The Rehubilitation of the Human Spirit volume 3

The Rehubilitation of the Human Spirit volume 3

Сообщение Timecops » 26 дек 2015, 10:25

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

Second American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures Camden. New Jersey • November - December 1953
Volume 3

Contents
30 November 1953
27. Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I 1
28. Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness 15
29. Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II 19
1 December 1953
30. Lack of Space 33
2 December 1953
31. Blackness 47
3 December 1953
32. Time: Cause and Effect, Part I 61
33. Time: Cause and Effect, Part II 75
4 December 1953
34. Plan of SOP 8-C 89
35. LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization 103
7 December 1953
36. Barriers, Occlusion 119
37. Outline of SOP 8-C 133
8 December 1953
38. Essence of SOP 8-C 149
39. Problems of Auditing 163
Appendix:
SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit 179
This Is Scientology, The Science of Certainty 193
Standard Operating Procedure 8 215
Tone Scale [1953] 225
About the Author 227
Glossary 231
Books and Tapes by L. Ron Hubbard 271
Address List of Scientology Churches and Organizations 289

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

Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I
A lecture given on 30 November 1953

This is November the 30th, morning lecture.
This morning, going to try to give you some behavior application of what you have been getting here the past couple of weeks.
Want to repeat first, because this is Monday morning, the highest level of operation of what is humorously referred to as life. And that is, it knows; that's its highest level. Doesn't know anything, you understand—it knows. That's its potentiality of anything. It's a high potential.
And the highest level of what you're into—the game called MEST universe is a game requiring barriers and limitations. This isn't the only kind of game there is, but I won't befuddle your wits by trying to use, in MEST language, how many other kinds of games there are.
There are other kinds of games that have nothing to do with distance, they have nothing to do with barriers, as you see them.
But this game with which you are concerned right now, in this universe, is a game which has to do with barriers. And this is the only game which you have to solve in the pc.
Of course, there are first these barriers to knowingness, and then barriers to perception. And both of these barriers constitute eventually a barrier of space. So the highest of the operation is space itself. This of course would be the one, then, which you would—most likely to find befuddled in the individual, because it is the highest and most common of all these barriers.
Any time when you depart from this formula—which is to say, MEST universe, a game of barriers—you are adrift in processing, in this universe. Barriers becoming very frequent and considerable, form and re-form; and in any group which is in agreement amongst itself, form at a uniform rate, and unform at a uniform rate. Particles shift and move at an agreed-upon rate. And this agreed-upon rate is time, and there isn't any other time to refer this time to, which of course, makes it a single-terminal proposition and makes it aberrative.
Now, when we look, then, at any confusion in an individual, it'll be a confusion on the subject of time, because it doesn't have a second time. If there were two times, there would be no confusion about time, because you could always compare time to time of some other kind. Whereas if you do any comparison in time in this universe, you compare time to itself.
And this is something like saying: "Joe is a nice fellow, he's like Joe." "Joe is a long fellow, he's like Joe." "Joe is too short because he's like Joe." And we don't have any Bill.

1

2

30 NOVEMBER 1953
Well, you say, "Joe is shorter than Bill," the second we have Bill. So if we just have Joe, well, we say, "Well, you know he's just as big as Joe and he's as small as Joe and as short as Joe and as long as Joe and as stupid as Joe and as Bill as Joe." You get the idea?
So this single—single-terminal proposition puts all sorts of stress and strain on the problem. And it isn't a terminal, you see, it's just a singleness of comparison. So that singleness of comparison all by itself constitutes a barrier.
Why? Because the fellow can't find out what time it is. The only way he can find out what time it is, is finding out what time it is. And therefore, it's just as easy for it to be 76 trillion years ago in a guy's mind as it is tomorrow.
Fact of the matter is, theta needn't be concerned with time at all. The trick is that you ought to be concerned about time; that's the trick. And you shouldn't be concerned about time, because you don't have much to do with time.
You are, as far as time is concerned, a motionless viewpoint. You endure forever, God help you. And this endurance is engaged in viewing a shift of particles; the particles are shifting, you aren't. You shift the particles, and you shift the part of the particles which you view—and in doing this, you can become very befuddled, you can think you're a particle and you can play lots of games within yourself; but the point is, is you can see the whole universe simultaneously. It isn't much to look at, it's a whole flock of particles.
If you see it simultaneously, you'll see all the particles stopped. And then if you see it simultaneously, tickita-tickita-tickita-tickita-tickita, you'll see the particles shifting. There are a lot of particles in the universe, quite a few.
So instantaneousness is more desirable than something involving time. It's quite remarkable—you're very remarkable, extremely so. You can take something which is agreed upon in terms of the MEST universe and find in that thing—you can find in it a method of communication, and you can even string this communication to past time, and you can even understand this. Very, very remarkable.
It isn't odd or phenomenal, it's just remarkable because you don't realize you're remarkable. In any society, you're supposed not to, you see—particularly this one. You're not supposed to realize you're remarkable, yet you are.
And this remarkableness, unexpressed and inhibited and so on, is simply an inhibition or a barrier, as it is inhibited, to knowingness. You see, that you're alive and ticking at all, is what's strange. Because the enormous force which is leveled against you, and the enormous amount of confusion to which the individual is being subjected, the considerable amount of randomity—you see, if you even stop to think about it, the whole area around you is an automaticity. I've been waiting for somebody to suddenly realize this; suddenly realize this and sort of fall back in a dead faint with the recognition that as far as automaticity is concerned, he has it—ne plus ultra—right in present time.
Cars go in the wrong directions, and you've got stuff bonging off you all the time in terms of particles, and going away from you and hitting you again. And the predictability of the environment is quite poor, very poor, as long as you insist on being a single point of viewpoint.
You see, you can predict anything you want to, actually, but it's become important that you predict the particles, merely because you're trying to safeguard somebody else's problems, you know, and hold them down. And as long as you have somebody else's problems to safeguard, why, it becomes very important that you predict these things.
Any one of you right now, actually—you're not held by anything, or trapped by a darn thing. You—it's just your own interest—it's your own interest in

SPACE, PERCEPTION, KNOWINGNESS, PART I
your body, and interest in, oh, "how bad TV is" and "how horrible the movies are these days" and "what the next murder is going to be." It's just your interest. You hang around, and now you've accepted an awful lot of problems. And you've accepted these problems from Mama—she had lots of problems, and Papa— he had lots of problems. And all these people had problems, and now you got problems. And you try to worry yourself along about these problems.
And yet, if you think you detest worry, why do you go to the motion-picture show? All the motion-picture show is, is a whole concatenation of worry. You're supposed to be interested in the couple of people that everybody else seem to be interested in, and you are supposed to go on from moment to moment not knowing what's going to happen next. You don't want to cheat—all you'd have to do, actually, is just contact that reel of film or the remaining films in the cans, and you would know the whole plot.
More understandably, if you had a book in your hands, and this book lies there in your hands, all you've got to do is look at the last page and you'll find out who killed him. That's all you've got to do. And yet you sit there with all those pages unturned, not cheating, and going through, so that you can do this. A book in essence is a worry machine. No matter how fine the story is, it's just a worry machine. That's all there is to it. It's—you're supposed to get interested in these people and then worry about them, you see, and not know what's going to happen to them, and be surprised, and go on through to the end, and be very satisfied that you've worried so much.
In a super-fictionized society such as the United States of America or Great Britain, these worries, fictionized, amount to a dramatization on the part of people of heroic parts. And then the contest of the society is not to permit anybody to fill any heroic part. This again makes randomity.
And as you look at these shifting particles, these shifting barriers, and the barriers of knowingness—you see, you're perfectly willing to have a barrier of knowingness, otherwise you'd never bother to read a fiction book. That shows you immediately what you're—how willing you are.
Now, your problem gets down to a point where you've set up everything automatic and then you're not happy about it. And the main reason you're not happy about it is because you can't solve these problems which are being posted at you all the time. Because there are many echelons of these problems, and amongst those echelons is what they call "real life." And real life as defined, just by definition, is grim and serious and terrible, and so you have to take this thing which by definition is grim and serious and terrible, and you have to solve that. It's not grim and it's not serious and it's not terrible.
The funny part of it is, there's nothing like a boa constrictor or a lion jumping out of a—from behind a rock, or a panther down from a tree, to bring a man up to present time. He comes up to present time with great speed.
In the past, many philosophers have attempted to solve this problem, and a philosopher never could have solved this problem because it's a problem essentially in terms of knowingness and action. And as long as he just was trying to dwell in the realm of knowingness, and not in a realm of action, he could sit there like Buddha in his palace and worry-worry-worry-worry-worry, and finally let his coachman fast-talk him into going out into the world to alleviate the woes of all these poor people.
He'd been sitting in a palace—no panthers had been jumping on his neck, and no boss had been coming along threatening to fire him all the time—so of course he could be a philosopher. He never did get into any understanding of the situation, the—that's a different proposition.

3

4

30 NOVEMBER 1953
If you want understanding, you'd better go out and set this body up as a target sometime and pitch it off a high cliff into a deep part of the sea and try to swim amongst a few sharks and, you know, make life a little bit interesting.
And you find out you never feel better than after you've bested a forty-eight-hour or seventy-two-hour hurricane with the ship going to pieces under you and all the sails blown away and everybody in a frame of mind of mutiny and you're standing there with what little splinter of wood is left for a tiller. And it blows clear, and you say, "Well, what do you know?" Boy, are you in present time.
And the only trouble is, you get a surfeit of this sort of thing with one particular body, and you keep hanging on to all the effort which you have gone to in order to solve immediate problems and worries. And then you get into various situations where the other universe which you are facing is itself too puzzling for words, and is capable of setting off in you—because of the stored effort and emotion in a body—is capable of setting off in you, somewhat on the order of an atomic bomb, sudden and surprising emotional releases. Attacks, you might say, rather than releases, due to the connotation of the word releases—but these sudden emotional attacks; sudden, dismaying, almost indescribable rushes of emotional kickback which you didn't intend to have, and which your body, actually, is not quite strong enough to withstand.
Now, as long as you think you're a body, you don't then think you can withstand much, because you gauge what you can stand with regard to what the body can stand. And the body can't stand very much. You wave a baseball bat at it and you can kill it. I mean, it's very interesting. This is true, the body can't stand up under this.
Well, these sudden rushes and waves of emotion which hit you under stress—particularly in such fields of randomity as the opposite sex or parents— are brought home to you as very, very serious and grim indeed, because you see that your body can't stand these things. Well, you see, you're to a large degree protecting your body, and so you assume, unreasonably, of course—for more randomity—that you can't stand them. And you wait, after such a surge of emotion, to be surged at again unexpectedly.
A man learns after a while that his life is not going to continue as one long afternoon song. There's going to be things happen which are quite bombastic.
Take this thing called love. Somebody is going along very happily and cheerfully—oh, dabbles with the second dynamic this way and that way. And then one day he mistakenly gets a voracity or a voraciousness about eating, you see, and that is, he can't survive if he eats or he—so on. He gets this terrific emotion and it keys in all the times the body has been eaten and so forth, and he's in love!
You think I'm now running down the whole idea of being in love. I'm not running down the idea of being in love. That's just one of the more—it's one of the more interesting things to do. If you want to commit suicide that way, it's as good as any other way—bullets are quicker. But here's this emotion, and this emotion was a strange and overpowering thing which an individual found he could not control. Oh-oh! An emotion he couldn't control. And it swept in with great speed and great suddenness and there it was. It was all very nice, and it was a quiet afternoon, and then this girl showed up, or this fellow showed up, and—it didn't have to be sudden, it probably grew over a period of months. And one, one day, woke up to the fact that he was very deep inside some sort of a trap he couldn't quite figure out.
His concentration on the opposite sex was so intense that he couldn't easily release it, and he recognizes this. Then, of course, in the usual course of events

SPACE, PERCEPTION, KNOWINGNESS, PART I
with love and so forth, although it says in the storybooks "they lived happily ever after," they don't explain that "ever after" is from three years, two years— something like this, see? They don't explain their definition of the time. So you'll have time creeping in, you see, undefined.
And you have, probably, some beautiful sadness—which is a little bit too strong for even cast iron to bear—crop up, and you feel like you don't want to eat anymore and you don't want to sleep anymore and you can't get along anymore. And in short, you're up against the problem of you can't knock this body off, because it isn't worth having anymore. It's just—obviously it's no— was unable to serve the purpose of keeping that other body in line, and so therefore, if you've got to keep bodies in line with other bodies (which in itself is a piece of nonsense), you won't be able to go on with this body any longer. Such love affairs very often end in suicide, and as a matter of fact suicide attempts are quite often immediately traced to such a situation.
Well, we look this over, and we find out that this is not scarce, this is not rare, this happens quite often. As a matter of fact, it very often happens to somebody before he's five. And he's fallen desperately in love with his mother, and he breaks that one up, and later love affairs lie on top of that one.
Of course, Freud picked this up, and said (of course, searching for deep significance), "This is the only thing that we're shooting for."
The point here is that one is hit by an overwhelming surge of emotion and afterwards he doesn't want any. You couldn't sell him any emotion, actually, if you tried very hard. He's very leery of the whole subject. He is afraid, for one thing, that the loved one who has departed may show up again. He doesn't even know what his emotional reaction would be if this person returned into his immediate vicinity. That's very, very puzzling to him.
He may go on for years till someday he gets a letter to somebody else, or she gets a letter written to her or something, in some way, shape or form, that mentions the name of this other person, or does something about her, or some intimate touch is thrown in there, and they sit there in a state of shock! But what they're shocked about is the fact they didn't perish just because of the recontact. They very often say, "Well, for God's sakes!"
Well, they're like somebody—somebody who's been living, expecting this trap to fly open in his face any moment, and putting most of the energy which he can develop against the lid of it so that it won't fly open and so he won't fall in; then some son of a gun leaves it open and he almost slides in, and he takes a look and there's no trap there. This is an interesting experience.
Now, as we look over this, we find out that these sudden, terrific and unexpected surges of pain, these surges of emotion, sudden unconsciousnesses— this is an inexplicable thing to an individual—unconsciousness. He isn't there at all, which is the very antithesis of knowingness. And he looks over the problem, and the problem is to him too much for him to bear, so now he has something to worry about.
There's these inexplicable things which come in on him, and which he has to hold back, and then he forgets what he's holding back and so he's afraid to take his finger off anything, and he starts living a life which is about as carefully plotted as any surveyor ever made a cow path. It just—it goes to here, and it goes to there, and then it goes someplace else, and it goes someplace else. He's measuring his whole life out with a transit, you might say. And his problems have compounded to a point where he can't even find the cow path anymore but he knows there is one, and he knows that it has its exact position somewhere, so he just doesn't touch anything. He goes into a complete withdrawal mechanism.

5

6

30 NOVEMBER 1953
Any moment, these emotions may hit, you see. Any moment Gertie or somebody may suddenly show up in the vicinity, or Bill might suddenly appear, you know, and so on.
A little boy, a little girl very often won't come close to a certain street corner anymore where they've had a fight. They couldn't stand up to that one. And so they begin to avoid the universe geographically, and they begin to avoid these barriers. What are these barriers? These—the barriers—the worst barriers are the ones that jump at you, or jump away from you suddenly.
But in common experience, you find that these things actually go back to a very few and very simple basics. For instance, we find out that duplication is a very, very fine part of processing. Why? Where does duplication show up in (quote) "real life" (unquote)? Well, the dramatization of the facsimile is what we used to call it.
Now, in order to put anything there, it has to be made and unmade, and made and unmade, practically at the speed of light. And for something to be solid, one has to be able to make and unmake things. Life begins to be very unreal when one no longer can make things do one of, and all of, three things: which is create—he can't create them, or make them persist, or destroy them. And there are your three conditions, are that he creates something, he makes it persist and he destroys it.
And he gets to a point, finally, where he can't do one or another of these things, or—and he does the others less well, and what he'd have to do to rehabilitate this is (he knows this, he operates on it instinctively) is to duplicate it—duplicate it somehow.
And so we get such things as the overt act-motivator sequence: something is done to him, he should duplicate it. And if he duplicates it, however, if he doesn't duplicate it often enough in real life, he naturally just throws what he's trying to duplicate into restimulation, as any preclear will. So it wasn't that working out one's motivators was bad, it was just that one couldn't find enough victims. And the—he then starts to get what you call motivator-hungry. He's done an awful lot of things, and these things haven't been duplicated on him. In other words, nothing runs out; everything stays in on this sort of balance.
What is the effort of somebody going down the street and giving somebody else a lot of bad news, trying to give him worries? He's just trying to duplicate these worries.
What happens—remember Hippocrates, I think it was, one of the old race of doctors—used to say that a patient was never well until he'd told about his operation five times. I think that was supposed to be Hippocrates, but that's in medical science—and they weren't operating on people in those days, but that's all right, we'll let it go by. We won't question these people too closely, they have their own little world.
Now, we have this problem of trying to duplicate. You know if you can just duplicate it often enough, you'll be able to handle it. If you have enough kids, you'll be able to handle it. See how that adds up? If you could make enough people into bums, then you can handle it. If you can be made into a bum often enough, then you can handle it, you see? Duplication.
But when one begins to depend upon the universe or the chance—which is randomity itself—to do his duplicating for him, he of course gets into trouble because this is handing over one of the most essential portions of self-determinism. Which is to say, that if you have something and you lose it, you should be able to duplicate it.

SPACE, PERCEPTION, KNOWINGNESS, PART I
And the way you make up something, is just to duplicate it and make it vanish and so on, up until the point where it begins to persist. So we get the whole problem of life actually on this business of duplication.
It's very funny, you start getting somebody wasting teeth in brackets, and if he wastes teeth long enough—and just waste teeth—he will find out that the body gets so relieved, that they get up to a tone level where they say, "Whee! Let's make everything and everybody into teeth." And you get—that's their big ambition, you see.
Now they've gotten up to a point where they think they can duplicate enough to be out of the duress of limited space in which they're placed. And that is the one reason a person tries to duplicate. He wants to get out of the duress of limited space or he wants to get into a limited space and out of the duress of too much space—either way—and he does it by duplication.
Now, duplication is the flow of creation, and duplication is the process by which one—a thing persists. So we get into creation—just once is good enough. See, that's creation. It doesn't matter—creation has nothing to do with endurance or duration.
Now we go over into persistence, which is the center part of the curve, and we find out that one must duplicate and then unduplicate, and duplicate and unduplicate. So if you actually got the whole curve in action, when you're making something endure, you're having create and destroy. And if you get a repetitive create-destroy, create-destroy, create-destroy, create-destroy, you will eventually set up an automatic create-destroy. You see, you take your finger off of it so that you don't have to worry about it anymore. Or you can at least bring it back into a complete self-determinism.
It all depends on whether you want to take the motorcycle down the road, or the motorcycle—you want the motorcycle to take you down the road. And your intention is what regulates this, it isn't something that happens automatically. Things don't just automatically fly out of your own orbit, no matter what you do. They don't fly out until you say, "Beat it"—the truth of the matter.
Male voice: Intention.
Intention, that's right. What's your intention? Is your intention to go on being self-determined, or is your intention to go on being and start to be other-determined? See, which is your intention? And that's about all that establishes the difference.
By the way, intention itself doesn't establish any high order of action. Intention is just choice of two determinisms, which is self-determinism and other-determinism. We find out when people have given away too much self-determinism, made it other-determinism, if their intention was to continually do that, that they suffer from it. We find that.
And you'll also, because we not looking—we're not looking at the higher end of the band, it's equally amusing that if anybody gives away too much things into his own control, he also becomes unhappy. Once in a while, we see this in processing, an immediate line. A fellow—an auditor will knock too much automaticity out of somebody, and make him too self-determined for his environment, and the fellow is miserable—he knows too much.
And every once in a while, I've fixed up some preclear with vast enthusiasm, preclear just went on operating, just went on doing what I asked him to do, and after a while—of course, it's for his environment. Actually, you would have to be about one thousand times as self-determined as anybody in this environment to have too little self-determinism in other and faster societies. But in this one, he gets up to a level of where, gee, he knows what's going to happen and he

7

8

30 NOVEMBER 1953
can predict anything, his speed, his competence comes up. And gosh, he gets real unhappy. Because he's just stepped out of pace with what he's considering, at the moment, livingness. So it goes either way.
And there is a balance, a neat balance between self-determinism and other-determinism, which balance itself is determined by the cultural level in which the individual is trying to live. You get very self-determined, you get so competent, for instance, that your accuracy with a sword or your accuracy with a lightning bolt or your accuracy with something else would be sufficiently great to wipe out all opponents—you immediately come up against "why wipe out any opponents?" Becomes silly.
So you wipe out all the opponents. They don't happen to be any enemy of yours; they can't be. Your competence has come up to a point where you can no longer play with them. You've just left all the kids in your neighborhood, in other words. You've gone up and sit on top of a hill. And you'll notice that kids don't like to leave all the kids in their neighborhood and go and sit on top of a hill, even though they're mad at all the kids in the neighborhood!
They only go sit up on top of the hill just long enough, you see, to get their temper back and figure something mean to do within the realm of agreement. And if they figured out something really mean, like the—supposing they rolled back into the childhood play with a French 75 loaded with shrapnel and chain shot, you know? It just—there wouldn't be any game.
Well, these are the various problems, the problems of creation. One can go in for unlimited creation, one can go in for unlimited persistence, one can go in for unlimited destruction, but when he goes in for any one of these things, he unbalances everything he's trying to do.
You'll find people who have dropped away from an ability to create become very miserable. And there is nothing more sour than somebody who can only destroy; he's a real sour apple. And God help the fellow who can only endure or persist—he can't create, he can't destroy, he can only endure or persist. Ooh, what a dogged fate to hand anybody! You could give him mobs of people agreeing with mobs of people that it will never end, you practically knock him flat—because that's what "persist" is.
So we were operating all this time, really—the "what life is doing"—you see, in Dianetics, what life was doing was surviving. That's right, it's enduring, that is the explanation of life. That's the only thing wrong with it: My God, does it endure. Its forms endure.
You set up a group or something in this society and it'll endure. Everything combines to make it endure. You can get so confoundedly sick of your own constructions standing up, that you wish to Pete there was a French 75 that would knock down some of the ideas you've set up for yourself—they're all enduring. You wonder what's wrong with your postulates, why they don't wipe out easily, why your locks don't release, why you can't run an engram and get an erasure on the thing. Well, you're enduring—boy, you sure are. You're out there for a goal which is without end.
Now, this is a very tricky goal indeed, as soon as we recognize this, because it doesn't run on an end of cycle. You see that? You've seen the efficacy of end of cycle—"Well, I finally finished that," you say. That's the efficiency of it, the beauty of it, and it produces a considerable relief. But what about these things—how do you run an end of cycle of something which starts out on the postulate it will endure forever? You see? It makes a very amusing thing. Well, the thing for it—because, you see, if it is destroyed then, why, it's a losing cycle.

SPACE, PERCEPTION, KNOWINGNESS, PART I
Well, there is a way to lick it. You just bust it down by creating the thing— just endlessly create it. Let it go on and endure, do anything it pleases, but just go on and create it and create it and create it and create it and create it and create it and you've—all of a sudden, it breaks down on the sheer weight of "too much." You see that?
So that something which is set up with a basic postulate it must endure is in essence running backwards. It's running until creation. If it's set up to endure and you let it—you try to run end of cycle on destruction, of course you—you've failed. So that brings in the failure cycle. So you let it run until creation. Just run it backwards, that's all. See that?
Now, back of that lies another mechanism, is that which is not admired persists. So if you just keep on creating—let's take real life, this is humorously referred to—let's take your endurance of things that aren't admired. And you'll find that people are actually trying, here and there, to end that cycle just naturally. You know, they kind of know this—it's one of the working operations of life, and so they try to create this thing which isn't admired.
So they go on creating things that they know won't be admired, and they feel if they create enough of them often enough in real life, why, they will eventually be able to whip this thing which is enduring. It's like the fox without his tail— he goes around and tries to sell all the foxes on the idea that no fox should have a tail. If he can just create the condition widely enough and often enough, he feels it will cease, you see. Well, that's not good processing, not good at all. Because he runs into the other complexities—overt—motivator mechanisms and so on.
He's setting up new solutions—I mean, new problems to be solved, which is to say the unhappiness about him of all other foxes and so on. Well, why he just doesn't go back of a tree someplace and sit down quietly, and create mock-ups of foxes without tails until he either grows one or he's no longer worried about them, one doesn't quite recognize.
Well, a thing endures until it's created, if it's a bad thing. And it endures until it's destroyed, if it's a good thing. Now, you can run end of cycle on an awful lot of people simply by running Assumptions. Do you get that? I mean, you run this undesirable thing of having to pick up somebody else's baby, and you run this for a while, and you keep running Assumptions as end of cycle. Or you just create the Assumption over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and create it here and there, and ye god, you fill the Atlantic and the Pacific and all the distance between here and the moon with them, and you just keep on, and eventually it becomes funny, even to the preclear. He finally lets one go.
This is the mechanisms of scarcity. People try to create a scarcity so that they can fix some attention. If a person has a billion of something, why, attention sure is scattered amongst them. And in view of the fact that the thetan is not a thing, he is much more likely to dream up something of which there is only one. And he himself gets into the "only one" category.
Now, we see this—these mechanisms operating in life. You can go over them and so on, but I want to call your attention to these things as important. And basically there is knowingness. And then, step down from that, you— stepping down from, basically, we have space, which of course immediately is a barrier. It's the barrier called distance, which is a trick barrier. And we have other limiting barriers. People then try to fight, you see, the barrier called distance, and they fight that by putting up walls, limitations and so forth, so there won't be distances, and they run out of space. So they're caught between

9

10

30 NOVEMBER 1953
the Devil and space. And the Devil is no space, and God is all space, if you want the difference between these concepts. All right.
They work with that. And I call your attention to that and tell you very bluntly that any time you exceed that in processing—that is to say, if you don't realize that that is what you're working with to solve the problem of this universe: knowingness, barriers, in which distance itself is a barrier, and the impositions of barriers—and anytime you exceed that, you're going to bog your preclear down because you're going to be validating new barriers. You're just going to give him more barriers than you're going to take away.
And anytime you start reaching into the significance of things, you put a new strain on his knowingness. Now, you start worrying like psychotherapy has always worried about the "deep significance of," and you're just catering to the fact that his words betray him, and that life is liable to confront him with problems which in solving them he will betray himself, and he'll do something to ridicule himself. In other words, you just sell him complete on the idea that he's some kind of a piece of machinery—you validate this endlessly, you see— you sell him on the idea he's a kind of a piece of machinery that's going to deliver himself into the hands of the Devil, come hell or high water. And you just sell him on this, and you've got him really sold, and he really gets squirrelly.
What is the deep significance of the fact that he uses 2.1 pieces of sugar? What is the significance of the fact that atoms when they rah-rah go rah-rah and rah-rah, and formulas when poured into formulas make formulas, and test tubes when not washed, as they rarely are, often stink. And you get these terrific technical significances.
You could set it up on a little higher basis where it's rather out in the clear and it becomes very silly. You get the professor walking around in the laboratory wondering why it is, and plotting and giving and devoting his whole life to the fact that when test tubes aren't washed, when they've had odoriferous chemicals in them, they have odor. And he could devote his whole life to this problem with great ease, and usually does.
Then we get some fellow who is—we get some fellow who is looking on the other side and . . . You could—by the way, you could probably prove mathematically that nobody has ever seen the other side of an electron, and give somebody this terrible problem of what is the deep significance of the fact that all electrons are apparently cup-shaped like those little wind cones on anemometers, and that they actually don't have any backside or middle, you know, that they're a little shell. And just set this up and say, "Why is this?" You'd undoubtedly have an awful lot of people start working on it.
All you've got to do is take any unreasonable assumption and then look for some deep significance and you have science. Take an unreasonable assumption and look for a deep significance.
The unreasonable assumption in this universe is that there is one. You have to go immediately to that assumption any time you try to solve any problems in this universe. Everybody is driven there sooner or later. The greatest physicists of all time have spent their lives sorting out endless bric-a-brac and lying in apathy at last upon their deathbed. They have dictated to their amanuensis the fact that as near as they can figure out, God made it; or as near as they can figure out, it was all caused by the explosion of an atom; or as near as they can figure out, it's an entire illusion; or as near as they can figure out, it will never be solved—anything like this.
That's because they've gone on to this, and they've picked up immediately and they've entered the problem, always at a more complicated level than it

SPACE, PERCEPTION, KNOWINGNESS, PART I
deserved. They assumed there was a universe and then started to solve it. This is as—about as backwards as you could get. You see, you can't assume there is something that you're trying to solve.
Be self—it should be very evident to you why atomic physics, all it can do right now is go boom! They have to assume the solution in order to solve the problem. Pardon me—they have to assume the solution in order to pose the problem. Do you see that? And as soon as you say, "All right, now here's this universe. Here is this universe . . ."
It's like geometry. Somebody comes along every once in a while and shoves geometry under some kid's nose, and the kid doesn't have enough sense to run. And they—says all this stuff like "side angle side" and "angle side angle" and "triangles are triangles is a rose is a rose is a rose, when I was a little girl," as Gertrude Stein would have said.
But the point is, of course, side angle side equals side angle side because you've already assumed that side angle side equals side angle side. If you've already assumed something, there's no trick at all to proving it. No trick.
And yet, you can sure be mysterious about it, as any geometry professor has long since demonstrated. So we have the problem of the universe. And they say, "Now we're going to solve this universe. Now, let's see, here is the universe. Ha-ha! And here we go, and now we're going to solve this universe." Well, you've just assumed the solution so that you could pose a problem to come up with a solution.
Aristotle was a singularly gifted man. I can't bring myself to believe that anybody who was smart enough to keep Alexander from slitting his throat— because Alexander had a specialty on this—if he was smart enough to keep Alexander in line, he sure was too smart to believe his own syllogism. And the fact that he put it forth merely bespeaks a rather diabolical nature. Probably he was poorly—as Freud would have said—"poorly toilet trained" or something. This probably would have been the vast significance Freud would have assigned to it. Anyway . . . (audience laughter)
Anyway, you as auditors have to understand some of this basic of: "Here is the universe. Now we pose a problem and now we've got to solve the universe."
Now let's take it in terms of auditing: We have—here is a preclear— here's this preclear, he's thinking, he's moving, he's acting, he sees things and does things. And now we have him, you see. Now we've got to pose him as a problem in order to solve him. That won't work. You've got him, you see. That means you've got to look for hidden significance in the preclear.
That means in terms of physicists, they've got to look for a hidden significance in the atom. There isn't any hidden significance in an atom. They would have made them explode a long time ago if they hadn't assumed they couldn't. It wasn't a matter of make—their making postulates about it, it was just a matter of them putting a complete barricade, a barrier, across their own knowingness. They took the railroad track, or whatever they were traveling on, or the oxcart trail or the mountain ledge or the clear blue nothingness that they were traveling on, and they just lowered this enormous gate right straight across where they were going. And they said, "All right, now, here is the universe. Now let's have a problem. Now, let's see, what is it composed of?" Well, they've already said, "Here it is." Now, all you had to do from there on was simply look at it.
If you've said, "Here it is, and this is the way it is; here it is"—you've said, "Here it is"—then the only remaining thing there is to do is to look at it. You can't possibly go backwards on this problem all the time and say, "Now here is

11

12

30 NOVEMBER 1953
something; now it has a hidden significance." This is weird beyond weird. "The hidden significance of" could be put on every tombstone in any part of the universe that was ever erected. "What is the significance of?" That's the game. That's automaticity, that's the game.
Only reason you have to know about automaticity is a very simple reason: You have to know it so that you can solve remarkable and strange things which the preclear has accidentally started to duplicate and hasn't completed. Not to validate the barrier of the automaticity or randomity. Because a preclear every once in a while will be so confoundedly fixated on something like a twitching right ear, upon the fact that you have—that he has nothing but a pinwheel which goes on and on and on before his gaze, in order to get an entrance to the case, you have to know how to handle an automaticity. And you really have to know this.
That's the other—next thing you have to know, see. Is although here's the preclear—yes, here is the preclear—this preclear is a body, a thetan, and a twitching right ear. This is what is presented right there at the moment. And the only thing he's interested in is his twitching right ear. It's an automaticity which he can't control. And that's all he's interested in, are these automaticities that he cannot control. He's not otherwise interested. He is interested in what's going to slug him so suddenly and so swiftly that nothing is going to be able to stand him up to it. This is upsetting to him.
So you have to know how to solve this because you've got to be able to get his attention up to a point of where you can break him into his component parts. So he again will say, "Gee! Here I am." You've boosted him up suddenly into a big piece of knowingness, and with drills and so forth, why, he is hitting another plane entirely. You're just making more preclear; you're not saying, "What is the significance of this preclear so we can make less of him."
And the only reason you handle an automaticity, is just to get his attention off something long enough so that you can break him into his component parts: which is to say a body, an engram bank, a MEST universe, and the thetan, and then his own universe and the other fellow's universe; and these are the component parts.
But as long as he's jammed up too tight together—he's jammed himself in, and with—had some help doing it, into a situation where he can't any longer solve the problem.
Now, the reason why he's—can't solve the problem, is because he's solving problems. I'm—this is horrible to say something like that, because it sounds like I'm making a joke with you or something. But the reason he can't solve the problem is because he can't solve the problem. I just—MEST language has a tendency to sort of break down here. I mean, the problem can't be solved, because there isn't any problem.
The big joke of this universe is that there's no secret.
Now, let me give you the first unsolved problem that the preclear has. It has to do with the eighth dynamic. The biggest chunk of other-determinism which he's ever handed out was to a fellow named God. Shouldn't strike you at all peculiar that the word God, Gott and so forth, in all these languages, runs a very few—that it's almost the same word. It's dios, in the Latin tongues, and in the Germanic, it's Gott or God and so on. This is not really peculiar. Because it's simply a key-in—it's a key-in phrase, it's a restimulator phrase. And you, right away, probably shudder a little bit at my suddenly saying that the name of this august and great being is simply the key phrase on an engram, but it happens to be more or less true. And this is not sacrilegious on

SPACE, PERCEPTION, KNOWINGNESS, PART I
my part, I'm just telling you that God—the word God gets into engrams. And it gets in there so much that a person's other-determinism says that "all the space there is, was God's."
Now, what's the first problem he was ever posed by this subject? What's the first one? He made a mock-up and it disappeared. And then there was somebody there in the flesh to say, "You poor fellow, God has smitten you." And he made another mock-up, and it disappeared. And this fellow came back and he said, "You poor guy, what's happening to you?"
Well, you see what happened there: Two thetans got together and one of them was kind of a little more innocent than the other one, or less so, and the first big gag was, you made somebody's mock-up disappear and then you said somebody else did it. See? And in view of the fact that—that's why you want identity so badly, is identity relieves you of this game called "God did it."
And he came around, and everybody was using this, and it got into an agreement finally that the reason mock-ups disappeared like this—that was God, see. And like the World War—they had "gremlins" that did things to their planes. Gremlins didn't exist.
These thetans—if you took the composite of all thetans, you would have what man has attempted to describe in the word God. See, you just took a composite of all life impulse—now, this you would say would be the prime mover unmoved. Well, that composite, everybody wants to solve that now in terms of "What is the terrific significance of this?" Well, it is. That's—you can't—you have to really just start beating this out. It is. It observably is. It isn't observably from eight other angles or something of the sort, and you don't have to get down on your knees and look through a hole in the fence to observe it, it hits you in the face every time you turn around.
Life is quite different from MEST because it gets ideas; it has imagination and ideas. And this stuff MEST, whether built into machines or put on motion-picture screens or anything else, does not have ideas or imagination. It will, in a UNIVAC or ENIAC or a music-making machine, turn out quite faithfully various patterns of knowingness, providing it is monitored by a machine set up by life.
In other words—in other words, you have always—ahead of everything you have this causative thing, and this causative thing most causes ideas. And that's the single real, observable, big difference between a solid object and a living thing.
So we have this tremendous difference, and we look down the line at the activities of life, and we can conclude it is. And we can also conclude that it sure is fooling itself one way or the other, and it sure is hiding its left hand from its right hand, and it certainly is trying to play several games of chess as several different players, in any unit you discover.
I think even a butterfly goes around trying to play chess with himself, as low a monitored unit—and a butterfly is a monitored unit, he's not a life unit. All right.
What's the point here? In trying to solve this preclear, in trying to solve his problems and his troubles and so forth, you want to get him out of significances. Please, get him out of significances. Because life, in trying to fool itself, played this first trick consistently, and said, "Only God can make nothing." After a while, the fellow had assigned—after this trick had been played on him enough, he said, "Only God could make nothing, therefore God is all space."
And to this moment, you take any preclear and you have him put up a mock-up—this preclear has been having the most dreadful time trying to get

13

14

30 NOVEMBER 1953
something to disappear—and you have him put up this mock-up, you say, "Time, disappear." Well, it will, but the great reliability that you will have is when he puts up a mock-up, tell him to have God make it disappear—and boy, it will, right now.
Now, there's a process that goes along with nothingness which demonstrates to you quite easily that people are afraid of nothingness, which makes them afraid of space, which makes them pull in toward a somethingness. And the nothingness has been made so mysterious—just because of the ideas which float around about these nothingnesses—that hardly anyone is able to expand very far without running into it.
One of the exercises which can best be utilized in this, is to have the preclear put out, at various angles and directions from him—put out, you understand, or just find there and say he put it out and created it—a nothingness.
One would do that in this fashion, in the latter—give you an example of the latter phase of that first. One would say, "Now, let's find an empty spot somewhere around you."
The fellow says, "All right."
And the auditor then says, "All right. Now say that you put it there."
"Well, I don't know . . . Okay."
And we start round and round on this technique, putting these in various directions, the six directions from the individual, and he gets quite triumphant, he gets quite excited about this in a very short space of time.
And then we can quickly get too much significance into this technique by saying that—have these nothingnesses and say, "God put them there." And start to work them in terms of brackets and so forth.
And the latter part of the technique—this is such a high, high level of process, it'll make the preclear sick—he'll get sick; that's a certainty. But also, who knows, in getting sick, if he's processed ably, you might process him right straight through and right on up the line at a heck of a rate.
That's sort of—this technique is a sort of a process by which you would go for broke in somebody who's pretty good shape. You'd have God put these nothingnesses there, and then you'd have him make nothing of God, and have him demolish churches, and have churches and God demolish him, and spirits demolish him, and him demolish others. And we find out that the thetans have gotten into a monomanic contest of make nothing while they themselves try to be something, and thus they go on a dwindling spiral.
The most mysterious thing you could have would be a nothing that people say something is in. And that of course is the deepest significance of all, and is the answer to all: a nothingness in which there is something. And they believe implicitly and utterly that there are somethings, because they can believe that there is a nothing in which something exists.
That's all.

Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness
A lecture given on 30 November 1953

The data that I should append to that processing of God and space is the fact that a boil-off is an automaticity. I should mention that again if I haven't mentioned it before, which I haven't. And that a preclear who boils off is out of space. Unconsciousness is being out of space. People go unconscious when their anchor points are driven in too hard—that's out of space.
So you start spotting space around and saying, "God put it there" and so forth, your preclear is liable to boil off, and your preclear should not boil off. But—two ways to handle it: one is reverse the flow. It's pretty hard to reverse the flow, though, when you're doing a 360-degree periphery of mock-ups, so the flow is all coming in.
Well now, he starts to boil off—well, you have him put up a duplication process. Just handle boil-off as an automaticity. And this opens up to you another thing which has been kicking around since 1938 as far as I was concerned.
It's quite obvious that the world is hypnotized. It's under a spell of some sort or another. And it should show you—there are two processes there, immediately, that demonstrate themselves to you.
You remember when we were running emotions in barriers—either putting up barriers and putting emotion in them, or taking MEST universe barriers and putting emotion in them. Well, that process, of course, you see, by duplication, is best done by repeating, repeating, repeating, making it appear and disappear— making the emotion appear and disappear, appear and disappear, appear and disappear.
You take somebody who's chronically in grief—you make this appear and disappear. Make grief appear and disappear in the wall; appear and disappear in the ceiling; appear and disappear in the floor; appear and disappear here, there and so forth. And then make it appear and disappear in pieces of his own space. You know, he makes up a piece of space and has it full of grief, and then he makes it disappear. And you go on and on and on with this disappearance and appearance process on this chronic emotion, and he'll come right out of it. Now, it'll take quite a little while, but he will come right out of it.
Now, you take boil-off, let's take that as an example, and we get appearance and disappearance of unconsciousness, then. So we have unconsciousness, dopiness—whatever else he wishes to describe it—appearing and disappearing, appearing and disappearing, appearing and disappearing, appearing and disappearing. And we'll find that the boil-off will vanish.
Now, this tells you more than that. We are on the conquest of awareness,

15

16

30 NOVEMBER 1953
and we are on a conquest of awareness and redeeming awareness from a depth of unconsciousness on the part of the individual. We've gone over this many times, that individuals are not as aware as they should be.
Now awareness and perception are the same thing. You see that? A person mechanically perceives something of which he is aware. Well, his awareness, of course, is superior to his mechanical perception of something. So we have knowingness and awareness being right there together, and when his agreement is, is that everybody should be dopey—that's actually—that's his agreement, that everyone should be relatively unconscious or that everyone should be in a state of relative disbelief or belief about something, we have the same thing as unconsciousness.
Unconsciousness and hypnotism are very closely allied. An individual believes to the degree that he is unaware. An individual believing, then, that he is unaware, will take what he considers to be "superior awarenesses" and will substitute, then, other-determinism for his own determinism.
Thus, if one were to handle awareness like he would handle boil-off—you know, we put unawareness of various kinds into bulkheads, and into mock-ups that the person is making, into pieces of space which we have him create, and we duplicate that. We put unawareness and then make it disappear, and we put it in there and we make it disappear, and we put it in and we make it disappear, and we put it in and we make it disappear—his perception of course will markedly increase.
There is a, you might say, and not to make a pun out of it—but that's been a "sleeper" in all duplication. A little piece of unawareness is in every duplicate you make.
Now, awareness is necessary to competence. Observation is necessary to competence—you can see that easily. But awareness being necessary to competence, and awareness not depending upon perception, is knowingness. Knowingness can be defined as awareness not depending upon perception. That would be a complete knowingness.
Now, this hypnotized state in which people find themselves is a very easy state to resolve—if you take it on the basis of duplication.
We find that a hypnotist is in the worst condition of all of our preclears next to a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist, of course, has been up against the unawareness and so forth of insane people and so on, for a long time. But he hasn't been making any real big effort of will like the hypnotist makes. And the hypnotist, the faith healer, these people are consistently and continually passing in their awareness. They're putting awareness into other things continually and getting back unawareness.
So if all we had to work with was one definition—we can do this many times with this subject at this time, but if all we had to work with was one definition, there are many definitions in Scientology today with which we could succeed. We'd just have that one definition, then we could succeed with it. And it would be this: The world is in a relatively comatose or hypnotized state. It is hypnotized into unreasonable beliefs.
The resolution of the problem, then, of this hypnotized state, would be paramount in processing. This would be processed by causing a duplication of this hypnotized beingness in walls, floors, in nothingness, in space, in mock-ups, in other people's universes, until one had resolved it. This takes much less time to resolve than one would immediately suppose. One must only be careful in running it that he does not too often and too continually validate the same barriers. In other words, he must get an assortment of barriers to have hypnotized, you see.

ADDITIONAL REMARKS: SPACE, PERCEPTION, KNOWINGNESS
We have this great distance hypnotized: "Get the feeling of hypnotism in this great distance," so on.
Hypnotism is a condition of too fixed attention and so forth. But that attention is mechanical, and we have mechanical perception immediately appraised with hypnotism.
Now, we could go about it this way: We could have the preclear get a hypnotized feeling in one corner of the room and make it disappear, and a hypnotized feeling in another corner of the room and make it disappear. And then just to vary our patter, "Get a feeling of complete, slavish belief in another corner of the room. Complete naivete, unquestioning belief, in another corner of the room." And we'd keep on just getting this, and we'd more or less get the same feeling every time.
We would get a feeling of enforced agreement. You could phrase it in various ways. But every time you phrased it in some other fashion, remember to duplicate that particular fashion until it is handled by the preclear.
This has the single liability of bringing up awareness to such a pitch that an individual becomes conscious of many of the pains—many of the pains— which he would otherwise be unaware of. And so the individual is quite often brought into a state of rather acute discomfort.
Myself, I have occasionally resolved this in a preclear by administering a great deal of B1 to him, which brought about a relaxation without drugging him.
I have often taken that nervous condition and used it as an automaticity. But remember that you have entered upon an almost endless process when you are going to handle all automaticities that there are, from one end to the other, in chain fashion.
So with this awareness processing, where you're processing—pardon me, this hypnotized state, trying to unhypnotize somebody—you should vary it with a technique which immediately invalidated all barriers.
You know, "Six directions and find nothing. Six directions and find the first wall. Six directions, find the second wall. Six directions and find the third barrier. Six directions and find space as a barrier. And then six directions and find nothing," as a gradient scale of that.
Now, "Six directions and find barriers of your own energy." You know, "Look up and find a barrier of your own energy there." And be—"Look through that and find a further barrier." And then finally, "Find your own distance as a barrier." And we'd have to vary such a process with the other process. We're handling right there some of the most remarkably effective processes.
When we're handling invalidation of barriers, taking down the fear of emotion and unconsciousness, reducing out of existence the feeling of "other-ownership of all space," and using the process of duplication—over and over and over—we're working there with a set of four things which are themselves tremendously effective.
The only fifth thing that you would really have to add to that, to make a complete victory in any preclear, really, if you wanted just to keep at it, would be exteriorization. And you just get him away from the body, and he becomes completely certain he's not a body. Then you actually, away from the body, could continue with these various steps just in that fashion and in that order, you see?
I would give you this to think about: You're dealing right now with theory and practice as a simultaneous maneuver. See, this is practice, this is theory. It isn't that we have all this theory, and then somehow or other, we've got to find some practices to go with it. We've collided.

17

18

30 NOVEMBER 1953
All past research and investigation and all past processes had the liability of validating an other-determinism on emotion, unconsciousness, and in particular, barriers. We just found less and less effective barriers—oh, pardon me, more and more effective barriers, and tried to find less and less significance in them, until we emerge upon this plateau of a process which can be stated as easily and as swiftly as I have stated it in these last thirteen minutes.
Now, you have to solve that in one degree on the basis of "How do I audit?" That still puzzles some people. Been trying to do something about it.
If you're the least bit worried about your presence as an auditor, you just get ahold of little old Self Analysis and you just read it to the preclear until you feel very comfortable sitting there as an auditor. Now, that's the best way in the world to do it.
And if you want some variety on it—if he's expecting to get Self Analysis and this upsets him, something of the sort, the idea he's getting Self Analysis— pull out the old Handbook for Preclears, try its eleventh step.
Nobody ever goes up that deep in the book. Run these little simple processes on him and do it until you feel perfectly comfortable about it.
And then, if you are still disturbed about processing, for heaven's sakes, go off by yourself someplace and start putting into walls, and into walls of your own creation, and intermingling this with looking through walls at other walls, putting into walls "lack of confidence" and "ridicule." You just put these in until you feel perfectly competent.
Your competence comes about of course, most readily, under the type of processing which I have been describing to you in this little strip of tape here.
Okay?
Female voice: Ron, Saturday afternoon I had the feeling of hypnotism. I was hypnotized.
Well, all right, you have—but you got out of it?
Female voice: Mm.
The reason you got out of it is because I finished off the process with processes which are relatively sharp in the invalidation of barriers.
Female voice: For some time, though, I couldn't—I couldn't handle the preclear when I went into the session.
Well. . .
Female voice: I was ill.
Yeah. You ever been hypnotized?
Female voice: No, not that I know of.
"Hypnotize" is a mechanical subject in this life. We have one preclear here who has been hypnotized; didn't prove to be ineffective either. But the hidden influence—the first hidden influence is what I want to give you mainly. And that is this trick of somebody comes along and they make something
disappear, you see, and then they come around and they say, "The wo , the
demons are besetting you, you poor fellow, because I see that you've just had something disappear. And that must have been a demon named Archon or a demon named God or a demon named Christ or"—any kind of a thing to suddenly set up a hidden influence to account for the nothingness which occurred when something should have been there. Or the something which occurred, when the nothingness should have been there.
And with this trick, we get off and find this to be, in essence, a religious universe.
Okay.

Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II
A lecture given on 30 November 1953

This is November 30th, afternoon lecture.
I want to give you some data which is consecutive with this morning's talk, and put you up there where you can operate on a very high echelon of processing. You'll find its liabilities, but one of its liabilities is not "limited." That is to say, these processes I'm giving you are unlimited processes. That is to say, they can go on being audited and audited and audited and audited.
The thing that makes a limited process is one which addresses one single universe continuously, or one which validates one particular set of barriers more than other sets of barriers, or one which validates exclusively barriers, or one which validates distances to the exclusion of all barriers. And when you do processes which either validate no barriers or validate specialized barriers, you then come up against a limitation of process.
Why is this? It's just a simple fact that knowingness knows what it most concentrates upon. That's the simplest rule in the whole book. Knowingness knows what it concentrates on. Therefore, if it concentrates on a hidden meaning, it knows that there's a hidden meaning. If it concentrates on a super deeper significance, then it knows that. And what we're trying to get knowingness to do is just know that it knows, which is to say, know that there is a certainty.
You give people certainties in very many ways. Some of these certainties wear off and some of them don't wear off. One of the certainties that doesn't wear off, of course, is death. That doesn't wear off that particular life, you see. It just ends it and that's an end of cycle, so that makes a good certainty, and people rather court that certainty. They have an idea the best thing to do if you're going to have a certainty—if they can't have any other certainty, why, they can at least get killed or die, and they know there's a certainty about that. So they have a tendency to try to end a cycle.
Now, certainty of time, certainty of place—these are all important certainties. You'll find that when you use the mind, the memory, too hard, and validate its rememberingness or validate too much its computingness, why, it winds up remembering or computing. Here is Q and A.
It isn't that one is simply a lifeless, spineless sort of a thing that goes into any plastic cast that is poured for it. It just happens that it—if it sees no liability, particularly—or to devil with the liability, it sees some method of getting interested, it will. And your preclear is already too interested in being a preclear. Well, you just put that down as a fact. If you could get him over being interested in being a preclear, why, it'd be very simple then just to turn

19

20

30 NOVEMBER 1953
him loose. He'd feel happy about it, because he's always been somebody's preclear. In other words, he's been somebody's worry for a long time. And unfortunately, you wouldn't do much for him, so—if you did that, so the best thing to do for him, of course, is to just build up his knowingness and then release his being a preclear.
But that release is automatically with the return of self-determinism— you don't have to worry about that at all. And the harder you try to release somebody just from being a preclear, why, the worse off you're going to get.
Now, if you tell somebody to exteriorize and he busily exteriorizes, and then decides that nobody agrees with the fact that he's exteriorized, he's liable to shut off his perception and go back in his head. This is the way things are supposed to be because he can't see anything else. He can't see that there's any point in it. He lacks imagination. I'll let somebody nose-dive several times like this if he doesn't get some kind of an idea of what he can do or wants to do or is trying to do, exteriorized. And I'll find out that he conceives himself to be leading a rather exciting life just as he is, and sees and cares nothing about any liability connected with it.
Well, where it failed there, you see, is rebuilding his imagination. What's his imagination? His imagination is his ability to create. A man who endures isn't doing much creation. And a man who destroys isn't doing any creation. So what's happened there is essentially I've left him parked in the middle or the end of the cycle, somehow or another, as a thetan. If he finishes a few cycles, he'll decide to create some. But if he's got his bank full of unfinished cycles, why, he tries by duplication in the action and business of living, to complete those cycles.
See what he's doing? He's just trying by duplication in the material universe around him to complete unfinished cycles. You see? Now—so of course, he reinteriorizes. He's got to complete these cycles as he conceives they were. In other words, he's in a state of dramatization. So End of Cycle Processing is a necessity in such a case. So don't omit that one. If you omit it, then don't tell me that somebody went back in his head.
Now, anybody here who is having any difficulty exteriorizing is, of course, overbalanced on ends of cycles. You've got to finish up these cycles one way or the other. And he thinks he can do it in some subterfugenous fashion, you know? He's actually sold on the idea that by duplicating the actions which have happened to him, he can then be rid of those actions. He's utterly sold on this modus operandi.
He thinks that all he has to do is just bump off a few people and all the times he's been bumped off are accounted for and he can then exteriorize, see? He's making things wait on a condition. Now, where does this fit in what I was telling you this morning about nothing and something?
And the only reason anybody wants something is so he can make nothing of something. Vicious cycle, isn't it? Everybody's getting dressed for the play and the play never goes on. People spend all their lives in dwindling spirals and so forth, getting dressed for this play. They're acquiring "somethings" so that they can then make nothing of something. And that is the biggest joke of all—because, you see, all they need is themselves to make nothing of something. If they were exteriorized and in good condition, they could make nothing of everything. They could do a real fine job on it.
And the body—the body is the greatest machine you ever saw. Now, I classified automatic machinery for you a little bit earlier in this course as divided into two kinds—roughly divided into two kinds—actually, there's three

SPACE, PERCEPTION, KNOWINGNESS, PART II
kinds. There's one for each point on the cycle of action. But the two main kinds we're interested in is the mocker and the unmocker—the machine which creates and the machine which uncreates. And of course, there's that interesting machine which uncreates before it creates. This is a very fascinating machine. You can get into more trouble trying to process it.
People who have blackness predominantly are trying to keep something bad from happening, which is to say, they're trying to uncreate a condition before it occurs. They spend all their time uncreating nonexistent conditions. And this is a definition of worry. So we get back, and we find that is a worrying machine that uncreates before it creates. They don't do certain things because there are certain barriers, and so we come down eventually to a definition of barriers. See how all those roads lead to Rome? All right.
When you're processing somebody, your goal should be exteriorization. Well, if his certainty is pretty bad, you're going to have a rough time exteriorizing him because then he won't know when he's out. There are lots of people who have various automaticities which fool them endlessly, and they all go by the boards on techniques which invalidate barriers. That is to say, you look six ways for nothing: either progressively finding something on the way in your own, another's or your—or the MEST universe, or just reach six ways and find nothing and then sit back after each motion and know. That invalidates barriers. That invalidates all kinds and classes of barriers, including automaticity.
You use that kind of a development, you can just rule out automaticity as important—if you use that kind of a technique. Because processing auto¬maticities is, perforce, of course, a limited technique; because it's validating the barrier of randomity, which is the validation of numerous barriers— numerous simultaneous barriers.
It is not, by a long ways, an unsolvable problem. But the main part of the problem which you want to solve is the validation of knowingness. Now, there you're validating a condition which is not a condition. It is a native state.
Now, what has then deteriorated the knowingness of the individual? Ah, we have here the essence of this whole thing. Said in the first article, and wrote many, many, many, many years ago now, that the world was—didn't need more hypnotism, it needed less. It needed to be unhypnotized. Well, all right.
What's hypnotism? That is a state into which a person is placed where his concentration is such that his consciousness and awareness is reduced, and he is obedient to other determinism than his own. That is hypnotism. And he is merely obedient to other-determinism. And this is a condition which accompanies all unawareness. And when you say "hypnotism" you're merely making a— you're just remarking on the modus operandi of artificially creating a state of unawareness which can then be impressed by an other-determinism. If a person isn't very aware, he will receive a barrier, and not knowing what it is, consider it a barrier. So in the essence, what we have is a case who has any aberration at all, relatively hypnotized.
Now, this is expressed in many ways: Individuals who flutter their eyelids while processing. You watch those eyelids flutter. Occasionally they'll really start to flutter. Well, a hypnotist looks for this as the first induced stage of light trance—the flutter of the eyelid. Well, you've got somebody who's partially hypnotized, then. And nearly everything you are saying to this person is recording on a stimulus-response level. That's an interesting thought, isn't it? Real interesting.
Now, you expect this person to get better while you have him under a continuous hypnotic trance. Well, this is a little—expecting just a little bit too

21

22

30 NOVEMBER 1953
much. Well, the techniques that it takes to snap somebody out of that level must therefore be unlimited techniques which immediately and at once address the problems of perception or, you might say, the general problem of awareness.
And awareness can be increased in the individual. This liability occurs when awareness is increased in the individual: He wants to be unaware because if he becomes aware, he can be more easily hurt. It's quite remarkable. If he becomes more aware, he will not have to be in the vicinity of something which gets hurt! You see? That's what makes sense. The other doesn't make sense.
But he runs into this mechanically—that if he becomes more aware, he starts to hurt. And so as we start—try to process this case on straight awareness and on nothing else, he quite often will get the jitters, the fidgets, and become rather uncomfortable about this new state of awareness. And after you laboriously have turned on some of the awareness, he'll come back again for his next session with it happily shut down. He's managed to do this in the interim— because his awareness merely depends upon his changing his mind.
So essentially the job of the auditor is to remove from his track those barriers and limitations which seem to convince him that he will hurt if he becomes more aware.
Therefore, processing which locates him as in a fairly safe locale is immediately of assistance. Processing which renders him less afraid of emotional charges, effort and pain, as well of course, as ridicule and betrayal; processes which render him less worried about these things, again, remove the liabilities from becoming more aware. So these processes you will find in SOP 8-C are plotted on this basis.
First we locate him. And then we drill him on emotions, colors, anything you want to put into the woodwork and the corners of the room and into space of his own creation and into emptiness and so forth—any one of these things. And then, anywhere along there after we've located him (we are locating him with the idea of exteriorizing him), we can give him some idea that he might pick up in a hurry, of his body. So that he won't be too frightened of that, just have him mock it up a couple of times, you see. Mock it up a few times and he's not afraid of his body, and then you try to exteriorize him.
If he doesn't do that, well, let's go in for a little bit of space; and let's give him just a little bit more space. Because his barrier is space. He's afraid of space. Of course, space is—all belongs to God. Space is untenable stuff.
The biggest barrier in the world—if you were to ask a prison warden the best place in the world for the prison, he would say the moon, some such thing like that. Well, why? It's because space itself would be a barrier. Now, that's the biggest, nicest, neatest barrier in the world for a piece of MEST is space! And all space, of course, from the beginning of this universe, has belonged to one god or another. This is essentially a religious universe. And so this barrier of distance, to some degree, has to be remedied in our case.
Well, while remedying this business of distance, you're going to immediately run into, whether you like it or not—if he's gone that far south at Step III, and he has not exteriorized by holding on to the two back corners of the room, you see, and just holding on to them for a short time and he doesn't come out—his trouble, you can be completely sure by this time . . .
You see, those are the first three steps, those are the easy ones. That'll take in, though, by the way, about 70 percent of the people who walk up to you. But if he doesn't exteriorize when he's gotten to Step III, Spacation, why, he's a sad case. Because he's fresh out of space, because probably all space belongs to God, and the distance is so intolerable he couldn't possibly stand it. And as

SPACE, PERCEPTION, KNOWINGNESS, PART II
you start to run almost anything on him, such as the beginning of Step IV, you'll find him boiling off. You'll probably find him boiling off on planting four flags, Step III. Just ask him to plant four flags and staffs. And you ask him to do this a few times and he gets real stupid.
Well now, that is a state of unconsciousness. That's all that is. So there is a working law here: As a person runs out of space, he runs out of consciousness. If he's unwilling to inhabit a lot of space, he's not willing to be conscious. Why is this?
Supposing you, sitting right where you were, with the ideas you have about pain and remorse and the horribleness of being alive or something of the sort, and with all this—with all these ideas, you sit there and are able to feel all the emotions of everybody going by in the street out there, and all the emotions of everybody in every building adjacent to this. Your area of immediate thought and emotion perception, let us say, would be a quarter of a mile. There'd be an awful lot of people living in you. That right? And it's not comfortable as a thought, not at all. So a person has to be quite aware of his ability to turn off and on emotion, and experience emotion and effort, by those earlier drills.
So although we have a rote procedure in SOP 8 that goes right on down the line and works very well, when I get a case that doesn't exteriorize by the time I've done a few minutes of holding the couple of back corners of the room, and I want to exteriorize this person, I start to remedy the state of consciousness. And I remedy it by playing emotions and location—you know, emotions into the walls and location—along with putting up unconsciousness itself and the conditions of hypnotism. And I just play these one against the other, round and round and round and round.
Unless this case is entirely hopeless—you have to sort of pry him off the floor to get a word in his ear, or something of the sort, at which time I just start wasting certain types of machinery on such a case, and just hope he'll get by with it. And if the case is out of communication, of course, I try to get him to communicate to the point of recognizing the walls of the room.
And if the case is terribly bogged in symbols, and when I say, "Now let's make a green machine," why, the case can at best struggle with what I mean by green—what shade I mean by green and so forth, and what does green mean, anyway—why, you have a case that's in symbols. And he'd just better get used to the idea of pictures, because he's inverted in pictures.
But you can still take this symbol-happy case, and once you've asked him—and please remember to ask him the next-to-the-last list in Self Analysis: "Remember something real." Unless he's terribly adrift there, you just go back up, and that's what I would do with that case.
As far as a case that is simply black, I give them a chance to look at something. I find something they can see. You cure a specific automaticity, and the case does a jump, and I waste a black machine, a machine that makes blackness. And if I can get them to then, so they can actually see the mock-up, I mock them up enduring.
You see, if you can create enough of them enduring, you can eventually bust the cycle on it. I don't care how many this is. I don't know, might run up around five hundred thousand, it might go to eight million, I don't know. But you'll break the cycle there on enduring.
There's a very pat method of hitting a blackness case, by the way, is you locate him, and you get him to put in some emotion in things, and you get particularly obedience and disobedience in the woodwork. I mean, he's usually sold on obedience. And remedy these things with them, and then just get to

23

24

30 NOVEMBER 1953
wasting machines that are black, and then run a few end of cycles, and finish a few cycles for them, and more machines in brackets that waste blackness and accept blackness and so on. And generally with this, crack through on the case. And then I just go back to these, what you might call—in poker they call something a "round of roodles," so I suppose this would be a "round of roodles."
You'd just run location versus emotion versus unconsciousness. Location, emotion, effort, pain—whatever you want to put into the scenery and get back, and whatever you want to put into imaginary figures and get back, whatever you want to put into nothingness and get back. I'd just go round and round with that, round and round with that until I had the case kind of straightened up.
And then I would pull this exteriorization deal. It sounds like awful complicated auditing, but it's not. And I'd pull this exteriorization deal on the anchor points. I'd get him to see some anchor points and push them into place. I'd brighten his perceptions up, you see, a bit—up to a point where he could see anchor points. And when he could see anchor points, I'd push them into place and pop him out. That's about the way I would do it. This is a real rough case I'm talking to you about. I mean, this is subzero. There isn't anybody here that bad. That's a fact. There isn't.
Male voice: Wouldn't be here.
Yeah, but it isn't—auditing, it isn't—doesn't require much cleverness to exteriorize anybody, and just make up your mind to that. What it requires is some patience, and slow gradient scales. You can actually feel a guy out of his body. You can sneak him out with no perceptions at all.
Exteriorization is an easy trick. If you have difficulty exteriorizing people, run brackets of space. And you'll find out that you feel very chary of giving space to somebody else if you have a big difficulty exteriorizing.
The whole idea of giving freedom to somebody while you are not yet free is antipathetic to your own ideas of survival—unjustly so. And that's usually what hangs a guy up. He just doesn't like to see all these thetans flying around while he's still nailed down. He doesn't do it very consciously. He just tends in that direction. There isn't much trick in exteriorizing somebody. All right.
Now supposing we wanted to take these—these are very same material I've been talking about here. I'm not leaving you adrift in any way, because I'm not—there aren't a bunch of loose ends left over from what I'm saying. There isn't a bunch of stuff that's suddenly going to turn up tomorrow, you know, that kind of thing. I've been talking about these techniques and writing about these techniques for a long time now, and very often trying to make them a little simpler, drive them home to somebody's communication line, but little else. All right.
Now, we look at this problem. We look at this problem of here is somebody who is inside his head. Well, we start out on the basis that we're going to just move him out of his head, and then we start working him on the basis we're going to move his head off of him. And if neither of these two techniques work, there are real good reasons why not. He—one, he can't exteriorize because he's afraid of his environment, what it might do to him, which means he's out of space. And he can't take the body off him because he's got to make everything endure. So we've got to solve those problems with him, that's all.
Now, there's umpteen skillion ways to solve these problems, but those are the basic problems. If we can't take him out of his head, and we can't take his head off him simply by having him mock up his body in front of him and unmock it an awful lot of times—you know, till it gets to the point where he can unmock his body right where he's sitting—why, we've each got lots and

SPACE, PERCEPTION, KNOWINGNESS, PART II
lots of answers to this. And sometimes I give you many more answers than you can digest. But that's quite surprising, since they all go back to the same point, which is that people who are not perceiving are people who are unaware. People who are uncertain as to where they are, are people who are unaware. In other words, they don't know. Well, you keep asking this—the auditor keeps asking this preclear to know.
Well, let's examine, then, the road to knowingness, and we find out that it is barriered by impact. You see, you could know there's a barrier there, which leads one eventually into knowing by some other system—which is to say, by facsimiles, by subterfuge, by covertness, by books, you know. And the other one would just simply know. You know?
Well, what do you mean by knowing? All right. There's this fellow who has to go and read a book to know what's in it. Well, he has to be able to see to read the book, you see. And he has to be able to translate symbols in order to read the book. Well, let's take a level of knowingness of somebody who does not know the symbols, does not know the book, and we have a theoretical individual who doesn't even have to know the book exists or where it is, but would know what was in it. See? Now that's knowingness.
Now, the kind of knowingness of which people are afraid is this kind: uncontrolled knowingness, other-determined knowingness. For instance, if you're going to feel every emotion within a quarter of a mile of you, just willy-nilly, without anything to say about it, you don't want to be in that quarter of a mile, that's all. If you're going to experience every mistake and every argument and every pain and injury within a quarter of a mile of wherever you are, you just don't want to know about them.
So, it isn't that you had better be in a condition where you are strong enough, and have enough willpower, and have enough endurance, and all the other answers man has been fed—you don't want to be in any one of those conditions. The kind of condition you want to be in is so that you know selectively, without geographical area.
You could know selectively. You could know how somebody feels, or make him feel. You don't have to feel how he feels.
Now, a lot of people getting this described to them will hit some low band of the scale and just put on their brakes, you see, and erect a new lot of barriers or something against this, and then say that they "know," merely because they don't have to feel.
I had the most remarkable case one time, gave me quite a dissertation. This case was—oh, very widely, I'm afraid—hated. Very widely. And had ruined a great number of people. And yet was insisting and hammering the desk on the subject of being at 10.0 on the Tone Scale, and was furious about it. It's interesting, isn't it? Here is somebody who is just pouring out at the maddest rate in the world, l.5ism. And what this person's mad about is that anybody would suspect that they are any less than 10.0. Fascinating.
It tells you where the case was. The case probably wasn't even at 1.5. Case was spun in somewhere. Spun in on some low band. Probably the harmonic— the first harmonic below 1.5. But that was completely in, so that it was riding as a kind of a manic. Interesting case.
Well anyway, we look over—we look over this business of awareness, and what we mean and want to have is selective awareness. The person who is hypnotized is in a better condition than one who is entirely unconscious. Because the hypnotized person at least is fixated upon and concentrated upon the person who has hypnotized him; to the marked degree that if someone else

25

26

30 NOVEMBER 1953
passes between the hypnotized subject and the operator, as he's called, the beam, you might say, of hypnosis is liable to shift. And only then would you get cross-hypnotism.
There are many, many such interesting cases. You have an operator who has hypnotized a subject, and somebody walks between them and then the operator doesn't realize this until he snaps his fingers and very amusingly can't wake up his subject—can't wake him up. Well, the fellow is hypnotized by somebody else then, and the thing for the operator to do is to ask him, "Now, let's see, did you transfer to anyone?"
The fellow will say, "Yeah. Yeah, there was somebody else, somebody else in the room."
"Well, who is it?"
"Well, it's Joe."
And the operator has to go and get Joe and say, "Wake him up."
Sometimes he—the subject—isn't that explicit, and you just have to remember who was in the room and then ask each one in turn. Of course, there's easier ways to do it, such as a bucket of ice water—but the point involved here is just this: that an auditor has a tendency sometimes to overlook an awful lot of the finer mechanisms. He doesn't have to work with them. And sometimes when they appear, they startle him. You know, they're inexplicable.
You know, supposing an auditor knew nothing about facsimiles. Supposing he knew nothing about whole track, and all of a sudden his preclear starts babbling about flaming suns hitting him. And he gets him out of that successfully one way or the other by orientation—Orienting Straightwire. He finds out where he isn't. He somehow or other finds out he's not in various places of the room, and the fellow quiets down about it, and then the next thing you know, there's somebody with a ray gun standing in front of him. Well, this character has never heard about ray guns to amount to anything in this life, but here's ray guns. All kinds of amusing adventures can occur if an auditor doesn't know some of these things.
Well, the psychoanalyst, of course, borrowed and leaned upon hypnotism the like of which I never heard of. And yet never called it hypnotism, and actually didn't practice it as such. Maybe it was unpopular or something. But that phenomenon of transference was something which the individual tried—the analyst tried to bring about. He wanted a transference of the patient to himself. Now, who wants that many psycho patients, huh? Who wants all these people transferred and concentrating on him all the time? Now, that's just gorgeous! What people will do for randomity is inconceivable!
But here we have this problem. An auditor occasionally will find that a preclear won't be processed by anybody else but himself, or picks up a preclear who is still being processed by some other auditor. This would only occur on a patient who wasn't very aware. Well, one of the easiest ways to get this preclear into awareness would be to wipe out all of his past auditing, wouldn't it? How would you go about wiping out all of his past auditing? This would kill off any of this scrambled transference that might have taken place anyplace in the past. You're not doing psychotherapy, as such, but that doesn't rule out the fact that psychotherapy phenomena doesn't occur. It does occur. Once in a while you see something like that.
So the next thing I would do if this case didn't exteriorize very easily— even if it killed him, which it darn near would—I would do some sort of Change of Space on all the places he's been audited, by having him drag the places under him and then push them away. A V, by the way—even a V can do that—he

SPACE, PERCEPTION, KNOWINGNESS, PART II
can move rooms under him, or move rooms around him and move them away. But he's so fixed—he's prime post unposted—that he doesn't feel he can move to places. He can't go to places, places have to come to him and so on. And then, I would try and free him up on the track, probably, with this fashion. It would probably practically kill him. But it would be very effective, believe me. Very effective. Long perhaps, but you'd really have him up in present time.
I'll tell you, by the way, how I straighten out somebody who gets loused up (to be technical) in a session here. I chase him around all the auditing rooms and his hotel room, and the coffee shop. I just chase him around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around, and all of a sudden, ping-pang, they're in room one or something, looking at the far wall. And there they just seem to be. The person doesn't have to be exteriorized to chase him around. He doesn't have to be. You just have him drag the places around him, and then throw them away again—don't let them stack.
You're liable to find somebody who up to that moment has been a Case V, all of a sudden turn into a Case I, by just doing this operation. You find out where he got stuck in the blackness. This is curious.
But there is a specialized problem that comes up—somebody who's been to psychotherapists and that sort of thing. Of course, it gets dangerous when you start playing with anybody who's been to psychiatrists, because God knows what you'd run into! But if it was just Dianetics, Scientology involved and so on, I'd just chase them around all the auditing rooms. But not the psychiatric rooms. You could do that, but that's real dangerous. You're liable to run them into electric shocks and narcosynthesis and rape and—you think I'm kidding!
It's not for nothing that Frieda Fromm-Reichmann in her handbook for the conduct of psychotherapists in their offices, spends almost the entire book telling them that they shouldn't do it with the patients; try and do it outside at least some of the time. Oh, this is a grim situation where standard advice— those guys are so bogged down on the second dynamic it's a wonder they can get to the office. They—it's just gorgeous!
It's no wonder that society has kind of turned against them. Oh, it's fascinating! You get into—some of the poor patients that you get hold of— what's happened to these patients.
This girl, for instance—you're busy processing this girl and you find out she's been under treatment by a psychiatrist for a number of years and she's all set, and about the only trouble is, she last year had an illegitimate baby and conceived it and had to have an abortion—why did this come about? Because the psychiatrist insisted that she go out and have a love affair in order to straighten out her psyche. Well, it didn't do much for her psyche, but it sure raised hell in other departments.
And so we have a problem on our hands when we deal with that. I'm not telling you this just to be libelous or slanderous. I don't think you could be either one in dealing with that field. I'm telling you this just as a word of caution.
People who use CO2, by the way—you know, they—that's a case of "it has to be done for them by something else," by MEST. You know, they can't—it's got to be done for them, so they use a drug or they use a gas or something like that. It tells you immediately where these people are.
Well, not to get off rambling about this, we're being darn specific. And what you're going up against every time you go up against anything in a preclear is a barrier of some sort. It's a barrier of distance or it's a barrier which is an anchor point set or it's a barrier—when he can't get out of the body he's just

27

28

30 NOVEMBER 1953
up against disarranged anchor points, that's all. Or it's a barrier that has to do with walls.
Now, when you get down to mental barriers, they unfortunately are shadows of physical barriers—they're just shadows of physical barriers. You see that? Up to a certain point. It's very humorous that some of these—some preclears— what they think they can think into being with their minds. This is real cute. You every once in a while will get somebody around who has a guilty conscience because they thought their father ought to be dead, you know, and the old man kicked the bucket.
Well, I hate to have to tell them this, so I never do, but I'll tell you what I always feel like saying to them: "Sonny, you ain't got enough horsepower to do that. Why don't you stop bragging?" (audience laughter) And it gets into that sort of a thing.
But it's true that when a fellow can inhabit a lot of space or no space at will, and be wherever he wants to be, he starts packing a lot of wallop. But the things which go along with that are so obvious and evident as to make it no doubt about what he's doing. You get somebody who's never been exteriorized who is now going to cause Niagara Falls to run backwards or something like that, this is not going to take place, I guarantee you. The reason why—he can't even make his eyeballs run backwards, much less Niagara Falls.
Now, you get a fellow up to a high state of knowingness, too, he gets dis-interested in barriers. And this disinterest in barriers goes over to sometimes a rather puckish sense of humor about barriers. Or it goes directly into neglecting them, utterly and completely. You start to get very neglectful of things which you can perceive but move through with considerable ease. You get to a point finally where you can't quite figure out why other people are worried about these things. It gets puzzling. You go through enough walls and push enough mock-ups through enough walls, and you're not apt to use many doors, in short.
Now, if you're still dragging around a mock-up when you get up along that level, you're at a level of liability which shouldn't happen to anybody. Because every once in a while you reach over to push the cake nearer the mock-up of the body's hand or something of the sort, and hit a ridge; and your electronic potential is too high and there's a roaring rush and five anchor points go out of place in the body, it caves over frontwise or something, you hastily straighten up, put an idiotic smile on its face, which is very apologetic, and spend the next two or three days getting this ridge back into place because it's a very delicate job, see? It's something like building a Swiss watch and trying to get these anchor points to stay there long enough so that you don't pull them out. It's real interesting, very interesting.
You can reach past your face for something, and explode a face ridge, and so on.
But here we're up against just one problem: A fellow is vacillating between just leaving and staying. So he keeps hitting maybes. And he keeps throwing his own gauge out of line. He keeps throwing himself out of gear. He keeps throwing his balance out of line, you might say. He's careless. He doesn't—it doesn't make too much difference to him, you see, and so he doesn't nicely time some of his motions. Or he finds himself getting careless just to produce some randomity. That also happens.
He goes out and he looks at the car and he knows very well the car has no gasoline in the tank. Well, he just knows it. He doesn't bother to know it, because he can selectively know. By not bothering to know it, he can then manage to run out of gas. So he has some randomity. He gets himself a five- or ten-minute

SPACE, PERCEPTION, KNOWINGNESS, PART II
walk out of it. He even knows what he will do. He knows he's going to walk to a gas station and back. But it just isn't as—important enough to prevent; which is quite different, let me assure you, than working all the time to prevent something and then going into apathy on the basis of "Well I can't prevent anything anyhow, let it go to hell." Because one is done in a perfectly cheerful frame of mind and the other one in an apathetic frame of mind.
These things are quite interesting, and you'll see all of them with a pc. But as his awareness comes up, his ability to handle space conies up. That's the most marked thing you notice about him. But you can't notice that directly, so the next thing you notice in—is his perception. But that again is not directly perceivable to you, so you take his communication as the index.
That's a good, high-echelon, good reliable communication. Did you get a communication change because you processed him? If you didn't, you must have been sitting there twiddling your thumbs. It's almost impossible to process somebody without getting a communication change. "Oh, that's flat." I mean it's almost impossible to do it—you have to work real hard to keep from doing something. You'll get a communication change. Which immediately means, of course, a perception change; which, of course, is a slight change of knowingness. But you can change an awful lot of perception in the process of changing a very little bit of knowingness. Not because knowingness changes slowly—it's the fastest changing of all—but because there's so much of it. Here you're shooting the moon, here's infinity.
Where are we going then with a preclear? We're going up to better inhabitability of space, better perception and wider selective knowingness and feelingness and lookingness in his environment. So he's getting bigger, selectively. Now, when he gets bigger unselectively, he's actually being driven out to a point where he's buttered all over the environment. And you see this at the bottom of the scale. This person is unselectively being hit by everything. This person is not selecting anything, you see—everything is selecting this person.
Here is the condition a faith healer often gets into. They choose pain as their randomity and at last they get buttered all over the universe. You say, "Do you—where are you not thinking at the moment?" and they can't find anyplace where they're not thinking. Well, they're thinking on a circuit basis, they're not thinking on a knowingness basis.
When a person has to think, that's different than a person having to know. Now, you'd sit down and you say, "Now, I want to know about this"—that would be the upper way to handle it. The lower way to handle it would be, "Let's see, I'll think about this, and if these other things are true, then something else will be true and that comes back so that something else is true, and that immediately rationalizes into the extreme trueness of the trueness"—and they're all based on data, and the guy's always wrong.
How wrong can you get? A MEST answer that contains data.
Now, where are we going on just knowingness? Well, knowingness has to come down through perception and communication in order to translate itself on up through again.
In processing an individual, if you're not quite aware of what you're doing, and if you're not doing it by a rote process or something of the sort, you should be able to think your way through what you're doing by this. You can say this of any preclear. Here sits this character confronted by innumerable barriers. He's sure they exist. He's also confronted by an awful lot of space that belongs to somebody else. He knows it does. He's sure he's a body. And none of these things are true.

29

30

30 NOVEMBER 1953
If you just look at a preclear and say that, then you've got him estimated. I don't care whether he's foaming at the mouth or sitting there like a little gentleman—it doesn't matter what he's doing, those three things are always true. He's up against an awful lot of barriers he conceives to exist, that's—and there's no such thing as a mental barrier. You understand that—there's no such thing as a mental barrier. Let's just throw that out when we threw out psychology. Let's just throw it out. Because "it's a mental barrier"—no dice.
A mental barrier is an energy ridge which has the same validity, when it exists, as a brick wall. I don't know where we got anything mental about this barrier. And these ridges act like rat mazes for thought energy. And the thought energy, which is just impulse energy, goes around and kicks them to pieces, which sets other barriers in motion and makes a very fascinating picture.
Now, you understand that? When we talk about a mental barrier we're not talking about "that kind of a fence which a guy conceives."
Now, what you can talk about is a reduced knowingness. Make sure you're talking in the right category. This person is always in a state of reduced knowingness, or he's everywhere at once, or he's nowhere—at his selection. If he's completely knowing, he's uncomfortable. So there's such a thing as reduced knowingness which would mean channeled knowingness or attention. See, you could get reduced knowingness.
But now if we start to talk about mental barriers—there aren't barriers to this fellow's knowingness, there's barriers to his space. Don't get sloppy, in other words. Knowingness is without location. A barrier has location. So let's get ourselves semantically oriented. We're talking about mental barriers, we're talking about the guy's own universe and space. See that?
We're talking about his own space and his own universe, and we're talking about actual energy ridges which are suspended in present time and which he's bringing along with him and all kinds of bric-a-brac of that character. It's made out of energy and it exists in space. And those are barriers, they're real hurdles. He goes along and he hits them, he—if he's at that wavelength at the moment, he'll hit them. See, it's as simple as that. That's a barrier.
A preclear—a map of a preclear would look like a small galaxy. And these are energy deposits which he's lugging along with him. He's like some old prankish, mischievous ghost, dragging around innumerable clanking ridges.
But now when we say barriers to his knowingness, the truth of the matter is he knows how to get rid of all of these, but he's afraid of stepping off one button first, and he gets to holding everything down, then he loses track. And he does this kind of on purpose. So now, reduced knowingness.
Now, there really isn't any reason why his knowingness can't do a resurgence, except that his knowingness comes up at the same time awareness comes up, and awareness and unconsciousness are the two key buttons which go all the way through every somatic he's got and everything he's inhabiting. And you increase his awareness or decrease his awareness, you'll get something hitting a harmonic somewhere in terms of a barrier. Because he conceives himself existing in space.
Now, you could say that, well, all he'd have to do, you know, is just sit down and know about it, and he'd know. And that's all you'd have to do. Nothing to it. The only trouble is, he can't.
Let's not make the mistake of going around and telling people they have to be self-determined. I just got through telling you, you understand, the fellow just doesn't make up his mind to be self-determined. In the first place his knowingness is invested in knowing what he can't do. And then he makes

SPACE, PERCEPTION, KNOWINGNESS, PART II
this come true and convinces himself by setting up actual barriers. So he just booby-trapped himself back to being God, like mad. He's got the whole route booby-trapped; the most intricate booby traps imaginable. It's up to you to trigger them.
The best way to trigger them is just start invalidating barriers and boy, his knowingness just starts going up like a jet plane. Of course, because he's got it invested in barriers. He knows barriers, see?
There's no such thing as a mental barrier, though. Just because there's no such thing as energy is one argument in favor of it, and the other argument in favor of it is, is his investment in space is minimal. But if he's got to have space and then doesn't have any space, now he's got what you might call a backtrack that tells him that in order to get to this point where he doesn't have to have space, he's got to be able to inhabit space. You have to go through every one of those dynamics one after the other. Curious, isn't it?
Now, here's one of the funny things—I'll just give you this real fast, one of the funny things—I've probably made everything unclear that I made clear in that little after speech there this morning. But—good, I'm glad it did. Because of—you've got to do some looking.
One of the very amusing parts of all of this has to do with the preclear's certainty of his own certainty. He begins to pile this up, one way and the other—interlock it in some kind of a fashion—so that he will become certain of consequences, if he undoes consequences. And that's the way he booby-traps his knowingness. See how he does that? He becomes certain of consequences, so that, other words, his certainties become barriers. Certain of consequences. Now, he explains this to himself by running into things. And this is very convincing.
But you can be absolutely certain when you're processing somebody that just the straight course of invalidating barriers unbooby-traps the works.
Now, you invalidate the great barriers of nothingness by at least cursorily addressing this one: This character has deposits of nothing all around and through his own universe. They're triumphs. He's made nothing of things. You see? And he keeps that pocket of nothing, he keeps it as—the way somebody would keep a reindeer's horns or something that he shot. And you start looking around a pc and boy, he's got all these nothingnesses. Well, they have to be bounded by somethingnesses in order to be nothingnesses. And so you get these deposits and vacuums which produce these strange "hungers" which you find in Acceptance Level Processing. He's a honeycomb. His whole bank is honeycombed with these victorious nothingnesses. He made nothing out of that, by golly!
Now, you can ask somebody, "How long has it been since you made nothing— really, really made nothing out of something?" Oh, he's liable to think that's been a long time. And he'll start shifting off of it, and he'll realize that the reason he moves around so much in this universe is he's really—he's really not making nothing out of anything, you see? He's just converting, converting, converting, converting, converting. That's because this is an enduring universe.
Well, I'm glad you're all unclear again! It tells you that these processes of six ways to nothing are just about the best you've got. And locational processes and processes which put emotion and obedience and disobedience into barriers and mock-ups.
Now, you see, you'd play those three things together. You'd locate the guy— you locate him, you see. Now, you give him no barriers. Then you put emotion in barriers and in space—emotion of course, including several varieties. And then you go into undoing his unconsciousness, directly, by putting unconsciousness

31

32

30 NOVEMBER 1953
and obedience and disobedience—you know, compliance. And then you'd go back, right away, around again, to get six ways to nothingness. Pardon me, you get him located again, and then go to six ways to nothingness. It doesn't matter which way you do it. So that we could call this—we can call this another little process and just put it together that way, and it'd bring you out of the dark and out of any argument you're in. And the way it'd go, is you just throw the—you get him located—you know, by "Where isn't he?" past, present and future. And then you'd get him—then he's there, well, you give him "six ways to nothingness." And then you would give him putting emotion in things.
And after you've given him a lot of this, see—given him a lot of this— then start putting unconsciousness in things, and obedience and disobedience into things, because that's the condition of hypnotism.
And then you'd come back again, and start out once more by locating him, then giving him six ways to nothing, and then giving him emotions which would include thought and effort, and then come around and give him unconsciousness and obedience and disobedience in MEST objects—six ways to these things.
And then you'd come around again, and you'd locate him. And you give him six ways to nothing. He, theoretically, in this fashion, would simply—in spite of anything else you did, and in favor of just clarity—he would get Clear and get exteriorized eventually, he just wouldn't be able to help himself. So again, all this makes sense once more, doesn't it?
Sure had you lost there for a minute, though. Gee, you sure get lost easy!
Okay.

Lack of Space
A lecture given on I December 1953

This is the December 1 morning lecture.
The problem of auditing is probably one of the simpler operations in which you could engage, and that's the actual fact of the matter. But it's probably one of the more puzzling operations that you have confronted.
When you take a watch apart, you know there's a case and it has parts and these parts come out here and come out there and so forth. And when you take a preclear apart and you yourself are incapable of looking at the preclear, it's somewhat like taking a watch apart blindfolded. And to a large extent I'm trying to teach you, really, how to take a watch apart blindfolded. This is a difficult thing to teach, but it has become simpler and simpler and simpler as time has gone on, because the deeper, wider, more basic, more fundamental data on the subject of Homo sap has come to light. I don't say Homo sap with any tone of disrespect, I just say it.
Now, Homo sap has several sciences. And amongst these sciences are psychology, psychiatry—yes, he calls psychiatry a science. He doesn't have any definition of what a science is. He doesn't go back to the dictionary nor examine the basic terms nor the semantics of his own language, and he's very rough and loose in his usages. Psychiatry he calls a science.
And there's one called medicine. He calls medicine a science. I don't know how in the name of the Lord himself you could ever call medicine a science since it's something that, like Topsy, "just growed."
I don't think anybody—anybody in the last umpteen thousand years has ever sat down and said, "Now, let's see, illness and Homo sapiens. Well, the basic fundamentals are . . ." and gone ahead and put together a science of medicine. Medicine is essentially, however, the practice of treating structure in order to refine function; and all of your medical doctors will agree on that.
Psychology is the effort to observe structure and function so as to ... Well, they never gave it a—they never gave it a goal, you see, but it's to observe structure and function and collect data thereupon. The best and most able work on psychology, I think, was written by William James, and I don't think it's been improved upon. Everything after Freud was no improvement, believe me. Freud himself, by the way, made the mistake of going backwards. He hit his peaks, and then he started to apologize and explain why it didn't work.
Fortunately, I've been saved that embarrassment. But only, let me assure you, by great exercise of observation rather than digging into deeper significances.

33

34

1 DECEMBER 1953
Now, we look at these so-called sciences. They do not fall within the definition of the word science itself, and yet they are accepted by Homo sapiens as being a science—each one.
There's the science of medicine. Somebody one time, not too long ago—a few years ago, maybe four or five years ago; I don't know when, quite, because I've only seen the advertisements of it—put out a work called The Physics of Medicine. I think that's really grand and very amusing, as a matter of fact, you see—"the physics of medicine." They are putting forward the physics of this, and you would assume immediately that they were talking about the balances and fulcrums of muscles and bones, of the electronic structure of the body, the electronic or molecular phenomena and so forth. And I don't think they talked about that: I think they were talking about cascara and castor oil. But anyway . . .
Anyway, man is very easily fooled by the use of words. And he is so accustomed to being fooled by the use of words, that when a political organization wishes to alter the face of some political body, it simply redefines the words. It does not alter the word, it redefines it.
We have an example of that in a chap, a few years ago, who was the ruler of the United States. He altered the word freedom in its meaning. A most interesting alteration. Because sometimes you have to sit down for quite some time, sort of explain it to somebody, so he finally sees that the word freedom does not mean "freedom from." You see, freedom doesn't mean "freedom from." Freedom means freedom. Freedom is, at the very least, a very clearly defined word. It simply means "without restriction." So you don't have a "freedom from." The second you have a "freedom from," you've imposed a restriction on the word freedom.
As long as people are educated in grade school, high school, college, to adore this word, you then have a point on which you can hang a future political activity. Now you could have an activity which consisted of putting in jail every minority group in the entire country, which would fall well within a redefined freedom. See, now we're going to define freedom and it's going to be "freedom from minorities." See? Here we go! Now we haven't any—any freedom. The civil rights go by the boards and so forth.
The deterioration of any society is marked by the redefinition of its earliest ethics. And when one attempts to use a language to relay information, he falls into these various traps and redefinitions.
I have essentially used, in any defining which I have done of any of these techniques or phenomena, words in their dictionary definition—their clearest dictionary definition. That is to say, when I say freedom I don't mean "freedom from," I mean freedom. When I say restriction I mean something which is barriered, you see, to a greater extent than it was designed to be, which is what restriction means. When you say "restriction," it means something is—has more barriers around it than it's supposed to have. And similarly, with these processes, I've tried to explain them in the simplest possible way, so as to give you the widest latitude of application.
Now, on any of these definitions, one way or the other, you will find that they interpret very, very widely, but they are designed to interpret in their simplest meaning. And all the auditing and all the techniques which you have are best viewed with this modification: without additional significance. When we say "cause-effect," now we mean immediately "without additional significance."
And where you're—might be having a little bit of a difficulty, perhaps, in applying what we have, is the uneasy feeling educated into you by changing

LACK OF SPACE
political times, by chicanery on the scientific front. They've made a great sacred cow out of this thing called science. It's wonderful. And if we ever had a long course, that would certainly be required reading—Science is a Sacred Cow —because this is just a gorgeous book.
Educated in a society which customarily redefines things for the sake of advertising, for the sake of political gain, for the sake of selling more pills across the counter and more time in the operating room; a society which is geared pretty well on more significance—you know, it's . . . If you're so educated to believe when you look there in that ad in the magazine and it says, "Free. Send today for your forty-page booklet without charge or obligation," you're sort of accustomed to say, "Oh, yeah?" Because, quite rightly, a certain cynicism has been born in you concerning any "free without additional obligation," any freedom which is going to be promised by a politician, and any science.
If anyone studied physics, for instance, thirty years ago, that staid old lady let him down—in not very many years. Now, true that fulcrums and balances and wheels and vectors and things like that still work as they always did— people have just been shooting to pieces some of the most cherished beliefs in physics.
And accustomed, then, to change, and educated even by myself to expect change, you have the feeling like this material may be reevaluated or redefined. You would actually have had to have studied it step by step all the way through, to find out how much today Book One is true.
Yeah, Book One is a statement of the word survival and its meanings and connotations in the mind, and a description of the barrier known as the engram and man's battle with pain and unconsciousness, and gives methods by which these still may be remedied. The only trouble is, is after a hundred or two, three, four hundred hours, you have validated the barrier of the engram to such a degree that without additional technologies you would find yourself a bit bogged down. Better off than before, perhaps, but bogged.
Now, it was based upon this single thing: I have never been other than able to look at a pc. Once in a while when it's getting late and toward the end of a session, I'll blow up on something or other and have occasionally—to the great destruction of somebody's psyche, but his immediate recovery from whatever he was suffering from specifically—say, "Damn it! Are you going to run the automobile which is sitting in front of your face or not?" Guy's sitting there with a head-on collision which is about to happen or something of the sort. And he's been fishing around and fooling around with this thing, and this is the one thing he won't look at, and that's why he doesn't have any visio.
Well now, that's taking a watch apart by looking at a watch. You don't even have to know how to do that today. But if, for instance, you have any tunable perception at all, you can look at somebody's body anchor points. You know where they're out, and about how long he has to mock something up in their place in order to get perception on them himself. Because you see, then, that his perception is coming up on it, and you see his own lookingness, you know, wandering off this way and wandering off this way, and you've mocked up a few, and all of a sudden you see his lookingness is in the vicinity. So you tell him to look at it and move it.
This becomes a very easy problem. But I'm not asking you to do it this easy way. It's a very—essentially a very easy problem. It is a problem in electronic structure, whereby we have in full play the repulsion mechanisms of two bits of energy—just like you have a magnet which is turned opposite to itself, you know, and it'll reject itself. And you have that electronic mechanism of too

35

36

1 DECEMBER 1953
much attraction on the part of an anchor point for other anchor points. And you'll see silly things sitting on people, like their right side anchor points have drifted all the way over to the left side and are way out in front of them somewhere or something of this sort. You'll see this. And it's very easy for you, if you look, to see this.
But the slight difficulty comes in trying to teach you, you might say, "covert looking." If you're not looking directly, then there are many other methods of looking. And you shouldn't just chuck in the sponge because you don't have a direct view of the problem, because the problem is no longer so complicated that it requires a direct view. You don't have to take apart a very complicated mechanism. This mechanism is not complicated. In the first place, we don't have anything to do with psychology. In the second place, we're not trying to do anything about medicine. In the third place, you don't need any big knowledge of physics to see how anchor points behave or don't behave. And those subjects are all classified under: "Let's find the deeper significance of."
And you're not trying to find a deeper significance. You're just trying to line up somebody's space so he can be in some space, and there's no deeper significance to it than that.
If you find him in flows—it's very easy to know when a fellow is in flows. If you ask him, he'll tell you. You say, "Do you have any slight feeling like a hurricane going across just back of your eyes or anything like that through your body?"
The fellow will look it over for a little while and he says, "Well, there's— there's a great stillness just back of my eyes. It's sort of the calm before the storm or something of the sort."
You could discuss it or you can very readily isolate the fact that he has an incipient flow there. You say, "Well, did you ever get sudden flows there?"
"No. Sometimes I have big pains there." You've got an area of action.
What do you do about the area of action? Well, you can do lots of things about it. But the first thing that's wrong with it is, is something's wrong with his space. It's not staying in balance. That's something wrong with his space. And this is the first thing you can say about a pc: there's something wrong with his space.
And the next thing you could say about him is that his barriers are much too pronounced, and in some cases—oh, so rarely—they don't exist. His barriers are too pronounced or they don't exist. There's something wrong on the barrier problem, which again is just a problem of anchor points.
And you can say about him, too, that he can be better.
And you could also say about him that he cannot adequately create, cause to persist or destroy. And you can just say these about him, and you've said just about everything you have to say about him, but you can say that about every preclear that you run into.
Well, let's give an example of what I mean here. We have somebody who is what we call a tough case. And we tell him to put some . . . Well, let's just go at it because this is "Tough Case Q." Now, we could sit around for a long time and wonder what the significance of this tough case is. But there isn't any reason why we should. He doesn't have any significance, poor fellow. I'd love to tell you that he is a baffling problem and that he has successfully hidden from us all these various and nefarious crimes that he has committed and so forth. But he hasn't.
As soon as we approach the problem on the basis that he himself is a life energy unit and that this unit will function best in its own space and worst in

LACK OF SPACE
the (there is a word that fits in there and there is no adequate word) you might say, "warped" or "tortured" space—you know, misplaced space. There's a phrase for it. When you get the anchor points of a piece of space out of line too far, you get yourself a different kind of space; you get stressed space. So if he doesn't get out easily, well, he's a problem that is an energy unit—an energy production, not an energy deposit unit—but he's an energy production unit which is in the middle of distorted space.
And your problem is to get him out to where he can have some space that isn't distorted. And the body's space he's in is distorted space. And you want to get him into an area where he doesn't have distorted space. And that is done either by just making the body's space disappear entirely or by changing it around so that it's not distorted space, or simply by telling the fellow to be three or twenty feet back of his head or something of the sort, and make some space. Now, if you do this on that basis, why, you're all right.
And as soon as we wander off from that and begin to worry about "What is the significance of the fact that this case is allergic to oysters?"—it just doesn't have any significance at all. There is no significance to that.
It was the plainest thing that you could possibly observe, which is to say, space. Now that's the plainest thing you could observe, and the answer lies in there. Now we talk about his knowingness, so forth—that'll take care of itself. See, his knowingness pretty well takes care of itself. You start drilling him around on the subject of space, and he finally finds out he can take it or leave it alone and he gets real happy about it and he gets real smart and his communication lags come up.
But in trying to give you a solution which is reducible to easy practice, I possibly have caused you to suspect me when I tell you that it's not a rough problem. Now, you just keep doing this problem in several ways and all of a sudden it will come home to you as a certainty that we are handling just pieces of space and we're handling anchor points and we're handling an energy production unit.
Now we say, "What is wrong with the preclear?" That's our favorite statement. Well, let's find instead what's right with him. All right. Now, what's right with this preclear? Well, we can find it out from this basis: he can handle something. If we go on looking at every preclear as somebody that has something wrong with him, then we're liable to go in for the things he can't handle, whereas we want to handle the things he can handle.
And we had an example here, a little short demonstration after class yesterday, of somebody who had been getting things into the wall, but getting the idea of them into the wall. That's fine. That's fine. But that's the one thing that doesn't happen to need any exercising; the idea is something that doesn't need any exercising.
Now, if you get the wall to think in terms of symbols, that's something else. That's quite another technique. Have the wall say, "I hate you," you see, that's a bunch of symbols. Well, that's an idea into the wall, true, but it's an idea modified by symbols. And all ideas, when they're expressed in symbols, modify. There is no idea stated clearly the moment that it is symbolized. So symbols always drag something down.
Now, in essence, then, we have something right with him. We can ask him what can he put in the wall. Is there any feeling or is there any effort, anything like that, he can put in the wall? And he finds out, after a while, there is something. Quite often, if he's very blackly occluded and so forth, he has a problem there which he himself, by the way, can ordinarily handle. He can put

37

38

1 DECEMBER 1953
this black stuff on the other side of the wall, and he can put additional rings or spheres of it outside the last spheres of it he had and look through what he has to the new ones. And this, by the way, is quite effective: it's looking through barriers.
In other words, there's always something he can do. He can always look through a barrier or find a barrier or put a barrier someplace else. And an emotion is as much a barrier as anything else. All right.
As we examine any preclear, we find a lot of abilities. The fact that he is alive tells you that he has an ability.
Now, he's an energy production unit, which means he's a causative unit. He will be as well as he is causative and he will be as bad off as he is an effect—up to the point of 20.0 on the Tone Scale, after which he will be as bad off as he is causative. The reason for this is that he loses interest in anything. But theoretically he can go right on up to the top and come out the top and still get along without any interest in anything, but that's theoretical, and we don't find preclears doing that.
Now, the only liability that we run into is exteriorizing somebody, and then the next time we ask him to get out of his head, he doesn't go. He seems to have lost some of the ability because of the vast labors in which we engaged in exteriorizing him. This happens every once in a while. Well, that shouldn't be too peculiar to you. What do you suppose might have happened there? Well, to understand this a little better, we'd better go into the structure of the thetan.
That might strike you as very peculiar that a thetan, an energy production unit, can have a structure. But how do you suppose some of these thetans are holding on to bodies? They're matching the space points of the body. You see that?
You know, every once in a while, somebody has some terrific somatic or there's a big pressure on his brow or on his chin, some terrific pressure some-where or another and you say, "All right. Now take your fingers and hold it within the sphere of that pressure and feel it pressing against your fingers." Oh-oh, he can't! The second you do this experiment, a great deal will be revealed to you.
The way the thetan contacts the body is evidently on a basis of "matched space." And the thetan can influence the anchor points of the body and the anchor points of the body can influence the flesh and blood and bones. And we have, then, a contact which is capable of controlling the body.
Learning how to run a body, essentially, would be learning how to manipulate its anchor points, not how to move its arms. You'd have the body's anchor points moving the body's arms—an electronic relay system going forward, handling the body.
Now, the thetan is of such wavelength that he can handle anchor points which match the anchor points of the body. Or, he can just directly handle the body's anchor points. And he puts in energy deposits and other things to leave in electronic deposits, to do what? To influence the nose? No, to influence the anchor points of the nose. Some fellow who can wiggle his nose is wiggling the anchor points of the nose so as to cause the anchor points of the nose to wiggle the nose—relay system.
Now, you want to know why somebody can't get out of his head when his anchor points are too bad off. Well, it's because the anchor points are— contain live juice. And he is being influenced by the live juice (the electricity, if you please) in this electronic structure. When the body's dead, he can shove off with great ease. The GE can go one way, and he can go the other way. This is with great ease because the anchor point—space-anchor point system goes

LACK OF SPACE
dead. So there's no longer an electrical field for him to influence. And so he worries, because he can't move a dead body. Can't move a dead body unless you were to reinstall and rebuild an entire anchor point system in that body. Do you see how that would be?
Well, you haven't been enterprising ponies as thetans. You haven't been sufficiently enterprising ponies to know how you handle these bodies. Don't think you do, because if you did, we would have much better acrobats. Believe me, bodies would suddenly flip over the cross—the whole top of the big top. I mean, they'd go all the way across the top of the big top, if you really knew what you were doing with anchor points.
Well, I never talked about this much before, but it's become terribly important in exteriorization, because there isn't any real covert way of handling and straightening up the anchor points of a body. No real good covert way of doing it.
Now, anything done by Creative Processing is covert processing. You know, to pick up an ashtray and move it is much better than to build a Rube Goldbergian piece of automaticity and machinery which will move the ashtray. So move things directly when you can. And you can educate somebody, however, into moving an ashtray by having him mock up ashtrays and move them. And when he can mock up enough ashtrays and move them, he can eventually move a real ashtray. But he'll find out he'll have to do that by putting in anchor points which the ashtray can agree with at one end, and he can influence from the other end. So he needs a gradient scale relay system in order to handle an ashtray.
Now that's just theory—happens to work out, but the theory is that the thetan is not sufficiently in contact with the MEST universe to be stopped by it. And he wants to be stopped by it so that he can handle it. So he uses a gradient scale relay system on it.
In other words, it's a question of wavelengths. What is the wavelength of an electron? Well, believe me, that's real gross. What's the wavelength of light? That's real gross too. It's much easier for a thetan to use radar. Much easier for him to put a light there and look at it than it is to go on agreeing with MEST. Now, this should explain to you quite a bit about a thetan's perception.
Also it should explain to you these pressures and flows on the body. These pressures and flows that he is feeling come about because he mismatches up some anchor points and gets them tangled, and gets his communication system with the body all fouled up because of accidents or something of the sort, and then you suddenly ask him to let go of all this and leave! Well, he's scared to! He will, if he figures the body is bad enough off.
Also, you will find many a thetan able to exteriorize when the body is almost dead. That's real peculiar, isn't it? If you get a body that's real sick—this fellow is real sick—if you just ask him to be up in the corner of the room, boy, he goes like a breeze. He feels very sad about it, and he feels quite full of grief about it and so forth, but he'll be there. Why? The body doesn't have sufficient potential to warp the space so that he stays in the warped space.
Now, if he matched the body's space one time or another, you see, and then the body's space is warped because of misplaced anchor points, the two spaces no longer match.
If you ever saw a picture of an electron or a molecule—have you ever seen one of these pictures of a molecule with all these fancy little balls around here and there? Well, if you just put up one of those and said, "That's the body," now you put up a second one and said, "That's the thetan," and you move these

39

40

1 DECEMBER 1953
one over the other, and then you moved in some bones and so-called atoms and molecules and other things in amongst these things, why, you'd have a good picture of what the body is and what the thetan's doing. Actually he doesn't need any anchor points to do that, but he very often erects the most complex anchor points you ever wanted to see in your life.
So he tries to move out of the body; and here's your problem then: your spaces don't match. Well now, you have to run space. And there's a bracket of space that can be run, there's holding on to the two back anchor points of the room—there's all sorts of methods by which this can be done.
Now, in other places and other climes and other planets and other bodies, this problem has been very, very simple. They simply drug somebody until he's almost dead and then they tell him to shove off for Ektar or something.
It's a wonder to me that more people haven't died under narcosynthesis— more bodies haven't died. Because it would have been so easy for a psychiatrist to have said, "Be three feet back of your head," while the body was under a heavy duress of narcosynthesis—or "Go to hell," or some other psychiatric term—and then find the body suddenly no longer inhabited or no longer under control or something, when it regained consciousness. This is something that nobody should ever play with—narcosynthesis—because the second that you give somebody narcosynthesis, you're liable to shoot him up between-lives area. You give him a bunch of drugs or something and he's liable to go. He's liable to leave right now.
Well, they don't know what they're monkeying with. As a matter of fact, the biggest injunction on the track has been, from the beginning of time, is "Don't fool around with the mind!" Well, fortunately, we're not now fooling around with the mind, we're working exclusively with the human spirit, and everybody's tried to fool with that, so that's fashionable!
Now, we've discovered the system by which the spirit monitors and handles the body. It wasn't very hard to discover, but it poses a bit of a problem sometimes to patch up.
Now, let's go off onto a more practical aspect of this now. When you have somebody who can't perceive, you can know this about him immediately— know this about him: There's something he doesn't want to see. And if he can only get effort, there is something he must resist but madly. What is it? Well, it's generally that thing from which he most suffers. So you just ask him what's been bothering him and he tells you after a while, "Women." Women— that's what's been bothering him; or men—that's what's been bothering her.
Well, you can't put too much stock in that because it's too general a statement. Everybody's bothered this way, one way or the other. But we can do this: We can take the effort to resist women, or the effort to resist men, and put it in the bulkhead and put it in the floor and put it in the baseball in the sporting goods store next door, until it is finally reduced. Or we can put "the effort to resist disease" into such a fashion. You see that? Nothing much to it until we play out the key thing he's worried about.
Now, this is sort of a hit-or-miss proposition. You could get this on an E-Meter. But it's an opening wedge to a case when all else will fail you. It's "What's this character resisting?" And just hit it by dynamics. Not "What can't he create and destroy?"—that's a broader statement than you need. It's just "What's he scared of? What's he resisting?"
And we go down the line—we're afraid somebody will die, or we're— that's too general. He's afraid God will kill him. He's afraid somebody will hate him. Well, each time one of these showed up, his case would do a bit of a jump

LACK OF SPACE
if you simply put it up into the wall and so forth—these fears, one kind or another—until he could handle them. But normally quite specific, and very often just one thing.
A girl I ran one time, she was afraid she'd be hit. Not by anything, she was just afraid she'd be hit. And so we put fear of being hit in the walls, and the whole space structure of the room just fell down—and to her MEST eyes and everything else. And we got it up again, and we put it elsewhere, and other structures started collapsing. And we had the darnedest time there for about fifteen or twenty minutes, trying to get some wall someplace to stand up long enough to have put in it "fear of being hit," because all MEST was dodging and ducking—it was leaving. That's just because we were putting her emotion in that direction. Of course, she was leaving in all—from all quarters of space. So she was driven into a no-space condition which was quite interesting, and which had thrown the body anchor points badly out of [into] distortion.
So it isn't just the body that sins on being—having distorted space. The thetan, having matched this structure, very often goes into the opposite—you know, he distorts body space.
Well, there's one thing that he's afraid of. There's one thing more than others, which if you relieve sometimes, you will get him unstuck off of the effort in which he finds himself. That's an E-Meter trick. That's a covert method of looking.
Now the Assumption is normally keyed in on any case. You can just count on that. It was the Assumption, by the way, that ruined Dianetics. It was the fact that birth, every now and then, wouldn't run. And the fact that birth, every now and then, had a strange factor show up in it—zoom! What was this weird factor that kept showing up in people's births? Well, it was the Assumption. One had to assume the unreasonable fact that every baby was hit by the doctor with a piece of black energy or that the baby was being attacked by a demon, or that this was when the preclear took over. And, of course, the second we got into that one, that took us right into Theta Clearing and goodbye Dianetics. Because that frame of reference and thought and orderly process of course was in fair agreement with the society. It's quite workable within the frame of reference of the society.
Well, we had to take off and process something else from there on. We had to process that thing which most closely approximated the analytical mind and we had to stop validating that thing called the reactive mind simply because the key engram on almost every case—birth—sooner or later was liable to hang up with the Assumption.
So you'll find that sort of around on every case. And this has a tendency to make preclears think they're backwards on their body and sometimes you'll find one flipping into the Assumption body. That is to say, the body in front of his body or something of the sort, and back into his own head and into the Assumption body and into other people's heads. And he's not quite sure what he's transferred into, but he knows it's complicated and he knows he's confused about it.
Well, he doesn't have to have any Assumption body. There doesn't have to be any such effort around. There doesn't have to be any specific engram run to account for this. All you have to do is rehabilitate the ability of the thetan to exteriorize and make space. You get his perception up, you make space for him by getting him to duplicate things which are pieces of space, such as a room— pieces of space such as a room. Duplicate it and make it disappear and duplicate it and make it disappear.

41

42

1 DECEMBER 1953
Now, every time you find him fighting a barrier badly, is just about time when you became very leery of falling into the trap, what is the significance of that barrier? I'll tell you the significance of the barrier in a very short sentence: It's a barrier. The meaning which is in it, of course, is that it is something that resist—set there to resist all effects, as far as the meaning is concerned. That's why it continues to be a barrier.
Now, it is resisting something but we don't really care what—if we can get our preclear to work in any other fashion. And only as a last resort would we find what it was resisting. If it just wouldn't go away, if it just kept recurring and so forth—this'd mean our pc was pretty badly off, by the way—we'd have to eventually turn around on the thing and solve it as a barrier.
But there are easier ways to solve barriers than to tackle them as a head-on collision. That's really the wrong way to solve barriers. I don't say, "Never solve a barrier by looking for what it's a barrier against." The reason I don't say that is because every once in a while I'll blow a case up by finding out what it's a barrier against. See, I just blow the case to pieces and bang! I will get whatever it's a barrier against—the feeling it's a barrier against, or whatever it is—I'll just put that in the walls until the feeling disappears, it modifies, he can create it and destroy it at will. Do you see that?
This is a sort of a last-ditch proposition. This is a guy who can't see his anchor points. Well, he's got such a perception barrier in some direction or another that he won't look at anything. And in order to get him to look at something, why, we find out what he specifically won't look at and we run it. But anybody who can see the anchor points of the body or get them into adjustment in any fashion whatsoever, or anybody who can be coaxed to exteriorize—even with effort—and, standing outside of his body's space, duplicate things until he sees the space will stand up right, wouldn't be run into this "What is the significance of this barrier?"
But let's take that borderline case. He's not borderline on sanity, you understand—it's got darn little to do with it. He's just borderline on this one thing: He can't see any anchor points. He is unable to vision any anchor points or adjust them, and yet he can't get out of his head. You mock up anchor points for him, you polish them up, you go through these various ramifications and he still can't find any anchor points and so forth. Well, let's find out what he's resisting, and then let's put that as a fear or a worry into the walls, the doors, pieces of MEST and particularly into pieces of space, and put obedience and disobedience into pieces of space and so forth.
Now, there's one of that category that he can get. And you run what he can get, and then all of a sudden when he can't get it, it's because something else has shown up that's blocking him, so you put that in. Like yesterday, there, we got a jumble of emotion we could put into the various walls and so forth and all of a sudden it went blank—he couldn't put that into walls anymore. Well, it was because a lot of heat had shown up. So we put heat into walls until we could get the jumble of emotion again. This something had shown up suddenly which was a new barrier.
Well, we have our work pretty well cut out and the watch pretty well in pieces, if this fellow can, by mocking up anchor points for a while, finally see the anchor points in his body and adjust them. Because you'll get an exteriorization.
And you'll get an exteriorization, however—usually, if you have any trouble with it at all—on this basis: He doesn't want to get out of his body, it makes him nervous. So you have to do a little End of Cycle and a little coaxing and "what emotion turns on when he starts to get out," and the emotion of franticness. Okay,

LACK OF SPACE
we'll put franticness in the bulkheads and we'll fool around with it until we null this stuff down, until he does move out. And you'll find out he'll move out quite ably. We just find out what's preventing him—according to him—from moving out, and we handle it without validating too much. And if we validated them—these things as barriers too much, then we just get six ways to nothing for a while, until we've knocked every barrier phobia down and then we just go back at it again. And we'll have somebody out.
And on this character who can't see any anchor points—see, we ask him to adjust his anchor points, he finally adjusts his anchor points and then he won't step out of his head because there's a terrific emotional shock connected with it, see? And we just put the shock in the walls, and—you'll get him backed out, in other words, by handling things into walls and so on. All right.
What about the fellow—he looks around and he can't see any anchor points? You ask him to mock up some and he still can't see any. You ask him to mock up some more and he finally sees his anchor points okay. But if he doesn't, what do you do about this guy? Well, there's something specific he won't look at and he's mighty scared about it. And so you put that—any feeling he can get connected with that, whether of effort or otherwise—and you put that in the walls and so on, until you discharge it.
One case I ran had a terrific fear of syphilis. Interesting. Syphilaphobia showing up. So we just put this—everything worrying about syphilis. See, emphasizing this thing about worry, because it's essentially a worry machine that's preventing this. And we just kept putting this into the walls and the floor and garbage cans and up on the roof and that sort of thing, until he had practically everything in the world scared it was going to get syphilis. And after that, why, he didn't give a damn whether he had it or not! Which he didn't have, by the way, but he certainly had read a lot of books. Now, the case exteriorized.
It's where a person is afraid to look, rather than what a person is afraid of. Now, "what is he afraid to look at?" is what cuts down his perception. It isn't just a blunt shot of: "Well, everybody deteriorates evenly and slowly, and finally goes all to pieces." This is not the case.
Well, in processing, I recommend to you very strongly, very definitely, the idea of looking at the simplest reasons why somebody isn't doing something. The simplest reason in this universe: He's resisting it, or the space is all haywire. Those are the simplest reasons. He's got an idea there that it's—he can't front up to it or his space is all wrong, which is about the same thing. But you take the simplest reasons that you can think of. If you can think of a simpler reason, it'll be the better reason.
Now, the actual reason is—"Why can't this preclear get out of his head?" is because he's in his head. That's idiotically simple. But it doesn't happen to lead to much further action unless you think it out for a while. And let's see if we could make that: because he's in his head, all right; he's in his head. Well, you could say, "Why is he in his head?" Well, you could also say, "He is in his head because he's not out of his head."
Well, this would go knocking back and forth till some time unless you knew some of the finer points of such a thing as space. You'd say, "All right then, there's something tenable about the space inside his head, which doesn't exist in the space outside his head. So let's put it in the space outside his head and then that space will become tenable too." See, you could do that.
Now, I've exteriorized somebody one time, who couldn't see, couldn't feel, couldn't get ahold of any anchor points, was completely fogged-up and was

43

44

1 DECEMBER 1953
desperately afraid of everything but couldn't get anything into a wall. I mean this case was real bad off, plus being pretty well out of communication. And I got this guy out by making him lean back against an easy chair with a sharp, very sharp, tie clasp underneath the back of his neck—between the back of his neck and the back of the chair. It was a—so that as his head leaned back against the back of this easy chair, this thing gouged him. We had a point of unmistakable reality, and we used it.
And we worked until he got it in front of him, which of course made him understand utterly that he was out. And we did this by getting, each time, "Was he in his feet?" and so on. And once in a while, to help him out on the thing, I'd step on one of his toes and to get enough pressure onto his toe there, so that he could locate a pressure point there. So we had a pressure point at the back of the neck and a pressure point in one toe. And he exteriorized on these things. Yet he couldn't feel his shoulders or anything else. Yet he exteriorized. And although he was flopping in and out every once in a while, we got a—had him exteriorized long enough till he could do enough Spacation outside the body to turn on his perception and get the idea that space wasn't going to collapse on him just because he was outside the body. You see, the body was holding up all of his space for him—that's why he couldn't get out of his head. All right.
So we just got the space straightened out while he was outside under this rather, shall we say, duressful situation. He didn't give a doggone that some-thing was gouging him in the back of the neck. I mean, this was the least of his worries—it was a good orienting point. You could every once in a while see him pull his head back against it harder so that he would have a better contact point. But it was a good contact point, good strong impact effort in it, and he exteriorized and was quite comfortable. But he, of course, had no space.
He, by the way, exteriorized in a—what you call a Fac One suit. Yeah, it was a black suit. And he was completely demarked as a body. We had to shed this thing and exteriorize him out of that eventually, but it was very easy to do.
Well, you see, what you want to do is give some guy an idea of location— anchor points, location, space. When these things are off, when he doesn't have adequate location, why, he can't go anyplace because he isn't anyplace.
You see, it goes like this: First the space around one, as a thetan, has collapsing tendencies. It just doesn't seem to stay put. So he uses the body, and the space of the body is being held apart by the body anchor points. You see, that's real simple. So he occupies that space because that's stable space. Now, when that starts to go by the boards, he, of course, doesn't have any space. There isn't any additional space for him to go into. After that, anything can happen to him.
That's why people flip back and forth between between-lives areas with such avidity: somebody's going to hold their space apart for them. Well, they can reappear in a body in pawn because its space is being held apart. But once the body in pawn is gone, they feel real lost. You understand this a little bit better?
Well, anytime you start validating barriers, even the barriers of anchor points . . . See, he thinks he's got to—the main trouble with him is he thinks he's got to have anchor points in order to have space. A fellow can know he has space and know he has anchor points without having any anchor points. You see how a fellow could do that? He'd just know he had space. He'd just know. Well, that's on a knowing basis. Well, that's up pretty high.

LACK OF SPACE
So he's validated anchor points and he's too anxious about anchor points, and after that, why, he starts having a lot of trouble about space. It's a dependency. He comes from knowingness down then into collapsing space.
Holding the two back corners of the room for a long time will help such a case. He'll finally get the idea that that stuff isn't going to go to pieces on him. That the anchor points of the MEST universe are reliable, they will stay there, he can exit into them. Now, this makes him happy.
You can actually run a case downhill by running too many subjective techniques on the case which do not remedy the case's space. If you start running too many techniques to alter and vary the thought or the concept of the preclear, you'll run the case downhill. What you should do is validate knowingness and invalidate barriers. And the way you do this, however, is to show him he can't have things which he has already thought he couldn't have. Well, you've got to get him up through the idea of space before you get him into knowingness. There's no shortcut. He has to depend on space.
So if you can't adjust somebody's space by adjusting the anchor points in the body, you can still put up a couple of somatics or something for him to exteriorize on. You can. I mean just that. There's a process known as "tin-cupping" a guy out. He finds four pressure points in the body and then four points in the body that doesn't have—don't have pressure points. And he just keeps finding these in rotation. Then he finds four points in the room where he doesn't have pressure points and then four points in the room where he can get some pressure. And he will exteriorize. There's no doubt about that. He'll be blind as a bat, but he'll be out. That doesn't make him blind, just running these pressure points.
There's lots of ways of finding your way around, and those are all based on condensed looking, when they get out of the realm of knowing. First you know where you are and then you start condensing knowingness and—I guess condensed knowingness is lookingness, then. Ha-ha! Except that gives knowingness a quantity, which it doesn't have. All right.
You should understand that you can play around with a case for an awful long time if your direct and immediate goal on the case is not a rehabilitation of the case's space—see, if you just don't directly rehabilitate this. And the first step of that is exteriorization. So you just ought to fool around with a case until you get him out of his head, that's all there is to that. Either by getting him to mock up anchor points—doing Self Analysis, by the way, is just mocking up anchor points. And you're either getting him to mock up anchor points, or getting him to put black spheres around so that he gets steadily enlarging black space or—anything that'll give him some more space, anything that'll stiffen up space, anything that'll get him out of his head. You get him exteriorized, you got him out—all right, now work him when he's exteriorized.
You work him when he's exteriorized in the direction of giving him more space, that's all. Let's give him better space and make space more stable while he's exteriorized, and he will not then be dependent for perception and so forth upon the body. You understand that?
So that's the direction and the goal of your processing. And any less goal than that is—it's a brutal thing for me to say, but it's practically a waste of time.
Okay.

45



Blackness
A lecture given on 2 December 1953

This is December the 2nd, morning lecture.
You know, it would surprise you people of the Second Unit here to know that you really do have the essentials of what you're trying to do—you really do have. And they have evidently been put to you in such a way that you're utilizing them. I can tell this: I look around, there have been several facial changes, several communication changes in this group.
The—there's a little bit of a lack of adeptness in handling these things on the part of auditors present, but you're getting better. I call to your attention, this is only two and a half weeks deep in this course. All right. Now, that is fine. That means that we're sailing along, and we have to a large degree at least indicated that we're going to be very successful in these goals, because I want to see everybody leave here an Operating Thetan. And—that's right, that's right—everybody who's completing the course, I'd like to see in that category.
That's less of a trick than you'd think. You know, you put it forward there for so long that it's become a rather unattainable something or other. Just run a little End of Cycle on it for a while and you'll find out it seems more attainable.
"Waiting for something to do it for you" is the main one that you'll fall across.
Now, there are several specific problems in a preclear which cause more trouble than anything else, and I'd just like to go over those this morning— specific difficulties that you'll run into with your pcs—in a highly generalized way. I want to go over this in such a way as not to throw pcs into various categories, but just to tell you about all pcs, and some of them are worse than others.
Nearly every pc who comes near you will have, one way or the other, an occlusion. This is the nature of the beast. Now, the occlusion is not always black, but the day you find a pc who doesn't run into some black occlusion someplace, why, you please send me a wire. But make sure you wait before you send the wire until you've run him twenty-five or thirty hours. Because there's always—there's always this black stuff around on the track. It's used. It's used for various things, it's quite useful, it's one of these handy, jim-dandy little pieces of energy—it blocks vision. And that is its main use—the blocking of vision.
Now, the worst thing that you can do to a thetan, of course, is to make him wrong, but mechanically the worst thing that you can do to a thetan is blind him.

47

48

2 DECEMBER 1953
Naturally, then, the black energy—deposits of black energy—if one feels he can't create it, are handy things to have around because they will blind an opponent. That's all you can really do to a thetan, you see, is blind him. Fix him up so he can't see. That's—mechanically that's all you can do to him. You can fool him in numbers of ways; you can pull the "God trick" on him.
And if somebody gives you too much trouble, you can always pull the God trick on him. That's the way this universe got balled up and wound up and so forth. You knock one of his mock-ups flat and then say, "You poor fellow. God— God has made nothing out of something of yours. And I'll help you out, I'll help you put up the next mock-up so that this won't happen again." And, of course, it disappears too.
And then one is really in trouble. But the ritual of the thirteen crosses or the eighteen black goats or the "I will arise" ritual or the "radiant light" ritual and so forth, are always given to the thetan immediately after this, you see, as a little present to help him out. And, of course, they spin him in. Because they set up an artificial communications system for him which is too complex to meet with his understanding. And they leave him in the horrible situation of "trying to understand."
And when one is trying to understand hard enough and long enough, he eventually gets down to the complete identification—which is complete ARC. Complete ARC is complete identification; that's bottom scale. There is such a thing. As long as there's personal relationships, there has to be something vaguely resembling ARC. But it doesn't have to be that good, you see.
And every time somebody starts into a set communication system—he starts into a set pattern of agreement in order to communicate—why, he sooner or later winds up in a little bit of trouble.
Now, the state actually can't get along in this universe without religion. Every time the state tries to get along without a religion, gets in trouble. And they always are surreptitiously closing terminals with religion just because of that. The only sure trick there is in the whole universe is the God trick— that's a real sure trick.
So this tells you that the next one out, you see, from that, is a nothingness trick. That's really your first trick, is a nothingness trick. You know, there is something where there's nothing, or there's now nothing where there should be something. And a confusion between these two things, and a big significance about these two things, then brings about a condition of confusion.
The church trying to control large masses of people down through the ages have become very expert in this. And the state trying to control large masses of people and keep law and order, generally will look very kindly upon any activity such as the church which is using this God trick. You can just call it the God trick, and it's a very easy trick to understand. And the thetan's always had this happen to him.
You needn't process it directly, as a matter of fact, you may make your boy sick if you process it very directly. You can just ignore it. But remember to examine his eighth dynamic if he's getting very resistant. So this is one characteristic you'll find in common with all cases.
Now, the blindness trick comes right in alongside of that. That's, they took some black energy—fellow puts a mock-up up, see, he's trying to support this mock-up or force it in a certain direction and trying to keep it up there and trying to keep it as pretty as he can and so forth, so that it will compel attention, and somebody else throws a big cloud of blackness at it. Generally it's some blackness—a square of blackness, a rectangle of it—something like the Lone

BLACKNESS
Ranger wears, something on that order. And it'll hit the other fellow's mock-up, splat! and the mock-up, which has the thetan's viewpoints in it, of course, can't perceive, so that mock-up's no good.
Well, the fellow will start throwing away mock-ups one after the other, and throwing them away one after the other and messing other people's mock-ups up and—there's always some of this around; just like there's always the God trick is always there too. Somebody's always used some blackness at somebody else and there's someplace on the bank it'll trigger.
Now, it's nothing to be afraid of. It's too easy to solve blackness now. You start dropping blackness in domes—you know, I mean concentric spheres, each one larger than the last—over the pc's head, and if you just get him to look through the one you have just covered to the one he's just put on, you see, keep looking through these curtains of blackness at new curtains of blackness, so on, he'd probably blow a grief charge or do something of the sort. It's a symptom of loss, is what a blackness is. But it has lots of significance, because nothingness—here's where we cross with the God trick, you see—nothingness can't be established with blackness.
You know, "Is there nothing in it? Or is there something in it? What is in the blackness?" Well, when there's nothing in something, and something in something, but there's nothing in something, we get into a state of mind that leads us to happily talk about: "Now, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" This becomes the rage. This becomes the thing you talk about in all the cafes and back alleys of a whole empire: How many needles can you stick into how many angels on how many heads of how many pins. No kidding— this was one of the most important questions of a couple of millennia ago. Oh, a very, very great question.
Then also, you can get hundreds of thousands of human beings slaying and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of human beings. There is a very snide—I wouldn't dare tell you this story, but I recommend to you the Arabian Nights, which is very far from a child's book. And in a more or less—a good translation—a Burton or a Lane or a Mathers translation of it, you get some of the seamier side of life. In fact, there's some of the finest detective stories in there that modern writers have ever stolen.
And the Mohammedan religion and the Christian religion are differentiated between, there, very easily, because it is not all pro-Mohammed. You see, you stick around Mohammedanism long enough and it gets funny. Because, you see, in Mohammedanism you have the—Christ is a saint, you know, and they kind of stood by the caravan trail and rewrote it all, until finally the only difference you could tell between a Mussulman and a Christian was the method they used to go to the bathroom: one stood up and the other squatted. Now, this dissertation goes on in the Arabian Nights, it's a beautiful dissertation and it analyzes the whole thing, and draws at last this tremendous conclusion.
Well, when you get into "Is the somethingness the nothingness and is the nothingness a somethingness?" we get into what we call significance, reason and so forth. Well, you see the God trick can be used with blackness, and you'll find religions rather uniformly favoring blackness over other things. Blackness is the stuff. And a debased religion uses blackness a great deal.
Higher religions which still have power, and which thetans are still pushing around, favor gold. And when anybody gets blinded, it's with a bolt of lightning. You know, they don't do it in any mild, unspectacular fashion, they do it preferably out in the middle of a stadium or arena with a number of onlookers—let's say several thousand—and it is done so that the smell of

49

50

2 DECEMBER 1953
brimstone and sulfur is very loud in the air afterwards, and several pedestrians and passersby are probably blinded too, just to make good measure on it, you know. And the people get the idea that Athena or somebody is not quite pleased with their actions.
Now, any thetan—anybody—anybody you spring out of the head is quite well aware of this, quite well aware of all these tricks, if he starts being aware again. And they occur to him as very, very useful tricks and they are. They're very, very useful tricks. And he can get himself into more trouble in less time by going on this same backtrack, because everything is all set up for it in this universe. I mean, all you've got to do is just sort of push a button and the whole thing will run off on the grand automaticity of the holy cross.
See, there have been holy crosses around for the last eight or ten billion years. Didn't have anything to do with Golgotha, that's just another piece of it. There are Christ implants on the track eight thousand years ago—that's interesting, isn't it? It's a story that is just gone over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. All right.
How do we face up to this if our pc is very upset about religion or he says he isn't very upset about religion or if he has religious differences or opinions or he belongs to another cult or church or a new igloo or something? Where do we start in then? We've got all these different pcs and so forth. Well, just as I said about the Mussulman and the Christian, there isn't any difference from pc to pc—they're loused up on the seventh and eighth dynamic. I mean, that's the end of it. I mean, you just got it. There's the "something/nothing" religious trick sitting on the bank.
There's also demonology. I don't care if he says, "I don't know what a 'demonology' is."
And you say, "A 'demonology' is a study of demons."
And he says, "Well, I've never had no truck with demons. I ain't never met no demons. All we had in our neighborhood was ghosts."
The niceness of vocabulary here: We have the ghost, the spirit, the demon, the genie, the marid . . . One time I was going through a list of these things, and I won't bore you with it right now, but it runs something on the order of 580 in fairly common usage in English. That was just the light list, you know, the quick passers-by. I think there's more words for a thetan than any other single object. That's right.
Nearly every tribe, nearly every group on Earth has a new fancy vocabulary to fit them. I know in some of the savage cultures I've been in, their main technology and terminology and so on, is devoted to the spirits of which they are in fear. Because for the most part, these have—some hundreds of years ago, the last ones sort of dished by. One pops up occasionally, but not very often.
Within the last couple of thousand years, there have been some very strong and powerful ones out in Polynesia, for instance. You'll see their tracks around— just literally that, you see their tracks around. And there's a place where one of them jumped off of an island to land on another island. He scooped up a child and jumped between these two islands. And he made the lava splinter both on takeoff and landing. And (the natives tell you all about this anyway) but there—his name is Tatamona and he's still around. If you were .. .
Now, we get to the next point, just using that a little bit cart before the horse. If you see Tatamona, you get sick. And so natives keep their houses shut tight all night long. Sweltering, hot tropic nights, houses just shut tight, barred, nailed down, and the furniture against the door. And if you see Tatamona, you get sick.

BLACKNESS
Well, so that we have—the only way you can make anybody . . . You can confuse his knowingness, you see, by giving him some significance which he can't fathom, and then you can turn around and put a penalty on his perception. Blackness is a penalty on perception. If you look, you'll get blackness. Medusa's head is an example of this. You turn to stone if you look at Medusa and so on. There are a lot of these all down through folklore and mythology and so on. There are lots of gimmicks.
And by the way, in passing, I might say that Freud based his activities and his beliefs and—you could hardly call them his findings because he deserted his findings. See, he had a lot of findings with Breuer, and then he came up with the libido theory in 1894 and then he gradually drifted away from findings into more and more unestablished theory. That early work is very good.
But we have a problem coming up with that repeated in his work. He keeps talking about this problem. He says that those things which have been common to all peoples at all time would more or less form the basis of aberration. So therefore, we look into folklore and mythology in order to discover the root stuff of aberration. The poor old guy, the poor old guy—he was absolutely right: You looked into the mythology to find the root stuff of human beingness. You looked into mythology to find thetans.
He was insufficiently a mathematician to realize that if he'd made that statement, he could make many parallels out of the same statement. He found that there was something about mythology in human beings. And so if he'd just drawn enough parallels and said, "What's common to all mythology?" he would have come up with one thing: spirits. He was—have been all set. All he would have had to have done then was sit down and say, "Let's see, could it be that a human being is actually a spirit?" Then said, "Well, let's see, let's try it—'Be three feet back of your head.' Well, so it is."
And instead of that he had to go into the deep significance of the Olympus complex or the Paprika complex or something. And it had to be because Papa loved daughter or daughter loved Mama. You know, there should have been more sex back in the Victorian times and he'd have been less concentrated on the subject. He grabbed that old second dynamic, you know, and left one, three to eight just sitting there unobserved.
Well, so we've got a problem when we come up against religion in the seventh and eighth dynamic, because everybody's been taught to be afraid of ghosts and spirits. And we've got a problem there in terms of perception because the superstition on the track says that if one perceives, something horrible is going to happen to him and this is in the field of taboo and spirit vengeance. And this comes under the heading of "offended deity."
Any thetan you've got, you give him that concept after he's exteriorized and so forth, he'll realize the only way he went down Tone Scale is he could not punish those who offended his deity—didn't recognize he was a god and bang! you know. They wouldn't leave his sacred places straight and wouldn't leave his things alone, that's all. And he just started on down Tone Scale. He's eventually convinced that he couldn't be a deity at all because he can't defend any of his sacred possessions or represent a nobility and so forth in general.
And it's indicative of a society when the desire for "Let's all be common as old shoes" gets into the woof and warp of the society so deeply that nobody in the society will ever try to do anything or put up any dignity. Because that merely tells you that they've run fresh out of the offended deity. You find the youth—they're on the bottom of that line. You'll find the youth of the country, although they're very easy to exteriorize, will argue with you about being a body.

51

52

2 DECEMBER 1953
You say, "Be three feet back of your head." They get a picture of it or something.
And you say, "Now, wait a minute."
If you don't ask them immediately, "Are you three feet back of your head?" and they—liable to say, "Who?"
"You, you jerk! Not your feet—you."
And they'll say, "What—what do you mean me? I'm a body!"
Boy, don't look in the alleyways of the statesmen, don't look down the side corridors of morality, don't look any place where you might see the seamier side of this society, because you might open a door that'll half-drown a populace because there is what happens.
They sell them science, and the next thing you know you've got space opera. You don't realize it, that you're several legs in this society above space opera. Space opera is very terrific, you understand, but when it comes to a state having the right to pick up, let us say, one of you, or a school kid down here, and zap him a couple of times with a paralo-ray which stands him up and gives him a nice implant, and after that he's a tubeman third class until the ship blows up ... You know, no pay, no anything, no—you know, and he can't leave the confines of the vessel which are between this anchor point and that anchor point and this anchor point and that anchor point and the other two anchor points— no, you—that is one of these societies.
Can you imagine a society now which is run on this basis: There's a huge thought tower, and if anybody thinks a thought which is against the state or to its worst interests or something of this sort, he just simply goes down and turns himself in to the police station. He just goes down and says, "I thought a thought which was contrary to the best good of the state." And the cops throw him into a little electronic booth, and he goes into the booth and they go bzzzzzz and they wipe out his personality, and in the next half an hour, give him a brand-new one. This is real interesting, isn't it?
That's not an upper-grade society. That's an interesting society, but it's not top grade.
Now, the fact that these boys can go into a high and violent motion is indicative of some life in the society. But it's the life made possible by the vast distances which can be traversed. If you want to see somebody who's traveling fast, go find a Greyhound bus driver, go find a TWA plane captain; these guys are traveling pretty fast, too. And it's just within the limits of stress and strain of the materiel and machinery with which they are furnished. See? Now, just because they suddenly get something that goes three light-years is no different than a Greyhound bus. I don't mean to deglamorize space opera, but it sure can be deglamorized with great ease because there's no self-determinism left—I mean everything's done for you.
There are periods when good developments like that suddenly move sideways into the hands of a virile pioneer people and when this happens, why, God help the galaxy, you see. These fellows take that little bit of machinery and they just go out and blow holes in everything—with complete self-determinism decide to determine everything.
So your problem is a deteriorating belief in a spirit, not encroaching superstition. A society goes downhill away from superstition toward logic. Incredible statement for me to make, but it's absolutely true. It goes downhill from superstition, spirits, mumbo jumbo, into science and logic and mathematics, and it's all precise, and you're just a body—or you're just a doll or you're just a can or whatever you're supposed to be.

BLACKNESS
Now, that's pretty hard to swallow. But superstition is actually superior any day of the week to logic—where logic is being employed to predict the future. This is most apparent to a person who is familiar with such mathematics as those employed by actuaries.
We sit down and we draw up the formula of the number of factors which are going to determine 10 o'clock—it's now 8:30. We're going to draw up the number of factors which are going to determine 10 o'clock. Well, that's very interesting, but we couldn't get them into a formula. I know, you'll be in a room and you'll be auditing—or will you? How many other factors will enter into it? What is going to happen exactly at that moment of 10 o'clock? The second we begin to pinpoint an activity, and really pin it sharp, actuarial mathematics show you that the probabilities of being able to do so are practically nil—practically nil!
I mean, there's something on the order—you could hold twenty-five bridge hands of thirteen spades before you could predict where you would be next Thursday at 2:06.
You just go away from any possibility of predicting the future when you try to use logic for prediction, because that isn't the way that a thetan does it. We go above superstition and go into knowingness. And when we go from knowingness down, we go from knowingness into prediction, and then from knowingness into other people's predictions—and there is superstition, see, other people's predictions—we go from there into other things' predictions, and then we go from there into a rigorous establishment of time, on complete agreement on all sides, and we go from there way on downhill to logic.
The fellow who thinks he can sit down and think out what will occur to his best interest is a fool. He's a fool. He's been fooled by his school, he's been fooled by anybody that wants to walk along.
And the one thing that the church and state will try to do is disabuse people of the idea that they can predict instantaneously and simply know what's going to happen. They try to make them be logical. And if you can make somebody be logical enough, you'll blind him as to the future. You'll make the whole section of future blind to him. So there he goes. And that is a method of blinding somebody.
You tell him, "You have to figure what the future will be." The devil himself couldn't do it. You couldn't figure what the future will be; because that figuring means you take those factors which occur in the present and, basing your formulas on what has occurred in the past, thereby arrive at a conclusion of what will occur in the future.
Now, this is very fine where a piece of machinery is concerned, and it can only happen in a society where machinery has become all and human value zero. Because you actually can figure out right down to a pinpoint, exactly how many rpm a ship's wheel is going to turn. You see, but that is prediction into the future of a mechanical operation which man has already put together so that it would be predicted into the future; and the intention of the machine was to predict into the future, and it is only a machine which has been predicted into the future by a man already.
Now we turn around and say, "Well, the way to predict into the future is to take one of these machines and show how reliable it is, and then figure out what we'll be doing in the future"—what balderdash. You set up this machine to tell you that on next Tuesday it will be 10 o'clock and then you say this is a clever machine, because next Tuesday it says 10 o'clock. You see? It doesn't work out.
So they make a man fall a—make men fall away from the last echelon

53

54

2 DECEMBER 1953
they can reach of good, clear, adequate prediction. Make them fall away from the last one they can reach; the last one they can remember as having existed.
A thousand years ago all of Europe was going mad with witch burning. Witches were still able to get other things to know. See, they'd gone down that far on this scale of knowingness, and they would cast up some knowingness this way or that, and they'd tell somebody what was going to happen to him. "Well, young man, you're going to be hanged next August." And naturally this is a swell way to control people. And that's why it deteriorated; because people mispredicted in order to control others. Well, this is an utter fact. You can do just that.
As a matter of fact, if anybody wants to cultivate it—little use it is, but if he wanted to cultivate it, he can return to himself that level of knowingness which tells him what's going to happen. Takes all the kick out of a game immediately; he likes to blind himself a little. So they look back at the latest and last thing that people knew wasn't logical and they condemn it.
In this society right now they're condemning superstition. That's the last rung of prediction of all track knowingness, see—past, present and future. Well, now, they've got and made superstition really ridiculous. They took some voodoo superstitions and ran them in, and then they say that this is superstition. They say farmers trying to—oh, the way they work at it, you just should listen to some of these people sometimes—the scathing, blasting criticisms which they'll level at some things. And they never do bother to recant when they find it is true. They just never hear that.
The funny part of it is, the Department of Agriculture recently conducted— few years ago conducted a series of experiments that had to do with planting during phases of the moon. It's true! And yet this has been condemned as a superstition. Now, the number of factors which work out about the phases of the moon and when you should plant things—oh, it's just all been worked out just for ages. And a lot of farmers plant that way, and a lot of people get real good truck gardens, and a lot of people get real lousy ones. The Department of Agriculture itself tested this.
Now, I'm not holding the fort or beating the drum for superstition. Superstition is a terrible way of knowing, believe me. Letting something else predict for you, that's real great, that's almost as good as doing it on a slide rule—that's stupid too.
What I'm showing you is that maybe things aren't quite what they seem. Maybe all of this beautiful stuff called logic, you know, that's so wonderful and pretty and laid out so lovely and so on—maybe it won't take you anyplace. There's just that possibility, you see.
Your preclear in all of his thinkingness is going to insist on being logical about it. He's going to look for "What is the significance?" Now, if you find the poor guy is real bad off, he won't be able to do anything without significance to it; and that's how you enslave a fellow: He has to do everything with a reason, he can't do things without a reason. So there's another common denominator.
All right, let's check these off again, just to show you we're not wandering too far. The first—there's God and the God trick. And then there's the blackness trick, and then there is the prediction of the future shut-off by insisting on logic, and abandoning all other methods of prediction. You'll find those in common with every preclear. And you'll find with that one, by the way, that he's so death on superstition that you have an awful time trying to get him back up to a point where he'll predict. And yet his big automaticities are based on superstition. The things which he is doing are largely based on superstition. So we have this prediction of the future.

BLACKNESS
Now, the second we get into these, we look them over and we find out that we've actually gone down scale from eight, seven, six, and it—so we only get five, four, three, two, one, as such, after an individual has completely become dependent upon the MEST universe, or number six. So we get these things going eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one—we've got the dynamics. Now they invert. And the fellow becomes inverted on one, on two, on three, four, five, six, seven, and eight. Now, that he's reinverted—he was inverted to that, now he inverts again: eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one.
So this Tone Scale that we're looking at is actually—could be counted down the line of inversions: eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one; one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight; as you go on down Tone Scale, you see. Then you'd turn around again and go the first cycle like DEI, and that DEI is marked with dynamics: eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, lies below the first set I gave you. Now, we've got another set of inversions, and those are inverted inversions. So he just inverts and inverts and inverts and inverts. He becomes dependent upon something by resisting it, and then he becomes it. And that, you could say, is your first inversion.
Then you ask some preclear to get—to put some pleasure in that board up there, and he immediately gets pleasure in himself or pain in the board. See, he can invert in various fashions and directions. He just gets opposites. So most of your preclears are worried about some oppositeness in themselves. The worst ones that you have to handle are not the personal ones. The worst ones you have to handle are the eighth, the seventh and the sixth. Those are the important dynamics—the rest of them can go to hell.
Sex—it's interesting, but aberrative value of sex compared to the aberrative value of eight is zero. Of course, what happens to somebody like Freud that concentrates on sex, is he really doesn't have guts enough to just kick completely outside all agreements with his civilization. And for somebody in 1894 to have suddenly said, "God—well, I tell you about God, he's a trick!" They probably would have lynched him. They'll probably lynch me yet, but anyway .. . (audience laughter)
For somebody to have kicked outside the confines of the church at that time would have been too adventurous to contemplate. It almost is now.
But these tricks all bundle up in common, and we find that our pc is stuck in some of the damnedest things that unless you realize the value of this, unless you realize that there's the God trick, you see, and then the spirit trick (which is blinding each other and so forth) and the lack of prediction, and let's all be logical, and you can't predict—in other words, you don't know. And six, you must depend upon the MEST universe, this set of barriers must be invariable. Unless you realize that you're mainly concentrating on those things, you're liable to get bogged down in an awful lot of brittle-brattle and—about Mama and about Joe, and about whether or not he has—he's self-conscious or ... You know, I mean, you can just bog all over the place.
What's important is that God owns all space. And the next important thing is, is spirits don't exist anymore, and they insist on not being looked at. And on the sixth dynamic, that everybody must agree—must, must, must agree. Let's all get insane and psychotic on it; let's get down on the floor and beat the floor and insist it's there. So that it eventually—because of this inversion, it ceases to be there. And an inverted six, lying below that—you won't find a psychotic that high. A guy's awful sane when he's on the first inverted six. You get about eight inversions below that—you know, eight full scales below the one I have—you get down to that inversion, this stuff's started

55

56

2 DECEMBER 1953
to disappear. It's been insisted on and then not insisted on and insisted on and then not insisted on, unto a point where the fellow actually will pat it and say, "Gee, isn't that wonderful, that stuff is so solid. Gosh!" See, he'll feel good about it.
But you got to give him a barrier, you got to show him the barriers before you can invalidate the barriers. If you just invalidate the barriers, you go crazy. That accounts for the high insanity rate which is chalked up by Christian Science; it's a very, very high insanity, suicide rate. They just simply tell everybody . . . Yes, I looked it over in some sanitariums one time—what church denominations did the insane people belong to? It was a piece of research I engaged on, and found out that it was leading all other denominations.
And—well, it was very curious to me at the time, but I know now why, you see, and you get why it is. They simply start forcing down people's ideas— that he has to think the right idea, then they don't quite say what the right idea is, and then they tell them that they can't have doctors, and they must heal more or less on a faith healing basis, and then they say all this is illusion without showing them any method by which it can be made real. And of course that'll just crack just so many people; they'll go by the boards. All right.
As we look over, then, the problems with which we're confronted, we find that they're very simple problems. We find they've got a lot of mechanical bric-a-brac. And we find the way, however, I've laid out 8-C for you, it does solve it.
Now, let's take, for instance, this thing called an Assumption. Let's just talk about this Assumption for the next fifteen minutes, as an illustration of how it is a specialized case of these other combinations. What is the Assumption? There is the assumption and the reassumption. The reassumption is when the person is well grown or an adult, he leaves during an operation or something and then is forced to come back—that's a reassumption. What is the Assumption? The Assumption is the thing which killed Dianetics as far as I was concerned— nobody else noticed it. Oh, I mean, that's a sad, bitter statement to make, but it happens to be true, because nobody ever remarked on it to me. There's something funny about birth! They often said something's funny about birth, but they never said anything was funny about birth.
Now, the point we're making is that birth is always missing in a certain section—be a certain section of a birth missing—always—and it does a jump in a certain fashion. And why did it do this? Obviously, if everybody avoided this spot of birth, there must be something in it. They can—not everybody could possibly swerve off of it this way. And it turned out to be the Assumption. That is, when the individual whom you are processing grabbed himself a body— which you shouldn't be processing, and if you are, you'll be sorry.
And that Assumption is generally done very much according to ritual. There is such a thing as an Assumption body.
Now, when a fellow kicks off after death, he just takes off and goes up into the between-lives area, and then is immediately rerouted and collides with the first baby he meets—gets his instructions, just exactly—and comes and collides with the first baby he meets, and grabs the baby, and he's okay from there on.
Well, this sounds awful simple. It's actually quite complex. It's a complex maneuver, that if you had to process it as an engram, we wouldn't be spending the next few minutes on it, we would be just beating it to pieces. We would probably spend three or four days on this thing to give you enough sections of it to know what to run in it. But there's no sense in it since—of doing that, since the processes we have will either disclose these things or make them unnecessary. You're not even vaguely interested in the data of the Assumption— but your pc is.

BLACKNESS
The reason everybody can do everything to him, and the reason he's got to lay himself wide open to the world and let them hit him as they will, is the fact that he stole a baby. The reason Papa and Mama can do anything they want to to him is he stole a baby. He isn't the son or daughter of Father and Mother, and he knows it damned well. But he's got this buried from himself so deep—so deeply and so viciously certain that he himself mustn't know it— because, you see, if he knows it, he will think it, and if he thinks it, somebody's liable to pick it up by telepathy, he thinks. That's his reasoning, that's what he's been told too often. Like the God trick—you mustn't think anything because if you think it, we can read your thoughts. Who's "we"? Oh, any number of cults or groups.
All right. Here he is. He is a baby. But somehow or other, he isn't a baby. And this is the confusion in which he enters life, and on which he tries to plot his future. And it doesn't plot worth a nickel. It just doesn't plot well.
What's the future for such a being, who isn't who he is, but is somebody else? Well, his future's confused. And that's why the thetan is confused. That's a present time problem with him: "Who is he?"
Well, you get death—just take the death. All right. The way to be convincing and be well believed about death—the way to be convincing about death—is to, of course, be dead. And by definition, death is that thing beyond which there isn't any life. And memory itself is life, and even though a fellow slides out of a body, if the body is dead, he automatically and immediately—he's got himself all set up to immediately forget this past life. He wants it to be that way.
The most impersonal thing in the world is a spirit above a body that just died, looking it over. That's very impersonal. Well, he doesn't have any further responsibility to the relatives, and he doesn't have any further responsibility, any way, shape or form. Once in a while, the most surprised thetan you ever saw is that thetan. Real surprised!
Once in a while he packs around a visio—one of these occluded cases, particularly, will be carrying around some kind of a visio. And this visio is liable to be of a dead body. Well, beware, if that is of a dead body, that person was once blind as a body, and exteriorized with full eyesight, much to his amazement. See that? See, he's blind. He's obviously blind. He's going around with a white cane, you might say. Then the body gets blown up or shot or dies in some fashion, and he comes out of it, pop! and his visio turns on in all directions. And this is a source of great amazement and surprise to him. He'll keep the visio around—you'll play hell running it, too. You're not going to run that one— that was too good.
By the way, I fooled around with one of those visios on a preclear, just fooled around to find out if he would permit anything to happen to it. And although he was very cooperative, and we worked very hard, we processed for about five hours on this thing and we didn't even chip an edge. We found out a lot of data about his life, but we didn't chip a corner of it. Interesting.
This particular case had been blown up with a bomb in the face, after having been blind seven years from another bomb—two bombs. And the second one killed him, the first one merely blinded him. So he'd gone seven years without sight, and then got blown up again. And all of a sudden found himself staring at the body—beautiful, beautiful, snow-covered day, with gorgeous green trees and blue sky. And red berries on little bushes around, and a couple of rabbits in the far distance—and it was just real pretty, see? Gorgeous! And all of a sudden this meets his view after being blind seven years.

57

58

2 DECEMBER 1953
All the time he's blind during these seven years, of course, he doesn't let himself know he's a thetan. He's playing it the hard way and he's living it the serious direction. He wouldn't let that be tampered with. That didn't even dent. All right.
Anybody who's occluded has had trouble with eyesight. And you'll find them early in life complaining about this. And people who aren't occluded, who exteriorize and have perfect perception and so forth, are still a little bit worried that they may have some trouble with perception. Almost anybody is liable to get unperceptive; that's the one dangerous thing. So you have to handle perception regardless of the drama connected with it.
Well sir, when it comes to the Assumption, you generally have a person in a black body. That's an Assumption body, it's an old Fac One body or something of the sort, plastered onto the front of his physical body's face. And he's holding on to it with a hand back of the physical body—a facsimile body, you know? I mean, he's—an Assumption body hand in back of the physical body, and another one, the other hand, over the—across the eyes of the body. This is real cute. Now he expects to look through himself, see.
Sooner or later this thing will key in, he'll start to knock teeth out, and he'll start to go half-blind, and he'll start to mess up his features, and he'll do all sorts of weird things all on the basis " 'tisn't him." See? " Tain't me doing it." And sometimes he'll go to the point of saying, "You know, I have a demon that attacks me. I don't tell everybody this, but the point is I do have a demon that attacks me," he would say. Nonsense—that's his Fac One body, that's all.
Now, once in a while, a fellow will get a clear visio of one of these things and it's enough to turn his hair on edge. Because once in a while—the bodies vary, they're quite different in pattern. But they customarily are black, and they look like they either have hair or feathers, and they have long tails and little sharp ears. It's really—really clown stuff, see. And the guy will see one of these things, and although he may try to handle it privately, he just doesn't like to tell anybody about it—and that's why I'm telling you about it. Because you might think that somebody had something like this—he wouldn't tell you.
Now, you see that seventh there—that seventh dynamic—and its inversions is awfully important, and I hope I've driven that home somewhat. And the eighth and the seventh and the sixth, they're a terrifically important group.
Now, we get somebody who has demons in a society where everything's got to be logical. He doesn't tell anybody about this. You're going to have to ask for it. You know, the most unlikely people will suddenly let a little sigh of relief out and say, "Yes, you know, I saw it once."
You don't have to explain to them what you're asking for. You just want to say, "Do you have any idea—any spirits ever—do you ever have any trouble with any spirits?" or something of the sort. Or "How about wasting now some ghosts?" You just handle it automatically if you really suspected it. And you'll find—"Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah."
You see, there's thousands—there's probably hundreds of thousands— of this kind of incident on the track. But don't get the idea that they're all stacked up and one will slap into the other if you cut one in, because it won't slap in on a chain. The only one that's important is the system being used at this place at this time. And if you go to some other planetary system or you go to some other galaxy or something of the sort, you want to change—well, it's just about this only—only this little piece of Scientology: "What are they doing for an Assumption?" There'll be something else. It's a standard trick that is always on the bank. There's some kind of a trick.

BLACKNESS
Oh, they fit a guy into a body like they did in Arsclycus, and take a small piece of flesh and put it in a vat. And if he isn't a good boy, why, they hurt it, or they dip it slightly in acid or something and that hurts him and he comes back that way. Or they turn him into an animal body and give him the idea that if he does anything bad with the body he's in, he will flip immediately into an animal body. Egyptian. Method used here on Earth about forty-five hundred years ago. And—oh, there's an awful lot of these combinations.
Well, you don't care anything about what combinations they are. Just remember that we've got a specific and particular problem. Along with the other highly generalized problems that I've been describing to you, we're handling this Assumption problem. And it's there—I don't care if your boy is a Step I, I don't care if your girl there just seems to be in beautiful condition. She could be Clear for three, four years and if you didn't handle the Assumption problem somewhere on the line, well, all of a sudden, spang! in it'll dive.
Because it's a real problem. There's a sort of a Fac One body, and the person's kind of got ahold of himself. Has a tendency to bring him around in front of his face when it keys in terribly badly. That's why you'll find a lot of people who are neurotic in front of their faces. They're in a Fac One body.
Is this thing visible to your naked eyes? Not unless you're cleared— becomes quite visible then.
How do you run it? Do you have to know anything about this between-lives and purple lights and how long it takes between death and all that? That's terribly interesting bric-a-brac. So's Alice in Wonderland an interesting story and so's the story of science an interesting story, and how to make an atom bomb—that's also interesting material. If you're bored someday, and you have to do it the hard way, read those things for your amusement. Same way with the consecutive lineup of—what's the consecutive lineup of an Assumption.
But a little less so with the Assumption, because once or twice or six or eight or ten times, we've given a pc, "Now, just sit there and get the idea of going through black space," and boom! his case breaks. The occlusion breaks— he runs into some kind of a space opera crash or something of the sort. He hits a between-live area sequence, runs it as an engram, full visio, gets his first Assumption here on Earth, first of the sequence, and boom! full sonic, full visio, the rest of the time.
That isn't good enough that it happens once in a while; it's not good enough for us to pay attention to it as a technique. I could just sit here literally and tell you thousands and thousands of combinations which have occasionally produced results suddenly and miraculously on somebody—we're not interested in them.
We are interested, however, in the fact that there is a method of running the Assumption. Well, I can—it's a little less so with the Assumption because the Assumption has broken on several cases like that. I wouldn't fuss with it if I were you. But if a fellow suddenly starts to run it all out with sonic and visio and so forth, well, just let him run it on out, because it will unocclude him.
What's more important is how you handle an Assumption directly. You must understand that it must be the basis of worry and emotion. Worry: The fellow has to have a body in order to be in the future, so he has to worry about keeping the body going. And the only reason he keeps hanging on to the body is because he's hanging on to the body. He does have—really have ahold of the body. He is not any longer in his Fac One body. He's in his body's head—his physical body's head. But the Fac One body is right there, and he can flip into its head with great ease and become terribly confused about which way he's facing.

59

60

2 DECEMBER 1953
Now, this isn't a direction reversal. You really know a pc that's confused by this one, because he doesn't know whether he's looking backwards or forwards. He gets upset.
Now, we run this by mocking up Assumption bodies. They're scarce, they're valuable, they're rare. They're not undesirable. We mock up Assumption bodies against the windows of houses, the radiators of cars, each time with effort at the points of contact. Black Assumption body with effort at the points of contact, and with elation or worry, either one (and certainly both, as it is run), in the car radiator or in the interior of the house.
Because the trick is that the Assumption body hits the baby, crunch! and it gives a surge of elation through the physical body. And it's very delicious, you see. And then, of course, it goes stale. And there isn't any anymore, but the thetan always hopes there might be some, so he always keeps that body there. And it's got the teeth of the body messed up and is a very prime reason why a thetan will not exteriorize, merely because it's got vacuums in it and he starts to back up away from this Assumption body, he's going the wrong way. The Assumption body keeps—it doesn't have any volition, it's just a mass of energy. But the vacuums and currents in it seem to tell him that it went thataway because it's got the anchor points of the MEST body all wrecked. It got them all pushed in and distorted. And you want to start handling this pretty well— anchor points—you just handle an Assumption.
You could look at somebody and tell whether or not he has an Assumption, or has had one in restimulation. You can put him on an E-Meter and find out. As a little boy, he was worried about ghosts and demons. As a little boy, he used to be afraid angels would come and steal him.
This chapter of life in this, a scientific society, is one which must not be opened. Well, you'd better open it as an auditor. Because "everything must be logical, and it's all done by Papa and Mama and the sperm-ovum sequence, and the baby is born and is a body—you understand, the baby's a body, we insist on that—a body! There are no spirits! There are no spirits! Now, put your five-dollar bill in the collection plate so you can worship God! Now, we've all got to be logical!"
You say after a while, "Well, now wait a minute, everybody's bodies, but you put your five-dollar bill in the collection plate because of God which means that there are spirits because Christ was a spirit, but there aren't any spirits, but you've got to be logical, but that's not logical—just whither art we going?" Well, I can tell you where you're going. Going to hell in a balloon.
So let's just try running that. How long does it take to run it on a preclear? Unfortunately—unfortunately—three, four or five hours sometimes. But actually very worthwhile, until he gets rid of all the effort and all the worry and all the elation, and he can handle all of these things and put them into things easily and well, and tailor up that body. Sometimes that many hours, but it's worth it; worth every line of it.
There's a lot of Theta Clears that pop back in only because Assumption vacuums.
Okay.

Time: Cause and Effect, Part I
A lecture given on 3 December 1953

This is December the 3rd, morning lecture. This morning we're going to talk about time as a barrier.
Must be aware of the fact that if we have the MEST universe, a game which consists of a system of barriers, and games require barriers, that there must be an awful lot of fancy barriers in this universe because people have a tendency to get very inventive.
The mind of man is pretty stimulus-response. But all that a thetan can conceive hasn't been dreamed of yet. The thetan ability to invent, extrapolate far exceeds the MEST universe. The MEST universe is a pitiful attempt at getting agreement. People get pegged down to it and their originality has a tendency to suffer, because they are in agreement with about the most unoriginal sort of a thing. It's one of the easy problems. It's one of the terribly simple, prekindergarten problems that any little child can get along with—even a physicist can get along in this universe. Mainly because it consists of that: a system of barriers in order to make a game.
Well, how many kinds of barriers are there? Well, this is just the same number that you're trying to solve in your preclear.
We have the sixth dynamic as the single most important dynamic simply because every preclear you run across is in complete agreement on the sixth dynamic. But his agreement is bad or good on the sixth dynamic. And this, in essence, is the single greatest difference amongst cases—whether his agreement is good or his agreement is bad on the sixth dynamic. You can analyze a case on this basis: You can say this thetan is in wild protest against this universe.
Now, religion has long used the factor of evil in order to create a situation of resistance. This system of resistance brings about, of course, an overwhelming of the protest of the individual which, in itself, reverses the vector and desire of the individual.
Now, we take somebody, for instance, who desires sensation. And if we make him resist sensation—let's talk now about the second dynamic in relationship to the sixth dynamic. And we find out that if he desires sensation, the sensation will be made scarce in this universe. See, what he desires will be, perforce, made scarce.
All right, he desires sensation. Very well. The next step which he will confront will be not a desire for sensation but an abhorrence of it. How does that come about? He feels that he must first pull in sensation. This starts an inflow. A thetan is best off when he is cause. Maximal cause; minimal effect.

61

62

3 DECEMBER 1953
And if we can get him bombarded from every side, one way or the other, we can reduce him to an effect. This is the way you make a slave, is reduce somebody to an effect. All right.
He desires sensation. This lets him assist the MEST universe in overwhelming him. You see? This lets him assist getting in all his inflow. It gets him to help himself being swamped.
Well, what's the exact process by which this is done? First, he desires sensation of his own creation, and then it is taken away from him. And if the black space, which is a vacuum, does anything, it certainly takes away everything you've got. It's the most disenfranchising mechanism that was ever invented: the vacuum—minus 273 degrees centigrade. All right.
Here we have, then, a sudden outflow of his own sensation. So he decides, "Well, look at that, there goes that sensation. Now where's my sensation?" So the next piece of sensation he runs across—having no idea that anybody else is making sensation, the next idea that he—sensation that he runs across, he says, "That's mine." So he pulls it in. But somebody else starts saying, "Where is my sensation?" So he pulls it back again. So we have an interchange, and the beginning of agreement. All right.
The next step on this is "resist stealing somebody else's sensation," of course, because they get interlocked on this basis of pull and haul on sensation, so the evil is "stealing sensation." Well, of course, they started to steal sensation because they didn't know it wasn't theirs.
And that, by the way, is the history throughout the universe: "Didn't know it wasn't mine. And what's mine anyway?" See? That's just—this is based on the think, "If I create it, it's mine." It's not necessarily true at all.
Take Scientology. I work out Scientology. That doesn't make it mine. If anything, it makes it yours. That is, working on a fairly high echelon, that's just the case of it. Yet you'll find people around who will suddenly grab on to Scientology and say, "This is mine," you see, "and it now must not belong to anybody else." And they'll stop its communication lines, and they will say how horrible auditors are and then they'll give big reasons why "Hubbard didn't. . ." or something. And then they get bigger reasons why—they're just starting to run the whole cycle on one little subject. But that's nothing—it's just the way this universe runs. All right.
People get the idea as an argument: "Look, if I created this, it belongs to me. You understand that." That's not true. If it were true, why, things would be in a much more horrible state than they are. It's not true, fortunately. Because you can be just as free with somebody else's anchor point, and feel just as free with somebody else's anchor points, as you can with those you created. If it were not this way, then there'd be no hope for any of you. Just no hope at all. We just might as well throw in the sponge and skip the whole thing.
The only reason anybody gets better is because of the fact that their own anchor points can have been created by almost anybody anywhere. And they recognize this slowly and they say, "Well, this business of agreement isn't so bad. What I don't have, I can create or borrow or use or purloin. There is acquisition possible."
But now let's take this thing called sensation. Here he goes making sensation and it gets taken away from him, making sensation, it gets taken away from him, making sensation, it gets taken away from him; and he resists taking away sensation as an evil. So therefore, he starts pulling in sensation as good. Therefore, if he's being good, he's pulling in sensation. Well, this starts

TIME: CAUSE AND EFFECT, PART I
the inflow, and he'll get more and more inflow. In other words, pushing away sensation is evil.
Well see, after he has done that for a while, he's so packed in with sensation— he's just got too much of this stuff, that's all, it's a surplus commodity. So he decides about that time, you see, that all this sensation, this isn't so good. So he tries to sell it. You know, "Let's have a—set up a shop for sensation." There is such a thing as "the world's oldest profession," you know. Somebody the other day was trying to say that—I don't know what they were listing as the world's oldest profession, but I think they were setting up medicine as the world's oldest profession. Boy, are they misinformed! But on second thought, not too misinformed.
So we get this—he tries to give it away. Nobody wants it. If he wants to get rid of something, must be something wrong with it.
This is sort of the mutual reaction. Because if everybody were doing this at the same time, you would have this as a suppression, eventually, of sensation. So we wouldn't have any sensation. Everybody'd be trying to give this sensation away, and then everybody'd decide it was worthless, so nobody'd bother to generate any of this stuff and it'd sort of go into a sump and we would forget about it somewhat, until all of a sudden one day it was scarce. Well, the last time we had any sensation was when we procured it from somebody else—never occurs to the fellow to create it himself. So he starts pulling in sensation again.
Well, he'll pull in sensation just so long, and again, we get another: "pulling in sensation is evil." Then we get: "giving out sensation is evil." This is what's inversion. It isn't just push and take, because each time the fellow forgets a little bit more about his own creativeness of sensation. He gets badly immersed in a whole series of agreements concerning how one must acquire sensation, and he gets no agreement that he ought to create some. And people are apt to tell him, "Well, that's no good—you made it yourself."
They do that with money, if you notice. And that's one thing that's on road to—that. . . Money goes in this same line. Guys make it themselves for a while, and—that's right, you know. And nobody has any real trouble with that— everybody's making money himself. He makes his own money. There is no such thing as state money early in any civilization. And it's very unworkable because nobody quite agrees on how much money a fellow ought to make, so finally they put a restriction on how much money he can make. They do this in the way—line of wampum and credits and favors and so on. It's a whole series of promises to pay, you see.
And then they start restricting each other because there's too much of this stuff around—somebody else wants to be boss, somebody gets more powerful. And we get cities making money. And then we get, from cities making money, counties, states and then whole races have agreed that only one thing in the race can make money. This is the silliest thing in the world, you know.
I mean, you take today with photoengraving—this is no invitation to counterfeiting, but today, with photoengraving, and the great ease with which you could make paper, the United States Government is in a very, very bad spot. It's only because criminals are bad workmen—criminals uniformly can't work—and all counterfeiting is accounted to be criminal, so only criminals really counterfeit. You get how this works out, you see. And we get to a point, finally, where the only self-made money in the community is kind of bad.
But the truth of the matter is that all of the machinery necessary to make bills just exactly as good as the US government—maybe a little bit better— can be procured for a few hundred dollars without any questions being asked.

63

64

3 DECEMBER 1953
Because it's simply photoengraving and photolithograph and plain letterpress. And it has to do with money—paper, and money paper simply has some red, white and blue threads in it. And you just take some paper pulp and mix it up and run it through a little paper mill and get the same thickness of paper on the thing and you can make this money. There's no trouble. Actually, you shouldn't have to go to all the work—all the work of earning this money. (audience laughter) But that's the thing you're supposed to do. And because you're supposed to do it, why, you're getting along all right, and you are not particularly aberrated on it—it's not too hard to do, so you go ahead and do it.
Well, let's add this up on the subject of sensation. And we get the exact parallel that we're trying to draw: The fellow desires it and then he doesn't desire it. And we find the same thing happening to money. People desire money and then they find out they can't have it, so they start to waste it. And then they can't have it at all and they decide that they will pull it in, and they become criminal about it, and oh boy! Oh boy, the inventions that can take place about this one thing—money.
Inflow, outflow. And we get this cycle then. The DEI cycle comes out of this. We get—first it comes in—well, that's bad, see, and then it goes out, and then the fellow has got too much going out, and he hasn't got enough coming in to put it out again, and we're right into making facsimiles.
See how we get into making facsimiles? Fellow stops creating. This is all on the basis of belief and agreement. It hasn't any other basis. Cause, effect, belief, agreement. These things come into creation because people know they're in existence. And then if they've agreed they're in existence, why, they're all set. System of barriers.
Now, let's look that over again, and we find that—we'll find that a person assists the MEST universe in pouring in on him by resisting what he considers evil. He can only get into agreement with that thing which he matches wavelength with. You can get into agreement only when you match wavelengths with some-thing. So we match wavelengths, and we get a situation where that wavelength can then overpower an individual. If a person never matched wavelengths with bullets, he'd never get shot. So we have this resistance to evil.
Somebody comes around and he says, "Now listen, let me tell you some-thing that's evil: ice-cream sodas are evil." And he sells a good story on this. And he shows how ice-cream sodas take the money of little children, and the money ought to go in a collection plate. He shows how capitalism becomes fat through owning these big ice-cream plants. He demonstrates that this is hard on the worker—never explains to you that ice-cream sodas provide work and people want it—but it's hard on the worker and creates social injustices. And therefore, the whole subject of ice-cream sodas is in—detestable and intolerable, and you should fight ice-cream sodas. So he finally gets you to go around carrying this little placard that says, "Down with Ice-Cream Sodas." Gets you to go into places and smash places, you see, and—mobs of you—to prevent them from ice-cream sodas. And there will ensue, when that takes place, the biggest wave of ice-cream soda drinking you can imagine.
Why? Because everybody's matched wavelengths with ice-cream sodas, and they finally mistakenly smash one too many ice-cream soda parlors and the law gets after them and other people get after them and other people argue about it and finally the instigators of the motion are overpowered by force. And their—the society, by the way, takes peculiar delight in forcing them to have ice-cream sodas in some fashion or another, because they insist then that ice-cream sodas aren't so bad, and they want to prove it to them. All sorts of

TIME: CAUSE AND EFFECT, PART I
ways. The next thing you know, the resistance of the people resisting ice-cream sodas caves in, and we then have a situation whereby there's a terrible thirst for ice-cream sodas comes up.
Now, there's another little step in there: by creating a scarcity of something, you've created a slight vacuum. The only thing that'll fill the vacuum of ice-cream sodas, is ice-cream sodas. That's in this universe. Very mechanical.
If you think I'm being too far afield, just consider the campaigns of Carry Nation and the period of drunkenness which came in coincidental with Prohibition. The United States has never known drunkenness such as that which occurred during the Prohibition era. You could prohibit almost anything and get the same result. You would get it being accepted more widely because it was prohibited. This is a method of getting randomity. But it's not a method which departs from our basic principle: outflow, inflow.
Now, you could see that—you can understand that your preclear who starts to fight the MEST universe is having a wonderful time for himself. In the first place, he's fighting a barrier which is there as long as he believes it's there. So if he starts fighting the barriers—boy, does he get barriers. Oh! Oh! You see, nobody would ever realize that it was a long, mile-and-a-half walk down to the store unless an auto salesman came along and explained it to them. That wouldn't seem very bad. As a matter of fact, it's kind of refreshing. You know, you get out in the morning, get a little exercise and see how the neighborhood's making out and look at the flower gardens and come back and feel good about the thing. No, he wants you to get into a small, closed, steel cubicle and imbibe carbon monoxide gas for a mile and a half. It's not quite clear why he wants you to do this, but he says it's for the sake of business and profit.
I don't know what profit is. I've long gotten over trying to examine the problem. Because what a thetan can adorn a fact with is glorious to behold, but impossible to work out. Because that's why he puts it on top of the fact: so it won't work out, you see. It has to survive and endure, and when that comes into facts, why, facts are facts; but, if you can obfuscate them enough, why, they'll endure forever.
Well, so we get this maximal agreement on barriers, and people get barriers, and they more and more agree with barriers.
Now, you'll find that they have most agreed with that barrier which is to them the most forbidding. That barrier which is most forbidding, you see, they must have most agreed on. This is—everybody's got this.
So we look at M-E-S-T—which we use to call the MEST universe, the physical universe—and we find out it is composed of matter, energy, space and time. And we have, when we've said that, merely a system of barriers.
Now, what are these barriers? Matter, of course, is a spaceless collection of energy which stands or moves according to a set of laws upon which we have agreed. Now, that's that kind of barrier.
Now, energy is a barrier which has a little more space and a little more motion—a little higher potential of motion. And it's, again, that which has been agreed upon.
And now we go into space, and we find that space is a terrific barrier. We find space the biggest barrier of it all. If you wanted to really put a criminal in jail, you would go find . .. Go—well, take the Sahara desert, see. If you didn't want him to escape from this jail, you put the Sahara desert around him—at least. You wouldn't take his space away from him, you would just give him— see how it's another type of barrier—you would just give him complete space.

65

66

3 DECEMBER 1953
And he would never get anyplace, no matter how many light-years he walked in any direction.
Now, if you consider the space between this galaxy and the first galaxy nearest to us, which I think is the galaxy in Andromeda—we see through our constellation, Andromeda—there's an awful lot of space between these two galaxies.
There's quite a bit of space between even Sirius and Earth. But when you consider that this distance between Sirius and Earth is a very slight distance in—compared to the galactic distances of this galaxy (this galaxy being rep-resented by the Milky Way and this splatter of stars which sits more or less in this place), what an enormous piece of distance there is between here, relatively speaking, and the next galaxy out. Well, that's quite a piece of distance.
Well, if you were to put a criminal down in the middle of it and told him to escape, why, he'd have a rough time of it unless he had something that could at least travel a couple of light-years, and then he'd be an old, old man by the time he got here!
Well, it's all right if you don't tell him to escape. You can put him out there. You give him the idea he has to escape from it, he gets upset. Mostly because that's what he was basically trying to do so many times up and down the track—he was trying to escape.
And we come up against the thetan's prime abhorrence: He is something which isn't anyplace. You see? He isn't anyplace except amongst the barriers on which he has agreed. But this is barriers on which he has agreed—this doesn't put him anyplace. And he can make things move and he can make barriers move—he himself doesn't move. Although he moves around through the barriers, apparently, he never moves around through the barriers—he moves the barriers around through where he is.
He takes up his various situations. He can take up any situation. And in view of this fact, he, of course, would develop as one of his prime allergies, being in one place. This is horror to him—this is stark horror. The idea of being in one place forever. In other words, just what he is, and just what he is doing is horrible. And this, of course, is his effort—his strenuous effort—to provide himself with randomity. Because if he accepted what he was—just accepted what he was, why, he would be then—what an interesting setup!
I mean, here he is—here he is, fixed in one place, able to observe anything but not going anyplace. But he could make barriers, and he can agree that barriers are moving and going places and distances exist and so forth. But here he is doing this, you see, and if he just made up his mind that's what he was doing, this would be quite interesting, wouldn't it, the result that you would get, because you would immediately drop out of him his randomity—total.
And the next step is, he thinks he has to work to survive. He can't do anything else but survive. So he has an abhorrence of nonsurvival. Good joke, isn't it? He can't possibly do anything but survive, so he has an abhorrence for nonsurvival. He can't move around places—there isn't anyplace to move to unless he makes one. So his chief horror is staying in one place.
You get somebody to run "worry" long enough, and he will eventually find out what he's really worrying about, which is being fixed in one place. This really worries him. The idea of being fixed in one place, as of a tree, would— just supposing the fellow were a tree for the next few thousand years, just standing there with nothing more to look at than those barriers around.
Well, of course, his abhorrence is to be fixed amongst barriers. That is dull. To be fixed and be able to change and view barriers is not dull. To survive

TIME: CAUSE AND EFFECT, PART I
forever in a state of complete consciousness, with a great ability to create is not dull, but to survive forever with no ability to create would be too ghastly to contemplate. And so we have—the paradox actually works itself out, if we look into it a little more deeply. All right.
Let's take up our problem here again of barriers, and we'll see then that a great space is a barrier. That energy—you could, by the way, pour sheets of energy and random sheets of energy across an area and actually make a barrier out of the area. Let's take any field under bombardment—you see, there isn't a wall there, there's a great deal of energy occurring in the place. And to get a guy to cross it would face him with too much randomity, right away. So that's a barrier.
A barrier would be that thing which causes you to lose something if you trespass it. You call this wall a barrier because you can't take your body through it—you think. (You see, that's nonsense too, but we won't go into those upper echelons.) Yeah, this is a barrier, if you can't pass your wallet through it. See, if you could pass your wallet through it, it wouldn't be a barrier— nobody'd agree on that at all.
Well, the reason you can't pass your wallet through it is your wallet is the same order of barrier. You see, this is a barrier to your wallet. So long as you want one single tiny atom in this universe, so long as you want one tiny little cubic millimeter of space in this universe, all these things are and can continue to be barriers.
That's because this universe is built out of space which mustn't go through space. See, the two things mustn't exist in the same space. That's one of the laws of space, and that's what makes it space.
And the other one is, is that energy barriers built out of atoms and molecules must not pass through energy barriers built out of atoms and molecules. You follow that? Unless destruction and change is scheduled to occur. I mean, you can pass a wallet through there very easily by cramming it down the muzzle of a sixteen-inch gun and pulling the lanyard. But the trouble is that you probably wouldn't have much wallet, and you certainly wouldn't have any wall. So as long as you're trying to preserve matter, particularly, you will have barriers. So these are the clues to that.
Now let's look at what takes things away from you more consistently and continually than anything else. And that's time. And time as a barrier is an interesting barrier. Where is 1770? Where is the year 82,000 A.D.? Where?
People ask where because they think time should be someplace. Well, let's put it another way: Where's the wallet you were carrying in 1770? Now we could be very poetic and say, "It's all withered away into the dust of yesterday," and et cetera and "And it's gone where the kudu mourneth and the ivy pineth," or something. Fascinating things you can say about it, but I'm afraid they're all emotional, they have nothing to do with the wallet. Just try and spend one of those pfennigs that you—that, by the way, a small coin that today you wouldn't be able to find hardly with a microscope, would buy a pig in 1700. So your wallet wouldn't do you any good, anyhow.
But the point is—the point is that time is the most ethereal sort of barrier that any preclear ever tried to contemplate. And when people in the past have contemplated time, they have simply gone all to pieces. Believe me, I'm not exaggerating it. They just go to pieces—they do all sorts of things. They blow their brains out, they take up physics, they resign themselves to their fate.
Physics runs along on no definition for space or time. They always are

67

68

3 DECEMBER 1953
defining things by themselves. They say, "Time is an interval of lapse. Space is a distance."
It's like picking up a textbook which says very sonorously—and will flunk you if you don't say so too—it starts out grandly and it says, "What is a dog?" No pictures, nothing, you know, there's just this word d-o-g. You don't know what this d-o-g is. And it says sonorously—with what English, with what parsing, with what commaclature—that a dog is a dog. And you look in vain through the rest of the textbook to find what a d-o-g is. Is it something you eat? Something you wear?
And then if you go around and complain to the professor and you say, "Look, bud"—taking him on face value, not on title—"look, bud, what is this thing, this d-o-g?"
"Oh, well," he said, "it's right there. Why don't you study your lesson?"
And you look on the third page and—where he said to look, and it said, "A d-o-g is the antithesis of a g-o-d." And you look that up in the dictionary, and you get an entirely erroneous idea and think you're studying religion. And nearly everybody—almost everyone in the field of physics has come to this belief finally. So I don't know but what they don't try to put that in there.
Now, this is wonderful, and it's very, very puzzling and very paradoxical, but it doesn't get you anywhere unless it gets you somewhere by realizing that some-body hasn't said anything. Now, if you can realize that about an awful lot of things in life, you have learned your biggest lesson. Because that's the most difficult lesson there is to learn because everybody is so certain—they sound so certain.
You can ask your preclear, "Mock up your mother sounding certain. Your father sounding certain. And everybody sounding certain. Parents, teachers— everybody. Everybody knowing the answers. Knowing the answers. Sounding certain. Sounding certain."
And all of a sudden the preclear will say, "You know, I sound the same way when I'm talking, heh-heh. And I don't know what the hell I'm talking about!" You've learned your biggest lesson when you've learned that everybody is being terribly convincing. Not reasonable—they're being convincing. That's entirely different.
And so we take down the line, as we look at time, we find the same story has been occurring: "Time is a change of energy particles in space. Space is— well, space is energy—space is a particle area, which is monitored by time. No, it's not quite that. No, we'll write, now, the Einstein formula of relativity and befuddle everybody for twenty years. And then when we can't explain it that way, we'll write another formula. And that'll explain the first formula. Only nobody knew the first formula, and the second formula won't be released for another twenty years. So we won't know. And we can conclude from all this, that boy, is that convincing!"
Now, fact of the matter is, time is not a difficult thing to understand if you can understand that a thetan is handling barriers, and is working with automatic machinery which constructs continuous barriers. They don't have to be constructed and unconstructed really continuously, since only that action itself creates time. So it's the speed with which he sets up his machinery. But again, speed is nothing. So it's just what he knows he's doing that he doesn't know he's doing that makes time.
You see that? It's something he knows he's doing. He knows there's time because he's set up time to be time, and then forgotten that he set it up to be time, so now he knows there's time. He knows a reduced fact. It just boils down

TIME: CAUSE AND EFFECT, PART I
in knowingness to that. He knows a reduced fact. And when he picks up a datum, he always knows a reduced fact from his basic knowingness.
Now, let's be a little more factual about time and a little less far out. That's really what time is. And let's take these two ashtrays here: We put them here, and now we put them here, a little closer together. Mmm! We changed two particles in space, and we observed that they changed. See that? Now, you observed they changed and I observed they changed, simultaneously, because we agree that we observe the same things. All right. Here we have—we move them again. Now you agree that you observed them. Now, we'll move them again. And you agree again, that you observed them. And we move them again.
Now we agree that they're going to do this. [sound of ashtrays moving on table] Do you agree that you observe them doing this? Well, I observe them doing this. Now let's speed this up, which is to say, let's "not know" about how fast this is going. You got that? Let's all agree we don't know how fast this is going, but that we know how fast this is going. (audience laughter)
What we're doing is making and banishing pieces of space. See, we're banishing new pieces of space all the time. We have to make a piece of space and banish a piece of space, and make a piece of space and banish a piece of space. And if we keep making and banishing pieces of space, we naturally have a sensation that something has happened. And we know something has happened because we know things happen, and we've agreed on that, so we're all set.
Takes a long time for a fellow to work all this out and then forget about it and then play stupid about it, and it's kind of weird sitting here telling people this just as though they didn't know it. So if you feel somewhat confabulated, "confabulified" and conglomerated by all this, why, just blame it on yourself. I'm not responsible at all. Because you're the people that see cars go by—I never look at the darn things. All right.
So we have these particles in motion one after the other—particles in motion. Well, the only way a particle will be in motion is to make new space and say the old space doesn't exist. How do you do this? You're depending upon your ability to make things disappear. Make pieces of space disappear. This is fabulous. You're depending on your ability to make pieces of space disappear to have new things. And you can't have new things if you can't make pieces of space disappear. And the person who's having the most trouble with time and the most trouble with his case and the most trouble with exteriorization is the person who has the most trouble with making things—with things disappearing.
Everything is either going all the time automatically—everything's just vanishing—or, once he gets something, he just worries himself stiff. He's afraid to get something because he knows he can't make it disappear. And he's having trouble with time. He also has trouble with reality. See? He looks at a door, and he's liable to get the image of the door alongside of the door unless he's real careful not to look at the door. And his solution to this problem is "don't look." First, "don't create," and next, "don't look." And then he can go on knowing that all this time is going on, and isn't that happy.
Now, what's the first thing he did? The first thing he did was to agree that he wanted time, and then he agreed he didn't want it anymore because it was taking too much away from him—it was too big a barrier. So he tried to turn time back and recover your agreement on the fact that they existed again. But he depended upon your agreement to reassure him that they existed again, and so he knows he can't have them because you didn't agree they existed. You're all in a hectic agreement that this stuff's gone. "When it's gone, it's

69

70

3 DECEMBER 1953
gone. It goes at this rate, see, fellow? I mean, it goes at this rate and it's gone, and it's really gone, you understand? And you can't have 1770 back again."
The hell you can't. You can create 1770. When you get hot enough, you could create 1770 a lot solider than you saw it in 1770. The only trouble is, it'll be your 1770, you won't be sharing it with anybody. So you're liable to put the Revolutionary War seventy-six years earlier or something. Because what you want again is a pattern of particles. You've said these things have disappeared. And your continuous postulate is, "It's disappeared." Only the postulate is being made automatically.
Now, you want to know why somebody makes something disappear before he creates it—is because he's already said he didn't create it. And then he said afterwards he didn't make it disappear either. First, he didn't—stopped creating it because he could always get it; and then it was scarce and he couldn't create it then, he had to steal it (he'd forgotten he could create it); now he's forgotten he's creating; now the next point on the line is to forget it disappears.
Now, all of this is terrific theory, isn't it? Very interesting theory, and it's something that you can bat your brains out over. The only trouble with it is it happens to work. It draws its curve right straight along with the DEI cycle, which we've long—known about for a long time. It draws a curve right along with the difficulty of case and exactly what cases are doing, when they are difficult to handle. And it also draws the same curve on what you do to make cases recover, and it presses us rather inevitably toward this theoretical conclusion.
This isn't something I dreamed up in order to edify you. I'm not beyond doing that, but I will tell you very, very bluntly that if anything under the sun has been pointing in toward an inevitable point of knowingness, it is this creation, persistence, and disappear curve with relationship to cases. The answer to it is that cases are solving on this. They are solving on it.
Now, we'll take the "wasting the machine." What is this waste? That's the "have" and "not-have." That's possession of particles, or no-possession of particles. You're saying, when you look at MEST—MEST is so valuable because it's not only just a particle in itself, it's something which everybody else is convinced is a particle too. You're not just convinced, everybody's convinced. It's a particle. So, it's a particle—wonderful! We got a particle. This particle is as valuable as everybody is convinced.
And things are as real to a person as he does not need agreement from others to be convinced of the existence of. That person to whom things, theo-retically, would be the most real, would be that person who neither resisted or desired or knew about or cared about any agreement as to what he had.
He says, "All right. I've got a pile of gold here. It weighs two tons, and— beautiful gold. There it is and I'm piling it up, and here it is." See? Now he can be perfectly happy with this pile of gold if he doesn't feel the need of agreeing. The second he feels the need of agreeing too desperately with others, he's going to say, "Say, Joe, do you think this is gold?" or anything.
You can trace back in your own lifetime when you have disbelieved something so that you could invite somebody else's opinion on it. When you have put aside a solution which you knew was a good solution in order to have a conference about it. It is the pleasure of mutual concourse in life that keeps taking away our reality from us.
Now, let's not say this is an error. Let's merely conclude that the pleasure of co-operation must be very great indeed to entirely supplant single operation. But the reason for that is, is because co-operation utterly assures the fellow that he hasn't made you so he could have a chess player. It assures him completely

TIME: CAUSE AND EFFECT, PART I
of interest and randomity. He hasn't got the least idea, he says, what your next opinion's going to be and he's so happy about it. All right.
Let's look at this time as a barrier. Do you know the difference between a bad case and a good case may very well be less than a fraction of a second? Less than a second—certainly a fraction of a second. Of what? Of particle control. We might be dealing here with as little as a third of a second between a Step I and a Step V. Time is a barrier. Well, it's obvious you can't have 1700 and 2080 unless you just sit down and create them—because it's what you're doing with present time anyway.
But what mechanism is keeping you in present time? It's the agreement that everybody's in present time. It's no accident that going out into the wilderness for fourteen days and simply sitting down, not talking to anybody, will either drive you mad or clear you. Because you shake out all the agreement— you key out. Do you see? No agreement. You're not asking anybody if the sun rises. The world starts looking entirely different when you do this. I did it when I was a kid. I was very, very fascinated—to the fantastic effect that it produced.
Now, here's the difference between cause and effect. All right, I haven't touched this ashtray yet and I say, "I am now going to move this ashtray." [sound of ashtray being moved] Now, was my statement before or after the shift of the ashtray?
Now, I'm going to say, "Gee, you know, that ashtray is about to fall over. I'd better [sound of ashtray being moved] move it." Was my decision before or after the ashtray?
Well, we'll go through this again. Is this effect, which is to say, after the fact? "I'm going to move the ashtray." All right, is this cause? The ashtray is liable to fall over—it is falling [sound of ashtray being moved]—I've moved it in time." Which is cause and which is effect?
Female voice: Cause is in the future.
That's right. Cause is in the future. Cause leads. And as long as a preclear is squirreled up about this—and a lot of them are—in fact, any preclear who's having any difficulty at all is. He thinks that because—"I will now move the ashtray" [sound of ashtray being moved]—he thinks he's being an effect because he said, "I will move the ashtray," before he moved the ashtray. And before moving the ashtray, of course, puts his action prior to the motion of the ashtray, which, of course, makes him look like he lagged behind the motion of the ashtray. He did no such thing.
The clear way to—happened here, is that in the future of the motion of the ashtray, he decided to move the ashtray. And in the past of his decision, the ashtray moved. Fac One had as its almost entire purpose the reversal of this concept: it turned the past into the future and the future into the past. All right.
So what's cause? Cause is your own decision, command or postulate of action. And as long as this precedes action, a person is self-determined. But as soon as one's postulate begins to succeed action, he is other-determined; because his postulate is being caused by other determinism than his.
He reaches out here spontaneously and he shifts the ashtray, then he looks at it and wonders why he shifted the ashtray and he says, "It's a good thing I moved the ashtray." That's automaticity. What's the prime key to all automaticity? Why is automaticity strange and peculiar? It's only strange and peculiar because it interferes with the barrier "time." Or it is the barrier "time." Time is the one single aberration, as far as that's concerned. You can, with ease, pass through any other kind of a barrier.

71

72

3 DECEMBER 1953
But by pulling on yourself the trick that we will all agree on the appearance and disappearance, with regularity, of space; and then we will depend upon some symbol which we put up which is spelled t-i-m-e to symbolize this appearance and disappearance of new particle positions; and when we will agree that these particles do not move except in this pattern (you know, of our agreement) according to certain laws; and when we all hook into the same regulator on the same subject and then depend utterly upon time; and then make all of our havingness this stuff which is so created—we, of course, can't have the past again. Nor can we have the future again. Nor can we have the future in advance.
So it becomes a horrible, hectic contest on the part of the individual, where he pantingly is keeping himself somewhere in the vicinity of these particles— present time. He's trying to coordinate with their motion consistently and continually, and that is the strain which he's undergoing.
Now, make no mistake. That is the strain which he is undergoing. We're not going out any further than this and say that is the strain because of this significance and that significance.
Worry. What's worry? Worry is being slightly back of causative instant. Not quite being in causative instant. And one tells himself all the time that he's worrying about something that's going to happen in the next eight or nine days. But the truth of the matter is even if he inspects this just a little bit, he will find that it's an instant thing—it's an immediate thing.
He expects—if you go in with an E-Meter you'll find out the preclear is momentarily expecting something to happen. What's he expecting to happen? He's expecting to coast back of this agreement just far enough to click out of it. Well, that's a real worry. So he's making a big effort to stay up with that thing which he is creating. That's—it's a grimmest joke of all that one is playing on oneself.
One is in good shape, exteriorizes easily and everything goes along swimmingly and nothing keys in—what a gorgeous time he has—because he's in advance of all his automaticity when he's in what we will call "causative instant." And causative instant is being just a split second ahead of the actual change of the particle because you're actually assisting their change. And what is being the "effect instant"? That's being always, with postulates, a split second after the shift.
What is the difference between an analytical process or an observational process—we ought to call it the observational mind—and the stimulus-response process? What's the difference, then, between these two minds? What's the difference between the thetan and the stimulus-response bank?
The stimulus-response bank is a fraction of an instant back of the shift of these particles called MEST. And the observational, analytical mind is in the causative instant just a fraction of a second before the change. And I mean it's a fraction of a second! This thing could be figured down to as small as a billionth of a second as the difference between being able to get out of your head and not being able to get out of your head.
Now, what are the processes which remedy this? Well, I'll frankly tell you I haven't invented them all yet. Because every time I think about this problem, and cave my brains in somewhat or another, in trying to figure out how to put it across, I always find a new one. And most of them are pretty faint, because the gain that you're working for is very slight.
But I've found this process rather uniformly effective—if carried out long enough on the preclear. And he finds himself fighting time so much, and so impatiently, that he'll drop back into stimulus-response several times. And on

TIME: CAUSE AND EFFECT, PART I
a preclear who's having a lot of difficulty, you as the auditor would be utterly flabbergasted how long you have to do this before he begins to know what he's doing without your telling him. It's fabulous getting this point across to a preclear who can't exteriorize.
What's the process? There's two processes—there's actually three, but I'll only tell you about two of them that are immediate on this. I can give you others and so forth, because this is one of those wide-open doors. I mean, we've got the basic fact, and it's just what gets dreamed up on that that's important. And that is, you simply seat your preclear in the midst of a bunch of MEST objects— you know, dolls, toy cats, hats and so forth. And now you give him the steer, you know, the first time or two, and then you more or less deliver it into his own hands what he's doing. And you start it out this way: you say, "All right. Now you decide to move that hat to a new position. Okay, now you decide it."
And he does. And he says, "All right."
And you say, "Now do it." He moves it to a new position.
Well, of course, his automaticity is being junior to your automaticity throughout, anytime, so you've got to get this up to a point where he is doing the whole thing and you just leave him there doing it.
[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]
And what's our next step? We say, "All right. Now get the idea that you're going to move the ashtray to a new position.
"Okay." He gets the idea.
And you say, "Now do something else."
And his wheels will kind of go screeeee, skid, and he will do something else. But he will get wise to this, to be colloquial. After a little while he'll realize that he did something else on a "disgust" stimulus-response. So the desirability of existence, as it reduces, is what brings about stimulus-response. See? All right.
Now, the next step. You say, "All right"— there's some other things you can do in this same channel—we won't bother with them. The next step is, you say, "All right. Now decide to move that ashtray to a new position." (Or that hat or that dog—preferably some other object.) "Now do so." And he does so. You say, "All right. Now decide to move the ashtray to a new position. Now do so." He does.
You'll notice at about that time that he has started to go automatic as far as you're concerned. Because your preclear is as bad off as he is apt to go automatic on anything. So you tell him at this time, "Now you yourself decide to move this ashtray, or move some object there to a new position. You decide it, and decide when to do it."
"Okay." And then he'll sit there and he'll do it.
About that time he'll—he may start to protest—or a little bit later, he'll start to protest. He'll tell you this is silly, that it's not getting anyplace, that "you don't know why you're doing that," and he's liable to have all kinds and varieties of protest. Why? Because you're making him actually push up that fraction of a second and he feels like he's being speeded up beyond a point he can tolerate it.
Well, actually, that intolerance of pace will not take place. It's not upsetting. There's nothing to that. You just get him to push on through it. You say, "Decide to move something else." He seems reluctant to. You say, "Well, all right. Now decide to move that pencil. All right. Now move it to the new position. Now pick out the new position it's going to move into."
Oh, you see, he's—probably didn't do that before. He just knew he was going to move it. But you decided this new position he's going to move it into.

73

74

3 DECEMBER 1953
He does. Now you say, "Now decide to move the ashtray again to a new position." And he actually will this time select the new position. And you say, "All right. Now, having decided, get the idea that you suddenly have to move the ashtray over on your right." He will.
What you're working there with is interference and interruption of action. And what you're working with is basically automaticity and interference with the cycle of action, so that we can't finish cycles of action. And what we're working with, right straight along as we go, is trying to return into his mind the idea that he makes up his mind to do something and then does it. And that'll key out all of his machinery.
How many hours does it take? It's perfectly idiotic. It'll almost drive a man mad. You're only trying to move him ahead maybe a billionth of a second. He'll get the idea that he should think of all these things and do them instantaneously. This is upsetting to him that he doesn't do all these things instantaneously. He's just trying to make a postulate work. This is his own laziness showing up with him.
Now, instead of that, what we force him to do is to take it carefully, maddeningly, and make up his mind to do something and put it to a new position and then not do it; make up his mind to do something and change it to a new position and then have the idea that he's got to change it and move something else instead without moving that object; and merely make up his mind and change it to a new position and do it. And the last is the best.
You say, "All right. Now make up your mind you're going to move the pencil to a new position." He selects the new position. And you say, "Now, don't do it." Dzzzzzz!
This is not all the factors of existence at work in time. But this is directly handling that barrier called time and will overcome it. Putting a person in present time is probably moving him not more than a billionth of a second. Changing him from effect, which is why he can't get out of his head and is waiting for something to happen, to cause is probably no more than that. So I recommend to you for your use, on cases which don't exteriorize easily, this process.
Okay.

Time: Cause and Effect,
Part II
A lecture given on 3 December 1953

This is December the 3rd, afternoon lecture. I want to talk a little bit more about cause and effect and time.
To cause an action, one is in advance of the action. Never make a mistake about this. Now, what do we mean by advance? Do we mean a direction? No, we mean a duration. A duration is different from a direction.
I'm going to ask you to look at this cigarette package here and then close your eyes.
Now, open your eyes and look at it again.
Now close your eyes.
Now open your eyes and look at it again. Okay.
Now close your eyes while it's there.
Now look at the spot where it was.
Now, one confuses that motion of new positions with direction, simply because one has ceased to put into place and make disappear the thing, for each passing second.
So now I'm going to ask you to do this:
Take a look at this cigarette package.
Now close your eyes.
Now look at it again.
Now close your eyes.
Now look at it again.
Now close your eyes.
Now look at it again.
Now, what is the difference between that instant—the last instant when you didn't find it there, when it was motionless and you didn't find it there, and the first instant when it was missing? That is entirely your knowingness and nothing else. There isn't anything there that will tell you the difference between, except your knowingness. Or your automatic machine that goes running like this: "Later-later-later-later-later-later-later—later than you think—later-later-later-later-later— much later than you think—later-later-later-later-later, later, later—well, later .. . Later? Later? Time? Time? What's time? Time? Time? Time to the right, time to the left, time up, time down, time backwards— Tuesday is around the corner." And that's just about what that machine does, and that's really the cycle of its life.
So people who have "directional times" have departed from even questioning time. Time is direction. You see, when I ask you to open and close your eyes as

75

76

3 DECEMBER 1953
I move this cigarette package from your left to your right would, because of the successive pictures, connect spatial position and the instant you viewed it. Now, when that gets really set, why, one has a picnic with himself. Because spatial position has nothing to do with time.
The pyramids, when they were one minute old are—so far as their relation¬ship to the other pyramids—are in the same place as they are in now, as they are in the future. But knowingness can be added to language. So we say, "The pyramids were where they are now, and they will be there in the future."
Now, this universe loves to confuse you by changing spatial positions at the same time it changes time, but remember two different operations are occurring. Spatial position is changing and time is changing. So let's just move up one little link—just stretch your understanding above this morning's lecture on time—just one little link up, to this. You know spatial position because you know. And you know time because you know. And there isn't any reason in the sun why spatial position has anything to do with time. And when it does, the days go by so rapidly, as not to move at all.
The beginning of a life running on an automatic machine on time goes pocketa, pocketa, pocketa, pocketa. And in midlife the machine is going pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. And in late life, the machine is going aarrrrhhh! No distinguishment at all.
Now, knowingness is totally responsible for what you observe as time passage.
Now, I want you to sit still for a moment and know that you have been sitting there, and hold your breath. And know you've been sitting there holding your breath for a year. Just know that.
Now breathe again, and know that's the first breath you've taken in eight years.
Now take another breath and let it out, and know that you've breathed all you need to breathe for the next year.
Now breathe normally.
You see, breathing is an automaticity which is a pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. And it's only pocketa-pocketa-pocketa because the heart is going lup-dup, lup-dup, lup-dup, lup-dup, lup-dup. So your breathing regulates against the heart: pocketa-pocketa, lup-dup, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa—you see? One against the other da-dunt. So you know whether you're breathing fast or slow. Nobody ever knew, by comparison, whether he was breathing quickly or slowly. He knew he was breathing faster than his heart was beating, or slower than his heart was beating, or that his heart was beating faster. Or that he— one person was walking faster than another person.
Now, this widespread thing called agreement lets one in for a lot of "accidentals," not just accidents. This widespread thing, it's agreement. And there we have—there we have this: this fellow says, "Mm-hm, mm-hm" and "I understand that." And then after a while he says, "Yes." And then after a while he says, "Yes, sir." And then after a while he doesn't listen, he just waits to agree. See that? He waits to agree.
If you want to get a case entrance button on some people, you just get that one, "waiting to agree." You've known some people like this. Maybe we got a case or two present that simply wait to agree. Without record. See? No particular record of anything—they just wait to agree. Well, there—you could say the same thing of waiting to know what time it is. See, because there is this proper moment when they should agree; and that moment is on a cessation of communication. So when any communication ceases, they automatically agree.

TIME: CAUSE AND EFFECT, PART II
This is real loony-bin stuff I'm talking to you about, but it's the deterioration of the time factor, and the causation of this is setting up fast and slow time. Exteriorized, an auditor very occasionally, if not always, expects the preclear to be running on MEST universe time. The preclear exteriorizes perhaps into a higher or less automaticity—either one or the other. Or into no automaticity, which makes everything sort of stop, you know, till he thinks of it running again. And many people exteriorize without perception and good certainty simply because when exteriorized, they don't have all this automaticity connected up and so they are uncertain. But they're not uncertain about being exteriorized, they're uncertain what time it is.
You could see that? So that they have a hospital roof on the auditing room. They have the living room rug in their childhood home on the floor. They just grab onto and indifferently hook up to all of the automatic machinery which in the past has become superautomatic, and it's just too strong to be overcome. Now, they lay in that hospital for a long time. In other words, lots of MEST time went by. They were in that childhood home for a long time, and they had to be very aware of that rug because they didn't dare do things on it when they were very small. And so, those factors which have most impressed them—you see, you've sprung them out into, usually, less time. Timing. And only those factors which are tremendously automatic are with them.
So you ask them to see the room, so they look around at the room which is being furnished them, because they are at that moment causative. And if they're sold on the idea that they have to be an effect, they expect everything to be manufactured for them before they perceive it. You understand this? They think everything's going to manufactured before they perceive it.
Now, really what happens is, is a person, when he exteriorizes, gets into a state where he can mark out what the particle motion is of the universe around him. He can mark this out. You see, he's in enough agreement with the universe that he can mark it out and then replot it, then all of a sudden his visio will come on terrifically. He gets this—he just gets the rate. And as soon as he gets the fact that these particles are changing, then he agrees with their particle change enough to perceive them, and so he establishes his perception balance.
A Step V is not necessarily better timed or worse timed than a Step I. A Step I who has complete and immediate vision the second that he exteriorizes, has either done this operation very fast, or he simply exteriorized with both hands firmly grasping his time machine.
Now, H. G. Wells has written a lot about time machines. And a lot of other people have written a lot about time machines. So they're all based on the basis that there is such a thing as a path, or a formed set of barriers, which never perish. Well, there are. There isn't a single barrier which ever existed which ever perished. And when these all jam together, one's time machine is shot too. Because a time machine in essence is doing just this: It is agreeing on the erection of a barrier and agreeing on its vanishment, and agreeing upon its erection and agreeing on its banishment. So that you have new space being continually formed, and old space being made to disappear.
People will get, in later life, double, triple, quadruple vision. The oculist cannot account for this and so abandons it. Some of the double vision comes about when they're looking with their MEST eyes, and seeing better from outside the inside of their head, and they see two objects which are not quite in concurrence. Now, this is a much less difficult problem than it might seem on first glance. We're trying to reduce it to a simplicity which you can handle as an auditor.

77

78

3 DECEMBER 1953
You exteriorize an individual and then immediately ask him to be an effect. The reason he exteriorized is because of his recognition of his causative nature. And yet you ask him to immediately perceive. You see? It just doesn't add up.
The first place, he is in automatic agreement on the universe around him. As long as he is in that automatic agreement, he is going to have a time for himself, because that automaticity will swamp him sooner or later. Somewhere along the track he has to take a step back and say, "Look—whoa, now. I'm cause. Let me put it up myself for a while, knock out the existing machinery, put in some new machinery, get it repaired well, and put into this machinery the fact that it'll remind me in the future sometime to make some more machinery when it gets worn out." You see that? Because there's no future, a fellow then, has to know when to know. And what's "when"? "When" is because he knows there's a when.
Now, I ran an interesting preclear a long time ago, who used to put up double terminals and made them out of lead, and when asked for some lighter material, changed them to cast iron. And then when asked what he was putting up, said he was putting up a postulate. I've always remembered this as a signal example of the value of knowingness in terms of solidity.
Basically, it's very much too easy for an auditor simply to go out all-out on this basis, and then dismiss all other mechanics connected with it and dismiss in particular the way to remedy it. He says, "Now, all there is knowing, is knowing. Well then, all you have to do is just say, 'All right, you preclear— know!' Oh, you don't know, huh? Well, the hell with you!" And he calls this auditing. This is the same thing as saying, "All you have to do is decide to be self-determined." It's—you'd have the same chances.
Well, all that you could say was really wrong with an individual, if anything was wrong with an individual, is he has turned his postulates into MEST so thoroughly and so long and so often, that he's got all kinds of automaticity which turns his postulates into MEST. And then he's lost track of the automaticity and it goes on functioning, and he's had such a hard time—you can say this about him, in any lifetime—he's had such a hard time convincing people of things, that he would rather hit somebody over the head or run him down, than give him an argument. Because he's found arguments aren't too workable unless they're backed up with force. Or he's had practiced on him, force, in lieu of an argument, see. So the symbol has become the thing.
Back of anything there is a postulate and back of a postulate, unphrased, is simply knowingness which is in itself certainty.
So, let's get a grip on this a little bit in our auditing, and see that if we want the highest definition of this universe, is that it is a game which requires barriers to be played. A game which requires barriers to be played. One needs restrictions to play this game. All right.
Let's look, then, at a preclear and know that we are processing somebody who is above the level of the game. A man who plays baseball, who can only play baseball, isn't a very good baseball player. Any preclear who can play the game called MEST universe can, very actively, play much broader games. He shouldn't, however, be playing them with you as an auditor. But he will.
Now, what your difficulty is with any preclear, is the fact that his postulates are automatically becoming objects or energies or spaces or nothingnesses. An automaticity which takes the postulate is already wiping him out somehow or another.
Well now, what kind of an automaticity is reaching his ability to make postulates? An automaticity called language—symbols.

TIME: CAUSE AND EFFECT, PART II
So we give him, with a symbol, a message; which he then retranslates into other symbols, above which he knows. And from that knowingness, translates the knowingness into symbols, which symbols become translated into objects or distances or nothingnesses. Well, just watch that process. You as an auditor are handling a preclear via a symbol communication line.
That's not very important. But it is important that your preclear, if he cannot exteriorize, if he is not causative and so forth, is translating his knowingness immediately and directly into objects, spaces and nothingnesses without any more recourse to himself. See? Do you see that? I mean he's just doing this. He says iron and he gets iron. See, he doesn't get knowingness about iron.
Now, an example of this just came up while I was walking up here. An auditor said, "You—we were having—putting up mock-ups real slow, and then deciding they were there," words to that effect. And he was talking about a little process he was doing. All right.
This was very strange to me—it was very peculiar to me. And I looked this over real careful to find out what was so funny about this? Obviously it wasn't funny. He didn't think it was funny. Nobody he worked it on thought it was funny. Well, it looked awful funny. You're putting up the mock-up, you build it up and then it's there and then they decide it's there. And this, of course, is backwards, naturally, or something of the sort.
Well, it hit me for the first time, forcefully, that people decided they had a mock-up there after they put the mock-up there. They obviously do. Obviously. I work a little bit different than that. I never look at the mock-up I put up unless I happen to look at it. I know it's there. If I look, it's there. It can be inspected. It can be combined, and it behaves and so forth. But this step of having to reassure oneself isn't present. I don't think it should be. But it opens up the door to a lot of understanding of what somebody's doing. He's doing something—instead of on a basis of knowing he's doing it, he does it on a basis of reassuring himself that he's doing it. Do you see that? He doesn't know he's doing it, he reassures himself that he's doing it.
Like the fellow, you know, he runs a race and waits for the—a grandstand to say, "Hurrah!" No hurrahs. He says to himself, "Well, I think you ran a good race anyway."
This is like: "All right. Now get a mock-up of a dog."
"Yeah, I got a dog. Yeah, this is real interesting."
See what he's doing? You see exactly what he's doing there? He is a questioning cause arriving at a surprised effect. In other words, he's being an uncertain cause and a certain effect. Which tells you exactly where he is on this billionth-of-a-second, we're talking about, time span. That billionth-of-a-second is the difference between knowing and being reassured.
Many a preclear comes to you simply to be reassured. Actually, if you patted him on the back and said, "You're not nuts. I see a lot of people much crazier than you are," shook them by the hand, told them to stop by the desk on their way out, they'd gladly put a lot of money there. See? They're looking for reassurance.
Now, as you as an auditor run a gradient scale, you gradiently build a preclear up into greater and greater assurance, and he needs less and less reassurance, until his certainty is something he does not need validated by agreement. And what are we working him out of? We're working him out of being reassured by something which agrees with him only when he agrees with it. See that? So we get somebody waiting around, waiting around, waiting around to be told they're right. They're right all the time—there's only one person that's

79

80

3 DECEMBER 1953
right, that's themselves. But they have gotten on to this basis of reassurance, which means effect.
Now, what on earth would it be that caused a person to pass over from happy cause to miserable effect? Hm? What would it be?
Well, this morning we were examining this inverting line. Let's go over that a little more—a little more carefully.
Now, here we have an inverting effect on, let us say, pleasurable sensation— which begins at the top somewhere with serenity and goes on down the line through elation, and goes on down the line through sexual sensation, and goes on down the line through sadism, and sort of dwindles out the bottom.
Well now, if a person wants to be an effect more than he wants to be a cause, you could almost be sure, in view of the fact that he is basically just a knowing unit, that he's going to know where he is—he's going to be an effect, which tells you that he's going to be a time lag. Make sense to you now? It tells you that if he—if he knows he has to be an effect. So again, we have this business of the second dynamic.
Now, let's look at Mr. Sigmund Freud—nobody else has, we might as well. He picked on the second dynamic. And he did the most involved job with it. He talked about prenatal experience, he talked about birth trauma, he talked about this and that, and he talked about more bric-a-brac that he evidently knew about, but had never found any phenomena about, than any man I ever perused. And sitting in the middle of all this, was this terrific sleeper called the Assumption, see? That was a booby trap. He never divided the second dynamic into its most reasonable components: sex and babies. I don't know how you can separate sex and babies. And I don't know how you can separate sex and duplication. So we get sexual sensation as the pleasurable act of duplication by a system.
Now, it isn't that sex and duplication are so alike that makes duplication effective in turning on perceptions. This is not why it's effective in turning on perceptions. It's effective because it unmocks, by simply ignoring and taking its work away from it, the automaticity which is busy building and doing everything. You're just making the preclear do it, right there, boom—the preclear does it. And the machine falls out of use and goes to pot. All right.
What factor, then, are we dealing with, with somebody who is way over on the effect side of the ledger? If he's over on the effect side of the ledger, he's not going to exteriorize. Because he expects to exteriorize and be hit by perception. He expects perception to present itself and demonstrate it to him that it exists. He sits there calmly and waits for everything to demonstrate that it exists. He waits to be convinced.
His most basic function is knowingness, and one doesn't know well unless one knows with conviction. And he's substituted effect for conviction. Because he thinks he has to have this from somebody else—you see, he thinks you have to have pleasurable sensation from others—why, he supposes then that he has to agree with them. Because he's on the same wavelength. See what happens? Same wavelength, therefore he agrees, therefore he gets reality, therefore he modifies all of his machinery to agree with all of their machinery.
He runs around trying to find out what other people are wearing before he puts on his coat, what other girls are feeling before he bothers to feel anything. And when you back him out of his head, he sits there and waits to be convinced. There isn't anything there going to convince him. There isn't anything around anyplace that's going to walk up to him as a thetan and shake him by a beam and say to him, "Now, there, there. Now you're really outside and that's all fine,

TIME: CAUSE AND EFFECT, PART II
and I'm so glad you're outside and here you are. And now here—here we're presenting you with a view of the room." There's nothing going to happen like that. He exteriorizes as certainly as he is a causative element.
Now, this is no dodge. Somebody'll come along later and listen to this tape or listen to this argument and they'll say, "Now, you see, knew he'd worm out of it somehow. People really don't exteriorize. He says the second dynamic's got something to do with it. Well, I know it hasn't because I hate sex and / can't exteriorize." See how logical all that would be? Wonderfully logical, but it doesn't work. All right.
Let's take a look at this second dynamic. Very interesting—it combines so many things. It is a debased serenity and beingness. Very debased. But it's nowhere near as debased as eating. A being that has to eat to reassure himself that he's gotten some attention is quite a character. Boy, he doesn't know from nothing—not from August nor from the Confederate Army. And that's the GE. In order for the GE to know he's being looked at, he has to have a full belly. Now, being looked at and a full stomach are the same thing. Having eaten is having condensed attention.
Now, here's this little animalcule of some sort, and it rushes around every place and gathers up some MEST and generates some energy and it bats it back and forth one way or the other, and it manages to get enough attention, it thinks, and generate enough attention, this way and that, so it finally has a body. And chomp! Some other entity rushes around this way and that, and this way and that, and back and forth and around and round, and it manages to condense some attention and it has a body. Chomp! And another one—and little fish have bigger fish and so forth. And so we get attention coming all the way up the line.
The lowest attention: the lichen and the moss, which in juxtaposition can get attention satisfactorily from the MEST universe, are actually the bottom, not the top of the scale. They are the start of an attention evolution in the form of eating. But when a person can't eat anymore and survive, boy, does he have to have attention in other departments. So we go right on up the dynamics—two.
Now, it so happens that psychology did serve a useful purpose. I don't care what you people say, anything of the sort. There is one thing they did, that did serve a useful purpose: They found out that they could experiment with rats, and not have to look at the subject of psychology—a human mind.
So we go into the field of psychology and find out that somebody who didn't study any, made an experiment on rats in the field of medicine—which nobody reported in the field of psychology—that rats which are given a very poor diet, reproduce better. Terrifically! The less the food supply the greater the production of young. And so it is, in the countries of Earth—India and so forth. They at last got that. I mean, psychology called somebody's attention to this, who, in the field of biochemistry or metallurgy or something of the sort, made this other experiment. So, a psychology—has contributed.
Now, get that. Not enough attention, so we have to have attention on the second dynamic, which is to say sensation on the second dynamic. Not enough second, we've got to have it as a group, at least as a member of a group. Not enough as a group—here we go right on up, see? Till we get to six—the only place we can get it is from MEST itself. Well, there are people around who can actually get satisfactory attention from MEST. It satisfies them somewhat. They're in horrible condition. And we go on to seven: people who invent spirits to give them attention. And we go on to eight: people who invent some god to give them some personalized attention. And we've gone all the way on out, then.

81

82

3 DECEMBER 1953
Now, if we take each one of those in its pure state—and not a preclear with each one of them cut away a little bit, each one of them living on one of them—we get in each bracket a psychotic. But most people, what we get is one-two-three-four-five-six-seven-eight—he's a little bit gone on each one, see? He just lost just a little bit of one—he can't eat too well, oysters disagree with him. See, that's one thing gone on eating. Two, he doesn't like young girls—you know, a woman has to understand him. You see? And boy babies are all right at two. Girl babies, no. Younger babies, no. See, so there's a little bit gone on that one. There's two gone. Groups of people are all right in church, see, but otherwise—nah, no groups.
We get this supermodification of each one of the dynamics, and we get a composite that the fellow, following—evidently having read Dickens and considering that a character is utterly dependent upon one's eccentricities (Dickensonian characterization), he thinks he has a character now and has a personality. And if you want to make somebody have a different personality, just talk him out of each one of the eight dynamics, you see—a little bit of each one. Only choose something new and radical about it, you see—don't have him like groups of firemen. See, just cut that off the third dynamic. Men are all right, but monkeys are also men. On the fifth dynamic, just cut it down so that he only likes snakes. On the sixth dynamic, why, have big spaces be antipathetic toward him, and blue MEST the best, and red MEST nauseating, see? On the seventh dynamic, it's all right for the church to have a spirit and talk about spirits, but spirits don't exist. I don't know how anybody ever gets over that one—that's a gorgeous one. And as far as the eighth dynamic, well, God's all right for a lot of people because he does a lot of good but personally he doesn't believe in him. You know, get that and tailor him up a new and unusual personality. You could selectively then strip out each one of these, and you'd get this set of eccentricities. All right.
What about this second dynamic? Where would you start cutting into this case on that? Well, the fellow who has a tremendous thirst for attention in the form of food, of course, has got sensation the most condensed that it can get. It can't get more condensed than that. So you would mock up tastes in the walls and in mock-ups. Tastes. You'll find a lot of guys can get tastes that can't get sexual sensation or something, you see? You go from tastes to various types— lighter ones and then heavier ones and more serious ones—sexual sensation: putting that around into walls and spaces and so forth. And we go from there into the next echelon. And we put the admiration that one would get from audiences or spectacular feats or circus performers or something of the sort, we'd get that into the walls—that kind of sensation. And we would go right on out along the line until we got God and serenity.
Now, some people get hung up on the sixth dynamic. It has its own sensations, and you might find this very peculiar, but it does. There is a type of sensation of attention from the sixth dynamic. It's known as pain.
And if you don't get this whole scale handled on some preclears, they just don't exteriorize. Why? You'd say, "This is very funny that—if they can't get all this, well they're so on and so on." Well, you could answer it in lots of ways. You say, "They're so dependent upon a body that they cannot possibly envision getting along without a body."
There is such a preclear over in Great Britain who'd simply put the complete stopper on any further processing. Oh! Husband was a Step I. She got him stuck back in his head, but good. She went around beating her chops and raising the devil in all directions. She's quite a pretty woman. And then she did

TIME: CAUSE AND EFFECT, PART II
Scientology all right as an auditor, very covertly, calling it Freudian psycho¬analysis.
The general characteristics and the path of ruin which follows that character is fascinating to behold. And I'm afraid it lumps under the heading of "she can't get enough sensation."
"Grrr! Rrrr! Go ahead, uuuh!" Honest to Pete! It's just about that bad. Oh, brother! So anyway, as sad and sordid as this subject may be, it isn't that she's dependent upon the body for sensation, it's that she can't manufacture it. You see that?
So, what creativeness do we have to trigger on the preclear who's having a hard time of it? Now, very early in this Second Unit, I gave you a list of things to put in the walls. And I'll bet you on the tougher preclears, you haven't built it up very far. But let's evaluate its importance on a rough case, hm?
Now, I'll take what I was talking about this morning: cause and effect. That which a fellow desires eventually becomes inhibited. See, he wants it and then it becomes too scarce. Everybody wants it, nobody creates it, so it becomes scarce.
The next step up, then, on such a thing, is he very often has to waste something. Now, it's all right for me to say, "Waste something in brackets." That's a wonderful way to code it, that's a nice way to do it, you should do it in a balanced, even form. But do you know that you can sit down and by the use of your good common sense, make a preclear waste something that he can't get—this way and that way and another way until he's wasted enough of it, so that he can have a little bit of it, and then he can have a little bit more of it and turn it on full blast.
I processed a preclear once for about twenty-five minutes who had a milk allergy; turned into a flaming rash every time she drank some milk. Processed her for twenty-five minutes worth to finally get her to get, in mock-up, a glass of milk that she could drink. Boy, we wasted milk, and we wasted it in the most peculiar and horrible fashions. Did we worry about an actual reason why? No, this reason why is the furthest we want to go away from that. No, we just had to waste milk. And it turned from people who couldn't get any milk, and the baby starving to death for lack of milk, and there's one drop of milk left in the Western Hemisphere and with what happy speed she would pour that down the sink. See, here you had a set-up situation, and gradually just getting it to unbelievable scarcities.
Now, you can process the second dynamic in that same fashion, and that's usually the tripper and the blocker on a case. The person who is real hard to exteriorize has normally—I hope I don't step on any toes—has normally passed over the barrier of being able to have it. See? And they go down from there into actual all-out aversion to it. Down to the point where they'll join societies which guarantee to cover up girls' ankles or something of the sort. See, anything there that'll just hide it so they don't dare have it and so on.
Well, there isn't anybody doing anything to this person. It's just this cycle of—they made lots of it once, made lots of this sensation, condensed it; and then everybody was making it and so it—nobody made it because there was lots of it, you see; and then nobody made it, so they grabbed hold of what had been made and then they used that, and that of course evaporated because after all, it wasn't being made directly; and the automatic machinery went by the boards, and all of a sudden wasn't being made, so several people started making it surreptitiously, one way or the other; and then it got very scarce from that, and these people were inhibited from making it. How did they get inhibited

83

84

3 DECEMBER 1953
from making it? Simply by other automaticities. Because one person couldn't make it, another person shouldn't make it too, because that gave monopolies on it. Oh boy. And we go down the line further and further and further.
Well, all of which starts out by having a person at cause, which is creating a sensation or an energy, and bringing them down to the bottom rung of being an effect. Because not only can they not create it, but it never has been created, it shouldn't be created, and shouldn't be touched if it were created, and if it were created it would be illegal and somebody ought to be shot.. . You see, this is way down. And that is just the span between cause and effect.
Now, there are several other spans between cause and effect. This thing about time, directly, is a direct span between cause and effect. Now, this is a way to bring somebody else on up the line of cause and effect. But remember, they only have that sensation there because they know it's there. But it's a good track to take a Homo sapiens on. See, they can feel that sensation back, they know it's there finally. This is a good track to carry Homo sapiens along, because Homo sapiens, in each and every case, has a fondness for this type of sensation. He eats. Sex, kids, and so forth, up the line. And is the state, in most of your preclears, where they can't eat very much. And as far as sex is concerned, well it's kind of expected of them but they hope not. And third dynamic, they'd rather play the only one, you see, and never talk to a group. And the fourth dynamic, "Mankind?" That's about as far as they go on that. And it's "What room?" Yet, withal, as far as sensation is concerned, they manage to be (quote) "happy" (unquote). As happy as Homo sapiens ever could be.
You have a thetan who is total effect, you have no thetan. See that? You got as much thetan—you are as much as you are cause. And you can actually, unfortunately for you, experience as much as you can cause, see? So a person who is no—you might say, down there almost to no thetan—isn't experiencing anything. See, people want to be an effect. If they want to be an effect, they drift too far away from cause and there they go.
Now, what's the gradient scale of sensation? Well, it's from taste, or physical discomfort because of taste, on up through the milder forms of sexual sensation, on up through the feeling of friendship, on up through the feeling of a benevolent beingness, on up through just an emotion which would sort of be life. And, by the way, unless somebody's pretty well exteriorized here, I would think right this moment it would be very hard for me to describe this.
In the first place, man has never described it. He's talked about a "lively feeling" and a "feeling of life," and it's drifted along in his language, so that it tells you that he felt it once, but I'm almost sure he hardly ever feels it anymore, so as to describe it. Because that is about as high-powered exhilaration as anybody wants to contact. It's like—actually, in its own form, it's like walking into a ten-thousand-volt generator and grabbing hold of both of its electrodes, but very pleasant to do so. Jolt! See? Life!
And we go on up to MEST. MEST is very exhilarating in its actual working state. Because he likes barriers. And that's sort of a basis of "Whee! Playground! Whee! Barriers! Gee, look at that nice thick building! Gosh! What? You mean it's that many light-years to the next galaxy? Gee!" See? "Gosh! Look at all that distance!" You know, zing!
And we go on up to seven, it's no joke that the word spirit means two things. Much, much earlier than when man had a definition for feeling lively, and knew what it meant when he said it, he had another one called spirit. That's elan. Honest, I don't know, you run across it in the bank once in a while, but manufactured in this society? Nuh-uh. Elan: spirit. It's a word which still

TIME: CAUSE AND EFFECT, PART II
carries its dictionary definition. It's less and less used in the society at large. You say, "She was a very spirited woman." Sounds awfully old-fashioned, doesn't it? It doesn't mean "lively," it means something else. It's another set of emotions.
And now we run head-on into God, or what man calls God, and we find some new material there. Because the serenity of total pervasion of an area is without equal. And once in a while a thetan will pick this up in his bank and he'll say, "What the heck is this? Oh, gee-whiz, yes. That's the time when I had this whole woods I was looking after." You know he had a whole wood, like Frazer's Golden Bough, you know. Only this time, not corned up like it is in Frazer's Golden Bough. I mean he actually was the guardian of a wood, as a spirit. He was the spirit of the wood. He pervaded the whole area, and what benignity and serenity and occasional interest and so forth there was in all this—ah dear, dear, what was this? Well, that's a sensation.
And oddly enough, each one of these are stronger sensations than the last. So we think of this thing called eating. Well, that's a fairly strong sensation. Well, sex ought to be a stronger sensation. Friendship ought to be a much stronger sensation than that, and here we go on up to the serenity. Now, just compare that to the most currently poetic description of sex, you see, and look where we would have to go for adjectives. The language just doesn't stand up to it, because the language breaks its back, and gets forbidden right now, if it describes an orgasm. And there's—there it goes. But man—man deals with this at just about his highest level: the taste of beer and an orgasm (audience laughter) is just about the highest goal of many people. You wonder why somebody pulls a blank when you try to tell them about thinking or Scientology. Just compare it with their sensation range.
Now, you ask somebody to be causative right off the bat, being sort of quick-like, and you run into responsibility.
Well, what's responsibility got to do with this? You're going to have to make him feel the effect of what he's caused. That's what he thinks. Responsibility is having to feel the effect of what one causes. Full responsibility is just causing everything and to hell with the effect. See? That's everything. But if this person believes, knows, that he can cause only bad effects—he doesn't want to feel any bad effects.
So, as you work him up the line, remember to work the sensation band for both bad and good effects, because he does have this evaluation. When you start to get tastes, remember that—bad tastes as well as good tastes. Because you're going to work him up the field of responsibility, and he doesn't want these bad effects. Therefore, he won't be responsible. Therefore, he won't cause. So without telling him anything about any underlying theory or anything that goes back of it, you just keep him plowing away at getting what emotions he can get into things, and what tastes he can get into it, and what smells he can get into things, bad and good, and what sensations—sexual sensations and frigidity and other things—and forbiddingness, bad and good.
Now, many of these cases you'll pick up will have to be run a long time on "effort of worry." Worry. That is a sort of a sensation that is very close to effort itself. It is a sensation. It's very debased, but it's better than no sensation at all, and it's sort of downgraded from sex. You'll get people that they—their emotions get undifferentiated; they—emotions get all balled up at the lower end of the scale.
Now, when you show a thetan that he can cause, and if you get him really to cause these various emotions, with what persuasion you can (it's part of Step I)—if you can get him to cause these and feel them, and then just cause

85

86

3 DECEMBER 1953
them and know he's caused them, you'll have him up pretty well, finally, to the rather forbidding level of being able to cause them without caring he caused them—and other people feeling them.
Now, he'll think of this on his way up, and you'll say, "Say, do you suppose ..." Anytime he says, "Say, do you suppose that somebody else might feel this? I just put this terrific sensation of hatred in that woman there behind the cigar counter"—he's exteriorized by this time or something, you see—"and I just put that big hatred down there. Now, you suppose that really upset the customers?" or something of the sort. I'll let you in on something. If he's worried about it, he can't cause it. See that? If he's worried about it, he can't cause it.
Now, that poses a rather horrible moral problem, doesn't it? But the funny part of it is, is only when he worries about it would he try to cause it capriciously and maliciously. So, if he's worried about the horrible effect he's having, he's running up against another one—he's afraid of what he'll think because if he thinks where he is, then they'll find him too. If he thinks such a thought might happen, it'll happen. He's fighting shy because he believes that he'll be bad effect. So remember when he picks up something on that order, if he just voices this to you, and say, "Ha! I'm kind of scared that, gee, I'm—mmm — I don't like this." Be sure and you get some bad effects—the bad effects.
Now, all the way running along this, there are a lot of side effects. Interesting ones. There is the feeling of unconsciousness in about eight different guises, at least.
There's the unconsciousness which comes over a person during drowning— that's horrible, right at its beginning. There is the unconsciousness of a person going into an hypnotic trance—another sensation. There is the unconsciousness of a person going under ether. There's another one, of the unconsciousness of going under nitrous oxide, which happens to be an entirely different one. You'll every once in a while pick up a preclear who has a horror of this—I mean, just a screaming horror of it. You just say, "Now, put the smell of nitrous oxide in the wall," and he just—"Where is the door?" See, he just—"I don't want anything more to do with you!" And there is the unconsciousness of restfulness and sleep—another unconsciousness. And there's the unconsciousness caused by a concussion or a blow—another one entirely. These are different uncon¬sciousnesses—each one is different.
Now, generally, as he starts up scale, you—he'll pick out unconsciousness, and unconsciousness is unconsciousness and that's the kind of unconsciousness he's stuck in. And he'll just keep throwing it out into the wall.
Now, remember that any of these sensations can be scarce, and remember that any time he can't get it, it's because it's too scarce—not because he has an inability to create it. Any time you start saying that people have an inability to create, you're cutting your own throat as an auditor. It's a wrong phraseology for you as an auditor, even though I use it occasionally because it's such a pat phrase in English. If you wanted to get the practice definition of what's happening is, is on sexual sensation he has to waste it first. He doesn't have an inability to create it. See, the modus operandi is he'd have to waste it first. He can get it. There is no sensation which he cannot duplicate, no matter how bad off he is. There is no missing piece of machinery in the thetan. Thetans do not have different native abilities which permit some to create this, and permit others to create something else.
Now, pending to all of this—which I hope you understand more about Step I because of this—let me give you something that you may not at once recognize as the highest level of all of this. You go back there in old 8-80 and

TIME: CAUSE AND EFFECT, PART II
we talk about aesthetics, and we talk about beauty and ugliness. The feeling called "beauty," when condensed and debased and degraded utterly, becomes sex. That's not because sex is bad, but just because the sensation contained in beauty and the power of beauty itself is so much greater.
Now, things are beautiful because people agree that this sensation is generated by beautiful things. But it's that sensation more than anything else. It's a terrific sensation. And you will find your preclear went by the boards when he didn't believe he could have beauty anymore—whether beauty through poetry, whether beauty through a beautiful man or a beautiful woman. Part of a girl—they think men are beautiful (to you male preclears, they occasionally do) which, by the way, a male preclear completely overlooks. And I've found some female preclears that—they're just blank on this subject. "Men thought women were beautiful? How weird." Yeah, because they didn't. Now, that's just an agreed-upon "what is beautiful?"
We'll find beauty way up there in those upper strata. You'll find somebody who lost the concept of beauty about writing poetry, and break his case. Funny, isn't it? So that's what you're racking around for. Because if a person cannot create the beautiful, he won't create! And that's what kicks him off, right there in the beginning.
So remember to look for that one and to have him create the sensation of beauty, and create things which he considers beautiful. And you don't have to validate the fact that these experiences have happened to him. But that experience that really broke his back had to do with beauty. He lost something beautiful, or he lost some ability, he thought, which was a beautiful ability, and he went by the boards. Bing! Now he's not going to cause anything. He's not going to exteriorize.
Okay.

87



Plan of SOP 8-C
A lecture given on 4 December 1953

This is December the 4th, says here, 1953, first morning lecture.
This morning we're going to take up the plan of SOP 8-C. We're also going to take up some other things.
I want to give you the plan of SOP 8-C so you'll have some vague idea of what you're doing. I think this might be handy in your work.
SOP 8-C has to do with the state of beingness and the state of havingness. It is designed and planned to increase the state of knowingness of the individual; that's its design. So therefore, its steps consist of the three parts of the MEST universe and the remedy thereof.
Now, if you know 8008—which by the way, has not even vaguely become outdated; it's probably the most modern stuff we have, that and 16-G—what we're doing right here is putting together a plan so you can use, with greater effectiveness, the materials which are contained in 8-8008 and 16-G.
The plan then, follows out the three component parts of the MEST universe: space, time and energy. Of course, energy goes into matter, and so we have space, time and energy as the three component parts.
Now, this in human experience becomes, as you will find in 8008 (of which, by the way, we have lots of copies now—they're British copies, we'll get out an American edition shortly), we have in human experience be as the equivalent of space—be and space, same thing; do and energy, same thing; have and time, same thing. In other words, an object and time, same thing.
These are similarities. You can then take—this is, by the way, quite a triumph. I mean, people have been trying to do this ... A lot of you use this material without too much background knowledge of what man has known about this. And his biggest stumbling block was that he was evaluating space in terms of time and energy, and energy in terms of space and time, and time in terms of space and energy. And he was just chasing his tail round and round in a small cage. And therefore he was getting absolutely noplace in the solution of his own difficulties.
Furthermore, he conceived himself to be a body and made care of the body his biggest cult. And he would have to do this if he was in the error that all there was, was simply space, time and energy. If he thinks all there is, is space, time and energy, he's in trouble, because he's omitted the thing that makes space and time and energy. And therefore, he claws around and bows down to obscene idols in an effort to solve his problem. That's real weird—I mean, he's

89

90

4 DECEMBER 1953
been very blind. And his blindness consisted of using zero as an absolute. You know, a zero was an absolute—zero is not an absolute.
Therefore, when you use something that you're using as an absolute in any equation—everywhere, hit or miss—you're introducing a hidden variable; and zero is a hidden variable in every mathematics. So therefore, his mathematics would snap back at him. It's not an absolute. There's as many kinds of zero as there are kinds of cereal on TV.
Now, the next thing that he couldn't do was evaluate human experience— and didn't do, rather—what he couldn't do was evaluate human experience in terms of space and time and energy.
So let's look at that immediate gain, and we find out that if we evaluate space in terms of beingness, energy in terms of doingness and time in terms of havingness, we can relate experience to the physical universe, and thus form a cross-understanding between these two things. We can understand experience, and we can understand the physical universe and their interrelationship, so that the physical universe is not then much of a puzzle. It becomes a simple thing.
Now, although—although these things are of considerable interest to a physicist, they do not belong in the field of physics. We are actually operating slightly under false colors when we say we are operating in the field of science. In order to say we are operating in the field of science, we immediately have to define science. And we find that we come up with a Latin definition for science — the earliest definition for science—and not what man understands today to be science.
Man understands, today, science to be an automaticity. The methods of "getting it to do something for you." And that's about the way he goes at it. And he gathers data together in vast mounds, and then sees all these data in this mound are pink, and all these data in this mound are green, so we have two different sciences. Never occurs to him that pink and green data might belong side by side, but that another green datum has no business in the pile at all; because who said they were pink and who said they were green? Well, nobody ever was bold enough to. So, we have this experience.
Now, we are in the physical universe. We are using physical universe language. And it happens to be a fact that in order to escape from something utterly and to render it null and void, or even to use it, one must be willing to be it, do with it, and have it. And that is escape.
If a saber-toothed tiger stops you on a path, the wrong thing to do—you, a thetan; now we're not talking about a body in limitation, we're talking about a thetan—the wrong thing to do is turn and run. Particularly if you as a thetan have something—like a body. Wrong thing to do is turn and run. You want to protect the body? Be the saber-toothed tiger and change your mind.
If a thug walks up to you, a thetan packing a body around in the street, the wrong thing to do is to suddenly block aside the gun and punch him in the solar plexus. Let me assure you that the complexities which result from this are terrific. One of the least things that will happen to you is, if you are fortunate enough to knock him out. . . And men are rather dangerous beasts—it's—a lion out in the middle of the Sahara Desert, if he saw one of our high-school girls, would turn and run screaming, believe me. Man is a very dangerous beast. That's a fact, he would! I mean, it's incredible maybe, but it's true. He's had experience—like some of you, perhaps.
Anyway, we have the problem there—the very least that'd happen to you, you'd be in court explaining to the judge why you had had the fellow arrested. And then this would be dragged on for—well, what's justice in the United States

PLAN OF SOP 8-C
today? Oh, eight, fifteen years the trial would go on, you going down every couple of weeks finding it had been postponed. You know, I mean, thirty, fifty years later, you're still saying, "What the hell did I ever hit him for? I mean, it's— he's—it's done nothing but absorb my time ever since. And furthermore, I must have an implantation because I feel like now I ought to go to jail"— overt-motivator. And then, "I didn't know that when I knocked him out, why, he had a wife and children and they starved to death during the first three weeks he was held before he could get bond." And—oh, here we go!
No, the thing to do is just to be the thug, you see, and say, "You know, there are other people to hold up in this town. Goodbye, sir," and he walks off. That's a very, very excellent way to do it.
The only way you can ever get into trouble with anything is resist it. You can't get into really any real trouble by desiring something—as a thetan, see.
So man makes resistance the greatest of virtues, and desire the most horrible of sins. He has met a barrier someplace, as we will go into in a moment, and reversed his postulates. All right, enough of the sarcasm.
The point I'm trying to make here is that be, have and do are experience equivalents.
Now we say, "the preclear has a shortage of space—he's very scarce—his space .. ." He says, "Space?" and you get him to mock up a little bit of space, and he goes unconscious. Well, he's just fresh out of space.
Now, what do we do here? Well, we can give him some space until he can tolerate space. Another preclear—second he starts to be back of his head, why, all the space there is, is falling in on him, and all the barriers there are around him are suddenly grabbing at him, and he has a sensation of things getting longer or shorter or taller, and he's something like a drunk, you know—like he's just had a couple of drinks. Everything goes distorted and he, of course, goes back in the body, which is—body keeping it all straight, he'll stick with that. But he doesn't exteriorize again easily. Not until you've remedied his beingness.
What tells you—what does this tell you about the man himself in terms of behavior and character? This tells you that he can't be anything. He will be then picking up the shabbiest scraps of things to be.
He'll take some weird part of his name—well, let's say his name was "Drip." "George Q. Drip." And colloquially, drip means a bum, so he'll have to be a bum. He has lost his choice, you see. He has no space, so therefore he's lost his choice of beingness. He's—he'll probably have lots of colds. And when you process him, he will blow nothing but grief charges, and you'll—and he won't quite blow them either. He'll just go sort of trickle, trickle and heave a long sigh in between. And you say, "You know, if I could just get that grief charge . . ."What grief charge? There isn't any grief charge sitting there—the fellow's name is "Drip."
Now, the First Unit, we had classifications of names. Names are quite important. We had somebody in the First Unit that took something on the order of about six weeks to figure out his own name, and it was the plainest name you ever wanted to figure out. And he finally figured out his name. There was another one who figured out his name, which was just as plain, about five or six weeks after he was asked. And some of them figured out their name immediately and went right on dramatizing it.
When they're short of space they cannot be, so they get into—easily— into an enforced beingness. What's this mean? Means somebody comes along and says, "You stand here." He will. Well, that isn't his reason—he doesn't want to stand there; it's just somebody tells him to stand there, so he does.

91

92

4 DECEMBER 1953
The United States government says we are now going to have Universal
Milit . You know, they are conceited down there in Washington; they're
conceited. They think they can pass a law which will enforce Universal Military Training. And you know what? I was down at a recruiting station the other day and went—I'll just tell you why—I just flipped through their files and I didn't find a single Martian; they haven't recruited one. (audience laughter) Universal Military Training, my hat! I get put out about things once in a while, you know.
But the point is here, that we have a range of experience matched up with a range of obvious manifestations. Space is an obvious manifestation to all of us. Well, we look any deeper than beingness for space, and we've gone beyond significance. The deepest significance space has in terms of experience is beingness.
The deepest significance energy has in terms of experience is doingness. And the deepest significance time has—the deepest significance time has—in terms of human experience, is havingness. And there are no significances beyond these. There are combinations of these significances, and this is possible because the thetan potentially can create such a universe. And he has his hand in creating this one. So we see what his intentions are in creating a universe. He has space so he can be, he has energy so he can do, and he has time so that he can have. So we're looking for his basic intentions rather than significance.
Now, we start searching any deeper into this and we just get into the black barriers. And all the significance there is in a black barrier is, "What is the significance of this?" That's what a black barrier says.
SOP 8-C is divided by steps into these categories. The first three steps concern themselves with beingness. The remaining four steps concern themselves with havingness. And introduced into all steps is doingness. Doingness itself, as a step, is not SOP 8-C. It's SOP 80—from Theta Clear to Operating Thetan. And SOP 80 picks up when SOP 8-C has been run but completely and thoroughly. And all SOP 80 does is exercise doingness. And the reason it's selected out like that is there's so many things a thetan can do. He can do anything that a body can do and more—much more. And as a result, if we started to pour all the things the thetan could do into SOP 8-C, you would be confused instead of completely informed, as you are right now. All right.
The first three steps of SOP 8-C concern themselves with beingness. From—Step IV, V, VI, and VII concern themselves with havingness. As an example—as an example—Give and Take Processing and many other kinds, such as Expanded GITA and so on, on Step IV, are bluntly, completely, having it; making it possible to have. The name of this step is "Havingness" instead of Give and Take and the rest of it. The basic name of it is just "Havingness." So, therefore, it immediately resolves itself into time, doesn't it?
So, we get into Step V, and we get havingness of another kind. In Step IV we merely have havingness as a commodity, just plain havingness. And we get into Step V, we have havingness of another variety; it is the havingness of blackness, when we go into that step.
We go into VI, and we have what? Havingness of symbols. And here, we say, "This person is a Step VI," we mean this person is so bogged down that a symbol is made out of sheet steel, cast iron and so on. The symbol is the thing at Step VI. So that the symbol itself has become havingness, and this in itself, to him, is thinkingness. All right.
Let's go to Step VII, and what do we have there? Well, Step VII is—please, let's see if he can at least have the wall in this room. See, that's sort of a last resort.

PLAN OF SOP 8-C
Now, havingness is present time. Whether the havingness determines you or you determine the havingness is the difference between cause and effect. If the havingness determines you, that's effect. If you determine the havingness, you're cause. So you see, havingness is neither cause nor effect, but can be either cause or effect and is either one.
Now, when we say "having space," we're crossing things up. You don't have space. You perceive space. But the day when you can take and roll up a piece of space and put it in your pocket will be the day when space becomes havingness. So you see how badly disoriented the individual is who is trying to have space, see? There he's—has nothingness. But having nothingness, of course, is having a terrific variable.
But space isn't nothingness. A thetan thinks space is nothingness when he's bad off, but space is not nothingness. Space is space. It is the area forming a barrier between him and the anchor point. And most people, way down the line, are looking at it as most intolerable stuff: "That's horrible! You mean you've got a barrier with nothing in it." Well, I can tell you something about that person immediately—he's been knocked silly. He's had his postulates reversed. And that's what we're going to take up now.
Why do we get this inversion? If there is no real—there really isn't any matter, if there's just this agreement on these shapes and forms, then how do we get an inflow turning into an outflow? How do we get a detestation turning into a desire? What's this operation? It's solely an operation of changing postulates. And when I say you have an "inverted sixth" or an "inverted eighth," I mean the postulate's been reversed on it. Now, the postulate can reverse and then re-reverse and then re-reverse and then re-reverse.
Now, how does a postulate reverse? All right, you're going downhill on a toboggan slide, and you're in that toboggan, got a body in it, and you've got one piece of MEST, and it has velocity in space. And the toboggan jumps its runners over the edge of the slide and there's a great big tree right there, and at that moment you decide not to have a tree. You get some inference that the body and the tree will not be a compatible union—and the immediate result is you get a tree, see?
So that after a while the thetan gets to the point, "Let's see, when I say I don't have a tree, I get a tree. Must be I want a tree because every time I say I don't want one, I get one; and I really don't want one, so the thing to say is, 'I don't want a tree,' and it'll go away. But, funny thing, when I say I don't want a tree, I get a tree, and when I say I want a tree, I get a tree. Huh! I must really want trees. Yeah, that's right, that's what it's all about. Well, that solves that," he says. "I must have this most terrible infatuation for trees. I say, 'No tree,' ping—tree! I say, 'I want a tree'—tree. But the funny part of it is, sometimes I say, 'No tree' and I get a real good one. And when I say I want one, I get kind of a scrawny thing—weak, thin, you know—I get a little thin tree."
Well, he goes along that way very happily for a while, and he is going downhill on a toboggan—got a body on the toboggan, and he's going downhill and enjoying the motion a great deal—he's doing. And the toboggan jumps off the rails and he hits the edge of the bank and manages to say, "No tree," and gets no tree! "Oh," he thinks, "this is fine, I get—'No tree,' I get no tree." So he's sitting around twiddling his thumbs—not doing, he's thinking now. And he says, "Let's see, now—oh, all right, I want a tree. I get a kind of a thin tree here. Now I don't want a tree. Oh, my God," he says, "I get a tree and then I don't get a tree and I get a tree and I don't get a tree and I get a tree and I don't. . . Oh, that's too bothersome—to hell with trees! I don't want anything to do with

93

94

4 DECEMBER 1953
them; they're completely uncertain. I say, 'I get a tree,' and—I say, 'I want a tree' and there's no tree, and then I say 'I want a tree' and there is a tree, and this is too confusing. My self-determinism has been interrupted somewhere now."
What happened? He won one time and lost the other time, and now he's got both times. And because he's low on havingness (he'd already have to be low on havingness—you see, it made him low on havingness when he dented this body up; that spoiled his aesthetics slightly), why, he's got both of these incidents now. Got them both. And one will interfere with the other, because both of them interfere with havingness. Both of them are havingness, and it follows out that he must have been raised in a treeless country, because there must be a slight scarcity of trees for any of this to take effect at all.
Well, how about a great big piece of space with nothing in it? Well, let me assure you that that is really empty; there's no havingness in it at all. That's very confusing to a thetan. He could sit in a piece of space for eight hundred billion years and he'd never know it—where there's no shift of particles, so he has no time. Nothing ages, nothing changes—because there's nothing to age and nothing to change. So he starts out with a basic scarcity on havingness, doesn't he? So therefore, anything he gets from there on is a bonus, whether he gets it bad or good. And you could put on his banner, his guidon, "Anything is better than nothing." "Any havingness is superior to no havingness"—that's his motto.
Now, when he first begins to believe that he can't create, as I was going into yesterday, you see, everything gets scarce—space gets scarce and everything gets scarce. But when he's filled up an awful big piece of space full of all kinds of havingnesses, he's got lots of havingnesses and no space. And these havingnesses seem to have—because he's run into lots of trees, you see, and lots of walls; and he says, "No tree" and he gets a tree and he says, "No wall" and he gets a wall, and then the next time he says, "No wall" and he doesn't get a wall (he was right that time)—so his own rightness is getting very hit or miss. He begins to believe that this stuff itself has a command value over him. So the command value of it, of course, is much greater than his command value, and he simply neglects to get a new piece of space to fill up. Solely because any havingness is better than no havingness. So he's got a havingness.
So the darn fool will hold on to a havingness to the last auditor! So we have four steps to remedy havingness, and only three to remedy beingness. Doingness, as I said—which is actually creatingness and doingness with particles—we have two different kinds of doingness: there's the doingness which is not a doingness at all, a creatingness. The creatingness plus doingness is SOP 80, but that's how you make an Operating Thetan out of a Theta Clear. You're interested in making Theta Clears. And at the time you're up on that level, you get SOP 80, it'll sure look awful easy. It is very easy. It's how you go about, by gradient scales, getting him to talk and getting him to create and getting him to move things and the drills necessary to do this. But that one we sort of inherit as we go along. You get a little bit of imagination, you—Step I— you actually don't need the process at all. The process we need is SOP 8-C; that's the vital one.
So as we work with a preclear, we should realize that as we go down these steps—it's a diabolically clever design. When you go down these steps—Step I, he didn't; Step II, he didn't; Step III, he didn't. You needn't bother—you just plain needn't bother—to go to IV, V, VI and VII on exteriorization, as a pattern, really. What you should do is if you've gone through those three steps and he didn't exteriorize, he's got to have his havingness remedied.

PLAN OF SOP 8-C
Well, there are special ways to remedy havingness, just on exteriorization, and that comes under just methods of exteriorization.
You understand that SOP 8-C is not slanted straight at exteriorization. That is not its purpose. But Steps I, II, and III of it are good exteriorization steps—they're the best. And so if someone were just working SOP 8-C blindly, he'd just go I, II, III, see, and the guy didn't exteriorize. So he'd do I, II, III, and the fellow wouldn't exteriorize. So he'd do I, II, III, wouldn't exteriorize—hadn't exteriorized yet—go find an auditor I trained. That's it. Because the tricky part of all this is remedying the havingness. And he could go on through IV, V, VI, and VII if he were really hard up on the thing, and do a lot with the case, and probably exteriorize the case. But when a fellow's havingness is upset, it requires a method of exteriorization which rather exceeds it. It—this will only be about 25 percent of the cases—be less than 25 percent of the cases probably. Do you know that about 50 percent of the people you run into exteriorize on "Be three feet back of your head"?
Well, so on SOP 8-C an auditor not familiar—not further trained—simply should go over I, II, III, and then do Steps I, II, III, and then do Steps I, II, III. And if the guy didn't exteriorize by that time, so on, he could, if he knew of it, go into this method of exteriorization which utilizes effort and—remedies havingness and utilizes effort—specific step.
SOP 8-C is designed to have somebody outside and run. The thing is slanted at running a thetan who is exteriorized; that's its purpose. So, you consider method of exteriorization as a specialized technique. Now, there's a good reason why I'm doing that—good reason why it's designed that way. It's because some poor dog of a preclear is going to get churned over and beaten at and turned upside down and this way, and ridges blown this way and interrupted that way by the use of IV, V, VI, and VII while he's interiorized.
And you understand that you can use VII and so forth, and you can get along fine on a guy who's still inside. You can use some VI and you'll get along fine, I'm sure. But you don't have to and you shouldn't be running him on those steps interiorized. You should boot him out and run him outside.
So as long as we would leave, in a Standard Operating Procedure, the fact that we ran these things on somebody who was interiorized, we would get somebody busily churning up a preclear and churning up his banks and busting him around this way and that, and wrecking him practically. Getting him all restimulated, throwing Fac Ones into restimulation now, by running these things on somebody who was still inside. So we just put on the brakes and we say to the uninitiated that "You run Steps I and II and III. And if he isn't out yet, run Steps I and II and III. And if he's not out yet, run I and II and III; and if he's not out then, go find somebody from the clinical course." See, that's—or we say, "Well, here are some directions and if you want to follow these, all right, we don't take any responsibility for what happens."
This is based upon what man calls "experience." I have watched auditors using IV, V, VI and VII, and you'd simply think that they, in general, were just turning a crank on an unbearably heavy machine. And they're—they just forget all about exteriorization. They say, "This fellow's a V and that's all, and so we'll just run these steps." And the next thing you know, why, this fellow's banks are caving in and his anchor points are flying out over the left ear and all sorts of things are happening. And this guy is still standing there at the crank going round and round and round, and you keep picking these people up and patching them up and picking them up and patching them up and you say, "What are you doing to this person?"—to this auditor, "What are you doing?"

95

96

4 DECEMBER 1953
"Well, we're just running this Step V, that's all, and that's all."
And you'll say, "Well, when I patched him up, when I got him patched up and got the auditing off and so forth, I just said to him 'Be three feet back of your head,' and he couldn't make it the first time. So I told him to put his (quote) 'hands' (unquote) on his shoulders and hold himself back there for a moment and he did. And then we ran Duplication and Spacation back there until his perception on space turned up, and then he got his space oriented and he's all right now. Why didn't you do this?"
The fellow says, "Oh, is that the way you do it?" and you go over this and you explain it. But as long as that would sit in SOP 8 saying, "You run IV, V, VI and VII," that was the hole—there was a hole—in SOP 8, and it was the hole of application. Your auditor didn't take these as exteriorization steps. He said, "The guy is inside and I can't get him out, so I'm now going to process him with these steps."
So skip it. We'll take I, II, and III, which are patently exteriorization steps and then we'll add to that a pat method of exteriorization, and design SOP 8-C to be run on somebody who is outside.
It just happens—this is by an accident—that I, II, and III exteriorize people. They're what should be run on a thetan who has been exteriorized. And I don't care how badly he's been exteriorized or how poorly he can perceive or whatever else he can do, if you've got him exteriorized, you're running I, II and III, IV, V, VI and VII. Because if he's exteriorized, he isn't going to ruin himself. See, he doesn't churn up that old thing called the reactive mind. I, II, and III doesn't—these don't churn him up while he's still inside.
It would surprise you how many tests I have had run on this. This is one of the most careful investigations that was probably ever undertaken. And the number of tests which have been run by people picking these things up and just running them through during the past year, particularly, are astonishing. I mean, there are just series, series, series, series, and we find out this is uniformly the case.
This is the conclusion we just—that anybody would reach on this. And I reached this conclusion, then had it borne out in actual practice, just right across the boards, is: Any processing which you do on somebody inside his head is going to eventually do him no good. You got that? That's a pretty brutal thing to state, isn't it? But the cases that have been checked on this have, after a period of time, shown no gain. You can erase an engram, you can erase engrams for maybe—skilled; good, skilled erasure—for about two hundred hours, that's all. But that's real skilled auditing, that's the best.
Routine running of engrams, your pc doesn't last thirty hours. He'll get better for thirty hours and then the auditor has normally left him stuck in this session unfinished, and that session unfinished, and this engram half run out, and the fellow contradicted and a bunch of phrases on the banks—"Now, what does that phrase mean to you?" and so on. And the guy just after about thirty hours, why, he just didn't need any more.
Well, the same thing happened in psychoanalysis, so we didn't do anything new. You get somebody working in psychoanalysis—if anybody was going to make a gain in psychoanalysis, he made it in the first five hours. And if anybody went beyond five hours, if they had some of these (dash) —lack of adjective— (dash) sitting in consulting rooms . . . These guys—I don't think they ever read anything by Freud. I don't.
I've talked to a lot of them. I talked to one. He said he was a "Horn-eye" man. That's actually—the name is "Horney." Yeah, he was a "Horn-eye" man.

PLAN OF SOP 8-C
And I said, "Is that so? Yeah, I see you have a book by Karen Horney over in your bookcase."
"Oh," he says, "do I?"
I said, "Yes," thinking he was joking, and I said, "but you don't have any of her advanced works. That's the popular work."
"I don't know," he said, "I've never read it."
I said, "You ever read any of her advanced works?"
"No."
"You ever take a course given by her?"
"No."
"Did you ever talk to anybody that practiced what she practices?"
"No. No."
"Well," I said, "how the hell did you get to be a 'Horn-eye' man?"
"Oh," he said, "I sort of favor it."
What room? (audience laughter)
Now, you get this fellow chipping away on somebody's psyche, what's going to happen? He's in there to put in time. That's all he's going to do, he's going to put in time. And his method of putting in time is to tell the person they ought to talk, and then make them talk.
You know, it's a funny thing, but if you could make somebody talk who isn't talking, and persuade them that they have got a good reason to talk and just keep them talking—not thinking, you understand, just talking—if you could keep them from thinking and just keep them talking, you would break some communication blocks. You couldn't help it. But if any are going to be busted by the process, they'll be busted in the first five hours. And the total gain on the process is to permit somebody to communicate a little better. So you get a slight communication jump—almost undetectably slight. There's psychoanalysis. And its limitation in terms of time, you see, was very sharp.
Now, as they started mauling this fellow over and let him go a year of four hours a week, two years at four hours a week, seven years at four hours a week—uhh! Boy, we've got an installed automaticity called a psychoanalyst after the end of the first year. And when the psychoanalyst happens to mention that he ought to bark, the fellow just suddenly goes, "Woof, woof," and this is very handy.
Now, there's a fellow down in Los Angeles who's a third-rate hypnotist— he's a first-rate American or Western hypnotist but boy, that is about eighth-rate. What these guys don't know about hypnotism; they're all hypnotizable, all these hypnotists—very hypnotizable. They don't know any basic mechanisms for it and it's very, very, very amusing when they're giving a demonstration, to cross-hypnotize them. Anyway . . . You wind up with one hypnotized subject with a hypnotized operator, and you're running the operator to run the subject. It's a very, very amusing setup.
Now, I'm not being snide about these boys, but gee, the fellow who doesn't know hypnotism from the word go, gets into hypnotism, ought to know better. You might say the gods have already triggered that rat race. And if the fellow who is really begging you for processing—really begging you for processing— isn't a hypnotist or hasn't been one, why, I'm quite surprised. Those are the guys that really get down and beg. They say, "Christ, do something for me. Do something, do something—do anything." And they practice self-hypnosis and broad hypnosis in general, and they've practiced it so long and interfered with so much self-determinism and looked at so much and caused so much and created

97

98

4 DECEMBER 1953
so much unconsciousness, that they're out on their feet. And of course, when a fellow is an experienced hypnotist, he's practically out on his feet.
See, he's just looked at unconsciousness—just take Q and A now: "Is the fellow hypnotized? Is the subject hypnotized or isn't it? Yes, I guess the subject is hypnotized." Huh-huh! Next subject: "Now, is the subject hypnotized," the operator is saying, "or isn't he hypnotized? Yeah, he's hypnotized." Oh, oh, oh, oh—Q and A, Q and A, Q and A. And eventually somebody conies along and all you got to do is make one light pass right in front of their eyes as they're hypnotizing somebody and say, "Sleep," and they go flutter, flutter, flutter, flutter, flutter. And you hypnotize them with all of their hypnotizing of others.
I don't ask you to do that—I'm telling you what's wrong with these boys. You just run Q and A on unconsciousness: putting unconsciousnesses into things, putting hypnotic feeling into things, putting obedience and disobedience into things, and they run out. All right.
That's by the way, a tricky trick—putting things into things—because it gives the preclear space. It's very tricky. It gives him—it's a covert method of making him make anchor points out of emotional surges. All right.
Let's look over what an auditor is trying to do. And we find out that he's trying to get the preclear out of the idea that he is energy and can be something, which is to say give him space, but that the best of the preclear is simply to know.
Now, so we get this—the motion the auditor is making is to disabuse a thought-space-energy-time production unit of the fact that it is space, energy or time. Now, that's the motion. See, he's going to do that.
Well now, the biggest single jump he will make in there is to say, "Be three feet back of your head," you see, and the fellow is. See how simple? "Be three feet back of your head," and the fellow is and the fellow says, "What do you know? I am not a mass of energy called a body." See, that's a big jump there.
So you go on from there to exercise his talents and separate him out, but you'll get up to a certain point and he will have to be drilled—that's up above the point of Theta Clear—he has to be drilled on creation. Oh, but lots! Why you get unhappy. See, anything is better than nothing. Havingness is very desirable. And if he can't have directly, why, he'll be quite upset, so you have to drill him so that he can have bountifully. Okay.
What should you be doing—following through each new step, new idea I give you every day?
Male voice: No. I, II, III and help him get exteriorized. Stay with it.
That's right. Use I, II, III and this other one—method of exteriorization. Comes under the methods of exteriorization of those people who are having trouble with havingness.
Anybody who doesn't exteriorize easily is having trouble with havingness, only that. And you can put that up in—it's too old fashioned to put things up in letters of fire; you can put this up in this flaming nylon paint. That's because, you see, letters of fire have to be fed all the time for new fire or something of the sort, and this nylon paint just goes on glowing forever. But put this up: If he doesn't exteriorize, he's having trouble with havingness.
How many ways are there to remedy havingness? Well, there's a lot of them, and the way you remedy it when he's exteriorized are Steps IV, V, VI, and VII. But remedying it while he's still inside is a little bit too easy; it is too easy to use all this fanfare of Steps IV, V, VI, and VII on him. I mean that's something like a doctor going to do an operation on somebody, he brings in a tool chest and saws and augers and so forth.

PLAN OF SOP 8-C
A ship's doctor one time pulled a good gag that way. A fellow had a wart— it was going to be cut off. So the doctor had a couple of carpenter's mates down there with tool chests, and he kept unpacking saws and braces and bits and power tools and so forth, and then he took his penknife out of his pocket and cut the wart off.
Well, anyway, that's just about what an auditor does when he suddenly hauls in IV, V, VI and VII to exteriorize somebody. He'll get him so bogged down with tools, that he won't push anybody out of his head. Because he— evidently they just completely lose track of what they're trying to do with IV, V, VI and VII. And these steps are very essential on a thetan exteriorized, and very nonessential on somebody who is still inside. They're nonessential. You're not going to remedy anything. There's too much of it, that's all. You can have dredges and scoop shovels going just endlessly, and you won't get out all of the concepts having to do with this or that, something of the sort.
Cases don't exteriorize more easily because they've had these full steps run on them. They exteriorize with greater difficulty. Because the effort of exteriorization of something which isn't stuck to anything, you see, is non¬existent. Somebody who's been having trouble exteriorizing somebody is going to sit back one of these days, I hope very shortly, and laugh himself slightly silly.
Now, we're going to take this unit here which doesn't have anything stuck to anything. It's going to be right in the middle of the bowl of this ashtray here, see. And there it is in the bowl of the ashtray, it's not stuck to anything. There's no magnetic pull between the ashtray and it; all this unit can do is know and create. He can't stick to anything. It—absolutely impossible for any barrier to be put up that it couldn't go through. I mean, this was—is the impossibility— to put up a barrier that the thetan can't penetrate.
People in this universe have been trying to solve that the length of time this universe has been in existence. How do you put up a barrier that a thetan can't get into or out of—through? You just can't do it. So we have to have religion and all sorts of things in order to assist them. All right.
So here sits this unit of energy—now, he's knowingness, he has an indi¬viduality, he has a personality. Now, of course, here he is and you're going to— you want him here—over here, outside this bowl of this ashtray. This is to demonstrate to him he isn't the ashtray.
What he most knows while he's sitting right here—he thinks he knows— is that he's an ashtray, merely because he's surrounded by an ashtray. And now you want to get him outside the bowl of the ashtray, at which moment he will suddenly know with great certainty, "Gee, what do you know, I'm not an ashtray." See? That's what you're trying to do. And you're going to come up here with a scoop shovel and a dragnet and jimmies and hammers and assembly belts and conveyor belts and Mack trucks and so forth, to move this energy unit—which has no mass and no energy—three feet. Huh-uh.
The essential missing ingredient in the problem is that the thetan is having trouble with havingness. And the only reason he doesn't get out of the body— believe me, the only reason he doesn't get out—is because he thinks he'll lose some more havingness, and he figures he's lost enough, thank you. And he has havingness confused with knowingness.
Now, the borderline between Step III and Step IV, and the dividing line, is just that—knowingness becomes a barrier. "One can only perceive if one stops one's sight on a barrier," is what happens just below III. So all perception depends on stopping sight on barriers. See, perception shouldn't have to consist of this, but it does. All right.

99

100

4 DECEMBER 1953
So knowingness becomes data. It does not become just a potential know. See, it becomes a datum; becomes a barrier.
Now, another thing happens between Step III and Step IV, and at Step III a person has drifted toward but is not yet arrived at the solidity of facts. And from Step III bottom, when he goes into IV, V—facts are getting more and more solid. And the absence of a fact from Step—the bottom of Step III down, very certainly, and less so just above that level—the absence of a fact is an uncertainty. And this is one of those complete reverse postulates: "If the fact isn't there, I am uncertain about it." See, the postulate has to follow immediately before that: "I can only know about it if it is a barrier."
Certainty lies in barriers, and that comes on this basis: "Everybody agrees this is good and solid, so it's good and solid. So I can know it is good and solid"—and then, "so I can know it, so I can know," is your gradient scale. Way up, he says, "Everybody knows this is good and solid, so I can know this is good and solid too, and then I can know it," and then his postulate goes down to "Well, it's good and solid, I can know."
I don't know what a wall is ever going to tell you, honest to Pete, but I've looked at people that I'm sure thought they went into vast conversations on the subject of Euclid! Knowingness is a barrier. See, he can only know a barrier. That's below III, he can only know a barrier. So that an absence of a barrier is an uncertainty; an absent barrier, uncertainty.
If we've got a hole out there, we get this uncertainty—"What's in it?" "What's in it?" Well, anything is in it you want to put there, but there's nothing residually in it. As a matter of fact, there's not even a nothingness there unless you know it's there.
So you get people who look out into an empty space where there's no barrier and they say, "I wonder if there's anything in it?" And down by V, the fellow's got it all black and he's saying, "I wonder what's in this? What's in this?" Well, I can tell you what's in it: there's some blackness in it that he put there. What postulate is behind this? "The blackness is there so I can get lost and it can get lost and we can all be lost and we can be lost and have a barrier, too—and what a wonderful solution that is." Gee, lost and have a barrier too! And there you've solved their cake and they're eating it at the same time, and so there's your problem solved.
So, what's this business about an uncertainty? At—there's a change of postulate—an inversion has taken place on a preclear who is between Step III and IV, still interior. And there's between Step III and IV exterior too, which is the same place but it's so much—many more harmonics higher on the Tone Scale that it's incalculable. And that is, is—the difference is: Above III, the absence of something is simply an invitation to put something in it—III up, that's just an invitation to put something in it; and III down, the absence of something is, it's probable that somebody else has already put something in it, but it's uncertain, so the only certain thing is, "It's where somebody else has put something."
And this is the difference between self-determinism and other-determinism. If one is well self-determined, he can look out into or create vast areas of nothingness and know there's nothing there and below that he can't do that. He thinks it's up to somebody else to put it there. And he'll sit there while you're auditing him and patiently wait—patiently wait for something to move him outside.
Now, I checked this up one time, there was one preclear patiently waited for about 250 hours for something to suddenly put him outside, some fashion or another.

PLAN OF SOP 8-C
Another one, right on this borderline, responded very easily when he was made to run the idea that his body was going to reach in and lift him outside. Well, not because this was in restimulation but because he was doing it all the time, he needed the body to move him around to a point where I told him to be further back out of his head, and he actually grabbed for himself, and his hand closed on him as a thetan. And, of course, didn't close on anything, and his thetan didn't care anything about that barrier. But he saw his hand closing on him—his body's hand. It scared him half out of his wits, but he was expecting himself to be—to move, you see, and he was thinking the body ought to move him. Somebody else must do it. Something else must do it.
Well now a remedy of havingness, then, is your answer. And this brings about your method of exteriorization. The remedy of havingness. And this is done partially in Step I, where people are made to put desire into things, into barriers here and there—as well as ridicule and so forth—but to put desire into things.
Now, if—what's barring the case from exteriorizing is actually his desire to have with certainty, and know that he has. He wants to be reassured of his havingness. And so these first three steps actually, to a marked degree, remedy this situation.
Well, if you've gone through these two or three times and he doesn't get out then, it's probably one little portion of Step III—rearrangement of anchor points in his body; he's got to rearrange them so as to stop so many body flows and so on—remedy that havingness and straighten it up before he can be outside of it. Or it comes under the heading of his desire for the barricades around him, so forth, is such that he's simply actually caving them in. And he's just caving everything in on him so that in every direction he finds nothing but pressure.
A little process on this—we'll have to go into this further, but the process is, you get the thetan to offer you—what's the thetan going to refuse you? What will this person refuse to give you? What will this person give you? Not give you? What would this person accept? Not accept? Not run to start up flows or anything of the sort, but just to show them that their basic trouble is havingness. Because you'll find a person who won't step out of his head wouldn't give up anything. I swear if he had a rattlesnake in his pocket, he wouldn't hand it to you. If he can go through Steps I, II, III; I, II, III—you know, twice—and not be able to step easily out of his head, that's probably the case: If he had a rattlesnake he wouldn't hand it to you; and he'd probably accept from you anything, including a bullet.
You have gravity, inverted attention—all of these things are secondary to this primary thing, the remedy of havingness.
Now, how do you use SOP 8-C? Just like I've been saying here.
Well, what should you be using right now and what should you be doing as auditors? You should be using what I've given you here—SOP 8-C. And your first goal should be the exteriorization of the preclear. And if you haven't exteriorized the person that you are working on—you and your other team member—yet, then what's wrong with that person is, is they haven't enough havingness and you're asking them to give up a big piece of havingness, namely a body. And they're just arguing with you in various fashions as to why they shouldn't give it up, that's all.
So, I want you to boot them out. Use effort—you know, touch, impact. Make them put their hands on their shoulders and push themselves back from themselves and so forth, these other techniques. I used approximately the same technique yesterday on two preclears that had been stumbling all over

101

102

4 DECEMBER 1953
the place. And this one that I'm asking you to do is the easy one. Now, let's just get them outside so we can get to work.
What's holding them in there is not enough havingness. So they're building bodies, they're holding bodies, they're holding everybody else's body, they're holding even terrifically aberrative people—anything that looks like a barrier, anyplace all up and down the bank, is so desirable that they're—caved them all in on themselves.
Now, one of the remedies for it is to have them just start running desire in the walls. You know, just desire for barriers, desire for barriers, desire for barriers. Fill them. That's part of Step I, though.
So, there you've got it.
Okay.

LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization
A lecture given on 4 December 1953

This is December—December the 4th, first afternoon lecture. This after¬noon, I'm going to do a check-up with you as to—we'll reverse the flow this afternoon. I'm going to do a check-up with you as to how you're exteriorizing people.
And let's start in with you.
Male voice: With me?
Yeah. How do you exteriorize somebody?
Male voice: Oh, do the first three steps as you have them listed in, or given them to us in Clinical Procedure.
Mm-hm.
Male voice: First starts out with, oh, "Where are you not? Where are you not thinking?" And locate the person.
Now, I asked you another question entirely. I asked you how you exteriorize somebody.
Male voice: How you exteriorize him? You've got to collect him together first and scare . . .
Getting real interesting.
Male voice:. . . scare him out of his head any way you can get him out, I guess.
Mm-hm. It's getting very, very interesting. Now tell me how to exteriorize somebody.
Male voice: Ask him to be three feet back of his head.
That's right, that's right.
Male voice: That or back him out gradually.
All right. All right. So there's somebody out of his head. Okay. Now, how do you exteriorize somebody who says he's there, he guesses—he doesn't know. What do you say at that moment? Do you say at that moment, "You're there—you know you're there. You see this club?"
Male voice: No.
Or do you audit according to newer methods? How do you do that, what do you do then?
Male voice: You check him by, "Are you in your ear?" Or "In your nose?"
Mm-hm.
Male voice: Or "Back of your eyes?"
Mm-hm.
Male voice: So on and so forth. And pretty soon, you've got him backed out.

103

104

4 DECEMBER 1953
No, no, what do you do at that point? We've got him out more or less—he doesn't know, he isn't quite sure.
Male voice: Oh.
What do we do then? He isn't certain.
Male voice: You give him the certainty that he's got it. And that's where he says he has it, you know? Or he says he isn't.
It's about time we had this lecture—you run SOP 8-C.
Male voice: Oh.
Oh.
Male voice: After you get him out, yes.
No matter how uncertainly he is out, SOP 8-C takes care of the remainder. Matter of fact, it will back him out without asking him out, but that's asking too much.
Now, let me make a little note: there is one slight difference there that possibly may have escaped you. You ask him if he is out. Now, this appears to be one of those nonsensical questions . . . You say, "Be three feet back of your head," and he says, "Yes." And he does a lot of other things and says, "Yes." It might occur to you to be a nonessential step to say, "Are you back of your head?" That might occur to you to be entirely nonessential. But believe me, it's so essential that a Step I preclear who audits like a breeze, like waving a small stick through the air—I mean, there's nothing to it—went five sessions in the hands of an auditor who is otherwise a good auditor, getting pictures of himself as a thetan doing these things. The boy had a slight case of using viewpoints— the mildest case of using viewpoints imaginable—and it had just never occurred to him that he could be three feet back of his head.
He was sold on what is laughingly called "modern science" to the point where he knew he was a body. And as soon as it was explained to him I wanted him, a personality, him a being, three feet back of his head, he put another being back there and threw that one away, and . . .
"But I'm a body," he says.
And so I said, "Well, on what course"—because he obviously was a very mild case—"on what course were you instructed that you were a body?" so on.
And he said, "Well. .."
And I said, "Did you ever take science in high school?"
"Yes, yes. Majored in it. Ha-ha!"
There we go. I simply straightwired—just on that little point alone— back to third-grade hygiene. They get them real early, see? And heaved him out with main strength and awkwardness. And said, "Now, to hell with it! You're not a body. Be three feet back of your head!"
So he says, "Well, all right." And then he says, "Well, what do you know, I'm not."
This was a boy, a young boy—you could do that with him. And I just shortened up the whole thing, just with a very rapid Straightwire, and then without arguing any further, just told him to be back there. And he discovered his certainty immediately.
Now, the point I'm making here is that the boy had been audited five times, five long sessions, to remedy a condition—something somebody never should have started auditing him on, you see. They shouldn't have started auditing this boy to remedy a condition, exteriorized him so he could fix up something—hm-mm, wrong goal, entirely wrong goal.
So the goal involved here is to make a Theta Clear. And a Theta Clear has nothing to do with making somebody minus an ingrown toenail, see? Because

LRH QUESTIONS THE CLASS ON EXTERIORIZATION
the way to fix him up so you don't remedy an ingrown toenail is to audit him for an ingrown toenail. That's a fact. Because you validated the condition is the first reason why not; and the second reason why is, you're asking him to get into shape a piece of MEST, so you certainly better have a being that can handle MEST. All right.
Now, we got that? So that little question is inserted in there. Now we will go over this all over again. How do you exteriorize somebody?
Male voice: "Be three feet behind your head."
That's right.
Male voice: "Are you there?"
That's right, "Are you there?" And if he is, he says, "Well, I don't know whether I am or not. I—I don't know—mmmmm . . ."What do you do?
Male voice: Negative location, then.
What do you do?
Male voice: Oh! Start out with Clinical Procedure, Step number one.
That's right. That's right. Now let's go over it again.
Male voice: "Be three feet behind your head. Are you there?"
That's right.
Male voice: Clinical, Step number one.
That's right. Now, what other steps of Clinical Procedure?
Male voice: Follow straight on through.
That's right. Now, sometimes for the sake of randomity, when somebody is fairly certainly back of his head, why, I'll skip a step, and then go back and get it. When the person's worried about something specific and I think it'll speed things up or something of the sort, why, I'll occasionally skip a step and then go back and get it later.
For instance, if he tells you immediately, "Yes, I'm three feet back of my head—but you know, the room keeps going this way."
You say, "Okay, put up eight anchor points to hold it straight. Now, put them up there, you got it there?" And then go on further.
But it is a problem which can use a great deal of judgment on the part of an auditor. But I would say when you've exteriorized fifty or a hundred people, why, you will know how to do it faster than SOP 8 -C. You'll know how to do it faster—after you've exteriorized fifty or a hundred people. All right.
Now, let's go over it again. How do you exteriorize somebody?
Male voice: "Be three feet behind your head."
That's right, and what do you do then?
Male voice: "Are you there?"
Mm-hm. And he says "No."
Male voice: And he says, "No?" You start in on negative location, and Step number I, II, and III, and I, II, and III and I, II, and III until he is three feet back.
That's right. But after he's done Step I, II, and III, and I, II, and III, then what do you do? He's still not three feet back of his head.
Male voice: And he's still not.
What do you do then?
Male voice: Oh, there's a problem of either space or havingness or—well, not beingness, that's a little higher up. There's something he's hanging on—he's hanging on to the body.
He's been through it... He's been through it... He's been through it nine times. What do you do?
See, he's hanging on to the body, that's obvious. He's not three feet back

105

106

4 DECEMBER 1953
of his head—that's the first conclusion you could make. Now, what's the next— what's wrong with him?
Male voice: He's—havingness is wrong with him.
What else is wrong with him?
Male voice: He won't get out! (audience laughter)
Come on, what's wrong with him again? You've been through them three times and he's still not out. What's still wrong with him?
Male voice: By that time, it's the auditor that's wrong.
Mm-hm, mm-hm. Mm-hm. Two things wrong with him.
Male voice: Because he hasn't done them right.
There's two things wrong with him. That's right, but there's still two things wrong with him, which boil down to one thing wrong with him, and you said it—havingness. And the other one wrong with him is, of course, what follows with havingness—space. But you were right.
What are you letting me shake you off the drill for?
Male voice: Well, I don't know, but it didn't seem . . .
That's mean of me, isn't it?
Male voice: Yes.
That's real mean.
You gave me the right answer. All right, know when you know, will you?
Now, the first three steps to a large degree, though—the way I'm putting them together right this minute—I have put enough emphasis on those two points as we go through it, that the probability of somebody still being in his head after the first three steps are run is getting very slight.
But supposing he is still in his head. Now what do you do?
Male voice: Well, if he's hanging on to the body . . .
Mm.
Male voice:. . . got to find out why he's hanging on. There's some fault or some loss in his life that's been too much. Discover what that is with an E-Meter and . . .
You can.
Male voice:. . . work on that.
Mm-hm. You could. What else might you do?
Male voice: Some effect that he's had, emotional effect, and have that placed around in walls, get him . . .
You've got that cared for in the first three steps. Although (this probably shouldn't be on a tape)—but the most famous case, the most famous case we've got—we've got not here, he's not in this unit.
The most—oh! Oh, this—you know when you, those—we tried to cover them up, but those blood stains which you see in the hall over there at 726 are places where auditors have blown their brains out over this case. (audience laughter)
On this decision on the auditor: "Put fear into those walls—and as far as I'm concerned, you're going to be doing that for the next forty hours," the case exteriorized. This case carried along—it would look at you sadly, sadly.
"Now, did the session do you any good?"
He'd look at you sadly. "No."
It was always with that quiet little voice. But this is easily the most famous and the "worsest" case I ever saw or confronted anyplace. Not in terms of sanity—this guy is eminently sane. He just couldn't get out of his head. This is just impossible. Okay.
Now, what you would do would be, to some degree, establish if there was some weird, impossible, stuck-up, gummed-up reason—that's right. Because

LRH QUESTIONS THE CLASS ON EXTERIORIZATION
you've got a case obviously that's dealing with a reason as very senior to everything else. You E-Meter him. But there's even another way of doing it. I'm going to tell you about that today.
[to student] That's very good. Thank you very much.
You know your answers were all wrong, don't you?
Male voice: Yes, sir.
You realize they're all wrong. Okay. That's very interesting. The estab-lishment of a certainty by repetition of action is a step which shouldn't be necessary to an auditor. But before he is in real good condition as a Theta Clear, it happens to be, at this time, necessary. After he's thrown a few people out of their heads and squared them up, he has no doubt about what he's doing.
And auditors are now starting to get back rather directly from preclears, the exact—rather uniformly—the exact effect that is the reason why the technique is being used.
In other words, we—technique used, reason why shows up instantly. The same reason why as you've been getting right here—you know, the fellow "comes to the conclusion." These things are hitting rather uniformly.
After you've exteriorized a few people, you'll know what you're doing— very, very well know what you're doing.
What do you do after you get a preclear out of his head?
Male voice: Out of his head? Well, that differs with the preclear.
You what?
Male voice: Differs slightly with the preclear.
Uh-huh. What do you do?
Male voice: Well, I do what I think is fit at the particular time to do.
Uh-huh. Good. What do you do?
Male voice: I make SOP 8—dangerous places, familiar places.
That's right. What else do you do?
Male voice: I go on to SOP.
What have you been doing that was necessary to vary this? What problems have you run into in the people you've been exteriorizing, necessitated a variation from what you've gotten here in the last couple of weeks?
Male voice: Now, I'm afraid I must admit candidly that there's no need for any variations from SOP 8.
Well, you must admit that candidly. (audience laughter) Are you saying that to be safe or because it's a fact?
Male voice: No, I'm saying it because I believe it to be a fact.
That's right.
Male voice: Definitely.
I shouldn't put this on tape either, but well, I asked him what you did after you got a pc out of his head and he looked at me very blankly, and—he looked at me very blankly. And he was auditing a couple of—three, actually— very difficult cases. And he was getting results on these cases, maybe not with the speed he should have, but he was getting results.
What he was doing was probably exactly applying theory to the operation of the case. He was getting his results. And of course actually, that is—that's very good auditing, no doubt about that. But it hadn't occurred to him to codify the thing. And however, what we have here and what we've done is—far as practice is concerned, 8-C (he's talking about use 8, all right, that's good)—but 8-C takes the theory and there it is. I mean, that's the theory, only you use it in practice. That's the slight advance. It's almost direct.

107

108

4 DECEMBER 1953
For instance, it's inherent—I mean, you couldn't run on Orienting Straightwire, you couldn't run that without seeing that his mental condition depended to a great degree upon his ability to find himself. Which means orientation was the ne plus ultra as far as this case was concerned. And that that must be an operating process of existence which is senior to many others. And now you can't go down and—the same step—now, the same step, and start throwing barriers and emotions around (or the next step), and throw barriers, emotions and so forth, and start handling those, without recognizing that he was actually dealing with a problem of barriers. First, location, and then location amongst barriers. I mean it would just follow.
And then by the time you get to Step III, you've got space problems. And as soon as you've got these problems of space, it must be obvious that a thetan is terrifically dependent upon space, and that he's dependent on it in very peculiar ways, and the three universes is sitting in there right straight through, so here we go.
And if you did apply direct theory, just as it's been dug up and laid out here, you would just get SOP 8-C. I mean, that's all you'd get.
Yes?
Female voice: Ron, when I—before I came here, just as a relief, after I'd done all the heavy work, I would say to the preclear, "Okay, we're going to end this session. Now, give me your hand and let's walk on air."
Oh, this is wonderful. I was anchoring that preclear and he wasn't afraid. I didn't even know that was exteriorizing—now I see it. "Give me your hand and let's walk on air."
And one day, a woman—she wasn't being processed, she was in a group— and she said, "Oh, no you don't!" And the woman had cancer.
Mm-hm.
Female voice: But that—couldn't we do it—well, in our sessions here. Ron, you get it? "Give me your hand and let's walk on air." And the preclear would say, "Oh! This is wonderful."
Hm.
Female voice: Well, isn't that it? Then go home. You see the first time . . .
Hm.
Female voice: "Give me your hand . . ." I didn't know what I was doing.
You give them a hand?
Female voice: Yeah, "Give me your hand and let's walk on air."
You could, except that preclears who are in real good shape don't move.
Female voice: Hm ?
They don't move. Asking a preclear to move will sometimes bog him down, so you'd have that liability there.
Female voice: They go out feeling wonderful.
Well, I know, but what percentage? Now, when we're gunning for the whole bank . . .
Female voice: Mm-hm.
. . . you ask an awful lot of preclears to move and you're going to have a lot of difficulty.
I got ahold of a case once—this is quite interesting. I got ahold of a case once on that—now, I want to make this differentiation, right when it comes up.
Female voice: Yeah.
It's "Be three feet back of your head." It's not "Move three feet back of your head." Be three feet back.
Ran into a preclear who was all bogged down. Had been out a couple of

LRH QUESTIONS THE CLASS ON EXTERIORIZATION
times and was never out no more, nohow, and was very upset about the whole thing. And come to find out, he had been moved—he was Step I—but he'd been moved out of his head. And ever since, he'd been trying to move—and he'd never moved before, you see. And it had keyed him in all over the place.
Female voice: But that's not the same thing, Ron.
Yeah, I know, but you're still asking him to move.
Female voice: "Let's—let's . . ." Yeah, but I'm going with him—see, "Let's walk on air."
Well, all right.
Female voice: So he doesn't feel alone.
Sure, this is a perfectly good theory.
Female voice: Then the next time . . . Now I know what to do after that, you see. He's had a taste of it then.
Mm-hm.
Female voice: He says, "Oh, that's wonderful."
But you want your preclear to be places.
Female voice: Yeah, yeah, that's—/ know, yeah.
Now, I'm making this the differentiation. Now, let's get it very clear: We want him to be places. We don't want him to go into locomotion through places to obtain places. Because the second you ask your preclear to do this, if the preclear is at about Step level III or IV, you're liable to key him on this: "The distance is too great. To walk to it is impossible." To walk through space is the one thing he can't bear to do.
Now, distance is the enemy of havingness. And so we get him to move through the air, and a preclear who is at about III or IV, it might occur to him for the first time that he was moving. And if he thinks he's got to move outside— that's why we get away with it on a lot of cases. See, it's a sleeper that's in there—that's why we get away with just popping them out and them being places. See—"Be here. Be there." Whereas this case had been moving from one place to another, you see—been moving along from one place to another, arduously and horribly. "The distance is so great" is a facet, and an important one, of havingness.
Now, get this idea for a moment, you'll see what it is.
Let's get the idea of somebody 150 miles from here with a ten-dollar bill that he will give you, if you walk down there. No, no. Hm-mm.
Now let's get the idea of having to walk down to the corner for lunch. Now, there's some preclears that this would hit, just get the weariest feeling. They've got to move something or expend some energy in order to possess, and they don't and won't do it.
As a consequence, they just anchor themselves in one place with the havingness they've got, pull in everything that they can pull in and don't move.
It's because they feel they have to move that they anchor in their heads. See, because havingness—in order to have more havingness, they feel they would have to move to some other place. And the feeling of motion will require effort, and this effort they cannot expend. Thus, distance is the thing which is the nearest enemy to havingness for such a person. It needn't be at all, you see—he just thinks it is. That is definitely an aberration.
You see, he can be here and then be in San Francisco, and actually be in San Francisco; and if he's real good, make the clock in the Ferry Building stop or something. I mean, he'd be in San Francisco all right, and then be here again. In what space of time? Well, just about as short a space of time as you care to make a space of time.

109

110

4 DECEMBER 1953
Now, when he's real, real good he can be here and be in San Francisco too. That's getting real sharp. And then he can also be in Seattle.
Now, this is an interesting development. This is "scarcity of me," you know, that runs out. He's running out "scarcity of me." "There's only one me"— he's awfully sold on that idea. But it doesn't happen to be a correct idea at all.
The first time you take somebody that you think you have nicely polished up and you—they're a Theta Clear—and you say, "All right, now be here. Now be in San Francisco." He is in San Francisco, you know, and then he's here, and then he is in San Francisco, and then he's here. Now, you say—now, let's get this now—"Let's stay here and be in San Francisco." He'll put a viewpoint in San Francisco.
You say, "No, no, no, no. Ha-ha! Be here, and be in San Francisco."
He says, "Both places at once! What are you trying to do to me, tear me to pieces?"
And you say, "Yup."
And you work with him for a while, and you do it on a gradient scale. You don't process somebody that way, I just said if you asked somebody, that would be the result.
If you do it on a gradient scale, you have him be—not with viewpoints; you'd have him put viewpoints there and throw them away until he's sure he knows the difference—have him be, for instance, on both sides of a cigarette. See, very small space there: "Now, be on both sides of the cigarette."
He'll say, "Mmmmm, errrrr. Nope. Well, I can be on both sides of a crumb of tobacco." And here you go.
And you can eventually get him to be in San Francisco and be here; and that finally cures his major psychosis. And this is a psychosis with a thetan. I don't care how well off the fellow is—he's nuts as long as he thinks he's just in one place. He's really goofy. That's where you creep up to and break the next rung.
As long as he's only one, he has this "guard trouble" I was talking to you about this morning. You know, wouldn't it be nice if he had two bodies, but he'd have to put one in a vault. No, no. Have him be in one body and be asleep, and be in another body and operate. Now, he could do that with great ease and shift that way without leaving either body, see?
But the next one up that he would run into and balk at would be in both bodies fully attentive. And he'd find out he had an attention problem, see? He doesn't know which—which—he—he—let's see, how do you run both of these with his mind simultaneously?
I ran into this problem myself, and I know what I am talking about. And for about five days, without any help from anybody, I was practically daffy. Finally, at the end of about seven days or something like that, just gave it up— see, just gave it up. Just threw in the sponge, just got completely disgusted and so forth, and started running one mock-up at one time. But for the space of five days there, I was—almost went batty and then the space of two days, did successfully run two mock-ups simultaneously. And at the end of those two days, why, I threw in the sponge on it again.
And I was so befuddled about the whole thing, and my attention units were so crossed up, that it wasn't until—oh, I don't know, three, four, five weeks went by and I went back and picked up that doll. I was using another doll. See, dolls get thrown away rather easily. They're quite easy to manufacture, and you find dolls around the universe and you just run one experimentally.
And it was—great concentration I was able to get this doll picking up, monotonously, grains of sand and putting them aside, you see? And I'd be there

LRH QUESTIONS THE CLASS ON EXTERIORIZATION
watching the doll do this monotonous operation. But each time, putting the grain of sand just a little bit further out, see, so that we would get an eventual difference of motion of the doll. Because the problem was how to create two motions and observe differently two different sets of motions simultaneously.
And I practiced on it also out on the highway, driving two cars! I can tell you, Homo sap—needn't worry, he's not quite conscious. And it's the easiest thing in the world—most people driving along are doing something inattentive like that and so forth—is just to sit up and steer the car and speed it up and slow it down and so forth. He's driving all automatically anyhow, he's got a ridge sitting there.
And if you put a beam on his ridge, and just short-circuit his automatic driving ridge to the dead end of the car battery or to the frame, he stops driving the car and doesn't ever know that he stops driving the car because nobody calls it to his attention. He's real low on attention; his attention is just almost not there at all.
You try to drive two cars simultaneous—try to do this and try to do that. I was trying to work this thing out, see, and get back to where I felt I was doing something.
Well, I finally got this doll sorting out these grains of sand, and sorting them out and sorting them out. And then I got real hot and I got two dolls doing it—sorting them out and sorting them out. But it only worked as long as one was sorting out pebbles and the other was sorting out grains of sand. And then I finally got it so two dolls would sort out grains of sand, and I could tell which doll was sorting out which grain of sand at which moment, and what I was doing where I was.
At that time, I almost blew up, however. Came back down to one mock-up. Mostly because I was simply trying to work out the drills that one would go through, I had no further interest in the problem.
But there is where effort comes in. There is where you get thought into effort, and get thought and effort all mixed up—that's two attentions simultaneously. And that's baffling—very baffling.
You feel thetawise, I mean, just as a thetan, like you've got to sort of set your teeth, if you can get the—that's the MEST phrase that'd go along with it. You set your teeth as a thetan, you see, and get this emotion over here on the right, see, and get it going around—you got this one going along here on the right, see? And then sit there and look cross-eyed at it. (audience laughter)
Well, that's the hard way to do it. That's the very hard way to do it. But that was just in the process of running drills. So it's no wonder that a fellow drifts down to the "only one."
Furthermore, this is a bombardment universe, and we'll come into what's wrong with that. That's just an aside. There are methods of doing this which are much easier as I just showed you. You just do it on a gradient scale, which is what I found out eventually.
You have a fellow be in two places at once, and you get him very expert at being in half a hundred places simultaneously, viewing each one of them with great interest, and then you get him into motion and action in a couple of places and he finds it's very easy to do. But that's SOP 80. It's very easy to keep track of two motions when you can be in all these places simultaneously.
But you start moving something in two places at once, and keep track of two automobiles and two roads and two different sets of state laws . . . And one time I did this on—driving a car on the left-hand side of the street in London, and a car on the right-hand side of the street someplace else. Anybody

111

112

4 DECEMBER 1953
who listens to this tape and doesn't know Scientology will think I'm crazy. (audience laughter) Well, I thought I was for a while—two different sets of traffic laws, two different concentrations.
Now, a man can change his patterns of motion and action as much as he has lots of attention. So what about the fellow who is pinned in his head? What about this guy? Basically, he's having problems with havingness. Space is uncertain, and solidity is certain. So he avoids space and its uncertainty, in favor of any material certainty which he can touch. All right.
So far, so good. But you understand that once a person has done this, he's hitting into the GE's squirrel cage. He's hitting into the GE very badly, because the GE believes that his main attention should be down—that's gravity. And he is not only short on attention, the GE is fixed in attention—completely fixed— and you hit a dwindling spiral.
Now, this is a bombardment universe. Every time you turn around, there is another set of waves hitting any object. Anytime you want some randomity, you can find some more types of waves which are incoming. If you said, "This is an incoming universe," you'd certainly be right.
MEST eyes, if they saw at all, would depend upon photons bouncing off something and coming toward one. Well, those photons actually accumulate— they actually hit the individual. It believes it's under a bombardment, you see—any piece of MEST.
And I think after something has been standing there—if you cancelled out the erosion factor—after something had been standing there so long, it would probably have more mass in this universe. And you'd probably gain mass just because of this constant bombardment.
Now, you take sound—sound hits you 360 degrees, right—or all the way around the periphery; it doesn't just hit the ears. A person is always in the middle of a sphere of sound—always. Just—see, if I stop talking here for a moment, it just—you think this is a silent room. Well, just listen to the sounds in it. (pause)
Now get how many directions those are coming from. (pause)
That's 360 degrees worth.
Now, in such a wise, you have light. Light does the same thing, and all other things.
Now, I'm not trying to validate this "new inflow" barrier, but there is why the thetan apparently dwindles in size, dwindles in space, and dwindles on down. Well, he starts fighting being the center of such a sphere, and of course, he really isn't any bigger than that. See, there's the joke—he starts fighting his own size.
So first he starts expanding outwards, and then his next step is to contract inwards. And these are on a spiral basis. And his next motion, you see, next— not motion, you know, this is not fast—he starts expanding outwards on the basis of years, you see. And then he gets out to a certain limit, and he starts contracting inwards and does that for years. And then he'll try to expand outward again and does that for years, and then he tries to come inward again and does that for years. So that you get the mystic belief in "concentric shells of beingness," if you've ever heard of that.
But they actually exist—they can be perceived, but what is being perceived isn't quite what they said it was. They thought it was the "shells of experience." In other words, you had a life and then you got another shell, and you had a life and you got another shell and so forth. This is balderdash. But the point is that they do have concentric shells, and it's "What is the significance of

LRH QUESTIONS THE CLASS ON EXTERIORIZATION
these concentric shells?" that balled them up—not "Are there concentric shells around the being?"
And you'll find that preclears who are having difficulty exteriorizing have sets of shells inside their own heads. There is sort of a little being, you know, it's this little shell, and then there's a little bit bigger shell, and a little bit bigger shell. They often can just—just sense these things. They're ridges.
What kind of ridges? Well, as a thetan, they have resisted. They have begun to resist something, and then it has eventually overwhelmed them. Well, as long as they were resisting it, they were going out toward it, and in the case of a 360-degree sphere, they simply developed a larger sphere than themselves.
A thetan is his own size, and he fights being made smaller. This is, you see, nonsense, because he can't be made any smaller. He is his own size. He conceives himself to be about the size of a small navy bean or a small pea or something like that. And he wouldn't get any smaller or any bigger if he lived to be eighty thousand billion years old, except as he builds up ridges and calls those himself.
Hence, the genus of the body. A body is as big as the average impacts it has received over the evolutionary line. That is a direct law which modifies evolution. It is designed. Don't ever think that a body isn't designed, they are designed. Darwin, running around, did a wonderful job in most respects but he himself sort of exhibited the evidence of a tail when he started talking about "natural selection." You know, that's "the MEST universe does it all, does it all, does it all. Let's all be scientific, scientific, and mud, mud, mud." Because he said that it would be the difference of climates—it was the survival of the fittest.
And I had that explained to me one day. There was—family had a number of cats that had kittens—one of these cats had kittens, and one kitten had more fits than the others, and the rest of the cat's kittens died. But that one there that had more fits than the others, it lived, so that's the "survival of the fittest." So we got the thing figured out finally so it did make sense.
When anybody comes along and tells you that something exists without a basic design, that if somebody . . . "There's no pattern," he says, "there isn't any shape. Beauty is by accident. All things are just the combination of old forms, and nobody thought it up. Everything just sort of happened, and the reason life is on Earth is because there was a sea of ammonia, and it generated some H plus 6 O gel and this combined accidentally with a virus, and that made everybody virulent." And this conclusion has been reached so many times by men who should know better. It's been reached by men who wouldn't drive a car—who wouldn't actually drive a car with no gasoline in it. It's been reached by men who would be otherwise reasonable in their actions, and yet they get into a classroom and they go mad. They go mad. They say, "Ammonia and so on, and there's the virus, and it just all sprung up, and then there was 'spontaneous frogation' occurred all over the universe, and that's life. And if you don't think you're mud, we're going to fix your clock."
"Have you joined the Communist Party lately?" is the next line to that, by the way. They have to make people believe they're mud.
Basic design. A body would never have achieved anything even vaguely resembling beauty, or have any beautiful attribute—whether of a body of a butterfly or a human being—unless there was some intention toward beauty.
And I've never seen a beautiful impact. I've heard impacts described as a "beautiful impact" when struck by somebody like Joe Louis in the old days. But I have just never seen, really, what was actually a beautiful impact.

113

114

4 DECEMBER 1953
But I have seen some beautiful designs. So running along with all these other modifying factors, and actually prior to, senior to, the modifying factors, are design factors—intentional design factors. So we have all of life following along on this basis.
Now, what a person believes he can create is modified by impacts. Let's take a body: a body gets pretty slammed around. You start engaging in any of the indoor sports of Earth such as war, you start doing any of its parlor games such as Prohibition, you get a series of impacts of one kind or another which are none of them to the enhancement of beauty.
In fact I've never heard it said that anybody went through a war and became beautiful. Now, men have said many silly things, but they've never gotten that silly. And this deterioration of the design and a conviction—not just a feeling that, but a complete conviction—that he himself cannot or must not design beauty, is the sorrow of the havingness problem of the IV, V, VI and VII. That's what makes it bad. See, they can have or not have and so on, but could they shift the basic design? Well, they're convinced they can't shift the basic design. And this is how solidly that basic design has been pressed upon man. They don't think they could make a body more beautiful. They don't think they could make a beautiful body.
They think in terms of... You take some business executive—he thinks in terms of having a new letterhead, he doesn't reach for a pencil, ordinarily, and a crayon or a brush, and design himself a new letterhead. No sir, he sends for an artist. That's a specialized function. And if he—if you watched him very closely while he did this, he would heave a slight sigh. He has not lost anything, according to him, he just can't do it. See, that's because people wouldn't be pleased with the design which he designed. And all these things he's terribly convinced of.
Now, maybe this fellow has lost a lot of his looks, something like that. Well, the ability to create beauty and the ability to create, for our purposes, are the same statement. That's the same statement: the ability to create beauty and the ability to create.
If you make sex nasty enough, the whole race will degenerate aesthetically. Why? Because that's the communication system of more bodies for the future. See that? And there is essentially a creative function which is done by the GE. And if the GE is disabused of this, and he's restrained in all directions, why, it starts to look like Mr. Freud had a point.
It would be unfortunate for our race, however, if Mr. Freud did have the point on the subject which monitored our future behavior. He had a point about the GE. Everything he said is right—about the GE. We're not processing GEs. And it's an insufficiently high enough echelon to reach into any level of processing which will restore creative function.
Once you have restored the sexual creative function, by logic alone, it should follow that one's other capabilities should rise—see, by logic alone. It is so thoroughly believed that this takes place, that in more medieval times, a group known as the psychoanalysts would very often advise a female patient to go out and have promiscuous intercourse—this was routine.
Now, this doesn't follow, however, because they're not striking at basic creativeness. They're talking about duplication through a sexual communication line, and that's all very well, and once in a while somebody does get some spark of creativeness because of something there.
But I ran into a fellow one time that had met a beautiful girl and was terribly stimulated and satisfied sexually. And you know, he was a writer, and

LRH QUESTIONS THE CLASS ON EXTERIORIZATION
he wasn't doing a tap of work—not a tap! And he just had a wonderful time for himself for three or four months, until she ran off with the butcher or a millionaire or something, the way girls do around Greenwich Village. And he went into the complete doldrums and gave it all up for over a week and then got back on the job—was doing a good job after that.
And reversely—reversely, I've seen it work the other way around. Spotty, you see, unpredictable. So that we don't have duplication via the sexual line being the answer to this. But we do have creativeness. The reason—the main difference of this is, is the creation of the sexual sensation is not the creation of the sensation which we call beauty. It's a condensation of the sensation we call beauty. Sexual sensation is a condensation of beauty. Terrifically condensed.
Well, now, when it becomes abhorred, though, in a society, and when creativeness in general is frowned upon, it is quite normal and routine and usual to find on every hand that men's creative abilities, the creative abilities of women, have to a marked and large degree degenerated so they have no further belief in their own ability to make anything better aesthetically.
It does no good to tell such a person the bald truth of the matter. A GE can—that is, a body—can actually be patched up if you're very careful about it and so on. It can be patched up. It occasionally, if you were good enough and interested enough, you could actually remake some of its anchor points and redesign and change and get it into perfect static balance—oh, what job this is, by the way. The fellow that first designed these bodies, my hat is off to him. What a terrific job of superbalance and counterbalance and so forth.
And it is possible to return to them something vaguely resembling their native beauty or enhancement of that beauty. But let's take the body after it's gone up to a rather high point of no return (oh, let's say—well, let's say seventy, something like that, eighty, we're getting up there), when we start to work on a preclear. Nuhh. Boy, that's a real rough job. The capability of the preclear doesn't rise as it should, and they have different agreements as to how they should do this. And the way they should do this is just jettison this mock up and get another one, they think. And they're fighting right there on the agreement track with everything they try to do about the body.
But you take somebody who is thirty-five, forty, forty-five, somewhere in that bracket, if you work him real fast and so forth, why, you'll get him to put his body back together again pretty well and still function, still function real good.
But to change the aesthetic factor of a body is spotty in results and sometimes very unsatisfactory, because it takes the creative ability of the thetan.
Now, by the time you've pushed him up to a point where he can simply mock up a mock-up that everybody can see and walk around with it, by the time you've pushed him up to that point, what's the idea of repairing a GE? He only gets stuck when he gets a body that is well-recognized, see, and then he's stuck with an identity. He doesn't dare change it too much. If he changed it too much, nobody'd know what the hell it was all about. He might as well go get another body. There you got a problem on your hands. You'll run into that in anybody whose identity has become valuable, or he's trying to do something because of an identity. You get into trouble then. You try to get him to change his body very much and he won't. That's the good sense of the fact of recognition. He doesn't want the difference in recognition.
Might not have anything to do with him with—as far as attention was concerned, he just doesn't want to give a shift of identity which would be so marked and so pronounced, that one, it would defeat his own identification,

115

116

4 DECEMBER 1953
and two, would impede his own existence. No, the thing for you to do, and the way you solve that problem, of course, when a fellow gets up there, is to chase him on out someplace—some other universe, some other state—get his attention concentrated in various directions, let him run a pretty mock-up someplace. Very soul-satisfying. See, that's real easy.
Let's get back to this creativeness and creative ability, and what it has to do with havingness. A person is only satisfied, really, with havingness which he can consider beautiful. But understand that a V, having lost his ability to create beauty, he feels, may very well lose something else: his ability to have beauty just as such. Desire it? Yes, he can do that somewhat secretly. But have it? Well, it's something he'd have to waste. And it's about the most important thing that you could waste on a case, oddly enough, to somebody who's having a terrific time with havingness.
Now, these very, very tiny little points. The very fact, you see—if he couldn't have beauty; this is the one thing he couldn't have—and you say, "Now look, we're going to exteriorize you and get you in good shape, and then you can patch yourself up," he can't have any point in it, you see, because he can't have beauty, see?
So there'd be no point in patching him up. But he's right along the groove and very responsive on this particular point. If you waste beauty in brackets, and if you place beauty into the scenery with such a person, you'll very often break him out of the effort band. It's real weird, it's very interesting. Particularly if you waste the ability to create beauty—waste the ability to create beauty and so forth.
Now, that's not a fast road toward exteriorization. But when a person, over and over on the first three steps, doesn't exteriorize, then there is something wrong with his havingness. And the first thing there is wrong with it is that it isn't beautiful, and he can't have beauty. That's usually the first thing that clues with an auditor.
There is a thing called "shame of beauty." At this level on Earth today, you'd hardly understand it. I mean, it's—why, we could say, "Shame of beauty, yes, I know, I think that's totally beautiful, it's . . ." But listen, there can be beauty to such a degree, that a feeling of tremendous shame sweeps over anyone beholding it. What's the shame, see? It's simply this: he realizes he is not that beautiful.
Now, a woman could be so sufficiently beautiful that she could walk through the worst den of thieves and amongst the most rowdy rabble on Earth with complete safety and command. It's pathetic, however, today to see some (quote) "beautiful woman" (unquote) being run by a thetan who can't have beauty. And this is so much the case, that it quite often happens that a beautiful woman is about as safe to have around as a couple of cobras, because this person can't have her own beauty.
That's what you'll run into in processing some very, very, very good-looking man or some tremendously beautiful woman—they can't have their beauty, so they turn themselves into kind of accident-prones or anything, you know? They're ashamed of their own beauty.
Now, we get with a V, the complete—they exteriorize easily, these beautiful people—but you get a V, VI, VII, it's very often this kind of a conflict with him: He doesn't want to know what he looks like. He feels he looks much worse than he is. His idea of his own appearance would rival anything put out by Cruikshank in many cases. He believes he's horrible! He really can't quite understand how people can look at him without commenting on it, and then it

LRH QUESTIONS THE CLASS ON EXTERIORIZATION
kind of makes him feel like they're somewhat nice because they don't. He doesn't see himself. He shut off his vision originally because of beauty, because of the desire to agree with beauty and not look at anything else.
And he, of course, started fighting ugliness. And blackness is the antithesis of beauty, and so we have blackness covering up beauty, and he uses—sees that if he fights ugliness, he eventually winds up with blackness. But he has long since departed from the concept of beauty. The V doesn't know how he looks. And he will exteriorize with effort. And the "hands on the shoulders" technique is your best method. He's going to do everything with effort.
There's why he has another body—the inflow, so forth. Also, he's got a body in reserve, probably less beautiful than the body he has. And the inflow—he's going to fight against that by having another body and so forth. So you ask him to do things with effort and he can do things with effort. But if you just ask him to do things by thinking about it, he knows that's impossible because he's thought at too many blocks of stone, and they didn't move. And he's thought at all sorts of things, and nothing happened. And so you ask him to think his way out of his head, and he'll just sit there and figure. That's all he can do. All right.
What is this, in essence, this method of exteriorization? It's picking up what is essentially wrong with the case. It will ordinarily be found the person who is very difficult to exteriorize has a highly aberrated idea of how he looks, and beauty is mainly what's wrong.
Now, I have to point that up—there can be other things wrong, you see, that are quite obvious—I mean, they become obvious on the E-Meter. He's so worried about his daughter, you know, and his whole goal of life is toward making his daughter succeed or something like that, you know. And you just can't get this guy squared away because he's hardly—his attention isn't on himself at all or where he is, this doesn't seem to make any difference, he's got too fixed an attention on something else. But that little factor of beauty might be one which would slip by you. It might slip by you because of some feeling of courtesy or discourtesy, or that it'd be impolite to run "wasting beauty" on someone. Well, believe me, it's not. They don't know how they look.
I have seen a rather good-looking young man, for instance, completely bog on this point. He wept. He knew he was one of the most horrible-looking beasts that ever lived; he was just utterly convinced of this. And there was nothing else he knew as well as that. And what do you know, he had three of the ugliest sisters you ever laid your eyes on, and they had just beaten it into him, day and night, how ugly he was and how beautiful they were. So he was all mixed up. I solved beauty with him, as far as that's concerned—just make him waste beauty, and have beauty, and waste things that created beauty, and waste machinery that created beauty, and waste things that unmock beauty, and all of a sudden he said, "Well, if I do look bad, it doesn't make any difference. Let's see."
And sometimes he'll get so curious as to how he looks that his inverse vector—that is to say, he comes when he should go—his inverse vector will not permit him to get out and take a look at himself. He is afraid of being confronted with Mr. Hyde and he's very startled, very often, to find out he's just another Jekyll. So it has a great deal to do with it—creativeness. In Theta Clearing, you're essentially creating a new situation for him—you're asking him to create continually. When he can't create, the trouble lies straight away with beauty.
This will first manifest itself as trouble on the second dynamic, and second, manifest itself—but much more importantly—on the subject of beauty and aesthetics themselves. And that you must rehabilitate with this case.

117



Barriers, Occlusion
A lecture given on 7 December 1953

And this is December the 7th, 1953. This morning we're going to talk very rapidly on several very important things.
The first of them is knowingness. We're going—about knowingness. Where the preclear is hung up and the reason he's hanging on to data is because he didn't know about something. And this is remedied by double-terminaling the fact that he doesn't know. It's a very tricky, easy idea.
Only thing that can be really wrong with a thetan is to convince him he's wrong, and he—that's even better, being wrong, than not knowing whether one was wrong or not. So you just take care of this "doesn't know whether he's wrong or not." Several ways to take care of it—most elementary, which almost anybody can understand—almost anybody, is just match-terminal the fact, "I don't know whether I was wrong or not." Simple. All right. You'll find out that a great many persons' (quote) "adventures" (unquote) with relationship to other thetans are hung up on this one fact.
Next thing on the line is the invisible barrier. The invisible barrier is very important. We dramatize the invisible barrier. Would somebody please point to an invisible barrier for me right here in this room? Come on, let's point to an invisible barrier that's in this room. Oh, boy!
Male voice: The air.
You know, the Hopi Indians have what they call "enterprising ponies." And they give an IQ test to their ponies and there's about—oh, I don't know, about fifteen or twenty knots with which you tie up ponies. And all of the ponies are tied with the knot they can't untie; that is to say, one knot—one more complication than they can untie. So you can always know the IQ of the horse. It's what kind of knot he's tied with. Well, then, a pony that can untie all the knots is known as an enterprising pony. We don't have one here. Anyway . . .
Next on this is, what's that thing over there?
Male voice: It's a barrier.
Yeah, it's a barrier. And furthermore, it's a class of invisible barrier. What are you wearing on your nose? Invisible barrier. What are you wearing on your nose? And then you guys wonder why you go in and out of your head and back and forth and around and round: you're hepped on invisible barriers. That's what we got to have—we got to have more invisible barriers.
Now, a fellow goes skyhooting across space in a spaceship, something of the sort. He's standing on the bridge. He's piling up blackness as far as he can see, but it's all piling up against an invisible barrier. You'll find out this invisible

119

120

7 DECEMBER 1953
barrier is just so many feet from the individual, or so many inches from the individual.
Where a person's had an accident and come into severe collision with glass, he is very befuddled indeed, because he's collided with something that looked like nothing. And of course, there's the biggest maybe on the track. You just— he's collided with a something which looks like nothing—invisible barrier. You can understand that, can't you?
Well, what you doing hiding behind eyes? The eye is an invisible barrier. You exteriorize a preclear and he tries to take his eyes along with him. That's so they'll get hit first. Anybody who is difficult to exteriorize is afraid of being hit. I mean, that's a very flat statement. He's afraid of several things that can also be flat statements. And one of these flat statements is, he's afraid of being hit by the MEST universe. He's afraid it'll cave in on him, afraid it'll smite him, smash him, do something to him and go out of plumb suddenly and collapse on him and so forth. How anything can hit him in the first place, that's the biggest idea he's got. Nothing can hit him anyhow. But he's behind of an invisible barrier. Anybody who is using a pair of MEST eyes is using them simply to be that far from a point of impact. See, the eye is an invisible barrier.
Now, as you run this you find out the individual is ostensibly looking—in the case of an occluded case—he's ostensibly looking at nothing. And, you see, he's looking out there at nothing through something and ignores the something.
Now, there's another way this works in. A person is most aberrated by that thing which he overlooks. You know, that thing to which a person gives the least attention, you might say, which is giving lots of attention to him—that's very aberrative. Something giving the guy lots of attention, he's ignoring it. You know, he's aware of it but he's overlooking it and he's gone out beyond it. And by that you'd get the whole dwindling spiral.
Now let's take a look at this invisible barrier thing. As long as you—the idea that glasses can correct vision is commercially sound for an optician, but it doesn't happen to be correct. In the first place, an individual is not using glasses to look through. He's not even using eyes to look through. This is real idiotic. He's not looking through eyes. He's using a couple of viewpoints.
And by the way, let's straighten up a piece of nomenclature right now: We've been saying "viewpoint" as meaning something an individual puts out to look through and the point the individual looks through. Let's classify it as that thing which an individual puts out remotely to look through. You know, a system of remote lookingness. We'll call it just "remote viewpoints" as a specialized kind of viewpoint. And the place from which the individual is himself looking, we will call, flatly, "viewpoint." And we'll get this differentiated, because you're going to run into people—their main trouble is remote viewpoint trouble.
Now, we have the invisible barrier. He's trying to get a remote viewpoint. And he's just scared he'll be hit, that's all. That's—his trouble is with havingness. That's right. What havingness he has is liable to be unhad by things hitting him, and—the way he works it out.
Now, we look this over, we find out that the individual is very sold on invisible barriers. He sits behind the invisible barrier of an automobile. He sits behind the invisible barrier of glasses. And every Homo sapiens on the face of Earth is busy looking through an invisible barrier called an eyeball. And therefore—he is not looking at the eyeball, you understand. He's not giving any attention to the eyeball. Therefore, he isn't giving it any attention, it's just going to get thicker and thicker and bigger and bigger and on and on and on and on. Because things are giving it attention, but madly. Every photon and

BARRIERS, OCCLUSION
so forth, as he conceives it—as the body conceives it—everything that's hitting the eyes in form of light and so forth are smashing up against the face, the eyeballs and so on. Well, he's looking through this.
Now, the body itself, therefore, is an invisible barrier, as far as the individual is concerned. He doesn't really see it or pay any attention to it. He's looking from inside it. And with this invisible barrier, he goes around and wonders— once in a while somebody calls his attention to himself. He says, "Put your attention on yourself." That's the favorite method. That's what teachers do, what mothers do, fathers do, wives do, husbands do, is "Oh, yeh-yeh-yeh-shmayeh, put your attention on yourself." It all boils down to that in the end. Put your attention on yourself, put your attention on yourself, put your attention on yourself—all the way up and down the track. In other words, less space, less space, less space, less perception, less perception, less perception. Don't look, don't look, don't look. I'm scared, I'm scared, I'm scared, so you mustn't look. That's the way it adds up. All right.
This is wonderful because an individual after a while is sitting in the middle of an invisible barrier which all of a sudden becomes visible. But it becomes visible in the form of occlusion. It just gets so piled up on it he can't look through it anymore because barriers have become so real to him. Barriers are now so real, he can't look through barriers, so there he goes.
Next thing I want to talk to you about is competition. People think they're in competition with the MEST universe. They think this stuff is something to be in competition with. That's mainly because they've been trying to win with MEST for a long time and they never have won with it. And it keeps winning, so they're in continuous and consecutive competition with it. And they have a tendency to save those things with which they have won in this competition
with MEST.
Now, people would much rather look at people than look at MEST. And when you start a preclear out looking for his aberrations, he immediately looks to people. You, as an auditor, immediately look to people. You will not find the basic aberrations connected with people. That's down there on the third dynamic. To hell with it. The only thing people can do to you is lie to you. In view of the fact they don't know any of the truth, this is inevitable. But if it were just a question of people, you could eat them up, chew them up, spit them out. There wouldn't be any trouble with it at all. You could just go on a high-handed rivalry on the subject and you'd win and you'd lose and you'd win and you'd lose and you'd win and you'd lose.
The only ally people have against you is the MEST universe. The MEST universe is the only effective one, because this is you, too. This is the past. And the past has snuck up on you into a solidity. And so people divert your attention from the MEST universe, whenever they can, to people. They divert your attention to the MEST universe whenever they can. In other words, they shift attention—and there's the sole trick that people pull on people.
Did you ever try to fix something and have somebody take it away from you? Well, there you have immediately the most aberrative person in the bank. Just like that. This person was nuts. He couldn't let you fix a tricycle or use any washing powder or wash your hands or shave or comb your hair or something, without immediately climbing onto the fact and shifting your attention from it, either on the basis of "Let me do it," or "You're doing it wrong." A failure, in other words, to let you have any liberty with MEST, consistent and continuous.
Now, there's the one operation people can do. When they get very degraded, they feel that they're out of competition and therefore, they kind of got to pick

121

122

7 DECEMBER 1953
on everybody one way or the other. And they just shove their attention around this way and that.
The one thing people won't look at is present time. If you take a little child, and if you were to argue with the little child over the subject of parents for a very short time—talk with him—you would find yourself arguing on this basis: "They can't relax. The—somehow or other, they just can't relax. There's something terribly wrong with them, because they shift their attention continually into the past or into the future. And they keep shifting my attention into the past and into the future. And they just don't look at what's going on."
And if you were to really boil it down, a kid can make a terrifically simple statement of this. They aren't looking at now. All of his complaints boil down to that fact. They're into the future, which is consequences, which the invisible barrier permits them to dramatize. And we're right back to the invisible barrier.
Now—"Look beyond." Everybody's got just blooey on this. I mean, they're just—nyah! Look beyond. "What is the significance of. . . ? Let's go into the future. Let's go into the past. Let's do everything but look at what we're looking at. And let's look beyond, look beyond, look beyond." There's a pair of—two, three pair of eyeglasses here. "Look beyond," they're saying. Look beyond what? An invisible barrier.
So you get the idea, "Well, there is an invisible barrier somehow, somewhere." Well, that's because thetans don't happen to be visible, and because they can jump you and pull the God trick on you. All right.
What, then, is this business of significance? What's this business of computation? What's this business of circuits? What's this business of people into the future too far and into the past too far and so forth? It's just this business of "look beyond." See, they've got to look beyond it.
What is mathematics? Mathematics is a system by which rather aberrated people can look beyond obvious facts with unobvious symbols. They're looking beyond. "Let's all figure, figure, figure, figure, figure, figure."
All the answers to the universe lay straight out ready to be instantly and immediately viewed. Every answer there is, can be viewed directly. The motto of this society at this time is "Think, don't look. Think."
They used to yammer and yammer and yammer at me in Dianetics, "Why don't you validate some cases, you know?" Sensible people—"Why don't you— why don't you do something and so on, and validate some cases (mumble) . . ."
"Why don't you just look at the subject matter?"
"Why, no, you've got to have some validated cases one way or another, you know, I (mumble) . . ."
"Well, all right, we have some validated cases."
"Well, they won't do, they probably haven't been observed long enough. Heh!"
Oh boy! Oh boy! Wonderful! That's the way it goes. They want you to— they want you to provide something at which they could look so they won't have to look at it.
You think there's any end to this—there isn't any end to this, as long as you have a dependency on agreement across the boards throughout the universe. And where everybody's got to agree that—what you're doing, before you'll believe what you're doing, you'll never get anything done. Perhaps the single difference between myself and my work, and other people who've worked in this same line, is I don't give a damn whether anybody agrees with me or not. I know what's right and what works and what doesn't work, and I'm perfectly willing to look. And I'm perfectly willing to overlook people who aren't willing to look. You see, there's the big difference. I admit this.

BARRIERS, OCCLUSION
So you used to talk about somebody going out and finding that ninety-ninth sheep that strayed from the fold, and he went on straying from the fold and so forth, and the most wonderful thing there was to do was to overlook all the sheep in the pen, see, that you had. You had ninety-eight sheep. And this ninety-ninth one, he'd gone out way over the hills and he was lost. Well, the honorable and wonderful thing to do of course, was to look beyond by finding this ninety-ninth sheep. The hell with him! We got ninety-eight. See, that's the practical as opposed to the scientific or the superreligious syllogisms that have gone along the line. These are wonderful, but they don't lead us to any results.
Now, let's look at this business of looking beyond. You'll find preclear after preclear after preclear after preclear doing just that. Just doing that—they look beyond. You try to get them to release a lock and they look beyond the lock. And you try to get them to release that next lock, and they look beyond that next lock. And they're just looking beyond. You try to release their blackness, their occlusion, in some fashion, and they're immediately looking beyond.
Now, why did that little technique of the concentric spheres of blackness— if you've used it on an occluded case, and you've used it well, it's worked—why is that so effective on a black case? You're letting him look beyond. You're putting up a barrier before you put up each new barrier, you see. You just "Put up a sphere. Now, put another sphere on the outside of that. Now, look through the first sphere at the second sphere. Now, put another sphere outside the second sphere. Okay. Now let's look through the second sphere at the third sphere." What are you letting him do? You're letting him look beyond and expanding his space. First time he's ever done this.
Now, you could do this with eyeballs—just that. And with people with glasses, you let them, "Put up a pair of glasses. Now put a pair of glasses outside that pair of glasses. Now look through the first pair at the second pair. Now put another pair of glasses out there and look through those pairs at the new pair. But remember, look at the glasses. And now, let's put another pair of glasses outside all those pairs of glasses. All right. And let's look through the last pair you had at the new pair." And here we go. We're just extending their barrier. The person is trying to look beyond.
A person who has glasses sometimes takes them up merely to appear scholarly. Because scholarliness is the process of looking beyond. It's "Never be content with what you're looking at; always look at something else." There's a sort of an anxiety and nervousness goes about looking beyond. This is demonstrated in many people who—in a geographical way—they always want to see what's on the other side of something. They're never content, and probably could not tell you what's on their side of it. It's a big joke up at the Explorers Club, is that explorers routinely get lost in New York. All right.
Now, let's carry on just a little further with this. I told you a few days ago that the most fixed thing, of course, would be a mass of energy which is condensed into an object, but that energy and objects and space were all very well and that a thetan could duplicate or create any of these things. But the single difference which you could put your eye on and you could realize—the single difference you could realize—between a living being and a piece of MEST or a machine would be ideas, his ideas. In other words, an idea is the one thing which a thetan can originate.
Now, he doesn't have to be in the middle of a thinking machine full of data in order to get an idea. As a matter of fact, that man who has the most data gets the fewest ideas. This is expressed in terms of imagination and here we're directly processing imagination—ideas.

123

124

7 DECEMBER 1953
A thetan is different from the universe around him to this extent: He can get ideas. He can have ideas. Do you see that? That life differs to that degree. And life is as alive as it gets ideas; not as alive as it moves MEST.
So let's look not at the condensed thinkingness which succeeds each effort band as we go down the DEI cycle, but let's now look at knowingness and ideas.
Did you ever know a mechanic who could look at a car and then fix it? Well, you won't ever find any other kind of a mechanic that could really call himself a mechanic. He's as good as he can get an idea of what's wrong with the car or what's right with it, see. He sort of looks it over. Now, more and more he agrees with society, and people keep saying to him, "Now, why did you think that ignition wire was busted?" And he says, "Well, I..." and then he'll get some explanation for it. He's being challenged continually—this idea of his knowing anything about the thing.
Well, you'll find him after a while blundering to this degree: He goes all over the engine and he adjusts all sorts of things and he knows all the time that he should just test out that battery, see, and get that ignition wire straight. Finally, he comes around to the battery and the ignition wire and straightens it out and says, "Why didn't I do that in the first place? Why did I do all these other nonsensical things?" Well, the reason he did all those other nonsensical things is, he was trying to agree that there was some kind of a mechanical system of knowing, such as examining the engine and tracing this and doing that and hoping and so forth, instead of just knowing what's wrong with the motor.
Now, the odd part of it is that motors will run for some people, and won't run for others. Now here we're getting off to the edge of the immediately explainable to the general public. Why motors run for somebody, and they don't run for somebody else. This used to baffle me. I have never failed to be incredulous on this line, to this degree. I have had some of the smoothest running motors you ever ran into, see. I've had people come up and, you know, they'd just—they'd throw the switch and they'd push the starter button or give the flywheel a crank, but nothing happened. And they'd grind and grind and push and grunt and snarl and do things and kick it and then they'd keep saying—they keep— most of their cant is, "I get so mad about this. I get so mad about this." You try to say, "What you doing?" you know, and they just tell you, "Well, I'm doing— I'm getting mad." That's what they're doing. They're not starting a motor.
Used to try to write up in one of the less civilized portions of the world— the Puget Sound country. And back up in the deep, dark, rainy woods. They have woods up there and they're very dark and they're very rainy. You'd think this was a very good place to write. The only trouble is, the raindrops block in too little space. They're always making too little space. The nights are very black. And—but mainly it's because there's nobody to talk to. If anybody in Puget Sound were to hear that statement, they would contest this, because these people talk all the time. But I—what I mean is "talk to," you know? I mean, you have an interchange or a communication system at work. You go over—even at Seattle, they have some bright newspapermen over in Seattle, they're relatively bright, but you can't even really talk to them. They go on some kind of a pattern system, you know, their—no ideas is what we're into here, you see. You haven't got any ideas connected with anything they're doing.
Well, I found that part of the country, more than anything else (this is downright slander because there are some nice people up there, there's no doubt about it)—and I never failed up there to have a motor and never failed to have people around who couldn't start it. These people can't start motors.

BARRIERS, OCCLUSION
You know, they—tsk!—it's just fatal. You have any kind of an engine, any kind of a motor, I don't care how new it is or anything else, you can give the guy your ignition keys to the car, or you give anything, and it's—he comes back in a little while and he says, "The motor won't start."
And you go out and you turn on the ignition and you touch the starter and the motor starts. And you say, "What's this?"
"Well, I don't know, I did everything you did."
He sure did. Only trouble is, he can't start a motor.
Now, what is this? What is this, when it begins to operate to that level? Did you ever know somebody who couldn't start a motor or run a simple vehicle? The automobile manufacturer is going to be very surprised in a few years. His motors are going to start less and less and less, in spite of the fact that they get brighter and brassier and newer and more sure-fire. Because he's running out of people who can start motors.
Now, this sounds very, very esoteric and supernecromantic. But the living truth of the matter is, you must have some of the ability within yourself to know, before the MEST universe will run for you. You've got to get the idea of things. You know? You look at something and here's a strange piece of machinery: you've never seen it before, you haven't any idea what it's for and you look at it and you get an idea of what it's for. And you look at it a little longer and you get an idea of how it runs.
And why is this? What is a machine? This is a machine society. They turn men into machines, and machines into machines, and there are more and more machines and less and less men. Although the birth rate keeps increasing and the death rate keeps decreasing, that's still true.
Now, one of these days you'll look out here, and (it's almost true now) these people walking up and down this street that you see past this building here— this is in the East—and you see these people walking up and down the street, they might as well be wind-up dolls except they aren't painted that nice. I mean, that's a bitter statement, isn't it—really brutal. No, they're worse than wind-up dolls. Wind-up dolls are predictable, and these people are busted pieces—real broken-down.
Now, you wind them up and they don't run or they do run. But all of a sudden, somebody can come along and run the machine. You know, all these people have a—they're fitted someplace or another, in some factory or in some office or in somewhere. And they go in there and they go through these jerky, routine motions. And it files that inventory slip under "B." And it gets its hand out of there and it goes over here and it gets another inventory slip and it looks at it. Then it puts stamp "C" on the inventory slip. And it puts it back in file "C." And it comes back here. This is work. It's what they call work.
People keep these zombies alive. A&P down here has fuel for them. Get that—fuel for them. Fuel for a being? Heh-heh! Oh no, this is not possible. Yes, it is. You tune on the radio, TV, advertising, you find out "Get more pep energy! The thing to do is to eat Boggy-Woggy cereals and you won't bog. Less bog per pound." And if you just hog enough of this completely incomestible MEST, theoretically you will run. You will see babies in a few years being born with slots in their heads so that you can drop a quarter in. And the government will collect the quarters.
What are we doing? We're going further and further and further from an idea, and more and more and more toward a fixed idea. An adding machine, in essence, is a fixed idea. An automobile is a fixed idea. It is an idea surrounded by and trapped in MEST. See that? A fixed idea. How are you going to fix an idea in the MEST?

125

126

7 DECEMBER 1953
Well, that's quite a trick and that's why people can't start cars. You have to sort of know it goes before it goes. That's the truth of the matter. You go down and know a car won't start, it won't start. If you know hard enough that an automobile is a broken-down wreck, it's one. That's a little bit hard to do with a Cadillac because aesthetics get in your road and so forth. But I stood alongside of a Cadillac one day, and I just knew it wouldn't run. I just knew it wouldn't run. And I stood there and knew it wouldn't run for a few minutes and so forth, and its owner came out and stuffed himself behind the wheel and stuffed his head into his hat and turned on the switch—and it didn't run. Huh-huh! Nothing mechanical connected with this Cadillac. In other words, I disconnected no spark plugs or anything like that. The Cadillac just didn't run.
Why didn't it run? Well, he didn't know it'd run, either, see. He didn't turn on the ignition with any idea that he was starting a Cadillac. He turned on an ignition because he was a wind-up toy that turns on ignitions, which is then motored down the street by a motor.
Honest—robots can't run robots, not worth a nickel; unless the robots are made to run robots. You see? Now, if you have a society where all the robots are running all the robots, this is all very well, but somebody's going to come in someday and everything's going to be in—half-filed under "C." These machines will be sitting at their desks, right there, stopped dead. They won't be dead, they'll just be stopped; because there's nothing to die when a person has no ideas left.
Now, this is not a tirade about the society at large. It is an effort to try to show you something. Your greatest ability is getting an idea. And your next greatest ability is keeping it fluidly, consecutively spotted or fixed in one place. Now, that's the next biggest step. Trying to fix an idea in one place. How do you do that? Well, that's very wonderful. I mean, how can you fix this thing called an idea in one place? Well, everybody has to agree that it's there and, of course, there isn't anything there, not even the idea anymore. But—and so it'll stay fixed in one place.
But, trying to fix an idea; now, that's what your teacher in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, third grade, fourth grade, each time—that's all they were trying to do, was to fix an idea in energy. How can you fix an idea in energy? It's just not possible, you see. You can't fix an idea in energy. You can mold energy so it will symbolically represent an idea—hence, an automobile motor. See that? It will symbolically represent an idea. And if the symbol is good enough, it'll run for almost anybody. But if it's not good enough, it'll run only for a specialist.
For instance, in the old days there used to be airplane engines that would only run for a chosen few. World War I was fought with airplane and tank motors which only ran for the very, very artistic. It was a triumph, a puzzle-making and unmaking, to get them to rotate for a consecutive hour—but one really didn't do it. There was a race of pilots, once upon a time, who simply kept airplanes aloft because they knew they flew. That's all. People came along who didn't know they flew, and they didn't fly, either. No accident about this.
Now, a cranky piece of machinery could be an old piece of machinery; it could also be a new, unagreed-upon piece of machinery.
Now, I'm not trying to tell you that the only reason a motor runs is because somebody looks at it and knows it'll run. But motors don't run very mechanically. True. They don't run for people who don't know they run. For instance, there was a Japanese lieutenant and a squad of men who beat a car with switches— beat a jeep with switches—to make it run. The Japanese must have really

BARRIERS, OCCLUSION
found him up in Hokkaido—he must have been back of beyond educationally— because they're pretty bright about machinery. But he did beat a jeep, and his squad beat a jeep, because it wouldn't start. Most people will do that. They'll beat a car. They'll kick its tire, or so on. Some people get so mad at them, they'll dump them in ditches and do other things like that with them, and get furious with them.
Well, an engine is a fixed idea. A communication system is a relay of fixed ideas in such a wise that they become ideas in motion. And there you have a beautiful illusion. You have a number of fixed ideas which seem to present something in motion.
What's a preclear who can't get out of his head? Invisible barriers aside, what's a preclear that can't get out of his head? He's a fixed idea. Now, how he, the source of ideas—hey, this is wonderful, you see—he's a source of ideas and how we can get a source of ideas being fixed, geographically or any other way, is a marvelous thing.
This is the greatest single tribute that could be leveled at our modern culture, that they have been able to accomplish this fact. They have been able to convince the source of ideas—the thetan—that it is fixed in one place. Well, they do that on a gradient scale. They get the individual to start fixing ideas in one place under compulsion. Not because he wants to—he always desires to do this; this is just wonderful recreation, always. What they do is compel him to do it. They say, "If you don't do so and so, then some terrific penalty is going to accrue. You are going to suffer from pain. If you don't know the MEST universe well, if you don't know the habits and customs well of those things around you, then you're going to suffer losses. And we will just make sure that you don't misunderstand this, because you're going to suffer losses. Because all of this is terrifically desirable and you can't make it."
So therefore, after you can't make anything, you can only lose. You see, once you stop being able to make things, you can't win. That's impossible to win, the moment that you stop making things. You start losing at that point, simply because there isn't anything being made for you except what is being made for you, by you. So you stop making things, you start losing things.
Now, it may take you a long time to have your clock run down. It may take years for your clock to run down after you stop making things. But it normally doesn't—it's about two seconds max. Bing! You stop making things and all of a sudden you don't have the right corner of the room.
Now, depending on somebody else's opinion is your idea that there is such a thing as a fixed idea. You see, you look at all these other people and they are running around and they're obviously sources of ideas, so you get the ideas that all these ideas are fixed. You see? You look at the machine, not at the source of ideas which runs the machine. And because the machine is fixed in place, you consider then that ideas can be fixed in place. And you go ahead, having made that basic premise and postulate, and build up all the automaticity there is. See how you do that? You look at people and consider them sources of ideas, and so therefore, ideas are fixed.
The idea of a fixed idea is the most marvelous idea of all, because it gives you such a thing as the MEST universe, for one thing. The big idea that makes it possible to have this big idea called the MEST universe is the idea that you can fix an idea. Now after that comes fixed perceptions, and all of that sort of thing. But first you have to have the idea that you can fix an idea.
Well, this would all be very hopeless if you weren't able to process it correctly. And let's look at a very senior, senior, senior process, but let's first talk about

127

128

7 DECEMBER 1953
it in terms of invisible barriers and let's talk about it in terms of energy. That thing which moves the preclear through space comes to evaluate for him. That's a basic law. That thing which moves a preclear about—moves an individual about—comes to evaluate for him. That thing which changes his position in space, evaluates for him. Now, that is the most fundamental law connected with space, next to the law of a fixed idea.
Now we've got a fixed idea, now we've got a change of idea; now we have our first instant of overcoming a fellow's idea. You see, he says, "The tree will now not hit me" and it hits him. That's an inversion. What he said there, in essence: "The tree will remain fixed and I will remain fixed right here." Crash! So the tree has evaluated for him and the universe has evaluated for him. It changed his fixed idea by making it unfixed. So that thing which can unfix a person's ideas or shift him in space, of course, has a bigger idea than he has— he thinks. It couldn't have a bigger idea than he has—it just couldn't have—if it's a piece of MEST, because it has no ideas. So he conceives himself to be up against some greater being than himself.
His only vulnerability is that he's fixing ideas. Of course it has a seniority to him on the basis of fixing ideas, because it is a fixed idea and he's not. You follow this? He is not a fixed idea. He could have no vulnerability. Nothing could evaluate for him, unless he first got the idea that he could fix ideas and had to fix ideas in various geographical locations and positions. He had to assume this in order for an idea fixation to overcome him. See, he had to take the step— willing step—forward.
Now, the idea of a fixed idea is that an idea can be enclosed in space and energy. It can be bounded with space and energy. And it requires this fault— this premise on the part of the individual—requires that premise directly to permit the individual to be overcome by MEST. He has to assume that: that an idea can be fixed in energy and space. But now, after that, things which can change him in location—things which change him in location—can evaluate for him. Mother, for instance, the one (this is, by the way, one of the subjects of the PABs)—Mother carries the child around and then you wonder why it can be evaluated for by Mother.
What is this unreasonable idea that everything Mother says is completely, absolutely right? A child will throw away every idea he has of the past and trust to the extremely faulty memory of a mother. You'll get more preclears who will tell you, "Well, so-and-so, and that happened and the house burned down when I was three."
And you say, "You recall that directly?"
"Well, no—no."
"Where'd you get the idea that the house burned down when you were three?"
"Oh, my mother told me about it."
And, "Gee, three years old and—can't remember back to three," you say to yourself. "Well, well, well." This case is black, by the way—can't see anything, can't feel anything, doesn't know it. All right.
And they say, "And when I first started into kindergarten at seven . . ."
"Now, do you remember starting into kindergarten when you were seven?"
"No, no. My mother told me."
"My mother told me, my mother told me, my mother told me—who the hell are we processing," I'll eventually ask them, "your mother?" There's no sense in getting cross about it. It's that Mother evaluated for this thing called a body long before the preclear contacted the body at the Assumption.

BARRIERS, OCCLUSION
So what's the reason for this? What's the most basic and fundamental reason for occlusion? Well, there's two or three dozen things happen in occlusion. But— there's the invisible barrier with blackness standing outside it; there's all sorts of things. But here we have this idea of being moved around by something. Mother moved the body around and had evaluated for it adequately before the thetan ever took it over. In what color was the body being evaluated for? In the whole prenatal bank. And that's all black, all the way back. So we have all of this strange blackness coasting all the way back. Now, that body has been moved around in blackness by a person who thereafter probably evaluated for it like mad.
The next stage was that the individual actually throws a remote viewpoint into the skull of Mama, Papa, Grandpa, Aunt Nellie, to look with—because they know. You see that? Throws a remote viewpoint right back of their eyes. And then they disappear or are dead. And they go into a coffin or something of the sort and the preclear's still carrying a remote viewpoint in their skull— that viewpoint on which they have depended so implicitly and explicitly. They've actually looked through their mothers' eyes. And you'll find this uniformly. You'll find this constantly with preclears, if you just start looking for it. The whole visio of the childhood scenes and so forth, and all the facsimile bank and so forth, will be from Mama's viewpoint or Papa's viewpoint. We used to call this "out of valence." Well, it's a viewpoint parked in the skull of Papa or Mama, using their eyes, and now they're gone and it's dark. And so a person doesn't see with it anymore, and he goes around and he tells the auditor, "I'm occluded." Well, understand that anything which has moved the preclear around in space is able to evaluate for him.
Now, just please—although we're talking about fixed ideas, you want to unfix some of your own ideas, let's get this one fixed. And that is: those things which have moved the individual around most in space are most likely to evaluate for him or those things which have kept the individual most fixed in space can best evaluate for him—either way, either way, either way.
So, the process indicated is to have the preclear move through his own space those things which have evaluated for him—namely, space and energy and blackness. And preferably have him do it behind him. "Now put a block of energy in San Francisco and one in New York. All right. Now let's take the block of energy in San Francisco and move it to New York. Now let's take what you've got in New York and move it to San Francisco. Now let's move it to New York. Now let's move it to San Francisco." This is Change of Space Processing on a remote energy. The preclear processes the chunk of energy or the cubes of space or the distances by moving them through space, preferably his own. But much more important than that is the idea of an idea being moved in space, just like that. All right.
Let's move the idea of trying to fix an idea: "And let's put that idea of fixing ideas in Seattle. Now let's put it in Los Angeles. Now, let's make sure you move the same one to Los Angeles. All right. Now take the idea of fixed ideas—take just fixed ideas, now, in Los Angeles. Now let's move to Charleston, South Carolina. And preferably do it behind your back. Now, let's take North Pole of Earth. Now, get the direction it is from you as you sit there. Now, you got that carefully aligned? Now make it be ninety degrees different. Now let's use that from here on as the North Pole to which you're going to move things." You see? Then you sure have the preclear's own universe; you're not using MEST universe coordinates.
The idea of distances and directions are themselves fixed ideas, and the preclear who is buttered all over space has been fixing ideas all over space.

129

130

7 DECEMBER 1953
The whole gradient scale, the Tone Scale, the ARC scale, the DEI cycle—all of these things have to do with the fixed idea. The bottommost rung is the most fixed idea. Now, this is attention on the idea.
Now, there's an overt act—pardon me, a motivator-overt act mechanism. Now, that idea itself is moved around in space. Let's get the idea of consequences. That's looking beyond: consequences, you see—looking beyond. That's looking into the future, we think, perhaps. And so we have the idea of fixed ideas. And we must have these fixed ideas and we must look beyond these fixed ideas, too, which gives us further fixed ideas, and we have logic.
Now, a symbol—a symbol is a fixed idea. But it is a piece of machinery aborning; a word is a piece of machinery under manufacture. It is the lightest level of an idea in energy. You see, a symbol is a piece of energy. I don't care if it's written down on a page or it's a word which is vibrations in the air, or— I don't care what it is, it is a symbol of an idea. Well, it could only be a symbol of an idea by being surrounded by space and energy of a certain pattern. And so we put that up instead of the idea, we're on our way, right away. We're on our way right on down Tone Scale. Because that'll get heavier and heavier, and one day there will be a machine called "and." You listen to people as they speak, and this machine called "and" is very visible. You tell a preclear to double-terminal a couple of words and they're concrete or steel or something. That's because things that have an idea fixed in them are better than things which don't have an idea fixed in them. Namely, just a beautiful piece of MEST.
So, now let's say that some fellow has been working a lathe for a long time. If you'll just have him pretend he has the lathe in back of him and have him move the lathe from the North Pole to the South Pole—but disorient the poles, you see—and move the lathe from the North Pole to the South Pole, to the North Pole, to the South Pole, to the North Pole, to the South Pole, to the Moon, so forth; now he's evaluating for the lathe, the lathe isn't evaluating for him. You're not trying to run anything out, you're just reversing the whole idea.
Now we have him take space, and get the space in such a way . . . All right, now let's get directions. Of course, everything which tells the preclear what the direction is, is evaluating for him. But this could only be done because it's fixed ideas with regard to space. Space itself, in the MEST universe, is a fixed idea. So you just have the preclear start in lying to you about directions. You have him point south and say, "There's Canada," and you have him point north and say, "There's Africa," and get him really oriented. And the guy will go into revolt after a while and he'll say, "Well, what the hell, I don't have to know which direction these things are. I don't anyhow." And so, now there's an indicated process.
Now, we'll find that ideas such as sounds—sounds. And they—somebody has his sonic off. Well, that's because sound has evaluated for him. So have him not emanate sound, but have him move sound.
"Now let's get the squawk of a hen and let's put that at point 'A' in your universe. Now let's move it to point 'B' in your universe. Now let's move it to point 'A,' now to point 'B,' now to point 'A,' now to point 'C.' "
The guy says, 'Well, where's 'C'?"
"I don't know; it's your universe. Find 'C.' All right. You got 'C.' Now put the squawk of a hen to 'C.' "
First thing you know, all the squawks of hens in the bank will turn on— every time he's ever heard a hen squawk, such as the last time he was at the Metropolitan Opera. (audience laughter)

BARRIERS, OCCLUSION
Now, we have a—we can do this with anything, because essentially any perception is basically a fixed idea. Now, a terrifically effective method of doing this—and we combine all these things together—we get the idea of not knowing what the perception means. And, we can shorten that to not knowing the perception. Now, how would you do this? The most elementary way to do this, of course, is just match-terminal the idea: "Don't know what the perception is."
"Don't know what I'm looking at," match-terminaled. "Don't know what I'm smelling. Don't know what the heat is. Don't know how hot it is. Don't know what I'm feeling. Don't know if I have strength. Don't know if. . ." Just "don't know," that's all, see. Well, the symbol of know itself will start to run out and evaporate on the whole bank if you do it that way.
But a more effective method is to shift unknown smell from San Francisco to China to Russia to the Moon, so forth. And what do you shift there— the smell? No, just the idea of an unknown smell. And we just shift it all over the place. You practically gas a preclear, by the way—he's holding all sorts of these things in suspension in the bank. Unknown smell, unknown sight, or dangerous smell or dangerous sight—but mainly "don't know." See? "I don't know what the sight is." "I don't know whether she really did it or not," see, is what's basic on that. It's only the times not—that a person's been tripped up that count.
Now, what do we have here on this "don't know"? What—how does this tie in all of a sudden? When a person doesn't know something on a low echelon, it's because he can't locate it. And on a higher echelon, it's because he doesn't have to. So, let's try and just break through the barrier, the invisible barrier, between the need of geographic position—and break it on up further. Like "Don't know what the blackness is." Now just start shifting that idea, and make sure it's lineally, consecutively shifted from Diddy-Wah-Diddy to Moerdijk. And just keep shifting it back and forth, back and forth. But preferably behind the person. Well, why behind him? Because I'll let you in on something—that's where most of his ideas are fixed. Because he as a thetan has run so many bodies from behind that most of his automatic machinery is set up between himself and a point about seventy-five feet back and above the body. And there is the mass of fixed ideas on which the individual's running. He thinks of himself as kind of a hollow shell in that direction, if he thinks it over at all.
And the most solid fixed idea is his face, of course, because that's his identity. And then that becomes very unsolid and starts disappearing. Now, you have preclears all over the shop who—everything's disappearing on them. They're just disappearing, disappearing—you know, their body tries to disappear and everything's trying to disappear. If you'll just shift through space the idea of uncreation—just handle the idea of uncreation—you'll start physically moving about the machinery of automaticity. Because it is impossible for an idea (I don't mean that this is improbable; I mean it is—I don't mean that it is occasionally done) —it is impossible to fix an idea with space and energy. And the only way you could make somebody believe that he was doing it would be to get him to get, practically of his own volition in the first place, that he had to fix an idea in space and energy in order to have something—and if he did that, then he can go into competition with the universe.
Now, another technique for these people that are real bad off—real, real bad off (this is all rough case stuff that I'm giving you, but this is also run on a thetan exteriorized as one of the steps, we won't go into which one now) — "The walls are in competition with me."
Now, you run all those with the fellow's eyes closed. "The walls are in competition with me. This is in competition . . ." You'll find out that horrible

131

132

7 DECEMBER 1953
emotion called jealousy is a sort of a black, unknown competition. And that's the dwindling spiral. So if you have somebody put jealousy in the walls— black jealousy in the walls—and have the walls in competition with him, so forth; you have somebody put fear in the walls, and you have somebody put the idea of fixed ideas in the walls, and each time move the idea. Move it. Move the emotion after he's put it in the wall rather than just let it sit there. That's your next step up from stationary implantation of emotions. You'll get an astonishing gain of case on individuals.
So he's occluded. Well, have him take a patch of blackness behind him and have him start moving it. Have him tell you where he wants to move it to and from. And then just make sure he moves it to and from, to and from, to and from—only make him reorient it and put it in some other direction than the thing actually is.
The idea of a fixed idea must precede the idea of aberration of any kind.
Okay.

Outline of SOP 8-C
A lecture given on 7 December 1953

This is December 7th, first afternoon lecture, first hour.
And we are going to take up now SOP 8-C. And I'm going to give it to you in the brief form for student use. And the reason I am taking this up at this time is, is there are about a third—a little bit better than a third of the cases present are not advancing.
And I can tell you very bluntly why they're not advancing. It's because SOP 8-C isn't being used on them.
Now, if you know anything before you get out of here, you'll know what I know—what I'm talking about. And on that, regardless of theory, regardless of anything else, when it comes to practice, these processes in SOP 8-C will exteriorize anybody. They'd exteriorize a dead man. (audience laughter) That's right.
And if an auditor isn't getting results on SOP 8-C, it's one of two reasons: one, so far in this unit I have not given it to you in printed form, so that's partially my responsibility; or two, I have given you a little too much theory along with its use—telling you why it was used. Or the auditors are running something on the basis of "don't let him free."
Now, actually that is a funny thing, but that can be run. I have seen an auditor who wasn't himself well exteriorized make the oddest mistakes, and even an auditor who was fairly well exteriorized, make the most peculiar errors which somehow or other wound up with the preclear back in his head—just accidentally-like. Now, I don't mean to make you alert or upset about your auditors, because SOP 8-C remedies this too—freedom for others.
Now, there was one auditor in the First Unit who was a marvelous auditor but he had one drawback—nobody ignored him when he tried to talk them out of a technique being used on him. And he would throw this off on, "Oh, I can do all that."
Now, actually his case was in wonderful condition aside from this one point—and it was "other people's space." And he needed hours and hours and hours of it. Because he couldn't be in other people's space. And if an auditor can't be in somebody else's space, he's in bad shape.
Now, you can get a case unbalanced this way: You can get the case completely able in the MEST universe, by claiming the MEST universe—see, he gets up to a point where he's not worried about MEST anymore—and get his own universe up to where he's completely able in that, see, and then we never bother to get him in the third universe, which is the other fellow's. And we have made out



134

7 DECEMBER 1953
of him, by that lopsided auditing, a menace; and that's the only way we can make a menace. And believe me, you would really have to audit very, very carefully in that direction, or permit a preclear every time to fight you off on Spacation steps which included other people's space, or to permit people to get way off on other people's universes.
Now, there's three or four—well, I know I—I know that by hearsay. I know one personally present, who Step I'ed very well, and then did a tremendous jump on just being the three universes—see, the other fellow's universe too. Did just a big jump on this one; there's a couple of others have done jumps that way.
So it may be so far from you, it may be so extremely strange to think of somebody else having another universe, it may be so difficult for you to figure out just exactly "Well, how do you go and find somebody else's universe?" you see, that you just sort of throw it up and say, "The devil with it." And if you succeed in doing that, you will start up and foster in your own group lots of rivalries. Why? Because that's the only way you make an "only one."
How do you make an "only one"? Well, you let him have his own space, and you let him lay claim to the MEST universe space, and then you never lay in anybody else's space. Now, that case is going to hang fire and degenerate. And the reason it'll degenerate is because you have ignored the one thing which permitted him to go into agreement in the first place, and so you've not undone any of the agreement on the whole track if you have ignored the other fellow's universe—other people's space, bluntly.
Now, some people who can't see anchor points, you will find, are immediately hung up on other people's space. This isn't always the case, but it's just something that happens.
"Seeing somebody else's point of view," "being somebody else," "being willing to understand somebody else" and "being willing to be in somebody else's space" are all synonymous. That's the same thing. The fellow who is antisocial simply can't tolerate other people's space.
Now, there isn't any reason under the sun why you can't tolerate somebody else's space, because it doesn't bite.
Dogs—even dogs dramatize this. Did you ever go past some yard where some little insignificant Chihuahua came out of there wa-wa'ing like the most ferocious tiger you ever met? That was his own front yard. "Bow-wow-wow!" And he got right over the border of his own front yard and into the next fellow's yard and he—his "bow-wow" dropped to "yipe-yipe."
Dogs will tolerate dogs all over the street, they'll cower and cringe and run away, until this other dog invades their own front yard, at which moment the protecting dog will go to war—and only then—no matter how small he is. And the other dog, oddly enough, that is doing the invading will normally realize that he is invading and run away. This is strictly a problem in space.
Now, I don't say that human beings are dogs—dogs are loyal and friendly and good. (audience laughter) But when it comes to somebody being nasty to you, somebody disagreeing with you violently, somebody throwing your case into an ashcan quite by accident, you're dealing there in terms of other people's space. Somebody feels he can't have space unless he reduces yours. That's the silliest thing in the world.
A man who can't have space until he reduces somebody else's space is a man who will never have space.
Now, the system of barriers and agreement on the track which have come about and which compose the MEST universe, are themselves extremely

OUTLINE OF SOP 8-C
competitive with the individual if the individual permits them to be. Because they're fixed in space, they are, therefore, fixed ideas.
So this competition—this type of universe which one confronts—leads one to believe that the universe itself is an archenemy, eventually, because it hems him in without his consent. It's other-determinism. And he takes it out on other people.
If a devil were ever invented in this universe, it was invented by taking one thetan and making it impossible for him to be in anybody else's space or for him to permit anybody else in his space, and that made a devil. That is cruelty, that is sadism—it's all the other undesirable characteristics.
Now, these characteristics are the characteristics of life. It's not true, however, that life is cruel. It's not true that you go—have to go and study the very aberrated beasts of the jungle in order to find out what optimum behavior should be.
Now, organizations such as those headed by Darwin lent their color—by the way, that's a long time ago. Hardly anybody realizes how long ago Darwin was, but he lived in the middle of the nineteenth century—that's a long time ago. He predates Freud by decades. And Freud came along and bought this backwards approach: "the beast of the jungle," this horrible "look beyond" thing that you had to look under and find these "bestial, barbaric cravings in man which were his basic self." No, they're not his basic self.
And men who start to combat and contest these things eventually become them. So you find people in that profession which is always seeking out the barbaric, the cruel, the wicked, the hidden, eventually themselves becoming wicked, cruel and hidden. There's nothing there. I mean, people go down Tone Scale and get into these states—I mean, so what? You don't have to address those states to pull them out. Isn't that interesting?
So, we have taken the main curse off of auditing, which was meshing terminals with all aberration. And that, by the way, is a slight triumph. We're processing what's good in people so that it will get to be much better. And by being much better, suddenly just plows them out of where they are.
So, where we deal with these processes, every one of these steps is here for a reason. Now, it's all well to say "there is no reason to anything," but in view of the fact that man runs on reason, he succumbs to processes which address the reasons.
There are so many more techniques than those contained in SOP 8-C, that were I to sit myself at a typewriter and type for the next five or six years, I would not have listed all of them. There are so many more techniques than these. But here we have the most basically workable techniques.
Now, SOP 8 is much more theoretical than SOP 8-C. SOP 8-C is the most that could be worked out of SOP 8 which brought an immediate result.
Now, these techniques that are in SOP 8-C, and in this order, were those which, when addressed to numerous preclears, brought the maximum com¬munication change. Communication and perception change is what we want, because we can observe that. Change in knowingness is what comes about, but we can't observe that directly. And so if we're going to observe something, we have to gauge it on communication shift.
If you process a preclear for an hour without a communication change, let me tell you something—you're a terrible auditor. If you can process somebody for an hour without getting a communication change, that's just terrible. And that is unbelievably bad!

135

136

7 DECEMBER 1953
If I can't get a communication change of one sort or another out of a pc every ten minutes of auditing, I'd just throw in the sponge on this pc and go way down the list someplace or another and try and make him grope around and find a wall; because I obviously have entered the case much too high, in some fashion or another. The case is worse off than I observed the case to be bad off.
What you should expect as auditors is a communication change by having used SOP 8-C. And by that I mean a communication change in terms of theta perception—that it gets worse or it gets better—you see, either one.
It's very often that you put out—you light a big fire by putting out a small one, and so it is with a pc. You sometimes make him feel like he's just being ground down to the finest dust he ever heard of, then all of a sudden the lights come on again.
I was processing somebody this morning on a demonstration and he kept saying, well, his perception was getting real bad, it was getting worse and it was getting worse. Fine, fine, swell. You're changing perception, that's all you're after. All of a sudden he—on some of these techniques, if you just used them arduously right straight on along, the guy would go blind MESTwise and then turn his sight on again.
Now, you can actually do that with an Operating Thetan. He can make the body blind as a bat—just pang! There's really nothing to it—he just picks the viewpoints off the eyes, throws them away—the actual viewpoints. He just pulls them right on off of the eyes, and then puts two viewpoints in their place. It's quite amusing.
Well, therefore, if it can happen directly, believe me, it'll occasionally happen accidentally. And this doesn't mean that your pc is going to be blind for any length of time, but you just start wasting viewpoints. You know, just have him waste viewpoints and waste viewpoints and—I'm now talking in terms of remote viewpoints. You just waste remote viewpoints and waste remote viewpoints and waste remote viewpoints, and all of a sudden, why, the fellow's sight starts to blur and cave in and go silly and so on. Why? He's affecting the two remote viewpoints which he has in front of the MEST body's eyes.
The interchange point of the body and the thetan is the anchor point. The thetan does not touch flesh. That sounds very strange, doesn't it? He does not touch flesh, as such, when you're first processing him. When you get him real good, up to a point where he can actually handle all sorts of energies, and sometimes when he's in pretty bad condition but can still handle certain energies, he can make a direct contact.
But he doesn't ordinarily handle the body by doing this. That would be a stunt. That'd be a stunt—he could make a direct contact on the body that the body feels. For instance, he touches the cheek of the body and you all of a sudden see his cheek dimple in. Well, he's pretty good thetan—pretty good operating level. Ordinarily he doesn't do that. He isn't connected to the body. He's occu-pying these anchor points—space. And by varying the anchor points which he can contact as the intermediate position, he varies and handles the body. That's more or less the way he works.
And then you find some thetan hugging this exact space. Or, worse than that, you'll find him hugging only the space of the hands and arms and so forth, regardless of the anchor point. He has therefore exceeded the space of the body in some fashion or another. He has (quote) "taken his finger off his space." And again, we have a problem of space.
Many thetans and many bodies—people who are bad off—they're actually copying the shape of the body, not copying the anchor points of the body so as

OUTLINE OF SOP 8-C
to monitor them. And again, this is remedied by space. But it's also remedied in other ways.
Well, this is the basic trouble, and the basic thing that you're fighting in exteriorization or that you're setting up, is an aberration of the space points— the anchor points of the body. These are shifted in some fashion or another so the thetan cannot exteriorize. That's actually what you're trying to do. Anything that goes off the line on that will not contribute to exteriorization.
But once exteriorization has taken place, then you're taking up the whole problem of the performance of life. So that SOP 8-C is directed in part toward exteriorization—those parts which immediately and intimately concern them¬selves with exteriorization. And then concerns itself broadly with all the activities which have to be exercised and taken control of again by the thetan in order to remain powerful and able to function and able to produce effects such as he cares to produce in whatever world he happens to be living in.
So the broad purpose of SOP 8-C is not to exteriorize somebody, but to make an able being. But those portions of SOP 8-C which are designated as exteriorization portions, are themselves the most effective methods I know, at this time, of exteriorizing anybody.
Now, I'm just going to read this off here. And you understand that the goal of this process is to make a Theta Clear. And that a partial goal, a very small goal of the process, is to exteriorize somebody.
And this is the brief form. And Step I is by location (I'm having this mimeographed, by the way, and distributed) Step I, by location—that's the total of Step I—location.
(a) Be three feet back of head.
And you ask him, "Are you there?" and so forth.
Then you ask for places where the preclear is not in the present. And you ask for places where he's not in the past. This proceeds straight on Straightwire, you see. This is whether he's out of his head or in his head.
Where he isn't in the future. If he's out of his head, this'll start making him certain about where he is out of his head.
Where others are not in the present, past and future. And remember that order: present, past and future. Present, past and future—not past, present, and future—wrong order. Present, past, future.
The present is the most immediate objective and therefore has priority. Being out of present time into the future is a deteriorated situation.
Very few people would recognize that as a deteriorated situation. Where you want to be is way up in the future. This is the person who is figure-figure-figure; plan-plan-plan, foresee, foresee; prevent consequences, prevent consequences— see? The dickens with that. The fellow who's really calm is simply in present time. He isn't in the future. If you asked him what was going to go on in the future, why, he'd say, "Well, I don't know, I expect there's going to be some randomity tomorrow morning, but this is not tomorrow morning."
Now, he can cause things into the future if he cares to do so. But the bulk of Homo sapiens' cause is devoted to not having things happen in the future. So that's unmocking the future. And what Homo sapiens is doing about 99 percent of the time is unmocking the future.
Take a bunch of little kids, for instance, in school and give them huge safety campaigns is about as vicious as you can get. You ought to give them danger campaigns—they'd find life much more interesting. If you did that, though, you'd never be able to park them in front of a TV set—they wouldn't take second order of 5r.

137

138

7 DECEMBER 1953
Now, where objects are not, in the present, past and future; and where the pc is not thinking, in the present, past and future; and where others are not thinking, in the present, past and future.
And then you have him create, use and destroy remote viewpoints.
Now, the variation on that, if he didn't exteriorize when you asked him to, this step would be performed by having him waste remote viewpoints, having him save them, accept them and so forth—right there, see, pang! He's obviously running on a remote viewpoint. He's obviously running on two remote viewpoints, and these two remote viewpoints are in front of his eyeballs. He didn't exteriorize because he has to be behind the invisible barrier. All right.
Now, that's part A, I have just gone over.
Part B is taken up if he exteriorized—if he did go uncertainly or certainly back of his head. You did all of A right afterwards, and if he is exteriorized then and fairly certain of it, why, you go into part B of Step I—which is you ask the pc to be in pleasant, unpleasant, beautiful, ugly, dangerous and safe places in his own, in the MEST, and others' universes. See, if he was exteriorized.
But if he didn't exteriorize, or if he is very wobbly being exteriorized— very, very, wobbly—even after you ran all that Orientation on him, he is very wobbly in his exteriorization, you start asking him to be in beautiful, ugly, and dangerous and safe places, you'll start running a Change of Space situation.
And Change of Space Processing—this character might be a V, and you start doing Change of Space Processing on somebody who is a Step IV or Step V, SOP 8 style, and oh, this is brutal. You may wind him up in a hospital or something. It's a real brutal thing to do. It's like the people I gave that Change of Space to on blackness. They only ran it for fifty minutes, the optimists. Everybody in the room was occluded to some degree or another, and they run this process for fifty minutes and then they get hot afterwards, and get cold and get green and pink and purple and they wonder—wonder what happened? Well, they just ran away from it. Because it's too tough. That's right, they ran away from it.
I say that, and just without any further qualification. Because we ran, in the First Unit, Change of Space—had one of the people of the First Unit run Change of Space on the group as a whole. And everybody from Step IV down that was in that group, within just—oh, three, four, five minutes, was gone from that room. They just left in a flood, and that was the end of that. Change of Space is just too rough on this case level. They go unconscious, they do all sorts of things. So you don't want Change of Space.
When we say—speak of a Step IV, we must be talking about SOP 8; we're not talking SOP 8-C. There's no such thing as a Step IV in SOP 8-C. There's people who are in their heads, and we want to get them ready to run SOP 8-C on them. And there's people who are exteriorized, and we're running SOP 8-C on them. That's about the end of that.
Now we have Step II. Now, Step II—again, see, these first three steps are beingness steps, and we have a special kind of anchor point being handled in Step II, so it's really a space process. But it overlaps into Step IV, which is an automaticity process.
The anchor point which people most believe in, and are most certain about, is the body. So what we handle in Step II of SOP 8-C is the body as an anchor point. Now, this is pretty tough on people who are very hard to exteriorize, to suddenly have them handle bodies. It's tough on them. That's too bad. Because that's basically what's wrong with them. There—too much automaticity in the

OUTLINE OF SOP 8-C
body is a barrier which they're putting up to the world, rather than something which they're running for fun.
So, we start Step II by saying, "Be three feet back of your head." See, regardless of whether he was before or not, we—"Three feet back of your head." And we have him mock up and unmock the room and his own body until he's well exteriorized. And if he doesn't exteriorize, why, we just go on to the next step.
So, A—the whole test of A there, and the slight variation we have from pattern in A, is we ask him to be three feet back of his head, and whether he is or isn't, we have him mock up his own body in front of him and unmock it, and mock up the room and unmock it, many times.
Now, you—a lot of your people will simply mock it up a couple of times, and then be out of their heads. Not automatically, you have to tell them then to be out of their heads again, so there actually should be another line in there. "Be three feet back of your head," and the fellow says, "Nyowrr-nyowrr." "Well, mock up your own body in front of you." Now, that's a rough assignment, to mock up somebody's body. To tell somebody to look at his body when he's very uncertainly exteriorized sometimes puts him into a dreadful plunge. It upsets him. And it's not something that you would do ordinarily if you expected a terrifically smooth advance of case.
But it is better to do this than to neglect to exteriorize somebody. See, I mean we could just neglect this whole thing. That is a wonderful method. For instance, I think you were telling me—"Be three feet back of his head" and he wasn't quite, and he mocked up his body in front of him and behind him a couple of times, and then exteriorized—bang! We mustn't overlook the fact that that happens.
Now, if he exteriorized, mock up the room. The only thing—reason you're mocking up the room is to give the body some space to be in.
I feel you're unclear about that. I'll go over it again. We get into Step II, we tell him to be three feet back of his head, and whether he does or not, we don't care. We just ask him to mock up his body in front of him, and unmock it several times. We ask him to mock up the room and unmock it several times.
Now, what we would do, again, would be, "Now be three feet back of your head," and they very often will just make it, just (snap) pang! and they're all set.
And if they exteriorized on Step II, now you just—that's the only thing wrong with that step, as I told you before, is one who is an SOP 8 Step IV, you ask him to look at even a mock-up of his own body and he gets real upset. So know—kind of know what you're looking at; use your brains when you hit that one, and if you don't use your brains, why, think about it.
Now, if he did exteriorize, you mock up—have him mock up and move own body between various locations, if he'd exteriorized. Now this sounds— another thing that sounds like a strange step to throw in there because as I said, it throws these people for a loop to look at their own body, very often. Even if they're exteriorized, that's the one thing you charge into and they get very, very upset about it. But listen, we're not asking him to look at his own body, and haven't, right straight on through this step—we're asking him to mock it up.
Now have him mock it up and move it from San Francisco, to Seattle, to Ecuador—back and forth and around and round between various locations, and handle it, and explode mock-ups of that body. See? Turn his body upside down, turn it over and unmock it and then create it, now mock it up so that it endures. And while it's enduring, have it appear in South America and have it appear in Chicago and move it here and there. And then turn it upside down,

139

140

7 DECEMBER 1953
and now blow it up, and now mock it up again, and put it on the floor and saw it into many pieces with this fine saw, and be sure you get the pain out of it. And you keep on doing this.
He isn't looking at his body. You got to use your head about this step. He's not looking at his body, he's looking at mock-ups of bodies.
And very often they say, "Now I'll get a mock-up of my body," and a three-year-old child will appear. Or somebody who's stuck in the Assumption may often just get somebody who's just a baby, you know. And every time they say, "Now, I'll get my own body"—boom! they get a two-year-old girl. "Now, let's see, I'm going to get my own body this time," and pang! Well, that person's a Step VI and they've got to handle a lot of symbols. That's all right.
Then, only after we've handled this body in this fashion and changed it around and turned it upside down and right side up and everything else, do we ask him to look at his own body. And we do this by—you know this business of mocking and unmocking a body? All right, you take him and make parts of his body disappear and put them back again, and then make them disappear and put them back again. And now, make his body disappear and put in its place all kinds of other bodies to exteriorize behind. See, children's bodies and so on.
Now, there's a routine of doing this that I used to do occasionally which was—I don't know, bad or good, but I used to take them in and have them put a baby there and unmock it; and I'd go back to a minute-old baby, and a two-minute-old baby and so on, have them mock and unmock this; and an infant, and unmock an infant; and mock up a five-year-old and unmock it; mock up a ten-year-old and unmock it, and in other words bring the body automatic machinery up to present time so the body will construct the body as old as the body is—or younger, in the case of a very old person. Now, you follow that step?
You've got to make the pc completely familiar with bodies with this step. It's a special kind of anchor point. He can take them, leave them alone, throw them away, sort them out, cut them to pieces, do anything—you just get him over being superdependent upon bodies, and you—mostly by handling bodies. You just get him to handle bodies in mock-up form, and then actually mock and unmock existing bodies. That's this step.
Step II is then—Step I is by location—Step II is just, let's handle that special anchor point called a body. First in mock-ups—making duplication in mock-ups and duplication of the room in which it's situated in mock-ups. And then handling it while he's exteriorized just by mocking it up and unmocking it and changing it around and exploding it and creating it and throwing it away. And just handle bodies, handle bodies, handle bodies, you understand?
And then, have him take the body, this is the first time— you've just got him so accustomed to handling bodies by now that it doesn't matter. And you take him for the first time and you make him look at his body. Directly point his attention to his body and tell him to make a lock of hair disappear and then an ear disappear and something else disappear, and then get it back so he won't worry, and then get so he can unmock the whole body and put the body there and unmock it and put other bodies there, and just so he—"Bodies. Bodies, snotties, who cares, see? Oh yeah, there's nothing to it." That's Step II.
Now, let's get to Step III. Step III is by space proper. Now, if we notice here that in Step I, we worked it out and "be" in various kinds of space. See, Step I—locationals—pinpoint locational. And then we got into II, and we started into the idea of anchor points by the idea that—anchor points.
Now, you know you can deliver a—something vaguely resembling a psychoanalysis to a person simply by handling the body as an anchor point, by

OUTLINE OF SOP 8-C
the way. Did you know that? I mean, you can ask him on an E-Meter what bodies he is normally orienting himself by. You know, he knows where he is because these other bodies exist. And just have him double-terminal and get the charge of them, and you'll free him. He's using other bodies as his own anchor points. I mean that's how that—important that second step is. All right.
Now we'll get into Step III, which is by space. And we just ask the pc to be three feet in back of his head, and have him hold the two upper corners of the room until well exteriorized.
How long does that take? It says until he's well exteriorized. Well, how long could that be? Well, let me assure you that could be fifty hours. But you, as an auditor with lots of better things to do and so forth, are only going to do that for a short space of time. If he's going to exteriorize readily and rapidly, he'll do it in the first few minutes. So that's that exteriorization by the corners of the room. You see, that doesn't vary much from SOP 8.
And as soon as we get him well exteriorized, we would, of course—if he popped out of his head, if he exteriorized well—we'd of course just go to Step I. If during II sometime he all of a sudden popped out of his head, we'd just go to Step I. It wouldn't be too harmful to run the rest of this stuff, but you might bog him a little bit because it's a little more complicated, the remainder of Step III, than anyone would care to suffer through if he first came out of his head and said, "My God, where am I?" and then you—next thing you tell him is you have to explain to him what anchor points are and how he puts them around himself. Oh, he just gets so confused. He's already so confused, that he's—hardly be able to check up on him. You see that? So if he exteriorized after he held the two back corners of the room, bang! why, you just go to Step I.
And it's a good rule anytime. Step I is the easiest thing for a fellow to handle.
You know, this preclear queasily gets out of his head, and he doesn't know quite whether he's out of his head or not. And he doesn't know, it just seems like he is out of his head, and yes, he guesses he is, but maybe he isn't. Yeah, he's certain he is, he guesses, and so forth. You just start in on Step I. Just don't throw in the sponge and say, "Well, this fellow isn't certainly exteriorized." It's your business now to certainly exteriorize him, and the best way to do that is to ask him where he isn't—present, past and future in three universes.
It's interesting, you ask him, "Are you in your mother's head?" You some¬times get a yes, until he thinks it over for a moment. "No. No I'm not! I knew that all the time." Oh, yeah?
All right. So, when we get to "by space," that's an exteriorization technique. And one with which auditors have been very successful. Just as in all of these processes I've given you up to here, auditors have been extremely successful— when they were successful, they've been successful with these techniques. That's why this SOP 8-C is here. All right.
Supposing he was three feet back of his head, he was there, and you had run Steps I... Well, supposing he came out on this, he's well exteriorized, and you ran Step I, you ran Step II—or supposing he came out in Step I and you got down to here—you'd simply do all of this again. In other words, if he was exteriorized and you'd finished Step II and he'd handled bodies, the next thing you would do would be to ask him to hold on to the two corners of the room— whether he was in a body or not. That's a very important step for a thetan, because it's at this point he normally discovers that my God, he's looking at facsimiles, he isn't looking at the room. He discovers that along about here, the second you ask him to hold on to parts of the room, and it'll blow right about this point. So, you'd ask him to do that again.

141

142

7 DECEMBER 1953
After he's done that for a while—let him to sit there and not think—you run brackets of space on him. And that's eleven commands, and there is a list of those eleven commands which has already been handed out to you. You just run those brackets of space. You go round and round and round and round and round with them.
Now, the only real failures that I have seen—that you might say failures, is somebody being outside and then popping back in—as I've tried to tell you earlier in this hour, people have failed to run brackets of space on them. They've failed to handle space; space is just something they ran away from. And naturally, the fellow hasn't got space and he can't go anyplace and he can't tolerate other people's space, and so the next time somebody else's space threatens him— such as an automobile running him down or something of the sort—why, instead of doing something active, he just plows back into his head, which is about the least practical thing he can do. There he's interiorized again.
Why do people interiorize? People interiorize because they are not accustomed to handling space—particularly other people's. So there's that eleven commands of space. You make brackets—there's a six-way bracket of space, and there's a five-way bracket of space in the room.
Now, this is a little laborious to do. And you can vary it a little bit. You can make space out of things. You can put up Papa as eight anchor points and throw that around for a while, but you're already getting much too significant, much, much too significant with this.
He'll say yes, he can do this and do that—throw at him once in a while, what color are the anchor points he's getting? And he'd very often say, "Oh, it's like everybody else—black," or something like that. Well, when you stop running brackets of space is when he's got about the brightest, goldest, glaringest anchor points that anybody could ever see. And that's what you're running brackets of space for—to get those anchor points real bright.
And now you orient and disorient spaces in three universes. And what's that mean? It means "Which way is Boston?"
"Well," the fellow says, "it's over thataway."
And you say, "That's fine. Put it over in the opposite direction. Put it down. Have Boston down and San Francisco up."
Just get him completely oriented and then disoriented. Ask him to find out exactly where he is, and then have him change all the directions. He'll really protest at this. Every once in a while, you get somebody who's beautifully exteriorized and he's floating along, and he knows that you shouldn't ruin his case or something like that. In other words, this fellow sort of reminds you of having a tightrope mocked up from one corner of the room to the other, which he is very carefully walking with glue on his shoes.
And this fellow, when you suddenly throw him something like this—you say, "Now, which way is Boston?"
"Thataway."
"All right, put it in the opposite direction." You maybe do that a couple of times and then really squirrel him up: "Now put Fort Worth alongside of Boston, and the North Pole in Cuba."
He very often doesn't like this.
Now you have him look around the room and disarrange all the furniture. Have him spot all the furniture and then disarrange them. How long do you keep that up? Till he doesn't give a damn what direction is which, because it shouldn't matter to him worth two nickels and a collar button which is. But

OUTLINE OF SOP 8-C
you always make him orient himself carefully and then disorient himself. Have him find somebody else's universe and orient himself carefully by it.
Now, when you, who have never seen somebody else's universe, are auditing somebody and you say, "Somebody else's universe," you may not, until you yourself have the experience, get any conviction on the fact that you're sending the fellow anyplace or asking him to look at anything. But believe me, he'll find a place to go. Just don't worry your head about it if you haven't had the experience.
You say, "Well, go and find somebody else's universe. Okay. And find the center of it. All right. Put the center up in one corner of it."
And he doesn't like that. "It's an invasion of privacy," he says, and so forth—he's upset one way or the other.
And now we get to what you were doing when you first came here which is all part of Step A: You put emotions—particularly fear, competition, desirable sensation in three universes, including walls, objects and people in the street. Remember that one? That list you were doing for drills. Okay.
I dare say that did more for your cases than anything has since. But I'm sure that you did not beat to pieces the ones which need doing. And having watched what ones you were doing and listened to you auditing, and watched you skipping very grandly over some of these rather obvious ones now and then, we'll put it down, and put it down good and tough. And that would be fear, competition, desirable sensation, and we'd put them into three universes, including walls and bodies and so forth.
And then—and this is the last of Step A, now, in SOP 8-C, we'd adjust the anchor points in the body. After we got through all of that, see, adjust the anchor points of the body. The fellow can't see them, we coax him to mock up patterns of anchor points until his own anchor points become bright, and if they still aren't visible and so forth, we just go to Step I. If he didn't exteriorize and they still aren't visible and so forth, we just go back to Step I and we roll her again. Okay.
But if he did exteriorize, we go on to the rest of Step III, which was, we ask him to be spaces of all kinds and in three universes—which is all there is to that Step B, but that's plenty. We just ask him to be spaces—be the space of somebody else's universe, and be the space of his own universe, and be the space of this part of the MEST universe, and be the space of the body, and the space of the building, and space of somebody else's universe, and space of somebody else's body, and the space of a truck, and space of a police wagon, and space of something in somebody else's universe, and the space of the whole universe of somebody else's universe, and then part of the space of somebody else's universe. And we just go on in this fashion, see, you just beat this to pieces in three universes.
And remember, don't scant that. Don't scant somebody else's universe— it's just as important as the preclear's. To him it's just as important as he is. His total interest in life is his randomity, and his randomity comes exclusively, really, from somebody else's universe. So if you skimp that one, you're—he's got to use something else for randomity than other people, so he'll use his own universe for randomity. He shouldn't have to.
Now, Step IV: Waste, save, accept, desire, and be curious about machines which create, cause to resist effort (which is to say persist, or not end) and destroy the list in SOP 8, Step IV—particularly worry, blackness, fear, and invisible barriers. This is all as given, except I've just summarized it here so it's pretty digestible. Okay.

143

144

7 DECEMBER 1953
That's the machine one, then. We'll just throw all machinery into that. And we'll throw the second step—bodies, anchor points—and you'll see that much more clearly.
Want to make somebody feel silly sometime, have them build space out of eight bodies as anchor points. He'll do it for a little while, and then he'll get feeling awful silly about it. This is a stupid thing to do. You know, that'll occasionally disabuse him from marking time from the basis of "when Aunt Mary burned her hand" and—in other words, condition of a body as a time. All right.
And we get to Step V which is by terminals. And all of Step V is entirely Change of Space and terminals. Here we have, what is the electric motor? The electric motor is space interposed between two terminals. Anything which can be—remedy that, that's Step V. There are lots of those, but these are the effective ones. We have the pc shift and fix ideas between various points in various universes, particularly (quote) "fixed ideas" and (quote) "waiting for effect" (unquote). And then we have the pc shift scenery in three universes. Just move it around—that's easy, isn't it? That's all there is to the step.
That shifting scenery around will cause an exteriorization, by the way, in passing, but not as effective as it might be, because auditors can ball up on it. That's why it's not effective—they've fouled up. They get him pulling in spaces and then don't have him put any out and then wonder why his track stacks. And they don't watch what's going on, so we just don't do it too much. That Step V is very simple.
Now, you wanted something that'd undo postulates, didn't you? You wanted something that'd erase all the phrases out of engrams. Now, you could take Book One now, and take every phrase that occurs in Book One and just mock it up as a phrase, and then shift it in spaces.
Now, you can shift unknown perception also, in that same fashion: unknown sounds, unknown smells, unknown illnesses. Now, you know, people can have other people's illnesses, but they can't have other people. The least that they can have from somebody else, when they're bad off, is somebody else's illness, that's—contagious disease depends on this.
Oh, I was very fascinated—just let me comment on something in passing. I picked up a copy of Reader's Digest on the newsstand. I noticed it says, "Stop the Hot Cigarette Habit" or something, an article by Professor Stinkwiler who was an opponent on the payroll of the Lieber Tobacco Company or something of the sort. And he'd written this article, and it said—it explained that mortality was much greater amongst smokers than nonsmokers. And this, of course, immediately attributed itself to the toxic poisons. And he traced all this down.
Here's what's known as a colored index of figures. You see, if you took a bunch of nonsmokers and you took a bunch of smokers out here in the society, you would be segregating people who were quite active and people who were more sedentary than others—in other words, just physically. So we would immediately be picking the lower-scale batch, just on the average—doesn't mean that everybody's low scale that smokes, but the opportunity to be low scale and smoke is greater, see.
So we could just unbalance this, and we'd find out the figures came out with the exact percentages that he's got them out with. In other words, smoking hasn't anything to do with it; it's a diagnosis of whether or not the fellow is idle. And more things happen to idle people, psychosomatically—because they think about themselves ordinarily—than happen to people who aren't idle. And you will find out that the index on smoking is that people who sit around

OUTLINE OF SOP 8-C
a great deal, and who are indoors a great deal, smoke much more than people who are outdoors a great deal and are active.
And that's because if you're outdoors a great deal and you're very active, you don't have much time to smoke—you're interested in too many things; you don't need your mind taken off of doing nothing.
Because smoking in its essence is the opportunity of making nothing out of something, and that's all it is. And it peps a fellow up—he isn't out killing any Injuns or anything of the sort, so he makes something out of nothing with a cigarette.
It's even doubtful that there is a flavor in tobacco. I know I was shifting tobacco around the other day in terms of flavors and that was quite—I had a quite interesting time. I was smoking "rose water" cigarettes for a while, and I had it—got it so firmly fixed, see, so as not to unfix it at any time, that anything I smoked tasted exactly like rose water, and then blew it up. There isn't any real natural flavor to tobacco. I think the only natural flavor you get in tobacco is the pretty girls on the advertisements. Anyway . . . (audience laughter)
Anyway that shows you how figures and statistics can be colored. You get two kinds of populace, and then find out that disease is more rampant in sedentary populace than the other, and then pick out some reason and just throw it in. You know, nearly every piece of rationale that the society is using at this minute is figured in that fashion. All right.
We get Step VI which is symbolization, remedy of. You have the pc shift symbols around, make them heavy and light, until he can handle them. And have him do things without any reason. And have him be past, present and future until time is nondirectional.
You know people think that the future is over here to the right, and they think Tuesday is around the corner and so forth. Well, if you have him be past, present and future for a while, why, he'll be better off. You'll find a lot of people that you exteriorize are still very heavily symbolized.
Now, if the person is an interior person, and you're having an awful time busting his case, his case entrance will be here at Step VI. And the way you get that case entrance is have him do something without a reason; and that's just a little aside on the technique.
You're expected to be able to use any of these things to exteriorize somebody as far as that's concerned. This is just your pattern of operation.
Now, how do you make a symbol heavy and light? Well, I'll show you how to make a symbol heavy or light.
Now, let's get a picture of an igloo. All right.
Now let's have that igloo mean hot weather.
What did the symbol do?
Audience: Melted.
Well, you see, there isn't any reason why your symbol of an igloo should melt just simply under hot weather, now is there? Not really. Except that it's the rationale and agreement with the MEST universe. So let's do this again.
Let's get an igloo and make it mean hot weather. And keep that igloo. (audience laughter) What happened, it melt?
Male voice: Snow was melting all around it.
Second male voice: Mine didn't even begin to melt the first time, but then when I found out other people's were melting, mine started to melt the second time!
Well, all right. Now let's have a big piece of steel and have it mean "light."
Now let's shift this big piece of steel from the front of the room to the back of the room. It means "light."

145

146

7 DECEMBER 1953
Now let's shift it to the front of the room.
Now let's move it over to the right side of the room.
Move it over to the left side of the room.
Now let's make it heavier.
And make it mean "light."
And shift it to the back of the room.
And the front of the room.
The right side of the room.
The left side of the room.
Let's make it much heavier and make it mean much lighter.
Now, let's shift it over to the left side of the room.
And shift it over to the right side of the room.
Shift it into the top of the room and drop it on the floor.
Have it fly off the floor and land on the ceiling. That's all. Blow it up.
Now, the normal way to go about that, of course, you just use Self Analysis, and then what you know about Scientology in general, you simply inject into Self Analysis mock-ups. You find out what he can and can't do, and you just work around on it on a Creative Processing level until symbols aren't that important to him. But remember what your goal is—to disabuse him of having symbols be that important.
Now, you take specific symbols to which he's very attached, and you do Change of Space with them. You have him be them. You have them select him out for randomity and fight him. You do all sorts of things with symbols to make them live and active and real. And if you can make them incredibly live and incredibly active and incredibly real, so that he's really getting them, all of a sudden he'll say, "Well, to hell with it! There's just no such thing as a symbol. I mean, a symbol—phooey! I can have a postulate. I don't have to have an iron collar."
A lot of people, you know, they get a—they make a postulate, say, "I'm going to do that," and then at night when they go to bed, they got this haunted feeling that something is wrong. Some of them never trace it down to the fact they said they were going to do something, at all. Their postulates are real heavy.
Now, you saw me discharge a postulate this morning to a point of where the preclear forgot all about what postulate it was, which is a complete erasure.
Somebody who's really sold on symbolization responds very easily really, eventually. But you get him to do something without a reason. Of course, you work all the other processes on him too.
And now we get into the final step, which is VII, and you—this is just Contact—barriers, three universes; being in contact with the barriers of three universes. And have pc get six directions to nothing (you know, three universes— six directions to nothing). You know how to do that. You find the first barrier and look through it, and find the second barrier and look through it, and find the third barrier. And you put barriers up in three universes and have him take them down in three universes; and have him mock and unmock MEST walls, buildings, and spaces; and have him reach and withdraw from MEST until he can touch it or not touch it at will. And that's what you remedy with that step, and that is the full of Contact. He puts something there until he at last realizes he's putting it there to contact it. But more than that, this—you finish up havingness. And in this step, you have collapsing anchor points on himself in order to make solid energy.

OUTLINE OF SOP 8-C
When you've ruined somebody's havingness by processing—you know, he's just a concept now, he just doesn't feel good. Just have him put up eight anchor points and collapse them on himself, and eight anchor points and collapse them on himself, and eight anchor points and collapse them on himself, and he'll immediately feel better.
What are you doing? You're erecting some MEST, you're giving him a barrier, you're handing him some stuff. You know? That's all you're doing.
But again, that's by contact. You're giving him something he can put his paws on. You could do the same thing by presenting him with the room. Yeah, he could reach and withdraw with the room until it worked.
Now, there's—as you see, salted through all of these techniques there's an awful lot of ways to exteriorize somebody, but they're not the best ways to exteriorize people.
The best ways to exteriorize them are contained in Step la, Step IIa, Step IIIa—with one exception, and that's exteriorization by effort: Have him put his paws on his shoulders and pull his body to him, and push his body away. But if you don't follow that up fairly soon with the remainder of Step I—right away, get him where he's not while he's exteriorized—he'll be very unstable. He'll go back in again.
That doesn't mean you can't push him out again the same way. Don't think that a case suddenly declines or deteriorates just because it's been out once and goes back in—it doesn't. The guy works easier next time. Unless you as an auditor got him out uncertainly and then hit him in the face or something. It doesn't work any worse. Just because a guy did it once is no reason he can't do it twice.
But he's got the idea of resisting effects and so forth, and he may have run into this idea that the body will collapse, or something will collapse on him, and he'll get worried about it. Have him do Change of Space—that is to say, "Put the worry about the body in San Francisco and Seattle and the Yukon, in San Francisco, in Seattle, and the Yukon," and it'll eventually evaporate.
Okay.

147



Essence of SOP 8-C
A lecture given on 8 December 1953

And this is December the 8th, morning lecture. And this fine, crisp morning, you have in your hands the SOP 8-C brief form for student use.
Now, that's a brief form—indeed, that's a brief form. That's the one thing you can know about this form, that it's very brief. Because you can do anything to a preclear that you can do in Scientology.
Now, I occasionally throw in all kinds of odds and ends of techniques— partially on the basis of interest. Your biggest and highest levels are interest, attention, cause, effect, and their negatives.
And the most potent emotions which go along with this, of course, are— for the people, a lot of the people you'll be working on—insanity (insanity's an emotion, not a state), fear, sexual sensation, competition and superiority, and their negatives. And that's just about the prime list that I handle.
Just as an aside on this emotion called insanity, people worry about insanity and they do lots of things about insanity, but it is an emotion which is brought about by the compulsion to reach and the inhibition not to reach, or the compulsion not to reach and the inhibition to reach. And those two things together, one way or the other, bring about this emotion. You can turn this on in almost any preclear, by the way.
People going around worrying about being insane or going insane, are very amusing. They are amusing, because you can turn that emotion off just as fast as anything. It may give you a bad fifteen minutes or a bad half an hour, but you can turn it off. And the other ways to handle it, is just have them match-terminal themselves going insane and repressing all their insane motions and so forth.
Insanity is a postulate. It precedes death on the whole track. Death was an invention which came about as a self-protective mechanism.
So long as one was a being and had gotten into something he couldn't get out of, the punishment could continue against all arguments, you see. So the first invention to keep punishment from continuing was insanity. That's on the whole track. That's very early.
And it said, "I'm insane, which means I have no further responsibility, which—this and that, and to prove it, here's this emotion." And one merely did that by reaching and not reaching, and withdrawing and not withdrawing.
It said, "I can't do you any further harm because I am in this horrible state which is non compos mentis. I can't think. I can't act. I can't harm you in any way. No further menace in me, so therefore, you should leave me alone."

149

150

8 DECEMBER 1953
And that made punishment stop sometimes, so having been successful at various places on the track (audience member coughing), a pc who is inclining towards insanity ... I notice this is starting some coughs, that's interesting. A pc inclining toward insanity or worried about insanity, has simply had this work too well, many times, you see. He says, "I'm nuts, you know, and therefore you've got to leave me alone"—and it's worked.
Any mechanism which the pc has, whether it's a sore knee, a sore jaw or a crossed-up postulate—anything, you know, I mean just anything—he's got it because it's worked.
It has been superior to the situation, and he's tried to make it work again and again and again. And he's always hoping it will work. But you take a sore tooth—this fellow goes around with a sore tooth—well, this sore tooth has made it work. Now, earlier we classified this as the service facsimile—call it the "service postulate" and it comes closer.
So insanity is something that's demonstrated and worried about by people and so forth, and it's just escapement from punishment. A little bit later on, individuals invented this other one. They said, "Look, I am my own mock-up, and my own mock-up is now dead." And that didn't work too well, so they said, "I'm really my own mock-up and my own mock-up is dead and I am dead too, and look, I can't remember my former life as that mock-up." And that's the condition of the track which we have here in 1953 A.D. Earth; and it's just an argument against further punishment.
Punishment is the motto, the justice, the thisa, the thata. It's very worthwhile, by the way. There's no future like a future in which you can punish people, according to the very best authorities. That's the end-all. That's the end-all of everything, is to be able to punish somebody, according to—does— at least that's the way you think that this thing operated. Just because nearly every difficulty which you find in a preclear is—stems from punishment—either his punishing others and so on. Overt act mechanism, overt act-motivator mechanism, all of these things center around punishment.
And this centers around pain, and pain is not supposed to be desirable anymore. Pain was quite—just quite a desirable emotion earlier. It's just an emotion. It says, "You're alive, fellow. Look, you can hurt." And we get earlier on the track and we find, however, that many other emotions were used in this capacity and pain became undesirable and so on.
Well now, anything which somebody didn't like was punishment, so you had to convince him there was something not to like before you could punish him. So you see how far down Tone Scale the whole thing of punishment is. You had to convince him there was something unlikable. In other words, you had to have him select out some randomity before he could be punished.
And the goal—the goal of law, justice, police, so forth, here on Earth is to find something the criminal doesn't like sufficiently to in—stop crime. That thing which causes crime is, of course, fear of punishment. In case one "haves," you see. In case one "has" something, you know, why, he'll be punished. And in case this happens, he'll be punished. In case something else happens, he'll be punished.
Now, the main thing that inhibits your pc in clearing is fear of punishment. He thinks if he gets that good, he'll be punished; so he tries to stay in a state of agreement which is lawfulness and law and order and et cetera, in some kind of an effort to keep from being punished.
Well, this is very, very funny if you look at it. This becomes very amusing, simply because you can't punish a thetan. That's impossible. And hence this goal of the impossible leads into many impossible complications. Leads into

ESSENCE OF SOP 8-C
complications such as the WCTU, the—leads into complications such as the FBI. Leads into politics and war and all these various asininities.
War is asinine. It isn't necessarily bad, it's just stupid. The reason it's stupid is because you can't have a good time in a war. That's what's wrong with a war. That's all that's wrong with a war.
A bunch of guys—they've got lots of stars all over them, you know and they get all around and they say, "Go here, go there, do this, do that, jump here, jump there," so on.
And the fellow says, "Well, what am I supposed to do?"
"You're supposed to wait."
There's nothing wrong with a war where it comes to action. I mean you get an initial moment of action on the thing, why, there's action—there's something to do.
But wars are run by people who today are so low, so despicably low on the Tone Scale, that they never provide any action for anybody. And so therefore, they forfeit their right to leadership. And all they can provide is, in essence, a punishment for somebody—which is wait, or closed space.
What's wrong with war? Well, war is forcing somebody to operate in a role he doesn't care to have, under another determinism than his own, in some sort of an effort to make political issues more complicated.
The very, very best essays—paragraphs—on war were written by Bolitho in his introduction to Twelve Against the Gods. And he says very little about war, but what he says is really very good. You ought to look it up sometime. It's a fabulous piece of work, that Twelve Against the Gods, anyhow. I don't necessarily agree with what he says, it's just a marvelous piece of work.
Anyway, you're handling somebody who is afraid of being punished, and he's going to exhibit various mechanisms to persuade you not to punish him. And although he ostensibly is saying, "Well, here I am all willing and waiting to be cleared and straightened up and squared around and so on," why, he isn't, normally. He's trying to find an acceptable state. He's not trying to get Clear. He does not know that being cleared is an acceptable state.
He's been convinced all up and down the track that he needed mechanisms to avoid punishment, and these mechanisms are his service mechanisms, his service postulates, his service facsimiles. And you're just asking him to throw down his armor. You're asking him to get into a state where he professedly will be dangerous to his environment.
And he isn't going to get dangerous to his environment if he can help it. The environment's too dangerous to him. And there's about the highest order that you'll hit in a pc that can be processed before he starts to burst through and stop fooling himself, is dangerous to his environment, environment's dangerous to him.
Actually, this is a computation of a beast, not a rational being. Man reacts to this very, very well. It's very high for man. It's higher than—oh, I don't know, almost anything man has ever had in terms of a level of action—a feeling of complete dangerousness to his environment. He is dangerous to his environment.
And most men operate on this basis: "The environment is so dangerous to me that I couldn't possibly survive on one dynamic or another or maybe all dynamics."
When he can't survive on all dynamics and he's convinced that he can't, he dies. Although some will substitute the mechanism of (quote) "going insane" (unquote). These are just mechanisms all toward the same thing. Insanity is not very important, not very interesting, and not very smart. And it is just a

151

152

8 DECEMBER 1953
computation of escapement. So with a service facsimile. It's not smart to use a service facsimile at all. It's very unclever. Extremely unclever. But when a fellow doesn't have any way to pick himself up, why, he uses the next tool to hand.
So you discover your preclear—with SOP 8-C, you discover your preclear in a state of a dangerous environment in which the preclear is trying to avoid or escape punishment. And that's any way that punishment could be defined.
And your fastest route up out of this is to bring about a condition where he is dangerous to his environment, rather the environment being dangerous to him. And your responsibility at that point is to push him on over the top and not leave him in that state. Because that's a very low state. That's the state of a beast, no more than that.
You see fellows—they suddenly get an edge up in processing. They suddenly get this little leg up in life, and so on, and they get to the state to where all of a sudden they conceive that they can be dangerous to some small portion of their environment. And being dangerous to that very tiny portion of their environment, they now think they have achieved "nirvana" or "vendetta" or some other wonderful state.
And the auditor is very often dismayed at what he's done. This fellow is becoming very pugnacious—doesn't process well. He's come up to the level of a lame tiger—about the same sentience. The thing to do is to give him a kick in the teeth and throw him back on the couch and push him on through. Get him to a point where he doesn't have to be dangerous to his environment, if you please.
That is idiocy. A man who has to be dangerous to his environment to live has, of course, just walked up to the point where he will have all the new resistances cave in on him, eventually, once more. See, he's just gotten up to a point where he and the environment are at war.
Well, that's like—you have to be careful with these techniques if you're going to stop a person at that state, at that level. But you'll find somebody or other will arrive at that state and he'll snarl, and he'll fuss and he'll damn Papa and Mama and he'll damn this and that, and he'll get mad about this and that. And to hell with him. It's not important.
He'll do this mainly if you as an auditor make an error, and that is, if you process him internally—while he's still interiorized. You process him very far with SOP 8-C interior, he'll get into trouble; because all you're operating with there is a beast—the body.
And you go get this thetan to restimulate all these pugnacious ideas in this body, and this body has about the same right to try to be dangerous to a MEST environment as a match has in putting out a fire. It just won't work.
The body—you take it down into the earth a mile and a half, and it's too hot. You take it up into the sky at twenty-five thousand feet or something like that, and it's pretty hard to breathe. And you take it down five miles, and you take it up eight miles, it's dead. Just can't tolerate it. It has to have one atmosphere of pressure—fifteen pounds per square inch. It's one of these more delicate machines.
Probably any Swiss watch, in essence, is less delicately built than a body. One of these shockproof watches they're turning out over in Switzerland now—it'll stand more than a body will.
So we have to recall this fact that we mustn't as auditors get completely sold on this, because we're selling our preclear on a frailty when we're heading him in toward the body. We continue to sell him on this frailty called a body and this idiocy called the human mind and we will get up to this point where he's dangerous to his environment. He's dangerous to some people—a few

ESSENCE OF SOP 8-C
people in his environment, then we think we've done a good job, see? Next time he sees a doctor, he'll snarl at him. You know, big gain. Next time he sees a traffic cop, he'll tear up the ticket and throw it in the traffic cop's face.
He'll recognize somewhere up the line—not "well, this filthy thing called a body" or "what am I doing with this thing called a body" or something like that—he'll come past that point of recognition, but he'll come up to a higher point of recognition, way up from there. And that is, "Well, bodies, mock-ups— well, they exist."
Now, recognition and acceptance of existence, then, is your main goal. If you can get somebody up there, he'll go on the rest of the way up. So above this level of dangerous to the environment, we get recognition of existence, acceptance of existence. Now, people can accept existence way down there at the bottom where the environment is terribly dangerous to them. They accept this existence. They sure do. Existence says, "You'd better!"
But way up, the fellow just whhoomm, complete relaxation about it. I mean, other people can live, other people have a right to live, he has a right to live. There are mock-ups, and you can do things with them. You can have fun with them. You can get things into motion. You can see things come about and develop and materialize and so forth. You can startle people sometimes and you can surprise thetans, and you can do all sorts of weird things. But actually the most fun is at a relatively noneffort, unserious level.
Every once in a while somebody says to me, "Well, you've got all these Operating Thetans going now—now, why don't you do something about the political situation between Washington and Russia?"
And you say, "Well, you ever meet any of these boys?"
"Well no, I never had much of a chance to talk to them."
"Well, what is it you said you wanted straightened out?"
"Well, I—Russia, you know, and the United States and the 'I Will Arise Society' and other randomity, other randomity, terribly serious, terribly serious. Why doesn't somebody remedy this if you people are so good?" and so forth.
You say, "Did you—have you ever talked to one of these boys? Well, I invite you to sometime." Because you get up toward full responsibility and you don't happen to be excepting out somebody's tribal randomities.
You know, they don't do it on this basis, but I point out that the very famous explorer by the name of Cook—the early Cook—got himself into a fabulous state. He interfered between a couple of tribes and they took him apart. You know, you can't tell what beasts are going to do.
If you're going to go out and run with tigers, why—if you're going to go out and run with dogs or something of the sort, why, they expect you to make up your mind about what side you're on, you know. Which pack do you belong to? And they're liable to bite at you.
Now, if you're in a condition of beingness where you don't happen to have to be bitten just because somebody wants to bite you, you certainly don't have to go to all the trouble of accepting these tribal randomities.
You get some Operating Thetan—he's going to go over and straighten out Russia. He gets—wakes up in the morning, he's kind of down Tone Scale, and he hears something over the radio, and so he's going to do this, you see. And he—next thing you know, why, you meet him again, you say, "Hey, what did you do?"
"Say," he says, "you know, there's the strangest thing over there in the Kremlin."
And you say, "What?"

153

154

8 DECEMBER 1953
And, "You know, there's a place there where one of those czars must have hung an awful lot of women. I straightened some of them up. They were still hanging around this room."
And, "What'd you do then?"
"Well, there's this village and they were having this big—big festival of some kind or another and I sat up on the steeple and watched for a while. And there was this young fellow and he wanted to get married to this girl and so he did. Huh!"
You say, "Now—now what—what about Stalin?" Now, this is what we wanted—this was what we used to get into: "What about Stalin?"—before somebody got ambitious and bumped him off. Somebody didn't exceed these— I mean, he didn't get high enough Tone Scale evidently. Stalin, if you recall— remember, died with a—he died from what they call a stroke. And the way you do a stroke is you just electronically short out a guy's head. That's a stroke. Anyway . . . They don't get serious about these things.
You—somebody's going to go down to straighten out Washington, you see. And he goes down to Washington and he sits around and he listens to some of this, and he looks it over and so forth, and next time you see him he's laughing like mad. You know, he's just terribly amused. You just can't get these fellows serious.
This that we're doing is no—has no military use. It really doesn't. If you had a pilot that you brought up to Operating Thetan—good jet pilot, and you brought him up to an Operating Thetan—he would do the practical thing, one or the other. He would do the practical thing. If his emotions were involved with other pilots, he would simply keep enemy planes on the ground, see? It just—it would be no point, you see, in going through all this. Or he might just like the motion of it. And he would be rather puzzled as to why somebody was trying to cut down air fights.
"Well, there's nothing wrong with an air fight. What's wrong with an air fight?"
"Well," you say, "men get killed."
And he'd think this over for a while, and he'd say, "Yes, that's true. That's true. I guess that's right, yeah. But what's wrong with an air fight?"
See, this has no point. It's just as hard to convince somebody who's gone up Tone Scale that all of these "solutions" how to stop people from punishing you are valid. Because he knows they're not valid. There's no validity to such a solution.
Fellow says, "I'm dead. I'm dead. I've been dead for years."
And some other down—body down in the insane asylum says, "I'm insane, I'm goofy. I don't know what's happening to me. Go ahead and shock me. Cut out my brains," and all this sort of thing going on. And those are just solutions. These people . . .
And a guy gets up Tone Scale, he looks at this and he says, "Isn't that silly?" He doesn't say, "These poor people, maybe I am one of them."
He runs out of his likening himself to everything and every being that he meets. He has achieved an individuality. And therefore, if he's run out of this supersympathy, why, he's probably gotten into some bracket that occasionally will be compassionate. But that's an entirely different thing than "sympathetic." Compassionate—"Well, it's too bad these people are in all this trouble. Have another cup of tea." That's compassion.
Being very serious about cleaning up the affairs of the world and the affairs of the MEST universe, I have learned, exceeds the powers of an Operating Thetan.

ESSENCE OF SOP 8-C
It doesn't exceed the powers of man, Homo sapiens —no, he's got to get in there and kill somebody. But—it certainly does. It's very remarkable.
Now, this is a difficult state, maybe, to wrap your mind around if you're all bogged down in the superseriousness of things. But you can get a whiff of it the first time that you exteriorize with some degree of certainty and say, "Huh? A body?" You know, a surprising thing—"I'm not a body." Well, it goes on from any surprise about being a body to "Gee, I hope I won't get bored." And it goes on up to "Well, I can always seek confidence in furnishing randomity. I can always furnish enough randomity for myself. I won't get bored."
And certainly one doesn't "mess in"—and just because one is actually capable of destroying something, does not mean that one destroys it.
But here's an odd thing: The manager of a business who is afraid to hurt his employees—very afraid of hurting his employees—will eventually do them the most harm. And one who is simply afraid of his employees succeeds a little bit better, but succeeds in doing them considerable harm. And one who really knows what he's doing doesn't worry too much about the employees—he isn't afraid of them or otherwise—because he knows he can right, one way or another, almost anything they do. So he doesn't set himself up as a police force over the employees. But the bulk of them, all they had to do is saw a little wood, and they don't get hurt. They don't get hurt. In the first place, they don't get hurt by sudden failure of the business. They don't get hurt by sudden injustices coming up.
There's somebody will listen to reason. Somebody will change his mind about what he decided. You know, it isn't "all got to be fixed at 1.5." That's a big difference. So you take—the person who scatters the most agony around him is the weakest person. It's the weak person who causes trouble.
The—fictionized America is sold on the plot of "the girl is right." For instance, I saw a—Frederick Hazlitt Brennan wrote a play, Arizona. They— I don't know why they called it Devil's Canyon, it wasn't. It was the story of the first penitentiary and the first woman convict put in the penitentiary in Arizona. And she was a robber.
And they got this all involved one way or the other . . . (Easy to see lots of movies, you know—all you have to do is go down to Hollywood and fly through the cans.) And this one was remarkable, because this girl is the one who actually instigated the rebellion in the prison, was to a large degree the cause of the complete upset and decline of the villain, was a traitor for having anything to do with the hero—to anything that she represented—and was then pardoned by the state.
And she did, evidently, everything wrong, you see—but in a very sweet way. If she'd never gotten messed up in this thing, they wouldn't have had any story at all because it all would have run off like clockwork, you see.
But in fictionized America, they have assigned this tremendous value to weak flabbiness in fiction. But they have, fortunately, carried on a tradition of "only the strong could afford to be just." And that's very true.
Now, an auditor finds himself asking—if he suddenly recognizes the techniques he is using are going to produce an individual freer than himself, if he isn't up scale himself, he's liable to ask himself the sudden, fast question: "Do I want to?" Now, he doesn't ask it behind his hand, he doesn't ask it quietly, he asks it right out loud. And he'll ask himself that question: "Do I want to set another thetan free?" He'll—very often will come up against that one unless his own state of case is in good shape.

155

156

8 DECEMBER 1953
It's an important point, if you're ever training auditors. You'll be able to spot what auditors are going to do a job and what auditors aren't. Just by that—are they willing to set people free?
Well, now, in SOP 8-C we have come about as close to the inevitable on this as possible. You just go ahead and use it and it will happen. It's very hard to wreck this technique—very, very hard to. Because it'll remedy faster than it'll wreck. And that was the balance that I was trying to achieve on it.
And I don't mean by that that all auditors are upset particularly about this. But I can tell you that an auditor can be upset about it. He can be. But if he is in—up there toward Operating Thetan you probably have some sort of a situation developing where he doesn't worry about it. And you get him too high, he doesn't audit, either.
There's various things which you can do, and various things which you can't do. Somebody told me recently that three auditors over in England had been sitting around spotting each other's ridges and then cleaning them up. Well, that's very fine. What's wrong with this? Only that when you start cleaning up somebody's ridges for him, you're upsetting his self-determinism, you're putting your paws on his havingness and you're generally pushing him around like mad.
Now, there is no trick at all to reaching into somebody's head and bapping him out of it. Very long ago I knocked a guy about three hundred yards—by accident. I mean, it wasn't completely accident, but I didn't think he'd go that far. (audience laughter) And he was in a terribly discombobulated state for some little time. Some little while, he was—upset him.
And anybody whose ridges have been straightened out by somebody else and anybody who's been exteriorized in this fashion—nah, doesn't last, and doesn't do them any good. Because it doesn't increase their self-determinism.
So we get the essence of SOP 8-C, which is restore the self-determinism of the individual by demonstrating to him that he can handle his own problems. This tells you, then, that there is some stage along this line where you do an "exit auditor," and we put that stage at Theta Clear. And we make sure it happens by SOP 8-0, which is Operating Thetan. And we just clean up anything like "auditors" on the fellow, because this is an oppressive point.
Now, in the use of this, then, I've been trying to show you you're trying to overcome the fear of punishment on the part of the preclear and you will put him up through various stages such as "dangerous to his environment" and "superambitious to straighten out everything."
By the way, at the time he's superambitious to straighten out everything, it's quite amusing—he isn't able to. He doesn't have enough soup yet. And he will be the most confused person you ever saw. He'll go over and give a speech someplace or he'll try to monitor somebody into some kind of an action somewhere, and he just does not have enough certainty or positiveness to accomplish this action, and he will fail. And then he'll read avidly in the papers to see whether or not it happened, and he won't find any trace of it in the papers.
He probably set up some kind of a ridge or something and did something, and it's very upsetting to him. And he'll pitch flat on his face and you'll have to pick him up again. Because almost everybody does this—they feel big and powerful all of a sudden and real ambitious and they're going to do something terrific, and they go over and run a mock-up of a mock-up of a mock-up for a couple of minutes or something like that, and they feel they've done it and then there's no evidence that they did and this invalidates them like mad and here they go.

ESSENCE OF SOP 8-C
So the auditor must be prepared, as he pushes somebody up the line here, first to take on a great deal of responsibility for his case and then to expect the case to nose-dive and to pick it up, and the case to nose-dive and to pick it up. Because it will several times, probably, before it gets up to any degree of stability.
After you've audited somebody, and you see them staggering around or something, you ought to get hold of them and do something about it. You know, in spite of the fact that it's not a scheduled session or something of the sort, you just shouldn't leave a guy in agony because the next session is such and such a time. That's because it's very easy at this time to do something about it.
Now, let's take somebody—let's E-Meter somebody and find out why his case isn't progressing, and all of a sudden we go over these various factors which I gave you earlier in the lecture that we're hitting, such as insanity, and fear of punishment in various forms and so forth, and we hit one of these things and the E-Meter goes clong!
Well, match-terminal it for a while. That's an easy way to handle it. And then move the postulate around—postulates related to it—and he'll come right out of it. Now, he'll come out of it with the moving the postulates around; you can match-terminal it just long enough so that it doesn't appear to him to be a complete live wire which is about to explode if he touches it. And you'll find people have been sitting around worrying about going mad and people worrying about what would happen to them if society suddenly found out that their practice of yogi-ism was such and such and—it's weird. I mean, what men will design for themselves as traps for their own dolorousness is wonderful.
Now, you'll find that this—one of these things is responsible for it. There's this that you must remember about a preclear, is that he is a different combination than any other preclear, but you're no longer trying to crack a safe. This will just take him right on out of it. You don't have to particularly crack the combination.
Now, although every preclear is intensely individual and is entirely different than every other preclear that you will ever encounter, that doesn't mean that you have to vary SOP 8-C all over the place. It does mean that you will have to stress some part of it more than another.
Now, when you find yourself unwilling to process a preclear up above a certain state, do something about it yourself, because you have struck the "no-freedom" button. Now, there's one technique here that can be just self-audited till the end of time, and that's moving postulates around.
Now, you must have some postulate kicking around about freedom. If you just put up something that was a postulate about freedom, see, and move it from the table to the couch and up on the roof and down in the basement and across the street and so forth, all of a sudden something would turn up. You could dredge it up. But normally it's not that inarticulate. It'll be something like, "I'm damned if I'll give a woman a break."
Yeah, like that. And you've just come up against it and you know exactly what the postulate is. You're processing somebody along and all of a sudden you say, "All right. Now get back in your head," or you have an impulse to say this suddenly. Or you get an impulse to give them some terrific command that they just—you know will make them lose all over the place and so on.
There isn't any reason to be introspective and say, "Now, why did I did that? I wonder why I did that?"
No, no. Don't kid yourself. You know why you did that.
You'll suddenly face the fact that maybe for three or four days, you have been building up an antagonism on some line or another that's enough to fry

157

158

8 DECEMBER 1953
the lid off a frying pan. Or you've got an antagonism building up of some sort or another here toward something or somebody. Handle it by shifting it around as a postulate. Don't dramatize it. Because it's not that you shouldn't dramatize such a postulate or not that you shouldn't dramatize postulates, it's not that you shouldn't have freedom of some sort or another, but there's two kinds of freedom. And maybe I should have talked very straight from that title in this lecture.
There's two kinds of freedom. There is freedom to act on compulsion, obsession and inhibition. Now, that kind of freedom is attainable only within barbwire enclosures. That's what man normally calls freedom. Freedom to act freely on compulsions, obsessions and inhibitions. You will find base and lower orders of society insisting on this kind of freedom: "I love to shoot cops, and they won't let me shoot cops and therefore my freedom is being interfered with. I'm going to join the Communist Party." See? That's it.
"Now, the management—the management's agin me and I've got an impulse to bust every machine in the place and they say they'll fire me the next machine I bust. Well, I insist on freedom." See, it's become very compulsive and obsessive.
Actually, war is an expression of this kind of freedom. War is a covert rationale by which men can murder other men without any liability to them-selves. See, because the men doing the murdering are sitting in swivel chairs. They're not sitting behind machine guns. The guy sitting behind the machine gun didn't ask to be there. I know—I've gone around and asked them. I said, "By the way . . ." That's all that's wrong with war. He didn't ask to be there— 'tisn't his fight.
And you can say, "Oh yes, it is his fight. There's such a thing as national this and national that and national something else." There's a fellow invented nationalism a relatively short time ago, and it flared up in the day of Garibaldi. Nationalism—it was a new mania. It's a new thing. You'd be surprised that before that, they supported individuals.
And then somebody made this astonishing discovery: If you could make a peasant cross-identify a flag and a piece of land—his land—and tell him he was fighting for his land and that his land was in danger, he'd go out and fight like hell.
And then, of course, as soon as he got there he'd find out it wasn't his land he was fighting for, but that was beside the point. And that was the basic impulse behind nationalism—this great unity and so forth.
Only in the United States of America has nationalism actually amounted to anything rather than just pure murder. And here, why, you have forty-eight quite different states, who—which actually, any one of them, as big as a country of Europe—which are living in peace with one another. And that is a gain not so much of unit nationalism, as a gain of a highly generalized freedom on which forty-eight states are agreed.
The day that it loses the perspective of forty-eight states—and I'm not talking like a secesh—the day that it loses the idea that it is forty-eight sovereign powers operating in unison, when it loses that completely, it will become a slavery.
The biggest danger in the world is one of these superstates. And the federal government at this time is demonstrating every impulse in that direction— "we're a superstate." Because it gets to a point where all you can attack is a paper chain. And anytime the populace can't get their pitchforks into anything more alive than a paper chain, the government goes rotten.

ESSENCE OF SOP 8-C
See, it's just a basis of size. How big a state can man govern with his present systems? And it's about the size of a state of the United States, with smoothness and ease. Nearly every social function carried on in the United States is carried on by the city, the county and the state. It's not carried on by the federal government. And yet we hear more and more and more—the prettier buildings, the nicer post office and so forth.
That doesn't mean that one is agin the federal government, it's just a fact that the federal government, in these days of fast communication and transportation, will go up into a higher and higher form of a generality and because of its power, it will crush further and further down the sovereign powers of units of people, such as a city.
You see, the optimum form of government is not even a state government, it's a city government. But there is no way, really—that's but short one point— there's no way to prevent cities from going to war with each other unless you have a slightly higher power than the cities to monitor. Otherwise you run into anarchy.
And always somewhere along the line in a family, in a state of cities, in a nation of states, or in a world of nations, you're going to find somewhere along the line an anarchy. And the next move beyond that will be to prevent the anarchy.
In other words, anarchy is independent—this isn't the political definition of it, but it's conceived to be relatively obsessive action, you see, on the part of a number of units which are not controlled by a higher unit. So man's impulse is always to find a higher unit. And then the higher unit then absorbs all the lower units and it forgets about their independence and their freedom and then goes on up.
So that we have nations in a state of anarchy; that gives us worlds— world wars. So the idea of that is a "united nations," and that would be a government all over the Earth of all nations. And you'd have the same thing as the forty-eight states being absorbed by the federal government, now you'd have the umpteen nations of Earth being absorbed by the "united nations." And each time you get a higher echelon, it gets further and further from competent to govern a people. It starts to be a paper chain—it starts to be very detached.
So if you had some method of preventing this anarchy of states, short of a superstate, why, you could arrest the dwindling spiral.
Well, it could only be arrested by a better definition of the word freedom. What is freedom? And if superstates then held within that definition, they would have prosperous states within their boundaries.
Freedom. The other definition of freedom would be freedom to play a game. Nothing more and nothing less.
Once upon a time, when it was fun to play the game of being a hussar, or fun to play the game of being a peasant, just the game of being a peasant: Go out and raise things—matter of fact, it's a wonderful lot of fun. You go out in the garden and fix things up and you have things nailed down pretty well, you don't have to go far, and things are self-sustaining.
Well, when one doesn't have a right to play a game, why, his freedom has been injured. If somebody makes it so that it isn't fun anymore, that is an incursion against freedom. See that? It's a pretty hard concept to get sometimes, but it's just about all the concept there is.
And probably the only high-level crime is the death of laughter—to kill laughter. I don't mean mockery laughter. I mean just the death of fun. That's a big crime. That's big.

159

160

8 DECEMBER 1953
You can run that on a pre-c and shed tears off of it. Because when it's no longer fun to be a peasant and when it's no longer fun to be a good officer, when it's no longer fun to be a good janitor, when one can't have his own pride and self-respect in what he's doing and so forth, his freedom has been entered upon more deeply than anyone has a right to enter upon freedom.
So, where are you trying to put your preclear under this definition of freedom? You're trying to get him out of a compulsive and obsessive dramatization of what he conceives to be "freedom," into the freedom to enjoy it.
It's quite marked. And when you've attained the upper goal, freedom to enjoy a game—not potentially enjoy a game, but he's freely enjoying a game— you have achieved a very high point on a case. And it's because of that freedom to enjoy a game, that you find your Operating Thetan is no menace. He's not a menace. As a matter of fact anything less than he is, is a menace.
The greatest menace a state can have is its most abject slave, not its most dangerous criminal. That slave, he is the menace.
And so we find that the preclear will go up through various stages of being upset with you, upset with the world, sometimes upset with me, certain that this and that and so on, and he's—quite often will kick back at you and tell you, "Well, it was a disappointing and horrible session," and so on. He'll complain to other auditors about you and that sort of thing.
Well, if you're at a point where your own effort to give him freedom is compulsive, this will hurt you. And if you're just trying to pull him on up the line, your level of understanding is quite adequate to the situation. It becomes very amusing.
We haven't covered here, as I've gone into this, very much in the line of highly technical information. This all might be filed under the heading of opinion. But I have talked to you about it perhaps as a—one tries to give a—an orienting point toward which you can go with a little less grief than otherwise.
There isn't any reason why you have to learn with pain. That's completely idiotic. Anybody who assumes that men have—can only learn with pain, of course, is assuming that man is a stimulus-response mechanism. And man is not a stimulus-response mechanism, that's the best of him.
So when you deliver freedom into the hands of the preclear by the use of SOP 8-C, you've attempted something rather adventurous. And it's liable to upset you now and then. And the way for you to do it is to get over a level of being upset. Because it's actually a lot of fun watching somebody struggle up and struggle out of it. It's a lot of fun. It's quite amusing.
Oddly enough, the most powerful technique in here was one which I confess I didn't much care to give you—makes it too easy. You find over here terminals. Change of Space. That's terminals, period. Change of Space. Have pc shift and fix ideas between various points in various universes.
And then we have Step VI: symbolization, remedy of. And at Step VI we actually are doing the same thing we did at Step V with this single difference, is we use those things which are real big symbols to the preclear. And at Step VI when we handle these things, we're going to have to do it by a gradient scale. You are going to have to work on some preclear—preclear after preclear probably—will have to have symbols shifted on a gradient scale. So that's a word of caution with that step.
You ask him to put his name up and then move his name around from place to place, and you're going to find preclear after preclear who have just one hell of a time doing it. It's because it's too big and heavy a symbol. So you

ESSENCE OF SOP 8-C
give him a light symbol. You just say, "Well, all right. Put the name 'Joe' in these various places."
"Well, I never knew anybody named 'Joe.' "
And you say, "That's all right, just put that name 'Joe' around these various places. Now, put your last name and your first name and so forth, those around." In other words, just take it easy.
Now, if you find out that he can't run just bluntly, bang, "waiting for effect" as a postulate all over the universe, why, just get him to get the postulates "dogs have effects." Or you get the postulate, "effects exist," and have him move that around. That's less heavy. And symbolization and the reason for and so forth, works out that way.
Now, anytime you have made a postulate that you're having trouble with since—and you occasionally will run into those that you have, you can just handle it in this fashion.
Now, I want to give you a very fast note on that. How long does it take to work out a postulate? Well, that varies with the preclear. But you shouldn't expect it to have the effect of blowing locks and steam and all sorts of things. They just sort of go away. And you can easily sit there for a half an hour and process a postulate which evaporated twenty-five minutes ago. You can easily do this. You can easily overprocess a postulate.
And it's no error. It doesn't upset the preclear to have them underprocessed, like an engram. It isn't very upsetting to have them underprocessed. Because that can be remedied with great speed.
Now, how do you process a postulate? Let me go into that once more because you will find preclears are uniformly going to make mistakes on how you do it. And you're going to uniformly have people put them too far.
You put the postulate up. How does he put it up? Well, he puts up the idea. Now he can put that up with words, he can put it up any way he wants to, he can put it up with forms, with effort—you don't care how he puts it up; you just say, "Now you put up the idea," in back of him. You keep most of the action in back of him, not in front of him. And you find him letting the action happen in front of him, skip it.
Now, you'll find out that he'll make mistakes no matter how carefully you explain it to him. You'll run into preclears making this mistake. So just keep checking with him as to what he's doing.
You'll say, "All right. Now move that postulate to Camden."
And he'll say, "Okay."
"Now move the postulate to New York City."
And he'll say, "Okay."
And after a while—you've processed this now for about five minutes, you see, and nothing's happened very much, you know? You—so you just keep on doing it, and you can see the strain on his face and you say, "What are you doing?" He's bringing a picture of Camden back of him, and then bringing a picture of New York back of him.
That won't do him any good. He's supposed to move the postulate—not make it appear and then disappear and then appear and disappear someplace else—he's supposed to move it. Just as though he put it in a truck—and some of them will do this—and freighted it to the other place. He's supposed to move the postulate. Because the postulate's been moving him around, you just reverse it.
Now do you run a bracket on this? No. You just have him move the postulate. He got himself into all this trouble with these postulates—it wasn't put in in a bracket.

161

162

8 DECEMBER 1953
Anytime anybody was able to force one on him, it's because he had a prior postulate—his own. So we have it moved from one point to another point. Moved.
And if he's substituting pictures for cities—that is to say, bringing in pictures of cities and all that sort of thing—you don't care whether he exteriorized or not while he's doing this, that's not important; but the point is, you're asking him to move it further than he can move it. So just designate three places in the room—all behind him—and have him move it to this place and to that place and so forth. It'll evaporate just as quick on a short reach as a long reach.
He hasn't lived from New York to Camden and in that total area simul-taneously for years—well, he lives in a room at a time or a car at a time or something like that, so pushing it around in small areas is very beneficial. And then later on as you process him, get him to reach further and further areas.
But take it easy, because it's a very, very, very powerful technique and it isn't going to do him any harm. And where you're going to err is you're going to try to beat them to death with an hour on one postulate. And you'll be processing it fifty-eight minutes after it evaporated. It evaporated two minutes after you started processing him.
And the errors he will make is then in—he'll have it in front of him and he—God—anytime God will give him two seconds of time, he will spend it on putting something in front of him, see? No, no. You want it in back of him. And you want it to shift in that fashion.
Okay.

Problems of Auditing
A lecture given on 8 December 1953

December the 8th, afternoon lecture. And we have, today, to take up the problem of auditing—just for a change.
You know, it isn't very difficult to audit somebody or exteriorize them or bring them up the line. It's just not very difficult. It could be that somebody could be standing by waiting for myself to do it. Could be somebody was saving those nice effects there to be sprung out in this fashion. And that would be gypping the rest of you as auditors, wouldn't it? So let's discourage the idea. Let's just discourage it real good.
You know, I don't want to take up SOP 8-C for the remainder of this course. It's almost beaten to pieces right now. If I thought I had to say anything more that was very specific about it, I would be very disappointed in you, believe me. I'm going to go over it until the end of this week. And Monday morning, I hope to be able to take up SOP 8-O. So you better be a Theta Clear by then. Because it'll just become incomprehensible. Now, that's—it gives you lots of time, gives you days.
Now, the brutal truth of the matter is, if I'd put as much time in on a preclear as you've been putting in on preclears, and I hadn't gotten a Theta Clear on the thing, I would examine my own postulates about what I was trying to do and break the neck of the preclear—one or the other. (laughter) Ten hours of auditing today is a long time, that's lots of auditing. You'd expect to put this in on somebody who was 99 or 108, who couldn't see, couldn't feel, and didn't know where their right foot was; but not on fairly young people. Thirty hours would be a long time to put on the character that I just mentioned to you. Five hours of auditing would be a long time to put in on any case here.
Now, at the risk of making myself very unpopular with you, which risk is always taken when one tries to do something for somebody else, let me assure you that the amount of progress which has been made on an average by this unit could have been duplicated by a third grade class. Third grade, US public school system. I could have taken a third grade class and we'd have had this much progress.
Now, let's search into the basic reasons and the deep significance as to why this is. One, partially my responsibility—I didn't put in your hands a piece of paper which put a technique sequence down. That was necessary. And two, that's not mine. Somebody just mentioned it over here before the lecture. And that something was the substance of education—he said this morning he'd had a lot of his education, since he was here, run out. You could call this

163

164

8 DECEMBER 1953
a process of uneducation. That's the only excuse—I keep telling you this—the only excuse we have for (quote) "teaching" (unquote) this subject, is to uneducate.
It is not what you know in terms of data. It is what you can unburden in terms of knowingness. Now, if you're going to go on the basis that your knowingness is all there on the surface and all accessible to you and you're able to put it to use, and if you have enough data surrounding it, it can be of more use, and if you make that all automatic, that will be of more use, well, you're not going to—you just missed the point.
Your knowingness is native. But it's something like a native that's been buried alive. We used to talk, in mining, in terms of "overburden." There was as much value in mining a mine as you didn't have to remove overburden to get to the ore. And a preclear is a problem of overburden. And you could envision yourself as an auditor up there about 150 feet above him with a shovel and throwing it off into infinity, you'd just about have the role right.
Now, in instructing so that you can get an uninstruction, I have another problem. And that's to show you what rocks in the overburden can be removed to disturb and get rid of the overburden—what rocks? Because all of the overburden on a case is held rather delicately in place. It's not very solid. And there's certain pins which, if disturbed, will cause the overburden to go on off, and we get to the gold.
But if you think you can train yourself into getting some of this gold, that's not true. SOP 8-O is the first technique into which you can go into some (quote) "training." That is simply to exercise the thetan into doing some of the things which he should be able to do as a thetan, and probably on the whole track never learned how.
Now, that's the first education you'll run into. And that will not be on the basis of setting up an automaticity, it will be on the basis of examining the universe in which a thetan finds himself, and discovering how it is habitable, as well as constructing parts of it. That's what that concerns itself with. That's very constructive and destructive in this fashion.
We're not at that level with SOP 8-C. We're trying to dig a thetan out of a skull and stabilize him and get him unburdened enough so that he knows he's there and he knows he's operating and he knows where he is. And where he knows how he can get rid of his own data.
When we consider how many lies the preclear has been told, we can see that we needn't worry about the truths. Because these are outweighed a thousand to one by the chicaneries which have been put upon him.
He was told that if he was a good boy and minded, he would succeed in life. Isn't that wonderful? Why, right there, we open that up and that carcass starts to stink—right away, quick. What is a good boy? Well, we get by parental definition that a good boy must be a dead boy—that must be the best boy you can be, by just extrapolation.
Now, let's take what a good boy is: a good boy is quiet, doesn't make noises or disturbances, goes into no large motions, disturbs nobody's havingness, acquires nothing that he asks for, and asks for nothing but is sort of put on charity, and he gets what is coming to him, you see, and is happy about it afterwards. Now, this is a good boy.
Parental proposition is stop motion, stop motion, stop motion, stop motion, stop motion, stop motion and then for variety, stop motion. And when he gets to be five, they put him in school so his motion will really stop. Oh, he will have all these stops on the track, and that's being a good boy.

PROBLEMS OF AUDITING
Well as stopped as you can get, of course, is dead. And it's a funny thing with some preclears, you run End of Cycle of parents killing him, and gee, people are satisfied with that. Not just because of prenatal AAs and other things, but just because of this stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. That isn't what they meant to do. That isn't what he interpreted them as meaning to do. But this is what the mechanics of this thing called life dictated as the end product—death.
Now, we're discovering, as we look over this, what inference life itself takes from the actions which occur in an environment. And we find out this is very strange, but the child comes to the conclusion after a while that they were trying to kill him. You see, it comes to this conclusion quite naturally, because being stopped is being dead, and if he's stopped often enough—this is all anybody ever tried to do to him on the track when they'd killed him; they were just trying to stop him—so if the parents stop him, they must have been trying to kill him. So this is his inference. So he finds himself living with a couple of murderers. And this is the inference he takes.
Now, we're not going into the deep significance of this. Don't look at it as a deep significance or a hidden significance—it's the overt one which has been suppressed. Because almost any child who got into that situation and got that deeply mired down, eventually blew up in the parental face—crash!
And he said, "What's the idea? Are you trying to bump me off? What do— you don't want me to be. You don't want me to live. That's the trouble with you. You don't want me to amount to anything, you're always getting in my road," and so forth.
And he was told, "If you talk like that any more, we will really fix you up."
So there, you see, the overt conclusion is the buried one, and we get this sandwiched on and on and on all through the ages that an individual has lived. All through the ages.
It starts out with a trick. It says, "Now you—you're afflicted with spirits and God because your mock-ups are disappearing. Your space is collapsing and none of us had anything to do with it, you poor fellow, and we're going to help you out."
There's an incident on the track known as the Dear Souls, which is a wonderful incident. They put up a thing called the "Bubble Gum" and they'd catch thetans, and then they'd explain to them how it was all for their own good. Of all the soupy, supersaccharine goo that comes off of this facsimile—it's just goo in all directions! And it's keyed in by some of the more debased religions here on Earth. Sympathy—oh, sweet and so forth—really urk.
Now, the kid runs into this in this lifetime and here's this thing sitting here and confronting him again. Well, he got out of that one time or another, and he got through that some time or another, and here he runs into it again, and he gets the inference that every kind action then must be designed to kill him off.
There's another overburden. You try to be kind to a lot of people, they don't know what you're talking about. You must be a pitch. And it's real bad. It's real dangerous to try to help man. No kidding. You got to be God knows how tough. You have to be able to take almost anything in order to help him, merely because he knows so many things that aren't true.
And yet, let's look at this: The person who has no trust or confidence anymore has no knowingness anymore. Isn't that interesting? Now, that's a mechanic of existence. Somebody who cannot trust, who cannot just widely throw himself to the winds and embrace everything and trust everything in sight and so forth, he gets real bad off, he doesn't survive well. That's interesting, isn't it? He's real bad off when he can't do that.

165

166

8 DECEMBER 1953
Well, you say that's the most dangerous thing imaginable to suddenly open your doors to every robber and burglar and so forth. No, that's not dangerous. What's dangerous is to close those doors. That's getting real dangerous, because that's cutting a communication.
You ask most people—you say, "What would you think of complete wide-open communication lines in all direction? All right, now you as a preclear run this— complete wide-open communication lines—just get the concept of this."
And most of the people you give that to, if you were in a session, they'd say, "Urrururr. No, not for me! Hm-mm. Somebody else, but not me. This is probably a very noble theory, but I know it's dangerous."
You see? He knows again. What does he know? He knows that he better be small and powerless. That's what he knows when he says, "I know it's dangerous to have wide-open communication lines in all directions." The only way you could know is if you had total communication potential—wide-open communication lines in all directions.
So you see how life becomes a dwindling spiral. It's by making a basic mockery out of anything a person should be. A man should be noble and have self-respect, and yet it's fashionable to negate any skill a person has, and to say, "I don't amount to much."
In the most debased societies, this has gotten to a point where people are saying to each other all the time "(indrawn breaths) I withhold my foul breath from your face. (indrawn breaths) I withhold my foul breath from your face. Insignificant I, addresses honorable and glorious you, the question, how about some tea?" Routine conversation. And yet these people have to have self-respect in order to be at all.
So you see how the spiral becomes inverted? See what happens? Well, it isn't clear at first glance, but a person has been taught by experience that he has gotten into trouble by—and he immediately defines it—he says, "By trusting, by hoping, by being, by being proud, by doing noble things." He's gotten into trouble every time he's done these things. What a foolish man would say that. And yet all man says that. Because you see, high on the scale, he—wide-open communication lines—trusted everything. That's way up and real young.
And the funny part of it was, is you can exactly trace this point: It was his own failure of trust which brought about his first decline in trusting. See, not by a code, but he just failed on trust. Otherwise you never get an outflow-inflow condition with regard to trust. He must have failed in trust.
You see this? He knows now that it's not safe to trust. Well, believe me, let me assure you of this—it is not safe not to trust. That's what's not safe. That's real dangerous. Because the bottom of it is winding up microscopically small, scurrying away in terror from every beingness there is. And you think that's desirable? No, that's not desirable. It's better to get your head knocked off three times a day and to finish that day noble and self-assured than to moderate and monitor your actions throughout the day so that you won't get your head knocked off.
Now, if you as auditors don't see that we're doing an uneducation of the preclear, then you've got your vectors reversed on what SOP 8-C is trying to do. See, it's not trying to teach anybody anything except as you would say it's trying to teach him that he knew a lot of things he didn't have to know.
Now, it's quite a trick to take a being who is bogged into a tremendous quantity of codes, beliefs, (quote) "knowledge" (unquote), science, bric-a-brac of all kinds and descriptions—public education has given him, everybody's given it to him, experience has given it to him and so forth—and bring him up to a

PROBLEMS OF AUDITING
point where he can differentiate between experience for his own protection and experience to learn a modus operandi. Because these are two different educational channels. He ordinarily, as a preclear, has these two things completely confused. There's nothing wrong with knowing how something works. And there's every¬thing wrong with saying it mustn't occur again.
There's nothing wrong with being able to know enough about something so that you can create it. And everything wrong with knowing something about it so that it won't hurt you. What nonsense this is, "knowing that it won't hurt you." Yeah, it mustn't hurt us. It can't hurt you!
Now, you can tell a preclear this, even as I am telling you right this minute it can't hurt you—and you can accept this, you might say, sort of intellectually— yes, you see the force of my argument and words. But believe me, you're trying to get ahead to where—a point that a person realizes it. He knows it and becomes certain of it. SOP 8-C run in that direction, all of a sudden the fellow gets certain of it. "What the dickens am I afraid of?" he'll say.
Gee, the only thing to be afraid of—if there is anything to be afraid of—is to step back from one's own state of beingness as one has announced it; because one goes into an immediate smaller operating area. That's dangerous—-to take on less space because some space proves dangerous.
Now, stepping out from this, which would be more or less the state of Theta Clear, stepping out from this, a person can broaden—because of having looked into things, and knowing the state of things—he can actually broaden his activity. He can broaden his operation, you might say, in existence. He is only then able to. You take away the fear and you take away the smallness of a man.
Now, when an individual is exteriorized—it's done well, he's drilled well SOP 8-C, you're not asking him to learn a thing. You're really not asking him to unlearn anything, but just insidiously, it happens that he does. Several tons of overburden can go crashing down the mountainside without his noticing it. And he really won't call a halt until he's been put pretty well on his way. And then he'll start calling a halt on throwing all this stuff away because he hasn't been given the opportunity to make anything. Creativeness then has suffered to some degree. Well, that's the difference between SOP 8-O and SOP 8-C.
So, you're trying to unburden a preclear—man and his burdens. For the first time we're doing it without somebody taking on additional burdens himself. Man used to have ideas of doing this whereby he sort of handed the burdens around—that's faith healing, for instance, is an example of this. You take the pain from the person. You'll find preclears who have done this, and that's real dynamite because they've chosen pain for their randomity. And of course this makes every pain their enemy, and they wind up almost in terror of anything vaguely resembling a sensation. That's death. That's a thetan dead, if you please, if he—when he's in terror of the sensation. All right.
How could you err in processing a preclear? The first way would be not to give some attention to the immediate problems of the preclear and to override them. Now, I have done this as a test. I have had a preclear suddenly offer, quite emotionally, some tremendously pressing problem. And he just kept harping on it, he kept talking about it, and I have ignored it. And I have not seen the case improve.
He's trying to say, "Look, here's something bigger than I can handle and you're here too, and so maybe the two of us can handle it." And that's what all of his jabber and yap is about. "I've uncorked this thing, and it's a real beast," he's saying. "To me it's a big beast and the two of us might be able to rope and hogtie it, but I certainly can't by myself."

167

168

8 DECEMBER 1953
And if you don't handle it as an auditor, either by handling it as an automaticity, which is possible, you see, and handling it in other fashions— but if you don't handle it as an auditor, the boy has a tendency to go into a bit of a decline. Because you have failed the person as an auditor. Why? They said, "Now here's the two of us together and the two of us can rope this beast." But it didn't look like a beast to you—didn't even vaguely resemble a beast, it just looked like a whipping, looked like a whole lot of whippings, something of the sort. And you say, "That's nonsense, these techniques handle more broadly than that."
Well, you can avoid it and ignore it the first time it—but if the preclear keeps it up any length of time, believe me you better get in there with a lariat and corral it. You've got too many ways of corralling it to ignore it. Match-terminal it if you can't do anything else.
You must always, in handling any process, even if it is a rote process which is down the line perfectly, do that process with intelligence and do it on the preclear, not into an empty space. Because the preclear is a live space-energy production unit and is in a rather delicate state of mind early in his processing. Because he is sure that everything is going to betray him, and he came to you with complete confidence and then he handed up this time when he lost his pup, and he mentioned it five times and you didn't do a thing about it—you've betrayed him. Now he knows, completely and utterly, that no auditor can be trusted.
Another thing—couple of cases here could easily have been bettered with a very, very small amount of common sense. Very small amount. You say, "Look, this case isn't progressing. I've processed this case for half an hour— isn't progressing." You know you should regard that as cataclysmic. Let's just change our sights on this thing and process the case for a half an hour, and no communication change and no apparent betterment in the case and no better exteriorization and no better perception—cataclysmic. Not just "isn't that strange"—ah, that's cataclysmic. I mean, it's just terrific! I mean, it's awful! I mean, that's just something you just couldn't stand. That's a thousand pairs of fingernails on the blackboard all going down simultaneously. See, that's real bad. And for anybody to sit there, you know, and go on into the next half an hour without something happening is real strange. That's peculiar.
If you get yourself gauged up to be able to—you say, "Someday I will be able to make a Theta Clear in an hour—total, you know—good perception and so forth, in an hour," why, you've condensed your sights down just a little bit more than they will stand. I mean, that's just a little too short, see? But if you were to pull them down in that direction instead of up into hundreds of hours, where I'm sure one or two has them at the present moment, why, you have a big difference.
Now, here's our problem. All the technology which we've had to date has validity. These states of mind, and this phenomenon has not altered or varied simply because we have better processes to handle it. And what you're sitting there with is rich in processes; and just because you're rich in processes didn't make the mind poor in phenomena. There was no distribution of wealth took place. The mind is just as rich as it ever was in peculiar phenomena. And it's not very peculiar now. Book One tells you what symbols will do, it'll tell you what language will do and what engrams of pain and unconsciousness will do; that—they still do those same things.
Now, Science of Survival talks about cases that are "too heavy" to be run by heavy techniques, and that still exists. Well now, just because you can handle

PROBLEMS OF AUDITING
all these symbols easily, and just because you can handle a heavy case and so forth easily is no reason why you suddenly say, "Well, there are no such cases." They are. They exist. No reason for you to validate their difficulty just by making it more difficult for them, because you can handle it easily. But remember, you can handle it. The techniques of SOP 8-C will handle all of those problems.
Now, there are other problems. There's the overt act- motivator sequence. I'll give you a fast way to handle the overt act-motivator sequence, very fast way to handle it—move it around as a postulate. What's the best postulate that fits it? Consequences. The consequences of an action is another action. That's the overt act—motivator sequence boiled down to its most significant estimate.
So if you just put "consequences" around or "consequences if" around and handled it as a postulate all over the place, why, the fellow would—all of a sudden would completely shake free of the fact that, "Well, let's see, if I tip my hat, she might not understand . . ." You get what's falling apart there? He's going back to facsimiles whereby if he ate somebody, why, their relatives are liable to eat him. Gets real heavy, you see, back on the track, and it's called out in this—in these little, minor social ways.
Overt act-motivator mechanism. "Well, he deserved it"—how often you hear this in society: "He deserved it," and so on. It's consequences. Deserving something—consequences. "The consequences of his action are . . ." Now, you should recognize this sort of thing.
Now, true, if everybody is in agreement with everybody else, then people must have mechanisms to be in agreement with other people. Now, some people you run into will have very peculiar cases. They'll look very peculiar to you, simply because the mechanisms they're using are not in agreement with the mechanisms which you're accustomed to see in the same tribe. Such as the tribe of New York.
Now, if this isn't done ... I mean, this person—he sees a woman is trampled on in a subway or something of the sort and he goes over and picks her up, and you look at him strangely, wondering why he's doing that. Nobody in New York would ever pick her up. See, it's not a tribal custom. And you might process madly on this, thinking there was something horribly wrong with this fellow, when all it was, is it happened to be a custom of where he came from— advertisedly, Texas. And so these differences of custom very often will appear to you as major aberration when they're not.
No, the only thing that's an aberration is what's oppressing him, and that he's helping oppress him. That's a major aberration. It's not that he's doing something peculiar, there's something oppressing him. Now, you better find out what's oppressing him if this case isn't making any progress. You know, just look over at him and say to him, "What exactly is oppressing you?" you know— you know, not even confidentially. You give him a chance to talk.
And you know practically no auditor I ever ran into ever gave the preclear a chance to utter an opinion? Preclear never had an opinion. Early auditors in training way back, they ordinarily and routinely talked too much and let the preclear talk too little. Routine. See, and that was the routine criticism that was just auditor after auditor after auditor after auditor, the reason for failure, reason for failure, reason for failure, reason for failure—he talked too much, the preclear talked too little.
But now we're not talking about uttering phrases, we're talking about letting the preclear express something. You're trying to increase somebody's self-expression—well, please don't be shocked when somebody starts to express; because he will as an immediate result of your auditing.

169

170

8 DECEMBER 1953
Now, there's such a thing as somebody expressing compulsively or continu-ously in such a way as to completely interfere with what you're trying to do. All he's doing is fighting a duel with you, but you can recognize this. There is that long-suffering preclear who will only offer the objection once, in the mildest and most covert possible manner, and who afterwards will never utter it again— he will simply sink into apathy. He said it rather pathetically once, "I have a slight feeling in my shoulder." That's all he's going to offer you on the subject. There's a burning pain in his shoulder and it's been continuing now without anything happening to it for fifteen minutes. And he—it finally prods him, practically as a hot iron, up to a point of saying something about it. And he does, and all he says about it is, "I have a slight pain in my shoulder."
And you as an auditor don't take your cue and you don't do anything about it, and after that he's lost all confidence in you. He sinks into apathy, you don't have his interests at heart—that's the end of it. And you're going to have to work like mad to get this man to do anything after that. But he's liable to sit there and say, yes he's doing it, yes he's doing it, yes he's doing it.
I had a very promising young auditor one time—oh, he was a very, very fine young fellow. He looked good, he sounded good and the only trouble was he just didn't have good sense. A rather routine 1.1 case was picked up by this boy, we were going to keep him around and so forth and not turn him out to grass because he—a lot of promise in that boy. And we gave him this case, and we told him to do something about this case; and you know what he did? He sat there for five days and let the case tell him he was running one thing while the case was running something else. And the case was using that period on the couch simply to run something else.
And if you're having very much trouble with a case which is apparently running all right but no communication changes are happening on it, you know what's happening? The preclear isn't running what you say so, or the preclear is running nothing, but is just sitting there with perfect contentment saying, "Yep. Mm-hm."
And you'd be surprised how often this happens. And this boy never detected it. This promising young auditor was immediately unpromising. We put him down as having the—not even a foggy insight into anything. Because this preclear was obviously doing something else. He was getting somatics on other things. He was running when he was not supposed to be running, he was not—all you had to do was look at him and watch him twitch in the wrong places at the wrong moments and realize he was doing something else—you didn't need an E-Meter to tell you this.
But if a preclear isn't making any progress with me after a very short time, if I don't happen to be in a mood to take much looks that day, I go and get an E-Meter. Not as a criticism of him, I just go and get an E-Meter and say, "We will now proceed." And if that needle isn't moving somewhat, somehow, when I tell him to do things, I find something that'll make the needle move. I'm good at that. You better get good at it. I can always produce an effect upon a preclear. I can blow them out of the chair if nothing else happens.
One preclear was not convinced that anything would ever be done to him, would ever produce any effect upon him, and he kept along in this delusion for an hour and ten minutes. And at the end of that time, I gave him a command which is a rather sharp command anyway—I mean a rather result-producing command—and told him to run it. And he didn't know whether he was running it or not and he says, "Well, you didn't—quite sure how you ran that." And, "Ha-ha!" he ...

PROBLEMS OF AUDITING
I said, "Well get the thought of it. Now get the thought of it clearly," and then zapped him in the right temple.
He says, "It produced a somatic."
I said, "You're absolutely right. So now let's get going."
Isn't that mean? (audience laughter)
This was a very far-gone case, by the way. He didn't think anything could give him any kind of sensation, that was what was wrong with him, so he wasn't going to even try—really floppy. But you take a few bolts and shove them at some¬body suddenly and out of the blue, and as an immediate result of something . .. Now, I shouldn't tell you something like that because you don't need anything to boost you along occasionally. But I sure got him interested. It focused his attention.
Now, he ran that experimentally a couple of more times and naturally it did the same thing. Why? It made a little engram. And he thought that was real peculiar, and he got real interested in his own phenomena from then on. And he went right on along, we cleared him, exteriorized him, got him so he was in good shape. That was all he needed.
Well, I don't ask you to do that. Nor do I ask you to connect your E-Meter cans to the electric light plug. This is not effective—often cruel. But it will produce an effect! (audience laughter)
Of course, that's pretty wild stuff. In all the preclears I've ever audited, that's the only one I ever zapped. I've sure felt like it a few times though. But mainly on the basis of somebody telling me that he was doing something when he wasn't doing it. Now you shouldn't form a harsh or critical opinion of your preclear merely because he isn't doing it, you should use it as diagnostic material.
Then we get the other kind of preclear. He doesn't do something else, he does something quite opposite. He's done all you're trying to get him to do. That's always a sticker—he's done it all. His trouble is he is running a "got to maintain." He has to maintain. He feels desperate about maintaining a level of knowingness and superiority. And he has to—he's having a rough time when he's doing that. So you handle that by getting him to push these postulates around.
But you should be able to look at somebody and think. Not just look. There's something else beside looking, there's such a thing as looking and knowing, rather looking and figuring. You see what would be different about looking and knowing, and looking and figuring. You can figure-figure-figure-figure-figure. You don't have to figure a preclear—look at his behavior and then know what he's doing.
If you just run yourself for a little while on looking at a preclear and then sitting back and knowing, it'd surprise you the next time you started to audit a preclear to all of a sudden know what he was doing. That's what we call insight.
Now, if any case is hung up, it's probably because of some perfectly easy thing. Just stuck on the track. Where? Well, of course, the closest thing to home would be stuck on the track by auditing, wouldn't it?
Well, I started a preclear going the other day—one of this group—because this case has been stuck on the track by some auditing. How do you remedy such a thing? Got lots of ways to remedy it. But this person had been audited by people in this class several times without any result. And the clue to the thing was, the preclear knew exactly what it was—she was stuck in an auditing session.
And so what did we do about the preclear? We just chased this preclear around the various rooms in which the preclear had been audited. She wasn't even well exteriorized, that just didn't matter two nickels' worth at all. Just

171

172

8 DECEMBER 1953
chased her around these auditing rooms. "Just get the idea of being in room— now we'll number them, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight—all the rooms in which you were audited." And first you only had about three or four auditing rooms, and then we only had—then we had some more, and then we started to spot up other things in the places where she was stuck. Well, we never talked about it, we just chased her around these auditing rooms until the auditing on the case was sprung. That was the case entrance. And that's possibly the case entrance on several people here.
Now, you've got Change of Space Processing. You have Creative Processing. You have all kinds of processes. It doesn't mean that just because we're using hot, fast processes, we've all of a sudden just lost all the processes we have and nor does it mean that the mind is suddenly released and all the phenomena that can happen to it. These things haven't ceased. You're still auditing this person.
Now, we've got hot processes which, if followed out well, will wind up with a goal. It's definite; very good, too. Let's treat it that way, however—that you're auditing to produce a betterment in terms of freedom from knowing so well that one is going to be betrayed, done in, et up, chewed up. You're trying to get somebody over "it must never happen again," consequences of his own action, consequences of his own lookingness. These are the things you're trying to do. They're just the fundamental things which I've been covering with you here in these lectures. That's all. Those are your goals. All right.
How many ways could you do it? Well, let's take "it must never happen again." The crudest and most horrible way to do it would be to match-terminal it. Anybody who would match-terminal this on a preclear would beat a dog— without cause. Because that's real brutality. Because that's the postulate which exists with heavy effort in every heavy facsimile the preclear has: "It must never happen again." He has every motion which was going to threaten him stuck on this postulate. But you could handle it as a postulate. You could shift it around as a postulate—"must never happen again."
Now, you'll find out that all kinds of things would start falling off the case that must never happen again. Even auditing would. But a problem, very often, at which a preclear cannot look, must be handled as an individual problem. As long as it doesn't take too much of your time.
Now, if handling a problem for ten minutes doesn't produce a change in it, by any of the more modern techniques, you're using the wrong approach, and you should simply shift what you are doing to something else if you don't change this thing in ten minutes.
The other thing is, is you very often beat a problem to death that should never have been fooled with. You take some foolish problem—you make up your mind that this person is this way because of a terrific affinity with Rover. So you just start beating Rover to death. Well, of course, the funny part of it is, if somebody put you on an E-Meter, why, "dog" would probably fall fifteen dials. Because this is the effort the auditor makes to duplicate, you see. He's got to duplicate. So some poor preclear sits there and beats Rover to death.
Now, this becomes very, very sad, but it's only sad in terms of lost time in auditing. If I don't see a communication change in a half an hour which is quite marked, I don't pursue the course of auditing which I am pursuing. I start digging. Well, I start digging by finding out "what does this preclear have to unlearn?" Generally, it's—this preclear has to unlearn that women are voracious, horrible, dangerous and terribly necessary. Now, that's what this person has to—that his whole life is completely oppressed on the subject of women.

PROBLEMS OF AUDITING
Or she's got to unlearn the fact that Papa is the worst beast of all. You know, we find out which—this person can't mock up Papa, can't do anything about Papa. Has complete, good mock-ups, you processed her for a half an hour, nothing happened and you didn't handle anything like that. You start looking around and all of a sudden here's Papa. She can't mock up Papa, she can't do anything about Papa, she puts up any idea about Papa and it flies off to the moon. Well, let's just start in with gradient scales or anything else we can start in on. Gradient mock-up building is awfully interesting in this line. Build them up shoe by shoe and various ways, but let's get her to handle this problem. Let's get her over this idea of Papa.
Well, there's various—thousands of ways you can do it. There are ways to handle Papa and so on. Well, I don't expect you to know all these ways, but you've got ways in SOP 8-C which will handle Papa. "Where isn't Papa?" And you've, right there, started handling him. You say, "He isn't—let's see, he's not—not on Mars." Well, this is a good clue. Must be in the room. Here we start, see? You've got dozens of ways to handle this, but it's a specific problem.
And please don't leave anybody hung up on lots of past auditing and so forth. They've been waiting for an effect from auditing and they've been doing this and that from auditing and they may be stuck one way or the other on the subject of auditing until one just can't have any peace about it.
As far as exteriorization itself is concerned, if you start to experience a vast difficulty with exteriorization—we go over this again—this person knows he can't exteriorize safely. He just knows he can't be out of his body. Let's just get over this idea of "he is in his body because he is stuck there and can't get out." That is not true.
He is in this body because he has to be behind a barricade and inside a thing in order to control that thing—and that is true. You see that? He's got to be in there, protected on all sides. He has to have it. It's terribly necessary that he have a body. It's a barricade, its eyes are invisible barriers, it's—all kinds of things there he's got to have about a body. You don't have to pick up many of these things and solve them. But at least solve something like the invisible barrier and so on.
You can exteriorize almost anybody on effort, if you try. "Find four points of efforts in the body. Now find four where there are no points of effort. Now find four . . ." And next thing you know, just tell him to step out and put his hands on his shoulders. Effort is what's wrong with this case. But he won't do it very happily and he'll go back in in a hurry if you haven't handled some of the reasons why he can't get out of a body, believe me.
So exteriorization is a somewhat specialized problem. But you better work right straight along with it. SOP 8-C will do a pretty good job on exteri¬orization, but it won't exteriorize if it doesn't hit the answer why the person isn't exteriorizing.
Now, here you have in those first three steps—just reason after reason after reason can be laid open there why a person isn't exteriorizing. And you have other techniques down in the last four steps. These four steps—last four steps shouldn't just be run as a gunshot, but you have all kinds of techniques down there to remedy the reason why. You've got all kinds of them. I mean, there's just technique after technique in—contained inherently in the last four steps, which can be run on somebody who is still inside, just enough to boost him out.
It's not much of a trick to get somebody out of his body, you just have to

173

174

8 DECEMBER 1953
disabuse him of the fact that he has to have one. And that's uneducating him and it doesn't take long to do it.
Now, the anchor points of the body can be disarranged to a point to make him—make it difficult for him to get out and get in. That is a mechanical reason. But that's a mechanical reason, and the others are mechanical reasons too. If they weren't backed up by his own self-determinism, they wouldn't have any validity at all, those mechanical reasons. He is determined to stay in a body. This is what you can immediately judge from it. And his determinations must take a certain form. Some thought must occur to him every time he tries to exteriorize.
Well, there's one way to do that, is just send—have him get a picture of himself exteriorized, way back of himself someplace, see, and have him do that several times. And he'll tell you what he doesn't like about it. Now, you can handle that by waving it around as a postulate, just move it around as a postulate. You can also handle it, if a certain frantic or fixed feeling comes over him or something every time—he's just stopped, see?
Every time he—you say, "Be three feet back of you head."
And he says, "Every time you say that I just get stopped."
Why, you say, "Well, all right, put that stopped feeling in the ceiling. Now let's put it in the wall. Now let's put it over in another wall. And let's put it in another wall. And let's put it in the floor. And let's put it in the ceiling. And let's put it in the back wall. All right."
Now let's run, as a postulate, "I must leave" and "I must not leave," see?
"I must leave." Now we'll wave that all around as a postulate while he's still inside the body. We'll move it in various places of the room. We won't go very far, you see, and we won't mix him up in directions if he's still in the body because he's liable to get pretty confused.
When he's in a body, don't mix anybody up on directions, because he's mixed up enough. And you get him out—"I must leave" and then you get that handled so that's no longer difficult to handle. And then you get "I must not leave" or "I must stay" or something like that, and get that handled.
And then the funniest part of it—the funny one to handle is, of course, handling stop by making it move. Preclear can get into more difficulties with this than anything else I've tried to run on somebody. Just for a few seconds they will be in bad trouble with this, trying to get this postulate "that he must stop." And then he'll start handling it very well. It's quite amusing to run into something like this.
What's his problem? He feels like he's stopped. So let's find out what he says his problem is. Let's at least find out what he says his problem is.
Let's—now you do that and you say, "Let's mock—mock yourself up twenty-five feet back of your head. Now what occurs to you? Now mock yourself up again twenty-five feet back of your head."
And he—"Nuh-uh. Not for me," he says, "no, sir."
And you say, "What's not for you?"
"Well, I just wouldn't want—like to be up there, that's all. I might fall."
Good. You got it. "I might fall."
Well, how many ways can you handle that? Well, one of the ways of handling it is making him—falling is a very rough problem to handle sometimes. But if you make things fall in reverse, you'll find out that every effort he's got ready to fly with, is reverse falling. Things will go from the ground into the sky at a terrific rate.

PROBLEMS OF AUDITING
I was showing the First Unit that one day and, my gosh, they had stuff flying and into the sky like mad. I mean it's just terrific volumes of stuff going up into the sky. Biggest piece of automaticity they'd ever seen. You just lay the heavy block of iron down on the floor or something like that, and it'll fall up to the ceiling on a person who's got falling in restimulation. Why? Because they regret having dropped. So they're trying to turn time backwards so, of course, everything falls backwards on them.
But that is not the only way to handle that. End of Cycle: "Now have you mocked up as a thetan lying on the floor, completely smashed to pieces and dead." Do that a few times. It finishes a few falls for him. You know these unfinished falling dreams you used to have when you were a kid? Finish some of them for him. "Oh, you say you always got to the edge of the cliff and you jumped off the edge of the cliff and all the wolves were following after you, but you never reached the bottom. You always woke up before you reached the bottom." Just work with him on a gradient scale to make him hit bottom. And what do you know, all of those—all of those dreams will vanish. Just finish the end of cycle. Of course, he's never reached bottom in the facsimile.
Reaching bottom is in itself a fascinating problem in auditing, in terms of making somebody land. But the best way to do it is to have them landed and dead and run that for a while, and then fly them into the sky for a while, and you've handled the problem of falling. But if you just go on hammering them, pounding them and telling them to fall and trying to make a mock-up fall and the mock-up move down another inch and so forth, there's just screech, scree—you could just—you could smell those brakes smoke. Every . . .
It's wonderful to behold a preclear trying to fall. They just don't do it, that's all. It's very, very quick if you just mock him up as smashed, throw that away, "Mock yourself up smashed again. Mock yourself up as smashed. Now mock yourself up as having fallen from an airplane 8,682 million miles above Earth"—smash. "Now mock yourself up as frozen to death and smashed, having fallen through all that space. Now mock your—mock up the whole bottom of the Grand Canyon in Colorado full of your bodies as a thetan." (This is a real good one, see, bodies as a thetan). "Just full of all of them, all smashed."
"Now get the walls—get the Colorado River turning into blood clear on down into the Gulf of Mexico," you know. Build it up any way you want to build it up. Requires a little bit of fast thinking on your part.
You can get too entirely extraordinary on imagination on what you're trying to do in Creative Processing, but only if you've missed the point of what you're trying to do. You can't get incredible enough—you just can't get incredible enough—if you're still on the point: We're trying to keep him from falling.
Now let's don't have him have dances with thetans and don't get non sequitur on the process. I've seen that happen—the only reason I would mention it. I had somebody eating black thetans one time—I mean, I was having this— I saw this auditor auditing and he had somebody eating black thetans. And this person, this poor preclear, was gorging more black thetans and more black thetans and more black thetans and more black thetans and finally, I nudged the auditor and I said, "What are you doing?"
He said, "I don't know." (audience laughter)
He didn't, either. He hadn't established a problem the preclear had in order to resolve it.
Now, another thing is, is the preclear is nothing if not a problem. And you'll get the preclear who does nothing but offer you new problems. His level of acceptance is to be a problem. He could only get attention from his mother

175

176

8 DECEMBER 1953
and father when he had a finger smashed or something wrong with his body physically. So you audit him for a while and you'll find he's starting to droop. You know what's wrong with him—there's nothing wrong with him at all except he's got to be a problem. He thinks that your acceptance level of him is one preclear ruined with a smashed thetan, and this is very upsetting. Now, he'll finish off sessions and so forth with you on a flip, see. He's got to be a problem. That's his acceptance level.
How many thousand ways can you handle "I have to be a problem"? You just got lots of them. By the way, this is a very interesting fact that little kids in school quite ordinarily fail in arithmetic because they think of themselves as problems. I had a little girl who was failing in arithmetic one time, tell me, "I just don't know what's wrong. I don't know what's wrong."
And I said, "Well, what about—you having trouble with . . ."
"Yeah. I have trouble with this problem and that problem and so forth."
And I said, "What kind of a problem are you?"
She thought for a moment and all of a sudden the lock blew almost visibly and she said, "Oh, you mean that kind of problem? Oh, I'm not that kind of a problem at all," and turned around and did all of her arithmetic correctly.
Fastest session on record—two minutes of conversation.
So I'm asking you to look at your preclear and find out why he's not making progress, and if you've audited him without a perception change or if you've audited him for a little while and he's not exteriorized yet. I would say offhand when you get real good, that it shouldn't take you more than three or four minutes to exteriorize almost any preclear. That's when you get good.
Now, you just make up your mind you're going to be that good because you can't be a discredit to me. So just get that good, you understand? Otherwise we'll have no—I won't give you any orders, you're just as determined—you can just be as completely self-determined as you please, so long as you exteriorize preclears as well as I say you've got to.
Okay.

Appendix
SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit 179
This Is Scientology, The Science of Certainty 193
Standard Operating Procedure 8 215
Tone Scale [1953] 225








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

179

180

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

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

181

182

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

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

183

184

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

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

185

186

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

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

187

188

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

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

189

190

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

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

191

192

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








Published by the Hubbard Association of Scientologists, Inc. Issue 16-G June 1953
This Is Scientology The Science of Certainty
FOREWORD
For nearly a quarter of a century, I have been engaged in the investigation of the fundamentals of life, the material universe and human behavior. Such an adventure leads one down many highways, through many byroads, into many back alleys of uncertainty, through many strata of life, through many personal vicissitudes, into the teeth of vested interests, across the rim of hell and into the very arms of heaven. Many before me have made their way across these tumultuous oceans of data, where every drop of water appears to be any other drop of water and yet where one must find the drop. Almost everything I have studied and observed has been evaluated otherwise somewhere, at some time, in relation to this or that.
What equipment must one have to venture upon these wastes? Where are the rules books, the maps, the signposts? All one perceives when he peers into the darkness of the unknown are the lonely bones of those who, reaching before, have found their hands empty and their lives destroyed. Such a thing is a lonely drama; one must cheer one's own triumphs and weep to himself his despair. The cold brutality of the scientific method fails far back, almost at the starting point. The airy spiralings and dread mysteries of India, where I drank deep, lead only into traps. The euphoria of religion, the ecstasies of worship and debauchery, become as meaningless as sand when one seeks in them the answer to the riddle of all existence. Many have roved upon this unmapped track. Some have survived to say a fraction of what they knew, some have observed one thing and said quite another, some looked knowing and said naught. One engaged upon such a quest does not even know the answer to that most important question of all: Will it be good for man to loose upon him, all in a rush as an avalanche, the knowingness of eternity?
There are those who would tell you that only a fiend would set you free, and that freedom leads at best into the darkest hells, and there are those to inform you that freedom is for you and not for them, but there are also men of kind heart

193

194

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

10. And thus there is life.
11. But there are other viewpoints and these viewpoints outthrust points to
view. And there comes about an interchange amongst viewpoints; but the
interchange is never otherwise than in terms of exchanging dimension
points.

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

195

196


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

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

197

198

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

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

199


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

200

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

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

201

202

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

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

203

204

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

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

205

206

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

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

207

208

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

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

209

210

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

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

211

212

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

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

213

214

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

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

215

216

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

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

217

218

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

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

219

220

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

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

221

222

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

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

223

224

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

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

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

225



About the Author

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

227

228

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Responding to this groundswell of enthusiasm, Ron delivered lectures to packed halls across the country. Before the year's end, tens of thousands had not only read his book, but were readily applying it to better their lives. Meanwhile, he continued his research, and further breakthroughs followed. In 1951, he wrote and published six more books, including Science of Survival, the authoritative work on the subject of human behavior.
In the autumn of that year, and in spite of growing demands on his time, he intensified research into the true source of life energy. This research led him to identify the very nature of life itself, and formed the basis of the applied philosophy of Scientology—the study of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life. This track of research, begun so many years earlier as a young man traveling the globe in search of answers to life itself, was to span the next three decades.
Through the 1950s, Ron continued to advance Scientology techniques with the development of hundreds of new processes, delving deeper into the true nature of man. And as more and more people discovered Ron's break-throughs, Scientology churches around the world opened to provide services to them. Ron visited many of these churches, giving lectures and guidance to the church members to help them expand Scientology in their areas.
In 1959, Ron purchased a home in England, Saint Hill Manor, where he lectured to hundreds of Scientology students who came from as far away as the United States, Australia and South Africa. A new era for Scientology began with the opening of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course in May of 1961 to train expert auditors. Between 1961 and 1966, Ron not only person¬ally supervised these students, but also delivered more than 440 lectures and auditing demonstrations while continuing his research and overseeing the expanding affairs of Scientology internationally.
He released the Scientology Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart at Saint Hill in 1965, laying out the standard step-by-step route for pre-clears and auditors. Additionally, because of Scientology's rapid expansion, Ron developed administrative policies for Scientology organizations which have proven to be universal in their application.
On the threshold of breakthroughs never before envisaged, Ron resigned from all directorships in Scientology organizations in 1966 to devote himself more fully to research.
The following years saw the discovery and codification of the technology which allows anyone to move through the levels of Operating Thetan, the highest states of spiritual awareness and ability.
Ron continued to seek out methods to help his fellows. As he encountered ever-worsening conditions in society, he developed procedures to address and resolve a wide range of man's problems. He even refined the techniques of Dianetics in 1978 to bring about faster and easier-to-attain results—New Era Dianetics.
No area of life was left untouched in this search for ways to improve the human condition. His work provided solutions to such social ills as declining educational standards, moral decay and drug use. He codified the administration of organizations, the principles of ethics, the subjects of art and logic and much more. And yet he never lost sight of the man on the street and his day-to-day problems of living in these complex and troubled times. Thus in Scientology one finds solutions to any difficulty one can encounter in life.
This series of lectures represents but a small part of the more than forty

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

229



Glossary

To assist in your understanding of these lectures, hard-to-find terms and other words which you may not be familiar with are included in this glossary. An example of usage from the lectures is included at the end of each definition. These definitions give only the meanings of the words as they are used in the lectures; this glossary is not meant as a substitute for a dictionary.
AA: an abbreviation for attempted abortion (used especially in Dianetics). Not just because of prenatal AAs and other things, but just because of this stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. —Problems of Auditing (8 Dec. 53)
A&P: abbreviation for the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, an American corporation founded in 1859, which operated one of the largest chains of supermarkets in the United States at the time of these lectures. A&P down here has fuel for them. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
aberrated: affected with aberration. See also aberration in this glossary. A person is most aberrated by that thing which he overlooks. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
aberration: a departure from rational thought or behavior. Aberration means basically to err, to make mistakes, or more specifically to have fixed ideas which are not true. The word is also used in its scientific sense. It means departure from a straight line. If a line should go from A to B, then if it is aberrated it would go from A to some other point, to some other point, to some other point, to some other point, to some other point and finally arrive at B. Taken in its scientific sense, it would also mean the lack of straightness or to see crookedly as, for example, a man sees a horse but thinks he sees an elephant. Aberrated conduct would be wrong conduct, or conduct not supported by reason. Aberration is opposed to sanity, which would be its opposite. From the Latin, aberrare, to wander from; Latin, ab, away, errare, to wander. So in the essence, what we have is a case who has any aberration at all, relatively hypnotized. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
aberrative: tending toward or capable of causing aberration in a person. See also aberration in this glossary. And this agreed-upon rate is time, and there isn't any other time to refer this time to, which of course, makes it a single-terminal proposition and makes it aberrative. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)

231

232

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
aborning: being born, produced or created. But it is a piece of machinery aborning; a word is a piece of machinery under manufacture. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
acceptance level: the degree of a person's willingness to accept people or things freely, monitored and determined by his consideration of the state or condition that those people or things must be in for him to be able to do so. He thinks that your acceptance level of him is one preclear ruined with a smashed thetan, and this is very upsetting. —Problems of Auditing (8 Dec. 53)
Acceptance Level Processing: a type of processing which discovers the lowest level of acceptance of the individual and discovers there the prevailing hunger and feeds that hunger by means of mock-ups until it is satiated. The process is not a separate process itself, but is actually a version of Expanded GITA (Step IV of Standard Operating Procedure 8). For more information see Step IV of Standard Operating Procedure 8 in the appendix of this transcript booklet. And so you get these deposits and vacuums which produce these strange "hungers" which you find in Acceptance Level Processing. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
Alexander: Alexander III (356-323 B.C.), also known as Alexander the Great; king of Macedonia, an ancient kingdom located in what is now Greece and Yugoslavia. By conquest, he extended an empire which reached from Greece to India. / can't bring myself to believe that anybody who was smart enough to keep Alexander from slitting his throat—because Alexander had a specialty on this—if he was smart enough to keep Alexander in line, he sure was too smart to believe his own syllogism. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
anchor points: assigned or agreed-upon points of boundary, which are conceived to be motionless by the individual; those points which demark the outermost boundaries of a space or its corners for an individual. People go unconscious when their anchor points are driven in too hard—that's out of space. —Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness (30 Nov. 53)
any day of the week: (colloquial) under any conditions. This phrase is used either to indicate a preference for something, or to express complete certainty of the truth of one's opinions. But superstition is actually superior any day of the week to logic—where logic is being employed to predict the future. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Arabian Nights: a famous collection of Persian, Indian and Arabian folk tales, strung together by the story of Scheherazade, who kept her husband from killing her by telling these stories over 1,001 nights. The best known of these stories are those of Ali Baba, Sinbad the Sailor and Aladdin. There is a very snide—I wouldn't dare tell you this story, but I recommend to you the Arabian Nights, which is very far from a child's book. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
ARC: a word made from the initial letters of Affinity, Reality and Communication which together equate to understanding. These are the three things necessary to the understanding of something—one has to have some affinity for it, it has to be real to him to some degree and he

GLOSSARY
needs some communication with it before he can understand it. For more information on ARC, read the book Science of Survival by L. Ron Hubbard. As long as there's personal relationships, there has to be something vaguely resembling ARC. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Archon: a made-up name for a demon. An archon is, per some religious beliefs, an angel set over a nation, or a celestial power of a high order. The word comes from the Greek archos, meaning "first; ruler." "And that must have been a demon named Archon or a demon named God or a demon named Christ or"—any kind of a thing to suddenly set up a hidden influence to account for the nothingness which occurred when something should have been there. —Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness (30 Nov. 53)
Aristotle: (384-322 B.C.) Greek philosopher noted for his works on logic, ethics, politics, etc. He was also the tutor of Alexander the Great. See also Alexander in this glossary. Aristotle was a singularly gifted man. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Arizona: See Devil's Canyon in this glossary.
Arsclycus: a society on the whole track where beings spent ten thousand lives laboring on the same job, were stuffed like snakes every few weeks to feed them, and where they returned after death because a piece of their own body was held in pawn. For more information, see lecture 16 April 1952, "How to Search for Incidents on the Track, Part I," in Research & Discovery Series Volume 10, and the book Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard. Oh, they fit a guy into a body like they did in Arsclycus, and take a small piece of flesh and put it in a vat. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Assumption: the name given to the act of a theta being taking over a MEST body. This takes place in most cases just prior to birth. For more information, see the book Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard. Now, you can run end of cycle on an awful lot of people simply by running Assumptions. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
audit: apply Dianetics and Scientology processes and procedures to. See also processing in this glossary. Now, you have to solve that in one degree on the basis of "How do I audit?" That still puzzles some people. —Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness (30 Nov. 53)
auditing: another word for processing. See also processing in this glossary. Now let's take it in terms of auditing: We have—here is a preclear—here's this preclear, he's thinking, he's moving, he's acting, he sees things and does things. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
auditor: a person trained and qualified in applying Dianetics and/or Scientology processes and procedures to individuals for their betterment; called an auditor because auditor means one who listens. See also processing in this glossary. A fellow—an auditor will knock too much automaticity out of somebody, and make him too self-determined for his environment, and the fellow is miserable—he knows too much. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)

233

234

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
automaticity: the action of doing something but being unaware or only partially aware one is doing it; having something "on automatic." An automaticity is something which ought to be under the control of the individual, but isn't. I've been waiting for somebody to suddenly realize this; suddenly realize this and sort of fall back in a dead faint with the recognition that as far as auto¬maticity is concerned, he has it—ne plus ultra—right in present time. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
B1: short for vitamin B1, a vitamin essential to nerve function. Also called thiamine. Myself, I have occasionally resolved this in a preclear by admin-istering a great deal of B1 to him, which brought about a relaxation without drugging him. —Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness (30 Nov. 53)
balloon, going to hell in a: (slang) deteriorating badly and rapidly. A variation of the phrase going to hell in a handbasket (or a bucket). Well, I can tell you where you're going. Going to hell in a balloon. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
bank: the mental image picture collection of the preclear—the reactive mind. It comes from computer terminology where all data is in a "bank." See also reactive mind in this glossary. But if he's got his bank full of unfinished cycles, why, he tries by duplication in the action and business of living, to complete those cycles. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
bapping: (slang) punching; hitting. Used figuratively in the lecture. Now, there is no trick at all to reaching into somebody's head and bapping him out of it. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
bat (one's) brains out: try very hard to understand or think out something difficult; tire (oneself) out by thinking. A variation of beat (one's) brains out. Now, all of this is terrific theory, isn't it? Very interesting theory, and it's something that you can bat your brains out over. — Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
beam: an energy flow. There isn't anything around anyplace that's going to walk up to him as a thetan and shake him by a beam and say to him, "Now, there, there."—Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
beat (something) to death: a variation of flog to death or do to death, meaning "overdo or repeat too often; deal with or discuss (a subject) till it is no longer in any way interesting." And where you're going to err is you're going to try to beat them to death with an hour on one postulate. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
between-lives: reference to the period of time between the loss of a body and the assumption of another. At death, the theta being leaves the body and goes to a particular location where he "reports in," is made to forget everything, and is then sent back to Earth to a new body just before it is born. That's why people flip back and forth between between-lives areas with such avidity: some-body's going to hold their space apart for them. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
black case: a heavily occluded case (one whose memories are usually largely hidden or made unavailable to conscious recall) which is characterized by

GLOSSARY
mental pictures consisting of masses of blackness. Now, why did that little technique of the concentric spheres of blackness—if you've used it on an occluded case, and you've used it well, it's worked—why is that so effective on a black case? —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
blank, pulls a: (informal) obtains nothing in return for an effort made; is unsuccessful, especially in an attempt to find information or the answer to a problem. You wonder why somebody pulls a blank when you try to tell them about thinking or Scientology. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
blooey, got: (slang) gone awry; gone crazy; come suddenly to ruin. Everybody's got just blooey on this. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
blow (one's) brains out: (slang) kill (oneself) by a shot through the head. They blow their brains out, they take up physics, they resign themselves to their fate. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
body in pawn: reference to an incident where a person's body is held in one place by being hypnotized or knocked out, and the person is told that he belongs in that same place but that he now has to go somewhere else and live. For more information, read the book Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard. Well, they can reappear in a body in pawn because its space is being held apart. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
Boggy-Woggy: a made-up name for a brand of cereal. You tune on the radio, TV, advertising, you find out "Get more pep energy! The thing to do is to eat Boggy-Woggy cereals and you won't bog."—Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
boil-off: a condition in which one becomes groggy and seems to sleep, evidently caused by former periods of unconsciousness coming off during auditing. The data that I should append to that processing of God and space is the fact that a boil-off is an automaticity. —Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness (30 Nov. 53)
boil off: to experience boil-off. See also boil-off in this glossary. . . . a preclear who boils off is out of space. —Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness (30 Nov. 53)
Bolitho: William Bolitho Ryall (1891-1930), British journalist and author. After serving in World War I, he was the London correspondent for the Manchester Guardian and New York World newspapers. He was the author of books such as Italy under Mussolini (1926) and Twelve Against the Gods (1929). See also Twelve Against the Gods in this glossary. The very, very best essays—paragraphs—on war were written by Bolitho in his introduction to Twelve Against the Gods. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
Book One: Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, the basic text on Dianetics techniques, written by L. Ron Hubbard and first published in 1950. It is also referred to as the first book. You would actually have had to have studied it step by step all the way through, to find out how much today Book One is true. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
bracket: a word taken from the field of artillery, where one fires shots over and under a target so as to make sure and hit the target. Over and under, over and under, and one eventually hits the target. In Scientology processing,

235

236

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
a bracket is a series of questions or commands based on the number of ways or number of combinations in which something can occur. A bracket covers the potential directions of flow of an action as they relate to the preclear. Examples of the different flows that could be run in a bracket are: the individual doing the action himself, somebody else doing it, others doing it, the individual doing it to somebody else, somebody doing it to him, others doing it to others, etc. It's very funny, you start getting somebody wasting teeth in brackets, and if he wastes teeth long enough—and just waste teeth—he will find out that the body gets so relieved, that they get up to a tone level where they say, "Whee! Let's make everything and everybody into teeth." —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Brennan, Frederick Hazlitt: writer who produced screenplays for a number of movies in the 30s, 40s and early 50s. See also Devil's Canyon in this glossary. For instance, I saw a—Frederick Hazlitt Brennan wrote a play, Arizona. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
Breuer: Josef Breuer (1842-1925), Austrian physician known chiefly for his studies of hysteria (a neurosis characterized by the presentation of a physical ailment without an organic cause, sleepwalking, amnesia, episodes of hallu¬cinations, and other mental and behavioral problems), and particularly for his work with a patient known as "Anna O." who suffered from severe hysteria, including paralysis. Over a long period of getting her to talk about her distant past, particularly under hypnosis, Breuer found that her symptoms gradually ceased. He worked closely with Sigmund Freud in the 1880s, and they collaborated on a book entitled Studies in Hysteria. See, he had a lot of findings with Breuer, and then he came up with the libido theory in 1894 and then he gradually drifted away from findings into more and more unestablished theory. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
bridge hand (of thirteen spades): the cards held by a player in the card game of bridge, played by four players in two partnerships using a deck of fifty-two cards. Each player is dealt thirteen cards at the start of play. The cards are divided up into four suits (spades, diamonds, hearts, clubs) of thirteen cards each; the chances of one player getting all thirteen spades are thus practically nonexistent. / mean, there's something on the order— you could hold twenty-five bridge hands of thirteen spades before you could predict where you would be next Thursday at 2:06. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
brittle-brattle: a coined term from bric-a-brac, which literally means "interesting or curious trinkets used as decorations" and is used figuratively to mean "odds and ends of any sort." Unless you realize that you're mainly concentrating on those things, you're liable to get bogged down in an awful lot of brittle-brattle and—about Mama and about Joe, and about whether or not he has—he's self-conscious or ... —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Burton: Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821-1890), English scholar-explorer and writer, who published forty-three volumes on his explorations and almost thirty volumes of translations. One of his most famous translations was a sixteen-volume unexpurgated (omitting none of the passages considered obscene or otherwise objectionable) edition of the Arabian Nights which was exceptional in its vigor and literary skill. And in a more or less—a good translation—a Burton or a Lane or a Mathers translation of it, you get some of the seamier side of life. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
buttered all over the universe (or environment, space, etc.): (slang) in a condition whereby a person doesn't know where he is. The person has used remote viewpoints (those viewpoints which an individual puts out remotely, to look through) and has left remote viewpoints located all over everywhere to such a degree that he thinks he is anyplace rather than where he is. Now, when he gets bigger unselectively, he's actually being driven out to a point where he's buttered all over the environment. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
button: an item, word, phrase, subject or area that causes response or reaction in an individual. But now when we say barriers to his knowingness, the truth of the matter is he knows how to get rid of all of these, but he's afraid of stepping off one button first, and he gets to holding everything down, then he loses track. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
Cadillac: a top-of-the-line, expensive American luxury car, known for its spacious size and smooth ride. That's a little bit hard to do with a Cadillac because aesthetics get in your road and so forth. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
calm before the storm: reference to an ancient Greek proverb: "Fair weather brings on cloudy weather." Figuratively, the expression refers to a sense of foreboding, during a particularly serene period, that violence is on its way. "It's sort of the calm before the storm or something of the sort."—Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
Camden: the city where L. Ron Hubbard gave the lectures of this series, located in southwest New Jersey, on the Delaware River opposite Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. "Now move that postulate to Camden."—Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
cans: short for E-Meter cans, electrodes used with the E-Meter. They resemble ordinary cans and are tin-plated. Electrical leads from the E-Meter are connected to the cans and the cans are held in the preclear's hands. See also E-Meter and preclear in this glossary. Nor do I ask you to connect your E-Meter cans to the electric light plug. —Problems of Auditing (8 Dec. 53)
case: a general term for a person being treated or helped. Case also refers to a person's condition, which is monitored by the content of his reactive mind. A person's case is the way he responds to the world around him by reason of his aberrations. See also reactive mind and aberration in this glossary. Because a preclear every once in a while will be so confoundedly fixated on something like a twitching right ear, upon the fact that you have— that he has nothing but a pinwheel which goes on and on and on before his gaze, in order to get an entrance to the case, you have to know how to handle an automaticity. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
caves in: collapses mentally and/or physically to the extent that the individual cannot function causatively. The individual is quite effect. Cave in is a US Western phrase which symbolized mental or physical collapse as like being at the bottom of a mine shaft or in a tunnel when the supports collapsed and left the person under tons of debris. The next thing you know, the resistance of the people resisting ice-cream sodas caves in, and we then have a situation

237

238

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
whereby there's a terrible thirst for ice-cream sodas comes up. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
Change of Space (Processing): a process in which an auditor has a preclear be in different spaces, thus enabling the preclear to increase his certainty on where he is. So the next thing I would do if this case didn't exteriorize very easily—even if it killed him, which it darn near would—/ would do some sort of Change of Space on all the places he's been audited, by having him drag the places under him and then push them away. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
charge: harmful energy or force contained in mental image pictures of experiences painful or upsetting to a person. Processing which renders him less afraid of emotional charges, effort and pain, as well of course, as ridicule and betrayal; processes which render him less worried about these things, again, remove the liabilities from becoming more aware. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
chops, beating (one's): (slang) talking or complaining, especially to no purpose. Chops is a slang term meaning "the mouth, lips or teeth." She went around beating her chops and raising the devil in all directions. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
Christian Science: a religion and system of healing founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866, emphasizing the belief that a thorough spiritual understanding of God as the all-powerful source of all that is good and true can destroy sin, sickness and the like without material aid. The members of this religion deny the reality of the material world, arguing that sin and illness are illusions to be overcome by the mind. That accounts for the high insanity rate which is chalked up by Christian Science; it's a very, very high insanity, suicide rate. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
circuit: a part of an individual's mind that behaves as though it were an entity or personality separate from him, that either talks to him or goes into action of its own accord. Well, they're thinking on a circuit basis, they're not thinking on a knowingness basis. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
clear: audit (someone) to the state of Clear. And although he ostensibly is say-ing, "Well, here I am all willing and waiting to be cleared and straightened up and squared around and so on," why, he isn't, normally. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
Clear: the name of a state achieved through auditing or an individual who has achieved this state. A Clear is a being who no longer has his own reac¬tive mind. He is an unaberrated person and is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. He, theoretically, in this fashion, would simply—in spite of anything else you did, and in favor of just clarity—he would get Clear and get exteriorized eventually, he just wouldn't be able to help himself. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
Clinical Procedure: the original name for Standard Operating Procedure 8-C. See also SOP 8-C in this glossary. Now, what other steps of Clinical Procedure? —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
clock, fix (someone's): (slang) to finish (someone); to cause (someone's) defeat or ruin. "And if you don't think you're mud, we're going to fix your clock."—LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
clockwork, like: (informal) smoothly and regularly, like the workings of a clock. If she'd never gotten messed up in this thing, they wouldn't have had any story at all because it all would have run off like clockwork, you see. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
closing terminals: collapsing into or identifying oneself with someone or some-thing. See also terminal in this glossary. And they always are surreptitiously closing terminals with religion just because of that. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
CO2: reference to carbon dioxide (CO2) therapy, a type of psychotherapeutic treatment experimentally used in the 1950s which was said to help people overcome neurotic reactions. In one case, patients were made to breathe a mixture of 30 percent carbon dioxide and 70 percent oxygen until they lost consciousness; in another experimentation a single inhalation of a mixture of 70 percent carbon dioxide and 30 percent oxygen was taken which usually produced a stupor. (A concentration of more than 5 percent of carbon dioxide can have a harmful effect on people due to a lack of oxygen in the body.) People who use CO2, by the way—you know, they—that's a case of "it has to be done for them by something else," by MEST. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
commaclature: a coined word meaning "punctuation," formed from nomen-clature, meaning "a set or system of names or terms as in a particular science, art, etc." and comma, a mark of punctuation used chiefly to show interruptions in the thought or in the structure of a sentence. And it says sonorously— with what English, with what parsing, with what commaclature—that a dog is a dog. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
communication lag: the length of time between the posing of the question and the receiving of the answer, regardless of what intervenes. You start drilling him around on the subject of space, and he finally finds out he can take it or leave it alone and he gets real happy about it and he gets real smart and his communication lags come up. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
computation: the aberrated evaluation and postulate that one must be consistently in a certain state in order to succeed. A computation thus may mean that one must entertain in order to be alive or that one must be dignified in order to succeed or that one must own much in order to live. See also aberration and postulate in this glossary. Insanity is not very important, not very interesting, and not very smart. And it is just a computation of escapement. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
confabulated (or "confabulified"): affected by confabulation, a psychology term meaning "the process of filling in gaps in the memory with detailed accounts of fictitious events believed true by the narrator." So if you feel somewhat confabulated, "confabulified" and conglomerated by all this, why, just blame it on yourself. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
Cook: James Cook (known as "Captain Cook") (1728-1779), British navigator and explorer who commanded three major voyages of discovery, charting and naming many islands of the Pacific Ocean. On his last expedition, Cook

239

240

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
rediscovered the Hawaiian Islands; he was clubbed to death by natives in Hawaii during a scuffle over a stolen boat. You know, they don't do it on this basis, but I point out that the very famous explorer by the name of Cook— the early Cook—got himself into a fabulous state. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
corned up: (colloquial) made silly or stupid. Only this time, not corned up like it is in Frazer's Golden Bough. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
cowboyitude: a coined word for the state of being a cowboy, formed using the suffix -tude, meaning "state, quality or instance of being." If you did that, though, you'd never be able to park them in front of a TV set—they wouldn't take second order of cowboyitude. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
Creative Processing: an exercise by which the preclear is actually creating the physical universe. It consists of having the preclear make, with his own creative energies, a mock-up. See also mock-up in this glossary. You find out what he can and can't do, and you just work around on it on a Creative Processing level until symbols aren't that important to him. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
Cruikshank: George Cruikshank (1792-1878), English illustrator and cari-caturist. Cruikshank first gained notice due to his political caricatures, described by one of his contemporaries as "grinning, fantastical imps." He also illustrated more than 850 books, most notably Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist and Grimm's fairy tales. His idea of his own appearance would rival anything put out by Cruikshank in many cases. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
cut out: made ready; given for action; facing. Often used in the phrase have one's work cut out for one. Well, we have our work pretty well cut out and the watch pretty well in pieces, if this fellow can, by mocking up anchor points for a while, finally see the anchor points in his body and adjust them. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
darnedest: (informal) a euphemism for damnedest, most extraordinary; most amazing. And we had the darnedest time there for about fifteen or twenty minutes, trying to get some wall someplace to stand up long enough to have put in it "fear of being hit," because all MEST was dodging and ducking—it was leaving. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
DEI: abbreviation for desire, enforce, inhibit, three points of the DEI Scale. These points, going down, are lowered by failure. Each lower step is an explanation to justify having failed with the upper level. For more information, read the book Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics by L. Ron Hubbard. Then you'd turn around again and go the first cycle like DEI, and that DEI is marked with dynamics: eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, lies below the first set I gave you. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Department of Agriculture: a department of the US government, established in 1862, which has as its chief purpose to gather and spread information about agriculture among the people of the United States. The department's activities include agricultural research and investigations, inspection of

GLOSSARY
farm products and animals, and developing new insecticides and methods of controlling insects. The funny part of it is, the Department of Agriculture recently conducted—few years ago conducted a series of experiments that had to do with planting during phases of the moon. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
determinism: feeling determined about something; having a feeling of determi-nation. Intention is just choice of two determinisms, which is self-determinism and other-determinism. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Devil's Canyon: a movie released in 1953, written by Frederick Hazlitt Brennan. Set in a grim Arizona territorial prison at the turn of the century, the story is about a psychotic killer seeking vengeance on a former marshal who is also in the prison. The killer makes an escape attempt, aided by a female prisoner, but she switches sides at the crucial moment and helps the ex-lawman quell the breakout. They—I don't know why they called it Devil's Canyon, it wasn't. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
devil with (it), to (or the): (colloquial) I, we, etc., do not care about (a person or thing). It just happens that it—if it sees no liability, particularly—or to devil with the liability, it sees some method of getting interested, it will. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
Dianetics: comes from the Greek words dia, meaning "through" and nous, meaning "soul." Dianetics is a methodology developed by L. Ron Hubbard which can help alleviate such things as unwanted sensations and emotions, irrational fears and psychosomatic illnesses. It is most accurately described as what the soul is doing to the body through the mind. So we were operating all this time, really—the "what life is doing"—you see, in Dianetics, what life was doing was surviving. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Dickens: Charles Dickens (1812-1870), a prolific English novelist of the late nineteenth century whose books are noted for picturesque and extravagant characters in the lower economic strata of England at that time. We get this supermodification of each one of the dynamics, and we get a composite that the fellow, following—evidently having read Dickens and considering that a character is utterly dependent upon one's eccentricities (Dickensonian characterization), he thinks he has a character now and has a personality. — Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
dickens with (it), the: (colloquial) I, we, etc., do not care about (a person or thing). Dickens is a word often used in exclamations and mild oaths instead of devil or hell. This is the person who is figure-figure-figure; plan-plan-plan, foresee, foresee; prevent consequences, prevent consequences—see? The dickens with that. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
Diddy-Wah-Diddy: a mythical promised land in black folklore. Used in the lecture as a name for an imaginary place. Now just start shifting that idea, and make sure it's lineally, consecutively shifted from Diddy-Wah-Diddy to Moerdijk. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
dished by: (slang) became ruined; were finished. Because for the most part, these have—some hundreds of years ago, the last ones sort of dished by. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)

241

242

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
double-terminal: to run a process in which one has the preclear mock up something or someone facing its duplicate, then have him get another such pair beside, in any position, the first pair. The mock-ups discharge one against the other like electrical poles. And this is remedied by double-terminaling the fact that he doesn't know. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
double terminals, put up: mock up something or someone facing its duplicate, then get another such pair beside, in any position, the first pair. See also double-terminal in this glossary. Now, I ran an interesting preclear a long time ago, who used to put up double terminals and made them out of lead, and when asked for some lighter material, changed them to cast iron. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
dynamics: the eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. They are motives or motivations. We call them the eight dynamics. These are urges for survival as or through (1) self, (2) sex and family, (3) groups, (4) all mankind, (5) living things (plants and animals), (6) the material universe, (7) spirits and (8) infinity or the Supreme Being. Somebody is going along very happily and cheerfully—oh, dabbles with the second dynamic this way and that way. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
8-C: short for Standard Operating Procedure 8-C. For full information on this procedure, see "SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit" in the appendix of this transcript booklet. And we find the way, however, I've laid out 8-C for you, it does solve it. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
8-80: short for Scientology 8-80, a book written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 which contains his discoveries and methods of increasing life energy in man. The 8-8 stands for "infinity-infinity" upright and the 0 represents the static, theta. See also theta in this glossary. You go back there in old 8-80 and we talk about aesthetics, and we talk about beauty and ugliness. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
8-8008: short for Scientology 8-8008, a book written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 which is a complete treatise of the anatomy of universes and the role played in them by a spiritual being. The definition of 8-8008 is the attainment of infinity by the reduction of the apparent infinity and power of the MEST universe to a zero for himself, and the increase of the apparent zero of one's own universe to an infinity for oneself. It can be seen that infinity stood upright makes the number eight: thus, 8-8008 is not just another number, but serves to fix into the mind of the individual a route by which he can rehabilitate himself, his abilities, his ethics and his goals. . . . what we're doing right here is putting together a plan so you can use, with greater effectiveness, the materials which are contained in 8-8008 and 16-G. —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
8008: short for Scientology 8-8008. See 8-8008 in this glossary. Now, if you know 8008—which by the way, has not even vaguely become outdated; it's probably the most modern stuff we have . . . —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
Einstein: Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German physicist and US citizen from 1940 who formulated the theory of relativity, a series of conclusions concerning the interrelationship of time, space and the motion of objects.

GLOSSARY
No, we'll write, now, the Einstein formula of relativity and befuddle everybody for twenty years. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
Ektar: a made-up name for a location. They simply drug somebody until he's almost dead and then they tell him to shove off for Ektar or something. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
electric shock: (psychiatry) the administration of electric shock to the head of a patient in a supposed effort to treat mental illness. There is no therapeutic reason for shocking anyone and there are no authentic cases on record of anyone having been cured of anything by shock. The reverse is true. Electric shock causes often irreparable damage to the person in the form of brain damage and impaired mental ability. You're liable to run them into electric shocks and narcosynthesis and rape and—you think I'm kidding! —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
E-Meter: short for electropsychometer, an electronic device for measuring the mental state or change of state of Homo sapiens. It is not a lie detector. It does not diagnose or cure anything. It is used by auditors to assist the preclear in locating areas of spiritual distress or travail. You could get this on an E-Meter. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
engram: a mental image picture (a mental copy of one's perceptions sometime in the past) which is a recording of an experience containing pain, unconscious-ness and a real or fancied threat to survival. It is a recording in the reactive mind of something which actually happened to an individual in the past and which contained pain and unconsciousness, both of which are recorded in the engram. It must, by definition, have impact or injury as part of its content. Engrams are a complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness. See also reactive mind in this glossary. You wonder what's wrong with your postulates, why they don't wipe out easily, why your locks don't release, why you can't run an engram and get an erasure on the thing. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
engram bank: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. See also bank and reactive mind in this glossary. And the only reason you handle an auto¬maticity, is just to get his attention off something long enough so that you can break him into his component parts: which is to say a body, an engram bank, a MEST universe, and the thetan, and then his own universe and the other fellow's universe; and these are the component parts. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
ENIAC: abbreviation for Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer: the first large-scale electronic digital computer (one using numbers to perform calculations) ever built. The first ENIAC was completed in 1946. It will, in a UNIVAC or ENIAC or a music-making machine turn out quite faithfully various patterns of knowingness, providing it is monitored by a machine set up by life. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
enterprising pony: a term used by the Hopi Indians for a pony who can untie any knot. The Hopi have about fifteen or twenty knots they use to tie up ponies, and each pony is tied with a knot that is one step more complicated

243

244

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
than the pony knows how to untie. An "enterprising pony" is thus one who can untie all the knots. Well, you haven't been enterprising ponies as thetans. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
et: (colloquial) eaten. Let's treat it that way, however—that you're auditing to produce a betterment in terms of freedom from knowing so well that one is going to be betrayed, done in, et up, chewed up. —Problems of Auditing (8 Dec. 53)
evaluate: impose data or knowledge upon another. An example would be to tell another why he is the way he is instead of permitting or guiding him to discover it for himself. That thing which moves the preclear through space comes to evaluate for him. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
Expanded GITA: Step IV of SOP 8. For the full procedure, see Standard Operating Procedure 8 in the appendix of this transcript booklet. As an example—as an example—Give and Take Processing and many other kinds, such as Expanded GITA and so on, on Step IV, are bluntly, completely, having it; making it possible to have. —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
Explorers Club: a private club based in New York City and founded in 1904 with the main object of promoting the science of exploration and dedicated to the search for new knowledge of the Earth and outer space. It's a big joke up at the Explorers Club, is that explorers routinely get lost in New York. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
exteriorization: the act of the thetan moving outside the body. When this is done the person achieves a certainty of his beingness or identity completely apart from that of the body. See also thetan in this glossary. The only fifth thing that you would really have to add to that, to make a complete victory in any preclear, really, if you wanted just to keep at it, would be exteriorization. —Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness (30 Nov. 53)
exteriorize: to move (as a thetan) out of the body; place distance between oneself and the body. See also thetan in this glossary. Now, if you tell somebody to exteriorize and he busily exteriorizes, and then decides that nobody agrees with the fact that he's exteriorized, he's liable to shut off his perception and go back in his head. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
Fac One: an incident known as Facsimile One, or the "coffee grinder," involving the use of a machine which loosely resembled a camera (boxlike, two-handled, with an exit hole for blasts in front and a peek hole in back) to administer a push-pull force beam to the body. This was used by an invader force to tame the population. That's an Assumption body, it's an old Fac One body or something of the sort, plastered onto the front of his physical body's face. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Fac One suit: the suit worn by the operator in Facsimile One, which included a hood and goggles, and was similar to the types of suits worn for rescuing the crews of burning airplanes. He, by the way, exteriorized in a—what you call a Fac One suit. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
facsimile: a three-dimensional color picture with sound and smell and all other perceptions, plus the conclusions or speculations of the individual. Where does duplication show up in (quote) "real life" (unquote)? Well, the

GLOSSARY
dramatization of the facsimile is what we used to call it. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
fall: (of an E-Meter needle) to make a movement to the right as one faces the E-Meter. The fall is the most used and observed needle action. See also E-Meter in this glossary. Well, of course, the funny part of it is, if somebody put you on an E-Meter, why, "dog" would probably fall fifteen dials. —Problems of Auditing (8 Dec. 53)
FBI: abbreviation for Federal Bureau of Investigation, a United States government agency established to investigate violations of federal laws and safeguard national security. Leads into complications such as the WCTU, the— leads into complications such as the FBI. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
Ferry Building: a well-known building in San Francisco with a famous clock tower. Once a terminal for ferryboats that carried passengers between San Francisco and the eastern shore of the bay, the building today houses offices for firms that deal in foreign trade. You see, he can be here and then be in San Francisco, and actually be in San Francisco; and if he's real good, make the clock in the Ferry Building stop or something. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
First Unit: reference to the students of the First American Advanced Indoctrination Course, delivered by L. Ron Hubbard in Camden, New Jersey from 6 October through 13 November 1953. The lectures of this course have been released on cassette as a series entitled "Exteriorization and the Phenomena of Space." Now, the First Unit, we had classifications of names. —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
fix (someone) up: (informal) punish or injure (someone). Fix him up so he can't see. That's—mechanically that's all you can do to him. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
flat: no longer producing change or a reaction. It's almost impossible to process somebody without getting a communication change. "Oh, that's flat."I mean it's almost impossible to do it—you have to work real hard to keep from doing something. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
fox without his tail: reference to a fable in which a fox who lost his tail in a trap talks about the virtues of being tailless and suggests that all his fellow foxes cut off theirs. The story comes from Aesop's Fables, by Greek writer Aesop (620?-560 B.C.), which contains stories largely concerned with talking animals illustrating human vices, follies and virtues. It's like the fox without his tail—he goes around and tries to sell all the foxes on the idea that no fox should have a tail. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Frazer's Golden Bough: a comprehensive work on comparative religion and mythology by Sir James George Frazer (1854-1941), Scottish scholar and anthropologist. Its opening passages describe an ancient Italian folk custom regarding the King of the Wood: Near Lake Nemi in Italy was a sacred grove of the goddess Diana. In it was a special golden tree. To become a priest of Diana and King of the Wood one had to succeed in pulling down a bough of this tree and thus earn the right to duel to the death with the current King of the Wood. The person who won would then assume the position

245

246

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
until another, stronger aspirant came along and succeeded in killing him, becoming in his turn the King of the Wood. Frazer's initial intent was to trace the source of this legend. Drawing from similar traditions and rituals of other peoples, his work expanded and tied together (sometimes incorrectly) many myths and legends from around the world. You know he had a whole wood, like Frazer's Golden Bough, you know. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
French 75: a 75-millimeter field gun developed in France and widely used during World War I. It fired either a 16-pound shrapnel shell or a 12.3-pound high explosive shell at the rate of 15 to 20 rounds per minute. And if they figured out something really mean, like the—supposing they rolled back into the childhood play with a French 75 loaded with shrapnel and chain shot, you know? It just—there wouldn't be any game. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
GE: abbreviation for genetic entity, that beingness not dissimilar to the thetan that has carried forward and developed the body from its earliest moments along the evolutionary line on Earth and which, through experience, necessity and natural selection, has employed the counter-efforts of the environment to fashion an organism of the type best fitted for survival, limited only by the abilities of the GE. The goal of the GE is survival on a much grosser plane of materiality (concerning the material or physical). See also thetan in this glossary. The GE can go one way, and he can go the other way. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
genus: origin. Hence, the genus of the body. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
Give and Take Processing: processing in which a long list of key items is used and the preclear is asked to waste, accept and desire these items at will. As an example—as an example—Give and Take Processing and many other kinds, such as Expanded GITA and so on, on Step IV, are bluntly, completely, having it; making it possible to have. —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
God knows: (colloquial) an interjection meaning "only someone more powerful than man can possibly know or realize," usually used to express the speaker's inability to understand or foresee something. Also heaven knows or Lord knows. Of course, it gets dangerous when you start playing with anybody who's been to psychiatrists, because God knows what you'd run into!—Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
God trick: an operation in which an individual knocks one of someone else's mock-ups flat and then says God did it and sets up some kind of ritual for the person to follow in order to "help him out." For more information, see lecture 2 December 1953, "Blackness," in this transcript booklet. You can fool him in numbers of ways; you can pull the "God trick" on him. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Golden Bough: See Frazer's Golden Bough in this glossary.
goofy: (slang) stupid or crazy; silly; dazed. I don't care how well off the fellow is—he's nuts as long as he thinks he's just in one place. He's really goofy. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
Gott: (German) God. Shouldn't strike you at all peculiar that the word God, Gott and so forth, in all these languages, runs a very few—that it's almost the same word. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
gradient: of a gradual approach to something, taken step by step, so that, finally, quite complicated and difficult activities or concepts can be achieved with relative ease. Gradient mock-up building is awfully interesting in this line. —Problems of Auditing (8 Dec. 53)
gradient scale: a scale of condition graduated from zero to infinity. On a scale of reality, everything above zero or center would be more and more real, approaching an infinite reality, and everything below zero or center would be more and more unreal, approaching an infinite unreality. Absolutes are considered to be unobtainable. What it requires is some patience, and slow gradient scales. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
Greenwich Village: a section of New York City, in lower Manhattan, inhabited and frequented by artists, writers and students; formerly a village. And he just had a wonderful time for himself for three or four months, until she ran off with the butcher or a millionaire or something, the way girls do around Greenwich Village. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
Greyhound: of the Greyhound Bus Lines: one of the leading intercity bus systems in the US. If you want to see somebody who's traveling fast, go find a Greyhound bus driver, go find a TWA plane captain; these guys are traveling pretty fast, too. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
grief charge: an outburst of tears that may continue for a considerable time in a session, after which the preclear feels greatly relieved. This is occasioned by the discharge of grief or painful emotion. . . . if you just get him to look through the one you have just covered to the one he's just put on, you see, keep looking through these curtains of blackness at new curtains of blackness, so on, he'd probably blow a grief charge or do something of the sort. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
groove, along the: (slang) in good form; working smoothly and well. But he's right along the groove and very responsive on this particular point. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
gunshot: a variation of shotgun, which means "something which covers a wide area in an irregularly effective manner without concern for details or particulars; tending to be all-inclusive and nonselective." A shotgun is a gun with no grooves in its barrels, for firing cartridges filled with small lead or steel balls. When fired, these balls (shot) travel in an expanding, conelike pattern. These four steps—last four steps shouldn't just be run as a gunshot, but you have all kinds of techniques down there to remedy the reason why. —Problems of Auditing (8 Dec. 53)
hair on edge, turn (one's): make the hair on (one's) head rise stiffly upwards as a sign or result of great fright or horror. The phrase is a variation of make (one's) hair stand on end. Now, once in a while, a fellow will get a clear visio of one of these things and it's enough to turn his hair on edge. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)

247

248

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Handbook for Preclears: a volume of self-processing written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951. The handbook is designed for use by an auditor on a preclear, by a preclear between sessions, by a preclear with only occasional auditor help, or by a preclear without an auditor. It contains a fifteen-step auditing procedure done to increase a person's ability. And if you want some variety on it—if he's expecting to get Self Analysis and this upsets him, something of the sort, the idea he's getting Self Analysis—pull out the old Handbook for Preclears, try its eleventh step. —Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness (30 Nov. 53)
hang fire: delay firing. After the trigger is pulled, a gun sometimes doesn't go off. This is called a "hangfire" or delayed fire if it then goes off late. Used figuratively in reference to something which is slow in occurring or something which does not bring about the result one might expect. Now, that case is going to hang fire and degenerate. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
havingness: the concept of being able to reach. By havingness we mean owning, possessing, being capable of commanding, taking charge of objects, energies and spaces. Havingness also refers to various processes designed to increase the preclear's affinity, reality and communication with the environment, and to increase his ability to reach and get him stabilized in his environment. . . . and when we all hook into the same regulator on the same subject and then depend utterly upon time; and then make all of our havingness this stuff which is so created—we, of course, can't have the past again. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
hell, go to: (colloquial) become utterly ruined. Those are the important dynamics—the rest of them can go to hell. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
hell or high water, come: (informal) no matter what happens; whatever may come up. In other words, you just sell him complete on the idea that he's some kind of a piece of machinery—you validate this endlessly, you see— you sell him on the idea he's a kind of a piece of machinery that's going to deliver himself into the hands of the devil, come hell or high water. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
hell with, to (or the): (informal) an exclamation expressing disgusted rejection of something. "Well then, all you have to do is just say, All right, you preclear— know!' Oh, you don't know, huh? Well, the hell with you!"And he calls this auditing. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
hogtie: literally, to tie the four feet, or the hands and feet, of (something or someone). Figuratively, the term means "to make incapable of effective action, as if by tying up." "To me it's a big beast and the two of us might be able to rope and hogtie it, but I certainly can't by myself."—Problems of Auditing (8 Dec. 53)
Hokkaido: the northernmost and most sparsely populated of Japan's major islands; it is the second largest island but has only about 5 percent of Japan's total population. Hokkaido's economy depends mainly on dairy farming, fishing and forestry, and it is also a popular recreational area. The Japanese must have really found him up in Hokkaido—he must have been back of beyond educationally—because they're pretty bright about machinery. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
Homo sap: short for Homo sapiens, the Latin word meaning "modern man; mankind; a human being." This is a difficult thing to teach, but it has become simpler and simpler and simpler as time has gone on, because the deeper, wider, more basic, more fundamental data on the subject of Homo sap has come to light. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
Horney: (1885-1952) German-born American psychiatrist connected to the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute. She was the founder of the American Institute for Psychoanalysis and the author of several books on psychiatry and psychology. And I said, "Is that so? Yeah, I see you have a book by Karen Horney over in your bookcase."—Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
Horn-eye: variant pronunciation of Horney. See Horney in this glossary. He said he was a "Horn-eye" man. —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: reference to a famous medieval religious controversy about how many angels could stand on the point of a pin, used as an example of tedious concern with irrelevant details. Well, when there's nothing in something, and something in something, but there's nothing in something, we get into a state of mind that leads us to happily talk about: "Now, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
H plus 6 O: humorous use of the chemical formula for an impossible molecule consisting of one hydrogen atom (H) and six oxygen atoms (O). "Everything just sort of happened, and the reason life is on Earth is because there was a sea of ammonia, and it generated some H plus 6 O gel and this combined accidentally with a virus, and that made everybody virulent."—LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
Hyde, Mr.: (figurative) a vicious or evil person; reference to the vicious side of the personality of the main character in the novel The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, by American author Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-1894). The novel concerns Dr. Jekyll, a kind and generous physician who develops a drug which separates out the evil portion of his personality, transforming him temporarily into the demonic Mr. Hyde. He is afraid of being confronted with Mr. Hyde and he's very startled, very often, to find out he's just another Jekyll. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
implant: an enforced command or series of commands installed in the reactive mind below the awareness level of the individual to cause him to react or behave in a prearranged way without his "knowing it." . . . zap him a couple of times with aparalo-ray which stands him up and gives him a nice implant, and after that he's a tubeman third class until the ship blows up . . . —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
implantation: the act or result of installing an implant. See also implant in this glossary. "And furthermore, I must have an implantation because I feel like now I ought to go to jail"—overt-motivator. —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
Injuns: (informal or dialect) American Indians. Used humorously in the lecture. And it peps a fellow up—he isn't out killing any Injuns or anything of the sort, so he makes something out of nothing with a cigarette. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)

249

250

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
invalidate: nullify; refute, degrade, discredit or deny something someone else considers to be a fact. Invalidation is a statement, action or inference that makes the preclear wrong. . . . and they feel they've done it and then there's no evidence that they did and this invalidates them like mad and here they go. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
iron collar: a band of iron fixed round the neck of prisoners, worn as a badge of servitude, etc. And if you can make them incredibly live and incredibly active and incredibly real, so that he's really getting them, all of a sudden he'll say, "Well, to hell with it! There's just no such thing as a symbol. I mean, a symbol—phooey! I can have a postulate. I don't have to have an iron collar." —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
I Will Arise Society: a made-up name for a group a person could belong to. "Well, I—Russia, you know, and the United States and the 'I Will Arise Society' and other randomity, other randomity, terribly serious, terribly serious." —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
James, William: (1842-1910) American philosopher and psychologist. He taught psychology and, later, philosophy at Harvard University and wrote the book Principles of Psychology in 1890. The best and most able work on psychology, I think, was written by William James, and I don't think it's been improved upon. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
Jekyll: See Hyde, Mr. in this glossary.
key in: to become restimulated, or to cause a key-in of (an engram). A key-in is a moment when the environment around an awake but fatigued or distressed individual is itself similar to a dormant (inactive) engram. At that moment the engram becomes active. See also restimulation in this glossary. He gets this terrific emotion and it keys in all the times the body has been eaten and so forth, and he's in love! —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
key out: to release or separate from (the reactive mind or some portion of it). See also reactive mind in this glossary. Because you shake out all the agreement—you key out. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
kickback: (colloquial) sharp, violent reaction. Sudden, dismaying, almost indescribable rushes of emotional kickback which you didn't intend to have, and which your body, actually, is not quite strong enough to withstand. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
know from nothing, doesn't: (slang) is ignorant; is deeply uninformed or ill-informed. Boy, he doesn't know from nothing—not from August nor from the Confederate Army. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
kudu: an African antelope with long spiral horns. Now we could be very poetic and say, "It's all withered away into the dust of yesterday," and et cetera and "And it's gone where the kudu mourneth and the ivy pineth," or something. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
Lane: Edward William Lane (1801-1876) English Orientalist (person who studies Eastern culture) who completed the first accurate translation of the

GLOSSARY
Arabian Nights (1840). And in a more or less—a good translation—a Burton or a Lane or a Mathers translation of it, you get some of the seamier side of life. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
last-ditch: made, done, used, etc., in a final, often desperate act of resistance or opposition. The term last ditch means "the last place that can be defended; the last resort," and originally referred to soldiers defending a military position. This is a sort of a last-ditch proposition. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
libido theory: a theory originated in 1894 by Austrian physician and founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), which states that all life impulses and behaviors are sex motivated. In psychoanalysis, libido means psychic drive or energy, especially that associated with sex instinct. See, he had a lot of findings with Breuer, and then he came up with the libido theory in 1894 and then he gradually drifted away from findings into more and more unestablished theory. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Lieber Tobacco Company: a made-up name for a company. / noticed it says, "Stop the Hot Cigarette Habit" or something, an article by Professor Stinkwiler who was an opponent on the payroll of the Lieber Tobacco Company or something of the sort. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
lock: an analytical moment in which the perceptics of an engram are approx-imated, thus restimulating the engram or bringing it into action, the present time perceptics being erroneously interpreted by the reactive mind to mean that the same condition which produced physical pain once before is now again at hand. See also reactive mind in this glossary. You wonder what's wrong with your postulates, why they don't wipe out easily, why your locks don't release, why you can't run an engram and get an erasure on the thing. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Lone Ranger: the main character of a Western program called "The Lone Ranger" which first aired on the radio in 1933, and was then shown on television from 1949 to 1957. Set in Texas in the nineteenth century, the series tells the story of Texas Ranger John Reid, sole survivor of an outlaw ambush, who is rescued from death by the Indian Tonto. Adopting a new identity as the Lone Ranger (which includes wearing a black mask over his eyes), Reid dedicates himself to protecting people and preventing crime. Generally it's some blackness—a square of blackness, a rectangle of it— something like the Lone Ranger wears, something on that order. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
loop, throws (one) for a: impresses (one) strongly; overwhelms (one); confuses or surprises (one). Now this sounds—another thing that sounds like a strange step to throw in there because as I said, it throws these people for a loop to look at their own body, very often. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
Louis, Joe: (1914-1981) black American boxer who held the world championship in the heavyweight class from 1937 to 1949. He defended his title twenty-five times, scoring knockouts in twenty-one of these fights. He retired undefeated in 1949 but returned to the ring in 1950, only to lose to the new champion. I've heard impacts described as a "beautiful impact" when struck by somebody like Joe Louis in the old days. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)

251

252

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Mack truck: a large, strong tractor (a truck with a driver's cab and no body, for hauling one or more trailers) built by the Mack Truck Company. And you're going to come up here with a scoop shovel and a dragnet and jimmies and hammers and assembly belts and conveyor belts and Mack trucks and so forth, to move this energy unit—which has no mass and no energy—three feet. —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
main strength: sheer force or strength. And heaved him out with main strength and awkwardness. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
marid: in Muslim demonology, a jinn (a supernatural being that can take human or animal form and either help or harm people) of the most powerful class. The niceness of vocabulary here: We have the ghost, the spirit, the demon, the genie, the marid . . . —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
match-terminal: run a process in which one has the preclear facing the preclear or his father facing his father; in other words, two of each of anything, one facing the other. These two things will discharge one into the other. For more information, see Chapter 7 of the book Scientology 8-8008. Several ways to take care of it—most elementary, which almost anybody can understand— almost anybody, is just match-terminal the fact, "I don't know whether I was wrong or not."—Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
Mathers: Powys Mathers, author who completed an English translation of the Arabian Nights in four volumes which was first published in 1937. And in a more or less—a good translation—a Burton or a Lane or a Mathers translation of it, you get some of the seamier side of life. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
mechanic: technical aspect or working part; mechanism; structure. Now, that's a mechanic of existence. —Problems of Auditing (8 Dec. 53)
MEST: a word coined from the initial letters of matter, energy, space and time, which are the component parts (elements) of the physical universe. Also used as an adjective to mean "physical"—as in "MEST universe," meaning the "physical universe." And the highest level of what you're into—the game called MEST universe is a game requiring barriers and limitations. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Metropolitan Opera: the most prominent opera company in the United States, based in New York City. The company's name is taken from the Metropolitan Opera House in New York, where they began performances in 1883. First thing you know, all the squawks of hens in the bank will turn on—every time he's ever heard a hen squawk, such as the last time he was at the Metropolitan Opera. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
minus 273 degrees centigrade: the theoretical temperature at which sub¬stances would have no heat whatever and all molecules would stop moving. Also called absolute zero. It's the most disenfranchising mechanism that was ever invented: the vacuum—minus 273 degrees centigrade. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
mock-up: a full-perceptic energy picture in three dimensions, created by the thetan and having location in space and time. A mock-up is more than a mental picture; it is a self-created object which exists as itself or symbolizes

GLOSSARY
some object in the physical universe. The term was derived from the World War II phrase for miniature models that were constructed to symbolize weapons (airplanes, ships, artillery, etc.) or areas of attack (hills, rivers, buildings, etc.) for use in planning a battle. The term is also used in Scientology to refer to one's body or one's presentation of it. Well, why he just doesn't go back of a tree someplace and sit down quietly, and create mock-ups of foxes without tails until he either grows one or he's no longer worried about them, one doesn't quite recognize. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
mock up: create a mock-up (of). See also mock-up in this glossary. So that he won't be too frightened of that, just have him mock it up a couple of times, you see. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
Moerdijk: a village in the Netherlands, south of Rotterdam. Now just start shifting that idea, and make sure it's lineally, consecutively shifted from Diddy-Wah-Diddy to Moerdijk. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
monomanic: having an inordinate or obsessive zeal for or interest in a single thing, idea, subject or the like. And we find out that the thetans have gotten into a monomanic contest of make nothing while they themselves try to be something, and thus they go on a dwindling spiral. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
moon, shooting the: (informal) going for everything or nothing; making an all-out effort. Here you're shooting the moon, here's infinity. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
motivator: an aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics. The reason it is called a "motivator" is because it tends to prompt that one pays it back—it "motivates" a new overt. See also overt act in this glossary. So it wasn't that working out one's motivators was bad, it was just that one couldn't find enough victims. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Mussulman: another word for Muslim, meaning "a follower of Mohammed." . . . finally the only difference you could tell between a Mussulman and a Christian was the method they used to go to the bathroom: one stood up and the other squatted. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
my hat: (colloquial) certainly not! An expression used to show disagreement with or one's surprise at a statement, remark, etc. (There are many variations of this phrase, such as my foot, my eye, etc.) Universal Military Training, my hat! —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
narcosynthesis: (psychiatry) drug hypnotism; the practice of inducing a trance with drugs and then talking to the patient to draw out buried thoughts. You're liable to run them into electric shocks and narcosynthesis and rape and—you think I'm kidding! —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
Nation, Carry: (1846-1911) American temperance crusader who conducted a series of raids on saloons, in which she would break bottles of liquor and destroy barroom furniture with a hatchet. If you think I'm being too far afield,

253

254

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
just consider the campaigns of Carry Nation and the period of drunkenness which came in coincidental with Prohibition. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
nature of the beast: the quality, character or disposition of the person or thing being referred to. Nearly every pc who comes near you will have, one way or the other, an occlusion. This is the nature of the beast. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
navy bean: a small white bean, dried for use as a food, usually baked or in soup. The name comes from its common use in the US Navy. He conceives himself to be about the size of a small navy bean or a small pea or something like that. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
neurotic: (psychiatry) exhibiting neurosis, a condition wherein a person is insane or disturbed on some subject (as opposed to psychosis, wherein a person is just insane in general). That's why you'll find a lot of people who are neurotic in front of their faces. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
next-to-the-last list: reference to the next-to-the-last list of questions in the book Self Analysis by L. Ron Hubbard, which asks the preclear to recall times which were really real to him, when he felt real affinity, and when he was in good communication. But you can still take this symbol-happy case, and once you've asked him—and please remember to ask him the next-to-the-last list in Self Analysis: "Remember something real." —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
nickel, worth a: (slang) at all; in the least degree. A variation of worth a damn. And it doesn't plot worth a nickel. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
nitrous oxide: a colorless gas that dulls pain, and in some patients produces exhilaration and occasionally uncontrollable laughter; laughing gas. It is used as an anesthetic. There's another one, of the unconsciousness of going under nitrous oxide, which happens to be an entirely different one. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
Olympus complex: humorous reference to the Oedipus complex, a psycho-analytical term for a condition in which a son has a sexual desire (usually unrecognized by himself) for his mother and conversely an equally unrecognized jealous hatred of his father. The term comes from the name of a character in Greek mythology (Oedipus) who was abandoned by his parents as an infant, but was adopted and raised by others. As a man, he returned to the city of his birth and, without knowing who they were, killed his father and married his mother. And instead of that he had to go into the deep significance of the Olympus complex or the Paprika complex or something. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
1.1: the numerical designation for the level of covert hostility on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. A rather routine 1.1 case was picked up by this boy, we were going to keep him around and so forth and not turn him out to grass because he—a lot of promise in that boy. —Problems of Auditing (8 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
1.5: the numerical designation for the level of anger on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. The case probably wasn't even at 1.5. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
only one: an individual who is operating on only the first dynamic and is not actually aware of or operating on any other dynamics. In this state the individual must have no effect on self and total effect on everything and everybody else. See also dynamics in this glossary. And he himself gets into the "only one" category. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Operating Thetan: a state of beingness. It is a being "at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life." Operating comes from "able to operate without dependency on things," and Thetan is the Greek letter theta (Θ), which the ancient Greeks used to represent thought or perhaps spirit, to which an n is added to make a noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. It is also Θn or "theta to the nth degree," meaning unlimited or vast. That means that we're sailing along, and we have to a large degree at least indicated that we're going to be very successful in these goals, because I want to see everybody leave here an Operating Thetan. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Orienting Straightwire: the name of the process run as Step I of SOP 8-C. For more information, see "SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit" in the appendix of this transcript booklet. And he gets him out of that successfully one way or the other by orientation—Orienting Straightwire. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
other-determined: determined by something or someone other than oneself. Is your intention to go on being self-determined, or is your intention to go on being and start to be other-determined? —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
other-determinism: a condition of having one's actions or conclusions deter-mined by something or someone other than oneself. Intention is just choice of two determinisms, which is self-determinism and other-determinism. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
overt: short for overt act. See overt act in this glossary. Because he runs into the other complexities—overt-motivator mechanisms and so on. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
overt act: an act by a person or individual leading to the injury, reduction or degradation of another, others or their persons, possessions or associations. An overt act can be intentional or unintentional. Overt act mechanism, overt act-motivator mechanism, all of these things center around punishment. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
overt act-motivator sequence: the sequence wherein a person commits an overt, then believes he's got to have a motivator or that he has had a motivator. For instance, if he hits somebody he will tell you immediately that he has been hit by the person, even when he has not been. See also motivator and overt act in this glossary. And so we get such things as the overt act-motivator sequence: something is done to him, he should duplicate it. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)

255

256

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
PAB: abbreviation for Professional Auditor's Bulletin: one of a series of issues written by L. Ron Hubbard between 10 May 1953 and 1 April 1959. The content of these bulletins was technical and promotional. Their intent was to give the professional auditor and his preclears the best possible processes and processing available at the moment it became available. Mother, for instance, the one (this is, by the way, one of the subjects of the PABs)—Mother carries the child around and then you wonder why it can be evaluated for by Mother. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
Paprika complex: humorous reference to the Electra complex, a psychoana-lytical term for a condition in which a girl has a sexual attraction towards her father accompanied by hostility towards her mother. The term comes from the name of a character in Greek mythology (Electra) whose father was murdered by her mother, Clytemnestra, and Clytemnestra's lover Aegisthus. In order to avenge her father's death, Electra urges her brother to kill Clytemnestra and Aegisthus, and helps him carry out the act. And instead of that he had to go into the deep significance of the Olympus complex or the Paprika complex or something. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
paralo-ray: a coined term for the emission of a type of ray gun. See also ray gun in this glossary. . . . zap him a couple of times with a paralo-ray which stands him up and gives him a nice implant, and after that he's a tubeman third class until the ship blows up . . . —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
patter: the special vocabulary of a particular activity. And then just to vary our patter, "Get a feeling of complete, slavish belief in another corner of the room."—Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness (30 Nov. 53)
pc: abbreviation for preclear. See preclear in this glossary. And this is the only game which you have to solve in the pc. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Pete: an interjection used in various mild exclamations and phrases expressive of exasperation or annoyance such as "So help me Pete," or "For Pete's sake." You can get so confoundedly sick of your own constructions standing up, that you wish to Pete there was a French 75 that would knock down some of the ideas you've set up for yourself—they're all enduring. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
picnic: (colloquial) an awkward adventure, an unpleasant experience, a troublesome job. Now, when that gets really set, why, one has a picnic with himself. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
pocketa-pocketa-pocketa: (informal) an imitation of the regular sound made by a smoothly running internal combustion engine. The term was first used by American writer James Thurber (1894-1961) in his story "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty." And in midlife the machine is going pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
postulate: a conclusion, decision or resolution made by the individual himself to resolve a problem or to set a pattern for the future or to nullify a pattern of the past. You wonder what's wrong with your postulates, why they don't

GLOSSARY
wipe out easily, why your locks don't release, why you can't run an engram and get an erasure on the thing. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
pre-c: short for preclear. See also preclear in this glossary. You can run that on a pre-c and shed tears off of it. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
preclear: a person not yet Clear, hence pre-Clear; generally, a person being audited, who is thus on the road to Clear; a person who, through processing, is finding out more about himself and life. A Clear is an unaberrated person. He is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. It is a state of mental well-being never before achieved by man. And if he duplicates it, however, if he doesn't duplicate it often enough in real life, he naturally just throws what he's trying to duplicate into restimulation, as any preclear will. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
present time: the time which is now and which becomes the past almost as rapidly as it is observed. It is a term loosely applied to the environment existing in now. I've been waiting for somebody to suddenly realize this; suddenly realize this and sort of fall back in a dead faint with the recognition that as far as automaticity is concerned, he has it—ne plus ultra—right in present time. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
prime mover unmoved: a concept originating with the Greek philosopher Aristotle. It means the first cause of all movement, itself immovable. See, you just took a composite of all life impulse—now, this you would say would be the prime mover unmoved. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
prime post unposted: a humorous variation of prime mover unmoved, from the idea of an immovable hitching post in the MEST universe, as described in lecture 18 November 1953, "Step I of 8-C: Orientation," in the first binder of this series. See also prime mover unmoved in this glossary. But he's so fixed—he's prime post unposted—that he doesn't feel he can move to places. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
process: (1) a set of questions asked or commands given by a Scientology or Dianetics auditor to help a person find out things about himself or life and to improve his condition. Now, there's a process that goes along with nothingness which demonstrates to you quite easily that people are afraid of nothingness, which makes them afraid of space, which makes them pull in toward a somethingness. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53) (2) to apply Dianetics and Scientology processes to. But also, who knows, in getting sick, if he's processed ably, you might process him right straight through and right on up the line at a heck of a rate. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
processing: the application of Dianetics and/or Scientology processes and procedures to individuals for their betterment. The exact definition of processing is: the action of asking a person a question (which he can under-stand and answer), getting an answer to that question and acknowledging him for that answer. Also called auditing. Any time when you depart from this formula—which is to say, MEST universe, a game of barriers—you are adrift in processing, in this universe. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)

257

258

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
Professor Stinkwiler: a made-up name for an authority. I noticed it says, "Stop the Hot Cigarette Habit" or something, an article by Professor Stinkwiler who was an opponent on the payroll of the Lieber Tobacco Company or something of the sort. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
psycho: short for psychotic. See also psychotic in this glossary. Now, who wants that many psycho patients, huh? —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
psychosis: any severe form of mental disorder; insanity. And you can eventually get him to be in San Francisco and be here; and that finally cures his major psychosis. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
psychosomatically: a term used in common parlance to mean "resulting from a state of mind." Psychosomatic illnesses account for about 70 percent of all ills, by popular report. And more things happen to idle people, psychosomatically— because they think about themselves ordinarily—than happen to people who aren't idle. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
psychotic: out of contact to a thorough extent with the present time environment and not computing into the future. This term is also used to denote a person who is in such a condition. A person may be an acute psychotic wherein he becomes psychotic for only a few minutes at a time and only occasionally in certain environments (as in rages or apathies) or he may be a chronic psychotic, or in a continual disconnection with the future and present. Psychotics who are dramatically harmful to others are considered dangerous enough to be put away. Psychotics who are harmful on a less dramatic basis are no less harmful to their environment and are no less psychotic. Let's all get insane and psychotic on it; let's get down on the floor and beat the floor and insist it's there. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Q and A: an abbreviation of Question and Answer used to express the factual principle that in perfect duplication, the exact answer to a question would be the question. The term has also come to mean an auditor doing what the pc does, or changing when the pc changes. You'll find that when you use the mind, the memory, too hard, and validate its rememberingness or validate too much its computingness, why, it winds up remembering or computing. Here is Q and A. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
racking around: straining; putting pressure upon (the mind, brain, etc.). Funny, isn't it? So that's what you're racking around for. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
randomity: a consideration of motion. We have plus randomity and we have minus randomity. We can have, from the individual's consideration, too much or too little motion, or enough motion. What's enough motion measured by? The consideration of the individual. Because the enormous force which is leveled against you, and the enormous amount of confusion to which the individual is being subjected, the considerable amount of randomity— you see, if you even stop to think about it, the whole area around you is an automaticity. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
ray gun: a gun or other instrument that is supposed to shoot radioactive rays. He somehow or other finds out he's not in various places of the room, and the

GLOSSARY
fellow quiets down about it, and then the next thing you know, there's somebody with a ray gun standing in front of him. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
reactive mind: a portion of a person's mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. Also called bank. See also engrain and aberration in this glossary. We had to process that thing which most closely approximated the analytical mind and we had to stop validating that thing called the reactive mind simply because the key engram on almost every case—birth—sooner or later was liable to hang up with the Assumption. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
Reader's Digest: a pocket-sized US magazine, founded in 1922, that reprints in condensed form articles from other periodicals. I picked up a copy of Reader's Digest on the newsstand. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
reality: agreement upon perceptions and data in the physical universe. All that we can be sure is real is that on which we have agreed is real. Agreement is the essence of reality. We had a point of unmistakable reality, and we used it. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
restimulation: a reactivation in the present of a past mental recording of an unpleasurable experience due to similar circumstances in the present environment approximating circumstances of the past. And if he duplicates it, however, if he doesn't duplicate it often enough in real life, he naturally just throws what he's trying to duplicate into restimulation, as any preclear will. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Revolutionary War: the American Revolution, a war between Great Britain and its American colonies, 1775-1783, by which the colonies won their independence. So you're liable to put the Revolutionary War seventy-six years earlier or something. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
ridge: a solid accumulation of old, inactive energy suspended in space and time. A ridge is generated by opposing energy flows which hit one another, and continues to exist long after the energy flows have ceased. Because every once in a while you reach over to push the cake nearer the mock-up of the body's hand or something of the sort, and hit a ridge. . . —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
roll: (slang) to cause (something) to go into action; to start (something) moving. The term is most frequently used in the field of cinematography, where the command "roll them," means "start (the movie cameras) filming." If he didn't exteriorize and they still aren't visible and so forth, we just go back to Step I and we roll her again. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
Rome, all those roads lead to: any of several choices will lead to the same result. The expression is a reference to the system of roads in the Roman Empire, which radiated from the capital like the spokes of a wheel. Thus any road, followed to its source, would lead to the capital city, Rome. See how all those roads lead to Rome? —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)

259

260

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
roodles, round of: in the card game of poker, a round of hands played, with special provisions, after an especially high hand has been held by any player. In a round of roodles, every player is required to ante (put one's stake into the pool before receiving cards) and the betting limit is usually doubled, making very high stakes for the winner. And then I just go back to these, what you might call—in poker they call something a "round of roodles," so I suppose this would be a "round of roodles."—Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
rose is a rose is a rose: quotation from the poem "Sacred Emily" (1922) by Gertrude Stein, which also contains such lines as "It is rose in hen" and "which is pretty which is pretty which is pretty." See also Stein, Gertrude in this glossary. And they—soys all this stuff like "side angle side" and "angle side angle" and "triangles are triangles is a rose is a rose is a rose, when I was a little girl," as Gertrude Stein would have said. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Rover: a familiar name for a dog. You take some foolish problem—you make up your mind that this person is this way because of a terrific affinity with Rover. —Problems of Auditing (8 Dec. 53)
Rube Goldbergian: like the creations of Rube Goldberg (1883-1970) American cartoonist known especially for his cartoons depicting the inventions of the fictional Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts. In these cartoons, Goldberg devised ridiculously elaborate machines in which a number of involved steps, including features such as moths devouring a sock or a dog wagging its tail, led to the accomplishment of a ludicrously simple task. You know, to pick up an ashtray and move it is much better than to build a Rube Goldbergian piece of automaticity and machinery which will move the ashtray. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
ruler of the United States: reference to Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945), thirty-second president of the US (1933-1945). In 1941, Roosevelt made a speech about what he called the "four essential human freedoms"—freedom of speech and expression; freedom of every person to worship God in his own way; freedom from want; and freedom from fear. We have an example of that in a chap, a few years ago, who was the ruler of the United States. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
run: to perform the steps of a process, procedure, etc., on (someone or some-thing). See also process in this glossary. You wonder what's wrong with your postulates, why they don't wipe out easily, why your locks don't release, why you can't run an engram and get an erasure on the thing. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
salted (through): scattered or sprinkled (throughout). Now, there's—as you see, salted through all of these techniques there's an awful lot of ways to exteriorize somebody, but they're not the best ways to exteriorize people. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
sanitarium: an establishment for the treatment of people suffering from a condition (such as alcoholism, tuberculosis or mental disease) requiring care over a long period of time. Yes, I looked it over in some sanitariums one time— what church denominations did the insane people belong to? —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
Science of Survival: a book by L. Ron Hubbard, published in 1951, which covers the different aspects of the Tone Scale and how it can be used in processing and in life. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. Now, Science of Survival talks about cases that are "too heavy" to be run by heavy techniques, and that still exists. —Problems of Auditing (8 Dec. 53)
Scientology: Scientology philosophy. It is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life. Scientology means scio, knowing in the fullest sense of the word and logos, study. In itself the word means literally knowing how to know. Scientology is a "route," a way, rather than a dissertation or an assertive body of knowledge. Through its drills and studies one may find the truth for himself. The technology is therefore not expounded as something to believe, but something to do. So if all we had to work with was one definition—we can do this many times with this subject at this time, but if all we had to work with was one definition, there are many definitions in Scientology today with which we could succeed. —Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness (30 Nov. 53)
secesh: a shortened version of secessionist, meaning "a person who favors or takes part in secession, a formal withdrawal from membership in or association with a group, organization, etc., especially a political group (for example, the United States)." The day that it loses the perspective of forty-eight states— and I'm not talking like a secesh—the day that it loses the idea that it is forty-eight sovereign powers operating in unison, when it loses that completely, it will become a slavery. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
Second Unit: reference to the students of this course, the Second American Advanced Clinical Course. You know, it would surprise you people of the Second Unit here to know that you really do have the essentials of what you're trying to do—you really do have. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Self Analysis: reference to the auditing processes given in the book Self Analysis in Scientology. See also Self Analysis in this glossary. And if you want some variety on it—if he's expecting to get Self Analysis and this upsets him, something of the sort, the idea he's getting Self Analysis—pull out the old Handbook for Preclears, try its eleventh step. —Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness (30 Nov. 53)
Self Analysis: short for Self Analysis in Scientology, an edition of Self Analysis (a handbook containing auditing processes which can be used by oneself or audited on another person) in which LRH revised the processing section for use in Creative Processing. It was published in April 1953 in the United States. See also Creative Processing in this glossary. If you're the least bit worried about your presence as an auditor, you just get ahold of little old Self Analysis and you just read it to the preclear until you feel very comfortable sitting there as an auditor. —Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness (30 Nov. 53)
self-audit: run concepts or processes on oneself. Now, there's one technique here that can be just self-audited till the end of time, and that's moving postulates around. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
self-determinism: a condition of determining the actions of self; the ability to direct oneself. But when one begins to depend upon the universe or the chance—which is randomity itself—to do his duplicating for him, he of

261

262

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
course gets into trouble because this is handing over one of the most essential portions of self-determinism. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
service facsimile: that facsimile which the preclear uses to apologize for his failures. In other words, it is used to make others wrong and procure their cooperation in the survival of the preclear. If the preclear well cannot achieve survival, he attempts an illness or disability as a survival computation. The workability and necessity of the service facsimile is only superficially useful. It is an action method of withdrawing from a state of beingness to a state of not-beingness and is intended to persuade others to coax the individual back into a state of beingness. The service facsimile has a complete and explicit anatomy. It begins with an effort to control along any dynamic, with a failure to control, with a recognition of the failure, with a postulate to be ill, injured or unable, continues with an illness, injury or inability and may or may not end (short of processing) in days, weeks, years or an entire lifetime. See also computation in this glossary. Now, earlier we classified this as the service facsimile—call it the "service postulate" and it comes closer. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
726: reference to 726 Cooper, the address in Camden, New Jersey, where the First American Advanced Indoctrination Course was delivered (6 October— 13 November 1953) by L. Ron Hubbard. Oh, this—you know when those— we tried to cover them up, but those blood stains which you see in the hall over there at 726 are places where auditors have blown their brains out over this case. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
shop, all over the: (colloquial) all over the place; everywhere. Now, you have preclears all over the shop who—everything's disappearing on them. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
16-G: reference to Journal of Scientology Issue 16-G, entitled "This Is Scientology, The Science of Certainty," a copy of which can be found in the appendix of this transcript booklet. Now, if you know 8008—which by the way, has not even vaguely become outdated; it's probably the most modern stuff we have, that and 16-G . . . —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
sixteen-inch gun: a large, heavy artillery gun with a barrel 16 inches in diameter and a range of more than 28 miles (approximately 45 kilometers). / mean, you can pass a wallet through there very easily by cramming it down the muzzle of a sixteen-inch gun and pulling the lanyard. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
skillion: a made-up word used to indicate a very large number or amount of something. Now, there's umpteen skillion ways to solve these problems, but those are the basic problems. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
skyhooting: fanciful perversion of scooting, a slang term which means "going or moving quickly; hurrying." Now, a fellow goes skyhooting across space in a spaceship, something of the sort. —Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
sleeper: (informal) a previously disregarded person or thing that unexpectedly achieves success, assumes importance, etc. There is a, you might say, and

GLOSSARY
not to make a pun out of it—but that's been a "sleeper" in all duplication. —Additional Remarks: Space, Perception, Knowingness (30 Nov. 53)
snotties: a word coined to rhyme with bodies. "Bodies, snotties, who cares, see? Oh yeah, there's nothing to it."—Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
solved their cake and they're eating it at the same time: a variation of having one's cake and eating it too, which means "being able to enjoy each of two equally desirable things." It is usually considered that one cannot do this, so the phrase more commonly heard is "You can't have your cake and eat it too." And there you've solved their cake and they're eating it at the same time, and so there's your problem solved. —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
somatic: a physical pain or discomfort of any kind. The word somatic means, actually, bodily or physical. Because the word pain has in the past led to confusion between physical pain and mental pain, somatic is the term used to denote physical pain or discomfort. . . . and awareness and unconsciousness are the two key buttons which go all the way through every somatic he's got and everything he's inhabiting. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
son of a gun: (slang) fellow. The phrase has been in use for over two centuries and originally was a descriptive term conveying contempt in a slight degree, applied to boys born afloat when women were occasionally allowed to accompany men in ships of the British Navy. Voyages were frequently long and conditions cramped, and any woman about to give birth had to do so beneath or beside one of the ship's guns, behind an improvised screen. . . . then some son of a gun leaves it open and he almost slides in, and he takes a look and there's no trap there. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
SOP: abbreviation for Standard Operating Procedure. See Standard Operating Procedure in this glossary. Male voice: I go on to SOP. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
SOP 8: abbreviation for Standard Operating Procedure 8. For full information on this procedure, see "This Is Scientology, The Science of Certainty" in the appendix of this transcript booklet. So although we have a rote procedure in SOP 8 that goes right on down the line and works very well, when I get a case that doesn't exteriorize by the time I've done a few minutes of holding the couple of back corners of the room, and I want to exteriorize this person, I start to remedy the state of consciousness. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
SOP 8-C: abbreviation for Standard Operating Procedure 8-C. For full information on this procedure, see "SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit" in the appendix of this transcript booklet. So these processes you will find in SOP 8-C are plotted on this basis. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
SOP 8-O: abbreviation for Standard Operating Procedure 8-O, an auditing technique which drills up the capabilities of the thetan on a gradient scale so he can see, hear, speak, get out electricity, throw out postulates, control

263

264

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
bodies other than his own and do other things which are well within his abilities. And we make sure it happens by SOP 8-0, which is Operating Thetan. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
SOP 80: reference to SOP 8-O. See SOP 8-O in this glossary. And SOP 80 picks up when SOP 8-C has been run but completely and thoroughly. —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
soup: (slang) power; horsepower. By the way, at the time he's superambitious to straighten out everything, it's quite amusing—he isn't able to. He doesn't have enough soup yet. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
sour apple: a variation of sad apple, meaning "a gloomy person, frequently irritable, introverted or pessimistic." And there is nothing more sour than somebody who can only destroy; he's a real sour apple. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
south: down; toward a lower level. . . . if he's gone that far south at Step HI, and he has not exteriorized by holding on to the two back corners of the room, you see, and just holding on to them for a short time and he doesn't come out. . . —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
Spacation: Step III of Standard Operating Procedure 8. For more information, see Standard Operating Procedure 8 in the appendix of this transcript booklet. But if he doesn't exteriorize when he's gotten to Step III, Spacation, why, he's a sad case. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
space opera: time periods on the whole track which concern activities in this and other galaxies. Space opera has space travel, spaceships, spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It is not fiction and concerns actual incidents and things that occur and have occurred on the track. They sell them science, and the next thing you know you've got space opera. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
spin (in): (slang) cause (someone) to go into a state of mental confusion. And, of course, they spin him in. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
spontaneous frogation: joking reference to spontaneous generation, the now discredited theory that living organisms can develop from nonliving matter, such as worms being produced from mud. They say, "Ammonia and so on, and there's the virus, and it just all sprung up, and then there was 'spontaneous frogation' occurred all over the universe, and that's life."—LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
squirrel cage: a cage containing a cylindrical framework that is rotated by a squirrel or other small animal running inside of it. Used figuratively to mean any situation that seems to be endlessly without goal or achievement. But you understand that once a person has done this, he's hitting into the GE's squirrel cage. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
squirreled up: (slang) a variation of loused up, confused; messed up. And as long as a preclear is squirreled up about this—and a lot of them are—in fact, any preclear who's having any difficulty at all is. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
squirrelly: (slang) odd, crazy, etc. The term is an allusion to the squirrel's diet of nuts (which in addition to its literal meaning, has the slang definition "crazy, foolish"). And you just sell him on this, and you've got him really sold, and he really gets squirrelly. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Stalin: Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), Soviet political leader known for his extreme brutality. Stalin became general secretary of the Communist Party's Central Committee in 1922; from this position he controlled appointments and set agendas, and could transfer thousands of party officials from post to post at will. After the death of Soviet leader Lenin in 1924, Stalin used his control of the party to crush his opponents, and by the end of 1929, he was the undisputed master of the Soviet Union. While promoting a campaign that proclaimed him a genius in every field of human endeavor, Stalin conducted purges in which thousands of Communist Party officials were killed (usually on made-up charges of treason), as well as members of every profession and the general population. He also deported millions of middle-class farmers in his forced collectivization of agriculture, and lost huge numbers of troops while personally controlling the Soviet armed forces in World War II. The deaths attributed to Stalin's actions have been estimated in the millions. You say, "Now—now what—what about Stalin?" —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
Standard Operating Procedure: a sequence of steps to be taken by the auditor to make a Theta Clear. The procedure evolved over time and was released in different issues. See also Theta Clear in this glossary. So as long as we would leave, in a Standard Operating Procedure, the fact that we ran these things on somebody who was interiorized, we would get somebody busily churning up a preclear and churning up his banks and busting him around this way and that, and wrecking him practically. —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
steer: (colloquial) a suggestion on how to proceed; tip. And now you give him the steer, you know, the first time or two, and then you more or less deliver it into his own hands what he's doing. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part I (3 Dec. 53)
Stein, Gertrude: (1874-1946) American poet, novelist and critic. She was the subject of wide literary controversy in the 1920s because of her writing style, which was characterized by the use of words for their associations and sound, rather than for their literal meaning, and by an emphasis on the presentation of impressions and a particular state of mind rather than the telling of a story. See also rose is a rose is a rose in this glossary. And they—says all this stuff like "side angle side" and "angle side angle" and "triangles are triangles is a rose is a rose is a rose, when I was a little girl," as Gertrude Stein would have said. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
stock in, put: have faith in, give credence to, or attribute real significance to. Well, you can't put too much stock in that because it's too general a statement. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
Straightwire: a straight memory auditing technique, called "Straightwire" because one is stringing a line between present time and some incident in the past, and stringing that line directly and without any detours. In other

265

266

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
words, the auditor is stringing a straight "wire" of memory between the actual genus (origin) of a condition and present time, thus demonstrating that there is a difference of time and space in the condition then and the condition now. The preclear, conceding this difference, can then rid himself of the condition or at least be able to handle it. And I just shortened up the whole thing, just with a very rapid Straightwire, and then without arguing any further, just told him to be back there. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
Straightwire: to use straight memory, as in Straightwire. See Straightwire
in this glossary. I simply straightwired—just on that little point alone— back to third-grade hygiene. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
subterfugenous: a coined term meaning "characterized by the employment of subterfuge." Subterfuge means "any plan, action or device used to hide one's true objective, evade a difficult or unpleasant situation, etc." And he thinks he can do it in some subterfugenous fashion, you know? —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
Swiss watch: a watch made in Switzerland; Swiss watches are known for their delicate, precise workmanship. It's something like building a Swiss watch and trying to get these anchor points to stay there long enough so that you don't pull them out. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
syllogism: an argument or form of reasoning in which two statements or premises are made and a conclusion is drawn from them. Example: All mammals are warmblooded (major premise); whales are mammals (minor premise); therefore, whales are warmblooded (conclusion). Aristotle used the syllogism as the basis of his system of logic. I can't bring myself to believe that anybody who was smart enough to keep Alexander from slitting his throat—because Alexander had a specialty on this—if he was smart enough to keep Alexander in line, he sure was too smart to believe his own syllogism. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
syphilaphobia: a coined term for a fear, dread or hatred of syphilis. One case I ran had a terrific fear of syphilis. Interesting. Syphilaphobia showing up. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
tap: (colloquial) the slightest amount. And you know, he was a writer, and he wasn't doing a tap of work—not a tap! —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
terminal: a person, point or position which can receive, relay or send a communication. And all of Step V is entirely Change of Space and terminals. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
thataway: (dialect) in or toward the direction pointed out. But the vacuums and currents in it seem to tell him that it went thataway because it's got the anchor points of the MEST body all wrecked. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
theta: life force, life energy, divine energy, elan vital, or by any other name, the energy peculiar to life which acts upon material in the physical universe

GLOSSARY
and animates it, mobilizes it and changes it. The term comes from the Greek letter theta (Θ), which the ancient Greeks used to represent spirit or thought. Fact of the matter is, theta needn't be concerned with time at all. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Theta Clear: a person (thought unit) who is clear of his body, his engrams, his facsimiles, but can handle and safely control a body. There's a lot of Theta Clears that pop back in only because Assumption vacuums. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Theta Clearing: the process of bringing a being to the state of Theta Clear. See also Theta Clear in this glossary. And, of course, the second we got into that one, that took us right into Theta Clearing and goodbye Dianetics. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
thetan: an immortal spiritual being; the human soul. The term soul is not used because it has developed so many other meanings from use in other religions and practices that it doesn't describe precisely what was discovered in Scientology. We use the term thetan instead, from the Greek letter theta, Θn, the traditional symbol for thought or life. One does not have a thetan, something one keeps somewhere apart from oneself; one is a thetan. The thetan is the person himself, not his body or his name or the physical universe, his mind or anything else. It is that which is aware of being aware; the identity which IS the individual. And in view of the fact that the thetan is not a thing, he is much more likely to dream up something of which there is only one. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
theta perception: that which one perceives by radiating toward an object and from the reflection perceiving various characteristics of the subject such as size, odor, tactile, sound, color, etc. Theta perception is dependent upon willingness to handle energy and to create space, energy and objects. In view of the fact that the MEST universe can be established easily to be an illusion, one must have an ability to perceive illusions before one can clearly perceive the MEST universe. The thetan who cannot perceive the MEST universe easily will also be found to be incapable of handling and orienting other kinds of illusions with certainty. Theta perception is also a direct index to responsibility, for responsibility is the willingness to handle force. And by that I mean a communication change in terms of theta perception—that it gets worse or it gets better—you see, either one. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
third-grade hygiene: a course on cleanliness for children in their third year of school. / simply straightwired—just on that little point alone—back to third-grade hygiene. —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)
thisa ... thata: (informal) various activities, things, etc., (used to give only a general indication of what is being referred to). Punishment is the motto, the justice, the thisa, the thata. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
tin-cupping: moving or operating while being unable to see or perceive. The phrase is an allusion to blind beggars in earlier times, who carried tin cups in which to receive alms. There's a process known as "tin-cupping" a guy out. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)

267

268

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
'tisn't: (colloquial) shortening of it isn't. Sooner or later this thing will key in, he'll start to knock teeth out, and he'll start to go half-blind, and he'll start to mess up his features, and he'll do all sorts of weird things all on the basis " 'tisn't him."—Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Tone Scale: a scale, in Scientology, which shows the emotional tones of a person. These, ranged from the highest to the lowest, are, in part, exhilaration (as we proceed downward), mild interest, boredom, anger, fear, grief, apathy. An arbitrary numerical value is given to each level on the scale. Also called the Tone Scale. There are many aspects of the Tone Scale and using it makes possible the prediction of human behavior. A copy of the Tone Scale in use at the time of these lectures is included in the appendix of this transcript booklet. And yet was insisting and hammering the desk on the subject of being at 10.0 on the Tone Scale, and was furious about it. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
Topsy: in the book Uncle Tom's Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896), a young black slave girl whose ignorance and unconscious humor provide comic relief. Her replies to questioning, such as, "Never was born" and "I 'spect I grow'd," have made her a symbol of spontaneity and aimless development. / don't know how in the name of the Lord himself you could ever call medicine a science since it's something that, like Topsy, "just growed."—Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
track: short for time track, the consecutive record of mental image pictures which accumulate through a person's life or lives. It is very exactly dated. The time track is the entire sequence of "now" incidents, complete with all sense messages, picked up by a person during his whole existence. So essentially the job of the auditor is to remove from his track those barriers and limitations which seem to convince him that he will hurt if he becomes more aware. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
transfer: (psychoanalysis) experience transference. See also transference in this glossary. Who wants all these people transferred and concentrating on him all the time? —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
transference: (psychoanalysis) the process by which emotions and desires originally associated with one person, such as a parent, brother or sister, are unconsciously shifted to another person, especially to the psychoanalyst. But that phenomenon of transference was something which the individual tried—the analyst tried to bring about. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
truck gardens: farms or areas where vegetables and fruit are grown for sale. Truck means "vegetables or fruit grown for sale," and comes from the French word troquer, meaning "exchange." And a lot of farmers plant that way, and a lot of people get real good truck gardens, and a lot of people get real lousy ones. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
tubeman: a made-up name for a type of spaceman. . . . zap him a couple of times with a paralo-ray which stands him up and gives him a nice implant, and after that he's a tubeman third class until the ship blows up . .. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)

GLOSSARY
TWA: abbreviation for Trans World Airlines, Inc., an American airline formed in 1930 which flies both domestic and international routes. If you want to see somebody who's traveling fast, go find a Greyhound bus driver, go find a TWA plane captain; these guys are traveling pretty fast, too. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
Twelve Against the Gods: a collection of short biographical sketches, authored by William Bolitho Ryall (1890-1930) in 1929. It portrays famous adventurers such as Alexander the Great, Casanova, Christopher Columbus, Napoleon I, Mohammed, Isadora Duncan, Woodrow Wilson, etc. See also Bolitho in this glossary. The very, very best essays—paragraphs—on war were written by Bolitho in his introduction to Twelve Against the Gods. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
20.0: the numerical designation for the level of action on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. He will be as well as he is causative and he will be as bad off as he is an effect—up to the point of 20.0 on the Tone Scale, after which he will be as bad off as he is causative. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
two nickels' worth: (slang) at all; in the least degree. The phrase is a variation of worth a nickel. She wasn't even well exteriorized, that just didn't matter two nickels' worth at all. —Problems of Auditing (8 Dec. 53)
UNIVAC: abbreviation for Universal Automatic Computer, an early, general-purpose computer for commercial use. It will, in a UNIVAC or ENIAC or a music-making machine, turn out quite faithfully various patterns of knowingness, providing it is monitored by a machine set up by life. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
Universal Military Training: a system in which every qualified man receives a general military training when he reaches a certain age. They think they can pass a law which will enforce Universal Military Training. —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
unmock: make nothing of. See also mock up in this glossary. If we can't take him out of his head, and we can't take his head off him simply by having him mock up his body in front of him and unmock it an awful lot of times— you know, till it gets to the point where he can unmock his body right where he's sitting—why, we've each got lots and lots of answers to this. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
valence: the combined package of a personality which one assumes as does an actor on a stage, except in life one doesn't assume this knowingly. One's own valence is his actual personality. "Out of valence" describes someone who has assumed the personality of another. We used to call this "out of valence."—Barriers, Occlusion (7 Dec. 53)
viewpoint: a point of awareness from which one can perceive. You are, as far as time is concerned, a motionless viewpoint. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part I (30 Nov. 53)
visio: a thing seen or the recall of something seen, so that it is seen again in the mind in full color, scale, dimension, brightness and detail. And he's been

269

270

THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TRANSCRIPTS
fishing around and fooling around with this thing, and this is the one thing he won't look at, and that's why he doesn't have any visio. —Lack of Space (1 Dec. 53)
wallop, packing a lot of: (colloquial) being able to deliver a large quantity of effective force; being vigorous. But it's true that when a fellow can inhabit a lot of space or no space at will, and be wherever he wants to be, he starts packing a lot of wallop. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
WCTU: abbreviation for Women's Christian Temperance Union, an organization formed to promote total abstinence and the abolition of liquor manufacture and sale. Leads into complications such as the WCTU, the—leads into complications such as the FBI. —Essence of SOP 8-C (8 Dec. 53)
Wells, H. G.: Herbert George Wells (1866-1946), English novelist and journalist. The first great writer of science fiction, Wells authored the famous stories "The Time Machine" (1895) and "The War of the Worlds" (1898) among others. He is also known for his satirical novels and his popularized accounts of history and science. Now, H.G. Wells has written a lot about time machines. —Time: Cause and Effect, Part II (3 Dec. 53)
What room?: (informal) reference to a condition of such low confront as to leave an individual unable to find even the room; no reality at all. A person in this condition when asked to look at the room he's in would ask, "What room?" "Well,"I said, "how the hell did you get to be a 'Horn-eye' man?" "Oh," he said, "I sort of favor it." What room? —Plan of SOP 8-C (4 Dec. 53)
white cane: a cane used by a blind person which is held out in front of the body and touched to the ground where the person is going to take their next step to ensure that it is safe. Used figuratively in the lecture. He's going around with a white cane, you might say. —Blackness (2 Dec. 53)
whole track: the whole span of the time track (the moment-to-moment record of a person's existence in this universe in picture and impression form) including past track, prior to this lifetime. Supposing he knew nothing about whole track, and all of a sudden his preclear starts babbling about flaming suns hitting him. —Space, Perception, Knowingness, Part II (30 Nov. 53)
worth two nickels and a collar button: (slang) at all; in the least degree. The phrase is a variation of worth a nickel. Till he doesn't give a damn what direction is which, because it shouldn't matter to him worth two nickels and a collar button which is. —Outline of SOP 8-C (7 Dec. 53)
yup: (slang) yes; an affirmative reply. He says, "Both places at once! What are you trying to do to me, tear me to pieces?" And you say, "Yup." —LRH Questions the Class on Exteriorization (4 Dec. 53)

Web auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/
(с) При использовании информации с сайта указывайте ссылку на него.

https://vk.com/galac_patra http://timecops.net https://vk.com/timecopsorg
Одитинг и обучение - создание духовных способностей в любой точке мира через Skype: timecops
Timecops
 
Сообщений: 1877
Зарегистрирован: 25 июн 2011, 15:42

Вернуться в L Ron Hubbard original LECTIONS, TAPES

Кто сейчас на форуме

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

cron