Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Now, today we have a very important thing to do.

This is 17 — 17 Nov. AD 9.

This is lecture number fourteen or demonstration number fourteen, and you know what? I don't think you can assess people yet. I don't. I don't.

And we're on the seventh lecture of the ACC, right, the seventh lecture day and that would mean basically on the 13th lecture. I figured out it would be a lucky number like that.

I see some of you, I see Dick and Jan sitting in there, working at it and so forth and other people standing there very interested, looking very inter­estedly.

Thirteen is very, very lucky for me, very, very lucky — born on the thir­teenth.

And boy, until you can read a pc like you can read the headlines of a newspaper, I'm not going to feel comfortable about you.

Well, all of that is a prelude of course that I haven't got anything to talk to you about because I left my notes back in the office again.

I want you to take one look at somebody a hundred and ninety yards away and say, "Aha! ARC break. Bang! What do you know!"

Now, you're still goofing up on assessment. So, I've got to tell you all about assessments again and then we get onto something important.

Take a look at somebody else down at the end of the block, and say, "Well, well, automobile accident, 1955, August the 1st, two people in the car, nobody hurt."

Once upon a time there was a little thetan, and he knew everything there was to know. Had a potential knowingness on all fronts. He just had it taped and roped and so forth. He just knew everything. So he decided not to know anything so that he could make something and then know about it. And there you sit.

I'm exaggerating.

Now, going out on a mad passion of creation, he found that the best way to get a persistence on anything was to destroy it without picking up the original creation. Which made the original creation persist. So that the more you mocked up, the more you had persisting, because the method you used in getting rid of it was to destroy it, which required another creation on top of the existing, continuing creation. Got the idea?

I can't do that myself unless I look.

Now, if you get the idea of accumulating an — of mocking up a motor vehicle, the possibility is you'll get something of the road back of one, or its exhaust fumes on anybody who is having a hard time with motor vehicles. You'll get something destroyed about the creation.

Let's look this over though. How many of you know that an E-Meter reads a pc? Let's see your hands. Know that an E-Meter reads a pc? Sneaky, huh?

You get somebody who's had a terrible lot of trouble with motor vehicles, he'll mock up nothing but bad tires or rubber marks on the road, or some-thing. But it'll be something destroyed, which is to say, used, burned and overcreated. Got the idea?

All right, how many of you know that an E-Meter reads a bank? Okay. How many of you know that there is some connection between the pc, bank and body? Do you know there's a connection?

You create the ashtray and then you have to make another creation which is breaking the ashtray. New motion. You don't stop creating the ash-tray. You still go on creating this ashtray you see, but now you create it in fragments. And then you create, to get it — keep it in fragments, you create the blow which put it in fragments. Got that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, to reassemble the ashtray, oddly enough, all you'd really have to do is run out the blow which caused it to fragment. We get Effort Processing. The processing of impacts, and you'll have a reassembled ashtray. And we're talking now as though — just as though you have a hand in mocking up the MEST universe. I'm not talking about your banks. I'm talking about an actual ashtray, see.

Now, how many of you know you can shift that relationship? You, just you, with the meter, can shift the relationship?

We break this thing and we have to be able to reassemble it — to mock up the impact of the break. That takes one creation off of the ashtray. You get the idea?

Audience: Yeah.

And you'd have a reassembled ashtray. Now to get it and the fragments and the break and everything to disappear, all you'd have to do is be able to mock up an original ashtray. At the same time you would also have to be able to mock up a space and a location, not necessarily the space and location in which this ashtray was mocked up, but you'd have to make up — be able to mock up a space and location as good as the space and location in which you see this ashtray at this moment. And this ashtray would simply disappear.

Okay, all right. You know that?

You go pfmff

Audience: Mm-hm.

It would run through the whole cycle of coming right up to this point, being hit and broken, because these are all additional creations. But the orig­inal creation has to go running on in order to let any other creation have a grip on anything.

All right, that's pretty good. That's pretty good.

In other words, the original creation has to be here in order to let a new creation have a purchase on anything.

If it reads at 2.5, what is it?

Now, when I say, "a new creation," actually, if I take my fist and break this ashtray, that's ... I must create some force, motion and change of posi­tion in order to break the ashtray. You understand?

Audience: (various responses)

But what am I breaking? I am breaking an ashtray. Right? So, in order to have an ashtray there to break it is necessary, you see, that the ashtray had been created in the first place. Now, there must be a continuous creation associated with this ashtray or it wouldn't persist! Right?

Yeah, that's right, you're answering variously. It's two things, two things. What if it's reading 2.25? What is it?

Audience: Yes.

Audience: (various responses)

One of the best ways it persists is by being alter-ised, alter-ised, alter-ised, alter-ised, alter-ised, you see.

2.25? No, a man and a woman reads at 2.0 and 3.0-a woman and a man read at 2.0 and 3.0. And anything between is reading something else. Got it?

See, one never broke up the German, pardon me, the German Reich. I know there was a big war, but the German Reich was not broken up. It was alter-ised. And you have the young students of Germany today, saying, "Well ..." Everybody is trying to sell them the idea Hitler was a very bad man, you see. And they say, "Well, this Hitler is a very bad man."

And what reads below 2.0?

And they say, "Yes. We know he's a very bad man. Hitler is a very bad man, and he built all the autobahns and aren't they nice."

Audience: A mindless object.

But he says, "Now it's a very bad thing to have a fascist militaristic empire. It's a very bad thing to have." And all the students in the German schools are told, "It's a very, very bad thing to have."

A mindless object. All right.

And they all stand there and say, "Yes, that's a very, very bad • thing to have. The proper kind of government is a good, solid, well-ordered, well-organized, military, cohesed, government under one leader! That's the best!"

Now, how would you keep anybody else from knowing anything?

Nahhh. These schoolteachers after awhile are giving up because they're not breaking up this idea. They're not breaking up this mock-up. And the reason they're not breaking up the mock-up is because they will not even permit themselves to admit they would be able to create it or would be will­ing to create it. They're bucking it. Most of their teachers are more or less, or were more or less ally employed, ally indoctrinated.

Come on, how would you keep anybody else from knowing anything at all? Audience: (various responses)

But they're hitting at the wrong man, the German Reich was not some-thing that came into being with Adolf Schickigruber — Hitler's right name. That was his real name.

Hm?

I well recall going up to the Rhine and running punitive raids on Ger­man villages which were all organized under strong chieftains, and believed in strong, military might, and believed in this, and believed in that, and boy, they haven't changed one iota. That was way back!

Audience: (various responses)

This dramatization that's been going on here for a long time is an echo of the old create cycle which runs up to destruction, and then it's the old create cycle, and it runs up to destruction, an old create cycle and it goes up to destruction. You see, each time, boom, boom, boom, over and over.

That's my boy. Mark him up. Mark him up. That's pretty good. A mind-less object would keep anybody from knowing anything.

Had you crossed the Rhine in 50 A.D. and talked to some of the better leaders of the Germanic tribes, you would have found any one tribe was or­ganized solidly, fascistically, and squareheadedly. That was the way they were organized. 1939, that was the way they were organized. And you keep going in and burning the villages, and keep going in and raiding the towns. Keep going in and laying waste the territory. Keep going in, conquering some sec­tion of it and falling back, and saying, "Well, they'll be good now." Here they go again!

So, when it really falls down the tone arm, down in below 2.0, you're looking at what? Continuous and obsessive repression of knowingness, aren't we? Audience: Yes.

That original mock-up is evidently too advantageous, too cohesive, and for that people, too correct. The only way you would ever get rid of this cycle of action is not by shooting every German alive because I'm afraid the next tribe of anything that came into the area would promptly form a German tribe. Because you never shot the thetans. You get the idea?

Is that right?

Well, you look for this communism. This communism to be so different and so strange and so altered, and so brand-new. Actually it isn't even brand-new in our generation, it's a hundred years old — German idea.

Audience: Yes.

But it was just a German idea that was written up in Germany, and it's been going on for a very long time. The original communism was in Sparta under Lycurgus, and any modern communist philosopher borrows copiously from that Spartan. That idea has been running on for quite a while, quite a while in various forms and so on.

All right, those of you that are still reading below 2.0, or read down there occasionally and so forth, now, how do you get a needle down from 4.0? Audience: Two-way comm.

But oddly enough, Russia is not a communist country. It just has all the symbols of communism and pays, you know, lip worship to the idea of commu­nism and so forth. It goes right on being a Mongol horde. See?

Mm-hm. You get the pc to disclose his withholdingnesses.

Now, these things persist because who in his right mind would mock up a Mongol horde? Who would?

And what happens when it falls all the way down to 1.2 or something? Audience: (various responses)

And of course, these things like the German Reich are dedicated to destruction. Why? Not even they would mock them up. See?

Yeah, it's a weak valence. Now, what's a weak valence?

And unfortunately, the less willing people are to create something, basi­cally the more persistence you get because they go on creating it. See, they have to go on creating it. And then it's so bad, this create, create, create, it's so bad and it drags them down so, that they decide they will destroy it. And they create a destruction, and they smash it with their right hand, while busily con­tinuing to mock it up with their left hand behind them. Get the idea?

Audience: (various responses)

Audience: Mm-hm.

Hm?

Now, that's a bank. And that's all a bank is. It's all those things that have persisted over to the destruction end, which the person has destroyed, which he is no longer willing to create, no more longer really willing to make any of these things.

It's an inflow valence, isn't it?

Now, when you hit the hot button on a case, you're liable to run into almost ... If you said, "What Mongol horde would you be willing to create?" you would get the full reaction of the pc if that was one of his buttons, see. And that would simply be, "None! Absolutely none! No Mongol horde of any kind, thank you."

Audience: Yes.

"Overrun Europe, build pyramids full of skulls — God knows what else they do, but who'd mock up a Mongol horde, I wouldn't," the pc says, "No, sir."

Not an outflow valence.

You have to sneak up on him and increase his willingness to do so and thereby increase his ability to do so, by asking him this slippery question, "What part of a Mongol horde would you be willing to create?"

And being an inflow valence then, it just prevents everybody from know­ing anything, doesn't it?

Well, he likes horses, so he says, "Well, I'd just as soon create their horses. They're nice horses. And I understand they had lots of gold and so on, I'd be willing to create their gold. I like that." And he says, "Well, I don't know. I think their weapons are kind of picturesque in the museum and so forth, I'd be willing to create one horseman's weapons." Kind of with a reser­vation to himself, "If I were armed with a tommy gun."

Audience: Yes.

And he runs it on up the line, and the first thing you know, why, things have happened. He's seen mock-ups or blacknesses, and these blacknesses thin and thicken and get invisible and come back and get black again, and so on. And you're running out the automaticity — the destruction of a Mongol horde, you see. Zoom, zoom, zoom.

So it has its uses, doesn't it?

Actually all the time he would be able to create it if he were willing to, you see. His ability to create it has never diminished. His willingness to cre­ate it, however, is pretty darn thin. And so all he really gets — he fools him-self, he gets this destruction of a Mongol horde is all he gets, in one version or another, and he calls it a bank.

Audience: Mm-hm.

And he mocks up so thinly, and creates so thinly, and so forth, that you an auditor, you can't see it. People got to believing that the mind was all (quote) "imaginary," by which they meant delusory.

Now, do you understand why a needle falls down from a high tone arm to a very low tone arm?

No, the mind has mass, it has space, energies, all sorts of things. See? Only we just don't do a good enough job of creation to put it out there where everybody can see it.

Audience: Yes.

He'll use various excuses that it would "spoil the game." You can always get somebody to put up ... You know, it's very funny to take one of these cases, he's saying, "Well I — I can't — can't mock anything up. I don't see any pictures. No, it isn't real to me, I just don't mock anything up. Ha! Ha! Ah, really something. I never saw any pictures. You must be talking through your hat, there's pictures." And what he's saying "I've got them all smashed, see. I haven't got any pictures, they are all scrushed to death, you know. They're all invisible."

It's the same breed of cat.

It's a very funny thing to run this process on him. This is a cure-all sort of a process. It's not a good, therapeutic process at all. It is just getting an effect on a pc.

And the reason I didn't have any trouble, I had to learn some things about this, is because students on ACCs always have more trouble than I had. That's a fact! That's a horrible fact. They always had more trouble than I had doing the same thing.

You must differentiate between processes that do something for a pc, and processes which merely render an effect on a pc. A .45 bullet never did a thing for anybody's chest but it certainly rendered an effect on him.

And I very often have to zig and zag back and forth in an ACC until I comprehend what's going on, because every now and then, I'll level with you, I haven't had time to work something out 100 percent of the time by the time it's presented to an ACC. Don't you see? The public doesn't get ahold of it actually until long after it's presented to an ACC. Got that?

So, you run a process something like this: You say, "Get an idea of put­ting up a picture as big as that wall and then get the idea it would spoil the game and don't do it."

Audience: Yes.

And you just run that little one just a few times, and he's looking at some great, big 3-D tapestry, you know, of something or other, and bright colored, and sort of claws away, and scrunches and goes r-a-h-h-h ...

So, an ACC, completely aside from making better auditors and cleaning up cases, and doing a lot of other things, provides a very interesting test ground. Hm?

"Ah, phoohh, I got that off you know."

Audience: Yes.

Now, you want to know why he hasn't got pictures. Well, he's on the create-to-destroy cycle.

And I don't know all there is to know when I start in an ACC, because I know by experience, he said snidely and sarcastically, and so forth, that you're going to find some things out about it that I didn't have any trouble with. That's inevitable!

But you can reverse his willingness with this trick, and make him get the opposite effect against his will. See, you can ...

So, I've had to look over your low valence thing again and I've got news for you. The guy puts something there to withhold for him. You've driven him down to a point of where he withholds on automatic! He doesn't even have to withhold anymore! Hm?

Just like you say to somebody, "Try not to be three feet back of your head." And he goes boinnng! See?

Audience: Yeah.

And you say, "Try not to put a picture on the wall," which is all this gag is about, you see. And particularly on a black case, it goes spannng because that's what he's trying to do. He's trying not to put up a picture.

All right, along with that I've just dreamed up another process which I knew something about but didn't know its shape or form of until I started looking at this phenomenon, and talking to you and so on.

And you say, "Try not to put up a picture." It as-ises his effort for a moment and you get a picture! Because his effort is to destroy his picture because he's on this slip from create over to destroy.

And I'm pretty sure you could knock that needle — tone arm back up again with the process I just gave you at the end of the last lecture: "What would you be willing for me to know?"

But you see he didn't mock up the picture at all! All he did was lift the destroy off of a picture that he's perfectly able to put up! He's always able to put up a picture, just like you're always able to mock up a whole ruddy universe!

And you could probably run a dichotomy on it "What would you be will­ing for me to know? What would you not be willing for me to know?"

You can mock up dolls, spaceships, mannequins, governor generals, any-thing! See?

Which, of course, because it's being run in total mystery would be "Think of something you would be willing to let me know. Think of something you would be unwilling to let me know." Got it?

You could mock up also the space to put them in, the mass to make them out of, the energy to run them. Who else is mocking up all this stuff, the dinosaurs? Well all right. Just take my word for it. You don't even have to believe it. You don't even have to take my word for it. Try not to put a uni­verse here!

Audience: Mm-hm.

If you're having trouble with pictures, just try not to get a picture in front of your face right this minute. Nah, I won't sit here and process you. Did you see something kind of flicker?

Now, you could run the dynamics one way or the other and you could put it up into pluralities and so forth and you'd get such silly questions, obvious question as "Think of something you would let others know. Think of some-thing you wouldn't let others know."

Feel creepy?

Got the idea?

You realize that a blind man is trying to see, trying to see, trying to see, trying to see, trying to see, trying to see, trying to see. And after awhile he's destroyed sight enough times that his "trying to see" puts the destruction on automatic and so he goes blind.

Audience: Mm-hm.

You can do the weirdest tricks with somebody's eyes.

Of course, it should go up on just "Think of something you would let others know," without its reverse side kicking it along.

You can say, "Get the effort not to see." His vision will change. I don't suppose it'll change very long because he'll flip it back.

You can put that reverse side on the thing and it doesn't make the pc run through a confusion. It's a confusion preventer. And if you think your pc's going to go through bad confusions, then you play the positive, see, the "know and not-know" you know, and the middle ground runs out.

But you just tell him "Get the effort not to see that chair." And "Get the effort not to see that chair." "That's good. Now get the effort not to see that chair."

You can usually get away with just running the positive, "know" or the positive "reach."

Just do that a few times and all of a sudden, "My eyes, they don't work anymore. They're not quite right!"

Overt-Withhold Straightwire is designed for a case to keep the case from going into a confusion. "What have you done? What have you withheld from?" See. Bing, bing, bing, bing, bing. Between the two, all the mystery goes out and the confusion goes out rather easily. But the same confusion would go out with "What have you done? What have you done? What have you done? What have you done?"

Sometimes the spectacles never are right afterwards. See, he can't quite get the astigmatism back the way it belongs!

But the pc would be confused a bit in the process of doing it. Got the idea? That's by theory, also by some observation.

But just as efforts oppose efforts, so does a person create and oppose creations. See, it's not — destruction is so much a fact, it is so visible, it's so real. The whole world is busy running on it. The threat of destruction.

Now, "What would you be willing to let others know?" would be an obvi­ous thing. But it becomes less obvious when you say, "What would you be willing to let animals know?"

This is so real, the destruction to the world at large is a fact! It's a big truth. It is not a creation, counterposed by created force, or more simply it's not just a creation opposed by a creation.

And you'll find at once your cycle of action is coincidental because eating animals is one of man's penchants. He is destroying animals, he is destroying vegetable matter, and so forth rather uniformly, isn't he?

Now, you take a Chinese pagoda, and it's sitting there doing very well. You put another Chinese pagoda just like it, smash it up and put it in — I mean, just smash the two together, you know, just put two Chinese pagodas in the same place. This violates one of the laws on which everybody has agreed, that "Two objects can't occupy the same space," which is pure non-sense, because I'm sitting here, and I'm sitting here. See? I'm occupying the same space as a body right this minute.

So I'd take something that he just does all the time and just ask a ques­tion about it and just answer the question for yourself and you'll get a very good object lesson: "What would you be willing for a pig to know?" Isn't that a fascinating question? Hm?

People tell me "I'm not an object." Well, all right, they haven't run into me lately. That's one of the tricks they play on you as a thetan, by the way.

"What would you be willing for a head of cabbage to know?"

Tell you, "You're nothing. You're nothing. You're nothing. You're nothing." You know. You, yourself, can't be anything.

"What would you be willing for a salad to know?"

I remember falling over a scrub lady one day while I didn't have a body on, and scared her half to death.

I've had a reporter almost turn gray-headed over the thought of toma­toes feeling pain. A terrible shock to this boy!

Usually thetans are so shy that they don't do this sort of thing. They ordinarily don't get run into very easily. And they go around — they don't go running into people if they can possibly help it. They know how they're sup-posed to handle people; they're supposed to pick up people at the beginning of the cycle and live as a people through to the end of the cycle unless inter­rupted by some co-opposed force. That's the way they're supposed to do, you know, it's "Now-I'm-supposed-to. Now-I'm-supposed-to."

I showed him that the tomato plant would react to an E-Meter. And this tomato plant reacts like mad, any tomato plant does. And also you can tell what its survival is, how close it is over on its idea of the cycle of action. See, and its ideas are way over, up high, you know, on the tone arm. It thinks it's pretty dead anyhow most of the time.

I don't know why you can't begin life at thirty-two. I don't. It's no reason at all why you couldn't begin life at thirty-two, get younger till you were six-teen. Do you realize you'd probably wind up in high school with all those pretty girls with all that experience. Has its advantages.

As soon as this reporter found out that all you had to do was bite a tomato on the vine and you got a registry on the needle right after he had been holding the cans and gotten pinched, and gotten the same reaction on the needle, he started saying, "This is terrible! This is terrible! This is ter­rible! Why, people would go into a terrible panic if they knew about this. This could cause an awful mess! Every time you eat a tomato, why obviously, you would think of this" and that sort of thing.

Now, we can tell you the various phases of how the mind looks on a Tone Scale. And we can say, "Well, it goes down from a willingness to experience, to a willingness to confront only, you see, to a willingness to not confront, which is about where you get invisibility, and then a willingness to hide it because one can't make it invisible anymore so they turn it black, and then it goes down, and couldn't turn it black successfully and can't confront it and way up, can't experience it, so you get a substitute." Actually the invisibility is kind of a substitute for the picture. So it's actually a scale of substitutes.

Why, I imagine he went home that night and ate tomatoes! How do you think he managed it? He just turned on another not-know for the tomato, didn't he?

Substitutional behavior for an unwillingness to experience. It's about the way it goes. And the guy goes down the Tone Scale.

No, people are going down tone arm very rapidly. They're just being beaten down tone arm and they finally shift into a mindless object so they can be totally defensible, evidently.

The old time, wide-open case that had such beautiful pictures and you just erased them and erased them and erased them and ran them through the engrams and ran them through the engrams and they didn't get any bet-ter and they didn't get any better and they didn't get any better. What was going on here? Well, you didn't have a picture. You had a substitute for a substitute for a substitute for a substitute of a picture. See?

And you can't pay attention to a tone arm on the basis of "It is high, therefore he is withholding something."

And if you'd persisted long enough on any one picture and not just erased that picture up to a time when it got murky or something, but just kept erasing it, and if you'd had enough control to hold the pc in the incident, you would have erased the next substitute and the next substitute and the next substitute and the next substitute and it would have all gone black. And it would have all gone invisible, and you would insist that he went through the whole thing again. He would have been looking at it. And then maybe more times and more times and more times and all of sudden he'd be right there. And he would have been running an engram. And that one would have run out! Because he could have gotten to the moment of inception of the inci­dent, which is what we always ask for, and run it through to the end.

Well, it's too high for you to audit the person because he's withholding something so hard that it would really interfere with it. But you'd start knocking that down anywhere along the line, he could probably be audited.

Well, actually, finding the moment of inception of the incident was really enough if you found the moment of inception of the first incident and that's in there too — basic-basic. That'd be the first created incident at the earliest moment of picture track. And you could have found that and erased it, why, you would have gotten a decided change all the way up the bank, of course!

The truth of the matter is, he shifts off to a weak valence that you wouldn't let anything know, and it wouldn't let anything know, because it doesn't have any mind and so forth.

Now, just add up what you know about Dianetics to what — the stuff I'm giving you about create versus destroy and you'll see an awful lot about banks. Do you understand? There's a terrific amount here about banks. And it's not very complicated! Because the force to withhold is the unwillingness to destroy — destroy others or the effort to destroy the picture which might destroy others and it's a lot of things but it's a pull-back, rather than a dis­play.

Now, look, I'm not saying that women read below men because they have less mind than men. I'm not saying that at all, it's a totally physiological reaction.

So, the worse off a person is, the less he discloses, the more he with-holds. Don't you see?

I don't know why they read down lower. But you go much lower than a female valence and what are you going to run into?

It's very simple. The more destruction he skidded through to the end of, of course, the more he is suppressing. Because he's doing it.

Audience: A mindless object.

So, the more withhold, the less pictures.

Go on, growl! Growl! All right.

The more apparency of no bank, you see, and so on.

You're going to run into an inverted male valence, of course.

And of course, the withhold, the withhold, nondisclosure, nondisclosure, the backtrack is usually something he's not disclosing to anybody, including himself!

Now, a person simply shifts off, evidently, into a mindless thing, and his best method of keeping knowingness from spreading all over the place, was of course to pick up an object that didn't, and be it.

And this is so chronic that you take somebody who (quote) "Has no real­ity on past lives" and I'll show you, not according to present technology, but according to early technology, an awful rough case, according to early tech­nology.

Now, you question that object and of course you're not going to get any response at all. Now, you could outguess him and find out what the object is and then find out what that object would be willing to let anything know. And he'll do some kind of a flip up scale again. Why? Because you whipped the mechanism.

The people who had the roughest cases with the most substitution, and the most wide-open, and the most dub-in, were usually those people who told you the quickest they had no reality on past lives.

But actually you're forcing a person downstairs. So, I've come to the con­clusion, or am coming to the conclusion, that you must be ARC breaking these people down, rather than pulling the tone arm down.

In fact, they would get downright desperate about it.

Now, that's an awful accusation. You must be getting the tone arm down in such a way they don't feel comfortable about it. You must be dragging it out of them against their will to get low tone arms — not putting them into a frame of mind where they'll give. And I think that's what I do that you don't do. Because I will sales talk a pc into telling me but never force the pc into telling me. You got the idea?

I remember I had one of them on a couch one day, and he all of a sudden got the idea of a big shark — came along and bit him in the side. He got the somatic, he said, "That's it." And he sprang off the couch and ran like a star­tled goat. Too real for him, and he wouldn't believe it. That's all he said after-wards is he didn't believe it, he wouldn't believe it, and so forth. And the teeth marks that took shape on his side — he wouldn't believe those either. He was all bruised up.

Audience: Yes.

Now why? What's this all about?

And I think when you force the pc into telling you with some method of duress whereby your — your ARC and so forth — he's queasy about this ARC and so on — I believe there's some kind of a mechanism, and I'm just thinking out loud here, takes place where he feels like he's been degraded somehow, if he then picks up an object that won't think in order to substitute it for him. Right?

Well of course, he's just more withdrawn and more withdrawn and more withdrawn and more withdrawn, which is less disclose, less disclose, less dis­close, less disclose and he finally gets down to where he's only willing to disclose the last moment or two of time even to himself and you call that amnesia.

Audience: Right.

And there's no difference between whole track amnesia and present-life amnesia. And as a matter of fact you are indebted to that to the degree that that is what upset me enough, personally, subjectively, to start to get very interested in the mind and so on. Because I had a first dynamic reaction on this, too.

So, I think the smoothness with which you take one down is a lot to do with it. You understand?

And my first dynamic reaction was, not that I, myself had better get busy and save my sanity or something of the sort but when I started wonder­ing a little bit about the mind, I all of a sudden realized that I was getting amnesia. I couldn't tell you my name in the second century A.D.! I just couldn't remember it! And I knew I was going nuts! You know. And I didn't have a clue anymore how you threw a javelin! You know, you pick it up this way, and you pick it up there and dahhh.

Audience: Yes.

What's the difference between a Moorish, Greek and Roman methods of handling javelins? Why, I couldn't tell you. And I knew I was losing my memory.

Now, there's a reverse side to this which is quite interesting and that's one of the finest IQ processes known. That process which increases IQ fast­est is "What could you withhold from?" That's a swifty. I have run a series of I think seven or eight pcs, all run by other auditors, all running crudely and newly — these were just random cases, run crudely, newly — this process, "Think of something you could withhold from (some valence)."

Where do you find the proper pigment for blue paint? I'd forgotten.

See, they did a little assessment and found out some kind of a valence and then they thought of something they could withhold from.

In fact, I — it was a big fog-in, I couldn't tell you where I lived in 1102 A.D.

Actually, I was trying to get something that would break down — the orig­inal process — I was trying to get something that would break down a preach­er's congregational members so that a preacher would start using Scientology and get pulled right on in, heels, hymnbook and all. It was an overt act against the ministry. They could use a few of those overt acts. They could.

My memory on the earlier track wasn't so bad, but they — in spots — but I realized there was practically nothing on the early, early track at all. Noth­ing! What was this?

Well, I wanted ministers to start using this in counseling, so I was going to get out a little pamphlet about how you counsel a person in your congrega­tion and you're going to ask him questions and I was trying to find the right question to ask them so that they would get the person to feel saintly about it all, and give, and so forth.

There were great big chunks like twenty years missing out of the track, see. And of course, the only oddity I had on this, and the only peculiarity I had on this, and so forth, is at first I didn't know that other people didn't have any whole track! And I didn't know it so much that I never even articu­lated it. I couldn't even get it through my head and it wasn't real to me or anything else, you see, that other people wouldn't be worried about this, too. It was a total meeting of unrealities.

And I was trying to figure out some way, by which a preacher, priest, or something, you see — because they have an awful lot of time getting people to confess actually in the confessional in the Catholic church. You'd be sur­prised.

I had no reality on their occlusion at all, and they didn't have any real reality on the fact that I thought, "Well, probably it's a good thing I'm researching this particular field because I'm obviously losing my mind."

Well, look at it yourself. This guy is sitting in a little box, and he doesn't have any TRs, and he's got no E-Meter and ... I mean, he thinks everybody in the — everybody in the place is going to come up and whisper sweet secrets through the box? Yeah, I bet they do!

During the war I remember vividly thinking about the Phoenician navy and how different our administrative system was than the Phoenician navy's administrative system and so on. And of course I'd been in my same rank for so long, that I was getting moldy. That was true of anybody who went out to the combat areas.

Now, how do you suppose he makes the grade? Well, he doesn't make the grade at all unless somebody is terrified of the person he's talking about. Right?

And I mentioned this to somebody. I didn't tell them — I didn't tell them I was remembering and so forth. I got dreamily reminiscent about the Phoeni­cian navy and the good old days, you know. They printed me up a certificate on the ship and they printed me up a commission, feeling sorry for me for being in grade for so long, you see. And gave me my original commission back as a lieutenant in the Phoenician navy with the date of rank, 1003 B.C. printed on it. Only it didn't seem very funny to me.

Audience: Mm-hm.

Only they didn't have lieutenants. Well, we won't go off into that. There was another way of designating rank and grade.

No, it doesn't do those people very much good. It just scares them to death, scares them into talking, tells them the horrible consequences of hell-fire and damnation.

What all this comes down to was how willing I was to create the early track or to create the memory of an early track, which is all memory is. Now you have a reality on it because you know it is — was.

Well, if you go around and tell somebody, well, or you infer, "Well, you're not going to get Clear unless you start talking, son." That's the same thing, pretty much the same thing, isn't it? You're condemning somebody to hellfire and damnation of his own skull if he doesn't open up and yeep.

And you very often see something on the backtrack that you don't remember was. You assume. You don't know, you assume.

Well, there'd be another way to go about it and that would be to increase a fellow's willingness.

Well, you must be holding some kind of a destruction cycle over the top of your knowledge, too. There must be some wish to occlude it or not remem­ber it, so your destruction cycle actually included loss of memory. And when you think about it for a moment that's a very peculiar thing for a destruction cycle to include.

Well, you have two processes by which this could be done, as a process, and I actually think — watching you strangle the E-Meter and wrestle around with a pc and beat your brains out and figure this thing out, I think you could actually stand some process or technique assistance.

Now, how did you all get so you did that? How come you started adding "loss of memory" into the destruction cycle?

And the best one, I've already given you, see: "What would you be will­ing to have somebody know?" See?

Well, that was because only if it was there, could you remember it. Hey, that's pretty wild, you know. That says, "no memory at all," that says, "MEST has to remind you that you have a memory." Look at that for a minute.

And that would work best as far as the pc is concerned, probably if you ran it as a dichotomy: "something to know," versus "not-know." And you'd be running the reach — withhold mechanism.

You remember this wall up here particularly well when you're looking straight at it. Got the idea?

Because if you run withhold consistently and continue it, you can get away with it. That's the weirdest thing, "What could you withhold from Mother? Good." "What could you withhold from Mother? Good." "What could you withhold from Mother? Good."

Well, now just look at that wall for a moment and say, "Well, I remember that."

Now, if you sorted somebody out into valences and found him in a mind-less valence, he'd have an awful time trying to figure out something he could withhold from a bean pot. Get the idea? "What would you withhold from a bean pot?"

No, not "I will remember that." Look at the front wall, and say, "Well, well, I remember that."

"Well, how would it know I had anything to withhold from it?" You know?

Did something kind of go creak? Hm?

Well, it's very easy. I can withhold a stove from a bean pot with the greatest of ease. I just don't put it on the stove. But people don't look at things quite that simply when they're agonizing around down in the lower part of the tone arm reading.

Did it brighten up?

And you found out what he could withhold from this, or withhold from that.

Audience: Yes.

He actually has adopted the mindless mechanism and you'll find basi­cally someplace back on the track that he was entrusted with some enormous secret that he mustn't tell anybody. And somebody convinced him it was an enormous secret that nobody must find out. Because the civilization would be doomed and all that sort of thing if anybody found this thing out.

Did it tend to kind of go into the past and you go into the future or something?

In other words, he joined the army or the navy or any other military organization and got himself brainwashed. See, that's a good brainwash, just not to let anybody know.

Audience: Yes.

See, I could probably drive army officers in Washington around the Pen­tagon down far enough to always pay the dinner check, simply by sitting at the table with them, you know, and convincing them utterly, completely, boundlessly and endlessly that there were just spies all around in the room and they had to keep their voices down, no matter what they were talking about, see.

Well, some weird things happened with regard to that. But a person gets recognition mixed up with knowledge of. And now without looking at the wall, do you know it's there? Audience: Yes.

Talking about this golf game and so forth, you say, "Dum-dum-dum-dum. Hm-hm-hm-hm."

You know it's there. You see.

The guy says, "Well, yes." "Well, I took the putter. I took the putter and I went out on the ..."

Only you don't have to look at the wall to know it's there because you know it's there. You knew you were looking at a wall. You get the idea?

And you say, "Ah, so. Hm-hm."

Well, that basically is memory. Now, memory peels off to a point where you have to have a picture of the wall to remember that you looked at the wall.

But he gets it day and night, gets it day and night, mustn't tell his wife, mustn't tell anybody anything. If he just happens to have any security rating at all and something comes through on the manufacture of bows and new arrows, "Top Secret!"

See, it goes down from just "Well, it was there and that's that." You just remember it, you just know it, you see.

Well, there was a top secret project in the US, you know; manufacture ofbows and arrows, World War II. When they finally unburied all the archivesand so forth, that was one they found in it: "Bows and Arrows, Top Secret."And they had hired somebody to experiment with bows and arrows forcommandos, see. And he'd just taken Indian bows and Indian arrows and he'd gone out and shot at a few targets, wrote up the data, they put "Top Secret" on it and it had been there ever since the war.

Down to have to having a picture of the wall to remember it's there.

Well, they finally get "mustn't know, mustn't know, mustn't know" and along with this comes enemy, enemy, enemy!

And then that goes down to "destroying the picture." When you pass out of a certain cycle, you go past the cycle of action to the destroy end of that life, and the destruction of that cycle of action now results in a wipe-out of the picture.

So, it is very natural for a military to run into withheld information because they are always faced by an enemy. Do you understand?

Well, you see, memory is just memory. It actually does not require — at this level of the game you can face up to this — it doesn't require a picture, it doesn't require an object. You knew a girl once, you see, or you knew a guy once, you know, and you don't have to have his photograph in front of your face to know that you knew him! Or her, do you?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Audience: No.

Now, the pc who is facing you, if he successfully continuously withholds information from you, realizes then that he is facing an enemy. That's right, he's facing a separate thing in an enemy and he gets ARC broke with you and so forth because he knows that you'll fight him. Now, you haven't pro­moted any ARC at all.

Well, you just know you knew somebody.

Now, if you're being — very maladroitly trying to drag information out of him by his heels, and if you're shoving him down Tone Scale, and you're ARC breaking him around about the place trying to get dope and data out of him, he has two answers to this. You're getting it roughly, see, he's got two answers. One is to clam up knowingly, or to go into a mindless valence which wouldn't know. And there he is, nice and stupid, so how can you get anything out of him he doesn't know himself. You got the idea? He slips into this valence.

Well, that's basically what memory is. It's not memory with an assist.

All right, now if this was — were gotten out of him smoothly or if he were bucked up the line a bit to a point of where he'd take a wider responsibility for himself and the various dynamics — when he told you, it would be because he was willing to tell you.

But as soon as memory gets into one of the vias by which we live, into pictures, and when the pictures then seem to be a life, we get a cycle of action through the whole life, and that life is destroyed, then we apparently destroy the pictures, but the pictures ... You know. Then we have some sort of recollection of the picture. We get the picture again, it's fogged up and unreal because it's not connected because the essential ingredient is missing. And the essential ingredient is knowing it was. So, that's the essential ingre­dient. It's no more complicated than that; it's knowing it was.

Now, this is one of the oldest mechanisms we have, is that a pc who comes into an HGC with a tremendous number of secrets that nobody must learn about, he's usually coming in with some little old two-bit secret that hasn't anything to do with the price of fish. They just seem to think this is an "enormous secret" and nobody must know about it.

You don't have any mechanisms. It's cycle of action which carried it away, that's for sure, but you must have permitted knowing it was, to be car­ried away along with the cycle of action. Now, that's a funny thing to do.

We've had such a pc stand around and talk to the Director of Processing for literally an hour or so, just making sure that nobody is going to find out anything, you know.

But it's consequent to getting somatics and assigning agonies and miser­ies and all of that sort of thing to that particular life and being afraid you'll get them back if you even know about them again.

If we've done anything for this pc at all and brought this pc up tone, why, the pc at the end of a long period of processing, one or two, three inten­sives, something like this, will be sailing in to the D of P's office saying so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so, and talking like this — never mentions these secrets. See? The person's social status hasn't altered, nothing has altered, but "willingness for others to know" has increased.

Now, basically, it was your sympathy for somebody else that you had hurt, or you thought you had hurt, which made you want them to not-know about what had happened. And that is the overt act of memory occlusion. Wanting somebody to forget or not-know.

And that's one of the instinctive methods of evaluation of states of case which is used in HGC. That is so well-known amongst auditors you've never talked about it. Isn't that right?

Whole track memory and its restoration is based upon, basically, the rehabilitation of one's desire to let somebody else know, or his willingness to let somebody else know, too.

Audience: Mm-hm.

Come on, cognite!

Well, it's these little facts that come to view that take on a great deal of importance because they're terribly fundamental.

_ Oh, I see, you thought I was taking a bicycle ride around the park. Come on! Come On! Come on! Come on! Come on!

Now, if you drag these secrets out of the person, mostly without the person's consent, under duress, talking about hellfire and damnation, that person is lia­ble to go down tone. Right?

Audience: Mm-hm.

The first step in memory occlusion is an overt against somebody else's knowingness. You don't want them to know, out of sympathy, meanness, orneri­ness, youness, or something else! You don't want somebody else to know!

To withhold more! And abandons his or her integrity! And says, "Well, I give up."

And then by valence flips and by repeated overts and then realizing this was an overt act you suffer the consequences of your overt acts and the first thing you know you can't tell me your name in 500 B.C.! You're crazy! You understand that?

They get as well as they would ever get in psychiatry, see, which is to go totally out of the bottom. They go into apathy.

Audience: Yes.

Now, the odd part of it is, you could always cure arthritis, always cure arthritis, by taking a person from 1.5 or .5 and knocking him down to .1. It's the funniest thing.

Aw, people out here wouldn't think you were crazy! They're on such an inversion they'd think you were crazy if you could remember your name in 500 B.C., you see.

I don't know why anybody has any difficulty curing arthritis. All you'd have to do is kick the guy in the door and kick him out the door and give him horrible looking nurses and — and charge him enormous bills and then before he had a chance to pay them, why, sue him. See, he'd just gotten the bill that morning, he'd say, "Well, I'll write out a check for it" and so forth, and the solicitor comes in with a writ. Do you get the idea?

This is totally unreal and would practically terrify them.

And then without waiting for the writ to be served, you falsify it in some way so the bailiffs have all the furniture out on the sidewalk before he can even put the checkbook away to find out what the commotion is. He wouldn't have arthritis anymore.

But the first step in the rehabilitation of anything or anybody is a will­ingness to let somebody else know!

Because with this much action, activity and so forth he simply would have sunk into apathy.

And you're going to make a case well which is sitting there with some data it's not going to let you know?

Now, arthritis is a ridge illness which hangs at the solid parts of the Tone Scale; grief, anger, so forth. Got the idea? That's a ridge disease.

Why, that case is sitting in the middle of the primary aberration and has it in full restimulation! And you're going to cut through this thing? Hmm. The dickens you are.

All a person has to do is slide into the run between the ridges, and there goes the arthritis. It wouldn't matter whether you drove them down scale or up, they would be rid of the arthritis.

The first step in the rehabilitation of any case, and I'm sure you've proc­essed people with high needles, high tone arms — I'm sure you've processed people with high tone arms and slogged and chewed and hammered and chewed up pictures and messed up with somatics and plowed into things and ... Hm? I'm sure you have.

But the funny part of it is, if you had to drive them down scale to get rid of it, they would actually have been better off with it. Do you see that? Audience: Yes.

And here and there done it without the tiniest, slightest change or gain. And the person just kept — come up a little bit and slide back, and come up and slide back. And you're beating your brains out! Much less your thetan.

So, if you have to drive somebody down scale to get his tone arm down, he's better off with it up.

Now, why was that? It's because you had avoided the primary step in rehabilitation: willingness to let somebody else know, which is the total reverse of what is wrong with a person which is unwillingness to let somebody else know. However misguided the motives are for an unwillingness to let some-body else know, it is nevertheless pretty destructive on all the dynamics.

The bulls, as the police are familiarly referred to, know this very well. They know how to get information and get things disclosed. They know very well how to get things disclosed.

"Well, I couldn't possibly tell my husband about that affair. It would kill him." It was apparently a rather pure motive, you know, "He'd kill me, too" is a part of it. See?

Turn a light in a fellow's face, and you get a chair, you see, that rocks sideways, and you hold it — some water over here, and you put it in plain view but don't let him have any. Got the idea?

Well, it's a dual-sided motive.

And then you keep rocking him sideways and you keep shining more light in his face, and keep telling him he did it. And after a while he con­fesses! Isn't that remarkable? It would never have occurred to him probably.

"I mustn't hurt them."

You get more false confessions that way. See? You keep rocking him side-ways, and upsetting his equilibrium, and then a whole bunch of faces in the darkness back of the light keep telling him that he did it. "You know you did it. You know you robbed the bank. You know you did it. You know you did it."

Oh, there are people right here who went through all of their early child-hood knowing they mustn't let their parents know because it would hurt them. It would hurt their parents to know that you weren't the shining little angel that they thought you were. It would hurt them to realize the things that you did. Right?

And so the fellow says, "I'd like a glass of water."

Audience: Yes.

So, a cop takes a glass of water and drinks it himself and puts it back down on the table, "You know you did it! You know you did it."

Well, then, don't tell me some time why your childhood is occluded. See?

They exteriorize him kind of into the room. They splatter him all over the place. They're driving him down, down, down, down, down scale. Pretty soon he will confess to anything. He will confess to anything.

You go through your whole childhood not letting anybody know. You are actually doing worse than that, you were suppressing somebody else's knowing­ness! Weren't you?

And I think basically the difference of address here between the experi­mental run, and the actual practice is — is probably basically preclear trust. Preclears trust me pretty well. They always have. It just occurs to them they better tell me.

Audience: Yes.

The funny part of it is most of the time they don't even have to give me the information.

So it was constant and continual overt acts against this thing I'm talk­ing about called spontaneous knowingness.

Dick ran into this the other day. It happened over there in the corner this morning. The person said something or other. He was riding high, and I went by and he went down! He went down to the Clear reading. Why did he go down to the Clear reading? Well, he decided he could tell me. And the needle fell.

You just know, you don't have pictures! You just know.

So, I guess you'd better work to inspire confidence in your pc. And I think that's your missing slink. Got it?

Well, now as long as anybody believes that he has to have pictures in order to know, see, as long as anybody believes this expressly and exclusively, and that there's no other method by which to do this, then he is saved from letting anybody else know because he says, "Look! You can't see my facsimi­les, so therefore, well, I'm sorry, I'd show them to you if I could, but that's my memory."

Audience: Yep.

No, no, no, that isn't his memory at all. His memory is knowing some-thing happened! Knowing something exists! That's present time and knowing something did exist or occur, that's memory. But it's simply knowingness and that's all it is.

I think that's the answer to it.

And it isn't knowingness with "x" crosses that goes through five elec­tronic tubes and squirts out with a gimmigahoogit. No, it is just knowing. It's too elementary to be grasped in any other way than to know that it is that way.

Now, you're all students here together, and you all know that you're knowing, and you all know that you're learning, you all know that you're being taught, and most of you, good auditors enough outside of this class, are known to be students in this class. And there's no question of altitude here. It's mostly, "He is just another student." You got the idea?

Now, the more overts you have against somebody else's knowingness, or other people's knowingnesses, the more mechanisms you're going to adapt and adopt to make sure that you don't forget somehow. And without releasing knowingness to make sure it doesn't get forgotten.

Audience: Mm-hm.

See, finger — a string on the finger, notes on pieces of paper. Without releasing any of your own knowingness or memory, you see — without releas­ing your own knowingness and simply just remembering, you put down some-thing to remember.

Well, your Instructors can come along and knock the tone arms down and get the gen with some altitude and perhaps some confidence. You got it? Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, it's perfectly all right to keep notes because at your state of case it would be an heroic, an heroic thing to remember the whole ruddy shooting match. You get the idea? So, go ahead and take notes, it's all right with me. Well, for heavens sakes know what you're doing. You're getting a substitution for knowing, you know. Well, there's nothing wrong with that.

What are you making them sit in there for, huh?

You do it all the time. I'm not trying to cry this mechanism down and say, "This is terrible!" But I'm going to say don't do it to a point where you yourself don't know. Because you're cutting your own throat.

I'm not going to let them sit in tomorrow. You going to have to get busy. You inspire the confidence. How are you going to do that? Well, that's one technique you're going to dream up. How are you going to do it? Now, if you inspire enough confidence you won't have to take it apart in any other way. But if you have to use a technique and so forth to get the pc into two-way comm with you, I would say offhand that you would get the pc into two-way comm with you by making the pc more tolerant. And this is perfectly all right. A pc shouldn't feel bad about it. But I'll just tell you privately between thee and me, is the reason you had to do it is because you didn't inspire a necessary level of confidence. That's all.

Now, of course, you actually, most of you have taken notes so that you can tell somebody else sometime. And you've got an orderly outline of what went on and you can tell somebody else about it. But basically you may very well be in some via, method, rehabilitating your own knowingness by being willing through these notes to let somebody else know sometime. You get the idea?

Now, what was missing? It isn't a matter of how you hold the pinkie or how ... You know? It isn't a matter of how rigidly you brace your jaw when you ask the question.

Audience: Yes.

It's the matter of how confident you appear to be. How confident do you feel when you sit in that auditing chair, huh? Are you confident? Or do you feel sort of n-a-a-a-h-h-h-h. Hm? Do you feel like you know what you're doing? Or do you feel oo-o-o-o-o? Or do you feel maybe that I know what you're doing? And that's good enough. Hm? Or do you feel your Instructors know what you're doing, so that's all right? Got the idea?

It's a two-edged sword. You go ahead and take notes.

Audience: Mm-hm.

But MEST 18 MEST and knowingness is knowingness and unfortunately the twain meet. And MEST can substitute for knowingness, which is one of the weirdest tricks that thetans ever figured out. You can actually substitute — this somethingness can substitute for a total nothingness.

The very fact that you would have to be instructed by your Instructors is an invalidation because they normally stop by when things are going wrong. But I'm not going to let them sit down in the chair tomorrow. You're going to inspire confidence in your pc. You hear me?

But just knowing is the first and foremost road out. But you're not going to know while you know that you suppressed other people's ability to know! Got that?

Audience: Yes. Mm-hm.

Audience: Yes.

Your pc will suddenly say, "Ahhhh." You know? "What's come over this guy?" You know. "What's come over this guy? Must be something come over this guy. I feel like confiding something in him," you know. Savvy?

Because boy, does that one snap terminals easily — snick, snick. There's no space to keep it apart. See? There's no MEST to keep it apart. All the mechanical means by which you disentangle your overts from the other valence and so forth, these are all abandoned, and they just go (smack!). Got it?

Audience: Yes.

Audience: Mm-hm.

Oh, the first thing you've got to whip is not a technique. The thing you've got to whip is inspiring confidence in your pc.

Because your knowingness can be over there, it can be over here and so forth.

I've had people put me on a meter. They always tell me it's because I'm me. That's their usual alibi. That's an alibi. Because I'm me, they can't audit me. That's the wildest thing I ever heard of.

For instance, I can know all about this corner of the room while knowing in that corner of the room, while being right about here, as I was at that moment. You got that?

They go flipping around into some weak valence of some kind or another, and sit there and get all thumbs and ten tongues. Very often. Why? Because I'm the source of all of this information, I'm the source of all of this material. Well, I'll admit, I did a pretty good job of putting it together, but you're the source of it. If you hadn't made these postulates, you wouldn't have them. If you hadn't mishmashed this stuff up and assigned the evaluation of impor­tance that you have assigned to the various postulates that you assigned them to, and the considerations which you have, nothing would work on you! You wouldn't be in this universe!

Audience: Yes.

What do you mean, I'm the source of all this?

Know about this corner of the room from that corner of the room while being here !

The only thing I'm better at than you are is I can see more, see it better, see it harder, and with a better heart, and that's all I got. Do you under-stand?

Well, why do I have to be here to know about this corner of the room while being in that corner of the room, huh? Why can't I, without being here, simply know about that corner of the room? Hm?

Audience: Yes.

Now, why do I have to be anywhere in this room or out of it, in that corner or away from it, to know about that corner? Well, I don't. Do you understand?

You're the source of this stuff or you wouldn't be here.

Audience: Yes.

Scientology is life.

What I know about a corner, I know about a corner!

Well, that's just then an alibi, isn't it, that somebody uses, saying, "You're you, and therefore I can't audit you." That's just a nice alibi because the truth of the matter is I audit like a baby carriage. You know? It upsets the living daylights out of some auditors because my case changes. It goes, flick-flick-flick-flick-flick-flick-flick. "Thank you," I say, "There's a cognition."

And unless I fall on very evil times the next few centuries I'll still know about that corner! Because what's time got to do with it so long as I keep from shutting down everybody else's knowingness as an overt act. You under-stand?

"Good. Thank you." And they go on running the same process and because I'm a good pc, I go on and run the process for a while.

Audience: Yes.

Finally, he'll say, "How are you now?"

So, basically, before you get to a cycle of action, which is mechanical enough, you're going to run into destroyed knowingness, and along with destroyed knowingness, when you first enter into the cycle of action, you usu­ally hit the pc at a destroyed end of the cycle, particularly on anything he can be analyzed on. And boy, you ask him to look at his bank in that condition, he thinks at once he's had it. Well, it sure looks that way, sure looks that way.

And I say, "Well, I'm all right."

See, you ask him, well, let's see, let's take a food that you used to eat a lot of, let's see — oh, I know what it would be, milk. That's far enough back on the track. All right, very few of you are doing anything with milk right now. "Get the idea of creating some milk."

They very rarely ask me, "Well, how were you ten minutes ago?" I would have told them I was all right ten minutes ago. They've been running the process for a half an hour, and the somatic went away, and the broken leg got all cured up there in the first five minutes. You get the idea?

Now, some of you got a little automaticity on the thing, see. The funny part of it is, you actually did create the milk, but it wasn't m-i-l-k, which conveyed from me to you what I asked you to create! Was it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Audience: Huh-uh.

Well that has nothing to do with the fact that I can just look at a broken leg if my attention is called to it, and I'm given enough assistance in glancing in that direction, just as you would be able to do. Do you understand?

Symbols and language always follow the fact of communication. Now, that's too slippery for some people, boy, they say, "That's pretty something."

Audience: Mm-hm.

All I use communication for is to confirm it. And that proves it to you. You know you heard it. Isn't that right?

A better perception.

Audience: Yes.

Then basically, I'm not unwilling for you to know. I never have been. The worse sins that I have ever committed were unfortunately based on the fact that — all on a knowingness line. I've been a provost marshal, and that sort of thing. And when they were hanged I wanted them to know about it. Get the idea?

Because it doesn't exist in terms of time — that tape playing there — because people are concentrated in that direction, actually serves as an — will serve as an indicator of what to know about while you hear the symbols. That's pretty weird, isn't it?

Now, I didn't mean to talk about me particularly. Well, who are you to get so overwhumped by me, huh? Get the idea?

This is why your mystic gets all mix — misted up. See, that doesn't make those sounds or words on that tape any less real. See, they exist. They're not delusory.

Audience: Mm-hm.

But let's not get so mishmashed as to say either that "They do not exist and don't have a reality," since they do exist, but to understand that by that we could understand anything without the bridge of knowingness. The knowingness exists; therefore we can know about it.

I'm just pointing out to you that there's something to look at. And I'm showing you that it's there to look at. And this box assists you in looking, know-how, experience, familiarity; these things all assist you in looking. Con­fidence comes with vast experience and I've had lots of that. But so have you. We've been in the universe the same length of time.

It's very remarkable. Man is in a totally compartmented skull, in a totally compartmented sorted out universe. The ideas of nirvana should never get mixed up with the ideas of MEST. There is a sort of a nirvana, but it isn't where all knowledge is. Right away, see, it doesn't even mean knowledge, but we'll just hobson-jobson this thing around, see. Nirvana, you see, would be sort of a mishmash of "where all the souls went" you know. But where they went! Aw, come off of it. How do we get a location mixed up in this?

As far as confidence is concerned, it's the amount of confidence that you're willing somebody else to have — the amount of confidence that you inspire. You got it?

The religionist comes along and he says, "Heaven is up there." Aw, it sounds like some old nut saying, "My thetan is over there."

Audience: Mm-hm.

You do a remarkable trick being yourself located. Boy, that's remarkable. How the dickens do you manage that? Well, don't think on it too hard right now or you'll go sprong! But that's quite a trick! That's quite a trick! Being able to locate yourself. To be in a position and look at some other positions! Boy! That's the most! Across space that you mock up! So that you can know about it, which you knew already. This gets to be kind of a silly game when you look this thing over.

Very simple, basically. Not doing anything very fantastic. But you'll get as far, and get this tone arm down just as far as you inspire confidence! And you will beat it down as far as a mindless valence every time you don't inspire confidence. Because this mindless valence you're running into is a defense, and I have to recognize it as such. And I think some of you that are riding below 2.0 right now, I think would probably confirm this to some degree. That is a kind of lack of confidence. See? You're not quite sure whether or not this — all the things should exist. You got the idea?

But in the final analysis, no case could move anyplace while actually, in flagrante delicto, withholding information right now because that's one of the toughest aberrations there are.

Audience: Mm-hm.

And while this person is sitting right there withholding information, they just restimulate the whole track of withholding information. They go, "Dahl Audit me. I'll sort out pictures while I not-know anything. Because I'm not going to let you know!" And that's the overt act.

Now, if you can inspire confidence in somebody else, it's because your own presence is fairly relaxed, and because you are perfectly willing to sit there and listen and hear what they're saying, and run the pc, as they used to say — not run the process. Big difference, you know — running a pc and run­ning a process. Processes are pretty valuable. The only reason they exist is the pc!

You could probably build somebody up knowing the technique and mechanics of the thing by running such a thing as "What would you be will­ing to let others know?" See. You'd probably build this up against time. You could probably rehabilitate it in several ways.

So as you pull it down, so will you succeed.

But all I'm trying to teach you is, you got somebody sitting in that pc's chair withholding information from you. He is sitting in the middle of the most aberration there is, which is, he's indulging in an overt act in not let­ting you know. And you're not going to audit him on anything until you get him out of that one.

Now, you won't quite know whether or not you have hammered it down, or inspired it down, unless you turn around and start asking the fellow for your own ARC breaks or if there's anything wrong in doing this or you've done something that he's very unwilling to have done, and all that sort of thing. Do you understand?

Thank you.

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well, if he is, you've got a technique to put it up. Show him conclusively that he does have the ability to withhold something from you. Got that? And just rehabilitate that as an ability. Rehabilitate it as an ability to withhold things from the various dynamics.

Now, if you want to know what an automaticity is, you just ask some-body someday to "Get the idea of withholding something from a jail." And you've got enough whole track on that, that it's one of the rougher questions.

It's rather an amusing question.

There's another amusing question, "Get the idea of withholding some-thing from a stomach." You get all sorts of punches in the stomach but at the same time there seems to be a — an automaticity is very easily set in action whereby a river of food goes right on down the gullet, the second you think of "withholding something from a stomach."

So, there is an ability to withhold.

Now, you'd think, offhand, that this wouldn't run because it's a cut commu­nication process but we've already sorted it out and demonstrated that it isn't.

But if you ran "withhold" and "know" as two points you could certainly get away with it and you've got a killer of a process, "What are you willing to have others know? What are you willing to withhold from others?"

Got the idea? Not, not-know — know, see, but know and withhold. And that would rehabilitate a pc who had been beaten down.

And I'd say you'd have an awful time auditing somebody who had just been put through the third degree. He'd really been made to confess.

People have been made to confess to such a degree that every time there's a murder in town there are certain people who walk down to the police station at once and confess to having done it. And the cops know all about this, and there'll be eight, ten, twelve of them. They'll actually stand around — the cops will, waiting for these people to show up and confess, on a totally — automaticity of confess. They're simply dramatizing a confession. Pathetic thing, isn't it?

Audience: Yes.

Well, you can rehabilitate a pc up this line, and just for this unit, look­ing it over, that's a killer of a process of rehabilitation along this line.

Some such phraseology is, "Think of something you would be willing for a (or yourself or something or others or any dynamic) — a (any dynamic, any terminal) to know." "Think of something you could withhold from That's a very positive command, you see. One is willing and the other is could withhold from (dynamic).

You've got a valence splitter there, I know by experience, that is an — a rupturous smasher. That's really quite a valence splitter.

You've also got something that will rehabilitate these broken-down, got-to-confess symptoms that are put in along the line.

Until you inspire confidence, tremendous confidence in your pc, until your pc is actually able and willing to be audited by you not by Jan on a via or Dick on a via or somebody else on a via or by me on a big via, but audited by you, you'll continue to have trouble.

There are mechanical ways of inspiring no confidence.

Turning on an E-Meter, "Let's see, let's see, where's the switch. Sens — oh, there's the sensitivity switch, yeah. Yeah. Mm-hm. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't have the cans connected. Let's see, what did he say? What did he say? Yes. Oh, yes, a rising needle ... Oh, yeah, I got it now. I got it. I remember now. A rising ..."

"Now, let's see, do you think you have done something to me? Oh, I forgot to look at the meter!"

Doesn't inspire confidence.

So, you be willing to audit. You be willing to put up a good apparency, and your pc will be willing to confide in you, and you're going to win. You're not going to need tricks. You're going to need know-how, but you're not going to need tricks.

And the more tricks I have to give you, and the more Instructors your — the more tricks your Instructors have to give you, the less confidence your pc has in you.

So, you inspire some confidence, huh?

Audience: Yeah.

Thank you.