I am very, very happy to tell you today that I have notes. This is a very fine thing, to have notes. Your notes know all about it, you don't have to know a thing. When you get a pc all you do is take the notes, put them down on the auditor chair and go out for a smoke, come back and he's Clear. I mean, there's nothing to it!

I'm always suspicious of a university which grades its students' notebooks - always suspicious of one. Because obviously they can't have any students, can they? I remember one notebook that used to be sold around in university I attended. They tell me it's been - it had been in circulation for fifteen years and the professor had never noticed it yet.

Today we're going to talk about the Logics and Axioms of Dianetics and Scientology. This is the first lecture on these Axioms in many, many years. Interest in these should be quite keen because concealed along the line -concealed, all the while making an effort not to conceal it, is a great deal more knowledge even than we have worked out at this moment. These are the basic postulates which make the track a track. These are the basic data of life and livingness. These data have proven true and constant, and are actually the senior data all the way along the line in this particular subject.

And oddly enough, at the Sorbonne, in 1953 I think it was, a professor there wrote me a letter and said whether these Axioms were right or wrong was beside the point, they were the first attempt to organize a study of the mind into precise terms.

As a matter of fact, this opinion was not alone with this particular professor. And I found in 1953, late in '53, that where Dianetics was known in Europe, this was also known, and just like that is the way it was known. That right or wrong, this was the first attempt to organize human knowledge about the mind. And therefore, why, many good things could be expected of it, simply because it set a precedent. It was something brand-new on the face of earth.

Now, I suppose they had an idea that they could study these things and then revise them and look them over and so forth and come up with something really good, you know? And that's all right with me. It'd be - I'd be very happy if they came up with something better. But they keep reading them and using them and not revising them. Well, it must be there's some sort of a constancy here.

Now, it was very amazing during this past winter of '58, '59 to make as many advances technically as were made. I was rather amazed that the time between the 20th American ACC, which was the summer of '58, and you might say now, that as much gain was made in technology - development of processes and the obtaining ofresults - as had been made in a previous five or six years.

Well now, when things were in good shape in December of '57 when the first MEST Clears - MEST Clear procedures were announced, and January of '58 when the first actual products were beginning to show up, we were making MEST Clears - certainly, certainly that was a tremendous gain. Not really though, we were merely parallel with about 1947.

Now, one wouldn't think that this many advances would follow such a peak. Here was this peak called MEST Clear. And then tremendous advances followed this. And those advances took place between the 20th American ACC, which was the mid- summer of 1958, and now. A little incorrect to say now, because you might say these things were at a high peak about February of '59. There hasn't been too much since February - except results. And the results just keep coming in, coming in, coming in. The cases that were never were touched they were - they're all scraped up and straightened out. And auditors that could never audit before are auditing.

And - and things are booming here and they're booming there and we're looking into the teeth of a tremendous upsurge.

Some of the reports I'm getting, for instance, from Australia are couched in this wise. Australia considers itself in competition with other continents, since it wants to be the first all-Scientology culture. See? Big, new, ambitious look. Interesting.

Squirrels - squirrels that one hasn't heard from for just years and years and years are crawling out of the wormholes in trees and saying, "No, you shouldn't do that, that's terrible." We always know when we're really going. When we're really going, people start showing up that we haven't heard of in a long time and say, "You shouldn't have done that." It's quite remarkable.

Well, what's more remarkable than any of those gains was the fact that they were already in the Axioms. Isn't that interesting? We look back and we find them already in the Axioms.

Perhaps the biggest - the biggest upsurge took place on my observation of exactly what an auditor was doing who couldn't audit. And exactly what a preclear was doing on whom we could not get results. And exactly what he was doing you have already had, which is the Reality Scale. But the basis of that we call not-isness -not-isness.

And when we look at not-isness, we've got the whole thing; and it's right in the Axioms. The Axioms of Scientology years and years ago covered this subject of not- isness.

Now, it isn't that this was a forsworn, fantastic future prediction or something of that sort. These things, these Axioms are known to be true in the world of postulate. In the world of agreement and postulate they're known to be true. All right, what do we do here? We try to tie them down to this life and this universe and that takes technology.

Now, to most people the basic realities of Dianetics and Scientology are its technical realities, not its philosophic realities. To me the realities which are real in Dianetics and Scientology are the philosophic realities - meaning its postulate and agreement levels of how all - this all came about, you see, rather than how do we undo what came about. And you'll find many people will stand around and say, "Well, that is a good process and that isn't a good process," and they never talk about the theoretical side of the subject at all. Well, here we see the theoretical side covered very widely.

Now I want to invite your attention, before we go into the Axioms of Scientology, to some Prelogics which were originated here in England in 1954. Now, the Logics and Prelogics are just as much a part of the Axioms of Scientology as they were the Axioms of Dianetics. You should not forget, or lose sight of, the Prelogics and the Logics, because much of the material which you have before you stems straight out of the Prelogics. And you look at the Prelogics and then after you've been practicing Scientology for a while they look like old friends, even though you haven't seen them before. That's because so much of the material you're using stems out of them.

So what we actually should study in looking this over - the Prelogics, the Logics and the Axioms of Scientology. And we should also look over and read the Axioms of Dianetics, more as interest than anything else. Because this really was the first attempt to organize, in an orderly fashion, a science of life.

And we have gone by and bypassed many of these earlier Axioms. You'll notice there are tremendous number of Dianetic Axioms. They go on and on and on. They're clear over here to Axiom 194. Now, that - there were actually some more than that and - however, they take up complexities in which we are not terribly interested. But from a theoretical or philosophic side, there are things in the Dianetic Axioms that tend to organize ontology and tend to organize entomology - etymology.

Now, why? That's because we had to sort things out about knowingness before we could know about something. Well, we find the fundamentals of knowingness are contained in the Prelogics and Logics.

But I'll give you an example of the Axioms of Dianetics here, which is - which are interesting. Axiom 188, clear up along the line we find, Absolute good and absolute evil do not exist in the MEST universe. Well, that's true, but that stems out of an earlier Axiom: Absolutes are unobtainable.

Now, one fine day, you're - find yourself in an argument with - with some fellow, a priest or something like this; and they're great argufiers. They're tremendous argufiers. I used to play chess and argue with a priest. My chess got so associated with this argument I haven't played a good game since.

But he was dealing in the field of absolutes. And he was having a very happy time dealing in the field of absolutes. And there was red and black and white and black and right and wrong and evil and good and so on. And to a fairly reasonable man this looks like bigotry. See, it's zealotism, it's dealing with the extremities and never looking at the middle of anything.

We have the embracement of the basic philosophies of Aristotle merely because they wanted extremes. But we read over Aristotle and we find out the lesson of extremes which were apparently read from Aristotle by the later Christian doctrines and so on. Most Christian doctrines, you know, are based on the pagan philosophers -Aristotle, Plato and so forth. You might not realize that totally, but the early Christian church proved itself to be true by the philosophies of Plato. I don't know if you knew that.

It's quite interesting.

These pagan philosophers evidently had something. But nobody read all of them; nobody read all of these documents. They just took what they wanted out of them and let the rest go. Because Aristotle talked about something called a pendulum, the Aristotelian pendulum which - things tended to swing to extremes. And he discussed this all philosophically and he was adequately aware of the fact there was a middle ground. But the students of Aristotle were not aware of the fact there was any middle ground or any reasonability whatsoever. And so they merely wanted some way to swing to extremes. And we find the modern logician referring to Aristotelian logic as being a two-valued logic. Aristotle didn't invent it. It was invented by students of Aristotle.

Now similarly, you'll find people going through these Axioms here and there just to prove their own points. Well, that's fine. If they need reinforcement for their own points, why, I'm very happy to provide the reinforcement.

But these are what they are. The basic understanding of life was put together in this form so that we could have a progressive organization that we could profit by.

Now, we have some riches still in the Logics and Prelogics that have never been mined. And similarly, in the Axioms of Dianetics, you could say that too; but particularly the Axioms of Scientology. Not-isness is contained in not less than three Axioms of Scientology. In other words, the Axioms of Scientology had forecast the tremendous technical development which did not take place for another six years. So there's still other material in this other material. It's - it's, you might say, a little more than mental exercise looking at it, because if you can see these things, if you can understand them, if you can learn them, why, life tends to simplify and even get more interesting. Certainly gets a lot less confusing.

Now, if we look over this idea, however, of studying them, what are we studying? This is fabulous, you see? I couldn't teach you any of these things unless you already knew them. But if you already knew them, then you must have forgotten about them to have to read them. Do you understand? So, there must be a forgettingness between you and these Axioms. And so we find it's the case. When any student at HPA/HCA level starts studying the Axioms he generally goes, "Duuhh." And the exact mechanism of how he goes, "Duh," is quite interesting. And that is to say, he already knows these things, you see? The woof and warp of his life - the -you might say, the felt is woven into the woof and warp of his life by these things.

Here's life, its basic postulates and agreements, which he then no longer confronts, has backed away from, has flinched from and he has forgotten. Well, forgettingness is done in various ways, basically a postulate, but down the line a little bit it's mud. And there's-he'll get into some kind of a mental goo that he has associated with forgettingness, and you say, "Tra-la-la-la-la" the Qs of the Prelogic.

You say, "Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses." And the individual says, 'Uh-sa, da, da-da, da. What? Wha-what-what's that?"

"Well," the fellow says, "all right, now just go over it calmly and dispassionately. 'Self-determinism...'" One student trying to teach the other student these - these things, you know? "Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses."

"Well, sure. Self-det--. Huh?"

But if the study is pursued - remember what I told you about order being the basis and disorder being the second postulate. Therefore, the first postulate can discharge the second postulate. So the action of going over the Axioms in general, the Logics and Prelogics, simply results in the discharge of a tremendous amount of stupidity.

Grogginess, susceptibility to flows, all of these things could be subheaded just "being stupid." They are mechanisms of forgetting, you see? Mechanisms of forgettingness.

Now, when we say, "Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses," we can study this, we can read it, we can know it. Why can we know it so well? Because it's already known.

Now, there are various things that we could learn about these Axioms, but the one thing I wouldn't want you to learn about these Axioms is simply a parroting of a number of words which sound like the tinkle of a temple bell and sounding brass. It's just nowhere, you see? That'd be the wrong way to approach this whole problem.

What one seeks to reach is one's understanding. If one can use these things in life, or if he can understand life by them then he can understand because simply he can understand. And a study of them culminating in an ability to know them, without getting stupid, is a very particular and beneficial type of process. Quite an amazing thing! Some groups, just as an experiment over the years, have undertaken a study of, let us say, the Logics or the Axioms of Scientology. And have done nothing but study them and discuss them and so on and read them, and try to memorize them, and forget them and discuss them. And then try to have at it again and then understand them for a short time and then forget it all the next day and have gradually brought these things out into the clear. And just in that process all by themselves, they made enormous progress in the direction of clearing. Very slow, but certainly very beneficial and quite stable.

Let's - let's look over the Logics now and find something that is new, not old, called the organization of the science of education. Education cannot occur in the absence of at least an intuitive grip on the Logics. This is very amazing, very amazing.

Because there's a lot of people talking about education today. And a tremendous number of people today who are being very chary about running universities and running schools and so forth, that I don't think they could teach anybody anything. Because they haven't any basic stable data for education!

There are several technical drills that I could mention in passing rather than have them get swamped and lost. There were several drills. I think they were used in the 17th ACC, if I remember rightly. These technical drills were how you got a datum into somebody else's skull. And you gave him the datum and then he discussed it in certain ways, then you repeated the datum to him, you got him to repeat the datum back to you and you went back and forth over this datum - only they were very precise and rather arduous drills. It's a good thing to remember that these exist somewhere. There's no reason to go into them right now but they are called to your attention. I am sure they appeared in the Professional Auditor Bulletins and they're probably somewhere along that line.

Now, these - these were educative. And we discovered at once the various barriers to education and examined them very interestedly. It all comes under the heading that an individual is taught what he basically knows, and in the process of teaching it, his - of learning it, his stupidity is restimulated. And until he is taught it basically, often enough and long enough, he'll still have some stupidity that will come off. But if he is taught it adequately, the stupidity is no longer there and he can use the subject.

We get to the first thing that we would require of an educational science, which would be the relay of information - this is just a paraphrase - the relay of information or data from one person to another person, or from one mind to another mind, so as to leave it susceptible to use or available for use in the other mind. That's just a paraphrase, you see?

Now, if we said, "'Ug-wug, spatter mug,' and those are the magic words which you must write on your examination paper. If you wrote those, why, you all get an 'A' and everything would be fine. You'll all get certificates and that would be it. 'Ug-wug, spatter mug,' that's all you'd have to remember and write down. Doesn't mean anything to you, didn't mean anything to us."

Now, the process of teaching "Ug-wug, spatter mug" over four, six - in the United States I think it's getting up to an optimum of 135 years of education - that is, before one is permitted to work. This was meaningless on the part of the person who taught it, was meaningless on the part of the person who received it and the stupidity of it on the part of the person who taught it simply Q-and-Aed with the stupidity on the part of the person learning it. And this must be true if I tell you the other item. Nobody intended anybody to use any part of it to do anything!

So if information is not for use, it's for nothing. Unless, of course, I suppose, you just could get some kind of a serene joy of pure knowingness or something and just sit there and know.

I had - I found - I was running an engram on Mary Sue one day, and we found an area of track where they had a great big bullding up in the sky. And everybody did something. It was old space opera stuff. And everybody in this building was simply engaged in knowing. They didn't - they didn't use any data. They didn't send any data anyplace. They didn't do anything with the data and the data was not related to anything. They were engaged in an exercise of pure knowingness. They just sat there. We ran all the way through it and all of a sudden she almost blew out of the chair - she never experienced such boredom in her life.

Well, there was a perfect example of beautiful serenity of pure knowingness, merely contemplating it and so forth. Well, all right, there are such subjects. I am sure there is such a thing. But what we're inviting there is an absence of communication. So you can know without communication, that's for sure. But nothing about the knowingness will manifest if communication is absent.

Application is, therefore, communication plus knowingness. Or knowingness plus communication equals application. And the moment that you add communication into the line, then the beauties and joys of pure knowingness blow out the window.

Communication is a necessary part of education, very definitely. So is any other part of Scientology.

So I don't know how anybody ran a university without being a Scientologist. I don't, frankly! Unless - unless a university was best defined as a stadium totally surrounded by small buildings.

'Now, where we look over these - these Logics, we are struck by this fact. That here we have, in actuality, only the need of a few labels such as "education", "communication"- some of these things which I have just mentioned, you see?

Definition of what education is, a few drills to teach somebody something, and the rest of this about knowledge, to actually round out a highly scientific education subject. How to educate. There are numerous applications, then, for these things. All you'd have to do is put some meat on the bones and you'd have a new science. You see? Got that? Just put some meat on the bones, you'd have a new science.

Now, why is that? Because these are the bones on which life has always laid meat to make something. Get the idea? Doesn't matter whether you have a skyscraper or a tunnel under a river or a new airplane. Doesn't matter whether you have a clinic that you're trying to persuade soldiers to be good when they're on leave, or... It doesn't matter what you're doing, or what life was trying to communicate about or accomplish, or how life was trying to be lived, these were the bones on which the meat was being laid. And pretty soon it got to be pretty ragged meat, because they were putting meat on meat, you see? And they were putting meat on meat on meat. And then they didn't notice that some of the meat had sort of rotted away and they put on some more meat, you know? And they got more and more complicated, more and more complicated, more and more complicated and fell away from basic simplicity

You want to know the cycle of life? It is the cycle of making simple things more complicated. Various activities are obsessed with this. You give a simple problem into the hands, for instance, of a modern mathematician, you're liable to get back the most complicated thing you ever heard of - incomprehensibly complicated! It almost blew him to pieces if you gave him a very simple problem. It excited some misemotion, usually.

Just walk up to some modern, highly paid, totally government-cloistered mathematician and ask him, "Say, old fellow, how much is two and two?" Well, he'd think you were being sarcastic, he'd think this, he'd think that, he'd think you were stupid. He'd think anything but how much is two and two! Well, there's nothing wrong with you asking this mental giant, "What's two and two?"

Not too many moons ago, putting on my false whiskers and real hair, I sneaked out to a laboratory where they were running a developed and modernized UNIVAC. They didn't call it that. It's a good enough name-mechanical brain, big mechanical brain - huge thing. Great big standard banks, great big channels for things to pour around on. Beautiful bullpen arrangement - data that couldn't be solved would gather in this bullpen and go round and round and round. And the wheels would whirr, and the meters would click and so on. It filled about two large rooms, this thing and all of its equipment.

Well, it had a keyboard and it had a tape answering and so forth. And I was trying to explain to one of the scientists that was operating this thing, I was trying to explain to him that that brain wasn't smarter than his brain because it took his brain to figure out a question to ask it and then took his brain to use or utilize or rationalize the answer which it gave. I swear if St. Peter had suddenly walked into the devil you couldn't have seen anybody more horrified at such atheism, such - I was an heretic, I was an heretic and so on. This guy couldn't get this; he couldn't get that he was smarter than the machine. And we almost came to blows, but being a Scientologist we didn't because I smoothed him out and got him interested in something else. Got -found something else he couldn't confront either. And...

He had the machine running, only it was idle because it was over a weekend. But they didn't turn it off because it took some fantastic number of hours to get the thing whirring and wheeling and checked out again. The thing was only being dead for twenty-four hours, you know? So they just let it sit there. You see, it was too complicated even to switch off because if they ever switched it off; why, Lord knows what would happen. They were really worshiping this thing.

I suppose in three or four years if I go back they'll all be walking around in yellow robes wearing prayer wheels or something, praying to the machine. Probably they'd be sitting over in the corner of the room putting their questions to the machine with prayers, you know? And random short circuits will occur in the machine, you see, and they'll figure that out as some communication which is highly symbolic and which means a certain thing, you know? I can see them three or four hundred years from now running the whole society because the machine blew a fuse, you know?

Because - something - very, very goofy.

So I walked over to the machine and I said, "Well, what is this? Just a keyboard. Looks like an adding machine keyboard."

He said, "You have to make a keyboard - this keyboard here punches a tape which puts the problem on the tape. And here," he said, "I'll show you something about it." He put a differential equation on it, one way or the other and he was - punched it all out. And it was very nice and ran it through and so forth. And it went into the machine. And it says, "Whirr, whirr, purr, purr," you know, "zoom, zoom, zoom.." And came out with, "The dy to the dx, the dy to dx, dy to dx, dy to dx equals 2 over

-195 to the nth."

And I thought, "Gee, that's wonderful. That's wonderful. What the hell does that mean?"

So I says, "Do you mind if I make a tape?"

"Oh," he says, "go right ahead, go right ahead. Place is yours, place is yours, Ron."

So, I said, "2 plus 2 equals - query." Put it on the tape. Put it in the machine. Hasn't given me 4 yet. Rather alarmed this chap. The 4 never came out the other end of it and he was a little bit upset.

He said, "What's alarming about it," he says, "that problem will probably move over into the bullpen and keep going round and round and round and round." And he said, "Someday we'll be running some rocketry." (This is the machine, by the way, that figures out the orbits.) And he says, "We'll be running the rocketry equations to figure out the orbits of some man-carrying missile that's being launched to Mars, and we'll get as a preface or in the middle of the thing, 2 plus 2 equals - eureka! 4!"

Now, this in essence is - this mechanism is just too complicated to answer a simple question. There's no great virtue, however, in complication - no great virtue. There's no particular virtue in having everything super-simple either. But there is no virtue in hiding it from yourself that things can be simple. Because things can be simple and you can reduce things to fundamentals. Things can be simple.

Someday, when the world looks just too confusing for words, look around and find something that you finally determine is a simplicity. And you'll be surprised how much confusion blows off just in the progress of it. Just look around in the problems you're enmeshed in and try to find a simplicity about the problems. Because simplicities most easily add up to certainties. And complexities most easily add up to uncertainties.

So, the more uncertainty or stupidity a person is susceptible to, the greater complexity he will enter into any problem or activity. Isn't that a nasty crack? If you think that over for a moment, it's a terribly nasty crack. The more stupid a person is, basically the more incompetent he is, the more complexity he will enter into activities or problems that he's confronting.

You listen to this someday. You see some fellow standing in front of a store window or something like this. And he's looking at a store window that's full of sporting goods. And you ask him there, you say, "What about that store window?" Man, he's liable to give you something about Samoa, or the price of - the price of cranberries or something like that, hardly anything about this sporting goods. It'll be something offbeat, that's for sure. He's just a casual observer. He walks along and he looks at sporting goods. You, you chump, believe that he'd be standing there gazing through this glass thinking about how nice it would be to play a game of baseball. And that's not generally what's - what the casual person gazing on something like that is really thinking about. He seldom thinks about what he's looking at. He's thinking about some complexity. Some removed and departed complexity the like of which you couldn't trace with the full services of a UNIVAC and an ENIAC.

You say, "Well, this fellow's standing there, he's looking at a window full of sporting goods. Now, obviously he's probably thinking..." This is the mistake writers make all the time. You believe people do this merely because writers think they do this, and you get this sequitur stream of consciousness in stories that you read. And the fellow's standing there looking at a window, he's naturally thinking about playing a game of ball with his little boy or something like that. Lord knows what he's thinking about.

But confrontingness in this society at this time isn't good enough to permit a person to observe and think about what he is looking at. And his method of taking away the curse of confrontingness and fixing it up so that he doesn't have to confront it, is to put a number of vias, which is to say complexities, between himself and the object. The less he can confront the more complexities he's going to place between himself and the object.

So you get, with a person's stream of consciousness while he is (quote) observing something (unquote), a direct index to his ability to confront or experience. Which is, of course, a direct index to his state of reality. Just like that - it's just a direct index.You'll find somebody - it's a beautiful day, the birds are a-wing and all that sort of thing, and he's walking down a country roadway. And you wouldn't think there was a thing in the world there but a country roadway and a man walking down a country roadway, and the birds a-wing and all that sort of thing. That's what you'd swear was going on, because you look at him and that's what's happening. And you'd be amazed where he is and what he is thinking about and how little of that day and the birds a-wing he has any contact with. Now, that's a direct index of his reality

- is the ability to confront.

So what we mean by reality of course, is an ability to confront or an inability to confront. Unreality is an inability to confront and the substitution of - by vias.

Now, you never saw anybody quite so certain that life is complicated and so forth as somebody that's very stupid. They know life is terribly complicated. They know it's terribly, terribly complicated, because they can't understand any part of it. So obviously it must be terribly complicated. This isn't - this isn't a reasonable assumption at all.

Now, the complications of basic fundamentals do bring about forms and beingnesses and combinations and so forth. But after a while, when individuals can't confront circumstances they start going off sideways and they get all sorts of things. And you'll find somebody with a stable datum like this: "Jewelers never go anywhere."

You say, "Now see here, son, what do you mean, jewelers never go anywhere? That's an awfully broad statement to make."

"No, no it's - no, no. It's true."

And you say, "Well, now look across the street. It's about five o'clock; in about three minutes you will see that jeweler leave his store and go home. Now, what do you mean he never goes anywhere?"

"Well, that's right. Jewelers never go anywhere."

The jeweler walks out of the door and goes home. You stand right there and watch him go home. Well, he's going somewhere, isn't he? He's going home. And you say to this fellow, "You see? You see?"

And he says, "That's right, I see, all right. Jewelers never go anywhere."

After a while you get the notion that you're not talking to anything. There's something missing around here someplace. You see this?

The ability to observe is the ability to confront. Now, when you ask an individual to confront a postulate or an agreement, there's no mass connected with this thing. It's merely a principle. He's not looking at a thing. He's looking at pure knowingness, also on the via of ink and paper or the via of a spoken word. But when he looks at the thing there's really nothing there but pure knowingness, right?

And you try to teach some people these things and they get sick. They get sick. You ask them to conceive a static; to conceive a nothing. A static isn't a nothing, but you ask them to conceive something of no mass.

Well, why should they get sick just trying to conceive something of no mass. If you don't believe this, look in Creation of Human Ability. There's one in there called "Conceiving a Static," which is a very fine process for any psychiatrist that you don't like.

People, as they go down scale and get more and more associated and identified with mass and energy and so forth, are less and less capable of even the self-realization of their own beingness.

Now, these data are the closest thing that you could get to a thetan in terms of significant thought. So you're looking right next door to a thetan when you're trying to study these things. Therefore a study of them shouldn't be interrupted. A study of them shouldn't be interrupted, simply because you get sick at your stomach and throw up a little bit, or feel terribly vague or something like that. Go ahead, have at it. But if you can't make it, get somebody to run some Havingness on you and then learn one. It's very interesting, you see? It's the absence of mass that makes them difficult to learn or understand.

So the study of the Axioms could be a trial by fire to you, unless you understood exactly what they are. You are not studying a thing. You are trying to know something that you already know. You are victimized to the degree that you are forced to conceive something which has no mass and which has only thought.

Therefore, many people take comforting refuge in the idea that all they have to do is memorize a stream of words and they got it! Tsk! Hah! Boy! Just - they memorize that stream of words.

If they say, "Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses. Ya- tum-ta, dum-bum. Om mani padme hum! Grog-grog wog-wong. Hah! Made it! And if I carefully don't understand any part of it, I'll keep it made." Well, when they start to understand some part of it they get ill.

To understand this thoroughly, you would actually have to put somebody on a research basis and run that old one of conceiving a static. Ask somebody to conceive a thetan, conceive a thetan, you know. Conceive a thetan. Conceive a thetan.

Conceive a thetan. Conceive a thetan. He'd be pretty sick after a while - ordinary run of human events. In fact, he's sufficiently upset that most auditors will stop it before they flatten it. In view of the fact it would probably take anywheres from seventy- five to a couple of hundred hours of somebody being very, very ill and queasy and upset and shot to pieces before they made the grade and could really conceive a static. But it's a piece of heroics which are not particularly necessary, you see? It's not a vital process.

But it certainly is a process which talks to you about knowinguess and pure knowingness. And it shows why people so avidly dive downhill into memorized lines, into symbols, into words, into mere parrotings and so on.

Well, if you want to teach somebody these Axioms, Logics and Prelogics, one of the ways to do it would be to take the old drill: you read the line to him and say, "What's that mean to you?" And he says whatever it is and you read the line to him and, "What's that mean to you?" And it'll finally mean to him exactly what you said. Then run him on about fifteen minutes of "Look around here and fmd something you can have" or "something you have." Run him about fifteen minutes on this and then work on another Axiom on this educational datum idea in the old PABs and drive another one home. Got the idea? He'd make the grade. He'd make the grade. You'd practically clear him in the process!

Or just he brave and read them over and understand them and say, "Whee!" A lot of people do that, too.

All right. Now, the Logics and Axioms are available in various forms. When they were originally written, I fully intended to expand each one into something that looked like a geometric proposition. Showed a proof, a demonstration, gave a research project for each one, how it could be demonstrated and so forth, since this seemed to be required. But I found out that if people didn't understand what they were reading when they read one of the Axioms, they weren't going to understand the explanation either. They were going to argue about the explanation. So to save you tremendous quantities of argument, I omitted the remainder of the project.

Now, running rapidly over some of these Prelogics, since these are never crushed home very hard, we find 1. Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses. It's certainly a common denominator. There's tremendous things to know about that thing. Immediately the meat shows up, you see, the second that you say this. Determination of self or determination of the actions of self and so forth.

Actually, there's a higher impulse and that's pan-determinism, others and self. But here we only want a common denominator of all life impulses. A common denominator would be self-determinism. We could say that's a common denominator because it goes all the way to the bottom. The one thing that survives all the way to the bottom is self-determimsm.

Other-determinisms or determinisms on other dynamics tend to fall away as you go all the way down. So this is a safe common denominator. It is not the highest common denominator. Because you can always work on this one, if you can get an individual's self-determinism picked up you'll pick up the individual.

Now, there's an old argument. There's an old, wonderful old argument, "We're all the same thetan." India, you run into this. Well, if everybody is all the same thetan, why are they all trying to individuate in India? What do we mean, to individuate? Be oneself and get away from the other fellow. Point out and insist on tremendous differences between self and the other fellow. What is all this insistence on tremendous differences between self and somebody else, and so forth? Being upset and annoyed simply because somebody misidentifies you.

Comes in and says to you, 'Ah, Miss Smogenbraken. How are you today, Miss Smogenbraken?"

And you say, "I'm sorry, the name is Smith."

And they are very cute, and they say, "How do you spell it?" And you say, "S-m-i-t-h."

Now, here's self-determinism. You'll find everybody will work one way or the other in the direction of individuation, being an individual or self-determination of one's acts, which is the doingness part of being an individual.

Now, the self-determination of one's own acts is where the auditor shines. He's at his best. And the pc makes the most gain when he runs the pc at cause. And look, out of this - out of this we have the definition of an Operating Thetan. That was the earliest write-down of an Operating Thetan. Didn't even recognize it at the time it was written down.

That is to say, "A being at cause over life, form, matter, energy, space and time. Being at cause." Self-determinism, the determination of self - being at cause is a higher statement of the same thing.

It's an odd thing that thetans go maddest on the things that are most natively themselves. This is a curious, curious thing but it's true. If you can find something that is totally right about a thetan, somewhere down along the line it's going to go totally wrong. It's apt to; doesn't always inevitably do so but it's apt to.

So that every insanity is a mockery of sanity. Violent individuation, "Get away from me. I don't want to have anything to do with anybody." Paranoia, you know, scream, scream. "Got to hide, got to - everybody's after me..." and so on. Individuation, "Get away from me. I have to kill everybody I run into," you know? "Get away, get away..." this kind of an action, is actually, evidently, just the total bottom mockery, you might say or the almost bottom mockery of the fact that thetans are evidently quite different. Thetans are different. He is insisting on it. A thetan can't do anything but survive, so he insists on it. Got the idea?

What's right with a thetan is that he survives. But after a while he begins to work at it. You get the idea? What's right with a thetan evidently, he is an individual, evidently. And after a while he begins to work like mad at it. Don't you see? It's one of the curious side phenomena. But of them all, individuation is always the button on which you can work the handiest.

We have number 2. Definition of self-determinism is the ability to locate in space and time, energy and matter; also the ability to create space and time in which to create and locate energy and matter. Well, that's a mechanical definition of self- determinism. It's merely a mechanical definition.

Number 3. The identification of the source of that which places matter and energy and originates space and time is not necessary to the resolution of this problem at this time.

An individual doesn't have to believe in a thetan to believe in Scientology. You don't have to have seen a spirit in order to believe in a spirit. It isn't necessary to resolve the problem. And then I went ahead subsequently to this, and wrapped it up and resolved it.

4.Theta creates space, energy and objects by postulates.

Find some people say, "Well, I have to make a postulate," and then they create the space. The space is the postulate, is the only trick that I could give you here that seems a little odd. We are dealing in a postulate called space when you simply make space.

Universes are created by the application of self-determinism on eight dynamics.

1. Self-determinism, applied, will create, alter, conserve and possibly destroy universes.

1. The action cycle is one of the abilities of a thetan. An action cycle goes from

40.0 to 0.0 on the Tone Scale. An action cycle is the creation, growth, conservation, decay and death or destruction of energy and matter in a space. Action cycles produce time.

Now, those are very ancient. They're very old, you see? They preceded - they preceded - those concepts -many other of these studies which came much later. And they certainly preceded the Axioms of Scientology.

The Logics were much earlier also than the Axioms of Scientology. So the early activities here merely got together and defined certain working principles. And the message I would like to give you, if you find yourself very badly adrift and you can't quite see, you can't quite see your way through something, it looks awfully foggy about the Axioms - I'll give you an entrance point to the Axioms which are these Prelogics. They're rather simple. They're rather mechanical. They're not the highest of the high, you understand? They are rather mechanical. They are rather viewable. And although they're very old, turn back to them and look them over and see if they don't make sense. Or if somebody else is having a very, very hard time trying to understand the Axioms of Scientology, shove these Prelogics at him. You see, they are not as simple as it can get, you see? They're only half-way up to a high theoretical level.

An individual can argue about them and he can visualize them and he can look this over and he can quibble on the subject, and he can finally get his teeth into them. Whereas he might not be able to on some of the higher-level Axioms. Therefore, I recommend such a thing as the Prelogics as a prestudy, you might say, of the Axioms themselves. It's one way to get somewhere on the subjects. It's a place to get one's teeth into something.

They are very far from perfect, you see? They're not nice little rounded-out, totally made gems of philosophy, you see. They're very far from perfect. They can be argued about. Individual can quibble with them.

Nevertheless, they have a sufficient recognizable truth in them to come home and he can look at it and maybe feel a little braver about tackling the next level. Because the next level in the Logics starts with pure knowledge, and talks about pure knowledge in the Logics. And more importantly, the level he is expected to tackle when he gets to the Axioms is that Creation of Human Ability process known as Conceive a Static.

And we get back over to Axiom 1, Life is basically a static. And we ask him to conceive a static as his first mental exercise as he studies the Axioms. And I imagine that throws a great many people. So it's a good thing to go over here to something like the Prelogics, or to wander through the old Axioms of Dianetics or something of the sort, look them around, and kind of find your way around a little bit before you tackle the - not the raw meat, but the missing bones.

In studying the Axioms you're of course studying the very ideas which got you into the horrible condition you eventually got into. And that's actually an overt act on my part. And if you hadn't helped think them up, why, I would feel very guilty about it. But I don't feel guilty in the least.

Thank you.