Русская версия

Search document title:
Content search 2 (exact):
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Inverted Dynamics (1ACC-16) - L531014c | Сравнить
- Inverted Dynamics (Continued) (1ACC-17) - L531014d | Сравнить
- Randomity, Control and Prediction, Part I (1ACC-14) - L531014a | Сравнить
- Randomity, Control and Prediction, Part II (1ACC-15) - L531014b | Сравнить
- Thinking Action, Machines (1ACC-18) - L531014e | Сравнить

CONTENTS RANDOMITY; CONTROL AND PREDICTION, PART II Cохранить документ себе Скачать
1st ACC - 171st ACC - 15
Transcript of lecture by L. Ron Hubbard AICL-15 renumbered 8A and again renumbered 17 for the "Exteriorization and the Phenomena of Space" cassette series.
Tape number 668 on the Flag Master List.
The original titled was "Inverted Dynamics", with the "continued" added as part of the final renumbering when the opening section was separated from the previous reel and given the title "Inverted Dynamics".
Transcript of lecture by L. Ron Hubbard AICL-14 renumbered 7B and again renumbered 15 for the "Exteriorization and the Phenomena of Space" cassette series.
Tape number 667 on the Flag Master List.

INVERTED DYNAMICS (CONTINUED)

RANDOMITY; CONTROL AND PREDICTION, PART II

A lecture given on 14 October 1953A lecture given on 14 October 1953
[Clearsound. Checked against the old reels. Omissions marked "&".]Number 0667-A on the Flag master list. 5310C14B 1ACC-14 RANDOMITY, CONTROL AND PREDICTION, PART II
[On the old reels, this lecture is titled "INVERTED DYNAMICS" 5310C14C 1ACC-15. It is number 668 on the Flag Master List.][Note that this was packaged together on the old reels with the first section of the next lecture.]

[Clearsound. Checked against the old reels. Omissions marked "&".]
All right, continuing with this second part of the afternoon talk and very briefly, I want to tell you about the inverted dynamics. This has come up several times. You should understand it.


If you can conceive of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, written on a vertical column - it starts with 1 and then goes up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, with 8 at the top and 1 at the bottom. And then below 1, going down vertically, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

Okay. Continuing this morning's talk on randomity.

Now 1 - this will work out that 1 and 1 is normal - covert hostility. That's a joke.

We can get into this - we can get into randomity much more thoroughly than this but I'm trying to add it up against cases and against living.

Now, as you go up from 1 and down from 1, you could think of this as two cones come out from the same center. Now, progressively up from 1 would be out through the top; that is to say, conquest of the MEST universe. This would be the direction we would follow. We'd conquer 1, then conquer 2, then conquer 3, then conquer 4, then 5, then 6, then 7, then 8. Theoretical course up.

There is a very interesting process which is a - merely an investigatory process. You have somebody be in one spot, you see, and ask a question and then have him be in another spot and answer the question.

What is the theoretical course down? It's an inverted course which starts at 8 and dwindles down to 1 - would be the descent of the person.

Now, when I say that, I don't mean do it with his mind. Should differentiate this very carefully.

Now, let me make that much more clearly. You've got your inverted cone and it runs from the middle: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 up. Got that? Now, your thetan, in getting in here, has gone from the top of that top cone: 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. There's his course of degeneration, down to a point of a fairly-good-order, pretty-good-shape Homo sapiens, really. He's still got a little bit of this stuff kicking around on the rest of the dynamics but he's downdrifting in that field. All right.

You give the preclear two chairs - don't get off into psychodrama. That's a - that's a bunch of bunk. That's just an opportunity to dramatize an engram without being criticized.

Now, let's take this fellow as he goes down scale from Homo sap, into Homo sap in bad shape. He starts inverting: from 1 he departs out into 2. I was telling you about this the other day - can't survive. Can't survive on 1, therefore he starts to the lower 2. Can't survive on sex or children, he decides, so he goes to the 3. That'd be part of a group organism - communist or something.

You put him in one chair and you say how - and you have him say, aloud, "How are you this morning?" Then have him move to the other chair and say, "I am fine, thank you." And while he is sitting in that second chair, you say - have him say, "What is wrong with you?" to the other chair. And then get into the other ch- just that phrase, by the way - and have him get into the other chair and have him not answer.

Most communists have failed sexually, by the way. I don't mean to damn the Communist Party by that remark. That happens to be a clinical observation.

And then have him get into the first chair again and say, "But what is ailing you?" And then get into the other chair and not answer. And you will work out the valence problems of the most violent schizophrenic you ever had.

Then when he gets down to 3, they're perfectly willing to sit around home and chew up other Russians until all of a sudden they drop into 4 and then we've got to internationalize.

The only thing wrong with a mind is that it is there. I hope we can really learn that as we go through this. The only thing that's wrong with a mind is its thinkingness. The mind is the substitute of predict.

Then we drop below that and we get to 5. It's animals, then.

Now, a person goes too low on no-predict and then he can't look and see what is going to happen, he gets into a situation where he figures what is going to happen. And he's pretty good at this. He can use his past experience and so forth.

Then he goes down - 6. That's just MEST.

But, let's get exactly why he does that. A preclear can run this as a concept quite interestingly: "I don't know what's going to happen. I'm looking around to see what's going to happen." Those two levels, see? The first level, "I don't know what's going to happen." And you will have him run through all sorts of thought things.

You see, he's losing out. You might call this the gradient scale downward of anesthesia. He loses everything above the level in which he's operating.

You are not trying to solve very much about how the mind is thinking. The mind will think all right if its problems of randomity are solved. Exteriorization and motion through space solve problems of randomity much better than thinking about them. The fellow will suddenly throw out tremendous quantities of circuitry without even looking at it if you just teach him that he can move and that he can make things move.

Now he loses 6 and goes into 7 and there is your psychotic band. They've lost 6 and are moving into 7. And man, the way he is now - the way he shouldn't be now, the composite that is modern Homo sapiens - markedly, just markedly, hangs around these two points. Way down! He's below an inverted 6, moving into 7 and then he moves into 8.

Well, of course you've got to bring him way up scale before he can move anything else. But you teach him he can do this. And you teach him that with a drill, just like you would teach a soldier or something. Not to make him obedient but to show him he can move. And you move him from one corner of space to the other corner of space and you move him here and move him there. And have him move mock-ups while he's there and blow up mock-ups and change mock-ups.

Well, how the hell do you get this guy to turn around and go back up the other way? Fortunately, you don't progress the case mathematically or arithmetically or by diagrams. This is just a method of demonstrating to you what's happening.

You see, explosion is beautiful because, boy, is that making a lot of particles move in a lot of space and - in a very short time. Boy, that's real good, see! Gee, that's real good. All right.

So you find this guy in the insane asylum who thinks he's God.

Here you have a condition in this universe as I told you yesterday - the perception lag time of the universe. If you see by use of this universe's perceptions (waves) something will happen and then afterwards you will find out about it, because sound traveling at eleven hundred feet per second arrives with you sometime later. See? So simple. It arrives with you sometime later. Well, damn it, that's a condition of no-predict!

By the way, your Tone Scale there begins with 8 at 0.0 and runs up with 1 at 20.0. (I was wrong before. I said that's a Homo sapiens. I keep thinking that man is optimum, in pretty damn good condition.) He's at 20.0, at where you got those is crossed, and he's at 40.0 when he's up to the upper 8. This would be another way of graphing your Tone Scale. Come down at 20.0 and from 20.0 your dynamics invert and go lower. Seven and 8 are down there below 2.0. And 2.0 - a little bit in advance of 2.0 - is 6. It's just a little bit up from 2.0. See?

But it is slightly desirable. Don't ever overlook the fact that it's slightly desirable. It is desirable, really. I say slightly and you could take a lot of this. Of course, you've got practically nothing but a spotlight.

I'm just mulling this over here a little bit to make it plainer and plotting it against the Tone Scale. And when you'd go up, let's see, your level of comparison there, he'd be - it must be a DEI sort of an inversion. There's - he's got gradient scales of each one of these. It's a more complex graph, by far, than what I'm demonstrating to you but should get this idea - just get the idea of the two cones and you've got it. It's a terrific number of small cones which makes two big cones.

Now, this gets keyed in on speech this way. You go in; the person that you're talking to is apparently in good spirits. And you go ahead and you say, "Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. And a beautiful morning. And the birds singing. And everything is going along."

All right. We get here the psycho in the insane asylum who's being God. And then we get the psycho in the insane asylum who's being Christ. He's not quite as bad off as the psycho being God. See? He's inverted. He's out through the bottom to the extent that he as a thetan is going to be God.

And the other person simply says, "To hell with you!"

You say, "Be three feet back of your head." If he was in communication at all, he would merely tell you he was God right now, see? Huh! There wouldn't be any uncertainty about it - he knows! He is convinced; you should be, too.

"Jesus," you say - baaahhhhh!

You run into this every once in a while but the clue is, is he is nowhere near his body in the first place and he'd have to be processed to come back into his body and out of his body again in order to give you the exteriorization which we want. It's symptomatic that he says, "I'm over there."

You go in. You just made 82,672 dollars in a terrifically clever way and it didn't spend any of your future at all. And you've got all of this money, you see? And you say, "You see?" And tremendous enthusiasm. They don't admire it at all. But you look at them. They look like they're going to admire it. And they say, "Money is the root of all evil."

Now, because that's a long way to climb doesn't mean it's a long way to process; it breaks quickly. But he says as a thetan - anywhere down from about an inverted 3 - he'll tell you, "I'm over there." See? "My thetan..." he will say. See? And people who are really sold on religion talk about "our God."

People who do this are in two conditions. They, one - neither upscale nor downscale actually; they are both aberrated conditions. They don't have enough randomity so they - they just don't have the capability of making any randomity. See? That's kind of what they've lost. They don't have enough randomity, so they try to make it with speech. Or they're deathly afraid to admire anything you've got because it might set up some randomity. And they can't be predictable! And there's a center pin.

Religion, as you know it in the Christian church, is well in the vicinity of 0.0. It's really close to death. They talk about "their God." A little bit higher they talk about "their Christ."

They don't dare be predictable. That takes care of both cases. The back of both cases is that. And both cases have this: The environment is dangerous.

Well, what's God in this case? It's themselves. But you've got to go all the way up through the dynamics to find him. You can't go out and walk around geographically trying to locate, yourself, your own God because you are your own God. It's so simple. You can't walk around all over the place trying to "find Christ" or "put Christ in your heart" or some such thing as that, because as far as you're concerned, you're - when you got to a straight up 7, you'd be it - you'd be Christ. Do you get the idea?

They have been hit, not spoken to. They have been hit often enough in the MEST universe where they didn't know they were going to be hit. That's all it takes.

So we're not - we're not concerned with the condition so much as we are the distance. When a person is completely sold on the idea of there being a God, you know where he is on the Tone Scale. "There is a God. I know there is a God. He is my God, and I am blahblah-blah-blah-blah." He's just sold down the line. You know you're talking to somebody - you know just about where he is on the Tone Scale. He's just about 0.0 - practically dead.

All it takes, actually, to shatter the morale and spirit of a small boy or something like that is, without any causation in his environment, no - no ability to predict it and so forth, without any change of relationship, with no guilt or any of these reasonabilities that are used for prediction and so forth, and without his seeing the forewarning motion of preparation for the blow, have him standing in front of you and then just suddenly hit him very hard while you're smiling. You'll shatter him. And you'll find incidents like that on a case. It's an actual impact, see? He's been hit without warning.

Little higher on the Tone Scale they use this God to Christianize them, like they got slaves over in Africa, you know? You think for a moment that I'm using blasphemy. I'm not. These are the people that are using blasphemy. They are doing the only crime that you can do: They are denying themselves. And that is the only crime possible. That is the only cross-up of ethics possible. After mulling it over and turning it over and testing it for a long time, why, I finally found that out that the only unethical thing you can do is deny yourself.

Now, don't think that the automobile accident, then, is the tremendous trauma. Birth isn't the tremendous trauma. This is just a slow grind. It's hit without prediction. The automobile accident was only a severe automobile accident if the fellow was driving along the road and then he wakes up in the hospital. He's hit on an oblique angle. He never saw the incoming car. And you'll find this is what they complain about in the emergency wards: "But I never saw it coming. I never s-." If you find anybody who is in a terrible condition, terrific psychic shock, that's what he's saying over and over. And the other thing he's saying, "Where am I?" or "Where was I?" Locational, you see? Both of them are the same thing: is "What the hell was I doing there?" And he's trying to look for some future method of predicting such an occurrence. See, he's got to have a better answer. He knows it now, because he can't predict. And he's just shattered.

So, they've denied themselves to the point of saying, "God is out there and he made the universe." Oh no, he isn't. They made the universe and they're not out there; they're right here. This fellow's inverted; he's not in his body.

And then all of a sudden he'll begin to find out he can predict things a little better. How do you teach him that he can predict things?

Now we come right back up the line, we don't find anybody in his body until we start getting up fairly high. See, we're going right on up the line thetawise.

You say, "What is the realest thing in the room to you?"

But fortunately the very act of saying, "Be three miles or three light-years or ten feet back of your head" - the very act of saying this is - the sudden recognition of it, if the guy exteriorizes (pow) at all, he jumps, quite ordinarily, up the Tone Scale a number of rungs. He goes up fast if he exteriorizes like this. And he goes up fast the more certainty he obtains on exteriorization because - pow! pow! pow! Q and A - the riddles of existence are just fading out on him at a mad rate. Just real fast!

"Oh, the ashtray."

That's why Theta Clearing produces the results it does. It's like shooting somebody up the Tone Scale with a rocket. And yet, they apparently don't shoot up the Tone Scale because their body is right there, isn't it? And it didn't suddenly glow or do anything. Well, here you've got measuring whether or not the thetan got into better condition by observing the flesh which he inhabited. That isn't very reasonable but an auditor is liable to do that if he doesn't recognize that he's liable to do that.

"All right. Reach over and touch the ashtray."

In other words, we exteriorize the fellow, he will manifest physical changes. Oh yes, he will! But it'll take a little while, maybe, for the physical changes to catch up to him. The body doesn't change fast.

And you will find that these people very low on the Tone Scale will wait a long time before they touch the ashtray. Why? They're not sure it will be there when they arrive. They're not sure that it won't move. They're not sure that it isn't a billiard ball that is going to be struck in some mysterious and invisible fashion.

Horses, for instance, when raised in the lowlands of Persia, where it's very hot, grow short hair. And when made - pushed into the mountains where long hair is very desirable, still don't grow any for three generations. And horses who have long hair in the mountains, when put down in the plains, keep that darned long hair for about three generations. They just want to make sure they're on a lower plain.

There is why people are very upset in this universe about religion and God. They're upset about hidden things, invisible things. And that's why they use, continually, the hidden standard. In all their arguments and everything else, you'll - they work on this thing called the hidden standard which I'll go into. Remind me sometime, I'll tell you all about that hidden standard. That's a really tricky one. It doesn't belong in this morning's frame.

Well, that's the body. And it gives you an index of how close it's contacting MEST and how fast it's willing to change. It's not willing to change fast at all. It wants to change real slow - generation by generation, if possible. It doesn't like this "five-minute alteration complete."

You've got to teach them that they can be there when something reaches them and that when it reaches them it won't kill them and that they can reach something which will remain there long enough to be reached because these people don't think their environment is going to be here two seconds from now. And that's the condition of mind they're in.

One of you the other day coming in and complaining a little bit after a certain amount of processing - a certain physiological change took place connected with the pineal gland. That right? Well, there was no complaint about it. It's just a fact that the body is not accustomed to a sudden endocrine shift.

If you want to understand the mind of a psychotic, that phrase will do it for you. They're not sure that any of this or you will be there two seconds from now; that you're either going to be here, which accounts for the collapse of the line, or you're going to be gone, so forth. And they live on this kind of a perpetual level. So we get again this technique called comparison - corner for corner. This corner stayed there while he looked at that corner. That's the first thing a psychotic will notice. And that's the first little jump up the line he will do.

I can tell you how to shift the body's endocrine system around madly. You just use Rising Scale Processing with the Chart of Attitudes. How simple. You do this on some girl - if you did this on an eleven-year-old girl you would probably shoot her up into the age of puberty in an awful rush. You'd probably change her physiologically and speed up the whole process.

"Look! The corners stayed there ha-ha-ha!"

You do this on a girl who is much older and her endocrine system will turn back on again. You can change the body all over the place.

I've actually had one laugh just like that, I mean, terrifically relieved, see? He didn't dare look at any of that stuff because it wouldn't be there by the time his gaze reached it. Oh, this is real low, real low. You find it - you find yourself stretching your imagination a little bit to embrace how low you can get on something like this.

But the point I'm trying to make is that the body is conservative and the thetan isn't. All the thetan has to do to change is just change his mind. But as long as he's evaluating according to the body, he thinks he has to change the body before he can change as a thetan.

And the other one is, is something has started a long time ago which is going to hit me any second and it's traveling at a speed which I can't see. And a fellow gets that in space opera and that's why space opera is so deadly.

Well, you're just doing this job: You're trying to get him into the body so you can get him out. This is a hell of a note, isn't it? It's an inverted proposition. You're trying to get him into the body before you can get him out.

Going faster than the speed of light, an object reaches you before you see it, if you're using MEST universe perception.

Well, processes show up and are quite evident immediately as to how you get somebody who is way downscale, as far as a thetan is concerned - he might be downscale as a body and upscale as a thetan, but still the body kicking back against the thetan could make him outside the body before he gets into it.

You're going along just as nice as you please and everything is just swell and there is a dull feeling. The body isn't there anymore. And very often they didn't even find out what hit it. Do you see why this universe forms - if a person is in it too long - forms too much no-predict?

You'll find some thetans working this mock-up from clear up in outer space someplace. You'll find other ones stuck thoroughly in a theta trap. I mean this physically. I don't mean this in a mock-up form. They're actually in some kind of a trap someplace or they're in a room or they're standing in front of an electronic switchboard or something, way the hell and gone out of here! Nothing to do with it!

But the only thing really wrong with a case is your no-predict and your automaticity, if something must be wrong with a case. It's his level of randomity has been violated - plus or minus - been violated. He expected this damn thing to get to him last week and now it's this week and it isn't here. Now that's a no-predict on the slow - the minus side.

I ran across a preclear one day, had constant ringing in his ears. Ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, all the time, all the time, all the time and nothing, no process known to man, would change this thing until all of a sudden I said, "Well, why don't you move away from the dynamo?" His body didn't go anyplace, but he just simply moved away from the dynamo. He ran into the guy who was standing behind him. This caused him to look down at his hands and feet, at which moment he immediately got sick at his stomach, they were so horrible. He'd been standing there looking at a view screen! He's been there for a long time.

You take some fellow who has customarily been waiting for somebody else's decision and the guy is kind of batty. The ultimate in "too slow" is an absolute nothing. It never gets to him. That's the ultimate in "too slow."

I just shoved him off because I moved his position away from the view screen and out away from that and then processed him around for a while, then got him to finally sever the communication lines and then pick up direct lines with the body.

Don't, because of the drama in it, assume that an impact is all there is. There's that nothing, too. But what is the best thing to aberrate a nothing? It never arrives and there was nothing to arrive. That's the worst nothing you can get.

I had to run Hand Flopping, a wonderful little technique called Hand Flopping, up to a point where he finally realized that he was controlling the body. Realization! You didn't run it as long as - enough to get the complete realization of it, but "Who's controlling this body?" You run it with that thought. You get your hands flopping up and down and just suddenly - just keep thinking "Who's controlling this body? Who's making these hands do this?" Flop, flop, flop, flop, flop, flop, flop, flop, flop, and all of a sudden it'll dawn on you with tremendous certainty, "I am!" You see? I mean, that's good stuff. That's a real good little technique, by the way.

"And I didn't see it at all and I didn't know when it hit or what it was!" is the other one. But you don't have to add "what it was," because that's just form and an aesthetic.

Now, what's the condition here? The condition is the guy has run away from his body; he's run away from bodies; he can't even be in a body.

Now, for God's sakes, solve this in a case that's having trouble. Any one of these factors solves, but solve this little one I'm going to give you now in a case that's having trouble: "Who done it?"

The value of the body is so great that they don't even dare come near one. That's very true. They don't even dare come near one; they might hurt it. And so they're running them on extensional lines or some doggoned fool thing. At least this is the way they're computing. Regardless of what they're doing or what they think they're doing, you have to come up through a solid 6.

I know that sounds idiotic but we're dealing with Homo sapiens. And we'll soar right now down from anything that will embrace the whole track to something that applies immediately and intimately to Homo sapiens is "Who done it?"

You'll find them kicking around with spirits. You'll find wasting ghosts on some of these people is very effective. Wasting God, wasting ghosts, wasting spirits, wasting Christ and they'll start picking right on up the line. Or you simply do the processes which I've already been giving you and they accomplish the same thing.

They read detective stories, not because they like detective stories or their acceptance level of "baby murdered" and so forth - a lot of explanations if you want them - but it's, who, who, who? Who was the fellow? And you just ask - you just put - preclear on a case-and I want you to do this today while you're processing - just put it on the dial and just ask him, "Now, who did it?"

The best of those processes, by the way, although it takes a while when run on a low-toned case, is Step II of SOP 8 - that's real good -

And those that are very wary and very differentiative and so forth will ask you coolly, "What are you talking about?" You see.

& You can practically drive somebody psycho with that if you rush it too hard or press it too hard,

And fend around, "Well, who was responsible?"

- by having them move the mock-up and have them move the body and move the mock-up and then have them advance the mock-up and retreat from the mock-up, but bring the mock-up with them, you know? Keep the same distance and advance and retreat and so forth.. But the time to stop that is not when they're still groggy. You just keep it up. You just keep rolling it. You keep them walking forward toward the mock-up and the mock-up walking back with them until you've finally got this setup.

And your other phraseology will kick it because they're carrying one like that right in present time. There's hardly anybody who isn't. "Who was responsible for it?"

Now, there's an extension on SOP 8, by the way, which is creating something which creates which creates. And I'll go into that in a moment.

But what you want to find out is not "How did you place the guilt?" The actual identity is the one you're looking for. And they have fought identity so long that identity has gotten awfully important to them and it's why the guy is hanging on to a body. The fight with identity. "Which identity was it?" You see? "Which - which - which was it?"

But you get what I mean by an inverted dynamic. The fellow is so dispersed, he is so scattered around, he's below the level of being in a body. Now, let's not labor this. This is not serious. It simply explains to you the condition under which some of your preclears are operating up to the time you process them.

And so they'll cling on to this identity because identity has gotten very, very scarce. How'd it get scarce? Because he couldn't acquire identity? No. Because he didn't dare acquire identity? No. It's just because those that operated other particles in his vicinity were not identified. And that's terrifically specious and spurious and it's very low toned.

SOP 8 is the method of processing them - and its ramifications as I'm giving them to you here. There are lots of ramifications and there are lots of faster processes, too. But the point is, the guy you're trying to exteriorize, when he doesn't exteriorize, isn't in the body. You've asked him to do an impossible thing. He's already exteriorized as far as he's concerned. He's either some other thetan or he's some other demon or he's someplace else and he wouldn't be able to come near the body on a bet.

What the hell difference does it make who pushed the rock? The fact is the rock was pushed. And your preclear who's having a hard time has to come into some kind of a recognition of this: that the "who"...

You got what we mean by an inverted dynamic. What is the "anesthese" level of the preclear? What can he communicate with? If he can communicate with MEST, you've got him at the level of inverted 6. If he can only communicate with spirits, only communicate with spirits and all else is kind of unreal and dull to him, you've got him at inverted 7. If he can only commune with God and all else is strictly mock-up, he's an inverted 8. It's "Where can he communicate?"

You'll find that the trouble with the "God complex" is simply the trouble of "Who is God? What is his name?" You might... You see, it's - this is the reductio ad absurdum. There's no sense in this. And you'll never find any sense in it.

This person shouldn't be mistaken by you for two seconds! Because when I said, "He can only communicate with," that's what I meant. His communication level is so slight on the other dynamics, he wouldn't know groups or he wouldn't know anything about man at large or he'd be kind of foggy on the subject of animals. “Animals? Animals? Yes. Yes, animals are nice, aren't they? God made all these little animals" Here we go, see?

All you have to tell somebody is, "God is a fellow by the name of Caterwump and he lives on Mount Sputtergut." Gee, if you say it loud enough and with enough conviction and so forth, you'll have an enormous religion going immediately. That's all you have to say, you see, because of this terrific anxiety of "Who done it?"

"Yes, women - women are very, very nice. Yes, yes. They're very - some - been very, very good women in the world. Take Mary Magdalene!" Here we go, see? Now we're in communication.

So we get this thing, "Who made the universe?" And what have you got there? You've just got the ultimate of uncertainty. Obviously the thing is made, so they want "who" made it.

How do you know you're in communication? Because he talks with certainty on the subject. Savvy? So simple. That's diagnosis, if you want it that way.

Well, when you're asking for who, you're finding nothing because that's an identity. You see? You haven't solved anything merely by saying, "This is a lighter," if you're talking to a Swede. You've solved nothing.

Now you could also plot this thing out horizontally and say: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, with an up and lower cone for each one of the numerals. And you could handle the problem, each dynamic individually, although they tend to pin each other down a bit. But you could just handle each dynamic individually. You could just strike into the problem. Anyplace you wanted to strike into any preclear, you'll find dynamics 1 to 8. And treat each one as an upper 8 or a lower 8, an upper 5 or a lower 5.

He says, "Who is this?" And when he's saying, "What is this?" he means purpose. But if he were asking "Who is this?" and you said "Joe," he would be satisfied. Why the hell should he be satisfied? Well, that's so he could say "Joe" next time.

Let's just start in with a preclear willy-nilly and say, "He can't communicate with animals, obviously." Here we go, see? He can't communicate with animals. Let's - you just assume this that he's - there'll be something wrong with his communication with animals. And you might find that his ability to communicate with animals is pretty damn good and a hell of a lot better than the rest of the men around him, but he still can't talk to them. He still can't walk up to a horse and say, "How are you?" See what I mean about communication with animals? He can't walk up to a dog and say, "Hey, gee, there's a swell - there is just a swell fireplug down in the next block. Rover was by there a half an hour ago. I just passed the place." You get what I mean by "communicate with animals?"

Well, I don't know that anybody is really excited about God today the way they used to be. But they all have the feeling like they're going to meet him or something and they'd like to know what name to call him and this is very - this is very upsetting to them. And they want to have enough - this who is simply - and they want to have enough responsibility hung on this person so they can go and look this person up and have some randomity.

Now let's take "communicate with MEST." This stuff do what you want it to do? Damned seldom. A fellow who can't work is simply hung up on 6. He's on inverted 6 - the lower part of 6.

You'll find out some person who is really fixed on "Who done it?" is – “they just haven't got enough reason to punish and it runs right off into reason to punish." So that's the next thing you run on a case. You get a drop on the meter, "Who done it?" Then you run "reason to punish." See? Just do it and you will understand a lot more about it than I'm telling you right now - "Who done it?"

Now, if you plot your case, then, with the second system I mentioned, you have a case plot which is beautiful to behold. You just work that case plot with Creative Processing on creation and destruction by explosion. Mock-ups! Your case will solve itself. Do it by gradient scales.

Your preclear finds that it is enormously and horribly important to have a name. Here he is a poor little defenseless baby and someone comes along and hangs the name "Aloysius" on him. He's utterly defenseless. But this is it. This is a thing. This is a particle. It's a valuable particle of some sort or another which can move around and he can do things with and so on. Terrifically valuable particle.

You can't blow up the cat? Well, by golly, you can blow up the duplicate you made of the cat by taking a stray hair which has already been pulled out, which is on the cat's back, out of the duplicate. And holding it out at a distance from both the duplicate and the cat, blowing up that hair. You can always do that. You can finally get down to where you can blow up the tail of the duplicate cat and then you finally blow up the mock-up of the cat. Now, we can take dogs, animals, crocodiles, any doggone thing you want on a gradient scale with Creative Processing and this technique is wide open.

Why is it so valuable? Well, it identifies him. It gives him an importance. When you don't have an identification you don't have an importance.

You just sit down and do this. Say, "Well, we've got this technique and all we do is write down on a piece of paper in a horizontal line: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. And we draw a cone up and a cone down from each one of those numerals. And we'll find his lowest level of dynamic in an awful rush. We'll find out where he's the worst off simply by asking him questions connected with it." And where you find him in communication is when he alerts and starts to talk to you.

I want you to subjectively examine that because your preclear is very often not hanging on to his body. He's hanging on to his name. Hm - boy! That is the third stage removal, you see, in terms of thought. You can't hang on to a name. You can't get attached to a name. You detach him from his name and he can detach from the body.

I remember processing a preacher one time. Nobody had ever been able to do anything with this fellow. He was in pretty bad shape, actually. He had enough people around him in bad shape and in misery and broke and so forth, but after forty years of it, by Q and A, he was at last miserable, in bad shape and broke.

One of the ways of doing this with a child - this is the simplest process in the world. Kid comes in, his name is Johnny Jones.

So, this wasn't an inevitable fate. It merely shows that the environment determined him, he didn't determine the environment. So we got - the preacher and I talked about himself and outside of being miserable, he didn't have anything to say about himself. I mentioned the subject of sex and a sort of an imbecilic thought that this was something evil flicked through his mind but that was about all. I talked to him about his parish and his parish didn't even vaguely worry him anymore. "They do not weep and neither do they spin," or something of the sort - way off beam. Talked to him about material objects, things he owned and so forth - way out of communication. And I talked to him about Christ and he showed a little bit of animation. He said, "Well, of course, he couldn't really have been a man. He must have been more of an idea that God sent here."

You say, "Say 'Johnny Jones.'"

Ha-ha! And here we go. Now, I said, "Well now, concerning God..."

He says, "Johnny Jones. Whatcha talking about?"

"Yes," he says.

You say, "Say 'Johnny Jones' again."

"Do you often have a feeling that he smiles upon you or you're in his presence?"

And he says, "Johnny Jones. Well, what are you talk - getting at?"

"Well, you have to be really rather careful, you see, in your concourse with God, because it might be damaged by some sordid thought."

"Well, just sit there and say the name Johnny Jones now twenty-five times. I'll count them."

Poor guy was already beginning to worry about the only Comm line he had left, which was God. You give him about thirty more seconds on the hour hand that man uses for a life span and he just would have slipped overboard and nobody would even notice the splash, including himself.

He says, "Johnny Jones, Johnny Jones, Johnny Jones, Johnny Jones..." All of a sudden he'll say, "Who am I?"

All right. Here's an analysis of a case. But this could be the analysis of any case.

You've shaken him into his first questioning attitude on the conviction which has got him beautifully nailed down.

You talk to this girl and you say, "Yourself?"

You actually can take a preclear and practically exteriorize him on that. He's nailed down by his name. "Who am I?" he will say. And then he will start to find other names. He's got to find a lot more names now. To hell with that! He's him! And that's the first thing he's got to learn.

“Ahn-ah-nah."

He only asks "Who am I?" when he loses his own sense of identity. He only loses his own sense of identity when he identifies himself with space. He's got to go back through and be perfectly willing to identity himself with space. And then he won't have to be space anymore. And then he won't have to have a name, because he wants exterior designation that says, "You're not nothing."

"Sex?"

Now, what do you do after that? "Desire to punish." There's one more step instantly, immediately following.

"Nah-rar-r."

You've got, "Who did it?" Then the "desire to punish," that's the first reason that shows up in the thing. And then you've got desensitization of name and this flies apart on "the right to be nothing." You'd better run that. See, you're moving him closer and closer to reaching it - the right to be nothing. And this is run with concepts, brackets, matched terminals and so forth. That's one of these a - haaa sort of a technique.

"Groups?"

Okay. Will you please investigate this and look over its subjective reality. I don't expect you to integrate all the theory I've been giving you this morning in a lump sum. But there are ways that you can use it and you should figure out there are ways that you can use it.

"Ah-nrr-well, you know - groups."

"I don't know where it's coming from" as a concept will put a guy immediately in a - into thousands and thousands and thousands of engrams. I mean it's the little handy jim-dandy one.

"Man?"

But just recognizing that you are on a mission of demonstrating to somebody that the universe is predictable to some degree will do an awful lot for you as an auditor when you're auditing Homo sapiens. And if a person is terribly bored, showing him that it's not predictable in every way and shape and form. And those are the two sides. It's not entirely predictable. You're really not going to be here for the next seventy-five years keeping this house, missis. There are other things going to happen.

"Well, yes. Yes, somebody should do something for that."

Well, all these things resolve by exteriorization because it's motion of particles through space and moving particles in space. See why exteriorization works out as your ultimate therapy.

Talk to her about animals. "I had the cutest cat once!" Here we go! She's on inverted 5. Just like that - pang!

Okay?

She still conceives herself to be in such strong communication with 6, 7 and 8 that she doesn't worry about it. But she's got the cutest cat and the cat got sick one day... You get where you'll spot a case now?

We've got let's see, now if we did the assigning yesterday and so on. You grabbed a brass ring last night I understand, Bill. De Young. I understand you grabbed a brass ring last night. I trust you have been in your body very thoroughly all during this lecture. (...) Well I hope you have, it's a very serious lecture.

Now, what's the fastest way to process the case? is pick up the last inverted dynamic - the highest inverted dynamic you can find with which he's still in communication and rehabilitate it. Have you got it?

[end of lecture.]

Now, you'll find people in Scientology that have moved into Scientology on an inverted 7. You guys aren't on an inverted 7. You swung in through here on probably an inverted 3 or 4, which is terrifically high for man.

People condemn Dianetics and Scientology and say we've got a lunatic fringe! Sure we got a lunatic fringe; you bet your life. But do you know the only people interested in this, really, are an intellectual strata which number probably, I'm afraid, amongst the first five or ten thousand in the United States. You know there are only about ten to fifteen thousand intellectuals in this country? That's a horrible fact, isn't it? But it's true enough. I've checked it up often enough.

All right, you're real high toned. You swing in on an inverted 4.

Did you ever see the terrific sentimentality which is showered by armies on animals? And the amount of Christ that armies buy? They sure do. Your army varies; there's some real tough cookies in there that don't care from nothing, but the rank and file of the army is on an inverted 5 somewhere. They live like dogs, they feel like dogs, they speak like dogs, they love dogs and the name for a soldier in many languages is "dogface" or "dog soldier."

Male voice: Devil dogs.

Devil dogs. We've always got animals tied up in here.

The army mule, so forth. Always got something like this.

The navy - hell, they're hopeless. Nobody could place them anywhere. They've gone past God. They're on an inverted 12. They're always talking about letting things go to hell. The standard phrase of the navy is to let things go to hell. "Yeah, they let everything go to hell and we've caught it," and so forth. It's real terrific. Interesting.

All right. There is the handiest "Scientometry" I know, because that is "Scientometry" if you don't mind my coining the word. I mean that word jokingly, by the way. But that is, in Scientology, case diagnosis for exteriorization.

You're not interested in aberration. You're not interested in quirks. You're not interested in words. You're not interested in whether he can get mock-ups. You're not interested in any God's number of things on the thing.

Now you know what I'm talking about when I'm talking about A, B, C, D, E, F, G and tell you that it's not analogous to Steps I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII. Actually, these steps are Arabic numeral - you know, we've got Roman numeral for the steps - and the actual index, where you slip over into the technique, is inverted 1, inverted 2, inverted 3, inverted 4, inverted 5, inverted 6, inverted 7, inverted 8.

We've got no technique for 8 because there's no communication with 8. They're dead. Except what communication in life you yourself are willing to install in the person by manual contact or by artificial communication factors. Now, I've worked on these and when I say there isn't any technique in SOP 8 for 8, I am stretching the point too far. There is a mechanical technique at level 8 and we'll cover that in this course. But it's none of our damned business right here. Okay?

We then slide over from the step which we exteriorized them on and watch whether or not their communication line goes up or down and slide into that letter step as I told you before. But that letter step is a dynamic number - Arabic. A is 1, B is 2, and so on, and a complete process.

Any time you'd get stalled down you have several processes. Please hear me. You have several processes.

The best of these processes is next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis in Scientology and Self Analysis in Scientology. You've always got that technique. It isn't that we just wearily give up and so we use this technique. It actually is a technique that'll feed the bank of a neurotic or psychotic up to a point where he can actually be processed. Up to that point, he's got communication lines which are so tightly taut that he can't get them stretched enough to blow a lock.

If I knew a good, fast, handy way of pumping these fellows full of better energy I would tell it to you. Self Analysis is the easiest. You always got that at any level of case. You can always say Self Analysis in Scientology. Any group - you can count on the fact that the people in the group are going to get good results rather uniformly.

You may even get some miracle results but the chances of you getting miracle results are slighter than in Six Steps to Better Beingness. But your chances of getting uniform results throughout the group are much greater by the use of the lists of Self Analysis.

Now, you can improve those to be past, present and future tense and you've got a terrific package right there.

Well now, on diagnosis we've got Create and Destroy on all those dynamics. Maybe for the first time you make it completely usable to you. You don't have to depend upon the flick of an E-Meter but it's very handy to have as you go down these dynamics. Just find out where the fellow goes into communication, that's all. Solve the problem at that level and you will bring him enough closer to being interior to be exteriorized.

You have to bring them in to get them out and that's the motto. And that ranks with "Thinking is condensed feeling," or "Feeling is condensed looking," and two or three others I have given you. You have to get them in to get them out.

When you find yourself getting sort of groggy about a case and you don't quite know what to do with a case; when your tendency is to reach over with a beam and yank them out of their heads, blow up their ridges, throw one through each ear; bring them down in a wonderful crash to produce an effect of somehow or other; just remember that you've got to get them in to get them out. And if you can get them out, why, gee, they go up Tone Scale - poom!

Well, how do you get them out? Well, you get them in first. Well, how do you get them in? Just look at the case and do a diagnosis on 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Where is he in communication?

People here are trained now. Two or three are looking at me hauntedly and thinking, "I wonder - I wonder if there's an inverted 10."

But you'll find out that horizontally, as you go across the boards with the upper cone and the lower cone on each numeral you'll find out that this is a much fairer rating. Actually, they're just a little bit inverted down on all the dynamics.

Now, why do we use inverted and up cones? Why, huh? Because the fellow is introverted on that dynamic. You can go along and find out where a person is introverted exactly and exteriorize him from there.

You want to know why your thetan doesn't have magnificent perceptics the moment he steps out of the body and why he's - very often sees a facsimile or sees a ridge instead of looking at the room? It's simply a problem of inverted and straight-up cones. That's all. It's just a problem of it. He is not doing well on 6 and he's on an inverted 6.

Now, don't expect that it's this mechanically mathematical. It is not. But it's not a very complex problem either And this mechanical or mathematical schema - schema - shift into German ...

& on it; I wish I could speak German and go over to Germany and raise hell with the Russians. Anyway, that's a good randomity. Boy, it's sure going to waste. I'm wasting randomity these days like mad. Anyway, when he drops here; there was a traffic cop down on the corner a few minutes ago and I didn't bop him. Boy, do I waste randomity.

Just look at that; recognize we're having a little rough time with this case. This case looks all right. This case seems to get good mock-ups. This case seems to do this. It seems to do that. Don't go adrift, please. If you don't do this and you can't find out, you've got Self Analysis. You've got Six Steps to Better Beingness. They don't apply to psycho cases; they're too strong for a psycho case.

So you've got these last resorts. You've just got, well, "Sit and hold the two back corners of the room and don't think." That's sometimes too much for a VI or a VII, but you could risk it, very easily. And you've got this straight up and introverted dynamic. Test for that. Talk to the preclear and listen to what he says.

Sometime you will get - you will get just what I mean when I say, "Get communication from the preclear. Get communication in from the preclear," because very few auditors bother to. They don't ask the preclear what's happening or they'd find out some of the damnedest things.

I've seen an auditor sit and process a preclear that I knew the preclear was just going round and round and round in squirrel cages, the like of which had never been drawn or designed by Walt Disney. And the auditor was confidently proceeding and was getting noplace. The preclear failed to get a mock-up five mock-ups ago. While still obeying the auditor with the new mock-ups, he doesn't know where that other mock-up is.

Now, do you mind if I mention something right here? Okay. I'm going to talk about - you said there was a third person, remember? Do you mind if I mention that?

Male voice: No.

And you - it won't influence your case if I tell you what it is, but I want to tell them what it is.

Any time you get two mock-ups and a third one shows up, for Christ's sakes go back and read 16-G if you want the answer to this. The guy's certain there's a person standing out in front of him. He's been certain all along. He's been certain for years. So when you give him a chance to put two mock-ups, he knows there's another person out there. The person's been there all this time.

And what do you run on this to get rid of that mock-up? Boy, you - if your case is not in an imbalance at all, what do you run?

Male voice: That was three of me.

Okay. Three of you. That's worse.

He's got somebody standing out in front of him - that sure is. What is this? There's somebody standing in front of him. Isn't there?

Well, you have him take a look at it and get awful interested in this sudden automatic mock-up that showed up. Get real interested because the case is parked with an extra body. And he's certain that the body's there, only the body isn't there.

So you just run, "Certain that another one of me is present. Certain there's no other person present. Certain there's a person present. Certain there's no other person present," just like that out there in a bracket. If he's in good shape you can just get rid of it as a concept. Just pam! pam! pam! All of a sudden he'll say, "My God! My God! My God! My mother's been standing in front of me arguing now for about twenty years." Poof! Phooey! Pam! Mock up a half a dozen more mothers and blow them up. You can do anything you want to with it now, but after just running the concept and getting him to recognize the other.

You talk about extroversion and introversion, where would be the preclear who was seeing an extra one of himself suddenly, automatically?

Where?

Male voice: Introverted on 1.

That's right. He isn't in him. He's probably looking at his body! We'd say, "See? Mock-up - another mock-up."

All sorts of possibilities show up from this, but an auditor could - has a technique instantly that he can apply there. All of a sudden there's an automaticity of another person. This simply means he's got a conviction there is somebody else in front of him there.

All right. We just run the conviction "There is somebody there," and the conviction "There isn't somebody there," and we unlock it See how we unlock it? How easy; how easy. How simple.

Don't run it very long. Don't run a limited technique like that very long because you get into hot water, of course. You start running it and you're running - thought-thought- thought-thought-thought-thought-thought-thought-thought.

All right. On this afternoon I want you to continue with your assignments but I want you to give some attention to this. I want you to satisfy yourself completely as to this: the objective reality on trying to stop the waves as they remove themselves from you so as to disclose you to somebody else.

I want each of you under auditing, and so forth, to get an experience on that until you actually see it. It's all right to sit and watch somebody else do it and you laugh like hell, too, and everything is fine. But until you do it yourself you don't quite see what's happening here because it's funny because he finds it's funny. Well, that's different than a line charge.

[At this point on the reel there is a gap and the next section is labled "INVERTED DYNAMICS cont" 5310C14 1ACC-15B. Number 0668-B on the Flag Master List. The clearsound version continues without a break.]

And this morning I gave you something to do on what? Gave you, the whole class, something to do - something to find out specially.

Male voice: Four parts.

Hm?

Male voice: "Who did it?" "Reason for punishment."

Female voice: "Desire - desire for punishment."

Yeah. Go on.

Male voice: "Who's responsible?"

Yes.

Female voice: The right to be nothing.

Okay. And what sudden stuff turned up on this? What convictions? Did anybody get any "bing" out of this?

Female voice: Very exteriorizing.

Anybody get any bing on "the right to be nothing"?

Female voice: I don't think so.

Gee-whiz. Did you run it out?

Male voice: Didn't run it.

Male voice: The auditor didn't plan it for the session.

Oh, you forgot about it.

Male voice: I did, yeah.

Ahhh!

Male voice: That was an oversight.

Female voice: Yeah. it is..

Ahhh!

Female voice: ... a nagging feeling there was one of those missing.

I'm going to get my Argentinian whip. And if that doesn't work I'll get one of those bola things, you know? I mean, they've got a ball on each end of it and you throw it and it wraps around the neck.

Look, for heaven's sakes run this because this will break a case. It's the right to be nothing - as well as "reasons have to exist so I can punish somebody," - will bust a case particularly, but that "right to be nothing," that's real hot. Just run it as a concept in a bracket, just as an idea, so you see what happens here. This is real good. Will you do that?

Audience: We'll do that.

Don't forget about things like that because we've got to get some subjective/ objective reality on some of these manifestations. We see them in a preclear. We say, "Gee-whiz. Gee-whiz." Like today, I run into "other people's problems."

Now, I'm going to give you another one as long as you were very bad children and need to be punished. Ha-ha! I'm going to give you another one. Run the concept "other people's problems."

Male voice: Just the concept in brackets?

Just - that's all, in brackets. Just - not in a positive or negative or anything. Just run the concept "other people's problems."

Male voice: Interesting.

You got it.

I want you to see that, because there are several of these concepts as they come along - all of a sudden one of them is sitting on top of the case, you know? There are just - there are just a handful of them; there are not very many of them.

All right. And you run any of the subzero scale and you've got yourself a picnic on your hands. But some preclear will be sitting right there all ready to be tripped. Pow!

Now, the other proposition is here, that somewhere on the case there is a mock-up - this is an interesting little search - there's a mock-up of a person of the current lifetime which, when blown up, releases and frees the case. You can always count on this. There is a person on the case which, when mocked up and blown up, has a tendency to really release the case - real, real surge.

And if you want that elusive button the psychoanalyst is always trying to search for... You know, he's saying, "You push on the button - you push the light switch and the lights turn on," you know? In other words, the guy comes up to 0.0. All you have to do is just find - there's somebody on this case which, when blown up a few times, releases the case.

There's always somebody and you have to usually blow this person up on a gradient scale.

You get a - you get a place where they have been many years ago, and they're now gone from, you blow it up. And then you get a footprint which they left behind in the sand and you blow that up. And then you blow up a shoelace and then you blow up a shoe and then you blow up a finger and then you blow up their hair and then you finally blow them up. And then you get it so it's real good and real fast, and you can blow them up in a heck of a hurry and all of a sudden the preclear feels tremendously relieved!

Just such an automaticity

& as Bert ran into there

- of the third person showing up will show up on any case you've got if you look for it. Anyone has got some slight idea that somebody in this current lifetime - I don't care how Clear this guy is or how well he's feeling or how well his mock-ups are or anything else, he can always get a resurgence on blowing up one person. Now, it isn't any contest of yours to find this person. But if you're ever confronted with the necessity of getting a pretty close release - pretty fast release on a case - you only got about five minutes, you know, and you're going to fix this case up - you just take a look at him and you decide they're a boy trying to be a girl or something of the sort, and you just kind of drift through very fast on various personal relationships. You just decide that there's a change there somehow.

And you - it isn't - you're not blowing up the basic reason, understand? You're just blowing up a person. It'll be Papa. You can always do something with a case by blowing up Mama. Always! You always blow up Mama with good benefit to the case, if you can get her blown up. You can always get her blown up if you blow up by gradient scale. Blow up somebody who- blow up a door post that once saw Mama. Gradient scale.

See, there is a release on the destruction of a personality the preclear is certain is present. He's unable to destroy somebody in the case.

& Anybody who were processing Nibs it'd probably be you'd find out he couldn't blow me up. He could get well immediately, I mean he'd stop being this sick. So that's why he's so well.

Oh, you've been blowing me up, huh?

Okay, that's the end of class.

I'll take care of you later...

[End of tape.]--