Thank you.

Hi ya.

Well, what'd you think of that project I talked to you about?

We got a congress this morning?

Audience: Hooray!

Audience voices: YES!!

Well, I'm not going to talk to you more about it unless you want me to. But, how many people here would actually be interested in organizing one of those things?

No kidding. Did you do any auditing last night?

Good-good, well, I'll give you a clue, I'll give you a clue.

Audience voices: Yes!

There's an awful lot of US, and there are 200 million people. And I don't think the number of people that raised their hands right now are too many.

You know, you people are doing pretty good, pretty good. I guess we'll just have to close up the Academy; there's nothing to be taught you.

In a town like, let's say, San Francisco, I don't see how you could have less than two or three dozen clubs, you know – it would – it's a multiple factor even for an area.

Actually – it's a very hard thing to know what to talk to you about today because the whole program is full and that doesn't leave any space for me to say anything. I mean our program is so crowded with material today that I will probably give you the material that was scheduled for today in the last ten minutes. But there's a tremendous number of things that I ought to talk to you about.

Well, good enough, would you like to hear something about theory and processing?

Now I was looking through the library the other day. You'll think I'm a book salesman here in a minute, but I was looking through the library the other day and I found this book Scientology 8-8008. That is the basic theoretical text of this subject and I didn't realize how thoroughly that was the case until I started to thumb through it.

Audience response: Yeah!

I was going to write a little section on Creative Processing in this book so I opened up this book to find out what I had written before and snowed myself under totally. I kept saying, "Did I do that? Gee, that's informative. Is there anything else to say on the subject?" Rather fascinating, so I thumbed through this book, and you know, I think we've been neglecting it; I do, I think we've been neglecting it. There's some – several things in it that are forerunners of everything we've discovered since.

All right, maybe you'd like to hear more about the "Survival Clubs." Which would you like?

And you have to be awful smart to read this book; I can read it pretty well if I ...

Audience voices: Theory!

Actually there's only one joke in the book. There is a – there is a big joke in the book. I think it is this book the joke's in. No, it isn't in this book. No, by golly, is the joke in this book? Heck it isn't in this book either. Oh, yes, here it is on the cover: all these degrees.

All right, good. What lazy people. Going to make me do all the work.

You don't realize that but that's sarcasm where I'm concerned. There is one of our books that says Dean Emeritus of Hubbard College.

Well, there have been a few advances in Scientology in the last few months mostly in the basis of summation, or "this is the thing" or "this is the proper thing" or "all of these other things are as unimportant compared to this thing." You get the idea? It's a reevaluation.

It seems so funny to me – it seems so funny to me for the whole society to be completely overboard on the subject of degrees. Now, a degree does represent competence when earned by demonstration of skill. But all of these degrees that say you were in one place for seven or twelve years or something of the sort are very funny to me 'cause all they attest is that you haven't enough gumption to go anywhere.

Most people that you run into – they know nothing about evaluation. I'm not talking about now evaluation of the preclear. They just know nothing about evaluation of data; it's one of the more fabulous soft spots in the human anatomy. "Uh – children eat ice cream. The president died yesterday." Same value. "Uh – every action has an equal and contrary reaction. Uh – the Russians fed the dog uh-uh-Neetzie-Weetzie biscuits in Mutnick." Huh, same value.

The United States government today is degree happy, totally degree happy; where's a matter of fact up at "Ma Bell" the big IT&T laboratories, it's very amusing you see somebody there and oh, he's designing a strategy machine that is going to figure out all the strategy for the admirals in the navy, and you say, "What's your degree?" And he says, "I have a degree I'm" – you notice everybody calling him "Doctor" you know? And he says, "I have a degree" and kind of brushes it off quickly, you know.

"Uh – I am. sick today Uh – I, uh – have lost my job. Uh – I don't want any breakfast. Uh – the – the world is round." Same value.

And you say, "No, no. What are you degreed in?"

In other words, there's no difference from datum to datum. Now, that is a symptom of "data apathy." You get the idea? People go down into "data apathy," you might say, they go down into identification so that all data – it isn't that every datum is every other datum; it's "All data are equal." There is an – a total equality of importance of data. "All data are drops of water in the ocean, and all drops of water are alike." You get the idea? That failure to differentiate in importance of data is simply no more, no less than a failure to differentiate.

He says, "English."

Bill walks in the room and they say, "Hello, Joe. Oh, I thought you were Joe for a moment." Ah, the hell they do – they probably think he's Joe all the time.

It's very amusing, it's very amusing to see the government being taken in by this. Because, let's only hire a fellow, you see, for what he has a degree in. Well, this for sure gives us an interesting computation if it's extended reductio ad absurdum. That means that if we ... This is very funny. You'd have to fire the president; he's got no degree in business or government administration. The head of General Motors couldn't stay there; he hasn't got a proper degree, and the head of General Electric, same way. And the board would all have to be swept out entirely because they aren't properly degreed for their jobs.

Here you have – here you have this old Dianetic "A=A=A=A." I mean, "All data are all data."

And then we get something weird that comes along like somebody finds out something where the subject has been just a camouflaged hole, like Scientology, see? There's no background degree; there's no degree in the university that can attest skill in Scientology. Well, that's very interesting, so you just have to take off from scratch. But then somebody comes along and passes a bill, as in California, saying, "Only those people who have attended Stanford or UCLA can be licensed to practice in the field of the mind in California." Yeah, but we haven't got any department in Stanford or UCLA and I doubt if we'd establish one if they asked us. Now, what do you do?

So we get into the field of science. Nobody has ever bothered in the field of physics to evaluate the importance of data. If they were to write a scale, just this, no more – not adding anything to physics, not subtracting anything from it, just write a scale of data, and it went like this: This was evidently the most important datum of physics; this was the next most important; this was the next most important; this was the next most important – they'd probably come out with a brand-new subject. See?

Well, you have to take a new departure. You have to issue degrees to represent competence, no matter what those certificates are, they must represent competence. And we're starting a minor revolution.

Instead of that they say, "A British Thermal Unit is 776 BTU, and so and so on, foot-pounds per the square inch of the millibars, you know, and it is all the same." And that's just as important as whip... "That was on page 62 of my textbook; and the 62 is just as important as British Thermal Units; it's just as important as..." you know. You'd be amazed.

You might not realize it but the US is in the tradition of the 16th-century scholastics who took the work of Aristotle and said, "This is science and that is it!" And they pushed it off into the universities and after that why, you studied Aristotle; you didn't look at the real universe. And all work was based on Aristotle. Well, all right, so it's okay. Aristotle did a good job, he had an angel called "Alexander the Great." And he had a lot of specimens; they didn't know how to preserve 'em very well, so with time it got up to the 16th century you had an interesting looking Aristotle, let me assure you.

Very seldom do you see an examination like this: "Give the six most important factors of motion or characteristics." You don't often see them like that. They say "Give the characteristics of motion on page 27."

Well, all due respect to the scholastics – the best place to read about the scholastics, by the way, that I know of; is Willem Hendrik Van Loon's book called Tolerance, something that I could really recommend to you, a very, very splendid book. There is one engramic phrase that keeps running in the book, is "No matter how much things seem to change, they always remain the same." Other than that it is a very fine book. But he covers this sway of the scholastics, and we're looking at it now.

Now, evaluation of data is an integral part of thinkingness. "Thinkingness" discovers data or invents data and of the two, invention of data is probably more important than the discovery of it – unless, of course, you are looking for a common denominator of agreement in certain things and want to do some things with and then the discovery of data becomes very important to you. And as we look over thinkingness and evaluation, we find that people who cannot evaluate amongst the importances of data cannot think! They do something that passes for thinking and you have seen this every day of your lives.

You probably don't realize that the government scientists, all of these people who have been – who worked on the "Manhattan Project" in Los Alamogordos and so forth, were all degreed in something, but very seldom in the subject that they were working in, which is rather fascinating. They were all Doctor "this" and Doctor "that" but they had been grabbed from scratch and they had to make up their minds about what they were doing and go ahead and get the job done.

The funniest thing I ever heard anybody say is a – bellboy stuck a key in a door, and then suddenly realized that it was the wrong door, and the wrong key for the right door and he said the funniest thing I ever heard anybody say – "I wasn't thinking," he said. He wasn't thinking. Well, of course, he hadn't been thinking for a very long time. He wasn't thinking, he just uttered a statement.

Now, the government has insisted on only those people who have a degree in the subject, work in it, see? I think this is fascinating because there aren't any degrees in the subject they're working in. So you want to know what happened with – why we got whipped in Sputnik, why the foreign scientists that we hired got whipped in Sputnik, it's because no US scientist can be hired because they don't have degrees. That's more or less the case, horribly enough.

People have this idea of thinking all mixed up with "doing what they're told" and so forth.

You'll see this terrific emphasis on degrees from a standardized or accredited school; you see this tremendous emphasis. Wherever you see this you're looking at some kind of a framework like the scholastics had in the 16th century. You really ought to read about that, it's very, very funny.

But a free mind can take the data of a subject and sort it out. And saying "Well, this is important, and this is important, and this is important, and that's important, but this is the most important and this is next, and this is next, next, next."

Scholastic professors became the butt of all Europe. You see, Europe in the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th century had universities exactly on the American pattern – exactly. You went there, you sign an oath at the beginning of the school that you would not think or have an opinion or overthrow the resisting idiocy. And when you did that you were all set.

You'll get a problem coming apart the moment somebody asks the thing, "What is the most important part of this problem?"

And they tell a story about a professor who was teaching about sturgeons, and he was teaching natural history, and he was giving this lecture about sturgeons, and he was drawing – of course, the only sturgeon he dared teach about was out of Aristotle – so he was drawing a picture of one of Aristotle's sturgeons from down in the Bosporus, you know. And a sturgeon from up in the Black Sea or in the North Atlantic or someplace walked to the door and knocked and the professor opened the door and it was a sturgeon but not the kind that Aristotle described. And the sturgeon wanted something or other, and the professor turned around and said, "If one of you young men will remove this strange beast, we will get on with the lecture."

Now, you as an auditor in handling a preclear can get at a present time problem very easily if you ask the person "if he's having any trouble lately" or "What is the most important thing in his life at this moment?" If you say, "What is the most important thing in your life this minute?" you are probably asking the same question as, "Have you a present time problem?" It's almost the same thing, you see?

Scholasticism had many jokes, good or bad, like this which were pushed down into the – and eventually they went into the mud and we had the free type of education which is probably responsible for much of Europe's political unrest during the first half of the century, the last century, but it was freedom of thought.

Now this is an enforced importance, the individual has had this importance forced upon him, you see? He doesn't like it either (something of the sort). Well, in this wise he then confuses data with problems, so it's trouble with data, trouble with problems and trouble all become the same, and they say, "Well, we'll just skip the whole thing, and we will no longer evaluate it."

They fought for and achieved freedom of thought. We merely have it in the law books in America, we do not have it in actual practice: freedom of thought; freedom to think; freedom to work in the area of one's interest.

This would be a very interesting experiment to take Black's Physics, elementary physics; I'm talking about real elementary physics, you know, and just sorting out all of the data in the book in a gradient scale; all of the laws and rules, and then writing a book which gave them in this order, and which gave them in stresses of importance and so forth to the degree that each one evaluated the other data, and where they were all discovered and found.

The American university has today become a pattern of the scholastic university and that, more than anything else, will whip American science before they finally get through.

Actually, the kingpin of this probably is "Conservation of energy." That probably is a king factor, and yet it's not really given that degree of it, but it winds through every physics experiment. It's obviously a datum which rides along with the pack, wherever you find the pack you'll find that idea too.

In the first place in the university they teach only those things which have already been found out. And if you teach them in such a way that nobody is permitted to think on them evermore, you of course will get a totally dead-ended scientific world.

Well, in separating data out in the mind and telling which is the most important and so on, has this liability: The mind is capable of two things which make it difficult to sort it out. One, it's capable of inventing data, that's a high level of capability, you see. So you never know quite when you're going to run on to an invented datum, so that gives a hazard to the game; and the other one – the other part of this as far as data – pure data is concerned, is that, one mind is more concentrated on any given data than any other mind, you see. So that we get an uneven concentration on data, we get an uneven agreement. Now, you have to go through that hedgerow in order to get up to the point to find out what datum is common to all minds? What idea is common to all minds? Well, the funny part of it is – it's different than you think, I think. This datum is that – that's common to all minds isn't any longer a datum, it's an isness, it's a thetan, it's a being.

Well, the only reason I bring that up is because we have a text here called Scientology 8-8008, and if you people think that I have the idea – of course I can tell you how to achieve a result with a preclear – but if you think I have an idea that nobody ever ought to think on the subject of the mind, he merely ought to read this and bow down, boy, you better change your mind. I really mean it. I really mean it.

Now, the definition of that was really the triumph of Scientology.

I will scold a staff auditor from departing from known procedure occasionally. I will. But only when he didn't get away with it.

Now, what this being is doing we already ran across and isolated out in Dianetics, and his most important datum is of course survival.

Therefore, I give you this, a definition of auditing which some of you have heard before but not all: auditing is what you can get away with.

Now that's just why it is. The – I don't know why he should be so – he can't do anything else; therefore how he concentrates upon surviving is rather interesting. You see a fellow concentrated on the one thing he can do. Sort of – sort of interesting.

Now, today we are entering a sphere of "processing by definition." Now, discovering some definitions for the mind and so forth was quite a trick. I would hate to think that those definitions would remain static and unaltered for the next five centuries, but they happen to be the highest definitions which we have at the moment which have a workability. And slavish following of a definition without ever questioning it, of course, never lets you find out the definition in the first place. You get the idea?

And as a matter of fact, he doesn't have to do anything to survive, which is very interesting. He doesn't have to take any real action. We see this in nearly every religious text. "The lilies of the field and so forth, they do not spin..." only I'm not so sure about that, I've seen them spinning, "... and neither do they weep." Or some other such – some other quotation.

Now, the last thing I ever intended was to overwhelm anyone with this particular subject, course of investigation. I never intended to overwhelm anybody with it. Do you understand that? That's quite distinct from many courses of investigation.

But an individual does not have to work to survive; that's a new idea, he has to work to have a game. That's entirely different. But the datum which has penetrated at least this society is that "You have to work to survive." Well, that's a basic alter-isness or a basic lie that continues all sorts of ideas in continuance.

Where it does not lead to freer thinkingness and enlightenment in the individual, I consider I have failed. Every once in a while somebody comes along and he says, "Ron" he says, "Why don't we put on a show with a few Operating Thetans and send a few rockets spinning around Earth, and blow up a few vases on the stage, you know "vases" we'll blow up "vases" they are more expensive than vases. And "Why – why don't we – why don't we get real spectacular and just impress the living daylights out of everybody. Why – why don't we do that?"

The truth of the matter is all that is wrong with a thetan is that he is surviving. That sounds like one of these miserable statements that proves itself by itself. The truth is that a thetan – difficulty is that he is a thetan. And there is unfortunately no escaping the fact that he is what he is.

Well, we don't do that because we're not nuts! That's what a crazy man does! He is so anxious to produce an effect that he wipes out everything and everybody. A man that would do that would act like a national government.

So number one data in any science of the mind comes about here on this one basis of "A thetan is a thetan." See, he is. The isness of a life-being, you see. That is the most important common denominator. It isn't walls, that's not common denominator to all worlds and lives, you see. It isn't – but the next thing about it is, is survival.

You can't talk to another nation; you've got to shoot 'em. You get the idea? Anybody who is crazy enough to think that he needs weapons, weapons, weapons, stacked all over the house before he can continue to exist is nuts! Because he is telling you that he cannot produce an effect without an arsenal!

Now brainwashing becomes very easy to understand if you understand the principle of survival. And the way to get this thetan in trouble is to make him do, and think he has to make an effort to do, the thing he is doing, and therefore he engages continuously in an effort, but he can't do anything else than what he is doing, but to tell him that he has to make an effort to do it is the biggest trick that can be played upon a living being. You got that? If you know that well, you really – you really got your wits wrapped around something. Now, that's more important than ice cream sodas and a lot of other things.

Now, it's all very well to say, "Well, all we have to do is just do a bunch of tricks and we'd have people flowing in from all directions and a great interest and so forth." Yes, we'd have overwhelmed people, and the people of Earth today are overwhelmed. And the more they are overwhelmed, the less they can think. The more they are overwhelmed, the less they can act. And the less they think and act, the less they can live. And no government to date has ever been able to afford a slave population.

But the funny part of it is that the evolutionist, the biologist, and all these other "gists" never isolated survival as the most important datum; they said, it was – "Survival was important." Even Darwin said, "Survival of the fittest."

Press relations staff prepared for me some very excellent data from direct source on the economics of Russia. They tell us conclusively that Russia's economic picture is so inflationary, and so poor that she must parasite off of new conquests continually in order to survive. She has to have a new Red China she can loot because she can't produce. She has produced a slave economy. Everybody's a slave.

I think at some other congress I have told the story of the "Survival of the fittest" already. Cat had nine kittens and one of them had fits and the eight didn't have fits, and the eight that didn't have fits died and that was "Survival of the fittest." Anyway. That's almost as important a datum as Darwin finally added up in his – in his evolution. "Survival of the fittest." That inferred at once that there was some kind of a thing that didn't survive.

Long since in Europe they learned that private enterprise was far more beneficial than a slave economy and therefore they let the slaves go. There was probably no other reason they let the slaves go. They found out that it was not efficient.

Well, a chair doesn't survive maybe – it gets broken up, a lot of things don't survive. Various forms don't survive.

And here's Russia pretending to hold up a light of hope for the world and supporting that light and providing its oil with the slavery of millions and the enslavement of more millions.

I am sorry I told you that bad joke – I've put a lot of you in misery and despondency. But it is still the best illustration I know of "The survival of the fittest." Makes the most sense. His difficulty, this thetan, is, here he is, and here's – he's doing something to do something that he can't do anything else than do. Do you get this as a supercomplication? He is making himself the effect of an action.

Now, this isn't merely a condemnatory political statement. It isn't a standard White House release on how bad it all is over there. Paul prepared this data rather – he prepared it very precisely; I am giving it straight off the pan. Russia is not in good economic condition at all; she cannot support herself internally because she is a slave economy. It's terribly important. Her inflation is far worse than ours, but you can measure the degree of disintegration of an economy by the amount of slavery introduced into it! And as a government becomes more and more anxious to enslave companies and people within its borders, it becomes less and less solvent and more and more inflated! It's a fascinating little gradient scale. We know about gradient scales but that's the way it goes. As slavery increases in a country, as freedom becomes less, inflation and other economic evils become more because slave peoples do not produce and free peoples do.

He says to himself "I am making myself survive." When as a matter of fact, all he has got to do is relax – and he'd survive.

It is a very, very serious adventure to embark upon the enslavement of a human being; that is probably the most dangerous venture that anybody ever embarked upon. To invite his cooperation is one thing, to enslave him is something else.

Well, therefore, survival isn't the most important thing in his framework; see, that's not the most important thing. We said it was very important and the common denominator of life in Dianetics, but it is not the most important thing in his framework. It must be that creating a difficulty is, so that he'll have some randomity or some activity; a game. And one of the best ways to phrase it is well, he wants a game; he wants problems and he wants games and he wants things to do.

What element is necessary in order to bring about slavery? The element necessary is unwilling and unknowing. You could call those two elements but they go hand in hand: Unknowing and unwilling service to the state.

So therefore, he does this incredible thing of making himself the effect of his own effort to survive and we call that a game.

You become adventurous in the field of slavery when you accept something that is unwillingly given; you have then become a partner to this deadly dwindling spiral. You have an instinctive reaction along this line.

Do you understand all there is to know about brainwashing is all you have to do is make somebody think he has to work hard and brace up in order to survive. That's the single-denominator trick that is used in all brainwashing and not even the Russki understands it. He works like mad to do all kinds of wild, weird things and hocus-pocus and soul-searching in order to get somebody brainwashed, and then he fails.

Somebody's mad when she cooks breakfast, let us say. You know, "There's your breakfast." You're a fool if you eat it. You will get into more trouble if you eat that breakfast. It's unwilling service.

Well, the only time he ever reached any goal or attained any success was when he simply made somebody survive harder. We get people suffering just from this.

Now in Scientology, we not only have the mission of liberation of intellect, we also have to overcome past enslavements on the part of an individual.

A guy walks into a camp where he is going to be brainwashed, they say "Hocus-pocus, fiddle-dee-dee, and we are going to upset all of you" and so forth, and the guy just says, "Well, I'll live through it!" Made him brace up to it. Brace up to what?

I really believe that relatively few new things have been developed in the field simply because of past habits on the part of auditors. After all, the grade school caught them early, high school and so forth. They are so used to studying that oddly enough I have not been able to lay down the pattern of a Greek Academy at the Academy. It's called the "Academy" because it hopefully expects someday to lay down a pattern of study. But an American today is not fitted for it; he cannot master it.

If you can make a thetan, brace up to it, Rahhhh! Why you've really done something. See? That's really doing something. But he does it because he wants a game. Because at once he wants randomity and activity, that he is doing a thing that he can do and he can't do anything else but do, and he couldn't anything else but do if he tried; he therefore tries, and this folds back on itself sufficiently to make a complication that not even he could possibly understand. He has said for many centuries, and then we stuck our toe out and tripped him. But that's what he's doing.

All a Greek Academy did was sit around – all the Instructors did was sit around and wait for the students to ask questions. When the students asked questions, the Instructor told them to think about it. The simplest sort of an Academy you ever heard of; That was about the total of it's curriculum.

Well, sorting out data then, what is the most important of this data? And it's not new at all – it's something that's quite old, but he has to take an action, and the first action he takes, even above games, is to not-know everything.

An American is so well indoctrinated into the idea of classrooms, schedules, Instructors, lectures and so forth, that he has – you can't break him out of it! It's a horrible task! He says, "If I'm going to be instructed then it will have to be on this pattern." And he never realizes that the pattern is one of the most artificial patterns you ever heard of. It is fantastically artificial!

Now, if we look this over we don't particularly care about the numbers involved but we have this being, who cannot help but survive, and there is something else he cannot help but do, there's one thing he can't help but do and that's know! How a man has to work to keep from knowing something, is represented by the number of people who wanted their memories erased in Dianetics. They wanted their memories erased! Well, that's pretty wild.

It's awfully hard to explain to somebody here or in England how wild and arbitrary the Anglo-American educational system is. Because every – all these arbitraries he accepts as usual. Now, I won't go into or try to do it here, not because you couldn't grasp it because you could. But the point is that it's a very odd thing to have an Instructor who tells you something. That's odd! It's a very odd thing to have a pupil who doesn't want to know and who is brought to the Academy by his desire to know; that's an oddity. You mean somebody is going to give you some students who don't want to know. Oh, no! That's a thing you could shudder over. And yet they assembly line them into the modern university five hundred abreast. They don't want to know. What they want's a credit. A total artificial knowingness.

So he has to take an action to get all this going.

And if you look over the educational system that we have, you will discover that it seems usual to you in its – most of its parts. Most of its parts seem usual.

Now, we have a thetan knowing everything, then let's assume these numbers are in the lines of the action taken; we'll just assume this being who knows or potentially knows everything, now what action does he have to take? And he has to take this action, now we've known this for a long time, but we know some new things about it he has to not-know; that's the first thing he has to done – do in order to get a game on the road, he has to not-know.

And I'll give you a little mental exercise which is quite amusing. Try to figure out how else it could be done or try to figure out some other way to approach the same goal. And you'll all of a sudden find that we are saddled with a number of scholastic data which tend to freeze thinkingness, and because they are on the subject of education themselves, then they do impede education. Until we get rid of a great many of those data in the individual he can't learn. He cannot learn; he can memorize.

You get the – what'd they call that outfit down there the Department of the Defense of the Pentagon? The place that's defending the Pentagon down there. There's an outfit down there, I don't know what its name is, but they have a project running on how to mind read the Russians. They've had it going for about a year, and they're investing large sums of money and all kinds of things on how to read the minds of the Russian general staff. They've made an unreasonable assumption, they have assumed the Russian general staff had minds. When I can tell you definitely that they were chosen because they did not, just like any other general.

Now, data is something one uses to think with. It isn't thinking. And when the data becomes a substitute for thinking we have frozen the whole forward progress of education.

Now, I know that's nasty words, but I resigned a long time ago, and those of you who are still connected with the service listening to me can shut your ears at that point, you don't have to listen to it, but I do not respect these guys who ride forward without ever thinking or doing anything. That I can't see.

A "datum" is something you think with; it is not thought. A "definition" is something with which to think!

This next thing he has to do is find something to know. Now, that's quite weird. You look at this beast called a thetan and he's saying, "Well – it's all blank." Incidentally it's the easiest thing he does. Boy he can do that just like that! On death, an individual goes out the back of his head and he says at once – not at once, he sometimes drifts around for months and bothers people. But he says eventually at the moment of the next assumption when he picks up another baby, he says, "That's it, not-know!" Boy is he stupid! until some auditor gets his hands on him and says, "What is the matter with your leg?" And he answers unthinkingly, if at great length of time into processing, "Well, it got shot off at the Battle of Gettysburg." He didn't not-know all of his experience thoroughly – he just made a postulate that he not-knew so that he wouldn't think about it, but it's still effective on him, which is all part of a game.

Now, I have about four or five new definitions, action definitions in Scientology – I gave you one of them last night. I found out that if you process toward Operating Thetan you made a Clear – that's just a way-stop, so it's very easy. But if you try to make a Clear and process against the definition of Clear, you don't make it which is rather fascinating mental exercise all by itself

Now, he doesn't even not-know what he knows, you know? But he knows he doesn't even know what he's not-known. Boy, is he in a confusion.

But the definition of an Operating Thetan is as follows: A thetan who can be willing and knowing cause over life, matter, energy, space and time. Knowing and willing cause.

Now, we get down here, and this is – this is old hat to a lot of you but we've got some new angles on it. The human conversation concerning this action is to forget. Forgettingness. He knew everything, and then he not-knew, he said, "I don't know anything – I'm stupid – I'm gonna run for Congress." Not-know everything. Now he has to find something to know, so he goes around and picks up something that he mocked up anyhow probably, and he says, "What's this? What's this? Got a black line going down, see here, what's this?" Waits for his mother to come along and say, "Junior, that's a pencil." And then he looks up with stupid innocence and he says, "A pencil. A pencil." He says, "What do you do with it Mama?"

That tells you that an aberrated person is somebody who is unwilling or unknowing effect of life, matter, energy, space and time.

So as we come down from the top of total knowingness, we get the first postulate of not-know, then we get this postulate of know, then we get this postulate of forget. Well now you have to forget something that you knew in this special category. This is getting kind of complicated, but you stay with me here. In other words, you don't forget your total knowingness, that's different see? You only can forget something you knew specially like, "What is a pencil?" That's forgettingness. And you can only remember – this is what becomes very funny – you can only remember what you have forgotten.

Now, if your mind was totally free and if all its investigation summed up to that definition, if you had wide freedom of thought in this, if you hadn't been told you shouldn't think about this at all, you wouldn't need any processes. You'd process straight by definition. And I've been doing that for quite a little while with some rather fabulous results. I just take the definition and go ahead with it.

Now these actions – actually have to be undertaken in this order to find out what to remember. You see this guy saying, "Let me see, what was his name? I know I can remember it." It's very funny because he's had to forget it, he's had to know it as something special, and that had to be out of the total bin of not-know in order to accomplish the action at all.

Now, we don't find this processing by definition new. Anybody that's been near an ACC knows all about processing by definition; they know something about it. The idea that you take the definition and then you audit with that definition in mind and the definition provides a pivot or a stable datum around which auditing occurs. You could take an E-Meter and merely find wherever the fellow is an unknowing or unthinking or unwilling effect and ask him some questions about it until he made up his mind he could do something to it or at it! And you'd free him, free him, free him.

So therefore, the psychologist of olden days said, "People forgot and remembered." And they simply said that, "He remembered and he forgot." And they even said, "That memory had to do with remembering and forgetting" and so forth and this didn't have anything to do with it. "Memory" was an artificiality with which he assisted himself to know what he had not-known, so that he wouldn't know everything, so he'd have a game.

All processes do evidently is assist that process. Now, because the material universe is the most constant effect upon the person – it creates the most constant effect upon a person evidently – objective processes for that reason only then reach the furthest in auditing. And we get processes which are listed here in this ACC manual; this ACC Preparatory Manual and we get the "Summary Research" project here. And it tells you some interesting things that a poll of auditors gave us these processes: Havingness of several varieties, the best results on self. This was their own subjective reality on processing. They've gotten the best results on self by having been run on Havingness; 8-C; Opening Procedure by Duplication; Start, Change and Stop; Waterloo Station; Two-way Comm and Creative Processing and Problems of Comparable Magnitude.

Now, a being that knows everything can't have a game. You get out here opposing a football team and you know everything they're going to do and every signal they are going to call and everywhere they're going, boy, you – they just won't play with you anymore, that's all, you're not gonna have a game. You got to figure it all out. And you have to get in there and pitch one way or the other and you have to put up this terrific facade of not-knowing anything about it.

They had achieved the best results on preclears with the following processes: Havingness, 8-C, SCS, Inventing Problems, Opening Procedure by Duplication, Two-way Communication, and Locational Processing.

And science, as one of our very good friends said the other day, "You have to mock it up so that you can find out about it." "Science is the process of mocking it up so that you can study it," you know? And you get into certain rules and barriers and if you put up enough barriers why you're all set, because you don't dare peek around the corners of these barriers, because you'll see what's on the other side. It's a very complicated game.

Nearly all of those are objective except Creative Processing, and Creative Processing had some small liabilities, which have now been overcome. So it would take a higher level there had the data been available.

It's like putting a whole bunch of data into an ENIAC or a UNIVAC, you see, putting in their data cards in the banks nicely associated, and then asking it questions. Boy, that's weird, that is a weird one. Now, that's the weirdest of weirds. How would you possibly ever get anything out of it but the data you had put into it?

Well, that's an interesting number of processes, isn't it? Do you know what they add up to? How can you make a preclear willing to affect MEST? How can you make a person willing to have an effect on the wall? If the wall has him trapped, then how can you make him willing to have an effect on the wall?

Mathematics is kind of that way, it's kind of a fraud. But then a thetan is doing these fraudulent things all the time, so it consider – he considers that just another game. A fellow says, "I think I'll go study mathematics." And he studies for forty years or however long they stay in school now and since the last appropriation – and he finally comes up with a truism which he knew when he was three anyhow. Of course, it's in a complicated communicable form and that makes something to talk about and he has a game and he draws his pay and other people take conclusions off it.

And we get something that is so sweeping it rather staggers one and one reaches back and hurriedly clutches to the commands of 8-C. We've just asked somebody to be God! We said, "How could you have an effect on the wall?" Well, let's just carry that up to its reductio ad absurdum, "How do you build one that everybody can see?"

The mathematics they do in aerodynamics is one of the wildest things you ever want to – they take the formulas of the airfoils, and the formulas of the propellers, you see? And they mark up the calculus formulas and so forth after they have built the foil and the propeller, you see? And then the mathematics individual over here in one bureau, sends the formulas over, and then the fellow in the other bureau or where they're supposed to take the formulas apart and build the propeller and the airfoil. Fortunately down in the shipping room they have a couple of guys that wear overalls that drag the airfoils and propellers over to be copied! That's, by the way, true.

And if I remember rightly, we used to teach people that was what God did? "God created this universe," we said. And then we got into the imponderable question of "Who is God?" "God is that being who has a total effect on you." Church definition from way back when. "God is that being who knows where you are, and knows what you are doing, directs it, fixes it up, puts all of the tightrope across the sidewalk, slips the ground glass in the salad, and God's the boy!" Man, is he a total effect on you! And you can't do anything to God, so you'd better obey him! Well, I can tell you directly how you find out who and where God is.

It's almost impossible to take the complete cross section of an airfoil. They have the mathematics for it but it'll fill pages sometimes. So the mechanics do all the work and the mathematicians are sitting up there having a ball, but the mechanics fortunately don't pay any attention to the mathematicians. It's quite interesting.

There is no sense in going through a bunch of processes called religion to discover where God is. Just figure out the effects you could have on God and you've got it made.

There are fields in which mathematics do work; there's fields of finance; you can fool anybody. The Secretary of the Treasury can say, "Well, the debit balance of this month added to the unk-balance of the other month and cross-sectioned into supply and demand curve which has just come through from the 'I Will Arise Society' tells us conclusively that we are in for a – what did you say you wanted to have happen this month, Joe?" Joe says, "I want an inflation." The guy says, "It will finally wind up in an inflation."

But anything which you must not touch and upon which you are not supposed to have any effect at all will sooner or later make you the unwilling or unknowing effect of it. Right? And if I tell you, "Under no circumstances should you alter, change, think about, Scientology" – dizzz – all I have done is set up another monster. Right?

Somewhere along the line a thetan has to shove the datum in himself, and he writes these complicated formulas and then shoves the datum in suddenly hoping that nobody noticed. And that's what he is doing here.

And in a world that is all too prone to build Frankensteins, we don't need another one!

He simultaneously has to do these three things so he can remember anything. Therefore, if you ask somebody, "Tell me something you wouldn't mind forgetting?" You are asking him a senior process to remembering. The funny part of it is if you'd ask somebody to "Look around and find something he could know?" we've got a second postulate situation here, it still works a little bit better than remember, you know? "Something you could know about that thing?" but it still doesn't wipe out this.

Right now we have national governments building things upon which you can have no effect. We call those things "weapons." What effect could you have on an A-bomb? Well, of course, you say, "Well, an OT could have an effect on an A-bomb." And right away you've loosened your thinkingness. You've got a point of entrance.

And we get this fantastic state of affairs, we get the anatomy of amnesia. Now, you've all heard all of this but you haven't heard about amnesia.

What is "hope?" Hope is simply a future possibility that one might have an effect on something and is a substitute for being able to have it on something now.

"Amnesia" is that game which a thetan plays when he plays that game. Definition. Here's this fellow, he's a black thetan, he's saying – his highest piece of knowledge he says is, "Huh?" The biggest knowledge he has, see? Not even – what wall or anything, see, he's in a total not-know. Get that, he was in a state that he knew everything, potentially could know anything, and then he had to drop into this state of not-knowing everything. Well, this "not-knowing everything" is a total amnesia. Don't you see? That's just a wipeout.

Now, what do we mean by effect?

Now how could it fly out of his control? We have to look up what we knew as dichotomies several years ago, and we get this gorgeous state of affairs of the doubtful person; we get the anatomy of uncertainty, and the "anatomy of uncertainty" is a very easy thing. Uncertainty is the certainty of not-know counterposed against, down here, the certainty of know.

Awful lot of people around get confused with the Scientology definitions of cause and effect because cause and effect has always been around, and people have always been describing it, and we read in every philosophic text "Cause and effect." And they never say "cause and effect" in a philosophic text. It's always "cause and effect."

These two things interlock with a relatively equal certainty, you have a maybe. All maybes are developed from two positives.

And people get this nebulous idea of bruuurr and druull and we don't quite, and so on. Well, the idea in Scientology is too simple, when we say cause it means identity or point, either one, of impulse whether that impulse is thought or a pellet or a custard pie or anything else.

Now, we thought in the old days that something and nothing – something and nothing made the biggest maybe. Well, that really doesn't make the biggest maybe, it makes a trapped thetan; it's still a big thing but it makes a trapped thetan. See? He's something but he's nothing, and he might be something but he'd better not be something, and the something is something, and the nothing is nothing, and he finally winds up with "Who am I anyhow?" And most of you people asked yourself that when you were kids, you said, "Who am I?" Your mother called you one day or something like that and you had this fantastic feeling like you might know who you were, but you weren't the person that was just called, you were somebody else.

Here's somebody, he throws a custard pie. He's cause.

Well, that isn't caused, by the way, by any lapse of memory or any other thing that's very special. It's simply caused by the something-nothingness of identity. He is really nothing, with an adopted something, and he gets locked up between the two certainties. Now, he has to be certain he is nothing and certain he is something before he can "maybe" on it. You got the idea?

Now, we attach to that shame, blame and regret. But those are opinions of cause, and we didn't talk about the opinions. You have to be able to think of cause without thinking of opinions of cause before you can think about cause. It is neither bad nor good or effective or ineffective or anything else; it's merely cause as you look at it.

This, then, is the anatomy of amnesia and also the anatomy of doubt. Now we get a fellow who is stuck on this total not-know, we get an amnesia. When we get him here into a total know, he knows data, but, he isn't. See? He's got all this data he could know but he isn't. You see that? He would have to not-know all of his data and then not-know, and then wipe out the not-know in order to get back up here into a native state.

Now, as we trace down this mechanism, the bullet goes across space and hits somebody. All right, to define cause there – we used to be working with this a long time ago -but to define cause there, is it the bullet? Is it the powder? Is it the priming cap? Is it the barrel of the gun? Is it the hammer? Is it the trigger? Is it the gun itself? Is it the fellow's shoulder? Is it his body? See what we're doing here, we're backing up cause as the point of impulse. Is it the fellow's mind? Is it the person himself or is it his environment? Pzhhht. Well, man, that's one where we draw a line; I just wanted to make sure you understood that. It's one where we draw a line in Scientology; in Dianetics we were – rather recklessly let the environment do all the causing.

Now, the way this follows here is, this individual who gets cross between a not-know and a know is in maybe, and you think maybe I am just straining at it, but the truth of the matter is that's the state that most scientists are in today.

It tells you, then, that a person can be cause who can accept some responsibility for his own actions. Otherwise he is only effect even if he acts like he's being cause. So the fellow who acts like he's being cause and the fellow who is being cause are two different guys. One is knowing cause and the other's unknowing cause. He says "the environment did it" but he did it! So therefore, it's unknowing cause, isn't it?

It has become conventional to be doubtful. That is actually just a mocked-up convention. A fellow is a scientist, he mustn't be sure, he must hang between these two things.

Well, so we get an order in the middle of the definition then, there is such a thing as unwilling and unknowing cause. And we get into the field of weapons.

And you've seen a tremendous number of cases that you couldn't develop any certainty in. These fellows, they just couldn't develop certainty in them.

Hardly any soldier isn't slightly unwilling, and every soldier is unknowing, on the subject of the cause of weapons. He has to be. You let a sniper go and inspect his victims and rest their head on his folded up blouse and take the – as he did in "All Quiet on the Western Front" – take out the pictures of the wife and kids out of the fellow's blouse, he won't shoot any more soldiers; he will always manage to miss. See, he didn't know what he was causing and therefore realized that he had been "unknowing cause" of a great deal of suffering which went far beyond the person he had just shot. Do you get the idea?

"Are you any better?" you'd say. "Well..." "Well, do you feel any different?" "Hmm, well, it's hard to tell this early," he would say, from the first examination the doctor gave his mother in prenatal bank. And you say "Well, is there any change? Are you more certain of things than you were before?" "Well, that's hard to tell. I – I – that's hard to tell..." And so on. "Well, do you feel any better? Are you glad you were processed?" "Well, I don't know – uh – it could be. There's undoubt- I am not saying that there isn't some benefit connected with it but..."

And so we reach the field of morality with regard to cause. Now, there's morality and ethics and so forth.

You, you chump! have always thought that this stemmed perhaps from your inadequacy or that you hadn't done anything for the case. Well, supposing this fellow knew he was a bedpost. Ah, you hadn't looked at knowingness as maybe being screwy! He knows he's a bedpost, and you processed him for a while and he wasn't so sure he was a bedpost!

But the definition of cause is simply cause. It doesn't have anything much to do with whether it's good or bad or moral or immoral or anything else; it is simply cause.

Now, at once you can see that a fellow moved up into maybe, in this class, would be better. Wouldn't he? He'd be better. Then why do you think he is worse if he can't tell you at once that he feels better or is better because of Scientology or what you did for him? You haven't really investigated what he really knew he was; he might have known he was a dog, a heel. You know? And you've moved him up maybe into "maybe he was a dog – maybe he was a heel – maybe he could repress a bark now." See, you've actually moved him upstairs to some slight degree.

Now, you can have opinions about that cause, and you can see what kind of causes are successful and what kind of causes are not, but it doesn't alter our definition of cause, which is just merely "the point of impulse."

All right, if that's the case, then, what do you have to do to get people off these total knowingnesses? You know, I knew a fellow had a fatal malady, utterly fatal, he was absolutely, unquestionably sure that his name was Bill Jones! And a small amount of work on the E-Meter demonstrated conclusively that he had had several thousand names in the last few years, but he was sure in this life that his name was Bill Jones, absolutely sure that his name was Bill Jones, which is very silly because he was the effect of his name; he was because he had a name; his identity was his name, and he had no other livingness.

Now, when we run cause, we, of course – very few people, particularly people who are badly spun in can envision this other point: If there is a cause then there is an effect. Horrible enough that's true, even if it's only the cause-point.

Now, that is sort of reducing it down to a reductio ad absurdum, isn't it. A fellow who knows that his name is conclusively Bill Jones, is stringing an interesting story. He's overlooking the name that – the fact that the last life his name was Pete Simons, and in the life before, why, his name was Bessie Alcove. He sometimes tried to escape this by telling you he is Judas Iscariot or something of the sort. I don't buy this; there isn't anybody going to be a martyr to that extent around our organization. We ought to be having people come up here in the next generation that will be trying to tell us they're Will Menninger, just to get some attention, just to have a game.

Did you ever have a preclear here – did you have a preclear that says, "Well, every time I get to feeling better I invalidate myself." Did you ever have anybody do that?

How do you undo this thing? Well, it's undone on the dichotomy principle which you will read about in Scientology 8-8008 which you already know about, it is "dichotomy." It's a split in between.

Well, you get this sort of a picture here. You get this picture very clearly. You get an individual who is source-point here: A black thetan, and he has a cause here – line, but it comes around and hits him. He cannot conceive of an effect: All causes are effects, all effects are causes. He's got causes and effects all balled up here. Now, to try to teach this person the definition of cause and effect gives him the idea that he's always on the same spot with regard to cause and effect. Now, this is an overt act-motivator sequence: If you shoot somebody else you're shot.

An individual who has an absolute certainty, is only all right, if he himself contributed to the certainty, being certain. There has to be some self-determinism in this certainty; in other words, he had to determine its certainty; it can't be an other-determined certainty, totally. Don't you see?

So to enforce morality people in past societies or this one have carefully confused cause and effect until it works out that they are confused. "Do not send to find for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." Well, that's one that tells everybody that they are an effect of everything and every action. Now, this is not necessarily true but only in a limited sense it is factual that you can not have violent causes all through a society and expect it to live on the third dynamic. It all falls off to the first, or like Rome, goes totally to the eighth.

That's very easy to understand. We have a little boy and we tell him, "You're a bad boy." And as any normal child will do, he objects to being called bad. You call my kids bad and they just start fighting right now – they won't fight about anything except being called bad – and they won't take it, and they won't stand for it; and they stamp their feet and look at you and sneer and cry and raise the devil about it. They've had to get various maids in line and so forth. These maids would say, "Well, you are a bad girl, you broke that," or "You are a bad boy, you broke that." And these kids, just sweet and everything is fine, they never take off on any other subject; on this one they just say rgghh-rgghh – they're ready to go – they won't take it.

So here's cause, here's effect, and in Scientology we simply mean cause-distance-effect; cause-distance-effect.

All right, we take some kid and this kid's saying, "No, I am not a bad boy." And we say, "You are a bad boy, you know it." See? And he says "No! I am not!" And you say bing! Bam! You are just changing him on an inversion – you're taking his determinism and substituting for it your determinism. Do you get the idea? Substitute one person's determinism for another person's determinism, and then he isn't himself anymore and then he has a total knowingness on the subject of being a bad boy and eventually gets arrested and goes to jail, which is, I guess, what lots of American mothers want.

Now, I showed you here that the cause-point can be the effect-point too, but we still have cause and effect. Now, an individual could have all effects be all effects in some balled-up fashion, but we'd have "A = A = A" or the old identification. "All effects are all effects." We could have it "all causes are all causes" and get it just as crazy.

You convince somebody he is bad, and that he never did anything good in his life, why you've got it made – there you have introduced a total knowingness.

Until we get these two things separated, cause and effect, we can not have sanity. People have them so confused that the public at large could probably not even vaguely live with this datum. Causes are causes and effects are effects, and causes aren't effects and effects are not effects that are causes.

Now, you could see that there are certain knowingnesses then that – ... which deserve to be erased, shall we say, that there might be some benefit to the society to erase some of these totally positive certainties.

What you've got here primarily is simply this one fact: that an effect is an effect; a cause is a cause. And we have this thing called "association" and we come to one of the later discoveries of Scientology. This has occurred and it doesn't seem much-like much of a discovery, it's just like this definition of Operating Thetan, it's not much of a discovery, just not much of a discovery, that's all. It's too brief. Let's see how I can drag this out so you'll think it's more important. Add mass and time to it, you'll think it is important.

Now, we could go whole-hog and say all certainties are bad. That'd be a good way to do, wouldn't it? It's always bad to be certain! Well, we will leave this to the modern physicist, the modern biologist, we'll let them indulge in this.

It's simply this: Association is the chain of cause and effect, but a close association is cause and effect close together. Close association: Cause and effect; they are very close together.

The way to write a scientific paper: "Well, I don't mean to be didactic, but it seems to me after a considerable amount of thought, of course this might be refuted many times and Professor Whump says otherwise, but I have a feeling that, due to the fact that I made 8,264 experiments which are all the same, that it seems to me – of course, I am perfectly prepared to change my mind about this at any time – that A equals Z in this particular experiment." And that's a qualified statement.

Let's be – let's be much more useful with this datum. Association means only this and we at once discover why Havingness works. Association is theta with MEST, spirit with matter. As a being becomes unwilling to associate with the material world he becomes entrapped in it, and all you are running out of a preclear or running into a preclear is simply a willingness to associate theta with MEST. And we get all the old theories in Science of Survival have suddenly popped up with this new simplicity and it is simply this simplicity: It's just theta associates itself with MEST, and when it does it unwillingly or unknowingly it becomes upset and considers itself trapped. That is all association is.

If you don't write scientific papers in that tone, you are disqualified – they scratch you off the track sheet or something of the sort or whatever they do in science. And you have to be uncertain. You have to be here. Well now that's quite an operation, here, that's a – that's an awful place to be, and yet its composite is a know and a not-know.

Thought association of thought associated with thought, of object with object or anything else is basically this association of life with the physical universe.

Well, let me – let me give you this. What is perception? What is perception? Good, I am glad you all know! Because I don't!

Now, that sounds too sweeping and I – but I wouldn't say it if it didn't work in processing.

I don't see how those light waves hitting an eyeball can do anything.

You can simply ask an individual to associate thought with matter and strange things will occur. Now, at once you alert to some old-time processes like "Put pain in the walls." You just have this fellow putting pain in the walls round and round and round. "Put unconsciousness in the walls." They don't work so well as "Put ARC in the walls." You have a fellow put ARC in the walls. In other words, you put thought – you give him the exercise of putting thought with matter, thought with space, thought with time. You give him these exercises and he eventually works out his unwillingnesses, achieves his willingnesses and so goes up scale on the definition of Operating Thetan. That's why these objective processes work.

Now, a psychologist wrote in his textbooks way back there that "light waves entered the eye and went on down the optic nerve and hit a screen back here somewhere." Well, I've said that's good, that's fine, what looks at the screen? "Oh," he says, "There's another screen right in front of it that catches the image." "Now, wait a minute. All right there's this other screen but what gets that screen?" Well, if he was forced, he would say, "Well, the light comes in and reflects on this screen. That screen stops it. Then this screen looks at that screen and so you have vision.” "No, no! This screen looks at that screen, but you'd have to have this screen look at that screen and then you'd have to have this screen look at that screen, and this screen look at that screen. Hey! Who is looking at anything around here?"

Now, you could take somebody out and say, "What thought would you be willing to put in that person over there?" And you'd exteriorize him. In working out associations do not try to work out association of thought with thought because it doesn't process! Don't process thoughts versus thoughts. Do you follow this? Because thoughts can't get entangled with thoughts! They will stay separate as long as the factor of space is not entered into them.

And as far as we chase down the line, we cannot find the final screen for a thetan to look at because we doubt that he looks at any. Where is the final screen that stops the light? Now, there is an interesting scientific question, because the thetan isn't, in terms of a screen. He is basically, so far as matter, energy, space and time is concerned, a nothingness, but only as far as they are concerned. Does he have a screen in himself that he himself looks at? Oh, but that's very easy, you say he just stands out here and he looks at the wall, and there it is, you know, he looks at the wall, there it is. That's all!

So, we have matter, energy, space and time having to intervene amongst the thoughts and we get association. Association, then, is not bad, thetan to thetan, but becomes rather intricately upsetting when you get thought to matter, thought to space, thought to time. And from these things all associations become identifications and we have an engram can be an engram, an aberrated thought can be an aberrated thought. An aberrated mind can only be an aberrated mind if the thought is tangled up with the mind and the energy in the mind, you might say, in such a way as to make the person believe the mind is talking at him and he becomes the effect of it.

I don't know that it's all. I've looked over perception, wavelength, mass, inertia, speed of light, bugger factors and every other thing connected with it, and I still can't figure out how anybody could see anything, or anything could ever transfer over to anything else so as to be observed.

So what is association? Association is a proximity of thought with matter. It's a proximity of thought with matter. What's identification? Well, "thought is matter" is identification.

And I think that if you follow this out and you do some small percentage of work on it that I have done, I think you would agree with me, that nothing could ever see anything. It's quite weird.

Now, let's invert and let's just go down scale, clear down here at the bottom of the dial and we get dialectic materialism: all thought comes from matter. Now, you're probably not – don't realize that but all, I mean, this is a subject that is taught in most universities called psychology – I mean, dialectic materialism. All thought comes from matter. Thought is the product of any two or more – two or more forces, I think states it better than they do. All thought is the product of two or more forces in opposition or something like that.

Probably the back wall of a motion picture theater, if it had a reflective mirror in it could see the picture that was going on in the screen. I know we explain it by random optics, do we explain it by this, and it all takes a screen that something sooner or later has got to look at. And there's no sense if we can't look straight at that screen up there, then why have another screen for it to reflect on?

Of course, reactively you can work with that as a principle providing you don't believe it. Thought does not come from matter. Thought is thought and matter is matter.

I found out something about my eyeballs the other day; it was very interesting. I was trying to look through my head, and I said, "You know, I could see through my head all right if those stoppers weren't in the two holes in the skull!" And I didn't realize that I had said anything peculiar, you know, when you are being processed, you get kind of anaten and stupid. And I was trying to figure out some way where I could get these stoppers aside so I could see through my head.

Now, we see here a pillar and that has a shape, so thought has shaped the pillar, but the word "pillar," the thought "pillar," the use "pillar" are not "pillar!"

Well, seeing through something is an interesting thing, since I don't think that has much to do with it either. I don't know how a fellow sees a mock-up if he depends on wavelengths. And having been wooed into this field with wavelengths, I do not now know, that there are any such things. Science is all falling all over itself wondering, where these – you know, "What's the mass of the wall? And what's its velocity? And what's its this? And what's its that? And what are its basic rules?" and so on. And they get down and they say, "What is the mass of the electron? And how many skins does it have around it?" And, oh wow! They are getting down to where they are subdividing the subdivisible and the indivisible becomes supersubdivisible and here we go. And they are looking into things to find out little things that go wiggle-wiggle. And we have a wonderful time, it's quite a game, except I don't know that there's any perception possible. See? I don't know that any of the laws of the physical universe account for you sitting there, seeing me standing here. I don't know that they could account for it.

General semantics tried to say something like this. It didn't do a bad job of it but didn't have much use for it either because they said that, "two angels could not stand in the same space." And they can.

And so therefore, I've had to go overboard and conclude that all perception is knowingness. Come on, catch up!

So, in processing, all we are trying to do is to free the thinkingness of the individual. That is all we are trying to do. Therefore the goal of all processing is freedom. We cannot improve anybody unless we free his thinkingness, we free his ability to think.

Now, that alone would require no perceptions. That is to say, it wouldn't require lights and this and that. You'd have to know that a light was on and know that you couldn't see unless a light was on. Do you get the idea? Hum? You'd have to know that a wall was there, and know that other people knew that a wall was there. You got it?

Therefore we must accustom him to associating thought with matter, thought with space, thought with time, thought with energy. Not forbid it like the mystic, not cancel it out entirely like the Tibetan, but actually, factually make it possible for him to do this without feeling he is being murdered by it. To associate thought with matter, energy, space or time, freely and knowingly, is to bring an individual up to a point where he can be cause over matter, energy, space and time!

And we go round and round and round on this and we finally only then turn up with this idea of perception, but it must be alone an idea. Now, what's the proof of this pudding? It's not hash, that's physics; it's pudding. What's the proof of this pudding. Simple.

And when he can do that he can be free! He is never free when he refuses to confront matter, energy, space and time. Then he's a slave, and that's the operation that's happened to him.

Can you permanently improve somebody's eyesight by handling optics alone? No. But I'll tell you, you can certainly change the living daylights out of his eyesight if you can change his knowingness. Only that do I know of as an ability to change eyesight.

Everybody says, "You've got to work!" I don't know what's wrong with work; work is just a sort of a – of a heavy association of thought with matter – usually all work is. If you make him an unwilling worker, then he won't do it and he becomes incapable of doing it and you have the basis of a slave state.

Now look! This opens up the doors, so wide, to speculation, that we almost look at a brand-new subject in Scientology. See? We just drop all this junk called physics, it was a good pretense, but a game while it lasted, and we enter on a much more adventurous game. How does a thetan become MEST-like? By becoming known of course.

But a preclear is not cause across the boards if anywhere he's an unwilling and unknowing effect. Now remember, he can be the effect of anything as long as he is not an unwilling or an unknowing effect. And that's the one thing we mustn't forget in Scientology. We're not trying to say, "Don't ever be at effect." We're saying, "If you're at effect know what it is."

So how would we reduce weight? By convincing him he could be less well known! He didn't need that much identity! You got it? Oh, this gets wild, see? You can get spooky about this too, but this accounts for space.

Therefore we can disseminate Scientology; therefore I can tell you this material without liability because you're here by choice; I am here by choice; we're discussing these things by choice because we are interested.

Now, you always think of an idea going across space, but I don't know that space exists beyond a viewpoint of dimension. But is there something else above viewpoint of dimension? And I can give this congress a new definition for "space." It's knowing it is there. That's silly, but look how well you have to be able to receive in order to quote "perceive." Man, do you have to be willing to be an effect in order to perceive. Hum. Fascinating.

The day it becomes a vital subject that we must have a credit in, Scientology becomes a slave subject.

That tells us the fellow who "cannot at any time be an effect because being an effect is too horrible so he always has to be at cause," that computation you know. A fellow says, "I have got to shoot everybody because it's too horrible to be shot. You know, and they'll all think it's horrible, and so they won't try to get around me, and therefore I can be cause!" Everybody leaves him alone after a while. He's not cause or effect either. But he's got to be this obsessive, terrific – make a terrific impression! Beat everybody's head in! Kill everybody! Bomb everybody with atom bombs! You know, a federal government. Got to make this big effect!

So I ask you, don't ever let it happen.

We know, objectively and definitely, that his own idea of perception is terrible! And we have a gradient scale here of the idea of perception, graded against the idea of satisfactory effect.

Thank you.

Now, if an individual has – can create his idea of a satisfactory effect is touching somebody's shoulder lightly, see, "Hi, Joe." Joe will say, "I am okay." This is a satisfactory effect, the fellow says, "Well, I have done all right today, I have made an effect on Joe." You get the idea? Well, this fellow can see! He can look!

But when his idea of a satisfactory effect is – Bikini, he says, "What wall? What wall? What atom? What – what textbook? How are you, General Smedley? I mean, Corporal Smith." He is a "What wall case!" See? "Got to – got to blow everything up, you know." He can't see.

Well, now you could say that is all explained in cause and effect and perception. But we can't explain perception, so we would have to say it's knowingness.

In other words, this fellow must have an insignificant idea of himself, if he has to do so much over here, to make these people over here know he's here! Have you got it? So we might get something very interesting, we might just start writing letters to congressman and State Department and so forth, saying, "Russia knows you are there. Russia knows you are there." "Russia knows you are there." And that is the magic clue you see, they're not sure.

Or you could say, "You're doing all right. Nobody's being critical of you. You're okay; we know you are all right. We know you're okay." You get the idea? Then they don't have to make these fantastic effects on everybody! See?

You could either build up, we say, "their opinion of themselves," no, build up the idea in their minds that we know they're there. That would build up self-confidence in the person and make it unnecessary for him to render these smashing effects that kill everything! See? Or, we could tell him that this thing he is going to smash knows he's there. It would be in the realm of knowingness.

But knowingness, we see very clearly is totally pinned down by not-knowingness. The fellow vigorously not-knew everything in the first place so he could have a game, and then he found some things he could know. So we find the workability of a process which is already covered and that process is the Waterloo Station – old Waterloo Station. And we found out that people's perception and their ARC and all kinds of things came up scale when we asked them to, "Go around and take a look at things and not-know certain things about them." You know, "Look at that body and not-know it has a head."

Well, this raised knowingness. I talked to you before about communication, if a fellow didn't already telepath to you what he was thinking about, then you would never find out by the sound wave. And in view of the fact that this knowingness is not a communication across space, what do we have here? We have this fantastic thing: There is no space to know across, if space itself is a knowingness. Wow! Where are we going here? We are going to telepathy!

And I tell guys around the operation all the time, "My crystal ball says so and so." They seldom argue with me. And once upon a time I had a – had a hole in a chart table where the chronometers belonged and I had them elsewhere and I put a goldfish bowl upside down under there so I'd have a crystal ball so I could tell where our location was. An old admiral came in who was traveling with us, and he was trying to be companionable, and he says, "Well, navigator," he said, "Where are we?" And I said, "Well, sir" jokingly, "I haven't looked at my crystal ball this evening." And he reported me to the captain.

You are not supposed to know these things by telepathy. That's the one thing you are supposed to not-know is that it's all done by telepathy.

Well, what's telepathy? It'd just be a transfer of knowingness without other aids and means across nothing. And we get these odd characteristics of thought, that thought can transfer across vast distances, just as easily as it can transfer across short distances, and we get the fact that people predict into the future and have it land in the past, and all kinds of random actions occurring when we start into the field of prediction, mind reading, fortunetelling and that sort of thing.

I have always been pretty good at that field; I had to leave that field though because I was applying it mainly to money and bank accounts, and bankers didn't agree with me a lot of the time. I was spending money I had made in the past life. I had my time factor a little wrong.

Well, so then if we are studying something called telepathy, it must be that darned little is known about telepathy or that telepathy – everything that we know is known by telepathy, so that we know a great deal about telepathy that we are busily not-knowing. So there must be some telepathic knowingness interchange which goes on below the common denominator button of not-know and that is the thing that we all know together is "that we know not." So this must be the single most important datum of existence. We know not.

Well, the limitations of the old process Waterloo Station existed, and today it is very easy to run the process. We never tried to run it across short distances. We were always taking somebody and taking him outside and running him across long spaces. Well, you run Waterloo Station today on a very gradient scale. And I don't know, give him one of his wife's hats and an ashtray or something of the sort and have him "Not-know either one alternately" or something of this sort. Or "What could he not-know about it?"

Now, of course we had Op Pro by Dup in which we were doing this, but it wasn't an integral part of Waterloo Station, it was a different process.

We would graduate a fellow from not-knowing simple things close up – or by postulating that he didn't know them. "Get the idea that you don't know the color of that ashtray." You know, control not-know, and we would start moving him out step by step to further and further distances, until he could not-know things on the walls or in the width and breadth of the auditing room, and in close and out, and in and out, and in and out, and then take him outside and have him start not-knowing, and then we would really have things going. If we did this other thing, if we run Trio in between.

Have him not-know things for a while, just as a process, and then have him "Look around and find things he could have for a while”, because it's actually the third leg of old-time Trio, "Look around and find something you wouldn't mind making disappear or dispense with." That reduces havingness all the time, and we know more about havingness now, so you just intersperse not-know with things you could have and I think you would find a rather remarkable process. And along with several other processes you would undoubtedly arrive at a state of Clear.

It actually is a process above the level of those processes given in the book Clear Procedure which was issued at this congress; it's above that level. You'd have to do these others first.

But it is probably the upper route to Operating Thetan, so I thought I just might as well tell you about it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.