All right.

Female voice: Half past eight.

This afternoon we are going to take up that subject which has long been neglected, called Straightwire. And I'm going to show you that there exist ways and means that are dreamed of in his books, Horatio, on the subject of Straightwire.

?Que' dice?

The advent of Straightwire came about some thousands of years ago when somebody said to somebody else, "How are you?" and the other fellow didn't answer automatically; he really thought about it for a moment and he said, "Say, you know I feel terrible." He discovered at that moment how bad off he was and we had the therapy known as Straightwire - in its embryonic form, of course.

Female voice: I said, "Half past eight."

In 1894, a fellow by the name of Sigmund Freud announced his libido theory, went off the rails and went into the ditch. It's an interesting thing that Sigmund Freud had a psychotherapy and deserted it. He was working with a fellow by the name of Breuer - impossibly spellable name - impossibly unspellable name - I mean, possibly spellable.

It's not "half past eight"; "Ocho y media" - something like that.

Male voice: Impossibly unspellable.

This morning, in spite of being in a good mood, we're going to take up some more about "Rondomity."

I thought I'd key in a talking circuit like I was talking about this morning, but what it came out with and it - that's the first thing it said to say, so I did.

Male voice: Rondomity.

Well, a fellow by the name of Breuer had been fooling around for some time with hypnosis. Hypnosis is the work of, oh, a period of about 1835, mainly a fellow by the name of Charcot. But nobody had psychotherapy in mind; all he wanted to do was just figure out a lot of things.

And automaticity.

Utterly fantastic - and has not made sense until this last year - what Charcot did in the name of hypnosis.

Automaticity and randomity are actually... What's the matter?

From 1835 - I have to look this up sometime and find out if Charcot really was 1835; it says so in the medical books and I don't believe them - Charcot had some fantastic things which he used to do routinely with hypnosis. He would hypnotize a subject and then have the subject feel the temperatures of things some distance away or discover the contents of various liquids in various bottles which were otherwise hidden from view. He would have people read nameplates on the other sides of things, which they obviously couldn't see, and went through this enormous amount of hocus-pocus, as it was thought that day, that neither he nor anybody else had any inkling about. Fabulous!

Male voice: She's driving her auto to the automatic.

What was he doing? Well, in any hypnotic trance you can tell the person to be someplace else and if it had actually occurred to anybody to tell anybody to be three feet back of his head, in any good hypnotic trance it would have occurred. And if any hypnotist did anything else but talk, he would have found out from the preclear that there was such a thing as exteriorization. But this communication never went on.

Oh, automaticity. That's where you eat - an automaticity.

How - how did Charcot do these things and what is this all about? Well you, today, working with a preclear wide awake, knowing exteriorization and the other phenomena you will encounter in the mind, will be able to do exactly the same things, and much better, that Charcot was experimenting with a hundred and fifteen, hundred and twenty years ago.

Female voice: Yes.

It's interesting, isn't it? Because that technology was so thoroughly lost that in modern books of hypnotism you don't even vaguely discover anything resembling the work of Charcot. In books printed in 1890, you discover nothing of this character. Books of 1890, 1880, on the subject of hypnosis had lost it already; books just about a little bit earlier than that still had it; and any hypnotist could have done it and done it with accuracy.

..Because it is a very, very good thing for an auditor to know something about the subject. Period. That's why I'm taking that up this morning. Usually I give a good alibi, but that's the only alibi I can think of this morning for loading you down with these two horrible, incomprehensible subjects once more.

If we had two bottles, both of them black bottles - they're tightly corked one of them contains alcohol, the other one contains water. We hypnotize the person and ask him which bottle contains water and which contains alcohol and he names them correctly.

This morning I want to give you processes which resolve these two things. Let's take automaticity. What is automaticity?

We start to deal cards and we ask him what the next card coming up is. And then we go off on some wild monkey business about reading the future and prediction, as Rhine is doing. Only subjects which have eyelid flutters work on this prediction stunt which depends, essentially, upon the person being well enough exteriorized to see the bottom of the card before it is turned over and is visible to the operator.

Automaticity is setting something up to run automatically so that you don't have to pay any attention to it anymore. So you have something which has been hidden from your attention but which is yet activated by your attention. That's very cute. Everybody likes to set up these machines for you; they make a gentleman or a lady out of you; they make you polite at the table; and my God, what do you know, they make you talk English. Nearly anybody who engages in the business of using language for communication has abandoned the use of - nearly everybody - has abandoned the use of direct facsimile manufacture and has certainly abandoned the use of simply direct communication. You know, you think it and that's it.

You get what impossible combinations have been worked out by lack of observation and lack of communication on this subject. Nobody knew about exteriorization and so they go around and put people to sleep and put them under drugs and do all sorts of things with them and call it psychotherapy and fumble. And then all of a sudden, peculiar things would happen. And they had no clue to engrams, they had no clue to facsimiles and they'd just promptly go get lost. And the techniques themselves would turn up and become lost again. Same way with Straightwire.

But people who have abandoned the use of mock-ups for communication are in a rather bad way because they are unable to mock up a mock-up which then will demonstrate, pictorially - Confucius say, "One picture worth ten thousand words," which will convey pictorially the entire subject of a conversation. And when somebody can't do that - I know there is nobody present who is in this sad and lamentable problem, not confronted by this problem - they have to use language. And language, by demand, is an automaticity.

Simple questioning - as done by medicine men for thousands and thousands of years - making the patient recognize something of his own difficulties, has been the only actually workable psychotherapy on the whole time track. The rest of it ended in something else than psychotherapy.

They start in constructing a machine called language - the language machine at the first moment that they happen to notice that the baby says "gub." Everybody is standing around then, trying to make the baby says "gub-gub," and here we go. Because it's an automatic machine. Some people can handle it ably; some people are incapable of handling it.

And so it was with Breuer and Freud. They were using hypnotism and they had already lost the work of Charcot or didn't know it well. And they were putting people in a trance and then asking them to remember things. Just exactly why they had to go into a trance to remember something is a little bit difficult to figure out because they were trying to make the person... Well, the goal of the work of Breuer and Freud was ... It isn't really fair of me to put a goal in there, is it? Well, I tell you, the truth of the matter is they never said, and I wouldn't go so far as to say they didn't know. But it was a lot of fun, anyway.

Their capability of handling the machine determines whether or not they are capable in handling the language. Well, when you can handle the language, remember that ninety-nine and ninety-nine one-hundredths of the people you are talking to are being handled by the language. They're being handled by communications and they're being handled by a machine.

But what they called, later on, free association - if you will excuse the phrase, verbal diarrhea on the part of the patient - was nothing more nor less than a concept built upon the much earlier idea of physic, from which we get the word physician. And these people were dramatizing - as Freud adequately demonstrates in his work - a prenatal constipation engram. And they thought by relieving this constipation by - I'm sorry that it goes this way, but it's just as grimy as their work really is. This verbal diarrhea was supposed to cleanse.

I dare say there are not five hundred writers in the United States today who ably and consistently turn out material for public consumption. There are certainly very, very few people in the United States who talk consistently and continually without recourse to some sort of machinery - very few.

Even their terminology, when taken from the original language in which they were doing it, and so on, is the exact duplicate of just that. They had reversed around the idea and they thought that the mind needed a purge of some sort. Well this is the idea they came to. And do you know they never had any success from the moment they came to that idea on forward to 1954 when it's still going strong. This is what's known as free association; and other phrase, and so forth, came up with it.

You take Truman; when he came up Tone Scale after he'd been processed enough he got to a point where he could make speeches. But when he first was president he stood up kind of apologetically and he had big sheets of paper in front of him and he read them off. "Today, as I stand in front of the Congress, I wish to convey this message and all those present..." Here he went.

But their original work was nothing more nor less than straightwire while the patient was hypnotized. We don't know why they had to hypnotize the patient; that's something else they added. But the original work was just Straightwire. And then they slid from Straightwire into this idea of mental catharsis. See, instead of - instead of giving him physic physically, why, they gave him physic mentally after that. And they were getting desperate and the tremendous quantities of material which they uncovered were written down carefully on paper. And we had this fabulous dramatization take place when these people were right on the verge of actually accomplishing something.

What's that? Any time you see somebody reading a speech, hah! he's run by a machine - not a political machine; a machine which feeds him what to say. Now, he's not handling the machine. Actually, he has absolutely no need of such a machine. It is not just a luxury, it's a damn foolishness.

Today, physicists who are working in the field of modern nuclear physics treat the MEST universe more or less in the same fashion: They give it a shot of voltage in order to make the MEST universe regurgitate some data. In fact, you've kind of got this dramatization all the way up and down the track. Well, it's the wrong way to go about something. Now, we were doing that in 1950, but that was kind of in agreement with everybody else that had been doing that work.

And yet in school, children are denied space and denied space and denied space until they, at length, have a machine which handles them utterly. Now, because this machine is composed of maybes, their language comes out in the same way. And they start in to talk on some subject and they say, "Well, I don't know, but my scientific opinion of the matter - if, of course, I am allowed to state a scientific opinion on the matter, if there is a science involved in the matter, which of course is questionable - that the opinion of Professor Bunk rests on a great many factors which I have not had the opportunity to completely study." And they let this clown be an authority. What's he - what is he good for? Well, if you could just put hardcover bindings on him and put him on a shelf, he'd serve the same purpose. Because all he is, is a machine. He is not worth paying two cents' worth of attention to.

Well, it wasn't until we pulled cleanly out of that - then we started to make some progress. When we started to take a look at the factors involved and got away with [from] the idea of physic, why, we started to make a lot of progress.

Now, when the public confronts something that is not running on a machine, they become alarmed, because it's not disciplined. Therefore, extemporaneous speaking, fast writing, and that sort of thing, are very badly in question. You'll find people standing around tearing somebody's work to pieces because it was all written in two days or something. "That story couldn't be any good because it was written in two days." That tells you immediately, "What, it wasn't written by a machine?" The only stories in the English language that have endured were written, believe me, in that same ratio of two days - the only ones. They have been torn off at such a mad communication rate that automaticity had very little chance to get in.

Freud was making progress as long as he was working with Breuer and hypnotism and stopped making progress the second he got into this same idea of physic: The preclear has got an awful lot of things in him and we're going to administer this mental catharsis and get them out.

But a fellow has to be pretty able to make mock-ups to really handle language. If he's able to handle mock-ups, he can handle language. When he's not able to handle mock-ups, the language has a tendency to handle him.

Now, we were doing that with engrams. If we could just run enough engrams out of the guy, why, he'd be in good shape. True enough, it worked many, many times - many times over.

So we have a machine. And let's take a look at a book called Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, written by some obscure fellow back in May the - in the early part of 1950, published on May 9th, in New York City by an outfit which is trying to live up to its name, called "Hermitage House." They have now achieved their goal of becoming hermits in the book world.

But let me show you something about this. With a few Straightwire questions ... Once one student here - I mentioned this earlier in the course - came in the office, one day, at 42 Aberdeen Road. Had a headache, I think it was. I asked him a few questions in Straightwire. The headache disappeared. Then I showed him there was an engram under it simply by lowering him back into the engram and the engram reappeared. Remember that? Very interesting. I think he had the headache for days afterwards. But I'd gotten rid of it by Straightwire.

But this organization on any other thing and things that have gone on, and some things said about the author or things remarked about auditors or things which preclears think they have found, and so on, nothing - nothing that's happened in other words, no opinion of a fellow by the name of Fishcake, Morris Fishcake, writing in such magazines as Newsweek - none of these opinions have been able to invalidate one fact: Language is damned aberrative.

What is Straightwire? It just means stringing something from a present time consciousness to a memory. Like stringing telephone lines. So we get communication open between the past and the present. And that, in essence, is its definition. That's why it's called Straightwire rather than recall or something of the sort because there could be so many kinds of recall.

Let's not overlook that, Because when we look into our low-toned, very low-toned case that is being handled by a language machine, we are looking at somebody whose mock-ups are also being handled by a language machine, and which mock-ups are tremendously crammed with good old automaticity.

So we have this highly specialized kind of recall and it's this simple level of processing: The preclear is in present time and in contact with present time and we simply ask him questions which restore to him certain memories. Now, that was the original definition of Straightwire. But that is not the best definition for Straightwire. You can define something, really, only when you know what it is doing, and if you know what it is doing then your definition, when known, should make it possible to relieve or work with what is defined, That's an action definition. All right. We haven't had an action definition of Straightwire until this past year.

We are looking, when we look at language, at the greatest liability a person can have which is an automaticity of language. This finally winds itself down to voices. Now, undoubtedly you've heard of voices; people have voices. And this goes into - when it gets so bad that the person doesn't even have voices anymore, you have circuits. And then the person has opinions which suddenly dart in upon him from nowhere and give him strange impulses, usually not to do something. And this is language at work in the line of automaticity.

Straightwire is that process which restores the self-determinism of the preclear in placing incidents and relationships precisely in space and time. That's Straightwire. But that's also the definition of everything we're doing.

You're not processing anything different today than you were processing three years ago. All the phenomena are still there and every once in a while you're going to have occasion to use it.

It tells you that probably the best process under the sun would be just that process - Straightwire. I don't tell you right this minute that it is, but it sure lines up with exactly what we're doing. Because in the present time he locates himself in other times and places (past), and same time (present), and future (future time). He just locates incidents in himself, negatively and positively. And what do you know, you key out, banish and blow up practically every single engram in the bank - if you know how to do it.

Now, mark this. Mark this carefully: A preclear is asked to get a mockup; he gets the mock-up asked for and does with it what he is told to do. Get that as one setup.

The first Straightwire that we had required a cleverness which was diabolical. Fortunately, our present Straightwire as we are using it in Scientology - we've never used this word before in Scientology, I call to your attention; we used it in Dianetics - in present time, as we're using it in Scientology, it is not being employed with diabolical cleverness. You had to be pretty slippy sometimes. But all you're doing - all you're doing, in essence, is taking over other-determined spaces and making self-determined spaces out of them. That's all. By what? By making the preclear look. All you have to do is make him look. And he'll find out two things immediately: He isn't there and it's not important. These two things he finds out immediately.

This other one is: The preclear conceives a mock-up, handles a mockup-two different things.

The only reason the preclear is not in his body - I've been hitting this now all this time we've been here - the only reason you can't exteriorize him easily is he's not there. He's on inverted dynamics. What inverted dynamics are there? There are eight dynamics; any one of them can become inverted. Well, how do you reinvert dynamics easily, fast? Straightwire is the answer.

And get this one: An hypnotic subject is seated in an hypnotist's chair. He is put into a trance and is then fed language which places him in various situations which he believes utterly to be taking place.

All right. You lead him to look. And the less duress you have to place on him to lead him to look, the better off you are. But remember this: that there's an optimum duress under which you put a preclear. And that's always, always - I repeat: always - plus-duress for the preclear. It's always more duress than he is accustomed to, whether from terms of speed or pressure or otherwise. You have to add your potential to his potential to push him anyplace. Now, I don't mean by that you get inside his head and look for him. But he's got to know that he's being shaped up there and stood up and made to act.

And get this one. Let's just tear this problem to pieces and drop the veil on all this stuff. Get this one: A preclear under processing who is having trouble with language will get substitute pictures instead of words; he has circuits that push pictures at him. The most notable of these cases used to get a picture before he'd get the phrase. Uniformly, he'd get the picture then get the phrase, get the picture then get the phrase, get the picture and then get the phrase. To give you some kind of an idea of what kind of pictures he got - I'm sorry to be ribald because it's very early in the morning - but he - he had a picture of a horse facing the other way, one time, and it stayed there for some little while until he suddenly recognized that the phrase underlying the thing - and which phrase when touched made the picture go away - was a colloquial expression which means the posterior of a horse. You see that? Now there's automaticity. These pictures suddenly appeared anytime anybody moved him on the time track.

So let's lose the idea right there that Straightwire is a permissive technique. We are not interested in permissive techniques any more than we are tremendously interested in brutal techniques. There can be too much duress, always. But the only place the auditor fails is in too little - too little duress.

Very few people here in this class - in fact, nobody in this class, actually - is under such a duress. You're not getting pictures which pop around in front of your face and jump around and do strange and cute or interesting or upsetting things.

He said, "Well, do you remember that?"

This brand of pictures is on the inverted language side. Language has turned its heels up and we now have pictures substituted for underlying words. Now get a little higher on the Tone Scale. Language is a substitute for pictures. Pictures are always primary; language is secondary.

And the fellow says, "Well, no. Well, no, no, no”.

So that we're going down, as we see that automaticity suddenly pop up in terms of pictures, instead of the words, which are immediately underlying the pictures in the engram, we see the next stage which is pictures being replaced by words which were never spoken, which had no origin, but being run grandly and with wild abandon by the preclear as an engram. And this is what is known as dub-in. First we had - you have sonic, and then picture dub-in, see, pictures for the sonic and then below that we have words representing the pictures with full sonic - complete automaticity on language.

"Well, all right. We'll go to something else now," obviously.

And this is only - there's nothing more worrying or upsetting than this. It's simply a language machine which started out handling the preclear. And the construction of the machine has to do with setting up symbols called pictures, and then setting up symbols called sound or written words in lieu of the pictures, and then pictures cropping up in lieu of the sound and written words and then being replaced again by sound and written words. Then you've got one of these multiple-deck sandwiches which has to do with words and pictures. And the whole of it consists of pictures and words engraved on force from some time in the past. See what a language machine would look like.

What's the matter?

Now, how does this come about? You very often - if you had a very low-toned preclear who was having a lot of trouble, you found him sitting with his nurse watching a picture book. This was - you know, you'd say, well, he had some good connotation with pictures or this was some defense or something of the sort. No, he was just interested. And you found that he was - he was very - very easy for him to pick up these visios of somebody showing him pictures.

Male voice: That's awful strange.

How do they teach a child language? That's how we construct the machine. They show him a chair - and it's seldom that anybody has to do this because the word occurs often enough so that he can observe and connect it. Get that: connect it. They show him the chair and they say "chair." So he makes a picture of the chair and then expresses the picture by the sound waves "chair." Okay?

Yeah.

Now other chairs occur and these are also chairs. So all of this horde of pictures becomes "chair" or "chairs." And that one symbol now is standing for this huge mass of pictures. Now someone shows him a picture of a chair, and that's a chair, too. Well, you know, at that level of training it comes as a little bit of a shock that a picture - something on - colors on a piece of paper can represent a MEST object. This is a - this is a big shocker. This is so much of a big shocker that some of the tribes of Africa - where psychologists always go when they are trying to prove the unprovable, but they only go to them in the pages of the printed brochure brought back by some explorer as to why he should go on another expedition - these boys in Africa can't make that bridge. Or won't. Or they're too bright to. I don't care how you evaluate it, the point is that you show them a photograph, a colored photograph of themselves and they want to know what is it - a fish? What is it? This? What is it? That?

Well, you see there rather quickly that - that you - the best place to have the auditor is in present time. That's the best place to have the auditor. What's the best place to have the preclear? Ditto!

They realize you're trying to tell them that it's something else than what it is, and so they just get sarcastic. It isn't anything else! It's a piece of cardboard with some colors slapped on it 6r some black marks on it, that's all. That's a facsimile, too. What's a facsimile? Well, it doesn't belong to anything else; it's itself. Well, you get this association.

If you could get all of your preclear into present time, you'd say, be three feet, be fifty feet, be a thousand feet hack of your head and on the other side of the moon and he'd come buck and hand you a couple of beams of stardust as a present - if you really had this licked, see, nothing to it.

Well, association takes place too tightly so that everything becomes connected with everything. You know, that's no space. And the way you do that is to take the space out of a person. And to get a person really smart so that he will associate everything with everything, which goes for smartness in this society, you simply put him in a room, consistently and continually, through all the formative years of his life, where he can't have any space; he winds up "smart." Only, does he? No, he winds up with a machine called an educational machine which - the se]f-willed brute - almost never, afterwards, feeds him the right data at the right moment.

Now, preclears who have been processed by older techniques in Scientology come up against this little pat-a-cake, light feather-touch, hit-on-the-head technique and stumble and fall on their faces. What is it? It's just Straightwire. Well, it's very funny that somebody who's been processed and processed and processed and you suddenly come up to them - and they feel a lot better for having been processed and all that sort of thing - and all of a sudden you do this technique.

You know, he says, "Let's see, Gee, that's a pretty butterfly," he'll say. And the damn machine goes into operation and it says, “That's a Lepidoptercaterwaul." And he looks at it and he says, "What do you know, a Lepidoptercaterwaul."

Now, we're going to call this technique "Orienting Straightwire" - differentiate it from Dianetics Straightwire. And you do this technique called Orienting Straightwire and you'd just be flabbergasted.

The machine has been in operation, now, for another fifteen years and he sees this beautiful butterfly flying by and it's going flop, flop, flop, flop, flop, flop. Instead of looking at the butterfly, he just gets the impression of the butterfly - a millionth of an inch of butterfly - and then he's immediately by-bypasses not just the butterfly, but Lepidoptercaterwaul, and goes into the fact that his second wife used to press butterflies in books or whatever you do with butterflies - I think you stick pins in them while they're alive or something, to collect them - and this reminded him, without any further inspection by himself and without knowing he has inspected it, that she was very, very fond of cooking and this makes him hungry. See, you get everything connected with everything. And we're right back to Book One: A=A=A=A, you see.

The first thing he's liable to say to you is - like I was telling you the other day about certainty; these lectures are very consecutive here (more luck than plan but they are) - and he tells you, oh, he's here and he's there and oh, you've just been having a good time and you've just been chasing him all over the universe and you just got everything all keyed out - you know you did, and so forth - and he's in good shape and he looks better and he looks not even vaguely human, he looks like something alive. And you say, "Gee, we're getting someplace." And you say, "We've asked him if he was certain of this and certain of that and certain of something or other."

So a Lepidoptercaterwaul flies by and because he's got a machine that initially connected up everything to associate everything with Lepidoptercaterwauls, he's hungry. Well, it's complete illogic but there's where the machine has broken down and there's most machinery.

Now, that was that little stumbler there the other day and I saw you stumble on that one: How certain is certain? There were two or three cases in the class that just - made kind of miserable about the whole lecture. How certain was certain? Well, how certain can you be that the preclear is certain? Well, then, how certain am I? You know, that kind of a thing? You'll say, "Now, are you certain of that?"

It is fantastic the amount of force which has to be applied to a thetan to make him take on one of these machines. But because of the inverting dynamic factor, that which he resisted he begins, after a while, to desire. First - then he can't have it, you see, and then after a while he desires it. And we go through that cycle and people start to want these machines. And then they go into engineering and work for General Motors or the atom bomb project. In other words, they go completely crazy. And they're making all the time, then, automaticities, automaticities that are supposed to keep on running after they have been... So on. So the whole society is set up to do an automaticity.

Honest, you would swear, this preclear is functioning; he can go all right, not crazy, nothing. See, we aren't just onto something else, we're onto the center pin of what we're dealing with. This prelogic about the function of theta; it's locating things in space and time and creating space and time in which to locate things. And if you don't bail him out of spaces and times in which he thinks he is, he's not going to be able to create a thing. He's just as young as he ever was so that not even age is a bar to this process.

Everybody, at last, is getting ready endlessly with equipment to play a game but the game itself somehow never starts. And then they lose sight of the fact that there is a game, and there never will be a game, and they just - they say, "Well, now we're working." And then after a while they have no goal in working and that becomes pointless so they stop working. And what do you have there? You have people who can't work. Well, how the hell did they get there? Same way the fellow got from Lepidoptercaterwaul to being hungry. See? Same cycle is being run.

Well, all right. When we've got this preclear sitting there and he says, "Can anybody be certain of anything?"

Well, these machine look like multiple-decker sandwiches and they're composed of meaning sandwiched by - with experience, with meaning, with experience, with meaning, with experience, with meaning, experience. And when you take a bite of one of them, they're very indigestible.

And you look at this preclear. This preclear's been doing Change of Space and doing hurdles across the moon and has been three feet back of his head and everything and all this has been going on and you all of a sudden ask him that question and he suddenly bogs like that. Well, can you be - can anybody be certain of anything? Don't be silly. Wide-open case, see, wide-open, some wide-open case - you run into him and you say, "So-and-so and so-and-so."

Now, the final take-out-of-space of something is to identify everything with everything, isn't it? You're looking at a preclear - anytime - anytime you're looking at an educated person in this modern society, you are unfortunately (and I don't care whether he's educated by himself or educated by the state), you're looking at somebody who has been associating everything with everything at such a mad rate, without getting enough space, that you're going to have to work like mad as an auditor to get some space into him. Because the past is the present is the future is Lepidoptercaterwauls.

And they say, "Well, it's as much reality as I have on anything." How much reality is that? Well, one small candlelight burning in a vast and dark desert, badly needing snuffing: that's how much reality they've got. This tiny, tiny little flicker.

The very best shape of the very best and sanest, average Homo sapiens in this society today, after the state and the hospitals and so forth have finished with him - the very, very best shape that he'd be in would be stark staring mad. Let's not hit lightly on it.

What do you ask them? And here we gimped in on the technique itself.

The pc who walks in for an appointment is generally running on such a piece of machinery, and so much machinery, that you just have to dig and... If you were going to do it on - on the basis of Dianetics, where you were going to take apart the machinery, you would have to be an awful smart auditor and you'd have to be awfully quick and you'd have to put in an awful lot of time.

Well, what do you say to such a thing, "Can anybody be certain of anything?" You think you're going to hear this seldom. You think this is something that's very peculiar, that we're going to dig up this case out of the ragbag and hold up just one case on this and say "That's how tough they can get." No, that's routine. You say, "Well, then ..." What do you say? "Are you certain that nothing can be certain?"

So that's why, today, we're taking the Pc out of the machinery, which is exteriorization. That's to get the Pc out of the machinery. And that's the best answer to automaticity, is exteriorization. Now, that's a real good answer. You'll find out while he's exteriorized... You ever notice this? See how observant you are.

"Yes."

When he's well exteriorized and certainly, even though he's still using his mouth and vocal cords, he says, "Yep. Yep. Yeah, I can see that. Nope. Yep. That's right. Nope. Uh - I did that. Yep. No." You put them back in the body again and they say, "Yes. No. I don't know. Just a minute. Yes. I don't see that."

"Then you're certain of something, aren't you?"

All right. Let me call to your attention a case I processed the other day. This is - I told you about it before; now let me tell you about it again. Exteriorization: Rrrrrrrrr! Fine shape; all over the place; straightened her all out; got a lot of distraction off; so forth. She got up to go - put her back in the body - she got up to go, stood up, and almost fell flat on her face; not because of the sudden change of balance mechanisms near so much as the fact that that alteration of balance was being influenced by so much energy pounding around her on the subject of automaticity. So exteriorized she was in wonderful condition; and the second that she was interiorized she was in terrible condition all over again in spite of my auditing. But because I'd exteriorized her, all I had to do was flip her out again, adjust a few mechanisms, throw away a little bit of energy, square her around. But her communication lag while interiorized was still very, very marked.

Trapped! And that's what I mean by too much duress. Because that's the way this technique is run. You don't hammer him with the fact that he is certain but you handle him into a certainty. He right away becomes more certain. Now you say, "Now, are you certain that you're not here?"

Why's this?

"Yeah. Kind of certain I am not here, either. In fact I'm pretty sure I'm not here, but I'm not very sure."

Well, you took the person out of the machinery, out of the automaticity, out of the multiple-deck sandwich; because there's where the deposits, the pictures, the words, the machinery, the automatic responses are - right there in the body. If a person could operate one of these bodies from about five miles away, he'd be in real good shape all the time; very fast communication and so forth.

"Well, where aren't you in the past?"

The body, oddly enough, being pounded by this much enthusiasm and fast communication and so forth, would not necessarily be better off (don't make that mistake), because it'd get worked in various ways, shapes and forms. It would not necessarily be better off; it ordinarily is but not necessarily. And as the time goes by, more and more of that stuff is going to cave in on the body - the body's going to rearrange and readjust itself one way or the other

"Well - well, I guess I'm pretty much everywhere in the past."

So you see that there's more to this automaticity than met the eye. If you can imagine somebody sandwiched in the middle of a jabbering menagerie, a couple of insane asylums, three or four radio sets, eight or nine TV sets all playing on different channels, and all this stuff going simultaneously at him, giving him significance, reasons and connections and associations, you've got just about what's happening in the body.

Oh, oh. Somebody's buttered all over the universe. Not very serious because you can bail him out of it awfully fast. Theta can be everywhere. Nothing to that. All right.

That a thetan can remain stable and select out of this enough to remain sensible is one of the greatest feats you could possibly imagine. It is a great feat to be able to do this. So don't be surprised that your preclear is in bad shape; be surprised that he's in good shape. Now, some of the boys have a remarkable time of it in trying to patch together part of their machinery and another part of their machinery and another part of their machinery and try to make up some other kind of new machinery out of it.

You say, "Well, all right now, where aren't you in the future?"

We find a machinist who is trying to change his trade and the darn fool doesn't have enough sense simply to go out and get a job as a ditch digger or get a job as a bus driver or something of the sort; he's got to get a job vaguely associated with, at least, the job which he just quitted. See?

"Well, I don't know. I guess I'm pretty much everywhere in the future."

So he's starting now to patch together - well, you figure he can do this and he can do that and he can do something else and therefore, if he can do all of these things, why, glory, that's fine; he should be able to take enough of his training and make something out of himself Well, actually all you'd do, if you put him in a job which has a great deal of - and here we go, randomity - is you selectively key in and out all this machinery. And the chances are you're going to key in more parts of it than needed and your boy is going to get pretty confused.

"Isn't there one place you're not?"

You know the fellow who's jack of all trades? Well, the fellow who's really jack of all trades is master of all trades unless he's been trained. And the one trick the society pulls on him is tells him he must be trained; he's got to be trained for this trick. "Yup, takes about twenty-five years to make a good design machinist. Takes about twenty-five years." The poor guy, he had real good ideas before he studied it real hard, then he became very unhappy and then he didn't like it. Because nobody likes to be run by a machine.

"No."

So you can expect a society to go on the cycle of being educated toward a goal which they will eventually detest. Don't let that happen to you as an auditor. The only excuse we have for educating anybody at all is so we can uneducate them. The education which - which I'm using is so slight compared to the enormous hammering and pounding that the preclear has received that it's totally justified since it will undo the other part.

"Oh? Well, where aren't you in present time?"

Well, randomity, then, gets going in the middle of the machinery. We have all these automatic machines and these ridges and these multiple-decker sandwiches of words and pictures and all of that; and we've got all of this and that and something else; and now we've taken pieces of the machine and combined them with pieces of the machine. And each time these things were made to run faster than the preclear - every time. So that the preclear then thinks he can sit back and rest while the machine does the job.

Remember what I said about getting buttered across half the universe on an inverted dynamic - inverted 7, inverted 8, that's what you've walked into: religion. It was Bishop Shenanigan that was at the bottom of this one, Lord knows how many spirals ago, when he was a devil for which he's now atoning.

Just why he wants to rest is a - is a mystery which he has never solved. Because he finds out that although he talks about it all the time, what he means is - it's lack of differentiation - he wants to have a rest from all this automaticity, which means, actually, that he really wants to get busy on his own initiative. And that's what a rest is; a rest is "let's get to work," in the actual definition of what he's doing. Because if he's to get himself enthusiastic and so forth about society once more, why, he'll have to be free. Of what? Of automaticity.

You say, "Where aren't you in present time? Are you over in the corner of the room?"

Now, it's a strange thing that you can use automobiles and motorcycles and tractors and airplanes and eggbeaters and all sorts of automaticities if these themselves are simply set up to serve a machine which is already principally automatic. You can use all that with great ease to free you from continuous monitoring of a body.

"I guess I am. Well, I'm there just as soon as you mention it."

Continuous monitoring of a body is onerous. And the reason why it's onerous is because on the subject of bodies you've gone down scale through curious, desire, enforce, inhibit and then you wanted one again. The only reason there was a desire on the line at all, was just like there was a desire on collecting a lot of facsimiles or mock-ups - stealing somebody's facsimiles. This is just - just a game. But this game gets real earnest - real solid game.

Uh, oh. Well now, there's a way to take this one up and I'll give it to you in a moment. This is a very specific way to take it up, but this is not the time to take it up. And this, my children, is what I'm trying to convey to you: Sometimes the simplest techniques are the ones you ought to be handling; and the wisest and shiftiest techniques are very effective but sometimes you're just overshooting the course. You're something like on the order of Galli-Curci singing to the coyotes.

So, as long as one has to continue to use a body, he will continue to run through the fight of automaticity versus self-determinism. That's what it amounts to. And that is the fight that any preclear is fighting. Only your preclear is on the losing side because he was always better when he set up the machine than after he began to use it - always better. Because the use of any automaticity is a use of one's own self-determinism to set up other-determinism which one does not thereafter self-determine.

This is a wonderful technique, you see; it's just gorgeous. It has color, flash, dash, daring; and you as an auditor are just tremendous. And you turn it loose on this preclear in a sparkling cascade of pure starlight. Throw a few sunbeams in, wave your hand magically through the air so that the preclear is now Clear, and he says to you, "Well, I can touch all the walls in this room. I've always been able to do that."

And a person enters into automaticity only when he is no longer able to have, by his own lights, self-determinism. When he realizes he can no longer be self-determined, then he has to have automaticity. And he gets that way because he set up some automaticity in order to keep from using all of his attention. So attention was the first thing that got scarce; he doesn't think he has enough attention to run every unit and truck, for instance, on a highway. The hell he doesn't.

In your great adroitness, you say, "All right. Now, how about some mockups?" And you dash your preclear through this vast and romantic and colorful parade of mock-ups, so beautifully, with such deft voice, with such tone - such beautiful tone. And when you've finished all this - he did all of them - you say, "All right. Now be three feet back of your head."

I was running five cars last night for a short time. It was very interesting. It was amusing. This wasn't anything I was doing just to bemaze and amuse and so forth; I just got tired of driving the car I was driving. So I drove two cars simultaneously three inches apart. It was a very confused driver in the next car because he couldn't turn his steering wheel.

And he says, "What head?"

Now, I had two cars that were three inches apart, front fender and back fender, and they were just going like mad down the road - two-pass, you know, these double-lane highways. And they were both hitting about sixty-five. And it was very interesting. But the body was very obedient, very good automaticity on driving, you see. All you had to do was activate his ridges to drive precisely for a change. He used the same amount of care he would have applied to just before he hit a wreck or something of the sort - you know, the same amount of care he would have used just after he was in a wreck - to go like hell.

He did all of these mock-ups but he seems to be getting worse! In other words, what you're doing is trotting out - you're just plain trotting out artillery and everything else and you're shooting at something that isn't there yet. That's just your anxiety as an auditor. You put on a beautiful show in an auditorium which is completely empty.

And it was a terrible strain on the ridge and when the ridge blew up I decided that was enough and - and guided my car back over into - it got - what got into me that I would do such a thing? Well, I say, well, I was only making a scientific test and finding out whether or not this could be done. That's not true. That's not true. It's just - I could tell you that, but that's - it doesn't happen to be true.

Well the trick is, if you want to put on a good show (and you ought to as auditor), make sure you've got an audience - namely a preclear.

I just did it because it's a long drive out to Medford Lakes. There's a limited number of things you can do. You can amuse yourself by thinking, you can amuse yourself by mock-ups or you can amuse yourself by influencing other-determinism.

And the way to get an audience is to start in on Straightwire. Now, I've just given you a case - given you this case. And today we're talking about him; we're opening up the gun on Clinical Procedure Step I. Clinical Procedure is different than Standard Operating Procedure. Standard Operating Procedure is something we hand out to the folks,

And it's very interesting when you set up yourself as an automatic machine - as an automatic machine to parallel the automatic machines already set up around bodies. You set yourself up as an automatic machine around a waitress, for instance, and you'll get some real randomity immediately.

Clinical Procedure is - and well take this up far more lengthily but just in passing - is that technique which is to be used in a clinic to maximum result with minimum time on the worst possible preclears. And on the assumption that anybody who comes near you is "What room?" You just assume that.

So you can use automatic machinery for the production of randomity, but remember that when one sets up an automatic machine he sets up at the same time "I can't do it all." And you'll find people running on this: "I can't do it all." And that's just so they can set up some automatic machinery so they can't do it all. They can do it all. You get the difference? That's the truth of the matter: They can do it all.

They walk up the steps, you say, "They don't know anything about the room." In other words, we're going to enter it on sub-Step VII. We're going to enter it at Step VIII. And Step VIII is going to be every case we look at.

If you were any good as a driver at all - and we're talking about you as a thetan now, we're not talking about a thetan-plus-body Homo sapiens - if you were any good as a driver at all, you could sit here and get this entire dissertation this morning and drive five or six cars out there on the street and send a speed cop all over town arresting everybody for no reason whatsoever and just giving out tickets like confetti. For the sake of what? Randomity. Motion. That's all. Motion.

Guilty until found cleared!

But when you are convinced that you have no right to influence other-determinism and you are already running automatically, you won't engage in randomity, you will try to lower randomity.

When you have no right to influence other-determinism, you'll cut madly into your own sphere of randomity and so you'll run slower. And when you run slower, more and more machinery can knock you around. And when you've really got the machinery knocking you around madly, you get occluded.

Now, why do you get occluded? What's this an answer to? Well, you're hiding from your own machinery.

Now, what are you trying to audit when you audit a preclear? Well, by golly, you'd better not be auditing a machine. And there are several cases in this class that have successfully, with great success - up to when I started springing these bear-trap techniques in the last few days - very successfully gotten their machinery audited. But machinery is cheap; you can get lots of it and you can set it up very rapidly. Preclears as beings aren't quite that cheap. So remember that you could be auditing a machine.

Now, the way to keep from auditing a machine is to use techniques which are immediately applicable to the thetan. And there are several techniques which are used on a thetan interior which apply only to the thetan. So let's recognize the difference between subjective-objective processing; interior processing and exterior processing. Every time you stir the thetan up interiorly, you activate some sort of a machine. Now, you could keep stirring him up and keep the machines caving in. The only excuse you'd have to do this is if you were speeding him up; otherwise he will hit his speed factor and away he goes.

Now, how do you lick automaticity in somebody who is still interiorized and you can't get him out? And how do you lick it on somebody who is exteriorized and is still going on using a body? You lick it by resolving randomity.

The most direct approach to automaticity is the resolution of the problem of other-determinism, because the machine is other-determinism. And how does other-determinism come into being? It comes into being by selecting something out for an opponent. And that is the way a person gets into randomity.

How does one produce randomity? Now, I said I could send a speed cop, or you could send a speed cop all over town arresting people and giving them out tickets like confetti. Well, there'd be two reasons why I was doing that. One, I was choosing the police force out for randomity. What would this do to the police force? What validity would their tickets have - for after a while? Just none. Nobody would pay any attention to them at all. Everybody would have to fire all the traffic cops, so forth. This would be choosing out the cops as randomity.

Now, supposing I did this and was very amused about it for three or four days, but they yet hadn't abandoned or abolished police force? (Of course, I start in with just basically the idea of being amused about a police force.) All right, I do this for several days and they yet haven't abandoned the police force and I'm tired of it. See, it's a good game while it lasted but - I've figured out some other game.

Well, I could actually set up some kind of a circuit, which you would say "an implant," which would sit out in the middle of the police station, and which would simply put a tremendous compulsion in every traffic cop to give tickets to everybody for - and to dream up things for the person to have done so they could give them tickets. And I'd walk off from that then.

And then one day - I'd forgotten all about it because that's the way you have to set the thing up automatically, is you have to forget about it. In other words, take your attention off of it. But then you have to set up circuits so that some of your attention gets to it. So you put it on a circuit - shunt system so that you have lookout posts and there's all sorts of awareness and alertness posts and memory posts and things like that. And when you think a thought you get this one beam of energy - you're going to use energy to think this thought, you see, that's the first stupidity that you could engage in - and you're going to fix it up so this thought goes around through all of these outposts and activates, one way or the other, all the lookouts and then activates all the other - all the machines that you've got running and they'll go flick and twitch and go into operation.

Now, you see, I'd be down here - I'd forgotten all about it, you see, and be driving down the street minding my own business, and a cop would come up and give me a ticket! And I'd say, "Well, blankety-blankety-blankety-blankety-blank! What's the idea of this?" Well, in this indirect fashion, I had chosen out the police force for randomity. It started out as a good joke and all of a sudden the engineer is hoist with his own petard. (That, by the way, I found out was being blown up by a bomb. That was very interesting. They didn't tell me that in high school.)

So the choosing out something for randomity, just directly, as a self-determined thing, that's one thing; but setting up some randomity which then makes a person a victim is quite another thing. But the things that this has in common with all other randomities is just that: randomity.

We want more motion, so we have opponents. Well, it's the hidden opponents that we ourselves have set up which really foul us up. We set up something and then by this circuit - quite like the police force - we finally fall into our own traps. Who set up all these theta traps through the universe? Well, you did, of course. See?

Now, you get somebody as he goes down scale and he's running lower and lower in speed, slower and slower speed - he begins to complain that people are after him, people have got it in for him, that the inflow is so tremendous that he's being hammered and pounded by so many things that he's real upset that he can't function. It's true enough; he can't function.

Well, what's hammering and pounding him? Is it other people? No, hell, they're just people. They can't hammer and pound anything. But he sure can pound and hammer himself with his own automaticity. And how did he get that way? Because it accidentally slipped into a randomity - a forgotten and hidden randomity. In other words it had just skidded out of sight and now it's kicking him.

And that ridge he complains about, caved in on his nose, Was set up by no other person than John Q Preclear - he's the one that set it up. That facsimile, which he says is terribly agonizing, and so forth, be made into, at some point of the track, or put into shape, at some point of the track, of a machine, And these machines are composed of facsimiles, And he's all of a sudden experiencing all sorts of agony on the subject of this machine.

What's the matter with him? It isn't that he has - because all this is a - is an indirect thing, and because it's hidden, it's a sort of a covert thing, it actually takes a technique line which in itself is rather covert.

All right. What do we have here? We take apart automaticity. Now, you've looked at automaticity. You've probably seen what it did and you've probably run some mock-ups of machines and blown them up and made them disappear. You probably found this wasn't terribly successful because this isn't the way you handle it; but you got acquainted, anyway, with the machine. Did you get acquainted with these machines?

All right. The way to handle it is to run a randomity process. And by running out the randomity, you will take the entire - to be impolite - the guts out of the automaticity. Now, you want to yank the innards out of one of these machines and just throw it on the scrap heap without worrying about whether or not you're coming up in speed, without worrying about the preclear's speed vector or anything of the sort; let's go straight into randomity and beingness. That's all.

The only way a person could get any randomity is to say he isn't something and then have it produce a conflict with him. Follow that? It's very simple. I mean, there's two books; they sit there for a long time and they never argue with each other till somebody comes along and says that one of the books is the reason why he should shoot somebody who is reading the other book. See, you've got to have an argument.

Now, let's take a checker game. Checker board will sit there. Checker men - they'll sit there for a long time; they won't move; nothing will happen to them. Fellow comes along and he says, "Well, I think this is a game of some sort. I'll sit down on this side of the board and put out the men and make a move. Now, I'll sit on the other side of the board and Ill make a countermove; and then I'll sit on this side of the board and I'll make a move; and I'll sit on the other.”

He says, "Hell, I'm playing myself, you know, and this is dull! Now, let's see. I'll even..." He usually says, "Well, I'll get somebody else to play me a game of checkers." He gets some perfectly good friend of his and the next thing you know they're involved in a terrible-throat-cutting argument on the subject of whether that king was legitimate or not. You see?

The next thing that he would do, actually, if you were plotting this out early on the track, would be, he would simply mock up somebody else - this is what your basis is on automaticity - he'd mock up somebody else and then give that person an independent memory and motivation so that he'd have an opponent to play checkers with.

And then this person would become a deadly enemy of his and would have other-determinism and would go off someplace and it would be entirely different and you'd have two new civilizations starting up and then a war being fought and all this sort of thing on - what happened? Well, he set up some randomity, and then with it set up the fact he had to set up the fact that he must forget that he made the other person; he must forget that he made the machine. And every preclear is doing that today.

And learning language is "I must forget that I have learned." One of the things you can do to an actor - you can just ruin an actor - is ask him several times how does he produce such an effect with his words; how does he say this? And this fellow, if he's been in the business for quite a while and is running mostly on machinery, will just be shattered. He'll go up in front of a microphone or on a stage and he'll say, "B-b-b-b-b-shhoo." He won't know what to do, how to talk, anything.

How do you do that? You say, "How do you produce such an effect?" You smile sweetly. And if he's producing that effect on an automaticity, the automaticity will cave in because you started to knock out one postulate out of it which is that he must forget it.

See, he has to examine and he, for a moment, scans and examines his skill. And the second he does this he sets into activation the entire machinery, and not in good order because it's delicately set up. You must never forget this about automaticity: It's real difficult to set one up so that it will be functional and that you never remember it. This is real, real hard to do.

It's - how hard is it to hide something from yourself? Supposing you made up your mind right now that you were going to take some possession of yours and hide it. Now, I want you to take some possession. (You've got a cigarette lighter) Each one of you take a possession of yours and determine you're going to hide it. Now determine you're going to hide it - a MEST object; now determine you're going to hide it. Now, what do you have to do to hide this possession from yourself?

Male voice: What possession?

Yeah, what... Yeah, that's right. What do you have to do? You have to answer your questions that way. A guy has gotten to a point as a thetan; he's done this so darned often he isn't even there; he's hiding himself at last. You got what postulates you'd have to make in order to do this? Have you sensed all of a sudden that there's a little difficulty with regard to it? You haven't, huh?

Well, now, how do you hide things from yourself? How do you hide things from yourself?

Male voice: Well, I just decide I never had it.

Uh-huh. Well, how do you put them away so that you won't uncover them accidentally?

Male voice: Well, if I don't have them, I don't have to put them away.

Mm-hm. Well, how do you produce such an effect?

Male voice: You run simply...

Male voice: "Have to forget."

Yeah. But if you made a postulate, a thin, little thing like a postulate, on hiding what you just hid, the fact that you were being asked how you made these postulates would certainly not throw it into light but stir it up. And you become kind of anxious about hiding it; that's one thing you mustn't look at. And that's basic on "Mustn't look at." See?

And then this goes on down to the point where the person doesn't know his past from his present from his future, where everything is connected with everything because he must have hid it all because he couldn't have hid it all and he knows in desperation at last, "Look, look, honest to Pete, me, I really done it." See? I - that's an indicator on a technique.

Let's - let's recognize, now, that randomity is at least two-sided. Probably very often some people set up such things as triangular wars. I fought a lovely triangular war one time, There's a real triangular war went down in the Southwest where the Indians were fighting Americans and Mexicans alike, with no discrimination, and Mexicans were fighting Americans and Indians alike, with no discrimination, and Americans, same way; and it was a beautiful triangular war.

In Midshipman Easy, there's the wonderful triangular duel. Well, it wasn't an all-out affair; they did know who they were shooting at. They didn't get lost in it.

There are many ways you take apart randomity. But you take apart automaticity by knocking into pieces randomity. There's something wrong with randomity if the fellow has automaticity. So we don't pay much attention to automaticity because you're never going to get the preclear to look at what he's postulated that he can't look at. So you have to come in the side door and you start handling speed. And you handle speed directly by resizing that he chose something out.

Now, let's say we have this fellow who has a fear of disease. Here's one way to solve the randomity in this case. We'd say, "All right. Now be yourself as a body. Now be the disease attacking the body. Now be the disease attacking some other body." See that?

"Now be the disease; be your body. Be the disease." Basic technique is: "Be the disease. Be your body. Be the disease. Be the body. Be the disease. Be the body. Be the disease getting all through the body. Now, be all through the body resisting the disease." See?

In other words, we find a war in progress and we take it out by making the thetan, first, be both sides of it, then have him be willing to fight such a war which is the next thing you've got to solve and next by just being an observer of both sides of it. And because he's holding on to both sides of it, it'll collapse.

And what will go to pieces? A part of the machinery of automaticity which he's using is what will go to pieces. Figure out how that is? Well, automaticity starts to go to pieces. Well, he had to choose something out. And if he's got - he's - the body has a fear of disease, and if he, therefore, has shared this and sided on the part of the body against disease, then he has set up automatic machinery in the body in order to defend the body against disease. And then this machinery is resisting disease which is on the wavelength of disease which eventually will cave in and get to the point where it demands and desires disease.

Acceptance Level Process gives you an immediate test of this. Somebody has a phobia about some particular illness; if you just toss it up in the air a few times he'll find all of a sudden it's going right into the bank. He - you have him mock it up and he can't fend it off of him. He'll develop, if you run it, a feeling of great hunger for this disease. He's just going up Tone Scale, you see? And you can run it up high - as high on the Tone Scale as you want to.

It's a piece of automatic machinery is set up to resist something; it gets onto the same wavelength as that something and after that it - its screens and shields on protection, so on, cave in and it develops, then, an actual desire for the thing. In other words, there's just a vacuum of it set up there. You follow this?

So that by being the disease and being the body and the disease of the body, one is being both sides of something which is resisting something else. And then they just merge. But remember, you always have to solve the idea of fighting to resolve randomity. Now, any randomity is resolved in this fashion.

The fellow keeps talking to you all the time about ridges, ridges, ridges, ridges, ridges until you're ready to slit his throat. You get rid of one ridge, he's got another ridge for you. He's chosen ridges or energy out as randomity.

Now, choosing energy out as randomity is real peculiar in view of the fact that he's an energy manufacturing unit. He'll immediately wind up in an unwillingness to put out beams by which he himself can perceive; and it will also be unwillingness to exert effort, which we get eventually into the no-work band. And that is in common with all neurosis and psychosis: no work. So this is - this is a serious one; not that it's serious at the time he's doing it but it might get so.

So you have him be a ridge and attack the body, and then be the body and attack ridges, and be the body and withdraw from ridges, and be the ridges and withdraw from the body.

Now, after a while he'll get some very spooky feelings about this whole thing. He'll get real spooky about it because the body starts to get insensitive or starts to get too sensitive, and he'll get the idea of - of being the environment, and so forth, and he'll find out a lot of things about his case in a hurry.

Well, this universe, to a fellow who has gone away from using energy which he himself made, is a constant, pounding inflow and it's making the thetan a target - 360-degree sphere; he's a target. So you wonder why he's small, why he tries to escape from the body, why he tries to get out of this target area and that sort of thing.

Well, what's his trouble? All you have him be is the waves which are - the MEST universe waves and emanations which are pounding the body, the voices and noises which are pounding the body. "Now be the body. Now be the voices and noises pounding the body. Now be voices and noises pounding other bodies. Now be other bodies resisting." Be, in other words, be, rather than conceptually.

And how do you do this spatially? You get him to move into the actual space. And he'll find out he's in a hell of a mess if he's not exteriorized yet.

You say, "All right. Now, be the waves pounding the body." Well, he tries and tries to figure out. Well, maybe he could figure out he was outside the body and sort of collapse in on the body while still facing out of the body in order to be the waves which are attacking the body. And then to be in the center of the body he's got to back out and resist the body. This gets real complicated. See?

So then it'll suddenly occur to him that he's been sort of - he's been promoting waves to attack other people's bodies, too. Well, you can have him be those waves, and be bodies, and be waves attacking his own body, be sunlight attacking his own body and you'll restimulate all the sunburn in the bank. (It'll run out, though.)

Why? You don't have to run any of this stuff out. All you have to do is promote his willingness to be something.

Anything he's against, he's chosen out as randomity. And if he doesn't like being against it, then it's running on an automaticity; so you solve it.

You don't just solve all of his randomity. If you think you solve all of his randomity, that's wrong; you only solve that kind of randomity that's making him real complaintive.

He's doing it, that's the truth of the matter. Because he's unwilling to be these MEST waves pounding in, he can't get out of his body. And - or he's out of his body and he can't get in so he can get out.

You see how you resolve that, then? This is the essence; this is simplicity itself.