This is January - goodness sakes, watch - it’s the sixth, it says!

Well, our main consideration in instructing you along these lines of advanced clinical training are very, very finite. There’s a point here in my mentioning this goal several times, on some off chance somebody might get the Idea that I mean what I say, if I say it often enough.

..the body out on the sidewalk. Be the motion of the body out on the sidewalk. Now be the body. Now be the room. Now be the motion of the body, now be the motion of the body out on the sidewalk. Now be the corner. Now be the motion of the body walking down to the corner.

“What I tell you three times is true,” by the way, is one of the bywords of the society. If they say, “eat Pushmor” once, that isn’t so. But if they say “eat Pushmor, eat Pushmor, eat Pushmor,” then everybody has to.

OK, be a thousand feet up. Give me some places where you're not. Some places where somebody else isn't. Be yourself. Give me some more places where you're not. OK.

But here we have, in this Unit, the goal of turning out not only some good auditors but some excellent Instructors. Now, we haven’t had that goal so much in other Units and, actually, we have in Dianetics and Scientology, practically oh, just a tiny handful of people who can instruct. One of them is in this Unit - as a matter of fact, there are two in this Unit who are very good at it already.

Now give me several things that you can lose. Several things that you can afford to lose. Now check over some things you have not lost. Now some things which you own. Now some things which you know absolutely, with certainty, that you do not own. Be them. Be them, one right after the other. OK.

Well, I don’t - not trying to set up this Unit as an example of instruction so much as to give you the fundamentals of instruction itself. And to lay down for you the various methods by which you can train individuals.

Find the two back points of the room. Now sit there for a moment and look and don't think. Now look through whatever you're looking at. OK. What you got? OK. Feel better? You're hungry? Put some people in your stomach. Go for British.

The Navy has a method and it forgot about it a good many years ago, but it still has the method on paper. And that is to say, that you put the guy in the place where he’s supposed to be and you put him back there every time he steers off of it and you do this often enough, he will eventually be in that position, performing those evolutions in spite of anything that happens in his vicinity. Now, that is a method of overcoming lack of courage, in overcoming lack of brains, lack of foresight and everything else. It’s simply a mechanical method.

Now look, cannibalism for the duration of this class at least, doesn't hold. How's that, feel a little better? Who exteriorized on that one? Good. Anybody exteriorize on that for the first time? A little patty-cake way of exteriorization. Did you? He doesn't know. We have to solve on some of these cases degradation because of exteriorization, before they'll exteriorize, because probably most of the people here who aren't exteriorized right now had, at one time or the other, and then they felt very degraded for having done so. And that's what you have to solve in this case.

Every time the fellow wanders off course, you fix him again in the position where you want him. In such a way, you get a gun trainer or a gun pointer, you get a chief petty officer or you get an officer of the deck who will perform his duties straight through to the end. And generally, a Navy so trained becomes unbeatable.

Well that's beside the point. SOP-8C is still very much in order, just as it rolls. Carol, be your lungs. Be your body. Be your lungs. Be your body. Be somebody else's lungs. Well, was that what you did? Did you do that?

The British Navy adopted this method of training probably about two hundred and fifty years ago. And for a long, long while, nothing could stand up to British men-of-war, although the odd part of it is, is they were inferior in terms of tonnage and armament. It was just a matter of training, nothing else. Nothing ever threatened the British Navy until the people the British Navy had trained, such as John Paul Jones and so forth, also got some ships.

(Tried moving that off.)

And the American Navy has followed along fairly well in this tradition until recent years. I don’t know what they’re doing now, but I noticed a young fellow the other day, he was wearing a navy blue raincoat and he had an army second lieutenant bar on the raincoat.

Oh you did. Still obey? Yes, well you be your lungs again. Alright, both you and Carol and you be somebody else's lungs now. Be somebody else's lungs. Now be somebody else's lungs, and be those lungs with TB. Now add lung fever. Now wheeze and pant and can't get air, as the lungs. Now get a gleeful feeling of actually lousing him up. Just get what you're doing to this person with your TB and so forth. Just fix them up but good.

And I said, “Well son,” I said, “what service do you belong to?”

Now be the person. Now be the lungs. Now be your lungs. Now be the effort of your lungs. OK? You still holding back a cough? You still afraid you're going to cough? Alright.

And he said... looked at me strangely and just - I thought he was a bellhop or something, the way a lot of people do - and informed me that he belonged to the US Navy.

OK. That better? Well, I hope you feel better, but the practical truth of the matter is, you characters, I didn't process you this morning to make you feel better. I tried to give you the opening gun on randomity and automaticity, beingness and resistance.

And I thought, “Well, I thought maybe you belonged to the nautical branch of the US Army.” The US Army gets very hungry every few decades and has to consolidate into the War Department, the Navy Department. And this lasts until the Navy Department is found to be unworkable in this circumstance, at which time they re-create and separate the Navy Department out.

Do you know you've been resistive thetans now and then? And did...

We think we’re sb modern by having a Department of Defense. That’s what the name “War Department” meant when it was formed, very early. This curious, curious government which has a department called the War Department” which includes the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, or anything even vaguely resembling it, has it for a hundred years or something on that order, then creates a Navy Department and separates out the Navy and the Marine Corps and then turns around and re-creates a Department of Defense in order to incorporate the War Department and the Navy Department. This is what is known as involution.

Anyway, we're on the air, I'd better not make remarks like that. Poeple will get the idea that I sometimes inject spicey remarks in my lectures, and of course I never do. I've never said anything risque in front of a microphone, never since noon. Haven't been on a microphone.

Well, anytime you get training of a repetitive pattern, which is entirely mechanical, which has to do with putting the man in the place and making him go through motions, you’re going to get a certain degree of success. But believe me, you’re not going to get any thinkingness.

Anyway, we are now going to cover, we are now going to cover; you know it's very fortunate by the way, you do have symbols. Don't go fighting symbols just because I said that a thetan fought them. It's very fortunate you have them, because the truth of the matter is, it's a wonderful code system until somebody begins to louse it up. A symbol is as good as it represents exactly what it is, and it's as bad as it starts to represent something else. A symbol never gets dangerous 'til it gets into an abstract state. You don't have any trouble with this word space. You might have trouble with space, but you won't have much trouble with the word space. See, and you won't have much trouble with a lot of things.

Now, anytime you get services mixed up and scrambled up and this and that and so forth, you’ll begin to understand that the people in those services don’t know what the hell they’re doing. I mean, they’re not just stupid, they’re ignorant. But they are well trained. They’re really well trained. The definition of that kind of training is “no change.” So don’t bring out a 20 mm Oerlikon, even though it can shoot 600 rounds a minute, when they’re perfectly satisfied with a muzzle-loading serpentine.

But carrying on here this afternoon, we have a very, very important; by they way, this is quite important to you, is I don't happen to be covering this stuff at length. You better alert to that fact. I'm not covering anything at length. Now a lot of times when I find people very, very pleasant and agreeable, and life is running along very smoothly, and I don't intend to get an exact certain job done with the unit, I'll talk and so on, just to be a good talker, and amuse the audience and so forth. I don't happen to be doing that now. Of course you can't resist throwing a few punches around, but the stuff I'm giving you is rather terribly condensed.

The resistance to change, then, goes up, to the degree that an individual is trained on the procedure I’ve just mentioned. Resistance to change goes up, to the degree that the individual has been trained into “no change.” And we get these two factors combining and we find therein that the last way we want to train an auditor is so he won’t think and won’t change. Because what the auditor is being trained to do is to produce a change in the preclear. And if the auditor can’t change, believe me, the preclear never will.

If you knew how terribly condensed it was you'd probably be upset. And we covered this same material in three weeks with the first unit. Three weeks of approximately three hours a day. The first unit, by the way, occasionally thinks of these SOP-8C as a new technique or something of the sort, and so on. As a matter of fact, they were trained in it, but they were trained in its basic theories, and they've come out with extrapolations of this course, because that's what they were trained to do. And it's very amusing that their orientation on this is slightly apologetic, because they're departing from a rote procedure slightly. But they're departing from it on exact, solid theory, and they're departing from it along the line of a theory, which of course leads them anywhere. They can go all over the hills and far away and still get results from a preclear. They're just applying these basics.

So our training must have some happy medium between reestablishing a complete freedom and autonomy on the part of an auditor - which in itself, by the way, is not too desirable, since he will never have anything where he can sit back and relax and let the wheels spin for a little while, you know? There is that. And if you don’t give him that, why, you’ve made him be original and made him look every day and so forth. And let’s be a little practical and realize that as the techniques approach a higher level of workability and the common denominators are more easily understood and seen, that the auditor has less and less problem, actually, with the idiosyncrasies of the preclear’s case.

Alright, what we're going to talk to you about today, and probably never mention again, is randomity and automaticity. And I'm going to tell you all about it in about fifty minutes, and I'm never going to talk about it again. Now that isn't let's hurry up and grab on to all these symbols and so forth, but let's get a clear cut picture of these two things. Recognize that they are definitions, that the definitions are not necessarily true in the field of music, they are not necessarily true in the field of making bread, but they are very definitely true in the field of Scientology, because when we use these we get people out of their heads and in good shape. Now we're getting people out of their heads, you know, and in good shape, speaking of symbols.

And, as such, then, you should strike some medium which permits the auditor to sit back on training you have given him. So you’d better give him some training of the type which just simply grinds it out. Complete autonomy is not desirable. And complete slavery and complete rigidity is alike not desirable.

Alright, let's, let's then go into these two things on their purest definition, which is to say randomity is the ratio of predicted to unpredicted motion. Minus randomity is where that fraction is greater than one, and plus randomity is where that fraction is greater, is less than one. Reversly, if it were the ratio of unpredicted to predicted motion, minus randomity would be where the factor was minus less than one, and plus randomity would be where the factor would be greater than one. So I don't care which way you state it, it all adds up to the same word, the same thing. But because we've already said minus, the latter definition is the one you will be asked to put down on a quiz paper. The only reason you get a quiz is if it's a precise definition.

And so, somewhere between these two, we have to solve the problem of the education of an auditor. I am told, although I have no proof for it and never in the past have I attended one of their schools, that the Jesuit Order prided itself on educating an individual without yet breaking his pride. And I suppose that their ability to do this had some foundation in the very toughness of the Jesuit Order itself. The order was so thoroughly tough that it, at length, became a threat to the entire Catholic Church and was banished.

You know, it's one thing to teach someobdy the airy theory of something or other, and another thing to ask him, "Point to an ashtray." When he points to a chandelier you know he doesn't know what an ashtray is. The kind of data we're handling here happens to be of that order. Ashtray, space. Space is something, it is a vewipoint of dimension. Communication is something, it is a message or a particle going through distance in a certain direction between two exact points, that's a communication. And, randomity is, in spite of the fact that's it embraces randomness, is a precise definition. And it is the ratio of unpredicted to predicted motion. And that is exactly what it is, and that's all it is, and it isn't anything else, and it's what thetans make games out of. And if you don't know that, why, then you can't produce a game.

The Order of Jesuits today, if it exists at all - I think it exists as a name - is not the Order of Jesuits of which you hear back down through history. That was one of the roughest, toughest, meanest bodies of men who ever lived. A Jesuit would go out into the farthest outpost and then strike off to go somewhere. And when he got finished putting a post together or a school together or something on that order, it stood. And as you cruise around the world, if you ask, you will find that most of the firm foundations that are standing in our civilized society in this world were, one way or another, founded by the Order of Jesuits.

See, you'd be fumbling around wondering what people have fun playing. Truth of the matter is they'll play anything that has a randomity, that has an agreement with what they think is fun. And they'll have a randomity, if you have a minus randomity, that is to say the less randomity than what they think is fun, then they won't enjoy the game. And if you have more randomity than what they think is fun, they'll say the game's too fast and too hectic. Just like you're going to say this crowded in patch of data here, right at the beginning of the course which you are then going to forget all about and I keep jumping on you about all the time, is much too much randomity. But, it can't be helped.

Now, this is a very strange statement to make in view of the tremendous pioneering efforts on the part of so many people, but here was an order which, itself, didn’t conceive of any limitation on human flesh. It didn’t believe that this could happen, that anything could harm or hurt or upset a human body. And operating on this premise, the . .. For instance, it was the senior order to many other branch orders and its training was felt in many directions. It was very ironclad.

Here's, here's this, this definition. Random what? Random motion of particles. Well, what's random about it? That which is random about it is that which is unpredicted about it. And that which is not random about it is that which is predicted about it. So we take this magazine, and we say the magazine is here, we are going to put it over here at the other corner of the table. We do so. It's predicted motion. That's cause. We say, "Alright, here's a magazine, and lord knows where it's going to go." My foot, it stopped, but still terrifically random. I expected it to skid. That's unpredicted. But it's still caused to the degree that I threw down the magazine.

Now, there, the failure of that order, by the way, was the failure of the Catholic Church. When they pulled the props out from underneath that, they just might as well have folded up their tents. What have they got now? They’ve got a few churches and some paintings by Michelangelo.

Alright, we're all sitting in here feeling happy as can be, and all of a sudden a kid jumps through the ceiling and throws a base ball at Ross. Now he is a particle who is coming through an unexpected place, and he does an unexpected thing with another particle; in other words two unpredicted motions. See, they're only unpredicted because; well, Mr. Sidler, I'm awfully glad to see you. The unpredicted part of the action is only this: Ross didn't predict it. See, that's, you don't have to go into patterns where they follow smooth flows, or they're parallels on the hexagons, or anything like that. See, it's nothing but, all we've got to do is realize that we are dealing with knowingness, not dealing with patterns of particles. And then we'll get what randomity is. It's a very simple thing, and it's been digging around for a long time but it needs a terrific amount of explanation. A few sentences anyway, because you're going to be living with it. You've been living with it for seventy-six some trillion years, and you haven't got it solved yet, so it's about time we nailed it.

But when it comes to training, this organization reputedly - I don’t know this by experience, but reputedly - was the one which was sought out by the aristocrats of the civilized world to train their sons. Because they could train these boys without breaking their spirit. Well, how did they do that?.

Now when a preclear is bad off he has a fixed rantomity. That we were calling, because I didn't want to start into randomity yesterday, I called it survival pace. Supposing front lines were just climated on a survival pace, well that's his randomity, bullets flying all over the place and so forth, he can predict this. He finally figured out a way to predict this. "You never get hit until the one comes along that's got your name on it." You see, he predicts it. He handles it in this fashion. He says, "Well, up here guys get killed." Then he develops a sixth sense so he isn't where the bullet is, and then he becomes unkillable. He actually does this, but that's his level of knowingness pitched against the flow of particles.

I suppose they just set up some sort of a standard whereby the boy would consider himself so much tougher than anything else that he didn’t have to pay any attention to fatigue or worry or concern about his future. He was just too tough, that was all. And so, he had all the latitude in the world to be graceful and to be learned and to carry forward on his own self-determinism. And, you see, a fellow actually could be trained into his self-determinism.

Now in order to have a flow of particles you have to have space. So it follows with an individual who has any randomity at all, must have space. So an individual who is fighting randomity runs himself fresh out of space. You want him in space, too much randomity, so he says immediately, "Well, the way to cut down randomity so I don't have to predict is just have no space. Ha. No particle flow. Ha. Sit still. Simple. Nothing unpredicted about that, oh!" and he gets a somatic in his stomach. So that becomes no solution, because he can't exist and live without space. And so he always has some space, and in the effort to cut it down to a minimum he merely brings in and tries to hold still the particles so he can predict them. Well he has become effect at this time, and he is quite convinced that is effect and that he'll go on being an effect. But we have to move him over to cause. How do we move him over to cause? Simply by making his level of knowingness sufficient to predict the course of particles.

Well, it’s not an optimum solution for you as an Instructor to simply grind down hard on an auditor continuously and balk his understanding and override his questions and say, “Well, all right, you do it according to the book” and so forth.

How far do you think you could drive an automobile if you couldn't predict the course of that particle on a highway, and the course of other particles on the highway? What interval of time is it necessary for you to have in order to predict these particles? Not a very long interval of time, true. But you should have several seconds. And a driver, yes, because when a driver is driving along the road in a fairly relaxed condition as he often does, the oncoming cars, he sees these oncoming cars actually several seconds before they will actaully impact, he sees them start to do something funny. That's your normal course of driving, and so he puts on his brakes or he speeds up.

Neither is it optimum to let him wander too far. Because if he starts wandering way off and getting terribly thinking about thinkingness and so forth, why, he’ll waste a lot of time for you. And he’ll start covering ground that has been covered, that you, as an Instructor and knowing undoubtedly more than your student knows, will know has been covered and that you yourself have looked at many of these things. And you will find him wandering off and wasting an awful lot of instruction time on investigation of things which have no bearing on anything but his own case. You’ll find men love to examine those things which make it possible for them not to look at what they should be looking at.

Now you had it gaged there for a moment against an accident. Well of course in an accident his level of knowingness has been exceeded, or the mechanical ability of the car to be controlled has been exceeded. And so we get on either side the particle failure, or the knowingness failure. That's what we call a mechanical failure in an airplace. Airplane's flying along, all of a sudden he goes boom and explodes all over the sky. Nobody could predict that one. Why? Well, it's the mechical failure. The fellow who predicted it or could predict it is a long way from there, and he is the fellow who designed or the fellow who built the airplane. But that still was at one time a predicted motion. It was predictable at one time, and wasn't predicted. And that we call a failure.

All right. So these problems are posed. And believe me, these are the same problems that we have right here. We have no different problem right here. We have here a group of people who have, uniformly, some experience - a lot of experience and a lot of instruction. But we have another problem which you’re never going to have: most of this group got raised up, you might say, in a subject as it evolved. And that is a little bit different, that is just a little bit different than taking a straight level of subject and presenting it. So that, actually, most of the people here are completing three years of training. They won’t even complete this three years of training, because I never consider that anybody who’s gone through a Clinical Unit - I never consider that he is topped off. I never expect to see him in another school, but I do expect him to carry forward on some application and do a paper or two and hang his name up for himself a bit there, so that, a little bit later on, we can make a Doctor out of him. Now, that’s right in the cards, and this is the level we’re training at.

Therefore, what is a failure? A failure is a predictable motion which wasn't predicted. What is being wrong in terms of motion? Being wrong in terms of motion is realizing that one had the capability of predicting a motion, and he didn't predict it. So now he knows he is wrong. Why is he wrong? His level of randomity has been exceeded. See? He all of a sudden got a high level of unpredicted motion to the level of predicted motion he was operating on.

That’s why I tell you we can’t really take this pattern of training for the training pattern you’re going to use on auditors. You see, we’re a different school than the one you will be running. So I just give you that word of caution and the only reason I’m talking about it this early in the course is, later on, some of you are going to be training auditors. Or you’re going to be training group moderators or you’re going to be training people who will be working in communications or you’re going to be training something or other and you’re liable to think of the kind of a training course I carry on or you’re liable to look at this course and think it’s a pattern. And you’re liable to do this without thinking that you’re doing it. See, I just want to call to your attention that you’re liable to do it. This isn’t. This is a relatively informal group. You will have to be a lot tougher - a lot tougher on a group of students than I ever expect to be on you.

What's the tolerance of a thetan? What are the exact mathematical terms would be the tolerance of a thetan in terms of unpredicted motion to predicted motion? The tolerance of the thetan to unpredict, in this ratio of unpredicted motion to predicted motion would be one hundred over one percent. A theta can tolerate one hundred percent unpredicted motion. That's why people go to amusement parks. They try to attain this hundred percent of unpredicted motion, and they try to still read around, and leave as much as possible, some predicted motion, I mean, they try to leave that aside. But it's always with them. They for instance can predict gravity, so on. Where they actually get to is far, far short of their hundred percent. But because they can't get unpredicted motion they settle into a rut of a survival pace, you see? They wanted unpredicted motion and they couldn't get it, and they were too smart for it, so they cut down their knowingness, and fixed their survival pace at a lower pitch so they could get some randomity. Why do people come down hill? They want some unpredicted motion, that's what they want.

Because I expect to be tough on you in quite a different way than by the discipline of what you know. The toughness that we have here is just this one thing: you’re damn well going to be able to get results on preclears and you’re damn well going to be able to train people when you get through here.

Well they've fought predicting motion because a thetan can predict motion at I don't know what distance into the future. I daresay that a thetan in good shape could predict the course of an air particle now floating in this room for the next thousand years. He'd probably draw it down to the finest pin point. And yet that air particle will probably flow all over Earth, and be in every town and hamlet you can see so, and he'd know exactly what moment and what year it would be in what towm and what hamlet. I mean well, here's prediction of motion, he probably would just know this.

It’s just a certain strange little determination I have - that’s peculiar perhaps, but I intend to do that on a pretty well personalized basis. I can line you up and size you up and I know about where you’ll go and about where you’ll go off, right now. And I’m not watching for you to pull something or fall by the wayside or something of this sort or anything like that and I don’t expect to do it by your faults, but I expect to do it by giving you your instruction in various slanted ways so that it fits your personal problems.

Well imagine the poor plight of this beast, this thetan. Let's just imagine the poor plight of a poor fellow. He has this terrible situation on his hands. He knows everything. Well, he could predict everything, poor fellow. No game. He knows he's going to win.

Well, that’s an entirely different kind of education than you’ll be doing. Yes, because when I can see that you, training a group of students, will be training them from a standardized level of processing, number one, see? You’ll be teaching them how to apply something or other and something or other and something or other and so on. Furthermore, you will run things with a punctuality of schedule, to save your own skin and your own time. And again, you will put a great deal of weight on . .. You can’t help this. I mean, you just fall into the rut the second you go into education - you’ll put weight on their quizzes. And you’ll put some evaluation on what they speak up and how quick they answer back and so forth. So your tendency is to just standardize the living daylights out of it if you don’t watch yourself. And the other tendency is, of course, to run it very loose and highly personalized.

Well actually he doesn't get trapped in this, and it doesn't cease to be a game to him until he becomes unwilling to duplicate. He has to have original motions. Now it's enough of an unpredicted motion for a thetan to put something in a little black box, close the box down, and then forget what he put in it. And then open the box up again, and be surprised. That's your first level really that these processes, your first level of randomity is just doing something so it'll surprise you. Now you'll find preclears playing this with somatics, you will see they do things that will surprise them.

Now, if you’re going to just sit down and train a couple of auditors, oh yeah, you can do a terrific job. No formula, no formulization, nothing like this. You just do a very, very personal sort of job of training on the auditor. It, by the way, is not really as beneficial as training him in a bigger group. He never really feels he’s been trained because he hasn’t been part of a mass.

Well, here we have a pretty easy problem. Why, why has life become serious? It becomes serious because one has too much unpredicted motion. His considerations alone governs whether he likes it or dislikes it, so he's decided to dislike a certain breed of unpredicted motion. So he fights it. So he becomes to himself unpredictable, because by fighting it he becomes a symbol or a mass, and he becomes himself a part of it. Most people think of themselves as a communication particle, and if you were to, if you put a stamp on the forehead of most psychos in an institution and dropped them in a letter box, they'd be real happy. They're a message enroute someplace, they're a particle. They can at least predict being a letter.

There’s a certain mass necessary to a good feeling of training. That’s not a military man talking, it just happens to be true. For instance, because thee and thee went through another Unit and certainly this Unit together, why later on, thee and thee meet in a large class of students and so forth and thee and thee - you really don’t have much of a tendency to include them in, in the conversation.

Alright, what, what problems are we faced with here in processing? The individual who's trying to balance the desirable level of excitement against the desirable level of security, all excitement depends upon unpredicted motion. And all security depends upon predicted motion. So the day he believes he can be destroyed he gets interested in predicted motion. Up to that time he isn't even vaguely interested in it. He can't get enough unpredicted motion. A fellow comes back to you and says, "Whee, isn't it fun to be a lightening bolt, striking all over the sky?"

You’ll fall into a caste system if you’ve gone through in a Unit. And there’s nothing wrong, by the way, with a caste system. It at least avoids this horrible thing called equality. “Fraternity, equality, fragility.” [laughter]

Well, where does this take you in processing? You've got a preclear, he's got a terrific security goal. He's trying to cut down his unpredicted motion. That means he's fighting unpredicted motion. By resisting it he becomes it. So he's unpredictable, but sold on the fact that he has to have security. So he does the strangest things. He has to have security, so twenty-nine years of the service which will retire him at thirty years, will find him resigning. And he says, "And I don't know why I did it."

Now the thetan is doing nearly everything he's doing to himself. He has set up some automaticity in the past in order to accomplish some randomity, and this kicks back at him. And after a while he says, "I'm in terrible condition, process me."

One thing that you’re going to be victimized by a little bit - but I hope not very much - is getting a terrific amount of data before it can hit where it lives on your case.

Alright, what's automaticity? What's this got to do with randomity? Well one of the ways you set up randomity is to set up a chess player. Sit down on one side of a chess board, you make a move, go around to the other side of the chess board and you make a move against yourself, and then you go around to the first side of the chess board, you make a move, and go around to the other side of the chess board and you make a move, and you try to fool yourself by saying, "Now look-a here. Here I am, I'm moving on both sides of this chess board, one side after the other, and I know exactly really what moves I made against myself, and it's no fun." Did you ever play checkers or chess with yourself? Did you ever try to play bridge with yourself or something like that? You know what's going to happen, there's no opponent.

And I haven’t been feeding you very much data. Most of the data we’re being fed - evening there, you’re supposed to get definitions, did you get definitions last night? That’s right, you’re supposed to get those for quite a little while. I find out it makes a lot better auditors when they know what the tools are, because those are just basic tools. That’s like, this is a hammer and sooner or later you’ll all of a sudden look at them on the basis of, well, this is a hammer, you know?

So you decide the best thing to do is to make an opponent. So he duplicates himself and then you say, "I've forgotten I have duplicated myself. So myself is sitting over there, but I don't know myself, and this is some other person." And his name is Wagwalla or something. And here's this other guy. And now we're playing chess, but that isn't fair, as you've only made him a part of the person. So he's not a worthy opponent. So again there's no randomity.

All right. You’ll have to decide too, in training auditors—another little thing that just occurred to me - how much processing you’re going to give them before you tell them anything. Now, the optimum is, is to process them before you tell them anything, process them, with what we have now, three, four weeks at least and never let them look at anything.

So you introduce a chess player that knows as much about chess as you do. And you'll have immediately cut yourself to 20 on the tone scale. And any thetan, given the slightest chance, will cut himself from 40 to 20, just bang, just like that, by producing the other chess player.

But do you know that would be silly to do that to you? It’d just be silly to do it to you for the good reason that we’ve already entered into our problem here - this problem - you already know the data. And so, to forbear on telling you data on the grounds that it would speed up your case is, of course, silly. But this is not true of somebody you get in who has just read a book or two and maybe audited somebody out of a textbook or something like that. And you get him in there and you slam him in an auditing chair and you keep him there for three or four weeks and you train him up from there and, boy, you have reaped riches. More darn things - in fact, when you start to train him, he’ll understand a lot more.

Well the production of chess players of course is a limited project. I can sort of hear somebody saying, "I wonder who's chess player I am?" Your own. You notice the cells have never given up this method of procreation. A cell is his own identity, in his own son. And is his own identity in the second, third, forth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth generation.

A few years from now, you’ll never be able to convince anybody that it’s an evolution of information. You know, it’s just a subject. It didn’t evolve anyplace. But it’s a subject and it has this kind of a shape and so forth.

I refer you to the first book, cellular division. The identity is the same. You know that is, because I've conducted a series of experiments on this subject. You don't know it is, but I know it is, on this basis. I trained a generation of cells to resist cigarette smoke blown at the culture. They'd all bunch over to one side of the culture. Well, I started out by blowing steam at them, they didn't avoid steam because it was just wholly steam, didn't matter. And then substituted for the steam cigarette smoke, and then blew steam in, and then blew cigarette smoke, and then blew steam in. They finally would avoid the steam, but mind you now, cells will not avoid steam in a culture. And there's the nicotine poison and so forth, kicks it back, so they get trained.

Well, so I stand here trying to make up my mind whether to process you on this or 7 tell you about it.

Now we can go two generations down the line. No part of this culture was part of the experience, but the children were, are, here now. And these were the children of the same culture as those. You blow steam at them, they duck. Two experiments.

Female voice: Oh, process us.

I don't know why people didn't do it before, but that's because the field of psychology was not something you looked at, it was something you thought about and did something else with. But that experiment could have been the most basic experiment of psychology. It actually had to be done. You had to say, "Now what's this being man composed of?" Well he's composed of cells, and all the cells are part of a whole, so the behavior of the cells could be a pattern of the behavior of the whole. And it could have been worked out that way very easily.

Audience: [various responses]

Anyway, you did work it out that way very easily. And I very much looked at having conducted it, because it covered an enormous section of knowledge, a way of not having the material your own...

Well, if I give you the personal experience of this, you certainly will never miss on it So I guess Г11 just butcher you, because honest to Christ, I don’t know which way to butcher you. [laughter] I can butcher you by telling you about it or butcher you by Group Processing you on it. Now, it’s a little bit on the side of butchery, because you’re going to stick somewhere - I know it.

This is the beefiest technique that you can run on a preclear, so let’s run it.

Let’s take the gradient scale and all I’m going to do - I’ll tell you exactly what the technique is, it’s a gradient scale, from Know down on through Look, Emote, Effort, Think and Symbols; in brackets, resistance to and DEI.

The person who won't look at the back of a book to see how a story ends doesn't want interference with his unpredictability.

So, the first thing I want you to get is get the idea of resisting symbols.

Delusion is only a machine that will give the preclear unpredictable mock-ups. He put the machine out of his control. There are machines that set up sharp and unpredictable pains, too.

You get the idea now of resisting symbols. Just sit there and get it.

You can't get the preclear out of his head until he can be cause, and he can't be cause because of automaticities.

Now put somebody else out in front of you.

Every one of the machines was set up with more particle motion thatn the preclear thinks he has.

Put somebody else out there. Now get him - he’s resisting symbols, not your symbols or anything, he’s just resisting symbols.

Automaticity is a machine which has been set up by the thetan to serve the thetan. The thetan gives power to the machine surreptitiously. Soon the power breaks down. The occluded persons have machinery that predicts blackness.

Okay. Put two more people out there, two more people. And have one of them resisting the symbols of the other one.

When you run out these machines, he'll have to have more to enjoy the game. Have him set up new machines, but give them a finite time to quit operating, not to run forever.

Now have this one - you’ve still got those two people now, get this, still one - have him resist the symbols of the other one for somebody else.

ANYTHING THE PRECLEAR IS DOING AUTOMATICALLY, MAKE HIM DO IT HIMSELF, CONSCIOUSLY! It'll quit misbehaving. Have him do it in mock-ups, and you've run an engram. If in his mock-ups a racing car keeps flopping on its back and you have him mock up a racing car and make it flop on its back, you may find - with an E-meter - that it's something else flopping on its back - such as an airplane. Make the preclear think of something, and get pictures - and you'll key it out.

Now throw those away and put somebody else out in front of you and get him resisting your symbols.

To undo a loss, tell him to close his eyes and lose the room, then postulate he'll find it again and open his eyes.

Now throw that one away.

A person can't accidentally set up an automaticity - that's basic on the chain. Have the preclear make enough pictures and you'll key out the machine. That's why Self Analysis and Creative processing work - but it takes a long time. But they'll always get a preclear out of his head.

Put another somebody out in front of you and get you resisting his symbols.

Those who say they can't get mock-ups have a machine that wipes out the mock-ups before they're mocked up. Have them get a "no mock-up", over and over. By doing it over and over, you're duplicating, and keeping it from becoming automatic.

All right. Now get you resisting his symbols for somebody else. You resisting his symbols for somebody else.

At its best, it takes one to two minutes to run out an automaticity.

Now get him resisting your symbols for somebody else.

The only way anyone can control you is by taking over your automatic machinery.

Now let’s put a flock of symbols out there resisting symbols.

OCCLUSION: Something at which the preclear will not look.

And put another flock of symbols resisting the symbols of the flock of symbols that were just resisted.

AFFINITY: Wavelength of flow.

Now set up another set of symbols to resist the symbols which are already being resisted elsewhere.

Okay. Throw all that away now.

Now let’s put somebody in front of you and get this other person resisting thinking.

All right. Throw him away and get you resisting thinking.

All right. Put somebody else in front of you and get you resisting his thinking.

All right. Throw that away. And put two other people in front of you, one resisting the other’s thinking.

Okay. Now have him resist the other’s thinking for somebody else.

Now throw those away. Put somebody else in front of you and get you resisting this other person’s thinking.

And get you resisting it for somebody else.

Throw that person away and put another one in front of you and get him resisting your thinking for somebody else.

Okay. Throw that out.

Get you resisting effort.

And now get somebody else in front of you and get him resisting effort.

Now throw that away. Get two other people in front of you and have one resisting the effort of the other.

Now have him resisting the effort of the other for somebody else.

All right. Throw them away. And get somebody in front of you and get yourself resisting his effort.

Now resist his effort for somebody else.

And throw that away. And get somebody in front of you resisting your effort.

Now get him resisting your effort for somebody else.

Okay. Throw that away.

Let’s get you resisting emotion.

All right. Now let’s get somebody in front of you resisting your emotion.

Throw him away. Get two other people in front of you, one resisting the other’s emotion.

All right. Have that one resisting the other’s emotion for somebody else.

Throw them away. Get somebody else in front of you and get you resisting his emotion.

Get you resisting his emotion now for somebody else.

Now get him resisting your emotion.

Now have him resisting your emotion for somebody else.

Throw it away.

Okay. Now let’s get you - let’s get you resisting looking.

All right. Now let’s get somebody else in front of you and get him resisting looking.

Now get him resisting your looking.

Now have him resisting looking for somebody else.

Throw him away.

Get two people out in front of you and get one resisting the looking of the other.

Now have him resist the looking of the other for somebody else.

Throw them away.

Now put somebody else in front of you and get you resisting this person’s looking.

Get you resisting this person’s looking for somebody else.

Okay. Throw them away. Now get you resisting knowing.

Okay. Put somebody else in front of you and get you resisting his knowing.

Throw them away. Get somebody else in front of you resisting your knowing.

Throw them away. And get two people in front of you, one resisting the knowing of the other.

Now get him resisting the knowing of the other for somebody else.

All right. Throw that away. And get somebody in front of you resisting your knowing for somebody else.

Throw that away. And get you resisting somebody else’s knowing for somebody else.

Okay. Now let’s get you resisting eating.

Get somebody else resisting eating.

Get this somebody else specifically resisting your eating.

Now get him resisting eating you.

Now get you resisting eating him.

Throw them away. And get two other people in front of you, each one resisting the eatingness of the other one.

Okay. Throw them away.

Now let’s get you inhibiting symbols.

You enforcing symbols.

You desiring symbols.

You being curious about symbols.

Okay. Let’s get somebody else in front of you and get this person inhibiting symbols.

Get this person enforcing symbols.

Get this person desiring symbols.

And this person being curious about symbols.

Oh, let’s throw that away and get two other people in front of you, one being inhibitive of the other’s symbols, one inhibiting the other’s symbols.

One enforcing symbols on the other.

One desiring symbols from the other.

One being curious about the other’s symbols.

Okay. Throw it away.

[loud crash] Make that ashtray crash.

Make the ashtray crash again.

Make the ashtray crash.

Now make the ashtray crash and protect everybody from the noise.

Okay. Let’s you waste symbols.

What’s a symbol? A word is a symbol.

Let’s get somebody else wasting symbols.

Somebody wasting somebody else’s symbols.

Get you wasting somebody else’s symbols.

And somebody else wasting your symbols.

Throw it away.

All right. Get you saving symbols.

Get somebody else saving symbols.

Now let’s get somebody saving somebody else’s symbols.

Now get somebody else saving your symbols.

And you saving somebody else’s symbols.

Okay. Now let’s get you accepting symbols.

Let’s get somebody else accepting symbols.

Now let’s get two people out there and get one of them accepting symbols from the other one.

Let’s get him accepting symbols from the other one for somebody else now.

Now throw them away.

And put somebody out in front of you and get you accepting symbols from him.

Get him accepting symbols from you.

Throw it away.

Let’s get you desiring symbols.

Somebody else desiring symbols.

Get other people desiring symbols from other people.

Get you desiring symbols from somebody else.

Somebody else desiring symbols from you.

Get you being curious about symbols.

Somebody else being curious about symbols.

Somebody being curious about somebody else’s symbols.

Somebody curious about your symbols.

You being curious about somebody else’s symbols.

Get you wasting thinking.

Somebody else wasting thinking.

Somebody else wasting somebody else’s thinking.

Somebody wasting your thinking.

You wasting somebody else’s thinking.

Now let’s get for sure now, you wasting thinking.

16о6 January 1954

Now let's get you saving thinking.

Somebody else saving thinking.

Somebody else saving somebody else’s thinking.

Somebody saving your thinking.

You saving somebody else’s thinking.

Get you accepting thinking.

Somebody else accepting thinking.

Somebody accepting somebody else’s thinking.

Somebody accepting your thinking.

And you accepting somebody else’s thinking.

And you desiring thinking.

And somebody else desiring thinking.

And somebody else desiring somebody else’s thinking.

Somebody else desiring somebody else to think.

And somebody desiring your thinking.

And somebody desiring you to think.

And you desiring somebody else’s thinking.

And you desiring somebody else to think.

And you being curious about thinking.

And somebody else being curious about thinking.

And somebody being curious about somebody else’s thinking.

Somebody being curious about your thinking.

And you being curious about somebody else’s thinking.

Okay. Let’s get you wasting effort.

And somebody else wasting effort.

And somebody wasting somebody else’s effort.

And somebody wasting your effort.

And you wasting somebody else’s effort.

And you saving effort.

And somebody else saving effort.

And somebody saving somebody else’s effort.

And somebody saving your effort.

And you saving somebody else’s effort.

And you wasting emotion. Now let’s really waste some emotion.

Somebody else wasting emotion.

And you wasting looking.

And somebody else wasting looking.

And you wasting knowing.

And somebody else wasting knowing.

Okay. Let’s grab the two back anchor points of the room.