Well, this is January the 26th, 1954.

A brief afternoon lecture of the 26th of January. The process which turned on some snivels and so on should at least have demonstrated to you that processes can do something. [laughter]

And this morning I’m going to give you roughly the same summary I gave you yesterday, here, for a short time.

Now, in the interests of you as an Instructor, rather than you as an auditor, you will discover that there are certain very sweeping simplicities with which we’re dealing. And if you’ll use those simplicities and derive other data from them, you will never get yourself lost with a student question because the truth of the matter is that when you have gone over the list here which I have been giving you day after day after day here, of knowingness; interiorization, exteriorization; beingness, doingness, havingness in terms of space, energy and time; communication, Cause and Effect; the scale from Know down to Sex; the cycle-of-action-the Create-Survive-Destroy cycle; the nothing-something characteristic of this universe, in other words the Theta-MEST Theory; the eight dynamics; ARC in general; the Tone Scale; and control itself, if you know those definitions (not that you have to think about them any further), but you will be able to derive the answer to any question any student might be able to ask. It’s up to you to know how to derive that.

I’m going to take up with you the elements with which we are dealing. I want you ‘ to know this about this problem: some of you are going to seize on to this with such h avidness that we’re going to probably have to take a pneumatic drill to get the fact out . of you again. But the truth of the matter is, all you’re dealing with is knowingness and " postulates.

We are dealing with some very finite material here. Sooner or later, day after day, you’ll wake up to this fact: this material is finite, not infinite. And at that moment you will heave a sigh of relief. You’ll say, “What do you know, we don’t have to butter ourselves all over the universe to find out what peculiarities of livingness there are, they derive right here.” Because we have a number of things which predict data which, when looked for, will be found.

Now, the sum total of what Scientology has added to the sum of human knowledge is not enormous and, therefore, it could be added to human knowledge. It was very finite. The definition of a static in physics (which I went over with you this morning) was completely unknown in physics.

We could say also, “In this universe there is only matter and the beings in this universe move through matter only.” See, no space in this universe as such, it’s only a matter universe.

In mathematics, the definition of zero was unknown. And where we have a scientific world that lacks these two definitions and doesn’t even suspect that there’s a tremendous hole and which thinks continually that it’s walking across a solid bridge, whereby it’s walking across a bridge with no boards in it-when their two most critical tools haven’t even been noticed in their absence, you’re not going to have any answers to livingness. Nobody is going to be able to cross that bridge. They’re just going to keep trying and milling around and wondering why they fail, until somebody comes along and takes a good look at it and says, “What do you know? These guys are using hammers, they say, and yet everywhere I look there are these fellows with their fists upraised and moving their fists up and down and there’s no hammer in their fists. And they keep complaining they’re not driving any nails. And they don’t even realize that this is idiotic.”

And we’d get a different series of things. Then we’d probably have different kinds of problems and we probably wouldn’t have these essentials. But on the other hand, we probably would have a lot of these essentials.

When you get somebody out here with the “know-how,” so-called, to build a giant computer which has more tubes than you could count in an idle afternoon and who doesn’t know the definition of the zero on that computer, you’re going to have a weird computer. It’s going to be awful complicated. It’ll have an awful lot of things set up to correct an awful lot of things which will set up so they correct an awful lot of things which

Now, what we’ve done here with these upper echelon factors, with regard to this universe and beingness-livingness, rather-what we’ve done is single out those factors which were the most pervasive and which probably, by the way, apply more or less in the woof and warp of most universes. They probably do. We know they do in the MEST universe.

will correct the answer which will come back and then be adjusted. And sure enough, that’s what those big computers do. They correct what they correct so they can adjust it.

So we have livingness here, packaged in this fashion, slanted toward the MEST universe. Now, this is not unreasonable, since you happen to be living in the MEST universe. You have a vested interest in it. Your concern, in spite of what you might think, is not to escape from this universe so much as to find out how to conquer it. If you have a feeling of escape, you’re just on the withdrawal side of the cycle which wants you to go back in and charge again. And given the slightest opportunity to escape what you are now enmeshed with-given the slightest opportunity-you would simply come back and charge the MEST universe again. This is a sad fact, because all that would happen is you’d get enmeshed again. You see?

You take something like quantum mechanics-the mathematician’s nightmare. It wasn’t until he moved into these realms that he found out he was living in a nightmare. Every time he put down an equation in quantum mechanics, then he’d have to put down .822-you know, right in the middle of the equation. You come along and say, “Hey, what’s 822 doing in the middle of the equation?”

So, we’ve got this reach and withdraw on the part of theta as-actually it seems to be in the woof and the warp of theta itself, an obsession. It’s the way it works. It doesn’t matter whether you’re in the MEST universe or whether you’re in your own universe or somebody else’s universe, you’ll find out the component parts of action are reach and withdraw-not even arrive and depart. Of course, arrive and depart are just another way of stating reach and withdraw, but you don’t have to arrive and depart to have fulfilled the effort to reach and withdraw. See, arrive and depart, that’s sort of extreme.

“Ho!” he says, “that’s the adjustment factor.”

So we have that as an action that theta seems to undertake wherever it is. But, of course, it doesn’t have to do that at all. Theoretically, it could make a postulate that would say, “it went up and down” or we could make a postulate that says, “the only flows that will flow are one-way flows and there will never be a return on any one-way flow.” Now, I don’t know what kind of a universe you’d get out of that, but it’s a postulate, you understand.

“Oh? What do you mean adjustment factor?”

Now, what life has gotten concentrated on is a little package of postulates which work together and this workingness works out so that you have a thing called interpersonal relations and so forth. And you have a game, you have behavior patterned on this game and interpersonal relations.

“Wellj the equation doesn’t work unless it’s got 822 in the middle.”

But you understand that just because reach and withdraw exists and just because a lot of other things exist, that we still haven’t escaped the fact that the upper echelon of livingness is knowingness and making postulates about it. You see that as a top-flight proposition.

“Well, come on now, tell me, what does 822 relate to? Does this relate to cows or apples or particles or speed of light or ...”

Now, you can sometimes get a preclear to sit back and just ponder this-you know, think about it and sort of put knowingness somewhere around him or up above him, a pervasive knowingness with total communication. Just have him hold it as a concept and big chunks of energy blow off and he feels better. That’s curious, isn’t it? But that’s-the truth of the matter is, is it’s knowingness-knowing what? Well, just knowingness, not knowing anything. When you say, “What do you know?” you are compounding the felony, you see. That’s the big trick: “What do you know?”

“No, no. No, no: 822.” Because in quantum mechanics he was working with two-they call these things “bugger factors”-they were working with two unknowns that they didn’t know were unknown. One is the speed of light-c. They call it “186,000 thousand whup-a-whup miles per second.” That’s supposed to be the speed of light. And that’s an indeterminate factor. And they say that’s a constant. Now, that’s right there, they can measure that right to a hair. It’s okay until they start talking about something besides sunlight. And the second they start talking about something besides sunlight, they’re lost. So they think the c then is the end-all of light movement and particle motion and it sure isn’t. Nothing more variable than that factor.

Well, knowingness is a sort of a state of livingness, it’s a serenity. A little lower than serenity is courage. But the moment you get down into courage, you get into an interesting strata: that is the first resistance. And then there’s a little bridge and that’s right on the other side of courage and it’s called pain. And this little bridge leads to the abyss of cowardice. “Courage” is a confident reachingness and “cowardice” is a fearful withdrawingness. See, we’ve got this pattern of reach and withdraw going through all these things.

And the other one is this business about zero. Every time they put down zero, they’re really putting down X, because it was some kind of a somethingness, it wasn’t a nothingness. All their zeros were a somethingness, not a nothingness. So they were dealing with a relative nothingness. And boy, when you’ve got a relative nothingness kicking around an equation, you don’t even suspect it’s there, you’ll get the weirdest answers and so they have.

Well, what is it, just as it’s trying to make up its mind whether to reach or withdraw? It’s pain. And you get the scattered confusion of particles which go about pain.

The truth of the matter is they don’t know whether these piles will blow up out there or not. They make them by experiment. They pull little bars in and out and hope it will work. And then they set it all up in mathematical forms and send them back to the government just to show that they’re on the job-after they’ve done the problem, which is a funny way to work mathematics, isn’t it?

Well, the big obsession in this universe is that this is a funny universe, it has all of its spaces consecutive to all of its spaces, so therefore, it’s a communication universe par excellence. At any given instant throughout the universe, if you were to stop all the particles, you would find them to some degree potentially communicating with all other particles in the universe. In other words, a consecutive universe-it’s a terribly consistent universe. Its idea is total communication and its idea is stop all communications. See, if you got total communication, then it’s stop all communications too. You might not see that at first glance, but you realize that if everything is communicating, that’s just going to stop all communications or, at best, make a chaos. And so we have, in the Bible and other places, we have this universe being spoken of as a chaos-the "chaos of matter.”

Well, all right. Here are two big factors. Now, why then, would the discovery of these two holes in the field of science then influence things to such an extent that you could predict human behavior? Real nice. I mean, how do you slide out of that one? Well, very easily. Because human behavior is in greater or lesser degree with the physical universe. And you can predict what its behavior is because of this scale of Be, Do and Have, which is space, energy and time. All right.

Actually, the "chaos of matter” is about as neatly patterned as any piece of cloth you ever saw drawn up. It’s one of these very, very, very neat packages. The pattern, for instance, of a hydrogen atom is a very neat package. The pattern of hydrocarbons-very, very neat. The MEST universe itself is essentially a terribly nice piece of watchmaking. It’s kind of dynamite because there’s so much of it compared to the "muchness” of you. But, of course, there could be much more of you than there is of it, except that the MEST universe says, "You mustn’t duplicate, don’t duplicate.”

You can predict this activity only because you know these other two definitions. Now, you might not quite connect with that right at first glance, but look here-we know that reality, the closest we can get to reality, is in terms of agreement of some sort or another. Everybody agrees it’s real, so it’s real. This becomes quite obvious. Otherwise reality has itself a very nebulous value. And there was psychology, it was dealing with this thing “reality” and every time it turned around to a patient to say, “The trouble with you is you have to face reality,” there they were introducing a hidden standard.

If you look at something in the MEST universe because it’s in communication, then you have to be it, you see, in order to perceive it perfectly. You have to be willing to be it anyway in order to see it. You don’t want to be MEST, you want to organize MEST and, as a consequence, you get into a state of mind of no duplicate. But there’s no reason why you, as a thetan, couldn’t go out and just duplicate in all directions madly. Duplicate yourself, I mean, and be alive in eight selves simultaneously.

What is reality?

Well, you see the communication factors there? Well, the universe has a cycle and this cycle exists because time exists. We have two types of consecutive spaces: We have all these spaces in connection with all these spaces, you see, in any given instant. And then

[to student] What is it?

we have the spaces which were all connected a second ago and the spaces now. You see, space is a viewpoint of dimension. Every time you change the dimension points, you get a new space. By definition, you get a new space, you see? So that time consists of this consecutive chain of new spaces.

Female voice: Agreement, like a pattern is a pattern.

Every time a particle moves-I don’t care how far it moves or it disappears and becomes a new particle (which is probably what happens)-every time that occurs, you have a new space, of course. A space is not a changed space so much as a different space. You get the idea of different spaces which are consecutive, why, then you have an idea of what time is.

That’s right. Just agreement. All right.

Now, it’s very easy to get this consecutiveness of all spaces, from one corner of this universe to the other, confused with the consecutiveness of the spaces which were, are and will be.

It couldn’t get anyplace as long as it kept saying that we had reality and there was no reality. So there’s the field of psychology. Furthermore, the problem of space and the problem of time are problems of psychology, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

You know, after you’ve gotten your front yard all filled full of trash, it’s probably a little bit arduous to empty it. Wouldn’t you like some sort of an automatic mechanism that simply gave you a new front yard? All right. That’s what the thetan does. He has a new front yard. Every split instant he has a new front yard. See that? He starts throwing away the old spaces full of junk. And he keeps throwing them away and throwing them away and throwing them away and getting new spaces and new spaces and new spaces-and this is, itself, time.

Where the hell have the psychologists been, huh? Well, if the science of physics depended upon the science of psychology to solve the problems of physics, by saying what is space and time, before physics could then say what is space and time, if the psychologists didn’t know this and they weren’t even vaguely interested in what space and time were, but they were interested in something called reality and they themselves were not defining what reality was, why, gee, we got an interesting picture, didn’t we? We got these sciences pulling against one another.

The origin of time is very easy to trace. Individual had an enormous amount of space around him and then he decided that was in yesterday or that it was someplace else or it was in some nonexistent spot-anyplace but here, he was tired of the junk. So he threw O it away and he had a new space, then. So he took this new space and he filled it up full of junk and he decided he was tired of that and he threw it away.

So we couldn’t have a thing called “science.” We could have “the science of.” The science of this, the science of that, the science of something or other, because they couldn’t be one unit, because they were not in agreement. So there was no reality in the field of science.

Now, he met a friend who was doing the same thing and they decided they would O throw their spaces away in unison, you know, and that would keep them in parity so they could go on playing checkers-one wouldn’t be throwing the checkerboard into yesterday, when the other one was still trying to make a move.

Now, that’s a terrifically broad statement to make, but this is true. There wasn’t any real reality in the field of science beyond this: The fellow says, “By golly, I’ll put it together this way and if it works, it works. And then I’ll try to figure out some kind of a theory to see if I can explain why it did work.” And that, hit or miss, has more or less been science.

There is a point of the track where this happened quite often. You know, the fellow would come along and he’d insult you, so you’d say, “Die yesterday” and he wouldn’t have insulted you. And it’s a very simple mechanism, but it’s very confusing to people and they couldn’t keep track of it, so they decided: “Let’s all get together now and have our spaces thrown away in unison.” And then they set this up as a big co-automaticity-everybody set up the same automaticity-and you had time. Simple. Which is the casting away of spaces and the creation of new spaces to muddy up.

Newton came along and threw together something called physics. It was up to that time called natural philosophy. The Greeks had experimented with it and everybody had had a lot of fun. And they had a bunch of disrelated data that wasn’t tied together because nobody had tied together the laws of motion.

So an individual, of course, as he begins to count on the past, why, he isn’t making any new spaces for the future and he runs out of space. And you run into him and you’ll find he’s out of space. Fantastic. This is-very funny manifestations. They’re not funny to him: he tries to throw a mock-up away from him and it’ll go one inch or something. He hasn’t any space to throw it into.

And the laws of motion are inertia, interaction, acceleration. And these laws are the laws of the movement of particles. And they’re very simple laws. But out of this and out of the calculus which he invented, Newton actually put the underpinnings under a science called physics and he straddled the two fields. He didn’t notice there was a zero missing there, because nothingness is something that you wouldn’t discover missing. It’s cute, isn’t it? All right.

Now, you say, “Well, let’s make some space.” Well, it just keeps collapsing on him, that’s all. He can’t have space, he knows that. His acceptance level will not permit him to have space, everybody has chased him out of too many spaces and so forth. But the point is, he isn’t making new space, so he doesn’t, of course, have a tomorrow and he gets anxious then about the future. Well, he doesn’t have a new space.

One of the most interesting things is that every time I have had the list of Step IV, Expanded GITA, SOP 8 copied, the stenographer has omitted “nothing.” I’ve caught

This is not complicated. You can make it awfully complicated. People have been making it terribly complicated for a long time.

her and put it back in, then it’s passed to the linotypist who has omitted “nothing.” So that to this moment in 16-G, I don’t think you’ll find “nothing” in that list of Expanded GITA, 16-G. See, it’s just something you can’t look at, of course, because there’s nothing there.

And he sort of has an agreement that he has as much beingness as he can create space, so people get the Eighth Dynamic and space all tied up and God is in all the spaces. Curious manifestation, that a fellow would make space and then say somebody else owned it. That’s really very curious. It’s much more curious than you have permitted yourself to observe.

Well, the inability to look at nothing is the main trouble with Man. He struggles and struggles and struggles toward a something and he gets so obsessed with the idea that it doesn’t matter whether it’s bad for him or good for him or whether it’s any fun or anything else, it’s just got to be toward something. And these somethingnesses that he is struggling toward classify to the degree that he becomes insecure in his survival. The more insecure he becomes, the more selective he has to be about what he has. The less liable he is to survive, the more delicate he has to be about his choice of survival elements.

Give you an example of that: Just get the idea that the-now, carefully make space all around your body right now, just put out some dimension points and make space around your body.

Well, let’s take a look at the fellow who has a bad stomach. Now, what does this fellow have to do? He has to be very careful of his diet, doesn’t he? Boy. Well, that’s Man at large. Do you know that men can’t digest nails? They say so every once in a while, but they can’t do it. They can’t even digest glass-somebody was trying to at the party and it was very hard. He’s tremendously selective. He has to digest something which has been tested.

Just make some space anywhere you can make some.

It might not have occurred to you, but the reason you eat animals and vegetables is because they have served as proving grounds. It’s safe. You have interposed, between MEST and you, a whole bunch of screens so that the material is all screened out and changed and altered and refined and made very delicate and made this way and that way. There isn’t any real reason why you couldn’t pick up a handful of sand and say, “Well look, I’ve got to have nourishment” (which is a laugh itself), “I’ve got to have nourishment.” And you pick up this handful of sand and choke it down. Why not? Lichens and moss do. I suppose their digestion is worse than yours. Lichens and moss, algae, these various things, they just-algae picks up a handful of chemical saturated water and has himself a square meal. A few beams of sunlight, he’s all set.

All right. Now say, “Somebody else owns this now.”

Now, as much as we theorize on the big reason behind all this, we find this factor is always interposing before our view: Every time you find a reason why, you look earlier than the reason why and you’ll find out there was an inexplicable somethingness and after that, we had a reason why. You take this funny little thing in What to Audit-the Grim Weeper, the Boohoo. You know, he just couldn’t help but get his nose full of salt water. He just couldn’t help it. And pretty soon he has to have a reason why.

Now make some more space, right around you.

Well you see, the salt water in your nose lubricates the tissues of your nose so that they do not become irritated and so that they will select out and pour away dust particles which are getting into your air stream. Oh no! I mean-well, look-a-here, let’s have the kind of an air stream ... Let’s get a good reason why. Let’s design an air stream and it would be an air stream that would be walled like a rhinoceros hide or better. So that it wouldn’t matter what you dragged into your lungs, it wouldn’t matter what you dragged in, one way or the other, nothing could possibly injure the nasal passages. Well, wouldn’t this be sensible? But no, we’ve got to have a reason why, so we have this “mucus washing machine.” But we look prior on the track and we find out that there was a great deal of mucus early on the evolutionary chain and now we’ve got a reason for it.

Now say, “Somebody else inhabits this now.”

Before the fact is an inexplicable incident or an inexplicable combination of elements and then life gets an explanation for it. And so we find life happily, busily, going backwards. That’s what you call down spiral. We get the happenstance and then the reason for it. We don’t get the reason and then the happenstance, because that would be causative.

You see, that’s real screwball stuff, isn’t it?

Now, when you get cause, the fellow merely says, “It will now all be purple” and it’s now purple.

Did I knock somebody out here?

Then some other fellow comes along and he sees this purple-now he’s the effect, you see-and he has to say, “I wonder why all this is purple?”

I see a number of yawns. Don’t tell me this is a process that cleans up the Eighth Dynamic. “Oh, we don’t want processes that clean things up like that, we need that Eighth Dynamic there. So let’s not disabuse everybody of this.”

“Now, let me see. Um, well, it probably combines very easily with the magenta, which the grass is. And the reason for that is so that there will be some kind of a hyperbolic disassociation between the animalcules. And by George, you know, that’s very good. They do hyperbolatize across the animalcules and as these things connect, why, you put a resistipator in the line and you’ve got it.” And now he’s got the reason why. But the first fellow-all the first fellow did-he didn’t even have any reason why, he just said, “It’s all purple.” All right. The difference between cause and effect.

But you see that as kind of silly? Just a little bit silly?

After a person has been an effect, he wants the reason why. Until he’s been an effect, he doesn’t give a damn what the reason is. Now, you’re trying to run a preclear backwards to the way he’s going. He’s sitting in front of you wanting to know the reason why. Well, there isn’t any reason why. And that is the colossal and horrible joke of this universe. It is the grimmest jest in the world. There’s no reason. There isn’t any explanation for it, it’s just here.

Of course, when this becomes obsessive, a person starts to spin in on the Eighth Dynamic. The only people that could make any space that you’d perceive are you.

Well, of course it’s very tricky, it’s very significant probably, but it’s just here. And until a preclear can take a good solid look at that and just observe the fact: “Hey, what do you know, it’s here!” Why, he’s having an awful time. He goes around all the time, “chew, chew, chew, chew, chew, I wonder what the reason why? I wonder what the reason why? Pocketa, pocketa, pocketa, pocketa, think, think, think, think, think.” Because thinkingness is that thing-rather, it’s differentiated, the way we’re using it here, from thought.

Well, we get down, then, into energy. We’ve got some space, which are some dimension points (space being a viewpoint of dimension), and we get into energy.

Thought has been very carelessly used as a word. It covers thinkingness and it covers livingness. Well, we can’t have a word that means two different things which are entirely different, so let’s use thinkingness and let’s use theta and we’ll get the two in their proper perspective. Theta is something that can endow things with life, it can know, it can cause, it could also be an effect, it can do all sorts of things. But that’s quite distinct from thinkingness. Thinkingness is trying to figure out the reason why. There isn’t any.

Well of course, somebody who wants to be moved from one corner of a space to another corner of a space thinks he’d have to have some energy to do it. So he gets energy handling energy, which is a curious thing to do. This is a very curious thing to do. You yet don’t realize how curious it is to have energy handle energy. That’s very curious. That’s something like freeing your hands by tying them securely. I mean that’s one of these daffy ones. Yeah, but it’s so usual!

So here, of course, we had this horrible picture of science going round and round, trying to figure the reason why of nothing. You see, nothingness, no reason why, and science, all it can do is go on and figure because it's got that one pin missing, see? Nothingness is missing from its computation. It hasn't ever taken a look at nothingness. You had to look at nothingness to see nothing was there-to see how nothing the nothingness was.

You look around you and you see that you put some energy into a car tank in order to move some energy into the pistons to make the pistons move up and down to transfer some energy to the wheels to make the car go forward so that your body can travel from the corner of Yump Street to Yap Street. That’s very curious. What are you doing this for? Well, it’s a game. People lose sight of this fact that the handling of energy with energy is in itself a game. And they begin to be victimized by energy when they themselves begin to consider that they are energy.

Fellow says, “Well, there’s nothingness between thee and me.” Well, the hell there

Individual finally begins to believe, “Look, I’m surrounded by all this energy, I must be it. I can’t find anything of me here.”

is.There’s air and there’s space and a lot of things between thee and me. You can look through this stuff all right, but there’s quite a bit.

And everybody is standing around saying, “Well, if you’re so darned smart, where are you?”

Well now, somebody else comes along and says, “ Well, that isn’t nothingness. Nothingness between the two would be not even you looking through anything at.” And he’d try to define it that way. He’d try to define it backwards in terms of “reason why,” you see? And you can’t define a nothingness in terms of reason why. A nothingness is simply a nothingness. The grimmest jest of this universe and the deepest secret of this universe is that there is no significance and no secret. Well therefore it should be very easy to plot our way through this.

“Well, all right. Well, I’m here, but I must be this energy, so therefore I have to have energy to handle energy, because the only thing that will handle energy would be energy-unless you could make a postulate, you know, and make it go away or disappear or do something. Of course, we can’t make postulates, we mustn’t do that, so we’ll have energy handle energy.”

But what do you know? We had to add to this enough material so that we got this fact, down to the reason-why stage-was to pilot this nothingness or this static down to the reason-why stage-and we had to do that if we were going to make any escape hatch for existence or if we were going to multiply existence in any way. You see, in other words, some guy keeps asking you the reason why, the reason why, the reason why.

Funny. Well, anyway, it’s weird that it would really cause people an awful lot of worry, but it does!

Well, you say there is no reason why and this becomes balderdash to him. He doesn’t believe you, he doesn’t get well. It’d be very nice if you’d simply tell somebody that and he would immediately be Clear. But what do you know, these individuals have gone over and their certainty is an impact.

That’s anxiety itself: “Where am I going to get the wherewithal to procure enough energy to move the energy which I already have in order to keep living?” I mean, this is about as sequitur, you see, as, “How am I going to get a concrete sidewalk to go in my ham sandwich?” You know, you really take a big look at this.

Now, the reason certainty is an impact is very plain. The second that you start processing

The amount of energy which a fellow has can influence his livingness to the degree that he postulates it can-no further-and he postulates it can, so he can have a game. But it’s not true that your livingness ceases in the absence of energy.

it,it becomes very, very plain. You find that you have a theta investment in a mass. And if the individual can’t create energy anymore-it’s very simple, you see-he can’t create energy anymore. Therefore, he has to cherish what energy he’s got walled up in these barriers, these old impacts. See, that’s stored energy of some sort and there you have terminals. That’s all there is to a terminal. The individual has received an impact and now he values it so that he can hold it apart from another impact and between the two they will get a flow and he will have some energy. All to do what? To keep from causing it. Well, there’s no real significance why he doesn’t cause it, except he doesn’t think he has enough attention. If he hasn’t got enough attention to cause it, he just-you know, he wants to run an awful lot of things, so he uses this system.

And from condensation of energy, we get down to havingness. And individuals begin to believe they have to have. And boy, they think they have to have. You never saw a preclear so unhappy as that preclear who has just lost a lot of havingness. Somebody did him a favor and came along and took away four or five buildings and a lot of mass, left this fellow practically free. Exteriorized him, you might say, from an awful lot of MEST, got him out of a lot of trouble and gee, the guy is sad. He goes and has nervous breakdowns and all sorts of things. Well, it’s just change of mass, too rapid a change of mass; He has to have energy to handle energy to get into trouble like that.

Well, when you’ve looked at that system of certainty, you see the most certain thing there is, is theta itself-unimpacted. Now, the second we start knocking it against it, you might say, we get a picture of solidity. And therefore, the person becomes certain because there’s so much theta in it, there certainly must be something in it, see? And that’s-he’s certain.

In other words, to get upset about loss, you already have to have made the postulate that you need energy to handle energy.

Now, the second we draw that little bridge across from the massive object to the nothingness (the nothingness to somethingness bridge) and the second we demonstrate to people that life and existence is made out of these terminals, these impacts, and that an individual gets as bad off as he’s depending upon them (you know, dependency), why, we’ve drawn a little bridge there that this fellow can get over from his “got to have the reason why” back to the nonsignificance of significance, his exteriorization-interiorization.

Well, take another look at the universe and we find out that it’s a communication mania and its Cause to Effect is a communication line. And the communication line-the source of the communication line is always Cause and the end of the communication line is always the Effect. A communication line would just be one-way freight. It doesn’t have to go two ways. When it goes two ways, you have a conversation. That has nothing to do with a communication. Communication is just a communication, it doesn’t have to bounce.

Now, it’s very silly, people interiorizing and exteriorizing, if you want to know the living truth of the matter, because an individual can interiorize and exteriorize at will. What are you going to interiorize in the first place?

A bullet can be a communication. Instead of saying “How are you, George?” and vibrating some air molecules in the vicinity of the fellow’s ear and going through the energy-you have to have the energy process-you pick up a rifle and shoot him. Same thing, communication. Only, when you pick up the rifle and shoot him, he’s more certain you have communicated with him.

“Well, his source-point.”

Now, that cycle-of-action of Create-Survive-Destroy comes in there in time. Time—it’s a plot against time. These consecutive spaces make a plot against time and this is the plot of time: Create-Survive-Destroy.

“But the source-point doesn’t have any mass. Of course it can interiorize in everything.” “Well, all right. Can it do so knowingly?”

And an individual who is in communication across this plot of time creates something and if he communicates across time, why, of course his creation winds up with a destruction

“Yes.”

at the E. You could take those two plots, you see, that cycle-of-action curve and lay down alongside of it the communication line curve and you’d have the truth of the matter. He who communicates is dead, that’s what that teaches you. That’s what this universe tries to teach you, but it’s not true! Because the cycle-of-action isn’t true.

“Well, how do you get this source-point out?”

You know that you have to continuously create the thing which you are busily disintegrating? And when you have to continuously create the thing which you are busily disintegrating, it doesn’t look to me like you have create and destroy very far apart. You’ve got to create it in a destructed state. So, fool ourselves quite a bit with that.

“Well, this source-point is close to static, so it doesn’t have any mass, so it can get out of anything. It isn’t in anything.”

Well, a thetan, best thing he does is communicate and when he stops communicating, he’s dead. And he never is dead, but he will start a new cycle when he totally stops communication-new spiral.

And the fellow says, “Well yes, it is too. I’m in my head, I know I am.” And sure enough he does, he knows he’s in his head. Now, he sits there and waits for somebody to get him out of his head and get him to know he’s not in his head.

So, anything which communicates, it tends to parallel its Create-Survive-Destroy line and that which is continuously communicated with is eventually destroyed. If you don’t believe that, look even at the pyramids. They’re continuously communicated with the Sun and the wind and they are disappearing atom by atom. I don’t know how long it will take for them to go, but it will be a long time, but they’re still disappearing under this communication bombardment. Because communication plotted against time winds up in destruction and the more it is plotted against time, the more destructive it is.

Well, the way you do that is just to tell the guy to be three feet back of his head, which is to say, relocate your observation point. Sort of-you’d say the same thing, “Be three feet back of your head,” as “Hey, fella, how about relocating where you’re looking from.”

Let’s take a communication system which requires five years from the moment the message is written to the moment the message is received. Oh boy! That’s a destructive system-it just ruins morale.

Well, he’s liable to do this in peculiar and runabout ways. He’s liable to relocate it by making up a new viewpoint and putting it over in the next room and looking back into this room and say, “I’m over there”-all sorts of escapes and dodges.

Now, let’s suppose you’re out there in the gold rush and you’ve landed there in the middle of the gold rush and you’re sitting there feeling happy and all of a sudden you receive a letter that says, “Tell me at once what to do with the remains.” Signed Joe. Whose remains? Well, it’s around the Horn or across the Isthmus to Panama to find out.

Well, that’s just the game of existence. He’s doing all sorts of escapes and dodges because there’s nothing to escape and dodge from. But by golly, when he’s dedicated to and convinced by impacts that things exist, believe me, it ceases to be funny. He is the effect of the game. And he knows he’s the effect of the game and what he knows is that he can’t do anything. That’s what he mainly knows.

That’s because there’s a missing datum there. But supposing he even received the thing, “What shall I do with your wife’s remains?” Or supposing he even received the thing, “What shall I do with the children now that your wife has passed on?” You could even get the information, “Well, she died in the last smallpox epidemic.”

I ran into somebody who was having a lot of trouble exteriorizing. I said, “Get the greatest certainty you can get on your ability.” And the guy kind of choked on it and he thought this over for a little while and “Gee,” he said, “the biggest certainty I can get is that I don’t have any.” And sure enough, there is your-your fellow sets up things “to be able.” Well, he’s able, doggone it! He doesn’t set up something to be able for him. And so we get into this tangle of language and how all things start equaling all things and we start running around in circles and the problem looks very confused, but it’s not confused. You’re coming right straight out of this one factor: definition of static-definition of theta and its combination in such ways as to form randomities and automaticities out of these terminals, these impacts.

This letter, for God’s sakes, the information is already months old! Whooh! Where are these kids in the meantime? A man starves to death in a few days. Well, Lord knows. It gives the fellow just that hopeless apathy of, “There is nothing I can do about it because it’s too long gone.”

Well, you can take this data-this that I just read off to you-you can take this data, you can combine it in various fashions and you get the doggonedest pictures of existence. Oh boy, can existence be complex! Wheel If anything should attest to the tremendous ability of a thetan, it's how complex existence can be. What an imagination! And how certain he is of that imagination. Oh yes. He’s certain that’s true.

So, a communication has as much life in it as it is instantaneous. You just draw that curve and you see very plainly, the longer you stretch out a communication, why, the more death there is in it. And the faster the communication, the more life there is in it.

A little boy comes in and says he didn’t do something.

And because the MEST universe always imposes a communication lag, there is always a little bit of death in any MEST communication. It has as much life in it as there is life. It doesn’t have as much life in it as there is MEST universe in it.

And Mother says yes he did too do it. How does she know he did it? Well, she saw him. And she expects him to actually accept that as proof. To her it is illogical, utterly illogical, that he should argue on this fashion: “Just because you saw me do it is no reason I did it.” And you know, that’s proof and she will eventually get him to agree with her that that’s proof, but it wasn’t proof until she got him to agree. Lord knows what she saw before that point and Lord knows what he did, but when he agreed, why, he was there and that was that.

MEST universe does not impart any life to a communication-it takes it out. It’s a deleting sort of a universe. And that’s why you can plot that C to E communication line along with the Create-Survive-Destroy curve. I like to give you these happy thoughts this early in the morning.

Now, as the past becomes true and imaginative things become unconvincing, why, an individual gets deeper and deeper and more into the “reason why” and more into trouble. Don’t mistake yourself, a person can get into trouble there is no doubt about that! He didn’t all do it himself either, he just kind of floundered around and fell over himself and you get this many tangled factors and you throw them together and you can just by pure accident have somebody in trouble.

The funny part of it is, see, that if you stop communicating, you’re really dead. The goal is to make communication more instantaneous and less MESTy.

All right. We look at these factors, we find out in terms of processing they combine an enormous number of processes. Oh I, just before lunch, gave the group here a process which was about the-well, it comes close to being a very pure process, which is to say, the damnedest, slightest significance in it imaginable.

Well, let’s take, now, this nothing-something problem and we see that the Theta-MEST Theory, originally, has not been greatly exceeded. Theta is a static, which is to say, it has no geographical position, it has no position in time. It has no position in the past, present or future, it has no mass, it has no wavelength, but it is capable of emanating wavelength. It is capable of creating space, energy; it is capable of locating things in space and time-capable of doing that.

And this process goes like this: You just take the eight dynamics, which are the component parts of the cycle-of-action, and you ask the individual to get what he’s most certain of on each dynamic. And you just go through the list over and over and over and each time what he’s getting most certain of.

And when you take a psychotherapy just on the basis of you let the individual locate things in space and time, you’ve got about as high as you can go in this universe without getting up into the techniques which you’re using in Operating Thetan. There wouldn’t be much higher in terms of a psychotherapy than just locating things in the past, in the present, in the future-it doesn’t matter whether they are imaginary or otherwise. But if they were creative things, you would be better off. Can you see that? Past, present and future.

And you’ll find out that the individual who is having a rough time with his case, quite often-and sometimes an individual who is having a rather easy time with his case-will suddenly go into a dope-off of some sort and begin to look groggy and begin to get a little bit confused. Occasionally this will occur.

It would be better off to create things to locate in the past, present and future, rather than to take things which existed in the past, present and future. It would be more therapeutic, because it comes up closer to what theta does.

Why does this occur? Well, it’s because he’s been taking all these impacts for his certainty and that’s the least certain thing there is. So as he started running over it and he took a look at those impact points, those old terminals, they started to pull apart-there he went. He tried to get energy out of something that didn’t have any energy in it and he expected to get energy out of it, so he went unconscious. See? And this just pulls apart ridges like mad, it just tears up the bank. It doesn’t particularly upset anybody, it’s a terrifically simple process. It’s combining a synonym for knowingness, which is certainty (and a very, very good synonym for knowingness-certainty), with the eight dynamics. Now boy, that’s really elementary. Component parts of existence are-and then the most simplified version we have here is just the eight dynamics. All the eight dynamics is, is a codification which embraces the most important factors of existence. So we just apply this and we get a simple process.

So you have this static opposed to a dynamic. Now, the dynamic may merely be postulated by the static, but that doesn’t bother us at all. There’s a theoretical total dynamic. There’s an all-motion something-at least a postulated one. And this interplays against the nothingness of theta to give us the nothingness-something category. And we have this as a brace there of things that makes a dichotomy, but it is a dichotomy of a peculiar kind and it is one to which you should pay a great deal of attention.

And the only real point I’m trying to make with this talk I’m giving you here, just adds up-nails down to this: you’re dealing with a simplicity. That does not mean, immediately, that these things don’t connect. People believe they connect, they’ve agreed upon them connecting, so therefore they do connect to that degree.

In other words, a nothingness of this universe and a somethingness of this universe makes up this universe, for the thetan-a nothingness of it, a somethingness of it. And when you start processing, you go in the direction not of a nothingness of the thetan, you go into the idea of a nothingness of this universe, you see. You can err therapeutically by talking about a nothingness of the thetan. I don’t know how you would call something that could do all the things a thetan can do a “nothingness”-in the total meaning of the word nothingness which means a non-entityness, which means many other things. It’s a little thing there that you have to retranslate because, you see, nothingness has gotten a lot of significance attached to it which it shouldn’t have. You know, “nothingness”-well, that means no good; “nothingness,” that means you don’t amount to anything; “nothingness,” that means you’re nameless; “nothingness”-yap, yap, yap.

Therefore, existence itself connects to that degree. And we have arrived and could get to a state of case where it all begins to look this way, not because we’ve been told so, but we can process people in the direction where there’s very little significance, simply because we know these elements which I have just listed to you. You know, knowingness, duplication, interiorization, exteriorization, Tone Scale, dynamics, something-nothing, scale from Know down to Sex, so on. You get the picture?

In other words, theta tries to keep itself from knowing that it is nothing, tries to keep itself from knowing it is nothing. But what kind of a nothing is it? It’s a potential something.

We know these things because we’ve actually taken the anatomy of existence apart and we’ve said, “Now look, it can be nailed down in these categories and can be processed in this fashion.”

All right. An engineer will argue with you sometime when you’re instructing and say, “A static? Hold on! Brum-brum. Static is all forces at rest.”

Okay.

And you say, “Yes, that’s true, point of static.”

“All forces in equilibrium bringing an object at rest,” he’ll say.

“Well, all right,” he’ll say, “that roll of paper there is at a state of rest and is therefore a static.”

And you say, “Where did you study physics?”

“Well, it is!”

“But you never took astronomy?”

“Well, no.”

“Well, how many directions and how fast do you think that piece of paper is moving at this moment?”

“Oh well, that’s all theoretical.”

“Now, wait a minute. You said there wasn’t-that piece of paper was a static and there was something there, but is that piece of paper a static? That piece of paper, just by the revolution of the Earth, is rotating at a speed of one thousand miles an hour.”

All right. You say to this engineer that that is moving at a thousand miles an hour and he recognizes that as true. Actually, it’s moving in eight separate directions, just to be in the solar system. There are eight separate directions it’s moving, so it’s obviously not a static. It could be a static in relation to something else and then we get into relative truth and then we get into data and we’re not much interested in either one.

So, a true static would bring you to the definition of a true zero. What would be an absolute zero? An “absolute zero” would have no geographical location, it would have no position in the past or the present or the future. It would have no mass, never Could

have had any mass, hasn’t any mass now and will never have any mass. Could never have had a geographical location, doesn’t have a geographical location, will never have a geographical location. Can never have had any motion, hasn’t any motion and will never have any motion-and that would be the definition of “zero.”

Mathematics-now we’ve taken physics and kicked it in the teeth, let’s take mathematics and kick it in the teeth and find out that they’re working with this wild variable called zero. And they benignly put down these zeros and teach a little kid arithmetic and do all sorts of interesting things with zero and all the time wonder why their mathematics doesn’t come out true.

What if they put N or X, irresponsibly, in every equation? One apple plus X plus one apple equals two apples.

And you say, “Now wait a minute, that’s not right.”

And the fellow said, “Well, there it is.”

And you say, “Well now, what if that X-what is X?”

“Well, X represents something that we don’t know.”

And you say, “Well, I’ll buy one apple plus one apple equals two apples. That’s wrong, but it’s right enough for our purposes here. But this one apple, plus X apples, plus one apple equals two, I will not buy unless-unless X is admitted to have no value at all and yet X says, by definition, that it could have any value you assigned to it-it has an indeterminate value.”

Then you’d get something silly in algebra, immediately. It would look like this: X-the second you worked it out in algebra, you would say X equals 0. One apples plus no apples plus one apple equals two apples.

Well, you’d understood yourself to have said, “No apples ever. Never have been any apples in that zero. There is no possible quantity of apples could ever be injected into it, so therefore you have already exceeded by putting X in the equation, because you said

there was a z;ero in the equation. Well, the zero is someplace, so that immediately that it went someplace, it became a variable. The second you put it down, it’s a variable. So, zero is something which you can’t even put into an equation and have the equation completely right. So, we get into the problem of absolute correctness and we find it doesn’t exist by that reason. We can’t work mathematics if we’re going to keep on holding on to zero. They’ll just have to put something else in there.

Now, it’s peculiar that algebra has known this for many, many years. They’ve known all about this. They can make one equal two and everything else, by multiplying and dividing by zero. Well, if you can multiply and divide by zero, it must have some kind of a strange value, isn’t it? But the algebra professors have uniformly put it on the blackboard as a gag-humor. They’ve never realized that they were looking straight into the teeth of, actually, the solution of mathematics, which demonstrated that mathematics had a relative truth, as long as they considered it relative and as long as it was applied relatively and therefore could never be used to work out abstracts. So, mathematics cannot work out abstracts and it doesn’t. So therefore mathematics is nowhere near as good as the English language in working out the field of thought and behavior. So we have language itself being the only symbolic system which will work out behavior. Numbers and symbols themselves, arbitrarily assigned, will not.

All right. We get into the eight dynamics and we find out that we have actually compartmented our cycle-of-action, there’s our cycle-of-action. It goes from Create through Survive to Destroy and it has eight parts. There’s Create-Survive-Destroy on the Eighth Dynamic and Create-Survive-Destroy on the Seventh Dynamic and Create-Survive-Destroy on the Sixth and Create-Survive-Destroy on the Fifth and so on down to the First. And there are the eight dynamics.

And this-in Dianetics we were using this as “Survive!” because that’s what life is fixated on. Well, it’s Create-Survive-Destroy on those dynamics. And when you work the eight

dynamics with the realization that they’re a compartmentation of Create-Survive-Destroy, not a compartmentation of "Survive,” it becomes much more workable as a process.

For instance, the creation and destruction of God. God can’t exist for an individual unless he’s creating and destroying him continually. An individual can’t exist as himself unless he is creating and destroying himself continually. An individual who is trying not to destroy himself can’t create himself and thus cannot continue to exist. An individual that is unwilling, horrified, upset or, in other words, balked on self-destruction, of course would be immediately balked on self-creation.

And we get the center of the curve, which is Survive. All you had to do to a society was to make it completely illegal to kill or be killed and you immediately exceeded the cycle. But it makes a civilization, it makes a game. The trouble with the game is, it becomes, itself, too much of a persistent game. The game itself then becomes a game because of a game, of a game, of a game, of a game, with no other action in it than existing. And you get down to mere existence.

Give you an example of this-let’s get a terrifically practical application of this. We have a preclear who’s been relatively unhappy and, well, let’s have this preclear do something very peculiar. Let’s have this preclear write his name on a little doll and put the little doll in a little cigar box and take it out in the garden and bury it. And then give himself a new name and move to an address and get another job. Do you know that that as a therapy is intensely workable?

And that is actually the drama of death and it’s really no more serious than that. It’s the sole modus operandi the thetan has left. He has a sort of an automatic Create-Destroy. He gets born, he dies and survives in between. He’s got this mocked-up as his only out. Now, he keeps getting dispossessed of his havingness and so forth and he goes on this cycle, but it’s the only way he feels he can continue to live.

This is not true at all. An individual does not have to go through this cycle of birth and death in order to survive. He would survive anyhow. He can’t help himself but survive.

So, we get into ARC and, of the ARC, most important is of course C. R, however, because the only way we can co-have is by agreement, havingness enters into the R. And for the first time here in the last few months, we have had a crushing solution to reality. How do you solve that R on that triangle of affinity, reality and communication? Havingness Processing. You’ll find out the individual’s reality caves in to the degree that he loses and very often, to the degree that he gains.

You know how to really fix up somebody? Yeah, you could knock somebody into a level of unreality-this is not done, it’s not as usual as the other method, but it’s just as certain-you could probably knock somebody utterly unconscious by walking in and handing him a million dollars in gold bars.

Female voice: That’s the nicest way I can think of to go unconscious. [laughter]

Nice way, that’s true, but he’d-nevertheless, it would get-everything would get very unreal.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

I saw an example of this one time with an orphan who had never had anything but the asylum and he was taken in by a family and given a Christmas. And they gave him-they were rather well-off and they gave him a very, very nice Christmas. He went into a state of coma. He walked around, he didn’t know whether he was going or coming.

Now you see, our imagination on how much we could have does not usually get exceeded; we throw it all off into the unreality. We say, “Oh, well, that’s just imagination that I could have the kingdom of Persia. Oh, that’s nonsense. That’s just delusion and nothing like that would come true.”

Now, a little kid believes he can have the kingdom of Persia and by the time he’s sixteen knows he can’t. Well, that’s the difference between realities. The little kid, of course, has a

tremendous reality on the world. He knows he could have the kingdom of Persia. And an older person knows that that would just be nonsense. You know, nobody would suddenly walk in and dump a million dollars in his lap or the kingdom of Persia or something like this-he couldn't acquire that fast, so ...

But recognize what that is: that is unreality. See? I mean, we say, “Well, nothing like that would ever happen, that’s an unreality.” And a lot of your preclears are walking around slugged with having gained. You see that?

Female voice: Gertrude at the lunch wagon is awfully bewildered because somebody offered to finance her to the tune of five thousand dollars and a new lunch wagon.

Sure, well that would be very unreal. There must be something behind it, there must be other motives, there must be all kinds of things. I mean, we’d immediately get into a figure-figure-figure.

Now, when you’re running loss, remember to run gain. Unreality, then, is an exceeded rate of havingness. That’s a very, very interesting point. It’s just exceeded. Less-lessened-I guess to be in proper English there, I should say, lessened and exceeded or reduced or exceeded rate of havingness. Actually, it’s exceeded.

The person starts out with nothing and is in his highest knowing state, you see, at nothing and he works himself out to get a rate of expected havingness, which is nothing, and then this gets exceeded and there’s his first unreality. It isn’t the reverse-it isn’t that he lost something, because he started in by not having anything, so he couldn’t lose it. It must have been his first big gain that knocked him for a loop. And possibly the unreality of the entrance into the MEST universe is just that: this tremendous, sudden gain. It just overpowers the individual and after that, he’s in a horrible slugged-up condition.

Now, you give a psychotic too much sound or you give even a normal person too much sound and he’ll go into a hypnotic trance. This is done by exceeding his havingness.

Now, everyone has a survival rate and that survival rate is really a rate of havingness, " because it’s a rate of time. And when you say rate, you say time, so this must be havingness, so this, in itself, is his reality.

But when a man changes around his rate of havingness-which is to say, he changes around his amounts, gains, terminals and so forth-plotted against the rate at which space is being manufactured, why, the amount of mass per the amount of space has a terrific effect.

Now, we’ve been sneaking up on that one for a long time. I call that to your attention. And the rate of havingness means simply the amount of mass per dimension of space and A that would give you time. That would plot your time, so that a fellow could very easily have this room full of air and over the period of two months, he actually could have W this room full of coal. Well, he wouldn’t be unhappy about it. Well, supposing we got the room full of air today and at two o’clock got it full of coal. We would not be happy about that. We would come back in here and say, “What the hell are we going to use for " a lecture room?”

But supposing this instant it became full of coal?

Male voice: Worse.

Well, that s what death is, “Death” is too much havingness or too darned little.

Well, out of this havingness and these other compounds, we get an arbitrary Tone Scale which will predict the individual’s reaction. Part of that scale, but not the minus scale, is up there on the wall—Chart of Human Evaluation—we can predict behavior.

Well, one of the ways of predicting behavior is under havingness. How will a person act under havingness? Now, you can monitor a person’s behavior with havingness, if you’re in a position to take away and give them things, see?

I want to call to your attention... One time there was a fellow I knew, he was a mining engineer, he was a good friend of mine, he was educated-a classmate at GW-and then went out West and took a postgraduate course at Bozeman. And this boy was kicking around the mining camps and, all due respect to womankind at large, the better women do not hang around mining camps. But he decided to get romantic and he got married. And he married a woman straight out of the cribs, that is to say, she was for sale and had been for years. But, what do you know, fantastically enough, she made him a good wife and everybody was very fascinated with this. They went up in the mountains, he did a lot of prospecting for Anaconda Copper and they-looking over old properties and so on. And all went along all right, he was living a rather rough life and a lot of privation in it and a lot of loneliness and so forth. So, everything was okay.

He finally quit Anaconda Copper on the thought that there were some lodes that went out from a very famous mine, which had been closed down, which might still be active. Well, that was a very lonely part of the country, too, and he went down there with this woman and he prospected around and by golly, he uncovered the most enormous quantity of “five-dollar rock” and away he goes.

Well boy, he’d exceeded her rate of havingness. [laughter] Bang! And you talk about a mess! He was in more trouble, in less time, than he’d been for years. Interesting. Oh, she went completely haywire, I mean, just went off the deep end.

Well, what had happened there? He’d all of a sudden become well-off. He had about a half a million dollars in the bank. He, all of a sudden, was driving Cadillacs and she was able to wear fur coats and that sort of thing and it was just the end. She just went completely to pot! Went out, slept with anything that came along, just stole money, did anything.

What had happened? You see, you could look at that for a long time if you didn’t know about behavior’s influence- the influence of behavior by havingness.

Now, you get somebody else, he’s been going along in life, he’s been doing fine and they own these eighteen houses and they own their own string of polo ponies for the boy and that sort of thing and a yacht for the daughter and so forth. And by golly, some dog comes along and takes away this-eighteen houses and cuts these poor people down to about twenty-five thousand a year. And you’d say, “No! Twenty-five thousand a year? That’s a lot of money.” They all go to pieces, just go into rags and ruin. The boy goes bad and the girl goes bad and the old man gets arthritis and, etc.

Well, I’ve seen many a wife get a psychosomatic illness when the rate of havingness was exceeded-you know, it was increased too much. You know, they just lived fine in the old sod hut and now all of a sudden they’ve got this big beautiful home and all she can think about is how horrible it will be having to take care of it, completely overlooking the fact that she now has two maids. See?

So whenever this rate of havingness is violently upset on the individual, you get a marked change of behavior. And that behavior is predicted by how much rate of havingness was altered, which immediately plots exactly how high or how low a person moves on that Chart of Human Evaluation.

You can take a person at 3.0 and reduce his havingness markedly and suddenly-the ratio, you see, of space to objects-and bring him down to a raving psychotic. If you reduced his rate of havingness fast enough, he would be in awfully bad condition. All right.

Now, we could do the same thing. We could take somebody at 1.5 and we could increase his rate of havingness a little bit and all of a sudden find him riding at 2.5.

We could take somebody at 3.5 and increase his rate of havingness remarkably and suddenly find him running at .5.

What we’ve got is the first thing we were talking about with this Unit, which is a change of survival pace. And I told you at that time-I can make it clearer now-that to shift the survival pace of the individual too wildly will shift him on the Tone Scale, downward.

So, you’re looking for a process which will clear somebody in five minutes, huh?

Female voice: Yeah.

Well, there is one.

Female voice: Shoot them. [laughter]

And there’s where memory goes, because there’s where reality goes on past lives: it’s a shift of the rate of havingness-remarkable fast shift.

When you find somebody actually remembering a death, well, he’s sort of stuck on the whole thing and it gets real and unreal and so forth, it couldn’t have been a very violent death. There are much more violent deaths there and they are utterly submerged, because the change of the rate of havingness was fantastically fast.

All right. He’ll remember, then, his mild deaths. So we just don’t run these past deaths to worry about it at all, we just don’t bother with them particularly, because they’re hot.

There sits your preclear, apparently in good condition, running along at a certain rate of havingness, able to get along, not going to change very much and so forth and so on.

Now, you could, by using a tremendously powerful technique, alter his rate of havingness in terms of his own bank-engrams and so forth-and so practically knock him out through the bottom. But, unfortunately, you would only knock him out through the bottom, he’d only go out through the bottom, he would not go out through the top. It’s something for you to remember: the change of rate of havingness.

Exteriorization will sometimes produce this result upon the individual, but because it is true that a thetan doesn’t have to have, it produces it much less often than you would normally suppose. And we’d say, “Be three feet back of your head” to somebody and he is, with perfect certainty, and he’s all right and he’s-everything is fine and he’s quite certain he’s there. And then he goes back into his body and doesn’t know whether he was out or not. That’s a curious one, isn’t it? Well, when he went in, back into his body, you shifted his rate of havingness the opposite direction and worsened his memory.

The truth is, that to exceed the rate of havingness, which as I say, I’m not talking now about reducing. We’ve too long been stuck on this reduction of havingness as having been the only criminal. Loss, you see. Let’s just do a flip on this thing. And his rate of havingness was exceeded when he was reinteriorized and so his reality is worse, having come back into the body, but it was better, having been exteriorized. You’ll find that is routine, which kind of proves up our point here a bit.

Now, you see there that the individual who cannot and does not want to create or destroy something will get it in a tremendous survival condition.

Well, therefore, you get mock-ups in these three conditions. You are able to get the person-what he can have, things will fly in automatically on him. They’d usually be something poor, something not too bad. And what he can’t have, they quite often will be something very good, that he can’t have. And we get those things, if he can get something good enough, it will fly away from him automatically or something really poor enough. I mean, we’ve exceeded his rate of havingness there. And we’re able, then, to disenfranchise him from some of this MEST havingness with which he’s involved.

Now, energy can’t remember, energy never has remembered, energy has no memory.

A piece of string tied on your finger tells you to remember and so does any piece of energy tell you to remember. Unless you already knew what you were supposed to get because you tied the string on your finger, unless you already knew, then you wouldn’t know if you just looked at the piece of string. Well, in such a wise, energy works this way. And therefore, the recovery of memory on the full track, so on, does not depend

too much on simply giving back the fellow everything he ever had. This would drown him. So memory on the full track should be inspected on the other direction: let’s knock out his cravings to have and, having knocked those out, we will recover his reality.

I’ve made tests both ways, by the way, and the latter way is the efficient way.

We find him then also in the condition where he gets a solid mock-up. Any time you see somebody getting a solid mock-up, he must be sitting on something that really has to survive. And that tells you that this MEST universe, which you see over here so solid, must be right in the middle of that Create-Survive curve. It’s solid. And the body you’re in must be right on that. It must be terrifically obsessed to be that solid.

Now, these are the component parts with which we are dealing. I wanted to cover them again with you and cover them with a little wider length. Each one of these things-each one of these things has, of course, its own specific, precise definition. You should know those definitions.

There’s one other item, is control. To control something you only need to start it, stop it or change it. And most of the exteriorizations which you run into which are difficult are because the individual believes he won’t be able to control the body if he exteriorizes. You get him to start it and stop it and change it a few times and he will change his mind about being able to control a body.

How do you teach somebody to do something? You teach somebody to do something by making him start it, stop it and change it.

All right. Let’s look over the main problem, then, and find out that it’s time and that time translates into havingness and if this translates into havingness, then we have a problem of interiorization and exteriorization. It’s not non sequitur at all, it’s the accumulation of havingness occurs by being pounded from 360 degrees by the MEST universe waves. And this, accumulating, becomes mass and it has the thetan at the center of it and it makes him smaller and smaller and smaller. Well, he has to be able to exteriorize out of

any mass or interiorize into any mass, in order to be at ease and to play the game and, actually, to know.

Now, how do you increase his knowingness? You remedy his havingness. How do you remedy his havingness? Exteriorize and interiorize him out of anything and everything you can lay your hands on.

And there, for my money, is the track of the answer, which I have given you in this last hour. I’ve actually given you a complete review of Scientology. And the problems which you are facing in the preclear are no more than these.

Okay?