This is third lecture, 18th ACC, July 17, 1957. Just so you'll know the date. Come on up to present time.

I — my goodness, there's change in you people. Yeah, what do you know. I take that back — you don't have to come up to present time, you're here.

Okay. Tonight — tonight we're going to cover some material which has never been covered before in any lectures. And quite interesting that we would have basic material kicking around that you hadn't heard about.

First and foremost of these is the theory of auditing. What is Scientology? What does it do? Well that's fine, we know we audit somebody, by which we mean we process them — process them, exercise them in some way mentally so as to achieve some goal or another.

But what is this thing?

It's very fascinating, it's very fascinating. Something we do all the time and something we don't discuss.

Auditing, originally defined as somebody who — an auditor was defined as somebody who listens and computes, hence the word auditor. And auditing therefore would then — very early in Dianetics, would have been listening and computing. And I suppose most of us were just listening and computing.

But times have changed. Times have changed but the theory of auditing has not changed. Theory of auditing is actually covered in writing in The Original Thesis, wrote in — written in 1947 and it has to do more or less with these rules.

The preclear, the person being processed, is equal to or less than his bank or he wouldn't have one — by which we mean his engrams, his mental image pictures, the things that go boomp in the night and scare him, that he didn't know where they came from until we came along. He is equal to or less than this or they wouldn't be there, just by definition.

If he was greater than they, they would never trouble him. Well, the auditor is greater than, equal to or less than the surcharge, it says in that book, in the engram bank — that is to say the mental image picture collection. And he might or might not be greater than, you see.

But certainly, auditor plus preclear are greater than the engramic content of the preclear's bank. And that's the theory of auditing.

As we hook a booster engine on long freight trains to take them over the Continental Divide, so we hook an auditor onto a preclear and he can get over the hump too.

Now that was the first statement made on this subject. Hence this thing called processing.

But there's other material as covered in the Student Manual and new things have opened up as the years have gone on until we can say at last that a preclear or a person being audited in Scientology cannot possibly audit himself. That would be the thing he could not do.

Now that's very interesting, but enormous numbers of tests have been carried forward on this and these tests have rather conclusively demonstrated what I am about to say: that a preclear cannot audit himself. The best he could do would be to handle a mental image picture which was seeking to handle him. To handle people around him, to handle the physical universe, but not to handle himself. That's impossible. In order to audit himself a person would have to set up some sort of a bypass speaker system (shades of Elizabeth, 1950) whereby he'd get in one corner of the room (this is a direct quote from that lecture*The lecture referred to was given on 7 July 1950 and is entitled "Operation of ) and in a telephone box there, speak, and then the words he spoke would go around a wire and come back into the earpiece. Now, did you ever talk to yourself in a telephone?

Now, why is this? Because a basic ingredient of all auditing is communication. Now a person cannot talk to himself — he is himself. The language is sown with these absurdities. A person talks to himself? No. A person however could go in the corner in a telephone booth and speak into the mouthpiece and it could be run around the rest of the room and it could come out the earpiece. And if somebody put a delay on the circuit he could seem to be talking to himself.

Ah! But auditing is a process to get somebody into present time. And self-auditing must always have half of the conversation out of present time. So the auditor and preclear (and a person auditing himself, if you can imagine that) are in two different intervals of time. That's the first absurdity.

Now it is possible, and this by the way — this statement carelessly made in an article by me many years ago, got an awful lot of people into very serious trouble. It spoke about the great god Throgmagog and it said anybody can set up an analytical mind alongside of himself which can solve his problems for him. And that appears in Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science.

A fellow took this and he said, "Well, if that is the case then that is the way to do it." I've forgotten what he called the thing — he called it something or other. He didn't bother to read the next few sentences. And a whole bunch of people got to doing this one way or the other and it finally damped out or they died off or something.

But the truth of the matter is, it accomplished, in the final analysis, nothing. Self-auditing is just as absurd as, I stand on this side of the stage and I say, "How are you feeling?" Then I stand over here on this side of the stage and I say, "Oh, I'm all right — not too bad. How are you?" "Well, pretty warm but not too bad." Now, you could just go doing this on one side of the stage and the other side of the stage and so on, we could have a long and involved conversation, all of which would eventually amount to exactly nothing.

Now that should tell you something. In other words, somebody could mock up what we call a circuit: some kind of an electronic gimmigahoogit that talks back. Valences — the combined package of a personality which one assumes as does an actor on a stage, except in life one doesn't usually assume them knowingly. Generally he did at first and then after a while he was stuck with it. He doesn't know why he talks like Grandpa. He doesn't know why he chews snuff like Grandma. He wouldn't be able to tell you the answer to those things.

But an auditor could come along and say to him, "Did you know somebody that talked like that?"

And he says, "Oh, I don't know. Hm-hm-hm-hm. Nobody but Grandpa."

"Can you recall one moment or an instant of time when you heard Grandpa talking like that?"

And the preclear says, "Well yes, yes, as a matter of fact I can."

That, expertly done, would finish off that valence.

Why?

Because it can only operate if it's out of present time. And to snap the preclear off that operational spot and snap him into present time is to finish entirely this lag in the telephone wire of the fellow talking to himself in the phone booth.

Now, a person then takes these past moments or incidents of one kind or another and uses them later on to feed back to him from then. And then he forgets where they're coming from and he doesn't know or he forgot purposely and he says, "Something is talking to me" or "I am receiving an effect of one kind or another from the bank" or "from the mysterious past." Or he says something — usually he says, "I don't feel happy, I'm not well." As much as he could have articulated it back in '46, '47, '48, '49. He just didn't feel happy about life. He had compulsions and impressions and psychiatrologus and he had various things.

What did he have? He had something which was giving him orders out of present time. And a person, when they take up self-auditing, use these circuits to feed back to themselves this material in some fashion — and it busily gets nowhere in an awful hurry.

Now don't read this incorrectly. I'm not saying that a person cannot handle his bank, his body, the bodies of others, life and the environment — a person can. He can even think a thought or decide to change himself and change. You understand?

But to undergo a process of auditing administered by himself would be to the end goal, not so much of handling the bank, but as to change himself in some fashion or another.

Well now, self-auditing was almost possible under Dianetics because in Dianetics all one had to confront was an engram bank and that was all there was to it. And naturally an individual said, "I can handle this bank" and a Scientologist today, when he receives a bird or something like that usually goes off immediately someplace where it's quiet, runs the thing out and comes back to the party. That's the usual thing he does. Somebody gives him an awful emotional shock, he's liable to stand back for a minute and make it more solid and come up to present time on it again.

But please understand that that is a process of handling mental image pictures. Now people make these pictures all the time and they get strewn across the past and then they finally comprise the past and that's it. And an individual could always handle these things. But that isn't auditing himself.

Now, the liability of a person all by himself handling this unknown, double-forked bank is that he didn't handle the worst moments in it when they occurred and he's got two strikes on him already in handling them all by himself later. You see that? Because the only moments that are giving him trouble are the moments he didn't handle. Now he gets the pictures of the moments he didn't handle, he tends to go out of control, and he says, "Oooh, I don't want anything more to do with that. I'll just skip the whole thing and boil off."

Well, an auditor is necessary because at that moment he should be kicked in the shins, given an acknowledgment, brought back to the pitch, made to confront it and be pushed through it and that would be the rest of it. The mechanical side of this is not what I'm stressing. It's just that an individual cannot audit himself because he is himself.

Now a circuit can audit him, he can audit a circuit, but for an individual himself to get auditing, it is necessary for a second person to be there! And this is one of the most remarkable things that some people discover, is that with the other person sitting there auditing them they can handle anything apparently without any worries at all. Now, out of session they say, "Well, I didn't have any trouble with that railroad train that ran over me — I'll just take another look at it." Auditor picks him out of bed the next morning, you know, with wheel tracks on his face.

Now, what is auditing then?

It is more than just assisting somebody to do this. Now we could get that old-time 1947 definition: auditor plus preclear can handle the preclear's mental image pictures, past experience, body and so forth. This is easy.

But this is not Dianetics. This is Scientology and there are a lot of people who haven't learned that thoroughly. Dianetics handled an engram bank, the mental image pictures which composed what we call the reactive mind. We had a concept of two minds. One was a machine called the analytical mind — a computer, something of the sort. And the other was a buried, hidden, reactive mind. Now Freud and various quacks and so forth on the track have had a holiday with this very visible reactive mind. It's — nothing very horrible about it — a collection of pictures of experiences which a person couldn't handle which get locked out of sight. And this then becomes the subconscious, the reconscious, the deconscious, the Freud-onscious. See, I mean, you can sell an awful lot of — you know, you can sell an awful lot of goldbricks and wooden nutmegs to people when they don't know what you're talking about. And the only reason Freudian analysts — they didn't hate me originally, they as a matter of fact have been very, very kind. They only swear silently now. They had a beautiful racket. They were the only pilots through this mysterious realm, all of which was based on sex.

And we come along and we say to people "Now look — look..." Terrible thing to do. Put a big economic dent in things. I don't know if you know it, but a Freudian analysis cost — a basic Freudian analysis on the average in the United States costs $9,962.53. That's what it costs. That's for true. You can go around and ask analysts what they charge, how many hours it will take and all of that sort of thing and they give you this "Well, it'll take me a year to find out if I can help you and then another year to do something for you, at three or four hours a week at so much an hour." And it is really a huge figure.

Somebody comes along to you and says, "Well, you should never charge several hundred dollars for a twenty-five hour intensive" — I don't know! What are they trying to do — work for the analysts? The analysts thought nothing of charging nearly $10,000 for putting a fellow into reverse!

Now, this is an economic fact — I'm not just talking. But here was all this hidden mystery, nobody knew what it was all about or possibly they would have said so. The world, after all, is not composed entirely of dishonest men in the field of healing — the old subjects of healing, you know, like barbers and so forth.

Hey, you know what those barber poles are? You do know what the barber poles are — it's the blood running around in a circle into the basin, you know. And the AM A — the AMA won't let their doctors cut hair anymore. Because they never did a good job of it! Anyway, they got them into cutting bodies as being more profitable.

Anyway, here was this world of the past. Now something had taken pictures of everything that had happened in the past and these pictures got hung up, particularly those that couldn't be handled by the individual, and this formed the reactive mind. And because he couldn't handle them then, the pictures continued to give him orders now. And all sorts of orders and perceptions are contained in these things. This is the most wonderful wonderland anybody ever got into. And if you want to know more about it, why, read Book One and do some Dianetic auditing. That's not the subject here. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health covered it fairly well.

Now, here — here was the Dianetic angle on auditing. The Dianetic attack was upon that reactive mind to make it known to the individual. Which is to say, to make him understand that he could do something about it and it didn't necessarily have a monopoly on doing things to him. And thereby making somebody free of those hidden sectors in his own past. And when a person was free of these things he couldn't handle, why, Dianetically he was called a Clear.

All right. Now, the whole thing turned around and went the other way toward the end of 1952 when we got Scientology. Scientology's a different approach.

We put the person himself in good enough condition so that he can then handle anything. And Scientologically we'd call that fellow a Clear. Not a blank bank, but an individual who wasn't stopped dead in his tracks by life, you see?

So the Scientology approach was to make this individual sufficiently able that he himself, after the fact of auditing, could then handle anything else that came up. Now this is just reverse end to. Dianetics made the bank so it could be handled — these mental image pictures in the past — that made the bank so it could be handled.

Now, Scientology turned around 180 degrees on exactly the same proposition, included the physical universe and other people into it, and made the fellow capable of handling the bank, body, other people, environment, don't you see?

So Scientology demands that an individual be audited. There's a considerable difference there if you look it over.

In other words, there was some possibility of self-auditing in Dianetics. See, you could handle mental image pictures and chew up energy and do all sorts of interesting things. If that was the goal of Scientology, it would still be the same thing. There are a lot of people in Scientology that still believe that's its goal. And that's not true. This is the other side of it: we want this person to be able thereafter to handle such things, and to do this we sometimes even give him more trouble than he's got! And he learns he can handle it.

But that is auditing an individual. And therefore, the auditing of an individual takes precedence over the auditing of any item or inanimate object or picture. And any way you look at it, an individual cannot audit himself. Now that's one of the more remarkable things because it leads us then to the necessity of asking this one question: "You mean he's going to have to be in communication with other thetans forever? You mean he'll never be free of this in any way? You mean if he got all bogged down again and he didn't run into a Scientologist he'd be in bad shape?"

You could ask all sorts of fascinating questions. Fortunately, you don't have to answer any of them because the answer's quite obvious — terribly obvious. We said in Dianetics that in order to get out of something you better go through it. In other words, there wasn't any running away. That's true. That's very true. But how does this apply in Scientology?

Well, it applies very succinctly indeed. It was communication which got him into all the trouble he's in. And that was communication with somebody else. And the only thing that will get him out of trouble — of the trouble he's in — is communication.

And if he can't talk to himself, therefore communication is not possible in the absence of somebody else. You follow this?

Well, if it's not possible in the absence of somebody else, then please . . . Isn't it true then that he'll just get audited and then he'll just talk to somebody else and then not talk to them anymore and go into the same amount of trouble? No.

He went this thing stone-blind from the beginning. He knew none of the rules — he was making them all up as he went along. And he got them all fixed into agreements and solids and other interesting things and those are the things that are wrong with him.

The things that are right with a person are the things that are wrong with a person. The things that are wrong with a person are also the things that are right with a person. And this is the most fantastic riddle. If you walked up to the Sphinx and asked why this was, she'd probably crack a couple of stone chips off trying to figure it out.

Apparently, everything that is wrong with a thetan is what a thetan can do. Everything that is wrong with a being is the being. That's rather a fantastic riddle. You'll understand this much better in about two seconds.

There are numbers of scales in Scientology, as there were and are in Dianetics. And the Dianetic and Scientology scales are all of them graphic explanations of existence. You notice they're always drawn vertically, and lower on the scale means lower toned or means in worse shape. Almost all of these scales could be drawn as a V or an inverted cone of one kind or another.

Now why is that? Just something in my bank? No. I thought it was once, and then found out — found I was making a little game of happily trying to find cause for it, trying to explain it.

The truth of the matter is — distance tolerance is the key of the affinity scales. Chart of Human Evaluation as in Science of Survival is based on affinity, quality of emotion. And you will find out that distance narrows as a person gets into worse and worse condition.

Now, let's take the reality factor of that and we find out that the reality factors are real to him when he is closer and closer to them. In other words, as he gets worse and worse off he has to be closer and closer to something to know that it's real. This is the distance factor at work with regard to mass or another person or a terminal.

Now, high on the scale, a tremendous distance can be tolerated. And at the same time, a high level of trust and affinity is possible on the part of anyone. And at the theoretical bottom of the affinity scale in the Chart of Human Evaluations, we have no distance tolerable. The distance he can tolerate is no distance, and he can't tolerate that! And he's more or less on an inverted distance. Do you see this?

So when we go up in numbers (although the numbers are arbitrary on these scales) from zero to let us say forty, we actually might as well be saying zero feet and forty feet. Of course, that's not accurate either because it'd be zero milli-millimeters and forty trillion light-years cubed. See? The scale isn't an exact V — it'd flare out like that. You see this: that a person's ability to handle things always has to do with his ability to handle distance. He interiorizes into those things which he distrusts. The more he distrusts them, why, the closer he goes in until at length he is it.

You could set up the proposition — you could make somebody distrust a bedpost and just sit there and decide they didn't like it and so forth and they'd actually feel themselves pulling right in toward the bedpost. And the next thing you know, why, they'd be in the bedpost. And there are many psychos in institutions who are bedposts. You ask them what they are and they'll tell you they're a bedpost. It's quite interesting.

In other words, a person can control at a distance. He has some faith in his communication and so on and he's capable, even if he's some distance away from something. And as his control diminishes, he has to shorten up the distance to make the control possible, doesn't he?

So the more distrust he has, the less intention he can throw out, the less he can reach — any way you want to say this — the less competent he is. And we measure that off in this thing called tone. We say tone 40, that's competent, and tone 0, that's dead. How wrong can you get? Dead. How incompetent can you get? Dead. How low an affinity can there be? Dead. Only we know — we Scientologists know we can go way below death.

All right. It's just bodies that can't stand death. I'm going to have a talk with a body sometime, a dead body, something of the sort, and find out why this is — why it quits so quick.

Anyway, the graphic analysis of life and its behavior first came from a postulate I made, fortunately for you and for me, back in Bay Head, New Jersey when I was writing Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. I had about two or three chapters deep and I was sitting there — Countess Motorboat, the cat I had, she always sat on the bed right alongside of where I wrote. I remember well writing Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health. I'd take a sheet of paper out of the typewriter, move it over, Countess Motor-boat would pick up her paw off the pile of paper, I would put the paper down, Countess Motorboat would put her paw back down as a paperweight. And she would just lie there by the hour always lifting her paw for the new piece of paper and always holding it in place. Well, I was sitting there in the wee small hours and the Countess Motorboat was being a paperweight and it was very quiet and I could hear the far-off boom of surf and I was all tangled up. I was trying to graph survival. And that graph you see to this day in this — in Book One. And I found out something, that — in trying to graph it, I found out that if I couldn't make a two-dimensional picture of it, of a theory or an idea, then there was something wrong with the idea.

Quite amazing. Quite interesting. I found out if I couldn't make a clear picture of it, it wasn't clear in my own mind. I wish somebody had taught Freud to draw!

And I would have to reevaluate the basic theory, then, until I could finally commit it to a graph which would then communicate to somebody else. Aha, what does this mean? It merely means I had found out that if I couldn't communicate it, I didn't understand it really. And the method of communication of the thing, the shorthand method of communication of it was simply drawing a graph. And if I couldn't draw the graph easily and accurately and show it to somebody else and have him get the idea off of it, then the idea was in some fashion or other incomplete or faulty, because it wouldn't communicate.

All right. That has held true with all of our graphs and charts from then till now. And the first one that this struggle occurred on is the Chart of Survival, that very elementary chart right in the beginning, there, of Book One. About fifteen or twenty pet theories of mine went straight out the window when I tried to draw that thing. They just wouldn't graph. So I knew there was something wrong with them and I kept twisting them round and finally found out, yep, there's something wrong with that. That doesn't jibe with something else. Next thing you know, why, here was a very simple graph of what I was trying to say about survival.

I found out survival had to do with perpetuation — a continuation into the future and so on. I didn't know that at that time.

Anyway — these people in PE Courses almost blow their brains out trying to define it, so I was in there ahead of them, that — wee small hours of that morning. I was really trying to blow my brains out.

Anyway, survival or anything else can be graphed. If it can be graphed, you understand it. If it can't be graphed, you — somehow or other, you're foggy on it. There's something foggy about the whole thing. I mean, there's a misunderstood or not-understood sector in it. Now, reading a graph — if a thing can be graphed, you should be able to get what the graph is trying to communicate.

Therefore we take up these scales now. We say, "What is auditing?" Well, auditing is an expansion of distance, period. I'm sorry, I could have made that much more complicated.

When you first start to audit somebody, why, he has a tendency to practically sit in your lap or back out the window. If he's trying to back out the window away from you, he's on an inversion. He's trying to get the distance, you see, on an inversion. He can't confront at all. But the first moment he can confront, then he'll start to close in; and eventually when he can confront, there is the first real recognizable distance. Up to that time he has no recognition of distance. He recognizes this distance, and he would feel real comfortable when he was real close to his auditor, preferably with the auditor's hand in his or his hand on the auditor's, see? Good solid communication line there.

But a lot of people below this level that cannot stand distance at all are dead in their heads or spattered all over the universe because they couldn't be anyplace or recognize any distance and so forth; they become very nervous when the auditor puts his hand on theirs or touches his, see? They can't tolerate proximity. So they come up scale, but they have no concept of distance while being unable to tolerate proximity, and this is a case of no place to hide.

US government and its A-bomb. It's a case of no place to hide. They've just created one. No place to hide. There's no concept of distance and there's no distance you could put between anything and you, is there? Running away from things, oddly enough, isn't. And that is the oddest thing that you ever heard of. That is the complete puzzler of all time.

Nobody ever runs away from anything because he didn't want to be near it. This just sounds absolutely fantastic. We get a picture of a bear in the woods and the fellow comes up the road and he sees the bear and he doesn't want to be near the bear so he runs away from the bear. I'm sorry — an auditor, maybe a hundred years later, auditing this particular preclear will find out that he never ran away from the bear. Isn't that an oddity?

Now, you might ask why it is in military matters when a body of troops turns tail and no longer confronts another body of troops, why they go all to pieces. I mean a rout is really a rout. You say, well, a few companies turned around and ran away and they got some distance away from the fight and formed up again and everything was all right — except this never happens. The few companies turn around and run away and go to pieces, and in Roman times the end product was a bunch of assorted miscellaneous and mismatched arms, legs and heads lying around the terrain with pieces of broken tinware interspersing the scenery. It was a case of everybody dead.

You say, "Why is it that when a few people turn around and run that they are no longer able to sustain discipline?" Now, you can back up here a little bit in order to move in there a little bit, but for sure you can't run away. Always a part of you stays there. And that is the mental image picture in its most serious state, is the part of you which remained.

You see, the basic truth outed the other day and there is no such thing as a mental image picture. Funny piece of news to give you after all these years. There's no such thing as a mental image picture. We'll go into that in a moment. That's why we have ACCs every once in a while.

Now, the individual walks up to the bear, he doesn't want to be there, he then has a part of the universe that he cannot occupy. Being unable to occupy that part of the universe, the only possible state of mind open to him from then on is dispersal. Nobody ever ran away. Now I'm not just trying to prove up this distance graph, I'm just telling you that the distance always closes, no matter how far you run. Actual distance I'm talking about, between the person and the thing always closes, it never opens up. Hideous, huh?

Well, the one thing that proves that is the answer to it — which just knocks track out, straightens things up just like that — is confront. Confront it. Brace up to it. What part of that thing could you confront? Bing, bing, bing, bing. All of a sudden he's no longer there — no longer stuck at that point. Do you see this?

So the distance into mass or to another being, in actuality closes, even when it apparently goes apart. You'll find somebody who left his wife because he couldn't stand her, eight years later in his sleep talking to her — mutter, mutter, mutter, mutter, yap, yap, yap, yap. You go in a bar, a bunch of drunks have had a fight, haul them outside, and they're still in the bar having the fight! You've noticed this? But very seldom is the winner still having a fight. Only the loser.

I knew a fellow one time — was always going to write the great American novel. And he could never make the grade — never get down to the typewriter, pick up the pen. Very apathetic state. Responding to a little bit of auditing, was quite amazing — he was still trying to write the great American novel. He'd never been able to confront this thing and he was still basically in the engram bank trying to confront writing the great American novel. Not very engramic, but he was still trying. Only he had given up trying, but he was still trying. Never been able to confront it at all.

Knew another fellow one time that had written the great American novel and never said a word about it. Couldn't have cared less. You had to jog him two or three times and say, "You remember that book you wrote?"

And he'd say, "Which one, you mean about the pigs?"

"No, no, no, no, no. You know that. . ."

"Oh, oh, yeah, yeah, that book. Yeah, it's all right. You know, I'm thinking of writing . . ." — you couldn't keep him on the subject.

He had confronted it and he'd won across the boards, don't you see? He'd never had occasion to run away from that book and he was never stuck with it. He'd fronted up to the situation.

People are never troubled with those situations to which they have fronted up. They never have trouble with situations that they themselves have confronted. They only have trouble with those situations from which they ran away — because the closure is always toward zero. And as the nearness with which they can approach a situation becomes more and more impossible, they approach it closer and closer, and we get such mechanisms as "that which they resist they become" and all kinds of other mechanisms of one sort or another. But that's the basic mechanism of this.

The Tone Scale, clear as a bell, describes somebody closing distance. The Subzero Scale shows him opening it up again on a falsity. This is the apparent runaway. This is "I'll kid myself, I'll forget all about it, I won't ever remember that anymore. I will block it out, I'll get even with bodies for having done that to me," anything else you can think of but they're trying to — they're trying to open up distance which isn't there to be opened because they closed it long before. Don't you see?

Fellow says, "I'll never, never, never, never, never, never, never be a soldier. I won't! Under no circumstances will I ever be a soldier. Won't go near soldiers. Won't have anything to do with soldiers! I hate soldiers!" One day he goes down and enlists. We had a case of that right here in Washington. Didn't we? And he even wrote congressmen about the horrors of conscription — be a son of a gun if he didn't go and enlist.

Now, how about this fellow that when he sees soldiers it just makes him boil. He'd just love to kill them, that's all he can think of. It just — you know, it just makes him boil and so forth. Well he's confronting late, that's all. Just a little bit late. I don't know what body of troops he didn't walk up to, whether it was the British grenadiers or the fifth Roman legion or the Hun that came into Europe. Some body of troops that he's still not faced up to — and he hates soldiers. Now this is what makes emotional tone. It's the closure of distance. This sort of thing is graphed — the ARC, the Factors, the ARC triangle, affinity, reality and communication are placed in those graphs very prominently. Almost anything is graphed if it is understandable. If you haven't got a graph on it then I don't know what I'm talking about — yet.

Give you some small idea of the number of graphs there are in the Student Manual — scales: there's the CDEI Scale, the Reality Scale, the Effect Scale, the full Tone Scale, the Subzero Scale, the dichotomies, the top and bottom buttons, the Chart of Attitudes, the Cycle of Action Scale, the Scale of Related Experience, the Know to Mystery Scale, the Havingness Scale — I mean there's a lot of these scales. And all those things are, are simply graphs of the ARC factors. How massy is mass and how distance is distance and how much communication does it require.

Well there's only one thing which establishes distance — only one thing establishes distance, and that's communication. So don't be startled. Don't be startled that communication pulls a preclear up out of the depths rather easily. But it has to be real communication. Not via, via, via, via — "I'll evaluate for you, and what's wrong with you is your little sister saw you naked when you were two and that'll be another $10,000 and two more years." I mean, that's not communication.

It has to be communication to the person. Well, if it has to be to the person, you'd have to know what the person is and they didn't know that before. Psychology thought right up to the day of its death that a person was a body.

Now, communication is distance. The definition of space in Scientology — you'll find it in 8-8008 — is space is a viewpoint of dimension. Space is a viewpoint of dimension.

Well, what's that but some lookingness, huh? Well, what's that but some communication? So therefore the whole scale is established by degree of look. But look is a sort of a circular communication. You look at something like a radar and it bounces or you do something — if just you are there to look at it. So it has a closure factor with regard to it. So that just plain looking hits this bounce factor but doesn't get into communication, really. Not two-person communication.

Now, two thetans start talking one to the other and they can hold the distance gained. They're not just bouncing something off somebody's nose. They're talking to each other. They hold the distance gained. And actually they go up scale rather rapidly if real communication is occurring. Real communication, meaning is there a certainty of communication. And so they go up scale.

So here you have two live beings communicating, and you have distance opening. In other words, they could be further and further from each other and feel finer and finer about it. Now, if people, the longer they talk, smash closer and closer together, then one isn't talking to the other somehow. There's a mess-up on that communication line. They can talk further and further apart until they can get like a Kentucky mountaineer. All these mountain countries where the people stand on one hill and — it would take three hours to walk across to the other fellow's cabbage patch, so they just speak across the gap, you know — over the ravine and so forth.

Well, they're not necessarily trustworthy but they're sure loud. They're trying to get distance into communication.

Here — here you have this oddity — the basis of the graph, and you have this oddity, processing or auditing. And the basis of the graph is — I don't care what graph it is, it assumes that a certain condition existed and then finished a cycle, worsening. Or was very bad and reversed the cycle and became good. But in all cases it would be how much distance can one tolerate actually between the object and self. If he could tolerate total closure or total width or distance away from it, he certainly would have total communication concerning it, wouldn't he? Well, here's — if he was just obsessed and pushed in closer and closer and closer, why, he'd have a bad time.

Now, people can understand things and communicate to them. People can know vaguely what something is and communicate to it. But when people don't know really what something is, they have an awfully hard time communicating with it. Now, is it real communication between the individual and his engram bank? Well, there's a bunch of spooks and ghosts and shadows and pictures of people and all kinds of things in this bank that apparently talk back one way or the other. But he himself is having to energize the circuit in order to get any reply back at all.

So he energizes this bank and this bank kicks back at him so every time he starts to communicate, the bank energizes and slaps him for communicating. And he gets convinced after a while that he's being punished for speaking, punished for communicating. Because every time he tries to communicate, why, things wake up around him somehow or another, and he doesn't want them awakened because they bite. He has pictures. He has facsimiles that snap back at him.

Well I told you I was going to say something about these facsimiles and how they weren't. Now, we conceived originally and basically a tremendously complicated explanation in Dianetics. We had to figure that there was some sort of a camera machine that took a tremendous number of pictures and laid them on the track for a person to have this many pictures. I've been working at this mathematically for years and I discovered something very fascinating: that it was utterly impossible for a person to store all the pictures he took. But he had them. So we had to figure out there must be a machine there and as an individual went through life, this machine took all these pictures and then he stored them in some peculiar way and we even had a file clerk to get them out.

Well, all that's all very good. It communicated. Nothing wrong with that. The file clerk was there. They would shuffle out into view. But what do you know — they're not pictures! There is no such complicated mechanism. There is no such complicated mechanism as something that takes pictures and then stores them and all of that. There is no such mechanism at all! The object is still there, grown thin, and that's a picture.

If you could look at the wall there and then conceive of the wall as solid now but immediately dim, you'd probably have a picture of the wall. Got that? All right, now let's retain the color of the wall, but we see the wall solid now and then immediately afterwards, although in full color, lacking mass. Got that? It lacks mass. You see it, but it lacks mass. All right. Now take that — take that thing you made of the wall — you conceived the wall as suddenly thinning down and lacking mass. All right, now just look over there and make it a little more solid. Now, how come that makes a little more solid that easily? You didn't add any energy to it.

It means that every consecutive moment of the universe from its beginning until now is potentially as solid as it was then, and isn't because you don't want to confront it. So you thinned it down. And people really only have pictures when they ran away. Those are the serious pictures. Those are the reactive pictures. When they actually almost physically ran away, boy, have they got pictures. The engram bank, the reactive mind, is formed by running away.

In other words, one struck situations, environments that one could not handle at all, and not being able to handle these things he wound up the victim of them. He didn't confront them, and the final result is some kind of a foggy murked-up (quote) "picture." You'll find out that was the way it looked to him at the last moment of duress.

Well, that feels like a pretty heavy load for you to be carrying around. We had a lot of mystery about how one carried around these pictures. Feels like an awful heavy load if they're all solid universes, every one of them. The whole universe in its totality is still there for every consecutive moment from the beginning of time. This sounds awfully heavy.

Well, I don't know why it's heavy since it's only a problem in change of space. You aren't carrying the pictures anywhere. But you left a viewpoint there when you didn't totally confront them and it's still looking. And when you run up and down the track or run a preclear up and down the track you are simply doing nothing but change space.

You got a picture of the old hometown. Well you can get almost the same phenomena as we learned in the 1st ACC by simply saying to a preclear, "Be in your hometown, be in the room, be in your hometown, be in the room, be in the hometown, be in the room." Boy, you got pictures. Certainly he got pictures, because that's why they were pictures, only they aren't pictures, they're the thing!

So we do have one improper word in Scientology and that is facsimile. I don't know what we'd call it — call it a thinnie, I guess.

All it is necessary to do is to bring one into a state of mind himself whereby he is willing to confront those pictures — thinnies, old universes, old places where he wouldn't be before. All we've got to do is put him up into a state of mind, either by confronting them or by some other artificial means whereby he's willing to confront them, and we have a Clear. Boom!

It's as easy as that. Before this course is out I'll show you how to do that. But the point I'm trying to make here is that auditing is a communicating process or a communication process with the end goal of raising the ability of another person so that he can handle his bank, body, others, and environment in general. And that's what auditing is today — it's a communication process. You should realize that it is, if we spend all the time that we spend on communication itself. And you shouldn't be a bit surprised when communication itself becomes (quote) "therapeutic," and people's heads blow off in Comm Courses and things like that, just saying "Okay" to other people. Because somebody's making them stand in there, confront it and say "Okay" to it — and it's probably the first time it's happened for centuries. And somebody just goes boom! Like to blow his head off.

You are sure, I am sure, that you have many moments and will have many pictures of the ACC unit in which you are now enrolled. I am sure that you will feel that you will be stuck all over the track by the end of the unit. Well, I'll leave that up to you to find out.

Thank you.