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.

We've gotten up to the Axioms of affinity, reality and communication. These subjects are very inherent. For instance, in Scientology they're terrifically useful. If you want to find where a communication line is breaking, why, look for some affinity that is off. And if you want to audit somebody who is having a rather rough time, then you'd better audit them with considerable affinity. If you demonstrate enough affinity one way or the other, why, you will be able to overcome their communication reluctance.

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.

But it's very important that you understand that all these things are basically a consideration. We have to consider that they exist before they exist.

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.

Now, we are covering on this track the considerations which man has composited into an existence. Man has decided that certain things existed, and so he has agreed upon this very thoroughly, and so they exist for all of men.

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."

And if he had never decided upon these various existences, why, they wouldn't exist. So we look at this affinity and we find out that – we look at reality and communication, too – and we find out that we are looking at a long series of considerations which man holds in common. These are not considerations simply because we in Scientology consider that they exist. We can do enormously important things with this information, this codification, organization of this universe. It's been going on for about seventy-six trillion years, and to be able to bust it loose and knock it apart is quite an interesting feat.

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.

All right. Let's look over affinity and see that the first thing about affinity is the fact it's consideration. And then that in the ARC triangle, the distance of communication is represented by the affinity to a marked degree, and the type of particle – the distance and the type of particle. For instance, they say absence makes the heart grow fonder. That happens to be a lie, but you could postulate it that way and make it come out. And you could also say that if you get two people far enough apart, why, they are liable to get mad at each other. The main reason you have wars is because Russia is a safe distance from the United States. It can afford to get mad.

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.

Did you ever notice that somebody was very furious at you as long as they were on the other end of a telephone line, but when you went around to see them they weren't mad at you anymore? Well, that's an inversion on the situation. You closed the distance and so you achieved a better affinity.

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."

Many ways that you could handle this, but again, basically, it's a consideration.

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, let's look at reality. And we find out that reality, in number 26: Reality is the agreed-upon apparency of existence.

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.

The whole subject of reality is a baffling one to people who do not add into reality, affinity and communication. If you simply said, "Well, this is reality, and that's your reality, that's somebody else's reality," and so forth, why, you would just be talking, that's all.

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."

In the first place, a person can postulate anything he wants to postulate, and he has a personal reality. He could simply say," It's there," and he'd say, "That's real."

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.

Or he can have a facsimile appear which is more real to him than the actual universe around him. Many times you'll run into a psychotic and his facsimiles are far, far more real than anything else.

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.

Well, these are two conditions which we don't recognize as reality. In the one hand, the person merely postulates reality and so that's his reality, and other people don't agree upon it, and the other part is also a not-agreed-upon reality, and that is this reality: it's an otherdetermined reality. Somebody has given him a facsimile and has really impressed him with it and so this looks more real to him than reality. In other words, we have complete selfdetermined postulation and complete other-determined postulations, neither one of which are what we consider to be reality.

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.

Those are extremes. What we consider to be reality is in the mean of this. That is, what do we agree is real? You and I agree there's a wall there, well, there's a wall there. And we agree there's a ceiling there, there's a ceiling there. And we agree that you're sitting there and I'm sitting here, well, that's real. That's simply because you and I safely have agreed that that takes place.

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

Now, if somebody else came in the room and looked at all you people sitting down and said," What are you all standing up for?" why, you'd have rather a tendency to believe there was something wrong with this fellow.

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.

And as a matter of fact, do you know what we do? We use natural selection to take out of the lineup people who have too much personal reality and too much other-determined reality. If this person walked in and said, "What are all you people standing up for?" why, if he did that consistently about a number of things and said," What is that lion doing walking on the ceiling?" we would have a tendency to lock him up. In other words, we would move him away from survival and he wouldn't procreate. In other words, we'd move these people actually out of the… at least the genetic lineup (the insane).

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, here we have in reality a very embracing subject, because reality is actually isness. Reality is isness and unreality is not-isness (our effort trying to make something disappear with energy). And, by the way, that's very amusing, trying to make things disappear with energy. They used to talk in the Bible and other places, and they used to say, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword," and somebody said once, "Turn the other cheek." And what these people were actually saying was fighting force with force does not bring about anything like a perfect duplicate. Only they maybe didn't know they were saying that. Using force to fight force brings about an unreality. But, oddly enough, using force to build force brings about a reality.

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.

Isness is a continuous alteration; a continuous alteration gives us an isness. A notisness (saying it doesn't exist) gives us an unreality. So there we have reality and unreality defined.

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.)

Now, how could you use this principle of reality in auditing? Do you know reality is basically an agreement? A mechanical agreement is for two forms to be exactly similar; one's a copy of the other form. That's mimicry. And we learn by mimicry.

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.

If you go in and find a psychotic prancing up and down a sanitarium room and you simply start prancing up and down the sanitarium room exactly like he's doing, do you know that he'll stop and talk to you?

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?

Well, maybe he hasn't talked to anybody for ages, but certainly, he now has an agreedupon reality. And having agreed upon reality, he can get into communication with it. In other words, mimicry is the lowest level of entrance of a case and is a very good thing for an auditor to know.

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, what we know then as reality is the agreed-upon apparency of existence. All right.

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.

Now, let's take up number 27: An actuality can exist for one individually, but when it is agreed with by others it can be said to be a reality.

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.

And let's find out that those things which have become solid to us, which have become very fixed to us, must have been agreed upon by others.

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.

And we get something very interesting there. The anatomy of reality is contained in isness, which is composed of as-isness and alter-isness. An isness is an apparency, not an actuality. The actuality is as-isness altered so as to obtain a persistency.

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.

Well, this agreement is part of the as-isness of this whole universe. If you ask somebody "Give me some things that you wouldn't mind agreeing with," "Give me something that you could do that other people would agree with," and so on, we'll notice some change in the case. Why? We're changing his level of agreement.

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.

He is actually bound by certain considerations. And until he postulates otherwise, he will continue with that agreement. This is how we fix somebody into something.

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.

The whole of existence, actually, is run very much like an hypnotic trance.

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.

How do you hypnotize somebody? Well, you get them to agree with you. And then you get them to agree with you a little bit more. Oh, most people think that it's done by watches or something or other. It's not done that way. It's done in a very interesting way.

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.

I don't know much about Western hypnotism. I myself studied hypnotism in the East, and when I came over to America again, I wondered what on earth this strange practice was that these people were practicing and calling hypnotism. Because it wasn't even vaguely what is taught in the East to induce trances. It's quite remarkable that hypnotism is inducible on small or large groups.

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, the worse off a group is, which is to say, the less communication they have, actually, the more communication can be forced upon them. And you can get a form of hypnotism there. But the interesting thing is that they must have been prepared by an enormous number of agreements before they got into that state. In other words, somebody else prepared them, so they didn't care who they agreed with after a while.

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

Anybody in a uniform walks up to a soldier, if that uniform has a higher rank on, the soldier will obey them. Well, this is a form of hypnotism.

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

Now, you can take an audience and simply get them to agree with you. And you get them to agree more and more and more and more and more, and the next thing you know… And, by the way, when I say "agree with you," I mean you could get them to agree first that you were simply standing there.

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

And then the next thing that you could get them to agree to is the fact that they were listening to you. And then you would give them a few little things on which they would agree with. And the next thing you know, you could tell them that the world was on fire and the audience would rush out to find out. Or maybe they'd just sit there and burn. It's quite interesting. But you could move it out that way.

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

Now, what is this all about? Does that mean that anybody bringing about an agreement would bring about hypnotism? Oh, no. The reason why in Scientology we do not bring about an hypnotism, even by Opening Procedure by Duplication – every Case V that's had this run on him claims it's a way to induce trance – but every single one of the tenets of Scientology could be reversed and, with a bad intention and so forth, could be worked out in the opposite direction.

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

We are undoing the agreements which people have been making for seventy-six trillion years. Only we're undoing them, so this makes them freer and freer and freer.

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, show you this fellow on the stage who simply gets the audience to agree and agree and agree and agree and then tells them the place is on fire. Oh? He isn't really going in the direction of making them freer, is he? His intention for this is entirely different.

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.

It isn't that an intention is above agreement. It's that consideration is always above agreement. He is trying to work them into a situation where they will accept what he says without question. We're not interested, in Scientology, in anybody accepting what we say without question. We ask them to question it; we ask them to please look at the physical universe around you; please look at people, at your own mind, and understand thereby that what we are talking about happens to be actual. This is the series of agreements. These are. They aren't just fancy ideas.

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.

Now, I could get people to agree with me about a lot of things. And every once in a while I could throw them a curve. I could quite imperceptibly introduce a false idea into the science and maybe somebody less scrupulous might do this. But over a period of four years, you can trace back and you'll find out the only arbitraries I've introduced into the science that are completely false are "the psychiatrists are no good" and "the psychologists are stupid."

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

And of course those are completely false. I mean, the fact that psychiatry kills two thousand people a year with electric shock machines of course means that they're bettering the community, and they're doing what they should do and they're humanitarian. And they're not out for money.

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

But introducing ideas like this, I would be apt to get more agreement from people than otherwise. But what I am giving you is not counter-thought. If you just kept, you know, fighting the concepts that I gave you all the way up the line, you would just be re-agreeing all over the place. What we're doing here is laying out the map of what has happened in seventy-six trillion years, and your agreements have finally mounted up to a point where you believe this is – this universe is all here and what you're agreeing to, fortunately, are the very things which you agreed to.

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).

We aren't giving you new things. We're giving you old things. And by understanding these old things which we have rediscovered, why, you become free.

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.

Well now, what is this feeling of unreality that people get, this unconsciousness and upset condition of forgetfulness, and so forth? Well, actually, forget-fulness and so on stems from an effort to make things disappear by pressing against them with energy. We push against a thought – if you can imagine this – and if we push against it hard enough and then say it isn't there while it's still there, why, we will become forgetful, believe me. And if we push hard enough, we will become unconscious.

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 remember, we had to postulate that we could forget and we had to postulate that we could become unconscious before either of these things could happen.

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.

You know, people roll around waiting to go to sleep? Then they say," I am going to go to sleep." Well, inspect R2-40 and you'll understand why the proper thing to do is to simply say "I am asleep."

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.

"Well," they say, "that's a lie!"

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.

No. No, it isn't a lie unless you considered that you were awake. Now, if you said, "I am awake and now I am going to sleep," why, of course, you wouldn't go to sleep. Or you might – if you could induce a self-trance you could.

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.

But the point I am trying to make is that you can make at any moment a prime postulate. Well, more about that later.

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, now you've had considerable about communication. Oh my, the communication… and the formula of communication and duplication and so on in Scientology that we have covered is very great. But let's read again this formula on communication:

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

Communication is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point across a distance to receipt-point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication of that which emanated from the source-point.

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

Now, understand, we are using this word duplicate as copy. And we have a perfect duplicate, which means as-is. Now, that's the way we're using it today. When we say duplicate we merely mean a copy. We say copy, facsimile, duplicate, we mean pretty much the same thing. And when we're saying perfect duplicate, we mean as-is, and we mean the object in its place, in its time, with its own energy. But a duplicate, that is another piece of energy in another space and so forth, but it's a copy.

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.

So we send a telegram from New York City and it says "I love you," and it arrives in San Francisco and it says" I loathe you." Something has happened there, that we don't get a perfect duplicate.

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.

Well, the more mechanical an individual gets, the less he can make a perfect duplication, and so he can't as-is. And he falls even off to a point of where he can't make an exact copy.

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.

So you say, "Go around the corner and tell Betty I love her." And he goes around the corner and says, "Joe said to tell you he loathes you." And he's perfectly happy doing this.

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

We get a line of soldiers and we whisper a message, "H-hour is at ten o'clock." Now, you're supposed to whisper that to the next soldier. And when it goes through a dozen soldiers this way, we find out at the other end "We had beans for supper" is the message which they claim was put on the lines.

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.

This is an inability to make copies. And this is the most disruptive thing and the most significant thing about communication. The formula of communication, for your own use and so forth, is simply cause, distance, effect, with a good copy at effect of that which was at cause. That's all you really need to know about communication.

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. There's much more to that in the manual, and you will understand much more about communication.

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."

Now, 29 is another Axiom about as-isness and persistence. And it tells you why people have to mock up another creator, and so forth, than themselves for their own creations. In order to get a persistence, they have to assign another authorship to the creation, and so on. They have to say it's other-responsibility. That's so that when they look at it they won't make an as-is of it. You see, if they'd have said that "I made it and now I look at it," why, that would be very bad. But if they said – if they created something and then they said, "Bill made it," then when they look at it, why, they say, "Bill made it." But that's a lie. So we get persistence stemming out of a second postulate, a lie. They made it, then they said somebody else made it. And so we get persistency stemming out from any lie.

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?

Now we get number 30: The general rule of auditing is that anything which is unwanted and yet persists must be thoroughly viewed, at which time it will vanish. And we know that, of course, in the line of duplicates – perfect duplicates.

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

Now 31: Goodness and badness, beautifulness and ugliness are alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion.

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!

And 32: Anything which is not directly observed tends to persist. In other words, if you don't as-is it, and you've already said it's going to be there, why, naturally it will be there.

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.

But this is worse than that. You get somebody working at his work and he's never paying any attention to the machine, he's always paying some attention to the work, we'll find he has facsimiles of the machine just all stacked up like mad. He's never as-ised the machine.

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.

We get somebody who has always looked at lighted objects in dark rooms, has never looked at the darkness, he will eventually see nothing but darkness when he closes his eyes. He'll have a black bank, in other words.

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.

Thirty-three: Any as-isness which is altered by not-isness tends to persist. In other words, if we use force on something, we will get a persistence.

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 we're going to go into something which is tremendously interesting, because it is the proof of the fact that we have reached an ultimate truth and an ultimate solution. And that ultimate truth, and so on, is itself very, very important to an auditor. Because that tells you whether or not Scientology is a total subject.

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.

I used to show you a circle and showed you just before you got to the top point of the circle, all data was known. When you got to the top point of the circle, no data was known. And then you had to start out with a new data again.

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.

You went around the circle and up to the point where all data was known. Then you came up to the top again, and then you got no data known, and one datum known.

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 see that? It was a circle. Everything known and nothing known were adjacent. Well, we've reached that point in Scientology. That's because all truth is a static and the ultimate solution is a static. Naturally, the solution to a problem is the as-isness of the problem. By solution to the problem, we mean: What will cause this problem to dissipate and disappear?

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

Well, the as-isness of the problem will cause it to dissipate and disappear. So therefore we have reached the solution of all problems; we've also reached an ultimate truth.

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

Now, let's go into this ultimate truth just a little bit. The remainder of the Axioms are devoted to this. I'm just going to take it up with a very fast explanation, rather than go into the remainder of these Axioms, because you have them, after all, in your Handbook.

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.

It was entered like this: Stupidity is the unknownness of consideration – suddenly realized that. The stupidity, that's the unknownness of the consideration: you don't know what he was thinking about; you don't know what he was talking about; you don't know what it meant. Well, that means it's the unknown-ness of consideration.

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."

Well, mechanically, the mechanical definition of stupidity is the unknown-ness of time, place, form and event. See? A fellow is really stupid. He knows something happened, but he doesn't know what happened, he can't add it up, he can't do anything with it.

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.

All right. Now we say: Truth is the exact consideration. That's the consideration. Now, mechanically, truth is the exact time, place, form and event. Ah-ha! Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.

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, wait a minute. We say truth is the exact consideration. Well, all right, it's the exact consideration. The truth of the fellow saying, "I am a man," the truth is "I am a man." That's the first postulate.

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.

Now he says," I am a man," so he's a man. That's the exact consideration. He cannot tell a lie until he has said," I am a man," and then he has masked or hidden the fact that he is a man and he says, "I am a woman."

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, the odd part of it is that he made a truth when he made the first postulate. And that which denied that truth then persisted. The second postulate always persists. I give you R2-40. The dissertation in R2-40 in the Handbook makes this much clearer. But just look at that. The second postulate persists, not the first one.

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.

The second postulate introduces time. Now, persists is time, that's all. Mortality, immortality – this is a matter of time. It's also a matter of identity, but it's basically a matter of time. That which is persisting means that which is "timing." And if you have assumed that after you made a postulate, you then had something which permitted you to make another postulate, you'd have to postulate time there, wouldn't you?

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.

Ah, it's quite interesting. So that's your second postulate, then, introduces time. Merely because it's the second postulate, you had to introduce time. See, there is no time in the static natively. Time is just a consideration. All right, so you introduce time, you get a lie.

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.

This is mechanical, by the way; this is the way it works. You make a second postulate in front of the first postulate, it's the second postulate which persists. But it derives its strength from the first postulate.

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.

There is a large dissertation on this in R2-40, and I give you that for your consideration. But the way we entered into the solution of the subject of Scientology and life was this – again, I give you this: Stupidity is the unknownness of consideration.

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, then truth is the knownness of the consideration, isn't it? Well, right back there we have that perfect duplicate; right back on the line, we found out that when you got the asisness of anything, if you made a perfect duplicate of it, it would disappear, wouldn't it?

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.

So, truth is a perfect duplicate. But that's a disappearance! Well, if that's a disappearance, then all you've got left is the static. So truth is a static. And it follows through just as clearly as that. It's a mechanical proof. It's as mechanical as any kind of proof you wanted, in any field of mathematics – it's totally mechanical.

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

Now, again: A problem is a solution only when you get the as-isness of the problem. That right? A problem is a solution when you get the as-isness of the problem. Therefore, what have we got left? We got the as-isness of the problem; we have nothing left.

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."

Oh-oh, but we don't have nothing. We have a static.

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

So, we find out that the ultimate truth is also the basic truth, contains no time, no motion, no mass, no wavelength. And we find the ultimate solution contains no time, no mass, no wavelength. Very interesting, isn't it?

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.

Very, very fascinating. So we've come back to something which is not an imponderable. Does and can one of these statics exist? Yes. That, too, we can subject to proof. And we could subject it to proof immediately, instantly and easily. Nothing to it.

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

You just ask somebody who's not in too bad a condition to "be three feet back of your head." You can ask him to be anywhere, to appear anywhere in the universe, and he can. You ask him to manufacture space and energy, and he can.

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.

In other words, you can inspect, actually, whether or not this is taking place and you will find out that it is taking place. And you will find out that man is basically a static. So he doesn't move, he appears.

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, therefore, we have this thing called the static, we have this thing called the perfect duplicate, the as-isness, so therefore we have this thing called an ultimate truth and we have an ultimate solution.

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.

Now, I say in Scientology that we have wrapped it up. There are a great many strong points on the track where there's a lot of data hidden in chaoses and confusions and that sort of thing which we've bypassed, a lot of things which we haven't described adequately. For instance, I am not even satisfied at this moment completely with affinity and our description of affinity. But I can tell you this: that they are bypassed points.

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.

The other evening at two o'clock in the morning I suddenly found myself out at the edge of a cliff, looking at end-of-track. It is end-of-track. That's right – there was no more road. There isn't any more road out there, that's all, because we've come back to the static.

Okay.

And we find out what this static is, we can demonstrate its existence, we can demonstrate what it does, we can prove it and we can all agree upon that proof. And we can do wonderful and miraculous things with it.

The forty processes contained in the Auditor's Handbook can do those things, just like that.

Now, if you can do the first few of those processes well, certainly up to process 20, you will be doing very, very well. If you understand this whole subject, why, come down to Phoenix and I will give you a D. Scn. But if you could pass the CECS with great ease, without any further training, we would be very surprised people – very, very surprised people.

Okay.