Very certain, then, that we are dealing with the component parts of human beingness and MEST universesness.

Here we have, then, our primary problem Here we have our primary problem with the - with the thetan. And the fellow starts thinking of himself as low-scale and so forth - he shouldn't have been there and he was there, and he tried to be someplace else and he couldn't be anyplace else, and he tried to be someplace else and he couldn't be anyplace else to a remarkable degree. And finally he says, "To hell with it! I'm not anyplace, anywhere and I don't ever want to be anyplace, anywhere and I know I'm not here and if I stay here it's dangerous." It doesn't matter where he goes, he gets this: "If I stay here, I'm dangerous. If I stay here, I'm dangerous to myself. If I stay here, the environment is dangerous to me; because if I stayed here, I might be fixed here, because - and if I got fixed here then I would be here forever and I don't dare be here forever because I'm not dangerous; I know I'm not dangerous; I can't affect everything, but everything can affect me." This is a kind of a squirrel cage that goes on in his head all the time. "I'm not here."

It's very obvious then, isn't it? Of what can we be certain?

He walks into a grocery store; there are all these things to eat. Eatingness reminds him of the fact that he shouldn't be in front of things which are eating him. But these things are eating. Well, he knows he can't eat, they're not for him; therefore, it's - the first thing that occurs to him, may be, "I'm not - I don't belong here. I'm not supposed to be here."

Now, let me tell you a little story very briefly. There's a young man around who has never had any auditing to amount to anything and yet he's an auditor. He's a very good auditor. He's been through several schools. Nobody's ever audited him.

And anybody could come along - a little kid - a little kid being pushed around in one of those wagons could suddenly look at him very sternly and say - you know, those - the way they have the little kid seats on some of those baskets in the Safeways? A little kid just barely learning to talk can suddenly look at this fellow and say, "Get out of here; you don't belong here!" and he'd run. He would. He'd leave. At best he'd be very upset. He wouldn't run out because this would betray the fact that he really didn't belong here.

He was in a hospital. He was lying there, not expected to go on with life. And he said one fine day - he was about ready to pass in his chips, and about everything was wrong with him that could be wrong - and a copy of the first article "Dianetics: Evolution of a Science" was lying on the table, next bed. He picked it up, read it - he picked it up, read it and he said, "Gee, that makes sense. That makes sense. Yeah, that makes sense. Gee-whiz, what do you know. Gosh, that's good. Yeah, that makes sense. That makes sense." All of a sudden, was well. He's never had a recurrence.

He - "It all belongs to somebody else," too, comes into this. It's not his. He's not the sole proprietor. He thinks he has - and he gets the other combination as he comes up scale - he thinks he has to be the sole proprietor and the only way he could ever have anything is to be the sole proprietor.

Of what can we be certain? The very first thing which interested you about Dianetics and Scientology, the very things that interested you about it are things of which you can establish some kind of certainty. They tell you that there are further certainties to be reached.

Matter of fact, "sole proprietor" is something that's dramatized immediately here in this United States the like of which I never heard of. Only the US - the US is self-conscious about being someplace else in the world.

Of what can you be certain? You can be certain of the component parts of existence if you're certain of them. Now, understand that.

Do you know that the entire remainder of Earth is lying at the moment without borders, without adequate organization, without adequate communication, without adequate transport, starved for technical assistance. And the only two countries on Earth which would really be alertly able to do something about the rest of the world are both playing this game of sole proprietor inside their own borders only. One of them is England and the other is the United States. England has got the technicians and the technical skill necessary to do a tremendous number of things throughout the world; so has the United States.

Now, you read something like "survive," "eight dynamics," all these things make sense. So you - there's a degree of certainty there. You've got a compartmentation of existence. This is very good. And then you take it out and you say to Joe Blow or Dick Suds or Mr.... You take it out to Miss Schmo and she says, "Nyowh-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyo! And all because nyuf-nyaw-nyeah-nyeha-nyeha-nyeha." And right away you feel you have to be invalidated.

This is very, very silly, seeing United States troops, for instance, today in France. The United States is playing so firmly "France is the sole proprietor of France" that it thinks somebody owns France right now. And here's this big, wide plain that goes from Flanders on down south to the Alps unowned. Nobody owns it. Germans tried to take it with such ferocity that they - all they did, however, was manage to convince the French that the French didn't own it. And ifs very silly seeing American supply depots and things like that around and see an occasional American truck or something. These boys are, by orders, acting as though they were - they were from a foreign country; see, they're from America, and America is another place.

So once you start on this track it would be perfectly fine if nobody kept saying that to you, but they - what they do is pushing around your anchor points. What's your anchor point? Your anchor point is a certainty.

America is playing sole proprietor to such a degree on this that they also think other people are playing sole proprietor, too, and the other people aren't.

Out of the horrible seething mass of co-unindated [co-inundated] material, out of tremendous quantities of complete balderdash and control mechanisms, libraries full of pure and unadulterated bunk, out of the writhings of skip-skop Schopenhauer and the moanings of Schnietzke, the apathy of Zeno, man has taken a little bit of the incomprehensibles here and incomprehensibles here and said, "God, I wish I could be certain of this."

Now, you get into this in case computation: "I am the only one." Well, that's just before the guy is nowhere. If you were to run him down the scale through an engram or a scan or something of this sort, you would pick up the moment when he decided he was the only one. It's actually an effort to throw out a tremendous amount of force and people get stuck in that moment. And then that's a very insecure moment, believe me. Because immediately after it it's succeeded by, "Huh, naturally I can't be the only one; look at all these people and they're more real than me, because I can see - they can see me and I can't see me, because I'm inside of me and I'm not looking at me, and therefore I'm - I don't exist as much as they exist, and their certainty is greater than my certainty because they all sound that way, and yet I'm still the only one." Well, this is very confusing.

People look all the way through books of philosophers, the Bible, life to find something that will agree with them. At first glance, they're trying to look for something to agree with. Nah, they're not looking for something to agree with; they're looking for something on which they have sufficient experience to establish a certainty.

All it boils down to is just simply location in space.

And you go down and you get a book - old Will Durant's book The Story of Philosophy - whenever you get it out of the library you'll find page after page - underscore, underscore and an underscore here and an underscore there and exclamation points over in the borders and it's all marked up, old copies of it. Libraries have to replace it every time they turn around. Because people in their great enthusiasm will underscore "God is good." Here these rather clever statements one way or the other which are quite profound and quite interesting of which somebody could be certain and then they pick all the way through - the thing they find "God is good." Fine.

Now, when we take up - when we take up location of space then we've taken up certainty. An impact is an other-determinism location with certainty. "Well, they said I'm here, so I guess I'm here." It could get as bad as, "They said I am here and I know I am here, then. They said so, I'm here."

Well, philosophy in its final analysis, would be - it's about time some body would define it - it would be a collection of routes by which, perchance, mayhap, somebody might find a way to discover a method of locating a sign-post which would indicate a route toward some tiny piece of certainty. That's philosophy.

And you'll find good soldiers, for instance, who have been put on a sentry post by a sergeant - by a good sergeant; they're there. Why are they there? Well, the sergeant put them there. "Yeah, but why are you here?"

Now, the mathematician is one of the most aberrated boys you ever ran into. He's done this, see. He's - this is - this is the way not to go about it; he's a good example of that. These guys are hanging on the walls and swinging from the chandelier. If you've ever run into one of these boys, they're sick - they're good and sick. They're handling this mass of what? Symbols so they can be certain. Great mass of symbols they've got in front of them there.

"Oh, that's something else; that has to do with something else."

And they will tell you something on the order of a dog snarling across an old decayed bone he's about to bury and which you're trying to take away from him? "That's all there is is mathematics. And this whole universe is built out of mathematics and it's built out of mathematics. And if you don't think it is then I'm going to rrrah! zuh! Try to take this bone away from me, no sir," and yet all they're dealing with is one plus one equals two.

Point is they're there and they'll be there until a certain amount of time goes by - assignment of space.

And then they just get fine, that's swell. If they'd just stick with arithmetic they'd stay good and sane. They go one plus one equals two. Well, you can stand this level of symbol but immediately an apparent untruth has entered. Immediately an untruth has entered. No one plus ever - any other one ever equaled a thing with a - with a curve in it. No matter how many straight lines you add to how many straight lines, you will never get anything with a curve in it. Unless, of course, the things are so infinitely small as straight lines that nobody would notice whether they were curved or not and this would be an interesting piece of oversight, wouldn't it?

So how do we crack this off of a case? What is the easiest way? Really, when I told you certainty of an anchor point, you've got one route; actually, you've got lots of routes to do this - to recapture certainty.

So we have the apparent truth of arithmetic - if they stayed with arithmetic they'd be all right - one plus one equals two. That is, a straight line and a straight line, so on.

The wrong way to do it is other-determinism - to give the fellow enough other-determinism so he knows where he is. He'll know where he is all right, but he won't be much good unless the other-determinism continues to operate. And this, then, makes him afraid of all the randomity - well, it makes him afraid of all the automaticity which he has set up. He's immediately the victim of all the automaticity. If other-determination was locating him, then other automaticity can locate him: and if this is the case, then the way to really get lost is to be located automatically by something.

But they explain to you, "You dumb sap. That's a symbol for one quantity of something, you see? Ha-ha! Now, that's what we mean when we say the symbol, which means a quantity of one plus a symbol which means a quantity of one equals this curved thing over there and that means two quantities of one." You're supposed to be satisfied.

The Loran navigational system in the north Pacific which was established up there was very handy, I'm sure. Funny part of it is, I - it lost more people than it ever found. The ships didn't have to have good navigators now, you see, because they had Loran and you turned a little switch and that gave you the latitude and longitude of your position.

Don't ever say, "One what?"

Well, the handiest and niftiest part of navigation doesn't happen to have anything to do with latitude and longitude. It has to do with looking. And you get college boys and make navigators out of them and we might as well get moles and try to make navigators out of them. They'll just do fine; they can figure up all their sights, they can figure up all the shots, they can figure it all and figure it all and figure it all and figure it all; they can't look.

"Oh!" he says, "One apple, one orange, one dollar. That's the way it's done."

Put a sextant in their hands and they toss it up to their eye and take a sight and it's only ten minutes in error and that's all right. And then they can figure from there. They will never consider that taking a shot with a sextant is the most important operation of a navigator.

You say, "One dollar plus one dollar equals two dollars. Okay, let's get some dollar bills. All right."

Similarly your Loran - the establishment of Loran at vast cost, was probably just fine in an area where nobody could look anyway, but you try to establish Loran anyplace else and it'll wreck more ships than it'll save. Man, that's obvious that it'll do this because it's an automaticity. There isn't anybody in the ship who knows for sure; the knowingness is external to the ship and it's an electronic machine sitting on a couple of islands someplace or another, and they're just saying where they are. So it's other-determinism entirely and people will get a lost feeling on the ship.

God help a teacher that ever does this in school because she'll - even she will see where she bogs.

Radar is a form of looking and that's very good. A fellow who can navigate with radar is way ahead of the fellow who's navigating with Loran (long range navigation), other-determined navigation.

Lay out a dollar bill. Now you say, "You lay out another dollar bill, and that equals..."

Now, the most important part of navigation is looking and a fellow who knows how to look knows where he is. He's just willing to look. A navigator will go out and take a look; doesn't look right to him. What doesn't look right? Oh, I don't know, position of the stars, something like that. "Doesn't look right. Let's see." And so-and-so and so-and-so. A good navigator can tell you whether or not he's ten miles off course or not just with a glance at the stars. Not because the stars are saying anything significant or adding anything up. He knows where they're supposed to be and so you've got another type - you've extended, actually, other-determinism on his position.

Then she'll say, "Wait a minute, Just a minute. Let's go over this again. You lay out a dollar bill and then you lay out another dollar bill and that equals - well - well, I'll tell you, honey, all it is, is, you see, you pick up these two dollar bills and put them over there and that equals these two dollar bills."

But in view of the fact that impact can occur, MEST against MEST, then one pays attention to other objects for determining his position.

Something wrong about that, you see, because - because those two one-dollar bills never equaled anything but the two one-dollar bills right where they were and the second you've moved them elsewhere (as Korzybski has laid down), they're not the same two one-dollar bills, because they're occupying different space.

A high level of knowingness would merely consist of knowing where you were. Anchor points? No. Nothing - he just knows where he is. Where is he? Noplace, of course, that's - he knows he is. So the right to be nowhere is quite a right to have, isn't it? You can run that as a concept. "I have a right to be nowhere." The most hectic feelings will start to come off the fellow. All of a sudden, "All right, I can be nowhere."

In other words, the only way we can do arithmetic is to wildly confuse space. And if we sufficiently confuse space and get wild enough about our confusions of space, we can do arithmetic. But if we happen to notice that we are confusing space in order to do arithmetic, all the preponderables and unponderables and expoundables of arithmetic vanish.

Now, you as an auditor are trying to make this fellow be somewhere. And boy, he's going to start resisting you like mad.

The only thing wrong with arithmetic is that you can make all sorts of things equal to all sorts of things that they obviously are not equal to. So gradually as the fellow goes on up the line through calculus and theory of equations, he finds out that it takes him all the way through theory of equations to get there, and he should have learned it in the second grade, first grade, kindergarten, Mother should have taught him before she [he] went to school. You - if he - if she couldn't teach him this, he was too dumb to be in school. It's when you confuse two spaces you can get any answer you want. Any time you confuse two spaces you can get anything you want.

So you better be covert about it and give him the right to be nowhere; you can just run that. Run it in Matched Terminals and masses like Viewpoint Processing, just vast numbers of things, giving him the right to be nowhere, and he can give him - things the right to be nowhere in brackets and so forth. Everybody's got a right to be noplace. And he'll find he doesn't like this and he's determined that he needs something else for stimulus and sensation and so forth. Well, it doesn't have the right to be nowhere, he does, but it doesn't have! Now, that's what he comes up with. He's trying to enforce the fact on everything else that it must be somewhere at all times, which is to say, it must be attainable. And he himself must have the right to be nowhere at all times but able to attain the other locations. And this, of course, becomes the maybe.

If you're permitted, in any game, to confuse spaces, then you can get any answer. Let's follow that for a minute. You lay down this dollar bill and you lay down this dollar bill and the second that you say, "Those two spaces are on the other side of the equal sign," your arithmetic formula is right - the second you do that - but then the arithmetic formula can't be right the second that we know that those two dollar bills occupied space. We haven't moved those two spaces over unless we're a thetan.

Everybody wants to be nowhere and wants everything to be somewhere, so you get every - nowhere-somewhere and nothing-something. And actually somewhere-nowhere is a better maybe than nothing-something. All right.

The whole process of existence from the beginning of time until now has been the confusion of spaces and only when you could confuse spaces could you ever fool anybody.

What's time? Just the effort to withdraw. Is - when the effort to withdraw is restimulated in a person and he finds he can't withdraw and he fails, he starts to have trouble with time. This stuff is withdrawing all the time; it's reaching, withdrawing, reaching, withdrawing, reaching, withdrawing. But that doesn't interpolate well on a case, reaching and withdrawing, as an action. So let's just take the stuff as it's there and it's not there. It's there and it's not there, and it's there and it's not there; it's got to be someplace else. It's saying all the time "I can't be here; I have to be someplace else. I can't be here; I have to be someplace else." That's what MEST is saying continually, so you're getting shifting forms of space. Time is shifting forms of space.

"Now you've seen it. Now you see it there, there it is, there it is. Now we turn over the hand and nothing there." See? Everybody says, "Gee, he's good with card tricks. How the hell did he do that?" Well, the way he did that was - slipped it up his sleeve, of course. There's where the space went. But he showed you his sleeve and it wasn't in it. So therefore, people are left in a confused state of mind.

Now, a fellow who can't get consecutive pieces of space, consecutive shifts of space, is having a rough time, so we get into another technique immediately: Have people shift anchor points around so as to make consecutive shifts of space. And that, in itself, is logic.

Do you know what card tricks are for? Basically card tricks and suchlike magic was simply used to confuse people sufficiently - people who were ignorant - confuse them sufficiently, bing-bing-bing, see, to plant a suggestion, and you could then tell them that they had seen anything. And the only thing that you ever used the palming, the card trick, the sleight of hand, any of these things, was simply so that the crowd would become open-mouthed enough to suddenly believe that you had a small boy at the end of a rope which had leaped in the air and which was not held from above. And you only had to tell them this was true. Or you had to spread a mock-up that this was true from their viewpoint - bang! You didn't have to say a word, you just went into a regular communication system, but you got them confused by looking at MEST by confusing spaces.

Choreography is simply the matter of consecutively shifting space with a body. See. If they use the anchor point - the body and anchor points - and you consecutively shift those anchor points. And if that is done with sufficient smoothness so that it's almost undetectable, one place to another, you have aesthetics. It continues to happen and is practically undetectable, why, it gives people a very delicious feeling and that's aesthetics. Now you've tied aesthetics immediately into time when you've done that.

Fellow says, "You see this quarter? It's gone. Where is it?"

Control is this. If this person is worried about control - and anybody who's having trouble and can't see his body is worried about control of his body, then his exercises indicated are consecutive patterns of space. But you're not going to get him to get consecutive patterns of space with any certainty unless you discover for him that he can have at least one anchor point.

Well, up his sleeve, of course, but he isn't wearing a coat.

Now, you find out he can't easily have one anchor point; what do you do for him then? Let's get where he isn't. Now, let's just knock out every place under the sun, moon and stars where he isn't; and let's just keep this up as a drill until he is ready to perish from boredom.

"Let me see," they said, "now, what is that? What is that?" In other words, how do we disentangle these two, three, four spaces there. We - all of us saw it as one space.

All right? It's all right to say to the fellow, "Where are you?" Well, he doesn't want to be located because if he's located, he can be impacted. The game he's playing is he must be nowhere and everything else must be located.

"Now, let's see, there was a space there, and now there's not a space there. The quarter is gone; it was an anchor point. So it was making up - if it was an anchor point that with a set of other things made more space. But now that space has evidently been destroyed and that space must be created someplace else but it obviously isn't any... Well, how do we figure this out? Let's see, how do we figure-figure-figure-figure-figure."

Now, if you ask, "Where are you? Now, let's establish where you are directly," he's not going to buy this if he's leery. If he's in pretty good shape, he'll buy this, but if he's not in very good shape, he isn't going to buy this at all. He won't even buy it to the point of locating so he'll know, because somebody might read his mind.

Well, how did they start figuring? They recoiled from looking. You have to recoil from looking. And why do you recoil from looking? Because it gets too confused.

So let's just get the places where he isn't. And he'll play this game for a long time. He'll also - there's a little bit of terror on playing this game.

Now, who's the most pestiferous person you know? The most pestiferous person you know.

And where do we find he isn't? "Well, let's get a place where you re sure you're not."

Get a mock-up of this person from in front - talking to you from in front - just the idea the person is there, talking to you from in front.

"I don't know" he'll say.

Now, get the idea that while he's talking to you in front, he comes up from the right side talking to you about something else.

"Well now, let's get a place where you re sure you're not."

Now he comes up from the left side while he's still talking to you from in front and on the right side.

"Oh, I'm not..."

Now he comes in from above and starts talking to you.

"Well, are you in the middle of the sun?"

Now he comes in from below and starts talking to you.

"Oh. Huh. No! No!" He's not there. So how do you really get him to make certainties on where he's not? Dangerous places; and you reverse Step I. The fellow is inverted, so let's just reverse Step I, and let's take dangerous and unpleasant places, one after the other, and he's going to be sure every time he's not there. Let him choose them, but every once in a while throw one in.

Now two more of him walk up in front while all of these others are talking.

You say, "All right, now that's where you are. All right. Are you in the Camden sewer system?"

And you fix your attention on the - what those two new ones are saying and just get your attention fixed on them and he starts talking to you from the rear.

"No!" No, he's not in the Camden sewer system.

Now get your attention thoroughly on his talking to you in the rear and then have all the others start talking to you while he walks in from the other side of the room and talks to you while all of him is talking to you there.

"Are you - are you in a bottle of sulfuric acid in there sitting on the shelf?"

And then he appears exactly where you are, talking to you.

"No!"

What's happening here? There's obviously - there's one person we have postulated and then all of a sudden we get him in lots of locations. Do you get the idea of your attention being racked from one place to the other? Do you see how this could be?

See, you can get very abrupt certainties on the thing. As a matter of fact, you get a withdrawal when you do that; he'll actually pull back from being it.

All right, now much more graphically - blow all those up.

And if you were to merely say, "Well now, are you down in the street?"

Now much more graphically get an explosion on the right side and just as you're looking at it, get an explosion on the left side.

"I - I don't think I am."

Now while you're looking at this second explosion, get one in front of you and just as you fix your attention on it, get an explosion behind you.

"Are you on Saturn?"

Just as you fix your attention on the one behind you, have an explosion under your feet.

"No, not Saturn. Well, maybe I was on Saturn once. I don't think I am now."

As an explosion happens under your feet, get one happening above you.

You'll actually get this reaction from very, very good functional guys. Because - and then you start pinning him down and you can just halve up or quarter up the universe. "Are you in that quarter of the universe? Are you in that quarter? In that quarter? In that quarter?" He'll tell you, if he's on an inverted 8, that he's all through the universe, unless you go on a reverse problem - dangerous places, unpleasant places, unthinkably bad places.

As one happens above you, get another one happening above you when you expect to look away.

"Now, are you where your father is?"

What's happening there? You're just being asked to make space, make space or agree with space, agree with space, agree with space, agree with space. And every time you drag your attention off one space, then you try to hang that up and leave it there while you go to another space.

"No! No, I'm not there."

All right, let's find the four upper anchor points of the room.

Now, don't play this game on unpleasant places too long, merely because you'll restimulate him all over the track. So let's play it alternately: where he is, where he isn't. I mean, let's don't - not keep suggesting places to him, let's find - let him find as much as possible where he isn't. And if he's fogging up and getting too doubtful and so forth, well, just suggest a little place where he wouldn't dare be and he'll snap in. But do that seldom - you get the idea that that is not a good practice. It just starts it going.

Now get the idea there's no room there.

Well, after he's found that he isn't in a lot of places he'll start to localize and then he'll centralize and he will at least admit to himself he is someplace. Probably, on this type of run, he won't tell you where he is. This is - that's hide. That's how you solve an inverted dynamic. Okay?

Now let's find the four upper anchor points of the room while there's no room there.

All right, there are other ways to handle the material I have just given you.

Let's get the four lower anchor points of the room while there's no room there.

Now, the way to get control reestablished with an individual is to get him certain of some anchor points and then get him to shift patterns of anchor points. Of course, you kind of rattle him if you give him solid geometry names for every new pattern you have. So let's not go off into solid geometry. Let's go into the shapes of familiar things.

Now have the room appear eighteen feet to the right of you.

"Now, let's get it in the shape of a clock, in the shape of a ball, in the shape of a bat, in the shape of a ball, in the shape of a bat."

Do you get this immediate impulse to yank the room back? Hm? Why do people get messed up on a time track? Why do they get stuck on a time track? It's just that they haven't had time to sort out the space that's been given them before they have to sort out some new space. You see?

Now, you say, "Are you using the same anchor points to do this with?" No. No, he isn't.

So arithmetic is the end-all swindle.

"All right. Let's take a triangle made with three anchor points. Now let's make it into a piece of space with four anchor points. Now into a triangle, Now into that piece of space. To a triangle. That piece of space. To a triangle. That piece of space. To a triangle. That piece of space. Now make it into a pyramid. Now make it into a cube. Now make it into a sphere."

The dollar bill plus the dollar bill is simply the dollar bill plus the dollar bill. It's exactly the same place that the two dollar bills ... But anytime we grant the fact that there can be a symbol for anything we're in trouble. We have said immediately that the thing is not the thing, that something else can represent the thing.

This exercise is the exercise of control: position of anchor points to make new consecutive spaces - logic. Logic - that very much cherished thing - is simply the ability to handle consecutive shifts of anchor points. But logic shifts them so slightly, so minutely, one to another, that one can very easily get confused with this universe and think that all of his logic is dependent upon this universe.

Any time an executive wants to get in trouble, he hires a manager who then writes letters in the executive's name. We're in trouble. If we want to keep out of trouble, the way we do is not try to be an executive and have a manager, just have a manager. That's simple, then, see.

So here we go with a problem: Is the preclear in the MEST universe? If it all belongs to him - yep; if it doesn't belong to him - no.

But deputizing while still holding on to is the favored method of doing business in this community and culture today. And that happens to be an impossible method of doing business because it is intensely restimulating. While you're still holding on to this space, you've got to hold on, now, to another space. Now, while you've got to hold on to another space, we hold on to the next space. And before you can let go of it, you'll hold on to the next space and the next space and the next space.

He is doing the trick - his best location is with his own anchor points, so give him anchor points of his own, and then he can take possession of MEST anchor points. Not being able to have something is not being able to have anchor points, which is not being able to have space, and that's not being able to be in it. So you want him to be something, he'll have to have an anchor point.

So finally, you say, “Well, just these words will stand for these spaces and that'll be that. And we won't try to hold on to any spaces anymore; we'll get some symbol that'll stand up and hold on to all these spaces for us."

Now, most people are dependent upon two kinds of anchor points in this society: one is a body and the other is a piece of money. Money is the mutual exchanging, turning, shifting anchor point in this society. And you'll find, you always get a - by running Step IV on the subject of money and on the subject of work and on the subject of pain and on the subject of healthy bodies, you'll always get some kind of a lift from your preclear.

This is an immediate admission that one can't hold on to spaces; it's also an immediate admission that one cannot look. When one can't look, he's in trouble! That's the only place it goes, is into symbolism. And any time you get symbols, any symbol plus any other symbol can be two other symbols because you just simply said it was true. Then guys, after they've noticed that this is wrong, that is to say, it's contrary to regular postulates or contrary to existing spaces the second they've noticed that this is haywire, they will lay off arithmetic.

Now, if your pre clear hangs up on the track as you're coming forward, by the way, remember that he's probably hung up in motion. Getting able to get sexual sensation out of things, putting sexual sensation into things, getting them out of things, and so forth, is very good.

Try and teach some bright little kid arithmetic; you're in trouble. Just try and do it and you're in trouble. He'll ask you and ask you and ask you. And, of course, you say, “Well, of course, you always want to get the proper change" - some such thing. "And that's why you want to learn arithmetic, you little dummy!" It isn't a good answer at all. Learning arithmetic is just a method of looking at symbols while you should be looking at the real thing.

But being able to feel affection is one of his greatest difficulties. To receive and give affection is a lost art. And that's a very interesting thing what happens on some preclear that you have him exteriorized and then they continue to go along on a sort of a plane. Their lookingness is jammed up on affection. Little babies - they sure don't like what grown-ups call affection, so forth - fellow's denial of affection, which is very bad. Which means what? Which winds up in, eventually, his inability to accept with others the same anchor points.

Do you mean to tell me you can't see at a glance a hundred objects and know whether or not there are ninety-nine or a hundred and one? You mean you have to go through a system of counting them? This is a superlimitation. The only reason you have arithmetic is because somebody else has agreed upon a system of symbols, not because you need them.

In other words, me and Joe and Bill and Pete can't own this rifle. Me and Joe and Bill and Pete can't own the city hall. I own the city hall, and Bill and Joe and Pete don't own the city hall is what it amounts to. Why? Affection.

Now, computationally anybody can figure out where he is navigationally; he knows where he is, he doesn't have to figure it out with a sextant and all that sort of thing.

Affinity is a line; it's made up out of particles, admiration particles, and these are expressed to the preclear as affection. So he has to have lines to communicate and centralize and locate, and he's afraid to let go of things because he's liable to lose his anchor points forever and he's not able to have this space anymore and so on. Sort of gets to be an interesting fact.

Driving through fog the other day, terrible fog, very thick fog and I was traveling at about sixty-five, seventy miles an hour - a real thick fog - and slowed down and braked down to about thirty and braked down to about twenty and then went around the truck which was crossparked on the highway. I never saw the truck even when I passed it. Why?

But is his space - the space of his own - is it coincident with the MEST universe? No. Agreement with the MEST universe is only bad where it leads the person to believe that his own space is coincident with the MEST universe space. That's why agreeing with the MEST universe is bad, you might say, aberrative. Agreeing with its processes is bad, and processing which suddenly just turns the disagreement around - you have gravity being disobeyed. And things which defy the MEST universe and can't he built on the laws of the MEST universe are very good - these processes.

Well, it's a simple matter of knowing that there's a truck up there. How do you know there's a truck up there? Well, you know there's an iron object in the fog. Why? Well, you can taste the iron, of course. How far ahead of you can you taste it? Well, you can taste it about five hundred yards.

Did you ever finally get somebody to make a ball fall upward and all of a sudden they feel better? Make them get water run uphill? And they feel better. Get them to have two burned out matches light? That just doesn't happen, you see, in the MEST universe and so it makes them feel good, makes them feel smart; they're able to control things.

People - this is real silly, you see. I mean, what do you need there? Well, you make the postulate you can't see in fog - you sure can.

In other words, their patterns - the patterns in which they're fixing spaces - with which they're fixing spaces are being determined by themselves, not being determined by the MEST universe.

Now, the other way to do it is simply shift your sight to infrared. The second you shift your sight to infrared fog can't stop it. If you're depending on MEST vision and MEST objects, you can certainly count, look, see, sort. This is not difficult. It is hard to explain because the language does not admit it. This is the superlimitation.

When the MEST universe determines one's anchor points, the allowable patterns and all the rest of it, a person gets into bad condition, because that's other-determinism; his self-determinism goes down. In order to rehabilitate him, turn him around. Let him establish patterns.

Fellow who goes out has to - in a circus and balances himself with one finger in a bottle on top of a pole fifteen feet high while balancing the pole, has a certain state of mind. You could label this state of mind certainty. But actually, it's a sort of an elan - an elan. He's doing it, he knows he can do it - swing-pang! One day he goes swing-pang and the bottle collapses and so forth, and after that he isn't so hot at it. After that he'll start to set up circuits in training so he can do it.

Now, you can take a number of cubes or dice or marbles or something of the sort and make different patterns in front of a fellow; you could just - he could just change these things into different consecutive patterns; find out how gradually he could change these patterns. That's therapeutic, oddly enough. Most terribly elementary therapy, but it would be about the most elementary therapy you could get.

I think that probably two or three-year little - old kids could walk high tight wires three hundred feet in the air with no trouble whatsoever, except that this is shown off as an exhibition, which means they can't do it. Nobody pays any attention to them, but people would pay attention to things doing it, so if nobody pays attention to them, then they can't do it either.

One of the most elementary therapies you can have the preclear do is "Take this ashtray. All right, now move it over to the center of the desk - center back of the desk. Now move it into the middle of the desk. Now move it over to this side of the desk."

You find every little kid will have the sneaking hunch that if he had all the adulation that circus performers get, he could do all the things they do. The cross-circuit is, is nobody pays him attention and people pay attention to high-wire walkers. So it must follow, immediately, that there's a difference of space. See, he must be in a different space, so this must be a different thing. They're given the idea "they can't" before they get the idea "they can."

And after he's done that for a while, ask him who's changing the place of the ashtray and he'll say - possibly he may say, "You are." So you just say, "All right, now why don't you determine some new places into which you should place the ashtray?"

Now, I taught a little kid one time to steer a racing yacht which was one of the fightiest yachts anybody ever tried to... Lot of square footage was up there, some twenty-five hundred square feet of canvas was up there in a thirty-five mile breeze and she didn't have a single reef point in her. And she was going with her whole rail under.

And you know on a person who's real bad oft they'll think about this and they'll think about it and think about it and think about it and almost crack their brains trying to shake loose and be self-determined about an ashtray. Then they'll say, "Well, if it's right here I can put my ashes in it easily."

And I just told this little kid, "Come over and steer it."

This is a question of how far south do you have to go. Well, it's how much reason does a person have to have to ask. That is, how much is he - does he have significance. There is no significance; there is no reason; the thing is the thing; that's all there is to it.

"Oh," he says, "I can't reach it."

All right, I'm going to recommend to you, today, the game of "Where aren't you?" and let you play it to death till all of you, and I mean all of you, are absolutely sure that there's at least one place in the universe where you aren't.

"Well, why don't you stand up on the rail and put your foot on the tiller."

Have you got that now? I'm serious about that because there's a lot of people sailing around and trying to be agreeable about where they are and they'll give you a very sudden funny look if you suddenly ask them, "Where aren't you?" Now, try and play the game, then, more or less as we were processing yesterday on certainty.

"Okay." He did, he steered it. Never occurred to him, you see, he couldn't, because it never occurred to me he couldn't. Well, that was rough beef, because actually a fellow had to grab ahold of that tiller real hard and push real hard and do all sorts of things. But he was just doing a beautiful job of steering that vessel. I didn't even tell him how to do it. She'd start to fall off and he'd bring her up into the wind a little bit more. Why? That's just the way he was supposed to do it; nobody had ever trained him how.

There's an extensional drill from that - is "Where don't you have an anchor point?" That's another part of the same drill: "Where don't you have an anchor point?" And you ask the fellow to be sure of that and he really starts to wobble, because he has left anchor points all over the universe and he's sure they're still there because he said - told them to be there every time he said so and he never unmade the postulate.

You see, a person then gets half-trained and they think they have to be trained And that's the only reason we're talking about Dianetics and Scientology, in we're talking on a cultural level where people are half-trained, then they have to be fully trained because they have to be out-trained out of being trained. The only excuse we have for going to school here is to get untrained so that we can recognize that we're trained. See that? It sounds silly but it's absolutely the thing, what we're doing.

Male voice: Well, does he not put one at any point where - it's - you ask him where does he not have an anchor point and he says, "Okay, I don't have one in Nome, Alaska"; doesn't he put one in Nome, Alaska as he says it?

All right. As we look down the line we find out what's certainty. People think that they can get trained into a certainty. They can't get trained into a certainty. But they can be guided to feel, be guided to think, be guided to work and be guided to look on certainties. Not the symbols of the thing, hut the thing. They can look, they can feel, they can feel the effort and they can think, in just that order, on the subject of certainties.

If he's - if he's undetermined about anchor points, he does. So you see, it's a very good drill. I'll let you solve exactly how you do that one.

So the component parts of livingness happen to be think, effort, emote, look and the objects and spaces about which one thinks, toward which one applies effort, which apply effort against one which one feels, which feels of one, at which one looks and which look (if they're mirrors) at one. Those are the component parts of existence.

Certainty of location is, then, a consideration of where one is on the basis that he's certain where a viewpoint is. If he's certain where a viewpoint is, he's certain where he can view from, and we've got a consideration of "I can view from." So, positiveness in being able to consider is, again, a very interesting level of certainty and is the level of certainty, which is consideration. To be able to consider something positively, in other words, to look at something positively. See? Look at something positive, consider something positively, you've got your significance and your no-significance.

If you become certain that these component parts of existence exist, then you have a certainty.

All right, let's take a look then at Change of Space Processing and we find out that those cases which have advanced markedly on Change of Space Processing (being in this space and that space), are those people who have made sure and who are certain they are in a new space.

You see anything?

Now, it could be done many ways to increase that certainty; but if you were to increase that certainty one way or the other, one of the ways to do it is simply to do Change of Space Processing, and their certainty gets greater and greater and greater.

Well, right now, close your eyes, close your eyes. Did you get an impression of anything around you? An impression of anything?

Now, you get a gradient scale of certainty, then. So it isn't that you have to suddenly knock the guy over with a club and say, "You have to be certain and then we can process you so that you can be certain." He'll see this as an endless chain. What you want to do is have him change space until he's certain he's in present time in a new space.

Male voice: Visually? No.

Well, one of the ways of doing this is to get him to look all around himself, but he's liable to collapse God knows how many automatic machines and so forth on himself if you ask him to look around unless he's pretty up - high tone. But you can hint to him once in a while, "Well, look a little bit further."

In the room?

When he's doing it too fast and you know he's not certain yet, you say, "Look a little bit further in that area." See, a little tip-off. "Just spread your vision a little bit in that area until you get a 360-degree sphere of vision in the area."

Male voice: Not visually.

Actually, the area is only clear when you're getting a 360-degree sphere of vision. But you could go on just a gradient scale of "Be here. Be there. Be there."

Well, now, just a minute. Close your eyes again. Do you get an impression of anything visually?

By the way, there's another little point I'd like to make, is this business about, he's - doesn't know he's there because he can't see himself As I said yesterday - he can't take a look at his body, so he's less certain of how he's mocking up his body, you see, than other people are certain. This makes other people far more certain than he is because they can see his body and he can't.

Male voice: Sure. Everything's in the room. Everything that belongs here.

Well, a fellow is surrounded by mirrors and bric-a-brac and junk and you can actually tell a preclear, "All right, take that," just tell him, "just take that mirror out in front of you. Now, take a look at yourself" And he looks around the room, he doesn't see any mirror, and you say, "Well, just take the mirror that you've got out there in front of you."

Well, do you get an impression of anything visually? Do you see anything visually?

"How did you know I have that?"

Male voice: Well, blackness.

"And then just look at yourself in that. Now look over to the side and see if you've got some mirrors over there and you can see yourself in those," and so on.

There.

And he'll get all sorts of topsy-turvy views of his body. And if you keep this up, he does get a view of his body. The reason he mainly - the reason he isn't anyplace when he's in a body is merely because he doesn't see the exterior of the body and he won't look at the interior. Guts and brains and so forth are pretty nasty to look at if you've ever seen them spattered over a fence.

Male voice: It's not in the room, though.

There we finally made some... It's not in the room?

Male voice: Well, you know...

Where is it?

Male voice: It's right - it's right here but it's...

All right. Where is here?

Male voice: All right, right here in the room.

Okay. And so you can take any preclear and kick his teeth in on the subject of observation. That's the first place you kick his teeth in when he tells you're occluded - he's occluded.

He says, "I'm occluded."

And you say, "Okay, close your eyes and take a look. What do you see?" "Nothing," he'll say.

Sometimes he will keep up this damn-fool story about he sees nothing for minutes! And you just have to keep talking to him and arguing with him and saying, "Now, come on. Do you see anything at all? Is there anything at all to see?"

"Oh," he'll say after a while, "some blackness."

"All right. Is that something or isn't it?"

"Well, I don't know what it is."

That isn't what you've asked him, you've asked him if he saw anything. Get the essential difference there.

"All right, now where is it?" That is the next question.

Well, I made him say where it was. He said it is - it's in the room. Of course, but he isn't sure of that, are you? Male voice: Yeah, I'm sure it's in the room but it doesn't have anything to do with the room, though.

Oh, it's not connected with the room in any way, shape or form Doesn't have anything to do with it.

Male voice: Yeah, I got it when I'm outside, too.

Your - I see, I see, it carries - portable?

Male voice: Oh, yeah, I can take it anywhere I go.

Mmm!

Male voice: It's not heavy.

Now, that's the only confounding thing about a body, an automobile, a bird or anything else. They're mobile, damn them. That's the only thing about a planet or a star that is even vaguely confusing. They're mobile.

When a person recognizes something of this mobility it upsets him. And there is his excuse for using symbols; he tries to handle mobile objects.

The only mathematics I know that does me any good at all is rate of change - mathematics which handle rate of change in ratios. And I try to look at rates of change in ratios and mock-ups and any other way I think for them, I just get more and more confused. So does anybody else, because that is the sticker beyond stickers.

You have a barrel, it is leaking at the rate of one drop every three minutes. What is the - at the rate of one drop - now, it is a conical structure rather than cylindrical, and you want to know the area of the water - the difference of the area of the water every three minutes.

Now, the rate of change of the area of the water at the top of the water supply because it was leaking or because it was running seems to be an important problem to some people. Never found any use for it, but whenever I run up against that one, it has to be done mathematically. I have to add and subtract and cast it up and integrate and differentiate and so forth, and when I get all through I look up in the back of the book to find the answer and I take what I found in the back of the book.

The difference of area because of difference of escapement. It's hard to look at because it's very hypothetical - extremely. And people claim they want to know answers to this sort of thing, so they do.

That introduces in this universe, then, an uncertainty. And actually, from that uncertainty of mobility of space - that is to say, mobility of anchor points - a mobility of anchor points introduces a possibility of confusion. We answer this question - well, we've answered it.

We've got eight anchor points. These anchor points are unchangeable anchor points as far as their own character and beingness is concerned - individually unchangeable. Now, we move these to a new location so that you have them in eight new places. Do you have a different space? Well, do you or don't you? Do you have a different space?

Female voice: Yes.

Do you?

Male voice: It's determined by the location.

That's correct! If you don't know that, though, about this universe, you don't know anything, do you?