We will now take up R1-10. R1-10: Route 1-10, an exteriorization drill or process.

Okay. Here we have now, Route 1, Step 11. R1-11: "Have preclear be problems and solutions in havingness." And this would, of course, be sequitur in having disabused him of his most favorite idea that two things cannot occupy the same space. Having disabused him of this obvious, known, practical and convincing idea, we would be able to go on to R1-11. Or, having failed utterly to disabuse him of it — you know, having failed utterly in R1-10 — we would go on to R1-11.

Route 1-10 is not solely confined to Route 1. You will find it also over in Route 2. This step is "Have preclear discover things he wouldn't mind occupying the same space with him." Now, that is the idea behind all havingness. You can only have something when you've got a universe or when you've got some space. And to get an individual over the idea of havingness, it's only necessary to ask him many, many times "What wouldn't you mind occupying your same space now? Give me something else that you wouldn't mind occupying your space." He'll tell you air, water, ideas. Anything he tells you, you don't care; you just want the question answered. "What wouldn't you mind occupying the same space with you?" And again, "What wouldn't you mind occupying the same space? What wouldn't you mind occupying the same space?" Now, this is not a short process. You can keep this process up with an individual for a couple of hours, always with benefit. It can be run on some-body inside or outside. When you run it on somebody who is exteriorized, he's liable to have the devil's own time trying to figure out how he could get some-thing to occupy the same space he's occupying, particularly if he's in good shape. But he's got to manage this. He's got to know what this is all about. Really, he will move around and occupy the same space as other objects for a while, and do all sorts of things. You're not interested too much in what he's doing, you just want to give him the process and get him finally into the idea that things can occupy the same space as a thetan.

Now, you see, you could fail in R1-10 — you could fail — by not running it long enough, by having a preclear who is having a lot of difficulty while exteriorized, by having had this preclear be sloppily audited before. You know, there'd be various reasons. And you've asked him this question: "What things wouldn't you mind occupying your same space?" And, boy, he's vague, and he's this way and that. And after you run it for a little while, he gets unhappy, and then you get it kind of flat. But you're not satisfied with it at all, you could actually just go on to R1-11 — if you weren't getting anyplace with it. Now, that's not to encourage you to change a process just because it isn't getting a result. But I'm just telling you that R1-11 is independent of R1-10.

What you are knocking to pieces is the basic postulate which makes a universe possible, and you are knocking that postulate to pieces. And this is simply this: the basic postulate is — for any universe which has space and energy — "Two things cannot occupy the same space." Alfred Lord Korzybski did not invent this. It was invented about seventy-four trillion years ago for this universe. "Two things cannot occupy the same space." If you will study general semantics, you will discover that they teachthis and it makes madmen out of them. They teach you "Two things cannotoccupy the same space! Those two are not the same cigarette; they are twodifferent cigarettes, if only because they are not occupying the same space."Nah, booey. The space is a postulate. So if you postulate that they can'toccupy the same space, they can't. If you postulate they can, they can. It's just a matter of you making up your mind about it.

Why is it? Well, we're in a basic process again, you see? And do you know that all those basic processes — conceding the fact that the Remedy of Havingness and Spotting Spots are actually very much associated with each other — all those basic processes are workable processes. And here we've simply moved on to two-way communication. And we'll see, back here at the be-ginning, we asked him if he had any present time problems — you know, we got into communication by talking about problems? — well, here, tucked way down here at R1-11, we have a basic process. This is a basic process.

So if we have somebody having difficulty with his language, difficulty with the universe around him, who is an avid student of general semantics — which is taught in every university in the land now, by the way ... They teach students that nobody really knows what anybody else is talking about, because every word means something different to everybody else.

You could have started a process of this character the first time you ever talked to him. You could have started this process if you just had been introduced to him. So it's got to be in R1 someplace, so it's just there. It's not dependent on the one above it or below it. Problems and Solutions in Havingness.

Aha, I'm afraid that "coffee" means coffee. Of course, it can have associative reasonings to it. You could have an association with coffee, but you've still said "coffee." "Coffee," the fellow says, "plus my associations with coffee"; the other fellow says, "Coffee, plus my associations with coffee" — you're still talking about coffee.

Now, you'll also discover this over here in a later process, won't you? You will discover that this could have followed Opening Procedure by Duplication, hm? And you'll find it again appearing as R2-20, Use of Problems and Solutions — another way to run it. But it's still a very basic process, two-way communication. It's a problem that you're in communication with him at all.

The general semanticist is always thinking in terms of associative lines and masses and definitions and reasons why, you see — significance, significance, significance, significance.

So this fellow is exteriorized and we use this form when we have some-body out of his body. You know, he's exteriorized. He's an awareness of awareness unit. He's aware of his differentiation. He is somewhere up close to Clear. He's still associated with energy masses or something of the sort. Well, a thetan is unhappy unless he can have a few problems, and so on.

Now, I'm not tramping on general semantics. I'm glad general semantics was around. I studied it for ten minutes once, and under a very, very good teacher, Robert Heinlein. He told me all about general semantics, and I was very happy to learn about general semantics. Several general semanticists since have undertaken my education, and they have quit with horror because they get just up to this point — they are not physicists or they have never studied the physical universe — they get up to this point of they say, "Now, you understand that two things cannot possibly occupy the same space." Oh, I'm afraid that we're at a divergence right at this point. That's the way you make a universe solid. That's how these general semanticists get ridges around. That's why they get tongue-tied and go out of communication. They get this repostulated, repostulated, repostulated — that two things can't occupy the same space — and that makes an energy mass, that makes terminals, that makes all sorts of weird things, see?

And you could ask him, "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness?" — specialized use, see. "What kind of problem could you be in havingness?" It's rather significant, but he'll give you some problems he could be in havingness. "Let me see, I could be a pauper, and I could be this and that." And all of a sudden it will occur to him, sooner or later, as you're asking him that question over and over again, "I could be exteriorized." That's one of the reasons he's not stabilizing outside: he's being a problem in havingness. You know, there's the body, and there he is. He should be in the body; if he's in the body, he has it.

That gives you a universe. In addition to this fellow having a physical universe, you're asking him to build a universe again around himself, in his mind.

Actually, he's having to hide, protect and own bodies in order to be happy in life. Well, that's a problem of havingness. Hiding bodies, hiding objects, hiding gold, burying treasure — that's a problem in havingness, see. Hiding, protecting, owning — these are problems in havingness. So you'd just go on asking him this: "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness?" Well, we've sometimes used this along this line: "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness?" and then "What kind of a problem can you be in not-havingness?" just to shake it up — you know, to give him the idea. He gets havingness as a positive and not-havingness as a negative affair. And this is just to make sure that you're covering all squares.

Words, to a general semanticist, become lumps of lead. Everything takes on a mass form. It naturally would, because that's how you make mass, isn't it? "Two things cannot occupy the same space," you say. Therefore, by postulate, that terminal is over there and this terminal is here. You have to first say, however, if you're going to get these terminals apart, "Two things can't occupy the same space." You have to say that, see; you have to postulate that. "These two things are apart and they cannot occupy each other's space." This will make them, each one of them, a unit object. We've got two unit objects now, and we've got individuation. See? We say these two things are entirely separate. Each one has a personality. Why? They've got to go on having a personality to the end of time. Why? Because they can't occupy the same space.

So you'd ask him this question. He's exteriorized, and you say, "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness? What's another kind of a problem could you be in havingness?" And you'd run that until its comm lag was pretty flat. And then you would say, "What kind of a problem can you be in not-havingness?" and then "Give me some more problems you could be in not-havingness. Some more problems you could be in not-havingness." And then we could run it a little longer, till that communication lag was flat on that, and then we could ask him, while exteriorized, "What kind of a problem can others be to you in havingness?" And again, "What kind of a problem could others be to you in havingness?" And then we'd say "What kind of a problem can others be to you in not-havingness?" And right away he gets the feeling of the walls pulling the energy out of him as a thetan, you know — parasites, people standing around. "What kind of a problem can others be to you in not-havingness?" brings up immediately the vacuum-cleaner quality of this particular universe. It really pulls the energy out of people.

This is a very important thing to know in processing, because your fellow who is sitting there having a lot of difficulty — he is a thetan exteriorized, and he's got big masses of energy around him — there's only one common de-nominator to the things he's convinced of. Of course, he's convinced they're energy, convinced there's space and so forth, naturally, but much more important than that postulate is this basic consideration — this basic consideration: He considers that two things cannot occupy the same space.

And we would go on with that till its lag was flat. And then we could go into solutions and say, "What kind of a solution can you be to havingness? What kind of a solution can you be to not-havingness?" In other words, we'd just use those questions.

For instance, he does not believe that he and his wife could occupy the same space. She is an individual, he is an individual. Oh, wait a minute. You'd have to be way downstairs in kindergarten not to have gone in some-body else's head and pulled a couple of motor controls, one way or one time or another.

But every time we use a solution, we have reduced his problems, haven't we? You see, a lot of the places on the track where you'll find this individual stuck, it's when he's got attained, suddenly, a solution.

Sure, he as a thetan can occupy somebody else's space, but it's only by postulate that his body and his wife's body cannot occupy the same space; that's what makes them two different individuals. You break that postulate down and Lord knows what's going to happen. Actually, you get freedom, be-cause it's the basic restriction.

What's a basic solution? What is the ultimate solution? The ultimate solution is demonstrated by this proposition: The solution to a problem is the problem. This is demonstrated in Perfect Duplication. The solution to a problem is the problem.

All aberration is, is restriction. And that is the fundamental common denominator of all restriction: Two things cannot occupy the same space.

If you have a solution to a problem which is the problem — in other words, if you have duplicated the problem perfectly — the problem will cease to exist, and you will have no energy, no mass, no location in space and no time, won't you? In other words, the solution to the problem is the problem. But the second that you did that perfect duplicate, you would have as-ised the problem, which would leave you with nothing. So solutions are the most destructive things to havingness you ever saw in your life.

All right, how important is this? Why are we stressing it? Is it an important theory? No. I tell you, I have enough theories ... I have a file in here which is called "Old Cuffs," and there is enough theory and speculation and so forth on those — so much so that we decided to start to photostat them on the backs of the wasted pages of the PABs. You know, just have them shoot an "Old Cuff" at random.

A fellow gets a real top-flight solution, he'll wind up with nothing, won't he? And that is what people kick about when you talk to them about exteriorization. It is a solution. It is the solution to existence. Naturally. It has no further wavelength, and a fellow actually can exteriorize into no position in time, you see, or location in space. I mean, if he can't place himself somewhere he's in bad shape. But he basically can simply place himself some-where, not being anyplace, you see, and he would be an orientation point.

Boy, is that going to take some of these boys who figure-figure out in the field and throw them for a loop, because some of these things are not sequitur to anything we're doing — you know, they're just suppositions and so forth.

But what a silly thing this is. People fight away from having solutions. Do you know that if you got a Black Five, and you asked him to really solve something — you know, make a perfect duplicate of the problem? — he'd start to get sick at his stomach. You've asked him to look at nothing. Every time you ask one of these fellows who is figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure every time you ask one of these fellows to actually get a solution to the problem he's liable to get sick.

Theories: nobody will ever have to remedy my havingness in terms of theories. There's no scarcity of them. There are just billions of theories. That's the one thing I'm perfectly willing to agree on — that there could be more theories than there are coyotes. And that's a lot of theories. Any-how...

One of the finest things to make a person sick you ever saw in your life is come along, for instance, and point out the solution to a problem. The ultimate solution is nothingness. "Be three feet back of your head"; now he's in perfect condition.

When we have this postulate in the bank, a person who firmly believes it, cannot believe that he can exteriorize. Because if he believes two things cannot occupy the same space, then it becomes impossible for him to assume that he is one thing and the body is another thing. Now, do you follow me? So he will have to tell you, if he's sitting in a body, that he is a body. You got that?

But after a person has gone downscale to a point of where he's very heavily embedded in energy, and so forth, now nothingness becomes very antipathetic for him to look at. So if you start asking him about solutions, you start asking him — just willy-nilly ask him about what solutions he's had in the past ("Now, give me some solutions you have arrived at"), you know he'll get sad?

See, "Yeah, I'm right here! And two things can't occupy the same space, so I can't be occupying the same space as a body, can I?" That logical? Well, it sounds logical enough to him so he won't exteriorize. And this is also your common denominator of nonexteriorization.

You give him some things — "Well, now what problems have you had in life?" — and for a little while, until he gets the bank drained down too much, why, he gets happier and happier and happier, you know. "Oh, my parents were so mean to me. And my father beat me. And my mother beat my father, and they both beat my little brother. And that made me beat my dog. And we all never had anything to eat but chicken and ice cream, and we had no place to sleep but a featherbed. Boy, I've had problems, problems, problems; I'm just about out of my mind." And you say, "Now, what solutions have you had in the past? What are some of your solutions?" The fellow says, "Solutions? Have I ever had a solution for anything? Let's see, solutions? Solutions? (Sigh!) Solutions, yeah. Yes, I had one: I left my family, was a solution. Let's see . . ." You trace back down the track and you'll find out that every solution is a reduction in havingness. You got that?

If you were to take R1-10, as a good process, how would you remedy his interiorization? You just keep asking him this question for hours and hours and hours and hours: "Give me some more things that could occupy the same space you're occupying. Some more things. Some more things. Some more things." And all of a sudden he gets the creepy notion — because it's just a postulate on the track, you see; it's just a consideration like "ice cream is good" or "ice cream is bad"; it's just the same order of magnitude — all of a sudden he gets the sneaky notion that "You know, I'm sitting here occupying the space something else is occupying. But then, of course, I am no mass at all. Well, I am mass, and I don't quite ... But there's something here about this." And the next thing you'll know, he'll be three feet back of his head looking at himself.

Well, you, you dog, are sitting there asking a preclear to solve his case. Bells ring? He's liable just to sit there and give you more and more and more and more and more problems, and more arduous, and more involved and further down the line, and so forth. Why? Because it'd make him awfully unhappy, he feels. If he is his body, a solution to the body is to have the body disappear utterly.

So as an example of the workability of this particular process, the hold-outs (which is to say, the few who would not exteriorize cleanly) in the Advanced Clinical Course in London are reported to have exteriorized.

You get in religion the fact that a great saint is supposed to be able to dematerialize his body. I don't know what he's dragging a body for or where he's taking it to. But this is supposed to be the stuff. That's just a booby trap on the line, you see. Actually, he himself is no mass.

All the holdouts — you know, I think that he had maybe three or four there that were just dead in their heads, right there at the last. He exteriorized this whole unit, by the way. And he got down to R2-22. That was the total processes used — all of R1 and R2-22. That exteriorized everybody in that unit, I think, in the first two weeks of its teaching.

Well, a person has to be willing to solve something before he'll exteriorize. That's a little maxim I give you and bequeath to you this afternoon. He has to be willing to attempt a solution before he will exteriorize. And he won't attempt a solution until he has a great number of problems, and until he knows down to the core of his awareness of awareness that he can dream up problems ad infinitum.

Now, the holdouts, the people who were having difficulty, blew on this one: "Give me something you wouldn't mind occupying your same space. Give me something you wouldn't mind occupying your same space. Give me some-thing else that you wouldn't mind occupying your same space." See? And they finally blew out of their heads.

So what's the goal of this process? He's a little bit unhappy about being exteriorized. He feels calmer and he feels better, but there's something a little bit queasy about it, unstable about it and so forth. Well, the best thing that you can do to him, really, is show him that he hasn't had his havingness go all to pieces; he can always have something more. Actually, being exteriorized and being free, he can now have far more easily than previously. Well, you just don't tell him that; you run this process and he'll convince himself of it.

It's obvious to an individual who is interiorized that he is his body, be-cause he knows two things cannot occupy the same space. That's the first thing you want to learn about that.

"Now, what problems can you be in havingness?" and on and on and on.

The other thing is, that the only reason the universe can stand out here and the terminals can interchange or anything else, is because the postulate is woven thoroughly into this universe and everyone is convinced of it, indeed — that two things can't occupy the same space.

What's the limit and goal of the process? He will at first believe that he could get a great many problems. He starts to think and invent them after a while, you see. You didn't tell him to invent them, but he will have to because he's drained the bank flat, which makes him very unhappy. He's got all the problems which are obvious. Now he has to start dreaming them up.

Now, if it were just a theory, as I told you before, the devil with it. It's not a theory. It happens to have been something which was worked out on a theoretical basis along with eighty-nine other theories that sounded just as logical. But this one happened to work, and on research auditing demonstrated its workability. And in the hands of auditors ever since this was re-leased, this has been a very workable technique and has been responsible for many case recoveries — particularly recovery of the ability to be.

You say to him, "Now, what about this business about problems in havingness now — problems in havingness here? How many of these do you think you could dream up?" "Oh, I could dream up quite a few." That's not the answer you're looking for. The answer you're looking for is "I could probably go on forever dreaming up problems in havingness and not-havingness." Got that? "I could probably go on forever." In other words, he has to have some conviction that he can invent an infinity of problems in havingness and not-havingness. He must be able to invent an infinity of it, and know that he can, for him to stay stably exteriorized. You follow me?

An individual can't be anything very cleanly if he believes he can't occupy the same space as something.

It's a very important process, then, isn't it? But, then, we said that in two-way communication you could just keep asking a fellow "What kind of problems could you be to yourself? What kind of problems could you be to yourself? What kind of problems can you be to yourself? What kind of problems can you be to yourself? Give me some more problems that you could be to yourself. Some more problems you could be to yourself." And then for a little variation, "What problems could others be to you? What problems could others be to you? What problems could others be to you?" At first it'd be a limited number, but quite a few. At first he's hard put for them; he doesn't want to surrender any. And now he starts dreaming some up; he could invent quite a few. Now he can invent an infinity of them. If he can invent an infinity of problems, he can exteriorize.

Look, a thetan doesn't have any mass; he doesn't have any wavelength; he doesn't have any position unless he says he has. Well, if this is the case, and if he believed two things can't occupy the same space, then the only thing that he could do to be something, you see, would be in the same space as that something and consider himself absolutely nothing — without quality, personality or anything else.

Why? Because a solution is zero; the ultimate solution is zero. Recently I discovered the ultimate truth and the ultimate solution. Prove it too. It's right in your Axioms in the printed edition. The ultimate truth and the ultimate solution — they're quite obvious.

So he would be something fixedly, wouldn't he? Boy, would he be obsessed. Once he was in this thing, whatever it was, being it — whether a bed-post or a president; whatever he was — he would certainly be that thing.

Therefore, an individual who is short on problems will not exteriorize. He has problems in lieu of objects; he has problems in lieu of havingness. And you'd better have him have an infinity of problems before you go on up-stairs to heavier masses.

Wouldn't he have an identity, though! He would be a symbol. The definition of a symbol is mass, meaning and mobility. Therefore, he would not be an orientation point. You have to be an orientation point in order to perceive. Just follow that through quickly and you'll see my point.

Okay? Very well. I hope you know how to run that particular process now. You should, because it's right there in two-way communication and it's no different than that.

All right, if this individual believes two things can't occupy the same space, and he is being something, then he won't be able to be anything else.

You could ask this thetan the same thing that you would ask him in a two-way communication: "What kind of problems could you be to yourself? What kind of problems could you be to yourself?" All kinds of machines will start to show up, and all kinds of problem machines and so forth. That'll stop him from using all this daffy machinery, by the way — all this daffy machinery that he keeps inventing and showing up with and asking you to unmock and so forth. That's all set up there so he can have an infinity of problems. He has problem-making machines, and a problem-making family, and he has a problem-breaking-down car.

You hang a medal on him and tell him he's a hero, and he's it. You say to him, with some holy water, "Your name is John Jones," and, boy, he's it. See, he couldn't be "Bill Smith" suddenly.

Okay. That's all.

And yet his whole survival depends upon his ability to assume a number of identities! His survival depends upon his versatility, not his fixed beingness. His survival depends upon, not his ability to just call himself by different names, but to be different attributes, because a man has to adjust the environment to him. And if he's going to adjust the environment to him he will have to be able to occupy certain parts of the environment and change them, hm?

Otherwise, he will stand there as a fixed mass, being adjusted all the time by the environment.

A rock is adjusted by the environment: The wind blows across it, erodes it; the rain washes on it; the birds chip pieces out of it; the earthquakes break it in half and the lightning pushes it into dust. That's adjusting to the environment.

Now, an individual who has the idea that two things can't occupy the same space, of course, the second he finds himself in a trap, is the trap — and you never saw a trap get out of a trap, did you? A thetan can get out of a trap, but a trap doesn't get out of a trap.

So he believes that he can't be things at will and independently, and change his beingness or grant beingness or receive beingness if he believes that two things cannot occupy the same space.

R1-10 is, then, an important process, is it not?

Don't forget that process. Some day you'll be up against it — you'll be up against it with some preclear. He won't exteriorize; he won't do something. Hammer and pound, hammer and pound: "What things wouldn't you mind occupying your space? Some more things you wouldn't mind occupying your space." Don't think you'll do it in five minutes, though. You won't. It will take a lot longer than that. It's a long process, not a short one. And when he's exteriorized, you ask him the same thing, and all of a sudden as a thetan he'll suddenly realize, "Hey! You know, I really can be something." Ah, this will be a wonderful sensation to him. Important process.

Okay.