Well, this is what? What's the date?

Audience: Nineteenth.

It's the 19th. How'd it get to be the 19th? The 18th, isn't it?

Audience: The 19th.

It's the 19th of November? It is, no kidding? That Sunday — Monday line has got me all messed up. And I keep going back and forth across it getting younger and younger. See, because what I do is go across it, you know, and then dematerialize, then rematerialize on this side, you see. I just get a day younger and I keep doing it.

I knew a polar explorer one time who kept running around in circles, he got up to the pole, and he ran around in circles, around in circles, around in circles, around in circles and then the navigator told him the pole was some distance to the south. Anyhow ...

Nineteen November, 1st Melbourne ACC.

And I don't know, we didn't have too much time to go into what hap­pened but I don't know whether you got the point or not but the demonstra­tion that was given right after yesterday's lecture, and so on, was simply given to pull up the lecture.

Now one doesn't make too much point out of this, otherwise it appar­ently is a — some sort of a — of a suggestion apparatus and so on. The reason I ran what I ran was to settle the pc down into a minus randomity area and then showed you a minus randomity area, and we found one. And there's nothing more minus randomity than hanging around the morgue looking at a body on a slab.

But to prove that it's minus randomity I shook out the fact, if you recall — that he didn't know anything about it. See? I even gave him some little processing on it, you know, and the picture moved around but he still didn't know anything about it. Got the idea? Hm?

Audience: Mm-hm.

All right, now, you don't mind my mentioning this? Thanks.

We got a good idea here. Now, the reason I wanted his auditor to take a good look at this and so on, particularly, (and seemed to be chewing on his auditor a little bit) as I — I wasn't at all — I want — I was chewing on all of you. You keep your eye open. Because there is no better method of doing an assessment than the one I did.

You runs the process and you sees what turns up, and then you handle

the minus randomity area. The minus randomity area is going to have to do with that terminal which has to be run. You understand? Inevitably. See that?

So you have ways and means of turning on a stuck picture.

All else failed and you didn't seem to be making too much sense out of the case, you could simply up and turn on the stuck picture, and that's it. And don't go monkeying around with it particularly and trying to run it as an engram, that sort of thing, because we could run it as an engram and we could get the stuck off the line and we could erase it and move him on up the line to the next engram or the earlier engram that had to do with a woman awfully dead! Stone, cold dead on the marble. Got it? Hm?

Instead of handling the associated factors, all under the heading of "female body," we would be handling isolated incidents and lives connected with female bodies, you understand?

Now in the interest of time, it's much easier to handle the class of terminals needing to be run than the individual pictures on the chain of that class, right?

So, to get those things moving, it's much better, much better, in running it, to run a process which moves all such stuck points out because there are some other motionless pictures or minus randomity areas, you see, on this same subject.

Now, there'd be two ways of tackling it. One would be Book One: long, clever, adroit engram running, see, and that'd get him out of this. That takes a long time, it takes a lot of clever auditing, it takes a lot of understanding of the situation, it takes a lot of sitting on the pc's head, you know. And it takes a lot more determination on the part of auditors than you'd suspect because they get bored with minus randomity — now get this — they get bored with minus randomity and go off to find something "more interesting."

Ah, but the only thing wrong with a case is the minus randomity.

For twenty minutes after the bombing of Tokyo there wasn't anything moved or anybody flickered an eyelash. They'll all tell you they seemed to be suspended in time. Twenty minutes before anybody even wiggled. One flash and then for twenty minutes there was no such time.

Actually, it was hours and hours and hours before people started to — to do anything that was comprehensible. Got the idea?

So, with a tremendous sudden violence, alter-ising existing creation, we get minus randomity which includes, "don't know anything about it," "never was before." We get the works, you understand?

Plus randomity in that area will eventually ensue if there is a great deal of stuff on that line so an automaticity surrounding some particular object or mock-up is also an assessment.

We can ask the person the demonstration was run on, "In doing mock-ups, did you ever have a sudden runoff on the subject of women?" Male voice: A sudden runoff?

Well, just a sudden change, you know, I mean, that two or three women appeared and brrrrrr; two or three women tried to answer a command, some-thing about women or something of the sort and there was a woman, a woman and another woman and another woman and another woman, you know. Gratuitous pictures that seem to flick in all by themselves.

Because when the minus randomity occurs over and over and over and over again it eventually moves up to a point of where one has nothing to do with it whatsoever and simply observes it. See that? And it moves up into a plus randomity. Quite interesting.

The criminal is very interesting. He's had a minus randomity and then another minus randomity and then another one and then another one and then another one, up to a point where his body starts running on automatic, his opinions start running on automatic and he feels pretty well caved-in, and society, in its stupidity, thinks, that by giving him further minus ran­domity, it's going to cure him of something. Yeah, I know, it's going to fix him up with further randomity! That's all.

See, he goes out of his own control. He's a spectator of his own life. There's nothing bad really, there's nothing good. It just kind of runs. It's all so automatic. Got the idea? There's the money lying there and a hand reaches out and puts it in a pocket. It's quite amazing.

Now, Freud — not all people who do this are criminals — but Freud at the end of his twenty-eighth lecture, which I've mentioned before in lectures, says that the detached person, which is what he saw in this, the detached person is something he couldn't do anything about. They are beyond his abil­ity to help. You got the idea?

Well, what's he talking about? He's talking about somebody who is run­ning on a total automatic. Well, those total automatics are built out of a tre­mendous number of minus randomities on any given subject. Here's this enormous number of minus randomities.

A fellow was going along just fine, you see, as a woman — boom! "Nah," he says, "I'm coming out of it, it's just something about it" and so forth. Kind of inexplicable because it wasn't being very dangerous, he says, and wasn't doing this and wasn't doing that. Picks up another body and lives a life as a woman, you see, and going along and all of a sudden, why, riding sidesaddle one day or something of the sort, why, the horse decides to shy along the edge of a cliff, goes over the cliff, the woman body falls and then the horse body falls on top of the woman body, you see, tremendous impact! Well, that sort of thing just shouldn't happen to a woman, that's all! So, ah, so on, is ...

Picks up another female body and maybe, maybe lives three, four, five lifetimes doing all right, you know, doing all right. One day is riding by underneath a tree and there's a summer lightning storm going on and boom! See, total crash. And after that he's real quiet on the subject. Real quiet. It's all quiet. It's quiet for a long time. Picks up a man's body. Decides there's nothing you can do about women. Just as simple as that. Nothing you can do about women.

Of course, anything connected with a woman is something totally uncon­trolled because there's some other-determinism is going to knock the wom­an's body out of control with such savageness and violence that one couldn't possibly stand up against that much force. So therefore it's not possible to control a woman's body. That he knows! Doesn't know anything else about women. That he knows. Doesn't know — ever know that he's been a woman.

Now, we have to go back earlier than this sequence of lives as a woman to get the proper anatomy of the thing because all we've looked at were the motivators.

Well, so we get whole track, space opera, magic societies, anything you can think of, planet builders — doesn't matter what kind of an incident but we can be absolutely sure that there is a prior series having to do with the overt "know it's bad to do it" destruction of female bodies.

And these overts permitted motivators to walk in and do horrible things to female bodies. Only now this person, this thetan, has interiorized into female bodies and the very things which a thetan had already decided to do

to female bodies and did do, now happens to female bodies. Only it happens to him, too, and the overt — motivator sequence just adds up to a total clang, crunch. And we've got areas of minus randomity. Got the idea?

Now, the story which goes along with it might go like this: tremendous numbers of overts to female bodies as a thetan, see, not as another body. Interi­orized into female bodies. Female bodies knocked around into areas of minus randomity, see? Into the male line or robot line or something of the sort. Knows there's nothing you can do about female bodies but feels you better destroy them.

Big new series of overts against female bodies, interiorizes into them again. Knows now you really can't do anything about your own body. Got the idea? Goes into minus randomity, interiorized, blows out, goes into a male body; now is totally inept or inadequate where women are concerned, feels very, very inadequate as far as women are concerned. And-anytime this par­ticular thetan sneezes in the direction of a woman, he knows it's an overt act. Got the idea? Tremendous ideas of what overt acts are.

And sort of says, "Well gee, you can't be in a male body," because he's had some overts against those, too, and he can't be a robot, and you can't be a this and you can't be a that and you can't be something else. And you just run into a — fantastic numbers of "can't be's." Don't you see? All because of minus randomity. Eventually the person moves out of the game. See? Person moves out of the game entirely; can't be anything one is.

Now, before that happens, you ordinarily, if this person is your pc, why, this person hasn't gone that far to move out to a total, "can't be." You see, because he is being something of the person he is being. So, you haven't caught the final end of the cycle at all, wherever it is or wherever it winds up. And your chances of catching it are quite remote because you have to get into communication with the thetan because it's basically his overts that have got him trapped in the first place. Got the idea?

So this — this story is told by brrrrrrr, randomities, you know, automatic­ities in the bank on a certain subject.

You tell this girl, you say, "Mock up a man." Brrrrrr, see, bam-bam-bam-bam-bam-bam, bam-bam-bam-bam-bam.

And she says, "Yeah, yeah."

You don't notice that unless you ask the pc searchingly about the whole thing. Now this would be one of the automaticity questions, "What man did you mock up?"

"Oh, I don't know, just some man."

"Well, what happened as you mocked this man up?"

"Well, I had a little difficulty with the head."

"Well, what difficulty did you have with the head?"

You have to push them on and on and on. And it isn't good enough, you know, just to give it a lick and a promise because they actually don't know enough about what they did to tell you without being searchingly asked. Do you understand? Very — a person would be very bright ordinarily but on this one this girl would be very stupid.

"Well, looking it over, well I — mocking up — I did have trouble with the body, in the body, had trouble with the body, in the legs, yeah, I had trouble with the arms and the — so forth."

"Now, well, why?"

"Well, kept getting different heads, different heads, you know and differ­ent arms and it kept walking around. But all right now, I've got it over in the corner and it can't walk out through the walls, so there it is, see."

Well, that's a sure-fire assessment, see. You needn't go any further than that. That tells you all you want to know.

Now, reversewise, you talk to this pc and you say, "Run this, run that." Oh, you're running some kind of a basic process of one kind or another. Keep check on the pc. What's he looking at? What's he doing and so forth?

"Yeah," so he says, "Well, I don't see anything. Nothing but this black­ness here, this total blackness."

Run him awhile longer, "Well, is there anything in the blackness at all?" "Well, nothing — nothing. Nothing but this skull."

Well, it would be very adventurous, I assure you, to run a skull because it's the wrong end of the create cycle.

"What kind of a skull is it? A man's skull? A woman's skull? A baby's skull? What is it? Let's find out some more about this."

Well, you might run on the process awhile longer, that's busy turning this on, before you found it out, don't you see? But you just keep check on this thing and eventually you have a skull lying in a rusted helmet lying in a very shallow grave, the wind having blown most of the dirt off after the battle, you see, that was fought long ago; here we got a man, that's all you've got.

And that would be the minus randomity area. See? Actually doesn't require much piloting through as far as you're concerned. It's sort of obvious. Once you get used to this sort of thing it's like reading billboards, you know, you can't help it, you know. There's the billboard.

I know — for instance, I know enough about what people think and what they're thinking about and that sort of thing. I can ordinarily look at them and know the class of thing they are thinking about without much closer inspection. Got the idea? It's just the class of thing they are thinking about; know the general reaction to the environment and the general reaction to the people around them and their general reaction to me. You see?

Now, that hasn't anything to do with any mystic interiorization into their skulls. You could strip this down as an observation and compartment it and analyze it as an observation and it wouldn't look odd to you at all because actually it's not "reading their minds" unless reading a mind is established by the various masses and their relationships — spaces and their relationships around the person.

Now you can, for instance, tell whether or not your pc has an ARC break with you, on a meter, and that's all very fine but it requires a meter.

Maybe you haven't got your pc in-session, you're having a little bit of difficulty getting your pc back into session, or you haven't tried particularly to get him back into session.

If you put your hand on the pc's arm as you were talking — something about you, or auditing or something of the sort — you can actually feel a consider-able difference of muscular tension. You will feel a certain class of resist­ance in the arm, it doesn't require much perception. It's the same kind of perception to find out if you're being hit over the head with a sledgehammer, once you know what you're looking for, you see.

If you put your arm over the shoulder of somebody as you're walking along and just give them a small pull in your direction, do it very tiny you know, you can tell exactly how they feel about you. Like that, you see? You know if they're upset about you; they go the opposite direction, ordinarily.

And people who are all ARC broke and upset and have PTPs and are worried about something and all that sort of thing have definite physiological characteristics. Of course this is expressed rather grossly by the expression

on their faces. They look sad or they look happy or something, you know. Well, you tell from that — will just extend your power of observation further.

Actually a man's shoulders tell you more than his face any day of the week. You can see the amount of rigidity in a shoulder rather easily.

Palm: the sweatiness of a palm and so forth. This person ordinarily is fairly cool, calm and collected. You start talking to this person about some-thing or other, you'll notice that there's a hand tremor. Shake hands with him, you'll find his palms sweaty. Boy, is he on a withhold. Get the idea?

There are just innumerable physical characteristics that just have noth­ing whatsoever to do with the mind, as you and I would classify mind. You see? They're physiological.

Now, we move up just a little bit further and we become experienced in communication of this sort; we get an immediate and direct impression of the combination of body positions, tensions and attitudes which takes you simply a split instant to read. You say, (snap) there it is. See? You know, you just look at him and say — say, "Well, he's happy about something, he's unhappy about something." Just a gross read of that character, you see. Has a certain adequacy all by itself.

Now, as you become more perceptive, you get — with this gross read — you get degree of happiness and degree of unhappiness. And because he seems to be sort of inclined in one direction or another, or resisting in one direction or another, why, we read the general class of direction he is upset about. You got the idea?

Well, all we know by this time is "degree of unhappiness" or "degree of happiness" of this particular person and some vague idea of about which direction he's being unhappy in. You'll notice people doing this, you see.

Well, we go much further than this. We are moving up into communica­tion with the person. Now, if you've learned to be that observant and if you can confront bodies to that degree or expressions to that degree, don't be very surprised if you find yourself in some fashion or other confronting a some­thingness around the person that you just "Well," you say, "it's just intuition." You know, like I touch this desk, I know it's there by intuition.

By this time you've become aware of the terribly thin, non-light-reflect­ing, stacked up energies around the body. They don't reflect light as you see it, but then you, as a thetan, don't happen to see only by light. You also see by other emanations besides crude, heavy photons. Got the idea?

How do you suppose you see your own bank? It must be by some kind of a — of an emanation that is nonreflective in the physical universe, see. You must be shining something up at a bank and shining it back to get the mechanics of it and reading it back again. Well, that's true. You're into the field of small energies, now. You actually don't have to go much further than that to start seeing somebody's pictures! Because they are masses, energies, spaces, forms. They do exist as such.

And the reason I'm telling you this is to tell you why they withhold pic­tures and get into such a minus randomity. Because they know other thetans can see pictures. How do you suppose you ever had any fun on the way back track? Except you'd put up a picture, then somebody would say, "Oh, I can out-create that." And you did this and put this picture and that picture, swap pic­tures, you know. You find all kinds of ruddy nonsense about pictures on the far back track. That's when nobody was accustomed to handling anything very heavy and they were — they were handling rather light substances and they were actually operating on what we now call much higher wavelengths and so on.

Well, what are you doing? If you're looking at people, the first invalida­tion you're going to get from them or from society is that you're "imagining" their pictures because society knows this can happen. Now, let me give you the Reality Scale as it exists in your everyday experience. An author has a picture or is looking at a scene. Now, that's the genus of it. He speaks concerning what he is looking at and you have the scene invisible. Right?

Audience: Mm-hm.

The words are invisible as such, they are simply an understanding of the thing. You got it?

Audience: Yes.

Now, if those words are written down, they are usually written in black ink, right?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Hm? And a person reading them is struck by the scene, sufficiently to mock up the picture as he would see it. Got it?

Audience: Yeah.

So, now, we already have the object, the invisibility, the blackness and the first substitute. Got it? See that? Well, it can just keep going that way. Society dramatizes this one. Most factors of Scientology are not peculiar to Scientology but to the public at large.

Now, we get — we get this one, two, three, four, you see. Well, you get very used to that happening so you're told that about the best way that you would do this is you would get your idea of their picture, and then you look at your picture concerning their picture, and so on, and that you're on a substi­tute for their picture.

Well, the oddity is, that can happen. That can happen. There's nothing wrong with this at all. Now, one of the upsteps that research has taken is to establish the fact that pictures are not exclusive to the person. In other words one — pictures are not exclusive. Any thetan could come along and see them, if he didn't mind emanating a high level of small wavelength energy. You know, sort of in there right up against the back, oh yeah.

And that's why thetans, when they get pictures that are discreditable, are just dramatizing the earliest critics on the track. It's an overt act to present a discreditable picture and that is one of the first overt acts a thetan knew anything about to amount to anything — was presenting discreditable pictures. That was very well agreed upon; that presenting discreditable pic­tures would be met with criticism because it was an overt act to fill up some-body's environment with discreditable pictures.

The reason why the sanitation department, or whoever does it here, removes dead bodies off of the street is because they object to discreditable mock-ups. See? Because a dead body would lie there. Now, they also throw a whole dub on this and they say, "If we didn't move the bodies off the street, why, they would begin to putrefy and smell and this spreads disease." It's totally a rationale, you see, as it goes along the line.

There are many societies, very, very degraded, which don't remove the dead bodies off the street. And the further people go down scale, why, the more and more dead bodies they leave on the streets. I remember when I was a kid in Peking, I — wow! — talk about — talk about assault on my Western viewpoint, you know. I was always stepping over dead bodies, you know. Big battle up north or something of the sort and they ship a bunch of wounded soldiers down on a station platform and nobody provides any hospital facili­ties because they say, "So, what." And the bodies just lie there and they —

they just lie there and die and then nobody buries them and then they just get totally putrefied. And the passengers still get on and off the train, step-ping over the dead bodies, you know.

They just leave more and more discreditable pictures lying around, you see? Till they don't care what they show people! Got it?

Audience: Yes.

Well, that's right along with "They don't care what they do." If you can get an association between a picture in the bank and a body in motion in the physical universe, you see, they get to a point where they can't restrain them and there's nothing you can do about it, and they're discreditable anyway and so therefore, "doesn't matter what you display," no matter what you do. It doesn't matter whether you keep the mock-up clean, or — or dressed up or put any clothes on it or keep it well, or anything else; just let the whole works go to pot. See? Nobody's objecting anymore to discreditable pictures and people just say, "Ah, well, the hell with it." Got the idea?

Audience: Yeah.

Well now, in a minus randomity area the person can't do anything about the discreditable picture. And the less he can do about the discreditable pic­ture, actually the less he can do about pictures.

And he gets convinced after a while that he can't do anything about pic­tures in general so he goes and starts shifting form with the pictures and he can't do anything about himself, got the idea? And his pan-determinism is long since shot. And he's moving into self-determinism exclusive. (Other-determinism means totally out of control) — nothing he can do about anything anyhow, got the idea?

And, you therefore have to dig to find a discreditable picture in anybody who is in any kind of decent condition at all! See that? You have to dig for it. They don't say, "Well, here — here's this dead body. Ha-ha. Want a dead body?" No, they're gone dogs when they're doing that. They're long gone. Institu­tional cases come along and tell you, "Dead bodies. Smell me." See? They've gotten to a point of where they can no longer — failed to exhibit the most dis­creditable pictures — so therefore they get only discreditable pictures and exhibit those, and so on. You got it?

Well, that all comes about through the declining ability to handle or con­trol areas of randomity. And as a person's minus randomity, ability to handle, accumulates, it's only because he has not been able to handle plus randomity. Too much motion, he goes into too little motion, see.

He's going on both ends of the cycle. So that you get persons in institu­tions who are (quote) "very agitated, hysterical or frenzied, or catatonic." And then you get people who are manic-depressive: full of motion and then no motion, and then full of motion and then no motion. Now it — almost any-body's behavior can get cyclic. It's the horror of psychiatry that they have not understood the first and foremost fundamental of insanity. All insanity is, is an exaggerated normal condition. That's all it is. A psychiatrist looks at it in reverse and he says, "All people are insane to some degree." Because the insane are simply being a mockery on sanity.

Every once in a while you'll see somebody who is spin-spin, that's had some auditing or something back on the track a little bit. Somebody tried to audit him and couldn't keep him in-session and so forth. And they've been in institutions, auditing didn't put them there. They always tell you auditing put them there. They were in an institution for twenty years and then they got a five-minute session and auditing put them into the institution. You get the idea?

But they'll be dramatizing Scientology. And you'll look at them, and boy, will you start to feel kind of funny about yourself. You say, "Well, can I be nuts, too?" you know and so on. Well, that's what you're supposed to think. That's what you're supposed to think.

As — I've had this happen to me a few times, something on this order. I've seen the — I was actually working with one of the major political parties of England, not to undo anything or something of the sort, but just by process­ing one of them, and we were having quite a bit of discussion about saving the Empire. Of course, this wasn't anything to do with me or anything I was doing actively. Yet, my thoughts actually had been centered to some degree on what we were going to do about the Empire, you know; I kept thinking about this, you know, quite interesting. One of the things not to do was plant peanuts in Rhodesia or wherever it was. And a fellow followed me downstairs at the HASI, as I walked out, and he kept talking about, "I had to process him up to a point of where he could save the Empire," you know. He was crazy as hell, this fellow was. Real nuts! He even started to smell bad, you know.

And I went away from him, you know. I said, "Let's see. Have I had it?" You know? "Let's see. Now, let me see. My thoughts about saving the Empire. Let's see, is this a manic with me or — or — or have I slipped a button or ..." and so on. Finally I started to laugh like mad. I recognized what had hap­pened is that I'd accidently run into a mockery of the upper band you see. You'll run into this all the time. You'll see somebody very, very low on the Tone Scale dramatizing like mad some high-toned characteristic, only note this — they only dramatize the one. No variation at all. They only dramatize that one characteristic.

You'll see somebody sometime saying, "I am Clear." Or, "I'm an Operat­ing Thetan." You know? "I'm an Operating Thetan because I can sit above the city and see all that goes on," you know?

And you say, "Well, what do you do as an Operating Thetan?"

"Well, I sit above the city and see all that goes on," you know?

That's what happens to Clear — occasionally people run into people that are spinning like white mice going around a pole, you know, and are strictly fruitcake; cut them and serve them up, you know. These people are about as Clear as the Mississippi in April. And you say, "Boy, if that's what Clear is, why, I don't want to be Clear." Well, that isn't what Clear is. They've gotten ahold of some idea concerning the thing and then they're pushing this one home. And then if you're almost there, you feel terribly invalidated. Well, what else do you suppose they're trying to do! It's a solid criticism, isn't it? Solid criticism.

Fascinating, see any characteristic high on the Tone Scale fixatedly being dramatized low on the Tone Scale as a criticism of that characteristic. And that's what insanity is. An insanity is so uncomplicated that my opinion of psychiatry long since just went blahh. What's the matter with these ruddy idiots? Well, what's the matter with them? They can't look, they just can't look, that's all. They don't know what they're looking at.

You read — sometimes read these psychiatric textbooks and so on that are full of cases. The darned psychiatrists give you the full engram the per-son is dramatizing, you see. Give it to you almost in detail. All except its time and place on the track, you see? And say, "Well, this person obviously has breast fixation. And various fetishes, and so forth, but breast fixation is the main criteria of the thing and therefore is dementia praecox with schizophrenia — phrenic paranoia as side effects." You see? And that the per-son was given — person was given Metrazol shock and so forth and is now —

has had a remission, which means that they collapsed, I think. And you'll read this balderdash. But it's very funny to read their case histories and very often find that the nurse or somebody in there, observing the patient, has put down all the words and phrases, all the circumstances, the whole works for a dramatizing psycho. See? Fantastic! Fantastic. They have all the gen.

Well, basically what you'd say about a psychotic is that they are totally out of control because of total minus randomity. It isn't that they didn't have nothing better to do so they went nuts but that possibly could be where it kind of started in this lifetime — nothing to do. The sudden feeling like it was all going to be quiet again for a long time, "Oh, no, no, no, no, no," you know, and then the body goes out of control. And they say, "What's this all about?"

Now, it isn't the fact that people never recover from the downward spiral, they do. What we call "cycles on the track" is where somebody just pitches in the whole chain of lives, you know, as a woman, or a space opera cadet or whatever he's dramatizing, you see, and takes this whole chain of lives which lasted thou-sands of years, perhaps, or maybe just as little as hundreds, and has just chucked in the sponge about the whole thing and just said, "To hell with it!" And gone and found another planet that was unrestimulative, and gone and found another profession, and gone and done different things and just said, "Well, that's it, man!" And then gradually recover his familiarity with things.

Actually, the reason children have toys is to be able to handle life in miniature until they can handle it in fact. And children that are denied toys, and so forth, and so on, are being practically destroyed because they're not being permitted to have life in miniature.

I know an occasion where two little children were not eating well, and so I bought them a little table and a couple of little chairs, very, very tiny, you know. They felt very, very big and superior to those and they ate just fine.

And in a new cycle, a person sort of fumbles his way through it all, you see, and gradually comes back out on top again somehow and once in a while has a stroke of luck and runs a whole bunch of wins one right after the other, and gets insufferably cocky and gets into control of things he's lost control of, and actually runs out engrams and does every other darned thing. And if you want to wait around a few thousand years, why, you possibly would get another point or so up on the Tone Scale. It's a rather long process. But there's — there in essence is the factor involved.

Minus randomity succeeds plus randomity, succeeds minus randomity, succeeds plus randomity, until we wonder if Aristotle wasn't right when he said, "There's a pendulum and it swings to extremes and gradually settles into the mean."

Well, unfortunately Aristotle wasn't always right. The pendulum doesn't swing to extremes and then settle to the middle, and so forth, it's liable just as likely to hang at one end! And you've got a situation of minus randomity that just goes on and on and on and on.

Now, being able to tolerate plus randomity leads to a control of the areas which have been abandoned because of plus randomity. Take space opera.

Wow, boy! Is that a breeder for minus randomity. Wow! Wow! You know. Fast! Fast. Mad. Too much — too much action. Too much force. Too much depend­ence on machinery. Everything all nerved up and on the qui vive and then you go on a long cruise and you're a year underway doing nothing. You do nothing. They had no stewardesses.

And all of a sudden you land on a planet and you find out in your absence, why, there's been a revolution and you're — you're considered to be part of the — of the persons who are now out, you see, and you get hunted around and gunned up and gunned down and wow and bing and thud and phewwww. So, you take off in your spaceship and you're four years to the nearest star, you know — drive anybody nuts. Completely aside from the point that everything is being done for you, you know. You press a button, arm comes out of the — of this flying saucer's dashboard and puts the cigarette in your mouth, you see, and lights it, you know. You're hungry, and you push a button over here and the tube comes over, you know and fills you up. You feel tired and you open a small door and put in a new battery.

And don't think for an instant, that you can tolerate much force when all the force is employed, is doing something for you, moving you in space, giving you things.

And the only other use you make of force is to pick up a blaster and murder and kill and slay with it. Oh, man, that's the most.

This is what you might call plus — minus randomity and I notice that none of you at this moment get any closer to space opera than science fiction. I will admit, those of you who read science fiction, that you read it a little bit yearningly. But ordinarily you are not now in space opera. And if you like science fiction and we put you on a meter — wham, wham, wham.

But science fiction rather than being looked at as something that keys you in, is at least enough of a substitute to move you back toward a familiar­ity with. Got the idea? You could familiarize yourself back out of a plus or minus randomity proposition. During World War I, they used to take every crashed pilot, put him back in a plane, if he could possibly be held together with baling wire and sticky plaster, and make him fly; preferably within the hour! See, give him his flying back.

And I remember in — one time, after I'd smashed a car up, I couldn't borrow a car. I knew enough to go out and drive a car. It was a pretty bad smashup, I wasn't driving, but consequently I felt shaky for three or four days and I shouldn't have felt shaky.

I've been handling enough force lately as a thetan to have been — become rather accustomed one way or the other — I was quite interested because I received my first demonstration of something of this character. I'd just been drilling, doing a little drilling with force, and so on, using force to do this and do that and do something of the sort — monkeying around. And this morning, why, I plugged in an electric razor into 240 volts, you know, and left my finger on the prongs, as they went in. It was a deep socket with a metal contact all around, and I was plugging into something about that deep, you see. So I had my whole hand inside the cone and I got 240 volts, pure and unalloyed. See?

And I said, "What do you know about that?" And finished plugging in the razor, and so forth, and shaved. I got to thinking about it and I'd said, "Well, ordinarily that would shock me. Well," I said, "well that's interesting, I'll have to tell the class about it." Takes a relatively small amount of drilling or using force or refamiliarizing yourself with force to come up along the line.

Now, electricians very often go completely buggy on this and they're

always getting shocks but they get into one of two frames of mind. Either the shocks are very harmful to them and they get more and more and more aller­gic to electricity, you see, or they get beefed up more and more and more to electricity till one time an old man — he was a fantastic wreck of an old man and he must have been about seventy-five or something like that: he probably put in the first electric light plant in London — came over to the house, over to Saint Hill to fix up something and I saw him fooling around with the mains plugs in the sun room. And I said, "By the way," I said, "those things are live and there's a short along those heating pipes there someplace."

"Oh," he says, "is there?" he said and picked up a grate, you know, and started slapping heating pipes, and so forth, and he finally — finally took a piece of wire and hooked it into one of the holes, you see, and put his finger against the other one and so forth. And he says, "Yes," he says, "it's on."

Now shocking yourself just to find out if you could take it would proba­bly have to be accompanied with using it. Got the idea? You'd have to have a two-way flow on this line one way or the other. The wrong way to do about it, I think, would go and get yourself familiarized with a whole series of electric shocks. I don't think that would work too well. Well it also might work out that you become so familiar with electricity putting around, you might after a while think it didn't refer to you, you know, and not feel it. If electric shock therapy ever was going to do anything for anybody, it would be up in the range of two or three thousand shocks. And they seldom give this many. But it's not necessarily the most horrible thing that ever happened to anybody.

But as a person goes down scale, it's amazing that he'll run into a 12-volt battery and get a short on a 12-volt battery and scream like he's been electrocuted with 100,000 volts! And it's rather a cruel thing to shock the insane because they are peculiarly susceptible to it. They think it's fantasti­cally horrible. It hurts! And I had a psychiatrist tell me it didn't hurt them because he'd put it on his own skull, couple of times, and it had just tickled.

And I says, "Well, don't they get upset?"

"Oh, yes, they go into convulsions and things like that," he says, "but I don't see why they should."

Well, the reason they go into convulsions and all that sort of thing is because they're peculiarly allergic to the electrical shock. Get the idea? Just has more magnitude.

So, we get into this thing called tolerance. And this goes back to old Expanded GITA. Old 8-8008. Scarcity and abundance in all things, the rem­edy of scarcity and abundance in all things. Well, truth of the matter is, experience is not very prevalent. And one gets unaccustomed to having a fab­ulous amount of experience and as I've said in lectures before about the small town and what would be randomity in a small town, what would be randomity in a big town. If you haven't had too many experiences lately, then all of a sudden you're hit with a lightning bolt, you see, it's all out of propor­tion. It's magnitude of change.

Well, the minus randomity that you run into is in proportion to how much change you believe has occurred. See that? Therefore, it is the matter of change in the consideration of a pc or tolerance of change in the consider­ation of a pc. Of course, it's just the consideration of the pc that makes plus or minus randomity.

And you're going to say, "Well, if an atom bomb landed in this room at this moment, we would all agree on plus randomity." Well, I would too, because it is a nice room and the HASI needs it. But I don't know that it

would do very much to us particularly. I really don't. Because I've already noticed that Scientologists are not reacting to radiation sickness and other things, to the same degree as people. It's already different, clinically different.

Now consideration of violence, consideration of motion, consideration of rate of change, all of these things add into it. The only reason I'm talking to you at length about this is don't you, particularly on a brand-new-into-Scientology pc, go make up your mind about what he should feel concerning this! You understand?

Audience: Yes.

He says — he says, "Ha. I got this stuck picture here. I got this stuck picture here of a pen."

And you say, "Good. That's fine. Is anybody holding the pen?" or some-thing of that sort.

"No. It's just a picture of a pen. Ha-ha."

And you start running it and all of a sudden it loosens up somehow and blows, and you find out that he dropped it! And that's why he has a stuck picture of it. About that time you'd better make up your mind — something about the case, don't you see? His tolerance of change, you see, is very slight.

And when you get obsessively stuck pictures on very, very insignificant objects and things of this character, you'd better make up your mind that you better treat this case nice and smooth and easy. You know, go light on this case, you know? Just like the psychiatrist ought to go light on the roaring psy­cho. Says, "Well, 12 volts couldn't hurt anybody, 100 volts couldn't hurt anybody." And he applies them to somebody's skull and they scream like tortured ban­shees, you know, and dislocate their spines and do all kinds of wild things and he knows it shouldn't happen. Well, it does happen! We have to observe the fact that it happens. And similarly you've got to observe the thing, you see?

Now, what a person — some person in space opera, if you were auditing him, would consider minus randomity would probably also be very startling to you. Person has only been tearing around the — the town, sightseeing, and roaring up and down, and for eighteen hours a day and just having a ball, and so forth. And then says to you suddenly, "Well, there's nothing doing. I haven't been doing anything."

Well, that would be — that's not within our immediate judgment, you see. So, what is plus or minus randomity to you will never be what's plus or randomus — minus randomity to a pc who is newly in Scientology or some-thing like that or has never been audited before, you got it? Never, never will be.

So, it's the pc's reaction to the picture, the pc's reaction to the motion which adjudicates, then, what you do about it or how gently or easily you handle it, and how much attention you pay to what is going on. And all that is definitely in the field of judgment.

I point it out to you that you will never have a rule by which, "If pc has stuck picture, always then, so and so." Get the idea? "If he has automaticity, always then, so and so."

No, the automaticity, the stuck picture and so forth might be so fantastic in degree of it, might be so great, that you have to make an adjudication to the case that it's a CCH case, and you sure better not go into anything else, got it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well, it's just his tolerances are different than your tolerances and that's all. Okay?

Audience: Yes, Ron.

Thank you.