I want to talk to you now some more about the Axioms.

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

It's a remarkable thing that life itself can be codified in terms of axioms. It has not been done before. The first time it was attempted is when I wrote up the Logics and Axioms way back there, couple of years ago.

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.

Well, it's more than that; that's about three years ago. And I wrote these things up simply to give an alignment to thought itself. And as a matter of fact, copies of these Axioms were sent over to Europe and just a year ago I found them in Vienna, fully translated into German, which is quite remarkable. But over there they were terribly impressed, simply because it had not been done: nobody had codified life to this degree and nobody had codified psychotherapy. And they were not impressed as to whether they were right or wrong, it's just that nobody had done it before.

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.

Well, we are not quite doing the same thing here. Those Axioms were quite complicated, and the Axioms which we have here in the summary of Scientology in the Auditor's Handbook are nowhere near as lengthy, but they pack a great deal more punch.

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."

Now, let's take up something very, very interesting. Let's take up proof of ultimate 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.

If we have reached an ultimate truth, then we have reached an ultimate solution. And who would ever suspect, really, that an ultimate truth or an ultimate solution could be subjected to mechanical proof? Who would dream this?

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.

Well, certainly I never would have dreamed it, and yet we have done just that. I discovered the phenomenon of a perfect duplicate. Now, you'd better know what a perfect duplicate is. We get that in Axiom 20: Bringing the static to create a perfect duplicate causes the vanishment of any existence or part thereof.

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."

You understand that – that if you can get a life form to make a perfect duplicate of anything, it will vanish. Now, that's quite remarkable. We have a perfect duplicate very, very clearly defined. It is an additional – now get that additional – it's an additional creation of the object, its energy and space in its own space, its own time, using its own energy. And we could append to that the considerations which go along with it because it couldn't be anything but considerations.

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."

Now, this violates the condition that two objects must not occupy the same space, and causes the vanishment of the object. The second that you violate this rule which holds universes together, which is that two objects must not occupy the same space, and we make two objects occupy exactly the same space, why, we get a vanishment.

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.

Now, this is quite remarkable. But if you will ask somebody to simply make a perfect duplicate of something, well understanding exactly what a perfect duplicate is, if you ask him to make a perfect duplicate for instance, of a vase, just exactly where it sits, it will start to fade out on him. And he can do that to almost anything.

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."

Now, why doesn't it fade for somebody else? Why doesn't this perfect duplicate fade for somebody else? Well, it's quite remarkable. Do you know that everything in this universe is displaced or misplaced?

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.

Now, when we say "a lie," when we talk about a lie, we really don't mean that simply changing the position of something is a lie. We have to alter the consideration regarding it to make a lie. Now, it isn't really a lie that everything is so scrambled in this universe, but believe me, it's scrambled. Just in the last moment or two, several cosmic rays went through your body.

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.

Now, those were all particles. They emanated from someplace else and they came down where you are. Maybe they've been en route for a hundred million years – who knows. And there they are.

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.

Now, to get one of those cosmic rays to vanish, it would be necessary to pick its point of creation. And we would have to find its point of creation, and we would have to make a duplicate of the ray at the moment of its creation. And then we would have to make a duplicate of having done so. And instantly that cosmic ray would vanish. There is no doubt about this whatsoever.

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

There is how you make a perfect duplicate.

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.

Now, if you can make a perfect duplicate and make something disappear, why, you have of course achieved a vanishment. And this means, then, that you have achieved something which is quite interesting. It's very interesting to the physicist; it's very interesting to almost anybody. But it is demonstrable. You can do this.

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.

Now, I asked one of our better auditors the other day: he was foolish enough to sit down and let me process him while I was doing something else. And I told him simply to look over to the wall over there, and pick a very small area and get the atoms and molecules in the wall there, and put an attention unit – you know, a little attention unit, a remote viewpoint – next to each one and follow it immediately back to where it had been created.

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.

And he came off of the fender of that car as though he had been shot, because the object itself, this tiny portion of the object, started to disintegrate. And he rushed over to it to hold it into place. Well, it was an interesting experiment. Because he'd heard all this and he didn't quite believe it. But the second that he realized that, it was fine.

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.)

Well now, why doesn't the whole universe vanish? Well, let me point out to you that probably on the very site of this building there was another building once. Where's that other building? It's been broken up and the bricks have been moved, and part of it's out here in the street, and there's part of it still in the ground below you, part of it maybe has – oh, I don't know – some brick dust got on somebody's suitcase who went to World War II and part of it's in Germany and… In other words, it's spread all over the place.

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.

And here are all these waves and rays going all over the universe. And to get each one of those at its moment of creation, in the time and space of moment of creation, using itself as its own energy, would be quite a job. And it's not an impossible job. It merely means that it's a job that requires an ability to span attention like mad.

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 would get, then, a physical object to disappear so thoroughly that everybody else would know it was gone if you got all these various parts. You see, it isn't true that an object sitting before you at this moment – or your chair – has always been in that position; nor it isn't true that the materials in that chair have always been in that position; nor is it true that the atoms which made up the materials in their raw-material form were always in that particular ore bed or in that particular tree. So you see, it's quite complex. This universe is very mixed up. It doesn't mean you can't make it vanish, however.

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.

Now, the second that we get this perfect duplicate and the second we can produce this phenomena, we know we have an ultimate solution. Now, we will go into that much more deeply here when we get to the last part of the Axioms. But I merely want to call that to your attention right here: that the perfect duplicate was the little latch string hanging out that opened the door to an ultimate truth.

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.

Well, what would an ultimate truth be? Well, we'll take that up a little bit later. But an ultimate truth is a static and an ultimate solution is a static. In other words, an ultimate truth and an ultimate solution is nothing. You get the as-isness of any problem, you make a perfect duplicate of any problem, and the problem will disappear.

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.

Now, you can subject that to truth, too. So if you can make a problem disappear by simply getting its as-isness, then you've got the solution to all problems, haven't you? Well, the mest universe itself is just a problem. And if you could make it all disappear just by getting its as-isness, it would disappear. It'd disappear for everybody.

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.

All right. Let's study that and get that very good and get what a definition is, there, in the Auditor's Handbook. And let's get that definition of a perfect duplicate and let's understand it very, very well because contained right in that is the total solution, by the way, to a mental therapy, Dianetics, of which you may have heard something.

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.

And the vanishment of engrams, the vanishment of ridges, of all energy forms and manifestations, can simply be accomplished by making perfect duplicates of them. That doesn't mean that you should go around trying to make nothing out of everything or get your preclear to try to make nothing out of everything. But it just can be done.

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.

If you wanted to make a mest Clear, you could use the principle of the perfect duplicate to do it in a very short space of time. He'd not only be Clear, he wouldn't have a body, either.

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.

All right. Let's take up number 21: Understanding is composed of affinity, reality and communication. The understanding that we have of an understanding is, of course, a broad collection of data – that's what we would consider understanding. "I understand this data."

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.

Well, let's get understanding just a little bit better. Do we understand that understanding is simply the ability to get the as-isness of something? In other words, you go around and you say," I don't quite understand this car." And we walk around it – "Don't quite understand what's wrong with this car; it just won't start."

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.

And we walk around it, and then we find out we haven't turned on the key. And we turn on the key; we have understood it, in other words. We have unmocked the fact that the key was not turned on and we have turned on the key.

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.

Now, that actually is practicing alter-isness. If we walked around this car and said, "I don't understand what this object is, I don't understand what this object is… Ah! It's a car," we would feel immediately relieved; we'd feel a lot better about the thing.

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

But if we were to get its total as-isness, it would just be a hole sitting there. So understanding is as-isness. And understanding, in its entirety, would be a static. And so we have the fact that life knows basically everything there is to know before it gets complicated with lots of data, merely because it can postulate all the data it knows.

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

In other words, all knowingness is inherent in the static itself. A thetan who is in good shape knows everything there is to know. He knows past, present and future; he knows everything. This doesn't mean he knows data. This merely means that he can as-is anything. And if he can as-is anything, believe me, he can understand it.

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).

Man's salvation, I have said several times, depends upon his recognition of his brotherhood with the universe. Well, let's misinterpret that just a little bit and say," Well, man's salvation (if you wanted to mean save him from the universe) would depend upon his ability to make an as-isness of the physical universe, at which moment he wouldn't have a universe.

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

And this would be total understanding.

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

Well, this understanding has three parts, and this is affinity, reality and communication. Well, I've mentioned that to you before. And we know quite a bit about that. As a matter of fact, there's a total book on this subject. It's an old book and doesn't contain as many refinements as we have today, but affinity, reality and communication are very, very useful to the auditor. You should understand them very, very well. That's A, R, C.

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, you can actually take ARC and you can compose, out of ARC, all the mathematics there are. You can combine ARC into mathematics. You can do anything with ARC that you want to do. Symbolic logic, even calculus could be extrapolated from ARC. It's quite interesting.

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.

Affinity depends upon reality and communication; reality depends upon affinity and communication; communication depends upon affinity and reality. And as I used to say, if you don't believe this, try to communicate sometime with somebody and don't have any affinity at all. Just get real mad at somebody and try to communicate with him. You won't.

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.

Try to get somebody to be reasonable when he is very angry, and you'll find out his reality is very bad. He cannot conceive of the isness of the situation. He will give you some of the weirdest things. There is no liar lying like an angry man.

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

Now, if you raise somebody's affinity, you will raise their reality and communication; if you raise somebody's reality, you will raise their affinity and communication; if you raise somebody's communication, you will raise their affinity and reality.

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

And the keynote of this triangle happens to be communication. Communication is more important than affinity and reality.

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).

All right. Now, let's take up number 22, and find out that: the practice of not-isness reduces understanding. In other words, something is there and we say it's not there. That's a lie, isn't it? We're running down the road like mad and there's an enormous boulder lying in the middle of the road, and almost anybody, just before he has an accident, will say the boulder is not there. And by golly, it's there.

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.

And this makes him feel that he's a bum thetan. He's failed. Well, the funny part of it is, if he were to say immediately, "As-is a boulder in the road," instead of denying the situation, and if he could do this – a perfect duplicate – well, the boulder would disappear.

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.

But he doesn't do it that way. He sort of puts some energy up there and sort of pushes against the boulder and he says, "It's not there. It's not there. I deny it."

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.

Well, he'll have a mighty thin understanding of the whole thing. He doesn't want to communicate with it, so he says it's not there. He doesn't want to have any affinity for it at all, so he said it isn't there. And believe me, his reality cuts down.

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.

After somebody has lost something or been through an accident, you would be surprised how poor their perception is, how poor their reality is. Everything looks very dim to them. They don't like it. That means their communication is off, their affinity is off, they don't like the world, they feel sad and so forth.

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.

Well, the practice of not-isness reduces understanding. And that is what man is doing all the time. He's trying to avow that something that isn't there is there, and he's trying to avow that something that is there isn't there, and between these two things – giving it no asisness at all or alter-isness or new postulates of any kind – he's having a lot of fun. Well, I don't know; some people claim it's fun anyway.

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.

All right, number 23: The static has the capability of total knowingness. Total knowingness would consist of total ARC.

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.

Well, we've just covered that. Here we have a condition of existence which is as-is. That'd be total knowingness. Well, if we had somebody who could say "As-is" to everything and trace all parts of everything back to the original time, spot, and so forth, and simply get them as they really were, we of course would have nothing left but a static. Naturally. We would not have anything else but a static. We would have zero. We wouldn't even have space.

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

Now, that's why we say the static has capability of total knowingness. Total knowingness would consist of total ARC. By the way, if you wanted to make this whole universe vanish, you would have to be able to span this whole universe. You would have to be as big as the universe. And that isn't, by the way, very hard to do. You can drill somebody up to a point where he can do that.

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

But if you go into that to get him to make an as-isness of it, would you please let me know first? I've got a couple of old hats and a motorcycle, and so forth, that I'd like to alter very quickly at the moment he does this, so I'd at least be left with those.

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.

Now, number 24 is: Total ARC would bring about the vanishment of all mechanical conditions of existence. Now remember, all mechanical conditions of existence. It wouldn't bring about the sudden death of everything. It would bring about the exteriorization of everything. It would mean the vanishment of all space and all form. The mechanics.

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.

Now, you want to differentiate between a consideration and a postulate and a mechanic. Now, you want to get the difference between a quality such as complete trust, a quality such as full responsibility, and the mechanics.

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.

Now, you get somebody who is a Step V or Step VI or Step X… And you'll get one of these fellows, and he will be all out for mechanics and he won't have anything to do with considerations. And he will believe completely that considerations are – well, they're no good: "Mechanics are the thing. You know, you can put your hands on it. You can feel it, you can touch it."

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

Well, he has to be made thoroughly acquainted with the existence of these mechanics before he could as-is them enough so that he could get up to a point where he would have the ability to consider. That's why Opening Procedure of 8-C works. He has sunk below the level of mechanics.

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.

Well, when we say mechanics we mean space, energy, objects and time. And when something has those things in it, we're talking about something mechanical.

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.

All right. That's all that would vanish if you as-ised all of existence. It would just be the mechanics. And you could turn right around and postulate them all back again, too, with great ease.

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."

Only, if you do this, why, don't postulate them back with any politicians. We've had too many of them. Generals, too – you can omit the generals. Don't give them any mechanical forms.

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?

Number 25 of these Axioms and definitions: Affinity is the scale of attitude which falls away from the co-existence of static, through the interpositions of distance and energy, to create identity, down to close proximity but mystery.

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.

My, isn't that complicated? That is very, very complicated. Well, let's get this fairly straight, and let's realize that we probably could simplify that particular Axiom. If it's complicated like that, we probably don't know all there is to know about it. I probably got a blank spot here someplace.

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!

But affinity is simply a matter of distance, in terms of mechanics. Now, the second we get out of considerations and go into mechanics, what is affinity?

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.

Well, affinity is basically a consideration, so it isn't a mechanic at all. But it does represent itself mechanically. There are mechanical representations of it. For instance, total knowingness goes down to lookingness. You have to look to find out. Well, that's different than simply knowing without looking.

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.

Now we go down to looking.

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.

And now we go just a little bit lower than that – this is, by the way, an affinity scale – we go into emotion. And look, and then we no longer have knowledge by looking, we have to have knowledge by emotion. Do we like it, do we dislike it – emotionally? There are particles in emotion. "I don't like it. In other words, I have some anger particles about it or I have some resentment particles." By the way, a preclear has his bank full of these emotional particles.

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."

Now, if I have to feel it to know it's there, I've gone immediately into effort. My affinity for something would be good if I could feel it and it would be no good at all if I can't feel it. You get a Step V who is swearing by mechanics and swearing at all life forms (and who builds atom bombs and things like that), and we get this Step V telling you that he cannot contact life. He cannot contact life, so therefore – you know, we can't contact this thing called static, so therefore he can't believe in it.

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.

Well, this is very interesting. You ask him why. And he says, "Well, I can't feel it." Well, he's twisting the snake around so it'll eat its tail or something. He's proving it all upside down and backwards.

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.

He says he can't get the existence of something he can't feel. Well, the odd part of it is we can measure electronically the existence of life. There is a little meter which we have run some tests on, and we can actually demonstrate that one individual can turn on in another individual, at some great distance from him, a considerable electrical current – enough to make this little machine sit up and sing. And the other person can turn it on at will, and the person on whom it is being turned on can't stop it. Here's a manifestation which can be measured. We've done the impossible there, too. We've done the impossible in many places in Scientology.

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

You can't measure a static, but we've done so by making one person at a distance bring a mechanic into being.

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

Now, affinity is this scale. It goes down through effort. When a person gets down to effort, then he's into a level where he's got to work, everything has got to be work; he's got to touch everything and feel everything before he can know anything. A person in that band, by the way – as he gets to the lower part of that band – has facsimiles. He will even do weird things like this: he will get a picture to know what's happening to him. In other words, he will get a picture of an incident to get an idea. He gets the picture and then he gets the idea. He doesn't get the idea and then get a picture.

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.

You want to watch that. Sometime or another you'll find a preclear who is doing this. You'll be saying, "All right, now get the idea of being perfect." And your preclear will sit there and say, "I got it."

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.

You want to ask him "How did you do that?" – that's a wonderful question to ask a preclear at any time – "How did you do that?"

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."

And he will say, "Why, of course, just like everybody else. I got this picture and this picture came up, and I looked at it, and the picture said, 'Be perfect' and so forth, and it showed me a circle. So a circle, that's perfect, so…"

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.

That's the way your preclear was doing that. He wasn't making the postulate at all; he was waiting for a picture to come up and tell him what it was all about.

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.

Well, now we go down from effort into thinking. And we get our figure-figure-figurefigure-figure case. Now, he's a hard boy to get along with because he can't work. His thought… Thought, by the way, is a colloquialism. Life is not composed of thought, particularly, it's composed of space and action and all sorts of things.

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.

The static can do all these things. It's not necessarily pure thought. If you've got a hangover about pure thought from a field of Christianity, why, get rid of it. Because thinkingness comes in clear down below effort. And it comes in as figure-figure-figure-figure-figure.

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.

Now, a person can postulate without thinking about it. If that's what we mean by thought, that's fine, but usually what people mean by thought is figure-figure-figure-figure. I'll just figure this out, and I'll get a computation, a calculation, and I'll add it up to "Now, let me see. Can you go to the movies? I don't know," they said when you were a little kid. "Now, let me see. I'll have to think it over. Give me a couple of days."

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.

We don't know how all of this mechanic got into a postulate, but they've let it get in there. So that's our level of thinkingness.

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.

Now, we go downstairs from thinkingness on this scale, and we get into symbolizingness. Symbolizingness is very interesting. A symbol contains mass, meaning and mobility. What is the definition of a symbol? A symbol is something that's being handled from an orientation point – a point which is motionless in relationship to the symbol (you know, it's motionless; the symbol is in motion) – and the symbol of that orientation point has mass, meaning and mobility.

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.

"Where are you from?" "I am from New Jersey."

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.

This fellow is telling you that he is from an orientation point called New Jersey, and it's motionless. And as he runs around the world he's always from New Jersey. He has mass, meaning and mobility; he has a name, he has mass, and so forth.

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.

Well, when a person drops down the line below figure-figure, they're into a point of where they figure with symbols. Now, that's a condensation, isn't it? Now, each one of these was a condensation.

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.

The next one down the line below symbols is eatingness. You know, animals eat animals. Animals are symbols and they eat other symbols. And they think they have to stay alive merely by eating other symbols.

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.

This is real cute, and eating is quite important (of course, it can be a lot of fun). But here you have a real condensation. In other words, effort got so condensed that it turned into an inverted kind of thought. And that became so condensed that it packaged thinking, is what took place there; it became so condensed it became a symbol. A word, for instance, is a whole package of thought.

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."

So packaged thinking is a symbol and packaged symbols are a plate of beans. Got that?

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

All right. Now, below that, when a person doesn't believe he can eat anymore, when he thinks he's not going to survive and so forth, he will go into the sex band. Now, as a witness of that, oh, if you starve cattle or something like that for a while, they'll start to breed. And if you feed them too well they'll stop breeding. It's quite irrational, but then who said any of this was rational?

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.

Cattle who are starved or lacking certain food elements will decide, "Well, we'll live again in some other generation," and they'll breed up a lot of calves. Of course, there's nothing to feed the calves on, but they haven't paid much attention to that.

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

Now, here in Arizona we have an interesting fact. We have some very beautiful cattle who have stopped breeding. They've just been too well fed. The way you'd get those cattle breeding again, is you'd simply start starving them and you would get them breeding.

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.

Down below sex, then – Freud, by the way, he was so condensed, he had to get clear down there to that condensation of sex – and down below sex we have a new level of knowingness. Only that, this time, is mystery and the level of mystery.

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.

Now, mystery, of course, is a complete displacement of everything, which is in a terrific confusion. The anatomy of mystery, by the way, is unprediction, confusion and then total blankout.

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.

You see, at first he couldn't predict some particles, and then this seemed awfully confusing to him, and so he just shut it all off and said," I won't look at it anymore." That's what mystery is, and your Step Level Vs, by the way, are very, very concerned about mystery. They are very concerned about thinkingness. They're trying to solve the mystery. Well, the mystery is already solved in an ultimate truth. An ultimate solution, of course, is simply the as-isness of the problem. And the as-isness of mystery is simply mystery, and that's really all there is to it.

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.

There really is nothing to know back of a mystery, except the mystery itself. It's just its as-isness, but it's always pretending there is something to know earlier than the mystery.

Okay.

Okay.