tapes_25-35 485KB Jul 14 2016 11:32:02 AM

Document technical information

Format rtf
Size 497.0 kB
First found May 22, 2018

Document content analysis

Category Also themed
Language
English
Type
not defined
Concepts
no text concepts found

Persons

Organizations

Places

Transcript

25
26
27
**
28
29
30
31
**
32
**
33
34
35
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
7
10
11
11
12
13
14
17
17
18
18
19
20
21
Elementary Material: Know to Mystery Scale
Education: Goals in Society -- Adult Education
Fundamentals of Auditing
Auditors' Conference
Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part I
Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part II
Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part III
Auditing Demonstration: Six Basics in Action
Auditors' Conference
Auditing Demonstration: Spotting Spots
Auditors' Conference
Auditing Demonstration: Exteriorization
Background Music to Living
Axioms: Laws of Consideration -- What an Axiom Is
9ACC19-5501C07 ELEMENTARY MATERIAL KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE
Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC19 - 5501C07 Renumbered 21
for "The Solution To Entrapment" cassettes
ELEMENTARY MATERIAL: KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE
A lecture given on 7 January 1955
There are some elementary materials of Scientology which we mustn't
overlook which have been of fascinating interest to Advanced Clinical
Courses for a very long time. The first and foremost of these is the
Know to Mystery Scale. I've stated this in various ways, mostly
because it was refined in statement. But you get a condensation of
knowingness. A condensation of knowingness occurs down to lookingness.
One has something to look at.
And then this condenses and we get emotion. And this condenses and we
get effort. And this condenses and we get thinkingness - you know,
figure-figure. And this condenses and we get symbols. And the symbols
condense and we get eating and the eating condenses and we get sex and
the sex condenses and we get mystery.
Now, we could go on down south again and say, below mystery we get
peering. And below peering, why, we would of course get misemotion.
And below misemotion we would get horror of effort. And below horror
of effort, why, we would get something on the order of a circuit
instead of thinking-ness, you see.
And below this circuit, why, we would get incomprehensible symbols and
sciences like psychology. And below, and below this circuitry we would
get indigestion. And below indigestion we'd get sterility and
impotence. And below this, why, we would get unconsciousness.
And, now, this is a dwindling spiral. This is the picture of the
dwindling spiral and this is the scale. We can recognize this scale
today as - in various processes. You might think it merely curiosa at
times, but you had certainly better know some of the things you are
looking at. It helps you out a lot with a preclear to know what you
are looking at. A few auditors have been known to get some results
because they knew what they were looking at.
Now, we go down scale in scouting preclears pretty darn low. You could
say this Know - it's originally called the Know to Sex Scale, but you
understand that it goes know to sex, and then mystery to
unconsciousness. You get the idea? It could harmonic.
Just as we, in the Philadelphia lectures, demonstrated the fact that
the desire-ennforce-inhibit spiral is actually - you could say desire
is way up, and then enforce is in the middle of the Tone Scale and is
inhibited at the bottom.
Well, we could also draw the same scale this way:
desire-enforce-inhibit. And you've only come down one-tenth of a
millimeter. Then desire-enforce- inhibit, and you've only come down
another tenth of a millimeter, you see? Desire-enforce-inhibit and
you've come down another one, so that you could draw the whole Tone
Scale as a Know to Mystery Scale. The whole Tone Scale could be drawn
in this fashion with one Know to Mystery Scale laid out on it.
Or it could be one Know to Mystery Scale and we've gone down a tenth
of a millimeter, and one mystery - Know to Mystery Scale, we've gone
down a tenth of a millimeter. You get the idea?
In other words, out of this big section we can take little sections of
it and we find out they have all the essential parts of the big
section, you see?
In this particular case, in this type of graph, why, we get the part
as having all the characteristics of the whole. So we take the band,
let us say - this is not meaningful, I mean, I'll just give you an
arbitrary area of the Tone Scale - and we would say from 1.8 to 2.0
and right in that area we would have a Know to Mystery Scale complete,
see. The part is the same as the whole.
This is not always true. You take a machine apart and you will find
out that the cogwheels and the axle are not the same as the whole. But
in this particular case, they are the same as the whole because you
are dealing essentially with just one thing and that's thought. And
these are the component parts of thought in its condensation.
Now, this becomes very curious in the running of Opening Procedure by
Duplication because if you were to closely watch your preclear, and if
you were to cause him to describe what was happening and to describe
what he was doing and to describe the - exactly what you'd told him to
describe, you know, "Look at it," you know. And he looks at it and you
say, "What color is it?"
And he says, "Well, it's - uh - it's red." It's a book, by the way,
with eight colors on the jacket, see, and he says, "It's red."
And you say, "What color is it?"
And he says, "It's well, it's - it's red, with a little green here."
And you say, "Well, that's - that's fine." You go on along the line.
And the next time you come by this book, this same object which you're
repeating on, why, you say, "What color is it?" And he's gotten away
with this. He knows the satisfactory answer to you is "It's red with a
little bit of green on it." Didn't look at it at all, see.
And you say, "What color is that?"
"Well, it's - uh - it's - uh - well, it's red with a little bit of
green on it. Of course, there's a blue over here." You get the idea.
Brace him up. Just because he's found the answer to be a satisfactory
answer to you is no reason under the sun, no reason under the sun why
- demonstrates that he is looking at it. But this sort of thing
occurs.
That's beside the point. Just a little bit of an aside here on making
him run such a process.
All right. Completely aside from this, as the preclear runs Opening
Procedure by Duplication you will find him coming up the Mystery to
Know Scale. You know, you'll start to come up the scale. And this is
one of the more curious things, because he is so jammed in at the
bottom - in other words, the scale itself is condensed down at the
bottom - that he is liable to hit sex, effort, know, you see,
bing-bing-bing. And then he will hit eatingness.
You understand, he's going over this scale, is so condensed that he's
only hitting spots on it. This is perfectly all right. I just want you
to know what you are looking at, because this is one of the most
curious things. As you make him describe - as you make him describe
the color, and that sort of thing, why, he'll tell you "It's good
enough to eat," you see.
Or he will tell you "It is awfully heavy this time," or he will tell
you "I don't know I'm kind of bored with this." That doesn't, by the
way, mean he's up in boredom. He's probably in the apathy of boredom
when he tells you such a thing.
Every one of the emotional bands has every one of the emotions in it.
Now, this is the part being the whole sort of a thing. Well, let's
take boredom as an emotion and we find out there's the anger of
boredom and there's the grief of boredom and so on.
Let's take apathy. This is one of the most remarkable things. There is
a - an apathy of rage. Or a rage of apathy, and so forth. I mean, "Oh,
I don't know what I'm going to do, but I could just kill somebody
about this," you know? So we take each one of the emotions and we find
out it has each one of the emotions in it.
All right. As he comes up the line, we will discover quite adequately
that he is hitting, see, he's hitting, ping-ping-ping, up the line on
the Know to Mystery Scale. If he doesn't do this, he isn't moving.
And one of the surest tests in the world - is this boy going on up
tone. It is expressed not so much by his voice tone or his emotional
context, or something of the sort, but by the actual text of what he
is describing. He'll tell you it's a mystery to him. He'll say, "I
don't know anything about that bottle now." You know - mystery.
And then he will tell you "You know, it looks like a perfume bottle."
You know, sex. It - it - "I wonder what this thing contained?" Eating,
see? And you will find him sneaking on up the band, you see? And of
course if it's heavy or it's - "This is a lot of hard work," he will
tell you suddenly, and something like that; he's scooting on up
through effort, and then, as he hits the emotion.
And then he will hit a period there where he stands and stares at it.
He stares at the thing, you know. He's not comm lagging. He's just hit
the look part of that scale.
Well, the scale is useful. You can discover that somebody who is very
afraid of effort will do a lot of figure-figure on the effort. You
would be amazed at some of the procedures of yesteryear which simply
decided that instead of thinking about it we would simply shove it
through.
If you had enough force, you wouldn't do any thinking. You'd do a
minimum of figure-figure, if you had enough force. For instance, if
this city had no slightest - no dearth whatsoever of machinery in
order to clean up everything in sight, and if the machinery was easy
to run, didn't require many men to run, there was an enormous supply
of power available to it, believe me, it wouldn't do much thinking
about how it applied that power. It would simply apply it.
It would say, "Well, let's see now. We need a street through here.
Well, street through here." And they are liable to put one through
there, even though the inhabitants are still in the houses.
And you come by afterwards, and you say, "Hey, what was the matter
with you? You know, you know that you knocked down about eight houses
while you were putting that - ."
"Oh, did we? Well, that's too bad. Well, we'll build them another
house." They would. You know, it isn't that they would be mean about
it. It's just that, it's just they wouldn't think about it. An
enormous amount of force.
Therefore you get societies which are possessed of enormous amounts of
force, tremendous quantities of power, and So on, doing very, very
little thinking about consequences, which is quite fabulous.
But after, after a few of them have gotten zapped very thoroughly, and
so forth, these people will start figuring. They will start thinking.
They will begin to write essays, monographs, and tomes on the subject
of justice. They have been hit often enough so that they are now below
effort and they are worried about justice. You will very often find a
preclear who is under the effort band, or just sneaking under the
effort band - you know, he can still work as a body - will almost spin
if you start to talk to him about justice.
"Justice. Figure-figure-figure-figure. How could I possibly get any
justice." Well, what does he want any justice for? Well, he wants some
justice.
All right. As we look over this scale we discover that it describes
various manifestations in life in a rather crude fashion, but,
nevertheless, in a very useful fashion. It's crude because we haven't
got a test meter that instantly tells us how many points south of
effort the individual is. We know he is south of effort, though, you
understand. There isn't a psychotic in the land north of effort. There
is nobody above effort who has anything wrong with him. Get the idea?
If somebody has something wrong with him, he's below effort. This we
know. So this leaves us a choice of places for him to be.
Figure-figure on south. Symbols on south. Eating on south. Sex on
south. Mystery, fixation upon. You see this? So that we get the most
curious things occurring.
We get somebody like Freud suddenly picking out a part of this band,
and saying, "Well, this is it." Well, that sure tells you where his
particular society was stuck, hm? These boys were below eating.
By the way, sex is a solution to being eaten; the production of
another mock-up. And symbols, when they condense very heavily, become
forms; live forms. A symbol can very easily get out of hand and take
on a living personality, an identity, and so on, and go ramping about
the land and doing an awful lot.
You would say this is impossible. What do you mean, a symbol could do
that. What do you think Alexander the Great was but a symbol? He
wasn't a - he was hardly a thinking being. His interest in the arts
was paying off his old teacher, Aristotle, who probably talked him
into some tight spots and probably the only man that had ever bested
Alexander at anything.
So of course he sent a lot of specimens home to Aristotle and launched
us upon the Dark Age scholasticism under the aegis of the Roman
Catholic church.
But Alexander was not a learned man. He was quite able in many lines,
but boy, did he want to be Alexander. Which tells you immediately that
he must have been in the symbol bracket. And I think if we had asked
him to work very hard, that wasn't immediately pepped up to show
people how great Alexander was, he would have been in a horrible spot.
He probably would have sweated. Of course, he's made his name infamous
right on up to present time in India so that in India today mothers
frighten their little babies to sleep by telling them if they do not
go to sleep, the Skanda of the Two Horns will get them, and that is
Alexander the Great they are talking about.
Now, where we have a fellow who is terrifically fixed on a symbol or
where he is being highly symbolical, and so on, we can be pretty sure
he will drift off that point immediately. He'll go down scale. He will
start worrying about eating. Eating will become a very fixed thing
with him.
And now we go down scale further than that and he will worry about sex
and get stuck in this particular bracket, and if he doesn't watch it,
he'll slide out the bottom on that and be enveloped in mystery.
Now, you understand the Know to Sex Scale only operates after it has
become obsessive and compulsive, when it is a behavior factor, a fixed
behavior pattern. When you get a fixed behavior pattern on this it
isn't by choice.
Now, let's look up scale and find that all of us, sooner or later,
sometime or another, hit one or the other of these bands. But we do it
knowingly. We do it quite knowingly. We say, "Well, what I need is
some exercise." And we go out around, and so on. And we go down to the
movies to have a good emotional wingding - not an American movie,
that's all effort, by the way. It's the most beautiful picture of
effort. Everybody throwing effort in all directions with a minimum of
emotion, livingness or anything else condensed in it. Actually, the
American people keep looking at these things because they are very
pretty, not necessarily because they like them.
Not patting a foreign movie on the back, the foreign movie is
technically inept. It has a tendency to go into figure-figure and
below this high technical level. But once in a while you will see
something that is really a story and has some emotion in it, has some
appeal to it and there is somebody alive in the thing. The British
movie, by the way, has somebody alive in it.
The hero, the hero, by the way, of the American movie is best
described as a criminal. He has every aspect that you could assign to
a criminal. He is highly self-centered, he is very silent, he cares
very little about who he shoots, the people around him come to grief
and he himself is in bad trouble and catastrophe. This is the - this
is a criminal. This isn't any hero.
A hero is somebody who goes out and engages in a game of - this is by
German definition - of freeing the chained and slaying the bad baron,
and so forth, and refusing any pay for it of any kind. These are the
German hero tales. That's where we get the word "hero," from Germany,
and the whole characteristic there.
But the American movie hero today can be found in real life in any
penitentiary. He's silent, strong, careless of others, has no thought
for anybody else, really, but himself and is involved in lots of
trouble of one kind or another. And in addition to that has himself a
very, very fine time not. Have you ever noticed one of these heroes
enjoying anything? No, he's just kind of woodenly marching forward,
like a wound-up automaton.
This is - these are all characteristic of a criminal, by the way. A
criminal shares these characteristics. People around him come to gnef,
and so forth.
But completely aside from an opinion on the line, I'm just talking
about the acceptable story. This story is really no longer acceptable.
But Hollywood hasn't found it out yet. Their pictures are playing to
empty theaters in all directions.
Neither has the American public found foreign movies. They are bad,
technically, for one thing. And for another thing they are in a bad some bad state of communication. You know, they are in a foreign
tongue or something like that.
Actually, Italian movies today have a tremendous amount of vitality.
The people in them are alive, and if the Italians were real smart they are once in awhile - they'll - they would dub in all of their
pictures. They're pretty - technically they are pretty good, but they
would dub in their pictures with English. I have seen several that
have been and the English is not, not too hot. But they don't do a bad
job. But they don't do a real good one, either. So, therefore, it's
really not terribly popular.
By the way, the Italian movie is too smokey. It is too hot for the
censor boards to handle. It's - their themes, and so forth, are real same kind of - if there's an Italian - well, there - I saw an Italian
movie one day in Spain that was an interesting movie. It was the
picture, it was all in what we call in retrospect. This person was
thinking over what had happened.
And this person was sure thinking it over, all right. But it was all
dramatized what the person was thinking about. And this girl had run
into a guy, and she was a nurse and he was a bum. She was a nurse in
the hospital and he was a bum, and they'd gotten all tangled up in
various directions and eventually she decided, grimly, to just turn
her back on a life of romance and go back to nursing in the hospital.
This was its total, total theme.
But that could happen. See, that could happen. It might have happened
within the last week up here at the McDowell Hospital - the McDowell
Street Hospital, up here. Might have, see. These people breathe. They
also have something to say to each other. They don't walk around
uttering wooden lines which forward the plot.
Well, this is just differences on the Tone Scale. But at the same time
we might be looking in a foreign movie - I'm not talking about movie,
I'm talking about Scientology - we might be looking in a foreign movie
at a lower Know to Sex Scale, you see, a little lower down here,
whereas the American movie is stuck just below effort, see, on a
higher band.
But, look, isn't this interesting that we could take a higher Know to
Sex Scale, you see, and we could say it's stuck there in effort. And
then we could get another Know to Sex Scale which had a lot more
livingness and humanity in it, apparently, and we could say it's stuck
lower on the band. Would there be anything wrong with that?
Male voice: No.
Well, this is observably true all around us. We can't necessarily say
that somebody who is refusing effort is then and therefore on the
lowest ebb of the Know to Sex Scale, see. This fellow who - that is
the mistake you could make in interpreting this scale.
We know this phenomena, and this is what we get out of this scale. We
know that somebody who has been working very hard will sit down and
think. We know that if he thinks a while, he'll get lazy and put it
into symbols form, see? So he packages his thinking. That's a
condensation of thinking.
And we know that if he puts a lot of stuff into label form, he'll have
something to do with eating. That's very interesting that the
commercial writer writes to eat. He's right there next door to each
other, see? Think, symbols, eat.
And only when he gets into thoroughly foul condition will he begin to
dedicate a life to sex. But he will slide down these bands. You can
expect.
Now, you can predict behavior because unless they're psychotic or
neurotic - see, Know to Sex Scales exist in psychosis and neurosis too
- unless they are psychotic or neurotic, you can predict the next-door
step to anything anybody is doing. This is a curious method of
prediction.
I remember a cartoon which occurred in Esquire a great many years ago.
It was a scene which was shot across the foot of a bed into a kitchen
where their great big icebox was in the kitchen, a stove and so forth,
and you could see these things clearly, you see. And you could see the
foot of this bed and it was all dark in this bedroom. We were looking
in the direction of the kitchen door. And the legend on it is "And now
I'm hungry." You see? These things are right next door to each other.
Now, when you get into psychosis and neurosis, actually they're packed
so close together that they short circuit. They don't go through the
next step. Get the idea?
And if you could conceive neurosis or psychosis just as a short
circuit where identification is taking place so that A = A = A, you
will see also that it is very easy for the Know to Sex Scale to get in
this condition: sex equals emotion, mystery equals effort. See?
You ever hear of anybody talking about, "It would be a hard job
figuring it out?" This is idiotic. You mean somebody uses effort to
think? Well, that's what it declares. "It would be a hard job figuring
that out." I've had people tell me, "My, you must use up an awful lot
of energy, writing and so forth." I don't know how we'd use up this
energy. You generally finish up a novel or something like that, and
you say, "Whee. I'm glad to stop sitting still and go out and do
something active," you know?
But this - we don't burn up energy by thinking; this sillier sort of
thing. All right. We can, though. You can go down scale and fool
around with some of the machines, and you will find out that they are
running on energy. They do all their thinking on energy. That is why
they are crazy.
All right. Now, if - just as you run Opening Procedure by Duplication
on a low-level case and find the individual going up this stuff
flip-flip-flip-flip-flip, so do you find societies going in cycles.
They go up and down this scale. They have fads of one thing and then
another, you know?
But this could be a low-level Know to Sex Scale. Now, you could have
actually the Know to Sex Scale in the direct vicinity of somebody who
is wearing a very thick pair of glasses. This would be a different
one, wouldn't it? It would be heavier and more condensed.
Now, we are pulling this train into the station, so listen real, real
carefully here. Condensation is the keynote. Actually, condensation of
knowingness is the keynote of all of this. And the Know to Sex Scale
is descriptive of the condensation of knowingness, and as we come down
scale on the Tone Scale - you see, the Know to Sex Scale is not a
fixed scale on the Tone Scale. It is qualities on the Tone Scale; it
is the sequence of qualities on the Tone Scale.
Well, as we come down the Tone Scale, we find out we're condensing the
Know to Sex Scale. You get that? So that the Know to Sex Scale around
30.0 would be maybe a foot high on a big graph we have up here, but
the Know to Sex Scale itself is condensing so that we get down around
2.0, it's maybe only a quarter of an inch, it's all jammed in there,
you know? It's getting heavier and heavier and thicker and thicker and
all condensed.
Now, actually MEST itself is apparently no more and no less than a
totally condensed knowingness. It knows it is solid and fixed. Knows
it's got location. That's what it knows.
All right. But theoretically you start to take that stuff apart, it
would start to come up the Know to Sex Scale. That's theoretically. I
don't. When I take it apart I make perfect duplicates of it, and it
isn't there. So we don't have any worry about it coming up a gradient
scale. It just goes.
But if you started to take it apart, expand it in other words, you
would get a Know to Sex Scale. And when you start taking a preclear
apart, you start expanding him just as thoroughly as though you took
that wall apart, you see? You start expanding him. And as you expand
him on out he gets in pretty good shape. This would not necessarily
even be the amount of space. Now, this is what is peculiar. This isn't
even necessarily, although I graph it with space, the amount of space
in this preclear. That isn't necessarily a case, you see? It's the
solidity factor. It's the particles per space.
See, we don't necessarily just put more space into this preclear, you
understand, but we could put less particles per the space he has. And
this would be a very good way to look at it, particles are
disappearing here someplace.
It's all very well for us to say Know to Sex Scale and it's all fine
for us to theorize like this and take man and put a pin through his
back and pin him there to the card and look at him as a nice specimen.
But there wouldn't be any sense in it at all unless it had some
practicality and unless it demonstrated to you the causation of human
behavior and permitted you to take a preclear apart simply by knowing
this. It would have no value unless you could take an action course
with it. Knowingness for its own sake is worthiess.
So, this fellow memorized the Encyclopaedia Britannica from beginning
to end. Ho-hum. So we have categorized and cataloged humanity like
Kraepelin. I think it's spelled Kraepelin but it's actually pronounced
Kraplin. He categorized psychotic states. This is the most enormous
graph you ever saw. I do not think the graph itself has ever been
imported into America. I know that the graph which is used in America
is a condensed or deleted version of the Kraepelin graph of psychotic
states.
But in German this graph occupies a book. And you know what that means
in Germany. When you say "book" you mean a broken back, you know? It's
big. And when he gets all down to the bottom of it he throws all other
classifications into unclassified. And nearly everybody using this
scale simply throws all categories into unclassified.
But it's a tremendous amount of something to know, isn't it?
Tremendous amount of something to know. But if we just knew this
psychotic scale from beginning to end and had many examples and
classifications of it, it would be utterly worthless to us, just as it
is worthless to psychiatry, just as psychiatry itself is worthless.
That's because they catalog. They're stuck on a low band of symbols,
and to them, knowingness is symbols. We have strung out this many
words and therefore we know something. Damned if they do. They don't
know anything just because they have laid some labels on things.
Just because you know somebody's name is John Jones is no reason why
you know John Jones. Look how much there was to know about John Jones.
An old pal of mine, Russell Hayes, quite an inventor, holds the basic
helicopter patents in America and then the US government went over and
got a German Folcke-Wulf helicopter, which had stolen, and perverted
several patents, you see. And brought it over and had it copied as the
first helicopter we use. We owned the basic helicopter patents. Oh,
the government. Anyway, Russell - Russell used to do quite a bit of
writing, and so forth. And he and I were good friends. We got into a
discussion one day about characterization. And we had it hot and
heavy, and we talked this thing over, we talked this thing over for
three and a half gallons of beer, just to give you an idea. That was
real discussion, what characterization was.
And he finally estimated how long it would take for somebody to
actually characterize a hero. How many words would it take to actually
characterize somebody if you characterized him all the way. And his
estimate on it was about a billion words. In other words, many times
the length of Dickens' complete works, just to characterize one
character, if we were to do it anywhere near fully.
This is kind of curious. Writers get interested in characterization
because editors who wouldn't know a human being if they saw one are
prone to say if they don't like you or you didn't buy them a drink or
you resented their making a pass at your girlfriend at a party, other
good reasons that have to do with your skill as a writer - . Your
skill as a writer is knowing who to pinch and who not to. All right, a
billion words.
Do you realize that everything that has been written in Dianetics and
Scientology, right from the word go - every word that has been put on
tapes, and so forth - is still the characterization of one man. The
difference is, is this man that we are characterizing, this is not a
man or a woman, and has no name. This man is not myself. This man is
not you. But he is all of us. He is the common denominators.
You can look - have you ever looked in the tape library down at 616?
Do you know that it cost about $5,000 to copy all the tapes down
there? And we can buy tapes real cheap. That's four years worth of
material. And this isn't characterizing one man - not me, not you this is simply taking the common denominators to all men so that if we
added a few of these combinations together and made some of the
eccentricities, and so forth, possible out of this, we probably would
go on for several centuries before we had even finished characterizing
all the characteristics of one individual.
This would be a real dreary look, wouldn't it? That's why we have
little things like the Know to Sex Scale and the Tone Scale, and so
forth, is to permit us to work our way through this tremendous morass
with the greatest of ease and lightheartedness, instead of
lightheadedness.
Well, Russell Hayes decided it would take a billion words, and this is
not true. It has taken well in excess of a billion words just to
describe the common denominators amongst men. And we haven't ever
described one man. So that's quite a trick, isn't it? It must be a
long subject.
If all we did was just describe the characteristics in common with one
man, this might be an interesting adventure, mightn't it? It certainly
wouldn't get us anywhere. Putting a bunch of labels on him, stringing
a lot of symbols around him, garlanding him with as's and wherefores,
would not get us anywhere. No man would be better off for this having
been done. No condition would have changed anywhere for this having
been done. Because nobody would have the patience or reason to read
it. You got to be able to do something with what you know or it's no
good to anybody.
And when you get a piece of information which is nondynamic - I'll
tell you something interesting to do to it. Use it for a literary tea.
One is hard put upon in literary teas and political meetings, and
things like that, to find enough nothingness to talk about. And you
have to have a little store of it. So that's a good thing to do with
something that you can't do anything with.
And right now I'm inviting you, if there is any part of Scientology
that you are not doing anything with, simply throw it away. Just
discard it. Throw it away. Because I'm going to tell you something
right now which will do a lot of clarification for you. I've done a
lot of talking on this subject and I think yesterday giving you the
category of first you had to change his mind and then you had to get
him to hold a couple of things in an alterable position, then you had
to get him into communication, I think this kind of clarifies the
goals of processing, doesn't it? Certainly clarifies exteriorization.
And as far as what the auditor is trying to do, he is trying to
exteriorize somebody and make them stable-exteriorized. Well, that's
good clarification there. That's really, how does he do it? Well, the
modus operandi is very easily delineated. You gotta get the guy into
the condition so he'll change his mind so he can hold two points
stably at a distance, one from the other, and so that he can be in
full communication. And don't even have to have him in very full
communication.
But you do these things, you got a goal. Your immediate goals of
processing are the last three, and your general, broad goal of
processing is the first one. If you do these things, some fantastic
things occur. This individual starts to know, and he starts to get
himself a better look at existence and he can afford to be kind.
Being kind is a luxury. Remember that. If any of you have any
philosophic notion, you know, philosophic maunder-maunder pondering
whether it isn't really best to be cruel, and whether it isn't really
best to be evil or bad, but you're being good but you've seen a lot of
people who were cruel or evil or bad, and they seem to be getting
along and winning. And if any of you are hung up on this old
philosophic seesaw of good and evil, whether you should treat your the world kindly or viciously, or anything like that, if you are hung
up in this direction to any degree just let me point out that being
good can be in several parts of the Tone Scale. It can be highly
enforced and unwitting, it can be done to set an example for one's
fellows or it can be done because you can afford to do it.
But it is the, it is the - in the final analysis - it is the easiest
thing to do. And - well once upon a time the skipper I had - I was a
supercargo over in the Orient when I was a kid for a while, most
anything. I could play an awfully nasty hand of bridge. So the three
officers on the ship needed a fourth so they made me a supercargo and
I went to Java. Well, anyhow - about the way it worked out. I had a an interesting time of it. The old skipper told me that - now, it was
real hard to stay on the straight and narrow, and it was easy to
wander down that primrose path and to get into sin and so forth. And
to be lured off of the track of righteousness. He told me this was
real easy.
Well, I went ashore one night in a Chinese port, and I was very bored
as a youth is prone to be occasionally, very bored with life, had
very, very little adventure. Life was dull. We had just gone through a
typhoon but that was all over. And I decided that I would stray from
the beaten path.
I had more trouble. It was the most difficult thing you ever saw in
your life to try to get off the straight and narrow, and I finally did
manage to get involved, one way or the other, and I had an awful
hangover the next morning and a terrific welt under one eye, and so
forth. And he stood there telling me - and he stood there telling me,
"Now, you - you should have stayed on the straight and narrow, just,
even though it was a difficult path," and so forth.
And I finally was - I was in enough of a vicious mood, that I said,
"You see all the difficulty I'm in?"
And he said, "Yeah, well, I do."
I said, "Well, all that difficulty, that lies over there on that
primrose path that you've been dressing up for me." And I said, "It's
the hardest thing in the world to get into trouble. And the hardest
thing in the world to get out of it. This is difficult. Being good,
that's easy. That's real easy.
Well, if you want to get into trouble, why, fall off of the good wagon
and you'll be in - you'll have all of the difficulty and the
application of effort and everything that you could possibly imagine.
This is hard, sweaty work being evil. And very unsatisfactory sort of
thing, in the final analysis, because you never quite find enough
energy to go on and finish it up. That's hard work. Hard work.
The only reason anybody is up here in the penitentiary is because he
didn't have enough energy to go on and finish being evil. That's a
luxury to be good. But it is also real easy.
You have to put up barriers and do all kinds of things in order to get
over into a point of where you have games, and then you have to put up
a lot more barriers. And then you put up a lot more barriers, and you
put up a lot more barriers, and then you put up a lot more barriers
and you are getting to a point of where you can be nice and evil.
And man, you have to work at it. You have to work at it. If any young
girl is given the impression that the world is sitting out there
waiting, just waiting to lead her into snares and traps and so forth,
she's mistaken. She's mistaken. She will have to put out a lot of
effort, lot of effort.
She could probably drift down all of her years without getting into
any trouble at all. But if she wants some excitement and so on, she is
liable to have to start putting up barriers of one kind or another,
secrets. And we get down to the crux of this matter which is she would
have to cut communication in some direction. In other words, she'd
refuse - several refusals - she'd refuse to acknowledge or she would
refuse to originate or refuse to answer or refuse to receive an
originated communication or refuse to receive an answer or refuse to
receive an acknowledgment. And if she's got herself in these - any one
of these six categories, she's started to make barriers.
Now, she could work at it and there are very involved ways to go about
this. But she is working on condensation of the Know to Mystery Scale.
The condensation of the Know to Mystery Scale comes about directly
from these particular crimes: refusal to answer, refusal to
acknowledge, refusal to originate, refusal to receive an origin,
refusal to receive an acknowledgment, refusal to receive an answer.
That is not necessarily in order, but those are the six categories.
With two more categories. What are these two categories? You already
know them. They're the - both the two categories, one for each cycle
of live form. She could refuse to be alive, or she could refuse to
admit that somebody else was alive.
Well, that's eight, isn't it? And these eight things, these eight
negatives, result in the condensation and behavior patterns and
considerations which we know as the Know to Mystery Scale.
This is so much the case, this is so much the case that if you were to
take any ridge a preclear has or any ridge you have and mock it up as
receiving origins, answers, acknowledgments or admitting the presence
of a live form - this is a new angle on Communication Processing,
isn't it - and make it give forth originated communications, answers
and acknowledgments, and be a live form, and that ridge will
disappear, and so will the center of Earth and so will its crust and
so will the sun, moon, stars and all the space of this universe.
We have two methods of making nothing out of something. The processing
method: All you have to do is make something receive answers,
acknowledgments or originated communications or deliver answers,
acknowledgments of originated communications or to perceive the
existence of a live form or to be a live form and it's gone. That's
that.
And this type of processing, if engaged upon by the auditor, does not
require the remedy of havingness. Why? Why doesn't it require the
remedy of havingness? Well, Burke had an observation on this which was
an interesting observation. He said, "I found, during the session,
that I was putting up screens in order to receive the communication."
There isn't any reason why he has to do this. But he says, "Havingness
is a necessity if one is going to receive a communication."
Well now, this might or might not be true because I'll tell you how
that mass gets there. It's by receiving - refusing to receive a
communication. So havingness comes about directly from a refusal to
have a communication. Just the reverse. Comes about from a refusal to
have a communication or of somebody else's refusal to have a
communication or somebody else's anxiety to deliver a communication or
one's own anxiety to deliver a communication; you get havingness.
So havingness will just cut to ribbons on Communication Processing
without needing to be remedied, which is one of the more fabulous
manifestations.
Now, if your preclear, of course, does start chewing on energy you
know what I mean, you're asking him to make a ridge say "hello" or
receive a "hello," something like that, you're asking him to do this.
He doesn't do this. He rubs one part of the ridge against another part
of the ridge and creates heat.
Why, he's lost some havingness by reason of heat, by reason of
mechanical things. And when you lose havingness by reason of a
mechanical action, it's got to be replaced. Then you have to remedy
havingness.
But if you make things talk, if you make things live, if you make
things receive messages and livingness, no havingness ever needs to be
remedied. In other words, life immediately exceeds - no clearer proof
could exist of this - life immediately exceeds any mechanics because
it can continue to thrive in the absence of the mechanics if we permit
communication to occur. Fantastic, but very true.
All right. There's two methods, then, of making nothing out of things.
One is to make a perfect duplicate of it in its own time, in its own
place, with its own energy. And you just make a duplicate of it with
all those things.
And sometimes people have a little difficulty understanding exactly
how to do this because they think they have to put a second duplicate
into it or they have to copy it and push two duplicates together or
they have to do something in this direction.
This is not true. All they had to do was relax and simply say there is
a second one there made out of the same materials and the same space.
And that's all, I mean, and everything falls apart. Except one thing of course, one other thing falls apart, too. There's one thing wrong
with this perfect duplicate, it cuts havingness to pieces as though
you were putting it through a meat chopper.
If - you know, we can erase an engram today with the greatest of ease
with perfect duplication. All you have to do is have the individual
look at the engram, make a perfect duplicate of it, it's gone.
Somebody will doubt this, perhaps. And I imagine some old Dianeticist
might. I had to alter, by the way, the text of the - of one of the
Foundation bulletins. It said we could do this in a few seconds. You
could make an engram disappear in a few seconds. But this sounded so
unreasonable that I changed it and put an error in there. I said a few
minutes. That's not true. It's a few seconds is the proper length.
So there's only one trouble with this, is it doesn't leave any
havingness. In other words, you could make a perfect duplicate of
anything and make it disappear and discover that the preclear's
havinguess had been reduced that much.
And if you started to make a perfect duplicate of his whole bank from
one end to the other, he would be a very reduced man. Let me assure
you, he'd be a very unhappy one, if not a spinning one. Everything
would start to go by the boards.
So, we say there's two methods of making nothing out of something. But
if one of these methods has a liability, then we wouldn't say that it
was a technique method, would we? We'd say it was a method. Well, it
wasn't a technique. Get the idea? So that leaves us with actually just
one technique to make nothing out of things: Communication Processing.
I've been running some tests - well, I could tell you about them, and
so forth - been running some tests on ridges, lines, masses, MEST
universe gravities, and so on.
Had a preclear lift an ashtray about three feet off of a desk simply
by making all the particles of the ashtray receive the communication
of gravity and make Earth receive the communication from all the
particles of the ashtray, and gravity disappeared. I didn't say a
mock-up of the ashtray. I said the ashtray.
We could put all this down to this: resistance to or anxiety about
communication produces mass and condensation, which we graph as the
Know to Mystery Scale. See that? Refusal, negation against
communication produces the condensation which we know as the Know to
Mystery Scale.
Now, you think a lot of other things ought to be in there, but that is
not true. Nothing else belongs in that sentence at all.
Well, we could do this. By test we could find out if this is true, and
we would get one of the more curious manifestations. I've already told
you, I think, about a process, if you have some person that you
completely detest, you could work this process on them. If this person
is somebody that you mean utterly to destroy, go ahead and work this
process on them.
Scientology has moved up into a bracket of where one of its processes
can process in reverse, right down to death or insanity just as fast
as it can go the other way. This is not a frightening fact, but it
happens to be a true one. A Scientologist can handle life. Well, if he
can handle life he can certainly handle death. All right. Now, what
would this process be? Be the one of the more interesting processes
because it would sound to the preclear like you were running the most
reasonable process under the sun. Because this is what he is doing and
therefore this reasonable process would be acceptable by him and he
would run it.
Somebody who had never heard me talk about this process, who had never
heard it from anybody out in the field right now would very happily
run this process for you. "Give me some things you do not have to be
in ARC with."
And they - they're just sure that there will be an end to this
somewhere. There will be a stop to this somewhere. And somewhere on
down the line, why, all of a sudden the ridges they're accumulating
and this horrible mass they're getting into and this terrific anger
they're going down into or this grief they're going down into will
suddenly alleviate. They'll think this will be a very good thing, you
see. "Look at all the charge I am - I am building up here and I'm
going to spill." They never spill it. It just gets more and more and
worse and worse. They go down the Tone Scale.
Now, you must know that the Tone Scale is simply a description of the
emotional band of the Know to Sex Scale. The Know to Sex Scale is a
much bigger scale of which we have the Tone Scale as a livingness
manifestation of condensation.
See, you put the whole Tone Scale, fits right in on the Know to Sex
Scale at emotion. And that's a fact, it fits right in there. Now, as
we go below apathy, you see, we run into effort. And as we go on down
the line we run into the other minus Tone Scale manifestations.
But the Tone Scale, as it was originally produced in - well, Science
of Survival and discussed a little earlier in some other lectures and
books and so on, actually just belongs to that emotional scale,
doesn't it?
So he'll go right straight on down the line and all of a sudden he
will find himself hard-packed into effort, and if you kept up this
thing he'd start to figure-figure his way out of this. And if you kept
him up with this he would get into an anxiety about the symbols, the
exact meaning of the words you were using. And if you kept this up, he
would begin to get hungry or worry about being eaten. And if you kept
this up he would go right on down into sex and he would begin to get
sexually excited, and so forth. And he would drop on down through
there and he would tell you it was all a mystery to him. Believe me,
it would be.
You can create with this process a black five in two hours, out of a
thetan exterior. The process, again, is simply this. "Give me some
things you wouldn't have to go into ARC with."
Now, the process also runs this way - it's a process, it is a death
process, the first one I've ever really come up and described. I have
described PDH to you, and so forth. But this is real - a real death
process. This is much worse than PDH. "Give me some things you don't
have to go into communication with" produces the same result. "Give me
some things you don't have to agree with" does not produce the same
result. "Give me some things you don't have to like" does not produce
the same result. So "Give me some things you don't have to communicate
with" does produce the result. And that was the isolation of that
corner, as a triangle, as the only important thing in that triangle.
All right. Therefore you have a death process which produces this
condensation known as the Know to Mystery Scale. And this process is a
very, very deadly process. But it demonstrates to us that as we decide
to go out of communication with things we decide to die.
It was a very funny thing, running this process, to discover that
there is another side to the communication process. Have all of the
molecules in a pack of cigarettes or a ridge or in the center of Earth
decide to receive a bunch of hellos. And then kind of throw them some
hellos to receive, you know. But that is all simultaneous action. Have
all these - all these particles decide to receive some originated
communications. They decide to receive "hellos." They decide to
receive "okays." And you will find black and white phenomena turning
on. The old Black and White Processing? It goes black and white, black
and white.
Too much origin? You know, and it will all go black. So we have them
receive some okays. Decide to receive some okays, it will go white.
Have them decide to receive some hellos, go black, see. I mean, it
will go white, black, white, black, white, black, white, black. Get
the idea?
But if we have them decide to receive some communications or decide to
receive the - or perceive that a live form is around, we get a
disintegration of the mass without any liability to the mass itself.
It simply evaporates into a livingness.
Well, this is red hot phenomena. The discoveries which I have been
talking to you about are make and break discoveries as far as
Scientology is concerned, as far as Dianetics, Scientology is
concerned. With these discoveries the problem of life might have a lot
of ramifications, might have a lot of developments, might have a lot
of conditions but it certainly doesn't have any problem.
Now, I have asked you to run Inventing of Wrongness. Interesting
process, isn't it? Fascinating process. Now we are going to run
Communication Processing, straight out. And you will find all of these
other things running off automatically.
The need to have a wrongness would be the need to break communication,
would be the need to have a game. But wrongness and havingness are
infinitely connected. If a thing is wrong you don't want it and after
a while if you can't have something you only have wrongnesses and so
forth. All these involvements take place.
But if wrongness and havingness are intimately connected then,
assuredly, we would find communication and wrongness intimately
connected, wouldn't we. So it is. So actually the need for wrongnesses
resolves on Communication Processing.
These discoveries, as I say - not necessarily the Know to Sex Scale,
that simply describes the phenomena - but these discoveries concerning
communication actually make nothing out of the problem of the human
mind. There is no problem with the human mind. Just a problem of how
many auditors can we train. That is about all there is to it.
Thank you.
(end of lecture)
9ACC20-5501Ñ10 EDUCATION GOALS IN SOCIETY-ADULT EDUCATION
Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard
EDUCATION: GOALS IN SOCIETY-ADULT EDUCATION
A lecture given on 10 January 1955
I want to talk to you now about adult education.
Throughout the world in practically every civilized community of the
world there are projects known as adult education. The high school in
any small town of a hundred thousand or so can usually be counted upon
to have some sort of an adult education program. They teach writing.
They teach mechanics of one side or another. They teach, sometimes,
even as advanced a thing as engineering.
In one small town which was very much addicted (a small town nowhere
near a hundred thousand, by the way) which was very much addicted to
boating - it had a lot to do with boating, was surrounded on all sides
by water - the adult education there included such things as
navigation and seamanship. And you'd get the old fishermen and the
yachtsmen and so forth, they're grumping up there with gnarled fists
and lorgnettes to learn how to navigate.
Well, we find that adult education is - is quite the thing in the
United States. And we find also abroad that this also obtains to a
slightly lesser extent, but, nevertheless, in Great Britain you will
find activities of this character.
Now, here we have a problem in dissemination and communication of
Scientology itself We say, "What is it?" And we immediately can say
"Life." And, honest, life has an awful lot of facets. Actually, it has
a tremendous number of activities connected with it, life has. So if
we say Scientology is engineering, we have limited it and so it
doesn't communicate well. And if we say Scientology is psychotherapy,
we have limited it and it doesn't communicate well. If we say
Scientology is industrial efficiency, again we have limited it and it
doesn't communicate well.
So what are we going to say?
Well, we're going to say it's an understanding of life.
Well, most people desire to understand life through education. And
they think that they are educated into life. And we find out we can
fit in this bracket just as fast as any other, if not faster.
So when called upon to explain what Scientology drills are or Group
Processing is, I have been very, very successful with this
description: Scientology drills increase one's awareness of his
environment to the end that he can better control that environment and
to increase his particular and special skills in that environment.
And somebody says, "Well, now, what's all this mean?"
Well, you say, "Well, now, you take a machinist. Now, this individual
very definitely has the capabilities and potentialities of being a
master machinist. You see, he could rise in his profession but he
hasn't. He's just there grinding out on the drill press and he - the
lathe. He isn't doing anything very constructive about this. He's
never risen, particularly, in his profession."
"Well, why hasn't he?"
"Well, this lies in the field of education," we say. You know, quick
like a bunny, "Lies in the field of education."
It doesn't actually - between you and I - it lies in the field of
mental inhibitions and enforcements and so forth. It's definitely in
the field of mind operation.
We say, "This lies in the field of education. You see, he has not been
able to learn higher than the action which he is performing. And it is
our mission in adult education to increase his capacity and potential
for learning so that he can then assume the skills which are at the
higher level which he should attain." See? Very simple and very pat.
We say, "All right. Now, we take somebody who is not very aware of his
environment, you know, and he gets his attention fixated on something.
Well, we just make him more aware of the environment at large. And we
do drills. They make him more aware of the walls and the floor and of
particular equipment and machinery and so forth, and so all of a
sudden he would be able to see more than he has seen before. And if he
can see more then he can learn more about it, can't he?"
This is very satisfactory. It is almost chicanery to explain
Scientology like this. Almost chicanery. The fact of the matter is, is
this individual is a machinist. He is a machinist in his particular
bracket.
He has his attention fixated and limited by so many factors to such a
degree that he cannot attain higher or further than he has attained.
Because it would be, for instance, too many wins. It would be too many
- too much money. It would be too much success, he would not be able
to make enough people wrong by being wrong himself, you see. Here's an
awful lot of factors just in what we know that are immediately
involved with why this man can't get up there. But the funny part of
it is, we say, we make him more aware of his environment. We take care
of many of these factors.
And this makes it possible to give an individual, in a digestible
guise, psychotherapy. So that if we were to put an advertisement in
the paper and we were to say, "Adult Education: Increase your learning
potentials. We will teach you how to learn." And if we were to put
this in the paper and let it ride there and have our telephone number
and arrange classes and so forth, why, we'd find out we'd get a
response. There would be people come in there that you would never see
otherwise. There are a lot of people who are worried about their mind.
You see, there's a stigma about being worried about your mind yourself
or having an anxiety that - you mustn't admit this, you see. It's a
liability, like a bar sinister in a coat of arms. But just to not have
learned something is no stigma. See, the reason this fellow isn't a
manager of his plant is he just hasn't learned how.
This is idiocy, by the way. That's an idiotic factor in the society.
I've had many people come up to me and tell me this - this is one of
the fondest beliefs of one of these Western Hemisphere societies tell me this, "You know, I always meant to write, but I never learned
how, you see. I never had any education in the direction of learning
how to write, and so on." When I was very young I used to look at
these people and almost laugh aloud and say, "Well, I had, myself, a
year of creative writing at the university and it took me two years to
get back to selling again." So education didn't have very much to do
with this. But the ability and freedom to write, the right to write
had a great deal to do with it.
Now, he substitutes study for the right to do. You see what he - what
he's doing? You're actually pandering to a neurosis on the part of the
society that they think they have to learn to do. This is - this is a
little bit of a neurosis, you see? Actually, they've learned too much.
That's the trouble with them. They've learned far, far too much and
they've learned it far, far too well.
For instance, they know very well that they can't make a success of
something. This is learning, this is education. Education: fellow
walks down the street, gets hit with a baseball bat, after that he
knows definitely that people carrying a baseball bat down the street
are going to hit him. This is not true, but he's learned it and he
feels this in the depths of his being. All right. So that's education.
He gets a car on the highway and he drives it down the highway and
runs it into a telephone pole just at the moment that a yellow coupe
crosses somewhere in the vicinity. And he knows, then, that yellow
coupes are dangerous. That's education. He knows that yellow coupes
run you into telegraph poles.
A very definite example of that was a preclear I had, not two weeks
ago, who had a certainty the size of an ostrich egg on one thing: that
yellow - pardon me, that red pickup trucks always wrecked you.
Complete certainty. He had never been hit by a red pickup truck but he
had witnessed an accident where a red pickup truck flashed across in
front of another car and the other car had swerved. All right, this
was education.
Now, your papa and your mama taught you that you weren't to touch a
hot stove, that you weren't to touch this, that you weren't to eat
that, that this wasn't the case and that wasn't the case and something
or other had to be done, and that if you were honest and good and
straightforward and always told the truth and never fibbed to anybody
you would be a success! This is education. But that doesn't happen to
be true. So later on you got along and you say, "What do you know,
there is that dirty cheat, that dog over there, who has clipped
everybody in the vicinity and the guy has a million dollars. Now, that
isn't right, is it?" Well, the only thing is, is you were taught the
wrong thing. You were taught simply that if you were honest and always
obeyed orders and always did exactly what you were supposed to do and
if you were kind and good, then, somehow or other, you would be
rewarded. That's a hell of a thing to teach anybody!
No. If you are able - and look at what this does to prediction - if
you are kind and good and you have to assume that everybody else is
kind and good, you've just plain ordinary ruined your ability to
predict bad. Haven't you? So if you've lost your ability to predict
evil, why you're just not going to succeed, that's all, because at
least 50 percent of your predictions are going to be wrong; and that's
going to make you good and wrong being so good.
Now, the fact of the matter is it's much easier to be good than to be
bad. But life is made up of combats and conflicts and the good and the
evil of life has to do with the viewpoint one has of life. When you it's a good thing for you to eat a nice good dinner, isn't it? That's
a good thing. But darned if it was a good thing for the things you
were eating! That's not a good thing. See, that's evil. If you were to
ask the opinion of a duck - as it says in the First Book - concerning
this subject of a beautiful duck dinner, he'd probably 1.5 on you like
mad; he'd be upset. And yet that's good for you to do.
All right. We take some little kid and we pamper him, we protect him,
we protect him, we protect him, we protect him, we hide him away from
the horrors of life, we shelter him, we protect him, we protect him so
that he - and we teach him to be good and that man is good and that
everybody is good and everything that's going to happen to him is
good. Then, we let him out into the cold, cruel world and he falls
flat on his face. Well, it was a good thing to protect that child,
wasn't it? That was a good thing from whose viewpoint? Yours, maybe,
but not the child's. Because you've given him an inability to predict.
So you've released him into life with a hat full of false data.
Now, what do we have here, then, as a criteria?
We merely have consideration and viewpoint on good and evil. That's
all the good and evil there is: consideration and viewpoint.
Of course, you can make the society move ahead into a more orderly
society where people can be happier, where they will do better. You
can make it move into a complete oblivion.
But look at it from the viewpoint of a duck how wonderful it would be
to have a complete end of man. Let's take some nuclear physicist who
is solidly in the valence of a duck. He might believe that the best
thing he could do under the sun would be to end man. Get the idea?
That would be a good thing, wouldn't it, then, from his viewpoint if
he had the viewpoint of a duck.
All right. So who's to say this education? Well, the person who is
doing the viewing does the saying, see? I mean, he's got the viewpoint
of a duck and he sees that man goes out and ruins ducks so he says he says that the destruction of man would then be the greatest
accomplishment since the destruction of the Pharaohs in Egypt. This
would be a wonderful accomplishment.
Now, we're mad at ants, aren't we? We think that ants - well, if we
were living in South America we'd be very mad at ants. We're mad at
flies, at mosquitoes. These are disease - carrying insects. And
poisonous insects such as scorpions, centipedes, spiders; we don't
like these things. And so we could say - we could say, "Well, now,
we're going to launch upon the most laudable project in the world.
It's just a fine project we're going to launch ourselves on. We're
going to destroy all of the ants and poisonous insects and spiders and
we're going to destroy flies and mosquitoes. And we're going to make
this the end - all of our career. And this is a wonderful project."
And you'd find almost any man would agree with you. He'd think you
were a little bit hipped if you were making this your total action in
life, but nevertheless he'd think that'd be a fine goal and you were a
good man.
Well, I don't think a spider would agree with him. So who is to say?
Well, a person to say on this would be the person doing the viewing.
All right. If this is the case, then, let's take adult education and
let's find out that possibly the most lamentable thing that could
happen to anybody would become the manager of anything. Actually, his
freedom is very circumscribed. His activities are very curbed. He has
a responsibility for a great many things. He is unable to look like a
bum or a tramp anymore. He can't wear easy clothes. He isn't able to
play hooky from the job. He actually departs from any such thing as
9:00 to 5:00 as his hours. See? From the viewpoint of a manager who's
been at it for a while and is nursing his ulcers carefully, being a
manager is a pretty sorry goal. But nevertheless, people believe that
it's the proper thing to do to become a manager, or to become
somewhere up in charge of the company or to have some say in what's
going on.
There's nothing unhappier than this. You see, a machinist always has
lots of machinists to duplicate him. But a master machinist has
contact with very few master machinists. Well, this again would be
learning of one sort or another, wouldn't it?
But this up-flying ambition comes about through pressure from below.
Economic pressure. An individual is unable to earn everything he needs
in order to take care of his family and those that he has the
immediate care and charge of and he feels that the best thing to do is
to make more money and so care for them better via money. So he
assumes higher and higher levels of activity in order to achieve more
and more money and so be able to pay more and more for the care and
upbringing of children.
This is not necessarily good, you know. If you take a quick survey of
rich men's sons, it's something like a quick survey of ministers'
sons. It's very lamentable.
By the way, Scientology reverses this proceeding. It is the first
thing known that reverses this proceeding. A kid born to a couple of
parents who are Scientologists is a lucky kid. Although most of these
parents will give the kid much more latitude of action than he really
should have, this is still better, this is still better than a tight
circumscription of every activity the child has. The kid's pretty
lucky. As a matter of fact, these kids that - around Scientology are
pretty frisky and they're generally very healthy and rather
uninhibited and also, oddly enough, they seem to be a little kinder.
I've made this test a few times. I've had one of them swat me, you
know, and I said, "Ow! Ow, ow, ow!" And the kid would look at me, you
know, and wonder whether or not he shouldn't process it out.
But the minister's son, the rich man's son, rather argues against this
idea that the best thing to do is to do everything there is to do for
a family. The rich man's son is - feels that he will never be able to
stand on his own two feet. He's usually pushed around. He's given much
more than he should have, and he generally winds up in the juvenile
court division. Quite routine for this to happen. But that's because
he is taught something else. He's taught that somebody is taking care
of him and therefore he must be a dependent unit. And it is
dependency, the - his feeling of dependency which is about the only
thing which is aberrative. Because his father is able to take care of
him, or his mother or something like that, the kid is given this
feeling of dependency.
A child has, ordinarily, a great feeling of independence. And if this
independence is brought up the line, why, we find that the kid's
pretty good.
By the way, the Ford's family is an interesting exception to this. But
here we had old Henry Ford responsible, as time went on, for
motorizing the world with assembly-line production. No other man had
such a great responsibility for this taking place. We had old man Ford
with the idea of certain rights and independencies with regard to
workmen. When - after he was very, very old or I think he had already
died, and they had some labor troubles at the Ford plant, I was very
surprised - so was everybody else. The funny part of it was, it was
Ford who put in minimum wage-hour above any legislation we have now.
It was Ford that put in vacation systems and so forth. A janitor in
Ford's - somebody just sweeping up the shavings in the shop could
count, when people weren't getting this for doing real good jobs
elsewhere, he could count on a living wage. And they finally struck
against the company. A lot of agitators got in there and tried to make
everybody real unhappy. Well, it actually could have happened only
when Ford was real old or dead because he would have had too many
answers for them too fast. But, anyway, he raised his kids on the
feeling of tremendous independence. He gave them wide latitude. And he
also booted them into standing up into the responsibility of the
company. So we have young Edsel, now, very much involved with
designing the Lincoln Continental with a small staff of his own and so
forth, but making a success out of it. Fantastic situation there. But
this all came about through the definite feeling that the family
itself had a responsibility for the society at large. Get the idea?
The family had a responsibility for the society at large. And it was
just unlucky that this kid was born into the family because he got
that responsibility too.
Most rich men's sons that go bad have not been given any feeling of
responsibility in this direction. It isn't the family, he's just
usually got a father who's playing "the only one" in some fashion or
another so he never gives the kid the feeling of any responsibility
for the society at large.
Now, I'm blowing this up from the second dynamic to show you a look at
the third dynamic, just on adult education.
The fourth dynamic is almost completely cut off. Individuals do not
have the idea in this society they have any responsibility for the
whole society. And yet it's written into the Constitution that the
responsibility for the whole society is definitely in the hands of
every individual in that society. Constitution says that everybody
present is responsible for the whole society. It doesn't say it in so
many words, but it says "votes, democracy, majority rule," so on.
You could improve the hell out of democracy and might even make it
workable!
Listen, don't think that I am rapping democracy on the knuckles. Any
political ideology or political system needs a lot of raps on the
knuckles. We have not yet invented a workable political system. I
qualify that very - with nothing. I qualify it with nothing at all. We
have yet to invent a workable political system. We have some that
perish a little less frequently than others. That's the best you can
say about the United States right now: It's only 160 years old.
Great Britain in her present form and action is about 360 or something
like that. Don't ask a Britisher, don't ask a Britisher what his own
history is, they don't know. They got their kings and queens all
mixed. We know more about it here in America, actually. Somebody will
hear this tape in Great Britain, maybe, someday and they will say this
is not a fact. But how do they know? They never argued about British
history with an American: They better put it to a test.
But I said the present form in Great Britain is 360 years old. Well, I
meant the monarchical form under which they were going. And that has
come to an end and they are on another form of government now. They
are on a sort of a - they're a republic which is organized on
democratic principles in order to conduct and carry forward
socialistic activities which allows for the existence of a monarch.
That's the form of government they're using. In the United States we
have a democratic form of government which permits political machinery
to operate unimpeded. We are a - we are a government which is
definitely opposed to socialistic principles operating out of Das
Kapital. That's a fact, I mean, the US government has adopted
practically every major, every major recommendation from Karl Marx,
today socialism.
We're a democracy which is going forward as a socialism and violently
opposed to a communism which, by the way, is conducting itself along
democratic principles. There's nothing more democratic than a
communist organization. What we mean by these political terms, you
see, is so nebulous that you can just make hash or soup out of any of
them and be equally advanced.
Actually, in actual study you find out that communism does practice
democracy. Because democracy is not an ideology but a political system
of majority rule. A democracy is best laid down in Robert's Rules of
Order. And Robert's Rules of Order are based on these principles which
are democratic principles. Therefore, anybody who would carry forward
meetings, activities or political systems with these rules of order
would, of course, fall into the bracket of being a democracy. And
unfortunately for the boys that are beating the drum, saying, "Let's
let democracy survive and down with Russia," Russia is conducting its
activities as closely as it can - because, you see, there's very few
people there that speak Russian - they're trying to conduct their
activities along democratic lines.
And the more I look at this country, the more I see fascism. Fascism
is getting very fashionable. Now, oh yes, the industrial feudalism is
getting more and more pronounced in this country. That's fascism. It's
a - fascism is actually the military closing terminals with industry
in a country. When the military and industry close terminals 100
percent, you've got a fascism. It's a gorgeous mess.
Hardly anybody understands all of these things, by the way. You have
to really make quite a study of; not political economy - in these
classes in political economy in colleges they don't teach these
things. I often tried to find out what the hell they did teach in
politics in college, but I was never able to find a textbook. I'll
have to look one up some time or another, somebody will have to send
me one.
The - but the point is - the point is that out of all this potpourri
man is seeking for some level where he can survive with good relations
with his fellows, some good ARC, and yet enough sport and excitement
to make the game inviting. And he's trying to discover some pattern of
action which can be followed which will produce these things. And he
has not achieved this on the political front.
The least thing that the political sciences advanced into the world
today - systems and ideologies - the least thing they do is bring
everybody eventually down to a sort of a dead null whereby they have
very little say in what goes on with the government, they have less
and less independence individually and they get more and more
government. How would you like to play a game where every inning we
added an umpire? Wouldn't that be a cute game? Every inning we added
an umpire and gave the umpire more and more force, strength and power
over the game until he became an umpower.
When you had, then, twice as many umpires as you had players, you
would have modern government. You see? Government is an umpire and
very often tries to assume the role of a player. In war it assumes the
role of a player.
All right. Then here we have all of these factors - you just think I'm
just venting some of my wrath here, but I'm not - here we have all of
these factors unestablished. We have man, then, continuing to work
forward toward some undefined perfection. And he senses this if he's
alive at all, that he is working forward to some undefined perfection.
He knows that we do not yet have a perfect political system. He knows
that we do not have yet a perfect system of production and
distribution.
One of the little quiz kids about six or seven years old, way back
years ago, was asked what he thought of the political state - pardon
me, the economic condition of the country. The - somebody very snidely
asked this little quiz kid this question. He said, "I don't much think
it's a problem of politics. It is a problem of distribution of goods."
So - he was right, too. Here's - it's a problem of distribution.
Now, we're getting better and better distribution, by the way. These
great big markets that you see springing up all over America, and a
few of which have gotten into London, are themselves a very good
distribution center as long as they are locally owned. They will not
disrupt economy but will distribute goods far more swiftly and ably
with lots less overhead. A big chain store going all over a country is
a bad economic thing in a small town because the money spent in that
chain store, any profit therefrom, is immediately funneled out of that
community and that community has lost that currency in exchange, you
see. So a big chain store will break a small community if all the
money received is being sent to Chicago or to London, see? But let's
say that this small town owns this store and let's say that we had
five or six of the grocers and butchers of this town, they get
together and they make one of these stores whereby they buy this stuff
at a - at a good wholesale rate, they put it up, it's adequately
preserved, nicely presented and well distributed to the people. It
would boost the living standard of the town - there's no doubt about
this - considerably. So that we have - we have things getting solved
in this field of distribution and goods, economies, wages and so
forth. But we're only getting them solved because there are a lot of
people which are searching forward toward better solutions for
themselves and the society at large.
Now, if we teach one of these people that he has no responsibility for
the community around him, we have to that degree taught the community
that it can't survive.
When we teach somebody he has - there's nothing can be done about
something, we have taught him that he cannot survive just to that
degree. You might think that that's a little short-circuit but it's
not. A process - "Give me some things you don't have to control" - it
sounds like an innocent process, isn't it. It sounds like a very
innocent process. It sounds like one of these processes that a fellow
would just yawn and "Gee, that would be nice, naturally, you know,
let's all go take a vacation" sort of a process, you know, and it
wouldn't wind up anybody in the soup.
And all of a sudden you've got your preclear in the most vicious
apathy you've ever gotten him into. Nyaaaaaah! Things he doesn't have
to control! And you'll find every time he has abandoned a game and so
forth, these things start floating up to the surface and swamping him.
Why, you think it's the - it's the happiest thing in the world to set
something up automatically so you don't have to touch it anymore.
That's a happy thing to do?
Oh, no, that's not a happy thing to do at all. It's a - it's an
apathetic thing to do. We get this car running, you see, so that it
will run so that we no longer have to drive it, but it will take us
down to work and back again. And after a while we really begin to get
upset about and with this car. But we also get very dependent upon it
so we don't ever wreck it, we keep it in repair, and it goes, takes us
back and forth. And you begin to wonder sometime, "Why the hell don't
I get a bicycle!" You all of a sudden look into the family budget and
you find out that every - out of every five dollars that you're
getting in one of them is going to the support of this car. Yes, it
gets that big.
A dependency monitors the economic factor. In other words, the
fraction of - the various fractions of distribution of one's wages are
monitorable or predictable by the amount of dependency he has in these
various directions.
Let's say if an individual were independent of food - we could see
immediately if he were independent of food - what a tremendous
difference this would make in his wages. Right? That is not an
immediately obtainable goal, but it gives you an idea.
All right. Now, where's all this go in adult education?
It merely tells you that as far as the public itself is concerned
there is no broad, pat solution on the fourth or third dynamic. They
know this. They kind of decided to abandon these things and let them
run. So in adult education we would err, very definitely, to start
people out on the fourth dynamic or even start them on a broad third.
We have to bring them down to a very narrow portion of the third,
which is that portion of the third which occupies the family or the
job. And not the whole job, you understand, but just their part of the
shop. Now if this, then, is a goal or a target, as far as we're
concerned, we will succeed.
So that adult education along the line of; "How can you better your
position at work? How can you better the state and existence of your
family? How can you better a club?" Oh, not the community, no, we've
gone much too high. But he does belong to and is interested in the
Royal Scandinavian Brotherhood of the I-Will-Arise and he'd just kind
of like to know how to be a little bit better secretary for it, you
know. It's not a big club, it only has five members. But,
nevertheless, he'd simply like to know how to make these things
better.
Now, there is some sphere you can find, even in a psychotic, which the
individual can help. Now, attend this very carefully. There is an area
in any psychotic, no matter how bad off he is, there is an area that
he can help. Remember this: He is as sane as he has such an area. You
got that now? You got that? This is a terribly important thing in the
treatment of psychosis. Very, very important.
We find that our index and increase in this psychosis is directly
proportional to the unwillingness of individuals to assist or their
prevention from assisting.
If we were to set up a perfect government - let's take this on a
broad, big look - if we were to set up a perfect government which did
not require the aid or assistance of any one of its citizenry, we
would have produced a complete apathy.
All right, now, let's round this thing off. You see, then, that we do
not have a political perfection, but we see that men are afraid of
attaining one. We do not have a perfect industry, but we have a lot of
people who are afraid of attaining it.
Why? Because it would be one which no longer required the help of
anybody. And that would be the last, end of the game. And out would go
everybody's candle. You see that? People actually understand this down
deep somewhere, that if there wasn't something wrong someplace, if
there wasn't something that needed to be picked up somewhere, why,
they'd be dead. That would be the end of it.
Now, you could take a psychotic and if you can get him on an E-Meter
you could just ask him this question, "How many things can you help?
Could you help - what could you help?" And the fellow would be pretty
blank. But you say, "Could you help a little dog?"
"No. No."
"Could you help a little dog that had just been run over?"
"Maybe. Maybe."
"Could you help a little dog that had just been run over and was
almost dead and that nobody else was paying any attention to?"
"Yes."
Get the dwindling spiral, see?
Now, how many other people around are going to help? This is one of
the monitoring factors. If an individual feels that there are all
kinds of people who will do this and who can help and that - all kinds
of people who want this particular gadget in the game - that
needs-to-be-helped, you see - why, then one is rather chary of
offering his services.
We under - as long as we understand that there are parts of the
community organized to do this help, we are to that degree helpless in
the society and lacking in responsibility; and we will find ourselves
lower in tone.
For instance, we believe right now that there is a system of hospitals
in existence, in any part in the Western Hemisphere, really, there are
systems of hospitals in existence which are adequately staffed by
individuals who will aid and assist and bring up to a high peak of
health anybody who is trundled in there. We believe this. We're told
it. But, actually, being told it is simply the mechanism of the people
who are managing these hospitals to keep you off; because it doesn't
happen to be true.
Nobody knows it quite as well as those boys who have been around in
Operation Phoenix. They've really taken a look at this and they've
found a big hole here. The guys are not trundled in with great
neatness and despatch and cared for without the slightest hitch. They
are not being taken care of by people who are self-sacrificing and so
forth. They do a fair job, you understand, it's better than no job at
all by a long ways. But they do not have a monopoly. Nobody has a
monopoly, not even thee and me, on helping the human race. Nobody has.
But it's when we begin to believe that automaticities have been set up
in the society that do the helping for the society and when we,
therefore and thereafter, do not go near that particular sphere that
we fall down with regard to the society. Do you understand that? As
long as we believe that there is a police force down here which
requires no further policing we have lost, just to that degree, our
own responsibility for the society. If we - if there was a perfect
police force down there which did do its job we might be justified in
taking such an attitude. But actually that police force down there
depends entirely on yours and my agreement that we should act along a
betterment of the various dynamics. We believe that we should help
things along and that we should be law-abiding and stay by our word
and our contract. So the police force is totally dependent upon that
agreement. Totally. And the amount of policing which it does is so
negligible as to be laughable, as to say there is any law and order in
the society.
The law and order is the agreement of the citizenry itself that they
will be lawful and orderly. And if a police force caves in that
agreement, then it is destroying the law and order in the society. If
a police force is so punitive toward the citizenry, is so
indistinguishing in its arrests, in its maulings around of the
citizenry, if it keeps arresting the wrong people all the time, you
know, and pushing in people's buttons who for years have been minding
their own business and been good people, you know, why, a police force
is then destructive of it.
Actually the police force has no more force and power than you and I
agree it should have. You and I could do, probably, a better job of
policing throughout the community if there were no police forces. You
wouldn't turn to anybody, then, to do your policing for you. You just
wouldn't. You would be much more careful to act in a lawful and
orderly fashion. You would probably gang up on those elements of the
society which were knocking it apart one way or the other, and you'd
be - have to become very punitive and active in that particular
direction.
A lot of injustices would be done. This is perfectly true. But I don't
know that there aren't injustices being done right this minute. We
have police forces because we have police forces, not because we need
police forces.
If a police force deters us from being orderly or lawful, which it
often does - . Well, have you ever felt very kind toward law and order
and keeping law and order right after you've been given a speeding
ticket that you really didn't deserve very much? Huh? Did you feel
more or less orderly or lawful? You started to figure out how you
could chew up the society.
Now, here's a new view. The whole society is actually running forward
and dependent upon the individual goodwill of its citizens: The
individual's desire to better himself; to better his family, to have a
little bit better job and a little bit better way to go about things
in life. The entire society is dependent upon that state of mind.
To salvage a society it is necessary to aid, abet, raise and increase
that state of mind. If you were to set up a perfect government out
here which required the intervention of nobody, you would have
destroyed the society. But by raising the individual ability of the
persons in the society within the framework that they are able to
view, raise their ability within the framework they are able to view,
you would have achieved a marked advance for that society. If you
could go out here and make a stonemason just a little less tired at
the end of the day, you see, and a little more able as a stonemason; a
housewife just a little more able as a housewife; a stenographer just
a little bit happier about that typewriter, by golly, this isn't much
of a gain, isn't it? Hm? That's microscopic, isn't it? But if you were
able to increase all the way across the boards these things wherever
you found them, if you were just able to make people feel just a
little bit better here and just a little bit better there, you see,
about this, just a little less tired, a little less feeling they would
fail, a little more secure in the society at large, you would have
done a fantastically fine job. Because if you could make them just a
little bit more, you could make them a heck of a lot more, see?
Gradient scale. If we could do it just a little bit, we could do it an
awful lot. Couldn't we?
Well, therefore, in the field of adult education, with all this talk
and foofaraw, we do have as an immediate goal not making everybody
capable of aiding and abetting and supporting a perfect government. We
don't want everybody to get educated up to a point of where everybody
would be an able manager of plants. We haven't any terrifically huge
goal of increase. If we go into the field of adult education we must
not depart from reality. We must recognize clearly that we are trying
to increase the ability of people within their own frames of
reference. And we, in doing that, are dependent upon their having
goals. And once more, just like the police force is dependent upon us
being lawful and orderly - . Actually, if just the people in the four
or five square blocks around here, right this minute, decided to be
lawless - just this many people - the entire police force of this
community would be utterly powerless. Be powerless! Most fantastic
thing you ever heard of They'd have to call in the army. They'd have
to do something if we just suddenly changed our considerations and
said we're all going to be illegal and lawless and we're going to
shoot everybody down and throw bombs and do all sorts of things.
Well, just as the police force is dependent upon law and order, so in
adult education are we dependent upon - get this one real good - we
are dependent upon the preexistence of a goal for betterment held
already by the individual. We're dependent upon the individual
desiring to be better before he comes and sits down in a public
education room. You got that? We're dependent upon this.
And if that spark were crushed in the society or if it were to die:
The society would die off so fast it wouldn't even smell afterwards,
it would just be gone.
So we find the primary effort to depress an individual or society is
to knock out his goals; his little minor goals.
A fellow comes to you, he says he's had a very unhappy marriage, he's
very upset. All right. If he's very upset, then, it must be that
somebody has been knocking his goals in the head. That is the first
and only valid conclusion you can draw about a case. See, that's the
first one, right there. And it's the one which will be valid.
Now, there are a lot of other little things. And we know by our tech
niques and technicalities and processes that it has communication, it
has other factors all associated with it. But the one that we really
hit and would know then perfectly is somebody's been knocking his
goals apart.
Somebody departs from Phoenix, goes up to Chicago, he's just got
through the course, he feels pretty good and in a few weeks we all of
a sudden see him in Phoenix again. We say, "Well, Joe, how are you?
What's the matter? What's up? How are things going?"
"Well, I probably need a little more training."
Well, we don't inquire very far into why somebody comes back into a
unit, but we can tell you very definitely it's because somebody
knocked his goals apart. One way or the other, somebody did. Maybe it
was just the fact that he had a favorite preclear that he wanted to
straighten up with the processes he learned and he went back there and
it was too much of an uphill climb for him and he just didn't make the
grade with that preclear. He had a failure and this made him quit.
See, it was his first test. But generally it's not in the frame of
reference of Scientology. The individual wanted to be something, to
shine in somebody's eyes, to make a success of something somewhere and
these very people have knocked off at least some of the glitter and
dash on these goals, made them seem less romantic. They have argued
about them in some fashion. They have blunted the enthusiasm he might
have in the direction of betterment for himself and his immediate
environment. We can count on that.
So if somebody were to blunt the society as a whole in any particular
line, we would have a resultant attitude on the part of the society.
So we are dependent in adult education upon the desire of the adult to
be better and do better in his job and in the sphere which he can
intimately and immediately observe. He doesn't think he's responsible
for the election of the governor or the county clerk. He doesn't think
he's responsible for that. This is getting too big. He certainly is
not responsible for the state of man. He's not responsible for the
A-bomb: that's in some scientist's hands and scientists, everybody
knows, are very absent people. He's not responsible, really, for how
well General Motors makes a car or General Electric makes a light
bulb. See, he takes all this in his stride.
But he definitely is responsible somewhere. There is a sphere of
responsibility of this individual that he feels he can better, he can
better himself in, that he can do better. And that word better is the
one that you are voting for, that you're going toward. He feels that
he can better it.
Now, society, somewhere along the line, have to be picked up. I'll
tell you why: because we're losing these goals, we're losing them
quite rapidly. If we are dependent, in order to better the society,
upon the individual feeling that he can at least better himself in
some particular small sphere, if this is - if this is a fact, well
good heavens, then, if the society keeps on in a dwindling spiral
we're going to have less and less points to punch, aren't we? Was a
time when we could have gone out rabble-rousing on a political level,
you know, just whamity-wham, and making everything all safe for
democracy. Just within this century this could have been done. But it
couldn't be done today.
There was a character - in the United States - occupied a position of
some prominence in the United States who couldn't walk. He didn't want
anybody else to walk, either. And we got socialism installed upon us
way, way, way before our time. We made people dependent on the
government. Created a state, actually, actively created a state of
dependency on the part of the individual upon the government. We
wanted individuals to be indigent according to this government
philosophy. We wanted them to be indigent. We invented something like
WPA and then wouldn't really let the guy work.
Do you realize that one of the most terrible things you could do to a
group of men would be to hire them just so you could give them some
money? That's despicable. If anybody had ever tried to do that to me I
would have cut his throat. There were times during the depression
where I wondered where my next loaf of bread was coming from, but I
never turned around to the government and said, "Give me a loaf of
bread." The government had no responsibility for me. I had
responsibility for the government, but it had no responsibility for
me. You get the idea?
Well, this frame of mind was very general half a century ago in this
country. "What? The government has some responsibility for me, now
tell me another one," see? "I've got a lot of responsibility for the
government."
But now you have the reverse of this. You have TV advertising, if you
please, to encourage people to accept social security. This is one of
the dizziest promotion schemes that anybody ever had launched upon.
Social security was originally a method of borrowing money 40 years
before it had to be paid back. It was floating of a bond. It was to
get everybody in the country to put some money into the treasury and
it was a good way of taxation. If you work out the insurance actuarial
figures on it, you will find that you are looking at one of the
dizziest, blue-sky schemes that you ever saw. It's fantastic.
For instance, I worked for Hollywood for about a year and every week I
used to go down and see my social security deducted. Now, actually,
that was a fancy piece of money. It was upsetting to me. It was a
hundred and a quarter a week that they were taking out for social
security. Yea, I was getting pretty good pay, straight Hollywood
fantasy wages, you know, they have nothing to do with actuality. Then,
by the way, the studios who have cousins who sell cars and insurance
and things like that expect you to place your orders with them. You
see, they give you these terrific wages and you're expected to spend
them. You're just nobody if you don't throw a hundred-dollar party
every Saturday night. I mean, you're just a bum. This is Hollywood in
operation.
But anyway, there was a hundred and a quarter a week, and it went on
for about year. And this is an awful lot of money. So not very long
ago, less than a year ago, I got curious. This is clear back in 1936
and 37. I got real curious: "What the hell happened to this hundred
and a quarter a week!" The government can't find it!
That was the only time I was ever employed. I was never employed at
the navy, I figured the navy was working for me. But they were - I was
trying to get them to fight a war having very little luck at it.
But where was this dough? And the government is now saying, "Huh?"
Now, that's a lot of money. I wonder how many other people's social
security is missing. It's an interesting state of affairs! See, I've
lost my first social security card, that was so many years ago, I lost
it during the war in a sinking. I don't know what my social security
number was. Oh, well.
Now, here we have - here we have a force moving in on the society
saying, "Look, we are going to take care of you. We're going to pay
everything." You know, Rome? You know Rome when it started to give
corn and games to everybody had the awfullest political mess you ever
heard of. When Rome was a republic, it really did things. And when it
started to buy off the populace, it did nothing! Rome was a bunch, a
cauldron of thieves. Now, this is what happens when the government
itself is going to take care of the guy. So, as we cut down the number
of routes in the society by which goals can be expressed - you know,
"I'm going to take care of myself in my old age," that's quite a goal,
see. The government comes along and says, "No. We're going to take
care of you in your old age, if we don't lose your social security
card!" or something.
When you - when you take this goal away from the individual, when the
individual says, "I'll raise my kids up and put them into a good
school," and so forth.
The Russian government, by the way, has taken this goal away from its
population entirely. The kid goes to a state school and his education
is immediately scheduled and that's that. See, no further
responsibility on the part of the parents for what the child learns a very destructive thing. So in conducting an adult educational
program you've got to be awfully sure that there exists in the
community some desire on the part of the individual to better himself
and find out in which direction. And if you can establish this then
you can run adult education. And if you can't establish it, you're
going to fail in adult education because the primary factor you're
depending on - the desire of the individual to better himself - is
missing.
Now, which direction can he better himself?
Well, you'll have to just discover that for every community that there
is. It's different for any community there is.
So the first step that you would accomplish would be to take a little
survey in the community itself and find out what some people's goals
are. You'll find person after person will tell you, "No goal," at
first. But remember a psycho, even a psycho, can find some area he can
help.
It'd be our job in adult education to enlarge that area, would't it?
Find the area and enlarge it.
So therefore you'd have to take some sort of a little poll and you'd
have to discover what in the community was still open as a channel.
What was still open as a channel? Some channel is open there with any
person there is, anywhere. If no channels were open, the person would
be utterly, completely insane of the catatonic variety. And if you
recognize that you'll see how important such a little program could be
in a community.
Now, the first and foremost thing in conducting an adult educational
program would be to tell these people that you were going to increase
and better their goals; not to follow one of yours! And then, in
getting them to do this, you would first make them able to study. And
by study we mean look in Scientology, and that's all we mean - the
ability to look.
So that your adult educational program, no matter how you dressed it
up, would wind up with Group Opening Procedure. And in very, very
specialized fields would wind up with Opening Procedure on particular
pieces of equipment or areas in the society. And that is a totality of
program.
But the society might demand more of you than that. And if it did then
you would hook yourself up with somebody like ICS or something like
that; you would teach correspondence courses in a classroom.
How would you do that?
Well, you would get somebody to cooperate with you to give you
prearranged courses in various subjects and objects. And you'd go
ahead and you would teach these courses on the basis of; "We'll meet
once a week. And you've got to do study lineups in the middle of the
week."
The society itself can no longer follow a correspondence course. The
curve of people completing correspondence courses is dropping with
great speed. I mean, it used to be an individual would take a course
in being an electrician, you see, and he'd actually complete the
course. Some percentage like 60 percent or something like that would
complete this course. That is not true today, no such 60 percent is
completing the course; 8 percent, something like that; 2 percent. You
know, a fellow has the ambition to learn and then the fact that he is
immediately confronted with the materials of learning causes him to
quit.
So you actually could take a correspondence course setup, you see, and
simply have the people come into the classroom and you'd teach them
straight away. But the lessons would all be laid out. In other words,
any subject under the sun could be taught by you in adult education.
By doing what?
By enrolling a bunch of people - not in ICS, that's too expensive but there's La Salle, which I think is a little less expensive, I
don't know, there are several such things. There's an outfit in
Chicago that simply sells you courses by the ton. But what you do is
just set up some kind of a predigested course setup and you'd let them
follow through on this particular course, keeping the thing well
salted down with Opening Procedure for a group in Group Auditing.
Now, we would increase special skills on a stenographer by making her
do 8-C on every single part of a typewriter for a long time; on paper;
on anything, ribbons; on anything connected with an office, even
bosses, you know, in some fashion or another.
Female voice: Go over and touch the boss?
Just something on this order. You'd have to if you really wanted to
get the whole job done. Something like this. Of course the boss might
misinterpret this on the part of a pretty girl stenographer. But I
don't think he'd be mad about it. The problems are then laid out in
the following formula to discover the goals of your adult student and
to assist him in obtaining those goals by making him more aware of his
general environment in this order: one, more aware of his general
environment; two, more aware of the materials with which he will have
to work to attain that goal; and three, more aware of himself and his
capabilities and abilities.
Now, if you were able to do these three things more or less in that
order, you would have somebody who was - who was really bearing down
on the accelerator.
Now, no matter what tiny goal he came to you to achieve, you would not
under any circumstances berate it, criticize it, knock it down or try
to evaluate or tell him there were better goals. You're dependent upon
his having at least one tiny goal. Cherish it.
You'll find that after he's had some Group Opening Procedure, after
he's had some specialized address to the materiel involved; he will
change and enlarge his goal.
So adult education amounts to increasing the goals of the people with
whom you're working. And that is the secret back of everything you're
doing and something you mustn't tell them.
He comes to you with this tiny goal, he gets a bigger goal. You start
to work with this bigger goal, he'll get a little bit bigger goal. You
start to work with this bigger goal, he'll get a much bigger goal, you
see? Until all of a sudden he is taking some real responsibility on
the first, second and third dynamics. And if you kept it up long
enough, he'd have responsibility on the fourth. But that's way up the
track.
The beauty of this, or the horror of it, is that it doesn't have any
end as far as you as an educator are concerned.
Now, to aid and abet anybody who would care to engage upon such a
program the HASI, being authorized by the state of Arizona to do so,
would be very, very happy to issue degrees in education. Because if
you can't educate people then nobody can, anywhere.
If you just look at Opening Procedure of 8-C and reevaluate it, you'll
realize that you have the greatest educational tool that has ever been
invented. A wonderful tool. And that in itself makes you a teacher.
Two-way communication in itself makes you a teacher. People could not
help but learn and get better. This makes you, then, a more able
teacher. It isn't whether you can spell, do arithmetic or anything
else. You could make a person capable of spelling and doing
arithmetic.
By doing what?
By using your imagination of how to address 8-C to those particular
fields in which the individual feels himself incompetent. Don't
validate the blocks particularly. However, just recognize his goal,
make him more aware of his environment, make him more aware of himself
and his potentialities and capabilities. Just increase his
communication and you'll increase his ability to do. It's just as easy
as this.
Therefore, adult education is a very wide-open field to an auditor in
any area, and should definitely be looked at as a very superior item
of dissemination for the materials of Scientology and source of income
for an auditor in an area. It has a lot to do with auditing, doesn't
it?
But nevertheless, you have put up yourself - you could actually do
this. You could put yourself up, for the purposes of adult education,
Hubbard College of Adult Education, which is part of the Hubbard
Dianetic Research Foundation, recently authorized. It's Hubbard
Professional College. We are going into a refinement of that so as to
give it a division of adult education. So then anybody could follow in
that particular field.
This is one way of picking a society up by its bootstraps in a frame
of reference which it itself understands. And with considerable more
experimentation we will know many odds and ends of exactly how you go
about it, but right now we already know it would have a successful
career.
Thank you.
(end of lecture)
9ACC21-5501C11 FUNDAMENTALS OF AUDITING
Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC21 - 5501C11 Renumbered 23
for "The Solution To Entrapment" cassettes
FUNDAMENTALS OF AUDITING
A lecture given on 11 January 1955
An auditor who doesn't know his fundamentals doesn't know his preclear
because these fundamentals exactly and closely appertain to the
preclear himself. They are a description of the basic agreements which
this individual has made on the whole track in order to get himself in
the shape he's in. And if we don't know these basic agreements then
we're apt to go over along side someplace and go over the hills and
far away and start hitting something that is terrifically ungermane to
the situation.
Now, we could pile up a lot of things that we could call the
fundamentals of auditing. The fundamentals of auditing would simply be
those things which stressed and took apart the basic agreements on the
track and rehabilitated the thetan's ability to make more agreements
and make his own postulates stick again. That's what we would do in
auditing, you see. We'd take apart the enforced, inhibited agreements,
the ones he couldn't do anything about. We would take those apart
enough so that we could get him into a situation where we could
rehabilitate his ability to create and agree at will. In other words,
we would take this obsessive or inhibitive line and put it into a
knowingness category. And if we did that then we're auditing. If we
don't know we're doing that we're not doing anything. You get what
this is?
We've got to take him out of the unknown, unconscious,
stimulus-response type of behavior and activity and put him over here
to where he can cause this activity at will. And when we've done that
we've really got a boy. All right.
What are these compulsive and inhibitive patterns? What are they? And
they are contained in the Axioms of Dianetics and Scientology; the
Axioms and definitions. If an auditor doesn't know what these are he
might draw some of the most interesting conclusions regarding a
preclear. Furthermore he will always have this feeling: "Maybe the
HASI doesn't know what it's talking about. Maybe it does. I don't
know."
He's definitely on an uncertainty. That's the least thing he's on. You
can determine this immediately: Somebody is getting results with
auditing, it's because he knows the fundamentals of this science. That
is why he's getting results in auditing.
Now, let's make - let's make a good comparison of this. Let's take an
engineer out here and he's building himself a bridge. And if this
engineer knows the fundamentals of steel structure; if he knows
something about grading, overburdening, positioning concrete in place;
if he knows something about cantilevers, stresses, weights, overloads
and factors; that bridge will stay there. And if he is shorted on any
one of these things I've mentioned then any goofball practical
contractor - in our lines that would be "crystal ball reader," you
know, the engineer has this as his little cross to bear. He's always
dealing with practical engineers who don't know anything about the
fundamentals of engineering. And they come up to him and they start
telling him what the stress analysis is and what it isn't and he
doesn't know and he takes their word for it and that bridge goes crash
down into the chasm.
Well, it works the same way with a case. The preclear is your
practical engineer in this case and he's going to tell you what's
wrong with him. And brother, if you do not know the fundamentals of
existence itself, then you don't know what's wrong with the preclear
and so he can tell you and so the case can go on forever. And that's
about all there is to it.
There are just so many things that can get wrong with a man. The best
categories of these are simply categorized this way: He gets out of a
knowingness band into a compulsive or obsessive band. Instead of using
postulates and handling things with postulates, he starts to use
energy and handle everything with energy. This is what happens to your
preclear. As soon as he starts to use energy and handle everything
via-via-via, energy-energy-energy, he is then in a condition where any
piece of energy that comes along directed at him can throw him.
If he is not using energy and if he can handle things by postulates,
he is impervious to the stimulus-response patterns of energy itself.
So what gets wrong with him is he starts to handle things in terms of
mechanics. He is being totally mechanical. He is starting to handle
everything in terms of space. In the absence of space he doesn't find
or feel that he can do anything. He has to have some energy in order
to do something, You know the final result of that is the guy goes out
here and he buys a bunch of fishing equipment and then he buys a reel,
which is a very special reel, and then he buys a whole bunch of reels
which dry line. And then he gets some boots and then he gets a fancy
knife in order to clean fish. And then he buys himself a couple of
outboard motors and then he buys himself a boat. And then he decides
that in order to haul the boat around he's got to have a trailer.
Well, in order to have a trailer he's got to have a special
air-inflating pump in case the trailer tires ever went flat.
Has this boy ever done any fishing yet? No, he's getting further and
further from doing fishing.
So he then decides that in order to really fish he better get himself
this hunting lodge out alongside of this lake. And so he decides if
he's got that he'd better stock it up for long stays, so he puts a lot
of stuff in there. Then he decides that, actually, the crude plumbing
that is out there isn't so good so he had better put in plumbing, a
water pump, a well and a septic tank. He proceeds to do this.
Has he done any fishing yet? No, he sure hasn't. There's this little
kid down here with a bent pin has gone out and emptied the lake by
this time. He has to have in order to do and that is about the lowest
of the brackets that man gets into. After a while he even inhibits
this and he decides he can't have which tells him adequately that he
can't do. But this is all getting over into compulsive and obsessive
behavior. He has these things that tell him now whether or not he can
do it. Does the motor run - does this outboard motor run? Well, that
tells him whether or not he can go fishing. You got the idea, if the
motor doesn't run, he can't go fishing. What's the motor got to do
with fish? Well, if his hobby is repairing and putting into action
outboard motors he's all set. He - but let's not - let's not worry
about that if our goal is to go fishing. All right.
Now let's take a look - let's take a look at an auditor and see the
frame of mind that you actually could get into. You might think that
you have to have all this tremendous number of possessions in order to
audit, and that these possessions are so tremendous and they're so big
and there are so many of them that you couldn't possibly grab hold of
them. And so if this were the case then you wouldn't be able to get up
to a point where you could audit, could you? You always have something
more in order to audit.
Well, these things are ideas. They have nothing to do with mass. There
are certain things you have to know. Do you know that you can be
restimulated by a preclear if you yourself don't know the fundamentals
of the whole track? And if you know them you can't be restimulated by
a preclear because you will understand exactly what he's doing. It's
only when you don't understand what this preclear is doing that you
can become restimulated.
Now let's look at that as a slight bonus of knowing this science.
These are ideas. These are the ideas, the agreements, the postulates
and they have nothing to do with mass or energy. You are not in
possession of a big lump of stuff when you know this. It's actually
true that knowledge of the whole track and the common denominators
upon it set a man free. Why? Because these things undo energy.
If you've run, even for a moment, a little spot out there saying,
"Hello," you saw energy start to disintegrate. You saw it start to
come apart. You saw less masses just by reason of a little
communication. Well, it took us a long time to win that particular
datum but now that it's won it should demonstrate to you whether it
was therapeutic or not. It certainly must have been educational if you
look at it this way: A mass of energy came apart.
What is senior - the energy or the idea? The idea every time.
All right. Here is an organized chain of ideas which strings back over
seventy-six trillion years. An organized string of ideas which
actually do not amount to more - as far as the importance is concerned
- than four or five dozen ideas. That's a fantastic thing, there's
just this little bit of ideas. And those ideas strung back through
time have created every form, object or activity on the whole track.
Now as a student of this subject you are being asked to put yourself
into possession of these four or five dozen ideas. You don't have to
have anything else but these things because once you've got these
ideas, once you know that they are the ideas which are the common
denominators in the track, then no preclear or textbook or anything
else will be able to fool you or put you into a state of "I do not
understand."
That's the one state an auditor must never get into, "I don't
understand," because that is itself energy. It's incomprehensibility.
The preclear can then sit there and be incomprehensible. Only when the
preclear is being incomprehensible does the auditor get restimulated.
If you were to understand everything this preclear is doing, then you
therefore - you can predict this preclear. And what you can predict
you don't worry about. You could predict that you would have to wait
for eight million years for an answer and a comm lag that you knew
would be over in eight million years, would then not worry you, if you
knew this - you follow me?
But if you thought that it might occur a year from now or ten years
from now or fifty years from now or eight trillion years from now, you
could then worry about it. You wouldn't have to - you wouldn't be able
to predict where it is. If you can understand what is wrong with the
preclear, you can predict what he is doing and predict what he's going
to do. If you can do this then and there, you have placed yourself in
a situation where you cannot be restimulated by anything. In other
words you cannot be made into an unknown, unknowing effect.
And that is the first and foremost reason completely, regardless of
results, why an auditor has to know his definitions and axioms. The
first and foremost reason is for his own sake.
Do you feel comfortable with somebody fooling around with a .45
automatic that they know nothing about; putting bullets in it and
taking them out of it and fooling around with its safeties and its
hammer and not knowing where the safeties are and not knowing where
the trigger is. Would you be comfortable? Could you sit there
adequately calm in front of somebody doing this? You bet you couldn't.
Well, by God, you are looking at a .45 when you are looking at a
preclear that actually doesn't know where his safeties are, doesn't
know where his - the loaders or ejectors or injectors or trigger or
barrel or anything else is. This guy is this terrific mass of
incomprehensibility. You know one of these days he's going to pull the
wrong lever. Which way is he going to go? Well, he'll go in the
direction to give you some trouble if you are living with him.
So let's apply this to the business of living. Still, if he pulled the
wrong lever and you could predict that he was going to do so because
you saw the motions which preceded pulling the wrong lever, you would
at least know it was a wrong lever and you could be that comfortable
about it, that you could predict his activity and behavior. Only those
things which you do not understand can hurt you.
All right, let's go a little bit further in the making of an auditor.
And he's facing this case, and he's running this case in an
interestingly abstruse, obtuse sort of way. He is saying some process
like, "Well, tell me about your troubles, and tell me some more about
your troubles." And he keeps this up and by golly you know the
preclear gets better - some more troubles and some more troubles and
some more troubles and you know the preclear is feeling - feeling
right nice. I mean everything is going along very fine and some more
troubles and all of a sudden the preclear starts to get upset and
uncomfortable. If you do not know and if you cannot explain two-way
communication in terms of living, that first thing alone could cause
an eventual upset.
We just use one process and we get a good one-way flow started on it.
And if we let that flow go long enough, certainly by just
communication alone we're going to get a stuck flow, if we are going
to do no more to this case than that. Right? You should be able to
understand that.
All right, next thing, next thing; you are going to give him a
scarcity of problems after a while because you are as-ising every
damned problem this fella can think of. You haven't asked him to
invent any problems or remedy his havingness of it. You've just asked
him time after time to tell you about some more of his problems, and
the next thing you know there sits this poor devil who hasn't got any
game left.
Well, for instance, the sore tooth that he's got, you know that once
upon a time had tremendous workability and it might again. My, was his
mother sympathetic. Tremendous workability, beautiful game. "I get a
sore tooth, Mother runs herself ragged." Nice game. Might occur again.
Might even work on the wife. And he starts telling you about this sore
tooth and you as an auditor can make him tell you about this sore
tooth in such a way as to as-is the entire computation. Now what do
you think will happen to him after you've been up to this long enough?
The first liability would be that he would get a stuck flow on just
this type of auditing, you see. You're making him give you an answer,
him give you an answer, him give you an answer, him give you an
answer, him give you an answer. What are you doing with the
communication formula, huh? Huh?
Male voice: Sticking it - .
You sure are. You are sticking it and it will stick eventually. I
don't - I'm not telling you now how to remedy it. I'm just telling you
what can happen here. And if you don't know the real application of
communication in everyday living, if you don't know that the two-way
cycle of communication actually behaves as it behaves, then there's an
awful lot of incomprehensible things can occur with this preclear
which you then have to look far afield and find some very
unsatisfactory answer for.
You did it; you were sitting right there. The first thing you did was
stick him by auditing him for forty hours, or sixty hours or a hundred
hours on how many problems he had and because it produced results at
first, we thought that this was terrific. And the next way you stuck
him was to take all of his games away from him without asking him to
invent anything else to go in their place. So this wasn't good. That's
bad auditing.
Well, you know the fundamentals. You see there's really no reason why
I should have to teach you how to audit. If you were capable of
applying the Axioms of Scientology immediately to the problem of
another fellow human being, you theoretically could dream up enough
processes to satisfy adequately every single condition which you would
meet. But it has been found by experience that auditors do not do
this. So we have codified processes.
And we have the codification of processes known as Two-way
Communication, Elementary Straightwire, Opening Procedure 8-C, Opening
Procedure by Duplication, Remedy of Havingness and Spotting Spots. All
of these are very intimately seated in the Axioms. All of them have
rationale back of them which stems immediately from the definitions
and Axioms of Dianetics and Scientology. They were developed straight
out of theory. And they are only there for one reason - Is it actually
would be an imposition to ask every student of this subject to come
along and suddenly start to extrapolate a hundred percent from these
Axioms because he would not have any objective reality on it.
Furthermore, the Axioms themselves are restimulative. They are
restimulative. They cannot help but be restimulative. The fellow
starts to resist them or fight them, the next thing you know he's got
a counter-blast going against one of his basic agreements on the track
and they fold fast.
You know, by the way, I don't worry these days, I don't even vaguely
worry these days about somebody popping up somewhere grabbing a
completely cockeyed brand of Dianetics and Scientology and putting out
a lot of yap-yap to the public and patent medicine testimonials and so
forth, and starting to go to town. I don't worry about this boy. You
know why? He could have gotten away with it with early Dianetics.
There wasn't enough - wasn't enough of these basic axioms on the track
in early Dianetics. But he wouldn't get away with it now. He's
fighting the stuff of which he is made. There could be no quicker way
to kill a man. And so it occurs these people last about a year in a
sane state. Now this is a horrible thing. We've got the most awful
self-protective mechanism you ever walked into because they are
stealing it or taking it aside - you see they could have it. There is
no reason why they should steal it, but their make-up tells them they
got to steal it. All right. They could have it. But they don't do
that. They have a basic misunderstanding of its mission, its activity
and its form. And having this basic misunderstanding of it, they then
haven't got any better sense than to start to buck it in some fashion
or to say, "Well, this and that of it is not true, and something or
other is not true, and we all know this," and so on; and then start to
tell people how awful a real auditor is - you're in the area - .
By the way, don't think these boys just yap at me. That's not true.
They catch you in some area and they might tell you how bad I am, but
they tell the next guy that comes in how bad you are. That's what that
goes all about. It's just bad over there. And this individual starts
saying how bad the real trained auditor is and they really don't have
to do that and so on, and he starts fighting a buzz saw. And he might
as well go out and find himself a nice, big sawmill and fight a buzz
saw, because he - it'd actually be less painful. This is not a threat
I'm giving you. I'm just saying this stuff is there to be understood
and learned, and there isn't, unfortunately, is no short-stop. You
don't stop early on this. There is no stopping early. You know that.
That's why you've studied it for as long as you have.
You were studying it at the same time I was studying it. I was
developing it along the line and I gave you everything that I
discovered that had validity as it was discovered. This was good
enough. This was good enough. But now there are damned few bugs extant
in this stuff. Very, very few bugs. An alignment such as I gave you
the last couple of days - we'll call exteriorization procedure - this
is simply putting together a lot of stuff we already know and know
well to produce more rapidly a certain result.
Well, let's not go astray in the believing that you know something if
you can't define it. That is the sorriest trap that anybody ever led
himself into. This is what's known as something like the recognition
of words. You know about the recognition of words? People have a
recognition value of words. It certainly doesn't make them literate.
They know that word means something vaguely resembling what it means,
but they themselves cannot use that word. Let's take a college
student, somebody with a pauperized vocabulary, and turn him loose in
Thomas Hardy - which is bad literature to begin with - and they start
running across some of these words, and they give them recognition
value. They think they know what it means. When they see the word,
they have a vague idea of what it means. That's recognition value. It
certainly isn't knowing the word. And they will wind up with the
dimmest idea of what the author was talking about.
All right, let's get a little bit further. What is basically the
vocabulary of people? It is terrible. I can really point you out an
"It's bad over there." I was utterly flabbergasted the other day to
write somebody a letter and have the entire letter misunderstood
because the person did not know what the word expect means! You'd say
this man was the champion moron of all time. Nn-nn, no he's not. He
manages a business. "Oh," you say, "Recognition value or knowingness
value of words couldn't possibly be so bad that there's somebody out
here who doesn't know what expect means." Yes there are. There are
lots of people around that don't know what a word like expect means.
I try to use, by and large, simple English. Very few of these
definitions or Axioms in Scientology have complicated words in them.
They either have a made-up word out of whole cloth; take some
adjective and make a noun out of it, something, just a whole cloth,
because there is no place, no hole - there's been a - there's a hole
there in the language. There is no word that makes up this hole; a
phenomenon nobody has observed before so we don't have a pat word for
it.
But you don't find us using words like telekinesis, or telekinesis is
the proper pronunciation of it. It's a gaudy word, isn't it;
telekinesis. Well, if you were studying philosophy at Georgetown
University in order to become a priest, you would not only know that
word but you would know the four or five textbooks which go to explain
what that word means. And that's what somebody would expect of you in
one of our modern institutions, parenthesis, laughingly referred to
as, unparenthesis, learning. It would be getting more symbols of the
definitions of more symbols to pile on the top of more symbols. You'd
get pretty giddy after a while.
I've never seen two priests that couldn't get into an argument over
some such subjects as the one I've mentioned. They have observed
certain phenomena and then they've given them words and the words have
become more important than the phenomena. We all know this
manifestation in healing, in psychology and so forth. We've seen it
there. It's also in religion. A man who was really trained in the
field of religion has simply been made a walking dictionary of symbols
- not of understanding, just of symbols. You give him one word and he
can come out with the other combination of words which explains that
one word. See? Now you ask him to explain one of these other words
that he used to explain it and he can come out with another
regurgitation of words which explains this word. All words explained
by all words. You get the idea? We got a word, so we explain it with
these words and then we get one of these words and we can explain it
over here with these words and then we got a bunch more words and the
next thing you know we've got the symbol band beautifully hit.
Well, now listen - in Scientology we're not explaining words by words.
We're explaining words by life behavior and we are unfortunately
called upon to explain life behavior by words.
There is another point on our communication line. We have an actual
comparison and that comparison is experience in existence.
Now an auditor, because he's working definitely straight up to and
close to - very, very close to - the pattern of life which is the
preclear; therefore, has this before him: He has life. He doesn't have
words. So he'd definitely have to have a comprehension of that life
manifestation. And the most fantastic thing that has happened here in
the last four years, that life in all these various complex
manifestations has been described by words. Scientology and Dianetics
are semantic triumphs completely aside from doing anything. You get
the idea? We can give a simple word description of phenomena occurring
in life.
You won't find very many long words in Dianetics and Scientology
mostly because Western scientific thinking has gone over into the
hands of the engineer. It no longer belongs in the field of
philosophy. The engineer has captured all this ground. Today the
psychiatrist and the psychologist is turning more and more toward some
scientific explanation. He right now has turned rather interestingly
to the electronic brain boys to find out what's happening - the
electronic brain boys just as though - he's still on the idea that a
human being is totally a machine with no other production in it, but a
machine. It's a basic misconception of philosophy. But he's being
forced over into the field of science.
It used to be enough for a doctor simply to be able to name the bones
of the body and not be able to do anything else at all to be a
physician. Now this is the most incredible thing you ever heard of.
Every one of these bones had a tremendous number of names. This was
way back on the track. But they had all these names. Somebody had
named all these bones and this fella could name these bones and it
took them hundreds and hundreds of years on the subject of bones to
get up to a practical application of bones and healing. And the first
practical application of it came in the - somewhere in the vicinity of
about 1780, 1760. Somewhere in that band of time, somebody came up and
said, 'A doctor should be able not only to name these bones but to
identify them by touch while blindfolded." Medicine had started to get
real. And a good physician could do this. He could take all the
assorted pile of bones; a skeleton completely knocked to pieces in its
separate parts in a pile, and he could take each one of these things
blindfolded and just by touch identify what that bone was. Now we've
gotten over in toward reality.
But they still clung to the fact that the brain had an enormous number
of names. You could ask today the psychiatrist what is a brain and it
- in - the first thing that would click inside of his head would be an
enormous number of names. That's his understanding of it - this great
number of Latin names. That psychiatrist was made to sit in class day
after day, week after week, month after month and memorize some of the
most incredible and misleading Latin titles you ever saw. Latin. I
wish I had a textbook here of all the parts of the brain. I mysell, am
just - I never look at it but what I say, "What a tremendously complex
waste of effort. What a beautiful example of useless activity." Just
casting up these names for the brain.
But these boys could not do anything for the brain. Now do you
understand me? They have not to this date done anything for the brain,
but they know an awful lot of names. So that you as an individual
inheriting some of this tradition of - learn an awful lot of category,
learn an awful lot of definitions and know nothing - you got that,
learn a lot and know nothing - have some tendency in Dianetics and
Scientology to discount the necessity of a precision grip. This has
been done to you. It's been done to you in schools. You have had to
learn, if you ever took basic psychology, you were asked to learn all
sorts of parts. Completely useless, after you learned all these parts,
you couldn't make a man laugh or cry, but you knew all the parts. What
good was that?
Scholastic training back down through the years has disabused us all
of the idea of ever knowing anything about definition. And then we
moved into the field of engineering. There have been engineers with us
since long ago. They were building roads and bridges in Gaul that
haven't gone to pieces yet. The engineer fought his knowledge out of
the physical universe, and the physical universe is a very hard
taskmaster. A man is right or he is right, he never gets a chance to
be wrong.
And the engineer has come up paralleling these humanities with
precision definition and formula. This is an entirely different
philosophy. The philosophy is: State in the minimum number of words
the exact behavior of this particular action. Where there's a bad
engineer in practice, I will show you a person who as a student did
not think it necessary to learn the elementary definitions of physics
and chemistry. He didn't think it necessary. And the educational
system in which that man was unfortunately forced to learn did not
think it necessary to return him to the fundamentals. One of the most
laughable experiences I've ever had in the field of education was
trying to get across to an engineer who was working with me on a
project in a big aviation company - I was called in on consultation
very briefly, I have very, very little to do with this sort of thing but I was called in on consultation in order to resolve a navigational
problem, they had all of a sudden run into this and it was entirely
far afield and they had to look around for somebody who was in Who's
Who or some place on the subject, so I went in and I tried to talk to
this individual about kinetics.
And the individual had been taught kinetics in a university which used
advanced physics. And the boy had never had to study elementary
physics. He only knew advanced physics. He knew none of the simple
laws of motion, of inertia, interaction, acceleration. Newton's basic
three laws were unknown to him. And I couldn't get across to this man
anything about the problem because he kept talking about kinetics. He
kept talking about the upper echelon formulas of kinetics.
This man was an absolute master of theory of equations, of
differentials, not differential calculus, but that mathematics known
as differentials, of topology, a German mathematics now about thirty
years old. A master of these things. He could get more complex than
any man I have ever heard of and yet he couldn't solve the basic laws
of motion, and could not understand why the whirligig device, which
was going to be the artificial horizon running on a little reaction
motor, had to have as much mass to discharge in back of it, as it had.
He just couldn't get it through his head.
Mass interaction - every action produces a opposite reaction. All
right. Therefore, we just had to have so much fuel in the little
whirligig that was going to drive an artificial horizon. He couldn't
get it: Why we had to make any allowances whatsoever for fuel capacity
in this device, and why the device itself was going to take down the
actual functioning of the guided missile to such a degree. It was
going to put on the guided missile immediately about 125 pounds of
weight, in terms of its own fuel. And I kept telling him the fuel has
to weigh 125 pounds. Why? Well, because there's 125 pounds of thrust
going to be exerted - Well, something like you trying to explain to
this kid that he should put on his shoes, because there are carpet
tacks on the floor. And he says, "What do shoes got to do with it?"
And I got curious about this boy, and he was the head of the
department that had this particular project in charge. And his
complete stupid thick-headedness was the reason they had to send for a
consultant. But was he stupid? No, he could put up the facade of being
the most brilliant man you ever saw, and probably was a very, very
brilliant man. But when he was educated, he took his elementary
physics, his basic physics in high school, and he really didn't start
to study engineering until he was in the university, and the
university gave him a textbook on the subject of kinetics, which he
later on dragged out while I was over at his house, and it didn't have
anywhere in it Newton's three laws of motion.
We're going to write a textbook on kinetics without the basic three
laws of motion. No we're not. Now, those three basic laws of motion
are the most simply stated thing you ever heard of. They are most
elementary thing; the inertia, acceleration, interaction, there's
nothing to them. Any kid can understand them. And because they are so
tremendously understandable, a person pursuing this course of study
simply reads them, and he says, "Well, that's easy," and he goes onto
the next page.
Let me tell you something, that next page doesn't have anything on it
as important as Newton's three laws of motion. The origin of these
three laws of motion was the surrender of the physical universe to the
engineer. It was the white flag. It ran up a white flag at that moment
in the face of man. This was enormously important. So what is
important and what isn't important is the basic part of any
educational system.
Now one time we were in the state in Dianetics that we didn't know
whether it was more important that the preclear yawned - we thought
the yawn might be a very, very important factor. We watched for yawns
very carefully. All a yawn is is a change of his basal metabolism. It
doesn't demonstrate anything better or worse. He might yawn, yawn,
yawn and go into a boil-off. Boil-off is - we thought at one time was
therapeutic, until we had somebody run - . I got this as a - set this
up as a project.
And I had auditors make preclears boil off until we had in one case
three hundred hours of consecutive boil-off by a case, with no change
of psychometry. No change on an E-Meter reading and no change of case
or any rehabilitation of ability. Boil-off wasn't important, was it?
It just wasn't even vaguely important. It's kind of found - we found
out that the preclear didn't even get rested in the boil-off. It
wasn't something that rested him. He woke up - if he went into the
session tired he'd come out tired.
All right, so all I'm trying to show you is we had an enormous number
of data, oh, just thousands of data, pieces of this puzzle which
belonged somewhere, some of which were more important than another,
but for God's sakes, which were the important pieces? Where did they
belong? Which was the most important pieces?
And gradually as these years have gone on, we have built a puzzle
within a puzzle within a puzzle within a puzzle. And the inside puzzle
is the simple one. It's a very simple puzzle. Pieces one to fifty,
fitted together, make a preclear.
But you can look at the outside puzzle that's around this puzzle and
you can find out all kinds of interesting things. You can find out
about his familial relationship, the relationship of his childhood,
the fact that broken marriages very often result in juvenile
delinquents. We can discover all sorts of significant data which is of
- still of interest to an auditor in the outer puzzle. But that's not
a puzzle anymore because we worked that one first.
All right. Now we go around and we find outside of this puzzle we do
get into a puzzle as far as life is concerned and that is; contains
such things as the parts of the brain in Latin. And if I were today
asking you to memorize the parts of the brain in Latin, I would be
ashamed of myself. Because it wouldn't lead anyplace, wouldn't lead
anywhere at all. It wouldn't make a single person better and it
wouldn't increase your understanding of life one bit, except to this
slight mechanism: If you give something a name it becomes more
familiar, and becoming more familiar is better owned by you.
There's a process that goes that way, a very weak process, but it has
some efficacity and it's simply this: Just start naming - giving
things names in your environment. Now you look at that chair and that
chair gives you its name, doesn't it? It says sort of "I am a chair."
You've been told often this is a chair, so this process goes in this
direction: It simply says, That is a yumgetit and that is a togwalla."
And a guy just goes on along this line, and he feels his vocabulary
start to creak and come apart at the edges. It's not a very effective
process, but it's a tremendously interesting process. It will
certainly ruin a general semanticist. It'll ruin him. But it's an
experimental process.
All right, the isolated data which were important as of 1951, end of;
appear in Advanced Procedures and Axioms and the Handbook for
Preclears as the Axioms of Dianetics, the Logics and Axioms of
Dianetics.
Many of those still have validity. All of them have validity in this
outside ring puzzle. But they - they all have some validity yet, but
some of them are with us yet and they were the ones with the greatest
validity. And so we look over all of these axioms, end of 1951 and we
discover out of them enough impact to cause me last year, year before
last now, to be welcomed with very widespread arms anywhere I went in
Europe.
"This is the man," not the fellow who invented Dianetics, but "This is
the man who organized psychotherapy into usable axioms." And whether
they are the right axioms or the wrong ones had no bearing on it. Here
was somebody who had at least organized psychotherapy into a usable
series of rationales. And it became tremendously interesting from an
intellectual standpoint, whether anybody understood them or not,
because nobody had ever attempted this before. And so, these boys were
not in argument with me on whether or not Dianetics was true or false
or whether or not these were valid axioms or invalid axioms or whether
they solved anything or not. They were with me all the way because I
was the first guy that ever organized psychotherapy into a series of
axioms, you see. That was quite enough for the European scholar. That
was quite enough.
He had good differentiation there, he didn't think you had to do the
whole job in one fell swoop. In America you're expected to have solved
the whole thing, and written all the - and organized it and so forth,
and then they'll let you live.
Now, here is a - here is an interesting viewpoint, there, those 1951
Axioms. If you were being required to memorize those 1951 Axioms and
required to memorize and understand them, you wouldn't really be
undergoing a big imposition because they still have tremendous
validity. For instance, gradient scales, the basic - the background of
data and how we understand data, and so forth, are all in those, that
data which hasn't been touched since. But as far as the therapy end of
it is concerned, we have overridden it. The last coupie of hundred
axioms out of those nearly three hundred axioms have today been
superseded by the fifty axioms which appear in The Creation of Human
Ability and which you have a copy of.
The therapy axioms, the ones that immediately and intimately apply to
therapy have to a marked degree been superseded. This doesn't make
them any less valid. They are all valid observations, but they are
axioms which belong to the outer puzzle. So we've at least condensed a
couple of hundred of them into some fifty, which describes life.
Now an auditor plunging into a case without having this much
understanding of existence is asking for several things. One of the
things he's asking for is case failures. Another thing he's asking for
is restimulation of himself He's asking for that, he's asking for it
very, very definitely. Another thing he's asking for is a puzzle on
his own part as to just why Scientology works at all.
Now the basic thing most auditors try to change on preclears is the
preclear's mind. We know this is the most basic therapy. They try to
change him - change his mind by feeding him various ideas. Well, the
single change that has happened here of recent months has been this:
Has been the understanding that given the ability to change his mind,
what he changes his mind to is of no importance.
The auditor a couple of years ago was trying to change a person's mind
into a certain direction, you see. We're not trying to do that. All
we're trying to do is get the individual to change his mind freely;
put him in a situation where he can change his mind freely and then
not give a damn what he changes his mind to. Because if he can change
his mind he can change his goals. And if he can change his goals, he
can survive. So we sort of leave that up to the fella.
Now that's a very much higher-toned view. But if you think that by
running some concepts or rearranging a preclear's ideas you're going
to get anyplace, you're mistaken. You will only get as far as you
restore to him the ability to change his mind. If he can change his
mind, he'll win. If he can't change his mind, he'll lose.
Now we get from there immediately into mechanics - changing the mind.
If he can change his mind facilely, he'll be in good shape.
Now we get into mechanics and we find out that experience, education
and other things may monitor the direction he will change his mind
because he's applying it to a set pattern known as the physical
universe. And we have moved over into this and we find out the first
thing the physical universe demands of us is two poles. It demands two
poles, at least; that we can - must be able to have force and strength
to impose space on two electrodes - two positions, two locations.
You see, the base of the electric motor imposes the distance upon the
two electrodes. And the floor of the building imposes that distance
upon the base. And Earth imposes that - hold-apart on the floor of the
building and the sun and the Earth are imposing this distance that
light is going to travel, but something about this solar system and
the galaxy imposed the distance of the sun and the Earth and
somewhere, someplace - reductio ad absurdum - something is imposing
distance between two particles. It just boils down to this: Something
is imposing distance on two particles. Remember, we're into the
mechanical field of this because we're going to ask this individual to
perform a mechanical trick, and the mechanical trick is simply be a
distance from his body and reactive mind. He's already convinced of
the distance, therefore within this framework of conviction we're
going to impose a mechanical trick on him of ask him to be a distance
from this body and mechanical mind and we're still going to ask him to
control it while he's at that distance, which is cute.
And then we're going to put another trick to him, we're going to ask
him to communicate with anything and everything there is in this
universe. And if he communicates with everything and anything there is
in this universe, as far as he's concerned there can or can't be, can
be or doesn't have to be, a universe.
See, he could take the MEST universe or leave it alone.
Now, therefore, the first and foremost of these three things is
something called change of mind. Now that's very silly that something
which has nothing but the quality to - of mind change should have any
difficulty in doing it. This is real wild, you see. I mean, this
individual who can do nothing but mind - change his mind, he can
certainly do this you see. He can make postulates or he can change
those postulates or he can end those postulates. Well, if this is all
this individual can do, then if you please, if you please, why do we
have to work at it? Well, we actually don't have to work at it very
hard, and it's certainly not something that we should stress
considerably in processing. We should simply work in the direction of
doing it.
Well, all right. Let's take these fifty axioms of which I spoke. These
fifty axioms are a pretty good codification of existence, but remember
each one of them was once part of an enormous sea of data, the sea of
data of just two years ago; those axioms were afloat in there
someplace. But that sea of data of two years ago - three hundred
axioms - was - they were captured data, captured territory from an
ocean of maybes. They were some captured certainties from an ocean of
maybes.
And if an auditor is still afloat in that ocean of maybes, if he
doesn't recognize that some of this territory has been captured, then
he can be shipwrecked and drowned with great ease because he get well, let's say he takes Opening Procedure of 8-C and he works it a
certain distance and all of a sudden a great big mass of something
moves in on the preclear from some quarter. And it might be a very
painful mass, might do very bad things to him, and the auditor didn't
know really that this could occur and didn't know why it occurred.
Maybe he wouldn't know anything about this business about two
terminals, there's got to be two terminals. He didn't recognize that
every preclear is using his body as one terminal and an enormous
amount of reactive energy or machinery for other terminals. And he
goes over here and he touches - has the preclear touch the wall, and
he touches the wall and he touches the wall and he touches the wall
and he touches the wall and all of a sudden the preclear has terminal
trouble. Why shouldn't he have terminal trouble, he's getting his
attention fixed off of these terminals in the bank up to the fact that
he actually has terminals in present time and doesn't need these damn
terminals in the bank. So he starts letting go of them and actually
they start flying around in all directions.
Is it serious? No, it certainly isn't. It merely shows you that 8-C is
working. That's all it tells you. But if you didn't know this business
about terminals, you could get awfully baffled. And you probably, if
you didn't know that much, wouldn't know that I knew enough to tell
you to go on and run 8-C, and that you would solve this particular
juxtaposition of terminals. The individual has just started to abandon
the terminal, he will abandon it all the way when he discovers that he
can have another mass than some hidden mass, ball of engrams, in the
bank.
See, he's counting on these engrams around in the bank. He's counting
on masses. He's counting on old electronics. You wonder why these
people bring in these electronics on themselves all the time. Well,
you shouldn't be baffled about this particularly, they're just in
search of a terminal and these terminals move in and they use them.
And they generate electricity between the body and these terminals.
And they're trying to set up automatic machinery.
Well, there's no reason why they should do this when they've got a
terminal right there. There's a wall. And you get their attention on
the fact that, look, they've always got terminals. Present time is
just strewn with them. They're all over the place. There's other
people, that's the most valuable terminal. These boys who go off and
start finding terminals down in their bank someplace, and so forth,
they've become unaware of other people. They don't think other bodies
are standing around there to discharge against. Nobody to argue with,
nobody to talk with, nobody to fight with. They must think this is the
case or they wouldn't go using these isolated terminals.
All right. We find this individual starting to work here with the
wall, touching the wall and letting go of the wall and approaching it
and moving away from it. We could actually run 8-C, you know, all the
way. We don't because the reason behind 8-C is simply get the guy
under the auditor's orders so we know what he's doing and get him a
little bit solved as far as this terminal problem is concerned. But we
could make 8-C an end-all process and you as an auditor certainly
ought to be able to make it an end-all process and do nothing but 8-C.
Somebody asked me yesterday would you touch the boss. We were running
Reach and Withdraw with adult education. All right, would you go ahead
and touch the boss? Yes! But you don't have to have the boss there.
The simplest thing in the world would be for this individual to reach
and withdraw, touch various parts of; and so forth, a human being.
Let me tell you how I worked a psychotic one time. I worked this
psychotic for four auditing periods of twenty minutes each and she
went out and got a job and we haven't heard of her since and she's a
waitress in some place or another right now fairly nearby and having a
happy time of it. This person didn't know her name when she came in.
She gave four or five names doubtfully and then didn't know any of
those. This is quite a - quite a interesting little case. Not an
isolated case, not a selected case, one that walked in off the street
and there were no available auditors so I audited her.
The oddity in this case was that nobody else was alive anywhere in the
world. See, there was nobody alive. This person was walking around as
the only one. But some dim circuit did walk her in the front door, so
she couldn't have been too bad off, you see, I mean, she couldn't have
been too serious of a case because some dim circuit did walk her into
the right place. And when they come to you as an auditor, you haven't
got the worst psychotic you could get by a long ways.
All right. I had this girl touching the walls and I had her walking
through space to discover if there was - anything was in it. She'd
move her body through this space fearfully, feeling she would
encounter something and reached the point indicated that she was to
proceed toward with the greatest of relief I just had her walking back
and forth in the room because I could make her do that at first. I
couldn't make her touch anything. So I just had her walking back and
forth through space finding out if there was anything in it. "Now, you
walk over to that exact spot there and find out whether or not there's
anything between you and it. Okay, now let's walk over there. That's
right, that's right. Well, was there anything in it?"
"All right. Now, you see that corner of the rug over there. Now you
just walk over there and see if there's anything between you and it."
This psycho, of course, was less psycho every second of the auditing
session, relief; relief; better off. Well, I finally got her up to a
point where she'd touch the wall and let go of the wall and so on. I
was still running A. I mean, I was directing her to the spots, picking
them out, so forth. But I never came off A. I just ran A all the way.
And I said, "All right. Now, walk over here and touch my shoulder.
That's a good girl. Now, you go over there. Now I'm going to walk over
and touch your shoulder." "Okay." And I did.
And we did this for quite a little while, you know, several minutes,
back and forth, many times. And now I said, "Breathe on my hand." She
did. So I said, "Now you come over here - you come over here and I'm
going to breathe on your hand." And I did.
She almost hit a terror charge. She recognized that I was alive breath, very intimate thing to life. She recognized I was alive, got
quite shocky, wanted to go hide herself; immediately, she wanted to
hide under the desk or in the closet. She actually was trying to pull
the closet open. Another time she tried to get under the bed just to
get out of sight because there was something else alive there. She was
convinced now there was something else alive in the world. That was a
big uptake. Although she was afraid of it, she now knew there was
something alive.
The next immediate gain was this: "Show me your hand. Thank you. Very
good. Now, look at my hand. Okay. Now show me your other hand. Okay.
Now you look at my other hand. All right." Back and forth, back and
forth.
"Show me your head. Show me the back of your head. Show me your foot.
Show me your other foot." Next thing you know, she definitely knew
somebody was looking at her and she was no longer afraid. And she
definitely knew she could look at somebody, and she was no longer
afraid. And that was the end of the case. This is running 8-C all the
way using a live terminal.
Now, I dare say it has considerable benefit in this direction but it
has never been put out completely in this form. But why would I essay
to do this? What would be the cue for this? Simply I knew the basic
modus operandi of 8-C which happens to do with terminals. This is a
process that has to do with terminals. First and foremost it overcomes
the willingness or unwillingness of the individual; the obsessive or
unwilling following of orders. It overcomes that which of course
reestablishes communication. But the next thing it does is overcome
terminal trouble. And other people are alive in the world; there are
other people around in the world. And sometimes a person doesn't know
he doesn't know this, which is one of the more peculiar things.
So, there is a background to 8-C, you could give other backgrounds to
8-C. But it's a codified process. It's actually there codified for the
excellent reason that it's pretty hard to get somebody at an HCA level
of training to grab hold of the idea of terminals, electrical charges
running between the other. Because he always tries to make it much
more complicated than it is. This is a universe with the basic unit of
two. This universe has two as its basic unit. And a thetan gets in
here being one, and he's done. He has to be able to duplicate himself
sooner or later.
Doesn't make a game. This universe will collapse on anybody, because
he has to fight it. He starts fighting this universe instead of
fighting another live thing. And the second he starts to resist this
universe it caves in on him.
So there is the type of reasoning which an auditor should be able to
accomplish through his knowledge of Axioms, through his knowledge of
definitions.
If he knew these well, he could figure out, he could know, and he
could predict any preclear he was called upon to process. And the only
reason he doesn't is because he doesn't know this basic material. So,
you're being asked to know this basic material.
It's all very well to say, "Well, it's not really practical." Well,
I'll tell you what's impractical: is having to know eighty-five
thousand processes. And I'll tell you what's practical: to be able to
evolve any you need.
And if you know the definitions, you can evolve them. That's a lot to
ask of anybody. But if he knows the definitions he will at least be
able to understand what he is looking at. Because he'll gradually get
a great certainty on the fact that these are the definitions that make
up life.
Okay.
(end of lecture)
9ACC22-5501C12 DEFINITIONS GLOSSARY OF TERMS - PART I
Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC22 - 5501C12 Renumbered 24
for "The Solution to Entrapment" cassettes
DEFINITIONS: GLOSSARY OF TERMS - PART I
A lecture given on l2 January 1955
You have had quite a bit of the material of Scientology written to you
and explained to you. You found out quite a lot about it, but if these
were just a series of arbitrary definitions so that we could process,
they'd be worthwhile but they wouldn't be very valuable.
Let's take up this business yesterday. Miriam suddenly discovered that
the word symbol as given in the English language means a substitute
for. Now, that's a very definite English definition. And instead of
meaning this, she found out it meant mass, meaning and mobility. And
this was a shock. Of course, it would be until she examined it further
and found out that mass, meaning and mobility were a substitute for
the thing which was life. And all of a sudden - I don't think I am
drawing a longbow to say so - her understanding of Scientology in just
this one little point broadened somewhat. Right?
If you can't get that kind of a spark out of every one of these
definitions, if you can't get a broadening of your understanding of
life out of these definitions, then there is something you have missed
about one. Got it?
We are in the very happy state that there's doggone little added
baggage riding along with us now. Now, you've seen me actually throw
away with wild abandon, although you haven't noticed it, a tremendous
amount of stuff. Man, we were accumulating there for a long time until
we were the - it was up to the Plimsoll mark of Indian Ocean Summer.
And we've just been strewing the wake with stuff
Look at all you don't have to know about engrams. Well, that's just
one of many. Overt act-motivator sequence isn't very important, but it
sure does explain a lot of behavior. We don't use it very much in
processing.
More important than that, the whole book What to Audit got thrown into
the wake, although today people read that with great fascination
because it explains what these preclears have been up to all this
time, you see; what they're dramatizing, and so on. It's a piece of
understanding, but we don't use it in processing. And similarly there
is a tremendous amount of bric-a-brac.
Well, if all of this throwing away has been going on, what has been
kept aboard? Because there still is a small amount of cargo in
Scientology which is the more important factors. Scientology, even
though it now resembles a Missouri steamboat... A Missouri steamboat
by the way was a remarkable thing. They tell the story about a
steamboat pilot who got one of these Missouri riverboats in the early
days well up the Missouri, passenger and the captain and the pilot
were about all the people there were aboard - course a couple of guys
to stoke the engines. The passenger woke up and he looked around and
he saw nothing but prairie in all directions, not a sign of water, not
a sign of water this morning. And he saw the captain and the captain
looked awful bleary-eyed, the passenger was bleary-eyed and they had
both been drunk the night before, and the captain said, "That's right,
we're eighteen miles from the river. The goddamned pilot got drunk
last night and there was a light dew."
Now, we almost resemble this wonderful state of affairs except
nobody's drunk. We can travel on a light dew, and this is what you're
studying right now. It's not very much.
But by golly, given a hole in one's understanding of the data which we
still retain, an auditor can now get awfully puzzled, he can get very
upset this is certain.
Let's take first and foremost one of the early basic words in
Dianetics: aberration. The actual English derivation of the word means
a crooked line, an aberration. It's a term actually which comes from
the science of optics. A lens is aberrated if it twists the lines out
of plane where they belong. A lens has as many aberrations as it
twists the light out of a straight line. Look: cause-distance-effect,
straight line between, the introduction of a via. Get that whole
philosophy?
Audience: Uh-huh.
All right, it's right there in that word aberration.
We say, "somebody is aberrated." Well, is there an absolute state of
aberration? No, because you could just keep winding it up and winding
it up. But is there a theoretical nonaberration? People who are - yes,
very definitely it would be cause-distance-effect, known cause, known
effect, straight 1ine between and no vias, and that would be
nonaberrated and would be nonaberrative.
Well, this is an interesting thing here. Let's take the boy, he knows
he's right there, the preclear does, he knows the wall is right there,
and he reaches out his hand and he touches the wall. Well, he's coming
awfully close to cause-distance-effect, isn't he. And we make him go
around cause-distance-effecting until we finally get him in the state
where he recognizes that there's no via between him and the wall.
Now, many of the preclears that you have will stand up in front of a
wall and can see that there is something between them and the wall,
old masses of energy, all kinds of things and stuff and they will
actually reach too deep, reach too shallow. It's just like the pilot
who tries to land 20 feet under the ground or 80 feet above it. He
can't reach his effect points anymore.
Well, you'll see this manifested in very, very many ways. He can't
arrive for one thing. He'll start a task and never finish it. See, he
knows there's so many vias.
Did you ever run into anybody that - they'd start to - did you ever
ask anybody, "Can you please fix this tire?" And they are there and
they got a couple of tire irons and so forth, and then they realize
they have to have a jack and they go find the jack and they put that
under there. Then they realize that they probably have to have a
different type of lug wrench, a fancier one, and that one doesn't work
very well, it works a little bit, you know so they have to go and get
another lug wrench. And then they realize by this time that they are
wearing pretty good clothes, so they've got to go and put on some
different clothes. And then they look over the spare that they're
going to put on, and they decide that this needs some repairs first,
although it looks all right to you. And they keep accumulating data,
until at last they start accumulating excuses, and there sits the flat
tire on and on and on. They are just departing on vias that keep them
from arriving. And the more vias they hit, the less they are going to
arrive.
You get a government, a bureaucracy. The reason we object to a
bureaucracy is because it's
via-via-via-via-via-via-via-via-via-via-via, and it never gets
anyplace. What men are trying to do is make the system responsible.
The system has got to be responsible, not the individual, and if this
keeps going you have a very aberrative state of affairs, because you
are looking straight at an aberration.
Aberration means no more, no less than a great many vias. Now, did it
say a great many necessary vias? Unnecessary vias? No, it just said "a
great many vias."
For instance, here I sit talking to you. We have dispensed with a
great many vias. There actually is a possible via on this line;
there's a tape. All right, but this still has been un-viaed down to a
minimum.
You will notice however that every once in a while somebody objects to
tapes. They just don't like these tapes. Well, they just - so, it's a
via, it's obviously a via, so to some degree it's aberrative - some
slight degree. Now, it just depends then on how much deaberrative
material there is on an aberrative tape. It's just a sort of a contest
between these two points. All right.
Now, we look at this aberration, if we understand aberration very well
as
a word, and as a definition, if we understand it - not just be able
to quote it - if we understand this thing, we'll understand an awful
lot about what's wrong with Joe Doakes and Bill Frud. We can also
understand what's wrong with a psychiatrist.
A psychiatrist is sitting there looking at the patient and he's got to
go find an electric shock machine. Dah! And the electric shock machine
doesn't make anybody well. He's just putting some more vias on the
line between the person and his own body and anatomy, see. But there
the psychiatrist sits, you see, and there the patient sits. Now, let's
take an E-Meter. Actually, what was originally called an E-Meter is
going to be called shortly a physiogalvanometer, which word is
trademarked by the HASI - a physiogalvanometer, it just happens to be
a happy combination of words that has never been used before so it can
be trademarked.
And the main difficulty with the old E-Meter was that the fellow who
was making these things just couldn't bear to arrive or something, and
we would have a conference and there had to be certain things put on
this E-Meter to make it work, or certain things taken off to make it
work and so on, and I'd get this thing pretty well streamlined and
agreed upon with him, and then son-of-a-gun, we'd go back and put on
two more dials, until we got something that was all dials and no
meter, or all meters and no preclear. It just got to be so many vias.
In the first place, it was a big via between the auditor and the
preclear, big via. But it had its purposes. It was actually merely a
substitute for communication lag. That was all it was a substitute
for. Now that we understand communication lag, our own understanding
came up, what possible use is an E-Meter? Well, the funny part of it
is, it does have a use, but not in auditing. The physiogalvanometer
today will be produced, probably, by the HASI or the HDRF for the
purpose of personnel counseling. And it will be used to check
employees' references without going into the vias of more letters.
We'll just ask him, "Why did you leave the job?" and he says, "Well, I
just got tired of it." And the needle goes wham, you see. And you say,
"You mean you got fired?" And the fellow says, "Well, yes."
This, by the way, gets around the fact that many employers will give
an employee a reference, a good reference, just to get rid of him.
All right, so we can really then, with Scientometric testing, turn
around and get a - with this physiogalvanometer - give a personnel
counselor a very, very valid tool. We are going to indulge in just as
an experiment a little bit of personnel counseling. We are going to
start an employee certification service. And we are going to give
anybody whose references are in good shape, or who is in good shape,
and who can do the job a little card that says so. And in addition to
that, if they can't do the job we are going to give them Group
Processing for the same fee as their testing. See, this is a very
direct line to raise the employability and employment capability of
the country at large. If anyone wishes to start this up, it could
roll.
We might start it up and let it roll.
The physiogalvanometer though, which will be used in order to
accomplish this, doesn't even vaguely resemble in its parts, circuit
or anything else the old E-Meter. It has two lights; it has a switch;
the switch says ON and OFF. And one light is red and one light is
green and they burn in varying degrees of intensity so that the needle
is really falling. On an old E-Meter, you'd get that thing burning
red-red-red-red-red-red-red-red-red-red-red-red-red, and if it were
rising, you would get green-green-green-green-greengreen-green-green, and if it were neither rising nor falling but were
stuck, both lights would be out, regardless of what the tone is.
Nobody ever made sense out of tone anyhow.
So this will be the personnel counselor's physiogalvanometer. You have
a red light and a green light, it'll have an on and an off switch,
it'll have a plug which you plug it in, it'll have one electrode that
the person holds in his hand, and that will be the end of the meter.
There's nothing more there. No other adjustment, no other dials,
nothing. And it'll probably look like a desk ornament. Or it'll look
like a nice little desk clock or something of the sort. Now, that's
taking the vias out of the line.
The only reason we are giving it to the employment counselor is
because he doesn't know his Scientology, so he needs something to give
him the word.
Actually a Scientologist can be very ruthless on personnel counseling,
he doesn't like to cut his ARC down to the point that he would have to
cut it down by reason of talking to people; he just doesn't like to
cut it down this far. He likes to believe for the best - and he knows
doggone well that that person with that neuritis - ding! below 2.0. He
knows that. Experience will bear it out. He doesn't need an E-Meter to
tell him this person is telling lies about his last employment. He
would just look over the physical condition of the individual and tell
you whether or not he had the straight dope. The easiest thing in the
world if he really wanted to study it from this angle and recognize
exactly what he was looking at, he could do this.
All right, let's take this word aberration, and let's find out that
the greatest via in the world is an unknown. That's the greatest via
there is. All right, if the greatest via is an unknown, therefore the
more mysteries that you impose on auditing, the more mysteries you
impose on living, the more aberration there is going to be.
The more data which I would - I don't - but the more data which I
would hold in my back hip pocket on the subject of Scientology to
secure it for the HASI, the more data which I would withhold one way
or the other or would misprint or not print totally of, the more
aberrated you could expect this science to be. The science is not
aberrated for the good reason that when I get ahold of a datum, I just
hand it to whoever is handy.
But you'll find groups where the leader of the group is withholding
data and boy is that an aberrated group.
Do you know, nobody realizes why we made it necessary for every member
of an authorized group, every real member of an authorized group, to
be a member of either the HDRF or the HASI. You know why we did that?
It's so that nobody could sit there in the middle of that group and
withhold any data. In other words, we had a communication line to all
the members of the group and therefore if anything important was being
released, it would be released to all those people.
There's - withholding data or twisting data or perverting it in some
fashion leads to an aberrated condition in the society. One of the
most aberrative things in the society, by the way, right this moment
is a newspaper. The newspaper is specializing in one tone level:
emergency disaster. It doesn't match the tone level of a great many
people in the society. Furthermore it does not report its news
accurately, and even after the news has been reported by a reporter
who is already repressed and didn't understand what he was looking at
anyhow, it's then edited to fit the policy of the paper.
And today you find the newspaper world going very steeply out of
communication. This is almost an impossible thing to recognize unless
you actually go into a newspaper office today.
Many of us have had experience with the press. Many of us have worked
for the press one way or the other and we found the press at times
could be a very great adventure and that reporters very often were
very crusading people and that a lot of good has been done by the
press. But we don't - that isn't the condition which obtains right
this minute. It is with great shock that my attention was suddenly
jerked to this circuit that is going on right now just a short time
ago, and I tried to discover what the score was, and found out that
the reason why a press release couldn't be issued to the press had
nothing whatsoever to do with the press release but had a great deal
to do with the fact that most of the sections of the country today are
depending on a thing called a teletype, and this teletype is spreading
its little ticker tape far and wide and what comes off the teletype is
news. This is not at all reasonable.
And they have gotten so dependent on this darned teletype and news
services that are someplace, that I don't think there is any beginning
on the teletype. I think that the boys up at MIT developed some kind
of a brain machine that simply dreams up some news, you see, at
opportune dates consulting an almanac or something of the sort and
shoots it through the teletype.
We don't have today an accurate picture through the newspapers of what
is going on in Europe. We have a highly wildly colored account of what
them commies are up to. We have - I've seen no news stories - I've
seen a couple in a magazine - but I have seen no news stories today
that told us accurately that Germany was trying to get on her feet.
Actually, Germany is trying to get on her feet desperately. If the
American people understood a little bit more about Europe and got some
news through from Europe instead of colored propaganda, we might have
a greater responsibility for that very small section of the world.
It's a very tiny section of the world.
You could lose Europe three times in Texas. A tiny section of the
world, not very many people in it to tell you the truth, this thing
called Europe. Why we didn't annex Germany and why we didn't square
away this hot bomb that is sitting over there is more than I will
know.
We went over and took her government, we took the government of
Germany, of half of Germany, we are busy governing it now just as
though it was Minnesota, and yet the Germans themselves are getting on
their feet with what? With resentment. Why resentment? Because we have
to some degree repressed their initiative and we're just cooking up
another hot spot of resentment.
But it is up to the news today to report what is happening in the
world, not what some political party wishes people to believe is
happening. And so we introduce this colored via. And actually we mean
prop - when we say propaganda we mean there is a via on the line, the
word itself is colored today, so that we say propaganda; aberration,
see, the same words, equal magnitude. Not equal, similar magnitude:
propaganda; aberration.
Unless people get the straight story about what's going on, they can't
solve any problem. The way you keep a problem from being solved is to
introduce enough quirks in the line. Now, let's take Freudian
analysis. Here sits a preclear, patient; should be a preclear, he is a
patient. And the analyst goes and pours to him a lot of interpolation,
an analysis. I know, the analyst will very often tell you that they
have stopped evaluating, but then a lot of them have read Dianetics:
The Modern Science of Mental Health.
And by the way, a recent survey, a recent series of letters to
analysts brought back quite a few responses on the subject of "Good
heavens! I didn't know I could be trained in it! How much is it and
where?" about Dianetics; they'd been using it.
And God, I tried to train some of them. Lord knows what they are doing
and calling Dianetics.
But they introduce a via into the fellow's bank by evaluating for him.
Now, so does Mama introduce a via into a little kid's bank until you
will find many a preclear in this condition: You will say, "Now, what
happened? Where were you when you were about four or five? What
happened during that period?" And this person will give you the most
glib response you ever listened to, and then you would say - if you
were very wise to this particular fact - you would say, "Now, are you
remembering that?"
"Well, yes."
"Well, what are you remembering?"
"Oh, my mother told me all about it."
"Well now, how about you remembering what happened?"
"That's impossible. That's all blanked out."
Childhood memories when blanked out this thoroughly have been blanked
out by somebody else evaluating for the child. And here we have
evaluation now in auditing up to its full stature. So we don't
evaluate for the preclear. Why? Because we will introduce a via into
the line; we will keep that line from being straight; we will bend it
through ourselves back to his recognition. And if we have done this,
then good God what have we done? This individual is not then capable
of stringing a straight line between cause and effect. We have given
him a via, you see? So evaluation is just a via and evaluation is
aberrative because it introduces one.
Now do you see what all comes out of this word aberration? And a very
interesting long line of understanding has come out of it.
My instruction of people, of you, might be considered to some degree a
via. Oh, it very definitely is. It's a justified via, however, in my
viewpoint because nobody has dug it up for the last two or three
thousand years that I know anything about. And it was about time
somebody did. And my instruction of you is justified only to this
degree that after I have called your attention to something, you as
you go along the track with auditing and living, will all of a sudden
string the straight line yourself and say, "Hey, what do you know!" So
that you do it first analytically almost superficially as a subject
and then suddenly you run into this thing and you'll string a straight
line - zip! Sometimes you will even feel a little electric spark as
you just knock out all the vias on the line, you see. And suddenly
you've got a grip on this particular datum, and you say, "Gee. That
lines up real nice." And the next thing you know, you're running a
cause-distance-effect on life instead of a cause-via.
But think of the number of vias one might have had before I started
digging this stuff up, see. They must have had tremendous numbers of
vias, you see? So I'm actually short-circuiting a tremendous number of
vias and then I leave it up to you with your experience with preclears
and with life at large to short-circuit the remaining vias. Do you see
that? So that your understanding should eventually become very clean
and clear on these. But it won't if I keep being very powder-puffy on
the subject of giving you the straight definition. I mean, if I keep
saying, "Well, it is all right. You probably understand that," and so
on. If I don't really try to get you to get to the exact meat of a
definition of just exactly what I am talking about, then all these
various words which I use will remain as a definite via. My effort to
get you to a straight definition and recognition of it is simply an
effort to get you to un-via, to take the aberration out of the
subject. See that? All right.
By the way, this particular glossary was - which I am not going over
with you in full, I am just telling you about it - was compiled by
Burke, and he dug it up out of a lot of copy here and there and wrote
it up because we were in a very bad crush to get through to the
printer with Creation of Human Ability And he wrote it up and sent it
through, so many of these definitions had to be just extrapolated by
him at that time.
It is not that I am taking no responsibility for it, but I am telling
you that you may have a, you may have a briefer series of definitions.
These are all very acceptable definitions, but you may have a briefer
definition or a briefer series of definitions, a briefer glossary with
that book on its second or its third printing when I get around to
writing one.
I write up a glossary every once in a while, every six months or a
year, something like that, I will write up a glossary.
The last two glossaries which have been published, however, have been
written by other people who have taken the meanings, usually directly
from my work or lectures. All right. Acceptance level: There's a whole
PAB on this subject, one of the more fascinating subjects. But
rejection level is its companion, and as Accept-Reject is a very, very
high echelon process, you should understand something about acceptance
level.
Therefore when somebody - you understand something about acceptance
level, you better had. Because I will tell you that a preclear who
sits down there and is playing a superficial game with you and this
person has a very, very bad neuralgia, this person has glasses a half
an inch thick, this person has a pretty bad comm lag, and this person
says to you, "Well, I can accept all Packard cars and fur coats and
diamond rings." Ding. Ding. Ding. This person can accept garbage cans,
sewers, decayed bodies and that's about it.
When you get yourself a good command of acceptance level I am afraid
you can look holes through the activities of man, and his rejection
level will explain to you a lot of rebuffs that you have had and have
seen.
Just whys. And that's it. It's acceptance. What is their rejection
level? What is their acceptance level?
Now, the statement here, "The acceptance level of a preclear is the
condition in which a person or object must be in order that the
preclear be able to accept it freely." It's not a bad definition if
you know exactly what it means and what acceptance level means.
Acceptance level is simply that level in existence which Q-and-As with
that level in existence. You got a duplication here, of course.
If you find the preclear at the sewer level then, Q and A, he'll
accept sewers. Get the idea? If he is really at a Cadill - you know
there are a lot of people around driving Cadillacs whose acceptance
level is a two-wheeled donkey cart? Hm? And you know they have more
trouble with that car? They just can't understand why they get into
all that trouble with that car. There's a social acceptance level
there. There's a social acceptance level - what a person is expected
to accept. And he very often finds himself completely at war with what
he can really accept and what he is expected to accept. And if we get
this, we will understand all we need to know to get the war between
social man and individual man. If there is a war it is between these
two levels.
Social man is expected to reject certain things. He is expected to
reject foul play. He is expected to reject disloyalty, infidelity.
He's expected to reject this and that. He is taught carefully to
reject an enormous number of things, and these may not be his
rejection level at all. His rejection level may be loyalty, courage,
decency, fidelity. That may be his rejection level. These things may
just be fingernails on the blackboard to him, these qualities. Any
good quality of the society may be just horrible to him.
And someday along the line he does an unsocial act. Why? Well, he'd
just break down, that's all. He just can't stand this tension any
longer, being told at every hand that he should be honest. You'll have
somebody talking to you sometime about how honesty should apply or
shouldn't apply - you know, whether or not it is really best to be
honest. They are teetering around with this curious thing: Their
rejection level is honesty, their social acceptance level is honesty.
Get the idea. Their real rejection level is honesty, and their social
acceptance level is honesty.
So somebody comes along and has told them and taught them very
carefully they must be honest, where actually all the factors in their
case cause them to reject honesty. So you get a war, and you'll get a
war in the individual. He'll go around puzzlingly about this, worrying
about it, thinking about it, and most of the worries which a preclear
comes to you with are these two worries: social acceptance level,
personal acceptance level, social rejection level, personal rejection
level, at war. And those are the problems of the preclear. It really
breaks down with great rapidity.
The reason Freud could have so much fun on the second dynamic is
because the society has more to repress on this than anything else;
there are more vias put on the second dynamic and the second dynamic
is itself a via.
Why you just simply can't mock up another human being is - . Well, I
guess it makes a better game. Well, anyhow - .
Now, here is another word here - affinity, affinity. It's one of the
least understood of the three words: affinity, reality and
communication. Yet you'd better have some feeling about affinity; you
better have some sense to affinity.
Now, affinity is the consideration of the individual about the
distance. And that is the definition of affinity. It's the
consideration of the individual about the distance. That's all. I mean
there isn't any more to affinity than that. It's the least understood
of these things mostly because it's so idiotically simple and because
it can get balled up.
You realize that somebody appears who is dressed exactly like you,
looks like you, talks like you, comes from the same part of the
country and you hate his guts, and yet he's making a perfect duplicate
of you.
Male voice: Over there.
Yeah. Over there. You get the idea? So, you ca - your - the reason you
dislike him is because - if you do dislike him - the reason because
you dislike him is because you consider that there is a distance,
that's all, see. And you just don't like that distance. All right, at
the same time somebody might have somebody walk up to him who is
dressed like him, who thinks like him, who talks like him and welcome
him like a brother, you know, a wonderful guy, a terrific guy.
I've seen this happen. I knew two Marines once who were exactly alike
and of course being Marines they did wear the same clothes. They
didn't come from the same part of the country but they talked more or
less the same language. And these two boys were absolutely
inseparable, they were just like twins.
And I knew two others that were quite similar to each other who just
hated each other's guts. The more distance between these two, that
hated each other, the better they liked it. See? This was gorgeous. I
mean what - "You mean that guy is going to be shipped to Quantico now.
Well, that is wonderful. I am over here on China station. The further
the better."
Whereas this other pair considered that if one of them had been
shipped to Quantico they would have been real upset. Get the idea
here? It's the consideration about the distance.
Now, reality takes the similarity into effect, the duplicate is taken
into effect under reality, agreement. See?
Now, you have to have a consideration of whether an agreement is
taking place or an overt act.
So affinity is the consideration about the distance.
Actually all emotions and everything else are simply considerations.
And there is no other thing but consideration when you come right down
to it. The next time you see an art critic, please tell him so. He is
making a - he's trying to mathematically codify consideration. I'm
sorry, but it can't be done.
The acceptance level of art can change for a whole society. The Greek
for instance - wasn't it the Greek that had to have fat hips on a
woman and wasn't it some other period that the only beautiful woman
was a pregnant one? When was that, the 12th century or something like
that?
Male voice: The 14th.
Fourteenth century? Fantastic. But we wouldn't consider that the same
way now. So we've had a consideration change on the part of the whole
society. Well, who indoctrinated them this way in the first place? And
we have merely social acceptance level. And social acceptance level
can add up to acceptable art, but this doesn't make consideration any
different than consideration. Just because a lot of people are
considering a thing in one way really doesn't make it real, although
it does under R make it real.
Now, R is simply the agreement upon considerations and that's R. We
had a lot of agreed upon considerations. We've got life. We got
reality. We got walls and floors. And if we've got disagreed on
considerations, why we don't have any masses or spaces. We have some
that are orderly or arranged. If we have disagreed upon considerations
- you know, nobody is agreeing upon these considerations at all - we
have chaos, one kind or another, or we have no universe at all.
We have to have agreement upon considerations before we can have
anything.
Scientology is the study of the agreement of considerations which has
evolved into existence as we see it today, and that is the study in
which we are engaged. We're studying the agreed upon considerations,
and these agreed upon considerations as listed are the Axioms. An
axiom then is not a self-evident truth as it says here in the next
word or two. It is a self-evident agreement upon. It's just obvious
that somebody must agreed upon it; it's there, isn't it? Well, if it's
there, then somebody agreed upon it including the person who sees it.
All right.
The consideration of the distance is affinity.
An ally has been with us a long time. We don't use an ally very much
today. But it's a nice thing to know that somebody is in somebody's
valence. And the ally - the person he's likely to get - most likely to
get into the valence of is an ally.
It says here that an ally is "A person who has aided in the survival
of the preclear under engramic or highly emotional circumstances and
whom the preclear reactively regards as important to his further
survival." Very well stated, so true.
The only trouble is, with the ally computation - and remember now that
the preclear reactively regards as important to his further survival.
And because it's under engramic or highly emotional circumstances, you
will find quite ordinarily that a person considers these allies to be
allies until you process him and then will become angry with them and
will become upset about them and so forth. He just goes up tone on
them, and going up tone on an ally is uptone from an engram which is
pain and unconsciousness, and that's pretty low toned. So as he comes
up, he will hit the whole emotional bank on the subject of this ally
and he will start hating them and reviling them, and then he will get
up to a point of where he can take them or leave them alone.
Now, the ally might have been actually repressive to the person's
survival for his own good. So it doesn't mean that the person was nice
to the person, you understand. It isn't necessarily true that this
individual was nice to the person. An ally is simply somebody who is
regarded as important to his further survival. And individuals will go
into the valence of allies just to keep them around.
And the analytical mind is that part of a person's thinking machinery
and memories over which he has relatively full control. Oh, that's a
good First Book definition and perfectly good definition.
But let's recognize something further here. The analytical mind can be
defined much more sharply today. It's 'the thetan plus his machines.
That is the total of an analytical mind, and we can separate the
thetan from the analytical mind. There's no thinking machines left
around, and the second there's no thinking machines left around, we no
longer have an analytical mind; we have a thetan capable of
consideration - many qualities, but no thinking machinery. He can
remember without a machine.
Analytical mind interposes the idea of a machine, the idea of a
computer, a computation of automatic memory banks and so forth; of
analysis of data to summate into conclusions. Well, anytime you have
an analysis of data, you've got an analysis of experience, which is an
analysis of past, and that's a machine because a thetan does not need
an analysis of past in order to think. All he needs to do is predict.
He can take a know at the environment, you see. He doesn't take a look
at the environment, he takes a know at the environment and predicts
its state. Get that? That's the way he thinks. And the second he
begins drawing up things from the past and past experience - we've got
a banker or we've got a government or we've got something else or
we've got an electronic computer up at MIT or we have an analytical
mind. See? And that definition is imposed by the words themselves:
analytical, which means analysis. It would be a mind which did
analysis and it analyzes via machinery.
We understood this very clearly back in 1950 that the analytical mind
was something which was capable of sane conclusions based upon
rational experience. So an analytical mind is that part of a person's
thinking machinery and memories - get that "and memories," see,
memories - past; memories are part of this analytical mind - over
which he has relatively full control.
But that isn't the way a thetan thinks, and if you've still come up
from Book One thinking a thetan thinks that way, he doesn't. He takes
a know at the environment and predicts.
For instance, as I sit here, I can't tell you why because there is no
why to tell you about, but I can tell you that certain events will
transpire on certain days and hours of the coming six months. Now,
this is very easily dragged down scale to crystal ball reading or
something like that. I first encountered this as an analyzable,
observable, demonstrable phenomena in the field of navigation. I could
look in at a - on a navigating machine and know whether it was right
or wrong, and I thought, "This is real peculiar. That's a machine, and
machines are right, and yet I know whether that machine is right or
wrong." And I puzzled this for some time. This was on expeditions
where I had a lot of fancy equipment to measure things for the
Hydrographic Office and so forth.
Came the war and I didn't have time to navigate. I used to bawl out
the assistant navigator or something or other, "Why don't you get the
right latitude and longitude for God sakes. You haven't even been near
the nav shack," see. But we weren't in the right position according to
his piece of paper.
"How did you know that?"
Well, you just knew it, you see.
"But how did you know it? Why did you figure that out that way?"
Well, I didn't figure it out, I just know we are not in that position
and that's all there is to it.
And this drove me to despair because it drove other people to despair.
Here was this phenomenon, not in the field of crystal ball reading,
but being applied to life and death, you might say. It is a very - and
therefore open to question on the part of people in the immediate
environment. And I knew I'd been doing this for a long time, but I
didn't know how.
I thought there had to be a how to it, and the more I worried about
their being a how to it, why, the less I did it. You get the idea?
If you could be totally relaxed about existence and not worried about
it at all, you would know what the president was going to have for
dinner in August - that's right - if you could be just totally relaxed
about it. If there was nothing you were trying to prevent, if there
was nothing you were trying to vigorously and violently effect, you
see, you could really relax about this.
For instance, I tell the boys around here once in a while, "Well, such
and so and so and so, or that's a bad deal."
And they say, "How do you know because you haven't read the despatches
on it yet?" Well, they no longer tell me that. They no longer say to
me, "Well, you haven't read the despatches yet," or "You didn't know."
I just say, "Well, that'll wind up in a bum beef. That's no good," and
so on. Because I had to redevelop the faculty with the first
Foundation. Any one of you has this same faculty. It's only when you
think you had better depend on it in order to survive that you lose
it. See, if it's not important, if it's not an important part of your
survival, you can always do it.
So we have this interesting trick. The early Foundation where I was
teaching about eight hours a day and evening and morning and I was
trying to get stuff written and had all even - I was even buying the
desks and renting the typewriters and so forth, mostly because we were
moving a little bit above the speed of most of the people around. They
couldn't get up to speed on it, and it all would have fallen in on our
heads if we hadn't gotten up to speed. So anyhow, had to redevelop
this faculty. But because it was desperate, for a little while the
faculty took a steep dive and went out of sight.
I'm very well acquainted with this particular phenomenon, very, very
well intimately acquainted with it.
I've had people stand around and tell me that this could not possibly
be true, that such a phenomenon could not exist, and boy, as the track
unreeled, it certainly was true that these people did not mean me any
good. You get the idea? If they could just knock down your ability to
predict in this wise, they could knock your survival and luck to
pieces. And this is luck. The faculty known as luck is the ability to
predict.
When an individual depends utterly upon luck without predicting, he's
going to be failed. But if he is relaxed about winning the poker game,
he will win. You get the idea? Why does he win? Well, it's because he
is so relaxed that he predicts whether his hand is the winning hand or
not. He doesn't try to read it from the faces of his fellow players.
It doesn't matter; it's not on their faces anyhow.
I've gotten so I don't play cards anymore for an entirely different
reason: It's just too much restraint to stay three feet back of your
own head. It is, it's just too much restraint. Now, when you start to
analyze a situation, then you are giving over your own basic power to
predict because you can know the situation and know its future without
analysis.
And one of the most wearisome things there is, is to explain to
somebody in accounting or someplace how he should keep an accurate
record of finances, when you yourself know whether the organization
will be broke or solvent at what date. And when the government comes
in and tells you that you must keep an accurate record, you know that
you are only keeping it for the government.
Now, you can then know whether or not you should spend or not spend
and so change the future. Whether or not you have to get wildly active
in order to alter the future, because the odd part of it is is the
future is alterable by the individual; the future is alterable by the
individual, and this is what makes this also confusing. You know
exactly how things are going to be if you keep right on sitting there;
then you know how things are going to be if you act in direction A and
then you know how things will be if you act in direction B, but you've
got a hundred and - a thousand directions that you could act in life.
Well, so therefore you would have a hundred thousand conditions to be
predicted couldn't you. And so you get an evolvement which can be very
easily explained by memory, experience, analysis and prediction. And
memory, analysis, experience and prediction is a very lame and
involved explanation for the ability to predict. Because the only
thing you have is the ability to predict, and the more vias of how you
predict you put on the line, the worse off you are going to be. You
know, it is an old saw that somebody reading the crystal ball for
somebody else or telling the cards for somebody else will eventually
lose that faculty. You know that old saw.
Female voice: I heard it for money.
And it's also for money, that gives it stress, you see.
But the crystal ball, the deck of cards are the via which enter the
aberration. So if you are ever going to go into mind reading for sport
or otherwise just simply pass your hands magically through the air to
attract the attention of the person whose mind you are going to read
and get a dreamy expression on your face, if you feel dramatic, and
give them the future. Don't tell it off a deck of cards or out of a
crystal ball. You don't need either the deck of cards or the crystal
ball. If you use them, remember, you don't need them, you don't want
them. Curious, a very curious thing.
The easiest thing in the world to understand is thinking, if you don't
try to get yourself involved in the factors of memory and experience
and computation. The psycho is up there in the psycho ward because
he's tried to compute the future too long. Now, this "must and mustn't
happen again" is the most revelatory process that you ever wanted to
run on anybody. He's trying to prevent things from happening. In other
words, he's holding onto experience so as to change the future.
There's no reason why he should do this at all.
He should be able to tell at any given moment what tire of his car is
going flat. He doesn't have to recall a facsimile, or hold onto a
facsimile of tires going flat to know a tire can go flat.
As you come up scale and exteriorize and so forth, you find yourself
dealing with this. And the only reason it ever falls down scale is the
introduction of a via and it gets to be an analytical mind just
because you rig up a computer. That computer will always fail.
Well, that's a long way from lecturing, telling you how to crystal
gaze. But the odd part of it is, instead of a wild, unheard of or
strange activity, it's the woof and warp of existence for a thetan:
crystal ball reading.
Oh, I must tell you that one day I had a big chronometer case under my
desk on the USS Algol, and I had taken the chronometer out and put it
down in my room because the quartermaster kept winding it at odd
moments and so forth, and so I took this out of the case, and it left
part of my chart table with a big glass-covered compartment in it. So
I got a goldfish bowl and - ashore one day, and I mounted the goldfish
bowl on a little velvet pad, and, oh, it made a very, very pretty
little crystal ball; it was down underneath there. And this was my big
gag, you know.
And one day the admiral of the transport division with which we were
working came aboard, and he walked in and he asked me how things were
going and what kind of navigational equipment us guys had these days.
And of course he was interested because he was an old-time navigator,
and we did have lots of new equipment.
And I showed him around, and then I said, "Of course, this is my best
equipment." And took him over to the chart table and showed him this
gag, you know. And he looked down through this and saw this crystal
ball sitting there on a black velvet pad. And he says, "Fine," and he
went out of the chart room. And a little while later the captain came
in absolutely bursting - absolutely bursting with laughter.
The admiral had come up and reported me for using crystal balls in
navigation. I never knew how dumb you could get but that was pretty
dumb. I guess you have to be that dumb to get to be an admiral. But it
wasn't a joke at all. Well, maybe the admiral had had a lot of
experience too, you know. I suppose this is all very logical.
Well, you guys certainly don't know, don't know how upset anyone would
be if you failed to know what ARC was. If you didn't know what ARC
was, everybody would be real upset, boy! And that tells you where the
center of this science is.
If you looked all the way down the list and found the one people would
be most upset about if you didn't know, you would have the middle of
Scientology, wouldn't you. And so you have the ARC triangle which was
developed in July of 1950. I developed the first two parts of it, C
and R, I think they were. No, they were A and R, and gave a lecture on
it as A and R, and then all of a sudden hit C, some such combination,
and there was this triangle.
Now, about two months after that I did a paper which has not survived
unfortunately, because I will never do it again, which extrapolates
ARC into mathematics and demonstrates that mathematics cannot exist in
the absence of any one of the factors, and that a mathematical formula
must contain A and it must contain R and it must contain C in order to
be mathematics. All mathematics is therefore derivable from ARC; which
was a cute little stunt, but more important - not any longbow, I mean,
it's unswervably true that ARC, affinity, reality and communication,
are the basic and component parts of mathematics and there are no
other. All you're trying to get is the agreement amongst factors; all
you're trying to do is communicate from one mind to another.
Notice one of those Logics in AP&A? "Mathematics is a servomechanism
of the mind or mind is a servomechanism of mathematics." It only
communicates those formulas, and as far as A is concerned, we are just
measuring the relative quality of similarity.
There was much more to this, but the fact of the matter is that
understanding, mathematics, reason, all these things are in the same
basket, and we got the oddity right there, in I think it was September
of 1950, that these three things composed understanding, these are the
three component parts of understanding. And when we have raised these
three parts we have raised somebody's understanding.
Now actually, your understanding has raised enormously, I am sure,
though it hasn't been tested, it wouldn't have to be, simply by
running Communication Processing. That's what's peculiar.
Communication Processing, by the way, on one of its early tests under
original investigation, was demonstrating this continually, that it
was raising the prediction quality of the preclear, the very factor I
was just talking to you about.
You kept running Communication Processing, Communication Processing,
nothing more than that and all of sudden this individual was
predicting better.
If you want to know what permits an individual to predict it would be
raising his ability to communicate. Of course, then he could take a
know at the environment and could communicate it into the future.
All right. The other data here similarly has use. But behind each one
of these there is a considerable amount of understanding.
We have the Auditor's Code today, 1954, as a much more meaningful
thing than it was in 1950, much more important.
We have the Axioms today as much more meaningful than those which were
written in late 1951.
We have barrier as being a very specialized definition. Most people
consider a barrier a wall or something of the sort. But a barrier
would be space, energy, matter or time. If you don't know that a
barrier could be space, energy, matter or time, you might get confused
as to how a trap is put together. A very good dissertation on this, as
far as I - as far as the written works on the subject are concerned,
the best dissertation is in Dianetics 1955! on barriers, called
"Entrapment."
Boil-off is very, very unimportant. But you better know what it is.
For instance, I was quite pleased to find the boys in the auditor
conference that takes place at 5:00 every day, all of them just
chorused. The fellow said, "I kept getting dopey, I kept getting
dopey. I don't know what is wrong."
This was a young auditor, he had just been trained. And these other
boys have been trained way on back, and they looked at him. And I
said, "Go on" I said, "Tell him what a boil - what causes a boil-off."
And they said, "It's just too continuous a flow in one direction. It's
just a one-way flow." And so they were all very startled with him
because he didn't know this. And I just told him to reverse the flow,
right where he was sitting, and he only did it for a moment or two and
he became quite alert. That's all a boil-off is, it's a flow flowing
too long. Actually you could talk yourself into, or I could talk
myself into, an unconsciousness if we never got an acknowledgment. It
wouldn't happen if we were completing cycles of communication, even if
we were completing one cycle of communication it wouldn't happen, but
with no acknowledgment you generally will find yourself getting
groggier and groggier and groggier. You'll go down scale.
And you want to know why people aren't as alert in this universe as
they could be or what awareness is; it is simply a lack of complete
two-way communication, you see? And this all by itself would cause
boil-off on a gradient scale which is a person has just boiled off
just so far that, he is Homo sapiens, see? He's only boiling off to
that point or he's boiling off until he's completely unconscious.
The reactive mind could be said to be something that is boiling off
all the time in complete unconsciousness, you see, but nevertheless
articulate once in a while. See, it'd get a reverse flow once in a
while, it would wake it up a tiny little bit.
If you look at this thing called boil-off, you'll understand an awful
lot about man.
Well, we could cover these Axioms and definitions in tremendous
detail, and I won't do so with you, but I may possibly have shown you
- in spite of the verbiage I was giving you - I might have shown you a
tiny little point or two that might help clarify some of these things
today.
Thank you very much.
(end of lecture)
9ACC23-5501C13 DEFINITIONS GLOSSARY OF TERMS - PART II
Transcript of Lecture by L, Ron Hubbard 9ACC 23 - 5501C13 Renumbered
25 for "The Solution To Entrapment" cassettes
DEFINITIONS: GLOSSARY OF TERMS - PART II
A lecture given on l3 January 1955
I am going to go through with you, as we go from day to day here, with
fair rapidity now after the little introductory talk on the first few
of these, these definitions. You know a definition can be for its own
sake and it can be for the instructor's sake and it can be for the
auditor's sake. And we hope to a marked degree that these are for the
auditor's sake.
We went right on up to ARC and now here on January 13th, 1955, we are
going to cover from the ARC line of this particular glossary on
through.
An auditor: This is a compound word taken from listening. The one
thing auditors don't do is listen in practice. If they did they would
acknowledge what the preclear said. The biggest failure in auditing is
failure on the part of the auditor to listen. That's a fact; that's a
horrible fact. It is the biggest failure.
Of the failed cases, momentary stops on a track and so forth that I
have checked of last fall, of all of those cases, I found no single
exception to this. The auditor had not taken a moment to listen to
what the preclear was trying to tell him and the preclear trying to
originate this communication was then thrown into apathy. Some of
these people had actually exteriorized. Some of them had suddenly put
a beam against the front of their foreheads and pushed themselves out.
Some of them had actually had enormously glaring balls of fire
suddenly start to move in on them. Some of them had had enormous
squadrons, you might say, ranks of bodies appear all beautifully
stacked up in front of them. Startling phenomena, real enough in
several cases to require that the preclear get a quick grip on reality
because they were realer to him than the room. And yet the auditor had
not acknowledged.
So here we have the word auditor. It doesn't merely mean to listen, it
also means to think.
The word auditor has been taken from the English language, not from an
accountant. I am not quite sure why an accountant is called an
auditor. But an auditor earlier was a legal term. It was one who
listened to the complaints. They have a similar grade to this in
Arabian countries - a kadi. He listens; he's a court - he's a street
court, you might say. He is out in the street and he listens to
complaints and so on.
Well, this auditor was that evidently, very thin derivation on this,
and then finally was somebody who kept accounts and that strayed a
long way from the word. But auditor is getting better and better known
as a word. It is getting well enough known now so that people are not
completely associating it with Dianetics and Scientology. An auditor
is somebody who does psychotherapy. And I have had it said - heard it
said actually that auditors should use Dianetics; they should find it
and use it. Actually, by people who weren't being sarcastic at all,
they had the word auditor much closer to them than psychotherapist.
So, to change this word at this time is an impossibility, and it's
gotten solid. It's an agreement.
Now, a Scientologist is the definition given here, but the basic
definition of auditor is one who listens and computes.
This definition here, by the way, a Scientologist: one whose technical
skill is devoted to the resolution of the problems of life, is the
proper definition for a Scientologist, not necessarily the proper
definition for an auditor. An auditor is one who listens and computes.
Now, we have the Auditor's Code, the Auditor's Code of 1954 is what is
meant here. The early Auditor's Code was taken out of chivalry, lock,
stock and barrel. And those parts of it which were discovered to be
practical were practiced very hard, but a great deal of modus operandi
was accumulated in four years on all the reasons cases fail and we
found the common denominators to that and I sat down one day and wrote
the Auditor's Code from these accumulated notes. And the Auditor's
Code of 1954 will keep both auditor and preclear very definitely out
of trouble.
I understand the other day Burke said that there wasn't any real
reason whatsoever for an individual to know the Auditor's Code, no, no
real reason to know the Auditor's Code, as long as - yeah - as long as
one knew just one factor of it. There is line sixteen now is coming
out in The Creation of Human Ability which is "Maintain two-way
communication with the preclear." And he says, as long as he
maintained two-way communication with the preclear - see, there is no
reason to know the Auditor's Code as long as the auditor did maintain
two-way communication with the preclear. But the Auditor's Code was
how you maintained two-way communication with the preclear. So if you
want to really maintain two-way communication with a preclear, you
follow the Auditor's Code.
Let's take such a thing as "Don't process the preclear when he's
hungry," the line that approximates that. And we find out that an
individual whose attention is very badly abstracted because of hunger,
whose burning rate inside the body is very poor, is in an interesting
condition of inattention and we don't then find him conversing well.
Just like a preclear sitting on a tack, it's very hard to audit. Same
thing. All of these various points are the tacks the preclear is
sitting on.
Now, nearly every bog that we have run into, occurred sometime after
10:00 P.M. This is an oddity. Now, I have found, by the way - though,
I have occasionally disobeyed this by auditing somebody up to 10:30,
just trying to wind the case up. But that's why it's 10:00 P.M. The
actual hour is 11:00. But if you decide to stop the session at 10:00
you can certainly get rid of it by 10:30. You got the idea?
But if you were ever - under any circumstances - if you were ever to
process somebody up to 11:00, you would discover this interesting
thing occurring.
Let's say you have pulled a boo-boo or the preclear has or something
or the other has happened and we discover that we have in our preclear
less and less present time. He's sort of skidding; he's sort of
dragging back into the muck and the mire and we don't quite know
what's going on here but we decide we'll patch this up. If the clock
says 10:00, pat him on the head, no matter what comm lag he's in.
You'll find out he's skidding-skidding-skidding and you're going to
patch him up and it's 10 o'clock. No, you won't. No, you won't.
I have had this experience several times myself of trying to patch
somebody up late in the evening so that they could go home! And the
next thing you know it was 2:00 and the preclear was worse and worse
and worse and worse and worse. And I finally had to quit at 2:00 with
the preclear in much worse condition than he had been in when I had
originally tried to stop the session about 11:00.
Now, one night an auditor sent a preclear over to me that was in the
most screaming fit I ever saw in my life. Every once in a while this
will happen. An auditor will call me up and say, "Oh, my God!" Do you
know that I noticed one day that the hour at which I was being called
was about 11:00, 11:30, right in that area. Hence, 10 o'clock. Very
curious. But the ability to recover deteriorates almost by the cube
from 10 o'clock on. What's the reason for this?
The body is built of cells which were once plankton or something like
it. When the sun went down their source of power as they floated upon
the sea was diminished to such a point that they just lay there and
suffered and waited for the dawn. And the most dismal hours of the
night are those when the stretch has been carried on to the very
horrible degree; they've drained their last tiny bit of resource,
maybe 4:00 or 5:00 and the sun comes up maybe at 5:30 or something
like that. And then "Ahaaa."
I don't know if you've ever stood a night watch or not, but a body
reacts just as regular as can be right through that cycle. More people
die at 2 o'clock. You see, it's too many hours till dawn. If they can
only get until 3 o'clock or 3:30 they would realize that they only had
to hang on another hour or two, and the god-giving, life-giving,
breath-giving sunlight would hit them again. This is dependency upon
the flow of photons. The body gets conditioned into this pattern, it
believes in this, it's convinced of this and so it starts to get more
and more despairing the further away you get from sunset. We get first
a frantic activity. You know, "Well, we won't care anyhow. You know,
we'll go on somehow." That's fairly early in the evening. And that
frantic activity will calm down at about l0:00 - gone. Have you ever
noticed the terrific tumult that a kid goes into just before he gets
ready for bed? Well, that's standard. Tearing around to all the night
clubs - same deal when he's little less a kid, little more of a kid
and a little older.
Now, there is that curve and so it is with each - you know, the
individual is just less and less recovery as you advance later and
later into the night. And if you start fighting this factor, you're
not fighting his case, you're not fighting anything, you're not
fighting anything but one of these confounded old curves that has been
produced by the rising and setting of the sun over the many eons. And
there is no sense to fight that curve, just let it go to another day.
An awful lot of technology sits in back of the Auditor's Code to such
a degree that I have often wondered if the Auditor's Code wouldn't
produce line by line a process, see? And then if you resolved each one
of these frailties in the preclear, demonstrated by that, if you
wouldn't have a real clear Clear. It would be a neat experiment, we
will try it someday. Not by auditing him at 2 o'clock, however. We
will put him in a dark room and audit him.
Axiom here is a self-evident truth. And it becomes self-evident after
you know it. There's some real, real queasy mathematical terms like
"axiom." An "axiom," a "maxim," several items and words in that
category of vocabulary, all of which are unsatisfactory to describe
what you are doing.
I invented the word logic. There is no such thing as "a logic." But I
invented the word logic trying to throw a word somewhere into this
morass that would mean something. There is no adequate English to
describe one of these little laws unless you simply say it is a law.
Barrier. Of course, the barriers are matter, energy, space and time.
Barriers are consideration or idea that limits other considerations or
ideas. This of course includes emotional and physical universe
barriers. A barrier is a limiting idea. If the idea happens to be as
solid as a wall, it's no less limiting.
All right. We get this old word charge. It's the energy being held in
present time in relation to an incident or chain of incidents. And
that's a precise definition for charge. An incident has charge in it.
Well, you know it'll have charge in it. Did you ever run a screamer?
Well, this fellow is sitting in almost total charge.
Also, we call - we use the word charge to indicate the amount of grief
the fellow would spill if he ran a secondary, also the amount of anger
which he would release. In other words, it's an outburst withheld or
outbursting. He released a lot of charge. It's a word taken straight
out of a terminology from batteries. It actually is too. Some fellow
will have some old-time facsimile that's got an awful lot of energy in
it, actually balls of fire and every other darned thing, you know, and
if you don't think those things are charged, the preclear practically
crackles and pops. And when you release them, you are releasing
charge. Chronic somatic is one of the oldest words we have, next to
aberration. It is a substitute word from psychosomatic. Psychosomatic
is rather overdone in many degrees and we desired to dodge this word
psychosomatic so we had this thing called chronic somatic. Of course,
a somatic means a physical feeling; it doesn't mean physical pain. A
somatic is a physical feeling. So a chronic physical feeling however
may be objected to by the individual. And so just feeling alive might
be called a chronic somatic by some stretch of the imagination, if
it's a chronic feeling with the fellow. I've often wondered if a
fellow didn't go to sleep simply because he was tired of feeling so
alive.
Here it's defined as a suboptimum physical condition or a pain which
resists change and remains over a long period of time or recurs
frequently; which of course is a very precise statement of it.
Any statement of that, though, that it is a feeling existing across a
period of time, a person objects to, any such sense as that defines
definitely and adequately chronic somatic. Circuit. Spelled
s-u-r-c-u-i-t. No, it's spelled here as c-u-r-c-u-i-t, c-i-r-u-i-t.
Circuit. Best explanation of circuits - or pardon me, the best
description of circuits to date is still in Book One that we have on
this - circuits, demon circuits. A circuit is a very interesting
thing. It means just what it says in the mind. And if we try to get
too technical about it we lose it. It means just what it says.
Do you know that most thetans are putting out fitter to pull it back
on themselves? Do you know that? All right. Now, you put out an
impulse over to the right and then it travels over to the left and it
travels back and hits you and that's a circuit. Got that plainly? And
it is just what it says. It's an impulse that goes in one direction
and then goes in another direction and then comes back and hits you.
And that's a very adequate, direct definition of a circuit - or hits
the preclear. It makes a circle, an irregular circle I would say, but
it's like an old circuit rider, it goes over here. You say, "Hello"
and then through various machines in the mind, computers and so forth,
this "Hello" is relayed until you've forgotten that you emanated
"Hello" and enough time lag is put on the thing so that it finally
comes back and you are quite startled to have something say, "Boo!"
And that is exactly how a circuit operates. It doesn't operate any
other way. It behaves as though it has a life of its own. See, that's
an accurate statement. "It behaves as though it has a life of its
own." Actually, it is a circuit.
Why is it a circuit? It's the guy who puts out the impulse that makes
it go live and that is the most fabulous thing. You got that? And he
has to actually put out the original impulse that livens it up. He is
furnishing it every piece of energy which it has.
The one thing a machine cannot do is produce space and energy. A
fellow has to produce it himself So this is a curious and wonderful
thing, isn't it? This fellow is being driven crazy by Mama, by Papa,
by Joe, Bill, Agnes - it is only one guy. They might have given him
the pattern that he could follow but if somebody is being hit in the
stomach by an impulse of some kind or another, you know. By the way,
we had a girl, one of the Advanced Clinical Course students scrounged
her up around town and processed her. She was the most curious case.
She burned the backs of her dresses. That's right, she burned them.
There was a short circuit would occur which would singe the fabric.
And this clinical course student came around and we had a little
conference about this thing and obviously this person was simply
directing a beam of energy which would go around and hit her in the
back. So we had some kind of drill or another that alleviated this and
it stopped right away. But this was a circuit. This individual was
being hit in the back with a beam of energy sufficient to burn her
dress. And she ruined more dresses that way. This was the awfulest
thing that was happening to her.
Now, a thetan actually keys up his machinery in this weird fashion.
This is a weird fashion. He fixes it so that every bit of energy which
he puts out is nicely and neatly used and conserved somewhere in his
machinery. It's the cutest arrangement you ever saw.
If you look at somebody sometime while you're well exteriorized, just
turn your perceptions around and upside down, you'll see this ring of
machinery around somebody sometime with its little lights and relays.
And these lights and relays are the most curious thing because he
thinks "dog." Now, that's an energy expenditure you see and so he's
got "dog" keyed up, you see, so it will go through these various
relays and it will activate something over on this side such as
"Wanting to paint." See, he has got it so it will stage itself and
disassociate itself so that he can have a synthetic playmate. He's got
all of these darned machines. He can do every one of these things
himself and the only energy a machine ever hits him with is the energy
which he himself is producing at that moment.
Now, this is also true of facsimiles. Facsimiles don't stand around in
huge charges. The individual has so split up his forces, has so split
up and directed his abilities, is so remote from himself, you might
say, that he is actually charging up pictures and the facsimiles are
really made by some process of duplication, obsessive duplication of a
thought or an idea.
When you figure the ability of a thetan, always include in it the
ability to make these confoundedly complex circuits. The most gorgeous
stuff you ever saw in your life, utterly incomprehensible. And he
would be the most baffled person in the world to realize he was doing
all this, which is what the circuit is based on - surprise. The basic
game of a thetan is to mock up a little box, pretend he doesn't know
what is in it, open it up, look, get surprised.
All right. Here we have the Theta Clear. Clear, Theta, it says. I
don't know why we just don't have Clear here. What is a Clear? A Clear
is a person who is not being influenced by his reactive mind, that's
the first definition, earliest definition of Clear, still valid.
Simplest, earliest definition. He is an individual who is not being
influenced by his reactive mind. Well, then if you simply push
somebody out so that he wasn't being influenced by his reactive mind remember the reactive mind belongs to the body and you simply push
somebody out so he wasn't close to it anymore - he'd be Clear,
wouldn't he? That's that. Now, we assayed to make Clears at first by
reducing the reactive mind. And then we decided all we had to do was
detach the fellow from the mind, from this reactive mind, and increase
his ability to handle it and control it and we would have a much
better process of clearing.
Scientology signalized this reversal. Dianetics was erasure of the
reactive mind so as no further influence and Scientology was
separating the individual from his reactive mind and placing him in a
state that he could control it. And that is the difference between the most basic and fundamental, but too technical a difference for the
public at large - the difference between Dianetics and Scientology.
It's the real reason behind why I changed the word in the first place.
I was thinking, the second I started to get a sniff of this type of
phenomena, I said, "Oh-oh! I will never under God's green Earth
convince anybody," and I guess I have convinced a lot of people, but I
very long - "that Dianetics has now done a complete flipperoo and no
longer has to reduce the reactive mind but just get somebody out."
I didn't know at that time that people had a very great difficulty
viewing nothingness. They would get sick viewing nothingness and so I
thought, well, it might be a good time or another to introduce this
word. Then the word was introduced at a time when Dianetics was
kicking back. It had become a sort of a circuit and it was kicking
back sort of hard and so I changed the word to Scientology in order to
carry on and concentrate the attention of those people immediately in
my vicinity upon the fact that we were doing something quite
different. We had moved up into an upper echelon that had to do with
origin and formation of existence. And this was not Dianetics.
Dianetics was a - had a different echelon.
But there's no difference between a Dianetic Clear and a
Scientological Clear today. There is no difference whatsoever. It is a
person uninfluenced by his reactive mind, period.
And if you wanted to go ahead - you want to go ahead and make a
Dianetic Clear? Fine. It'll take you a long time.
I really think that what happened in the past was the individual
simply ran - enough engrams until he suddenly realized that he could
control these damned things and he exerted pan-determinism over these
things and simply separated himself from them and we just didn't find
any more engrams that had to be erased and we had a Clear. And as long
as we were doing it in this fashion and as long as the ARC was good
with the preclear, as long as - an unfortunate little lost factor in
there - that two-way communication was being maintained with this
preclear, we made Clears. And when we didn't do these things, we made
him the prey of his engrams. So Dianetic processing in Book One, had
the liability of bad auditing or the bank suddenly caving in on the
individual and making him the prey of it.
All right. A Theta Clear, Dianetic Clear, what's the difference? You
don't have to have any difference in there at all. It is just a person
who is not influenced by his reactive mind.
By the way, this tells you that a thetan can still be influenced by
his machinery and still be a Clear. Let's understand that nicely. Now,
a machine is something set up by a thetan to amuse himself one way or
the other. And the most unhappy thetan you ever want to meet is some
thetan whose total machinery has been wrecked. You just ruined all of
his machinery. One of the things that happens with somebody who is liable to be the reduction of his havingness in terms of machines. And
if you don't rehabilitate, when you are making an Operating Thetan,
the ability to make machines and hide them and forget about them - .
It's very simple. You have him make a postulate that such and so is
going to happen, "Now hide it, now forget about it. Okay. Now do so
and so," which is the trigger. "What happened?"
The fellow says, "Nothing. Nothing happened."
You say, "Now, listen, this is between us. We want you to make this
postulate, to hide it, now forget about it. Now, got that, now? All
right. Now do so and so." And that's the trigger to the postulate.
Such as "Get the idea that every time you think of the word cat you'll
get sent to Paris. You got that idea now? All right. Now, let's hide
it. Let's forget about it. You do that? Okay. Think of the word cat.
Now, what happened?" The fellow says, "Nothing." He didn't make the
machine, you see? You actually got to get a machine that works. And
you work with him until he's finally willing to do this, and all of a
sudden he says - you say, "Cat." You say, "What happened?"
"I'm in-I haven't got the remotest idea why, but I'm in Paris." Big
game he plays with himself
The Code of Honor is the ethical code of Scientology. It's a luxury.
It has nothing to do with enforcement. Anybody who ever tries to
enforce the Code of Honor on anyone has immediately pushed it downhill
from a code of ethics to a code of morals and it's unworkable as a
code of morals. That's about all you can say about it.
A code of ethics is something which is not enforced. The difference
between ethics and morals is enforcement. A code of morals is
something which is enforced. This is a very distinct difference.
We had to reach back, by the way, to Greek and Roman philosophy. This
world is in an interesting state today philosophically. It defines
morals as ethics and ethics as morals and I don't know but, you know,
people don't even think this is funny, but I can laugh like hell about
this. This is the wildest thing you ever heard of. That an individual
will take the Ten Commandments and confuse this with an ethical code.
The Ten Commandments had nothing to do with an ethical code. The Ten
Commandments are there because you'd better do them! Not for the good
of anybody particularly. But they're there and this is the agreed-upon
behavior pattern which we're supposed to have and things work better
and so you had better do it and we have enforcement. And we don't have
an ethical code, we have a moral code.
All right. And here we have a beautiful word, communication. It's the
consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from
source-point across a distance to receipt-point with the intention of
bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication of that which
emanated from the source-point. That's communication.
Now, a two-way communication: You see, there is a communication and
that's it. Then there is a cycle of communication and that contains
this plus an answer and an acknowledgment which is a reverse flow.
That makes a cycle of communication.
Now, the next one is a two-way cycle of communication. And you've
spread it out just about as far as you want to go to be codified. So
you've got first a communication. Now, therefore, soldier A shooting
at soldier B with a bullet is effecting a communication. See that
clearly?
A cycle of communication would require that soldier B now shoot at
soldier A with a bullet. See, that would be a cycle.
Now, a two-way cycle of communication would require that soldier B now
fire a bullet at soldier A and soldier A would fire a bullet back at
soldier B. In other words, soldier B now has to emanate, originate a
communication.
All right. We have this covered here. Live form is part of
communication. If you think that a letter being shot out of a letter
machine in a post office and down a chute to another machine is a
communication, you are looking at an interesting thing. You are
looking at a live point sometime or another going through a tremendous
number of vias, going to a live point somewhere else. But boy, the
vias on that line! The communication is not between machine and
machine, it's between live form and a live form.
This helps us a lot when we try to understand aberration because a
person who consistently and continually (quote) "communicates"
(unquote) with live forms is not likely to get very aberrated. But an
individual who consistently communicates (quote) (unquote)
"communicates" - very much (quote) (unquote) there and not (quote)
(unquote) in the first instance - with machinery, with a minimum of
live forms, can get very aberrated as a couple of us have discovered
in processing. Right?
Sitting there punching a linotype machine is gorgeous. I mean, you
obviously are communicating, aren't you? There is the words, there is
the sense and so forth. And yet if you didn't recognize and if you
lost sight of the fact that the product of this linotype machine was
going to be read someplace by a live form or if somebody convinced you
that these forms were never going to go anyplace or be read, why, you
would then be communicating, (quote) (unquote) "communicating," with
no live form and the aberrative consequences would be considerable. It
wouldn't be, of course, if you knew this.
Communication lag is the length of time between the moment the auditor
poses the question or statement (which is missing here) and the moment
when the exact question posed is answered positively by the preclear;
no matter whether silence or talk or incorrect answers occur during
the interim. This is covered here later. It is also the length of time
between the giving of a command and the moment when a preclear carries
out the exact command correctly. And that is absolutely right. It's
the interval of time between the statement and the answer.
Now, we look at a two-way cycle of communication we could find out
there'd be a second lag. There is a second communication lag. It's the
interval of time between the answer and the acknowledgment which
completes the thing and that would - what would be called a second
communication lag. That's the second communication lag. He had a bad
second lag, you could say rather clumsily. In other words, you would
give him an answer and then he wouldn't acknowledge.
You'll find a lot of people around who have pretty good first lag,
it's not bad, and their second lag is atrocious. You give them the
answer and you might as well have been talking to the air.
Consideration is the highest capability of life, taking rank over the
mechanics of space, energy and time.
That's a wide definition.
See, a consideration actually includes such things as postulates;
consideration. The word consideration includes such things as
postulates, commands, thoughts, worries, anything. This is a blanket
word and it means that quality of considering. And you can consider
something with a postulate and you can consider it with a command and
so forth. By the way, let's see. What unit was it where we considered
considerations at such length?
Fourth unit? Fifth? No, it wasn't the fifth. Sixth?
Audience: Sixth.
Sixth unit. Sixth unit. A tremendous number of lectures there on the
subject of consideration. A rather interesting - it's an interesting
subject. If you think that consideration is an interesting subject, of
course you're just saying life is an interesting subject.
The quality to consider is that which establishes life. A person is as
alive as he can consider. It's a very valuable thing this
consideration. A person who has lost his ability to consider is just
that dead. So you have a gradient scale of the ability to consider
which parallels the gradient scale of life and this becomes a very
interesting thing to work with. So that - it gives you a great
understanding, by the way, of your preclear - a great understanding.
This individual is taking secondhand all kinds of artistic
considerations and so forth. Boy, if you ever get anybody who has a
habit of taking artistic considerations secondhand, you've got a boy,
you've got a boy. Man, when they will do that they're dead. They smell
dead, too, quite often.
When this fellow will give you the - a predigested yackity-yack
straight out of the guidebook about the cathedral. This is gorgeous.
You are looking at somebody there who is practically an automaton.
Because when an individual's ability to consider art form on his own
is gone, practically the last thing that he has any reason to live for
is gone. There is hardly anything else. So when they tell you - when
they give you at long length a dissertation on Sibelius and you find
out that this is inaccurately duplicated from a textbook on Sibelius.
Heh! And they will do it.
Now, here we have a new word: copy. It's a technical word. It means
another one just like the first one, occupying a different space. And
it would be a perfectly correct definition for copy. It says here a
duplicate distinguished from a perfect duplicate in that it does not
necessarily occupy the same space, same time or use the same energies
as the original.
But if we drew another package alongside of this one or if we mocked
up another package alongside of this one, the second one is a copy.
And what do you know, we have almost the same word as facsimile, don't
we? But in view of the fact that a facsimile is made of the real
universe as part of its definition, we have to have this special word,
copy, which is a broader word than facsimile, much broader word.
Because you can have a copy of a facsimile but the facsimile has to be
a copy of the real universe.
All right. Creative Processing is a nice old-time process which had as
its keynote having the preclear make out of energy of his own creation
various forms, objects, distances, spaces and the basis of its modus
operandi has to be very clearly understood before it is workable and
that is gradient scale. Creative Processing has to be done by gradient
scale. All right. Let's take somebody and we'll say, "All right, mock
up something." And this individual is liable to fumble for a long
time. "You mean by 'mock up' make this copy? All right - of
something." And he'll fumble and fumble and he will finally make a
copy of something or he'll make something and he'll make something
else and something else and something else.
Now, if you were to search around and find the things he couldn't
make, you would clear him up in many points of thinking.
Let's take
a nurse. Here was an - here is an actual case. A girl had had a nurse
during a period of illness and this nurse had been rather brutal to
her. And she could make copies of Mama, she could mock up Mama, she
could mock up Papa, she could mock up George and Bill. She could mock
up London and Paris and Rome and New York. Mock up anything
apparently, but couldn't mock up this nurse. And this was an intensely
aberrative situation. Here was a facsimile, a series of facsimiles
sitting there which were - could be resolved by the mock-up the moment
the preclear found out he could create this form. All right.
The
solution to this - this actually worked, just schoolbook, strictly one: had the preclear mock up a footprint of the nurse. That was an
unsuccessful attempt. Just to give you an idea how far she was from
this nurse - couldn't mock up a footprint of the nurse. So, we had her
mock up a numberof footprints of women until she could mock up a
footprint of the nurse. And having mocked up a footprint of the nurse
we got finally a discarded shoe of the nurse and from a discarded
shoe, we got a current shoe of the nurse at some distance from the
nurse, of course. And then finally got two shoes of the nurse and then
got a whole pile of the nurse's clothes. And having gotten a pile of
the nurse's clothes we were then able to get one lock of the nurse's
hair - total mock-up. And gradually we built this nurse on a gradient
scale and the next thing you know, this nurse was there, was operating
under perfect control of the preclear, had the preclear move the nurse
around a few times and copy the nurse many, many times, and remedy
havingness with the nurse and so forth.
And the very next time this
nurse, who had produced actually a terror syndrome on the preclear
thereafter - this was why I'd been yanked in on the case. There was
one person in the world who was producing a terror syndrome and just
nobody could solve this; just the idea of nurses, you see how it
spanned out and associated. And the next time this nurse showed up,
this girl put her to work very, very forcefully and chased her tail
all over the place. It was the most remarkable thing, her family said,
they had ever witnessed. They could not credit that anything had
happened there, you see, which actually would cause this reaction
toward the nurse. Actually, plenty had happened.
You get how the gradient scale is used in Creative Processing? Now, if
you know this, that I have told you just now, you know actually
anything you want to know about Creative Processing and it's a very
workable process even if it's a very old one. Gradient scale, make
them mock it up.
Now, we get a preclear who can't mock up a damned
thing; solid black in all directions and this you say is not a subject
for Creative Processing. Let me assure you that this preclear can mock
up something. He can mock up something and if you'll just stay with
him for a little while till he can finally mock up something you will
return visio to him. If you can get him to mock up sounds on a
gradient scale long enough you will return sonic to him. And actually
gradient scale applied there in Creative Processing will return sonic
and visio. But it requires a very, very smart, cagey auditor. But all
he has to do is just what I've told you. He has to bear with it. And
this is a curious thing that we would have passed on along the line
past Creative Processing. Because it looks like a real stopper. You
know, it looks like a wonderful place to stop. But auditors couldn't
learn how to do this. Isn't this strange?
There is a phenomenon that comes up in Creative Processing. If you ask
the individual to mock up a body, he would probably discharge against
this body and lower his havingness. So the one bug that comes up is
havingness. So if you did Creative Processing and remedied people's
havingness with the mock-ups and had them, you know, get them to throw
them away and pull them in and so forth, and ran Remedy of Havingness
and Creative Processing you would have an awful terrific process,
very, very good process.
By the way, we talk a lot about throwing away or not doing anything
about old - we are not doing anything much about matched terminals and
double terminals. But you know that's a very effective technique if
you remedy havingness. This is one of the fastest ways to deaberrate
some individual. Gradient Scale by Creative Processing may be a slower
method of doing it. That'd be the extreme.
Let's say he can get a mock-up of Joe and Joe has recently just beaten
the tar out of him, but he can get a mock-up of Joe. Let's put two
mock-ups up of Joe, huh, facing each other and then two more mock-ups
of Joe facing each other and two more mock-ups of Joe facing each
other and all of a sudden Joe is no longer aberrative. Fabulous the
speed with which this works. That's a fast one. That's really fast.
One particular instance: a wife I processed who's violently jealous of
her husband's secretary without any cause by the way. This secretary
was strictly dragged in from Dr. Ross' canned food factory. Honest, it
was the darnedest thing but evidently there was something on the whole
track and some girl like this that really upset things. And I had this
girl mock up two of these secretaries facing each other and then
replace the mock-up several times and every single bit of jealousy and
irrationality with regard to that particular secretary ceased, bang!
Five minutes worth of processing.
But this discharges the living daylights out of somebody's havingness.
It just knocks havingness to pieces. So matched terminals becomes
immediately workable if you remedy havingness immediately afterwards.
Male voice: It spoils the game.
Hm, it spoils a game all right. You got to give him some more mass to
play with.
Dianetics. The definition of Dianetics means dia nous. It means
"through mind." Another reason why Dianetics became an unworkable word
the moment that we were no longer going through such a thing as the
analytical mind, the word itself did not mean that much as it had
before.
We find here dichotomy, next word. Somebody might throw this one at
you sometime or another. Dichotomy is a pair of opposites. Where the
hell did this word come from? Actually it comes out of flower growing.
It is really a grab at the moon for a word but it means
positive-negative. It is an effort to express in the field of language
and human behavior the positive and negative quality of poles, and
that's what a dichotomy means. It's a positive and negative quality of
poles that you would find in electricity expressed in human nature. So
we have such a dichotomy as "I can - I cannot," "hate - love," so on.
"I can hate - I cannot hate." "I can control - I cannot control."
That's a dichotomy. It means the opposite polar sense of the
livingness.
That was really a reach for the moon, dichotomy. But I don't know what
the hell you would put in there. I spent, I remember, a couple of days
fooling around with words of all kinds or another but they always
meant something else.
By the way, with definitions, this is the most terrific contest you
ever got into in your life on the subject of life itself is defining.
The second that you use some word out of some older science, it
already has so much mud hanging to its roots that you can never clean
it up. And when you try to teach somebody this way: "Well, we have now
conditioning. Conditioning meant to psychology so and so, and so and
so, and so and so. But to us conditioning means the repetitive
impact." That's a definition? No, it isn't because it's got a via in
it. We have to explain what it doesn't mean anymore every time we use
it. And so everybody would go crazy trying to learn such a vocabulary
because it tells you first what it doesn't mean and now what it does
mean. So we find that a system has been employed throughout here.
We've gone into far flung fields for a word or we've taken and made a
noun out of an adjective, just to get a clean word, and then said
exactly what that word meant and so we had a vocabulary. Tried not to
have too many of these.
But a dichotomy is an example of taking a word from flower growing.
Di, sort of kind of means two, choto my, it sort of has a run to it.
The positive and negative poles expressed in livingness.
Dramatization: May I invite your attention to the chapter called
"Dramatization" in The Original Thesis. It's the only dissertation so
far that I have written on the subject of dramatization that is really
a knockdown, drag out, this is what happens and how it happens. The
Original Thesis, not even Book One, I mean, it was before Book One.
Dramatization: The guy has a picture, you know, and the picture says
"Wiggle your ear" so he wiggles his ear; that's a dramatization.
Now, if you could figure some raving, duplicating obsessively
psychotic who was surrounded by nothing but sane and well-controlled
people, you could actually get a dramatization of sanity. Did you ever
think of that? I've seen it. It's the damnedest thing you ever want to
see in your life: somebody dramatizing sanity. They're not even
vaguely sane, they're wild. You have to track them very carefully to
see that what they're saying doesn't fit the real universe, it doesn't
fit the environment. It would be what a sane person would have done in
another environment.
So, we get the second meaning of dramatization which would be that it
is not a present time situation. The individual is enacting or making
a drama out of some past occurrence by rote, you understand? He's
following it by rote, strictly push-button. So therefore he's doing
something in 1955 that is copied from exactly 1780. See that? So
you've got an out-of-time.
The best example of dramatization is a player piano roll. The roll
goes through the piano and the piano plays and there's no player
sitting there. Well, that's a dramatization. Only in this case the
dramatization is a mock-up or a facsimile of some kind or another and
that's the player piano roll and the preclear just goes on and plays
the piece. He could no more stop himself or start himself in this
piece than anything. What he is doing there, and he is the effect of
drama. Curious business.
You will see an awful lot of that. There's the dramatizing psychotic
as opposed to the computing psychotic. The computing psychotic is a
nutty circuit, he's an insane circuit. It figure-figure-figure-figures
and all of its computations are offbeat.
Figure-figure-figure-figure-figure.
Now, you will understand something a little more in just a second now.
The dramatizing psychotic is running off a player piano roll of a
facsimile. In other words, one is running off a facsimile and one is
running off of a machine. So you have the nutty body with the
dramatizing psychotic and the crazy thetan with the computing
psychotic. We spotted the difference between these two things back in
the fall, early fall of 1950. There are obviously these two types of
psychotics and there are no other types of psychotics.
All right. So there's the reactive psychotic and the machine psychotic
and you'll see these two. Now, the machine psychotic thinks; he
figure-figures. He'll give you wild, different computations all the
time.
The dramatizing psychotic doesn't. They simply play. Well, when I see
a dramatizing psychotic I have a problem. Oh, I see - when I see a
computing psychotic I know very well a thetan is present. When I see a
dramatizing psychotic I am very doubtful because it tells you
immediately that the thetan in this case must have at least succumbed
to the reactive bank to dramatize this thoroughly. Both of them have
no criteria, no consideration, as we were talking about a little while
ago, see? The keynote is absent consideration, consideration absent.
And so we have the dramatizing psychotic and the computing psychotic.
We have a dramatizing psychotic out here and that's a goofball one.
We also have a computing psychotic out here. We are running a type of
Communication Processing on the two of them.
And just to complete
this particular one, the perfect duplicate has a definition but it
also has quite a study.
The perfect duplicate is one which is made
in the same time, same place with the same energies as the original;
matter, energy, space, time. Not necessarily the same consideration,
but as far as the mechanics of the thing are concerned, you have
identical. And when you make a perfect duplicate it disappears.
This
was what told us what an ultimate truth was. An ultimate truth is
nothing. The ultimate truth is the static. It is not any masses,
energies, spaces or times. Well, a perfect duplicate then, if you
told a preclear to make a duplicate and he made a perfect duplicate,
whatever he was looking at would have disappeared. If you told a
preclear to make a perfect duplicate and he had something left of what
he was looking at, he didn't make a perfect duplicate. Do you get the
difference between these two things? There's not only a difference of
what he does but a difference of result. If he makes a duplicate he
has another one, he has two. If he makes a perfect duplicate he has
none. A different result.
Okay. Well, so much we have slogged along
that far. It'll take us forever at this rate, won't it?
Did you
learn anything from these definitions?
Audience: Yes. Language is
to some slight degree a via, but unfortunately you are dealing with
people whose main communication line is language. You are liable to
get into the belief that all language is in the band of symbols. No,
it isn't. Language is only in the band of symbols when it no longer
has a consideration connected with it. As long as language has a
consideration connected to it and with it and as long as those people
using language are still considering, why, it's not in the band of
symbols.
But when a language is only at last in the band of symbols and there's
no further consideration connected with it at all, it's no longer
anything but MEST; it is not communicating. When anything gets into really gets into the band of symbols, which is to say there is the
symbol and the consideration is absent, we just have a symbol and
that's that. When an individual gets into that state he's a gone dog.
When we talk about the Know to Sex Scale and say somebody is stuck in
symbols, we simply mean he's using language without further
consideration and this is a pretty hard thing to do. Do you know that
he couldn't understand anything you said? It wouldn't matter if you
used the plainest language in the world, he couldn't understand a
thing you are saying. He could utter sounds, you got a parrot. He
could write words, you got a philosopher. But there would be no
consideration connected with these things. Consideration, the degree
of; determines the amount of life present. When you can change a
consideration it must mean that you have considerations to spare.
You're liable to get a little bit into the symbol band slightly when
you're studying definitions because you are actually having enforced
upon you to some slight degree a set of meanings. But as I have been
trying to demonstrate to you in these last two lectures, these are
just relays of communication which have an understanding of life
wrapped up in them and they too are very subject to consideration.
(end of lecture)
9ACC25-5501C17 AUDITING DEMO SIX BASICS IN ACTION
Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC25 - 5501C17 Renumbered 27
for "The Solution To Entrapment" cassettes
AUDITING DEMO: SIX BASICS IN ACTION
A lecture given on 17 January 1955
This is an auditing demonstration which we'll continue which is
illustrative of the action of each one of the Six Basic Processes. In
this auditing my stress will not be upon the precision delivery of the
communication of the auditing command. I am not worried whether I give
the auditing command properly or not. What I am worried about is
whether or not I communicate what the hell I want to this preclear. Do
you understand?
Now, the reason why we use an auditing command on precision simply has
to do with this: very often - unfortunately more often than not the
student doesn't get the idea, so we give him a phonograph record and
that's the auditing command. But let me assure you that this is not
good auditing.
Every auditing session requires that we have two-way communication.
The number of upsets, hassles, remarkable stupidities which go on
under the name of two-way communication shouldn't happen. Two-way
communication is merely making the preclear answer some specific
thing. It is not much of a process. If you think that you're going to
go in and just by chattering at a preclear make him well, listen, he
would have been well years ago. Get the idea?
You've got to get the attention of the preclear, got to get him
answering what you're saying, otherwise you have to resort to
something like basic Communication Processing. Basic Communication
Processing would be mimicry and below that level putting "hello's and
okay's" into the fellow's bank.
All right. Auditing is not then for the edification of the auditor; is
not to produce the maximum effect upon the preclear, but is to obtain
the result of making the preclear capable of handling his own bank and
himself and his environment as distinguished from the environment, the
bank, the body handling the preclear. Now, do we understand this?
And where auditing departs from this goal it fails. And where it
degenerates into a nonunderstanding activity on the part of the
auditor merely giving forward a bunch of rote yakety-yak, it fails.
Now, let's first get this thing real clear: the difference between an
effect and a result. You can get an effect on your preclear by
shooting him, by dropping him into a can of boiling oil, by putting
him over the muzzle of a 16-inch gun and firing it. I guarantee that
you'll get an effect in each one of these cases, but you won't get any
auditing result. We have a very good auditor in the vicinity who got
himself most gorgeously fooled. He hadn't audited a preclear for quite
a while and he hadn't audited the six basic steps for quite a while.
And he got himself an alcoholic for a preclear who was the most
dyed-in-the-wool, spectacular alcoholic you ever wanted to see. And
Bobby kept giving him the six basic steps and the fellow would come up
and he'd have a comm lag and then Bobby would flatten that comm lag,
and then he'd go on to the next step and flatten any comm lag that
showed up there, and he was very sure that there was something very
tricky about this preclear. There was something real tricky that
wasn't being accomplished. This he was sure of if he was sure of
nothing else, until he had put in twenty hours. And then he came to
the realization that techniques were working as prescribed routinely. And the technique was merely flattening the comm lags. But
he wasn't getting an effect on the preclear and Bobby is probably,
nostalgically, thinking of those good old days when you snapped the
finger and the preclear rolled up in a ball. You get the idea?
In other words, this is a terrifically unspectacular session. Twenty
hours. Preclear didn't yell, scream, protest or anything else. Bobby
just kept working flattening the comm lags and he was sure there was
something very fantastic here.
So we had this case, though, walking forward to a time where this guy
is now a stable exterior and not an alcoholic anymore. He was
producing maximum result, but this is not maximum effect.
All right, let's just start in here. And I'm not going to ask you to
think up a thing. I'm not going to ask you as a preclear to do a thing
but simply be a preclear. This is a chance to get some good auditing,
a chance to foul me up. See, it's also a chance to suddenly hand
forward the computation that everybody's been searching for probably
for years. Here's a wonderful opportunity, but I'm not going to run on
you anything more - I'm not going to run on you anything you need, I'm
just going to run on you the six basic steps. Of course, this is not
something you need. All right.
LRH: How you been making out lately?
PC: Pretty good. Fine.
LRH: Fine? Have you been coming along in memorizing axioms okay?
PC: Fair.
LRH: Fair.
PC: I get sort of confused and whiny now and then, you know.
LRH: Oh, really. It doesn't worry you too much?
PC: No, I'm not...
LRH: Well, fine.
PC: ... I'm not worried about it.
LRH: Good. We have just done the process known as Two-way
Communication complete, complete from beginning to end. Why is it
complete? Come on, tell me.
[Responses from Audience.]
She answered directly the question asked, without any comm lag to
amount to anything, and said it directly, so obviously we have a
two-way communication. Now, if she actually at this moment probably
would feel free to ask me for something, if you wanted to complete the
cycle, but this doesn't mean complete the process. You don't have to
complete the cycle to communicate - two-way cycle of communication just to say, well, we've got two-way communication here, let's roll.
Get the idea?
Well, that took a long time to get over that step, didn't it? You
notice that I've also become very significantly upset and terrifically
gripping on this subject. You know that we immediately have tackled
this problem. We went right to the heart of the matter and we didn't
permit ourselves to be deterred by the fact that we were auditing. We
went right to the heart of this and we are now busily involved in
getting back down the bank to find out why you were confused about the
axioms. You know, you notice this.
So we will go on to our next step, our next step, which is Elementary
Straightwire. And how about, how about memory; have you ever had any
trouble with memory at all?
PC: A little bit.
LRH: A little bit. Do you suppose other people do occasionally?
PC: I think so.
LRH: An agreed-upon thing to have a little trouble with memory.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Well, let's see if; let's see if - By the way, were you ever
around the memory shark? (I'm auditing her, now, by the way.)
PC: No, I don't believe so. I don't think so.
LRH: Did you ever have any - been around anybody who was real, real
disdainful about the terrific efficacity of his memory?
PC: No, I've been around people that are pretty good at it.
LRH: Pretty good at it.
PC: Sort of mocking up answers.
LRH: Discouraging?
PC: No.
LRH: No, not discouraging. How about people who were just fabulous
about forgetting, you know?
PC: Oh, yes.
LRH: Oh, you've been around somebody like that. Who was fabulous about
forgetting.
PC: Well, names - my father is fabulous about forgetting names.
LRH: He is, is he?
PC: That's one specific category, though.
LRH: Good. Well, did he ever have an explanation of why he did this?
PC: No, he just said, "I just can't remember names." That's all.
LRH: Well, something looks real good. I ran across a preclear one time
that had a real good reason for doing this. He said that the best
thing to do with unpleasant people was to forget their names.
PC: Oh.
LRH: This preclear, by the way, couldn't remember his own. We found
out he was an unpleasant person.
All right. All right. How about people that lost things. You been
around anybody who's lost things?
PC: Oh, yes, I think so. Recently.
LRH: You have? Who? Who loses things?
PC: Well - I was thinking of Mr. Pinkham.
LRH: Oh. Mr. Pinkham Loses things?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: (Keep that recorder on.)
PC: He forgets, forgets things. That was the quickest one I thought of
and nearest to present time.
LRH: He forgets things. Well, yeah. All right. Now the foregoing part
of this particular straightwire is merely to acquaint the preclear
with what we are going to do and could be called simply dunnage. It's
just acquainting the preclear with what we are talking about and
getting him thinking about thinking and remembering. So, because very
often we would have a preclear who would be quite, oh, well, he'd be
upset. You all of a sudden ask him to remember something, you know,
and this seems to be a strange and peculiar thing for you to do, so he
would be startled and it would slow him down just for this effect. So
we have gone from two-way communication with a nice smooth transition
over to the fact that we are talking about memory.
Well, let's ask you now, is there something you wouldn't mind
remembering?
PC: Well, I wouldn't remind - mind remembering yesterday.
LRH: Well, okay. What about yesterday?
PC: Oh, outdoors, being outdoors. All the interesting cactus I saw,
and the rain.
LRH: Mm-hmm. Well, what particular one of these instants wouldn't you
mind remembering?
PC: Which particular one? Any of them.
LRH: Any of them. Well, now bird dog that one. Come on, just give me
one incident.
PC: Okay. Just one?
LRH: Just one. Just one little tiny incident.
PC: Well, there was one little tiny cactus that I liked real well.
LRH: Oh, you remember looking at it?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you just get a picture of this cactus?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Why don't you tell it "okay?"
PC: Okay.
LRH: Did you tell the picture okay?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Something else you wouldn't mind remembering.
PC: Oh, the lectures we listened to last Saturday.
LRH: Last Saturday?
PC: The tapes - we listened to tapes.
LRH: Oh yeah. What exact instant there?
PC: John on the telephone.
LRH: What?
PC: John was talking on the telephone.
LRH: Oh? Remember that exact instant?
PC: Yes.
LRH: What was he saying?
PC: I don't know. I just saw him; I wasn't listening.
LRH: Oh, you weren't listening to him.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Okay. Did you just get a picture of that?
PC: Yeah. I can't - .
LRH: Tell it "okay."
PC: It's not there now.
LRH: Well, tell it "okay."
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right. All right. Now, give me something else you wouldn't
mind remembering.
PC: Oh, I wouldn't remind mem - I wouldn't mind remembering
Washington, DC, last spring.
LRH: Mm-hmm. Well, that's good. Give me a specific instant there in
Washington.
PC: Okay. When we went to see the cherry blossoms.
LRH: All right. What particular moment when you went to see the cherry
blossoms?
PC: Well, there was a garden of pansies we saw, too, along with the
cherry blossoms. I remember that.
LRH: Well, do you remember the particular instant there?
PC: Yeah. I can...
LRH: Did you see a picture of that?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Tell it okay.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Did you tell it okay?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Well, fine. All right.
Hey, you guys, you see what this pc's doing? Huh? Pc's doing two
things. I don't care if this wrecks your case!
PC: Oh, that's all right.
LRH: This pc tells us about cherry blossoms and then tells us about a
garden of pansies; she tells us about lectures and then tells us about
somebody on the phone. Get the idea?
Male voice: Yeah.
LRH: Well, now, this other gimmick that I am using here, I haven't
talked much to you about. But you should realize that this - make her
say okay to the pictures and so on - do you know that before we got
through she wouldn't be getting any of those pictures automatically
anymore.
PC: Mm-hmm. I've got an automatic - I've got an automatic picture
putter-upper, I know.
LRH: Yeah. Sure. All right. You just tell it okay every time it gives
you a picture. You see, it's this lack of acknowledgment on her part
that's causing those things to come up in mass form.
Something in just remembering form, it should simply remember for her
and of course it will even stop that and she will do the remembering.
This didn't ruin your case, did it?
PC: No.I don't think so.
LRH: All right. I think this is real cute - you've got a real gimmick
going here. All right. Give me something else you wouldn't mind
remembering.
PC: Oh, my birthday - my birth date.
LRH: Birth date. Okay, which - ? Now, what do you do in a case like
this - is blow the session as the auditor? Did you get a picture of
your birthday, when you did that?
PC: No.
LRH: But you don't really mind remembering your birthdate. What is it?
PC: February 17th, 1927.
LRH: You don't re - mind remembering this. Well, okay. Give me
something else you wouldn't mind remembering.
PC: Okay. San Francisco.
LRH: All right. San Francisco.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: When?
PC: 1948.
LRH: What specific moment?
PC: Mm. That's the cue. You say specific moment and all these specific
moments pop up - a lot of them.
LRH: Oh, you get a whole lot of them.
PC: Yeah, I don't get just one.
LRH: Just tell them okay. Tell them all okay.
PC: Okay Well, all right. I'Il pick the specific moment of eating
cheesecake in the Golden Pheasant.
LRH: All right. What specific moment of that will you pick?
PC: Well, one forkful.
LRH: What? You've got one forkful?
PC: I haven't got a picture there.
LRH: Oh, you don't have?
PC: No.
LRH: Well, any - you can remember this clearly? One forkful?
PC: Yes, I can remember.
LRH: You do remember one forkful of it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Where is the fork? What's the position of the fork? Let's get a let's get a moment of the forkful.
PC: All right. It's on the plate.
LRH: You got it? PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Did you get a picture of that?
PC: No.
LRH: You didn't?
PC: No.
LRH: Well, tell the absence of the picture okay.
PC: Okay. I can't win.
LRH: Well, that's the purpose of an auditor, you know, is to cause the
preclear as many losses as possible. Give me something else - give me
something else you wouldn't mind remembering.
PC: All right, arriving in Phoenix in - October 1st.
LRH: Mm-hmm. What moment of your arrival?
PC: Pulling up in front of 616 in a car.
LRH: Mm-hmm. You remember a specific instant of that?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Oh, you got one. Did you get any pictures?
PC: Yes
LRH: Tell it okay.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Tell them all okay.
PC: Okay. LRH: All right. Fine. Now give me something else you
wouldn't mind remembering. PC: Oh, Camden.
LRH: What part of Camden?
PC: Now, whatever that address was of the clinic - 726 Market Street,
I think. Cooper, Cooper Street.
LRH: Mm-hmm. And what particular moment there?
PC: Oh, I remember a moment when there were several people in that
reception room.
LRH: Mm-hmm. Several people there.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Who were they?
PC: Bob Shannon and Harold Ladas and Carole Yeager. This particular
moment I don't think Dale was in there. I think that's all at that
moment.
LRH: That's all. The specific moment of that moment?
PC: Yeah. I'm sitting there at the desk.
LRH: You're sitting there at the desk. Allright, you recall this..
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: ... very easily. Fine. Did you get a picture? PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Tell them okay. Tell all the pictures you got during that
sequence okay.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you do that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Well good. Now, let's find something else you wouldn't mind
remembering.
PC: All right. A time we made barbecued spare ribs last summer.
LRH: Okay. What specific moment was that?
PC: Oh, they're - just a moment they're - they're sitting on the
grill.
LRH: Hm-mm. Was it real nice?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you get a picture of that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Tell it okay. All right. Fine. Let's find something
else you wouldn't mind remembering.
PC: Oh, let's see, a time when 1 was in the, I think, the seventh
grade.
LRH: Mm-mm. What was happening?
PC: We were making baskets.
LRH: Do you remember a specific moment of the making of baskets?
PC: Yeah. I can.
LRH: Did you get that?
PC: Mm-mm.
LRH: Did you get a picture?
PC: Mm-mm.
LRH: Tell it okay.
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right. Did you tell the picture okay or me okay?
PC: Yeah. I told the picture okay
LRH: All right. Fine. Now let's find something else you wouldn't mind
remembering.
PC: Oh, coffee at Snappy's Grill this morning.
LRH: Okay. Did you get a specific instant of that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: You got it real good.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you get a picture?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Tell it okay.
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right. You can just tell these pictures okay without my
telling you to, you know.
PC: All right.
LRH: When they fly up, why you just tell them okay.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Okay. Let's find something else you wouldn't mind remembering.
PC: College.
LRH: Which year?
PC: First year.
LRH: And what part of that year?
PC: Well, I can remember a specific instant when I fell down the
library steps and sprained my ankle.
LRH: And what particular moment of that can you best remember?
PC: Falling, 1 can remember that.
LRH: You can remember the falling or the pain?
PC: I can remember before and during...
LRH: Which part of it?
PC: Well, we were - I'll remember the ah, beginning of the fall.
LRH: Oh. All right. Did you get a picture of that?
PC: No.
LRH: Well, tell the absence
PC: I got a picture of the library. I don't get a picture of the
incident.
LRH: Oh, you got a picture though.
PC: Mm-hmm, I got a picture.
LRH: All right. Well, give it an okay.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Give its error an okay. You know, it's...
PC: Okay
LRH: You should've given it - you got that? It should have given you a
picture of...
PC: I got me there now.
LRH: Oh, you got you there now. Well, give that an okay.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Fine. Now, give me something else you wouldn't mind
remembering.
You notice, by the way, that we immediately cleared up this sprained
ankle.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: You notice that we went into this and ran it as an engram and
then ran the secondary and then lock scanned it.
PC: Now I got a specific moment at the - during the congress.
LRH: Good. You've got a specific moment during the congress? Oh,
you're getting well disciplined now.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Is this defensive?
PC: I just picked out one.
LRH: Got a picture?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Good. Give it an okay.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH Give it a real good okay.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Give it an enthusiastic one.
PC: I did.
LRH: All right. Fine. Now give me another moment you wouldn't mind
remembering. PC: The beginning of this session.
LRH: Oh? What specific moment at the beginning?
PC: When you said, "Don't mind the microphone."
LRH: Okay. And did you get a picture of that?
PC: I don't know whether I did or not.
LRH: Well, give it - doubtfulness an okay.
PC: All right.
LRH: All right. Now, let's find something else you wouldn't mind
remembering.
PC: Oh, seeing Lyle Sudrow in New York.
LRH: Good. What moment?
PC: Having dinner - at the beginning of dinner.
LRH: What moment of the dinner, the beginning?
PC: At the beginning. Uh-huh.
LRH: The beginning? What particular thing there - was there to
remember? PC: Ordering.
LRH: You remember ordering. What did you order?
PC: It was a Chinese restaurant.
LRH: Good, what did you have?
PC: And we had shrimp with lobster sauce and some kind of chow mein
and we had tea, and some sort of fried rice. I think that was it.
LRH: Well, good. That's fine. That's fine. That's just wonderful. Did
you get a picture of that?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Give it an okay.
PC: That's a nice restaurant.
LRH: Give it a real good okay.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Let's find something else you wouldn't mind
remembering.
PC: Okay A friend back home.
LRH: Good. What about this friend?
PC: Well, I was having in mind the last time I saw her.
LRH: Mm-hmm. What particular instant of that?
PC: When I first saw her at that particular occasion. That was just as
I drove up to the house.
LRH: Good. And remember something she said or something?
PC: Yeah. She said, "Hi."
LRH: Well, good. Did you get a picture of her?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Give it an okay.
PC: No, I didn't get a picture of her, I got a picture of the place,
though.
LRH: Well, good. Give it an okay.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Fine. Now, how are you doing?
PC: Fine. LRH: Doing all right?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Feeling worse?
PC: No.
LRH: Well, all right. Find something else you wouldn't mind
remembering.
PC: Oh, let's see. Trying to pick out a specific incident - instant in
high school.
LRH: Hm?
PC: I was seeing if I could get a particular instant in high school.
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: Yeah. I got one.
LRH: Got one?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. What instant there you got?
PC: It was counting sales tax stamps.
LRH: Mm-hmm. Well good. Did you get a picture of it?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Give it an okay.
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: All right. How are these pictures? They getting cleaner or - .
PC: Oh, they're real pretty.
LRH: Real pretty, now. Well fine. Good. All right. Give us something
else you wouldn't mind remembering.
PC: All right. I got one. A time when I had quite long hair - curls about twelve, I think.
LRH: Hm-hmmm
PC: Easter Sunday Having a picture taken out in the yard.
LRH: Good. What moment of it?
PC: I think it was the three - it was a posing; we were just three of
us being posed.
LRH: You think it was?
PC: It is.
LRH: What's your reality on this?
PC: I'm not looking at the instant. I'm looking at the picture.
LRH: Oh, is that a fact?
PC: The picture of the picture!
LRH: Uh-huh. Well, give it an okay.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Give the error an okay.
PC: Mmm-hmmm.
LRH: Give yourself an okay for having an error.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Give me an okay.
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right. Give me something else you wouldn't mind remembering.
(Notice that we forced her into the memory.)
PC: Well, I can remember a particular instant of going back to school
in the first grade after I had been out of school for a while.
LRH: No kidding? Well, fine. Fine. Get a picture of that? PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Give it an okay.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Fine. Now, give us something else you wouldn't mind
remembering.
PC: Well, I can remember a specific instance on the boat trip across
the Pacific.
LRH: All right. Got one? PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. What is it?
PC: Well, a Phillipine mess - Phillipine mess boy pulling the chair
out at dinner time.
LRH: Were you a navy junior?
PC: I was married to a navy officer.
LRH: Hm?
PC: Married to a navy officer.
LRH: Oh, my goodness - navy wife.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. You remember this incident very well?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Well, fine. You get a picture of it?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Give it an okay?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Did you give it an okay?
PC: Yes, I did.
LRH: Oh, well fine. I mean did you without my...
PC: I didn't before, no.
LRH: Oh, you didn't. Well, all right. Give me something else you
wouldn't mind remembering.
PC: Oh, I can remember an instant when my mother came back from the
hospital after an operation.
LRH: Mm. Do you remember that well?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Got a picture?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Give it an okay.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Fine. How do you feel?
PC: Fine.
LRH: Give us something else you wouldn't mind remembering.
PC: Do these have to be things connected with instances? Or just
things I wouldn't mind remembering? I mean, can I say, "A tree"?
LRH: All right. Say "a tree."
PC: No, I didn't....
LRH: Just as an experiment what happens when you say, "A tree"? All
right. You say, "A tree."
PC: A tree.
LRH: Good. What tree?
PC: I got it! The palm tree in front of the apartment.
LRH: Okay. What instant?
PC: Oh, well, I can pick an instant. I didn't get any particular
instant.
LRH: Oh, you didn't get any? How about you picking one?
PC: All right.
LRH: Got one?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Good. Did you get a picture too?
PC: Well, I already had the picture. I just...
LRH: Well, tell the picture okay.
PC: ... put the instant on it.
LRH: All right.
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right. Fine. Give us something else you wouldn't mind
remembering.
PC: A dance in junior high school.
LRH: Good. What moment of the dance?
PC: Well, it's a particular moment. I don't know just which moment it
was.
LRH: A particular moment?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Late in the dance or early in the dance?
PC: Sort of halfway, I think.
LRH: About midway point? What picture did you get there?
PC: Jukebox.
LRH: Give it an okay.
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: All right. Fine. These pictures nice and bright now?
PC: Yes, they're very pretty.
LRH: Well, good.
PC: They're more three dimensional.
LRH: Good. Well, I'll tell you what now. Do you feel pretty good now
with this particular process?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Do you happen to notice here, in a lot of preclears - this is
belayed for a moment - a lot of preclears won't give you the "where."
So in this session so far, why, I have not at what - any moment had to
ask her, "Where was this?" Now, for instance, if she'd said, "A
dance." I would have had to have said, "Where?" Get the idea? "Now,
what moment of this dance?" You get the difference here. The "where"
and "when" comes along with this if you're really giving somebody's
memory a workout. All right. Good.
Now - and also notice this: We didn't shift the process when she told
us about the sprained ankle or her mother coming back from the
hospital or any other dolorous type incident, but we did shift it at
the dance and we are not going to ask her that - because her comm lag
is flat, you see. We get a nice, pretty flat comm lag. It's fairly
routine. And I've just been waiting here for a pleasant moment to show
up so that we could shift this process. And the process we now go into
is, "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting."
PC: Well, I wouldn't mind forgetting walking through Chinatown in San
Francisco.
LRH: Good. What particular moment wouldn't you mind forgetting?
PC: Well, it was a moment where I was at this end of the block.
LRH: Did you get a picture of that?
PC: Yep.
LRH: Give it an okay.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Wouldn't mind forgetting that?
PC: No.
LRH: Well, good. Let's get another one you wouldn't mind forgetting.
PC: Okay. I wouldn't mind forgetting the subway in Philadelphia.
LRH: Fine. What part - what about the subway wouldn't you mind
forgetting?
PC: I just wouldn't mind forgetting it, that's all.
LRH: The whole subject of subways?
PC: Well, I can remember and forget it. I don't....
LRH: Hm?
PC: It's just a thing I wouldn't mind forgetting.
LRH: What about the subway? What part of the subway wouldn't you mind
forgetting? You mean, it's got to be the whole subway?
PC: Well, I can pick a part. We'll pick the station on the Camden side
of the river.
LRH: You wouldn't mind forgetting that one, huh?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: What about it?
PC: Nothing about it. It's just a thing.
LRH: It's just there?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Just there. Did you get a picture of this?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Well, tell it okay.
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: Got it?
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: All right. Give me something else you wouldn't mind forgetting.
PC: Okay.
LRH: (There's undoubtedly a great significance in there. And you
notice how we uprooted this piece of information and went into
Freudian analysis instantly. It's very, very significant - subways,
you see?)
Something else you wouldn't mind forgetting.
PC: Oh, I wouldn't mind forgetting a sorority dance at college.
LRH: Mm-hmm. The whole thing?
PC: These aren't bad incidents - instants.
LRH: I'm not asking you if they are bad.
PC: Well, the whole thing or part - I don't care.
LRH: Don't care which, huh?
PC: No, I can pick a part.
LRH: All right.
PC: I was serving punch.
LRH: Well, fine. Did you get a picture of it?
PC: No.
LRH: Well, give the absence an okay.
PC: Okay. I got a picture of the dance, but not serving punch.
LRH: Well, give that an okay.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Well. Fine. All right. Something else you wouldn't mind
forgetting.
PC: Oh, I - my glee club concert at high school.
LRH: Good. You wouldn't mind forgetting that? Well, that's fine. Did
you get a picture of that?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Give it an okay.
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Give it a sort of nyah okay.
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: All right. And something else you wouldn't mind forgetting.
PC: Oh, my English teacher at high school.
LRH: Mm-hmm. Whole thing?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Lock, stock and barrel?
PC: Just a teacher, yeah.
LRH: All right. Did you get a picture?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Give it an okay.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: How's that, those pictures getting pretty good now?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Something else you wouldn't mind forgetting.
PC: Oh, I wouldn't mind forgetting my name.
LRH: Whose name?
PC: My name.
LRH: You wouldn't mind forgetting your name? Well, good. Good. Fine.
When?
PC: Yesterday or tomorrow.
LRH: Either one, huh?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Did you get a name?
PC: No.
LRH: Get a picture.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you get a reference?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: No kind?
PC: Didn't get any.
LRH: Well, give this vacuity an okay.
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right. Something else you wouldn't mind forgetting.
PC: Oh, I wouldn't mind forgetting a trip through - a ride through the
mountains about Needles, California.
LRH: Good, good. Get a picture of that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Give it an okay.
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Something else you wouldn't mind forgetting.
PC: I wouldn't mind forgetting first grade.
LRH: Good. Whole thing?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Any particular day?
PC: Well, one popped up just then, yeah.
LRH: All right. That particular day?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: What instant on that particular day?
PC: Well, I remember that I pronoun - it was in reading class - and I
pronounced a word wrong. And the teacher said something about it and I
felt horribly humiliated.
LRH: Hm-hmm. Remember this real well?
PC: Yeah, I don't remember exactly the word, but it was a very simple
word like "the" or "then" or something simple.
LRH: Hmm. Gee, this is significant.
PC: Oh, It's very significant.
LRH: Give that an okay.
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: Did you give the picture an okay?
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: You wouldn't mind forgetting that?
PC: No.
LRH: Well, good enough. Something else you wouldn't mind forgetting?
PC: Well, going swimming up at - oh, it's a swimming place near home,
can't think of the name of it - Still Meadow.
LRH: Hm-hmm. Just as soon forget that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Good. Any particular swimming incident there?
PC: No, it was just actually being there...
LRH: All right.
PC: ... at this particular time.
LRH: So you got a picture of that?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Give it an okay.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you give it an okay when it turned up?
PC: No, should I "okay" it as soon as it turns up?
LRH: Sure, sure. Why not.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Okay. Now, something else you wouldn't mind forgetting.
PC: Oh, a company party we went to in 53 - 53.
LRH: A company party? All right. Any particular moment?
PC: There was a particular time when we were doing some square
dancing.
LRH: Hm-hmm. You wouldn't mind forgetting it. Well, fine. Did you get
a picture of it?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Did you tell it okay?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Well, good girl. All right. And something else you wouldn't mind
forgetting.
PC: Well, another English teacher - ninth grade.
LRH: Good. The whole works?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Well, any particular part of this?
PC: No.
LRH: Any particular characteristic?
PC: Oh, just her general attitude of grumpiness, 1 guess.
LRH: General attitude of grumpiness. Well, fine. Fine. Something else
you wouldn't mind forgetting?
PC: Well, I wouldn't mind forgetting what color our car is.
LRH: Well, that's a stumper. Okay. All right, did you get a picture of
the car?
PC: Huh-uh.
LRH: Uh? PC: Huh-uh.
LRH: Give that absence of the picture an okay.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right, fine. Something else you wouldn't mind forgetting.
PC: Oh, I wouldn't mind forgetting what the house I spent most of my
lifetime in looks like.
LRH: Mm. Get a picture?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Give it an okay?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Fine. Something else you wouldn't mind forgetting.
PC: Well, I wouldn't mind forgetting what our house in Ohio looks
like.
LRH: Well good. Did you give that an okay?
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: All right. Give it an okay where it is right at this time.
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: All right. Something else you wouldn't mind forgetting?
PC: Well, I wouldn't mind forgetting being stopped by a traffic cop in
Washington last spring.
LRH: Okay, all right. Good. Give that an okay.
PC: Hm-mm.
LRH: Something else you wouldn't mind forgetting.
PC: Well, I wouldn't mind forgetting sports car race we saw this
summer.
LRH: What?
PC: Sports car race.
LRH: Oh. Did you get a particular moment of it?
PC: No, I didn't have any particular moment.
LRH: Just as soon forget it?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Well, fine. Something else you wouldn't mind forgetting.
PC: The rain last night.
LRH: What part of it?
PC: Well, I was thinking of trying to get across the three-foot
puddle.
LRH: Okay. Get a picture of it?
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: Did you tell it okay?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Well, fine. Fine. Now, you seem to be doing very well. How about,
how about a little 8-C?
PC: Okay.
LRH: We have a process which is designed simply to coordinate the
walking muscles and give one poise.
PC: Oh, fine, I need that.
LRH: This is for a modest type profession. It was adapted for models.
And that is why we use this. And has no other significance.
PC: And I ran it two hours one morning and couldn't walk afterwards!
LRH: Okay. Okay. You see that chair you're sitting in?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Take the right arm of it and take hold of it. Okay. Is
it there?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Hm? Is it real?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Well okay. Take hold of the left arm of it.
(Here we have an indoctrinated preclear. We ordinarily would simply
ask her to take hold of it or touch it or feel it or something like
that. And they ordinarily merely let go afterwards. This one is still
waiting for the command.)
All right. Now let's let go of the arms of the chair.
All right. Now let's - see the right arm of the chair?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Okay, let's feel it. Is it there?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Huh? Oh, fine. Let's let go of it.
And now let's take the left arm of the chair and let's feel that. Is
it there?
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: Huh? Is it solid?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Is it solider than your hand?
PC: Yes.
LRH: You get the idea of making it feel your hand?
PC: No.
LRH: All right. You can feel that left arm there?
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: Well, swell. All right. Now, why don't you stand up. And you see
that tape recorder over there?
PC: Hm-mm.
LRH: Well, why don't you walk over and feel that tape recorder. Got it
there?
PC: Hm-mm.
LRH: Huh? Is it a tape recorder?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Is it there?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Are you sure it's there?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Just feel it with both hands.
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: Is it solid?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Is it more solid than you are?
PC: No.
LRH: It isn't, huh. Well, good. Let's let go of that tape recorder.
Now, let's walk over to the back of that chair. All right. Let's feel
it.
PC: Like this?
LRH: Hm-hm. That good and solid?
PC: No, not real solid. I...
LRH: Not real solid.
PC: The metal's pretty solid. This part isn't too solid.
LRH: The metal, but the other isn't solid. Well, fine. Fine. Let go of
it.
And now, you see this piece of paper up here?
PC: Which one?
LRH: This is a lot of paper up here - there's a roll of paper.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: See that?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Well, walk over to it. All right. Now let's feel it.
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: How's that feel?
PC: It feels like paper.
LRH: Just like paper. All right. Let go of it.
Okay. Now, you see that radiator over there?
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: Why don't you walk over to that. Now, let's feel that. Hot or
cold?
PC: Well, you know, the top it's - it's warm. I mean, it isn't very
hot.
LRH: Uh-huh.
PC: A lot of heat put on it.
LRH: Hm-hm.
PC: This case is not warm.
LRH: Is it real?
PC: Yes, it's real.
LRH: Does it ring? It's noisy isn't it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Make it do that again.
PC: Might ruin it. There it goes.
LRH: All right. Make it do something like that again.
PC: Hmm.
LRH: Well, you did it again. Did you make it do that?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Did you make it do that the first time?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Well, fine. Let's feel that radiator some more. All right. Let's
let go of it. And let's get the seat of this chair here. Let's feel
it. That's right. Is it there?
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Let's let go of it. Now, let's feel that wall.
PC: Hm-hmm.
LRH: Mm-hmm. Feel good?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Is it alive?
PC: Is it what?
LRH: Is it alive?
PC: No.
LRH: No? You sure it's not alive?
PC: No, it's not alive.
LRH: All right. Let's let go of that. (We're doing 8-C, part A here,
with no comm lag.)
All right. Now, find another object in this room.
PC: All right.
LRH: Walk over to it. Feel it. Is it real?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Okay, let go of it. And find another object in this room. Walk
over to it.
Feel it. Good. Let go of it. Solid. Okay.
(She's checking out very nicely. There's no reason to prolong the
agony here.) I want you to find an object.
PC: Yes.
LRH: Walk over to it. Decide when you're going to touch it and touch
it. Decide when you're going to let go and let go.
Good. Find another object.
PC: Hm-mm
LRH: All right. Decide when you're going to touch it, and touch it.
Oh, pardon me - walk over to it; I thought you'd picked the thing
alongside of you.
Decide when you're going to touch it and touch it.
Okay, decide when you're going to let go and let go.
Okay. Let's find out - find another object now.
PC: Hm-mm
LRH: Do that? Okay, let's walk over to it.
Okay. Now let's touch it. Let go of it. Decide when you're going to
touch it and touch it. Decide when you're going to let go of it and
let go of it.
Well, fine. Let's find another object in the room.
PC: Hm-mm.
LRH: And let's walk over to it. Okay. Now, let's decide when you're
going to touch it and touch it. Good. Decide when you're going to let
go and let go. Good. All right.
(May I direct your attention to acknowledgments on 8-C. It's a moot
question whether or not the auditor should acknowledge the execution
of every command or whether or not he should execute the full cycle I mean "okay" the full cycle. The actual fact of the case is if you've
got time and think of it, why, you just acknowledge every time you can
acknowledge anything. That's the law. Err on the side of more
acknowledgments.)
All right. Find another object.
PC: Yup.
LRH: And you do that?
PC: Yes.
LRH: You got it real good?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Well good. Walk over to it.
Good. Now, decide when you're going to touch it and touch it.
Fine. Decide when you're going to let go and let go.
Okay. How about resuming your seat.
(There isn't any observable physical comm lag here. The length of time
the preclear - thank you - the preclear takes in touching something
when they decide they're going to is occasioned by the fact that they
normally say, "Well, I'll wait for three seconds and then let go. And
this is very - makes it very sure for them that they have decided to
put a pause in there so that they get a time factor. And they make
sure they have decided by introducing a time factor into it and which
is quite normal. So she doesn't have any lags on this to amount to
anything.)
So I think the best thing we can do at this time here is find
ourselves an ashtray here which we will empty. And we will put this
here. We'll clean off some of the letters on the top of this meantime keeping up and engaging in chatter and conversation to the
preclear so he won't think you're arranging for an auto-da-fe' or
something. And then we'll arrange this book over here. The only glass
around here is an ashtray and the only book is a mimeoed Auditor's
Handbook - Group Auditor's Handbook - so we nevertheless have a book
and a bottle - two dissimilar objects and I'll give you three guesses
what we're going to do now. And you've never seen this done. That's
correct, you have never seen this done. So let's proceed with actual
Opening Procedure by Duplication.
You're Advanced Clinical Course students and you should know more
about Opening Procedure by Duplication than is normally known or done.
You see this ashtray here?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Hm?
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: Is that an ashtray?
PC: Yes.
LRH: How far away are you from it?
PC: Mm, about four feet.
LRH: About four feet, huh?
PC: To here.
LRH: Mm-mm. What did you do - point down there. What was that?
PC: The distance I was measuring four feet.
LRH: Oh, the distance from you is...
PC: Well, from me to it is about five feet.
LRH: Why did you pick another distance to that?
PC: Easier to judge.
LRH: Oh, my. Pan-determinism at work, huh, I suppose. Oh. This is very
significant. Well, I tell you, this ashtray here you say it's about
five feet away - would you have any trouble owning it?
PC: Hm, I don't think so. I think I could own it.
LRH: You don't think so. Walk over to this ashtray.
PC: All right.
LRH: Now, let's take a good look at it.
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: Hm? Put it down. Whose is it?
PC: Well, it could be mine.
LRH: It could be yours. Let's pick it up again. What is it?
PC: It's an ashtray.
LRH: Whose is it?
PC: Well, I keep thinking it belongs to the HASI. LRH: Well, it
probably does. Could you own it?
PC: Yes, I could own it.
LRH: You could own it?
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: Uh-huh. Put it down again. What part of it could you Own?
PC: Well, I could own the whole thing.
LRH: Pick it up and put it over in your chair seat. You could own the
whole thing? How about the molecules in it?
PC: Oh, yes.
LRH: How about the electrons in it?
PC: Yes, those never bother me.
LRH: Do you know that there are molecules or electrons in it?
PC: No, that's what people that are...
LRH: That's just what is said.
PC: ... or physics say.
LRH: Fine, fine. How about the glass in it - could you own that?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: That's easier.
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: All right. All right, let's pick up the ashtray and put it here
on the platform. All right, could you own it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: You think you could?
PC: I think so.
LRH: Who owns it?
PC: Well, I don't think I do....
LRH: You don't think you do...
PC: ... but I could.
LRH: ... but you think you could pick it up and put it back on the
seat of the chair?
PC: Hm-mrn.
LRH: All right. Pick it up and put it back on the seat of the chair.
Now, whose ashtray is that?
PC: Well, it's an ashtray that belongs to the HASI that I'm using at
the moment.
LRH: All right. Could you own it?
PC: Yes, I could own it.
LRH: Would you have any difficulty saying it's yours?
PC: No.
LRH: No difficulty pretending it's yours?
PC: No.
LRH: Why don't you pick it up and put it back here on the rostrum.
Okay. Why don't you pick it up and put it up on the speaker there
where it was originally.
Well, fine, fine. Let's put it - pick it up and put it over on the
seat of the chair. Let's turn it around.
All right. Now, let's pick it up.
Good. Just fine. Now, is this ashtray more yours or less yours than it
was?
PC: Well, l could consider it more.
LRH: You could consider it more yours.
PC: l don't consider it any less.
LRH: Well, has it changed any characteristic here?
PC: Not much.
LRH: Hm?
PC: Not much. I don't - I don't...
LRH: Put it down on that chair. Pick it up. Okay. Put it down. Good.
Pick it up. Good. Put it down. Fine. Pick it up. Good. Put it down.
Fine. Pick it up. Fine. Put it over here on the speaker. Is that a
little more yours?
PC: l don't want it now.
LRH: You don't want it at all?
PC: lt's too much bother.
LRH: Oh, I see. Well, well, well, well. Why don't you pick that
ashtray up and examine it. What's it made out of?
PC: Glass.
LRH: Is that a fact? Is it made out of glass? How about the molecules
and electrons?
PC: Well, they're glass molecules and electrons.
LRH: What's it for?
PC: It's for putting ashes of cigarettes...
LRH: What kind of an object is it?
PC: ... out in. It's square with round...
LRH: How do you know it's for putting cigarettes' ashes in?
PC: Old facsimiles tell me so.
LRH: Oh, the facsimiles on it. Well, that's fine. Why don't you put it
down on the speaker.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Okay, pick it up. Let's put it over on the chair. Good. Let's
stand by and regard it. Who does it belong to now?
PC: Well, I feel like it probably ought to belong to me as much as
I've moved it around.
LRH: But this is a computation.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Let me ask you honestly who that belongs to.
PC: HASI.
LRH: I see. It belongs to HASI. There's no change in it particularly.
PC: None as to ownership, no.
LRH: Hm? Doesn't alter it's ownership in any way? You have an impulse
to throw it away?
PC: No.
LRH: Are you being well disciplined at this moment?
PC: Me?
LRH: Yeah.
PC: I did have an impulse to throw it away once.
LRH: Yeah?
PC: Not now.
LRH: It's not here.
PC: No.
LRH: You just want to make sure we as-ised that impulse. Okay. Pick it
up. Is it yours?
PC: No, I don't think so.
LRH: Could it be yours?
PC: Yes, it could be mine. LRH: Very easily?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: More easily?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Put it over there on the speaker. Turn it upside down. Good. Turn
it right side up. Good. Turn it upside down. Good. Turn it right side
up. Good. Turn it around. Is it yours?
PC: Huh-uh.
LRH: Belongs to the HASI? Well, why don't you pick it up. Hide it
behind your back. Good. Put it on the speaker. Good. Protect it from
falling. Fine. Pick it up and hide it. Are you hiding it? The class
can see it.
PC: Well, I don't consider them here.
LRH: Oh, they're not here? You as-ised the whole thing. Well, good. Is
it hidden there?
PC: It's hidden from you.
LRH: As far as I'm concerned it's hidden? All right. It's hidden?
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: What did you hide?
PC: Ashtray.
LRH: Why did you hide it?
PC: Because you instructed me to do so.
LRH: Okay. Invent another reason.
PC: Well, because there's a green dragon behind that curtain and it
will melt it.
LRH: All right. Fine. Fine. Let's put the ashtray back up there. Now,
let's protect it.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Did you protect it?
PC: Hm-mm.
LRH: Well, good. Let's pick it up and look at it. Is it yours?
PC: Hm.
LRH: No? Who's it belong to?
PC: HASI.
LRH: Do you care who it belongs to?
PC: No. I don't really care.
LRH: You don't care worth a nickel who it belongs to.
PC: I have got one like it at home. I don't need another one.
LRH: All right. Is this yours?
PC: No.
LRH: What's it made out of?
PC: Glass.
LRH: How do you know that it isn't yours?
PC: Well, I just know it isn't, that's all.
LRH: Maybe we got the one from home and brought it over here.
PC: Well, that makes no difference. This one's here and mine's there.
LRH: How do you know yours is there?
PC: I know it is.
LRH: Well, all right. Why don't you put that ashtray down. Why don't
you hide it. Is it hidden?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Now why don't you bring it to view.
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: All right. Whose is it?
PC: I don't know, the HASI I guess.
LRH: You don't know...
PC: I'm not interested who it belongs to.
LRH: Okay, let's pick up the ashtray and put it over there on the seat
of the chair. All right. Now, let's protect it.
PC: All right.
LRH: Is that protected there in the seat of the chair?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: It is, huh? All right. Put it in a safer place.
PC: In a safer place? It's protected there.
LRH: Hm?
PC: It's protected there.
LRH: Why don't you put it in a safer place.
PC: I don't know of any safer place.
LRH: Well, you might sit on it.
PC: That wouldn't hurt it.
LRH: Somebody might pick up the chair and drop it off on the floor.
PC: Oh, you want a safer real place.
LRH: Yes! What were you doing?
PC: I had a force screen mocked up over top of it.
LRH: Oh, I see. Fine. Put it in a safer place.
PC: All right.
LRH: What's the matter, you scared of this ashtray?
PC: No. It was protected real nice.
LRH: Oh, I see. I invalidated it.
PC: Yes.
LRH: All right - and hide it.
PC: From whom?
LRH: I don't care.
PC: Hm-mm.
LRH: Is it hidden?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: I don't know if it's hidden or not. I saw you put it under there.
PC: I wasn't hiding it from you.
LRH: Oh, you weren't?
PC: No.
LRH: All right. Let's pick it up and look at it again. Isn't this a
nice ashtray?
PC: Oh, it's lovely
LRH: What's the matter with this ashtray?
PC: Well, I... There's nothing wrong with it. It's a perfectly good
ashtray
LRH: Is it yours?
PC: No.
LRH: All right. Put it over on the chair. Pick it up. Who put it on
the chair?
PC: I did.
LRH: Well, put it back there. All right. Pick it up. Who put it there?
PC: I did.
LRH: Who picked it up?
PC: Idid.
LRH: Whose ashtray is it?
PC: Well, it's in my possession at the moment.
LRH: Oh, well, it's in your possession at the moment. Good. Put it
over there on the speaker. What is it?
PC: It's an ashtray
LRH: How do you know it's an ashtray?
PC: Well, my mother told me these were ashtrays.
LRH: All right. What is it?
PC: It's a glass receptacle of some sort or other.
LRH: Glass receptacle?
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: Glass receptacle. Is it a bunch of symbols?
PC: No.
LRH: What is it then?
PC: It's an ashtray
LRH: What is it? PC: It's a piece of - form of glass with indentations
in it for a place here where cigarettes will easily...
LRH: Well, fine. What is it?
PC: An ashtray
LRH: Come on. What is that thing?
PC: It's an ashtray.
LRH: Well, describe it.
PC: Square and round; square with a circle in it.
LRH: Good. Let's pick it up.
PC: Okay
LRH: Let's take a look at it.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Well, let's look at it!
PC: I'm looking at it.
LRH: This interest you - this ashtray?
PC: l think it's rather interesting.
LRH: Whose is it.
PC: I don't know whose it is?
LRH: All right. Put it over on the seat of the chair. Pick it up. Is
it yours? Do you want it?
PC: No, I don't want it.
LRH: Oh, you decided you didn't want it now.
PC: Well, if I wanted it I guess I could have it, but l'm really not
interested in having it.
LRH: You don't want to have it. Put it down. Well, tell me something,
is this ashtray real?
PC: Yes, it's real.
LRH: How do you know it's real?
PC: Well, I feel it, see it.
LRH: Whose is it?
PC: Well, it's HASI's, l guess.
LRH: Are you sure?
PC: l think so.
LRH: All right. Let's pick it up and put it over on the speaker. Okay.
Is it an ashtray?
PC: Hm-mm.
LRH: How do you know it's an ashtray?
PC: Well, either l just know it's an ashtray or I know it's an ashtray
because that's how ashtrays are.
LRH: Okay. All right. Let's turn it over. Let's turn it over. Good.
Let's turn it over. Good. Let's turn it over. Whose is it?
PC: HASI's.
LRH: All right. Pick it up. Turn it over. You think I'm trying to get
you to say something specific, don't you?
PC: No, I don't know whether you are or not.
LRH: Well, whose is it?
PC: Well, I think it's the HASI's.
LRH: Put it down. Whose is it?
PC: HASI's.
LRH: Pick it up. Whose is it?
PC: HASI's.
LRH: Who says it isn't?
PC: Nobody
LRH: Nobody. Are you feeling kind of ornery toward this ashtray?
PC: No, not particularly
LRH: Feel any better toward it than you did?
PC: Oh, it's a nice ashtray
LRH: Nice ashtray. Put it down. Okay. Whose ashtray is this?
PC: HASI's.
LRH: What is it?
PC: It's an ashtray
LRH: What is it?
PC: Ashtray
LRH: All right. What is it?
PC: An ashtray
LRH: Okay. What is it?
PC: An ashtray
LRH: All right, what is it?
PC: An ashtray
LRH: Okay. Who does it belong to?
PC: HASI.
LRH: Are you sure of that?
PC: Well, as far as I know it does.
LRH: Could it belong to you?
PC: It could, yes. It doesn't.
LRH: Less remote though. I mean, it's more remote than it was.
PC: I know that this particular ashtray does not belong to me. I could
very well own an ashtray like that one. I could probably cart this one
off home and own it if I want to.
LRH: Oh! You could cart it home. You'd have to take it off someplace
in order to own it, is that right?
PC: No, I don't have to.
LRH: Well, steal it.
PC: I don't want this thing.
LRH: Steal that ashtray.
PC: All right.
LRH: Whose ashtray is it?
PC: Mine!
LRH: Are you sure of that?
PC: Yes! I just stole it.
LRH: Okay. Now pick it up again. How you feeling about this ashtray?
PC: Fine.
LRH: All right.
PC: Well, it's an ashtray
LRH: Whose ashtray?
PC: Anybody's! I don't care whose it is.
LRH: What is it? PC: It's an ashtray LRH: What's your emotion about
this ashtray? Go on, what's your emotion about it?
PC: Well, I don't know. It's sort of strange.
LRH: Huh?
PC: It's sort of strange.I...
LRH: It's strange?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: What's strange about it?
PC: Well, I'm just not very much interested in this ashtray
LRH: Hm. Have it say okay.
PC: ... who it belongs to. I mean, I like it.. .
LRH: Have it say okay.
PC: Okay
LRH: Have it say okay again.
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: Have it say okay again.
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: Have it say okay again.
PC: Hm-mm.
LRH: Have it say okay again. Have it say okay again. Put it down.
Okay. Fine. Fine. Now pick it up. Good. Put it down. Fine. Pick it up.
Whose ashtray is it?
PC: HASI's.
LRH: Are you sure of that now?
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: Is it becoming plainer to you? Is it becoming more evident and
obvious that it is the HASI's ashtray?
PC: Well, sort of
LRH: It is, huh? Put it down. All right. Pick it up and put it over on
the seat of the chair. Good. Now pick it up and put it over on the
speaker. Okay. What about this ashtray?
PC: Well, it's an ashtray I feel that.
LRH: Oh, you feel that now?
PC: It's an ashtray
LRH: You getting kind of ornery about this ashtray?
PC; No.
LRH: Huh? You think I'm badgering you.
PC: No, you aren't.
LRH: You know, that you just think that the ashtray...
PC: It's an ashtray
LRH: It is your ashtray?
PC: It's actually used for that.
LRH: Well, good. Let's pick it up. Is that ashtray in present time?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Are you sure?
PC: I think so.
LRH: Move it around a little bit. Is it still in present time?
PC: Yes, I think so.
LRH: You're sure it isn't in yesterday night?
PC: No.
LRH: No?
PC: No.
LRH: Well, put it down. Whose ashtray is it?
PC: HASI's.
LRH: You sure? Could you own it?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: You want it?
PC: No.
LRH: You want to throw it away?
PC: No.
LRH: Never had such a careless feeling about an ashtray?
PC: Well, it's useful having an ashtray up here.
LRH: It's useful. Fine. Fine. Pick it up. What is it?
PC: It's an ashtray
LRH: How do you know it's an ashtray?
PC: I just know it's an ashtray
LRH: How do you just know it is?
PC: Well, I just know that it is.
LRH: What is this word ashtray? I don't see anything there that says
"ashtray" or "here's ashtray" or ... It doesn't say ashtray on the
bottom of it, does it? How do you know it's an ashtray then?
PC: Well, I just know it's an ashtray
LRH: What kind of an object you got in your hands?
PC: An ashtray
LRH: Huh?
PC: An ashtray
LRH: How do you know it's an ashtray?
PC: Well, you see, I figured it all out. I take the square root of
here and cube it.
LRH: Oh, I see. How do you know it's an ashtray?
PC: Dumb ashtray
LRH: What is it?
PC: It's an ashtray
LRH: What you got in your hand?
PC: An ashtray
LRH: You sure of that?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: You're absolutely sure of that. You're absolutely sure of it?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Tell me what you have in your hand.
PC: An ashtray.
LRH: Is it a word you have in your hand?
PC: No, it's glass.
LRH: Well, why didn't you say so.
PC: ... piece of stuff that is used as an ashtray
LRH: What have you got in your hand?
PC: Chunk of glass.
LRH: Well! You got a chunk of glass in your hand. Fine. What have you
got in your hand?
PC: A glass ashtray
LRH: It's an ashtray. Put it down. What is it?
PC: A piece of glass designed to be used as an ashtray.
LRH: I see. You're going to stick me with it, huh? All right. Pick it
up. What is it?
PC: It's a glass ashtray
LRH: What is it?
PC: Glass ashtray
LRH: You sure of that?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Come on. What have you got in your hands?
PC: A glass ashtray
LRH: Come on. What have you got in your hands?
PC: It's a glass ashtray
LRH: Good. What is it?
PC: Glass ashtray
LRH: You sure of that?
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: Huh? You got a facsimile of it when you look away from it?
PC: No.
LRH: You don't have? Why don't you tell it, "Okay, so you're a glass
ashtray."
PC: Okay
LRH: Well, is it telling you it's an ashtray or you telling it?
PC: I'm telling it.
LRH: Huh?
PC: I'm telling it.
LRH: Well, tell it again. Well, tell it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: What did you tell it?
PC: I said, "Okay, so you're a glass ashtray"
LRH: Well, say it out loud to it.
PC: Okay, so you're a glass ashtray
LRH: Good. Does it know what it is now?
PC: No, it doesn't know what it is.
LRH: It doesn't know anything? Well, pick it up. Whose is it?
PC: HASI's.
LRH: You sure of this?
PC: Yeah, thoroughly
LRH: Yeah, you know, you have any feeling of an interest in it at all?
PC: It's interesting.
LRH: It's interesting? What's interesting about it?
PC: Well, it's interesting. It's a nice shape.
LRH: All right. Put it down. What is it?
PC: A glass ashtray
LRH: All right. How do you feel about that ashtray?
PC: It's a nice ashtray
LRH: Feel any different than you did?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: How do you feel different?
PC: Well, I feel very, sort of complacent about it.
LRH: Feel complacent about it?
PC: Hm-hm.
LRH: Well, fine. Fine. Now, that, for the moment, we will call the end
of this particular session.
(end of lecture)
9ACC26-5501C18 AUDITING DEMO SPOTTING SPOTS
Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC26 - 5501C18 Renumbered 28
for "The Solution To Entrapment" cassettes
AUDITING DEMO: SPOTTING SPOTS
A lecture given on 18 January 1955
An additional auditing session of January the 18th, 1955, I'm going to
audit this preclear for half an hour - one half of one hour - in order
to conclude some of the things that we were busy in doing. Now, we had
the preclear examining - this is just demonstration, it's not
therapeutic, understand, I don't want you getting therapeutic results
from this, okay? Now, we had you examining one object in sequence
here. Now, actually, we would simply have this preclear examine the
other object similarly, and then we would put the preclear through
Opening Procedure by Duplication. I am just going to say that she has
examined the other object.
I've got a different ashtray here. Let's get the right ashtray. And
she has examined this glass ashtray now until she has some
acquaintance with it - probably still doesn't own it, who cares let's go over now and pick up that book. Okay. By the way, if this was
a continuing session - I'm just pretending like this was the same
session, you see. Otherwise I would have asked her, "Have you had any
divorces since last night?" Have you, by the way?
PC: Two.
LRH: You've had two? Oh, well, that's nothing. All right, let's look
over this book. Is it a book?
PC: Yes.
LRH: What is it?
PC: It's a mass of paper held together by rings.
LRH: Well, she's getting sharper, isn't she!
PC: I own it, too.
LRH: You... Good.
PC: It's mine, as a matter of fact.
LRH: That is yours. All right, put it down there on top of the tape
recorder. All right. Now walk over to that ashtray. Look at it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Pick it up. Okay. What's it color?
PC: Clear, white.
LRH: Clear white, okay. And what's its temperature?
PC: Mmm. About 65.
LRH: Well, all right. And what's its weight?
PC: Four ounces.
LRH: No. I asked you what its weight was. You say four ounces...
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: ... is it heavy, is it light?
PC: Oh! Oh! Well, it's mediumly heavy.
LRH: Mediumly heavy.
PC: Right.
LRH: Okay. Put it down in exactly the same place. Fine. Let's walk
over to the book. All right. Let's look at it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Let's pick it up. Okay. What's its color?
PC: It's mainly green.
LRH: Good. What's its temperature?
PC: Medium.
LRH: Medium what?
PC: Medium warm.
LRH: Medium warm. Okay. And what's its weight?
PC: It's rather light.
LRH: It's what?
PC: Light.
LRH: Light?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Well, all right. Put it down in exactly the same place. Good.
Let's walk over to the ashtray. Fine. Let's look at it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Let's pick it up. Okay. What's its color?
PC: It looks like translucent white.
LRH: It's translucent white. Good. And what's its temperature?
PC: It's cool.
LRH: Cool. And what is its weight? Hmm?
PC: Mediumly heavy.
LRH: Mediumly heavy. All right. Put it down in exactly the same place.
Good. Let's walk over to the book. Fine. Let's look at it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Good. Let's pick it up. All right. What's its color?
PC: Green.
LRH: Okay. What's its temperature?
PC: It's room temperature.
LRH: It's room temperature.
PC: Room temperature.
LRH: Room temperature.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Feels just like the room does.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Feel the room.
PC: No, it's a little warmer.
LRH: All right. Okay. And what's its weight?
PC: It weighs about half a pound.
LRH: Oh, it's half a pound. How much does a pound weigh?
PC: Sixteen ounces.
LRH: Oh, I see. A pound weighs sixteen ounces. Right. How much does it
weigh?
PC: It's light for the size of it.
LRH: Okay. All right. Now, that's a good weight. Put it down. Is that
exactly the same place it was in? All right. Now let's walk over to
the ashtray. Good. Let's look at it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Let's pick it up. Okay. What color is it?
PC: It's clear white.
LRH: Clear white.
PC: It's a funny color.
LRH: A funny color. That's real good. Fine. What is its temperature?
PC: It's cool.
LRH: All right. And what is its weight?
PC: It's fairly heavy for the size of it.
LRH: Fairly heavy - oh, you got away with that once, huh?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. It's fairly heavy for the size of it.
PC: It's sort of nice, too.
LRH: All right. Put it down. Okay. Sit down. She's doing all right. I
mean, she's not going to blow the session. Actually, I could probably
make her blow this session.
PC: Yes, you probably could.
LRH: But just wanted merely to give you an example of this, the patter
of Opening Procedure by Duplication. You can keep that up - anywheres
up to fifteen-twenty hours. It's quite remarkable as a body balancer
and so forth. Okay. Now that we have done this twenty hours, do you
feel better?
PC: Yes.
LRH: You better had. All right. Now, let's take up the whole subject
of remedy of havingness. Can you remedy your havingness well?
PC: Fairly well, I think.
LRH: You do it real well, huh? Well, of course you wouldn't ask a
preclear this because this is a technical subject. I could ask her
just to get her idea on havingness. Do you like your possessions?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Which possessions do you like?
PC: Oh, I like our automobile.
LRH: Yeah? You like that, huh?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: What do you like best about it?
PC: Its nice style, and easily driven.
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: Easy to handle, I mean.
LRH: Good.
PC: Small.
LRH: Good. All right, now tell me something. Tell me something. Do you
know of anything that's good enough for you?
PC: Well, that automobile is.
LRH: That automobile's good enough for you. What on it particularly is
good enough for you?
PC: Well, the upholstery.
LRH: Hmm.
Here's a pretty good case. Right here I should tell you that in the
introduction of the Remedy of Havingness there are a terrific battery
of processes which go in here. You know, Accept and Reject belongs in
here? And a whole bunch of processes. What could you own? Give me some
things that you're not protecting. Not hiding. Any of the 8-C commands
might go in this. This all has to do with possession or rejection.
Well, give me something about this automobile that you could reject.
PC: Well, I could reject it, of course.
LRH: The whole thing. You could get rid of the whole thing?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Well, that's real good. What isn't good enough for you on this
automobile?
PC: On the automobile?
LRH: Same thing - different phrasing but the same command.
PC: I don't know of anything that isn't good enough. I can make
something not good enough.
LRH: Oh, you - this automobile's okay. Well, name something in the
environment that isn't good enough for you.
PC: Cold weather.
LRH: Now, okay. Now give me something else that isn't good enough for
you.
PC: There's some mud out here on this street.
LRH: Good.
You know you wouldn't carry this auditing command along very long,
because it is definitely an entheta-type command. But we're just using
this one way or the other to get this person stirred up on havingness.
Okay, something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: Well, there are some ashes back here on the floor behind that
chair that - I don't like it.
LRH: That's not good enough, huh? All right. Something else that isn't
good enough for you.
PC: Fingerprints on these walls.
LRH: Good. Something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: Well, there's a cigarette butt over there, too.
LRH: Good.
You see now, every time I try to drop this command here why she
strings a different comm lag at me. Slightly different comm lag. This
is real cute, see. I mean, so I'm forced, now, to go along with this
idiotic command. It'll just be because she's comm lagging on it. This
is a case of the auditor having picked up something that he was going
to dust off lightly and he starts getting this thing bogged.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Okay. Give me something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: All right. That white sheet of paper.
LRH: Well, fine. That isn't good enough for you? What's the matter
with it?
PC: It should have red dots and green lines.
LRH: Oh, you're inventing things. Okay. Something else that isn't good
enough for you.
PC: I'm trying to help. There's dust on top of that heater.
LRH: Get that comm lag, huh? All right. Good. Give me something else
that isn't good enough for you.
PC: This cushion over here is.
LRH: What isn't good about it?
PC: ... is - is ripped.
LRH: All right. Give me something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: The stocking I have on.
LRH: Okay. Give me something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: This auditing session.
LRH: Hm?
PC: This auditing session.
LRH: This auditing isn't good enough for you. Oh, do you know that?
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: Do you know that it isn't good enough for you?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Why? What's it doing?
PC: Well, it just isn't good enough because it's based upon the
postulate that it's merely a demonstration.
LRH: Oh, I see. All right. Fine. Fine. You understand that it is
merely a demonstration? It's not supposed to be therapeutic. You know
that?
PC: Yes.
LRH: You understand that clearly.
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: What isn't good enough for you?
PC: Well, that cigarette behind the chair.
LRH: Okay. Fine. Why don't you give me something else that isn't good
enough for you?
PC: That small ashtray.
LRH: Good. Give me something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: Well, these wires being all untidy here.
LRH: All right. Something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: That light switch, there.
LRH: Good. Something else that isn't good enough.
PC: That tape recorder.
LRH: What's the matter with it?
PC: It isn't new and shiny.
LRH: It's what?
PC: It's not new and shiny.
LRH: Oh, okay. Oh, new and shiny things?
PC: Um.
LRH: All right. Something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: Well, that book over there isn't very nice either.
LRH: All right. Something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: Well, my watch.
LRH: All right. Something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: Mm, that amplifier over there.
LRH: Good. Give me something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: That wall.
LRH: Good. Something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: Those drapes.
LRH: Good. Something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: Um, pipe over there.
LRH: Good. Something else that isn't good enough for you.
PC: That speaker.
LRH: All right.
Three equal lengths. Three equal comm lags. Okay. Fine.
Now, do you have any trouble with mock-ups? Do you know what a mock-up
is? A mock-up is an energy picture which a person makes up mentally.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: You having trouble with these? You don't have any trouble with
these at all? Well, why don't you put one out over there somewhere?
PC: Just anything?
LRH: Oh, I don't care.
PC: All right.
LRH: What is it?
PC: It's a red ball.
LRH: It is? All right. Can you copy it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Well, all right. You got two of them?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Why don't you push them together.
PC: All right.
LRH: Why don't you pull them into the body.
PC: All right.
LRH: Did you do that?
PC: I think so.
LRH: You think so.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now, let's mock up a red ball out there again.
PC: All right.
LRH: Now, is this red ball there?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Is it stable?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Is it real?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Is it a real red ball?
PC: Yes.
LRH: All right. Now we're going to push it into the body. Now, let's
carefully watch its progress as it enters the body.
PC: It's just sort of sitting there.
LRH: You didn't push it into the body?
PC: Well, I'm attempting to.
LRH: Well, what are you doing, because I'm questioning how you did
that?
PC: No.I don't know whether it's necessary to watch it. You want it
actually to move from where it is into the body?
LRH: That's right.
PC: You don't want to sort of unmock it and mock it up again inside?
LRH: Oh, you little demon. So this is what you have been doing to
auditors.
PC: Well, not always, no, not always.
LRH: You know, something that is left in its original position isn't
very stable. You know that. I mean, something that's in its original
position that can then be as-ised with the greatest of ease. So you'd
hardly call it havingness, would you? You've got to move it somewhere
in order to - alter its position, and then by golly you'll have some
havingness. You got that?
PC: Well, I can move it down there.
LRH: Well, why don't you move it around a little bit.
PC: All right. It's over in front of the heater.
LRH: Hm?
PC: It's over in front of the heater now.
LRH: All right. Move it around some more.
PC: All right. It's in front of this speaker over here.
LRH: Good. Now, let's take this ball and approach the body with it,
slightly.
PC: All right. It's right down beneath this chair.
LRH: Good. Now let's move it away from the body slightly.
PC: Okay It's in front of that.
LRH: All right. Now, let's approach the body with it.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right, let's get closer to the body with it.
PC: Okay.
LRH: What happened?
PC: It's right underneath the chair.
LRH: Good.
PC: I mean, up off the floor.
LRH: Good. Now, let's pick it up and push it into the body.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Oh, you did that, huh? Well, good enough. Now let's mock up
another red ball out there.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Now, can you just push it over into the body?
PC: Well, you see, maybe you should say "pull," I could do it, because
I'm not over there, I'm here.
LRH: You have to what?
PC: Well, when you say "push," it makes me think I have to get over
there and push it, and I'm not over there.
LRH: Oh, I see. We have a semantic difficulty.
PC: Yeah, say "pull."
LRH: Effect a mechanical action sufficient to cause this ball to
remove itself from its present position into the body.
PC: All right.
LRH: You accomplished it.
PC: It went plop.
LRH: All right. Let's take another red ball.
PC: All right. I've got one.
LRH: All right. Cause it to remove itself into the body.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Was it that ball that did it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Oh, you know that this time?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Well, that's a girl. Now let's mock up a red ball out there.
PC: All right.
LRH: And now, let's move it five feet further from the body.
PC: All right.
LRH: Let's move it ten feet further from the body. : PC: All right.
LRH: Let's move it fifty feet further from the body.
PC: All right.
LRH: Got it?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Throw it away.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Let's take another red ball alongside of the body.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Let's move it out from the body and throw it away.
PC: All right.
LRH: Got it? You having any trouble doing that?
PC: I just have a little bit of trouble in the action of throwing it
away. That same deal of - rather throwing it away rather than just
unmocking it.
LRH: Ooh, you semantic PC: Well!
LRH: Throwing it away!
PC: I thought you meant to throw LRH: I told you to throw it away, though!
PC: Yes.
LRH: Could you throw it away?
PC: Yes, I did. It took a little longer than just unmocking.
LRH: Well, it's surreptitious to having to - unmock things, you know.
I mean, you might get some of the energy back or something...
PC: Oh.
LRH: ... if you did that. We want this thing thrown away just like
that.
PC: Okay
LRH: Mock up another red ball out there.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Make it heavier.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Make it denser.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Get it real solid.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Can you do that easily?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Good. Throw it away.
PC: All right.
LRH: All right. Mock up a red ball.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Push it into the body.
PC: All right.
LRH: Good. Got any debris around?
PC: No.
LRH: Was there any scenery for this ball?
PC: No.
LRH: All right. Well, you've just done fine now.
All right. We have now a slight problem and I'm sure that there is a
location somewhere in this room that you could spot.
PC: I don't understand?
LRH: I bet there is a location somewhere in this room that you could
spot.
PC: Yes.
LRH: Well, spot it.
PC: All right, right there.
LRH: Right there?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Got your finger on it?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Take your finger off of it. Is it still there?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: How much color does it have?
PC: None.
LRH: How much mass does it have?
PC: None.
LRH: Good. These are the textbook answers.
PC: No, that spot doesn't.
LRH: That spot's okay?
PC: The spot's okay
LRH: Yeah.
PC: If you want to ask, am I finding this spot in relationship to any
other mest, then I'd probably say yes.
LRH: If you're finding the spot in relationship to other mest?
PC: To a degree.
LRH: All right. Oh, you've picked this up as a fault in your spotting
of spots?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Okay. Now, this is just a demonstration auditing and it's not
therapeutic so find another spot.
PC: Oh. Another one. All right. Here.
LRH: Okay. Got it there?
PC: Um-hm.
LRH: Hm? Take your finger off of it. Put your finger back on it again.
Same spot?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Take your finger off of it. Put your finger back on it again.
Same spot?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: By God, it was. Take your finger off of it. You're okay.
All right. And now we'll go to the piece de resistance. We have
remedied havingness and spotted spots successfully. What if she hadn't
spotted spots successfully? Well, we'd just wrassled around with
remedying havingness and spotting of spots until she had. How would we
have wrassled around? Well, we would have just done the gradient
scales on it, we'd have fooled around, on it one way or the other
until she finally could do these things, that's all. And that's how
you audit. Okay. Now, we're going to the piece de resistance, the ne
plus ultra. I want you to be three feet back of your head. Now, this
is the big hump that nobody can cross in auditing. Go on, get three
feet back of your head. What's happening?
PC: Nothing.
LRH: Nothing happens when you get three feet back of your head, huh?
PC: That's right.
LRH: Nothing happens at all? Well, you're very interesting. Mock up a
spot three feet back of your head.
PC: All right
LRH: Mock up a heavier spot three feet back of your head.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Mock up another spot three feet back of your head.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: You got all of those now?
PC: I got two.
LRH: Two. Push them together.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now, let's push this about ten feet back of your head.
PC: Okay
LRH: You got it there?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now make it heavier and more massy.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now make it heavier and more massy.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Be in it. What happened when you tried?
PC: Nothing.
LRH: Nothing happened when you tried? Not a thing? Is the spot still
back here? Is the mass still there?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Still there stably.
PC: Yes, it's still back there. . LRH: You're sure of it?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: You're sure it is? All right, make it heavier. Make it more
massy.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Mock up a thetan in it.
PC: All right.
LRH: You got a thetan in it?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Make it squeak.
PC: Eeh! Okay
LRH: Is it alive?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Say okay to it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Say okay to it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now, demand an answer of it and then wait for the
answer. Are you waiting for it to answer?
PC: Yes.
LRH: All right. Now demand another answer of it and wait for the
answer.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you do that? All right. Demand another answer of it and wait
for the answer. Spot still there?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Ball still there?
PC: It's not a ball, it's just a spot.
LRH: All right. Thetan still in it?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Has he answered you yet? You waiting for his answer? Why don't
you go over and find out why he isn't answering?
Nothing happened, huh? Well, that's real cute. You're sure nothing
happened?
PC: Well, if l went over, I went over faster than I knew it, so...
LRH: Oh, you went over and came back?
PC: If I did, I didn't know it.
LRH: Where are you?
PC: Right here.
LRH: Okay. You know where you are?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Throw that mass away.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Give me some places where you're not.
PC: Well, I'm not in - behind that curtain.
LRH: Good. Give me some more places where you're not.
PC: I'm not in the back seat in this room.
LRH: Good. You understand we were just fooling around here. Trying to
get this person aware of some existence of something or other; it
wouldn't have mattered what I'd done.
You're not in any of the places in this room?
PC: I said I'm not in the last seat in this room.
LRH: Oh, you're not in the last seat in this room. Good. Good. Give me
three places in your body where you're not.
PC: I'm not in my toe, and I'm not in my other toe in my other foot,
and I'm not in my finger.
LRH: Good. Give me three places in the room where you aren't.
PC: Fm not in the heater and I'm not in either one of those
loudspeakers.
LRH: Good. Give me three places in your body where you're not.
PC: Well, I'm not in my knee and I'm not in my elbow and I'm not in my
ear.
LRH: Good. Give me three places in the room where you're not.
PC: I'm not in the amplifier and I'm not in this microphone and I'm
not in that tape recorder.
LRH: Good. Give me three places in the body where you're not.
PC: I'm not in my other knee and I'm not in my ankle and I'm not in my
right hand.
LRH: Good. Give me three places in the room where you're not.
PC: I'm not in that stepladder back there and I'm not in the
wastebasket in front ofthe room...
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: ... and I'm not in that mess of wire down there on the floor.
LRH: Good. Good. Give me three places in your body where you're not.
PC: Well, I'm not in my heel and I'm not in my right leg and I'm not
in my left hand.
LRH: Okay. Give me three places in the room where you're not.
PC: I'm not in the cooler vent, I'm not in the light directly above
and I'm not in the light switch over on the wall.
LRH: Good. Give me three places in your body where you're not.
PC: Fm not in my left arm and I'm not in my right shoulder and I'm not
in my left foot.
LU!: Good. Give me three places in the room where you're not.
PC: I'm not in the pipe over there in the corner, I'm not in the
lavatory room LRH: Where's that?
PC: What?
LRH: You say you're not in the lavatory room.
PC: Yeah.
LU!: Where's that? Point to it.
PC: That way
LRH: All right. Give me another place.
PC: I'm not in the back window.
LU!: Good. Give me three places in your body where you're not.
PC: I'm not in my right ankle.
LRH: Good.
PC: I'm not in my throat.
LRH: Good.
PC: And I'm not in my left hand.
LRH: Good. Give me three places in the room where you're not.
PC: I'm not in the door handle, Fm not in the drapes up front and Fm
not in my purse.
LRH: Good. Give me three places in the room where you're not.
PC: I'm - in the room?
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: I'm not in the easel.
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: And I'm not in the boom microphone.
LRH: Good.
PC: And I'm not in that book over there.
LRH: Good. Give me three places in your body where you're not.
PC: I'm not in my big toe, I'm not in my stomach and I'm not in my
back.
LRH: Good. How you doing?
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. You notice any change while we were doing this?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: What's happened?
PC: Well, I sort of had to - I don't know.
LRH: Come on, what's happened?
PC: Well, I was seeing the room pretty clearly I don't know whether
I'm LRH: Nobody asked you that.
PC: What happened?
LRH: Yeah, what happened?
PC: Well, I don't know definitely what happened.
LRH: Something's happening? Nothing's happening?
PC: Well, Iget a very, very much clearer view of these things I'm
mentioning where I'm not.
LRH: No kidding.
PC: Yeah, no kidding.
LRH: Well, I'm sorry.
PC: Real unusual.
LRH: I'm sorry. Give me three places in your body where you're not.
PC: I'm not in the left knee.
LRH: Hmm.
PC: And I'm not in my left elbow.
LRH: Good.
PC: And I'm not in my left shoulder.
LRH: Good. Give me three more places in your body where you're not.
PC: I'm not in my little toe on my right foot.
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: And I'm not in my ankle on the left foot.
LRH: Point to it.
PC: My ankle on the left foot is that one. My little toe is that one.
LRH: You're not spotting these places in the body, are you?
PC: Sure!
LRH: You are?
PC: Yeah!
LRH: You're going through the same cycle every time.
PC: Well, not the same one.
LRH: Yeah.
PC: Anything wrong with duplicating?
LRH: Same distances. Now, I want you to spot these places more
acutely.
PC: All right. I'm not one inch from the right knee.
LRH: All right. Did you spot it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: You spotted it more definitely than you have been, huh?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Oh, well all right. Now let's spot three places in the room where
you're not.
PC: Okay I'm not in the light switch by the front door.
LRH: Good.
PC: And there's a nail over here on the right wall and I'm not in it.
LRH: Good.
PC: And there's a strip going across the middle of the ceiling and I'm
not in it.
LRH: Fine. Give me three places in your body where you're not.
PC: All right. I'm not in the little finger on my right hand.
LRH: Did you spot it?
PC: Tip!
LRH: Good. All right. Another place.
PC: And I'm not in the center of my right shoulder.
LRH: Good.
PC: And I'm not in the center of my right elbow.
LRH: Good. Give me three places in the room where you're not.
PC: Okay I'm not on the corner of the stand here.
LRH: Good.
PC: I'm not in the amplifier.
LU!: Good.
PC: I'm not in the gas heater.
LRH: Fine. All right. Give me three places in your body where you're
not.
PC: Okay I'm not in the middle of my left knee.
LRH: Did you spot it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: All right.
PC: And I'm not one inch below that and I'm not one inch above it.
LRH: Did you spot those two places?
PC: I did.
LRH: You did? All right. Give me three places in the room where you're
not.
PC: I am not in the cushion on the chair over here.
LRH: Which cushion?
PC: That one right there.
LRH: All right.
PC: And I'm not in one of those light tile out in the middle of the
floor.
LRH: Well, good.
PC: Or the other one.
LRH: Good. All right. Now, how you doing?
PC: Okay
LRH: Doing better? Did you get sore at me?
PC: No.
LRH: For insisting [unclear]. Huh?
PC: No.
LRH: What the matter?
PC: Well..
LRH: You think you've been invalidated?
PC: No, I don't think I've been invalidated. I just think if you
wanted specific spots you should have said so and I would have named
them.
LRH: If I wanted specific spots I should have said so - mock up a
body. Mock up a body as a theta trap. Get a body that would make a
real good theta trap.
PC: All right.
LRH: Where is it?
PC: It's out this direction.
LRH: All right. Push it over into your body.
PC: Oh! Does it make any difference what size this mock-up is?
LRH: Not a bit.
PC: All right.
LRH: If it's oversize, pat it down.
PC: No, well, it was small.
LRH: All right. Push it into your body.
PC: Okay
LRH: Mock up another body as a theta trap, a little bigger.
PC: Okay
LRH: Did you do that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Good. Push it into the body.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Let's mock up another body as a theta trap.
PC: Okay
LRH: Got that real good?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Make it solider.
PC: All right.
LRH: Make it solider.
PC: All right.
LRH: All right. Now push it over into your body.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Mock up another body as a theta trap.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Make it solider.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Make it solider.
PC: Yup.
LRH: Make it solider.
PC: It went away.
LRH: It went away? What did it do, explode?
PC: No, it just faded out when you said make it solider.
LRH: No kidding? All right. Let's mock up another body as a theta
trap.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Make it solider.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Make it less solid.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Make it more solid.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Make it less solid.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Make it solider.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Okay. Make it real solid.
PC: All right.
LRH: Push it into your body.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. You got that real good?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: You understand we're remedying a little havingness here. It
wouldn't matter much what we had her mock up. She is, remember,
spotting spots, and spotting spots always requires a little remedy of
havingness along with it if you're a smart auditor.
All right. Now let's spot some spots in the body.
PC: Okay You want me to name them?
LRH: Sure.
PC: All right. The base of my little toe on my right foot.
LRH: Good.
PC: The middle of my toenail...
LRH: Good.
PC: ... on my big toe.
LRH: Good.
PC: And the tip of my heel.
LRH: Good. You got that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now, let's spot some spots in the room.
PC: Okay The top of the easel.
LRH: Good.
PC: And above the tape recorder.
LRH: Good.
PC: And about three feet behind this chair.
LRH: Good. Now let's spot three spots in the body.
PC: In the center of my right knee.
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: And about three inches down that leg.
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: And the center of that ankle.
LRH: Did you spot that last spot?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you?
PC: I didn't when you asked; I was getting there. I got it now.
LRH: You were getting there, huh. The command is spot some spots...
PC: All right.
LRH: ...which means to spot them. All right. Spot three spots in the
room.
PC: Okay About a foot above the amplifier.
LRH: Good.
PC: And just above that, whatever it is over on the wall over there.
LRH: Good.
PC: Jack box or something. And out there by the window.
LRH: Good. All right. Spot some spots in the body.
PC: Okay The tip of my little finger on my right hand.
LRH: Good.
PC: And the tip of my thumb on my right hand.
LRH: Good.
PC: The center of the back of my hand.
LRH: Good. All right. Now let's spot three spots in the room.
PC: Oh, well. Just below the light.
LRH: Good.
PC: Over here in this corner.
LRH: Good.
PC: And above the heater.
LRH: Good. Fine. Did you spot those real good?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Well, that's swell. Now let's spot three spots in the body.
PC: Okay The center of my left shoulder.
LRH: Fine.
PC: And about six inches down that arm.
LRH: Good.
PC: And the center of my elbow.
LRH: Did you spot that? All right. That's fine. Let's spot three spots
in the room.
PC: The back corner of that rostrum.
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: And this other back corner.
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: And the base of one of the legs on the easel.
LRH: Good. All right. Let's spot three spots on the body.
PC: Okay The center of the sole of my left foot, on the bottom.
LRH: Okay.
PC: And the small of my back.
LRH: Okay.
PC: And about halfway up my back.
LRH: Okay. How's that?
PC: Okay
LRH: Did you spot those real good?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Are you getting so you spot these spots any differently than you
did? Are they clearer, or - .
PC: I spot them more minutely shall we say.
LRH: They're more minute. Well, that's fine. Now let's spot three
spots in the room.
PC: Oh, let's see. The corner of the ashtray sitting on the floor.
LRH: Good.
PC: And the light receptacle over here on the wall.
LRR: Good.
PC: Top hinge on the door.
LRH: Good. All right. Let's mock up a body as a theta trap.
PC: Okay
LRH: Push it into your body.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Let's mock up another body as a theta trap.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Good. Push it into your body.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Fine. All right. Let's mock - that wasn't so good, was it? What
happened?
PC: It was all right.
LRH: All right. Mock up another body as a theta trap with a thetan
trapped in it.
PC: All right.
LRH: Got that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Got a thetan at all?
PC: Yup.
LRH: All right. Push it into your body.
PC: Okay
LRH: Good. Mock up another body as a theta trap.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Mock up a thetan trapped in it to such a degree that he is
buttered all over this trap.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Have him be perished as a result thereof He's gone.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Is that real sad?
PC: Yes.
LRH: All right. Give it a shove into your body now.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Mock up a body as a theta trap.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Mock up a thetan inside of it.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Rearrange him so he's buttered all over inside of it
so that he never will live again.
PC: Yup.
LRH: All right. Push it into your body.
PC: Okay
LRH: Good. Is this working out real well?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Mock up another body as a theta trap.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Got that?
PC: Yup.
LRH: Mock up a thetan inside of it.
PC: Okay
LRH: Now mock him up so he's buttered all over the body so that he'll
just never get out of it and he doesn't even know who he is.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Now shove that into your body.
PC: Okay
LRH: What happened?
PC: I just had a little difficulty getting it to come, to move.
LRH: Oh, really? All right. Now you mock up another body as a theta
trap.
PC: All right.
LRH: Now, fill it full of labyrinths.
PC: Of what?
LRH: You know...
PC: Caves?
LRH: ... circuitous passages and so forth so he'll get real lost in it
real easy.
PC: Okay
LRH: You got that real good? Now, fill it up full of entheta
communications.
PC: Yes, yeah.
LRH: Get it real horrible.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: ... you know. Now, put a thetan inside of it in such a way that
he'll just get buttered all over.
PC: Okay
LRH: Now put him in so securely now, that he'll never be able to
recover his own identity or get out.
PC: Yup.
LRH: You got that real good?
PC: He's scattered all over in little pieces.
LRH: Good. All right. Now. Let's shove that body into your body.
PC: Okay
LRH: Did you do that easily?
PC: Yeah, it came in pretty easy
LRH: All right. Let's do another body mocked up as a theta trap.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Thetan buttered all over inside of it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Have the body die now so that the thetan then never
can get out.
PC: Okay
LRH: Now shove that dead body into your body.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Was it clammy?
PC: Well, it wasn't very nice.
LRH: Oh well, next time let's make it clammier, huh? Put some old mold
on it, too.
PC: All right.
LRH: All right. Now, mock up a body as a theta trap.
PC: Okay
LRH: Put a thetan in it and butter him all over.
LRH: Got that real good? Now have the body die and the thetan be
trapped.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Now get some mold on it; get some clammy PC: All right.
LRH: Get it decayed a little bit.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Put some odor with it.
PC: Yes.
LRH: All right. You got that real good?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Now, have it a body that nobody cried over when it died.
PC: Yeah, it's out there all by itself
LRH: Huh?
PC: There's nobody around.
LRH: Nobody ever cried over this.
PC: No.
LRH: ...when it died. Nobody ever cried over it, and nobody knows the
thetan's inside of it.
PC: That's right.
LRH: You got that? Shove it into your body.
PC: All right.
LRH: Did you do it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: All right. Let's mock up another body as a theta trap.
PC: Yup.
LRH: Got it real good? All right. Let's put a thetan in it and have
him buttered all over it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now, fill the body so full of entheta that he can't
get out.
PC: Yup.
LRH: Now have it filled full of poison.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now have it filled full of formaldehyde. Now fill it full of
embalming fluid.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Now put some grave mold on it.
PC: All right.
LRH: Put some odor to it.
PC: All right.
LRH: Now have it be a body that was detested in lifetime.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Got it?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Got the thetan still trapped in it?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Shove it into your body.
PC: Okay
LRH: Is it easier or harder?
PC: It came easier.
LRH: It what?
PC: I got it into my body easier.
LRH: You did, huh?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Good.
PC: I didn't like it any better.
LRH: You didn't like it, though?
PC: No.
LRH: All right. Now mock up a delicious corpse. Go on, mock up a
delicious corpse. Just by definition.
PC: My conception of a delicious corpse.
LRH: Yes.
PC: All right.
LRH: What's it look like?
PC: It's a nice body dead.
LRH: It's a nice body, dead. Now decay it.
PC: All right.
LRH: Now hang mold on it.
PC: Okay
LRH: Now put a thetan in it now.
PC: All right.
LRH: Now have it having be imp - powerless to move it.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Got it? Have him go into apathy.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Shove it into your body.
PC: All right.
LRH: Got it real good?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Huh? All right. Mock up a delicious corpse.
PC: Yes.
LRH: Got it real good? All right. Fill it full of formaldehyde.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Fill it full of thetans that are trapped.
PC: Okay
LRH: Got it?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now, put it in a lead-shielded case which is nonthetan
passer.
PC: Okay
LRH: Got it?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Push it into your body.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Is - this is getting fairly easy, now? What are you
gulping about?
PC: I'm feeling awfully heavy
LRH: You feel heavy?
PC: I feel sort of heavy
LRH: No kidding! All right. Now mock up a horrible, old decayed corpse
where you're sitting.
PC: Where I'm sitting?
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: Oh, all right.
LRH: Throw it away.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Which way did you throw it?
PC: That way
LRH: All right. Mock up another horrible, decayed corpse where you're
sitting.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Throw it away.
PC: Yeah. LRH: Mock up another one where you're sitting.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Throw it away.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Mock up another one where you're sitting.
PC: Yup.
LRH: Throw it away.
PC: Okay
LRH: Mock up another one where you're sitting.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Throw it away.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Now mock up a body absolutely stiff with horror,
sitting where you're sitting.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Throw it away.
PC: Okay
LRH: Mock up another body stiff with horror where you're sitting.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Throw it away.
PC: Okay
LRH: How do you feel? Lighter?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Huh? Feel better now?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Spot three spots in this body.
PC: Okay Center of my left knee and the center of my left wrist. LRH:
Okay.
PC: And tip of my index finger on the left hand.
LRH: Did you spot these real good? : PC: Yes.
LRH: All right. Let's go over them again. Now, let's spot each one
particularly and sharply.
PC: Center of my left knee.
LRH: Right.
PC: Center of my left wrist.
LRH: Right.
PC: And tip of the index finger on my left hand.
LRH: Good. Fine. All right. Now let's spot three spots in the room.
PC: Oh, let us see, the upper corner of the easel...
LRH: All right.
PC: ... on the left-hand side.
LRH: Good.
PC: And the lower corner on the right-hand side.
LRH: Good.
PC: And this thing over here on the wall.
LRH: Good. How are you doing now?
PC: Okay
LRH: How is your visio of the room?
PC: It's pretty good.
LRH: That real good? Is it getting better?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: What's the matter?
PC: When I don't think about it, it's all right.
LRH: Oh, if you think about it it's wrong?
PC: Oh, it isn't wrong, it just isn't.
LRH: Just isn't what?
PC: Just isn't if I think about it.
LRH: If you think about it, it isn't.
PC: Yeah, yeah.
LRH: Mock up a head thinking about it, out there.
PC: Okay
LRH: Have it think about it some more.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Throw it away.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Mock up another head thinking about it.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Throw it away.
PC: Okay
LRH: Mock up another head thinking about it.
PC: All right.
LRH: Throw it away. Mock up another head thinking about it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Throw it away.
PC: Mm.hmm.
LRH: Mock up another head thinking about it.
PC: Yup.
LRH: Pull it into your body.
PC: Okay
LRH: Mock up another head thinking about it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Pull it into your body.
PC: Okay
LRH: Okay. Do what you please with any mock-ups that are scattered
around. PC: All right.
LRH: All right. Now. Spot three spots in your body.
PC: Yeah, on the tip of my nose.
LRH: Tip of your nose.
PC: Center of my chin.
LRH: Good.
PC: And the center of my right cheek.
LRH: Okay. Fine. Spot three spots in the room.
PC: Bottom hinge on the door.
LRH: Good.
PC: The door knob.
LRH: Fine.
PC: And the top, left corner of the door.
LRH: Good. All right. Now let's spot three spots in the body.
PC: All right. Sort of the center of my...
LRH: Good.
PC: ...right shoulder blade.
LRH: Good.
PC: And there's a spot, base of my neck, in front.
LRH: Good.
PC: And center of my right elbow.
LRH: Good. Fine. Fine. How you feel?
PC: Okay
LRH: Feel better?
PC: Yeah, I feel good.
LRH: Think what?
PC: Oh, I get confused on left and right here and describing where
these spots are.
LRH: Oh?
PC: I forget or something.
LRH: Mmm. All right. Now let's spot three spots in the room.
PC: Oh, top of the stepladder back behind the curtain.
LRH: Good.
PC: And the doorknob on the backdoor.
LRH: Good.
PC: The handle on the heater.
LRH: Fine. How's that?
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Spot three spots in the body.
PC: Yeah, I've got a spot about halfway about the middle of my right
thigh.
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: And a spot on the middle of my right calf.
LRH: Good.
PC: And at the back of my right heel.
LRH: Good. Fine. Now let's spot three spots in the room.
PC: Okay This microphone here, and the end of this microphone boom.
LRH: Good.
PC: And one of the feet on the base.
LRH: Fine. All right. Spot three spots in the body.
PC: Oh, the tip of my right ear.
LRH: Good.
PC: And sort of the top of my neck in back.
LRH: Good.
PC: About six inches down on the vertebrae.
LRH: Good. Fine. Now spot three spots in the room.
PC: A wastebasket in the back room.
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: And the corner, that corner over there, at the floor.
LRH: Good.
PC: And that corner at the top.
LRH: Good. All right. Spot three spots in the body.
PC: The center of my left knee.
LRH: Good.
PC: The tip of my big toe on my left foot.
LRH: Good.
PC: And tip of my little toe on my left foot.
LRH: Good. How's that now?
PC: It's okay
LRH: All right. Spot three spots in the room. What's the matter?
PC: I have a feeling that I was looking at facsimiles of this room and
they're just now gone, see nothin' no more.
LRH: Oh?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: That rough?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Spot three spots in the room.
PC: All right. Receptacle over here on the wall.
LRH: Good.
PC: And then the plug in it.
LRH: Good.
PC: And the bottom corner over here on this loudspeaker.
LRH: Well, fine. Now let's spot three spots in the body.
PC: All right. The spot directly underneath my watch on my right arm.
LRH: Good.
PC: And the spot there in the middle of that wrist.
LRH: Good.
PC: And a spot in the center of the palm.
LRH: Where is the last one?
PC: Spot in the center of this palm.
LRH: Good. All right. Now, let's spot three spots in the room.
PC: Okay The center of the air-cooler vent.
LRH: Good.
PC: And the center of the space, the distance between the two front
corners of the room.
LRH: Good.
PC: And the upper left-hand corner of that window.
LRH: Well, fine. Fine. Now let's spot three spots in the body.
PC: Okay A spot at the last knuckle on this here finger.
LRH: Good.
PC: And a spot on the tip of this one.
LRH: Good.
PC: And on the tip of this one.
LRH: Good. Lazy. All right. Now mock up a dead body and throw it into
your body.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Throw it away.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Mock up a very gorgeous, gorgeous body.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Put it out five feet behind your head.
PC: Oh. Okay
LRH: Did you do that easily?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: What happened?
PC: I had to move it. I had it out there.
LRH: Well, that's what I knew you would have to do. All right, have
you got that body out there?
PC: Yes.
LRH: You got it there real good?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Huh? Why don't you be in it.
PC: Well, it's very small.
LRH: Well, why don't you be in it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: What's occurring? All right. You make it bigger and more massy.
Gorgeous body.
PC: Okay I've got one that's life size, now.
LRH: All right.
PC: I think.
LRH: All right.
PC: If it'll stay there.
LRH: Now spot the room from the center of that head.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Spot some more spots in the room from the center of
that head.
PC: Yeah. I can spot the corner of the room from the center of that
head.
LRH: All right. Is that easy to do?
PC: Well, sort of.
LRH: Sort of. Spot some more spots in the room from the center of that
head.
PC: All right.
LRH: Did you do that?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Now spot some spots in the room from the center of
your own body's head.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Still got that mock-up?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Good. Let's spot some spots in the room from the center of its
head.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Spot some spots in the room from the center of your
head.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Spot some spots in the room from the center of that
body's head.
PC: Okay
LRH: Spot some spots in the room from the center of your head.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Is this different?
PC: Well, I was just sitting here and telling myself it wasn't though
it was.
LRH: You were sitting there telling yourself it wasn't though it was.
PC: Well, I was doing something or other, then I started spotting them
from the center of my head only it was different.
LRH: No kidding? You still got that mock-up?
PC: Yeah, it's back there.
LRH: All right. How about you making the center of that head more
massy, of that mock-up? Put more mass into it, huh?
PC: All right.
LRH: All right. Now let's spot the room from the center of that head.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Let's spot the room from the center of your own head.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Let's spot the room from the center of the other body's head.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Let's spot the room from the center of your own head.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Okay. Is there any difference?
PC: Yes.
LRH: You doing it more easily?
PC: Yes. I guess I misunderstood you in the first place. I was just
spotting particular spots from either place rather than the room as a
whole.
LRH: Yeah? Well, all right. Now let's be in the other body's head and
spot spots in the room from that location.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Be in your own body's head and spot spots from that location.
PC: Mm.
LRH: All right. Be in the mock-up body's head and spot spots from that
location.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: What's the matter?
PC: Oh, I feel like I'm shifting the room instead of me or something.
I don't know.
LRH: Oh. All right. Spot spots in the room from the center of your
body's head.
PC: Yup.
LRH: All right. Spots-the room from the center of the mock-up's head.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Good. Spot spots in the room from the center of your own head.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Spot spots in the room from the center of the mock-up's head.
PC: Yup.
LRH: Is this your mock-up?
PC: Is it mine?
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Spot spots in the room from the center of its head.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Is that easier to do, now?
PC: Well, it's getting a little more real.
LRH: All right. Spot spots in the room from the center of your own
head.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Okay. Now do what you please with that mock-up.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Do what you please with it?
PC: I did.
LRH: How do you feel?
PC: Okay
LRH: Feel a lot better? Why don't you find the floor. All right. Find
the chair.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Find the ceiling.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: What's your name?
PC: Duh.
LRH: All right. End of session.
(end of lecture)
9ACC27-5501C19 AUDITING DEMO EXTERIORIZATION
Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC27 - 5501C19 Renumbered 29
for "The Solution To Entrapment" cassettes
AUDITING DEMO: EXTERIORIZATION
A lecture given on 19 January 1955
LRH: I've got to give you a little bit of processing here, a little
auditing demonstration. I'm going to demonstrate to you some
exteriorization techniques. Come up here. We'll take a
nonexteriorizable, dead-in-the-head, stuck, gone... Sit down.
PC: Okay
LRH: There's no sense in people worrying about exteriorization. It's
too simple. I don't expect you to exteriorize during this session; I'm
merely showing a technique. I want that clearly understood because I'm
just going to show you how the technique works. You've already seen
this technique once. You've already seen this technique operate once
and just a little bit of reality start to show up on it. Now, there
isn't much reason why a great deal of preliminary work has to be done
with exteriorization. There isn't any reason why we should make it
long and drawn out. Let me give you first here ... just relax.
PC: All right. I'm trying.
LRH: Huh?
PC: I'm trying.
LRH: Well, don't try. Relax.
PC: All right.
LRH: Let me point out something to you here. You ever hear about
universes?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: What are the three kinds of universe there are?
PC: Mine, yours and everybody else's. Hm? No? MEST. All right.
LRH: How come you missed that one, Smokey?
PC: Gee.
LRH: Now, let's go over this again.
PC: Okay
LRH: How many kinds of universes are there?
PC: My universe, the MEST universe, and other people's universe,
right?
LRH: That's right. That's right. All right. Now, now that we've gone
this far - did you know that a person can be booted out of the MEST
universe into another universe, like the MEST universe?
PC: I heard.
LRH: Do you know they can be booted out? Do you ever think about
robots or anything like this?
PC: Oh, when I read stories about them, I do.
LRH: You do? Oh, you do read stories about 'em?
PC: Yeah, and when you lecture I sometimes do.
LRH: Uh-huh. You do, huh?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: What kind of a robot's head is the worst kind? A robot head?
PC: One that won't obey a command, perhaps.
LRH: That kind of a robot head?
PC: Yeah. One that's kind of screwy.
LRH: A kind of a screwy robot?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: What would the head be shaped like?
PC: I'll have to think, I'll have to think one up.
LRH: All right, go ahead and think one up.
PC: Round.
LRH: Be a round head. Be the center of a round robot's head and spot
spots in his environment. Now, is this a clear command?
PC: It's a clear command.
LRH: Be in the center of a robot's head and spot spots in his
environment and close your eyes. All right. Now, be in the center of a
robot's head and spot spots in his environment. Can you get the idea
of doing that?
PC: I can get the idea of doing it.
LRH: Ah, that's my girl. You can get the idea of doing it. What would
his environment look like?
PC: Rather drab.
LRH: Drab, huh?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: And what kind of environment? Is it open, spaces, barriers,
walls, what?
PC: Well, probably walls.
LRH: Probably walls?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right, spot some spots on this probably walls. Why don't you
look through his eyes? Has he got something like eyes there?
PC: He probably has.
LRH: All right. Now let's spot some spots on these walls.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Come on. Let's spot some more spots on the walls.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Spot some more.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Spot some more.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Spot some more.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Spot some more.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Spot some more.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Yeah, okay. How you doing now? Is it getting easier?
PC: Why, yes. Mm-hmm.
LRH: Well, you needn't say "yes" if you don't feel like it.
PC: Well, I was doing it. Let's...
LRH: Was it getting easier to do?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Mm-hmm. Are the walls changing or are they remaining the same?
What?
PC: Yeah, they are not very well defined. LRH: Not very what?
PC: Well defined.
LRH: They're not?
PC: No.
LRH: All right. Smokey, open your eyes.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Spot some spots in this room.
PC: All right. With my eyes?
LRH: Yes.
PC: Okay Want me to tell you about them?
LRH: No. You have them spotted?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now close your eyes. Spot some spots in this room.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you do that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Fine. Be in the robot's head and spot some spots in his
environment. Okay. Did you do that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Huh?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right, let's spot some spots in his environment.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you do that easily? Getting easier to do?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Good. Now be in this body's head and spot some spots in this
room.
PC: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you do that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Good. Be in the robot's head and spot some spots in his
environment.
What's the matter?
PC: Well, his environment wants to have machines, now.
LRH: All right. Let's spot some spots.
PC: Okay. Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you do that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Getting easier to do?
PC: Not any easiel; no.
LRH: Not any easier. The machines changing around, or?
PC: No, they're not changing around.
LRH: What is changing around?
PC: Viewpoint.
LRH: Oh, the viewpoint? You mean the robot seems to be moving?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Oh, that's just tough. All right. Spot some spots in this room.
Be in this body's head and spot some spots in this room.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you do that easily?
PC: Pretty easy.
LRH: All right. Easier?
PC: No.
LRH: No?
PC: No. No easier.
LRH: Look around this room, Smokey, and spot some spots in it.
PC: With my eyes closed?
LRH: Yes, with your eyes closed. Stop this nonsense.
PC: Yes, sir.
LRH: Spot some spots.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: What you spotting?
PC: Spotting that recorder over there.
LRH: Good. What else?
PC: The stove.
LRH: Good.
PC: The curtain.
LRH: Good. What curtain?
PC: Behind me.
LRH: Where?
PC: On the door.
LRH: All right. Some more.
PC: Okay Mm-hmm.
LRH: You doing this now?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Well, good. Good. You doing this a little better?
PC: A little.
LRH: You'd better. Now, we won't leave expectance level to chance
here. All right, now, let's you be in the robot's head.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Get the idea of this?
PC: Yeah, Iget the idea.
LRH: Good. Now spot some spots in his environment. Getting that real
good now?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Huh? Did you spot a lot of them?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Well, here's an okay for each spot.
Okay-okay-okay-okay-okay-okay-okay okay-okay. All right?
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Now let's spot some more spots in this robot's
environment. Okay. You getting them?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Getting them better? Same?
PC: No.
LRH: Better? Worse?
PC: Environment change, okay A little.
LRH: Does he - does he seem to be moving around in it still?
PC: No, he's not moving.
LRH: Oh.
PC: No.
LRH: Well what?
PC: Well, I was hunting for a door in his environment but I didn't
find it.
LRH: Upsetting?
PC: Well, it was.
LRH: Not to find a door?
PC: But I find in one place I can see through the walls so that's all
right.
LRH: Oh, I get you, Pete. All right. Now be in this body's head.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: And spot some spots in this body's environment.
Doing that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. What did you spot?
PC: That pole over there.
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: And the light.
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: And the top of the curtain rod.
LRH: Good.
PC: The wall.
LRH: Good.
PC: The wall back there.
LRH: Now spot a door just so you can make sure that there's an egress.
PC: All right.
LRH: You got it?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Fine. Now be in the robot's head.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now let's spot some spots in his environment. Spot some spots in
his environment now. How are you getting along now?
PC: Okay.
LRH: Getting along better?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Better or worse?
PC: Better.
LRH: Same?
PC: Better.
LRH: Better? Well, good enough. Fine. Now be in this body's head here.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: And spot some objects in his environment.
See, I'm asking her to spot walls and things like that. We haven't
gone into locations. My auditing command is just a little bit offbeat,
but she's doing it all right. I should be saying, "Spot some objects
in this environment," because I don't intend to have to take time out
here to remedy havingness. You get the idea? And if she's spotting
walls and objects, she won't have to have her havingness remedied. If
I'm asking her to spot spots in the air, I will. So the proper
auditing command really would be, "Spot some objects in the
environment." Because that's what you're doing, isn't it?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. All right. You don't feel like your havingness is
being run out, do you?
PC: Hm-mm.
LRH: All right. Now let's spot some more objects in this body's
environment.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Doing that real good now?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Or are you maundering off and thinking about something?
PC: No, I wasn't.
LRH: All right. All right. Now let's be in the robot's head.
PC: Okay
LRH: And spot some spots in its environment.
PC: He hasn't got too many objects.
LRH: Hm?
PC: He doesn't have too many objects in his environment.
LRH: Or some walls, aren't there?
PC: There sure are.
LRH: Well, that's an object.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Find some places on the walls.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: There are some objects there, huh?
PC: Mm-hmm
LRH: All right. How are you doing?
PC: Okay
LRH: What's the matter? Are you scared of something?
PC: No.
LRH: What's the matter? Are you in the robot's head? Got the idea?
PC: Well, I have the idea, yes.
LRH: You got the idea. Well, get the idea now of being stuck there and
unable to exteriorize. Can you get that?
LRH: All right. Now get the idea of being able to exteriorize.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Can you get that?
PC: I can get the idea.
LRH: All right. That's all I ask you to do.
PC: That's right.
LRH: All right. Now be in this body.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: You got this now?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now let's spot some objects, walls, spots on the
walls, in this environment.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: You do that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now get the idea of being stuck in this body's head.
PC: Yes, sir.
LRH: And not be able to get out.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now change your idea to the fact that you can get out of this
body's head. How far'd you get with changing that idea?
PC: Well, I can get the idea. Yeah...
LRH: Is it your idea?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Huh?
PC: Yes.
LRH: This is a doubtful one, huh?
PC: No!
LRH: All right. Now let's be in the robot's head.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: And let's spot some spots on the objects in his environment, on
the walls and so forth.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you do that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Let's spot some more. How's this getting now? This getting
better?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Worse? Huh? Getting easier? All right. Now while in the robot's
head get the idea that you cannot get out of it.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now change that idea to being able to get out of it.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Good. Now be in this body's head.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: You got that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Hm? All right. Now spot some spots in this environment.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: You do that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Good. Is it getting better or worse?
PC: No better, no worse either.
LRH: It's not getting any better?
PC: No.
LRH: What are you spotting?
PC: Things. Objects.
LRH: What?
PC: Walls.
LRH: Point to them.
PC: Okay. There.
LRH: What's there? Are you looking at it?
PC: Yeah, no. I'm...
LRH: Come on, let's look at that curtain!
PC: I'm,..
LRH: What are you doing? Sitting there figure-figuring if there's a
curtain there?
PC: No. No. There is one there.
LRH: Well, look at that curtain.
PC: I can get the idea of it. .
LRH: Yeah. Look at it. Did you do that? Did it bite?
PC: No.
LRH: Well, all right. Look at it.
PC: Awful vague.
LRH: All right. But you looked at it didn't you? Huh?
PC: I'm not sure.
LRH: You're not sure. Let's look at another object in this
environment.
PC: Okay
LRH: Did you do that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: What?
PC: That radio down there.
LRH: Is it there?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Are you looking at it?
PC: Well...
LRH: Or are you kind of pervasively knowing it is there.
PC: Well, I know it's there.
LRH: You know it's there?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Why don't you look at it? Something horrible happen here if you
were to look-did look at it? Would it bite?
PC: No.
LRH: It wouldn't bite?
PC: Hm-mm.
LRH: Huh? Well, just look at it. What's the matter?
PC: Nothing the matter, except...
LRH: Except what?
PC: I can't see it.
LRH: What are you looking at? What do you see?
PC: Well, I get the idea of looking at it.
LRH: What do you see?
PC: Nothing.
LRH: All right. What's the nothing look like?
PC: Nothing - just nothing.
LRH: All right. Look at it.
PC: All right.
LRH: Are you looking at nothing?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Hm. That right? Boy, don't tell me I'm running across this one.
There's more preclears who will sit there and tell you that they're
looking at nothing and this is physically impossible for them to do.
There is no slightest possibility for their being able to sit there.
PC: No.
LRH: You bang them around for a little while and you say, "Well,
goddamn it. There's something there. Take a look at it. What it is?"
And they finally tell you that it is a black wall or a gray mist or
some comets or something of the sort. Now, Smokey, you take a look at
it.
PC: All right.
LRH: What are you looking at?
PC: Well, I'll say that it is a gray mist.
LRH: You'll say it is?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Have you looked at something?
PC: Looks like it.
LRH: Huh? You are looking at something, though, aren't you?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Are you?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Let's look around. Is there something else around there to look
at?
PC: I put something there.
LRH: You've put something there?
PC: I can put something there.
LRH: Well, is there - what are you looking at before you put something
there?
PC: Just some gray mist.
LRH: Is it all around you?
PC: Well, I don't know. I can't see all around me.
LRH: Oh, oh. It's impossible to see.
PC: Yes, it is.
LRH: It is all around you? Well, this is curious. Spot a spot in this
room.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: What?
PC: A spot on that wall.
LRH: All right. Look at it. Did you do that?
PC: I get the idea of the wall.
LRH: You getting the idea better?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Hm? You getting the idea better?
PC: Yup.
LRH: Are you or aren't you?
PC: Well, yes. When I say I look at it, I know that I do.
LRH: All right. Now let's spot another spot in this room.
PC: Real vague. Okay Mm-hmm.
LRH: Probably remote viewpoints or something. What you looking at now?
PC: The stove top.
LRH: Stove top? How do you know it's there?
PC: Why, I just know it is.
LRH: Are you looking at it? Do you see a stove top?
PC: I get the idea I can see it.
LRH: Do you see a stove top?
PC: No.
LRH: Well, you look around until you can find something you can look
at in this room. There's something here.
PC: There's a lot of things here, and I know it.
LRH: You acutely conscious of them?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: You're very conscious of them?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Let's take a look at these things.
PC: All right.
LRH: All right. Which is the least harmful of them?
PC: Oh, I don't think any of them are harmful.
LRH: None of them?
PC: Hm-mm.
LRH: Which are the least pouncey of them?
PC: Well, that white board up there.
LRH: All right. That's the least pouncey, huh?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Well, take a look at it. What's the matter?
PC: I'd just love to. I get - I know it's there. I get the idea of
looking at it.
LRH: What's looking at it, Smokey?
PC: Seeing it.
LRH: Yeah, but what, I mean, what have you got, a point up there some
place that is doing your looking for you or something?
PC: Oh, there ain't nothing doing my looking for me. If they would, I
would disown them.
LRH: Okay.
PC: ... for good.
LRH: All right. All right. Now, let's you be - let's be in this
robot's head.
PC: Okay
LRH: Okay. Now let's look around his environment.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now, got that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now let's get the idea that you couldn't possibly see anything
there.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Now let's get the idea that you could.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Let's get the idea you couldn't possibly see anything there.
PC: Okay
LRH: Let's get the idea that you could.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Get the idea you couldn't possibly see anything there.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Let's get the idea that you could.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Got that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now let's get the idea that you couldn't possibly get
out of his head.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Now let's get the idea that you could.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Let's be in this body.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now let's spot some spots in this environment.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Whatcha doing?
PC: Spotting spots.
LRH: Is it better?
PC: It's there. It's here.
LRH: Oh, it's here now?
PC: Mm-hmm. All around.
LRH: Mm-hmm. Is it more here than it was?
PC: A shade.
LRH: Just a shade. All right, fine. Now get the idea that you couldn't
possibly see anything.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Now let's get the idea that you could.
PC: All right.
LRH: Would you better that idea, too?
PC: What'd you say?
LRH: I told you to get the idea you could see something. What did you
get?
PC: Well, I got the idea that I could.
LRH: Oh, I see but that you aren't. What's the modifier on this "that
I could"? How are you modifying this?
PC: I don't know.
LRH: All right. Now get the idea that you couldn't see anything out of
this body.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now get the idea that you can.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now get the idea that you couldn't possibly.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now let's get the idea that you can.
PC: Okay
LRH: All right. Now let's get the idea that you couldn't possibly get
out of this body.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now let's get the idea that you can.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Okay. Are some locks coming off there?
PC: Probably
LRH: Are they or aren't they?
PC: I wasn't conscious of them.
LRH: All right. Then they weren't. All right, fine. Now let's get the
idea that you couldn't possibly get out of this body.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now let's get the idea that you can.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Getting that a little better?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Is there any change in the way you are doing it or are you just
changing your-.
PC: Yeah. There's a change.
LRH: All right. Fine. Fine. Now let's be in the robot's head.
PC: Okay
LRH: Got that now?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now let's spot some spots in his environment.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: How is it now? Better? Worse?
PC: His environment's getting a little dimmer.
LRH: It's dimmer?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Now get the idea - .
PC: At least it's not as solid-looking.
LRH: Hm?
PC: It's not as solid looking.
LRH: It's not as solid looking.
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: Gray? PC: No, not exactly, no - .
LRH: What color is it?
PC: It's gray, and there's some yellow.
LRH: Oh, I see. Well, all right. Now get the idea that you couldn't
possibly get out of this robot's head.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Let's make it into a production: "Oh, I couldn't possibly get out
of his head. I'm stuck there forever." Go on. Make a production out of
it.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Got that? "Oh, woe is me!"
PC: Dismal.
LRH: Dedicated to robotizing forever.
PC: Real dismal.
LRH: "Oh, woe!" All right, now, good. What's the matter?
PC: It's real dismal there. It's dismal all around.
LRH: All right. Now get the idea that you can get out of the robot's
head.
PC: Hm. Yeah.
LRH: Got that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Fine. Be in this body's head.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Did you do this?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Swell. Now let's spot some spots in this environment.
PC: Okay
LRH: Did you do that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: How are you making it? How are you making it?
PC: Well, I'm spotting spots there.
LRH: Good. Where are they?
PC: Here and there. There. There.
LRH: Are you getting more rapid at it?
PC: Mm, pretty rapid.
LRH: Okay. Are they there?
PC: Sure, they're there.
LRH: You know they're there?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: How do you know they are there?
PC: I know.
LRH: You just know.
PC: I just know.
LRH: How about seeing them?
PC: I can get a vague...
LRH: All right. Now let's look at this vague.
PC: Yes.
LRH: All right. Let's spot some vagues.
PC: Oops.
LRH: Let's spot some vagues in this environment.
PC: Okay. All right.
LRH: How's that? Is that more satisfactory?
PC: Oh, no!
LRH: No? Oh, my.
PC: Well, it'd... no.
LRH: No. All right. Let's spot some more spots in this environment.
PC: Still vague spots?
LRH: No - just anything you got.
PC: All right. Mm-hm.
LRH: How are you now, hm?
PC: What'd you say?
LRH: How are you now?
PC: Oh, I am all right.
LRH: Why'd you say, "What'd I say?" Where were you?
PC: Well, I was almost seeing something.
LRH: No kidding!
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Oh, gee. Did I spoil it?
PC: No. Hm-mm.
LRH: Didn't spoil it. Can't even blame me?
PC: Well, I wouldn't blame you anyway because I - I mean, it didn't
bother - .
LRH: All right. Okay. Let's spot some more spots in this environment.
PC: Okay
LRH: Okay. What did you spot?
PC: Walls.
LRH: Mm-hm.
PC: Back there's some.
LRH: Good.
PC: And over there.
LRH: Good.
PC: And the window over the door.
LRH: Good.
PC: Looks like a bicycle handle on that mike,
LRH: All right. Fine. Fine. All right. What have you got? Give me that
last one.
PC: The rod on the mike.
LRH: Okay. Is this getting better?
PC: Yeah, I think it is.
LRH: Oh, that's too bad. All right. All right, now, I want you to get
the idea that you couldn't possibly get out of this body.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Get - make a production out of it. It would be utterly fatal if
you did. Go on.
PC: I'd probably be dizzy and everything.
LRH: Mm-hmm. Make a good production out of it.
PC: In fact, I'll never be able to get out of it.
LRH: That's right. That's good. That's fine. Have you added, "No
matter what anybody does" to that?
PC: It doesn't make any difference.
LRH: Yeah, that's good. That's good. Now you got that real solid?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now change it to the fact that you could get out of it
with the greatest of ease.
PC: I feel real easy about it.
LRH: Hm?
PC: I feel real easy about it. I get that idea real well.
LRH: Well good. Fine. Now let's be in the robot's head.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Okay. How's he doing by the way?
PC: Oh god, he's just real still.
LRH: Real still, huh?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now let's spot some spots - .
PC: I think he's been there forever.
LRH: All right. Been there forever. All right. Let's spot some spots
in his environment.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: What you got?
PC: Spots.
LRH: Getting them real good?
PC: Pretty good.
LRH: Worse?
PC: No, not worse.
LRH: All right. Spot some spots there. What's the matter?
PC: Well, his environment is a real cell. Just a...
LRH: Hm? Just what?
PC: Just walls and...
LRH: Oh, boy.
PC: Wow.
LRH: All right. All right. Now let's get the idea that you'll never
get out of there.
PC: That's easy to do.
LRH: All right. Now, let's change that to you'll be able to get out of
there.
PC: Okay
LRH: Change that to you can get out of there any instant.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Change that to you can get out of there at will.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Under your own steam.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Without even an auditor.
PC: Allright.
LRH: Just going way up scale here. All right. And be in this body.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now, let's spot some spots in this body's environment.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: How are we doing here?
PC: Pretty well. A little slow on this.
LRH: Oh, nobody's rushing you. A little slow on what?
PC: Spotting the spots.
LRH: Spotting the spots?
PC: I'm getting them now.
LRH: You're getting them now, though?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right.
PC: Like I'm straining to see it.
LRH: You got to strain to see them, huh?
PC: I'm straining to. Yeah.
LRH: All right. Are you doing it?
PC: Well, I sure get the idea that I'm doing it anyway.
LRH: Mm-hmm.
PC: That rug there.
LRH: What's the matter?
PC: It kind of aggravates me.
LRH: Why does it aggravate you?
PC: Because I want to do it.
LRH: Huh?
PC: Because I want to do it, but I can't.
LRH: All right. Now you got the idea real solidly that you can't?
PC: In fact, I'm burning an awful lot of energy!
LRH: No kidding?
PC: No kidding!
LRH: Burning a lot of energy to what?
PC: Yeah!
LRH: Huh?
PC: I'm real warm!
LRH: No kidding?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Hm. PC: Hm. Phew!
LRH: Let's spot some more spots in this environment.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Okay. How are you doing?
PC: Okay
LRH: Well, what are you doing?
PC: Spotting spots.
LRH: All right. Point out a couple of them that you've spotted.
PC: There's a ball back there.
LRH: Is that there?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: You know it's there.
PC: It was there when I looked.
LRH: Okay. Fine.
PC: And some spots over here on this wall.
LRH: Good.
PC: Still some more down here, the floor, the ceiling, those lights
and that curtain.
LRH: Hm? Well, good. Good. Now let's get - let's get the idea that
you'll never be able to get out of this body.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Well, let's get the idea that you can.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: And let's get the idea again you'll never, never be able to get
out.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now get the idea that you can.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Get that easily?
PC: Not too easily; but I get it.
LRH: All right. Get the idea you can never get out.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: And now change that to you can get out.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: You get that more easily now?
PC: Yeah, there's a - a shifting - .
LRH: Hm?
PC: A feeling of shifting.
LRH: Hm. All right, get the idea that you can't get out.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now get the idea that you can.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Did you do that now?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: What's the matter?
PC: It's nothing, except a feeling of shifting.
LRH: All right. You got that feeling, though, huh?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Now let's get the idea that energy can trap you.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Got that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now change that to the fact that energy can't.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Got that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Again. Energy can trap you. PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: And once more energy can't.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Now how's that?
PC: That's - that's a good idea.
LRH: All right. Get again the idea that energy can trap you.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: And again that it can't.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Got that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now get the idea that you're in the robot's head.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: And let's spot some spots in his environment. What's the matter?
PC: I - his - his environment - .
LRH: What's the matter with it?
PC: It's all messed up.
LRH: What's the matter with his environment?
PC: Well, it's sort of not very solid.
LRH: Oh? Thin, huh?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: How is it messed up?
PC: Well, that machine over there is all - just an - it's just not
solid.
LRH: Is it fragments?
PC: It's sort of yeah - sort of chewed up.
LRH: Not only is it not solid, but it's chewed up too.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Okay.
PC: And that ledge around the top is sort of crumbly-like.
LRH: The what around the top?
PC: Ledge.
LRH: No kidding?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now, let's get the idea that you'll never get out of
here.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Now let's get the idea that you can.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: And again, you'll never get out of here.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: And now the idea that you can.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: How's that? Getting it more solidly?
PC: The idea is, yeah.
LRH: Oh, the idea. All right, now have his whole environment start
saying okay to you.
PC: All right.
LRH: Make it do it easily?
PC: Fairly easy.
LRH: What happens when you do that?
PC: Well, it gets even more unreal.
LRH: Gets more unreal? All right. Have the environment say okay some
more. What's occurring?
PC: Well, it gets solider.
LRH: Now it's getting - .
PC: I mean it's getting solider than it was.
LRH: All right. Have it say okay some more to you. Was it saying okay
to you or was it just saying okay?
PC: Just saying okay to me.
LRH: All right. Have it say okay to you some more.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: How's that now, getting solider?
PC: Huh-uh.
LRH: Did it get thinner again?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right, have it say okay to you some more.
Now what's it doing?
PC: It just - it's so thin to me that it's just not anything there.
LRH: There's hardly anything there at all now, huh?
PC: Huh-uh.
LRH: Well, have it say okay to you some more. Yeah, okay, what's
occurring?
PC: It seems to be down there.
LRH: Seems to be further from you?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Have that environment say okay to you some more.
Now where is it?
PC: Whew. Way down there.
LRH: Way down there.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Have it say okay to you some more. Okay, how are you
doing on that now?
PC: Okay.
LRH: Practically gone?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Be in this body's head.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Got this better now?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Let's spot some spots in this room.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: How's that, hm?
PC: Okay.
LRH: Better?
PC: A little bit.
LRH: A little bit better?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now I want you to have various spots in this room say
okay to you.
PC: All right.
LRH: How are you doing?
PC: Oh, I get real tense about this.
LRH: Get tense about it?
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: What's the matter?
PC: Well, there's nothing the matter, I just get tense.
LRH: Your tenseness suddenly turn on?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Are you tense quite often?
PC: No.
LRH: No? All right. Now, let's have just some more spots in this room
say okay to you. Okay, how are you doing now?
PC: Real peculiar.
LRH: What's happening?
PC: I don't know. Just - .
LRH: What's the matter?
PC: Sort of - sort of an isolated feeling that's real out of this
world.
LRH: You've got an isolated feeling, huh?
PC: Wow!
LRH: Wow, all right. Now let's have let's have some spots in this room
say hello to you. Okay, what are you doing now?
PC: Having this - having spots all around say hello.
LRH: All right.
PC: Whew!
LRH: Is that - still give you that isolated feeling?
PC: Yeah!
LRH: Worse?
PC: Well, no, I wouldn't say it was worse.
LRH: All right. Now have all these spots, a lot of spots in this room,
objects and spots in this room, one after the other, say okay to you.
PC: All right.
LRH: How are you doing?
PC: Okay.
LRH: How's that isolated feeling seem to you?
PC: I still have it.
LRH: Is it worse?
PC: It doesn't seem unpleasant, but it's just - just isolated.
LRH: Does it seem worse? Is it getting stronger or weaker?
PC: Stronger.
LRH: Stronger! Well, all right. Now let's have the spots in this room
say okay to you.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right, how is it going now?
PC: All right.
LRH: Worse?
PC: No.
LRH: Isolated feeling is getting less now?
PC: Well, it wasn't in evidence too much this time, but the brightness
- .
LRH: What brightness?
PC: Well, there is a brightness.
LRH: Where?
PC: Well, sort of all around.
LRH: A brightness all around?
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: Well, good. Fine. Now let's have all the various objects in this
room, one after the other, each one individually, say hello to you.
PC: Okay
LRH: Okay, how is it?
PC: It's nice.
LRH: Oh, it's getting nice now?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: You feel quite as isolated?
PC: Well yes, it isn't - . Yeah.
LRH: Is it a pleasant feeling?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: In what sense do you feel isolated?
PC: Well, I don't feel - I mean, I don't know how to express that.
LRH: Express what?
PC: In what way do I feel isolated.
LRH: You just do?
PC: I just do.
LRH: You feel detached from the room?
PC: Why, yes.
LRH: Mm-hmm. Do you feel detached from the chair?
PC: Yeah, until you mentioned it.
LRH: Huh?
LRH: Yeah.
LRH: Do you feel detached from the body?
PC: In a way, yeah.
LRH: Which way?
PC: Well, it just doesn't - it just doesn't seem like anything there.
LRH: Mm-hmm. Okay. Now let's have - you were having them say hello
before?
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: All right, now let's have them all say okay.
PC: All right.
LRH: All right, what's occurring now?
PC: I feel sort of a shifting, swirling like - .
LRH: Feel a what?
PC: Sort of a swirling-.
LRH: You feel a whirling sensation?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Is that so?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Whereabouts?
PC: All around.
LRH: All around the room?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Hm?
PC: All around me.
LRH: Is the room swirling?
PC: No, no.
LRH: Are you whirling?
PC: Might have been. Felt like it. Sort of shifting.
LRH: Were you making things say hello, or okay rather?
PC: Okay.
LRH: You were still doing it?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: You hadn't shifted your attention off that?
PC: No.
LRH: All right. Now let's make some more things say hello to you,
things in this room say hello.
PC: Okay
LRH: Now, how're you doing? Things still whirling?
PC: No, it's sort of settled down.
LRH: All right. What's the matter, you feel a little breathless?
PC: No. Just different.
LRH: All right. Let's have some more things say hello to you.
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right, how's it going now?
PC: Okay. There's - .
LRH: There's what?
PC: Dim - dims and gets brighter.
LRH: What does?
PC: Things around me.
LRH: Oh, really?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now let's have some more things in the room say okay.
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right. Now, how's that?
PC: Okay.
LRH: Looking a little better?
PC: Yeah. Shifting.
LRH: What's shifting?
PC: The dimness and brightness is shifting.
LRH: Is it shifting more violently?
PC: More rapidly.
LRH: Oh, it is, huh?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Well, have some more things say hello to you, in the room. All
right, what's this change of perception doing now?
PC: It's still doing that.
LRH: Stronger?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Oh, it's even stronger?
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: Where is it, inside your body somewhere?
PC: Oh - no.
LRH: No? Around you?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Where are you?
PC: I'm right here.
LRH: All right, you're right here. And where's the body?
PC: Right here, too.
LRH: Is it here?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Is it a distance from you?
PC: Not too far. I mean - I don't know.
LRH: All right. Now let's have the room say okay to you some more.
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right, how's that going?
PC: All right.
LRH: This dimness and brightness getting faster?
PC: Yeah.
LRH:Making you uncomfortable?
PC: A little. Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Now let's have the room say to you, in a very friendly
voice, in all directions, everything in the room, start saying to you
"Hello."
PC: Okay
LRH: Now, how's that? That slow it down a little bit?
PC: Yeah, it did, but - .
LRH: All right. Now let's have everything in the room start saying to
you "Okay that you have this condition."
PC: All right.
LRH: "It's okay for you to have this condition."
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: How's that?
PC: Okay.
LRH: What's happening to this condition?
PC: It gets real detached.
LRH: Gets real what?
PC: Detached feeling.
LRH: Really?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Well good. Now just have things in the room, now, continue to
say, "Okay for you to have this condition."
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Okay, how's it going now? What's the matter?
PC: Whoo!
LRH: What's the matter? Relief?
PC: No, I mean, I don't know it's - .
LRH: Worse?
PC: Whee!
LRH: What's the matter?
PC: I felt real detached then.
LRH: You did, huh?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Gone for good, huh?
PC: Well, no, I wouldn't be gone from me!
LRH: All right. Now you tell the room okay for a while.
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right. How's that now? Is that leveling out? What's the
matter?
PC: No!
LRH: You don't know?
PC: I do know; it's lopsided.
LRH: The room is?
PC: Or I am!
LRH: All right. Let's tell the room hello some more. And you say hello
and the room says okay, and you say hello and the room says okay.
PC: All right.
LRH: How's that going now?
PC: All right.
LRH: Getting a little better? Room a little less lopsided?
PC: You mean, am I?
LRH: Are you a little less lopsided?
PC: Yes.
LRH: All right. All right. Now, let's do that some more; you say hello
and the room says okay. All right, how's that doing now, huh?
PC: All right.
LRH: You worse?
PC: No, I just feel real tall.
LRH: Real what?
PC: Real - I mean, I feel stretched.
LRH: You feel stretched?
PC: Yes!
LRH: Okay. Which way?
PC: Bzooogg!
LRH: Oh, really?
PC: Yes.
LRH: You say hello and the room says okay - .
PC: Whew! I'll say hello to the mike too.
LRH: All right. How's that going?
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right. Now, you have the room say hello and you say okay for
awhile.
PC: All right.
LRH: All right. How's that going?
PC: Fine.
LRH: How do you feel?
PC: Okay.
LRH: You leveling out? You getting the proper proportions?
PC: Oh, I'm not sure about that!
LRH: What's the matter?
PC: Well, there's so many shifts.
LRH: You just keep shifting?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Oh, really? Isn't that interesting. Puzzling isn't it?
PC: Well, no, I mean, I didn't puzzle about it. I was just interested
in it.
LRH: Okay. All right. Now, let's - let's just have the room - all the
objects in the room chorus at once, many times over, okay to you.
PC: All right.
LRH: Are you getting better?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Hm? : PC: Yeah.
LRH: You going through all these shapes now?
PC: Not all of them. I think I left some of them out.
LRH: Okay. All right. Now you just spot some spots in the room now.
PC: Okay.
LRH: How's that going?
PC: Pretty good.
LRH: That smooth you right on down?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Hm?
PC: It smoothed me down, soothe me down.
LRH: Soothe you a little bit?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Hm?
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: All right. Let's spot some more spots, some more objects in the
room.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Spot some more objects in the room?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Hm?
PC: Yup.
LRH: Are you doing it more easily than you did at the beginning of the
session?
PC: Yes, I think I am. Yes.
LRH: You think you are?
PC: I know I am.
LRH: You know you are?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Are the objects there to be spotted?
PC: Yes, they're there.
LRH: All right. Go on. What else were you going to tell me?
PC: Some of them are closer.
LRH: Oh, really? Why, is the room out of shape in some fashion?
PC: Well, not exactly. : LRH: What is it?
PC: It - well, maybe it is out of shape. No, it's not out of shape.
LRH: What is it?
PC: Well, I can see them closer, or I have the idea that they're
closer.
LRH: These things are closer to you?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Things are closer to you than they were before?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Ah. What's the matter? It's all right, what's the matter?
PC: It's real odd.
LRH: Real odd, huh?
PC: Yeah. It's just funny.
LRH: Well, open your eyes.
PC: I'm afraid to. Well it is, too.
LRH: Things are closer to you?
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: Reach out and touch one.
PC: I'll bet I touch that one.
LRH: All right.
PC: Okay Wow.
LRH: Is that closer to you?
PC: That is, too.
LRH: How about the floor?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Is that closer to you?
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: Oh, gee, this is bad, isn't it?
PC: It's different.
LRH: It's different?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. How about that recorder there?
PC: They're all closer The walls are closer than they were.
LRH: The walls are closer Well, are they plainer to you?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: They a brighter color?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Something like that?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Why don't you feel the floor
PC: Yeah. I feel it. I feel it.
LRH: Does it feel more than it felt before?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: All right. Feel the chair.
PC: Thah, that's real.
LRH: Is that real good?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Is it solid?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Are things solider?
PC: Well, it's a - .
LRH: What?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Are things solider than they were? All right, feel the floor.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Feel the chair.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Feel the floor.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Feel the chair.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Feel the floor
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Feel the chair.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Remember something that's real.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. Remember something else that's real.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Remember something else that's real.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Remember something else that's real.
PC: Yup.
LRH: Remember something else that's real.
PC: Yup.
LRH: Remember something else that's real.
PC: Yup.
LRH: All right. Now, how about this room? Is this room closer to you?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Is that better or worse?
PC: Seems all right.
LRH: Should it be this close or should it be the same distance it was
before?
PC: Oh, I don't think so. I think it's all right the way it is.
LRH: It's all right the way it is. Is it the proper proportions?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Hm? Is the ceiling square? Huh?
PC: No, it isn't square.
LRH: All right, what is it?
PC: It's long, oblong, I think that's what it's called.
LRH: All right, good. Is that a 90 degree angle up there?
PC: Ninety degrees - that's - if it's straight up and down, that's
right.
LRH: That's 180, straight up and down.
PC: Well, it's not 90.
LRH: All right. 90 is where it takes a right angle turn.
PC: Well it isn't, it's straight up and down.
LRH: Straight up and down.
PC: In proper proportions.
LRH: It's in proper proportion. Take a look at Wing there, is he - .
PC: Yeah, he's in proper proportions.
LRH: Is he in proper proportions, he hasn't got green eyes or
anything?
PC: Well, I mean, things are the way they should be right now.
LRH: They should be this way?
PC: Mm-hmm. Sure.
LRH: Make you feel a little better to know that they're this way?
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Hm?
PC: I was surprised that they would change, I mean, well, that's all
right.
LRH: You're surprised they would change?
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: Okay. Find the floor.
PC: I've got it.
LRH: Find the chair.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Remember something real.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Think of something real big.
PC: Yup.
LRH: Think of something real small.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Think of something real big.
PC: Something else.
LRH: Real small.
PC: Mm-hmm.
LRH: Okay, how do you feel now?
PC: I feel fine.
LRH: All right. End of session.
PC: Thank you.
(end of lecture)
9ACC28-5501C21 AXIOMS LAWS OF CONSIDERATION- WHAT AN AXIOM IS
Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC29 - 5501C21 Renumbered 31
for "The Solution To Entrapment" cassettes
AXIOMS: LAWS OF CONSIDERATION- WHAT AN AXIOM IS
A lecture given on 21 January 1955
Okay. Let's take up a - let's take up an aspect of Scientology you may
not have tripped across. I am going to make this a very short, simple,
quiet dissertation - an aspect of Scientology that you may not have
thought of in connection with the Axioms.
The Axioms are agreed upon considerations. They are agreed upon
considerations. They are the central considerations which have been
agreed upon. They are considerations.
A self-evident truth is the dictionary definition of an axiom. No
definition could be further from the truth. In the first place, a
truth can not be self-evident because it is a static. Anytime a static
presents itself visibly to your view, let me know.
So, therefore, there is no "self-evidency" in any truth. We follow?
This is not a self-evident truth, it never has been and never will be.
However, there are self-evident agreements! And that is what an axiom
is.
Now, although these Axioms, getting agreed upon and solidified, are
basically considerations, they will not maintain themselves forever
and aye as solid truths. You can change your mind about the Axioms.
You can run an axiom long enough so that you can change your mind
about it. Where does this leave it as a self-evident truth?
This is true of the axioms of geometry, physics, the various laws of
physics, the laws of chemistry and so on. It just happens that people
got into a mechanical spin-spin-spin of always agreeing upon this
point, and so we got a self-evident truth.
Now, those fifty Axioms which comprise Scientology are not a dream up
of "This would be real nice" and so forth. They happen to be the fifty
points (forty-nine really, one is repeated) which became solidly
enough agreed upon and were little enough admired so that they
persisted. You get the idea? They were sufficiently agreed upon and
little enough acknowledged that they became persistent. And these are
the central points of agreement on the whole track from which then
derives the activity and behavior of all solid masses, of all spaces
and perforce, then thetans.
This is an interesting thing. If you wish to feel as though there is
no point from which to start, I dare you to assimilate this datum:
Everything is a consideration. As ye consider it so it be, providing
you agree upon it enough and nobody acknowledges it. Now, the task of
getting a consideration to persist is a very difficult one, but it
could be done mechanically in many ways. The way it is being done
mechanically is not to acknowledge it. You get the idea?
Now, how do you get a no-acknowledgment of one of these (quote)
"self-evident" considerations? Huh? How do you get a persistency?
We get in a "everybody knows that" frame of mind. "Well, therefore
when somebody says it, this is just stupid, so everybody knows that,
so nobody acknowledges it." Have you got that? Huh?
Let's say you walk into this room and you say,
and you know, nobody turns around and looks at
right." They say, "Sure it's warm, you stupe."
they get about the thing and they don't answer
"This room is warm,"
you and says, "That's
That kind of a feeling
you.
You come in and you - let's get worse than that - and you say, "You
know, I am wearing clothes." Well, you might get a few people that
will do a double-take and check over whether or not you are wearing
clothes or not, and you may have somebody with enough joje de vivre
that will suddenly look at you and say, "Yeah, so you are.' You know,
just as a gag. But the truth of the matter is those things which you
announce that everybody knows usually go unacknowledged.
If you came in and made a vast dissertation upon the fact that an
apple when dropped to the floor falls to the floor - everybody knows
this! Newton probably had one of the grimmest times you ever heard of
trying to convince people that there was more significance in this
than he had first noted. That there was something around which was
causing this. So when you go through the subject of physics (you
notice I didn't say "science" of physics), that could - that body of
considerations which have been agreed upon and not acknowledged called
physics, why you get yourself a fascinating thing. I mean, nobody goes
through a physics textbook and starts acknowledging all of these
things, you know. "They're true," so, of course, everybody accepts
that. You get the idea?
Now, that's how something like an axiom or a physical law or a natural
law gets codified. Somebody invents it and for awhile everybody
carefully doesn't acknowledge it, so it persists, you see. And somebody invents it, just that, whole cloth, somebody invents the fact
that an apple is going to fall to the floor. And he goes around
insisting this is the case and other people don't acknowledge it and
don't acknowledge it and don't acknowledge it and don't acknowledge it
and don't acknowledge it and all of a sudden their apples start
falling to the floor too. Up to that time they didn't! Isn't this
curious?
It tells you that there very well might be a hundred thousand axioms,
only there aren't. You might as well have had lots of other
considerations that weren't acknowledged that everybody agreed upon,
but we didn't have.
Why does this small set - why does this small set then occupy such an
important position? It is just this: that nobody ever acknowledged
these things and so you've got a universe. And the others, sometimes
they did and sometimes they didn't. And they are physical
peculiarities or mental peculiarities.
A fellow considers that every time he does something - every time he
does something for somebody, they immediately put on their hat. Well,
this is a perfectly valid consideration, just as valid as, "when you
drop an apple it will fall to the floor." "Every time I do something
for somebody he puts on his hat." Do you get the idea? All right. Why
isn't it an axiom?
"Every time I get married, I get divorced." Movie star observation,
consideration. Nobody acknowledges this. It becomes a law for her! And
because it isn't a law for everybody we consider that aberrated. You
see that? She's carrying along, then, a lot of peculiar laws. But she
is carrying them after the fact of that which is not acknowledged
becomes solid - after the fact!
We could have a whole universe built on this set of axioms: That which
is acknowledged becomes solid; and you would get a reverse universe to
this one so that every time you said, "Okay" to somebody, he weighed
more. Do you get the idea? That would be their considerations. Well,
those aren't the considerations of this universe.
What we are studying here in the two-way cycle of communication, with
this cycle is a fascinating thing. It isn't fascinating because we
invented it, but because we managed to dredge it up as the background
of solidity; it's the background of solidity.
First they enter into this pattern, you see, they enter into this
pattern of communication and the next thing you know, what have they
got? They've got "no acknowledge, it becomes solid."
Now, get this please. There is no slightest liability in disobeying
any of the Axioms of Scientology or physics as far as an actual living
thing is concerned. There is a liability to his form; there is a
liability to masses, to spaces, to energies. But no single living
thing beyond what (quote) "pain" (unquote) he might suffer because of
loss or damage, no single living thing is going to suffer. The live
unit, the thetan, is not going to suffer but the masses will. The
energies, the spaces are liable to alter and twist. Now, you see this?
So any axiom is so far from a self-evident truth - that's in any
science - it's so far from a self-evident truth that it could be
disobeyed with impunity so far as life is concerned.
People go around laying down laws, it makes a game, but these are the
rules of the game. After you come off of a football field, unless you
are daffy, you don't feel that if you were to touch another player or
hold somebody's arm from crossing the street, that an umpire is going
to walk up and penalize you, you see - holding. We don't carry the
inhibitions of football off onto the city street unless we're batty.
Battiness is carrying the rules of football off onto the city street.
You've up and played yourself a game, you quit playing the game, you
keep on playing the game but there's no longer any other - no teams
and no playing field, but you go on playing this game. See?
Well, this tells you immediately that if you ran the Axioms long
enough as a process on people and made them repeat the Axiom over and
over and consider it over and over and each time carefully
acknowledged what they were saying, you know, each time they repeated
it over and over, you said, "Uh-huh, all right." And then you said,
"No, a little bit of alteration there, it goes this way." And then
they acknowledged the fact that you have just said it and then they
said it and you said it and you said it and they said it. And you
acknowledged each other back and forth and answered up right away and
went on. The first thing you know the individual will wind up, as you
may have, in a frame of mind about one of these Axioms, "What do you
know, that - that's just an idea! Nothing connected with it at all!
It's just an idea. It's merely a consideration."
Did any of you get that about any of the Axioms?
Audience: Yeah.
Did you?
Audience: Yeah. That's just an idea!
One of the more obvious ways to strip somebody out of the universe
would simply to run this process. You would just knock this universe
as far as they were concerned to flinders if you continued on with all
fifty Axioms as nice as you please and got them to memorize them, each
time carefully acknowledging the fact that they had just repeated it.
Do you follow me?
Now, you're still operating, however, below the level of the laws of
communication. Remember, those are considerations too. All right. Now,
let's take an example of that. Just think to yourself now, think to
yourself this: "People ought to answer me when I talk to them." Got
that now? Think that.
All right. Well, all right.
All right, think that again: "People ought to answer me when I talk to
them."
Well, mm-mm, mm, all right. All right.
Let's think that again: "People ought to answer me when I talk to
them."
Okay. Mm-mm. Right. Mm-mm. Right. Okay.
Now, let's think that again: "People ought to answer me when I talk to
them."
Well, all right! Mm-mm. Okay. All right.
You get the idea? Isn't that horrible? Did anybody get a momentary
feeling like this is a piece of nonsense?
Female voice: Yeah.
Huh? Huh?
Female voice: I got dizzy.
You got dizzy? No kidding.
Female voice: I did!
Is that so? Now, all right, think this thing to yourself now. Think
this thing to yourself "I ought to answer up when I am spoken to."
Well, all right. That's right. Hm-mm. Okay.
All right, think that again: "I ought to answer up when I'm spoken
to."
Well, that's right. Yep. Hm-mm. Okay. Good.
All right, think that again.
Uh-huh. That's right. That's right.
Okay, think that again.
Uh-huh. That's so, that's so. Just so. Hm-mm.
All right, think that again.
Well, that's right. Uh-huh. Just so. Uh-huh.
All right, think it again. Well, okay. Uh-huh. Just so. That's right.
Mm-mm. Is anybody getting a sensation like "maybe under some
circumstances I might not have to?"
Audience: Hm-mm.
All right, so the communication formula itself then, is a process,
isn't it? It's a basic consideration. And if the communication formula
will solve all other laws, then the processing of the communication
formula itself ought to blow your preclear into next week. You get
this now?
Female voice: Gee!
So the most agreed upon thing which you've got is your communication
formula and the answer to this is, is because it works case after case
after case after case. So, it must therefore be that this case is
composited on the basis of this communication formula. Right?
So, what about running out the communication formula as a process? I
have just given you an example.
I will give you another one of the processes which of course are
self-evident now that you know the formula again.
Has anybody ever got a deja vu with this whereby he's thought, you
know, "I've been here before"?
All right. Now, let's take the communication formula. "I've done all
the talking, he ought to talk."
Yes sir, that's right.
All right, now think that again: "I've done all the talking, he ought
to talk."
Yes, sir.
Now, let's get - let's get that again. "I've done all the talking, now
he ought to talk."
Yes, sir! Absolutely!
All right, let's take it again.
Yes, sir. Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely.
All right, let's think that again. "I've done all the talking, now he
ought to talk."
Okay. Yes sir. Absolutely. Absolutely. All right! All right.
Now let's reverse it. "He's done all the talking, now I ought to
talk."
Yes sir. All right.
Let's do that again. "He's done all the talking, I ought to talk."
Yes sir. Absolutely. All right.
Let's do that again.
Uh-huh. Just so. Absolutely. Absolutely.
All right, let's try it again: "He's done all the talking, now I ought
to talk."
Okay. Just so. Absolutely. Right down the groove. Uh-huh. That's how
it is.
Okay, what's the matter?
Did anybody get a headache or anything?
Audience: Wang, scoot, boom, skreek.
All right, let's go to the reverse of this now. Let's go to the
reverse of this now. "I've done all the talking, now he ought to
talk."
Yes sir. Absolutely. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
All right, let's do that one again.
Okay. Absolutely. Yep. Got it? Getting it? All right.
Now, let's turn it around the other way again. "He's done all the
talking, now I ought to talk."
Yes sir. That's so. That's absolutely right. You bet. All right.
Now, how are you coming? It's pretty groggy isn't it?
Female voice: It hits like a - .
Feels like a what?
Female voice: To me, it hits your head hard.
Yep. All right. Now, just get the idea "There ought to be
communication."
Yes sir. Absolutely. All right, let's try that again. "There ought to
be communication."
Yes sir. Absolutely. Okay.
All right, now let's get that again. "There ought to be
communication."
Yes sir. That's true. Yes sir. Absolutely.
All right, let's try it again. "There ought to be communication."
Yes sir. That's right. That's right.
There ought to be communication.
Okay. What happens as you do that? Murder?
Female voice: Well, all these "alls" "0ughts" and "mosts" put terrible
pressure on somehow.
Uh-huh.
Female voice: So, oooh.
And that's true.
Female voice: It's wonderful.
All right, these are basically a consideration. We'd have to run it
until it were very evident to ourselves that this is a consideration,
wouldn't we, if you haven't recognized it clearly, if it hasn't come
through as a bolt from the blue.
Now, let's get this one: "There ought to be communication to me."
Yes, sir. Absolutely. That's right.
Now, let's get it again.
Male voice: It's almost a button on havingness.
All right, now let's get that again. "There ought to be communication
to me."
Yes sir. Absolutely. All right.
Now let's get that again.
Absolutely. That's correct. That's correct.
All right, let's get it again.
Yes sir. Yes sir. 100 percent.
All right, now let's get it again.
Uh-huh. That's right. There ought to be.
All right, now let's get it again. "There ought to me." That's what
you are supposed to think now. Come on.
Yes sir. You are so right.
All right, now I am not going to acknowledge this, this time.
All right, think it again.
Think it again.
Think it again.
Think it again.
Think it again.
Think it again.
Think it again.
Think it again.
Okay, how is that, huh?
Female voice: That fast, it leads to an explosion.
Yes sir.
Female voice: There will be no guessing there.
All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All
right. All right. All right. All right. All right. That's right, there
should be communication to you, I agree with you. That's right. That's
correct. That ought to be and so forth.
Now, the fact that you need the communication formula still
demonstrates to you that you haven't flipped the central consideration
yet. Right? Huh? You see this? This is not necessarily a very fast
process because you have been thinking this one for a long time!
But there is the centermost, key process of existence. It's simply
getting the guy to get the central portion ideas of the two-way
communication formula, and get him to get those ideas and then you
acknowledge them and you answer them. And you just get him to get the
idea and you acknowledge. You get him to get the idea and you
acknowledge. Sooner or later he is going to blow through and he will
say, "Communication? I wonder why I have to have communication? Well,
I guess there is a good and adequate reason."
Now, the fact of the matter is the whole idea of two-ness is again a
consideration - that we have to have two. In view of the fact that the
thetan is an individual, he gets caught between the fact that this
universe demands two and that he is one. And he gets caught between
these two things so that he can be hung up and put into a dwindling
spiral. And the top most mechanism of being trapped is: "I have to be
two - I have to be one."
All right. So you think now, "Now, you know I have to be two."
Yes sir, that's right.
All right, let's do that again.
Yes, sir. How true, how true.
All right, now let's think that again.
How true. That's absolutely right. Yes sir.
All right, let's think that again. "I have to be two."
That's right. Absolutely correct. Absolutely correct.
Let's think it again. "I have to be two."
Yep, that's correct. That's right.
All right, now, let's alter that now. "I have to be one." "I have to
be one. Think that.
Yes sir, that's right.
Okay, think it again.
Yes sir. That's correct.
All right, now think it again.
Yes sir. Absolutely correct.
Well, let's think it again.
How right you are. How right you are. That's right.
All right, now let's think it again.
Yes, sir. Mm-mm. You're right.
All right, now let's think again "I have to be one."
That's correct. That's correct.
That's right, you have to be one.
All right, now let's think it again.
Yes, sir, that's correct. That's correct.
All right, now let's think "I have to be two."
Yes, sir. That's right.
All right, now think again "I have to be two."
You betcha. That's right. All right.
Now, let's think it again. "I have to be two."
Yes sir. Yes sir. Too true.
All right, now let's think it again.
Yep. Yep. That's right. That's right. All right.
All right, what's the matter? Is it completely knocking you out?
All right, now let's think it again. "I have to be two."
Yes sir. Yes sir. That's right. All right.
Now let's think it again. "I have to be one."
Yep. Uh-huh. That's right.
All right, let's think it again. "I have to be one."
Yes sir, that's true. That's true.
All right, let's think it again. "I have to be one."
Yes sir. That's true. That's right. That's right. Absolutely right.
You're correct. All right.
Let's think it again.
Yes sir. Right. All right.
Now let's think "I have to have somebody to talk to."
That's right. You're so right.
All right, now let's think that again. "I have to have somebody to
talk to."
Yes sir. That's correct. That's correct.
All right, now let's think that again.
You are so right. You are so right. You are absolutely right. You do
have to have. That's true. That's right. You are so right. Okay,
you're so right.
All right, now again. "I have to have somebody to talk to."
Yes sir. That's correct. That's correct. That's absolutely correct.
That's right. That's okay. You're so right.
All right, now let's think of that again: "I have to have somebody to
talk to."
Right. You're correct. All right.
Now, let me point out something to you, let me point opt something to
you. Have you ever had somebody to talk to when you said to yourself,
"I have to have somebody to talk to"?
Audience: Nope. No.
There is a central button. There is the central button right there.
That's a never acknowledged statement. Have you got it?
Audience: Yes.
That statement is not acknowledged. All right, now, that's about all
there is to it. Did you get that last one? "I have to have somebody to
talk to," then was never acknowledged, was it? So, after you had
bought a communication formula it had to hang up, didn't it. It
definitely had to hang up. These things are considerations. They can
be processed as such. And you have got one of the - one of the most
interesting processes of Scientology.
That's all.
Thank you.
(end of lecture)
(end of 9th ACC)

Similar documents

×

Report this document