Русская версия

Search document title:
Content search 2 (exact):
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Beingness, Agreement, Hidden Influence, Processes (ADM-11) - L530327C | Сравнить
- SOP Utility (ADM-09) - L530327A | Сравнить
- SOP Utility (cont.) (ADM-10) - L530327B | Сравнить
- Types of Processes (ADM-12) - L530327D | Сравнить

RUSSIAN DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Бытийность, Согласие, Скрытое Влияние, Процессы (ВОСХ 53) - Л530327 | Сравнить
- СРП Общего Назначения (ВОСХ 53) - Л530327 | Сравнить
- СРП Общего Назначения Продолжение (ВОСХ 53) - Л530327 | Сравнить
- Типы Процессов (ВОСХ 53) - Л530327 | Сравнить

CONTENTS BEINGNESS, AGREEMENT, HIDDEN INFLUENCE, PROCESSES Cохранить документ себе Скачать

BEINGNESS, AGREEMENT, HIDDEN INFLUENCE, PROCESSES

A lecture given on 27 March 1953

Okay.

The main difficulties that the auditor has is to force somebody just to give him a little attention. That's the first thing. So, that becomes part of an auditor's skill, then, is to attract attention.

How do you attract attention from your preclear? Well, one of the easiest things to do is to be what he is for a moment and do what he's doing. Imitate him, in other words. Mimic him somewhat, a little bit. In other words, agree with him. "Yes. Yes. Yes. Your mother beat you. Yes. Yes. Your father beat you. Yes. Your schoolmaster beat you. Yes. Well, all schoolmasters are pigs. Yeah, they're all dogs. That's right. Yeah, they beat you and it was your early life. I know it's the tendencies toward homosexuality in the school that did it all. Yes, yes. Mm-hm. Oh, that's very — that's a very, very unusual case. Oh, very unusual. In fact, you're probably the most unusual case I have had since half an hour ago. Yes. Yes. Mm-hm. Mm-hm. Mm-hm. Yes. Yes. Yes. Well, what was that again? Oh, you meant — you meant that was your mother and father that beat you. Oh? Oh, yes. Yes. Yeah, it was your mother and father that beat you. Now, the rest of the family, they kind of mean to you too? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Well, where was your family located?"

You've got him! You see, you've just changed his course just a little bit — changed the course of his plunge on communication and you've agreed with him and he has the full secure feeling now that he can be you at any moment. That is an underlying something or other. He can be you at any moment, you see. And then, imperceptibly, you just reverse the poles on him and you have him be something else.

Do you explain anything to him? No. You just ask him how good he is at this sort of thing. You just want to check up and find out how bad it all has been. And you give him the processing, and you can let him wait in vain to be processed. You can go on testing him and checking him for many hours. Interesting, isn't it? That's something that's quite interesting.

An inanimate object is the best for you to use, particularly inanimate objects that inflict injuries and so on. You'll find that he very occasionally gets somatics as he runs these things. That's because the objects which you have run him into have hurt him.

Do you let him hold on to these things and get sympathy for them and that sort of thing? No, you just have him be something else. You find out he can't be something as a whole, then find him — have him be parts of it.

Now, he's afraid of turning into things. So don't — don't scare him. Don't bother to scare him. The rest of the world is busily engaged in scaring him. You don't have to, too. He's afraid of turning into things. And the funny part of it is, he will go ahead processing on the sixth dynamic completely unaware of the fact that he has really fallen into your net beautifully. He'll go ahead on this. At any moment you're liable to get down to the more serious things in his case, but you just want to check him first. Any moment you're going to address this horrible problem of the fact he's liable to turn into Papa, see? Any moment you're liable to go into that. But this gives him an anxiety. That's right. It gives him an anxiety to go on and be these things. Be these innocent, mild, quiet things.

Now, that is, actually, not particularly covert. But it just happens to be handling his wits. There isn't any reason why any human being, once you've got this down and once your own case is up along the level, should ever disagree with you again as long as you live.

Now, nonadmiration for these MEST things, toward him, has put him into a level where he believes he is no good. But he'll get proud of himself after a while for being able to be with such expertness. So give him some praise. Give him some praise. Work it on the praise basis a little bit. All of a sudden he says to you rather interestedly, "You know, you know, golly, that chimney — boy, I really am a chimney. Yes, sir!"

And you say, "Well, boy, you're pretty good at this," something like that. Just lead him along.

The reason you want two terminals there is so you don — really don't go into agreement with him at all. And that was why we have suddenly sprung two terminals in here, amongst other reasons, but why it suddenly becomes not just mildly a good idea. You sure better had. If you're going to agree with him verbally, mentally, you sure better not have him as a physical object there to agree with, too. Or you'll get in the same shape as a poor psychiatrist I saw one day. Walked into his office and he was imitating everything. Every-thing. Anything that came to his view.

Now, you're going to find that there are patients that as soon as you tell them to be something, they start to operate as it in their muscles. Don't worry about it. Just remember that wherever you're processing people, reduce the number of items which can be broken to a minimum in the environment. That's all.

Now, don't start worrying about the fact that he goes off of the couch and is on the floor, and while he's busy being an automobile he keeps banging his elbows against the floor. Just take note of this and next session have a mattress down there.

I have actually seen a preclear practically beat himself to pieces this way. And you say, "That's horrible. He should never have been permitted to have been processed without some kind of a mattress or something of the sort. Look it. He fell off the couch and he did this and that, and he got a big bruise on his forehead." Ah, he's lots better. So what!

It's better to process him, in other words, than to worry about the rest of him. That is another reason why you shouldn't process late at night. You tell this fellow, "All right, now be a train." This guy has looked perfectly sane to you up to this moment and he says . . . And there he goes. You're out! Lease broken because they heard him three blocks away.

Now what happens to sonic? Well, you have him be a voice. It's easy. And any time it comes to your mind, flip in something hidden for him to be. That is, don't say, "Be something hiding in the coal cellar," or something like this. Don't worry too much about getting that broad about it. But slip in something like "Be a sound wave. Be a light ray." See? "Be night over London."

Oh, he liked that. "Gee, yeah. That's good." See?

Now, differentiate. Don't get a consecutive story going. Differentiate very well.

Beingness is perception and so he's going to be able to perceive better.

Your role as an auditor, then, is not being expressed near so much in terms of how adroitly you can handle 865 new techniques which I just invented which you were beginning to wonder if that wasn't your role as an auditor. Your skill really doesn't have to lie in that direction. Your skill lies in handling people. What is the adroitness? What level of case can you reach? That's how good you are. And what shape are you in? That's how good you are.

Because of these things you could look around in life, you can under-stand it a lot better. Therefore you can do a lot of things. You don't have to sit down, then, and hold tight to some knowledge. You can relax. You can relax, get yourself into fine shape and you will certainly be able to understand people. If you don't know how to understand people, something of the sort, that's because you don't want to be people. That's all there is to that.

I'll give you a little rule of the thumb about personal relations. You — sometimes you wonder about personal relations. You wonder, "Well, how in the name of common sense can I tell anything about personal relations?" And "I don't understand men" or "I don't understand women" or "There's some-thing going on." Preclears will be saying this to you. There's a piece of advice to give them on that that actually permits them to differentiate up to the time they get up to a level. They can differentiate amongst people and be perfectly happy about it if they can do this. They take three categories. There are good people, which is to say only people that are friendly to them, you know, interested in them — they're interested in. That's — we'll call good people, merely meaning they're good for the preclear.

And then there are the people who have a pitch, a colloquialism meaning they want to gain something by the association. You can count on the fact those people are going to use hidden influences and control mechanisms. They got a pitch, they're always figuring, so forth. And they start — and how can you identify them? They will almost instinctively start to work this "sympathize" angle. They're always the guy with the pitch. Sympathize: "You poor fellow, you work too hard." Oh, there's a thousand categories. "I am a good friend of yours." But what is the main characteristic of this fellow with the pitch or this woman with the pitch? "Others don't appreciate you but I do." That is the main — the main approach. That always is the approach. And sympathize about your hard lot. That's the guy with the pitch.

And the third kind is guys who aren't interested and women who aren't interested. They're not interested. All right, if they're not interested in their job, they're going to leave something undone. You get uninterested around MEST sometime or you get around somebody who's not interested in you some-time and, boy, you'll wind up in more wrecked cars and under more pieces of broken glass, and so on. They're just not interested. That is the total test. They're not very interested. That means they might be very interested in other people, they might be very interested in other things, but to you they're just not interested. They don't interest you; you don't interest them.

So they fall apart into these three categories. There's only one of those categories that's even vaguely workable, and that's the people who are good for the preclear. That is a friendly basis, no pitch. They're interested in what happens to the preclear.

If he insists on associating — people who are not interested, you as an auditor can fall flat on your face simply by dramatizing this one: trying to interest people in life. And there's hardly a person here who hasn't fallen on his face trying to keep people going and get people interested in the future who aren't interested. And it'll break your heart. In the absence of good, solid, reliable processing you don't do anything for them. You can process them and do something for them, but don't try to do anything else for them because they're sick. They've failed so heavily with MEST that they're no longer interested. And I don't care what kind of a manifestation they're putting on — they like to be insouciant or something of the sort about it all and offhanded about the . . . They're licked. In processing you can do something for them.

Well, many an auditor goes by the boards in getting a preclear who isn't interested and trying to interest him in Scientology. Many an auditor, he just winds up in the soup. They're a problem in accessibility and therefore they're a case. All right, they're a case.

So, I just make those finishing remarks on the basis of interpersonal relationships. You don't have to beat the drum very hard. But you should concentrate upon your personal presence. And your personal presence depends upon your ability to be anything. And that's all personal presence is. You concentrate on that level, get your own case up the line. You know this process and you know why it works. You can go back and at your leisure understand and know a great many things here about human behavior, stimulus-response mechanisms — all this various things. What is the associative restimulator in the environment? All this material is interesting, quite interesting. But the vital material of you as an auditor is to know and put into practice conscientiously this simple process of Mock-up Beingness, be able to carry it through, stay interested in it and in you as an individual. You as an individual are very — then very important to the process. Always the individual has been important to the process because he establishes better levels of accessibility. This is very easy.

You can use this now in groups. And as a group of auditors you can be processed by this a certain percentage of the time. You can process each other on this and you will find out your cases will come right straight up the line and you will walk right on out.

Now what about SOP 5? Just as good as it ever was. And you had better know SOP 5 simply because it tells you the various things the thetan can be expected to do in the vicinity to his body and himself.

But here's double terminals — were standing in your road. And the old man double terminal: Thetan steps out of his body, he snaps back in or he can't get out of his body at all. That's because the second he's out of his body, he's a double terminal. He might be able to get out of his body if you suddenly say, "Be on the moon" or "Be — be in South Africa." But if he steps out any-where in the vicinity to that body he's a double terminal.

So some very rough cases if you suddenly say, "Be in South Africa," they'll be in South Africa, suddenly, out of their body. That's far enough away so they don't get a double terminal.

But any difficulty you have with Theta Clearing is then the difficulty of the double terminal. It is not solved by double terminals particularly. It is solved by the ability to be many things. If the person keeps on having trouble with the double terminal, keep mocking himself up in front of himself. You can put that down. That's a good one for you to know. That's — you can go into that a long time. You keep mocking the fellow up in front of himself, mocking his body up in front of him, mocking up his body in front of him. And eventually the body will be sitting in front of him, he'll be sitting behind it. It's a long process, however. You just keep mocking up his body with its back to him, mocking up his body with its back to him, mocking up the body with its back to him. Just keep putting it there and if he does that long enough and he can stand the somatics — he'd get lots of them, he'd get lots of them, believe me — why, he'll eventually get it to a point where he can hold the body there and himself here. How simple? Nothing to that!

So, Scientology got very simple. What I'm giving you in these lectures, complemented by your understanding of self-determinism and whatever other things you had in those early Axioms, this other material — what I've given you in these lectures should be known to you and practiced by you. I can guarantee that we can't get much simpler than this in the standpoint of technique.

However, there are some further data which, simple as it is, integrates with the earlier data which is necessary for you to have, really, before you can go into what we call Standard Operating Procedure.

Now in — you know there's been Standard Operating Procedure 1, Standard Operating Procedure 2 and so forth for Theta Clearing. Well, the reason why we had Issue 1, Issue 2 and Issue 5 and so forth is because we knew we were progressing up to a point where we could get a highly stable Standard Operating Procedure. And so it's true. And we — so we can call this, now, Standard Operating Procedure. And to differentiate between it and Standard Operating Procedure Issue 1, 5, so forth, you just say Issue 1, 5 for the others and this is Standard Operating Procedure, which puts it over the top of these other procedures.

Now, first and foremost in all this, you have, of course, the eradication of postulates — contrasurvival postulates from the mind of the person. Now, you understand at this juncture that we're not interested in the human mind. Funny, isn't it? We're not interested, really, in the human mind. The human mind composes and resolves problems for the survival of the individual. We stopped being interested in the human mind some time ago. We are interested in that mechanism, that beingness, which is capable of being anything and knowing it instantaneously. We're interested in that capability. We're not interested in thinking about it. The second we're no longer interested in thinking about it, we're not interested in this thing called the human mind, which is at best a rather good electronic computer. And the second we cease to be interested in it, at that moment we have recognized that we are not studying something which has to survive but something which knows it will just go on surviving from here on out. Now that was your border.

A preclear or an auditor had to be able, then, to come up to a very thorough understanding of that factor. He had to be able to know, without any slightest doubts, that it was a matter of mort — immortality. He had to know, in other words, what he was composed of and what beingness he had and how he went on from there.

When we had a technique that could tell him this, and tell him this not from the standpoint of education but by processing, we were there. And we're there.

Now, I'd like to call to your attention the mechanism which is known as thought. It's a very funny thing, you'd think it would take a couple of encyclopedias to run this down. It's probably going to take me years and years to write up anything on the subject and cover the subject adequately — behavior and thought. It's a big field. It's a big, complicated field. Skip it! The mind is something that poses and resolves problems. It observes data and poses and resolves problems relating to survival. That's all. It'd take years to really boil that down, and I'm going to do that. I'm going to take a little time off and go down and sit on a rock or something of the sort, and write all that up.

But that's not very germane to an auditor. An auditor isn't even re — interested in this. Isn't that fascinating? He ceased to get interested in this at the moment when he had a technique which would take any postulate, computation or circuit out of the mind in a few seconds or a few minutes, selectively and at will, without restimulating the preclear. The second that he had this technique, then he could simply look at somebody and say, "This person has the postulate — he's running on the postulate, 'I've got — I've got to be helped' " or something of this sort. I mean, he could add this up, you know, just look at a preclear and say, "I wonder why this fellow is acting the way he is. Well, he's acting the way he is . . . He keeps telling me — he keeps saying all the time he's talking to me — he keeps saying, 'I want to be helped. Now, you've got to help me. And nobody ever has helped me. And somebody's got to help me. And you've got to help me." And we've listened to this about eighteen times in his conversation, and what do we do about this?

Well, we double-terminal — we match-terminal the postulate. That's a killer. That technique, that's just a killer.

We can shoot a circuit, then, out of the mind with the — a much greater ease than shooting fish, because you have to have a gun to shoot fish. And all you need is some space out in front of the preclear, and he's saying, "I think I need help. I just know I need help."

And you say, "Well, how about you putting the thought over here to the right in front of you — putting the thought 'I need help,' and then facing it over here from the left, we put the thought again, 'I need help.' We put the thought 'I need help,' facing the thought 'I need help.' "

How far apart? You don't care how far apart he puts them. Eight miles, eight feet or eight inches. You just tell him put those two things facing each other, and what do you know, we have reality. Reality is agreement. We have two terminals. Then we have an idea agreeing with an idea, don't we? We have two terminals facing each other, so eventually and finally, my God, the fellow's gotten reality and agreement on the subject of needing help.

Only he doesn't figure this out. He doesn't even vaguely figure this out. He just sets up these two thoughts — one thought facing the other thought — and these two thoughts face each other and they just sit there. Well, they'll sit there for two seconds or they'll sit there for two minutes or they'll sit there for twenty minutes. He just keeps putting them up there as long as he cares to put them up there. And you just go on making him put those thoughts up there. Of course, he'll — at first he'll get the idea he's got them up there, then he'll get one of them thinking this, then he won't be able to get that one thinking this but he'll get the other one thinking this, then he'll get the one thinking it again and then he'll have neither of them thinking it and then he'll have one thinking it. All you do is you say, "Just keep putting them up there."

Now what happens in the misbehavior of any terminal pair? If you get a pair of terminals that misbehaves? They want to go around in a circle, some-thing like that or they want to jump up and down, they want to do this. They want to do that. What do you do with these terminals? Your preclear abandons them and puts two new terminals there. Every time a terminal misbehaves, abandon it and put two new there. Simple, isn't it?

Now, where the fellow was unable to get any kind of a mock-up or any-thing of this sort, he had to be able to handle things in terms of concepts, didn't he? You've heard — there's a lot of V's, VI's around. They can get a concept but they can't get a mock-up. Is that right? Well, they can put concepts up on the wall and solve their case. And the next thing you know, they're getting mock-ups like mad. Right away, I mean very soon.

So what kind of mock-ups would you use? What kind of postulates would you try to run out as an individual? What kind of postulates?

Well, I mentioned one the other day. Unfortunately, it's not the most workable postulate in the world. But you could put up, for instance, "Postulates must endure. They must have duration." Now, you could put that up facing that thought.

Is there any picture there with these? No, there's no picture. No picture at all.

So this would be running postulates. And you'd better run them this way, because they just evaporate. The whole chain of them evaporates. As long as the person's had these, they just evaporate. That's all. Of course, he'll get to worrying about it and he'll find out they won't stay up on the wall and he — or they won't stay up on the other side of the wall or wherever he's got them and they keep disappearing and he keeps putting them back and he — they say it to him but they don't say it to them.

Now, do they say it in words? No, you're not interested in words. He hap-pens to be this lifetime and he is speaking this lifetime, let us say, English. If he's speaking English in this lifetime, believe me, he hasn't spoken English forever.

So what do you do? You get the concept and the feeling together so as to combine the thought there as it would have been felt or known as a thought rather than as a language.

Now, for instance, we could put the words — you see, don't get this down into repeater technique. You can run the whole first book out of a guy. I mean, you can run — take everything in the first book and shoot it out with this Matched Terminals Postulates.

All right. We get here then "It's very bad" — by the way, that's a good one to run: "It's very bad" or "I must be agreed with" or "Nobody approves of me" or something like that. Anything like that. And you could say that in words. But let's take "It's very bad." Now, what — how would you say "It's very bad" without using words? Well, you — there are a lot of ways. You could say, 'Ah-ah-ah-ah." Or you could say, "Neeooum-um-um-um-um." Or "Uuhh!" See? I mean, there's lots of ways you can have that thought "It's very bad" facing the thought "It's very bad." See how you would do that?

Now badness is blackness. And so therefore, if you got two black patches — one black patch facing the other black patch — you'd learn an awful lot of interesting things. Then the preclear would say, "Well, I don't know if those are my black patches."

"Well, to heck with the ones you've got there, then. Put up a couple more black patches."

"Well, I don't know if those are mine, either."

"Well, put up a couple of new ones."

And finally he'll say, "Yeah; those are mine."

Of course, well, how can you tell a black patch from another black patch?

Well, the point is, you can't. So you just put them up there until it's dead certain that they must be yours. Nothing else would have been putting up blackness up there except you.

Well, all right. Now, you could code it like this: You could put up the symbol zero there with a black patch facing the symbol zero with a black patch. And you would have what? You would have "It's bad to be nothing." You see?

Now, you can work this out in any one of a thousand ways. It isn't even particularly germane how you work it out. But I'm pointing out to you that they are not words that you're putting up there. But you can put up just the phrases. But you could put "ah-ah-ah" facing "ah-ah-ah." And sure enough, the first thing you know, why, you say, "You know, my mother wasn't a bad person" — the fellow would be telling you.

Now, that's shooting out postulates because postulates are essentially made up of these two things: concept and a feeling. Of course, a postulate is even clearer or higher than a concept or a feeling, but you can get them at that level and they are only aberrative at that level when they get into concepts and feelings. So you can — you can put a concept and a feeling together, facing a concept and a feeling together. Is there — is these things visible? Do you have a picture? No, you don't have a picture and these things are not visible to the pre-clear. He can do this out of the blackest darkness you have ever heard of. He can just blow. Now, you see? So this is what's called matching postulates.

What is the genus of thought? You know — we haven't much time to finish all this off, but we can say, "Well now, let's see, we're going to take the next eighty thousand years and talk about nothing but thought." Well, let's take the next eighty seconds and describe it completely and adequately.

Thought derives in this fashion. We have the idea that there is such a thing called a hidden influence. One dis — understands there's a hidden influence the first moment he discovers there is other-determinism. Other-determinism must then be a hidden influence. He never completely understands that there's anything around except his own — his own anchor points. So every-body else is his anchor point. Isn't that true? And all houses in this world and all planets and everything under the sun and under the stars and under the galaxies and under the blackness and under the roof in general would be just anchor points of his. They're nobody else's. But all of a sudden he finds out they move unpredictably. The second they move unpredictably he concludes there must be a hidden influence.

Now, worse than that, he has the idea that an anchor point has moved but he doesn't know whether or not it has moved. So right away he's on an indecision. Maybe there's a hidden influence there and maybe there isn't.

You want to shoot the human mind to pieces and the mind of the pre-clear so the preclear becomes very happy and very cheerful, all you have to do is find out the first time that he ran into one of these big maybes. One of these real big maybes. And you will find the genus of his own computation.

And this is what is known as computation. Shooting the computations out of a case is very interesting. Shooting the postulates out of a case is a little bit different than shooting the computations. I point that out to you. A computation and computing, in general, is aberrative and you will find the preclears who are worst off do the most of it. All right, let's then find — they, by the way, they get to a point where they do figure-figure-figure-figure-figure and they're not figuring on anything. They're just disassociating utterly on their figuring, only they know they've got to figure. And they just get awfully disturbed on it.

What is this? This is the manifestation of trying to find the hidden influence which will resolve the maybe. "Was it my anchor point or wasn't it my anchor point?" or "What did happen to it?" or "Did anything happen to it?" or "Is it still there?" Now, that's the — all those various things. In other words, we're talking now about something you heard about in Technique 80, which is, simply the overt act — motivator mechanism.

Of course a person does overt acts and gets them back because he thinks he's done them to his own anchor points. He's been fighting the battle of his own anchor points ever since he was around. He has not been fighting an interpersonal relation battle, because he has never admitted to himself there was any other determinism than his own.

Why? Well, he could be anything, couldn't he? So therefore, anything he could see, he could be. And anything he saw, he was. By definition, anything he saw, he was. Because that was space. He could be space because space was beingness, and if he really got some space out there and he was that space .. . So naturally everything he saw was his own anchor point, isn't it? Now, that's very — as a matter of fact, that's the way he figured because that's the way he's built.

All right. He gets to something: "Was it mine? Wasn't it mine? Is there a hidden influence? Isn't there a hidden influence?" So he comes along one fine day and he finds out that — as he walks in the house his mother suddenly slams a drawer. And he says, "I wonder which one of my anchor points she put in that drawer. I wonder what she put in that drawer. Did she put anything in the drawer?" We don't get a chance to look for about twenty minutes but — and by that time Mama's been in that room all the time and one goes in and he takes a look in the drawer, finds out what happened in the drawer. No. No, there's nothing in the drawer. "Well, what did she do with it? Did she put anything in the drawer? Didn't she put anything in the drawer? I don't know whether she put anything in the drawer or not. But certainly — she certainly acted rather secretive. I wonder what she was up to." He doesn't know.

And you — therefore you can sum up any hidden influence or any computation simply under that basis: It is founded on "I don't know." A person is computing in order to find out, therefore the basic on any one of those things is "I don't know."

I don't know what? Well, one of the things that theta does is tie — tend to locate energy, matter, in time and space; tries to do that all the time, wants to do that. Certainty, it thinks, depends on his ability to do that and as a consequence, it — also, by the way, its highest function is the creation of energy, matter, in space, and creation of the space and location in that. Therefore, when something is not located, the — a thetan becomes very upset. It's not located, and when you — when he's got to locate it, but he doesn't even know whether it was there to be located or not, believe me, it — he doesn't know. So the first thing on the line is the hidden influence. Well, why — you can find out, as an auditor, "All right, let's see, when's the first of these hidden influences that showed up in your life?" You don't have to call them a hidden influence — "When's the first time something happened in your life you found out you didn't know?"

The fellow says, "Oh, I guess I was about fourteen. No, no, wait a minute, I was about ele — no, I was about sev — no, well, you know — I — I — here's . . . You know, I was in Sunday school one time and they kept telling me about — no, there's an earlier one than that."

In other words, he's running on the easiest — the easiest hole to fall into. It's the hole of: is there something there or isn't there something there?

And all those things are riding right in present time. Why are they riding in present time? Because they have never been solved. So nothing has ever been put anyplace, nothing's ever been located. And he didn't know if it was there to be located and he's still trying to solve this. And that is the basic of a circuit. And the circuit continues on and accumulates data and accumulates more data and things keep falling into it. And is this another hidden influence or isn't this a hidden influence? Well, you can ask about any circuit.

All right. Supposing it were true. Supposing it were true that your mother put away something. What are you unwilling to be? You see, it just would fall across in those two categories. He's afraid of something about this because he's afraid to be something. He doesn't want to be something. What doesn't he want to be? He doesn't want to be a betrayed person or he doesn't want to be a ridiculed person. A betrayed person is one who is — suddenly has all his anchor points smashed in, and a ridiculed person is one who has all of his anchor points stretched out and held.

And if you want to get yourself a beautiful reaction from a preclear, you just have the preclear mock up somebody — and this is a technique — mock up somebody walking in and picking up his body (mock-up) and walking way away into the darkness and holding it there. And boy, will that preclear get upset! You just — if he doesn't the first time, have somebody do it again. Have this same person. Have his mother come in — and, by the way, run this on double terminals — have Mother come in from the right and left and pick up the preclear's body. See, two bodies, two mothers. And they go away more or less in the same direction walking parallel to each other. And take these bodies way out into the dark and hold them there. And the preclear will start to get pretty doggone nervous! He's trying to get this — he's got the idea of these many times in his life when he tried to get something back that he'd lost. Of course it goes dark. Of course it goes dark when one has lost something. In order to see something there has to be something. Isn't that true? There has to be space and there has to be something in the space to observe, which is an anchor point, which makes any object he beholds, whether a large object or a small object, an anchor point. So there has to be something there and all of a sudden there isn't something there so it must be dark there, mustn't it? Then there must not be any space in that area so naturally, you just get the idea of having lost something, get the preclear with the idea, "I've lost it." And everything will go black in front of his face. He'll just pick up all these times when somebody has carted away his anchor points. What did he have to look at? He had to look at anchor points. If somebody took away his anchor points he didn't have anything to look at, so naturally it was black.

Furthermore, he actually has a whole mechanism of anchor points. He has billions of them that he generates. Now, Homo sapiens has forgotten these and he pulls these around and still uses them, but he's forgotten them. And your Operating Thetan, the person that you're trying to fix up and so on — what you're trying to create — uses these things almost wholly for his perceptions. He uses these things, he works them to death. And what are they? They're like a whole mass, like a whole cloud around him. He can manufacture them, he can turn them any color he wants to. There are just billions and billions of them and they're all little tiny anchor points or big anchor points. And he can throw these out to any distance and perceive in that space that he's thrown them out to. And after he's thrown them out to a distance he can pull them in and hold them close to him again. In other words, he can arrange these or adjust these in any way, shape or form.

If you want a V to be really surprised you just tell him, "All right, now let's put out your anchor points and pull them in again."

"What do you mean?"

You say, "Well, there's a little cloud of particles all over you. And just get that idea. And you push them out and you bring them in."

And he says, "You know, I can do that. That's very peculiar." He says, "You know, I can do that. My God, there's visio around here." And then he isn't very surprised at all, he says, "Yes, I can do that," just as though he could do that all the time.

You see, he's playing a joke. It's a grim game. He's playing a joke. He's just pretending he's hiding so that somebody won't come along and pick up his mock-ups. He won't pick up those beautiful scenes he's got around. And he's saying, "Look how old and shabby and no-good I am and look how — look how thoroughly entrenched and dug-in I am. And I am so thoroughly entrenched and dug-in that I haven't got any facsimiles for anybody to steal. I've got no pictures. Not me! Mm-mm."

And you tell him to put them out and in, he gets a feeling of fear. And you tell him to put these anchor points out and in again and he'll get another little feeling. He'll say, "Well, all right, it's not so bad. But I can't put them down." Of course he can't put them down. His anchor points have been stopped by planets time after time after time. So he puts them down and brings them back up again and what's he got? He says, "Yeah. I can put them down. What do you know, I can put them down."

Of course they go through anything. MEST doesn't stop them. He can see through anything with these anchor points. He can match up any kind of space he wants with these anchor points. What are they? Just a cloud of particles. And he throws these things out and the second he does that he can perceive. That's the only method the thetan has of perceiving. So don't forget that.

Now on your I's who have very good visio when they come out of their body are simply using these anchor points so well and so easily they don't know they're using them. And the people who see less po — less well aren't using them well. And the people who don't see at all aren't using them at all.

Is this then a subject of facsimiles? Is this then a subject of visio? Is this then a subject of sun's rays, particles off the environment that are going to hit your nostrils or something of this sort?

The problem of perception is the problem of anchor points. The problem of communication, as I've said in these lectures, is the problem of space, is the problem of beingness. And that, of course, is the problem of energy and the problem of objects. It's also, then, the problem of time.

Now, he has a little anxiety. He's afraid he's going to throw himself out of time. If he throws himself out of time, in other words, he gets too well connected someplace else, he's afraid he's going to lose contact with the MEST universe. So your V is going to have a hard time. He's going to hold on to that body like mad. He's going to hold on to his body hard because he thinks that's the only thing that's keeping him into this universe. He's afraid he'll fly off again. And he still has his home universe. His home universe is his collection of made facsimiles and anchor points. And he's still packing it up; he's still hiding it; he's still got it in his pocket. He isn't going to let you see it and he's gotten to the point where he's hidden it so long that he doesn't want to see it anymore. Unfortunately, it was Fac One that turned this off. That's why Fac One was so hard stressed way back there. Fac One.

How do you get rid of a Fac One? Well, double-terminal a camera grinding at itself. Why don't you double-terminal the people grinding at themselves? Well, that's because they're not the sixth dynamic. What you're interested in is the camera and the sound waves. Sound waves are hidden influences. They're not anchor points, nothing of this sort.

Mock up the thetan facing the thetan, putting out a flow of particles, though, as sound and trying to match up as sound, and all of a sudden his sonic will turn on. The only way he ever hears is by a little stream of anchor points, not by sound waves.

This universe is a big joke, but this universe was a big mystery. This universe has methods of perceiving and hidden influences in it. If it has hid-den influences in it, then it is — gives you something that has to be under-stood. And if it's something that has to be understood then you're in a bad way, because then you can only — you can think about it. It isn't something, then, you understand. It's something you can be. Can you be parts of this universe? Boy, I'll say you can.

So then, what is our subject here? Our subject is how we put in and out anchor points. That's the end of it. Is it the subject of how we think? No, it's how we perceive. That's it.

Now philosophers dow — back down through the last few thousand years have been beating their brains out and taking hemlock and everything because they couldn't find out how anybody would perceive. They knew that if a tree fell in the woods then the barn caught fire or something of this sort. You remember that. If a horse said, "Neigh," and there was no horse there to hear him, would "Neigh" have been said? If a tree fell in the woods and there was no rabbit to hear the tree, then the tree didn't fall in the woods. Or was there a sound? No, there couldn't have been a sound if there was no ear to hear it. Now, this is balderdash. I mean, typical philosophic bunk. Wonderful.

You'll find this in the books of the philosophers as they go over it and over and over and over. As a matter of fact, Bertrand Russell, who is a very good boy, in his last book is covering this whole theory of perception just exhaustively — and exhaustingly too, if I may say so — without getting any-place. He gets the idea that if you could perceive the universe, then the universe is there.

That is an unjustified conclusion. That's not justified. Just because you can perceive something is no reason it's there. You put a mock-up out in front of you, you can perceive it, can't you? Well, is that any reason it's there? No. "But it is there," you say. All right, you said it was there, it's there.

So what's this boil down to then? This boils down to the highest echelon of computation would be postulates. I say it's there, therefore it's there. I say there is space, therefore there is space. I say there is light, therefore there is light. Get it?

And how do you say those things? You say them with words? No sir, say them with anchor points. Say it with anchor points.

Now, you'll find your boy sitting around in the doggonedest collection of bric-a-brac and booby traps and theta traps and so forth. He's afraid some other thetan's going to get him. He's afraid somebody's going to come along and steal his facsimiles. He's still afraid the cops from the early track are trying to pick him up for stealing all the facsimiles he stole on the early track.

And by the way, he's hiding some beauties, just but gorgeous facsimiles.

Fantastic. If somebody in Hollywood could see these things and film them in Technicolor they would — they would just think, "Boy, we've really hit the top of the aesthetic band," you know?

They're stolen. And they think cops are after them. Your preclear who is a criminal, who thinks the police are after him, who gets sick, who throws up at the thought of being arrested and so on, he's worried about — he's worried about the facsimile police. It's just as — it's just as ridiculous as that.

You give him the idea "The police are liable to raid me." Just give him this postulate facing this postulate: "The police are liable to raid me." You know that that V is liable to practically go through the floor? He's liable to get sick at his stomach. After a while he'll say, "You know, I wonder why I'm worrying about this. I'm afraid they'll find out about the facsimiles I've stolen. Nobody cares about a facsimile? What am I worried about the police for?"

Well, of course, there's a better reason he's worried about the police. It actually isn't that — quite that light. What they did, really, was to take, in Fac One, and just cave a guy in by making him fight a terminal. They gave him a camera for another anchor point. And of course, every time he tries to use anything like this, he starts fighting it and it'll move in on him. And it's — they gave him all sorts of odd ideas and they — he got the idea then he wasn't quite sane. That's very interesting. You run that double terminal: "I'm not quite sane" facing "I'm not quite sane." And rrrrrrr, that's laid in with Fac One.

Now we're not interested in whether this stuff is credible or incredible. We're not interested in anything serving it beyond this point. Once you start to use these anchor points and process with these anchor points you are on safe, solid ground, because as far as the anatomy of a thetan is concerned, that's it. We're not even interested in what the anatomy of this universe is. But we are interested in the anatomy of a thetan. The anatomy of the thetan consists of a viewpoint with a whole bunch of anchor points. And you handle those with anchor points. You tell him put his anchor points out and in. He'll say, "I got this black all over my face."

Well, you say, "Put it out and in. Out and in. Out and in."

He's liable to tell you a lie. He's liable to say, "I've got something or other here and it's horrible and it's very bad."

And you say, "Well, put your anchor points out and in against that horrible, bad thing again. What is it?"

"Oh, it's black." He says, "It's very black."

And you say, "Well, put it out and in again."

"Oh," he'll say, "it's terrible. It's real bad."

And you say, "Well put them out and in again. Out and in again." "Hey, what do you know."

All of the sudden the curtain of blackness — a protective coating — falls off of the thing and he's standing there looking at the facsimile of the most beautiful bird he ever saw. And he'll start to cover it up real fast and say, "Well, I'm really not interested in this." He's betrayed himself into displaying to himself the beauty of his facsimiles. Isn't that interesting?

Now, they — he does have facsimiles that are bad, and they do affect him. But once he finds out that it isn't a question of all facsimiles being bad, then he starts to get a little bit interested and he'll suddenly start controlling them.

Well, what is the basic mechanism of control? The basic mechanism of control is a present time drill. And the present time drill has to do with leading out or smashing in a preclear's anchor points.

Now, if you'll give a preclear some kind of a process like this: Here we have out here an anchor point. We give him as an anchor point, let's give him a cockatoo, a beautiful white parrot. And we'll say, "All right, now that's an anchor point. Now have somebody come along and take that cockatoo and smash it into your face." And just — you just make him do that two or three times. Now, by the way, you double-terminal this. You would have two cockatoos, you see, and have two people come along and smash two cockatoos into his face. And that way he gets space, otherwise, you're working in one-dimensional space or two-dimensional space. And it's not easy to work that way. Let's work in three-dimensional space. So we get a smash-in and a hard smash-in of this character and we get the preclear with the feeling of having been betrayed.

Now, we get him — and have him (somebody) pick up that cockatoo then and hold it way out. Two terminals, you see, out there. Just hold it way out. And he gets the feeling of being ridiculed. All the rest of the emotions run off on this.

What's sympathy? He's getting sympathy for it automatically if he's got two cockatoos of the same size — two cockatoos of the same size in the same plane, then the cockatoos are sympathizing with each other. And if they're two cockatoos of the same size, then they're agreeing with each other. And that is reality — agreement — and that's sympathy. And he is looking at them, so that's admiration. And you have just run the whole package off by using what? Two terminals. Two terminals and having them pushed in or brought out.

Now, you'll have other people doing this to the preclear and the preclear doing this to other people.

"All right, you mock up two little boys. Now you mock yourself up walking in and picking up — that's from two sides, see — picking up a picture from the little boy and then carrying them way off and holding them." And you know, one of the most saddest feelings will come over him. Boy, that's really an overt act! He took somebody's pictures.

What's the most overt act you could do then? It would be to make some-body have bad pictures and take away their good pictures. And that would be a real overt act. What's the basic overt act? Hurting somebody? No. What's the basic overt act? The basic overt act is turning beauty to ugliness or evaluating things as ugly.

That says what's the most aberrative factor in this society today would be the art critic. That would be him. That's the dog, go shoot him. Go steal his anchor points. Only he hasn't got any. He's running the dramatization "Art is bad. Art is bad. Art is bad. That fellow's art's bad. Somebody else's art's bad. Somebody else's art's bad." He's just dramatizing, that's all.

And the way you steal people's facsimiles is simple. Oh, there's lots of tricks. Any kind of a trick you could think of would be how one interchanged facsimiles. And so you say to this fellow, "Art is bad."

And therefore he says, "Well, I guess I don't think the picture's so good. It hasn't got much sound or anything else in it." And feels sad about it. And when he gets real weak, why, then you pick it up and walk off with it. See? You get the — get the . . . That's what an art critic does.

Anyway the basic overt act — and the basic is that, is the theft of the picture — and the basic . . . You know, this stuff — if this stuff were born out of theory I would say, "For God's sakes, how incredible!" But it happens that this stuff happens to be born out of empirical data gained in practice. That's what this material is here. This that I'm telling you is the workable side of it.

I'm telling you what seems to be, then, from an observation of preclears and work.

All right. And what's the most aberrative kind of a postulate then? Would be an opinion. The most aberrative postulate would be an opinion.

And why can't somebody recall his childhood? Well, he can't recall his childhood . . . You want to — want to show a preclear why he can't recall his child-hood, you have Mama coming in from the right and Mama coming in from the left and they pick up his body and they carry it off and they hold it. And then Mama coming out of the darkness from the right and the left carrying the body of a little ugly, warty, horrible toad or something and pushing it onto one. Double terminal. Mama walks in and pushes the toad's body onto him. Then Mama picks up one and — not the toad body, that's gone by the boards — Mama picks up one's body again and walks off with it again. Then Mama — you know, in other words, this and that. Or mock up one walking into the house with a stick and having Mama say, "Hm! That's bad!" When — totally baffled, here's this beautiful stick and Mama said it was bad. And you have to get rid of the stick. Boy, that's silly. "Well to hell with this old dame!" That's the immediate reaction. To hell with her. "I'll just hide everything I've got if that's the way this family's going to be run. They're liable to get ahold of my best, nicest dreams and facsimiles and smash them, that's what! So I'll hide them."

Bang! There goes the whole memory of childhood. Because is there a memory there? No, there isn't. There's a lot of nice beautiful facsimiles here and there, and there's a lot of nice bad ones. The whole family has constituted itself as an art critic.

You come in with a rock. "Oh, that's bad." You come in and company's sitting in the room — the living room and you say, "Look at these — look at these old fogies sitting around here. No motion. No motion at all. Why, these people are likely to be dead! If you walk in, they're liable to die sitting there — no motion, so I'll just turn a couple of handsprings here on the rug and show them that you can get into action around here," and so forth. And so you turn a couple of handsprings out on the rug and knock over a glass of lemonade. Lemonade's easy to come by, glasses are easy to come by, rugs are easy to come by, he can just mock them up any time you wants, you know, and there's nothing to that — and everybody's mad! What are they mad about? Well, you're not supposed to disturb grown-ups. Oh, my! Grown-ups are a hidden influence!

Do you know most adults walking around today are so thoroughly parked in their childhood that they won't tell you this right off the bat, but they feel like children. They know they're children. They know they're little boys and little girls. They know they're not adults, but they're pretending to be adults. They think that's their basic pretense. Actually, their basic pretense is much more amusing. Their basic pretense is pretending they're being human. That's their basic pretense and they know that's just a pretense.

Now, they'll get worried about this horrible feeling of pretense they have. Well, you can double-terminal out this feeling of pretense they have when they start running in on something like that. Or you could have "I'm pretending I'm an adult" facing "I'm pretending I'm an adult." You see? You could have "I'm pretending I'm human" facing "I'm pretending I'm human." You could have "I'm never going to put out anchor points again." And that seems to be the key phrase. That's what keeps him pinned down in the body. If he's never going to put out anchor points again, he's not going to push this body out anyplace, you see? So he's never going to get out of the body. Simple. The body's just an anchor point.

Now, because of double terminals and the face — the fact that terminals collapse, then he — the thetan walking out of the body creates a double terminal situation. Now, he's double terminal collapse, you see? You can see the two terminals discharge one against the other. Two terminals discharge against the other when they're put side by side, any time. Particularly sixth dynamic terminals. So you put them side by side and what do you get out of this? You get a double terminal discharging. And you don't even have to see the discharge. But it will discharge. And you can put up Mama facing Mama and all of a sudden the fellow is no longer worried about Mama and somehow or other by himself. So he's got a double terminal proposition there: Mama discharging against Mama.

Now, you get the thetan who thinks he is mocked up just like the body — in order to control it — walking away from the body which looks just like him — you've got a double terminal, naturally. So of course you get the body and the thetan collapsing and the fellow can't get out of his body. Every time he makes a double terminal out of it — bang!

Well, you solve this, as I've said earlier, just by mocking up the body and mocking up the body and mocking up the body, particularly the back of the body, and just keep mocking it up and mocking it up and mocking it up until the thetan just says, "Well, what the heck!" It — there's no further discharge between these two.

But you run the postulate out, "I shall never put out anchor points again," versus the postulate "I shall never put out anchor points again," and you will hit the prime incidents and hidden influences on the track which give this individual the impulse to compute instead of be.

You see now what a computing circuit is. It's "How can I figure so I won't have to be." And a fellow figures as much as he isn't. And a fellow is as much as he doesn't figure. That, of course, would seem to indicate then that the stupidest fellow would be the beingest fellow you ever saw. Well, as a matter of fact, you go around very, very stupid people and they really think they are. This really doesn't have anything much to do with intelligence. Intelligence is only the ability to recall data and add it up and put it back together again and figure.

But a thetan can figure so instantaneously, so quickly, that it really doesn't matter much, you see, about circuits or computations and so on. He can set up a mind any time he wants one, on any subject. That's no reason why he's got a set article called "a mind" which has to do, itself, all his figuring for him.

The art is "to be." And the question of beingness is anchor points. So you start working with anchor points with your preclear and you're going to get there. And you avoid working with anchor points and you're not going to get very far. You'll get quite a ways, but you won't get far enough. Because you want to change this person.

Now, in all other branches of psychotherapy there have ever been, they were addressed to the body, they were addressed to the mind. So are we working in the field of psychotherapy? No, we're not.

I don't know whether you — then you can call this — you can't call this a religion, because a religion had to do, ordinarily, with some kind of an idol or a god or a devil or something of this sort. But it happens that we are working with the human soul. Because they've always called this thing the human soul. This is the guy. And they've called it "He has a soul" or "I have a soul" as though it's a separate item. That means he's no longer taking any responsibility for his own self. He doesn't — he isn't responsible for himself anymore. And that's his basic idea of existence. He says, "I'll be a body and then I will not any longer be responsible for myself." You see? That's a negation of responsibility which is enormous. And it's that bridge which you have to cross in processing. He's not taking responsibility. He won't perceive or use force. Hah! We again have anchor points then, don't we? So anchor point drill works that out too.

But don't be surprised if in this process this preclear says to you, "I have a thetan fooling around me. He is attacking me." He's got some old mock-up body that he had which he's used and he's got that thing set up someplace or another, and he's not taking responsibility for himself anymore and he won't take responsibility for it. And you could get any kind of a human body to discharge as two terminals to a point where it would just disappear, except you're not going to get this double — this body of this thetan he keeps seeing around him. He'll tell you some of the darnedest things. That's not going to reduce until he accepts responsibility for it. Until he realizes, in other words, it's himself.

Now is it up to you to tell him it's himself? No, it's not. No, you just double-terminal it and he comes into the realization. All of a sudden he says, "That's the body they gave me in Fac One. I've never wanted it."