This is the second lecture of the afternoon of December the 18th, and we are continuing here on this chart of havingness.

December the 18th, 1952, first afternoon lecture.

Now you may think that I’m making too much… too much action here – a little bit too much randomity for you by giving you this material. But I’m giving you, in this lecture, an option between one and two things. I could simply process some people here, and I intend to do so but uh… this afternoon, but I want to have in circulation and in your hands enough material so that you can actually do some extrapolation – that’s a wonderful word, EXTRAPOLATION – people look in vain in dictionaries for this word EXTRAPOLATION – uh… it isn’t INTERPOLATION because that’s „find the point in between…“ Someone… and so let’s go out further and discover it.

And this afternoon, I want to take up some of these processes and demonstrate them quite directly. I noticed that uh… your professional practice has been… or your application of this material has been materially assisted by TIME magazine. Uh… TIME magazine is run by a Catholic, I think he is, or something, and I think it’s on the… on the uh… the magazine is published, and… by licence of a papal bull. And uh… a fellow by the name of Luce runs this magazine; and I merely want this to be on a tape for the record for posterity. If this fellow ever turns up for processing he’s to be thrown in the clam. And put there very heavily and very strongly and left to go about his way.

Uh… mathematics could be called extrapolation. it… it’s what you figure from, into. That’s just what we’re doing in present time, you see – it’s approximation. We’re predicting the havingness change and estimating the rate of change of havingness when we’re estimating the future.

The last person that was thrown violently into the clam lost all of his wisdom and molars. That’s right, that’s what happened.

I want you to know about these thing’s because you can do some thinking on this basis and you will discover probably some very interesting material from this, because this is only a barely, slightly explored field. When we start to talk about time’s rate of change… time as a rate of change of havingness, or not-havingness…

Uh… the general state of affairs in the world and Scientology are much better than’ you would ordinarily suppose, because there’s only one thing that this world… one thing that this world uh… is proof against, and that is complete silence. And this world is not good at picking up anything – on the ether waves, or by rumor, and so when they start to yap-yap, do you know that a vicious and scurrilous attack is made upon any subject practically under the sun that you get the other 50% vector immediately at work? So where we have yap-yap of this character, no matter how cheap the publication, no matter how little read or respected, such as TIME magazine uh… even that, if you can get any magazine that is in disrepute to put you on the pan uh… you can of course uh… expect a great deal more interest growing out. And one of the things with which I’d been concerned… after a while I realized that I’d over-reached the news story level. I never released a news story on any of this – never. Now it has become what? Front page news. Why? Because it makes lame kids walk again, because it makes people who have been in continuous pain well again? No, no. Oh, no, no. No, this is Earth, 1952 AD. After the Death. It’s now on nineteen hundred and fifty-two years of negative time track. It says right there on its dates.

Now therefore, its first and immediate value to you in therapy shouldn’t be overlooked. This is possibly the first analysis ever made of psychosis that is really a good solid mechanical analysis. Why is a psychotic always in the past? Your neurotic is, at best, in the present. And your people who are sane are doing very well in the future. They’re thinking into the future, consistently and continually, and it could be said that a man is really as sane as he can think into the future.

That’d be wonderful, somebody blowing in here from someplace and examining some of these customs. No, you wouldn’t find it in there because it’d make somebody well or pick some girl with a postpartum psychosis up, or something like that. No, no, you wouldn’t find that.

Why is this? That says, „A man is as sane as he can predict and estimate the rate of change of havingness and not-havingness.“ Hmm. As long as a man can predict the rate of change of havingness and not havingness, he is quite sane. And when individuals are unable to predict the rate of change of havingness and not-havingness, they are unable to predict. And are not sane. When they’re unable to predict it, they’re just unable to predict it, then it makes out of them what? An effect.

But, if we can just beat up a few more marshals – and uh… if I can just scrape acquaintances with alleged millionaire oil promoters uh… who throw everything in bankruptcy left and right and so forth, well, we’ll get there, we’ll get there.

Now the rate of change of havingness and not havingness could be considered to be cause. Therefore, cause is motivated, then, in the future. Cause isn’t in the future, though, because this tells you that cause is flow and energy. Oh, nonsense! You can’t have time without, space, energy and objects. There isn’t any time without those items. And the most pertinent of those items are and the best estimation done on those items is rate of change of havingness of the… you… now you have this…

And uh… I want to call your attention to this… this datum – Book One, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, it’s human evaluation. It actually still stands as a unit and is the one text I’d done that covers human evaluation. Therefore, when you look across there, it tells you the kind of information something will pass on. And as we look across there we find out if they pass on this kind of information or that kind of information, these other manifestations straight on across the column will pursue. And if you have ever had any experience with this – as many of you have, I know – you have then seen it as… as a constant. That’s very very quiet.

Now let’s… let’s predict what’s going to happen tomorrow on the planet Xerxes. Can you… can you predict that? What’s going to happen tomorrow on the planet Xerxes? No, because you doesn’t have any havingness on Xerxes, that’s all. I mean, there isn’t any present time there, so how can you predict a rate of change there?

Now, all you need to do, if you ever turn up any place, in order to know the tone or know how to hit a society, if you want to hit a society hard, is just know what is being published in its public prints. It is NOT different – never kid yourself from this – it is NOT different from the tone level of the society. It IS the tone level of the society, because that’s very closely monitored. It is monitored by such things as advertisers, and such things as sales of copies, and if there was no pecuniary thought in it, if it were a government paper… a government should always put out several papers if a government goes into publication in any way, and they should be at various tone levels. And you’ll notice this is the case when your government takes over the newspapers of a country – they’ll put out the cheap one and the… the sensational one and they’ll put out the conservative one and so on; they’ll do all these things in contraposition to one another.

Rate of change – my God! How could you possibly predict a rate of change when you don’t even know what’s changing? So you couldn’t predict the future and as far as Xerxes is concerned, two conditions exist: You are not interested and it doesn’t immediately influence you; or, if interested, it again doesn’t influence you. So what?

You want to know the tone level, you pick up its papers. Because at the fine, far distance on this, it’ll all boil down, a newspaper has to have readers. Whether it’s paid for by advertisers or by a government, or by pennies or nickels or quarters or dollars across a newsstand, it survives only so long as it is read. Doesn’t matter whether it’s bought or not. And it is read as well as it matches the tone scale of a society. And you do not need to conduct any vast door-to-door survey here, there and everywhere on this subject – what is the tone level of the society to which I’m appealing – you don’t need to. Look at the newspaper. Look at the… what releases the daily bulletins.

Now it’s only when a person is interested in havingness of a present time that he can become non compos mentis with regard to that present time. A person must be interested in havingness to be insane. And by definition here in this universe, a person must be interested in havingness to be sane. You also must be interested in not-havingness to be sane. Hmm-hmm-hmm. Where are we going?

You go to Russia, you say, „Well, the Russian paper doesn’t represent the Russian people; it is not representative of what the Russian people are thinking.“ Oh, no. It is. It is. They haven’t even conducted a survey. They’re putting out four-five papers, and uh… one paper has to run to a thousand editions to get it all over Russia. Oh, no. The other papers only run to one edition, and uh… another one doesn’t even sell out half an edition I mean it’s almost this extreme. Now their readers keep pounding them around and the editor is as successful as he is read. And as a result, even in a police state…

Uh… now, an unknown datum doesn’t disturb you a bit. The planet Xerxes, his state of government or what is going to be printed in a… publication there uh… tomorrow by some loose-moraled fellow doesn’t even vaguely interest you. And yet it’s an unknown datum.

You… never get fooled on this. I mean, the United States Government has been blind on this subject. When I was in Intelligence, we… it was making a continual uh… mistake in trying to evaluate the Russian or German people, particularly the German people, by telling everyone they didn’t believe in their government, that they did not believe what was in those papers, and you’ll go there and there’ll be people in countries of that character who will tell you, „No we don’t believe these papers,“ and uh… they’re just trying to be polite. That’s all. A newspaper is as well read as it matches the tone scale of the society. Therefore you have someone in any kind of a culture of any character – that’s of ANY character, ANY culture – you have a method of finding out what their tone scale is in general, and by finding that out, what you can expect from that culture. It follows right through – SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL tone scale chart.

And you’ll find your psychotic has gone mad because of an unknown datum. He doesn’t know what’s going to happen in the future. That uncertainty concerning the rate of change of havingness and not-havingness. He’s become so unsettled and so upset about it, he can’t predict it, that he’s become psychotic about it. And as long as he is…

The only error you can make is stepping above or below or saying, „It must be something else.“ You see? I didn’t believe that chart myself when I first made it up. It was made up by, you might say, logic and uh… inductive reasoning. And uh… made it up on… on the pure theory of theta, MEST and ARC, that was all, and said, „It probably falls this way,“ and it added up very nicely and very smoothly – do a better job of it now with the other material which has accumulated, but uh… I don’t think any part of it would change. I’ve looked it over very recently and I was surprised. And I didn’t… didn’t do anything with this chart. It wasn’t out in print, wasn’t anything happening with this chart at all. It was just sitting there in my dining room, pegged down on a side table. And what do you know, one day I went over the chart and suddenly picked up a datum off this chart and applied it to the real universe.

You see where we’re going? Interest. Interest is the monitoring action. Where there is no interest, there isn’t any insanity. Of course, there’s also nothing.

And this datum was this: It said that a person would not communicate with me; under the most ordinary circumstances this person would not communicate with me. In the course of conversation, in the course of correspondence, in the course of this sort of thing I was running into a continuous communication block. It said right straight on across that chart, as you looked it up, a lot of other characteristics which weren’t nice. They were BAD characteristics. And I said, „Well, you know, this chart must be off then uh… must be off. Look… look at… over here. That person’s incapable of that.“ Do you know that within the next thirty days, that person was suddenly exposed into the light and my God! Every one of those additional items were true with magnitude. Hrhrhr! I hadn’t believed my chart and it caused considerable trouble – because I hadn’t believed that chart.

And so you get a… an interesting, but not monitoring or terribly sweeping, common denominator to past, present and future, and the state of mind with regard to them. And that… that is monitored by interest in it. „Do you care?“

Another one showed up and another one showed up and another one showed up, and each time I pulled this foolish, foolish thing. I would go ahead on what I amusingly called instinct or something of the sort and I’d say, „Well, that doesn’t apply on the chart, or this doesn’t apply on it or something!“ And I’d read across the line, it says, „Brutal treatment of children. Sex as punishment,“ uh… and so on, or anything across the chart level.

Uh… ah… the great Rabelais tells a fascinating story whereby two characters were in battle and everybody is sweating and streaming blood and… and uh… brawling, and… and these armies are crashed together and interlocked, and it’s toe to toe and slug, slug, slug. And… and… and these two characters, for some reason or other, to catch their breath, withdraw a short distance and uh… climb a little hill. And they look down in the valley and they see these little tiny figures down in the valley. And they’re just moving like little tiny dolls, and it becomes so unimportant to them that they begin to laugh. And they laugh very heartily about it and, of course, just stretch out in the sun and that’s the end of the battle as far as they’re concerned.

„Oh,“ I’d say, „that couldn’t be.“ One character particularly couldn’t be, and this fellow had been very good in Dianetics, been very good. He did have uh… three or four of those manifestations across there that indicated that if in the remaining columns, if he pursued those things out he would practically be an outright murderer as far as associating with him was concerned. And what do you know – he almost made the grade. Without being prompted even vaguely. It just worked out that way. He just put the right pieces in the right spot at the right instant to come very close to causing a sudden demise. You… it was so bare – uh… boned that it was… must have been on a conscious level. Fascinating!

You want to know why theta clearing can suddenly produce such a change of viewpoint in an individual, I’m afraid it’s contained in that data that I’ve just given you. Estimation of the rate of change of havingness is either interesting or very interesting or terribly interesting or, „Oh, my God! We’re lost unless…“ And that’s being… everything is serious and important.

So, we’ve got psychometry available for any society. Therefore it gives you psychometry for a city in which you would dwell, or the people. Gives you a good psychometry for them and uh… it’s… they listen to what they hear at their own band of the chart, homo sapiens does, and very seldom listens to any other band of the chart. He’ll listen to a slightly lower band and so forth.

Now what is… what does ‘serious’ and ‘important’ mean? ‘Serious’ and ‘important’ are words put down to „interest is intense because of penalty.“ And you could say „importance is an interest… an intense interest because of penalty, and it is as intense as the penalty is envisioned to be intense.“ That man who can not be made to feel any pain from hunger, rain, snow, ice or the other things they have in the post office department, he, you see, wouldn’t be able to feel any penalty – unless it were the penalty of being bored and that is a penalty itself.

But uh… you… you will find… you will find that your preclears will respond to the type of mock-up which you find in the daily newspapers. As the chronic level of mock-up. Fascinating. Now you want to know, you want to know what kind of a mock-up to use: look at that old SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL chart and look at your preclear and so on. You’ll find out that this is the mock-up he is dramatizing most, so it must be just above and below this band that you must hit in order to change his location on the chart. And it becomes an exceedingly uh… interesting little operation.

Boredom, however, is just not a state of inaction. It is a state of idle action, vacillating action, where penalties are yet in existence. And where they are great. But a state in which one has decided he can’t really do anything about them, it’s just a high-toned apathy. And it… it… there’s a certain insouciance that comes along with boredom; there’s a flippancy.

Here’s somebody… here’s somebody who has a BAD reputation. And uh… he’s got a very bad reputation one way or the other, and you say, „Oh, no. He’s a good boy at heart,“ or… or something of this sort. You just look around, and you spot him on your… your chart there. And uh… don’t continually dream optimistically about a preclear and… and… and so on.

Now what, then, is ‘sanity’? Well, let’s rate it there… It would be „unable to predict the rate of change of havingness and not-havingness with regard to one’s interest in those things which are changing, and with regard to the penalty which one believes may accrue from not being interested in those things. That’s a clumsy definition. It will come down in size and shape. But let’s look at it again: It… It’s… ‘sanity’, then, is monitored by what one can gain balanced by how much one can be punished because of have and have-not, and the unpredictableness of the changes which might take place in have or have not.

It says on SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, for instance, „Sex as punishment“ was a level of the chart. And that is a certain point of the chart. And that causes a lot of howling. Yeah. And the way you’d… the way you’d go on and correct this situation is a very simple thing. You would just uh… take your SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL chart, peg your preclear on it, and then go right straight across the chart, and hit above and below on each one of these subjects with mock-ups on various dynamics. It’s quite a therapy.

The goal of a static is to be a static. The goal of an ‘all motion’ is to go in all motion. And as we see the interplay of a static against all motion, we find out that we have a theoretical point of action halfway between these bands where the penalty could exist, but would not sweep away all, where havingness is not the most important thing.

You could put somebody on the E-Meter and you would find this very smooth. And by doing this, you won’t fall into the rut of simply putting yourself on the chart all the time and giving the preclear mock-ups which would benefit you or that you like. Because as you come up tone scale, you will find yourself going higher and higher up the level and your interest more and more something else. And one day you will be dishing out – to be very technical – mock-ups which uh… won’t fit the case – won’t fit the case at all.

Now havingness becomes more and more important to the psychotic until he will give away anything, or he will take and hold on to everything. And he thinks… objects and words and everything else. So his interest is terribly aberrated. And his belief in pain is terribly aberrated, and if you get somebody who is very psychotic, they’ve either abandoned the body to a point where anything could happen to it, or the tiniest little scratch is regarded by them as destruction beyond destruction beyond destruction.

And uh… you’ll, for instance, go along airily and then all of a sudden the preclear’s bogged down sort of and you don’t know quite why this is, and you’d say, „Oh, well, it’s probably something that we didn’t hit in the course.“ No, that’s not the case. It’s just the case that you have gone up tone scale to a point where you aren’t thinking obsessively about sex all the time, or you’re not thinking about various other types of sensation.

So, uh… theta clearing just side-steps the whole problem by deintensification of havingness; and by almost completely eradicating the penalty of not having, or the penalty of having. It is not a retirement from the lists; it is not an abandonment of anything. But it is an ability to come into the control and ownership of things, and therefore a person’s stability as a theta clear would depend upon, yet, their interest and evaluation as pertained to their body and – what Freud called the ‘alter-ego’ – all the other possessions of the body, like the family and uh… uh… the car and all that.

Here’s your preclear down there in the tar pit, practically fossilized, and uh… his state of case demands mock-ups above and below his level of the chart and at that level, predominantly, you see, at the level, but immediately above and immediately below. You don’t have one of these charts, do you, around, do you, John? Anybody got one of these charts right here? Well, here we go, here we are.

A little light begin to break through on this.

Now let me… let me show you something about this thing. Handling of truth. Let us take somebody 1.5. This chart is uh… sometimes uh… has little misspellings on it, I see it once in a while. I seldom… I never see this material before it goes into print. Uh… it says 1.5, „Blatant and destructive lying,“ under handling of truth. Courage level says, „Unreasonable bravery usually damaging to self.“ That’s what it says! „Assumes responsibility in order to destroy.“ Well, actually your 1.5 is a pull-in.

But the funny part of it is, we can’t subtract anything from this universe because of this doggoned rate of change of havingness. This universe will either blow up or solidify one way or the other, if one were to subtract from it, out of any one of its equations, let’s say this: One, two, three, four, six, seven and eight – and leave five. He wouldn’t go, would he?

I’m going to give you another column for this is why I’m talking about it. I started out talking about TIME magazine, got back into my subject. TIME magazine will be a forgotten thing possibly… possibly someday… someday its total claim to fame. Amusing. If one lets himself think in those terms then it becomes very amusing. By the way, you can’t let yourself think in those terms though. Go very long, you just completely separate from reality. And reality’s hard enough to keep in contact with.

Or, the universe, if he did make it, would blow up, on what subject? The fifth dynamic. You’ll find, then, that inequalities of interest and an unbalanced state of interest on the part of the preclear – that is why we’re interested in „can’ts“ – resolve down to an inability to draw out in a balanced state. He’s got to take all eight dynamics out of the equation if he’s going to leave this universe – all eight – simultaneously. The universe’ll never miss him.

I’m every once in a while fishing around with my big toe to discover a point in this universe. And I look around and look around and then I’ll sit down – I have done this – and I’ll sit down and think, „Now let me see, oh, wait a minute now, aaaaah yes. Ah, come on, you know of something interesting someplace. And there… there… it… it’s true, uh… there is… there are several interesting things in this universe. You hit this universe any place you see and you can come on in the rest of the way.“

But if he tries to take all eight except two out – nnohhh! It’s not just going to miss him, I… it’s not going to let him go because, you see, the universe seems to represent a havingness and have-not-ness. It… it… it, to some degree, owns your preclear. Every time he has a line to it, it has a line to him. So any time he says, „Well, I’m just fine except for the second dynamic. I still seem to want this sensation from these bodies, and so forth. They’re a disgusting thing, these bodies, but second dynamic – hummm!“

And there’s a statue – a white, white marble statue – in a fountain which doesn’t run; it’s the statue just sitting there in front of uh… the Naval Park. Uh… right down on the waterfront at Havana. You know that statue? Sits there. It’s beautiful, it’s just beautiful. It’s… it’s…shape… is just… just a flow of grace. How anybody can make that out of marble, I don’t know. Maybe it isn’t out of marble; it looks more like alabaster. And that is a wonderful touch point. And uh… you get to thinking of something like that, not the Taj Mahal particularly, uh… you get to ‘thinking of anything like that, and you can make your contact back. Why? Because interest follows through with effort. Interest goes into effort.

It… it… it doesn’t just mean that your preclear is holding on, because it means that there’s a great big cable around his neck and it’s got him nailed down to a stake. And as long as he thinks he has to be in this universe in order to indulge that sensation, as long as he has to have something else to undo it besides himself, oh boy!

Now we remember that as you saw your charts drawn, here you with – 40.0 to 0.0 as a line lying on its side – we had a stand up of wave lengths that demonstrated that the theta band, the perception band, that is, is way up. That’s the aesthetic band, not the theta band – there is no theta band. Adjacent to theta, aesthetic. On down through the various perception bands – wave lengths, you know? Any one of those wave lengths was present. In other words the 1.5 is capable of an aesthetic of sorts. He can actually contact a wave length, or not contact it. Of course he doesn’t contact it anywhere near as much as somebody higher on the chart does. But he is capable of a wave contact on aesthetics. You get… you get the… for instance, the uh… the aesthetic of the Nazi’s Storm Troopers. They had an aesthetic. A very interesting aesthetic. Uh… they uh… were in a… various categories of uh… uniform, their uniformity, uh… the very extravagant ritual which they established, all of which was below and behind the scene. They were all out on the subject, in other words they were big volume 1.5, and that bigness of volume managed to embrace the aesthetic band for them.

Now, you see, he is four parts, as e homo sapiens. And so when it comes to subtracting the thetan from the body, he has to have a body with which to enjoy other bodies, he thinks, at the state he’s in. Now let’s draw it up a little further and demonstrate to him that he doesn’t have to have other bodies; he doesn’t have to have a body of his own in order to procure this sensation from other bodies; it isn’t necessary for him to have a body of his own. He can just take it off of any body any place. „Well,“ that fellow says, uh… „that’s great!“ Your preclear is still nailed down in this universe, because every one of those bodies will put a line on him for every line he puts on them.

You… you’d make a mistake if you said somebody was short on aesthetics because he was at some position on the tone scale. Every position on the tone scale contacts that wave length one way or the other. And yet these fellows, these fellows had a… a fabulously horrible function and uh… so on. You wouldn’t think for a moment that such people would have such a thing. I’ve just chosen them as the horrible example. Even they.

And uh… that’s how he came down tone scale in the first place.

Now uh… you’ll say a 1.1, uh… this girl… this girl couldn’t possibly be destructive in any way to anybody because, the truth be told, she loved him because he was an artist. Oh, that’s true. And she was 1.1 and she just loved him to his death. And if he was there very long, why, hmm – he wasn’t an artist anymore. You can just bet your bottom dollar. That’s your 1.1. That – and yet… yet you hear this person chatter. Now have you ever seen somebody chattering about the arts that just sort of made them obscene? You just look at this person’s, quote, ‘appreciation of music’, and you just say, „Brrrrr!“ Uh… they seemed – anything they touch in the line of the arts. And yet they seem to be quite appreciative of it. Well, that’s that fact, that at any band on this chart, you get any wave length. Well, a wave length is a perception. A perception of one kind or another, a characteristic perception. Eyes for instance will gravitate to a certain perception. And what we’re getting here is the various harmonics of affinity that we’re looking at and we can get each one modifying the wave length of the aesthetic band. And as a net result you will find an aesthetic, you will find an effort and you will find a regard for anything else, for perception or anything else – any one of these perceptions, you might say – at EACH one of these levels on the tone scale. And that means that telepathy can exist at any level of the tone scale.

So, we have to then shift it over to ‘own universe’, and he has to be able to mock up a havingness or not-havingness on any one of the dynamics, and particularly where interest is involved. He has to be able to create anything he is interested in and continue an interest in it in order to get rid of MEST universe havingness and not-havingness. And nobody’s recommending to you, really, that you get rid of this havingness and not-havingness in the MEST universe.

It is a tune-in, rather than going up scale or down scale to. I want to make that quite clear to you. Don’t evaluate on the quality. Just realize that we have these things there, that’s all. And the there-ness of these items and articles is uh… all you’re interested in.

But I’m just telling you that the interest monitors it, and that is monitored by one’s belief that it only exists – the other thing, scarcity, in this universe – that there’s a penalty in leaving the universe, and the penalty of leaving would be the penalty of not any more having something, ugh… You see?

So, we’re running mock-ups. I could have called this talk „How to run mock-ups according to charts, attitudes.“

All right, this universe is rigged this way: Every time you want something in this universe, you can’t have it. If you really want something, long enough and often enough on an outflow for it, it, of course, if you do get it, it’ll disagree with you. And so it’s a dwindling spiral operation, and by electronics this goes down… As we were talking about very interestingly the other day, this DC flow problem. There could be no DC flow; if you changed viewpoint as fast as you changed polarity, you would think you saw a DC flow. Now, that’s very good – that’s very good. A fellow in class mentioned this – very interesting. But if you insisted there was such a thing as a DC flow and never changed your viewpoint, you would have to have lower and lower and lower and lower potentials. And the… the lower the potential, why, you get another flow, and then you get a lower potential and you get another flow to it, and then you get a lower potential and you get another flow to it. And there’s, of course, no place to go but bottom, and it’s mud from there on down.

We have then, ‘complete cowardice’ here it says at 0.5, ‘complete cowardice’ is his courage level. All right, let’s just look at this, let’s run it by the chart so we don’t get too far off the groove, want to give him mock-ups around on this and that.

Now if you got a… a viewpoint which decided that your potential was going to go up all the way, it would have to be a negative gain, and you would have to continue the negative gain. As long as you continued this, you’d go on up tone scale and out the top. But you would have to do it on all eight dynamics. This is not very… not very difficult. This is… this works out automatically. This is inherent in the techniques which have been proposed – inherent.

And we’ve got a person in grief. I know many people in grief, by the way, who… who think they are probably 1.5’s. They’re not. Because they’re holding on so hard; they’ve collected so much. And there are people actually in apathy who are still holding on to all kinds of MEST – ruining it. Just wrecking it completely but holding on to it. And at grief… you would be surprised what a person will hold on to in grief. And they hold on again at 1.5, and they hold on again at 3.0. Now grief by the way is… is .75, not .5. There’s been a correction on this chart. It’s a harmonic you see, of 1.5. And apathy is .375 – relatively unimportant except just to understand that.

Now let’s look over here at this chart again, and we find the rate of change of havingness – and of course, and uh… we’ll put this plus and minus – meaning havingness and not-havingness – the rate of change of this determines… determines randomity; and that’s what randomity is. You’ve been asking for a lot of definitions for randomity: Randomity would best be described as the rate of change of havingness and not havingness. This is randomity.

Now, we’re running mock-ups. We run up mock-ups that demonstrate being aesthetically cowardly. How would you… how would you run a mock-up on somebody who’s being aesthetically cowardly? Utter cowardice, very aesthetic.

And if you want lots of rate of change, you want lots of randomity. If you want lots of randomity, you get lots of rate of change of havingness and not-havingness. You decide, „Well, now let’s see. We’re going in… going into a lot of action. We’re going to choose out these teams to fight, and that means…“ And what are you going to get? Oh, boy! You’re going to get loss and gain on an unpredicted level – every time. Of course, you get mired down in a universe which is operating, or an area that is operating all but automatically. No-ho. Any… almost anything you do in it sets up these automatic reactions. Automaticity is really there. Automaticity is there to such a degree that you cannot regulate the interdependencies of the eight dynamics and as a result the eight dynamics and all eight dynamics are to be found in any particle of this universe, no matter what form the thing takes, you’ll find all eight. It isn’t just that you find all eight in a man.

Voice: A beautiful thing to run away from.

And that ‘all eight’ is your octahedron of filling space – just as an aside comment. Putting it into space, characteristics as well as particle characteristics, because, you see, your octahedron is not a particle characteristic at all. It’s what you would, quote, ‘fill space with’, it would be the forms which fill space.

LRH: Mm-hmm – sure – or put them in a church. Beautiful church, with haloed windows, and get them praying devoutly. You know that that really… it comes under the… has an emotion that goes with it. It’s beautiful sadness. And that’s right. You’d mock up all these various things – anything – things happening to beautiful things, afraid things would happen to beautiful things, and so on. How do… how do you fit an emotion into these things?

So you’re not going to do any grand job of pulling your preclear out if he still has, and you do not know about, something that nails him down good and hard on this tone scale. What is that tone scale? As that tone scale descends it is ARC, it’s a lot of other things. Something else more important to you – it’s time. It’s one’s belief in his ability to predict the rate of change of havingness and not-havingness. And at 1.5 one has lost his ability to not-have. See, it’s an ability. He’s lost his ability to not-have, so he has to have everything, and that gives you a terrific hold, and that gives him this enormously strange attitude toward all these various things.

Well, there’s two ways: One, you simply put the emotion into it and feel it back, that’s one method. That’s… that’s one way you go about it. Another one, you put the mock-up text one way or the other. You just ask somebody to mock up a figure and then you can put various emotions in the figure and move the figure around with various emotions on it, till he gets these emotions clearly.

Now, what happens at 1.1? This person has lost his ability to have and he’s doing a terrific dispersal… pardon me, at 1.0 fear, uh… he’s doing this terrific dispersal and it’s all ‘not-have, not-have, not-have, not-have, not-have’ – see? He’s lost his ability to have.

Had somebody last night who had a… a terrible dwarf that had no neck. He kept mocking this thing up. And I was making him get the dwarf feeling… feeling the beauty of life, and so on. At first he said, „NO! You couldn’t possibly do that with this dwarf. It’s a strange kind of thing,“ and… and so forth, and I couldn’t persuade him to change his mock-up. He was stuck with it… it was his mock-up.

Now let’s go down tone scale, and we’ll find somebody in grief, and we find they’ve again recovered a little ability to have and not-have, and . then they went into grief on it, and we find somebody who has lost their ability again to not-have. Now what… in mock-ups. Well, how do you find this person? This person will be in the strange and wonderful manifestation of just… just not-having. This person can’t stand a ‘not-having’ and now can’t stand it because his interest is so intense in having, and the values he assigns and the penalties which could accrue to him as a result of not-having are so exaggerated that, of course, he can let go of nothing.

Well, he had to do something with his mock-up, so uh… the next thing you know, why, we had… we had this dwarf in a state of uh… enthusiasm. And uh… we had this dwarf in a state of all sorts of things. And finally we got it loosened up and running around and he could change the mock-up easily. It should interest you that the mock-up was persistent because he couldn’t alter its motion.

So what happens when you get somebody who is in grief on the tone scale? Why, it’s very interesting to find that all you have to do is run Step Four and there you are, he’s… he’s… you’ll cure him of it – Step Four. And that is Flow Balancing. It cures his ability to not have.

So how many kinds of mock-ups are there? That you could run on homo sapiens? Well, a long time ago I did a map. It’s a good one… serve you very, very well. You think there’s a lot of mock-ups on this map? Look at it. Yards! So we go back into it again, and I would recommend to you – uh… we’re trying to publish uh… again Book One of SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL under a title called ‘Human Evaluation’. Derek Ridgeway of London is trying to get this out. It takes them a long time, but they eventually get there. And it becomes a pretty good little handbook for mock-ups.

So all the way up the tone scale you’re just curing people of their abilities to have, alternately, and not have with mock-ups. You… you can’t upset the rate of change of this universe, but you’re not actually working with energy. Your preclear isn’t energy. He’s a capability of producing energy – a space to put it in. So as long as you work with this material on the mock-up side, he goes right on up tone scale.

You can go through this thing, and you can look these things over and it says, „He’ll do WHAT?“ And „He’ll do so-and-so,“ and so on. Well, that means such-and-so will be done to him, because he invites those things being done to him, and so on.

Why? You’re changing his ideas. Thinking, then, actually develops to itself – I told you a little earlier, what one devotes energy to, one has. Or what one devotes energy to, one not has. You devote energy to getting rid of something and that means you’ll have it, or devote energy to having it and that means you… it’ll… you’ll lose it.

Well, if you just keep tearing up and down this chart here, it’ll suggest an awful lot of mock-ups to you. Oh, a terrific number. Just loosen him up, practice, and so on, and breaking him out of the rut he’s in. That’s your main difficulty.

Uh… you get an object in other words, which is the reverse vector of what it’s supposed to be, and what do you get here? You get a person’s future track getting solid. That sounds funny to you, but you see, in view of the fact there is no future, he’s changed his rate of change of havingness and he looks at the future and the future itself has taken on a solidity.

This man has a chronic position on the chart. Well, locate it. Maybe this chronic position on the chart uh… is somewhere here in the vicinity of… of 2.0. This guy is obviously in… in antagonism. There’s an aesthetic for antagonism. There’s sight for antagonism. There is uh… sound for antagonism. He will do certain things with all of these things, but we’re not worried about what necessarily he’ll do with them; we’ll just look across this chart here and we see, „capable of destructive and minor constructive action.“

Now this person can’t change his postulates. Why can’t he change his postulates? They’re bogged into energy. He’s making them inside of created energy and he has… he’s actually operating in a more or less solid area when he’s thinking. He’s pushing particles around, so he can’t change his postulates, of course. And any preclear that you get ahold of is going to be unable to some degree to shift his postulates readily. And as a net result, as long as he can’t shift his postulates, he can’t, of course, change his attitude toward anything. And as long as his mind is banked in on the idea that ‘this future is solid’ over here in area ‘Z’, as long as that thing is solid, he’s tried continually to inhibit or advance the rate of change, and it didn’t shift on him. So he… he gets something solid that doesn’t change and this is a mock-up – a symbol for the future. This piece of energy, solid. It’s almost like matter after a while, and you… you’ll find this manifestation very solidly.

All right. Now let’s mock up a big car. Now let’s take a sledgehammer and now let’s smash it. Now let’s fix its rear light. Do that a few times, a fellow’ll say, „You know, that’s kind of like me.“ He’ll look puzzled. Why… why, this would come close to home.

What do you do, then, with the future? If you can find the f… By the way, look around yourself and… and say, „When I predict something or try to predict something, which way do I look?“ All right, now let’s ‘see’ your future in that direction. Take a look and see if you see your future in that direction, or see what you’ve tried to see in the past, or what you normally run into when you try to see your future. And now turn it red, then turn it blue. Then turn it green. Then turn it white. And then make it get bigger. Then make it get smaller.

We… we’re taking that in the most literal possible sense: it’s destructive, but capable of some minor constructive action, see? And there we go into this, we have… you say, „All right. Now let’s repair a light switch. Now let’s mock up a light switch so that you can repair it. And now let’s just tear the room to pieces around it, and let’s tear the roof off, and let’s tear the basement out from underneath the house. And let’s throw all these things out in the street. Now put all that debris behind you. Now let’s take a screwdriver and take one screw out of the light switch and let’s finally get the light switch repaired,“ and we can make sure that that’s just… just the light switch sitting there repaired.

I’m just giving you the exercise.

You’d be surprised at what happens when you start hitting the guy in his own tone level. It becomes fascinating to him, and he’ll break out of the rut. Because what you’re dealing with actually is not a mechanical flowing gimmygahoojit called an electronic computer. GE’s got one; I’ve been interested in examining it lately. Fascinating gimmick. I never had… never had done any what the GE would call ‘thinking’, and uh… by throwing in some attention units into the area, we… I started some thinking processes going on. Oh, no! „Now I will think!“ So away he runs – fabulous. „Now I will think.“ Nothing happens of course!

Now put it behind you. Now put it into shape of a corkscrew – and that’s G-torsional future havingness now. And turn that purple, and then turn it black. And now put it down here at the corner of the lecture platform. Now tie it up into a bow and put it in a box with a lavender ribbon. Because that’s not your future. That’s a bunch of energy that you’ve gradually built up in an effort to predict the rate of change of havingness. You keep throwing toward rates of change of havingness a certain amount of energy and every single bit of this energy has the artificial and abstract mark on it: ‘future’. And it’s not future energy; it’s present time energy.

And by the way, pertinent to that, just give you a little note here on that. Uh… the future is a ‘will have’. What is called future, by which you would mean future time, also could be called ‘will have’. It’s a ‘will have’. Now, when you get all people in agreement, and tick-ticking off, everybody in agreement with everybody else, the ‘will have’ component alters, and becomes uh… very standardized, so that a person can’t very well control his ‘will haves’. So he has to think about having all the time. He thinks about having in the future and his thought is mainly concerned with thinking about having in the future.

And as we look down this track here we find out that finally the area of ‘Z’ gets solid and is very easily mistaken for the area of ‘Y’, and then that gets very easily mistaken for – because you see these are all solid objects – the area of ‘X’. You see that?

Of course, he… he will think when he gets very sad and upset and quite neurotic about… think about what he has had in the past. Some people will just stick on the track, you see. And do you know why they do that? Because they can’t think a ‘will have’ on the future. And that’s why a psychotic evidently goes back down track. And a very important datum! Why does a psychotic go back in time? Well, he has to go back to a ‘had’ because there is no ‘will have’.

So a psychotic, of course, becomes unable to differentiate on the rate of change of havingness because the future is solid; therefore the future is the present; and of course, the only real solidity there is is the past, so naturally it follows he must be in the past. And he is in the gradient scale of these particles which you – many of you… How many of you observed those particles, by the way? Quite a few of you, in other words. There… there is some direction there. Uh… there… there is a mass there somewhere. You just work it, just like you work any other item that you have around.

And a person’s activity on the tone scale – this very tone scale here – could be said to be: „How much ‘will have’ is he capable of imagining?“ That’s all, and as less and less ‘will have’ is capable… is there, less and less ‘will have’, he gets more and more reassurance for himself or ‘I have’. There’s where you get ownership very heavily, you see. He’s come down to a level of ownership. And then he says, „Well, I don’t have now, or if I do have now I couldn’t possibly have done it, so the past is the only place I knew I had.“ And in trying to contact something in the past that is good, he contacts something that is very, very bad. And if he’s in terrible condition about all this, it takes these other conditions before he really starts getting ridges caving in on him. Of course, what he had, his ‘hads’ in the past, cave in on him with a crush. and that cave-in follows through – dramatizing, computing psychotic – his ‘will haves’.

Uh… you… you have this… this? A lot of your preclears have this. Well, you… you’ve got this, then, a deposit. Now remember that that could be a ‘not have’ deposit. „In the future I won’t have. In the future I won’t have. In the future I won’t have. In the future I won’t have. In the f…“ and all of a sudden, why you haven’t got it. You haven’t got those particles. They’re right there but you haven’t got them. They all got a ‘future’ tag on them, and this says „This is the future and you are about to be butchered by this“ and you know you are perfectly in control of that mass of energy? That’s yours. And by deducting that mass of energy you’re doing the same thing as a mock-up, because you added that to this universe. Therefore, you’re quite at liberty to subtract it.

Now you just get a preclear to examine his ‘will have’, and I’ll be a son-of-a-gun if you won’t find it to be a deposit of energy! Why? Because so much thought has been devoted to it, and there’s this little law connected with all this, very good little law: What one devotes energy to, he will have. That to which one devotes energy, he will have. And then because it’s a dichotomy, that to which one devotes energy, he won’t have! Particularly if he agrees with what he finally obtains. Then of course he won’t have it, so that’s a secondary consideration that sets in.

Now there is where, evidently, your individual goes down tone scale and those levels on the tone scale could be mathematically adjudicated to be on the… units of energy which had become a solid deposit, with the label ‘future’ on them.

That to which one devotes energy he will have. Why? Well, let’s look at this in its most mechanical form. Energy packed into space becomes an object. And so energy packed into a space becomes an object; factually, that is the way you make an object.

How many units of energy have a solid uh… that are in this solid deposit have the label of ‘future’ on them? And you get, then finally, how many… how many uh… units… how much mass is there there. You’re down to 1.5. Boy, that 1.5, „Huh’ The future’s solid.“ He can’t afford to not have in the future so all of his thinking is being devoted not to constructive action as it goes forward, but very destructive action. And he is thinking all the time „Let’s see, I’m holding on to the present here. I’m holding on to the present. Well, I can hold on to the present“ – he’s demonstrated that to himself – therefore, all these not-haves, not-haves, not-haves, not-haves, – and anybody walks in ‘not-have’ – anybody walks up to him, he doesn’t want them. Anything else walks up to him he doesn’t want them. If he decides this, you see, he immediately takes hold of them. Reverse vectors – because he’s a great… he’s a victim of flows, so he winds up by having everything bad and everything good, and he says this is all future. And it’s solid mass.

So when you think in just terms of „will have, will have, will have, will have,“ one is devoting time to ‘will haves’ – devoting time to future. We find out that the saner the person is, the more capable he is of sighting forward into the future. And actually a very sane person is living waaaaaaay up in the future. He’s very happy about the whole thing, quite excited, enthused and so on. Way up. And as the world caves in on him and takes away more and more and more, he starts thinking more and more and more into the present, and finally he’s thinking for the present. And he… you can’t think for the present by the way, you have to think for just a split se… second ahead because of the activity of the mind. You… you got to think of the next minute at least, in order to be there. But the second you slide away from thinking about the present, you think about the past, and when you start thinking about the past, God help us all.

So the future is solid. In Pogo, it says, „Which way is Tuesday?“ and he’s been told very, very emphatically, „Right in front of your face!“ Now that’s… that’s uh… quite pertinent.

Because when you think… can only think about ‘hads’, what have you done? Let me draw you a picture of that. Here’s uh… the past, and here’s the present, and here is the future. This is the Chart of Have. Chart of Havingness. We’ll dignify it with a title, even though there isn’t very much here. And here we have, coming across here, a time track. The preclear can be located at any moment here, at position PT. And position PT is regulated by an agreement of co-havingness. He got it by something else, got it by the other person – everything is sound, he has the sound – co-havingness goes on all the time in behavior.

Here we have, then, the ‘X, Y, Z’ where ‘Y’ would be your present time. And that’s why people begin to believe in linear time, and why their facsimiles begin to haul up and park in quote ‘present time’ because obviously the future is solid, so when you start to address the future, you’re addressing a solid object, obviously. And when you’re addressing this solid object called ‘the future’… You see, he devoted all this energy to thinking about the future, and all that energy is still there in the deposit. And the solider that gets the more it gets like present time. And you’ll get these people saying, as they st… just start down the tone scale „Well, things’ll be pretty much the same in the future as they are now.“ Conservatism. „Everything’s going to be the same as it is now. Nothing’s going to change.“

Then there’s another spook thing. You know I told you that every… every once in a while in these lectures, in going so fast, I… I sort of work like putting it all on a tape recorder and then reeling it off. Not that tape recorder. And once in a while I get enthusiastic about something or something and the thing will skip a couple of turns on the reel. That actually is what happens. Uh… just too much data and one becomes quite impatient about jamming that much data into MEST time and it just gets… so we get slices and so on, and once in a while you… you just miss it completely.

What you’re… you’re going to have a rough time with these people unless you know what I’m telling you now. You’re going to have a rough time getting somebody to change a little bit. You’ll be puzzled as to why this preclear won’t change. Well, this preclear won’t change because this preclear can’t change because he knows he’s sitting right there looking at the future. If you were to put a meter on it you would find out that this future was uh… so many ergs of energy, and it was a deposit, and therefore it was a piece of matter. And when he becomes quite psychotic, that piece of ‘future’ has be… he becomes neurotic, the piece of future is the present, because the present is solid. And he… he has to think somewhere in that… that band there. He starts thinking with facsimiles, as I showed you on that graph, that wheel. He thinks with facsimiles; he doesn’t think with postulates.

I told you once in these lectures that there was a cute theory, oh, awfully cute theory that somebody was going to think up – ooh, sweet, very sweet theory. And it’s going to have to do with the fact that – well uh… let’s see, „Those people back in 1952 were wrong.“ Uh… they all start out this way, particularly anyone to whom they owe their all. Anything they know they always have to qualify the statement. Do you want to know what a man’s source is, or what a man’s fair opponent is or who is holding down his MEST that he ought to have, why he’s qualifying statements and tearing them to pieces with these people’s names.

He doesn’t think „Let’s see“; he doesn’t uh… he doesn’t even say this to himself: „Let’s see, how do I want things?“ No-no. That’s way up. He says, „There will be light. Umm, that’s nice: light. Umm-hmm, enjoy this motion for a while. Well, we can enjoy this. Let’s put some darkness in there,“ and there we go.

All right. When we have this condition… Let’s… let’s… let’s look at another condition. We got a whole big universe here. And somebody’s gonna say, „Now look, these thetans…“ They… they could start a cult on this, so I’m gonna spike this cult right now. If you guys remember it, it’s spiked. But uh… they say they have these thetans and they wandered into this universe and so on and that was the theory there used to be. Actually… actually what it was is: „You were once an atom and you’re graduating up the tone scale. You are graduating up scale and uh… you are actually developing and you’re getting bigger and bigger and the fact that the presence of the ridges demonstrate adequately that uh… uh… one is really just a large atom with electronic rings. This… this is backed up by Lucretius, and also uh… Pope Pius or somebody, and with a papal bull, which of course is different than philosophy because a papal bull’s true.“ Uh… the uh… MEST universe definition of truth. It’s true.

Now when he gets quite neurotic, the present time, the ti… the energy he’s devoted to present time and trying to keep everything stable in present time, he knows he can’t predict anything out here about the future because he’s got the future right here. And the more he changes these things which are right in front of his face, the more horrible things happen to him as he goes forward into – what future has he substituted for the future? He’s made a time deposit that is a havingness, right there in front of him, and then he tries to change that instead of changing his conditions. Because the conditions which he tries to predict along all eight dynamics demonstrate to him to convince him that they are unchangeable and that they’re inevitable and that the gods do it and he doesn’t do it and nobody does it, that the rate of change, the interrelationship is, of the eight dynamics, unchangeable – by him, but is inevitable and just continues anyway.

So we have to go back here and look over the track in the past and trace forward how Man is getting „bigger and bigger and more and more developed, and you are developing up toward galaxy size. But at the moment that is a natural thing, that’s what you’ll eventually do, come up toward the size of a galaxy and the thing for you to do – and they were very wrong back there in 1952 – is to collect a lot of MEST and a lot of ridges because that’s what moves you up in size and at length gives you greatness.

And that is a lot of balderdash, because a fellow can go out and change his future all over the place. It just depends on how much he wants to stay in contact with the existing eight dynamics of the MEST universe, that he will monitor and reduce his ability to change the future, or how much credence he wishes to give to other individuals that he refrains from changing future. And that’s all there is to that. The future becomes a deposit and then that deposit becomes kind of solid, and it is, of course, in present time because it is a state that’s solid and unchanging – it’s a state of unchanging havingness.

And it happens that the galaxy is a sort of a parent, and a galaxy is a parent, and out of this galaxy is born small galaxies. And these little galaxies are born with more or less the same sentience that they get from the larger galaxy. And then the small galaxy develop, and of course the smallest’ of galaxies is an atom. And some of the atoms succeed, and they develop… and they develop on and at length become animals. And then the animals at length become thetans powerful enough to be men. And then these develop further and then there are thetans that are sort of solar systems. They get that big, you see. And then there are thetans which are as big as an entire galaxy and that can have little galaxies and we can start the cycle over again and that’s really the way it was. And that’s how they’re wrong back there in 1952 and that’s why you should collect a lot of MEST and be shot with electronics and a lot of other things, you see.“

And that goes into the past and the person has got facsimiles in restim and there he sits. And of course, he’s got a piece of energy which he… he’s got it all mixed up with energy that he says is future energy and this is past energy and it’s already happened. That’s agreement with the MEST universe.

You know that somebody could sell that?! Tremendously salable commodity. Mmmm! Why, it matches up with a 180 degree vector of this universe. Obviously he can’t have all this stuff so that’s the best reason he must have it. Uh… he’s got all this demonstration of havingness – it’s time. So there you go.

Well, there’s your… there is your dissertation on the tone scale. You can count, then, as a person goes down tone scale, that the future looks more and more unchangeable or solid to him, or inevitable, and that he can be defeated more and more and pain and penalty is more and more there, and desirability is less and less there.

Somebody else’ll come along and try to explain that the reason our time runs concurrently is our havingness of electrons, which themselves are all – monitored by the larger body or the larger beingness or brain of the galaxy.

So up tone scale the future looks desirable because he thinks he can change the rate of havingness. And the present becomes undesirable, gradually, as he finds he isn’t doing it, and the past, then, takes on and absorbs his interest. And as he goes down tone scale you could say that the upper part of the tone scale is the next thousand years for man. The upper part of the tone scale would be the next thousand years and that would be merely the rate of change of havingness and not-havingness in the next thousand years of havingness.

In short, brethren and sistern, we’re going to run into a lot of squirrels before we’re through.

And uh… there the band immediately below that would be the next dozen years. And the band below that would be this coming month. And then there’d be tomorrow. And then there’d be today. And all that’s uncertainty. What’s an uncertainty? An uncertainty is a ‘maybe’ and that’s an indecision and that’s a double flow. And what is a solid piece of matter? A matter is a solid piece of confusion and chaos, and this is double-vectored and, of course, matter itself is the biggest ‘maybe’ there is. Indecision. There is nothing travelling in one direction and there is nothing in alignment, that is chaos. An indecision is… is ‘yes’ going thataway, and ‘no’ going thataway, cancelling each other out and you don’t get any action.

Now that… that’s… that’s theory. Uh… you… you’ll find somebody buying that little galaxy theory one of these days. They’ll probably go down to Fairhope or Wichita or someplace and… I betcha what (bet you what)! I betcha they get a five-page write-up in TIME magazine!

If you want to see your preclear in a big ‘maybe’, get him something in which he’s very interested, first and foremost thing, and he’s convinced concerning his… his liability for punishment, and uh… you’ve got yourself a mighty confused fellow.

Okay. We got a present time here, and present time is established by co-havingness – not by cohabitation, as the Freudians believe. And this co-havingness here is just an agreement that at this time, at this instant, this much IS! That’s… that… that’s what you’re agreeing to. You say, „Now look, right now that’s in that state of repair, and that’s in that s… position and state of repair,“ and so forth. No, not present time then, because present time – oh hey, this whole thing goes out of gear, doesn’t it? Isn’t that terrible. Let’s see what else is changing. Oh, thank God. We have… we have a change going on over here on the tape recorders. There’s less tape on one and on the other and what do you know, we use that in this room to tell how long the lecture is.

Well as you go down tone scale, he begins to believe that pain-pain- pain-pain-pain, pain consists of force, and the heavier bands predominate on the lower part of the tone scale. Although all bands are there, all the pain is dominant.

Of all the havingnesses in, this room which are used for time, none of them is reliable except that tape, because it spins and gets less and less on one reel and more and more on the other reel. See?

Now this, then, uh… and up above that… you have to be up above a certain level, then, in order to obtain pleasure, or you have to obtain pleasure of the type that is on the band and the experience of being in the band itself or the operating of the band for its own sake, and using force in it, is, of course, pleasure too. Very odd kind of pleasure.

That’s uh… fascinating. All right. There’s present time. If I want to know what present time, is, I have to look over at the tape recorder. Usually I turn on my own time mechanism. My own time mechanism doesn’t work too well.

In other words, there’s a lot of pleasure in… in strangling somebody – 1.5 feels. 1.1 would take enormous joy out of the idea of… of uh… he might get an enormous amount of pleasure – he’d have to be interested first and have a conviction that he could do it in order to carry forward this action – in poisoning somebody very adroitly. And if they’re… this person is high on aesthetic – a 1.1 and high on aesthetic… there could be a 1.1 low on aesthetic and a 1.1 high on aesthetic and so forth, and a 1.1 kind of null and neuter. There’s where you get your randomity in personality. It’s just which bands of perception and action will they use. Why, this 1.1 would put the poison in a rose and dip the rose into a wine glass as a touching little gesture so the lover could drink it all down. 1.1 could then say „Oh, dear! What has happened to you? Does your stomach hurt?“ Typical.

Hey, you know, here’s a wonderful gimmick! Do you know that you could probably convince everybody that 24 hours had gone by and they didn’t know it? You know, there… there’s a wonderful way of doing this. Everybody thinks that, well, they would wake up with another date, but date’s got nothing do with it.

All right, then maybe you understand, then, that the past is solid and the present somewhat nebulously solid, and the future doesn’t exist for the psychotic. ‘Cause for the psychotic the past is solid, and that’s the only solidity he’s got. Why, he can’t pervade any further than his immediate self environment, and that is solid energy. He has no pervasion any further than his own energy. He can’t pervade out into any greater space than that, so he’s dragged down in space, he’s very, very centralized in himself, and there he goes. There you have it.

You just say, „Do you realize… did you have a moment yesterday, an instant yesterday when you felt sort of suspended or just an Instant when something went like that? Did you feel that? Ohhh, you did. Just for a moment there – if you think it over you can probably pick up such a moment… Well, you know, what happened was… is this entire solar system stood still for that length of time, and of course standing still without any change of position there was no motion, and people who had one foot raised, naturally couldn’t fall down because there was no gravity during that period, because there was no motion.

All right, your neurotic finds the present solid and every once in a while convinces himself it’s solid by pinching himself. This he considers his conviction. And he’s still enough under penalty… he’s terribly under penalty so that he can be punished if he doesn’t have this solidity in the present. And your person who is really sane, who is able to think, able to predict the rate of change or cause a rate of change of havingness or not-havingness, is, of course, handling the future. He can not only handle the past, he knows that; he can handle the present, and he can, of course, broadly handle the future, he thinks. And he’s interested is doing so, interested in handling that future.

So there couldn’t be any energy flows or interchanges or magnetic waves or anything else to influence them, and the fact of the matter was that this is demonstrably true because nobody noticed it! And it would take every single being we… we have present, would have had to have experienced it to put it in a situation where nobody noticed it. And so therefore it obviously happened! Why did it happen? Because it happened to everybody. And how could we prove this, because there isn’t ANYBODY who saw it happen!“

Now the volume of effort that he will put into the future depends upon his amount of interest in the future. So if you have a person on… high on the tone scale who is sitting on Mount Olympus doing absolutely nothing, and a person who is fairly high on the tone scale with terrific amounts of randomity all over the shop, still high on the tone scale, but in action with regard to the future, and you’re getting a difference of what? You’re getting a difference of rate of change for the individual.

And the way we do this… this is for… this comes, by the way, from associating with this GE thinking computer, wonderful gimmick.

Fellow on Olympus is at no different point on the tone scale. He just doesn’t have as much interest in it as the fellow who is in action. And the interest doesn’t happen to be psychotic or neurotic or anything of the sort. It doesn’t matter what you’re interested in or how much you’re interested in it; it does matter how well you’re able to handle something after you get interested in it.

And so you see, what happened was that there had to be certain major changes made in the orbital action of the roody rods in this universe. And the thetan who is the monitoring agency of this universe of course has to suspend action to that length and he just zeroed time here for an instant. Then of course everything stopped – nothing could possibly have deteriorated because nothing went on. And this co-havingness was… of course, wouldn’t be thrown out of balance, it couldn’t be, because the thetan – he had 24 hours’ worth of work to do, and he did it, and finished it off and then everything went on. But of course as far as they were concerned they were just in continuous motion all the way along the line anyhow – as far as they were concerned. And as I say we have the adequate proof of this because nobody noticed it!“

That is the thing that parents find wrong with children. The child will be interested in chemistry and want a chemistry set. He’s very interested in chemistry and he gets a chemistry set and he’s still very interested in chemistry, but his ability to estimate the rate of change of havingness on the thing is kind of bad. And he starts to run into a not-have, the second he gets this ‘have.’ And of course reverse vectors start to hit him and he’s no longer interested in it. Hmmm!

The scholastic used to prove things that way. The Germans… you’ll find in old German philosophic texts the most dissertating dissertations that prove themselves along that line. I’m… I’m sure TIME magazine would approve of that theory. Do you suppose they’d put that on page one! Let’s elect somebody to be the greatest scientist of all time. And let’s have him advance a theory… let’s think of a good theory. Oh, yes, it has to be that he found another science wrong, so that would be Planck. He finds Planck wrong and he finds out that the quantum… the quantum theory of nuclear physics is wrong. Now… now… that’s… that’s the way you start it in this society. „The quantum theory is wrong.“ All right. „Now he found the quantum theory wrong, for the good reason that…“ – let’s see, let’s find a good reason that would fit in about the same tone scale.

Well, the parents say, well, he ought to continue and be constant in their interest. And the reason they ought to do so is because parents don’t change, do they?

Oh, „Atomic bombs have to be manufactured, they’re not instantaneous.“ Do you follow that? Well, I don’t. But uh… that’s a good theory. Now we can start in from there and then demonstrate conclusively that the quantum theory is wrong because of the complete non-existence of atom bombs, and therefore, the quantum theory is wrong. Now we can further prove that gravity really doesn’t exist and prove all these other things don’t exist, and in view of the fact that we can prove all this, that’s apathy, because nobody wants anything to exist in apathy.

And they consider this a great virtue. Unchangingness is NOT a virtue, And you start to hit a society and change it too often in the field of objects, and it will rebel. But uh… you can change objects all over the place.

There you are. That’s the whole thing. So don’t make this kind of a mistake on havingness. Don’t make this kind of a mistake on havingness that you… you just see it as havingness that then therefore wipes everything out because believe me your desire to have and your desire not to have aren’t foisted off on you. You… you have those, and they’re not illusory. When some people want or don’t want, they want or don’t want with exclamation points on some things! If you don’t believe this, back a US Marshall up against the wall and put a gun in his stomach. He’ll beg.

Some of the old-time pilots used to change objects from coast to coast and around the world and that sort of thing, and everybody was tremendously, vastly interested. Why? Well, the rate of change was very fast. And it was above their level of rate of change, and somebody seemed to be able to get rid of this, and away with this rate of change, so they got very interested in it. Why? Well, they… they wanted a higher rate of change themselves, but they didn’t dare have a r… higher rate of change themselves. So they got very interested in that line.

Now, present time then, is just this existence and… of havingness and your agreement on it. And your future? All is present time on the idea that we must have a rate of change. Rate of change is as mathematics, known as calculus. Calculus is a very interesting thing, it’s divided into two classes. There’s differential calculus and integral calculus. The… differential calculus is in the first part of the textbook on calculus and integral calculus is on the second part of the textbook on calculus.

Well, your old-time pilot could do that, but let’s take somebody who starts changing very close to the static level. I… I’ve been shifting things around close to the static level like mad, by just the change of growth. Of course, an idea doesn’t grow; you just get more and more certain on a certain level and it can be associated with rate of changes of havingness and not havingness more closely. And the first thing you know, you can either exist in the static level or you can exist in the energy flow level – either way. People get upset because you change ideas; in that level they get more upset, about it. They really get upset because they’re looking at a static. They… they’ve got a ghosty idea that there must be a static there, ‘cause it’s theta, isn’t it? And it’s probably motionless. That’s right; it’s motionless.

Uh… as you look through the book, you’ll find in the early part of the book on calculus, ‘dx’ over ‘dy’. A little ‘dx’ and a little ‘dy’ and they’re over… one above the other on a line, predominates in the front part of the book, but as you get to the end of the book you’ll find these ‘dx’ and ‘dy’s’ have been preceded by a summation sign, or are equating to a summation sign, and the presence of this shows that we are in the field of integral calculus.

But when it enters into the field of energy, it demonstrates the fact that it’s not motionless and that there’s a motion connected with it. They get very confused.

Now I hope you understand this because I’ve never been able to make head nor tail out of it! It must be some sort of a black magic operation started out by the Luce cult. Uh… some immoral people who are operating in… up in New York city at the Rockefeller Plaza. Con… thoroughly condemned by the whole society.

The one thing you’re not supposed to do is change your mind. You can change almost anything else, but don’t change your mind, for God’s sakes! You’ll find that in more banks!

Anyway, their rate of change theory – I… I’ve never seen any use for that mathematics by the way. I love that mathematic because it – I… I asked an engineer one time, who was in his sixth year of engineering, if he’d ever used calculus. And he told me, „Yeah, once. Once I did,“ he said.

Now, your tone scale, then, is also an estimation of how long it’s going to take to change the future estimates of this individual. Of course, the lower on the tone scale, the longer it’s going to take. Why? You take the same process, you’re getting more and more factors entering into it which are varying the matter involved. The energy has turned into matter, to a large extent, and there we have it.

„Uh… uh… when did you use it?“

So, here, then, is perhaps a better understanding of what you’re looking at when you look at the state of a preclear. He’s trying to hold himself up by being interested in one dynamic maybe, or another dynamic. He isn’t interested broadly in all the dynamics. You can lead him with interest into almost anything. You can! You can lead anything. You can lead nations to destruction. You can lead planets to hell and back with the loopiest subject matter imaginable so long as an interest level is maintained.

„Well, I used it uh… once uh… lemme see, what did I use it on? Oh, yeah, yes, something on the rate of change of steam particles in boilers. And then we went out and tested it and found the answer was wrong.“

Let’s take sound solid subject matter which is a very tight, close evaluation of the situation, and subtract the interest from it. Let’s not make it colorful. Then your people who are really spinny don’t pay any attention to it. Why? Well, they haven’t got any interest in it because they can’t associate that with something else, and they can only identify. And they can obey force and that’s about all.

Calculus… if you want to know, there is room there for a mathematics which is a good mathematics, and it would be the rate of co-change, or the rate of change when something else was changing, so that you could establish existing rates of change in relationship to each other. And for lack of that mathematics, nobody has been able to understand present time! You just can’t sum it up easily. Or, let us say, for lack of an understanding of what present time was, nobody could formulate that mathematics.

So, you can walk straight through a society and as long as you do not introduce anything interesting in the material, you can tear it to pieces. But you introduce something like ‘74 trillion years old’, some magazine pick it up. It’s interesting – it becomes interesting. That’s truth. That’ll go around. People will begin to wonder, „Well, that’s nonsense!“ or „How’s this?“ but they wonder why Time’s printing it and so on, and get upset about this. You’ve introduced a level of interest.

So actually there’s a big hole there that could be filled and it’s trying – ca… the thing called calculus is trying to fill that hole right now and it can’t. But the rates of change – it comes closest to it. I think it was one of Newton’s practical jokes.

Well, from that point on it can start to get uh… a little bit hectic because your interest level starts increasing. Well, boy, when interest level starts to increase, you had better be – as I once was not – very well located on a static as far as ideas are concerned. „You do so forth-and-so-and-so.“ In other words, the non-motion thing called an idea shouldn’t be subject too much to change. And so you ought to have a good, broad, workable, precise body of knowledge which sits there and will sit there and which will endure and which is not subject to misinterpretation, because why? It has a workable, routine, easily understood application.

Uh… here we have… here we have calculus as trying to measure a rate of change. Well, if we had something that was really workable and simple, it would be formed on this basis: The present time and gradients of time were gradients of havingness, and as one havingness changed, you could establish a constancy of change for other related havingnesses. But because the basic unit of the universe is two, you would have to have a rate of change known and measured for every rate of change then estimated. The mathematics won’t… I mean a mathematics won’t operate in this universe unless it has simultaneous equations. If you have two variables, you must have two equations with which to solve those two variables. In other words you have to compare one to the other simultaneously. Otherwise you just get another variable.

And the second you do this, then if you start stirring up interest in the society at large, interest, and you’ve got a static idea that society can shift. When I can say that a world can be led to hell and back with interest, you can package anything, no matter what garbage – anything – and cloak it in certain tones and it will be bought – without question!

Of course people laughingly do this; they… they take an equation with two variables and then they solve it. And then they… you say, „What you got?“ And the fellow says, „K.“ You say „Now just a minute. You got K, huh? Well, what is K?“ „Well, K we have established arbitrarily as being…“

Scholarly language is simply a method of toning up straight corn. People buy in the field of sciences, not knowledge or truth, they buy tone scale. And they feel that science should be at 3.0 on the tone scale. There is just that much estimation of the rate of change of havingness. „And whereas we don’t take any real responsibility for this, it has occasionally been stated and so on…“ They buy tone scale.

You say, „Why did you work the equation out in the first place? You had a K, didn’t you?“

The… is… this is, perhaps, not as… as completely hilarious to anybody as it is to a writer. A writer can look at this and it isn’t something that amazes him. He’s been doing this for a long time. „How does Professor Blink talk in the story?“ The writer knows. He establishes tone scales all over the place, up and down and back and forth and around and around. He has to, to have any randomity of characterization. He has to characterize people as people think they know people. A writer doesn’t write about how people are; he writes about how people think people ought to be when they are written about.

So present time’s advance into the future – rate of change. Present time’s advance over here to the right is indicated by the arrow, is sort of apparent to people, but they’re in it all the time so they have a feeling of travel. And let’s take this time track now and see what does happen. We’ll draw this time track 2 here, and below it we find another arrow, but it’ track. And what’s changing here? What’s changing is the rate of havingness.

Dialogue is not what people say, but the things people think people should say when written about. Highly conditional. And so we could get out a book under some guise by just – on any subject under the sun, any subject – and if it were properly written on the right level of the tone scale, believe me it could become THE tome on the subject. All you’d have to do is study style.

And we get this track coming back here to PT, and the track is proceeding out that-a-way. Now, what is the track? The track is the rate of change of havingness. And what is the rate of change? The rate of change of havingness is what we agree to be a rate of change of havingness.

What the hell has an aesthetic got doing, walking in on knowledge? Beware of knowledge which is too well-dressed in an aesthetic. Knowledge is that thing from which you should be able to deduce, acquire and abandon aesthetics. If you are in a high level of truth, you can acquire or jettison aesthetics by the skillions, because to that interest may be added. But if you are in an aesthetic alone and you find there nothing but an aesthetic? ‘Cause what is a piece of writing but an aesthetic? Even… even though it appears in the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA it has, or not has, a certain aesthetic balance.

People’s intolerance for speed and people’s intolerance for slowness are themselves an effort to maintain a constant rate of change. And in view of the fact that these people – as I just commented some facetiously, your desire to have and your desire not to have are real and they are actual – both – and give the universe the backbone of reality and actualities which universes have. You want them there, for lack of something better to have there.

Do you know that there’s enormous room in this world for a good data encyclopedia? „How do you make penicillin? You make penicillin by…“ Not… not uh… uh… „in the early days of chemical research, it was suspected that, when certain bacteria were bacteriarized, they were so bacteriarized that the bacteriological bacteriazation took place almost instantaneously. But later on they found out they could drag it out a bit. And Professor Wumph said, although this is controverted by Professor Battleboof, that the earlier suppositions regarding this subject were not supported by the ancient Greek. Of course, when we have studied more deeply into this subject…“ You poor boob! You couldn’t understand this subject. We have to interpret it for you, you boob! Uh… that’s not in there in print. That’s just there. Uh… when you get through you say, „How the hell do you make this stuff?!“

That’s earlier talk; unless you gave the preclear a good reason to have something else he would continue to have exactly what he has. You give him interest enough, however, and he’ll want something else, see how that is? But he’s got the MEST universe. That doesn’t mean he’s satisfied, that means he doesn’t have anything else to want. If he doesn’t have anything else to want, he won’t have anything else.

That used to torture me because I was manufacturing the wherewithal and the havingness in this society necessary to the production of Dianetics and Scientology and the study of the mind. There wasn’t anybody else going to throw any money into this. I had to throw money into this, so I made the money to throw it into it.

So if he just uh… has this and it’s a certainty and not enough imagination or thought to produce anything else except immediately what he’s got, you’re not going to get a shift. Not even a vague shift, time.

Well, I ca… you can always make money. That… that’s the easiest stuff in the world to make. Sometimes you get a little bit short. For a few weeks, why, you’re chewing shoe leather or something uh… like Charlie Chaplain did when he ate his shoe, and so on. But uh… what the score is in any one of these aesthetics is that there’s either data or there’s an aesthetic.

So we have over here on track 2 what is happening here. And this is why they keep showing time in vectors, is this rate of change. And of course we see that its rate…

Now if you simply sit there – you’re not trying to teach Scientology, you’re not trying to tell anybody about Scientology – but you are merely using Scientology either to put an industry on its feet or put preclears together, your rate of change of havingness and not-havingness to a large degree depends upon your aesthetic, not the exposition of your knowledge.

Now, the dynamics, the eight dynamics demonstrate amongst themselves an interdependency which is covered in writing best in – of the works that I’ve done on this – in Book One. It’s just the viewpoint of what’s good. Viewpoint establishes what’s good. Viewpoint establishes what’s bad and we get these interrelated viewpoints and we get from these then an interdependency. Not one of these dynamics can exist without the other dynamics existing. And so you see that?

Your havingness and not-havingness, then, is changed by the interest level which is elicited towards you, and interest is invited by aesthetics, not by knowledge.

You’re looking right at the heart of the problem called ‘time’. Unless these stay in agreement one with another, they can’t co-exist, and if one of them steps out without an able support from all the rest, and steps out of line, you’re liable to get a collapse of all those dynamics.

That’s why there are so few who will ever learn this subject. Really, there are very few out of all the beings there are.

We find that the thetan in a good state is actually all dynamics. Therefore he can be a universe, and that he turns up missing in this one due to the complete uh… plethora of thetans around, it doesn’t seriously damage this one, because he is not removing from it an integral portion of its energy. He’s removing something else that has nothing in mass, and that’s an idea.

You can take this knowledge – if you know this knowledge well, you do not have to parade this knowledge. You can teach people the knowledge. If you do that, for God’s sakes, just teach ‘em data more or less like I do. The amount of interest that I’ve put into this is very minor – very minor really. Make a wisecrack once in a while, throw some randomity in – don’t do very… very much. Give ‘em data – tha… that’s what’s important if you’re teaching.

He is a capability and a zero of mass, and his havingness is a time monitor. That is to say, he has or doesn’t want. And you could keep taking thetans out of this universe and nothing would happen much to the universe because you really aren’t upsetting these because you’re subtracting what? You’re subtracting 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8! It’s the only way you can get out, it’s the only way you could add anything to his universe is by adding 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 to it.

But if you’re practicing, don’t give anybody any data at all. They say, „I hear that you think that so-and-so.“

In view of the fact that your thetan is a balanced eight dynamics, when he is subtracted, he subtracts almost exactly equal – don’t… you don’t have to ever worry about this, I mean this just happens to work out – he subtracts almost exactly equal quantities on all eight dynamics. That’s why he has to be well up tone scale to get out. Now what do you know! He has to be balanced on these dynamics, otherwise the imbalance freezes him in. Think of that for a moment. So he’s got to be up Into a level of practically pure thought. And the reason he can be up into pure thought is he’s not going to take any MEST with him, believe me, and he’s not going to withdraw on that.

And you say, „You do? Well, there’s no accounting for people, what they hear. Now people,“ then you look at them searchingly, „people who have a great thirst for beauty and love and that sort of thing, often invite into themselves information of a kind which is… they’re afraid will be true. And do you know that they will often hold to themselves data that… for fear other people will be hurt by it?“

Let’s take a look at – what’s a balanced equation, then, for this universe? Any stability in this universe contains as its balances the rate of change of the eight dynamics’ interdependencies. The eight dynamics are all interdependent in any stability equation in this universe. And you get any equation in this universe that demonstrates its stability and you’ve got all eight dynamics present. One way or the other, you’ve got them present. And their stability means that they’re present in a stable or balanced form. Now you start to unbalance one of these things, and of course nothing is going to happen at all. If you don’t unbalance it by subtracting 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8. An exact balance from it. See?

And the patient will look at you and say, „That’s sweet!“

You can take out of this stability what, let’s call a beingness, a quantum of beingness, if there could be such a thing. You could take this out all the way along the line and if you took it out wrong, or tried to take it out wrong, you’d blow the whole shootin’ match. In other words, you tried to take it out down tone scale you’d practically blow the universe up, and when the boys try to go out the bottom of the scale with apathy and all that, the rest of that thing, by golly they blow up cultures, cities, so on – everything goes to pieces, because they’re trying to move out of the universe with their hands on all this MEST.

You… you look into this preclear’s eyes and say, „Yes, you… you’ve had a thirst for human love, haven’t you?“ I mean, you talk about obvious data. They jus… just take this tone scale and take a look at the girl. This tone scale is lying here under the blotter and you can only see in that direction, see. And it says… it says, „Apathy: Relatively uncontrolled anxi…“ You wouldn’t be able to talk to her uh… too much. Uh… here: „Capable of destructive action, psychotic, depository.“ „Oh, no. Let’s get up higher. „Boredom: Relatively inactive but capable of action.“ She comes in, boy, is she a bored… a bored character. And uh… yet so-and-so and so-and-so. It’s right cr… across the line. Put the aesthetic band on this thing: „Boredom: Normal, neurotic, halfway between, occasionally ill, susceptible to usual diseases.“

The rich man tries to go to heaven; of course he can’t go to heaven on account of those ridges, they won’t let him through the eye of the camel! All right, let’s take a break.

„Well, you’ve… you’ve often regarded yourself, I am sure, as average in health, haven’t you?“

„Yes – yes I have!“

„Uh… and really your… your interest in life has vacillated to a large degree between indifference and boredom, hasn’t it?“

„Well, that’s… that’s right.“

„Yes, I know. I know it very well that… how this thing is, ‘cause life isn’t very interesting, when it really comes down to that. One can certainly agree on that – it’s terribly uninteresting. It’s a terrible bore. Awful bore, isn’t it? Dreadful.“

And they say, „Boy, you know this guy’s right in there pitching with me.“ He just looks across and you’re agreeing with him.

„Now you… you’ve felt this withdrawal from people for some time. haven’t you?“

„How’d you know I withdrew from…?“ „Well…“ „I really don’t, you know. It’s just that they bore me.“

„Well, that’s right. But people are very uninteresting. One can’t be blamed for that, can one?“

„No, no!“

Uh… now we’ll go along here… „Uh… the routine ordinary humdrum life that one leads is, of course, a good safeguard against all this.“

„Yes, I’ve found it so.“

Agreement, agreement, agreement… Let’s just go right across the boards here and we find out that uh… „Disinterest in procreation; vague tolerance of children.“ Huh! In other words, you can just make it up – „Insincere, careless of facts.“ Well, what do you know? You’re talking to a 2.5. Careless of facts.

You say, „Well, the appointment began at 2:30“ – it didn’t. The appointment began at 3:15. They’ll say, „All right, it began at 2:30,“ – doesn’t matter – „ and it continued until 5:30“ – they’re not interested in anything. And these people, of course, are very easy to take things away from so you simply say, „Well, that fee for this session now…“ patting them sympathetically on the hand a little bit, but not as sympathetically as you’d pat somebody way, way down tone scale here, see. You really pat somebody down around… pat a 1.5 on the hand sympathetically some time. They just go „Slurp“; they’re Just people who have driven away every possible thing that they really want, and you show them a little bit of sympathy „Well, It’s pretty rough, carrying the world on your back kind of, you know? And getting things along and trying to get people to do things. Overcoming these various inertias and so on. That’s pretty rough. Yeah.“

Oh, boy! That guy will just empty out his soul in great big coal buckets. Why you…

But you’re not interested in that to any great degree. But is… what is the aesthetic? The aesthetic isn’t knowledge, it’s putting it to use. And it’s the amount of interest which we’ll be given to you because you know. And that’s about all there is to it.

When doing mock-ups, you find in following this material along and in matching up the interest in aesthetics of people, and keeping them marching on up that your cases wall keep advancing.

This chart can help you and I hope this data about Time helps you an awful lot, because it’s going to help an awful lot of people if you use it. Let’s take a break.