Man can be said to be not quite optimum. Man very often stops and scratches his head when he should be running and very often runs when he should stop and scratch his head.

This course is designed primarily for the teacher or the person who would normally process groups of people out of a pre-prepared list of questions. You understand the difference between that and professional auditing, or individual auditing.

When you see somebody eating by pouring porridge into his shoes, you would know he was aberrated. Isn't that so! It is a little less obvious that a man is aberrated when he simply says, "Now, let me think." Oh boy, is he nuts.

A list, perforce, must be a sort of a broad shotgun and uses a mechanism which is very general to every case. A list of that character makes it possible, however, for an individual to process with considerable success a large group of people no matter how scattered their techniques are.

"Let me think." He thinks that thinking has something to do with time, and he thinks the more you think, well, the better the solution is going to be. That's evidently what he's operating on. "The longer it takes me to think of the solution, why, the better the solution is going to be." He operates on that. "It must be a good book. It took him eight years to write it."

You might - might be very interested to know that the - that Group Auditing is a very important technique; it is not a technique which is merely, "Well, it's better than anything else we could do for a large number of people, and so we're going to do that," and so on. No, it's a very specialized function, a very specialized application. And people who are doing this work will acquire, actually, an entirely different viewpoint in processing than they would acquire only processing individuals. It's another thing; it's a specialty. Now, when they talked of low-cost therapy in the last two decades, nobody dreamed of anything like this, because the cost of Group Processing with Scientology is probably something like a halfpenny per child for every ten years of processing in the schools. It's incalculably small; and as a matter of fact, makes money because it delivers the attention of the instructor to instructing those who can and be - can be instructed.

And you know, the big joke on that last one is very, very - is a very big joke. You go through the famous books that man considers today to be classics and find out how long it took that author to write that book in each case. You will be stunned,

Get that as a difference. Here we have an instructor who, all day long, is trying to pound reading, writing. and arithmetic into the heads of children who have no ability to absorb it. That's a waste of money.

You had a fellow by the name of Dickens. Dickens is an interesting fellow. He's what we'd call a fast-action writer. He's a high-speed word mechanic, high speed. Do you know that there isn't a penny-a-liner or a newspaperman or a magazine writer working in the world today who comes up to the production speed of Charles Dickens? And he did it all by hand. It was all "writ by hand," so to speak.

That is a big waste of money. That wastes the pay of the instructor and it wastes the cost of the quarters; it wastes light, heating and it wastes government. And the only benefit is, is the child is kept out of the hands of his family for a certain period of time every day. That's a pretty high price to pay for a nursemaid, a pretty high price.

That's interesting, isn't it? His stuff is still around. He was slapping that stuff out at five thousand words a day. I'd like to see one of these huh! - I would like to see Charles Atwood Inkslinger writing at five thousand worlds [words] a day. "It took him - must be a great book; it took him twelve years to produce it."

And where we have a nursemaid who has to have the degrees and training of a school instructor, there's something very wrong that should be righted. Because unless children of a certain bracket can be brought into a level where they can study and absorb information, they belong in the hands of an attendant, a nursemaid, not in the hands of an instructor. All right.

No, it's just not sensible. When you're dealing with thought, the better thinking is done in the less times. Because thinking which is done in terms of energy is bad because it's very reactive, very reactive, Heavy energy thinking is very bad. A nation tries to work out its problems by going to war with tanks and guns. That is what's known as heavy thinking. And it's slow and it doesn't solve much.

Then what do we do just on that level! We don't alter the system. You will find as you go through this life that systems are less and less susceptible to being altered. The government objects to the alteration of a system. Councils, school boards and so forth object to the alteration of systems and plans, And where we have a system, we'd better match up with that system. All right. The instructor - the instructor is there to teach children.

The more one gets into energy, the less applicable, generally, the solutions will be. That's just a little truism; happens to work out that way.

Once upon a time in a war which occupies much space in American history books, a fellow by the name of Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders received orders one fine morning to attack and take a place called San Juan Hillz against the Spanish forces there on the hill. And at 4:30 in the morning, everybody rolled out to take San Juan Hill. And the orders said, "Jump off from El Caney and take San Juan Hill," That was very good - that was fine - except they hadn't taken El Caney And they had to remedy this situation by fighting in the hot sun until noon to get El Caney, and from that, they jumped off and took San Juan Hill with dreadful casualties, because they hadn't taken El Caney.

So that what a man is really saying when he says, "Let me think," he's saying, "Let me look for data." Well, there's nothing wrong with finding data with which to think. Well then, the man would be the smartest who could find the data fastest. Isn't that so!

Now, this is applicable in instruction, But let's take El Caney - that is to say, let's have a child that can be instructed. The system has provided a room, it's provided a trained instructor and it's provided a large number of children. And then the system says, "Instructor, now instruct these children so we will have an educated public," Well, that's something like saying - something like telling a fellow to go out and sit down in that airplane and fly off to the moon. And he goes out and he'd be very happy to sit down in this airplane except for one thing: there's no airplane there.

Now, someone who says, "Let me think," he probably means "Maybe" Or "I don't want to do it." He's using some sort of a stall there.

To instruct a child, it is necessary to have a child that can be instructed. That seems to be one of these supersimplicities that so easily gets overlooked. All right.

But here he actually believes it takes him a long time to think of something, and he's considered it carefully. Well, if he considered it carefully, if he just went and thought and thought and thought and thought and thought and thought and thought - oh, no. Oh, no, he isn't considering it carefully at all. He's lust being totally reactive and sort of walking around in small circles and so on.

The devotion of twenty minutes a day of putting children in a - Puttin not just a state of mind, but a state of health where they can be instructed, would salvage all the other hours in that day. And so we would have taken El Caney. We would have children who could be instructed by the investment of that.

If he went and he got this problem and "Let me thin," and he got the problem and then he said, "Let's see. Now, the data associated with this problem are so-and-so and so-and-so, and I'll have to go look that up and I'll have to think of this and I'll have to ask so-and-so and so on. And I'I1 get this data together, and then I'll know the answer and it's obvious. Yeah. And there's the answer," That would be time in thinking. Yes, it takes a certain amount of time to go through the motions of acquiring data, and it sometimes takes a certain amount of time to recall data. But the accumulation of data to the solution of a problem is not length of time spent in considering. And yet, man uniformly has this level.

Now, of course, it is up to you to demonstrate to your own satisfaction that this condition does occur, and we do get this advantage from using these techniques.

Now, there are other fellows that go around and they think out loud, and they talk to themselves, or they think vocally in their heads. This is wonderful. Fellow says, "Now, let me see, I don't know quite where I should ... I guess I better go down; I better take the tube. Yes. No. I better not take the tube. It's only two or three blocks, I'll walk. No, I'I1 take the tube. No, I just decided to carry this bundle here. This bundle is very heavy. And I wonder what...?" Actually? Actually. The modern writer has gotten so daffy, Boy, is he a reactive character. He puts down "stream of consciousness" for all of his characters. And the world has really become convinced that this is the way people think. Well, it's the way crazy people think. (audience laughter) You take Gene O'Neill's Strange Interlude, for one play. There's several other plays and so on, where the characters - the characters say, "I hate you." And then sort of turn aside - Shakespeare, other modern playwrights do this - turn aside and say, "The reason I hate him is so-and-so and so-and-so and then so on," And they vocalize a stream of consciousness known as - early in theater - as an aside, and later and very, very modern in theater, the stream of consciousness.

They tell you in old-time psychotherapy, "Yes, we could have remedied the condition of a child. We could have remedied this situation, but you see, individual address is impossible, and therefore the situation cannot be remedied," Oh no, I'm afraid that does not happen to be the case now, because we don't need very much of this individual attention. Once in a while, if you're - as an instructor, you keep having to ... One of the children that you're processing there, and he keeps leaping. out of his chair or his seat, you see, and flying up to the blackboard and leaping out of his seat and flying up to the blackboard and knocking over other children in progress and so forth, you'll have to give some individual attention on this; you will have to glue him to his seat or something of the sort. But we are not interested in individualized, high-paid consultation for each child. What we're interested in is taking a big group of children, and by the use of processes such as those contained in Self Analysis - Self Analysis is the one you have available; there are others under preparation, or even now in your hands - and putting that class into a state where it can be instructed.

The only consciousness of a stream of consciousness would be the passing and shuffling of energy. Energy doesn't think, man thinks.

That's our aim and goal. There you will find that their IQ comes up and that they are able in most cases to address studies where they were unable to before. This is quite startling. You can look for other things to happen - certain psychosomatic illnesses will turn off in them and so on; there's a lot of odds and ends that will happen. But that is not the goal of what we are doing. The goal of what we are doing here with children, immediately, is to put children into a frame of mind where they can be instructed. That's what we're aiming for and that's what we can attain with this. This is something like - something like giving somebody a diamond, by the way, and saying, "Well now, you see, that is very good for marking doorknobs," See! It's very silly to think of this along in such a supersimplified level, but you will find nobody will argue with this level.

So this would be a real daffy one. And yet, you find practically anybody doing this. So what's human aberration? Well, I'm afraid it's being human, That sounds a little extreme. Only thing I'm trying to deliver to you there is a datum: is that insanity is not an absolute, neurosis is not an absolute, aberration is not an absolute and sanity is not an absolute, None of these are absolute data. All data is relative to data. A man is crazier than others, A man is saner than others. A man is more susceptible to correct solutions than another man. You get the relativity here we're dealing in.

We can say, "All right, now this puts the children in a frame of mind where they can be instructed."

Now, it is true that there is a state where everyone agrees somebody is crazy. There is that level. There is a state. And so we're dealing with what the society or the group thinks is or agrees is aberrated, as our term of aberration.

And everybody will say, "Well, that's right, that's fine, that's good. Good roads," where everybody is in favor of good roads and good weather. Everybody is in favor of good roads, good weather and children in a frame of mind where they can be instructed. So you just take it from there and take it on that level and expect that result to occur, and that you won't be disappointed and nobody will be upset by it. You can expect all sorts of other things to happen too, but we won't go into those. They're none of them bad; they're extra results. With everything considered on Group Processing of children, everything is an extra result except the child in a frame of mind where he can be instructed.

Now, we've gone a little bit further than that in Dianetics and Scientology, and we can actually graph a state of ability to estimate correct behavior to solve problems and so on. We can graph this with great ease and we can demonstrate it in various ways. So we have an arbitrary numerical value which could be assigned to this. But we agree on that.

Now, let us take another type of group, not just the child. Let's take a group of people, of men, who have lost much of their ambition, who feel that they themselves are quite useless in life, Let's take a group of veterans at a government hospital. Well, what can you do with these! Does Group Processing apply to them! Yes, it very definitely does. If you were trying to go down and sell the Home Secretary (I'm a very good friend of the Home Secretary) on the idea - or the War Ministry or somebody - on taking groups of adults and giving them something that made them more efficient or made them again an asset to the state instead of a liability, you'd run across this same thing. They would say, "Well, we've always been able to do something for them, but you see - you see, it - you can't give individual attention,"

And so again the public at large simply agrees what's psychotic, what's neurotic, what's aberrated and what's sane.

And you say, "We don't want any individual attention. All this is, is we want half an hour, an hour or something like that a day for adults. That's all. And the cost of it is very slight. Extremely slight," They wouldn't be able to argue with it very much.

It's very amusing that the one they haven't agreed on most is what's sane. You'll find practically nobody getting together and discussing how sane anybody is. And if they do, the subject of the conversation is found to be some intolerable sourpuss who is merely terribly, practically stubborn. They're very sane and very practical. That's right.

Now, the chances of your running up against very much opposition on the level of a veterans' hospital - quite slight because nobody has got anything for them to do. Nobody has really any planned programs. There's the - it's very good, you understand. I mean, they try to do something for them. But again, the mission of these programs is to get a man interested in life. If the man has no potentiality to be interested in life, you can dream up programs and write up programs and systems and throw in auxiliaries and Wacs and movies and anything else you want to throw in and nothing is going to happen. And yet, you will find for two, three, four years, five years, ten years, a man will stay in a state whereby he cannot be interested in life.

Did you ever run into one of these practical people? The definition of being practical is not doing anything, I guess, or that you can find them doing very little.

So therefore, here's an enormous amount of money being put out on a program of keeping these men interested in life without putting them in a situation where they can be interested in life, The truth of the matter is, is they are incapable of being interested in life until given something on the order of this Group Processing. Now, there again we take El Caney, we get them interested in life. If you just went in and showed a man that he could make up pictures and look at them, if you just got him into that state only, the odd part of it is, you would have given him a new interest in life, wouldn't you! It was quite personal. And we won't worry about its therapeutic value. Just do that, and that would be very interesting to him. And so you would have improved his interest in life in general.

Now, in short, we don't have a basic definition here which is susceptible to an unquestioned or absolute value, but we do have definitions. And you could say sanity is the ability to resolve problems. You could say a person is sane when he can resolve problems with a predominance of correctness, Person would be sane who solved problems. Will solve problems in what way? Solve problems in the direction of survival for himself or the upper dynamics. You see?

You can't do this without knocking his case into a cocked hat. That is to say, he will right and come back to battery the moment you start doing this, for odd and, sometimes to some, very obscure mechanical reasons. But what you have here, then, where you have a group of veterans, is you have a restoration of interest in life. All right.

So, the relative ability to resolve problems relating to survival would make a gradient scale of how sane a person was. And that would - it requires a definition of right and wrong which is an acceptable definition. This definition of right and wrong is sufficiently acceptable to have caused the committee on evidence of the New York Bar Association to meet, and they are still in the progress of considering changes in the rules of evidence, because these new data have thrown out old data on evidence. We have actually spearheaded in the field of jurisprudence with this.

Now, when we've restored that, then we can bring up the Wrens and the movies and the hobby shop and all these other things. You see, we can roll in with the tanks, you might say. But let's repair that; let's take El Caney once more.

Sanity is the ability to tell right from wrong. That is the definition under law. That's sanity, the definition - tell right from wrong.

You know, Group Processing is not new. It's old. It's very, very old. Effective Group Processing, however, has been nonexistent. You get the difference there! Because you're going to run into this. People are going to tell you, "Well now, look, Group Processing, creative imagination, these things have been used since time immemorial. They're old," and so on. Don't criticize that statement; just thank your stars that somebody has this delusion. Because it's "Open, sesame." They know this: this is old, it's done, it's usual, there's no argument with it. Of course, but don't try to tell them there's any result from it. They've written up in journals and things how wonderful all this is - everybody stays crazy or everybody stays disinterested. And it's wonderful how people can stay that crazy or that disinterested, but don't try to batter through on the idea that this is something new and startling. No, no, no, this is something old and sort of mildewed at the edges and nothing has been added. You can't put anything into a mildewed system that creaks that isn't mildewed and creaks. See! So kind of chew up your copy of Self Analysis, you know! (audience laughter)

It's a pretty good definition, by the way. The fellow who thought that up was very good. Because you get a little kid, and you ask him what's right and what's wrong. And he can tell you pretty well. He knows what's right and what's wrong.

Now, you may know what's going to happen; don't bother to tell anybody else what's going to happen. In other words, don't bother to make any promises, either on a level of schoolchildren or a level of veterans or anything of the sort. You're just doing something that's interesting, and that produces some interesting results. And if you have a very conservative attitude toward all of this, you see, the process will shock them - the results of it, rather. These results will be quite shocking.

But if you find a real bad one that is completely - just seems to be utterly uncontrollable, you ask him what's right and what's wrong: one, he doesn't care or he doesn't know.

If you were to take a group of veterans who hadn't done anything since Dunkirk, and you suddenly had these fellows very alert, very interested in going out and getting jobs and going and contacting their families and getting things going, and the dickens with being on - in a government hospital, and the dickens with this foot that's hurt ever since, and the devil with it sort of a thing and interested in life again and ...

Now, that's fascinating! Some children I have worked with have told me bluntly, "I think my father and mother must be crazy, because they say that it's possible to tell right from wrong." Put that down. So it's a wonderful little definition, actually, but it was completely useless as long as we did not have a definition for what rightness is and what wrongness is. It just put it - moved it over one category. We had this definition that sanity was the ability to tell right from wrong, and insanity or criminality were the inabilities to tell right from wrong. And then we never said what right - what was right and what was wrong.

"Because that's funny. We've had - this week we've had thirty-five discharges from this hospital, and there hasn't been a discharge from this hospital since 1946. What's happening!" Well, if you're extremely bright, you won't even be obvious enough to be pointed to in doing that work. You'll let them go out and hire some scientific expert on an investigation of the increased incidence of the cosmic rays in the ... In other words, this is totally obscure. There's no reason why you have to do that. Of course, you will get spotted; there isn't any doubt about that, And what I'm talking to you about is the same thing I'm doing - see, don't overrate or overestimate something which does not have to be either overrated or overestimated. Do what you do and let's be done with what gets done. The idea that you are advancing into something new and strange, peculiar, unusual is something you should abandon right here. You're not. You're not really going into anything strange or peculiar or unusual, but you are going into something which is effective.

Wrong according to who? A man goes out and shoots a duck. That's right according to the man; it's awfully wrong according to the duck. All right.

Because man helping man is something that has been going on for Man he an awfully long time. You're just being a little more efficient. That's about all.

So right and wrong is the crux of the matter. So we have to define right and wrong. And we have a workable definition for rightness and wrongness: That thing is right which contributes to the survival of the entities or beings on the greatest number of the dynamics. In other words, an optimum solution, the rightness of that optimum solution, or its degree that it is optimum, depends upon the amount that it benefits the survival of the most dynamics. And a problem is wrong in the degree that it inhibits the survival along the dynamics, So maximal benefit to the survival of all those things concerned with the problem would be right. Minimal destruction to those things concerned with the problems would be right. Maximal destruction to those things concerned in the problem would be wrong, and minimal constructiveness or benefit would be wrong.

That we have discovered here - one can say that we've discovered here psychotherapy of actuality and validity - is a true enough statement, but it's always been there to be discovered. It's always been there. Somebody had to look. And perhaps the single difference between me and former researches - researchers, simply this, is I looked at the MEST universe. I didn't look at books about the MEST universe. You know that could make a big difference. I looked at the MEST universe. I was foolish enough as a boy to get all tangled up with the MEST universe one way or the other - go out and get run into, and various things happened. And I found out there was a universe there. And most people that studied this have been sitting up in the back room of someplace or other; they've been reading about the universe being there. That's a big difference. And it's possibly the only thing that shortened this route. Somebody sooner or later would have discovered all this material.

So you see, rightness, then, is that which assists survival; wrongness is that which inhibits survival. And we get these two principles and we find an astonishing number of problems will solve themselves.

We're discovering it here at a catalyzed level. It's just - it's been very fast for a subject to have progressed in three years of public knowledge (actually in twenty-five years) as fast as Dianetics and Scientology - appears just a little bit dizzying. That's no great compliment to my wit, it's no great compliment to anything except that ... This subject itself: if you hit the - if you just started in on the right track, you couldn't help yourself. There was a great big hurricane started behind you. And you had raised a sail in this hurricane and, fortunately or unfortunately, you just went from there on, see! It would have been much more difficult to have stopped developing this subject than to have continued developing it. It would have been very difficult to have stopped, and yet it was very interesting. And on every hand you could see various things happening and - did you ever walk out of a movie just as the villain grabs the girl? Well, to have stopped developing this subject would have made that happen.

For instance, is it right for you to live? Well, that's a nice question, but.,. All right.

Now, we have - talking to you now from two rather, the rather comfortable security - now the two very workable processes: one of these is those lists and mock-ups contained in Self Analysis. Terrifically workable, very, very workable. It's built on a formula that is very workable, and done as it's done, it gets the job through, one way or the other. I don't say how long - I don't say how long it will take to get the job through, but just that all by itself will get the job done maybe 150 hours or 2,000 hours, or something like that. It's just one of those things that's just - you just go on and on and on, and that's it.

Now that you are living, is it right for you to take any benefit from others? Is it right for you to think about yourself at all?

And the other one is Theta Clearing. And this is an esoteric and strange, undoubtedly daffy, sort of a thing that couldn't be, of course, and all that. And there, actually, lies the main body of knowledge. It's a very technical subject, by the way. It takes quite a bit of study to digest it. And that level now is a gunshot, you might say, on cases, The missing links have been found present after all, been isolated and so on, so that we don't have problems. It's true, you know, we don't have problems, And I can talk to you from that level of security. I know what we're doing, and if you do Group Auditing, you will find out a lot of what we are doing and what can be done. And if you were to become a professional auditor, you would be able to do the rest of this work.

Now, that's an interesting question, because most people will hedge and because of political this-and-that, social something or other, they will say, "Well, hm, well, humh-urn, huh."

Now, don't try to exclude out of Group Auditing groups of any kind. You can audit any group you want to audit with this same technique, and that includes groups of raving psychos - guys that are really spinning. The fact that you could get eight or ten psychotics together around a table and have them talk for a short period fairly rationally has been known in institutions for a very long time, very long time. That could happen. Something or other happened from it once in a while, but what they were doing, whether they knew it or not, was opening up a few communication lines that were otherwise closed. And they had what's known as "group processing," only they didn't call it group processing. They had a group therapy, and it has more coats - it has more coats than a sheep has. Now, you can apply that, and you'll find back along the line that this one has a group therapy and that one has a group therapy, and it was not an inclusive phrase, But when we say "Group Processing," we are saying precisely "Group Processing," and we mean the techniques which we are talking about here today. We mean a very specific thing.

You can almost ruin a man by simply demonstrating to him that he is receiving some benefits from others.

Now, you could take, then, a number of psychotics in an institution, and whether you could get their attention or not, in any great degree, if you put them down in a group and you gave them mock-ups on this level as a group, or made them give the rest of them mock-ups on this level as a group, is quite immaterial. You would get a job done. I don't say how many hours it would take or how ragged your nerves would be, but it will do the job.

You say, "Look, somebody's doing something for you."

There's something about people in groups that opens up communication lines and brings about an accessibility.

"Oh, no, they're not."

A child, for instance, that you would not be able to process individually because you couldn't hold him still, yet will quite often (not always) but will quite often be susceptible to processing when included in a group. There's something about this. And therefore, the individual - the individual who is in poor condition will very often be found inaccessible as an individual and may become accessible as a member of a group. Now, that's something for you to remember; that's something for the professional auditor to think of once in a while.

You find some people charming. Do you know that people exist in the society and depend for their total ability to live on this: They let people do things for them. It's the truth! I mean, the blind man down on the comer serves a very, very excellent purpose in the society; he stands there and lets people give him something.

You know, man behaves differently as a mob and as a well policed group and as an individual. He's three different people: as an unpoliced group, which is to say a mob; as a disciplined group, such as in a schoolroom or something; and as an individual. He behaves those three ways.

Never thought about it this way, did you? But you can think back across your own past, and the most trying person you knew was the person you couldn't help. And that person you could help the least is bound to be that person who is the most aberrative to you.

So the only thing a disciplined group is, is it meets on schedule, it meets for a certain purpose and it agrees, as it meets, on who is the monitor. That's the disciplined group.

You take a man down here in an asylum and he is - terrible condition. You go straight across the boards with him trying to find out what you can do to help him. You get no attention whatsoever from him. You're trying to make him sane. You're getting nothing in return until you will give him - perhaps you will be able to do this, perhaps not - you will be able to establish something he can still help. That's interesting, isn't it? There's something he can still help. Well now, you wouldn't think that would make a man sane, but it will.

And an undisciplined group just sort of surged up and got there. An You take a lynch mob, for instance, there's an interesting spirit - difference. And the difference of a disciplined group and a mob: the mob is pouring out, disagreeing, and the disciplined group is willing to take in and pour out. So a disciplined group is characterized by a two-way flow, and a mob by a one-way flow, And the individual - god help this fellow - don't know how he'd be characterized as bluntly as that. He has one-way flows and two-way flows. He can flow out only or he can flow in only, or he can flow out and in, and an hour later he's changed his characteristics again. Well, a group is more stable than the individual and changes its characteristics less often.

If you were to take an E-Meter and put an insane person on the E-Meter and just go over the things in the various dynamics: "Can you help children?" "Can you help cats?" "Can you help this?" "Can you help that?" You all of a sudden might find out that he's able to help horses. Send him to a horse farm? He'll be the sanest guy on it! Just like that. (snap)

Now, that should be of interest to you. That means that your processing is going to be held down by this stability of the disciplined group. Stability of this group is itself going to inhibit a change in the group. But when they do change, you ordinarily have a relatively stable change.

Doctors say, "Well, you can't tell about insanity because you're liable to get an instantaneous remission at any time." They've never looked into these so-called instantaneous remissions. Once in a while they happen on this basis: A patient faints and there's another patient present. And they say to the second patient, "Help me lift this person up," and the second patient does so and is sane after that! Ha-ha, you're not dealing with something light and tiny here; you're dealing with something that's very powerful.

When you change an individual when he is part of a group, you will see the marks of that change on him years later. You change him as an individual, you quite often won't see the marks on him at six o'clock Interesting, isn't it!

What can a person help? What can he still help in life? That's not the highest level of establishment, but it's an interesting one. And a person, when he believes he can no longer help anything in life, believes he might as well be dead. You can convince him then that he might as well be dead because he can't help anything. He can no longer assist anything in the world.

For instance, I had a ship one time, organized this ship, booted it up the line, did quite a few experiments with its personnel and so forth; it was in combat quite a bit. It's very easy to cohese a group that is facing a common danger and has a great deal of excitement going on. So it was very easy to handle a group that way because they don't choose you for its randomity; they choose you for your ability to help them confront this danger, The danger exists, then, as the villain there, not the leader of the group. When you get a group which isn't faced with danger, they generally will choose the leader or some other inner group as the villain. And the group will exist, really, because it has a villain. And therefore, managers are dogs. It's of necessity true, managers are always dogs, if they're successful managers. What do you know.

He's as healthy as he can assist things in the world. So don't for a moment think that there isn't some end to all this, because here in the field of sanity and insanity, you're not just working for nothing, you're not working unappreciatedly. You sometimes sit down and feel very sad about the fact that you are, but you're not; you appreciate you. And quite in addition to that, many people do. Many, many people do. And it's only by convincing somebody he can't help that you ruin somebody.

And you can take me to any plant in this area, and find a plant where the manager is well liked, and I will show you a mess, just a complete ruin. And you'll find the dust all swept under the carpets in the offices and you'll find the iron filings all dumped in the engines out in the shop. You'll find all the communications missing and everybody sad and the absentee-because-of-illness list higher than any other plant in the area. Why! Well, he's liked, you see! In other words, they inflow on him. He agrees with them. You can't agree with anybody in this universe and get anything done. It's obvious.

Let's take a little kid. There's little Johnny and he runs his legs off. Every day he runs his legs off for his family. He just works for his mother until you just know that he just couldn't ... And his mother is kind of mean to him. And everybody is sort of... And you say, "That kid is a setup. That's the one that will fold up."

That's a peculiarity. You can tell a manager - whether a manager is going to be good or bad, by the way, by discovering whether or not he has to be liked. If he has to be liked by his people, he's not going to do too well. If he doesn't care what, he'll do all right. But if he wants to be hated by his people, he's really better off as a manager; he really will do a better job than the fellow who has to be liked. That's an oddity. The officer who has to be liked gets men killed in action; the sergeant who has to be hated will generally save their bloody mortal lives.

Because here's little Oscar over here - Oswald - and you could look at this child and he's got everything and he doesn't have to do anything, and he's strictly a fruitcake.

So you want to remember these various characteristics, I haven't gone into them in any detail. Giving you some sort of an idea of what you're facing here. And you're facing them with more hours of this lecturing here.

Well now, this doesn't follow. Here's the child, everybody is mean to him and he works all the time, and he's sane and happy and cheerful, And here's this other child over here who nothing - he doesn't have to do anything and everybody is good to him and they give him everything, and he's crazy.

I've given you some sort of a rundown here on the purpose of the course - very general - just to give you the data and, perhaps, a prediction which will assist you in aiding groups of individuals. These individuals could be then anything, any kind of a group. They could be a bunch of workmen; they could be a group of veterans; they could be a - they could be a group of insane people. By that I'm not recommending that you practice on the insane. I definitely frown on the practice, of any practice on an insane - beyond giving them space.

Why? The difference between the two children is the ability to help: One is permitted to help and the other one is not permitted to help. And the one who's not permitted to assist knows he's no good; he just knows that. Why? Nobody will let him help, so of course he can't be any good.

You take a man who is utterly mad because he hasn't enough space, you see, and then they give him less space. And they take a man who is quite mad because he has - too much energy has been thrown at him in his lifetime of one kind or another, so they give him some more energy. It's a sort of an insistence on his continued state of insanity. And by the way, this is nothing new. This practice has been going on for the last thirty-five hundred years, so there's no reason for you to get excited about it. Instead of that, you should admire constantly the fact that man is so incapable of change, He shows a constancy there which is very admirable. Of course, it's more admirable in an elephant or a pyramid, but that's what happens.

Now, you want to know why people drive these omnibuses out here and why people - why people sit at government desks and why people teach school and all sorts of things?

Now, in other words, practice on the insane - a professional auditor that will go around and practice on the insane is - that's fine, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that, if he wants to do that, but the truth of the matter is, is he would probably be much better off if he left them utterly alone. And the reason for this is not because he can't do the job, because he can do the job. But there isn't any reason why you would go down here to the Jaguar plant and get their top motor mach, their top engineering artist, and put the two of them together running a kid's scooter outfit.

[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]

Now, what would you do if you had those two people available! You would provide more automobiles and remedy some of the problems that had to do with automobiles, wouldn't you! That would be the smart thing to do with them. And you would make able automobiles more able. And you would have more able automobiles than you'd had before. You wouldn't - you wouldn't go around and find all the broken toys in the back - in the back room and drag out these broken toys for that pair to repair. No, I'm afraid you wouldn't do that.

Continuing this second lecture. The idea of assistance to others goes hand in glove with the idea of value of self; one is as valuable as he can assist.

Now, it's a horrible - and that's just utterly gruesome of me to talk that way and so forth, but if you were - if you were tens of thousands, instead of scores, I wouldn't have to talk that way. But if you only knew it, you're spread awfully thin there. If you don't believe me, read the newspapers. (audience laughter)

And because people throughout life evidently feel there's a big scarcity of things they can help, they will prevent others from helping. You can talk all you want to about, "Let's all get in there together and help," but the point is that when you go along this line too much, you get - people will try to cut other people out. Somebody will come up to you and say, "You really aren't helping your class, but I can."

Now, your main - your main goal is to do something for mankind, I hope. That's what we want to do, want to do something for subdivisions of - that is the third dynamic, the fourth dynamic - and therefore, we're getting there. We're right there at the third dynamic now, and we're not passing off the third dynamic to you as a little light thing that say, "Well, we can't address that because we don't know enough or we aren't doing enough or we don't have the techniques to do enough on the first dynamic for each one of these people." That's the wrong way to look at it. Look at where you've arrived. You've arrived at the point where you can hit the third dynamic - that is to say, groups, bing, without hitting individuals.

You know, they say this in various ways. They say, "Little Johnny that you thought was getting along so well - you know, you thought he was getting along so well. Well, he died yesterday."

Now, you can do something, then, broadly for groups. That, believe me, is triumph, And if you can do that, there isn't anything at all could stay man from shifting a bit for the better. There isn't anything at all could stop him.

They're just trying to convince you that you can't help people that way, and that's sort of - they kind of figure out dully that that permits them to. All right.

Now, the groups are wide-open for this sort of work, The individual auditor, the professional auditor who will go out and take a group of children, take a group of people in a hospital, take a group down in the old ladies' home - I don't care where he takes this group - he'll just go down and pick up a group and go down and process it. For what, how much? Nothing.

So, what's our ... You just work on that operational level - we find out that the mind is running along in terms of energy in most cases. It thinks it's thinking with energy. It doesn't think with energy, but it thinks it's thinking with energy. Therefore, only because it thinks it's thinking with energy, not because it does, it believes that it is a sort of a computing machine. Now, basically, as you sort out somebody's mind, you'll find this to be the case.

And he will find, by the way, that he is unable to keep up with the individual - individual bids for processing. That's a real, you might say, highly practical way of looking at the thing, but he is not wasting his time; and he is not, by giving something away, doing something for which he will not be paid. There is an interchange possible there, and that interchange becomes possible when you do something for the third dynamic.

The mind is there to pose and resolve problems relating to survival. It thinks it solves these things with energy, so it works very mechanistically, And this isn't just from my viewpoint. I mean, this happens to be true.

What is money! Money is an attention unit of a society. Get that. There was something called "technocracy" in the United States not too long ago - Howard Scott. And he said that money was something on this order. And one of my auditors in the US, who was a disciple of Scott's, thought it over one day. He came up and he said, "Money is the attention unit of a society," Even going further than that, with "Money is the attention unit of society" Looked around in his head, and he figured on this, and he worked with it and so forth. And he was trying to figure out marks of commerce, economics, transportation and that sort of thing in a society. Oh no, the problem is simpler. The problem is much simpler. You will get as much money as you get interest.

The mechanistic viewpoint of the calculating machine is not one which can be broadly used in terms of the human mind, because a calculating machine is neither very able nor very accurate. It's accurate within the realms of a mind directing it to be accurate, but it can't protect itself against bad data. So, therefore, it's not a very good computer.

[R&D note on Howard Scott: an American engineer and writer who was instrumental in the development of technocracy, a theory and movement for social reform, prominent about 1932, advocating control of industrial resources, reform of financial institutions and reorganization of the social system, based on the findings of technologists and engineers. Part of this reform and reorganization would have been to discard monetary terminology, such as balance sheets, dollars, etc., and replace these with terms like ergs, calories, etc.]

Anybody can go up to the thing and say - instead of two million, it can write two-hundred million on the calculating-machine tape and punch it in, and it'll go on stupidly computing on two-hundred million instead of two million, and all of its answers will be wrong.

Now, let's look at it economically, and let's look at it very practically. Did you ever hear of anybody that nobody had ever heard of, who was ever receiving any interest or attention! (audience laughter) Let's look at that. Now, let's just consider that the dollar, the pound, the franc are the attention units of a society. And let's just consider that, and we'll see there that they flow to the degree that interest exists. The main thing happened in the United States in 1929 was that everybody got disinterested. That's the truth of the matter. They got worried and they got disinterested, and so we had a stock market crash and depression. Anybody who could have come along at that time and have dubbed up a new - and mocked up a new ruddy rod or something of the sort that was of such fascinating ... Supposing somebody had come along at that time and say, "You know, I've just come back from Mars. Ahem. They have diamond mines up on Mars, and I'm in the market for these ships and here are the diamonds. Yeah, here's eight gallons of diamonds, and I've just come back." What do you suppose industry would have done! They said, "It's very hard to build these spaceships," and that sort of thing. It's just interest.

So, bad data, now, is very aberrative; bad information is very aberrative. The evaluation, then, of information is quite important. And one is as able to think as he can evaluate, not as he can memorize, Don't ever lose sight of that. He is as able to think as he can evaluate; he is not as able to think as he can memorize.

You see, none of this matter, energy, space or time is actually purchasable or not purchasable. You never own any MEST; really, you never do. The only thing you have is your own interest in life and your own ideas about life. The most valuable thing there is about a man is his hopes and his dreams. When his hopes and dreams are dead, the man is dead. I don't care how much MEST he's - has, how much material matter he has accumulated. It just doesn't matter. And that's why, sometimes, you will talk to somebody who has an enormous amount of material objects around, and you realize you're talking to a dead man. The fellow has not established any flow of any kind; he's just sitting there holding on. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. He dies holding on, too, by the way. It just kills him dead.

You notice the interesting child who can come in and recite the World Almanac from cover to cover, and yet who just can't seem to take care of any of the most primitive functions. You'd say, "Strange." Well, you're sort of talking to a recording tape, and it all goes in and it all comes out and so on. It's very interesting, but this child is not evaluating.

They say a rich man - a rich man couldn't go to heaven any more than he could go through - a camel can go through the eye of a needle (old Arab proverb, wandered into the Bible and other places). The reason why is he is just holding on so hard, and he is so isolated that he can't move. That's why he couldn't go to heaven; he couldn't go anyplace, and when you process him, you'll find him stuck on the time track. He's stuck and he's holding, and that's the characteristic. He hasn't got any flow.

Some other child is apparently incapable, you'd think sometimes, of absorbing information, and all he does is evaluate information, and he doesn't record worth a nickel. And he's made the evaluation already. He's very hard on you sometimes as an instructor. You will make an evaluation... You instructors, you haven't got anything to teach him. And if he's made that evaluation at the beginning of his course or his school or his training, it's going to take you a long time to get anything into his head.

Well now, an auditor, for instance, who would just simply go and it wouldn't matter, he could outfit the most beautiful office in the world and he could put a gorgeous secretary out there and he could be this ... Oh and do all these various things, everything necessary to the equipment of that and he'd just sit there, just sit there. Nobody would ever hear of him, he wouldn't hear of anything else. No communication line. Well, a communication line consists of particles, consists of interest.

Now, he could evaluate and he wouldn't remember, and the other child can remember but can't evaluate. And those would be the two extremes of human aberration you had to deal with in terms of education, in terms of righting things.

So therefore, if he were to go out on a third dynamic level, and if he were to devote - if he were to devote an hour of every working day, or five or six hours a week on the third dynamic, he wouldn't be able to put the brakes on that MEST. You want to be careful of what you start like that. You want to be careful what you start.

Now, let's take this idea of the adding machine again. Let's look at aberration in terms of an adding machine. And let's take an adding machine such as they had at Harvard and aberrate it. Well, this adding machine they had at Harvard - very interesting machine. Or maybe it was Yale or Princeton or someplace or Oxford, I don't know. It was one of these lesser-known schools. Anyway, they had this drop of solder - aberrated the machine.

I'm very careless about starting things, by the way. I don't give a doggone. And I'm always convinced that the interest level will be less than it is. I always underestimate the interest level, I suppose because of my own interest level or something. So I know what it takes to get me interested in life and so on. Gun this through and it gets very fascinating.

And this is what happened. One day they went in and they put a problem on this machine. And it was the kind of machine that calculated the square root of the length of time it took for a photon to travel a circumnavigation of the orbit exiture or something, you know - one of these things with lots of factors and summations and all that sort of thing, and the machine turned out the wrong answer. So they put the machine - put it on again, and the machine turned out the wrong answer.

Next thing you know, people are putting up their storm windows and bringing in the cat, and tying the roof down and so forth. And I say, "What's going on! What's the matter! What's the matter!" They give me a dirty look and go on battening the place up for the storm, you might say.

So somebody put an elementary problem on the machine and he merely says ten times ten, and he got a hundred. And he says ten divided by ten, he got a hundred; five hundred times ten, and he got twenty-five thousand. (Those of you that aren't up on arithmetic, that should be five thousand.)

To come into an area - come into an area and calmly announce that the so-and-so and so-and-so, and then do something on some individual, and then go ahead from there, so on, stimulates interest. Well, how does it stimulate it! It's just - well, you just do something, that's all. You just do something beneficial and something interesting, preferably on the third dynamic.

So then he put on two times five and got fifty. You know, this machine would be considered aberrated after a while, And he went on with this for quite a while, and then it finally turned out that the number five on the machine had a drop of solder shorted out on it, so that every problem had the - was factored - multiplied rather, by five. Every problem you put into the machine got multiplied by five. And every time it went across anything connected with five, it multiplied by another five. Little, tiny short circuit in the electronic circuits of a huge, big, giant electronic brain.

It's interesting, the other day, that a newspaper reporter came up to me and was going, "Rawr-roo, Dianetics and Scientology is a cult, of course." (She was from Australia.) Anyway, "Is there any story?" She was getting all ready to just roll up her sleeves and just whush, you know, roll up her sleeves and hrrrh, hwrhh. And I said, "Group processing children, group processing children, group processing chil - " "I'm sorry. I'll come back in a month from now. Excuse me, I'm sorry I exist." (audience laughter)

And how did they repair it? Well, they just sawed off that little piece of solder and disconnected it, and after that the machine gave right answers.

Now, that's very interesting, isn't it! Because that is an interest and attention line in the society. You're not doing that simply because it is an interest and attention line. You see, insincerity is doing something - is doing something to make it into an attention line without doing anything. That, you might say, is that sort of insincerity. You notice this on the part of publicity campaigns. Somebody wanted to be in the newspapers, they go down and they hire a press agent. They don't do anything, they just hire the press agent to say they do something. You don't need a press agent. If you were to walk down to the corner where the blind man is selling papers and turn his sight on, you'd think you were pretty good. That isn't enough. Go up to the next corner and get the one up there and turn his sight on, and then go down the line and pick up the cripple who runs the elevator and fix him up. And you go through the level like this, and just keep going on without paying any attention to how much interest, and the first thing you know, people will be putting storm windows on and battening the roof down and giving you a dirty look. You'll generate too much interest.

Now, let's take little Johnny there that isn't studying, isn't studying at all. How does this analogy fit with him? He's got a held-down five someplace, That machine is aberrated, that is to say, is giving wrong answers, incorrect solutions to existence because of a held-down five. What is this held-down five in the case of little Johnny? Well, it could be a number of very special things. You'd find those in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. You could call these - infinite number of combinations that could hold down five, but it's a cinch it's "hold-down five."

But that's a rough deal, by the way - processing individual, individual, individual, individual, It's rough for two reasons. One is the proximity of the people you're processing, if you're just going at it hammer and tongs and working hard and on a big frame to make a lot of miracle cases and that sort of thing. No, do it on the third dynamic and then you just gunshot the whole group.

Let's say it's something simple like he made a postulate or he made an evaluation when he first came to school that he would never learn anything in that school. And he's convinced of this because he convinced himself of this. And everything that goes through that you're - expect him to learn is tearing right across the lines and his "I won't ever learn anything in school."

One day a little boy was - everything you say to him, he says, "Hey," or something of the sort and hits his ear, you know. He's got this mannerism. And his nose runs. His family objects to all this. And he turns up home one day and his nose isn't running and he isn't batting his ear. Did you do it individually! No, you didn't even know it happened. He was part - a member of your child group. You prepare to be very surprised at Papa or somebody coming to you and say, "You know, Oswald has been telling me all about this sort of thing. I want to thank you, what you've done for Oswald." Well, you possibly didn't know you'd done anything for Oswald, so you want to prepare at that moment to look wise. (audience laughter)

"Columbus discovered America in 1492. I won't ever learn anything in this school," And you'll find all of the information you are trying to pour into his head over here in a big bin that says, "I won't learn anything in this school." It's there, but it's over there in the bin. Now, it's fascinating that one day you suddenly crowd at him with some processing and knock out that datum, and he remembers everything he learned in the school.

And is it enough to stimulate such an interest with just one group of children? No, I'm afraid it's not. Go up and down the line, around; get Lots of groups of children; And don't just start hitting backwards children because the chances of tomorrow's genius coming out of that class are not really worse or better than some other class, but tomorrow's genius might come out of some other class than the one you're auditing. See! So you want to spread yourself around just a little bit, just on the off chance that this will happen.

Now, that's - becomes very interesting, The mind works on a series, then, of bins and trunk systems and bullpens, to be technical - that's the technical terminology for electronic brains, by the way - and it has these large compartments. You're dealing with data. Therefore, the storage rather than the origin of data is of interest to you, and the use of data in computation of new answers is of interest to you.

Therefore, in following this data and addressing this subject, you are doing something. You are helping people. Don't for a moment believe because it isn't profusely thanked that helping people is ever wasted. It happens that an individual never thanks anybody for being helped. The quickest way you can get into trouble with an individual is to help him. You should know that, just bluntly know that. And you should know at the same time that the quickest way you can get into trouble is not to help him.

[R&D Note: bullpen: (computers) an area in early electronic computers where material that didn't match up with anything else was held until new material that connected with it and made a complete solution was fed in. Used figuratively in this lecture.]

And you should also know - and you should also know that the only thanks you're ever going to get is going down this track, anywhere along the line, me or thee or anything else, is the thanks you give yourself. You know you've done a good job, that's the only person who ever has to know you've done a good job. Now, I can prove this by processing, by the way. This is not just one of those Emersonian quickies that are supposed to be very epigrammatically something or other. Happens to be a technical datum. The only one that's ever going (…?) to thank you is you. The only mistake you ever made was expecting anybody else to.

Well, therefore, if you start dealing with a machine which has consistently held-down data, every time you throw a datum into his head, he says, "My mother is sick."

Now, if you go at Group Processing on the idea that you're doing it, and you're doing it because you're doing it, because you want to do it, because you're going to thank you for doing it, and you go ahead and you ... Because there's more people than you can count, you're - if you go at it with that idea, you wind up with a tremendous satisfaction. If you go at it with the idea that everybody is just going to swarm around you and pat you on the head and thank you, huh! No, that's never going to happen. And then go up and say, "You know, Oswald was all right before he was part of your course, but he's had convulsions ever since." You inquire a little bit further and you'll find out he always had convulsions; they've always been attributed to various things and now you're the target.

Did you ever have a little kid who is having home trouble, family trouble at home, or a man at work, he's having trouble at home - and somebody walk - and you say, "Two times two equals four," On any kind of a problem that you - or solution that you'd give him, it would go through his mind like this: "Two times two is four, and my mother is sick at home. What did you say?"

TBD

And you say, "Two times two is four."

There isn't any reason to expect any thanks for doing anything you do. Now, that's a heck of a thing, isn't it! Heck of a thing. But that doesn't mean there isn't any thanks, and that doesn't mean there isn't any admiration for it.

He's - "When did you say that?"

But it's the only guy who ever gets admired is the fellow who doesn't need to be. It's something like coals to Newcastle. The fellow who needs to be admired is ignored. When a fellow really needs thanks, he never gets them. The fellow who needs no thanks, needs no admiration, nothing of the sort, they throw it on him like Zambezi Falls. Odd, but true, horribly true.

"Well, I just said it?"

Now, very rapidly, let me go into the rest of this first lecture. We know what we're trying to do now, and I hope, whether you agree with it or not, we know why we're trying to do: we're trying to help you, we're trying to help groups. We can help people. I'm trying to tell you this afternoon how.

"What did you just say?"

There's - there are two words that you should know, and one of them is Dianetics, the other is Scientology. Magazines - they've been making cracks at me about words, because my words are getting into dictionaries. And they call them "Hub-words." (audience laughter) The third dictionary I've seen now is using words out of these sciences. And there's about five words in this science have now wandered into the dictionary besides these two words, Dianetics and Scientology.

"Two times two is four,"

Dianetics means "through mind." I thought I'd coined this word, and then found out that Dianetics means, in the dictionary, "discursive logic," and they've now changed its definition. It means "through mind," so on. That's right. This definition has been shifted in the new printings. So it doesn't mean that anymore; it means "through mind," Now, when you say "through mind," you naturally mean a man. We customarily think of a mind as having something to do with a man, a woman or a child or something like that. We don't think of dogs having minds very much. They have brains which you can examine. But when we say "mind," we are normally and usually speaking of Home sapiens, genus Home sapiens.

It registered "Two times two is four, my mother is sick."

Now, we can heal or orient genus Home sapiens through his mind, through addressing the problems of his mind - anything in these sciences which would apply to Homo sapiens and let him keep on being Home sapiens without taking the package to pieces. The package comes to pieces so easily, you have to be very careful, be very careful with this. He falls apart rapidly. They didn't put glue in very good. A fellow like me can come along and unglue him. I mean, it wasn't a good job. All right.

Now, you could ask him, "What is two times two?"

Therefore, those techniques which immediately address to Home sapiens, and would not ordinarily in most cases make him anything else but Home sapiens, let's just lump these under the subject of Dianetics. And let's make this word, Dianetics, the public knowledge of survival, the eight dynamics, the very basic and elementary processes - those processes which are in Dianetics: The Modem Science of Mental Health and others. Anything that addresses immediately to that level, call it Dianetics

And he would say, "Two times two" - he'd be perfectly good; span of attention is way off, you see - "Two times two equals my mother is sick at home," and "Two times two equals my wife is angry with me."

Now, what's Scientology? Scientology is "the science of knowing how to know," and is the adventurous, fly in the teeth of that philosophical conundrum called epistemology. It's the resolution of epistemology. I'm sorry to have to say that, that it's the resolution of it, but it is.

Yeah, that's right; that's how he's thinking, It's flagrant. If you want to plumb into this and to ask the questions which will spring it into view, you'll be shocked at what some people are thinking in offices. (audience laughter) Mail goes through their hands.

What is knowledge! And how does man know! And what is known and what isn't known and that sort of thing - these problems, they come under the heading of Scientology. So Scientology crosses the bridge between philosophy and science. It is an embracive subject which takes in philosophy and science. That doesn't mean that it buttons up all there is to button up in science, and it doesn't mean that it ends all the things there are to end in philosophy, fortunately. You can make a postulate any day and invent a new philosophy. It does, however - it does, however, very - get very inclusive on many of the maybes man has been riding. And Scientology as quickly embraces and advances the science of physics as it embraces mysticism and advances it. Now, if you study Scientology, you can become a very good nuclear physicist. You really could if you had the knowledge in Scientology and you went along from there, and you combined it with the routine knowledge of nuclear physics, you'd become a terrific physicist. There is no doubt about this whatsoever. It's very funny, but very true.

Of course, it isn't so bad on the other level. When they've had a good time, they can work. That's because the good time runs out all their worries. They're not liable to sit there, oddly enough, and say, "Here's a nice letter from James and Company with a thousand - a thousand new reams of paper has been ordered, and that's just fine. And let's see, now what do I have to do? My, did I have a good time last night. That's what I have to do now. Now, I had to have a good time last night. Yeah, that's good."

Now, let's look on the other side of the picture and find out that YOU could have a very fine time and become a very good mystic. Oh, boy! Why, you could give a yogi-minded fellow cards, spades and the jack of trump and play with one eye on a novel and beat him hands down. Because you can actually produce the things they're supposed to be able to produce in mysticism, in occultism and the rest of the isms along that line.

No, they don't squirrel like that. Working with a different sort of a thing when you work with a worry or a problem or trouble because you're working with pain. Pleasure runs itself out. Pleasure is the enemy of pain. Pain sticks. And every time you have this abstraction, you get held-down data.

This doesn't mean that we should now sneer at those subjects any more than we should be amused by phlebotomy - the practice of bleeding, which was quite the thing once upon a time in medicine and will be again someday.

Now, there might be some terrific sort of a data. There might be some little kid who is sitting there held in his bike accident two months ago, and he's been stupid in class ever since. And his grades have been kind of poor, and you haven't been able to do anything for him and get anything across to him.

So, with these subjects you can count on - with these definitions, these subjects you can count on a very wide coverage. And Scientology means "There is no limit," And Dianetics means "This is what we do for Home sapiens, poor fellow."

You don't know where he is? You think he just isn't paying attention. Well, the thing to do, of course, is to punish him, to send him home and give a note to his parents and sspprruuhh.

Now, the world at the present time is not in complete accord with everything we're doing, but then the world never has been with new advances, and particularly if they're sensational, particularly if they work. So don't worry about the degree of acceptance measuring the degree of the subject, because it measures in reverse when it happens.

No, he's - happens to be lying on the pavement three blocks from his house, and he's been lying there ever since he fell there three months ago.

By the way, the Einstein theory, right or wrong, was slambasted for three years to such a degree that fellows - to such a fantastic degree that on the stage of one of the great meetings of mathematicians in Berlin, Einstein was denounced as the greatest mathematical hoax of the century.

Well, you know he isn't lying there - he was taken inside and given a lot of sympathy and so on. And he's been sitting here in class and so forth. You know it, but does he know it? Well, that's a good thing to check up on, does he know he's ...

Because you're interested in what he knows about himself, not what you know about him. You'll know a great deal more about him from an outside viewpoint than he'll probably ever know, so we better know what he knows about himself. And we're liable to find him now stuck on the pavement. All right.

These are held-down fives. Just think of that as an analogy It's a crude one, it's relatively workable, it's a fast explanation. What is it, then, that keeps a child from paying attention, keeps an adult from being interested in life, keeps somebody in an insane asylum there? It's a problem of the held-down five. There's a datum which is held down in the computer.

Now, if you want to be very brilliant, you can go through this computer from one end to the other and you can look it over very carefully and you can find - this, by the way, in the first book was known as shooting circuits - you could find the datum which was coloring all other data and just go boom and shoot it out of the bank. You actually could do this with marked changes in personality. What art, what skill, Oh, oh!

Now, later techniques, you could do it by shooting out an incident in which he was stuck. And with later techniques you could put him into a condition whereby he wouldn't get stuck that easily, and he would become unstuck somewhat from where he was. And by later techniques, you could do even more remarkable things with him.

And then we wind up with a very interesting battery of techniques: one, we know what the held-down particle is that is the held-down five. We know what it is. It isn't seven other particles, it happens to be just one. And it's the one that you wouldn't quite suspect, but you know it after you've run into it. And what is this particle? And why does it hold down five? We'll talk about that later.

But you want a technique that will just, no matter how long it takes, unsolder those fives. That's all you want. If you've got that, you've unsoldered the five and then you're in good shape, and that is the goal of processing.

A person with all of his fives unsoldered would be known as a Definition Clear. Why? That's an adding-machine term; that's a electronic-brain term. You clear a machine when you take out all of its former computations off the machine.

In other words, a fellow can think straight if he could think without these colored evaluations before. He can evaluate present time in terms of itself, not so much in terms of its past.

Clear is a very relative state. Don't become confused by it. It is not an absolute state. It merely means he's in pretty good shape and he'll stay that way. That's all it means. There are various kinds of Clears and they mean things very specific.

Well, a preclear, then, is somebody who still has a held-down five but is in the process of getting rid of it. That means a person who is undergoing processing either in groups or individuals, but it's most likely to apply to the individual rather than to the group.

The auditor, the auditor is one who listens and computes, and that's what auditing means: to listen and compute. Well, we still use the term auditor, but he's not doing very much listening in group auditing. And the truth be told, today's technique, he does dam little listening. He just sits there and rolls the stuff out.

Well, every once in a while he's called on to listen and compute, and it's a bad auditor who doesn't listen and doesn't compute when he has to. There's many a case will come to some other auditor for patch-up, and they can't figure out why this other auditor didn't do it. Well, the guy didn't listen; somewhere he didn't listen. He wasn't willing to receive some information of one sort or another. That's the most usual fault in auditing.

Now, we have what you could call a Book Auditor, That is an untrained auditor who has gotten his information out of publications. Unheralded and unsung, the Book Auditor has been carrying along for a long time and has been accomplishing very remarkable things. He can accomplish and he does accomplish them.

I have seen Book Auditors as good as professionals and I've seen Book Auditors that you, with even a poor Level of judgment on the subject, would have shot! In other words, this meant merely somebody who had these techniques from reading only and without any contact immediately with professional training of any kind. It doesn't mean that a man is bad or good, under that circumstances. A man is as good as he is.

And there are people who are Book Auditors who are practicing outright hypnotism. There are people who are Book Auditors that are right up there with professional auditors. The Last, by the way, is very rare. As a matter of fact, it is so rare that I only know of it happening once in the US. Odd, but true.

Now, there's self-processing, and self-processing would be just reading over lists, such as those contained in Handbook for Preclears, which is now outmoded as a process; it's not outmoded as data. And the most modern available list is the Self Analysis in Dianetics. And that disc - that list and those lists are very, very useful to you because they're the lists you use. And these are addressed toward Creative Processing, and those lists are just a part of Creative Processing.

And Group Processing would be the application of read lists to the group in such a way as to permit the maximum number of members of the group to receive benefit. Those are the various types of processes by list here.

Now, the kinds of processing - these are the people who process and their goals - and the kinds of processing, I've already covered earlier. And I list them here.

There's just a complete knowledge of the subject all the way across the boards, of anything that's been written or lectured or anything that's been learned from other professionals who practice and so forth. That would be just anything.

There isn't a process anywhere along the line there in this group of materials that doesn't have degree of workability, by the way. It's which one is more workable than another. And this again is evaluation. There are some of the old ones which are - which an auditor will still use. I was using the other day - not the other day. I was using - not too long ago, I was using a Book One technique. The preclear wouldn't, just wouldn't go for anything else, he just wouldn't buy anything else. It was the easiest one to process him with, so I just simply reached back into 1949 really, and picked up this old, moldy, moth-eaten technique and swung him into present time with it and shook him on the hand - by the hand and kissed him goodbye.

Now, Standard Operating Procedure Number 5 is the subject of the Professional Course to a large degree - that and many other things. Then there's, as I say, Self Analysis; there's Creative Processing in general as a more advanced level; and then Group Processing - there's some slight difference between the way you process adults and the way you process children, All right.

I hope you have, now, a broad and vast understanding of human aberration. And so we'll close up the subject there and take a break.