, and that would be very, very . . . He—if he's in present time only in the place he's in, and all other places are in past time, and he doesn't know about any of these other places, by theory he puts up space so that he can limit his own

FORCE, PART II
knowingness, so there's something beyond which he doesn't know. An auditor could figure out, "Now, look-a-here, we could just run this on the basis, let's see, 'where he doesn't know.' "An auditor can get really smart on that. "Where doesn't he know in present time?"
It's a killer! I mean, it's a wonderful theory. The only trouble is, it's total significance because it adds a datum in on knowingness. It's trying to loca-tionalize knowingness, and to such a degree is validating for knowingness, space—which makes him "unknow" faster than he will know. And regardless of whether that is plain to you or not, just take it from me that the technique has a level of workability in terms of scores of hours. I don't say it isn't workable, I merely say it's one of the most arduously long, confusing and upsetting techniques which you would ever care to go in for, and will bog a preclear before it will pick him up. Because it makes him make continually this postulate, "I don't know something. I don't know something. I don't know something. I don't know some¬thing." See?
"Give me three places where you don't know something in the present." Oh, boy, he can get good certainty on that. And you give him three more and three more and three more and three more, every time he's making the postulate that he doesn't know something. And he will bog before he picks up. So it is— it's a beautiful theory, see, I mean, it's just gorgeous. The only trouble with it is, it depends upon the symbol "know something" rather than the positional location, which doesn't have to be a datum.
So, let's look at that and realize that one could get too smart for himself on this technique. I know, because I already have gotten too smart on the technique, and as a net result, beat a preclear around wondering how long this would continue, because theoretically the thing was perfect. I mean, how do you get a person to know all over the universe? Well, get all the facts where he doesn't know anything in the universe, and it would all add up to the fact that he would eventually know something in the universe—only it doesn't. That's the difference between a tested and a theoretical technique.
So the lightest level that I have entered a case—not the lightest level you could enter a case—is "Where isn't he being handsome at this time?" and just got that enough so that he'd say, "Gee, there is something out there," and then knocked off of it real quick and went on to something much more important— "Where isn't his body being responsible?"
And that one does what it's supposed to do, rather than lay in new postulates. It demonstrates to him he's being carried around by the body, and it has the effect of kind of moving the idea of a body and responsibility all over the universe. And so he's kind of, to some degree, moving this and it does a lot for the case. He snaps right out of—to a marked degree—whatever he's gotten into.
So what level of certainty are you trying to get on this question? Now, remember, you could just start in and ask the fellow brightly, "Be three feet back of your head." He isn't. But you just go on and say, "Well, give me three places where you aren't, present time." He'll give you three. "Three more." Give you three more. "Three more." Give you three more. You haven't got any little yardstick, because there aren't two preclears sitting there, one measuring his certainty against the other one's—you haven't got any yardsticks which will tell you how certain he is except this one: After you've asked the question six or seven times, you don't get a smile and you don't get any relief and you don't get any change in the case—you're just in there too strong, that's all. So let's lighten it up, let's lighten it up.

103

104

13 DECEMBER 1953
Where isn't his body? Three places where his body isn't. No sense in adding significance into the thing if you don't have to. Let's get three places in present time where his body isn't. And he gives you three places. And three more. And he gives you three places. And three more. And he gives you three more. And he—you give him, "Three more, three more, three more in present time." And all of a sudden—(sigh)—definite signs of relief.
But if you've given him that many and there's no definite signs of relief, you're just in there too strong. "Well, give me three places in the present time where your body isn't being responsible." And he'll give you three, and he'll give you three more, and he'll give you three more, and he'll give you three more. About that time, he'd say, "Yeah, that's sure true. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah." He's getting in there strong now, so on. That's okay, and then you just go on from there. And then you'd work it back to three places in the past where his body isn't being responsible and three places in the future where it isn't being responsible. Then you'd go around again to three places where his body wasn't in the present, his body wasn't in the past, his body wasn't in the—wouldn't be in the future. And then we work it around to where he isn't in the present, he isn't in the past, he isn't in the future, see. We just have to backtrack the same course that we sunk in on.
But let's make sure that we have a case entrance at this point. Well, we've got to get a change and relief from the case before we consider we have an entrance.
Well, supposing we asked, "Three places, and three places, and three places where the body wasn't being responsible," and we still didn't get any kind of a reaction on the part of the preclear? Well, let's find three places where his body isn't being handsome.
Now, that's a very tricky one, because hardly anybody is here on Earth who thinks he's handsome or pretty. That's—it's a very, very unpopular thought. If anyone does think this very bluntly and continually and consistently, and dwells on it all the time, it's just a manic. He's just running a manic on the thing—it isn't because he thinks so. Because that's the main reason he got here: he didn't think he was beautiful anymore. He thought he'd better go hide, so Earth was as good a place as any, so here he came. And a body is a good thing to hide in.
You know, there was a dog one time, a beautiful chow dog. He was a—oh, a lovely dog, and he lived in the neighborhood. And the summer was coming on, so somebody got ahold of an electric pair of clippers, you know, being humane about the chow, and they clipped his hair off. And that chow went and crawled under a bed in the upstairs bedroom of that house, and he would sneak out at night to get a little water, but otherwise, that dog didn't show his face outside that house—didn't show his face, until his hair had grown again— and boy, that was months! It broke his heart. He knew he was a pretty dog, and then he wasn't a pretty dog anymore, and that was the end of that. And he was much more sedate around other dogs after that, he was much more reserved.
That's all that happened to him. Nobody beat him—I mean, they just cut his hair off. Much more horrible thing to do to some person, to make them ugly, than to simply kill them or beat them. Anybody can understand killing or beating, but beauty is something everybody has considerations about.
So where—three places where he isn't being handsome. Three places where she isn't being handsome at the moment. If you don't watch that one, he's liable to want to beat it to death. He's liable to just chew that one up from one end of the track to the other end of the track.

FORCE, PART II
Well, it's all right if it seems to be doing him a lot of good and he's going in there with enthusiasm in it, why just keep it roaring, if he got noplace on the earlier ones.
Well, you'll have a case that's just busted up for goodness' sakes, because he'll say, "You know . . ." Finally this will leak through his head, see, "Do you know, it might be possible that somebody someplace with his opinion of my handsomeness, might have been in error." That somebody who didn't consider him handsome might have been wrong. And when he hits that place—actually, if you've beaten it to death, when he hits that place, he will just sort of sit and think about it for a while and puzzle over it for a while. You've hit the first level of recognition on this case where somebody else might not have been completely certain. Because he's swamped by the supercertainty of all and the noncertainty of self, which means total other-determinism and practically no self-determinism. And the first place the case may break is at the point where he figures somebody else might have been wrong.
Let's say you were running Viewpoint Processing—just mobs of people being right. Let's take mobs of his mother being right, or mobs of his ex-wife being right, or mobs of her ex-husband being right. And you know, the case will sit there and run it sometimes for two or three hours? I—it's fabulous; I've watched this. They think other people are that right, and they're that wrong. They'll take somebody who has just butchered them, somebody who was utterly no good to them, somebody who ate them up and spitted them out about three times a day and so on, and they will just run thousands of those—that one person, you see, just thousands of mock-ups facing thousands of mock-ups of them—them thinking about each mock-up "how right they are," "how right they are," "how right they are," "how right they are." And it'll just run on and on and on and on and on.
And all of a sudden, they'll come out the other end of that: "Well, you know, there were times when my mother might possibly have been—well, not wrong, you know, but misinformed." So you go on running it from there—"how right they are."
That's right and wrong on Viewpoint Processing; it's quite a technique. The only place where I would use Viewpoint Processing is on questions of rightness or Wrongness of somebody, or on straight-out sweetness and light. And if I did that, I would do it with dots of light—the opinions of other thetans. In other words, I'd run it that far back on the track. "Everybody is so nice and lovable. Everything is so sweet. Everybody must love everybody." Just run that "dots of light," each one with that thought in mind, just mobs of them. And then run this in brackets—mobs and mobs and mobs of thetans thinking this— "The universe is only good, it's only sweet, it's only wonderful. Nobody means anybody any harm."
You know, that's a typical statement on the part of a tiger. I can just imagine some very large and hungry tiger saying to this little deer, "You know, I don't mean you any harm, it's only that I'm hungry." Chomp!
Now, your preclear who is bogging in any way, is bogging on a feeling of force. And he's only bogging on a feeling about force—now get this, because probably won't ever say it again—he's only bogging on force because he believes that everything is sweetness and beauty and light in the part of everybody else's intentions but his, see. That everybody's got to love everybody, and there's got to be a friendly atmosphere—and there's a lot of these, see. But he doesn't dare use force against those factors. And he's so convinced that these are the factors which exist, that he doesn't dare use force. Now, the truth of

105

106

13 DECEMBER 1953
the matter is, that the best armor in the world is love. That's the truth of the matter. But it's equally true that no weapon has been as thoroughly suborned to the evils of man as this weapon called "love."
And there's hardly anybody in the societies of man today—hardly anybody— who sufficiently understands this word love to do other than use it as a trap. Love is either something a person has been convinced of compulsively by other-determinism, or it's something being used—love and friendship—being used one way or the other as a utility tool.
And now there are levels that are way on up from that and then there is no armor more shining and less dentable than an armor of beauty, faith, trust, love—but boy, you've got to be able to back them up with force! Rrrrowrrh!
Any time when you think that you're perfectly free to use all things or that these things can exist and only these things, in an absence of force, you just might as well go cut your throat quick. Because the end product of that postulate is a strictly cut throat, and complete blindness. Blindness follows. Perception shut off because one can't face force anymore.
You'll find you will never love your neighbors quite so much as the day when you can throw out a hundred-thousand-watt lightning bolt. And you'll think, "Gee, they're nice people." You won't do anything to them. "They're nice people. Everybody's wonderful," so forth. Go down the street picking your teeth with a lightning bolt.
Nothing—there is nothing actually in beauty which can exist without force. There is no painting, no statue in all of man's creations, which exists independently of force. And the most beautiful of them all are those which deal directly with force or above. That's an interesting fact.
Now, if you as a preclear are having a little trouble, you just look it over as a problem of your own, you can undoubtedly put your finger exactly on the moment when you bought entirely, completely, very, very early in your life, how you had to be good because everybody else was so good, and their intentions for you were so good, and you had been wrong about them all. Your mother really did love you, she didn't intend to cut your throat, in spite of the fact that twenty years later she ruined your marriage and did this and did that and did something else to you, and at your death would probably be the first one in there to row over who got your best suit.
People are people. And when you say, "I have blinded myself to reality," then you have blinded yourself to the inevitable consequence of a society which sets itself up on the pretense that it is good, while wholly and fully intending to be nothing but evil. And when you get that one twisted, brother, that twists you up on force, it twists you up on justice, it twists you up on perception, on thinking, and nothing becomes predictable. After that anything can happen. And that's the other key that is run as viewpoints.
You just get large masses of these postulates sitting out there in front and let them discharge "anything can happen." Then get the preclear to move them a little bit from the right to the left and then get him so that he can move them around. He'll get sick on that one—"anything can happen"—but that's only when he's been so completely upset by his predictions. And that's lower than "nothing must happen," you see—way, way lower than "nothing must happen." "Anything can happen."
So your case entrance—your case entrance is balked on many cases, on a level of a twist of knowingness. They know the world is good, but there are so many evil things in it. They know the world is good, but 80 percent of all they've met is evil. So therefore their knowingness is twisted. And that knowingness

FORCE, PART II
inhibits them from employing any of the tools which would set them free, such as force. And your case will just stay bogged pretty well right there, in spite of all the mechanical techniques that you use—it'll just stay bogged because the fellow's knowingness is upset. He's been convinced that all men are good, and therefore, he should be good, even though their actions have been consistently and continually directed toward evil for him. And he'll get real bogged on you. He'll get real bogged, you'll get real bogged if you ever buy that one.
The time for you to be good and be just and so forth, is not while you have numbers of wolves pawing over your somewhat animate body. That's not the time to decide that. The thing to decide right at that moment is that you better have bigger teeth. The time for you to decide that all is sweetness and light is when you can be very nonchalant about a couple of billion watts; that's the time to be decided. And that's not because you have to protect yourself, it's because you have to be that big to grasp the concept of it.
Below that level, a man is afraid. And a man who is afraid and who is yet trying to believe in love and goodness, is trying to believe in them so they'll protect him. And it's like trying to put up a piece of tissue paper in front of a bullet. And just remember to yourself—if you ever want an example of how this works, just remember yourself that no wolf who is eating somebody up is going to be deterred for one moment by all the good deeds that person has done, or all the good, right thoughts he has thunk, or by all of the wonderful intentions that person had. That wolf is just going to chomp. And that wolf, in essence, is this universe the way it's running today.
Okay.

107



SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions
A lecture given on 14 December 1953

Okay. And this is December the 14th, the first afternoon lecture, first lecture of the day of this date.
And today we're going to take up a higher principle of existence than we had with survive. And we're going to take up a higher principle of existence because we've—about time we explained survive, huh?
And it's very interesting that SOP 8 has not had—I have not put on any of the SOPs, the eighth step. But today I am describing Step VIII of SOP 8.
Now—because we have to take up perception, we have to take up postulates, we have to take up the failure of perception, the failure of postulates, and we have to take up why agreement with the MEST universe is so difficult—pardon, not so difficult, but it's so deteriorating on a preclear.
Now, the principle of survive is the most prominent of the principles which are listed in the early Vedic hymns. This principle survive comes out of the Vedic hymns, and is a word used to describe the middle of the band. Life is trying to survive, and that was Dianetics.
Now, in the early Vedic hymns, we find the curve of life, which is birth, growth, degenerate and decay. They do not specifically remark upon survive, but it is understood, you might say, in that curve. And that is the earliest philosophic writing of which we have any record here on Earth—and is, incidentally, throughout, the truest—the Vedic hymns.
There are successive writings of the East which more or less evolve out of the Vedic hymns, but which are not themselves in a sufficient state of purity to cause us much interest. But when we have the earliest of the Vedic hymns, we have something which came down a great many years to the first writing. They were in existence probably thousands of years before they were written down.
I have heard them described as very simple. I have heard the remark said that the simple, pure and childlike glory of the Vedic peoples had long since perished. I have heard that said. And also that life, by the time men had begun to write things down, had degenerated into a very serious affair.
Well, it's interesting that people call simple things unimportant things. If something is simple, it's supposed to be unimportant. That is the first trick that one runs into.
It is only the simple thing which is important. The complex thing is never important. Just that—it's just never important. And the fact that people think the complex thing is terribly important permits them then to become involved

109

110

14 DECEMBER 1953
in a chain reaction of worry which winds into a dwindling spiral and goes on down the line.
Now, we want to investigate what the single factor of—above all other factors which we can locate at this time, what the single factor is that causes the dwindling spiral in this universe. And by isolating it, demonstrate that it can be remedied by a simple, single technique on a preclear.
The goal which we have of a simple technique on a preclear is a very worthwhile one for this reason: The auditor tends to run—this is just one of the reasons, a minor one—the auditor tends to run upon the preclear that which should be run upon himself.
Theoretically, then, that technique which was the most common difficulty to all people would be one which would be readily accepted by auditors and which would be used consistently and continually. We have such a technique in Step VIII of SOP 8-C. And the name of that step is "Duplication."
Duplication is, itself, the first and foremost necessity of a thetan. He is compulsively dedicated to duplication. And this universe obsessively prevents him from duplicating.
[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]
The thetan has to duplicate, he thinks. He is not content—the thetan is not content at any time—to remain a unit. It's not interesting to him to be a unit, because there's no motion, no action, no time, nothing. It would just be a continuous eternity of "I am a thetan."
His first moment of duplication comes about with what I have spoken of many times here—the chess player. He goes on both sides of the board to play a game of chess. Well, he has to duplicate in order to be on the other side of the chess board.
Well, so we get our first entrance into automaticity and randomity. And that first entrance is with a duplication.
He duplicates himself in order to be on the other side of the chess board and to have a player. Now as he continues to do this, he has more and more opposing players. And he can have also more and more of himself to oppose the more and more players.
Now, this universe, with its fixation on all dynamics on "thou must not duplicate," opposes this principle of "must have another chess player," so that an individual becomes more and more and more and more and more covert concerning the second chess player. And this very covertness eventually evolves into a very complex, aberrated system. It evolves, amongst other things, into complex communications systems which do not readily unravel, because behind every communications system we have duplication.
Duplication is the soul of a postulate. Why is it? Because a postulate is laid in so that something else will happen. Therefore something else must duplicate the postulate. Any order given by the captain of a company is expected to be duplicated by the sergeants. You see that?
Anytime a carpenter sets out to make a bookcase, he is demanding that the MEST universe duplicate his postulate in energy. He has to have a communications system to do this, in order merely to say, "There will now be a bookcase." He has to have some space in which to do this. He says, "All right, there will now be a bookcase." Bing, poof! There's a bookcase.
Well, that's all very well, but one immediately becomes rather unvalued— that is to say, items and objects become rather valueless. Why would he say, "There will now be a bookcase," except to create beauty? But he wants attention because he has an interchange—if he's going to duplicate himself to be another

SOP 8-C STEP VIII, DEFINITIONS
self, then he wants attention from the other self. And we get the attention interwoven with the duplication, so that the basic background of attention is duplication.
A postulate duplicated in MEST forms would be to make pieces of wood or metal form in such a way, and stay in such a way, as to continue to form a bookcase. So in that communications system we have a more complex communications system only because of one thing: The basic postulate that goes behind these walls is, of course, "resist effect."
But there is a higher postulate in every piece of space made. Every piece of space, every space and area, has a higher postulate in it, and that is, "I mustn't duplicate." In order to resist effects, in order to stay as it is, it of course must not duplicate.
Any time you say, "This must stay as it is," you must, of course, understoodly say, "This mustn't duplicate now," unless you are throwing out large quantities of raw material which are expected to duplicate something. Now, that would be something else, wouldn't it? But then you would say exactly what they were expected to duplicate.
But the earliest cast-about of raw material in this universe took place in space, which already had the postulate in it, "mustn't be duplicated."
A god of this universe—an anthropomorphic god . . . And I hope that you understand me very clearly when I use this word god loosely and even blasphemously, for the good reason that this thing g-o-d is something which man has set up in his image; and it is merely an ambition on the part of a thetan, it's an effort—a co-effort on the part of thetans to have a playing field and so on.
And there is, actually, beings above the beingness of this universe. There are beings, but they are not this anthropomorphic thing who is the jealous god, who has hate and vengeance and so forth—that happens to be above that level.
And the jealous god—the most jealous god there would be, would be a god who would insist at all times that he must not be duplicated, even to the point of not using his name in vain. He mustn't be duplicated. No graven images. His space—it's all his space and so forth. And we go on this way.
Interesting, isn't it? We have a "no duplicate," in other words, in the space. You mustn't duplicate this space. You mustn't compete with this space. This space is here, there's only one space.
We find a scholar of the level of Count Alfred Korzybski, for instance, writing an entire text and an entire subject—general semantics—on the premise that two MEST universe spaces cannot concur, and they cannot be in the same space. It's interesting to the degree to which this can go. This is not even vaguely true. It's just space. I mean, you can do anything with space—unless you were convinced that space will not duplicate you, and that you mustn't duplicate space. If you're convinced of that, then you mustn't duplicate. That's your first level: You'd better not duplicate space—not this MEST universe space.
In the first place, any one of you are capable of making this much space. But if you mustn't duplicate this space, if you must back up from such a duplication, then you will have this playing field in common—the MEST universe—with others, if you don't duplicate it.
But all sorts of weird things evolve immediately that you start to duplicate space which others can use. You've set yourself up, for one thing, as God. We mustn't do that! There's all sorts of provisions against this.
Now, anybody who is afraid of space has discovered long since that the space will not duplicate him. And that he, perforce, must at length duplicate the space. And so the thetan becomes nothing. Because he has to duplicate the

111

112

14 DECEMBER 1953
space in terms of "be this space." So he's driven to the point of either "I can't be" and "I won't be" this space, at which moment he becomes nothing, at the same time not making any space of his own. If he refuses to duplicate the space continually, why then, of course, he stops duplicating space. Because space is just space, it isn't anything very, very strange.
This MEST universe space just happens to occur here. Well, other spaces can occur here, too. And—but if you drive it under cover that other spaces can occur here and convince everybody that no other space can occur here, then you have only one space here.
Now, this space won't duplicate you. Therefore it won't carry your orders. It will do all sorts of things, but it won't duplicate you. Not directly, on a postulate basis.
In other words, you say, "All right. This space—this space will now be twice as big," and it's right there, the same size. But that's only because you've agreed to it. You've agreed on a no-duplication with this space, as I remark again, even dramatized to the extent of Alfred Korzybski's general semantics. All through that book you mustn't duplicate space. You mustn't put space within space and mustn't do all sorts of things.
That's a very ironbound system. Now, we needn't go into this too far because, by the way, this will show up with you, on the process of it. All this material will.
But let's just take it by dynamics: "mustn't duplicate." All right. First dynamic: You mustn't duplicate yourself. If there are two of you, you're kind of outside the law, right away. As a matter of fact, you've immediately exceeded every police record there is.
You could go out and kill somebody and then the police could take one of you and execute it, and the other one would go out and kill somebody else. And about the time they were executing it, there'd be another one of you walking out the front door, tipping your hat.
Fingerprints would be of no use, so identification and identity itself would be of no use. And you would have immediately escaped every consequence of this universe, the second that you can duplicate yourself.
And yet, to have any power in this universe, actually there must be two of each of you. Has to be two anchor points. The most basic kind of terminal imaginable is two terminals. You see that?
You've got to have two terminals. If you don't have two terminals, you don't have any exchange of energy. Did you ever see an electric motor with one terminal in it in this universe? It doesn't function. So, if you knock out one terminal, that leaves somebody playing the "only one." And the way you do that is by convincing him he mustn't duplicate.
But you give him a system by which he can duplicate, and so we get the second dynamic. Now, as we start on out the second dynamic, we find out that he can duplicate himself by use of certain symbols and activities, and that he's even paid for it in terms of sensation for doing it this way.
And we get the act of duplication, the sexual act, and we get the result of this sexual act, which is children. Well, somebody not thinking very far and without the keys to this problem in their—terms of basics, would stop right there and say, "Well, look, there's something wrong with this system," and spend his entire life trying to tear the system down somehow or another in somebody's mind. But if he didn't have the key to this system, he would never tear it down.

SOP 8-C STEP VIII, DEFINITIONS
Yet Sigmund Freud made a very bold effort to do so. And everything he said about it's—happens to be true, but it just—too complex and doesn't go far enough.
Sex is terribly aberrative, but it is not even vaguely the most aberrative thing on the dynamics. Just let's take number one—you. Let's take something more aberrative than that. Let's take you, all the time putting out postulates, orders, commands to things that won't duplicate you. You don't believe it? Just tell this wall up here to be some other way. Because the basic postulate in that wall is "I won't duplicate you." You have to go through all sorts of weird commu¬nications systems in order to get it to fashion. But that's clear on up to six.
Now, let's take the third dynamic. The third dynamic means a group consisting of separate individuals. Well, what would happen to the third dynamic if you were able to say, and everybody had to accept at that moment, "There is now—there are now eight hundred thousand of me."
You're a third dynamic right there—boom. This'd be very, very destructive in terms of armies. The enemy has to keep recruiting, recruiting, recruiting, recruiting and bleeding the nations of everybody who is playing the "only one." And you would appear on the field of battle, you would say, "There are now eight hundred thousand of me, and there's only five hundred thousand of him," you'd hardly even need weapons. You'd just walk at him—he'd be swamped.
And then after that eight hundred thousand was dead, all but one, or something like that, you could say, "Well, now there's two million of me."
Only you could even go this far—you could say, "There are now two million in his rear." So you see, you'd play chaos with the game immediately that the third dynamic permitted a duplication. So any group in this universe dramatizes "this group must not be duplicated."
Actually, the universe lays down the law that it mustn't—a group mustn't be duplicated. People try, however, to get groups to duplicate. And there again, underlying each one, is this big effort on the part of the thetan to duplicate covertly.
In the Constitution of the United States it is clearly stated that competition is the heart of all trade. Very clearly stated. In other words, let's duplicate every company so that it can have a competitor. It says let's play a game; let's duplicate. And you have monopolies continually coming forward trying to break that law down, each monopoly trying to be the "only one."
So we have groups. We have the group the United States, trying to make it legal to duplicate. And we have the thing that's being duplicated trying to make it illegal to duplicate and be a monopoly. The cartel system, and other evils which have arisen in recent decades and so on, are based upon the insistence of a few that they be not duplicated.
Now, we go on up to the fourth dynamic, and we find that man would be very upset—is very upset, or is made to laugh, by monkeys trying to duplicate him. It's another species. He's very intrigued with this, or he's insulted by it. And if Martians were to come down here and say they were men, and let's say that Martians were the cartoons of Martians—which they aren't—if Martians were these cartoons, then man would be, again, very upset.
These things are not men. The only sentient species, of course, must be man—the fourth dynamic. We mustn't have another sentient species suddenly appearing on the scene with similar capabilities, claiming unto the same rights man would have. A Martian trying to get rights under the Supreme Court of the United States would not get them.

113

114

14 DECEMBER 1953
Now we get to the fifth dynamic and we find that all life is in a wonderful contest, and it's running madly in one direction on the second dynamic to duplicate tremendous numbers. Or, on the first dynamic, to remain and survive as long as possible as one animal. We find the whole animal kingdom's doing this.
Let's take the method the herring uses. The herring survives solely by duplication. He wants to duplicate enough and far enough and so many that not all the herring can be killed, and one herring or two herring or three herring or something like this will always be left after every attack. And so he builds, as a fish, tremendous capabilities in each herring to produce enormous numbers of herring. And so it is with all fish. They have taken this system of duplication as a rote procedure.
Now, when man himself begins to starve as an individual, instead of simply duplicating the food or duplicating himself, he starts down the sexual track which runs along coordinated against time, and we get in India—we get personal survival of very little moment. This is true in China too. And yet, duplication in terms of sex as the big answer. He must go down the track, then, in terms of that.
But because they've already surrendered to such a communications system, we don't find MEST duplicating the postulates of the men very well. They don't make things into things—it more or less runs along and decays.
But right with that, they are sold so thoroughly on the seventh and eighth dynamics, which we'll get to in a moment, that they have a wonderful time. They just have this fabulous time with the seventh and eighth dynamics; because they feel they can't duplicate, so therefore something else is duplicating.
And you get a Hindu slavishly following orders. He is doing the one thing he can do, which is to duplicate the orders of another, which is other-determinism. And that, in essence, is the definition of other-determinism, is to duplicate something else rather than to duplicate yourself.
Well, we get up to the sixth dynamic, and we find out that the entire background of the sixth dynamic is "we mustn't duplicate you." Space, energy, matter, time—none of these things will duplicate you, it says. And that's the prime postulate in them.
Now, we get the seventh dynamic, and because of the mobility and the postulate ability of a thetan who is mobile, of a spirit, of a saint, of something else—we get this—a body duplicating the spirit. The body duplicates the spirit because the body is immobile, it's tied down into a communications system, and it is on a communication line which is the genetic line, and so forth. So it will obey a spirit. But it won't fully duplicate the spirit. It only partially duplicates what the spirit says.
And now we get up to God, and we've already said something about God—God is the one thing in this universe which mustn't be duplicated and which is playing the game, the "only one." And it—fortunately for this universe, as far as this universe and intimate interest in it is concerned—it doesn't exist as a god. There is a god above this universe, but this is not a god intimately connected with this universe.
This universe is normally—could be routinely considered from one moment to the next, as simply a playing field which is co-created by those thetans which are within it.
Now, where we have no duplication and the impulse to duplicate, we get a failure. You see that? That should be very clear. We have this tremendous obsession—everyone knows that the answer to every problem is duplicate. No matter—let's take the game called traps—"caught in the trap." That's this

SOP 8 - C STEP VIII, DEFINITIONS
universe patly—it plays the game "caught in a trap." Nearly every child's game has something to do with this—caught one way or the other.
And we take an individual who's caught in a trap. All he has to do is duplicate himself and he'd be outside the trap.
Well, covertly, cells do this. Do you know that a cell has no great amount of communications system. Cell A divides, and then cell A1 is the same identity as cell A and knows everything that cell A knows. So we get a division and duplication of all information, just in procreation. And it goes and does this: pop, pop, pop, pop, pop. The same cell—spirit, you might say—is surviving right on along the line.
But as the cell goes down through the cycle of one lifetime in a body, it starts getting smaller and smaller and smaller. It's losing something all the way through. Well, the main thing it's losing, of course, is its self-determinism— its tremendous dependency upon the energy furnished it in terms of food. So it starts duplicating, is the factor. And it starts duplicating the energy activity of combustion, and so it loses its own self-determinism. Combustion enters in.
Now, most of the people who can't get out of their heads are relying very heavily upon energy produced by the body, and they're duplicating this energy action of the body rather than furnishing energy. And they get away from the body and they're very weak. That's because they're not making any energy— they're depending on the body to make it.
In other words, they've gone to a point of—this is the cycle they've run: They've given orders and postulates to the body, and orders and postulates to the body, and they've insisted, "Duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate," you see. Every time they say, "Walk," then the body is supposed to duplicate this action. And now they throw up a mock-up in the body which is walking, and the body walks. And the body walks, that's all. You see? I mean, it's so simple.
But they've kept on doing this. Now, there have been many times when they told the body to walk and the body didn't walk; in other words, didn't duplicate. So at length, you get the thetan duplicating the body, not the body duplicating the thetan.
So the thetan begins to take orders from the body, and orders from the body would be merely a sort of a flotsam and jetsam carried along in society— really stimulus-response—because the body doesn't give anybody any orders.
So you would get then the society ridges or the ridges of the body, earlier installed by the thetan, giving the orders back to the thetan. So the thetan is in—actually in terms of time, giving himself orders over a big breadth of time. And as he gets worse off and worse off and worse off, he gives himself orders on a shorter and shorter span. He's giving himself orders all the time.
You ask some preclear who's having a hard time of it to throw a ball out in front of him, it'll snap right back at him. Well, that is giving a postulate and then the postulate coming back.
He has to duplicate his own postulates. This is in terms of a failure. Now this is way high on the track, too, you see. He wants everything to duplicate his postulates. And very low on the track, he's found out that nothing will duplicate them, so he has to. Low on the track, then, he's duplicating his own postulates because of the failure of other things to duplicate his postulates.
He's told walls to be red, and they kept right on being green and so forth, and he's done this often enough so that he eventually becomes red. Something is going to give way, see? Something somewhere is going to give way, and what gives way is himself. You see that?

115

116

14 DECEMBER 1953
Now, when it comes to duplication as a system for use in processing, we can see immediately that almost any preclear—this is on the shortest test imaginable, just a test that'd only require five minutes—will go more or less the same curve.
You ask him to duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, it's all right. But don't ask him to duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate. Now, don't even do this to him: "Now get that spot..." I say don't—the fact of the matter is, it's the technique. But if you want him to remain calm, don't do this to him. If you want him to get well, you do this to him.
You just tell him, "Pick out three places. All right. Now get the fact that there is no duplicate in each one of the three in rotation. Now get the fact that there's no duplicate in each one of the three in rotation. Now no duplicate in each one of the three in rotation. Now no duplicate in each one of the three in rotation." And just to vary the technique, now get him to get no duplicate in each one of the three in rotation.
And you keep that up for about fifteen or twenty minutes—on some preclears, they'll tolerate it that long, but not much longer. And the bulk of your preclears will probably blow up very early.
Now, they can't do that. They just start getting bored. They'll get too tense. They just get rrrum! No, they don't want to do that! "Well, what's the matter with you?"
You've run them straight into the central obsession-compulsion that is the MEST universe underlying basic. You've run them straight at it. And the strain gets a little bit too much for them after a while. They get sick at their stomach and they get tense and they get upset, and after they go over the peak on it they say, "That's all right."
And what do you know, they'll do something after you've done this which they could never do before—they will go to a movie they have seen before. Just that. They'd just as soon go to a movie they've seen before. They would just go—as soon go to it about ten times (it's film going through a camera), because you've spoiled their anxiety which makes them think that movies are entertaining, which is "can't predict."
Now when something won't duplicate, they can't predict it. Do you see that?
Let's just get something else. The fellow says, "It must never happen again." You know, see, he's had some terrible experience that practically wiped him out. "It must never happen again," he says. That means it must never be duplicated.
Oh-oh. The second he says it must never be duplicated, he sticks himself on the track. Because obsessively, he must duplicate. And the only way out of the incident is to duplicate it.
If he were to duplicate it four times and just hold it there, it would discharge. If he'd duplicate it just twice and hold it there, it would also discharge. Matched terminals. If he'd just hold it there long enough, it'd discharge.
So the only salvation he has in the face of a very, very heavy incident or experience is to duplicate it. And yet, his postulate, just as it's happening is, "It must not happen." Mustn't happen, then must have it again, and so he doesn't duplicate it, so he's got it. And you've got your dwindling spiral.
When he says, "It must not happen," he means it mustn't duplicate. There must be no reoccurrence of this.
Now, the overt act-motivator sequence gets into restimulation because it's an imperfect duplicate. This fellow is shot in the chest with an arrow, so he

SOP 8-C STEP VIII, DEFINITIONS
turns around and shoots somebody in the chest with an arrow, but he misses and the arrow goes into the shoulder. That's an imperfect duplicate.
Matched terminals. Two different places on the time track. He'll try to get those two incidents parallel with each other on the time track, and they just don't parallel and they don't discharge because they're not the same incident. But this is a covert effort to duplicate. An overt act-motivator, a DED-DEDEX incident or sequence is a covert act to duplicate.
Now, his going out and shooting somebody in the shoulder, trying to shoot somebody in the chest, is a covert effort to duplicate. He knows he mustn't duplicate, see. But he can now have a good reason why he has to do this, you see— some other reason and so on. And a reason—a reason is simply this: It is an effort to escape the consequences of duplication because one feels one mustn't duplicate.
Because if one duplicated, he's always up against this: If one duplicated continuously and forever, and duplicated himself on and on and on, there would be no game as far as he's concerned. The game would be gone. This universe would be gone, and that's that. You turn a key in the door and you open the door, and after that there's nothing but emptiness there.
But this is predicated on this fact: that there couldn't be another universe. This would only be sad if there couldn't be another universe. But if you've opened the door on duplication, of course there can always be another universe, because you can always duplicate it. So, one locked the door on something where the door needn't have been locked.
Time, essentially, has as its effort, "duplicate the last instant as closely as possible." And the only reason you get time in walls is because they change very, very tiny gradient. Very tiny. I mean one molecule wanders from one corner of the wall to the other corner of the wall, and it's just those new spaces that are making new times.
But this gradient is so tiny and the progress of those changing anchor points is so slight and so on, that you get an endurance on the part of the wall which is very long, that you wouldn't get in terms of a gas. Because a gas set up in that fashion has very swiftly moving anchor points. But again, swiftly moving only in relationship to something else which is moving.
And if you have established some arbitrary sequence, like the beating of a heart, as time, then you can measure time as it occurs around you, and things can measure time against the beating of that heart.
Life, in the essence, is the thing which can duplicate.
Now, I said one time that the chief observable difference, and I stress that—the chief observable difference—between life and MEST is that life had ideas. Now anybody can see that very quickly without any further philosophic wanderings. I mean, MEST does not get ideas and live things do get ideas. Even a cherry tree will get ideas. It'll sit there and change its direction of growth and so on. You tie a couple of branches down so they've got to grow in a certain way, it'll grow some other way. It'll figure something out.
Life can get ideas. And MEST which is not being utilized in growth and not being utilized by life, is very, very chaotic. Completely unorganized. It just isn't, really.
So we get the chief observable difference is that life gets ideas and MEST doesn't. But now let's see the difference between the chief observable difference and the technical difference between these two things.
There's one thing that MEST doesn't do: It doesn't duplicate. And the technical difference between life and MEST is that life can duplicate and MEST can't duplicate.

117

118

14 DECEMBER 1953
If you've ever seen a wall grow eight other walls, you know what I mean— I mean, you've seen something there that nobody else evidently has ever seen, as far as just the MEST sitting there and without any influence on the part of any life organism, you—it starts growing new walls.
Now, some chemist will come along and show you a crystal—virus. He'll show virus growing. Yawn at him when he does that. Yawn very widely. Because he's demonstrating that crystals, behaving under his ideas, will change from one part of a glass of water into another part of a glass of water as long as he wanted them to. And they will.
But he will say, "Well, this goes on happening in the bottom of the sea with-out anybody looking at it at all."
You say, "How do you know it goes on happening, then?"
And he'll say, "Oh, see here, come off, don't get on to any of these philosophic conundrums."
You say, "Well, don't pull any of this scientific balderdash on me, that everything keeps up in all directions and at all places at all times whether observed or not. You can't prove that, and I can't prove what I said," you say. "You can't prove that it keeps on happening, I can't prove that it doesn't keep on happening."
He'll say, "Well, see here, now, we'll set up a motion-picture camera, we'll set up a sound-recording apparatus, and we will show that the virus does do this anyhow."
You say, "Sure. You want to demonstrate that it does, it probably will." You can be very maddening, anyway. (audience laughter)
This is a terrible thing to do to anybody, but the point is, it's about time somebody did it to science. They're so cocksure that all these phenomena go on when not observed and that nobody is pushing it around.
Truth of the matter is, if a virus does form into a cell, and if the virus does come out of mud, there has to be a thetan impulse to start that gradient going.
You could see immediately that, however, any crystal put in a glass and permitted to form into something like the "subvirus life form," which is what they call it, will only grow so far and will then become motionless till life comes along or until something else comes along and drops something in its road to make it grow or change it again.
Now, this universe starts to chaotize around and drop on its own head and fall on its own feet and slop around one way or the other, life comes along and starts organizing it. All right.
Well, don't for a moment overlook one fact about Scientology, is nobody is trying to tell you, bluntly, and for you never to think about again—trying to tell you that we have utterly and completely solved, to the end of all time, the origin of the MEST universe.
In the first place, anytime somebody says "origin," he is presupposing that time is senior to him. We don't know that this is true—a lot of things that we don't know is true about the MEST universe.
All we're trying to tell you is that this is wide-open, and that you can demonstrate by various means that an individual need have no—he need have no registry of walls in the MEST universe. He needn't register at all.
'Tisn't whether it keeps going on or not—what's important about the MEST universe is your effect upon it and its effect upon you. And when we have walked away from that point—honest, there isn't any use in studying the problem any further unless somebody likes to play games with problems. And a lot of guys get stuck on this. They just want to play games on problems.

SOP 8-C STEP VIII, DEFINITIONS
And then the MEST universe is serving another thing—it's furnishing them ammunition so that they can have a game called problems.
But where we go on studying the MEST universe beyond the point of your effect upon it and its effect upon you, we are just walking off the edge of the cliff. I mean, when we go beyond that point, why, we're just noplace. And I guess that's where a scientific mind intends us to be—just noplace.
What—we're studying the MEST universe not in the relationship to matter to matter to space, as space affects matter, as matter affects space, as space affects—yammer, yammer, yammer. That's physics. That's physics, and you can go study that all you want to and you can get acceleration of gravities, and go on and study these things as problems on and on and on and on and on.
But that's physics, and we're not studying physics. We're studying Scientology, and that is the science of knowledge. And knowledge begins and ends with you and those about you; it won't sit for a moment in a piece of MEST. A MEST won't even hold a fixed idea and give it back again, unless it is mechanically tailored so that it will do it, and unless somebody understands the symbol that is put into it and brought back again. That's very important. Most people overlook this.
Now, you can get an answer out of MEST as long as you know the symbol system first. Well, physics is a symbol system to some degree. We're not interested in MEST for the sake of MEST. We're just interested in its effect upon you and your effect upon it, and you needn't bother yourself with it any further for our purposes—to make men well, to make societies and civilizations. You needn't go onto it, it's a fruitless chase. It has proven itself so, because we have been chasing it now for twenty-five hundred years, and they have finally evolved bodies which are not as good-looking as before, down the time track, and they've evolved a type of civilization which denies the human soul and sticks the thetan in a head. That's—that's real great. I mean this is progress.
And yet, they say, 'Why, sure we have progress. Look at those automobiles."
And you say, "Well, you go ahead, look at the automobiles. You realize this whole highway out here could be parked full of automobiles from one end to the other, and if there wasn't one living being to enjoy one, it would strictly be, 'So what!' And yet there could be the dirtiest cow track out there with one kid's scooter on it and a kid to enjoy it, and that would be more important than a whole road full of automobiles and nobody to drive them or enjoy them."
And the fellow might possibly get the point. But he won't if he's an engineer who is very snarled up and plowed in.
Because this stuff, MEST, plows people in exactly in this fashion—now we'll talk about the dwindling spiral: It won't duplicate you. It won't duplicate you. You can't say to it, "Now be me," and it will be you. You can't say—and that's basically what's wrong with space. Now, I'd better mention that specifically, because you as an auditor are liable to overlook this before you've had it run on yourself, and you're liable to miss this.
You can't say to this empty space out here, "Be me," and have that actual space which you're regarding be you, you see, if you believe it is a thing which is there forever. But you can have that space be you if you haven't accepted its basic definition of conservation of space. You get the difference between these two things? All right.
Remember to include space in these processes. It's more important than walls. People who are having trouble with havingness will always point to the walls, and if they've long passed beingness at all, they'll never touch the space,

119

120

14 DECEMBER 1953
you know? They won't have the preclear look at these three spaces and have these spaces duplicate them. Well, that's the basic failure.
And so what's an inversion? An inversion is, a person has tried and tried and tried and tried to get others and to get MEST—and particularly MEST—to duplicate what his ideas are. He's tried and tried and tried, and failed and failed and failed and failed. And after a while, it gets on an inversion. Just like the thetan gives orders to the body, orders to the body and then begins to take orders from the body.
So, in such a way, an individual starts taking orders from MEST because of its continuous refusal to take orders from him. Now, it has obeyed him to some degree. This success is the hope which leads him on. It does obey him to some degree. And he always has the hope that it'll obey him a little better.
Well, that's madness itself because he—his idea of this is "Now look, we made this into a wall—bricks, and we made it into a wall. Now we might be able to calcine the bricks a little bit better and get them a lot smoother and polish them a little bit better and hang them in thin air and do this and that with them," and you've got Arsclycus, where everybody was a slave. The one thing Arsclycus could do that nobody else could do was make good bricks. Civilization plowed in, not very many people were happy in it.
But what about this—this inversion? The fellow says, "Space be me. Space be. Space be me." You know, "Duplicate me. Duplicate me." It didn't, it didn't, it didn't. And after a while, he starts duplicating space. And that's why your thetan's not visible. He's duplicating space. And there's your first inversion.
Now he says—now he says, "Energy, energy. Lightning bolts, lightning bolts."
He's perfectly willing to be space—after a while he's resigned to that, that's his first apathy. He's made space—tried to make space duplicate him and sometimes it did, and sometimes it didn't and sometimes he gets—you, every once in a while you'll run a preclear, he gets an enormous white cloud or something like that and it's got a beautiful image sitting in the middle of it. He's actually put an image up in space, you see, and he's kind of made all the space duplicate his image and back and forth, and he's had a good time with it. But he became the space. So he's nothing now in terms of space, so what's our next point?
Next point is, being nothing, he could—still a static, you see. He keeps throwing lightning bolts around. Energy, energy, energy, energy, beams, bolts, beams, bolts. And he keeps on with this endlessly, and finally he gets into a point where he says, "Energy, duplicate me. Energy, duplicate me. Energy duplicate . . ." It doesn't, so he becomes energy.
Now he says this—now he's at energy, he becomes energy and now after a while as energy, he starts telling "Matter, duplicate me. Objects, duplicate me. Objects, walls, duplicate me." And they don't, and he becomes an object and becomes stationary.
And there's the dwindling spiral exactly there. And that's just how it happens. All right.
SOP 8-C has as Step VIII, first, that the prime principle for the resolution of a case is the rehabilitation of all abilities to duplicate. And it includes as technique any and all methods applicable to rehabilitate the ability to duplicate on the part of an individual. Now, that's its broadest statement.
Now, let's be very specific. You take a preclear and you start him in with walls, usually, because he's having trouble with havingness. This has nothing to do with the level of the case, by the way, it's just that step.

SOP 8-C STEP VIII, DEFINITIONS
And you say, "Walls . . ."All right, now we just have the walls say anything. You just get the emotion in them "can't duplicate." That's the simplest one, see. Have walls and walls and objects and objects, "Can't duplicate, can't duplicate, can't duplicate, can't duplicate."
Now, how do you do the technique? You do it in the most duplicative fashion you possibly can. And that is the little hooker. Because you could do this without having the walls say, "Can't duplicate," but you would just get the same emotion in the wall time after time after time after time, in the same positions, in the same walls. Let's pick out three walls and have each one feel apathy.
Now, the essence of the technique would be to say to the preclear, "All right, now pick out three walls." He does. And you say, "All right. In the first one—put some apathy in the first one. Now put some in the second one. Now put some in the third one."
"Okay," he says, expecting you to go on to something else.
And you say, "Into the first wall, put some apathy. Second wall, some apathy. Third wall, some apathy."
He does that and he's a little bit suspicious of you by this time, and so forth.
Now you say, "Into the first wall, second wall, third wall, each one in turn." All right. Put apathy in the three in turn. Put apathy in the three in . . ."
About this time he says, "Yep, I did it."
And you say, "Put it in the three in turn."
"Yep, I did it."
You sort of have the reaction like, "The heck you did, fellow." You say, "Come on. First wall, second wall, third wall."
"Yeah, but if I do that I—I'd—drive me nuts to keep on going over this stuff," and so on.
Keep at it.
You know that he'll occasionally get so frantic that he'll jump out of his chair, try to leave the session. He'll get frantic. Well, that is the emotion—that franticness, that feeling of strain and that terrible feeling of onerous boredom that comes over the individual because of repetition—is the implanted emotion to prevent duplication. So you just make sure you run it off. See that? And that's where it's going. Because your individual will run on any technique until he comes up against that one, and you as an auditor are liable to run any technique until you come up against that one in the preclear, and then sheer off.
"It's—just so bored! It's—it's just rrrmmm! huhhh! Won't do it anymore."
Well, that's too bad.
Now, do you have to put any meaning into this? No. Actually it runs better without meaning. But the funny part of it is that putting the words in "can't duplicate" all the way around, speeds up the technique. "Can't duplicate you" is the—one of the fastest ways to work it.
But if you were to just sit down and have him pick out three spots in the MEST universe and have him spot the first one and spot the second one and spot the third one, and then spot the first one and the second one and the third one, then spot the first one and the second one and the third one, and go on with this for fifteen or twenty minutes—oh! You would break the back of this case on perception.
Now, there's where you get the wildest perception changes. We were steered into this technique because I observed continually—I'd already had duplication a long time ago. One of the early notes taken on the subject of PABs and so forth, very, very early this year, 1953—duplication. But it was—took a long time to actually get steered in and examine the fact, as far as I was concerned, that

121

122

14 DECEMBER 1953
we were way above the curve of action of the MEST universe. That we were into the prime principle and preventer of action and beingness, and that was it: it was duplication. It was just too simple, you see, and so on.
And if you're going to get any—I've checked this carefully now for many, many months and I've found out that any perception increase and any case level increase is attended by one or another form of duplication. Perception increases.
Now, why do people have to have new entertainment all the time? It isn't necessary for them to be entertained at all. It's the truth of the matter. They don't have to be entertained. They can think of enough things to entertain themselves.
But if you were to destroy in people the ability to entertain themselves, why, you sure could control them, couldn't you? You'd do that by giving them an impulse and a compulsion to be entertained by something new.
And how would you do this? You would keep them from being in the same spots, one after the other, down a long track, and you would eventually get people who always had to be entertained by something new.
You wouldn't let somebody occupy the same spot and area. Do you see that? You'd drive people out continually, in other words. Drive them out, drive them out, drive them out. And they, therefore, would never have the past history of the spot they were standing on, and this would get them lost so they wouldn't know. You see how you could get somebody lost that way? You just—he moves into a new area, and he doesn't know it's a past.
A child, for instance, that is raised in a little town—knows everybody in the town and knows all the streets—you know it really never occurs to him to be bored until he's driven out. The only person who gets bored is the fellow who gets kind of non persona grata around town. Then the town bores him.
But there's people who can stay there and live perfectly happy, fruitful lives, and be sane as can be and go on and on being happy about it all, and doing more or less the same monotonous things. Why, right now as I talk to you, you could see that as a ghastly fate, maybe. But it isn't a ghastly fate. It's probably happiness itself.
And the people keep telling you that happiness lies in your own backyard, and you keep looking at them blankly. Probably it doesn't occur to you to say, "Look I haven't got a backyard. If you just tell me where my backyard is, I'll go look in it. I don't have one."
Almost anybody who's upset emotionally has been shifted geographically early in his life more frequently than his tolerance. In other words, he can't pick up the past of the area he's in fast enough, and he just gets dull after a while. He always enters a place—he's always the strange dog in the front yard, you see? All right.
Because he is not permitted to stay in a place, gives him an enormous impulse away from and gives him the key-in of nonduplication. See that? He can't stay in the same place, so therefore he mustn't duplicate.
If he's thrown out of a spot of space, and kept out of a spot of space, he thereafter mustn't duplicate. See, he mustn't duplicate that spot of space. In other words, he mustn't look at it. So he can't duplicate, and that cuts his ability to duplicate down just that much.
So "won't look" and "can't duplicate" are practically the same thing. He can't be in the same space, is "can't duplicate." So if you can't be in a space, then you can't duplicate.
SOP 8-C is very easily used. It is not particularly designed to tire your preclear out and wear you out as an auditor. It's designed to make it so that your preclear at length senses no danger in returning to or looking at a place

SOP 8-C STEP VIII, DEFINITIONS
where he has been. And the moment when he can do this, he will have his whole track lying out in front of him and any value that memory recall has is a reassurance that an individual can go back into these places.
Reassurance itself could be defined as "ability to be again." In other words, to duplicate. Reassurance and duplication are synonymous.
If you tell somebody he can duplicate, you have reassured him. The only way that you can reassure somebody is to tell them they can't duplicate or can duplicate. In other words, "This incident isn't going to happen to you again. You're all right, fellow. Pick it up." See? I mean you've reassured him. You've said "can't duplicate." The incident can't duplicate. Now you reassure him, "Oh, look, there's other times, there's other places. You can win someplace else."
See, but it's got to be a someplace else. Now that's reassurance. And that you will find as one of the hottest buttons on a case, merely because it's so close to "duplicate" and "can't duplicate."
So the thetan is caught between the horrible spots that he must, must, must duplicate in order to survive, but he must not duplicate and the whole universe around him is telling him that he—nothing will duplicate him, nothing will take his orders, nothing will duplicate him, his postulates are no good. And so he, in this universe, goes down on a dwindling spiral accordingly.
The way to reverse the spiral is to make it possible for him to duplicate. And any method used in doing that is going to be successful.

123



Cause and Effect-Assignment of Cause, GE
A lecture given on 14 December 1953

And this is the second lecture of December the 14th 1953, lecture taking place in the evening.
The subject of tonight's lecture is the assignment of cause. Cause and effect is something we've talked about quite a bit. I really don't know whether you have assimilated everything there is to be assimilated on cause and effect or not. There's an awful lot to it.
The first place, there's communication. Communication is built out of cause and effect. That's all it's built out of—it's not built out of anything else but cause and effect.
One end of a line says, "A," and the other end of the line receives it. And cause and effect, in essence, to be operative even vaguely, depends upon duplication. And the modus operandi of cause and effect is duplication. Cause at one end of a communication line puts forward a certain pattern, and at the other end of the communication line, the receipt-point, that pattern should be received.
If this is the case, then you have good communication. If you don't get good duplication, you get very bad communication.
May sound very non sequitur to you, but a person who is very aberrated sexually communicates poorly. Why? They're very short on duplication. Their duplication is aberrated, so they don't communicate well.
Now, if you look up on that chart on the wall, the Chart of Human Evaluation and Dianetic Processing, you will discover that it is plotted immediately against the aberration of cause and effect. How much is the duplication of cause altered at the receipt-point because of an inability to receive? And this in itself is ARC, and that is communication, and that is the dwindling spiral of that chart, and that is how that chart is constructed.
A perfect communication line is one which receives at its receipt-point that which was sent forward at its cause-point. But a perfectly guarded communication line is one which receives nothing at its receipt-point regardless of what is sent at the cause-point. That's a completely guarded line.
There are various ways to aberrate a communication line. I give you an example of this in somebody who jams a communication line. It's very possible to do this.
You with many preclears may consider that you have a preclear who is in communication, and yet you just don't seem to be able to give the preclear a command. Why? Because you have to wait until the preclear is finished talking.

125

126

14 DECEMBER 1953
You'll find quite routinely that you will have preclears who require a great deal of care in handling. You won't realize this first off because they are apparently in a good communication state, and yet they're guarding a communication line so thoroughly that nothing is received. They put forth a barrage of words which is intended solely and completely to keep you from being cause. And so as you try to process them, you find yourself fighting through a forest of words. Those things which they are saying are not necessarily sequitur to the problem at all. But they apparently are. And a person who is very good at this leads an auditor on and on and on. And the auditor is only getting in one auditing command every half an hour. That's really bad. It isn't quite as bad—of one auditing command every ten minutes because of this barrage.
But when you've processed such cases, you will readily understand what is meant by a guarded communication, because you get no image at your receipt-point. You are being a cause, and the receipt-point does not take the image. You'll get a discussion, not the image.
If the case is very bad off, you may get a completely non sequitur discussion, and this is a psychotic. Now it's not necessarily an indictment of people who merely guard a receipt-point with communication barrages, because quite often they don't understand. And you as an auditor can then be dealing in terminology or with a language which is, in itself, unreceivable.
You see how that would be? Supposing you used nothing but technical terminology. You could say, "Now what is your postulate? What postulate did you make?"
And the preclear says, "Huh? What are you talking about?"
And you say, "Well, what postulate occurred to you at the time your mother soaked your head in vinegar?"
And he says, "I don't know. She sure did, though—but what do you mean a postulate? Nothing—no postulate occurred to me, nothing happened. She soaked my head in vinegar there—it wasn't in a postulate besides."
And you will find that from that point on, he will get more and more verbose. The more bad terminology which you use—that is, the more incomprehensible terminology which you employ in auditing him—the more verbal your preclear is going to get. Because they put up more and more of a defense barrage around the receipt-point in an effort to keep you from communicating.
Now, this gets so bad off that a person eventually starts to hold up—in a case as it deteriorates—that it can't duplicate and it can't duplicate and it doesn't dare duplicate and so forth, because horrible things might happen to it if it fell into the same image as that cause it met. It might get to a point where the case is holding up the MEST universe walls and holding up all the barriers of space and the anchor points and so forth, with a communication barrage. You see they're no longer receiving, they are guarding.
And as a consequence, of course all the walls and all space caves in on them. Because let me assure you that a number of symbols will not hold up a MEST wall. They just don't do it very well. Yeah, the symbols are—well, you just take anchor points—anchor points will stay out there or come in, regardless of how many symbols are hung on them or edged toward them.
Now, this is to some degree confusing to anybody who confuses a symbol and a postulate. A postulate is of course that thing which is a directed desire or order or inhibition or enforcement on the part of the individual in the form of an idea, and a symbol is an idea which is cloaked in energy. That's different.
Now, when people are communicating with symbols, such as words, and laying them out into space continually, they have an idea that the space is made

CAUSE AND EFFECT—ASSIGNMENT OF CAUSE, GE
rigid by their symbols. You can find this in many, many cases. They think they're holding up the universe with symbols. Symbols won't hold up the universe— nothing holds it up except its own laws. And the idea of a fixed postulate is as good as a person has not had damaged his own idea that he can fix things.
Now, how can you damage that? You can just show him he's wrong often enough so that he after a while will believe that if he puts a postulate in one place, it will actually appear in another place, and so he starts to take precautions about fixing it. And the way he takes precautions about fixing it is throw some energy at it, or connect it or associate it with some postulate which is already stable. So we take a stable postulate and then connect to it a lot of other postulates, and we get immediately not just a system of symbols, we get a system of logic. This in essence is mathematics.
Mathematics has long tied itself with great security to the symbol of zero. Now we begin to inspect zero and we find out that mathematics has been using an unqualified zero. So their logic, mathematically, does not tie down well. And you'll find mathematics uniformly failing when applied to complex problems such as aerodynamics.
It's very interesting that in aerodynamics they have to cut the propeller blade and then send it down to the laboratory to have some mathematician measure it sufficiently to make a formula to fit it. Now he sends that formula to some other factory so that they can build an airplane propeller blade just like that. And the mathematician over at the other factory writes it out very nicely, and draws and replots the curve and does a lot of things with it and sends it down to the shop. And the fellow in the shop there, he has a friend that worked in the first factory, so he just sends over and gets the other blade and makes a cast of it, and makes his blade that way. That's the way they build airplanes. Vrroom!
Mathematics is of very limited usefulness and is, as a matter of fact, not very trustworthy; simply because it is not anchored to anything which is an absolute. If there were an absolute in mathematics, it would be very safe to use mathematics. But until such time as they determine what absolutes they are going to hang what logics to, it is going to continue to be an aberrated subject.
The most trying task of any auditor is to wade through the symbol system of an individual to get the individual to mechanically comply with the auditor's order.
Where a preclear has not had results from SOP 8-C—regardless of what step you're using—within a few minutes, you should immediately assume that your symbol system or his symbol-receipt system is in fault in some fashion or another. He is not doing what you are asking him to do.
He may be very obliging. It isn't how calm a preclear is, it isn't how happy he looks, it's is he doing what you asked him to do?
You'd be surprised how happy some preclear can be when you have told him to hold the two back anchor points of the room—how happy he is to sit there and mock up lilies of the valley and throw them over his right shoulder. They'll do this. Your faith in humanity is never complete until you realize that humanity very seldom guides and is easily directed in the direction which you're trying to direct it.
As an auditor, you have a human being, and you've decided to direct him into a certain technique. Now, the chances of his going easily and continuously into that technique without jumping around, and the chances of his replying to you that he is not doing it perfectly, are quite great. Matter of fact, they're so great that they should be expected by you.
I dare say cases which are holding up here, those that aren't progressing as fast as they should, are hung up on a communication barrier of some sort

127

128

14 DECEMBER 1953
or another. They might get hung up this way: They hear me—the same case that you're auditing later hears me describe a technique, and he gets a fixed idea as to how it should be run.
And then you, having received another type of an idea on how it should be run, apply it to the case, and the case then realizes that you don't know what you're doing.
Whatever he realizes, all he thinks of is that you don't know what you're doing, merely because he heard it one way, and you're not doing it that way. Never occurs to him he might have heard it wrong. Never occurs to him that you might, in applying the science very widely to what you're doing, and knowing that he was a student in a class which heard this technique, are trying to close in on him sideways as covertly as he would try to avoid it. That might never occur to him either, you see. So this little duel in which you're engaging amounts to a duel, not processing—all because of a communication barrier. And he becomes very distrusting of you as an auditor simply because you didn't audit by the book, some fashion or another.
It's all right not to audit by the book, you know. As many—matter of fact, many times you have to audit sideways from the book, many times you have to, mainly with those people who know the book.
Now I can sit down and audit an auditor and he'd think—he'd think, for the love of Pete, that I was undoubtedly using Sanskrit on him or something. He wouldn't even vaguely recognize what I was doing with him. I would just be running SOP 8-C, but he wouldn't have any recognition of any step that was being run.
How would this be? I would be asking him to put up emotions—emotions in such a way as that he was actually making space with them. And he'd go on putting up these emotions and he'd say he was running that technique and he would actually be making space, and I'd be running a Spacation on him.
That's as covert as the preclear. An auditor should never overlook an opportunity to be as covert as the preclear. (audience laughter)
You get a coincidence now between cause and effect and communication and duplication? You should get this coincidence because it's right there— I mean it's right there to be observed.
If you want a graphic representation of it—and nothing, by the way, I used to think, is true unless it can be graphed in two-dimensional space. Oddly enough, I laid that limiting barrier on my own mathematics very early in the evolution of Dianetics—as a matter of fact, long before it was called Dianetics. And I used to know that something was wrong if I couldn't two-dimensionally graph it, even though I had to demonstrate a third dimension in the graphing. If it couldn't stand on a two-dimensional plane, it was not true. There was something too complicated about it.
This is—I'm going to show you this right now. You have your problem of space. Now, a problem of space can be laid out to demonstrate a third dimension on a two-dimensional plane. You can demonstrate any such problem of space. All right.
Now let's take a look at cause and effect, and see that cause and effect is graphable on a two-dimensional plane. We draw a diagonal line on a piece of paper, and we make—mark one end of this line C and the other end of the line E. And we draw a vertical—small vertical line at C, and then draw a number of dotted lines matching it all the way down, perpendicular to the first line. And we get these little dotted lines which are images of this first vertical line we drew in front of C, and we then draw another solid line down there at E.

CAUSE AND EFFECT—ASSIGNMENT OF CAUSE, GE
And we mark this little vertical line which stood up there at C—we mark this little vertical line, P-1. And then we mark down at E, P-2. Position 1, position 2. There we have a picture of a communication system. We also have a picture of where your preclear is going to be found. He is somewhere on this slant line between C and E. He is at one of these little dotted-line positions. He is as far from cause or as far from effect as he cannot cause or as he cannot be affected.
The least optimum position to occupy is exactly in the center between C and E—where a person cannot be cause but isn't effect, where he isn't effect but cannot be cause. And he sits there in the center. And that's immobility, and that's "cannot duplicate." He must prevent cause and prevent effect, he must prevent everything. He is, in essence, not a preclear, but a communication particle. He would be very happy if you put a stamp on him and glued his sweater over his head and dropped him in a mailbox. He actually thinks of himself as a communication particle.
Now, if you notice that little graph, that's a very easy graph to understand. And that's as easy as Scientology is to understand today.
What are we trying to do? We're trying to take the preclear and move his position on this slant line between C and E, up toward C, and make it possible for him to be at E without concern. We're going to move his chronic position, his stable position, up toward C from wherever it is.
Now, those little vertical dotted lines that you have there, these little dotted lines are, each one—if you marked in nine of them, you would get about the same number of inversions as there are on a case.
Male voice: Nine?
That's inversion, just about nine. You mark nine little lines, that gives you ten gradients.
A human being can invert about ten times. And we get the DEI cycle, the cycle of action, the input-output and so forth, back and forth, before a person really starts down markedly—well, you get to number 1. Position number 1 ordinarily happens when he's quite young—very young, infant. Position number 2 happens in childhood. Position number 3 happens before puberty. Position 4 happens about at puberty. Then there's position 5, and you've got the teenage position. And then we go up to the young adult at about 6. This person is getting closer and closer and closer to effect. When this person is about thirty-one, thirty-two, we get him at about position 7. About forty-two to forty-five, we get another inversion which is about at position 8, and we get then another inversion at about sixty, and that's position 9, and then he's dead. And that's about the number of times a person inverts. That is to say, their pattern of thinkingness changes with regard to their own regard of their own power or their own ability to accomplish something. Their thinkingness changes at these points.
Now, this is merely graphic, but it demonstrates the ages of people in terms of cause and effect. An infant, of course, is very far from effect. He's so drifty-around about life in general and so on, that most everything just misses him completely. And he certainly is intent upon being very causative.
Now, we get somebody, a young adult, he has already learned enough manners to realize that he can't always be cause, and he's had enough accidents happen to him so that he realizes he'd better not be effect all the time, either. And so he's starting to fall into the middle ground. This is then not a very inactive middle ground, but it is a middle ground which is relatively ineffective.
Now, as he goes down the line, if you were just to follow the cycle of life, you would mark at C, "create," and in the middle, "persist," and at the end of

129

130

14 DECEMBER 1953
it, "dead," or "destroy." And you would have the cycle of action of the MEST universe graphed against a cause-effect and a communication line and so forth.
Now, a communication relay system simply is composed of a number of these lines, and these lines interlocked together, should give you a communication system.
Let's take a Western Union telegraph system. And we find that a message is put in at one end, is received at the other end of a wire and is relayed over into another system, and goes along that wire and is changed at the end of that wire into another system, is relayed along that wire—in other words, this is booster systems it goes through.
Now, these booster systems, one after the other, do not change materially the message, and so that comes to be a very reliable system. And for this reason, engineers observing this say, very comfortably, that MEST is something very good to work with, and they become very fond of MEST because it will receive an effect, and it can be made, under the monitoring of their ideas, to carry something like an idea which they are causing. And so it appears to be a very good system.
There's only one thing wrong with it: It ceases to be a system the moment it ceases to have ideas fed to it. It is a dependency system.
If the man were standing there with no body and yet he was using all of these relay systems, you would have something very unaberrative. You'd just have a direct address to MEST.
But where the individual is working through a body and into an electronic system, you get some interesting situations. Because the electronic system may have no breaks in it, but the amount of break between the thetan and the body, and the body and the first entrance into the system is very great, because there you're getting very imperfect cause and effect.
There's an old technique known as Ridge Running. It's in one of the early SOPs. You might run it on somebody sometime, it's a process of watching a little white line grow, and then go black. And then you turn it around—turn the question around and turn the flow around, and it runs white again and then goes black. And by this, you actually pattern out the communication system which a thetan uses in order to enter the body. And to a thetan, any communication system is better than no communication system, and so we get with this problem of "must have a communication system," we get the most remarkable misrelays which you've ever seen.
It is a fantastic thing. The thetan feeds in at some point—probably right in the middle of the system—feeds in a command, which then works itself through the most complicated network of ridges, which go out sometimes as far as four or five miles outside the body, and then return back into the body, and cross-plot and check and turn and change and vary in various ways, until they strike the proper activating ridges and anchor points in the body so as to cause the body motion.
You can watch this system with Ridge Running—it's a very good experimental technique. You can watch this and observe what one of these communication systems is.
Ridge Running is too hard for an auditor to run, that's all that's wrong with Ridge Running. It'll exteriorize somebody. It's too hard for an auditor to run because an auditor gets into the thing and finds himself sitting with three causative points. The thetan is obviously in three places if there are three causative points present. Well, this is very confusing to him—to the auditor and to the preclear. And if the auditor doesn't go on and handle it from there,

CAUSE AND EFFECT—ASSIGNMENT OF CAUSE, GE
and finally reduce all these causative points to one causative point, he leaves a very confused preclear. But a preclear will get out of his body this way and suddenly realize he can control his body from the outside.
But, as I say, it's a long technique, it's arduous and it uses energy. It has many things against it, but it's an experimental and investigatory technique, and the main thing it investigates is the communication relay system which the thetan employs in handling the body. And this system is so complex that it's almost impossible for a thetan to say to the body, "Walk," with any expectation of the body walking. It'll—liable to do almost anything. And he eventually goes into apathy and decides he can't handle the body and that the body had best be left to handle itself.
And the better part of the preclears who are having trouble getting out of their heads, the better part of these preclears (that's not the better part of preclears, that—because they—about 50 percent of them just move out, that's all; they are not hard to exteriorize), but the better part of those who are having difficulty, are having difficulty just because when they say to the body "boo" the body is liable to say "baa." And they have no reliance on this and so they begin to tighten up these lines, tighten up the control lines, and without looking at the control lines or destroying any old communication systems—they're afraid to do this—they start just trying to drive communication systems through, and so they start using effort in handling the body, and eventually their own relay problems are so great that they can't move themselves. In other words, they can't be elsewhere than in the middle of this communication system. They're afraid to leave it, it's too complex. Why? Because what they put in at cause, comes out as almost anything at effect, if it comes out at all. They've learned this.
Drills, by the way, by which an individual realizes that he is handling the body—no matter if he's still in the body—will result in clearing; they will result. It's a very long technique, you understand that—it's a very, very long technique.
What you do instead of getting somebody to train the body, is to go through monotonous and repetitious motions on the part of the body till he realizes that the body is duplicating directly a command. He doesn't realize that up to that point, he just sits there in apathy. He makes commands at the body and so forth, but his—basically self-trust is simply this, is "Will it do what I have just said it should do?"
Now, have you ever gone into this kind of a situation—is, you've determined that your answer to some kind of a question is going to be no, and that you're going to be very, very firm about something, and that's the way you're going to handle it. And as soon as so-and-so shows up, you're just going to tell him no, and you're not going to do any more about it, and that's going to be that. And then so-and-so shows up, and you look at him and you say, "Well, it's this way, and I guess I won't do it, but—oh well, all right, I will but I don't want to," and so forth. And you walk away from there and say, "Why the hell didn't I say no? Now look what I've got myself into."
Well, that is a failure of a communication relay system which a thetan interprets as his own cowardice. He says he can't stand up to something like this. No. The point is, is he's got his systems of communication interlocked with somebody else's system of communication, and the number of points is too great for him to control. See, he's got somebody else to talk to. Well, just because he has somebody else to talk to, he has another communication point. He's got another E.

131

132

14 DECEMBER 1953
And to get into this—not E-therapy. I often kick myself for ever having written "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science," that's where E-therapy came from. As a matter of fact, the boy that was kicking E-therapy around was very, very excited and started shaking "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" under my nose and so forth, and pointing to the exact line which is the line of E-therapy. It's the setup of the great god Throgmagog, which is the setup of the total consciousness of the body exterior to the individual himself, and the individual will obey it. And it's in there, just in that—almost in those words. Only trouble is, it's not in there as a therapy, it's in there as an investigatory technique and has never served any other purpose than that. But it produces some lovely phenomena.
And anyway, that's completely aside the point. That's another line of communication. That's just said in there, and there is an insufficient qualification as to what it's all about.
So, let's look at this idea then. He's got another terminal standing in front of him, and this other terminal is exciting these communication relay points which he himself is trying to excite. See, he's got a problem now of some other terminal standing there and this terminal—he intended to be E, and this terminal insists on communicating, and as soon as the terminal communicates to him, why, it puts his thought patterns into an operation which backs up against these relay points which he was going to use to say no. And he can't get a current going down these lines, and as a result, he doesn't know what to do and he becomes confused, and therefore he acquiesces to some proposition that he didn't care to agree with. And there's a communication system of that character. It's fatal to have a communication system in which you cannot predict the behavior of C and E on the line I've just given you.
And let's take now a line of soldiers. We take this line of soldiers and we whisper to the first one a message. And we have that one whisper it to the next one, and without any further intervention on anybody's part, he whispers it to the next one, to the next one, to the next one. Each one whispers it to the next one all down the line and we listen to the final message. Well, I don't care what message is put in at the beginning of this line of soldiers. It can be "General Grant is attacking at midnight." And you go to the other end of the line, and you'll hear "Popcorn is for sale at Pugburg." Won't have any relationship to it. The message will have C'd and E'd wrongly enough here and there through those relay points, so that any engineer is to some degree justified by saying, "Give me good old electronics, give me good old MEST. That's reliable stuff. I mean, that's good."
And he errs simply to this degree, is he is looking at lines. He doesn't need any lines to get his stuff through. The thetan up against the body has made the same error. He thinks he needs a body to make noise. He thinks he needs a body to protest against his being hurt. He thinks he needs a body to communicate for him. In other words, he thinks he needs a body as a system of barriers by which he himself can be protected—that's because he's afraid he'll be hit. He thinks he needs a body to furnish him energy. He begins to believe that he is an energy system which is not a generative energy system at all, but which is an energy system which depends upon a body for its energy.
He's bought the engineer's idea of a power plant. He thinks there has to be an engine in the motorcycle. He thinks there has to be dynamos sitting down there and providing power; that the coal has to be shoveled in from somewhere; that the sun has to put out photons which have to get into chlorophyll, which has to then be compressed, and which has to decay and be compressed for a

CAUSE AND EFFECT—ASSIGNMENT OF CAUSE, GE
few million years, and then has to be dug up at vast union trouble and shipped down and shoveled into this and that. He believes in a complex communication system, in other words, which furnishes energy. And any communication system, to some degree, furnishes energy.
Basically you'll find that the thetan furnishes—instead of postulates, way up the scale, he actually, when he communicates, furnishes the energy with which to communicate. He doesn't just simply furnish a zero—I mean a zero postulate.
It's all very well to work out into thought, which in itself does not have any power behind it, but you'll find out that nobody's very happy doing this. The first statement is usually a lightning bolt. Interesting, isn't it? That's why people are afraid to think. That's why they're afraid to talk, why they're afraid of their own postulates, because they get up to that band and it's something like this. It's articulated by a lightning bolt, you might say. Of course that could only be a little sixteen-microamp bolt, you know, a little tiny bolt, and which it normally is, but when they start throwing out thoughts, they'll set up a communication system for the thoughts to run on. Not spontaneously because they're built that way, they'll just throw it out because they want to see something go someplace.
And he can furnish a much better communication system than a bunch of copper wire strung all over the floor and through the baseboards and tangled up around the shoes and plugged into the wrong holes and soldered the wrong way, and then crossed someplace on the line so there's a slight short that you can't quite detect until after you get a meter all over it. There's no reason for all that.
Now, when you look at cause and effect in communication, you must realize something else is occurring. Because every time you have a communication system, you have embryonic space. You don't have full space, you see, you just have a line—you have a line; so that you have two points held apart, and these are two terminals. Well to exist, the theoretical line, you see, is something of infinite length and no duration—I mean, no dimension. Infinite length and no dimension. That would be the theoretical line. It's like a point. A point is a position without dimension in nothing. That's a point. And a line is something which is—has no thickness and has no breadth and has no finite length except as is assigned to it. A line of a certain length has no mass. A point has no mass. A point is merely a position. These are mathematical definitions.
But when we look over this problem in terms of mass and points and lines, we find that we are holding two terminals apart, no matter how thin and massless the line is. We're holding apart the points C and E.
Now, if we convert this in such a way as to have space around it, then cause would be what was putting the space up, and it would be running to E, which would be that which had the space put around it by cause. And so you would get the idea of fixing two terminals apart in any communication system.
Well now, an individual who's having trouble with his communications conceives the communication line to be as long, and as far from him, as he is fixed on it. Now, that is not necessarily comprehensible until you think in terms of collapsed terminals. Here's the "no space" individual. He has a communication line collapse. Now, that isn't because all of his communication lines are collapsed: He knows that the only thing—way he can have a communication line is to be straight up against C to E, see? He can't have any distance between C and E because he can't impose space between C and E.
And as we go along down the line, there is another way to represent this line. The line is as long as that period of life I've given you for the individual.

133

134

14 DECEMBER 1953
The line is as long as—isn't probably too comprehensible, but a person's line gets shorter and shorter and shorter and shorter, you see. Instead of him being on different parts of the line, you could represent it differently and say the line is that much shorter for each different period of life, and you would have the normal activity of Homo sapiens.
Well now, you also have this with that gradient scale: You have an individual having short lines at the wrong periods of his life. Let's take a twelve-year-old boy who has—an extreme case—twelve-year-old boy who has the communications setup of a sixty-year-old boy. See, I mean, he's—no terminals. His C to E has to be awfully close for him to communicate at all. He likes people to come around and yell in his ear and so on. He's got to come up close. You hear him talking long distance, he shouts. He's having trouble. And this twelve-year-old boy is having this communication trouble.
Well, there is obviously a remediable aberration there, usually remediable. It's this unpositional—I mean, this dispositional situation which the auditor sees most markedly. He expects somebody sixty, seventy, eighty years of age— he expects somebody in that age gradient to be having a little communication trouble. He's rather surprised when he finds they're hearing good even if their sight isn't good. He's apt to be a bit placative toward them when they keep complaining that they can't see, although their hearing is very good. You see, this person's almost eighty, and they keep telling you they can't see.
Well, what you head at is not their eyes—well, what you head at is the rehabilitation of them as a thetan. Of course, you do this in any event, and you will gradually pick up their communication level.
Well, what they want to have happen is their MEST eyesight turned on. Well, this is an unthinkably difficult goal because they're asking an auditor to reverse and run back the GE. Well, this GE would rather start over again, even though he has to take his chances with sperm and ovum and birth control being what it is today, he'd still rather take his chances than keep pushing around something which is not very mobile.
And so you're up against this very definite problem on such a person. GE doesn't want to turn back, and you're expected to turn this back.
Well now, you can still do quite a bit about it, but the more you address the problems of the thetan, the happier you're going to be as an auditor, and the happier that preclear's going to be.
If you start in by trying to remedy the body, the body has its set commu¬nication positions more or less per life. Now, you can turn back the body years and years and years at a time. I'll say more on that—more about that in a minute. But what you're trying to remedy is the thetan's communication lines.
You can remedy a thetan's communication lines with great ease. I mean, if you get somebody exteriorized, you can keep changing—his perception changes fairly rapidly. But it's his perception that changes. Now, his perception will change as rapidly as he does not have to prevent being an effect, and compulsively have to be cause. Now, up along early part of the line, you see, the person is compul¬sively cause, and toward the later part of the line, why, they're compulsively resisting being an effect.
And those are the concentrations. And you'll find them flip-flopping all the way down. Each little gradient there is a reversal. They start in by being pure cause, you see, and then they turn into almost pure effect at that point, you see, and then they swap around completely and they're cause at that point, and then they turn around and are effect at that point—and each point, we have a different type of cause and a different type of effect.

CAUSE AND EFFECT—ASSIGNMENT OF CAUSE, GE
We take an infant—an infant is mainly concerned with being cause, cause, cause, right up to the moment when it sees a bottle, at which moment it doesn't want to be cause at all. It'll be effect. It'll feed—if you have to hold—if you held it by one foot in the air, it'd still eat. It just will be total effect—very, very swift, the change.
Well now, it starts to hang up about the middle of this C-E line to a person who is on a big, impartial maybe. They don't know whether they want to be cause, and they don't know whether they want to be effect, and this person at the middle portion of the line is the despair of youth and old age alike. They're indecisional about almost anything. "Well, it's . . ."—conservative about the whole thing.
You understand they're not just agreeing with MEST on the basis of being as conservative as MEST, they really don't know whether it's best to be cause or best to be effect about the matter. They don't know whether they ought to want this effect—they've got to consider that. They don't know whether they want to be cause at this point or not, and they have to think it all over very carefully. Well, it's very interesting, because they never end up with an answer. The individual worries in vain around such people, waiting for a definiteness, and that definiteness never arrives.
If you were to run End of Cycle Processing on the preclear receiving a definite answer from all kinds of people, you would all of a sudden hit the one in the bank that most played this on him. It will be a person who was more or less in middle life at the time the preclear was young. And this person has had a lot of undesirable experience—that was doing this—and so is not quite sure.
If the GE were left to its own resources without being aided or abetted by a thetan, believe me—if that were possible—believe me, the GE would follow the exact plot which I have given you earlier in this lecture. He'd just follow that plot on cause and effect. You could always predict it, and so on.
At that period of life which is the climacteric of the menopause, of course, you have no further duplication according to the thetan's plan, but now—I mean, pardon me, the GE's plan—that's the blueprint. But now you've got a thetan, and some thetans are ambitious, and some thetans are not ambitious. And you get this—the problem of the thetan backing around and battering one way or the other, and he's trying to make old bodies young and young bodies old, and he's trying to mess up this blueprint.
Now, he can do it as long as he knows about anchor points and how to handle anchor points. He can do a lot about the life span of the GE. How much he can do is something else—but he can do a lot. He can't do the utterly impossible unless he himself is in such good condition that he can practically rebuild a body.
Now, if you can get a thetan in good enough condition so he could say, "Well, there's a body," and it was there, of course he could not just rebuild the GE, he could replace it. And this would be complete rejuvenation. But that wouldn't be a rejuvenation at all, you see—it'd just be a replacement.
Well, what are the limits—what are the limits of this factor of age and the GE (just getting off to something else there for a moment)? Well, you'll find that the GE is interdependent upon all brands of life. He has lots of basic agreements. He wouldn't exist and he wouldn't be visible unless he had all sorts of agreement with life.
What kind of agreements does he have? He has the agreement that he has to eat, and the agreement that he has to feed, and the agreement he has to procreate in certain lines. And he has the agreement that he has to breathe air, and his heart beats. And he also has the agreement that he, himself is

135

136

14 DECEMBER 1953
composed of an enormous number of cells, each one of which has a separate function. And everything is compartmentalized and specialized, something like modern medicine is; and everything take care of its own department and let some other department go to the devil. And the body either runs smoothly with each one of these departments cooperating with every other department or all these departments try to slop over into every other department and run their business. In that moment, the body goes to pieces.
Well, if this happy condition of everybody paying attention to himself and doing his own job in terms of cells and so on, were carried on evenly and quietly, the age of the body would not be very marked. The body would live a long time.
Man as an animal, by the way, does not live out his natural span according to other mammals here on Earth. Whether this is because he walks upright or whether he sleeps in rooms without fresh air or whether he smokes cigarettes is completely, really, beside the point. The point is that other animals live six times the length of time it takes them to reach their growth, and man doesn't.
But man is very interdependent. Yes, man ought to live to be, I think, a hundred and twenty-six—not seventy. And yet, he uniformly dies at seventy.
You take chaps who are—oh, great health specialists of the past—health faddists. It's interesting to trace back and look what's happened to these people.
There was a fellow by the name of Fletcher who had me going round and round when I was a young boy in this life. You had to "Fletcherize," you had to chew your food I think thirty-two times—chew every mouthful thirty-two times. And I wanted something to eat—I didn't want—I wasn't there to chew food, I was there to eat it. And they used to sit around the table, my aunts and so forth did, and insist that I fletcherized. And so I did, as long as they were watching, and then I'd go gulp, gulp, wash it down with water and go out and play. But they told me that this would deter me from living a long time—abusing myself to this degree and swallowing this food—because actually the saliva in the mouth was vital as an aid to the digestive fluids in the stomach.
I don't suppose they'd ever slit open a stomach and looked at it, but they'd find out that you could practically drop a paint can into the stomach and if you had anything left on the paint can afterwards, why, the fellow was having indigestion that day, not the reverse—because the stomach will digest almost anything.
Reminds me for some reason or other that goats, by the way, are—they claim that goats don't eat, really, the tin cans, they eat the paper labels off the tin cans. This would be all right, except I butchered a goat one time and found four tin cans in his stomach—but science is a great thing. Anyway . . .
We have this problem with the GE. He just runs pretty well according to his established blueprint. And this fellow Fletcher had a remarkably long life span, and he lived happily, and he died with his teeth worn to stumps, almost to the moment at the age of seventy. (audience laughter)
Now, there was another fellow—another fellow earlier than that, the mad Russian, who—the fellow who, by the way, got the only thing which prevents syphilis. Forgotten his name offhand—Metchnikoff, yes. This boy discovered that there was certain bacteria in sour milk, and if man ate— drank sour milk and so forth, he'd live to a great old age. He—by the way, he did give us a lot in science, but it's rather funny his going off into this tailspin late in his life, because he had this cellar full of sour milk and he and his friends were all sitting around drinking sour milk. And everybody was going to live to be a hundred and ten, and he died almost to the minute at seventy. (audience laughter)

CAUSE AND EFFECT—ASSIGNMENT OF CAUSE, GE
And so man's effort by mechanical means to alter his life span have not been very good. But his efforts to alter it otherwise show a little bit of promise. However, there's almost everything militating against man's long longevity.
Let's take bacteria. And I'm going to say this—I always say this to any group of auditors I train, and I hope for Pete's sake they'll remember it. There's such a thing, as far as a body is concerned, as bacteria. There is such a thing as bacteria. And you've got about the—if you think you're going to remedy bacteria in the body, swiftly and completely and with a swoosh with auditing, you've got what you're doing mixed up with Christian Science. Because bacteria is hungry, and it thinks it has just as much right to survive— it runs on the same rules and the same laws—just as much right to survive as the body has. And when it starts chomping, if the body is not immune to it, if the body has no natural defenses against it, it just eats up whatever it starts to eat up, and unless stopped by some means or another, or if the body isn't given every chance in combating it, why, it can be quite successful.
Of course a successful bug is one which does not destroy its host, but just kind of makes him sick and wobbly for a long time. That's a real successful bug.
Now, the body, down through the years has actually progressed in terms of joiners. Did you ever see these fellows who had to be parts of the Knights Confiscators and parts of the City Unit Club, and parts of this and parts of that, and they always had to be joining—joining everything?
That's actually a bacterial characteristic. Bacteria has joined the body to such a degree that the body could be said to be composed of earlier joinings. That series of cells which now compose your liver once had the full intention of eating up the rest of the body. And so it is with every part of the body. It's alien. Every portion and class of cells in the body at one time was alien, and at one time was bacteria.
And now you're going to come along as an auditor, and you're going to interrupt this method of body construction and this joining. No, you're not.
In the first place, the thetan himself is the only therapeutic agent in the body. The thetan is the only therapeutic agent. Now a thetan, if you addressed a thetan alone, could theoretically get powerful enough so that he could exterminate bacteria.
Well, that's all well if it's caught soon enough and is stopped soon enough, if the bacteria isn't sufficiently virulent to cause the body too much discomfort— but after it goes beyond a certain point, you hit a point where the thetan doing anything about it, if he's going to exterminate it, if he's going to turn a death ray on it, you might say, he'll also take half the liver with him. You see that?
Did you ever pour iodine on an open wound? Our forefathers were very sold on iodine. There was a fellow by the name of Lister—Lord Lister, who used the principles of Pasteur in medicine. It was not Pasteur who put these principles into medicine, it was a fellow by the name of Lister, in England. And his antiseptic surgery, by the way, was used—these principles of antiseptic surgery were used, by Lister—until a relatively short time ago when they changed it to aseptic surgery, which means no antiseptic used. They merely have everything completely clean and free of bacteria.
Now, aseptic surgery has its drawbacks, too, because an operating room has to be dehydrated in such a way that you get no bugs and germs and so forth, traveling in the air—the air has to be filtered and so on—and it makes the climate of the operating theater actually almost totally dehydrated. If they realized what this did to an unconscious man's lungs they, by the way, wouldn't do it. They'd use Lord Lister's early preparations and skip it.

137

138

14 DECEMBER 1953
But the thing has another drawback, is ether has to be a very small proportion in such an atmosphere in order to explode. And there's another very, very interesting point about it—electrical instruments which are too dry will cause static sparks, which will explode the air.
This is far more grim—far, far more grim—than Winchell's little tale about cancer of the lungs because of cigarettes, last night.
They blow up more patients in operating rooms. They do—they just expend them madly. There's lots of them—they died on the operating table. They don't say "by static electrical explosion and ether-laden dehydrated atmosphere."
What blows up? Not the surgeons, it's the patient's lungs which are filled with ether—ether and oxygen. Oh, that's nice and gruesome, isn't it?
But there's several gases, by the way, which have been abandoned in their use merely because they're too explosive in the lungs. They've blown lungs out of too many people.
Well, if a thetan is going to put lungs back into people, if he can mock up a pair of lungs, why, he could prevent such an accident. Isn't that true? And if a thetan could mock up a new leg, he could very quickly set a leg. Is that true?
Well, if the thetan isn't up to the point where he can kill off a body and put a new one in its place—unmock a body, really, and put a new one in its place right away, right away quick, you see—I'm afraid you're going to have to realize that the GE is interdependent upon the rest of all life, and is an integral portion of this interdependency. And that it is run by bacteria, and that bacteria and broken legs and things like that happen.
And you can prevent, to a large degree, the effect of these things by knocking the thetan into some kind of shape so that he doesn't let them happen so often. But when it comes to bacteria, there's bacteria which a white man is not immune to. And there also—there's later strains of respiratory ills, later strains of colonic ills, which have been imported into the society by its broad-spread wars which the body isn't even vaguely immune to.
The first time influenza hit the United States, for instance, was I think, in 1918. And the false armistice which, when called off, precipitated the thing, actually caused more deaths in the United States than were caused on the battlefield by the war itself.
And this was a type of bug that was imported from some place or another, and I've heard many people later on being very wise, and some people say it was bubonic plague and so on. Well, I was there, and people were just wearing white masks, and it was a sort of a cold.
It's actually the same flu, more or less, that's running around now. But at that time it just hit the whole race—boom! And believe me, strong men and big thetans and little thetans, they all—their GEs all went by the boards. It just didn't mean anything at all what anybody was doing or what prayer he was saying or how fast he was reaching out with what beam, those bugs hit him and he—hit.
Now, there is such a thing as the individual can be in good shape and doesn't get ill. This is possible.
The only reason I'm talking to you about this is two things: I'm trying to tell you that as an auditor you should not immediately assume that running an engram or kicking somebody out of his head is the first thing to do in all cases. This is not true. It very often would work a lot better for you and for the preclear, in special cases, where you would simply pick up the phone and call for the local ambulance.

CAUSE AND EFFECT—ASSIGNMENT OF CAUSE, GE
If you find a preclear lying alongside of the road with a broken leg, don't try to run it out. You can have him well fast enough. Let's get the leg set, hm? And let's put a tourniquet on. There isn't any kind of—anything the thetan can do to put enough blood into the system to account for the amount of blood pouring out of that artery. And so we get a situation where you'd better put a tourniquet on the fellow.
Let's not be one-sided, then, about what we're doing. Let's know when to send for an ambulance, and when somebody gets sick and otherwise.
Now, there are tremendous things that you can do for an individual— tremendous gains can be made. We have—we don't even vaguely know how young a GE can be made if you concentrate on it. It's a very funny thing, but there are many people in Scientology who are—at this time, ought to be dead.
Now, you say, "What does this thing do for rejuvenation and making people younger? What's it do for longevity?" We can't answer the question "What's it do for longevity?" But I know several people that don't even vaguely look their years, and they gradually and consistently get younger under this.
Well, if our goal was to do something for the body, if it was rejuvenation and so on, we would have some hope here. We do have hope here, but we don't have the hope of wiping out every enemy of the body. We don't have that hope. We have the hope, however, of possibly making it so much easier to make bodies that there'd be a lot less enemies, you see.
We have other hopes, but don't try to make a panacea out of what we're doing, because it won't work that way.
Yes, you can remedy any kind of a psychic or physical condition of the actual being that man is—the thetan. You can remedy any condition thereof. Possibly someday you can build a thetan up to a point where he can very easily move mountains. Possibly you can do an awful lot of things. But what you can do right now transcends man's earliest imaginings as to what a man might be capable of. You can already do this.
So, as an auditor, somebody starts running a temperature madly—yes, it might be an engram in restimulation, that might be all, and he also might have a kidney infection.
People are apt to be very critical of somebody in Scientology who becomes ill, merely because they think that "Well, he advocates health and he's an auditor, and therefore he ought to be well all the time." This is also an unreasonable proposition.
Take my own case. For instance, I ought to be dead. I should have been dead about three times in this life. I really ought to be dead. You talk about Scientology having anybody to represent—you talk about validation of what Scientology or Dianetics can do for somebody and so on—to this day I'm supposed to be 50 percent disabled from the last war.
Three years before the last war started I was pronounced dead. Very interesting isn't it? The amount of—for instance, the entire hormone system in this particular GE ceased firing twice, and got started again.
In other words, I keep picking this GE up by the scruff of the neck and sitting it back on its line.
I follow a schedule ordinarily of work and so forth, and have for a number of years, that would probably kill the ordinary mortal. And we'd have a good time—have a good time in between.
But what is the limit of this? Well, the limit is that the body's doing pretty good when it can lift about a hundred and ten pounds. It's doing real good when it can go on four or five hours or three hours sleep a night for quite a

139

140

14 DECEMBER 1953
while, and still get along and work—it's really doing marvelous when it can do that sort of thing. It can walk miles and so forth—what, twenty miles, twenty-two miles, twenty-three miles—it does real good if it walks that far. It is a limited object, a body—a limited doll. It is a lot of fun to have around. It takes a lot of patching up, takes a lot of care.
You as an auditor can do an enormous amount for one of these dolls— one—an enormous amount.
Well, look at this one. I could show you health records and service records which would make—just this GE here—which would make doctors gasp. This body starts to feel seedy and kind of run-down periodically—oh, about every four, five, six months or something like that, I'll have worked it too hard and I'll all of a sudden take a look at it and say, "Gee-whiz, did I do all that to it?" And then if I don't take time off right away and kind of patch it up again and so forth, starts to look old. The age can go on and off of this body in terms of ten or fifteen years at a crack.
(Recording ends abruptly)

SOP 8-C: Step V
A lecture given on 15 December 1953

And this is December the 15th, first lecture of the day. And we are going to go over Step V, SOP 8 - C, independent of any earlier data you've gotten on the thing. I just want to give you this one, because this is not the case necessarily that you'll have a lot of trouble with, it just happens to be the case which at first glance appears to be the most resistive. And people can get sold very easily on a case being unmovable and so on, including the case itself, and so it'll just sort of putter along and putter along, putter along.
You should get fast results on a case early in the case, so it—the case never has time to make up its mind that it can't move. Because it makes up its mind "can't move," and after that, why, you have difficulty with the thing. It's a good thing to run on a case—"I'm not going to get Clear." And have him dropping dead because he's Clear, and End of Cycle and that sort of thing. Remedy it in various ways, if you find this case isn't moving.
If you don't get a perception change in any ten minutes of processing, you're up against some kind of a decision which you better find out about. I mean, if you process somebody for about ten to fifteen minutes and you don't get a—no matter how minute, some tiny perception change or something with SOP 8-C, why, then you're just running into something where the fellow isn't either communicating with you, or he isn't doing what you want him to do or— you know, there's various things here which are occurring which are outside the immediate realm of what you're doing.
Now, you could go on and beat at the case with SOP 8 - C and you would get there eventually, but what I'm talking about is that a smart auditor, when he starts auditing this case, he realizes—when he gets some faith of technique in there—he realizes that this case is probably held up for some very, very obvious reason which he isn't looking at.
I'd say, if I didn't get a communication change or a change of aspect in a case after about fifteen minutes of SOP 8-C, my first assumption would be that the case was not doing what I asked him to do. That would be my first assumption, and being suspicious of that, would immediately go into—that's a certain type of case, you see, that is a certain type of case—I would go into manual contact or something on that order.
A case that does this is not well off—just put that down. So if something doesn't happen, ten or fifteen minutes, you—the most obvious answer is that you're running, immediately and bluntly, into a communication problem between you and the preclear, and a preclear performance problem.

141

142

15 DECEMBER 1953
Unfortunately, we enter all cases at the hardest end. That's an unfortunate fact. We take the fellow in the worst condition that he will be in and go from there. And it gets easier as you go on. But if it isn't getting easier as you go on, you'd better do something about it. It's probably, as I said, some kind of a communication setup whereby the case doesn't trust you enough to permit performance.
And you say, "Give me three places where you aren't in present time."
And he says, "Okay." He got no places.
"Give me three more." And you say, "Well, that wasn't working too well because he—it isn't checking against it. Give me three places where your condition isn't in present time. Give me three places where your body isn't being responsible"—something to intrigue him a little bit rather than to be therapeutic, because believe me, the less significance you have in a process the better the process is.
And he still says, "Yep," and he'll go on that way. And he's sitting there dead calm—I mean, there's nothing happening, nothing happening.
Well, after that goes on a little bit, why, I realize that we're up against a communication problem, so I take the most obvious (my old pal Bob Heinlein coined a beautiful pronunciation—"supervisory") —I take a "supervisory" type of process whereby you or me can see the guy perform. Now, there's lots of these, see.
And you don't have to look at his bank to see that he isn't performing. It wouldn't do you any good to look at his bank. Because if you were to tell him that you could see his facsimiles and see what he was doing, he would become very suspicious of you and very upset.
If you in a Group Process, for instance, were to take somebody up in the front of the room and have him do something, and then let the other people imitate what he did in some fashion or other; even that level—he said what he mocked up, and then you have everybody else mock this up—even that level comes close to copying or seeing or duplicating, that a person cannot permit, and the case will break down. So you do something that he won't be upset because it's observed. You get the idea. I mean, you get a—one of these techniques that you can supervise.
Well, now there's a lot of these. And the most acute one for such a case— although the case will very often be insulted if he knows Scientology—is you say, "All right. Let's feel that wall. Let's feel that wall." I'll only fool with a case for a very few minutes before I'll just go right on into that. Either the case— something's happening on the case obviously and so forth, that I can observe bankwise and otherwise, or I just say, "All right, let's start in with the chair. Let's start in with the wall. Let's start in with the floor."
And once in a while, you'll hit the break point on a case. You'll just keep insisting that he gets certain there's something in the room. He's perfectly certain, he knows that, that there's something in the room. He isn't complying with any of your commands, he's doing it wrong if possible, he's checking himself at every turn so that he won't do anything, and yet he thinks that he is not too bad off. And he'll become very insulted if he qualifies Contact as a psychotic technique. It isn't. You're asking him to be certain of something.
And the best way to make him certain of something is to pick up things and put them down. In other words, reach and withdraw from MEST itself. And you walk over to the wall and tap it and say, "Come over here and feel this now. Is it there?"

SOP 8-C: STEP V
And he—just sit right where he is, and he'll look . . . Generally a—cases perform like this, they say, "Sure it's there. I know it's there!"
You say, "Well, come over here and make sure you know it's here."
"Huhhh! No, no." And then finally he'll break down and go over and feel the wall and hit it and, "Sure, I know it's there."
You say, "All right. Now let's feel the floor there on the other side of the room." Stamp! You show him—you stamp, see? You walk around.
And he stamps on the floor. "I know it's there," he says. "What's the matter with you?"
And you say, "All right. Now let's look around the room, find the realest object in the room."
And he says, "Well, any of it—the whole room is real!"
"Well, find one that's a little more real than the other."
"All right, anything. The doorknob."
"Well, go over and grab ahold of the doorknob and rattle it, make a noise with it."
So he does this, see. (sigh) "When are we going to get down to processing?" is all he's asking himself, see? He rattles the doorknob, and then he walks over to the other side of the room and does something else that you tell him to do.
What are you doing with him? You're moving him in space. And when you have moved him in space enough, he will break down enough to permit you to evaluate for him and will then perform the techniques you ask him to do. You have beat a communication line through with a hammer and an awl. Now, you get how covert that is? That's real covert.
Well now, the funny part of it is, is very often a secondary aspect occurs. He finds out that he didn't know it was real. Yeah, he finds out all of a sudden. Walls—certain. He's kicked the wall, and he's beat the chairs around, and he's done this and he's done that in the room, and all this time he's been kind of sore at you, and—or just sullen or apathetically compliant and so on. All of a sudden he gets interested— "There's a wall here!"
You keep asking him, "You sure that's there?"
"Hm! Sure I'm sure it's there!" Then he's getting a little more interested. "There is a wall here and I, a thetan, can feel it."
Up to this time, he's been looking at everything with his MEST eyes and he—believing what the body tells him only. And now, as he gets a sufficient impact against MEST, he's getting a more or less direct contact with the MEST as a thetan, and there's where you're driving the communication line through.
Now, a case that's terribly occluded will go on and sleep away a lot of hours of processing simply because the case says, "Yes, I know the wall is there."
Now, a person doesn't have a certainty with which to compare a certainty. You see, he is as certain as he thinks certainty is; and therefore, it's very surprising to him when he finds out that there are higher certainties which he can attain. But he doesn't know he can attain these higher certainties until it's demonstrated to him, and it's demonstrated to him with all the techniques of SOP 8-C. But the case that is hanging up with you is a case which is occluded and is out of contact and is simply relying upon MEST vision and relying upon MEST touch to tell it anything is present.
In other words, you have a thetan, in this case, that is out of contact and is running total responsibility as far as the body is concerned. The body has total responsibility, total evaluation, and he's willing to accept the idea that all these techniques are valid—but you're processing a body, and the body isn't being processed. He's sitting back controlling the body, actually, and you're

143

144

15 DECEMBER 1953
processing the thing that he's controlling. When you give him a command, then he makes the body perform the command, if he makes anything happen. See, you're not getting a direct process. You are not processing a thetan. You're processing a body and the thetan's in contact with the body and the body evaluates. There's a middleman in there, in the processing session, which you're not immediately cognizant of and—ten or fifteen minutes nothing happens, well, the middleman is too big and so let's just take the middleman apart.
Let's make him move his body under your command. And make him move it around visibly and so on, so that he can't get away with it in any way, shape or form. He's just got to move around. You tell him to and he does. And you've eventually evaluated for him to move the body around, and he will start to give you some attention, rather than take the attention you're giving the body.
See, you've gotten on a different circuit—you're from you the auditor to him a thetan; rather from you an auditor, to him a body, to a thetan.
Now, he's taking in the whole MEST universe on this one basis of here he is—here he is, a body, you see. And he's willing to accept the reason and logic of your argument that he is not really a body, but he knows what he sees with— he sees with his eyes; and he knows what he hears with—he hears with his ears; and he feels with his hands and so on.
Well, if you work him around for a little while, you'll break right through this, simply by giving him a direct contact of one sort or another. And you should actually work till you get such a contact. I don't care what technique you use.
A person can be very, very sane indeed, and very reasonable indeed, and yet not have an immediate and direct contact with the MEST universe. Everything is via the body and via the body communication lines. He is not convinced that he is a thetan, even though he may have been out once and popped back in. See, he just holds on to that moment for his certainty. And then he doesn't move off of that moment, by the way, and something might have frightened him half out of his wits, so one of the things to do is to handle that moment.
Well, how do you handle that moment? Well, he didn't know what happened. Well, "Where isn't that moment in present time?" is a wonderful way to do it. "Where isn't it?" That's a slow way, but a very positive way. "Where isn't this moment of shock and surprise as a thetan? Where isn't it in present time?"
And he'll start in usually on Arcturus. I mean, it's that far out. And then he'll finally come down and he'll all of a sudden say, "It isn't in present time at all!" And when he has made this decision, that thing is keyed out.
But your problem is to establish a communication system between you the auditor and the preclear, a thetan; not to establish a communication system between you, an auditor, and a body to the other person as a thetan. Therefore, using MEST symbols as communication actually does slow down your process to some degree, and it is something like a considerable triumph to be able to use MEST language and MEST symbols and achieve results on a case.
Well, there's one type of case and one level of case in SOP 8, which is Case Level V, where this is rather acute. Now, the name of that whole step is "Terminals" in SOP 8, and just because we have 8-C doesn't mean that these step numbers change process. They don't any longer mean, particularly, evaluation of a case in SOP 8-C—see, they aren't evaluating a case—but that doesn't mean that we've thrown things out.
Now, if there's a Step VIII in SOP 8, it is Duplication. Now, the—SOP 8 has—at level V, has terminals as its keynote. And this, of course, goes right over into SOP 8 - C and at 8 - C, we have Step V, exercises of the thetan on the subject of terminals.

SOP 8-C: STEP V
Now, we'll find an individual unable to see anchor points inside his body. This is because he long since has decided that any anchor point is better than no anchor point, and that other bodies than his own were anchor points in the past; and he has used these bodies as anchor points in the past to such a degree that he does not believe himself capable of creating anchor points. And when he's lost these anchor points in the past, nothing takes their place. And the anchor points of his own body are not visible to him—he doesn't consider these anchor points anymore. His anchor points are ambulant: they're other bodies, they walk around, and they're here and they're there.
So what do we have here? We have a problem in relationship to anchor points, when we have terminals. Now, an electric motor has a positive and a negative terminal. Actually, positive terminal is both positive and negative, and the negative terminal is both negative and positive in order to produce a crosscurrent. The problem has not even vaguely been studied. The field of electronics is an almost virgin field; it's hardly scratched. And we have this imposition of space between these two terminals as a necessity.
Now, why is this? It's the matter that in order to have energy, you first must have space. We must have an imposition of distance between two terminals. A person must be able, then, to maintain or impose a distance between two anchor points in order to build up what you consider energy. Now, he's bought the idea of the MEST universe on a two-terminal basis.
A thetan actually doesn't have to think about it at all. He can simply say, "There is energy," and there is energy. He can say, "There is a beam going out from here," and there is a beam going out from here. He doesn't go into a large mathematical wingding just to get himself a couple of anchor points or to have himself some space. He doesn't think about it, in other words. This is not necessarily built in—he can do this in numerous ways. But what he can do is mistake the MEST universe anchor points which he has run into, for anchor points he has created or owns actually.
Now, you know, he's got anchor points. So he's done a change there. This girl, for instance, has said, "My husband. My husband. My husband." Now, she might as well have been saying all this time, "My anchor point. My anchor point. My anchor point." She gets lost when the husband is too far away. That's her anchor point. And a man—"My wife," you see. "My anchor point. My anchor point. My anchor point."
"My mother, my father"—these are anchor points. And these people are actually used in the same way as one would use anchor points to create space. A person creates space with Mother and Father. He hasn't any home, except where Mother and Father have made a home. And if he's too sold on Mother and Father as anchor points—as vitally necessary anchor points—then ever afterwards in his life, he will not feel capable of making a home.
You've heard of the girl who was always going home to Mother. The boy— that's what they do today. Today, the boys cut their hair in a sort of a duck part in the back, and, I think, wear little ribbons on it and they're real cute— they're real cute. The teenage boys you see around don't look—they don't wear their shirts open because there's no hair on their chests. But they have bought "momism," Philip Wylie's "momism," to a markable extent.
A hot country, by the way, which kicks in a number of prenatals, will "effeminate"—to coin a word—the male sex quite rapidly. And you'll see that they become quite feminine in their characteristics. And the women will reverse the other way to. For instance, the only real mean, vicious warriors that you read about or hear about in Arabian countries are women. That's a complete

145

146

15 DECEMBER 1953
reversal. By the way, the kingdom of Semiramis was in the Middle East, the area—that's a semimythical kingdom, it actually existed. The Amazons, the women warriors and so forth— that's hot-country stuff, see? Kicked around in valence.
Well, to be very practical about this, it's the boy today who goes home to Mother. There isn't the girl so much anymore—the girls are getting a little tougher.
But here you have this pathetic picture of a couple—they get married, and their fathers and mothers are to such a degree anchor points for them that they themselves are incapable of making a home. In other words, they can't have any space. Why? Because the anchor points are elsewhere. And they sort of get the idea, "Well, we ought to live—ought to live with Papa and Mama and so forth." This is—the only way they could have a home, you see, would be to have it with anchor points. That's how they build space. Because they've made the prime error of saying that an anchor point is a person. And what do you know, a person who has done this can't see the anchor points in his own body; they're not visible to him, that's all. He's in a very bad way in this respect.
Well, let's say he loses somebody that he's been very close to for a long time but has fought with considerably, and he loses this person. Well, we have a situation there where he feels that one of the terminals of the GE vanishes. We're still talking about Step V, you see. The terminal vanishes and he's missing some anchor points out of his body which were never in his body. That's interesting, isn't it? He'll be missing the whole anchor-point terminal, you might say—the whole front terminal of the body is missing.
Well, he knows he can't create any energy, and that's the thing that makes a fellow level V—he knows he can't create energy. He has to depend upon the stomach to create energy. He has to depend upon other animals to chew up MEST and by some necromancy turn this into energy which life can use. Although life—the amount of actual energy which life burns is quite slight indeed. You see this? He's—must depend upon the body having the proper number of terminals, for him to have any energy.
He doesn't know just "I can't create energy," by the way—his motto is, "I can't create." Fellow gets down along V, that's the big sorrow of his life; that's his own shame and so on. It's just this motto, and it says, "I can't create"— that's what it says, right there.
So he thinks he has to have a proper number of terminals to interchange one to the other, like an electric motor or something, in order to have sufficient energy in order to make something. And he must get that energy from his stomach—he's running on a backwards system, in other words. He's—his stomach is much more important than his head; having enough to eat is more important than having some space and so on. He's—this is a tremendous dependency. So that his entire economic problem is one of food, and is—that's the way he goes, he—"Well, you have to eat" would be one of the first things that he would assure you. "You have to eat."
Only, do you? Well, it's pretty hard for—to take somebody at Step level V, and say, "You know you actually are competent to furnish enough energy for the body to go on functioning for some time." He's—"Well, that's theoretically possible," he says and so forth, "but personally, I'm not going to try it."
Of course, this universe is—can only exist as long as you don't create. Its motto is, "If you start creating, why, I'm done, so you better not create." And therefore, you get people who have agreed with it very thoroughly saying that

SOP 8-C: STEP V
they're incapable of creation, that nobody ever gets a new idea. They even get down to this point: "There are no new ideas, they're just remade ideas that one learns from the MEST universe. And we can find all these ideas actually, natively, in nature and we can trace back every idea there is. And this proves conclusively that you're mud, you're mud, you're mud, and no mud ever made energy, so you can't make energy." And you have these boys, you could call them the "priests of fear," giving forth in practically every educational institution in any civilization on Earth today, teaching people that they can't create.
Well, there's also this one: teaching them special methods of creation. You know, if they do so-and-so and if they paint with their left hand and hold their brushes between the big toe and the little toe and so forth, they will be able to create someday.
Well, all you have to undo is this chain of agreement on the subject of "cannot create," and you will have resolved the havingness of a V. It sometimes can be rather arduous for you, but there are many techniques by which this is possible. Simply this technique: "Certainty I can create; certainty I can't create" in matched terminals.
Now, if you could only get him to work it long enough, you would bring him out of the bushes with old Self Analysis, but it's a long, long, long road. Why is it a long road? Well, it's because you're getting—at V, you see, it is a long road—other step levels it isn't. But we get him up there to a point of where we're putting—he's putting up terminals, and all of a sudden he says, "You know, this energy which I seem to be employing here and putting terminals together with . . . You know, it's not coming from anyplace else. This is very peculiar. You know I must be putting it there?" And he eventually learns that.
He learns that all he's got to do is say, "There is a man there and there's that many watts of energy contained in that image," and he's got it. Now, he's proven it to himself. So what Self Analysis does really is prove to somebody they can create.
Well, what about a V? Because he's got an unmocker that unmocks the terminal before he can see the terminal. And he gets to a point in working Self Analysis where he sees the mock-up for a—oh, the tiniest instant, and then he gets to see it longer, and he gets to see it longer and longer and longer. If he just keeps at it, he'll eventually get an image. And this image, of course, to him is a terminal, because he has made an anchor point. The moment he has relearned or realized that he himself can make an anchor point, then this tremendous dependence upon MEST universe anchor points and their scarcities, dependence upon other bodies to be these images, devaluates. And when that devaluates, he comes up to a realization that he himself can put up terminals.
And if he's still sold on the idea that he has to put up two terminals and they've got to interchange in some weird fashion like an electric motor does for him to have some energy, why, that's still a very marked and remarkable gain.
Now, you wonder why people, as they drift down in havingness, have this Assumption engram in front of their faces—this Assumption body. Why do they have this Assumption body in front of their faces? Hanging on to their mouth and hanging on to the throat—a black body. Many preclears have this. You can run it, it turns on considerable heat.
Well, one of the fastest ways I know to run the Assumption body is just have a fellow get the idea of being—all of a sudden losing the front terminal of the body and quickly grabbing the first thing he can lay his hands on, and putting something in its place. You see that? So, of course, the first thing he

147

148

15 DECEMBER 1953
grabs hold of is his own Assumption body, which is a black body, which will sit there and operate as a terminal.
And then you as an auditor come along and try to plow away these black curtains. Well, you're not going to plow away the black curtains—it's one of these circular problems—so long as he has to have a front terminal. Because if he doesn't have a front terminal, then he knows he won't live, because he has to have energy to live, and so he isn't going to get rid of this. So, the shortest route through this problem on such a case is just the exercise I said. Get the idea of his body standing there, and all of a sudden, no front terminal; and quickly grabbing and putting in the place of this newly missing front terminal, the Assumption body. He'll throw the Assumption away after a very short time, because he realizes in the first place that he didn't ever have that many Assumption bodies.
You'll get him to do this fifteen or twenty times—you're putting up black bodies, and he can get those, you see, with ease, and he says, "Where the dickens are all these black bodies coming from? Well, I must be making them!" And you've made him take over the automaticity which does create them for him.
Well, he has an automaticity which uncreates his ability to create energy. This is the "Frankenstein effect." During his life, he has created things which kept on going but of which he had no further control. He created something and then ceased to control it. But that's kind of how this universe gets there, you know? Everybody sets everything up automatic, and at length, the whole universe is automatic.
So we have this problem with such a case: the fear of his own force. Not just fear of force, it's fear of his own force.
We have with this case, along with create, we have beauty. He can't create something beautiful. This is what is upsetting to him, and is the most upsetting condition which you could mention to such a case—the creation of something beautiful. So you'll ordinarily find that the front terminal which turned up missing some time in his life and made everything go black, was something which was to him beautiful. It was possibly her mother or his mother. It was a loved one, something on that order, or a beautiful animal, or could be a lot of things, but it will be in—connected in there with beauty. And he has replaced that with ugliness. That's sort of to teach himself a lesson, you know.
To ferret out exactly what the individual is doing in this is quite a trick, because he doesn't invite you into his confidence because he isn't in his own confidence. He doesn't trust himself enough to inform himself. You want to know why he's so blank on what he's actually doing, well, he doesn't trust himself with that much information. That sounds awfully silly, but it's true. Self-trust is gone. He feels that if he suddenly started creating a great deal of energy, he would in a very, very short time destroy his whole beingness.
Now, as you run almost any technique on him, after a while he will become suspicious—I mean any technique directed toward the rehabilitation of his creation of energy. And he's liable to become a little bit suspicious and shy off and turn it all off again after you've worked so hard. Because, you see, if he generated the energy of which he was natively capable while he is still inside the body, he would blow its brains out. So we get the limiting factor, and again we get this little circular effect. I mean, one factor leading to another factor, leading to another problem and back to the first problem again, as though they're all tied in very neatly.
Well, where can we enter this neat little circle of problems and find a point which is vulnerable to auditing? Well, there are fortunately a great many of

SOP 8-C: STEP V
them. An easy one is just the straight remedy of the idea of terminals. You know, this exercise I mentioned to you there. He gets an idea of his body standing there—I don't care where it is, you'll find he's always got a missing face. He's got a missing front to his body. That's a peculiarity with this case. When he starts to get bodies, the fronts of them are gone. Furthermore, he has very little feeling in the front of his body—his nose is usually anesthesed and so on.
Well, you see, he had a collapsed terminal with some other body, and then what he got was this effect of this other body leaving him. An anchor point must be predictable, and this other person proved unpredictable. This person proved unpredictable and left him and so forth, and now he doesn't have an anchor point there.
Well, the first action that he did on the loss or the threat of loss of this person, was to pick up the nearest body he could lay his hands on—which was the this-lifetime Assumption body with which he joined the infant—and he slams that in place of the terminal. Now, he was pretty bad off by the time he got to that baby, in order for him to do this trick. In effect, you're running an engram. It's the engram of the loss of a body which he considered a necessary terminal. You could just treat it like that and run it as an engram, because it is an engram which will run on the V. It'll run as an engram because he's stuck in it. He stuck himself in it.
Now, you could make him make black curtains, you could make him do all sorts of things, but a very much more effective method of handling it—I point out to you again, I pointed out very early in this course—is you get spheres of blackness, one after the other, new spheres of blackness. We'll take—around his occlusion we will put and drop one sphere. And we'll call that sphere 1. Now outside of that, we will drop another black sphere. (He can do this, by the way, it's quite interesting.) And you drop this second black sphere, and now he looks through sphere 1 at sphere 2, and by numbering them, your auditing clarity is much increased—you don't get too involved with it.
Now you have him put sphere 3 around his head and shoulders and have that outside sphere 2, and now have him look through sphere 2 at sphere 3. Now have him put sphere 4 out there, and so on. You're expanding his space, of course. More important than that, you're setting up and making barriers disappear.
Now, when a person has gotten into an automaticity or has had this technique worked upon him, you may have to handle it as an automaticity. In other words, he got into grief charges or something of the sort—you should look those over as possible hang-ups. And a slow but very thorough method of getting rid of something like that is "Where isn't that condition in present time?"—three places. Until he finally achieves the complete certainty that it is not in present time.
Another method of handling it is to handle it with Step VIII, SOP 8-C, which is Duplication. How do you handle it with that? Well, the least significance, the better. You merely handle duplication by putting out space to this degree: You have him locate places in his environment, and put in those places the thought that the place or structure or whatever is there, or the body, can duplicate or must duplicate, cannot duplicate or must not duplicate. And you do this monotonously, just one after the other.
By the time you've solved "can't" or "cannot duplicate," you've solved creation, because creation itself is nullified by the continuous carping criticism of people that what has been created is just like somebody else's or something else's. And that is the first and foremost insidious level of criticism. It is the mission of the critic to keep everybody original. And if everybody can be kept

149

150

15 DECEMBER 1953
original, you'll get a declining race of artists; and the one thing a critic cannot be is an artist.
It's like people say—what is an editor? An editor is a failed writer. What is a critic? A critic is a failed artist. And it's the mission of the critic to keep others from being arty. And the way he does it is to explain to everybody that it's been done before—and make duplication a condemnation.
They say of some old master, "Well, it's just a copy." This flabbergasted me one time when I was a boy. I saw this nice painting which was a copy of a Rembrandt, and it had been done very well, and it wasn't all filthy dirty and cracked the way the original Rembrandt was. And it looked very good, and it was bright and fresh, and it—you couldn't tell the difference between it and the original as far as the line and color was concerned, except the color was better. And it was a copy. It was very well done. And the guide in this museum (he had a bad time with me, I think I was about eight or nine) he said, "This is the Rembrandt, and this is a copy of it as the original must have looked in its original coloring," and so forth.
And I looked at this copy and I said, "Gee! That's a good picture."
And he said, "Yes, but it's only a copy"—squelchingly.
"Well, it's a better picture than the other one!"
And the other people who were in that museum at that time got interested in this argument, because I did not care who I argued with when I was very young; I argued very loudly, too. And I won—if by winning, the other fellow simply shuts up and walks away with a sort of beaten, confused look. Because the truth of the matter was, the copy was better than the Rembrandt.
"Well," one says then, "but the fellow who did the copy of the Rembrandt didn't conceive the original idea, the composition, the thought, the mood and so forth, which went into it." Well, that's true—did Rembrandt? Well, you don't know that one.
But they say this fellow Shakespeare—you know, they tried to damn him down the ages by saying, you know, "Why, he just took this old Dutch play— he took this play from the Netherlands, and he took this and that, and he stole from everybody," and so on. But you know, the guy could write too well. He is too good! And his wealth and flow and rhythm is such, and—honest, he just could have just copied ideas line for line and word for word, and nobody ever would have been able to have made anything stick. So, you see how invalid— or maybe you don't—how invalid criticism is, that something is a duplication. They've tried to damn even Shakespeare, in that he duplicated old plots.
They teach, by the way, these poor devils that go to the university to learn how to write—a big survey demonstrates that practically the last way to become a writer is to go to a university. It is the last way. That's the way you become an editor and starve to death. So the main trouble with all creation, according to these people, is that you can only duplicate. And then they make duplication a condemnation.
Well, let's now assume that you can only duplicate—just for the word— and just, you know, let's just assume that you can only duplicate; that someplace there is the prime idea and you can only duplicate that basic idea. Well, would this mean immediately that there would be no art anyplace? No. It wouldn't mean that. It might be true, you see, that you can only duplicate. But why all the condemnation about it? Why do people come around and they say, "Well, it was a very good movie, but it was an old plot," and so on. The only good movies I've seen lately had very old plots.

SOP 8-C: STEP V
They teach in the modern university—huh! teach!—they drive down people's throats, the idea that there are only eight basic dramatic situations and fifty-seven plots. I've said this several times, and I purposely scramble the numbers, because this is the most idiotic thing you ever heard of.
Several of us sat down one time and wrote down about eighty-five dramatic situations. And we demonstrated to a professor who was in our midst—he was a literary agent, and he was sort of scum, he kind of hung around New York. He had PhDs and GDQs and he'd been the Professor of Literature at Princeton and Harvard and Yale and so forth—oh, he was just a tramp. So anyhow, this fellow had dared open this argument. So a bunch of us sat around half—I'm afraid in my artistic days, that I rather followed the fashion of the Village— half-drunk. The others were—myself, of course, I never drank—used a fire hose. Anyway . . . (audience laughter)
The whole problem, all of a sudden, revolved on this fact: Well, we had played it unfair! There were only thirty-six dramatic situations, but the fact that we had made up eighty-five merely proved that we had originated the remainder! And what was meant by the only basic dramatic situations there were which an author could possibly have, were these thirty-six dramatic situations and so on. And just because we had gone and added some new dramatic situations did not make the statement that there were only thirty-six dramatic—basic dramatic situations incorrect!
After we had unraveled this and thrown him out, why, we had an insight into why people go through universities and give up writing as a career promptly. Yes, it's marvelous. But there is the same logic.
Now, you may think I'm just telling you an interesting story, but I'm trying to tell you something about a preclear, believe me. Trying to tell you something about life. You see, they use some kind of a specious or spurious logic to prove to you that you cannot be source. And they get "you can't be source" mixed up with "you can't be original." Just like you don't dare own anything if you didn't create it—that's unreasonable too. You can own anything. It doesn't matter what you own. You could have created it or not have created it, you could still own it. You can still have things you didn't create. There's no great liability in this.
But again, let's untangle this with a preclear—he'll untangle it, by the way, as his processes continue, but the—that being original is not duplicating. You see, he's got the idea that you can't duplicate and be original. Oh yes, you can! You can duplicate van Gogh in 1936 and be the person in 1936 who did a duplicate of van Gogh, and you therefore have been original. You're the "only one." And that's what everybody wants the artist to play: the "only one" game.
And that's how you get people to play this game, the "only one," you see? Is demonstrate to them that they can only duplicate, and this challenges them into being original. And as soon as they are sufficiently challenged into being original, they become the "only one" with all of its liabilities and fall off on about three-quarters of the dynamics right at that point—pam! They can't have friends, they can't associate with people, they have to be careful, they don't dare duplicate the people they're talking to.
Another thing runs through the society—it's just the same equation, but it's on a different level—and that is, "Well, he's very weak, he just takes on the characteristics of whoever he's talking to." Oh boy, there's a dangerous man; there's a dangerous man. Real dangerous. He talks to a tramp, he talks to a race driver, he talks to a business executive, and immediately afterwards, any one of these people could just swear that this fellow was a business executive

151

152

15 DECEMBER 1953
or a tramp or a race driver. There's a dangerous man. Be careful of him, because he doesn't care what he does. He's willing to duplicate anybody.
Now, how much knowledge does it take to do this? None, if you're good. If you're real good, all you have to do is read the other fellow's bank. You can be yourself and everybody else too, and that's a very happy frame of mind. No slightest lack of action in that.
Then there's the fellow who's perfectly willing to be his own attack. There's also a dangerous man. He's willing to be the source of entheta as well as the source of theta concerning his own activities.
There's one famous director out in Hollywood (I won't mention his name, but—because I promised him I wouldn't give him away) who is terribly interesting.
He goes down—he puts on an old, decayed-looking, almost Shakespearean outfit, you know, a suit of clothes kind of black and moldy—obviously an actor out of work. And goes down into the bars of Hollywood and spreads all the bad rumors about himself. The most vile and violent rumors he will put into motion. And the reason he does this is because nobody is good enough to dream them up. He just has lost all confidence in the ability of this society to properly keep his name in abhorrence, so he does it himself. And you'll go up to see him some night and he'll say, "I'm sorry, I'm busy tonight." Now, he's one of these fellows that changes around easily, and one of these fellows who is actually a terrific individualist.
You see him on a set—see him on a set directing actors, something like that. He goes through this action, and he walks through the action. And you wonder why in the name of common sense he doesn't play the part, because he's got the exact nuances, everything—all the meaning and intelligibilities of the entire part is right there. He's showing some girl how she should walk in and offer a flower to this soldier, you see, and he walks in and offers a flower to the soldier.
Now, society condemns such a person because he's dangerous. But they condemn him this way: They condemn him by saying that that is weak. It is weak. That's wishy-washy. It's sort of condemned. They've dropped the gate on that.
The only way to be safe from a burglar is to be able to be—bang!—the burglar. Have him put his gun in his pocket and walk out the door. Be out on the sidewalk and then have him—just leave him at that point, and he wonders what he's doing outside the house. That's the time for him to do some thinking.
Now, it's not weak to do that, because every person I know who does that extremely well backs it all up with an enormous individuality and a great deal of originality. In other words, there is a direct line between the ability to duplicate completely anything and everything, and to originate. And if one can duplicate anything and everything, one, by the experience I have—all the observations of such people, I know many such people—they originate; they originate ideas. Furthermore, they don't run reliably a cycle of action. They're not reliable on the cycle of action line to this end: They can't be forced to complete an unsuccessful action. It doesn't bother them a bit, when the action is unsuccessful, to abandon it.
All they've got to see is that the motion picture is just not getting box office. It's been out, they reviewed it in the little theater out at Sand Point, and the audience sat there, and some of them were seen to hold their noses. And the fellow would take a look at this, he'll watch it through fifteen frames of this sort of thing, he'll take a look at that audience reaction, doesn't even wait for the cards. He doesn't sneak out the back door, he simply walks up the aisle

SOP 8-C: STEP V
and gets into his car and goes home and sits down with his notes, trying to figure out what this next picture is going to be—not having learned a thing, except that audiences are unreliable. That's all they learn, by the way—they learn that MEST is not always reliable. It—MEST is reliable when it does what they say it should and it is unreliable otherwise.
Now, contrast this state of mind with a fellow who's being terribly careful and very afraid that he will duplicate somebody, who is very careful that he has authority for everything he says. Contrast that man, and contrast their cases. You'll find the first one—back out of his head rather easily. He may not be as careful of his condition as somebody else, but he sure can mend it in a hurry. He can change it rapidly.
Now we'll take this in comparison to somebody who depends upon an authority on agreement, who would sit in that theater after that box office fiasco, see—he would sit there and carefully look over the reaction of the audience to discover what it was in the play that they did not like so that he would not repeat the same thing the second time. That's what that fellow would do. And that fellow will fail. Because MEST is very unreliable; it doesn't agree with one a lot of the time. But this is just so much the worst for MEST, according to the first person I was telling you about. And the other person says, "Well, you know, I just don't seem to be able to agree with MEST anymore—I'm failing." Get the difference? And he doesn't get out of his head.
Now, the case you're looking at can't create, but if he did create he would care desperately about what he had created. He would nourish it, he would work with it, he would pet it. And he wouldn't bother to create anything else—he'd just make that one thing endure, endure, endure, endure, endure.
It is completely tolerable to the first kind of person I mentioned, who is liable to be most anybody, it's completely tolerable to him that something he's doing—he goes on doing, he goes on duplicating doing it and that it survives. This is completely tolerable. I mean, there's nothing wrong with this, he doesn't have to destroy it just because it's going on surviving. And it doesn't become particularly boring, it has its moments and it has its points, but it doesn't stop him from being something else at the same time elsewhere. I mean, he doesn't have to then slavishly follow, and he doesn't have to depart into some other field just for randomity. In other words, he doesn't have to. And there we get the main difference.
The fellow who doesn't have to can accomplish more things in less time in more fields—see, just because he doesn't have to. He also has the idea that it isn't important. But he is the fellow who, although things are not important to him, he actually gets things done—mostly because he can't quite help getting things done. That's probably the only thing that's wrong with him. He starts to set up something, it gets done.
Well, now let's take the other fellow who has to do something. He's under a compulsion that if he starts a course of action he's got to finish it. He's got to carry everything through to its inevitable end. Therefore, cycle of action is something that does wonders for his state of mind. You can remedy anything that's wrong with his mind, if you're just remedying that, with just cycle of action. Just sit there and get imaginative on how many kinds of actions could this person have engaged upon in his lifetime.
Now, we remedy his stomach trouble by having things eat his stomach. We have wolves and babies and fathers and so forth, eat his stomach. We get it et up in quantity, too. And after we've had his stomach eaten enough, we've solved

153

154

15 DECEMBER 1953
the overt act-motivator situation on eating. That's generally the trouble, down-on-the-havingness cases. They have, in addition to everything else, some trouble with their stomach, some trouble with eating. Why do they have this? It's because they're already into overt act-motivator sequence, and the stomach commits an overt act every time it growls. Every time it digests a new piece of food, it's committed an overt act against some animal or some life form someplace, so it's terribly overburdened on the subject. And the fellow— stomach is actually motivator-hungry. I don't care what shape he's in, if his case level is that, he's motivator-hungry on the subject of stomachs.
Well, the one way to solve this which is the simplest, stupidest way to solve it, is just have him—just getting the idea of—he says, "Well, I can only get a black mock-up."
"Okay, get a black stomach sitting there in the blackness. Now have a black wolf eat it."
He can get some perception of this happening, by the way. And we just go on and have his stomach eaten, and his stomach eaten, and his stomach eaten, on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. And what do you know? He'll get off the overt act-motivator sequence enough to get less compulsive about eating. And when he's less compulsive about eating, he's less compulsive about having to have energy from the world around him, and becomes a little more capable of giving the energy out himself.
Now, this is an inflow universe. Everything flows in on the thetan. To be source, as I've demonstrated to you before—I gave you a trick question on an examination, "What's the source of sunlight?" And the answer to that is the sun. It's nothing else but sun, merely because it's the start of the photon. Source—start. Don't look deeper into significance.
Now, the thetan has to be able to outflow energy to be convinced that he can create energy. Because if he creates energy, he's going to outflow it. So this outflow of energy, as it goes out, of course can furnish energy to other things. So he gets into an interchange of energy problem rather than total absorption of energy.
And a thetan is in as good a shape as he can outflow, and is in as bad a shape as he is being inflowed on. And that's very, very crude—it isn't—doesn't hold true all the way up the line. But as far as a person here on this universe, the thetan—this level, Homo sapiens and so forth—a person is as well off as he can outflow, and as bad off as he's inflowed on. I mean, it's just a rough rule; doesn't particularly mean anything.
Well, the thing that you've got to convince this case level of, is that he can create. There are many ways to do that—I've given you a lot of them.
One of them is Certainty Processing by changing postulates around. You have him put the postulate up "I can create," and move it all around, but stop it each time and fix it. You know, move it to three new positions and stop it and fix it each time in those positions before he moves it on. That'll give him double exercise on it. And he moves "I can create" around, "I can create"—even though he knows he can't. And then you have him put this postulate up, with great certainty in it, "I can't create," and you have him move that around. And you have him push that around all over the place—starting it, moving it to a new place, and then making it stick there for a moment; and then moving it to a new place and then making it stick there for a moment; and moving it to a new place and making it stick there for a moment; and back again, over the same course or on a different course. "I can create. I can't create."

SOP 8-C: STEP V
"I can manufacture energy" and "I must have energy manufactured for me," and "I need energy" and "I don't need energy." These are all ideas that are moved around in this fashion.
Now, they make a fellow kind of sick. Why—why do such techniques like duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, "I can't duplicate" put into the walls round and round and round, make a fellow sick at his stomach?
Well, a fellow depends upon his stomach for his energy. If a fellow is dependent upon the stomach for energy, why, then of course, techniques which rehabilitate his energy will first off—bing!—make his stomach, which is motivator-hungry as well as food-hungry, sick.
So he, of course—duplication goes straight into the stomach.
The second dynamic, sex, is secondary to eating. The wisdom of the great circles of thinking of this world has been a very great wonder to me ever since I was a little boy, and for a long time before that.
It was just this idea that Sigmund Freud was right or wrong because he said, "Sex was all," and others said he should have said that eating had something to do with it too. And in the biggest psychiatric centers of the world, they would demonstrate that sex—that Freud was wrong, because they would say, "Now here is a man who is sex-hungry, but he is also hungry for food, and you put a beautiful naked woman alongside of him and you put a plate of food in front of him, why, you'll find out that he will eat the food first. And so by this, we have determined whether or not Freud is right or wrong."
Well, from such great wisdom from such little tiny kernels of action, perhaps something can grow. But I rather doubt that it will. But when you're using these postulates which I just gave you, remember to put them into buildings, walls and so forth, so that your preclear is permitted to make space with those very postulates.
Okay.

155



Energy Problems
A lecture given on 15 December 1953

Okay. And this is December the 15th, the second lecture of the day, the evening lecture.
And today we're going to take up just a little bit more of what we were talking about in the earlier lecture, and that is to say, this occluded case.
Now, the only reason the occluded case gets any attention at this time or at this level, is simply because many auditors get balked and tripped in auditing, and many cases bog, at a certain point. That is to say, a certain type of case bogs, and it has a tendency to make an auditor be very leery of his techniques. He's very certain they exist, and then he runs across some case who just sits there.
So I was talking to you today about the covert responses and about the problems of havingness of this very occluded case. I didn't have too much opportunity to give you all of the data, so we're going to go into it in the first part of this lecture this evening.
Now, I talked about energy. His problem is one of energy consumption; energy consumption rather than energy production. A person is causative as long as his energy production is greater than his energy consumption. That is, a thetan is in good condition.
There is a ratio on this: A thetan mustn't exceed his inflow/outflow ratio of 50 percent. That is to say, he's got to inflow as much as he outflows in order to be in concourse with the rest of beingness, and to have effects himself. And he has to outflow as much as he inflows in order to maintain a constant size with relationship to other particles around him—not that he's a particle, but the constant size relationship, particle to particle.
He is maintaining, let us say, a body. Well, actually, he would have to put out as much energy in maintaining the body himself as the body consumed, for the thetan to be in good condition. And there you have the formula of how to handle a body so that it does not deteriorate.
And that's maybe too fast and too quick, but if you can get the body to put out 50 percent of the amount that it takes in, why, it's in good condition. And if the thetan is running the body—that is running the body—received no more than 50 percent of his effects from the body and puts out 50 percent of the outflow toward the maintenance of the body, the body remains his, and he remains balanced and in good condition.
But of course you get a thetan who has long been below this ratio, and he gets into all sorts of situations where he himself doesn't feel that he can handle energy.

157

158

15 DECEMBER 1953
The reason he can't handle energy is that energy handles him. There is no more explanation for it than that.
Now, a thetan gets outside of his body, and he goes—oh, into various difficulties. He grabs hold of the wall and sticks to it. He puts out a beam and he can't let it go. He gets back of the head and he can't let go of a beam. His trouble is line trouble, whether he recognizes it or not; it's not terminal trouble, so much as line trouble. He gets up these lines and he can't cut them. He can't arrest electrical motion going through them.
He gets in trouble, in other words. And each time, he is convinced of his own inability. And the moment he's convinced of his own degradation or inability, he'll make some sort of a postulate regarding his own inability, having watched his performance with the energy, and very often pop back into the body, sort of in apathy. This is a routine reaction on the part of a preclear simply because the auditor has not specialized on the production of space and other things while exterior—while the thetan was exteriorized.
You have to run through 8-C pretty well. If you do run through 8-C pretty well, you rehabilitate to a good extent the ability of the thetan to outflow.
Now, SOP 8 -O specializes in outflow. And it specializes in the receipt of effects on a 50 percent basis. But it first goes in for outflow, and it specializes overall on outflow and inflow.
Now, what is the problem of a thetan? His agreement with the body is such as to bring to him the pattern of agreement to which the body has agreed. In other words, the thetan, one step removed, has now agreed with the process of energy consumption, and having agreed with this, he, of course, is getting an almost total energy consumption and no energy production. And as a result, he becomes degraded.
Now, the actual emotion of degradation—the emotion itself, degradation— is not being able to handle space and energy. A person who can't maintain two terminals and a line between, feels degraded. Various things happen to his energy—it gets too thick, it gets unmanageable in one way or the other—and when this occurs or when he starts sticking to walls and things like that, he feels degraded. And it all comes about from a recognition of the absence of power, and this recognition results in this emotion called degradation.
When you have an individual degraded as a thetan, he has recognized this once too often. Therefore, self-respect and pride go immediately back to the necessity of energy production. Not energy produced for one, you understand, but I mean actual energy production.
Now, what kind of energy production? If we have space, we must have barriers. See, it takes the anchor points to delineate the space. So space is almost immediate with energy in form of production. You—it would be very difficult to produce energy without producing space, to produce space without producing energy, if one were going about this any way at all.
And the thetan who starts putting out power in space which is not his, is trying to ignore the fact that he hasn't made space, and is using some other space in which to make the energy, and doesn't believe then that the energy is making any space—it's just sort of being used in some fashion or another— so he falls into immediate competition with the MEST universe when he makes this energy.
He, in other words, is making it in MEST universe space, and he goes into competition with it, and if he does this too quickly and too immediately, he finds himself very—feels very bad. He feels quite degraded about it, because it isn't as (quote) "beefed up" as MEST universe energy. That's one of the first things

ENERGY PROBLEMS
that's noticeable about it. And it isn't as controllable as energy in electrical lines. Well, that's not important.
The point is, the thetan exteriorizes, starts to handle some energy or starts to handle some space one way or the other, and can't handle it and feels degraded. But if he gets down to the point of putting out an energy beam and then getting it stuck and not being able to get it unstuck or something like this, he's—he immediately feels terribly degraded and he makes an immediate postulate like, "Well, I'm just an invader from space," is a typical postulate. "Well, I'm— I've seen better days." That's another typical postulate. "Well, I guess I was all through and washed-up in my last life." I mean, he's quite alert, by the way, to what he's doing, he's quite conscious when he does this, but he just feels like he's worthless. He's saying he can't produce energy.
So our problem in auditing is not so much to prevent this from happening, but to know how to remedy it. And the best method of remedying it is to use SOP 8 -C, and then before the person has too much chance to get fouled up by being out and scouting around the universe, we drill him into outflows. And we get him to a point where he can make energy beams and various types of outflow such as sound, and that he can take in inflows of sound. And we make it possible for him to make space and make this energy in space, and then educate him around to a point where he can actually make energy in this universe very easily, by a gradient scale.
Normally, it's when an individual is trying it himself that he runs into this big problem of very degraded and going downhill and being very upset and popping back into his head again.
Well, if an individual has the computation that he must do it himself and everybody else is going to prevent him from doing it and he can only exteriorize himself, then the ordinary course of events is that he exteriorizes, tries to use some energy—doesn't really recognize what happens to him, it happens so fast. He starts to use some kind of energy, he can't handle the energy, it sticks or it won't stretch or it won't hit the terminals or there's some miscomputation, and he recognizes his own inability, his own weakness, he says, "I'm no good," and bang! goes back into the body again.
Now you come along as an auditor, and you try to audit him out of the body. Well, it's very silly of you to put in much time on it—if this person has been cognizant of Scientology for any length of time, of course, what you ought to do is just find out about these effects.
Now, I've said that before, but let me specify this one particular effect of having been out and popped back in.
You always should find out from the preclear what peculiar effects there are in his bank—what peculiar things have happened to him this lifetime. He'll tell you very many strange things if you ask him very closely—he knows all about them. Or the E-Meter will tell you, certainly.
Now, one of these effects is, for instance, quite ordinary for somebody to get an explosion somewhere in his vicinity, an electrical explosion. Big resounding explosion in his stomach or in his face or something, that's completely unexplained. He's just shattered after that. Maybe he even has a nervous breakdown as a result of it. He goes around jittering, and he's very upset. Some incomprehensible thing has occurred to him, and now you as an auditor are very happily sailing into the case, and you already are sailing into the big "I don't know." You're asking him to do something electrical, or you're asking him to change terminals (which is the same thing, practically), and he's had this enormous effect and you haven't encountered it.

159

160

15 DECEMBER 1953
There are very many ways to handle such an effect—and don't think for a moment that you are badly investing time to use a light technique, because a light technique will do it faster and more permanently. But don't underestimate the amount of time it requires to clear something like this up. It's well invested, beautifully invested.
Now, the easiest way to handle such an automaticity is, of course, just to make it handle as an automaticity. But that, for your purposes, when it comes to an electrical effect or an incident like exteriorization—sudden exteriorization and interiorization again—really, the shortest method is apparently the longest one. And that is a Straightwire on "Where is the incident?"—in other words, "the incident is not": "Give me three places where this occurrence is not in present time."
And you just go on and handle like that, and you'll finally—you may have to go down into the past, and you may have to go into the future with the incident. But eventually, the one you're looking for, and which will arrive in due course and will occur inevitably, is simply, "It isn't in present time." Great conviction. It isn't in the past to amount to anything except where it is, and that's properly placed on the time track—something did occur, so what? And it certainly isn't in the future. So he won't expect it to happen again. So you've straightwired it in, through and past "it must not duplicate." And so if this bad influence mustn't duplicate, then, you see, a good occurrence can duplicate.
If he has too many bad things in the bank, you see that he must think that all things must not duplicate, so he can't have good things again. And he must keep the bad things from duplicating to a point where he must keep everything from happening again. And so we get a case which is badly bogged down.
Now, you audit this case, you pick up this individual and without asking him any questions at all, you just start in at the beginning and you start sawing on through, and half an hour passes and nothing very much has happened, and another half an hour, and you decide to get experimental. You decided to outflow some more, and you decide to outflow some more. Another day goes by and you audit this person again, and you decide—some more outflow at him, and you run through some more techniques. Well, you're getting there, but boy, you're getting there the hard way.
The easy way to get there is say, "Did you ever pop out of your body and have anything happen?" Ask him this on an E-Meter and you've got it cinched!
The normal reaction is, when a case is having a rough time, "Yes! Yes, I did." Or "I started to once, and I was interrupted in auditing." That's another reaction that you're liable to get. Or the next reaction would be, on the electrical effects, "Yes, I remember it was just about two weeks after I was brought back of the lines and I was sitting there minding my own business, and all of a sudden there was a tremendous explosion in my chest and it just shook me, and it shook me terribly, and I've never mentioned it to anybody, but I had a terribly frantic feeling. I had to get up and walk a lot, and—I haven't had to do that for years," he'll assure you quickly. He's still waiting for another explosion in his chest, you see? He's still holding on to that other one, saying it mustn't duplicate, so no effects must duplicate.
Well, this is what's happening to your preclear. He's (quote) "stuck on the track." The anatomy of being stuck on the track is "this part of the track must not duplicate, and I must stay here to make sure that it doesn't." And, of course, that's nonsense—the fellow's tied down.
Well, that's "stuck on the track." All phrases which stick an individual on

ENERGY PROBLEMS
the track are secondary to these occurrences. This is the exact occurrence it's sitting on. You see, it is a kind of an engram, and a highly specialized kind.
Well, if you scout those down and then find out where they aren't in the present and where they aren't in the past and where they aren't in the future, in that order, why, you'll get them. And I remind you again, you find out where something isn't in the present many, many times, and then you ask him where it isn't in the past and he's sort of foggy and doubtful about it, the next thing you do is to go back and find the places it isn't in the present. The order is present, past and future.
Now, if he's able to find it in the future and he's very foggy on that—after you've done the past, you ask him about where it isn't in the future and he, "Nrrrr, to God . .."—kind of doubtful about this, you slide back into the past and ask him where it isn't in the past again, and then ask him once more. In other words, you go back one step, and that is the way that's handled.
Now, how long can you expect to do something like this? Well, let me assure you that if you cleared up, in the majority of cases which you've handled, one such piece of frightening, horrifying automaticity, you'd clear the case.
So how many hours are you willing to spend on it? It doesn't matter how many hours you're willing to spend on it, it's whether or not you clear the case.
Now, I call to mind a certain preclear, some time ago, who had an interesting incident occur. Had a leg immobility occur. The legs—this girl's legs went into a convulsion, and then an immobility, and she was paralyzed for about a week. Very nervous, wasn't expected to walk, and then gradually and very carefully working at it, began to walk again.
Well, this girl comes along just out of the blue as a preclear and I start to process her, and just go on with these techniques, and just run just the most solid techniques—you know, just good Creative Processing and anchor points and so forth—and very little, very slight communication changes.
Gee! Just about the—has about the same effect on an auditor as if you were standing there throwing dynamite into the middle of the street, you see, and he knows there's going to be a big explosion and he keeps hearing a cap pistol go off. You get the idea? I mean, he just parades the works, you know, and just hardly anything happens.
Well, he's very prone to say, "Well, there's something wrong with these techniques." Well, we've got techniques strong enough now so that if you merely kept hacking and hewing away, you'd eventually get there without this other data. But how do you shorten that up by about steen dozen hours, that's the important thing. You communicate with the preclear.
You want to find out—you want to find out what happened. Because obviously, if the techniques you're running on the preclear are not getting rapid effects, as they would on the usual run of preclear, this preclear is preventing a duplication of some sort, and it will go into all facets of this preclear's life. It will go into this preclear's sexual behavior or energy production, the amount of space the person can have. No space is, usually, is what occurs as a result of it—no space in which something can duplicate.
You see, the best way to fix it up so nothing will happen again—you know, won't duplicate—is to have no space. And if you don't have any space, of course, nothing can happen. Simple solution, isn't it? Very agonizing one, just between ourselves.
So this girl went along in this line; I processed her, I guess, for a couple of hours. I got her exteriorized, somewhat on the basis of hooking up a truck winch, you know, to the thetan and a team of horses to the body, and pulling

161

162

15 DECEMBER 1953
both ways. And got her out, and got her doing some things out, and she was a little more able out, but not much. Boy, it—real slow, you know. And apparently quite able—that was the fooler, you see?
Apparently good communication, good response, apparently quite able. But gee, the person wore glasses. And after hammer-and-pounding away, there was no change in the MEST eyesight. Oh-oh! Gave her another two hours—still no change in the MEST eyesight. So I just said, "Whoa! What's this all about now? Well, whoa!"
Well, she came up with this incident. And I ran it and chewed it up, spent about two hours doing this, and after that, every technique that was used on her simply increased her ability.
Why? She was keeping her legs from being paralyzed again. So what was she doing? She was fighting paralysis. Well, this isn't a special case—I mean, all cases work like this. But what you'd call "fighting paralysis" would be fighting no-motion, which would wind up in a no-motion. And essentially a thetan has been doing that, he's been fighting paralysis.
The one thing which frightens a thetan is to be pinned in one place and fixed in one space. This is frightening to him, he doesn't like this. And then he goes on the basis that he has to be there; that's your first type of inversion. That is, after he's pinned there so long then he gets frightened the other way around.
What they call "stir-crazy" comes from the social psychosis that the best thing to do with a criminal is to make him crazy so he's really dangerous. You fix somebody in space like that so long, and they're afterwards not able to control space, and so they really do weird and incredible things.
Most of the criminals who go around killing people because of simple burglary, shooting cops and that sort of thing—two-, three-, four-timers, and—they've been driven mad by the state.
Well, anyway . . . Well, I guess it's almost anything so you can have a police force. It'd be all right if the average citizenry of the state wasn't disturbed by all this ruckus, and if it didn't crowd everything readable out of the newspapers.
So the problem of this preclear is he's preventing duplication. Well, of course, essentially this is the problem of any preclear and the problem of the MEST universe itself. So we've got Step VIII, which is remedying this.
But when you take off a couple of minutes—when you've gotten through outflowing at the preclear for a long time, just take a couple of minutes off to find out how he's getting along. It very often helps. And you'll find out he's in no better condition than when you started processing him.
Well, I don't care if you've only been processing for fifteen or twenty minutes—if you're going to continue processing this preclear and if you expect any results, you better find the "nonduplicator"—just call it that. And this won't be duplicated. He won't duplicate it, and he won't do anything that'll even vaguely get it in there. So one of the better methods of getting rid of it is to get it out by negative orientation—where is it not? Where is it not, present, past and future?
And you'll find out that you can get so monotonous about this—if you yourself are still upset on the subject of duplication, you can get so upset about this that you practically would rather shoot this preclear, finally, than to see him cleared. Because you can keep this up for five hours on this type of incident. Let's say—this girl, for instance—to run enough techniques to clear up that tough incident was heroic. It's just about all an auditor could do, he just nah-nah-nah. See—well, the auditor isn't doing anything to amount to anything, the preclear isn't reacting hardly at all, and it's just timeless pinned-downness.

ENERGY PROBLEMS
So—however, how did this show up? Well, we'll take a similar case, was processed by an auditor who was pretty good. I mean, this auditor, very good, but with a large tendency to be very flashy. You know, flashy techniques use— very flashy patter—and with a considerable inability to pay any attention to the preclear. This auditor's—not too cleared up at the time. Well, he got ahold of a similar case. Only this other case was a Step I that remained in apathy. You know, Step I—he exteriorized this case, and then it just didn't matter what he made this case create, it didn't matter what he made this case destroy, it didn't matter what registered type of performance he seemed to get from the case in terms of technique performance—nothing was happening. I mean, it was—he was just sort of looking at the idea of going out there for the next fifteen hours of nothing happening.
Well, he kept on hoping and he went out there those fifteen hours. And about the end of that time, he got me on the phone and he said, "This is incredible. This is the first time I've ever had this happen—but I've had this person, I said, 'Three feet back of your head,' and she was three feet back of her head, and the case hasn't moved since. Person exteriorized easily, the person is in all the places I ask this person to be, and nothing happens. The case doesn't improve, external perception's fair but it doesn't improve, motion of the case doesn't improve, no communication improvement—nothing. And I've been at this now for about fifteen hours and there's no change."
I said, "Why don't you ask the case why they don't change?" And he took this as a gem of wisdom, and he did so! And the girl promptly told him. She was desperately afraid that an incident, more or less the kind I described, was going to occur again. You know, walking down the street, blue sky, nothing wrong, no emotional upset, nothing—and all of a sudden she caves in, nervous breakdown, three months in the hospital. The one thing that she wouldn't expect to happen, happened. Well, evidently what had happened—some kind of an anchor point blew up, or a ridge blew up in her face, or something happened, you see.
And I've run into other cases which—and by the way, don't take this as data, this is just the foggiest supposition—who gave every symptom of having been blanketed in this life. You see, I mean, they just give every symptom of it. I don't say that they were, because in each one of these cases they blanketed themselves. But they—as far as you could tell, they'd been blanketed in this life. It finally worked out that they were so much in control of the electrical energy contained in blanketing, that they might as well have blanketed themselves and actually supposed they probably had, and it was of no further interest to them; because that was the way the case had to be worked out.
But here's this person—be sitting still, doing nothing to offend God or the Devil or anybody and just sitting there. And all of a sudden, crash! tremendous electrical explosion somewhere in their vicinity, and headache, shattered morale. They don't walk out of the house for the next five years.
See, nobody has ever asked what a "nervous breakdown" consisted of. "Everybody knows," so nobody had to ask. "Everybody knows a nervous breakdown is caused by overwork." No, it's—by the way, that one's wrong, because it's caused by people sympathizing with you for overworking. That's what causes nervous breakdown. It never occurs to anybody to break down because of work until somebody tells him he's liable to, and tells him he'd better take a rest. So then after that he'll break down—when he stops work. That's the fatal thing to do is to stop work. They never correlated this between the death rate of men

163

164

15 DECEMBER 1953
who have retired. Right after they retire, they die—nervous breakdowns, all sorts of things occur.
It's because the handling of effort is a pleasure, not because it's a sin or a punishment.
Well, so we get into this problem of what happens to the preclear, and you hear vaguely that this person's had a nervous breakdown. And you just discount that, and you don't inquire any further into the case. And you—then you process the case and you get away with it. Well, just nothing happens that's unusual at all. You tell them to be three feet back of their head and they aren't. And you run mock up their body and destroy it a few times, tell them to be three feet out of their head and they are. And then they drill all right, and they go through this and that, and they're finally quite able. And they handle themselves beautifully, seem to be quite happy and content with life, and they go right on.
Well, you've done your job—a Theta Clear, and that's that. And you get to the next case, and they're maybe a little difficult or a little easier, and you get right away with it. And you didn't ask them anything about the past, you just pam! pam!—the techniques worked, bang! zing!—worked perfectly.
Particularly true if you get to working with kids. You get into sort of a rut. You say, "Be three feet back of your head. Okay. Now, be in—find an ashcan, now be in that; now be in an electric light bulb; now be in the middle of the Sun. Now roily-coaster down one of the blades of the Sun. Now you got that? Now, that's fine. Let's be over on the Moon. Now let's be in front of a meteor. Now let's pass through it. Now let's chase one down the sky."
And you go on like this, and pamity-pamity-pam! "Now, be out in space some-place and make a noise." And you just go like this, and they just do everything you say, and that's perfect, and all of a sudden you've got a tremendous guy on your hands, see? He may be only eight, nine, ten years old, but it's tremendous.
You say, "Now, fish over the bank and get your Oxford education out—oh, you went to Princeton. Oh well, that's all right, fish your Princeton education out. Okay, now sort through that and get what you need out of it. Throw out the unpleasant incidents. You got that? Yeah, okay. All right. Now, say something in Latin. Yeah, that's good, that's real good. Say something in French. Okay, that's real good. Now—oh, you want to play the piano. You say you can play the . . . Oh, all right. Fish that out, now plug that into the body. Got that all set now. All right, that's fine." And you've got a very surprising individual on your hands.
So you do that, and you go on to your next case and this is very successful. And you go on to the next case, and by this time you're getting real nice and cocky, you see. And you go on to the next case and crunch! You say, "Something's broken down."
Well, the first thing you want to blame—you're apt to blame—is technique. Because that, in the past, was occasionally—not been adequate to the situation. And the next thing you're liable to blame is the preclear.
Well, why don't you blame you? Why don't you blame you? Now I can— I'm in a position where I can say that. Because what you did was accomplish a sin of omission.
There are two kinds of errors. There are two kinds of crimes. Governments and universes in general which have to have havingness and so on, all specialize on crimes of commission. But the truth of the matter is, the only really bad one is the crime of omission. Omission—that's the important one. Nobody gets in trouble, however, in most governments and most police systems, with crimes of omission.

ENERGY PROBLEMS
Fellow forgot to warn somebody or other that something's taking place and somebody gets killed as a result and so on. And they say, "Well, all right. Well, he forgot to warn him," and so on. He—it's just as much his fault as though he'd gone out and shot somebody, you see, but it's not a crime. So it's very easy to look over these crimes of omission.
And failing to assess a preclear is a crime of omission. And you can get away with it, and it's not recommended that you assess every preclear you run across. You can get away with it, an awful lot of cases. But remember every time you're—you start auditing a preclear without a good assessment just along the lines that I have been giving you just now—I mean, about electrical incidents and explosions, and you want to find out about various types of things that have occurred, you want to find out what they're not ready to duplicate. The easiest way to do it is with an E-Meter.
Remember, every time you process a preclear and don't do an assessment, you are guilty—whether you get away with it or not, you're guilty of the sin of omission.
Now, most of the time when I start processing these days, I sail into a case without an assessment. And the only cases which have bogged under my auditing, momentarily, for one year, happened to be three cases that I sailed into without any assessment.
I audited one girl who was an easy case—obviously an easy case— audited her for four and a half hours, till 2:00 in the morning, after I'd had a long, hard day. I thought that she would solve in about a half an hour, merely because an auditor had been having trouble with this case.
And instead of taking an assessment, I just simply sat down and started to audit this case. Listen, by 2:00 in the morning a preclear is too tired to audit them; they're too tired. And this auditor had the preclear in restimulation at 10:00 that evening and sent her over for me to swamp up.
So I started to swamp this preclear up, you see, and here I sit at 2:00 in the morning, still trying to swamp up a preclear.
Well now, that's something—that is stretching it too far. Anytime you audit a preclear past midnight, you're in trouble. That is the truth I'm telling you. That's just the way GEs work. You audit a preclear past midnight, and you're in trouble. Because the greatest incidence of death is at 2:00 in the morning.* And even though they'd run very smoothly in the morning or afternoon —10:00 in the morning, 2:00 in the afternoon, that's nothing— they'd run very smoothly at that time of day; this same case at 2:00 in the morning will bog. They won't be able to release locks or anything else.
Well, I was still, with the tiniest, lightest techniques trying to bring this case out of it enough so that we could quit. And found the resolution to the case, which I should have had four hours earlier at 10:00.
Now, here was the case, all beautifully goggle-eyed and superrestimu-lated—less so, true, than they had been at 10:00, but still in horrible condition—at an hour of the day when a GE just won't audit. And what can you do? What can you do?
Well, I sent the preclear home in a taxicab. She had something on the order of a nervous breakdown about 8:00 or 9:00 in the morning, was going to take the nearest boat for Siberia or something, was corralled and shipped back to my office by the husband, and arrived there at about 11:00. And at 11:00,
Reference to the medical fact that human beings die most frequently at 2:00 in the morning. For more information, see lecture 10 October 1951, "Axioms 14—32," in Research & Discovery Series Volume 7.

165

166

15 DECEMBER 1953
when she arrived, I sat her down and I put E-Meter cans in her hands, and we did an assessment. And twenty minutes later, she was as right as rain.
What was wrong with this case? One person—one person—was really the key of the case, and that was Mother. She couldn't touch Mother, she couldn't go near Mother, and this particular case, of course, by what we're doing right now, couldn't duplicate Mother. And Mother was one of the most able, sane people on Earth. But Mother unfortunately was consistently blamed by Father for Father's complete failure in the business world and every other world. And the girl was the ally of the father, you see, and trying to buck up the old man all the time, and so didn't dare be Mother. And Mother was probably a pretty right guy, and Papa was hypochondriacal.
So, couldn't touch Mama, couldn't be like Mama, couldn't do anything with Mama, and I just ran a gradient scale whereby she mocked up—which is to say created—we had to create Mama by footprints and shoes and a stocking at a time, and we finally created Mama. And then created enough Mamas so that we could knock off one Mama, and then we could mock up Mama in the place where the preclear was. She was exteriorized, you understand, all this time, which was what was incomprehensible about the case. And we mocked up the preclear exteriorizing out of Mother's body, you see, and "Well, I—znnn-tnnn-ta." The only live member of the family was Mama, and she was trying to prevent Mama. Total computation. She'd worked at it—this woman had worked at it for about twenty-eight years, solidly, ever since she was a little tiny baby, and that was the story of her life—not being Mama! One of these cases where you hit one point in it.
Well, I would have gotten the point immediately if I'd given her a create-destroy assessment on people. All I had to do was just start calling off the standard members of any Homo sapiens family and I would have gotten a drop on Mama which went, when I did get it, fifteen dials. But this case could mock up everything, do everything—perfectly able case.
What's this case doing, then, going into a flat spin on anything I asked this case to do? Well, the other two cases, same thing, same thing—just didn't do an assessment. So, it isn't necessary for you to do an assessment on the majority of cases, but every time you omit it, remember that you are omitting something! Remember that you're guilty of a crime of omission.
The safe thing to do and the practical thing to do, as an auditor, is not to try to get out there at a flat run and super-speed with each case. Process swiftly when you process, but go at it by knowing what you're processing and then finding out how the preclear's doing every once in a while.
And if you start your session with an assessment—you just say, "Sit down. Here are the cans. All right. Now, let's take Mama. Did you like Mama?" Needle sits there.
"Did you like Papa?" Needle sits there.
"Did you like—you have any brothers?" Needle sits there.
"Did you have any sisters?" Needle sits there.
"Do you like boys?" Needle sits there.
You take a look at that needle. It's stuck! When?
"Well, all right. Now, did something occur to you, that upset you and so forth, ten years ago? Twenty years ago?" Needle trembles.
"Fifteen years ago? More than fifteen years ago? Little less than fifteen years ago? Well, a little more than eleven years ago?"
Sometimes I'll keep this up until I get the exact hour of the exact date.

ENERGY PROBLEMS
Say, "Come on," by this time, talk to the preclear, you know. "You remember what happened—what occurred."
"Well, yeah. Yes. I was in the automobile wreck which killed my parents. Yeah, I'd been reading the funny paper and it blew off the front seat into my father's eyes and he swerved into the oncoming lane and the car was wrecked and . . . Otherwise, I'm all right." (audience laughter)
Well, now what do you do with the incident? With SOP 8-C you just saw right into the car wreck, that's all. You say maybe that's real fatal. The person isn't anyplace else. You say, "Well, there's ways and means of building up his morale, doing this and that, Straightwire, build them up." Yes sir.
If the case looks like it'd tip over if you mention the incident too much and too solidly, well, of course, you've got that second-to-the-last list in Self Analysis, "Remember something real," and "Remember a time you were in good communication," so forth. Just hand them that every once in a while, and then just keep plugging on with going exactly where you're going.
Now, you can run "Where isn't his body in present time?" or you can run almost anything, but they're going to get a big uncertainty on everything— they're very uncertain. Because where are they? They're in a car wreck which happened exactly—maybe April the 3rd, 1933—whereby they caused the death of somebody or their parents or something; there they sit.
Well, there's no sense in running that as an incident, because this probably would bog a case. I mean, that's—this case is stuck that heavily, they'd probably bog on it, and it'd be a lot more trouble than it was worth.
You can unburden the incident. You can run all the locks resulting from the car incident that have piled into it, but that again is very crude because it's validating that bunch of energy.
And the best way I know of at this time, and a very light way to handle the thing, is "Give me three places that car isn't in present time" and just go on from there. And just take up the personnel in the wreck, and take up themselves and so on.
In other words, just pry the whole thing loose and blow it, and look at the needle every once in a while and see when it gets free. But you really won't have to look at the needle—when you see that incident go free, your preclear's free. He's free to run on the track.
Now, by the way, if you did this expertly, you could run engrams on him. Who wants to? I mean, that doesn't happen to be our goal anymore. We're bypassing results which we could have used desperately three years ago.
Yes, you could with this type of Straightwire and so forth, straighten somebody up. But there I'm talking about a case which is, you might say, has a basic simplicity. It has a basic simplicity—most cases are a little more involved than this.
And if you get a case at level V, it won't be a simple case of stuck, in most cases—a lot of these Vs are just a simple case of stuck. They're stuck in the between-lives area or something and they free up, just like I said. I mean, "Where isn't the incident?" You nail it on the E-Meter and then run it and they—all of a sudden, they don't have occlusion.
Well, people get occluded and unoccluded and they play tag with this occlusion because they're still worried about seeing.
But there is one shotgun technique on this occlusion, and on a V, which quite often produces results. It'll be some variation of putting fear into the environ¬ment. That is to say, making the walls feel afraid and so forth, repetitively one after the other. Not afraid of being uncertain, but afraid of just—it's fear, fear.

167

168

15 DECEMBER 1953
Now, you can tell physiologically, quite often, if this particular thing is wrong with a case. Now, I won't go so far as to say that this is wrong with every case, I won't go that far. Theory dictates that it is wrong with every case. Theory says that it would be wrong with every case, because it comes right back into the theory of energy. But I haven't run enough cases to tell you whether or not—with this particular technique, to tell you whether or not it is true of every case that is having difficulty. But it's certainly part of the difficulty of any case. It's a little thing called security. Fear of the future is born out of the economic stress of the past and present. And this security is in itself the uncertainty of anxiety; anxiety is an uncertainty. And this is very simple, really, to figure out.
Now, if the fellow is dependent upon consuming energy, he of course is then dependent upon the economic structure of the social order in which he lives, since he must agree with that economic structure, ordinarily—even if it's a hunting economy, you see, he has to agree, to some degree, with that structure— in order to continue to consume energy.
It's like animals that eat locoweed. You see them in the West sometime. After they've eaten a little locoweed they have to eat more locoweed and they have to eat more, and they just stagger round and round and they go crazier and crazier and they die. They eat it once and it becomes compulsive.
The same thing would occur to a dope addict. A dope addict who would take up something like cocaine, or heroin—not opium, opium doesn't seem to be this same order, it's merely a sedative. But heroin or cocaine—someone starts in on that line, and they have to have more and more cocaine, and more and more heroin, whatever it is, in order to continue in the same state of elation. And of course the state of elation gets less and less and less and less; it deteriorates.
Well, now compare this—now, I hate to have to mention this—but com-pare this to things which have become so rabid for attention that they must condense attention in order to have life; condense and consume attention in order to have life. They eat each other's bodies. They're so anxious for attention that they eat each other's bodies. That is essentially eating. And the basic mechanic of eating for our uses here is—they crave attention so much that they have to consume any deposit of attention. And of course the body, in this classification, could be called a deposit of attention.
So here is the problem of the consumption of energy. Once they start depending upon exterior energy, and depending upon that energy in order to have energy, this puts them into the economic structure but solidly—since a man will starve to death ordinarily in a few days, puts him into the economic structure so solidly that he must then continue to agree in order to continue to eat. And the continuation of eatingness and the continuation of agreeingness compound each other until he is entirely dependent on the economic structure, and so sinks below it and becomes a slave.
You are looking, then, at the deterioration of self-determinism, drawn against the curve of the deterioration of the individual's production of energy. And when—as his—he produces less and less energy and consumes more and more energy, his self-determinism follows on the same curve.
So that when we have security in the future, we are back to a problem of energy, as I discussed earlier today. And this earlier lecture posed some of the problems, just as this lecture tonight has, but it hasn't given you any rote solution. I told you there are many possible solutions.
Here you have the problem of a stomach. What does man obey? If man is consuming other bodies in order to live, then the most craven part of him

ENERGY PROBLEMS
would, of course, be his stomach. And this is true—the stomach is a fairly cowardly entity.
And when we go into the entities, we find that that entity which is most afraid is the stomach entity. We start examining them with an E-Meter. It's very cute examining entities; the GE's entities will endlessly put up with being examined. They'll just go on and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. And they are all pretty decayed, and the one thing they can do is withhold information from the analytical self. That's the only thing they're doing; they're holding back information.
They say, "The awful things which you did made it impossible for us to release to you any further power than you have." And this is a big joke, you see, because they don't release any power; they haven't got any power to release. And they—there aren't any incidents that have occurred, you see, but they keep saying, "Well, that awful thing you did and so on, and we're not going to tell you about that, but. . ." This is typically an entity sort of an operation.
Well, you don't have to worry much about entities, what they are and where they aren't and so on. It's merely an interesting fact that when you start investigating the entities with an E-Meter, that you'll get a set pattern of responses, you get the same number of entities per body. And this is very interesting investigation. It, however, is in para-Scientology—what these entities are, who they are, and who put it together and that sort of thing; that's completely beyond our "care-how," rather than our know-how. We could go in and know-how about it, but it's beyond our "care-how."
But we don't happen to know—need any of the data. It was tracked down and exhausted; I just beat the stuff to death trying to find an answer which was a broader and more applicable answer in clearing, in that particular field. And it turned up a lot of good laughs, but until fairly recently had not yielded any great gain, until I equated energy consumption as the degradation point, and the entity of the stomach as that thing which begins to be a model for the person who is too sold on energy consumption. And it gives us a technique, because the body starts to eat itself up. The stomach entity starts to eat the rest of the body. The body itself starts to turn into the shape of a stomach.
Now, this sounds awfully crazy to you; as a matter of fact it is crazy. It is crazy, and that's why we are talking about it.
Well, there's a definite method of running it—in Creative Processing, we immediately have. You take that blackness that this preclear who has a lot of occlusion has around him, and just have him feed to this blackness, bodies. You'll find out they'll mock up for a split instant and disappear. We just let this area eat up bodies—his body. I've known for a long time that if a V would just sit there and mock up his body long enough and often enough—just a couple of his bodies, particularly—just long enough and often enough and just go at it and on and on and on and on, just hours and hours and hours of doing this one thing, he gets to feeling kind of soft in the head and kind of stupid and awfully upset, but all of a sudden he'll start to get mock-ups. But that's funny, because it's his body that is the trick.
The stomach entity has been denied havingness to the degree that it has taken over the control of the individual and so controls his future by continuing to compress him into the economic and social structure which demands that he continue to consume rather than to produce. And you get a society going down Tone Scale, you get it consuming more and more and more and more and more, and producing less and less and less and less and less per unit in the society until you get the corn and games type of government of the Roman

169

170

15 DECEMBER 1953
Empire. Corn and games. Rome could loot the world, and the way it kept its own population in order was simply to cater to the stomach entity—which was lots of dead bodies in the arena, and lots of corn in the belly. And this, of course, solved the problem of revolution continually and consistently.
So there's one solution in Creative Processing, and that does—that is a solution.
Now, here's another solution in terms of duplication: You start putting into the walls "Afraid I will starve. No, I won't starve." Like, "No, I will eat." Just keep it up, round and round and round. Not adding in any uncertainties into the thing—you always run these things on the two certainties. To run out an uncertainty, you don't run an uncertainty—you run the two certainties of positive and negative. That is, the certainty that something exists; the certainty that nothing exists, and you'll get the uncertainty which results from these two positives. Because no juice is running midway between two electrical poles. The juice is at the poles, as far as you're interested in. All right.
We have, then—actually everything that we can use as a technique would be used in this fashion. But you'll find it'll run this way: "I can't have money. I must have money. I can't have money. I must have money." Or we start wasting food, and wasting future starvation. Wasting, you know, in brackets, on Step IV. We can do it in all these steps, but the most effective one that changes perception fast enough, is to run it as in Step VIII—just to keep putting it monotonously in three set positions, and put it back in three set positions again, and go over it and over it and over it and over it and over it and over it and over it. And if you were to run out the maybe on the situation, you would simply continue with this.
Now, some interesting and strange things occur. The body is guilty, as I have said before, of many more overt acts than it has received motivators. It continues to consume bodies, and is not itself consumed. So any Creative Process which permits the stomach, or the body and the stomach, to be consumed exteriorly— by Papa, by Mama, by wolves, by sheep, by cows, by pigs, by chickens (anything that's food, you see) —reverses the overt act-motivator sequence on the subject of eating, and so relieves the anxiety about the future, and so relieves the "can't stand it; something bad is going to happen and I will starve," which runs also back through, up from degradation, and which rehabilitates the ability to create.
The only thing wrong with commercial art occurs when the individual writes to eat, when he paints to eat. And we get an anxiety in—eventually, concerning his eatingness. And it's very, very unreasonable; there's nothing he can—unreason.
Now, you notice that the moment you did duplication, some of the cases— a certain level—the second they start doing duplication, why, didn't matter what they were duplicating, the place it kicked was the stomach. That's chronic.
Now, you can expect some preclears to get really sick with this. So what? That sickness is what they're trying to bypass. That sickness is what they don't want duplicated. And that's the worst thing to fight, is one of these anxiety stomachs. It can get so bad that I have seen a criminal being put in a cage, you know, and being treated with all the humaneness of the metropolitan police force—just being put in a cage—become so violently ill, I've seen him . . . But this guy—boy was a tough boy, you see (this amuses cops a lot when they see this happen—they don't realize that they have nothing to do with it)—seen him get down and beg and plead for the means with which to kill himself.

ENERGY PROBLEMS
Why? It's not because he's scared, as they say, or because he's yellow— they've keyed in one of these anxiety stomachs. And it is one of the most fantastic sensations that a man has ever experienced. It has volume! And there's where fear ordinarily hits and resides, is in the stomach. Because the stomach is the center of contest; the stomach is the thing which registers the incoming eaten energy which is replacing the thetan's ability to produce.
Now, you'll always find this particular mass of energy on a preclear who's having any kind of trouble: You will find some sort of an outflow from the skull, forward. There'll be some kind of an outflow pattern from the skull forward, out to in front of the body, and it turns back and then runs back in on against his stomach. He's always got tubes and things, and channels, and communication lines, which are running from his head to his stomach.
Now, he's got others that have to do with his mouth. And when he has created in order to eat, he's probably laid him—I mean, created MESTwise, you know, and created with MEST energy, believing all the time that he is using the body's energy—and he keeps creating in order to eat, he just drives the body into the overt act-motivator sequence of "eating and not being eaten," just deeper and deeper and deeper. "Creating and not being created" is equally so, because it's MEST facsimiles. That's just a type of facsimiles made through MEST and so forth by the GE which are very aberrative. The others aren't particularly. The thetan can handle his own facsimiles easily. All right.
The problem resolves on "starvation" pretty fast, and it is a—recommended procedures. You understand that isn't the only technique there is to do this, and this isn't the only thing you'll find wrong with the case in the long run. But his fear of the future is a fear of not eating in the future. And the fear of not eating in the future drives him back compulsively away from creating energy, because he's so fixed on the idea that he has to have energy manufactured exterior to himself to consume—so that he can work, so that he can create. He always has to have energy exterior to himself.
Now, if you can make him anxious about it and fixate him on this, of course you take him completely away from creation. So he doesn't produce anything. So he doesn't exteriorize. Because he thinks he's sitting there mobile only so long as he can drain the body of its energy. So we get the most basic effect that there is, is not sex, it's food.
Okay.

171



Additional Remarks: Energy Problems
A lecture given on 15 December 1953

Now, once in a while in moving something around, somebody will say, "You know, I got a postulate here 'I'm tired of it,' and I don't know what it is." Move it around for a little while, he'll find out what it is, be much happier then.
Yes, a bracket will cover other people, but it doesn't cover other universes. Other universes are not composed merely of opinions—they are actual views and they are actual anchor point constructions and they are actual space. Being in somebody else's body does not cover his universe. That's the one thing a thetan never wants to have anything to do with, is some other thetan's universe, when you first start bumping into it. You'll find in SOP 8-C, that that is pointed—I mean 8-O, pardon me—that's pointed up very sharply.
Now, you were running three people's—in three kinds of universes, and your perception did a whopping jump . . .
Male voice: Yeah.
... on the line. That's better than any god's quantity of significance. You can find them. They're easy to find. It's easy to be the space of them. They don't bite—they're actual strata, actual space.
You never really get over your fear, I fear, of other thetans until you get around and occupy their universes to find out they're not filled with lions and tigers, or they're not necessarily remarkably like yours, they're just not remarkably dangerous.
You get somebody who's very bogged down who slips out of his head by himself, he generally slides out on a MEST wavelength. And of course then naturally, the first thing he runs into is MEST, MEST, MEST, MEST, bang, bang, bang, thud, thud. And puts out a beam, he'll put it out on the beam of electricity. And you put electricity up against this wall up here and, by George, it'll just go into the wall, ssllrrp! There's nothing quite as thirsty for electrons as electrons— they really come together quick.
That's really what's wrong with him. He's stuck on this MEST universe. He can't get out of it, it's a trap. He doesn't want anything to do with it. Okay.
Well, that technique of starvation combined with duplication will do a lot of bailout of some of the worries of a case. But of course, you mustn't forget that what you're trying to solve there is energy consumption—dependency upon otherwise-produced energy for motive power.
Get any thetan that won't get out of the body easily, why, of course, he's messed up this way in two ways. He's depending upon an unreliable energy consumption unit—there's something wrong with this body's consumption of

173

174

15 DECEMBER 1953
energy. See, it's been starved or it has imbalances—glandular imbalances— or it's hungry.
You try to exteriorize somebody when he's very hungry, by the way, and you'll get some interesting effects. And also, try to exteriorize somebody when he's too full, he'll get sometimes upset that way. But this is not even worth considering.
But you get somebody, let's say, who as a young boy was fed nothing but flapjacks by his family. You know, he just ate nothing but—morning, noon and night, he ate some dough cakes or something of the sort. Maybe a hamburger brought in from the local hamburger place, and—real treat was a bottle of pop with dinner. You'd be surprised how many times this sort of "diet" is the preferred diet. Well, it's not an adequate diet for a GE and the GE is pretty well sold on this idea of energy consumption. So this terrible diet will reflect itself in this fashion: The GE starts to eat up his own anchor points, and so distorts the space.
Now the thetan's in a bunch of distorted space and starts to exteriorize, and you say, "All right. Snap those anchor points back in shape again." Ah, he can't see them, they're all black—well, they've had the energy drained out of them or off of them, you see. And you—your command, then, as an auditor is, "All right. You, thetan, mock up—start mocking up anchor points in this location."
Well now, you probably at first glance would think you're just doing this to increase his ability and make him regain his confidence in seeing anchor points or some such thing. No, you're not—you're feeding that area. And energy starvation is the clue—this is covered in the congress tapes but very, very briefly—energy consumption there is very bad. And he'll start throwing in anchor points into there, one after the other, and he'll finally get one that'll stay there stably, and—oh, he'll look around, then he'll see the GE anchor point.
Well, why can he see the GE anchor point? Is it because—not because his vision has gotten any better, let me assure you. It's simply because the GE anchor point has taken enough energy off the mock-up anchor points, right in the immediate locale—this is according to theory on the thing—that the GE anchor points brightened up. And you can keep mocking up anchor points in these GE areas. You just keep mocking up, mocking up, mocking up—and boy, the GE anchor points get so they're just like gold.
Now if we were to put the fellow on starvation rations for three or four days, we'd find they'd turn black again. See, the body will eat itself up. And that's the worst thing about a body, its energy consumption fixations.
Another thing is, the thetan who is trapped in a black field or in a distorted spatial field and can't get out one way or the other, gradually loses his confidence in putting something up; because he might as well be throwing air into a big vacuum, and he just isn't producing enough air.
See, you could fill any vacuum with air if you produced enough air. Well, by the time he throws a few cubic millimeters of air into this vacuum which is a cubic mile, and he doesn't see any result, he just simply says, "Uhh, zuhh — I haven't the power anymore," he says, "I'm degraded."
Well, let's take a look at the problem. The problem is one of quantity. If he threw enough air into the vacuum, he'd fill it up. Similarly, if he threw enough mock-ups out, he would throw enough energy into the vicinity of the body so that he would polish it all up, and to a large degree the blackness would dissipate, having been fed. See, the blackness is black energy—it's residue, it's burned out.
Did you ever see a piece of coke or something that had been burned for a long time? That's—what's left is practically unburnable. But you see, any

ADDITIONAL REMARKS: ENERGY PROBLEMS
fragment of energy, to an energy hunger, is better than no energy, so it's better to hang on to the residue—you see, it at least has the pattern of energy, it at least has mass, at least has substance.
It's like the fellow who keeps his garage full of old radio parts and newspapers. Stuff's no good, won't fit anything, comes off of the early super¬heterodyne or neutrodyne receivers that were built by his grandfather or something, but he's still got all the parts around.
Well, you see, some part's better than no parts. He might use it someday. Well, similarly on this energy consumption, the vacuum, the hunger for energy, is at least partially satisfied by the tremendous amount of residue which is still there, and that's really burned black.
A lot of the black sheets that your preclear sees is quite ordinarily—right underneath the eyes here, there is a tremendous pattern of gold anchor points. I don't know how many there are, I never sat down and counted them. But they probably run into—oh, there's, I don't know, a hundred thousand or something like that, anchor points—right in that little crescent right underneath the eyes.
Now, the blackness quite often is something stupidly simple. He's just sitting there looking at an area of anchor points that should be there.
I ran across one preclear one day, we cleaned this up by just—I just sat him down and let him run it himself, see. We just mocked up enough gold points. He just kept saying, "There's a gold point there"—he didn't see it. "Gold point there, and a gold point there, and a gold point there, and a gold point there," and he— we got him through the frantic period caused by duplication, you see, and all of a sudden, he found himself in his left eye. He was just below the eyeball, looking right straight at this mass of anchor points underneath the eye, which were all shiny black. They were really drained down to a point where they were polished, see? And he had been looking, actually, at a part of the body all this time, rather than hoods of this and that.
Well now, by putting up black energy further and further out, one is still feeding this hunger to some degree, and emotions release and so on. When you get down to handling a GE, you're handling a mechanical problem which is just exactly as mechanical as taking a motorbike apart. It's just that mechanical. There are so many explosions go into a cylinder and there's so much gasoline goes into the tank. And the GE is rigged this way, he's rigged to run.
And a thetan isn't rigged to run this way. He doesn't have to depend on that. But he starts to depend on that, and then he can't think of anything else than depending upon it. And this is gruesome to him. And the thetan isn't like this. The thetan isn't in this degree a dependency. But unfortunately this body has gone through some period of starvation where it has become disarranged one of the—way or the other.
Well, this isn't that the thetan is irresponsible, it's just what did he mean picking up a body that was going to go into a family that was then going to starve it to death! You'll find the basic on this sometimes in the failure of the mother to breast-feed the child. Cow's milk is pretty unpalatable. Why they feed a child pasteurized milk is a great problem, since the amount of nutrition in pasteurized milk is comparable to water and chalk compared to good raw milk which is taken from a cow who has fed on pretty good fodder, like good natural grasses and so forth. Milk from a cow that's fed on straw and just stuff, you know, and water, and then pasteurized, and they burn everything out of that in case there might be a germ in it, and gee, the amount of—the remaining food value, fed to rats, does some interesting things.

175

176

15 DECEMBER 1953
I was up there at Oak Knoll for about a year, Oak Knoll Naval Hospital. And I used to walk around—all I had to do—I was a line officer and all I had to do was take off one collar ornament, and I became a doctor.
And there were so many doctors running around loose up there that nobody knew who was what or anything of the sort. And doctors are very sloppy— they forget to put on their jackets and they forget to wear their insignia and they forget to do all sorts of things. Everybody knows they're not very military.
And you wander into the department and start saying, "You know, I'm over from Project 65, and we were wondering what results you were getting today on pasteurized milk."
"Oh, so-and-so and so-and-so, sir."
I got into the medical library down there once—don't tell this story on me—but I got into the medical library down there very early. First moment I became ambulant and I could walk around, why, I headed down to the medical library and I was told rather frostily—by a large sign, fortunately—that only medical doctors were permitted in the medical library.
So I went out and I got a marine who was on crutches outside the library door and I pulled one collar ornament, stuck it in my pocket, and I said, "Say," I said, "as you come by the desk, you say to me, 'How are you this morning, doctor?'"
And he said, "Okay."
And so he did, and the librarian said—oh, he just said, "Well, do you wish to go on—were you looking for some special subject, doctor?"
And I said, "Well no, I'll go back and find it myself." And after that, had the run of the medical library.
And one day, why, one of the doctors from my own ward came in there and found me poring over the British colonial shipping board reports on tsetse-fay [tsetse-fly] fever or something of the sort like mad, and he said, "What the hell are you doing here?" You know—complimentary, so forth.
And I said, "I'm a doctor."
And he said, "You are!"
I said, "Yes, civil engineering," you know. (audience laughter) "Why, this is just body structure I'm studying, as to what's the stress and strain and tension members of the human body as measured by tsetse flies."
Yeah. The whole subject I studied during that whole year was just one subject. You talk about somebody being persistent! Just one subject, and that was "Let's see now, if the endocrine system is a relay system—it's the relay system—is it triggered structurally or mentally? Which is the instigator?"
And knowing some Freudian analysis, I would go ahead, then I would set up things so that we would knock apart some second dynamic obsession in an individual and find out whether or not he'd gain. And I used the people who were being used as subjects in the government projects there at Oak Knoll. This is very interesting. It made their records go zoom-zoom, zoom-zoom, zoom-zoom. Of course, nobody ever paid much attention to their records, anyhow.
And a little doctor up there by the name of Yankewitz—I used to prowl around there once in a while—Yankewitz was a pretty good guy. And he came— he headed this project, and it had to do with endocrine system. They were trying to do something for people released from Japanese prison camps. These people couldn't eat. And if they did eat it went immediately into fat. They couldn't absorb any protein. And I had discovered that there was an immediate index between protein and healing tissue. I used to talk to Yankewitz about it, and he'd listen tolerantly, because he didn't think I was doing anything, see.

ADDITIONAL REMARKS: ENERGY PROBLEMS
And one day Yankewitz came down past a park bench down there in a lower part—Oak Knoll's sort of built on a marina basis. And I was sitting down there and I was talking to this young marine officer and I was saying, "Now," something on the order of, "and your mother told you, then—what was that again about masturbation? Now, what was that again?" And it was blowing locks on the subject of sexual repression. Because I wanted this guy as a test subject, because I could go up to Yankewitz's clinic, see, and read the guy's records after he'd been tested a couple of days later.
It was government testosterone. And they were administering testosterone to these people, and I would go up and look on the records and find one that testosterone wasn't registering on. You know, he couldn't absorb testosterone. And then they would send him over to the mess hall and put him on special diets in the hope that he would then absorb testosterone. They never did. Didn't matter what diet they put them on or what regimen or what exercise, what they did to them, nothing changed about the testosterone consumption.
But blowing locks on elementary sexual subjects . . . See, I'd have this, then—the fellow had been on all these regimens and he—the records were beautiful and then I'd catch him some time when he was sunning himself and blow a few dozen locks on the second dynamic and go up and look at the records. And all of a sudden, this fellow was absorbing testosterone. Yankewitz would have marked down it was the exercise prescribed or something of the sort.
And when he came down by one day and he overheard some of these questions—so he interviewed the patient after I'd interviewed the patient. And he took a look at me, he came down to my ward and he said, "See here. What's the idea," he said, "of keeping me in the dark," he said, "about what's going on around here? See, because something weird has been happening to my records."
You know, it's awfully easy—very easy—to knock enough locks out of somebody's mind to shift his endocrine balance. This is fabulously easy when you are subjecting his endocrine balance to an exacting test, and—it's very easy to alter the tests by treating him mentally, and almost impossible to alter them by treating him physically.
The endocrine curve does a very funny thing—it doesn't matter what gland you're treating. You shoot him a shot, see, and his activity on that subject goes up bzzzzzt, see? And then it comes up bzzzz and then goes below the point, and then comes up zing and resumes the point—even though you keep on giving him the shots every day. See, you give him the right number of shots and the curve goes zing, zing, zing. Sometimes it just will continue just a hairline above constant, and then you interrupt the shots and it goes way down here, and then it starts up here again and hits the level again. It's fascinating.
And it was out of that year's study that I concluded rather conclusively, on a very large series of tests, that the body cannot be monitored by what we call structure. And by monitored, I meant healed. It can be changed by structure, but only deteriorated. It's a one-way route. Now, you can put a fellow in a better frame of mind by making him cheerful and walk and get around—you know, exercise and amusement and different environment, and you can do things with him—slight things. And they show up as major only when the condition he has is perilously imbalanced.
When you get a good, rigid, solid, down depression (a dementia praecox, which is way down here, you know, good and solid)—oh, nothing—nothing changes the darn thing unless you hit it from a mental side of the ledger. And you hit—start working it from the mental side and it'll break up.

177

178

15 DECEMBER 1953
So when 1946 rolled around and I was mustered out, February the 16th, 1946—why, I had practically anything in my pocket I wanted on the subject of tests. The US government, by the way—it didn't know it did this either— it suddenly gave me an enormous amount of compensation pay. I was badly disabled, they said, and they gave me all of my back compensation pay all in one lump sum. And it was enough money to set up an office in Hollywood and which, by pushing a typewriter and keeping the office running on office expenses with fiction stories, I could keep running very handsomely.
But they not only gave me all the research data I needed to find out which way we had to go to solve the problem, mental or physical—the answer was mental. Okay, that took a year to dig out, the next thing to do was let's apply it and find out how far we can apply this physical thing, and they gave me the money, in terms of veteran's checks, in order to set up that office. So I think, really, we ought to put up the—make the official sign of Dianetics or Scientology the eagle laying eggs—golden eggs! (audience laughter)
Yes, it always does that. But that's true of any government. What—just as an aside here, you might sometimes wonder about this balance and so on. I'm sorry that I don't have the records. I'm sure they're still at Oak Knoll, because I know nobody in the government ever read any records—they just make them. But anybody that really cared to—and you going out, maybe years from now you might find yourself on a hospital staff, in a government consulting capacity or something of the sort, somebody's insisting that you make a whole flock of tests that do this or do that—there is an enormous piece of work for somebody to do; that's just big. And it merely consists of trying to monitor the change of tone of the body, the tonus of muscles and so forth, with endocrine fluids, structurally, and then altering it mentally. And you'll find out that it will alter mentally—when hit from a mental side, the endocrine system will change.
Do you know you can change anybody's endocrine balance with one little technique which is so simple that you're liable to miss it? But we're just talking now—and we're not talking about making Clears, we're just talking about changing somebody's endocrine balance. We're talking about something super that the medical profession's been trying to do for a long time—they've been unable to do—we can do this with great ease, and with great ease.
You take that Chart of Attitudes and you run rising postulates on it. And you just start from one end to the other and you just go back over it, back over it. And you don't have to do it long. And you'll boot somebody right up, straight up through. All of a sudden, somewhere along the line in the first ten minutes or the first hour or something like this, the guy will get a little jolt and boy, you're on. You just tuned in on Tibet. Because what you did was key out the suppressive postulates—just run the bottom and the top. And of course, that is a method of doing Certainty Processing. You see? I "know not." You know, "I know not. I know not."
"Now get the idea you know."
"I—I know. I know not. I know. Know not. Know."
Do that right along the column, one column after the other, one time for each column, then you go back over all the columns again, you go back over all the columns again—just the bottom, just the top. Rising Scale postulates.
And there's another way to do it, you get somebody exteriorized and you say—he says, "I can't study. I can't study."
You say, "Well now, all right, get the idea 'I can't study, it's hardly— impossible for me to study.' Now let's see how far you can better the idea."
Male voice: Hm.

ADDITIONAL REMARKS: ENERGY PROBLEMS
And that's kicking it up by gradients.
But the other one will work. You can just—you could get some girl who's moaning around and she's all upset and her endocrine system's all shot to the devil or something of the sort, and just give her bottom to top, bottom to top, bottom to top—just sudden jumps. And sooner or later (snap), why, she's going to get a jolt. Because those are essentially the key buttons.
You could put to that thing "I can destroy" and "I cannot destroy." That is—and "I can create" and "I can't create," is a couple of additional buttons on that that'd do something.
Male voice: You know that also works on people who think they have lice in their hair?
No kidding.
Male voice: Yeah, we had a gal up there like that.
No kidding. What'd you run on her?
Male voice: Oh, made her get concepts.
Mm-hm.
Male voice: Finally she got the idea that survival doesn't mean "Ugh!" but it means living damn good. No more lice in her hair. Of course, she never had had.
[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]
When you completely neglect the input ratio that the body is used to, and when you're processing a preclear and he all of a sudden starts knocking off of food, you'll get a disturbance of anchor points. If you have somebody who can't see his anchor points, the first thing you should decide about it is there's energy hunger going on here. Can't see anchor points—well, it isn't that he can't see it, there's nothing there to be seen.
Male voice: Yeah, but the anchor points turn into planets, and they're too damn far apart.
Yeah?
Male voice: Same with you?
Yeah. You've got everything pulled in—the fellow pulls everything in. But he will tell you, "I am not pulling these mock-ups in."
There, by the way, is the way Acceptance Level Processing works, which is more of an educational process than anything else. It demonstrates the inversions. It's in one of the PABs—PAB 13, 14 and 15,I think it is. All three of them cover Acceptance Level Processing.
Boy, how that does establish the acceptance level of groups and civilizations, though. They're pretending they take one level, and you start processing somebody out of the group, and boy, the other level shows up—ssllrrp, ssllrrp! into the bank it goes. You have them mock up somebody who is horribly diseased and so forth and that person just goes into the bank, bang! Have them mock up a beautiful girl or something like that and she just stands there. "So what?" the fellow will say.
"Well, all right, now mock up this horrible, diseased old hag," see, and so forth—ssllrrp, ssllrrp! That's very amusing. It's not as therapeutic as it is educational.
Why don't you take a ten-minute break there, and get some Group Processing.

179



Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause
A lecture given on 16 December 1953

This is December the 16th, the first lecture of the day.
And today we're going to take up, on theory, assignment of cause. And I want you hereinafter as aforestated, whereas and wherein (we've just had an HAS board meeting) as in hereinafter and aforestated, pursuant to any condemnations, to recognize that you have something by which you can evaluate a technique without coming around and asking me about it. And this we will call assignment of cause.
A technique is as good as it does not assign cause too thoroughly to something other than the thetan. Now, you understand that just the principle of assignment of cause itself will pull somebody, now and then, out of the soup. But every time he assigns cause other than himself, he goes into a little bit less of a self-determined condition. You see this?
Now, because he's done this all the way back on the track—he's assigned cause and assigned cause and assigned cause—we have a problem which is undone by permitting him to assign cause lesserly. I hope that's comprehensible, but it's—see, we have then, we let him assign cause to—on a big scale basis, and then we slow that down, we get them to assign cause a little less exteriorly and a little less exteriorly and a little less exteriorly until he's cause. And that's how we get him back into a state of responsibility.
Now, you understand that a person will continue to assign cause as long as he cannot himself create. He'll assign cause elsewhere so long as he can't create. So long as he remains convinced that he can't create, then his assignment of cause goes elsewhere.
The big trick in the whole universe is leading people to assign cause. Now, we—they have assigned cause first on a good basis, and then they assign it on a bad basis. They will assign cause exterior to themselves for good effects; they say, "Well, so-and-so did that and that was a real good effect and so on."
Well, this gets them into the groove of assigning cause. And now, when they have hit that groove, they plow in a little deeper and they start assigning bad cause exterior to themselves. And then they assign good cause and bad cause, and they assign it more broad and more broad and more broadly, until at last, God has created all space, completely independent of anything anybody else had to say about it, and nobody has any part or parcel in it, and the society itself is cause. And this is cause and that is cause and something else is cause. And the preclear's not cause, but unfortunately at the time he assumes that

181

182

16 DECEMBER 1953
he's not cause he's unable to generate any energy of any kind. And he just bogs right there and that's the end of him practically, for all forceful purposes.
So what is this problem in terms of Dianetics and Scientology? You'll find out the three-year stretch which you can observe, as witnessed by lectures and writings, is a narrowing perimeter of cause, which crossed—just after Science of Survival, probably with AP&A—which crossed the border and took up full responsibility. And for the first time said that self-determinism had a great deal to do with it.
Narrowing perimeter of cause. The first book, for instance, is—permits people grandly to assign cause to the family and the whole universe and to engrams and everything else, and never even mentions that the person himself might be cause. That book sold a hundred thousand copies. Assignment of cause. Okay.
Now, we notice that we're getting very much better results by bringing up a preclear into a level of cause itself, and we don't have the same public. We've got lots of public. Don't ever think we've got as little public as the medical profession would like you to believe, but—we've got lots and lots of public. The difference is that the public we're getting is now much more the responsible level of the public than the irresponsible level; it's a better public. All right.
Let's look at this, though, in terms of auditing. And we find out that the auditor is there and is a vital part of the session, so that the preclear can assign cause. But he can assign cause now to something very specific—an auditor. See that?
Now, he can narrow down the assignment of cause to the auditor, and go through his various drills, and then get up to a point where, in terms of assigning cause to engrams and energy and other things, he can have less and less assigned cause, and be more and more himself cause. And at length, when does he get rid of the auditor? Well, he gets rid of the auditor at the time when he himself is capable of being, to some degree, cause. And the problem was never resolved in earlier work by man.
As early as man had any tales that were going by word of mouth down through the tribes and so on, the assignment of cause was the primary function of the witch doctor, of any medicine man and so on. He existed there to assign cause. And everybody assigned cause to him so that he could assign cause for them. And this cause went out into the base—"Well, the explanation for why the lightning bolt hit your wigwam has to do with . . ."
And now we go into the gods of the streams and the woods and "The reason why you didn't get any game today in hunting, is because by tripping over that log and not spitting the proper ritualistic spit, you were offensive to the god of that glade. And for a small fee, I can intercede for you and make this straight. Now, this is the spitting ritual, and you must go over there now in the dark of night and if you don't get et, you will come back forgiven." Well—the assignment of cause.
Superstition is a grand, wide assignment of cause. Very indefinite, without anything specific, but tremendous amounts of imagination in it, you see. The fellow, he eats overripened whale down on the beach and he gets a stomachache, and so the god of stomachs, of course, are then cause. And he can give you one of the wildest explanations for this, you see. He says, "Well it's this way: At the confluence of the full moon, I failed to bow thrice to the right and twice to the left, and so one of the minor gods who lives in the upper tumbrels thereby took offense and has been patiently waiting since that time to incorporate my gastritis." And he's got this all worked out. Highly personalized, isn't it? So the

TECHNIQUES WHICH DO OR DO NOT ASSIGN CAUSE
fellow really must think of himself as quite important for gods to take such an enormous interest in him personally.
In other words, even—in spite of how bad this looks, it really isn't a negation of being cause. The fellow thinks of himself as quite important; he thinks of himself as able to offend; he's dangerous—he's even dangerous to gods and so on.
Now, when we get into logic, the assignment of cause by means of logic is the most hidden—the most thoroughly hidden and insidious method of not being responsible, known. A fellow can logically work out by gradients—gradient scales— how he himself is not even vaguely responsible in any direction, and so you get an electronic society. It is the electronic society which is in itself the most overridden by religion, since the religion is so, so well worked out. You see that? No amount of logic can replace some good, solid, imaginative superstition. Good old superstition!
You say, "Well, not going to have good luck this next month because when I first looked at the full moon—or when I first looked at the new moon, I saw it through the branch of a tree. And the branch of the tree made the sign 'Y' and that means Yamlicla, the Queen of the Underearth and so—she is not in agreement with the projects which come forward—and so we're just not going to be very active this next month." Chief of the tribe telling his tribe this sort of thing, you see—or the witch doctor and so on.
Well, so they don't do anything very much. And then they're going to have a big battle, and the chief witch doctor shoots down a bird and slits it open and throws its entrails out on a rock and by George! what do you know? You talk about omens—real good! And he tells everybody, pounds the drum and so forth, and he says, "Look at that bird. Look at those guts. Come on, get in there and pitch. We can't lose today!" Swish! They don't!
Even the Roman Empire ran on augury—as glorious an empire as that.
Well, logic won't figure it out for you, fellow. You might as well just take some kind of a beautiful, broad, grand slam against the universe, and say, "Well, the two stars which are the guardian stars of the opposing corporation happen to be in confluence with Saturn, and they're going to lose on the stock market this month. So the best thing for us to do is just make a solid push in their direction, because we can't fail. And the chief witch doctor that we've employed up there on the third floor, Room 221, has worked it all out there," and so on.
Honest. Honest. It's eight times as good. Because it is an admission of man's inability to assign cause. It's a sort of a "ha-ha" on the subject of cause. I mean, it's not a solid, known fact that he can assign cause by logic and thus predict consequences.
You get what the trick of logic is? It says, "Now, look. You, you dog, have sufficient computive ability (whatever that is) to calculate mentally the consequences of your own actions, and therefore your logic must be"—you see, he didn't have any in the beginning—"your logic must be faulty, and something must be wrong with you, because you didn't predict the house was going to burn down tomorrow, and yet you could have predicted it. I'm sure that if you'd had an electrician around to look at the wiring and somebody to hook up the baby properly, it wouldn't have burned down." And you can just go on this basis. Well, what's this? This is really crowding somebody's space. That's crowding in on him very close; that's pressing him from every side, saying, "Look, you have something known as brains, why don't you use these brains? Why don't you use this logic? You're wrong! You're to blame!" And it'll drive somebody out

183

184

16 DECEMBER 1953
of responsibility. And so we get, in a modern society running on logic, less responsibility than you ever heard of in a tribe or in a great former nation.
The amount of responsibility found within the halls of a large American or British corporation—the amount of real responsibility, the willingness to take initiative and action found there—might possibly be visible in an electron microscope if quadrupled in size. They don't take responsibility.
You go up to one of these modern (quote) "captains of industry" (unquote) and ask him to give a command to the helm. He won't! He won't give a command. He won't do anything, he knows he can't do anything about it. He'll be impartial. And he'll hem and he'll haw and he'll twist his finger, and . . . Honest. You say, "Here is a man that—this man could take action." He's totally capable of bringing about certain effects, and yet he won't bring about any of these effects. He won't give anybody the word, he won't speed anything up. He sits around and waits for the union to argue with the personnel chief, and somebody or other.
If he went down himself, probably, and talked to the strikers—you know, I mean got out from behind his barricade, one desk—and went down and talked to strikers and say, "What you guys mad about, or who's telling you to be mad?" He's supposed to be the captain of that ship. Well, a strike is in essence a mutiny. The workers have no feeling that management has any responsibility these days— they don't do anything. They'd say they've got to push management around somehow or another or make it take responsibility.
The workers go out on strike mostly because they see everything so darned inefficient and everything running sort of downhill, nobody taking responsibility for them or their welfare.
Well, evidently it's quite valuable to have somebody take some responsibility and leadership in a group; because people used to work a lot harder, and they used to work with a lot more faith and a lot more enthusiasm than they do today in this society of logic.
Now I, maybe, am driving this point a little far from home. I'm trying to show to you that condemning somebody because he didn't figure out the future consequences of his action is actually a very dirty trick. Because it's based upon the premise that you can compute, with the factors available, a future consequence. That is the premise. Well, it'd take an actuarial mathematician to demonstrate this adequately—that it's impossible.
The number of factors involved in the next twenty-four hours of any day, go beyond the ability of an adding machine or a Marchant calculator—they just go beyond it. I mean there's so many factors can come in from so many directions, that to tell somebody it's all predictable and force it into his cognizance that it is all predictable when it isn't, is another kind of trick which is sort of like the early trick the thetans used to play called the "God trick." You see? You hang somebody for not using something he doesn't have. You hang somebody for not using his brains, and he's completely convinced that he has brains, and he's completely convinced that these brains will, if permitted to do so, figure out the entire future for him and just predict everything.
They have set up brains, in other words, as a crystal ball. And I assure you that a crystal ball is a lot better. Because it at least permits the thetan to sit there relaxed and know the future, rather than figure it out.
Soon as you try to put significance into data, significance into data, endlessly, endlessly, endlessly, you're assigning cause then to an infinity of confusion. Nobody ever figured it out this way.
If anybody ever used data to figure anything out, you—it runs something like this: here's the United States and here's Russia. These countries both have

TECHNIQUES WHICH DO OR DO NOT ASSIGN CAUSE
atom bombs. It is quite obvious that they are both full of people. It is equally obvious that sooner or later somebody is going to get mad at somebody else and they're going to start throwing these atom bombs around. And one has learned during a recent conflict that when you give men explosives, it's odd, but occasionally somebody is hurt.
And this sort of follows. I used to tell people during the last war, "Well"— they'd be complaining about the war—"what do you expect? You let fellows play around with explosives, and somebody gets hurt. And nobody ever thinks anybody will get hurt, but they put all these explosives out, and then somebody does, and everybody's very surprised."
Well, the point I'm making is, the logical conclusion is that there's going to be an atomic war. Also, the logical conclusion is that the central plains of Europe are going to get run over.
If we were running on logic at all, none of this would ever have happened. This would have gotten stopped in 1918 at Versailles. We had the power to do it at that time; everybody did, everybody could have gotten around and straightened it up. And as a result, they set up Germany so Germany couldn't do anything else but rearm, and then because Germany rearms against Russia because they want to get rid of Russia, they get rid of Germany.
And this is all done by logic. See, this is all logical, and this is the result of logic. See, it's man's insane conviction that the data will deliver into his hands sufficient material for action on his part and then that he will then take that action. But a person who continually uses data does not have sufficient energy to take any action.
And so the—everybody might know all these facts, and they act like a bunch of stuffed dummies sitting in a canoe that is drifting down a river—it just keeps drifting. Everybody figures it all out, but nobody has enough responsibility to do anything about what they've figured out. You see that?
The great military leaders of all time, by the way, have been noted for never, at any time, using anything even vaguely connected with logic. They either got hold of a good soothsayer who could say his sooths smoothly, or they went over to Delphi and asked the oracle there, and some girl stand over the crack of smoke and get a little bit drunk and quote a riddle, and everybody'd say, "Well, what do you know, there's a riddle there, we'll figure it out as we please now, and off we go." That was what Delphi was for.
And as recently as Hitler, we have things running off according to this kind of a schedule.
Well, it's not true that sanity and superstition are opposing. And neither is it true that sanity and logical arrangement of data are similar order of things. You see, sanity—if it depended upon a person's being logical all the time, a person wouldn't be sane at all. Because that's the most insane thing you can do, is use logic to predict the future. Now, that's really nutty.
The only way you'll ever know the future is just sit down and know the future. I mean, it's one of these Q-and-A propositions. But if you use data, data, data, data, data—and from day to day you use data and data, you'll eventually not be sane anymore. Because you will have told yourself all the time, "Look, I can figure it out. Look, I can figure it out. Look, I can figure it out. Look, I can figure it out." That's what you've kept saying to yourself all the time, and so you've immediately said—after each one of those, you've said, "Look, I can't figure it out. So there's something wrong with my knowingness."
So the dependency upon data comes about to the highest level of aberration

185

186

16 DECEMBER 1953
there is. It makes the thetan wrong. See the big trick there? The thetan becomes wrong because of this use of data to predict.
Now, it may sound weird to you at this stage of the game, that superstition is a higher order of civilized state than a logical, mathematical order. That happens to be true, because superstition has just slumped out of the level of "Well, everybody knew if he'd just sit down and know."
Now, if you run this "where you will be" and "where others will be" present, past and future, and "where objects will be" and "who you aren't" and "who other people aren't" present, past and future, and—you know that you eventually get more and more relaxed and more and more relaxed and more and more relaxed. Well, one of the things is, is you go into the future. You begin to know where you'll be, you see, and you know where things will be, and you just know.
And now the big trick is—and this is the earliest trick after the "God trick," the earliest one—you don't have to prove it. See? You know there's no data going to be standing there to prove it for you. And the essence of mathematics is "prove it."
Well, "proof immediately introduces nontrust, and the first level of nontrust that the thetan reaches is proof. And I said the highest order of aberration in the Doctorate tapes is "convinced," you see? Well, that's proof—"convinced." That's still true.
So mathematics sits out and uses some kind of a system other than the thetan to prove that such and so is going to happen. It uses data to arrive at a conviction, and this states immediately parallel to it, that one has to have impacts in order to be certain, because the data, in essence, is a series of barriers or impacts.
So, knowingness doesn't happen to depend upon the time stream and it doesn't happen to depend upon data and it doesn't depend upon geographical location and it just doesn't have any dependency. Because highest-level knowing-ness and highest-level causativeness are the same statement.
The best way to know any future is to cause one. And that's why, you see, when you start consulting the oracle at Delphi, you've taken a step downhill. You've assigned cause to the future—for the future elsewhere.
And when you get down so mean and impoverished imaginatively that you start to assign prediction of the future to data—oh boy, is that debased. You see, you don't even give it the color and aesthetic of an oracle at Delphi, you see? You don't have this beautiful girl standing over the volcanic fumes and consulting with the gods and getting drunk over the fumes, and going and quoting some sort of a riddle. And the oracle doesn't get a big costly present of ivory and gold or something of the sort and there aren't—oh, and see, there's no color to it at all.
The fellow says, "Now I'm going to be logical." You know, he sits down and chews on a cigarette or something of the sort and he says, "Now, let's see, let me figure this out." What a conceited fellow he is. Anybody that'll sit down and say, "Let me figure this out," admits he's trapped somewhere.
Well, cause must be all around him—he must be surrounded. He is, too— right in close. He's right there in a very, very narrow piece of space. He can't figure it out.
If he said, "All right. Now, let's see. Now I'm going to know about it, and I'm just going to know what all these factors are going to amount to," he actually will come up with something like a solution. No matter how strange the solution may sound, that's probably what's going to happen.

TECHNIQUES WHICH DO OR DO NOT ASSIGN CAUSE
But now let's go a little bit higher, and instead of saying, "Now, let's see, how can I figure this out so I know what's going to happen?" supposing he says, "Now, let's see, I'm going to accomplish end goal." See, he says this, "I'm going to accomplish end goal." And that's all he does, and he accomplishes end goal. And that's very simple. Then he really has predicted the future, hasn't he? Or he says, "I'm going to undo end goal." So he does. He's really predicted the future then.
So one predicts the future as much as one is cause. The future isn't a pattern laid out to abuse and bully you. The future is a beautiful playground that nobody happens to be combining. You talk about virgin territory—the most virgin territory there is, is the future. You can do anything you want with it. Nobody's doing anything with it.
I mean, everybody's just kind of drifting along, saying, "I'm not cause and I'm not going to do anything. I'm not going to change any particles. Let's have a board meeting. Let's have a this, let's have a that. And let's not have any cause here anyplace. Let's just drift along and skid along and go along. And somehow or other we're going to wind up somewhere or other on the track, and we'll find a future waiting there for us. Isn't it nice that we're so logical that there's always a future waiting for us."
And one day they get up out of bed and put their foot over the edge of the bed and there's no floor. And they say, "Ulp! There's no future waiting there for me." They say, "Gee, that's funny." And they feel around for the floor and hit the ceiling and—gee, it's all disarranged. Isn't it peculiar? The barriers are all upset. And they don't know which direction south is or why George isn't. They just haven't got any of this—and so on and so on and so on. They just didn't put enough future there for them to have a future, that's all that happened to that thetan.
Now he's depending on a GE to put a future there for him, see? So he leans out of bed and can't hit the floor with his hat because there's no floor there. He has to put a floor there for a floor to be there. He has to cause a future playground in order to continue to have a future playground for himself. And that's what—about what it amounts to.
So we get assignment of cause, then, as the dwindling spiral and so on. Because as one assigns cause, he's all right until he assigns something to resist. And there is his single error: He thinks things are resisting him or he is resisting something.
You know, a very laughable thing: The only thing that is totally baffling to a thetan, when he finally works this out is, you know he isn't pushing on anything? I mean, he isn't pushing on anything inside the body. He isn't even connected with what you call flesh and blood.
He can't resist if he tried! What can he resist? It's the most nice balance. It—he has to be so careful to get his wavelengths in there just right and to match up everything just right so that he will get a counter-impact. Oh, what a neat job! He just has to work all day and all night and on Sundays too, in order to get into the state of mind where he's actually resisting something and something's resisting him. In other words, so he can feel things and have impacts against walls.
Well, now one day he discovers that he isn't resisting anything one way or the other, and he puts up some force and impact into a wall and it goes kawap! see? And the wall that he's put up there, he can just see that wall cave right in and fall down. And its impact he puts into another wall, and that wall goes down and other walls go down and all the machinery he's been putting up just starts to explode.

187

188

16 DECEMBER 1953
Why? Because he's been resisting himself and that's the only person he can resist. And all of a sudden he decided—he elects to let it go. And then he starts getting mad and upset. And, as somebody said, "You—there's enough impact—you put up some of this impact, why, now every time I put it up, it takes down half of Camden." It just knocks everything flat, you see?
In other words, there's a tremendous native resistance and counter-resistance. The fellow is putting up the counter-resistance himself.
Now, did you ever see anybody use muscle-building exercises whereby they— what they call "dynamic tension," I think it is. So that you carefully—you put out your hand or something like that, and you get half of the muscles to pull back against the other half of the muscles, up to a point where you're pulling in against your own muscles, and then you go back out the same way, see? So that you're fighting your own arm up here, and it comes up here—and we go real heavy—and then you turn it around and you fight your own arm back down and so forth, so there's lots of latent stress. Boy, you develop the biggest muscles you ever saw. They won't lift a thing, but boy, you sure develop muscles. You can stand up there with a leopard skin on and they sigh worse than they do over Perry Como. Anyway . . . Although I think all those girls are hired by his press agent. Anyway—I keep seeing the same girls in the crowd.
Anyway, dynamic tension is an example of this. Here is this thetan—now, let's just take it on an energy basis: Here's this thetan carefully pushing in against himself so that he can hold out against pushing in against himself, see, and he eventually gets into a terrific muscle-bound effort. And you say, "Be three feet back of your head."
"Can't. I'm held in."
He's held in, huh? I mean, I'm afraid that I have to repress myself while I'm auditing to keep from laughing, quite often. Because you just look at the fellow and very often he has a big, black hairy arm—a third or a fifth arm or something—out there wrapped around the outside of his ridges, see, and he's just pulling in like mad against himself, see. And then he's in here again, and he's pushing out like mad against these ridges, and then he says, "The body's got hold of me, I can't move."
The trick as an auditor is to make him let go of himself. That's the only trick there is in auditing.
He says, "It's Papa that's holding me in and it's Mama that's holding me in and it's this and it's that and it's other things and it's the atmosphere, and it's the walls and the barriers, the barricades"—assignment of cause, assignment of cause.
So we get this business of restriction; he feels restricted because he is resisting. And if we can get somebody to resist something—resist evil, for instance—he will eventually resist evil until he has no space left. And then he'll have to become evil to have any space, so then he resists good until he has no space left, you see? And then he has to be good to have any space, and then he resists being good, now he has to resist evil until he has no space left. It's resisted him clean on in, you see—only he's doing it to himself, you see. You get what the inverting scale is? How we invert all the way down the line.
The fellow resists—he is good, he decides he is good. Now hereafter, he's going to resist evil. He defines what evil is—I don't care what evil is. You make evil almost anything. You can make eating ice-cream sodas evil—eating ice-cream sodas and dropping bus tokens in gutters, that's evil. And the next thing you know, the fellow does nothing but eat ice-cream sodas and drop bus tokens in gutters. And we come along as an auditor, and we find out he has

TECHNIQUES WHICH DO OR DO NOT ASSIGN CAUSE
this strange obsession. Well, he does these things. Well, you shouldn't pay any attention to them, it's just a symptom of this inversion and counter-inversion and inversion and inversion.
See, he resists that. Then after a while, after he's done that for a while, he resists what those things would resist, and then they swamp him out and he's— back and forth, back and forth. Each time he has to take other space—and that's the only thing wrong with an inversion, he's taking other-determinism and other space as the pattern for his own action and motion.
So we have this fellow creating enormous quantities of effort—oh, just enormous quantities of effort—and saying it's others' effort. "It's the effort of others," he says. So that all of his own strength thereby and therefore passes from him forever (unless he gets some auditing) on the basis of effort and counter-effort. There goes his strength, there goes his energy—what we were talking about yesterday.
What absorbs this person's ability to handle or create energy? It's very simple what absorbs it—he does. Well, how does he absorb it? He absorbs it by saying he isn't doing it, that something else is doing it; something else is doing all this resisting or all this pulling away. See, the other side of resisting, of course, is pulling away. People hate to be pulled away from, worse than they hate to resist, by the way. They hate to have things taken away from them.
What do we have, then, in this? We have a problem where somebody who is actually eight dynamics starts to play and counter-play all the dynamics within himself to his own loss. And the only one that loses is himself because that's the only one that's playing.
Now you start getting him out of his body, some fashion or another, and you'll find he's pushing and he's pulling and he can't do this and he can't do that. Well, let's say he got out of his body and he couldn't get a beam off of a bedpost—just like that, he couldn't get the beam off—and this made him sort of frantic. What's holding the beam on the bedpost? He is.
Well, how does he get into such a condition that he can't put the beam on the bedpost and get it off? Well, he puts a beam on a bedpost and then he, without knowing it, holds the beam on the bedpost, which scares him into confessing that he can't do anything about bedposts or beams, so he says, "I have no force or power."
How does he get into that frame of mind? Well, he gets into the frame of mind by being made to assign cause. He starts doing it himself and assigning cause and saying somebody else is doing it, and we're back to the fellow playing chess with himself. So we're back to the basic tenets of automaticity and randomity with the assignment of cause. So he says, "The assignment of cause is somebody else, it's somebody else, it's somebody else," and he just keeps on doing it for automaticity and randomity until he gets a very involved thing. He gets way out of his own location, his own personality and everything else. He can make any personality he wants to. But one of the ways to do this is to keep him from actually duplicating anything and then enforcing the fact that he must duplicate something. But you say, enforcing him to do so, or so on, would be—that's—that looks like there is something outside him which is forcing him to do it.
Well, you've got his basic wish in there to have some randomity, to have some action, and there's a button that goes with this, it's "I've got to have enemies— just got to have enemies." You'd be amazed.
"I've got to hate." And just statements like "I hate you" and so on, put up into the walls one after the other monotonously. "I've got to have enemies" as

189

190

16 DECEMBER 1953
a postulate, moved around. "There always has to be another side," moved around. This sort of thing. Because his own action and counter-action is built out of these factors, that there—he's got to assume there is something else in operation before he can operate.
Well now, the truth of the matter is, he can go into communication with something else and he can go into communication with others. But they're doing the same thing he is. And they're only pretending that they're in agreement with him so that they can continue in resistance with him.
If a big bully is going to stand him up down on the corner and hit him in the nose, why, by golly, he'll get hit in the nose and his nose will bleed. There's no doubt about that whatsoever. You can observe that immediately. But don't fall into the trap of assuming just because MEST will impact against MEST, that MEST is—is. That doesn't prove that it is. All it proves is that MEST can push against MEST. That's not much of a proof.
You apply that to other things: You say, "Well, now if one fairy came up and hit another fairy in the nose and then they both flew away, you'd have to assume that there was interchange of communication amongst fairies."
And the fellow would say, "What the devil are you talking about, there's no such thing as fairies!"
And you say, "Now, just a minute, we said if one fairy hit another fairy in the nose and knocked him down and then these two fairies flew away, if this happened, then we would have to assume that there was communication between fairies."
"Yeah," he says, "what are you talking about? There's no such thing as fairies."
And you say, "Now, wait a minute, let's go over this real slow. If there is such a thing as a fairy, if two fairies met, and one hit the other one in the nose and the other one fell down and they both flew away, then you'd have to admit that there was intercommunication between two fairies."
The fellow would say, "But there's no such thing as a fairy." See? That's because he's made a prior postulate. He says, "There's no such thing as fairies." He just tells you what the prior postulate is each time. He's trying to argue with you. He isn't arguing with you. He's merely telling you that he has never agreed in this lifetime to the existence of fairies.
So, now let's put it this way: "If one prizefighter—if prizefighters exist, and if one prizefighter hit another prizefighter in the nose and knocked the other prizefighter down and then they both got up and walked away, you'd have to admit that prizefighters had communication between each other."
And he'd say, "Certainly, I know. There's—well, there's—Joe Louis hit somebody or another, sure he'd knock him down, so forth. You know, he used to pack a terrific KO" and so on. That's perfectly Jake with this character.
He's completely overlooked something; he's just overlooked something beautifully.
You've again said, "If prizefighters exist."
Well, he's already accepted the fact that prizefighters exist, so the fact that one prizefighter can hit another prizefighter in the nose proves the existence of prizefighters? Oh no, it doesn't. It proves that he has agreed to the fact that prizefighters exist.
Now, you can take mathematics and do almost anything with them, but there happens to be such a subject as an obvious truth; and that happens to be one of them. If fairies exist, and if they did hit each other then, then you'd have a communication.

TECHNIQUES WHICH DO OR DO NOT ASSIGN CAUSE
Well, if you've agreed upon the existence of fairies, you'd certainly then find an impact between the two of them. If you hadn't agreed on the existence of fairies, you'd play the devil.
Now, anybody trying to find an impact—has anybody been out of his head and had a little bit of difficulty trying to find the walls? You know? They weren't there quite and the body kept disappearing and everything kept disappearing?
Well, he's just agreed so hard, that he's anxious to find it. He isn't putting it there so he can find it, you see? You get the weird trick he's doing? He thinks something is going to be put there for him to find.
Well, there isn't anything there for him to find except his own agreement that there's something there for him to find. And if he agrees to this too heavily, then he doesn't ever put anything there to find, so he won't find anything. The automatic machinery runs down, in other words, and keys out and clips out. And after a while, he hasn't got any modus operandi to put anything there, because he says it's got to be put there for him. He's assigned cause to something else to put everything there for him. You see how he does this? If he keeps assigning cause to everything else to put something there for him, why, he will eventually not find anything, anywhere; and that's what happens to perception, essentially.
Now he says, "If I..." If he assigns cause to other things to give him energy, you see, he never puts any energy there. So eventually he says, "I have no energy, therefore I am weak, degraded and have no self-respect." Well, how's he get there? Well, he gets there on logic. There's where he arrives. It's very logical. Things keep pushing against you all the time, there's something pushing against you. That's logic. That's all there is to it. And there's nothing you can do about it either, because it's so logical.
And people are always assuming this one—they assume this, and it's a hidden factor in all logics: "Well, it's logical so there is nothing you can do about it." "It's logical" and "we're helpless" are synonyms. Logic is what you make logic. It's what you have agreed to will be logical. So we get agreement on a higher level than logic any day of the week.
Now, you might think that we're utterly mad to keep on talking here about superstition being senior to logic, and this is an age of reason. Let me tell you what they did in the last age of reason: They cut off the heads of every reasonable and educated man in the entire nation, i.e., France—Revolution, end of the eighteenth century. That was the great "Age of Reason." Hardly anybody's mentioned reason since.
You know, you'd be surprised, you ought to look over their works, I mean that's all they talked about—this was the Age of Reason. Everybody had a reason. What it all boiled down to, it was a problem in havingness. There was—too many people agreed they didn't have something and there were too few who had, so that by mob rule, it would overturn. This was the fraternity, liberty and equality. You see, the peasant had, as long as he didn't get out of balance with his—the aristocrats, the peasant still had.
And evidently the peasant had agreed to put himself into some kind of a slavish role somehow or another way back, so he'd lost his independence.
Didn't happen in England, by the way. The English yeoman maintained his independence straight through. And then one day, he picked up and got very expert with a longbow. Now, that's back in—about a thousand years ago, not quite a thousand years ago. The English yeoman got very expert with a longbow, and this longbow had a very high penetrative power on armor. And

191

192

16 DECEMBER 1953
so they had liberty, fraternity and equality in England for a long time before they got mixed up with it in France.
But there were no longbows in France. I don't quite know why, because they grow yew trees over there too, but it's just the way the civilizations went, is "Who could use the greatest reason?" Well, the English yeoman was very reasonable— two hundred and twenty paces worth. I don't know what the penetrative power of a longbow is, but it's getting up there close to a .22 bullet. It's—certainly did keep things nice and equal, though.
They didn't have this over in France, or they had basic agreements on impacts that were different than this. But the great "Age of Reason" was the great age of failure, and France has had a hard time picking herself up ever since. They had a kingdom later on. They immediately hired an emperor after they got rid of the aristocrats. They made aristocrats out of shopkeepers. Now, they—like Napoleon's family and so forth. They got an emperor because they were now all liberty, fraternity and "'égalidad." And after they got through with that, they got another king or an emperor and he built some wide streets in Paris—significant contribution to the world. And now they got some plains with some cows on them—not very many cows, though. The curve of civilization in France has not gone down since their Age of Reason, it has been in a full power dive—vertical. Fortunately, there's no bottom for them to hit.
MEST, by the way—you reach—you arrive, if you're thinking in terms of theta and MEST . . . Talking about this last night, we're—the end of the product in theta and MEST is you go halfway each time, see? If you're studying simulta¬neously theta and MEST, and if you're trying to make all of your applications be theta and MEST—neither overweighting one nor the other—you only get halfway to the goal each time. You split the remaining distance in half.
Now, you know the old problem of the fellow who starts out from town and he's going home, but he travels halfway home and then when he's halfway home, he travels the next halfway home—you know, half of the remaining distance. Now he travels half of the remaining distance, now he travels half of the remaining distance and half of the remaining distance and half of the remaining distance—and he never gets home. He never will, theoretically, he never will get home. He can't arrive.
Well, that's the Tone Scale, actually. Finite death is a nonarrival point. One never gets down there if he's handling equally theta and MEST. He just goes down halfway toward zero. Each time he goes halfway toward zero, and at the bottom of the line there, you get all those jammed-in inversions and so forth, right down at the bottom of the scale there. Everything is inverting and inverting and inverting and the inversions are inverting and inverting and inverting and inverting and inverting, inverting. It's always halfway to it—no death there, it's just halfway to it.
Well, looking over this problem of assignment of cause, to be a little more intelligible, you have an enormous range of things to which your preclear can assign cause.
Now, if he has to take all the cause himself, he has no game at all. You merely get him to play the "only one." And if he's still superconvinced that there are other things fighting him all the time, then, if he's superconvinced of that— "they're all against him" sort of thing—then he does wind up as the "only one."
So, we'll turn around and look at it the other way and we find out if we make him take all cause, then he has no action at all.
Now, if we make him take cause in the form of blame, then he won't want cause at all. We show him he's all bad cause and so on.

TECHNIQUES WHICH DO OR DO NOT ASSIGN CAUSE
But we let him blame all of his troubles on this, and blame all of his troubles on that, and blame all of his troubles on something else, and then blame all of his troubles on something else, and blame all his troubles on something else— we could just keep going this way, by the way, if this investigation hadn't been done. If it had been done compulsively, you see, or on a stimulus-response basis, this would be exactly what would have happened. That isn't however, what happened. It follows somewhat that pattern because there's a change involved.
Well, what happens is—entirely different thing: you get lighter assignments of cause. The assignments of cause are lighter and lighter and lighter and lighter and lighter and lighter and lighter. And finally, a fellow just stands there as cause. He's saying, "Gee-whiz, how'd I get here?"
And that's the investigation; that's the track of investigation. It's toward making the individual be cause for himself, and all of its techniques are involved directly with this goal.
Now you understand how to evaluate a technique? Any technique has the liability of assigning guilt or cause or bad cause broadly to a single object— any technique does this. A technique is best which does it the least, and which most validates the individuality and causation of the preclear himself without blaming him.
Now, a technique is also as bad as it lays the blame on the preclear and as good as it permits him to assume causation without having to have blame. There's no discipline involved in processing. In this, I mean there's no punishment involved in processing. A person doesn't get well because you have punished him through something or other. That's demon exorcism. They used to think people got well because they were whipped—whipped until the demons left. They put the body into such a horrible condition that nothing could stay in it, you see, and then the fellow was well.
Probably about the first thing they chased out was the thetan. That left a lot of entities that—and the entities have the sole operation of assigning cause to everything else. All they can do is withhold information, an entity. They can't cause anything. All right. That's mostly because entities themselves are caused by the thetan, of course. They're deposits of energy and ridges operating. Okay.
A fellow always is setting up some sort of a "yes man" in—just to the right of him or left of him or back of him or something of the sort, to agree with him or disagree with him. You know, so he'll have some communication in case he's lonesome sometime.
You ever hear an old desert rat talking to himself? "Well, think I'll walk over to that cactus plant. No, I guess I better not, it's pretty hot. Better stay here in the shade of this one. Well, but the sun's getting around to the back of this one, and it won't be in the shade very long. Well, I guess I better walk over to that cactus plant there, it's got a broader lot of shade. Well, you always was a durn fool anyway, never could make up your mind."
If you listen to one of these fellows, you'd swear there were eight or nine guys there having a terrific conversation one with the other, and arguing about everything they were going to do.
They talk to their burros, and then talk back for their burros—and just as though their burro was talking. It's a wonder one or two of them don't take up ventriloquism and really fool themselves. But they're quite happy doing that.
It is supposed to be a symptom of insanity, the fact a fellow talks to himself— "I'll be talking to myself next," somebody will be saying, you know? Oh no, it's only the guy who's afraid of talking to himself that goes crazy. Fellow resists talking to himself until he talks to himself and he can't stop what's talking to him.

193

194

16 DECEMBER 1953
I ran into a fellow just the other day, about three weeks ago, who had a compulsive set of circuits which were vocal circuits. And there was a man and a woman and so forth. And they were making him miserable, they'd made him miserable for years.
He told me, he says, "I've got all I can do to keep them quiet." And the thought of making one of them talk was—would have been too horrifying to him, so I played it real smart. I had him set up a baby going "goo-goo" at him, way out in front, see—no great significance to it. And then had him set up another circuit elsewhere—vocal—doing something else. All of a sudden they—these circuits just went ping, ping, ping, see, he just blew up his resistance on them.
He's busy talking to himself on a compartmented basis, where he isn't supposed to know that he's talking to himself, and then he starts resisting talking to himself, and then he represses it madly, then he lives in fear that he'll start talking to himself. You see? You get the anatomy of demon circuits? That, incidentally, is the anatomy of demonology. You want to study demonology, you just study that curve of operation in terms of circuits.
To amuse himself, the fellow starts talking to himself, then he finds it more amusing not to let himself know that he's talking to himself, so he puts up a wall, some sort, and guards against knowing this fact, and then he—then the circuit will talk to himself self-determinedly. Might not make much sense, but it still talks to him so he can't predict what it's going to say. And we have our entrance into randomity.
The next thing you know, why, this starts bothering him because it's giving him bad advice and he's starting to have to abide by its advice, so he says, "This is horrible" and he shuts it off and gets afraid that it'll happen again, and you've got a character without sonic. That's all nonsonic is, is the fact that one's circuits might start talking. Or somebody might start screaming; that's—I've heard—run into, rather, as a sonic shut-off. The preclear is afraid he'll start screaming or afraid somebody else will start screaming or ...
Now, very often people go into operations afraid they'll say what they know. They don't know anything. That's what's fantastic about that case.
I was hanging around a VA office one day and a fellow was saying, "Well, they tell me I've got to be operated on, but if I'm operated on, I just know I'll talk."
And I listened to him for a little while, and I finally leaned over and I asked him very politely and kindly, I said, "If you talk, what will you talk about?"
He just sat there dazed, looking at me. He said, "Well, that's just it. I don't know." Finally made him—he was afraid he'd give himself away. Possibly he's afraid that he didn't have anything to give away and his imagination wouldn't be fertile enough to furnish something that would interest the nurse, or—I don't know. You get multiple conversations going on with the same individual.
Well, after he can't duplicate himself anymore, it gets harder and harder for him to do this.
So, when we talk to a preclear, we don't evaluate in such a way as to lead him to assign large cause, nor do we persuade him to assign cause. Patter, in other words, is monitored to some degree by this: "Well, you say it was your father's fault." This would be about the most destructive thing you could do: "You say it's your father's fault. Well, he probably had his reasons, too." That'd just be murder. You don't deal with this thing of assignment of cause, you're just careful to steer him off of heavy assignment of cause. You don't give him lots of reasons and talk about it, but you just figure out, "All right. Now, look," you say, "we're running all this space . . ."

TECHNIQUES WHICH DO OR DO NOT ASSIGN CAUSE
Now, we're running space in such a way as to make it look like all the space is against him. That is, we're assigning other space, other space; space is others', others'—others' space.
What we're doing is validating or permitting him to assign cause for his trouble on the space which surrounds him. And he assigns this to the space around him so long that he eventually—you've confirmed the fact that the space around him is the cause of his difficulty.
If you go on using space, then, as other-determination, you have assigned cause to space, you see. So you balance the thing as a bracket. You start hammering and pounding too long upon one thing without bringing it back so that he's cause too, you don't balance it by letting him be cause too . . . We run a bracket and omit him—it's happening to him. "Wasting something for himself," is the one we omit. See that? We just omit that and we keep on: "All right, others wasting it for others, and somebody else wasting it for himself. And then others wasting it for others, and somebody else wasting it for himself. And others wasting it for others, and somebody for himself," and the next thing you know, this fellow will say, "Well, gee, the total thing that's wrong with me is because these others are wasting it for others and somebody else is wasting it for himself." You never let him get in on the act.
You'll find a case is always unbalanced somewhere, on the first time you start—run "wasting" brackets; he'll have a little more difficulty with one part of it than another.
Ordinarily "others for others" is inconceivably distant for a case that's in terrible condition. He just can't get "others for others," he can't get the idea of "others for others." Eventually as he runs along he will get it. Well, he's unbalanced to that degree. He thinks anybody that exists, actually is confronting him, and that other people don't confront other people. He has a very personalized look at the universe, believe me. He thinks this is the way it goes. See that? All right.
Assignment of cause, then—if a person assigns too much a cause, he won't communicate. You see that? He says—if he assigns cause to something, cause to something, cause to something, he finally says, "Well, the space will have to talk for me—why don't you consult God? See, I—there's no reason for me to talk, the space got to talk." Anything he has assigned cause to too long, he expects then to communicate for him. So he assigns cause to the body, assigns cause to the body—well, he expects the body to communicate for him. He doesn't ever think of communicating himself.
I had the weirdest thing happen. I was doing a little bit of very fast Straightwire last night, and a fellow threw the—this person communicated very poorly ordinarily, but he threw a postulate up against a wall; just in clearing up something, he threw this postulate up against the wall—because I told him to, you see—and he phrased it quite differently than I had given it to him. And for the first time he broke into actual communication.
The first actual communication that he did was that postulate against the wall, because it talked. It was real loud, but it wasn't loud to the ears— that's depending the body doing that. It was just real loud, see, and he used quite strange wording when he put the postulate into effect. It was quite legible. The fellow was really in communication. In other words, we broke his communication lock right there. Because we made him put up the energy, instead of the energy being put up for him. That was just running that, and that's the way it worked. Okay?

195

196

16 DECEMBER 1953
Therefore your talk to the preclear, your communication to the preclear, shouldn't continue to validate other cause, other cause, other cause, nor validate him necessarily as blame, blame, blame. Just keep it even and keep it sailing along.
Okay.

Comm Line: Overt Act-Motivator Sequence
A lecture given on 16 December 1953

And this is evening lecture of December the 16th.
This evening we're going to take up the facsimile, its origin and behavior, and some more about this communication line. Actually, those two things should be in reverse, since first we will talk about C and E and the communication line.
First thing I'm going to give you is something which is the overt act-motivator sequence, where you will see very definitely that theory is practice, but in this case theory and practice, while they make a technique, create too much of a severity for use.
Now, I gave you, a few lectures ago, the graph there of C to E, cause to effect, the gradient—not a gradient, but just that communication line. Person is at C, and then puts his communication at E. We depend for the receipt at E, effect, of a duplicate of what has been put out at C. A good, reliable communication system is one which receives at E, that which was put in at C.
Well, this is source and it's a lot of other things, and you could go on talking about theory here for some time. This is also duplication, I point out. And so we've tied cause and effect to duplication and a communication line, and why people don't receive well because they're trying not to be a duplicate of the cause and so on.
Well, now let's put in the overt act-motivator sequence into this, and the first part of this is an exercise which is for investigation only. It's not a process.
You see, almost anybody can create an effect with Scientology, but to create a beneficial effect is something else. You'll find people running around very often saying, "I've just invented a new technique." Well, they don't know any of the old ones, much less invented a new one, and then they suddenly shovel one out which is an incredible piece of stuff in that it produces an effect all right, and bogs the case down with rapidity.
And it's very easy to evaluate a technique—after it's been run for a few minutes and the case doesn't feel better, that isn't the technique to use. I mean, that's—yeah, that's the most elementary sort of thing. Well, cases don't feel better after they've run this one, so I just give you warning on it. It's not a process, this is an investigatory technique.
You just have the preclear mock up a line. And have him have—call one end of it A, and the other end of it B. And then have him put the A end toward him—put this line in front of him and have him—the A end toward him, and the B end away from him.

197

198

16 DECEMBER 1953
Now have him turn the line around so that the A end is away from him and the B end is toward him. Now have him turn the line around so that the A end is toward him and the B end is away from him. In other words, you just make this line swap ends.
You have him do this for a while, and what do you know—the overt act-motivator sequences, in great number, show up.
The reason for this is the most elementary reason you could imagine: He has been at A as cause, and has been unwilling to be at B as effect. And this is the line, and there is a communication line present in the action, and so we have the graph suddenly coming to life and being about the most horrible thing you could do to anybody. That's why I say, I call to your attention, that theory and practice are just that close together. Theory is practice. But this you are trying to solve. But that is too tough.
Now, you take some case that's down there around IV, V, or VI and try to get that case into some sort of a frame of mind that he can be audited to get him over a little fright. Well, the way to not go about it is to run such a technique on him, because immediately all the things of which he's guilty will show up.
Now, if Freud was ever sincere about wanting to get everybody's guilt out of the road, he certainly had his opportunity—all he had to do was invent Scientology. Because, believe me, this is the last ditch on investigatory procedures. And we find investigatory procedures so arduous, so heroic, that a IV, V, VI is made very ill with this technique—not even vaguely ill, just very ill. And you can get away with it with a I, you can get away with it with a II, but anything works on Is and IIs.
It's—this is just a demonstration technique of the exact theory of cause-effect, communication and duplication and inversion and overt act-motivator sequences and guilt and refusal to receive communications and inability to give communications and compulsive agreement. That's just the complete package there, you see, right there, and it's just this line.
Funny part of it is, the line is more important in investigation than the terminals. This is a curious thing. Now, you can audit terminals for quite some time without getting any particular effect, but if you'll just have somebody put up a line and audit the line, you'll get more effect than you wanted. You start putting up the line to somebody who is interiorized and you have him start stringing lines around, and you're liable to encounter the things the GE fondly hopes are his genetic line. He's got them, no kidding. He has these lines, they run in all directions. And if you start disturbing them very much ... I mean, they go out into the past and the future and to Mars and all—they're all—it's just weird. And the next thing you know, you have him wound up in something that resembles taffy. So you start having somebody who's interiorized handle lines too much and push lines around, and they get into a lot of trouble.
Well, that's beside the point. The point here is that we have theory and practice the same, as far as what we're handling. But now if that theory and practice is so close together and this is too tough for 50 percent of the cases that you're going to operate on, why, naturally you have to use a lighter technique— and there are many, many of these.
But there—when it comes to space, when it comes to delivery and receipt of messages and it comes to any type of relay system, so on—there is the basic, there is the fundamental. You're operating from that fundamental. That is the fundamental of communication as applied in this universe, and that's it. If you think you're going any further than that, you're going to have to go out of this universe. Well, you can go out of this universe and go further than that,

COMM LINE: OVERT ACT—MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE
but not in this universe. When I tell you, then, we're there with SOP 8, that is—that was what came into view in the Factors, and that's what starts the Factors. And this investigatory procedure demonstrates it very rapidly.
You take somebody and tell him to change—interchange those A and B points on that line (don't tell him so much A and B points, you just get him reversing that line, one way or the other) and if it's a man, dead women show up and mangled corpses. And then all of a sudden at his end, why, his mangled body, and blown-up countries, and—all these overt act-motivator sequences show up. It's any time that he was unwilling to be an effect, he put on resistance to being an effect, which stopped him halfway down. See, so it locks him up in the middle point of the line which gives him no distance and no space eventually. He's unwilling to be out there, you see, because he's been a bad boy.
Now, it's all right for you to feel sympathetic for IV, V, VIs and VIIs. And I'm not putting this in there just to make them feel bad, but the truth of the matter is, is you're looking at a pretty wild boy when you're looking at anybody from IV down. Any gal, any guy—even in this lifetime. Not necessarily bad, you understand, but darned active, real active—pretty ornery about a lot of things. And you're also looking at the more active sort of individual. They have to be fairly active to louse themselves up this thoroughly. That's the truth of the matter. And all that's really wrong with them is this overt act-motivator sequence coupled in with the automatic facsimile-maker.
Now, there isn't any facsimile in past time. We'll just talk now about facsimiles. There is the thought-pattern automaticity: the postulates which furnish to the individuals those pictures of which one thinks.
Now, the funny part of it is, the automatic machinery is so good that it only furnishes to the individual those pictures which he actually has observed. It's real cute. Automatic facsimile-makers. And the automatic facsimile-maker is a piece of automaticity that you'll have to know a lot more about.
Because you see this character, you know he's loused up because he's in Fac One. He keeps wearing these big horn-rimmed glasses and staring at everybody and so on. And if a girl's doing it, why—if a man's doing it, you know he's a "Monitor" in a Fac One. If a girl's doing it, why, you generally call her a "Merrimack." Anyway . . . (audience laughter)
For the sake of the English, those were two famous—the two first ironclad vessels. Anyway, the—when we have a ... (Those were the two vessels that reformed the British Navy.) Anyway, we have . . . (They didn't fight the British, though.) A facsimile . . . (The British stole the whole idea from us. After it— invented first in Scotland.)
There is an automatic facsimile-maker at work. It's a gag, I'm just giving you a gag, but I'm showing you. You see, it's a demonstration of what happens on a thought pattern.
Now, there is stimulus-response at work. Fellow gets off the groove by thinking of something peculiar or getting interrupted in some way, and he sets up that chain of thought and he keeps being presented with new ideas on that line, see? That's life. And that's how a fellow starts going off the deep end.
How does this come about? Well, he sets up a communication system. He's talking, let's say, and he says the word cat but he says it in relationship to a whip; he says "a cat-of-nine-tails." And having said it in relationship to a whip, he yet said cat, didn't he?
Well, if he were observing real closely this beautiful automatic machinery he has, he would find that he had presented himself automatically with a picture of a cat. But he doesn't want a picture of a cat. So he doesn't look at

199

200

16 DECEMBER 1953
this picture of the cat, he puts that one aside. And the horrible part of it is, by that same act, you see, of getting the picture of the cat and then putting it aside with effort, he puts into the statement "cat," putting the cat aside with effort; because that goes into the machine, too. That's what it's going to make next time.
He says cat next time, now he gets "cat, put aside the cat with effort," that's going to be what the picture is. And in a very short time he becomes occluded, once he starts working too heavily with this automatic picture-furnishing machine—that's occlusion.
The time track actually is a track in terms of cause and effect, message emanating or action emanating, and action received.
And so if we have a duplicator going full blast on every message which is started, and if it is going harnessed to the postulate that it's only going to present one with what is exactly true, it must then present one with whatever is true. And when the machine goes out of whack, the fellow individually (I mean, he just got too much this time; I mean, he—too many of these things have come up as associative ideas; it's the machine doing this associating for him, you see), why, he'll just cover it all with blackness and skip it. He's afraid to get pictures anymore, because there are just too many pictures come in—he starts looking at pictures, and pictures come up, and pictures, so on.
Now, many people don't do this at all. You see, they don't think a thought and get a picture. But—many people don't do that, but once they have started doing that, then about the only thing you can do is to wipe the slate or knock out the automaticity. You wipe the slate by running engrams selectively, but of course this validates the machine to some degree and really lays in, to some degree, wiping engrams as part of the true picture. So let's handle it as an automaticity.
Now, I—the terriblest quiet seems to be settling over. Are you following me? Or is this—is this too horrible for you to contemplate? (audience laughter)
Well, now, for instance—I'll give you a demonstration of this.
Now, right now, think a thought.
Now, connect it to an object.
Male voice: Mm-hm.
Now, think another thought. All right.
Think of another object.
Now who's getting pictures shoved at him automatically?
Male voice: Yeah.
Yeah. And who's refusing the pictures which might come up?
See that? What are you doing?
Male voice: Oh, I thought of—you was just talking about a cat a while ago, and I thought of cathead, which was an oil derrick, and the cathead safety devices which I used to put on them, and why they were put on them, and how people got hurt in them.
Mm-hm. And here we go, see?
Male voice: Shucks!
Well, when a fellow is blanking the picture, this gets desperate, because he starts presenting himself with consecutive thoughts. Now, I just gave you an example of having gotten off track with a consecutive line of thoughts, how far off track you can go, you see?
Associative logic comes up and suddenly crosses back past what the individual is doing or saying, and he is no longer really following his thread of conversation at all. Now, it's doubly confusing due to the fact that it is really

COMM LINE: OVERT ACT—MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE
wonderful—the idea of following an associated line of thought. This is triumph itself. It can only really be done adequately by a wide-awake thetan. He's really got to be wide-awake. He's got to find facts which just—very similar to the facts just uttered. And he can go on with these similar facts—and we just had an example of it—the gradient scale, see. The next fact must be very similar to it, and it sounds very logical to everybody, you see, merely because it's a gradient scale. Everything is very—nearly like the thing which was just there.
Now, when things get more nearly like, and more nearly like, and more nearly like, all of a sudden they become the same thing. So logic in essence becomes a complete identity. So a person says identity, identity, identity. He'd start in, you see—we'll talk about this cat, see. All right, he's—"cat, cathead, oil derrick, people getting hurt on them," and so on. Well, that's a perfectly logical, clear view. Now, a person who'll go on like that forever, doesn't mean that his reason deteriorates to this point.
But the next step down from any associative reasoning—no matter how logical the conversation sounds or anything—is, of course, that the cat doesn't remind one of a cathead; it reminds one of "cat" which reminds one of a cat, which reminds one of a cat, which reminds one of a cat. You see? We don't get associative logic then, what we get is identity. And the difference between logic and identification is—well, it's a pretty wide bridge to cross in terms of sanity, out it's actually—they're first cousins; they're right there, you see. There's not much difference between somebody holding forth logically, and then condensing the logic down to tiny gradients which become indistinguishable, and then eventually just saying, "cat, cat, cat, cat, cat, cat, cat." Now, or ironclad ships: ''Monitor, Merrimack, ironclad ships—British, made in Scotland," and so forth. This is a pretty jumpy band. See, that's a pretty widely associative band.
Eventually, you'd come down to ironclad ships and then we'd go into counting the number of the rivets—this is, by the way, the way logic does deteriorate. Then you count the number of rivets and start thinking about the number of rivets in the turrets. And then you wonder whether or not they had that many rivets and you decide that better be truer, you see, and better check on that. And then you—ironclad—whether or not the iron was really around the ship or not. See, it's getting very identified with the symbols.
Well, the end product of all this is you would think of an ironclad ship just by getting the symbol "an ironclad ship," see. Pardon me—you think I mean a picture of an ironclad ship. I don't mean that, I mean i-r-o-n (hyphen) c-l-a-d (capital) S-H-I-P. See, one would think of "ironclad ship." Not even by getting the picture of the ironclad ship—he would get "ironclad ship."
Well, to avoid this kind of nonsense happening to him, the best thing to do is just to ring down the curtain. And so he just lets everything go black, and after that to hell with it. And after that he can operate—as long as he doesn't keep his space as too big, he operates fine.
Well, now, in view of the fact—I was running a fellow back down the track one time (to run some para-Scientology in here) and I was trying to find states of sanity from life to life, and I found out that he was following a very different pattern. I mean, one life to the next—consecutive lives—had very little to do with the sanity of the life before. That's mostly because he'd just jettison it, you see, and have nothing to do with it and not even fight it. It just never occurred to him there was anything there to fight. And way early on the track, we found a "schiz tape." Now, where I—what I say, "schiz tape"— that is this thing i-r-o-n clad.

201

202

16 DECEMBER 1953
You get somebody who is a bit balmy or is on his way—I don't think there's anybody here even vaguely in that condition, by the way—whereby they get everything they're just about to say presented to them with a tape. Or you have—they have little railroad trains—little model trains that run around and the words appear in the cars, and they read them off the cars. Oh, yes, fantastic things. Ferris wheels going around with a—and sometimes flashing lights tell them, and stockbroker ticker tapes that are going clackity-clack and all sorts of things. Or they have a sonic gadget that tells them. And these sonic gadgets reel off the whole thing for them before they speak. That's—people that want people to "think twice before speaking once" are actually trying to set up such a gimmick. It's an interesting gimmick.
Well, there—we call that a "schiz tape." Now, that doesn't mean the person's gone—don't be alarmed about that. It just means that this automatic machinery that has gotten down into mental imagery or eidetic recall, has gone to the point where it's awful solid.
Well, this schiz tape I found in this individual, about umpteen lives ago— way back—was in Arabic. It was Arabic script. He couldn't read it, it just went on by, but he could give me the thought impression of what it was saying— and he was very, very mystified about this whole thing. He had been pretty batty in that life, really pretty batty. And he'd still left—the ridges of education of that life were still being mocked up. You talk about the fantastic capability of the individual; they were still being mocked up.
How an individual ever has any thought energy—that is to say, how he ever manages to emanate any energy at all that he can see or salvage is sometimes a wonder, when he's got it all thoughtwise diverted so that he is even constantly mocking up or paying attention to patterns which go back just thousands and thousands of years, and reactivating them and rebuilding them and—oh, boy. You just stop and think about how complex it is to have these postulates countering postulates and everything fixed geographically and ideas fixed here and ideas fixed there and ideas that are supposed to move over to there and replace those ideas, and the little wheels are supposed to click this way and that, and he has to put up enough energy to mock up enough energy to make enough wheels that are supposed to go there—rrrrr!
Well now, this fellow who gets this eidetic recall is in the same shape that most children are in. This is pretty good shape, by the way—a person who gets perfect mental imagery. He has converted his knowingness into the same facsimile pattern as he perceived at the time he knew. And if he is convinced that what he says must be the truth and nothing but the truth, then the machine will only present him with actual pictures which were taken at the time. Now, he knows how to make the picture and he has set it up automatically. You see this? He knows how to make it, he can make it, and it is presented.
Now, we needn't go that far into theory about simultaneous—I mean, consistent and constant mock up, in order to have any MEST universe at all. We won't bother with that. Let's just take it in its accomplished fact: When he thinks of a chunk of energy, he has that chunk of energy. When he thinks of a picture, it's just as reliable as when he looks up at the wall, he has a chart that is on the wall, and when he looks at the wall, there is a chart on the wall. In other words, he has a chunk of energy which is a facsimile, which is a thing, which has mass, and which, when he energizes it, after he has presented it to himself—when he energizes, it spits back. It reactivates. It has some fifty-some perceptics in it, it's got everything in it imaginable, and it can be erased and so forth.

COMM LINE: OVERT ACT—MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE
Well, all right, after he's erased a few of them, he is—finds it safe to live through these experiences again because he's lived through them again. You see that?
Erasure, in essence, is a knowingness process rather than an energy rub-out process. It teaches somebody that he can duplicate the experience and is still alive. Shows him he can duplicate it. It's the same way with Creative Processing.
Now, people get worried about making their mock-ups disappear for fear that they will then have on their hands a mass of energy. They aren't going to have a mass of energy on their hands. All they've done is feed a new pattern into their automaticity. And it will now mock up, but gloriously. It'll mock up this new pattern, and it'll mock up newer patterns.
How many patterns can an individual mock up? How many patterns can be fed into an automatic piece of machinery? Well, it probably goes into a number which we could not write if we started with zeros at the top corner of the room and wrote very small, and we wrote all the way around the walls of the room, and then we wrote down—still with our zeros, see; 1,000, that's the way we started this thing—and we went all the way around the walls of the room once, and then we dropped down a little bit diagonally just so we could continue the number, and we went all the way around the walls of the room twice and we dropped down just a little hair or so there so we could continue, then we went all the way around the walls of the room again, and we went all the way around the walls of the room again. And if we were writing in six-point type, this room is not high enough to hold the number—it's a big number.
It's no wonder that individuals balked at the idea of trying to do anything with the human mind—if they themselves were bogged down at the thought of quantity or complexity. If something should be shied away from merely because it was complex—if the individual wouldn't move a trunk just because it was heavy, he would shy away from the problem just because it had quantity. You know, there isn't any quantity about it, it's just that. But it is terribly complex—oh, but thoroughly complex.
What we've tried to do is reach the basic simplicities—and what we've evidently succeeded in doing is reaching these basic simplicities—which untangle the rest of the complexity. Not necessarily in terms of an earlier moment in time, but in terms of an earlier common basic to each process.
Now, if we had in each one of the things in that which we were representing with those numbers—in other words, the number of factors and facsimiles and machineries and so forth that could be activated—if we had one common denominator to each one of these and we just sort of pulled the thread, why, you see, the rest of it'd sort of go. We'd be left with a clean slate.
Thetan is unwilling to do this merely because he considers that havingness is a very difficult thing to achieve. And so he holds on to the inability to create— he holds on to the inability to create because he can't create. That doesn't make sense, does it? But that's exactly what he's doing. He's holding on to all the things which make him—it impossible for him to create, because, you see, he can't create. And so therefore he has to hold on to all of these things which he can't create, which include the inability to create. And that's because if he then took away all this sort of thing, his havingness would disappear, and he doesn't consider that his creativeness would, of course, return immediately and he could put the havingness back. No, he sort of likes the randomity of all these patterns.
A fellow can be pretty batty, and you ask him to part with one single tiny object—you ask him, "What will you give me? One word—zum. Give me a broken

203

204

16 DECEMBER 1953
pencil, you—anything—a scrap of paper, a tiny little piece of lead or a piece of dirt on the floor, or . . ."
And he—boy, he'll just think it over for a long time before he'll push that over to you. So—he's so convinced that he's unable to create, therefore he has to hold on to and have everything which comes in. He's got a life, he's living it consecutively, he's being a good boy, he thinks, and so forth, and he's not going to fool around with all this stuff.
Well, what's the first thing he learns about a facsimile? How is it that everybody learns about one of these facsimiles and everybody's got the same piece of automatic machinery?
Well, it's because the making of a facsimile—it's almost impossibly difficult not to make a facsimile if one is a fairly live thetan. Oh, very difficult not to make a facsimile.
Well, let's say we push against a wall. We're taking a look at a wall and there's a wall up there, and we push against this wall. And we push against it with merely the thetan-emanated energy and it goes against this wall and it makes a pattern, of course, of the wall. That's all—you've made a facsimile; that's it.
Now, facsimiles—very funny, but facsimiles don't have backs. And mock-ups have backs, but facsimiles don't have backs. And the fellow who's mocking up three-dimensionally is mocking up three-dimensionally all right, but if he reaches around kind of quick to the other side of the figures—even though they're in three dimensions and so on—he'll find they're hollow. That's because they've been made from a certain angle. Well, if he's mocking them up, he'll mock them up solidly, but he has to do this consciously. Well, very well.
If one tries to pull away from something, one will also make a picture of it; and he'll have a momentary pattern. Now, he knows what this pattern is. This is fabulous. The ability to duplicate to such an exactness these patterns, and then not store them, that is the wrong word—merely to know the pattern, and then to know one doesn't know the pattern so one can surprise oneself with the pattern—that's fabulous.
Now, one of the ways to do this is to know without looking. Now, undoubtedly somebody could master some exercises of knowing without looking; undoubtedly this could be true. I—in various studies I've made of Indian lore and so forth, I've never run across any effective ones. But now we know what we know here, possibly you could make up one of these things of knowing—you know, I mean knowing without looking.
But a person who has become convinced that he has to look to know, then furnishes himself something to look at so that he will then know, which gives him a reason to know.
"Well, how did you know that?" somebody says.
Well, the fellow early on the track could say, "Well I've got a picture of it right here. And this is an exact picture of the scene." Well, he mocked it up consciously and looked at it and then said to the other fellow, "Well, it exists because it's here."
And, "Well, that's . . ." The other fellow had to say, "Well, that's all right then. Okay. If that's just exactly the way it was."
Now, somebody comes along and says to you, "All right. You tell me all this stuff about you going fishing and catching that fifteen-pound bass, and so forth. Well, I was kidding with one of the boys down at the office yesterday and they said, 'No fifteen-pound bass ever came out of that lake, and you possibly couldn't

COMM LINE: OVERT ACT—MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE
You whip out of your pocket at that moment a picture of the bass, a picture of the scales, a picture of you standing there triumphantly leaning upon your trout rod or something, and he shuts up.
They still dramatize it. Anybody can make a picture of a fish, by the way, that makes a bass look taller than a man. They never think of that. You can make pictures look any way. The touching faith and confidence of people believing pictures and statistics is not just a marvel to me, but is probably a marvel to people who take pictures—all people who take pictures, and all statisticians. Just exactly what holds everybody into an agreement on the honesty of what he's mocking up is very interesting.
Well, let's not linger too long on how that facsimile is made, beyond— take another example: A fellow is being sprayed with energy like sunlight. He's being sprayed with this energy and as it comes in he resists it. As soon as he resists it he gets a pattern, a picture.
Now, a thetan does something else: He puts out some energy against a thing and then brings it in and takes a look at it; that's another trick he has. It's amusing that there isn't a single individual in this room who cannot do that. That's very amusing, because you go and you slug and stress and so forth, and "I haven't got any pictures" and "I don't see anything" and that sort of thing.
Well, actually, all you have to ask them to do is, "All right. Get the idea of pouring out a lot of lines of energy away from yourself. And now get the idea of pulling them back in, and what kind of a picture do you have?" And they tell you.
It's very—it's a very simple exercise. You did that, sure. I mean, there's nothing to that. It's just that an individual doesn't want to do that. He thinks it might be dangerous or something. Quite often when he brings them back in he says, "It's a black picture."
And you say, "Yeah. Well, why don't you turn it around?"
He turns it around and looks at it, and tells you what it is. It's quite routine. It's a black picture. Sometimes it's a picture of the darnedest things. Quite often it's a picture of something radiating, because the thetan in doing this, of course, is paralleling the action of suns and other things in this universe.
This type of radiation—a thetan doesn't necessarily radiate all the time. That's quite a bore, radiating continually, going around with a big halo plastered on top of your head or some such thing. But anybody who is alive can do this. And it's beneficial to some degree, but mostly beneficial in pushing out these energy waves. Just a big—you know, just like you were a glowing ball or something, you can put out all these—this "flitter" is what it is, and bring it back in and take a look at what you took a picture of. That's the way a thetan takes pictures, if he wants to take pictures. It's kind of a gyp, he really isn't taking pictures. But they're more real to him quite often than a photograph would be; they're—because they're his. Well, that is picture-taking equipment, that's facsimiles.
Now, they take a picture of sound—if an individual will resist sound, then he'll get a picture of the sound, then he can unravel it and let it play again. But, what do you know, anybody who's heard a sound can mock it up and hear it again; that's much easier.
Now, most people who are having trouble trying to run facsimiles, have either completely keyed out on their automaticity or they've been so swamped by this automaticity that they've blacked it out—this picture-making automaticity. They just black it out, and after that they won't look.
Well, now, you ask this individual—reference here is the Philadelphia congress tapes—you ask this individual to put a sound there so he can hear

205

206

16 DECEMBER 1953
a sound. And he tries this a couple of times, all of a sudden—and he looks pretty suspicious about the whole deal. He expected all this to be automatic, he expected everything to run off just according to Hoyle. He was supposed to run through an incident, and he was supposed to lie there and the incident was supposed to parade past his face like a motion-picture screen, you see. And he gets very confused by this, because he realized he's got to put the picture there before he gets a picture.
Well, if he is—has a black field, his automaticity in putting the picture there has overweighted to a point where he has destroyed it by hanging up some curtains. He doesn't want it anymore, it's too much for him, and so he's quit using it and he's hung up these curtains. Well, now in order to get this started again, he's got to handle it just the way you would any other automaticity— but why start it again? Since the direct method of use would simply be to know everything that had ever happened to you, why look at pictures? So his fixation is looking at pictures. He thinks he has to get a picture of what happened to him before he can believe what happened to him.
A preclear will go on this, and he'll get the foggiest, filmiest notion of what has happened to him—oh, real foggy, thin. But he'll be sure it happened to him if he has a picture of it. That's not valid at all; that's not even vaguely valid. He can take pictures of other thetans' pictures—he gets thought impressions of thought impressions. If a thetan is holding up a picture, if he resists that exact impression, he will get it back again. I mean, he can get the picture, in other words—that's a "borrowed facsimile." The experience didn't happen to him, but he can show people the pictures of the bass afterwards anyhow.
Well, this society at this time permits an individual to get very occluded. In the first place, it sprays printer's ink into his face. In order to read, you have to suppress white. You do not read by suppressing the blackness. You want the letters in and the whiteness right where it is. And so to read, you suppress the white. So an individual who does a lot of reading suppresses white, suppresses white, suppresses white. And that was why I wanted that run on some of the people here today, so you'd have an example of what happened when you just weren't. . . This—"Give me three books that you are not. Three pictures you are not. Three movie actors you are not," and so forth, in brackets.
Here we have the suppression of white and the effect, actually, is—of a lifetime of reading and study—is when run, getting a face full of printer's ink. And a person will even taste it—nyahh—mouthful of printer's ink; because they've really absorbed it in tremendous quantities. And the suppression of white has become automatic, so that in order to know, one must suppress white. Well, if one is to suppress lightness in order to know, a person trying to know will wind up getting blackness. And this goes back into early explosions; the earliest incident of this is the explosion. A thetan's standing there and something goes boom! and the big flash goes up, and his immediate response is to push out against this flash in such a way as to repress the flash. Of course, the second he represses it, he gets a patch of blackness.
Now, in order to know what it is, why, the thing to do is not to let the flash come and hit him and knock apart everything he has—the thing to do is simply to repress it where it is and then move it aside and take a look at the picture he made of it, and he'll find out what it is. That's one of the ways of doing it.
But white flashes are followed, in terms of an explosion, by a very great blackness. If you don't believe that sometime, get a flashbulb to explode in your face or—like I did during the war—have an aviation gas tanker blow up in your face. There were several gallons of gas there and it made a big flash, and

COMM LINE: OVERT ACT—MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE
the night was red and green and pink and purple there for a second afterwards. And then, boy, that was the blackest night you ever saw; and it just stayed black for about a half an hour. That was remarkable. That certainly put out the lights quick. So the deepest blackness you get is after the highest whiteness. Well, that's all over the track—people suppressing explosions.
So they're into space opera. You know, you get a preclear—oh, they got lots of space opera on the bank, and—they always have. And you get some preclear that's been stutter-gunned and bapped and so forth. No, no, he isn't—he doesn't like flashes. He's gotten to a point where he isn't in favor of them anymore at all.
Give you some idea of why this is, the "stutter gun"—it just threw out great big gobs of jolt, one right after the other. When it hit a man it didn't penetrate him cleanly or anything like that, it just beat the flesh off his bones, and then beat the bones off the other bones. You know, it'd—he'd get a glancing blow from one of those stutter guns, and it'd spout the blood up through the pores of the skin. I mean, you'd just get—one would explode near him, you know, it'd be enough blow, enough impact, to just knock the blood right straight out through the skin. Possibly stutter gun and birthmarks have some connection. Well, anyway, the ... As impossible as it may seem.
You get that sort of thing—an individual sees this big white flash in terms of a gun or he sees a gunshot of any kind or he's in a war (he gets mixed up with one of these rather minor parties they throw down here on Earth every once in a while) and he, of course, is repressing whiteness, he's repressing yellowness and greenness—whatever's in that explosion—redness.
And then you set him down and give him a book to read. Oh-oh. Because you have enough associative logic on the bank so that his automatic machinery will promptly go into line, and explosions are things which mustn't happen again very often, and so it handily goes into work and doesn't let it happen again. And there he sits with an explosion on his lap every time he reads a book—and he wonders what's wrong with his eyes.
Well, your eyes would be in bad shape too if they were looking at an explosion all the time. Did you ever blow off a firecracker in somebody's face, something like that? And did you notice that they had a slight tendency to recoil with their eyes?
Oh, let's take a more graphic example. Let's take a fellow and let's put three hundred pounds of TNT two feet from his face and let's light it off and get it properly exploded. Well, do you suppose at the moment it went off, just before the full import hit him, that he might have a sort of a flinched feeling in his eyes? Well, this is the feeling in the eyes of somebody wearing glasses— it's a flinch. Comes from books—this is the key-in. Ah, sit there reading books, see, suppress the white and get in the black, suppress the white and get in the black, suppress the white and get in the black, word after word after word after word. The first thing you know, they'll tell you the future is slightly to the right and black. Why is that? It's simply because books read from left to right and deep. See, they go down—books go down on the right side—they go away from one on the right side, and the end of the book is in the future. So this puts the future over to the right and black. That's all the significance there is to it. But you can get anybody to look at a piece of blackness and get "What is the significance of this blackness?"
Now, you told me about that the other day. You said you wanted a—saw this big blackness and the postulate that went with it was "must have a teacher." Well, that's very parallel to this, because any postulate connected with blackness wonders what that explosion was.

207

208

16 DECEMBER 1953
Now, if you want people to ask the question, "What was that?" If you wanted five million people right this—in the next couple of minutes to ask the question "What was that?" you would throw up into the sky, just a little way from here, a tremendous white flash. And all the people of Philadelphia and the Camden area and so forth would immediately ask each other, like a flock of monkeys or parrots, they would say to each other, "What do you suppose that was?" And then you would get the more imaginative ones around them theorizing on the subject: "What is the significance of that flash?"
What is the significance this boils down to which gives you printer's ink— what is the significance?
Now, if you really wanted to revolutionize a whole reading public, you would print your books in yellow on red paper, and believe me, the people would feel like they were having their brains blown out by the words written thereon— I may be doing this one of these days. Because they'd suppress the red in order to get the flame. Huh! Those words would burn themselves in! (audience laughter)
Well, this blackness is actually something which is used to protect himself, and you're not going to get a case that is black very far out of it unless he has some sort of a guarantee that he'll be protected. And so he wants to be pretty sure. He wants to know before he goes. Before he backs up any distance or goes anywhere, he wants to know that he's fairly safe, and that the explosion isn't actually happening.
Well, the—one of the first things that upsets him is this automaticity. This automaticity comes about when he, early—early in his life, he's thought of a thing and gotten the picture, and thought of a thing and gotten a picture, and thought of a thing and gotten a picture, and he's tried to get a picture of a thing and he thought of seeing something, and he saw it. And after a while, this got damned annoying to him. He didn't like this. A lot of other things happened to him and mainly—just thinking in terms of associative reasoning—he's gotten interested in associative logic, and then all of a sudden he lost something.
Well, of course the earliest thing on the track that happened—I mean, one had lots of blackness and very little lightness. He'd have to make the lightness. Well, when the lightness would go out, he'd leave blackness. So a person has the idea that if he loses something, it's all going to go black. And sure enough, you can get anybody—anybody to get the idea of losing something, and the field in front of their face will turn black. Naturally, it isn't anything very alarming. It just simply means that if they had a mock-up that somebody swiped or wiped out or played the "God trick" with, they immediately had a problem of blackness. You see, they—bang! everything went black. And that is loss.
Now, there's something else involved. When they lost a terminal they were depending on to continue to manufacture energy—they'd already gone into the point of using terminals to manufacture energy, this is real silly—when they've lost this terminal, of course, they got no further energy. So when they lose a person whom they have been using as an anchor point, the energy is no longer manufactured, so they feel dead and tired and everything's black; because that's a terminal gone. But that's just one step down from losing, actually, a mock-up.
Anybody who is—actually sets up two terminals and thereinafter gets his generated energy from these two terminals going back and forth against each other, he's into the use of motors and automaticity already. And when they lose one of these terminals, why, they feel like part of the body's gone and the whole field is black and that sort of thing.

COMM LINE: OVERT ACT—MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE
Well, these manifestations all center around pictures and they center around views. Because the whole field wouldn't be black, you see, unless he had a picture of things being black. This is real simple. Almost anybody who has an occlusion, an occlusive curtain and so forth, tells you this.
But the problem is one of pictures. What he's complaining about is an absence of pictures. What he's complaining about is an absence of receiving those impressions coming off the walls which permit him to see the MEST universe. This is blindness, you see—no picture. So, everywhere we look on this problem we find no picture.
Well, above no picture, we had knowingness without any pictures, and we find out one has to know like the dickens before he can get a picture. So we'll find the occluded case trying to know like mad in the absence of pictures, and then complaining at the same time because he doesn't get any pictures.
Well, in order to know he has to repress the pictures, because you have to repress the white of a book, you see, in order to get the printer's ink so that you can know. And so we go round and around in this dizzy little squirrel cage: "Well, you can't have any pictures because we've got to repress the white so that we can know, and we can't see it because it's all black because we've got a curtain of blackness hanging up in front of all the pictures."
Well, the grim and dismal joke is, there aren't any pictures beyond those the individual makes. And he makes them from the patterns which he knows exist.
Now, here is one of the lowest level drills that remedies this situation: You cover a desk with a number of objects, throw a black curtain over them and tell the individual to tell you what was there. And theoretically, if you drilled him long enough, he would no longer bother to look at it the first time with his MEST eyes—when you uncovered it and let him have a glimpse of it and then shut it down again—so that he could see it. You'd no longer need this. What he'd have to do, he'd just look through the cloth at it—if it was a problem of lookingness. But he wouldn't go to this degree. His knowingness theoretically could be drilled up to a point where he would simply know what was underneath the cloth. Not by seeing it—just by knowing it was there. You see, knowingness is so featherweight it's very hard to understand. It's so lacking in significance.
Now, that'd be about the crudest kind of a drill you could do. It isn't a recommended drill, I mean, that's just a crude drill. There'd probably be a lot of them like this, which would have a tendency to remedy blackness.
But let's take somebody who doesn't have sonic recall and is complaining about not having sonic recall. Well, unless he puts the recall there, he's not going to have any sonic recall. For this reason: He's going to object putting it there. He's going to say, "It ought to be done for me automatically." In other words, he's telling you, "I have a machine out there that does all this for me and it's not working, and you're supposed to fix it."
"All right," you say, "fellow, we'll fix that machine for you. Now, the way we'll do it is to make you put there all the sounds which I am now going to give you, one after the other, and you hear them back after you have put them there." You make him take over the control of his sonic machinery. Now, people who run around telling you, "Don't have sonic," it's just that they don't have the automaticity of sonic recall repaired—because it's an automaticity just like any other automaticity.
Now, how do you do that? And how would you repair that? You would say to an individual, "All right. Now, you don't have sonic? All right, do this now. Now, I'm going to snap my fingers and I want you to get the sound of that finger

209

210

16 DECEMBER 1953
snap, and I want you to repeat the sound of this finger snap immediately afterwards. All right, I'm going to snap my fingers. (snap)"
"All right. Now, I'm going to snap my fingers again, and you repeat the finger snap. (snap)"
"All right. Now this time I want you to do it again. I'm going to repeat this finger snap and I want you to get again the sound of this finger snap. (snap)"
And you just keep that up, little while, and some of the cases will all of a sudden turn on their sonic and say, "The heck with it."
Other cases that don't come in, you say, "Keep putting sounds of various kinds out there for you to hear." You, in each case, will recover the automaticity.
Now, here's the way you do that. You say, "Put the sound of a bell out there. (pause) Now put the sound of a gong out there. (pause) Now let's put the sound of a doorbell out there. (pause) Let's put the sound of a cow mooing out there. (pause) Let's put the sound of a sheep baaing out there. (pause) And let's not worry that these things might remind you of things you have heard before. Let's not worry about that. Let's not worry about whether or not they're a good sheep. Let's not worry about whether or not they remind you of an incident. Let's just disregard all of that and keep putting sounds out there."
And by the time you've completely neglected this poor automatic machine that you've thrown back into restimulation, see—and then you neglect it. And you keep the preclear putting sounds out there, he keeps himself putting sounds out there, regardless of what sounds come in. And you start making a liar out of this machine—it'll go goofy and that piece of knowingness will straighten out with nothing in it. In other words, it's gone. You'll key out the machine.
What do you do with a facsimile? Huh-huh? What do you do about pictures then, huh? Well, this is the way you handle pictures—and this is not an inves-tigatory technique, this is the way you handle pictures with somebody who still complains about pictures. Get him to get the thought "chair" and then get him to get a picture of a chair, no matter how bad. He'll sometimes tell you, "I got a picture of a chair. As soon as I said 'chair,' a chair sneaked in."
And you say, "That is not the chair we want. We want the chair that you're going to pick up over on your right side and put in there."
Now he says, "All right."
And you say, "Get a picture of a saint."
And he does. He gets an automatic picture of a saint.
You're just—started to work his machinery. Make him put another picture of a saint in place of the picture of the saint which did come up—if none came up or if one came up, regardless.
Now, we have him get the idea of an object and then promptly and immediately put an object there before it can be presented. And you'll find out that the automatic machine, no matter how fast it is, isn't as fast as the thetan; isn't as fast as he is. Actually he can, at any time, be faster than any automatic machine which he has. But, you'll find that machine in there for a first few licks—boy, there, it's really trying to get it in there quick, see? Bzzzt! It's not trying to get it in there any quicker than it ever did, it's getting it in at its routine speed because it's not sentient. It's just doing what he is doing back of his hand.
But what you do is, you say, "Get an idea of a clock now." And he puts a clock there.
Now, he'll get another impression of another clock. If he got another impression of another clock, have him put that there three times. Handle it just like you handle any other automaticity. Make him get the impression he

COMM LINE: OVERT ACT—MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE
thinks ought to be delivered to him—make him get it himself. And then make him duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and believe me, you'll turn on his pictures. He'll go right on straight through.
In order to get anyplace in Scientology, the shortest route is usually through it.
And there is how you cure the automaticity of facsimiles.
Okay.

211



Appendix
SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit 215
This Is Scientology, The Science of Certainty 229
Standard Operating Procedure 8 251
Tone Scale [1953] 261








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 var¬ious 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.

215

216

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

217

218

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 pre¬clear 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 audi¬tor 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 dif¬ficult, 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 "out¬side" 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.

219

220

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.

221

222

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

e. Ask preclear for ideas that will not destroy, cause to survive (persist), create
or upset others. In brackets.
f. Ask preclear for ideas, sounds, sights that will not fix people or unfix them
from specific places.
g. Ask preclear for ideas he is not trying to fix in things. For ideas he is not
trying to unfix from things. In brackets.
h. Have him unmock and mock up terminals and move them together and apart until he can make them generate currents.
Step VI: Symbolization
Definition: A symbol is an idea fixed in energy and mobile in space.
Formula VI: The thetan who has been moved about by symbols is strengthened by mocking up and moving about and fixing in space ideas which have for-merly 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.

223

224

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

225

226

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.

227

228

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

229

230

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.

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

231

232


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

233

234

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.

235


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

236

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

237

238

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. Commu-nication 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 commu-nication. 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.

239

240

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.

241

242

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

243

244

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

245

246

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 psycho¬analysis 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

247

248

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 com¬munication 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.

249

250

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

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

251

252

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.

253

254

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

255

256

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 commu¬nications.
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.

257

258

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.

259

260

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

THIS IS SCIENTOLOGY, SCIENCE OF CERTAINTY, was written especially for the Journal of Scientology by L. RON HUBBARD and contains a summary of his work for the use and interest of the general public.

Tone Scale
[1953]
40.0 Serenity of beingness
20.0 Action
8.0 Exhilaration
4.0 Enthusiasm
3.0 Conservatism
2.5 Boredom
2.0 Antagonism
1.8 Pain
1.5 Anger
1.2 No-sympathy
1.1 Covert hostility
1.0 Fear
0.9 Sympathy
0.8 Propitiation
0.5 Grief
0.375 Making amends
0.05 Apathy
0.0 Body death
-0.2 Being other bodies
-1.0 Punishing other bodies
-1.3 Responsibility as blame
-1.5 Controlling bodies
-2.2 Protecting bodies
-3.0 Owning bodies
-3.5 Approval from bodies
-4.0 Needing bodies
- 6 . 0 Sacrifice
-8.0 Hiding

261



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 nine¬teen 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 com¬prehensive 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."

263

264

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 break-throughs, 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 person¬ally 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 pre-clears 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.

265



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.
aberrate: affect with aberration. See also aberration in this glossary. Well, the police are more aberrated than you are, and they are very conscious of the fact that nobody must get into competition with them. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 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. You could imagine somebody being in the business of psychoanalyzing people who wasn't psychoanalyzing anybody to get them over any mental aberration or make them any more able, or to make them feel any better or anything else? —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
aberrative: tending toward or capable of causing aberration in a person. See also aberration in this glossary. Now, we get sound being very aberrative to people—terrifically aberrative. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
aborning: being born, produced or created. They're embryonic walls, you might say—walls aborning. —SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)
acceptance level: the degree of a person's willingness to accept people or things freely, monitored and determined by his consideration of the state or condition that those people or things must be in for him to be able to do so.

267

268

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
The only thing that isn't remarked on the brief form for student use which is issued at this time, is "acceptance level"—processing acceptance level. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
Acceptance Level Processing: a type of processing which discovers the lowest level of acceptance of the individual and discovers there the prevailing hunger and feeds that hunger by means of mock-ups until it is satiated. The process is not a separate process itself, but is actually a version of Expanded GITA (Step IV of Standard Operating Procedure 8). For more information see Step IV of Standard Operating Procedure 8 in the appendix of this transcript booklet. There, by the way, is the way Acceptance Level Processing works, which is more of an educational process than anything else. —Additional Remarks: Energy Problems (15 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. . . . Advanced Procedure and Axioms and the Handbook for Preclears which are to be used together. . . —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
Age of Reason: a period in history, from the 1600s until the late 1700s, in which philosophers emphasized the use of reason as the best method of learning truth. The writings of these philosophers undermined existing regimes and encouraged revolutionary thought; they were instrumental in bringing about the French Revolution. See also Revolution in this glossary. That was the great "Age of Reason." Hardly anybody's mentioned reason since. — Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 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. Failed to control one, failed to stay outside, but mainly failed to keep two anchor points apart: the anchor point which is way back of the body where the thetan ought to be, and the body. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
anesthesed: manifesting anesthesia, a partial or total loss of the sense of pain, temperature, touch, etc. Furthermore, he has very little feeling in the front of his body—his nose is usually anesthesed and so on. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
any day in (or of) the week: (colloquial) under any conditions. This phrase is used either to indicate a preference for something, or to express complete certainty of the truth of one's opinions. It's harder to organize data than to originate it, any day in the week. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
AP&A: abbreviation for the book Advanced Procedure and Axioms, written by L. Ron Hubbard. See also Advanced Procedure and Axioms in this glossary. So what is this problem in terms of Dianetics and Scientology? You'll find out the three-year stretch which you can observe, as witnessed by lectures and writings, is a narrowing perimeter of cause, which crossed—just after Science of Survival, probably with AP&A—which crossed the border and took up full responsibility. —Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
appetite over tin cup: (slang) a pioneer Western US term used by riverboat men on the Missouri; it means "thrown away violently," like "head over heels," "bowled over." The place where people over in India go appetite over tin cup a lot of times is that their rituals are perfectly valid but they use them in words, with people who can use only words. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 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. ARC in a session—it has some desirability, has some desirability. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Arcturus: a very bright star in the northern sky, located approximately 194 trillion miles from Earth. And he'll start in usually on Arcturus. I mean, it's that far out. -—SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
Arsclycus: a society on the whole track where beings spent ten thousand lives laboring on the same job, were stuffed like snakes every few weeks to feed them, and where they returned after death because a piece of their own body was held in pawn. For more information, see lecture 16 April 1952, "How to Search for Incidents on the Track, Part I," in Research & Discovery Series Volume 10, and the book Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard. "Now we might be able to calcine the bricks a little bit better and get them a lot smoother and polish them a little bit better and hang them in thin air and do this and that with them," and you've got Arsclycus, where everybody was a slave. —SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions (14 Dec. 53)
assess: do an assessment. See also assessment in this glossary. And failing to assess a preclear is a crime of omission. —Energy Problems (15 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. But remember every time you're— you start auditing a preclear without a good assessment just along the lines that I have been giving you just now—I mean, about electrical incidents and explosions, and you want to find out about various types of things that have occurred, you want to find out what they're not ready to duplicate. —Energy Problems (15 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 informa¬tion, see the book Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard. Usually, this thing called the Assumption gets into restimulation and won't get out of restimulation, merely because the individual feels that having stolen the body, anybody can do anything to him now. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
audit: apply Dianetics and Scientology processes and procedures to. See also processing in this glossary. And you'll also better his ability to audit like mad. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)

269

270

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
auditing: another word for processing. See also processing in this glossary. These factors are factors which you have to consider in auditing. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. This morning we're going to talk about the various combining factors, and why the preclear fails and why the auditor fails on exteriorization. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. That's quite important, because here is your basic automaticity. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
bank: the mental image picture collection of the preclear—the reactive mind. It comes from computer terminology where all data is in a "bank." See also reactive mind in this glossary. They didn't go into his bank in brackets, so they might as well come out under his own horsepower. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
bap: (slang) hit; punch. And you get some preclear that's been stutter-gunned and bapped and so forth. —Comm Line: Overt Act-Motivator Sequence (16 Dec. 53)
beam: an energy flow. See also pressor beam and tractor beam in this glossary. He keeps throwing lightning bolts around. Energy, energy, energy, energy, beams, bolts, beams, bolts. —SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions (14 Dec. 53)
beat (something) to pieces: a variation of beat to death. See death, beat (or
chew) (something) to in this glossary. If he's been even vaguely doubtful about it, why, just chew it to death, just beat it to pieces. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 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. Part of the between-lives implant in this particular era at this time is "we want a friendly atmosphere."—Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
blanketing: an incident on the track which consists of throwing oneself as a thetan over another thetan or over a MEST body. Blanketing is done to obtain an emotional impact or even to kill. It is strongest in sexual incidents where the thetan throws two MEST bodies together in the sexual act in order to experience their emotions. Blanketing is basic on fastening on to a MEST body or holding a MEST body or protecting MEST bodies. For more information, see the book Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard. It finally worked out that they were so much in control of the electrical energy contained in blanketing, that they might as well have blanketed themselves and actually supposed they probably had, and it was of no further interest to them; because that was the way the case had to be worked out. —Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
blast: (informal) to curse; damn. The dangerousness of knowledge in terms of the atom bomb is the failure on the part of the atomic scientist—with whom I was educated, God blast him—to recognize his own brotherhood with and responsibility for his fellow man. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
Blatz Pictures: a made-up name for a motion picture production company. They're in superagreement upon this inability to create. "We'll make one like Blatz Pictures made last month. That went over good," so on. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Boo-Boo: a made-up name for a brand of soap. Supercommerciality—one of the finest things they will produce, after a while, will be a commercial for Boo-Boo soap. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. Now, you know old repeater technique in Book One? —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Boom's law: a made-up name for a physical universe law. "We're just handling the stuff that's already been created, and we're handling Professor Wumfgutter's formulas, and it's all according to Ohm's law or Poom's law or Boom's law." —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
boot-eyed: a variation of boot-faced, a colloquial term meaning "grim-faced, sad-faced; with an expressionless face."He was a boot-eyed kid that didn't know a psycho from a horsefly. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. Now, would we run this in brackets? —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
brooked, will not be: will not accept interference or opposition from others. And very high, it's an intention which will not be brooked. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
"Bubble Gum": a theta trap made of gummy material, also known as the "Fly Trap." The thetan who got into it punched and fought at this material until he was psychotic enough to react to the physical universe laws of responding to motions. And all of a sudden he got into the "Bubble Gum," and the next thing he knows, he was in the "Dear Souls" area. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
buckaroos: a made-up word for a symptom of a fictional disease. (The word buckaroo in its regular sense is a slang term for a cowboy or for any man.) Now, you can tell some medical student who is going through medical school,

271

272

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
you can say, "Now, there's this pipsalitis, which is a horrible disease, and it breaks out with small buckaroos on the end of the proboscis."—Knowingness (10 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 thinks he is anyplace rather than where he is. So, this is diagnosis by how well is the preclear buttered all over the universe, you see? Or if he isn't, why, he's—pretty good shape. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
buttered-around places: (slang) locations in which a person has left remote viewpoints, resulting in a condition known as buttered all over the universe. See also buttered all over the universe in this glossary. You know, he's gotten five places in the past, and every time he's got this galaxy and he's out there on the Moon and he's in all the—what we call the "buttered-around places."—SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
button: (1) an item, word, phrase, subject or area that causes response or reaction in an individual. "Where isn't your body?"And this is really a wonderful button to run on a case that has black perception or unwieldy perception, is "Where isn't your body being responsible at this moment?"—Force, Part II (13 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. That is—and "I can create" and "I can't create," is a couple of additional buttons on that that'd do something. —Additional Remarks: Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
C: abbreviation for cause. The least optimum position to occupy is exactly in the center between C and E—where a person cannot be cause but isn't effect, where he isn't effect but cannot be cause. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 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. And, as somebody said, "You—there's enough impact—you put up some of this impact, why, now every time I put it up, it takes down half of Camden." — Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
cards: a type of credits (list of those responsible for the making of a film, including performers, director, producer, etc., which appears at the beginning of a film, the conclusion of a film, or both) in which the titles remain stationary but fade in and fade out. And the fellow would take a look at this, he'll watch it through fifteen frames of this sort of thing, he'll take a look at that audience reaction, doesn't even wait for the cards. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 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.

GLOSSARY
You will find, as the cases roll along, when you're trying to handle something very specific and very pertinent to the case. . . —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. Supposing his whole track does cave in? Well, you just move a caved-in track around. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Certainty Processing: a type of processing which is designed to resolve uncertainties. An uncertainty is held in suspense solely because the preclear is holding on so hard to certainties. For example, a person could be holding on to two certainties: "I have a solution," "I have no solution." One of these is positive, the other is negative. The positive plus the negative in conflict make an uncertainty. Thus uncertainties are resolved by the processing of certainties. For more information, see the book The Creation of Human Ability by L. Ron Hubbard. One of them is Certainty Processing by changing postulates around. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
chaotize: a coined term meaning "become disorderly or confused," from chaotic, meaning "completely confused or disordered" and the suffix -ize, meaning "to become, become like or change into." Now, this universe starts to chaotize around and drop on its own head and fall on its own feet and slop around one way or the other, life comes along and starts organizing it. —SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions (14 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. Now, I recommend to you, in running 8-C, the Chart of Attitudes in the Handbook for Preclears—top and bottom, negative and positive, you know—for use in handling postulates. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Chart of Human Evaluation and Dianetic Processing: 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. Now, if you look up on that chart on the wall, the Chart of Human Evaluation and Dianetic Processing, you will discover that it is plotted immediately against the aberration of cause and effect. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
chiropracty: humorous reference to chiropractic, a therapeutic system based primarily upon the interactions of the spine and nervous system, the method of treatment usually being to adjust the segments of the spinal col¬umn. And—no, it's chiropracty, isn't it? Study of the human brain. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)

273

274

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Christian Science: a religion and system of healing founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866, emphasizing the belief that a thorough spiritual understanding of God as the all-powerful source of all that is good and true can destroy sin, sickness and the like without material aid. The members of this religion deny the reality of the material world, arguing that sin and illness are illusions to be overcome by the mind. And you've got about the—if you think you're going to remedy bacteria in the body, swiftly and completely and with a swoosh with auditing, you've got what you're doing mixed up with Christian Science. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
Christian Scientist: one who practices Christian Science. See also Christian Science in this glossary. Well, how do you mean a science, you mean in terms of the same way that the Christian Scientist says "science"? —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
chronic somatic: any "illness" generated by an engram or engrams. The word somatic means bodily or physical. Because the word pain is restimulative, and because the word pain has in the past led to confusion between physical pain and mental pain, the word somatic is used in Dianetics to denote physical pain or discomfort of any kind. You could have to ask him this in present time and past, and then in future, and it might take you about five hours of auditing, but you would get rid of his chronic somatic. —Force, Part II (13 Dec. 53)
circuit: a part of an individual's mind that behaves as though it were an entity or personality separate from him, that either talks to him or goes into action of its own accord. This is something an E-Meter will tell you faster than the preclear—anybody who self-audits rather consistently and continually, runs a liability of simply setting it up as a circuit. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
City Unit Club: a made-up name for a group a person could join. Did you ever see these fellows who had to be parts of the Knights Confiscators and parts of the City Unit Club, and parts of this and parts of that, and they always had to be joining—joining everything? —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
clear: audit (someone) to the state of Clear. Your preclear who's in this state expects you, as an auditor, by some necromancy he does not mention, to wave a wand over his head and without any use of force on his own part, or responsibility or volition on his own part, to clear him. —Force, Part I (13 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 reac-tive 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. But we're just talking now—and we're not talking about making Clears, we're just talking about changing somebody's endocrine balance. —Additional Remarks: Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
collapsed terminal: a terminal that has collapsed into or identified itself with something. See also terminal in this glossary. Now, that is not necessarily

GLOSSARY
comprehensible until you think in terms of collapsed terminals. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
Colt, Samuel: (1814-1862) American inventor who designed and manufactured the Colt "six-shooter" (a revolver that fires six shots without being reloaded), which became the most widely carried handgun in the American West. Two hundred and fifty years of it, before we first got Samuel Colt's little equalizer. —Force, Part II (13 Dec. 53)
come off: (slang) a variation of come off of it, which means "stop pretending, bragging, kidding; stop being silly." And he'll say, "Oh, see here, come off, don't get on to any of these philosophic conundrums."—SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions (14 Dec. 53)
comm lag: short for communication lag. See also communication lag in this glossary. If you've got a good grip of theory, you just audit three or four preclears and they'll all turn up exactly where they would on SOP 8 with their comparable comm lag, and their perceptions will be just about that good or that bad, see. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
communication lag: the length of time between the posing of the question and the receiving of the answer, regardless of what intervenes. His commu¬nication lag is, by the way, what an auditor listens to and tells: how fast does he reply, how long does it take him to consider where he is, so on. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
Como, Perry: (b. 1912) American singer who recorded numerous hit records in the 1940s and 1950s, making him the idol of many teenage girls. One of the most commercially successful popular singers, Como also starred in his own television show in the 1950s and 1960s. You can stand up there with a leopard skin on and they sigh worse than they do over Perry Como. —Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
Comptometers, big: humorous reference to computers. Comptometer is a brand name of a key-operated machine introduced in 1887 for performing the four basic mathematical operations of adding, subtracting, dividing and multiplying; it was the first multiple-column calculating machine to be operated entirely by keys and be absolutely accurate at all times. The name comes from the French word compter, meaning "to count," and the English suffix -meter, meaning "a device for measuring (a specified thing)."I wonder who stands in back of these big Comptometers and gives them the right answers—it's always been a puzzle to me—because their machinery doesn't account for it. —Knowingness (10 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. He'd serve as long as they could serve, he would go forward, he would do anything constructive that was constructive, and he was running on the complete—running on the beautiful computation that he couldn't die anyway, so it didn't make much difference. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)

275

276

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
congress: reference to the First International Congress of Dianeticists and Scientologists, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from 30 September through 4 October 1953. They—as I said at the congress, the only people who have actively fought us are those that we've brought up far enough on the Tone Scale to fight. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
corn and games: providing free food and entertainment; reference to the practice in ancient Rome of feeding people and providing official public amusement (circuses in the arena) in an attempt to prevent unrest. Also known as "bread and circuses." And you get a society going down Tone Scale, you get it consuming more and more and more and more and more, and producing less and less and less and less and less per unit in the society until you get the corn and games type of government of the Roman Empire. —Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
cow track: a path made or used by cows. And yet there could be the dirtiest cow track out there with one kid's scooter on it and a kid to enjoy it, and that would be more important than a whole road full of automobiles and nobody to drive them or enjoy them. —SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions (14 Dec. 53)
CPs: members of the Communist Party (from CP, abbreviation for Communist Party). I figured out he might have some adviser he might listen to, but he only listened to CPs and other people I guess. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
create-destroy assessment: an auditing technique in which an auditor, using the factors of creation and destruction and the eight dynamics, assessed hidden compulsions and obsessions on the part of the preclear. See also assessment in this glossary. Well, I would have gotten the point immediately if I'd given her a create-destroy assessment on people. —Energy Problems (15 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. So you just back up one, the second you discover another person present, rather than get into a virtuosity—a big virtuosity of how hot you are with Creative Processing and Something and Nothing, and getting rid of people and so forth. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
darnedest: (informal) a euphemism for damnedest, most extraordinary; most amazing. And you'll find him doing some of the darnedest things. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
"Dear Souls" area: the saccharine-sweet universe in which a thetan usually ended up after being caught in the "Bubble Gum." He was taken out by a crew of do-gooders who had caught him for his own good and who trained him in religious sweetness and syrup until they considered him fit to be part of their group. The attitude of the people was so good, their manners so understanding that the thetan usually ran away as soon as possible. See also "Bubble Gum" in this glossary. It's called the "Dear Souls" area for slang; that's just a slangy term for it. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
death, beat (or chew) (something) to: a variation of flog to death or do to death, meaning "overdo or repeat too often; deal with or discuss (a subject) till it is no longer in any way interesting."If he's been even vaguely doubtful about it, why, just chew it to death, just beat it to pieces. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
DED-DEDEX: short for DEserveD action-DEserveD action EXposed. A DED is an incident where the preclear punishes or hurts or wrecks someone or something the like of which has never hurt him. Now he must justify the incident. He will use things which didn't happen to him. He claims that the object of his injury really deserved it, hence the word, which is a sarcasm. A DEDEX is an incident which happens to a preclear after he has a DED and is always on the same subject. It is covered guilt. Its effect on the preclear is all out of proportion to the actual injury to him. One would think he was murdered by the harsh word or the scratch. He will explain violently how terribly he has been used. For example: Bill hits Joe and then Joe hits Bill. Although it went this way, Bill has it figured out that Joe must have hit him first, so he invents something that Joe did to him to motivate his hitting Joe. An overt act-motivator, a DED-DEDEX incident or sequence is a covert act to duplicate. —SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions (14 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. You know, things—DEI—the desire, enforce, inhibit. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
Delphi: a town in central Greece which was the location of ancient Greece's most famous and powerful oracle (a place or person through which the gods were consulted for answers to questions). The oracle at Delphi was sacred to Apollo, the Greek god of prophecy and patron of philosophy and the arts. Messages from the god were delivered via a priestess in a frenzied trance, who supposedly breathed vapors from a cleft in the rocks. Her confused utterances were interpreted by a priest, usually in verse, and the messages were often ambiguous. They either got hold of a good soothsayer who could say his sooths smoothly, or they went over to Delphi and asked the oracle there, and some girl stand over the crack of smoke and get a little bit drunk and quote a riddle, and everybody'd say, "Well, what do you know, there's a riddle there, we'll figure it out as we please now, and off we go."—Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
demon circuits: circuits which give thoughts voice, or echo the spoken word interiorly, or who give all sorts of complicated advice like a real, live voice exteriorly. See also circuit in this glossary. And postulates handle him to such a degree that he has demon circuits and automaticities and all kinds of things that are undesirable. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
devil, as the: (colloquial) exceedingly. You could say, "Where isn't the chronic somatic?"—present, past, and future—and it'd take you about five hours, but you'd sure as the devil be rid of the bulk of it by the end of that time. —Force, Part II (13 Dec. 53)

277

278

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
devil, like the: (colloquial) very much, hard, fast, etc. Now, other people would walk down and if they were terrifically high on force, they'd laugh like the devil, because that's a real big joke, you see. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
devil with (it): (colloquial) I, we, etc., do not care about (a person or thing). If you feel you're stepping on some preclear's toes—devil with it. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. And any rationale which has been delivered in Dianetics or Scientology can be handled under Step V. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
"Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science": an article that appeared as a book-length feature in the American magazine Astounding Science Fiction in April 1950. It tells the story of how Dianetics technology was initially developed. It has since been published in book form. I often kick myself for ever having written "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science," that's where E-therapy came from.—Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health: the basic text on Dianetics techniques, written by L. Ron Hubbard and first published in 1950. The work is divided into three major sections: Book One, The Goal of Man; Book Two, The Single Source of All Inorganic Mental and Organic Psychosomatic Ills and Book Three, Therapy. See also Dianetics in this glossary. And just for your own edification, you ought to go back and get ahold of a copy or take your old copy and—we can get it now, by the way— Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
dickens, like the: (colloquial) very much, hard, fast, etc. Now, an individual early on the track tried like the dickens to get his ideas fixed in force—you know, give them position. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
Doctorate Course (and 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 Scientology 8-8008 contains background theory for most of this stuff and it contains the background theory of the Doctorate Course. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 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. Double-terminaling, for instance, is a limited technique. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
dough cakes: flat or comparatively thin masses of baked dough. You know, he just ate nothing but—morning, noon and night, he ate some dough cakes or something of the sort. —Additional Remarks: Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
drop: a movement of the needle on the E-Meter dial to the right as you face the meter. Also called a fall. All I had to do was just start calling off the standard members of any Homo sapiens family and I would have gotten a drop on Mama which went, when I did get it, fifteen dials. —Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
duck part: reference to a ducktail, a hair style worn by young men in the 1950s, in which the hair was left long on the sides and swept back, so that it looked somewhat like a duck's tail. Today, the boys cut their hair in a sort of a duck part in the back, and, I think, wear little ribbons on it and they're real cute—they're real cute. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
durn: (US informal) a variation of "darn." "Well, you always was a durn fool anyway, never could make up your mind."—Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
dying with (one's) boots off: dying of disease or old age. The phrase alludes to a person dying in his own bed, as opposed to dying with (one's) boots on, which originally referred to dying by violence, as by hanging or gunfire, and has come to mean "dying while still vigorously engaged in one's work." And then the reformer came, and after that and ever since, they've been dying slow with their boots off with everybody standing around being beautifully sad. —Force, Part II (13 Dec. 53)
dynamics: the eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. They are motives or moti-vations. 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. Those things are: the curve create, survive, destroy—a very important curve; the next is the dynamics, all eight of them, what they mean . . . —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
E: abbreviation for effect. The least optimum position to occupy is exactly in the center between C and E—where a person cannot be cause but isn't effect, where he isn't effect but cannot be cause. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
"égalidad": a coined word meaning "equality," from French égalité and Spanish igualidad. They got an emperor because they were now all liberty, fraternity and "égalidad."—Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 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. And it is not in 8-C that you kick one out—that's 8-O. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. And so I refer you to 8-80 and the little charts in there that have to do with this. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)

279

280

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
8-O: short for Standard Operating Procedure 8-O. See SOP 8-O in this glossary. And it is not in 8-C that you kick one out—that's 8-O. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
electric shock: (psychiatry) the administration of electric shock to the head of a patient in a supposed effort to treat mental illness. There is no therapeutic reason for shocking anyone and there are no authentic cases on record of anyone having been cured of anything by shock. The reverse is true. Electric shock causes often irreparable damage to the person in the form of brain damage and impaired mental ability. And he will eventually settle on the light switch, if he's had a lot of electric shocks—or he'll settle on you as an auditor, something like that. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
electronic: short for electronic incident, an incident in which a thetan is implanted with electronic waves. See also implant in this glossary. And you'll find this preclear going "Slllrrpp!" to every electronic they can lay their hands on. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 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. It's better to just locate it and be real smart about it and locate it right straight off and handle it and let that go to that, see—with an E-Meter. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
engrain: a mental image picture (a mental copy of one's perceptions sometime in the past) which is a recording of an experience containing pain, uncon-sciousness 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. Interesting, isn't it? World War II is just the recurring engram of the Teutonic resistance to Roman invasion. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
engram bank: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. See also bank and reactive mind in this glossary. A person who is afraid of force and who has turned his force over to police, who has turned his force over in all directions, at once will get no justice, and eventually will be unable to forge ahead even through his own engram bank. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
entheta: theta which is turbulent, or agitated or disturbed; especially referring to communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group. See also theta in this glossary. Matter of fact, I had an office one time down in Arizona which was going strictly mad-dog on the subject until I suddenly and sharply cut off its outflow of entheta communication concerning an organization which had cost Dianetics and Scientology a great deal both in dignity, in finance, research and materiel. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
entity: a being or existence, especially when considered as distinct, independent or self-contained. One's theta beingness can be fixed up so that another personality can be injected into it; a personality implanted in this way is called an entity. For more information, see lecture 20 May 1952, "Decision: Cause and Effect" in Research & Discovery Series Volume 10, and the book Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard. And this is true—the stomach is a fairly cowardly entity. —Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
equalizer: (slang) a pistol or some other type of weapon. It was a common saying in the West that "a Colt makes all men equal." See also Colt, Samuel in this glossary. Two hundred and fifty years of it, before we first got Samuel Colt's little equalizer. —Force, Part II (13 Dec. 53)
et: (colloquial) eaten. We get it et up in quantity, too. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
E-therapy: a squirrel technique of setting up a circuit in the mind called "the examiner" and then trying to have this circuit run out engrams. It was called Examiner Therapy or E-therapy and did not work. And to get into this— not E-therapy. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
evaluation: the act of imposing 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. So that you'll find a preclear suffering consistently and continually from this invalidation trouble—invalidation and evaluation. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 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. This morning we're going to talk about the various combining factors, and why the preclear fails and why the auditor fails on exteriorization. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. You exteriorize a preclear, and as soon as you get him exteriorized nicely and so forth, you say something wrong to him, or you do something that he considers upsetting, his trust level is not too good, and he goes pang! back into his head again. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. Run it through twice—take a good heavy one like Fac One, you see, and run it through twice—and then go on off to adjusting some locks about their mother or something, see? Oh, boy. —Force, Part II (13 Dec. 53)
facsimile: a three-dimensional color picture with sound and smell and all other perceptions, plus the conclusions or speculations of the individual. Repeating symbols over and over and over did not solve them because they were being more firmly fixed too often in one place, and because of the restimulative

281

282

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
character of the automaticity known as the facsimile. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. The principal factor has to do with something else I'm going to tell you about now: the Factors. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
false armistice: reference to an incident which occurred in October of 1918, a month before the armistice which ended World War I was signed. On 4 October, the new German chancellor, Prince Max of Baden, despatched a note to US President Wilson, making a plea for "peace with honor." Wilson despatched a reply, posing questions as to Germany's intentions, to which Prince Max in turn responded. These correspondences were made public, and it appeared that Wilson might accept the German proposals. However, on 14 October, Wilson rejected their request, demanding German evacuation of all occupied territory and some proof that Germany had reformed. The war continued until 11 November. During the month of October, a flu epidemic raged in the US, taking more lives than were being lost in the war. And the false armistice which, when called off, precipitated the thing, actually caused more deaths in the United States than were caused on the battlefield by the war itself. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 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. See also MEST and mock-up in this glossary. Another thing is, the thetan who is trapped in a black field or in a distorted spatial field and can't get out one way or the other, gradually loses his confidence in putting something up; because he might as well be throwing air into a big vacuum, and he just isn't producing enough air. —Additional Remarks: Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
final run, in the: a variation of in the long run, meaning "finally; after every-thing has been considered." If he goes into a consideration that this is evil and that is evil, and this is good and that is good and so on, and makes these adjudications the sole method of arbitrating his own existence, then he comes out, in the final run, the loser. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
first book: See Book One in this glossary. In the first book—you'll notice the Tone Scale's in the first book there. —SOP 8-C Patter (11 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." It was pointed out—we were applying brackets to 8-C in the First Unit, and applied brackets all up and down this 8-C; it was rather understood there. —SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)
fix (someone) up: (informal) punish or injure (someone). He would come around to some animal and find out this animal wasn't doing this or that and he'd fix him up. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
flat spin: a frenzy of agitation; a worried confusion of mind. The term comes from a spin done by an aircraft in which it descends in tight circles while not departing greatly from a horizontal attitude. What's this case doing, then, going into a flat spin on anything I asked this case to do? —Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
Fletcher: Horace Fletcher (1849-1919), a Massachusetts businessman turned nutritionist, author of the book Glutton or Epicure (1899) and The ABC of Nutrition (1903). Fletcher advocated cutting out regular meals and eating only when really hungry, consuming very small amounts of food at one time, and chewing each tiny mouthful thirty-two times (one time for each adult tooth) before swallowing. "Fletcherism" swept the country in the early 1900s; thousands attended Fletcher's lectures and followed his instructions to the letter. As a result, the word fletcherize, "to chew food very thoroughly," became a common expression. There was a fellow by the name of Fletcher who had me going round and round when I was a young boy in this life. You had to "fletcherize," you had to chew your food I think thirty-two times— chew every mouthful thirty-two times. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
flitter: a flow of little golden sparks emanated by a thetan. It is put out on a 360-degree sphere. Just a big—you know, just like you were a glowing ball or something, you can put out all these—this "flitter" is what it is, and bring it back in and take a look at what you took a picture of. —Comm Line: Overt Act-Motivator Sequence (16 Dec. 53)
14-G: an issue of the Journal of Scientology of April 1953, containing an article by L. Ron Hubbard entitled "Child Scientology" which describes the application of the processes given in Self Analysis in Scientology to groups of children. This article can be found in Technical Bulletins Volume II. See also Journal of Scientology and Self Analysis in Scientology in this glossary.. . . and the Journal of Scientology Issues 14-G and 16-G (now to that, will be 23-G, which will carry a rather elementary rendition of SOP 8-C and a Group Process) . . . —Knowingness (10 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. Or he built a Frankenstein's monster—and this we call the "Frankenstein effect."—Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
fraternity, liberty and equality: See liberty, fraternity and equality in
this glossary.
Fulton's Fish Market: a wholesale fish market in downtown New York City, on the shore of the East River. Originally established in 1822, Fulton's grew to become the largest fish market in the United States and one of the

283

284

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
largest in the world, remaining so into the 1990s. All of a sudden of his own volition he'll think, "Do you know I won't be in the White House? (sigh) And Fulton's Fish Market is closed."—SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
Galaxy 82: a designation for an unspecified galaxy. And the fellow would say, "Well, let's see, I'm not on Jupiter, I'm not in Galaxy 82, I'm not in . . ." —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
GDQs: humorous reference to the abbreviations used to indicate a person's college degrees or professional training (such as MD, PhD, etc.). The term GDQ is possibly a play on PDQ, which means "right away; immediately," and is an abbreviation of "pretty damn quick." He had PhDs and GDQs and he'd been the Professor of Literature at Princeton and Harvard and Yale and so forth—oh, he was just a tramp. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
GE: abbreviation for genetic entity, that beingness not dissimilar to the thetan that has carried forward and developed the body from its earliest moments along the evolutionary line on Earth and which, through experience, necessity and natural selection, has employed the counter-efforts of the environment to fashion an organism of the type best fitted for survival, limited only by the abilities of the GE. The goal of the GE is survival on a much grosser plane of materiality (concerning the material or physical). See also thetan in this glossary. But mind you, if you're dealing with a current lifetime, you're dealing with a dual fear: the GE and he were scared at the same time. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
general semantics: a philosophical approach to language, developed by American scientist and writer Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950), exploring the relationship between the form of language and its use, and attempting to improve the capacity to express ideas. See also Korzybski in this glossary. Let's take semantics: This man has been an avid student of general semantics, he just has studied general semantics and so forth. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
George, by: an oath or exclamation, originally referring to Saint George, Christian martyr of the early fourth century A.D., and patron saint of England from the fourteenth century. "Saint George" was the battle cry of English soldiers, and from this arose such expressions as "before George" and "by George." You should try this on some preclear who's having a hard time— he looks into a saucepan and he goes away, and by George, he has a saucepan over his face. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
god's quantity: (colloquial) abundance. So you make it possible for him to agree on any god's quantity of fear, because what he's basically afraid of is the emotion known as fear. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
God trick: an operation in which an individual knocks one of someone else's mock-ups flat and then says God did it and sets up some kind of ritual for the person to follow in order to "help him out." For more information, see lecture 2 December 1953, "Blackness," in the third binder of this series. They don't know what space is, they don't know what an evolution on the track is, they don't know anything about what we've called the "God trick". . . —Force, Part II (13 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
goofy: (slang) stupid or crazy; silly; dazed. And you start making a liar out of this machine—it'll go goofy and that piece of knowingness will straighten out with nothing in it. —Comm Line: Overt Act-Motivator Sequence (16 Dec. 53)
GQ: (in the Navy) abbreviation for general quarters, the stationing of all hands at battle stations, and the making of preparations, as for battle or an emergency. Very—it was very wicked of me, I know, but—something like sound a GQ in officers quarters only, and fire a flock of blanks out of the Victory model star-gun. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
gradient: a gradual approach to something, taken step by step, so that, finally, quite complicated and difficult activities or concepts can be achieved with relative ease. Now, how small a gradient, and how light a postulate? —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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 it in essence, apparently, is the gradient scale—is top on the gradient scale from postulate to apathy and MEST. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
green around the gills: somewhat pale, as from being sickly, nervous or frightened. But they actually had themselves talked into it, so that about two years, three years deep into the war, these boys were green around the gills at the thought of danger. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 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. So he loses something in life, and he starts to blow a grief charge on this. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
groove: (colloquial) a "channel" or routine of action or life. Well, let's take for an example now, why one should stay fairly well on the groove until he understands exactly what he's doing with experience and so forth, and seen some of it go wrong. —SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)
Group Process: a Scientology auditing technique administered to groups of children or adults. And when we're doing Group Processes, you want to see that that takes a very prominent part in it. —SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)
gunshot: a variation of shotgun, which means "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. There is a theoretical technique—a theoretical technique which an auditor could get real smart and figure out and start to use, is 'Where don't you know something in this universe?" Now, that of course, he would gunshot as knowingness, you see, and that would be very, very . . . —Force, Part II (13 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,

285

286

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
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. Now, I recommend to you, in running 8-C, the Chart of Attitudes in the Handbook for Preclears—top and bottom, negative and positive, you know—for use in handling postulates. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
hands, dust (one's): a variation of wash one's hands of, meaning "to have no more to do with; refuse to be responsible for." You run it through once, and then get at the start of it again, with it nicely in restimulation, and then dust your hands. —Force, Part II (13 Dec. 53)
Harvard: a private university at Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded in 1636, it is the oldest college in the United States. He had PhDs and GDQs and he'd been the Professor of Literature at Princeton and Harvard and Yale and so forth—oh, he was just a tramp. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
HAS: abbreviation for Hubbard Association of Scientologists, the general membership group of Scientology at the time of these lectures. It was open to individuals who used Scientology procedures to improve themselves and others. It has since been replaced as a membership group by the International Association of Scientologists (IAS). And I want you hereinafter as aforestated, whereas and wherein (we've just had an HAS board meeting) as in hereinafter and aforestated, pursuant to any condemnations, to recognize that you have something by which you can evaluate a technique without coming around and asking me about it. —Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 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. Now, if he desires it, something is going to see to it that he enforced—that enforced havingness takes place. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
Heinlein, Bob: Robert Anson Heinlein (1907-1988), famous American writer who started writing for popular science fiction magazines in 1939 and later wrote many classic science fiction novels. Well, after that goes on a little bit, why, I realize that we're up against a communication problem, so I take the most obvious (my old pal Bob Heinlein coined a beautiful pronunciation— "supervisory")—/ take a "supervisory" type of process whereby you or me can see the guy perform. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
hell, go to: (colloquial) become utterly ruined. But the member of the last group is a member of that group solely to get protection—individual protection— from the group, and the group can go to hell. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
hell with, to: (informal) an exclamation expressing disgusted rejection of something. You just recognize your case is not making progress after you've run the first three steps, and you've run them rather rapidly and he just doesn't show any signs of shaking out of it, you can—you could just say, "Well, to hell with it, put 'fear' in the bulkhead." —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
implant: an enforced command or series of commands installed in the reactive mind below the awareness level of the individual to cause him to react or behave in a prearranged way without his "knowing it." Part of the between-lives implant in this particular era at this time is "we want a friendly atmosphere." —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. In view of the fact that almost any preclear, when you first lay your hands on him is in a "I mustn't be hit," or inverted, "I must be hit" frame of mind—you see, "I mustn't be hit" or "I can be hit"—it is very easy to invalidate a preclear. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
jake: (slang) satisfactory; okay; fine. That's perfectly jake with this character. —Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
Journal of Scientology: the magazine of the Hubbard Association of Scientologists, published between August 1952 and January 1955. Many new technical articles by L. Ron Hubbard were written for and first published in the Journal of Scientology during this time.. .. and the Journal of Scientology Issues 14-G and 16-G (now to that, will be 23-G, which will carry a rather elementary rendition of SOP 8-C and a Group Process) . . . —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
Keokuk: a city located on the Mississippi River, in southeast Iowa, in the midwestern 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 them fixed out in Keokuk and down on the Rio Grande, and he's got them fixed in school and condensed spaces here and there and so on. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
key in: to become restimulated, or to cause a key-in of (an engram). See also key-in and restimulation in this glossary. They don't realize that the fellow starts out in a fine state of unresponsibility, and then he gets all of these other unresponsibilities on top of it, and the next thing you know, he just keyed in across the boards. —Force, Part II (13 Dec. 53)
key-in: 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 engram in this glossary. So if you want to find the prime key-in of a person's life, you merely have to ask him the moment when he recognized that he had no force; that he was not able to bring about a condition of justice as he conceived it. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
key out: release or separate from (the reactive mind or some portion of it). See also reactive mind in this glossary. And then he'll finally come down and he'll all of a sudden say, "It isn't in present time at all!" And when he has made this decision, that thing is keyed out. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
kiddie car: a small, three-wheeled vehicle that a child can ride while pushing it with his feet. Now, just that—move it to the new position, no matter what you have to do—put it in a kiddie car or hitch a truck to it or anything. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)

287

288

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Knights Confiscators: humorous variation of the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic fraternal organization founded in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1882. Now international, the group provides financial support for members' families as well as furthering charitable, educational and patriotic endeavors. Did you ever see these fellows who had to be parts of the Knights Confiscators and parts of the City Unit Club, and parts of this and parts of that, and they always had to be joining—joining everything? —Cause and Effect— Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
knitting, take care of (one's): (slang) variation of stick to one's knitting, meaning "to attend strictly to one's own affairs; to not interfere with others; to be single-minded." He had it figured out that—well, let's say she had it figured out that all men were going to be enemies, and that if she paid too much attention to them and didn't take care of her knitting, she was going to come to no good. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
Korzybski: Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950), American scientist and writer who developed the subject of general semantics. See also general semantics in this glossary. And you will say, "Well, the last time I read Korzybski, this— he wasn't this worried about meanings and definitions."—SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
last ditch: the last place that can be defended; the last resort. The term orig-inally referred to soldiers defending a military position. Because, believe me, this is the last ditch on investigatory procedures. —Comm Line: Overt Act-Motivator Sequence (16 Dec. 53)
liberty, fraternity and equality: a phrase officially adopted by the French common people during the French Revolution. See also Revolution in this glossary. And so they had liberty, fraternity and equality in England for a long time before they got mixed up with it in France. —Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
line charge: a prolonged spell of uncontrolled laughter or crying which may be continued for several hours. Once started, a line charge can usually be reinforced by the occasional interjection of almost any word or phrase by the auditor. The line charge usually signals the sudden release of a large amount of charge and brings about a marked change in the case. You tell some little kid—you can always get a line charge out of a little kid if you see an airplane pass overhead and the airplane swoops a little bit too low, and you stand the little kid up on a fireplug or something like that and just give him a mock bawling-out like mad for flying so low over the town. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
line officer: a military or naval officer serving with combatant units or warships, as distinguished from a staff officer; in the US Navy, an officer eligible to command a ship at sea. And I used to walk around—all I had to do—I was a line officer and all I had to do was take off one collar ornament, and I became a doctor. —Additional Remarks: Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
Lister: Sir Joseph Lister (1827-1912), British surgeon who founded antiseptic surgery. After Louis Pasteur discovered that bacteria caused fermentation, Lister in 1865 realized that the formation of pus was also due to germs, and

GLOSSARY
began insisting on the use of antiseptics in surgery, not only on the patients but also on surgeons' hands, instruments and dressings. The use of Lister's techniques virtually eliminated post-surgical infections. There was a fellow by the name of Lister—Lord Lister, who used the principles of Pasteur in medicine. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
lock: an analytical moment in which the perceptics of an engram are approx-imated, 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. Do you know that a very large percentage of the cases that had gotten this far—I mean a large percent of the cases—if you as an auditor just simply sat there and let this fellow suffer through it, the locks will pour off and everything will slide away this way and that. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
look-a-here: an everyday-speech expression meaning simply "look here." . . . by theory he puts up space so that he can limit his own knowingness, so there's something beyond which he doesn't know, an auditor could figure out, "Now, look-a-here, we could just run this on the basis, let's see, 'where he doesn't know.' "—Force, Part II (13 Dec. 53)
loop, throw (one) for a: impress (one) strongly; overwhelm (one); confuse or surprise (one). But unfortunately in this universe, for the purposes of auditing, his imagination, when he tries to throw you for a loop with his imagination, will boil down to these seven steps. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
Louis, Joe: (1914-1981) black American boxer who held the world championship in the heavyweight class from 1937 to 1949. He defended his title twenty-five times, scoring knockouts in twenty-one of these fights. He retired undefeated in 1949 but returned to the ring in 1950, only to lose to the new champion. There's—well, there's—Joe Louis hit somebody or another, sure he'd knock him down, so forth. —Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
mad-dog: fanatic or unreasonably zealous in beliefs, opinions or pursuits; literally, like a mad dog (a dog with rabies). Matter of fact, I had an office one time down in Arizona which was going strictly mad-dog on the subject until I suddenly and sharply cut off its outflow of entheta communication concerning an organization which had cost Dianetics and Scientology a great deal both in dignity, in finance, research and materiel. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
Marchant: brand name of a type of nonprinting calculator made in the United States at the time of these lectures. The number of factors involved in the next twenty-four hours of any day, go beyond the ability of an adding machine or a Marchant calculator—they just go beyond it. —Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
Mark-8 body: humorous designation for a "model" of body. Mark is a term used in the US military to designate an item of military equipment in production, used in combination with a numeral to indicate the order of adoption (i.e., "Mark-1" would designate the earliest or most basic version or model of something, "Mark-2" the next, etc.). "Where's my body? Oh, a Mark-8 body, okay."—Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)

289

290

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
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. If he'd duplicate it just twice and hold it there, it would also discharge. Matched Terminals. —SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions (14 Dec. 53)
match-terminal: run the process Matched Terminals. See also Matched Terminals in this glossary. Duplication—well, that's his act, but it has a tendency to match-terminal what he's doing and discharge it to some degree, and he will feel better. —SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)
may chance: perhaps; perchance. Okay, you understand Scientology a little better, perhaps, may chance? —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
mechanic: technical aspect or working part; mechanism; structure. A person, however, who has to have and who will not give up, will be your most difficult preclear. And there is the mechanic. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
MEST: a word coined from the initial letters of matter, energy, space and rime, 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." You think otherwise, why, you go along with this subject for a while, and you'll find that by pulling postulates out of MEST you can make it collapse or make it move. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Metchnikoff: Ilya Illich Metchnikoff (1845-1916), Russian zoologist and bacteriologist. He formulated the theory of phagocytosis (the ingestion and destruction of cells, microorganisms, or other foreign matter in the blood by cells capable of surrounding, engulfing and digesting bacteria and viruses) and made microscopic studies of diseases of the blood. Now, there was another fellow—another fellow earlier than that, the mad Russian, who— the fellow who, by the way, got the only thing which prevents syphilis. Forgotten his name offhand—Metchnikoff, yes. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
meteoratorous: a coined word meaning "full of meteors," formed from the word meteor and the suffix -ous, "having, full of, characterized by." It's very, very "meteoratorous" in outer space—very. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
mock up: create a mock-up (of). See also mock-up in this glossary. So we say, "All right, now mock up your body."—SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 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, 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. They were looking at this very pretty mock-up or this pretty girl or something of the sort, and

GLOSSARY
they yanked the base postulate and so on, and it went poof and there wasn't anything there, and this was very sad and remorseful. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
"momism": See Wylie, Philip in this glossary.
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. Now, there's what we'd call a motivator hunger. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
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). It was very effective, it got them out of—eventually broke their fear neurosis on coming up to the bridge. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
neurotic: (psychiatry) one who exhibits neurosis, a condition wherein a person is insane or disturbed on some subject (as opposed to psychosis, wherein a person is just insane in general). And by getting him to spot himself in the biggest barrier of all—time—you can break a neurotic, just bang! —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
neutrodyne: a type of high-frequency amplifier used in radio receivers, in which neutralization (cancellation of internal feedback) was first employed to prevent oscillation throughout a range of frequencies. Stuff's no good, won't fit anything, comes off of the early superheterodyne or neutrodyne receivers that were built by his grandfather or something, but he's still got all the parts around. —Additional Remarks: Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
nickel, worth a: (slang) at all; in the least degree. A variation of worth a damn. You know, you put an idea up in the air and it just doesn't stay there, not worth a nickel—they go whhhh! —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
non persona grata: a variation of persona non grata, a Latin phrase which means "unacceptable or unwelcome." The literal translation is "person not acceptable." The only person who gets bored is the fellow who gets kind of non persona grata around town. —SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions (14 Dec. 53)
Oak Knoll: a hospital located in Oakland, California. Its official name is Oakland Naval Hospital. / was up there at Oak Knoll for about a year, Oak Knoll Naval Hospital. —Additional Remarks: Energy Problems (15 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. "We're just handling the stuff that's already been created, and we're handling Professor Wumfgutter's formulas, and it's all according to Ohm's law or Poom's law or Boom's law."—Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)

291

292

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
1.1: the numerical designation for the level of covert hostility on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. And there's certainly not very much hope for the 1.1 civilization—sweetness, kindness, all so somebody can cut your throat—in which man lives right now. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
1.5: the numerical designation for the level of anger on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. They go through periods of—go on up, they get way up Tone Scale to 1.5. —Force, Part II (13 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. Simply because man has been fooled too often and because man is unable and incapable of differentiating between goodness, truth, decency, trustworthiness and evil, playing the "only one" and so on. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
Operating Thetan: a state of beingness. It is a being "at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life." Operating comes from "able to operate without dependency on things," and Thetan is the Greek letter theta (Θ), which the ancient Greeks used to represent thought or perhaps spirit, to which an n is added to make a noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. It is also Θn or "theta to the nth degree," meaning unlimited or vast. If he is a complete nut—and that goes clear on up all the way back the track, and applies even to an Operating Thetan—he's trying to fix ideas. —SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)
Ophelia: a character in the tragedy Hamlet by William Shakespeare (1564-1616). Ophelia is a young and innocent girl who goes mad after her father's death, talking nonsense and singing light-hearted songs. While gathering wildflowers and making them into garlands, she falls into a stream and drowns. Psycho jumping all around the room and jumping on the chairs and off of the chairs and running around in circles and singing "beautiful flowers and Ophelia" or something, and you jump onto chairs and off of chairs and do it practically at the same moment they're doing it. — SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)
other-determinism: a condition of having one's actions or conclusions deter-mined by something or someone other than oneself. Because he's swamped by the supercertainty of all and the noncertainty of self, which means total other-determinism and practically no self-determinism. —Force, Part II (13 Dec. 53)
overt: short for overt act. See overt act in this glossary. And you'll find some preclears that you have going through this motivator hunger or overt hunger, and that's just this: "I must be hit" and so forth. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 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. Why do they have this? It's because they're already into overt act-motivator sequence, and the stomach commits an overt act every time it growls. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
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. And so we run into, right there in perception, the overt act-motivator sequence. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Oxford: short for Oxford University, one of the world's most prestigious universities. It is located in Oxford, England, about 50 miles northwest of London. You say, "Now, fish over the bank and get your Oxford education out—oh, you went to Princeton."—Energy Problems (15 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. One of the early notes taken on the subject of PABs and so forth, very, very early this year, 1953—duplication. —SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions (14 Dec. 53)
PAB 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. It's in one of the PABs—PAB 13, 14 and 15, I think it is. —Additional Remarks: Energy Problems (15 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 immor¬tality of man, the existence of God, etc. It, however, is in para-Scientology— what these entities are, who they are, and who put it together and that sort of thing; that's completely beyond our "care-how," rather than our know-how. —Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
Pasteur: Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), French chemist and bacteriologist. He proved that decay and putrefaction are caused by bacteria and developed serums and vaccines for such diseases as cholera and rabies. There was a fellow by the name of Lister—Lord Lister, who used the principles of Pasteur in medicine. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
patsy: a person or thing easily imposed upon, deceived, victimized or overcome. So don't make the mistake of thinking that because something can be used for a long time, it is a patsy. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
patter: the special vocabulary of a particular activity. This is the afternoon of December the 9th and we're going to take up some specific examples of patter on SOP 8-C. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
pc: abbreviation for preclear. See preclear in this glossary. . . . where pc is not thinking in the present, past and future; where others are not thinking in the present, past and future. —SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)

293

294

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Pepsi-Cola: (trademark) the name of a popular soft drink originating in the United States. And these guys get more and more glasses, and they get more and more Pepsi-Cola or some other disease. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Pete: an interjection used in various mild exclamations and phrases expres-sive of exasperation or annoyance such as "So help me Pete," or "For Pete's sake." Now I can sit down and audit an auditor and he'd think—he'd think for the love of Pete, that I was undoubtedly using Sanskrit on him or some-thing. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
philosophic machine: something drawn up which gives data that one could then combine with other data to get an answer. For example, the tables of multiplication and the rules of addition and subtraction would be types of philosophic machines. And any ways you start adding this up, you can make it a sort of one of these mathematical philosophic machines. —SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)
phrenologist: humorous reference to a psychiatrist, comparing the unworkable theories of psychiatry to those of phrenology. Phrenology is the study of the shape and protuberances (bumps or bulges) of the skull, based on the now discredited belief that they reveal character and mental capacity. That's the method used by the phrenologist—/ think that's taught in American universities, phrenology. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
pipsalitis: a made-up name for a disease, from pip, meaning "a contagious disease of fowl, characterized by the secretion of mucus in the throat and the formation of a scab on the tongue," and -itis, a suffix which indicates an inflammatory disease or inflammation. Now, you can tell some medical student who is going through medical school, you can say, "Now, there's this pipsalitis, which is a horrible disease, and it breaks out with small buckaroos on the end of the proboscis."—Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
pitch, get in there and: (slang) make an effort; work diligently; refuse to be defeated. And he tells everybody, pounds the drum and so forth, and he says, "Look at that bird. Look at those guts. Come on, get in there and pitch." —Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
Poom's law: a made-up name for a physical universe law. "We're just handling the stuff that's already been created, and we're handling Professor Wumfgutter's formulas, and it's all according to Ohm's law or Poom's law or Boom's law." —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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 there isn't much of a methodology to make things persist except postulates to make things persist; and it isn't actually technically correct that an automaticity exists which make things persist, but it appears so. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Postulate Processing: a type of processing which addresses the postulates, evaluations and conclusions of the preclear at the level of self-determined thought. Earlier postulates are to the individual the valid postulates, and

GLOSSARY
will cancel succeeding ones to a great extent. Until the basic postulate is processed out, a later one is unalterable, and a new one laid on the same subject as the basic cannot but be invalid. Postulate Processing permits an individual to change his postulates. Now, you should see very clearly here a couple of the most important, immediate goals to handle with Postulate Processing, and why you handle it back of the preclear, not in front of the preclear. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. You want to know why the preclear can't control this and control that and control his position in space and so forth, he's set it all up automatically. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
prefrontal lobotomy: a psychiatric operation performed on the prefrontal lobes of the brain (the parts of the brain situated just behind the forehead), supposedly for the purpose of relieving symptoms of mental illness. The operation is done by drilling holes in the skull and then using an instrument with a loop of wire at the end to cut the nerve fibers which connect the prefrontal lobes to the rest of the brain. They better leave nothing in sight but the prefrontal lobotomy, because out of that you couldn't work anything except the idiocy of a declining species. —Knowingness (10 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. But don't confuse this with other rationale than this—it's the Prelogics: theta locates in space and time, this and that. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. And it begins to be past tense, so that the only present time is where the individual is, and the only data he has is past time when he was at some other place. —Knowingness (10 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. A pusher beam—a pressor beam, you know, pusher—expands when energized. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Princeton: a prestigious American university located in the state of New Jersey. It is noted for its school of public and international affairs. He had PhDs and GDQs and he'd been the Professor of Literature at Princeton and Harvard and Yale and so forth—oh, he was just a tramp. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 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

295

296

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
to improve his condition. Now, we used to have a process of putting up a mock-up in front of one, and above one, and to the right, to the left, and below and so forth. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53) (2) to apply Dianetics and Scientology processes to. You have now a process which directly processes beauty and consideration of beauty, in shifting postulates. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
processing: the application of Dianetics and/or Scientology processes and procedures to individuals for their betterment. The exact definition of processing is: the action of asking a person a question (which he can understand and answer), getting an answer to that question and acknowledging him for that answer. Also called auditing. And he's run back and forth on this about bodies, and you'll find a preclear doing this under processing: "Bodies—oh, I don't want anything to do with bodies or the MEST universe."—Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
Professor Wumfgutter: a made-up name for an authority. "We're just handling the stuff that's already been created, and we're handling Professor Wumfgutter's formulas, and it's all according to Ohm's law or Poom's law or Boom's law." —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Project 65: a made-up name for a research project. And you wander into the department and start saying, "You know, I'm over from Project 65, and we were wondering what results you were getting today on pasteurized milk."—Additional Remarks: Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
Psi Galaxy: a made-up name for a galaxy. Psi is the twenty-third letter of the Greek alphabet. And we handle that around, and the fellow all of a sudden realizes it's nonsense, he can think a thought without being located up in the Psi Galaxy where they're still looking for him . . . —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
psycho: short for psychotic. See also psychotic in this glossary. If you were treating a psycho with this, you would be so doggone general. —SOP 8-C Patter (11 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. The main reason you touch objects is not because it's terribly therapeutic, but because somebody sooner or later will run into a sure-enough neurotic or psychotic who is trying to be a bedpost. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
Pugburg: a made-up name for a town or city. Burg is a colloquial term for a city, town or village, especially one regarded as quiet, unexciting, etc. And you go to the other end of the line, and you'll hear "Popcorn is for sale at Pugburg."—Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
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. / mean, it's one of these Q-and-A propositions. —Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
randomity: a consideration of motion. We have plus randomity and we have minus randomity. We can have, from the individual's consideration, too much or too little motion, or enough motion. What's enough motion measured by? The consideration of the individual. See, he built it to resist all effects; and then because he desired randomity, didn't put in "except his own."—Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
reactive bank: same as 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. See also engram in this glossary. And if he can't handle force, if he says, "I can't handle force anymore, and I want nothing to do with force; I want nothing to do with energy,"he is immediately running out on his entire reactive bank, just like that, bing! and it caves in. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
reactive mind: See reactive bank in this glossary.
reality: agreement upon perceptions and data in the physical universe. All that we can be sure is real is that on which we have agreed is real. Agreement is the essence of reality. And this agreement itself becomes the reality of the individual. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Rembrandt: Rembrandt Harmensz van Rijn (1606-1669), Dutch painter and etcher; considered one of the greatest painters in history. I saw this nice painting which was a copy of a Rembrandt, and it had been done very well, and it wasn't all filthy dirty and cracked the way the original Rembrandt was. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
repeater technique: an auditing technique, given in the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, in which the auditor has the preclear repeat over and over certain phrases found in engrams being run. Repetition of such phrases can cause the preclear to come into contact with the engrams which contain them. Now, you know old repeater technique in Book One? —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. Therefore, he's liable to throw into restimulation that machinery which the preclear has which sends him places. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
Revolution: reference to the French Revolution, the revolution of the common people against the monarchy in France, which began in 1789 and ended when Napoleon seized power in 1799. During the revolution, a court was set up to pass sentence on French nobles and others considered "enemies of the

297

298

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
revolution." At its peak, this court issued death sentences at a rate of seven per day, and it was responsible for the executions of thousands of French nobles. They cut off the heads of every reasonable and educated man in the entire nation, France—Revolution, end of the eighteenth century. —Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 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. Those things which are holding apart the ideas—those bodies of energy we call ridges and so forth, which are holding apart his ideas; things like engrams, so on—are composed entirely of energy, and force is energy. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
Ridge Running: a technique which deals with the ridges that a preclear has. It was issued in 1952 as Step IV of the first version of Standard Operating Procedure. For more information, see Journal of Scientology Issue 6-G, PROCEDURES FOR THETA CLEARING, in Technical Bulletins Volume I. See also ridge in this glossary. There's an old technique known as Ridge Running. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)
right as rain: (informal) quite all right, especially when compared with what might be expected or an earlier condition. And twenty minutes later, she was as right as rain. —Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
Rising Scale postulates: reference to Rising Scale Processing, processing in which one takes any point or column of the Chart of Attitudes which the preclear can reach, and asks the preclear then to shift his postulate upwards toward a higher level. It is simply a method of shifting postulates upward toward optimum from where the preclear believes he is on the chart. It is essentially a process directed toward increasing belief in self by using all the "buttons" on the Chart of Attitudes. See also Chart of Attitudes and postulate in this glossary. Do that right along the column, one column after the other, one time for each column, then you go back over all the columns again, you go back over all the columns again—just the bottom, just the top. Rising Scale postulates. —Additional Remarks: Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
roily-coaster: move like a roller coaster, a railway for amusement consisting of inclined tracks along which small cars roll, abruptly dip, turn, etc. Used figuratively. Now roily-coaster down one of the blades of the Sun. —Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
run: to perform the steps of a process, procedure, etc., on (someone or something). See also process in this glossary. And don't just sit there benignly and let him go on and run it and fall on his face and do all sorts of weird things and then afterwards say, "Well, let's see, I guess that technique doesn't work." —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Sand Point: reference to Sands Point, a small village in southeastern New York. It's been out, they reviewed it in the little theater out at Sand Point, and the audience sat there, and some of them were seen to hold their noses. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
Scholastics: adherents of Scholasticism, the philosophical thought of medieval Western Europe. Scholasticism represented an attempt to blend the beliefs of the Catholic church with the philosophy of Aristotle—faith with reason. The resultant confusions and contradictions were not truly resolved, but were explained in different ways by different teachers and groups of Scholastics; for example, one school attempted to show how religious data could be explained in the light of reason, whereas another taught that there was no rational ground for anything in faith. Not strain the way the Scholastics did to fix the maximum number of ideas for the minimum-amount of action. —SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)
Science of Survival: a book by L. Ron Hubbard, published in 1951, which covers the different aspects of the Tone Scale and how it can be used in processing and in life. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. Shortly should have or we have now, Science of Survival. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 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. And any rationale which has been delivered in Dianetics or Scientology can be handled under Step V. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Scientology 8-8008: a book written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 which is a complete treatise of the anatomy of universes and the role played in them by a spiritual being. The definition of 8-8008 is the attainment of infinity by the reduction of the apparent infinity and power of the MEST universe to a zero for himself, and the increase of the apparent zero of one's own universe to an infinity for oneself. It can be seen that infinity stood upright makes the number eight: thus, 8-8008 is not just another number, but serves to fix into the mind of the individual a route by which he can rehabilitate himself, his abilities, his ethics and his goals. Most of the Doctorate material—it is in Scientology 8-8008. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
Self Analysis: reference to the auditing processes given in the book Self Analysis in Scientology. See also Self Analysis in Scientology in this glossary. And he says, "I do it very effectively and I feel fine afterwards, but don't tell me I've got to go on the rest of my life doing a half an hour of Self Analysis every time I come home from school."—SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)
Self Analysis in Scientology (or "in Dianetics"): 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 England in October 1952 as Self Analysis in Dianetics, and in the United States in April 1953 as Self Analysis in Scientology. See also Creative Processing in this glossary. . . . Advanced Procedure and Axioms and the Handbook for Preclears which are to be used together; Self Analysis in Scientology (parenthesis) or (quote) "in Dianetics" (unparenthesis); Scientology 8-8008, all of it... —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)

299

300

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
self-auditing: the action of running concepts or processes on oneself. This is something an E-Meter will tell you faster than the preclear—anybody who self-audits rather consistently and continually, runs a liability of simply setting it up as a circuit. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
self-determinism: a condition of determining the actions of self; the ability to direct oneself. The wild dog has his self-determinism, he lives or dies by his own acts, he takes responsibility for what he does. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
Semiramis: a legendary queen of Assyria, who supposedly founded the ancient city of Babylon and conquered Persia (Iran) and Egypt. She is also said to have built the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, ornamental gardens rising in a series of terraces which were famed as one of the Seven Wonders of the World (the seven most remarkable structures of ancient times). By the way, the kingdom of Semiramis was in the Middle East, the area—that's a semi¬mythical kingdom, it actually existed. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
sequitur: a Latin word which literally means "it follows." As a descriptive term, it means "pertinent; following logically (from what came before)." So when you're—this is what I'm saying, it's very, very sequitur, there's nothing wrong with general semantics; wonderful piece of work. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
servomechanism: any system used to aid or control a mechanical device or a larger system. The point is that the human mind is a servomechanism to all mathematics. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 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. But they say this fellow Shakespeare—you know, they tried to damn him down the ages by saying, you know, "Why, he just took this old Dutch play—he took this play from the Netherlands, and he took this and that, and he stole from everybody," and so on. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
shotgun: covering a wide area in an irregularly effective manner without concern for details or particulars; tending to be all-inclusive and nonselective. A shotgun is a gun with no grooves in its barrels, for firing cartridges filled with small lead or steel balls. When fired, these balls (shot) travel in an expanding, conelike pattern. But there is one shotgun technique on this occlusion, and on a V, which quite often produces results. —Energy Problems (15 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. And we look over 16-G, that becomes very important. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 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. You'd certainly better wait till Step VII—Reach and Withdraw, Contact with, Six Ways to Nothing

GLOSSARY
and so forth, and the other techniques which fit in with VII—contact with this MEST universe, before you tell a thetan to look at the MEST universe very seriously. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
slick paper magazine: an expensive or intellectual magazine (usually printed on paper with a glossy finish), as distinguished from a pulp magazine (printed on rough paper and usually containing sensational stories of love, crime, adventure, etc.). Well, in Hollywood and amongst (quote) "slick paper magazine circles" in New York, the politeness level of the authors is, "Well, it's not anything, I just knocked it off, it doesn't amount to very much." —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. Somatics—they've got to have somatics, they've got to come in on them. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
Something and Nothing: a process in which the statements "There is something here, there is nothing here," or feelings which approximate those statements, are run in brackets. The process can be used on any object, thing or idea, on any psychosomatic ill or any numb portion of the body. For more information, see "This Is Scientology, The Science of Certainty" in the appendix of this transcript booklet. So you just back up one, the second you discover another person present, rather than get into a virtuosity—a big virtuosity of how hot you are with Creative Processing and Something and Nothing, and getting rid of people and so forth. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 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. "The son of a gun chases me everywhere I go, I can't have any space without his space."—Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
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. And it's very interesting that SOP 8 has not had—I have not put on any of the SOPs, the eighth step. —SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions (14 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. Now, those are steps by SOP 8, you understand. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
SOP 8-C: abbreviation for Standard Operating Procedure 8-C. For full infor-mation on this procedure, see "SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit" in the appendix of this transcript booklet. And when we combine these major factors, we find that we have several modus operandi as contained in SOP 8-C which specifically address them. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)

301

302

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
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 abil-ities. Now, SOP 8-O specializes in outflow. —Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
soup, out of the: (informal) out of trouble; out of a difficult or unpleasant position. Now, you understand that just the principle of assignment of cause itself will pull somebody, now and then, out of the soup. —Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
south: down; toward a lower level. You take individuals up there who—show them how far south people are and so forth, after that they'll be able to do something for people. —Force, Part II (13 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. Anybody who has formerly been in space opera has finally agreed that it was dangerous and upsetting to hit a meteorite flight with a ship at two light-years per second or something. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
Spoofer, Franklin Delano: humorous reference to Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945), thirty-second president of the United States (1933-1945). Spoof means "a hoax, joke or trick" and was originally the trademark for a card game characterized by nonsense and hoaxing. I knew before the war, because I had many friends and knew quite a bit about Japan, I knew what their mood was—and I considered that Franklin Delano Spoofer was more sensible than he was. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
spook: ghostlike; appearing unexpectedly or in an extraordinary way. Anyway, I'm not trying to add spook stuff into you. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
squirrel cage: a cage containing a cylindrical framework that is rotated by a squirrel or other small animal running inside of it. Used figuratively to mean any situation that seems to be endlessly without goal or achievement. And so we go round and around in this dizzy little squirrel cage: "Well, you can't have any pictures because we've got to repress the white so that we can know, and we can't see it because it's all black because we've got a curtain of blackness hanging up in front of all the pictures. —Comm Line: Overt Act-Motivator Sequence (16 Dec. 53)
steen: (slang) any indefinite (but fairly large) number of. But how do you shorten that up by about steen dozen hours, that's the important thing. —Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
Sten gun: a type of light, rapid-fire submachine gun which was the standard such weapon in the British Commonwealth armed forces during World War II. Thousands of Sten guns were also provided to underground movements throughout Europe during that war, making use of the gun so widespread

GLOSSARY
that its name became all but a generic term for "submachine gun." The name comes from the initials of its designers and its place of manufacture: R.V. Shepherd and H.J. Turpin, plus Enfield, Greater London. Now, you go down the street here and you take out a Sten gun and you start shooting up every pedestrian that you meet. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
storm, take one by: (informal) to make a great impression upon. This phrase originally meant "to seize a castle, military position, etc., by a sudden and violent attack." But I've never failed to take one by storm about the fifth or sixth time you ask them about objects in the future or people in the future. —SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)
Story of Mankind: See Van Loon, Hendrik in this glossary.
Straightwire: a straight memory auditing technique, called "Straightwire" because one is stringing a line between present time and some incident in the past, and stringing that line directly and without any detours. In other words, the auditor is stringing a straight "wire" of memory between the actual genus (origin) of a condition and present time, thus demonstrating that there is a difference of time and space in the condition then and the condition now. The preclear, conceding this difference, can then rid himself of the condition or at least be able to handle it. "Oh gee, well let's try some other Straightwire."—SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)
Straightwire: to use straight memory, as in Straightwire. See Straightwire
in this glossary. So you've straightwired it in, through and past "it must not duplicate."—Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
superheterodyne: a sophisticated radio receiver in which the frequency of an incoming radio signal is mixed with a locally generated signal and converted to an intermediate frequency in order to facilitate amplification and the rejection of unwanted signals. Stuff's no good, won't fit anything, comes off of the early superheterodyne or neutrodyne receivers that were built by his grandfather or something, but he's still got all the parts around. —Additional Remarks: Energy Problems (15 Dec. 53)
sweeter than light: reference to the phrase sweetness and light. See also sweetness and light in this glossary. Now, that sounds sweeter than light and all that sort of thing, but it happens to be the horrible truth. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
sweetness and light: unusual tolerance, understanding or sympathy (often used ironically when such a display is entirely out of character). Now, we take in this society a little child, and we raise them up on sweetness and light: that if you are a good boy, and do not employ any force, the society will take care of you and you will have justice, and you'll this—and it's all love and sweet sympathy. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
tappet: a variation of tap, meaning "faucet; spigot." And with great relief, he'll say, "The tappet is not in the past."—SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)
Ten Commandments: per the Bible, the ten commandments engraved on stone tablets and given to Moses by God. These commandments are the

303

304

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
heart of the divine law in the Old Testament: I. I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me. II. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. III. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. IV. Honor thy father and thy mother. V. Thou shalt not kill. VI. Thou shalt not commit adultery. VII. Thou shalt not steal. VIII. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. IX. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's. There are ten aberrative things. They are the Ten Commandments. Nobody's saying these are bad or good, but these are plenty aberrative. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
terminal: a person, point or position which can receive, relay or send a communication. The failure postulate comes about when a thetan does—has depended too much upon a body, and no longer considers himself sufficiently strong or powerful to hold apart the terminal of the spot twenty-five feet back of the head and the body itself. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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 (9), which the ancient Greeks used to represent spirit or thought. But don't confuse this with other rationale than this—it's the Prelogics: theta locates in space and time, this and that. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 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. Well, you've done your job—a Theta Clear, and that's that. —Energy Problems (15 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. The thetan is absolutely nothing if he cannot create, and if he cannot destroy those things which menace his creations. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Throgmagog: a made-up name for a god, coined by LRH to mean something an individual unknowingly mocks up that will give him all kinds of advice and tell him what to do; an automatic regulator of one's destiny so an individual doesn't have to take responsibility for anything that happens to him. It's the setup of the great god Throgmagog, which is the setup of the total consciousness of the body exterior to the individual himself, and the individual will obey it. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 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

GLOSSARY
the entire sequence of "now" incidents, complete with all sense messages, picked up by a person during his whole existence. And if he's in good shape, he will name, more or less, his consecutive time track. —SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
tippy: (colloquial) not steady; shaky. And if you run in on him this problem "anything can happen"—on any problem he has, rather, "Well, anything can happen"; if he's a little bit tippy to begin with, he will almost go mad. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
'tisn't: (colloquial) shortening of it isn't. 'Tisn't whether it keeps going on or not—what's important about the MEST universe is your effect upon it and its effect upon you. —SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions (14 Dec. 53)
Tolerance: See Van Loon, Hendrik in this glossary.
Tone Scale: a scale, in Scientology, which shows the emotional tones of a person. These, ranged from the highest to the lowest, are, in part, exhilaration (as we proceed downward), mild interest, boredom, anger, fear, grief, apathy. An arbitrary numerical value is given to each level on the scale. Also called the Tone Scale. There are many aspects of the Tone Scale and using it makes possible the prediction of human behavior. A copy of the Tone Scale in use at the time of these lectures is included in the appendix of this transcript booklet. Now, preclears who make consistent and continual errors about time may fall into two classifications: One, they've kicked out their automaticity about time, and the other is they've gone up a high enough Tone Scale that time starts to look silly to them. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
track: short for time track. See time track in this glossary. And we find that originally and early on the track, a thetan was handling bodies, if he handled them at all, from above and behind the body. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
tractor beam: an energy flow which the thetan shortens. If one placed a flashlight beam upon a wall and then, by manipulating the beam, brought the wall closer to him by it, he would have the action of a tractor beam. And every tractor beam in there collapses, because it's energized. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
transfer: (psychoanalysis) experience transference, the process by which emotions and desires originally associated with one person, such as a parent, brother or sister, are unconsciously shifted to another person, especially to the psychoanalyst. "And you've transferred and you know what that's done to you now."—SOP 8-C: General Discussion (10 Dec. 53)
triangle of ARC: 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. See also ARC in this glossary. Now, we take the old triangle of ARC, and we find out that all these factors come into being and become confirmed when they are agreed to. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)

305

306

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
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 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. These auditors have become What to Audit fans after they have seen somebody in the Tumbler—some-body in one of these engrams or other, they've seen them. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
20-weight paper: paper with a basis weight of twenty pounds. Basis weight is a term used in papermaking to refer to the weight or substance of paper per unit area. It is measured by weighing five hundred sheets of a specific type of paper, cut to a standard size and under standard conditions. Twenty-weight paper is the type of paper used for most office and administrative applications. Don't try to specialize and say, "It is a dunce cap made out of 20-weight paper," or something, because it's not. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
.22 bullet: a bullet which is .22 inches in diameter, used in rifles or pistols with a barrel of the same size. / don't know what the penetrative power of a longbow is, but it's getting up there close to a .22 bullet. —Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
23-G: an issue of the Journal of Scientology of 15 January 1954, containing an article by L. Ron Hubbard entitled "Man's Search for His Soul." This article can be found in Technical Bulletins Volume II. The procedure for SOP 8-C and the Group Process mentioned by LRH in the lecture were included in issue 24-G of the Journal, which came out later in January 1954. A copy of that article, entitled "SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit," is included in the appendix of this transcript booklet. . . . and the Journal of Scientology Issues 14-G and 16-G (now to that, will be 23-G, which will carry a rather elementary rendition of SOP 8-C and a Group Process) . . . —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
under the sun, moon or stars: on Earth; in the world. A variation of under the sun. A thetan has no business under the sun, moon or stars worrying about the scarcity of bodies. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
unmock: make nothing of. See also mock up in this glossary. That is to say, he uses automaticity to do two things—actually, most specifically, two specific things, which is to mock and unmock things—to create, that is to say, and destroy things. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
valence: the combined package of a personality which one assumes as does an actor on a stage, except in life one doesn't assume this knowingly. One's own valence is his actual personality. "Out of valence" describes someone who has assumed the personality of another. He shifts valences on sight. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
van Gogh: Vincent Willem van Gogh (1853-1890), Dutch painter famous for the intense colors and broad, expressive brushwork he used in his paintings. You can duplicate van Gogh in 1936 and be the person in 1936 who did a

GLOSSARY
duplicate of van Gogh, and you therefore have been original. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
Van Loon, Hendrik: Hendrik Willem Van Loon (1882-1944), Dutch-American historian and biographer. He wrote a popular series of books, illustrated by himself, which aimed to explain the world and its complexities both to children and adults. He was the author of The Story of Mankind (1921), a nonfiction work for children which presented information in a scholarly but lively style that set the example for subsequent information books for children. His book Tolerance (1925) was a history of religious intolerance and the men who fought for freedom of religion and the right to think. I'd recommend to you a very, very simple but a very great book which has been completely overlooked by this society, and that's Hendrik Van Loon's book Tolerance. —Force, Part II (13 Dec. 53)
VA office: an office of the Veteran's Administration, a United States federal agency charged with administering benefits provided by law for veterans of the armed forces, including medical and rehabilitation services, pensions, educational assistance and loan guarantees. / was hanging around a VA office one day and a fellow was saying, "Well, they tell me I've got to be operated on, but if I'm operated on, I just know I'll talk."—Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
Vedic: of or pertaining to people who settled in India around 1500 B.C., or to their literature or religion. The Vedic hymns, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism, were written by the Vedic people. Vedic comes from the Sanskrit word veda, meaning "knowledge" or "sacred knowledge." I have heard the remark said that the simple, pure and childlike glory of the Vedic peoples had long since perished. —SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions (14 Dec. 53)
Vedic hymns: the oldest scriptures of Hinduism; religious hymns which are part of the earliest known material or knowledge here on Earth in the form of data. See also Vedic in this glossary. Now, the principle of survive is the most prominent of the principles which are listed in the early Vedic hymns. —SOP 8-C Step VIII, Definitions (14 Dec. 53)
Victory model star-gun: a type of gun that fires star shells, which on bursting release a shower of stars to illuminate the enemy's position at night. "Victory model" is a term which was used to refer to a number of different types of military items that were mass-produced during World War II. Very—it was very wicked of me, I know, but—something like sound a GQ in officers quarters only, and fire a flock of blanks out of the Victory model star-gun. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
viewpoint: a point of awareness from which one can perceive. Now, a preclear is a viewpoint of dimension, and he's a viewpoint of objects which are themselves barricades of dimension. —Knowingness (10 Dec. 53)
Viewpoint Processing: a process which seeks to resolve the problems set up by the evaluation of one being for another. It resolves in particular dependence upon people, objects, bodies and special systems of communication. This process is done by mock-ups of a very large order and of no particular distinctness. The auditor has the preclear put up a number of people or

307

308

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
objects as himself putting them up, then has him put up people or objects as though somebody else were putting them up; then has others putting them up for others, all in quantity. For more information, see PAB 8, VIEWPOINT PROCESSING, in Technical Bulletins Volume II. You just take this type of Viewpoint Processing, where you have masses of viewpoints and you mock these up in brackets or not in brackets. —Force, Part I (13 Dec. 53)
Village, the: short for Greenwich Village. So a bunch of us sat around half— I'm afraid in my artistic days, that I rather followed the fashion of the Village—half-drunk. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
wash it all up: (slang) finish (something); ruin (something); leave no further possibility of success. This is all he's got! And now you're going to wash it all up by letting somebody agree that he can't create. —Summary: Failures on Exteriorization (9 Dec. 53)
Watson: Dr. Watson, a character portrayed in the stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as the admiring friend of fictional detective Sherlock Holmes. The phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" is often attributed to Holmes when replying to Watson's queries on how he had solved a complex crime or mystery. And this is elementary, my dear Watson. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
West, early: the western region of the United States during the frontier period of the nineteenth century when settlers were moving west, claiming land, and later when gold was discovered in California; the early West was known for its lawlessness. The early West, for instance, was a very, very bold, big society—they had an awful lot of space. —Force, Part II (13 Dec. 53)
Western Union: an American telegraph company formed in 1856. Western Union is a symbolical communications system, if you want to know precisely what I mean by a communications system. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 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." Take What to Audit—very interesting book. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 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. Well, he's run through society after society after society on the whole track doing this. —Examples of SOP 8-C Patter (9 Dec. 53)
Winchell: Walter Winchell (1897-1972) newspaper columnist and radio commentator. Originally a vaudeville performer, Winchell reached a huge audience in the 1930s and 1940s with a blend of political comment and celebrity gossip. His New York Daily Mirror column was syndicated in hundreds of papers, and his Sunday evening radio broadcasts to "Mr. and Mrs. America" had approximately twenty million listeners. This is far more grim—far, far more grim—than Winchell's little tale about cancer of the lungs because of cigarettes, last night. —Cause and Effect—Assignment of Cause, GE (14 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
Wylie, Philip: Philip Gordon Wylie (1902-1971), American author. He wrote the book Generation of Vipers in 1942 in which he coined the term momism to mean "an excessive attachment to, or domination by, the mother." But they have bought "momism," Philip Wylie's "momism," to a markable extent. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
Yale: a university in New Haven, Connecticut. Founded in 1701, it is the third oldest institute of higher learning in the United States. He had PhDs and GDQs and he'd been the Professor of Literature at Princeton and Harvard and Yale and so forth—oh, he was just a tramp. —SOP 8-C: Step V (15 Dec. 53)
Yamlicla: a made-up name for a goddess. "And the branch of the tree made the sign 'Y' and that means Yamlicla, the Queen of the Underearth and so—she is not in agreement with the projects which come forward—and so we're just not going to be very active this next month." — Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause (16 Dec. 53)
0.5: the numerical designation for the level of grief on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. Right down there from about 0.5 on the Tone Scale down, you get repetitive cycles. —SOP 8-C Patter (11 Dec. 53)

Web auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/
Timecops
 
Сообщений: 1881
Зарегистрирован: 25 июн 2011, 15:42

Вернуться в L Ron Hubbard original LECTIONS, TAPES

Кто сейчас на форуме

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 2

cron