Thank you.

You think of an elephant, you think "elephant." There's an elephant, mental image picture, only it's one you saw in the zoo or one that chased you a few generations back.

A great deal of work has been done in the last year on many subjects and you might like to know about some of it. Would you like to know about some of that work?

What kind of a universe is this? Well, it's very personal because those particular scenes and pictures actually do record and make a permanent record of — until a Dianeticist gets hold of you — events through which you have passed. You have a picture of something that happened.

Audience: Yes.

Now, once in a while you actually mock something up or you get a picture of something you would like to invent — something of that sort — and you get a similar picture. That we call a "mock-up" — something that is not a picture of the physical universe.

Thank you.

Now, one of these mental image pictures we actually call a "facsimile," which means a copy of, and it's just a copy of the physical universe. And you will find out that the facsimiles which a person most readily has to hand are facsimiles he has taken or manufactured to record items which he is about to lose or is losing. And he cherishes those. He keeps the picture of the item, instead of the item he lost.

A year ago I left Washington here intending to stay abroad for a few weeks. Well, I got abroad and I found something very remarkable. I found cases tougher than American cases. And I found a subject which was very, very intriguing to me; the effect of modern war on a population. And I found something else abroad; I found it was very easy for me to get very excellent assistance within the limits of the exchequer. That was very important.

Now, if you had a universe of your own, I'm sure that the floors in that universe would be as solid as this one.

So, I sat down and started to do some work. And the first of that work that was developed immediately after the not-know, the first and second postulate work that was done in Washington here, was the communication bridge. And I found out that it was very, very easy to dream up a process (we'd always known this) but I found out it was much easier to dream up a process than it was to get it audited on somebody. I found out there might even be said to be a small amount of difficulty connected with getting an actual process audited on somebody.

Now, just take a look at your own bank. Go ahead, take a look at this universe of pictures. Get a picture of something. Got it?

And I set out a year ago to understand why — why? You know there was an old tradition in the field of mental healing (an old field, it has been laid aside these many years) but there was a tradition that "there were some mental healers who had a certain insight into a case, who had a touch, who were able to — by some personal magnetism — pull the aberration out of somebody." There was such a tradition.

Audience: Yeah. Uh-huh.

Do you know that the entirety of Dianetics was discredited in the field of psychology and psychiatry because they said, "It's very probable that Hubbard can get these results on his patients . . ." They didn't know I wasn't even in practice. "It's very probable he could get these results — but that is because a magnetism or a personal factor exists which gives him an insight." And they told people this; they really did. Some of you have heard that. And they told people this was why Dianetics worked when it worked, but that as a science it didn't exist, but was simply an attempt to explain this thing called "insight."

All right, now, I want you to stamp on the floor. Okay, how solid is that floor?

Well, five years later, in October of 1955 I decided I would study this thing called "insight." Why was it one person got results with a preclear and another person didn't get results with a preclear? Why? It was a big study and I thought I could wrap it up in a few weeks with my usual optimism.

Audience: Real solid.

So, a year later I am telling you about it.

Got that?

First, there was the communication bridge. What is a communication bridge? It is a bridge between one state of beingness and another. It is a bridge between the destroy and the create of any cycle of action. A cycle of action is create-survive-destroy. How do we get onto another cycle of action?

Audience: Yeah.

All right, we are running a process. A good process on somebody called "Do Fishes Swim?" Oh, somebody is familiar with that process? That's a very workable process. Anyway, I'll tell you a joke about it in a minute.

All right, now get that picture you had of something. Now stamp on it. Is it as solid as the floor?

So, here I was working away trying to get between one cycle of action and another. We say — we start in with a preclear, we start saying, "Do fishes swim? Do fishes swim? Do fishes swim?" We run out the communication lag that is developed by the process — gets flat — and we consider the process has done everything that the process can be expected to do; it's just as simple as that.

Audience: Yes. No.

Now, how do you get from that end of process to the next process? It requires a bridge. You have to wind up the old process, establish the session somewhat, and begin the new process.

All right, maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but there's a difference, isn't there?

Now, let's look at that more carefully. In other words, if you flattened the process you would reach an end of session as far as the preclear is concerned, because that process has been audited, and that's all there is to that process. That is the end of that process. So, he equals it up as "end of session," and he could be expected to go out of session somewhat.

Audience: Yes.

All right, how do you get between one state of livingness and another? You have to declare that one is ended, that this state still exists and that a new action is going to be taken.

Now, the other fellow's universe may or may not be solid, but certainly there is something very comforting and reassuring about this floor. Would you tell me why it is that an individual gets sick to the degree that he cannot tolerate a physical universe solid such as that pillar? And why does he get well when you tell him he can have the pillar or to look around and find things he can have? In other words, when you increase his physical universe possession, he observably gets well. This is therapy.

You do that this way: everything is done on agreement, this world is here because we agree it is, so therefore we have to get an agreement that in a command or two or three, we are going to end the process. We are thinking about it. We wonder how it is and we're thinking about it and we say — in — "Will it be all right with you if a couple more commands we end this particular process? Is that all right with you?"

Doctors dramatize this. They can't let people have too much, so they take little grains of barbiturates or something and they take little grains of the physical universe and little granules of the physical universe and little capsules of the physical universe and ... And they think it'll make some-body well.

The preclear says, "All right," or "No." If he says no, you'll have to keep going.

Well, I told you that we Scientologists are always thinking big. We don't know how to think small and the theory is that if you can ... and make somebody well, well let's get him to take a building.

All right.

The question is: Does it work? Does it work? All right, you tell me, Scientologists, does it work to increase somebody's havingness?

Now, we carry it over then, and we have given him warning, we've given him no abrupt stop, and we say to him then, "Well, all right, that's the finish of that particular thing. Now, how are we getting on? How are you doing?"

Audience: Yes!

We don't ask him how he feels because that as-ises things. We might as well ask him "How do you cry?" as "How do you feel anyway?"; it's just another part of the Tone Scale.

Ah, what the devil do you suppose does that? Is it actually true that this stuff that these floors and ceilings and walls are made out of are therapeutic in some fashion? Is it actually true that they are?

So, we say, "How are you doing? How are we getting along?" and he says, "So-and-so and so-and-so."

Audience: Yes.

Why do you do that? You say, look — look preclear, I am still here; you're still here; the room's still here. And we do that by saying, "Well, how are we doing? Do you think you're getting anyplace now? Do you think that you could be doing a little better or a little worse? What's your general reaction?" And he talks with you about this for a moment or two. And then you say, "Well now, I was thinking about running another little process on you that was so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so. Now, what do you think about that?"

Yes, well that's a peculiar thing. What's the matter with a preclear? What is the matter with a preclear?

And he'll say, "Well, I think that is a pretty good idea."

Male voice: He can't have any planets.

And then you say to him, "Well now, the wording of this process is so-and-so. Do our finny friends fluctuate through water?"

That's right, he can't have it. And up here we have "Know" and then of course, we have "Not Know," "Emotion," "Effort" and "Solids," but we'll put "Solids" here. And under "Solids" we have "Think." Down here we have "Mystery." As an individual decreases in mental capability and ability he goes down this scale — "Eat," "Sex," "Mystery" — whatever it is. He gets stuck on some part of this scale.

And he says, "No, I don't understand that."

Actually, if he were at the top of the scale and he could really think a thought, in other words, postulate a thought, he would be able to do some-thing quite interesting. He would be able to make that thought felt on anything else in this scale of Know to Mystery.

You say, "Well, do fishes ever dunk themselves?"

In other words, here he's thinking about something; up here he thinks at something. This is the difference between a pocket adding machine and a lightning bolt! This thing called "Solids" in a game condition is of course a barrier, or it's a missile. And when an individual can't tolerate a solid, he can't have a playing field and if he can't have a playing field, he can't have a game. And that's all you can say about it.

"No," he says, "I don't like that. Don't — don't — it just doesn't make sense to me."

An individual who could think a direct thought, cause — a direct thought, by the way, is quite interesting — a direct thought is exactly a communication. It is cause-distance-effect. Cause-distance-effect. He thinks a thought — boom! Now, if he is very aberrated indeed he can only think thoughts that cause horrible results. It isn't necessary to think that kind of a thought unless you are hard to convince that you have achieved an effect.

You say, "Well, all right. Do fishes swim?"

These individuals who work so hard to achieve an effect actually are not achieving one or they simply can achieve a bad one. A nation which can only kill another nation on a battlefield is already so disabled that it can't really tolerate a game; it can't think a nice direct thought, and your cause-distanceeffect is, however, possible only up here.

"Ah, yeah," he says, "that's pretty good. That's pretty good. Yeah, I can understand that. That's easy to understand."

Now, did you ever read a book written by a professor? I mean one of these real lovely articles that say, "This is the story about — this is the tale of ice ages. This is the cause and so on of ice ages. The ice ages begun, it is said according to Professor Wumph, at a certain period of time which by an analysis of the fossilized remains by the archaeology department of the University of Michigan did seem to occur. However, this is contested by Professor Spath."

And you say, "All right, now let's begin the process now." And you ask him, "Do fishes swim?"

You know, I well remember the first time — the first time I ever ran up against this phenomena, because it's phenomenal, believe me. I got into a state of mind — I wanted to write a story about the ice ages back in the good old days, so I, of course, went and got the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I opened it up and it says, "Ice Ages." So I read and that was what I read: "According to the fossilized remains of Professor Spath," why, and so on and so on and so on. And I read, read, getting groggier and groggier. I couldn't find in there anywhere where the ice ages had been caused by anything! Evidently as far as I could discover about these ice ages is they were being discussed. There was no description of when the ice ages began, why they began, what happened, no direct statement of any kind. But, boy, was there a lot of discussion! That subject of the ice ages was so thoroughly discussed that I was disgusted. In fact, I almost became allergic to ice ages.

That's a communication bridge. That keeps people in-session — also keeps up their havingness.

Needless to say I wrote the story about tropical times.

Well, that was very neat. We had a number of processes; we found auditors did much better when they understood this thing called a bridge. Now, the funny part of a bridge is that every session begins with a half-bridge. The last half of the bridge is used at the beginning of session, and the first half of the bridge is used at the complete end of the session.

Well, look at the difference — the fellow who writes about something and the fellow who writes something. Get the difference?

We would go at it this way. You say, "I'm going to audit you now. Are you all set? Get braced, get ready to turn on the no-effect."

Now there is nothing wrong with writing something about something or discussing something — there is nothing wrong with this at all. It's a common pastime. It's perfectly okay, but don't seriously pass it off as the thing. In other words, because we write about something we are not writing the thing, you see that?

And he says, "All right."

Male voice: Yeah.

And you say, "Well now, I am thinking of running a little process on you called 'Do Fishes Swim.' I'll ask it over and over and you answer it and we'll see how we get along. Is that process all right with you?"

It should be very clear.

And he says, "Sure, that process is good with me."

A handbook on how to start and maintain diesel engines has great value. If you read it, you know how to run, handle and use diesel engines. Another book which gives types of diesel engines and their inventions and that sort of thing is actually equally interesting. There is nothing wrong with it. A fellow who is in good shape should be able to write all over the Tone Scale. But, how about the fellow who writes a book entitled How to Start, Handle and Maintain Diesel Engines and then starts it out this way, "The first diesel engine was evidently discovered or invented — whereas there is some question about this — by a Swedish individual who — however, in his own writings credited his idea to the Italians."

And so you start in and you say, "Do fishes swim?" And you're in-session. You see?

Chapter Two: "Diesel engines are said to be very difficult to maintain at times, but other authorities claim they are very easy to run."

All right, at the end — at the end of the session, you then use the first part of the bridge. You say, "I think — I'm thinking of ending this session after two or three more questions, is that all right with you?"

Chapter Three: "In maintaining diesel engines there are many books available ..."

And he says, "Yeah — yeah, I don't see why not."

You see, he's written a book here that pretends to be here. Get the difference? In other words, the difference is that of honesty. If you write a book about something and say it's about that something, all right. But if you write a book about something and say it is the thing, you are being very dishonest.

And you say, "Well, all right." And you ask the "Do fishes swim?" and he answers you; and "Do fishes swim?" and he answers you, and "Do fishes swim?" and you say, "Well, that's all right. How — how are you doing now? How are you getting along?"

There is a subject called — I forget its name — just a minute, it's phrenology. Phrenology. It's taught in most universities. No, it's not its name. "Psychic phenomena," I think it's called. It's taught in most universities anyway. I have forgotten — it used to be taught and it says that it is this book on the subject of the mind, when it is this book on the subject of the mind. You got the difference?

And he says, "Oh, I'm — I'm doing all right. I'm just a little bit anaten. I can almost see you."

Male voice: Yeah.

And you say, "Well — uh ..." You know the comm is a bit flat on the process, and you realize he must be a bit out of present time, so you simply have to put on what? The rest of the communication bridge, start a new session and close it off. How do you do that? You don't simply say — you see he is groggy, so you say, "Well, spot some things in the room." No, that's wrong. Shocks him, startles him, and sticks him in session because of the sudden change.

That's a singular difference, isn't it? Because this book will never do anything else but shy away from solids. This material will never think or pose a causative thought. It's perfectly all right to write about things if you're writing about things and it's really necessary and interesting to have books about things.

So what you do — he says, "I'm a bit groggy."

You ever read a book about stamps? Well, it's perfectly legitimate to have a book about stamps; they're a lot of fun. A book about paintings, a book about this, a book about that — perfectly all right. But a book which discussed paintings from Rembrandt backwards or something of the sort, but had a title — all it did was discuss paintings and say what museums they were in and how much they cost people — and title itself, How to Paint and Become a Famous Painter, is a fraud. It's a complete fraud, see?

You say, "Well, all right. Well, let's end this 'Do Fishes Swim' anyway, and let's start in now on something else. Now, how do — how do you feel? Do you feel all right? And you're doing okay. You say you're groggy. Well, how are you doing? You know, you're groggy?"

So, we have to differentiate between the professorial figure-figure material which pretends to be the subject and actually this. You see that? Well, it's all very well to look over that and run down those good people who actually are making a living. I wonder if they sometimes don't go on an interesting motto.

"Well ..."

Anyway, an interesting book can be written on any subject under the sun — about it. But if the book pretends to be it, what use is it? What use is a universe which is only about another universe? What is it? What use is a book that is only about things except as a matter of passing interest? It's not a causative book, is it? What use really is a universe which is only about another universe? It's a sort of a discussion. What most people call their own universes are a discussion of the physical universe. And that which you have been calling and which I call "own universe" is only a false universe picture gallery of the physical universe.

You say, "Well if — would it be all right with you if we just . . ." (see, here you are on the rest of the bridge) "Would it be all right with you if I tell you to spot walls and objects in the room, and so forth? Would that be all right with you?"

I told you I didn't have anything very important to talk to you about. All I am describing is the actual anatomy of the reactive mind and that's dead so long that it's hardly any use at all.

And he says, "Ah — why not. Why not," he says.

So, do you have your own universe? Is there a universe that you can call your own universe? Is there one? Hm? Is there one, really?

And you say, "Well, I'm going to ask you, 'Look at that wall' and then you look at the wall ... and tell me when you've looked at it. Is that all right?" And he'd say, "Ah — ah, yes, that's fine."

Audience: Yes.

And you'd say, "All right, we're going to do that now. Now, you look at that wall . . ." and so forth.

What is it?

And then pretty soon he is alert again, and you say, "Well, I am going to ask you to look at two or three objects now, and then how would it be if we ended the session?"

Audience: This one.

And he would say, "Oh, that would be all right."

Huh, you're right. That's your universe. Well, why do you think that you don't have a total ownership on the thing? That's because in the process of games, people disenfranchise people gradually, a little bit. They say, "You can't play this game. You can't come close to it." They say, "You have to have a deed before you can walk on this property." Get the barriers? "You have to pay a certain sum of money with the Recorder of Motor Vehicles before you can drive this car." You got the idea?

So you say — you ask him, "Look at the ceiling. Look at the floor. Look at the ashtray" or something of the sort. And you say to him then, "Well, all right now. You're doing okay now?"

Well, it changes our thinking considerably on this whole subject. This universe — physical universe was evidently actually built by us. We built it. And then after a while we mocked up things that we couldn't stop often enough and we decided not to create that solidly anymore, and we stopped mocking things up that solidly. We stopped putting things together with that much glue and we said, "You know, we get in trouble mocking this stuff up and never unmocking it." Or "We sold ourselves and other people sold us a bill of goods and they told us we had to get out of the universe somewhat." And a fellow draws back at last and he only keeps pictures of the physical universe and he said that's his own universe.

And he says, "Yes. Yes."

Why can't you or don't you mock up a better floor, a better car, a better house? Why? When a bullet comes at you that's traveling mighty fast and you can't stop the bullet, why don't you mock up a piece of armor plate in front of you? You know, these bodies don't stop bullets well. There have been many clinical tests made on the subject. Well, why don't you mock up an armor shield to have the bullet go clang against it?

So you say, "All right. End of session."

It's because you began to be intolerant of solids. That's the answer. You said, "There are enough barriers around already. I won't be guilty of mocking up another one." Here's this huge universe, huge, with a handful of planets in it and a few suns, and we decided there was already enough walls. There were already enough walls. We didn't need any more. Let's not be quite so solid in our mock-ups.

See? See what a bridge is?

We ourselves as thetans are not solid. We therefore begin to find fault with solids because we cannot completely duplicate a solid, and a solid never duplicates us and so the communication formula is violated.

If you envision a bridge as a sort of a mechanism here that goes like this. This is a processing area, see, this is a processing area, see. Those are two processing areas; this is simply a "you're here and I'm here" area. See? So, we go — we end a processing area and we begin over here.

And a communication formula has this interesting fact connected with it. Here we have at cause a certain idea or entity. At effect, a perfect communication would have the same duplicate or entity, don't you see? Supposing at cause we had a small pebble; at effect we would still have to have a small pebble. When we have effect — small pebble — we would have a small pebble back here at cause. In other words, for cause to hit with a pebble, it is really necessary for cause to be able to tolerate a pebble back. Therefore, we get that thing called, "Love thy neighbor. If thou does not smote the other cheek thou shalt be in violation of Covenant 83" or whatever it is. I'm not quite sure what the quotation is. You possibly could help me out.

Now, when we start a whole session, a whole session looks like this — looks like this. Here we're both here and here's a processing area, and then no matter how many comm bridges occur in here, we finally wind up like this. And here we both are again, don't you see? You end here, see. So, this is a session. And that is a — that's just a bridge itself. Were always trying to get across the bridge in old Book One and there's the bridge.

Now, we have this situation here. We've got a problem in cause and effect. A thetan looks at a solid. Here's this board here — it's solid. I am back up here about three feet of my head — I look at that board, see the board real well. I sort of have a feeling like I ought to be a board. If I'm unwilling to be a board I don't see the board very well at all. You get what the problem is? Well, as an individual is disabused of the idea that he should mock up things, that he does own this universe — as he gets disabused of this idea, he is less and less willing to perceive it. And in view of the fact that if he doesn't mock it up all the time it isn't there as soon as he falls down on the job and stops mocking it up that solidly, he starts to have trouble with it!

So anyway, if you know these auditing dodges, you actually know how to talk to people so that they listen to you if you know them.

Now, let's get the idea of a great big ice cube here — great big ice cube and we look at this ice cube and we realize that it's going to melt. If we don't put more ice cube there, we're not going to have any ice cube. Is that right?

You can walk into anybody, talk to anybody if you use a bridge. Now, how would you use a bridge talking to somebody? You've just been talking about the big fire, and so forth. Well, you say, "Well, I don't know, that fire, there's been lots of fires around town. How's it going in your family?"

Audience: Yes.

"The family is okay, and so forth. Everything is all — doing all right and so forth."

It's inevitable.

And you say, "Well, how about the floods that we've been having?" See, a new subject.

Well, what's the difference between that ice cube and that pillar? There is no essential difference except the ice cube leaves some water when it disappears, and the pillar leaves a headache.

In other words, if you end a subject, say, "We're here talking," and begin a subject again, the person you are talking to stays in communication with you.

When you become the total effect of the physical universe, you believe it is no longer your universe. You can still see it because misownership is at work, but you don't mock it up anymore, you don't assist it to appear, you don't keep time going clickity-clack, all because of what? Because you don't want to look at solids anymore. You think that solids are something you want to avoid here. You want to stay below it.

But if you go rattling along with him madly about fires, fires, fires, fires, and then you suddenly say, "Floods are bad too."

Let's think about walls, let's don't mock them up. It's very funny — we've had this for a long time, "Look, don't think." Got a car, it isn't running. You take it into a garage mechanic who is in terrible condition — the garage mechanic is. You run the car in the garage and he says, "Well, let's see, what could be wrong with that car?" Drive on, find another garage. When you get back the wheels will be off of it, too.

Much worse, you're talking about business and suddenly you say, "She sure is a pretty girl." He actually, goes out of communication with you because there is no agreement on the subject of the communication, so you end agreement on what you were talking about. You say, "We are still talking here, aren't we," and start again.

But you drive into a garage, drive your car in — something wrong with it — mechanic doesn't start arranging with you about the bill or anything. He-up with the hood . . . It's quite remarkable. Why? As one becomes allergic to solid masses, walls, books, brooks, pebbles, kings, cats and coal heavers, he stops looking at them. Some part of him is still mocking them up sort of back over here, you know. "I'm scared of that thing." See? But he can't remedy anything about them.

Now, a salesman doing this sort of thing very often discovers something very peculiar. He can sell razor blades very nicely, but all of a sudden he brings out a washing machine. The guy wanted razor blades, he bought some, but he doesn't want the washing machine, apparently. But the truth of the matter is something else took place entirely. He was not part of the conversation about washing machines. He was part of the conversation about razor blades. If a conversation existed and communication was taking place on the subject of razor blades, then, of course, there was some wire for the razor blades to travel on, don't you see, to get over to him. But there is nothing to roll a washing machine down! He's not part of the conversation about washing machines. Do you follow this use?

In order to solve a problem it is necessary to confront the solids connected with the problem. If you can confront the solids connected with the problem, you can solve the problem. We explain this in many ways.

Now, you know the use of all of these communication mechanisms in everyday living is very fascinating. If you can audit well, and if you know these mechanisms so that you are totally relaxed about them, you're still not learning to act on the basis of "Let me see, where — where do I put my thumbs? Do they . . . ?" You know. Get the idea now — "What'll I do with my hands?" You know, sort of thing.

A fellow is mad at us; he's going yap-yap-yap-yap, chop-chop-chop. We say, "I'd better not go over there and talk to him, he's mad. Better stay away from that." I believe Scientologists know better now. They have rationalizations and explanations for it. That fellow is over there chop-chop-chop and he's saying, "Hiya, Joe! What's wrong? Is something wrong?" Joe ... You see, confronts the solid.

If we have — if we have a conversance — if we have a conversance with our subject we don't have to put very much strain on it. The newness is out of it; we can use it.

Now, it isn't true that thetans are solid. They're not — they're not solid. I was talking to a thetan one day and he said something. He was using American slang or something and he said, "That's solid, Jackson."

Like trying to drive a car the first time. You very often take a hubcap off on the curve or something. But you never did that before, but it's just a new car.

I said, "What?"

Now, you get so you could really use your communication formulas, you could do the darnedest things with conversation, particularly with a non-Scientologist. You could even do strange things with a Scientologist. In his case just omit some of the steps. And he goes, "Zzzzzzz."

He said, "That idea."

But it isn't just something we invented to know. That's the single difference about this particular subject. It's not simply invented so that we could know something about it. No, we have something else involved here, some-thing entirely different involved here. We talk to somebody in society and they are going chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, you know, "It's all bad over here. It's all bad over there. It's all bad over something else."

I says, "Is it? I can't see it."

Communicationwise, if you want to stay in communication with them, they're — you have two choices — chop! or be a Scientologist. Now, the way you be a Scientologist without putting them in-session is to "outchop" him!

"Oh," he says, "you're just being a purist." He says, "You belong down here in Hubbard's symbols."

He's doing something to create an effect on you. That puts you in a no-game condition. Do you see? So, you just, you know, pop! swing it the other way and he says, "Do you know that Mrs. Aster — Mrs. Aster actually said the other day that her maid ..."

But as we put this universe back together again, as we're willing to put this universe back together again, we can handle it, we can control it. There isn't anything in it which can stand before us and if we can handle it and control it, we can also make it disappear.

You know, and you said, "Oh, wait, that's — that's nothing. That's nothing. Do you know that — what her husband told me?"

There is a process that rides right up here just below Know, which is Not Know. Auditors have a lot of fun with this process. They take a preclear out — it's very, very hard to train an auditor to run the process who himself has not experienced the phenomena. Very hard.

"What?"

I've thought of several examples. Takes a preclear out and you audit him. "Well, all right look around here. Tell me if there's anything you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that wall, about that person, about this, about that." Person — "Well, I wouldn't mind not-knowing that curtains were hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing that Declaration of Human Rights is hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing it had a light hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing this. Wouldn't mind not-knowing that," so forth.

"He said that her maid . . . Well, you know how maids are?"

He goes along — auditor is perfectly happy — nothing is happening. "All right, now, tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that person over there."

This person says . . . They're not chopping.

"Well, wouldn't mind not-knowing her head, wouldn't mind not-knowing her shoes, wouldn't mind not-knowing her dress."

In other words, you use a communication and put it — somebody is trying to put you in a no ... You see, you can talk to anybody about anything as long as they are not trying to make a super game out of it, whereby they are trying to put you in your place and stop you cold! Get the idea. They are trying to fix you up good. You know, chop, chop, chop. Well, all right.

The auditor says, "Okay, that's enough. Tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that girl over there."

Now, here we go. This person is talking not to inform you, not to spend a pleasant time with you, not to enjoy your company, but simply to cut you to ribbons by cutting somebody else to ribbons. See? Ha-ha! Just outchop him. This person wants to be in a game condition — put him in one from your standpoint, which puts him in a no-game condition, he stops. Do you get the idea? You can always end a game; that is the easiest thing to do in the world. The first requisite to ending a game, however, is to find out what game is going on.

Preclear says, "Well, I wouldn't mind not-knowing her hat. Hey!"

Very often in organizations I am — somebody on staff will — an executive post or something like that over in London or here, they look at me, and they'll say, "We're going to do what? But that newspaper reporter said so-and-so and so-and-so. And you mean, we aren't going to get him down and run birth on him?"

The auditor says, "What's the matter? What's the matter? Something happen? Get a somatic?"

Say, "No. Nope. No."

Preclear says, "I did!"

"Well, how — what do you mean — what do you mean then when you want him back in for a pleasant talk? Do you really want to see him again?" "No. I don't want to see him again."

And the auditor says, "You did what?"

"Well, what's — supposed to do when he comes in?"

"I not-knew her hat!"

"He's supposed to look over these child group profiles on crippled children."

Auditor says, "You did? What do you mean?"

"Oh, you dog. See, you've got him." Cognite suddenly. See?

"Well, her hat disappeared."

What are we doing? This fellow chopped us up one way or the other. He said a bunch of things he shouldn't have said and didn't know anyhow, and tried to chew us up one way or the other, so, we just find a good method of reversing the effect.

"It did? How did that happen?" Auditor spends the next two hours trying to find out what occurred.

Theoretically, we would now hate him. We wouldn't have anything to do with him, don't you see. But we send for him! You'll find out that holding the post is a game condition. Not letting it approach is a no-game condition.

I was being audited on this subjectively one time by an auditor whose name I won't mention. And I really won't mention it because of the Code of a Scientologist, but I ought to.

We send for him, we bring him in, we show him some profiles, we ask him if he wouldn't like to write a story on this now after he's chopped us all up otherwise, and he finds himself looking at the profiles of crippled children, and it was free processing given by the organization at the local hospital. He goes, "Oh, zzzzzzz-ssssss."

He was giving me a quick assist. He walked into the office and I'd just got through talking to a couple of preclears. I wasn't auditing them; I didn't have a chance to. They came in the office, they were screaming at each other. They were both in training and they had gotten into an argument during an auditing session over some breach of the Auditor's Code. And they were in the contention that they were both — they were both auditors.

Handling a communication line is quite necessary. Did you ever think that communication was a subject that was subject to control? Communication is something that one starts, stops and changes.

And I had just finished a couple of lectures — or anything like that — and they were so mad at each other. I was sitting there listening to this. I finally settled it; I said, "You guys, you think you are both auditors. As far as I can see you are both preclears. Go on back and find some more about it." So they did.

The fellow who cannot stop talking when he wants to stop talking is in a pathetic state.

This other auditor walked in the office immediately afterwards and says, "What's the matter with you?"

Here's a little process you want to run on somebody. It's not particularly therapeutic because it doesn't have masses or objects connected with it. But you ask somebody to do this. Ask him to — you tell him that you will tell him when to stop talking, and he is then to stop his voice from going. We go it this way:

I was sitting there at the desk, "Oh, no," you know. And I says, "This is just too much."

He says, "One, two, three, four . . ."

And he says, quickly, brightly, you know — coffee shop auditing — he says to me, "What wouldn't you mind not-knowing about what just happened?"

We say, "Stop!"

And I says, "Oh, I don't know, that they were standing there. Hey, what do you know, ha, I did not — wait a minute. What was I supposed to not-know? I've not-known it."

And he says, "Ff-iv-ve, ff-iv-ve."

And he looks at me and he says, "The two students that were just in your office!"

Quite interesting. He knew he could handle his voice. After we get through with him, he wonders if he ever did say anything. Something around there was talking but was he? And we run him a little bit further and he says for the first time, "One, two, three" and we say "Stop," and he says, "Four." See? He stops. He's in control of his communication.

So, at the next meeting of the board we yanked his thetan.

Now, a person who has a compulsive communication lag, in other words, they can't stop talking. They've described something to you and described something to you. They were trying to render an effect of some sort on you, possibly a bad one. And at no time while they were talking to you did you drop dead! So they, of course, have not reached end of line. They're in a position — they're in a position where they wait on something else to tell them when to stop talking. Got the idea?

Anyway, you can actually not-know this stuff. Well, that's one action — it disappears for you. In other words, you remove your participation from it. This is an absolute phenomenon. There's another phenomenon which is of a higher level; that is merely the first stage of it. You actually can not-know such a thing as a pillar, so thoroughly, evidently, that nobody could see it. Something like this could occur. But certainly an individual can not-know it himself personally.

Well, you run this person on something like this; you say, "Now, I want you to stop talking when I say 'stop.' Now, I want you to count and then at some point, well, I want you to — I am going to say 'stop' and you are to stop talking at that moment. Is that right?"

Now, you want to turn on mock-ups with some pc, all you have to tell him is, "Decide to put a beautiful mock-up on that wall. Now decide that if you did it, it would spoil the game and don't do it." And he makes these decisions in order and you just keep telling him just those same phrases. "Decide to put a mock-up on the wall — a beautiful picture. Now decide that it would spoil the game if you did it and don't do it." And he does this and he does this. He does this a dozen times and all of a sudden this fellow that has never had mock-ups suddenly has a 3D, full color, full visio, full smellio mock-up.

And the fellow says, "Okay."

Evidently we keep thinking that this sort of thing would spoil the game.

And we just go through the same exercise. He starts counting, "One, two, three, four."

Now, why can't you mock up a body right there, you see, that everybody can see? Why can't you do that? It isn't lack of talent. It's evidently merely aberration. An "aberration" is simply falling back from your fullest capabilities. You can run this one, you can say, "Now decide to mock a mock-up there that everybody can see. Now decide that if you did that it would spoil the game and don't do it." You just keep running this drill, running this drill, running this drill. All of a sudden he says, "Oh, no, you don't."

We say, "Stop."

You say, "What's the matter?"

And he says, "F-f-i-ive, f-fi-ive, f-f-i-ive, fi-ive, fi-ive, fi-ive, fi-ive, fi-i-ive, fi-i-ive, fi-i-ive, fiv-ve-e, fi-i-ive, fi-ive, fi-i-ive, five."

"Look, if I put that there, if I started mocking up mock-ups it would spoil the game. It would. I could mock up dollar bills that would pass. I could mock up banks, trucks, cops, armies, anything. There wouldn't be any game; it's a no-game condition. You would be able to mock up everything."

And you say, "Did you stop yourself from talking?"

Well, I left him in that because it was in session. But a couple of days later I was having lunch with him and he went over this routine. And I said, "Did you — it ever occur to you that if I drilled on it too, it wouldn't be a no-game condition?"

And he says, "Noo-ot no-ooot nooot verrrry vv-verrry ww-wwell."

"No," he says, "you're a friend of mine, I wouldn't go into contest with you." Well, evidently we are restrained for fear of spoiling the game one way or the other, for fear of as-ising the universe and so forth. But we get to a point where we are not aware of what we are doing, we hide it too carefully, we hide it too thoroughly and the next thing we know we can't do it. About then we become human. And a long time too late we send for an auditor.

Now, this is all that stammering is. That's all stammering is. He's on a mechanical stop talk. See, he's sitting right on a stop talk. And every time he tries to say something it says, "Shut up!" The stop is out of his control.

But I will tell you what importance this little theory of universes has. And it's very important. In February of this last year I made myself quite ill. I was trying to resolve atomic fission, body reaction to, doing quite a few experiments on this line. Some understanding of why I was not in the United States will come to you when you realize that actually you're not supposed to do experiments with fission in the United States. There are some people down here that frown at it. I've written a series of letters asking whether or not one could indulge in experiments in atomic fission in the United States these days, and the government has answered them very promptly, but each time has said that I ought to go contact some nonclassified, nonsecurity university group someplace. I don't know what the university group has got to do with it. I was talking about practical research, and actually there is no answer. They say, "Well, maybe you can and maybe you can't, and is it — it's against the law, but maybe it isn't against the law," and they are quite confused about it. But there's nothing about atomic fission in Ireland, I assure you.

So, we ask the stammerer to do this. I'll drop a pearl in your pocket. If you're supposed — if you can stop stammering on somebody, if you could make somebody stop stammering rather easily, you're supposed to be really hot, you're supposed to be really good. I never quite figured out why this was, since personally I've looked around at a lot of people, and I wish some of them stammered more.

Well, anyway we were doing some experiments along in this line, and it was obvious that the best way to keep an atomic war from doing anything interesting to the country such as denude it of its population — which is, of course, I realize not as full an effect as a usual nuclear physicist would like to have a country have — I realize it's below his acceptance level, but it's the best he could do. You know, you've got to make allowances. He's a scientist, he has his drawbacks and his level of acceptance is — well, they're trying to figure it out now, so, they suffer for six or eight months before they finally kick off. But there are some humane generals around by the way who object to this. They say that it ought to kill everybody instantly. They have a much higher level of acceptance.

But, you're supposed to be able to stop stammering, and the hypnotist tries to do this, everybody tries to do this, and they have very little luck. Well, this one I've just given you will do so.

Anyway, I'm being very snide, but I don't think that the atomic efforts which are being made actually merit anything but very snide remarks. I don't know if you agree with me or not, but that's the way I look at it.

You say, "One, two, three, four, five ..." You know, you have a — is what the fellow is going to say and then you say, "Stop." He — you have him count up and he's supposed to stop. Well, he's having an awful time getting to five. Now, that's very interesting. See? But you don't run start or change, you simply run the stop.

Well, I was trying to do what I could in order to discover whether or not auditing could actually proof a body up against atomic fission. In other words, could you audit somebody in such a way that when they were hit with gamma and the rest of it, they would not be badly burned or affected. Could you do this?

You say, "One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight."

Ha, I learned it the hard way. I do not think it can be done. It is a total failure. That project dead-ended in February. And when I got well sometime in March I had to postulate a new line of research on the same subject. And I said, well, the silliest line of research, the reductio ad absurdum that would end all absurdities everywhere would be to solve atomic fission this way: All you do is fix a preclear up so that if he loses a body he could mock up one. And mock it up with a postulate that atomic energy doesn't affect it. See? Somebody drops a bomb on you, you mock up another mock-up, move over here and say, "Well, hello, Joe."

You say, "Stop."

Well, life, when I am doing research, may not be sensible but it's always interesting. Well, that was — that was the one solution I put down. That was one way to go about it, one direction for research to take; and I wrote down five or six more, but five or six more, they just were nothing. I looked over the situation. If you cannot fix up a civilization so that it will dispose of its man-killing weapons, then the next step would be to fix up the civilization so that it would be defended against such things. But if you can't do that and both of these things have failed, then the next best thing to do would be to fix up its population and the food supply so that it wasn't too allergic to atomic radiation. And if you couldn't do that, let's at least cure some of the burns which have occurred. Well, we can do that; we're on safe ground there.

And he says .. .

People who would probably die within twenty days, something like that, could probably be saved rather uniformly with some good auditing. We do have the only known cure for atomic fission.

Good. You've made it.

Well, it may be the only cure but it's not good enough; it's not good enough. Too many people go up in smoke when these bombs hit. There aren't enough auditors around to patch them all up right at once, so it's not very good unless we got on an all-out program and squared it around. It's almost easier to go out on a program which actually takes care of the bomb itself, which insists on international control in a sensible wise, and straightens out this mad tangle. Nevertheless, it's a very good thing to have a cure.

The way it runs basically, a stammerer starts like this. He says, "Wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha."

All right, we are — a book*[Editor's Note: The book discussed here was subsequently published in 1957 and is entitled All About Radiation.] is in composition right at this moment, by the way, which informs the public as to the exact status of atomic radiation warfare and burns and situations — a factual book which is not any flight of fancy. It's merely a fast rundown on what it is and what could be done for it — a practical book, not something by, you know, "It is said that there's atomic radiation, and molecules and atoms and they all wiggle ..." Something ...

You wait, it's all right.

What this book takes up is — for about three-quarters of its length — is simply the cause and prevention of radiation difficulties. And the last third of the book, or a little less, takes up how you solve the serious — or less serious burns with Scientology processes. This book is in composition at this time and probably will be written — completely written in a few months, since my part of it has to be written after the other part is finished. It's a composite of practically all of the books on radiation that have been written, but more importantly it's a composite of armed forces courses on the subject of the prevention of radiation. But that book will be out in a few months and we'll at least have this little bit and piece in the bookstores for people to read, because there is nothing else for them there on the subject.

"Wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha — one! Tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-two! Th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th — three!" You let him get up to about "Ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei — eight," and you say, "Stop."

The US Government Civil Defense Program says the first thing you have to know about civil defense: "That in the event of an attack by enemy atomic bombs, you're on your own. There's nobody going to help you." That's right.

And you know what he does then, he says, "Nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen . . ." Very interesting. In other words, this fellow doesn't have his speech under control.

That's the first paragraph of their book — you think I'm joking. "Nobody is going to help you. You're on your own." In other words, the country is gone the moment an A-bomb goes boom. That is as far as I can figure out. That may not be their program but I have been given to understand that it is, by their own literature. They should write their literature a little bit better.

Now, some people are obsessive — are obsessive not-listeners. Did you ever run into an obsessive not-listener? Well, they've gone through a double inversion on the thing.

Well, this book — this book will be of interest to you because it will attract attention to you. People will be very happy to have about — to have some solution about this but that still was not a line of research, was it? And I was left in this horrible state — I was left in a horrible state. Something terrible! I was left with the only direction of search being you mock up a body — "Hiya, Joe." You know. Somebody burns down your mock-up — you'll have to be able to mock one up yourself. It's the only direction of research there was so I followed it — silly thing to do. And since March have wrapped up the subject.

Remember, however, that you make a body talk — you are making a body talk. Therefore, you — making a body start talking, stop talking and change talking — are playing a game. You aren't talking! A body is talking. Don't you see? So this becomes a game condition because you are doing it. That's the key-note of a game — a game condition. You're doing it. The game isn't being played for you the way they handle professional football, and so forth; you are playing the game. And you're getting no-effect on self and making an effect on somebody else. So, an individual who is trying desperately to make the body talk better is actually in a no-game condition. You see? He is trying to help the enemy talk. From his standpoint he couldn't be friendly with a body if you gave him $1,000 in bonds along with it. He couldn't be friendly with a body. He'd never come around and put a beam on it and shake hands with the body actually and say, "My pal."

Thank you.

You start to process him and the first thing you know he gets his foot against the back of the body, you know and he says, "Oof — aaahhh." And he says, "Oh, I hate that thing! I hate that thing. Rahhhhhh."

So you see, it wasn't as silly as it sounded, but it led one into some other conclusions which were quite evident — that an individual, as he becomes incapable — as he becomes incapable of mocking up pillars, floors and walls, falls out of the game. He thinks about it, he doesn't do anything about it and he doesn't play it.

That's merely an obsessive game condition. He's fighting his body.

It became obvious that there were three universes: the other fellow's universe that he could mock up in addition to the physical universe if he were Clear, the physical universe that you and he mocked up and the universe that you could mock up if you were Clear. So, there is such a thing as your own universe, and it's very solid, but we haven't seen any yet. Now, that's quite important.

A fellow finds that his — something is happening; he's got ulcers, see — got ulcers. He's having a hard time with ulcers. Holes appear — swiss cheese sort of thing. And then they come along and they take x-rays of him — shoot x-rays in through it so more holes appear. Anyway, there's a case of ulcers.

We mistake the reactive mind for our own universe. You see how that would be? Because it has pictures, because it has barriers, we say, "Well, that's my universe and the other fellow's reactive mind is his universe, and mock-ups, mock-ups, and then there is this big solid thing called the MEST universe." No, reactive mind, MEST universe, reactive mind is the way it is at this time, but it could be home universe, physical universe, the other fellow's home universe. Do you see how that could be?

What's the fellow doing getting ulcers? He must be fighting his stomach. Obviously if he wanted to control his stomach he'd have to be able to stop his body from eating. Now, one doesn't change or start an enemy, one only stops him. And that is the last vestige of control one has in a game condition. So, one can stop one's enemies. He can sometimes by threatening to stop them change their course, but one doesn't have positive control over his enemies or there'd be no game.

Well, that's highly theoretical — that's almost Alice-in-Wonderlandish, a book we have become acquainted with lately. And these universes are possible.

Did you ever play — did you ever play chess with somebody that says, "All right, move your pawn now." And you moved your pawn, and then he moved his knight, and he says, "Now move your king's rook." It doesn't look like much of a game, does it?

But a thetan makes a reactive mind solid and comes into control of it. Or he becomes causative in making pillars and walls and houses solid and gets in control of them. And the road up evidently is simply to become better at it. We have the processes; you just have to become better at it. That's all. What's that take?

It is like some old-time professional auditor being audited by one of his students. Hey, you know we can cure even that today, we can cure even that today. You know even I can be audited. You know I can be audited without telling the preclear what process to run. You're pretty swell. Yes, we've really come along.

It takes a little practice and a few wins, a little reassurance. That's all. It's evidently a solved problem — requires to be placed into effect, however — with what disasters we don't know.

Well, if — if the body was on your team — you see, this would be different. But, of course, you never process the body as though it were because the preclear never considers, if it's in bad shape, that it is. He never considers the body really on his team. Down basically someplace he considers it a deadly enemy that he has had to accept — if he's having a lot of trouble with it.

I can expect sometime in the future legislation that reads like this, "Scientologists will refrain from mocking up barriers across city traffic during rush hours." "A thetan who is married must not mock up more than one body every twenty years." "People who like pets must keep all the pets in their yard that they mock up." "Completely mocked-up fingerprint and identification cards are not acceptable at FBI." "Mocked-up money will be accepted only to the sum of 10 dollars only, when detected." "On anything mocked up, a 3 percent of current value tax will be assessed." Well, it wouldn't be a brave new world; it would be an awfully complicated one, but by golly it's in the direction of more game.

Now, you take some very pretty little girl or something like that, she's getting along fine, she doesn't have any trouble getting into her body, out of her body, doing things with her body, learning to do things with her body, and so forth. She and her body are friends. You know, "Hiya."

Well, that's this story of universes. It's something quite valuable. A person becomes a victim of a reactive mind or mental image pictures or engrams merely to the degree that he cannot tolerate their solids. He doesn't become a victim of their thought — he becomes a victim of their thought only when he cannot stand their solids. Do you see that? So if you make them solid the thoughts come off of them. You don't run the thought out of them, you run the solid into them.

But you take somebody who is having a lot of trouble you know, has creak — arthritis — so on, having a real bad time. And what do we discover? The first thing, we examine his attitude toward a body we find out, "Well, let's see, what effect could I have on a body? Let's see now. Well, I could kill it. No, no, no, no; that's not enough. No. No. Now, let me see, I could — uh — I could — uh — well, I don't know, maybe push it slowly into a hot fire. No. No. No. How about falling endlessly through empty space? No, no, no, that is no effect on a body; that's not — that's not a good effect. I mean, that's not convincing. Let's see, what kind of an effect could I have on a body? Let's see, I could take each cell in it in a nutcracker and I could crack each cell very thoroughly. If it were screaming while I did that, yes, I would say that would be having an effect on a body. Yes! Good! Good!"

When you can take an engram and throw it up against the wall contemptuously and have it go clank, your reactive bank won't bother you. Well, this is a new way of making a Clear. We used to have a — in the navy ... "Oh, God," somebody says, "he's going to get off into that." No, no, we're not going to get off on the navy. We used to have a signal system and there were code words that carried the communications through. There was "Roger," oh, I don't know "30s" and "73s" — there were all kinds of signals and symbols, and so forth, but they were kind of long and complicated. And I got so that when-ever I would sign off from other ships in my squadron, why, I would say, "Roger, wilco, over, under and out." The other boys started picking this up. We kept hearing, "Roger, wilco, over, under and out," as the final communication. That was, of course, a complete stop. That was a complete period. You shut off the set then and removed the tubes — full stop!

That's his level of reality. That is actually — level of reality. It's with a great shock that a preclear will realize this suddenly that his attitude toward a body falls somewhat short of a friendly spirit of fair play.

Well, I don't know why it is but some people have time tracks that run this way and some people that — have time tracks that run this way. And I have met a few nuts that went down this way. But we have been referring to this "Before and After Solids," are run on the engram bank as Over and Under, as a slang phrase, because obviously an indiv — most individuals you run on it have the sensation of diving from something when they get an earlier one, and sort of pulling back on the throttle and the stick at the same time when they get a later one. It's quite interesting, but you can take an engram bank and you can straighten it out and you can get it solid. It is a level of entrance of the preclear, because the solidity of the facsimile is probably more real to him than the solidity of the wall. A picture of the wall is more solid than the wall. Sounds incredible but it's true. He'd rather have a picture of it than the wall.

Well, we examine this then and we discover that the one thing he can do with a body is stop. And that is, then, a good game condition. You start to put a body into motion as a process, and you violate this condition of enemy. And we don't care whether he considers the body a friend or an enemy, he can still stop the body, don't you see.

So, when he starts down scale he gets to a point where he sees pictures of walls with his physical eyes. He doesn't see walls, he sees pictures of walls. You start running a person on modern processes that hasn't been getting along well on processing, you can fully expect this to happen. The individual says, "Wait a minute."

So, I — I'm very happy about one thing — that we don't have to have him stop the body eating in order to cure ulcers. Only the medical profession does that.

You say, "What's the matter?"

Well, here we have — here we have actually a very interesting condition. That the first and foremost point of control when he gets in a game condition with a body is stop. No change, no start, just stop, that's all. Anything else he does to it, he considers to be a sort of a — of a betrayal to — of himself, so he could stop one.

He says, "The wall is rippling."

Well, you can stop a body from having things, you could stop a body from eating, you could stop it from walking, you could stop it from growing skin, you can stop it from breathing, you can stop it from eating. You get all these stops? And that's what the common denominator of illness is — stop.

You say, "Yes, what's the matter?"

But after a while he really goes down scale. He has just been able to make a body thoroughly ill, see. And he goes down scale and he can no longer stop a body. Wow! Now what happens? The same thing happens that this fellow — he did find he could stop a body from talking. See, he'd go, "O-o-one, t-t-two, th-three, fa-f-four, f-f-five."

"Oh," he says, "it's moving!"

And you say, "Stop."

Did anybody have anything move today?

And he goes, "Seven, eight, nine, ten."

Male voice: No.

See? He inverted. So, when he thinks of stopping the body, it starts running.

Well, it means that you had a — some kind of a picture of the thing inaddition to the thing or it was just all picture. You got the idea? And afteryou work at it for a while the preclear finds something very astonishing. Hedoesn't any longer see a picture of pillars or walls, he sees pillars or wallsand it's very upsetting to him for a while. That's right, very upsetting to him.Now, you can make an engram sufficiently solid — let us say it's anengram received on Brandywine in 17 — whatever it was. You can make that solid enough — if the preclear could hold it — that he sees himself fully and completely and utterly and only at the Battle of Brandywine — smoke, powder, flame and all — the British Redcoats lined up. Got the idea? In other words, he can construct a strata of time sufficiently solid that it fools him for a moment. He just goes all the way back into it, just boom! "What's this? What's this?" It's the Battle of Brandywine going on, of course! Yeah, but the Battle of Brandywine was 100 and Lord knows what — how many years ago. Or was it?

He's walking up and down, see, walking up and down one way or the other. And he says, "You know, I'd better stop this." Get the idea? I mean, the thought of suppressing a body's actions puts the body in control of him so thoroughly that he's not controlling its actual actions. Follow me?

Well, if you say it was Lord knows how many years ago, you're saying, "You know, I can't bring that thing up fully solid. I can't make it now." You'll hear a preclear one of these days complaining bitterly, he is not in good shape. He can only get a thenness of the discovery of America. He's — feels rattled today, he feels upset, he can only get a thenness of the Spanish Inquisition. You know, he only gets pictures of the thing, he — you know, they're not very solid — it's not very convincing.

In other words, he inverts: the thought of "stopping" causes him to "start."

This sounds very peculiar but this is evidently an open sesame as to what the universe is about in relationship to time. We have many questions to ask. Do forms actually change? Is the Battle of Brandywine still in progress? Has the future been formed already and we are merely living toward it? Do you really mock up your own body or do you steal one? Terrific number of questions unanswered, but these are merely observational questions having to do with the anatomy of the physical universe, all of them more or less solvable. The trick is to get the procedures and the processes that solve them. We have those and that's what I meant when I said — I was very silly when I said, "The game of research is over." Now, the game of research might have been over, but that merely meant that the game was starting.

This is so true that — the button wears out rather rapidly, but we'll take some — take some artist — he's a painter and he stopped painting, you know, standard artist. And he's laid away all of his brushes. He has laid away his canvas. He doesn't ever anymore feel that he can just get up energy enough to paint.

Well, you might say here we are at the beginning. Boy, if this is the beginning, what was that we've been through?

You come around to him and you say, "I'll make you a bet that you have no control over your painting!"

Well, the congress has begun by this time, hasn't it?

Supposing we were just as ornery and as mean as this (which we aren't) but supposing we said this to him, "I'll bet you have no further control over your painting."

Audience: Yes!

He says, "Ahh-ahh. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong."

All right. You're here, aren't you?

And you say, "All right now. I want you to decide to stop painting."

Audience: Yes.

And he says, "All right. I'll stop." He says, "That's silly, you know I have." You say, "That's all right. You just decide to stop your body from painting anymore. You don't want to paint anymore. Just decide that." He does.

All right, that's good.

"All right, decide to stop painting." This is not a good process, just a demonstration. "Stop painting."

You're in very, very good condition, you know .. .

All of a sudden, he says, "Well, all right, I'm going to stop painting."

Male voice: Sure.

You say, "All right, you decide to stop your body from painting." "Okay. Stop my body from painting."

... very fine condition. You're in sufficiently good condition that I have a feeling, I have a definite feeling, that tomorrow I'll really be able to pull out a good, beefy process. I have been going light on you. Trying to — what's the matter? Well, I have, I've been going light on you in order — so that — to let you catch up so that I wouldn't startle you or something of the sort.

You see, he's trying to start painting all the time. He starts painting — starts painting. It's the painting that stops him! It's done.

But tomorrow after the first lecture — and I've got to look at that pro-gram again to see if there's anything . . . After that first lecture tomorrow, why, we'll be able to get in some processes that are effective. I've got you built up now to them.

See, when he finishes a painting, and it's done, then he stops. Do you get the idea? When he finishes a job of any kind, he no longer has that job and so he stops doing the job. What stopped him? Did he stop doing the job? Or did the job stop?

There isn't really any more data to tell you about this congress and — given you most of it. There's hardly anything to take up. But somehow or other I think we'll manage to have a couple of more days. We'll get through them somehow. I hope that something will happen. Maybe you'll think of something that will be interesting.

And after a while he gets so that he can't stop. But his body could stop, so he stops working. He stops painting. He stops doing an awful lot of things that might have been very interesting. He stops kissing pretty girls. Any-thing can happen. He never — he never decided to stop himself. Something else decided.

So, thanks a lot for being here. Thanks a lot for listening. Good night.

A fellow walking along a dark street, walking along, he has no intention of stopping whatsoever — he is walking along and — a fireplug right there, you see — he's walking along, and bang he hits it! And he says, "Ow!" It stopped him, didn't it? He didn't intend to stop, but the fireplug intended to stop him or did it?

Now, that's the way it is. That's the way — that's the dwindling spiral of life. Everything stops you, you never stop and you stop stopping others and you're dead.

For instance, do you know that there are people alive ... I'll betcha there are some people right here in this audience — I'll betcha there are people right here in this audience that if a .44-caliber bullet were to come flying up here in some fashion or another and they put out a hand or something like that, it wouldn't stop. I'll betcha there are people in this audience that are weak that way.

Now, there's an oddity. That's a curiosity that you ought to examine. What's the matter with you that you couldn't stop a 16-inch shell, huh? You slippin'?

If you've depended on everything in the universe to do the stopping for you, why eventually you go through these two things; you get so that you stop everything, you don't control anything, you just stop everything, you know, bank presidents, and so forth, you just stop things. And then after a while you get so you can't even stop them anymore, and that's that. You've had it! Then's the time — then's the time when you should call your attorney, write out the last will and testament and take a ride with one of these hot rod drivers you see around town.

So, the common denominator that bridges between a friend and an enemy is stop. Do you get that? But stop is part of control. So, you have a control over your enemy to the degree that you are attempting to stop him — attempting to stop him. When you can stop him utterly he is no longer an enemy. He's dead.

Now, I hope I don't restimulate anybody on this. I hope I don't make any people feel suddenly still. I hope — I was running — running a preclear one day on a process like this, and the preclear all of a sudden looked at me and says, "Shhhhhh."

I says, "What's the matter?"

He says, "We must be very still."

I says, "Okay. What's the matter?"

He says, "What you whispering for?"

Well, so as we worked along one way or the other throughout this last year, I've been developing the games condition material, I've been developing this stop material. And the reason I've spent so much time telling you about stop is for the simple reason that an auditor who is on obsessive stop could never audit a preclear.

And an auditor who can't stop a preclear in his tracks usually doesn't make him well. Why? Because it requires good positive control of the pre-clear. And the anatomy of control is start, change and stop.

If you can't control the session so as to get the preclear in control of things, then, of course, you are going to have the preclear out from under you. You are going to have difficulties every time he has difficulties and you're not going to control him through his difficulties. So that's the other requisite I learned about auditing during the past year — control of the session, control of the case.

There is no nice delicate insight nor a bunch of mechanics that can get you across if this stop factor is out of gear in your own — in your auditor's frame of reference. Don't you see that? If he has to obsessively stop every-thing, he will do the darnedest things to you as a preclear.

Ashtray — sitting there, you know, and you are getting deeper and deeper in, deeper and deeper — pop, crash goes the ashtray, and you go "Dahhhhh! What was that?"

Why did he do that? He couldn't simply stop you by telling you to stop — that would be something he couldn't do. But he could knock an ashtray off the table, slam the door, make the telephone ring, do something. Don't you see? So, we've isolated then — this.

Now, if an auditor can't stop on a communication bridge, what happens? What happens? The processes all just take their course, and the session just takes its course, and the processes take their course, and it just goes on and on and on, don't you see? Don't you — don't you see how this would go? I mean, there is nobody stopping anything. The preclear is in a kind of a condition so he can't stop it. And the auditor is in a condition so he can't stop the preclear and he can't stop the process and he doesn't ever know when to end the process and so he merely changes the process. And he has to change it rap-idly because he can't stop the process. And this communication bridge enforces a stop on the auditor and preclear.

A little bit of break, you know, and then, clunk! stop! Okay, and we've got the session — we've got a stop in the session. Don't you see that? So, this bridge gets the session under control.

Well, anyway, a lot of other things about that — but the whole itinerary of indoctrination, and so forth, worked out of a study of this start, stop and change and formula of communication. And I developed the materials — the basic materials and dummy sessions on this — over in London and then developed the other things that went alongside of them. And we all got to working on it very heavy putting it in practice, and the next thing you know, we were having a very delightful time. Let me assure you.

But there were some people at executive level that hadn't been through indoctrination yet. Terrible thing! But, they weren't convinced that indoctrination was absolutely necessary. It had merely been developed and used with a little bit to give people the communication formula and then to teach them the communication bridge and its use — and then to teach them the control of preclears and then to teach them how to use these various factors in order to put the preclear under his own control and square him around and put him in a condition where he could or didn't have to have a game as the case may be.

And we went along in this wise, and we got no cooperation — I got no cooperation particularly from the organization at large.

One day I was sitting in my office, and I decided — you've been watching these dummy process sessions in the morning, haven't you? Do you find them interesting?

Audience: Yes.

Well, I hate to tell you this, but the Director of Training in London didn't entirely approve of this kind of thing. He wasn't working in this direction very much. So, one night he was sitting in the office and a couple other of my pals over there, were sitting there . . . So, he says, "You know about this funny kind of auditing that you have been developing in the research unit?" He says, "What's this — you know, it's kind of funny," he says, "putting somebody through a couple of weeks just doing auditing that doesn't do any case any good." See? He says, "I haven't had time to read over these processes."

I says, "Yes, yes, yes" I says. "Well, I'll tell you, they go this way. They go this way. We'll take this command here, we'll say 'Are mullets wet?' — we'll take that as an auditing command."

"Okay," he says. "Okay, are mullets wet?"

"And then we'll take another auditing command here," I said, " 'Are cats lonely?' And then we'll take another auditing command, 'Is red red?' All right, fine. Fine."

"Okay," he says, "all right. What am I supposed to do?"

I said, "Well, you take a communication bridge, such as you've been hearing about and you'll use a communication bridge to get into the session and out of the session. You'll deliver the auditing command and acknowledge each time it's executed. You will handle the origin of the preclear and here we go. Okay?"

"Oh, yeah. Yeah! Yeah! I've been auditing for years — old-timer. Nothing to that."

So, I was sitting there at my desk.

He starts in. He says, "All right, are you set?"

And I says, "Yeah. Yeah. Yeah."

He says, "Are mullets wet?"

See.

Was that a session?

Male voice: No.

No! He hadn't even started. Well, he was an old-timer. So, I was an old-timer myself once.

So, he says, "Are mullets wet?"

And I says — being the preclear in this dummy session — "Well," I said, "I don't know. I just don't know. Ummmm, yes."

And he says, "Good. Good. Fine. Are mullets wet?"

"I — well — I don't know."

Well, he says, "Good. Good." He says, "Are mullets wet?"

And I said, "Well . . . What's a mullet?"

And he says, "Well," he says, "uh — well — uh — you know what a mullet is!" I says, "No, I don't!"

And he says, "Well, just answer the question!"

And I says, "Well, all right, all right. What do you want me to say?" He says, "Say yes, of course."

I says, "All right. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes, of course."

And he says, "Well, now . . . Are cats lonely? Oh, now, are cats lonely?"

And I said, "Yeah, I suppose so. Suppose so."

And he says, "Well, are cats lonely?"

And I said, "Suppose so."

And he says, "Well, are cats lonely?"

No acknowledgment, no .. .

And I said, "Hummm," I said, "What's a mullet?"

And he says, "What are you doing thinking about mullets?"

I said, "I don't know! I — what is a mullet?"

Completely lost his head. He says, "Now! Don't think!" He says, "Stop thinking! And be quiet." He says, "It's all right now!"

So, I said .. .

And he says, "Is red red?"

And I says .. .

He says, "Answer my question. Is red red?" He said, "Come on," he said, "you can talk!"

I said, "Well, thank you. Well, red — is red red?"

He says, "What's the matter with you!"

I says, "You said, 'don't think!' "

The next morning I found him in Indoctrination Course.

Yes. And then he went out the door out of the office that night terribly embarrassed because two auditors — other auditors had been sitting in the office, his closest friends, and he finally says, "Damn it, Ron!" he says, "It takes a sane man to act that psychotic!"

Well, what with him and other little minor matters and getting the subject wrapped up — that's what I've been doing the last year. And if not productive, it's at least been interesting. But it has been intensely productive.

I think the last year — the last year has been in terms of actual advance the most interesting of all these six years because it's given us actually almost the entirety of refined auditing procedure which is about 60 percent of modern auditing, and it's given us the remaining 40 percent which tells you what to use the procedure on.

We were in a very interesting condition last February by the way; we had dropped Havingness out of the auditing procedures — processes, see; no Havingness was being audited. We're doing it with perfect procedure and never remedying anyone's havingness. We never gave anybody anything. He couldn't have anything of any kind, it just dropped out of sight.

But we were doing our auditing with perfect procedure. Of course, if you dropped all Havingness out of sight entirely in auditing, you, of course, never would make anybody well.

But, the insight, the skill, the way the auditor had learned how to hold his little finger as he audited the preclear was so good, so perfect, and was done with such consummate aplomb that even without a technique to handle anything, they were making people well — better than 22 percent, too!

Well, we've had a very, very fascinating time of it. My only regret during the past year is not being with so many of my good friends. I don't particularly enjoy Europe. I don't particularly enjoy fumbling around with foreign languages — such as cockney!

But the level of case was sort of this way. I figured out if I could crack one of those, why, any of yours would be a pipe. And by golly! We even started to crack the cases of old auditors in England!

The last year was very productive. The material picked up along it actually is relatively simple; it is very easy to use; there is nothing to handling preclears now, as long as you know it all perfectly. That's all you have to be able to do. Handle it perfectly and get perfect results. I am not studying that sort of thing now.

For the last three, four years, people have been asking me, "What's an Operating Thetan?" You know they have been asking me this: "What's an Operating Thetan? What is this thing? I want to be an Operating Thetan." Or, "What are the techniques used to make an Operating Thetan?" and so forth.

So having wrapped up auditing procedure, I am going to spend the next few months trying to find out. I coined the phrase a long time ago and made some notes, but I lost the notes. You know how I am with notes.

Evidently an Operating Thetan would be somebody who — well, I don't know, we'll have another congress one of these days and I will tell you then.