You want some data?

Thank you.

Audience: Yes.

And I'm trying to see if anyone was a casualty in the seminars.

Want a chart, too?

Today we have a book to talk about: Dianetics 1955! We have summated in this book a small amount of material which was gathered at odd moments and which covers, as far as I can tell, man. This small subject and this small book very possibly will have a collision — I wouldn't doubt a bit — or if after they had read it, something happened.

Audience: Yes.

Now, I want to tell you something about writing this book. Want to hear something about writing this book?

Female voice: We want anything you'll give us. (laughter)

Audience: Yes.

This lecture is on the subject of communication, which has to do with the text in Dianetics 1955! and which clarifies something we have known about for a very, very long time — the ARC triangle.

Well, I started to write this book about twenty-so years ago. And I've been trying to write this book ever since. But a few things interfered. I see there are a couple of authors present. They can appreciate this.

Now, you know about that ARC triangle: affinity, reality and communication. This triangle was first conceived in July of 1950.

People keep interrupting writers. They rush in and they say, "Where's the time payment for the furniture?" And the wife keeps coming in saying, "No shoes — none." And the federal government keeps coming in and saying, "Greetings." And a writer's studio begins to look like a couple of Grand Central Stations moving through each other.

I was being audited at the time and I all of a sudden said, "There's an awful lot to do between affinity and reality — and a — terrific amount." I sat up and went back into session again and I said, "Communication has a lot to do with affinity and reality."

And at last you decide you're going to work real hard and really get at this book, now. And you're really going to write it and you're really going to get there and so forth, and at that moment, why, they tell you you're bankrupt. The number of human beings that were pulled apart in order to make this book actually likens it a little bit better to a Roman circus. But it's perfectly safe to open now. No lions will jump out, but the fact of the matter is, that's only true if you don't read it.

Well, we walked around with this one for days. I tried to find some other factor that probably fitted in here. Affinity, reality and communication went together, and there must be something else went in there, but there wasn't anything that's gone in there. There's just that triangle. And here, four years later: affinity, reality and communication — still the triangle.

The actual writing of this book was interrupted by such things as a publisher demanding that the text, which was the preliminary text to a good solution, be popular. Well, I don't know really how you could fail to be popular if you were showing somebody what he was all about. This is a very hard thing to do. But the first text had to be popular. If you'll notice, this book is very concise. It says what it says when it says it. And it is no masterpiece of literature. It is simply a lot of data strung together in such a way, hopefully, that when read, a minimum of catastrophe and a maximum of result will occur.

Now, that triangle is a very, very simple triangle. A very basic statement of it is that — have you ever tried to communicate with somebody for whom you felt no affinity at all? And have you ever tried to communicate with somebody with whom you had no agreement of any kind whatsoever? And have you ever tried to reach an agreement with anybody you couldn't communicate with? And have you ever tried to communicate with anybody who didn't feel any affinity for anything?

The actual writing of this particular volume, then, has quite a lot of history behind it, as I suppose you could say about any one of the volumes which have been written on Dianetics and Scientology. But this little book here had to be written fairly rapidly in order to meet the congress date. And we had quite a time getting this book out.

Well, it's sort of obvious, isn't it, that these three factors must be present for interpersonal relations to occur. Well, if this is the case, then a great deal about life is probably contained in this triangle.

It was rather fabulous — rather fabulous, the speed with which the actual words were thrown together. This had nothing to do with the slowness with which the notes were gotten together so that one could throw the words together. This took a long time to get the notes and the data together. The actual writing of the book was a very rapid affair. I know I kept going into my office for two or three days after I had finished — and two or three days, wondering where I had to start to complete the book. I couldn't get any reality on having finished it.

Now, I never came out flat-footed and said one corner of this triangle was more important than another, until now. The most important corner of the triangle has been isolated and understood much better, and that corner is communication.

The book was written on a tape recorder — on a little Echo tape recorder, straight onto recorder and taken off by my secretary, and she took it off onto aluminum Multilith plates, just like that. I mean, there wasn't any interim transcription. And these aluminum Multilith plates simply went onto the Multilithograph and that kept spewing out pages which kept stacking up and the Hubbard Professional College people were under the belief that they were there to study.

And communication is so, so superior to reality and agreement, and is so superior to affinity, that by communication alone, reality and affinity occur — fascinating. By communication alone, reality and affinity or some degree of, occur.

But a few days later they had the definite impression that they were there simply to put these book pages together. And day after day, while people were putting up new barriers in my office, as though there weren't enough, I could see — I could see the HPC people in there walking around a table. Well, now you would — the way you collate one of these books is you have each separate page laid on a table, something like that, and then you get a parade of people, and they walk around the table, each one picks up a piece of paper into little packages, see. This was Opening Procedure 1955. (laughter)

And by affinity alone, nothing happens. And by reality or agreement alone, nothing happens.

And I want to thank the people for the actual production of this book. So, thank you very much. We had one copy immediately sent to London. And this copy is to be photolithographed in London to be ready for the January 16th Congress in London. And I hope they make that dateline over there with this book.

Now, as an example of the nothingness which occurs when you only have reality, let us take the fate of a contract. The contract is the basis of a social agreement. It is the social agreement, you see, expressed in relatively solid form. And it's expressed in solid form in the hope that it will continue along the time track and continue to be a communication. And that is why a contract is so expressed. But if this is the case, and if agreement all by itself could stand or were very important, then we'd never have a court of law The contract is there, it's signed, and then communication between the two parties cease — ceases, and they go out of agreement. And the fate of a contract is almost always litigation. Because a contract is an effort to maintain an agreement without further communication. And it won't work. And so we have courts.

Well, it took a long time to write the book. Fortunately, it doesn't take very long to read it or to work with it. A very funny thing, however, is that no phenomena covered in the past, has ceased to be absent just because we've written a new book. You know, the overt act — motivator sequence is still there. Black and White phenomena is still there. Just because we wrote a new book, man didn't change.

The court is a necessary communication terminal when a contract has been signed too long. And the inevitable fate of any agreement where communication becomes absent is to cease, quit and go out of existence.

To listen to some of our critics, we would come of the opinion that we're always discarding all the old data. It's not possible to discard all of the data, because it was arrived at by observation. And it was then compiled, observation having occurred. So the data did not get thrown away. But more intimate, more applicable data did get discovered which very often explained half a hundred phenomena which had been discovered before.

And where you have two contracting parties, the first thing they start complaining about is communication. They've contracted about this and that, and you'll find inevitably that the next thing they start arguing about is the fact that they're out of communication on something.

You see how that would work? You have a sort of a pyramid. And when you start out on that, here is a tremendous number of phenomena all unknown. No phenomena known, except that man walks, eats and seems to get into fights. He also seems to get sick and he also seems to read things like How to Win Friends and Influence People in an apathetic effort to do so.

Contract: the one party is out of communication with the account books of the other party. And he wants to get into communication with these account books to find out how much he's being gypped. Or they want to get into communication to modify the contract. Or somebody wants to get out of communication so he won't have to follow the contract.

Now, here we have tremendous quantities of unknown data. We take a look at that — all we'd have to do to start in on that is simply to start looking around at the people with whom we were connected and write down their eccentricities, their conversation and so on. And we would really have a book about man. You see that? Just by looking around in what our own private, personal experience was about man, why, we would then have a considerable fund of information.

Now, let's take citizenship and the criminal. Citizenship is a contract no matter how the state likes to look upon it. Citizenship is a contract entered a — R into — between the individual and the group. And this individual declares himself to be a party to a contract known as citizenship.

A fellow by the name of Charles Dickens did this. Dickens described with great accuracy what he had learned as a young man in the streets and courts of London. But that was exactly what he was doing. He was observing man and writing about him. All right.

And when he's no longer willing to carry forward his part of the contract, all he can think of is to get out of communication with the group — the criminal. All that a criminality is, you might say, is the abrogation of the contract of citizenship.

Now we get into a more technical echelon when we say, "What factors do these men, each one, hold in common with all these other men?" Well, we could write a big book about that. What factors do they do in common? We could say, well, they eat and they do this and they do that. Each one of them does this thing. And then describe how each one of them did it, demonstrating slight differences, but the fact that they all ate. And this we could consider quite conclusive. We have discovered that they all ate.

And if the group goes into communication again with the criminal, we discover he becomes less criminal. But when a group goes out of communication with an individual, we get the individual going into a criminality.

A fellow by the name of Sigmund Freud did this, only he wasn't talking about eating. And he observed that all men were engaged, one way or the other, on the second dynamic, or were trying not to be engaged. And he wrote a book about that and demonstrated that there was a common denominator.

Whether or not that criminality is that of a Hitler, or Greek tyrant — when the individual is pulled away from by the group, when communication is broken between the individual and the group — that individual goes out of communication with the group. And thus we get the queer acts and the strange things done by the leaders of people. They go out of communication with the group.

Now whether or not this book did anything therapeutically — he wrote several books on this subject — whether it did anything therapeutically or not, we would not be prepared to say at this moment since the mere fact of talking to somebody about his illnesses will quite often produce a marked and beneficial result.

Marie Antoinette rides along in her carriage and says, "You say, 'They're short on bread.' Well, let them eat cake." Then somebody comes along and cuts off some heads.

So you see, we don't know whether that survey was actually a terrifically beneficial survey beyond this point: He pointed up to the Western world the fact that such a thing as psychotherapy could exist independent of (1) surgery and (2) demon exorcism. He pointed that up. And he gave a hope to man that we had some possibility of arriving at a conclusive answer whereby man could understand his own problems and could regain some of the vitality which he thinks he has lost somewhere. All right.

It could be said that the effort of a society to handle criminality by imprisonment is simply a dramatization of keeping the individual out of communication with the group.

We take another such survey conducted by one of his people. Let us say Jung or Adler, the squirrels of his day. And we find out that these people departed a little bit from reality and that they didn't intimately observe man. They weren't too interested in observing man. They were much more interested in, I don't know, stringing words together. Some of their literature is very, very good as literature but not very informative. The terrific difference that we get in all such studies and works is the introduction of too much art. You know, instead of data, instead of translation, interpretation, we get art.

And the jailing of the criminal will never resolve anything. And the insistence of the group that it remain out of communication with a leader or a military conqueror will never resolve that person's aims and goals or make them more real to the group.

If you want to read art at the extreme and information at the minimum, I invite you to read — I think it's a fellow by the name of Pope — Alexander Pope. I have a little volume of his work, and somebody somewhere back on the time track (it's a very old volume) has written, "Apathy, apathy, apathy," which I occasionally quote.

It's a fascinating fact that where communication ceases, reality and affinity cease. This is so much the case, that if you at this moment were to go off and leave your body utterly and completely, cutting all lines on all dynamics, considering the body was your only communication media, you probably wouldn't have any memory at all of what you'd been doing or how you'd been doing it, or who you know. Why?

But even Alexander Pope said, "The proper study of mankind is man." That may or may not be right since the solution of man did not come about by too intimate a look at man but a look at man's relationship to life in general. And we found out man was alive too.

You depended upon a certain thing to be a communication media and this is no longer the media, and so the reality and the affinity cease, and when you say reality and affinity, you say memory.

We then go across the pages of history and philosophy and we find that a great many people have been writing on this subject. But the oddity is, is the amount of benefit the writing has had has been in direct proportion to the amount of looking that was done. Thinking about this subject has been of very little benefit. Looking and observing and applying those theories which were formulated after observation has been of considerable benefit. That is a singular difference in the work which we have at hand here. It was derived by observation, not by theory. The theory was derived after the observation had taken place — fascinating difference.

Memory is the effort to communicate with the past. And memory is a very, very frail thing because when the past is no longer there, when there's nothing there to communicate with at all, and while the individual still believes that he has to have something in order to communicate with something, we get a difficulty. We also get the facsimile.

We get a slight difference between this work and the work of a fellow by the name of Zeno, who was one of the popular writers of the later Roman Empire. Zeno wrote a book called Apathia, where I think is where we get the word, or where we use it that way, and he said — he proved conclusively in this book — this book is all figure-figure. There isn't a single observation in the whole book. It's just figure, figure, figure, figure, figure. Think, think, think, think, think, bong. And he proved conclusively in this book that you can't win.

An individual's effort to communicate with his own past is the facsimile, the engram. The individual's effort to break communication with the past reverses reality and affinity. And an individual is as bad off as he is attempting to break communication with the past.

And his conclusion, and the philosophy which he gave his day, and which was bought by the Roman Empire, and which is overlooked as one of the factors by Gibbon who describes the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and attributes it to Christianity — Gibbon completely overlooked Zeno. He didn't pay any attention to Zeno. But how about a popular writer who proves conclusively that you can't win and then proves overwhelmingly that you mustn't even try, then. And that was Apathia of the later days of the Roman Empire. That's a figure-figure sort of a book.

Hence, Freud's fixation upon the past; hence, the fixation of many philosophers upon the past, and so on. Their effort is to get into communication with the past in the belief that if you could permit somebody to get into communication with the past or if he would permit himself to get into communication with the past, he would get in far better condition. He'd be more able.

Now, we get an observational study compared to a figure-figure study. And we'll see that the observational study has considerable benefit, and the thinkingness study, just pure ivory towers, has very little application.

This effort to communicate with the past rather leaves out of existence the present. And people can become so frantic and so fixated on the idea of communicating with the past, that they'll leave the present entirely disregarded. And so they will go back into time. By doing what?

Now, one Professor Wundt back in someplace in Europe, a little less than a hundred years ago, dreamed up the idea that the problems of man should have applied to them scientific methodology. And he invented a word called "psychology" That was very sound, wasn't it? He said that this is what should happen.

They made a facsimile of something, knowing they wouldn't have it the next moment, and now they say this facsimile, this image picture, this memory picture, is the thing. And if it is the thing, then they believe, when it goes into restimulation later, that they are in the past.

And then he didn't do it and no psychologist really has done it since. They've looked at rats, they've looked at college students but they've never looked at man. They live in a figure-figure of unreality. They collect statistics; they collect endless statistics. A statistic never told you anything except that some numbers were in front of you. That's about all a statistic will tell you.

They are not in the past. They are wrapped up in a picture or terminal of the past. Hence, we have an old man's fixation upon youth. He's trying to pick up those terminals in the past. He hopes there are some there. People make these facsimiles just to have a terminal in the past. They want something to communicate with.

Now, if I'm stepping on some toes when I say psychology has not gotten there, and when I say that psychology has not arrived simply because it didn't look, it only thought — I know I am stepping on some toes here and there across the world because there are very many sincere men have devoted a great deal of time and study in the field of psychology believing that they were resolving some of the problems of man. But psychology has been with us almost a century at this time, and the cure for psychosomatic illness, for backwardsness in class, has yet to emerge from the field of psychology — which I think proves my point quite adequately. Having stepped on some toes, I now tromp.

Well, if this is the case, then it must be that there's a scarcity of some-thing in the present to communicate with. Well, if you don't think that wall is there, of course you have a scarcity of something in the present to communicate with and much more important than that, if you don't think anybody else is alive but yourself, you have nothing to communicate with and so couldn't be anyplace else but into the past.

Now, some people criticize us because Dianetics and Scientology have changed. They express a great deal of change. There's a great deal of vitality in them, and the factors alter from time to time and new conclusions are reached. The amount of change in a science is actually the test of the amount of life in that science, the amount of validity it has. Those things which have practically no validity never change. In this matter of change, here we have Freudian analysis released in 1894, practically completely unchanged to this day. In other words, sixty years here of an opportunity to change, and no change. That's fabulous.

So where an individual suffers from a lack of interpersonal relations or interpersonal communications, where an individual is no longer free to go out and talk to anybody he meets or to have a lot of people to talk to, he of course has a tendency to believe that this has become so scarce that he has to start making pictures of everything he really contacts. So he contacts Joe, and he makes a picture of Joe.

Let's take a companion science to the humanities: nuclear physics. That never suffers from lack of change — never. And it's a very, very live science. The principles of physics are utilized today in almost everything that you contact.

Later on, in the many hours ensuing, he feels — Joe's gone, you see. Joe is way away. Joe is really gone. He's miles away or blocks away or something. He's no longer communicating with Joe. Therefore, he will take this picture of Joe or just the knowingness memory of what Joe said, you see. And he'll think, 'Well, little old Joe is really right."

Any piece of transportation, clothing, food and so forth — all these things have a high dependency upon man's ability to understand the material universe through or via physics. And he is learning continually. Take chemistry. That is another live, very live science. And it is in a constant state of change.

Of course, if he's away from Joe a week or two, he'll think, "Old Joe is probably wrong." Get the idea? But he'll get these pictures, and he'll use these pictures as substitutes for actual communication.

Now we can joke about these things if we want to, but the fact of the matter is that where they do not go to war, where they do not assay a widespread destruction of man, these are very beneficial things. But the moment that they start to move in on the humanities and say, "Look, man is a gimmigahoogit that goes whip-whip whenever we punch the geeter button," they're out of order, they're out of place, because they have given themselves a license to use their weapons of destruction against man as they would use it against some old cars. Get the idea? The frame of reference is wrong.

In the entire mechanism of the mind, in making and then picking up again facsimiles, image pictures, engrams, is its belief that there is a scarcity of things with which to communicate in the present.

They prove that they can use desperate weapons or develop them and so forth by proving that man is just a machine after all, and this gives them ample reason and excuse to go ahead and use these weapons against man. Just like nobody needs a license to blow up a wrecked car, you know, and smash it up further, so you wouldn't need any license to smash up man. And that is the rationale behind neurosurgery, electric shock and every other barbaric and despicable practice in which various personnel in this society happen to be engaged. "We don't have to respect the individual. We don't have to respect his rights. We don't have to do anything for him because after all, we know he's just a machine."

Thus, we find a desert rat in not too good a condition. If he talks at all, it's probably to his burro. I can almost index the sanity of a desert rat by finding out whether or not he has a burro — something to talk to.

Well, there is the science of physics moving way out of order. Let's have physics for the matter, energy, space and time of this universe and let it be very content to handle these things and leave man strictly alone. Similarly, chemistry, to use a colloquialism: More boo-boos have been pulled in the field of healing by adapting chemistry to healing, than can easily be counted. These boo-boos started way, way back when we had patent medicine. Fellow used to come around with a banjo and a wagon and a big sign on the side of the wagon, and some white man fixed up like an Indian with a headdress, and that was Chief Wamgutta, and Chief Wamgutta was the chief of the Swamese and he had a special formula for swamproot oil which he was going to purvey for the small sum of a dollar a bottle, while Mr. Jinks played on the banjo. That was chemistry invading the field of the humanities. And I don't know that even when we look at the ads of Abbott or the claims of the AMA that we have departed any distance at all. Except now they do it through Reader's Digest. They don't paint the sign on the wagon anymore; they paint it on an advertisement.

Now, after a while, an individual starts talking to himself. You wouldn't credit that in the middle of New York City there could be an absence of people with which to communicate — yet there are. I have lived in an apartment house on Riverside Drive and not known the names of the people who lived in the apartments on either side, or the floor above or the floor below. Knew nothing about these people whatsoever — fantastic.

Now I wouldn't hold ourselves open to libel, here, by mentioning the names of some of these organizations like Abbott or Lilly. I wouldn't say that these chemical organizations or these insurance companies like the AMA — the AMA, by the way, is an insurance company. That really wowed us the other day. We found that out — fantastic. The American Medical Association is an insurance company. That's what it is. We've often wondered what it was. Now we know. I won't say any more about that except four or five hours toward the end of the congress.

We went into communication, though, one day. This was back in the old days when this fellow, Hitler, was yow-yow-yowing and 1.5-ing at the German people and saying, "The German, he is separate from the rest of the world. He is different. He is a superman. He is a superman. He is a superman. He is a superman. He can't go into communication with the rest of Europe. He can't go into communication, so he has to kill everybody." Nice philosophy, but not entirely workable from the standpoint of the other people.

And we find that the invasion of chemistry into the field of psychotherapy or healing is, as the cowboy said as he fell off the horse, a bum steer. Now, wherever you think that the injection of a dozen molecules will utterly cure psychotherapy, you might as well take up crystal ballizing, because it has the same degree of validity. The theory that chemistry can resolve the problems of man is a bad theory because from the days of patent medicine, from the days of herbs on forward till now, it has never been demonstrated to be true.

So, every afternoon I'd sit down to put in a period of writing — I'd sit down and write on my typewriter, bangety-bang. I was running a big electric, and it had spark gaps that acted something like one of the old spark transmitters. And every time I'd press a key, why, we'd have a large gap occur in there, you know. And the people next door turned me in to the New York light company to trace down this static which was occurring.

We read in the materia medica that cinchona bark is a cure for malaria, that it will prevent malaria — Peruvian bark. Must be: Somebody sold it to the king of France once for, I think, 250,000 louis (louis d'or). That much that formula was worth. That was in the days when they could have gold and when a louis bought something — not like now.

And I had been aware sometime previously, fascinatingly aware, of the fact that Hitler was talking around in that building somewhere. You could hear this, "Yow, yow, yow. Mein garbage. Mein herring."And however, when I'd turn on the electric typewriter, of course, that made enough noise to drown out anything, even Hitler.

Now, cinchona bark, Atabrine, let down more of our troops in the last war than you could easily count in a ward. You could take this stuff and it made your ears ring, and of course if you've gotten malaria after that, it had to be classified as dengue fever because nobody can get malaria if he's full of cinchona bark. We call it quinine. That's been with us since sixteen-hundredand-something and its curative powers have more or less run out in the race. Once upon a time, it might have been terrifically effective, but that isn't necessarily true today. And there is the liability of chemistry.

So they turned me in, and the next thing I knew, why, the light company was knocking on the door with their cute little radio detector device — a little radio detector device, a little antenna coming out of it — and they says, "Aha!" As soon as they brought it near the typewriter, why, the dial went clang, clang, clang.

You find them doing this with penicillin. Penicillin at one time cured everything — just cured everything across the boards. All you had to do if you had hay fever was get a little shot of penicillin, your doctor told you, and you were fine. If you had a cold, if you had the flu (these, by the way, were not even evidently carried by bacteria but by virus, and penicillin was active against bacteria) — if you had the cold, if you had flu or if you had anything like that, well, all you had to do was get (shss-shss) a couple of shots of penicillin, (snap) — perfect. If you had a sore throat, why, put some penicillin in a lozenge, and suck it. But it says on all the bottles, "No topical application will prove efficacious." Those words are too large. It means don't put it on the surface of anything, it won't cure anything if you do that. So that's why they used it in lozenges to cure people's sore throats — won't work. And as the years have gone on, more and more bugs have simply crossed their arms purposefully and said, "Penicillin — ha-ha-ha!" Similarly, with sulfa.

And I said, 'Well, that's right. I write on this typewriter."

You have a problem of life forms fighting life forms when you have the problem of fighting bacteria, and the one thing that life can do is to learn to accustom itself to and accommodate itself to any chemical. I imagine one of these days we will probably raise a race of people, if the physicist has his way of it, who are not affected at all by radioactivity. You know, go around with your ears glowing this far out. Life can accustom itself to chemistry. That's the big, big rule. It can always accustom itself, and so the fighting of one life aberration or form on the part of another life aberration or form with the weapon of molecules, molds, drugs and so on, is of course doomed.

And they said, 'Well, you'll have to get a spark suppressor and hook it up to the typewriter so that this won't happen anymore."

We had a wonderful thing called DDT. And that was going to kill all the insects in the world. Before we went into Saipan we sent fighter pilots over with DDT tanks, sprayed the whole island. Nobody was going to suffer from malaria or other insect-borne diseases such as yaws and so on. Nobody, none of the ingoing troops were going to suffer from these things, so they just plastered the whole island with DDT and when the marines finally got ashore, bzzt-bang, bzzt-bang. Flies, flies, flies. And DDT today is so ineffective against insects, as far as flies and so forth are concerned, that you can just put a fly in a box of it and take him out. He feels fine! He says, "Thanks for the pick-me-up."

So, I did, at vast cost — a couple of bucks. And was able to suppress this. But, I hadn't realized it but that typewriter during my writing hours with its spark gap had been keeping off the shortwave program of Herr Hitler every afternoon. And now that I had the typewriter dumb, "mein herring, mein garbage" was into my apartment with many decibels.

Any poison man has — any poison is really ineffective and will go up through the most astonishing thing you ever saw. It will come up to a point where it's a stimulant. Did you know all poisons would get into a category of merely being a stimulant? Strychnine, for instance, is — gotten to be a stimulant for many people. They take a spoonful of it a day.

So, I bought an electric razor and every time I would hear "mein herring," I would shave him.

Well, once upon a time the witches of Europe (an organization which was fighting the Roman Catholic Church — the witchcraft — and which lost) once took arsenic. And you know this old saw about the — you knew whether or not this fellow was a werewolf by the fact that when you opened up his grave, why, there he was evidently in the pink of health, and the only way to do for him was to drive a stake through his chest. You know that old superstition? Oh, dear, the Frankenstein-type movie should have taught you that.

The electric light company came many times to the door with their little antenna and found nothing — spark suppressor okay, everything okay.

Well, this old superstition was born straight out of the fact that the witches took arsenic. They'd take it in very, very small doses and they'd build up these doses and it actually made them proof against an enormous number of invading bacteria. See, it was a preventive — preventive medicine. Very many diseases, then, could be held by the public at large, but not by a witch. So they apparently lived a charmed life and of course after they died they'd been embalmed already. But a witch would get up to a point of where they could take a spoonful of arsenic, you know, "Yum-yum" Like the fly and the DDT — nothing to it, (slurp). Wonderful stuff'.

And one day I was walking out in the hall and a fellow who was a refugee from Germany because of his race met me there, just going into his apartment. And he says, "Please," he says, "you are making us miss all the programs."

Life can accustom itself to any chemical preparation or compound. So I guess that chemistry is kind of let out, sooner or later, isn't it, as a weapon? And Abbott and Lilly have to keep inventing new things in order for them to go on working. Well, if this is the case, then we would look into the field of function for any kind of an answer to illness, to misfunction, malfunction or even the combat between life form and life form. We'd look for another answer than chemistry; we'd look for another answer than physics. We'd look at life itself and try to understand something about that. And that is what we have done in Dianetics 1955!

And I said, "Why don't you listen to some American programs?" New thought — clang!

One of the primary things that people have had difficulty accepting — oh, wait a minute, let me go back in some history. Well, if I told you the primary thing people had difficulty in accepting was a prenatal engram, we would sound right at home, wouldn't we? 1950. How often have you tried to tell some-body about a prenatal engram? Or have you quit long since?

This man had fled that many miles, clear across an ocean, and was yet so fixated on the thing which had turned him out of his homeland that he had to go on listening to it. How's this for a circuit? He couldn't abandon Hitler's voice.

Audience: Yes.

Well, I talked to him. I was the first person, except the immigration officers, he'd talked to in America. We had gotten into communication. How? Spark gaps and electric razors. And although we were very mad at each other and he was very mad at me and I was very mad at him, the anger just disappeared when we got to talking about the whole thing.

Yet a prenatal engram is there. There's a full recording on file of incidents which have occurred prior to birth. It's not very difficult to isolate them or demonstrate them. It's not very difficult to run them out with a considerable change in human form.

And you will find it is the case with man, if you can just get him to communicate with man, that the anger against man ceases.

For instance, we had a fellow the other day as a preclear who was an astonishing example of somebody stuck at two months' postconception. He was right in that engram. I mean, he was in it! We didn't run it to date, but it was there. And the auditor and I had quite a talk — a research auditor — and he and I had quite a talk about this case. And we were trying to figure out exactly where this fellow was stuck on the track, just for old times' sake, not because it was any good to us in processing at all, but we were just trying to find out where he was stuck on the track. And all of a sudden it came through to us just about where he was stuck. Why? Because he had the physiological aspect of that particular form of life. He was there perfectly. All of his various functions and everything else that he was going through; they were stuck right there — bing!

What, then, are we doing putting a criminal in a cell? We know that this system, first adopted in Philadelphia in 1825, has never worked and was abandoned after it was first tried, and was subsequently reassumed, and that every state and most of the nations of Earth have adopted this system of putting the criminal out of communication with the society in the silly attempt to make him non-aberrative to the society, whereas the only salvation at all along this line would be to go into communication with him in some fashion or another.

Every time that we have had anything to do with cancer, for instance, we have found that the individual for one type of cancer was stuck in conception. For the other type of cancer was stuck in mitosis, which is the splitting of the cells. An individual, then, can dramatize one of these engrams. He can dramatize a prenatal, but we don't even bother to run them anymore — not because we can't run them and not because they aren't true but because we don't have to.

And so it is with a preclear. A preclear's been locked up in a little prison called a skull — out of communication on all sides. And his anger against his — man, his anger against himself, against his body, turns in on himself and he gets sick. And there's no reason he gets sick other than this one reason.

It's as easy as that. We don't have to run them anymore.

He's even stopped communicating with his body. He's communicating with himself if he's communicating at all. He's a sort of a desert rat walking around without a burro, even. At least a desert rat with a burro talks to the burro. This individual for a while talked to his body. You know? He said, "Foot, what are you doing, itching?" You know? He said, "Well, I don't know. I guess I'll — my fingernails look pretty good now. You look pretty good, don't you." You know?

But this fact of the prenatal engram was tremendously unacceptable to one and all in spite of the fact that a few generations ago, it was the commonest belief imaginable that children were bad off when they had had a bad prenatal experience. This was a common belief. It is believed today by the farmer folk out from the big cities.

After a while, as a energy production unit, mired down in a lot of energy, he was talking in circuits to himself. He would send out a communication impulse and bring it back into his skull again. The communication impulses which went out came right home again.

They say, 'Well, little — little — little Tildie's not in very good shape, you know. Her Ma got an awful scare from that cow." And they believe this. And it's true. And if you as an auditor wanted to take this boy or this girl and run back down the track, all of a sudden the preclear would be telling you all about it being in the dark and being frightened because of some words, and something about a cow. You could find the incident. You could erase it — fantastic! Here was phenomena lying there waiting to be discovered, waiting to be looked for. And wherever we looked, we had no acceptance of this data.

But he had to have some terminal to talk to of some kind or another so he'd talk to terminals of his own manufacture. And thus we get circuits, thus we get voices or silences or blacknesses that we find in people's heads. They are communication points, in absence of communication points. They are substitute communication points. That's all there is to it. That's all there is to aberration. It's really as simple as that.

It took a couple of years for this to leak through somebody's skull. And then we had original articles on the subject in Time magazine, the Ladies' Home Journal, Reader's Digest — from time to time have printed, without credit, anything they could think of on the subject of prenatals. This is a fascinating thing. They did accept these things eventually — mostly because they were true — long after we'd abandoned them. The conquered territory which we hold will someday be conquered even by medicine. I mean, we'll be far enough off of it and have abandoned it to that degree.

It isn't that he is mad at the world or that he is in disagreement with the world. It's that he's out of communication with the world.

Now, wherever we have phenomena which is unacceptable, we get into a lot of argument, a lot of sputification and argumentation. And maybe this is fun in the drawing room, but if you were to get much closer to truth, theoretically, you would get into much less argument, wouldn't you? But this would only be true if your truth was agreement. In other words, if you had to do with what was agreed upon only, you'd never get in an argument, would you? Well, sup-posing something was once agreed upon and once true, and is still true but is no longer agreed upon? You're going to get in an argument. This is a certainty.

Now, you as an auditor sit down. You start to talk to this man. He's talking to somebody about a rather intimate thing: his personality, his ability, his disabilities. And simply talking to somebody is a benefit. So we have two-way communication as a process. Simply talking to somebody is a benefit. And if there was any benefit to psychoanalysis, it was just that. He could talk to somebody. You see how the therapy of this would work itself out?

You once believed such and so, and so-and-so, and so-and-so, but that's not believed anymore. You'll get into an argument if you voice it. Such an example as that is that — the religious causes of once upon a time. Think of the pilgrims' argument on the subject of religion over in Europe and England. Well, let's say you were there. And you certainly believed very heavily and strongly. But if you stood up today and started to voice the principles of Calvin without the slightest variation from the words of Calvin, I'm afraid you'd be in an argument. You may not remember them, but you would probably be in an argument because they're no longer agreed upon. But they once were agreed upon and that agreement alone is what made them true. So, old agreements become new disagreements. All right.

He would start abandoning these set-up, mocked-up terminals to the degree that he actually had somebody to talk to. And so there would be some tiny, small workability in any process which just let a guy talk. That's all. I mean, if he could just be permitted to talk and he could get an answer now and then, that would be fine.

We're not even any longer interested in the prenatal engram. Yet you could probably get in less or more of an argument today than before. There are some other data of that same magnitude. But first and foremost, there's this matter of the thetan exterior. That is a subject for argument. That is a subject for argument. As far as the public at large is concerned, it must be a subject for argument. Or is it?

It's like the old lady I knew of that had a husband who would be put in a little rocking chair with a shawl wrapped around him, and he'd be taken off to bed every night, and every morning she'd put him back in this rocking chair. He never said a word or anything. But he was at least, she said, something alive around the house. All right. How much better — how much better it would have been instead of something which potentially could talk, he had actually talked to her occasionally. Why, then, she would have been perfectly happy about it.

Let me tell you something fascinating. A door-to-door survey demonstrated that a little less than half the people asked, knew they were themselves and not a body. Oh, you didn't know it was that general. Well, neither did we. These people knew they were themselves and not a body. They knew that they were a sort of an energy production unit of some kind or another, only they didn't quite know what or how, and they thought of themselves as being a soul which was inhabiting a body. This is incredible. This is a little — almost 50 percent — if you took the same average and if it were to hold, this would be 50 percent of the population believe they are their own souls. They are the soul which inhabits a body. Well, this is fantastic. If everybody believed this strongly, why didn't they ever talk about it? Why wasn't it ever mentioned in church?

Now, you are told when you're young that silence is golden. Huh! I don't know who's responsible for that. I'd like to get the guy. I have a Mauser bullet with his name on it (laughter) because he's the fellow that's causing us an awful lot of trouble. Silence is so far from golden, that if you hit it, it gives an awfully brassy sound.

Yet the church itself couldn't believe this. You know why? Because it talks in such terms as you hear from some very spinny preclear who, when he thinks he's exteriorized, tells you, "I'm over there." You got that one? "I'm over there." Because the church says, "You have to save your soul," see. You are over there. And yet not quite 50 percent of the population, according to this survey, knew they were their own souls. And it wouldn't — couldn't possibly be a question of saving their souls. You see, it would be to them a question of saving their bodies which I think religion has specialized in for a long time. Since every punishment they level is not really in the direction of a soul but in the direction of a body. Burning at the stake, chaining in a dungeon, penance, drag yourself some sackcloth and ashes, push a peanut around the block or whatever religious punishment is assigned, is addressed to the body, not the soul. So I don't think religion has believed in the soul at all. And I don't think it knew anything about it. I've had access to a tremendous number of publications for the instruction of such things as Catholic priests, and nowhere in there did I find the words, "Be three feet back of your head."

They teach children it is better to be seen than heard. Somebody is so far out of communication, evidently, they can't stand the thought of being in communication. You see that? How it could invert? The individual gets to a point at last where he doesn't desire any further terminal. He knows they don't exist and when they come in and they say, "Look, I exist. I'm a terminal," they say, "Ah, I know better. This is all unreality and hallucination. Be quiet. Silence is golden."

But I found a lot about bodies, a lot about chastisement and "You've got to convince the congregation that they must save their souls." This is one of those twisted statements. It can't even be made, really. They've got to save their souls. And yet at death, they believe in the departure of a soul in some particular direction — or they used to.

We used to have a little legend in school,

Now, where and how do we have some sense out of that particular muddle? We didn't even want to go into the field of religion. We weren't even interested in going into the field of religion. What education I've had and you've had on the subject of religion was mostly bad. We have been taught to a very marked degree that religion is a mechanism by which a public can be better controlled. Haven't we?

"A wise old owl sat in an oak, The more he saw the less he spoke; The less he spoke the more he heard, Why can't we all be like that bird?"

Audience: Yes.

You remember that one?

This we have been thoroughly educated into.

Audience: Yes.

Let us take the situation in England a few years ago. We had the Roman Catholic Church lording it in all directions and being overthrown by a popular revolt just to get rid of that particular religion, and then we got the Church of England. All right.

Well, give it the bird, will you? (laughter) Not true!

Now as we get this new factor, it starts to collect tithes in all directions. And it didn't get overthrown by popular revolt; it got overthrown by neglect, if it's been overthrown. But it's not a popular subject anymore. It isn't anything anybody even thinks about anymore to amount to anything. "Am I going to heaven? Am I going to hell?" This is not a pressing problem to most people.

Now, you wouldn't think in a city like New York City that I just told you about before, that somebody could sit there having arrived in America, and be entirely out of communication with everybody in America to such a degree that he could only sit listening to the person who had driven him out of his home country. It was at least a communication terminal.

You walk down the street, you probably wouldn't get an extra heartbeat out of anybody if you suddenly stopped him and asked him, "Now, brother, are you really sure that you're going to heaven?"

See, he could still listen to Hitler anyhow. Hitler was somebody who was talking. And that is the motto of life: Somebody talking is better than nobody talking. And anything talking is better than nothing talking. Get the idea?

He'd say, "Ha-ha-ha-ha." He's not worried about this old story.

But after it goes completely out of reality and it goes out of affinity with the world, it doesn't believe anymore that there's anybody that could talk to, or with. And so, of course, nobody exists anymore. And everything looks sort of unreal. And there's nobody to talk to, or with. So they go around muttering at their circuits which mutter at them.

The spiritualist, with his astral walking, his collection of spirits; his — the magician with his — and by the way, there are a very few people know very much about the basic magician. They think in terms of the stage magician.

I've known fellows, every time they accomplished something, a little voice jumped up and said, "Heh, heh, heh, heh. You think you're pretty smart, don't you? Heh, heh" — little voice. And some fellow that, after he'd think of a good idea, why, a little voice would pop up and say — or a little idea would occur, "Well, you might think it's good, but . . ."

But the actual mission of the magician is to make various circles and designs and incantations and by various practices, control and bend to his will, spirits who then go forth and do his bidding. And that is the basic practice called magic.

Well, just chalk it up to this: there's no significance in this, other than the fact it's better to have some communication than no communication. If it came to a choice between no communication at all and a scathingly critical circuit, take the circuit. See how it works? All right.

Nowadays, why, they take a rabbit out of the hat. They say, "See, a spirit" — put it back in. The practice of spiritualism has been almost entirely swept out of existence by charlatanism. They get somebody who's just lost the dearly beloved departed. They bring him in and for a couple of quick bucks they: "Hocus-pocus, we have a message, now, from your dear departed — says, 'Dear Maggie, I am happy here. Joe.' " And if the spiritualist is a good forger, it's even Joe's handwriting.

We get somebody that's been moved all over the world, who has lost many friends, he gets into a state of unreality after a while. He doesn't believe there's anybody to talk to anymore. You'll find many people are in this condition. They have lost so many friends, they've lost so many allies, they've lost so many things they did think were good to communicate with, that they can no longer communicate at all. And they just drop out of communication. And you'll get what is known as a comm lag. Well, a comm lag might as well be called an agreement lag.

And by these practices, the field of spiritualism has become debased whereas maybe once upon a time, maybe in Greek times, there was something to spiritualism — might have been something to it. And so we look to find that man has abandoned the three fields, religion, spiritualism and magic, which were most closely acquainted with the idea that man was basically a spirit. See, these three fields had that very intimately. And man has now put those pretty well into the past. He's gotten them nicely forgotten. And all of a sudden, we come along and we say, "Be three feet back of your head" — the fellow is.

A communication lag is a technical thing. It is the length of time intervening between the making of a statement or asking of a question, and the answer to that statement or question. It is exactly that time regardless of what happens in between. It isn't necessarily silent in between.

And we say, "Okay. What are you looking at?"

The person might talk about something else. He might answer some other question. He might just talk completely disrelatedly or he might try to get the semantics straight on the question that was asked. That's another communication lag, you see. He didn't answer the question or answer the statement made. So a communication lag of ten seconds would be as follows:

He says so and so, "It's a big black wall."

The fellow says — you walk up to this fellow and you say, "Hello."

You say, "Copy. Copy it. Copy it. Copy it. Push them all together and pull them in."

(pause) He says, "Hello."

The next thing you know, this fellow who was on crutches, this girl whose endocrine system was all out of balance, this person who couldn't live with his fellow man, is just doing beautifully. You know, he's just doing fine. Looks to me like the road out was booby-trapped one way or the other. Looks to me, with design or without design, that somebody had an intention that man necessarily — wasn't necessarily going to get free, if we find the three fields most intimately connected with the right answer to be entirely debased and discredited as of now. That's interesting, isn't it?

You get that? That's a communication lag of ten seconds.

How did he ever get into a state where he completely lost his own concept of his own beingness and his ability to handle his beingness and identity and individuality? Well, it must have been too wild a game for him as long as he knew as much as he knew about himself. And so he probably managed to forget it all.

This is also a communication lag of ten seconds: You walk up to the fellow and say, "Hello."

But here we have a controversial point which appears and stares at us out of Dianetics 1955! In Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, we were perfectly willing to accept the idea of a Clear and his abilities — perfectly willing to. And yet a little later on, when the actual measurement of a Clear — how many millimeters wide is a Clear — when the actual measurement of a Clear was announced, people got nervous. They didn't quite like the idea. They didn't quite mesh with this one.

And he looks at you, "Huh! What have you got on? What are you doing? Oh, uh, how are you?"

And yet what had happened? All that had happened is the fact that the Clear had been dimensionalized and located and further described in Scientology The thetan exterior and the Dianetic Clear are exactly the same thing. There is no slightest difference between the two except the thetan exterior, developed by the processes of Scientology, is achieved without erasing every facsimile and engram in the bank.

See, that's also a communication lag of ten seconds. See, other things intervene between the thing. But no matter what intervenes, it's a communication lag of that many seconds, minutes or hours.

Therefore, what has occurred today? The goal which we all knew was a good goal in 1950 has been achieved without the necessity of erasing eight billion, seven hundred and sixty thousand, nine hundred and forty-three, cubed, engrams. And this is not a bad achievement — not bad.

Now don't think you can have communication lags only of minutes. We have seen them of 150 hours. Communication lags can be real long.

By discovering that the individual and his individuality was that thing which produced the energy which made the facsimile — gave us, then, the working basis that it was not necessary to take this individual and erase everything which barriered him. It was only necessary to take this individual and teach him how to handle barriers. And the moment he knew how to handle barriers, the moment we have processed him in the direction of ability, as I've already talked to you about, we could then have a Clear without any further ado. Well, the longest time I know of that it has taken a good auditor with modern processes, given in detail in Dianetics 1955! has been one hundred and fifty hours with a terribly rough case. That is the longest on record.

Did you ever walk up to some fellow and say, "How are you?" And he said, "I'm fine." And then an hour and a half later, apparently just from no reason whatsoever, this fellow says to you, "You know, I feel terrible."

We have made an awful lot of Clears with the material in Dianetics 1955! And the longest period of time has been a hundred and fifty hours. Wouldn't that have been a terrific thing in 1950? Think of it, 1950: We'd said it, "The maximum we could look forward to in the making of a Clear is a hundred and fifty hours." You wouldn't have believed me — no more than you do now.

A social machine jumped up and said, "I'm fine." And he himself got the question and got to thinking it over and pushed it through enough circuits, filters, resistors, transistors and tubes, and got it back to a point where he really did get an assay of his beingness at the moment, and finally did get the answer sorted out that he felt terrible. And then he gave you the answer.

We have this liability in the idea of the Clear, in the thetan exterior — we have this liability, and the only liability there is this: it makes people sick at their stomach to look at nothing and makes a certain amount of people actually violently ill to look at the idea of having nothing. And so when we say to them, "The Clear is a thetan exterior"; when we say to them, "All you have to be is three feet back of your head and run your body from behind you; all you have to do if you want energy is to make some," they say, "Bluaaahh."

Well, there's such a thing as shock as a communication lag. Individual gets in an automobile accident, jumps up right after the accident, carries out the four other people hurt, puts them in the ambulance, fills in all the papers for the police, so forth, goes home and all of a sudden says, "Nyaaa!" That's a communication lag in another line.

Now, I'll give you a demonstration of this that you can do and that you can use that will show to you intimately and immediately why certain people object to this idea of the Clear. You take somebody who doesn't look to you like he's easily exteriorizable. You know, take somebody who looks like he'd be your kind of a rough case. You know, got a lo — lo — lot of — lot of comm lag, gaga — got a lot of b — b — you know, barriers. Take somebody like that and you say, "Locate a spot in the air of this room."

But to an auditor it just means this: It's the length of time, regardless of what occurs in between the making of a statement or question, and the answer to that exact statement or question.

He'll say, "All right."

And it could be said that the physical universe is itself simply one long communication lag. You probably at the beginning of the physical universe said, "Hello" to somebody, and you're still waiting for him to say, "Hello" back. The only reason anybody gets stuck in a trap is a communication lag — lack of an answer, or lack of an originated communication.

You say, "Put your finger on it."

He snaps terminals on everything that doesn't talk. Isn't that interesting? It couldn't be that somebody wanted you to stay in school when they said, "A wise old owl sat in a golden apple." They couldn't have wanted you to stick on something, could they have? One of the reasons people teach you out of books is because if they taught you live, it would be fun. All right.

He'll say, "All right."

So this is a communication lag at work. Well, let's take that communication lag and translate it over to another corner of this triangle.

"Okay. Now locate another spot in the space of this room."

Here we have chart 1. [See chart 1 in appendix] We have here, communication, reality, affinity.

"All right. I'm getting sick."

Now, if we have a lag in time here, [tapping on chart] then there's probably a lag in time here and probably a lag in time here. Did you ever meet anybody that you liked right away when you talked to them? Well, that would be a no affinity-lag.

And about four spots later, he'll be sick. He'll be sick at his stomach at least, and probably in terror, if you kept up this, just, "Spot spots" without doing another thing. And that tells you immediately, if you want to conduct that experiment, you will see just exactly what I'm talking about. You make this fellow locate these spots in the space of the room, you make him do it for a while, you don't remedy any havingness, you don't do anything else with him, you see, and you will find out why he argued with you before about a thetan exterior. You've made this person visualize something sitting in thin air without any mass.

Do you know there are people around who, you bring up somebody's name, and you say, "Well, Bill," one fellow says, "Yeah, frmmm-drrr-frmmmm-zruhhh-da-zuh-zit. Yeah, um — Bill — um — yes. Sorry, I haven't met him, as a matter of fact, so-and-so and so-and-so. Bill, you know, zuh . . "you go on and he talks this way, and so on, "(sigh) Well, he isn't such a bad fellow, I guess."

And the moment that you made him visualize a spot without mass, the thetan exterior (the Clear), he got sick when you did it on processing. Only when you didn't process it, when you were just talking about this, this guy got the queasy idea and he just started to enter into that feeling of queasiness and illness, you know, and he backed right off of it, and then he said there isn't any such thing. And he said this rapidly and he said it hard and he hoped that you would argue back real hard, so as to, by this counter of terminals, give him some more havingness quick! Because the way he could get havingness was to have a fight with you. And that's the only little barrier there is on relaying the idea of a thetan exterior.

If you kept at it for a little while talking to him about Bill, he would finally come through and say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know Bill, nice fellow"

Now, those people who do not exteriorize easily, and who when they are exteriorized a little bit, sort of yo-yo and don't stay out very much, are still having this same trouble. They've gotten completely entrapped and into the idea that it'd be impossible to have nothing.

That's a fact, you see. That's an affinity lag — an affinity lag. Now, how about this fellow that only really likes people he's known for a long time? Just an affinity lag, that's all it is.

Yet, if you just ran somebody on the concept — we don't run concepts anymore, but this is just experimental — and you said, "Get the idea that you have a perfect right to have nothing. Get the idea again. Get it again. Get it again. Get it again," he'd all of a sudden start to heave a sigh of relief.

Well, what about this reality lag up here? Must be something about reality, and there is. Reality lag is known as a judicial answer. It is the decision which has to be reached after the weighing of a great deal of evidence. That's a reality lag. Do you see it as a reality lag? In other words, the answer, the solution or a reality on an agreement is only obtainable after an awful lot of yak-yak and walla-walla.

"(sigh) You mean I don't — I don't have to work? I — I don't have to get a paycheck? You mean — you mean I wouldn't have to live up to the fact that I was supposed to be a great painter? You mean I have a perfect right to be nothing, too? You mean I don't have to amount to anything in life? How wonderful!" Because he's entirely sold in the other direction.

The fellow who is being impartial, who is waiting to see, who is waiting to find out, who always depends upon his impartial opinion as a guiding light, is crazy!

Now, what if a man did have the right to be nothing and to have nothing? He'd probably be a very busy and efficient person because the obsession to be, the obsession to have, are the only destructive factors there could be — the obsessive part of it. He's doing something unknowingly and unwittingly. All right.

Therefore, when you have Professor Whoomfguttle writing and saying, "Well, I don't know, but according to Professor Whampfguttle writing in the Whampf Journal some years ago, he said ... But of course there's always Professor Dud . . ." and so on. And when you read columns of this kind of thing, you're not reading any reality or agreement, believe me. It has nothing to do with reality. All right.

Dianetics 1955! talks about the Clear and goes forward immediately into making one. Actually, you'd have to know more about it to make something that we call an Operating Thetan. That's another book.

So we have here communication instantaneous, reality instantaneous and affinity instantaneous in order to obtain an instantaneous reaction from life or to have no time lag in reaction.

But as far as making anything that we conceive to be desirable in the terms of a Clear, in 1950, the answers are in Dianetics 1955! and they work. And I leave that up to you to discover, to look over, to use and to find out. Now, I have no doubt that you will.

If we had an individual in fine shape and an individual who really could drive a jet plane, his communication lag would be zero, he could make his decision immediately and instantly, and his affinity for the world and things around him would be instantaneous. And that individual could then drive a jet plane better than anybody else could drive a jet plane if they didn't have these figures.

Many things have been discovered. Many things that are quite old to us have been rehashed and looked over again, but the main thing that has come out into the clear is the ability to make a Clear. And what Dianetics 1955! does is to clarify how one does it and makes it possible for all of these hard times we've been having with cases to be over, so we can have easy times with them now.

Now, why is it that a combat pilot has more accidents than a transport pilot? Is there any relationship between these two things?

And that is the purpose and basic theme of this book.

You bet there is. A combat pilot is taught to hate. He's taught to stay out of communication. He's taught to destroy and he's taught to kill. And what do you think that does with his A? And that's why he has wrecks. And that's why military equipment is so hard to maintain. Decision cannot exist in the absence of affinity — good decision.

Thank you.

So we can't have the standard villain of fiction. He doesn't exist — this standard villain of fiction. He is something that has been put off upon the world and the public by writers such as a couple in the audience and myself.

This cold, calculating, inevitably and always right villain does not exist. If he is cold and calculating, his A is missing. And if that affinity is missing, R, the ability to make a decision, is also missing. And so the decisions he makes will most often be wrong decisions. And there goes this villain — Dick Tracy's stock in trade.

If a detective has a hard time solving the activities of criminals, it's because the detective is stupid because there's nothing quite as stupid as a criminal — unless it's a general.

Now that triangle contains in it a tremendous number of answers, but the key to all of its answers, really, is communication. If you can get anybody into communication of whatever kind or how, you will inevitably improve his decision and improve his love of his fellow man.

Therefore, you could say any kind of communication is better than no communication. And you can bless your preclear for at least having a few circuits. If he had none at all, he'd be entirely out of communication and he'd be very overt in his hatred or completely dead.

How dead can a person be? Entirely out of communication.

Somebody said one time, also in an effort to misinform the young — that, by the way is quite a game: the misinforming of the young. They have a club, I think, of fellows who sit around and dream up answers — it's right next door to the physicists club — who dream up answers on how to destroy soldiers and how to misinform the young. And they say, "Well, we'll invent spelling."

Sometime after preclears have gotten fairly well up the track, you ought to go back and find out where they first became concerned with such things as spelling just as an adventure. You'll find out that it was after Shakespeare's day. Shakespeare wasn't even vaguely concerned with spelling. The boys who sat around the Swan used to have an interesting contest: You were as bright as you could spell a word differently.

Well, this information would be very interesting if it were just information but it's just a little bit more than information. Out of it comes applicable formulas. And we discover, then, that of all these factors, an isolation of each one, of all these factors, the most important scarcity there could be, would be communication — not communication terminals. The most important scarcity would simply be communication — not even communication sounds but communication ideas. The idea of something alive communicating, whether it has mass or has no mass, is the most important datum to be derived out of all this material.

Now, let's take a good look here, chart 2, [See chart 2 in appendix] and let's draw a communication.

Here would be one lobe of a communication, and this would be "A." [LRH drawing on chart] All right.

Now, this lobe starts in over here with a fellow by the name of Bill. [LRH drawing]

Bill says, "How are you?" And he's talking to a fellow by the name of Joe. So we have Joe over here as something alive to be communicated to. He's something alive to be communicated to. But at this point of the curve, Joe's total action is being a recipient of the communication. You actually at this point have cause. And you have here distance. And over here you have effect. So we have cause, distance, effect there but we don't have a really complete communication yet because we've got to have, in order to have a full cycle of communication, we have to have Joe answer.

So we get Joe prime. And Joe prime says, "I'm okay." But we haven't got a full cycle yet, because who does he say "I'm okay" to?

He doesn't say to this Bill here who is emanating, "How are you" — "I'm okay." We have to have time in there: Bill is now Bill prime.

So, he says, "I'm okay."

We've got to have Bill prime over here acknowledge the fact that he has received the answer and so we've got our second line of cause, distance, effect. Only this is cause prime and this is effect prime.

So we've got a full cycle of communication and it went this way: Bill here says, "How are you?"

Joe receives it, and then Joe prime answering says, "I'm okay."

And Bill prime just nods, you know, he gives some signal that he's received it. All right.

But that isn't a complete communication yet. That is not a complete communication yet. Let's look at what has to happen to have a really complete communication here.

In graph B, we've got Bill here. Joe communicates to Bill, and in his turn says, "How are you?" [LRH writing on chart]

Bill receives it. And now we've got Bill prime here, who says, "I'm okay." And we get over here now to Joe prime, who receives it.

And that is a two-way cycle of communication, and that contains the most important parts of communication.

By the way, if you feel kind of spinny after you've listened to this graph for a while, just imagine the state I was in when I was trying to write this stuff down in Dianetics 1955! You start following and plotting the communication graph very, very closely and you sort of feel the wheels start to go.

Here we have, as the first cycle, we have Bill saying, "How are you?" Joe receiving it.

Joe saying, "I'm okay." And Bill receiving it. That's one-half of the communication.

The other half of the communication requires an origin by Joe of a communication, its answer by Bill prime, and its acknowledgment by Joe prime. So, our principal parts of communication here, in just so many words, are contained on that two-way graph.

And we look over here, [See chart 3 in appendix] we find our next parts in communication then, or the principal parts, are origin, [LRH writing on chart] answer, acknowledgment. And that's all you have to remedy the scarcity of, to solve the problem of the human mind.

It's just as simple and elementary as that. You have a two-way cycle of communication. We find out if there's a scarcity of communication, then there must be a scarcity of origin, a scarcity of answer and a scarcity of acknowledgment of answer.

There's also one more scarcity which isn't expressed: a live form. See, that was what was at Joe. Joe, in that first graph A, was no more, no less than somebody standing there alive to be talked at. That's a necessary part of it.

But if we take these two cycles and we take them apart, we find out that we have origin, answer, acknowledgment in a live form. That's the works. Let's remedy the scarcity of origin. And let's give you a proper example here of what we mean by origin.

Here's a fellow who is a writer. And he's been writing for years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years. He hasn't been reading anything written by other writers to amount to anything — not in proportion to the amount of stuff that he's putting out.

And after a while, we get him on a stuck flow. What is a stuck flow? A stuck flow is any communication flowing in one direction without completing the cycle. Anytime you don't complete the communication cycle on both two cycles, you get some tendency to stick — see, a scarcity, a waitingness. A person starts waiting for the communication. All right.

We have this fellow being on graph A, this writer. And he's sitting there and he originates and he originates and he originates and he originates and he originates and he originates and stick, stick, stick, stick. This manuscript gets lost and that one doesn't get answered, and he gets no acknowledgment from the public, but more important than that, there isn't any graph B going. He doesn't have another writer there who is also writing, see?

The missing point is he's missing the whole second cycle. He doesn't have intimate contact with another writer who is writing — fantastic. What will happen to him: He will eventually become obsessed with the idea of writing. His stuff will go down in quality and then, as will happen, he will stop writing and writing itself will become a sort of a solid ridge and that is his fate if he does not complete the two-way cycle of communication — if no one else is writing in his vicinity. You follow me?

He isn't reading. He doesn't recognize that other people also write. He maybe thinks the books just occur except those that he himself writes. He knows somebody alive writes those. But he doesn't know any other writers are alive. He'd get into a horrible state of affairs. You see, he'd get a stuck flow and then he would get so stuck that it would all get sort of solid. And that is the way you make a ridge.

Now, I've just spoken of a writer because that's kind of an obvious example. Let's take a less observable example. Let's take somebody who is completely out of communication. You've got this person around the house, completely out of communication and you. walk up to them, and you say, "Well, how are you today, Bess?" You really didn't care how Bess was today. You just thought it was a good question, you see. No answer.

So you say, "Well, mm-hm," and you walk off. And next time you see her, you say, "Do you like your — those new gloves you got, Bess?"

Well, the next morning, you're rather unguarded about the whole thing, and you say, "How are you, Bess?"

Do you know that you will get obsessed on how she is? You'll get frantic on the idea of "How are you, Bess?" Well, that's the most obvious thing. And you will begin to be sure there is some horrible secret about her health.

And you just get a stuck flow. You're liable — if you don't watch it, you're liable to go around saying, "How are you, Bess? How are you, Bess? How are you, Bess? How are you, Bess?" Get the idea?

And you'll get stuck on Bess, and if Bess leaves or goes away, for years you'll carry around an image of Bess here, hoping it someday will speak. All right.

Let's, then, look at what else is missing. Bess never came up to you and said, "How are you?" Just never happened. Bess never came up and said, "How are you?" No originated communication there. And even if Bess answered all the time — you said, "How are you, Bess?"

And she said, "I'm fine."

And you said, "That's good," and went on your way.

And the next time you said, "How are you, Bess?" she said, "I'm fine." Go on your way.

Even though this happened all the time, after a while, you'd start to get very; very suspicious of Bess. What would be missing? The whole second cycle — the whole graph B — the whole thing is missing.

See, Bess never originates the communication back at you. As a matter of fact, you will only find people in a somewhat hypnotized state who will answer you immediately and never originate a communication themselves. A person has to be in pretty good shape to answer you immediately, or completely hypnotized. If they're hypnotized, they never originate a communication.

You could say, "How are you, Bess?"

She'd say, "I'm okay."

And you'd say, "That's good."

"How are you, Bess?"

"I'm okay."

"That's good."

"How are you, Bess?"

"I'm okay."

"That's good."

After a while this cycle — keep going — if she'd never originate a communication, oh, she would just be in a sort of a social automatic response situation. "I'm okay." Because if she were really alive, she really couldn't stand not some time or another completing the cycle.

Now, did you ever have anybody give you a Christmas present and you not give them one? You suffer, don't you?

You say, "Hey, by golly, we — we — we didn't get Joe anything. I think maybe we'd better go out and find him something and say we bought it before Christmas and forgot it." You feel bad, you see? You didn't get a two-way cycle of communication going, even with an object.

It's perfectly all right, he gave you something, you gave him something. Well, that's the way universes get made. You know, you're sort of in communication on an intuitive basis with some thetan and you say something to him. And you say, "Hello." Or you make a small mock-up or something, you know.

And then he makes one for you and you get this kind of a picture: [See chart 4 in appendix]

Here's your graph A. [LRH writing] And here is graph B. Now, here is your cycle of communication, which has your origin, answer, and acknowledgment. And here is your origin and here is your answer and here is your acknowledgment.

You know what these two people are doing? They're making space. And that's how you get space. One fellow originates some space, and the other fellow says he has done so. This fellow says, "I originated some space," ("How are you," you know) — "I originated some space to this fellow"

And this fellow says, "Okay, you originated some space."

Fellow says, "So I did."

And they got some space, too. See that? But when they stop communicating, we get down here at graph C, no space. See, that's snapped terminals.

And over here in graph D, this fellow keeps saying, "How are you, Joe?" And Joe never originates any communication. So you have an imbalanced space. This fellow gets the idea that he must be talking across some terrific, fantastic difference, and nobody else is making any space but him. And so he gets stuck on the idea of insisting that somebody else make some space, for heaven's sakes. He keeps going around here.

Graph B over here never gets finished, so the guy keeps going around saying, "Hello. Hello. Hello." And he'll acknowledge and so forth, but he should be saying, if he wanted to put it into words: "For God's sakes, make some space. Please, somebody else make some space. Why do I have to make all this space?" You get the idea?

So, he's not — he doesn't have somebody else making space. Well, after this fellow said, "How are you?" at origin here, and he's gotten his answer, "I'm okay," and he's gotten his acknowledgment here, we go over on this side and we find out that the fellow he talked to originally here, now originates a communication to which this fellow can now answer and give an acknowledgment.

The other fellow in graph B is now saying, "Okay, I'm making some space."

This fellow says, "You did."

"Good."

So, the communication goes this way:

"I'm making some space," in graph A, "I'm making some space." "You did. Now I'm making some space," in graph B.

"You did." See that?

"Now I'm making some space."

"You did."

"Now I'm making some space."

"You did."

"Now I'm making some space."

"You did."

"Now I'm making some space."

"You did."

Get the idea? They got distance, they got particles, they got space, they can have some affinity, they have different individualities and they can have a game. And a game can be played without affinity. And a game can be played without reality. But there wasn't ever a game on Earth played with no communication. That's the most essential character, then, to the making of space and the making of universes — communication.

And if you ever felt bad about anybody, it was because he didn't balance out your efforts to make space by making some himself. Or it's because he never said, "Okay, you made some space."

And reversely, you might feel bad because you just never told somebody, "You made some space." See, you just never told him this.

He comes around and he says, "Hello," you ignore him. He says, "Hello," you ignore him. He says, "Hello," you ignore him.

He's saying, "I made some space."

And you're not saying, "You made some space." See, you just ignore him. And the first thing you know, he snaps terminals on you and you're never rid of him. See why? See, he's saying, "Hello." He's saying, "I'm making some space here. Hello, I'm making some space here."

And you're not answering him.

"Hello. I'm making some space here." He's liable to come up and sock you after a while. You see why? He's insisting you give him some kind of an answer so he'll have some space.

And in the absence of communication, there is no game, there is no universe, there is no affinity and there is no agreement. By processing and remedying the scarcity of just that, communication, alone, you can remedy anything that is wrong with a case.

So, rightly or wrongly, I have some feeling that we are at least well on our way to solving cases rapidly.

Thank you.