Well, now that you're all adrift in the field of pure knowledge, you might as well get further adrift.

This is a second lecture on the Axioms.

There is no reason to believe that a thing has to be located in space and time to be true. Just think of that for a moment. There's no reason why a thing should be located in space and time to be true.

I asked old-time Scientologist one time a brain cracker. I asked him, "Do you locate your postulates firmly in space or time, or are your postulates not located in space or time? Now, which do you do?" And he told me the next year that...(laughter)

Now, anybody - anybody who believes something has to be located in space and time to be true, is, of course, being victimized by his own Reality Scale to some degree, you see? He said, "It has to be a solid object and it has to be located over there for it to exist."

Now, you've run up against this problem time and time and time again. Oh, you got careless, you fell over a cliff or somebody chopped your head off or you murdered your wife or something of the sort, you know? And they executed you - some minor foible of human existence, you know? And you lost a body. Well, that's too bad. And there's hardly a person present who actually hasn't experienced this particular thing of coming back and trying to make oneself heard. Trying to present oneself to the family or the friends or the manor or something of the sort, you know? This is a very common experience - very, very common experience.

It's a frantic - frantic feeling comes over you, you know? The undertaker's chopping up the corpse and filling it full of formaldehyde or whatever undertakers do. And you say, "Hey!" you know, "Quit that!" you know, or something like that or, "What are you doing?" and so forth. And he just goes right on chopping up the corpse and filling it full of formaldehyde and sawdust or whatever they put into corpses. And wife comes in, something like that, and you say, "Hello dear, what are you worried about?" you know? Doesn't pay any attention to you at all, and maybe the most you'll get is a growl out of the dog. Sailing around without a body, don't you see?

And you get the idea you're totally invisible and that you're nothing. And this is a very bad experience. You don't like this. You don't like this.I remember one time I got struck by lightning down here in Sussex someplace, wearing armour. Stupid thing to do, you know. And I went sufficiently wog - Gormley Castle - I went sufficiently wog that I watched them put the body on the bed and take the armour off of it, and saw that it was going to be decently buried and so forth and so on. Just like it had nothing to do with me, you know? I don't know how many volts there are in a lightning bolt, but it was more than I was able to generate at that time.

And I went back over the Channel, went down to Bavaria, where I was born that time. And walked in, fell over the scrub lady. She was busy scrubbing the kitchen floor, you know - scrub, scrub, scrub, scrub and I walked through her. Well, she was aware of the fact of something happening. I guess I was still wearing an engram full of lightning, see. She was definitely aware of something having happened and she kind of went, "Yeep!"

And I went over at the kitchen table and looked for a tankard - I was very thirsty! This was a very stupid thing to get, but you get things like this. You get thirsty and you get hungry and - and it's miserable sort of thing. After a while you get so you don't care and you say, "I can't feel," and you don't get this anymore. Well, you're fairly upscale, you get mad at losing bodies. It isn't something you're unemotional about. You get upset about it and so forth. But I was thirsty. And I walked over to the table. My tankard had been removed. So I came down with a fist on the festive board, trying to make a tremendous crash and attract some attention, and my fist went straight on through the boards.

I said, "Oh oh, (sigh) I'm a ghost again." And I hadn't realized from the moment the lightning hit right straight on through, that I had stopped living, see, the way people are supposed to live, see? I went out and there was a full moon. My sense of humour came back to me, fortunately, and I stood there and howled at the moon for a while.

It's quite upsetting losing a body and so forth, and nobody paying any attention to you. Well, if this goes on long enough, you do it often enough and you're sufficiently impressed with it, you get the idea that you are nobody when you haven't got a body. Now, it's a very easy thing to jump from there to losing a body and then not knowing anything about it. Do you see this gradient scale?

You lose something, it's gone, right? Well, that's - that's gone. You find many people who can't speak French until they go over to France again, and then they're around there for quite a while and they begin to speak French. And then they leave France and they can't speak French after a short while. Then they go back to France and it takes them two or three weeks to get geared up. It's havingness. It's actually French havingness. It has nothing to do with anything but the mass. They've got mass associated with thought, you see?

So anyway, an individual loses something - well, that's kind of like forgettingness. They forget all about it, they say. And then the next step is nobody pays any attention to you and you keep noticing this. You keep walking up to people without a body, you know, or sailing through the air or something like that - and nobody notices it. Unless, of course, you swipe them with a beam or something like that, and they think, "My, isn't the atmosphere electric tonight." If you're sufficiently an electric eel you occasionally have committed the overt act of practically electrocuting somebody, and after that you stop touching them, you know - stop touching people.

And you just go down scale from there and finally you say, "Well, I - no body. I'm nobody," see. And after a while, why, the automatic action, "Lose a body, don't know who I am, don't know where I am, don't know what I'm doing. Find another body. I don't know who I've been." See? Instant response, "I don't know who I've been. I haven't got that body anymore so therefore I don't know who it was, where it was or what it was doing," and so on and so on and so on.

Well, you get people going further than that who are walking around perfectly alive in a body. That "perfectly alive" is sarcastically stated. Actually, you're not quite ever as alive in a body as you are out of one, when you're in good shape. When you get trained along this cycle I'm talking to you about, though, it's a little bit different.

There are people around that when you remove the object from their vicinity and out of their view, they totally lose a memory of it. You ever run into anybody that - so on?

Now, the most common example I can think of is somebody who parks his car, goes to a show or something, comes out and doesn't know where he parked his car. Now, that's not quite so bad as the fellow who parks his car, goes into the show, comes out, gets on a public conveyance and goes home. You see, that's just a little bit further down. This fellow at least did remember that he had a car, you see, when he didn't know where it was. Not knowing where something is, is at least remembering that it is. Got it?

All right, now, the fellow who - if it isn't there, he doesn't remember it - is totally dependent on mass to give him memory. When he walks out of the show, he doesn't see any car, so he doesn't remember he has a car. So he just goes home on a public conveyance. When he gets home, he gets up the next morning and because he has a garage, you see, the garage reminds him of the car. And he says, "Well, drive down to work now." Or whatever he's got to do with the car. He says, "Where's the car?" Only now has he remembered there is a car, not that he left it downtown. This goes off for sometime with a little yammer-yammer from the wife. After a while, with enough yammer-yammer, why, he remembers that he left the car at the movies last night when he went downtown to the movies. Got the idea?

A person who is dependent on mass for memory can become more dependent on mass for memory to a point where, in the absence of any specific mass, there is no memory of the mass. Got the idea? This all stems from dependence on mass- memory.

We argue about this in class, sometimes, about notebooks. Individuals - perfectly all right to take notes, but an individual who is depending on the mass of the notebook to totally remember, you see, has already taken a step in the direction of forgetting. Got the idea? Perfectly easy to do.

Now, you can go back the other way so fast, hardly with even any processing. You can go back the other way quite rapidly, of just make up your mind to start remembering things in the absence of mass. And you tend to trick this out - it'll occasionally make you feel sort of sick or sort of odd or sort of peculiar.

If you feel rather dismayed, you go around saying, "Telephone number, Speedwell 9292, yeah, Speedwell 9292, yeah. I'll remember that number. Speedwell 9292, Speedwell 9292." You're trying to put some sound waves up there and to make a little series of ridges or print it on some kind of a facsimile in front of you in order to remember it.

Well, you can go from that - from writing it down to repeating it a few times so that you can remember it - to just remembering it, and if it exists in PT, just knowing it. See, you can go right on up scale to just knowing it again, see? Want to know what a phone number is, just know it.

So mechanisms which tend to reinforce memory are mechanisms which enter when the individual has already decided that he can't remember.

And we get the first, second, third and fourth postulates - fascinating. The native state: total knowingness. First postulate: not-know. Second postulate: know. Third postulate: forget. Fourth postulate: remember. This is very technical data.

You hear us speak, now and then, of "This is a first postulate." We say, "This is a first postulate." Well, that doesn't mean anything more complicated than this: that the second postulate depends for its stickiness and its force on the existence of a first postulate. The prior postulate in time is the thing which gives force to the second postulate, which follows it. You have to take apart first postulates to a marked degree - this is quite true along the line - you have to take apart first postulates or odd-numbered postulates, at least, before you can take apart the even-numbered postulates, you see, because they're after the fact. This is a - this is a fascinator, this particular aspect of memory and so on.

Native state - you have a potential know of everything. But maybe there isn't anything to know. But you could know everything there is by - if it is, or if it existed. Got the idea? If there's any knowledge, you've got it -that's native state. If any knowledge exists anywhere, you have it! Got that?

Now you have to not-know, by theory, the whole ruddy works, in order to forget anything. Now, you just say, "not-know." See, and you just don't know anything now, you blank it all out. Now you can have the happy circumstance of going around and finding things to know! Which is quite a game. After you've not-known architecture, you can go to school and study architecture. Get the idea?

You find you're pretty stupid sometimes, too. You sit there and look at a Gothic arch and you say, "Renaissance" you know. "Renaissance, yes - Italian Renaissance. Yes - rococo school. Oh, no, there's something wrong with this," you know? "This is a uh... This is a uh... Now, don't tell me - I know it's an arch, it's an arch of some kind. Uhm

- arch - arch - the wheel and the arch and the wheel. Italian ra-uh-rococo-uh... Whew - what is the name of this arch?"

Now, you get told, "It's a Gothic arch."

"Oh-ho-ho-ho! Yeah, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! It's a Gothic arch. Yeah. That's good, good, I got it now. Got it now. Okay, as I was saying this uh... You sure this thing didn't come out of the Renaissance?"

And the fellow is doing a skid. Maybe the first time he ever studied architecture, or the first time he ever built a church or anything like that, why, it was a whole bunch of Gothic arches, you see? And he's got experiences. He's got knowledge all mixed up with a Gothic arch.

Now he's got to forget it all before he can remember it. See, if he knew it he would just keep on knowing it. But he's gone through all the mechanism of forgetting it which is the third postulate. Now he tries to do the fourth postulate of "remember," which remembers through forgettingness, you see, in order to know again.

This is one of the wildest things to see somebody standing there trying to remember something. It's the goofiest mechanism you ever ran into - remembering something. It's a fourth postulate. You'll get further on old processes, as we discovered in '54, if you run "forget." "Forget" is at least an odd-numbered postulate.

You start running somebody on the basis of "What can you remember? Tra-la, tra-la. What can you remember? Tra-la, tra-la." And he gets a half a dozen recalls and he's had it. See, and then he starts going over these same recalls again. Well, if you ran something like, "Tell me something you have forgotten about Father." This individual would collide with this one and he'd muck around with it and all of a sudden stuff would start to reveal itself. Well, what's happening? He's doing this skid from three to four. See that?

Now, there's an older process, Op Pro by Dup Not-know. "What could you not-know about that object," you know? Or take a person outside - a walkabout process - take a person outside and show them people. "Tell me something you could not-know about that person?"

The first thing the person tells you, "Well, I could not-know his name."

"Come off of it, you don't know his name. What can you not-know about the person?"

"Well, a person ... . Well, I could not-know he's got a head." "All right. That's good. That's what we mean." See?

You run that process for a while, and this fellow - ARC picks up and he brightens up and he starts beginning to remember things and he starts beginning to remember things and everything gets beautifully bright. What are you doing? You're doing a skid clear over here to the fourth postulate, you see? You're running "not-know" which is postulate one. But that's above his grasp and he starts skidding over here to postulate four - which is remember." And he starts remembering things. And the darnedest things, he recalls the darnedest things while he's running this not-know process. Well, don't be startled if all of a sudden he goes totally foggy.

You say, "What's your name?"

He'll say, "I'm - swear I don't know. It's just... I don't know my name. Now, what you've done, you've just run this and you've exercised me into a point where I just not-know everything. And that's what you've done to my memory."

What you've done - you've actually done a remarkable thing. You've brought him up to "forget," which is at least only a third postulate.

Now, if you've got him up to "forget" for a while, and you run "not-know" some more and he keeps forgetting and forgetting, he'll get an odd phenomena occurring. Every time he not-knows something, why, he knows all about it. This is one of the first things that shows up.

He's running this on people in the park, the auditor's pointing out people to him, "Tell me something you could not-know about that person."

And he says, "Well, I could not-know that person's wearing a green - you know what that person's name is? That's John Smith. He lives at 642 West Clapham Avenue and he's got a wife and three children and he's got certain papers in his pocket, and his name's and address on the letter in his right-hand breast pocket is so-and-so. And the suit was made in such-and-such a place."

And the auditor who doesn't at that moment say, "Thank you," and ask the next question, is being very stupid indeed. Well, this process failed, by the way, because auditors kept getting startled by it and wouldn't complete the process. It made them superstitious or something. They got weird about this thing, you know? This person was developing the capabilities of a seer. You know, capabilities... You know, look at the wall, know who built it and how they were built it and how long ago the wall was old and what's underneath the first layer and the second layer and the third layer of paper, and what the old lady looked like that lived in the house. You get the idea.

The whole works, with big certainty. Well, why not, why not? Here you have knowingness in the absence of mass, which is what is being conquered here, you see?

Well, you're taking over self-determinism of knowingness, you see? A person self- determines his own knowingness. But few auditors quit just because a person said, "The person's name and address is J. B. Ress and he lives at such-and-such a place and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on." They - few of them quit at that. But a large number, in the early days on this process, used to become too upset when it ran into exactly the auditing command performed. The exact auditing command was performed. "Tell me something you could not-know about that person."

"Whop!" And the person disappeared to the pc. Just disappeared! Self-determined disappearance of people. Self-determined disappearance of walls, books, anything under the sun, moon and stars.

Now, a hypnotist can always produce very, very low-scale mockery phenomena of actual capabilities. When the individual is taking no responsibility for it at all, on the hypnotist's say-so they can do these things.

But this individual is way up, quite alert, and the auditor says, "Tell me something you could not-know about that man."

Pc says, "His hat." And to the pc, the hat disappears. Whhhh! Gone. "Now, tell me something you could not-know about that man."

"His head." Whhhh! Head gone. Get the idea?

And the auditor is pretty sure that if he kept it up, it would disappear for him, too. And more auditors have come back and told me, after these walkabout around the park processes, "We ran it until everything he looked at was disappearing, and uh..."

"How many things disappeared?"

"Well, we - I let him get about - disappear about three before we quit. Ha-ha. And we had it flat all right."

No, they just barely started to edge out of "mass makes us know." The automatic formation of mass, the automatic appearance and disappearance of mass in connection with knowingness, or the need for mass in order to know, was being solved in the pc. And that's very far from the end of that process. There are very few auditors ever pushed it any further. It's too spooky.

There are many ways to turn on the ability of being a seer, a soothsayer or a fortune teller or something like that in a pc. One of the odd ones, by the way, is "Find something in this room that is having an effect on something else in this room." In other words, that's merely spotting cause. You can run that on a very low-scale process and you can run this on groups with considerably interesting results.

Because they go away able to predict for fifteen, twenty minutes ahead at a crack, exactly what's going to happen. You widen their time span. Because you've put them at cause over effect without making them totally responsible for the effect. And very low scale cases can run this rather easily. And it turns on their ability to predict.

They know when traffic lights are going to go on and off. They know that such and so a person standing on the corner is going to turn around.

Now this happens quite ordinarily and routinely to people on this - "deja vu" it's called, "I know I have been here before." You know, the person jumped up the time track and back down the time track, you know "th-boomp." And he dislocated himself in time and then therefore he knew he's been there before because he will be there. But he's at the "will be there" that he was there before. And he gets himself all mixed up.

So he says, I know just exactly what - I knew just exactly what that person was going to say next."

Well, this is just an example of total knowingness. And you start shoving a person up into native state, he gets all sorts of weird and interesting phenomena. There's nothing very startling about it when you've been through it a few times. You know exactly - yourself, you're on a prediction of behavior as far as a pc is concerned.

These processes, by the way, are not the key processes to clearing. But they are certainly processes which heighten an individual's ability to know, particularly in the absence of mass.

Now, there are various ways to return total recall to a person on the whole track. Various ways to do this. One of the best ways, you might say, to do this is to just get him over being upset on the whole track. In other words, put him in control of the misemotion, misalignment and the upsets to which he is subject by reason of having lived.

Now, let's look back at this phenomena of exteriorizing, finding one's self nothing, apparently; not being recognized, therefore knowing nothing, so on. Of course, a thetan who has gone through the exercise of native state as a total know - gone through the exercise of not-knowing everything, so that he can now know something selectively, so that he can forget it, so that he can remember it - when he's gone through all of this concatenation from one end to the other, about any deep shock is liable to produce any of these states. And what is easier for him to do than to just not-know everything?

Now, when he has forgettingness and so forth associated with physical pain, and so on, he doesn't want to forget, he must forget, he has to forget, he doesn't know, he must know, and he's all tangled up about what he ought to do and what he ought to remember, and zzzza-za-za-za-za. You see this? He gets confused.

Most people believe that when a person is out of a body and on his way, that he's well out of it and doesn't feel anything. And the person's very happy that he no longer has a sore neck where the executioner just cut his head off. He's backed out of the body and he's gotten totally away from it, hasn't he?

Ha! It's not true. It's not true at all.

The fellow who is in bad mental condition commits suicide, certainly might relieve the duress of the immediate environment or that particular time track momentarily and feel that he's gotten away with something. But as a matter of fact, by not confronting it, he's made himself the effect of it. As a result, he can back out and not feel. By postulate, he not-knows the feeling of having had his head chopped off or his brains blown out or something like that.

You can feel much better outside than you can inside. It's quite interesting. You feel much better outside than you can inside. And by that I don't mean feel more well.

I remember one time, being totally, horribly startled. I thought I had something terrifically solved. I picked up a robot body. And I'd just gone through a rather painful experience, and I said, "Well, obviously, this thing's got no nerves in it. Why don't I carry along with this thing for a while, you know?" And boy, was I startled. One arm of it got blown off and hit a bulkhead back of me. And did it hurt! Well, I would like you to explain how a piece of metal without any nerves in it could hurt. Well, of course, it can't. And you look this over and you'll find out that no body or no object that you ever had, ever hurt - but you've hurt. So when you're out of a body, you're you - how is it you can't hurt? But if you say, "I am nobody and I am nothing and I can't feel and I can't attract attention and I don't amount to anything, then of course, I can't hurt either."

So a person has to be able to experience very freely before he starts remembering. Do you see this? This is a possibility.

All right. Now, what about all this? If you've educated yourself to have mass in order to remember, if you're trying to assist your knowingness by having other things know, you of course won't have anything to do with things that aren't written down or agreements that you have made and then that you don't know anymore. And these would be the first things to disappear. There's no mass connected with them. They're not located in time and space. There's nothing to remind you of them.

They've just gone "Whhhhh." Ah, but they've just gone whhh, but what terrific effect!

Now, people who run an engram through to the exteriorization end of the engram are always running into the exteriorization end of the engram with great relief. 'Now I am back here merely looking at the body lying there." Well, after they've run a few engrams, they find out that they went into some kind of an anesthesia. And if they're running all the perceptics out of the engram, there were perceptics there also of having felt pretty dreadful physically. But feeling pretty dreadful physically was upscale from the state they were in - well upscale.

Substitution has entered in, you see? They said, "The body hurts, the body's painful. Now I am out of the body, so I don't hurt." Oh, but the only thing in the body that hurt was themselves. See how that worked?

I don't blame you for getting a little uncomfortable when you listen to this sort of thing. Just take a firm grip on your body and realize that you are somebody, and you do have one; you've won again.

What would be the first things that disappeared in a thetan? Well, for various mechanical reasons, he wouldn't like things without any mass whatsoever. And he wouldn't like himself being without any mass. And he certainly would hate to confront the first basic postulates that got him in that condition because obviously they're bad because look at the condition he's in. Proves it, doesn't it? Hmm?

So by not confronting the series of postulates which got him in that condition, he obviously winds up in that condition. If he never confronts them, of course he can never as-is them. I refer to your Axioms. You can't as-is something, if you only not- is something, you know - say it's not there, make it invisible or turn it black or substitute something else for it. If you never look at anything, it persists. The basic mechanism of persistence is said - never to observe it.

You have a country that's rattled and riddled with crime. Everybody says, "Ah, sweetness and light, so forth and so on." If you never look at the crime - if the citizens only look at newspapers about the crime and never look at the crime - you're just going to get more and more crime, and it's going to go on and on and on, it's going to persist further and further and further. Don't you see? Because it's never really looked at. Citizens hire some policemen and they say, "Well, the policemen will go around and look at the crime, and they'll as-is it all for us." And then everybody's amazed when it just doesn't all solve itself. Get the idea? It's not confronted.

Now, the least confronted thing on any track, then, would be something with no mass, something that had no location in time and space, something that did not confer any identity and something that was never observed in any way whatsoever. You've got the Axioms - those are the Axioms. It's fascinating that that's how you got in the condition you're in, you see? Never observed them, never knew them.

Merely assumed them, agreed to them - then found out that was bad so he didn't pay any more attention to it. Parked it over someplace over your non-existent left shoulder and you'd had it.

For a while, you tried to cave somebody else in with an Axiom. See, you'd chant this Axiom at somebody, get into communication with him, and really hang it on him good and proper. Guilty of an overt act, you realize. So you better not be guilty of that overt act anymore and you better never even dramatize this thing, much less look at it. Let's just park it back over the left shoulder - the non-existent left shoulder - and have it gone totally.

So these things, by one mechanical process or another, and basically by their - just the process of postulates and the various agreements which turn the whole thing up

- amount to the least observed and the most persistent data on the whole track.

The action of how the Axioms got swapped - pardon me, the way they got into agreement, so forth, is given in the Factors. The people swapping data around amongst themselves and so forth, and getting it mixed up and so on, and build a universe that way. The postulates that went along and that they least cared to confront were the postulates which gave them the most restimulation and that carried on along the line most rapidly were these Axioms.

Now, individuals - individuals getting together to make a universe might or might not follow this track. But certainly the individuals who did follow this track did make these postulates and agree upon them, pretty well. And these Axioms exist then on anyone's backtrack. But do you make your postulates in time and space or don't you?

And of course time and space are postulates. And to make a postulate inside the postulate you've made is just complicating the issue most wonderfully. So these actually have no existence in time and space. So therefore they have wonderful persistence. You see how they'd persist? If they're not made in time and space, they of course persist.

Now, to turn around and start looking at these things and understanding these things, you're actually being made to look at the things which got you in the condition you're in. It'll restimulate quite often the sick feeling of losing a body, of being disappointed, of being apathetic; it'll restimulate forgettingness. These things are bits of knowingness, and so forth. And it restimulates not-knowingness, just bringing them up.

We look this over, we find that only Axioms 1 and 2 are. Those things are not made up or postulated - those are real, those are a fact. Those are not in any way agreed upon or invented, and nobody consulted you concerning them at any time. You didn't have to make up your mind to them, so on, because they're a fact. That is total reality. That is as near as Scientology comes to an absolute. Those are true! And the rest of them are simply postulates which were made, counter-made, agreed upon, then shunned, not ever looked at again, which stemmed out of postulates one and two.

So if you're looking for truth, look at Axioms 1 and 2; that's truth. It's as close to basic truth as we care to get. By truth we mean something unchangeable totally out of one's determinism, something you could do nothing about at all, it's invariable.

It's true in all places at all times for all people, you know? Something is getting close to an absolute truth. Now, other things are merely relatively true. You're there, I'm here. Well, yes, yeah, that's - there's good certainty on that. Mostly because, however, we've agreed to a there and a here. And we've agreed that you're you and I'm me and - you see? We've got a lot of postulates and agreements and so forth, that we have identities, we have location, we've all agreed on the physical universe, we're busy holding up the space.

Atlas packing the world on his back could be much better done by showing a thetan blindfolded in total anesthesia, packing the whole universe on his back and never noticing.

Yes, other things are relative truths, in other words. That they are relative truths does not mean, however, that they do not exist. Because who said existence proved truth? That too is an Axiom - that existence proves truth. But it's just agreed upon. How do you and I know it is true? Well, we can crow at each other and say, "Ha! You can look at it. Ha-ha. Obviously it's true because you can look at it. There it is. Oh."

The dirtiest trick you could pull on him - anybody, though, is to look at it and say, "I don't believe in it."

But he stacks it up and he puts some more mass on it and he shoves it up in front of you, puts it closer to your face and says, "But look! Look! Look!" you know?

You say, "It doesn't prove a thing."

And he says, "But here it is, here it is. It's true then, isn't it? Here's the mass and so on. Don't you see it?"

You don't even have to be so stupid as to say, "See what?" you know? Just say, "Doesn't prove anything."

"Yeah, but," the guy says, "it's round," and "it's got mass and - and - and here it is and it's located right here in space, right in front of you and here it is and - and therefore it's true."

And you say, "I don't see that makes it true."

And if you were way up scale, way up scale, you actually, by your own postulate would have it as true or not true. And just like I was showing the people in the park could not-is things, well they - you could just simply look at this thing he's holding up in front of your face saying it's true and just as-is it - just as-is it for you. It'd disappear for you. And maybe if you were way, way up scale and terrifically competent in pan-determinism and so forth, it would just disappear out of his hands.

And you would then say, "What were you saying was so true?"

The biggest lesson the physicist had - which he has now lost - but the biggest lesson he could teach was conservation of energy. And it was upon that assumption alone that the whole subject was built; conservation of energy. That is that energy was, it could not be created, it could not be dispelled, and so on. Then he went along and invented nuclear physics and upset his computations concerning the conservation of energy. Conservation of energy was no longer an absolute truth. Well, it was never a truth in the first place.

It just happens that the physical products or entities or commodities in this universe happen to be enduring. And they happen to obey certain laws. And I don't know that it's true that they - the nuclear physicist now knows that it isn't true that you take a mass and it's always that same mass and it's never altered and never destroyed and nothing ever happens to it. But the whole of elementary physics and the whole of basic physics was built on this stable datum - the conservation of energy. That was the assumption which built the science. You understand that? That's the assumption which built the science. From that, nearly everything else proceeds in the science of physics - conservation of energy.

Now, I don't know why they didn't talk about the conservation of space, but maybe they couldn't confront space. They talk about the conservation of matter, but maybe they couldn't confront matter. And I don't know why anybody - nobody's even mentioned conservation of time. I think Einstein did in some vast twenty-paged equation, one time or another - tends to get into, mathematically compute out toward the conservation of time in some fashion or another.

But if these two first things are true in Scientology, we'll see that the conservation or endurance of anything simply proceeds from the postulate, consideration or opinion of a life entity. If anything is to go on then something made it and that's what's happening.

Now, this moves up ahead of nuclear physics. And a lot of nuclear physicists - I shouldn't make cracks at them, except I don't think their enthusiasm for destroying earth at this time is in good taste. I think it's a very questionable taste. I don't think that - I don't think that they should do that sort of a thing, you know? It's not that it's bad or good, but we've got a playing field and we're doing all right and just because they're not doing all right and are having marital troubles is no reason to blow up our front yard, you get the idea? I think they are invading our privacy, somewhat.

Now, if these things exist or persist, then persistence or the existence of things, spaces, energy, matter and so forth, proceed from something. Now, the search for that something has occupied all philosophers in all times. And they - the most of them donned the straitjacket and called for the little boys in white jackets and said, "Well, it's Yahweh," or "It's Molech," or "It's Baal," or "It's the being that lives in Yumpala heaven." See? And it's just - just total disassociation. That's total irresponsibility. And by taking this total irresponsibility they, of course, become the total effect of; not only the universe and others, but their own postulates. They denied totally their own postulates, or any share in any effect of these postulates at any time. Except being the effect of their own postulates.

And this is where we get the highest aberration is the denial of self. After this individual makes these postulates and considerations - consideration being a continuing postulate - after he makes these postulates then he says, "I had nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with me. It's way over thataway somewhere. And it was a god by the name of Molech that did it in the first place."

I don't know, I've asked some of these chaps at one time or another, I said, "Well, how did - how did Molech get you in a net? How'd he get you to agree to all this? How did he get you - how did you make his acquaintance? What accent does he talk with?"

There's a law against it. It's a crime called blasphemy. It's a criminal act in some areas to question the fact that something else you never met created the whole ruddy works. Now, that's how thick it's gotten! You see? That's a bit thick.

Now, the action of cause and effect, Axiom 10, the action of cause and effect is again agreed upon mechanism stemming out of the creation of space and the laws and rules and mechanics of energy and masses behaving in space. All of which are simply made-up rules. But we look at them and we say, "But that's true, because you can see it!" Well, good for you, I'm glad you can. See? That doesn't make it true - absolutely true. It merely makes it extant. You see, it is!

And you could say, "Well, everything that is, is true." Good. I can show you some good stories I've written, space opera. They're not true. They are. They're just fiction. Well, they are, and they're fiction. And right away you get into a philosophic conundrrun, you see? It is. It is a lie. Or it is an untruth.

"Oh," you say, "yes but, if everything that is, is true, then why is it that something that is, is a lie?"

And he says, "Oh, come off it now. What are you trying to do, confuse us?" "No, no, no, no. I'm sorry. I was just looking at your confusion."

So where we enter the picture on the most basic stable datum, you might say the basic assumption of this subject, if you can call it an assumption, is Axiom 1: Life is basically a static.

Now, we say "basically" just to Q&A with other people's incomprehensibility on the English language. Because they say "life" and they get the idea of kangaroos leaping and rabbits jumping, you know? It's a limitation of language, you see?

Physicist comes along, and he says, "A static, a static, a static? Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no it couldn't be a static. Because static means not moving. Heh-heh."

And you say, "Good, show me a static."

"Oh," he says, "this ashtray! There you are static." And you say, "Boy, when did you go blind, son?" "Well, what's the matter, what's the matter?"

You say, "Look. The earth's going around at a thousand miles an hour; that thing's moving at a thousand miles an hour this instant, around the axis of earth. And there are seven other separate motions that it is undertaking at this moment. And you're going to tell me that this thing is not moving."

"Oh, well," he says, "if you're going to talk it like that," he says, "that's no fair."

A static is also described as something in an equilibrium of forces. Well, that's just - that's just another way of not saying anything. When we mean static, we mean something in a motionless state. We're taking that from physics - statics and kinetics. Well, if they're going to be kinetics, which are motions, certainly there's got to be another word which means none. Got it? And so we've just put some strain on this word static, and we've said, "It isn't moving."

Now, a static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has ability to postulate and perceive.

That's a thetan. That's what we mean by a thetan; that's all. That's all we mean by a thetan.

That perhaps is a limited statement, it perhaps exceeds itself in too great a complexity. It's maybe much too complex a statement. It might be too simple a statement. It might be that, but my God, it's at least in English. And you would be absolutely amazed how hard it was to write the thing down - just to find language that transmitted it and communicated this fact. You never saw so many people dodging themselves in your life.

I mean, every time you tried to say, "static" they'd say, "duck."

All right. What we mean is simply something that is not itself moving, is not itself mass, is not itself space, is not itself location, is not itself time. But it's capable of postulates. And part of its abilities to postulate consist of locating itself in any one of these things. Wonderful!

It's like an author writes a book and then locates himself as a subordinate character and goes on through the paragraphs. But it's true, that's what he's doing.

But to be able to describe this, simplify it and communicate it, is basically the triumph that is involved here. So don't get yourself all tangled up with saying, "The static, life, thetan - oh! I see what you're talking about, you're talking about the human soul."

No, no, no, no, no, I'm not talking about the human soul. I'm talking about a specific definition, a specific thing that has been described with considerable precision. See, it's nothing sloppy.

Now, if you said a ghost, you would be talking about a form or a development or a complexity of a life-being. Wouldn't you? A ghost thinks of himself as something that has to walk around without a body, or something which is around without a body and is doing something. Got the idea? Well, fine, that's fine. It's downscale from what we're talking about.

But here we have precision, a precise definition - we mean just that thing. Now that you can bang somebody out of his head, you can say to somebody - oh, even the worst cases, you can walk up to them and say, "Try not to be three feet back of your head." You know? They're liable to go wrrrrrr. A tremendous number of people will try not to be. Just the fact that he said, "Oh oh. Maybe I'm visible." He tries to stay inside, he's on a total inversion and he bangs himself out of his own head. He turns around and he goes flit and he comes back into it again.

You say, "Is life basically a static?"

"Boy, I don't know what I was, but I feel sick." You say, "What's the matter?"

"Well, I don't know. I was sitting there looking at the body." And then he says, "Wheeww." He just thought of something, he just got a brand-new idea, brand-new. "It was a delusion," he says. "Ha-ha. Yeah, how did you produce that hallucination with me a minute ago? How'd you do that?" He's trying to not-know the experience. It's upsetting to him.

So we look this over. This is the basic truth from which we proceed. Now, that doesn't even say that we are all individuals; let me point that out. And it doesn't say we are all one thetan either. People have the ability to merge and think they're everybody and people have the ability to individuate. When we finally bang somebody out of his head, look him over and have him stand on a small radio antenna and make the meter go bang and so forth, we have to decide that he's an individual; that he's not the product of mud or of space or of Yahweh. We have to decide he's himself

When you've run a few engrams out of somebody and you've realized the reality of it and you realize that he has been on the road for a long time, when you see somebody get well simply from recovering from having been bewitched in the 16th century or something like that, you have to decide that this is what you are looking at. And that is the most simple simple that we have; that is it.

Now, if you can find something more basic than that about life, go ahead. But that is the basic life thing. That is the basic life unit - that is it. There's a tremendous number of things you could know about it because it postulates itself into some of the weirdest things.

You sometimes run into some psycho and he's postulated himself into five different beingnesses and isn't any one of them. "Wow," you say. Oh, I'd say, "Man, that takes some doing." And I could prove to you conclusively that it did take some doing. I don't know how a person can stay sick or how he can stay crazy - it's the most imbalanced state imaginable. He just has to walk on tiptoe all the time. The reason people are sick or being careful all the time is they're liable to get well. It's very hard to maintain this imbalanced state.

Now, The static, in the second Axiom - the second Axiom is very clear, clean. Axiom 2: The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.

Now, more latterly, a consideration is defined as a continuing postulate. And an opinion, of course, is merely one has made up his mind on an observation. But you could have an opinion without an observation, as - listen to any political argument.

So there's his basic capabilities. Now we get into three - now we're talking about a specific thing he makes. He makes space, energy, objects, form, time, so on. He makes this, he makes that, he makes something else. Well, we're already away from the fundamental truth. Now we're going into what he does and how he does it because he might also be able to make a lot more things, because there might be other postulates. There might be something that is not unlike space called rorrf, and he might be able to make rorrf very easily. You got the idea?

So we haven't, then, a limited statement in Axiom 3, see? This is only part of the things he could do. This observably he could do. We can observe this because we are living in the matter - middle of a universe which is matter, energy, space and time. There might be a universe built out of rorrf and yeeek and thilll and on a mmmmm - and a thetan's quite capable of dreaming it all up.

But in Axioms 1 and 2 we are first the thing and then its basic capability. And we say postulate, individual says, "Mmm." Some space is created, he has made a postulate, only it is observable. It's in - it's space.

Now, those are the fundamentals that we deal with. This is the take-off point of the subject. This is the assumption on which the subject is built. If there are any more fundamental assumptions, why, wonderful. Someday we'll find them.

But the main point is that former studies in religion went on this assumption: "That God built it all and I'm just a little chip that drifted in from somewhere and I might be a bla-bla and who knows what I am. And I'm going to go to heaven and I'm going to go..." And they didn't - they didn't fare so well with this one, let me tell you; they didn't fare so well.

Another subject came along and overthrew that old religious area and that subject was known as natural science. And it was heresy in natural science to believe that a dot of mud all of a sudden leaped up full armed from the brain of some physicist and was alive. And it all evolved by accident and it all was complicated and it all was this. Well, they didn't make the grade either because they're about to blow up the world.

All right. Maybe we start from a little simpler, a little more basic thing and maybe this little more basic thing is a little harder to look at and a little harder to understand. And maybe the thoughts which proceed from that are so ghastly to confront that nobody will ever learn them. Nevertheless, we've been making good forward progress so far on the Axioms as they begin with 1 and 2 on this assumption on which we build this particular science. And we're making something with - with more affinity, more reality and more communication in it - the greater kindness and a greater potentiality, and let's hope we win.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

(applause)

I'm going to talk to you next on Tuesday - Tuesday afternoon at the usual time. And I'm very, very happy with the progress you're making. Now, I think you're doing extremely well.

Much, much less knuckle-headedness has shown up here than any class we've had anything to do with for a very long time. So you're just doing dandy, so keep it up.

Now, you're coming right on up through. You went past TR 8 today. That right? Audience:Yes.

And you had your last look at SCS, and tomorrow you get Connectedness, right? Audience:Mm-hm.

Well, Connectedness is the basic form of Havingness and it's the most elementary form of havingness. SCS is one of the more elementary forms of control. And you're really sailing along on basic processes and one word about these processes, they weren't chosen lightly. They are the most important processes in the deck. There are actually thousands of processes out of which these processes have been very carefully selected. But one didn't have to look very hard to select them. You know, they're our key processes.

And I want you to know these processes awfully well. I don't want you going out of this unit with a piece of paper in your hand processing somebody off of a command sheet, you understand? Just know what these things are. Just make up your mind you know what these processes are, know what their commands are. Don't fumble with them.

The mark of a professional, particularly in Scientology, is not only his presence, ability and confidence but also the fact when he starts auditing somebody on a command he never looks at the book. See, he knows it. This inspires a great deal of confidence.

So I'm asking you right here, you might say in mid-course, to make sure as these things fly by, that you nail them cold. Even though you have to walk down the street chanting to yourself of an evening, what the commands are to a certain process - you get those commands cold. That's the mark of a professional. Amongst Scientologists reading a command is always the mark of just "Well, he's just a ruddy amateur" you know, "nya-sneer."

Now, these things have been stable for a very long time, they are very well worth concentrating on. Don't think that there's a tremendous number of new processes going to come up and hit you in the teeth. Oh, there'll be new processes but isn't it funny that these processes are selected back from way back - way back. You're looking at years and years of processes; 1956 spring, SCS; Op Pro by Dup - Lord knows when that was - that was 1955, wasn't it? Something on...

Audience: Four.

. . . four, 1954-that's right! I remember the boys sweating and screaming. That was the first process that made good auditors in England that were really good. Really good. Run ten hours on some of these boys that were dropping the ball all the time and all of a sudden, boy, could they audit. They could duplicate - that was their main difficulty.

These CCHs are relatively new, but Havingness and its many forms are rather old. And to my recollection, ARC Straightwire - as itself and so forth, goes back about eight and a half years. These are old processes and I'm going to ask you to give them a lot of attention. Hit them real heavy. We're interested in your skill in the TRs but we're interested in your knowingness where these processes are concerned. Your ability to understand and administer them. We're giving them to you hot and heavy but they'll be using them for some time.

You'll graduate from this course, by the way, having had a greater coverage of Scientology than has been given in any course including ACCs for nine years. So if you feel a little bit swollen in the head, that's why.

See you next Tuesday. Good night.