Now I want to talk to you a little bit more about the Axioms and to take up particularly this matter of truth and its use in auditing.

You see, any problem of any character is the basic business of the Scientologist. So therefore, if he wants to know about solutions, you had certainly better give him the solution of problems. And that, of course, would be a basic and ultimate truth.

Well, if we could describe a basic and ultimate truth and describe it exactly, why, we have no problem at all in solving problems.

All right. Now, let's go over this again. We see that failure to discover truth brings about stupidity. Person begins to believe he's stupid if he can't as-is truth. All right.

Now, we see that the discovery of truth would bring about an as-isness by actual experiment, and thus we see that an ultimate truth would have no time, place or form. In other words, it would just – whatever we had there would simply disappear if we discovered an ultimate truth. So the ultimate truth is a perfect duplicate and therefore the ultimate is a static. And the operation to achieve a static would be a perfect duplicate.

Now, we see very much, then, that lying as we understand it is an alteration of time, place, event or form. And that is a lie. And only lies persist.

We have to have a basic postulate and then another postulate before we get time; have to have two postulates to have time. We can't have time with one postulate unless it is the postulate that there will be time. That could be one postulate. But normally in operation we find that two postulates are necessary to achieve time.

Well now, which one of these postulates is going to persist if the two postulates deny each other? The second one is going to persist because it is the time postulate. It said there was a second postulate, so therefore we have time taking place.

So lying becomes an alter-isness and becomes stupidity. In other words, we don't discover where the thing is, we don't discover exactly how it was, so we can't unmock it, so there we are. And the only thing that we can do with it, possibly, is to not-is it or alter it some more or stir it around or do what a Black Five does with it: just stirs it around and hopes it'll disappear and so forth. He doesn't as-is it and so it doesn't disappear.

Well now, the funny part of it is that lying will develop into a stupidity. It also develops into a mystery and it also develops into this blackness which individuals are so upset about. And it's just an alteration of time, place, event or form, after the fact of its having been created.

This is a mechanical lie and, by the way, does not lead to blackness. It would be two kinds of lies here.

Mechanical lie: We mock up some space and we put an object in that space, and then we move it. Well, the moment we've moved it, we've lied about it. We've said, "It's over there," where as a matter of fact, it was created in location one.

Now, in view of the fact that there's only consideration, this of course would bring about a lie. But, really, it doesn't disappear, it doesn't do anything peculiar simply by moving it around. We say it's in another location, and that of course gives us a mechanical lie. So that the mere handling of energy does not bring about a lie. It takes another consideration than simply moving something to bring about an occlusion.

All right. Now, anything which persists must avoid as-isness, and thus anything to persist, really to persist, must contain a lie.

Now we get Axiom 39: Life poses problems for its own solution. Ah-ha! Life poses problems for its own solution.

Now, what do we find here in a problem? We find something which is persisting, the as-isness of which cannot be attained. And that would be the definition of a problem: Something which is persisting, the as-isness of which cannot be attained (easily be attained, that is), and that would be a problem.

Now, to solve that problem, it would be necessary to get its as-isness. Well, how do we prevent, then, something from being as-ised – in other words, vanished? We introduce a lie into it. So all problems contain a lie.

Any problem to be a problem must contain a lie. If it were truth, it would unmock, and that's Axiom 40.

So we get that any problem to be a problem has to contain a lie. So, actually, when you're studying the preclear's bank and you're trying to process a preclear, and yet preclear is being a problem, we know very well that there's a lie someplace on the track that he's trying to obtain the as-isness of. It's not necessarily his lie, but it certainly is a lie.

An "unsolvable problem" would have the greatest persistence. It would also contain the greatest number of altered facts; and to make a problem one must introduce alter-isness. In other words, this problem must have been moved and shifted and shoved around considerably to be unsolvable.

Now Axiom 41: That which alter-isness is introduced into becomes a problem.

Anytime you alter something, you've got a problem on your hands. Thus, this whole universe, then, is a problem. And, also, this whole universe must contain a lie to go on persisting the way it does. Well, believe me, it contains enough alter-isms, so it certainly does contain a lie. It also contains a variety of lies about its creation and all that sort of thing. I mean, there's a lot of things about this universe that make it persist. And all of those things boil down to one fact: that it must be based upon a lie and it must be very definitely altered.

Now, Axiom 41 tells us that it was alteration which brought the preclear into being a problem. Thus, we find any child that has been moved extensively, who has had its home changed, who has been shoved around to various parts of the world, eventually becomes a problem, first to environment, and then to himself. Naturally. He's just been altered in space a lot, so he becomes a problem.

Now we discover in 42 that matter, energy, space and time – MEST, in other words – persists because it is a problem. And your physicist is busily at work trying to unmock this, but he's unmocking it by not-isness: he's using force to alter force. Because he keeps altering it, it naturally will get worse and worse.

Now, he will solve nothing with an atom bomb. He will simply make things worse, more complicated, more confused and more dispersed.

The atom bomb is a dead-end track and is folly. It is great folly. It would merely add more confusion.

If an atom bomb were introduced into a war, by the number of particles and the amount of mest which would be altered, we would discover immediately that it would have introduced a great number of lies into the situation. It would have deteriorated the society and everything else.

If we were foolish enough, for instance, to atom-bomb Russia or if Russia were foolish enough to atom-bomb the U.S., enough confusion would have been introduced into the cultures of earth so that probably there would be no other choice but to sink into a barbarism. In the absence of an understanding of life itself, this is exactly what would have happened.

Now we get here number 43: Time is the primary source of untruth. Time states the untruth of consecutive considerations.

And I call your attention very definitely to interest as an interesting thing to observe.

Now, there are two classes of interest. And we want to know why we're thinking about this in terms of time. It's because time is the basic lie behind all lies; that is to say, that you have consecutive moments. We believe they're consecutive moments; we see consecutive motions, and so forth. And this is all very pleasant and we agree to this. It's only when we have masked them with some vicious intent that we really get a kickback from the progress of time.

But we discover here in the matter of interest that we have two facets: one is interested and the other is interesting.

Now, a thetan is interested and an object is interesting. A thetan is not interesting, he is interested And when a person becomes terribly interesting, he has lots of problems, believe me. There are lots of problems whenever somebody becomes interesting.

So that is the chasm which is crossed by all of your celebrities, anybody who is foolish enough to become famous. He crosses over from being interested in life to being interesting. And people who are interesting are really no longer interested in life.

It's very baffling to some young fellow why he can't make some beautiful girl interested in him. Well, she's not interested, she is interesting. And so, of course, she can't be interested.

Now, let's take Axiom 44 and see how all this adds up here in processing: Theta, the static, has no location in matter, energy, space or time but is capable of consideration. Now, we've already had that, but we put it in there again just to drive it home in this regard: hasn't any time. There's no time in this static. Time is a lie. But time can be postulated by the static, but is only a consideration, and thereafter a static gets the idea – a thetan gets the idea that he is persisting across a span of time. And he's not. He's not persisting.

Objects are going across time, and energies and spaces are changing and so forth, but he isn't. At no time does he ever change. He has to consider he's in a head before you can put him out of one. He has to consider he is out of his head before he can be out of his head.

A Step V is quite interesting. He's always thinking that the auditor is going to reach in and pull him out of his head. You know, he's waiting for something else to do it. How could anything else do it? Nothing else could do it. Nothing under the sun could do it.

Of course, you could probably hypnotize him and tell him that he was, and he'd probably react in various ways, but he has to say, "I am now out of my head," and he will be out of his head. But if he waits to see whether or not he's out of his head or not, why, it becomes complete nonsense.

The only way that he can get anything done is to consider that it is done or consider that that is the condition which exists.

All right. Number 45: Theta can consider itself to be placed, at which moment it becomes placed, and to that degree a problem.

Ah! Any time we fall away from Axiom 1, which is repeated as Axiom 44, we discover that we have less of a static than before.

In other words, we just place this static, and it's less of a static than it was before. Fascinating, isn't it? But a thetan, then, can have a problem just by being placed and, quite in addition to that, he ceases to be quite as interested.

Now he himself, for instance, placing himself, can get away with this – this isn't very hard for him to do – and he can perceive from this new place and so forth. But as long as he is placed, he will be less than a static. Just remember that.

Now, it is to that degree a problem. To the degree that it has time in it, it's a problem. Now 46: Theta can become a problem by its considerations, but then becomes mest.

What is this mest? What is it? Let's look at that very closely, and let's find that an interested thetan is a thetan, but an interesting – thetan has become mest. What is mest?

Well, it's actually simply a composite of energies and particles which are – and spaces – which are agreed upon and which are looked at.

Now, we have the difference between inflow and outflow. A thetan who is being interesting– pardon me, is interested, he's outflowing: interested, outflowing; interesting, inflowing. See, he wants the attention of others to flow to him. Interesting. That's mest. Attention of others flow to it. That doesn't tell you that all mest is a series of trapped thetans. It says that it is a type of life which is being interesting as opposed to something which is being interested in it.

Now number 46: Theta can become a problem by its considerations, but then becomes mest is followed by this: that mest is a problem and will always be considered a problem and is nothing else but a problem. Mest is that form of theta which is a problem. That's all. Therefore, it's that form of theta which has a lie introduced into it. And so, of course, it's a problem.

Now number 47: Theta can resolve problems.

And 48: Life is a game wherein theta as the static solves the problems of theta as mest.

Now, that means that theta is the static, and theta is the object. Yes indeed, it can be both ways. Just depends on which one is being interested and which one is being interesting-. And we find then that a preclear gets more and more solid and more and more solid the more interesting he becomes. And the more problem he becomes, and the more problems he has and the more figuring he does on these problems, of course, the more solid he is going to get.

Now 49: To solve any problem, it is only necessary to become theta the solver rather than theta the problem.

Now, believe me, that's a very, very important Axiom. That tells you why SOP 8-C Opening Procedure works. The main form of theta which we find desirable, which has mobility, which has freedom, which is happy, which is cheerful, which has all those points on the top of the Chart of Attitudes, and so forth, is an observer of problems and a solver of problems.

So if you get somebody simply to look around the environment, he will cease to be a problem and become the solver of problems. That's all.

Get him to look around and recognize a few problems, and hell feel better. You get somebody working, then, who is worrying about himself – worry-worry-worry-worry-worry-worry-worry – well, he's all mixed up in a problem; he's right next door to a problem; his affinity is a closure with this problem. He's having an awful time. He's all bedded down and so forth.

Well, let's take this and turn it around the other way and let's have him observe himself as a problem. And we get that part of the process which is problems and solutions. And, naturally, if we ask a thetan to be a solution often enough, he would eventually become a static. That's all.

If we ask him to observe problems long enough, he would simply become a static. In other words, he would go out of it both ways.

A theta could become a problem, more of a problem, more of a problem, more of a problem, more, more, more, more and more and more – static. See, he could go out the bottom. Or he could say less of a problem, less of a problem, less, less, less, less, less – static. You see, he could go either ways. So there's no hope for you. You're going to survive anyway and so are your preclears. But we're going to have a better world doing it.

Now number 50: Theta as mest must contain considerations which are lies. In other words, there isn't a single piece of mest in the world which isn't to some degree or another lying.

All right. Now, let's look at that then and find, then, the only crime that you could possibly commit is being there. I don't care where. This is the only crime that you could commit. And this is all your parents objected to, and this is all your preclear's parents objected to, and this is all a preclear objects to when you're auditing him and he growls at you. They add tremendous significances into this, but all they object to is being there.

Now, if you run SOP 8-C Opening Procedure, and you run it very definitely with that postulate, "Get the fact that the wall is there," "Get the fact that the chair is there," "that something else is there," you're liable to knock your preclear practically flat. I'm not advising you to use this as part of Opening Procedure. It's a violent process.

Now, you get almost any preclear and just have him stand up in the middle of the room and just say, "Get the idea to that empty space out in front of you there, that it's there."

"It's there. It's there."

My goodness, his mother will show up, and eight or nine of his wives, and all sorts of things will show up all the way down the line. He'll have all kinds of people standing in front of him. They're all there, you see? But that's the only crime that theta can commit. That's a lie.

You see, that theta can be there is a lie. And that's the only bad thing that anybody has ever done is be there. Now, that's all, actually, that the GE is doing. He stands there. He's visible, he is being there. And we must have introduced a lie. The basic lie which is introduced is time.

Now, it's interesting to note that it's the second postulate which persists, because persist means time, and it's the second postulate which introduces time, so this becomes elementary.

Let's look at this one: let's find this fellow who's awfully sick. Oh, he's terribly sick!

Boy, is he a problem!

Oh, he's a problem to himself and a problem to his family and a problem to his auditor. Oh, he's a problem! He's terrific. Do you know that he must have had an original postulate that he was well before he could make a second postulate that he was sick? And do you know that the postulate that he was sick must have denied the postulate that he was well? And so his original sickness was a falsity, and he knew it at the time he made it, darned well.

He knew when he said he was sick that day to keep from going to school, he knew it that it was a lie. He knew it was a lie and he got a persistence of the sickness. And now here he is eighty-nine years of age and all crippled up, and we find out that the basic postulate was the fact that he was well, however.

Now, how could sickness ever get any power except through wellness? Now, we look underneath every lie to find out that it was the truth, the static itself, which gave it power.

The lie has no power because it is a perversion; persistence has no power that is not based upon the static itself.

So, we have the basic lineup at all times and in all places that the lie is empowered by truth. Truth must have existed. And a good condition or quality must have existed prior to a bad condition or quality, and vice versa.

If a good condition is existing, very possibly the basic postulate was a lie – pardon me, a bad condition – the basic postulate was a bad condition.

All right. As we study the problem of goodness and badness in the world, we find out that we must be studying the second postulate because it is all that persists. If we have a situation which is very, very good, it probably was based upon a primary postulate which was bad.

But do you know that you can't make a prime postulate which is a lie? If you'll just get the idea that there are no postulates, that you've made no postulates of any kind, that there are no postulates which have been made – now make a postulate.

Now, can that postulate be a lie? Can that postulate be a lie? If you wiped out all postulates, you just said "They don't exist," but you just laid them aside; you didn't even postulate them out of existence. Now you've made a prime postulate. That can't be a lie.

All right. Now make a second postulate denying the one which you just made. That's a lie. Now, which one of these two is going to persist? The second one. And where is it going to get its power? From the first one.

So we're trying to cure somebody who has been jilted. We're trying to cure him, and we would then have to get him to postulate that he was in love. And this young man rushes in and he is all ecstatic and his head is going around in circles because of this gorgeous, gorgeous creature that he's just fallen in love with. And so he's going to hock his father in order to take her out. Just what would we process on him to save Father? What would we process?

We would process his dislike of women. You see, it doesn't matter what the prime postulate is. We're not going on the basis of badness or goodness – a consideration is a consideration.

The first consideration, the prime consideration as we call it, cannot be a lie until it is denied or masked or changed by a second consideration while still existing. So, you've got your second consideration there which is the persisting one, and it's deriving its power from the first one.

This fellow says, "I'm never going to fall in love. I'm never going to fall in love. I'm never, never, never going to fall in love – ever." And then he falls in love. Well, he gets it real bad and this persists for a long time. And to audit it out, as I said, we would have to get him to postulate that he was in love.

Now, do we mean reach back on the track and find out where we were going to get that? You know, I mean, reach back and straightwire it out? No, because there is no time. And all address to the past, every address to the past and every address to the future, actually, is validating a lie.

There's only now, there has never been anything else but now. But there's a consistent change and a consistent series of postulates going on which gives a continuance of now. But the continuance of now is a lie. Of course, it's not very bad. You can move objects around, and that's quite honest. I mean, compared to a cross-contradiction (two kinds of lies there).

And we discover that when we are trying to make a condition change, that we simply have to postulate, as though it exists in present time, the opposite condition. And we go on postulating it and postulating it and postulating it, and it will take place.

But what happens as we postulate it? Why does a preclear get sick when he is sick, and says, "I am well, I am well, I am well, I am well"? Because he's already running on the postulate that he's sick, of course. But much more important than that, he is sliding into the second postulate. He's making the first postulate that he's well, and sliding into the second postulate and it restimulates him.

All he's got to do, though, is this a few times, and he will slide out of being sick. He has to do it a few times because he's got to undo the duration or get the time postulate out. In other words, he's got to create time with a postulate, the basic postulate, in order to recover from the second postulate.

If anyone is being continuously sick, then, he is being continuously sick because he gave a counter-postulate to being well. Therefore, we have him postulate "I am well, I am well, I am well, I am well." And we just don't get him to say that, we get him to feel well, you know? "Get the idea of being well," we'd say to him. "Get the idea of be…" Believe me, he's going to get a lot sicker before he gets well, because he keeps sliding into the second postulate.

Now, we in Scientology go out and we tell the world, "Now look, be healthy. Be strong. Be bright. You can be exteriorized," and so forth. And they listen to us. And for a moment they listen, and the next instant they feel kind of sick.

You see, they're sliding into the second postulate. So we give them the first postulate, they go into the second postulate. If we just told them that enough times and often enough and hard enough, they would slide permanently through the second postulate and wipe it out and they would be well.

All we'd do is have to keep telling them they're well. We would accomplish it that way. We'd make them run it out themselves. And so this is, actually, a very superior therapy. This is R2-40 in your processing, immediately derived from these various Axioms.

Wherever we have in Scientology a condition existing, then, it must be deriving its power from a prior postulate of an opposite nature. In order to get a persistence or continuance, we must have had a denying postulate.

So we get somebody who hates the human race, he must have loved them desperately by postulate. You see?

We get two brothers. There's a proof of this, by the way: there's no hatred as that which can exist between two brothers or a nation torn asunder in war. Well, that's because they loved each other so well, you see? And so they can hate with violence! But what is their hatred depending on? Their hatred is depending on the fact they loved each other.

So if we have somebody hating madly, let's say he's hating somebody named Bill, we would say, "Now, get the idea of loving Bill."

"Rrrrrrr!" he'd go.

"Now get the idea of loving Bill." "Rrrrrrrr."

"Get the idea of loving Bill." "Rrrrrr."

"Get the idea of loving Bill."

"Rrrr."

"Get the idea of loving Bill." "Well, he's not too bad a guy…"

"Get the idea of loving Bill." "Get the idea of loving Bill." We wouldn't necessarily restore love for Bill, but we'd certainly run out the hatred for Bill – not because we're running it off the track!

Now, let's get out of our minds right here and now the idea that we ever run anything off the track. We never do.

We're running it in present time, we will never run it otherwise than in present time, and although we can address the track, we are actually validating time. And the more we validate time, the sicker our preclear is going to be.

Okay.