ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 08 OF 20
[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

[Start of Lecture]

[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Okay. We have some discussion concerning the rudiments, control and ARC.

Tonight, I haven't got very much to talk about. But I did want to talk to you something about a subject which I haven't even added up in my own head or in my own environment – which, of course, makes me an authority.

But first, before we go into that, I have a joke on you good people. I have a joke. The entire last lecture was devoted to the fact of nonrelatedness and nonsignificance of putting it there and perceiving it. Got this now? I merely talked about there was thereness and perception, and these were nonrelated factors. Then you could go ahead and add to them, if you wanted to, but the isness of that is the isness of that, and that is all the isness of that there is. See?

An authority is somebody who knows nothing loudly. It's an absolute requisite – absolute requisite – for an authority to know less about a subject than anybody else, more importantly. And the subject must always be a subject about which nothing is known.

And I've had, since, a half a dozen questions which wanted to know the moreness! So I want to tell you, first and foremost, that the relatedness, and so on, of a mock-up is zero. It is! See? And you perceive it. And if you can get a preclear simply to put it there and perceive it and just knock off any additives — see, this is not particularly workable; it's just a fact — why, if you can do this without any additives whatsoever, you got it made. Got that?

To be a real authority you would have to pick up a subject which was nonextant, you see, and become quite resounding on that subject. Then you would be a real authority, particularly if you said nothing ever. A real good authority simply sneers quietly, whatever is said. That is very, very effective – very effective. It's a tactic I recommend to you if you ever get in there with a medico or something of the sort and you don't know what to do, why, just sneer effectively. You know, sort of... like that, you know? Just a touch of...

Now, the only thing that gets difficult about processing is the degree of complexity which is required. And yesterday, after the lecture and so forth, I got a considerable number of additives to this fact. Because since the lecture was about, directly, the isness of a mock-up and there are no additives — see, it just is.

Now, this is a subject – about which I'm going to speak here – about which I know very, very little, very little. Because very few things are actually well organized, to know anything about organization is therefore practically an impossibility since practically nobody has ever seen any. You see? But you could easily become an authority about organization because there is apparently such a thing in the world as organization.

And after its isness, why, then you could put on additives and cross-relations and associations and so forth. But a mock-up simply is, and the perception of it is simply the perception of it. And that is all there is to it. Now, we add: Is it good or bad, artistic, perfect or imperfect or... You can add things, you see? „What is the significance of what we have just done?“ Well, the significance of what we have just done, which is the deadliest and most important significance, is that a mock-up is. You see, it just is.

And I didn't realize that organization didn't exist, actually, until 1950. And I noticed then that it didn't exist with an exclamation point! Now, I'd rather suspected its existence before, but I had never totally suspected the exclamation point. The fact of no organization in 1950 was quite interesting, and I thought it was something peculiar to the people and organization with which we were dealing. I assigned it to us personally. I couldn't look far enough to blame it way over there. So I said, "Well, the thing to do about these organizations..." I said, "The thing to do, obviously, is to hire some experts" – see, hire some experts. And then we really did go to hell!

It is not an illusion. One does not think he sees it. You get the idea? One does not suppose, in some peculiar way, that he is deluding himself, that it's a hallucination, that energy then isn't. You know? These are all additives. It simply is.

We had one of the fanciest managers that ever managed anything. He had been a howling success. I suppose the people that he had managed for before are still howling. Now, we had press agentry and promotion experience which had been so valuable in Hollywood that Warner Brothers practically collapsed the moment that this man left their promotion department. We had skill, but unfortunately without an exclamation point.

You look around, you see the universe. There's the universe and it is. Now, the significances of how it is and where it goes and what it does after that, that is quite interesting, that is very fascinating. But these are all significances. Basically, the universe is.

I'm sure these gentlemen could have worked, had they known what an organization was. Well, some people are very fast. They pick up their cognitions rapidly. Some people are capable of understanding a cognition when they see it and so on. I run comm lags myself, and it sometimes takes me a little longer to find out that I don't know about something or that I do know about something, or do recognize it. But when I do – or don't – I'm honest about it. Perhaps that singular difference there makes up something for the comm lag.

Now, the only joke I had was that obviously I didn't make my point. I didn't make my point, because my point simply was, there is the mock-up and now we have to cross-associate and add significance to have anything more than simply the isness of a mock-up.

But it's taken me about six years to find out thoroughly that man doesn't know anything about organization and that there is a camouflaged hole there that has been filled up rather adequately by experts. And nobody can glibly tell you a definition for an organization. Nobody can rapidly give you the size and shape and general pattern for an organization. They'll give you some patterns, but are they for an organization? See, that's a little bit different.

And to get a preclear to just abruptly put a mock-up there and say that it is and that he perceives it and just get him to do that without any postulates or anything else — you know, just no additives of any kind — well, it'd practically be the end of his case. See that? But it, again, is too complicated. I mean, it's too complicatedly simple, you see? The joke was that I was immediately handed some additives.

Now, what belies this: we have such organizations as General Motors and Westinghouse. And these are running concerns. They do get things done. There's Boeing Aircraft and big, big companies. They do build things; they do ship things away, and so on. And obviously these companies have people in them that know about organization – obviously, or they wouldn't run.

All right. Now, let's look at this. Let's look at this. This is an evaluation of importance. Now, it comes under this heading: What is the most important datum about a mock-up? The mock-up! Got it? What is the most important datum about perception? Perceiving, of course! Just that.

Well, I say obviously they know all about organization until you go to work for them, and then you get another view. You say, "How do these airplanes ever fly?" "How is it that electric motors made by this concern ever run at all?" We talk to their personnel and find this personnel caught up in some kind of an incomprehensible paper chain which seems to run this way: They originate a despatch which comes to them for answering.

Now actually, it is not on a logical chain. There is no logical chain connected with it. But a logical chain can be connected with it, and you can pretty this thing up in the most wild and peculiar ways that you ever wanted to see.

This is very common in the United States Navy, for instance. My good friend and one-time close pal Robert Heinlein, the science- fiction writer, was in Philadelphia and he was in the aircraft factory. They pulled in all the science-fiction writers they could lay their hands on during the war – they even tried to pull me in – to Project Space Opera. And they were trying to design various items and units, and so on, out of science fiction into the world of reality. And naturally, the boys all dived back on the track and picked up already-conceived patterns and presented them. Unfortunately, we didn't have the materials with which to build most of these things. But it's interesting that the suit that is worn today by jet-plane pilots was designed by that unit. It was designed as a spacesuit by that unit, and it is worn today by jet pilots.

For instance, the most powerful motor I ever saw was a Fiat. Way back when. I don't know what year that Fiat was. There's undoubtedly people around here that are experts on this so I wouldn't — authorities — so I wouldn't venture. But this Fiat had been made sometime shortly after World War I — this motor — and it merely consisted of four huge barrels. And I don't know how they got as simple as they did, but all it was for, all it was supposed to do was supposed to take in some gasoline and explode it and turn a crankshaft. See? And there just wasn't anything beyond that. It was an internal-combustion engine that did just that.

Many other bric-a-brac such as the satellites that we hear about every once in a while (not the Red satellites but the pink ones that Dr. Eisenstein is going to throw up there to confuse us)... Anyhow, other things came out of this project. But what mainly came out of the project is illustrated by this little story about Robert Heinlein.

The way it fed its gasoline in was ghastly as far as economy is concerned, but it was certainly simple. When the thing went down it pulled almost whole gasoline into the chambers from small pipes. This is a very fascinating engine. And that thing was the doggonedest, goingest engine I ever cared to look at in my life.

He heard that there was somebody in the country that knew about rocket-orifice pressures – how big a pressure you got at what velocity for what opening. He heard that this was known, that there was an expert somewhere in the country that could give him these figures. So he originated a communication. Of course, it was a naval-aircraft factory, and so he originated the communication, put it through the proper channels and got all the endorsements. It went out to Chicago and came back into Washington and got here and there and so forth, and eventually he discovered the name of the expert: it was Robert A. Heinlein.

Some boys got some railroad rails and they put them on some axles, and they decided that wasn't heavy enough so they got a whole bunch more railroad rails and put them along there too, you see, in order to get enough ballast to hold this thing down, and put some wheels on it and mounted them.

Well, organization is an interesting thing. It's interesting enough that if you ask a preclear simply to mock up an organization, he inevitably mocks up confusions. It's one of the ways of running confusions, is just to say to the preclear, "Mock up an organization. Mock up an organization." You just keep this up for three or four hours – somebody that worked for Philco or somebody – and he line-charges. I don't know why he line- charges, but he does! There must be something in those organizations which belie the word organization.

Well, they did an interesting job of putting this thing together. They had a nice heavy chassis, and it was sitting there and everything. And it just never would do anything else but run them into any handy ditch because it went too fast, too suddenly. The gas was fed quite directly into cylinders. The vaporization in it, I suppose, was noticeable, but you could burn almost any kind of gas in it, I suppose. It ran best on aviation gas. The oiling system on it was very, very peculiar; it had big cups, and you put oil in the cups and the cups dropped oil onto everything else. Here was simplicity. Here was simplicity. It had tremendous horsepower.

All I am seeking to do here is to show you that we are starting from scratch. It is very seldom that one can work away from virgin ground, but we seem to be doing that just now. We are starting with known data. A word, organization, exists. See, that's known data. The rest of it's wilderness. You see, we look out this way and this way, we see nothing but desert stretching in all directions without even wrecked Egyptian tanks on them.

Now, an even simpler engine than that was an old Frisco Standard. They were a two-cycle engine; they ran around 1912. And you see them occasionally still in fish boats. These things have never worn out. They consist of one cylinder, one gasoline-injection device, one crankshaft, you know, one bearing, and they fire every time. You see, they come up and they go down and they fire. Not four-stroke but a two-stroke engine. Those things are powerful. They're huge. You could throw a Great Dane through one of those cylinders, you know? It's just one cylinder sitting there. But, of course, they had to have an enormous flywheel to keep that thing turning over through its dead spots and so on; and it has one. But hardly anybody can make one of those things stop. If they get started it then becomes a contest of wit to stop one because there's so little that you can regulate.

Well anyhow, we look over this, and we find out then that we are in that comfortable state of mind of having a tremendous amount of elbow room. That's always a nice thing to have when you're starting out on a subject.

Now, compare that to a modern Alfa Romeo or something. I don't know, eight blowers on a side or... These complicated modern engines are turning up enormous horsepower for their weight; that is for sure. But you try to follow the lines and so on, that lead here and there and do this and that — I imagine mechanics today just look at one of those things that comes in and call up the local watchmaker. It must be a very difficult job to keep one in repair and running.

Well, is there anything to know about this subject at all? One must always ask this question: Is there anything to know, or must one invent something to know about it? Well, actually there is a great deal to know about the subject, and actually it seems possible that an organization can exist. It seems possible that an organization could be defined. It seems possible that the running of an organization could happen, not by accident, but by plan. And it seems possible that one could ferret out these various rules of organization so that one was not always running from the general's latest idea on how the organization ought to run.

I had a mediumly complicated engine, a two-and-a-half liter Jaguar, and that was a very peculiar engine. It ran beautifully, it ran splendidly, if it was set just right. Very delicate. Very high compression, so on. Just right, it just ran wonderfully if you ran it exactly at 95 degrees centigrade. I don't know what 95 degrees centigrade is. I imagine it's about 199 degrees Fahrenheit. It's up there close. If it ran too cold it didn't run. And if it ran too hot it spat out its con-rods. But if you could adjust it just right it ran wonderfully. Got the idea?

That's awfully embarrassing to an army at all times, and it's equally embarrassing to an electrical plant or something to have an executive vice president who is issuing communiques consistently and continually about the subject of organization modification when none has been built in the first place. You see, that's very hard to do: to modify a nonexistent object.

As you go into complexity — there are many better examples than internal-combustion engines — but as you go into complexity you do not necessarily go into workability. It's not necessarily true that as you move into simplicity you move into action either. There is a certain level of complexity demanded for any maximal efficiency.

The U.S. Navy has been modifying a copy of the British Navy now since 1772, or whenever it was formed. And it's been doing a very, very good job of modification. Someday they'll wake up – oh, any day now they'll find out they don't even have a navy now, see? Actually they're over in the Pentagon building at this time, and so on. They've practically modified themselves out of existence with their communication lines.

But there is every reason to believe that this level of simplicity demanded is almost always exceeded by man. He does not try to simplify, he tries to complicate. And the action of complication follows the curve create-survive-destroy. As we look at that curve, we see from this point of „It is,“ you see, the isness of this mock-up and the fact of its perception — just got that; just no more than that — the isness of the mock-up and the fact of its perception. See, there's no additives there. We only get a curve by adding complexities. In order to make it survive now we start adding complications to this isness. In order to destroy it we usually add many, many more.

For instance, they have a terrific file system. This is the most brilliant file system I have ever read. Gorgeous. The manual to operate it is about that thick. It's to operate a navy file system. It's just gorgeous. You never saw such order, such neatness. Every number in that system has significance, oh boy! Wow! Man, are you impressed – right up to the moment you walk up to a naval yeoman and say, "Uh... son, could you let me see the personnel report sheets for last month?" Well, of course the file system fails at that instant. But it's very, very pretty – very pretty there in that big, thick book – very pretty.

Actually the destruction of a mock-up is simply its isness and perception. It begins right where it ends. That you get in perfect duplication. You know about perfect duplication in The Creation of Human Ability: You make a perfect duplicate of anything, it'll disappear. Well, of course, what is a perfect duplicate? That is the isness of its creation. It is; we perceive it. So if we say, „It exactly is,“ and we exactly perceive it, it isn't. See, it already exists; we really run out what we just did and it disappears. That's a perfect duplicate.

I like that file system. It is the neatest and best plan not put into action that I have ever inspected. Of course, it's a court- martial offense not to head your letters out of that file book. Oh, I am sure that men can be court-martialed, even shot. I think it's perfectly all right to run away from the enemy, give admirals a lot of lip, wear your stripes backwards, or almost anything else. But don't omit those right numbers there at the top of that endorsement or at the top of that letter. That's pretty serious. That shows a disrespect for the Bureau of Naval Personnel. Very serious thing.

But why doesn't the thing have persistence? That's because it hasn't got any place to „went,“ and because it doesn't have any future to go into; it is. Don't you see? We have to invent past and future as the first invention to get off the first point of the cycle of action. Now we start moving up into more creation and more survival and more destruction, and we do this by adding. It's an additive process.

Well, there are several numbers and letters in a line. Very hard to memorize. I know I can't recall a single one offhand. But when the numbers get up to about that big, why, it makes a cross-file system the like of which you've never... See, every number in it means a different folder or subject.

Now evidently, destruction is a subtractive process. Everybody thinks it is. But the type of destruction which is utilized in this modern world is additive. Man, they certainly leave debris around! Now, let's take the atom bomb. You say the atom bomb is a great destructive weapon. I don't know that it is even a weapon. In fact, I doubt that it is a weapon. Not from a standpoint of its industrial use, but it just isn't a good military weapon. It is insufficiently directive. It's like using gas in a high wind which is liable to shift in any moment. It just is not a weapon. It's liable to affect your own personnel more thoroughly than the enemy personnel. You're liable to get all sorts of complications in using it as a weapon.

Now, you take officer's raincoats. Nobody could ever have such a thing as "officer's raincoats," but you look in the file manual, it's there! "Officer's raincoats: OA52." They got you, haven't they? Now, you wouldn't think there would be "officer's raincoats – torn," would you? But you turn over here to "torn" and you'll find it's OA52-3.

But we take this thing called the A-bomb or the H-bomb, fission, fusion, and we do destruction with it. And now we get additives nobody can solve. You see? We get various compounds and derivatives and et ceteras that are far more complicated than the original ingredients. It's very wonderful. I mean, how much more complicated things get the moment we explode one of these things. And yet obviously when we explode the bomb we have no bomb. See, the bomb is now gone, it's exploded. But what have we got left? Wow!

Now, you wouldn't think there was "officer's raincoats – torn; belonging to reserve officers," would you? They got you. When you get the number about that long you've got the history of the United States!

Now, man believes that when he destroys something it disappears, and therefore, he is totally uneducated — he's at an educational level, let me say, inadequate to the handling of destruction. Because the more he destroys something the more difficult he may find the situation. As we seek to destroy things we're liable to add complications to the situation.

Now, I'm sure somebody in the Navy Department keeps a file system of some sort because – I'll just show you how good they are. I'll show you how good they are. You know, there's a lot of cavil about this. They say that after World War II and the Korean War that they lost a lot of personnel. Well, that was actually World War I they did that. A chap was ordered up to the Brooklyn Shipbuilding Company, and he was up there until 1936 before somebody found him in the files and sent him orders to tell him that World War I was over. That's actually happened. They just skipped him, you know, and he stayed on duty as an inspector of nonexistent ships. And nobody ever could order him out because they couldn't find his name in the files, you see; they'd lost the files.

Now, man himself is adding these. It isn't a phenomenon of nature or something like that. Man adds these complications all by his little lonesome with no assistance whatsoever. He is on this kick of addition, additives, more of it, more complexity, to such a degree that if it didn't make complications he'd invent some for it to make.

But I'm sure somebody keeps a file, because I myself have been solicited for a Tommy gun. A rather unusual thing to be solicited for, but they knew my name and they knew where I was located. Isn't that terrific? I mean, it's really phenomenal. I mean, they did; they knew my name; they knew the item that was missing and so forth. Of course, it was the wrong navy, but that didn't make any difference at all. It really was the wrong navy. It was "L. R. Hubbard, Royal Australian Navy, Lieutenant Commander," I think it was; something like that. "Please return to the United States Navy the sub-Thompson machine gun which was borrowed from the USS Chicago" – that was the wrong ship, but that didn't matter; it was the Travis – "Please return it," and so on. Now, how they got onto this, I don't know, because the Travis got sunk, you see? And I don't know how they got into this, but somebody keeps a file! That, I'm sure.

Let's look at what happens when we attempt to destroy a person in this society. We shoot the person. Probably the randomity occasioned by this would consume several hours of the day. One would have to do many other things after he shot the person. Then ensues the Dragnet television drama of rounding up the killer, and then the comedy of a fast and speedy trial as called for in the Constitution that drags on for two or three years. And this complications, complications, complications. And eventually there's difficulties concerning the execution of the murderer. And not only that, but having executed one of its citizens, the government of those citizens is now in more trouble than it was before, because it's now executed somebody, which is a crime of murder, after all. There's the difficulty of the disposition of the body.

Now, you look at these numbers up on these letters and you have, actually, the total concept of organization normally existing, plus one thing, a command chart. No service, no electrical company's office, nobody, should be without one of these command charts. I'll show you what they look like. They're square – I mean, an oblong, a rectohedron or something, because everybody on them at the top is pretty thick. And you have written across the top here, it says Board of Directors, or Joint Chiefs of Staff, or it says something at the top here. It's very impressive. That's in bigger letters, see? And then you have two little dingle-dangles that drop down from this and other signs are appended to that. And one of them says Secretary of Navy, and the other one says the War Department or something. And then this dingle-dangles down into, well, other boards, you see: Bureau of Naval Personnel, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff, so forth. And this dingle-dangles down to another thing that says Regiments or something, you see, Fleets or something like that. And then this goes down to Commanding Officers Of. You got that. That's pretty smart. And then this goes down to Officers Of, and this goes down to Petty Officers Of, and this goes down to the army and the navy, see – rank and file, see?

But the disposition of the engram is just left up to happenstance. In other words, one never did do anything but add, from the moment he sought to remove somebody from the environment, straight on forward. It's quite interesting that I don't think any living being or any living thing can be wiped out with total impunity. It's not possible. There are always consequences. Man would have it that way. Because he wants consequences, and he gets complexities.

That's how they do this. That's how they do this. And you've got this beautiful... You know, it's... well, it's beautiful! You never saw the like of these things. They're pretty. You know, they're usually done on mahogany, Philippine mahogany, something like that, you see them. Or they're done in great things: you open up a manual and you keep unfolding, and you unfold them down like this, and you fold them up like this, and there it says across the top Joint Chiefs of Staff, see? Boy, is that... Tsk! That's it! We've got something here. We know who's boss around here. Obvious, it's the Joint Chiefs of Staff; they're boss.

Let's look it over now. He wants consequences. They are protective consequences, and so forth. He wants to be safeguarded, he wants certain things and certain parts of the game to stay in certain grooves. And so what does he do? What does he do? Right straight along the line, what does he do? Just adds complexities. More of them he gets, why, the more of them he has and the more complicated he will make those things.

A private wants to go on leave, he knows where he is supposed to go. He isn't supposed to go up there at all; that's too high for him. He's supposed to go see these people right above him, see – his petty officers. And the petty officers, they're supposed to go see the officer. The officer is supposed to go see the commanding officer. The commanding officer is supposed to go see the Fleet. And the Fleet is supposed to go see the Chief of Naval Operations. Chief of Naval Operations is supposed to go over here to the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Navy is supposed to go over here to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You see, that's the way it goes. Got it? Yeah. And then they say whether or not he can have some leave.

You couldn't possibly come out with some little square box that you would plug into your house circuit which would give you current from there on out and sell it for a dime. You couldn't do this. This is a fantastically simple thing. It'd be some sort of a little box that was inexhaustible, and it maybe had very simple constructions, and it'd be plugged into your house circuit, and there would be juice from there on out. Now, you think that would be very nice and there wouldn't be anything to this at all. But the funny part of it is, introduction of that much simplicity brings — in the anxiety of man to get along the cycle of action — brings almost immediate chaos.

Now... All right. Now, they forward this back, see, and it goes like this: the Joint Chiefs of Staff up here, and then it goes down to the Navy Department here, and then it of course goes over to the Chief of Naval Operations, then it goes over here to Fleet, and that goes down here to captains, and the captains go to the officers, and the officers go to petty officers, and they get down to the man, and he knows he can't have any leave. See, it's simple! See, the whole thing works out. It's obvious, this whole thing works out.

The more simplicity you try to introduce, the greater the chaos which is liable to ensue. It's a little law involved with it. Of course, if you did that you could look at the expanding spiral, just in the field of economics, of what would happen if everybody started to plug in one little box into the light lines which furnished him with all the light he needed from there on out. We say, „Well, it couldn't possibly affect us because all it would affect would be the power company.“ No, the power company has stock; the power company owns real estate; the power company owns the Federal Reserve Bank; the Federal Reserve Bank owns the government... And here we go! See? We're on some concatenative chain.

You think I was just indulging in some mockery, something like that, but I wasn't; that's a command chart. It says who's boss. And if you didn't have one of those things the whole place would go to pieces, you know that! Nobody would know who to salute. Nobody would know who to send the paychecks to, for whom to... Well, nobody would know! That's all. You see? I mean, you'd just be lost, and maybe it'd be a good thing.

Now, the trick is, then, to achieve a simplicity which does not then fit on any logical sequence. Got that? The moment you could move off, totally off, of a logical sequence, then you could have a simplicity. And so we get the invention of death, exteriorization after, and a new life.

Because the only thing difficult with this command chart is the moment the guns start going, the little dingle-dangles vanish. They just go missing. See, they... Before the first sentry takes off – before the first sentry takes off not to confront the enemy – these things disappear amongst the boxes. So you have Joint Chiefs of Staff standing in the – well, they never stand in a first line – but you have Joint Chiefs of Staff, or something, sitting someplace else. They're not any longer on the chart. I know; I've looked on the chart. You have troops down at the bottom of one of these command charts. You can talk to one of these charts by the hour and it won't shoot. Won't do a thing.

It's against the law practically to... In fact, you couldn't possibly sue somebody who died last year for the debt he owes you. You could sue his estate, but you couldn't sue him. Even if you isolated him. Even if you found out that this little baby now over in the Jones family was actually Bill Kraft, and he owed you 8,642 dollars and you waited for Bill (now Jones) to grow up to his majority. And even if he inherited a large amount of money in the Jones family in some fashion, and you sued him for it, everybody would conspire to knock this thing silly. Because they have a complexity invented called continuance in death, and you are seeking to wreck a complexity by being very simple. You're saying, „Bill Kraft is Bill Jones.“ No, they want a complexity of identity. There must be identity changes. Do you see how this is? The society is set up, then, to follow along certain complicated lines and it tends, normally, to make them more complicated.

And I've been in the interesting position of sending a message up through one of those things for a very important piece of information that should have gone right on up to the top, since I was operating a comm center. It was very interesting. Just as in any company or something, somebody says, "A machine is broken down. All production will now be delayed for the next ninety days." He'd want to report that, you know. He'd think it'd be a good thing. Somebody up at the top is liable to notice the whole factory isn't running or something.

All right. What's this got to do with a preclear? Well, it has everything to do with a preclear. The preclear is hellbent along a curve called create-survive-destroy and if not processed off that curve or in some other direction, he will destroy himself, even with good auditing. Be alert to that. Be alert to that.

And so I tried to report this through one of these chains of command, and I found out that I was really getting there. Only they knew that that particular post and area had been wiped out and taken a long time before, so they never bothered to answer. I asked some chaps right here in Washington, I said, "Why didn't you ever reply to those despatches? What was the matter?"

He'll follow that curve from simplicity to complexity no matter what you do. Now, he'll get a cognition, let us say. He gets a cognition, and he sails along with this cognition. Now he adds something to this cognition; he adds something else to this cognition; he adds something else to this cognition. And he's finished the auditing you've given him. He's gone his way and so on. He's had this cognition. Now he will add, add, add, add, add, add, add, add, add. If you yourself have not broken him off of this curve to some degree, if you have not reversed this direction, if you have not boosted him into some kind of a cognition that he can accept some simplicity, you simply will have aided and abetted his hellbent career along this cycle of action into a destruction of one kind or another. Do you see that?

He says, "Well, you were wiped out a long time before that."

Now, the simplicity which he can achieve then becomes our study, not the complexity. As far as ability is concerned, we do not want to know how many balls he can balance on the tip of his nose. This we do not want to know. That's a complexity, you see. We want to know if he's got a nose. See that?

And I says, "I was!" It was obvious. It was right there on his chart that those command channels didn't any longer exist.

Now, it actually would probably be easier to establish an ability to balance three balls on the end of his nose than (without Scientology) to establish the fact that he had a nose. See that? So it requires a simple technology — and Scientology is basically a simple technology, in spite of the complexities which it apparently gets into sometimes — to cut back through this morass of complexity.

Well, the very funny part of it is, the moment that action was engaged, why, one found himself finally doing what I did: I picked up a telephone, called the Secretary of Navy. See, and I said, "I'm tired of this place. I'd like to leave."

Now, there are three ways to handle a black panther. Three ways: One, attack him. Two, avoid him. Three, neglect him. Three ways you can do it. Of course, avoiding him also includes running away from him. We used to erroneously call this the Black Panther Mechanism. The Black Panther Mechanism, we thought, was simply „Neglect it,“ and it became synonymous with „Neglect it.“ Actually, it all came out of this story in Book One about three ways to handle a black panther.

And he said, "Yeah."

Now, what would happen if you neglected the complexities of a case? It's a very interesting question. You better look it over. You better look it over very well. What would happen if you just abandoned or neglected the complexities of the case?

I said, "Yeah, I've got some important despatches. As a matter of fact, we've got enough despatches here to practically sink the Japanese navy if they had to carry them. There's a lot of traffic and stuff like that, and so forth."

Male voice: He'd make it more important. You'd get sidetracked.

So he sent his plane down and picked me up and flew me home. You think I'm just talking through my hat but that is exactly what happened. Everybody knew the phone systems were out, and everybody knew the command chart didn't exist anymore, so it was very easy to pick up a receiver and say, "Give me Washington." They wanted to know Washington where. I said, "Washington, DC." I said, "Give me the Secretary of Navy." I couldn't think of anybody else. That's quite a phone call from down in the South Pacific through, and you just think that doesn't exist.

Male voice: He'd simply persist on the create-survive-destroy.

But then you think something else is wrong too. You think these command charts exist. Well, they exist on a piece of paper, but in actuality they are command charts and nothing else! That is all they are. And that's the first thing you want to know about organizations, is that they have command charts and that they are command charts and not communication charts! And when you try to put a communication through a command chart, you're in the soup, inevitably wind up in Campbell's chicken with noodles.

Male voice: He's going to bring them up even sharper to get you to look at it and say, „This is effect.“

Now, obviously we have to know who's boss, but this is no reason at all why all channels should run through the bottleneck of the whole organization who is always the boss. Do you see that if we ran all communications through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if every officer in the South Pacific who was tired of being there and couldn't see any of his own people left anyhow, and was fairly suspicious that those snapping sounds in the air weren't bees, had simply picked up a telephone and had found an operator on the job, of all people, who was capable of putting in a transatlantic phone call and said, "I want to go home now, and I've got some despatches. Send me an airplane," and if every one of them had been given an airplane, you would have had that many Secretaries of Navy to take care of that many officers, you see? So it doesn't operate as a communication chart and it won't ever operate as a communication chart. And that is the first thing wrong with organizations, is they take a command chart and say it is a communication chart, and it's not.

Female voice: I think he'd move quite — right along quite well.

A communication chart doesn't even vaguely look like a command chart. Let me assure you, if the boss had to know everything there was going on in the organization you'd have no organization at all. It would make him so mad! The only possible survival an organization can have is just to keep as many communications as possible away from him. They bottleneck; he's arbitrary; he's not on the ground; he doesn't know the situation; he has policies he's executing which were originated in 1890. The best thing to do is just keep the show on the road, obviously, not follow a command chart. Pretty obvious, isn't it?

Well... Well, it's a funny thing, but it's the preclear and his body that make everything there is complex there. And there's a possibility that if you don't get him to make them, they won't ever be made.

You start following a command chart, you start bottlenecking. Therefore, all initiative in the organization is destroyed. And if it is the purpose of a command chart to destroy all initiative, then it should also be used always as a communication chart. The command chart of an organization, when it becomes the communication chart of an organization, results in the absence of all initiative throughout the entire organization; everybody is being policed. And that is just about 99 percent of what is wrong with most existing organizations, is they have no knowledge of organization.

Let's look at this very carefully. You have to process as though you were adding complexities — do you get the lie? — in order to add a simplicity. Now, there's a fundamental formula. That's very fundamental. That's more fundamental than any process we are using at this moment. More fundamental. In that way you achieve simplicity. That is the fundamental of modern auditing. That comes under games conditions. It satisfies all sorts of things. To state it differently, you go at it as though you're going to make it so complicated nobody can do it, you see, and just throw him the curve of simplicity continually.

Now, let's look at this. Let's look at this. A man is put on a job to do a thing. He should have a stable datum for what he's supposed to do. If he has a stable datum for what he is and what he's supposed to do and what he's supposed to be, and if he really has that as a stable datum, then he will be able to handle all confusion that approaches him. He'll have comm lines. He will act. But if that individual does not have a stable datum then he is not a communication terminal. He will stop no communications, and the command chart gets pushed into being.

How would you go about such a thing? You want him to touch a wall. That's a simple action. You're trying to get him the isness of the wall; the wall is there and he is perceiving it. You add a games condition anytime you make the preclear do it. The common denominator of a games condition is cause-distance-effect, which backs him along the create-survive-destroy curve. Now, if you can get him to do a cause-distance-effect, then you back him up toward create. See? They're parallels. They're curves, you might say. You get him to do cause-distance-effect.

If every sailor put on a post, or every soldier put on a post, or every mechanic and laborer in a plant was put on a post and couldn't hold that post or decide for that post, then naturally, he would fall back on his next superior. And if that man couldn't hold that post and wasn't a stable datum and felt insecure he would fall back on his superior. And if he couldn't hold that post and everything seemed to be confused around him and he didn't know what he was, then he'd have to fall back on his superior. And the next thing you know, you're at the general manager, chief of the board, Joint Chiefs of Staff or whatever you're going to call the top of the chart. Why? Because nobody anywhere lower on the chart is a stable datum; nobody can stop a communication anywhere on the chart. And so command charts in that wise, in a very aberrated fashion, then become communication charts, and so they are in this world we live in today.

Now, the rule actually is, is anything that's happening to him you get him to do. That is a general rule. And allowing for the simplicity-complexity pattern or mechanism you can then effect almost anything you want to with the preclear, allowing for his acceptance level of complexity. It's cause-distance-effect. That is what you process with the preclear sitting at cause, so on.

Unless, then, we know these principles and so forth, then all communication charts will be these command charts and every organization there is will be run by one man only, and he'll run himself to death and develop ulcers and that'll be the end of that. Follow me?

Two cause-distance-effects are in existence at all times. The preclear is doing a cause-distance-effect upon his environment and the bank, and the auditor is doing a cause-distance-effect upon the preclear. This is a simultaneous action. Preclear actually doesn't too well notice the auditor's cause-distance- effect. He has a tendency to ignore that as a causative thing because the interest of the auditor is in the preclear, which gives the preclear the idea of cause too, you see? But the truth of the matter is, the auditor is doing a cause-distance-effect on the preclear; the preclear is doing a cause-distance-effect on his bank and the world around him.

Why does a communication chart turn into a command chart? Because none of the communication points on it are terminals in fact or actuality. Nobody there can stop a communication, so they all collapse on the chief Got it?

Then that tells you that we wouldn't have the preclear run himself as a victim unless we ran him causing himself to be the victim. You got it? So you could even run him as the victim by having him cause the victimization. But this is not a victim situation. You got it?

Now, in times of abnormal confusion you would expect some of these points to fall back and say, "Hey. What do I do now?" But they ought to be certain enough in themselves and on their post that when it's said to them "Well, our policy at this time is just to ship everything we've got," they should say, "Well, that's good enough for me. All right, this is your stock. It belongs to somebody else, but I am on this point and therefore I will just start shipping everything we've got. Thuh-buh-wuh-wuh. All right, that's fine."

So the basic fundamental we use is this thing we call a games condition. We process a games condition. A games condition is no effect on the preclear, total effect on the environment. To achieve what? A total effect on the preclear.

You could give all of these communication terminals a new policy without unsettling their own stability, if that stability existed.

Now, we have just stated, in a slightly more precise or mathematical way, the first thing: In order to make it simple, make it more complex. They're not parallel statements; they don't substitute one for the other. One is what you do, and the other is how you do it.

So we find the first and foremost thing of organization of course would be a definition of organization. What is an organization? But to find out What is an organization, we have to look at what composes an organization, and we find that an organization optimumly would be composed of communication terminals. And if we look it over and find an organization is composed of communication terminals, then we decide that a communication terminal had better have a communication line. So we find an organization consists of communication terminals and communication lines associated with a common purpose or goal. And that is the definition of an organization and that is all there is. Now, if you look for anything else, you're going to get wound up in MEST. You're going to go splat against the walls or something. That's all an organization is.

Now, look-a-here: The amount of complexity which a preclear can achieve will always exceed your imagination. That's a safe rule. It's not at all true, but it's a safe rule. Got it? Amount of complexity which he can assume — always exceed the auditor's imagination. It's a safe rule. Because he's doing it unknowingly, he's had seventy-six trillion years to dream these things up, he's got them all in his hip pocket and Lord knows where he's been and what he's done on the track. And all of it sums up to this: How to be complicated.

Evidently an organization is a number of terminals and communication lines with a common purpose. The purpose associates and keeps in contact with one another, the terminals and the lines. That's all an organization is. It isn't a factory. It isn't a house. It isn't a machine. It isn't a product. It's not a command chart. That's all it is. And if you look it over in the light of that simplicity, you can actually form one and get one to function. One will actually function.

Well, now, a body can't breathe unless it has lungs. Why not? Well, it can't breathe unless it has air, and the air has to go into the lungs and the air has to be distributed through the bo-- I want to know what the devil this air is doing in here. How'd the air get in here? Oh, well, you have to have air. That's so you get combustion with something or other so you'll have heat! Oh, heat now! Uh-huh. Well, all right. Well, how do you get heat? Well, the food he eats. Hey, now wait a minute; we're off on to food! You get some sort of an idea of this?

Now, there are several rules that go with this:

To have something fall you have to have gravity. That's an interesting thing to have. What do you have to have, to have gravity? Well, you have to have a planet, of course. You do? Well, to have a planet, you see, you've got to have space and a universe, naturally. Oh, wow! Not really! You mean a fellow just can't say „Gravity“ and have gravity? Yes, I'm afraid he can; he can say „Gravity“ and have gravity. But this exceeds his desire for complexity.

Every set of communication lines (being two: one going in and one coming out) must have a terminal. Every set of communication lines must have a terminal, and every terminal must have communication lines. Isn't that idiotically simple? But unfortunately, very few organizations ever follow this, and all their confusion and randomity result therefrom – all of it. Because if there are too many lines and too few terminals, the lines will snap on those terminals. If there are too few communication lines and too many terminals, terminals will snap on the lines. You can't get a communication terminal separate from communication lines; you can't get communication lines separate from a communication terminal. They go together. And there have to be as many terminals as there are lines, and as many lines as there are terminals.

Now, what do we mean by all this complexity? We could mean just game. We could mean just game and that's all. He wants more game, more problems. And they're not good for him!

Now, we find in every organization somebody who wears fifteen hats, and he doesn't know it. He's the complaint department, and he's the file clerk, and the shipping manager, and this and that and a lot of other things. Now look, there's a set of lines for every one of those functions. If this man does not know he is one of these terminals, if just one is missing, then he'll use his body for it. The lines will actually snap on to his body. He's got to put his body in there the moment that he's missing a terminal.

We're in the position of threatening to give the preclear all the ice cream he can possibly eat, but because it would, and we know it would make him deathly ill and knock him off ice cream forever, why, we give him the bare spoon and convince him he can create the ice cream. You got the idea? He feels better afterwards. It's quite interesting that the auditor seeks to achieve a greater simplicity by inviting the preclear to do it in a more complicated fashion.

He's fifteen terminals. If he knows all fifteen terminals and has a title for them, and he's got some exact geographical location where he says the terminal ends, he's all right. I mean, the lines end. He says, "That's a terminal. That's the complaint manager and here is the shipping manager and over here is the floor sweeper." He can do all of these things as long as he is all of these things. He's got himself separated out, in other words. He doesn't get tired. This is the oddest phenomenon you ever saw.

Now, I'll give you one of the ideas of this: „Invent a worse situation.“ Now, this is a rather fabulous process — just that process all by itself; „Invent a worse situation.“ It's a sort of a common denominator of all processes.

So you say is there any practicality in reviewing this subject of education organization-wise? Is there any practicality to it at all? If he has a set of lines that he doesn't think he owns – that he has no terminal for, in other words; he got the lines but he has no terminal – he resents it. He begins to buck back against the lines. He takes his body and shoves them into the lines – tuh! After a while he says, "Work is so tiring. Work is so tiring."

He said, „Oh, I'm having a terrible lot of trouble with my girlfriend.“

That's quite an interesting phenomenon. A person is what he is. Anybody could hold down two hundred jobs as long as he knows he's holding down two hundred jobs. He must have the job compartmented as a terminal to match every set of lines that runs in toward that job.

You say, „Well, could it be any worse?“

I'll give you an example: Somebody in this organization was actually operating very thoroughly and very well, most of the time, with a maintenance terminal – maintaining buildings and things like that. This person was actually wearing a hat called Maintenance and had never suspected it. Never knew this person had anything to do with maintenance at all. Was there anything there connected with maintenance? "No, I have nothing to do with maintenance." And yet all the time this person was handling two lines, a set of lines which said Maintenance. Person had to ask these questions perpetually: "Is that necessary?" "Can't we have that?" "How much does this cost?" all in the line of Maintenance. Job was wearing him out! Hidden job. Missing. The job was missing. There it was. There was no job there. So what happened? Every time something came in about maintenance – somebody says, "Should we get these new carpets?" why, that person would say "No!" or "What carpets?" "What are you talking to me about? What are you talking to me about carpets for anyway? Why are you talking to me?" Get the idea?

„Well, I don't see how it possibly could be.“

Well, the reason they were talking to this person is because this person had everything to do with maintenance that was really important and didn't know it. The job had been assigned to somebody else who never wore the hat. Over in a dusty corner of a place there was a hat, all crumpled up, and it said Maintenance.

„Well, you invent a worse situation.“

Well now, can the communication lines run to that unoccupied hat? No. There was no terminal underneath that hat and as a result the lines went and found somebody to run to. Got it? In other words, a loose set of lines will all of a sudden go dahh. Get the idea? They'll say, "Ah! Buddy! Huh!" All right.

And after a while he has worsened it sufficiently that he can look at it as a simplicity. It no longer is a complicated problem. Why? You satiated his appetite for complexity. Just as easily as that. „You invent a worse situation,“ you've said, „than this situation you have with your girlfriend.“

Now, the other phenomenon which happens, doesn't occur to be quite as important until you really look it over and have it happen. You've got this amazing thing, you see? You have a terminal with no lines, see? You've said to this person he's Maintenance. And now he has no lines. There aren't any visibly set-up lines. There's nobody to pass any communications to. There are no vias. There are no further relay points, no lines at all. What's this person do? This person at once does something very fantastic: he snaps on to another set of lines. So here are your lines, you see? Your lines are running very smoothly and everything is going along, and all of a sudden, dah-dah-dat! "What's the matter with my communication lines? Why don't they function?" Well, they're stuck on the terminal called Maintenance. What did he do? He didn't have any lines of his own so he took to tossing stuff in your baskets. He started using your lines. The terminal then found some communication lines. None were set up. Got it? There's an affinity between these things called terminals and these things called lines which don't permit them to exist separately. But that affinity should not result in a total, balled-up confusion the way it does in most organizations.

Now, a problem of incomparable magnitude is an interesting mechanism. You know that you can find a problem of comparable magnitude to every fundamental, single data in this universe by a problem of incomparable magnitude as a process. Why does that work? Well, it works very simply: He's trying to suppress the unimportance of his problem. You ask him for a problem of incomparable magnitude, and he has to think of the problem he has as far more important than it is in order to think up something far less important than the problem. You get the idea? He has to throw out his evaluation of that problem. That's what happens. So problem of comparable magnitude and problem of incomparable magnitude aren't actually comparable processes. Problem of incomparable magnitude is incomparably superior.

You go into most organizations, you say, "Who takes care of supplies here?"

Now, I'll tell you one of the data ways this is used. This is actually usable in research. We ask somebody for a problem of incomparable magnitude to time. He can give us tons of them. Incomparable magnitude to time? Wow! That's easy, simple. Nothing wrong with this. Easy to run. And all of a sudden he'll come up with a problem of comparable magnitude to time. Ah, but you say at this moment that there is no such thing. Yes, there is. There are many problems of comparable magnitude to time. But you cannot get the preclear to think of them directly.

"Oh, the office over there. The office over there."

Now, that is a simple comparison; problem of comparable magnitude is a simple comparison. You ask for a non-simple comparison; you ask for incomparable magnitude. Now, boy, that takes it around about four more vias, don't you see? He has to look at time, and he has to look at something or other, and he has to compare these two. And then he has to make sure that they are not of comparable magnitude, and then he has to say they are not. And the next thing you know he achieves the simplicity of a problem of comparable magnitude to time.

All right, fine. Go to the office over there. "Who takes care of supplies here?"

Now, that's quite interesting because that is more than any philosopher has ever done in this history of this planet. It's quite a stunt. You get your sixty-nine-IQ preclear into getting problems of comparable magnitude to time; that's pretty good. You mean there are other data as important as time? Well, you devaluate the importance of time as a datum and you devaluate the whole causative action of time. Time ceases then to be a causative action.

"Well, what did you want?" Wonder why they never answered the question. People don't ask themselves that. "What did you want?" they say.

Preclear is cause. Why is a preclear cause? Well, he achieved something as complex as time. He did it on a via. We don't ask him to solve time, we ask him to get a problem of incomparable magnitude to time. He finally comes up with a problem of comparable magnitude to time. We ask him still for problems of incomparable magnitude to time; he will eventually come up, on this fantastic number of vias, to a problem of comparable magnitude to time and then eventually a problem superior to time.

"Well, I wanted to know where to deliver this package."

Now, you think at once, space being such a dominant thing in a universe of this character... You can actually get any preclear — if he can be held into session, if he's workable at all — to find problems of comparable magnitude to space. He actually can find things that are of comparable importance, quite brilliantly. In other words, you're off on a track of inventing up a whole new universe. And you do that by a problem of incomparable magnitude to space. Incomparable magnitude, however stated. You could say, „No matter what you think of time, give me a problem now which is infinitely less important than your worry about time.“

"Oh, just leave it right there."

Now, what is this? We can get him to get a problem of comparable magnitude to space. We can get him to invent. And if we can get him to invent we can get him to create. If you were to take all the stable data of Scientology, one right after the other, you would find that you could do a substitution. And it becomes a Substitution Process, which is the simplest process of all. And on a look at it, just as processes go, on a solid front of comparison, we find out that if you can just substitute — he thinks A is important — if we can substitute B for A with as great an importance, then B and A are first equally important and then, of course, A ceases to be as important as B. Grading and value. You want somebody to go out of this universe, zoom? He'll certainly go out.

"Well, all right. I'll leave it right there, so forth. Who signs the receipt?"

Now, how does this effect this thing called a stable datum? Stable datum is terribly important here because you can only get him to shift his stable data by showing him that he can create data as stable. And therefore, problems of incomparable magnitude to any stable datum as listed in Scientology walks a person straight out of the universe. This is one of the more fantastic actions that can be taken. You've asked for something very much more complicated than a datum of comparable magnitude. That is a simple comparison. You ask for a problem of incomparable magnitude — a problem not nearly as important; a problem anyway you want to state it — and you'll get the whole substitution mechanism carrying forward neatly and smoothly. And the next thing you know, you've got it.

"What receipt?"

Now, just take time, space, energy, mass — take the entirety of the sixth dynamic: problem of incomparable magnitude to radiation; problem of incomparable magnitude to gamma rays; problem of incomparable magnitude to the past. These are big data. These are the fixed data of the track. Now, why are they fixed data of the track? Because there's only one of them. We have a law that fits in there: A datum becomes important by its absence of a comparable datum. Got that? Fixed data. Now the fixing and unfixing of attention and data itself then compare in these two things. Right?

"Oh, the receipt for the package, the delivery of the package?"

Now, I'm just giving you an example here of how we go about this. Let's look at this far more simply. There is a simpler process than this. That's just make the preclear do something simple, and add the complexity by threatening to kill him if he doesn't! You got it? That's not always the most therapeutic process, but it's certainly direct. We say, „Touch that wall.“

"I don't know. Uhm... I don't know. We'll have to ask Mr. Smithers. He's out to lunch just now. Here, I'll give you... I'll give you some directions here. The gateman usually does that. I just remembered, the gateman does that. You go out and get your signature from the gateman."

Now, the complexities tend to run away and so forth, because you won't let him create them; you make him neglect them. And if they are neglected then they aren't created. Actually, 8-C is apparently a much tougher process than many figure-figure processes because of its fantastic simplicity.

You go out. The gateman says, "I don't do that. What am I doing? You mean, I sign for something? Where is it?"

Now, of course, you can keep it from being too simple in the preclear's eye by permitting him to be awfully significant about it. The actual truth of the matter is you're merely demanding that his obsessive creation of complexities cease and desist at this moment, that he walk over to the wall, that he touch the wall, that he let go of the wall, that he turn around and see another wall, that he walk over to it. You got it? Wow! You're saying, „Cease and desist. No more complexity. No more complexity.“ And if you run it so that he's really there and in session, and he can't wiggle sideways from you, and he can't think of anything else to amuse himself as he walks, you've had it as far as the preclear is concerned. He's going to get over it or die in the attempt!

"Oh, I left it back there on the porch."

Well, you get two breeds of cat: You cater to the mechanism of complexity with a problem of incomparable magnitude; you neglect it utterly — just let complexity go by the boards and insist on simplicity. And there's even another way to go about it: Just keep telling the preclear not to get complicated; tell him to avoid it. In other words, you could go on with long discussions about how he wasn't to get complicated and so on. See that? He'd have to look at complexities in order not to get them. He'd have to do all sorts of interesting things.

"Oh, you did?"

Now, there are two techniques on Connectedness which are terribly interesting to the auditor. They're both game-condition techniques. They are apparently quite similar. One is „Look around here and find something you wouldn't mind making connect with you.“ This, by the way, is a fine process. It is amongst the best. Fascinating process.

You go back and it's gone. Well, anyway...

There is a more complicated version which runs out his complexities. The first one merely exteriorizes him, rather directly, and makes him neglect his body and everything else. If anything, it's too direct on some cases. So you say, „What wouldn't you mind making connect with you, on how many vias?“ „What wouldn't you mind making connect with you?“ And then, „How many vias can we get in there?“ And you'll find out that the case runs more longly and more smoothly and runs out many more things and settles down eventually at its own speed to a direct connection. More self-determinism involved in that process. See? I don't care which one you use.

You say that was an unusual moment for that organization. No, it wasn't. That's the way things go on all day long.

The 8-C Connectedness version is fascinating: „Look around here, find something you wouldn't mind make connect with you.“ Bang! See, just boom! And they go out of their heads rather easily if there's any reality on what they're doing at all. But if there is no reality on it, „On how many vias?“ puts the reality into the process. You downscale for complexity to get the reality. You got that as a process? Hm?

"Who's in charge of maintenance here?"

All right. Now, why have I been going into this under the terms of rudiments and auditing procedures and so on? Well, it's just because an auditing session is too damned simple for most preclears, and — I hate to say it — for many auditors.

"I don't know."

The rudiments exist in this fashion: There's an auditor, there's a preclear, there's an environment. One, two, three. Those are the rudiments. But get the simplicity of their establishment, the fantastic simplicity of establishment here: You just say „Auditor. Preclear. Environment!“ and, of course, he's on his way. Naturally.

"Well, who ordered their telephone fixed?"

Except that's what's wrong with his case: There's nobody else alive in the world, he isn't in any environment and he isn't present. That's the totality of wrongnesses as far as the case is concerned, don't you see, unless you get awfully significant and very additive to it. He isn't where he is: Well, that's an error in environment. He isn't who he is, so that's an error in personality. And the person that is with him is somebody else, if he's there at all. But this is the working atmosphere of this preclear.

"I don't know. Mine's working all right."

Now, if all you knew about auditing was this — establish the auditor, establish the preclear and establish the environment — and you insisted on these three things occurring from there on out, from the beginning of the session to the end of the intensive, I am very much afraid that you would have achieved just about all the gain possible. You see the possibility of that? I just give it to you as a possibility.

There's probably nobody wearing the hat.

So just move the auditing situation as a synthetic situation into a real situation, and you've got it made. You've got it made: He can recognize that somebody else is present; he does recognize that he is in an environment; he does know who and what he is. And, of course, you would have a Clear on your hands and that would be that. You could almost state it as a definition of. It'd be a person who knows where he is, when he is there, who he is and who he's with. That's getting awful simple though, isn't it? Hm? But your auditing situation is a synthesis of life. It's an artificial livingness. Well, how come it's artificial? Why don't you just then proceed forward and make it real? Then you would see an auditing situation in every person you contacted anywhere. It doesn't just put you on „always audit.“ Doesn't put you into an always audit. What other kind of a situation is there in this universe? Well, there's the fellow by himself and the environment around him, and the fellow by himself and the environment around him and other people. But is there such a situation as the fellow by himself with the environment around him? How are you going to get out of an auditing situation? Now, I'm being overly simple, I'm sure. But yet anytime you become somebody's auditor out in the society at large, boy, do you win! I mean, the situation becomes under control at once, if you really do it smoothly. It's a fantastic thing.

Well, what happens? The outside world goes out of communication with such an organization. Now, the outside world – the public at large – is so unused to anything these days that looks like organization that they demand that everybody in the organization, whenever buttonholed, wear all hats, Now, watch this one.

I even had it pulled on me once. I was arguing with a Scientologist about something or other and he all of a sudden woggle-woggled me an auditing command. He did! He threw me an auditing command. He did it by accident. I immediately became aware of this fact that this guy was not fighting with his weapons. I'm unfortunately usually without opponents — people don't fight with me for some reason or other; doggone it. But he slid one in and I was at once aware of the fact that if he had proceeded along that line just about two more sentences, that would have been that as far as the argument was concerned. In the first place, I couldn't have kept a straight face. He was feeling a little bit desperate, and he was trying to throw himself into the situation he invariably is able to control, which is an auditing session, see? He was cutting for cover. And he was just discombobulated enough to throw out an auditing command. But it had such impact that I was fascinated with the thing.

Everybody in the organization, every person there, has got to wear all hats inside the organization. So they come in, they want some – give you the idea – they want to buy a new set of paints. So they grab ahold of the fellow in the bedding department and they say, "How much are your paints?"

So I watched this thing — so I watched this thing — and I found out that there hardly is any argument or fight involved that a couple of auditing commands thrown into wouldn't blow up. That's a fascinating thing, then. That's a fascinating thing. So you aren't just learning about auditing, you're learning about this thing called a person, another person and the environment. Right? Those are the three.

And he says, "I don't know. You'll have to go over to the paint department."

Now, it isn't always true that an individual should, at all times, be in control of his environment. That is not necessarily true at all. Do you realize, if that were true, no motion-picture image would ever unfold before you on the screen; you would simply stop the projector. See? Because you don't control that which entertains you. You have to be able to make things controlled or leave them uncontrolled at will. And the definition of good control is to control or to leave totally uncontrolled at will. That's the two sides of control. Neither one is more important than the other. They are both important.

"Well, do you have a lot of paints?"

To be able to do either of those two things at your own determinism determines the happiness and success of your own life. And that's for sure. To control or leave uncontrolled anything in your environment at will. Boy, this is really superman stuff, see? You would certainly exteriorize at will. You're busily controlling the body and all of a sudden you don't control the body. Well, you would be elsewhere if you weren't controlling the body at all. Do you see that clearly?

"Well, I don't know, ma'am. You'll have to go over to the paint department to find..."

However, for the purposes of auditing session and getting along in a rather aberrated world, you should be able to control or leave uncontrolled the people you are with. You control them while you yourself are talking to them, and you leave them uncontrolled when they're talking. And we have it as a two-way comm, and then we have some interchange and randomity in existence, and so it becomes livable. In other words, when we're talking to them, why, we have control and when we're not talking to them they have control. And that's all. And if you're satisfied with either side of this — how fascinating — people never worry you anymore. That is the end of people as a concern, see? Got that?

"Well, are... I don't know whether I really uh... should place an order with this store or not. Uh... uh... what uh...?"

Two-way comm consists of an ability to do this. And where people fail on two-way comm, they can't do this. See? Got it? For instance, a person almost never can speak effectively to people unless he is totally willing to leave them uncontrolled and let them speak to him. See? You see at once a little factor that interjects there: A person who is afraid of an audience cannot control one. See? That's obvious. Well, that's just low ARC, isn't it?

You listen to it sometime. Public walks in the door and they insist that the fellow in charge of bedding sell the paints. They insist that the fellow who is on the information desk (he should know) should be able to tell them the quality of the bedding, see? They're very certain that the elevator man is of course totally cognizant with everything connected with the administration, whereas the only thing he knows is the floors. And we get this continually: The public, being uneducated into the organization at all, keeps hitting it, and they insist that every terminal in it...

And we have the totality of ARC regulated by the degree that the control formula is followed. An individual who is willing to control others and willing to leave others totally uncontrolled... You understand, I didn't say, „Be controlled by others.“ This doesn't necessarily follow in there at all. It's still cause-cause basis; he's willing to control others or leave others totally uncontrolled, at which time, of course, he would or is liable to fall under some control of others. But if he can control others, this control then could be thrown off at will.

Now, they themselves consider themselves a particle on a line at best. They're a particle on a line, you see; they're not really a terminal. And they come in and they snap on to any existing terminal. And we have to consider them lines, not terminals. And they just snap on to any terminal which exists, unless we have signs about that high that we put in front of everybody as he comes in and the sign says "INQUIRY THAT WAY."

Now, this individual, then, experiences varying emotions in comparison with his ability to perform this. His ability to control others and to leave others totally uncontrolled — from an auditing standpoint, of course, assumes that others will inevitably, from time to time, control him — rather establishes the amount of ARC there is in the environment. Remember I said willingness to control.

And then we have somebody thoroughly educated in Scientology from the word go that gets hold of them, remedies their learning rate, and asks them then what they want in such a way that they will actually say what they want, because in ten or fifteen minutes auditing he will have found out enough about the person so that the person will have found out what they want. You see? And then you could direct them that-a-way toward the exact terminal they are looking for. You got the idea?

Now, let me assure you there's practically no ARC involved in a situation where an individual is totally unwilling to control anybody around him. Funny part of it is, it may sometimes look a little bit like ARC. If you dig at it a little bit it is, however, apathy. And things go apathetically in his environment. See that? ARC is monitored by control, factors of.

But this is how, then, organizations get that way. They get that way by being pounded out of shape by random comm lines that hit the outside. So, what does it take? The whole organization, then, has to have outside comm lines too, and is itself a single terminal. It's a group of associated comm lines and terminals which is itself a single terminal, and it has in-go and out-come lines. You got it?

Now, I don't mean to tell you that control is more important than ARC. That is not what I said. I said control monitors ARC. ARC can be too, you know; you simply postulate it or carry it along at that level and it is. But with a cross-exchange we find out that control can monitor it. And you know that you're liable to have a better ARC with a positive control, even in one direction, than a no-control situation. That would be a horrible shock for somebody in churches and back in the Dear Souls Area, and all that sort of thing, to realize.

So that an organization which is being hit this way is actually missing its first rampart. A particle, when it hits a terminal, should stop. That's in theory. It says right there on the backtrack, it says "Space opera orders number so-and-so and so- and-so. All particles when they hit terminals stop." That agreement had to be made a long time ago or nobody would have known or been certain about terminals at all, and you wouldn't have had any universe; and maybe that would have been a good thing. Anyway...

They wonder why the country went mad the other day and voted for some person that has just been doing nothing but cut comm lines for the U.S. He's having one hell of a time. Now, why did they?

Here you have, then, organization. It is simply a group of associated terminals and communication lines, associated with a common purpose, and the organization itself must itself be a terminal with communication lines. And if you do that you got it made in the shade. You can actually bury the command chart and install an auditor.

I've studied this whole fact of bad government. I've made a very thorough study of bad government here in the last two years. Had ample opportunity to do so, not just on our own scene, but in many areas and scenes. (Last three years, I should say more accurately.) I've studied this historically, and I've been fascinated to discover something which is evidently an indisputable fact: What we normally would look at with a careless glance and consider a bad government inevitably lasts longer than a good one.

What would the auditor do? Fascinating. It is an auditing job. Now that we have a definition for it, now that we see what is going on... We have particles and information and packages and tanks, or anything you want, traveling up and down these comm lines to these various terminals. We don't care what goes on the comm lines; we've just laid the pattern. There's got to be something there for it to run on. All right.

We could add this up, if we didn't know any Scientology, in lots of ways. We could say at once, well, people are so thirsty for overt acts that they immediately buy this, or people are so hungry to be knocked around, or they're all masochists. No, this isn't so. No, a government which will exercise positive control over a people is better than a government which will not. But when a government really does exercise control over a people, being a pretty aberrated organization, it's normally conducting its affairs, here and there and spottily, in a rather brutal way.

Now, what does this organization at large do to get itself in that condition that it can follow that definition and can be an organization? What would it have to do? It'd have to go hire a Scientologist. I'm afraid that's the only thing it could do. Because I don't know any other way to do it. I'm stupid maybe. I've had to do with a lot of organizations. I never noticed anybody around there doing it.

The government really doesn't come up very high on the Tone Scale when it begins to control people. It's too disinterested; it's too... it divides the people off into masses — there's masses and there's us, and so forth. But those governments on Earth which have not controlled people but just hoped prosperity would happen, or something of this sort, have been brief and have ended unhappily, rather uniformly, for the last two thousand years. This is a very broad study.

I used to think I was confused. I'd walk into a big publishing company, for instance – a big company, you know – and I'd try to find the managing editor, naturally. And I'd get the managing editor, I'd get his ideas concerning the release of copyrights or something, and we'd have a talk, and we'd do this and that, and transact business and so on. Well, I got a idea after a while I was confused because I could never find a managing editor that would say he was the managing editor who would handle the business he was supposed to handle. He always wanted to pass it down the hall to somebody else, who wanted to pass it up the hall to the managing editor. And all of my business usually floated between the guy down the hall and the managing editor, you see?

Why, for instance, does the rottenest government Constantinople ever formed last fifty-three years, and then they get an heroic leader — a good boy, nothing wrong with this fellow at all, evidently, pals with everybody — and he lasts a year and a half? Well, this fellow might have been pals with everybody, but he did not reach out to the degree that he should have to have controlled the entire population of the area.

Occasionally I would work it in this fashion: I would merely pretend to have gone to the managing editor – get his secretary to forge his signature or something of the sort, you know – go to the fellow down the hall and fall on his head, you see, on the basis that something or other, something or other, and we have to have a decision on this, and then I was all set, you see? There was nothing to it. I never did that, but I would have had to have done it to have gotten anything really done at any time or anything decided.

The government that was so lousy, was so bad, in spite of its mechanisms and so forth, still was exerting a positive control. It was enforcing its laws. Its laws were not to be sidestepped. Those laws existed. The game was there, the lines were rigid. And no matter how bad conditions apparently were or no matter what terrible consequences resulted from this control, the people wanted that before they wanted a no-control situation.

So I used to think I was confused, and maybe I was, but I was not anywhere near as confused as the environments I was walking in. Everybody was wearing everybody's hats.

You know what I'm telling you? I'm telling you that even if you badly control a pc you will get better results than if you get some synthetic no-control ARC going and sit back and let him wander all over the place. You got it? To that degree, bad auditing is better than no auditing. Got it?

I was working for North American one time – Aviation. I was working there – short time; very short period of time – till I found out what I was doing, and I left. It's interesting to find out what you're doing, after you've been put on a job after a while. I was having an awful time, and I decided I didn't learn fast. Imagine my surprise to discover after a short period of time that there wasn't anything there to learn! Now, you see, it's very often possible for you to consider yourself stupid because you can't learn something, but at the same time there might not be anything there to learn at all. Don't you see this? It might be that you feel adrift in the army. They used to call it "nervous in the service." You might feel that way, wen, because you were sort of stupid. You just didn't seem to be able to get the hot dope on which way you went and why. And maybe you did and maybe you didn't find out that you were singularly in the majority. See, you were in the majority there. Nobody else knew either.

Now, your control is as good as you can actually exert — exert it and leave uncontrolled the preclear. Your control gets better and more positive, and you become better as an auditor to the degree that you can control it and to the degree that you can abstain also from the use of force and duress. When you're really good at controlling people, you don't use any force at all. But don't ever make the mistake of looking at the lower harmonic of no-control and saying, „This is just good ARC,“ and think you're doing a good job. Because you're not! You're just afraid to knock his head off, that's all that's wrong. Now, you see where this stands? You see how this fits?

Now, let's go a little bit further than this. Maybe there was no system to know. See, maybe in the flesh there was no system to know. Maybe it was just all on paper. Maybe the order was all on the order sheets but didn't exist in actuality at all, and maybe what you saw when you saw tanks lined up or packages lined up or something of the sort, and all going off very neatly, was simply the initiative of some sergeant or second lieutenant, see? Maybe that was just the initiative of somebody who had decided he'd better get the job done there anyhow, regardless of what was happening.

Therefore, the establishment of an auditor, a preclear and a session is certainly mandatory because there must be something there to do the controlling, something to be controlled and an area in which the controlling happens. So, once again, we get the establishment of the rudiments establishing, actually, the ARC of the session.

Well, I found this out one time, by the way, and before somebody got wise to it and stopped me, I'd practically built half of a ship. Found out we had orders to the tropics, and the war had been a long war, so I decided I would put an air-conditioned apartment up on the signal bridge. I did. I really did.

Thank you.

I mean, by that time I knew that everybody else didn't know there was nothing there anyhow to know. All you had to do was pretend there were terminals and pass communications on pretended communication lines and you were all set. All you had to do was walk in with a sufficient atmosphere of urgency, see? Everybody ran on an emergency. So you rushed in with an atmosphere of emergency with a very official looking piece of paper in your hand and you said, "That's it." And then before anybody could question you, particularly, you walked out, and they didn't know who they'd heard from, but they knew it was sure important.

Thank you.

It's very disruptive when you get somebody around an organization who knows this. It's a vicious thing to have in an organization, particularly if the organization isn't one by our definition.

[End of Lecture]

The only organization you could really wreck thoroughly and 100 percent would be an organization which didn't match up to this definition.

Now, how would you get it in that kind of a condition? Very simple, you would put people on the post. You would say, "How many people are you? How many hats do you wear?" You would just keep at him like an auditor, you know? It's auditing. It's organizational auditing. "Come on. How many hats do you wear? Come on, let's make a list of them. Come on. Are there any more?"

"Well, yes, and there's also wastebasket supervision."

"Ah, all right. Fine. Fine. Sure there are no more hats that you are wearing?" "

"No. No. I think that's about all. Oh, of course, except Director of Processing, that's my main job."

I mean, this is a silly thing. You ask somebody to start making a list of all the hats they're wearing and they come out with some number. Well, the funny part of it is, all right, so there are that many hats. It's perfectly all right for one body to be wearing two hundred hats as long as the hats aren't being worn on top of that body. Let's get them out here, two hundred hats, and let's make sure they all got comm lines – otherwise they snap on each other.

Maybe you change post; maybe you put somebody new on the post. This person doesn't know he's wearing two hundred hats – whole organization eaves in on that spot. Why? The person didn't have any idea of it at all. There was no label sitting up there saying "Wastebasket Emptier." You know, this, that, the other thing, so on, all these labels. The funny part of it is there was no basket sitting there.

Now, what's this thing called a basket? A basket is something silly. And you know what a basket is for, that's to keep things in that you don't want to read yet, and wouldn't pass on anyway. A basket is a low-order accumulator, and you're waiting for the wastepaper drive of the next war. But the only basket that actually accumulates is a basket which has no comm lines to it. The second you put comm lines to baskets properly, they empty.

Now, a basket can sit there with nobody knowing that it is a terminal or with it being twelve terminals and nobody knowing it, and it'll stay in a confused condition. Nobody's ever sorted it out. So, the Scientologist comes along and he says, "All right. How many hats are you wearing " And he writes all these things down. "You sure these are all your hats? Well, do any of these hats combine with any of these other hats?"

"We'll group that under Manager of Disposal."

"Yeah, that's right. Come to think about it, if anybody died around here, I would be the one that would dispose of the body too. So that's right. That's a better terminal." See.

"So you have to say anything that's going to be thrown away around here, I am the thrower-awayer or disposer-of-er, and that is my unit. If anybody wants to dispose of something they see me. That's correct. Yeah, what do you know!" You know?

And they get a higher stable datum for each one of these terminals or their own function. And you keep working it over and working it over and working it over with this person until they finally get the idea of what this terminal is supposed to do.

Now we make sure that these baskets have communication lines. That is to say, they get emptied, people come and put things in them, that there's action connected with that underneath that hat.

The stable datum will then as-is the confusion in the vicinity of that terminal to the point where it will simply settle down to two lines. It's magic, utter magic.

If a fellow finds his job confusing or the organization confusing, what I've told you here seems fantastically simple, but it fantastically works. It does fantastically work.

Now, it doesn't matter what's traveling up and down the lines, with one exception: verbal messages.

Telephones are psychotic. They don't remember a thing. I know, I picked up my phone upstairs the other day and I said, "What was that auditor's-conference report about three days ago?" and it didn't know. Didn't have a word to say. It just said, "Mmmmm." So they're all awfully, awfully confused. Well, anyway.

What do you do about these verbal things? Well, actually they aren't a communication which can travel along the lines of an organization, and no matter how smart people are – and the people in Scientology are a lot smarter than people in most organizations – no matter how smart these people are, verbal communications flying along these lines will somewhere or another break down, and they have a great tendency to break down. They break down with thoroughness, and when they break down they leave an area of confusion around them.

Somebody walks in and he says, "Bill just called. He wants you to phone him back about those books."

And somebody says, "Thanks." He's busy on a pantograph machine or something of the sort, you know, and it's going bangity-bangity- bangity-bang. "Thanks, yeah."

A couple days later meets Bill. Bill says, "What the hell is wrong with you people out there!"

"What are you talking about?"

"Well, those books!"

"What books? Oh. Oh, yeah." It's very interesting.

Now, this all comes under the heading of even flow on the lines.

The way executives get ulcers is another story, but truth of the matter is that a written communication is far preferable to a spoken communication. They can be brief. They can be terribly telegraphic. They don't have to be fancy. They don't have to look nice or something, but they must be recognizable as a communication of some sort. They must have some sort of a destination and they must be from somebody, and they will travel, then, along lines. And the funny part of it is a fellow can get things done. He can sort these things out easily. Because you can start and stop a piece of paper, but you can't start and stop a verbal message.

A verbal message has the frailty of being an immediate and urgent thing, and if everybody uses verbal messages, we have left nothing but emergency. There's nothing but emergency left anywhere throughout the organization. Nobody can start and stop these things. You can't stop and start verbal messages. You have to park them yourself all up and down the time track, remembering all these vast details and so on, and it shouldn't happen. Shouldn't be, because it disobeys, in the first place, the proper-communication-lines-and-terminal rule which is set up.

Supposing we suddenly take a body out – a body is missing for a short time; we have to put another body in its place – where would we get all the verbal... I mean, in the body that's missing now there are a lot of verbal messages. He can't file them in this guy's skull – not, at least, by current technology. The replacement doesn't know them. Hasn't a prayer. He hasn't an idea. Furthermore, he doesn't know what the stable datum is for the job unless it's written down someplace.

All right. It's quite important to know what an organization is. It's quite important if you're in an organization to know what the organization consists of and what it's trying to do. It is extremely important that you know how many hats you're wearing and that you have a terminal for each hat. And it's extremely important that you stay in communication with the remainder of the organization along its recognized despatch lines, and if you do so everything runs very smoothly and the organization will function. But if you try to go on command lines, then you, or you and somebody else, are wearing all the hats, and it's all bunched up, and it's all very confused. And this would be all right if the thing would run. It's perfectly all right to be confused if things would still run, but they don't.

The whole study of organization is one of the most intricate things I have ever tried to look into, so I have thrown it all away and given you this lecture.

Thank you.

Thank you.