This is the second part of the afternoon lecture. Giving these to you rather quickly so that we get enough in the brisket to digest here.

Okay. Second section of the November 17th morning lecture to the Second Unit.

We have speed as the determining factor of the pc. And what do we mean by "speed"? Low on the Tone Scale, you get almost a complete stop. Once the person sits, he doesn't move very much, he talks rather slowly, and as we go up on the Tone Scale, we get faster and faster motion, and faster and faster motion. But all of this motion is controlled motion.

We have this drill. All right, now I've given you the basic basics on this drill. I want to give you a little more and I want to give you why we're doing this.

Now, we inverted from just sitting — it's very possible that a person goes into frantic and insane motions, which is not controlled. But as we go up the Tone Scale, we get faster and faster, until actually, at the top, we get speed as instantaneous.

You could take a preclear, by the way, and simply have him double-terminal blackness, each time "What is the significance of it?" and he'll line charge like the devil and won't get rid of his blackness, because he's got a machine that keeps making it all the time.

Now, get the difference between instantaneous positioning — because one travels so fast between two places he's in two places at once, or meets himself coming back, (that's an inversion of it) — and being in one place stopped. You get the tremendous difference between these two points.

By the way, nothing is permanent unless he's got a machine making it permanent. You got the idea?

I wish to impress this upon you, because you're going to run into, when you go out of here, you're going to run into people who claim they are operating very, very quickly and who are talking very, very quickly and so on, who are not running on a positive speed, they're running on another speed. It's uncontrolled speed. They say they — "Oh, yeah, I get mock-ups, mock-ups. Oh yeah, I get them, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah."

He can't send himself anyplace, really, just straight out, unless he says to something, "Now, you indicate that I am going there, and I go." So you find nearly everybody's got one of these silly machines that every time he thinks of someplace, he's there or has a facsimile of it.

You say, "What color are the buttons?"

After a while, he gets a machine that says, "Every time I think of it, I'll get a picture of it." And that accounts for these — the fabulous skill with which the thetan throws these facsimiles at himself and so on. He makes them and throws them at himself. The tremendous ability of a thetan is just beyond — oh, you can't describe it!

"Oh, they're pink! Ha-ha! They went blue then. Ha! They're pink now! Yeah, yeah — green!"

Well, now we have this list and it goes from this column over here on the Chart of Attitudes from the bottom to the top — just the emotional list. And we put that emotion into everything.

Oh-oh. On terrific pieces of automaticity — almost anybody has some automaticity showing up with them because we're right now processing straight at some pieces of automaticity. But where we have this showing up on a frantic, hectic, uncontrolled speed, we're getting an automaticity running the person, so to speak.

Now, how do we do that? We say, "All right. Now take a look at that case. Now let's put the emotion of 'slight resentment' in it." And then we put the emotion — "Now change that to the emotion of 'diffidence,' of not quite wanting to be there." Diffidence, you know, something — just something terribly faint, you see? That, of course, is the faintest one of cowardice. And — in other words, the faintest kind of emotions a person puts in there — nothing dramatic. You start him out and say, "All right, put terror in that case," see — he can't do it, so you made him fail. And the process to get him certain is just let him have wins, on a gradient scale, until at last he can win.

But remember this: person's goofy, they're real crazy, unmistakably crazy. You want to understand that; I mean, let's not just say — see somebody who is just moving fast, and he's sort of on a hectically — say he's on a manic because he's moving very rapidly, he's talking very rapidly. He's trying to get a lot of things done very quickly and so forth — like your high-pressure supersalesman and that sort of fellow. No, he's running on positive speed; he's usually a pretty bright boy. We're talking now about when this goes off — anybody gets some of this automaticity, but when the entire preclear becomes automatically fast, they're real crazy, they disassociate.

So we start over in this column, and we take the faintest variety of these emotions and we simply put them into anything and everything. Put them into the corners of the room, put them into screens, put them into drawers, floors, put them into the right foot, put them into the left foot, put them into shoes, put them into windows across the street. And just go on directly looking, with mest eyes, at the object — or if exteriorized, simply looking at the material, exteriorized. But if he has any difficulty looking at it exteriorized, have him do it with mest eyes.

They'll talk about. . . They look in all directions fast and they're doing a dispersal and their attention isn't fixed anyplace, and they look at a window and they say, "Well, now the window and the radiator and the desk — uh — when we all have — do you know, I think it isn't going to snow." And it's just about as reasonable as that; just no justification at all. It's really crazy, you understand.

All right. The reason why we're doing that is to regain the control of those anchor points which he mutually owns, and which comprise the barriers of the mest universe. We're returning him into his first feeling of ownership, and then certainty they don't have to be owned, see? Those are the two stages.

So let's not look at just a manic — let's not look at a manic state and consider it sane. And reversely, please, let's not look at a person in fairly fast motion and immediately brand him as a complete goofball. Because a person in very fast motion doing an awful lot of things is not necessarily justifying all of his actions either. So, there's an inversion on speed, which is that you can get a nice charge out of a preclear (I don't recommend you run any such a button — I say "constancy," other buttons; button running is kind of passe), because you get this very nice reaction on an individual who is sitting around, he's sitting very carefully around and he isn't moving very much — you just get him to double-terminal "repressing insane motions." Nyowdodododoh! — right away, see. I mean, his automaticity suddenly starts up. He has machinery to repress motions because they might be crazy: "repressing crazy motions," and that sort of thing.

Now, people who are way down have a feeling that they have to own something or it isn't theirs. Now this is an immediate — a direct statement that they can't create it.

Almost anybody has got a tiny little bit of this, you see, because they have had to repress what their family considered to be "wild and uncontrolled motions." So that set in, to some degree, an automaticity.

If a fellow — I tell you, if a fellow could create a jacket, (snap) you know, another jacket, (snap) another jacket, (snap) — he sure wouldn't care how many people came up and took the jacket. He'd think it very amusing. As a matter of fact, early on the track he was very upset when people didn't come along and pick it up. But later on he got upset when people came along and picked them up. So he got the idea that although he had things which he had made scattered all over the universe — these things being held out against him — he yet didn't own the universe as well as he should, so he went out on campaigns of conquest in order to own what he didn't have to own.

But the big difference that we're looking for is the person almost stopped, up to the person being almost instantaneously.

A child, for instance, owns his hometown. You never ask him about it, but he simply does. If he's moved around too much, after a while he runs into enough people that convince him it's some other place, you see, and all of a sudden he doesn't own — he's moved to San Francisco, he doesn't own San Francisco. Why? Because he met some kids in San Francisco and they own San Francisco. It never — never occurred to him, you see, that anybody did own it until that happened to him.

Now, mest language does not keep up — does not keep up — with a person who is running at a really high, acceptable level of speed in Scientology. Can you imagine anybody auditing at this rate of speed: "All right, get a mock-up of your father. Blow him up. Now, get a mock-up of your mother. Put her behind your back. Put them in front of your face. Put them over your head. Put them behind your back. Now blow them up. Now, be in the childhood home. Be here. Be in the childhood home. Be here. Inspect the childhood home very carefully next time. Be in the childhood home. Here. Home. Here. Home. Here. Home, here. Home, here. Home, here. Home, here. Home, here. Okay." Imagine somebody auditing that fast. I hope you'll audit that fast.

Well, by doing this drill, one reverses being an effect into being a cause. One is causing things to feel, rather than being an effect of things which feel.

Because as you come up along the line, you monitor your auditing. . . Please remember this: Your auditing is not monitored by your own desire so much as it is monitored by leading the preclear slightly — always lead him slightly. You run him just a hair faster than is comfortable — just a hair faster. You wait for his "yup" and "uh-huh" but you give him the command on the "uh" not on the "huh," see that? You give him the command on the "y-" not on the "-up." And if you do that, he has a feeling of being under just slight duress, just slight pressure, which makes him quite alert — and which, by the way, speeds up his attention.

The basic terror in interpersonal relations comes about because one feels emotions from people. That's the basic. They just don't like that.

Now, by speeding up his attention, it is possible then to get him to look straight through ridges, straight past barriers, and you get a much wider scope of action.

You can take somebody who is supercharged with hate, something like that, and may be all right if he's blasting it over to the right or left, but when he starts to blast it straight at you — wooww, no, no! That's real bad.

The auditor who continues to audit at this rate of speed: "All right, now you got that mock-up? Mm-hm. Well. . . Mm, put it behind your back. Mm-hm. You got that now? Mm-hm. Well — uh — mm, put it over on the right side. You got that now? Mm-hm. You got it on the right side? Mm-hm. Well. . . Put it over on the left side." Preclear starts to slow down. The next thing you know, your preclear is incapable of running the stuff that he could run at the first part of the session.

Now, the mest universe is evidently mutually created, and it is the second universe. And we have three universes, and one is one's own universe, and one is the mest universe, and one is the other fellow's universe. Now, the mest universe is a mutual system of barriers on which we have agreed so that we can have a game. And one's own universe and the other fellow's universe are those things which moderate and monitor the condition of the mest universe. But the mest universe has gone along to a point where it, being a mutually agreed-upon thing, has decided, on its own responsibility, apparently — you see, I mean according to the thetan — that it can't be destroyed.

A smooth personal relationship can be established by the most ordinary politeness — the most ordinary and routine politeness. I have, by the way, made another little test again. I test this every once in a while just to convince myself it's so because it seems so incredible to me that people can be shattered by something — the two "shuns": invalidation and evaluation.

And you get every physicist coming along the line — this is really why your physicist is in horrible condition — his cant and his creed, the affirmations which he eats with breakfast, lunch and dinner, is conservation of energy. Morning, noon and night — conservation of energy, conservation of energy.

Well, of course, you're actually evaluating for a preclear when you're moving him around. And that's all very well, because you're moving him around fast enough so that his speed is coming up swiftly enough, so he starts running at speeds which is self self-determinism; that's fine, that's fine.

Well, as you go up scale, if a person can't destroy, he can't create. He's afraid to create endlessly if he can destroy nothing. So you get people trying to come back into their own, sometimes, with tremendous, chaotic, emotional splurges of destruction. They try to destroy, destroy, destroy. That's all they can think of. They're in an anxiety state which is horrible. That's Hitler — that's his anxiety state. He — in order to create anything like Germany, he had to destroy endlessly in all directions, so that he could create something — he thought! Why, his intelligence service and German science had almost achieved the ownership of Earth. There was nothing like German chemistry. It was fabulous. And when I was a kid in engineering school, if a fellow wasn't able to read in original German, he might as well quit. Because nobody began to print anything like the number of reports being issued from Germany.

But every once in a while I invalidate somebody during a session by simply giving him more than he can do, or evaluate for him — say, "Now, I want you to think about this and give me the answer in the next session." They're always much worse — always! I mean, I do this every once in a while, once in a blue moon.

How many reports are you getting from there on science now? None. You go over, and everything is being made on an American pattern. Isn't that cute? Their whole economy is American. Because America is still at the level of creation — in terms of mest objects — where it doesn't have to destroy everything before it can put something American down in its place. And I don't believe Germany was on that Tone Scale. But I believe Hitler and the clique which took over from an exhausted state, were. So they just had to destroy, destroy . . . This was the most asinine gesture of this century. They owned the world — the thinking world, the intellectual world, the mechanical world — all the worlds there were to own here on Earth, were being slowly, more and more, dominated by German equipment, German chemistry, German machinery, so on. And then all of a sudden, why, somebody has to break out a rifle. Yeah, utterly, utterly silly.

Every month or two, I'll just take a little check on it, because I hope to find out someday or other some way that you can evaluate and invalidate against a preclear where it doesn't completely cave him in. But every preclear I've ever done this to has simply caved in. I'm very disappointing to people; I've tried to do it very lightly and it doesn't seem to matter how lightly I do it — crash! All right.

But there is the psychology — if we must use that word — of a criminal. Psychology is used because it's Homo sapiens' effort to make himself more complex. And he has gotten to a point where he has to destroy mest, somehow or other, in order to own it.

These things aside, slow auditing is the next big crime — it's a real crime. And that's why Step Is should audit Step Is — their speed is up there pretty good. And that's also why Vs should audit Vs, as long as they're Vs.

I've read some accounts of pirate ships, where always the kids are led to believe that piracy was something very colorful. Well, it was colorful in terms of lots of motion. But their equipment told a story: It was as much as a ship's rigging was worth to be used by pirates for a month or two — as much as her hull was worth, her guns were worth — anything. She was a ruin — enMEST, enturbulated mest. They had to mess everything up that they touched in order to have anything. Now, you see?

Of course if somebody sells himself on a step, and says, "Well, I'm that step" and tries to hold on to it desperately — it's been quite a contest getting techniques which really just take a scoop shovel and move him out of the classification he thinks he's in, and put him in another classification, but we can do that now.

Now, you will see this — that's the mockery level of the Tone Scale, down there around 2.0 and so forth, that mocks everything that is higher on the Tone Scale. Because we've got a repeating cycle as it goes down. Everything is — goes down in reverse geometric progression. All right.

But those things are all very well, but the most ordinary and routine politeness will carry you the rest of the way — no evaluation, no invalidation. Like, "Well, your mother probably cared for you anyway, you probably just didn't understand her" — something like that, you know? Evaluation and invalidation of his own decision and his own certainty. "Oh, I really don't think you are certain of that. It's quite obvious to me that you're not certain of that," and so forth. Well, you can shake somebody up this way a little bit.

We've got up at the top of the Tone Scale this feeling, "Well, let's see. Let's make it run a little bit wrong so we can make it run right again." Good. More people are doing this with their bodies: "Let's see if we can make it run a little bit wrong, so we can make it run right."

But it doesn't seem possible that this is so, but you'll find it to be so: that the third crime on the list that's a real crime — a real crime — is auditing slowly. Now, a V will audit a V at a speed which is comparable to what the other V is running, so that's not too bad. But a V starts auditing a I, and the I starts to go crazy!

Way up, the fellow says, "Now, there's a nice mock-up. Whssh! There's another nice mock-up. Now we'll take this mock-up which we have now and we put another mock-up there, and we'll get these two mock-ups interested in each other. That's good. That'll be good for so long. Now let's turn them around so they fight us. Oh well, we have to make somebody to be us." And here we go. "Now, we'll have to get some kind of destruction going here, otherwise we can't create unlimitedly."

"Be there. (pause) You there?" (audience laughter) Hell! The I's there and been back and looked around and twiddled his thumbs and went up and took a look at the moon and came back down again and is waiting for the next command, and he's lost track of what you're trying to do — he's nuts, you see. Pang! There we go.

Time is a wonderful mechanism of uncreation. Time uncreates, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa — automatic destruction. "Nothing 'gainst time's scythe can make defence / Save breed to brave him when he takes thee hence." Well, Shakespeare's eleventh sonnet — you're pretty good this morning! Time is the great destroyer. And the thetan comes up against time, which he has set up and which he's agreeing with madly, and then he decides he'll let time do it. Not "Let George do it" — his motto should be "Let time do it."

So the test which you use on cases is communication. Now, communication essentially is this, it is ... Well, let's take and mock up a cube of space with eight anchor points and then somewhere in the middle of it draw a diagonal line, not parallel with the cube, but just a diagonal line, and name — inside this cube somewhere, just floating inside the cube — and mark one end of it "A" and the other end of it "B." Now we have a picture of the travel of a particle through space. Now, the travel of the particle is from A to B. It is not from A to B to A. The travel of the particle is from A to B, and that is basic communication.

And you know that you can very often get somebody who can't destroy a mock-up easily and just say, "All right. Now let time do it."

Now, communication going both ways, both-way communication, is another line right alongside of the first line we drew inside the cube. Now, this first line — the upper, that is to say, the higher point of this little line — was called A, and the lower point B.

"Okay. It's gone."

Now, we'll draw this other little line right alongside of the first line, and we'll put at the bottom of it A and the top of it B, see, so we'll put A' is the lower A, and B' is the upper A. And your communication then, will go A-B; A'-B'. A-B; A'-B'. And the people miss the second side.

You should wonder a little bit at this tremendous force time has. You say, "All right. Let it age a hundred years."

A communication line has two channels, not one channel. If you insist on using one channel for a communication line, somebody just completely bogs — they just go batty.

"Okay, it's gone." Time to destroy.

That's probably what's wrong with Bell Telephone — they're always crowding that one line. There's probably more to that than meets the eye — we don't have to go into it very deeply to assume this — because look, you see, they use actually two lines for one wire and they're both in the same cable. That's — they just use that back and forth in an electronic flow. But there is still — there would be something — some improvement would take place if they had two lines.

So we have, then, the automatic destructive mechanism in this society. Well, anytime he depends on any automaticity, he's — gets in bad shape. Because that's a dependence on something. And when it goes to a point where he can no longer be causative and no longer engage in motion, when you start salvaging him, why, these dependencies he has, these automaticities — depending on automatic machinery which he's forgotten about and depending on this and depending on that, rather than doing it himself — he's at the point where the motorcycle is taking him down the road, he is not taking the motorcycle down the road anymore.

Here we have a problem in repetition. All right. We say A to B. We send this particle from A to B. Then the same particle, the same identical particle, suddenly comes right back from B to A. Now, if you don't believe this is upsetting, try to be around somebody that talks like this: "Well, I guess you're going down to the store, aren't you?"

And in order to make him take the motorcycle down the road, why, you just have to give him drills which makes him own and control motorcycles, not motorcycles own and control him. Simple, isn't it? (Completely irrespective of a couple of motorcyclists in this class; I've been using that for some time.)

"To the store?"

The anchor points of the room — these anchor points here — are looked on as somebody else's anchor points by most people, do you see? He never recognizes that they belong to him. They belong to him and others, or everybody else, see?

"Yeah, to the store."

And if we're going to create more causativeness on a case, we have to at least give him some sort of a lease on the space he's occupying. Otherwise, the space keeps catching up with him all the time, and we have this system of barriers here. You see, a game is composed of limitations, and limitations become barriers, and these barriers are such limitations to him that he just looks at it and he says, "Well, I know that stuff is real. I know it's real. It is real." And as a matter of fact, it's a lot realer than he thinks it is.

"Oh, to the store."

That's what's remarkable about all this mest, it is much realer than any thetan thinks it is, and it isn't real at all. See, he's got to go up through the band of its tremendous reality, and only then he's getting up to a level of certainty where he can put up more barriers. Then you ask a thetan to dispense of all of his barriers? Oh, no! Hm-mm! There's things like privacy, there's things like this, things like that.

You say, "I don't feel well today."

A lot of people are engaged totally in maintaining a distance. They use their words, they use their gestures and so forth, to maintain a distance. Such a case, you say, "All right, now what is your zone of occlusion?"

And they say, "I don't feel well today."

The fellow says, "What do you mean?"

Dzzzz! Then you start saying, "Well, I don't know, I kind of feel like I'm getting old."

And you say, "Well, how far don't you see away from you? Where can you put a mock-up up?" something of that sort.

And they say, "I feel like I'm getting old."

"I don't know," he'll say, "there seems to be some kind of — if this is what you're talking about, there seems to be a sort of a shell out here, right out here."

Mmmm. It's like yelling into a well or something.

And if you'll notice, it's just at his fingertips, see. He knows he can shove something away that close to him, you see? But something that's three inches further out, he can't do it. So his zone of occlusion is actually the motion of his arm. And you ask somebody to trace it out — it comes right straight in up against his back; he can't reach back there. That is not an ordinary case, that's a case that's pretty far down on causation. He can't, in other words, cause a repulsion or create a space wider than that. See, he's lost further ability to do so.

There's some — the greatest advancement that was ever made by psychology was a machine which repeated everything you said into it a fifth of a second later. And people talking to that machine used to get quite squirrely, and this was quite a development. There you're using the same particle flow, same particle pattern, and that essentially is "no randomity," you see. No, it's just — it's a question of randomity rather than the flow lines.

Space is a viewpoint of dimension. It doesn't exist without a viewpoint. The problem of space was not solved in physics and is not even defined in physics. This is — ordinarily and routinely says that it is a problem of psychology. And psychology didn't solve it and so, more or less, isn't here. Find psychology is a perishing (quote) "science" (unquote). Why? It had two basic things it had to solve in order to resolve the human mind, and one of them was time and the other was space.

But a true communication goes A-B, A'-B'. Not A-B, B-A; A-B, B-A. Because a person has his own communication line, and when the other person starts using his own — the same line, why, you get a jam on the same line, just by contrary wavelengths. You start to work this out in electronics, you couldn't possibly see how you could get a reverse wave coming on the same wave. You'd have to alter the wave in some fashion or another, and as soon as you've altered the wave, you have actually a different pattern, so you'd have two patterns running on the same carrier wave — which is two waves, you see.

Time is the co-motion of particles — planned co-motion of particles. That you're in agreement with other people on how these particles are moving is fabulous. I mean, that's — you agree that the particles move in such a way and they do. And you go on.

So your preclear actually could be marked on this little line we've just mocked up here as — not starting, see — he just A, A, A. And B — totally arrived — B, B, B. See? No flow, no motion. And then we get the fellow who has just left A, but he knows he'll never arrive at B. He's a message. He is not the cause of the communication, he is the communication. He has become the particle. And of course, you try to get flow lines out of this, it gets real silly.

Of course these bodies are all in tremendous agreement. As long as you stick with a body, you stick with the agreement. You exteriorize somebody, bing! and some weird things start to happen — space starts to go wrong on him. Now, you start putting motion in people and you'll notice this — at least two or three people present will notice this — they start this exercise I'm giving you, they will suddenly see buildings lean toward them. Aaaaaaaah! And other strange things are liable to happen to the scenery. But the stuff always goes back again the way it should be. And you might not think it will, but it does.

And the more a person is unable to get to B, and the less he is able to start at A, why, the slower his communication gets. Because each time he has to check through all of the circuits to get himself back up here somewhere, approximating some phony A — A prime, prime, prime, prime, prime, you see — in order to follow a circuitous route to get through part of this line or parallel it. And he finally will arrive not at B — he'll finally arrive talking to somebody in the next block. I mean, he's just missing — missing any communication.

Now, you run this scale, and then the second dynamic, and then these two, very important: disgust and ridicule. Almost anybody backs off from these. They'll run betrayal by the hour; they will say, "My parents and my thetan have betrayed me" — anything like that. "My parents have betrayed me. Life betrayed me. Everybody betrayed, betrayed, betrayed, betrayed, betrayed." But, by golly, they never come around and tell you, "You know, everything I look at ridicules me." I've never heard anybody say that in social conversation. "The whole trouble with my life is that everyone ridiculed me." Hm-mm. That's the deadly stuff. What is ridicule? It's somebody grabbing hold of one of your anchor points, claiming it and holding it away from you.

Well, this slows a line down because you — essentially you have a problem there in speed. Now, that's basically the problem of speed.

If you want to turn on the emotion of ridicule automatically with an individual, is just give him the idea of somebody grabbing his mock-up and rushing off at a distance, and then holding it so that it can't come back in again. And he'll get this nyaaaaaah-urk.

How long does it take a particle to get from A to B? Well, of course, it's the shortest. . . The shortest line in this case would be the fastest line. And if you really had a superinstantaneous line, why, a fellow would be at A and B simultaneously, so that's a real fast communication without a particle. That would be "super-telepathy." And about the only way telepathy really works, is you're just two points at the same time, meaning the same thing in two different places. When you do that, believe me, you get messages through.

So he wants to be able to put ridicule — disgust and ridicule, for himself and for other things — in every tiny section of the environment.

Or you just put a point where somebody else is, and you're at the point where you are, and you get those two points pang! simultaneously, although they're at different places in space.

I've had a preclear get so angry doing this, that although he's been completely unemotional about everything else in processing . . . He's just going along and life has been — he's just dutiful, obedient, you know, do everything you ask with no emotional changes, a little bit of interest, sort of a sweet, sad smile on his face the whole time. All of a sudden start putting ridicule in something, and have the guy get madder and madder and — he's putting it in! And get madder and madder: "Why this stuff? Ruff-rrr-rrr-rrr."

And the other one is a collapsed terminal: The person is a particle and he doesn't go from A to B; he says, "A is at B" and he says this all the time, "A is at B; A is at B." Now, this fellow, to communicate, thinks he has to be very, very close in. When they talk — such people talk over a long-distance telephone — they shout. They know they are talking from Boston to Los Angeles. And they'll stand at the phone or sit at their desk, and they can be heard five offices away just because they know they just can't arrive down there — that's impossible! See, so they just — fighting this impossibility.

One exercise I hadn't done with an individual, and — I don't know, I did this with him and all of a sudden he says in a rage, he says, "If that stuff ridicules me anymore I'll bust it into little pieces." To most people, its very "stationariness," its very "held-outness," is in itself a ridicule. Okay?

When they come off the phone, you find hands wet, terrible strain, awful sweat, and complete certainty that they weren't understood at the other end. And they'll sit down and write a big letter about it, then they'd be doubtful if that got there. They'd be shaken for days, merely by trying to go beyond their level of distance.

So we have these items. You can also put, if you want to, betrayal. But that kind of has a tendency to sort of collapse it in on somebody. You can add it in if you want to, and see how it acts.

And it's — you've seen this sort of thing happen. If you were on a long­distance or transatlantic switchboard for a while or listened to monitored transatlantic call lines — I've done that, lines going down to South America and so forth — you'd see what I mean.

But the important one is the second dynamic. And when you get through with the rest of the emotional list, you just beat that second dynamic to death. And then, "second dynamic ridicule." It is a specialized emotion all of its own. Got that?

The fellows who are very orderly and in pretty good shape and are getting something done abroad and all that sort of thing, these boys — oh, they just talk over the line, they're very sequitur and so on.

And that is the drill on which we will drill. Now, we've only got a couple of days to get this real good, see. Get this real good, so that anybody here can simply look across to a windowpane or something like that, and get its agony. You know? Real good, hot agony. And real good, hot pain.

But these other boys that are yelling across the line and having an awful time and repeating four or five times — when the other fellow's heard all of it, the connection is perfectly good, you see — they're really in a frantic state. The things that they're saying are completely non sequitur, and the call itself concerns itself with some triviality or double-checkup of certainty, the like of which you would think any baby would be able to trust, but they're not able to trust it. So their line of trust, line of everything . . . Why? It's just a problem of speed; they can't arrive.

Now, you try to exteriorize somebody ... By the way, I didn't mention those, but pain, of course, is on that list. I think it's on the Chart of Attitudes, isn't it? Pain is at 1.8 on the Tone Scale, it should be on that. No, it isn't on the Chart of Attitudes. So add it in — pain. Pain, in all shapes and forms, such as aches and so forth: "Just make this microphone ache." You get the idea? "Now just make it ache a little bit more." And pain is condensations of lookingness.

In this universe, it is synonymous . .. They get on this cycle: this is the cycle of creation, growth — of persistency in that state — and then decay and death, and that is the action cycle. So, from A to B, you have any action cycle you read about in Scientology 8-8008. All those action cycles actually fit from A to B.

Now, you'll notice as you run these — later on, you'll notice that all these emotions have to do with motion. Very early, you may have heard a 1951 tape, fall '51, on motion and emotion, which gives the fact that the fellow in apathy — you come along, he can put his hand on something, you move his hand and he'll leave his hand where you moved it to.

Actually, A to B could be cut up in lots of little cycles, and you could put the inverted dynamics on from A to B. The closer he is to B, the more he is an effect, and the closer he is to A, the more he is cause.

And the fellow in grief has a tendency to just flop about it and kind of hold on.

A person who can start easily . . . Oh, by the way, this is an interesting test. A person who can start easily has third-dimensional visios with great ease. And a person who is finishing, or having difficulty about finishing, has flat visios. You can check it just that fast (snap) — you can tell just where he is on this A-B line.

And the fellow in fear, which is covert hostility — about same tiny gradient in there, they're very close together — you come along and you push his hand away, and he'll say, "Yeah well, that's very interesting." And when you've looked the other way, he'll put his hand back again — when you've looked the other way.

Now you say, "Get the idea of starting something. Get a picture of you starting something," and for the first time in his life, he'll get a third-dimensional visio. This is very simple. "Now get a picture of you ending something," and it's flat. He'll think this is very peculiar indeed. It's not peculiar, it's just the fact that everything kind of piles up at B.

And then you get the fellow in anger, and you come along and you start to move his hand . . . You can do this with a chair; dumping a fellow out of a chair is another test too. You just come up — it sounds very impolite and it doesn't make for good communication with a preclear, but it's a terrific assess­ment. Just walk in the room — just walk in the room and get the back of the chair and give it a push. What he does tells you he — where he's on the Tone Scale right now, and you just process him accordingly, and it saves you lots of time.

Well now, if he's at B and he's trying to be cause, of course everything he does flops back at him. You get that? In order to be cause at all, he has to be on his own communication line shooting things somehow out of B and they hit A and hit him at B. You follow that?

Anyway, anger: You start to grab the fellow's hand, and he looks at you meaningly and you don't move his hand! The harder you try to move his hand, the more it sticks.

Now, the test of this is every time he — you get him to throw a mocked-up ball out in front of him and it keeps hitting him in the face. This isn't because he's been hit in the face with a baseball when he was a kid; it's just the fact that he's at B — he's arrived one way or the other.

Now, on resentment: You walk over and you start to move the fellow's hand and he flips his hand up toward you. And that's the first outgoing motion that you run into. That's at 2.0 on the Tone Scale.

You going to get this fellow out of his body? No, there isn't any depth, any distance, nothing of the sort — he's going to have a rough time of it. He needs space. He's short on space. He's short on comm speed. He's short on an awful lot of things.

And next is, with the resentment, now we get up to boredom. And the fellow starts — you move his hand, and he'll say, "What do you want to do? Why?" He'll engage in a controversy about it. But his hand, in the meanwhile, was sort of idle around the place, so on. He'll turn it over and look at it and put it back and move it around. There's motion there, but it's a sort of an eddy, like a stream goes around a steep bend, it leaves an eddy in up against the point.

Now, we get some silly combinations work like this: the body is just in horrible condition — oh, it's really caved in, ridges and everything else — just because the body's in horrible condition. This fellow's lived a heck of a life and he's been banged around considerably and so on.

And now we get conservatism and we reach over and we say, "All right, now let's move your hand," or something of the sort, and he'll say, "Well, yes. Now what's the significance of — why — where do you want me to move my hand to?" and so forth. Well, if you touched him a little bit too rough, he'd be very dignified about it, but he'd push your hand back. In other words, we've got a mobility and we've got choice. In enthusiasm — the fellow's enthusiasm, we reach over and start to move his hand — "Yeah, well what do you want me to do with my hand, huh? You want it there? You want it there? Where do you want it?" He's doing it! You haven't got much to do with this.

Well now, let's take a look at A to B with regard to this, and we find out that as a thetan he's in the middle of some kind of a theta trap, and he's really high cause but every time he gets a particle out it hits this body which is immediately there, which is effect. And you get an instantaneous effect, and the fellow can't back out of his body because the body is so much of an effect, it's kind of a vacuum. And he's tuned up enough on this vacuum so he just keeps snapping back into the body. Such a fellow very often will get out of his head and bounce back in. You know, you'll say, "Be three feet back of your head," and he goes zup-up! He was out for an instant. You see that?

That is motion and emotion. Now, you get this on beams. If you want to turn on the feeling of sadness as a thetan, put a beam against the wall, and then just slowly extend it. That's just — that's it. I mean — a writer, by the way, knowing this, or a cinematographer knowing this and so on, could actually kill America in its tracks to the motion on a screen. It's just the motion of people is exactly what's translated to the audience.

And some of them, when they've hit too many things too hard, can be quite powerhousey, but they hit too many things too hard. Their body's convinced that they're at B, they're in facsimiles at the rating of B, their speed levels are at B, and here we go, you see. The fellow is — he can't move; he can't cause his own motion. So he has trouble doing that.

You could just have this thetan put a beam up here and then just slowly draw away. Just slowly lengthen the beam. And he gets the emotion of sadness out of that.

And all of this is indicated by communication speed — not reasonableness of the communication. That's a very, very poor test — whether it's reasonable or not — for the good reason is, that there isn't any reason.

Now, by other speeds of withdrawal and so forth — these speeds are all comparable in comparison with mest — we can get every other emotion on the band. It's just the speed with which he rushes up to it, the speed with which he draws back from it or the speed with which the beam vibrates. And we've got all of these emotions. Because we're in the field of feeling, and feeling is a condensed lookingness.

The — it's just like, the significance of the microphone is the microphone. Now, we do a lot of things for the sake of randomity. We have a microphone, it goes in and it puts some things on tape, and we use a voice to impel certain things into air, and it carries them along through; we do those things. That's a — that introduces a randomity. That is something to do, rather than the reason why we have a microphone. So again, we're back to motion of a particle as explanatory of something to do.

So, now you have this drill down? Real easy drill. Real easy. And remember "Old Man Gradient Scale" as we do this. Let's not make it too tough on somebody. And let's keep it building. Now it's your contest to find out: how high can it go? And you're going to be very surprised; you're going to take what you normally consider to be a human emotion, and this flabby, almost emotionless piece of machinery known as the body — the amount of emotion which can be taken out of a body even in a high state of ecstasy, so-called, is so flat as to be almost indistinguishable from complete flatness. And it's just how close can you get to zero, really, compared to how much . .. Now, you know how much emotion can be turned on by a body. And as a thetan, early on the track, you were obviously quite surprised by the amount of emotion which would suddenly generate from a body being blanketed.

There isn't any reason to have any motion beyond the fact that there's motion. They used to kill writers in my day by sneering at "action for action's sake." You get some perfectly good writer and start beating him around about "Well, he was all right, but he wrote action for action's sake." Well, actually, there's no better reason to write action, than action for action's sake.

By the way, the first ded on the track is a blanketing. And it is against, usually, the kind of body which the preclear has. And if the preclear is mixed up in his sexual relationships, it's against the other kind of body — the other sex. You see, he — the thetan first blanketed a male, you'll generally find he's a male thereafter. And if he first blanketed a female, he's generally female thereafter. And where he's got his sexual relations mixed up, he is in this life a male, but the first blanketing, female — so on. So he envies, very much envies, the opposite sex. You, by the way, find that turning up more often than you'd think in preclears.

No, what they wanted was something deeply significant. Symptomatic of this was a story called Big Brother, it was written in, I think, Dial Press about 1930 or '31 — '32, somewhere in that band, and Dial Press published this story. Honest, it starts slow, it moves slower, and it goes noplace — but boy, does it have significance! Gee, it's significant! It's so significant that you can think about it for hours without arriving at any slightest reason why it was ever written — real, real hidden.

As we run various emotions, we find out that they turn on much, much hotter than we thought these emotions could run.

Now, what makes a person's speed deteriorate? That is agreement — continuous agreement on certain speeds. And continuous agreement on these speeds brings about a condition of running at the speed of his environment. And if he can't run faster than his environment, he will pretty soon be running slower than it. He has to run a little faster than the environment to be cause — not much faster. It's not quite as bad as Lewis Carroll said it was. He says you run like the dickens just to keep up, and run like everything just to get anyplace.

Now, there's one more that we will — might as well run into this category, but run it in there last, please run it in there last — is light and electrical energy. Put light and electrical energy into mest objects and bodies.

Well, that isn't necessarily true; there isn't this much exertion, thank God. But if a person thinks he's just going to drop motion forevermore, and think a thought and all of a sudden be and blossom like a rose, he's going to have to at the same time desert this body and this universe and just sit on a pink cloud for a long time before he's really sure that it's sure. But he can simply walk back up the agreement track little by little, and shed a few of those extra balance wheels and cogwheels and throw out a few mainsprings that he was just sure he needed.

Now, let me give you a little word of warning and a little word about the ping meter. I'll have to demonstrate this ping meter to you someday, but I haven't got the — all I've got right now is the Mathison model, and the Hubbard-Mathison model is coming right up. I got ahold of this ping meter, and Volney got himself a very nice piece of equipment there. The only trouble is, went over it with the first class, and we were puzzling around about what was happening to it, and gee-whiz, this is very remarkable — very remarkable.

And the big trick in this is exteriorization.

But — it's supposed to detect pain — it's the machine that cries for you. Put this little probe on some hurtful point in the body and the machine goes "Waaaaah."And you take it off, put it on some point that isn't in pain, and the machine says nothing. Interesting, isn't it? Only trouble is, it's detecting the only points in the body where the thetan is in communication, and pain is obviously the highest communication he can get on the body. And so if you turned around to take that piece of pain away, that would spoil a commu­nication point.

Too often an auditor puts a great deal of concentration on a technique which exteriorizes. You know, he really gets to straining, like this is a big goal. Exteriorization is a big goal; as a matter of fact, it — in some cases, it's a bit of a trick. But the case starts pretty much there.

But after you've massaged him or processed him over a certain area . . . For instance, a person took his prefrontal nerve up here and just cleaned it all up real good, see — took off all the screens and bric-a-brac and junk and just cleaned it up real fine so his forehead was in beautiful electronic condition, see. And put the ping meter on it — and felt wonderful, you see — he put the ping meter on, it goes, "Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah." According to the ping meter, he was in agony.

If you give anybody the impression that just by exteriorizing them, all is going to be well in their case forevermore and they will never have to be touched again and so forth, this is a little bit erroneous. Because if you just faintly exteriorize them after a great deal of trouble, they'll go back in — smack! See, you haven't shed enough balance wheels.

And, another pc there — I cleaned up the Assumption on him and all of a sudden got his face live. Whole face got real good and live and he felt good.

But the moment you exteriorize somebody, this is the single biggest leap that the case is liable to take. Why? You put him outside the environment of the body.

So you see what the machine detects is — actually, what it detects is points of communication. It's where is the thetan in communication on the body, where is the communication good on the body? And it's just designed for people too low-toned to react the right way. And the button was backwards, and the machine ought to be registering where you hit anesthesia. Wherever you hit anesthesia, the machine ought to cry and say, "You're dead." See? It should just say that, right out loud — "Dead. Dead. Dead." And really, it's a death meter, not a pain meter. As long as it's a pain meter, it's a life meter. So it's turned all around and it's got a switch on it now that's anesthesia, and you just turn the switch the other way and it'll register on pain. Also, he's putting the second meter on it. This thing is strictly terrific.

But actually — actually, I lately have been working on a couple of techniques which simply vanquish a person right where he sits. You know, you don't ever say, "Be out of the body," you just tell the body, "Disappear for a moment" and — it's an interesting technique line. I've been working on that — I haven't got anything thoroughly developed on it yet, but it has possibilities.

But it did this — it did this: the first meter which has ever demonstrated the fact — the first electronic equipment that ever demonstrated the fact that one human being can influence another human being emotionally. Because you put the ping meter on a dead spot on somebody's body and just leave it there, it won't ping. And you, as the operator, all of a sudden snap a beam through from the center of awareness of the individual to the ping meter — at the exact instant you snap the beam through, the machine goes "Waaaaah." And you put it all around on the body, and you just look at the body fixedly thetawise, see, keep snapping these beams through.

There's no real trick to exteriorize somebody. But you're asking somebody to move himself or you're trying to move somebody, you see, that is reluctant to move. He's probably at B or something, and you — of course, you get a person who is exactly at A and isn't anyplace else, and you tell him to be out of his head, and this comes to him as a great surprise because of course he's not in it.

In other words, it is registering, incontrovertibly — I mean you could go over this and beat it to pieces, physics and everything else, and you'd still have to come up with the conclusion that one human being is monitoring another human being's electrical contacts. That gets real interesting, isn't it?

You'll find out, very peculiarly, if he was working in a factory or something of the sort, he used to — managerial position or something — he used to sit down and shove off. Put his body carefully in the chair of the office and shove off and go sit on the factory roof someplace for a while, and figure it all out and be calm and happy about the whole thing, and then come back and pick up the body.

I said several times on the congress tapes, there is no actual interchange. I understand that is misunderstood a couple of times. A couple of people have spoken to me about it. For God's sakes, please get this straight. There's no actual wall here either, but it's good and solid and it sure registers on meters made out of the same stuff. But remember, a meter's made out of the same stuff.

You'll also run into a bunch of people who are completely frantic about getting into the body. You see, they're trying to arrive. And they're completely frantic and they're very upset and they're saying, "You know, during operations and so forth, I'm never able to get near the body. I just can't get near it. And other times, it's almost as bad; I can only get within a couple of feet of it, usually."

Now, here we have done the incredible thing of getting a meter made out of just nothing more than this stuff, you know, which registers the fact that two life units can influence each other. Well, I throw that in on this processing — don't start using members of the class on this target. Don't necessarily refrain from it, but look out the window and pick up passersby. Because you actually can turn on various emotions in individuals with the greatest of ease. The greatest of ease.

"And this guy has trouble?" you say. Well, of course, they're on the — they're completely upset; their information is very poor indeed. They think that getting into a body is — that makes them be a body.

In regard to that, I quite often and usually refrain from doing this. It'd be the easiest thing in the world for anybody, with a little drill, to simply take a crowd or an audience or something like that, and just fill them full of enthusiasm, you know? Just go fsshhew! The best ways to do it is just to throw back a handful of anchor points against the back wall, get it exactly the right location, make it your own space, wipe out all other anchor points there, see, and just drop enthusiasm, crush! This would be a magnetic personality.

Well, I'd like to ask you how a thing which creates space can itself be energy. This is not possible! This is not possible for the thetan to be a piece of energy. He makes energy, but he can't be energy. Now, he can also say he's energy and that's lots of fun. Now he can be something — he can be an identity — but he can't be a thing! See, energy — something built out of energy; that's not possible.

So I am very sorry that we're taking up a first stage — our first instant of play here — that thing which is actually practically the total of personal magnetism. We solve more of these doggone things en route, that we all of a sudden remember that there was something called- — at one time or other talked about, called "personal magnetism." But nobody could contact it very easily, so everybody kind of abandoned it. And the best way to contact it, they used to say in the old days, was you sat with your feet soles pressed together and your — the outside of your thighs flat against the floor and your head held in a certain position and your ears wiggling at a slow beat, and if you sat that way for eighteen or twenty years you would then be able to control your emotions. You sure can! But it's not advisable.

And how a person manages to stay in a body — it becomes very puzzling to somebody who stays out of one for a while. "Ha-ha! How'd you ever get in that body? That's funny — very peculiar. You mean to say when they tell him to be three feet back of his head he isn't? What's the matter? Has he got chewing gum on him? Bubble gum? He couldn't have any bubble gum on him! It's incomprehensible. There isn't anything there to put bubble gum on." He's a spark, or whatever you want to call him. But he's causative — always causative. If the fellow's alive and even faintly warm, he's capable of more cause than a body ever will be. So, he's an individual.

And there were all kinds of systems. There's various systems, such as you take a certain pill and it does it. And there's other systems where if you get your handwriting analyzed, you will then be able to improve sufficiently so that you have personal magnetism of some sort or another.

So speed is what you ask if you've done anything in the session. That's how you ask if an auditor is progressing, if a case is progressing. It manifests itself in two ways: one, aesthetic of motion, and the other way, rapidity and sequence of communication.

This is the entire fight of the society: to be acceptable to one another. And yet the way to clear somebody — you could clear somebody just by running huge crowds agreeing with huge crowds agreeing with huge crowds themselves. It's interesting, isn't it? I mean if you just sat down and kept putting this up and putting this up and putting this up, putting this up, the person would get out of a slavish, propitiative agreement and come on up into an antagonistic agreement, and he'd actually run the whole Tone Scale in Mock-up Processing. Real slow method of doing it. Real slow.

There's something wrong with a case where these do — don't improve.

That's much faster than anything we envisioned in Book One but it's too doggone slow, but it's a last resort. But that just gives you some sort of — because he has to be in agreement in order to have time, in order to have communication.

Now, speed and perception are, the way we can look at it here, almost the same thing; because you have willingness to let particles move. A person who's willing to let particles move can perceive and a person who is unwilling to let them move can't perceive. That's the long and short of perception. That's your people who are very deeply occluded very often — boy, they're still trying to hold still. See, they're trying to hold still like mad because they — it'd just be fatal, they figure, if they started moving in some direction; they'd just never come back. Something would happen that would be bad.

But the first thing he's got to have is anchor points. And the best anchor points to get back for you, right now, are the anchor points which comprise ... When I say an anchor point, now, I mean any kind of a point, any kind of a particle, any kind of an electron or anything which anybody believes is an actual point. There is nothing more real than a real anchor point. It's tremendously real. It exists as much as anything will ever exist, and that exists as much as anything does exist, because it exists and it is a havingness type of existence. Let's not go off on the basis of "all is illusion," and we're just kidding ourselves that we see it. This is the reverse english, the inversion on the truth of the matter.

Well, the point is, then they start worrying about not being able to see. Well, they've got more barricades, barriers and machines to make them, that will stop flow and stop particles from bouncing around, than you could count during a session if you suddenly started counting them and treating them one by one.

The fact of the matter is, is you're pretty doggone good — you can see it. We can make, out of a complete illusion, a complete reality. And that is the greatest gift a thetan has.

Because they've got machines to prevent other machines from being touched, which prevent other machines from preventing, which protect the machines which mock up machines in case any machines are lost out. They're real thorough about this whole thing, you see.

So we're trying to rehabilitate, then, the ability to take over, control, handle and alter the emotion and condition of any particle in the mest universe or any space in the mest universe. And remember that this is most handily worked, not segregated against the corners and points of the room or anything like that, but whole objects and whole spaces.

Well, they caused their own slow. But a "case of slow" was ordinarily a very fatal disease in the old West. They used to very occasionally, they — the boys would get out there and somebody would develop a case of slow. And they'd bury him naturally in Boot Hill. He was a fifth of a second back of the draw, where the other fellow had already fired three shots — and that was a case of slow.

Take the street now, and from end to end (this you wouldn't start out with), from end to end on the street down there — a street full of cars and so forth, and three blocks long, this street is, that your preclear can see — now fill it completely from end to end with ecstasy. Pssshhhew! (snap) And you, as in the auditor, looking — if he was real good, would be able to look over there, and the taxi driver would start to get a sort of a noble look in his eye. That's right.

Well, it's not quite as deadly as that, what we're doing here, not anywhere near as deadly, but an auditor or a case that — an auditor who isn't auditing with great success and a case not progressing are both cases of slow. You can just add it up that way and it'll make sense to you.

So, let's find out now with the easiest one we've got — this is still probably one of the most effective techniques we have. I mean, it's right up there on effectiveness because a person can audit himself, you see. I mean, he doesn't have to depend on somebody else to do it. He's trying to take out of the hands of things doing it for him, and take it on back to himself.

And perception: a person whose perception is poor, is again, another case of slow. See, he just won't let those particles move. He won't put them out and get them back. That's the way a thetan looks. He actually has to put something there in order to receive something there. And he receives it on a different — if he receives it on a different channel as it comes back, then it's amusing to him. But if he just puts it out there on one lobe and gets it back on the same lobe, he's sort of spitting in his own eye.

This is following and obeying this rule: that in order to remedy an auto­maticity, it is only necessary to make the preclear do it himself often enough to regain entirely his control over his ability to do so.

Very often thetans have arrangements whereby they put out a beam, it makes a facsimile simply by taking a plaster cast, you might say, energy-wise — Lord knows how tinily thick, you know, just very thin — and they just make a cast of the environment and you call this a facsimile when they pull this back in. And they look at it instead of putting a viewpoint out and looking at the real thing. Nothing to it, they've just got a machine that makes it for them. They energize the machine instead of putting a beam on the environment, and then the machine puts the beam on the environment.

We take anything that's running automatically, we take the fellow with purple spots in front of his eyes, and we say, "Put five more spots there." Now, widely get him to a point where he's the one putting the purple spots there — which is the truth. He is the one putting the purple spots there. That he can, by — merely by making a postulate, "There are now purple spots in front of my eyes," pang! — he's seeing purple spots. He hasn't got himself hypnotized. I mean, that's his native ability.

Every once in a while they forget about the machine and it runs out of energy, and then all of a sudden their occlusions start cutting in and then they don't know what they're doing. The machine can't make energy — they can.

What he wants to get out of is just because he says there are purple spots, they don't have to appear. He can say, "There are now purple spots in front of my eyes, but I don't see them." Okay, so he doesn't see them. "Now I see them." So he sees them. "Now they don't exist." So they're not there. See, this is real active.

So, we'll hear in this unit probably more complaints about "I get out all right, but I can't see." We'll hear that more often than "I can't get out." "I can't see," and "I just don't perceive very well," and that sort of thing. But the person will normally be saying it, "Well, I get out all right, you understand, but I just don't perceive very well, you know, after I get out." That's just a case of slow. Speed of particles — he doesn't want them to move.

Now, how do you mock up something somebody else can see? Well, believe me, that's way up the line. That's way far in advance of anything we're trying to do right now. So let's not worry about these odds and ends. Let's just simply look at mest, and even with mest eyes, and get the stuff to emote.

Well, when a case starts this sort of thing, he's got himself stacked up into a facsimile, and what you just do is you just do an assessment and find out where he's stuck on the track and knock him loose from it and generate a few other things. Or you do the kind of drills that speed him up.

When you've got that, a lot of your preclears who will otherwise be a little bit rough as a case (and that is, they'd take some smooth handling by somebody who knew what he was doing, so forth), you find out they learn how to do this, they say, "Body, body? There's lots of emotion, I don't have to have a body for emotion."

What drills speed him up? The technique which I gave you to do this morning is an excellent technique; no doubt about it whatsoever. It's really a very excellent technique. It has one drawback. Any technique which too thoroughly validates barriers — a drawback.

There's one other factor that you can put into things. Put the feeling of beauty and the feeling of ugliness into them. Sometimes this registers with a preclear far better than some other emotions.

So I'll give you the other part of this technique. You understand Validation Processing — remember Validation Processing — what you validate has a tendency to come true? That was years ago, a couple of years ago. Well, it's true that you can validate the sixth dynamic, MEST, up to a point where you're in better shape than you've ever been. But all you've succeeded in doing is inverting the sixth dynamic.

If anybody is starved for anything in this MEST universe, it's beauty. You can take the toughest, roughest boxer, the meanest, orneriest clown, the most debased thief, and beauty registers on him one way or the other. But it's very odd that when a person is very disgraced and very degraded, the one thing which instantly puts him to just sweeping shame, and just sweeps him back down the sewer in a hurry, is to be confronted suddenly with something beautiful. So there's a great deal to aesthetics which we mustn't neglect.

That's real good, you understand, that — all of this holding on to the two back corners of the room and so forth is doing that. It's a long technique, and it works good, and a lot of people exteriorize on it in an hour or so, and it's a perfectly good technique. But remember what you're doing: you're inverting the sixth dynamic. You're getting a person up to a point where he can perceive mest. He was below the level of being able to perceive it.

I wrote about it in 8-80, and you have the book — old 8-80 — "beauty and ugliness." Now, although we were running it there with dichotomies, it has actually never slackened off on its importance.

Now that you've got him able to perceive mest, for heaven's sakes, take him on up the line. You're going to move him now into the fifth, fourth, third, second, and first. This stuff he can see again.

You can ask some preclear and make him break right down and cry, "Where are you not being beautiful at this moment?" Well, this is the first thing we're going to do. We're going to handle feelingness, so on. As far as SOP 8 is concerned, this is your fastest, smoothest approach on SOP 8-C because it'll hit anywhere up and down the range of case with which you're trying to operate here. It won't hit all the cases you will run into in the society; not until you've patched them up somewhat and done this and that with them.

People who are wearing glasses are below the level — they're having a hard time seeing this on an inversion line. They think they're not putting it — perception there. You see, they expect it to kind of do 90 percent of the perceiving. And they put glasses on, and then they put glasses on the glasses, and glasses on their glasses and get fancy light bulbs and go see their obstetrician and in short, foul up completely.

I've seen people shriek when you ask them to do this. You say, "Make that feel a little resentful."

You see, they're just insisting, "Look, we just have got to hold on to this stuff somehow!" And of course, the harder you hold on to it, the more it disappears.

"What? Make that feel any way at all? It can't feel."

I'll give you a little example of this — going to give you a good example of this. I want you to run this concept: How real that wall is. Just get that real determinedly, how real that wall is.

Well, that's really the truth of the matter, but you press it a little bit. You say, "Oh, well, go on and make it — make it — make it think a thought."

Good. Take a look at it. (pause) What did the wall do?

"It doesn't think!"

Male voice: It disappears.

"Well, make it. . ."

To whom did it merely become more real? (pause) That's an inverted sixth.

"Well, it doesn't do anything. And nobody can do anything to it. And you should know that. What are you trying to do with me?" And have them get up and try to walk out! Real upset! And your bottom-rung cases get into that kind of condition.

Now, get an idea how imaginary it is — how completely unreal that wall is. (pause) Who'd it practically smack in the face?

We will take up — as soon as you've handled emotion adequately, we will take up with regard to that, thinkingness and lookingness with regard to that. And on some of the cases that have hung fire we find out that it's — they're so convinced that something should be able to look but mustn't look, and they're all hung up on viewpoints. mest has viewpoints, so you have to be able to hang up viewpoints pretty good before you're very able. Okay?

Audience: Here. Here. Here.

Now what questions do you have to ask about all this?

That's what we know as an inversion, as an inverted sixth. Found in any case that that looks . . . You say how imaginary it is, how unreal. . .

Male voice: Is that related to the ability of personalizing? You see a little dog and you practically make him talk.

Now, get again — get again, just get with great determination that it isn't there, that wall. Determine that it isn't there. (pause) Did it appear good and solid?

Yeah.

Audience: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Male voice: I mean, you put into him . . .

Male voice: Mighty solid.

The thetan does that. That's the best thing he does. A little kid does this all the time. A happy tribe, happy natives, across the world do this all the time. Everything is superpersonalized. But then they, by the way, they build it into an automaticity.

That's what's known as an inverted sixth. A person gets into that and they get — mest waves start in reverse. Very often they start to put out flitter, out in front of them, and the flitter — their own flitter hits them in the face. Well, that very often happens.

Male voice: Yes. It always answers.

The technique which you're doing right now is a terrific technique to invert, and that's why we're running it. But remember that "what ye validate comes true to some degree."

Yeah, so ... Any other?

Now, early on the track a person can say, "I hate Joe" and Joe promptly and immediately dies, perishes and passes by the boards. This startles him into being less assertive.

Second male voice: Ron, like sec, running the emotions on the second dynamic there, just how far shall we go? Like sexual emotions and things like that?

So when we get into a proposition of an inversion, you can run this technique that we have there, you can actually run the thing for an awful long time and it'll keep you real good and stable in this universe. But you're validating a barrier, validating a limitation. And limitations are necessary to games. A game needs first, somebody else to play with, and second, barriers — even though they're rules or just mental limitations.

Hm.

You can't have a game without having a limitation. You understand that? You ever try to play chess by yourself? You make a move and then you run around the other side of the board and make a move? This gets real silly. This is real dull. You have to be on both sides of the board and forget you're the other fellow, which is a sort of a "thetesque mitosis," or you just find another — somebody to play chess with you, and this provides sufficient randomity so that your interest in the game may possibly hold up slightly.

Second male voice: The gamut of maybe puppy love or things like that?

Now, if you work this a little bit further, you see that if you had somebody else to play with and you didn't have any game — the second we start making up a game we have to have some kind of a rule, so we have to introduce an arbitrary. This is one of the primary principles I ever encountered way, way, way, way back, fifteen years ago — a study of the introduction of an arbitrary.

Oh, sure. Sure. There's quite a wide band there. I just leave it to your imagination. I point out to you that there's a nostalgia comes into the second dynamic, too. And there's a high — sort of a high whine ecstasy that sounds like an airplane in a power dive. And there's a tremendous gamut of these emotions there.

What happens when you introduce an arbitrary factor into a problem? We have one plus one equals two. So we just introduce six into the problem. We have one plus one plus six equals two. Oh, let's take that six out and put it on the other side. One plus one equals sixty-two. No, it doesn't work over there. You can't get anything but a wrong answer when you introduce an arbitrary. In other words, no game ever produced a right answer. Do you see that? They just don't produce right answers unless you're trying to do the one thing that you can do in a game by artificial means, is recover and vanquish arbitraries so as to discover the rules of the game. Now, when you've got the rules of the game discovered, then you can unmake, to some degree, the position of people in games. You can shove them up the line into a higher echelon of game, and you can make a better game.

You understand that these characteristic emotions, as they go down scale — you go from 40.0 down to 0.0, why, and -8.0, you've got your emotions going over and over and over. And most everybody is to some slight degree in the effort band, or below the effort band and in the thinking band. So it's of great importance.

But it's pretty hard to make a new game while the old one is still in full roar with all of its arbitraries in. This they discover in atomic physics. They have what they call quantum mechanics, which is laughingly supposed to be a mathematics. And quantum mechanics runs like this: C plus Q plus 8.269 equals psi. And these are all factors that mean certain things.

Now, if somebody hangs up and he's having a real hard time in this class, just make him make the things think a thought, and you'll get along better. And put something else into them — effort. "Now put some effort into that microphone," see? "Now put laziness into it. Now put some effort into it." That's real low band.

You say, "Yeah, that's a very interesting equa. What's this 81269?"

Male voice: How about putting the minus Tone Scale into things? Hiding.

The fellow says, "Well, I tell you impolitely what they call it; it's a "bugger factor.' " And he says, "This is a — well, you have to have that in there to get the equation to balance."

Well, all that emotion down that line is wooden — pretty wooden. I'd rather get a stronger emotion on the upper band. But that's a good suggestion. Good suggestion. Anybody can stretch that out that wants to. There's that old minus scale there. "Put a protective feeling in this table." And of course, there's one danger in that — that's what this stuff is: barriers to protect; to protect and to protect other things.

"Well, does it always balance when you do that?"

You can put minus scale in there and you can put the whole band from top to bottom if you want to — including effort, including thinkingness and so forth. But specialize in the Tone Scale as it goes from 0.0 on up the line, the second dynamic and ridicule. That pays off, very heavy. And disgust, which is about the same as ridicule.

"Yes, except when psi is above two billion. And when it goes above two billion, then you have to have 1,873 in there instead."

Only you'll find out that if you start running much disgust, you'll find out the fellow is starting to be an effect slightly. This is a double-terminal process. This really belongs — if you want to know where it belongs in SOP 8, it belongs at V, really. Because it's a double-terminal proposition. It solves a person from discharging against emotions and being an effect of them.

And you say, 'Why? What — where does the figure come from, you know? Where does it — where'd you get that?"

But you're not trying to process him so as to run out a bunch of emotions, so he will discharge against these things. You're trying to make him do it independently so he doesn't discharge. And you're trying to give back to him the control without running a single thing out, and without any anything in the bank. You don't want to even worry about it. If he starts worrying about being an effect of it, well, you just overlook it and keep pushing to make him a cause on it.

And he said, "Well, it has to be there to balance." (He doesn't tell you anything about where he gets it, you know.) "Well, if you put that in, then you can make the equation say what you wanted the equation to say, and so you have a working equation so that you can work on atomic physics, you see?"

You find many people, they say, "Well, I know how that stuff feels."

In other words, quantum mechanics is so far down the line that you even have to introduce arbitraries into arithmetic to get what is commonly supposed to be right answers. Now this is real weird! Yeah, we even have to take arithmetic and algebra to pieces and do something else with them in order to achieve any kind of a goal. Well, that's a game being added to a game being added to a game, and all we get at the end of that is an explosion. We sure take that watch apart.

And you say, "How does it feel?"

Now, when you try to use anything to straighten out — we're not trying to straighten out anybody's mind. You want to disabuse yourself right there, right now, then — nobody has got any mind to straighten out. He's a spirit with a bunch of automatic machinery trying to run a body. And all we want him to do if he's going to hang around bodies is not be so susceptible to, and to know a little bit more about handling them. And when he knows this, and when he can do that, his own communication speeds are better, why, he's in real good shape, and as far as Homo sapiens is concerned, why, you've got a much better guy.

And they say, "Well, it feels disgust."

But we're not straightening out anybody's mind.

"It does?" you say.

We take psychotherapy now. Let's take the most basic and the best advancements that have been made in a couple of thousand years: Sigmund Freud. It was only by introducing new arbitraries that he could create a new game called "Freudian psychoanalysis." We had to have all kinds of arbitraries. And if you want to see symbols, boy, just start looking at Freudian psycho­analysis and they just go on page after page after page: there's "id" and there's "bid" and there's "sid" and "did." It's gorgeous!

"Yeah. Sort of a disgust for itself and a dirtiness, yes."

Now, you notice, is the closer we come to home plate the less language we're using. I mean, in all this talk I've been giving you, I've been using very common English words, extremely common. We're talking less and less in technical terminology.

Oh boy, climb the nearest fence, boys, here we go!

Of course, when we have a technical terminology, it simply tells us there's something there to be solved, see. We don't know all there is to know about that because we have to call it something else than what it is. For instance, right now, we can put thought, emotion and effort together — we don't have to classify that, we know that's common English. Now, we don't have to reclassify it.

Okay. Any other questions about this?

Now, but look at this: look, feel, effort, thinkingness. Is there a single arbitrary word in there? No, these things mean just exactly what they say there. Now, we just get the idea of a beam of lookingness, and we suppress it and we've got thinkingness. See, it's that elementary. If you do shoot off at odd angles and so forth, it's because again, this is getting so simple that there must be a deeper significance to it. And that's just what the trick — there isn't any deeper significance to it: cause, effect, attention, look, feel, mote, body, thetan.

Male voice: Yes, after you spoke about putting the second dynamic emotions into things, and spoke about disgust and ridicule, you mentioned, Ron, something about light and electrical objects.

All right, now we've got the question of anchor points, and we've got to take them over.

No, light and electricity.

So, we mustn't validate, however, any type of barrier; we want to get him to a point where he can invalidate barriers. So that tells you that right after you get this stuff so hot that it'll practically go up in smoke just because you're looking at it, tells you we sure have to learn how to unmock. And that's a type of validation too, saying something isn't there. So we've got to get a preclear up to where it doesn't matter whether it's there or not.

Male voice: Light and electricity.

There are people who have to walk — who when they walk, have to mock up the street in front of them. This is not undesirable. These people, when they get up that level are so capable they don't mind mocking up a few streets.

Yeah.

Down scale, a person gets into the feeling like he's the "only one," you know? That all this is being mocked up for him by somebody else who suddenly disappears.

Male voice: Putting it into . . .

I call your attention to the story Fear — it's quite a popular paperback these days in Great Britain, by the way. I had two novels in one book; one of them is Fear and the other is Typewriter in the Sky. And it came out in a paperback edition over there and it's been just having a fine time with sales records and so on.

Well, I'll give you an example. Put some light in that wall.

But in Fear it talks about the — that's ten years after the fact of writing it — there's a little section in there that talks about the fellow being the "entity." Well, that describes this business of being the "only one." I recommend it to you if there's a copy lying around anyplace. Maybe I'll dig up a copy of it and write it up. Because that was a spontaneous description of the feeling of somebody I had run into in the field of investigation. And it was right fresh in my mind at the time I was writing that. And everybody was putting the world there for him, and the people — the second that he turned his attention away from the people, he knew what they did — they suddenly slumped over, see, and they stood there, see. Then when he looked around, they came to life and went into motion, and went into action, and pretended they were buying and selling and hauling and driving taxicabs and so forth, but if you peeked right around real quick, see, why, you'd find them all stopped again the second that you weren't looking.

Male voice: Oh good. Thanks.

And he'd go down a row of buildings, he would always suppose there were backs to these buildings, but you knew very well, all of a sudden you look real quick, and you found out that they're taking the block down that you had just passed and putting it up way up the line, so that you would see it when you went past there. And no backs to the buildings and no rooms back of the windows and nothing under the manhole covers — didn't know what, see. Everybody was putting it there and changing it just for you.

Well, do it.

Well, you see the degree of effect that is? Boy, look at that as an effect, see? The world being put there for you? Boy, that's a lot different than walking down the street and saying, "Well, I'd better put some more paving blocks."

Male voice: Yeah.

Why are you putting paving blocks there? You'd go on down the street anyhow, as far as you were concerned. You'd do an awful lot of things. But you put paving blocks there to be agreeable and you're off into the track of agreement again.

Got some light in it?

It always takes a certain amount of agreement to get along anywhere or do anything, to stay in communication with anybody. In other words, to have other players. Too much agreement and boy, you're a broken piece.

Male voice: Yeah.

You find people who are deteriorating badly — they're just "Mm-hm. Mm-hm. Mm-hm. Mm-hm." They go walking down the street agreeing, kind of... (audience laughter)

Now put some electricity in it.

Well, many people a little bit up the line, they've had a hard time with this, see, so they're saying, "Disagree, disagree, disagree, disagree, disagree."

Male voice: Yeah.

And then we come to the Christian principle which is the one thing that was introduced into the society by Christianity. You will develop the idea as this course goes along that I'm not entirely Christian. Well, this is not true; it says right on my birth record that I'm a Protestant. And so I've taken that very literally and so forth, and I've been protesting ever since. (audience laughter)

Okay. Put some light in it now.

And here we have "resistance to evil" as the motivator back of religion. Oh, boy! How mest universe can we get?

Male voice: Yeah.

We take this ashtray, and we take this ashtray: these two ashtrays can sit apart on the desk very happily, not in contact, not in conflict, and they would probably sit there for a long time. But all of a sudden we just say, "This ashtray now thinks that this ashtray over here is evil." (clank) Now we say, "This ashtray must resist."

Put some electricity in it.

Now, you just noticed this wall up here disappear when you said how actual it was and get real solid when you said it was imaginary. All right.

Male voice: Yeah.

We say to this: "This ashtray must not approach the area of the second ashtray." And when you've got an inverted attention on it, here it goes — (clank) there it goes.

All electricity is, is light with effort in it. You get the idea?

"Crime. You must fight crime." What's the best way to make criminals? Fight crime. Oh, yeah? Well, what's the best way in the world to make juvenile delinquency? Get all the kids fighting it. You'll have the next generation so darn delinquent nobody will be able to bail them out. They'll have to start penitentiaries for the two-year-olds. See?

Male voice: Yeah. Thanks very much.

You get the — get this resistance to evil. There is a Devil, and he is much more powerful than God obviously because we have to fight the Devil, and we could completely neglect God. He merely says, "Be good" and "Be nice" and so forth. "That Devil, he's real mean, see, and we're not quite sure what he's mean about, but it has something to do with fire. And fire is light, and so I guess the best thing to do is be a fireman so we can fight the Devil." And that's something peculiar. (I ran into a preclear one day who was being a fireman just so that he could fight the Devil, and he was a very bad fireman.)

Did it kind of flare up for you?

Anyway, we get this principle of resistance to the Devil, and wind up as devils. See? (clank) There we go — clunch! And this is the principle of resistance to evil in the mest universe, and this universe is a religious universe.

Male voice: Yes.

Now, one of the tricks is, they take the best spirit that happened along — that anybody is writing about in the last few thousand years — and you take the best spirit that happened along, and we find out that this spirit was crucified, couple of thousand years ago we're told, and they keep displaying his body on a cross! Rurrrhh! Isn't there something funny with this? They keep putting this body on a cross. So everywhere you look there's this body. Well that says — kids, that says, "You done it. You done it."

Good. Good. If you get real hot at this, you can short-circuit out E-Meters.

You'd be surprised the amount of sexual excitation, for instance, which is motivated by Christianity — terrific amounts of it. Because you mustn't have that too — you must resist that. And you see, that's — eating is the basis on sex, and that's dead bodies and so we're — (clap) here we go.

Okay. (You have to provide your own, though.) (audience laughter)

But here, for God's sakes, is a body. Why, they've done that in every religion that they've invented here on Earth: They've given a god a body, hoping that the thetan would simply move in and he couldn't get out. And that way you could keep bodies from being zapped. And it's a highly efficient system. But the only trouble is that sooner or later somebody's going to come along and bust it to smithereens. And I'm afraid somebody after that is liable to get zapped. But that's not your lookout or mine either, we're just victims, all, of the same thing — no responsibility for this.

All right. That's the end of this lecture.

The last period where there was any kind of a real renaissance on Earth — where things were really running good — they still had plenty of thetans on the loose. But the period before that when things were running but royally, they had lots of thetans on the loose. And just before that, in the Greek civilization, the place was practically monitored by thetans. Everybody said, "Please, can I spit?"

And the thetan would say, "Well, let's see," check over the altars, sacrifices and so forth, "let's see. Well, I'm not too sure. Not too sure about that. Now, my brother, you didn't put anything in — during his holiday, you made absolutely no gift." Crunch! Lightning bolts strike.

And now we're told that this is all myths and fairy tales, see? It's just going out of sight forever. I don't know what count they're going down for just now, but it's sure not the third.

Well, we won't talk about that particularly, because that of course, is on the lines of self-determinism, morals, ethics, responsibility for the society, deep significance of societies, deep significance of culture, deep significance. Actually, we're not interested too much in deep significance. We want to know the "wheres and why-fors" of life, and have a little more to each of us and roll along. And I'm afraid that things will all work out for the worst in this worst of all possible worlds; but that's somebody else's lookout, not ours.

If you are very motivator-hungry, though, and you got to thinking it over very hard, you'd find out that you would approach with grave misgivings any idea of turning loose a bunch of thetans on this society — grave misgivings. And the way to solve that is to run enough motivators on yourself till you're no longer motivator-hungry. That settles the moral aspect of it.

There isn't any great harm, however, results from this; but you will get people up the line to a point where they will pop back in the body. They'll be pretty cruel. They're up the line where they will pop back into the body, though. They're only up the line that far. If they're basically very cruel and very inverted on that, and they're very mean and sadistic and so forth, they'll do a high dive back into the body.

I know. I've worked some real lulus and so on, and you couldn't bail them out very far before they took another dive; unless you simply just bailed them out until they were pretty relaxed and thought the world was a pretty good place and people weren't so bad. And when you got them up to that state, what do you know, they stayed very stable. Why? Resistance to evil — they think a body is evil, they think people is evil, they start resisting the body, and the next thing you know, flip! in they go again. Okay.

We have then, resistance to evil as one of the prime motives of not Theta Clearing but "theta sticking." And we needn't study "theta sticking" beyond as it will assist us in Theta Clearing. But the body is essentially nothing, if not a good theta trap. And this theta trap is something we are solving. It's just another way for a thetan to get too much randomity for his own sake. Now, we can solve this and we are solving it. Okay.

Resistance to evil. He who thinks bodies are evil and thinks that everything is going to go to hell if anybody gets exteriorized and so forth, and bodies are evil and they ought to be fought, and the reason he wants to get out of his body is to kill somebody — it's very, very amusing: pop! in he goes again. It's no kind of a mechanism that is a punishment mechanism, it just happens to be built that way. He's just built that way; it just happens that way.

So it means that the worst people on Earth disappeared first. What do you know? A lot of you are going to have a lot of moral connotations with regard to this sort of thing. Does a person become a better being because of clearing and that sort of thing? Think about it, wrestle around with ethics, wrestle around what is ethical, what is unethical?

I tell you the only unethical thing I have ever been able to discover is for an individual to deny himself. And if an individual thoroughly enough denies himself, believe me, he's unethical because he'll wind up by denying himself and everybody else and everything across the eight dynamics, pang! So that's real unethical — also immoral.

And you'll find out the downgrade of everybody was when he denied his own strength, truth and power. And so you have to solve that. But it's a solution that comes rather easily.

There are even many people just say, "Well, is it right to be cruel?" And they will writhe around and they will beat their skulls in, and that's the answer they finally come up with.

Okay.