I would like to talk to you now about the Axioms of Scientology.

The Axioms of Scientology are a list of usable or self evident truths and are a major part of the technical information of a Scientologist.

There is considerable to be known about these. The Axioms were first developed in this science a great many years ago – two years, three years ago. And since that time there have been considerable changes. The changes are all in the direction of simplification.

Having these we are now operating on just fifty axioms and definitions, where the Dianetic Axioms of 1951 were in excess of one hundred and ninety. We arrived at these fifty Axioms of Scientology through a great many changes, a great many major developments – all of them in the direction of higher workability and simplification.

At present, we are operating with 50 Axioms and definitions. The original list was considerably in excess of 290, and this list of 50 is both better and simpler, and more workable of course.

A student in training in Scientology is not expected to read these Axioms. He is expected to absorb them, quote them verbatim and by number, understand and apply them.

Now, what are these Axioms and how do they apply? Are they something that you are supposed to read and, you know, say, "Well, I understand that," and turn over the page and "Well, I understand that."

Webster's says that an axiom is a self evident truth.

No, I am afraid that isn't the case. You who are in training on this particular subject are not expected to read them, you're expected to absorb them; you're expected to be able to quote them verbatim, by number, the exact words, the exact meaning, and much more important than that, you're expected to understand them.

Comparing the Axioms of Scientology with axioms in another subject, these are certainly as self-evident as those of, for instance, geometry, which is actually a relatively crude subject in that it proves itself by itself, which is a limitation that Scientology does not have.

Now, let's take a look at these Axioms and find out what they compare to. Actually, they compare best perhaps to the axioms of geometry. They are certainly as self-evident as that, but the axioms of geometry are really much cruder than these Axioms, since geometry proves itself by itself and the Axioms of Scientology prove themselves by all of life.

The Axioms of Scientology prove themselves by all of life.

Now, in geometry we have the Aristotelian syllogism being used continually, and we do not use this. We use a much better platform on which to base our understanding. If something doesn't work in Scientology, we change it and find something more workable. We are not bowed down to the great god "No Change."

In geometry we find the Aristotelian syllogism arbitrarily cutting across the whole subject. In Scientology we needed a better base than the syllogism and we have a better one.

Now, I know some of you watching this work going forward for the last four years or so certainly would agree with that very wholeheartedly, that we were not completely yoked by the motto "no change."

The platform on which we base our understanding is, if something doesn't work when applied we change what we are doing and find something which does work. We are certainly not bowed down to the great god No Change.

And so we have today 50 Axioms and definitions. Now, Webster says that an axiom is a self-evident truth. Well, true enough, these are self-evident. But they are not so thoroughly self-evident that they leap out of the page and introduce themselves. You have to introduce yourself to them.

Well, true enough, these Axioms are self evident truths. But they are not so thoroughly self evident that they leap out of the page and introduce themselves to you. You have to introduce yourself to them.

The first of our Axioms is a bit of understanding which, if you do not have it and do not comprehend it, you won't be able to do anything with Scientology. I mean, it's just as blunt as that. The first one, if you don't have it very well and if it's something foggy, so that somebody came up to you and said, "What is life?" and you said, "Well now, let's see. It's something to do with electricity. No, it's a static. I mean, I heard once there was a rumor that… Understand… Let me see. Well, of course, I know what life is."

The first of the Axioms is a bit of understanding which if you did not have and did not actually understand very well you would not be able to do anything with Scientology.

No, you don't. Man has been saying that for ten thousand years – "Well, er… uh… It has something, I guess… I understand…"No, we're not doing that in Scientology and that's why we succeed in cases. Life is basically a static. That's the first Axiom. Life is basically a static.

It's just as blunt as that.

What is a static? A static is something which does not have mass, it does not have a location in space and does not have a location in time, it does not have any wavelength. And that's what a static is. This static, however, of life is a very peculiar static – very, very peculiar static. And that is, it has the ability to postulate and perceive, and it has qualities.

Axiom One: Life is basically a static.

Now that you won't find in your textbook until you get over to R2-40, the dissertation there. But it's nevertheless very true that life is capable of qualities. Those qualities are best found in the top buttons of the Chart of Attitudes.

And what is this static?

Now you say," Well, all right. Then how can you measure it?"

Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

Well, you can measure it. When you find something that has no mass, no location and no position in time, and which has no wavelength at all, the inability to measure it will tell you that you have your hands on life.

This is a peculiar and particular static, having these properties and a further peculiarity, which we find in the next Axiom.

Now, the funny part of it is, out of this static all other phenomena extends. So, naturally, you cannot measure a thing by its own phenomena. Space comes from this. You could say life is a space-energy-object production-and-placement unit. You could say that and that would be equally true, because that's what it does.

Axiom Two: The static is capable of considerations, postulates, and opinions.

I tell you, you would not try to measure a dog by his biscuits. And as a result, why, people cannot measure this static by the phenomena extending from the static.

You can't measure this Static.

Well now, number 2 – if you have number 1 down very thoroughly (and you should be able to give quite a dissertation on number 1) – number 2: The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions. It also has qualities, you understand? Something, in other words, a life form, a thetan let us say who is very, very close to being pure static, he has practically no wavelength. He's in a very, very small amount of mass. Actually, a thetan – due to some experiments conducted about, oh, I don't know, fifteen-twenty years ago – thetan weighs about 1.5 ounces. Who made these experiments? Well, it was a doctor made these experiments, because he weighed people before and after death, retaining any mass. He weighed the person, bed and all. And he found that the weight dropped at the moment of death about 1.5 ounces, some of them 2 ounces. (Those were heavy thetans.)

When you find something which has no mass, no location, no position in time and no wavelength – the very fact that it can't be measured tells you that you have your hands on Life itself.

Anyway, we have this thetan capable of considerations, postulates and opinions. Well now, the most native qualities to him, in other words, the things which he is most likely to postulate, are these qualities which you find as the top buttons of the Chart of Attitudes. In other words, trust, full responsibility, all that sort of thing.

You can't measure it, yet all things measurable extend from it. From this Static all phenomena extend.

So we have, then, actually described a thetan when we have gotten Axioms 1 and 2. And if you ever miss this, then you're going to have an awful hard time exteriorizing somebody, because if you think that you reach in with a pair of forceps and drag him out of his head, this is not true. What you do is you exteriorize something that can't possibly be nailed down. Now that's quite a trick, isn't it?

You cannot measure a dog by his biscuits and you cannot measure this Static by the phenomena extending from it.

A thetan has to postulate he's inside before you can postulate that he's outside. But if he has heavily postulated that he's inside, now your trick as an auditor is to what? Override this thetan's postulates? Well, maybe you could do it by hypnotism and maybe you could do it with a club, but the way we do it in Scientology is a little more delicate. We simply ask him to postulate that he's outside. And if he does, and can, why, he's outside. And if he can't, why, he's still inside.

Space is one of these phenomena. You could say that Life is a space-energy-object production and placement unit because that is what it does. But when you measure these you do not measure Life.

Now, thetans think of themselves as being in the mest universe. Of course, this is a joke, too; they can't possibly be in a universe. But they can postulate a condition and then they can postulate that they cannot escape this condition. Of course, they can't be in the universe.

A thetan is very, very close to being a pure Static. He has practically no wavelength.

Now let's take up 3: Space, energy, objects, form and time are the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon by the static and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them.

Actually a thetan is in a very, very small amount of mass. From some experiments conducted about fifteen or twenty years ago – a thetan weighed about 1.5 ounces! Who made these experiments? Well, a doctor made these experiments. He weighed people before and after death, retaining any mass. He weighed the person, bed and all, and he found that the weight dropped at the moment of death about 1.5 ounces and some of them 2 ounces. (Those were heavy thetans.) So we have this thetan capable of considerations, postulates and opinions, and the most native qualities to him – in other words the things which he is most likely to postulate – are these qualities which you find in the top "buttons" of the Chart of Attitudes. "Trust", "Full Responsibility", etc.

The whole secret of perception is right there. Do you believe that you can see? Well, all right. Go ahead and believe that you can see. But you'd certainly better believe that there is something there to see or you won't see.

So we have then actually described a thetan when we have gotten Axioms One and Two. Without these known well an auditor would have an awfully hard time exteriorizing (Exteriorizing: exteriorization: the state achieved in which the thetan can be outside his body with certainty) somebody – because if you thought that you reached in with a pair of forceps and dragged someone out of his head, well, this it not the way it is. You would not be thinking of a thetan. To exteriorize something that can't possibly be grabbed hold of, that's quite a trick.

So there are two conditions to sight, and they are covered immediately in that. You have to believe there's something there to see, and then that you can see it. And so you have perception.

A thetan has to postulate he's inside before you can have him postulate that he's outside. But if he heavily postulated that he's inside, now your trick as an auditor is to do what? Override this thetan's postulates? That would fit into the field of hypnotism, or maybe you could do it with a club, but the way we do it in Scientology is a little more delicate than these. We simply ask him to postulate that he's outside, and if he can and does, why, he's outside. And if he can't, why, he's still inside.

All of the tremendous categories of perception all come under this heading and are covered by that Axiom. So you'd better know that Axiom very, very well.

Thetans think of themselves as being in the MEST universe (MEST universe: the physical universe, from the initial letters of matter, energy, space, time). Of course, this is a joke, too. As the Static they can't possibly be in a universe.

Now, number 4 – we get number 4 here: that Space is a viewpoint of dimension. Do you know that physics has gone on since the time of Aristotle without knowing that? Yet we read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica of many years ago – I think it was the eleventh edition, maybe even the ninth edition – and it says there that space and time are not a problem of the physicist; they are the problem of one working in the field of the mind.

But they can postulate a condition and then they can postulate that they cannot escape this condition.

And it says that when the field of psychology solves the existence of space and time, why, then physics will be able to do something about it. And all these fellows running around getting their Ph.D.'s and Dh.P.'s, and so forth, and studying all these centuries – not centuries, actually, merely decades; it seems like centuries if you've ever listened to their lectures – the days of Wundt (the "only Wundt") back in, I think, 1867, something like that, on forward, nobody read the Encyclopaedia Britannica and realized that they had the responsibility for identifying space and time so that physics could get on its way. And because they avoided this responsibility, we had to pitch in here and dig up Scientology.

Axiom Three: Space, energy, objects, form and time are the result of considerations made and/ or agreed upon or not by the static, and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them.

Now, we didn't dig up Scientology to work in the field of physics. We dug up Scientology to work in the field of the humanities. But it so happened that I discovered very, very early while I was studying nuclear physics at George Washington University that physics did not have a definition for space, time and energy. It defined energy in terms of space and time, it defined space in terms of time and energy – in other words, it was going around in a circle and things were being defined by each other.

The whole secret of perception is right there. Do you believe that you can see? Well, all right, go ahead and believe that you can see but you'd certainly better believe that there's something there to see or you won't see. So there are two conditions to sight, and they are covered immediately here in that you have to believe there is something to see and then that you can see it. And so you have perception. All of the tremendous number of categories to perception come under this heading, and are covered by that Axiom. So that Axiom should be known very, very well.

Now, I first moved out of that circle by putting it into human behavior-be, have and do (or be, do and have), which you'll find in Scientology 8-8008, which you can get from the HASI.

Axiom Four: Space is a viewpoint of dimension.

But the point is here that without a definition for space, physics was, and is, adrift. One of our auditors, by the way, told somebody (an engineer in an Atomic Energy

Do you know that physics has gone on since the time of Aristotle without knowing that! Yet we read in the Encyclopedia Britannica of many years ago (the Eleventh Edition, published in 1911) that space and time are not a problem of the physicist. They are the problem of one working in the field of the mind. And it says that when the field of psychology solves the existence of space and time why then physics will be able to do something with it.

Commission plant) one time, "Well, we have the definition for space."

And all those fellows with their Ph.D.'s – not for centuries actually but a number of decades (it seems like centuries if you've ever listened to their lectures) – going back to the days of Wundt, The Only Wundt – about 1867 – they didn't read the Encyclopedia Britannica and find out that they held the responsibility for identifying space and time so that physics could get on its way.

And this engineer said, "You do?" And of course we didn't invent this for nuclear physics, but they could certainly use it (if they could read).

And because they avoided this responsibility we have to pitch in here and discover and develop Scientology – not to work in the field of physics, however, but to work in the field of the Humanities. But it so happened that I discovered very, very early while I was studying nuclear physics at George Washington University that physics did not have a definition for space, time and energy. It defined energy in terms of space and time. It defined space in terms of time and energy, and it defined time in terms of energy and space. It was going around in a circle. I first moved out of that circle by putting it into human behavior – be, do and have, which you'll find in Scientology: 8-8008, but the point is here that without a definition for space, physics was and is adrift. One of our auditors was recently talking to an engineer in an Atomic Energy Commission plant, and happened to remark, "Well, we have a definition for space." This engineer said, "Uh, you do?" and got instantly interested. Of course we didn't make this definition for nuclear physicists, but they could certainly use one. The engineer asked, "What is the definition of space?" and the auditor said, "Space viewpoint of dimension." This fellow just sat there for a moment, and he sat there, and then all of a sudden he rushed to the phone and dialed a number and he said, "Close down number five!" He had suddenly realized that an experiment in progress was about to explode and one of the reasons he knew it was about to explode is that he had found out what space was. This is of great interest to nuclear physicists, but they will get one of these definitions and then they will start to figure, figure, figure, figure, figure. They don't take the definition as such and use it as such. They figure-figure, and they lose it.

So this fellow said," Well, what is the definition of space?"

Using the process R2-40: Conceiving a Static*In The Creation of Human Ability by L. Ron Hubbard gives an understanding of exactly why, every time they get rid of one of these definitions they lose it.

And our auditor said (that was Wing Angel), he said, "Space is a viewpoint of dimension."

Axiom Five: Energy consists of postulated particles in space.

This fellow sat there for a moment, and he sat there, and then all of a sudden he rushed to the phone and he says, "Close down Number 5!" He realized that an experiment in progress was about to explode. And one of the reasons he knew it was about to explode is he'd suddenly found out what space was. It's quite interesting.

Now, we've got space: a viewpoint of dimension.

This is of great interest to nuclear physics, but they get one of these definitions and then they start figure-figure-figure-figure-figure. They don't take the definition as such and use it as such, they figure-figure-figure-figure-figure, and so they lose it again.

You say: "I am here looking in a direction." We've actually got to have three points out there to look at, to have three dimensional space. If we only had linear space we would have only one dimension point. One point to view. And energy consists of postulated particles in space, so we'll demark these three points out there to have some three dimensional space and we'll have these particles which we will call Anchor Points, and we'll have energy.

When you work R2-40 as a process, you will understand exactly why they lose it every time they get hold of one of these definitions.

And so we come to objects.

Now, I'm not being very kind to these people, but then I don't feel very kind today.

Axiom Six: Objects consist of grouped particles.

Anyway… (I have a right to my emotions, too.)

If we just kept putting particles out there and pushing them together, or if we suddenly said, "There's a big group of particles out there," we'd have what is commonly called an object. When an object or particle moves across any part of a piece of space – in other words a viewpoint of dimension – we have motion.

Now number 5: Energy consists of postulated particles in space. Now, we got space; space is a viewpoint of dimension. You say, "I am here looking in a direction." Now, we've actually got to have three points out there to look at to have three-dimensional space (we only have linear space if we have one dimension point).

And we come to the subject of time.

All right. The next thing is that energy consists of postulated particles in space. In other words, we demark these three points out there to have three-dimensional space. We say there's energy, energy, energy – particles. All right. We call those anchor points in Scientology.

Axiom Seven: Time is basically a postulate that space and particles will persist.

Now, the next thing: Objects consist of grouped particles. Now, if we just kept putting particles out there and pushing them together, or if we suddenly said there's a big group of particles out there, we'd have what is commonly called an object.

Time in its basic postulate is not even motion. The apparency of time – an agreed upon rate of change – becomes agreed upon time. But for an individual all by himself is simply a consideration. He says something will persist, and he has time. Now if he gets somebody else to agree on what is persisting, the two can then be in agreement. And if the items are motionless then they can't have agreements about how slow it persisting or it get them moving. And this gives fast or how this gives them a clock or a watch. And so you carry a watch around on your wrist.

Now, when an object or a particle moves across any part of a piece of space – in other words, a viewpoint of dimension – we have motion. And so we get Axiom number 7: Time is basically a postulate that space and particles will persist. That's all – that's its first postulate. Time in its basic postulate is not even motion. You understand? I mean, it's not even motion.

But time is not motion. Let's escape from that one right now. It is an error. We'll call that a heresy.

The apparency of time, an agreed-upon rate of change, becomes agreed-upon time. But for an individual, all by himself, time is simply a consideration. And he says, "Something will persist." That's all he has to say, and he has time.

But this gives us another Axiom:

Now, if he gets somebody else to agree what is persisting, why, the two of them can then be in agreement, and if those two items are motionless, then they can't agree how fast or how slow they're persisting. So they get them moving. And this gives them a clock or a watch, and so you carry a watch around on your wrist.

Axiom Eight: The apparency of time is the change of position of particles in space.

But time is not motion. Let's escape from that one right now – an error and a heresy, an heresy to which I myself was prey until fairly recently. We can say, however, number 8: The apparency of time is the change of position of particles in space. Now, if we see particles changing in space, we know time is passing.

Now if we see particles changing in space we know time's passing, but if you had a piece of space and some particles, and you were simply sitting there looking at those particles and there was absolutely no change in them whatsoever, you would be very hard put to describe even to yourself whether any time was passing or not.

But if you had one piece of space and you had three particles (so it would be threedimensional space), and you were simply sitting there looking at those particles and there was absolutely no change in them whatsoever, you would be very hard put to describe even to yourself whether any time was passing or not.

And so the apparency of time is the change of position of particles in space.

And so: The apparency of time is the change of position of particles in space.

Axiom Nine: Change is the primary manifestation of time.

All right, let's take up number 9: Change is the primary manifestation of time.

If you were looking at motionless particles you would not be able to tell whether time was passing or not because you might be looking at one time or another. Then to prove time you could say they moved this far at such and such a speed or something of the sort. And you could say, "Therefore this much time has gone by." So we can say that change is the primary manifestation of time. Now, oddly enough you have your "Black Five", occluded case ("no pictures, only blackness") right there. A Black Five is trying to change himself simply because he's in agreement with particles in motion. That's all. He's simply acting on compulsion or obsession to change, and if you asked him very suddenly in which direction he's trying to change he would not be able to tell you. He has no real goal. He doesn't particularly want to be better, he doesn't particularly want to be worse, but he's got to change. He's frantically got to change. Well, why has he got to change? Because he has these particles all around him which are dictating change to him. They're saying, "Time… time… time… time… time… change… change… change."

You see, if you saw these three things motionless, then you would not be able to tell whether time was passing or not, because you might be looking at one time or another. But to prove it, you could say, "They moved this far at such-and-such a speed," or something of the sort, and you could say, "therefore this much time has gone by." So we would say, then, that change is the primary manifestation of time.

In other words, he's in agreement with the apparency of time, and he has fallen far, far away from the mere consideration of time. So he doesn't conceive what time is. He becomes a nuclear physicist.

Now, oddly enough, you have then your Case V. Right there. Case V is trying to change himself simply because he is in agreement with particles in motion. That's all. He's simply acting on compulsion or obsession to change. And if you ask him very suddenly which direction he's trying to change, he would not be able to tell you. He has no real goal; he doesn't particularly want to be better, he doesn't particularly want to be worse, but he has got to change, got to change, got to change, got to change – he's got to change, he's frantically got to change.

Axiom Ten: The highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect.

Well, why does he got to change? It's because he has these particles all around him which are dictating change to him. They are saying "time, time, time, time, time, time." In other words, they're saying "change, change, change, change, change." In other words, he's in agreement with the apparency of time, and he has fallen far, far away from the mere consideration of time. So he doesn't conceive what time is; he becomes a nuclear physicist.

We could do a tremendous amount with just that one Axiom, and in processing we would discover then good reason to have space and to have particles and how all these things get there. People want to create an effect, and they get into very interesting states of mind about this sort of thing. They say to themselves, well, let's see now – I caused that effect but that effect is horrible, Therefore I can't admit that I caused that effect, so I'll introduce a lie here and say I didn't cause that effect. And then – they become an effect. If they can't be at cause they become an effect. They are the effect of what they have caused without admitting they caused. But it can get even worse than that – worse than being at total effect. They get way down the line, to the point where they're the cause of any effect. They blame themselves, in other words. A man in Sandusky falls down and breaks a glass of pink lemonade and cuts his little pinky, and this person who is in San Diego at the time hears about that and knows he must be guilty. That's complete reversal.

Anyway, the highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect. Let's get on to that one – 10.

A person can get into a state where he's cause and effect simultaneously. That is to say any effect he starts to cause he becomes that effect instantly. He says, I think I'll kill him, and he feels like he's dead. Just like that. Now we've got to have time in order to witness an effect. As an example of this one could observe that science is dedicated to observing an effect and does not have any other real goal. Once in a while you see a scientist who is also an idealist. He wants to use his materials to improve Man. But science at large and particularly when it got over into the field of the mind. was simply a goal-less, soul-less pursuit, the totality of which is just to observe an effect. They are not really even causing an effect. They just go around observing effects. And they fill notebooks and notebooks and notebooks full of effects, effects, effects, effects, and you find they carry on experiments – not to prove anything, not to do anything, but just to observe an effect. They go around and put a pin in the tail of a rat, and the rat jumps and squeaks, and so they say "Ah," and they note it down carefully: "When you put a pin one inch from the end of the tail of a rat he moans". Actually the rat squeaked. Well this was observing an effect – the way it's recorded by science. This goes so far that a leading scientist of the day – an Einstein – says that all an observer has any right to do is look at a needle. If they were just going around observing effects, eventually they could build an atom bomb, and say "Well it isn't my fault. I'm not to blame." The few scientists who did feel badly about this and joined organizations to try to do something were promptly fired by the government. They had some responsibility.

I refer you to the Factors, published in Issue 16-G of the Journal of Scientology, which is available from the HASI and which is also in the Auditor's Handbook. The highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect.

Axiom Eleven: The considerations resulting in conditions of existence are four-fold.

Well, we could do an awful lot with that. We could do a tremendous amount with just that one Axiom. And in processing we would see, then, good reason to have space and to have particles and everything else, and how all these things get there: To create an effect – people want to create an effect.

And here they are in exact axiom form: (a) AS-IS-NESS is the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival.

All right. Then people are going around looking for an effect. And they get into very interesting states of mind about this sort of thing. They say to themselves, "Well, let's see now. I caused that effect, but that effect is horrible. Therefore, I can't admit that I caused that effect, so I then throw a lie onto the track and say I didn't cause that effect."

1. Alter-Is-Ness is the consideration which introduces change and therefore time and persistence into an As-Is-Ness to obtain persistency.

The next thing of this is they become an effect. Therefore, if they can't be at cause, they become an effect. So they are the effect of what they caused without admitting what they caused, so now they're an effect. Now, do you know they get even worse than that, worse than being a total effect?

Well, they certainly do. They get way down the line to the point where they're the cause of anything that is an effect. They blame themselves, in other words. A man in Sandusky falls down and breaks a glass of pink lemonade and cuts his little pinkie, and this person who is in San Diego at the time hears about that, and they know they must be guilty. And that is your – that's complete reversal.

Now, here we have cause and effect, and the person can get into a state where he's cause and effect simultaneously. That is to say, any effect he starts to cause, he becomes that effect instantly. He says, "I think I'll kill him," and he feels like he's dead. Just bing! bing!

Axiom Twelve: The primary condition of any universe is that two spaces energies or objects must not occupy the same space. When this condition is violated (perfect duplicate) the apparency of any universe or any part thereof is nulled.

We've got to have time in order to witness an effect. Now, there's something else. There… oh, there's a great many things you could learn in this, and one of the things that you could learn from this primarily is that science is dedicated to observing effect. And we completely forget that it has no other goal. It does not have any other real goal. Once in a while a scientist is also an idealist, at which time he wants to use his materials to improve man. But science at large, and particularly when it got over into the field of the mind, was simply a goalless, soulless pursuit – as I've already said in the Auditor's Handbook – and the whole thing of it is just to observe an effect. So these people go around and they observe an effect.

Alfred Korzybski in General Semantics was very careful to demonstrate that two objects could not occupy the same space. In other words, he was dramatizing "Preserve the universe, preserve the universe, preserve the universe". Now this statement tells you that if two objects can occupy the same space you haven't got a universe, and sure enough if you just ask a preclear repetitively: "What object can occupy the same space you're occupying?" he'll work at it and he'll work at it and work at it, and the first thing you know, why, he's capable of doing many things which he was not able to do before. His space straightens out.

You know, they're not really even causing an effect; they just go around observing effect. And they fill notebooks and notebooks and notebooks and notebooks full of effects, effects, effects, effects. And you'll find out they carry on experiments, not to prove anything, not to do anything, but just to observe an effect. They go around and put a pin in the tail of a rat and the rat jumps and squeaks, and so they say, "Aaahh!" And they note it down carefully in the notebook, "When you put a pin…"(they actually put the pin in the end of the rat's tail) and they write it down – because these people can't duplicate – they write it down and they say, "When you put a pin one inch from the end of the tail of a rat, he moans." Actually, the rat squeaked.

He can create space again – merely because this MEST universe has been telling him so often that two objects cannot occupy the same space, he has begun to believe it. And he believes this is the most thorough law that he has. So we find a person perfectly contentedly being in a body believing he is a body. Why, he knows that he, a thetan, could not occupy the same space as a body. He knows this is impossible. Two objects can't occupy the same space.

Well, this was observing an effect, the way it's recorded by science. This is so bad that the leading scientist of the day, a fellow by the name of um… um… Einstein… Einstein says that all an observer has any right to do is look at a needle. Well, that's all right if he's an observer, but why then does a scientist believe that all he has any right to do is look at a needle? That's the only way you'd ever get anybody to build anything as bad as an atom bomb. You'd only get them to build something as bad as an atom bomb if they were incapable of responsibility.

He's an object, and his body's an object, so the two can't occupy the same space.

And if men were totally incapable of responsibility, if they were just going around observing an effect, going around observing an effect, observing an effect, why, you would eventually get them so that they could build an atom bomb. And they would say, "Well, it isn't my fault. I'm not to blame."

This is very interesting because you'll find that two universes can occupy the same space and actually do occupy the same space. You'll find the universe of a thetan is occupying the same space as the physical universe, but once he declares that the both of them are occupying the same space, you get an interesting condition.

Now, the few scientists who did feel badly about this and joined organizations, and so forth, were promptly fired by the government – some sixty-seven of them. The actual instigators and constructors of the atomic bomb have now to date been uniformly fired by the United States government. They had some responsibility.

Now, I'm not going to try to take up at this point the perfect duplicate but it's enough just to say that two objects are occupying that space – identically occupying that space – and poof, it's gone. That's the way you make things vanish. That is to get its As-is-ness, and this is why As-is-ness works and why things disappear when you get their As-is-ness. This is an important Axiom.

So, oh, the government got that out of the road. Now they've got people who just observe effects and everybody's happy – except the American people one of these days.

Now here is the oldest thing that Man knows: Axiom Thirteen: The cycle of action of the physical universe is: create, survive (persist), destroy.

You could take any one of these Axioms, by the way, and blow it up considerably and make an awful lot out of it.

Now, that's the oldest thing Man knows, that it went on the basis of death, birth, growth, decay, death, birth, growth, decay, death, birth, growth, decay and so on. He knew he had time involved here, on a linear line. The odd thing here is that you've got to postulate death to get a cycle of action, and you've got to postulate time to get a linear line, so we're dealing here with one of the most intimate things of existence. We find this by the way in the Rig-Veda. It's been with Man about 10,000 years that I know of and we find that this is the cycle of action of the physical universe – create, survive destroy.

But let's go into number 11: The considerations resulting in conditions of existence are fourfold.

In Dianetics, I isolated just one portion of this line as a common denominator of all existence, which was Survive, and sure enough any life form is surviving. It is trying to survive and that is its normal push forward. And that has, incidentally, terrific impact, but this has two other parts and those are create and destroy. Create, survive, destroy. And survive merely means persist. So all of these things are based on time, and we have underlying Axiom Thirteen this primary consideration that there is time.

Now, why should I talk to you about that, the conditions of existence? Because I've spent hours and hours here in these lectures talking to you about the conditions of existence. And here they are merely stated in axiomatic form. And in case you are still confused, I invite you to look over 11 (a), 11(b), 11(c) and 11(d). And that is an exact statement of these conditions of existence: as-isness, alter-isness, isness and not-isness.

Now we can go on and find that the conditions of existence fit these various portions of the survival curve. And this would be given as follows: Axiom Fourteen: Survival is accomplished by alter-is-Ness and Not-Is-Ness, by which is gained the persistency known as time.

We've spent enough hours on that, so let's take up number 12: The primary condition of any universe is that two spaces, energies or objects must not occupy the same space. When this condition is violated (a perfect duplicate) the apparency of any universe or any part thereof is nulled.

That's a mechanical persistency. In other words we keep changing things, saying they aren't, and changing them, and then pushing them out and re-forming them and trying to vanish them. Using energy to fight energy, we'll certainly get survival. We'll get persistency.

Now, let's get Korzybski, let's look at general semantics and let's find out that he was very careful to demonstrate that two objects could not occupy the same space. In other words, Korzybski was dramatizing "preserve the universe, preserve the universe, preserve the universe."

Axiom Fifteen: Creation is accomplished by the postulation of an As-Is-Ness.

Now, this one tells you that if two objects can occupy the same space, you haven't got a universe. And sure enough, if you just ask a preclear a lot of times what object can occupy the same space you're occupying, he'll work at it and he will work at it and work at it, and the first thing you know, why, he's capable of doing many things which he was not able to do before: his space straightens out, he can create space again, and so forth.

Now all you have to say actually is: "Space, energy, time, As-is. That's the way it is, and, it's now going to persist." You've added time to it. If you immediately after that simply looked at it and got its As-is-ness again it would vanish. All you had to do is get it in the same instant of time with the same time of postulate and it would disappear. You could create it again and it would disappear. It would As-is.

Merely because this mest universe has been telling him so often that two objects cannot occupy the same space, he has begun to believe it. And he believes this is the most thorough law that he has. So we find a person perfectly contentedly being in a body, believing he is a body. Why, he knows that he, a thetan, could not occupy the same space as a body. He knows this is impossible. Two objects can't occupy the same space. Why, he's an object and his body is an object, so the two can't occupy the same space.

Axiom Sixteen: Complete destruction is accomplished by the postulation of the As-Is-Ness of any existence and the parts thereof.

Well, actually, this is very interesting, because you'll find that two universes can occupy the same space and actually do occupy the same space. You'll find the universe of the thetan is occupying the same space as the physical universe.

Complete destruction would simply be vanishment. You wouldn't have any rubble left. When you blow something up with guns you get rubble. Ask anybody who was in the last war. There were certainly an awful lot of broken bricks lying around. If anybody had really been working at this in a good sensible way, and he'd really meant total destruction, he would have simply gotten the As-is-ness of the situation and it would have been gone and that would have been the end of that. If he'd wanted to declare the whole As-is-ness of a country, if he'd been able to span that much attention and trace back that many particles that fast to their original points of creation, he would of course have a vanishment and that is complete destruction. So complete destruction is As-is-ness, and As-is-ness is simply a postulated existence.

But once he declares that the both of them are occupying the same space, you get an interesting condition. Now, I'm not going to try to take up at this time the perfect duplicate with you; you will have to prove this to yourself. But it's just enough to say, "Two objects are occupying that space, identically occupying that space," and poof! it's gone. It's just enough. That's just the way you make things vanish, that is, to get its as-isness. And this is why asisness works and why things disappear when you get their as-isness.

What we're looking at most of the time in this universe is: Axiom Seventeen: The static, having postulated As-Is-Ness then practices Alter-Is-Ness and so achieves the apparency of Is-Ness and so obtains reality.

Okay. Now, here is the oldest thing that man knows. And it starts this way. This is the next one here – 13. Axiom 13: The cycle of action of the physical universe is create, survive (which is persist), destroy. Now, that's the oldest thing man knows. He knows that the universe goes on the basis of death – actually, he did know that, that it went on the basis of death, birth, growth, decay; death, birth, growth, decay; death, birth, growth, decay and so on. He knew that he had time involved here on a lineal line.

In other words we get a continuous alteration, and we get this apparency called Is-ness.

Now, the funny part of it is, you've got to postulate death to get a cycle of action, and you've got to postulate time to get a linear line. So we're dealing here with one of the most intimate things.

Axiom Eighteen: The static, in practicing Not-Is-Ness, brings about the persistence of unwanted existences, and so brings about unreality, which includes forgetfulness, unconsciousness, and other undesirable states.

Now, in Scientology we take this old Vedic – we find this, by the way, in the RigVeda. It's been with man about ten thousand years that I know of. And we find that this is the cycle of action of the physical universe: create, survive, destroy.

Quite an important Axiom and a very true one.

Now, in Dianetics I isolated just one portion of this line as a common denominator of all existence, which was survive. And sure enough, any life form is surviving. It is trying to survive and that is its normal push forward. And that has, incidentally, terrific impact. But it has two other parts, and that is create and destroy.

Axiom Nineteen: Bringing the static to view as-is any condition devaluates that condition.

Create, survive, destroy. And survive merely means persist. So all of these things are based on time. And we have the primary consideration that there is time underlying Axiom 13.

Now we can go in there with 14 and 15 and 16, and find out that the conditions of existence fit these various portions of the survival curve. And that would be as follows: that we find out that survival is accomplished by alter-isness and not-isness, by which is gained the persistency known as time. That's a mechanical persistency.

In other words, if we keep changing things, changing things, changing things, and then saying they aren't and saying they aren't and saying they aren't, and changing them, and then pushing them out, and then changing them and pushing them out and – in other words, reforming them and trying to vanish them; pushing them, in other words, using energy to fight energy – why, we'll get survival. And believe me, we'll get persistency. There's more to it than that. I invite you to R2-40 to understand that completely.

Now number 15: Creation is accomplished by the postulation of an as-isness. Now, do you know that all you have to say is "Space, energy, time. That is. That's the way it is."

And you could say, "It's now going to persist" – you've added the time to it. That's asisness.

Now, if you immediately after that simply looked at it and got its as-isness again, it'd vanish. All you had to do was get it in the same instant of time, you might say, with the same time postulate, and it would disappear. You could create; it'd disappear in terms of as-isness.

In order to make that as-isness persist, you'd have to alter it. But we've gone into that a great deal.

Now 16: Complete destruction is accomplished by the postulation of the as-isness of any existence and the parts thereof. In other words, you want something to disappear, the complete destruction would simply be vanishment; you wouldn't have any rubble left. When you blow something up with guns you get rubble left. You can ask anybody who was in the last war, and there was an awful lot of broken bricks lying all over the streets.

Yeah, if anybody had really been working at this in a good, sensible way and he'd really meant total destruction, he would have simply gotten the as-isness of the situation and zoom! it would have been gone. That would have been the end of that. If you wanted to declare the whole as-isness of a country, if you were able to span that much attention and trace back that many particles that fast to their original points of creation, why, you would of course have a vanishment. And that's complete destruction. So complete destruction is asisness, and also complete vanishment is as-isness.

And as-isness, of course, is simply a postulated existence. And what we're looking at most of the time is number 17: The static, having postulated as-isness, then practices alterisness, and so achieves the apparency of isness and so obtains reality.

In other words, we get a continuous alteration and we get this apparency called isness. And the static, in practicing not-isness, brings about the persistence of unwanted existences, and so brings about unreality (in other words, it's not-isness that gives us unreality), and that includes forgetfulness, unconsciousness and other undesirable states. Quite an important Axiom and a very true one.

Okay.