Man can be said to be not quite optimum. Man very often stops and scratches his head when he should be running and very often runs when he should stop and scratch his head.

When you see somebody eating by pouring porridge into his shoes, you would know he was aberrated. Isn't that so! It is a little less obvious that a man is aberrated when he simply says, "Now, let me think." Oh boy, is he nuts.

"Let me think." He thinks that thinking has something to do with time, and he thinks the more you think, well, the better the solution is going to be. That's evidently what he's operating on. "The longer it takes me to think of the solution, why, the better the solution is going to be." He operates on that. "It must be a good book. It took him eight years to write it."

But let's get that very clear right there as an important datum, A mock-up is an object. It is an item. It exists at a finite distance from the preclear. It is of a finite size, It has an identity and it has a location in space and time. You can actually mock up in the past, the present or the future. You want the mock-ups in the present or in the future, not in the past, really.

And you know, the big joke on that last one is very, very - is a very big joke. You go through the famous books that man considers today to be classics and find out how long it took that author to write that book in each case. You will be stunned,

But in Self Analysis, to be on the safe side, we mock it all up past tense. That will run out the whole track. That's because it hits the people who are sure they only have mock-ups in the past, they only have terminals in the past They know they've got a past, so they can put a mock-up in the past.

You had a fellow by the name of Dickens. Dickens is an interesting fellow. He's what we'd call a fast-action writer. He's a high-speed word mechanic, high speed. Do you know that there isn't a penny-a-liner or a newspaperman or a magazine writer working in the world today who comes up to the production speed of Charles Dickens? And he did it all by hand. It was all "writ by hand," so to speak.

You will find, gradually, if you were looking into their minds, their mock-ups would drift first in the past, in the past, in the past, and then they would drift forward into present, a little more into the present. The next thing you know, they would be having mock-ups right up here, you see, right here in the room with them. And then the next thing you know, they'd kind of be mocking into the future and into their own space.

That's interesting, isn't it? His stuff is still around. He was slapping that stuff out at five thousand words a day. I'd like to see one of these huh! - I would like to see Charles Atwood Inkslinger writing at five thousand worlds [words] a day. "It took him - must be a great book; it took him twelve years to produce it."

But each time that mock-up has a finite location in space and time. It, at its optimum, is a three or more dimensional picture in full color, sound, motion and with all other perceptics present, and with a solidity one could perceive as superior to the solidity which he perceives to exist in the MEST universe. That one is an optimum mock-up.

No, it's just not sensible. When you're dealing with thought, the better thinking is done in the less times. Because thinking which is done in terms of energy is bad because it's very reactive, very reactive, Heavy energy thinking is very bad. A nation tries to work out its problems by going to war with tanks and guns. That is what's known as heavy thinking. And it's slow and it doesn't solve much.

And a really optimum mock-up would be all those things, and have a persistence such that it would stay there after you had mocked it up and go on acting of its own volition, and other people would see it. Now, that would be a mock-up to end all mock-ups. All right.

The more one gets into energy, the less applicable, generally, the solutions will be. That's just a little truism; happens to work out that way.

Then we're dealing with a specific object, an item and thing here when we're dealing with a mock-up. We're not dealing with just an idea, pictures, something of the sort.

So that what a man is really saying when he says, "Let me think," he's saying, "Let me look for data." Well, there's nothing wrong with finding data with which to think. Well then, the man would be the smartest who could find the data fastest. Isn't that so!

You'll find out from individual to individual there's tremendous variation, tremendous behavior. One of them mocks something up and it goes off erratically and does this and that and other things, and he doesn't control it at all. Well, the trick is to get the mock-up as good as possible and under as full and analytical control as possible with the least possible use of energy. Now, you want - you want this mock-up under full control, you want it in a specific position, you want the person to be able to move it, place it, so on.

Now, someone who says, "Let me think," he probably means "Maybe" Or "I don't want to do it." He's using some sort of a stall there.

You'll find out most people, wog people have mock-ups which are two-dimensional; they're flat and gray, or they're mocking up in black space, or they're doing this with the mock-up or doing that with the mock-up. Well, fortunately we can change the characteristics of a mock-up now as easy as you can change your hat. Let it sink in for a moment. Just because people get these various mock-ups is no reason they can't be changed in characteristic. A mock-up's characteristics can be changed almost at will by an auditor, simply by getting the preclear to admire the imperfections.

But here he actually believes it takes him a long time to think of something, and he's considered it carefully. Well, if he considered it carefully, if he just went and thought and thought and thought and thought and thought and thought and thought - oh, no. Oh, no, he isn't considering it carefully at all. He's lust being totally reactive and sort of walking around in small circles and so on.

"Get a mock-up." "Got it?" "All right," "What's wrong with it?" "Admire that," A fellow getting a mock-up in black space - "Admire that blackness." A fellow getting a mock-up - he can mock up women, but he never gets a woman with a face - "Admire that fact she doesn't have a face." Admire that facelessness, and faces will appear. And in such a way by admiring these imperfections, you can monitor and change the quality of mock-ups at will.

If he went and he got this problem and "Let me thin," and he got the problem and then he said, "Let's see. Now, the data associated with this problem are so-and-so and so-and-so, and I'll have to go look that up and I'll have to think of this and I'll have to ask so-and-so and so on. And I'I1 get this data together, and then I'll know the answer and it's obvious. Yeah. And there's the answer," That would be time in thinking. Yes, it takes a certain amount of time to go through the motions of acquiring data, and it sometimes takes a certain amount of time to recall data. But the accumulation of data to the solution of a problem is not length of time spent in considering. And yet, man uniformly has this level.

Now, to remedy blackness on a mock-up - blackness means just blackness. Actually, it'll appear to be something that people think something was in blackness, because blackness is so capable of having something in it. And they don't know for sure, so they just guess there is something in it. It's safer to have something in it than to doubt it has something in it, so we'll put something in it, so we'll say there's a blackness exists. Sometimes you'll get blackness flowing away from an individual, and it'll flow and flow and flow and flow and flow. There's no flow of blackness, but it'll flow anyway.

Now, there are other fellows that go around and they think out loud, and they talk to themselves, or they think vocally in their heads. This is wonderful. Fellow says, "Now, let me see, I don't know quite where I should ... I guess I better go down; I better take the tube. Yes. No. I better not take the tube. It's only two or three blocks, I'll walk. No, I'I1 take the tube. No, I just decided to carry this bundle here. This bundle is very heavy. And I wonder what...?" Actually? Actually. The modern writer has gotten so daffy, Boy, is he a reactive character. He puts down "stream of consciousness" for all of his characters. And the world has really become convinced that this is the way people think. Well, it's the way crazy people think. (audience laughter) You take Gene O'Neill's Strange Interlude, for one play. There's several other plays and so on, where the characters - the characters say, "I hate you." And then sort of turn aside - Shakespeare, other modern playwrights do this - turn aside and say, "The reason I hate him is so-and-so and so-and-so and then so on," And they vocalize a stream of consciousness known as - early in theater - as an aside, and later and very, very modern in theater, the stream of consciousness.

Now, we get to people who are admiring how black it all is, and the darnedest things will occur to that blackness. Now, there's another method of remedying that, and that is to run what we call a bracket dichotomy on it, because preventing admiration, preventing admiration is black. When you see blackness, you know admiration is prevented.

The only consciousness of a stream of consciousness would be the passing and shuffling of energy. Energy doesn't think, man thinks.

The second that somebody tells you, "Look, I've got a lot of blackness," you say to yourself right there this fellow is present - preventing admiration, not only in the past but in present time. How's he doing it? Who cares. All he has to do, if you're running him on flows, is get him to prevent admiration from flowing. Just do that.

So this would be a real daffy one. And yet, you find practically anybody doing this. So what's human aberration? Well, I'm afraid it's being human, That sounds a little extreme. Only thing I'm trying to deliver to you there is a datum: is that insanity is not an absolute, neurosis is not an absolute, aberration is not an absolute and sanity is not an absolute, None of these are absolute data. All data is relative to data. A man is crazier than others, A man is saner than others. A man is more susceptible to correct solutions than another man. You get the relativity here we're dealing in.

Just ask him, "Now, let's get the idea of preventing the admiration from flowing," "Preventing something from being admired. That's right," "Now protect something from admiration," "Now hide something so it won't be admired," This is subzero Tone Scale, bracket dichotomy, That's Professional Course stuff. I'm just giving it to you at this point, but there's other ways of handling this.

Now, it is true that there is a state where everyone agrees somebody is crazy. There is that level. There is a state. And so we're dealing with what the society or the group thinks is or agrees is aberrated, as our term of aberration.

The next thing you know, everything will turn blazingly white on him and practically knock his block off. And he'll say, "Gee-whiz, there's - there's ... There - there - there's - there's dogs, and there there's - there's my dog, Bingo. And - and there's this one and there's that one and there's Papa and there's Mama and there's - there's my schoolteacher and there's this one and, gee! How did all these people get here?"

Now, we've gone a little bit further than that in Dianetics and Scientology, and we can actually graph a state of ability to estimate correct behavior to solve problems and so on. We can graph this with great ease and we can demonstrate it in various ways. So we have an arbitrary numerical value which could be assigned to this. But we agree on that.

And you say, "Now, we're not interested in that. Just get a mock-up there, and prevent it from being admired,"

And so again the public at large simply agrees what's psychotic, what's neurotic, what's aberrated and what's sane.

"Now, there's my first wife, my second wife, my third wife, my sixth wife, my eighth wife, Gee!" That's blackness.

It's very amusing that the one they haven't agreed on most is what's sane. You'll find practically nobody getting together and discussing how sane anybody is. And if they do, the subject of the conversation is found to be some intolerable sourpuss who is merely terribly, practically stubborn. They're very sane and very practical. That's right.

The second you spot blackness you know somebody is preventing admiration from... Well, when I say preventing admiration from flowing, he's just preventing flowing. So you know he's stuck on the time track. Why? Because to get up to present time on the time track, you've got to unstick a person, and he's going to stick unless he's got some grease. And what's grease? That's admiration.

Did you ever run into one of these practical people? The definition of being practical is not doing anything, I guess, or that you can find them doing very little.

He can't get terminals because he hasn't got anything to let terminals flow, and his lack of that particle will keep him from flowing. It's very interesting. Very good manifestation, so on “I”.

Now, in short, we don't have a basic definition here which is susceptible to an unquestioned or absolute value, but we do have definitions. And you could say sanity is the ability to resolve problems. You could say a person is sane when he can resolve problems with a predominance of correctness, Person would be sane who solved problems. Will solve problems in what way? Solve problems in the direction of survival for himself or the upper dynamics. You see?

Well, you're not too interested in this as a Group Auditor. But don't get downhearted if you have your class - the can'ts - segregated out and you have to process them.

So, the relative ability to resolve problems relating to survival would make a gradient scale of how sane a person was. And that would - it requires a definition of right and wrong which is an acceptable definition. This definition of right and wrong is sufficiently acceptable to have caused the committee on evidence of the New York Bar Association to meet, and they are still in the progress of considering changes in the rules of evidence, because these new data have thrown out old data on evidence. We have actually spearheaded in the field of jurisprudence with this.

Now, don't take just one can't and process him and another can't and process him and another can't and process him. No, no, no, no, no. Don't give him any special attention, because you're denying the rest of the groups and so forth.

Sanity is the ability to tell right from wrong. That is the definition under law. That's sanity, the definition - tell right from wrong.

Make a group out of the "can'ts" or the "maybe can'ts." Just make a group out of them and then process them for short, brief times. And how do you process them? Well, you process them this way: "All right, now get an idea that there's a mock-up out there."

It's a pretty good definition, by the way. The fellow who thought that up was very good. Because you get a little kid, and you ask him what's right and what's wrong. And he can tell you pretty well. He knows what's right and what's wrong.

The guy says, "Just an idea? There - class."

But if you find a real bad one that is completely - just seems to be utterly uncontrollable, you ask him what's right and what's wrong: one, he doesn't care or he doesn't know.

And you say, "Just an idea. Yeah, just an idea there's a mock-up out there someplace."

Now, that's fascinating! Some children I have worked with have told me bluntly, "I think my father and mother must be crazy, because they say that it's possible to tell right from wrong." Put that down. So it's a wonderful little definition, actually, but it was completely useless as long as we did not have a definition for what rightness is and what wrongness is. It just put it - moved it over one category. We had this definition that sanity was the ability to tell right from wrong, and insanity or criminality were the inabilities to tell right from wrong. And then we never said what right - what was right and what was wrong.

"All right. Ah, I get that."

Wrong according to who? A man goes out and shoots a duck. That's right according to the man; it's awfully wrong according to the duck. All right.

"All right. Now get the idea of preventing it from being admired." Wham, they'll go right out of their seats.

So right and wrong is the crux of the matter. So we have to define right and wrong. And we have a workable definition for rightness and wrongness: That thing is right which contributes to the survival of the entities or beings on the greatest number of the dynamics. In other words, an optimum solution, the rightness of that optimum solution, or its degree that it is optimum, depends upon the amount that it benefits the survival of the most dynamics. And a problem is wrong in the degree that it inhibits the survival along the dynamics, So maximal benefit to the survival of all those things concerned with the problem would be right. Minimal destruction to those things concerned with the problems would be right. Maximal destruction to those things concerned in the problem would be wrong, and minimal constructiveness or benefit would be wrong.

This is horrible. Two or three of them are practically going to blow their heads off before you've run this process very long.

So you see, rightness, then, is that which assists survival; wrongness is that which inhibits survival. And we get these two principles and we find an astonishing number of problems will solve themselves.

That applies to little children, too. They're preventing admiration. You'll find out in little kids' cases there is - are members of the family who are preventing them from admiring others. "You mustn't admire your father." "You mustn't admire your mother." "You mustn't admire your great-aunt Bessie Leu." And the child doesn't want his mother to be so admiring of his father because it denies him admiration. He's got a scarcity level of admiration already.

For instance, is it right for you to live? Well, that's a nice question, but.,. All right.

So we've got these interpersonal situations preventing admiration, which is going on right in present time, and you just have to pull the cork on them and let those flows flow from terminals to terminals, and the case solves. And by the way, the case solves, which is what's interesting. It isn't just the mock-up. Whatever a mock-up won't do or mock up can't do, that person in his life isn't or can't do. There, that's a parallel. A person acts as good as he can mock up. Horribly true.

Now that you are living, is it right for you to take any benefit from others? Is it right for you to think about yourself at all?

Now, the odd part of it is, is the person can have lots of reactive mind and be sitting on top of this with lots of analytical mind. Remind me of a professor one time that was very famous, he - for his temper and so forth. And one of the - he got mad at the class, and one of them came up to him after class and said, "Sir, I wish you'd control your temper a little better."

Now, that's an interesting question, because most people will hedge and because of political this-and-that, social something or other, they will say, "Well, hm, well, humh-urn, huh."

And he says, "Young man, I will have you know that I control more temper in fifteen minutes than you control in your entire lifetime!"

You can almost ruin a man by simply demonstrating to him that he is receiving some benefits from others.

Now, it's sort of that way with the reactive bank and the analytical mind. There's some of these people who just have a horrible reactive bank that they're controlling quite admirably. The only place you really see it reflected in conduct to amount to anything is in their mock-ups. But they're skidding in the direction of that inability.

You say, "Look, somebody's doing something for you."

Now, a person who is fixed, sort of, he - every mock-up he gets. He'd get a mock-up and then he couldn't move it anywhere. See, he just couldn't move this mock-up.

"Oh, no, they're not."

By the way, there is a way of moving mock-ups. You move them a little bit and then you move them more. Gradient scale, you see? Do things a little bit and then do them more. And then do them more and more and more, and you get the whole thing going. Control something a tiny bit and then control it more and more and more. There - you can't get rid of this mockup of this man, well, all right, get rid of one hair on his head. And then get rid of two hairs, six, eight, his hair, his head, the man. That's getting rid of the whole mock-up. All right.

You find some people charming. Do you know that people exist in the society and depend for their total ability to live on this: They let people do things for them. It's the truth! I mean, the blind man down on the comer serves a very, very excellent purpose in the society; he stands there and lets people give him something.

Producing a mock-up - can't produce a mock-up with somebody or other? Get something they touched once. Get their handkerchief. Now get a stocking. Now get a shoe. Now get a foot, feet, legs, body, head, mock-up, there it is. Gradient scale, you see. You do a little bit, and do it all.

Never thought about it this way, did you? But you can think back across your own past, and the most trying person you knew was the person you couldn't help. And that person you could help the least is bound to be that person who is the most aberrative to you.

Now, you can create things in that fashion. But if you just admire their imperfections, you can achieve the same and even a superior result. So we have this in Mock-up Processing as a big bonus right at the present time, here, you see.

You take a man down here in an asylum and he is - terrible condition. You go straight across the boards with him trying to find out what you can do to help him. You get no attention whatsoever from him. You're trying to make him sane. You're getting nothing in return until you will give him - perhaps you will be able to do this, perhaps not - you will be able to establish something he can still help. That's interesting, isn't it? There's something he can still help. Well now, you wouldn't think that would make a man sane, but it will.

Now, your three classifications, then - this kid who was too fast. (snap, snap, snap) Bang, bang! No persistence, you see? He hasn't any persistence at all. There's a nonadmiration of persistence present there, you see? Persistence is what's missing - pardon me, is nonadmiration, nonpersistence. So what you've got, you've got to admire - get him admiring the disappearance of things.

If you were to take an E-Meter and put an insane person on the E-Meter and just go over the things in the various dynamics: "Can you help children?" "Can you help cats?" "Can you help this?" "Can you help that?" You all of a sudden might find out that he's able to help horses. Send him to a horse farm? He'll be the sanest guy on it! Just like that. (snap)

It's very easy for you to figure out. Just get him admiring anything he's doing. That's the rule behind this, just anything he's doing. The mock-up disappears too fast, get him admiring that speed of disappearance. And the next thing you know, you'll find out that he's lost more terminals, more things, more homes and so on. Every terminal he ever had in his whole life has a tendency to go out from under and disappear. Boom, boom, boom! It's gone, gone, gone, gone, gone. Next thing you know, he can't get mock-ups. Reason he can't a mock-up, it's paralleling the reactive mind. Mock-up has a lot to with the reactive mind.

Doctors say, "Well, you can't tell about insanity because you're liable to get an instantaneous remission at any time." They've never looked into these so-called instantaneous remissions. Once in a while they happen on this basis: A patient faints and there's another patient present. And they say to the second patient, "Help me lift this person up," and the second patient does so and is sane after that! Ha-ha, you're not dealing with something light and tiny here; you're dealing with something that's very powerful.

Now this fellow gets a mock-up and he can't get rid of it - nrrrr, nrrrr, nrrrr. He's had no admiration for holding on. People keep telling him, "Now look, you shouldn't hold on, you should get rid of it, you shouldn't hold on to this, you shouldn't hold on to that." He just holds on. And then they say, "We don't admire you." And he holds on. And they say, "We don't admire you." And he gets - then he gets insisting: "Look, I'm going to get some admiration for holding on if it kills me." Years later when you ask him to get a mock-up and he gets a mock-up - and you say, "All right. Now get another mock-up." "Now get a rabbit." "Now get an infantryman." "Now get an airplane." "Yeah," he says, "what do I do with the rabbit?" And you say, "Well, put it away."

What can a person help? What can he still help in life? That's not the highest level of establishment, but it's an interesting one. And a person, when he believes he can no longer help anything in life, believes he might as well be dead. You can convince him then that he might as well be dead because he can't help anything. He can no longer assist anything in the world.

"Yeah, Ha-ha. It doesn't go anyplace. As a matter of fact, the harder I try to put it away the more it stops right there." What do you do?

He's as healthy as he can assist things in the world. So don't for a moment think that there isn't some end to all this, because here in the field of sanity and insanity, you're not just working for nothing, you're not working unappreciatedly. You sometimes sit down and feel very sad about the fact that you are, but you're not; you appreciate you. And quite in addition to that, many people do. Many, many people do. And it's only by convincing somebody he can't help that you ruin somebody.

You admire - get him to admire its persistence. And if it disappears, you get him to admire the way it disappears. Simple. Whatever he's doing, get him to admire it. or it to admire him.

Let's take a little kid. There's little Johnny and he runs his legs off. Every day he runs his legs off for his family. He just works for his mother until you just know that he just couldn't ... And his mother is kind of mean to him. And everybody is sort of... And you say, "That kid is a setup. That's the one that will fold up."

Now, the phenomenon of boil-off is one that's quite important to you. And if you are teaching or processing a class like this and you are lecturing to a class like this and you saw two or three of the students asleep, and if you were really on the ball and you weren't making a tape, you would simply make them get up and turn their chair around. That's all. If you were all to turn your chairs around right now, you'd wake up and go home very fresh. Why? You've got sound flowing into the face of them. That's all. Really, I ought to ask you at this moment to turn around and have - and let the sound fly in the other direction. Because it would, it'd wake you up.

Because here's little Oscar over here - Oswald - and you could look at this child and he's got everything and he doesn't have to do anything, and he's strictly a fruitcake.

I think we might as well do that. Why don't - why don't you all turn around, face the other direction. (audience laughter; sounds of moving chairs) All right, now that you're all turned around, I'll finish this lecture.

Well now, this doesn't follow. Here's the child, everybody is mean to him and he works all the time, and he's sane and happy and cheerful, And here's this other child over here who nothing - he doesn't have to do anything and everybody is good to him and they give him everything, and he's crazy.

Now, the phenomenon of boil-off is a one-way flow; it's a flow that's been flowing too long in one direction. And you'll find at first a person, when he turns around and flows - gets a flow in the other direction - has a tendency to wake up.

Why? The difference between the two children is the ability to help: One is permitted to help and the other one is not permitted to help. And the one who's not permitted to assist knows he's no good; he just knows that. Why? Nobody will let him help, so of course he can't be any good.

Now, this works to a slightly lesser degree than in processing when you go through a program like you've just gone through. You're turned around now. Now you have the sound flowing past you in the opposite direction. It's very possible some of you might feel a little relief on this.

Now, you want to know why people drive these omnibuses out here and why people - why people sit at government desks and why people teach school and all sorts of things?

Well now, this manifests itself in terms of boil-off. A person will simply go to sleep on too long a flow. And once in a while if you're processing children or adults, you will find them suddenly falling down across their desk and going out cold.

[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]

Well, don't think something horrible has happened. They've just put the mock-up in front of them and in front of them and in front of them and in front of them and in front of them, and they've flowed toward it and flowed toward it and flowed toward it till all of a sudden they went too far on the one-way flow and it knocked them out.

Continuing this second lecture. The idea of assistance to others goes hand in glove with the idea of value of self; one is as valuable as he can assist.

Now what you do is simply turn the mock-up around and put the mock-up behind them. And you put the mock-up behind them and let them put it behind them. This first one they put behind them will brighten them up and give them a tendency to awaken and be brighter and fresher.

And because people throughout life evidently feel there's a big scarcity of things they can help, they will prevent others from helping. You can talk all you want to about, "Let's all get in there together and help," but the point is that when you go along this line too much, you get - people will try to cut other people out. Somebody will come up to you and say, "You really aren't helping your class, but I can."

So when you see a person getting groggy, you should, as Group Auditor, indicate that person and tell him to put the mock-ups behind him, or just as general practice, you ought to shift the position of mock-up on the whole group,

You know, they say this in various ways. They say, "Little Johnny that you thought was getting along so well - you know, you thought he was getting along so well. Well, he died yesterday."

Now that has two parts to it there. If you notice somebody getting groggy suddenly and inexplicably when the others aren't, you know he's got a mock-up where he shouldn't have one. So you just ask him, "Where did you put that last mock-up?" He'll say, "I put it behind me."

They're just trying to convince you that you can't help people that way, and that's sort of - they kind of figure out dully that that permits them to. All right.

You say, "Put the next one in front of you and go on with the rest of the mock-ups." And you should shift for the whole group the mock-ups and the position of the mock-ups where - at regular intervals, let's say, at the ratio of about six mock-ups.

So, what's our ... You just work on that operational level - we find out that the mind is running along in terms of energy in most cases. It thinks it's thinking with energy. It doesn't think with energy, but it thinks it's thinking with energy. Therefore, only because it thinks it's thinking with energy, not because it does, it believes that it is a sort of a computing machine. Now, basically, as you sort out somebody's mind, you'll find this to be the case.

Don't ever go on about - more than about six mock-ups without saying, "All right, now put them behind you," and six more mock-ups without saying, "Put them on the right of you," and six more, "to the left of you." And six more, "above you." And six more, "below you." And then "in front of you" again.

The mind is there to pose and resolve problems relating to survival. It thinks it solves these things with energy, so it works very mechanistically, And this isn't just from my viewpoint. I mean, this happens to be true.

You'll have to remind people of this once in a while. And you should change them around because they will very often have the idea of putting a mock-up out there in front of them. And they shift it behind them for one mock-up and then they put the next one out in front of them again because they got too strong a flow running and the flow is mastering them, and they're no longer mastering the flow You see how that would be? All right.

The mechanistic viewpoint of the calculating machine is not one which can be broadly used in terms of the human mind, because a calculating machine is neither very able nor very accurate. It's accurate within the realms of a mind directing it to be accurate, but it can't protect itself against bad data. So, therefore, it's not a very good computer.

So, we shift the mock-up around. And when anybody starts boiling off, if they just boiled off and you didn't catch them in time, it's nothing very dangerous. They'll just simply sort of snore it off. And if you want to wake them up, you don't have to take them out someplace or do something special or get smelling salts or something. Just kind of shake them awake a little bit, easily and gently because they can be startled with this, and you just say, "Where was the last place you put a mock-up?" And they say, "I put one - I don't know."

Anybody can go up to the thing and say - instead of two million, it can write two-hundred million on the calculating-machine tape and punch it in, and it'll go on stupidly computing on two-hundred million instead of two million, and all of its answers will be wrong.

And you say, "Well, put a mock-up, now, in back of you. Now get a current of water flowing at that mock-up," or some such thing or "Get something flowing from the mock-up to you." And all of a sudden they'll brighten. That's all. And you just got the way they'll run. Well, they'll brighten right up and they'll wake up on something like this. Now, therefore your mock-ups should be placed, and if placed too long in one position, will cause boil-off; and boil-off is just too long a flow in one direction. That's all that happens.

So, bad data, now, is very aberrative; bad information is very aberrative. The evaluation, then, of information is quite important. And one is as able to think as he can evaluate, not as he can memorize, Don't ever lose sight of that. He is as able to think as he can evaluate; he is not as able to think as he can memorize.

There is nothing else you need to know about boil-off. It just happens that that's it. It means that the particles are changing in location to each other so as to produce and restimulate an old period of unconsciousness. That's what's happened,

You notice the interesting child who can come in and recite the World Almanac from cover to cover, and yet who just can't seem to take care of any of the most primitive functions. You'd say, "Strange." Well, you're sort of talking to a recording tape, and it all goes in and it all comes out and so on. It's very interesting, but this child is not evaluating.

It doesn't matter, by the way, about boiling off. If you had a person boiling off for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours - we've boiled them off for as long as three hundred hours with no slightest benefit to the case. So don't get the idea it'll do the case any good, because it won't.

Some other child is apparently incapable, you'd think sometimes, of absorbing information, and all he does is evaluate information, and he doesn't record worth a nickel. And he's made the evaluation already. He's very hard on you sometimes as an instructor. You will make an evaluation... You instructors, you haven't got anything to teach him. And if he's made that evaluation at the beginning of his course or his school or his training, it's going to take you a long time to get anything into his head.

Now, these mock-ups will do all sorts of things. They'll fly around like mad, They will go into various erratic levels of action. You can't be too sure of what the mock-up is doing for your group. Well, at a Group Auditor level you don't care what this mock-up is doing because you can be sure it's going to get better. But at first, you will have various erratic things happening about a mock-up. You will have a mock-up occurring there that, well, every time he gets a person, this person is jumping a hoop over - through a hoop. And just keep jumping through the hoop. He didn't tell this person to jump through the hoop, it's just what happens to this person. He will eventually get to a point where he's no longer doing this. I mean, it'll wear out.

Now, he could evaluate and he wouldn't remember, and the other child can remember but can't evaluate. And those would be the two extremes of human aberration you had to deal with in terms of education, in terms of righting things.

Erratic things not called for. Now, they'll complain to you that their mock-ups are doing these things or they will think it's very funny to have a mock-up amuse them this way. You needn't pay any attention to it at all. You can just know that mock-ups are going to do strange and peculiar things. And if you must do something about it, just get them to admire that peculiarity and it'll disappear. The theory behind mock-ups is that the MEST universe is an illusion, and that one must increase one's ability to create illusions in order to exist better and perceive better the MEST universe. And to think better, one certainly must be able to handle illusion. If he can handle illusion, he can handle imagination, which means he can handle the future. And the future is computational. Actually, what it is, is putting electric terminals into the future when you put mock-ups for the future: things to be admired, things for which I'm going to be admired.

Now, let's take this idea of the adding machine again. Let's look at aberration in terms of an adding machine. And let's take an adding machine such as they had at Harvard and aberrate it. Well, this adding machine they had at Harvard - very interesting machine. Or maybe it was Yale or Princeton or someplace or Oxford, I don't know. It was one of these lesser-known schools. Anyway, they had this drop of solder - aberrated the machine.

Now, you do mock-ups in order to rehabilitate the individual's control of objects, persons, things, and these things all occur rather regularly. The processing of an individual of the group, away from the group, should be done just with that. You should take this individual all the way out of the group if you're going to process him. Now, I've mentioned to you this: you shouldn't process an individual all by himself up there in front of the group, because you've given him a special mock-up, and now the rest of the group will want special mock-ups. And you've cut down their ability to get mock-ups. So you just mark this trouble down as trouble and decide that you're now going to give him special mock-ups only in the absence of the group, And preferably so that the group doesn't know about it.

And this is what happened. One day they went in and they put a problem on this machine. And it was the kind of machine that calculated the square root of the length of time it took for a photon to travel a circumnavigation of the orbit exiture or something, you know - one of these things with lots of factors and summations and all that sort of thing, and the machine turned out the wrong answer. So they put the machine - put it on again, and the machine turned out the wrong answer.

In other words, just - the class or the group's filing out or something of this sort. And you don't keep the person in the room and say, "And now we're going to process you some more," something like that. You say, "Well now, come in a little bit early tomorrow," or get them away from the rest of the group if you're going to do this at all. Or have an entire group that you're going to process individually. You get that?

So somebody put an elementary problem on the machine and he merely says ten times ten, and he got a hundred. And he says ten divided by ten, he got a hundred; five hundred times ten, and he got twenty-five thousand. (Those of you that aren't up on arithmetic, that should be five thousand.)

You spot all of the people you've got to process individually and you move them into an awkward squad. And make sure that you call it an awkward squad or something of the sort and don't make it desirable at all. And so the rest of the group - the rest of the group don't get upset and so forth by this.

So then he put on two times five and got fifty. You know, this machine would be considered aberrated after a while, And he went on with this for quite a while, and then it finally turned out that the number five on the machine had a drop of solder shorted out on it, so that every problem had the - was factored - multiplied rather, by five. Every problem you put into the machine got multiplied by five. And every time it went across anything connected with five, it multiplied by another five. Little, tiny short circuit in the electronic circuits of a huge, big, giant electronic brain.

Children particularly are very touchy on this subject. You can take out a certain strata of the group that you're processing and then handle them individually and put them back into the group again. You will find yourself doing this quite often.

And how did they repair it? Well, they just sawed off that little piece of solder and disconnected it, and after that the machine gave right answers.

It is not terribly necessary that you do this. You save two-thirds of this group, you've done better than would have happened with these individuals otherwise. It's rather obvious.

Now, let's take little Johnny there that isn't studying, isn't studying at all. How does this analogy fit with him? He's got a held-down five someplace, That machine is aberrated, that is to say, is giving wrong answers, incorrect solutions to existence because of a held-down five. What is this held-down five in the case of little Johnny? Well, it could be a number of very special things. You'd find those in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. You could call these - infinite number of combinations that could hold down five, but it's a cinch it's "hold-down five."

If you want to take that other third and do something very special for them, you'll find out that it'll pay dividends. You just bring them up to a level where they can hold their own with the rest of the group, though.

Let's say it's something simple like he made a postulate or he made an evaluation when he first came to school that he would never learn anything in that school. And he's convinced of this because he convinced himself of this. And everything that goes through that you're - expect him to learn is tearing right across the lines and his "I won't ever learn anything in school."

Now, the use of mock-ups by a professional is very wide and very varied, and a great many things can be done with this, but I would advise you in handling mock-ups in general and so on to leave that on a professional level. Handle them on these lists and handle them in Self Analysis, you're on good, sound, safe ground. And use admiration of their imperfections, you're still on safe ground.

"Columbus discovered America in 1492. I won't ever learn anything in this school," And you'll find all of the information you are trying to pour into his head over here in a big bin that says, "I won't learn anything in this school." It's there, but it's over there in the bin. Now, it's fascinating that one day you suddenly crowd at him with some processing and knock out that datum, and he remembers everything he learned in the school.

You start going into specific mock-ups or specific illnesses and specific things and so on, it requires a considerable command of the subject in theory and of flows and other things in order to get away with it. There's no need for you to do that. You give individual processing in terms, then, of Self Analysis, and you don't worry too much about a professional level action.

Now, that's - becomes very interesting, The mind works on a series, then, of bins and trunk systems and bullpens, to be technical - that's the technical terminology for electronic brains, by the way - and it has these large compartments. You're dealing with data. Therefore, the storage rather than the origin of data is of interest to you, and the use of data in computation of new answers is of interest to you.

If you have a case that is very bad off, a case that's very, very bad off, get that case - if it has to have very special individual address get that case some professional auditing. Don't try to go too deeply into individual cases yourself. It's very true that you can handle psychosomatic illnesses in children and adults, but I would advise you to handle them with Self Analysis.

[R&D Note: bullpen: (computers) an area in early electronic computers where material that didn't match up with anything else was held until new material that connected with it and made a complete solution was fed in. Used figuratively in this lecture.]

And a psychosomatic illness is easily remedied, by the way, with list processing - processing by a list. Very easily remedied. Just have them put mock-ups in the area where the psychosomatic exists. Just have them keep putting up mock-ups in there. And then shift the mock-ups around here and there and put the mock-ups back in that area again.

Well, therefore, if you start dealing with a machine which has consistently held-down data, every time you throw a datum into his head, he says, "My mother is sick."

Let's say they got a headache. And well, have them put mock-ups in their head for a while. But if the child has some permanent "permanent" - disability, it's - you'll find out that this won't be hindered. I mean, you won't - this child won't be hindered in any way by giving him processing as a member of a group or by giving him list processing. The child won't be hurt by it and might even recover from it. But I wouldn't expect it as a matter of course or demand that it happen. Do not treat this with the level of seriousness, in other words.

Did you ever have a little kid who is having home trouble, family trouble at home, or a man at work, he's having trouble at home - and somebody walk - and you say, "Two times two equals four," On any kind of a problem that you - or solution that you'd give him, it would go through his mind like this: "Two times two is four, and my mother is sick at home. What did you say?"

If it's handled by Group Processing, all right. And if it's not, your individual processing should be limited to putting people in shape so that they can keep pace with the group. And I've given you how to do that. Now, it'll happen quite incidentally that a lot of psychosomatic illnesses will turn off in your group. Just consider it a bonus. You're trying to make people better able to live; you're not trying to make them well.

And you say, "Two times two is four."

People come around and say, "Isn't that remarkable. Our little Bertram always had sinusitis." Or this group of war veterans you may be processing may have had all manner of shot and shell go through it, and you might have them, while doing your session, have them flopping around like fish out of water with somatics. Don't pay any attention to it. So they hurt. Good. The somatic will run out. That's all. You just keep on with this.

He's - "When did you say that?"

Now, the handling of a psychosomatic illness is very simple, but you must have this piece of information: You must be consistent and persistent in mock-ups to run a somatic all the way out. A somatic is liable to turn on during the processing session where you're handling the whole group, and then the somatic is liable to come on stronger and stronger and stronger. And you as a Group Auditor could very easily lose your head and say, "My goodness, oh, dear! What am I doing to this poor man? He says if we give him just one more mock-up, it'll bash his brains in."

"Well, I just said it?"

Well, I'II tell you what you do in that case: You give him just one more mock-up. And then you give him another dozen, because his brains in his head is not going to split him.

"What did you just say?"

Whatever is turned on by Creative Processing will turn off by the same process. Now, don't mix processes, If you start in with a list, finish with a list. If something turned a man's headache on, for heaven's sakes, keep on with the same list. Don't suddenly switch off and start running flows on him. You could put the mock-ups in new places and that sort of thing, but don't suddenly turn around and say, "Well, we better run out an engram." No, no. No. The best process for it is Self Analysis type lists. And you run it until it runs out.

"Two times two is four,"

Now, the easiest way to do something like that is, if your - if you have an older group, is to give a book to somebody or other, if somebody gets into trouble, and just tell them to go out in the other room and finish it off. Make somebody else read the list to them rather than give that person special attention yourself, because you'll have everybody with somatics on. All right.

It registered "Two times two is four, my mother is sick."

Another thing here is mock-ups must not be a consecutive story. You'll find it a very inviting idea to tell a story of Br'er Rabbit to a group of children with a series of mock-ups. Don't do it. No dice. You know why?

Now, you could ask him, "What is two times two?"

There's differentiation, association, identification. And identification is at 0.0 and association is at 20.0, and differentiation, which is the essence of sanity itself, is at 40.0. And we want mock-ups which change the subject radically. And as long as we change the subject radically, the child doesn't suddenly get a story of his own turning on, or the adult doesn't get a story of his own turning on and start paralleling it.

And he would say, "Two times two" - he'd be perfectly good; span of attention is way off, you see - "Two times two equals my mother is sick at home," and "Two times two equals my wife is angry with me."

In other words, you give him Br'er Rabbit and you say, "All right, now mock up a carrot." "Now he's lippity-lopping to the store." "Now get him there with the storekeeper." "Now get the Big, Bad Wolf coming in the door." And this child, you would think, would be terribly absorbed with this story. No, no, He's now got - he's now got Grandma. And the more you give him Br'er Rabbit, the more Br'er Rabbit looks like Grandma. And you're just digging his grave, that's all. You're just plowing this kid right on in. Why? The MEST universe is logical. Stories are logical. If you really want something that works well, get it as widely apart as possible from mock-up to mock-up.

Yeah, that's right; that's how he's thinking, It's flagrant. If you want to plumb into this and to ask the questions which will spring it into view, you'll be shocked at what some people are thinking in offices. (audience laughter) Mail goes through their hands.

"Now mock up a fire engine." "Now mock up a beauty shop." "Now mock up the vinegar works." "Now mock up a bottle of ginger ale." "Now mock up a movie actor." "Now mock up a cow." We just get this jump, jump, jump, jump. And that's what a list, in essence, must do. Then we get the "associative level" of logic chopped into and broken up. It is that level of associative thinking which has led this person along this line, The reactive mind is not capable of differentiation; it's only capable of identification. And as long as we ask it to associate, we're bordering on identification. It'll very shortly start to identify.

Of course, it isn't so bad on the other level. When they've had a good time, they can work. That's because the good time runs out all their worries. They're not liable to sit there, oddly enough, and say, "Here's a nice letter from James and Company with a thousand - a thousand new reams of paper has been ordered, and that's just fine. And let's see, now what do I have to do? My, did I have a good time last night. That's what I have to do now. Now, I had to have a good time last night. Yeah, that's good."

So let's go up the level where we're perfectly safe, which is differentiation, and give different mock-ups one right after the other, And that's why these lists are important. And that's why you should process from a list even if you're doing your own hand-out processing, because you have a tendency, when standing in front of people and giving them things, to connect them and associate them.

No, they don't squirrel like that. Working with a different sort of a thing when you work with a worry or a problem or trouble because you're working with pain. Pleasure runs itself out. Pleasure is the enemy of pain. Pain sticks. And every time you have this abstraction, you get held-down data.

You know, you sort of feel the pressure and you give a - "All right, let's give a fire engine," "All right, now let's have a ladder." "Now let's have a fireman," "Now Let's have a wheel," "Now let's have a fire." "Now let's ..." See, you're all on the same subject. That's identification. And that's not a good list. So, if you want a list for a special group, you should sit down and then just figure out a lot of things, no matter how well associated they are, and then just rewrite them so they're all cluttered up and not in association anymore. See how that would be? Then, that's what's done.

Now, there might be some terrific sort of a data. There might be some little kid who is sitting there held in his bike accident two months ago, and he's been stupid in class ever since. And his grades have been kind of poor, and you haven't been able to do anything for him and get anything across to him.

Now, the theory of Self Analysis and similar lists is the theory of terminals. And the theory is that you're putting up, by creative levels, new terminals, and you're keeping them divorced from the real universe. You're keeping them as unlike the real universe as you can. And you do this for several reasons. But one of the chief ones is it is one way of meeting a level of knowingness which is very high.

You don't know where he is? You think he just isn't paying attention. Well, the thing to do, of course, is to punish him, to send him home and give a note to his parents and sspprruuhh.

A Level of knowingness is very important. How much does your preclear know he knows? You can pick up the rest of this information from books, you can pick up this material here and there, hearsay - figure it out.

No, he's - happens to be lying on the pavement three blocks from his house, and he's been lying there ever since he fell there three months ago.

But get this one. Burn this in. Sort of so it'll scorch a little bit. You want to establish a level of certainty: certainty of location, certainty of knowledge, certainty of beingness. The child who is uncertain, the adult who is uncertain is a child or an adult that isn't well. You want a level of certainty.

Well, you know he isn't lying there - he was taken inside and given a lot of sympathy and so on. And he's been sitting here in class and so forth. You know it, but does he know it? Well, that's a good thing to check up on, does he know he's ...

How can you quickly reach a level of certainty. Have him mock up a scene; have him make it his scene, and he knows where it is. He's got a certainty! And that is a fast way of reaching a certainty. So when somebody is getting very little benefit from mock-ups, ask him these questions: "You know where it is? You know where this mock-up is?" The fellow will all of a sudden tell you "No!" You say, "Well, put it there on the windowsill," "Yeah, I can do that."

Because you're interested in what he knows about himself, not what you know about him. You'll know a great deal more about him from an outside viewpoint than he'll probably ever know, so we better know what he knows about himself. And we're liable to find him now stuck on the pavement. All right.

It never occurred to him before. He's had these mock-ups all over the universe but he's never known where they are. Maybe they were in his space, maybe they weren't in his space. So he had no certainty of location. And the other one is "Is it yours?" Fellow says, "No." "Well, make it yours." "Well, uh ... Yeah, I can change it a little bit."

These are held-down fives. Just think of that as an analogy It's a crude one, it's relatively workable, it's a fast explanation. What is it, then, that keeps a child from paying attention, keeps an adult from being interested in life, keeps somebody in an insane asylum there? It's a problem of the held-down five. There's a datum which is held down in the computer.

"Well, change it. Now change it some more. Now do you know whose it is?"

Now, if you want to be very brilliant, you can go through this computer from one end to the other and you can look it over very carefully and you can find - this, by the way, in the first book was known as shooting circuits - you could find the datum which was coloring all other data and just go boom and shoot it out of the bank. You actually could do this with marked changes in personality. What art, what skill, Oh, oh!

"Yeah. Yeah, it's mine." He'll brighten right up. Level of certainty. And that's what you're trying to achieve. You're getting a certainty of a terminal.

Now, later techniques, you could do it by shooting out an incident in which he was stuck. And with later techniques you could put him into a condition whereby he wouldn't get stuck that easily, and he would become unstuck somewhat from where he was. And by later techniques, you could do even more remarkable things with him.

And he's - can get inner flows from these terminals. Now, you can do two mock-ups for each one if you want to, and you'll get some interesting results. You can have him make his last mock-up last on the right, and put his new mock-up on the left, just for variation.

And then we wind up with a very interesting battery of techniques: one, we know what the held-down particle is that is the held-down five. We know what it is. It isn't seven other particles, it happens to be just one. And it's the one that you wouldn't quite suspect, but you know it after you've run into it. And what is this particle? And why does it hold down five? We'll talk about that later.

Make him do two mock-ups out there at the same time. Let his old mock-up persist and then put a new mock-up alongside of it. But that's not important, not near as important as establishing a level of certainty. Does he know it's his?

But you want a technique that will just, no matter how long it takes, unsolder those fives. That's all you want. If you've got that, you've unsoldered the five and then you're in good shape, and that is the goal of processing.

If anybody is having real trouble with mock-ups, it's because he doesn't know they're his and he doesn't know where they are. Of course, "doesn't know where they are" also means he doesn't know when they are. When is that mock-up? And that becomes very important to him.

A person with all of his fives unsoldered would be known as a Definition Clear. Why? That's an adding-machine term; that's a electronic-brain term. You clear a machine when you take out all of its former computations off the machine.

Now, in conclusion, the function of the Group Auditor is seen to be a very important one from the level of Dianetics and Scientology. And it's important from the level of groups. I'll give you a little bit of an idea of a preliminary test on this, and this is from an actual record of a test which is going on at the present moment.

In other words, a fellow can think straight if he could think without these colored evaluations before. He can evaluate present time in terms of itself, not so much in terms of its past.

Self Analysis was given for a relatively short space of time to a group of children that varied in number - same children, but the influenza epidemic, you know, was going on, so the group was varying between twenty and thirty. And the previous gain of this same group in reading age before Self Analysis was between .9 and .5 months per month, according to the ability of the teacher. That's the previous gain - .9 to .5 months per month.

Clear is a very relative state. Don't become confused by it. It is not an absolute state. It merely means he's in pretty good shape and he'll stay that way. That's all it means. There are various kinds of Clears and they mean things very specific.

Now, the gain in reading age after three-and-a-half weeks of Self Analysis on the average for those students was 4.0 months! By actual tests, just by standard school tests, LCP tests.

Well, a preclear, then, is somebody who still has a held-down five but is in the process of getting rid of it. That means a person who is undergoing processing either in groups or individuals, but it's most likely to apply to the individual rather than to the group.

The average gain was from .9 to .5, and the gain after three-and-a-half weeks of Self Analysis was 4.0 months. That happens to be a gain somewhat in the neighborhood there, oh, somewhere between 5 and - 5 and 8 per - 800 percent.

The auditor, the auditor is one who listens and computes, and that's what auditing means: to listen and compute. Well, we still use the term auditor, but he's not doing very much listening in group auditing. And the truth be told, today's technique, he does dam little listening. He just sits there and rolls the stuff out.

Now, some of these made no gain because they were absent during the influenza epidemic. And that's included in that average of 4.0. They're included there. And there were many gains of 6, 7 and 8 months of reading age.

Well, every once in a while he's called on to listen and compute, and it's a bad auditor who doesn't listen and doesn't compute when he has to. There's many a case will come to some other auditor for patch-up, and they can't figure out why this other auditor didn't do it. Well, the guy didn't listen; somewhere he didn't listen. He wasn't willing to receive some information of one sort or another. That's the most usual fault in auditing.

And there was one of 11 months and one of 13 months with three-and-a-half weeks of Self Analysis given for about twenty minutes per day to this group. So you're not dealing with anything light. And because you don't see something terrifically dramatic happening right off the bat, don't worry about that.

Now, we have what you could call a Book Auditor, That is an untrained auditor who has gotten his information out of publications. Unheralded and unsung, the Book Auditor has been carrying along for a long time and has been accomplishing very remarkable things. He can accomplish and he does accomplish them.

This is a group of very backward children who should be in an institution, but are in class and in school because there aren't enough institutions.

I have seen Book Auditors as good as professionals and I've seen Book Auditors that you, with even a poor Level of judgment on the subject, would have shot! In other words, this meant merely somebody who had these techniques from reading only and without any contact immediately with professional training of any kind. It doesn't mean that a man is bad or good, under that circumstances. A man is as good as he is.

It was the more intelligent ones of the class who made this terrific gain of 9, 11 and 13 months. They made this terrific gain. They were the more intelligent ones. What this does in a higher level class is subject to further testing, but this is a low-level class. So that your benefits and gains are the benefits, by test, of putting the child in a frame of mind where he can be instructed. And that's what you're trying to do.

And there are people who are Book Auditors who are practicing outright hypnotism. There are people who are Book Auditors that are right up there with professional auditors. The Last, by the way, is very rare. As a matter of fact, it is so rare that I only know of it happening once in the US. Odd, but true.

And in terms of an adult, you're trying to put him in the frame of mind where he can be interested in life. And after that, you can instruct them and interest them. But unless you have done that first step there you have a missing bridge, which is going to hold down the third dynamic wherever it is missing.

Now, there's self-processing, and self-processing would be just reading over lists, such as those contained in Handbook for Preclears, which is now outmoded as a process; it's not outmoded as data. And the most modern available list is the Self Analysis in Dianetics. And that disc - that list and those lists are very, very useful to you because they're the lists you use. And these are addressed toward Creative Processing, and those lists are just a part of Creative Processing.

And Group Processing would be the application of read lists to the group in such a way as to permit the maximum number of members of the group to receive benefit. Those are the various types of processes by list here.

Now, the kinds of processing - these are the people who process and their goals - and the kinds of processing, I've already covered earlier. And I list them here.

There's just a complete knowledge of the subject all the way across the boards, of anything that's been written or lectured or anything that's been learned from other professionals who practice and so forth. That would be just anything.

There isn't a process anywhere along the line there in this group of materials that doesn't have degree of workability, by the way. It's which one is more workable than another. And this again is evaluation. There are some of the old ones which are - which an auditor will still use. I was using the other day - not the other day. I was using - not too long ago, I was using a Book One technique. The preclear wouldn't, just wouldn't go for anything else, he just wouldn't buy anything else. It was the easiest one to process him with, so I just simply reached back into 1949 really, and picked up this old, moldy, moth-eaten technique and swung him into present time with it and shook him on the hand - by the hand and kissed him goodbye.

Now, Standard Operating Procedure Number 5 is the subject of the Professional Course to a large degree - that and many other things. Then there's, as I say, Self Analysis; there's Creative Processing in general as a more advanced level; and then Group Processing - there's some slight difference between the way you process adults and the way you process children, All right.

I hope you have, now, a broad and vast understanding of human aberration. And so we'll close up the subject there and take a break.