Perhaps a word about the source of this data would not be amiss. This data might be said to be a combination and a reevaluation of Eastern and Western culture. And as much as anything else, that marriage, which hitherto has been a misalliance, is responsible for Dianetics and Scientology, making it a little more compatible.

I was very young when I first went out to the East, extremely impressionable as a child would be. I struggled along in north China, India and was back in the States and then back out there again.

First thing we want to know about this is gradient scales. There isn't too much you have to know about gradient scales except this: You takes a small force to move a larger force, to move a larger force, to move a larger force, to move a larger force. That would be a gradient A scale of forces.

And while in the States on a very early visit, a stay, I met Commander Thompson of the United States Navy who was just returned from having studied with Sigmund Freud in Vienna, Commander Thompson was a very sound man, a very solid friend of mine, He had no boy of his own and was quite interested in me, mostly as a personality.

I think it was Swift' that says, "Cows have fleas who have smaller fleas upon their back to bite 'em, and smaller fleas have smaller fleas and so on ad infinitum," Well, that would be a gradient scale. This is a mechanistic approach on this; it isn't true, because theta can actually make a particle. You can postulate a particle into existence and it then, evidently, then exists. And that's how the particle got here.

It's very odd to realize, as I did one day, that in subsequent years I have approximated to a very remarkable degree the career of Commander Thompson - to show you what an impressed - impressionable boy can have handed to him suddenly.

But mechanistically, it operates this way, and this is a low-level flow operation, whereby theta would pick up a tiny, tiny particle as speed, which was so slow that you couldn't tell really any great difference between this particle and no particle. See, you couldn't tell much difference between this particle and no wavelength. And therefore there would be, at this end of the scale, this tiny little confusion, and theta, a zero, would think it was still zero although it had this particle. And then this particle having this particle, it's now not quite zero, and it now has the ability to take another particle. And now that it has these two particles, it now has the ability to take another particle and so on. It can take bigger and bigger and bigger particles. And it would theoretically start out with one which was one over infinity in diameter and would wind up with Saint Paul's [Cathedral]. You see?

I have followed that, however, fragmentarily. It just sort of dubs in to the career that I have been following to this degree that - I didn't realize this until one day I looked at a map, and in the field of expeditions, explorations, I always favored certain quarters of the world, always went there and, when there, did certain things. It fits Commander Thompson's record. Amusing.

And an engineer uses this continually: He makes the force of the river conquer the river. And theta uses force in that degree. It has a force inherent from a past experience, and it uses that force from past experience in order to make or alter a new force.

[R&D Note: Commander Thompson: Joseph Thompson (1874-1943), a commander in the US Navy Medical Corps who studied with Sigmund Freud in Vienna and was a friend of L. Ron Hubbard when Ron was a boy.]

Every aberrated thought is preceded by a counter-effort. Here, give you a present time example of that: is a fellow walking down the street, and he thinks - he thinks policemen are wonderful.

It just suddenly struck me one day, I hadn't ever realized it. Nothing would do at a certain place I went but what I would dig up one of the old, ancient tribal burial grounds. Never realized the significance of this until one day - I hadn't known this, you see - I was standing in the Bishop Museum in Hawaii and saw there the exhibit of Commander Thompson on some of the men he had dug up in a tribal burying grounds. All right. He directed my attention toward many things and perhaps imparted to me, fragmentarily or otherwise, the basic tenets of Sigmund Freud and also imparted to me the fact that Freud didn't think he'd solved it.

The aberrated thought is "Cops are no good!" That's the aberrated thought we're going to go to here.

That's an interesting datum we append right on to there; it should be more than appended. Freud wasn't at war with those other lines of thought to amount to anything: He was trying to find out, 1920 or something like that. He even wrote a paper and said he hadn't, It's called "Psychoanalysis, Terminable and Interminable." And it's rather heart broken sort of a paper.

And he's thinking - go walking down the street and he's really not thinking much about policemen, but if he consulted himself about them, he'd say, "Well, policemen are all right. They're there. They protect the law and order and the small children and the home and the government and we pay them" and so forth. And he's walking down the street, you see. He's thinking this or not thinking it, as the case may be. All of a sudden a bobby walks up to him and takes his hat off and raps him over the head. After that, he doesn't think policemen are so hot. (audience laughter)

[R&D Note: "Psychoanalysis, Terminable and Interminable": reference to Volume V of the collected papers of Sigmund Freud, entitled Analysis, Terminable and Interminable.]

Now, there is an aberrated thought preceded by a counter-effort. Now, this can be that bad that he will say then, "All policemen are bad." That is his adjudication. He identifies to the degree that he's been smashed into MEST. And when you've shoved a number of particles into very close proximity, you have a piece of matter. And the tighter you shove them, the solider the matter is. And when you loosen them up, the matter is less solid. That's true of atoms, you see, and molecules and so on. It's also true of compounds. It's also true of sand. Sand can be drifting around loosely and then you feed it into something that compresses it suddenly, you've got a brick - glass brick. You could compress it solidly and you could compress it suddenly enough, by the way, that it would liquefy and actually turn into a glass brick just under pressure, boom. And you'd have a glass brick, quite solid.

Right at that time when he was writing that, I was taking a look at Hindu snake charmers, wondering why the audience believed there was a snake there.

The operation of pain is a certain action with regard to particles, a very high level of particles. And life has itself very closely associated with being these particles, which it isn't - and it's holding onto a bunch of these particles which it considers livingness. And some other particles come along and compress those livingness particles too tightly and the sensation resulting is called pain. And this is pain. And it's very measurable and it depends on the swiftness of closure of particles or the swiftness of opening of particles.

Well now, it would be handing myself bouquets (which one should never do) to say that one would pick up where somebody else left off, but one was going forward there. There are many things in Dianetics and Scientology which are directly Sigmund Freud's - directly. They're reevaluated. They've been fitted in at the right places for Dianetics and Scientology and have been evaluated against workability. For instance, association. There aren't as many things as you would think, by the way, but there's the whole business of associative thought, all kinds of things here and there.

You can cause pain either by opening two particles too suddenly bringing them apart too suddenly, or by compressing them together too suddenly. And when we say too suddenly, we mean above the level of - or beyond the level of prediction, that's all, on the part of theta. It's an odd thing, but a fellow who knows he's going to have a needle shoved into his arm doesn't get anywhere near the pain as the fellow who doesn't know he's going to get a needle shoved into his arm. If you don't believe this, you can find some people who are looking the other way and shove a needle into them suddenly and measure the gradient of temper rise. (audience laughter). And if you were to take this same person and stand him up in a line and he watched the needle and he knew he - was going to go in, oddly enough, it would hurt much less.

In the first place, he put his stamp on this culture. He put his stamp on there with a great big stamp. And you don't realize to what degree you have been influenced by Sigmund Freud. You would have to read the literature of 1880 and then the literature of 1950 sequitur (one right after the other) to realize that something happened: the evaluation and characterization of story characters in 1880 and 1950 - quite different.

Now, when he's very aberrated, however, and has - oh, he's bogged down thoroughly in energy and matter and that sort of thing, he will postulate pain for the needle, and even though you didn't shove it in, it would hurt. See? Now, when a person comes down Tone Scale, they do that all the time. And they finally get the idea that pain is just terrible!

The whole literary world bought psychoanalysis, and they use it as their modus operandi for plotting. And as a result, the whole society has been salted with this as a background. It's interesting, isn't it?

You take Home sapiens and say, "Now we're going to take out your left eyeball and rub it with sandpaper," and he winces: one, he has no confidence in being able to mock up a usable eyeball, so there's a scarcity of them, you see? And, two, he knows it's going to hurt.

And today, we find this man who began on his course of investigation into the teeth of the medical profession, was practically thrown out of everything, was hammered at and beaten at and thrown away and chewed up in general. We find that his work opened a door, and it opened a door in this fashion. It said, "Something can be done about the human mind." That doesn't sound very startling to you, but believe me, that was a startling statement to make when he was first working.

Now, the terrible part of this is, is one actually postulates every sensation he gets. You think you get sensation from this and from that, you think you get sensation from turkey and you think you get sensation from something else. You're very convinced that sensation exists and that it comes from an exterior source. And the odd part of it is, is the more sensation you "take" from an exterior source, the less you could feel.

In 1894, when he released his libido theory after his work with Breuer, he was basing it on results he had had. Unfortunately, to a large extent, Freud was the sort of an auditor - let's get that straight - I said Freud was a sort of an auditor who added in a lot of extra personality factors. And every time he added one of these things into a session, he didn't know what he was doing, he never said what he was doing, he never knew what he was doing and he left all kinds of xs all over - unknowns, unknowns, unknowns, unknowns.

First, it's more and more you can feel and then less and less you feel. One believes so long as one agrees that he is taking sensation from an exterior source, continually taking it from an exterior source and needs an exterior source to procure sensation, he is in agreement with the MEST universe, which is in itself, one might say, the average or the mean of agreement. It's the average agreement on the actuality of illusion. It's sort of the work-out average of agreements all the way down the track, and we sit here in the MEST universe. You've agreed on it very thoroughly. And by the way, your preclear and your group doesn't happen to want this changed. They know that wall is liable to disappear. They really know that, and so you start shaking them up with a process which is a very shaking process, and they'll fudge on you, they - "Ha-ha-ha-ha. No, no. Ha, No."

How can one auditor take Book One and produce miracles and another auditor not? That's because there are unknowns in the personal address of the auditor to the preclear. Just as in Group Auditing - and this becomes very pertinent to you - in Group Auditing there are unknowns from auditor to auditor before the children. They will be unknown to the Group Auditor; they are not unknown to the professional auditor. He'd know how to get rid of these unknowns. But one is confronting the group with a personality. And the tone of voice and the general personality and the stage presence of the Group Auditor will make Group Auditing different in its results from one group to the next, one Group Auditor to the next.

Now, the MEST universe and all these particles - evidently a very beautiful set of illusions. Pain itself is an illusion, but what a real illusion. So in the Professional Course we talk about reality and actuality - two different things.

One of the easy ways to get around this, and to minimize it and also to save oneself, is to make somebody else do it under supervision and then change the auditor to the group, change the auditor to the group. Then you've minimized that, you see? You make - in a group of adults, you make them consecutively change. You just take group members and make them audit the group, group members and audit the group, group members and audit the group. And that's all. You just coach them up and make sure it's done right.

Reality is what we have agreed on in this universe to be real, And actuality: Actuality is what you yourself are capable of making. Now that's actual, because you know you made it. But you've got the MEST universe here, you don't know that you had anything to do with making this, so that's merely real. So let's get the difference between those two things.

And in children, this becomes rather difficult until you have spread across various classes. If you're just dealing with one or two classes, it's very difficult. They're all in one age level. But you could reach into your upper-age levels, and you would be surprised at the capability and competence of children toward children. It's fascinating how well children can sometimes handle children. So you can even minimize it there if you don't feel you're getting along too well with them - you wouldn't have this feeling about it.

Now, here's the test of this whole thing. If you want to better anybody's ability to perceive, you'd think the best thing to do would be to handle energy and have them agree with energy and the laws of energy and the whereabouts of particles. You'd want them to agree with this, wouldn't you? And if they agreed with it and you study this and they would study it more and more, therefore they could perceive it better and better, couldn't they? Mm-hm.

But you're going to get a difference of factor. Sigmund Freud was getting results better than anybody has ever gotten since with psychoanalysis. His clinic got better results than anybody has ever gotten since. And the reputation of his clinic today carries psychoanalysis on in the world into the teeth of every one of his disciples who says that, "Sigmund Freud? Well, we don't believe that anymore and that's all been modified by Zilch." The heck it has! That's very interesting about Sigmund Freud.

That is the theory on which science has been working, and it is not true. I'm sorry that it isn't true because it would all be so simple. It would be terribly simple if it were true.

So his clinical work had a great deal to do with his personal ability and the character of that clinic itself, which throws the results out. And down along the line, his data is integrated by an undisciplined mind. That's a hell of a thing to say about Freud, but it's true. It's not a mathematically disciplined mind. He scatters around, he gets hopeful, he isn't critical of himself sufficiently. But all these are minor things. Think of what the man did do! He all of a sudden opened the doors wide and said, "The human mind is susceptible to a solution." Now, that all by itself was one of the greatest contributions, and was probably THE greatest contribution of the nineteenth century, which came just as it ends.

Naturally, you could then look at a piece of MEST - matter, energy, space and time, just a composite word - and just look at a piece of MEST here and you would say, "Ha! Now all we have to do is study the anatomy of that MEST and we will know all there is to know." Oh, no! That isn't true.

Sounds like it wouldn't be very much, because in that century you saw Thomas A. Edison, you saw Maxwell, you saw all sorts of people around. Today, we've got nice electric lights and we've got an atom bomb, we've got a lot of other things. And we've got three times the number of institutions.

You start studying this MEST and you start studying it to get data from it, and you plow in deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper. And you finally go to work for General Electric or somebody. (audience laughter)

But somebody did say this. All right, he was a wildcat. That is to say, he was off the field, he was not in the field. He was a pariah. He was frowned upon by all of the conservative thought of the day. And yet, today, this work and that basic postulate is more or less accepted.

Now, I would say - this is prediction, I've never noticed this - I would say the physics instructor at a school had more difficulty in his personal life than the English instructor in terms of handling things, automobiles and things, what happened to automobiles, but that the English instructor would have more difficulty in his emotional life than the physics teacher.

Picked up really from that, from scratch; at one time I thought there had been some interim work. I'm sorry to have to say that I don't think there has been. There had been interim work in mathematics and electronics, but not in the field of the mind.

Now, that wouldn't hold at all, I mean, it's just one of those things that give you an example which might be true, because there are too many other factors entering in. If we had one who was purely a physics teacher and one who was purely an English teacher and who had never, one to the other, interchanged physics and English, why, we would find that to be the case.

Well, all of a sudden, as a young kid, I see the East - mysticism, occultism, spiritualism. Oh, I knew officers - meeting people; they talked about these things, very interested. I became more and more alert to them, and said, "You know that somewhere around here there's an answer to something. It would be very nice if you could do some of these things, but I'm not sure that these people know what they're doing, And the reason they don't know what they're doing is because the more they work in that field, the loonier they get." This doesn't question the truth of that field, but it just says there's something wrong with it! There's a lot right with it and there's something wrong with it.

One has agreed with the romantic and the emotional, has agreed and agreed and agreed with literary concepts, and he's plowed in with them. He'll just plow right on in.

Western culture I took up, and was forced into engineering, mathematics, majoring in nuclear physics - very antipathetic to me, but there was order and there was discipline. But all through the university, I wrote and supported myself by writing. And I became interested in people by being interested in what people were interested in, and eventually became interested enough that I began to look into man's mind to find out: what might possibly make him tick. And all of this data started to integrate.

A writer generally goes bad in about three years. When I say, "Goes bad," I mean he stops writing. That's interesting, isn't it? By practice he ought to write more and more and more and more and more and more. And if it were true that just this MEST were actual and so on, he would really go on writing more and more. The more he practiced, the better he would be. Everything is sort of founded on that basis, and it isn't true. The writer practices writing and goes bad in three years. There's a dull stale taste in his mouth at every story he writes at the end of three years, believe me, and I don't care who that is.

What data had I inspected? The data of the West in its most - its purest, most severe, naked fashion, which is the severity of science as practiced in the field of physics and nuclear physics. And if you don't think that's a discipline, that is the discipline of today. If there ever will be one, that's it.

Now, the person who studies this has a reali - has an actuality instead of a reality - who studies this MEST eventually gets to a point where he can't see it anymore. Well, that's silly. If it worked out the other way, if it had a reality, he would, of course, be able to see it better and better and feel it better and better when he knew more and more about it. And yet, he's getting worse and worse on it.

And the East: "Well, we don't know, and we'll all bow down to the great god Whumpbug. And the thing to be is to negate everything and deny everything and run away from everything, and then we'll arrive there. And our greatest goal is to become part of a cloud and float somewhere and to be completely unfeeling and to do this and to do that, and anything but live.” And the Western culture says, "Above all things, whatever else you do, live!" Two directly opposed vectors - out of all of them, we got sense. It's - possibly this material would have been drummed up by anybody. Would have been drummed up by anyone who had taken a look at these two spheres and recognized their differences, and then integrated them and taken them apart again with a highly questioning attitude. Because when you say what I believe - I don't believe there are very many people who even - who knew me very well, who knows what I believe.

He's getting worse on distances; he's getting worse on estimations of effort and so on. He starts wearing horn-rimmed spectacles and getting kidney trouble and all sorts of weird things start happening to this fellow. All he's got to do is keep on agreeing with this, just keep on agreeing with it. And if he agrees with it long enough, it'll finish him. Well now, that's silly, isn't it? You work that out and it's illogical. Well, why is it? Why am I bringing it up at all?

I have the same level of belief in a datum as it's workable. I have absolutely no affection for any single datum in Dianetics or Scientology, There isn't any "Well, there's that old datum; that's real good."

Because there is a way to improve this stuff so that it does. It gets more and more actual or more and more real - any way you want to phrase it. You could get this so your perception of it is better and better and better and better and better and better and better and better, and it's solider and solider and so on. How do you do that? By improving your ability to perceive an illusion.

There's one difference about this. There are two axioms which are very amusing to me because they were the first two axioms. They were way back in the middle of the thirties. "The cell has as its goal survival and only survival" and "The body is a colonial aggregation of cells, so therefore the goal of the body is survival." QED.

If your ability to perceive an illusion gets very good, your ability to perceive the MEST universe gets wonderful. You'd say, "Well, this is just a problem of perception," Well, it's kind of strange that it doesn't work out otherwise. If you, ha, let a fellow go out and perceive MEST and perceive MEST, practice perceiving MEST, he practically goes blind. But if you have a fellow go out and perceive illusions, perceive illusions, perceive illusions, his eyesight gets wonderful. So it tells you something about this stuff about which we are so confident, which is so solid.

All right, those two sit in the list of axioms and if there's - if there's anything that has any affection for me, it would be that two. Because I remember the tremendous amazement and surprise one morning that I felt when I was climbing half out of bed; I just stuck right there. And I said, "An anthropoid ape is trying to live. Hm. And a clam is trying to live. An algae is trying to live. A man is trying to live. Living is duration through time, and the proper word to describe that is survive. And, my god, I've done it!" And I went straight over to my typewriter and took down all of the data which boiled this down and turned it into theory. That's the beginning, actually, the real entrance wedge. So there are two points on this time track that I can point to from my viewpoint which were the opening wedges. One is some fellow - a very bright man indeed - saying at the end of the nineteenth century, "The human mind is susceptible to survival in computation and so forth, and it will survive and can go on, and it doesn't die all by itself." You see, something can be patched up about it; it can go on, it isn't a finite thing. Furthermore, it can be understood. "Something can be done about the human mind," somebody said there. He didn't say anything about survival - that was left. And in the middle of the thirties, suddenly realizes survival was the pin on which you could hang the rest of this with adequate and ample proof.

Now, the fellow comes along and he pounds the desk and he says, "Well, this is solid enough for me, because I can feel it." Huh, very silly. What's he pounding the desk with? He's pounding the desk with a piece of MEST. And he's registering the estimation of the collision of particles in his fist and the particles on the desk, and this doesn't even vaguely agree that there are either particles in his fist or particles in the desk. Neither one. It doesn't prove anything.

And where did mysticism fit in? Well, I didn't know that until relatively recent days. It all fits. It's the easiest problem anybody ever looked at. It's a very simple problem, idiotically simple. That's why it never got it solved. Nobody had ever looked at anything being that simple to do that much.

Just because a MEST particle can collide with a MEST particle is no reason MEST exists. All we can infer from that is the fact that as long as you can perceive that, we know that your ability to perceive it exists. And any time we go out any further than that, as a truth, we get in trouble, we get in real trouble.

So what do we find as the simplicities of solution? The simplicities of solution lie in this: That life, all life is trying to survive. And life is composed of two things: the material universe and an x factor. And this x factor is something that can evidently organize, mobilize the material universe. This x factor.

We say, "We perceive this, therefore it exists." Well, for heaven's sakes, add these words to that: "for me" or "for us." Now, that's all you have to do and it's a correct statement. "I see this, therefore it is," is an incorrect statement. "I see this, therefore it is for me or for us," is a correct statement.

What is this x factor? Well, it just drifted along for a longest time as an x factor until, all of a sudden, one day I got a description of it. I figured out a description of this x factor. What is it?

So, this beautiful, thick, solid, heavy, trying, painful, wicked stuff called MEST is just those adjectives to the degree that you agree with it. And when you start turning the current back on it and saying, "Nuh-uh," you can then and there, and only then and there, start controlling it.

Well, it obviously had - and I won't go into that derivation too long - it obviously had no wavelength. It didn't have any energy in it, and therefore it couldn't have any space or time. It was zero! Well, that's fascinating! But how could it be zero? You mean zero lives? Ah! Zero for this universe.

The funny - funny things happen. It's not esoteric. By the way, all this is very easily traceable because we are dealing in natural law with the consecutive agreements on which we have agreed to agree down the track. And that includes the law of gravity.

And the second we tried to equate it on the basis of it had time in it, it had energy, it had wavelength, it had finite position, we went way wrong - oh, but wrong. So the material universe is an artificiality bent out - built out of that instead of the reverse.

We agree that when you have this lump here called Earth, it's got gravity on it and you'll stick there. And as long as you believe that and so on, you'll stick here. But the second that you just don't - not just disbelieve it - the second that you make it unnecessary to believe it any longer, I won't guarantee that you'll stay here, but your body will.

So we're dealing with these big ideas of space and time and energy and matter, and we have to readjust.

Well, let's see, this is - we're going out now into a realm of it that in a short series of this character we really have no business talking about. But we are dealing, oddly enough, with nuclear physics, because the first fellows to say this, the first fellows to come down with an ax on the reality of the MEST universe were the nuclear physicists. Who was it said at the end line of his book, "And when all is said and done, I cannot help but believe that this universe is just an idea." Any good physicist can reduce it reductio ad absurdum to a zero. And he does it with great speed. Atoms? Oh, yes. Sure, sure, public consumption. What's an atom? I don't know. Neither does anybody else. And the odd part of it is, they've never seen one, and the odd part of that is, they probably never will. But I suppose a few of the boys agreed that you would get a quantum of energy when you thought a certain thought, and after that we get an atom bomb. It's as silly as this. Now, all of this I want you to know - take it or leave it, it doesn't matter - but I want you to know it for this reason, so that you won't underrate the progress which can be made by bettering the ability to perceive an illusion. If you better the ability to perceive an illusion, you will better the ability to perceive and handle and act in the MEST universe. And that's what you're trying to do.

This is all real. Why is it real? It's real because we agree it's real; not for any other reason. And we look it all over very carefully, and we find out that matter, energy, space and time are evidently a product of this universal mind. And then we have the concept of the Supreme Being and so forth, but unfortunately, we have the concept of you.

When a child is trying to study, he's trying to find out how to act in the MEST universe. You want to better that ability, don't you? Well, you can better it right there at the start by bettering his ability to perceive an illusion.

And do you know that in the subsequent months and years, since that theta-MEST theory was advanced, that every datum which comes forth won't go anyplace else but into that theory.

Now, a child is pretty good at this. You'd say, therefore, a child should be able to get along very well at this. No, he's in a very unmanageable body. He's something on the order of a - a young child is something on the order of a pilot who has just been put in an eight-motored bomber. It gets switches, and you got hydraulic this and that. I mean, he's ... Gee.

You know, I'd be just as happy about this theory if it would just suddenly disappear or go away or die or get lost in the wastebasket. Because it's very easy to come by theories. Anybody can come by theories. It's easy If you don't believe it, read the books of the philosophers. There are theories by the billion. You can make them up any day of the week.

As a matter of fact, little babies can understand you. Nobody ever took the care before to ask a little baby something or other or give him a signal. They can understand you before they're very old. You can talk to them. Only you have to talk to them. You don't say, "Dah-dah, da-da" and so forth. And you expect them to answer you in English with a voice. And you're not going to do that because they're not in control of those vocal cords, but that doesn't mean they couldn't answer you. So you see, you don't quite know that until you investigate it all the way. You don't, just don't take it for granted that babies don't know anything.

I used to have an organization with a little bunch of engineers. And we had a club; we called it the Green Cheese Club. And it was called Green Cheese Club just for one reason: Its members, any one of them, was perfectly willing to believe the Moon was made of the green cheese - of green cheese if it could be proven adequately. So that made it a pretty wild club, you see?

Now, we'll take a five-, six- and seven-, eight-year-old child, we're really having fun now. This person first began to learn how to run this eight-motored bomber - doing all right because they started in just naturally. They kind of got it by postulates and they were getting along all right, and then suddenly somebody said, "Don't go here, don't do this. Stop, stop, stop, stop. Start, start, start. Change, change, change." Somebody else was handling this bomber.

Do you know that most people working in this field, they get an affection for their data. Whoa, they just got to hold on to that theory because theories are terribly scarce, you see? And we've just got to hold on to that theory and nurse it and pat it and go around and sell everybody on this theory and talk about this theory.

Did you ever try to fly a plane, by the way, with a pilot on each wing as well as one in the middle? And after a while, the child says that this is all energy. "I have to handle all this by energy." So he gets worse and he gets clumsy. And then the next thing you know ... Of course, that's very silly. Why, how could a child handle anything by energy? Well, you handle things by energy by postulating you've got some energy, and then the energy will handle it.

It works the same way with techniques, You see auditors doing this sometimes. (I wouldn't mention names.) But they get a new idea, you see? And instead of practicing on a preclear and being willing to throw it in the first wastebasket that he'd see if it doesn't work, they say, "Gosh, that must be awfully valuable! I get so few of them." So they go around and explain to everybody how this works. Well, the dickens with explaining how it works. Let's work it? Does it work? Well, if it works, okay, we don't - but there's no scarcity of ideas. We can dream up all kinds of therapies.

Now, a child has a hard time. And he's practically out of his mind by the time he's five. He's very hard to get in communication with by the time he's five, six, seven, eight. You see, parents sometimes will say, "Oh, aren't my children having a good time." The children are out there having psychotic fits! You know, they're running around the yard and running around a tree and they're falling over tricycles and banging each other up and ... Gee. Just horrible.

A new therapy is the "druggest" drug on the market we can get, but we don't need any. That's really abundance right now in Scientology. But this isn't an abundance: the idea that one can have enough ideas to throw away ideas. That little sentence right there explains a lot of differences that you will see.

Oddly enough, what was destroyed in those children was dignity. If you ever want to see an awful lot of dignity, take a little baby that has been left alone, that is to say, hasn't been handled much and is - so on. Great dignity. Oh, you'd think they were the king of India or something. And you insult that dignity and they'll really come down on you, too. The child has been handled and pushed and bossed and pushed and handled, and their dignity is shot. The second that goes - bang.

We got lots of them - throw them away. Do they work? Oh, they don't work? Dickens with them; get another one tomorrow morning. Maybe wake up at midnight with one.

Now, the most hectic, excitable, and below that, apathetic children, or adult, will be those who have been forced to handle things with energy, and they've been kind of pushed at things. Force has been painted up to them as being really something. They've been manhandled pretty much, and they're kind of spun in. And they have a very harsh agreement. I mean, they believe in this universe. They believe they're going to get hurt~ They believe in all sorts of bad lions, And they have this idea that they can't handle anything unless they do it with force or with motion. The apathetic child knows he can't use any force, and so therefore can't handle anything, And the one who is hectic and so forth, believes they have to use all this motion in order to get something done. In either case, their dignity is gone. They have been used too much as a particle.

So there have just been thousands of things, and there's no reason why we should be holding on to this theta-MEST theory. No reason at all, except it works.

Now, when you're dealing with children, you're dealing with particles, really. And you have to bail them out to a point where they're no longer particles, but they are something that makes particles. When you do that, they have recovered their dignify, and they've also recovered their poise, and they are also orderly and can now learn the MEST universe, But you know something about the MEST universe is they have to have a lot of imagination to counter-balance the necessity of agreeing with the MEST universe. And that is mostly denied them.

So, if you will - if you will see a gradient scale, whereby at one end of it we have nothing and at the other end of it we have solid matter, we'll call that - we will call that the Tone Scale. And up the top, we have nothing but capability, and at the bottom we have nothing but object. Now that's the scale.

A child goes around with a great deal of imagination. He imagines, imagines, imagines, imagines. And people come down on him rather heavily for it. Well, they're closing the line. They're closing his road to any stature by coming down on this. You're not trying to rehabilitate the ability of the child, however, to imagine. Don't make that mistake; this has more purpose than that.

And we find out that a person is as sane as he is capable and as insane as he is an object. Simple, isn't it? And that's the gradient scale which we call the Tone Scale, Now, we put some arbitrary numbers on it. We've said the top is 40.0 and the middle is 20.0 and the bottom is 0,0. And what's at 0.0? Well, you're dead at 0,0, you're MEST. You're matter, energy, space and time with no life-animating factor. You're dead, in other words.

You're actually bringing him back to a point of recognition of what he really is, rather than just a particle.

And at the top? You don't even vaguely have a body or energy. All you've got is the capability of making a lot of space because you can make space. That's the gradient scale and that's the Tone Scale.

Now, here we have this gradient scale. At the bottom: the child as a particle or the adult as a particle. They're an object or a collection of particles. They're solid. They know they're solid. And they also think slowly, act slowly, are erratic, cannot concentrate and so on.

Now, man seems to exist on this scale, arbitrarily, between 4.0 and 0.0; 4.0 is enthusiasm, 0.0 is dead, 0.1 is apathy, 3.5 is conservatism. In other words, we just - we come down - we come downscale from 4.0 toward death. And a person is as alive as he has life in him. Sounds obvious, doesn't it? But when we turn it around the other way and say he's as dead as he's got object, makes more sense.

Now, the less that condition exists, the brighter they are. And so they come on upscale and they're less and less a particle and more and more a thing which creates and controls particles, and they go right on upscale. And you have to get a child pretty well upscale before they can concentrate and before they can absorb information.

You ever know a capitalist? They're really interesting people in terms of how much life they've got left in them, and the more matter they get, the longer they'll survive. Mm-hm. But what survives? An object survives. The pyramids are still there, but they certainly don't talk or have a good time, Now, what, then, is our goal? And why do we have this Tone Scale?

Now let's talk a little bit more about this thought, emotion and effort. Way high on the scale, if you have energy at all, it would be called in the band of thought; lower on the scale we have the band of emotion, and below that we have the band of effort.

Well, you will find down at the bottom, you - neurotic, psychotic people consider words as objects. The words are objects to them. And time is an object. I've had people walk up to me and say, "Well, I'd gladly come out and see you, but have you got a radio?" "Well, what do you want a radio for?"

Effort is heavy. Those particles could be considered to be not just large, but particles which went crunch, which ran into things, which handled masses of particles and so on. We could consider this on this level: thought we might consider a gull or a bird or something like that, and emotion we might consider some relatively earthbound but still free particle, and effort we'd consider a bulldozer - real heavy! They can push, push and so on. That's the band.

"Well, we've got to have a radio, so we can turn it on and get the time signal." "Why do you want a time signal?" "So I can keep track of the time."

Now, effort is way down there towards zero on the band. Men who have to do hard work over a long period of time rapidly lose all of their ability to soar rapidly. And they use hard strength and hard work in general. You don't see very many people stepping out of the ditch-digging business into the upper realms of poetry. Once in a while you do, and of course that becomes very, very sensational.

They keep themselves tuned up with time, all right. There it goes, tickety-tick, tickety-tick.

Well now, what we have here, then, is a gradient scale of, you'd say, a type of particle. At each one of these levels you might say there's a particle. There's certain particles would be just below 40.0, and then there would be a certain class of particles down around 20.0 and there would be a class of particles around 0.0

Once in a while you will ask one of these people for a circuit or a phrase or something of the sort, and he'll reach in his pockets to find it for you, That's right. Words and thoughts are objects at that level of the scale. You'll have to observe this to really understand how this can be. But you'll find in processing a group, there'll be somebody in that group who's going to be literal-minded.

Well, supposing we had a road, and this road consisted of half road and half bridges. And you tried to walk down that road and you were getting along fine, and all of a sudden you found a bridge missing. It would leave you - if you couldn't span that area - it would leave you on the heavy part of the road, wouldn't it? I mean, it'd leave you on the part of the road you had traversed; it would leave you in a certain area.

And they will say, "Did you say that? Well now, that couldn't be because ... That couldn't be. No. You really meant ..." And he'll be talking about some tiny, little fraction of a phrase. "Did you say 'of the walk' or 'on the walk'? Or did you say ... ?" And he'll be so puzzled.

Now, let's say that a person starts down Tone Scale and goes from particle to particle to particle to particle down Tone Scale. In other words, somebody who was fairly high on the Tone Scale suddenly starts using heavy effort, and then turns around and starts to go back up the Tone Scale again and finds a bridge out. It would leave him with heavy effort, wouldn't it?

And one day you'll be quoting something or something of the sort, and he'll say, "Ab-duh-uhem-bzzzt." He's just lost this idea. You're trying to get an idea across, you see? And he's lost the idea that you're trying to get an idea across, and say, "On the second line of that" - this is just like fingernails over the blackboard" to him, you see - "on the second line of that, it's THE not AND."

Now, that's just a very crude analogy, because it isn't exactly what happens. A missing section of the Tone Scale would then inhibit one going back up.

Words are objects. And this person is just getting solid. His thinking is solid, too. He's doing this stream of consciousness I've talked to you about. On and on and on, he does his stream of consciousness. Horrible? He thinks he thinks. All right.

Well, let's say you had some kind of an idea that particle A was mergeable with theta and usable with theta and one could be theta as long as he had this particle A, and it was perfectly safe to go over into a more detached particle; that is, a particle that wasn't quite as intimate with theta. And then he gets over to B or C or D or down that line. And then he turns around and he says, "All right, now we've always got particle A, and so we can merge back into being theta again." And one day he puts it to test and particle A is gone. He can't get back into theta again; this leaves him in emotion or it leaves him in effort. Another analogy. Apt or not it's painting a picture by it, I hope. Let's take a mixture. There are certain chemical compounds which require a dash of something before they become other chemical compounds. And supposing you took this catalyst in some process - this catalyst that would turn this whole chemical compound over, and you just remove that catalyst and made it unavailable. The chemical compound never would be anything else but the chemical compound it had become.

The energy of the mind, then, is actually making a postulate, and the object and matter around it go into action. You tell something to go work and it works, because the human mind - I mean, the theta level way up at the top, 40.0 of the Tone Scale - actually, all he has to do to move an object is make a postulate to move it. And it works as well as it doesn't have any energy in it. and One can make postulates and have them work as well as he doesn't have any energy. But people think they've got a past, present and future in terms of energy. You ask somebody, "Where's the past? By the way, do you know where the past is in relationship to your face? Do you know where the future is in relationship to your face? Do you know where present time is in relationship to your face?"

Let's take something else. Let's take a bomb and let's put a fuse in it. Now, a bomb fuse generally runs into something like fulminate of mercury, which runs into granular TNT, which then explodes heavy TNT, This fellow handles this bomb on a gradient scale, in other words. This little flash explodes a little greater flash which is then capable of exploding this great big mass. And that bomb isn't going to go off at all, it isn't going to work if the fulminate of mercury is missing, You could try to blow up that granular TNT all you pleased. And as a matter of fact, even if you put a match to it, it would just burn. That bomb won't explode. In other words, we're getting further and further away from workability.

That immediately should appear to you as rather dull because most everybody has this. He thinks the future is over there to the right, and the past is over here to the left and slightly behind him, and present time is right out in front.

Now, similarly, if we consider particles to exist in the mind, we might say - and with a little study on this subject you will see the facsimiles, running facsimiles, behavior of particles, ridges, all of this, flows - you can observe all this. But the point is if there was a particle missing in the mind (crude analogy) the mind could safely then adventure into the handling of all sorts of things, and then turn around and find there was a missing bridge; or try to blow up these memories in order to be free of that experience or something of the sort and find there was a missing fuse; or try to make this compound into something else and have no catalyst all of a sudden. That would be quite serious.

And that's just he's spent energy in thinking. And it's finally become a deposit. And when it becomes enough of a deposit, he's right there, he is. He gets an object, finally, as a time track.

We've talked continually for years on the one-shot Clear. Well, I've been thinking for a long time about there must be a button within the button within the button. We've got lots of buttons. We isolated about thirteen or fourteen buttons; they were quite important and they appeared on the Chart of Attitudes.

Actually, time consists of nothing else but the position of particles. There's no energy mixed up in thinking and so on.

But there must be one button. Well, there isn't so much one button as there's one particle missing. And this missing particle - it boils down to the fact that we were searching, really, for a missing particle that would have - there was something gone: a catalyst, the bomb fuse, the bridge, it was missing. And we couldn't quite make the whole jump. When a case was very bad off, we couldn't make the jump hardly at all.

You can - there's another little technique that proves this. You can just suddenly decide that you're going to let go of some particles. You find some - there's - you always notice a slight pressure on the front of your face, so you decide one day that you don't like the pressure on the front of your face, so you decide to let go of the particles that are holding the particles that are pressing in. In other words, there's - just because there's pressure from outside, there must be some resistance toward that to make the pressure possible. All right, just let go of the particles that are holding that motion.

We could do it and do it on a sort of a gunshot principle, skirting it one way or the other and just gunning through somehow or other. But there was something that case that was the worst off was missing the most of that some other cases weren't. So it required considerable thought on this basis, and as soon as it started working with a gradient scale of particles going back up to theta again, it began to test particles. And I've tested lots of all sorts of particles. And it was interesting that an empirical test is, with our other techniques, very, very possible today. We can make a test, in other words, a laboratory test, just as though you were dealing with test tubes.

You can let go; the motion collapses. Now, you can do that consecutively. You just keep letting go of pressure areas - one side or the other - what's keeping the pressure from coming in and what's making the pressure come in, You can just keep letting go. It's a technique all by itself. You just sit there and you just find out what you're holding on to and let go, that's all.

You're working a case. Well now, what solves this case? And you could say all sorts of particles were missing, and sure enough, you would find evidence in each case that this particle evidently had something to do with it, but it was not THE particle.

Darnedest things happen. You get terrible pains and all sorts of things. You're just backing off, in other words, from particles. And the more particles you let go of, the better you feel. Isn't that odd?

Now testing case after case after case one got the idea after a while that there was some sensation missing. All right. If there was sensation missing, then maybe Freud was right, hm? Maybe it was sex. All right. Now, let's take that sensation and find out whether or not this was the missing particle. Hm-mm. No.

This doesn't mean that you have to desert the universe in order to be healthy in it. No, you can eat up the whole universe if your digestion is zero enough.

Now, let's try and just run the concept of love. The Christian says that love, you know, all is love, love, love, love. Let's run it. Bogs the case down - bang, boom. Oh! Oh, boy, that's one you don't want to play with.

Now, energy on a thought level and energy on a - that's the strange one, you know, that energy on a thought level was always thought to be something else. They kept telling you, "Well, this didn't - this energy is kind of an energy, but it's not like" - you find this in more books - "it's not like that stuff up there in the electric light. The energy of thought is something else." The dickens it is.

Now, somebody else says, "Truth is beauty and beauty is truth, and never the twain shall meet," and so we try that. Does it work? Nuh-uh.

That electric light got there because somebody thought, not the reverse. Why every man wanted to go into the bottom of the scale and try to work up to the top, I don't know.

Well, do we know whether or not the thing will work? Oh yes, we do, because the preclear will turn on, now be able to remember and do lots of things that - IQ go up and all sorts of things would happen; facsimiles would disappear, deformities would go by the boards. In other words, got plenty of visual, testable evidence if that's the particle.

But you see, they say, "Well now, that stuff is crude and that's no good, and we don't want anything to do with it! That's material. And a materialist would be a person who would do something about that." Nobody ever thought of "It might be a product of some universal mind of some sort or another which can produce, by postulate, particles." That would be the other way to, wouldn't it? That sounds wild, but it unfortunately works out that way, that this mind produces - theta-MEST produces these terminals and flows.

So we go on down the line, We find out that - well, I don't know. Oh, this MEST universe is in wonderful condition on honor and justice. Justice, oh, boy. That's one everybody will writhe about. Let's test justice as though it were a particle. And what do we find in the testing of justice? It's a restriction. It's just an aberration. That's a horrible thing to discover, isn't it?

Now, let's look at this another way. They missed something on the design of the electric motor. Every time they write up the electric The motor, they write it up wrong. You can go and get your best textbooks on this subject, and a nuclear physicist looking this over, if he ever went back and looked them over, would immediately catch this blunder. I just happened to catch it in passing one day and I was very struck by it because they say - they give you everything necessary to make current with an electric generator. They tell you all about this and give you all the data you need, only if you'd never seen one, you'd never get any current out of one, because they neglect to describe the most important thing there: the base of the motor.

You tell people that injustice can exist and that justice does exist, and then you feed them injustice and that makes them outraged and pushes them down Tone Scale and they can be controlled. This doesn't say that justice is not a highly desirable, high-level thing. But in the engram bank, in the reactive mind, it's just an operation. So that wasn't the particle.

Of course, you know, huh - you think I mean some kind of a strange base like a logarithmic base. But I'm talking about that metal thing the motor is sitting on. It's just wonderful how they could neglect this one. But they don't give it any description. It's just not described, that's all.

Well, how about nobility? Well, people should feel noble and so forth. Did that work? Uh-uh. No. That's another one.

It's what holds the terminals in time and space? And you get an electrical current just as long as you've got a base sitting there holding the terminals, the two terminals of the motor, in position.

Well, what about dignity? What about this, that? What about sacrifice? What about knowing? What about responsibility? What about the rest of those buttons up there at the top of the Chart of Attitudes? None of them fit. Isn't that funny that they just didn't fit, until all of a sudden we run into a particle you wouldn't quite have suspected offhand had any horsepower in it. But a bridge or lead aside or this fulminate of mercury is nothing compared to this particle.

And when you don't have a base sitting there to hold the two terminals of the motor in position, the two terminals snap together and you get no current. Kind of obvious. If you look in an electric motor, you'll find there's a positive side of it and there's a negative side of it, and those are terminals. And the wheel goes round and round and goes around inside of magnets, and mechanical effort makes it go around inside of magnets, that makes positive-negative, positive-negative, and you get a flow. It's a very simple thing, a motor.

It's interesting, it's just a little bit upsetting because it's a particle that everybody agrees is kind of unworthy a little bit. It's something you shouldn't have too much to do with. It's a little sophistry, flattery and there's other things like this and it's kind of bad, and we won't give this one out. Well, you should have suspected that one as the first one then. Because this universe is sort of booby-trapped. And you should have suspected that that one which was the least of would have called in all of the liabilities of scarcity. Because of course the particle that was the key particle would be the particle that everybody said was the scarcest, or that shouldn't be used at all. And that particle is admiration. My, that's horrible, isn't it? Admiration.

If you didn't have any base there holding those positive and negative terminals apart, you wouldn't have any current because the positive and negative current - terminals would be right together. It takes a base to hold those two things apart, and that base is fastened to a table - or a platform, and that platform is generally fastened into the earth.

Now, a person goes along just so long in life, and he - admiration you know, he works to get some admiration; he doesn't get it, and it sticks him into working for some more admiration; and he doesn't get it, so it sticks him into working into some more admiration; and he doesn't get it, and it sticks him into working for some more admiration; and he doesn't get it, and it leaves him stuck as a very unadmirable character. It'll even make a Home sapiens out of him,

And the earth, by gravity and centrifugal and centripetal force, is fastened to the Moon - Sun just as the Moon is fastened to Earth. Earth is fixed in relationship to the Sun. And Earth is fixed in relationship to the Sun; and the Sun is fixed by gravity in relationship to the other galaxy, planets and that's - planets and the solar system, isn't it? And the solar system, well, that's fixed in relationship by gravity and so forth into - hm. Well, wait a minute, that's just fixed into the other systems and they composite into a galaxy, and the galaxy is held there as an island universe which is in position with an island of galaxies and that pass into a ... Oh, no? All we're doing all the way up is locating two terminals in space. Oh, no? No, no, this shouldn't happen to us. You mean God is the base of a motor? (audience laughter) No, fortunately that isn't true. He would be what is saying, "Stay apart" to the first two terminals that begins this endless chain, Anybody - time anybody said "Create," he must have said then "two terminals." And sure enough, by dymaxion geometry and many other proofs, the basic unit of the material universe happens to be two, not one.

Now therefore, we are looking - when we look at this scale - we're looking at a scale which has a little particle in it that we can mark. Part of that gradient scale is a particle, and we can call that particle admiration. And it seems to answer up with people here, there, around - admiration. Now, that's the particle. And you don't have to know - you should... Of course, you know an auditor has to know about all kinds of things the way he has to handle flows and particles and things, but this - the point we're making here is that we've got a missing particle which, in its absence, causes effort and emotion to jam on the track. It is the catalyst particle which permits a flow between two terminals. And in the absence of this particle the communication line between two terminals won't function, It is the grease on which current runs. Now, you talked a little earlier about terminals; you don't get an interchange between two terminals unless you've got that admiration particle in there. And the second you don't have it there you lock up a terminal and lock up a whole section and lock up somebody in heavy effort. And you lock him up in engrams. Just like that. (snap) There he is, there he is. He's stuck. He's stuck with it. And he'll go on dramatizing it until he can get that particle.

So it's location and fixation in time and space which makes it possible for energy to be developed and used and transferred and handled, And you don't get location, fixed location, you're in bad shape.

Well now, we know about facsimiles and pictures in the mind, and we know all about these various things, and we know there are electronic things that go on with relationship to the body and we can measure these on an E-Meter; and we know that a person is as sane as he can hold them in time and space. And when he can't locate them and hold them fixed in time and space, he's very, very aberrated. And you patch him up by fixing it so that he can locate some of his memories and his beingness in time and space.

All you got to do is tell a psychotic, "Look at the wall," and he says, "What wall?"

Continuing this fourth lecture on the theory of admiration, that thing which is admired will disappear, and that thing which is nonadmired persists. Now, that's a heck of a note, isn't it? This universe is rigged backwards unfortunately. It is actually, and people complain every once in a while about its contrariness and not-admire its contrariness and make it even more contrary.

And you say, "Well, go over and feel it and find out if there's a wall there."

So that, naturally if you get a free flow only in the presence of this particle called admiration - you get free flow then, it'll just flow itself out. And if you get no flow in the absence of this particle, you just get a stuck.

He's liable to find out there's a wall there and get sane on you. He's located himself in time and space. Now, isn't this interesting?

Let's take the Indian and his raising of children. He did a very interesting thing. He raised his children with enormous praise for all the things that were good. His theory of raising children - and this is a North American Indian - his theory of raising children was to praise all the things they did that were good.

We have a husband and wife. Husband is very unhappy, he's very upset, the wife is very unhappy. They're going in all directions and so forth. Well, the trouble is there, there are two terminals and they don't have a smooth flow between them. There's no interchange of flow, that's all. And so the both of them have a down-energy level. You spring them apart and team them up otherwise and they just work fine. It's almost as mechanical - they're just bodies, so they're almost as mechanical to handle as terminals on an electric motor, Oh, there's all sorts of manifestations occur on this basis. But at that moment, the second we realize this, that theta creates space and time and it also fixes or locates things in space and time, and the second we realize it does that, this problem falls apart. It's just like so much - just is poof. There isn't any problem to it. You could do anything with this, then, from there on.

Little boy - the whole tribe would gang up on some little boy. He'd be carrying some water or something of this sort, and they would - everybody that would see him going along they would say, "What a good boy." Or he'd be packing some game for Papa - "What a good boy." They went out of their road to admire what he was doing. And sure enough it cohesed the tribe. And on an analytical level - you must never forget there is an analytical level - he was quite proud of doing these sort of things, but they had - nonadmiration was playing in there on the subject of not being good. And you had an entire race with a thirst for torture and human bestiality which was unequaled anywhere else. Interesting, isn't it? In other words, they ran out of the kid all the human characteristics and left in all the inhuman characteristics. They did a big job of evaluation on him.

Why? That's because when it gets down into the Levels of energy, you simply follow the parallel rules of energy and you're on safe ground, safe ground all the way down.

Evaluation is itself aberrative when it is on a conduct level. All angels have two faces. An angel has a good face and a bad face. It's traditional. Man has been saying this and using this data and building his idols this way since time immemorial. There's the good angel and the bad angel, but it's the same angel.

But isn't it interesting that I said that as more a mind got into energy and the more it handled energy, the less sane it was. Uh-oh. So this material universe and the solid object of insanity consists of more and more energy and thinking, and more and more energy and more and more energy, and then the guy is out the bottom.

"I am the God of Vengeance," says Yahweh; "I am the God of Love," says Yahweh. Sure. In order to be a complete unit - two terminals in one being - he'd have to be the God of good and the God of evil.

Therefore, the more energy he had in terms of energy that he was using and the more he used these terminals and the more he got upset this way and that way by this, the worse off he'd get. Does it work out in the real universe? Believe me, it does.

In other words, you'd have him two terminals in the same being. But do you know that that's not top scale by a long ways? It's about 8.0 on the Tone Scale. Up above that level - good, bad? No, no. We have practicality and alignment or misalignment without thought, really, to whether it's a survival or nonsurvival activity. We just have something being done because it, well, should be done. We don't have tremendous condemnation, we don't have tremendous evaluation upscale.

You find the fellows who have agreed solidly with these terminals and energies and used terminals and energies - are they aberrated. They're in bad shape. Look at engineers. (audience laughter) And you go right down the line with this. So what's the solution, what's the solution? To follow these terminals? To locate new terminals? Well, by empirical testing taking place over a period of many years, it is discovered that this is not the route. It's a good route, but it's interminable. A guy gets better but he doesn't go out through the roof.

It tells you that in terms of conduct and behavior one of the most aberrative activities in which man can engage would be to condemn and not admire a certain strata of action and to admire greatly another strata of action because it will run the second one out and leave the bad one in.

So what do you do? Well, you back him off from doing this, obviously, if that one didn't work. But that's right all the way, then let's put him up Tone Scale, which is all we've been trying to do anyway, and let's get him out to a basis where he's again operating in postulates and is not using terminals, where he is creating particles, not using particles he already finds lying around. Let's get him into a level of creation where he is able to command what he wants, not have to beg for it. And we find he's in good shape. So, we've got Creative Processing, and that's why Creative Processing produces such a fantastic result. It's very rapid.

In other words, nothing will flow on these other terminals where you have something bad. And so you get more and more crime, more and more insanity, a world hitting a dwindling spiral, which is what you behold today.

Now, when you address a person, then, and start giving him mock-ups, you're calling upon him to create. You're calling upon him to create energy, to create new terminals. And you're calling upon him to perform the highest function of theta. And so he gets better and better and better and better, and then he can go right on up the Tone Scale.

Now, it's horrible, isn't it? The remedy for this, you say, is going around maybe and admire evil. No, no. No, because evil is evil, there's no doubt about that. What's bad for man is bad for man. But people on a nonadmiration basis will get so they go out of their road to evaluate. "Now, we must criticize. We know we must criticize to do this and to do that," We must nonadmire, in other words.

But if you turned around and you said, "Now look, you're not supposed to create any of these things. You use the electrodes which we provide, and you use the MEST universe only," you get sick.

A person goes out through the bottom quickly on this. If you nonadmire something high level like painting, why, the fellow will paint, paint. Paint. Paint! (gasp) And he's going to grrrrr-urr. And then he doesn't paint so much and he doesn't paint and then he doesn't paint. Oh, no. Then he's painting? Hm, You see, now he went right down through the Tone Scale from enthusiasm on a nonadmiration basis into finally apathy. And so it will drive somebody down into apathy.

And does this work out in practice? Yes, and believe me it does, And so Creative Processing - we have that right as the heart of Creative Processing.

So the law in punishing crime on a nonadmiration basis, which is really nonadmiration, exclamation point, just wants to drive a bunch of people into apathy. And do you know there's nobody more dangerous than a person in apathy. That's not a good solution. A criminal in apathy is still a criminal. Only now he doesn't care who he kills. If he kills anybody, it might as well be you, his wife or so on. He's going to go that way. If he does that way, he's just lost his determination on the thing; he's just all mixed up, in other words.

Huh, if a guy got very sick by using all the terminals he finds lying around that he didn't create here in the MEST universe, then he should get well by creating his own terminals. You rehabilitate his ability to create terminals, and the stress, strain, importance of energy in this universe becomes less and less important.

So evaluation is tied in with this rather well. And high level on the scale, you don't start noticing anything wrong with this because a person has a tendency to be in present time in the future all the time. And he doesn't have any past hanging up to amount to anything, but as he goes downscale, he'll start to get the past hanging up. Why? That's because why he keeps carrying along with him all the things which he thinks should be admired which haven't been admired. He starts insisting on his right to do these things, all kinds of aberrated things here.

Does this mean he backs out of this universe and leaves it forever? No. He becomes quite capable of handling it.

Your little kid being bad or being stupid is running on a course of action which is a nonadmired course. The therapy is not to admire the bad course, because that hits him on an analytical level, and we're after all just addressing an illusion when we're addressing it. So we'll just not worry about that. You don't misinterpret this. We're not saying that a person - the way of existence is, in living in present time, is simply to admire everything. No, no. No, we're just trying to get a fellow unstuck out of his past and make him evaluate in terms of future very easily.

Now, if he can go around and sneer at everything he pleases, that's his right, nothing wrong with that. So, when it catches up with him, he ought to know enough to run it out.

You don't have to tolerate, drive yourself into apathy, everything bad because nonadmiration of it will hang it up on the track. Use it sometimes. Be mean, qualify the thing. You'll find out there are many ways where you could just delete the particle and you get a persistence.

Now, a child who studies well gets praise, praise, praise. Fine, that runs it out. And there you go, see, it's gone. And the child who in - but he doesn't know algebra; that's because he doesn't know arithmetic. Well, nobody - you'll find out that he hit a nonadmiration for error. He made a mistake in arithmetic. And he made several other mistakes in arithmetic, and the next thing you know these were not admired, not admired, and he goes right on making more and more mistakes in mathematics. And you catch him at the age of twenty-two or twenty-three, and he adds six and six and gets fifteen every time.

Continuing this third lecture, we find out, as we'll hear later, that from zero, one can create a particle. And I mean zero time, space.

Well now, what do you do? You just have him admire arithmetic; the lock will turn up. That's all. Just get him admiring arithmetic. And he'll suddenly say, "I don't know whether I admire this or not, here's a time I got caned for... " so on.

I mean 40.0 on this Tone Scale. But when one is holding a lot of particles, he can't create particles. This is all quite interesting, and you will much more readily suppose it to be terribly technical and out of the reach of your grasp the more you try to think about it. And if you try to think hard enough about it and if you ponder it enough, I can convince you without any trouble that you'll be having an awful time with it.

You say, "Well, admire the stick, admire the cane. Now let's make a mock-up and admire it a great deal of somebody being caned." Next thing you know, he gets six and six and gets twelve, Why? The held-down five. How do you hold a held-down five? How do you hold one down? It's a missing thing that prevents the flow. There isn't a flow through five rather than a held-down five. And when there is no flow to flow through five, five keeps adding itself onto the equation time after time after time after time.

It's actually a terrible simplicity, and you sort of have to let go of an awful lot of particles to grasp it. We don't need a lot of theories. It's strange, now that we have this, how all of this data, and what tremendous data, comes tumbling into our hands.

When you take all possible admiration out of five, you'd think nobody would do five anymore. Mm-hm, no. Five just then goes down and stays there. This comes because of evaluation, you understand. Somebody has - but you have to have made this adjudication: "I will be admired," the individual says, "if I study arithmetic." He studies arithmetic and he gets his throat cut. So it leaves him stuck with a necessity for admiration on the subject of arithmetic, but mostly with failure, And he just keeps putting forward the errors of arithmetic. And he says, "Someday, somewhere, sometime, somebody is going to give me the admiration that requires - to knock this out!" That's a horrible joke. The only person that can give him any admiration that will register on his bank is himself. And that's horrible, isn't it?

For instance, not too long ago - solved sex. You know, this would be very interesting, if you solved sex in terms - in such terms that you could solve all this fellow's sexual problems and all the children's sexual problems and all this sort of thing - I mean, that should be first-line news. Why? Because the libido theory in 1894, it said sex was the root of everything. It doesn't happen to be; it's quite important though. And if you could solve that, why, gee, you ought to rush out here on the street and throw up banners and say, "Hurray, hurray, hurray. We've solved this big riddle, or we've solved this big problem and Sigmund Freud was so puzzled with it and now we've solved psychoanalysis and we got the basis of psychoanalysis and we can make psychoanalysis work everyday."

Now, all the admiration that you will get, it wouldn't matter if you were the key star of the cinema; it wouldn't matter if you were the most admired king, god or beast that existed; it would not matter at all. That admiration is not going to run out your bank! You just think it is, which keeps you plowing forward, plowing forward, working for admiration.

You'd think you'd do that. It's not that important. And yet it's solved. It's not important.

You notice that people work and then get paid? They don't get paid and then work. All right, there's why. They worked and then somebody didn't pay them. So they worked some more and then they didn't get paid; and then they worked some more and didn't get paid. And the next thing you know, there they are on the LCC staff. Well, anyway ... (audience laughter)

The reason it's not important is because what is important here is a terrible simplicity. That is to say, you're operating, The best of a man is that which has no substance in it, and the worst of a man is that which has lots of substance in it in terms of materialism. And there's where your big argument came in between the materialist and the fellow who figured he should be soulful or something of the sort.

We have - you see, the effort won't run itself out. The only person that can pay them is themselves in terms of admiration. It doesn't matter much how much admiration.

And there's your Hindu trying to desert MEST; he's trying to deny himself everything and so forth. Well, he does all that except one thing: he didn't know how to get out of his body.

Once in a while somebody will walk up to a person and say something to them and then they will realize that they should turn on some admiration from themselves, so they dub-in some admiration from this person over to themselves. They say, "He is admiring me." They put the admiration there and feel it. And then they say, "Tsk. Ha. Guess I'll have to work harder," something of the sort, You get the idea? He puts - "See, I got to find some way to get some more of that admiration."

There's just nothing to these tricks they pull on you. It's the essence of simplicity. They denied themselves everything except living - I mean, except dying (going on reverse flow here). Anyway ...

This is nonsense, you see, to think that a current is actually going to set up, because it won't, and it doesn't. But you could cause a man to turn it on himself, And when you cause him to turn it on for himself, it will run him out and bring him up to present time because he's stuck in all the times in the past when he thought he should get admiration and didn't. And he just hit that, bong, hit that, bong. So he's bogged down and he's stuck. You want this man in present time and the future. You don't want him in the past.

Now, a particle would be any object whether as so minute as to be minute beyond minute beyond minute, submicroscopic, or the Empire State Building. It wouldn't matter. In other words, you could have a particle that you couldn't see in a microscope, or a particle the size - a complex particle the size of this galaxy. They would still be a particle, you see? We could say one particle.

A psychotic is living in the past. A neurotic is only in present time and a very sane person is in the future. He's living against the future. All right.

Well, we deal a lot with particles. We have to know quite a little bit about particles; we know this subject well But we don't have to know anything like you'd think we'd have to know. We just have to know there's such a thing as a particle. A particle is a particle. A particle only does three things; a particle starts, stops, changes. Those are the laws of motion: start, stop, change. All right.

This adds up then. And you will know that two things are wrong with a child or an adult, A child has got a nonadmiration for badness, and it's that very badness which you see him dramatizing. And that's not admired, not admired, not admired, not admired, and he's making it stick, making it stick, making it stick. Now, you can drive him into apathy so he won't act at all in any field on anything - some people have this as the definition of a good child - or you can simply get him to run it out.

So particles start, particles stop and particles change. And if you've ever had a lot of children - I mean, you know that they sure can start, stop and change at the darnedest times.

Now, how do you get him to run it out as a member of a group without addressing this problem at all? Well, instead of reading sight and sound and other perceptics at the bottom of the page on Self Analysis, you just make the kids admire their mock-ups. Doesn't matter what the mock-up is. Get them to admire the mock-up and so on. Once in a while have the mock-up admire them.

Now therefore, a person - he gets so that he can only start and he can't stop or he can keep going. He can persist, in other words, without changing. See, no change is the trouble with him. He can't change - inability.

It doesn't matter what you do. Every once in a while you have a somatic turn on in one of these kids. They'll say, "Yah-yah-yah-yahyah-yah-yah." You say, "Well, the next somatic you get - on the next mock-up you get, put it where you got the somatic," And that will run it out. Because their mock-ups are terminals, terminals. A man is as sane as and has as much energy as he believes he has terminals. See, he's fixed on this two-terminal idea. It's not true, but he uses it all the time.

And your child is very stupid, let's say. All right, the trouble with that child is he's very stupid, and there's something that doesn't permit him to change. No matter how hard you try, he stays on being stupid. So much so that it was officially released and is accepted as a scientific datum that IQ cannot be altered! That is nothing like nailing everybody to the cross and saying, "Oh, let's all give up and die." IQ certainly is one of the most alterable things. As a matter of fact, an auditor simply by starting to audit out an engram can shift IQ as much as fifteen points. One session, he just starts and, say, ten minutes of auditing - shift, I'm not saying bad or good. You can drive them down and drive them up and make them level off. IQs are very easy to alter. Well, we evidently were dramatizing a no-change there, you see?

And so he puts these mock-ups up around him and he knows he's got terminals. And his confidence - his confidence in getting an energy flow is his confidence in getting terminals. That's all. And so, if he can put up terminals, he knows that he can get all the admiration in the future he wants. Why, sure, he can put up terminals into the future. Nothing to that. That's all. It's quite simple.

And particles of motion: As one continues through time, then, one has these three things that can happen. Of course, the reverse of them can happen. There's the person who can't start, there's the person who can't stop, and there's the person who can't change, as well as the person who starts and the person who stops and the person who changes. He's got those various characteristics.

Now, as far as actual terminals are concerned, you will find that child is in the most serious trouble who has lost a terminal suddenly or gradually. Had a father and a mother. There were two terminals. He didn't live in himself at all, he lived on those two terminals. He sort of had a body and he ran around and everything, but he's Father and Mother. And he had a terminal and they had an interchange. And a father and mother admire each other, boy, that's a good, smooth, flowing terminal. Nothing goes wrong, everything is fine.

Now, the three parts of behavior are thought, emotion and effort. You think about something, that's pretty high on the scale. A little bit lower than that, you feel some emotion about it - sensation of emotion. Much lower on the scale, you get in there and put some strength to it. You think about opening the door, there's possibly some emotion about opening doors, and then you put the effort to the doorknob and open the door. Human activity is divisible into these three parts,

Papa and Mama don't like each other Nuh-uh-uh-uh. Nuh-uh. Or if there's just one there, or one of them is very mean, you'll get a terminal proposition of the child using himself as one terminal and using the other parent. And you get this "You did this," and Olympus [Oedipus] and other things happening.

We have, then, three more important data that you should run into in this subject and know, and that's affinity, reality, communication.

Now, therefore, you as - in a school can become a terminal and a child can be very fixed on you. And then one day you get transferred to another class. Don't go back and look at the mental stability of some of the kids of the class you just left. You just robbed them of a terminal. You're quite sensible of this, by the way; you can sort of feel this with the kids. You're a terminal.

What is affinity? Affinity is what they've been calling love and a lot of other things. In the material universe it's known as cohesiveness and adhesiveness; in human behavior, call it affinity. There's affinity or no affinity. All the emotions come under that heading. And the emotions are all graphed on this Tone Scale as you can see in a copy of Self Analysis.

And whether they think you're a good terminal or a bad terminal, you're still a terminal. And those children that were missing a terminal at home, or those veterans or adults who don't have any terminals, they're using you as a terminal. Well, it behooves you to keep your nose pretty clean, because you're the only terminal they've got. And when you stand up in front of a group as a Group Auditor you are, whether you like it or not, becoming an integral terminal in this person's existence. Therefore, it's very good to swap around the auditors a bit so that you don't get too fixed on this. All right, all right.

Reality. Reality is that on which we're agreed. Any philosopher writing down through the ages has come to that as an agreement, by the way. "We don't know what we sense, we just know that we know that we sense; we don't know that the perception is there, we simply know that we know a perception is there." And they've talked about this for a long time. And you work this around and stir it around and so forth, and there's one positive thing that you can come up against. You can be fairly sure that reality and agreement have something a great deal in common; more than that, they're interchangeable.

I hope you can understand this very easily. It isn't terribly complicated. It's what is not admired persists. And this is horrible, by the way, just is horrible, because it works out - it works out such ghastly computations.

There's reality - really consists of agreement and disagreement. In electric-terminal flow there is merely agreement and disagreement: one way, and then they go the other way. And you find out that as people agree, they have a flow somewhere around them. And as they disagree, there's a flow. If you get the feeling of agreeing with something, you're liable to pick up a flow. Sometimes you get the feeling of disagreeing with something, you're liable to feel like you've had your head knocked off or something by a flow. And it's very interesting that agreement and disagreement are in terms of flows and that these do composite what most people say is reality. They say, "It isn't real." "Well, why isn't it real?" They won't be able to answer that unless you sort it out in terms of agreement.

Now, a fellow who is living in the past is living in the past because he's sure he had a terminal in the past and he knows he hasn't got one in the present or he knows he couldn't possibly ever get one in the future, So he can't have an interchange, he can't flow. There is no flow there. Nonadmiration. He gets into the past, this nonadmiration will persist, persist, persist, because he's still got a fixed terminal. It's still sitting there, it's still a terminal. It's - obviously can be used, but it doesn't work. And you get the bafflement of the psychotic. He's using these terminals in the past, and he knows they're terminals and he knows they should work, and they don't work, and he doesn't know why they don't work. And he'll haul those right up into present time and try to use them as terminals. Because he's sure he hasn't got a terminal in present time much less have one in the future.

"Well, did somebody tell you it wasn't real?"

Now you take a neurotic, he's holding on desperately to terminals in present time. Terminals plot against time, you see? It's time change that makes an electric flow. You got to change the time and the terminal at the same time, so you have a past-future, past-future, past-future in any electronic circuit. All right.

"Yeah."

He hangs onto these terminals in present time and plots them against something a little bit in the past, or he hangs on to terminals in present time and plots them against something in the future. That last is a very healthy thing. That is the child who is holding on to the toy gun. He's holding on to that toy gun because one of these days he's going to be a cowboy. And he's got a mock-up out here in the future. See, there's a cowboy. That's his terminal. He's going to be this fellow. And he's running on that as energy, he thinks. All right, that's his energy line. Zing, zing, zing. That will be terrifically admired. And one day you see him and he just looks like he'd trip over his chin, it's so low.

"Did you agree with that person?"

And you say, "What's the matter with you?" If you plowed into it, you would find that he had some kind of a mock-up of him that he had mocked up for the future. He said this is a future mock-up. You see him mock up into the future very easily because you're not in the future anyway, there isn't any time.

"Yeah."

Anyway, here's this future mock-up and it's a cowboy. And somebody has come along and taken his mock-up away from him. How did they do it? They have simply convinced him that cowboys are no good. And he hits bottom. How does he hit bottom? He just stops getting a flow. He has no more flow. That's the end. It's just like you turn off an electric light, The kid will look like that. You've destroyed a mock-up. You say, "Cowboys are no good." You've convinced this kid they're no good and he doesn't want to be a cowboy, and so on. I almost got killed one time, actually, in a little Spanish village way back up in the mountains down in the West Indies by simply telling a bunch of natives that that was a bad Western picture and the cowboys in it weren't actual. It was one of these little two-bit movie houses, you know - the silent film, filmed lord knows how long ago. And I just explained this, that there were better cowboy pictures than this - I was trying to say that. And I just said these characters weren't real. And I had taken their mock-ups away from them, and believe me, the fellows I was with almost killed me! Didn't realize what I was doing.

"It's not real, then, is it?"

Well, you will find, then, that life goes most smoothly which goes on a high level of admired illusion. Sure, the kid will change his mind, he'll change his mind about wanting to be a cowboy. But as long as he wants to be a cowboy, you better not change his mind, because he's got a terminal there and it may be the only other one he's got. Maybe you're one, and it's the other. And if you were to tell him that cowboys were really no good, you'd probably send him home and he'd have a case of measles or something. It's as sudden and as explicable as that; these childhood illnesses and upsets.

"No."

Now, you take a veteran and he starts coming up out of apathy and you - something tells him this is all no good. He'll just sink back into apathy again. Well, your job is to get him up above that level so that this sort of thing doesn't happen to them. And it's relatively easy to do with the processes we're using. Because if they become confident of their mock-ups, then they're indestructible. Nothing can destroy them.

"Well, why isn't it real?"

You see, an illusory terminal, that is to say, a created terminal by imagination is more valuable to the individual than a real terminal. It's on his wavelength. And the real terminal doesn't flow at him anyway. He just thinks it does.

"Well, it's just not real."

Okay, let's take a very short break here.

I mean, they'll come back to that one and sag every time, because they think there's something real about the word real. It's an object, you see? And it has no meaning at all!

What's real? You go down to the tribe of the Wongabullas and you'll find out that anything that we consider reality up here probably is unreality down there in terms of customs and behavior or anything else. And you go over to Ireland and you go around in some of the back roads of Ireland, you're going to find that there's a great deal of reality as to leprechauns and other things over there; there are all kinds of things over there. You don't agree they're there; you're not going to see them either.

Now therefore, just by that route and because it works - no other reason really than that one; this happens to work - there is reality in terms of agreement. We agree heavily enough on reality.

There are various tests one can enter on in this. You can make anything real to a person who's hypnotized. You say, if everybody got just sufficiently and thoroughly enough hypnotized, he would see a MEST universe. You don't believe this, sometimes get a hypnotist to hypnotize somebody who is a good subject and get him to paint up a whole universe and have that whole universe be real to that person. It'll work, it'll work. Of course, I'm not inferring that everybody is hypnotized into believing there's a universe here. (audience laughter) Now, a one-word description of what we are trying to do to people, though, it fits right in right there. We're trying not to force people around; we're trying to unhypnotize them. We're trying to wake them up, not put them to sleep. We're trying to make them more alert, not more dull.

And then there's a third member of that triangle - and that's a triangle, by the way. It's an interesting triangle, because at any level of this Tone Scale I talk to you about, you'll get the same levels of that triangle.

The communication, the reality and the affinity at that level will be the same for that level. You don't have communication sitting one place on that Tone Scale and reality sitting another place and affinity sitting someplace else, You'll find them all at the same level.

So, they are the three behavior characteristics of life "energy": affinity, reality and communication.

What's life composed of? It's composed of affinity, reality, communication. When a communication is low, affinity and reality are low; when reality is low, affinity and communication are low; when affinity is low - get that one, when affinity is low; because boy, does this - this theory of ARC has been just sitting around just for ages; just backed up because it was so workable, no other reason.

And all of a sudden, as I'm going to show you here in tonight's lecture, that we ran into it just head-on, on the subject of ARC. And it all comes back to ARC. You can't agree with somebody you're not in communication with. It's very hard to love somebody who doesn't exist for you. In other words, ARC: You've got to have communication to have affinity to have reality. You've got to have three of those three things, You can't have two of them.

And you'll realize this sometime. You take a little child and he comes to school and he's going uuss-phll-uuss-phll. And he's snuffling and crying and he ... You could sit him down in a chair and let him come over it. But if you'll just lead him out by making him ... I don't care what he says to you. He says, "One, two, three, four, five," or anything of the sort. If you just make him communicate, (snap) he'll snap out of it.

Why? Well, he'll realize somebody does love him. Why does he realize that? That's because he's communicating with somebody. That's all. I mean, it's just as simple - terribly mechanical like that. ARC: affinity, reality, communication. Now, there's a lot to know about those, but that's good enough.

Now, actually, the Tone Scale was originally plotted out by behavior, from observation of the behavior of a preclear as he came up Tone Scale, plotted where the emotions belonged on that Tone Scale.

The next thing that happened was to find out that ARC plotted on that Tone Scale from 0.0 at the bottom to 40.0 at the top. And it was all worked out from the basis of ARC theoretically, and then came back into the MEST universe and took a look around to find out if that still agreed. And it still agreed and it still held good and is as good today as it was years ago. So we have - we have that as a good stability to work with. And when all other problems of human relationship, all problems of human relationship seem to be bogged down, when you can't get anywhere, when there's something that can't be done, remember there's ARC. What's happening with regard to ARC? And you can solve it.

This person is making you unhappy. You say, “This person is making me unhappy. Always makes me unhappy. Never blah-de-blah-de-blah making me unhappy. Nnaa-dduuhh-dduuhh, I blah don't see anybody - makes me unhappy." And so on. What's your solution? Cut the communication line? What happens then? Well, you don't have an agreement or a parity level of affinity. That's simple, isn't it? That's all there is to that - person makes you unhappy. That says - well, that says that you'd have to advise some husband to leave home. Yeah, that's right. All right, we'll go on to the next one. (audience laughter) The full Tone Scale, then, interplays and interweaves thought, emotion and effort; start, stop and change; affinity, reality and communication. Because at the top of the Tone Scale things start, the middle of the Tone Scale they are holding in a consistency or changing it, and at the bottom of the Tone Scale, they're stopped, How stopped can you get? Dead!

When you're dealing with children, you will realize that the - you will sometimes believe that the child is very badly off who is in a lot of motion all the time. No, the one who is very badly off is the kid who just sits there. He just sits there. That's really bad off. He's bottom scale. So we get on the full Tone Scale an interweave, then, of these factors. And a cycle of action of life starts in at 40.0 - just thought, no energy, nothing there but space - and progresses on through its cycle of action to middle age where we have everything very conservative, to old age where you have death. And that would be the cycle of one lifetime or - get this - the cycle of any action. It starts, it persists and it stops. Then it has to change violently before it can start again, doesn't it? And so you have death intervene.

Well, we won't go into that too deeply. We know that you can plot any person in your group or plot the level of your group by using these factors, and you don't have to know too much about this.

What's the level of their communication? You have a graph in Self Analysis that tells you what their level of communication would be. That is to say, you know they don't communicate with you. There's a cut line, Well, it says in that graph in Self Analysis where a cut line is. And you can expect what the affinity and what the reality will be of that.

Now, you'll know, then, whether this group is getting better or getting worse by whether or not they change on the Tone Scale. If they don't change on the Tone Scale, they're not changing. So you want to watch - a Group Auditor wants to watch a group in terms of that Tone Scale.

And watch this, the person who sits silently, motionless, communicates nothing and so forth is down there close to death. And when this person starts to get well, this person is going to do all sorts of things. He's going to go into grief; he's got to get up to afraid of things; up above that, they get angry - and that's the worst because what you're liable to find out as a Group Auditor is all of a sudden this group is very antagonistic towards you. You know what you're doing. But don't think you've failed; you're making them well. Let them roar. You know what's wrong with them.

The next level up from that, they're all bored with it. "Do we have to do that anymore? Why do we have to do that some more? We don't have to do that anymore, do we? Ah, let's do something else. We're bored. We're bored." Keep at it because above the next level of boredom is being very conservative about how they're doing it, and right above that level they get very enthusiastic.

What do you know, so if you've stopped at boredom, you have lost the game, just as if you would have stopped at antagonism.

This group hates your guts, that's 1,5, Gee, if you haul a group up to 1,5, you've really done something? You say, "Rarr-rarr-rarr-ruff." (audience laughter)

It's interesting to watch, but if your group doesn't change its manifestation, nothing's happening, so watch that.

And you should know this Tone Scale pretty well and you have a good picture of it there in Self Analysis. As a matter of fact, it's the only published edition of it right at the moment and should give you quite a bit of material to deal with.

These are the mechanics, then, of what you're dealing ... You're trying to get a no-zero - I mean, a no-energy thing, really a no-zero thing because there is something there; no wavelength. In other words, it isn't describable in terms of the MEST universe, it's all you're saying when you say it's - hasn't any wavelength, no location. You're trying to get this capability as high and as workable and as operable as possible, And as long as that capability increases, you're all right. But when a person starts losing those capabilities of organization and so forth, alignment that are top Tone Scale, and it starts drifting down, down, down into matter, they think slower and slower, they think worse and worse, they're less and less rational and they finally go on out the bottom; or they just hang fire someplace very low on the scale and they're not much use or benefit to anyone. Their interest Level dwindles down, down, down as that scale is descended.

The people you'll be processing lie normally well below 4.0 and most commonly lie between 2.5 and 0.1.