And this is the second morning lecture of January the 11th, 1954.

Okay. Today, this afternoon, we are here and now going to talk about: "Exteriorization: Why don’t you try it sometime?”

The reason we’re doubling up this way is because we have a lot of instruction to cover and the instruction itself is of two varieties. One, of course, is basic law and the other is its application. So you find me repeatedly talking about, first, basic laws, theory, and then you find me talking about application. Now, these two things are not today too far apart, so it’s very easy to put these two things together.

The problem to be solved in exteriorization is a very simple one: you have to solve the problems which determine or make the preclear determine that mass is wonderful and that he has to have terminals with which to operate — if you have any difficulty with exteriorization.

Now, it’s about time we got into some basic material. I want to first give you a nice brace of processes which are themselves, very, very productive. And one is ... I want to inform you, over there, I wanted to tell that, you know of course, that I told you earlier, I want to point this up: you know that any process in 8-C can be reduced down to Opening Procedure, done by walking a body around. You realize that, don’t you? You better, because Opening Procedure is a very good process in walking the body around. And for lower-level cases which are evading you, subjective processing is not very productive.

The preclear first felt degraded when he contacted and interiorized in a piece of MEST. He first felt degraded when this occurred. And this is the heaviest degradation there is on the bank-entrance to the MEST universe.

Degradation is simply powerlessness. It’s just an extremity of powerlessness, that’s all. If somebody feels degraded, he feels powerless and that’s all. Let’s not read any deeper significance into it and to say why he is degraded-or naturally, it would be the case if so-and-so and so-and-so-and long and drawn out. No, he feels degraded because of a loss of power, which is loss of the ability to create energy.

You should realize that subjective processing is very often quite beyond the preclear and very often you will be handling something in Creative Processing or mock-ups or something of the sort and your preclear keeps shifting the subject and you’re having a rough time with communication and a rough time staying in there and he’s having a rough time doing it, you know? And he’s kind of bouncing like we used to call it in Dianetics. Oh no. You’re just running subjective processing on somebody you better not be running subjective processing on. So let’s take a definition there. Subjective processing is that processing which is done in the fellow’s own universe. Objective processing is that processing which is done in the MEST universe or in other people’s universes.

When a person has become to depend upon something else to create energy for him, when he depends upon this, then it of course stops creating energy and so does he. He stops first depending on something else to create the energy, then it stops because, naturally, the only thing that’s creating energy is himself.

Subjective processing is too introverted for an awful lot of people and you could, theoretically, subjectively process somebody right into the grave. You could do that. And you know what a subjective process is. That’s just something done on a fellow’s own universe. And that’s getting mock-ups and Match Terminaling and moving postulates around and, oh, there’s lots-any of these processes whereby he sits still and . .. Let’s say he’s just sitting in the middle of the room exteriorized and doing mock-ups and this and that (in other words overhauling and manhandling his own universe) or he’s in a body doing mock-ups or Matched Terminals or something of the sort. These things are subjective processes.

It sometimes takes him a long time to find this out. He’s getting less and less and less energy. He’s running down, he says. He ought to have a rest, he ... so forth. There are lots of reasons why. [said gruffly] The truth of the matter is, is he set up something to create energy for him and then, thereafter, depended on it more and more and more and more. And of course his power was all that it was using for power all the time. Get that little hooker: the only power being furnished anywhere around there was being furnished by himself.

Well now, you have to realize that after you go so far down the line with a case, a subjective process fails. There are certain case levels-an awful lot of case levels-where you don’t really gain anything by subjective processing, quite on the contrary, you lose things after a while.

The GE does not furnish any power to the thetan. The only power being furnished was by himself, but he, in other words, became more and more covert. His lines to furnish this power became more and more circuitous and more and more hidden from him and he could say all the time-more and more and more he could say, “Well, I’m depending on it and it is furnishing me power. He’s furnishing himself power via it. So when he stops creating power, it stops creating power and he has no power. You see that?

Now, any case will stand up to quite a few hours of subjective processing almost regardless of what condition it’s in-almost any case. And that’s what we call a limited technique. It’s limited by the number of hours it can be done.

Now, this appears, at first glance, to be a little bit unreasonable with relationship to the MEST universe, whereas we see very, very well that an individual goes down the road in a car and it is burning gasoline, which we know very well was laid down as a deposit in the earth by lots of fishes who became compressed and decayed and all that sort of thing. And we know all this completely and we know all this perfectly and this is a fact and this is a reason.

Now, Dianetics, almost totally, was a limited technique. It could be done so many hours and then after that, why, you’d hit the peak of improvement and then you’d start to slide off. Many factors were contributing to this, one of the factors would be poor or bad communication auditing.

The only thing wrong with it is, that isn’t what happened. Even though you have the deposit that makes the gasoline that converts into the tank of your car that burns in the car and even though you are depending on the car to pull the body around and all that sort of thing, the moment you have lost sight of the fact that you’re just playing a rather complex game with yourself, you lose the power the car can furnish you.

So, where you have communication difficulty-this is the criteria when not to use a subjective process, is when you’re having bad communication difficulty with the preclear. The preclear keeps asking you what you meant or what you want or he doesn’t know if he could do that or he begins to reminisce or something of the sort and his lines of communication are not the best. The auditor finds himself sitting there trying to get a word in edgewise and trying to get an auditing command through and finds himself arguing with the preclear, one way or the other. Under any of these conditions, subjective processing should be put aside in favor of something which is strictly an objective process.

Now, I’m not going to tell you, to this extremity, that the day you depend entirely on the gasoline running your car, the car is going to stop. I’m going to tell you the day you start-that you have totally depended on nothing but gasoline, the car is going to stop. So, don’t go off the wheels and think I’m saying something unreasonable. Don’t get lost with that one.

Now, oddly enough, there are a lot of sitting-still techniques which are objective processes. So let’s not overlook the fact that almost anything you can do can be done with Opening Procedure. Anything that can be done on a subjective process can be done by moving the guy around.

Now, I hate to have to tell you this because it gives so many ins and so forth to the field of mysticism and so on and a lot of guys get dreaming up and imagining things about it and so forth. But you know all this ridge energy you’ve got hanging around? Well, every doggone one of these ridges and every darn one of these automatic machines and all these deposits of energy and that sort of thing, you’ve got because you know you can’t have the real thing!

Now, remember, too, that you can move a thetan around as well as a body. And Opening Procedure broadens markedly the moment you realize this. You exteriorize somebody and then thereafter you’re really doing some form of Opening Procedure, see? You’re moving him around, moving him around the room.

A mock-up and what the thetan considers theta energy to himself, he has because he can’t have the real McCoy, according to him. You’ve got that? I mean, he can’t have the real McCoy, according to him.

And you can take a thetan-any thetan, exteriorized, is in pretty shaky condition when you first get him out and if you do a lot of Opening Procedure on him, why, you’ll get yourself in pretty good shape.

This is rather silly, I mean, if you think about it. He obviously has all these terminals and all this energy and all this saved-up this and that and so forth. Well, that’s all very well-that’s all very well, but it is a substitute. And where you read on brands of food, “Accept no substitutes” and so forth, that’s an awfully good motto for a thetan.

Now, you can also exteriorize a thetan—this guy is in pretty good shape; he does good mock-ups, he’s got everything. And then you exteriorize him and he’s apparently in good condition, but he’s not quite sure about the room and about where he is and where he isn’t and all of that sort of thing. And you’re having a little rough time with him there. Well, you’d be a lousy auditor if you didn’t realize that you’ve stepped the tone of the preclear down.

But he couldn’t have a woman, so he’s carrying a mock-up of a woman. Well, he had to have a woman in the first place and he didn’t have to have one and it gets involved that way. But anyway, he’s carrying a mock-up of a woman. So if you just add it up every time, well, he’s got a scarcity of them. And that’s a substitute for a scarcity of women, not just a scarcity of one particular woman. If he’s got a ridge, that’s a scarcity of manufactured energy. If you just mock it up that way, if he’s got a ridge, it’s a scarcity of manufactured energy. If he’s carrying around a mass of applause or a sexual sensation in the bank or something of the sort, well, he’s carrying it around because he’s got a scarcity of it.

Well, thetan plus body could operate pretty well-you know, good orientation. He knew where the body was and the body knows where other things are. Now you exteriorize him and he doesn’t know where things are.

A fellow has a lot of facsimiles, even mean, brutal ones like electronics and so forth, and they get into restimulation all the time. Then you figure out, well, he must have depended on them sometime or another and then he depended on them more and more and now he’s surreptitiously furnishing stuff to them. And that’s the one way he can have electrical energy back is to put it into an electronic facsimile and to feed it back to himself and that’s what he’s doing. And he isn’t doing anything more complicated than that. An individual who has facsimiles popping up in front of his face all the time is putting them there by circuitous circuits which he himself has forgotten about and is no longer responsible for. This is a facsimile.

Well, of course, you’re just now operating a thetan independently without any great dependence upon the body, except for the communication line that he’s getting from the body-and the sooner he jettisons this one, the happier he’ll be, by the way. You just remember that you’re doing a breed of Opening Procedure on this person.

An individual can take a facsimile simply by resisting a solid object.

And you’re really-then you should be able to just understand this. I mean, lights should flash and bells ring on you, right now. This drill of “be in pleasant and be in unpleasant places” is actually moving somebody around, you see. And that’s really the definition of Opening Procedure, is moving somebody around.

You get the idea, for instance, of resisting one of those ashtrays.

Now, one of the best techniques you can run on him is just the way it’s laid down there in Opening Procedure, but as a thetan. You exteriorize him and you say, “All right. Now pick a place to go,” instead of just “Be here” and “Be there.” “Now pick a place to go.” “Now make up your mind you’re going to go there.”

All right. Now look up above the ashtray.

Well, the odd part of it is, is you may find this is too tough for him. Boy, we’ve really got something here, haven’t we? This is too tough for him. Well, doggone it, it sure is awful easy when you’re walking the body around the room, isn’t it? There’s nothing to that. And yet we exteriorize him and it’s too tough for him.

Got another ashtray?

Well, that’s why you get into Step la. You clear up a lot of his thinkingness exteriorized. And when you’ve cleared up his thinkingness, exteriorized, why, then you can do some Opening Procedure. And that’s why it says, “Step lb: If exteriorized, send him to pleasant or unpleasant places.”

Let’s get the idea now-let’s really resist something that’s a little bit interesting to resist and let’s all look up at that lamp overhead there.

Now, you could just develop that Step lb as Opening Procedure, after you’ve cleared some of his thinkingness up. But if you find it’s too tough for him, why, you drop back a step. And the way you drop back a step is to clear up some of his thinkingness.

Now let’s resist it. Let’s put it back in its place!

Now, it’s still an objective process to have a thetan, exteriorized, telling you three places where he is not. See, that’s an objective process: “Give me three places where you’re not.” That’s not a subjective process. The difference between a subjective and objective process comes up again on another definition: That which extroverts the attention is an objective process, by definition and that which introverts the attention is a subjective process. So we get extroversion-introversion.

Now let’s conceive a dislike for it and put it back in its place!

Now, Six Steps to Better Beingness, by the way, is designed as a sandwich. It’s an objective and subjective process, extrovert-introvert, step by step. See? Step 1 of Six Steps to Better Beingness is extroversion, Ten Minutes of Nothingness. “Look outside of you and find nothingness,” see? And Step 2 is an introversion-extroversion. At least the last time I looked at it, that was the way it was.

Now let’s put it back in its place again.Now let’s get how hard it’s pushing-the son of a gun-get how hard it’s pushing and how mean this is of it to push.

All right. You can design a lot of processes on this basis of extroversion-introversion. And if you give the person as much extroversion as introversion or more extroversion than introversion, you’re going to sail along and your case isn’t going to do a sag.

Now look at some other part of the room.

But if you give this character a lot of introversion and very little extrovertive processing-you know, never call his attention to anything outside himself-he’ll eventually slump. His communication changes will get slower and slower and slower and slower and slower. And when communication changes are slowing, slowing, slowing, slowing, slowing, you just check up with yourself and find out whether or not you aren’t introverting this fellow’s attention, because here we have the whole problem of attention. Just whether or not his attention is going outside or going inside.

Now close your eyes. Got a picture of the lamp?

Now, all his life the MEST universe and people around him have been keeping themselves in a state of sanctity by simply saying to him continually, “Put your attention on yourself.” Now, you as an auditor can sit there and compound the felony, compound the invalidation.

That’s the way you make a facsimile.

These people who invalidate themselves, these people who are easily invalidated, have been put-said, “Put your attention on yourself.” Fellow walks into a brick wall and bumps his head. Of course, the brick wall said to him, “Put your attention on yourself, fella.” And this is introversion.

So an individual who resists the MEST universe real hard winds up, first, with a particularized facsimile of lamps and scenes and winds up with a completely unparticularized facsimile of the MEST universe, which is guess what? Solid blackness. Because it’s a black universe.

Now, this universe batters a guy at 360 degrees all the way around and it tends to make him much smaller. All right. If the universe tends to make him much smaller, then you’d better tend to make him much bigger. Which tells you that he has some of the smallnesses to clean up internally, which is his subjective processes, and an awful lot of them to clean up extrovertively. See, he’s got-oh heck, they’re 99 to 1. He’s got a lot more to clean up in the grand sphere than in the petite sphere.

If you don’t believe it’s a black universe, get out there beyond the bounds of the air on this planet and take a look That’s about the blackest black you’ll ever run into. You see that?

Now, there have been more philosophies that tried to hit this than you can count. There’s the yang and the yin, there’s the microcosm and macrocosm and so on. All they’re talking about is whether the attention is outward or the attention is inward.

All right. If he is depending upon the MEST universe to furnish him light and to furnish him darkness and to furnish him the space he’s going to move in-particularly furnish him the space he’s going to move in-and to be all things to all him, he’ll wind up eventually with no MEST universe.

Now, the basic attention-you notice everything goes down to attention, finally. The second you get into flows, you’re into attention. Attention is very important: applause, eating, all the rest of this-attention, attention. What gets wrong with a little kid, you see him around, you can usually break it down to attention, anxiety for. And it’s very easy.

Now, let’s take the problem of motion. And let’s go into this very particularly-the 4 problem of motion. And the problem of motion is as follows: we’re going to move this ashtray from this position on the desk over to this position on the desk.

All right. Well, let’s see this, then, as looking outward or looking inward. And people are trying to make other people look outward at them or not look outward at them and they’re trying to manhandle other people’s attention. The upset of self-determinism is this upset of attention. People try to introvert the attention to keep them from being dangerous.

Now, how did it get over there? In order to be a part of this universe and a partner to this universe, you have to know something which you’ve forgotten you know. Well, you had to forget that you knew it, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to perceive this and become an effect to it.

Now, the basic process on this is just like this and you do this process right now.

Now, what’s this thing you have to know? You have to know how to mock-up and unmock things at the speed of light.

Now put your attention on the front wall.

The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, which is how fast a particle travels. If you’re in agreement with energy, this makes sense. If you’re not in agreement with energy, it doesn’t make sense at all. Because there’s no sense to it except you put it there.

Now put your attention on top of your head.

All right. How do you get it across there, then, if you’re in agreement with energy? All right, we start it at position A here and we have to unmock it, then mock it up and then unmock it and mock it up, unmock it-unmock, mock, unmock. See? We have to unmock it in this old place and mock it up in the new place and unmock it here and mock it up here and unmock it here and mock it up here and unmock it there and mock it up there and unmock it there and mock it up there and unmock it there and mock it up there and unmock it there and then mock it up there. Now, when you try this-to mock and unmock, mock and unmock, mock and unmock a mock-up, don’t be surprised if it all of a sudden gets solid. Eeeh! You say, “Ooh! No-no, no-no, no, no, I don’t want-I don’t want-I-I-don’t want a-a green hat right there-no, no, not for all time!” And you’ll struggle around as to how to unmock the thing and you won’t quite know how to unmock it.

Now lift your attention around and put it on the back wall.

Ah, there’s ways of unmocking it: you just move it around a couple of times and it will disappear because it unmocks itself.

Now put it on top of your head.

Now, why is this moving postulates? Why does that make things disappear? Oh, it’s very simple. You put this big, heavy mass out there and start moving it around and it disappears. Hah! It’s interesting, isn’t it? You know, you put a mass out and you start moving it. Now, when I say move something, I do mean move. Now this is moving an ashtray, [sliding sound] It’s in a number of consecutive positions.

Now put your attention on the floor.

All right. Now, let’s take another problem and let’s materialize the ashtray as completely different than move it. Now we’ll have the ashtray appear here [bang], and then [bang] appear over here, without being through the consecutive positions. That’s materializing something.

Now put it on top of your head.

Now, most of your preclears, when you ask them to move things around, will put something in front of them and something behind them and something to the right and something to the left and so forth and they’ll merely unmock and mock something up-they will materialize things, they won’t move them.

Now put it on the ceiling.

Now, when you tell them to move a mock-up or move a symbol, you mean just that. You mean move this symbol from position A through A' and A" and A'" and A'"", until they get over there to B. And you want it to go through all of those consecutive positions and see it the whole way. And you’ll find out, sooner or later, they’ll skip on this.

Now put it on top of your head.

Well, this is forcing them to chew into their automatic machinery, which is actually-for our theoretical purposes-putting this universe here. Can you see that? For theoretical purposes, we’ll consider it this way. You don’t have to be hung with this postulate, because every once in a while it’ll make you awfully groggy. You won’t like this postulate. The best thing to do if you don’t like this is to hold on to the two back anchor points of the room and go around and kick the walls for a while and you’ll get over it very rapidly. That reassures you that your automaticity is still working. Anyway ... [laughter]

Now do the remaining exercise with your eyes closed.

So in order to move something, however, we’ve got to form new consecutive spaces. We have to form new spaces. This is the modus operandi of motion. Actually, we don’t give a damn about motion or forms or objects, because they all come out of the subject of knowingness. If you know they’re there, they’re there. If you don’t know they’re there, they’re not there.

Put your attention on the floor.

Oh yeah, well, we won’t really have to go into any deeper anatomy than this. And if you’ll just recall that while you’re trying to steer your way through this morass of data, why, you’ll be a lot happier. You just know it’s there, it’s there.

Put it on top of your head.

How do you get a mock-up out there? Well, you know it’s there, so it’s there.

Now put somebody else’s attention on the floor.

And then you’ll get in some preclear-he can’t get a mock-up out there because he hasn’t got enough energy and wait a minute, he’ll have to grab some more energy from someplace else, he’ll scratch some energy together in order to get another black mock-up or something. “Just a minute and I’ll find some more black energy around here someplace and I’ll put...”

Now put their attention on their face.

Oh boy, how involved can you get! Because he has to put the black energy there, that is scattered all around, so that he can scrape the black energy together so he has found the energy so that he can make a new mock-up out of the energy he’s found, see? Tzzzztl This is just silly.

Now put their attention on the floor.

Why didn’t he just say, “All right, there’s a black shape out there”? How does he know it’s there? Because he knows it’s there. Well, if he really knows it’s there, he can see it. That’s the test of knowing it’s there. If he knows it’s there well enough, he can see it. If he doesn’t know it’s there well-it isn’t well enough and so forth, he, of course, can’t see it.

Now put it on their face.

So perception and knowing-unless we want to go into the agreements with the MEST universe and take them apart-and to a large degree in auditing, we do have to take apart the agreements which form the MEST universe in order to bail a preclear out and return to him some of his power and abilities. We do have to take it into effect, but if we took it into effect exclusively and just left out knowingness about the whole thing, we’d be talking about physics. And we’d be talking about a higher echelon of physics than anybody has ever echeloned.

All right. Throw them away. And get two other people. And have one of these put the other’s attention on the ceiling.

They’ve tried to fly that high. Sir James Jeans, once in a while, used to. And he finally came out with a very significant remark, well, as near as he could find out, “The whole thing began with the explosion of an atom.” That’s not very high. That takes him as high as the explosion. But he knew it wasn’t here and he could prove it wasn’t here, but he could also prove it was here and so forth. So he just went kind of non sequitur and dived over sideways and said, “Well, it all started with the explosion of an atom” and that settled the problem for him. Well, actually, he’d settled no problem at all. Where did the atom come from, fella? It works!

And then on the person’s own face.

Now, there is a central position and there is a central creation moment for all creations and we’ll call this-the first terminal is “prime post unposted.” That’s where you would depart from: “prime post unposted”-which of course is a mock-up on Prime Mover Unmoved.

And then on the ceiling.

All right. Now, we’ll get into the next echelon and we find out that knowingness-and really the anatomy of knowingness itself-would just be the anatomy of consecutive agreements which keep everybody timed with everybody else and they’re in good time with everybody else or in bad time with everybody else. And you can depart in two directions, then, on auditing.

And then on the face. Now throw that away.

You could say, “Well let’s get somebody out of agreement so he can be in agreement on choice or let somebody get in complete agreement with everything. Well, you’d have that theoretical choice, you see, as an auditor. So, let’s just take it as a theoretical choice and let’s pull somebody out of agreement and see how he is and then let’s get somebody to really agree very nicely and then see how he is. And we find out both these preclears have made a slight advance. And we’ll do it a little bit longer and we’ll just work on somebody to pull him out of agreement just a little bit further, see, a little bit further, and we’ll push somebody in agreement about the universe just a little bit deeper. Ah-ah. The fellow who’s been pushed into agreement a little bit deeper will all of a sudden start caving in. Isn’t that curious? And the fellow who’s been pulled out of agreement will continue to improve. And pulling people out of the agreement channel gives us, then, almost an. unlimited improvement and pushing them into agreement gives, at first, a little improvement and then a rapid deterioration of a case.

And you put your attention on the floor.

You can make this test sometime if you want to. Because you know what you’re looking at when you do that? You’re looking at what reality is. We’ll just measure what these fellows laughingly call reality and we find out the fellow we’re pulling out of agreement gets higher and higher reality. And the fellow we’re pushing into agreement gets lower and lower a reality. Well now, that’s kind of funny, isn’t it? The fellow who’s forced to agree with the MEST universe and continues to agree with the MEST universe is, of course, agreeing with a dependency. Because this universe is set up as a dependency universe. And so he gets more — has to be more and more dependent upon this universe because he has to agree that other things exist besides himself and that he doesn’t own them. Well, of course, the truth of the matter is, nothing exists outside of himself unless he set it up to be.

Now put it on the top of your head.

Now, we don’t go adrift with this. This is not theory that we’re reaching for over your head. Someday you may or may not-and you may or may not, right this instant-be tangling horns with the actuality and the fact of this case. That is to say, it may or may not be registering very well. Because actually, I’ve had a fellow hang fire five, six weeks on this mock-unmock system of creation and all of a sudden happily remember the bracket or some such thing. You know, all of a sudden he remembers, “By golly, now wait a minute, sometimes a case hangs up when we don’t do the rest of the bracket.” Oooooh! He knows that because he’s seen it happen, you see? He’s read it on an E-Meter. Errrh!

Now put your attention on your inner world.

Why should we have to do the rest of the bracket? Let’s see, if you’re just a partner with this universe and it really belonged to everybody else, we’d never have to do a bracket, would we? Oh-oh, looks like you have to do the bracket in order to keep up with the rest of the agreement. Mm-hm. Say, you don’t suppose that you got a hand in other people’s agreements or something? No, you couldn’t do that, because you’re bad cause if you were that way and you couldn’t do that. But he’ll sometimes plod around like that for quite a while and then he’ll grab hold of it and for some reason or other he feels better. Because the truth of the matter is the universe you see, you put there.

Now put it on the walls of the room.

Now, that doesn’t mean that for you the walls might be pink and for me they might be purple. And that doesn’t mean we’d see anything different MEST-wise, because you’ve got something in front of you-or you’re in something like a GE that has done nothing but specialize in agreement. And you’ve agreed that he has done nothing but specialize in agreement. And so he sees and that leaves you-it leaves you a little bit unnecessary to go into such a complete agreement to see. But, of course, you could just choose to see and you would see. We’re not going afield anyplace, we’re talking about exteriorization.

Now put it on the inner world.

Get the difference between materializing something and moving something. We have to unmock this and mock it up and unmock it and mock it up. But the difference is that it’s being unmocked and unmocked at the consecutive spaces which are the distance a particle would travel to make a new space. Particles are always being made into new spaces right here in this ashtray if we go into the modus operand! of what we’re agreeing to. But the first thing we’d go into is just knowing about it. And we could just know it was there and see it and there wouldn’t have to be any particles or mass or weight or anything else in it. See that?

Now put it on the walls of the room.

But the next thing we’d go into as well-we wanted somebody else to see it too, so we’ve got some kind of an agreement we’d better work out with this person. Well, you could enforce your agreement on him just by out-postulating him, you might say.

Okay. Now grab ahold of the two back anchor points of the room.

But a couple of guys now see this ashtray, well, they have to agree how they see the ashtray. And we gradually get out the tremendous chemical, biological bric-a-brac that is kicking all over the place and is so complex and everybody pretends so hard he has to study in order to know about. Well, for God’s sakes, his agreement-energy, his own basic energy has to run back through the whole cockeyed chain to activate it so that he can know. That’s real good, isn’t it?

Okay. Present time.

Well, it’s a very funny thing that a little kid who doesn’t know any nuclear physics at all can see much better than a nuclear physicist who has studied and knows all about it. Now, if you tally those two data together, this starts to make a little sense. It has nothing to do with the deterioration of the GE.

End of session.

Let’s take Fanny Featherbrain who works at the rather light task o£ taking dollars away from customers down at the restaurant. And we find out that Fanny is twenty-six years of age and her vision is 200/200 or something of the sort-whatever would be a very high vision-and she’s just doing fine. She’s doing fine.

Now you see what I mean by attention, hm? Become very clear to you?

And now let’s take Miss Bookworm who has studied hard and slaved to get there and so forth. Well, she might be in the advertising office across the street but she’s twenty-six and we compare their visions. Well, of course, one used up her eyes a lot on books and so forth, while Fanny Featherbrain wasn’t doing this.

Now, that’s all we mean by extroversion-introversion. And you must realize that some of these processes put a person’s attention madly on the inner world and some of them put them on the outside world. Now, when you tell somebody, “Give me three places where you are not,” you jolly well put his attention on the exterior world, don’t you?

Well, you say, that’s got a lot of other angles there that we might test one way and we might test the other way, but isn’t it a funny thing that we pick up the whole class of girls who are twenty-six, along with Fanny Featherbrain, and we find out the incidence of eyesight and perception and brightness of the MEST universe is remarkably lower than the whole class of Fanny Featherbrains.

And if you just let him say, “Well, all right. Boston, New York, San Francisco.”

And well, we’d say, “Well, she read, you see. And these other girls read and they didn’t read in good light and they didn’t watch their diet or they didn’t do something” and there’s big-lots of explanations and more agreements, more agreements.

And you say, “Give me three more places where you’re not.”

Well, let’s not avoid, let’s just look at the straight fact. These girls who are educated divide into two classes: those who studied in the arts and those who studied in sciences. And we find out that those who studied in the sciences have poorer eyesight than those who studied in the arts. Oh-oh!

And he says, “Oh, North Pole, South Pole and the Moon.”

So we’ve got the girls who didn’t study at all and the girls who studied in the arts and the girls who studied in the sciences and we have a gradient scale of how bright is the MEST universe. Getting real silly, isn’t it? It’s beginning to look like maybe something else is at work here besides just photons.

Exteriorization: Theory and Demonstration

Well, they had to agree. And they had to agree hard. And they’ve been agreeing with more doggone modus operandi and less sense than anything you could count.

And you say, “Now, give me three more places where somebody else isn’t.”

Well anyway, we get a gradient scale of eyesights here.

And he says, “Oh, here, there” and so on and so on-he’s getting it. Like hell he is! Because the process isn’t being done. What’s the process?

Now let’s take other professions and let’s find out who has, professionally, the worst ~J eyesight. And we find out the nuclear physicist does. Isn’t that silly! This is queer, isn’t it? Well, you don’t have to take it as a fact. You just go meet some. Go get an optical chart, go look them over.

This is covert; most auditing is. The process involved here is making that fellow look in the direction of, and find out whether or not he is there. And when he does this skip, jump, zip, zip, he isn’t extroverting, and that’s all you’re trying to make him do. You’re trying to make him kind of look in a different distance and kind of look at Chicago and sort of look at the South Pole and get an idea where that South Pole is.

And we find out the fellow who has been studying to agree-in other words, exterior knowingness to self-who has been studying to agree on the particularities of the agreement of the MEST universe and has agreed and agreed and agreed on such fundamentals as how many photons are on the head of a pin or something. And has gone on with chemical, year after year after year after year, with no other solution than “Let’s look at something,” he’s been pushing himself right down into the depths in terms of perception. It’s getting less and less real to him. And that’s all it amounts to as far as perception goes.

You also can make him look for the South Pole and then change the location of the South Pole. There’s a big variation on that. Because as long as you make him look toward where the South Pole actually is, you’re making him agree with the universe, and this one we must avoid wherever possible.

Well, that’s funny that agreement would go below and invert. But do you know ARC goes down to a certain point and then inverts? And you get below that, the best possible affinity is complete identification. The best possible agreement is an identification of two data. And the best possible communication is from one point to the same point without any wires. So you get entire identification at the bottom of the ARC chain.

Then you say, “All right. Now, let’s get whether or not you’re at the South Pole.”

So ARC has to have some differentiation and so there’s two ends to ARC. One is ARC with differentiation-distance. And the other is ARC with no distance. And when you get ARC with no distance, you get psychosis. And so you could push this down below a certain desirable level. At a certain level, it’s social and below that level, it gets worse and worse and it caves in and gets worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse. And that’s the scale from 4.0 on the Tone Scale.

And “Okay. Okay. I’m not at the South Pole,” he says.

It’s a study of the increasing identification of A, R and C from 4.0 down. Increasing, identification. Actually, you call it less ARC. It’s an inverted ARC. You see that? Because the person has agreed that the MEST universe is his boss, he has then agreed to have communication forced on him. Because it’s the handiest, jim-dandiest, most God-awful thing you ever ran into, in terms of communication, is the MEST universe. It will force communication on you, whether you like it or not, if you are a piece of matter. If you’re a piece of matter, the MEST universe can and does force identification on you. See that? You cannot help but get into that rut and fall off the bridge, you might say, and into the pond if you insist upon the MEST universe as an other-determinism. The solution to it is not just a banishment of the MEST universe. The solution to it is the MEST universe is your determinism.

“All right. Now, put the South Pole over in the middle of France and get whether you’re not in the South Pole now.”

Well, when we look at the scale of ARC, we find out that it goes down to a certain point and that’s desirable and an individual can communicate or change communication and so on. And below this point, we get an enforced identification with the MEST universe, in other words, a big dependency on the MEST universe. It’s at that point where the MEST universe becomes the other-determinism.

Nothing. Just making him less dependent. Just weaving in to the technique another technique, which is simply this: the MEST universe has been telling him where directions are for an awful long time, and it’s about time he told the MEST universe where directions are.

The invention of God as a “God trick” was an interesting invention for thetans. But much more interesting is the development of a philosophy which tells you that God owns all the space. That, of course, gives you a total dependency on it. And actually, the individual initially bought this, very knowingly, as a very neat mechanism for having a universe for a playing field. It’s the most obvious automaticity you could possibly lay in. And you say, “Well, all this belongs to somebody else and we’ll call him ‘God.’” You know, and then you’d have a playing field that you wouldn’t have to look at all the time. See that?

So he says, “The South Pole is northwest of here.”

The day when you say, “The playing field is there and it’s victimizing me” and you put a playing field there and you coincided with the other players and other pieces so that you’ve all got a playing field, you’ve got a basic agreement on the existence of this symbol called God. Therefore, you’ve all got a playing field and that becomes very elementarily simple then, doesn’t it?

Now, if he can work this up to a point of where he’ll get that and he’ll get complete belief on that-he’s totally convinced, as far as he’s concerned. He’s totally satisfied that the South Pole is just northwest of Brooklyn-why, he’s perfectly happy. As a matter of fact, he’ll get happier and happier and happier about it.

And then you’d go down the line and it works along fine for a long time and then you become convinced, utterly, that it belongs to somebody else and it isn’t yours. And the moment that you find out it isn’t yours, why, you become slightly dead duck because it becomes a trap. And the only trap you can be caught in is the trap that you make yourself.

You say, “All right. Now, where is your childhood home?”

All right. So you’ve got an agreement chain there and that agreement chain itself is the “fixation chain.” It’s what fixes the idea. Continuous agreement. Continuous repetition. In other words, you put more and more mass into something and, sure enough, there’s been more and more mass put into this universe. See? It’s more and more agreement. So that you all know that somebody else knows that you know that anybody knows that there is a universe here and it is called the MEST universe and you’re thoroughly agreed on it. Now you start to depend on somebody else’s agreement in order to keep the universe there. Well, unfortunately somebody else’s agreement doesn’t exist in your bank-except as you put it there. So you depend on somebody else’s agreement to put the MEST universe there and you’re just going to sit back and ride.

And he looks around and he finally spots it and he gets it due west. And by the way, this technique is a little bit advanced. You understand, you run this on somebody who’s pretty low-toned and he’ll go zzzz.

Well, at the moment when your dependency comes complete, the universe disappears.

In the first place, the test is, is does he know which direction these things are rather instinctively from where he’s sitting? And if he knows which directions they are from where he is sitting, why, then another proposition is indicated. But if he doesn’t even vaguely know whether that hometown is out in the next block or not or whether it’s north or south or-he’s all disoriented and so forth-you’re just going to disorient him further.

Now, the gradient scale of sight, perception and the whole scale of Emoting and Effort and Thinking and Symbols and everything else-in other words, that entire gradient scale-starts to fade out at the top and fade out on the way down, as though you were drawing a curtain. If you had at the top here Knowingness, then under it Lookingness and then under that Emotingness and under that Effortingness and under that Thinkingness and under that Symbolizingness and under that Eatingness and Sexingness, that they were all down on this scale all the way down like that and you drew a curtain from the top down, you would see how a person’s perceptions go out.

But there’s a lot of adaptions for this. You make him tell the MEST universe where it’s located, rather than the reverse. And it’s still an extroverted technique merely because he’s looking out. And that’s your total definition: he’s looking out instead of looking in.

Only it’s actually a process of drawing, repeatedly, more and more, curtains from the top down. You see, we draw a fairly transparent one from the top down the moment we set up the automaticity. Now, let’s draw another one down slowly, which is also transparent, but the two of them together don’t add up to any greater transparency. Now we draw a third one and now we draw a fourth one and a fifth one and we’re just going on down the line each time repetitively and we will eventually wind up without any. .. First? First thing that goes is Knowingness. That goes totally while there’s still some Lookingness. Then Lookingness goes and that goes totally. And then below Lookingness, Emotingness starts to go and we get Effortingness. And when we’ve got Effortingness good and solid and there’s very little above that, why, we go into Thinkingness. And boy, are they thinking at that level without looking. They’ll sit back and figure for hours whether there’s a dog in front of them and it never occurs to them to look and see if there’s a dog there. And then they go down into Symbols and symbols are condensed thinking, so you get somebody looking at you very fixedly and saying, “Well now, when you said ‘dog,’ did you really mean dog? Now according to Korzybski, dog would mean two different things to two different people.”

Now, you see the difference between these two techniques?

And you say, “Now look, bud, ‘A dog is a dog is a dog is a dog when I was a little girl,’ according to Gertrude Stein. So let’s roll.” So when we have our problems in agreement and disagreement and all of this sort of thing, let’s not get so fret up as auditors, for instance, about Mama and about Papa and all the rest of it.

All right. Now, I’m going to give you another little two-minute run here. All right. You all set?

Yeah, one guy has a tough break and another one has a tough break and so forth and it isn’t on the other basis of “you did it all yourself and you’re all to blame” and so on. Just remember that it couldn’t happen unless the fellow had a basic automaticity so it could happen! And that’s his and he put it there in full knowingness and, somewhere or other, after the garbage of agreement has been pulled off the top of it to some degree, why, you’ll locate again where this machinery is located.

Female voice: Uh-huh.

And you’ll locate it in brackets quicker than you locate it on a solo effort. Why? It’s simply because you run off so much agreement with brackets.

Now put your attention on your body.

In order for Papa and Mama to fight and in order for him to see Papa and Mama fighting, he had to have some kind of a basic automaticity about parents fighting or about people fighting or thetans fighting or something fighting, for this to come in over the top of and him to reactivate.

Put it on the walls of the room.

You’ll find Very often that your preclear is busy shadowboxing over in a corner someplace-oh, anyplace he’s aberrated he’s doing this-fully convinced that there’s somebody else in the corner shadowboxing with him and that it’s a real fight going on. And it’s only when it becomes apparent to us, as auditors, that there isn’t any other person there, that we begin to doubt the fellow’s sanity. But the truth of the matter is he’s always in his own corner shadowboxing the whole darn way down the line until you get him up to a point where he can say “Universe” and there’s a universe.

On your body.

But there are certain high spots of agreement that you have to take apart as you come up the line in order to let the guy let go. Because you can’t ask him to let go in a hurry. I’m sorry, he just won’t let go in a hurry. He’ll let go slowly. And what you want to hit is the minimum number of high spots that make him let go- of what? Of his total dependency upon (1) the other fellow’s universe, (2) the MEST universe and (3) his own automatic machinery. And you’re trying to make him let go.

On the walls of the room.

Well now, what points will he let go of? And Scientology, in processing, then becomes a study of the most available points to let go of, which when let go of will cause the maximum lift of curtains, see? That’s all you’re studying.

Now put your attention on your body and find no body.

Now, naturally, when you go on and process something too long, on any of these lines, that which you validate materializes. So there’s always a peak point for processing something, but it’s not very critical and it shouldn’t disturb you very much. Because, for instance, you’d have to get a fellow going over something, oh, I don’t know, fifty or a hundred hours, before he’d materialize it.

On the walls of the room and find no walls.

But sure enough, you can make a fellow materialize matched terminals until they haunt him. And you go out along the line and you’re undoing his case very nicely for a while with matched terminals and then after a while, you’re just putting in new agreements. You’re agreeing now that there are matched terminals. And you agree about that long enough, you can set somebody up that can process himself with matched terminals for the next ten years.

Attention on your body and find no body.

Why? Because they’re realer than the walls. Well, you can also fix a guy up with processing so that you can validate walls. And I don’t know how many thousands of hours you’d have to go this way, but you’d have to get him to a point of validating walls and validating walls and then putting up walls inside the agreed-upon walls and validating those inner walls. And if you did this long enough, you’d have a double-boxed room. That is to say, every room he walked into would have another set of walls.

Exteriorization: Theory and Demonstration

He wouldn’t be crazy, you see. I mean, you just build up another agreement. And you could build him up until the inner walls were better than the outer walls. Take you a long time. You’d have to slant your processing in this direction to do it, but it has been done experimentally. If you want to do it experimentally, that’s a horse of another hue. You learn what you’re doing here and then you can experiment in all different directions. Better learn what’s been known-those first-before we do too much experimentation on the thing. Because we have, first and foremost-we want to get some immediate results here. And we’re getting some immediate results.

Attention on the walls and find no walls.

Well, how does this all vary and fool around and monkey up and make this problem of exteriorization important?

Attention on your body. .. and find the body in a different place and no body there.

Well, what is exteriorization in the first place? Well, it takes somebody out of a body and puts him three feet back of his chair or on the roof or at his office. Or you could exteriorize somebody by saying, “Well, just be in a place where you’d like to be. Where’s a place you’d most like to be?”

On the walls of the room and find them at a different distance and find no walls there.

“Oh,” the fellow says, “Canada. In the Canadian Rockies.”

On your body in a different place and find no body.

You say, “Okay. You know the exact place where you’d like to be there?”

On the walls of the room at a different place and find no walls.

The fellow says, “Oh, yes. Fished there many times. Big cliffs on the ...”

Now put your attention on your body and find no body.

You say, “All right. Be there.”

Attention on the walls and find no walls.

And what do you know, very often the fellow will just, pop, exteriorize and he’ll be there. This is another process of giving him some mass. You understand that? You let him exteriorize from his body to new mass with which he’s already familiar and knows exists, see? Another trick of exteriorization-an old one, very old.

On your body and find no body.

Now, that’s an easy way to go about it. But a fellow who’ll exteriorize only that way, you have a big problem with. Why? Because he’s sold on mass. And if he’s sold on mass, he’s sold on his own automaticity as being somebody else’s automaticity. He’s sold on something that is actually his, being somebody else’s. Anybody who is sold on the problem of needing mass, as contrary to creating mass, is sold on the idea that his automaticity is somebody else’s. In other words, he’s denied himself.

On the walls and find no walls.

Now, this is theory weaving its treacherous way along the brink of many a cliff. And you could take this material and turn it around the other way and do something weird and strange with it, probably. And you could probably get all wrong with it. But a test of the thing is simply this: you take somebody who’s exteriorized and you ask him to mock-up and unmock something and ask him to do it more and more rapidly and, the next thing you know, he’s got the being there. He’s got somebody there. He doesn’t like that too well. So have him cut it to pieces and throw it away. Move it around. Do something else with it. And it of course, disintegrates.

Now put your attention on your body and find a body.

Now, who’s pretty good at this? I haven’t been told the result. Who’s doing a good job Ю of exteriorization these days?

On the walls of the room and find some walls.

[to student] Okay, Julia. Why don’t you be about three feet back of your head there. And what’s your favorite mock-up?

Attention on your body and find a body.

Female voice: Мт-you tell me.

On the walls and find walls.

All right. Well, let’s mock-up a cat.

О Now get the nearest tactile or pressure to you that you can contact there.

Female voice: Okay.

ОAll right. Okay.

Now, let’s unmock him.

ОEnd of session.

Mock him up.

Feel groggy? All right. Grab the two back anchor points of the room.

Unmock him.

Now, if you’re not really touching these two back anchor points of the room, reach in from the outside of the room and touch them.

Mock him up.

Okay. End of session.

And now just continue that process more and more rapidly.

Now, you see this point a little better about extroversion-introversion? That’s all I’m trying to demonstrate to you. Hm? See that real clear?

And what you got there now?

Now, you can extrovert on nothingness and extrovert on somethingness and introvert on nothingness and introvert on somethingness. So we’ve added “something” and “nothing” here to our process. See that?

Female voice: Still the same cat.

Now, did any of you get a little perception jump while we were doing this?

Still the same cat. Is he getting more solid or less solid?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Female voice: Oh, about the same.

Well, we’re using mainline material, you might say, and so therefore you can always expect, in a majority of cases, you get a perception jump on such things.

About the same. What are you omitting about the cat that you aren’t mocking-up and unmocking?

Now, you understand that I haven’t given you here a process to be processed particularly on preclears. It isn’t necessarily a process that you would use on some preclear or wouldn’t use. I’ve given it to you to demonstrate the directions of attention. But you can use it on preclears. This is not something we call “Process 865-humph.” And the reason we don’t is because it’s too mainline, it’s too much theory to have a number. It’s just straight theory application. That’s just straight theory: extrovert-introvert attention.

Is he really disappearing each time?

And once you started giving everything that came out of straight theory a name or a number, this would become an inexhaustible series. You’ve got lots of them the second you’re on that groove. You’ve just got too many of them.

Female voice: I think so.

Now, look how many ways we can do this.

All right. Now let’s throw each cat away and put a new cat in its place.

All right. Now, get your favorite hate in front of you.

Female voice: Okay.

Now look straight through it.

One after the other.

Now get it in front of you, elsewhere, and look straight through it to something beyond it.

Till you got a pile of old mock-ups.

Did it disappear?

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Female voice: Uh-uh.

Got that?

Well, you look straight through it, now.

Female voice: Yeah.

All right. Let’s get it somewhere else and look straight through it to something on the other side or nothing on the other side of it, but look at something beyond it.

All right. Now make this one you’ve got right now, make it disappear. Now a little bit ahead of that, make one appear. Make a cat appear. New place, slightly ahead of that.

Did it disappear?

Difficulty?

Female voice: Briefly. And then it came back.

Female voice: I keep -I keep changing the- what the cat is doing.

Briefly and comes back.

Oh. Oh, I see. I see. All right. Let’s just put a post there.

Well, put it out there again and look through it again.

Female voice: Done it.

Okay. Throw it aside.

All right. Let’s unmock the post. And mock it up a little bit to the right of where it was.

Now put it out there again and have it look straight through you and find nothing.

Do that okay?

Throw it away. And put it out in front of you and have it look straight through you and find nothing now.

Female voice: Yeah.

And throw it aside. And have it look through you now.

154n January 1954

Now throw it away.

All right. Unmock it there and mock it up a little further to the right.

Now put your attention on the back of the room and find no wall there.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Attention on the body and find no body there.

And unmock it there and mock it up a little bit further to the right.

Now find a body there.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

And put your attention on the two back anchor points of the room.

And unmock it there and mock it up a little bit further to the right.

And give me some places where you are not.

Okay. Is this post doing all right now?

Okay. End of session.

Female voice: Yeah. It’s getting real solid.

Well, some of you might have had difficulty looking through this and one or two might not have been able to get something there.

Ah! That’s what we’re looking for. All right. Now let’s unmock it there and mock it up a little bit further to the right again.

Well, let me show you that hate is “stopped lookingness” and that to see at all, you have to stop lookingness. The whole trick of perception is stopping your lookingness or stopping your smellingness at a certain thing, you see, at a certain distance. That’s quite a trick. And there is the soul of perception, just in those few sentences. That is perception.

Female voice: Well, do you want me to wait until you tell me to or.. .

Now, you wonder why somebody goes blind or can’t see as a thetan. Well, confound it, he stopped his lookingness, long enough and often enough, to where he has an automaticity that stops his lookingness. And believe me, it finally stops it on blackness or no-seeingness. And that’s all there is to lack of perception. There isn’t anything more difficult than that about fellows who can’t see.

No. Just go ahead and do that until you get a post actually moving by being mocked and unmocked.

Now, I’ll give you an example.

You getting a nice solid post?

Look at the front wall of this room here.

Female voice: It went black for a minute there, thefirst time.

Now try and tell me that you didn’t let your lookingness stop at the front wall.

Okay.

Audience: Yeah.

Female voice: Yeah, it’s a nice solid.

Well, what do you suppose happens to somebody that stops his lookingness for 76 trillion years? He never concentrates on starting his lookingness. He gets to a point after a while where he expects his attention to be attracted. In other words, his lookingness becomes an effect.

All right. Throw it away.

And as soon as it does, it will collapse. He ceases to be cause, he becomes an effect and the communication line puts him on the “E” end for perception. Unless he’s on the “C” end of the communication line, the Cause end of the communication line, he can’t see as a thetan, or he sees something haywire. You see that?

Female voice: Qkay.

Seeing something haywire is worse than not seeing because he’s got an automaticity there, an additional automaticity, that puts up something else to stop his lookingness. It’ll put up new pictures. See, it’ll stop his lookingness. Now, he’s stopping his lookingness.

Agreement, Motion and Perception

Now, you can run, and turn on and turn off perceptions like mad just by running this as an automaticity. Now, I can go over this again. I’m very patient. I’ll tell you again how you solve an automaticity.

Thank you.

Anything that is happening to the preclear, evidently without his consent, you make the preclear do. This at once makes him fethe other thing and makes him cause where he has been an effect. It reverses the communication line and makes him another beingness. You see that now? The law governing it is, anything the preclear is doing that’s not under his control is remedied by having him do it.

Female voice: Thank you.

This fellow has an eye twitch-this is the most flagrant case I have on record. An auditor who knew this had a person come to him with an eye twitch. You know, the fellow is going like this, the way they do-you know, a tic. This is the easiest thing in the world to solve. His auditor knew this.

That’s just an example of an SOP 8-0 process. Because, of course, that takes over the Ц mock-up of the MEST universe and the mock-up of moving things. It takes over the basic automaticity on it. And it’s true, it’ll just get solider.

He processed the case for a couple of hours, and the fellow went away with his eye twitch. And I noticed the fellow going down the stairs and I said, “What the hell is this all about?” Fellow came in to have his eye twitch removed. That was all he was interested in.

[to student] Did it get nice and solid there?

And although it’s not particularly good auditing simply to dive in at some obvious point, neither is it bad auditing. Somebody comes in, you know, and he wants to be missing his eye twitch.

Female voice: Yeah.

So I said to this auditor, “Why didn’t you remove the eye twitch?”

Yeah. Oh, these things get gorgeously solid. Just gorgeous. I mean, you can get a thetan to get things that look so much better than a real person that, holy cats, the dickens with these other mock-ups! And now he gets powerful enough so that he can stretch across and influence a couple of other universes and he’s got agreement on his mock-up and you’ve got a materialization which you can go into. And there you get materialization in front of a crowd, which they used to do, and still do, possibly, in India.

And the auditor didn’t take the dodge of “Well, I was just going forward toward Theta Clearing, the way we’re supposed to do.” He didn’t even take that road out. He says, “I-well, really,” he said, “I tried to track it down, and I-I-I’m sure it’s in birth.” Heh-heh-heh-heh.

I’ve seen this done in India, as a boy, and was quite mystified as to exactly what was occurring, because this was actual, real materialization. Well, of course, if you can do this sort of thing, why, the rest of it becomes child’s play. I mean, as far as handling people is concerned and doing things like that-if you want to make slaves out of them. But you have to make a slave out of a person, to some degree, if you’re going to control him by showing him signs and wonders. And showing people signs and wonders is done more or less in this fashion.

So I says, “Oh my God.”

Now, that’s a little bit off of theory. But there we just have the example of putting the ashtray from A to В on the communication line-you know, just mocking it up and unmocking it. Now, that’s a standard exercise for 8-0. Now, that’s how a fellow gets good, solid, big handsome mock-ups.

I said, “How about Sunday morning coming in and I’ll give you a stack of tapes and you can go all over it again.”

Now, another manifestation you’ll run into is just mocking-up and unmocking and mocking-up and unmocking in one place. All of a sudden, you’ll kick the machine to pieces. And the moment you kick the machine to pieces, it’ll set up some sort of an automaticity where it’ll start mocking-up everything solid. And all of a sudden, you’ll get things just hung up solid and we were already hitting it there a little bit with the cat, see? We were kicking the cat. Because the cat started to do something funny, it started to go out a little bit under control. Well, that’s typical, but that’s just the machine.

Well, he did it with great benefit. He came back to me with the brightest face you ever saw and he says, “You know what?” He says, “The eye twitch was an automaticity, wasn’t it?”

Now, the only reason you’re doing this is to kick out the automatic machine which mocks-up the MEST universe. Now, you’ve obviously got to have one in these many parts: one that mocks-up the MEST universe for you, one that mocks-up the MEST universe for somebody else for himself, one that mocks-up the MEST universe of somebody else for you, yours that mocks-up the MEST universe for somebody else and the machinery that belongs to somebody else that mocks-up the MEST universe for somebody else and for others. In other words, the parts of the bracket have to be in that machine in order to get a materialization which is visible across the boards. And this is why we fool around with this and every time we start running brackets we’re kicking that automatic machine. Any bracket you run will kick the machine.

“Good.” Well, we had made our point.

If you just ran just idle brackets, that is to say, no deeper significance than, “All right, now for yourself.”

How did he solve the eye twitch? By making the guy twitch his eye, of course. This is Q and A, this is all such things. There’s nothing to that. That’s just that. You just. ..

“What for yourself?” the preclear will say.

He would have had the guy sit there and twitch his eye fast and twitch it slow and decide to twitch it and decide not to twitch it and decide to twitch it and decide not to twitch it-and he even could have mocked-up somebody and had the preclear make his eye twitch. And then he could have had an eye twitch and find out who it was acceptable to or he could have done a lot of things with this eye twitch, see, without going into birth. And it was about a ten-minute or fifteen-minute job to turn off this eye twitch.

“Oh, the hell with ‘what,’ just for yourself.”

This, by the way, is the big one that in a completely alien field to us, psychiatry, if you can turn off a tic-they call it tic dolorosa. And if you can turn off tic dolorosa, my God, those guys break out the altar cloth and bow down before Buddha. They do, just bing because that is something it says in all their textbooks just can’t be done. Well, we’re really getting there when we can do this.

And “Okay.”

Now, there’s all kinds of automaticities and sometimes it takes quite a little while to Ц solve them. I told you about this fellow with his blush. But an auditor that wouldn’t recognize an eye twitch wouldn’t recognize automaticity.

And “Now get somebody else there.”

Well, so this preclear gets a dog, see. And the auditor sits there and says, “Give us a dog now.”

“All right. For him.”

And the preclear gets a dog.

“Yeah, but what for him?”

And the auditor says, “All right. Now put the dog behind you.” “Now move it across the room.” “Now put it on the roof.” “Now put it someplace else.” “Now do this, now do that with it” and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on.

“No, no. Just for him.”

And if the session ran off just the way I said and you were instructing this auditor, you would say, “What’s the matter? Aren’t you interested in solving the case?” Because you didn’t ask him what the dog was doing. You didn’t nag him. You didn’t say, “All right. Now, you got the dog? All right. Now move the dog up to the corner of the room.”

“Now somebody else for somebody else.”

Okay. He did that. The preclear says, happily, “Yes.”

“Okay.”

The auditor isn’t auditing, really, who doesn’t say, “Now just how did you do that?”

“Now somebody else for you.”

To hell with how many times you ask him that. Sure, it keys-in all of his automaticities and everything, to ask him how he does something and so forth. So what? You can solve that now, so you don’t have to be afraid of turning the guy on and off.

“Ummmm, okay. And what am I supposed to be getting for me?”

So he says, “Well, yeah, I just put the dog out in front of me and moved him up to the corner of the room.”

“It doesn’t matter, just doesn’t matter.”

And you say, “That’s all right, then.” You’re just going to drop the subject-oh no, you’re not.

“Do I put something there?”

And you say, “And what did the dog do?”

“Oh, if you want to.”

“Oh, well, that’s beside the point. He went out that door and in this door and across and jumped over the light fixtures. Oh, but I got him up here in this corner of this room.”

Well, the fellow will finally just run a bracket as a bracket. And the next thing you know, his brackets and his mock-ups will start having funny things happen to them.

Now, you can or can’t-it doesn’t matter whether you do or not, particularly-handle every automaticity that comes up, but you sure better know what’s happening on this case. And if this is what happened and your object is to cure this guy of something or other or your object is to square him around and square his mock-ups around and get him under control, then you have the dog do the same course, more or less, that the dog did automatically.

You start into this automaticity, you see? You’ll start into the automaticity that puts things 12 there for you in three universes. And the second that you start kicking this automaticity...

And if the preclear can’t accomplish this, you at least alter the course of the automaticity. You let the dog fly around the room and give it a kick once in a while or something of this sort to change its course slightly, until at last he can get it under control. Can you see that?

A case, by the way, doesn’t deteriorate the way you’d think it would-you’d think it would just kind of go to pieces and sink in. No. The person gets to feeling better and better, but stranger and stranger things are happening, see? And he gets to feeling better and better.

And if it doesn’t come immediately under control in something on the order of fifteen, twenty, thirty seconds of this sort of thing, bing I mean, you’re just into a much deeper, more basic automaticity. You’re not down to basic-basic on such a chain. And if your purpose is to chase automaticity, then chase it.

Well, you just carry it through and all of a sudden (and in 8-0 you may, but you don’t have to) get up to the position where, for a little while, the fellow will be laying down the MEST universe so he can look at it. He’ll be walking down the street and putting a street there so he can walk on it and so on. All the while, his body is totally visible to you because you haven’t omitted his machine from your mock-up of machinery. You know, that’s another’s body for you, so you keep on seeing the fellow. But his body can disappear for him simply by kicking out that part of his automaticity.

But you just get the guy to do what he’s doing, that’s all, only you make him do it, see? Now that, in essence, is putting him under his own direction. And his case is off and his abilities are off, only where they happen without his consent.

Now, we have an automatic mocker and an unmocker there, you see? And in order to get this down just pat so everybody’s got time with everybody else’s time, we have to get a uniform rate of mock-up, unmock, mock-up, unmock, mock-up, unmock and that in itself is time. The agreed-upon rate is the speed of light-give you some idea of your own ability.

This fellow says, “All I get out of life is just-I know, it’s just-[sniff] just bad luck. I-I build a service station and it burns down. And I-I-I-I-I marry this girl and she runs off with my partner. And I-I-I-I-I-I have a baby and the baby turns out to be green with purple spots. And I-I-I-I-I-I get-I go down to the store and I get a ten-dollar bill and it turns out to be a one-dollar bill. And this is just the way life goes.”

But a fellow has this idea that all of this is here just for him to embrace. You know, it’s all made up and it’s his and all that but, of course, it’s been put there by somebody and it isn’t his and so on. But he’s happy to have that and this is very cheerful and he’ll go along in that state for a very short space of time before it caves in and starts disappearing. And he also feels he’s kind of drained and he’s unable to create.

Well, really, honestly, he’s not doing it to himself, but it’s very peculiar that it keeps happening with such consistency. And anything that happens with consistency you’d better add up as survival pace. And this is an automaticity. He’s trying to change his luck or some such thing. Well, how do you make him change his luck? Just handle it as an automaticity.

Well, boy, he’s feeding energy out into the mock-up machinery that makes everything around him-he’s feeding energy... Oh, you would just be fascinated with the amount of energy which leaves you in terms of make-up energy, in terms of knowingness, in terms of old covered-up knowingnesses and agreed-upon channels. Think of the amount of energy that it takes to put up the number of ridges and hold the number of ridges in place which some ridge case is holding up around him. Think of the amount of continuous effort which he has to undergo to have an electronic facsimile pushing his face in. See? And this becomes rather silly.

Well, you can handle this up on a Creative Processing basis. You can handle it with ease if he can be creatively processed. And then you have him be bad luck. And you have him curse himself into bad luck. And you can do such things as have him put his hat on the desk and then turn around and covertly knock it off as he turns and then curse a devil or a demon or something for having knocked it off or blame you for knocking it off.

Now, the proof of this theory-and you understand this is a theory-this has no other foundation than its workability. And it is workable. Now, we get somebody and we have him be the various machines and be other ends of the communication line. In other words, “Be the MEST universe.” “Now be your body.” “Now be yourself.” “Now be yourself.” “Be the MEST universe.” “Be your body.” And back and forth, around like this and around like this. “Now let’s be the MEST universe doing you a big favor by existing.” And “Be the MEST universe being depended upon by you.” Uhhh! If you’ve done that for a little while, back and forth, all of a sudden, this automatic machinery begins to creak, see?

Now, I ran one guy like this who always had bad luck, he said, on just this basis. I mean, he put his hat on the corner of the desk and then had him turn in such a way as to knock it off and then curse me for it. And I had him do this several times and all of a sudden he says-big light dawns-he says, “You know,” he says, “that’s really what I do.” He said, “How did you know that?” he says, “I-that,” so on.

And you get somebody exteriorized, well, he has the body as a very set, beautiful piece of agreement and he’s picked up its agreements and he’s got it all dovetailed gorgeously and this body is a very solid contraption. Now, it isn’t necessarily in on his line. Thought can cross and knowingness can cross and therefore individuality can exist, but knowingness can cross without a wavelength, actual knowingness can cross without a wavelength. That frightens many people.

“Yeah,” he says, “these things happen” and so forth. And he’s-“Gee,” he says, “you know, I kind of remember when the service station burned down, I-you know, I know that linseed oil rags and so forth, laid in the pile, and I carefully kept that pile of linseed oil rags alongside of the barrel of naphtha.”

A person will get down pretty low into circuits and that sort of thing and he’ll get unselective mind reading. He’ll walk down the street and all of a sudden he knows what everybody is thinking about. He’s going to go nuts. Well that, of course, stems from the fact that if it bothers him, he’s unwilling to be those other people and this tells you why he’s automatic mind reading. And the other fellow can simply know or not know.

And he said, “Eventually, it caught on fire.” He says, “By golly. You know,” he says, “sometimes a fellow’s left hand doesn’t know what his right hand is doing. Hm! I wonder how many other things I’m doing like this?”

It is this “thoughtness” itself, not beingness itself, which is a communication channel which makes it possible for you to stay in agreement. Nothing more than that is actually necessary in order to stay in agreement. And here’s this terrific built-up automaticity that puts the MEST universe here and takes it away at the speed of light-machinery which you evidently are feeding at a mad rate of energy-if you have energy at all, you know you have to have energy. And yet you are feeding energy to all of this, so it’s all-boy, oh boy, oh boy!

Well, he got quite spooked, so he had to be processed a little bit more-on what? On putting his hat on the desk and knocking it off covertly and then blaming me for it. And then blaming the chair for it. And then changing his mind and blaming the corners of the room for it. And then blaming his shoes for it. And then finally blaming himself for it, bitterly. And then, finally, just doing it. His luck changed.

There’s that Sun blazing up there and there’s your body sitting there and, oh man, oh man, this is just nice, to sit in that nice warm Sun. Well, I don’t know, why don’t you put the Sun someplace else sometime and bask in it? It’s just as simple as that. You can bask in it much better. You can bask in it without ants. You can mock-up a lawn without ants. Well, that restores to an individual, to a large degree, his fluidity.

A man sows the seeds of his own luck, there is no question about this. It also is true that strange and peculiar things can happen to somebody every once in a while without being a complete automaticity. Strange things do happen. But when they get consistent, uh-uh, he’s got it set, he’s got it rigged.

Now, to say that the whole track has been in vain would be a falsehood and that individuals who are passing through this particular phase at this time-all is lost and all of that sort of thing. No, no. Any randomity which is built up which gives an individual a tremendous interchange of knowingness, one with another, and makes the playground possible and makes a game possible, is very far from lost.

Now, you see something about processing. What the preclear is doing automatically, you make him do it. And you can have him do anything. Any automaticity can be worked out with automatic processing and there’s where your-Opening Procedure rather-there’s where your ingenuity may come in.

You’ll go on knowing what you have found out, because what you have found out is the accidental combinations of patterns. And this is tremendously valuable to you.

Now, let’s take havingness and work it with the body or work it with the guy exteriorized. Now, actually Burke was doing this the other day and he was plowing around with it and he was having very good luck. It doesn’t exceed our definitions and is a process which is a very interesting process, particularly the way he was doing it.

Did you ever see a couple of little kids go out and decide to play a game and then not know any rules or anything and no pattern? They can’t get enough in agreement with each other to have any kind of a game. So we’re not just trying to wipe out a game. The truth of the matter is that it is not all lost and your travail is not for nothing and all that sort of thing. But it does work out that you have gone a bit far south on the game and it ceased to be a game, to some degree, because everybody has agreed that it ceases to be.

He had somebody pick up a couch, both ends of it, and then step back from it and feel degraded. And then pick it up and get “Oh, all this lovely mass, it’s all mine,” and then step back from it and feel degraded.

When you ask somebody to exteriorize from himself then, you aren’t asking a being to be anyplace else, although he knows he is someplace else. But is there a being at that new place? Oh yes, there’s as much being as he ever has been and probably more than he has been in many cases. There’s a being there. There’s a being-г/a viewpoint is a being. But his viewpoint and his being are synonymous. There isn’t something with mass there. Well now, when an individual has done a tremendous agreement upon the existence of terminals and interchange of energies and masses and the need of masses and he has to have two big masses rigged up so they’ll interchange-and he’s fooling himself to the point of where he doesn’t put in the interchange between these two masses so he can have energy and not watch himself do it, you see-when he’s going through all of this stuff, well, at the first moment that he came into this universe, you might say, the first moment when he set up his agreement with this universe, he experienced a certain degradation. Of course, because he set up an other-determinism which was so much more powerful than himself that he never, never can solve it-he figured.

And he went on picking out other pieces of stuff in the room. And the fellow went from the couch, in backing up and feeling degraded, down to a match head. The guy finally was perfectly content to pick up a match head and feel that and exteriorize from the match head, that is to say, and you know, back up from it, and feel degraded. And the fellow’s concept about mass and havingness was quite changed.

Science is a hectic game called “find the rules.” And they weren’t succeeding too well. Yet life itself has succeeded when we can pull it out of the hat like this. But don’t succeed so well that you don’t set up another game.

Now, the case that is difficult to exteriorize has mass trouble and every time the case tries to exteriorize, their knowingness goes to zero. They exteriorize, but their knowingness goes to zero for an instant and they come back in and they don’t know about it.

Here we have the fellow exteriorized, though. What are we trying to do? We’re trying to give him another viewpoint, another place to look from, another place to know from and a choice of where to know from, which does not entirely depend upon a body.

Now, there’s many a preclear that you’ve exteriorized that you ask him at the end of the session, after he’s reinteriorized-you say, “Well, now, how did you get along while you were exteriorized?”

Well, why can’t you get the same effect inside a body? Well, when he’s inside the body, he’s already depending upon something. You just kick him out and say, “Depend on yourself, guy!”

And the fellow tells you, “I don’t know that I was out.”

All right. So exteriorization is the single biggest jump that we can make. We say, “All right. Let’s you set it up. Instead of you setting it up via all the agreements to which the body is subject, let’s justyoset it up.” And the fellow has to and does set it up without all the bric-a-brac machinery and he can still keep the bric-a-brac machinery parked to one side. So therefore a fellow can let go of an awful lot as an exteriorized being-that is a being who is communicating without the system and agreement of the MEST body. See? He can let go of a lot. He can unmake a lot of automaticity. He can get himself beautifully squared around in all directions without immediately tearing down all of his ownership and investment in the game. Because, remember, he has an investment in the game. That is more than havingness. Investment in the game is fun, randomity, action, drama, so on. It’s only when the drama has run out that the worry runs in.

Well, while he was out, he was perfectly certain he was out. Well, you kicked back in this automaticity of having a body, which is mass, and it blots out his knowingness. And so we get a knowingness-diminution problem. See that? His knowingness goes down while he’s inside the body. And that’s the way it really is.

Now, as a matter of fact, a couple soldiers sitting in a foxhole in the mud starving to death and shooting people all over the place and being shot up and bombed and so forth . .. You read a lot in the storybooks about how they feel, but actually at a moment of action of this character they don’t feel they’re — because anything is justified, any drama, any speech, any action, any gesture is entirely justified-they’ve got drama. And they don’t sit there and ask many questions. Unfortunately books about soldiers are seldom written by soldiers and soldiers don’t write. Take Eisenhower, for instance. Anyway... [laughter]

Degrading-just because one steps out, you know, exteriorizes from mass-you know, you exteriorize somebody from some mass and he feels degraded, is the inversion. That’s inverted. The original on the track, the earlier moment, is feeling degraded because he’s gotten into some. So you have to run it both ways to get both ends of the communication line.

We have a large problem in getting somebody exteriorized only where we have a large problem in two things: one, agreement, and the other, terminals or masses. We say terminals, we say masses. And where we have a tremendous dependency on masses or a tremendous dependency on agreements, we have a problem in exteriorization. The fellow can be anyplace. He is not a character of mass. As long as he thinks he has mass, he’ll go all through all sorts of degradations and so forth. So we get the basic theory that goes behind, immediately, how he puts the universe together and what he’s doing in that head in the first place.

Now, what is an inversion? An inversion is a swapped communication line. Things swapped ends, that’s all. So when the fellow outflows, he inflows. That’s an inversion. You know, you say, “Put some emotion in the wall” and he can feel the emotion hitting him hard in the face but not going into the wall. He’s getting it backwards. You know, when you tell him to put something out there, it hits him here. Well, that’s just a turned-around communication line.

Well, a lot of incident comes later than all of his agreements and so we have a tremendous incident pattern. You get this incident chain? He’s got 76 trillion years, or something on that order, of agreements and patterns and things that he can fall back on, overlying the top of an automaticity from the moment since he built the playing field, you might say.

There’s a demonstration process-not a good process, but it’s a demonstration process-whereby you just make the guy be two ends of the communication line. You just swap a communication line in front of him. You just have him mock-up or have a piece of string in front of him and call it a communication line (it’s just this literal) and have him be on one end of it and then on the other end of it. And you’ll just take a fellow with a yardstick or something and make him reverse the yardstick in front of his face. He doesn’t know anything about communication lines. He starts feeling mighty funny, mighty soon, because communication lines are actually lines. And most people are on the line, not at C or E. They consider themselves particles. They’re symbols, particles, they are a piece of mass.

And you’ll have two fellows going around-he’ll argue this way, “I built the MEST universe,” one says. And the other one says, “No, I did it. You didn’t. I did. And I know. We ran it on the E-Meter and I know I did.” Well, the truth of the matter is, they both did. The only MEST universe you see is the universe which you put there. But it’s in such a beautiful, tight package of agreement that it obviously is there and you can count on it being there for a heck of a long time. But it’s your universe.

All right. Let’s take a look now at hate in this universe and you’ll see what I’m driving at. Hate, or any ridge-and all of them contain, to some degree or another, hate-is necessary to stop somebody’s perception. An individual gets so he doesn’t like things very well and that’s what he feels is wrong with him. He doesn’t like living. He hates it or he’s in apathy about it. Well, apathy is a ridge, hate is a ridge, boredom is a ridge. And you’ve got a whole series of ridges there that are various emotions and the central pinpoint emotion is hate.

Now, the person has been disenfranchised who can’t see this universe well and who isn’t perceiving well and doesn’t exteriorize well. He’s been disenfranchised. You get that? Part of his agreement is that it isn’t his. See? To such a degree that he can’t see it.

So he looks at that wall over there and he stops his lookingness at the wall. And after he’s looked at the wall enough, by golly, he doesn’t feel good about life. He doesn’t feel good about life at all. Well, what’s the point here? He’s actually dramatizing one of these undesirable emotions, by looking at a wall. So long as he expects the wall to attract his attention, he wants to be the effect of the wall, then he winds up by having to stop his looking. And he winds up blind after a million years or two.

Now, if you can get somebody to own an object, to warm it up with his own (quote) “body heat” (unquote), to pet it, to carry it around for some days-take a pebble and have him concentrate on owning it. Even though this person never before got a picture, a facsimile, a mock-up or anything, he thereafter will be able to get the most beautiful picture of that pebble anytime he wants it, anyplace he wants to put it. It’s on ownership. And if you can make some preclear simply look up and take ownership on an object or take ownership of the world around them, they will then be able to close their eyes and see it. Not a facsimile of it, they’ll be able to see it.

Well, now, there’s nothing wrong with looking at walls. One of these drills which puts his attention out on the walls of the room, for instance, simply shows him that he can look at the wall without going blind. And this is something new, he’s trying to . . . And so a lot of people get an awful lot better just by walking over and patting a wall. They can perceive a wall and they’re not struck dead. They feel if they really saw the wall that they really would go blind. Well, now, the truth of the matter is, they have to stop their looking to see. You have to stop smelling to smell. You have to stop hearing to hear; you have to stop sound to hear. That should be quite obvious to you. You have to stop perceiving to perceive. And so we get on the handsomest set of maybes you ever saw.

There are certain things expected of a body and a body has certain frailties. But it’s holding space apart merely because a thetan agrees it holds space apart. It keeps things stabilized. Now many a thetan exteriorizes, gets three feet back of his head and has the whole room go out of shape. You know, it gets narrower than it is long and the anchor points start to wobble off like a parallelogram collapsing and the anchor points get pretty shaky and so forth. You exteriorized him outside of where he had concentrated his automaticity for perception. And now he’s outside of this place and he hasn’t got his automaticity concentrated at that place anymore and he isn’t yet aware of the fact that he has to set it up in order for it to be straight.

Now, you as an auditor, knowing this, should be able to turn on almost anybody’s perception. How do you get him to do it? Well, you have him see things and look through them, of course. And then have something else on the other side look through things at him.

So he keeps sitting outside the body, pretending he’s still sitting in the body-you know, kind of. He’s still got a body agreement to a level where he expects something else-or not even a body agreement, he’s got a MEST universe-where he very much expects something else to hold the anchor points straight. The only thing that’ll ever hold the anchor points straight is himself. So you just train him in holding anchor points straight and all of a sudden the MEST universe straightens up.

The most reliable process is that process which specializes in nothing, in looking throughnesses and in nothings, because the only machines that are actually going to cause you a lot of trouble are the unmockers. Two kinds of machinery, the mock and the unmock. Two kinds of automaticities, mock-up; unmock. And the poor fellow who has decided never to unmock anything anymore, of course, is getting everything unmocked automatically because he’s simply selected that automaticity out for his randomity.

Okay?

You understand that? The fellow who decides that he’s going to live and let it all be there and he’s going to preserve everything and he’s not going to waste things ... The one big booby trap in Lao-tzu’s The Way, by the way-the Tao, is economy; everybody must practice economy. Oh boy. That means you’re going to save everything, heh-heh. Just let’s all slit our throats. Because the second you say that, then you choose out for your randomity the unmockers.

All the machines you ever set up within your beingness to make things disappear are chosen out by you as your randomity, as your enemy. If you’re having trouble understanding randomity, just substitute enemy for it and you’ve got a better understanding of it, if a less exact definition.

So what happens? If he wants to make everything survive and persist forever, he has immediately canceled out and not taken any further responsibility for all those things which he has that automatically destroy things. So he’s set up all of his unmockers as his enemy. He’s got a lot of unmockers, believe me. He’s got just as many unmockers as he has mockers-gadgets, machinery to get rid of things which he has set up.

Now, he’s got a machine (nearly everybody has a machine) that says, “Well, no-if I mock-up something and forget about it, this will unmock it.” You know, he’s left this mock-up outside the cave or something and he runs over it one day. And he bumps into it or another mock-up bumps into it and he decides this is cataclysmic, that his memory is not reliable or something. And he decides for the sake of the game to set up a little machine that, after he has forgotten about a mock-up, it will be unmocked. And that’s an unmocker.

Now, life goes along and a lot of things get destroyed and he decides that everything has got to persist now. He’s just chosen out that automaticity-you see, an automaticity isn’t necessarily a randomity until you really make it so. And then the fellow says all of a sudden one day, “Everything is going to persist now. We’re going to save everything and everything is going to continue. And we’re not going to change things and ...” Oh boy. At that moment, all of his unmockers become his enemy.

So he tries to put up a mock-up and, of course, it disappears. And he says, “Oh, my, my, the gods are afflicting me,” with his belly full of rotten whale. “The gods are afflicting me because they’re unmocking all of my mock-ups.”

That’s what we call a God trick, by the way-unmocking somebody’s mock-ups. They say, “What? Your mock-ups are being unmocked? Oh, you poor fellow. I guess God has got it in for you.” One thetan does it to another. He goes around and knocks the other guy’s mock-ups kicking, you know, or steals them or something of this sort. And then he sympathizes with him for having lost them and tells this other fellow how afflicted the other fellow is. The God trick. They dramatize that in churches and so forth. Well, you see that trick, by the way? You’d better know it in passing just as a glance; never mention it again: the God trick.

You run into some thetan, he’s got some nice mock-ups there and so you eat them up or make them disappear or something and then he hasn’t his attention on them. And then you say, “You poor fellow, you poor fellow. God is afflicting you. I heard of a fellow whose mock-ups disappeared like this and he found out later that he had offended the great deity Spazwaz. And Spazwaz, you know, occupies all space and eats up mock-ups.”

And the other fellow said, “Oh, woe is me.”

He now has a hidden influence. And the hidden influence and the invisible barrier are dramatized by people who wear glasses. Also by anybody who uses eyeballs to look through. You know, he never looks at the eyeballs. He looks through them all the time and tries to pretend he’s not looking through an eyeball. And after a while, of course, he has this wonderful and interesting thing occur. His attention inevitably falls on the eyeball because it’s become such a strain to continue to overlook the eyeball.

So you get the invisible barrier. But the invisible barrier and the fact that it can exist rather gives a fellow the idea that something else can exist, which is to say, a hidden influence. So he looks for deeper significances beyond everything. He never takes anything on the flat plane out there, where it’s completely visible, he looks for some deeper significance.

Now, the fellow who has unmocking machines going which unmock all of his mock-ups, and which mock-up blackness so that he won’t have to look at the mock-ups and so forth, has gotten into this situation: Everything is unmocking around him. So he says, “Some hidden influence is doing this to me.” And you as an auditor are sitting there auditing him and he keeps expecting you to mysteriously vanquish and banish this item called an unmocker. He expects you to solve the hidden influence that’s making his life go haywire. You see that? Hm?

Note: This lecture and demonstration is continued on the next disc.

•DEMONSTRATION

What’s the hidden influence? The hidden influence is an automaticity that he has selected out for his randomity. A fellow who is trying to survive and persist only and never destroy has, of course, selected out all of his unmockers as his randomity. So they, of course, are quite active.

Now, he feeds them energy. He doesn’t give them direct attention. You notice in the earlier lecture I said “direct attention.” An automaticity is never otherwise than given some kind of attention and it’ll drain a guy dry of every energy he can put out or gather up or do anything of the sort. It’ll just drain him dry. It’s a vampire mechanism. .

He says, “I’m not giving this unmocker any attention. I’m not! I don’t want to unmock my mock-ups. I like mock-ups.” See that? And yet by conduit and circuit and around Robin Hood’s barn and over the hills and far away, he is feeding a terrific amount of energy to that unmocker. Of course, he’s really not using energy at all, but his attention, by relay systems, is going to it-by an associative system, is going around here and actually empowering this thing which is destroying him.

A person is only destroyed by that which he himself creates. And this is a fundamental law. This isn’t just a philosophic observation, as it might well be. The only ethical crime is to deny yourself. I pondered that a long time and finally automaticity and randomities and case solutions suddenly turned it up as a fact. Because you go back and dig Mama out of the grave and have her come up here and straighten him out. No, sir. By your auditing of his foibles, he straightened out, which told you immediately the only mistake he ever made was to deny himself.

So he sets up an automaticity and then he says it isn’t his. That’s self-denial and denial of self, see? And then he’s a victim. Whose victim? His own victim. But he’s feeding this stuff covertly around the other way. So the fellow who is making things disappear is, of course, unmocking-madly.

Now, let’s get into another phase of this very rapidly and that is that this unmocking machinery-all of this gimmick stuff and so on-is based on the fact that there’s more validity to nothing than there is to something any day of the week.

Processing a nothingness is actually more important to an auditor than processing a somethingness. If you had your choice between processing a nothingness and somethingness, you’d better process the nothingness. It’s better to process the space around the mock-up and duplicate it than it is the mock-up. That’s just a little general rule.

Of course you’ll run into the guy’s thirst for havingness and various other things, but you’ll get further in the long run if you concentrate on nothingness than on somethingness, because the truth of the matter is, is functionally it’s all composed out of nothingnesses. The amount of substance in the universe, even to a nuclear physicist, if all reduced down, wouldn’t be much of a challenge to the head of a pin. It’s composed of space. Do you see that?

So you process nothingnesses, you’re processing the better part of the universe. And you process somethingnesses and you’re just confirming this guy’s search for something, and he’ll search for something for a long time.

And now we want to turn on perception. All right, perception is stopped lookingness, isn’t it?

All right. You can turn on the damnedest feelings of weakness in a preclear. You can just make him sicker than a pup processing nothingnesses, because his whole career he has been going on trying to find something. See that? His whole career is based upon finding something, isn’t it? Amounting to something, being something, and never running into a nothingness of food-you know, having food and having money and so forth and his nothingnesses he chooses out on the bad side of the ledger. He wants no sickness. He’d be a hell of a lot better off if he just started out at the beginning saying he wanted no money. He would now be drowning in the stuff. Inverted universe, you see. But he’s never really gone on a “no” basis of anything.

For instance, the medical profession doesn’t even vaguely go out for “no sickness.” They’d all starve and they know it very well. Their gags and stories they tell on each other, and to each other, are for the most part based on this sort of thing.

The only aberrative experience, for instance, Susie had in the hospital, was three doctors coming in about six, eight hours after she’d delivered and having a big confab-and talking about this terrific appendectomy that found this beautiful girl all rotten inside. And they held this conversation on, with a beautiful glee of insanity going on the thing. They instinctively were doing exactly what they would do in order to aberrate somebody and get somebody loused up and make somebody sick.

That was the only pain she held in suspension, was a pain in her side, and she couldn’t understand where this pain in the side came from. And she was sufficiently blotto, you see, that some of this conversation went through. Because she resisted the presence of people to some degree, the way anybody will who’s had an experience, you see? And simply the resistance to people would key this in and would suddenly get her confused and mixed up with something else. You know, it’s happened to-it probably spun most preclears you run into.

But I ran this condition simply by getting the nothingness of doctors and getting an abundant nothingness of doctors. And we found out that getting an abundant nothingness of doctors was quite a job-to get enough nothingnesses of doctors.

All right. Now if you’ve noticed, every once in a while your preclear will see something-his perceptions will start to turn on and then all of a sudden they’ll go off. And almost all of you had the experience of getting somebody’s perceptions pretty good and then having him shut them off willfully and viciously and just to spite you. Well that isn’t what he did. That isn’t what he did. He ran into an automatic flinch. And you put that down, make it a technical term, an automatic flinch, and it’ll suddenly describe to you what happens when this happens.

This fellow is doing an automatic flinch from hate. He’s doing an automatic flinch from hot stoves. He’s doing an automatic flinch from things that will get him into trouble. And he’s set this up as automaticity. He’s set an automaticity up “that will get me out of trouble before I get mired in too deep,” see. “If I walk into this theta trap, why, this automaticity will get me the hell out of that theta trap before I can get trapped,” see? And that’s an automatic flinch. And when you do an automatic flinch too often, of course, the fact that you-just seeing a wall is stopping lookingness, you see that an automatic flinch is a shut-off of lookingness.

Every once in a while you will have the experience of a preclear will suddenly get this beautiful, solid, three-dimensional mock-up and go ping! Off it goes! He’s scared.

The manifestation of the flinch is so thoroughly installed that the second he sets something up that is solid, that he sets up, he flinches from it because he knows, as well as he knows his own name (probably much better than he knows his own name), that he is the one who gets himself into trouble. So he sets up something to flinch from it. And he sets up something, the automatic flinch sets in and the mock-up disappears and off goes his perceptions. But it isn’t something he’s doing consciously or willfully.

What’s happened there is an automaticity is turned on and the fact that he flinches is of course a dispersal in reverse. You get that? There’s a dispersal around the mock-up, so he believes then he is afraid of it, merely because he pulls out so fast. And fear is pulling out, so he’s scared. So you look in vain for any deeper significance to these manifestations. The fellow sees something and it scares him. He does an automatic flinch.

Now when a person sees something that is new, surprising or that he doesn’t understand, he does an automatic flinch. It’s an automaticity. So one of the things you can do is to go around and have him look-this is Opening Procedure in a body or exteriorized-have him go around and do this.

Have him go around and look at the ashtray and then suddenly say, “UM! no, no, no, no.” And go around and look at a corner of the room and say, “UM! no, no, no, no.” And do this damn fool automatic flinch, see. And you do it in its various forms, such as automatically letting go of something. You have him close his eyes and put something in his hands and have him let go of it before he can recognize it. See? And that’s an automatic flinch. He’s gotten to the point where he won’t even look at something. And the other thing is to make him look through things.

And now I will give you a little tip here which we would call-you know it’s quite remarkable, somebody says, “Scientology is a religion and that’s going to be the end of this, and Scientology is-so on and so on.” It’s very, very silly. For the good reason that we’ve invaded the entire field of livingness. So of course there is the religion of Scientology. There is the science of Scientology. And you could get into almost anything.

Well here’s, really, Elizabeth Arden Scientology. Now you want some Elizabeth Arden Scientology?

Female voice: Uh-huh.

Well, I wish I had a bunch of dime store mirrors here for you to practice on the next hour because you’d see something fabulous about this; but most of you girls have got mirrors.

All right, take a mirror out if you’ve got one there.

Got them? Tell me when you’ve got your mirrors.

Okay.

Now, just look in this mirror (and by the way we could make eighteen thousand billion dollars, I mean, just like a breeze by selling magic mirrors), [laughter]

Now, you look in this mirror, [laughter]

Female voice: Ooh! Automatic flinch, [laughter]''''

Yeah, automatic flinch.

All right. Now look in this mirror. (You can actually run out the automatic flinch this way. I’ll show you that one first.) Look at it and flinch, [laughter]

Female voice: I did. [laughter]''''

Now look at it again and flinch, [laughter]

That’s right.

Now look at it again and flinch, [laughter]

Now look at it again and flinch, [laughter]

Look at it again and flinch.

Female voice: Oh, God!

Good. Look at it again and flinch.

Audience: [sighs]''''

Look at it again and flinch.

Audience: [sighs]''''

All right. That’s the first part of the exercise.

All right. Now the other one is much, much better and this is the one that we would use-for broadly.

Now you look in that mirror and see there your ideal self. Don’t see your MEST self at all, see. See there your ideal self.

Female voice: Oh!

Don’t pay any attention whatsoever to the image, just look at the image and actually see in its place your ideal self.

Now do another flinch.

Okay. Now look at it now and look at it very fixedly and see your ideal self. Don’t pay any attention to your MEST vision of you at all, just see your ideal self in that mirror.

Audience: [various reactions]''''

Just see your ideal self in it.

Male voice: Has to be put there.

All right, put it there.

Male voice: What is it?

Just whatever you have to do to see your ideal self, just get the total fact that you’re looking right straight at a mirror image of your MEST body’s face, but see your ideal self at any depth you want to in the mirror.

All right. Now you guys practice it too. You see how to do this?

Female voice:. . . did your muscles really pick up?

Um-hm.

Female voice: Sure.

Oh, sure.

Female voice: Yeah, we get ourface lifted-faces lifted, [laughter]

This is Elizabeth Arden Scientology, [laughter] Elizabeth Arden, very, very old and very knocked apart, lives right here in Phoenix at this time, by the way. If some of you were to get hold of her and just give her that as a prescription, you would turn her on again.

All right. What does this do basically?

Female voice: Breaks agreement.

That’s right. It breaks the agreement with the MEST universe on appearance.

Oh yeah, sure, sure. You look at things that aren’t mirrors and assume they are mirrors. Male voice: You mean this is the next. . .

Female voice: You mean this is the next step?

Yeah, this is the next step, is look at things that aren’t mirrors and assume they’re mirrors and see your ideal self. See that’s really busting it with the MEST universe. But the other is plenty good.

Now the rest of the trick-yeah, I’ll just mention it briefly, it kicks you out of past bodies and that’s how valuable that technique is. See it’s a lot of fun to your preclear. You see how much fun that is?

Female voice: Yeah.

Well, that’s real painless processing.

But don’t be too amazed if you were to have him on an E-Meter and to see almost immediately the theta bop, which indicates a guy stuck in a body someplace on the track, see that theta bop turn on. Because he’s got his track collapsed back to the point when he had what he considered an ideal body.

And we get into the problem of processing a beautiful woman. And that’s a real tough problem, processing a beautiful woman-trying to exteriorize her. You get a woman that’s even vaguely close to pretty or who has found that her beauty has given her conquests with men, something like that, and you start processing her and you start exteriorizing her-no, no, no! Somebody’s liable to steal this mock-up and all kinds of other things are liable to occur there.

And you start to exteriorize them, they start to get frantic, something like this. Or they’ll find fault with you. They’ll decide that they are a body and they’ll dodge around. You have to put the various emotions, which turn up as you try to exteriorize them, in the various walls and put them in false walls, that is walls that are out further or in closer than actual walls.

And the other part of this is, of course, is looking throughness. And if you look at something you validate its distance and therefore you validate hate. And when you look through things you validate love.

Female voice: Hm.

You validate love.

Did you ever notice a fellow who is angry-here’s a little manifestation of it-а fellow who is angry is always saying, “Look at me.”

Female voice: Yeah.

Yeah. And then they try to call it down on the track by saying, “He looked straight through me as though I wasn’t there.” And this is supposed to be something very, very sad.

Now, the man is always falling in love with the woman he puts there. And the woman is always falling in love with the man that she puts there. And they very, very seldom fall in love with the person who is standing there. And this leads to a great deal of emotional disturbance and divorce courts. Because we run into granting beingness at this point. They grant beingness to this other person.

It’s quite effective, this granting of beingness. I have seen a harlot turn into a chaste woman with a tremendous personability, quite the lady, simply because somebody had granted her beingness to such a degree. And then this busted up and so forth and, boy, she went appetite over tin cup down the slot again. And I’ve seen some bum that wouldn’t work and wouldn’t do anything in life, turn into quite a beaver and be a terrific guy for the length of time that he was married to some woman who was granting him beingness. And so we run that little manifestation out with this mirror trick. And it’s done with mirrors to get a lot of this stuff up, and that is the most direct procedure which I know, by the way.

Now you’ll get a flip-flop on this mirror. The guy will interiorize into the body, which he’s seeing in the mirror, if you make him concentrate on that body. So you want to watch for this. If the guy flip-flops he’s just seeing his own face there.

There’s a theoretical psychotic technique you could use in an institution, that you would put up a series of mirrors so the fellow would see himself Match-Terminaled in profile.

Real tricky, huh? And he would actually run out some o£ his worser characteristics. You just sit him in a box.

Now that is so far superior to electric shock or anything they are doing today that it would appear to be a major miracle to psychiatry. Just a couple of mirrors. We’ll get some of the boys together someday and build some kind of a coffin arrangement on this before this Unit is over. We get some time and we’ll test this out and I’ll show you how it’s done and show you how one is made.

There are about four methods of treating psychotics today, all of which obviate auditing of psychotics. And if you’ve seen a Scientologist get into bad condition, it’s generally been because he’s had to audit a psychotic.

I had a letter from a very pathetic lady who was auditing a young man and was doing all right in Dianetics for a couple of years and then started to audit this case, only she didn’t add it up this way. The world sort of caved in on her and of course this fellow won’t really kill her, but he keeps saying this all the time. He’s lived with her now for eight months and she’s in real difficulty and so forth. She’s been auditing a psycho.

Well, she goes into communication with a psycho and of course she’s unwilling to be the other end of the line. And an auditor who is operating under that much pressure on this comm line, who himself is not in excellent condition, of course can sooner or later expect to be fouled up. Which tells you why medicine and psychiatry haven’t got a chance as professions. A man in those professions hasn’t got a chance as long as he is without a remedy for what is happening to him, which is the C and E communication line. See, and he has no remedy for the С, E communication line.

Now, how would you audit a psychiatrist? Well, actually you wouldn’t audit him with a subjective technique, you’d audit him with Opening Procedure-real carefully.

Now one other tip about Opening Procedure. It works with great ease as long as 7 you pinpoint positions. You see that. And we’ll call this pinpointing. And an auditor omitting pinpointing is not solving the main condition which is the trouble with some of his preclears and that is they’re (quote) ‘‘buttered all over the universe.” And it’s this pinpointing itself which brings in an enormous amount of certainty. And as long as I’m rolling on this I’ll give you the other one, just to bog you down, as a variation on Goals Processing. It’s a plus and minus, that is to say, “What can you do?” and “What can’t you do?” in brackets. And the others to others, of course, is “What can’t somebody do to somebody else?” and "Give me some things somebody can do to you now” and “Something somebody can’t do to you now.” “Get somebody else now, give me three things which he can’t do to you” and “Three things which he can do to you.”

And “Get somebody else out there now and give me three things which you can’t do to that person” and “Three things which you can do to that person.”

And “Get two other people out there, now get three things the first can’t do to the second” and now “Three things which the first can do to the second.”

“Now get three things which you can do to yourself, three things which you can’t do to yourself.”

“And somebody else, three things which he can do to himself, herself and three things which he can’t do.” All right.

Now, that is an extension of Goals Processing and this, beware-beware your certainty on this, because people who are in bad condition believe anything could be done to them by anybody. There is the first time we have crossed terminals very neatly with Goals Processing, with brackets and with-well, there’s something very important there, is the solution-direct solution of justice.

And you’ll find there’s an hour tape in the Second Clinical Unit on the subject of justice. I’m not going to repeat the subject, it’s just that justice is important to people, very important. So, the solution of justice is solved by this little process I just gave you. And this is a process all by itself. It is unfortunately a subjective process, but it can be used objectively, just to say, a la Opening Procedure. “Now do some things which you can do,” and that’s as far as it goes on Opening Procedure, and actually is all that is necessary to process some cases, to break them up above the psycho line.

And you say, “Now give me a couple of things-tell me something that you can do in this room.” And a person who is pretty bad off is liable to sit there for ten, fifteen, twenty minutes. They can do what you tell them to do, but something that they can do-to ask them to actually invent something that they can do. They might have regularly jumped off the bed and flown around the room and done all sorts of weird things, you see, but these were things they were doing rather than things they can do.

Now, by the way, you run an automatic flinch on some people, you’ll turn them weak as jelly. Now, you get an automatic flinch from a nothingness of Earth. An automatic flinch from a nothingness of Earth, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it. Not the best process in the world but it certainly produces some effects.

Well, Reach and Withdraw Processing is to a large degree successful simply because it processes out the automatic flinch. You get them to reach and withdraw from dangerous things.

And the other thing that-“things you can do and things you can’t do” is a pattern of course to many of the other processes which we have, so you run it also on this basis: “Give me some things you can’t get away from” and it crosses with the automatic flinch. “Some things you can get away from.” You don’t run that one double, by the way, you just run that one as it is. Run “can” and “can’t do,” and you would just get “things you can get away from at this moment.”

For instance, look around the room right now and give me some things you can get away from.

Give me three things you can get away from.

Male voice: Now why isn ’t it done?

Hm?

Male voice: Why notask can’t?

Because it isn’t the truth.

Male voice: Why not thought? I just can’t. . .

Things you can and can’t do is the truth. But it isn’t the truth that you can’t get away from something.

Male voice: Never. Yeah.

You could always get away from anything.

Oh yeah. I’d better put that in here as a little footnote to this morning’s dissertation. Don’t let me catch you processing contrary to truth. You see it isn’t true that you can do anything you want in this society. As soon as you say “in this society,” it ceases to be the truth that you can do anything you want. It ceases to be a society if it runs completely without arbitraries and without restrictions or limits, see.

And so you say, “you can and can’t.” “Things that you can do at this moment,” “Things you can’t do at this moment.” There’d be consequences to many things that you did. For instance, if you were to run out in the street and tear all your clothes off, you would find consequences for the act. So can and can’t is perfectly proper. But let’s say things you can’t get away from. There isn’t any such animal. And you’re actually telling a lie when you process with the preclear. So you keep these things on the highest level of truth that you can keep them on, that’s all.

You run “Three places where you are not.” Well, hell, you can run that endlessly because, believe me, fellow, you’re not anyplace. You get that? You can be anyplace you want to decide you are, but you have to decide before you’re there or your auditor has to decide you’re there and tell you to be there-tell you you can be there. See?

If this were not true, your lot would be in a horrible situation. Your case would be unsolvable and this race and everything else about it would be unsolvable, if you were anywhere, actually, finitely in the MEST universe. Because the MEST universe is a communication trap where all spaces are consecutive to all spaces. Where associative logic is a fait accompli, where everything is in communication with everything else. You are trapped in space. If you were in it, you would be trapped. But that’s true of any trap. You are trapped only if you are in it. And if you aren’t anywhere, of course, you can’t be trapped.

Now the thetan solves this by materializing nothing. He even goes that far. He’s so careful he won’t even materialize a mock-up. He won’t do anything that really tells him he’s trapped.

It’s a big trap, this universe. Some of your cases will come up with a sudden horror on this. A lot of your cases-any case that’s down around V, VI, you can expect him to come through a terror, horror band at the realization that he is in the MEST universe and is trapped here. And this is a gigantic trap. It’s a gigantic trap composed of black space, just to be gruesome. And if you were in it, your case would be unsolvable. But you’re not in it, so you can go on forever saying, “Give me three places where you’re not,” “Three places where somebody else is not.” Well, it’s just the truth. They’re not anyplace. An object-you can give me three places where that object isn’t. Well, you assume the object is there merely because it’s there by postulate. It’s there, that object is there. And three places, however, where objects are not, well, that’s all right, there is a place where it is. So you’re telling the truth consistently even there. You see that? You’re telling the truth.

Well, now a fellow asking this question, “Three places where you couldn’t be in the future.” Oh-oh-oh-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah. Process won’t hold, won’t do anything for the preclear because it isn’t processing toward truth. There isn’t anyplace in the future where he can’t be. He could be anyplace in the future. Where he iw/Zbe in the future is a different thing. So you say, “All right, give me three places in the future where you won’t be tomorrow,” “Give me three places where you won’t be tomorrow.” Oh, he can give you thousands of places where he won’t be tomorrow. But there is a place where he will (according to his own agreement) be tomorrow.

And you can pick up a fellow’s prediction and knowingness level on this process alone-where he won’t be: present, past and future, in that order. Present, past, future is the proper order. The proper order is яо/past, present and future; it’s not a consecutive thing. And you solve a case like that-he can give you some places where he’s not in the present and he all of a sudden bogs on places where he’s not in the past. He has a creepy feeling he’s all over the past. You just give him some more places where he’s not in the future and then you go to past again and you’ll find some places in the past where he’s not. All right.

He can find some places in the past where he’s not, but he can’t find any places in the future where he won’t be. You just give him some more places where he isn’t in the past and that solves the future. You got that one? The proper order is present, past, future and that’s why it’s that way in 8-C. It isn’t there by accident.

Do you get that now? If the fellow-all right, let’s say this preclear can’t find where he’s not in the past. He doesn’t get this immediately. Well, you just give him some more “where he isn’t in the present.” You see how easy that is? Where he isn’t in the present and then you get the future. And he can’t find places where he’s not in the future and he’s having a hard time with that, just get some more where he’s not in the past. And you’ll find out very shortly that he’ll be able to find places where he’s not in the future. Present, past, future, that is the order. Okay?

We have covered, as usual, quite a little bit of ground, but you will find out very readily that we are practically covering the same ground every day and covering it with a different coat and a different hat and a different application level. And the thing that is-you’re varying on, is application. That is being given to you in an advancing line and you’re being given a little more advanced methods of application of this material every day. But you aren’t being varied on your basic theory. And you’ve gotten this basic theory practically every day, over and over and over and over and over. But you should, sooner or later, begin to distinguish between these two things very, very readily. And you should be able to take basic theory and get all the processes you want out of it. What I give you here are tested processes which are very good.

By the way, did the auditor who used this “places where you won’t be in the future,” did he get that this morning? An auditor has been asking a preclear that, “places where you couldn’t be in the future.” Process toward truth and you win. And process toward falsehoods and you lose.

Male voice: Are all subjective techniques limited?

Mm-hm. All of them, because they treat one universe. You’re going to wake up with a terrific shock one of these days, while being processed, to the fact that the other universe is not only in existence, but is habitable by you-the other fellow’s universe.

Right now, you know that you can inhabit, to some degree, some kind of an arrangement you call your own universe and you don’t consider that very sharp probably, but it’s there. And then you know there’s the MEST universe because we process that. And the other fellow’s universe is something to you which is, to a large degree at this moment, I am sure, conceptual. It doesn’t have dimension and so forth.

And one of these days you’re going to wake up with a terrible shock. You’re going to do Change of Universe Processing on somebody after he’s exteriorized, and out he’s going to go. And you say, “All right. Be your own universe, be the MEST universe, be somebody else’s universe.” And at that moment his case will bust into flinders.

“Be somebody else’s universe.” And he’ll ponder it for a moment and he’ll-round and. ..

“Well I got an idea, let’s see, I’ll mock one up.” The schnook.

And you say, “No. Find somebody else’s universe and be it.”

“Well, where do I look for one?”

“Well, just go on and look for one.”

“And well, how about somebody’s head? How about that?”

“That’ll do for a starter.”

And he gets into a few people’s heads and all of a sudden, there is one. What do you know? And then you just change processing, Change of Space. Change him from universe to universe to universe to universe to universe to universe, his own, the MEST, another fellow’s; his own, the MEST, another fellow’s; his own, the MEST, another fellow’s. Bing bing bing bing bing bing bing bing bing bing bing and, boy, things start to bust all over the place.

And he, all of a sudden, says, “Well there’s one universe I can’t inhabit and that’s my father’s universe. I won’t inhabit it! You can’t make me.” Just do some more Change Processing. All of a sudden he says, “Well he had one too, so what. It’s not a very good one. Moldy.” And he’ll get off of that and all of a sudden one day he’ll find Pop’s universe, bing he’s got it. And after that he has no familial difficulties. If you don’t solve this one with the preclear all the way down the line, by the way, he’ll keep on having interpersonal relationship difficulties.

That process is completely unlimited. The MEST process is only partly unlimited. Which is to say-you could call it an unlimited process if you want. But, what did you think to a guy about-after what I’ve told you this morning, if you kept a fellow looking at walls, huh? Just supposing you just kept a fellow looking at walls, hour after hour after hour after hour-feeling walls, looking at walls, being in walls, being in MEST universe space, just hour after hour after hour after hour and you never shifted it out. Well, you would be validating hate. Emotionally you would be validating apathy, ridges, hate-anything solid.

The MEST universe is a game, is a game, is a game, is a game composed of barriers, and the barriers are space, objects (such as walls or any other object) and time. And these are the barriers of the MEST universe, of which the most serious is time. And that is the game.

And a fellow gets to thinking after a while that he has barriers in his thinkingness. And you give some fellow this process of “Give me three things which you can’t do now,” and you start to knock out the barriers of thinkingness. And that is, by the way, a terrific process. All right.

Now, in your Group Processing today, and for the rest of this week, let’s do as good a job as we can on standardized Group Processes, rather than using on the group ... That’s a little bit tough on your Group Auditor, but remember this: Your preclears have been getting variations in their auditing sessions and the Group Process is there to pull them up and stabilize them. So let’s give them a predictability, which is the total message, a predictability in that Group Auditing session. Just have fun at it and everything, but let’s give them a good, solid predictability because they haven’t had one in their auditing session in many cases. Okay?

All right. And the Group Processes, of course, we have several of them. We have Short 8, we have Six Steps to Better Beingness and we have 8-C Group, which is listed right on your list there.

Now I pull on the group here, occasionally, processes for demonstration, just to drive home the point and give you a look at something, rather than a process which is very therapeutic.

I dare say there’s a couple of you feel worse for my having processed you this morning. It’s Very possible, merely because I didn’t carry it on very far, you see. You start processing nothingness of bodies and nothingness of walls, you’re just as likely as not to have some preclear in a group suddenly chuck his cookies. That’s death and dynamite.

Okay. Any questions? Yes?

Male voice: Holding onto corners won’t restimulate that 8-C? Or how is it that he can hold on forever?

Oddly enough, the guy is so bad off that you’re asking to do that, almost any kind of condition he’s in, that it’s way upscale. The MEST universe, in good contact with, is way upscale. It is so high above scale for most pcs that it’s-when, they cross the barrier, that is to say get to a point where they can tolerate the MEST universe, gee, they’re in wonderful shape.

So as a consequence it is, as I said, a limited technique in it’s furthest reductio adabsurdum, but is so fitting for your pc that you could do easily ten times as many hours of auditing on one pc of making him hold the corners of the room as you’re ever going to put in on any pc. So for all intents and purposes you have an unlimited technique.

Now you can do automatic flinches from the MEST universe with a fantastic success. You can get automatic flinches from the back corners of the room.

Now get ahold of the back corners of the room. Now get ahold of them very securely now. Now make up your mind when you’re going to flinch and flinch.

Now let’s get ahold of two corners of this stove and make up your mind when you’re going to flinch, and flinch.

Now let’s contact a sound somewhere around and make up your mind when you’re going to flinch, and flinch.

Hear that car out there? All right, make up your mind when you’re going to flinch, and flinch from that sound.

All right.

Now, there’s another process can be done only at night, which is a Group Process. You get three pieces of blackness within a radius of a mile which you wouldn’t want to be or wouldn’t want to be in. You can do it in the daytime too, but you find most preclears are not inventive enough to discover it.

And then you get three lights that you’d not like to have shining on you right now. And you go back and forth this way in a bracket. You get some lights in a Group Process. You get some patches of darkness, some pieces of darkness, just back and forth, back and forth.

You get how that would be? And by the way it turns on mock-ups like mad.

Okay. Any more questions?

Female voice: Is duplication of WEST objectsan . ..

Second female voice: No. It’s supposed to be an introversion.

A duplication of the MEST objects?

Female voice: Oh, no, pardon me. That’s the second step.

No, that’s an extroversion because you actually have the power to materialize a MEST object.

Female voice: Well, nothingness is extroversion and then the second step is supposed to be introversion. That’s the way I understood it. Introversion-extroversion.

Mm-hm. “Looking in” is introversion.

Female voice: Oh. And the first step is introversion? The nothingness?

No, that’s an extroversion.

Female voice: Extroversion-well then, the second step . . .

Is the second one duplication?

Female voice: Yes. Of MEST objects.

Well, your second one goes into a subjective technique immediately that you carry it forward the way you’re supposed to, because you’ll find him out of the room. I won’t let them duplicate things in the room very long. I have them duplicate things out of the room. And they are really-nine-tenths of your people are simply getting facsimiles outside the room and duplicating them and they’re not outside the room. And the way that technique is done it amounts to an introversion on your technique.

Now take a look at the building next door, now get a duplicate of it.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Okay. Let go of it and take a look at the building across the street and net a duplicate of it.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

And let go of that and look at the Westward Ho Hotel and get a duplicate of it

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Okay. Now look at the Westward Hotel below you and get a duplicate of it.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Now let go of that.

Take a look at Phoenix and get a duplicate of Phoenix.

Let go of that.

All your techniques-that’s good, let’s be where you were if this exteriorized you.

By the way, did anybody exteriorize on that suddenly? That’s a very nice covert method of exteriorization. It could be carried on for quite a little while with tremendous results. And it’d be gradually, as most any technique does-I hate to say this because it disqualifies our basic definition somewhat and I don’t want to confuse you, but almost any introverted

Exteriorization: Theory and Demonstration technique turns eventually into an extroverted technique. By the way, that’s a test o£ a good technique. Will this technique if carried out long enough turn from an introversion to an extroversion? Will it turn an introversion to an extroversion?

Your thetan is cause and is happy as long as he’s cause and therefore is happy as long as he’s extroverting. You could say extroverting is being cause.

Now, the son of a gun, he never thinks about himself, he never remembers to sleep or eat or do anything of the sort at all, he just goes on entrepreneuring. And here he goes and people keep telling him he’s going to cave in, so he does some day, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that as long as he’s an entrepreneur he’s just going like a house afire. It’s only when he runs into too many people telling him to slow down and agrees too many times with too many of his own automaticities to slow down.

See, it’s people agreeing with your automaticities that cave you in about people. The people themselves have no power to cave you in. Nobody has got any power to cave you in, but they sure can use your own automaticities on you by agreeing with them. And so they put them out into the mass production basis.

They agree with them and that makes you right to have that automaticity, you see, so you throw it in action. They make you put your attention on your own automaticities and that kindles them. But if you didn’t have them in the first place, you couldn’t do it. If you didn’t have the automaticity to go off and loaf, nobody could sympathize with you effectively on how tired you were. See, if your basic goal wasn’t to make a lot of money and quit, if you didn’t have that as a basic automaticity, then nobody could make you do it.

People cannot make you do anything. This works out by test. People can’t make you do anything that you do not have a basic automaticity about, that you put there yourself. That’s why they can say with some little shadow of truth, "Well, you did it and it’s your fault and you’re to blame and you’re bad cause.” See, I mean that’s how they could add this up, because you know sneakingly that it is, it’s true.

Any other questions? Learn anything this morning?

Female voice: Oh, I’ll say.

Audience: Yeah.

Well now, on processing, how about you guys concentrating on exteriorization and after lunch I’m going to take up some methods of and give you an example. So, let’s go have a bite to eat.