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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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, 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,"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

Now, 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.

"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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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, 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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

[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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Well, 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.

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.

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.

TBD

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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)

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.