The Game of Life - august 1956

Сообщения: 1944
Зарегистрирован: 25 июн 2011, 15:42
Контактная информация:

The Game of Life - august 1956

Сообщение Timecops »

Web auditing in any place on the planet

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

One of the greatest breakthroughs of Scientology is the discovery of what life really is — a game. And by understanding that game, one becomes cause in life.
In May of 1956, L. Ron Hubbard began an ambitious project — to set down in writing a concise yet comprehensive survey of this game called life. His immediate purpose was to provide a textbook on the basics of Scientology which could be translated into non-English tongues. His ultimate goal, as expressed in the introduction to this book, was "the factual creation, within any political reference, of a civilization on Earth for the first time."
His work culminated in the landmark book Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, a manual of the basic principles and discoveries—"the things of Scientology." Written, literally, for everyone, the book was translated into thirteen languages shortly after its first publication. And just as Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health had become Book One of Dianetics six years before, The Fundamentals of Thought soon became known as the Book One of Scientology.
That summer found Ron researching and writing in London where, prior to leaving for Washington, he lectured to Scientologists attending the Hubbard Professional Course on these same fundamentals—not just what they are, but why they are — their origin, anatomy and underlying principles.

Throughout the month, LRH laid out his discoveries of the true anatomy of life itself—games. These lectures explain games theory, those conditions created and experienced by the thetan in his contest with others and the physical universe. Encompassed in and explained by games theory are a multitude of basic phenomena: what knowledge is; why thetans love games; how a thetan becomes allergic to control; unwanted valences and psychosomatics; how a being acquires computations; and why a being is stuck in a body, a universe or a time track.
Here are principles which describe the laws of life itself: the Auditor's Code, the first 10 Axioms of Scientology, control, the cycle of action, the Tone Scale and Know to Mystery Scale, valences, facsimiles, electronic phenomena of the mind — and most relevant to all, the urgent need to know the tech and use it in life.
With the deeper understanding of the subject and greater ability to apply it obtained from these lectures, any Scientologist will know how to not only stay in the game of life but win, no matter the odds.
These twenty lectures have now been reproduced on cassette with the highest possible sound quality, using Clearsound state-of-the-art sound-recording technology.

To aid your study of the lectures and assimilation of the data, an Appendix starting on page 157 contains the codes and scales referred to by LRH in the lectures as well as issues he wrote at the time.
Specific Scientology terms or auditing processes referred to are described by LRH at the point he mentions them, or are defined in the glossary starting on page 177. To ensure your complete understanding of the data, always be certain to look in the glossary for any word or term that is unfamiliar. Using the glossary, the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary and a good English dictionary will ensure the greatest understanding.
Life is a game. Here's the rule book.
We are proud to present for your study and use, The Game of Life lectures.


(as given in lecture 9: "Games Theory")
(as given in lecture 12: "Knowingness")
(as given in lecture 15: "Scales, Motion")
(from Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought)
(from Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought)

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

Okay. Going to talk to you about the Auditor's Code.
And of this half-hour lecture, the first minute and thirty seconds will be devoted to the Auditor's Code and then we get to work. Going to read to you the Auditor's Code:
1. Do not evaluate for the preclear.
2. Do not invalidate or correct the preclear's data.
3. Use the processes which improve the preclear's case.
4. Keep all appointments once made.
5. Do not process a preclear after 10:00 P.M.
6. Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed.
7. Do not permit a frequent change of auditors.
8. Do not sympathize with a preclear.
9. Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own independent decision.

10. Never walk off from a preclear during a session.
11. Never get angry with a preclear. (Also never get apathetic with one.)
12. Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continual use of
the same question or process.
13. Always continue a process as long as it produces change and no longer.
(Boy, that's an important one.)
14. Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear. (When your case is in that
kind of shape.)
15. Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of various other practices.
And 16. Stay in two-way communication with your preclear.
Now, the gist of that code was developed over a period of years after carefully sorting out all of the things that drove preclears mad.
Every time we had an upset, a break, a fast spin, a broken session—preclear blows the session, so forth—one or more of those clauses had been violated. And so they are the test of great experience. And being the test of great experience they are of course not the development of LRH, but the arduous work of thousands of auditors and preclears.
Now, therefore the Auditor's Code does have a considerable usage. I'll tell you, factually, every time a preclear has more or less gone by the boards during auditing—which has happened very seldom, by the way—temporarily been upset by auditing, actually only three of these were of tremendous importance, just three of them. And that is, he was being audited improperly fed, he was being audited after 10:00 P.M. and he was not being audited with good two-way communication.



And when you realize that actual cases of people breaking down during auditing are very few—they are, actually, very few—it's become a maxim with us that bad auditing is better than no auditing. It's quite remarkable. But when a case has broken down it has been of a large order of magnitude. One really had to work in order to make it come to pass.
So we have the Auditor's Code. But let me assure you that the obedience to the Auditor's Code is simply following out good, practical experience. If you don't want to keep the Auditor's Code, be a psychiatrist.
But when we get into good, practical experience we have a roadway which was hewn with great ardure by a great many axes and it was a long time in the making. The first Auditor's Code sounded like when knighthood was in flower. But we found, as time went on, that more and more things were actually needed rather than idealism.
Well, now, this whole business about auditing a preclear underneath the Auditor's Code could completely go astray if you, as an auditor, were incapable of going through all of the motions necessary to being an auditor. And going through those motions is an understood part of the Auditor's Code. There are certain motions one goes through when he audits; there are certain things one does. And doing those things properly, underneath the guide of the Auditor's Code, are the heart and soul of good auditing.
There's hardly a single auditor alive who hasn't made terrible blunders, heinous mistakes, fabulous boo-boos with preclears. He was tired, he was restimulated and the preclear said just one thing too many and he lowered the boom on him in some fashion or another. He did something wild—he changed the process.
Preclear was right in the middle of a tremendous set of somatics and the auditor says, "I can't stand this anymore" and changed the process. And that dropped the preclear out through the bottom and then the auditor spent the next four sessions scraping him off the floor—next two sessions pleading with him to come back to be audited and the following two scraping him off the floor.
So in the final analysis it is the auditor—you know we used to say, "It's the woman who pays." No it isn't, it's the auditor who pays. I don't care what his fee is, he pays if he breaks the Auditor's Code. It's a way to do it the easy way. If you want to have a fight with the preclear, something like that, well, do it after the session but not during a session.
It's a very fantastic thing, you know, to have a fight with a preclear or get into a scramble of some sort with a preclear and then have to audit it all out. That is what is known as eating crow, and not a delectable dish at all.
I want to tell you frankly and flatly that anybody could follow that Auditor's Code, anybody. It's the easiest thing in the world to follow. You just get so you can follow it. You know it well.
But I'll tell you what isn't easy to follow—is under every stress and strain to go through all of the motions necessary to being an auditor. You have to know them so well. You have to have them so expertly at your tongue tip that no matter what happens, they happen.
Now, everybody who starts to study Scientology has to some degree, naturally, an interest in his own case. Naturally. This is his biggest stumbling block. It isn't that his case is his biggest stumbling block: he's been living with that for years. But when he starts to audit, his case is liable to get in his road.
I'll tell you a very amusing experience—took two auditor-preclear teams which had failed to achieve any marked result. Put the auditor and the preclear each on two different E-Meters and went over the lists of things the auditor had audited on the preclear—unsuccessfully, since he'd never flattened these things on the preclear. But what do you know, what do you know. Although he'd never gotten to these things, the list of things he was trying to audit out of the case

banged on the auditor's meter and were completely null on the preclear's meter. You get that?
Now, a similar phenomenon—a similar phenomenon: if you simply start mocking up teeth (just as an experimental process, you know), you just start mocking up teeth and you mock up more and more teeth, more and more teeth, more and more teeth, just tons and tons and tons and streets full and towns full of teeth, all of a sudden you get the main aberration that assaults thetans. It comes out. (You ought to do this sometime. Some preclear will tell you this and you'll be flabbergasted.) The postulate is "Whee! Let's make everybody into teeth." You got that?
An effect was produced upon the person, so the person knows that the best way to make an effect on another is to produce that same effect upon him. You got the idea? So that every psychoanalyst—back in the old days when psychotherapy still existed, the analyst was completely fixated on transferring his patient into the valence of the analyst. That is what transference is. The patient had to become an analyst. Well, that's fine if the same phenomenon didn't show up when you mock up teeth. It tells you that this is simply an obsessed phenomenon.
Now, we are studying much less a science than life. And using this word science is a sort of a sop to the public at large. We're studying living. Kahlil Gibran said in his very, very great book The Prophet that anyone to understand him had to have a shadow of that knowledge in himself first. And when you understand what I say to you, it's because you already know it. And so we have hit the peak, the uttermost top-level peak, on this "make everybody into us." There isn't anything else in people but what we're doing to them. You get that? Well, now, if you understand that fully, you'll never try to make your preclear into your aberrated case. You understand this?
Now, we don't care what obsessions occur, we don't care what happens in a session, an auditor has to know how to go through certain motions. And those motions are comparable to riding a bicycle. They are comparable to flying an airplane —less complicated, by the way, than flying an airplane by far, less complicated than most mechanical pursuits, but quite mechanical, quite mechanical. There isn't any vast strangeness which surrounds the outer periphery of this subject. There isn't any peculiarity that will jump up and hit you.
Now, you think mainly of Scientology as being a body of data. Please extend—please extend that. Scientology has added something to life.
There is something more than data and understanding to Scientology and that something is simply this—a procedure of handling life, a set exact procedure for handling life. And that procedure has not changed for just ages.
Now, it's all right for you to get interested in a postulate. It's all right for you to get interested in a certain type of engram. It's all right for you to get interested in anything you want to get interested in as long as that interest does not deter you as an auditor from these procedures. Do you understand that?
The procedures are more important than the knowledge. We could actually take an auditor and set him up almost like a robot—almost—and have him go forward with a case. We could plug in a certain process and we would get some sort of a result.
Now, that's an awful commentary, isn't it? That's an awful thing to say to an auditor. But that robot would be a little bit better than the very worst auditors there are. See, he'd be a little bit better than the very worst. He would be infinitely poorer, oh, just unimaginably poorer, even though we had him all keyed up to stimulus-response mechanisms of all kinds, he'd be infinitely poorer than a good or even a mediumly good auditor. You understand that?



But as we sort all this out we find ourselves trying to grasp, trying to understand, trying to take apart and put back together again certain tenets in Scientology. For heaven's sakes, before we worry ourselves frantic with those things, let's find what is the motion called Scientology. And that's an easy one.
Now, if we take the various things that we have to learn one by one and master each one, it becomes easy then to do them all at once. It's nowhere near as difficult as playing a piano, but if we learn to do those things, each one separately so that one won't become confused, we will eventually achieve the coaction of all of them. And there aren't very many. But we have to be able to do each one independently and well.
Why? Look, you study about curiosity. You find that curiosity is a universal solvent. You can study about engrams. You can study about vacuums. You can study about all types of phenomena and reactions, all kinds of maladies that stem from aberrated conditions, stem from mental aberration. You can study all these things. And when you finally get all the way through with that study, it's a very strange thing that you won't have grasped how to handle another person.
I'll tell you bluntly why you came into Scientology. You've had a few failures in producing an effect on people. It's true, isn't it? Well, please, please reach out and embrace the procedure, the learning how to ride a bicycle of Scientology (the procedure, not the process) as ways of handling people, the like of which people never knew about before; they just didn't.
Now, that much of Scientology is actually invented and experimented into actuality. But believe me, the production of a positive effect upon another human being, in or out of an auditing session, can always be accomplished by the use of auditing procedures.
Some fellow wrote in the other day just as though he'd discovered something new. He said, "When I get into trouble with somebody and I can't get him squared around in business, I have learned a cute trick—I become his auditor for a couple of minutes."
Well, this is very fine. I'm glad he cognited. But this is one of the things that an auditor does best.
Now, an auditor has a difficulty only when he starts to handle other auditors. Occasionally you get into a fencing match—you get two very good auditors auditing each other. Wow!
I actually—I used to have a spy system in clinical rooms, that is to say, it was a microphone. It wasn't concealed, it was right in plain sight in every auditing room in a building. And that all poured in on a selective switch system and I had a speaker there. And I could hear what was going on in all of these rooms. And every now and then somebody would forget that he had a mike there and stop doing the process and just start blowing up, you know. And he'd say, "Ron distinctly said in lecture so-and-so that so-and-so and so-and-so ..."
Now, there, of course—there, of course, you are auditing somebody who is quite well aware of your mechanisms and tools and it's something like an expert magician doing tricks for an expert magician.
But what do you know, it's still interesting. You find expert magicians are still interested in expert magicians. It's quite amazing. And so it's a different climate, it's a different auditing climate.
You'll find that these same technologies in the hands of a trained auditor used on the public, used on the cashier or the bank manager or the director or somebody—wow, wow! You can actually predict quite exactly the phenomenon you will produce in the person as you go along and as you look at auditing more widely than simply in an auditing room, the auditing procedures.
Just out of wickedness one day I made a bank manager cry. How? I just sat there because the guy kept jitter-jattering way off of the subject and he was

flicker-flackering around and he wasn't even there. And he told me this same thing about four times. And I got tired of it the fourth time, so I acknowledged him. I just sat there. I didn't do a better job than anybody else would have done. I'm just a Scientologist acknowledging somebody. "I heard you. I heard what you said. You know, when you said that, I was listening? I heard you. I heard every word you said and I understood what you said. You actually have said that to me and I have heard you say that."
He sat there sort of stonied for a moment, you know? You get the idea, by the way, that people, if you use these things that crudely on them, would suppose that you were straight out of a spinbin, but I assure you the weapon transcends their ability to reason. They have no opinion when you start these things. It's the most opinionless person that you ever faced. He doesn't have any idea you're crazy. It's not aberrated conduct where he's concerned; you actually have transcended his ability to react to conduct.
Now, where you can do this to a human being at random picked out of the society—and you can, it's good for you. You ought to sometime just sit down and start stupidly, no matter how crudely, start acknowledging somebody who just ordinarily doesn't receive an acknowledgment. Whether you have to get in front of their face immediately and say, "Good" terribly loudly or what you have to do, get an acknowledgment through and you'll find that person is absolutely stonied.
He's been going around as the "only one" ever since he was a kid. And he's the only one alive in the world. And all of a sudden, he finds somebody else alive in the world. Just by what? The mechanism of acknowledgment only. So these are weapons, these are weapons of magnitude.
Now, producing an effect on another human being can be achieved by the use of the procedure alone. You learn that in indoctrination. Now add to that and compound it with a knowledge of his mind, a knowledge of exact procedures and we have auditing. Do you see that?
But the thing to learn is the procedure. And the first thing to learn about procedure is the Code. And the most important thing to learn about the Code is all of it.
You'll notice that the Code includes some very, very interesting points such as "Stay in two-way communication with the preclear." Number 16. That is terribly important.
If you cannot handle an origin on the part of the preclear you can plummet him into the depths. Zoom. You can drop him further than psychoanalysis could drop him in two years, just with that. You just didn't handle his origin. He said something, you didn't handle it.
You see, you're living in a very rarefied air. You're living with auditing procedures in an atmosphere of TNT. It is strictly atomic. It is not a common, let's talk together on the street corner climate. And therefore you reach so deep into the preclear that when you do something wrong, it produces a tremendously strong effect.
Now, I always say that an auditor isn't any good at all unless he's been audited by somebody who read half a book. And then that auditor knows—he knows how bad it can get. Does him a world of good.
He says, "You know," he said, "I—I just—just had an idea about my case and—and the ..."
His auditor says, "Well, now, let's go on with the process."
He goes over the incident again in some fashion or recounts what's happening and finds himself stuck in the end of the incident and he feels he's way out of present time and way on down the track. And he looks frantically to the auditor to say something such as, "Go over it again. Come up to present time. Let's invent another opponent. Let's invent another reason to have that incident. Let's



invent some method of staying in the incident." He looks in vain for something to happen, and the auditor simply sits there—"auditor" (quote, unquote) just sits there, says nothing.
Fellow is way back down the track, full somatics, fully interiorized into an incident and the auditor says not one word. Not only says not one word for five minutes but says not one word for one half an hour, all the while the preclear pleading, "Do something." Preclear finally scrambles himself up and gets himself out of it one way or the other. He goes, you might say, out of session.
Now, that's how bad it can get. But do you know that a preclear running through the incidents of the tension which we run today, with the velocity and ardures and pressures of these incidents, a preclear can be plunged straight into apathy by just your supposing that you might change the auditing wording.
You put in a communication bridge; you did everything you were supposed to do. You were following two-way communication; you put in the bridge but you just assumed that he wasn't getting along fast enough and he's in the depth of apathy. And you start to put in the bridge so that you can slightly alter the process and you just drop the preclear right out the bottom; he just goes straight into apathy. Crash.
In other words, his grip on existence and present time is so slight that he cannot tolerate that. You make a mistake, which we don't expect you to make, but every auditor makes them sometime or another. He accidently misstates the auditing command. He gives it a twist. He uses a different word, the auditing command means the same thing. Do you know that that is enough for a preclear who is having a rough time of it to plunge again into apathy and be dredged out at lord knows what labor. Just one flip on one word is enough.
You're running an alternate process: "Look at the wall. Look at the floor. Look at the wall. Look at the floor." And you're doing that very nicely and you accidently say, "Look at the wall" twice. See, you don't say, "Look at the wall. Look at the floor." You say, "Look at the wall. Look at the wall. Look at the floor." Preclear goes right out through the bottom.
You see, you're handling incidents today which have such violent content that it is only your excellent auditing which permits the preclear to get near them in the first place. You understand that?
It was just because you were there and who you were and doing what you were doing that permitted this proximity to the incident. And then you change something. You forget part of a communication bridge. You don't have a contract with him on the subject of the wording of it. You don't discuss what process we're going to run. You don't bridge between two commands. You skip in some fashion or you drop the ashtray. Of course, flagrantly—you fail to acknowledge an origin or you fail to acknowledge or you'll fail to give him the command promptly. And any one of these things can throw him temporarily into a feeling that he's just gone mad or he's gone into a deeper apathy than he can ever possibly plow out of.
Your procedures are the first and foremost important thing in auditing. And where you have failures today, they are failures of procedure.
When your preclear seems to be unwilling or seems to be sliding out of session, when you know everything is going along all right, you should ask him, "What have I done wrong?" And he will tell you some imagined blunder that you never pulled.
Don't argue with him at that time and tell him you didn't pull it. Just fish it up, because he'll get right back into session again. Preclears very often imagine you said things you didn't say. Accept that as part of the liabilities of being an auditor. Never try to justify yourself or what you did. You are cause in the auditing session. And with today's procedures and today's processes, it would be awfully difficult for you to be anything else but cause. That's all you're

trying to be. You're producing an effect on your preclear that's quite marked. You don't have to make the effect any different than the effect that you can produce, because that effect is quite satisfactory. And it is best achieved by following all clauses of the Auditor's Code with very good attention to tremendous precision in the use of the procedures of Scientology. Thank you.


The Code of a Scientologist is part of our material, part of our know-how and it is not something offhand that you simply concur with because Ron or the Association or somebody thought it was a good idea and so on.
Actually the Code of a Scientologist was evolved to make a life a bit easier for auditors. That was its primary purpose. And if adhered to, it will be discovered that auditors don't get into too much trouble. But when not adhered to, why, they can get into lots of trouble.
Now, auditors who are very short of games and so forth now have a formula for creating more randomity and more games. All you do is take any clause of the Code of a Scientologist and break it and you'll have more game at once. Not because the Association will do anything to you particularly; the Association seldom does.
You hear every now and then of somebody getting his certificate cancelled. You hear about it but it doesn't happen. That's very funny, you know? There have only been a very few people across the boards in the last many, many years who have actually had certificates cancelled. And it was only after these people had actively avowed that their reason for being in Dianetics or Scientology was exactly to end and stop Dianetics and Scientology by any means whatsoever.
Now, that's pretty extreme, but there are subversive groups in the world. I'm not—you know, one of these—one of these groups that fancies itself as subversive is known as the Communist Party of America and Communist Party of the world and all that sort of thing, who think they're subversive but you have to be doing something to subvert something.
But they have insanity classified as a person who believes the Communist Party are against them. That's their definition of insanity.
And in view of the fact many psychiatrists are members of this party this, of course, is given a great deal of credence. So they actually define paranoia. And one of the manifestations of paranoia in psychiatric classification is to believe somebody is against you and to believe particularly that the Communist Party is against you. That is an actual definition; it's in psychiatric textbooks.
I think it's very, very cute because there can be two things which are psychotic—the environment or the individual. Never forget that. Because everyone now and then—you, a Scientologist, will be faced with somebody being in a terrific amount of agitation who is living in a psychotic environment and trying to stay sane in it. And he sounds like he's nuts. He describes the environment, don't you see?



You take somebody living in Ireland—living in Ireland, which has about seventeen political parties going full blast right this moment. Everybody has started gunning around this and that and you have one party chewing up another party and everybody is chewing everybody. And the only great man they ever had over there was De Valera. I mean, he was a great man. There's no doubt about it. He was practically the father of that country. But one day he said, "The Roman Catholic Church is bad for the Irish." And that was the end of him, you see?
Well, does that mean that he is wrong? You know, he could be right. He just could be right. And yet, he dug his political grave with just that statement.
Well, now, let's take the Scientologist. The Scientologist looks around and with a superior ability to reason sees in his vicinity many things which could be remedied for the better. To him, the environment looks just a little bit batty. You follow me? It doesn't look quite sane.
He goes into the bank and he finds a 1.5 manager who is trying to stop all motion. Well, now, this is fascinating, this is fascinating. A 1.5 manager? That bank isn't going to do any business; it isn't going to succeed even. Well, what are they doing hiring him? It's probably because he's impressive. Probably because it's the way he wears his clothes or something like this. But all the clerks are unhappy under him and so forth.
You go around to the head of all the banks and you're going to tell him, "Why don't you get on the ball and hire a manager down at that bank that can handle the business of that bank," and you find that you're talking to another 1.5. In other words, the environment looks just a trifle daffy to you.
Now, the question is are you crazy or is the environment crazy? You follow that?
Now, a Scientologist facing this fact, at war with some of the major problems—of course it's perfectly all right, you know, for you to have a little child run across the street there and somebody come down the street at eighty miles an hour and run over the child and splatter it all over the street and so forth. That's perfectly all right, evidently—according to the environment.
Why? Because they never give anybody a psychometric test before they hand them a driver's license. And 10 percent of the drivers that they enfranchise shouldn't be let near a perambulator, much less an automobile.
Well, now, there is an active remedy which does influence you, your friends and other people. It isn't something you should simply fall back from and say, "Well, I have no responsibility for this," the way public authorities do.
It isn't something you say, "Well, I'm all in apathy about it." You, a Scientologist, you go around and you say, "Why don't you test these drivers?"
And they say, "Huh?"
And you say, "Well, you see, you'd cut down your automobile accidents."
They say, "Cut down the automobiles—this is the driver's license division. The accident division is down the hall." In other words, they have no responsibility for it.
Now, very often—very often in this world you will discover people walking around saying, "Somebody ought to do something about it. Somebody ought to do something about it. Some organization ought to do something about it. Some government department, some agency ought to do something about it." But do you know, the only person who can do anything about it, the only organization that can do anything about it at all is you.
Now, you get into a big company. It's sprawling all over 195 acres and it all has wheels and wheels and wheels that turn wheels that spin other wheels. And you go in there and you're in the—a department and you keep getting forms to fill out which you know nobody ever reads. And you keep filling out these forms.

And one day you decide to find out where this form goes, so you follow it down the hall on its mail line and you find out that there's a file case there. And the fellow who held your job before, his forms and all of your forms are in the file case. Nobody else has ever noticed them. In other words, here's a funny dead end. And yet, all the information which has been assembled in these forms is quite important to the company. You found a dead end.
You decide you're going to tell somebody about this and they say, "The board knows" or "The organization knows" or "The department head knows and therefore you should keep your nose out of this."
That is simply a mechanism by which people get disenfranchised. And if you get disenfranchised enough from the game of life, you don't have any game. That's the way you lose games. The only person that can do anything about that is you. But that's an awful thing to realize. It isn't up to Joe or Bill or the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Street Cleaners—it's you.
Now, it's completely aside from the point is the environment daffy or are you daffy? Why ever answer the question? Look down the games conditions* and you discover that all games conditions are a lie. The truth is over there in "be dead." It's impossible to live the truth. You'd have to exteriorize and go up and sit on an asteroid for the next ten thousand years to be totally true.
So, if you're going to play the game at all, play it as a game and play it well. Realize fully that if you go into action, you'll go into trouble and go ahead and play the game. And don't worry about whether you're crazy or the environment is crazy, be perfectly willing to be crazy. In other words, be willing to be crazy as far as the environment is concerned. And that way you'll get something done.
An extension of this, by the way: people usually follow people who are crazy. That's quite interesting. It's a phenomenon that we call, technically, "the shaman's call."
The shaman of—well, let's say the medicine man of the Goldi people up in Manchuria on the Amur River, for instance, let somebody wander around and he isn't quite bright or he seems strange or something, they don't bother him any.
And one day he comes rushing in from the wilderness to say that he's been visited by a spirit or something of the sort, and the spirit told him to do so-and-so and so-and-so.
And they say, "Well, we have a new shaman." Give him his gourd rattle and take his advice implicitly from there on out.
That is the shaman's call. You will even see that exercised among civilized peoples. Quite interesting, isn't it? It's actually a technical phenomenon.
I've seen an entire group of people with a beautiful program laid out in front of them follow somebody who had nothing in mind whatsoever but group suicide. They are all following the shaman's call. They're in such a compulsive game condition they follow any motion of any kind. And the motion which you ordinarily see around in the society at large, up to these times, was pretty batty.
Somebody is organizing a society to prevent all British from drinking tea.
"Why?" (Well, it's a very affluent society.) "Why?"
"Because tea rots the brain."
And they trace—they trace that the downfall of the British Empire took place immediately after the first importations of tea.
They have no other data to support this at all and, yet, this is a very fine, upstanding, affluent society.
Just put it under this basis—don't go boggling at it and being upset by it, just understand it: Any game is better than no game. You got that?
* [Editor's Note: Further data on games conditions is contained in lecture 9, "Games Theory."]



Don't go combating the other fellow's game; add to it. Put in more problems. Put more pieces of paper on the government line—you'll be promoted to be admiral in no time. That's all you have to do. Any game is better than no game.
Now you, as you look around in this society and find a great many psycho games being played then—like 1.5 bank managers who are appointed by 1.5 bank presidents—you look around and you see these goofy games with tremendous amount of randomity in them. Don't walk out and buy a Mauser for administration to yourself to end it all; just understand the whole thing. Don't go down to the apothecary and shop for cyanide. There's no point in it at all. Because any game is better than no game at all. The remedy for it is for you to furnish a better game. Got that clearly? You. Not the board or somebody else.
Now, a lot of you together, furnishing a better game, can be very successful. But if your purpose is simply to end all existing games, you'll fail. You follow that? You'll just get more and more involved. You won't know after a while whether you're playing your game or their game or whether there's any game or how far it is to Arcturus, you won't know anything. No. What you do is mock up and play a better game.
Now, some Scientologists are so short on games that they can only have opponents in other Scientologists. After all, this is easy. They both speak the same language; you can easily root out their errors and mistakes. Don't you see? They're easy to understand and very easy to have as opponents.
Well, all right. If you yourself are willing to generate a new game in your society or community, that game need only have more action, more appeal and more problems to beat out every other game being played in the community. And if that's a sane game, you'll then have a sane community. You follow me? If you simply fight the psychotic games going on in the community, nothing will happen except that you will get enturbulated.
You would be amazed what happens to messages that come across my desk telling about the boo-boos of auditors over thataway. Auditors write me and tell me about how horrible auditors are over thataway. The auditors over thataway are meantime writing me and telling me how horrible they are over thisaway, and it's very remarkable.
Every once in a while somebody on an administrative line will do something peculiar. They will mock up some kind of a message direct for me to clobber some group; they'll do all sorts of things. Occasionally, just to add to the randomity, I'll all of a sudden write up a message, you know, saying, "Shoot everybody in northern Australia," something like that, you know.
But when I mock them up along that line, they are usually not really in the direction toward a solution, they're in the direction of showing them a better target than each other. And the hallmark, you might say, of my communication line on subjects that have to do with enturbulences amongst associations and auditors is that I always point out a rougher game than they're trying to play. Then, fact is, the game can be played.
Now, if you yourself, all by yourself, could actually change the world—and don't think you couldn't—there are people all over the place who tell you that you can't, but that's because you can.
It should be very, very frightening to you to realize that if people have to work this hard to convince you you can't change everything around, it must be that you have some danger in doing so, see?
You must be slightly dangerous. If everybody worked this hard to convince you you mustn't do anything and you mustn't take responsibility for anything, then it follows that there must be some menace from your quarter. You can feel very, very proud if everybody has been jumping on you with both feet most of your life. You must be a dinger!

A man picks up as much aberration as he's started commotion. But if he knows he's starting commotion, it isn't apt that he'll pick up much aberration from having started it, don't you see?
So if you all by yourself could start a better game than "let's run down all the children" and then have another department over here to educate all the children to dodge and then have another department over here that licenses everybody who has that as a penchant and then another department to protect the rights of drivers so that they can all have permits—you see how this game is adding up? It's a cinch you have to invent a better game for the Motor Vehicle Department and all the rest of them.
So what you want to invent is some very expensive, complicated, difficult examination that has to be undergone, probably medical. And you have to invent driving tests which require that the fellow pays a fee to drive a car quite different from that which he's going to drive in the street, you see? And write up this program that's going to just cost billions, see. And it's just going to absorb the attention and energies of just thousands and thousands of people and will never be figured out by the police. Everybody will buy this game. Everybody will buy that one, see?
And then you just smoothly insert in small type here or there "In view of the fact that we have so many more, better problems now, we can knock out the 10 percent of the drivers who cause accidents." You know, that just goes unnoticed. "We can do without that one now," they'll say.
Now, that's the way things run. You think you rush into the society with a better solution and get anywhere with it, you're very badly mistaken. You've got to rush into the society with better problems.
An old philosopher once said, "The whole world will beat a path to the door of the man who builds a better mousetrap."
Well, it's very funny, you know, it's very remarkable that he used the word "mousetrap." And it's—would be much, much better for our purposes had he said, "The whole world will beat a path to the door of the man who can mock up a better problem." Do you follow me there?
If you want to get rid of some problems in a psychotic environment, then rig out some more problems so that their attention comes off the other problem. Your problems can be sane problems. All you have to do is dream up the bigger problem.
Now, the bigger problem to the Scientologist is the conquest of his environment and bringing into the environment enough activity, potentiality, good sense and communication that the team of man can function. That he doesn't go mad periodically and go chasing off into France from Germany to steal some French cows and have vast millions of men being poured in to kill vast millions of men or sit in some ivory laboratory over in the US or in the steppes of Russia to push a button to obliterate something because somebody gave them the wrong change at one time or another down at Oxford Circus, you know? That's about how much sense these things have to them.
There is no bigger problem today in the public ken than those problems which exist in the public ken, but actually there are bigger problems than that. See, there are much bigger problems than anybody thinks there are.
A Scientologist is very clever who points out to the preclear that he's really in trouble. He just thinks he's been in trouble with these little nonsensical things that he's dabbling with but, gosh, the huge problem that's hanging over his head. You follow me? You get the mechanism?
Well, it's quite interesting that this has an enormous workability. The Code of the Scientologist was written in the belief that there were bigger problems than Scientologists handling Scientologists. And therefore it was written to eradicate



this problem of Scientologists associating with Scientologists or difficulties arising in between the Scientologist and the public. This would leave the Scientologist free to find bigger problems and play bigger games. If you understand that thoroughly, you will see why the code is necessary.
If you knew with what amusement many Scientologists who are in the know greet complaints about other auditors and what they immediately think, you wouldn't do it.
You would simply go over to the other auditor and you would say, "Uh—I have a little piece of news for you. At eight o'clock tonight, I will be over to give you a session." You wouldn't be writing anybody about it. But this would only obtain if an individual had enough outer-perimeter problems.
A body of people fight amongst itself only when the environment is caving it in. When they are caving in the environment, they stand united. So the solution to all interrelationships in Scientology do consist of Scientologists operating as a united body to cave in the environment. And that solves all problems and even obviates a code. If they were doing that, they would dream up a code and go ahead with it and never write it down. But there is the Code of a Scientologist. It's been in existence for some time, and I'll give you a rapid summary of it.
To hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclears concerning any of ray fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this science.
That's in a Scientologist's own protection. Do you know the public stays away in droves from the fellow who does that? They just stay away in droves. He just cuts his practice and activity to pieces.
Many people think they accumulate a practice by violating that; they don't. Experience over six years has demonstrated they all go broke.
2. To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to better my
preclears, groups and the world.
It's an interesting thing. It's a little mild statement, but it has a tremendous impact. It sets forth an intention.
3. To refuse to accept for processing and to refuse to accept money from any
preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help.
That's not there for you. You wouldn't do that anyhow. That is there as a direct sock in the teeth to the medical profession; it's nothing but. So you can hang that on the wall and you can show it to your preclears and someday we will force that on medicine. Horrible thing for us to do, isn't it? That's quite a game then, isn't it?
Why should we force it on medicine? That's because medicine makes us pay a toll, you see? We're not the enemies of medicine, but we'll have to convince them that if they get better, they can be an enemy of ours.
4. To punish to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading
Scientology to harmful ends.
This has always created a storm amongst auditors. The old-time auditor couldn't stand the word punish and actually deter was substituted there for punish.
To deter to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends.
Well, I'm in a higher action condition—I punish them. I usually punish them by auditing them upscale and they all of a sudden look and see what a fool they've been. That's punishment. It makes him better; it doesn't leave any bits and pieces lying around. I love a war where the battlefields are all swept clean afterwards.

5. To prevent the use of Scientology in advertisements of other products.
That also, by the way, is the American Medical Association and so forth.
They're always using doctors' names and that sort of thing in advertising. It's quite direct.
6. To discourage the abuse of Scientology in the press.
That doesn't mean you can't publish in the press, but it means you better bring a reporter in who misquoted you and throw him into birth. (laughter)
7. To employ Scientology to the greatest good of the greatest number of
Honest, that's no part of a code, that's just good sense. That, by the way, is the definition of an optimum solution. An optimum solution is the greatest good to the greatest number of dynamics.
8. To render good processing, sound training and good discipline to those
students or peoples entrusted to my care.
The only place Scientologists ever break down is under discipline. As they come uptone, they get tougher. People don't like unrestricted things, by the way. They like a sharply scheduled class. They don't like a sloppily scheduled one.
9. To refuse to impart the personal secrets of my preclears.
And that is just there as a sop to the preclear. But preclears have secrets and you can show them this in the code and they're happy. Of course you don't disclose them; who'd be interested?
10. To engage in no unseemly disputes with the uninformed on the subject of
my profession.
And there's where most Scientologists fall down most often: they argue with people and so on. What this is, is a deadly weapon. You're sitting in a crowd of people, they want to know about Scientology. Some guy starts to dispute with you—he's in some allied group, something of the sort, and you just refuse to talk to him. Drives him nuts! He has to go get a book and read it. You just refuse to talk to him. It's a deadly way to handle the situation and you'll find out is the successful way—is the successful way. The wrong way is to give him some processing in front of all of them or some other nonsensical thing.
Well, that is the Code of a Scientologist. It's there for use, it's there so that we can all prosper and work well and so the world can prosper because we have lived. And that is why it is there and I hope that you can see fit to fit it into your rationale and abide by it.


Want to talk to you about the relative position of the auditor and the preclear, or positions of auditing.
I'm sure, absolutely sure, that much good will come out of this lecture, although I personally don't see the point in it myself. (laughter)
There are three general positions and two attitudes that must be taken into effect. But I'm sure that there are students who will have to know this just to know that—to get off this old kick of the psychoanalytic-type procedure because we're not even doing psychotherapy, you see.
Psychoanalytic position, of course, is patient on the couch and analyst at desk. You see, now that position no longer exists. It existed once with us in Dianetics, but it no longer exists. There is no such position.
There is the position, however, and the first one that you will start out with (and I must call this to your attention for the excellent reason that it's very, very good processing) is auditor standing, pc standing, and that is also moving. In other words, upright. They are walking around the room or they're walking around outside. And the first and foremost of these we see in Start, Change and Stop as a process—they're both standing up.
Now, why would this be the first position we would use? Well, it's very simple—it's mimicry. And you should know that mimicry has a heart and a very ancient tradition. Mimicry with us is very useful.
You see a little boy, he is feeling bad and he keeps going like this, you know? You get around in front of him where he can see you and you just nod your head at him back, you know? First thing you know, he'll come out of it. That is the basic element of communication—mimicry. Mimicry.
An actor on a stage, sitting down facing the audience which is sitting down, is of course engaging in mimicry. And the audience will feel a greater affinity for somebody sitting down than standing up momentarily, don't you see? It's quite interesting. However, they feel that people who are standing up on the stage and in motion are alive. And they feel that people sitting down are as dead as they are.
So just notice this in an auditor-preclear relationship. If you sit down and run Start, Change and Stop on a preclear he will get the idea that he ought to be sitting down. And this fixedness of position will impress itself upon him so that he will not work as well.
Now, furthermore, there is the matter of mimicry. Running old 8-C and running modern SCS alike run much better—the action is much better if both



are standing. The auditor leads the preclear over to the wall. The auditor leads the preclear into the center of the room.
Now, you'll have a lot of preclears that the first moment that you touch them on the arm, they scream and blow the session. You'll find this is germane to all those people who if you asked them, "What effect could you have on people?" they would say, "Well, let's see, I could get an atom bomb and kill them all." You know, I mean some mild effect like this.
This person is incapable of receiving an effect himself. The moment some pc objects to your taking him lightly or touching him by the elbow, you see, you want to know what you're dealing with.
PC flinches, remember that the comparable reaction in effects would be "kill everybody." Or "I couldn't even kill everybody"—that's below "kill everybody." But it's—that is the idea of making a real effect.
"What effect could you make on Father?" Well, we'd have to figure out some long, distorted method of butchering him, you see, that would last a long time. Something on that order.
So you touch him by the arm, he flinches, why, just remember what you're dealing with. Don't particularly touch him by the arm or don't stop touching him by the arm—don't let him influence you to that degree.
But you walk somebody around with minimal verbalization and maximal positioning, don't you see? And that would be the first entrance to any case, no matter how rough the case was. And you would find that by mimicry itself you had established a considerable ARC with the individual, and you'll find they audit much more easily if you do this.
Mimicry, by the way, goes so far that it may be all that you can do on a psychotic. It may be the total process possible on a psychotic. Psychotic jumps in the middle of the bed and throws a chair against the wall, you would jump in the middle of the bed and throw a chair against the wall. Psychotic after a while says, "Well, what do you know?"
Now, if you wanted to be very selective, any sane action the psychotic made you would mimic and the insane actions you would ignore. And if you did that over a long period of time you probably would get a return to sanity just by that process alone.
It's quite an unusual thing to have a process by which you can use your body as the speaking mechanism without it speaking at all. Now, you know what you're doing when you stand up and walk a preclear around the room through 8-C or Start, Change and Stop. You know that to some slight degree you're introducing mimicry into the session. Don't be shocked if the preclear tells you that he has suddenly discovered that you are a very kind person. The reason he discovered you were a kind person was because you were walking and he was walking and the positions were similar. All right?
Our next use of this both standing is exterior. You go out of the auditing room and start walking up and down the boulevards. For a while, with some of the processes we had and were stressing at the time, auditors believed that it was absolutely necessary to have a complete course as an infantryman before you could learn how to audit. You'd have to put in your twenty or thirty miles before breakfast in order to accomplish your object.
Well, even though it is somewhat arduous walking around with a preclear and so on, remember that it is a tremendously effective process. Look at all the havingness available there in all the fields and streets and people and so on, and there are many processes that run best outside. Of course, you'll get some preclears and you take them outside and they look at all that space or they're forced to look at all the space and they collapse. Well, that means you should audit them awhile inside before you take them outside.

There is a psychotherapy—I'm mentioning psychotherapy quite a bit because we do wish to avoid the results of psychotherapy wherever possible. We are not engaged in psychotherapy and don't believe we should kill people. So, in France, for instance, they have a total process by which they take patients out into the grounds each day and let them look at just a little more space than they did yesterday and these people eventually get rather sane.
Now, one of the oldest and best known savage psychotherapies is also appended to this both upright. You understand this? Scientology isn't psychotherapy but you have to compare it this way to get the fullness out of it.
There is an interesting thing that the Black has long known—that if you could walk somebody far enough, until he dropped, and then have him walk back that he would arrive home usually in good condition mentally. Remember that. Remember that if you're ever suddenly stuck with a psychotherapy problem. It does work. You just keep him walking, don't point anything out to him.
Now, another thing is, is you tell a workman or somebody who is having a lot of trouble with exhaustion, you say, "Instead of coming home and listening to the radio, instead of coming home and slumping in a chair and thinking how bad it all is, come home and announce yourself and then go out and walk around the block until you're interested in what you are looking at." No forced interest, you see. You're no longer worrying about the job and you're no longer tired.
He will say, "You walk around the block until you're not tired? Hm! This sounds peculiar."
And yet, the very funny part of it is that it is not peculiar at all. His tiredness comes from a continued physical inaction and when you ask him to go into physical action he comes off the stop points, the no-game conditions of tiredness on his own track. Tiredness is psychosomatic, it is not even factual.
Now, where we have—where we have an auditor and a preclear both standing, we get better ARC, of course. And where an auditor is having very difficult sessions with a preclear, where the preclear seems to be still in a rejecting frame of mind regarding anything the auditor says and does, just remember that it could amount to a fatality to go into another position. See, we just could ruin the case completely. We get tired of standing up and walking the preclear around the block and doing other things, you see, and then we suddenly say, "Well, let's have a little rest here and I'll sit down and let him walk." And this might very well be the end of that. You see, the preclear would no longer have this ARC.
So in order to audit you have to be tougher than preclears. And a preclear is not really tough, he is compulsively tough. An auditor must be knowingly tough.
So we get to the second position here. The second position is, of course, one which is attained only by increasing the preclear's ability to be controlled— Start, Change and Stop, by 8-C or something of the sort.
Now, he's willing to be controlled and willing, then, to have his own control take place out of the auditor's control. By the way, the reason you put a preclear under control is to permit the preclear to take over his own control. You establish knowingly a source of control.
Now, he is being controlled by many unknown sources of control. Never feel it is bad to put a preclear under control, real control—start, change and stop. Never feel that it is bad, because the preclear is under many hidden, compulsive methods and sources of control. He's under all of these various things; they're not in sight. So you come along as the auditor, you're in sight, you're visible, he can hear you and you put him under control and then ask him who did that when he's gone through the actions. Who stopped him? Who stopped the body? And you keep prodding him a little bit and he eventually then takes over



control. But you take it over from his automaticities and machineries, demon circuits and all the rest of it. You take it over from that and then he takes it over from you. And if you weren't there to act as a relay point, he never would attain control. So don't feel bad at all about making preclears jump through hoops. Don't feel bad at all, because it's definitely necessary.
Now, unless you have put the preclear under control, his own automaticities and basic control mechanisms will turn on him and cause him, under some figure-figure or thinkingness-type process like a "Tell me a problem of comparable magnitude to your present time problem"—let us say you're just auditing just to be auditing, coffee-shop sort of thing and you really haven't him under control— you audit something which audits him or you audit him and he audits something else, don't you see?
Now, you have a lot of machinery there which is (quote) "helping you out" and none of this machinery is of any benefit to you or anyone else.
And you take one of these heavy automaticity cases and run them through SCS and you see their machinery start to chop up and you see a little bit—don't be surprised after an auditing session if you actually find broken cogwheels on the floor or something like that. It's almost that—almost that bad.
And if you were auditing him without putting him under a good thorough regimen of control, you would discover that you were auditing into a mass of automatic machinery and your auditing commands were being chewed up between this gear and that gear and this cogwheel and that cogwheel and it's just nothing as a result. He's eaten a lot of energy; this we could finally assume. This fellow has been audited for twenty-five hours, somebody says. No. If he has not been put under good thorough control, you could say he has eaten some energy for twenty-five hours and maybe it'll agree with him and maybe it won't.
Now, we would go, then, into the next position only when the auditor was actually certain that he had a preclear there to audit. And that next position of course would be the auditor sitting down and taking it easy and the preclear walking around the room. By this time of course—or walking around the street while the auditor sits comfortably on a park bench, you know? He sits there. Very good, you know, it's comfortable. And it would be a test. It sort of puts the preclear on his own. But remember that with preclear standing, auditor sitting, the preclear obviously is being put on his own.
Now, right after we did a lot of Dianetic processing many years ago we discovered something that was quite fascinating—with what glee some auditors took unto their bosom the idea of having the preclear walk around or sit in a chair. The auditors would promptly lie down on a couch. We just got a flip-flop of the whole thing.
Actually, we did have that condition for a while. I know one day an auditor started to audit me in a Foundation and stretched out on the couch to give me the commands. (I thought it was very amusing.) Anyway, we don't have that position either, see? We not only don't have the position now—auditor sitting, preclear lying down—we don't have the auditor lying down and the preclear sitting or standing.
Now, let's look at this one of sitting down and moving the preclear around. You see it has an immediate frailty, has an immediate frailty. We are not in comparable positions and therefore ARC is difficult. And ARC is liable to break up. And if the auditor gets into a very heavy circumstance with the preclear, the preclear will much more likely desire to quit the session if the auditor is sitting down. So, although you feel that you haven't rested enough, you see the tension begin to mount with a preclear, for heaven's sakes, get up and walk him around some more, don't you see? Or get up and stand there while he looks out the window. Stand alongside of him, you see, and restore that ARC if you notice that

the auditor sitting down, preclear standing does put a tension on the session. This sounds idiotic, but it's something that you actually have to take into account when you're auditing.
And then we get the time-honored one of the auditor sitting and the preclear sitting. Both of them sitting down. Now, a great deal of old auditing was done this way and a great deal of auditing in the future can be done this way, but it is a circumstance which gives itself and lends itself to figure-figure and therefore has a frailty there. Auditor sitting, preclear sitting, we're much more likely to run subjective processes, just because we are not in motion. All right.
Therefore, it is perfectly allowable as an auditor-preclear position, but in order to allow it we have to go into the second subject of this lecture which is extroversion-introversion and which is not merely important in regard to these positions but which is in itself fabulously important. Important enough so that a neglect of it can bring about a failure of a profile of a preclear to change. That's pretty important, then, isn't it? It's one of these little gems of information on the subject of auditing which was won the hard way and which evidently cannot be ignored. And now and then when you think your preclear and your sessions are going wrong and so on, you're merely ignoring this little piece of information. Actually it comes from Advanced Clinical Course Number One, Camden, and it is extroversion-introversion, alternation of. When you have introverted the preclear's attention for a considerable period of time, remember to extrovert it for a time. You are trying to get the preclear's attention well extroverted. In order to do so, however, you will have to introvert it and extrovert it in alternation.
Now, what do we mean by that? There are two types of processes: one is subjective, the other is objective. By objective processes we mean looking at the actual forms, people and walls in our vicinity. And the subjective means a look at the preclear's universe and those universes which are closed with it internally. He actually is looking back into his own head or his own bank, you see?
Creative Processes are subjective. Where he does mock-ups and things of this character, those are subjective processes. There are innumerable processes
that are subjective—conceptual processes, "Get the idea ," any "Get the
idea " process, any process in which he is simply told to change his mind,
any of these things. Those are all, each and every one of them, subjective processes.
Now, objective processes are spotting, no matter what is being spotted and no matter what concept is being put on what is being spotted. See, no matter what concept is put on what is being spotted. Although you're putting an idea out there, on the wall or in the ashtray, that is still an objective process.
Why? Because thought is being merged with the ashtray. When we're looking around and asking the preclear, "What wouldn't you mind not knowing in this vicinity?"—a very important process—of course, that's an objective process.
Even though his mind is working, it is a matter of attention. Is his attention inward or is his attention outward? And that is what we mean by objective-subjective.
Now, of course, his attention is outward when he's putting it on mock-ups out there, you know? But that's still a subjective process, because it's in his mind that the mock-ups exist. All right.
Now, as we look over this alternation of extroversion—introversion, we unlock the secret of why people spin in, go mad, adopt other valences, become disabled, become incapable of thought—all of these various odds and ends become revealed.



There was a punk by the name of Pavlov who had a bunch of dogs and after a great many years of study he found out they barked. And this—it's all very well, I shouldn't be this impolite, but there's been so much smoke made about this fellow Pavlov that when I, at length, uncovered a secret manuscript of his, I expected really to find something, you know? And it was about as informative as a comic strip.
He gave people the idea, however, of driving people's attention inward. And if he'd said that and specialized on it and had any concept of it, why, it would have been quite effective. But the physical universe is a brainwasher from Pavlov's standpoint, only he simply speeds up the action of the physical universe. The physical universe yanks your attention out and drives it in and confuses it. And whether that's being done in school or by your mother or somebody or other, it's a sort of a long—longtime brainwash. If you speed that up, you have everything that Pavlov knew about brainwashing. He just tried to take the general actions of the physical universe and speed them up against the individual. People evidently didn't exist as far as he was concerned. And he did, however, find out about introversion and therefore the subject will be found lying around in old sciences and so on as a rather complex thing. It's not complex at all. I'll tell you how to introvert somebody: walk up to him and kick him in the shins and he'll introvert. Now, if you watch him carefully, the next moment he will extrovert. You see how that is? Extroversion—introversion.
Now, if we were to see an airplane crash out there in the street at this moment, our attention with some horror would leap out there to that airplane, you see? That's an extroversion.
And then a little while afterwards somebody would say, "You know I've ridden in airplanes. That could have happened to me." That's the introversion component, don't you see?
So we get these alternations of extroversion and introversion and it so happens in this universe, because one is standing in the middle of a lot of things that are flying around, that one tends more to introvert than to extrovert. The balance is on introversion, see, for the most part.
So, it is necessary when you're auditing a preclear to pay attention to this cycle of extroversion-introversion. Now, SCS is introversion. Why? Because their attention is on the body and into the body and into their own difficulties, you see? They're not really looking at the room. They're looking in on themselves, you might say, and so as you run it you will find an oddity occurring—they will introvert, introvert more and more. Well, they will eventually extrovert on the same process but it may be just a little bit too dramatic. They may introvert to a point of wham and you might not find that is entirely satisfactory.
So they find the going is a bit rough. All you have to do is extrovert them— have them put their attention on the environment, no matter what concept you care to employ. We've run SCS for a while on the preclear and he seems to be pretty bad off and it's getting awfully heavy on the preclear. Now, the wrong thing to do would be to run another introversion process.
The right thing to do would be, "Well, let's sit down for a moment." Assume that second position. You sit down and he sits down. His feet are tired anyhow. And you say, "All right. Let's look around here. Is it all right with you if we look around here and spot these walls a bit?"
And he does and he comes back up out of the soup. And you've—whatever process you use, you could say to him (very fancy, you know), "What effect could you have on that wall over there? Look at it now. What effect could you have on it?" See, his eyes are open.
All processes are run with the eyes open always, by the way. Any time a preclear starts to close his eyes, I kick him in the shins—the soles of the feet,

actually, technically. I tap him a little bit and I say—you know soles of the feet—and I say, "You still with us?"
"Yes, I just thought it'd be more comfortable to have my eyes closed for a moment."
"Well, you just stay more comfortable with your eyes open, will you?"
And we have him spot those walls. No matter what we say—"What effect could you have on them? Get the idea they're shouting at you. Put an unknown odor in them," anything you want to do. And by the way, that's a terrific process. Cures hay fever. Cures hay fever. Fellow has always gotten hay fever whenever he's smelled dust, so you just put dust in the walls and the floor and the ceiling, round, round, round—unknown dust, so forth. It's quite interesting. But those are all extroversion processes, don't you see?
Now he's brightened up and he's cheery and he seems to be in present time and so forth, get him up on his feet and start him through SCS again. So you see, extroversion-introversion. If you introvert them, extrovert them. If you extrovert them, introvert them and back and forth, and they will gradually sort out what the physical universe has been doing to them for a very long time.


Going to talk to you now about fundamental fundamentals, which are terribly fundamental.
The first and foremost of these fundamentals is something that man might have known something about but that man had never expressed. Man had not expressed the definition of a static and, as a consequence, he was apt to go in small circles every time he confronted one.
In The Creation of Human Ability you will discover there is a process in there called Conceiving a Static and then it says, "Don't use." You ask somebody to look, in mock-up, something of this sort, at thetans and he has a tendency to become rather ill. It is a havingness reducer that ends all havingness reductions. One of the frequent manifestations you find in a preclear is he's been up all night fighting thetans. And this is merely from the fact he starts conceiving a static automatically and the automaticity, of course, just rips up the rest of his havingness and that's that.
A thetan could be described as many things. It is very poorly described as a spirit or a soul, since that got us nowhere. It got us nowhere literally and actually for thousands of years—thousands and thousands of years. You just never saw a definition get people nowhere faster.
What was a soul? Was it a ghost? Well, a ghost was bad and a soul was good, but they were both the same item. What was a spirit anyhow? Was it the essence of things? Was it the essence of the man? Where did it go? Did it go to some hot Hell or some pleasantly harp-strung Heaven?
Quite amazing. People even had destinations figured out for something they knew nothing about, which is pretty good. "We don't know what it is, but we can tell you where it goes. We can't show you one, we can't show you the phenomena of one, but you must reverence it."
If you consider this irreligious, then you have too high opinion of yourself, that's all. Because in the final analysis, what is this thing called thetan"? It is simply you before you mocked yourself up. And that is the handiest definition I know of.
Now, where an individual—where an individual is having trouble with his soul, we have somebody who is sitting in the next house trying to feed himself in the house next door. It's a very hard thing to do. We have a person who is splattered around. He's in a couple of places and thetans aren't easily in a couple of places, except by postulate.



3 AUGUST 1956
Now, what basically could we say that would simply sum up all of life? Well, we would say it was basically a static. And that's the first Axiom: Life is basically a static.
Well, it's a very hard Axiom to phrase, extremely hard, because if there weren't any statics there wouldn't be any masses or forms, energies or spaces, you see. And people therefore say, "Oh, life is just nothing. Yeah, that's right." Or they say, "Life is—consists of masses and energies." Well, that's not quite right, but life can be considered to consist of statics and forms, since the static believes that there are forms. So don't then go around and say, "Well, these walls are somebody's delusion." That is simply casting an aspersion on it. These walls are somebody's creation. That's correct.
Now, if you've ever stubbed your toes in the dark, you know that creations can be solid. If you've ever run 8-C, you know creations can be solid.
So we mustn't ever go off on this kick that has ruined this concept since its earliest introduction that "life is all thought" or "life is all mind." People have said these things for ages now. We mustn't go astray with this because that is not true. Life is a thought or mind or beingness that conceives there are forms, masses, spaces and difficulties. You see this?
And we can't then say to the chap, "Well, life is just mind essence," as the Buddhist does and expect him to get anywhere. He doesn't. He sits right there for the next few thousand years and contemplates the fact, which is just exactly where he gets to too; he gets to a contemplation of the fact. Why? Because he's left out the most important thing that life does: it creates masses.
And now we say, "Well, these masses are really—don't exist because they were just created and people believe they see them." That's good enough for me. I hope it's good enough for you. The last time I ran into a wall, I was convinced. And when you stop being convinced when you run into walls, you're on the way out and so is your preclear.
Now, the way to get over that conviction is to get up to a point where you can mock up a wall. And you do that with a process known as Solids; it's a gradient scale of getting around to putting together a universe that is very convincing.
When you no longer believe yourself, you do not believe your own mock-ups, you only believe the other fellow's. But you can get to a point of where you not only believe—fail to believe your own mock-ups but you fail to believe the other fellow's too, and you're on an inverted condition here whereby you are incapable of viewing the universe, but you know it is there and you're running away from it, but it doesn't exist. But the funny part of it is the only recovery we have ever been able to discover (take this down, because this is a fact), the only recovery we have ever been able to discover that was an absolute recovery was through, not out. You understand?
The difference between through and out. So the fellow who is trying to escape all the time is eventually totally trapped. The fellow who is trying to go through doesn't get trapped.
Now, in other words, if a fellow drops into an inverted state where although he once knew all of his own mock-ups were solid and the other fellow's were too and then only the other fellow's are solid, the way for this fellow is definitely not out—it's back through a belief in the other fellow's mock-ups, through a belief in his own mock-ups and out. You see that?
So although we can say that "life is simply mind essence, mind is just thought, mind is just a static" and we can say all these things and be very glib about the whole thing and then say, "Well, just why don't we retire from the whole works and ...," it doesn't work. The fellow who tries to retire from the whole

works by sitting on a mountaintop over in northern India is still sitting there, and it's a very solid mountaintop.
I called this to an old sage's attention one time. He told me to go up on the mountaintop and after a while I would be able to conceive the fact that there was nothing anywhere but mind essence. And I wasn't to think of anything but just conceive mind essence, but I must go up to the mountaintop.
And I asked him rather impudently, because I was a very impudent young man, I said, "Then why do I need a mountaintop?"
And there is exactly the unanswered riddle of Buddhism. Why did they need a mountaintop?
You get your preclear up to a point where he can tolerate mountaintops and he doesn't need a mountaintop anymore. But if he can't tolerate mountaintops he has to have them because he can't have them because he's got to go out and sit on them, you see? And so we get into one of these horrible muddles.
Well, Axiom 1 is: Life is basically a static.
The word basically is in there to call to attention the fact that life does things in addition to just being "a bit of a thetan."
Well, the word static sometimes causes an engineer, whose science, by the way, is very good and it does build very good bridges, but I'm afraid we've gone a bit beyond it—he calls a static something which is in a balance of forces. In other words, something is pressing up on it as hard as it is pressing down and so on, and he will point to an inkwell or something on the desk and he will say to you, "That is in a state of balance and therefore that inkwell is a static."
I am afraid that he has taken a very limited view. The inkwell we know for sure, just because the rotation of the earth, is going at a thousand miles an hour and nothing is balancing that speed. Nothing is balancing that speed. Do you see that?
So it's not a static, is it, although it is not falling to the floor, which is the only thing that seizes his attention, and that doesn't make it a static. There are eight other motions the inkwell is involved in, none of which are balanced, so that inkwell is not in a balance offerees.
A static by definition is something that is in a complete equilibrium. It isn't moving. And that's why we've used the word static. Not in an engineering sense, but in its absolute dictionary sense.
Some of these definitions we use you have to become much more pedantic and puristic in order to use them than they are normally used. Many of them are used very loosely. We don't use words loosely, we use them with great precision where we can. All right.
This concept, then, is not necessarily a new concept, but to state it as an Axiom as part of a science is definitely a new concept.
The entirety of Scientology works out and resolves when one views that first postulate and follows through on it. But if he is still in a confusion and thinks that a thetan is a soul or a spirit or maybe a ghost which is sitting next door so that he can take care of it or something like this, he still is mixed up in a religious implant somewhere and he needs some auditing.
The first and foremost thing that a squirrel argues about is this first definition in Scientology, and they really squirrel. The next thing they argue about is power of choice. They do this because they cannot tolerate freedom in another person. Remember that when you see these wild arguments. Just ask the fellow, if
you want to really stop them, "What freedom would you permit to ?" and
name somebody. And you'll just stop him in his tracks because he will not admit or permit any freedom of any kind. And if he really realizes that life is a static, he realizes it can escape and, therefore, he is defied.



3 AUGUST 1956
The second Axiom is: The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.
That is very, very important. And although you may at times find yourself wandering into the terrible seriousness of this or that or the other thing, the truth of the matter is that it arrived by a series of postulates, considerations, opinions.
Now, a postulate needs to be further defined here. A postulate in the dictionary and a postulate in that Axiom are not the same thing. We have found a missing word in the English language. There is no word for "self-created truth." All self-created truths are by definition in the English language lies.
So we couldn't put here "The static is capable of considerations, lies and opinions," because they are not lies. When he says, "There is a man standing in front of me that I have just mocked up," there is one. If he said there was one and there wasn't one, that would be a lie. But he has done a self-created truth, you see. That's quite different, then, than a lie.
A lie is he does one thing and says something else, you see, or he sees one thing and says it's something else. That would be a lie. But a self-created truth would be simply the consideration generated by self.
Well, we just borrow the word which is in seldom use in the English language, we call that postulate. And we mean by postulate self-created truth. He posts something, he puts something up. And that's what a postulate is.
In the whole field of knowledge it is quite dismaying to discover that there is no brief word which takes up generated knowledge. And knowledge is always supposed to be something totally which comes from the outside to you, whereas 50 percent of knowledge at least would be something that comes from you to the outside.
By overlooking this little point, the educator spins in his student. What the student says or creates or postulates has to have value, don't you see. You don't just wipe him out.
For instance, I'm telling people consistently in teaching Dianetics and Scientology, "When you have a reality on this, why, believe it. But if you don't have a reality on this, then either find one or don't believe it." The only reason Scientology is true is because there is a ghost of Scientology walking around in everybody's head.
Where Scientology has been untrue is when Hubbard invented something. Hubbard tried to keep that to a minimum but he is a creative bloke. (laughter) That's a fact. Occasionally—occasionally, very seldomly, a conclusion has been uttered which is not a mirror of people's thoughts and minds. One of those conclusions was the announcement of a process which was—let's see, what was that process?
Oh yes, when Problems of Comparable Magnitude was first released, it
was released as "Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to " and
then, "Give me a solution. Give me a solution. Give me a solution. Give me a solution." Spun people in left and right. But I said that was the way to run a case. I caught myself about—oh, I think it—I think it took me about sixty hours to catch that one, but it was in existence for then and, therefore, was invented because it wasn't true. What it was in actuality was a misobservation.
But these Axioms you will find are entirely basic. If you processed a preclear long enough without telling him any of them, he would tell you all of them. That is the test. Actually, I see some heads nodding. I know there are many old auditors who have done this: people suddenly start telling you all about the Axioms.
Now, the person who is mass-happy begins to believe that the mass is causative—that a thought didn't cause the mass, that the mass causes the

thought, and we have modern science in the mid-twentieth century. "Mass caused the thought."
In fact, there is a rather puny effort to be philosophic amongst us laboring classes—not that there's anything wrong with the laboring classes, but there's a great deal wrong with a bunch of long beards that never had enough to eat getting philosophic. They come up eventually with "can't have" and that's all they ever come up with. And this "can't have" in this particular age is called communism.
And they all sat around and they dreamed up something called "dielectric materialism" and—that's not "dielectric," it's "dialectic," although what difference this would make I don't know.
And they say, "All ideas are the product of two forces." They also say, "Man is an animal and we will treat him as such." And they say, "There is no soul; religion is for the birds," practically in language as ungraceful as that.
Now, this is quite remarkable: "Every idea is the product of two forces." Well, it's very easy to convince somebody who is mired down in amongst the machinery of a factory that forces are forces and there's nothing he can do about it. He knows when somebody drops a boom on his head, he's squashed. And he knows this will give him the idea that he ought to get out of the road of booms thereafter and that's about as high as he gets with his thinkingness. You got the idea?
It's not true that ideas are the products of two forces. You can get another idea because you saw a couple of forces come together, but when those two forces came together no idea sprung out of them.
Now, you'll very often find a preclear who is taking his engrams apart to get the ideas out of them. This is quite remarkable since he put them in in the first place. What is the total idea in a mock-up? The total idea in a mock-up before the thetan begins to add ideas is "It will appear." That's the total idea in a mock-up: "It will appear." There is no other idea.
Now, we get all these bodies walking around and they are essentially just that. Their total postulate is "They will appear."
Now we want them to move or do something else, and they have to have some new ideas added to them. Now they have to have purposes, now they have to have limitations. Now they have to have certain freedoms and certain laws. All of these things are additive.
You start to take a body apart or a man apart and he will get all these additive facts. But this mock-up will still be there. To get the mock-up not there, you have to run something that handles this whole business of "appear." And "Make it solid" handles that and so the mock-ups disappear. It's quite remarkable, you see. So that—it's a very low order philosophy that says, "All ideas come from mass. Man comes from mud." If you try to work a preclear that way, you, by the way, get nowhere. It's the most nowhere that you ever got to. It's nowhere that's even south of spun-in.
Now, the third Axiom is: Space, energy, objects and time are the result of considerations made and—per—or agreed upon or not by the static and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them.
Now, we've said "considerations" up here in Axiom 2, and we've simply stretched into Axiom 3 the actual fact.
Now, there's something very funny about a mock-up, is that there's a double postulate in a mock-up. When we said, "It will appear" we have said actually two things: it is there and it is visible, see. And so appearance takes apart into thereness and visibility. But why on earth does it appear? Well, it appears because it appears. Well, it just didn't rain out of heaven. There was a thetan around someplace and he said, "It appears." And so it appeared. But it is a mass.


3 AUGUST 1956
Now, the funny part of it is after that it can be sawed up, weighed, dissected, operated on, psychiatrized; all kinds of things can be done with this mass, don't you see?
Now, maybe only he alone sees it. But somebody else agrees that it is there too, so they both see it. And now you have a mutual appearance. When people are so plowed in or hypnotized that they are totally under the sway of a person who is denying them utterly any self-determinism, that person can then make things appear, which then appear to others with evidently no other consideration. But the funny part of it is, they already considered that they'd see what he saw, just by becoming subservient.
Therefore you have a magician usually rigs himself up in a role of horror. He rigs himself up so as to deliver a considerable shock. The psychiatrist in the mid-twenties got more and more anxious to produce an effect until he began to synthesize himself a horror role. So actually a psychiatrist can go around and talk to people and tell them that certain kinds of insanities exist and then they see them, don't you see? They don't exist at all. There is nothing emptier than a psychiatric classification of insanity.
But the psychiatrist has got himself mocked up as somebody horrible. (He's doing this on purpose, by the way.) You wonder that they would do this, but they do. They appear in a horrible role. They are proud of killing ten thousand people per year with electric shock machines. You see? That gives the impact and, therefore, that gives them a hypnotic effect on the society, don't you see.
This is the most subordered method of control known, where you produce a sufficient amount of horror in those around you that they then obey. You see that—you see that as a very low order of things, because everybody in that vicinity then becomes ineffective, relatively ineffective, don't you see. This is why a fascism and so forth becomes relatively unworkable. All right.
If you understand, then, that you get a mock-up and then the mock-up is there because it is there, it is visible by more than one because it is agreed upon, you have even time.
Everybody agrees that time goes pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, so it goes pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. If we disagreed that it went pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, we'd be back fighting the Revolution. Simple as that.
Now, the next postulate is not anywhere near as important as it was once but is quite important since we've handled objects, but we hadn't handled what they appeared in, which was space. And space, up to the time that this was understood and conceived, the fourth Axiom, was a total mystery. Just what was space? Space was nothingness. No, space is not nothingness. Space is the viewpoint of dimension, and that is what space is. It's how far we look. And if you didn't look, you wouldn't have any space. You look into your mind, you have space in your mind and you say, "Where does this space come from?"
Well, you looked, didn't you?
Now, you wonder where all this universe space came from and why is it infinite. Well, it's not infinite. Not even vaguely infinite. If you went out to its edge and looked, there would be more. Do you understand that?
But you're here right now looking only that short distance, so that's all there is of it. Do you understand? That is quite remarkable.
People get so they can't tolerate space and it makes them quite ill. You start to run space processes on preclears, they're liable to get sick at their stomach. That's because they know they can't eat space. Space is no mystery and it's not even difficult.
You can mock up space by putting anchor points around. If you told somebody to take four guidons—you know, flags on lances—and stick two in front of him, one to the right and one to the left, and then two behind him, one to

the right and one to the left, he is sitting in the middle of created space because he looks at the guidons. And you just tell him to hold those and sit there, and he will get the most fantastic energy manifestations you ever heard of. Energy starts whizzing through and so forth; he has made an emptiness in the middle of his bank. He should be looking at other things; instead of that he's looking at the emptiness in the middle of these four guidons, and it's quite a remarkable piece of phenomena. You want a preclear—or try it yourself sometime, and you will be fascinated with the fact that space is thus easily created.
Actually, you have four anchor points, the top and the bottom of the guidon in front, and four anchor points behind, top and bottom of the one, top and bottom of the other guidon. You have eight anchor points then, which in three-dimensional space is what you need.
Well, why did you have an anchor point? Well, that's because—so you won't keep looking forever. See, you won't just keep looking on, on, on, out, see.
You say, "I will look this far and that is the end of that space." And that's what an anchor point does, very comfortable thing to have. A thetan doesn't like to go forever and hit nothing. It upsets him and is, by the way, exactly what apathy is.
Apathy is caused by the idea of going forever without ever hitting anything and getting anything back. And this is the basic reason why thetans love games
Now, the fifth we have already covered more or less but it has to be there: Energy consists of postulated particles in space.
And so we have the space, we have some particles and we get, then, a motion and we get other phenomena of considerable interest to us. We're building a universe and these steps are necessary to the construction of a universe.
Now, somebody may come along and invent eight-dimensional space or five-dimensional space or something like that and "all particles are cross-eyed," but he has put just further limitations on these basic definitions. And I'm afraid these are certainly germane to this universe and they're germane to the universe of any preclear I ever audited. And so we can more or less conceive that these are the general gen of any universe.
Thank you.

Thank you.
Want to talk to you now about Axioms 6 to 10.
As you know, man is living, at this time at least, in the physical universe which he shares in common. Now, there are many people who believe that this is their own universe only and that there's nobody else alive in it.
However, we will just skip those and go over to the generally held concept that man is living in company with a great many other beings in a universe which is remarkably, from his viewpoint, large and solid. And as we look this over, its effects upon the individual become of interest to the auditor and do considerably influence cases.
Amongst the most aberrative dynamics, you might say, is the sixth. It is not the most aberrative, it is part of eight, but it causes a lot of upset in the individual—being in company with all these other people and so forth. But what do you know. The most single therapeutic dynamic is the sixth. The sixth is more of a therapeutic dynamic than it is an aberrative dynamic; it's quite interesting. The sixth dynamic is already known to be intensely curative. The medical profession depends exclusively upon the sixth dynamic to be curative.
Now, we take a more limited view. We say that the auditor plus the sixth dynamic can do remarkable things. We haven't wiped out the practitioner here.
You shoot somebody with pills of—serums, oddities, rare earths, something of this character, you clamp electrodes on his head and so forth; you might or might not be utilizing the therapeutic potentialities of the sixth dynamic, the physical universe. You might or might not be, see, but for sure they exist. It is certain that the sixth dynamic does contain therapeutic potentialities and these are enormous.
In the first place, it is the basic playing field for any and all games with which we are familiar. And a playing field is of course necessary to a game.
The only real regret on the sixth dynamic is the playing field for the game that was. In other words, it's yesterday's sixth dynamic; we regret its vanishment.
We think of that beautiful, beautiful battle with all of those dead men, you know, or something like that. That was way back in past history and it isn't here anymore. So we regret the continuous vanishment of the sixth dynamic. But at the same time, it would be impossible for the sixth dynamic to be a continuing playing field unless it did have time.
You could imagine the rather silly aspect that a ballplayer would present if he was trying to toss a ball in no-time.



Now, if you can envision somebody trying to throw a ball in no-time, you know then what we're talking about when we're talking about Axioms 6 to 10— particularly those Axioms which concern time.
Time is absolutely necessary to a game. It is the most necessary commodity; it even comes above havingness. But because it's so ethereal and abstract, people have a tendency not to look at it very closely or to admire it. They just know it's going on and it's sort of totally automatic and there isn't anything they can do about it anyway, so they had better just keep looking at their watches and pretending they know something about time, rather than really taking a look at time.
It's quite a difference, you know, between looking at your watch and really seeing what's going on with time.
Now, the sixth dynamic can be this crudely utilized as a therapeutic agent: you can tell somebody to go out and walk around the block until he is interested in what he is looking at. It works. It really works.
An ancient native cure is to walk somebody along a road until they drop and then make them get up and walk back. And that is quite effective and is the only sure cure on psychosis.
The trouble is trying to keep a psychotic person enough in hand and enough extroverted to the environment to do any of the walking. They usually drop by the wayside or start hailing passing cars or stand and scream or do something of the sort; they're hard to direct to this degree when they're in their lesser stages but I have seen people get well even on that basis.
I have seen, mind you, a postpartum psychosis which a husband spent thirty thousand dollars on. Cost him his home, his business, his bank account, everything he had in the world. Naturally, paid over to a psychiatrist. Who else. And when he didn't have any money anymore, why, the psychiatrist in this case just told him to go to hell and get out of the office and take the woman too, naturally, you know, standard operating procedure.
And an old Negro woman took the young lady, who of course wanted to kill her husband and wanted to kill her baby and couldn't be trusted near the baby. And in spite of all the insulin shock she'd had and everything, the old Negro woman walked this girl way out into the country and kept her walking, kept her walking. Finally the girl dropped from exhaustion. The old Negro lady got her to stand up and made her walk back. And she got back, she was well.
I've seen the woman, and I know it worked. And I've also tried it myself latterly and have found it to be workable. But I found it to be unworkable when you can't keep them walking. In other words, there has to be some tiny, tiny awareness of the fact that something is being done for them one way or the other. There has to be some tiny awareness of the environment. When they're totally gone as far as the environment is concerned, they're very hard to help.
But the sixth dynamic is quite commonly looked upon as being something more of an ogre than a physician. And funny part of it is you could coin a postulate that would carry you along beautifully without further aberration from here to the end of this universe. You'd have to make the postulate because it isn't basically true, since you probably made the reverse postulate sometime or another. You could say living is therapy. Just make up your mind that living is therapy, and you'd live yourself Clear.
Do you see how that would work? That's because you would have the aid and assistance of the sixth dynamic which does give you an apparent playing field, which gives you the hope of more playing field and which shows you that there is something to be done, there is something happening and there is mass, that very precious thing called mass.

Thetan loves mass completely independent of anything else. You'd say he's mad to thus try to engage in this, but the thetan with regard to mass is in his basic game. And the basic game of course is "I'm going to make something that I can't duplicate and that can't duplicate me." See what a—what a basic problem this is. Lovely game. A thetan being nothing of course cannot duplicate a mass. And a mass being something of course cannot duplicate a thetan. Then the game is to stay in communication with it. Naturally, that's quite a problem.
The way you cure him of this game or the way you take away the ill effects of this game is simply to make him play the game some more, and that is the process we know as Solids. "What are you looking at? Make it solid. Look around the room and tell me something you wouldn't mind making solid. Oh, you've got it? That's fine. Make it solid." That just is all there is.
That's the extrovert. The introvert is, is "All right. You can ..." It isn't always true that you have to run him with his eyes open, but people in casual processing do better with their eyes open. They don't lose as much mass because they have the mass of the room all the time they're auditing. That's why we prefer they keep their eyes open, but there's no solid rule. If you start to take his bank apart, he will of course close his eyes, sooner or later.
You say, "What are you looking at?"
And he tells you he's looking at a picture, he's looking at some stuff.
And you say, "Good. Make it solid." "And don't forget the invisible particles," you remind him every now and then.
And he says, "The invisible particles?" at first.
You say, "Oh yes. Yes. Make them solid too."
"But I can't see them."
And you say, "Well, all right. You open your eyes. Now look from here to the wall."
Fellow does. Looks from here to the wall.
And you say, "Now, make all the air between you and the wall solid."
He works at it for a while, he says, "I can do that." But nothing proves it to him that it became solid. You see, nothing proves it to him. And as a consequence, he is not totally convinced about it.
But big massive facsimiles sometime get pinned to the individual by invisible particles. So we make the big facsimile solid and there's a bunch of invisible particles between the person and it. We don't make those solid and after a while these invisible particles pile up and themselves accumulate a mass. So he then has what we call a ridge. And we don't quite know what this ridge is. Well, it's composed of particles which were once invisible to him. You follow this as a ...?
Well, all of that preamble actually is really necessary to an understanding of Axioms 6 to 10. And Axioms 6 to 10 are relatively simple Axioms but they shouldn't be neglected because they happen to be above knowingness. That's an interesting joke, isn't it?
If you knew all there was to know the way most beings consider knowingness, which is data and so forth, you would still have above your head Axioms 1 to 10. Do you understand that?
So you could run all of the thinking processes there are and all of the conceptual change processes there are or that you know about, up to Axiom 10, and the funny thing about it is that you would still have hanging over your head Axioms 1 to 10. Follow me? Because these things are above think; they're above thinking.
And these Axioms are quite important and therefore very often neglected because they are above think and that means they are Effort, Emote, Perceive, Not-know and Know. And that is then the Know to Bex Scale, the old Know to Mystery Scale.



And, you see, that covers from Mystery and right above Mystery is Sex and above Sex is Eat and above Eat is Symbols (a symbol has mass, meaning and mobility, the 3 Ms), you see, Symbol and then Think and then Effort and Emotion and Perception—Look—and Knowingness. Of course Not-knowingness fits right under Knowingness. That's total knowingness way up to the top, see, total knowingness.
You don't know a datum, see, you would just totally know. And it's different because our level of knowingness is knowing per time unit. "How much do I know in this second?" you see. That's man's level of knowingness—a datum separate from other data.
When he runs into time, he's all right. He can park his postulates around in MEST time, you see. But when he no longer is parking postulates in time, we get total knowingness way up to the top. So you see, there is a difference there between that know up there and the lower know which is really think.
So if we knew all the data there was to know, we would still have Axioms 1 to 10 to cope with on a subjective—objective level, because you don't really just know them.
Now, we have done the fantastic thing of codifying, at the band of Think and Symbols, data which exists only above that level. That's why Scientology knows more about life than life does.
That's a fabulous thing that has occurred there. It didn't matter how simple those were or how difficult. It's just the fact that you get all the data there is to know and then you've got ten Axioms above it.
And you say, "Well, aren't those data, too?"
That's right, they're also data. And that is the miracle of Scientology.
We have converted these upper strata into the lower strata and we can understand this upper strata and therefore tackle it without going into a total unknown the way everybody did before us.
And those Axioms are very easy, and there is only one change from the Axioms as they appeared in Creation of Human Ability—two change, one's typographical. And that change, the major data change, is in Axiom 6. Axiom 6 is: Objects consist of grouped particles.
That's plain to see. If you took enough particles and pushed them together tight enough, you'd have an object. You cut all the hay off of a field and you pile it together into a bale and you have an object, whereas before that you had particles. Very simple.
But a later discovery has been made here. I discovered something else which is utterly baffling: objects can also consist of solid masses. And so that should be additive; the Axiom there isn't rewritten, but that should be added there. I guess you could say, "Objects consist of grouped particles and also of solid masses." And that probably is the proper statement of the Axiom.
We are so immersed in the unproven theory of nuclear physics and Newtonian physics and Aristotelian materials and so forth that we are prone to accept them without too much question. But it isn't true that electrons and so forth get together and make an object; that isn't the total truth. It can happen, but it doesn't ordinarily.
Now, an object can shed small bits, which therefore makes it appear that objects consist of small bits. I mean, don't you see that that wouldn't follow at all. Just because an object sheds small bits is no reason—just because a dog sheds hair is no reason he's made of hair. But it can shed small bits without being composed of small bits and that's rather easy to do. All you have to do is postulate it that way.
Nuclear physics right now is up against this and banging its head to pieces. You can also take a lot of small particles and make an object. And most of the

masses that a thetan finds himself immersed in are invisible particles which have grouped together and made some sort of a mass. And he finds this rather difficult to take apart because they were invisible as particles. He can also say, "It appears," and there isn't a particle in the whole lot, it's just a solid mass. Do you see that?
It's very probable that the first body ever mocked up was not composed of cells; they were probably invented later. Probably it had no guts, no heart, it didn't breathe, nothing; it probably simply moved around, did very well.
Now, we get down along Symbols and people invent things so that you can have more game with things, and we probably got organs and glands and explained them all and made it very complex and quite interesting. But actually there is, and you can find on the whole track, bodies which are simply solid mass, no particle consistency there at all—it's just solid mass that has motion and—as simple as that.
Now, that doesn't say that this is the optimum body. It doesn't say that the present complexity of bodies is an optimum body, but it says it is not necessarily true that a whole consists of parts. That's an Aristotelian assumption and is not warranted and is not even really reasonable. A whole does not consist of parts. A whole could be made into parts, that's true, unless you postulate otherwise.
But evidently the early thetan manufactures, you might say, were simply entireties without particles or parts. And you have the phenomenon then of solid masses which don't have internal particles. And this is a great relief because the physicist tells you that—right clearly, he tells you quite outrageously, that every solid mass you see is composed of small particles which are in motion. Let me call to your attention he's never seen them, nor does he have to hand data which warrants or justifies his atomic or molecular theories. Do you follow me there? It's pretty abstruse you might think, but this really discharges you from any obligation of knowing anything about physics at all. It's probably totally invented. You see a wall look solid, it is a wall and it's solid; that's all there is to it. It isn't necessarily composed of anything. Got the idea?
You want to mock up a clam on the beach, you mock up a clam on the beach. It's not necessarily—not necessarily does it have any separateness or parts amongst itself; it is simply a clam.
Now, you want to invent the science of biology, first the thing you must do is invent the idea of bivalves and digestion, that it has to have fuel—that is a necessary invention—that the fuel has to convert, which is quite a game. Don't you see, the things are additive to that. But you could simply mock up a clam and say, "That clam will now live forever and thrive," and it probably would. As a matter of fact, you probably have done so on the backtrack and some auditor will come along and run you on Solids one day and you say, "Ha! Well, there you are. That was certainly a nice body. There it still is."
Individuation and compartmentation is, of course, part of the phenomena of games and is a game condition—taking something which is whole and making parts out of it.
Now, life had been so compartmented and was so scattered and dispersed— so individuated, one might say—that it was impossible to get any understanding of it. What we've done with Scientology is try, then, to view life as a whole once more. And we have done so, and if you'll look at what we're doing with cases these days, you will say with considerable success.
We get into time—there actually isn't any reason to take up time beyond exactly what it says there; it's just simply considerations. And time is of essence very simple, it's: Time is basically a postulate—it's a consideration—that space and particles will persist.



And you know you can run time just by saying, "It will now persist," which is to say go through a series of such. Continuous postulates. You can always add the word continuous to almost any concept. "Get the idea now"—you're having him look at something; instead of running Solids, you run Continuous Solids. "Look at this and get the idea of continuous solidity. Look at this engram and get the idea of continuous solidity." And it speeds up the running of the bank tremendously. You've just added the old postulate of persistence back into the appearance of the thing. A thing can appear without persisting—get that very clearly. You have to have an additional postulate to make it persist and that postulate is time.
And what is this thing called time? It's saying something will keep on going. Now, time in agreement with one another is another phenomenon and that's a goingness which we all consider is taking place. It's keeping on going and we all say so, and then we get a time continuum common to all of us that is merely just a persistence.
Axiom 8: The apparency of time is the change of position of particles in space.
The way you find out time is happening, the commonest way, is to change the position of a particle in space. But that's apparency. If something is simply standing there in space it actually is changing spaces and changing masses if it continues in one place without motion. But you can go above this and you can have another postulate above this Axiom. You can say, "This thing will have continuous time without any apparency." In other words, it's going to stand there from here on out. Well, however, it does have to have other particles related to it so you can tell which was here and which was on out.
Nine: Change is the primary manifestation of time.
And that's certainly true. And if you run this in processing, you run somebody on change that's having a bad time with a grouped track, you'll discover his track will start separating on him. In other words, he's having trouble with time, you run change, he comes off of his difficulty with time, which rather proves this Axiom which was formulated, by the way, a long time before a process arrived to prove it.
A process in my hands might prove it. That would prove nothing but it'll prove it in your hands too, which is important.
And then we get to the highest purpose in the universe and that's Axiom 10: The highest purpose in this universe is the creation of an effect.
It is written incorrectly, by the way. In Creation of Human Ability it says, "the universe" and it's "this universe." That's merely the highest purpose in this universe which, of course, makes it a games universe. From that Axiom proceeds the idea of games. This isn't included in the games theory. The games theory proceeds from Axiom 10.
Now, a knowledge of these things is quite essential. It is unfortunate that they have to be studied, but in view of the fact that Scientology actually now contains a knowingness above knowingness, you want to know what that knowingness is, it's those ten Axioms.
And the best way to study that knowingness above knowingness is to observe, with the guide of the Axioms, that these take place. And then you have a reality on the situation and your ability to handle these things is then materially increased.
We built a ladder before we had climbed it. So you want to learn where the ladder is because the ladder that you've got mocked up alongside it might not be it, you know, and yours might have a busted rung.
But if you mock up a better ladder, that's in your total field of choice and it's—nobody will argue with you a bit. But don't mock up a better ladder on top

of this ladder, because you're liable to cause somebody to slip on some grease or something of the sort.
This has proven out now over the years and aside from the changes I've mentioned in this lecture is unchanged to this time, which is quite remarkable. The only change there, really, is that you can mock up a solid object that doesn't have particles, that the MEST universe objects might, all of them, be totally solid with no atoms and molecules. There might be some that—composed of atoms and molecules and some that aren't. And this is a new discovery which simply enriches these upper ten Axioms of Scientology.
Now, below that level, we have particularities and interpretations of these ten Axioms and you should know those too, but you should certainly understand these first ten.


Thank you.
Your career as an auditor or as a professional Scientologist would be extremely wanting if you did not know about all there was to know about facsimiles. And very few people know very much about facsimiles, let me assure you. But the material is there. In Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health, American edition, you will find the best rendition of this.
However, as the years have gone on, we have never ceased to handle the problem of the facsimile. In the very early days of Dianetics we saw phenomena occurring which auditors of today very seldom see.
But what do you know? Our more recent processes turn all this phenomena on in full and it again becomes extremely visible as it has never before been visible. Not even in 1950 was it as visible as it is today. So it is necessary that you know this material concerning facsimiles.
A facsimile is an energy picture made by a thetan'or a body's machinery of the physical universe environment. It is like a photograph. It is made on mental energy. You could call it a mental image picture but this is not really a facsimile. There are several types of mental image pictures. Now, the facsimile simply means what it says—facsimile, as a word, means copy. And so we have a copy of the physical universe.
At one time or another on the track you discover that these facsimiles have been corrupted by what you—we don't have any word for this, by the way, except a delusory picture. We probably should have a very much better word; maybe I'll think of one before this lecture is over. But it's a picture which may be a facsimile, you see, but isn't. See, it would run somewhat like a facsimile, it would look like a facsimile, but it is a picture of something that never happened. In other words, a better term for it would probably be an automatic mock-up. It is something that is not a picture of the physical universe, it is instead an interpretation of the physical universe, re-created. In other words, it has changed.
I'll give you an idea. A fellow walks down the street and he sees a girl. He walks on up the block and he's thinking about this girl. He has a picture of the girl, mental image picture. It is the girl as she was.
Now his machinery gets to work and before he's gone up the block much further he has a picture, let us say, crudely, of a bedroom, don't you see? Now, he never saw this girl in a bedroom but, on a delusory basis, he puts her in one. You get the idea?



Now, if he's totally sane, nothing happens; there isn't any liability to this at all. We do this all the time. We look at a physical universe picture and we say, "Well, well, that could be bettered." And we make another one—with more or less clothes on. (laughter)
In other words, as we look at the physical universe, we do get an accurate picture of it and then, on our own volition or by automaticity, we get other pictures which are not pictures of the physical universe but the way we have changed it.
Now, those pictures are not even vaguely aberrative until you've gone way past the point and remember this girl and see a picture of the bedroom and draw an erroneous conclusion, much to the detriment of her reputation.
If this preclear is in terrible condition, why, he begins to mourn over this facsimile because he did this girl wrong. Actually, he only saw her out here on the street corner, but he has pictures otherwise. In other words, he has failed to differentiate between his own physical universe copies and his mock-ups, you see? But that mock-up is different than a mock-up.
Now, we get to the third class that interests us—this is delusion, hallucination, other things—come under the heading of this alteration of a physical universe facsimile.
You see, the facsimile is the real thing; it is what one saw. Then we get the delusory picture. I just remembered—we had a word for it once called dub-in, that is the technical word for it. That's a dub-in. That's taken from the movie terminology. They put actors on a set and the actors are apparently talking, but they're not. There's a dub-in tape running up here which is actually giving their singing or something of the sort. All right.
The next one is just a plain mock-up. You put up a physical universe picture—three-dimensional or otherwise—and you put up this picture and you know you put it up, and that is a mock-up.
Now, we use this word mock-up because it's a very handy word to describe many things. It is slightly derogatory in some context. We speak of the body very often as "the mock-up"; that's Scientology slang. Technically speaking, however, a mock-up is a mental image picture created by the thetan. Now, that is a mock-up. All right.
Now, what horrors can an auditor run into as he looks over these three classes of a picture?
Well, it's very interesting that the auditor's error, in the past, was failing to recognize facsimiles as facsimiles and too often calling them dub-ins. He too often called them dub-in when, as a matter of fact, they were factual.
Now, one of the sources of a dub-in is somebody told you. And if a person is in the wrong valence, he gets pictures of things that valence has told him about. Let us say he's in Mother's valence and Mother tells him all about what a horrible brute Father is, and one day he is looking up and down the bank or he's being audited or something of the sort, and he has pictures of Father beating Mother. Well, this is quite interesting because Father never did beat Mother. Mother said so and this then became Mother's mock-up, which is dub-in. Got it?
So the primary worrisome source—and really the only worrisome source— of dub-in, or false facsimiles, is simply being in the wrong valence and getting the pictures of that valence. And of course one never really does see the pictures of that valence. He has to dub these in and make them up out of remarks. So these are synthetics. Synthetics.
When you separate valences on a preclear, you very customarily lose the bulk of this dub-in. In other words, you split off Mother's universe, Mother's valence, and after that, he sees his own facsimiles and he's quite startled to find out that he had some.

Now, we have very many phenomena which concern themselves with this material but, as I say, the most interesting point is that the auditor all too often calls a real facsimile a false facsimile or dub-in and refuses to process it. In other words, he calls back from it. He uses it as a derogatory—something to make nothing out of the preclear.
There is nothing as incredible as has gone on in your preclear's life. And if he has a picture (here is the thing you ought to know about all this), no matter where it came from, no matter what valence is in action, no matter whether it's dub-in or facsimile, it is handled by mock-up. You get that very clearly? Whether it's a facsimile or a dub-in, in today's auditing, doesn't matter too much. They're both handled by mock-ups and you don't have to, even vaguely, differentiate between the two.
But you should know which is which because every once in a while somebody will come in to you who should have gone somewhere else you will conclude before you're through with the intensive, and they will shove at you nothing but dub-in, right straight across the boards—just dub-in, dub-in, dub-in.
They have all kinds of circuits. They have little men that talk to them and they have ambulances that suddenly drive up. And when they get a thought, it's actually carried—I asked a fellow one time, I said, "Now, how do you get the statements which you make?" I was aware of the fact that something was telling him and then he was saying.
And he said, "Well, like everybody else, I have a little railroad train which comes out of a tunnel and it has the words, one word on each car, and as it goes by I then know what to say." Fantastic phenomena!
Now, this is not modern at all. I was running a preclear on whole track— you mustn't talk to the public about whole track, but if you as an auditor neglect the fact that you will have other thetans' facsimiles prior to this life—you see, the body goes along and it's got all the facsimiles that some thetan collected in a prior life, and also the thetan is still possessed of a few of his facsimiles from his prior existences. And if you don't take it into account that these things can exist, you're going to have an awful time with preclears, I assure you, because you're going straight up against fact.
Any time you want to assault fact, why, go ahead. It makes a good game, but remember that you're making a game out of it. In other words, there are these whole track pictures. And as we—as I was looking over a preclear one time on whole track, all of a sudden we got into an area which was Phoenician and way back when, you know?
And here was a whole bank of facsimiles. Of tremendous interest this whole bank was, because he could afterwards look up in dictionary costume plates and that sort of thing, and correct them as to what they were wearing when.
The chap who had lived that life—evidently it was back on the body's track, the genetic entity's track, you see. And the chap who had lived that life had been crazy, and he had a tape. In other words, instead of getting a little set of railroad cars, he got an unwinding scroll which came in from the right and scrolled its way across the front of his view above the picture, somewhat the way we put titles on cinema, see, and it was in Phoenician—cuneiform. He couldn't read it, so he didn't know what the fellow was thinking about.
Now, there's that type of phenomena and as well as that, there's all manner of oddities just in straight facsimile, you see? Now, this was a set of facsimiles that had some dub-in, see? They were facsimiles of the Phoenician area and they had dub-in. So we had both phenomena present in that lifetime, and you quite commonly discover this. All right.
In a modern life, in modern living, perhaps the foremost reason of failure on the part of psychotherapies was that they never believed what the patient was



saying and never understood what was happening. It's quite interesting. A patient would tell them about prenatals—even Freud mentions prenatal engrams and so forth—and a patient would tell them something about this, and they would say, "Oh pooh, pooh, pooh. You know that couldn't happen." And they would invalidate it and this would of course spin the fellow in at that point of the track and make him worse than before.
Now, it happens that in the GE's bank, we have such things as the sperm sequence, the ovum sequence, the sperm-ovum sequence. These are all three separate types of engrams. Furthermore, on the sperm sequence, we can move back on the genetic line to Father. Quite amazing. (You can often find the wrong father there, too.)
Now, as we come forward from that, we find the development of the body throughout its period of gestation in the womb and we find pictures all the way along the line. These pictures have a black visio or they have a dub-in which is made up out of the pictures which were heard—I mean the hearing, things heard by the child and then the child dubbed in the environment, but the actual visio is of course black. It's dark in wombs, also noisy.
Now, that bank is there. And, of course, this could be very confusing if you ran into this area of blackness and didn't immediately blow through it, recognizing it for what it was, on the grounds that you had run into a vacuum.
Now, a vacuum consists of a supercold piece of metal which when contacted by the thetan pulls in the entirety of his bank—swoosh! And afterwards when you're trying to remedy somebody's havingness—you have this chap sitting there in the middle of a vacuum—of course this old picture of a supercold object is still behaving like the supercold object.
This accounts for people the way they get stuck in space opera. They're in spacesuits way up in space someplace. Somebody shot them, there they are. They don't know who they are, they don't know what they're doing, they don't know anything about it. Why? Because as long as that suit was warm and the metal they are in contact with was fairly warm, they were all right. But the moment that they made an active liquid or electrical contact with a supercooled object their whole bank would come in and brainwash them. That's about all there is to brainwashing: all one's pictures disappear suddenly, see?
Well, now, the prenatal area is black. And one of these vacuums is so confusing and there's so much motion in it that the blackness is the total answer a thetan can give to it; he just covers all that up with blackness. So you'll have two types of blackness here.
Now, there's a third type of blackness: a fellow is walking in the dark, can't see anything and stumbles over anything. He has an engram which is totally black. Don't you see this? All right.
Here are these various types of facsimiles. You become accustomed to these, there's no reason to go into it. I have given you the chief crossroads and the chief confusions in all this.
Now, the main point about it, however, is that they are there and they are there to be handled. If there was no facsimile bank, if a thetan had no facsimiles, no dub-in and couldn't mock up, he would never get in trouble. But he would never profit by experience or have stimulus-response reactions to count on either.
The heart and soul of all consequence in living—guilt, conscience, various conflicts and so forth—are contained in the electronic phenomena of what we call the bank. We call it a bank because big, electrical calculators, computers have what they call standard banks, which are little card file systems. So we call this whole system of facsimiles, whether facsimile, dub-in, mock-up—this whole system we call a bank. All right.

And that bank and its ability to influence the thetan is, of course, the heart and soul of behavior, unalterable patterns of. You get the idea? So in order to change behavior of a thetan plus a body it is then necessary, in one way or another, to handle this bank. And that's what we've been doing for a very, very long time.
There are three types of banks: there's a somatic bank, the reactive bank and the analytical bank. You know the analytical bank is there; the reactive bank sneaks up on you.
Now, you don't know a sperm sequence is there, and one day you start to wiggle. Now, how can a little tiny sperm picture of that size all of a sudden cause a whole body to wiggle? That is because everything is basically a consideration, and the picture's size doesn't matter. They may be tiny, they may be big; it all depends on the consideration of them. In other words, one of these facsimiles can influence a whole body or it could influence only one cell in the body. Do you see? It could be big or small and so size really has nothing to do with it.
But the person normally sees the analytical bank and then under auditing is quite surprised to find the reactive bank pictures; these are quite startling. He all of a sudden sees a sperm sequence, he sees a prenatal, he sees a past life, he sees material that he never dreamed of. And he all of a sudden sees a prisoner in chains sitting in a dungeon and it suddenly flashes into his head that's why he sits that way in his room every Saturday—he's obeying those pictures.
Now, these pictures were basically created to have an effect on somebody else and when they ceased to have an effect on somebody else, they began to have an effect on the body and the thetan; therefore, they survive.
The definition of survival is no effect. What is the continuous, continuing game? The continuous, continuing game is a game which never had any effect. There was no effect, so it went on forever. You should be able to see that very clearly. A game will continue as long as there is no absolute effect occurring. An action will occur until the end of the action cycle, which is start, change and stop.
And therefore, if we mocked up a picture to have an effect on Joe and Joe couldn't care less and went happily on his way, the picture is there to have an effect, so on a person who isn't too well off, it has an effect on him. You got the idea? So, we get a survival of the picture as well, because it had no effect on Joe, don't you see? These pictures were basically under Axiom 10, but they have turned around and turned on the person.
Now, in addition to that, the thetan uses them to handle and control the body. He has an awful time controlling a body, in other—the impossibility of getting stuck to a body is countered by the near impossibility of keeping a facsimile bank in good, solid tangle. In other words, he actually holds himself into the body, to some degree, and he disciplines the body; he keeps the body, he thinks, from running wild and so on with this facsimile pattern.
So as you change and move the facsimiles of a body, you'll be struck by the different action reactions of the body. And the point is that the facsimile bank under the thetan's control is a wonderful piece of machinery and out of his control is a nightmare. And when that bank goes out of his control he, of course, gets aberration, downscale and gets bad profiles.
Now, the first and foremost thing to know about a facsimile is it contains all perceptions.
How many perceptions are there? Well, I have counted to fifty-four. That is, sight, sound and so forth. People will tell you, in the final analysis, there are only a few of these perceptions, maybe four or five. But that is not true, there are over fifty-four of them. The reason we stopped counting was because we got tired, not because we'd run out of perceptions.



There is the perception of body motion, the perception of joint position, perception of heat, perception of small motion. There's the perception of, of course, photons, which we call visio. There's a perception of touch—these are the commonest ones—perception of smell.
Now, sight, sound, touch and smell actually have to be handled sooner or later, if you're handling any facsimiles. It's quite amazing, but they have to be handled.
There are more tricks connected with handling a facsimile than one could easily outline in five books the size of Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health. But these facsimiles all had a basic purpose, which was an effect on somebody else and, remember, to a thetan, the somebody else is the body. So he is still winning when he has a lot of effect on the body with these facsimiles. But because there have been other thetans on the genetic line and there are other facsimiles, his stimuli very often does not get the exact, desired response on the body. It gets some other response and introduces an unknown element: He thinks he's just handling one bank. He's actually handling thousands of banks which were there before him. You see how this could be?
Now, there aren't other thetans in the body, but there's the residue of other thetans' banks. You follow that? So that these banks are energized and made alive by the thetan who is now running the body. And because they were made by somebody else, the feeling that they were comes through and very often you will have people trying to tell you that there are other thetans in the body. This is not so. There are facsimiles made by other thetans in the body and reactions made by other thetans in the body, and this is a pretty spooky thing. When the thetan runs into this amount of unknownness—he wants the body to jump and it lies down and goes to sleep—he is apt to be puzzled. And life and the handling of behavior is more or less a contest of trying to get the body or other bodies to do what you want them to do by your various stimulus-response mechanisms and perceptions.
We use these perceptions to turn on the mechanisms, just like we tell a dog to go away. So, we need sound, really, to handle a bank, don't we? We say something, the bank restimulates.
Now, all kinds of meanings and significances can get into one of these banks and people can get stuck on certain phrases in these banks, and it's most wonderful how a single phrase can aberrate a whole life. There is no doubt about the fact that the bank is quite powerful and is quite formidable.
And there's also no doubt today at all about our ability to handle that bank. It is not now the problem that it was, so don't feel completely overwhelmed. It couldn't have been very overwhelming if in a period of the last quarter of a century I've managed to whip it as a human problem.
We know more about life than life does now because we can talk about what life is doing. And we can talk about this bank and these various banks and these various manifestations. And they're all very complex, but if you figure that all things are complex and all cases are tough cases, why, you will be in a happy frame of mind all of the time, because your prediction will be absolutely right.
Don't go being dismayed because cases are tough cases or banks are tough banks and it's all a complex problem—so what? We have the keys to these things and the keys turn out to be very, very simple things.
As far as perceptions are concerned, you can turn on any perception you want to today with modern auditing. As far as handling pictures is concerned, you can handle any picture that you want to. There is no great difficulty in doing this, just the standard SLPs handle these phenomena.
The only reason which—that you an auditor have to know about these phenomena is to know what you are looking at it—when it appears. And that's

why I'm telling you about it. Don't be particularly surprised when the preclear starts to wriggle like a snake sideways on the couch.
And you say, "What's the matter?"
"I don't know. But I'm swimming down a long channel."
He's just gotten into a sperm sequence, that's all. Either audit it out or get him out of it. It's an energy picture which was intended to have an effect on somebody and, believe me, it does. And that's all you really need to know about it and that auditing of course handles these various phenomena.
And I'm telling you all this simply because you as an auditor should know about all this, because you as an auditor will see all this.
And, therefore, it's a sort of a preview, the way—my talk here—the way they try to sell you a movie, you know, and they show you some of the exciting scenes therefrom. So I'm really not giving you anything to learn particularly to solve here, I'm just telling you what's coming.


Want to talk to you now about 8-C—of all processes, 8-C.
Quite an amazing thing that 8-C is still with us. Opening Procedure by Duplication and Opening Procedure 8-C are still good processes. But we keep 8-C around for some very good reasons.
But before I tell you anything about the reasons, I'm going to read this about Opening Procedure 8-C, quite rapidly, so that we can go into it with more length:
"Opening Procedure of 8-C is one of the most effective and powerful processes ever developed and should be used as such." Well, it's not as powerful as something we have today, but it's still effective.
"Step 'a' of Opening Procedure of 8-C is: (quote) 'Do you see that object?' (unquote), the auditor pointing.
"When the preclear signifies that he does, the auditor says, (quote) 'Walk over to it' (unquote).
"When the preclear has walked over to it, the auditor says, 'Touch it.'
"When the preclear does, the auditor says, 'Let go,' and designates another object—a wall, a lamp—calls it by name or not, and goes through the same procedure once more."
And that's all there is to Step "a." Now, it says here, unnecessarily, that "It is important that the auditor specifically acknowledge each time the preclear has executed the command above."
For instance, if you told the preclear to do two things and then acknowledged once, he would become confused. Or before he had executed something, tell him to do something else—huh, you've been his father.
A matter of fact, I've broken cases simply by asking them, "Which one would you rather have had run 8-C on you, your mother or father?"
Now, Part "b" introduces the idea of decision. It is notable that anyone must be very strong before he's considered even vaguely clear in the power of choice, power of decision. The commands are:
"Pick a spot in this room."
You see, there we've introduced choice. "Pick a spot in this room."
When the preclear does, say, "Walk over to it."
The preclear has, we say, "Put your finger on it."
When the preclear has, we say, "Let go."
And each time, the auditor acknowledges the completion of the command with the preclear, signifying "All right," "Okay," "Fine," and so forth.



Now, you see, we broadened his power of choice by letting him pick the objects. At first, we were picking the objects—the auditor—and then we broadened his power of choice.
Now, let's go to the third part of this.
"Part 'c' of Opening Procedure of 8-C introduces further decision. It goes as follows:
"The auditor says, 'Pick a spot in this room.'
"When the preclear has, the auditor says, "Walk over to it.'
"When the preclear does, the auditor says, 'Make up your mind when you are going to place your finger on it, and do so.'
"When the preclear has, the auditor says, 'Make up your mind you are going to let go, and let go."
And "The auditor each time acknowledges the completion of one of these orders."
Now, it's interesting that there is another part, there's a Part "d" of that, which is, you tell him to make up his mind to do something and then change his mind and do something else, walking around the room.
Now, why do we still have this old process? Well, in the first place, it has never been used for what it was designed. It was designed to drill a thetan exterior, not a body. It is a milder process than Start-Change-Stop, much milder. It has turned many a psychotic into a sane person. It has taken alcoholics off the bottle. It's done remarkable things to cases that we just couldn't get close to. And so it is a good, today, light process which doesn't get the auditor into very much trouble with the preclear.
But, what is the main importance and why are we devoting a whole lecture to 8-C?
Instructor could teach you that very easily, anyone could. Any old auditor knows 8-C. Well, that's because it produces sufficiently small quantities of phenomena and reaction in the preclear to permit an auditor in-training to keep his wits about him. Do you have that?
In other words, you don't produce so much dynamite that the auditor who is still learning has to handle origins, acknowledgments, command, being in the same room with another human being, having just this morning cracked his own case or felt that it was never going to be cracked. And then in addition to that unloaded on his head a tremendous amount of complicated preclear who would give all sorts of wild reactions like rushing to the window, opening it up, throwing it out and calling, "Police!" you know? Standard preclear reaction under ... (laughter)
Now, here we have—here we have then, a process which is a very useful process. It does do a great deal for cases. It does remedy havingness more or less as it goes, because the preclear is in contact, you see, with actual masses. And in addition to that, permits the auditor to do something very precisely with little or no fireworks as a consequence. Any gain that old Opening Procedure 8-C made was made very quietly; it was a quiet gain. SCS, that's different. Start, Change and Stop—boom!
So, in early sessions, and until one feels, oh, what competence in handling a preclear, 8-C is a highly recommended procedure, very, very recommended.
In the first place, it'll make the case feel better. Second place, it'll make people cognite. In the third place, it gets the auditor all over the idea that it's bad to control people. And if he still has that idea and tries to run SCS, then we are liable to have a complete chaos, a debacle. You see how that would be?
Most human beings have an idea that it is very bad to control other human beings. The end product of this is to be found everywhere in the world where there

are slums, degradation, anything else that man considers very disdainfully. The end product of a feeling one must not control is an end of the race.
You can see the final finish of the human race when nobody in it is ever going to control anybody else in it in any way, shape, form or fashion and that'll be the finish of that. You see, in the first place, it'll be the end of all dynamics except the first. All we will have will be a bunch of dug-in thetans who are walking around trying to get out from under all other thetans. Chaos. There will be no third dynamic certainly.
At this moment, the United Nations—a hopeful dream that was brewed up by some fellows who had some good ideas and couldn't execute, at San Francisco right after they found out about the A-bomb—was dished in the first few moments of its chartering. They just threw it in the slop pail. Any of five powers could veto any decision made by anybody in the United Nations; any one of them suddenly get the idea that, boom, that was going to be that. It wasn't that bad, but any one of them could veto war.
What was that? That was a feeling they couldn't control. Let me assure you of something, that was not a desire to control, that was a craven terror of controlling something!
If anybody were to walk up to me and tell me that I had to have all kinds of provisos and so forth and it was absolutely impossible for me to control a certain group of people, something of this sort, I'd think they were slipping their wheels. It might be quite something else to have a reason to control them or to want to control them, but to be able to isn't something that enters the mind as being bad or good if you're in fairly good shape. A bunch of people are running around trying to put out a fire. They seem to don't have any order at all. Well, that's because nobody's got control of the situation.
Give you an idea. I had a landing craft one time come back alongside of a ship. One of these big fifty-foot LCMs came back alongside of the ship; it was full of wounded men. There was an officer, a lieutenant commander, standing on the deck; there were a bunch of ratings standing there. The landing craft came up alongside in a rather heavy sea and there was no net to drop to the landing craft. And the landing craft came alongside and struck, in this heavy sea, against the side of the ship so as to let its ramp down. Of course, in just a matter of minutes that landing craft would have flooded and sunk. It was full of wounded men and that lieutenant commander ran away! He didn't suddenly grab hold of a couple of ratings and say, "Cut those lashings and get that net down." He didn't turn around to the winch and get it manned in a hurry so that they could lower away something to hold that boat up. No. It was not his department, and he ran away.
I was a guest on the ship. And after I saw the bosuns and others—the officer go and the bosuns just still standing there looking down into this sinking landing craft, so forth, why, I gave a rating a shove in the shoulder and told him to go over there and cut those lashings in a hurry. And he did and it sort of galvanized things and after a while one of the ship's officers came up and took over the situation. The landing craft, however, would have sunk long since.
In other words, what was the matter in that area? It wasn't that I was being a bleeding 'ero. I was acting in a very aberrated fashion as a matter of fact, because I got furious! You could have heard me halfway across the Pacific. It shows I was aberrated. But what was wrong in that situation? It was because there wasn't anybody there willing to take control of the situation.
If you get two or three fellows all of whom are willing to take the control of any situation they meet, do you know they don't stand around and argue about who is boss? This is an oddity, you know, but they don't. They say, "Well, you be captain today, Joe."



I actually saw a very smart little patrol craft one day, running like this. They had ordered three ensigns aboard and nobody could find out who was senior. And they were all very good young chaps and they were all captain. Nobody had ever designated a captain on board. They were just getting along splendidly. I thought, "Good heavens! If the Bureau of Naval Operations could only see that example." Because all they were doing was fighting for control. One doesn't fight for control if he can control. Remember that. Because you as an auditor will never have to fight for control of a preclear if you yourself are willing to control the preclear. It's almost on a direct postulate basis.
Now, how do we get into such condition that we become allergic to controlling things? Why is it that people say, "We mustn't control this and control that and do things"? That's because control gets into an aberrated band and it becomes bad control. But it isn't control at all when it's bad control.
What is bad control? Well, we can imagine somebody who is "teaching" (quote, unquote) a runner out here on a track. And he's teaching this runner and he says, "Now this time, now you want to lift your knees just a little higher."
And the fellow goes up the track and comes back.
And he says, "What are you lifting your knees for? I didn't tell you to lift your knees."
The fellow said, "Yes, you did."
"Well," he says, "no, I didn't, really. I told you to pick them up more smartly."
Change it, change it, change it, change it, change it until the fellow doesn't know what he's supposed to do. You can't really call that control. Control is the ability to start, change and stop. The only reason a cannonball can knock your body's head off is your body long since forgot how to control cannonballs. You got the idea?
Start, change and stop is all there is to control. It hasn't any moral connections. When men in the majority are incapable of controlling, when they no longer desire to control anything, then things will not run anymore at all.
The only reason World War II came along is because certain nations— England and the United States amongst them—were unwilling to go on controlling the German nation. And they threw it into the soup. And they let the Weimar Republic be formed. And then they didn't even control the Weimar Republic. And then a little mutt came up who was so anxious about control that he had to control everything without being able to control anything, and we had World War II.
Well, I suppose men have to get into a game condition, but in view of the fact that some of us here were kind of mauled around in that particular game, I think we have a reason to look over the antecedents of that.
Now, it was an unwillingness to take responsibility for. And when you take control and translate it into responsibility for, you see where and what we are looking at with control.
Now, we could say this auditor—we could say very carelessly—this auditor doesn't have very good luck with preclears because he's unwilling to take responsibility for the preclear's case.
Sure enough, responsibility, taking responsibility for, is a game condition. An ideal thing is to have no responsibility for anything anywhere and be, of course, sitting in a total serenity eight miles north of nirvana. That's it. But that isn't a game condition and life doesn't function that way.
Now, a fellow can get into a compulsive control, a compulsive responsibility and that we call guilt or blame or self-blame, don't you see? Now, that is simply a reversed responsibility.

Now, responsibility, just said like that, is actually of no value to an auditor, it's just merely words. We sort of have a feeling of what we mean when we say "responsibility," but we just kind of feel what we mean and, you know, we know that and ... We don't know anything. We have to realize that responsibility is a willingness to control and that the anatomy of control is start, change and stop before we can then actually put responsibility into effect. You follow me?
Now, if an auditor is unwilling to take responsibility for a preclear's case, it is certain that somewhere along the line he's going to give some incorrect auditing commands, he's going to do an incorrect Start, Change and Stop someway or other.
He's going to start the preclear and realize he'd made a mistake and change his order. Don't you see, there is something going to fall down here. He's going to stop the preclear when he should have started him, he's going to change him when he should have been starting and stopping him. Something else is going on here rather than what the preclear thinks is going on.
So what is really wrong with control, if there's anything wrong with it at all? And what is wrong with responsibility?
Well, there is something wrong with control and there is something wrong with responsibility, when it's on an unknowing basis. Just select out all the other factors and just run that one in.
When you are being controlled and you don't know it, it will react unhealthily on you. Follow me? You're being controlled and you don't know it. You had no choice, no power of choice exercised at all.
Now, this is represented when you grab somebody at the nape of the neck and say, "You have to be audited. You're going to go into session or get your head knocked off." And then we say, "I wonder why that preclear doesn't improve?"
The way to do is to get covert with him and start asking him to explain why he doesn't want to be audited and he'll, of course, as-is it and run it out. There are ways to solve this particular problem. But the wrong way to solve it is for the husband whose wife is very aberrated to come in and push the wife in with a big whip in his hands, you know, saying, "She gets some auditing."
You know what I always do? I solve this problem just like that. (snap) I normally have discovered that it wasn't the wife who needed auditing. So I always take the person who insisted on the auditing and I just use that rule of thumb always and invariably. I don't care what the circumstances are, I just cut right straight through to it.
One of the ways you do it is you convince him that he has to set a good example and then set him up for seventy-five-hour intensive.
Just ignore—just ignore, no matter how bad it seems to be or anything else—ignore the state of case of the person who was being pushed into the session. You follow me?
Now, therefore, unknowingness is all that is bad in games condition. One is playing games he doesn't know he's playing. That's bad. Follow me? It's an unknowing condition, unknowing games condition.
Couldn't be anything wrong with playing a game if you knew you were playing a game. The number of men who have suffered arduously from playing football are very few. Broken shins mend, but broken minds require a Scientologist.
Now, where we have, then, a person who is obsessively controlling things, he is unknowingly on a control manic, you might say. You got that? It's in an unknowing condition.
He sees a bunch of people milling around and he just can't rest, he just can't wait until somehow or other he gets in their road! And you know that person doesn't really control them. He merely gets in their road and stops them somehow or another. See, it's a hectic condition. You'll see this condition.



And that condition then, convinces him that he can't control anybody, but he wasn't controlling anybody in the first place. How could not stopping people convince him he couldn't control people, since he wasn't really controlling them?
There are ways and means of controlling people. Maybe they weren't known before this time but they are certainly known now, right here in Scientology. You see that? If people know they are controlling things and can control things, then you will have people around who are willing to take responsibility for things but don't have to. They also can receive orders—such a person.
By the way, it's quite remarkable. You find somebody who is very, very efficient in running a company. He's very successful—I don't care whether it's a company that sells cornflakes or a company that charges mountains (same thing). And you come along and you go into conversation with him and you find out he's acknowledging your origins and it's all back and forth; it's very easy, very simple two-way comm. Nothing to it.
And you find something else too. Major comes along, his superior, or the board of directors or somebody else comes along and they say, "Do this or do that," or something of the sort. And he looks it over and he says, "That's okay." Or if he doesn't like it, he turns around and tells them that he doesn't and straightens it out so he can do something about it.
A fellow who is obsessively controlling, normally, when he is ordered to do something, simply shuts up and runs around like a robot. You never saw such a destructive wake in your life as that which pursues a person who implicitly and always obeys exactly what the order is. See, and this is pretty wild. See, he just turns into a robot.
Therefore, we control the preclear. The preclear is there to be audited, by which he means to be controlled to some degree, and he will jockey around with you trying to convince you you can't control him as a sort of a game for a little while and then finally give up and go through the auditing. But he's there to be controlled in order to put him under his own control. Do you follow me? It's covert to some degree because preclears at the outset sometimes fail to understand and appreciate this. They sometimes tell you, "You're trying to control me."
Well, the thing for you to say at that time is not, "No." It's "Yes. I'm going to control you so that you can get up to a point where you can control your own body. And this is just a graduated scale of this and that's what we're doing. Now, I want you to—the point here, that's Part A and over here is B, and I want you to move from A to B," and so on. And the person will cognite pretty soon.
He goes through this. He'll give you a little protest, but what's kicking back at you? Actually, the thetan isn't. It's a machine or an aberration which is kicking your teeth in. Always remember that when you get a resistive preclear. Don't try to knock the preclear's head off because he's resisting. Actually, the preclear is cooperating. His machinery is resisting. If he could control his machinery, he would cooperate with you. That's why auditing works.
So you put a person under control so a person can control. And one of the first and foremost things you do for a case is show him that control is not bad. He's just gotten mixed up.
I'd like to see somebody drive a car that was incapable of knowing control. As a matter of fact, just looking out the window right here, I see several people are doing just that.
If you wanted to sort out all of the bad drivers and all of the automobile accidents, all you'd have to do is put people who come up with a driving test through a little test with an object, just make them start, change and stop it on a desk. And if they comm lagged on it, flunk them. Just that. Don't audit them, just test them that way—start, change and stop. And if they couldn't do these

three things rather easily, if they didn't understand at once what you were talking about, so forth, don't give them a license.
If you gave that person a license, he'd go out on the road and he'd kill somebody. They do. It's only about 10 percent of the drivers cause 90 percent of the accidents. It's a real small proportion.
Now, your preclear is doing what he is doing because he can't stop what he is doing or he can't start doing something else. And, of course, basically he's doing what he's doing because he can't change what he's doing. And that's all control, isn't it? So it all has to do with responsibility, doesn't it?
And we see 8-C work some minor miracles simply because, in a rather indirect way, it overcomes some of this.
But the best process, of course, is SCS. But this is a process that should be run by an auditor who is in excellent skill! He should be in very fine condition as an auditor. He should really know his stuff. Because a case under SCS will sometimes blow up and knock your whole roof out—you're going to start selling insurance for that sort of thing.
Now, 8-C, then, is a very wonderful training process and it is also a very good process if you don't know what to do with the patient. If you just don't know what to do with him—you figure he's too touchy, he's too quivery, too nervous—run him on 8-C Part "a," graduate him eventually up to "b" and "c."
Let us say you're afraid to really tackle this case head-on, you're afraid the case will explode in your face. Case has a history of five nervous breakdowns in the last five months and you can only put in four hours auditing the case.
What would you run? Well, it'd be a rough thing for you to sit there and talk with him. They're liable to go into another breakdown; their havingness is practically zero. You could mimic them and get somewhere or you could run 8-C on them.
If you had a lot of time to do it in, you could just run SCS and blow the case to pieces, pick it off the walls and put it back together again and have the guy walking out in beautiful condition. But given limited time and certainly given a doubt of the ability of the case to stand up, 8-C is still the top-rank process.
The conditions of auditing, however, are best established by running 8-C. And people who are in class and who are being audited by auditors who are not yet sure of themselves are best run on 8-C, let me assure you. Because they make gains even then, they make gains very nicely. All right.
In studying auditing, it's best to take a process that gets the auditor into a condition where he is not afraid of controlling somebody, where he finds controlling people and walking them around is very easy, where he finds out that he can give orders, when he finds out the orders will be obeyed and that nobody drops dead as a consequence. And that's the first and best lesson that an auditor can learn.
Actually, although we—you might think we overstate it, today Scientology isn't a mild thing. Today Scientology is handling a lot of dynamite. But if you do your procedures and you are only going to do something like 8-C, something like that, you'll find there's no dynamite involved at all.


Thank you.
The subject of this lecture is the entrance of rough cases. What is the lowest entrance point which we have today? That lowest point is pretty low. And, oddly enough, it is the same for a low case as it is for a high case. And we have achieved that optimum whereby using the technique does not criticize the preclear.
Once upon a time we had a technique that we used on psychos. We'd say, "Look around the room and find something real." And the psycho would. He would eventually discover something real, clutch it to his bosom and so on. It would just work once, there would just be one or two items that he would find quite real and he would be very pleased, be very pleased. So that—people knew this. And the preclear would come in, sit down, auditor would say, "All right. Now, look around the room and find something real. Ha-ha."
Preclear would say, "Oh, you think I'm crazy, huh?"
Now, that won't happen today for the excellent reason that I wouldn't care if somebody walked in and said he was an Operating Thetan or if somebody walked in on somebody else's steam or was carried in with a stretcher, straight from the local spinbin, I'd run him pretty closely on the same processes.
Only one procedure that would be lower than the procedures I am talking about, would be a highly specialized procedure having to do with an individual who had lost the use of his voice, his sight or his hearing or his capability of moving his hand. Such a preclear has to be processed with some rather interesting flights of fancy on the part of the auditor.
The communication on somebody who is lying in an apparently comatose state is very difficult to establish, and it is quite often established by tactile. And you press their wrist and you just tell them, "I'm going to press your wrist here and see if you're in good communication with me." And you've noticed occasionally he flicked his eye or something like that, and you say, "Now, when I press your wrist, I want you to flick your eye if you felt that touch." And the fellow will flick his eye.
In other words, he's been lying there ostensibly in a comatose state, whereas in actuality he has been quite alert, he is still there, he is simply unable to move very much of his body. Most of the people who are in comas in hospitals are actually in this state.
So there is a level where the establishment of communication is quite difficult. And it becomes quite necessary for the auditor to become extremely



inventive in order to establish communication in the first place. But as nearly as he could, he would still follow these procedures, as nearly as he could.
The lowest process which would be addressed to any case would simply be the first process of SLP 8, which is not as we were saying before "Find the preclear. Find the auditor. Find the walls," but the process which leads the preclear to find the preclear, find the auditor and find the walls. See, we've got one lower than that and this is an interesting, interesting process since it is in itself such a simplicity that an auditor will undoubtedly believe there must be much more to it. And so believing, will probably try to complicate it. But it in itself is capable of producing a full result. And that process we are calling SCS to keep our tongues from being tired out in saying Start, Change and Stop.
Now, start, change and stop, of course, is the anatomy of control. Control consists of start, change and stop. This is a cycle of action.
There are other little midpoints on a large cycle of action, but one, I suppose, could get very fancy and play these little midpoints down. There are actually two change points and a null point in the middle of the curve. It actually goes: start, change, continue, change, stop. There's a continue there on the middle of the curve that is survival itself.
But I don't know how we would run continue unless we would ask the individual to simply get out—and someday somebody may find this is therapeutic, but I myself am not an athletic type; when I go for walks, I take a motorcycle. And it would have to be somewhat on this basis: You would tell somebody that he had to keep walking as long as he could keep walking. Now, I have seen that one process, by the way, break a psychosis, so it obviously has some workability.
But in the auditing room, as far as we're concerned, we're going to run Start, Change and Stop. And these three things are run, not one after the other, but each one flat and then another one is picked up.
In other words, we run, let us say, change first. And we run it until the individual is—not for any particular reason, unless most preclears are in an obsessive change—we run change pretty flat. You know, so that he's no longer commenting on it.
And then we pick up start, and we run this start fairly flat. We do it many, many times, and then we're satisfied that this isn't producing an immediate change on the case, so we run stop. And we do this many, many times and that's apparently flat.
And it would be a vast mistake at that point to say, "This process is flat; it is finished. This individual is under the auditor's control," for the excellent reason that if you ran change again, you would find further considerations shifting in the preclear. And then if you ran start, which a little while ago was flat, you would discover once more that it was not flat, that it had unflattened somehow in running stop and change again. And so you would run start some more and that would flatten once more. And then you would run stop and flatten stop again.
Now, it would not be possible to say, since we're taking this for any level of case, it would not at all be possible for us to say how long you'd have to run the process.
I can tell you that one of the rougher processes would be this one run on somebody who was total machinery and who had never been in session. This would really be standing his hair on end. It would be quite a process. He would consider this brrr! And on a case that was in a very, very good condition, was well upscale and so on, he would consider it interesting and he would exteriorize much better. The end result of the process, if continued long enough, is exteriorization.

If a person is obsessively exteriorized, or you say inverted, it is probable that his inversion would suddenly be noticeable to him—you know, a person who can't get in his head, a person who is compulsively out of his head. And we would get a condition there where he would become aware of being outside of his head and not able to get into it and as we went along, he would probably slide back into his head and he might complain because it's now gone all black. Thetans become very puzzled as to why they can't see out of heads, you know? They think all brains should be transparent.
And the whole science of psychology (if you want to call it a science) is devoted to proving that not only are brains not transparent, but they are totally opaque. And that's why we call it the "science of opacity."
The one study of psychology is the brain, by the way. It's a physiological study, so don't ever get it mixed up with some other field. It belongs there. Somebody should study the brain. They have enough of them in cases and things like that, so it'd be a shame if somebody didn't study them. Now, although what it has to do with making a body move, I have not quite been able to discover.
But anyway, we have the person going inside his head and then coming out again, only this time he can get out if he wants to.
See, so there are three conditions which you meet, which is buttered all over the universe—"My god, where am I at now?" That's the type of case, that's the technical name for it: the "My god, where am I at?" case. He isn't in his body, he isn't out of his body, he doesn't have a body, there isn't any body because there are no walls because there's no universe, but he's being calm about it.
And this case run on SCS would gradually accumulate to himself a considerable ability, you see, to collect himself. And the first thing he's liable to find out after he'd been totally collected—and, by the way, this might not occur until you've done about five, six, eight, ten, maybe even more hours of auditing than that on him with this process—you would find that he would get collected somewhere and he would find out that he was away from that horrible thing there. "Thank heavens! What you have done for me. What you've done for me. You have assured me that I am no longer near that hateful, detestable, horrible thing—a body."
Of course, if you at this time took his gratitude as meaningful and didn't do anything more about it, he would then merely be obsessively exterior.
But if you went on he would probably not thank you, but he would slide in closer and closer to this body and the next thing you know be in its head and then be in its head for a while complaining bitterly and then the complaint would wear off, either by going into apathy or improving in tone. And he would come up and then he'd begin to tell you, "Well, it's not so bad really. I don't feel any bugs crawling on me while I'm in here." And it gradually would improve his tone and then be able to exteriorize.
But this time we wouldn't expect him to exteriorize and discover that he was exteriorized nearly so much as we would expect him to inform the auditor that he was directing the change or the start or the stop of the body from an exterior point in the room.
And if we continued the process even further, we would find he was doing it by postulate and not by beams or energy manifestations. He'd look at the body and he'd tell it to move, you know, and it'd move. Like an animal trainer putting something through whips, you know. We would have an interesting state there whereby somebody could do that.
Such a person is a dangerous person. They are social. They do not start fights at the drop of a hat always. They are very seldom found in jails, they do not contribute to the payrolls of large institutions because they don't occupy



them. They probably are let—willing to let somebody else play the game too. In other words, they're undesirable people. They do not enter into the spirit of the thing here on Earth, which is chop everybody up because they are so choppable, because if I don't, they'll chop me.
That's usually the game that's being played. And they might see a larger game. They might see a third dynamic game or even a fourth dynamic game going on. And they might even get the idea someday that man ought to get together and fight the enemies of man, not the enemies that man thinks men are. You might even get them up to this point, you understand?
Now, they unfortunately get unserious about the conditions of existence if you bring them that far. You cannot convince them that they ought to do something about it right this minute. That's a very difficult thing for people to understand. They come to you and they say, "Somebody who is a Theta Clear, and why doesn't he do this and that, if he can do things so wonderfully?"
So, you send him over to Russia to bump off Khrushnev or Bulgie or something, and you say, "All right. That's fine."
And he says, "Sure. Sure. I'll do that for you."
"Good. Good, good."
And you see him the next day (and you haven't read any headlines at all) and you say, "What happened?"
"Say, you know, it's a funny thing. I was over there and there was a lady washing clothes. And you know how they wash clothes in Russia?"
And you say, "Come on now. Didn't you do anything on this project at all?"
And he'll say, "Oh yes. Yes. Yes. I looked the situation over."
"But didn't you knock them off?"
And he says, "Why?" He said, "Isn't there a nice game going on between England and Russia? I mean, you want to stop the whole thing? I mean, it isn't very dangerous. Well, what's the most that could happen? Come on now, tell me. What's the most that could happen?"
"That the countries would both get wiped out," you'd say.
"Oh, well," he said, "if it ever came to that," he said, "we could fix that up. But I don't see anybody with enough sense to push the right button if they did, you know? If they did get mad at each other."
He's very hard to convince. His level of trust is up, which is one of the best arguments I know of, by the way, in the direction of believing that God isn't always going to give you that six-shooter you think you need in order to settle your affairs.
I mean, I see people down here in the church praying and I often ask them what they're praying about—I have in the past and so forth and—you know, I have a grave suspicion that an Operating Thetan like the eighth dynamic just wouldn't be really intrigued with it, if he heard it at all. Because it's in the light of "You must play this petty, two-bit, little game," you know, "You must give me great strength in order to smite mine enemy the cloth seller who gyps me on my commission." You know, I mean, you just couldn't get somebody like God interested in this sort of thing, that's all.
Of course, it'd be a very vicious thing for us to unsell the world on this idea because think of the income we would lose to the Catholic Church. Anyway. And they do need income, they do. People like that can't generate energy and enthusiasm, they have to buy it. Anyway ...
Here—now, you think that's a dirty crack about Catholicism and I'm mad at Catholicism. I'm not mad at Catholicism, it doesn't exist anymore, it's just called Catholicism.
When we get a technique which with this and sufficient variation of course to keep the preclear from being bored stiff, which will run all the way up on an

exteriorization, we're really pretty well there on a technique. Well, why wouldn't it go all the way up? Why would you have to do any other technique but this technique?
Well, the main thing is attention span. A preclear who is in pretty bad condition has a very poor attention span, very poor. He actually comes off of a process after a few minutes. And it's just a contest of getting him into session and he slides out of session, he gets into session, he slides out of session, and you really should vary the randomity just a little bit in order to keep him interested, although you would be surprised how absorbedly interested a preclear can be very often in this process. All right.
His response is not particularly important. His response, his actual response, is not terribly important to the technique, just get him to do it. Get him to do it. Discuss with him what is happening.
But what is happening? He has had control itself as a grouped thing. The word control is an abstract, don't you see? It's an abstract. We had to find the composite points of the abstract which were solidly contactable in order to have the abstract. So, somebody says to him, "Why don't you control yourself?" Well, he can't; it's an abstract. It doesn't have much sense. It really doesn't have much sense, you know? It has so little sense that people have begun to believe that there's very bad control extant in the world.
Well, there is no such a thing as bad control. But there is such a thing as unpositive control. See, that would be bad control. Like we tell the preclear, "Let's walk over toward the door. I didn't say that, I meant the window. I said walk, I didn't say run. Why aren't you running? Why don't you say something? Shut up."
See, this is what we used to call bad 8-C. He isn't giving the preclear a chance or the person a chance to execute a command before he interjects another command, and that is the definition of confusion.
Good control is not bad. Good control is simply positive control within the tolerance of the individual being controlled. See? He has to know he's being controlled and he has to be able to tolerate the level of control. For instance, if you picked up a body and threw it across the street against the wall, you would find out that it would be slightly secondhand. Now, it's very positive, your picking up the body and throwing it across the street, but it was damaging to the body, so therefore that could also come under the heading of bad control because it's not within the tolerance of the body. You understand?
And remember, when a person has been ill, that to walk back and forth across the floor may also be outside the tolerance of the body. So, we get a lower—slightly lower-level technique here in moving an object. And we let them sit down comfortably, so they won't fall down and we let them shift an object.
Now, it's always safest, if you just have a complete stranger on your hands as far as a case is concerned, to shift the object. And it's always a safe thing to do, in any case, if you're sounding out the case at large. If the individual is oblivious of the body and the body is not at all real to him and an object is real to him, you of course, would use the object. You see that?
But a blind man would have greater reality on the body than he would have on the object, so which is the lower technique there? The body is the lower technique, of course.
And this is a very plain, ordinary, usual, run-of-the-mill sort of a process. You would have to—it's almost unbelievable in its simplicity. It's one of these where both the auditor and the preclear should be standing, because this is better mimicry. The auditor should guide the preclear around slightly—not by touching him very much, but occasionally attracting his attention with a tap on the elbow. This gives you reality. See, there's a reality there. And we would run



it on this basis: We would say to the preclear standing in here, you'd say, "You see that spot there? We'll call that Spot A. All right. And now you stand there. Now, you see that other spot over there? We call that Spot B. Now, you see that spot?"
And he says, "Yes."
And you say, "Good. All right. Now, when I tell you to change the body's position, I want you to move from Spot A to Spot B."
He understands that. And you say, "All right. Change the body's position." And he moves it from A over to B.
And you say, "Good. That's fine. That's fine."
Now, at first—if the case were having a rough time, you wouldn't ask him this, but normally it would be usual for you to say, "Did you change the body's position?"
And he'll have to think this over for a moment and he will give you his answer and regardless of what it is, you say, "Fine. That's good. And now do you see that spot over there? Now, we call that Spot C." We've got three spots so that we won't run a duplicative process on him, you see? C. All right.
"Now, when I tell you to change the body's position, I want you to move the body from Spot B to Spot C. Now, you understand that?"
And the preclear says, "Yes."
And you say, "All right. Change the body's position."
And he changes the body's position from B to C.
And you say, "Well, did you change the body's position?"
He says, "Yes."
You say, "All right. Now, do you see this spot over here which we will call Spot A?"
Now, you understand we're not dragging any process into the past, each time we make a contract with the preclear. We're not depending on any former understanding with this process, each moment in time is new. We make each level of time a new level of time so that he doesn't have to depend on his memory. After a while, he'll just relax. He doesn't have to remember. He's not running a skill here, you see; it's not a new thing he's learning to do. So you unconfuse him from that and the best way to do it is to say, "You see this Spot A, which we will call A here? All right. Now, when I ask you to change the position of the body, I wish you to move it over there to that spot, which we will call B. Now, you see that spot over there? That's B. All right. Now, you got that?"
And he says, "Yes."
And you say, "All right. Change the body's position."
And he moves it over there to B.
You understand this? Now, that's the way you do it. That's all there is to it, on the change basis.
Now, on start, we simply emphasize start. There's the preclear standing there and we say, "Now, you see the wall over there?"
And he says, "Yes."
"Now, when I give you this command, I want you to move the body in that direction. Now when I say start"—in other words, we just head him—"and when I say start, why, I want you to start the body."
And he says, "All right. All right, that's fine."
You say, "All right. Start."
And he starts moving the body, see?
And you say, "That's fine."
Now, he's liable to tell you something daffy like, "You know, I—I had to stop it and change it too."

And you say, "Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, I know that. Well, that's fine. You did start the body, though, didn't you?"
And he says, "Yes. Yes. I did start the body but I also stopped it," and so forth.
What's happening here? You're watching the word control ungroup; you're getting these separate motions apart. And as you get them apart and get them distinct one from another, of course, an individual's ability to control the body increases and he can then get more confidence in being able to control it from a greater and greater distance, you see?
He doesn't have to be smashed into it or buttered all over in the places where it might go and meeting it coming and going, you might say. All right.
So the next command is—you just would say to him then, "All right"— you'd face him around and you'd say, "All right. Now, when I tell you to start the body, start the body."
And he would say, "All right."
And you say, "All right. Start the body."
And he moves away from wherever he's standing there and you say, "That's fine." Now, you don't stop the body, you don't tell him to stop. Get that point. All right.
And the next—third command on the thing is you ask the preclear to—you tell him, "I'm going to ask you to get your body moving over there toward that wall, you see, and as I—when we get it moving over there toward that wall, somewhere along the line I'm going to say stop. And when I say stop, I want you to stop the body. Is that all right?"
And he says, "That's right. That's all right with me."
You say, "All right. Now, get it moving." (You don't use start, stop and change there. You say, "Get it moving.") And he moves it over there, and you say, "Stop."
And the preclear stops.
And you say, "Good. Did you stop the body?"
And he says, "Yes."
You turn him around, head him in the other direction, point to the door, say, "We'll have the body move in that direction this time. All right. And when I tell you—I'm going to tell you to start the body moving and then I'm going to tell you to stop." See, a brand-new contract every time.
And he says, "All right." And then he moves off and stops. All right.
The final thing is here that the preclear will flatten each one of these things in turn. You may have to do it sixty times on change and a hundred and twenty times on start and fifty times on stop, at which time you would run change again, don't you see?
And you walk around with him and help him out and he will feel the mimicry context of this. If you simply sit there and do it, he will eventually feel uncomfortable.
And that is Start, Change and Stop.


I'd like to talk to you today about games theory. The theory of games.
Just why it is that games, as a theory, explains life and a very, very large number of very fancy and very simple theories do not explain life, I refuse to be responsible for.
The idea of "games and nothing but games" and "it never was anything but a game" and so on evidently fills the bill. But the idea that "all is love" simply seems to fill somebody's coffers.
The idea that "it is a world of tooth and claw" doesn't work, it doesn't work. It isn't a world of tooth and claw, it's a world of games. And when games get so serious that everybody becomes entirely introverted into the game, he ceases to realize that it is a game but, nevertheless, he is still mixed up in a game.
We find a great deal of despair in a preclear over the fact that (occasionally we find this) it's all pointless, you know, life is really pointless. All he needs to do is have some purposes invented, but he will tell you this, "Life is pointless."
Well, he's telling you that somebody should come along and hand him a game all tailor-made, done up properly, delivered across the counter of the toy store with no difficulties for himself.
Life becomes pointless when an individual loses his ability or lays aside his ability to think up purposes. And that's about all there is to it. Then life of course is pointless, because purposes are part of games theory.
The parts of a game are very interesting, but the parts of the game are very quickly and briefly stated. And the first part of a game is of course freedom and the next part of a game is barriers and the next part of the game is purposes. And out from these three things we actually get all parts of games.
Well, there could be a thousand reasons why life is being lived. There could be a thousand patterns on which life is being constantly redesigned. But the one which delivers to us the best results, the one which stands the test, passes through the caldron is games theory. And none of the others do.
Therefore, we have to know a great deal more about games than freedom, barriers and purposes. We could say very happily to somebody, "Well, freedom, barriers, purposes, that's all there is to know about games. Well, it's very simple. Scientology is a very simple thing—games theory."
Well, it looked very simple to me the first day that I stumbled across this in calculations. It was merely put down in a list with five hundred other possibilities of patterns. And they all had to be selected out and I didn't like that one. I said as I put it down, I said, "That's too simple," and went on to the next one and paid no further attention to it. That's why—that's why it was examined as



number five hundred. All the rest of them got tested first because they sounded so much better.
Well, it's simple, all right. Very, very simple. So are the works and metallurgy of Big Ben. So is the instruction manual on how to keep legislation from becoming legislation after it's legislated. Because freedom, barriers and purposes explains life. This is for certain, explains life. But none of the three will audit.
You can't just say to somebody, "Well, get the idea of freedom. That's fine. That's fine. Now, get the idea of barriers. That's fine. Can you build barriers? You can? Oh, that's fine. All right. Now, do you have a purpose in life?"
And the fellow says, "Oh yes. That's fine."
And you say, "All right. You're a Clear." (laughter)
It would be very, very lovely if you could. It'd be wonderful if you could. But you can't.
Games Processing runs into every game that our preclear has been tossed out of and runs into every activity he has ever engaged in. It runs into every purpose and thing he has ever dedicated himself to. And when you start to process it, you're just processing head-on as far as the case is concerned—crash!
There are processes in Games Processing which I well imagine, if run inexpertly, would simply pick up the preclear and, well, you'd dust him off afterwards and maybe find enough pieces to put in the coffin, but even that has its doubts.
There is one process in Games Processing which is sufficiently rugged as to turn on the feeling of insanity in the preclear. If it's run on the right valence, no matter how expertly audited, it would still turn on the "Nyaow, I'm going mad." And that is simply "Invent a way to get attention from (valence)."
Now, that sounds like such an innocent process, doesn't it? It sounds like such a sweet, innocent process. There's obviously—obviously nothing under the sun could be more pleasant. (Obviously, getting attention from somebody is nothing.) But let us take somebody like Father, "Invent a way to get attention from Father." Nyaow. Now. If Father is the person in the family who was most out of communication, although apparently most in it—you know, Father might have been the person who was dramatizing sanity all the time, you know—and this process were run on him, why, we are likely to discover our preclear just spinning quietly in in the chair.
No, you have to lighten that process up: "Invent something that would get Father's interest." And that runs. A little bit rough but it runs. And only after that was flat could you run "Invent a way of getting Father's attention."
So a preclear differentiates very, very closely between attention and interest. What a semantic difference. What a light difference to cause with one process a feeling of insanity and the other a feeling of relief. And so are all the buttons of games very precise buttons, very precise buttons.
We have be, do and have. And those, obviously, are three conditions of existence. Nothing more obvious than this. A fourth condition would, of course, be attention. And as I've just told you, Games Processes run a very, very fine line, a thin thread, because you're processing straight on into the complete background and life of your preclear, and so we take this little thing of attention, be, do and have and what do you know? None of them are processable directly on a preclear without considerable ramification.
In other words, there is no process of which I am familiar which has in it "do" just as such. Like "What could you do?" "Invent something to do," so on. It just doesn't run. It doesn't run.
Now, Beingness Processing we are well acquainted with, but we know that Beingness Processing has its limitations, definitely has its limitations.

And as far as Havingness is concerned, you can have the preclear have something, but do you know that to let anybody else have anything, the process becomes limited.
You can have other things "can't have": "Look around the room and tell me something your mother can't have." But "Look around the room and tell me something your mother could have" is liable to produce an apathy on the part of the preclear. Now, this is a very peculiar thing, isn't it?
So you have all of these terribly precise, these terribly microscopic differentiations occurring in Games Processing. And having selected it out of a precomputation of five hundred, there were eighty-five, then, possible elements of games. And these were selected out to find which of them were processable, and it was discovered that a bare twenty were processable although the others were quite easy to understand how they fitted in games, but one couldn't process them. It's quite remarkable when one begins to think of this.
So, the best that we can do, the best that we can do is to clarify every command with the preclear before we use it on the preclear. In other words, use that communication bridge. It's a terribly important thing, that communication bridge, and in no process, or no set of processes, is it more important than processing games.
A communication bridge has three elements, actually. You actually come off of a bridge when you start processing. You haven't ended a process, but you're beginning one, so you make a contract with the preclear as to what command to run. Well, actually, there's a center to the bridge and you have that one too. You come right off the center of the bridge of "You're here and I'm here and we're auditing." And then we make the contract, we say, "Now, is it all right with you if we run Abracadabra Bowwow?"
And then the preclear says, "Well, yes. I think that would be all right."
"Now, you're sure that you know what's meant by Abracadabra Bowwow?"
And he says, "Yes, yes, yes."
And, by the way, a very, very amusing story concerning this: I had an auditor testing, just puppy to the root, a technique, you know. It was after he understood he was testing techniques. And he ran a case for fifty hours on "What your theta body can't have."
And he started in on the first day of processing and he ran the preclear all morning on "Look around and tell me something your theta body can't have." And he did a wonderful job of it, very smooth and half the afternoon and—"What your theta body can't have," just that one command, you see. And middle of the afternoon, the preclear looked at him and says, "What is a theta body?"
Well, that merely tells us that the auditor omitted a communication bridge, you see?
And here right at the beginning of the communication bridge, of course, we have the bridge between the two processes. We bring him off the process we have been running and bring it to a stop on agreement: "Is it all right with you if after a few more times we conclude this process of 'What wouldn't you mind bashing your mother with?'" (laughter)
And he says, "All right. Yes, that's all right with me."
If you omit that, by the way, it's very, very unpleasant sometimes. You all of a sudden say, "Well,"—he's in the middle of the dope-off or something, and you say, "Well, end of session." Thud! In other words, you give him warning.
And then, having ended this, then you say to him, "Chitter-chat, chitter-chat." What you're really saying is "You're here and I'm here and the room is here and we got that one flat."



And now we go on and say, "Now, I—you know, I'd really like to run this process on you." And you give him the process and you sort it out that he knows what you mean by this process and he does and so you carry on from there.
Well, this becomes very necessary, you see, in Games Processing because words can mean different things to different people. Actually not to the degree that a general semanticist would love to have you believe, but certainly individuals have aberrated importances for certain words. And I have seen a preclear going up through the roof because somebody continued to use the word can't instead of can't. You know? I mean, they're just—they're touchy.
You get somebody in the scientific line—just imagine if you ever processed a nuclear physicist or if you processed a Doctor of Literature or something of this sort, you'd probably spend 50 percent of your time on the communication bridge and arguing about what this word meant and that word meant and so forth.
You shouldn't pay too much attention to it if he starts to argue with you, you shouldn't do it. You should just run some more SCS and get that out of the road.
If you ask him to look out there in the street and tell you what was important out there in the street he would look at the signs on the trucks and on the shops and he would tell you those were terribly important—the words, you see. And he would not see the trucks or the shops or the street; he would merely see the words.
So, nevertheless, even on a preclear who is not in this fixed condition on the subject of semantics, we have to be very careful in Games Processing. These words in Games Processing mean exactly what they mean. They are the dictionary definitions of these words. They are also words which are in common usage and they are very commonly understood. And it's amazing, and it really shouldn't be since we're on the exact center of aberration, the agreement on exactly what these words mean is much better than on any other words in the English language. Nevertheless, we must be careful that we and the preclear and the auditor understand exactly what is going forward.
Now, be, do and have become in Games Processing three other things: They become individuality—not even identity; they become individuality—that's be. Do becomes problems and have as far as processable processes are concerned in the majority of cases becomes can't have. So much for your conditions of existence. And I've already pointed out to you that attention, which could be the fourth condition, becomes interest.
Isn't this amazing? Now, therefore, the processes which are given must be given in a complete understanding of the lists of games conditions. What are the elements of games to the auditor?
Now, they might be one thing to the cricketer and they might be one thing to the football coach, they might be another thing to somebody who is going out to do and die for dear old Mugwump U.
But a very, very strange thing is, is they don't mean anything else in Scientology but what they mean. And that meaning is exactly which of these processes work on cases and which doesn't.
We are fanatics—I have been told we're fanatics. Do you realize that? We have a terrible fixation. I have been told this. We insist on working with things that work. Psychoanalyst told me that. He said we're absolute fanatics. We insist on using things that improve people or that do things to people.
I began to understand after a while that he was a fanatic on something else: he was a fanatic on things that didn't do anything for people.
This fanaticism, however, we get from a long whole track background of engineering. And when we go out and step in a car or aboard a horse, we expect the thing to run, you know?
This actually is one of the things that limits the population of Scientologia is it collects those people in the society which are capable of solving problems.

There aren't many of them. Most people simply want the problems, obsessively, and they want no solutions to the problems. So these are the workable buttons.
Now I'm going to read you rapidly this list without any further ado. The first is under games condition, knowing or unknowing—is Not-know. That is a games condition—Not-know.
There is some knowingness mixed up, of course, in any game but it is a fleeting knowingness for the duration of the game.
A thetan is in the total knowingness band, you see, but unless he limits his knowingness, very markedly, he can't play a game. And he has to limit his knowingness down to a point of where he is not-knowing the better part of what he knows and the universe in order to play a game at all.
And Not-know, therefore, is dominant in games over Know by a ratio of about eight billion to one. There is some knowingness, you see, but not much. So the best football players I've ever known have been the most stupid oafs you ever saw. True of government too.
Now, a shadow of that has some limited, oh, but very limited workability— is Forget. The important thing is Not-know; its harmonic and shadow is Forget. You don't process Forget much more, but if you do have to run a recall process, for heaven's sakes, run a forgetting process. "What wouldn't you mind forgetting?" You know? That, by the way, will stump more cases than you would really care to classify.
Now, its opposite, which is a no-games condition, knowingly and unknowingly, is of course Know with its little harmonic, Remember. Knowing isn't a games condition. The proof of that is simply you ask some preclear, "What wouldn't you mind knowing?" and he spins in very quietly.
Now, remembering all the way up and down the track is also a reversal on a games condition and will soon put him over on motionless spots on the track, and he will feel very sad indeed.
Now, a man who is in too much turmoil can be asked, "What wouldn't you mind remembering?" or "Remember something that is really real to you." And he's liable to move over from a commotion to a null spot, and this is a great relief to him.
It works once. Oh, and the moment he answers this thing and says, "Oh, boy, that really feels better," lay off the process. Because you ask it two more times and you've undone your own magic—you throw him into a death or something. In other words, it's terribly limited. But that's true of all of these no-games conditions—they are very limited. There is only one technique that works on them uniformly and even that has some unworkabilities and that's running consequences. Consequence is the continuance of the problem.
So just to go over the rest of the list here, we discover the games conditions, knowing and unknowing are:
Individuality (It runs as individuality.)
Can't have. (Games do have some havingness. The individual himself, a thetan, can have in the game. And that is a games condition.)



Continued solidity
Continued adherence
Loyalty, Disloyalty, Betrayal and Help (These are all buttons that work.)
Continued action
Hot, cold
Hate (some love)
Continued doubt of result (Which, by the way, has a very amusing harmonic: it's "expecting a revelation." It's a continued doubt of result as a game.)
Now, somebody will sit there all the way through an intensive expecting a revelation and it actually just sums his case entirely. And you find him back doing a vigil over armor in a chapel or something.
Now, by far the most violent of the processes here is a fascinating condition: No effect on self and effect on others. That's fantastic. But it means a games condition is "no effect on self and effect on others"; you reverse it, it goes into a no-games condition.
We always think of games as some little effect on us and effect on the opponent, you know. That is not a games condition. It works out to be No effect on self and Effect on others.
Stop communication
Change communication
Into it (As opposed to Out of it. Into it is a games condition. Out of it is a no-game condition, although you can run some Out of it, as long as you don't get out of the game.)
Noise (And, of course, some silence. That's very spooky having a game of silences.)
Start, Change and Stop (Change is the most important of these.) And
Those are all games condition. The oddity is Responsibility obviously belongs there, but it doesn't process.
Now, the no-games condition are, with great rapidity:
No attention
Neither alive nor dead
No pictures or universes
No spaces or solids
No enemies or friends
No motion
No temperature
Knowing (as opposed to thinking)
Win-Lose (No-game conditions, win and lose)

Effect on self
No effect on others
No no-ARC
Out of it
No control, and
No responsibility
And those are the no-game conditions. And none of them process except on one button only and that's Consequences; you can run the consequences of those conditions.
Now, there is games theory. Life is a game and there are certain basic elements that are more important than others. And an auditor tries to run out of the case the games he has been in because all games are aberrative. Also, if you want to get bored to death, engage in no-games.
You will notice that a no-game condition list is the truth. If you try to process the truth out of a thetan, you get him nowhere, because he is truth. And all those conditions which are under no-games conditions are truth.
Therefore, what you process on a case are lies. Games conditions are all lies and when you run these you raise an individual's tolerance for these things, you run out the agitation of old games and you win as a consequence.
But when you run him on truths, you simply stick him all over the track because a harmonic on truth is what is wrong with the thetan.
You can say ably that anything wrong with a person is because he didn't tell enough lies when he was young. (laughter)
And so, we have games conditions and no-games conditions. And so we have games theory.


Thank you.
Level Two of SLP 8 concerns itself with problems and consequences, and here we are at once at grips with the reality of games theory.
When we are running, as a practice audit on individuals in a class, 8-C, we see the precision of control, we see many other things. Actually, we're running freedom and barriers without many purposes, except we've agreed upon and understood a purpose; the purpose is to get better or to get well or something of the sort.
Now, the—in Start, Change and Stop we have another motive, actually, which is the hidden motive in 8-C which is simply control, and you wouldn't see offhand how these immediately fit under games. But if you tried to play a game with somebody who controlled things very poorly, you will see that control actually is the heart and center of the expertness with which one plays games and is right there in with games.
But we don't see games on parade in Level One of SLP 8, we see it on parade at Level Two, Problems and Consequences.
Now, problems and consequences are run at Level Two with the understanding—with the understanding that the preclear has already been brought well under control, and there are many other little processes under Level One than simply SCS. SCS has some accompanying processes because it has to be an extroversion matched with an introversion, you see, and SCS is introvertive so therefore we have to have some extrovertive processes, and we have those at that level.
But now, at Level Two we are handling—we are handling games really in the rough, in the raw, and we're handling problems and penalties.
Now, penalties, of course, are part and parcel of any game. Some chap tats over the border or something of that sort, why, he's fined six stitches. I mean, it doesn't matter what part of games or what game we enter, we will find some penalties mixed up in it one way or the other and we call those, however, in processing consequences—consequences of. And over here under problems we of course have intention-counter-intention.
Now, the basic definition of a problem is postulate-counter-postulate. That is a problem.
You say, "I am."
And the other—he says, "You're not." And you've got a problem.
He says, "Dog."
You say, "Fish." And you have a problem, don't you see?



The machine apparently wants to go up when it must go down and of course you have a problem—postulate-counter-postulate.
Now, we go a little bit further than that and we get intention-counter-intention. There we've gotten action into it, we've gotten some MEST into it. The doingness angle has entered the thing when we say intention versus intention. "They're going to go thataway and we're going to go thisaway and splash." You see? Two intentions got in the road. A freight train is going south, a passenger train is going north on the same track, they have two different intentions and they pick the bits off the track. You see how this is?
An immovable object meets an unimpressible mass and we of course get a win, you see, but an immovable object meeting an unimpressible mass would be a nice long continuing game. That is the ideal problem because it has continuance and the idea of continuance is woven all the way through problems.
There is very much I could tell you, by the way, about problems but in essence no matter how worried he is or no matter how many elements seem to be contained in the problem is one or more postulates opposed. And to put it into mechanics, a problem is one or more intentions opposed and you get a problem. And when you get enough intentions opposed you get a confusion. And you get the biggest problem of all, which is a confusion.
All right, so we have this thing of intention-counter-intention actually being the background of team versus team, don't we? Player versus player. One player versus fifty players. Fifty players versus one player—police style.
We have then these various matchups and mismatches, you see, of thrust versus thrust or thrusts versus thrust or thrust versus thrusts and we have the various conflicts which make life interesting.
Well, now, if we have two intentions present, of course, we have two elements of counter-purpose of one kind or another. So purposes run on a case tend to solve problems in the case, right?
If we run purposes directly, we'll run out one or more of these intentions and, therefore, he will get one less problem. This is liable to make him very unhappy, because he knows he must have a game. This is all he knows, which tells him he must have problems. And if he solves anything there must be a consequence. If he runs any no-game condition, he will tell you, too long—he will invent or tell you a consequence.
You see, if he runs into a no-game condition there must be consequences. That continues the game. And that's the basic method of continuing a game is having consequences and penalties. You play football on Sunday, why, you sit in the village stocks on Monday.
Now, where we have—where we have a case, we have what is obviously a problem. This man is fighting himself to some degree. The bank is fighting the body, the thetan is fighting the bank and the body, and he sits down there quietly and we start to audit him and we say, "Now, I'm going to solve all of your problems for you."
Oh no, you're not! If you told him this and told him you were going to solve all of your [his] problems, he would probably take wings and fly away in a hurry if he actually understood what you meant, because you are saying in essence, "I am going to take this man's games away from him. And then he's not going to have a game and there will be no purposes and nothing for him to do," and so forth.
He would rather be in this silly condition that he's in than to be actually in a game. Now, he's in the sorriest shadow of a game you ever heard of. But a person will only rise to games on which they have some reality. In other words, they won't play a game unless they're sure that it's real, you see, and it's a game and it exists.

So we take somebody who is gimping along and he's playing the game of invalid, one way or the other, and he's playing this and we come along and we're going to say, "We'll solve this leg for you. We're going to solve this glandular trouble. We're going to do this and that." No, no. No, you're not. Because no other game may be real to him at this time than just that. Furthermore, he may have mocked up an individuality that he considers quite adequate to meet the world with. Who ever heard of anybody kicking an invalid?
Many a person has come into my office on crutches looking the sorriest thing you ever saw and found himself without a game. I don't take the crutches away from them, ease them into the chair with little clucks of sympathy, you know. I say, "Well, sit down. Let's get to work."
And they clatter in the chair, crutches fall down and they stumble over the chair and so forth.
"Come on. Sit up straighter than that. Now, let's see—now, let's see. Oh, what's your trouble?"
I dare say that this rather interestingly, you might even say coldblooded, attitude—I know that if I validate their condition, you see, they'll keep it, so they can—I can keep on admiring it. Then I'd be stuck with having to admire it out of existence.
Now, this person then is basically a set of problems, right? Hm? So, well, let's go at it—you could say, "Well, give me a problem of comparable magnitude to your case." This would shift his attention off of his case onto a problem of comparable magnitude, wouldn't it? And you'd think that would be a runnable process — "A problem of comparable magnitude to your case," something like that.
Funny part of it is it works every now and then but it's just a little steep, you know? You're saying in essence, "Now, give me 76 trillion years of difficulties problem of comparable magnitude." There isn't a detectable or an easily detectable gradient on the process.
So instead of that we ask him what he's worrying about and he tells us, and so we ask him for a problem of comparable magnitude to it. In other words, the first problem that we handle on the case really is—and this, by the way, would not be handled at SCS, but you might go from Level One to Level Two and back to Level One again if he had a present time problem, you see. You wouldn't audit him very much without putting him under control, you see? In fact, you wouldn't audit him at all without giving him some Start, Change and Stop. No matter how much he seemed to be worried, you'd kind of try to get it under control a little bit.
Now, of course, you can walk up at a coffee shop to somebody that's worrying, and over the clatter of cups, and just about the time somebody is going to back into his chair and a few other things, you can ask him for a problem of comparable magnitude, probably get him over it. But the point is that he gets over problems by inventing problems. Get that very clearly.
He gives up games by inventing games. But in view of the fact that he cannot envision a game at first hand as being anything equivalent to the horrible condition he's in—you see, he does not see it as a game, he actually has transposed the word problem and the word game. The individual who comes up to you and says, "Life is a problem" is simply saying to you, "Life is a game" on a lower harmonic. Do you see? That's what he's doing.
So, that we can do a great deal with the techniques surrounding problems. This is why problems work. Problems, you know, we've known about problems for years but—we've known about problems of comparable magnitude for years, but I didn't know where it sat with regard to other things and had to get it oriented.



You know there's one—a drop of water could be a very important thing, but the most important drop of water in the world would be just another drop of water dropped in the ocean, wouldn't it? It's true of data. I had some instinct to believe that problems were important on cases but there was no way to evaluate the relative importance of problems.
So, you will hear some old-time auditor tell you, "Oh, well, years ago we used to audit that." No, he didn't. No, he didn't. He used to audit "Invent a problem," and ask what a problem that could be to you and so forth, but he wasn't running it as a part of games. He wouldn't know quite what he was doing, you see? And as such, the process would not have a total workability.
Now, he would have to bring a person, with Problems of Comparable Magnitude, to the problem a person has—from a real problem the person conceives to have-up to an ability to have other problems. You see this?
In other words, you go from a certainty that "I have a problem" to a certainty that "I could have a similar problem" and that's when you end that process on any given sector. You don't just deintensify the problem he has. Don't you see? Because there again, if you stopped at the midway point you would have taken a game away from him. And he'll be unhappy and he'll go out of there and somehow or another he'll stick his head underneath a car tracks or he'll burn his finger or he'll do something in order to get another problem of comparable magnitude, see.
In other words, what you haven't cared for is the urge toward having a problem in that particular category. And when that urge is dead, the thetan is dead. All he has to understand is that he can have bigger games and better games than this.
Now, you always audit a games condition—don't audit no-games condition unless with consequences. You audit toward a games condition. And what is a games condition? You could call it a compulsive games condition or an unknowing games condition and I've been calling it a UGC in shorthand. And this person, a UGC—in other words, he was in an unknowing games condition—individual is trying to sit still and all the time going shiver, shiver, shiver, see? Yeah. What's this shiver, shiver, shiver? Well, basically you could say it's lack of havingness, but that's too low a look. It's too low a look because it'll repair and straighten out on Havingness. Actually the Havingness simply gets him over to a quiet point on the track. This shiver, shiver, shiver and jitter, jitter, jitter, jitter and "Dd-daa—I'm— uh—well, how—how—I think I—what was I talking—uh—you know, ha."
All of this kind of nonconsecutive interrupted agitation, and so on is just a dramatization of having been in a game that was awfully, drivingly swift and hard, which he can no longer tolerate. So the motion of the game becomes the master of the preclear. And when that occurs you have an unknowing games condition. He doesn't even know he's ever been in such a game, and there he sits jitter, jitter, jitter, jitter, jitter.
Now, you actually can run out a little havingness, you can move him a little bit on the track and he'll go into this agitated state. Now, if we were to say to him at this time, "Fight the wall—put up a mock-up up there and have it fight the wall," something like that. Another process, a terrifically effective process: "Put up a mock-up out there in front of you and have it flip-flop." And the fellow does. He puts a mock-up out there and the mock-up flip-flops. You say, "Oh, have it bang against the ceiling and the walls and the floor and just flop all over the place."
He does, all of a sudden he calms down. Why? You've taken the compulsive motion out of the middle of some old game. You don't care what game it was. The motion was aberrative, the stillness wasn't.

Now, when an individual is lying awfully quiet in a bed, he is a motion sandwich—he's the meat in a motion sandwich. There's an awful lot of motion over here and there's an awful lot of motion over here, and if he lies quiet enough, he can be still. Hence, we get our coffin case. We ramp in on this case and we say, "Oh well. Oh, obviously he's in a past death, let's run out a past death." Oh, ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah—ah. Now, just like problems, you see, this individual has found a null place.
When a person comes to you with a problem, he's found what he considers to be a tolerable problem. When he's stuck on the track, he's found a place he considers comfortable, and we can see that he's just lying there between motions.
Now, if you were to ask him, "Turn on an insane motion over on the right of you. Turn on an insane motion over on the left of you. Turn one down here on the feet"—you know, just something going in an insane motion. The individual will feel like he himself is going insane. See, that's what we mean by a compulsive sanity.
All of these "very dignified" cases that are being so quiet and careful, particularly with their somatics, heh, if they moved a quarter of an inch on the time track would go instantly screaming mad, you see. That's the way they feel.
So therefore they see a child jump over here and they say, "Oh no, no, no, no! No. No. Ha-ha, ha-ha, ha. Be quiet." Ha-ha, ha-ha. They see a car come galloping down the street weaving just a little bit or something like that, they "Huuuhhhhhhh!"
What's happening? In other words they're threatened with a displacement on the track out of one of these quiet spots into an old game, the motion of which is now considered to be—only considered to be, all things are basically a consideration—only considered to be too much for them.
You can even ask preclears what games are too much for them and receive some sort of relief on the case. "Ohhhhh, what games are too much for me. I tell you, I just can't stand the idea of..." It's really quite wonderful. I mean, they— the fact of the agitation.
So both the still spot—you see, the person being very still and the person being in a very obsessed motion are alike games conditions. When he's in no motion at all, apparently he is simply hiding from some motion that was a games condition.
Now, there's two inversions occur. They go from a games condition knowing, you see, to a games condition unknowing—you know, they get so they get playing the game automatically. And then they go over into a no-game condition to get away from the motion of the game condition, you see. And then they stick somewhere on the time track. Whenever you find anybody stuck on the time track, he's on a rest point from motion that he doesn't like. "Too much motion"—that's his motto.
Now, he goes from there into the unhappy condition of not even being able to find a rest point, and that is an unknowing games condition compulsive— very obsessed. The game—he can't even tell you what game, he can't even tell you where, why, when, what, nothing about it at all, and yet there he's jittering. Now, do you see those three conditions, hm? All right.
We'll move through these things when we run problems and you can see him move from them, one to another. We're trying to make him reach out and realize that he can tolerate a problem. So we have to make sure at all times that the individual is lying about or inventing problems. And we have to make very, very sure that as he lies about and invents these problems, he actually conceives them to be problems and not deadlocks, otherwise we'll never really change his condition at all.



Now, I'll give you this very rapidly. There are three things here that are concerned: circumstances, finalities and problems. And the auditor who can't distinguish one of these from another had better get the process run on himself.
All right. We say, "Give me a problem"—you can run valences this way— you can say, "Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to your mother."
And he says, "A bonfire."
And you say, "That's fine. Now give me a problem of comparable magnitude ..." Oh, shoot the auditor, see? He missed! Why? The preclear gave him a circumstance, gave him a single-terminal circumstance and we want this preclear to move from self-determinism to pan-determinism. Now, we're trying to move from these games conditions over to a no-games condition which yet possesses the potentiality of having and enjoying a game—that's our goal, you see.
So when we say to him, "Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to your mother" don't let him get away by giving a circumstance. So you say, "Well, that's fine, a problem of comparable magnitude to your mother."
The proper way to audit it: You'd say, "Bonfire. All right, that's good. Now, how could that be a problem to you?"
And he'd say, "Well, it just—it just would go on burning."
Now, that's a finality. That's already in apathy, you see. First he gave you a circumstance, and then he gave you something that was a finality and now the next thing that he's going to give you, we hope, is a problem; but he may give you several more finalities before he catches on to this. And he finally gives you a problem of comparable magnitude.
"Well, how to put it out without any water."
You see? So he would move from "A bonfire" to "It would just keep on burning" to "Well, how would you put it out without any water?" That is a problem.
Now, you could even ask him at that point and coach him along a little bit, you'd say, "Well, can you just see how—can you feel how that would be a problem?" And some of the mystery goes by the boards in his case. He starts to as-is the hang-ups and the mystery. Stupidity is actually sitting in the middle of a problem, that's all stupidity is. It's an extreme obsessed not-know.
So we ask this individual for a problem of comparable magnitude, "Can you
give me a problem of comparable magnitude to " (we don't care what it is)
"to the row you had with your wife this morning?" to this, to that, to anything, even to your case, which is kind of wild.
And we give him—this is a question—and then we sort him out, he will give us a comparable circumstance. We don't want it. We say, "Fine, that's fine, that's fine. Now, how could that be a problem to you?"
And he probably gives us a finality and we throw that one away and we say, "Well, how could that be a problem to you?"
And he finally does give us the problem of comparable magnitude to whatever it was we're addressing. And he says, "Well, I—how to get away from her without leaving the house. That would be a problem."
And you say, "That's good. Good. Nothing wrong with that."
Now we get another problem of comparable magnitude and yet another one and yet another one and another and another and another until finally we not only have nulled the current circumstance of the individual on that one subject but—you see, we'd only be halfway through if we did that. Actually, in auditing time we'd be nine-tenths of the way through. But we have to ask him for some more until he's—comes up Tone Scale on it. And you'll see him come right up Tone Scale.
He runs from apathy to grief to fear to anger to boredom and then to enthusiasm. You go and leave in—processes in a state of boredom, you just

haven't flattened them. Enthusiasm—conservatism and enthusiasm are just above boredom. It's just a point on the Tone Scale that a person goes up, that's all. And so you would run Problems of Comparable Magnitude to it until he came all the way uptone on the subject of.
Now, there may be other elements and he may be far too serious to get much of a line charge out of, early in the case, but after a while you should be able to run him up into practically a line charge on the fact that he considered it a problem. He will only, though, conceive it to be funny and discardable if he feels he could have another problem of one kind or another.
Now, consequences run very simply. It's very easy to run a consequence but you have to remember that the preclear may strip his bank of old penalties, and that's very bad. All processes are additive to the bank, not subtractive from, don't you see.
What we're working on is tolerance and change of mind. We're not working on draining buckets. You see that? A lot of auditors get the idea that auditing is something that just makes nothing out of everything everywhere, and that's just a compulsive make nothing out of. That's a very hard thing to come up against.
You're not draining a case, you're not doing something of the sort, you're simply getting the case to tolerate this sort of thing and to change his mind. So when you run consequences, why, you could make fairly sure that he's giving you things that he dreamed up. So he could lie about consequences or you could have him make—invent consequences.
To what? Anything on the no-games list. But I give you a little caution about running consequences prematurely when a case still has awful problems and that sort of thing. The consequences of knowing, the consequences of unconsciousness—these are tough processes, see, they are mad processes. So pick out something light. Pick out something light on the list, more or less something that the preclear is sort of fixed on, has been talking about and you've gotten tired looking at it, so decide that you'll get the penalties on that particular subject.
Consequences continues the game, and it gets continuance there. Because a consequence is a penalty because of. See, consequence means—so it means the game will go on. Very simple; it simply says the game will continue.
What are the consequences of a solution? Well, that sort of promises the fellow that he solves something, he'll still have a game, you see.
Its workability is not as broad as we'd like to have it and it is not an end-all process, but it certainly belongs there and it certainly should be part of an auditor's repertoire because it's very valuable. Problems are far more valuable than consequences, but remember to get him actually to invent the problem.
Now, problems and consequences and the various things that go along with that are the second level of SLP 8.


Going to talk to you now about valences. And this is something you have been waiting to hear about. I know that because people always have trouble with valences.
What do we mean by a valence, and why did we choose the word?
Well, a valance is something that is above curtains, and a valence is something you try to get out of a preclear. Valence means "facet of." But very properly for our uses, the definition is quite exact: It's an identity consisting of a number of fixed characteristics, reactions and mannerisms. That is a valence.
Now, it's an odd thing that a thetan would assume an identity, isn't it? This is very peculiar, as a matter of fact. He mocks this thing up and then he gets into it. He postulates a number of characteristics and then he lives by them.
Now, you will discover that in games it is absolutely necessary unless you're playing the game of saint to have an individuality in order to be part of a game. There must be something there so the other fellow knows a game is in progress.
And the phenomenon of individuation becomes obvious and extremely interesting to the auditor when we realize that an individual is trying to collect more individualities on an obsessive, compulsive games basis.
You understand that all of the things that are no-game conditions are the truth or a lower harmonic on the actual fact of a thetan. And all the games conditions are lies. You audit out the games condition. Not because it did the thetan any good or any harm, but in order to get him over into a higher tone it is necessary to get him to knock out the obsessions, compulsions, the automatic motions of old games. And that is what you're auditing out of the person.
So it's very, very important then that you realize that the essential parts that we really audit in games are interest; and its companion, attention; identity (as very, very necessary part of it); opponents, which is the opposing identity but still an individuality, you see; problems and havingness. And those are the essential points. Those are the ne plus ultra points.
So that this thing called individuality is actually terribly important to the auditor. Not only the opposing individuality, but the fellow's own individuality. Why is the opposing individuality important? It's because nine-tenths of the individualities he's mocked up with were once opposing. Do you follow this?
The game finished—something a game should never do—and he interiorized into the game, and he picked up the other fellow's personality that was playing the game with him because the other fellow isn't there anymore and he wants the game to continue, see? He obsessively continues the game by



holding on to the opponent. And, oh, is this important to an auditor, because it explains why the preclear fights himself!
Here's the preclear, and you could consider that here is a mocked-up thetan of the preclear's. See, the preclear, as a thetan, mocks up a thetan which is himself—you get the idea—he mocks up something there (not a thetan but a bogy or a spook or something), and he says this is himself. And over here is another self and this is a demon circuit of some sort or another and over here is another self, and if you start talking to these various circuits, you get an awful argument going inside the preclear.
You can ignore what the preclear is saying and start talking to a circuit with an E-Meter—that's the easiest way to do it. And you can get on these long conversations about the most odd and peculiar things.
In other words, a thetan can mock up something which then is endowed with life. It has a continuance. It is a whole individuality which has a continuance.
Now, these demon circuits do not have demons in them. These personalities do not have spooks in them. There is just a thetan there and he's got all of these things rigged up and as long as he's in contact with them, their livingness continues. You see that?
In other words, he can endow with life anything and everything. Well, actually, he had to endow opponents with life in order to fight them. And then as he began to fight them, he decided not to endow them with life anymore, but there they were and he had endowed them with life and he was still looking at them, so they got kind of half-alive in his bank. And then one day he carelessly looks over in that direction in his bank, you might say, and he says, "I wonder what that is." And he activates it, and it's an opponent.
Only it's not an opponent, it's just the picture he made of an opponent. But the funny part of it is he made such a wonderful picture of the opponent that all of the opponent's characteristics will be present, all the mannerisms. And he looks over at this again and he reendows it with life and having reendowed it with life, it lives. This is very much the magician that looks at the stick and the stick turns into a serpent, very, very much that sort of thing. It was just a stick. It was a mock-up that he was packing around in the bank and he paid no attention to it at all, but one day without even muttering the magic words, since he himself is so capable of endowing with life that he can hardly stop himself, he looked over at this stick, and the stick stood up on its tail and said, "Young man, you have done wrong."
And he says, "Look at that!" He says, "You know, I'm haunted!" If he were to say, "I am haunting me," he would always be right. Do you follow me? He would always be right if when he looked in his bank and activated something which then jumped at him, bit him, gave him a somatic, did something to him, he said, "I am haunting me."
Now, every thetan that ever mocked anything up—you can't say every thetan that ever lived, because none of them ever died. Every thetan that mocked something up had a tendency to keep it around just in case he ran out of a game. He loses the idea of mocking something else up.
You go in some electrical engineer's—they're the worst sinners on this—into his back garage or in his basement and look around. And what you find down there that he has kept that he might have some use for is fascinating. What an electrical engineer would be doing with half of a broken lock which was never any good in the first place we wouldn't know. But he'll have one there. And he'll have bits of wires that current wouldn't even pass through.
Well, thetans, when they haul out of a body, take along a few old tin cans and chains just so they won't get lonesome. And these things all had some kind of a function at one time or another and a thetan can reactivate them.

Well, this is true of personalities he has confronted. These personalities that he has confronted throughout his career are in picture form. He started doing this knowingly. He said, "This is a good idea." So he put it on automatic and he made pictures forever after. Forever after he made pictures. And these pictures were totally endowed because they were an exact picture of everything in the person that he was looking at.
It's very, very hard for an auditor really to conceive that by going into Mother's valence he picks up all Mother's habits. Now, what do you do when he goes into Mother's valence? What exactly is meant by going into Mother's valence? It means reactivating or making alive a picture package of Mother which then has all of the characteristics of Mother.
Now, a thetan obeys the god of the universe in which he exists. Follow that?
Valences—you can also say they are universes because every thetan makes a universe, so he's made a picture of a composite universe.
Whose postulates does he obey when he's in that valence? He obeys Mother's postulates and they aren't his, so he is then not self-determined! And not being self-determined, he can't change his mind. Observe this closely. The basic therapy would simply be "Well—uh—so-and-so and so-and-so."
"Well, change your mind about that."
And he does, and that's that.
But this fellow has to change Mother's mind. But she's dead. How can he do it? Not possible. So we blow him out of the universe. How do we do that? Numerous processes will do this. But you get the idea.
Now, the funny part of it is that every habit Mother had, every psychosomatic ill Mother had, every belief Mother had and so forth is liable to have some existence in the preclear who is in Mother's universe.
This is also true of Father. It is also true of Grandpa and Grandma and sisters and brothers and aunts, but it'd be particularly true of any universe that was pretty close to the preclear's size, such as a drunken uncle.
And the little kid will—he was weak and everybody kind of pushed him around too, so the kid will pick up the drunken uncle or the weaker universe as his particular opponent. So he will tell you he's in Mother's universe or Father's universe and so forth, but he's displaying a lot of strange characteristics that didn't belong to Mother and they didn't belong to Father. Well, he's partially in all of these, but when we really start to dig him out we find out he's in the universe of a drunken uncle. Why? It was his size. See, a drunken adult who was of no fixed habits or future actually looked to the child more like a child than the grown-ups did. So he's still fighting Father, he's still fighting Mother and every aberration that's of any importance to you as an auditor is unknown to the preclear. That is the primary rule of auditing.
Preclear knows about it, to hell with it. If he knows about it, it blows. It's what he doesn't know about it that's making him hold on to it. Follow this?
So he says, "Well, I just know I'm in Mother's universe." Uh-uh. If he's still wrong, that's wrong.
You see why that would be? He's usually in an unknown valence. So he is being haunted in a house that he never knew he lived in, which is very peculiar, and it's up to the auditor to find the address.
Now, there are various kinds of universes. And this is very important to realize that there are these various types of universes, one after the other, are quite different and are taken apart differently by the preclear.
There's the basic personality, that's the thetan. Now, he's got himself mocked up as being some kind of a guy and that's his basic personality. It wasn't he was—he didn't spew forth from the brow of Jove fully armed with this personality, but he certainly favors it.



And as you begin to unpeel the layers like you peel an onion, you eventually find your preclear sitting there with something he now considers his own personality. That's an oddity, a peculiarity that is discoverable, however. It doesn't matter how many universes you get off, you will come eventually to a stop where he says, "Whoa. This is I."
Now, the second valence we have is actually the body personality. You notice we're not calling those two valences because—that's because you don't get anybody out of them. You get the thetan out of the body, but there is such a thing as a body plus thetan personality. And that is just the thetan (basic personality), plus the body's personality and the body is from a genetic line and it has certain characteristics, beliefs, inhibitions and so forth already given it by lord knows how many thetans that owned it in the past. Unfortunately, when a thetan dives in to pick up a body at birth, the Assumption, he gets a secondhand article.
But he always assumes it's a new article, I suppose, because it's so much fun to get that—in that much trouble. So he'll even reactivate valences which are way back on the track and were planted there by thetans who have long since gone their way. The thetans are not still there. Please get that straight. The thetans are not still there, but the machinery they left behind is.
Now, the thetan picks up this newborn baby, looks over and says, "I wonder what that is." And all of a sudden turns on something that goes whir, whir, whir, whir.
And it says, "You're a dog, really."
And he says, "You know, that's fun. That's fun." Next thing you know, he says, "Woof! I wonder why I'm barking all the time. Woof! Woof! I'm sorry."
And it's from that point—that can cause enough trouble. We cure that trouble by exteriorizing him, by the way. He's always in that trouble till we exteriorize him.
There are several more kinds of universes, however, and these are important because he doesn't get out most of the time until we solve these. Because he can't exteriorize from Mother's head. It's very, very hard to do.
The preclear is sitting in the chair in front of you and you say, "Be three feet back of" what? See, he hasn't got a head. He's in Mother's head, but he's right there in the chair in front of you and he can't go three feet outside of Mother's head; it just doesn't make sense.
So, we have to look at this valence picture just like another phenomenon that causes an auditor a tremendous amount of trouble. Fascinating. But very, very enormous in its trouble is this matter of "you audit the preclear who is auditing something else." And all the preclear is, is some kind of a relay circuit and he never gets over anything. You audit him, he audits something.
Well, when are we ever going to audit the preclear? When we get his valences straightened out, we'll find a preclear. We can straighten them out directly and bombastically by Start, Change and Stop. We can do quite a bit in that direction. But you'll very often find that you'll have to really address the valence problem. And this is one of the major problems of auditing.
What means this thing a profile? What is this thing when they give you a test profile? And after a fellow has been audited for ninety-nine hours and he still has the same profile, what's that all about?
In the first place it wasn't his profile, it's Mother's that he puts down. We audit him for ninety-nine hours without blowing him out of Mother's universe and he puts down Mother's profile again. Isn't that cute?
That picture of a personality on a capacity analysis is a valence. And until you change it, you don't change his capacity analysis, either. You may change it

by very basic, general techniques, but you will certainly change it by addressing universes.
Well, let's take these four kinds of universes, one right after the other, which are the commonest—I don't say that there aren't more—but which pretty well cover any kind of a universe or valence that you will encounter. You can use those two words universe or valence interchangeably.
First, there is the assumed valence. An actor does this. Actor walks on stage and is in character, or he's in character in the wings and walks on stage. All right. He sits around all day, he's in character. He mustn't get out of character while on set in Hollywood, for instance. He goes on being whoever he's being between takes because it's just too much machinery to shift him in and out of it. After he's been in character for thirty or forty days, he sometimes doesn't step out of it. Why? The thetan's direction is always in the direction of a game. An actor's direction is always in the direction of a picture or a scene or a play, you see?
So you audit, basically, all valences in the direction of more valences, not less. To try to get him out, you get him into more.
Well, if an actor hasn't enough roles coming up, he's liable to pick up one of his old, assumed valences and then you'll find him in a rest home or spinning or something of the sort. You see?
Why? Only when he assumed the valence of a psychotic in a play—you'll find that every actor that plays a psychotic personality has afterwards been troubled with neurosis. How would you cure it? You'd find the role he had played and have him dream up more roles to match it and he'd blow out of that one. It's quite interesting, fascinating.
Now, for instance, I know a preclear one time that was in a play and it was the only play he was ever in. The role was quite successful, the run was quite long, but it was the only role he could ever get—he played a petty gangster. And this young man always thereafterwards was a petty gangster. And I just received a letter the other day from another quarter of the world and he was up there being again a petty gangster. Of course he wasn't really being criminal, not quite. But he assumed this character.
Now, he had assumed a valence and he hadn't walked out of it. Why didn't he walk out of it? Because he didn't assume some more. That's all you've got to get him to do to get him out of these assumed valences. They're very easy, just get him to assume some more valences. Mock up some roles for himself to play.
Now, people, completely aside from the theater, do this all the time anyway. They mock up a personality that fits the bill. For instance, when I go down to see a bank president I always go in as a successful young businessman, you know, with good manners and mannerisms. Always. Why? Because it's an accustomed role. The fellow is used to seeing this valence walk in, so it doesn't startle him. And you sneak up on him. You say, "Well, lend me a few thousand dollars." And he does, and that's all there is to it. It doesn't upset him, don't you see?
So, people are always assuming valence to stay in agreement with the rest of the human race. You get what those are? Well, you could call those social valences, but it's not a very important role unless somebody has been to school where they have put one on him with a straitjacket.
Now, the auditor to cure that one finds he has the easiest job you ever heard of. This is the easiest job. Just invent some more individualities, and they come straight out of these assumed valences.
The next one is not quite so good and the next three are horrible: exchange valence, attention valence and synthetic valence. And those are the ones that the auditor puts on the boxing gloves with.



How did one get into these? Mutual moments or descriptions in moments of pain and unconsciousness give him these valences. And that's why we have trouble with them, because they depend on pain and unconsciousness.
Now, what would you do? I'm afraid it now becomes a problem of engrams. You walk down the street, you see a crippled man, later on you find yourself limping. You say to yourself, "I have gone into that man's valence." Oh no, you haven't. You have gone into the lock of a valence you have contained in a moment of pain and unconsciousness on the far backtrack. You got it? All you're hitting is a late lock on an actual engram.
People don't pick up these valences that easily. Not even an assumed valence sticks unless he has shared a moment of pain or unconsciousness with it. All aberration stems from moments of pain and unconsciousness. Never forget that, because that's the truth.
You think that—you think this fellow was in a bar and he sneezed and— while somebody says, "You dog," and this made him a dog.
No, I'm afraid that's—he was in a bar and he got beat up by a cop. And the cop went on pounding his head in, gave him a fractured skull and somebody kicked him in and somebody says he's a drunk. Now, you're going to have trouble curing that alcoholic. You follow me? He knows he belongs in bars.
Well, an exchange valence is a direct exchange. You face Joe, and you and Joe share a moment of pain and unconsciousness in common, and then you're Joe. Got that? That's direct, isn't it?
Now, an attention valence is assumed to get the attention of a third party. We go into Father's valence to get Mother's attention, because Father gets Mother's attention. You got that? But it's still based on pain and unconsciousness, but it's another computation.
Next one is the synthetic valence. Mama says, "Father is a dog, Father is a bum." Father is just another guy, you see. But Mother, "Yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak" all the time, is telling Junior what a horrible person Father is. And all of a sudden Junior sees Father's valence as a horrible person. And you can't find it on the case because there's no such person on the case except Mother's yak-yak. Moments of pain and unconsciousness shared with Mother gave Mother the power of dreaming up a synthetic valence for Father. You got it? So, in this case, we'd strip Mother as a valence.
To get Mother's attention, he assumes Father's valence. Once more, we would strip Mother. Assumes Mother's valence to get Father's attention. You get the idea? Strip Father. You follow this?
Now, on direct exchanges, find the engram. All of these are based on that first and foremost thing.
Now, it becomes very, very important to us in auditing—very, very important— that a two-valent engram will produce an unauditable preclear. In what wise? Very simple. Two-valent—there are two people present. There could be more, but they're not aberrative. And we have these two valences available and the preclear is stuck in this engram and we sit down to audit this preclear and we find the preclear is unauditable, resists, gets mad, is disdainful, is upset. The preclear has taken the safe valence. He's taken the painless valence,
Now, what about—what about a dental operation, huh? He's sitting in the middle of a dental operation and there he is in the chair being the effect, and there is the dentist standing there being cause. That's a no-game condition from the preclear's viewpoint. So how's he make a game out of it? He becomes the dentist. Ah, you'd—see how that mechanism worked?
Therefore, if you forced him to be the patient, his somatics would turn on. When you start to audit somebody and his somatics turn on, you know at once that he's in no other situation than one of these two-valent engrams. There are

two personalities present. He can assume one or the other and you've forced him to assume the painful one.
So, what about—what about a medical operation? He's in the middle of a medical operation and he's being the doctor. And you come along and you sit down and he says, "Dzzzt. There's the doctor! That means I'm the patient. I hurt. Oh, you're no good. You don't know Scientology. Scientology isn't any good. Get out of here. What the hell are you doing? I can't really be audited. Nobody wants anything to do with you." You get the reaction?
See, he's perfectly willing, and then the second he realizes that he's being thrown into a patient role he comes right out of it into the doctor's role, and you play a sort of a game of ping-pong. And if you don't know what it's all about, you're going to have trouble with that preclear from there on out. You try to throw him into session, and he's going into an operation. Got it?
All right. This would also work out and peculiarly in whole track, full track psychiatry. Psychiatry isn't a new phenomena. They're—still dramatize it today, but it's actually very, very old. It was once much more painful it is now—they just cut their brains out now; they used to cut them out slowly.
Psychiatrist today is a pantywaist. He's got it rigged up that he does this so as to "help" the patient, which he knows himself is a lie, but he at least goes that far. But on the backtrack they didn't do that. They did it to knock the patient off and obliterate him utterly, and they said so. And they used electric shock and supercold vacuum mechanisms and all kinds of things in order to do that.
All right. Supposing we've got somebody sitting in one of these engrams on the backtrack. He's never been psychiatrized in this life, and he comes along and he sits down in your auditing chair and he really never has realized that he was totally in this engram. And you say, "All right. Now we're going to do a little process which ..."
And he says, "Now wait a minute. I'm the psychiatrist here. And this fellow is the patient." So he tries to brainwash you, the auditor. You got this?
He's unauditable. And the people who will not come to be audited are rather uniformly in this situation. You got that? Being audited, it would be the painful experience of being thrown into the patient's valence, and the patient hurts.
By the way, you might say that all serious engrams contain pain, unconsciousness and exteriorization. All the really serious ones contain also a compulsive exteriorization.
So these whole track things where the chief of the medical board or the psychiatric board or something came in and grabbed the young navigator and said, "All right. You failed." And they decide to get rid of him. And they threw him on the electric shock machine and blew him out of his head and told him to go to some other planet. That's an exteriorization. And that's what you'll find because the preclear is still trying to hold on to the mass of that body he's lost— bodies in pawn, all kinds of other odd phenomena. Whole track—don't talk to the public about it, don't ignore it as an auditor.
Now, where you find the preclear unauditable, it's because you're shoving him into a painful role. And the painful role is that of patient. There's a direct cure for this, by the way, and that direct cure is "Tell me a lie about patients. Tell me a lie about a patient. Right now. Another lie about a patient, right now."
And run that a few times and then run something like, "All right. Tell me a lie about a psychiatrist" or "Tell me a lie about a doctor" or "a dentist" or anything else that you have him spotted as.
Now, oddly enough, there's the old Fac One mechanisms. There are also snake people way on the backtrack. Yes, the snakes were very wise. They gave you veiy good advice while they cut you slowly to ribbons. Peoples of one kind or another—there are about eighteen of these races. And there are the cat people



and so on. You'll see them walking around. They're—actually have big cat eyes and so on.
It becomes very, very interesting, but actually an auditor can pick these up and ask the—it's the same formula, but a Fac One monitor: "Tell me a lie about priests. Tell me a lie about scientists," or something like that. "Now, tell me a lie about people who are being bettered. Tell me a lie about penitents," something like this.
Any type of process swings the preclear then—it deintensifies the engram sufficiently that he can be audited on it.

Want to talk to you now—want to talk to you now on the subject of knowingness.
For an individual to give a lecture on the subject of knowingness is at once adventurous and, well, perhaps even conceited. To talk about knowing about knowing is an adventurous thing to do. But having done it for years, I've had a lot of practice and my qualms are today minor regarding saying anything about it.
But the fact of the matter is today I feel a little more 'umble concerning the subject than I did once. Now, that's very peculiar, isn't it?
It's rather interesting to look at the tremendous urgency with which people study, which they learn various things, the agony they go through in order to acquire knowledge. For instance, I feel enormous respect for somebody that speaks five or six languages. I think this boy is really, really something. Of course, he might be just restimulated in five or six lives but I nevertheless—I nevertheless do feel considerable respect for him because I know how hardly won this material was.
And in view of the fact that we do engage in teaching, it is rather interesting to observe that knowing could be the end-all of everything, but isn't. There's a scale. It is called the Know to Mystery Scale. And that scale goes as follows:
Know, meaning a totality of. Not knowing a datum, but knowing a totality.
Not-know is below it.
Below Not-know is Look, which we mean as perceive.
Below perceive—there are, by the way, about fifty-four perceptions of which four or five are important to us—below this there's emote, Emotion.
And below Emotion, there is Effort, which includes at its bottom band Solids.
And below Solids is Think.
And below Think is Symbols. And a symbol of course is something that has mass, meaning and mobility. And if anything has mass, meaning and mobility it is a symbol.
And below that level we have Eat.
And below that level we have Sex.
And below that level we have Mystery, which is of course the reverse of Know.
The way we discovered this particular scale is to note that people went progressively through these subjects. And rather routinely when you audit somebody on something like old Opening Procedure by Duplication, you would find him going upwards, first scatteringly and then in a rather orderly fashion, right straight up the scale through these various subjects.



It's rather disheartening to note that all processes that would be thought to be germane to a thetan—who is a thinking being only, we think—end and stop at Think.
And what most of us think of as knowing is really Think on the band. Knowing data is at Think on the Know to Sex Scale and that is the knowingness that most of us consider to be knowingness. Thinkingness—knowing data, memorizing the parts and nomenclatures.
Now, an odd process fits right in there. "Inventing something to know" is about the key process right there. Inventing something to know. Thetans do this all the time. Here's a body walking around, it's perfectly all right. Nobody is worrying about it particularly and then all of a sudden somebody invents a lot of Latin names to describe what it is.
Now, men do this because they try to get a stable datum into a confusion. And when they're trying to understand a thing, they like to talk about it and if they're going to talk about it, they have to invent nomenclature. And then they can discuss what they're talking about. And we've dropped at once to Symbols, haven't we?
But inventing something to know about is probably one of the top games that a thetan has played. It's interesting, in Scientology, that we are transcending this point possibly for the first time in a couple of thousand years, see? We're actually not inventing, here, something to know about. We are inventing nomenclature and we are discussing these things, which is quite remarkable, and we are doing these things. We're using thinkingness, knowingness, its apparatus and so forth and symbols and so on to go on up into the upper band. And in doing that, then we handle and can handle actual solids, efforts, emotion, real perceptions and the general idea of just a total knowingness.
Now, this whole problem of upper band should be of the greatest importance to you when you look over just such a subject as hay fever. Here's one of the most persistent, cussed, mean, dribbly things that anybody ever got connected with. Comes on, what are you going to do about it, take histamine and get an electric shock? What are you going to do? It isn't going to do you a bit of good. Even sometimes on older processes you could get it audited out and next summer it was gone, but the summer after that it kind of sniffled back into place again.
This is one of the wicked things. Why? Why is it so hard to handle? Because it depends on a thinking being, man (and I assure you that man is a thinking being), jumping all the way upscale to perceive. And on perception, this thinking being, man, is almost a total effect. And until he can mock up pollen, face powder, other things which are solid enough to be used and to work, he will of course continue to be the effect of smells, won't he? Emotions will continue to be automatic until he can synthesize them.
We have all the way down there, at the bottom of the scale, we have Sex. Well, that means "sex as practiced." What about the emotion, the feeling or sensation mixed up in sex? That's up in the emotion band. And a man will continue to be the effect of sex until he can simply mock it up—that sensation, that emotion. If he can mock up that sensation or emotion, he, of course, is causative on this subject. Until he can do that, you might say, he is to some degree an effect.
This is why some chap like Freud, I think his name was, something like that, from Hungary or someplace, a chap that wrote way back there in the Dark Ages. Let's see ... Anyway, he said that all of man's aberrations stem from sex. Well, if the fellow had gone further and looked, he finally would have found that he had a piece of the puzzle. But there's something very strange

about this—there's something very strange about this: having cleared up all the sex in everybody, they still weren't well.
Now, if you want to totally clear sex out of somebody, you would of course, oh, make him a eunuch or something like that. And you find out this doesn't help his psyche a bit. Freud didn't look around and apply his theory to the practical universe.
I received a letter the other day from Copenhagen on the subject that I wrote, something called "A Critique of Psychoanalysis"*—I never felt brave enough before to criticize psychoanalysis. Now I find the ten various tenets of psychoanalysis are, all of them, calculated to spin somebody in—I'd better start talking about it. I'd better start saying, "You Scientologists better not do any of these things, because look what happens—you will wind up with psychoanalysis." Anyhow.
When you look into this subject you find that somebody in Freudian work flickers from sex up to figure, back to sex to figure, back to sex to figure. And they just go in a little cycle there.
This chap from Copenhagen told me I was all wrong in writing this essay. I was all wrong because actually "The beautiful, noble"—what did he call it?— "sublimation of sexual urges into perceiving sexual objects didn't mean that Freud had everything nailed down as being caused by sex." I read this over again and you can listen to it over again on a tape or something of the sort and it makes just as much sense. It's fake, see?
In other words, Freud was unjustly accused of putting everything into the sexual band and this is unjust—and analysts tell you this all the time—because he really didn't mean sex, he meant "sexually social." It was "sex in its society was sociality" or something. In other words, they never quite come off of this point. Why? It's a major effect, certainly, but it is not the answer.
In research and investigations you should never, never, never get yourself hung up on a figure-figure which is some little tiny part of a whole and say, "Well, now, we're stuck right here and we're not going anyplace from this point." And try and find out if there's just a little bit more somewhere. I do that all the time, it winds me up in an awful lot of trouble—you keep getting your techniques changed and so forth.
Now, this band—the only reason I've introduced this is because the world at large didn't accept psychoanalysis but a lot of intellectuals did. They could realize that they were being the effect of a certain type of action. And so thoroughly were they being the effect of this type of action that they were convinced that it must be the total effect possible. That only takes place when people are well below even clear-cut think. See, they have to be below that point. That tells you that the people who did this would really be incapable of origin of symbols, think—by the way, they wouldn't be able to eat well, somewhat. But, origin of symbols, think would be above them, and very certainly, wow, solids, effort, emotion, perception, the ability to forget, to not-know something and actually the totality of knowingness would be out of their grasp. Be out of their grasp so thoroughly that they would never be able to understand that they had ever existed.
Get that very clearly because someday you're going to talk to somebody and that somebody is going to be all dug in at Mystery. He's going to be a priest of the Rosicrucian Holy Empire Synagogue or something. You know? He's going to be really something. And you're going to talk to him—he's stuck at the Mystery band. He can't have sex, he doesn't eat, symbols are horribly dangerous to him and think is something you must not do! You see how that scale works out?
Male voice: Yeah.
*[Editor's Note: The LRH article "A Critique of Psychoanalysis" can be found in Technical Bulletins, Volume III.]



Be, do and have was placed alongside of the Know to Mystery Scale by an auditor and he found that people were trying to do—you placed the be, do, have alongside of where they were on the Tone Scale and you could predict their actions. You could find out what they were trying to be and what they were doing and what they had. They have mystery, why, they're trying to do sex and they're trying to be food. Got the idea?
It's quite amusing commentary, but he said this is invariable and he did quite a bit of work with it. I was quite amused to read his essay on it when he sent it to me, because it certainly describes a priest.
People, by the way, one of these days may look at the lot of you guys as a bunch of priests or something of this sort, you know. Now, it's a remarkable thing that a person who can create a high level of effect does happen to be looked upon in an authoritative role—very authoritative. We're talking here very factually about—if you want to know the truth of it, probably, the priesthood of tomorrow. Whether you like it or not, somebody will elect you to that level. I won't elect you there, I'd rather be dead first, but people will. Why? Because you can produce a superior effect.
Now, we look this over, we find we don't have to produce effects with this kind of violence. We find the first effect that we could produce on man would be the effect of permitting him to know. In other words, let's let him graduate up from wherever he's stuck—stuck in his stomach or he's stuck in a bunch of figure-figure of symbols or it's all a big mystery to him. And we just tell him a few little stable data, one after the other and you find he comes way upscale, all out of proportion.
That's actually because we have taken his attention off from being the total effect of sex. You follow me? We've taken his attention off of being the total effect. We have shown him that there is something else in existence than what he is fixated on. Where he is sitting, it's all confusion. We give him some stable data, he feels better. Therefore, we can move men up rather easily, simply by teaching them upscale from where they are. So why should we go around brainwashing anybody? We can run a few basic courses and one of the things you'll do yourself in doing this is you'll inevitably overestimate the ignorance of your audience. A bunch of people will walk in for a little series of lectures—five, six lectures a night and you—you'll assume they're like we are here. You know, they're all hep, they're all in the know, they're gone Scientologists, you know. No, they're not. And you probably would err in trying to get the simplicity level that would be acceptable to them.
Their knowingness, in other words, would be way below, really, what you would expect. It isn't that they're not possible—their knowingness isn't possible, it isn't that their potential isn't high, but they are confused. And their confusion is such that you have to furnish a stable datum that will match that confusion. And what are they confused about? Well, they're confused about such a thing as, "What is life, anyhow?" You know? And you tell them, "Life is a cycle of action that starts with create, goes through survive and winds up with destroy." And they're very happy with you.
Now, you tell them the anatomy of create, survive, destroy and you're liable to have somebody unhappy in your audience. Don't try to challenge them, just give them some data that they can accept and bring them upstairs on that. And some of the very fundamental materials of Scientology—not the formula of communication anywhere near as much as ARC, its use in attempting to get a point across to somebody else. And you'll find they all of a sudden say, "(sigh) Oh. Oh, I see. You have to be nice to somebody to get him to listen to ... Well, what do you know." Of course, this makes all of us just a bunch of bums to do

this—that's dishonest. They have all sorts of odds and ends that they will unscramble from and it—actually, it might take them several weeks of going around to all of a sudden cognite on this data.
Well, amongst ourselves it has a quite different situation. I took one of our good auditors here short time ago and he—real good auditor, see? And I hadn't released modern games theory or anything of this character and—or any of the processes connected with them, but this fellow was going out on an emergency: he was going to a foreign country to treat somebody who was practically kicking the bucket. And we had pulled him in in a hurry. And I sat there for about an hour and a half or two hours and briefed him. I gave him some notes on what he was to do because he had to produce a miracle, and this was as close as I could give him to producing a miracle at that moment was to tell him what I knew. Well, I did that and it took me an hour and a half, two hours of briefing.
He sailed out of here—he was smiling at me and saying, "Yes, that's right. That's true. It's ..." He—giving me the proper auditor acknowledgment and so forth. And he got across the Channel and got elsewhere and he was held up for a little while on going to his destination. And he all of a sudden wrote a letter in to somebody in the HASI, and he said, "I've just cognited on what Ron was talking about." All right. It took him three days to cognite on that material—and there was a very clever chap who was right straight across the boards with lots of experience. So—of course, he was thrown an awful lot of stuff, crash, a very short period of time. But three days later he'd cognited on what it was all about and the material was useful to him.
In the same ratio, somebody comes from a business firm and sits down in a PE Course you're giving or a group course, something like that, and you tell him, "Well, life consists of people living." This fellow two months later cognites on this. And he looks all around and he says, "What do you know! There's people living all around the place here."
And you, with your considerable—in the first place, you wouldn't be here if you didn't a have a considerable ability to understand. This is very odd. Scientologists fight amongst themselves sometime and claw each other's eyes out and yap-yap about how they've done in other preclears, and they have a good time finding opponents amongst themselves. But the strange part of it is—the fact that Scientologists are otherwise than the higher strata of intellectual in the world, it happens to be a lie. We have grooved with IQs and background the people of Scientology and we find that they belong to the upper ten thousand of Earth. That's very remarkable.
Your audience of people to become auditors is somewhat limited. See, you, in training people and so forth, will find that you have limitations. The reason the person came to you in the first place ... I'm not just handing you a sop of one kind or another, I really grooved this out. I wanted to know why everybody in the United Kingdom and the United States wasn't at least a practicing auditor tomorrow, see? Why weren't they all in there pitching? So we carefully went over cross sections of population to find out what was the level of knowingness of these people basically and we found that we were already dealing with the upper crust of intellectual. And this is a fantastic thing. I mean, it's a sad thing. I mean, I look around me and I say, "Well, gosh, there's no hope for man at all." (That's a dirty trick, telling you like that.) No, this is a fact—this is a fact. There is hope for man, because you're here.
But the truth of the situation is that man's level of knowingness is nowhere near where you think it is. And, boy, that's the first thing you ought to learn—the level of knowingness of your preclear is nowhere near where you think it is.
Somebody comes in, he's got an IQ of 80. Wow! Wow! Take you three days to teach that person to spell cat. And you're going along and you're going to



process him on something you're supposed to get cognitions on. You'd probably have to audit them for two days for them to find out they were a preclear. I mean, just to find out that they were there being processed. I don't mean a cognition on present time, but to find out analytically the way you think people go from an analytical cognition to a basic cognition when something blows in the bank. That is not the case. The person actually would have to wander around before he had an analytical cognition that he was a preclear in the joint. You understand?
This knowingness is always something that is very, very—not very difficult to estimate, but it's always something that's very easy to underestimate and overestimate. You're always shooting around on this basis.
Only a stupid man conceives that he knows more than anybody else anywhere about everything. That guy is dumb. I can tell you that he's stupid.
Before I got anyplace on Scientology, I had to find out I was about the dumbest guy that ever lived. That's the truth of the matter. I had to break down and admit that I wasn't smart enough to know what man was all about. That was the first pretense I had to break to flinders. It hurt my pride to do it. Because I was an author and I had been writing about man and his reactions for many years to a very interested audience.
And as time goes on, I find out that the further one walks in that direction, the further one has to continually assert his own brilliance. So that an individual who is teaching people merely to assert his own brilliance or to overwhelm them with his knowledge will never teach them. And the best thing that you can do when you're teaching somebody is try to find their level of confusion, rather than their level of reality and flipping a stable datum into it.
Every once in a while you can be talking to somebody and he all of a sudden looks at you and says, "Well, what do you know?"
See, he's given you a cognition. And you search back to find out what you said. You said it was usually best to eat breakfast in the morning. This produced a terrific cognition. He realized this afterwards.
So, on the subject of knowingness itself, if you're dealing with a total knowingness of everything at the top of the scale, it must follow that you can deal with, mock up, be cause with as well as effect with, everything else on the Know to Mystery Scale, otherwise you're mucking around in the garbage of nirvana. Rather soupy walking, I must assure you.
The road up and the road out is the road through. And one of the steps on that road, which is above most of the actions of the human race, is Think on the Know to Mystery Scale. Until a person can do this well and do this clearly and do this as a cause-point—he can think about something because he wants to think about it, he can know about something because he wants to know about it, only then is he ready to mount the rest of the stairs.
And the road to total knowingness is of course also traveled through an attention to games condition. There are some processes which I could give you on this particular line that would knock your preclear's silly head off. But this is a talk about theory, not a talk about processes.
Knowingness processes are usually above your level of your preclear to tolerate—real knowingness processes. But solids can be processed today, they should be processed today and they gradually shake your preclear out of the lower band. You can directly attack solids today as a processing target. And as such, you can then know about thinking long before you would have otherwise as a preclear.

You remember now, my talking to you about facsimiles. We're going to talk now about Creative Processes which handle facsimiles, mock-ups, so on.
It's quite interesting to get a case that's been audited considerably and to find that some of his mock-ups are stuck on his time track. In other words, he's been asked to make certain mock-ups and you run back and you find these mock-ups still exist on his time track.
In other words, if you were to make a picture of a man today and next week or something be scanned through—-just returned to yesterday and scanned through that—you would, in way of passing, find that facsimile you made today. Do you understand?
Well, similarly, every time a facsimile is made or a dub-in is made or a mock-up is made, it is parked in a certain time-space spot—in a certain time, in a certain space, there it exists.
Now, some facsimiles are so signally a failure that they float. They go skidding forward in time. That is survival; it's no effect. They weren't pegged on the track. They weren't nailed down, in other words, and they came right along with the preclear and he's carrying them all the time. Then we could say therefore, somewhat incorrectly, that he was stuck in that moment of time; you see, he was stuck. Because he has the picture of that moment of time, he would actually consider he was stuck at that moment of time.
Similarly, we're apt to find somebody who is ninety-nine years of age—not ninety-nine—somebody who is fifty-five years of age who looks like a boy of five, let us say. He's stuck in a boy of five facsimile. Something happened to him when he was five and there he was stuck.
You can actually walk up to a person—the number of tricks associated with this are legion—you walk up to a person and say, "When I snap my fingers, an age will flash." (snap)
And he will say, "Six. Well, I wonder why I said that."
Well, if you were not an auditor and if you were exceedingly impolite, you could simply say, "Huh, it's because you're stuck there, you dope."
And you will find certain physiological, sexual, strength, speech mechanisms and manifestations of the age of five have floated on forward to the age of fifty-five. You follow me?
In other words, he is in a reaction pattern of the age of five. There is this little gimmick called a file clerk that we don't use anymore except to play with once in a while; it's a demon circuit sort of thing. It's probably a thetan dug in



and a thetan is probably answering himself and doesn't know it. And he'll always usually tell you the truth, sometimes. And ...
The fact is however that the age of a facsimile will flash. Furthermore, more importantly, you take an E-Meter and put a person on the E-Meter and when you can ask him various times and dates, you will see by the behavior of the needle where he is stuck. Actually, where he has charge, in other words motion, you will see the needle in motion; and where he is stuck, you will see the needle freeze right on down and become completely still when you're on the exact moment of stuckness.
Now, what causes these moments? A fellow is hit on the head with a sledgehammer and you find him halfway through this incident. And there he still is, five years of age, hit on the head with a sledgehammer, see? Fifty-five, why, he still has this facsimile.
Now, what is that all about? And what is the entire mechanism of getting stuck, getting bounced, getting grouped and all the rest of this on the track? Is it perception? No, it isn't. Perception—sight, sound and the rest of it, in the facsimiles themselves—are discovered to be, at this very advanced period in Scientology, a simple key-in of motions and solids.
A person is stuck when he wishes to escape motion. Here is an individual in a high game condition. He is in motion. The game gets to be too high. The motion is too high in the game. There is too much game, too many enemies, too much danger. And so one day he's being hunted across the prairie or something of the sort and somebody shoots him. And he drops behind a bush and is thereupon overlooked. Now, if he got up again and ran, he would be in a condition of motion again, wouldn't he? He'd be back in the game. So he goes into a no-game condition. And you could call this a rest point on the track. It would be best described as that because that leads at once to its auditing solution.
He was in a high motion, you see—that's high game condition—he didn't like it anymore, he found a stop point and he stopped. And maybe centuries later you will find him there. Whenever he's reminded of this high motion, he remembers that there was a stop point on the track: shot dead behind a bush. So he goes and lies down back of the bush—reactive bankly. You see?
Let's say this chap was in a war and he was in a—I'll show you how these things, what you call the actual incident and the key-in—he was out, let us say, in India and he was involved with some of the early wars of India. And the shot and shell and number of knives and screams were very, very loud and he lost a lot of friends and that sort of thing, and after a while he decided that these games called the wars of India were not so good anymore. And one fine day he was standing on a battlement and directing the troops and he knew that he was going to be overwhelmed any moment, and a spear came by and that was the end of him.
But what a beautiful stop point. Now, because of the anaten, the force of the spear against his chest, his force back against the spear, he has a picture which will hold solid. And if he can get into the picture again, he'll stop. There's an exact stop there. It's a rest point. That was the end of that game. In other words, that was the answer or solution to all that danger and motion. You got it?
The solution then reactively to danger and motion is a stop point. It's terribly important to modern auditing. It's a stop point.
All right. There he was. Now, he actually exteriorized from the body, went his way, picked up another body down in the Lotus Isles and spent two or three lifetimes just relaxing. He finally got over it and decided he'd like a new game—checkers or something.

And some chaps, by the way, will go clear on outside of Earth's air and so forth and just sit there or something—go find an asteroid, you know, and they just sit down after one of these high game periods.
Well now, that sit-down period is not something he can hold on to. He went there and he sat down. But now, let us say this life came along and he picked up a body here. And one fine day he was walking down the street and an Indian was struck or almost struck at a crosswalk.
The definition of an engram is a moment of pain and unconsciousness contained in a mental image picture and that is the exact definition of an engram. (The—they claim they knew all about engrams before, but they had no definition for them. Don't make the same mistake, don't know all about engrams and not have the definition.) A moment of pain or unconsciousness — pain and unconsciousness, really, in an exact moment of time is a mental image picture. See, it's a mental image picture. Doesn't matter much which way you state it, as long as you really know it. We're not asking for a poetic recapitulation here, we're asking for sense, you see? It's a moment of time which has been frozen into a mental image picture which contains pain and unconsciousness. An engram must contain a pain and unconsciousness. Now, that thing will have piled on top of it many other key-ins just like I'm describing to you.
So this Indian almost gets hit. He suddenly saw an Indian body or a brown body go zz-zz-rrrowh. See? And he said, "Oh, my god, that game again." So he instantly stands in there and gets hit with a spear in the chest. Now he comes down to see the local auditor and he says, "Wheeze, wheeze, wheeze, wheeze, wheeze."
See, analytically he knows very, very well that he isn't being hit in the chest and he can't quite account for all this because he's not-known all this but he hasn't not-known it enough. He's still got some of the pictures around. You get the idea?
Reactively he thought he was in the game again and he said, "Oh no, not all that motion!" and he stopped. Got the idea? It's really not mechanical, actually there's thinkingness that goes on. There is a low-level decision made by the person himself, but it's out of his own sight. There is no such thing as the unconscious subconscious but there is such a thing as a doped-off thetan.
So he actually decides it. He actually picks up the facsimile. And if you run him back through the incident, old Dianetics style, sort of slowly looking for these points, he will find the exact moment of decision when he simply reached into the bank—saw the flutter of the Indian's arm, he saw in the bank—and he picked out this facsimile and he said, "That's the right one that goes with it" and stuck it on his chest. But he did it so fast and it's so necessary to do and it's such a high moment of emergency and it's got so much not-know on it, you see, that he doesn't now know what's on his chest. But there he is, standing at the top of a battlement with a spear halfway through him, see? It's a rest point on the track.
Now, he'll go along like that for years. He intended to have an effect on the enemy and he got speared. That's one computation, which is countered by the fact that the game was not supposed to have an effect on him and it did, which is countered by the fact that he didn't like the game anyhow—it was getting too old and frayed and moth-eaten—which was countered by the fact that he had lost too many friends, which was countered by the fact that he knew a lot of better places to be, which is countered by the fact that he had to be there to take care of his troops.
You ask a thetan to start sorting out all of his computations out of one of these facsimiles and you'll have a picnic. Don't bother! Just don't bother. Just say, "Yes, yes. That's fine."
And he'll tell you, "And somebody screamed Yahweh at that moment."



And you say, "That's fine. Good. Go on," unless you like the local color yourself.
These things will run off like motion pictures. I don't know why anybody ever goes to the motion pictures, except to the motion pictures they are stuck. A motion picture is simply a dramatization of this sort of thing, by the way. I think motion pictures could have existed in any age in time, except nobody was crazy enough to need them.
Now, here we have, then, this exact mechanism. And you must look at that mechanism, you must know that mechanism because you have to work with that mechanism.
How do you get somebody out of a stuck point? He didn't want to be there, he himself has lost the power of discarding it. You'll find that as a person goes downscale he's less and less capable of discarding, he's more and more capable of collecting. His whole concentration has been, most of his span on the track, in collecting, so it's no wonder that he has more postulates which say "collect" than "discard." And when he starts to get into the idea of discarding, it still gets cluttered up into collection. So he collects more than he discards, and he's got this thing and it's stuck on his chest and it's giving him TB or it's giving him cancer or it's giving him something, you see? And there he is in this stuck point.
How do you get him off of it? Well, he was on it for one reason only: there was too much motion on either side of it. Got that? There was too much motion on both sides of the stuck point. So if he comes out of it, he runs into the rest of the motion of the Indian war; if he hadn't gone into it, he would still be in the motion of the attack, both of which he doesn't want. But the stuck point is okay. You got that now?
It's real, real important. Because if you run the motion which is before and after the stuck point, make him do it, you take over the automaticity—in other words, you bring into knownness and control that same motion which isn't going on anymore.
In other words, you just have him mock up motion—"Mock up some of the motion occurring before this." Don't let him get a facsimile. This is where you have to know facsimiles because—don't you start pulling facsimiles out of the bank and using them, because he likes them. Remember that. A motion-picture producer who has just had his latest film thrown on a bonfire is in a tame frame of mind compared to a thetan who has lost all of his beautiful facsimiles.
So you have him run by mock-up motion. You put new motion in, but show him by putting the new motion in that he can get the motion under control. That's before it happened. And after it happened, make him mock up motion of after it happened and he will shake loose from that point. He will come off of that stuck point. You don't even have to erase the stuck point. What you do is improve his tolerance of motion.
I make that clear. Dianetics is another thing. Dianetics erased engrams. We don't erase them today. We make the thetan capable of handling them. It's quite an important difference. So we make him capable of handling the motion and therefore he'll let go of the stuck point.
Don't run the stuck point! By actual test it will run for one hundred and sixty-five hours without release, if it is serious and contains a vacuum in the middle of it. You handle the vacuum by handling the motion. You handle the stop by handling the motion. In other words, you run the game condition and then leave the no-game condition alone.
Now, what happens to the poor chap who has no stuck points to sit in anymore? What happens to the fellow who was in a high game condition, moved over into a no-game condition—he could stick himself, in other words, right there on the track in a moment in time and a location in space—and who then

and thereafter had so much motion he could no longer hang on to any stuck point? You've got your agitation cases, you've got your spastic, you have your— any other condition which has to do with high obsessed motion, you see?
Now, actually, high obsessed motion is lower on the scale than somebody who sleeps all the time. You get the idea? In other words, when the fellow has run totally out of stuck points he's now in trouble. So, what caution does this hand us in auditing? What caution does this give us?
If you start to handle this motion, for heaven's sakes, complete it. Because you will leave him in the middle of the Indian wars without a stuck point. You follow me? So we absolutely have to handle all the motion we can handle there and bring him all the way upscale on handling the motion of this period that turns up. We sort of sort the period out and then we have him put into mock-ups enough motion of that period in order to move him thoroughly out of the period. In other words, just don't jar him off the rest point and leave him over here in the motion because he'll go around duhh-huh-duhh, duhh-duhh. You get the idea?
In other words, you could make a mistake here as an auditor and it'd be a serious auditing blunder today not to handle all the motion there was there to handle. Now, you don't handle it by handling that motion, you put in new motion. And he says, "Oh I can—I can make things move that fast, the devil with it."
You'll find him in all sorts of old bodies and you'll find him stuck all over the place in all kinds of weird pictures and all kinds of odd and strange motions to account for, but for sure, don't move him halfway off a stuck point and then forget about it. You move him all the way off; otherwise, you leave him without his rest point. And he would rather have, it looks like, then, tuberculosis than your auditing. You follow that clearly?
He really has an objection and his objection is quite valid. He had found a rest point in the game and now you've denied him the rest point and he's back in all this horrible motion again. Nothing wrong with being in motion, but motion one objects to is bad to be in. All right.
As we look this over, then, we discover that the individual could be audited too briefly on any given type of motion, much too briefly. You understand that?
He could be moved out of a nice somnolent point on the track into too much motion and not be able to get back the stuck point. You know, he will really work to get back onto a stuck point again right after the session if you've—he'll hold on to things and he'll try to key himself in and he'll feel kind of dopey and he'll think of an engram so it'll stick better. "Ah, that good old tonsillectomy, you know? Ho, ho. Yeah, (choke) that's better. Ulp. Yeah, that's better. Here I am sitting still again." See what the idea is?
Well, one of the things that confuses all of this is the vacuum. A vacuum is a supercold object which attracts electronically into it (and we are auditing today electronic phenomenon, not bodies), and this vacuum attracts—you don't have to know anything about electronics to audit electronics because the people in electronics don't know anything about electronics. We know more about electronics than they do and we don't know very much. All we know is enough to handle them completely and eradicate them and create them and that sort of thing.
By the way, the whole field of electronics goes on the wrong assumption— the conservation of energy. There's no such thing. Any time a thetan mocks something up, he has violated the conservation of energy. Any time he not-knows and makes disappear something, he has violated conservation of energy. You're doing that all the time, so don't let it upset you.
Here is a supercold object—the thetan makes a contact with a supercold object via a body. Now, the thetan and his bank was in contact with the body



and the body was not in contact with the supercold object. But all of a sudden the body went into contact with the supercold object and via, then, the relay point of the body, the whole track came in on the thetan, fewoom, thump. And boy, did he see a lot of motion. I just want to give you that point right there. That is a vacuum. But just preceding a vacuum is the most violent motion of facsimiles you ever cared to observe. And it is puzzling because it's maybe a million years' worth of pictures with a million years' worth of time and a million years' worth of places all condensed therein. Do I make my point there?
Female voice: Yes.
Oh, that is a wild one. In it comes, swish. So where is it? It's any time in the million years' worth of pictures, isn't it? Because a thetan considered that he depended on his pictures to tell him where he was and where he'd been. And so we get into this fantastic situation here of all of these pictures in motion. So now we have the bank itself—not the war in motion—we have the bank in violent motion. This supercold object, metal, actually attracted into it the energy of which the pictures were constructed. This stuff—you know, there's not any such thing as mental energy and then there's physical universe energy. That's not true. There aren't two kinds of energy. There's the kind of energy thetans mock up and the kind of energy thetans mock up. I'm afraid that's the end of it, see?
And so, here he saw this fantastic panorama rushing in at him and we get people commenting, "He fell off the yardarm and before he hit the deck, his whole life flashed before him." Oh no. That never took place. And very often I've talked to people who've fallen off yardarms and drowned and halfway drowned and so forth. "Did your whole life flash in front of your face?"
"No, it did not."
But we remember vaguely having had it happen sometimes. And in space opera it was quite common. It's 273 degrees below zero centigrade out in space and the metal of a spacesuit will take an enormous amount of energy. It has infinite capacitance and zero resistance—a piece of metal at minus 273 degrees centigrade. Infinite capacitance and zero resistance and it's hungry. And boy, it picks up that electrical energy just, well, it's—no sponge ever picked up water this fast. No sponge could be that dry. And he saw this stuff fly into the metal. And he says, "That's too much—even I now play tricks on me and I can't trust anybody, I can't even trust me anymore, because look what's happened here."
Well, of course, all this happened actually because of considerations and postulates which he made priorly, don't you see. And he already has agreed that this kind of thing would happen, that this is an electrical reaction, that this is how you brainwash himself and other people. He's probably walked up to many a thetan and said, "How are you, Joe?"
And Joe said, "Ah, go away."
So he says, "Well, I'll fix you, Joe." So he simply put a supercold bolt through Joe's energy bank and Joe's energy bank went sllp.
And Joe said, "Where am I? Who am I? What am I doing here?"
It's an old trick and unless you leave the door open for an effect to occur, you'll get no effects occurring anywhere. And then every once in a while you leave your own door open and there you are.
So this is what happened. It's too much—too many facsimiles flying around too fast, too many mock-ups going in too many directions, and man, this really upsets our boy. This truly upsets him. This makes him feel neglected by his own reliability and so forth. It puts him out of the game because that is entirely too much motion.
How would you handle that condition? It would be very simple, very, very simple. It is again a stuck point and it does have electronic motion which he detests. He tried to come to a rest point and that was all right and then motion

set into the bank and this baffled him. Already two-thirds defeated, he now got thoroughly defeated by his own bank.
Do you see this situation? So he goes into apathy about the whole thing. You actually have to make facsimiles fly around in mock-up. And you work on this for a while, he will accustom himself to facsimiles flying around the room.
You could do this simply by gradient scales. The old Dianetic Axiom of gradient scales should be very well known to any auditor. All things are gradient scales. You start in with a little and it works up to a much. So if you can make him move one little tiny piece of energy back and forth, you can eventually make him move two, you can make him move six, you can make him move any or some old scrap of a picture around, you can make him move five or six pictures around, the next thing you know he has avalanches and torrents of them tearing around. And he can start these and he can stop them and he can mock up and so forth and he says, "Vacuums? Ha, ha. Who cares?" Do you understand the solution to this thing?
Now the funny part of it is, a thetan must have a game and so the condition may also require that you have him invent some enemies and invent some individualities for that moment to get the rest of the game shaken out. In other words, a game doesn't just consist of motion, it consists of enemies and it consists of individualities to fight those enemies. And you have to handle these factors.
Now, the whole and entire subject of auditing has to take into account these factors. I don't care what development will come forward in future centuries, these factors do exist. To have a game or not to have a game, that is the question.
And if you're going to have any kind of a game, you're going to have to have some kind of objects in which to play the game. If you're going to have objects, you're going to get into trouble with them and people are going to become allergic to them. So auditing would always have to go in the direction of putting those objects back under the control of the individual. It's an unavoidable fact. And what I've told you here is probably the most important data in Scientology because Dianetics, wherever it broke down, failed simply because this information I have just given you wasn't well known.


Thank you.
Want to talk to you now about exteriorization.
The parts of man consist of a body, a mind and a thetan, according to man, in that order of importance. According to us, the parts of man consist of a thetan, a mind and a body. We are running there a 180-degree vector, but it happens to be the right one. But not according to the thinking of your preclear. He would much rather believe—he would much rather believe when he is having a bad loss that it's all just mass, mass, mass from there on down. And the way he behaves is "How can I get into it? How can I stick in it? And how can I get it to accumulate on me?"
If you remember that in auditing people, you will never run processes, then, which get him out of it, which unstick him or which deprive him of mass — in the long run. You get that little thing?
In other words, your activity with regard to this is a sort of a—well, it's a sort of a swindle actually. You audit in the direction that you are just going to plain smear him in, you see. You're just quietly and pleasantly, with the very best procedure—you harp on nothing but getting into things, getting stuck to things and getting wrapped up one way or the other, and you just harp on these things with your processes and he gets unstuck, he gets separate and he gets so that he can tolerate a little less mass.
Now, this is quite important. Games theory tells us that we audit in the direction of a compulsive game, we audit toward a compulsive game.
Now, the way your thetan is sitting there, as a preclear—seems to be looking at it, is that if everything stopped, he would be all right. That's a wonderful thing. There is nothing more beautiful to him than a graveyard. That's because his goal in a games situation has been on the basis of create, survive, destroy, you see, and he has always been heading for the goal of destroy, in the ultimate. But he gets very unhappy if he reaches it, because that takes him out of a game. So you actually don't run how dead he is, you run him planning to make things sufficiently stopped and sufficiently dead. You got it?
Acting in that direction, I'll give you the crudest of these processes which would be right on the button. You have him mock up himself in a body, planning, and just have him shove that mock-up into the body. And mock up himself again planning and shove that into the body. And mock himself up planning and shove it into the body.
By the way, you'll occasionally get a preclear who does nothing but plan. He never does anything with his plans, he just plans. Well, this is the fellow

who has been stopped so much he doesn't dare start. So he takes it out, in the interim, by planning.
Most of the dead-in-the-head preclears that you run into will run on this, because it's what they're doing all the time. They are getting audited because it is part of a plan to do something else. That's really fascinating.
And, by the way, the reason to be audited is quite amazing. You can have him start dreaming up reasons why he's being audited for twenty-five hours and he'd probably get a good gain on the profile. "Give me another reason for being audited. Now, just can you get yourself figuring out whether or not that would be a good reason?" Something on that order.
He has to have motive, you might say, in order to go in the direction of stop. Of course, he is really not going in the direction of stopping himself, he's going in the direction of stopping others. That is the games condition, you see. So, if you ever did run stop, it would only really run on the basis of stopping an enemy. Something on the order of "Invent an enemy. Okay. Now conceive him stopping." Got the idea? "Invent an enemy. Conceive him stopping."
Now, if you ran him "Mock up yourself dead"—we used to run, and it's a very limited process; it doesn't really work over any long period of time. But its workability was on the basis that he was stopping his body dead and his body was an opponent. And when you had a person who conceived his body to be an opponent, the process worked. And when you didn't have a person who conceived his body to be an opponent but who conceived his body to be an ally, it was a lose for him, you see? It worked. Winning and losing are, you see—enemies and friends, are all matters of consideration only. Very well.
We look over the entirety of exteriorization and we discover that it is antipathetic to a games condition. We find that the one subject and object which dominates all processing is antipathetic to any preclear goal. Although he may say on a—but it's on an inversion: "I've just got to get exteriorized. I've just got
to get exteriorized. I've just got to get ext ." He's been saying it for the last
few billion years, which means he's been out of the game that long.
Now, if you give him ways and means to get into rougher, meaner games he will eventually be able to exteriorize from some games. But "any game is better than no game," that is the motto of a preclear. And when you get him to interiorize or figure out ways of interiorizing, it is certain that sooner or later he would exteriorize. Do you see that?
The games condition is "get into it." The healthy condition is "get out of it." All games are aberrative. If you want this preclear to regain his health and mental equilibrium, you've got to make it possible for him to get out of it. And you do that by making him figure out how to get into it. "Invent a game of comparable magnitude to mining to the center of the Earth," you know? Something on this line.
Now, it is so thoroughly fixed in most modern preclear's thinkingness, figuringness, that the worst thing in the world they could do would be to exteriorize, that when they have done so, it has put an engram into the bank. I mean, it's that serious. They blow out of their heads, that's an engram.
Now, an engram is a moment of pain and unconsciousness retained in a mental image picture still possessed by the thetan or the body. That is the exact technical definition of an engram.
The word engram means, by the way, latterly, "trace on a cell," which is totally incorrect. But once upon a time we thought that these things were sort of engraved on cells or something of the sort and so we picked up this word.
The word actually was taken from an old body of healing, so that you will get some old witch doctor or something down in the middle of Jungo-Bongo land

or something or in the middle of Harley-Wonga land and he will tell you—he will tell you that, "We have always known about engrams."
Yes, he has known that this word existed in nomenclature, that it means a trace on a cell, it means a training pattern on a cell. Yes, he knows that kind of an engram, but he does not know this other one. And therefore, we are up against a little bad piece of—there are very few of them in Scientology, but this is one—it's a sort of a bad piece of titling, nomenclature. What we mean by an engram is a moment of pain and unconsciousness contained in a mental image picture which is still possessed by the body or the mind. That is an engram.
Now, what then is the most serious of these engrams? Does it have much to do with how badly the body was smashed? No. Does it have to do with how long the body was unconscious? No. No.
There are two other conditions which make the engram that serious thing for which we search and which we eradicate. There are two other conditions. The first of those conditions is did he exteriorize during it? And the other one, is it unknown to him?
In other words then, for a target engram—as far as the auditor is concerned—it would be a moment of pain and unconsciousness which contained exteriorization from the body or a mass and contained as well the particularly aberrative factor of being unerasable, at a glance, because it is unknown. That's quite important.
You see, if he doesn't know it exists, he never looks at it. And if he never looks at it, then he never erases it. So it persists. Now, that's a target engram, it's right there. That's what the auditor finds the preclear sitting in and around, and the auditor starts to play around with this and if he finds—well, let's say, the preclear had a dental operation. His father came in and kicked him and his mother came in and kicked him and the dentist got mad at him and the nurse robbed all the money out of his pockets. And he was afterwards in a state of nervous collapse. And then the income tax people arrested him because he didn't use that period for filing a return. You know, something like this.
And you say at once, "Oh heavens, isn't that a nice, aberrative engram." And so you audit it and audit it and audit it and audit it, and he doesn't get any better and he still is nervous. And finally he gets rather upset with you. Why? You've taken away a game he can have. This is how bad it all is.
Just a little bit earlier, however, he tripped over a saucepan and it blew him out of his head. He was unconscious for a sixteenth of a second. That's the engram you're looking for. See, not what you would consider duress, but does it contain all the factors? And the factors are, of course: he doesn't know it exists, he exteriorized during it, does contain pain, does contain unconsciousness, and that is the exact anatomy and length and breadth of what you're looking for. Now, take that as a basic and then go up into higher duress. And you get this higher duress as more motion in it than your preclear could ordinarily tolerate.
Now, an unconscious man, you would think offhand cannot worry too much about motion. You say, "Motion—that would be nothing to an unconscious man." No, that isn't the case. An unconscious man is very conscious of motion. And so as we begin to add motion to this incident, it becomes more and more serious. And when we add to it electronic phenomena—energy masses, ridges, engrams, facsimiles—blowing around like cards thrown up in a whirlwind, we get something you're going to have a picnic with.
Now, don't think these things are rare; they are not rare. Any case that is having difficulty is sitting spang in the middle of one. And it isn't going to resolve or get anywhere until he is squared away on that particular incident. That's an awfully broad statement, but I'm afraid that's a fact.



Case will improve, case will do better, case will get kinder to people, but sort of on an oxcart basis, you know? And you're in the market only for jet planes. All right.
Buying a jet plane consists of handling such incidents I have just described. Now, such an incident would contain these factors then: pain, unconsciousness, didn't know what happened during it, had a tremendous amount of electrical phenomena, that is engrams, mental image pictures blowing around and so forth, and is in restimulation.
Now, that combination gives you at once the service facsimile—an old term: it's that thing which a man uses to get sympathy with. It is the reason why he believes certain outrageous things, so on.
Now, the solution to this engram is almost as arduous as the engram, I'm afraid. I would love to give you an easy solution, but an engramectomy depends exclusively upon the cooperation of the preclear.
Now, the parts of man are a thetan, a mind and a body. You can look at your textbook and find the compartments of the body and the—no, you can look in Gray's Anatomy and find the compartments of the body. You can look in a Scientology text, in an old Dianetics text, and find the compartmentation of this thing called the mind, but thetans don't split. Now here he is, then. And unless you get a thetan's cooperation, it's all machinery from there on down.
Now, the person has to know, at length, what happened himself for it to do any good. Somebody comes around and he says to you, "Now, you're a Scientologist, you're an exterior and why don't you go around and fix up my aged Aunt Bessie? Why don't you go around and fix up Bessie?"
And you say to him, "Well, I would happily fix up Bessie except for one thing: the only way to fix up Bessie includes the cooperation of Bessie."
Unless Bessie gets the gen, she won't get the good health. So, it's all very well for you to sharpen up your beams and do an engramectomy on Bessie. Chances are you won't get away with it, you see? It won't really change her state of health. Because her state of health is basically based upon the fact that man is basically a thetan. And basically, Bessie is definitely a thetan. So, all right.
When we look this problem over, we discover that everyday life is not aberrative. It's quite remarkable, but it's not. You can drop books on your toes, bang your head through windshields, you can assault police, you can do all sorts of things in the common routine games procedure of life and receive not enough aberration about it to bother with. Really, it's a fact.
So therefore, these people who are going around feeling beautifully sad about how aberrative life is must be working out of one of these target engrams, because it accumulates to itself associative material which then themselves become aberrative. They are locks. And these locks, as they associate themselves to one of these engrams, become very aberrative indeed. And as a result, the person feels that life is unbearable and is impossible to live.
We agree that during the period that he was experiencing one of these target engrams, life was not being lived. It was impossible to live life during that period. It was even impossible to have a game during the period. Later on he might take the engram itself and have a game with it, after it had happened. But it is certain that it required such an incident, of such magnitude, in order to bring about a lock accumulative condition.
So the condition itself, to accumulate anything, had to have a good, solid— and I mean solid—foundation, which contains a lot of stop and a lot of motion, contained a lot of pain, a lot of unknowingness. He doesn't know what's happened in such an incident, by the way, so bad, that he doesn't even know there was an incident, usually.

He might even tell you about it on the surface, you know. He might say, "Well, yes, that's right, I remember. Yes, I remember that very well. I did snag my hand one time on an airplane wing as I walked around to the front of the airplane. Yeah, I remember it vividly."
It turns out finally that after his hand got snagged, the pull of the propeller sucked him into it. He battled with it for twenty minutes before they got the motor stopped and got him off of it. He exteriorized, went to the between-lives area, they said, "What are you doing here?" Gave him an engram there, zapped him thoroughly, told him to go back to Earth. He picked up the body eighteen miles away in a strange hospital where it was neglected for two days before it was healed.
This is sort of the way these things begin. It's quite amusing. They just keep developing.
It's as though you had a railroad track and the thing had a spur line that is circular. So the train is, really—and his thinkingness—comes along this line and instead of really proceeding, as it apparently does, straight along the main line, it goes off on this spur loop, travels through the jungles, over hills and dales, burns wood, gets itself watered again, is stopped by torn-up tracks, so forth, comes around, derails a few times and finally on a small handcar, in tatters, the thought reemerges on the main line and continues its voyage. That's usually what one of these things does to thought; it's quite amazing.
Thought, by the way, is the shortest distance through all of the winning valences to present time.
Now, what do you do about it? Well, you exteriorize him. Well, how do you do that, since he knows exteriorization is painful? By making it possible for him to interiorize, of course. That's all there is to that. You exteriorize him by making it possible for him to interiorize, and he gets out of these things.
Well, the subject itself is all bound up in such things as havingness, control and other factors. But the main thing that it's bound up in is the subject of a vacuum. You usually find that he is stuck in vacuums—that's the ordinary thing.
Now, the vacuum might merely be a third rail which only had a few thousand volts in it, something minor. He was simply electrocuted for murder in the last life and has been having trouble in this life ever since. That, by the way, is quite an engram, but not very aberrative. But it makes a man feel that he ought to murder somebody. I've handled these, by the way. I've actually found people and found the date and time of the execution, where they were executed and for what. After I had run the preclear, traced back the data, sure enough, he was electrocuted. This society is getting very electrically minded. The more they shock and jolt people, the more trouble they'll have.
Now, whatever this engram consists of, it is serious if it is something like a supercold vacuum or a heavy electric charge which disarranges the electrical phenomena of the bank. And you can thank your stars, in a preclear, when you only have a minor shock or something like that accompanied by exteriorization, unconsciousness, pain and a bunch of scrambled facsimiles. They come out of this rather easily. A few—fifteen, twenty hours, they'll come out of those rather cleanly.
But now let's take one vacuum which is supercold into which the entire bank poured at the time it happened. Isn't this gorgeous? You have the entire engram bank and all of the locks and mental image pictures pouring into a physical object all in a few seconds. In other words, this thing was a vacuum. Now, you can make a vacuum by simply making something very cold which has infinite capacity and zero resistance, electrically. Any time you can bring about that condition, you can get one of these vacuums.



It's quite amusing to get a preclear in the middle of one of these things and then run it flat without handling any of the motion. That's very amusing. All of the engrams in it go into action. So you have to handle it, actually, on the basis of—you have to handle it—it's amusing: the preclear goes up and down and lies out on the sidewalk and flip-flops and so forth.
Why? He's used it for years as a major rest point; it's a quiet point surrounded by motion. So when he sees too much motion, he knows where to go—to a quiet place where there wasn't any of this motion. Follow that?
So the methods of handling this have to deal, then, with putting it in a games condition, handling the motion in it and giving him other places to stop. And if you do those things, you will discover that it comes apart rather easily. You can get some of these apart in as little as fifty hours. But, when they're apart, they're apart. That's that.
Now, they get cuter when one vacuum at one point in the track has attracted to itself, as a facsimile, numerous other vacuums from other parts of the track. That becomes a little more complicated.
You want to know which one to tackle, tackle the present time vacuum, for heaven's sakes, that is to say, the present life vacuum. Don't go too far on the backtrack. Try and find out what was grouping everything in this lifetime because the thetan holds this engram in common with the body.
And, actually, an engramic experience has to be held in common between the thetan or the body or the thetan and the planet or something of the sort in order for the person to be entrapped by that thing. In other words, he has to hold the experience in common with it—had to happen to both of them.
And this, then, becomes more or less an easy task if you know what you're doing with it. Now, there are probably hundreds of ways of doing this. The most certain ones which we know at this moment is to locate where it occurred on the track by one means or another. You just run "Recall a can't have." And you'll have this thing pop up, by the way. We call it a can't havingness on the track. And he'll wind up in a vacuum. The simplest mechanism, if the crudest. Not particularly good, but it's easy. And then have him get a moment later than that incident and have him make it solid. And a moment earlier, and have him make it solid. That's a facsimile, you see. And a moment later, make it solid; a moment earlier, make it solid. Then you, of course, have to have Problems of Comparable Magnitude, and you have to run that on it. And "Invent a game of comparable magnitude." And in addition to this, you have to remedy his havingness from time to time, maybe with such a thing as the Trio. And by doing this, you'd certainly tend to slip him out of the incident.
But don't think it isn't hard to do, it is hard to do. It contains quite a lot of slug. Your preclear has to be under good control, which tells you that you have to run a lot of SCS in order to get him into a condition where he'd do so.
But once you have handled this, exteriorization can be handled with ease and then you can run all of the drills in The Creation of Human Ability. Those various exteriorization drills, you can run all those. You can do various other things. You can keep on auditing on standard processes and so forth and he'll just keep on exteriorizing better and better and better.
But your first target of exteriorization is achieved by handling one of these target engrams. And that's why people won't get out of their heads when you tell them to. And having solved that, I feel very happy to give you the solution to it.

Want to talk to you about scales. The number of scales which have been developed in Dianetics and Scientology, if laid end to end, would certainly measure something.
And the funny part of it is, if you don't know something about them, your ability to predict the preclear is greatly lessened. If you do not know about scales you would not know then, actually, where your preclear was going, because your preclear goes on a predetermined pattern. And these patterns that we have predetermined are, of course, scales.
If your preclear is coming upscale, he will go through a certain series of phenomena. And these phenomena are all related one way or the other, and this material then gives you some sort of a clue as to what your preclear is doing or where he is now willing to go.
And the first and oldest of these scales is found in Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health and is simply a scale of survival. That is, in essence, merely a scale of continuing game—continuing game, that's all you would say. And an individual continues his game at various tone levels. The goal of the individual is to continue the game to infinity.
Any time you look around and you see a car, the basic goal of its designer—no matter how badly he designed it—was to have the car run as long as he could possibly make it run. Now, somebody comes along that doesn't like cars and changes that basic goal. But probably if we gave a car all the attention we should give it, it probably would run very close to forever.
There's only one difficulty about this forever and infinity and that is you have to go that long to find out. How would you know whether or not you were going to live forever? By living forever, of course. And in view of the fact that this is what you are trying to prove, it is no wonder that a continuing game goes along in this line.
Chaps come along every now and then, whether an Egyptian priest or who else, and sells us pie in the sky. And it generally has something to do with eternity. The entirety of Egypt had just one dream and that was eternity. Beautiful dream, but you have to be there at the end of infinity in order to discover whether or not you've made it. This shows some difficulty.
Now, this is the basic scale, just the graphing of the individual's hope in reaching eternity; that is the basic scale of life. Some individuals know they can't make it. Some go even less than that and know they haven't, although how they know this, one isn't sure. And one is certain, completely certain, that he is well on the way to attaining it. And another one, of course, knows that he is living all the



way out. Of course these things are basically differences of consideration. But they graph against the continuing game of life, and that is all this eternity is.
It's an odd thing how people vary on this. Some chap comes along and he's perfectly willing to live to an eternity, but another one has had some bad accidents and so forth, and he's making darn sure that he doesn't, he thinks.
Of course, the joke on this scale is that a thetan can't do anything else. That is the trick. He can't do anything else. He is an eternal being and the whole universe—the universe is not a trap in which the thetan finds himself. This is not true. The universe is something the thetan is continuing all that long. And he will do anything to continue it, practically.
Interesting demonstration processes go on this. One of the first of these processes is—these are just demonstration processes—you tell a preclear to get the idea of putting something in the future so it'll be there for him. And he's tremendously delighted with this process—very little workability beyond just the cognition that he knows he's going somewhere now.
The chap that isn't in present time simply found it too interesting yesterday and knew that he could not survive forward until today—yesterday was the thing—or knows that the future is so much better than the present that he is living in it. And you'll find your preclear, then, either way back in the past or way up in the future and very few preclears right in present time.
Let me call to your attention that a person's havingness when they are not in present time is very slight. In the future it consists of a hope. And in the past it consists of couple of tonsillectomies, you know, maybe a prefrontal lobotomy way in the backtrack—just engrams.
And where you have a person holding on to other masses than MEST universe masses, you have somebody whose havingness is slight simply because he's out of present time. This individual is not willing to go along with the clickity-click, rat-a-tat-tat of the changing MEST universe. He is not in pace with it.
You'll find little children, by the way, very often become very impatient with their parents because their patience is tried continually. They point at the wall. The parents do not see the wall, they see the wall as it should be, as it was. You go around Grandpop and you tell Grandpop that that's a nice blue wall, and he's liable to tell you about how it was when he was a boy. And you go around and tell the lady of the house about that nice, big, beautiful, thick, heavy, massy wall, and she's going to tell you she's going to have it painted. This is simply a maddening thing; they never seem to look at present time. Therefore, their havingness is very poor.
Now, we get all the variations and scales and so forth out of this phenomena of hope for eternity. We get the beingness in present time: He knows that he'll reach it some way or another if he just sticks along with these walls as they go clickity-clack. And the other chap, why, he knows he didn't make it at all; he's way back in the past. And some other chap that knows he'd better not be in the past, that's too painful, so the best place to be is way up in the future.
And these various scales are no more and no less than reactions to various types of motion. And that's really all an auditor needs to know about the basic Tone Scale.
Now, out of this survival scale, we do get the Tone Scale which you find in Science of Survival. That Tone Scale of course has been expanded and has a subzero area, now. And it is quite remarkable, though, that for the most finite auditing purposes, that the original Science of Survival Tone Scale is quite adequate.
Now, I want to show you something about that Tone Scale. It is tolerance to motion, that is all that it is. It's the whole scale, from top to bottom, it's simply tolerance of motion. Individual's ability to tolerate motion places him at

once on this Tone Scale and decides his emotional tone. Emotional tone is, of course, any emotion. And these emotions fit in a scale which is a gradient scale and it's quite exact.
If you were to run a preclear—an auditor, by the way, who doesn't know this isn't worth it; he will make blunders. He won't know whether the preclear is getting better or getting worse as he simply sits there and audits him. You should know this just at a glance.
Now, the auditor, for instance, who leaves an individual in boredom as the end of a process is not aware of the fact that above boredom is conservatism and above conservatism is enthusiasm. And there's where he ought to go, there's where he ought to go with the process.
So he finds a preclear getting bored with the process and he considers then that something is wrong with the process or something is wrong with the session. The preclear's interest is no longer great and therefore he should abandon the entirety of the process and change off to something else and so on.
Please recognize in this an obsession to interest people. That's all that is. An auditor who does that has a feeling that he just must interest the preclear. Well, all right. It's perfectly all right to interest people, perfectly all right to do this, there's nothing wrong with it, but he leaves the process not flat.
An optimum process would proceed—if the preclear were dead—in this way: You would have from body death up to apathy.
And from apathy we'd go up to grief.
And from grief we go to fear.
From fear to anger.
From anger to antagonism.
And from antagonism to boredom.
And boredom then would go upward toward conservatism.
And then from conservatism to enthusiasm.
And finally to serenity.
And this would be the top, top limit of the process, which is, by the way, more interesting to us today than it used to be since it is attainable now that we know about games, theory of, now that we know about some other points on scales. Also, scales make this attainable themselves. All right.
Now that is the basic Tone Scale. And if you do not know that scale by heart, and if you don't know how to use it and apply it, if you don't know where those emotions fit—those that I have just mentioned, one to the next—let me assure you, you're going to have difficulty somewhere in auditing.
You're going to get an apathy case. And the apathy case goes through the lower harmonics of apathy—you know, there's an angry apathy and so forth—but nevertheless the case is changing, changing but flips back to apathy, changes and flips back, evidently, to a higher level apathy and so on. They're all in apathy, but they are changing.
Why? Because the emotional tone exhibited by the case is, every now and then, altered. And eventually you get out of these vacillations around apathy and you get into an actual grief. And you—if you didn't know this, you'd say, "Lord, what have I done to this preclear? I made this preclear cry." The preclear up to this time was very peaceful. Let me assure you, an apathy case is very peaceful.
You know, you can always cure somebody of something like arthritis by thrusting them down into apathy? Do you know that that's possible? An arthritic is simply holding on. You throw him into apathy and he doesn't hold on any longer and you've cured him. Of what? You've also cured him of—well, you've cured him of arthritis and you've also cured him of living.



So, the auditor who didn't know that an apathetic attitude would be succeeded by an attitude of grief would think he had done something bad to the preclear. No. He's bringing the preclear uptone.
Now, very often a preclear is quieted out of grief by being consoled in some fashion and so forth. No, you audit them out of this, they are audited out of that manifestation. And what do you have in your hands then? You have somebody who is frightened. He says, "This is horrible."
Of course, if the auditor is dismayed himself at these various emotions, he is apt to act to turn them off suddenly. Grief: "Well, we can't have people crying, horrible thing to have people crying. Terrible thing to have people in fear. We mustn't have these things" and so on. And yet, the road through is the road out. And when a case starts uptone, you can expect some of these manifestations to turn on if you found the case in apathy on any given subject.
Now, you could regard the case as a whole or you could regard the case sectionally. You could regard the case as being apathetic on one subject or one dynamic. And here's where we get the dynamics entering in.
This person was in fine shape everywhere, except he was apathetic in the extreme on the third dynamic. He could not take care of groups of people. He was all right—second dynamic, he was a wow! As a first dynamic, he was just wonderful. He was out there writing hurrah letters to the United Nations all the time on the fourth dynamic. Animals—he never had a dog in his life that didn't jump through hoops at his slightest whisper. He's in wonderful shape on the subject of the physical universe, evidently, but somehow or another he's in apathy on groups.
Now, if we started to audit him on groups, he would go right up through these various tones until he reached a serenity or an action level on the subject of groups.
You'll discover that these things are just as true today as they were true the many years ago that they were written. I want to give you a very graphic example of motion in relationship to these things. All of these emotions are motion; that is really all there is to it. I mean, it's reaction to motion.
Now, the preclear becomes the motion. Do you see that now? He becomes the motion. And the motion, then, causes a thetan to respond. In other words, at certain vibrations a thetan responds with certain emotional reactions. Quite mechanically arranged, it is.
But, of course, these things are basically a consideration. But he has already agreed that certain motions produce certain emotions. And if this is the case, then when he gets into certain motions, then he produces these emotions. It's quite remarkable.
You at once can recognize this if you look at fear. How would you cause somebody to be afraid? What motion would you introduce? Well, abrupt surges toward him, something like this, could certainly produce an emotion of fear.
An emotion of apathy is just sort of a vibration all in one place. He's going someplace but he's not going anywhere.
If you want to turn on active apathy in a body—auditing a body is just a little different than auditing a preclear—but if you wanted to turn on the active emotion of apathy, you would just have the wall tell the preclear (this is just a test process), you'd have the wall tell the preclear that it was really moving. To him it is still, but it is moving. And between these two things we get a contradiction.
Now, you really—you got a much better level and better look at this if you realize that when you read a book it is talking about motion all the time and it's very, very quiet. There it sits. Paper, type—not moving—and it's "He rode over the hills and down into the dale and went up in an airplane and the rocket took

off," you know? I mean, here's all this motion going on there. So the book is talking about motion. If you read enough books, you go into apathy. Anyway.
You want to know what this has to do with control. Well, we call 2.0, which is antagonism, the make-break point of a personality. A person who is chronically below 2.0 can be considered for our purposes to be in very bad shape indeed. He would answer up to many classifications, but no classification better than this particular Tone Scale.
Now, we take this person at apathy and we discover that motion goes through him. He stops no motion. At no time would you ever find this person stopping. If this person had, for instance, a car—was driving a car—and the car was traveling at twenty-five miles an hour and if it was heading straight for a brick wall, you would find this individual not even vaguely attempting to put on his brakes. He just wouldn't put on his brakes, that's all.
Now, motion would go through him at all times. He would never stop any motion. If you were to take his hand and you were to move his hand, he would leave his hand in the place you moved it to—just like that, without any reaction or effort at all—he would move his hand back. Now, his capability in moving that hand is really not in question, it's just whether or not he would do so.
You push a preclear's hand aside and it stays aside, you have a fair indication there that the preclear is actively in apathy. If you just came up to him—he's not in auditing, you understand, you're not running him in any process, he just walked into your office or the auditing room. You told him as he sat down there, "Just move your hand a little bit further back on the chair." And he would. And he'd just leave it there. Never occur to him to move that hand or question what you said. In other words, he wouldn't stop any motion. He's practically in an hypnotic trance. Now there's a chronic apathy case.
As we go upstairs, we find out that grief is a lower harmonic on hold. And grief holds. If a person were chronically in grief and we moved his hand, he would have a tendency for that hand to cling and then move and then cling again. Do you see this? He wouldn't, however, put his hand back in the position it was first in. See, he's holding on somewhat. There's a tiny bit of resistance in grief. It is much better than apathy.
But now as we go up to fear, we find we have another flow. And these, by the way, go in solids and flows; they're harmonics. And as we have fear there, we discover that a fear case, as we would move toward his hand to move it, he would move it. You understand? We just start to move his hand and he moves his hand. That is a fear reaction.
And as we go up to the next major point on this scale, we come to another hold: a person who is chronically in anger. You've seen them, they sometimes head up nations as dictators, they become generals. They are very easy people to spot in the society.
It very, very often—that some country or some organization will get hold of one of these chaps who is in chronic, psychotic 1.5 anger and they'll think he's a big man—he does, because they can't budge him. Therefore they can't have much of an effect on him, so he must therefore have an effect on them, and certainly enough he does—he kills everybody.
Now, we have this chap who is at 1.5 and this chap's hand, let us say, is on the edge of his chair, and you decide you're going to move his hand. So you move over to it and he is not going to move to meet your hand, but he will simply hold on tighter. And your effort to budge his hand is going to meet with a signal failure. Do you see that?
Now we go up to our next one, we get antagonism. Now, the chap's hand, in antagonism, is quite interesting to watch. You start to move toward his hand to



move it and he flicks at you to get you away. See, he comes toward you. So we have another flow which is the exact reverse of fear, the opposite direction.
Now, we come to the upper harmonic of apathy or anger—the upper harmonic here, it's quite interesting. Apathy doesn't stop anything, apathy is just there soggily. It is really a kind of a flow that is a dispersal that is a flow that isn't there. All right. But when we get up to boredom, we have something else which is in all directions but in no direction. All directions in conflict. Now, we'd start to move somebody's hand who was in boredom and he would become flippant concerning it. We'd start to move his hand and he would move his own hand before we touched his hand, in some indifferent manner. Do you see this? He would move, but it would be to contradict the fact that we were going to move him. But he would do it flippantly, see. He'd just sort of brush it all off. "Well, that's all right. Now I think that process is pretty well flat. Yes, I'm tired of it, as a matter of fact." See? That's the same thing in terms of motion.
Now as we go up to conservatism, we're into another hold category, not an idle category. But we're in a position there in conservatism when we start to move the fellow's hand and he looks where we're going to move it to, holds on, as long as he's cooperative.
We're just now for the first time with boredom, slightly, and with conservatism into a cooperative level. So he looks at where you're going to move his hand to and he decides that's safe, so he assists you. You'll find a little bit of his strength and effort is mixed up in this move at conservatism.
But enthusiasm is quite something else. "Oh, what do you want? Oh, you want to move my hand over here?" Bang. Terrific cooperation, more speed, is very capable of following direction or giving direction. "Oh, you want me to hit you in the jaw? Okay." Bang! Decision would come into it and so forth, but cooperation would be there too. It's quite interesting, quite amazing as we observe these various motions.
Of course, serenity would just sort of drift along. It is amazing how much apathy, though, passes for serenity.
Now, as we get a subjective look at this, we find out that apathy makes a fellow feel pretty sick. And there are sort of tastes and flavors and secondary considerations go with all these emotions. And an individual, as we go up the scale, is less and less influenced.
We get the idea of the motion influencing the thetan, and then the thetan eventually influencing the motion. So it tells us at once a very basic process regarding this particular scale and that would be simply to put any of these emotions into the wall until a person can manufacture it—not until it no longer worries him.
Now, get that as the place that sticks on boredom. We've done it until it no longer worries him. In other words, we didn't finish the process, we left him parked at boredom. So we would put it in the walls until he could put apathy into the walls with great enthusiasm. You get the idea? Because in handling emotions, they will also react on the emotional scale.
These points are quite interesting since they sort out behavior. And in Science of Survival, you'll find in its chart behavior sorted out. There's only one thing that goes wrong with that chart, is sometimes you don't believe it.
I worked the chart out mathematically many years ago and put it down and then didn't believe that was the way it was and I was its first victim. There was somebody at 1.1—just above fear, covert hostility—you see, there are some other little harmonics on the chart that I haven't mentioned because they're not terribly important, but covert hostility, well, that can get important. And it said right across there that the person would do so-and-so and so-and-so. And I said, "Well, of course, the person is a fairly nice person and naturally won't do those

things." And the person did all of them, one right after the other. Almost ruined everything.
Now, I didn't believe it myself, so I can only expect that you can have the widest possible doubt with regard to this chart and so on, until you yourself see it in action. And you really ought to look at it in action. You ought to go down sometime and talk to a bank manager or something of the sort and find out where he is on the Tone Scale. It will very greatly amuse you. At each point on this scale there is a method of handling communications. There are many side columns that go along with this. Quite amazing that these are very accurate, very accurate.
If you had—if you were luckless enough to have a rather strong looking, rather powerful 1.5, anger, in your organization, you would find exactly what would happen; it would be on that chart. It would actually predict exactly what would happen in your organization. And the only mistake you will make is believing that it couldn't be that bad and that it won't happen, because I assure you that it will. Experience has proven this.
Our experience with scales is very great. Scales have played a very prominent part in developing processes and estimating where the preclear is going and what he's doing. And this most basic scale is still the most basic scale. And we have other scales, however, which are founded and developed from this first basic scale, which are also diagnostic.
Preclears do certain things under certain circumstances. If they're getting well, they follow one procedure; if they're getting worse, they follow quite another. And that's the most fundamental thing you should know about scales.


Thank you.
Want to talk to you a little bit more about scales. There is a great deal of modern information on the subject.
Now, in lecture fifteen, I told you about the earliest days of scales and now I want to tell you about the latest days of scales because scales have suddenly soared up through a number of important developments to something that you might consider very close to a final development.
Anything that you could develop from here on in scales would be very difficult to assume credible. You could mix the old scales but to set up this new series and then go any further, as far as a thetan is concerned, in this universe, you'd find it very, very difficult. Because this scale that I'm about to tell you about takes him on out of the universe. All right. To many people that would be of a very vast interest. Those people probably feel life isn't worth living anyway.
To some people who are not closely enough connected to life and would like to be into it a little more thoroughly and so forth, I only need tell you that you need do these principles in reverse and you'll get good and stuck in life. All right.
Life ceases to be a liability when you know how it traps and how to free. When you yourself can do that, life is no longer a liability.
Only one other consideration I would add in to that. If you have a large number of energy masses in your vicinity up in front of your theta face, whatever that is—asked a thetan one time—you ask somebody, "Where's your face?" You just keep on asking any being, "Where's your face?" And he's liable to eventually cognite on the fact that he doesn't have one. He owns one, but a thetan doesn't have a face. And a thetan, similarly, doesn't have any real connection with energy. There's no real connection with energy.
One of the first things you have to know about a thetan is that if he's stuck to anything, it's on the basis of a mystery sandwich. The thetan is one piece of bread and the energy mass he is stuck to is the other piece of bread and they are held together by mystery.
That is actually the total anatomy of how a thetan gets stuck to something: he's a mystery sandwich. All he has to do is have a mystery on how he is stuck to it and at once he's stuck to it, you see? You have that? All right. He's got to postulate there's a mystery in between.
Now if a thetan did have a great deal of these energy masses stuck to him which told him to be good, to be orderly, told him that he was—"now I'm supposed to," is the keynote of any engram. Engrams always say to the thetan, "now I'm supposed to," and he does this and "now I'm supposed to," and he does



that. Machine response, you might call this—it's "now I'm supposed to." You ask somebody to run this for a little while and they feel like all the ridges are melting.
Well, you do have, in a preclear, consequences because of the close proximity of this energy mass called engrams, ridges, facsimiles—electronic phenomena. Now, today that electronic phenomena is much more important than it ever has been, because as you audit a thetan through an engram—he's taking a body through an engram—you audit him through a situation. At first glance you are auditing merely a being without mass plus a body through a MEST universe situation.
If you look it over very, very closely, however, you're auditing him through an electronic situation which exists in present time, which only has this connection with reality: that it is a picture of it. You're handling pictures, you're not handling real material. Don't you see? So that it is an electronic phenomena and, therefore, all auditing is the handling of electronic phenomena. You might not like that, but it's true.
A thetan is a much better electrician than you can hire. And he's an electric eel first and foremost, in this universe at least. And he makes pictures out of small particles of energy and he makes pictures of things that didn't happen and pictures of things that did happen and then conglomerates them and confuses them and rolls them up into ridges. And he gets himself beautifully confused, bedded down, trapped, so forth. He gets himself caught up in a vacuum, and a black mass then is used to cover up the tremendous motion of facsimiles which take place as the facsimiles fly into the vacuum. In other words, there's all kinds of electrical phenomena.
Now, as we look this phenomena over, we find that auditing addresses the phenomena and takes it apart. And that's what auditing does.
Now, there isn't any question about the fact that if a thetan were three feet from that wall that he'd be stuck on the wall—he wouldn't be, unless he were to introduce an interconnective electronic phenomena that had a mystery in it. And if he did that then he could say, "I'm stuck to the wall." And then if he didn't remember to say, "Now I'm unstuck," he would continue to be stuck. Life is basically considerations, but these considerations develop fairly rapidly into electronic phenomena.
Now, you don't have to be an electronic engineer to know very much about this. All you have to do, if you really want to know about all there is to know about body anchor points—for instance, even the body, you know, is an electrical field and we call that the body anchor points—all you'd have to do is get audited through a few of these things and see them.
I've had somebody go along for a year and a half or something like that as an auditor and he'd just never seen any body anchor points. He just thought I was kidding him or something of the sort. And all of a sudden one day he said, "I wonder what that funny globe is up there? You know, it's a funny thing. Well, there's one over there. Well, that just comes from believing Ron. I just must have made it all up." (laughter)
Well, in view of the fact that a knowledge of body anchor points can change the physical structure of the body and the handling of them can change physical structure of the body, we see that body anchor points are quite important. It's not my mission at this time to go into body anchor points, but body anchor points get mixed up with facsimiles and everything gets all tangled up and smashed down and you've finally got a preclear. All right.
What are you handling, though, basically? You're handling electronic phenomena. Whenever you have a particle which is tinier than anything a thetan considers himself to be—thetans consider themselves to have size, some

slight degree—they're at least a millimeter or two feet in diameter. I mean they have their different ideas of how big they are—they have no bigness, so they're entitled to any idea they can get.
But you take something that is so small that not even light waves glance off of it, such as a photon, and he believes it's there and he's never seen it or experienced it, you get your first example of a mystery sandwich.
Now, this becomes most pronounced in the reaction of a thetan or a body to atomic fission. He never sees beta, gamma or any of these other things. He is aware of a sensation which exists in a space, so he assumes that there are particles in this space which can affect him or affect the energy masses which he considers to be himself. And so he considers that he can be affected by radiation.
Radiation is—produces the most fabulous reaction around him. If he is in very much contact with radiation he goes mad, because it tells him he can no longer create. So we must assume that radiation has something to do with the basic mechanisms of creation.
A body, for instance, in all of its reactions to radiation, simply ceases to create. The hemoglobin no longer multiplies and so the person gets anemia. These are basically noncreative activities. There is a creative stop when he runs up against energy which he himself feels he cannot handle. It's a very uncomfortable sort of feeling. But there we get a considerable mystery—there is a mystery.
And the only way he could get stuck to or attract to him any of these tiny particles or huge particles or anything else would be to have a mystery concerning them. Follow that very closely. Don't go jumping at the idea of these unseen particles and so forth. We—you'll find enough preclears fighting invisible thetans who attack them all night long. But an invisible particle is about the closest thing there is to a thetan, and when this invisible particle can produce an actual physical reaction on somebody then, of course, he feels that he is being outdone. Do you see this?
So we actually have this entire conflict between a thetan and electronic particles—simply a matter of jealousy. That's all. There isn't anything more serious than that. If these things were difficult to solve today, I probably would spare you the agony of knowing about them. You go around being curious enough, however, about tiny particles of electrical energy and you'll get into the whole mess of it. Next thing you know, why, you'll be three feet thick and people will be rolling you around on the tennis court.
It's a weird thing that all a thetan has to do to get connected to anything is have a mystery about it. All he has to say is "How on earth am I connected to this?" He's not at all, you see? He's floating around and he says, "For heaven's sakes, how could I get connected to that? How am I possibly connected to it? How can I get out of this thing I'm so stuck in?" And you've had it, see? It's his own postulates.
Now, how anything that doesn't have mass, basically have any motion and can only locate himself by position can get stuck anywhere is of course a tough nut to crack. But the thetan has managed it and as the years have gone along, why, he has improved his position.
Now, as we look this over as a series of phenomena, we discover it has a lot to do with scales. And the various scales which have been developed here, from the earliest to the latest, are things that you can study in your leisure time. I could mention that something that's still quite important today is the Mystery up to Know Scale. Now, that is an important scale. It simply runs upscale, more or less parallels emotional tones. And you run some preclear along the line and first thing you know, he's talking to you about how mysterious it all is. And then he sort of gets unstuck from that and he'll start talking to you about sex. And he



starts—after sex, he'll talk to you about eating. And in other words, we go on upscale the remainder of that scale and we finally land somewhere in the vicinity of native state. And this is the Know to Mystery Scale. And it's another diagnostic scale.
A thetan talks about these things. You run him on an old procedure like Opening Procedure by Duplication, and he'll fast—he'll just dish this out at you. The book that he picks up and so forth, he'd be more interested in it, he'll say, if it had some sexy pictures on it or something of the sort. But he will tip his hand that he's going on upscale.
Now, it's more important to us, however, right now, than diagnosis to know the basic scale of life. And that scale is very obvious. And knowing it, a thetan can get out of almost anything. Now, how and what is this basic scale?
Well, in a native state, a thetan actually knows everything there is to know. This is a great unfortunateness. He might not know all the particulars but he certainly knows he knows. He has a tremendous feeling of being all-wise and all-pervasive. He is on the upper harmonic of where the early Indian religious philosophies took people. See, that's the lower harmonic. You might say the apathy of total knowingness would be nirvana. Well, now, he actually does get up—a thetan does get up to a point of total knowingness and it's unbearable. Of course, if he'd had no compulsion to get in the game at all, he wouldn't consider it unbearable. But he normally does.
There isn't anybody more unhappy than some chap who knows all there is to know about the ibexes pluris of the Upper Scandhoovian Yalps. And he knows all there is to know about this and there's nobody in the world even vaguely approximates his knowledge of this particular subject and he just goes into apathy about the whole thing. He's an authority, you might say, and he never even authoritates anymore. He's an "only one" on a knowingness basis. There is no rivalry. He knows everything everybody else would do on the subject and what the ibexes would do and he just knows all there is. He'd have to go and find something more to study, and that's what a thetan does. Well, in order to have something more to study, he has to go through an interesting mental piece of gymnastics. He has to say he doesn't know.
So, you don't have a postulate in native state really. There is no postulate. The fellow just knows all about it, that's all. Everybody kind of knows that he knows all about it all the time. And then he gets so smeared in and he's had enough counter-postulates, you might say, around him that after a while he merely has the idea that he knows it all and he doesn't know a thing. I've known some of the most stupid fellows that had the most terrific idea of their own knowledge of a particular subject, it's really flabbergasting. That's a complete inversion on that total knowingness. They actually are in a tremendous not-know. All right.
What does a thetan do to get out of this uncomfortably inactive state? He just knows all there is, there's nothing to do, there's time—all these things are gone away. What's he do? He says he doesn't know. And that's a lie. And that's—see, he says, "I don't know." He knows all about that window. He says, "I don't know." Not-know the window. Now, if you run just straight not-know, you get one of the most fascinating of phenomena. It is a very wonderful process. I'll talk to you about it some other time. But whole walls start disappearing and buildings and people and everything else. I mean, he really starts knocking these things out because they are something to know. They're invented knowingnesses, you see. And as he runs not-know he starts going back up toward total knowingness, he starts repostulating his original lie and starts to return to a level of knowingness.
Well, there's nothing wrong with that process, that's a wonderful process. In final analysis, that's all the process there is. If you want to get out of an energy

mass, all you have to do is not-know the mass and you're gone. That's all. I mean, just not-know the mass and that's that. There is no further argument about it. But it sure does take the thetan out of the game.
When a thetan "dies," heh, (quote, unquote)—when a thetan dies, he goes through this beautiful game of hanging around long enough to see who sent the flowers, and says, "Aw, I knew he was a cheap dog all the time." Shoves off in disgust.
But when he dies or goes through this game action, actually, he goes through a not-knowing process, taking no further responsibility for it. You see, basically, a thetan has really no responsibility for anything anyhow. I mean, he doesn't have to have. There isn't any reason he has to stay in there and work that brass pump. And he says, "I'm no longer responsible for anything that goes on. I not-know everything." And by the time he's a couple of thousand yards from the body, he'd say, "What past life? What past life?" He just gets rid of all of these energy masses. Sometimes he doesn't do a good job. And we get him on the couch and we're busy auditing him, you know, and we're going along just fine and all of a sudden he says, "Well, everything is okay except this spear."
You say, "What spear?"
"The spear that's halfway through my chest."
Well, he's been living in London, they don't use spears in London; they use spits, they use various other things but not spears.
And you say, "What does this spear look like?"
And he says, "Well, it has feathers on it and—of course it isn't so much the spear as it is these three Zulus who are leaping up and down."
Well, the fellow got killed in the Transvaal War and there he is. And he's still got an old picture of some of the action that took place. Well, he pulled that in probably because he didn't have enough game in this life and he uses this old picture. So here he is with a remnant of some past life—he didn't not-know it.
You can actually, in this life, if you watch his havingness very closely and pay very close attention to his havingness, simply have him not-know that facsimile and it'll go flip, and that's that. But, remember, when he not-knows things, he doesn't have the game anymore. So we have to go downstairs into the next series of postulates on this scale. And here, then, he can still have his game and he can still practice getting stuck to things.
Now, this is a rather funny-looking scale. It's a rather odd-looking scale because know everything—not-know has a second harmonic below in knowing: remember and then forget. And forget is the lower harmonic on not-know, you see?
Now, that is simply a branch of mental activity. That really isn't the scale. That is not the action scale. And we were—we were a little bit pulled sideways by that fascination old-time psychotherapy had for remembering things and so forth. So, we don't care about that anymore. There is actually—the scale itself went this way: Know, Not-know, Interest, Curious. Now, Interest and Curious are quite amazing, because they are not quite the same thing. Curious is sort of a phenomenon of "wanting to get in there too." You know?
Now, we had an old scale that used to go Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit as various phenomena. Well, that scale still obtains, but we find out something very interesting: that the Not-know, Curious step now goes down into a great many other factors. But I'm not even going to bother to enumerate them because they're not important. The thetan will interpret all of them in terms of either interest or curiosity.
He thinks the idea of curiosity is morbid doubt but—something of that sort—but doubt, suspicion, even the faint lines of "not quite sure about," and so on, all of these gradients are found on this scale that goes from Know, Not-know, Interest, Curious and then we go down into other manifestations and



gradients of Curious. And that is the scale of stuckness. And it matches right in there against the emotional scale, which I first mentioned to you.
So we actually pick up, as mechanisms of curiousness, all of those mental, emotional reactions which make up complexities of personality and stick-to-ivity of engrams.
Now, the key objective process on this would be—actually the basic process out of which other processes come is simply "Become curious about that." Now, don't call it by name. Don't say, "Become curious about that chair," don't do that. Because now he has to not-know not only that it is a chair but that you said it was. So, you just say, "Become curious about that." And you don't name it, you present it, you indicate it. And in this wise he then is able, selectively, to not-know what he knows about it, in some little vague way, without making it vanish.
Now, if he just not-knew it, it would go. And that would be the end of that, and that would be the end of his havingness. So we play this whole thing just below. Now, understand, it's a much slower process—you can—than not-knowing. You can free the thetan out of everything and anything in all directions with not-know, but it spoils his game. Spoils his game. So by playing it on this little lower harmonic, we get into this interesting mechanism of being curious about. So you tell him, "Become curious about that," and indicate the object. You just point to it. All right. He's practicing becoming curious. Now, that is what the process is.
Now remember, we don't run things out, we run them in. We're not trying to get rid of all of the havingness in the bank. We're trying to get him to tolerate havingness. We're not trying to get rid of all of the bad times he has had in the last 76 trillion years, we're trying to get him to tolerate bad times. We're not trying to get rid of all the motion there is in that bank and, believe me, there's plenty. You start having him move facsimiles around, have facsimiles flip-flop and so forth, and your boy is liable to do some interesting flip-flops himself. But we're not trying to run out things, we are trying to get him to create them and tolerate them. And as a result, we have case wins. When you have case loses, the individual was running out a bunch of stuff and not telling you. So, we're not really trying to run out the universe or run out his whole bank or run out anything. All we're doing is we're going to give him practice in being curious.
Now, what passes for curiosity? The puzzlement of deep despair is usually what you eventually get your preclear up to that he thinks of as curiosity. Now, this is why problems are effective, because it runs curiosity. Thetan wants to get stuck to a particle, he pretends he can't see it. Now on a very tiny particle this is very easy, very simple—oh, that's delightfully simple. To get stuck to particles of air would be the easiest thing a thetan could do. He would simply become curious about what they were or if they existed. In view of the fact he's already had a hand in making them, his being curious about them is pure balderdash. But in order to have a game, he has to be. If you ask him to not-know air, he would. And that would be the end of that game, do you see?
But in order to keep him in contact with air and keep him still breathing, which some people consider important, you have him be curious about that or these things floating around. Anything you like. But you have him practice becoming curious. And he eventually gets to a point of where he can become curious. But, you'll find it running out of his bank like mad, you'll find valences and everything else stripping away in all directions. Eventually, it simply goes up to a mild interest.
You understand there is no real punishment or consequence of being stuck to energy. In the first place, energy doesn't exist. To be stuck to it is quite a trick. To have a mass there, to actually feel that nice mass which doesn't exist

and which a fellow put there in the first place because he knew everything about it and then to get stuck to it in the bargain, oh, man, this takes a genius.
People go around saying, "What a victim I am," you know, "I'm stuck to all this." What he's done is really forgotten all of the ways and means by which he got stuck to it. And the truth of the matter is, he does get unhappy about it in one lifetime. At the end of that lifetime, he'll get rid of it all. But in that one lifetime, he's—finds that dragging around a crippled leg—he's forgotten the game it fitted in. Well, that's his puzzlement. It wasn't sympathy which did the transfer of a psychosomatic from one person to the other. It is simply "curious about."
Now, you as an auditor becoming curious about cases, which you do and so forth, have only one liability: If your curiosity about cases is conscious, there's no liability at all but if your curiosity about cases is obsessive, that is to say, unknowing games condition, curiosity about cases, you're sunk. You'll just never get audited out of it until you finally kick the bucket. You get the idea?
In other words, as long as games conditions are unknowing, a thetan can be trapped by them. And when games conditions are knowing, however, you can play in any game you want to play. And a game is no fun unless you know what—the game you are playing, remember that.
So we have this as the most important of all scales and the most recent scale. It's actually so obvious and so evident—problems, sensation about having problems, things like this—all of those things belong on this scale. And you'll find out it's very, very useful in auditing.
Thank you.


I'm going to talk to you now about confusion and stable data. And these are extremely important things in the mind, in the world, in the pc and in the auditor.
To give you some idea right here at the beginning, what would you consider an auditor was? Why doesn't self-auditing produce the results it should produce? What is an auditor?
An auditor, basically, first and foremost to the preclear, is a stable datum. If in the entire world there was no one to give anyone assistance with the mind, then the confusion of the mind would be much greater, you see. Just the fact that somebody exists that can give you a hand is in itself a settling influence. Why? Because the world is confusion. The mind itself is confusion. One might even say unconsciousness takes place because of an effort to escape confusion. A person has problems in order to wake himself up and in order to make some sense out of the confusion.
The first thing a person does in a confusion is wonder what kind of a problem it is, if he wants to get out of the confusion. "What are they doing to me?" he will ask. "What is going on here?"
Person wakes up out of unconsciousness, his time-honored remark—and by the way, this is factual, I have attended many an ambulance entrance case and have many reports on them—they always ask, "Where am I?" See, their first statement is a problem. But by articulating the problem they to some degree as-is the confusion.
Now, the person coming out of unconsciousness says, "Where am I?" and then discovers by being told or observing it that he is in a hospital. Now, that is less confusing, then, to him and he'll want to know what hospital and then he will recognize what hospital, and he becomes much less confused. Now, how is this? How does this exactly work out?
Is it that the confusion itself disappears? No. No. A first and most basic mechanism of this is the matter of traffic. If you are in a large stream of traffic at Forty-second and Broadway or Piccadilly Circus and you want to cross the street, those flying particles, as they dash hither and thither, so on, can look pretty confusing to you.
Why don't they look that confusing when you're sitting at the wheel of a car? Because you have a nice, thick car around you? No. As a matter of fact, it's much harder to move a car through a confusion like that than it is to walk through one. But you are a stable datum. The car you are in is motionless and all the other traffic is moving. And if you're not in a car, then all cars are



17 AUGUST 1956
moving, you see. So just by the process of halting, anchoring, noticing, making immobile one car, the confusion tends to be less.
You can notice this in many fields. You see, most of the tests which you make here on Earth are made in rooms, therefore, they are not quite as forceful as tests as they might be. If we were to throw up a bunch of scrap paper in the middle of a room, we would really not get the same reaction that we would get if we were to throw up a bunch of scrap paper in the middle of some vast, unlimited space where nothing was motionless, because you see these walls are motionless. And as you conduct the test, the fellow feels perfectly safe because he has a floor, a ceiling and four walls all of which are motionless. And he then holds on to these as motionless and sees this bunch of scrap paper circulating around in the middle of the room as being of not any great importance.
Well, you would be amazed what would happen to an individual who has no walls and has no floor or ceiling and has nothing but space on every hand and has a great deal of scrap paper thrown up in his immediate vicinity. There is no stability anywhere. And does he confuse in a hurry. He really does. Would be most remarkable.
You get out amidst a heavy chop at sea and—where you're not motionless and neither is the sea—and you feel awfully confused. As a matter of fact, people don't live long, usually, just tossed into the ocean. Chop might only be two or three feet tall but it just swallows them up.
What they succumb to, really, is confusion. Now, if they get out in a fairly large boat, you see, they have stability. But why is that stability? It really isn't the mass, it's the motionlessness of the boat or ship in relationship to the waves.
Now, we take and put them out there in a little rowboat, well, this is a little bit better than simply being out there themselves, and those waves don't look quite so confused. But it's confusing enough, let me assure you, to be at sea in an open boat.
Now, if an individual—if an individual has no motionless particle, he himself confuses! Why? Because he Q-and-As, he duplicates what he is looking at. A thetan can be what he can see, he can see what he can be. He looks at this, there's nothing but confusion there, therefore he can be but—in nothing but motion. And a thetan can't be in motion, not very well. He doesn't like this.
Now, there's a way of defeating this. It's a trick and nothing but a trick, really. A trick, however, which goes a considerable distance: We look at one piece of paper and we say, "All pieces of paper are moving in relationship to that one piece of paper."
Have you any idea how many motions are taking place here on the planet Earth at this moment? There are eight separate motions. One of them is a thousand miles an hour—the commonest one which you know is of course the polar rotation. It rotates around its axis and is going at the rate of twenty-four hours there to the rather astonishing distance of twenty-five thousand miles. That means a thousand miles an hour. Now, that's the first action that would leap to mind the moment you were told that Earth was in motion. Right?
All right. There it goes. You're going a thousand miles an hour right this minute. And you start thinking about that and it gets rather dizzying. You just don't like that.
Now in addition to going a thousand miles an hour just in one direction, you are going in eight other directions simultaneously. There are eight separate motions taking place in all. (I should say seven more, in addition to the rotation.)
All right, you see this now? That's very confusing. But why doesn't it seem confusing? Because you have a stable datum called Earth. And you are standing right on it, you're sitting on it and it is apparently motionless. Now get this apparency of motionlessness. It's just apparent, you see, that it's motionless. So

that if you at any time can say to yourself, "Well, that piece is not moving," you say, "(sigh) What a relief."
You look up at the sky—if you were to expose a camera toward the North Pole and let it sit there all night, you would see nothing but a swirl of stars. There isn't a single star up there would remain in position the night through. They would turn in a complete circle, as well as go in other directions.
The North Pole, on which sailors rely so pathetically, every 12,500 years shifts so far as to be the star Vega, which is a considerable distance from Polaris. Polaris is not really even the North Pole—the polar star.
Quite amazing. I mean, here's all this action—you don't notice it. Why don't you notice it? Because you have Earth as a stable datum. You got that? That's all you really need to know.
Let's apply that. Let's apply that. Girl is an operator at a switchboard, and every now and then we notice she's in a terrible flap. She's very nervous. Calls come in, they hit that board, wham, wham, wham, wham. How would you, in just two seconds, straighten her out on her job?
One of the ways you could do it is simply call to her attention that she did have a stable datum in front of her, which was the actual mass of the switchboard. But this is not liable to do it. You have to give her a system. You have to say, "Whatever other calls do, you always answer trunk line 1 first. And whatever of the offices ring, always answer the boss's first. Now, those you pay attention to." She'll settle down on her job.
She'll say, "Well, that isn't important because the—trunk line 1 and the boss haven't rung. There are only twelve calls coming through here at once." So she'll just take the nearest one to the boss and plug it in. And after that you will notice that she works rather calmly. Don't you see?
Now, she might not be at once anxious to buy your idea of what a stable datum was, but you can find something there that she does always that she can hold as a stable datum and after that her job won't confuse her. See?
Now, if we were to take a government and set up at the head of this government one man, it would almost be a confession that there was a great deal of confusion around. A democracy cannot really thrive well in a tremendous confusion. Therefore in wartime we get all sorts of sudden appointments to be the absolute control of the Mediterranean theater and all this sort of thing, you know? Democracy does not function well in a tremendous confusion because its comm lines are not fast enough, but more important than that, because there isn't an immediately apparent stable datum.
One says, "The government," but then that's a sort of a floppy thing. It's not very precise. So we take a government that appoints or elects a dictator as its sole governing body. You know, only the dictator. You know, like way back when we had a fellow by the name of Mussolini. And it's quite amusing to note that somebody who is applying for a passport in Sicily would ask a Sicilian government employee whether or not he could have that renewed, he would have to wait till tomorrow. Why? A call actually had to go through to Rome, and come back as an authorization. Nothing could be put on a grooved line at all.
And when Mussolini was pulled out from under, the military government which went into Italy and tried to put it back together again had a dreadful time. The only people to hand who could occupy any position at all were Fascists. And these people were incapable of acting without consulting Rome, and Mussolini had gone long since. So we had a tremendous confusion. Therefore, it wasn't that Mussolini created the confusion, but there must have been a tremendous confusion in existence and he came in and occupied as a single stable datum. Don't you see how this would work? So everybody would be



17 AUGUST 1956
fairly calm under this, but if anything happened to that stable datum, then they'd be upset.
Now, quite normally your preclear's whole life has been disturbed by the disarrangement of one such stable datum. Let's say stable datum in this case, let us say, was Mother. Wherever Father went, whatever he did, Mother was always to hand, see. And we find then an effort to relieve Mother's valence on the case. Mother was nuts, see, and we're going to split this one off. Oh yes? There isn't any other stable datum on the whole case like Mother. So every time we try to separate Mother the case gets foggy and confused.
Now, a case getting foggy or boiling off or doing anything else is, in its finest, thinnest analysis, is simply getting into an area of confusion. And that is the source of all of these odd manifestations. The case feels stupid. The case feels that he's going to be overwhelmed at any moment and so forth—you're just getting into confusing areas. There are various ways to relieve this. One of the ways of relieving it is to take the confusion itself under control. Well, we'll talk about that in a moment. You see what, then, one person could be to the case—stable datum for all the confusion.
Goes broke, he can always wire Mother and get a loan. Mother is the one answer. So you have a solution in this life, see, which is Mother. Now, you disturb Mother, you get the confusion for which Mother is a solution, see?
So if you want to shake confusion into existence on a case, it is only necessary to tap, discredit or knock out one stable datum. This is quite amusing. I mean, we, all of us, suffer from this from time to time. Preclear goes home, feels good, conies back to the next session in horrible shape.
Now, well, you say, "Well, how could anybody be invalidated that fast?" But we make a mistake. We say, "How could the preclear be invalidated that fast?" That is not the correct thing. The preclear isn't going to tell us; the person who was invalidated was the auditor. He went home to an invalidation of the auditor. The preclear has Scientology and an auditor as his stable data. The most prominent one, of course, is the mass one—the auditor. The auditor has mass.
Now the preclear comes back in a spin. What was said about the auditor? Not what was said to the preclear. You got that? In other words, the auditor has been shaken. Now, we'll see that time and time again. Always remember that that is what happened if the person was really shaken, although the preclear will not tell us.
Similarly, it has been utterly impossible for various fields which are bigheaded enough to believe they're competitive to Scientology to shake Scientology as a stable datum by, for instance, trying to shake me out of the picture as a stable datum, you see? They think up the most incredible things. As a matter of fact, I just received a bunch of affidavits from the States of statements made by a couple of rather discredited—the professions, medical and psychiatric and so forth—to people who would have investigated Scientology. And they didn't have anything to do with Scientology. They just had to do with me and all of my "horrible misconducts." Well, now, in view of the fact the hardest thing in the world to do is to as-is or knock out of existence your own horrible misconducts—particularly when they didn't exist.
You see, you can always—you can always prove yourself guilty—there's always evidence for that. But there's no evidence for not guilty. That's one of the most fascinating enigmas of law.
According to them, why, I eat small children and I'm at this moment somewhere in Alaska in an insane asylum in their own personal Siberia and they—you know, it just goes on and on and on. It's actually incredible what they will think up in order to make this invalidative.

Well, why don't they work on Scientology? I mean, there's something to be worked on there. They could be tested, it can be harangued at and so on, but they don't do it. They take the only mass object that they themselves can spot and then they start to shake that up. Of course this is a very dangerous thing for an organization to do.
Now, remember that it's very dangerous for your preclear's enemy at home to shake you up as an auditor. Remember that if a preclear was badly invalidated, really what happened was the auditor was knocked out as a stable datum. Now, that's a very dangerous thing to do the moment you know that.
You can start running something like, "An enemy of comparable magnitude to your sister." The next thing you know, the fellow realizes he's been had. He's now your friend. The other person has lost. Don't you see that?
For instance, for an organization to begin on this campaign—which is a pack of lies, you see—this campaign would be then eventually an invalidation of the organization who would deal in such things, don't you see? They have just nonchalantly put their throats out and even begged somebody to cut them, without us ever doing a thing about it.
Because this happens continually: Somebody comes in and sees me—I'm around—shakes me by the hand and looks at me. And I just notice them sometimes look at me rather peculiarly, if they're in the professions or something like that. And they look at me and he says, "It's quite interesting. This—you know—" (kind of nudge the fellow next to them), "you know, this guy isn't nuts. Somebody is wrong around here!"
Then the next thing you know, why, these chaps are all for us and if anybody would do anything this desperate on the other side, then they mustn't be any good at all, and we haven't even proven whether Scientology was any good or not, see?
It's never, then, been subjected to a contest of facts. It's a contest of stable data. Got that? Stable data, then I'm—only reason I'm talking about this is to give you a level of comparison: Stable data is much more valuable than a line of logic. Just get that, because that's quite a lot to say, see.
You could reason somebody into something, perhaps. But what if they were in a confusion? A confusion is stupidity—not-knowingness of where or when. That is stupidity, definition of. All right. Not knowing where it was, not knowing what it was, well, you could go ahead and explain to them at long length and show them evidences and do all sorts of things, when as a matter of fact, if you just repeated the same thing over and over, they would eventually have a feeling that you had impressed them logically. If you keep saying to them, for instance, "Well, there's cornflakes."
And they say, "Yappety-yappety-yappety-yappety-yap," and fly all around and confuse, confusion, confusion.
You say, "But that's one thing you can't get around—cornflakes."
And they go, "Yappety-yappety-yap," and fly all around.
And you finally wind up and you say, "Well, you're absolutely right and that's totally correct. However, cornflakes."
They'll go off and they will tell people that you are the most hardheaded logical person they have ever talked to. Because there is something senior to logic and that is a stable datum. And that is always senior to logic.
If you begin on any type of campaign of any description, for heaven's sakes, remember, if you want to be successful in this campaign, is to make it, build it on the basis of a stable datum. Say one thing and say it often.
Of course, advertising has fallen into this a long time ago, but they don't quite know why. And they skid on it. They skid rather badly. They fool around, they change this and that. The reason they do it is they think that people remember



17 AUGUST 1956
one thing, people are only capable of remembering one thing. But by saying one thing over and over and over, they put a stable datum into the society and somebody coming down the street and just looking at their signboard has a little feeling of relief. (sigh) It says, "Bread loves Stork Margarine," you know? "Well, everything is right in the world," this person sort of thinks to himself, you know? That's why men wear the same types of clothes at any given period, and why women wear clothes always different from any other woman's clothes all the time.
Well, where you have—where you have a repetition, something of that sort, you get an idea of a stable datum. And where you have an irregularity one fact to another fact, as in logic—you know, logic is merely a parade, a gradient scale of facts, each one of which seems to march on to another fact which is almost itself, but not quite. And that is logic.
And as we look along the line of confusion and stable datum, we find then that a uniform body of men presented in battle order—very, very orderly, all alike, so on—brings out this odd manifestation: that one of them, all by himself, then, at close grips with the enemy and so forth, actually represents himself to be the whole company.
It's quite amazing. Now, a body of irregular troops might each one be terribly competent, and that body of irregulars might be fabulous in fighting a war or something of the sort, but they lose more often than they win merely because they do not overwhelm the enemy with a similarity or a stable datum, you might say. The enemy can always point to them as ragtag and bobtail and confused and not knowing what they're doing, you see. And therefore the battle does not get won before it is fought. And that's one of the things you must know about war: Never fight a war to win it. Win it, and then fight it if you want to. Always win it first.
And one of the ways you do this, one of the ways you would win this first is simply put up the most convincing stable datum, you see, and put it up the most regularly and never permit a confusion to exist on your side or in your mind.
Somebody starts overwhelming you with all manner of terminology that you don't understand and so forth, for heaven's sakes, pick up something out of your kit that sounds utterly, preposterously impressive, you see, and just go on with cornflakes, you see? And you'll make a bigger impression, actually.
Now this comes down to solve a great many of our interesting problems. Why is it almost impossible to take someone out of chiropracty and make a Scientologist out of him? It's an interesting question, since it's been with us for years. It's very simple: Chiropracty was a stable datum. Every time he has a stable datum, there was a confusion. So we discover that the individual, then, adopted chiropracty because of an existing confusion. And he, every time you ask him to let go of chiropracty, of course, gets the confusion back in his bank. In other words, his bank confuses all over again every time you say, "Give up chiropracty. Why don't you stop cracking spines and start auditing them?"—something on this order.
And he gets upset with you and tries to persuade you that cracking spines is much better. Well, cracking spines might be just fine, might be nothing wrong with this whatsoever, but measured one to the other, why, we do more fastest— mostest fastest.
Why does he hang on to it? And what would you do? It's just a confusion. Chiropracty was a stable datum for a certain specified confusion which existed in his life. So what would you have him do?
There's one rule in auditing this, and this is the best rule to follow in any case of confusion. You can do this for any datum, even any datum or basic law or rule in Scientology: "Mock up the confusion for which chiropracty is a stable datum." Never pay any more attention to chiropracty, he'll just confuse if you do. "Now just mock up the confusion for which chiropracty is a stable datum." Just

keep him doing this, you know, over and over. Move the thing around. Make it more confused. Do something with it to have him take under control that particular confusion and all of a sudden he'll say, "Well, I know Scientology works better than chiropracty." You've been trying to convince him of that for a long time. But every time you made him try to let go of it, he got the confusion back.
Now, similarly the idea, for instance, of location originally existed—stable location—of course, to as-is unstable locations. The whole idea of needing or being on a planet is brought about because it's better to be on a planet than drifting around in a lot of invisible particles that keep batting you one, you see.
And so you could say, "Mock up the confusion for which a planet is a stable datum," and you'll probably have the fellow rising quietly off the floor and sticking against the ceiling before much more time happens.
So any idea, no matter what kind of an idea, is of course as-isable or removable from a case as long as—and just always that wording—"Mock up the confusion for which (blank) is a stable datum."
We get Mother out of the case by saying, "Mock up a confusion, now, for which your mother is a stable datum."
And we just keep at it and keep at it and keep at it and all of a sudden, the person doesn't care whether Mother is there or not. Of course, in some cases he has to mock up his whole life and it takes some doing. Takes some doing. Running extroversion—introversion, why, twenty-five hours later you're still running "Mock up a confusion," along with Havingness and along with other processes, for which Mother is a stable datum.
But there is—there is one of the more visible processes of Scientology. It, of course, depends on the fact that a person's tolerance of the confusion must be low. And you have to raise his tolerance of confusion. And by having him mock up confusions, he of course, raises his tolerance of confusion and therefore it's a very, very simple thing to handle confusion in a case with just that one command: "Mock up a confusion for which Mother would be a stable datum"—chiropractor, or anything else you think up.
Thank you.


Thank you.
Want to talk to you now about chronic somatics.
In the first place, chronic somatics form the chronic complaint of most people. Most people are reduced to the basic game of an ache or pain. And as a result, we are all too often led astray, as auditors, to think that it is utterly and absolutely vitally necessary to at once eradicate the chronic somatic of the preclear. When I tell you that it's the last game he's got, you should understand that by ridding this fellow of his difficulty as your first and foremost action would land you in difficulty. Why? He would complain. He was going around with a bad leg and you cured his leg and he didn't like you anymore.
The only reason the American Medical Association has had to legislate itself into existence is because early in its career it did adopt and continue to maintain a few therapeutic actions. And maintaining these early therapeutic actions it, of course, made many, many enemies—it kept curing people. It was a dangerous thing to do.
By giving people only the additional problem of an outrageous bill, they took away their chronic difficulty and so fell into disrepute and had to go around and bribe legislatures. (I don't say they bribed legislatures, this is a—this is a wide statement, this is one of my wild statements.) (laughter) They said they wouldn't operate on their families or do anything for them anymore unless they
passed legis see, that's not bribery, that's coercion—unless they passed
legislation giving a total monopoly to a group on this.
Why would they become anxious? Actually, the relations between a doctor and a patient are usually good, we think. Why then should a profession of people, uniformly liked by the public, have to bring into being forceful and brutal laws which contained in them provisions of imprisonment in order to maintain their monopoly?
By that I can tell you then that a healing profession is a dangerous one. A profession which is a healing profession only is too dangerous to be touched. Why? It takes away the last couple of games the fellow has. When the man is sick, he is so short on games already that he is willing to kill himself to have something to do. He is. And if you were then specializing in making him well and only specializing in making him well, and not taking care of the mental difficulties which brought on this condition of illness, you would be in a dangerous situation which would, of course, force you at length to go to the legislature or the parliament and pass a number of laws. See?



It should be very obvious to you. You look over a preclear, you'll see these phenomena. They are very common to us now. Therefore, an auditor who thinks he can go out and practice healing is an auditor who's going to go out and fall on his face. So we don't practice healing; we practice able-izing.
Now, we may get a preclear to come in who comes in as a dare. He never came in to get healed, he came in to dare you. And you can't—"Look what they've done to me," he wanted you to know.
Now, if you simply put up a sign and said, "I view illnesses and difficulties," a lot of people would simply walk through and talk to you and go away and feel immeasurably better, twice as sick. See, they'd feel very good about this. You charge them—charge them a few pence a visit, you know, and just let them come in and show you for a couple of minutes.
Well, now, actually, it's not even funny because a little child will bark his knuckles or stub his toe or something and it's almost—you can almost see him plot the whole thing out. He barks his knuckles and like a small rocket heads immediately for Mom and says, "See?"
And Mama says, "Oh, that's nice. Mama will kiss it and make it well." And Mama does and that's the end of that game.
The funny part of it is, if he plays that game convincingly, if he's convinced he is playing a game that Mama will give him attention and that it is interesting and so forth, child will get over doing this. And actually the speed with which they heal up a bump or a bruise which is appropriately noted by both parents is quite remarkable, unless they are so short of games they keep it around to be noted tomorrow. But a child who is neglected is a child who will be hurt. And a child who is getting an adequate amount of attention doesn't ever get hurt. Isn't that odd?
You want to know what an accident-prone is, accident-prone is somebody who has generated a no-attention mechanism of one kind or another. He generates confusion so that people can't put their attention on things and so people get hurt. Now just look at that and open that up from the other remark and you more or less see what this whole business about chronic somatics is all about.
So people get sick—so what? It's not even important. That's a funny thing. I know you might feel bad right this minute while you're listening to this, but it's really not even a statement which is worth troubling yourself about. But I'll tell you the statement that is. You see, you can say, "People get sick, so what?" That's just a statement, see. It's of no importance, no particular value. But "People run out of games—good lord!" You get the difference here, see?
So when you see this fellow going down the street on crutches, you should ask yourself, "Why didn't he patch it up?" You can say he's weak, you can say he didn't have a chance, he didn't know how. Maybe all these things are true. But then he comes along to you, a Scientologist, that certainly have weapons and tools of great magnitude to do things like this, and you start to work with him and it doesn't get well. And about the time that happens, you should ask yourself, "What's going on here?" And when you do get him off of those crutches, he then becomes angry with you. You should ask yourself, "What's going on here?"
When he's going down the street on crutches, that man is short of games. So just remember these two statements: "So they're sick, so what." (Sounds hard-boiled, doesn't it? But it's very factual.) "So they're short on games—good lord." That's important.
You see—I'll give you one of the reasons why he's sick. It is a valence or a mock-up that gives him a no-effect condition so that he can render effect on others. Got that?
Have you ever seen very many people beating up cripples? It's frowned on, isn't it? Well, if it wasn't frowned on, if cripples were the thing you beat up,

you'd have no more cripples. You can't really appreciate this till you get hold of a cripple and you really process him on this: "Now mock up an identity that would cope with it all."
And he says, "Oh, a fellow with a broken neck."
You say, "(Now, wait a minute. What goes on here?) All right. Mock up another identity that would cope with it all."
"Oh, um—a fellow without arms or legs."
Just remember what you're looking at: no effect for self, effect for others is a game condition.
When the society doesn't beat up fellows who have bat ears, a lot of people are going to grow bat ears. Got the idea? When it's against the mores of the society to do something bad to somebody who is in some kind of a condition, then that becomes a no-effect condition and so will be adopted by an individual who is not necessarily defeated, but who is short of games. Defeat has nothing to do with it.
A defeat by the way—and this you will understand more clearly sometime when you look over defeated troops and their dramatizations. The dramatizations of defeated troops are really something wonderful to behold. They go all out. You think of your old aunt with her hypochondria, she's nothing compared to a group of defeated troops. They've lost. They refuse to lose, really. They are now playing the game called "defeated troops." And with what thoroughness they play this game. They bare their wounds and scars, they are very difficult to heal, they whine, complain and moan about this sort of thing, they go through beautiful sadness and apathy and continue on any psychosomatic condition which arose out of the retreat or the battle. It's wonderful.
You take victorious troops and you get, to some degree, the same manifestation. They're continuing the game by being wounded—some of them are wounded, and they don't heal up right away. But I think if you looked into it carefully, you'd find victorious troops who have a chance, then, of attacking again some other army, heal up rather more swiftly than people who are defeated and thrown out of it for keeps.
Now, this becomes important. Is there a corroborating datum? Is there, anywhere? Yes. People who are left in field hospitals within sight and sound of the enemy recover from their conditions and wounds a many factor multiple compared to those who are sent to the base area and the safe lines. And that is a matter of medical record. If you can just leave that fellow up there with the holes in him, up where he still hears the guns muttering and so forth, he'll either kick the bucket and get another mock-up or heal up quick. He has hopes of getting back in the battle.
Do you know that at one time it was not customary to retire wounded or sick troops? It was not customary to do anything to them at all. So the fellow was wounded and when he got so he could hobble around again, why, they sent him up to the lines.
The American Indian fighting army is a wonderful example of this. There were majors and captains and privates and sergeants in there who had been all chewed up in earlier combats. You know, it's a very funny thing—an officer without an arm? Why, today we don't think of such a thing. An officer who had his arm cut off, of course, would be retired and that would be the end of that. But there were officers without arms, officers without legs, officers with one eye, officers without teeth—soldier would lose his right hand which made it difficult to fire, you know, something like that, why, they'd put him on some other job. Got the idea? They didn't deny him the game. And you would find the incidence of chronic somatics reduced. You didn't have this sort of a condition nearly as much since the condition didn't make him safe, didn't take him out of the game,



didn't put him back in the game, didn't do anything much to it—slightly altered the condition of playing the game.
It's quite remarkable. I don't know that a man becomes an unable officer simply because he loses an arm or something like that. If they did that back in the days of the Roman legions, they just would have retired the whole legion every ten years—everybody was all scarred up. And the legion, oddly enough, never retired anybody to anywhere. They just said, "Well, there's a campaign going on, you'd better join your corps again. The eagle goes thataway." And that was about all there was to it.
Now, it should be of interest as information, and you should be alert in auditing to these factors because they are tremendously important.
Now, it is a serious thing to have an army or a society which is all wounded and collapsed. You know why it's a serious thing? Not from a standpoint of sympathy, not from a standpoint of humanity, but from a standpoint of simple economics. Every person that is kept out here in a hospital playing the beautiful game of being an invalid is a drain on your productivity, a drain on your bank account directly. These chaps drop out of the production of a society and therefore lean on the rest of us. And the end product of all this is for just thee and me to be left working and everybody else sitting there. Interesting—interesting end product, isn't it?
Well, when I tell you that 40 percent of the beds in Great Britain are occupied by insane, it gives you sort of an idea of the popularity of this game called insanity. Until the game called insanity is made no-game, it will continue to have a high incidence.
For instance, insanity should be no protection whatsoever from criminal charges. There should never be a defense or plea of insanity. It'll increase insanity. People who are not guilty of criminal charges in this life will go insane to protect themselves two lives ago. Do you understand that? And there should be no unusual punishment for the insane, no unusual punishment at all, not psychiatric treatment or anything of the sort. They should be treated as a sort of a routine thing. You go find a stockade someplace and they can go to that stockade if they want to, but they really don't have to too much. Got the idea?
Now, in times of low employment, you'll get a higher incidence of illness and insanity. The depression of the '30s was remarkable for its health factors. Everybody was very sick, everybody got sick everywhere. They were living on diets, it was said, that made them ill because there wasn't enough to eat, because there was too much food. (People had it worked out well.) And yet, on these same diets, these same people had not been unhealthy earlier. They had been put out of the game, they'd been told they couldn't work. Work is one of the primary games, it's a stable datum of our modern times: You can work, you can have a job. These people couldn't have a job.
The United Nations, by the way, has some very gorgeous charters and declarations of human rights and so forth—they're just wonderful to read. They include almost everything, but they don't include the right to create employment, they merely include the right to work.
You see the society sort of falling down on itself? It no longer includes the right to create a game. So, therefore, you get a dwindling spiral of everybody depending on the old games. And when you do this, you get a sick society, you get a society full of chronic somatics, you get a society full of insane, neurotic people. You follow that?
There's another datum that'll back this up is you know there was nobody admitted to an insane asylum during the entire Battle of Britain? You know, if insanity is caused by motion which is happening right now, then everybody in the city of London should have gone mad. Nobody did. I mean it wasn't a case of fewer

did, it was just nobody did. That was certainly enough game, wasn't it—hm? It was too darn much game, as a matter of fact. But, nobody failed or fell back or protested too much against this game, they got in there and they worked. So chronic somatics fell off also during that period. People were going down into bomb shelters and sitting there all night that if you today opened a window slightly near them, they would promptly get pneumonia. And yet they emerged from these damp bomb shelters and so on in not too bad a state of affairs.
I noticed this phenomenon early in the war myself. I had—everybody on board had a cold, there was hardly anybody who didn't have a cold and everybody was feeling very sad and draggy and worn-out and so on. And we'd been on an awful lot of long patrol work. That was very deadly. And we all of a sudden hit a contact and the next three days hit four more. We had guns going at any hour of the day or night. At the end of that period I was filling in the reports—you know, when you have anything as unimportant as a battle, why, you really lose out on the important work of the reports and things like that, you know, and puts you behind. And I was filling these out and I was—asked the pharmacist's mate for the summation of sick call—sick call log.
And he said, "I'd bring it up," he said, "but there's nobody in it."
Nobody had reported for sick call. I looked around and nobody had colds. Isn't that interesting? And yet, they obviously after four days of exposure, bad food, little sleep, bad weather, standing to their posts wet and sopping and so forth obviously should have all died of pneumonia.
So what was important here—the state of health or the state of game? That's the question I want you to ask of a preclear. Is it his state of health or state of game?
Now, I won't tell you all the ways of improving somebody's state of game. The first and foremost of course is just "Invent a game." But that's usually too rough for a preclear to run. "Lie about games," maybe that works. There will be many processes which come out from here on that remedy the scarcity of games and the various factors of games. But these processes are all aiming toward just that one thing: giving the fellow what he considers to be enough game. And when he doesn't have enough game he will, of course, get ill.
Now, in view of the fact that you have an unknowing games condition, he may not not-know, you see, that he doesn't have enough games. He may be in the—in a condition where he is saying, "Oh, there's just too much going on around here. Life is too furious." You see this manifestation all the time. Somebody tells you, "Oh, I work so hard. I just work day and night. I just can't possibly rest because I'm just—slave, slave, slave, slave, slave." Check up on him for twenty-four hours. You say, "What goes on here? The fellow's been sitting there for two hours and a half doodling—making little doodles on pieces of paper." What's going on?
Well, the fellow is protesting, actually, lack of game in the overall picture, you see. He is compulsively, aberratedly craving games that he doesn't know he's craving and couldn't line up or describe if he did know he was craving them. And therefore he protests against any game that is to hand because, you see, that game he doesn't consider playable to the level of the game that it is necessary for him to play. A man gets fixated on playing one game, now you try to get him to play another game. It might be more interesting to you, but it's not more interesting to him. And therefore he will tell you how hard he is playing your game, maybe, while he sits around and doodles. But he's really not got enough game. Now, you have a compulsive game condition.
None of this is an accusation of any person or a criticism of any person with regard to their health condition. Because the funny part of it is that the body's ideas of what is enough game are peculiar, to say the least. I said one time that



man is in his healthiest condition when he is escaping from death at least three times a day. And you'd say, "Well, that would shatter his nerves." No. It's calm that shatters his nerves. "If I get very much more of this beautiful calmness around here, I'll go mad!"
Now, actually, an individual can get into a state of mind where he can enjoy calmness. He actually can. But the route is through processing. You can process him into it. He's in compulsive games conditions he doesn't know he's in, and so he gets a half an hour to sit still and rest. He doesn't sit still and rest. He sits still and jitters as long as he's in a compulsive game condition. You have to audit him and then he can sit still and rest.
You audit him by giving him more games. You don't audit things out of people these days—please get this very clearly—you don't audit things out of people, you audit things into people. Got that?
You have him invent more games. And if he sits there and drains his bank and takes all the answers from his bank and just as-ises these things, he all of a sudden gets worse and worse and worse. He shouldn't be inventing at all, he should be lying about things right now in present time, you know? "An airplane just divebombed that chair." You can check that as an auditor—you didn't notice one. Might not seem like a lie to your preclear, but it's in the process. You understand?
He's liable to say, "Invent a game? Oh, divebombing." The fellow who—member of an ack-ack battery for lord knows how long, he just keeps stripping airplanes off of that old game.
The old game doesn't go away till you put some new there. The old mass doesn't disintegrate till you show him he can have some more mass. Got the idea? The wrong thing to do is erase the preclear.
Now, there are many sources of chronic somatics which could be plotted out and you might find amusing and so on, but in view of the fact that the chronic somatic disappears when he finds out that he can have another identity than an ill one, that he has other factors that he can do, other things he can go about... Nevertheless a source of chronic somatics have engaged a great deal of the last many years of research.
First and foremost source of a chronic somatic is valence trouble. Fellow is in somebody's valence, that person is sick. That's one place a valence really fouls somebody up. A fellow has a sick stomach, he can't get rid of it, you don't seem to be able to do anything about it—it's Father's sick stomach. You're not auditing Father. You follow me? So he's in a sick valence. Somebody else was sick and then he can't take care of it because it isn't his sickness. Many reasons he does this, one is sympathy. You know, "My poor father." Father has a bad ear or something of the sort and, wham, he's got a bad ear.
A straight recall on some of these things sometimes is quite amusing. It's the wrong way to take it apart, but you say, "Recall a time when you noticed your father bothered about his ear." A person does, and his own ear goes away. I mean, it's a real slick little trick when it works. You spot who had a bad ear and you take it away from him. It's better to ask him something on the order "What other illnesses could you have?"
The mechanical fact of a chronic somatic is that he's on a rest point someplace with a lot of motion around it. And it's better to be sick on that rest point than well in all that motion, according to him. Got it?
Therefore, of course, you always want to put your patient in a hospital which has—where he gets awakened with the lights turned on at 5:00 A.M. and then fed something and washed at 6:00 A.M. and then the floor swept at 7:30 A.M. and then doctor's call and so forth. That's the right place to put him. If you let him dramatize the security point, he very often gets over it and this is what

we know as recovery. Hospitalization, recuperation are based upon that one mechanism, practically no others. If we just let him sit down someplace and let him dramatize without interference the security point, the stop motion point, the stuck point on the track, why, he'll be very happy, for a while. It reinforces it, you know.
Another one is by postulate. You say people don't get sick by postulate. Yes, they do. "You know, I think I'll be sick today," he's sick. That's the first and foremost way people get sick, by the way.
Purpose—he wants to accomplish some particular purpose and so it happens that an illness is—fulfills that particular purpose. You can ask people for: "Give me another purpose for a bad ear." He already assumes he's given you one—he's got a bad ear. You could ask him for a few more purposes—dream up a few more purposes and he'll feel much better.
They operate as barriers. People might go too fast and stumble and fall if they didn't have artificial legs, you know. See, they operate as actual barriers. Might hit somebody if he didn't have a paralyzed arm. (This is a standard case, by the way, these are standard cases I'm talking about.) "Might hit somebody if he didn't have his whole left side paralyzed," operates as a barrier. You try to just work it out as a barrier, though, and it doesn't work out. He's got to have something else wrong with him before he can have less.
Operates as freedom: Child doesn't want to go to school, so he says, "Mama I'm sick." In other words, he can get free of something by being sick. In France they used to chop off their trigger finger so they wouldn't get drafted by little Napoleon. In other words, they'd get freed of the army by being without health. That's very common, all too common.
Then there's acceptance level: parents would only accept a sick child. So the person got into the idea of playing the game of being a sick child—age of sixty-eight is still being a sick child. What level of health is acceptable to your parents? A sick child.
And one of the better cures for this kind of a condition is to have them mock up individualities that can successfully attack—not anything in particular, but just can it successfully attack? Can attack without much liability to themselves. And they mock up nearly all of these illnesses.
And that is about all there is to chronic somatics. It isn't that we're interested in illness. We are not interested in illness particularly. Illness is only one of the phenomena of behavior and the mind. And when treated alone and as itself does not readily surrender to therapeutic agents.


Want to talk to you about not-knowingness. I've already talked to you about knowingness. It seems rather odd that we would talk about not-knowingness, except that any Scientologist knows that it's more important to be able to not-know than it is to be able to know.
Give you an example of this: Why does the patient who has fallen down in various psychotherapies come around looking for a Scientologist? Well, he really isn't doing what he should be doing. He should be trying to remember something but he really isn't doing that, he's trying to forget. And although he will obsessively sit there and maul over his memories, he has found them sufficiently painful that he thinks he needs some aid and assistance to eradicate them.
The commonest, you might say, mental handling that people do in a society is to forget something that they don't like to confront. They put that all behind them. This works so avidly that I've known people that when they did not like another human being, they would actually go so far as to forget his name, even though they knew the person well.
Now, the mechanism of the mind is actually geared in the direction of not-know, it is not geared in the direction of know. Someone is toying to overcome the painfulness of all that that happened to him by learning about it or how to handle it. That's a rather upstairs, superior attitude, quite, quite superior. The ordinary one, you will discover, is they are trying to forget all about it and everything connected with it and push it out of their minds. This is a reactive application of not-knowingness. The old-time psychotherapist would much rather brainwash somebody than put his memory back together again. Much rather cut his brain out than to give him something more to think with, you see? You'll find this trend of not-knowingness all around us.
The very good reason for this is because, essentially, it is a postulate that is made by a thetan so that he can have a game. He not-knows something so that he can, then, have a mystery, he can know about it, he can do things with it. And he is so good at not-knowingness that he not-knows at an automatic rate, probably 186,000 times a second. I mean, it's quite rapid.
The basic machinery on which he's operating is actually not-knowing the past and not-knowing the future and knowing the present and not-knowing the past and not-knowing the future and knowing the present and not-knowing the past and not-knowing the future and knowing the present. So, you'll see at once that he does twice as much not-knowing in a lifetime or in any given period of time as he does knowing. He's not-knowing all the time.



How could he see the wall unless he would not-know what it looked like a moment ago? This is an elementary question and as soon as you start to tangle with it, you tangle of course with your own machinery that is doing it, and you get hung up on the time track and start puzzling over it.
There is a direct exercise which is an outside process, whereby you take the preclear and you ask him what he wouldn't mind not-knowing about that person. When you run this process, you mean at once that the individual does know something about the person. If he not-knows what he already not-knows—see, he doesn't know the person's name, so on—he is liable to end up in a confusion.
The phrase "don't know" was the first phrase used in this and it was used successfully on exterior work. It was quite interesting that it was successful but on a subjective level it turned into a debacle, because confusion itself consists of a series of don't-knows.
What is a confusion? A confusion is a composite body of don't-knows. If you have enough don't-knowingness you're in a very interesting confusion. One of the ways to unconfuse it is to know some datum in it that you didn't know before and it ceases to be a confusion. That's quite interesting because you just have the stable datum and the confusion at work here. This is above the level of particles.
You could don't-know whether your sweetheart is being faithful and you could don't-know where they went and don't-know where they were going to go and don't-know what their constancy would be, and all of a sudden, you get a manifestation something like jealousy. It's merely a composite of these inabilities to discover. And an individual, then, in such a case finds out—this is, by the way, jealousy is one of those—one of those funny things, one of those foolish things. It's based on the contrary rules of evidence which exist in this universe. And the rules of evidence in this universe may very well be posed in somebody's constitution that the innocent shall be innocent until proven guilty.
Truth of the matter is, this universe proves somebody guilty by this mechanism: you can always find evidence of guilt. In other words, if somebody has done something, there is then evidence. But if somebody has not done something, there is no evidence. We could get the fact that he was somewhere else and have a bunch of people swear to it, but this could still be doubted. But if he's found there with blood in his hands, why, of course he did it. It's as simple as that.
So, we have this oddity that there is no such thing as negative evidence, no really such thing as negative evidence. In other words, we assume that he was not guilty, we prove that he was guilty—sort of a way the universe is overweighted in that particular direction.
Well, jealousy works like that. It's very, very easy to prove somebody unfaithful, you see, very simple to prove somebody unfaithful, but almost impossible to prove them innocent. He was gone for two and a half hours. He might say that he was out buying a newspaper but where was he? Then he says, "Well, you can ask Joe." Well, that wouldn't do any good, Joe would always lie concerning him. Don't you see how that could go on and on and on, and how it does go on and on?
Well, this is because of the rules of evidence as they exist in this universe. And therefore, they make justice a very hard thing to accomplish or establish. But justice is really something that is accomplished, it isn't something that is simply written up in a lawbook.
Now, here we have a singular case. All of these "don't-knows" have a relatively few knows that go with them. Just extend this into don't-know and not-know and know, and we find out that there can be a great many more don't-knows than know. The datum no longer exists, for instance. "Just who was it—just who was it that pulled me out of the river," or something of the sort. "It was a dark

night and the battle was waging hot and somebody grabbed me as I went into the river and pulled me out again and I'd like to say thank you. Who was it?" Well, he doesn't know who you were and you don't know who he was, and that's the end of it. So you have two don't-knows which match up and they never or rarely meet.
Life consists of an enormous number of discontinued or unfinished stories. We're always being yanked off the time track before we find out what really happened. It's unlike storybooks. It's enough to drive a man to be an author—he sits down and finishes these stories.
But if you think of the fascinating, very titillating, bits of this and that: "And she walked out of the house and slammed the door."
"Well, then what happened?"
"Well, I don't know."
You had something confided in you by a friend and he has told you that he was in a terrible amount of difficulty. He was either going to prison or he was going to be shot or something was going to happen to him and he confided this great amount of trouble to you and then went away. And a year later, we still haven't seen the man again. We don't know the end of that story. Maybe we never see him again. Did he go to prison? Did he go free?
It's very often quite disheartening to have some tremendously dramatic incident of this character which has been pointed out to us by somebody, have him turn up three, four, five months, and say, "Oh, well, that all worked out." And he just dismisses it. He's had us on edge.
This is the way life runs, not the way storybooks run. If you wrote a storybook the way life runs, you would write half of the first chapter and then skip that chapter, change to a new set of characters and begin another chapter. But you wouldn't begin this new chapter, you would have it going on—it had gone on for some time at the moment you entered it and it would contain an— large number of factors that were never explained in that chapter at all. That chapter ends with a question mark. The next one we just leave blank. And that's because there can be so many more don't-knows than there can knows. Why? Well, just from that basic fact: there are just twice as many not-knows as there are knows. And thetans sit around inventing things to know about and then forget what they were supposed to know about them, and that becomes very puzzling too.
Now, one of the more powerful processes which work on this don't-know-know basis is one you've probably never heard of before, but this is an interesting process; it has to do with this—just running problems.
See, the basic problem is a don't-know. And if you get the individual figuring out what he is going to do about it, if you can get him to feel, in this problem he has invented, the don't-know, you see, he's—"Can you figure out if that would really be a problem? Could you get yourself really figuring on that?" You have to ask him to do that, because that puts the don't-know in it. And it's very tricky, but you're just injecting not-knowingness into the bank. You're taking not-know off of automatic and putting it on to a self-determined effort when you are running problems. (I was joking. You have heard about this, problems, but maybe you never looked at it exactly in that light.)
Now, there's another one which is a little bit different; it's curiosity. And you just say, "What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it? What is it?" Naturally the fellow goes on with a curiosity, curiosity, curiosity, merely which—it just sums up to a whole series of don't-knows, you see. And you're making him on a lower harmonic run not-know. See, they belong—all these processes belong on this same scale. All right.



We take this fellow out here and we have him look at another human being and we ask him this question, "Tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that person."
Now, he says, "I—I—I wouldn't mind not-knowing his name."
That is not the correct answer. The correct answer is—the fellow has a yellow topcoat on with a pink collar, or something of the sort, and an orange hat. And he says, "I wouldn't mind not-knowing the pink collar." It has to be something that is there that he can not-know. Follow me?
Well, it's quite amazing when you start off on this line of action, working it on a gradient scale, asking him every now and then to "Look around the environment and tell me something here that you could have," which repairs his havingness. You understand that if everything is more or less based on not-knowingness, you start running much not-knowingness, your havingness starts down. Now, not only does it start down, but whole objects start disappearing.
You would be a very bad auditor if you did what almost every auditor does the first time this happens to him: the pink collar disappears. And the fellow says, "It's gone."
And you say, "It—it went?"
And he says, "Yes."
And you—"Well, what else wouldn't you mind not-knowing? Well, take that woman over there in the purple chemise. What wouldn't you mind not-knowing about her?" you know.
He says, "Well, the purple chemise—she's gone!"
"You mean the whole person is gone? What's the matter? Isn't she still there? Can't you see her?"
Auditors have been very upset by this. Because the next thing you know, people, buildings, much less clothing and ornaments, just start to disappear at a mad rate. And if you keep on running the process, you recover in the preclear the ability to simply not-know the whole universe—boom. Then he has to postulate that he knows it in order to see it again. Now, it doesn't disappear for you, so why should you worry?
Probably the classic blunder of all of this was running this subjectively. It's not a good subjective process at all, it's a very poor one. It just eats up things like mad. But a preclear was running this subjectively and said, "Ha! What do you know? I did. The data which I—I—I don't even—I can't even tell you about it now. It's gone!" And the auditor obligingly told him what the data was. Hate to tell you who the auditor was and who the preclear was. Anyhow. It was pretty wild. It was very upsetting. Not-knowingness didn't work on this preclear for about twelve sessions. He was very upset.
He should have been taken out and given not-knowingness as an exterior drill, which is where it belongs. It belongs outside and it belongs on objects and it should be accompanied with the—something like the basic Trio command "Look around here and tell me something you could have." And you'll find that it's quite workable.
Well, now, its workability is at first an automaticity, and gradually this automaticity gets under control. But very many peculiar visual phenomena turn on, very many. And amongst the first and foremost of these, your preclear is liable to discover something about this universe, and there is something to discover about this universe.
This universe does not happen to consist of a number of well-lit objects. This universe consists of enormous amount of space, most of which has very little if any light in it at all. This is a black universe. It's a terrifying fact, by the way, when you first start to run this on a preclear. You run Solids in this

fashion: you turn off the light, draw the blinds, darken up the room and you say, "Okay. Make that wall over there in front of you solid."
He can't see it. How could he make it solid? Well, that's a silly thing to have him doing. He has to see something to make it solid. You keep it up. You tell him, "Something on your right—that wall on your right now, make it solid. Good. Wall behind you, make it more solid. Good. Wall on your left, make it more solid. Good. Now the ceiling of the room, make it more solid. Good. The floor, make it more solid. Good."
All of a sudden, your preclear says, "Dzz-zuh-zuh-zuh-zzz. I don't like this at all. This is something I can do without."
And you say, "That's fine. Keep it up, now. The wall in front of you."
And he says, "But I'm getting scared." He might only be getting apathetic at first. He comes up on the emotional scale. But he is running the truth. That is the truth. The walls are black. The ceiling is black.
Somebody comes out of his body and looks at his body and says, "It's just a black mass," he's absolutely right. It is a black mass. What else is it? Because until light hits it and it reflects something, it is black. It has no integral light-developing characteristics of its own.
A thetan can walk up to something and do a firefly, you know, shine, and he'll see the object. But this universe is rigged so that when the sun does not shine, when electric lights or other means are not employed to cause a reflection to take place all objects are black.
Therefore an individual gets sold on this idea there must be light. Why should he be sold on that? Why do people go blind? They go blind because they begin to avoid light.
Now, this is the dirtiest trick that you can do to a thetan: You start shooting juice at him with lots of light in it until he avoids light and he'll go blind. That's all. Why does he go blind? Because there is nothing to see by if he is allergic to light. It's as simple as that, you see. This is one of these idiotically simple propositions, which is so idiotic and so simple that there practically is no thetan on Earth today who knows it. It's just to that level of knowledge, that fundamental.
All objects are black, planets are black, and just below their surfaces, suns are black. You don't imagine that just below its explosive fire, its fission, that the sun is anything else but black, it certainly—there's no light inside of it. I don't know how deep light goes into objects, nobody has ever measured that. They write books about it but they've never measured it. But it is on the order of milli-milli-millimeters. It hits the object and it flashes back and you're looking at a reflection all the time—reflection, reflection. Now you begin to object to reflection.
Did you ever get annoyed at sunlight flashing on a car window as it passed you? Well, that's just one little step on the road to blindness. You didn't like light. You said at that moment, "I don't like that light." Lightning strikes near at hand and whether God had anything to do with it or not is beside the point. But it certainly didn't leave your vision in very apple-pie order. Your vision was a little bit worse after that, because everything had it—a tendency to be on the chain of lightning.
Now, why do your facsimiles dominantly include lightness? Why are they all light? Well, that's because they're pictures of the surfaces of things. And you have just as many facsimiles on this planet, if not more, that have no light in them as you have with light in them. Simple as that.
Now, you take a vacuum—all of a sudden, crash! All of this bright light feeds into some supercold object in front of the chap, something like that—wham. He says, "I don't like that." And he himself generates some blackness to cover up



all that light and after that he wonders what happened to his visio. A tolerance of blackness is then necessary to vision. And a tolerance of photons or any kind of light, fluid or particle, is equally necessary to vision.
Now, I won't tell you offhand the best, finest way in the world to remedy these things, but once you know the anatomy of something, it's rather easy to adopt processes that straighten it out.
Allergy to brightness and allergy to darkness are alike destructive of vision. Now every once in a while you get a black visio preclear. I've had a visio—black visio preclear that had a sense of smell that was very acute and could smell engrams. That's right. He could get their odor. But he could not get the sight in them. All right. Allergies of one kind or another become suspended on the track this way. You'll find preclears that have a consistent, horrible odor. You'll have preclears that have sound which just runs on continuously.
Sound, as well, in this universe is an interesting phenomenon since it depends on air. And out beyond the sphere of Earth, there isn't any sound, except in an electronic flash. If someone were to explode some electronic charge in your vicinity and the waves of it hit you, those waves would carry the sound, whether there was any there—there or not. So one basically associates sound with light and it's not unusual to have somebody get the two of them mixed up so that he sees sounds and hears light, because they both came together in the first—in his first encountering of the phenomena.
Now, keeping in mind that it is no effect on the thetan—effect over thataway, all effect on something else—you run these processes, of course, with him creating this effect on various things and objects. And as he does this, you find his guilt complexes and a lot of other nonsense are liable to run off. This is an objective use of the process. Have him make objects black. Have him resist light. Have him deny light to certain objects and so on and you get much of the phenomena of the not-knowing process. The reason prenatals are so interestingly difficult to do anything with is they have no visio.
To many people, to see is to know. If they can't see, they don't know. And that's very silly because a great many of the animal kingdom are involved exclusively in knowing by smelling, in knowing by hearing, and there are even some of them that know only by vibration of one contact another.
If you said, "One knows of the existence of a far object by motion," you would then have the common denominator to all of these varieties of perception. The common denominator to all perception is motion. When a person cannot tolerate motion, they are then incapable of perceiving, to a very marked degree.
And let's look over our rest point with motion on both side of it—picture of some preclear who is sitting too still. It's for sure somebody has been too much in motion in his vicinity and he has tried to set the example—almost all aberration conies about from setting an example. He sets an example of motionlessness in the hopes that this thing will duplicate him and sit still. He tries to do it by mimicry, don't you see.
So the more—if a person is allergic to children, the more the children run around the house and get into a commotion, the stiller the person will sit, you see, until he's almost a log and impossible to do anything. He's trying to stop those children.
You'll find many a schoolteacher is in very interesting condition. They've turned off their perceptions, they're going half-blind and so forth—there's all that motion out there. Well, they do not feel that it is right to stop a lot of that motion. They know they're supposed to be kind to the children but, actually, basically they have perhaps a tremendous intolerance for that much motion and between the two of them, they have an awful time.

We had a chap, one time, had a hearing aid, who was the teacher who normally took over study hall in a large high school. And he had a hearing aid and his hearing aid almost every week had to be turned up a new notch. And we took his hearing aid away from him simply by bringing into light this one factor only—nothing else was done for his case, just a little bit of Straightwire and two-way comm. And he was the coach of the football team as well as the study hall supervisor and, as a result, he didn't want his boys there in the study hall when they were in the study hall to get too upset with him, so he was just trying to make them be quiet without really bawling them out or anything, and he just turned his sound right straight off. If he didn't hear them, of course, he wouldn't have to object to what they were doing, and so he made himself nicely deaf on this basis. But basically, this would have been discovered to be an intolerance of motion.
If you want to turn on insanity—the feeling of insanity in somebody temporarily—just synthesize it, mock it up. You don't have to feed them LSD or some other preposterous witch doctor potion. What you should do, is get them to get the idea that they must reach but can't reach. You see, that's a stop point, if you ask them to get that idea, or that they must withdraw but can't withdraw. And just ask them to synthesize that and to get the effort to withdraw but the feeling they must not, you will get them feeling this thing called a glee of insanity. It actually can be turned on that synthetically and then it just passes off and that's the end of that. It doesn't do the case any damage. A thetan should be able to do anything—even go nuts and recover. All right.
The other one is therapeutic. (This is just a drill.) You'll find somebody who is dramatizing sanity (and this is very germane to you auditors, very germane), he doesn't have much perception and he doesn't want to do very much in the way of a process! He gets a feeling of franticness. Well, now, that's just motion. He just starts—you take him off the rest point and push him into the motion, he'll get frantic.
But there's a special variety of this that you ought to know about and this special variety is an interesting one—very, very interesting. It is insanity, motion of.
Now, insanity is evidently some kind of a very tricky implant on the track. It is an electronic, it is of no vast importance but it is something special. You see, insanity is not the gradient scale of "When I get totally unable, I will be insane." That's not correct.


It's the last lecture of this particular series, I thought it might be a very good thing to talk about the establishment or conduct of a practice or things one can do with Scientology.
And the first thing I would like to point out to you is that Scientology being what it is, a study of life, a how to livingness, a synthesis of life itself, which oddly enough at the moment knows a little bit more about life than life does, and so we can articulate it, you then have Scientology penetrating everything and anything it comes in contact with.
It's interesting, isn't it, that there is no profession—I don't care whether it's repairing cranes or making electronic computers or in digging ditches, almost everything you confront could have some Scientology applied to it.
Well, if this is the case—this is the case, your confusion about what you're going to do about Scientology, then, doesn't have to do with not having thought of anything to do with Scientology, your confusion has to do with not-knowing a few things that you can do with it.
In other words, you have to do a respecialization. And it's so very, very easy for Scientology to reach into any field, that just contemplation of it is apt to make one a little giddy. So the best thing to do is just to say, "Well, I don't like—I just never did like manufacturing." Well, that segment of civilization is out. And we'll not-know that and we'll not-know this and we'll not-know that. And we finally get down to one or two items that are just fine as far as we're concerned, and then you should get very alert and say, "I wonder how Scientology applies to that?" And you will find then that it complements your own active interest.
Now, this would be the broadest way one could go about establishing how to use Scientology. See, nobody could tell you how to use life, nobody could tell you how to live. One can tell you how to live better: he can process you so that you can then do what you can do better or you can find something new to do. But to tell you how to live would be a very difficult thing indeed. Similarly, to tell you how to use Scientology would again be a difficult thing. One can tell you how to use it in various pursuits. But if one were going to exhaustively cover all of the zones of interest where Scientology could be applied effectively and with tremendous force, what you'd find yourself doing was writing the entire book of life from beginning to end.
And I every once in a while get caught in that myself and I say, "Oh, I ought to write something about that," and then I sort of feel swamped. It means I would have to write about all of the subject. And it would require a lot of research into the subject and this and that and the other thing. And it would be normally the same time spent on that as—be, oh, I don't know, two to four years to master's degree; I'm expected to do it in a week. Anyhow. That's about the way I have to work.



20 AUGUST 1956
In applying Scientology, then, your own action is your own action very, very markedly. There is a specialized sphere where Scientology merely applies as Scientology and this is the auditor. Scientology applies as Scientology. But it isn't the only sphere that it applies. Now, actually a person to know Scientology first and foremost would have to be an auditor.
A professional Scientologist who merely knew how to apply it, let us say, to business or communication or something of the sort, if he had not done auditing, would never really have any command of the subject at all. His command would be so superficial that he would make continuous blunders. His subjective reality would not exist. And so even if one did train simply a professional Scientologist, he'd have to teach him something about auditing.
Now, you see that in teaching basic groups, people's intelligence improves. You teach the basic group, their intelligence improves. This is quite marked and quite remarkable. Very well.
How much further can they go without running into auditing? Well, evidently Instructors that you put on the job (in teaching an advanced course out and beyond a basic free course or group course) feel that they can't go any further because they usually break down and start teaching these people how to audit.
Well, it is the shortest route. But where an individual is simply going to apply it academically from here on out and is never going to process anybody at all, why, I wouldn't give much for his ability to handle it.
In the first place, one of the easiest, surest, most poised ways of handling people extant to date is in auditing procedure. And if one is cognizant of auditing procedure and very competent in handling it, he certainly is not going to have too much trouble with people. They don't have to all look like preclears to him but I assure you they all react that way.
You can even get warlike in your handling of people with auditing. (I don't advise you to do that even vaguely.) But I remember one time—every once in a while some very, very deep fellow who runs about one molecule under the surface, you know, tries to take a crack at me one way or the other, some flippant chap, and of course they don't get very far doing this. I remember one chap that did this in particular—he was an attorney. And this fellow said, "Ha, ha, ha," you know, "ho-ho and ho-ho," and he was having a good time.
So I looked at him with—sort of with a—I hated myself afterwards. (laughter) I said, "How would you like to know a subject so well that you had a witness on a witness stand that you didn't want to testify and all you had to do was utter a certain magic set of phrases and snap your fingers and he'd curl up on him—in a ball and fall on the floor? How would you like that?"
"Oh, I guess that would be pretty useful but, ha-ha, you couldn't do that! Ha-ha-ha-ha."
I said, "Well, the somatic strip will now go back to ." And there he was
on the floor. Now, that's a mean thing to do and that I would do such a thing is disorderly and disgraceful and undignified and I apologize for it heartily, but I didn't apologize to him. (laughter)
That's going just a little bit far in using auditing procedure because it's actually going into actual auditing, you see, that was the only thing I did wrong. I did use the technique which most advanced his knowledge, if not his case. I saw that man the next time, my god, was he respectful! (He had an awful cold too.)
If you know these things you become less and less worried about people trifling with you, by the way. You become quite dangerous in your human environment. There's no laws, no law whatsoever against packing a snap of the fingers in your pocket. There neither is any law against a polite communication.
I don't say that you're trying to put these people under duress and handle and abuse them, but they will quite often tell you—it's a very funny thing, they tell you this anyway sometimes (see most of you are very sunny people), but

they tell you something else—they say, "It's a funny thing, but after I have talked to you, I feel better." Why? Well, you just gave them two-way comm. They didn't ever talk to you, you gave them an auditing session.
Now, if you were going to teach a salesman to sell something and you failed to teach him about the responses on the Tone Scale, you would actually do wrong, because a person will communicate at his own tone level.
No reason to go into a long example of that but it does happen. It does happen that people below 2.0 on the Tone Scale will only buy things that will break down, that won't run and that sort of thing.
I did an interesting thing one day. I was in an automobile salesroom: a chap came in to buy a used car, so forth. Salesman was telling him all about these bright, shiny, new, chromium-plated, eighteen-grasshopper-power cars that he had there and so forth. And I kept looking at this fellow and although he possibly had money, he was just put together in a sort of a way that was just all broken down. And I knew he wouldn't sell anything anyway, and the guy was kind of backing out and getting more and more apathetic and I finally gave the salesman that I knew slightly a little punch to get him aside—kicked him over to the side and I said, "You know, we do have a car out there" (I wasn't even a member of the firm), "we do have a car out back that we're having a great deal of trouble with."
And the fellow brightened up a little bit.
I said, "Nobody can get it to run. And the reason we don't sell it really, though, is its price is much too high; it isn't worth that at all."
The fellow went out back to look at it.
Salesman wouldn't believe it and never picked the sale up. He just couldn't believe that this was a sales approach. But to a man in apathy that's a sales approach.
Very many little points exist on that line. As a matter of fact you could write a whole book which had nothing to do but communicating on the tone level of the other person—how would you go about this, on what subjects and so on. And yet it's absolutely necessary that you know this.
Let's take a government—estimate a government's tone level, communicate with it on that tone level. It's pretty hard to do, but you can do it, you can do it. They'll listen too. Problems, problems, get even with them, jump on everybody— you know, that sort of an attitude. Just estimate at where you're hitting and you can get a communication through.
Many people are very surprised when governments don't answer their communication. Very few people ever write governments—they know better. A member of Parliament wrote about twelve government departments one day. He just decided that he would sit down and see what the wage civil service slave was doing to earn his pay and so he wrote and asked about a dozen departments to do this and that. I'm not going to give you the exact rundown of what he got back, but he only heard from six of them and none of them, none of them, wrote him the answer to his question.
I think he asked to find out how he got a gun permit to one particular place, and they wrote back and told him he didn't have one and said they couldn't find him on file anywhere. Just—it's just wild.
Well, why? Why is that? And that's because the tone level of the office to whom one is addressing his communication is not matched by the communication itself.
If you were to write some government department that was in apathy about what it was doing—they quite often are—let us say that they had the sewage disposal of the entire city and it was all broken down or something of the sort and they were in lots of trouble and everybody was kind of apathetic about it. If you wrote in and you said just this sort of thing, "Isn't it terrible what an awful hard job it is trying to keep things from getting all messed up all the



20 AUGUST 1956
time," you'd probably get an answer. Oh, get a four-, five-page answer telling you how bad it was. Yet your communication wouldn't have made sense at all, but it had an emotional tone. It said it's all impossible, it's all impossible.
This is something for you to understand in talking to people. But it is much more important to understand those particular facets in trying to build a practice.
Now, we just avoid the fact that you could apply Scientology to anything. I don't know how a firm could get along in the future without a Scientologist sitting at its personnel desk. It would be impossible, see. You could save so much money, you could handle the accident rate of the firm so well, do so many other things on the post that it would be quite foolish for them to have anyone else.
They, by the way, hire, at this moment, trained personnel men for these posts and they're trained—in what lines I've never been able to discover, since I have written for textbooks and so forth on it and I just never have received anything that I would consider necessary for a fellow to know. How to file the cards of applications and how to make them out—I guess that's about all. And how to sit at a desk endlessly is about all that could be taught.
Yet Science of Survival is actually a complete textbook on the subject of employment.
But we just come off of these highly specialized things of putting in communication systems, of putting together operations of one kind or another or selling ideas or anything like that and get right down to auditing in an auditing practice and we find out that all of these things apply to an auditing practice.
And most auditors don't too much consider the ability of the preclear to make a decision when the auditor is trying to build up an auditing practice. They go around and ask people, they say, "Wouldn't you like to have some auditing?" And they're right away running Part "c" of Opening Procedure 8-C on the preclear. This guy is not capable of answering the question. If he were capable of answering it, he'd be way upstairs in this society. See, he's just not capable of answering.
You want to tell him, "Well, now, how has your health been?" "Oh, well, that's tough. Oh, that's bad. Oh no. Gee. Good lord, not really! Well, you come over and see me tomorrow morning at ten o'clock—right over at my office. That's the only thing we can possibly do. I know you probably have to work but you can get off from work. You be there at ten o'clock. Now here's the exact address." He'll appear.
You spend a lot of time discussing fees—he's not interested in fees. It doesn't matter if he's broke. He's broke because his case isn't in good shape. No, don't worry about the fee before you worry about the case too much. An auditor loses more money this way.
The old psychoanalyst lost practically all of his patients simply by spending the first hour or so talking about how they were going to pay for the analysis and then very often would send them a bill for this conference about paying for the analysis and it just drove people away in all directions. No confidence could be had in such a degree. It's quite interesting, they just lost people all over the place.
It's very interesting that—I know I normally tell people they can't afford it. They just couldn't afford it anyway. I don't tell—don't make it easy for them. Say, "You have this auditing, you're probably going to get"—in essence—"if you have this auditing, it's probably going to generate an awful lot of problems for you, one way or the other. Your wife's going to object, your family's going to object, you're probably going to lose some time on the job because you'll have to be audited in the daytime. I won't have you working all day and then being audited all night. I won't do that. You're probably going to have an awful time paying all this off" and so forth. "Nevertheless, see me at ten o'clock tomorrow morning."
When he comes in, anything—you want to talk in this direction. But don't get him too upset. Don't ask him to make too many decisions. You'll see this

time and time again as you're trying to get somebody to be audited that you have asked them to make too many decisions.
After a while as you go on, you'll get overt. Your own confidence in your ability to help them therefore justifies the ways you go about making this a fact. You realize that this is the truth.
Now, I have gone so far as to walk out on the street, see somebody gimping along one way or the other, tap him on the shoulder, give him a card and tell him to come to the office. If I do this to about eight or nine people in a row—I can even give them some small explanation like, "We're running a research project," or something of the sort—anything. Give them cards. And "Be at the office." The next day, they'll appear. It's quite remarkable.
You use the reporting mechanism. If you tell people to report who are in bad shape, they always will. They just report. Do you know that people—do you know that people—psychiatric patients report back for electric shocks? Do you know that in old Fac One times they reported back on their own initiative to be ruined again two weeks later? You realize this?
Now, if you were doing something which didn't materially assist them, this would be quite something else, you see. But you're doing something that can help them out. They can't go wrong, they couldn't possibly go wrong in reporting. They always have before on the whole track, for the last 76 trillion years, gone wrong every time they reported to anything. But this is the first time that they report straight. And they report and they actually are given at least a little scrap of their passport out. It's an amazing thing.
Now, you, sitting with your case in only an ordinary state of dishabille, with only a few tatters, are actually at a tone level which doesn't properly estimate what you're looking at when you look at these guys walking up and down out here. This fellow who is in a terrible no-effect condition, before you become experienced in handling people like this, very often can put it over on you just left and right. You confront him as an opposite valence, and he's in a compulsive game condition of one kind or another, and he's telling you that he's got a no-effect, no-effect, no-effect; this is all he's saying.
You completely miss another point ordinarily: the man is in an hypnotic trance. That's quite usual; it's just a step below no-effect. And if he's in a very compulsive no-effect, he's in an hypnotic trance. Well, this also puts some restrictions on you. You have to watch out how you talk to these people because it just goes straight in. If you don't argue with their engrams and talk to them, they hear everything you say. And unfortunately at that level, they hear it at an hypnotic level.
It's quite amazing to see somebody who is very resistive who is—you'd think from the arguments he put up it hasn't done him any good; there's been no change, this sort of thing. He's just sitting there giving you all of this yak-yak-yak-yak-yak. It's an amazing thing that it takes a while for an auditor to get up to a point to realize that he's simply looking at a talking machine. You know, it's—somebody threw the switch and it's going round and round and round and just is playing that record, that's all.
I've gotten so with these people I can pick the needle up and put it down almost anyplace on the engram. I never talk to this thing that's going round and round and round.
I never forget one particular preclear that used to come back and jaw-jaw-jaw-jaw-jaw-jaw-jaw-jaw-jaw-jaw, "You haven't done this and you haven't do that and then—and you haven't gone and done something else" and so forth, "and you're just being so mean and of course it's just a swindle anyway and you're messing me all up," and so forth.
And I'd just say, "Well, sit down in the chair now."



20 AUGUST 1956
And I'd say, "Well, now, can you see that ashtray over there?"
And she'd look at the ashtray. And "Yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap," and so on.
Now, you'd think offhand that this person wasn't getting any acknowledgment from me. Well, this person wasn't talking. Why should you acknowledge something that isn't talking? See, this is a fine point of judgment because sometimes they're talking, then you want to acknowledge them.
But this woman would audit for about fifteen minutes and then she would shut off and the record would turn off and she would go on with the session and end up the session in herself, and eventually became herself and had no further protest left.
Were any of these protests germane to anything that was going on? No. And that is what aberration is. It is not logically connected with anything else which is occurring. The fellow who gets a pair of oars because he is going horseback riding is an obvious aberrated case. And yet it says in his bank, "He rowed a horse." He just got it identified.
Now, he has you identified with his dentist. He has you identified with doctors, psychiatrists, practitioners on the whole track. He hasn't got you differentiated yet, he doesn't know you're a friend of his, really. It's all sort of automatic and formal. So about the first thing you have to do with such a person is establish that something different is happening—something quite different is happening.
One of the easy ways to establish this—something that won't blow him up—is 8-C. And he'll know that's silly. He'll just know that is a silly process. You just develop the trick of as-ising his comment before he makes it. Just keep blowing the engram as you talk to him. You say, "Now, this is a silly process but I want you to see how it goes." Then you've got him started. You state what he's going to think before he says it or thinks it. And of course he becomes very easy to handle.
When you walk him through 8-C for a few times that's—you see that he isn't going to blow up. You have got him moving in this direction, it was easy for him to walk over and touch the wall, you're not going to be too pedantic here, you're just going to move him straight off into SCS—wham.
He will stop worrying about whether it's simple or not about the fifteenth time he's stopped the body or something like that and feels half of his head blow off. He's not going to say, "This is silly" anymore. On the contrary he will have forgotten it entirely. He won't even remind you that you said it was silly. This is easing people into it.
Now, I give you this as a definite tip with regard to groups, with regard to people in general—that there is a logic that has to do with gradient scales in the old Dianetic Logics, and a gradient scale in any human being is to find some point with which you know they will agree. And then find another point you know they will agree with. And after a while, you're really in communication with the person. Gradient scale of agreements.
So here is some chap who is talking to you about Scientology and he wants to know all of the peculiar ramifications. He wants to know all the technique and theory. You sit there and you give him a course on Scientology, you're being a very, very foolish person. Don't sit there and give him a course on Scientology, don't tell him what it's all about at all. Say, "I will show you. Now you stand up here, and you see that wall over there? Now, I want you to walk over to the wall. Now, I'll show you what this is." He'll come right off the figure-figure-figure-figure.
Why talk to a phonograph record? You'll never educate one. Did you ever try to sit down and educate a phonograph record? It just never worked. They don't pass the examination worth a nickel. You just put in another engram on top of the existing one.

Now, handling people becomes very, very simple, with one proviso: if you like people, not obsessively or compulsively, but if you just like people. If you're auditing people to get even with them, you'll butcher them. If you're auditing people because you can't stand to live with people if they're in this condition, remember your dog doesn't talk, he doesn't bark or raise the devil, he's fairly orderly, but you live with him and his capabilities. I swear he couldn't make pancakes if you threatened to shoot him! I just call that to your attention. I mean, ability is not necessarily an absolute necessity in your fellow man.
You should be able to sort of reach out to your fellow human being and just sort of, you know, shake him by the hand. You should be able to do this.
It's quite amazing. I walk down the street, I see somebody, it is almost a no-occurrence to have somebody frown or to have somebody get upset because I stepped on their toes or pushed them sideways, something like that. They don't. They smile.
Why? It's because I smiled at them first and they did a duplication. I like them. They're fine. They're very easy to handle. They're no real trouble. Sometimes they get into positions in life and the positions talk, and then they're just a little bit of trouble. But that's trouble with a position. You don't have to change the people, change the positions.
But in building a practice, you build, in essence, nothing but goodwill and you build it by good works. And it's not very difficult to do and there isn't any magical formula of how you go about doing it. If you like people and you have confidence in your own results and you're not afraid to walk up and tap people on the shoulder and say, "Report at ten o'clock," you'll have a practice; that's all there is to it.
If you collect people in on a group, if you just reach out with a few people you know, and you just—it doesn't matter how small the group is—go ahead and train them in some basic fundamentals. And if you keep those fundamentals basic enough and don't overreach—you know, you don't ever overwhelm people with what they don't understand. You only overwhelm people with what they understand, remember that. So if you teach them sufficiently fundamental fundamentals in this little group, you'll all of a sudden find your group going along.
To a large degree, it depends on you. Actually, not your state of case—not really your state of case, but your ability to reach out and embrace the other guy. And it is something that is relatively easy to do. Something like riding a bicycle: you can do it or you don't do it.
And to build a practice and to have the practice hold together and to stay steady on course with regard to these things does require from the individual a considerable amount of honesty, straightforwardness and good, solid relationships with the people he's talking to.
You'll find that people will argue with you about money and they'll crab about this and that and they'll bark and growl. But you know how to handle people. Don't let this worry you.
You treat these people in a direction they always get for their money what they paid for or something like it—and in modern times preclears have always gotten more than they expected—and you keep them in a good, straightforward state of mind. You don't try to cut some other auditor's throat. You don't—you hear that some other auditor is cutting your throat, you should realize that preclears always come and tell you this anyway. Laugh at them. That's just—it's silly. It's nonsense.
Don't be impressed with all the entheta and pick up all the good there is lying around and you'll have a good practice. And these practices stay and they last.
It depends on you sitting down for a little while, though, in one place— something that Scientologists never learn.
Thank you very much.


(as given in lecture 9: "Games Theory")
(as given in lecture 12: "Knowingness")
(as given in lecture 15: "Scales, Motion")
(from Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought)
(from Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought)


To penetrate a case at its level of certainty of motion-lessness and by processes, run by good procedure, to improve that certainty and the level and to improve certainty on each level, the preclear always at cause until the preclear, through objective and creative processes, is brought to an ability, theoretical, to mock up in its entirety, a body and a universe visible to all.
We introduce games condition by having preclear at cause, even though the common denominator is motion-lessness, a no-game condition.


L. Ron Hubbard Founder


(It runs as individuality.) Problems Can't have
(Games do have some havingness.) Alive
Opponents Facsimiles Continued solidity Continued adherence Loyalty, Disloyalty, Betrayal and
Help (These are all buttons that work.)
Continued action
Hot, cold
Hate (some love)
Continued doubt of result
(Expecting a revelation) No effect on self
and Effect on others Stop communication Change communication
Into it
Noise (some silence)
Start, Change and Stop
(Change is the most important of these.) Responsibility

Know Remember
No attention
Solutions Have
Neither alive nor dead Friends—alone No pictures or universes No spaces or solids No enemies or friends
No motion Serenity Motionlessness No temperature Knowing
(as opposed to thinking) Win-Lose
(No-game conditions, win and lose) Effect on self No effect on others No ARC No no-ARC ARC Out of it Calm Silence No control
No responsibility

Look (Perceive)



Boredom Antagonism
Covert Hostility
Body Death

(from Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought)
1. Do not evaluate for the preclear.
2. Do not invalidate or correct the preclear's data.
3. Use the processes which improve the preclear's case.
4. Keep all appointments once made.
5. Do not process a preclear after 10 P.M.
6. Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed or who has not
received enough rest.
7. Do not permit a frequent change of auditors.
8. Do not sympathize with the preclear.
9. Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own independent

10. Never walk off from a preclear during a session.
11. Never get angry with a preclear.
12. Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continued
use of the same question or process.
13. Always continue a process as long as it produces change and no longer.
14. Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear.
15. Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of various other
16. Always remain in good two-way communication with the preclear
during sessions.
17. Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or
unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditor's own personal
18. Estimate the current case of your preclear with reality and do not
audit another imagined case.
19. Do not explain, justify or make excuses for any auditor mistakes
whether real or imagined.



(from Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought)
As a Scientologist, I pledge myself to the Code of Scientology for the good of all:
1. To keep Scientologists, the public and the press accurately informed
concerning Scientology, the world of mental health and society.
2. To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to
help my family, friends, groups and the world.
3. To refuse to accept for processing and to refuse to accept money from
any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help.
4. To decry and do all I can to abolish any and all abuses against life
and mankind.
5. To expose and help abolish any and all physically damaging practices
in the field of mental health.
6. To help clean up and keep clean the field of mental health.
7. To bring about an atmosphere of safety and security in the field of
mental health by eradicating its abuses and brutality.
8. To support true humanitarian endeavors in the fields of human rights.
9. To embrace the policy of equal justice for all.

10. To work for freedom of speech in the world.
11. To actively decry the suppression of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy
or data which would help mankind.
12. To support the freedom of religion.
13. To help Scientology organizations and groups ally themselves with
public groups.
14. To teach Scientology at a level it can be understood and used by the
15. To stress the freedom to use Scientology as a philosophy in all its
applications and variations in the humanities.

16. To insist upon standard and unvaried Scientology as an applied
activity in ethics, processing and administration in Scientology
17. To take my share of responsibility for the impact of Scientology upon
the world.
18. To increase the numbers and strength of Scientology over the world.
19. To set an example of the effectiveness and wisdom of Scientology.
20. To make this world a saner, better place.


CENTER STAFF - RON 14 July 1956


A rule has showed up. Never process a no-game condition, only a game condition.
No-game conditions: know, opponent has, arrivals, solutions, namelessness, pan-determinism, friendship, win, lose, effect on self, no effect on others.
Game conditions—to be processed: problems, not-know, attention, can't have (opponent), have (self), self-determinism, survival, no effect on self, effect on others, identities.
Example: thoughts that would have no effect on you, thoughts that would have effect on (Father). No reverse.
This accounts for randomity in process application.
I felt clever last week and worked this out. And it works!
Valences are:
1. Own valence (identity)
2. Body valence (human identity)
3. Exchanged valence (direct assumption of another valence)
4. Attention valence (valence assumed to get attention from another)
5. Synthetic valence (valence described to pc and assumed)
On (1)—no change desired. On (2) body run as opponent. On (3) exact valence run as problem and can't have. On (4) valence of B assumed to get attention from A, remedy have and problem on A. On (5) run can't have and problems on person (or book or film) who told pc.
Them's how we've missed on some profiles which are valence pictures. He's in Mother's valence but separation on Mother didn't work. Why? Maybe he was in an attention valence requiring separation from Father or in a synthetic as described by Grandma. Voila!

L. Ron Hubbard

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 217a Kensington High Street, London W8
13 August 1956
HGC Washington, DC and London

The following processes on the Know-Mystery Scale are in current use, having been tested and found effective.
The most effective single processes are Solids, Problems and Start-Change-Stop.
The list is used starting with the Mystery band.
The list is done with complete attention to running Games Conditions only.
Objective, outside, persons, objects. Auditor indicates object.
"Tell me something you could not-know about ," and
"Look around, tell me something you could have."
Put unknown perceptions in walls and exterior objects, (sight, sounds, smells, tactiles)
Objective, outside or in auditing room.
Put (emotion bottom to top of Tone Scale) into that (indicated object).
Solids —Introverted— (facsimiles) "What are you looking at?" "Make it solid."



"Look around the room and find something you wouldn't mind making solid." "Make it solid."
Fight the wall (body or mock-ups).
THINK Put postulate "Want to know" in walls. "Make it know."
Mock up somebody inventing something for others to know about. Mock up MEST being curious. "What is it?" objective.
Mock up people objective with postulates in them "How do I get rid of all of it?" Lie about (invent) individualities. (An identity that could cope with it.) Lie about (invent) opponents.
List some inedibles. Look around room, find something your body can't have.
What would interest (valences). An effect you wouldn't mind causing on opposite sex.
MYSTERY Mock up a confusion. Confusions you wouldn't mind creating. Invent a stable datum for "that" confusion.
Mock up a confusion for which (postulate, valence, some old healing
practice) would be a stable datum.

Put interest, disinterest in objects.
(Find something uninteresting in this room.)
Waste cases.
Problems of Comparable Magnitude (to anything).
Start-Change-Stop pc's body or small objects.
Flip-flopping (by mock-up).
Processes run upwards from this point as a gradient scale of difficultness.
L. Ron Hubbard


PAB 94
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR'S BULLETIN The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology
Via Hubbard Communications Office 217a Kensington High Street, London W8


15 August 1956
What is is not necessarily what should be.
The way a thetan lives is not and never will be the way thetans should live.
The basic reason for this is the desire for randomity, summed up in the desire of the thetan for a game. Infinite wellness is undesirable if it means that the thetan is to be in a state of total knowingness, total serenity, nameless, without ARC or contact with any environment. Evidently a thetan would rather be intelligent in relation to his environment, identified and identifiable, capable of emotion and experience and in ARC of whatever kind, with whatever type of playing field he may fancy. In other words, a thetan believes that he should be involved in a game. The deepest and most basic rationale is understood by the fact that a thetan must be part of the game. If he is not he is unhappy, no matter how purely and beautifully knowing and serene he may become.
However, there is a difference in games which is marked and obvious. There is the matter of playing a game and knowing one is playing a game, and not knowing one is playing a game. Between these two things is a world of difference. A thetan who is engaged in games he does not know he is playing is unhappy, since he does not believe he is playing a game and finds himself nevertheless in motion. This is what the preclear objects to when he comes to the auditor to be audited. The preclear suspects that he is playing a game and does not know what game he is playing. He simply wants to find out. He does not want to stop playing all games. If the auditor proceeds in the direction of making him stop all of his games, if the auditor erases all of the preclear's games, why, the preclear is resultantly unhappy. The preclear wants to know what game he is playing and that is all there is to it.
In the matter of traps we have in essence a similar condition to the state of mind regarding games. Traps are part of games. That is all they are. To believe that a thetan could not get out of any trap he has gotten into is folly, since it is very difficult for a thetan to maintain and not go through every barrier which presents itself.
Here we have the difference between the ideal and the actual. The thetan who is in a trap could get out of one with ease if it did not violate his condition of games. Were games not a fact and a rationale of life, traps would be nonexistent. If games were no object whatever, getting out of a trap would be simplicity itself.
One is trapped by those things to which he will not grant havingness. A game condition demands that one denies havingness. Therefore games trap.

To maintain a game condition in a preclear it is best to run can't have on objects, valences and people. For example: "Tell me something in this room your mother can't have" is a highly effective process, particularly if one has first run "What effect could you have on Mother?" The "can't have" on Mother is a game condition and runs out the games one has played with Mother. Therefore the process is workable. The process runs out exactly what one has done in order to be trapped in the mother's valence. One has, in playing games with Mother, said that Mother could not have this and could not have that, since to permit Mother to have something is to violate a games condition. Let us be very sharply clear here. Permitting things to have things is to make allies or teammates of those things, and when these do not prove by their conduct to be teammates, one is then guilty of permitting an opponent to have something, which is a no-game condition.
The rule is: Whatever one has denied havingness to has to some degree become a trap.
When one runs "can't have" on the object, he runs out the original denial of havingness to the object.
Here is where processing meets its biggest obstacle: Running Havingness such as "Look around the room and tell me what your mother could have" conflicts with the fact that one has already postulated numerously on the track that Mother cannot have things. Running the permission of Mother to have things untraps the thetan from Mother only so long as it does not cause him to fail in his games condition with Mother.
In practice one has to settle the whole question of Mother as an opponent before one can have a mother. "Invent an opponent of comparable magnitude to Mother," "Mock up Mother in violent motion," "Look around the room and tell me something Mother can't have" settles this opponent-mother condition. One does not run "can have" on Mother, only on self. That one audits out a game condition to obtain a higher tone is a major discovery in auditing and is all that is used today.
It is an easy thing to say "One is trapped by those things to which he has denied havingness," but the truth of the matter is that if he did not and had not denied havingness, he would not have had a game. It is necessary then to settle the games condition on each and every object from which you would untrap a thetan before you then run the Havingness Process necessary to permit him to grant havingness to the trap. In the first place he and the trap are actually playing a game and it may be that he has not enough games in order to surrender the game of the trap. If he had enough games in order to surrender the game of the trap, he would theoretically come out of it, and he would certainly come out of it if he was put into a condition whereby he could actually grant havingness to the trap.
Jails, theta traps, pole traps, bodies, each and every thing, large or small, including the MEST universe, which could operate as a trap, follow this same rule.
The basic havingness of course, that the thetan is denying the trap, is denying the trap a thetan—and this properly worded works quite well in processing. But unless a thetan denied things himself he would be in a no-game condition—a thing which he cannot and does not tolerate.
L. Ron Hubbard


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



Responding to this groundswell of enthusiasm, Ron lectured to packed halls across the country. Before year's end, tens of thousands had not only read his book, but were avidly applying Dianetics to miraculous results. Meanwhile, he continued his research, and further breakthroughs followed. In 1951, he wrote and published six more books, including Science of Survival, the authoritative work on the subject of human behavior.
In the autumn of that year, and in spite of growing demands on his time, he intensified search for the true source of life energy. What he discovered led him to identify the very essence of man himself, and formed the basis of the applied philosophy of Scientology—the study of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life. This track of research, begun so many years earlier as a young man traveling the globe in search of eternal answers, was to span the next three decades.
Through the 1950s, Ron continued to advance Scientology techniques with the development of hundreds of new processes, revealing greater and greater capabilities possessed by all. And as more and more found Ron's discoveries to be true, Scientology churches the world over opened to deliver services. Ron visited many of these churches providing lectures and guidance to church members and to help them expand Scientology across new lands.
In 1959, Ron purchased Saint Hill Manor, in England, where he lectured to hundreds of Scientology students arriving from as far away as Australia, South Africa and the United States. A new era for Scientology began with the opening of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course in March of 1961 to train expert auditors. Between 1961 and 1966, Ron both personally supervised these students, and delivered more than 430 lectures, while continuing his research and overseeing the expanding affairs of Scientology internationally.
He released the Scientology Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart at Saint Hill in 1965, mapping the long-dreamed-of route to the state of Clear. Additionally because of Scientology's rapid expansion, and from the same core truths, he provided the administrative policies for Scientology churches— policies fully universal in application.
On the threshold of breakthroughs never previously imagined, Ron resigned from all directorships in Scientology organizations in 1966 to devote himself more fully to research.
The following years saw the discovery and codification of the technology allowing anyone to move through the levels of Operating Thetan, the highest states of spiritual awareness and ability.
Through the 1970s and 1980s, Ron continued to seek out methods to help his fellows. As he encountered ever-worsening conditions in society, he developed procedures to address and resolve a wide range of man's problems. He even refined the techniques of Dianetics in 1978 to bring about faster and easier-to-attain results—New Era Dianetics.
No area of life was left untouched in this search for ways to improve the human condition. His work provided solutions to such social ills as declining educational standards, moral decay and drug abuse. He codified the administration of organizations, the principles of ethics, the subjects of art and logic and much more. Yet he never lost sight of the man on the street and his day-to-day problems of living in these complex and troubled times. Thus in Scientology one finds solutions to any difficulty one can encounter in life.

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


To assist in your understanding of these lectures, hard-to-find terms and other words which you may not be familiar with are included in this glossary. An example of usage from the lectures is included at the end of each definition. These definitions give only the meanings of the words as they are used in the lectures; this glossary is not meant as a substitute for a dictionary.
ack-ack battery: a unit of military personnel who operate automatic antiaircraft guns. The name, ack-ack, comes from the British radio operator's code of A.A., an abbreviation for antiaircraft. Antiaircraft guns, used as early as 1910, fire rapidly and at high angles, thus permitting them to hit attacking enemy aircraft in battle. The fellow who—member of an ack-ack battery for lord knows how long, he just keeps stripping airplanes off of that old game. —Chronic Somatics (Aug. 56)
Advanced Clinical Course: one of a number of theory and research courses delivered by L. Ron Hubbard during the years 1953 to 1961 which gave a deep insight into the phenomena of the mind and the rationale of research and investigation. The first Advanced Clinical Course took place in October and November of 1953 in Camden, New Jersey. Actually it comes from Advanced Clinical Course Number One, Camden, and it is extroversion-introversion, alternation of. —Auditing Positions (Aug. 56)
American Medical Association (AMA): a professional physicians' organization in the United States, composed of state and county medical associations. Founded in 1847, some of its stated goals are "to promote the science and art of medicine and to protect the welfare of US physicians." While the main headquarters was established in Chicago, Illinois, the association set up an office in Washington, DC, in order to closely follow legislation that may affect the medical profession or its members. Some of the departments of the AMA include a council on medical education and hospitals, a bureau of health and public instruction and a bureau of legal medicine and legislation. That also, by the way, is the American Medical Association and so forth. — Code of a Scientologist (Aug. 56)
Arcturus: one of the brightest stars in the sky, it appears in the constellation Boötes. Arcturus is about 20 times wider than the Sun and is about 100 times brighter. It is about 36 light-years from Earth, one light-year being equal to the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one year which is about 5.88 trillion miles. You won't know after a while whether you're playing



your game or their game or whether there's any game or how far it is to Arcturus, you won't know anything. —Code of a Scientologist (Aug. 56)
ardure: a coined word referring to energetic and strenuous effort accompanying some activity. This term is probably derived from arduous, which comes from the Latin word arduus, meaning high, steep, difficult or laborious. But when we get into good, practical experience we have a roadway which was hewn with great ardure by a great many axes and it was a long time in the making. —The Auditor's Code (Aug. 56)
Aristotelian: of, relating to or characteristic of Greek philosopher, educator and scientist Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Aristotle, as one of the most influential philosophers in the history of Western thought, considered, summarized and developed many aspects of existence such as logics, the natural sciences and metaphysics (meaning the philosophic study of the basic principles of reality and knowledge). In his work, Physics, he defined the philosophy of nature as the study of things that change as he felt the most striking aspect of nature was change itself. He was also the first philosopher to analyze the process whereby certain propositions can be logically inferred to be true from the fact that certain other propositions are true. For example, from the facts that (1) all people are mortal and (2) Socrates is a person, it can be logically argued that (3) Socrates is mortal. His works and ideas have greatly influenced Western thinking for more than a thousand years. We are so immersed in the unproven theory of nuclear physics and Newtonian physics and Aristotelian materials and so forth that we are prone to accept them without too much question. —Axioms 6-10 (Aug. 56)
aspersion, casting an: making derogatory or highly critical remarks, often unfairly. So don't then go around and say, "Well, these walls are somebody's delusion." That is simply casting an aspersion on it. These walls are somebody's creation. —Axioms 1-5 (3 Aug. 56)
Association: reference to the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International (HASI). See HASI in this glossary. The Code of a Scientologist is part of our material, part of our know-how and it is not something offhand that you simply concur with because Ron or the Association or somebody thought it was a good idea and so on. —Code of a Scientologist (Aug. 56)
Battle of Britain: in World War II (1939-1945), the series of intense aerial combats that took place between British and German aircraft. In July 1940, German airplanes began bombing British air bases, shipping areas and ports and the British sent their own aircraft into battle against them. In September 1940, the Germans began heavily bombing London and other British cities. London itself had air raids launched against it for 57 consecutive nights, resulting in entire sections of the city being destroyed and over 30,000 casualties. The Germans hoped to weaken civilian morale through the constant attack and thus force Britain to surrender, but the Germans did not succeed. There's another datum that'll back this up is you know there was nobody admitted to an insane asylum during the entire Battle of Britain? —Chronic Somatics (Aug. 56)
beam: an energy flow. So, it's all very well for you to sharpen up your beams and do an engramectomy on Bessie. —Exteriorization Procedures (Aug. 56)

Big Ben: a famous bell that hangs in the clock tower of the British Houses of Parliament (the British legislature) in London, England. Installed in 1858 and striking every hour on the hour, the bell weighs more than 13 tons and is 9 feet in diameter and 7 1/2 feet high. The clock tower itself is also known as or referred to as Big Ben. The name comes from the nickname of British official Sir Benjamin Hall. Very, very simple. So are the works and metallurgy of Big Ben. —Games Theory (Aug. 56)
bleeding: (British slang) a milder form of the word bloody, which is used for emphasis in making a statement, as in, "Oh, this bleeding traffic." It wasn't that I was being a bleeding 'ero. —8-C: Opening Procedure (Aug. 56)
bodies in pawn: a whole track mechanism involving transposition, that act of taking a person who is here and under influence, like hypnosis or something of this sort, persuading him to be somewhere else and then monitoring him somewhere else by addressing the body which is kept in a state of trance or drugs here. And that's what you'll find because the preclear is still trying to hold on to the mass of that body he's lost—bodies in pawn, all kinds of other odd phenomena. —Valences (Aug. 56)
bombastically: in an intense or powerful way, suggesting the power of a bomb. We can straighten them out directly and bombastically by Start, Change and Stop. —Valences (Aug. 56)
British Empire: the group of countries formerly connected with and controlled by Great Britain which, at its peak during World War I (1914-1918), covered 25 percent of the world's land area and population. The empire was comprised of possessions on every continent including large parts of Africa, Asia and North America. After World War I, various colonies began to demand and fight for independence and since World War II (1939-1945), most areas of the former empire had achieved independence and were no longer under British rule. And they trace—they trace that the downfall of the British Empire took place immediately after the first importations of tea. —Code of a Scientologist (Aug. 56)
Bulgie: a humorous reference to Nikolai Bulganin (1895-1975), Soviet politician and military leader, minister of defense of the Soviet Union (1947-1949 and 1953-1955) and prime minister (1955-1958). Bulganin shared office with and was a supporter of Nikita Khrushchev and accompanied him when he visited Great Britain in early 1956 to discuss international issues. See also Khrushnev in this glossary. So, you send him over to Russia to bump off Khrushnev or Bulgie or something, and you say, "All right. That's fine." —Start, Change and Stop (Aug. 56)
Bureau of Naval Operations: a section within the US Navy responsible for the command, utilization of resources and the efficient operation of naval forces. / thought, "Good heavens! If the Bureau of Naval Operations could only see that example." —8-C: Opening Procedure (Aug. 56)
cat people: one of a race of beings that have come into this universe. They are called cat people because their eyes look like cats' eyes. A full description exists in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture number 43. Peoples of one kind or another—there are about eighteen of these races. And there are the cat people and so on. You'll see them walking around. They're—actually have big cat eyes and so on. —Valences (Aug. 56)



chiropracty: a variation of chiropractic, a therapeutic system based primarily upon the interactions of the spine and nervous system, the method of treatment usually being to adjust the segments of the spinal column. Why is it almost impossible to take someone out of chiropracty and make a Scientologist out of him? — Confusion and Stable Data (17 Aug. 56)
Creative Processes: a type of processing, also called Creative Processing, that LRH researched between the years 1952-1959, aimed at making a Clear by getting him to take over the creating of the time track. This approach was accomplished through various procedures which rehabilitated and exercised the thetan's ability to create and direct the placement of energy. In Creative Processing the pc was gotten to directly mock up the bank. Though many successes and results were attained, LRH discovered on rare occasions that when the preclear improved his ability to create something in the bank, the bank would start getting more "solid" causing some discomfort. For this reason, Creative Processing was superseded by more workable techniques and discontinued in 1959. The discoveries LRH made in Creative Processing were invaluable as they led to the development of Havingness, Confront and Responsibility techniques and the modern Grade Chart. Creative Processes are subjective. —Auditing Positions (Aug. 56)
De Valera: Eamon De Valera (1882-1975), Irish politician and patriot, prime minister of the Republic of Ireland (1932-1948, 1951-1954, 1957-1959) and president (1959-1973). In the early 1920s, he was one of the leaders of a revolutionary movement in Ireland to gain complete independence from Great Britain. In 1921, a treaty was signed with the British that separated Ireland into two parts: Southern Ireland, which became the Republic of Ireland in 1949, and Northern Ireland, which remained under British rule. De Valera opposed this treaty as it did not give absolute freedom to all of Ireland and continued throughout his life to advocate total independence of all of Ireland from British rule. And the only great man they ever had over there was De Valera. —Code of a Scientologist (Aug. 56)
Dianetic Logics: axioms which form a gradient scale of association of facts necessary to understand and resolve any problem. Written by LRH and published in 1951, the Logics are used to predict behavior and clarify the entire field of thought. The Logics are a method of thinking and could be called "how to think." The basic common denominators of all education may be found in the Logics. For example, Logic 7: Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data. Now, I give you this as a definite tip with regard to groups, with regard to people in general—that there is a logic that has to do with gradient scales in the old Dianetic Logics, and a gradient scale in any human being is to find some point with which you know they will agree. —Auditing as a Profession (20 Aug. 56)
dinger: a remarkable person or thing. You can feel very, very proud if everybody has been jumping on you with both feet most of your life. You must be a dinger! —Code of a Scientologist (Aug. 56)
do and die: to show dogged determination not to be stopped in any way by danger or difficulty but to succeed at all costs; exert supreme effort. This phrase appears in a famous poem of English poet Lord Alfred Tennyson (1809-1892) entitled "The Charge of the Light Brigade" (1854). The lines where this phrase appears are: "Theirs not to make reply. / Theirs not to reason why. / Theirs but to do and die." The poem glorifies an English

brigade who were ordered to charge the Russian army against hopeless odds. Although they understood the foolishness of the command, they did not question it. Now, they might be one thing to the cricketer and they might be one thing to the football coach, they might be another thing to somebody who is going out to do and die for dear old Mugwump U. —Games Theory (Aug. 56)
earths: possible reference to a group of basic minerals once considered rare, but later discovered to exist throughout the earth's crust. Some of these minerals are used medicinally, such as magnesium (used in medical products for such things as aiding digestion) and barium (a substance taken as a drink before an X-ray which can follow its progress through the digestive tract permitting a diagnosis to be made). You shoot somebody with pills of—serums, oddities, rare earths, something of this character, you clamp electrodes on his head and so forth; you might or might not be utilizing the therapeutic potentialities of the sixth dynamic, the physical universe. —Axioms 6-10 (Aug. 56)
engramectomy: a humorous reference to the removal of an engram, taken from the word engram and the suffix, -ectomy, meaning surgical removal of something. So, it's all very well for you to sharpen up your beams and do an engramectomy on Bessie. —Exteriorization Procedures (Aug. 56)
Fac One: the first proven up, whole track incident which, when audited out of a long series of people, was found to eradicate such things as asthma, sinus trouble, chronic chills and a host of other ills. The incident has a verbal content in most cases. The "coffee grinder" (which might be an alternate name for it) was leveled at the preclear and a push-pull wave was played over him, first on his left side, then on his right and back and forth from side to side, laying in a bone-deep somatic, which cannot be run unless you recognize it as a vibration, not the solid board it seems to be. When this treatment was done, the preclear was dumped in scalding water, then immediately in ice water. Then the preclear was put in a chair and whirled around. He was quite swollen after the pummeling of the waves and was generally kept in a badly run (but quite modern) hospital for a few days. Sometimes he was given several treatments and after the first one would report back on schedule for the next. Now, oddly enough, there's the old Fac One mechanisms. —Valences (Aug. 56)
Fac One monitor: someone who is in the operator's valence of Fac One (short for Facsimile One). See Fac One in this glossary. It becomes very, very interesting, but actually an auditor can pick these up and ask the—it's the same formula, but a Fac One monitor: "Tell me a lie about priests. Tell me a lie about scientists," or something like that. —Valences (Aug. 56)
flicker-flackering: a coined term meaning abrupt, sudden, fluttery movements. In this use, flicker means sudden, brief movements and flack means to flutter or move with flapping or fluttering motions. I just sat there because the guy kept jitter-jattering way off of the subject and he was flicker-flackering around and he wasn't even there. —The Auditor's Code (Aug. 56)
Forty-second and Broadway: an intersection of two well-known streets at Times Square in the central section of New York City. It is one of the world's major entertainment districts, is renowned for its theaters, movie houses, amusement centers and the bustling activity this creates. If you are in a large stream of traffic at Forty-second and Broadway or Piccadilly Circus



and you want to cross the street, those flying particles, as they dash hither and thither, so on, can look pretty confusing to you. —Confusion and Stable Data (17 Aug. 56)
Foundation: one of the early Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundations that were located throughout the US. The first Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation was opened in Elizabeth, New Jersey in June 1950, and five more branch offices were opened soon after—in Chicago; New York; Washington, DC; Los Angeles and Hawaii. These Foundations trained students in the newly developed techniques of Dianetics. I know one day an auditor started to audit me in a Foundation and stretched out on the couch to give me the commands. —Auditing Positions (Aug. 56)
Freud: Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Austrian physician, neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis. He introduced new methods of treating mental disorders and put forth theories of neuroses involving childhood relationships with one's parents, stressing that hidden sexual desires from the earliest stages of development affect a person's personality later in life. He believed that repressed and forgotten desires underlie all abnormal mental states. At first his work met violent protest with the publishing of his "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality" in 1905, but by 1909 his ideas had gained acceptance. A patient would tell them about prenatals—even Freud mentions prenatal engrams and so forth—and a patient would tell them something about this, and they would say, "Oh pooh, pooh, pooh. You know that couldn't happen." —Facsimiles (Aug. 56)
Gibran, Kahlil: (1883-1931) Lebanese poet, philosopher and artist who in 1895 immigrated to the United States where he studied English and published his first literary essays. After traveling back and forth between Lebanon and the US he finally settled in New York in 1912 and thereafter devoted himself to painting and to writing short stories and essays in English and Arabic. His works teach of religious tolerance and the idea that the spirit of love transcends cultural differences. His book, The Prophet (1923), a series of poetic writings, is considered his masterpiece. We're studying living. Kahlil Gibran said in his very, very great book The Prophet that anyone to understand him had to have a shadow of that knowledge in himself first. —The Auditor's Code (Aug. 56)
Goldi: hunters and fishermen of the lower Amur valley in northeastern Manchuria and southeastern Russia. The Goldi people believe in the power of a shaman, a person who is an intermediary between the natural and supernatural worlds, using magic to cure illness and foretell the future. A shaman is said to be chosen by the spirits, selected from those people having an excitable temperament and who are given to daydreaming and experiencing visions. Shamans are sometimes marked for the appointment by mental disturbance or repeated illnesses. The shaman of—well, let's say the medicine man of the Goldi people up in Manchuria on the Amur River, for instance, let somebody wander around and he isn't quite bright or he seems strange or something, they don't bother him any. —Auditing Positions (Aug. 56)
Gray's Anatomy: a leading textbook on human anatomy, which gives a detailed account of the structure and organization of the human body, contains over 1,200 pages and many hundreds of illustrations describing each part of the body. It was written in the mid-1800s by English anatomist Henry Gray (1827-1861). It has been updated several times since its first issue and is a

standard text for medical students, medical professionals and artists. You can look at your textbook and find the compartments of the body and the— no, you can look in Gray's Anatomy and find the compartments of the body. —Exteriorization Procedures (Aug. 56)
Harley-Wonga land: a humorous reference to Harley Street, a famous street in central London, England, associated with and occupied chiefly by specialists in the medical profession, particularly physicians and surgeons. The word actually was taken from an old body of healing, so that you will get some old witch doctor or something down in the middle of Jungo-Bongo land or something or in the middle of Harley-Wonga land and he will tell you—he will tell you that, "We have always known about engrams." —Exteriorization Procedures (Aug. 56)
HASI: an acronym for Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, the organization that offered two classes of membership, one technical and one general. The HASI had centers located around the world set up to train and audit Scientologists. And he all of a sudden wrote a letter in to somebody in the HASI, and he said, "I've just cognited on what Ron was talking about." —Knowingness (Aug. 56)
hoops, jump through: a variation of through the hoops, to be subjected to a rigorous trial or examination. This phrase originated in the early 1900s and alludes to circus animals being trained to jump through hoops. So don't feel bad at all about making preclears jump through hoops. —Auditing Positions (Aug. 56)
ibexes pluris: a humorous reference to an ibex, a species of wild goat that lives in some mountainous areas of Europe, Asia and North Africa. The ibex has different subspecies, for example, the Alpine ibex lives in the European Alps. Ibexes is the plural form of ibex; pluris is Latin for several. There isn't anybody more unhappy than some chap who knows all there is to know about the ibexes pluris of the Upper Scandhoovian Yalps. —Scales, Curiosity and Not-know (Aug. 56)
indoctrination: a one-week long course of instruction which had a special Instructor devoted only to the teaching of the actual procedures of auditing. Learning the Auditor's Code by heart and drilling the TRs were all a part of this training. Now, producing an effect on another human being can be achieved by the use of the procedure alone. You learn that in indoctrination. —The Auditor's Code (Aug. 56)
insulin shock: reference to insulin shock therapy, a type of psychiatric "treatment" using overdoses of insulin, a hormone normally produced in the body but which in large amounts causes an imbalance of sugar within the body. When artificially injected with large doses of insulin as part of this therapy, the result is a state of collapse, coma (unconsciousness) and in some cases convulsive seizures. And in spite of all the insulin shock she'd had and everything, the old Negro woman walked this girl way out into the country and kept her walking, kept her walking. —Axioms 6-10 (Aug. 56)
intensive: a large number of hours of auditing given in a small number of consecutive days. One of the ways you do it is you convince him that he has to set a good example and then set him up for seventy-five-hour intensive. —8-C: Opening Procedure (Aug. 56)



"It's the woman who pays": a reference to the name of a song from 1916 in which the relationship between a man and a woman is shown to be one in which only the woman suffers the consequences. A familiar refrain from the song is: "For a woman loves forever, but a man loves for a day; / She makes him a god for her worship, he makes her a toy for his play; / For the man is the guest at the banquet where music of love madly plays, / But the woman, 'tis ever the woman who pays." So in the final analysis it is the auditor—you know we used to say, "It's the woman who pays." No it isn't, it's the auditor who pays. —The Auditor's Code (Aug. 56)
ivory laboratory: a humorous variation of ivory tower, a place of retreat that is secluded and remote from the realities of the real world; some place or condition which is separated from everyday life. That he doesn't go mad periodically and go chasing off into France from Germany to steal some French cows and have vast millions of men being poured in to kill vast millions of men or sit in some ivory laboratory over in the US or in the steppes of Russia to push a button to obliterate something because somebody gave them the wrong change at one time or another down at Oxford Circus, you know? —Code of a Scientologist (Aug. 56)
jitter-jattering: a coined term meaning talking rapidly and with extreme nervousness. Jitter means excessive anxiousness or agitation and jattering, probably taken from chattering, which means talking fast, incessantly and foolishly. I just sat there because the guy kept jitter-jattering way off of the subject and he was flicker-flackering around and he wasn't even there. —The Auditor's Code (Aug. 56)
Jove, fully armed, spew forth from the brow of: reference to the birth of Minerva, the Roman goddess of wisdom and war, in which she sprung fully grown from the forehead of her father, Jove (also called Jupiter), king of the gods. Minerva's mother, Metis, was pregnant and Jove was told that this child would be female but that the next one that Metis conceived would be a son who would overthrow him. Jove then swallowed her to put an end to the possibility of another child. Shortly thereafter Minerva sprang forth from his forehead, fully grown, wearing full armor, carrying a shield and spear and shouting a war cry. The phrase, spew forth from the brow of Jove fully armed, is used figuratively to mean something, such as a person, thing, idea or concept, appearing fully formed and developed without the usual and expected time, effort or hard work involved in achieving that. It wasn't he was—he didn't spew forth from the brow of Jove fully armed with this personality, but he certainly favors it. —Valences (Aug. 56)
Jungo-Bongo land: a made-up name for a land. The word actually was taken from an old body of healing, so that you will get some old witch doctor or something down in the middle of Jungo-Bongo land or something or in the middle of Harley-Wonga land and he will tell you—he will tell you that, "We have always known about engrams."—Exteriorization Procedures (Aug. 56)
Khrushnev: a humorous reference to Nikita Khrushchev (1894—1971), Russian political leader and premier of the Soviet Union from 1958 to 1964. In 1935, Khrushchev became the head of the Moscow Communist Party organization and in 1953, was made head of the Communist Party of the entire Soviet Union. Meeting with all Communist Party leaders in Moscow in February 1956, he made a monumental speech in which he strongly criticized former dictator of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin (1879-1953). Subsequent to this meeting, a "destalinization" program commenced in which statues

and pictures of Stalin were destroyed, the cities and towns formerly named after him were renamed. During this period there had been a rising tide of optimism from Great Britain as indications pointed to a new spirit, one of compromise and conciliation at the Kremlin, with Khrushchev and the prime minister of the Soviet Union visiting Britain in April 1956. However, even before Khrushchev left to return to his homeland, signs of threatening war were looming between Great Britain and the Soviet Union. So, you send him over to Russia to bump off Khrushnev or Bulgie or something, and you say, "All right. That's fine."—Start, Change and Stop (Aug. 56)
Know to Sex Scale: first published in 1954, a scale of behavior patterned on the Tone Scale. It included the levels of Know, Look, Emote, Effort, Think, Symbols, Eat and Sex. Mystery was later added to this scale, and it then became known as the Know to Mystery Scale. And that is then the Know to Sex Scale, the old Know to Mystery Scale. —Axioms 6-10 (Aug. 56)
LCM: an abbreviation for landing craft, medium. A landing craft is a naval vessel designed to deliver equipment and personnel to or near the shore during an amphibious assault. There are several different sizes and types of landing craft. Medium is used to designate a landing craft that is 50 feet long and can carry 60 men or 30 tons of supplies. One of these big fifty-foot LCMs came back alongside of the ship; it was full of wounded men. —8-C: Opening Procedure (Aug. 56)
Lotus Isles: a fabled land of the eighth century epic poem, Odyssey, written by the ancient Greek poet Homer. The hero of the story, Odysseus, and his men were sailing home from an adventure when they were forced ashore by a storm, arriving in the Lotus Isles. While ashore, members of the crew ate from the legendary lotus plant—referred to in Greek mythology as a plant yielding a fruit that induced a condition of forgetfulness and contentment in those who ate it. Losing all desire to return to their native land the crew had to be dragged back to the ship by force and shackled to their rowing benches. Now, he actually exteriorized from the body, went his way, picked up another body down in the Lotus Isles and spent two or three lifetimes just relaxing. — Creative Processes—Motion, Stops, Perception (Aug. 56)
Mauser: (trademark) the brand name of various types of rifles and automatic pistols, named after the brothers, Peter (1838-1914) and Wilhelm Mauser (1834-1882), German inventors of firearms. Don't walk out and buy a Mauser for administration to yourself to end it all; just understand the whole thing. —Code of a Scientologist (Aug. 56)
"Mock up ": the basic command used in various Creative Processes,
the blank being filled in by a specific item such as "a confusion," or "an identity that would cope with it all," etc. See also Creative Processes in
this glossary. In other words, you just have him mock up motion—"Mock up some of the motion occurring before this." —Creative Processes—Motion, Stops, Perception (Aug. 56)
Mugwump U: a made-up name for a university. Now, they might be one thing to the cricketer and they might be one thing to the football coach, they might be another thing to somebody who is going out to do and die for dear old Mugwump U. —Games Theory (Aug. 56)
Mussolini: Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), revolutionary leader and Italian dictator from 1922 to 1943. In 1919 he founded and led the Fascist Party in Italy to administer an anticommunist system of government with one absolute ruler



who had complete power and forcibly suppressed opposition and criticism, regimented all industry, commerce, etc., and imposed great restrictions upon the freedom of individuals. During World War II (1939-1945), after a series of Italian military disasters in Greece and North Africa, he was abandoned by the leaders of his party, arrested and was later rescued by German forces and made the head of the Italian government. When he attempted to flee advancing allied forces in 1945, organized Italian civilian fighters shot him and hung his body in a public square in Milan. Although popular with the Italian people until the late 1930s, he lost their support when he dragged his country into a war it was unprepared to fight. So we take a government that appoints or elects a dictator as its sole governing body. You know, only the dictator. You know, like way back when we had a fellow by the name of Mussolini. —Confusion and Stable Data (17 Aug. 56)
Newtonian: having to do with the famous English scientist and mathematician Isaac Newton (1642—1727). Best known for formulating the laws of gravity, Newton discovered many of the fundamental laws of the physical universe upon which modern physics has been developed, such as laws that cover the gravitational force of Earth, laws concerning light and color and concepts that developed into advanced mathematics. We are so immersed in the unproven theory of nuclear physics and Newtonian physics and Aristotelian materials and so forth that we are prone to accept them without too much question. —Axioms 6-10 (Aug. 56)
1.5: the tone level of anger on the Tone Scale. At 1.5, the individual is mainly concerned with the destruction of opposing realities, wrecking or changing them, knocking apart the realities of other people. He goes into the bank and he finds a 1.5 manager who is trying to stop all motion. — Code of a Scientologist (Aug. 56)
ovum sequence: an incident recorded in the reactive mind containing the perceptions of an ovum some days earlier than conception, sometimes beginning when the ovum (female reproductive cell; egg) emerges from the ovary (a female reproductive gland producing ovums). When the sperm reaches the ovum, the separate incident of conception takes place. See also sperm sequence in this glossary. Now, it happens that in the GE's bank, we have such things as the sperm sequence, the ovum sequence, the sperm-ovum sequence. These are all three separate types of engrams. —Facsimiles (Aug. 56)
Oxford Circus: an intersection between two major streets in London, England: Oxford Street and Regent Street. It is one of the central traffic exchanges in London, located in the center of the shopping district of the city. A circus in this sense is a paved traffic circle with several roads converging into the circle. That he doesn't go mad periodically and go chasing off" into France from Germany to steal some French cows and have vast millions of men being poured in to kill vast millions of men or sit in some ivory laboratory over in the US or in the steppes of Russia to push a button to obliterate something because somebody gave them the wrong change at one time or another down at Oxford Circus, you know? —Code of a Scientologist (Aug. 56)
Pavlov: Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936), Russian physiologist and surgeon. He is famous for his experiments on what he termed "conditioned reflexes." "Conditioning" is influencing a person or animal to behave or think a certain way by a gradual training process. In his experiments on conditioning,

Pavlov would ring a bell while presenting meat to a hungry dog. By doing this over and over, he found that the dog's normal reaction to food (saliva stimulated from the sight of the meat) was excited by the artificial stimulus of the bell even though no meat was present. The sound of the bell had become a substitute for the normal stimulus of food. There was a punk by the name of Pavlov who had a bunch of dogs and after a great many years of study he found out they barked. —Auditing Positions (Aug. 56)
PE Course: short for Personal Efficiency Course. At the time of this lecture, it was a very simple course continuing over five consecutive nights of one week, Monday through Friday, two hours each night. The first hour of the course was devoted to giving intelligence tests and the last hour of the course was devoted to giving after-tests and the intervening eight hours were filled with lectures, instruction and a little Group Processing. Some of the subjects covered were the ARC triangle, the eight dynamics and the cycle of action. In the same ratio, somebody comes from a business firm and sits down in a PE Course you're giving or a group course, something like that, and you tell him, "Well, life consists of people living."—Knowingness (Aug. 56)
Piccadilly Circus: an intersection at an open circular area located in western London, England where six busy streets come together. This area is a popular meeting place, shopping area and a large entertainment center. If you are in a large stream of traffic at Forty-second and Broadway or Piccadilly Circus and you want to cross the street, those flying particles, as they dash hither and thither, so on, can look pretty confusing to you. —Confusion and Stable Data (17 Aug. 56)
picnic, have a: have a difficult or unpleasant time. A picnic usually refers to an enjoyable experience (as in going on a picnic, an outing where the participants bring along food and have a meal in the open air), but in certain cases it is used ironically to mean the opposite. And when we add to it electronic phenomena—energy masses, ridges, engrams, facsimiles—blowing around like cards thrown up in a whirlwind, we get something you're going to have a picnic with. —Exteriorization Procedures (Aug. 56)
pie in the sky: the deceptive prospect of future benefits; an insincere wish or promise. The expression may have originated from a song called "The Preacher and the Slave" (ca. 1906) which contained the lines: "You will eat, by and by, / In that glorious land above the sky (way up high!); / Work and pray, live on hay, / You'll get pie in the sky when you die." Chaps come along every now and then, whether an Egyptian priest or who else, and sells us pie in the sky. —Scales, Motion (Aug. 56)
Polaris: the brightest star in the constellation commonly known as the Little Dipper; also called the "polar star" because it appears to remain in a fixed place in the sky near the North Pole. However, due to the pull of gravity between the Sun, Moon and Earth, the Earth's axis (an imaginary line running through the middle of the earth from north to south) gradually shifts in direction. With this shift, in about 12,000 years, Polaris will no longer appear close to the North Pole and the star, Vega, instead will become the new polar star. See also Vega in this glossary. The North Pole, on which sailors rely so pathetically, every 12,500 years shifts so far as to be the star Vega, which is a considerable distance from Polaris. Polaris is not really even the North Pole—the polar star. —Confusion and Stable Data (17 Aug. 56)



Prophet, The: a book written by Kahlil Gibran (1883-1931), poet, artist and philosopher born in Lebanon. The Prophet was published in 1923 and has since been translated into more than twenty languages. It is a series of poetic writings covering a wide array of subjects such as love, children, marriage, self-knowledge, work, joy, sorrow and freedom. It also includes writings on teaching, for example: "No man can reveal to you aught but that which already lies half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge. The teacher who walks in the shadow of the temple, among his followers, gives not of his wisdom but rather of his faith and his lovingness." We're studying living. Kahlil Gibran said in his very, very great book The Prophet that anyone to understand him had to have a shadow of that knowledge in himself first. —The Auditor's Code (Aug. 56)
puppy to the root: a coined phrase expressing thoroughness, completeness; all the way. This phrase may come from the idea of a young dog persistently tracking or trailing something or digging in the ground for something for which he has caught the scent. To the root is often used in phrases indicating thoroughness or totality and may allude to the fact that if one goes down to the root (such as of a tree or plant), one is including the entirety of something down to the very bottom or base. And, by the way, a very, very amusing story concerning this: I had an auditor testing, just puppy to the root, a technique, you know. — Games Theory (Aug. 56)
rare earths: see earths in this glossary.
Rosicrucian Holy Empire Synagogue: a made-up name for a church. The word Rosicrucian refers to a member of a supposed society or order of philosophers from around the sixteenth century who claimed various forms of secret and magic knowledge and power, such as the prolongation of life, power over the elements and transmutation of metals (changing low quality metals into gold or silver). He's going to be a priest of the Rosicrucian Holy Empire Synagogue or something. —Knowingness (Aug. 56)
Siberia: a vast region of eastern Russia (about five million square miles), known for its severe winters. Sparsely populated, it became a place of exile for criminal and political offenders during Soviet rule (1917-1991). In 1956, psychiatry attempted to strengthen its grasp on society with the introduction of a bill in the United States Congress that came to be known as the Siberia Bill (actually named the Alaska Mental Health Bill). The proposed outcome of this bill was likened to a Siberia-type camp for mental health patients in the frozen wastelands of Alaska. The bill incorporated a "simplified commitment procedure" that eradicated jury trials and legal defenses and allowed any peace officer, friend, medical doctor or psychiatrist to institute commitment proceedings. Just after January 1956, a coalition of members of the Church of Scientology and civil rights groups launched a campaign to inform the American public of what this bill held in store for them, and after a huge letter-writing campaign inspiring political opposition, the commitment section of the bill was dead and only an act to authorize mental health funding to the territory of Alaska survived. According to them, why, I eat small children and I'm at this moment somewhere in Alaska in an insane asylum in their own personal Siberia and they—you know, it just goes on and on and on. —Confusion and Stable Data (17 Aug. 56)
Six Levels of Processing: an operating procedure consisting of a series of processing steps that emphasize bettering the preclear's reality and power of choice. The Six Levels of Processing introduced a method of auditing and a

new auditing atmosphere which articulated the attitudes best calculated to maintain continuing stable gains in a case. The auditing atmosphere was ARC, with gain marked by continuing rises in ARC. There were several issues of the Six Levels of Processing, and at the time of these lectures, LRH was refining Six Levels of Processing, Issue 8.
SLP 8: see Six Levels of Processing in this glossary. The lowest process which would be addressed to any case would simply be the first process of SLP 8, which is not as we were saying before "Find the preclear. Find the auditor. Find the walls," but the process which leads the preclear to find the preclear, find the auditor and find the walls. —Start, Change and Stop (Aug. 56)
SLPs: see Six Levels of Processing in this glossary. There is no great difficulty in doing this, just the standard SLPs handle these phenomena. —Facsimiles (Aug. 56)
slug: hard, steady work; long, fatiguing expenditure of effort. But don't think it isn't hard to do, it is hard to do. It contains quite a lot of slug. —Exteriorization Procedures (Aug. 56)
snake people: one of a race of beings that have come into this universe. They are recognizable by their behavior. They are very quiet, and they want you to prove everything. A full description exists in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture number 43. There are also snake people way on the backtrack. Yes, the snakes were very wise. —Valences (Aug. 56)
Solids: a type of Creative Processing. It had the purpose of bringing an individual up to a level of tolerating solids and increasing his havingness. See Creative Processes in this glossary. And you do that with a process known as Solids; it's a gradient scale of getting around to putting together a universe that is very convincing. —Axioms 1-5 (3 Aug. 56)
sperm-ovum sequence: the sperm and ovum sequence together; conception. See also sperm sequence and ovum sequence in this glossary. Now, it happens that in the GE's bank, we have such things as the sperm sequence, the ovum sequence, the sperm-ovum sequence. These are all three separate types of engrams. —Facsimiles (Aug. 56)
sperm sequence: an incident recorded in the reactive mind containing the perceptions of a sperm (male reproductive cell) some days earlier than conception, beginning when the sperm takes off to hit the ovum. When the sperm reaches the ovum, the separate incident of conception takes place. It is called sperm sequence because there isn't any ovum present. In 1950, LRH found that the sperm sequence usually contained pain and unconsciousness and that it could be reduced as an engram. Now, it happens that in the GE's bank, we have such things as the sperm sequence, the ovum sequence, the sperm-ovum sequence. These are all three separate types of engrams. —Facsimiles (Aug. 56)
spin: an instance of going into a state of mental confusion. Every time we had an upset, a break, a fast spin, a broken session—preclear blows the session, so forth—one or more of those clauses had been violated. And so they are the test of great experience. —The Auditor's Code (Aug. 56)



spinbin: (slang) a coined word meaning mental institution. You get the idea, by the way, that people, if you use these things that crudely on them, would suppose that you were straight out of a spinbin, but I assure you the weapon transcends their ability to reason. —The Auditor's Code (Aug. 56)
spin in: a slang term meaning go insane. The probable source of the term comes from an incident on the track known as The Spinner, a chair device which was used to spin the thetan until he had no orientation. Now, as we look over this alternation of extroversion-introversion, we unlock the secret of why people spin in, go mad, adopt other valences, become disabled, become incapable of thought—all of these various odds and ends become revealed. —Auditing Positions (Aug. 56)
stonied: stunned or numb with shock. He sat there sort of stonied for a moment, you know? —The Auditor's Code (Aug. 56)
Stork Margarine: the trademark for a British brand of margarine (an artificially prepared edible fat) first introduced in 1869 in France as a substitute for butter at less cost. It is made by Van Den Berghs & Jurgens Ltd., a company in England established in 1895. It says, "Bread loves Stork Margarine," you know? —Confusion and Stable Data (17 Aug. 56)
Transvaal War: reference to the Boer War (1899-1902) which was fought between the Boers (South Africans of Dutch descent) and the British. The Boers were from two separate South African provinces (Transvaal and the Orange Free State). In 1886, a discovery of large gold deposits in these areas resulted in an influx of a tremendous number of British and German miners and fortune seekers. The Boers worked to deny the immigrants full political rights and power and, protesting this treatment, the British staged an uprising, bringing in nearly half a million British soldiers. As a result, Boer forces were overcome and surrendered, and the British gained full victory with Transvaal and the Orange Free State becoming British colonies. Well, the fellow got killed in the Transvaal War and there he is. —Scales, Curiosity and Not-know (Aug. 56)
Trio: a basic process run to increase a preclear's havingness. It is called "Trio" because there are three separate commands used in the process. These commands address "have," "permit to remain in place" and "dispense with," e.g., "Look around the room and tell me something you could have," "Look around the room and tell me something you would permit to remain where it is," and "Look around the room and tell me something you could dispense with." The three commands are run several times for the first, fewer for the second, fewer for the third. And then repeated. The end in view is to bring the preclear into a condition whereby he can possess or own or have whatever he sees, without further conditions, ramifications or restrictions. And in addition to this, you have to remedy his havingness from time to time, maybe with such a thing as the Trio. —Exteriorization Procedures (Aug. 56)
Upper Scandhoovian Yalps: a made-up name for a mountain region. There isn't anybody more unhappy than some chap who knows all there is to know about the ibexes pluris of the Upper Scandhoovian Yalps. —Scales, Curiosity and Not-know (Aug. 56)
Vega: the brightest star in the constellation Lyra in the northern sky and the fifth brightest star in the sky. In around 12,000 years, Vega will become what is called the "polar star," a star which appears to remain in a fixed

place in the sky near the North Pole. The polar star is now Polaris, however, due to the pull of gravity between the Sun, Moon and Earth, the Earth's axis (an imaginary line running through the middle of the earth from north to south) gradually shifts in direction. With this shift, Polaris will no longer appear close to the North Pole and the star, Vega, instead will become the new polar star. See also Polaris in this glossary. The North Pole, on which sailors rely so pathetically, every 12,500 years shifts so far as to be the star Vega, which is a considerable distance from Polaris. Polaris is not really even the North Pole—the polar star. —Confusion and Stable Data (17 Aug. 56)
Weimar Republic: the name of the German Republic from 1919 to 1933, so named because the constitution for the republic was drawn up in the central German city of Weimar. During the time of this republic, Germany was crippled by the election of antidemocratic parties to the parliament and the country splintered into numerous special-interest groups, each contending for power and control. At the same time, Germany was forced to submit to strict settlement agreements as a result of World War I to prevent further aggression from Germany against other world powers. A severe depression began in 1929, plunging Germany into a tremendous economic slump. In 1933, the republic was dissolved completely when Adolf Hitler (1889—1945) came to power. And they let the Weimar Republic be formed. And then they didn't even control the Weimar Republic. —8-C: Opening Procedure (Aug. 56)
wheels, slipping (one's): (slang) a variation of slipping a cog, an expression meaning losing one's reason or good sense. A cogwheel is a wheel with teeth that are called cogs. These teeth are inserted between the teeth of another wheel so that they mesh, thus when one cogwheel is rotated, the other wheel turns as well. If one slips a cog, one or more of the cogs have not meshed properly into the other wheel's cogs and the wheel being driven by the other ceases to turn. This slang use derives from the mechanical failure owing to the cogs failing to mesh. If anybody were to walk up to me and tell me that I had to have all kinds of provisos and so forth and it was absolutely impossible for me to control a certain group of people, something of this sort, I'd think they were slipping their wheels. —8-C: Opening Procedure (Aug. 56)

Web auditing in any place on the planet

Вернуться в «L Ron Hubbard original LECTIONS, TAPES»