Well, this is the 27th lecture of the First Melbourne ACC, isn't it? By golly, it is, isn't it? You're getting along.

"What could you confront?" is one of the first principles of dianetics, as expounded in 1938. Foreshadowing of the 1952 principle of dichotomies is in the 1950 treatment of survive-succumb. As far as the thetan is concerned, surviving is bound up with confronting, in that "if something is surviving, he can confront it; if it doesn't survive, he can't confront it. And sometimes something survives too damn well, and he sits there confronting it for thousands of years saying, 'I am a black case.'"

Now, I haven't anything to talk to you about today at all. I've just shot the bolt. See? I've given you all the data. You know everything there is to know. You all feel totally bright and alert. And your fundamentals are all in good place and position, everything is fine.

You're right in the middle of the cycle of action. The dynamic principle of existence of scientology is Create! This is the common denominator of all thetans, even if they don't know it. Create + counter-creation = destruction. Survive is a continuous confronting. "Your license to survive is a license to confront. You have the right to look at the environment in which you are, and if you don't survive, you don't have the right, and if someone destroys your possessions, so you can't confront them, so they're not surviving, so you feel you're not surviving."

Every once in a while somebody tells me that we change things all the time in Scientology. Every time somebody tells me that I'm liable to be just nasty and mean enough to ask them the definition of a cycle of action. Of course they can't give me that. So I ask them, "What's the dynamic principle of existence out of Dianetics?" Well, they can't give me that. So I say, "What's an engram?" And they say, "Well, an engram — an engram, that's uh — a trace on a cell." And I say, "Well, what do we change?" "Well, you just change all the time. You change everything, you change all the time." And I say, "How the hell would you know?" It's pretty mean, isn't it?

The word, "survive" can't be translated smoothly into several languages. "Suicidal races" like the Russians and the Japanese have such languages. They do confront, however. Confronting is the action; survive is the state of mind, so confront gives an action process. You can run confront on small children as, "What would you like to look at?" It's better to run the action.

If you are under the belief that continuous study on the subject is study of enormous changes, you had better look at your fundamentals. The old Tone Scale — the old Tone Scale, it's a later version of an additional scale — Know to Mystery Scale, the Chart of Attitudes, all these things are right there in place.

"Kids are always trying to make people confront things — showing you things." You can run the process nonverbally. Just point questioningly. This lets you out of the symbol band nicely.

I wonder if you've realized that in asking somebody "What could you confront?" you're asking them a process which is directly and immediately and exactly the first principle of Dianetics, 1938. Well, you didn't know it went back that far did you? But it did. A book written back about that time which was never published and never been made available, which contains some hazards and various things. But it — there was no hazard about that.

The communication process kicks in Axiom 10; it vividly takes in cause and effect. It's best to run an assist with "From where could you communicate to a _______ ?" If mass is present in the room, that helps his havingness. If he's too injured, you could have him look at (confront) the injured part, using a touch assist. You could also run, "What (body part) could you confront / would you dislike confronting?" You could also use, "From where could you confront _______ ?"

That was where the whole thing broke. All the mystery broke down, because all forms, types of livingness did have a common denominator, and that was all I was looking for. The most identified thing would be the most common denominator, wouldn't it? So we had to find a crosspoint where all things — all living things could agree. And all living things do agree on that one thing, the dynamic principle of existence is survive. That's it.

Confront - not confront

So, now clear back in 1952 I was doing stuff about dichotomies, Scientology 8-80, the black and white days, the plus and minus, the anatomy of mystery is contained in that. See? So 1950, we had the opposite side of survive, which was succumb. There was survive and succumb. You see? But succumb really isn't the opposite side at all. Succumb is not wanting to sur­vive. Isn't it? Well, survival is totally bound up simply in, as far as a thetan is concerned, confronting. If something survives, he can confront it and if something doesn't survive, he can't confront it. And sometimes something survives too damned well, and he sits there confronting it for thousands of years, saying "I have a black case." Right?

= Reach - withdraw

Audience: Yes.

= Make comm lines - break comm lines.

Well, you're right in the middle of the cycle of action, the dynamic princi­ple of existence of Scientology is create. See? As soon as you found — the thetan found out the basic thing, the common denominator to all thetans is creation. That's the common denominator. That's something all thetans are doing, one way or the other they for sure are creating. Now, they may think that they are simply imbibing and pulling things into them and doing all that sort of thing but I assure you they've even got to create something to pull the things in on. So creation is that.

The confront process produces a different engram chain than the communication process. Communication intends to produce an effect; confront lets anything happen.

Now you take these two things together and add the factor of counter-creation and we get destruction. A creation which is counter-created against too heavily, considers itself to be destroyed or can be considered to be destroyed.

To finish off a person's victim button, use "What victim could you confront / would you rather not confront?" Use "rather not" instead of "dislike" because, for instance, the phrase, "dislike confronting" could implant the person with a dislike of confronting. You could also use "What part of a victim could you confront?" for a further-south case. These victim processes tend to put a person continually in a winning valence. It may throw him out of his normal valence if he is stuck aberratedly in a losing valence, but then it eases him back into his own valence. "What could you confront?" runs the PC into valence.

Boy, are we in the midst of fundamentals in this 1st Melbourne ACC.

Probably the lowest level thinkingness process there is is "Recall a communication," or "Recall communicating.,

Now, a process on which we have more data than practically any other process, any other single process, aside from the old Dianetic processes of engram running (we have more data on that than anything else, of course) but the basic modern, you might say, process on which we have the most data is Confront. And boy we got lots of data on confront.

On a psychotic, it is best to mimic his orderly actions only, not his disorderly ones. Anyone who can successfully do a thinkingness process is not a psychotic. If a person can at least be responsible for himself and his own environment, he is not crazy. These people are out of the realm of psychiatry. "Normal people" are not sane on all dynamics and cannot be trusted with all of them.

The only new data there is on confront, is that I recognized that there's a similarity and that you can bring together confront and survive. Survive is a continuous confronting. Your license to survive is a license to confront. You have the right to look at the environment in which you are. And if you don't survive you don't have the right. And if somebody destroys your possessions and so forth, then you can't confront them, so, that they are not surviving, you feel you're not surviving and so forth. And they — they interlock very, very smoothly.

The idea of total responsibility, as expounded in Advanced Procedures and Axioms, was not and is not a popular one, although it formed the basis of many axioms. The idea of being irresponsible, as in Book 1, where people were all victims, was what was popular. A person who is not responsible on a dynamic has no choice but to be a victim on that dynamic. Absolute irresponsibility — and absolute insanity — could be defined as inability to take responsibility on any dynamic. Such a person would be a victim on all dynamics.

Now, you could say, "Well, what wouldn't you mind surviving?" Or, "What would you permit to survive?" or something of this sort. You have a — quite a model sort of a process there. And "What do you want to have succumb?" or something of this sort.

Survive — succumb = willing to look at — not willing to look at. It you had someone who was willing to look at anything on all the dynamics, who could escape from looking at them if he didn't want to, you'd have a sane man. It would have nothing to do with whether he was intelligent about it. He's helping to put the dynamics there, so he has some control over them. Since he is willing to look, he would be intelligent about them as well. Intelligence is non-restimulated stupidity. One can restimulate not-knowingness by educating kids to only look at things and never to take their attention off them. Thus you get mystery restimulated. It's an unbalanced thing; it makes them wonder and go into mystery. For instance, "Keep your shirt clean," repeated at him, is the same as, "Confront your shirt so as to prevent something." This locks him into confronting his shirt. Fixed and unfixed attention, as mentioned in Elizabeth, New Jersey, can be run with, "What would you like to confront / rather not confront?" This is not as good as, "What could you confront?" etc.

But there's something a little bit awry in it, because basically the word survive cannot be translated smoothly into several languages. Did you know that? Well, they're surviving all right, but they can't express it anymore. Isn't that interesting?

So the fundamentals of dianetics and scientology do not change. The only thing that changes is relative importances.

Audience: Yes.

People believe they are obsessively separate, so they believe that if they ran this out, they would be obsessively the same person, and we'd get obsessive togetherness, as in Communism.

Russian is one of them, the most suicidal race on earth next to the Japa­nese. I'm not going to hammer and pound away at the Russians here. Don't worry about it. They — but they don't have a word for survive. How you would put together "survive" or "survival" in Russian would have to be something on the order of "continued existence" or something like that. You'd have to use two words. They don't have a basic word. Japanese also has trouble with this as you would well suspect. Because the Japanese, he's over there on a com­pulsive duplicate but he's nowhere else that you can find him at once and immediately on the cycle of action that he's totally recognizable; although he is surviving and so forth.

But actually, obsessive togetherness comes about from a terror of the separateness that comes about from committing overts and becoming more and more individuated. A person becomes more and more individuated until he finds himself doing a flip and getting drawn into a mass which for him doesn't exist. So you get a back and forth movements between these two points. Thus obsessive individuation and obsessive togetherness are much the same thing. The world is in these conditions so much that it's become [almost] impossible to prove that everyone is a separate individual. This is scientology's unsolved question: Is everyone separate or all one? We suspect that people are separate, but there's no proof. Experimental attempts to prove this are obscured by the obsessive states people are in.

Now, the Russian and the Japanese and the South American and any-body else however, do confront. And even a blind man confronts. It's the same order of thing. Survival gives us the degree — gives us the — whether or not something can be confronted. So confronting is the action and survive is the state of mind. So the action process that processes best is "Confront" not "survive." Do you follow me through?

An individual can simply change his mind on the subject of survival. He can simply say, "I'm not surviving." You see? There he goes! Similarly he could say, "I'm not confronting." But in any language under the sun you could express "confronting." And as a matter of fact, you can run confronting on a very small child.

You say, "What would be all right to look at?" And "What wouldn't you like to look at?" And you'll get the same process you're running on your pcs. And it'll run on a little child just a little bit after they learn the language. And this is some of the earliest words they learn. "Look." As a matter of fact, you see a little baby — my kids are particularly prone to do this. They are always trying to make people confront things. That's right.

Now, if they are having a bad time, they try to make people confront them in themselves. They get woes and worries and upsets and get safety pins into them and that sort of thing. But if they are in any kind of fair condition they start pointing. And they'll show you this and they'll show you that and they'll show you this and they'll show you that. And you walk up to little Arthur and you just say, "What can you confront?" and something of that order, why, he'd know right — right away practically what you were talk­ing about. But you wouldn't say it verbally. You'd look at him questioningly and point around. You know? And then he'd point at something. In other words, it can come right down to a mimicry in language.

Ah! Then that lets us out of the symbol band. Doesn't it? That lets us out of the never-never land of symbols. Doesn't it? So your old Know to Mys­tery Scale on a complicated verbal process tends to hang up on symbols. The meanings of the words, the symbols of the words. And most processes below the level of effort are figure-figure processes, and they're stuck right straight at symbols. They're noplace else but symbols. And you can invent some very, very, very tricky processes. Very tricky processes. But unless you can immediately demonstrate them in space and energy, matter and time — unless you can do that with great rapidity, unless it translates at once, unless you can draw the com­mand, you've got a "stuck in symbols." So you just might as well drop out all those complicated processes, because they stick the pc in symbols. Do you see that? But any process, which is a good process, can be instantly graphed.

Now the old comm process is your communication — is a parallel process, has certain workabilities and it's a parallel process. It's right there. It's not as good as your "Confront." Don't believe that it is because it's the communi­cation formula. And the communication formula is very important and all that sort of thing, but it too vividly takes into effect, cause and effect, and all that sort of thing. Whereas Confront doesn't take in Axiom 10, but separates out Axiom 10. And the communication formula tends to kick in Axiom 10 if you can figure that.

It's much better to run an assist with "From where could you confront" — pardon me, "From where could you communicate to a (blank)?" meaning a body, if the mass is right there present in the room. "From where could you communicate to a (blank)?" — if the mass is right there, see. Some of the mass is there.

For instance, we wouldn't say "From where could you communicate to your arm?" You would hang the fellow up on that arm that he just burned. You see? And actually it doesn't heal up because he burned it because he's dramatizing an engram he got in the burning of Rome, while playing a fid­dle. It won't run. But you've got his arm there. See? And as long as you have some of the mass present, why it particularly helps out the havingness factor involved. So that you find tremendous workability on "From where could you communicate to a (body part)?" It's utterly fabulous! I just couldn't overesti­mate it. Run smoothly by an auditor on an injured person, it is one of the fastest assists you ever had anything to do with. But of course if the injured person is too discombobulated that he can't even go that far, he can at least look at the fingers. But they are both kind of look at processes. But you have him — Touch Assist — "Look at the fingers. Look at the fingers." And he's writhing around and so forth, why, he'll come out of it best. But you are ask­ing him kind of to confront the surface of the member and the fingers at the same time. And he'll pull out of it.

But for a lasting change to occur in somebody's sciatica or lumbosis (those two very famous Scientology diseases) — you see, there — it's illegal, you know, to cure several diseases. Did you know that? It's against the law in most Western countries, for instance, to cure tuberculosis, cancer, venereal disease. Let's see, what else? There's a whole long list of them. There's twenty-five of them in California, and there's only about twelve of them in London. They have more diseases in California obviously. It's really against the law to cure these things, you see. If you say you can cure these things, why, you can be immediately arrested and thrown into the clink, you see. So, it's not possible. So, better not try to run these on that disease that's listed as incurable because it will cure up. That's a joke.

Now, you can do the same thing with a confrontingness process over a long line. A confrontingness process runs something out — would be — on some-thing on this order. "What arm could you confront?" You see? Now if you wanted to take all the confusion that's going to come off the thing, it would be "What arm could you confront?" plus (alternate, you see) "What arm would you dislike confronting?" or some such verbal version. See?

So that's confront — not confront. That's reach — withdraw. That's make and break communication and so forth. And it'll produce, it'll produce — oddly enough, it'll produce a different engram chain than the "communicate." In other words, you get different actions on the process with more or less the same end goal as with the communication process. This is very funny — I mean it — the fellow arrives at the same place by a different route, slightly different route. They're obviously different processes because "communicate to" bears the connotation of "reaching across the gap to," which is the com­munication formula, which is Axiom 10. See? Production of an effect. And communication is an effect. Whereas, Confront lets anything happen. And you get a different style of automaticity running off as you run the process.

Now this is interesting to you basically, because you have received recently, information concerning a victim. And you haven't heard anything, for instance, in this course about victims. Well, that isn't because we've dropped all the victims in the world. And there's a process that you don't have which is an absolute killer on victims, and would finish off anybody that's got victims unflat with great speed, you see. And on a different route, would simply be "What victim could you confront" and "What victim would you dislike confronting?"

By the way, there's a bit wrong — something a little wrong with the sec­ond command on "dislike confronting" I find, because it tends to implant the person to dislike confronting. You know? He gets into an hypnotic trance and he goes "I dislike confronting." So I have been using it "rawther not." "What victim would you rawther not confront?" It's quite British. But it gives a milder, broader meaning to get into the semantics of the thing. You see? Actually, I would advocate using "rawther not." This factor didn't come to view, by the way, to me until, I think, day before yesterday or something like that, and I all of a sudden said that. Oh, well! — noticed somebody was getting "I don't like to confront that." You know? So we just flipped it to "rawther not" and the person forgot all about disliking it, which I thought was quite amusing.

Now, your basic process on a victim would be then, just that, "What vic­tim could you confront?" or "What part of a victim could you confront?" They're two different processes, I call to your attention. One is segmental and therefore lower, works a little bit further south. "What victim could you con-front? What victim would you rather not confront?" These are very, very good. And it gives you a brand-new look at victims, and of course puts the fellow obsessively and continually in the winning valence the whole way. It just starts jamming him into the winning valence. And of course, that's one place where, on any aberrated subject he doesn't care to be. So when you run that, don't be surprised to find him continually out of valence and it's one of these processes that runs consistently and continually out of valence and then gradually eases into valence.

Now, "What could you confront?" runs a person rather rapidly into valence. But "What victim could you confront?" runs him very rapidly out of valence. Get the very slight nuance here, and then runs him back into valence again. You can get different results here with almost the same proc­esses. Quite amusing! And it should be called to your attention because you'll find other ways of varying this sort of thing around. And you look this over and see what the pc's doing. There may be something that you would care to add up about this that — there it is. And this fellow says "Confront? Confront? What is that? What is — what does this confront mean?" And he's having trouble with the command. Well, "look at," for heaven's sakes! You know, "Observe" if you're running it at Oxford. It has innumerable synonyms. Innumerable.

Confrontingness in general, has enormous, broad, wide workability. Communicatingness has a subordinate ability. It's a lesser ability. I wouldn't say which one goes the furthest south. I really wouldn't. But the old ARC Straightwire process goes a long way south. And you ask somebody to simply "Recall a communication. Recall a communication. Recall a communication. Recall a communication. Recall a communication," you know, not that you made or anybody else made. You never saw anybody flip in and out and around valences so fast as he will on that particular process. He goes from cause to effect to cause. And of course, every time he goes to effect you got a lost command. Every time you run a motivator you wasted time. Got that? So every time he goes to effect it's a lost command.

But nevertheless, a psycho particularly, who cannot regulate his behav­ior in the bank at all and so forth, is going to ram around the bank and give him too much trouble to run it the other way. So he'll run it wrong. So probably the lowest level verbal process there is — "verbal" process there is or thinkingness process — and that's what you're learning in this ACC, by the way, is thinkingness processes. You noticed that? Communication of thinkingness of one kind or another, communication rather than manual handling of or moving of objects of. Confront is awful close in to handling objects. But, it really isn't. It's still a think process.

You get, "Recall a communication," is just about as far south as you can get on a rough, rough case. On a very, very, very rough case, you had better run something of the order of that process, "Recall a communication" or "Recall communicating" — now, that fits him, you see, over at the other side, and get your gains in that particular way, and bring him up to a point where he is really cooking on all front burners.

Of course, a Scientologist's ability to estimate a psycho is probably the poorest in the world. That's right. That's right. These Scientologists can't estimate psychos. That's it. But don't feel chagrined about it because psychi­atry was never able to and never will be able to.

Now, what's a "psycho"? Well I think psycho actually is a dirty word. Probably no more than that.

As far as we're concerned, ability to handle the process, would be that by which we classified a case. And in the old Science of Survival chart, we look over that "ability to handle engrams" column in the old chart there. That's very true. But a lot of other processes could be put in on that same column. I've just never done it. You put a lot of other processes on there, and you'd find out these things would get thinner and thinner and thinner and finally disappear out of the think level entirely. And they'd have to go into some manual operation or some vis-a-vis situation and you'd get eventually down into the last-ditch communication which is mimicry.

Psycho is spinning around in a cell so you jump in the cell and spin around. Actually it's not so good, however, to mimic a psycho's disorderly con-duct. The trick is to mimic his orderly conduct. If he's doing anything orderly at all, do it. And if he's doing something disorderly, don't do it. I mean there's a lot of gen on this sort of thing. But you could probably bust up people that are pretty far off. I don't know how far you could go breaking up a catatonic schiz. I never completed a series on this, getting somebody to lie down in exactly the same position as this person has been lying in, motionless, for a long while. You know — months or years. Getting somebody simply to lie down in the same position almost within, well, a bit within view of such a person if the person was looking. And get this person to lie down there for a certain period of time every day and then get up and leave. Lie down, lie there for quite a little while and then get up and leave — you're kind of match-terminaling the thing. A lot of experiments would have to be run along this line. But we have not been too interested in institutional activities.

Now, anybody who can successfully do a thinkingness process, is not a psycho. He is so far out of the range and realm of the field of psychiatry, a psychiatrist wouldn't know what to do with him. That's right! And nearly everybody you find Scientologists classifying as psychos are still capable of doing a thinkingness process and handling it. That's quite an interesting observation. You can do that.

Because many people think they are totally mad, they start doing a thinkingness process of some kind or another and they decide "that they're totally mad, totally nuts, totally insane, utterly gone." Look, that's the one thing a psycho never decides. When he's decided that, he's confronting the fact. So he's — it's breaking up right in front of your face. If he had any impulses in this direction, why they're going and going rapidly. A person who could do that isn't crazy. Get the idea?

Now, that means if all people who can run a thinkingness process are sane — that, you could only say, would be a very relative statement because they are not responsible. But how can a person be sane without being some-what responsible? Well then you'd say that a person who could be responsible for his own person and his very limited environment, if he can be responsible for just his own person, limited environment, then you'd say for sure he wasn't crazy. See? He is then — but the only reason we have the word "crazy" or "psycho" is to say whether or not somebody could be trusted to take care of himself. It wouldn't extend to any other dynamic. So if a person could be trusted, within limits, to take care of himself, not given too many exterior stimuli and shocks, then you'd say that person isn't crazy.

But a person who couldn't take care of himself in a — an environment, in any way, in spite of the fact that it was a calm environment, well, you'd say that person was nuts. And that would be about the make and break of it. And that's about as close as you can come because he would be a social liability of some magnitude. But the second we go into social liability on the upper dynamics, we get into the most fantastic complications because we are trying to label as sane people, normal people. And they are not sane on all envi­on all dynamics. They just aren't! That's it!

There's hardly a person alive, who could be born into the world at this time, outside of Scientologists, who could be said to be "sane on all dynamics." In other words, able to be responsible on every dynamic? See, that's what that would immediately say. Able to be trusted with that particular zone or sphere of action. Now we're getting — this is getting pretty scarce isn't it? Why, I — I don't know, there are probably a few men on earth who would be — could be trusted with a government — probably be trusted all right with a government — few men.

But these same guys might have their own domestic relationships in flinders, not be at all trustworthy on the second dynamic. See? The responsi­bility factor.

So if we extend the responsibility factor out through the various dynamics, we start to establish some view of what we mean by a Clear. And we start abandoning the idea of sane. The sane are not the normal. The nor­mal are not sane. That's it! Because you have to select it out by dynamics. What dynamic are they sane on? And as soon as you start picking over what dynamics they're sane on, it becomes painfully obvious that normal people are strictly fruitcakes on several other dynamics. You get the idea?

The zones — this would all be under the heading of zone of responsibility. What zone of the dynamics could a person be responsible for and be trusted with? See? What would this be? So, all sanity comes under the heading of our ancient old, good heavens, goes way back when, processes that have to do with full responsibility. And you never saw Dianeticists run away as fast and get themselves lost, as when that first article was published in Advanced Procedures and Axioms, entitled — the little — little subarticle in the book, entitled "Total Responsibility" or "Full Responsibility." Man, they look at that thing and just practically blow up. And some of these people were quite sane, maybe on the third dynamic. But terribly bad off on maybe the first and sec­ond and so forth. And you told them "Well, they had to take full responsibil­ity, or be able to take full responsibility." And they just blew off in all directions. And we had to look at a new fact then. That was quite an acciden­tal discovery. I wrote this book and issued it and found out that the book was terribly, terribly, terribly unpopular and found out why. And it was just that one article. With many people it was very, very popular.

Well, it was the first organized release, if you please, of Axioms, and the first organized effort, as they will tell you in certain European centers — it was the first organized effort at stating the laws of the mind. And we get a lot of credit for that. Just that all by itself. But it's the old Axioms of Dianetics we're talking about which appear there in Advanced Procedure and Axioms. And so that book should have been quite popular. But the fact that it had the idea in it of being fully responsible drove people batty. And we found out that that thing which had the greatest public appeal was, "You're not responsible." And we went back over old Book One and found out that Book One never tried to make anybody responsible for anything, but just said they were nothing but victims from the word go.

So, now a person who is not responsible on a dynamic has no other choice than to be a victim on the dynamic. Now victim is so far from being abandoned that a brand-new understanding of sanity, processing, analysis, adjudication of Clear and so forth, comes right straight out of it.

A person who cannot take responsibility for an area has no choice but to be an effect in the area. Of course, he doesn't have to be obsessive cause in the area either. You know? There — you can get above cause too. But there's — there's the gist of it. A person who cannot take responsibility in any dynamic area would be a victim on all dynamic areas. And that would be an absolute insanity. Abso­lutes are unobtainable, but that's it. That would be an absolute insanity. He'd be a victim on every dynamic.

God was after him. Spirits and devils were after him. The MEST universe was built specially and totally to entrap him and serve as a cell for him. The sea was there to drown him, all living things there were to poison him and strangle him and choke him. Walls existed to trap him. Time existed totally and completely to do nothing but stretch him out endlessly in his agony. Man-kind existed as a total trap which could individuate in some way and drag him off in various directions — a terrible thing. Man ought to be a different species entirely. On the third dynamic, of course, why, groups were formed mainly to penalize him and enlist him in forces and to make him do things he didn't want to do. On the second dynamic, the second dynamic was there in order to destroy things and people. The family existed as a total trap. And he existed himself as his own worst enemy.

Now, that person's crazy, any way you want to look at it. That would be the works! See? And yet he can run a thinkingness process, perhaps, in one of those areas, which would be your road out. There's nobody that bad off that can still talk, by the way. I mean if you, hearing this tape or this lecture and so forth can get an idea of being causative in any direction, why, you probably don't fit in that category.

But the difficulties of classification were of course the difficulties of not knowing what it was all about. So we get words like insane, neurotic, para­noid. Aw, you — it's just — they're just swear words. You might as well classify them as just swear words. Because if nobody — if nobody knows the anatomy of these things, then how in the name of common sense could he delineate them one way or the other?

For instance, I did find in one single instance the legal definition of insanity to be superb. The legal definition of insanity is "to be able to tell right from wrong." And I ran across a psycho, who knew she couldn't tell right from wrong. That's quite interesting. I don't know whether it had been the legal definition that had been — she had been instructed in it or something, but she couldn't tell right from wrong.

Now, when you start looking at what's right, then you have to say from which side of the counter-create. See? At what period of time? And when you look at wrong, well for whom? Where? And what? And our road out of this morass was the optimum solution. And the optimum solution is covered in Book One, has not been covered since, and it's still — still with us and just as good as it ever was. It's the viewpoint one takes of the effect that establishes right and wrong to a very marked degree unless one can operate or subdivide life and find out what parts of life are benefited and what parts are not benefited; then we can get some sort of an adjudication because it's not Aris­totelian black and white. Believe me. Not black and white logic. It's full of grays and whites and jet blacks and foggy blacks and they're not necessarily all in sequence either. They're just a smooth fan from black over to white. You see?

Quite amazing, I mean, we have found man out, in other words. We have found him out in his most queasy quarter. He didn't know who was capable of sound conduct, judgment or action. He hadn't a clue. And yet in democracies they're going around electing presidents and the heads of armies and all of that sort of thing. And in the businesses, why, they're busy promoting this person and that person and so on and going through all of these actions, and they haven't a ruddy clue. They just — you just put everybody's name in a jar. Anybody that has a body is a person. See? That's by definition. And if the body was delivered in a country, he's a citizen. See? He has rights, which psychiatrists can then take away if they say he's crazy. But they have no defi­nition for what's being crazy. You see? Well, it's very silly.

You put these peoples' name in a — in a big glass jar. You just put every-body's name in a big glass jar and you have them reach in and pull them out. And if nobody says — nobody says, "Well, I know something bad about him," why, they say, "Well, that's it."

Well, of course, they get on a big national election basis, when they pull this man's name. It's a bunch of guys that don't let anybody else in on it, that have a jar and they pull that man's name out and then they together, operat­ing with another set of guys who pull another man's name out, and who don't let the public come anywhere near ever looking at or having anything to do with those glass jars, you see, say "Well, these are your candidates. Free elec­tion! Free country! It's all free! All free. (You vote for anybody else and we'll shoot you. We'll arrest you.) You say that Doakes over here — you're going to put pressure on to make Doakes in charge of things around here. And ahh, that makes you a pretty raw revolutionary." "But we're not revolutionaries!" "We've got you totally pressed down to observing the salient points that you have Candidate A and Candidate B. And Candidate A doesn't stand for any-thing you know anything about. And Candidate B doesn't stand for anything you know anything about. Now, vote!"

Well, I don't know. Let's — why don't we try to run the complicated eco­nomic machinery of earth with a pair of dice. You know? And say, "Well, if it comes up "seven" we'll push lever sixteen. And then if we hired a monkey to tell us what numbers that appear on the dice and another monkey who was out of communication, to go over and pull lever sixteen, we'd have about the way they think things ought to run. Orderly, very orderly.

Now going into this a little further, your fundamentals of Dianetics have never fitted together better than they fit today. As a matter of fact there are many areas that we could look into now and — oh, just dozens of phenomena. We just say "Well, that's very interesting. And we know where it fits. And it's not as important as it used to be." So the further you go along the line, the better idea you have of the relative importances of things.

So let's take a look at survive. And we'd have to have survive and destroy or survive and succumb, you see, as opposite things. That would be "Willing to look at — willing not to look at." See? And then if we had a person who was willing to look at anything on all the dynamics but who could escape from looking at them if he didn't want to, we'd have a sane man. And oddly enough, would have nothing to do with whether or not he was intelli­gent about it.

See, if he could look at all of these zones all the way up from the first to the eighth dynamic, if he could look at all these zones or not look at them at will, in other words, his power of choice over his lookingness was there, you see, we'd have a sane man. And oddly enough, they're only there because he's helping put them there, so of course he has a control zone over them too. And naturally, because he's willing to look at them, he's smart. He'd be intelligent about them as well.

So we find out something else. We used to worry about what intelligence is and so on. And just in the last couple of years we did find out what intelli­gence was. "Intelligence" is nonrestimulated stupidity. And that's what it is. I hate to have to tell you that. But that's a technical fact. It's not a joke.

You can write up an IQ test that restimulates stupidity. I'll give you an idea. You say, "If pieces of cheese are tuppence a pound, and there is no cheese, how many rats would it take to stuff a glass fruit case?" That'd be question one. And question two, 2 x 2 = (blank). Question three, 2 x 4 = (blank). And question four would be "How long is a piece of string?"

All right. Now, let's reverse the order and we get a different grade. We put the real stupid one first and then put a couple of easy ones and then put a fourth in. We don't care what. We'll get one grade. Now, if we start out the test with "2 x 2 = (blank). 2 x 4 = (blank). How long is a piece of string?" And the question one (previous one) and you've got a higher grade. Because the people who'd give it the way I gave it the first time will miss two and three. They just go wog! You know, two times — and then it gets to two times two. And they say "Two times two ... ? Choo-choo!"

Now, you can restimulate this not-know or mystery sandwich any way you want to. But one of the ways to restimulate it, is by educating the chil­dren only to look at things and never take their attention off of them. That is going to make a lot of dumb yokels.

How would this be? Because they've got an unbalanced thing, and they'll put them into mystery. And the children will go around all the time wonder­ing what everything is, you see, we get restimulated mystery. They're always supposed to wash their hands and watch very carefully that their hands don't get dirty. And nobody ever says, "You don't have to observe your hands." See? And if they're going on a sort of a stimulus-response training, why, they'll wind up with a fixation on hands, wondering what is wrong with them. The opposite side of the dichotomy is never run, you see. Nobody ever said, "Unconfront your hands. Thank you." Nobody says, "Now, make sure your shirt is clean. Is your shirt clean? Now, you don't want to go to the party with your shirt dirty. Do you? Now, you don't want to go to the party with your shirt dirty. Do you? Now make sure that your shirt's clean. And don't roll in the dirt because you'll get your shirt dirty. And keep your shirt clean. Keep your shirt clean. Keep your shirt clean."

Person after a while will be wondering all the time if his shirt's clean.

He won't ever know if his shirt's clean or not. Get the idea? Because — not because it isn't clean — dirty — the dichotomy — it's "Confront your shirt. Con-front your shirt. Confront your shirt. Confront your shirt," in such a way as to prevent something. And this of course locks him up in just confronting his shirt. And you ask — come along and you ask this fellow as a Scientologist someday and you say, "What shirt would you rather not confront?" you know. And he says, "Wow! Any shirt. All shirts. No shirts. The devil with shirts. Shirts!"

And we get the old Dianetic idea, given in the July lectures at Elizabeth, New Jersey, I think is the only time it has ever been mentioned to amount to anything; is fixed and unfixed attention. That was covered pretty thoroughly. We have mentioned it from time to time since, but it was covered pretty thor­oughly back then; fixed and unfixed attention.

Well, attention and confrontingness. You'd say, fixed confrontingness and unfixed confrontingness. So you get a process like this working quite remark-ably "What would you like to confront?" And this is always surprising to pcs. It's not as good as the process that you are running "What would you — What could you confront?" and "What would you rather not confront?" This is not as good. But it's amazing. It's amazing, because it always turns out that the thing he picks out that he likes to confront, is he doesn't like to confront it.

Now, you'd have to run that process — if it were totally successful on recent tests and so on — you'd have to run it with the other side of its dichot­omy, otherwise he'd run out liking to confront it and then he'd run out every-thing he'd like to confront but he'd be left with a lot of things he hated to confront. And there is that particular liability to that process. It worked won­derfully however for the first week or two of an intensive. The guy can always find obsessive confrontings. What he'd like to confront, you know, boom!

And you'll find people just plowing straight into their banks. What in their minds ... "What's in your mind? What's in your mind? Now watch your mind. Now watch your mind — now, keep your — keep your attention on what you're thinking. Now, watch what you're thinking now. Keep your atten­tion on your mind. Keep your mind under control. You mustn't let your mind go out of control, you know. You must keep your attention on your mind because if you didn't keep your attention on your mind you're liable to go crazy. You see, your mind goes crazy if you don't keep your attention on your mind" and so forth. "And it can go out of control. And so therefore you'd bet-ter keep your attention on your mind."

Nobody ever says, "Take your attention off your mind and look at the ruddy room." See, nobody ever says that.

So you get the opposite side of confrontingness and so forth as a mental bail-out. You just run Alternate Confront "What would you like to confront?" and then you could probably say, "Dislike confronting" because you're run­ning the opposite.

Now, where — where does all this end? What does this leave us with, this résumé I have just been giving you here on processes that work and what you do with them and so on? Well, it leaves us with a tremendous amount of tech­nology. And after you have satisfied yourselves of the relative workability and usability and effectiveness of some of these processes and particularly this Confront Process and particularly, selectively being able to create back into existence, into restimulation something to confront — as soon as you've seen how this works and you're satisfied about this whole thing, and — a lot of things are going to fall out of the hamper.

You're going to see a tremendous amount of things occur mentally and so on, that you've never seen happen before. And then would be the time to go back over all the data again and read it. See? Just read all the books you got on the subject, just up to present time. See?

You find yourself sitting there saying "Yes. Yes. Well, well, oh yeah, that's obvious" and so forth. And "I wonder why there's, so much importance being laid on that? That's relatively unimportant. And that! Well, I never thought that was important before. Gee-whiz! That was important, wasn't it?" And just shake out the relative importances.

Now, that's about all that ever changes in Dianetics and Scientology, is the relative importance.

But the things that were considered important in 1938, 1950, hah! First Melbourne ACC way up here almost into 1960 — and they're obviously — obviously the most important factors. We're still dealing with a mind which is composed of pictures, spaces, time, facsimiles, engrams, mock-ups. Still dealing with bodies and the influences of pictures on bodies and dealing with something new that came up at the end of 1951 — a thetan. He emerged into view after enough processing had been done and so forth — why, began to find out what people were; what other people were. And the anatomy of this uni­verse has just very recently been emerging as one of these open and shut, "My golly! Is this easy!" sort of things, you know. I still had questions about what this universe is all about.

And there's only about one major question left that hasn't any open and shut discovery. Now, individuation, separateness and all this sort of thing to the contrary; people believe that they are obsessively separate. So therefore, if they ran it all out, they would be obsessively the same person. There's obsessive togetherness. Socialist commies get stuck in this thing. "We're all common people." And then the commissars come along and tell them, "Well, some are more common than others."

Here's the — here's the basic difficulty there, the mishmash, the togeth­erness. The obsessive togetherness comes about from a terror of separate­ness. See? One finds himself getting more and more individuated, more and more individuated. He's moving on out of the human race. So he turns around and comes smash, crash, back in and despite ridges and everything else, is going to be part of the human race again, you see. And then he indi­viduates out and he comes back in. He never gets adjusted between these two points, because he didn't have processing or anything else to do it. He could politic on them, but he couldn't understand them. Now, that's very common by the way. I think if everybody had understanding you wouldn't have any politics.

Where an individual is getting more and more and more separate and feels himself slipping into an individuation, a very heavy individuation, it's because he has a lot of overts one way or the other. And he does a flip and he becomes obsessively driven into the (quote) "mass" which of course is unfor­tunately for him nonextant, doesn't exist. And he finds himself actually driven nowhere. And he makes up this idea that there are "the masses," and he keeps talking about the masses, and all that sort of thing. And New York­ers, of course, believe in masses. Londoners believe in masses. They believe in masses because they get in subways and undergrounds and on trams, and they walk down the streets. And they know there are such things as masses. But you never saw such individuated people in your life.

A fellow can live in an apartment right next door — years, and you don't even know the guy's name. He doesn't know who you are. The only time I ever met my — met my neighbors, when I had a nice place up on Riverside Drive — the only time I ever met my neighbors — very simple, I was running an electric typewriter and they were trying to listen to all of Hitler's — all of Hitler's speeches. And they had shortwave radio that was so sensitively attuned. They were refugees from Germany, and they were still fixated on Germany. They'd never arrived in the United States. See? And there they were, see, sitting on Riverside Drive, New York City, but they had never arrived in the United States. And all they did practically, was sit in front of their set and listen to Hitler's ravings and screamings and so forth. And this was one of these great oddities.

I ran an electric typewriter. Electric typewriter creates static, and the light company came up one day and traced the static they were complaining about, which wouldn't have appeared on an ordinary radio, to my typewriter, and asked me to put a static suppressor on it and so I did. And after that, turned their radio off by turning on my electric shaver. That was just about as close a communication as I got into on anybody on Riverside Drive.

Now, you'll find down in the Village, however, that they like to put thirty, forty bodies in the same room, then they're having a good time. See, if they got thirty or forty bodies; it doesn't matter what anybody's doing, you see. Nothing to do with that. And they're doing that same thing now in the Lon-don basements. They're still — they're still dramatizing air raid shelters in London. And some of the nicest bistros, and so forth that you run into, you'll go down a flight of steps and get into a basement or something, and there's nothing but maybe a little rug and then somebody's — it's all cement. No tea is served apparently. There's nothing happening down there; everybody goes down and sits on the floor — there are sixteen, eighteen, twenty people in this tiny little cubicle. I was going to open up a chain of air raid shelters and charge for space.

Now, this obsessive individuation and obsessive togetherness are much the same thing, one caused by the other, and one influencing the other. And the — the world is in this to such a degree that at this time there is no way or immediate evidence of presenting completely and conclusively the fact that everybody is separate from everybody else — that each is a separate individ­ual. Now, there is no proof of this at all, because there are such mechanical mishmashes, why, it gets in the road of practically every proof that you have. And that is an unsolved question in Scientology.

I mean, we have no proof of this effect at all. We don't know of this fact. We don't know whether or not everybody is all separate or if they are all one person. Got the idea? We don't know this.

Now, we have our suspicions. We have our ideas. And it seems to be pretty clear-cut, which direction it is. But, it doesn't add up to scientific demonstrable proof of an open and shut variety. You get the idea?

Quite interesting, quite interesting that that hole would still be left in the research work. But we've gone along far enough to know now, why it's a hole. And it's a hole because obsessive separation, obsessive togetherness, together, obscure any clinical experiment which would bring it about, except as people got up broadly along the line of OT. And as human beings, why, you're the — probably the first people that will find this out with any subjec­tive reality: whether you are everybody else or whether you are yourself. I'd get a little clearer, however, before I tried to make up my mind.

Thank you.