Now I want to talk to you a little bit more about the Axioms and to take up particularly this matter of truth and its use in auditing.

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

You see, any problem of any character is the basic business of the Scientologist. So therefore, if he wants to know about solutions, you had certainly better give him the solution of problems. And that, of course, would be a basic and ultimate truth.

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.

Well, if we could describe a basic and ultimate truth and describe it exactly, why, we have no problem at all in solving problems.

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.

All right. Now, let's go over this again. We see that failure to discover truth brings about stupidity. Person begins to believe he's stupid if he can't as-is truth. All right.

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, we see that the discovery of truth would bring about an as-isness by actual experiment, and thus we see that an ultimate truth would have no time, place or form. In other words, it would just – whatever we had there would simply disappear if we discovered an ultimate truth. So the ultimate truth is a perfect duplicate and therefore the ultimate is a static. And the operation to achieve a static would be a perfect duplicate.

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

Now, we see very much, then, that lying as we understand it is an alteration of time, place, event or form. And that is a lie. And only lies persist.

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?

We have to have a basic postulate and then another postulate before we get time; have to have two postulates to have time. We can't have time with one postulate unless it is the postulate that there will be time. That could be one postulate. But normally in operation we find that two postulates are necessary to achieve time.

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.

Well now, which one of these postulates is going to persist if the two postulates deny each other? The second one is going to persist because it is the time postulate. It said there was a second postulate, so therefore we have time taking place.

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.

So lying becomes an alter-isness and becomes stupidity. In other words, we don't discover where the thing is, we don't discover exactly how it was, so we can't unmock it, so there we are. And the only thing that we can do with it, possibly, is to not-is it or alter it some more or stir it around or do what a Black Five does with it: just stirs it around and hopes it'll disappear and so forth. He doesn't as-is it and so it doesn't disappear.

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.

Well now, the funny part of it is that lying will develop into a stupidity. It also develops into a mystery and it also develops into this blackness which individuals are so upset about. And it's just an alteration of time, place, event or form, after the fact of its having been created.

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.

This is a mechanical lie and, by the way, does not lead to blackness. It would be two kinds of lies here.

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?

Mechanical lie: We mock up some space and we put an object in that space, and then we move it. Well, the moment we've moved it, we've lied about it. We've said, "It's over there," where as a matter of fact, it was created in location one.

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.

Now, in view of the fact that there's only consideration, this of course would bring about a lie. But, really, it doesn't disappear, it doesn't do anything peculiar simply by moving it around. We say it's in another location, and that of course gives us a mechanical lie. So that the mere handling of energy does not bring about a lie. It takes another consideration than simply moving something to bring about an occlusion.

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.

All right. Now, anything which persists must avoid as-isness, and thus anything to persist, really to persist, must contain a lie.

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 we get Axiom 39: Life poses problems for its own solution. Ah-ha! Life poses problems for its own solution.

There is how you make a perfect duplicate.

Now, what do we find here in a problem? We find something which is persisting, the as-isness of which cannot be attained. And that would be the definition of a problem: Something which is persisting, the as-isness of which cannot be attained (easily be attained, that is), and that would be a problem.

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, to solve that problem, it would be necessary to get its as-isness. Well, how do we prevent, then, something from being as-ised – in other words, vanished? We introduce a lie into it. So all problems contain a lie.

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.

Any problem to be a problem must contain a lie. If it were truth, it would unmock, and that's Axiom 40.

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.

So we get that any problem to be a problem has to contain a lie. So, actually, when you're studying the preclear's bank and you're trying to process a preclear, and yet preclear is being a problem, we know very well that there's a lie someplace on the track that he's trying to obtain the as-isness of. It's not necessarily his lie, but it certainly is a lie.

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.

An "unsolvable problem" would have the greatest persistence. It would also contain the greatest number of altered facts; and to make a problem one must introduce alter-isness. In other words, this problem must have been moved and shifted and shoved around considerably to be unsolvable.

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.

Now Axiom 41: That which alter-isness is introduced into becomes a problem.

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.

Anytime you alter something, you've got a problem on your hands. Thus, this whole universe, then, is a problem. And, also, this whole universe must contain a lie to go on persisting the way it does. Well, believe me, it contains enough alter-isms, so it certainly does contain a lie. It also contains a variety of lies about its creation and all that sort of thing. I mean, there's a lot of things about this universe that make it persist. And all of those things boil down to one fact: that it must be based upon a lie and it must be very definitely altered.

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, Axiom 41 tells us that it was alteration which brought the preclear into being a problem. Thus, we find any child that has been moved extensively, who has had its home changed, who has been shoved around to various parts of the world, eventually becomes a problem, first to environment, and then to himself. Naturally. He's just been altered in space a lot, so he becomes a problem.

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 we discover in 42 that matter, energy, space and time – MEST, in other words – persists because it is a problem. And your physicist is busily at work trying to unmock this, but he's unmocking it by not-isness: he's using force to alter force. Because he keeps altering it, it naturally will get worse and worse.

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.

Now, he will solve nothing with an atom bomb. He will simply make things worse, more complicated, more confused and more dispersed.

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.

The atom bomb is a dead-end track and is folly. It is great folly. It would merely add more confusion.

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.

If an atom bomb were introduced into a war, by the number of particles and the amount of mest which would be altered, we would discover immediately that it would have introduced a great number of lies into the situation. It would have deteriorated the society and everything else.

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.

If we were foolish enough, for instance, to atom-bomb Russia or if Russia were foolish enough to atom-bomb the U.S., enough confusion would have been introduced into the cultures of earth so that probably there would be no other choice but to sink into a barbarism. In the absence of an understanding of life itself, this is exactly what would have happened.

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."

Now we get here number 43: Time is the primary source of untruth. Time states the untruth of consecutive considerations.

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."

And I call your attention very definitely to interest as an interesting thing to observe.

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, there are two classes of interest. And we want to know why we're thinking about this in terms of time. It's because time is the basic lie behind all lies; that is to say, that you have consecutive moments. We believe they're consecutive moments; we see consecutive motions, and so forth. And this is all very pleasant and we agree to this. It's only when we have masked them with some vicious intent that we really get a kickback from the progress of time.

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 we discover here in the matter of interest that we have two facets: one is interested and the other is interesting.

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.

Now, a thetan is interested and an object is interesting. A thetan is not interesting, he is interested And when a person becomes terribly interesting, he has lots of problems, believe me. There are lots of problems whenever somebody becomes interesting.

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.

So that is the chasm which is crossed by all of your celebrities, anybody who is foolish enough to become famous. He crosses over from being interested in life to being interesting. And people who are interesting are really no longer interested in life.

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.

It's very baffling to some young fellow why he can't make some beautiful girl interested in him. Well, she's not interested, she is interesting. And so, of course, she can't be interested.

And this would be total understanding.

Now, let's take Axiom 44 and see how all this adds up here in processing: Theta, the static, has no location in matter, energy, space or time but is capable of consideration. Now, we've already had that, but we put it in there again just to drive it home in this regard: hasn't any time. There's no time in this static. Time is a lie. But time can be postulated by the static, but is only a consideration, and thereafter a static gets the idea – a thetan gets the idea that he is persisting across a span of time. And he's not. He's not persisting.

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.

Objects are going across time, and energies and spaces are changing and so forth, but he isn't. At no time does he ever change. He has to consider he's in a head before you can put him out of one. He has to consider he is out of his head before he can be out of his head.

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.

A Step V is quite interesting. He's always thinking that the auditor is going to reach in and pull him out of his head. You know, he's waiting for something else to do it. How could anything else do it? Nothing else could do it. Nothing under the sun could do it.

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.

Of course, you could probably hypnotize him and tell him that he was, and he'd probably react in various ways, but he has to say, "I am now out of my head," and he will be out of his head. But if he waits to see whether or not he's out of his head or not, why, it becomes complete nonsense.

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.

The only way that he can get anything done is to consider that it is done or consider that that is the condition which exists.

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.

All right. Number 45: Theta can consider itself to be placed, at which moment it becomes placed, and to that degree a problem.

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

Ah! Any time we fall away from Axiom 1, which is repeated as Axiom 44, we discover that we have less of a static than before.

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.

In other words, we just place this static, and it's less of a static than it was before. Fascinating, isn't it? But a thetan, then, can have a problem just by being placed and, quite in addition to that, he ceases to be quite as interested.

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 he himself, for instance, placing himself, can get away with this – this isn't very hard for him to do – and he can perceive from this new place and so forth. But as long as he is placed, he will be less than a static. Just remember that.

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, it is to that degree a problem. To the degree that it has time in it, it's a problem. Now 46: Theta can become a problem by its considerations, but then becomes mest.

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.

What is this mest? What is it? Let's look at that very closely, and let's find that an interested thetan is a thetan, but an interesting – thetan has become mest. What is mest?

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.

Well, it's actually simply a composite of energies and particles which are – and spaces – which are agreed upon and which are looked at.

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.

Now, we have the difference between inflow and outflow. A thetan who is being interesting– pardon me, is interested, he's outflowing: interested, outflowing; interesting, inflowing. See, he wants the attention of others to flow to him. Interesting. That's mest. Attention of others flow to it. That doesn't tell you that all mest is a series of trapped thetans. It says that it is a type of life which is being interesting as opposed to something which is being interested in it.

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

Now number 46: Theta can become a problem by its considerations, but then becomes mest is followed by this: that mest is a problem and will always be considered a problem and is nothing else but a problem. Mest is that form of theta which is a problem. That's all. Therefore, it's that form of theta which has a lie introduced into it. And so, of course, it's a problem.

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.

Now number 47: Theta can resolve problems.

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.

And 48: Life is a game wherein theta as the static solves the problems of theta as mest.

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.

Now, that means that theta is the static, and theta is the object. Yes indeed, it can be both ways. Just depends on which one is being interested and which one is being interesting-. And we find then that a preclear gets more and more solid and more and more solid the more interesting he becomes. And the more problem he becomes, and the more problems he has and the more figuring he does on these problems, of course, the more solid he is going to get.

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 49: To solve any problem, it is only necessary to become theta the solver rather than theta the problem.

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.

Now, believe me, that's a very, very important Axiom. That tells you why SOP 8-C Opening Procedure works. The main form of theta which we find desirable, which has mobility, which has freedom, which is happy, which is cheerful, which has all those points on the top of the Chart of Attitudes, and so forth, is an observer of problems and a solver of problems.

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."

So if you get somebody simply to look around the environment, he will cease to be a problem and become the solver of problems. That's all.

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.

Get him to look around and recognize a few problems, and hell feel better. You get somebody working, then, who is worrying about himself – worry-worry-worry-worry-worry-worry-worry – well, he's all mixed up in a problem; he's right next door to a problem; his affinity is a closure with this problem. He's having an awful time. He's all bedded down and so forth.

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, let's take this and turn it around the other way and let's have him observe himself as a problem. And we get that part of the process which is problems and solutions. And, naturally, if we ask a thetan to be a solution often enough, he would eventually become a static. That's all.

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.

If we ask him to observe problems long enough, he would simply become a static. In other words, he would go out of it both ways.

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.

A theta could become a problem, more of a problem, more of a problem, more of a problem, more, more, more, more and more and more – static. See, he could go out the bottom. Or he could say less of a problem, less of a problem, less, less, less, less, less – static. You see, he could go either ways. So there's no hope for you. You're going to survive anyway and so are your preclears. But we're going to have a better world doing it.

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.

Now number 50: Theta as mest must contain considerations which are lies. In other words, there isn't a single piece of mest in the world which isn't to some degree or another lying.

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.

All right. Now, let's look at that then and find, then, the only crime that you could possibly commit is being there. I don't care where. This is the only crime that you could commit. And this is all your parents objected to, and this is all your preclear's parents objected to, and this is all a preclear objects to when you're auditing him and he growls at you. They add tremendous significances into this, but all they object to is being there.

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?

Now, if you run SOP 8-C Opening Procedure, and you run it very definitely with that postulate, "Get the fact that the wall is there," "Get the fact that the chair is there," "that something else is there," you're liable to knock your preclear practically flat. I'm not advising you to use this as part of Opening Procedure. It's a violent process.

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.

Now, you get almost any preclear and just have him stand up in the middle of the room and just say, "Get the idea to that empty space out in front of you there, that it's there."

Now we go down to looking.

"It's there. It's there."

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.

My goodness, his mother will show up, and eight or nine of his wives, and all sorts of things will show up all the way down the line. He'll have all kinds of people standing in front of him. They're all there, you see? But that's the only crime that theta can commit. That's a lie.

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.

You see, that theta can be there is a lie. And that's the only bad thing that anybody has ever done is be there. Now, that's all, actually, that the GE is doing. He stands there. He's visible, he is being there. And we must have introduced a lie. The basic lie which is introduced is time.

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.

Now, it's interesting to note that it's the second postulate which persists, because persist means time, and it's the second postulate which introduces time, so this becomes elementary.

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.

Let's look at this one: let's find this fellow who's awfully sick. Oh, he's terribly sick!

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

Boy, is he a problem!

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.

Oh, he's a problem to himself and a problem to his family and a problem to his auditor. Oh, he's a problem! He's terrific. Do you know that he must have had an original postulate that he was well before he could make a second postulate that he was sick? And do you know that the postulate that he was sick must have denied the postulate that he was well? And so his original sickness was a falsity, and he knew it at the time he made it, darned well.

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."

He knew when he said he was sick that day to keep from going to school, he knew it that it was a lie. He knew it was a lie and he got a persistence of the sickness. And now here he is eighty-nine years of age and all crippled up, and we find out that the basic postulate was the fact that he was well, however.

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, how could sickness ever get any power except through wellness? Now, we look underneath every lie to find out that it was the truth, the static itself, which gave it power.

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…"

The lie has no power because it is a perversion; persistence has no power that is not based upon the static itself.

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.

So, we have the basic lineup at all times and in all places that the lie is empowered by truth. Truth must have existed. And a good condition or quality must have existed prior to a bad condition or quality, and vice versa.

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.

If a good condition is existing, very possibly the basic postulate was a lie – pardon me, a bad condition – the basic postulate was a bad condition.

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.

All right. As we study the problem of goodness and badness in the world, we find out that we must be studying the second postulate because it is all that persists. If we have a situation which is very, very good, it probably was based upon a primary postulate which was bad.

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."

But do you know that you can't make a prime postulate which is a lie? If you'll just get the idea that there are no postulates, that you've made no postulates of any kind, that there are no postulates which have been made – now make a postulate.

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, can that postulate be a lie? Can that postulate be a lie? If you wiped out all postulates, you just said "They don't exist," but you just laid them aside; you didn't even postulate them out of existence. Now you've made a prime postulate. That can't be a lie.

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.

All right. Now make a second postulate denying the one which you just made. That's a lie. Now, which one of these two is going to persist? The second one. And where is it going to get its power? From the first one.

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

So we're trying to cure somebody who has been jilted. We're trying to cure him, and we would then have to get him to postulate that he was in love. And this young man rushes in and he is all ecstatic and his head is going around in circles because of this gorgeous, gorgeous creature that he's just fallen in love with. And so he's going to hock his father in order to take her out. Just what would we process on him to save Father? What would we process?

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.

We would process his dislike of women. You see, it doesn't matter what the prime postulate is. We're not going on the basis of badness or goodness – a consideration is a consideration.

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.

The first consideration, the prime consideration as we call it, cannot be a lie until it is denied or masked or changed by a second consideration while still existing. So, you've got your second consideration there which is the persisting one, and it's deriving its power from the first one.

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.

This fellow says, "I'm never going to fall in love. I'm never going to fall in love. I'm never, never, never going to fall in love – ever." And then he falls in love. Well, he gets it real bad and this persists for a long time. And to audit it out, as I said, we would have to get him to postulate that he was in love.

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, do we mean reach back on the track and find out where we were going to get that? You know, I mean, reach back and straightwire it out? No, because there is no time. And all address to the past, every address to the past and every address to the future, actually, is validating a lie.

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

There's only now, there has never been anything else but now. But there's a consistent change and a consistent series of postulates going on which gives a continuance of now. But the continuance of now is a lie. Of course, it's not very bad. You can move objects around, and that's quite honest. I mean, compared to a cross-contradiction (two kinds of lies there).

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?

And we discover that when we are trying to make a condition change, that we simply have to postulate, as though it exists in present time, the opposite condition. And we go on postulating it and postulating it and postulating it, and it will take place.

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.

But what happens as we postulate it? Why does a preclear get sick when he is sick, and says, "I am well, I am well, I am well, I am well"? Because he's already running on the postulate that he's sick, of course. But much more important than that, he is sliding into the second postulate. He's making the first postulate that he's well, and sliding into the second postulate and it restimulates him.

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.

All he's got to do, though, is this a few times, and he will slide out of being sick. He has to do it a few times because he's got to undo the duration or get the time postulate out. In other words, he's got to create time with a postulate, the basic postulate, in order to recover from the second postulate.

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.

If anyone is being continuously sick, then, he is being continuously sick because he gave a counter-postulate to being well. Therefore, we have him postulate "I am well, I am well, I am well, I am well." And we just don't get him to say that, we get him to feel well, you know? "Get the idea of being well," we'd say to him. "Get the idea of be…" Believe me, he's going to get a lot sicker before he gets well, because he keeps sliding into the second postulate.

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.

Now, we in Scientology go out and we tell the world, "Now look, be healthy. Be strong. Be bright. You can be exteriorized," and so forth. And they listen to us. And for a moment they listen, and the next instant they feel kind of sick.

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.

You see, they're sliding into the second postulate. So we give them the first postulate, they go into the second postulate. If we just told them that enough times and often enough and hard enough, they would slide permanently through the second postulate and wipe it out and they would be well.

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.

All we'd do is have to keep telling them they're well. We would accomplish it that way. We'd make them run it out themselves. And so this is, actually, a very superior therapy. This is R2-40 in your processing, immediately derived from these various Axioms.

Okay.

Wherever we have in Scientology a condition existing, then, it must be deriving its power from a prior postulate of an opposite nature. In order to get a persistence or continuance, we must have had a denying postulate.

So we get somebody who hates the human race, he must have loved them desperately by postulate. You see?

We get two brothers. There's a proof of this, by the way: there's no hatred as that which can exist between two brothers or a nation torn asunder in war. Well, that's because they loved each other so well, you see? And so they can hate with violence! But what is their hatred depending on? Their hatred is depending on the fact they loved each other.

So if we have somebody hating madly, let's say he's hating somebody named Bill, we would say, "Now, get the idea of loving Bill."

"Rrrrrrr!" he'd go.

"Now get the idea of loving Bill." "Rrrrrrrr."

"Get the idea of loving Bill." "Rrrrrr."

"Get the idea of loving Bill."

"Rrrr."

"Get the idea of loving Bill." "Well, he's not too bad a guy…"

"Get the idea of loving Bill." "Get the idea of loving Bill." We wouldn't necessarily restore love for Bill, but we'd certainly run out the hatred for Bill – not because we're running it off the track!

Now, let's get out of our minds right here and now the idea that we ever run anything off the track. We never do.

We're running it in present time, we will never run it otherwise than in present time, and although we can address the track, we are actually validating time. And the more we validate time, the sicker our preclear is going to be.

Okay.