First thing we want to know about this is gradient scales. There isn't too much you have to know about gradient scales except this: You takes a small force to move a larger force, to move a larger force, to move a larger force, to move a larger force. That would be a gradient A scale of forces.

There's nothing like obtaining extremes. An Aristotelian mean of speed of rendition here doesn't happen to be part of the goals.

I think it was Swift' that says, "Cows have fleas who have smaller fleas upon their back to bite 'em, and smaller fleas have smaller fleas and so on ad infinitum," Well, that would be a gradient scale. This is a mechanistic approach on this; it isn't true, because theta can actually make a particle. You can postulate a particle into existence and it then, evidently, then exists. And that's how the particle got here.

Want to tell you, just in a few brief words, about the Hubbard Association of Scientologists, its functions. The organization is a continuation of organizations which have, with greater or lesser success, carried on this work.

But mechanistically, it operates this way, and this is a low-level flow operation, whereby theta would pick up a tiny, tiny particle as speed, which was so slow that you couldn't tell really any great difference between this particle and no particle. See, you couldn't tell much difference between this particle and no wavelength. And therefore there would be, at this end of the scale, this tiny little confusion, and theta, a zero, would think it was still zero although it had this particle. And then this particle having this particle, it's now not quite zero, and it now has the ability to take another particle. And now that it has these two particles, it now has the ability to take another particle and so on. It can take bigger and bigger and bigger particles. And it would theoretically start out with one which was one over infinity in diameter and would wind up with Saint Paul's [Cathedral]. You see?

It has taken more than two years to stabilize the organizational picture in Dianetics and Scientology. The reason for this was - I'm afraid I'm cause - the reason for this was my own attention was being given rather exclusively to investigation, processing, writing, not to business management.

And an engineer uses this continually: He makes the force of the river conquer the river. And theta uses force in that degree. It has a force inherent from a past experience, and it uses that force from past experience in order to make or alter a new force.

And when you leave organizations alone and do very little for them or about them, they have a tendency to, let us say, occasionally get a wheel over the edge of the road and pile into brick walls, and other things happen to them.

Every aberrated thought is preceded by a counter-effort. Here, give you a present time example of that: is a fellow walking down the street, and he thinks - he thinks policemen are wonderful.

But my adjudication was made actually first in the very early part of 1950 - I gave over to some people that I thought, "Well, maybe I can trust these people," the organization of the first Foundation in this line. And it carried forward for a good long while; it went on for about a year before it fell on its face.

The aberrated thought is "Cops are no good!" That's the aberrated thought we're going to go to here.

But it was certain that it would sooner or later, because in 1950 I even stopped corresponding on the subject of that organization because I found out I was working eighteen hours a day. Now, any time you want to work eighteen hours a day, you let me know, and I know where there's a job for you. Got a pair of shoes here you can have.

And he's thinking - go walking down the street and he's really not thinking much about policemen, but if he consulted himself about them, he'd say, "Well, policemen are all right. They're there. They protect the law and order and the small children and the home and the government and we pay them" and so forth. And he's walking down the street, you see. He's thinking this or not thinking it, as the case may be. All of a sudden a bobby walks up to him and takes his hat off and raps him over the head. After that, he doesn't think policemen are so hot. (audience laughter)

And I found out that I had not written the second book and that much material which should have been in public hands, not just in the Foundation's hands, should have been put into book form. And so, in October of 1950, I decided that what little contact I had maintained with the central organization had to be itself broken. And I went down to Palm Springs, and I took an auditor and a secretary and got to work and simply started backing off each successive spot of impact in order to conclude the investigation.

Now, there is an aberrated thought preceded by a counter-effort. Now, this can be that bad that he will say then, "All policemen are bad." That is his adjudication. He identifies to the degree that he's been smashed into MEST. And when you've shoved a number of particles into very close proximity, you have a piece of matter. And the tighter you shove them, the solider the matter is. And when you loosen them up, the matter is less solid. That's true of atoms, you see, and molecules and so on. It's also true of compounds. It's also true of sand. Sand can be drifting around loosely and then you feed it into something that compresses it suddenly, you've got a brick - glass brick. You could compress it solidly and you could compress it suddenly enough, by the way, that it would liquefy and actually turn into a glass brick just under pressure, boom. And you'd have a glass brick, quite solid.

I had learned to a large degree what I had to know: is how much did we have to know about the mind to permit an auditor to get results uniformly.

The operation of pain is a certain action with regard to particles, a very high level of particles. And life has itself very closely associated with being these particles, which it isn't - and it's holding onto a bunch of these particles which it considers livingness. And some other particles come along and compress those livingness particles too tightly and the sensation resulting is called pain. And this is pain. And it's very measurable and it depends on the swiftness of closure of particles or the swiftness of opening of particles.

I knew what I could do about the mind; I knew what people I immediately trained could do about the mind, but I have seen what people broadly could or could not do about the mind.

You can cause pain either by opening two particles too suddenly bringing them apart too suddenly, or by compressing them together too suddenly. And when we say too suddenly, we mean above the level of - or beyond the level of prediction, that's all, on the part of theta. It's an odd thing, but a fellow who knows he's going to have a needle shoved into his arm doesn't get anywhere near the pain as the fellow who doesn't know he's going to get a needle shoved into his arm. If you don't believe this, you can find some people who are looking the other way and shove a needle into them suddenly and measure the gradient of temper rise. (audience laughter). And if you were to take this same person and stand him up in a line and he watched the needle and he knew he - was going to go in, oddly enough, it would hurt much less.

And so, the codification of material had to continue. And believe me, the codification of what you know is as important or more important as an operation, as a thinking process, than what you know.

Now, when he's very aberrated, however, and has - oh, he's bogged down thoroughly in energy and matter and that sort of thing, he will postulate pain for the needle, and even though you didn't shove it in, it would hurt. See? Now, when a person comes down Tone Scale, they do that all the time. And they finally get the idea that pain is just terrible!

Now, there's something very strange about this, but you can know something and not have it all fitted into the English language, and so you had better find out that there are two steps here: one, to know something and the other to be able to simplify and communicate it.

You take Home sapiens and say, "Now we're going to take out your left eyeball and rub it with sandpaper," and he winces: one, he has no confidence in being able to mock up a usable eyeball, so there's a scarcity of them, you see? And, two, he knows it's going to hurt.

Now, in my own opinion, I think I've done quite well hitting this on a level of three years, because today auditors get very, very excellent results, and they continue to get them. And what we know about the mind and about this universe and about other things is codified. It isn't just known.

Now, the terrible part of this is, is one actually postulates every sensation he gets. You think you get sensation from this and from that, you think you get sensation from turkey and you think you get sensation from something else. You're very convinced that sensation exists and that it comes from an exterior source. And the odd part of it is, is the more sensation you "take" from an exterior source, the less you could feel.

Now, there are process after process after process. There's technique after technique after technique, any one of which, if you just took this one technique and you kept on drumming with this technique in Dianetics or Scientology, either one, you would get there with a case. That's quite important, do you see!

First, it's more and more you can feel and then less and less you feel. One believes so long as one agrees that he is taking sensation from an exterior source, continually taking it from an exterior source and needs an exterior source to procure sensation, he is in agreement with the MEST universe, which is in itself, one might say, the average or the mean of agreement. It's the average agreement on the actuality of illusion. It's sort of the work-out average of agreements all the way down the track, and we sit here in the MEST universe. You've agreed on it very thoroughly. And by the way, your preclear and your group doesn't happen to want this changed. They know that wall is liable to disappear. They really know that, and so you start shaking them up with a process which is a very shaking process, and they'll fudge on you, they - "Ha-ha-ha-ha. No, no. Ha, No."

But now we have the techniques which stand over the top of all these various scattered techniques and that we can point to and say, "You do it this way. You take two eggs, you take a bowl, you break the eggs in the bowl - you make sure they're fresh eggs - and you break them in the bowl and then you take a fork and you beat them up. And then you take a pint of milk - and the first thing you know, you have a preclear who is cleared." Now, therefore, you could actually start out, and with the purest mechanical line, just follow this material just mechanically, just sort of dumbly, mechanically follow this material and you'd get there, and you wouldn't quite know where you were when you got there, maybe, but you'd be there. Or you could know the background of the techniques, or you could know the background of the theory and the techniques and the cake recipe. You see, there's these various stages.

Now, the MEST universe and all these particles - evidently a very beautiful set of illusions. Pain itself is an illusion, but what a real illusion. So in the Professional Course we talk about reality and actuality - two different things.

So the HAS is now in the United States about, oh, very well over a year old - a half a year old here - and getting older all the time as time happens to have a habit of doing, of increasing havingness or doing something about it. And we are operating on a stability because we aren't trying to do more than we can do.

Reality is what we have agreed on in this universe to be real, And actuality: Actuality is what you yourself are capable of making. Now that's actual, because you know you made it. But you've got the MEST universe here, you don't know that you had anything to do with making this, so that's merely real. So let's get the difference between those two things.

Now, I know how much you can start to do that you can't do organizationally in this world of ours in the twentieth century And I know organizations can't do a lot of things that you might think offhand, just at a glance, they could do. And the main problem throughout has been personnel.

Now, here's the test of this whole thing. If you want to better anybody's ability to perceive, you'd think the best thing to do would be to handle energy and have them agree with energy and the laws of energy and the whereabouts of particles. You'd want them to agree with this, wouldn't you? And if they agreed with it and you study this and they would study it more and more, therefore they could perceive it better and better, couldn't they? Mm-hm.

We have a type of organizational setup now which is devoted to performing certain functions and stressing those functions above every other function, One is to - and that's first and foremost - to make a darned good auditor. It's the first function of the HAS. And the next function to that is to try as well as possible to take care of his problems, particularly in relationship to new techniques, retraining and that sort of thing.

That is the theory on which science has been working, and it is not true. I'm sorry that it isn't true because it would all be so simple. It would be terribly simple if it were true.

And another one is procurement of preclears. That's something else, but that line has not been hit well, going solidly, and is just now being hit well and solidly. And actually, the lectures which I'm giving you right here are an advancement of that line.

Naturally, you could then look at a piece of MEST - matter, energy, space and time, just a composite word - and just look at a piece of MEST here and you would say, "Ha! Now all we have to do is study the anatomy of that MEST and we will know all there is to know." Oh, no! That isn't true.

Now, the continuing functions, then, as we go down the line, is to guarantee some sort of good public representation for the subjects and to provide contacts and literature for the public. Now, that is done on what we call "V" staff, so that the organization is divided into two halves.

You start studying this MEST and you start studying it to get data from it, and you plow in deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper. And you finally go to work for General Electric or somebody. (audience laughter)

One is there is the central staff, which is the main organization. It takes care of training, it takes care of servicing, and it takes care of the public on a very stable level. That is to say, people who want training, people who need advice, people who want information, and providing those people with publications. Now, that's all done by the central staff.

Now, I would say - this is prediction, I've never noticed this - I would say the physics instructor at a school had more difficulty in his personal life than the English instructor in terms of handling things, automobiles and things, what happened to automobiles, but that the English instructor would have more difficulty in his emotional life than the physics teacher.

And then we have another organization which is part of the same organization, and that's voluntaire staff. The voluntary staff evolved from this basis, It's very interesting that the central staff functions cannot exist and continue in a good stable condition in the absence of a volunteer staff.

Now, that wouldn't hold at all, I mean, it's just one of those things that give you an example which might be true, because there are too many other factors entering in. If we had one who was purely a physics teacher and one who was purely an English teacher and who had never, one to the other, interchanged physics and English, why, we would find that to be the case.

Why! Because everybody wants to volunteer into the central organization. And the central organization has a certain function. You come along, you say, "Got a brand-new idea. And this will really put the show on the road and this will get Scientology accepted here and there," and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on. And you hit the central organization with this. And everybody starts wearing that hat or everybody just throws up his hands and says, "We're just doing too much now."

One has agreed with the romantic and the emotional, has agreed and agreed and agreed with literary concepts, and he's plowed in with them. He'll just plow right on in.

Well, we just move that out of the central staff and move it over in the voluntary staff. And voluntary staff, then, takes care of the public advance, the advancement of Dianetics and Scientology into various fields and does have itself a small permanent staff, but it counts on the volunteer worker in order to carry things forward.

A writer generally goes bad in about three years. When I say, "Goes bad," I mean he stops writing. That's interesting, isn't it? By practice he ought to write more and more and more and more and more and more. And if it were true that just this MEST were actual and so on, he would really go on writing more and more. The more he practiced, the better he would be. Everything is sort of founded on that basis, and it isn't true. The writer practices writing and goes bad in three years. There's a dull stale taste in his mouth at every story he writes at the end of three years, believe me, and I don't care who that is.

Now, by keeping those things separate, oddly enough, it isn't that we just have a better organization, it's that we have an organization. Big difference there.

Now, the person who studies this has a reali - has an actuality instead of a reality - who studies this MEST eventually gets to a point where he can't see it anymore. Well, that's silly. If it worked out the other way, if it had a reality, he would, of course, be able to see it better and better and feel it better and better when he knew more and more about it. And yet, he's getting worse and worse on it.

Now, the HAS tries to engage in public service wherever possible. How much public service it can engage in has a great deal to do with its finance, has a great deal to do with a lot of other things.

He's getting worse on distances; he's getting worse on estimations of effort and so on. He starts wearing horn-rimmed spectacles and getting kidney trouble and all sorts of weird things start happening to this fellow. All he's got to do is keep on agreeing with this, just keep on agreeing with it. And if he agrees with it long enough, it'll finish him. Well now, that's silly, isn't it? You work that out and it's illogical. Well, why is it? Why am I bringing it up at all?

We are trying to pull a hill here without asking for - without needing large quantities of MEST. You won't see too much MEST around the HAS from now till doomsday. There's too much MEST comes around, there's too many station wagons start sitting around out front and there are too many uniformed chauffeurs running around. If it ever gets to that level - and too many ivory columns - I can tell the central staff to beware, because some night there will be a loud boom. And believe me, I will be the first one that is surprised to hear about it.

Because there is a way to improve this stuff so that it does. It gets more and more actual or more and more real - any way you want to phrase it. You could get this so your perception of it is better and better and better and better and better and better and better and better, and it's solider and solider and so on. How do you do that? By improving your ability to perceive an illusion.

That is the surest way in the world to stop, the surest way in the world. There's an old axiom about this: "When the troops start to accumulate too much baggage, they stop accumulating empire." Now, we've got a subject to put forward, and our goal is not the accumulation of ivory towers. We'll carry forward this function as best we can. This organization is very far from perfect, believe me. It's as perfect as can be made in this year, this century, within the reality of what Home sapiens is doing and what Home sapiens wants and tries to do. Now, it'll continue to be as perfect within that reality as possible, but you see, that reality is a long way from perfect.

If your ability to perceive an illusion gets very good, your ability to perceive the MEST universe gets wonderful. You'd say, "Well, this is just a problem of perception," Well, it's kind of strange that it doesn't work out otherwise. If you, ha, let a fellow go out and perceive MEST and perceive MEST, practice perceiving MEST, he practically goes blind. But if you have a fellow go out and perceive illusions, perceive illusions, perceive illusions, his eyesight gets wonderful. So it tells you something about this stuff about which we are so confident, which is so solid.

And the organization is trying along every line to be as helpful as possible and to get Scientology and Dianetics as far as possible. Now, we're taking care of the third dynamic here very, very interestingly.

Now, the fellow comes along and he pounds the desk and he says, "Well, this is solid enough for me, because I can feel it." Huh, very silly. What's he pounding the desk with? He's pounding the desk with a piece of MEST. And he's registering the estimation of the collision of particles in his fist and the particles on the desk, and this doesn't even vaguely agree that there are either particles in his fist or particles in the desk. Neither one. It doesn't prove anything.

And there's a fourth dynamic, you know. And there are atom bombs and there's all sorts of things. Well, let's get this third dynamic pretty well straightened out.

Just because a MEST particle can collide with a MEST particle is no reason MEST exists. All we can infer from that is the fact that as long as you can perceive that, we know that your ability to perceive it exists. And any time we go out any further than that, as a truth, we get in trouble, we get in real trouble.

Now, we have the techniques which can straighten out the first dynamic, and it's when we had those techniques that we could jump off and be adventurous on the subject of a third dynamic. And we're operating from a security that would make the Rock of Gibraltar look like a piece of paper in a storm as far as technique is concerned, You show me a psychosomatic illness that can't be cured, and I will (1) hang you with a technique to cure it and (2) show you that it can go away.

We say, "We perceive this, therefore it exists." Well, for heaven's sakes, add these words to that: "for me" or "for us." Now, that's all you have to do and it's a correct statement. "I see this, therefore it is," is an incorrect statement. "I see this, therefore it is for me or for us," is a correct statement.

The reason why these things don't fold up are several. Occasionally they don't fold up in the hands of an auditor. That's a little bit different than not folding up in my hands or not folding up in an instructor's hands. You get that?

So, this beautiful, thick, solid, heavy, trying, painful, wicked stuff called MEST is just those adjectives to the degree that you agree with it. And when you start turning the current back on it and saying, "Nuh-uh," you can then and there, and only then and there, start controlling it.

It's how much work are we willing to do! Well, fortunately, we've even shortened down the techniques to a point where that can be done on the very rough case, too, For instance, next week I'll be over here talking to the professional students again about this horrible Case Level V, so forth. Now, we're doing, then - we're operating from a security and we're trying to do a job to that degree.

The funny - funny things happen. It's not esoteric. By the way, all this is very easily traceable because we are dealing in natural law with the consecutive agreements on which we have agreed to agree down the track. And that includes the law of gravity.

It isn't so much that someone who is trying to help on this is helping us. He's helping man and he's helping himself. Man needs some help, you know! This is sort of the last station on the line. That's the truth for the line.

We agree that when you have this lump here called Earth, it's got gravity on it and you'll stick there. And as long as you believe that and so on, you'll stick here. But the second that you just don't - not just disbelieve it - the second that you make it unnecessary to believe it any longer, I won't guarantee that you'll stay here, but your body will.

And when a lot of boys, unfortunately some of them my classmates, get slap-happy and say, "Well now, you know, it's an odd thing, but if you put too much plutonium in too close a proximity to too much plutonium, you get a complete absence of Great Britain. And this is a wonderful fact." And they seem to be able to go right along - right along the line and say, "This is a wonderful fact."

Well, let's see, this is - we're going out now into a realm of it that in a short series of this character we really have no business talking about. But we are dealing, oddly enough, with nuclear physics, because the first fellows to say this, the first fellows to come down with an ax on the reality of the MEST universe were the nuclear physicists. Who was it said at the end line of his book, "And when all is said and done, I cannot help but believe that this universe is just an idea." Any good physicist can reduce it reductio ad absurdum to a zero. And he does it with great speed. Atoms? Oh, yes. Sure, sure, public consumption. What's an atom? I don't know. Neither does anybody else. And the odd part of it is, they've never seen one, and the odd part of that is, they probably never will. But I suppose a few of the boys agreed that you would get a quantum of energy when you thought a certain thought, and after that we get an atom bomb. It's as silly as this. Now, all of this I want you to know - take it or leave it, it doesn't matter - but I want you to know it for this reason, so that you won't underrate the progress which can be made by bettering the ability to perceive an illusion. If you better the ability to perceive an illusion, you will better the ability to perceive and handle and act in the MEST universe. And that's what you're trying to do.

If somebody had come to me in 1938 and said, "Would you now engage your knowledge and so forth in the construction of a bomb to end all bombs!" why, I would have said, "Aren't you an interesting fellow. Aren't you cute."

When a child is trying to study, he's trying to find out how to act in the MEST universe. You want to better that ability, don't you? Well, you can better it right there at the start by bettering his ability to perceive an illusion.

They had a cartoon at the California Institute of Technology: is a scientist standing on a platform before an enormous room full of scientists. And he said, "Gentlemen, I have here the last product, the ne plus ultra, the final goal of our scientific age. In this small capsule is enough explosive to destroy the universe."

Now, a child is pretty good at this. You'd say, therefore, a child should be able to get along very well at this. No, he's in a very unmanageable body. He's something on the order of a - a young child is something on the order of a pilot who has just been put in an eight-motored bomber. It gets switches, and you got hydraulic this and that. I mean, he's ... Gee.

Now, nevertheless, the boys went ahead and built an atom bomb. I guess it was wonderful to them to wake up with a shock, by the way, in 1945 and to find out they'd built an atom bomb. I suppose before that they didn't know it, because they were all so shocked.

As a matter of fact, little babies can understand you. Nobody ever took the care before to ask a little baby something or other or give him a signal. They can understand you before they're very old. You can talk to them. Only you have to talk to them. You don't say, "Dah-dah, da-da" and so forth. And you expect them to answer you in English with a voice. And you're not going to do that because they're not in control of those vocal cords, but that doesn't mean they couldn't answer you. So you see, you don't quite know that until you investigate it all the way. You don't, just don't take it for granted that babies don't know anything.

I talked to many of my friends at the Los Alamogordo group and so on, and they were all so surprised. They had been told by the governments, by the way, that they would one day explode this atom bomb before the spectators of Germany and Japan and say, "Now look what we've got. And if you don't stop fighting, we're going to use it against you." And these dopes fell for that. These so-called great brains fell for that story.

Now, we'll take a five-, six- and seven-, eight-year-old child, we're really having fun now. This person first began to learn how to run this eight-motored bomber - doing all right because they started in just naturally. They kind of got it by postulates and they were getting along all right, and then suddenly somebody said, "Don't go here, don't do this. Stop, stop, stop, stop. Start, start, start. Change, change, change." Somebody else was handling this bomber.

And they said, "What do you know The government is so nice. All these governments are very nice, and they're going to - they're going to bring Hitler and Hirohito over here to New Mexico. And they're going to build a grandstand there, and Hitler and Hirohito are going to sit there in a grandstand. And then they're going to press a button, they're going to have an atom bomb go off and they're going to say, 'See what we're going to do to you.'"

Did you ever try to fly a plane, by the way, with a pilot on each wing as well as one in the middle? And after a while, the child says that this is all energy. "I have to handle all this by energy." So he gets worse and he gets clumsy. And then the next thing you know ... Of course, that's very silly. Why, how could a child handle anything by energy? Well, you handle things by energy by postulating you've got some energy, and then the energy will handle it.

One morning the atomic scientists read in the newspapers that seventy thousand live, breathing human beings had ceased to breathe. Why? Because he was so handy with his slipstick.

Now, a child has a hard time. And he's practically out of his mind by the time he's five. He's very hard to get in communication with by the time he's five, six, seven, eight. You see, parents sometimes will say, "Oh, aren't my children having a good time." The children are out there having psychotic fits! You know, they're running around the yard and running around a tree and they're falling over tricycles and banging each other up and ... Gee. Just horrible.

Well now it puts a little time factor on what we have to do, and that's unfortunate, because we ought to have about fifty years to do this job. And we don't have fifty years now. I don't know how many years we have. It all depends on how goofy central governments get.

Oddly enough, what was destroyed in those children was dignity. If you ever want to see an awful lot of dignity, take a little baby that has been left alone, that is to say, hasn't been handled much and is - so on. Great dignity. Oh, you'd think they were the king of India or something. And you insult that dignity and they'll really come down on you, too. The child has been handled and pushed and bossed and pushed and handled, and their dignity is shot. The second that goes - bang.

You see the atom bomb isn't a weapon. It's just insanity. It's an unlimited weapon against which there is no defense. The second one of those weapons appears in the society, you get chaos and the end of central government. It doesn't even have to be used to end central government. Central government suddenly says, "You know, something's happening to us." And it starts to pull everything up in a big pile and control everything and get into everything quick so as to make sure it's all nailed down, and then it sort of all fritters away. And they say, "Well" - because the definition of a sovereign state, you see, is an interesting definition, It's the ability to protect a people from a foreign aggressor. And when you can't do that, you've - this definition of a sovereign state gets interesting.

Now, the most hectic, excitable, and below that, apathetic children, or adult, will be those who have been forced to handle things with energy, and they've been kind of pushed at things. Force has been painted up to them as being really something. They've been manhandled pretty much, and they're kind of spun in. And they have a very harsh agreement. I mean, they believe in this universe. They believe they're going to get hurt~ They believe in all sorts of bad lions, And they have this idea that they can't handle anything unless they do it with force or with motion. The apathetic child knows he can't use any force, and so therefore can't handle anything, And the one who is hectic and so forth, believes they have to use all this motion in order to get something done. In either case, their dignity is gone. They have been used too much as a particle.

When an atom bomb can come in - somebody was telling me down here the other day, when they'd come in at three thousand miles an hour . . . They don't happen to know the newest guided-missile material. And the newest guided-missile material tells us that they'll come in at thirty thousand miles an hour.

Now, when you're dealing with children, you're dealing with particles, really. And you have to bail them out to a point where they're no longer particles, but they are something that makes particles. When you do that, they have recovered their dignify, and they've also recovered their poise, and they are also orderly and can now learn the MEST universe, But you know something about the MEST universe is they have to have a lot of imagination to counter-balance the necessity of agreeing with the MEST universe. And that is mostly denied them.

Somebody is going to get a radar beam on that and get a shell up and an interceptor in time to stop that thing as it comes in? Oh no. Boom. No Chicago. Boom. No New York. Boom. No Washington. Boom. No London.

A child goes around with a great deal of imagination. He imagines, imagines, imagines, imagines. And people come down on him rather heavily for it. Well, they're closing the line. They're closing his road to any stature by coming down on this. You're not trying to rehabilitate the ability of the child, however, to imagine. Don't make that mistake; this has more purpose than that.

Meantime, United States and Great Britain says, "Look what Russia is doing to us!" So they go out and they pull a bunch of levers, and boom, boom, boom. No Stalingrad, no Leningrad, no Moscow. And, of course, the only people who are really around by this time are pilots and people operating atom bombs. And what do you know, what do you know! It was Yugoslavia, or it was the Argentine. You don't need much to build an atom bomb. It's completely overrated.

You're actually bringing him back to a point of recognition of what he really is, rather than just a particle.

So nobody knows who's going to declare war on whom, and if we don't know this fact, then we can't retaliate, can we! And yet we're told that the greatest defense is the ability to retaliate.

Now, here we have this gradient scale. At the bottom: the child as a particle or the adult as a particle. They're an object or a collection of particles. They're solid. They know they're solid. And they also think slowly, act slowly, are erratic, cannot concentrate and so on.

Well, let's make sure we have the ability to know against whom to retaliate before we make this defense. Nervous sort of a thing, isn't it!

Now, the less that condition exists, the brighter they are. And so they come on upscale and they're less and less a particle and more and more a thing which creates and controls particles, and they go right on upscale. And you have to get a child pretty well upscale before they can concentrate and before they can absorb information.

Well now, my only hope is with these techniques we can get out into the third dynamic right away, you know! We have the techniques there. We don't have to run pilots on this to any great extent. The only reason we have to run pilots on this and keep records is just to convince more people. We know what this will do. And we have it right there. And we can go out along the third dynamic level, and by the time we get well out along the third dynamic level, maybe I will have think up something or you will have think up something on the fourth dynamic level. That is a very easy way of doing it.

Now let's talk a little bit more about this thought, emotion and effort. Way high on the scale, if you have energy at all, it would be called in the band of thought; lower on the scale we have the band of emotion, and below that we have the band of effort.

But the route lies through what we're talking about this afternoon. And the route to putting a muzzle on Mr. A-bomb is what we're talking about this afternoon, really. And by the way, nothing I am saying derides or decries the principles or activities of any of these central governments. They are unfortunately going down the only road they think they can follow. And they would be as happy as anybody else to have that road interrupted. And they don't want it, and you don't want it, interrupted by destruction and revolt. You want a gradual evolution into sanity.

Effort is heavy. Those particles could be considered to be not just large, but particles which went crunch, which ran into things, which handled masses of particles and so on. We could consider this on this level: thought we might consider a gull or a bird or something like that, and emotion we might consider some relatively earthbound but still free particle, and effort we'd consider a bulldozer - real heavy! They can push, push and so on. That's the band.

If you were to just start processing children today in this society and pick up juvenile delinquency as one of these levels of the processing of children, you would automatically arrive at this goal in fifteen years. You'd have all the educated children in the Western culture solidly on our side, you see! We'd be old friends. So we could do it in fifteen years. But we don't have fifteen years, so we'll just sort of have to strain at the bit and hope for the best.

Now, effort is way down there towards zero on the band. Men who have to do hard work over a long period of time rapidly lose all of their ability to soar rapidly. And they use hard strength and hard work in general. You don't see very many people stepping out of the ditch-digging business into the upper realms of poetry. Once in a while you do, and of course that becomes very, very sensational.

Now, there are many things that you could do and there's much that you can know in order to accomplish these goals. And just to finish up this first lecture, I'll give you a very brief resume of the ways and means of knowing for each level of process.

Well now, what we have here, then, is a gradient scale of, you'd say, a type of particle. At each one of these levels you might say there's a particle. There's certain particles would be just below 40.0, and then there would be a certain class of particles down around 20.0 and there would be a class of particles around 0.0

Now, we have here what we could call a technician. This person would be a Group Auditor. This person would not be any more formally trained than the prescribed Group Auditor's Course, the reading of some of the publications. He would be able to do Creative Processing, be able to get rid of psychosomatic ills. He'd be able to treat a group; he'd be able to adjust that group within itself. And out of experience and out of reports he will get, and out of reports he will make, his technology itself will build and he will become very knowing on this subject: groups, Creative Processing. It is not a slight thing to know, be or do. But he doesn't have to know all there is to know about everything in order to be this thing.

Well, supposing we had a road, and this road consisted of half road and half bridges. And you tried to walk down that road and you were getting along fine, and all of a sudden you found a bridge missing. It would leave you - if you couldn't span that area - it would leave you on the heavy part of the road, wouldn't it? I mean, it'd leave you on the part of the road you had traversed; it would leave you in a certain area.

The next level we have up from that is actually a pretty broad jump. It's the level of professional auditor. It takes eight weeks - usually on top of considerable knowledge of the subject already gained out of texts - eight weeks of formal training to make a professional auditor.

Now, let's say that a person starts down Tone Scale and goes from particle to particle to particle to particle down Tone Scale. In other words, somebody who was fairly high on the Tone Scale suddenly starts using heavy effort, and then turns around and starts to go back up the Tone Scale again and finds a bridge out. It would leave him with heavy effort, wouldn't it?

Now, I won't say how much experience after that eight weeks it takes him. And we can only stand by, and by his practice and by our interest in him, keep him going ahead until we'll say, "He's a good professional auditor." And when we can say that, why, that's that. That's just between us guys, not for public consumption, but that's the truth of the matter about a professional auditor. It takes eight weeks of formal training, usually based on this other material, and then considerable practice on individuals.

Now, that's just a very crude analogy, because it isn't exactly what happens. A missing section of the Tone Scale would then inhibit one going back up.

You'd be surprised how long some people have been at the study of this subject and where they've arrived. You'd be quite amazed, because, you see, you haven't got any limit on this. And at this time, some of the study which has gone in on this subject amounts to a couple of years at the university, really.

Well, let's say you had some kind of an idea that particle A was mergeable with theta and usable with theta and one could be theta as long as he had this particle A, and it was perfectly safe to go over into a more detached particle; that is, a particle that wasn't quite as intimate with theta. And then he gets over to B or C or D or down that line. And then he turns around and he says, "All right, now we've always got particle A, and so we can merge back into being theta again." And one day he puts it to test and particle A is gone. He can't get back into theta again; this leaves him in emotion or it leaves him in effort. Another analogy. Apt or not it's painting a picture by it, I hope. Let's take a mixture. There are certain chemical compounds which require a dash of something before they become other chemical compounds. And supposing you took this catalyst in some process - this catalyst that would turn this whole chemical compound over, and you just remove that catalyst and made it unavailable. The chemical compound never would be anything else but the chemical compound it had become.

Let's take something else. Let's take a bomb and let's put a fuse in it. Now, a bomb fuse generally runs into something like fulminate of mercury, which runs into granular TNT, which then explodes heavy TNT, This fellow handles this bomb on a gradient scale, in other words. This little flash explodes a little greater flash which is then capable of exploding this great big mass. And that bomb isn't going to go off at all, it isn't going to work if the fulminate of mercury is missing, You could try to blow up that granular TNT all you pleased. And as a matter of fact, even if you put a match to it, it would just burn. That bomb won't explode. In other words, we're getting further and further away from workability.

And way up above that, after he's made some original contributions to the subject and so forth, then we can talk about a Doctor of Scientology. I don't expect to see any of those around for a while. Now, those are the levels.

Now, similarly, if we consider particles to exist in the mind, we might say - and with a little study on this subject you will see the facsimiles, running facsimiles, behavior of particles, ridges, all of this, flows - you can observe all this. But the point is if there was a particle missing in the mind (crude analogy) the mind could safely then adventure into the handling of all sorts of things, and then turn around and find there was a missing bridge; or try to blow up these memories in order to be free of that experience or something of the sort and find there was a missing fuse; or try to make this compound into something else and have no catalyst all of a sudden. That would be quite serious.

Now, what processes do these use! The professional auditor uses now what we call - he can use many techniques, he's given many techniques, but he's expected to use what we call now Standard Operating Procedure 5, Issue 5. He's expected to use that at minimum and he's expected to use Long Form of that as an advanced technique. All right.

We've talked continually for years on the one-shot Clear. Well, I've been thinking for a long time about there must be a button within the button within the button. We've got lots of buttons. We isolated about thirteen or fourteen buttons; they were quite important and they appeared on the Chart of Attitudes.

What would a Bachelor of Scientology be able to use? If we've got that, which is really a button-up of all the techniques along the line, what would a Bachelor of Scientology be able to use? Well, he ought to be able to use Book One, Science of Survival. He ought to be able to use Advanced Procedure and Axioms. He ought to be able to use the Handbook for Preclears in all of its ramifications. And he ought to know a little handy jim-dandy whizzer techniques of one sort or another of this kind and that, like - oh, they come up every once in a while. He runs into them, he dreams them up himself, various things. His virtuosity, you see, is quite large on the thing. And he can use Standard Operating Procedure, whatever number he's at, consummately well.

But there must be one button. Well, there isn't so much one button as there's one particle missing. And this missing particle - it boils down to the fact that we were searching, really, for a missing particle that would have - there was something gone: a catalyst, the bomb fuse, the bridge, it was missing. And we couldn't quite make the whole jump. When a case was very bad off, we couldn't make the jump hardly at all.

But what does a technician really have to know? What does he really have to know? And this applies to you who are only taking just this course. What does he really have to know?

We could do it and do it on a sort of a gunshot principle, skirting it one way or the other and just gunning through somehow or other. But there was something that case that was the worst off was missing the most of that some other cases weren't. So it required considerable thought on this basis, and as soon as it started working with a gradient scale of particles going back up to theta again, it began to test particles. And I've tested lots of all sorts of particles. And it was interesting that an empirical test is, with our other techniques, very, very possible today. We can make a test, in other words, a laboratory test, just as though you were dealing with test tubes.

He should know Self Analysis from cover to cover. You'd very slightly suspect that Self Analysis, about every third sentence in its text, is an axiom. You could look them up in Self Analysis and then you can go over and look at the list of Axioms in the Handbook for Preclears, and you will find that those Axioms had merely been strung out and listed, and that is the text of Self Analysis. Doesn't read that way, does it? It reads very simply, very smoothly.

You're working a case. Well now, what solves this case? And you could say all sorts of particles were missing, and sure enough, you would find evidence in each case that this particle evidently had something to do with it, but it was not THE particle.

It was given to a number of people who were morons and some people who were psychotics to see if they could understand the text, and it was changed wherever they couldn't understand it. So it's really a simplified rundown to end all rundowns.

Now testing case after case after case one got the idea after a while that there was some sensation missing. All right. If there was sensation missing, then maybe Freud was right, hm? Maybe it was sex. All right. Now, let's take that sensation and find out whether or not this was the missing particle. Hm-mm. No.

Well now, that in your hands makes it possible for you to explain what you're doing. But a technician ought to know that fact about Self Analysis - that it's not quite as simple as it looks.

Now, let's try and just run the concept of love. The Christian says that love, you know, all is love, love, love, love. Let's run it. Bogs the case down - bang, boom. Oh! Oh, boy, that's one you don't want to play with.

You start looking over the thing. You should go, really, and get yourself a copy of the Axioms - they have them in the office (they should have them anyway) - get a copy of the Axioms and look over these Axioms and then look at the text of Self Analysis, and you will be much edified on it. In other words, you'd have a good background grip of the subject. And then you should know that process in there and you should know what I'm telling you now about that process very, very well. You should know it very well.

Now, somebody else says, "Truth is beauty and beauty is truth, and never the twain shall meet," and so we try that. Does it work? Nuh-uh.

And you should know Creative Processing in general. And that's the simplicity itself, really, of these technologies. And you should then have the experience of addressing this type of processing to groups.

Well, do we know whether or not the thing will work? Oh yes, we do, because the preclear will turn on, now be able to remember and do lots of things that - IQ go up and all sorts of things would happen; facsimiles would disappear, deformities would go by the boards. In other words, got plenty of visual, testable evidence if that's the particle.

Now, you will be given other lists from time to time; other lists will be available from time to time, and every once in a while you'll strike out and make up your own list on this level: Really, this is all you need to know and it's not a tough technique. You just read this technique at a group. You just have to know how to read this technique at a group. All right.

So we go on down the line, We find out that - well, I don't know. Oh, this MEST universe is in wonderful condition on honor and justice. Justice, oh, boy. That's one everybody will writhe about. Let's test justice as though it were a particle. And what do we find in the testing of justice? It's a restriction. It's just an aberration. That's a horrible thing to discover, isn't it?

These are the various goals you could attain, then, on that. But the last that I mentioned there, I do hope that you will look this over from that viewpoint.

You tell people that injustice can exist and that justice does exist, and then you feed them injustice and that makes them outraged and pushes them down Tone Scale and they can be controlled. This doesn't say that justice is not a highly desirable, high-level thing. But in the engram bank, in the reactive mind, it's just an operation. So that wasn't the particle.

Now, to anyone, including a professional auditor, in attempting to present the knowledge of Dianetics and Scientology to the general public, let me give you this small, undoubtedly priceless, piece of information.

Well, how about nobility? Well, people should feel noble and so forth. Did that work? Uh-uh. No. That's another one.

What do you give the public? What do you tell your friends? What do you tell your family? How do you explain all this to people? What is your public presence and utterance on this subject? Text: Self Analysis and nothing beyond it. And I mean nothing beyond it! The moment that you go beyond that text you're in hot water.

Well, what about dignity? What about this, that? What about sacrifice? What about knowing? What about responsibility? What about the rest of those buttons up there at the top of the Chart of Attitudes? None of them fit. Isn't that funny that they just didn't fit, until all of a sudden we run into a particle you wouldn't quite have suspected offhand had any horsepower in it. But a bridge or lead aside or this fulminate of mercury is nothing compared to this particle.

You see, we don't even give a doggone if such a thing as space opera exists; it's just unfortunate fact that it happens to exist - for the processes that we run, it just happens to exist. It occupies in its center of interest, oh, I don't know, maybe a thousandth of a percent of the total body of knowledge. It's slight, it's tiny. You don't even have to know anything about space opera, by the way, to run a case.

It's interesting, it's just a little bit upsetting because it's a particle that everybody agrees is kind of unworthy a little bit. It's something you shouldn't have too much to do with. It's a little sophistry, flattery and there's other things like this and it's kind of bad, and we won't give this one out. Well, you should have suspected that one as the first one then. Because this universe is sort of booby-trapped. And you should have suspected that that one which was the least of would have called in all of the liabilities of scarcity. Because of course the particle that was the key particle would be the particle that everybody said was the scarcest, or that shouldn't be used at all. And that particle is admiration. My, that's horrible, isn't it? Admiration.

And yet it's so interesting. It's so fascinating. And one of the reasons you'll find the preclear latched up in it so consistently is because it's so fascinating.

Now, a person goes along just so long in life, and he - admiration you know, he works to get some admiration; he doesn't get it, and it sticks him into working for some more admiration; and he doesn't get it, so it sticks him into working into some more admiration; and he doesn't get it, and it sticks him into working for some more admiration; and he doesn't get it, and it leaves him stuck as a very unadmirable character. It'll even make a Home sapiens out of him,

Well, you go out and start to tell somebody, "Well, I was running this group and this little boy kept saying, 'I just came from Mars.' And, of course, you know, in Scientology we know that he did."

Now therefore, we are looking - when we look at this scale - we're looking at a scale which has a little particle in it that we can mark. Part of that gradient scale is a particle, and we can call that particle admiration. And it seems to answer up with people here, there, around - admiration. Now, that's the particle. And you don't have to know - you should... Of course, you know an auditor has to know about all kinds of things the way he has to handle flows and particles and things, but this - the point we're making here is that we've got a missing particle which, in its absence, causes effort and emotion to jam on the track. It is the catalyst particle which permits a flow between two terminals. And in the absence of this particle the communication line between two terminals won't function, It is the grease on which current runs. Now, you talked a little earlier about terminals; you don't get an interchange between two terminals unless you've got that admiration particle in there. And the second you don't have it there you lock up a terminal and lock up a whole section and lock up somebody in heavy effort. And you lock him up in engrams. Just like that. (snap) There he is, there he is. He's stuck. He's stuck with it. And he'll go on dramatizing it until he can get that particle.

"Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!"

No. No, keep that - you know, there are communication lines that have too much power on them to be opened. And if you don't believe that, open to any degree you want to the main communication line on Scientology to a person who hasn't even any vague idea what you're talking about.

Just go up to a fellow offhandedly and say, "Be two feet back of your head." (audience laughter)

Continuing this fourth lecture on the theory of admiration, that thing which is admired will disappear, and that thing which is nonadmired persists. Now, that's a heck of a note, isn't it? This universe is rigged backwards unfortunately. It is actually, and people complain every once in a while about its contrariness and not-admire its contrariness and make it even more contrary.

Huh-uh!

So that, naturally if you get a free flow only in the presence of this particle called admiration - you get free flow then, it'll just flow itself out. And if you get no flow in the absence of this particle, you just get a stuck.

But in your anxiety to do something about that, you are overlooking something. In Self Analysis you're so far over his head already that if you open the gun on him with it just blankly without any kind of leading it into him - "listen, we have something to tell you. Now, be calm about the whole thing" (and hold his hand carefully while you're telling him) - you'll drown him.

Let's take the Indian and his raising of children. He did a very interesting thing. He raised his children with enormous praise for all the things that were good. His theory of raising children - and this is a North American Indian - his theory of raising children was to praise all the things they did that were good.

And yet that material is quite assimilable and it's quite easily understood. It is easy to communicate. People don't argue with it. They will sometimes say, "Oh, there are higher things than survival. There are higher ideals and that sort of thing. There's all these various other things. Survival is too crude."

Little boy - the whole tribe would gang up on some little boy. He'd be carrying some water or something of this sort, and they would - everybody that would see him going along they would say, "What a good boy." Or he'd be packing some game for Papa - "What a good boy." They went out of their road to admire what he was doing. And sure enough it cohesed the tribe. And on an analytical level - you must never forget there is an analytical level - he was quite proud of doing these sort of things, but they had - nonadmiration was playing in there on the subject of not being good. And you had an entire race with a thirst for torture and human bestiality which was unequaled anywhere else. Interesting, isn't it? In other words, they ran out of the kid all the human characteristics and left in all the inhuman characteristics. They did a big job of evaluation on him.

They're thinking in terms of the barest necessity when they think of terms of survival. They're giving survival a colloquial meaning, not its actual meaning, which merely is "duration of existence." That's all survival means. And you try to show me any duration of existence that can exist without aesthetics or ideals.

Evaluation is itself aberrative when it is on a conduct level. All angels have two faces. An angel has a good face and a bad face. It's traditional. Man has been saying this and using this data and building his idols this way since time immemorial. There's the good angel and the bad angel, but it's the same angel.

So, we're striking in there; we're not trying to cheapen or make their world sordid for them. We're simply trying to show them that there is an orientation of this horrible problem of what they're all about. And it's quite an adequate one in that Self Analysis text. So use that for your communication line and you won't get into trouble.

"I am the God of Vengeance," says Yahweh; "I am the God of Love," says Yahweh. Sure. In order to be a complete unit - two terminals in one being - he'd have to be the God of good and the God of evil.

I give you that as advice. Don't take it for what it's worth; take it. Because it's the only place you will really start feeling bad. The only place where you will bog down is trying to go out here to Mr. Zilch and Mr. Blow and convince him of some of these things which are contained in Scientology. And he will give you no admiration like mad. He'll give you no admiration by the barrelful, hogsheads. And you'll find yourself under the gun of trying to prove, prove, prove, prove, prove.

In other words, you'd have him two terminals in the same being. But do you know that that's not top scale by a long ways? It's about 8.0 on the Tone Scale. Up above that level - good, bad? No, no. We have practicality and alignment or misalignment without thought, really, to whether it's a survival or nonsurvival activity. We just have something being done because it, well, should be done. We don't have tremendous condemnation, we don't have tremendous evaluation upscale.

What are you trying to prove it to him for? Do you really care whether or not this fellow - he hasn't got any admiration to give you anyway. He's total blank on the subject. What do you want to prove it to him for?

It tells you that in terms of conduct and behavior one of the most aberrative activities in which man can engage would be to condemn and not admire a certain strata of action and to admire greatly another strata of action because it will run the second one out and leave the bad one in.

Well, you just haven't asked yourself what you want to do with this man, And if you have asked yourself what you want to do with this man and make a statement to yourself of what you are trying to do, you will fall back on the simplest possible explanation - and you're trying to give him a professional course in one hour's conversation? Most people try that. (audience laughter)

In other words, nothing will flow on these other terminals where you have something bad. And so you get more and more crime, more and more insanity, a world hitting a dwindling spiral, which is what you behold today.

No, you can acquaint him with the fact that, "Well, some scientists worked this out and they found out the basic principle of existence is survival."

Now, it's horrible, isn't it? The remedy for this, you say, is going around maybe and admire evil. No, no. No, because evil is evil, there's no doubt about that. What's bad for man is bad for man. But people on a nonadmiration basis will get so they go out of their road to evaluate. "Now, we must criticize. We know we must criticize to do this and to do that," We must nonadmire, in other words.

And he'll say, "Is that so?" He won't say, "Aw, I don't believe it." He'll say, "Is that so? You know, I kind of suspected that all along." And you say, "And you know, it's a funny thing, but they found out the basic nature of man - well, he basically was good."

A person goes out through the bottom quickly on this. If you nonadmire something high level like painting, why, the fellow will paint, paint. Paint. Paint! (gasp) And he's going to grrrrr-urr. And then he doesn't paint so much and he doesn't paint and then he doesn't paint. Oh, no. Then he's painting? Hm, You see, now he went right down through the Tone Scale from enthusiasm on a nonadmiration basis into finally apathy. And so it will drive somebody down into apathy.

"Yeah? Well, it's kind of hard to believe. But you know, you'd kind of expect that, too."

So the law in punishing crime on a nonadmiration basis, which is really nonadmiration, exclamation point, just wants to drive a bunch of people into apathy. And do you know there's nobody more dangerous than a person in apathy. That's not a good solution. A criminal in apathy is still a criminal. Only now he doesn't care who he kills. If he kills anybody, it might as well be you, his wife or so on. He's going to go that way. If he does that way, he's just lost his determination on the thing; he's just all mixed up, in other words.

And you'd say, "I'm doing some interesting work with this material and so on, and seems like the imagination and so forth has got quite a bit to do with it. You see, and the imagination - everybody talks down imagination. But the funny part of it is, you don't have imagination, you know, you can't solve future problems - funny. You know, if you can't solve future problems, you - then you haven't got any goals or anything else if you can't solve future problems. And you need your imagination to solve the future problems. Good practical stuff, imagination. If you can't imagine something, then you couldn't imagine the factors and the solution for something."

So evaluation is tied in with this rather well. And high level on the scale, you don't start noticing anything wrong with this because a person has a tendency to be in present time in the future all the time. And he doesn't have any past hanging up to amount to anything, but as he goes downscale, he'll start to get the past hanging up. Why? That's because why he keeps carrying along with him all the things which he thinks should be admired which haven't been admired. He starts insisting on his right to do these things, all kinds of aberrated things here.

The guy will say, "Yeah, it's kind of hard to swallow I guess you're right, but I hate to have all these people going around daydreaming all the time!"

Your little kid being bad or being stupid is running on a course of action which is a nonadmired course. The therapy is not to admire the bad course, because that hits him on an analytical level, and we're after all just addressing an illusion when we're addressing it. So we'll just not worry about that. You don't misinterpret this. We're not saying that a person - the way of existence is, in living in present time, is simply to admire everything. No, no. No, we're just trying to get a fellow unstuck out of his past and make him evaluate in terms of future very easily.

Well, you say, "You don't ask them to do that. You just improve somebody's ability to conceive of factors, and he can then solve problems. Isn't that right?"

Now, if he can go around and sneer at everything he pleases, that's his right, nothing wrong with that. So, when it catches up with him, he ought to know enough to run it out.

Fellow would say, "Yeah. What do you know. That's true, If you didn't know that there was a 'one and one' in the problem 'one and one equals two'; if you didn't know there was a 'one and one' - couldn't conceive of 'one and one' - then you, of course, you could never get the answer. What do you know, that works out."

You don't have to tolerate, drive yourself into apathy, everything bad because nonadmiration of it will hang it up on the track. Use it sometimes. Be mean, qualify the thing. You'll find out there are many ways where you could just delete the particle and you get a persistence.

So you say, "Imagination. Well, you have to be able to conceive of 'one and one,' and you do that by improving a person's ability to conceive all kinds of things, and then they're able to conceive 'one and one,' and then they can say, 'One and one equals two.' And we get the show on the road."

Now, a child who studies well gets praise, praise, praise. Fine, that runs it out. And there you go, see, it's gone. And the child who in - but he doesn't know algebra; that's because he doesn't know arithmetic. Well, nobody - you'll find out that he hit a nonadmiration for error. He made a mistake in arithmetic. And he made several other mistakes in arithmetic, and the next thing you know these were not admired, not admired, and he goes right on making more and more mistakes in mathematics. And you catch him at the age of twenty-two or twenty-three, and he adds six and six and gets fifteen every time.

"Yeow? Yeah, it makes sense. Sure. Sure. Why, I knew that all the time, Nothing to that."

Well now, what do you do? You just have him admire arithmetic; the lock will turn up. That's all. Just get him admiring arithmetic. And he'll suddenly say, "I don't know whether I admire this or not, here's a time I got caned for... " so on.

And you're over the hump. And he said, "Yes," Or he said, "You know, I'm kind of interested in that. Where do you find out about it?" Something of the sort.

You say, "Well, admire the stick, admire the cane. Now let's make a mock-up and admire it a great deal of somebody being caned." Next thing you know, he gets six and six and gets twelve, Why? The held-down five. How do you hold a held-down five? How do you hold one down? It's a missing thing that prevents the flow. There isn't a flow through five rather than a held-down five. And when there is no flow to flow through five, five keeps adding itself onto the equation time after time after time after time.

If you have to go any further than that to interest him, he won't be interested. Now, I can give you forty problems for rendering him - rendering him non compos mentis. I can give you lots of solutions as to how to knock him out where he sits. Lots of ways to discombobulate him, to invalidate him, to wreck him. All kinds of things you can do to this fellow. Let's use the most efficient method. You don't want to ruin him, so just don't outflow against him with a whole bunch of incomprehensible data that he can't crack or put together. You want to help him out. So, want to help him out? Well, you give him what, within his frame of reference, he can assimilate,

When you take all possible admiration out of five, you'd think nobody would do five anymore. Mm-hm, no. Five just then goes down and stays there. This comes because of evaluation, you understand. Somebody has - but you have to have made this adjudication: "I will be admired," the individual says, "if I study arithmetic." He studies arithmetic and he gets his throat cut. So it leaves him stuck with a necessity for admiration on the subject of arithmetic, but mostly with failure, And he just keeps putting forward the errors of arithmetic. And he says, "Someday, somewhere, sometime, somebody is going to give me the admiration that requires - to knock this out!" That's a horrible joke. The only person that can give him any admiration that will register on his bank is himself. And that's horrible, isn't it?

And that data is in Self Analysis. It's not in Scientology 8-8008. You hand him Scientology 8-8008, and he - I mean, you start talking to him about it and he's just gone.

Now, all the admiration that you will get, it wouldn't matter if you were the key star of the cinema; it wouldn't matter if you were the most admired king, god or beast that existed; it would not matter at all. That admiration is not going to run out your bank! You just think it is, which keeps you plowing forward, plowing forward, working for admiration.

Let him make the bid to find out more about it Do you understand on that? So on a communication level, it's quite important, So, what do you have to know on a technician level? Well, boy, you better know that information very, very well.

You notice that people work and then get paid? They don't get paid and then work. All right, there's why. They worked and then somebody didn't pay them. So they worked some more and then they didn't get paid; and then they worked some more and didn't get paid. And the next thing you know, there they are on the LCC staff. Well, anyway ... (audience laughter)

Now, I've given you a long, discursive, roundabout talk on this, and our knowledge of the subject may or may not be advanced. Maybe some of your questions have been answered and maybe they haven't. But regardless of that, because of time and so forth, we've got to plow on straight into the second lecture.

We have - you see, the effort won't run itself out. The only person that can pay them is themselves in terms of admiration. It doesn't matter much how much admiration.

Once in a while somebody will walk up to a person and say something to them and then they will realize that they should turn on some admiration from themselves, so they dub-in some admiration from this person over to themselves. They say, "He is admiring me." They put the admiration there and feel it. And then they say, "Tsk. Ha. Guess I'll have to work harder," something of the sort, You get the idea? He puts - "See, I got to find some way to get some more of that admiration."

This is nonsense, you see, to think that a current is actually going to set up, because it won't, and it doesn't. But you could cause a man to turn it on himself, And when you cause him to turn it on for himself, it will run him out and bring him up to present time because he's stuck in all the times in the past when he thought he should get admiration and didn't. And he just hit that, bong, hit that, bong. So he's bogged down and he's stuck. You want this man in present time and the future. You don't want him in the past.

A psychotic is living in the past. A neurotic is only in present time and a very sane person is in the future. He's living against the future. All right.

This adds up then. And you will know that two things are wrong with a child or an adult, A child has got a nonadmiration for badness, and it's that very badness which you see him dramatizing. And that's not admired, not admired, not admired, not admired, and he's making it stick, making it stick, making it stick. Now, you can drive him into apathy so he won't act at all in any field on anything - some people have this as the definition of a good child - or you can simply get him to run it out.

Now, how do you get him to run it out as a member of a group without addressing this problem at all? Well, instead of reading sight and sound and other perceptics at the bottom of the page on Self Analysis, you just make the kids admire their mock-ups. Doesn't matter what the mock-up is. Get them to admire the mock-up and so on. Once in a while have the mock-up admire them.

It doesn't matter what you do. Every once in a while you have a somatic turn on in one of these kids. They'll say, "Yah-yah-yah-yahyah-yah-yah." You say, "Well, the next somatic you get - on the next mock-up you get, put it where you got the somatic," And that will run it out. Because their mock-ups are terminals, terminals. A man is as sane as and has as much energy as he believes he has terminals. See, he's fixed on this two-terminal idea. It's not true, but he uses it all the time.

And so he puts these mock-ups up around him and he knows he's got terminals. And his confidence - his confidence in getting an energy flow is his confidence in getting terminals. That's all. And so, if he can put up terminals, he knows that he can get all the admiration in the future he wants. Why, sure, he can put up terminals into the future. Nothing to that. That's all. It's quite simple.

Now, as far as actual terminals are concerned, you will find that child is in the most serious trouble who has lost a terminal suddenly or gradually. Had a father and a mother. There were two terminals. He didn't live in himself at all, he lived on those two terminals. He sort of had a body and he ran around and everything, but he's Father and Mother. And he had a terminal and they had an interchange. And a father and mother admire each other, boy, that's a good, smooth, flowing terminal. Nothing goes wrong, everything is fine.

Papa and Mama don't like each other Nuh-uh-uh-uh. Nuh-uh. Or if there's just one there, or one of them is very mean, you'll get a terminal proposition of the child using himself as one terminal and using the other parent. And you get this "You did this," and Olympus [Oedipus] and other things happening.

Now, therefore, you as - in a school can become a terminal and a child can be very fixed on you. And then one day you get transferred to another class. Don't go back and look at the mental stability of some of the kids of the class you just left. You just robbed them of a terminal. You're quite sensible of this, by the way; you can sort of feel this with the kids. You're a terminal.

And whether they think you're a good terminal or a bad terminal, you're still a terminal. And those children that were missing a terminal at home, or those veterans or adults who don't have any terminals, they're using you as a terminal. Well, it behooves you to keep your nose pretty clean, because you're the only terminal they've got. And when you stand up in front of a group as a Group Auditor you are, whether you like it or not, becoming an integral terminal in this person's existence. Therefore, it's very good to swap around the auditors a bit so that you don't get too fixed on this. All right, all right.

I hope you can understand this very easily. It isn't terribly complicated. It's what is not admired persists. And this is horrible, by the way, just is horrible, because it works out - it works out such ghastly computations.

Now, a fellow who is living in the past is living in the past because he's sure he had a terminal in the past and he knows he hasn't got one in the present or he knows he couldn't possibly ever get one in the future, So he can't have an interchange, he can't flow. There is no flow there. Nonadmiration. He gets into the past, this nonadmiration will persist, persist, persist, because he's still got a fixed terminal. It's still sitting there, it's still a terminal. It's - obviously can be used, but it doesn't work. And you get the bafflement of the psychotic. He's using these terminals in the past, and he knows they're terminals and he knows they should work, and they don't work, and he doesn't know why they don't work. And he'll haul those right up into present time and try to use them as terminals. Because he's sure he hasn't got a terminal in present time much less have one in the future.

Now you take a neurotic, he's holding on desperately to terminals in present time. Terminals plot against time, you see? It's time change that makes an electric flow. You got to change the time and the terminal at the same time, so you have a past-future, past-future, past-future in any electronic circuit. All right.

He hangs onto these terminals in present time and plots them against something a little bit in the past, or he hangs on to terminals in present time and plots them against something in the future. That last is a very healthy thing. That is the child who is holding on to the toy gun. He's holding on to that toy gun because one of these days he's going to be a cowboy. And he's got a mock-up out here in the future. See, there's a cowboy. That's his terminal. He's going to be this fellow. And he's running on that as energy, he thinks. All right, that's his energy line. Zing, zing, zing. That will be terrifically admired. And one day you see him and he just looks like he'd trip over his chin, it's so low.

And you say, "What's the matter with you?" If you plowed into it, you would find that he had some kind of a mock-up of him that he had mocked up for the future. He said this is a future mock-up. You see him mock up into the future very easily because you're not in the future anyway, there isn't any time.

Anyway, here's this future mock-up and it's a cowboy. And somebody has come along and taken his mock-up away from him. How did they do it? They have simply convinced him that cowboys are no good. And he hits bottom. How does he hit bottom? He just stops getting a flow. He has no more flow. That's the end. It's just like you turn off an electric light, The kid will look like that. You've destroyed a mock-up. You say, "Cowboys are no good." You've convinced this kid they're no good and he doesn't want to be a cowboy, and so on. I almost got killed one time, actually, in a little Spanish village way back up in the mountains down in the West Indies by simply telling a bunch of natives that that was a bad Western picture and the cowboys in it weren't actual. It was one of these little two-bit movie houses, you know - the silent film, filmed lord knows how long ago. And I just explained this, that there were better cowboy pictures than this - I was trying to say that. And I just said these characters weren't real. And I had taken their mock-ups away from them, and believe me, the fellows I was with almost killed me! Didn't realize what I was doing.

Well, you will find, then, that life goes most smoothly which goes on a high level of admired illusion. Sure, the kid will change his mind, he'll change his mind about wanting to be a cowboy. But as long as he wants to be a cowboy, you better not change his mind, because he's got a terminal there and it may be the only other one he's got. Maybe you're one, and it's the other. And if you were to tell him that cowboys were really no good, you'd probably send him home and he'd have a case of measles or something. It's as sudden and as explicable as that; these childhood illnesses and upsets.

Now, you take a veteran and he starts coming up out of apathy and you - something tells him this is all no good. He'll just sink back into apathy again. Well, your job is to get him up above that level so that this sort of thing doesn't happen to them. And it's relatively easy to do with the processes we're using. Because if they become confident of their mock-ups, then they're indestructible. Nothing can destroy them.

You see, an illusory terminal, that is to say, a created terminal by imagination is more valuable to the individual than a real terminal. It's on his wavelength. And the real terminal doesn't flow at him anyway. He just thinks it does.

Okay, let's take a very short break here.