Perhaps a word about the source of this data would not be amiss. This data might be said to be a combination and a reevaluation of Eastern and Western culture. And as much as anything else, that marriage, which hitherto has been a misalliance, is responsible for Dianetics and Scientology, making it a little more compatible.

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

I was very young when I first went out to the East, extremely impressionable as a child would be. I struggled along in north China, India and was back in the States and then back out there again.

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

And while in the States on a very early visit, a stay, I met Commander Thompson of the United States Navy who was just returned from having studied with Sigmund Freud in Vienna, Commander Thompson was a very sound man, a very solid friend of mine, He had no boy of his own and was quite interested in me, mostly as a personality.

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

It's very odd to realize, as I did one day, that in subsequent years I have approximated to a very remarkable degree the career of Commander Thompson - to show you what an impressed - impressionable boy can have handed to him suddenly.

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

I have followed that, however, fragmentarily. It just sort of dubs in to the career that I have been following to this degree that - I didn't realize this until one day I looked at a map, and in the field of expeditions, explorations, I always favored certain quarters of the world, always went there and, when there, did certain things. It fits Commander Thompson's record. Amusing.

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

[R&D Note: Commander Thompson: Joseph Thompson (1874-1943), a commander in the US Navy Medical Corps who studied with Sigmund Freud in Vienna and was a friend of L. Ron Hubbard when Ron was a boy.]

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

It just suddenly struck me one day, I hadn't ever realized it. Nothing would do at a certain place I went but what I would dig up one of the old, ancient tribal burial grounds. Never realized the significance of this until one day - I hadn't known this, you see - I was standing in the Bishop Museum in Hawaii and saw there the exhibit of Commander Thompson on some of the men he had dug up in a tribal burying grounds. All right. He directed my attention toward many things and perhaps imparted to me, fragmentarily or otherwise, the basic tenets of Sigmund Freud and also imparted to me the fact that Freud didn't think he'd solved it.

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

That's an interesting datum we append right on to there; it should be more than appended. Freud wasn't at war with those other lines of thought to amount to anything: He was trying to find out, 1920 or something like that. He even wrote a paper and said he hadn't, It's called "Psychoanalysis, Terminable and Interminable." And it's rather heart broken sort of a paper.

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

[R&D Note: "Psychoanalysis, Terminable and Interminable": reference to Volume V of the collected papers of Sigmund Freud, entitled Analysis, Terminable and Interminable.]

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

Right at that time when he was writing that, I was taking a look at Hindu snake charmers, wondering why the audience believed there was a snake there.

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

Well now, it would be handing myself bouquets (which one should never do) to say that one would pick up where somebody else left off, but one was going forward there. There are many things in Dianetics and Scientology which are directly Sigmund Freud's - directly. They're reevaluated. They've been fitted in at the right places for Dianetics and Scientology and have been evaluated against workability. For instance, association. There aren't as many things as you would think, by the way, but there's the whole business of associative thought, all kinds of things here and there.

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

In the first place, he put his stamp on this culture. He put his stamp on there with a great big stamp. And you don't realize to what degree you have been influenced by Sigmund Freud. You would have to read the literature of 1880 and then the literature of 1950 sequitur (one right after the other) to realize that something happened: the evaluation and characterization of story characters in 1880 and 1950 - quite different.

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

The whole literary world bought psychoanalysis, and they use it as their modus operandi for plotting. And as a result, the whole society has been salted with this as a background. It's interesting, isn't it?

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

And today, we find this man who began on his course of investigation into the teeth of the medical profession, was practically thrown out of everything, was hammered at and beaten at and thrown away and chewed up in general. We find that his work opened a door, and it opened a door in this fashion. It said, "Something can be done about the human mind." That doesn't sound very startling to you, but believe me, that was a startling statement to make when he was first working.

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

In 1894, when he released his libido theory after his work with Breuer, he was basing it on results he had had. Unfortunately, to a large extent, Freud was the sort of an auditor - let's get that straight - I said Freud was a sort of an auditor who added in a lot of extra personality factors. And every time he added one of these things into a session, he didn't know what he was doing, he never said what he was doing, he never knew what he was doing and he left all kinds of xs all over - unknowns, unknowns, unknowns, unknowns.

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

How can one auditor take Book One and produce miracles and another auditor not? That's because there are unknowns in the personal address of the auditor to the preclear. Just as in Group Auditing - and this becomes very pertinent to you - in Group Auditing there are unknowns from auditor to auditor before the children. They will be unknown to the Group Auditor; they are not unknown to the professional auditor. He'd know how to get rid of these unknowns. But one is confronting the group with a personality. And the tone of voice and the general personality and the stage presence of the Group Auditor will make Group Auditing different in its results from one group to the next, one Group Auditor to the next.

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

One of the easy ways to get around this, and to minimize it and also to save oneself, is to make somebody else do it under supervision and then change the auditor to the group, change the auditor to the group. Then you've minimized that, you see? You make - in a group of adults, you make them consecutively change. You just take group members and make them audit the group, group members and audit the group, group members and audit the group. And that's all. You just coach them up and make sure it's done right.

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

And in children, this becomes rather difficult until you have spread across various classes. If you're just dealing with one or two classes, it's very difficult. They're all in one age level. But you could reach into your upper-age levels, and you would be surprised at the capability and competence of children toward children. It's fascinating how well children can sometimes handle children. So you can even minimize it there if you don't feel you're getting along too well with them - you wouldn't have this feeling about it.

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

But you're going to get a difference of factor. Sigmund Freud was getting results better than anybody has ever gotten since with psychoanalysis. His clinic got better results than anybody has ever gotten since. And the reputation of his clinic today carries psychoanalysis on in the world into the teeth of every one of his disciples who says that, "Sigmund Freud? Well, we don't believe that anymore and that's all been modified by Zilch." The heck it has! That's very interesting about Sigmund Freud.

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

So his clinical work had a great deal to do with his personal ability and the character of that clinic itself, which throws the results out. And down along the line, his data is integrated by an undisciplined mind. That's a hell of a thing to say about Freud, but it's true. It's not a mathematically disciplined mind. He scatters around, he gets hopeful, he isn't critical of himself sufficiently. But all these are minor things. Think of what the man did do! He all of a sudden opened the doors wide and said, "The human mind is susceptible to a solution." Now, that all by itself was one of the greatest contributions, and was probably THE greatest contribution of the nineteenth century, which came just as it ends.

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

Sounds like it wouldn't be very much, because in that century you saw Thomas A. Edison, you saw Maxwell, you saw all sorts of people around. Today, we've got nice electric lights and we've got an atom bomb, we've got a lot of other things. And we've got three times the number of institutions.

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

But somebody did say this. All right, he was a wildcat. That is to say, he was off the field, he was not in the field. He was a pariah. He was frowned upon by all of the conservative thought of the day. And yet, today, this work and that basic postulate is more or less accepted.

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

Picked up really from that, from scratch; at one time I thought there had been some interim work. I'm sorry to have to say that I don't think there has been. There had been interim work in mathematics and electronics, but not in the field of the mind.

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

Well, all of a sudden, as a young kid, I see the East - mysticism, occultism, spiritualism. Oh, I knew officers - meeting people; they talked about these things, very interested. I became more and more alert to them, and said, "You know that somewhere around here there's an answer to something. It would be very nice if you could do some of these things, but I'm not sure that these people know what they're doing, And the reason they don't know what they're doing is because the more they work in that field, the loonier they get." This doesn't question the truth of that field, but it just says there's something wrong with it! There's a lot right with it and there's something wrong with it.

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

Western culture I took up, and was forced into engineering, mathematics, majoring in nuclear physics - very antipathetic to me, but there was order and there was discipline. But all through the university, I wrote and supported myself by writing. And I became interested in people by being interested in what people were interested in, and eventually became interested enough that I began to look into man's mind to find out: what might possibly make him tick. And all of this data started to integrate.

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

What data had I inspected? The data of the West in its most - its purest, most severe, naked fashion, which is the severity of science as practiced in the field of physics and nuclear physics. And if you don't think that's a discipline, that is the discipline of today. If there ever will be one, that's it.

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

And the East: "Well, we don't know, and we'll all bow down to the great god Whumpbug. And the thing to be is to negate everything and deny everything and run away from everything, and then we'll arrive there. And our greatest goal is to become part of a cloud and float somewhere and to be completely unfeeling and to do this and to do that, and anything but live.” And the Western culture says, "Above all things, whatever else you do, live!" Two directly opposed vectors - out of all of them, we got sense. It's - possibly this material would have been drummed up by anybody. Would have been drummed up by anyone who had taken a look at these two spheres and recognized their differences, and then integrated them and taken them apart again with a highly questioning attitude. Because when you say what I believe - I don't believe there are very many people who even - who knew me very well, who knows what I believe.

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

I have the same level of belief in a datum as it's workable. I have absolutely no affection for any single datum in Dianetics or Scientology, There isn't any "Well, there's that old datum; that's real good."

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

There's one difference about this. There are two axioms which are very amusing to me because they were the first two axioms. They were way back in the middle of the thirties. "The cell has as its goal survival and only survival" and "The body is a colonial aggregation of cells, so therefore the goal of the body is survival." QED.

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

All right, those two sit in the list of axioms and if there's - if there's anything that has any affection for me, it would be that two. Because I remember the tremendous amazement and surprise one morning that I felt when I was climbing half out of bed; I just stuck right there. And I said, "An anthropoid ape is trying to live. Hm. And a clam is trying to live. An algae is trying to live. A man is trying to live. Living is duration through time, and the proper word to describe that is survive. And, my god, I've done it!" And I went straight over to my typewriter and took down all of the data which boiled this down and turned it into theory. That's the beginning, actually, the real entrance wedge. So there are two points on this time track that I can point to from my viewpoint which were the opening wedges. One is some fellow - a very bright man indeed - saying at the end of the nineteenth century, "The human mind is susceptible to survival in computation and so forth, and it will survive and can go on, and it doesn't die all by itself." You see, something can be patched up about it; it can go on, it isn't a finite thing. Furthermore, it can be understood. "Something can be done about the human mind," somebody said there. He didn't say anything about survival - that was left. And in the middle of the thirties, suddenly realizes survival was the pin on which you could hang the rest of this with adequate and ample proof.

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

And where did mysticism fit in? Well, I didn't know that until relatively recent days. It all fits. It's the easiest problem anybody ever looked at. It's a very simple problem, idiotically simple. That's why it never got it solved. Nobody had ever looked at anything being that simple to do that much.

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

So what do we find as the simplicities of solution? The simplicities of solution lie in this: That life, all life is trying to survive. And life is composed of two things: the material universe and an x factor. And this x factor is something that can evidently organize, mobilize the material universe. This x factor.

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

What is this x factor? Well, it just drifted along for a longest time as an x factor until, all of a sudden, one day I got a description of it. I figured out a description of this x factor. What is it?

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

Well, it obviously had - and I won't go into that derivation too long - it obviously had no wavelength. It didn't have any energy in it, and therefore it couldn't have any space or time. It was zero! Well, that's fascinating! But how could it be zero? You mean zero lives? Ah! Zero for this universe.

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

And the second we tried to equate it on the basis of it had time in it, it had energy, it had wavelength, it had finite position, we went way wrong - oh, but wrong. So the material universe is an artificiality bent out - built out of that instead of the reverse.

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

So we're dealing with these big ideas of space and time and energy and matter, and we have to readjust.

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

This is all real. Why is it real? It's real because we agree it's real; not for any other reason. And we look it all over very carefully, and we find out that matter, energy, space and time are evidently a product of this universal mind. And then we have the concept of the Supreme Being and so forth, but unfortunately, we have the concept of you.

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

And do you know that in the subsequent months and years, since that theta-MEST theory was advanced, that every datum which comes forth won't go anyplace else but into that theory.

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

You know, I'd be just as happy about this theory if it would just suddenly disappear or go away or die or get lost in the wastebasket. Because it's very easy to come by theories. Anybody can come by theories. It's easy If you don't believe it, read the books of the philosophers. There are theories by the billion. You can make them up any day of the week.

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

I used to have an organization with a little bunch of engineers. And we had a club; we called it the Green Cheese Club. And it was called Green Cheese Club just for one reason: Its members, any one of them, was perfectly willing to believe the Moon was made of the green cheese - of green cheese if it could be proven adequately. So that made it a pretty wild club, you see?

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

Do you know that most people working in this field, they get an affection for their data. Whoa, they just got to hold on to that theory because theories are terribly scarce, you see? And we've just got to hold on to that theory and nurse it and pat it and go around and sell everybody on this theory and talk about this theory.

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

It works the same way with techniques, You see auditors doing this sometimes. (I wouldn't mention names.) But they get a new idea, you see? And instead of practicing on a preclear and being willing to throw it in the first wastebasket that he'd see if it doesn't work, they say, "Gosh, that must be awfully valuable! I get so few of them." So they go around and explain to everybody how this works. Well, the dickens with explaining how it works. Let's work it? Does it work? Well, if it works, okay, we don't - but there's no scarcity of ideas. We can dream up all kinds of therapies.

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

A new therapy is the "druggest" drug on the market we can get, but we don't need any. That's really abundance right now in Scientology. But this isn't an abundance: the idea that one can have enough ideas to throw away ideas. That little sentence right there explains a lot of differences that you will see.

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

We got lots of them - throw them away. Do they work? Oh, they don't work? Dickens with them; get another one tomorrow morning. Maybe wake up at midnight with one.

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

So there have just been thousands of things, and there's no reason why we should be holding on to this theta-MEST theory. No reason at all, except it works.

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

So, if you will - if you will see a gradient scale, whereby at one end of it we have nothing and at the other end of it we have solid matter, we'll call that - we will call that the Tone Scale. And up the top, we have nothing but capability, and at the bottom we have nothing but object. Now that's the scale.

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

And we find out that a person is as sane as he is capable and as insane as he is an object. Simple, isn't it? And that's the gradient scale which we call the Tone Scale, Now, we put some arbitrary numbers on it. We've said the top is 40.0 and the middle is 20.0 and the bottom is 0,0. And what's at 0.0? Well, you're dead at 0,0, you're MEST. You're matter, energy, space and time with no life-animating factor. You're dead, in other words.

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

And at the top? You don't even vaguely have a body or energy. All you've got is the capability of making a lot of space because you can make space. That's the gradient scale and that's the Tone Scale.

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

Now, man seems to exist on this scale, arbitrarily, between 4.0 and 0.0; 4.0 is enthusiasm, 0.0 is dead, 0.1 is apathy, 3.5 is conservatism. In other words, we just - we come down - we come downscale from 4.0 toward death. And a person is as alive as he has life in him. Sounds obvious, doesn't it? But when we turn it around the other way and say he's as dead as he's got object, makes more sense.

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

You ever know a capitalist? They're really interesting people in terms of how much life they've got left in them, and the more matter they get, the longer they'll survive. Mm-hm. But what survives? An object survives. The pyramids are still there, but they certainly don't talk or have a good time, Now, what, then, is our goal? And why do we have this Tone Scale?

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

Well, you will find down at the bottom, you - neurotic, psychotic people consider words as objects. The words are objects to them. And time is an object. I've had people walk up to me and say, "Well, I'd gladly come out and see you, but have you got a radio?" "Well, what do you want a radio for?"

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

"Well, we've got to have a radio, so we can turn it on and get the time signal." "Why do you want a time signal?" "So I can keep track of the time."

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

They keep themselves tuned up with time, all right. There it goes, tickety-tick, tickety-tick.

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

Once in a while you will ask one of these people for a circuit or a phrase or something of the sort, and he'll reach in his pockets to find it for you, That's right. Words and thoughts are objects at that level of the scale. You'll have to observe this to really understand how this can be. But you'll find in processing a group, there'll be somebody in that group who's going to be literal-minded.

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

And they will say, "Did you say that? Well now, that couldn't be because ... That couldn't be. No. You really meant ..." And he'll be talking about some tiny, little fraction of a phrase. "Did you say 'of the walk' or 'on the walk'? Or did you say ... ?" And he'll be so puzzled.

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

And one day you'll be quoting something or something of the sort, and he'll say, "Ab-duh-uhem-bzzzt." He's just lost this idea. You're trying to get an idea across, you see? And he's lost the idea that you're trying to get an idea across, and say, "On the second line of that" - this is just like fingernails over the blackboard" to him, you see - "on the second line of that, it's THE not AND."

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

Words are objects. And this person is just getting solid. His thinking is solid, too. He's doing this stream of consciousness I've talked to you about. On and on and on, he does his stream of consciousness. Horrible? He thinks he thinks. All right.

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

The energy of the mind, then, is actually making a postulate, and the object and matter around it go into action. You tell something to go work and it works, because the human mind - I mean, the theta level way up at the top, 40.0 of the Tone Scale - actually, all he has to do to move an object is make a postulate to move it. And it works as well as it doesn't have any energy in it. and One can make postulates and have them work as well as he doesn't have any energy. But people think they've got a past, present and future in terms of energy. You ask somebody, "Where's the past? By the way, do you know where the past is in relationship to your face? Do you know where the future is in relationship to your face? Do you know where present time is in relationship to your face?"

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

That immediately should appear to you as rather dull because most everybody has this. He thinks the future is over there to the right, and the past is over here to the left and slightly behind him, and present time is right out in front.

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

And that's just he's spent energy in thinking. And it's finally become a deposit. And when it becomes enough of a deposit, he's right there, he is. He gets an object, finally, as a time track.

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

Actually, time consists of nothing else but the position of particles. There's no energy mixed up in thinking and so on.

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

You can - there's another little technique that proves this. You can just suddenly decide that you're going to let go of some particles. You find some - there's - you always notice a slight pressure on the front of your face, so you decide one day that you don't like the pressure on the front of your face, so you decide to let go of the particles that are holding the particles that are pressing in. In other words, there's - just because there's pressure from outside, there must be some resistance toward that to make the pressure possible. All right, just let go of the particles that are holding that motion.

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

You can let go; the motion collapses. Now, you can do that consecutively. You just keep letting go of pressure areas - one side or the other - what's keeping the pressure from coming in and what's making the pressure come in, You can just keep letting go. It's a technique all by itself. You just sit there and you just find out what you're holding on to and let go, that's all.

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

Darnedest things happen. You get terrible pains and all sorts of things. You're just backing off, in other words, from particles. And the more particles you let go of, the better you feel. Isn't that odd?

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

This doesn't mean that you have to desert the universe in order to be healthy in it. No, you can eat up the whole universe if your digestion is zero enough.

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

Now, energy on a thought level and energy on a - that's the strange one, you know, that energy on a thought level was always thought to be something else. They kept telling you, "Well, this didn't - this energy is kind of an energy, but it's not like" - you find this in more books - "it's not like that stuff up there in the electric light. The energy of thought is something else." The dickens it is.

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

That electric light got there because somebody thought, not the reverse. Why every man wanted to go into the bottom of the scale and try to work up to the top, I don't know.

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

But you see, they say, "Well now, that stuff is crude and that's no good, and we don't want anything to do with it! That's material. And a materialist would be a person who would do something about that." Nobody ever thought of "It might be a product of some universal mind of some sort or another which can produce, by postulate, particles." That would be the other way to, wouldn't it? That sounds wild, but it unfortunately works out that way, that this mind produces - theta-MEST produces these terminals and flows.

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

Now, let's look at this another way. They missed something on the design of the electric motor. Every time they write up the electric The motor, they write it up wrong. You can go and get your best textbooks on this subject, and a nuclear physicist looking this over, if he ever went back and looked them over, would immediately catch this blunder. I just happened to catch it in passing one day and I was very struck by it because they say - they give you everything necessary to make current with an electric generator. They tell you all about this and give you all the data you need, only if you'd never seen one, you'd never get any current out of one, because they neglect to describe the most important thing there: the base of the motor.

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

Of course, you know, huh - you think I mean some kind of a strange base like a logarithmic base. But I'm talking about that metal thing the motor is sitting on. It's just wonderful how they could neglect this one. But they don't give it any description. It's just not described, that's all.

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

It's what holds the terminals in time and space? And you get an electrical current just as long as you've got a base sitting there holding the terminals, the two terminals of the motor, in position.

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

And when you don't have a base sitting there to hold the two terminals of the motor in position, the two terminals snap together and you get no current. Kind of obvious. If you look in an electric motor, you'll find there's a positive side of it and there's a negative side of it, and those are terminals. And the wheel goes round and round and goes around inside of magnets, and mechanical effort makes it go around inside of magnets, that makes positive-negative, positive-negative, and you get a flow. It's a very simple thing, a motor.

TBD

If you didn't have any base there holding those positive and negative terminals apart, you wouldn't have any current because the positive and negative current - terminals would be right together. It takes a base to hold those two things apart, and that base is fastened to a table - or a platform, and that platform is generally fastened into the earth.

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

And the earth, by gravity and centrifugal and centripetal force, is fastened to the Moon - Sun just as the Moon is fastened to Earth. Earth is fixed in relationship to the Sun. And Earth is fixed in relationship to the Sun; and the Sun is fixed by gravity in relationship to the other galaxy, planets and that's - planets and the solar system, isn't it? And the solar system, well, that's fixed in relationship by gravity and so forth into - hm. Well, wait a minute, that's just fixed into the other systems and they composite into a galaxy, and the galaxy is held there as an island universe which is in position with an island of galaxies and that pass into a ... Oh, no? All we're doing all the way up is locating two terminals in space. Oh, no? No, no, this shouldn't happen to us. You mean God is the base of a motor? (audience laughter) No, fortunately that isn't true. He would be what is saying, "Stay apart" to the first two terminals that begins this endless chain, Anybody - time anybody said "Create," he must have said then "two terminals." And sure enough, by dymaxion geometry and many other proofs, the basic unit of the material universe happens to be two, not one.

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

So it's location and fixation in time and space which makes it possible for energy to be developed and used and transferred and handled, And you don't get location, fixed location, you're in bad shape.

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

Well now, we know about facsimiles and pictures in the mind, and we know all about these various things, and we know there are electronic things that go on with relationship to the body and we can measure these on an E-Meter; and we know that a person is as sane as he can hold them in time and space. And when he can't locate them and hold them fixed in time and space, he's very, very aberrated. And you patch him up by fixing it so that he can locate some of his memories and his beingness in time and space.

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

All you got to do is tell a psychotic, "Look at the wall," and he says, "What wall?"

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

And you say, "Well, go over and feel it and find out if there's a wall there."

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

He's liable to find out there's a wall there and get sane on you. He's located himself in time and space. Now, isn't this interesting?

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

We have a husband and wife. Husband is very unhappy, he's very upset, the wife is very unhappy. They're going in all directions and so forth. Well, the trouble is there, there are two terminals and they don't have a smooth flow between them. There's no interchange of flow, that's all. And so the both of them have a down-energy level. You spring them apart and team them up otherwise and they just work fine. It's almost as mechanical - they're just bodies, so they're almost as mechanical to handle as terminals on an electric motor, Oh, there's all sorts of manifestations occur on this basis. But at that moment, the second we realize this, that theta creates space and time and it also fixes or locates things in space and time, and the second we realize it does that, this problem falls apart. It's just like so much - just is poof. There isn't any problem to it. You could do anything with this, then, from there on.

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

Why? That's because when it gets down into the Levels of energy, you simply follow the parallel rules of energy and you're on safe ground, safe ground all the way down.

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

But isn't it interesting that I said that as more a mind got into energy and the more it handled energy, the less sane it was. Uh-oh. So this material universe and the solid object of insanity consists of more and more energy and thinking, and more and more energy and more and more energy, and then the guy is out the bottom.

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

Therefore, the more energy he had in terms of energy that he was using and the more he used these terminals and the more he got upset this way and that way by this, the worse off he'd get. Does it work out in the real universe? Believe me, it does.

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

You find the fellows who have agreed solidly with these terminals and energies and used terminals and energies - are they aberrated. They're in bad shape. Look at engineers. (audience laughter) And you go right down the line with this. So what's the solution, what's the solution? To follow these terminals? To locate new terminals? Well, by empirical testing taking place over a period of many years, it is discovered that this is not the route. It's a good route, but it's interminable. A guy gets better but he doesn't go out through the roof.

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

So what do you do? Well, you back him off from doing this, obviously, if that one didn't work. But that's right all the way, then let's put him up Tone Scale, which is all we've been trying to do anyway, and let's get him out to a basis where he's again operating in postulates and is not using terminals, where he is creating particles, not using particles he already finds lying around. Let's get him into a level of creation where he is able to command what he wants, not have to beg for it. And we find he's in good shape. So, we've got Creative Processing, and that's why Creative Processing produces such a fantastic result. It's very rapid.

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

Now, when you address a person, then, and start giving him mock-ups, you're calling upon him to create. You're calling upon him to create energy, to create new terminals. And you're calling upon him to perform the highest function of theta. And so he gets better and better and better and better, and then he can go right on up the Tone Scale.

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

But if you turned around and you said, "Now look, you're not supposed to create any of these things. You use the electrodes which we provide, and you use the MEST universe only," you get sick.

And does this work out in practice? Yes, and believe me it does, And so Creative Processing - we have that right as the heart of Creative Processing.

Huh, if a guy got very sick by using all the terminals he finds lying around that he didn't create here in the MEST universe, then he should get well by creating his own terminals. You rehabilitate his ability to create terminals, and the stress, strain, importance of energy in this universe becomes less and less important.

Does this mean he backs out of this universe and leaves it forever? No. He becomes quite capable of handling it.

Continuing this third lecture, we find out, as we'll hear later, that from zero, one can create a particle. And I mean zero time, space.

I mean 40.0 on this Tone Scale. But when one is holding a lot of particles, he can't create particles. This is all quite interesting, and you will much more readily suppose it to be terribly technical and out of the reach of your grasp the more you try to think about it. And if you try to think hard enough about it and if you ponder it enough, I can convince you without any trouble that you'll be having an awful time with it.

It's actually a terrible simplicity, and you sort of have to let go of an awful lot of particles to grasp it. We don't need a lot of theories. It's strange, now that we have this, how all of this data, and what tremendous data, comes tumbling into our hands.

For instance, not too long ago - solved sex. You know, this would be very interesting, if you solved sex in terms - in such terms that you could solve all this fellow's sexual problems and all the children's sexual problems and all this sort of thing - I mean, that should be first-line news. Why? Because the libido theory in 1894, it said sex was the root of everything. It doesn't happen to be; it's quite important though. And if you could solve that, why, gee, you ought to rush out here on the street and throw up banners and say, "Hurray, hurray, hurray. We've solved this big riddle, or we've solved this big problem and Sigmund Freud was so puzzled with it and now we've solved psychoanalysis and we got the basis of psychoanalysis and we can make psychoanalysis work everyday."

You'd think you'd do that. It's not that important. And yet it's solved. It's not important.

The reason it's not important is because what is important here is a terrible simplicity. That is to say, you're operating, The best of a man is that which has no substance in it, and the worst of a man is that which has lots of substance in it in terms of materialism. And there's where your big argument came in between the materialist and the fellow who figured he should be soulful or something of the sort.

And there's your Hindu trying to desert MEST; he's trying to deny himself everything and so forth. Well, he does all that except one thing: he didn't know how to get out of his body.

There's just nothing to these tricks they pull on you. It's the essence of simplicity. They denied themselves everything except living - I mean, except dying (going on reverse flow here). Anyway ...

Now, a particle would be any object whether as so minute as to be minute beyond minute beyond minute, submicroscopic, or the Empire State Building. It wouldn't matter. In other words, you could have a particle that you couldn't see in a microscope, or a particle the size - a complex particle the size of this galaxy. They would still be a particle, you see? We could say one particle.

Well, we deal a lot with particles. We have to know quite a little bit about particles; we know this subject well But we don't have to know anything like you'd think we'd have to know. We just have to know there's such a thing as a particle. A particle is a particle. A particle only does three things; a particle starts, stops, changes. Those are the laws of motion: start, stop, change. All right.

So particles start, particles stop and particles change. And if you've ever had a lot of children - I mean, you know that they sure can start, stop and change at the darnedest times.

Now therefore, a person - he gets so that he can only start and he can't stop or he can keep going. He can persist, in other words, without changing. See, no change is the trouble with him. He can't change - inability.

And your child is very stupid, let's say. All right, the trouble with that child is he's very stupid, and there's something that doesn't permit him to change. No matter how hard you try, he stays on being stupid. So much so that it was officially released and is accepted as a scientific datum that IQ cannot be altered! That is nothing like nailing everybody to the cross and saying, "Oh, let's all give up and die." IQ certainly is one of the most alterable things. As a matter of fact, an auditor simply by starting to audit out an engram can shift IQ as much as fifteen points. One session, he just starts and, say, ten minutes of auditing - shift, I'm not saying bad or good. You can drive them down and drive them up and make them level off. IQs are very easy to alter. Well, we evidently were dramatizing a no-change there, you see?

And particles of motion: As one continues through time, then, one has these three things that can happen. Of course, the reverse of them can happen. There's the person who can't start, there's the person who can't stop, and there's the person who can't change, as well as the person who starts and the person who stops and the person who changes. He's got those various characteristics.

Now, the three parts of behavior are thought, emotion and effort. You think about something, that's pretty high on the scale. A little bit lower than that, you feel some emotion about it - sensation of emotion. Much lower on the scale, you get in there and put some strength to it. You think about opening the door, there's possibly some emotion about opening doors, and then you put the effort to the doorknob and open the door. Human activity is divisible into these three parts,

We have, then, three more important data that you should run into in this subject and know, and that's affinity, reality, communication.

What is affinity? Affinity is what they've been calling love and a lot of other things. In the material universe it's known as cohesiveness and adhesiveness; in human behavior, call it affinity. There's affinity or no affinity. All the emotions come under that heading. And the emotions are all graphed on this Tone Scale as you can see in a copy of Self Analysis.

Reality. Reality is that on which we're agreed. Any philosopher writing down through the ages has come to that as an agreement, by the way. "We don't know what we sense, we just know that we know that we sense; we don't know that the perception is there, we simply know that we know a perception is there." And they've talked about this for a long time. And you work this around and stir it around and so forth, and there's one positive thing that you can come up against. You can be fairly sure that reality and agreement have something a great deal in common; more than that, they're interchangeable.

There's reality - really consists of agreement and disagreement. In electric-terminal flow there is merely agreement and disagreement: one way, and then they go the other way. And you find out that as people agree, they have a flow somewhere around them. And as they disagree, there's a flow. If you get the feeling of agreeing with something, you're liable to pick up a flow. Sometimes you get the feeling of disagreeing with something, you're liable to feel like you've had your head knocked off or something by a flow. And it's very interesting that agreement and disagreement are in terms of flows and that these do composite what most people say is reality. They say, "It isn't real." "Well, why isn't it real?" They won't be able to answer that unless you sort it out in terms of agreement.

"Well, did somebody tell you it wasn't real?"

"Yeah."

"Did you agree with that person?"

"Yeah."

"It's not real, then, is it?"

"No."

"Well, why isn't it real?"

"Well, it's just not real."

I mean, they'll come back to that one and sag every time, because they think there's something real about the word real. It's an object, you see? And it has no meaning at all!

What's real? You go down to the tribe of the Wongabullas and you'll find out that anything that we consider reality up here probably is unreality down there in terms of customs and behavior or anything else. And you go over to Ireland and you go around in some of the back roads of Ireland, you're going to find that there's a great deal of reality as to leprechauns and other things over there; there are all kinds of things over there. You don't agree they're there; you're not going to see them either.

Now therefore, just by that route and because it works - no other reason really than that one; this happens to work - there is reality in terms of agreement. We agree heavily enough on reality.

There are various tests one can enter on in this. You can make anything real to a person who's hypnotized. You say, if everybody got just sufficiently and thoroughly enough hypnotized, he would see a MEST universe. You don't believe this, sometimes get a hypnotist to hypnotize somebody who is a good subject and get him to paint up a whole universe and have that whole universe be real to that person. It'll work, it'll work. Of course, I'm not inferring that everybody is hypnotized into believing there's a universe here. (audience laughter) Now, a one-word description of what we are trying to do to people, though, it fits right in right there. We're trying not to force people around; we're trying to unhypnotize them. We're trying to wake them up, not put them to sleep. We're trying to make them more alert, not more dull.

And then there's a third member of that triangle - and that's a triangle, by the way. It's an interesting triangle, because at any level of this Tone Scale I talk to you about, you'll get the same levels of that triangle.

The communication, the reality and the affinity at that level will be the same for that level. You don't have communication sitting one place on that Tone Scale and reality sitting another place and affinity sitting someplace else, You'll find them all at the same level.

So, they are the three behavior characteristics of life "energy": affinity, reality and communication.

What's life composed of? It's composed of affinity, reality, communication. When a communication is low, affinity and reality are low; when reality is low, affinity and communication are low; when affinity is low - get that one, when affinity is low; because boy, does this - this theory of ARC has been just sitting around just for ages; just backed up because it was so workable, no other reason.

And all of a sudden, as I'm going to show you here in tonight's lecture, that we ran into it just head-on, on the subject of ARC. And it all comes back to ARC. You can't agree with somebody you're not in communication with. It's very hard to love somebody who doesn't exist for you. In other words, ARC: You've got to have communication to have affinity to have reality. You've got to have three of those three things, You can't have two of them.

And you'll realize this sometime. You take a little child and he comes to school and he's going uuss-phll-uuss-phll. And he's snuffling and crying and he ... You could sit him down in a chair and let him come over it. But if you'll just lead him out by making him ... I don't care what he says to you. He says, "One, two, three, four, five," or anything of the sort. If you just make him communicate, (snap) he'll snap out of it.

Why? Well, he'll realize somebody does love him. Why does he realize that? That's because he's communicating with somebody. That's all. I mean, it's just as simple - terribly mechanical like that. ARC: affinity, reality, communication. Now, there's a lot to know about those, but that's good enough.

Now, actually, the Tone Scale was originally plotted out by behavior, from observation of the behavior of a preclear as he came up Tone Scale, plotted where the emotions belonged on that Tone Scale.

The next thing that happened was to find out that ARC plotted on that Tone Scale from 0.0 at the bottom to 40.0 at the top. And it was all worked out from the basis of ARC theoretically, and then came back into the MEST universe and took a look around to find out if that still agreed. And it still agreed and it still held good and is as good today as it was years ago. So we have - we have that as a good stability to work with. And when all other problems of human relationship, all problems of human relationship seem to be bogged down, when you can't get anywhere, when there's something that can't be done, remember there's ARC. What's happening with regard to ARC? And you can solve it.

This person is making you unhappy. You say, “This person is making me unhappy. Always makes me unhappy. Never blah-de-blah-de-blah making me unhappy. Nnaa-dduuhh-dduuhh, I blah don't see anybody - makes me unhappy." And so on. What's your solution? Cut the communication line? What happens then? Well, you don't have an agreement or a parity level of affinity. That's simple, isn't it? That's all there is to that - person makes you unhappy. That says - well, that says that you'd have to advise some husband to leave home. Yeah, that's right. All right, we'll go on to the next one. (audience laughter) The full Tone Scale, then, interplays and interweaves thought, emotion and effort; start, stop and change; affinity, reality and communication. Because at the top of the Tone Scale things start, the middle of the Tone Scale they are holding in a consistency or changing it, and at the bottom of the Tone Scale, they're stopped, How stopped can you get? Dead!

When you're dealing with children, you will realize that the - you will sometimes believe that the child is very badly off who is in a lot of motion all the time. No, the one who is very badly off is the kid who just sits there. He just sits there. That's really bad off. He's bottom scale. So we get on the full Tone Scale an interweave, then, of these factors. And a cycle of action of life starts in at 40.0 - just thought, no energy, nothing there but space - and progresses on through its cycle of action to middle age where we have everything very conservative, to old age where you have death. And that would be the cycle of one lifetime or - get this - the cycle of any action. It starts, it persists and it stops. Then it has to change violently before it can start again, doesn't it? And so you have death intervene.

Well, we won't go into that too deeply. We know that you can plot any person in your group or plot the level of your group by using these factors, and you don't have to know too much about this.

What's the level of their communication? You have a graph in Self Analysis that tells you what their level of communication would be. That is to say, you know they don't communicate with you. There's a cut line, Well, it says in that graph in Self Analysis where a cut line is. And you can expect what the affinity and what the reality will be of that.

Now, you'll know, then, whether this group is getting better or getting worse by whether or not they change on the Tone Scale. If they don't change on the Tone Scale, they're not changing. So you want to watch - a Group Auditor wants to watch a group in terms of that Tone Scale.

And watch this, the person who sits silently, motionless, communicates nothing and so forth is down there close to death. And when this person starts to get well, this person is going to do all sorts of things. He's going to go into grief; he's got to get up to afraid of things; up above that, they get angry - and that's the worst because what you're liable to find out as a Group Auditor is all of a sudden this group is very antagonistic towards you. You know what you're doing. But don't think you've failed; you're making them well. Let them roar. You know what's wrong with them.

The next level up from that, they're all bored with it. "Do we have to do that anymore? Why do we have to do that some more? We don't have to do that anymore, do we? Ah, let's do something else. We're bored. We're bored." Keep at it because above the next level of boredom is being very conservative about how they're doing it, and right above that level they get very enthusiastic.

What do you know, so if you've stopped at boredom, you have lost the game, just as if you would have stopped at antagonism.

This group hates your guts, that's 1,5, Gee, if you haul a group up to 1,5, you've really done something? You say, "Rarr-rarr-rarr-ruff." (audience laughter)

It's interesting to watch, but if your group doesn't change its manifestation, nothing's happening, so watch that.

And you should know this Tone Scale pretty well and you have a good picture of it there in Self Analysis. As a matter of fact, it's the only published edition of it right at the moment and should give you quite a bit of material to deal with.

These are the mechanics, then, of what you're dealing ... You're trying to get a no-zero - I mean, a no-energy thing, really a no-zero thing because there is something there; no wavelength. In other words, it isn't describable in terms of the MEST universe, it's all you're saying when you say it's - hasn't any wavelength, no location. You're trying to get this capability as high and as workable and as operable as possible, And as long as that capability increases, you're all right. But when a person starts losing those capabilities of organization and so forth, alignment that are top Tone Scale, and it starts drifting down, down, down into matter, they think slower and slower, they think worse and worse, they're less and less rational and they finally go on out the bottom; or they just hang fire someplace very low on the scale and they're not much use or benefit to anyone. Their interest Level dwindles down, down, down as that scale is descended.

The people you'll be processing lie normally well below 4.0 and most commonly lie between 2.5 and 0.1.