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

Okay. And this is January the 11th. We’ve had a week to get ourselves squared around and catch our breath and find out that it wasn’t too awful and so forth. And so let’s work a little harder and I’m going to spend this morning with you, one way or the other, on exteriorizations.

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.

I want to take up several things with you very rapidly. One is automaticity, another is randomity, another is Opening Procedure a little bit more expanded, and a couple other items.

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.

Automaticity is that which the individual sets up as a continuance of happenings, that which an individual sets up as a continuance of happenings without further direct investment of attention. Now, maybe you’ll understand it better if I phrase it that way. You got that? Without further direct attention. A continuance of happenings without further direct attention. That which the individual sets up.

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.

Now, if any of you go getting on roan horses, pintos, dobbins and riding off over the hills and far away on this and interpret it in the fashion that an automaticity is something which is set up for an individual, we understand the US Army, for hire as usual, will

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.

59 furnish a firing squad at very, very low rates. Cost of the bullets, practically. They like the boys to get in practice, because ...

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.

Now, you think that’s very bad taste of me to say so. But do you know what you can do? You know what you can do by misinterpreting automaticity? You can extend a case upwards to a couple of hundred hours. Just like that. So it may be bad taste for me to say so, but it’s worse auditing for you to have done it.

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, you can say, “Well, that’s just something we don’t have to know too much about and we’ll get by one way or the other on it, and it’ll turn up ...”

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.

No, I’m afraid you won’t do that. Because modern technique depends almost entirely upon the definition of (1) communication (2) duplication and (3) automaticity and (4) randomity. And The Factors which we are using are laid out and written in the issue you have of 16-G and which was issued to you, called “The Factors.” And we aren’t using anything else but what’s in The Factors and we haven’t been for some time. If you read The Factors again, you’ll find out there’s a heck of a lot in The Factors that isn’t carried out and worked out to its final, ultimate degree.

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.

Now, the listing I gave you there is not in order of importance. I don’t care if you put this in order of importance or not. If you were to put that in order of importance, you’d put duplication first. And one other factor that you would add on to it would be knowingness, lookingness, emotingness, effortingness, thinkingness, symbolingness, eatingness and sexingness.

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.

And another factor which you would add on as very, very important, would be certainty. And another one which you would add on that would be very important would be nothing-something. And you’d also add on a viewpoint of dimension-space.

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!

You know, you’re getting awful close to all you have to know. It’s just getting awful close there. There are a few more items scattered around, but the point is that these, known as precise definitions, are quite important to you. And if you know them as precise definitions, you’re an auditor. I’m not saying this is any effort to get you to imbibe and swallow forevermore what poor old Hubbard told you, but I’m just trying in my own mild, innocent - “You better sure as hell had make auditors out of them.”

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.

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, what our procedure is there, in SOP 8 and SOP 8-C, we are using a very, very positive piece of codification. Now, we’ve furnished a number of bins, in 8-C there, and we just throw techniques into these bins. And when you add up the number and names of the bins, you know, eight of them, why, you’ve pretty well nailed down the eight bins that we’re working with. And the names of those bins are quite important to you. And if you know the names of them, why, you can know them in order or not in order. You will still get by if you know the names of them and what they mean.

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.

Our main difficulty with an auditor is that he strays before he knows. Nobody gives a damn how far you stray from basic data as long as you’re straying on the highway of basic data. But by golly, if you start straying before you know your basic information and know it so cold that every time we give a quiz you get a hundred and ten on it, now, you can stray then. You can get on your horse and ride far away and you’ll find out some places are dead alleys and other places are okay and so forth.

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.

But, let’s get these fundamentals down pretty hard. Now, let me tell you, for instance, one of the formulas you’re working with. Now, I’m going to give you, by the way, all the formulas on SOP 8-C as they are worked out. I’m going to have them in your hands here shortly. Because the axioms and formulas on which it’s worked out are more or less what I’ve been talking to you about. They’re just precisely this data.

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

The material that I’ve just listed, however, stands above each and every one of these steps, see? You get this material in the steps and then we combine it in this way and we get a step known as “symbolization,” for instance, or we get a step known as "havingness.”

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

Well, we go down, then, for the names of these steps into what is actually second echelon material. But this is the material you use in auditing. The material which I just listed for you and with some additional material, such as: what is time? Time is havingness, in human experience. And what’s energy? Energy is doing, in human experience. And what’s space? Space is beingness, in human experience - when we get into this material below that level, why, we have it moving out of just the field of livingness and get it applied to something very specific, such as auditing.

All right. Now look up above the ashtray.

But this material, which I’ve just listed to you first off, is actually the woof and warp of livingness. And it applies in all directions. It applies to ants as fast as it applies to coconut trees. And your understanding of existence advances quite markedly when you get a data certainty on this.

Got another ashtray?

You go out and look at a coconut tree and say, “Well, what the devil has communication got to do with this coconut tree? And what’s duplication got to do with this coconut tree? And what’s this coconut tree being and doing and having? And how does that regulate it? And how can I then better predict the course and activity of this coconut tree? And how can I extrapolate what its past must have been?”

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.

Why, you’re going into livingness. Then you have no intentions of auditing the coconut tree. Well, maybe you do, but maybe it’s too early in the morning to go into how to audit a coconut tree. Actual truth of the matter is you can audit a coconut tree. But you go back to the machine that makes coconut trees. It’s a timeless floating ridge.

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

Well anyway, now there’s tremendous, tremendous quantities of terribly interesting and fascinating data, terribly interesting, very fascinating, that you can just stray off into and get lost in quicker than scat.

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

That’s why, principally - not to agree with Johnny Q., the inevitable public, or to make it possible for several fellows who immediately wrote in and told them that Scientology was now acceptable to them because I had divided it into Scientology and Para-Scientology.

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.

I wrote them back individually and told them that it might be acceptable to them, but they still weren’t acceptable to me. They hadn’t heard of Acceptance Level Processing yet so this made them kind of spinny.

Now look at some other part of the room.

But anyhow, our problem here is divided into Scientology and Para-Scientology on this order: what’s direct line and what you can find out about a specific sphere of data with direct-line law application.

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

Now, I’ll give you an idea of what that would be. We would take Scientology, which would be the set of laws which more or less approximate exactly what I’ve told you earlier in the lecture and that’s Scientology.

That’s the way you make a facsimile.

Well, now we apply it, now we apply it to coconut trees, and we immediately have Para-Scientology. See, the second that you apply the laws of livingness to something that is living or a sphere that exists, you have, then, something which is paralleling laws - paralleling knowingness or paralleling livingness - and we can start bailing out data. And it is no more than this: it’s an effort to get you to distinguish, very sharply, between a law, which is universally applicable, and data. And these are two different bins. Data - oh boy, oh boy.

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.

Ever since the Catholic Church reached down into the Catacombs and brought out Aristotle whole cloth about a thousand years ago, so the world could have some science they wouldn’t have to argue about (which is exactly what happened) - ever since that day, everybody’s been data-happy. After this boy Aristotle trained up young Alexander, he got himself a return on his investment in terms of natural philosophy gimmicks, gadgets and preserved elephants on toast being sent back to him from all corners of the world. And he sat there in one of the most superbly, beautifully endowed laboratories (if you want to call it that) imaginable. And had a vast number of slaves in all directions. You know, he was Alexander’s tutor. That paid in, that was worth money.

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?

And he didn’t do anything for the young boy particularly. As a matter of fact, Alexander was too much for him. And he sort of threw in his hands in horror and never used them afterwards. But what happened there is he took this tremendous quantity of inflow and he started cataloging, cataloging, cataloging. And if there’s any quicker way for an individual to bury himself or a science, it’s by the system called cataloging.

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.

Psychology has the pluperfect nerve to call itself a science and it does that solely on the virtue of the fact that it catalogs. You can call some fellow who is calling himself a scientist, a catalogist, and you will get a rather broader understanding of knowledge itself.

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.

Knowingness isn’t cataloging. Cataloging is simply gathering data. Now, you can gather a lot of data on a case without attaining, yourself, any more real knowingness. You’ve got some data. It’s interesting, it’s fascinating to combine these pieces of the puzzle and so forth. But the knowingness, which stands over to the side of that, is quite something else. It would be as close as you could get to a native, or continuingly and a universally applicable, truth. And that’s the level of knowingness which people should gun for, which is a good common denominator to an awful lot of subjects. And once they get something that’ll go out through an enormous number of subjects and explain this and explain that, they have something very useful.

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.

But they don’t have a datum. They have in essence - crudely, you could call it a mathematical formula. Because it is something which predicts data. And when you look for the data - it predicts that some data is going to exist and when you go and look for the data, by golly, you’ll find it there. And it just keeps doing this.

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.

Well now, this is what would be the duty or activity of a basic law. The data which it finds is interesting, but is it basic law? No. And any time you want to louse up an entire educational program, when you want to ruin an institution of learning, or when you want to utterly wreck Scientology or anything even vaguely resembling Scientology, all you’ve got to do is confuse and identify those two things and you’re in. There you are. Confuse basic knowingness with data.

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.

You work a case off of data. And after you’ve got all of this data off this case, you might find it in common in some other case and you might not. But it’s just data. Now, where did you find basic law weaving through the case? Where did you find basic law showing up in the case?

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.

And if you found what you believed to be an evasion of basic law, why, be very alert. Be perfectly happy to consider the fact that there is such a thing as an evasion to a basic law. Be perfectly willing to consider this. And if you are that, then be doggone sure that you’re willing to look on both sides of it to try to prove the basic law does apply and try to prove that it doesn’t apply. Take both. Don’t be what you might call “slanted” in your data search or slanted in your evaluation of basic law.

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

You know, there’s many a fellow gets a wonderful theory and he goes out and spends 7 the rest of his life trying to get everybody to agree with it, rather than spend an additional five minutes applying it to find out if it’s right

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.

And you’ll discover, in your looking over of a lot of work that has been done in the field of science, that it could have been done much better if the fellow had not been so anxious to be right. That’s really all that’s wrong with your preclear, you see? He’s anxious to be right about his knowingness.

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.

And a fellow starts running out on being right. And he starts to get - gradient scales at work here - and he starts to get more and more anxious about being right, until at last he can only be right. Not about anything, you know, but he happens to say by error that the Moon is made out of blue cheese, whereas he meant to say green cheese. And this of course is something he now has to defend with his life. Why? He said it.

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.

His opinion and his rightness are so terribly valuable that he has to hang on to them to the bitter end. Now, you’ll find preclear after preclear defending the most confoundedly stupid assessments of themselves, merely because they have to be right. They’ve said so and now they’ve got to be right. Well, when you get this manifestation into the field of investigation, you get chaos. Because the man who is doing it or the group that is doing it doesn’t bother to go on and look any further, you see? They just sit back and get combative about being right.

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.

The only reason, if there is any reason at all, we got where we did in Scientology and things work the way they work lies in the fact that from early to late in this business I pressed to my bosom some of the material and teachings of Will Durant. And that is one of them. And you will find him talking about that many times. And that is straight whole cloth out of Durant, which is of course, to a large degree, whole cloth out of the entire field of epistemology.

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]

I suppose many philosophers have said this from one time to another. Because a good philosopher, and one who is very savvy, understands this instinctively. That he mustn’t, he mustn’t, for the sake of his own ego or for any other reason, color his basic theory in such a way as to promulgate an error. In other words, let’s be as happy to be wrong as to be right, in the field of philosophy. And if you’re as happy to be wrong as to be right, believe me, you’re really researching in an old relaxed frame of mind.

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.

Oddly enough, I actually haven’t given a damn here for twenty-five years whether I was right or not. That isn’t a pat on the back for me, it’s just trying to explain to you something about the data which you have and the process and the preclear in front of you and the application of that data. I haven’t given a darn. It hasn’t mattered.

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.

Because if one was wrong, you always learn something. And if one was right, why, that was fine. And this has been very confusing to people occasionally, because they have come up to me and expected me to feel bad about something I said two years before which now doesn’t appear to be quite the same breed of cat that it was two years before. And they expect me to eat crow or eat dirt or eat them or anything that’s handy and so forth. And I look at them very innocently and say, “Well, that’s right, that’s right, that was wrong, that was completely wrong. And it proved so.” And they try and worry me.

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

Well, people try to worry each other about this all the time. All they want to do is stick a guy with his own rightness. And everybody has been around doing that to you and doing it to each other and doing it to your preclear. They stick him with his own rightness. They try to show him that “there is ъ. great virtue in consistency.” Well, I’ll tell you what’s in consistency, there’s death in it, that’s what it is. It’s a fixed rigidity, which in itself allows no change of survival pace. And when you have somebody who is fixed on the subject of being right - you’re trying to change his survival pace as a preclear, you see? And you try to change that pace, well that pace is totally governed, really, by his ability or inability to change. And his pace is fixed, against his best interests and so forth, only to the degree that he is trying to assert his own rightness.

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...”

So when we get into the field of fixation of survival pace, what is a fixed survival pace, we get immediately into what is a fixed rightness and we get in immediately into, actually, basic investigation in Dianetics and Scientology.

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.

So we’ve had a lot of variation here for three years. Actually, through no fault of mine or anybody else, we have a rather clear - cut curve. There’s very little that is off curve. That’s surprising! I mean, it’s merely surprising. It’s not congratulatory or anything of the sort. It’s surprising that a fellow could go along for that long and be that consistent without trying to even vaguely be consistent or give a damn whether he’s consistent or not. That’s amazing. And the reason that curve is that way is simply because the fellow didn’t give a damn whether he was right or wrong on the theory, he only wanted the theory to work.

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.

People came around and expected you to be - “I - I - expected you,” for instance, “to take all of your pride out of inventing something or discovering something” and so on. Well, boy, that is the other thing that an individual shouldn’t do, is depend upon a piece of philosophic material for his own personal pride and aggrandizement. Ah, that’s horrible! Because that gets him right into the line of having to be right, you see? And here he goes!

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.

Well, I don’t take any pride in this particular - you would be amazed and you probably would not believe me when I tell you that it really doesn’t matter a damn to me, one way or the other, whether I ever invented Dianetics or the “science of front wheel spokes.” It couldn’t matter less. It has been of benefit, it has been of benefit to me personally because, as I say, I’ve dug myself out of a couple of graves with the stuff. And I’m tremendously interested in it and I’m very happy about it.

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!

But this isn’t depending on it for one’s pride. If you want to know, you’d be surprised what I personally am proud of that I have done, so on. For instance, I’m very proud of yesterday. I took a four-hundred pound motorbike cross-country, Arizona desert, see, burying it to its hubs and so forth, and got me and it in one piece back home again and that’s incredible. I’m trying to find out what these fellows do out here and why they don’t live long. And it’s an interesting piece of stuff. I feel very happy.

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 yet last night I cracked a case that was hanging fire for a long time on getting a new little tiny scrap of theory assembled. And I’m not proud of that. I’m a little bit proud of having helped somebody, but it hasn’t anything to do with this other. It is a very, very severe regimen which an individual must lay down about such a thing. And he has to lay it down very early in his work. And the work is as good as he lays it down, it’s no better. And that is, he mustn’t take his pride out of it, he mustn’t depend upon that work for his feeling of accomplishment in this life and he mustn’t depend upon his rightness to be bolstered and his self-conceit to be bolstered by the work. He just has to delete himself, as a personality, markedly out of the whole picture. And when he does that, then he of course doesn’t care whether he’s right or wrong and so we get a consistent curve.

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.

Now, the only thing that ever warps a curve is the only thing that ever warps a preclear: dependency. He begins to depend on this or that or something and the next thing you know, why, he’s fine. Now, I don’t know, there might be a society where a man depended upon his wrongness. You see, theoretically you could have a society where a man depended upon his wrongness, like a robber society or something of the sort. He’s sufficiently wrong or he makes enough mistakes or something so that his fellows think well of him. You see how there might be such a society?

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.

Well, when an individual begins to depend upon his rightness all the way down the track - like a bank cashier, you know, he depends upon his honesty and he sells his honesty. He’s got all this green stuff going through his hands and, well, he gets employed more and gets to spend more time behind a cage because he is honest.

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.

And then he begins to believe, at last, that there is some sort of native virtue, some innate, built-in automaticity in Man at large which makes him honest or dishonest and this has an ethical value which is transcendental or something.

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!

And we go back to 1792 when philosophy stopped in full flight - it just stopped. There was a smoking of brakes and everybody looked with complete white face at the work of the Great Chinaman of Konigsberg, Immanuel Kant. And believe me, he couldn’t.

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.

But his work is so fabulous in its complete twisted up, burrowed in, spun down, backward - sentenced way, that actually he stabilized, of all things, philosophy - the definition of which is unstable thought. Now, he stabilized it. He wrote the “laws” of philosophy. Today, you go down to a university to take philosophy and do you know that the sons of bitches teachyws philosophy? Can you imagine anybody teaching anybody philosophy? How could you teach anybody philosophy? And you get ahold of one of these fellows later and they’re a philosopher. And you say, “Okay. Philosophize something.” And they quote!

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.

You don’t hire one of these boys to solve a few problems in aesthetics or something for you. You don’t hire them to do anything except quote to another class on the subject of philosophy. But in essence, the only, only reason there would ever be to have a Doctor of Philosophy would be somebody who could philosophize. Even on that, it would be perfectly proper.

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?

And yet, in America, a philosopher is somebody who cracks witticisms on a store porch. Well, this was what proceeded from Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Because what? He stabilized something which shouldn’t have been stabilized. Because he didn’t know from nothing.

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.

This fellow and his ilk of his period were trying to die so hard that they had the colossal nerve to lay across the whole field of Western thinking this barricade: “Anything worth knowing is beyond the realm and ability of the human being to know.” And it didn’t loosen up till Herbert Spencer came along and says, “Well, ahem, I’m sorry folks, but I believe in Kant too and so forth and so we’ll only break this down a little bit. We’ll say, well, there’s the knowable and the unknowable.” Well, that was where I came in this picture: knowable and unknowable. Okay. It’s busted in half at least. Then what’s knowable and what’s unknowable?

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?

Well, I’ll let you in on something. There isn’t anything unknowable today. But we at least, with Herbert Spencer, got some method just of that: a compartmentation by which we could break down this problem of the knowable and the unknowable. And so we get, actually, a basic law about thinkingness. If you take any problem and break it into its component parts and classify by its parts and solve one of the parts, you’ll find that that solution is native to the whole problem. It’s a tremendously interesting way of diagnosing a case.

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.

Let’s break the case down into eight parts, eight dynamics. And we’ll find out what’s Ю native to one of these dynamics will be slightly native to all of them. We’ll find a consistency, then, on all eight dynamics. So if we take any dynamic and we just work hard on this one dynamic, why, we’ll get enough clues to unravel an awful lot of case.

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.

We’ll find a trace of this through every dynamic. So let’s just break a life down into these eight component parts and, with these eight compartments, let’s find at least some entrance to the problem. In other words, like Herbert Spencer did, let’s at least bust the case in half. Instead of trying to look at a wholeness sitting in front of us - an unsolvable, impenetrable, utterly integrated wholeness which permits no entrance and forbids all approach and resolution and won’t look at any of the things that he must look at in order to get well, and you can’t find out what he isn’t looking at because he is carefully telling you that he is looking at anything that he isn’t looking at, in various ways, and he’s a complex beast. So if we just break him into eight parts, why, we will find quickly what’s knowable and what’s unknowable about that case.

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.

Every case is a complete picture of livingness. Every case is a complete picture of Ц epistemology. Every case is a complete picture of aesthetics and data. Wonderful to think about this and if you were to think about it very hard without any solution, it would paralyze you. I mean, you can just. . . “What? We’re going to take this human being to pieces? Oh, no. No, no, no, no. We ... Gosh! In the first place, there’s a certain privacy and an individuality which we must preserve. And there are certain things which we mustn’t touch, one way or the other. Well, what are we going to do?”

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.

Oh boy. You could think to yourself on this for a long time if you didn’t have two things: one, a pattern which will work it out for you anyhow, but the other, really more important to you as this group (and if you’ve been trained by me and you haven’t got this slant, I’m ashamed of you), is you can take the problem apart into component parts, any set of component parts, really, and find out that by solving one of the little parts, you’ve solved slightly the whole part. And you’ve at least got the pattern for some of the other or all of the other parts.

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.

Let’s break this case down into arts and sciences. And let’s break the case down into those exact divisions which are laid down in the curriculum catalog of a university. You get how, apparently how far afield we are right now? All right. We make a university out of this case. And then we break him down into all the arts and sciences and so forth and, not educationally but from a standpoint of behavior, find out what he’s doing in each department.

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!

Now, this is a very, very crude, silly way to go about it, but we just reach out on this basic law of let’s compartment the individual and compartment the case and let’s just yank in a pattern of knowingness (a university is supposed to be a pattern of knowingness) and let’s just take this pattern of knowingness and look down and find out how he stands on chemistry.

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.

And, all right, the Department of Chemistry. Let’s look over and let’s see ... chemistry? What’s he have the most to do with chemically? Well, that’s food. All right.

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.

We say, “All right, how do you feel about food?”

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

And the fellow says, “Food? That stuff? Uuugh!"

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.

You say, “Well, that’s the way he feels about food. There’s chemistry for you. Let’s see, now, if he feels that way chemically, then he won’t be converting anything.” And you say, “Do you take Ex-Lax often?” And you’re right. This stuff is ugh! He can’t touch this.

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.

So he - food? Let’s see now. All right. “Now how do you feel about cosmetics and that sort of thing?” “Oh, terrible. You can’t touch them, so forth. And you have to have very carefully prepared creams and so forth before you could even begin to shave or something.” Chemistry.

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.

All right. We have the immediate index of reach and withdraw for this character. We just entered it in one department.

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.

Now, let’s go into the field of art. Let’s go into art and we find he’s terribly interesting in the field of art. He finds that they shouldn’t do it. He finds that art, well, he can go in for it, but he knew a young artist once and the fellow was obsessive on the subject, you know? He just kept doing it and doing it and so on.

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.

Hm. We really don’t have to go too much further on this. This case feels that if he gets going in any particular direction he won’t be able to stop, so he doesn’t dare start or something on that order.

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.

In other words, we could just go right through the university catalog, silly as it may sound, and we would find out everything there is to know about this case as long as we’re dealing with the basic knowingness about livingness.

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?

See, here’s an application of it. It’s applied on any kind of a pattern. And here we’re going to deal with communication and duplication. We’re just going to ask the questions native to that.

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?

Communication. He said in the field of eatingness, “Nooo!” Don’t communicate, huh? Get that out there and so on. So he can’t duplicate food or attention, so this is a very interesting case right off the bat.

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.

But we have a simpler way of taking it apart than by a university catalog although, as I say, we can use any system of compartmentation. We’ve got the eight dynamics. One of the very, very innocent, sweet, calm, kindly and covert methods of attacking the case is to take some dynamic that he evidently isn’t very interested in. You know, we’ll discuss the problem of God with him. He’s not very interested in it. Modern world, fellow with a scientific bent, taught in high school where all is science, all is science. There’s God too, but we can’t eat as long as we peddle God anymore, so they teach science. I mean, it’s just about that rationale.

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 so we examine God on the subject and he says, “Well... well... um ... God ... Well, I don’t know. There are a lot of people ...” We’re on our way. Everywhere is nowhere for this boy. I mean, it’s a fact. We’re investigating immediately a dynamic. So his standard, polite, social patter is disarmed.

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

Now this fellow, right away, right away - you sit down, auditor, and he sits down and you say, “Well, how do you feel today?” And he says, “I feel all right. I mean, I get along all right. And how are you? And how’s the kids? And ...” You’re into the groove. You’re auditing the social patter ridge, see? You don’t know anything about a comm lag. Now, let’s swing off onto a specific subject and let’s investigate one that he isn’t accustomed to talking about - God. “Well, live and let live, I always say. I don’t know, but it seems to me” and so forth. And you say, “Oh, no. My God, another VI. Heh-heh!”

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.

And up to that time you didn’t suspect it. But that’s because you’ve actually attacked the problem on a compartmentation basis. You haven’t made him unaware or something of the sort. You started taking the problem to pieces. And your preclear is a universe. And a universe has so many parts. And it’s got the parts that we talk about as the parts of knowingness. And it’s not a very peculiar thing that this keeps applying to preclear after preclear, simply because we’re perfectly content to talk about knowingness and, then, knowing the basic theory of knowingness, turn around and apply it to a specific thing to get data and to rearrange data and to change lookingness and thinkingness. See? We take this set of basic laws and basic extrapolations, just as I’ve given them to you here, and we’re now applying this to get data and to change data and to effect a shift. And we can effect that shift as long as we know our knowingness pretty well - what’s a basic experience - and then we apply it over to something that’s going to be a bin of data.

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.”

And we’re as successful as we follow those steps. NoZ as successful as we suddenly look at somebody and think that at that moment we have to become a boy genius or something of the sort and know instinctively and feel instinctively and so on. Or confronted this horrible thing, another human being, and we’re going to do something for him and we’re going to worry about him, one way or the other.

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.

No, that would be the wrong way to go about it. The right way to go about it is to know first what you know. You have a good data certainty. In other words, this basic knowingness, when applied, will turn up data for you and will rearrange data and it’ll change data.

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.

You know the basic laws and so forth and, knowing this, you know about communication, you know about reach and withdraw, you know about agreements, you know about these various factors that go to make up the woof and warp of livingness. And you turn around, if you know those well, boy, you can just sit on your hands as preclear after preclear just solve, solve, solve, solve.

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.

Well, there’s dozens of ways to apply them and I’m giving you one of them. Take the preclear, as a problem, cold. And take the eight dynamics and slice him into eight dynamics. And he won’t talk about Dynamic One for the good and adequate reason it’s not polite to talk about Dynamic One. You’re running into a circuit the second you start to talk about himself. He’s not supposed to, society has educated him. Furthermore, he’s bad enough off that he’s to some degree playing the “only one” anyway. And so he’s sort of moved out and you know One, the First Dynamic, pretty well by just taking a guess at the average individual of his society. And we could describe him to a T, really, with a few sentences - what he’s supposed to do and not to do. We’re getting the basic agreement on which this case exists. But let’s get up to the Second Dynamic.

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.

Now, if we’re out in Hollywood, it’d be unsafe to open a case on the Second Dynamic because it would explode. But let’s get a little bit further from our social chatter and let’s move over into kids. Second Dynamic and sex. Well, Second Dynamic is sex all right, but it’s also children. Let’s talk about children. However, that has its liability because there’s a certain social response that is expected of him about children. So he’s liable to sidestep that one slightly and you’re still talking slightly about a circuit.

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.

Now, hardly anybody in this society, at this time, really talks very much about groups. There’s very little social chatter on that subject. He’ll talk about the Republicans and Democrats a little bit these days but not very much. They have fallen off the Third Dynamic. But believe me, what’s wrong with the Third Dynamic is what’s wrong with the First Dynamic to a large degree. We take the problem apart, we find out that there is something about each one of these dynamics that has a good chance of being - you know, it doesn’t have to be wrong with every other dynamic, but there’s a good chance of it being wrong with the rest of the dynamics, too.

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.

And so we can undercut this case and suddenly find an awful lot about this fellow just by drifting off from that First and Second, drifting into at least the Third. And if you drift into the Fourth or the Fifth, you’ll learn many more interesting things about the case, but they will be native to the First. They have a good chance of being quite native to the First Dynamic.

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.

So you ought to know your stuff well enough so that if you simply start auditing the case and you run into some basic departures that are fascinating, you know darn well where these things are going to go and whither they drift in terms of this fellow’s aberration or his inability to exteriorize or something of the sort.

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.

We find out that he believes that “Well, ‘share the wealth’ is the best political philosophy. Ought to cut all this money up, you know, and give it to everybody in equal parts . . .” We’re looking at poverty orientation. Economy. Well, let’s just start in - just for kicks, just having found this out - let’s just start wasting things. So after we’ve wasted a couple of universes full of oranges, we find out he can have one.

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.

Socialism is a very low-strata agreement. And this fellow’s pretty bogged down in agreement so we’re going to have to break the crust someplace. Social agreement is his problem. We just find that out by talking to him on evidently the (whichever way you want to call it), the Third or the Fourth Dynamic - actually, it’s the Fourth Dynamic - it wouldn’t take very long to find out an awful lot about this fellow, would it? But you’d have to know and be able to integrate something. This fellow says, “Well personally, in the standpoint of politics and so on, I actually believe in Pelvinism.”

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.

You never heard of Pelvinism. And you say, “Well, what’s this? What is that?” Well, he’s very happy to explain it to you. It’s explained on the basis that there is no law whatsoever but the law of the family. And after you’ve integrated the law of the family... You expect this guy to exteriorize? What’s he doing? You’ve gone just that far and now you know. He’s trying to hold a family together. His whole goal is togetherness and you want him to be three feet back of his head. See? Those other fellows share the wealth, he’s going to be buttered all over the Universe - his basic agreement and so on.

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.

Well, you don’t have to really learn to think like that, but if you’ll see your way through enough fogs to think like that as you look at the case, you’re on your way with a preclear. They just won’t stop you. That’s all.

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

As far as techniques are concerned, there are certain, definite, positive techniques. And some are infinitely more workable than others, I assure you. The main difference of techniques is not the artistry involved with them but their workability. And some techniques are very good and some are, you know, all right, but they’re just slow.

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?”

And some fellow complained, who has been trained in 1952, that we are not now using the techniques in which he was trained. Well, all right. That’s okay. It doesn’t mean that his techniques are any the worse off or they become less workable by common agreement or something. It just means that we’re trying to teach him the fastest techniques we know in the interests of more preclears solved in less time and so on. So a person shouldn’t feel upset about that.

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

Well, our problem here and in instruction, and your problem in instructing people, will be along this line of trying to get them to see the difference between basic livingness and data-basic law and data, data, data.

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

Because data is, oh boy. You try to instruct somebody using data only, without any basic integrating laws back of it, without anything from which they can figure out their data from, and you just go into a memory course, that’s all. Has him sit down and commit everything to their memory.

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

Whereas, if you give him basic law, you have to give him as well this: this is that from which we figure out - predict - data. Let’s take communication. Let’s find out that communication - a perfect communication is a duplication from cause to effect. A perfect duplication. We find the thetan, of course, would be very unhappy if he had to duplicate everything, so we find out that he’s unwilling to duplicate an awful lot of things.

You say, “All right. Be there.”

Okay. So we find out that he is very low on the Second Dynamic. We know this about communication and we find out he’s very low on the Second Dynamic. He doesn’t want anything to do with sexual relationships. Or if he does, why, he feels he wouldn’t be able to do anything about it anyhow.

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.

Well, what do we do about this? Well, communication - that’s essentially a very MESTy sort of communication. All right, let’s take a look at it and see what the score is and we find out that he’s running no desire. There must have been something on the other end of the communication line which he’s unwilling to duplicate, which of course was first no desire and then he ran into somebody who had desire and so we’ve got him on two ends of a communication line and they aren’t matching, which adds up to a maybe.

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.

He won’t duplicate, so that’ll hang him with a maybe. And there’s probably somebody in the room with him right at that minute. I mean, he’s probably got somebody standing in front of him, somebody of the opposite sex. If this is a girl you’re auditing, it’ll be some male will be standing in the room right with them.

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.

What’s a maybe? A maybe is an unduplicated communication. See? So you’ve got both ends of this comm line. One end of the comm line is no desire, he’s on that. And the other end of the comm line is desire.

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?

Well, now that turns around the other way. At one time or another, he had a comm line which went the other way. He was on the end of it as desire and there was no desire on the other end of it. And then he’s also got the comm line where he had no desire and something else had no desire, which was a good, perfect communication which isn’t aberrative. And we’ve also got where he desired and the other end of the comm line desired but that isn’t aberrative either.

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

The one we’ll find hung up is where he has no desire and the other end of the line has desire. If he’s no desire, then he must be hung in one where the other end of the line is desire. And we inquire into this and he kind of twists his toes and he feels embarrassed to tell you about this, because you’re a opposite-sex auditor and mmm-mmm-zuzzz-zuzz-zu and so on and so on and ...

Female voice: Мт-you tell me.

Well it turns out, actually, that he hated to mention this, but his mother was a nymphomaniac and he spent the early years of his life ducking her sexual advances. Otherwise there’s nothing aberrative in his case! See?

All right. Well, let’s mock-up a cat.

Well now, when you get the Second Dynamic and a desire - no desire (in other words, an unduplicated communication on a subject which is entirely a duplication subject), you run into something that’s very interesting, which disentangled makes a tremendous change in the case. Take long to disentangle it? No, you’ve got lots of techniques with which to disentangle it. What I’m talking about now is diagnosis or assessment, see?

Female voice: Okay.

And we get down to another little thing that actually merits a basic communication law and that is that a communication line which is in suspense is a line which isn’t duplicating properly. The more MEST they put in the line, why, the less they duplicate, too.

Now, let’s unmock him.

Any communication line which is in suspense with the case - you know, he has a circuit. Let’s put this a little further now. “Any communication line that’s in suspense isn’t duplicating properly.” He’s got a circuit. And every once in a while this voice says to him, “Oh, tsk, tsk, what a fool you are.” You know, he’s just got this silly voice. And there it is.

Mock him up.

Well, what is it? Well, it’s just an improper duplication. He resists duplicating this. And we get right off into automaticity. Then an automaticity has a communication line on the preclear, doesn’t it? And it’s a very strange communication line because an automaticity always becomes a randomity.

Unmock him.

Any automaticity becomes a randomity of the preclear eventually. So it means that you’ve got a sort of a communication line, the kind of a communication line that’d go across no man’s land. If you could see a picture of randomity as a no man’s land, with the enemy on the opposite side from the preclear, and the enemy is his randomity, you’ve got a pretty clear visual picture about what’s happening here. And a communication line that runs from no man’s land - across no man’s land from the enemy to the preclear is of course a very involved communication.

Mock him up.

In wartime they have a very hard time getting people to do this sort of thing, you know? Getting messages across the lines. And this gets very involved, it goes various tracks and goes through various countries and, two countries are at war, it even goes to this: they find some other country half the world away to mediate between them. They’re shooting at each other all the time and communicating like mad, you might say, but there isn’t any rationale or thought can go on the communication line.

And now just continue that process more and more rapidly.

See, a communication line doesn’t have to have thought on it to be a communication line, by the way. Just don’t get your definitions that precise. A communication line is simply a communication line. A fellow walks up to you and punches you in the nose and keeps on walking down the street. He communicated with you.

And what you got there now?

All right. So we have this problem of this little circuit saying to him he’s a fool. Well, he’s had something he’s been unwilling to be. Any randomity is something a person isn’t supposed to be in order to keep the game going. He wouldn’t keep the game going if he became the randomity.

Female voice: Still the same cat.

So it tells you that all you have to do is swap ends on the communication line, which is for him to tell himself what a fool he is. Tell himself that a few times and - we don’t care if he identifies it or recognizes it or gets happy about it or unhappy about it. The way we handle this circuit and blow the circuit out of existence is just have him say these very words to himself and set himself up there.

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

Now, what have we done? We’ve just swapped the lines on the communication, that’s all. We just swapped ends. We had him be the other thing. And by making him be the enemy, it ceased to be an enemy. So we get beingness and communication and duplication and automaticity all in one operation. See those component parts?

Female voice: Oh, about the same.

Well, now I hope you’re getting a very happy understanding of this because it’s really very easy to understand. And you’re going to be overreaching it rather than underreaching it.

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

Now, you see how all those things can tie in together there? Okay? Why don’t you take a ten-minute break now and we’ll go on into some exteriorization on this same thing.

Is he really disappearing each time?

Female voice: I think so.

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

Female voice: Okay.

One after the other.

Till you got a pile of old mock-ups.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Got that?

Female voice: Yeah.

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.

Difficulty?

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

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

Female voice: Done it.

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

Do that okay?

Female voice: Yeah.

154n January 1954

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

Female voice: Mm-hm.

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

Female voice: Mm-hm.

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

Okay. Is this post doing all right now?

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

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.

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

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

You getting a nice solid post?

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

Okay.

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

All right. Throw it away.

Female voice: Qkay.

Agreement, Motion and Perception

Thank you.

Female voice: Thank you.

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.

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

Female voice: Yeah.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

“What for yourself?” the preclear will say.

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

And “Okay.”

And “Now get somebody else there.”

“All right. For him.”

“Yeah, but what for him?”

“No, no. Just for him.”

“Now somebody else for somebody else.”

“Okay.”

“Now somebody else for you.”

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

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

“Do I put something there?”

“Oh, if you want to.”

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!”

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Okay?