Thank you.

Well, I'm glad to be in your midst. Actually, I enjoy lecturing to you. I do.

And, last night enjoyed giving a session. I thought that was the most, you know? You saw me lay a couple of eggs with this pc here earlier, you know, and remember, the earlier sessions were not particularly productive of any vast gain; pc didn't go downhill or anything. And last night, why, you see, I just got the idea that I'd better show you how to do some fishing and fumbling, and you might not have noticed what it did. It might have been all something or other.

Thank you.

All I did was let the meter wave until it ticked, and I just steered the pc onto a double tick. I just set out to clean up a dirty needle and actually, in that hour, made a stage of cleaning it up, and we got some of the stuff cleaned off it. And what do you know, it was right on his goal line. (You don't mind my mentioning it.) It was right on his goal line and everything was fine. And you notice, I didn't go out of this lifetime. I didn't even go back into his childhood, nothing I held him securely anchored in the last three years. Remember? See that? Well, that's steering the pc. That's just fish and fumble. You can clear up some of the most remarkable things, particularly if you're aided and assisted by the fact that the pc has a meter pattern to start with.

24 May, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, A.D. 12.

But there was something very tricky last night that you might have missed — and that was just this and nothing more: was the handling of the stuck picture. Pc has a stuck picture; pc complains about stuck picture. You find session in which picture was first found; get the missed withhold off of that session. See? Don't you go running that engram, because it's a stuck picture so obviously it won't run.

All right. Now, you seem to be considerably interested in what meters do, and you seem to be having an awful lot of trouble, one way or the other. I was going to talk to you about Goals Assessments in this particular lecture, but I won't. I will talk to you definitely about meters.

Well, enough of that. I'm going to talk about the meter.

You know, you can get into more holes full of complication than anybody could easily dig you out of in a long while. You get complicated. And if you just would stop figuring and start looking ...

Now, what's the date? Twenty-fifth?

I remember when, one time, got a motorcycle off the boat, and I was straightening the motorcycle up and trying to get the thing to function out in Camden, New Jersey. I was trying to get this motorcycle going, so ... Lights wouldn't light, you know, and so we kept throwing a switch, and so forth. And it was just at that time this first cliche - first time I had put out this cliche, and so on; it was "Look, don't think," see, which was very funny.

Audience: Twenty-fourth.

And this little Francis-Barnett British motorcycle had a very complicated Lucas light system - headlamp and everything else. And it was very complicated, very hard to get apart. All kinds of wires and condensers, and all sorts of things.

Fourth?

So I started taking it apart, and took the bulb out and took the wires apart and unhooked everything. We had parts that were lying around a good square yard. And then I happened to look down at the battery, and the terminals weren't connected. We had all the job of putting it all together again. It would have taken about one minute to have put the terminals on the battery.

Audience: Twenty-fourth.

That was a marvelous example of "Look,-don't think." Because I'd sure done a lot of figuring right there on that motorcycle, you see, and the net result was dismantling the works.

Well, what are you doing in the 24th? I was in the 25th. Well, I'll come back to the 24th. All right. It's the first lecture, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 24th May 62.

You get doing this, and you get to figuring out what this is and the significance of that, and the complications of something else, and so on. And I know what you're up against, because ...

We have a lecture about the E-Meter. Once there was a cat, and he went sniffing along corridors in the open cracks below auditing room doors. Heh, heh, heh. And after being baffled for a very long time, he became a very wise cat. And out of all this we have — we have a single plea: use the E-Meter. I know that seems like a lot to ask but if you use it, it'll treat you right; and if you misuse it, wrong

There's a textbook called "Dutton's" which teaches navigation, and it is the textbook used by the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. It's their key book on the subject. And no doubt about it, it's a marvelous textbook. There is no doubt whatsoever that "Dutton's" is just absolutely wonderful as a textbook. Not a single datum of any kind on the subject of navigation that is not to be found in "Dutton's." They modernize it, also, every year - it's marvelous! You open it up, and sentence by sentence they machine-gun you with exact pertinent data with no amplification or further definition of any kind whatsoever. They don't bother to tell you it's a textbook on navigation of ships from here to there. They simply start in telling you "This is the earth and the sun and the planets and the alidade-amplitude angle dihedral in betwixt...." "A barograph is an instrument used to measure barometric pressure. It is read at two o'clock, four o'clock and eight o'clock." I don't know; what do you read? You read its directions? What do you read? You read the manufacturer's label on the bottom of it? What do you do? Well, "Dutton's" never bothers to inform you about that. They're above all that, you see? Unfortunately I collided - on a restudy of earth navigation - I collided with "Dutton's" back in the middle thirties, hard, you see? There was everything there but an understanding. See?

Once again we have a complete breakdown in progress that occurred here in September of 1961 whereby everybody fashionably was reading the E-Meter cross-eyed with the rudiments wildly out and everybody was plowing into the ground. And we have come again into that particular period.

There was no understanding of what this was all about whatsoever, but there sure were hot data. Man, every datum in it was hot.

Now, recently I have talked to you scoldishly and I've said, "Why don't you make your pcs look good?" Remember? Well, I'll tell you, your pcs don't look good because you're not reading an E-Meter. That's all. It's a gross auditing error — simple, factual, horrible to contemplate, but true. It isn't the way you are holding your little finger in a session. It isn't the fact that your thumb is insufficiently calloused on the tone arm. It isn't any one of a thousand things. It isn't because you don't have a command of Model Session. It isn't because of something weird or wonderful in the pc. It's just that you're not reading an E-Meter. That's all.

But there was never any side amplification, such as "You must always precisely locate the exact position of a battleship." See? See, it never says, also, that it is sometimes disastrous not to locate the position of a battleship. Your imagination is never invited. It is a dry feast of bare bones. It drove me stark, staring mad. I never learned how to navigate from it.

Now, that sounds horrible, but I don't think this applies to all of you. It couldn't. But it must apply in some degree to all of you because I don't see anybody listening to this lecture three feet off his chair. Today all you have to do is just exactly what you have to do. you don't have to do anything fancy. And that is a very, very rough thing to get through to you. We actually are there, as far as technology is concerned — been there for some time, but been improving, improving, improving, little bits, little bits, little bits. But, do you know, I don't know a thing today that you could audit on somebody that wouldn't produce a remarkable gain. See? I don't know anything we're using that wouldn't produce a remarkable gain on the pc.

Finally got a book that - I think Mixter's Primer of Navigation, or something like this, and read this book, and it didn't treat it very seriously, and it was very happy about the whole thing, and I dug up a few data from that.

And I caught you out this way: I audit a pc with exactly what you're using, he shines. You audit a pc, and I get an Instructor to check it and your rudiments are all out. How could your rudiments be out? It isn't that you're not asking the exact, proper question. Oh, you're asking the right question. But the needle goes over, hits the pin, bends; blue smoke comes out of the meter connection, the sensitivity knob becomes incandescent, and you say, "That's clear," and go on to the next question. And that's all that's happening. Honest. Honest. I plead with you.

Actually, though, I thought it would be easier to go back and evolve the whole thing, so I did.

Now, I know you think you aren't doing it. But Fred was telling me in the break up there, he says, "You know," he said, "I had to practice quite a while in practical, and I've suddenly realized I was just not seeing instant reads. And all of a sudden I started to see them."

Some time in '44 an admiral was walking around on the bridge, and I was calculating something or other, and he says, "Well, I see," he says, "that you - how is this?" He'd just flown in, you know, from stateside. He wouldn't be there long because it wasn't very safe where we were. And he said, "I see" - he said - "But - but how is this? You're using Commander Weems' new textbook on aerial navigation." And it puzzled him because it was just now in print in the States, and we couldn't possibly have connected that fast. No, I had accidentally evolved it as a simple method of navigation, and somebody else had evolved it.

There is some kind of an oddball phenomenon that goes this way: Your eyesight shuts off. That's the only way I can explain it. Now, what shuts off your ruddy eyesight? What shuts it off? So I had to ask myself this embarrassing question: Did we know what made an auditor turn off when he turned the meter on? Do we know that? And up till last night, we didn't.

That was all. But it didn't come from "Dutton's," but I imagine it's now part of "Dutton's." And I imagine nobody can savvy it now. I mean, I imagine that's totally, totally lost.

So I had to figure out what happened. Well, of course, I had the data, but I had to assemble it. And so I can give you this cheerful information. You can stop looking as though I have just beaten you, because I haven't just beaten you. you see, if I hadn't confidence in you, why, I wouldn't even try. But a few weeks ago I took a look at you all, and I realized that the gray sunken cheek, the thick and muddy eye, the dragging of oneself up the stairs, was not being caused by your late hours or lack of food or anything else, but must somehow or another be caused by the auditing And I started on a campaign at that time to locate what was wrong.

But this is a method of losing information, is you just give a bunch of machine-gun data and expect everybody to hew the mark on that exact data, and it's never amplified, you see? So we have lots of examples of that particular character.

Now, actually I wasn't trying to look for anything I was just looking to see what was there. This is always a good idea. When you are looking for something, don't make up your mind, like the psychologist, that you know the something you are looking for before you look. It's very remarkable. You can look across a whole beach of white pebbles for a white pebble, don't you see, and never find one. If you've already specified that in order to find a white pebble, it has to be black, you see, or something odd like this. No, the thing to do is just to go down to the beach and look, and not even look for a white pebble. Just — just look and see what's there.

It is the importance of a datum that must be weighted. Weighted. You weight the importance of a datum. And you are so accustomed on this planet - you are terribly accustomed - to studying unweighted data.

That's always very good in research. By the Ford Foundation — I think it's 100 million dollars a month. I think that's the value of the research as done by the Ford Foundation — about 100 million dollars. Oh well, that's an exaggeration; it's actually 100 million dollars worth a minute, because of course they get noplace. If the Ford Foundation's research along these various lines was to be chalked up in value, why, it couldn't be, you see, because they haven't gotten anyplace.

Somebody opens up Krishnamurti, and he shows you three places in this book of Krishnamurti's whereby it's exactly parallel to exactly what we say in Scientology, so therefore Krishnamurti is Scientology. And poor old Peggy Conway - I showed her one day that these were totally unweighted data. They had no importance assigned to them whatsoever, but were there with equal importance with about three or four thousand other datum. These other data were all there of equal importance, and they were - some of them were really wild data. See" So they were all equally important. in other words, there was no selection of importances.

Actually, the Ford Foundation was founded at exactly the same day — did you know this? — of the first Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation for exactly the same purposes: to discover the basics of human life and the mind. It's fascinating. And there they are. And it's cost them, since that time, several billion dollars. And they recently, a few years ago, just after they investigated a HASI in Phoenix, Arizona — they sent a representative down, and he gave a report of some kind or another — they wrote a letter to an inquirer that they had ceased to investigate in that particular field. Now, out of that we didn't know quite what to imply, but we've whipped 'em.

And people keep forgetting this. They think all data are equal, and it's as big a mistake as to consider all people are equal or anything else is all equal. Because it's pretty hard to get an equality. Mathematically it's impossible to get an equality. You take an apple out here off a tree, and if you had another apple which is exactly the same size, shape, age, skin thickness, pattern of the skin, everything else, you'd say, "Well, that apple is equal to that apple." No, they're not equal. They're not occupying the same space. How could they be equal? All the characteristics of one apple would have to be equal to all the characteristics of the other apple, and they're both occupying different positions in space, so they can't possibly be equal.

But the idea is that fantastic sums can be spent in research by taking records and compiling records and comparing records to records, and the next thing, when you get through you've got some records. They make nice bonfires; you can toast weenies over them.

Now, in order to study ... I've heard this phrase "learn how to study." I've had it thrown at me in very fine universities, very fine schools, and so on. "Learn how to study," they say, and then they sit back. We should remember this: that there are several ways of laying out data. One is to lay it all out with equal weight with no amplification, no other explanation, nothing to assist understanding; we just machine-gun out a whole bunch of data - brrrr, see? That's supposed to be real good. Your technical-scientific writer of today is educated to do this and sometimes criticizes the writings of Dianetics and Scientology because it doesn't do only this.

But to date, this type of research which does all the lookingness on a via through symbols . . . You know? We're going to mathematically compute it all. See, we've got a white tree in front of us, so we're going to mathematically compute as to whether or not a white tree can exist. And then we figure out that it can't, and we walk away. See? And that's very commonly the fate of research.

All right. Now, there's another way of handling this stuff, and that is to throw it all out with tremendous obfuscations. You sort of interlard it with "Of course, you boob, you couldn't understand this anyway because it's all so complicated." And they do that in various ways.

Who was it? Hegel or Hume, or. . . Hegel, I think it was. It was some such bird. Somebody or other had up and looked through a telescope and had found the eighth or ninth planet or — eighth planet, that's it — and somebody like Hegel, I think it was, said, "Couldn't exist because the perfect number was seven!" And for several years nobody would admit that it existed. All they had to do was train a telescope on it, but it couldn't exist because the perfect number was seven. Therefore, there couldn't be more than seven planets in this system. That's what's known as looking at the figures, you see, not looking at anything else.

With footnotes: "Refer to Jervis Crack, page 39," you see? Of course, that book hasn't been available for the last century. So you've had it, you see? Well, what they're doing is doing a priesthood type of action. And most of the professors writing in modern university, and so on, are guilty of that. They're trying to create a priesthood.

So all of this kind of thing, I start narrowing it down. Now, the first observation was you didn't glow, see? I'm always looking, and this one I found. See, you didn't glow. That was obviously a fact. There was nobody glowing To prove it: you're in the basement, aren't you, here? We're still using coal. See? That's enough, see. Proves itself, doesn't it? So... He wants some mathematical computation to go along with it, I'll just throw that one in, you see?

Now, the reason navigation sprung to mind, and the reason I talk about navigation, is they're exclusively devoted - not this "Dutton"; it's of another kind - but the navigator himself is devoted to the development of a priesthood. It is not for nothing that the early navigators of the South Pacific were a priesthood. And they were the reigning priesthood of Polynesia. Well, those birds, with a hole in a coconut shell and that sort of thing, navigated themselves all over the place. Quite interesting how they did it, but it was a priesthood. And they surround this with a bunch of magic, and they surround it with a bunch of nonsense of one kind or another.

So from that I made a couple of assignments. Not necessarily sneakily. I really did just make these assignments. You see? And the assignments I made was one, I gave an auditor a list of questions — Prepcheck questions to be cleaned on a pc — and I gave another auditor a list of questions that had already been asked, to check over whether or not they were live. The best way to repair a case, you see, on a Prepcheck is to pick up all the questions left alive and clean them. That's the best thing to do. Ho-ho-ho, ho-ho-ho.

Well, a chemistry professor is just as guilty. He gives you a whole bunch of nonsense.

I also got some rudiments checked by your auditing Supervisor, and I was coordinating tone arm against out-rudiments. And one of the earlier discoveries on this: When the rudiment is out, the tone arm, she don't move. Important fact. That's a new fact. If the rudiments are out, no tone arm action. That applies to anything.

But the reason a navigator springs to mind: if you were to go on a bridge of a naval vessel that had a navigator and to ask him how he was finding his position ... He won't have you shot because that's illegal. Instead of that, he will either ignore you with a contemptuous sniff or utterly overwhelm you with a bunch of irrelevant bunk. That man is totally dedicated to the protection of a cult. Navigation is what makes him important, and if every fool knew how to navigate he wouldn't be important anymore. And that'd be that.

All right. I went ahead, then, and you saw the results last night of one of these people I checked out. This is not necessarily derogatory to the auditors who did this. There's no point in you going out and blowing your brains out, because we'll just have to pick you up in the next life and clear you again, see? Nobody is being condemnatory on this particular line. But it is indicative of something, and the thing it's indicative of is somebody wasn't reading the meter, because I'm absolutely sure — absolutely sure — that the auditor checked those questions but they didn't read right — something. Something, see?

The textbook "Bowditch" on this subject... I'm choosing an esoteric field - navigation - not that you're interested at all in navigation but just because it's far enough afield that it won't confuse the issue.

Now, a further discovery of this: I find out that the auditor believed the meter did not react, and that there was some belief present that TR 1 must be out — that the auditor isn't delivering the question hard enough, you see, to the pc, or hasn't enough control over the pc to make the meter register. See, that could enter in, you see? And a lot of other things. You can explain this a dozen ways.

Bowditch was a fellow up in the New England states who decided that celestial navigation should be decelestialized. So he did a bunch of tables and things of this character, and he went out on a China trip; and out of his little manual, which was about quarter of an inch thick, he taught even the cook to navigate by star sights. It was marvelous. He taught everybody on the ship. He was teaching everybody up and down the New England coast how to navigate out of this little, tiny book.

I actually don't buy any of that. I think the meter reacted and it wasn't observed. That was just as simple as that. Let's take the gross auditing error just as a gross auditing error, not a lot of mathematical figure-figure over alongside of the thing Let's not try to figure out why, particularly, on that basis. Let's not say the meter didn't operate and the pc didn't operate because look, this has been several widely scattered pcs, which picked up immediately afterwards — one of them by an Instructor he could cheerfully strangle (the pc could: that Instructor couldn't possibly have anything with that pc but an ARC break) — and every single one of them reacted.

You should see that book today! Ha-ha-ha! It's also published by the United States Navy, and it is that thick, it's that high and it's that broad. It's the most marvelous thing for keeping a passageway door open you ever saw.

But we can't attribute it to some other mechanism except just this: He was a-lookin' at the meter, and the meter wobbled — the needle went bap! — and the auditor didn't do a thing about it. The auditor didn't see it. That's the only available explanation. Because other people hostile to the pc, in the pc's estimation, found the meter operating for them.

But it has everything in it that has nothing to do with navigation, and it has tables developed which nobody has used for ages. And his original tables, I don't think, are even in it anymore.

Do you think it's easy to sit up in front of that TV camera? It isn't, man. Not for a pc. Not easy at all. Takes quite a bit as an auditor to hold him in. And you saw those questions falling off the pin; but those questions had just been checked over, and some statement was made that they were mostly clear. Now, afterwards we found out, although they'd been stated mostly clear at first, the auditor said that not all of them were. However, there was one there that the auditor had said was clear that was not clear on my test, see? Well, that wipes it out. The things were reacting, in other words. In other words, something was happening with the meter and it was not observed. Well let's not try . . .

And yet it's called "Bowditch."

And listen to me! You see me crossing this bridge right now. You're going to cross this bridge. See? There's hardly a one here that isn't going to cross this bridge sooner or later. You're going to stand there speechless, whether in the HGC or an Academy, or with somebody who's helping you out as an auditor or something of the sort. I don't care where it's going to be, you're going to cross this same barrier, and you're going to say, "Mrs. Glutz is not doing better. Did you notice the blood dripping out of both her eyes when she left the session today?"

See, the whole thing has been obfuscated. Whole thing has been masked.

And the auditor will say — whether student or staff auditor or whoever it'll be, see — will say, "Well yes, but she's just a very difficult pc. She's very difficult." And if you don't know what to do at that point, you yourself will go figure it all out mathematically.

That is the way somebody swells up his importance. He makes himself very important: He's one of the twelve men in the world that can understand Einstein. Oh, I don't know. If there was anything there to understand, I think that more than twelve men could have understood Einstein. I took one of the twelve men in the world who could understand Einstein, and I went around to him to have him explain it to me, as the associate editor of the college paper, in a short article. (I was making friends in those days.) I wanted him to give me a short article for this college paper so that I could explain Einstein to the student body. He was very insulted. He was very upset, but his - I wrote an article.

The thing to do is to get ahold of the pc and take a look at the pc. That's your first thing And the pc isn't better. See? That's good enough with modern processes. The pc isn't better. The pc does not look better. Therefore, somebody isn't reading the meter. Bing, bing — something. You wait! You'll be on this hot seat. And you'll get Mrs. Glutz and you'll put her down in the chair and you will hand her the cans, and you will say, "Well, now, let's see, now. Now, let me see. you just had a session. Now, in that session did you tell any half-truth? Untruth?" Tone arm action. "Did you try to impress the auditor?" "Did you try to damage anyone?" There's no sense in going on checking it because the needle — the tone arm is now at 7.0. And you'll turn around to this auditor and you will say, "Hey, Mike. Hey, hey, hey, bud. What the hell? What goes on?"

But years afterwards, I was talking to a friend, and he was a pretty good scientist. He was good enough to be kicked out of the government; he was one of the sixty-four that were released for doing their duty. And he said, "Theory of relativity? Well, let's see. Mass equals MC 2 well, let's see if we can't do ... I wonder if it couldn't be explained rather simply."

Hell say, "Well, they were all in when she left the session."

And so we boiled it down and told it to a kid, and he understood it perfectly. There wasn't much to this. Except what? The vast importance of the person. See? Somebody is using this as a cloak of rare bird feathers, you see, so he can stand before the idol and tell everybody how important he is, see?

And you, you idiot, may fall for it. And you're liable to say, "But then what might it have been? Might it be that his TR 1 is bad? Or actually that the pc is so ARC broke that doesn't read on the meter for that auditor? Or is it the fact that they were clear at that moment for him but not for me? Or do they have mutual withholds between themselves which are then coming out because I am checking. . .?" I mean, you know, you can just figure yourself crazy.

Well, these methods of communication of thought, methods of communication of data ...

Now, this is the one you want to figure: The meter wobbled and the auditor was looking out the window. Don't figure it any other way, because if you do figure it any other way, you will miss its cure. Thing to cure is not necessarily the auditor's eyesight.

Now, we're in an interestingly peculiar field, because the data that is being communicated is in actual fact totally new data that everybody already has. That makes it very peculiar data indeed.

How can an auditor get in that condition? By invalidating the meter, of course. An auditor can go stone-blind on a meter.

Now, there's no language that embraces this because language comes after the fact - before the fact, rather - of the data. And so you get a few terms mixed up in it. It's nothing compared to medical terms or other fields. Nevertheless, it has the frailty of having new terms. But you have to have new terms, otherwise everything you described would be a whole package.

Now, how does this come about? The auditor is audited by an auditor who is stone-blind. Just exactly how do we get this chain reaction, see? He's sitting there early in his career, minding his own business, and his auditor says to him, "Do you have a present time problem?"

I could probably dream up an example and say, "Well, the combined impulses derived from force and duress in the past which have become forgotten but which are capable of impinging themselves upon the individual ..." Wouldn't you like to say that every time you said "reactive mind"? That would be pretty grim, wouldn't it?

And he thinks, "Oh, my God, if I don't pay the rent by two o'clock, I'm going be thrown out," you see? And he can just feel this thing seethe, you know? The auditor across from him says, "Thank you. That's clear."

So naturally, you get conversant with this, you start developing a bit of a shorthand. But the shorthand mustn't itself be terribly obscure, and most of our stuff is not obscure. We don't invent words where we don't need them, but we do invent words where we shouldn't be confused.

And he says, "You know, that said that didn't register." You understand, he couldn't see the dial so he doesn't know whether it doesn't register or not. He makes the assumption that it didn't register. "Didn't register, see? Feels like a present time problem to me. I guess the meter is. . . Well, all right. And I'll just . . ." He just kind of suppresses it and goes through the session gritting his teeth.

Now, we lack a complete dictionary. That we should have - there's no doubt about that - so that you could look up any phrase and understand it better. We've been in the throes of making up a dictionary for years. I had the notes on my desk recently - just a few days ago - to start recompiling the thing.

Next session: (During — the night before, see, he was on a drinking bout with this guy's girlfriend, see, or something like that — whatever it was, it doesn't matter.) "Since the last session, have you done anything" (or something like this), "that you're withholding?" See?

Trouble is, it's costly. That's the only thing that's wrong with a dictionary. You'd have to put two or three people on it for several months to really knock a dictionary together, because you'd have to listen to every tape on which every word had ever been defined at any time and put all the definitions down for a single word immediately following it, and then that would be a worthwhile dictionary. Would also he quite a worthwhile textbook.

"Oh boy," he says. "Man, when he gets this. . . I don't know whether I can get this withhold off or not. Ohooooor. I can just imagine him going out and buying a sound truck and driving up and down the streets, you see, with this particular withhold; because that's what they always do with hot withholds, you see? Well therefore, at no time will I. . ." you know. "But if I sit here real quietly and don't breathe at this moment as he asks the question, be all right."

But it happens to be a labor. It's mostly labor: listening to tapes, taking down every definition; looking up all the textbooks, taking down every definition, you know; writing each word on a piece of paper, and then writing each definition that has ever been defined for it, because they've been defined several times.

And the auditor looks at him and says, "That's dear."

Well, we - that is a barrier. There is no doubt about that. But. what 1 try to do, the way I try to teach you this, is teach you one very simply and try to give you the weight of the datum - you know, how heavily this is weighted in comparison to other data, see?

And the guy says, "Whooh! boy. That was lucky. Man. Whooh! Got away with that."

I tell you, "This one is important," see? And then because there are quite a few important datum, I very often make the mistake of not saying to you that there's a lot of data along this line that's not important, see - that don't amount to anything; they're merely interesting. Well, I tell you that - even that too, occasionally. That's an awful lot of bric-a-brac and phenomena.

And this happens often enough to a point where a guy gets the idea that meters don't read. See, all it requires is for one auditor, auditing another auditor, to make one error — be looking elsewhere when the meter bangs. Just requires one of these, and you start this chain going. You think the meter didn't read. And this is very invalidative to the meter. You think meters don't read. That's where that comes in.

Well, what happens is that I give you a datum that's important, and you very often pick up a piece of bric-a-brac that's right next door to it that is interesting, see, and you get the two things confused. You know, this other one is fascinating. There's no doubt about it. You start fooling around with things in the mind and there are fascinating things. The floor of the 'ead is strewn with them, man. I don't know how you can live in there.

Well, of course, that happens while you're in-session and you're kind of non compos mentis at the time or too interested in withholding what you're withholding or something like that, you see, to pay — to go into this thing deeply, and so you close that one out. That's a total suppression. You forget it — and it lays the most beautiful chain in you ever heard of.

See? There are many fascinating data - they are terribly, terribly interesting. Why, if I sat down and wrote everything I knew about needle phenomena or phenomena which could be disclosed by a meter, my God, it'd be something on the order of four or five million words! I know tremendous lot of oddities - fantastic things that you can do - all of which amount to a hill of beans. They're just of no importance at all. Amongst all of that, there are only a few important data and they are boiled down into that savagely condensed book E-Meter Essentials.

You know it should have read and it didn't read. Therefore, the meter is no good. But your assumption is the incorrect assumption, so it lasts in space, which is "meter didn't read." That is a lie. The meter read. And as any lie, it'll hang up. And it builds a whole chain up with somebody who is audited this way — builds an enormous chain.

Now, that is an example, by the way, of a terrific boildown. The instant read, however, is not described in that book. It is now described in the second edition, but in the original edition it's not described.

The way you clear that chain is you just prepcheck the question "Has any auditor ever failed to find a meter read on you that you thought should have reacted?" That gets the unknowns out of it because that's the most likely area of unknown, even though it's kind of motivatorish. It's actually neither an overt nor motivator; it's just hanging in space. But it's quite unknown because it happened in the middle of the session while the pc was very interested in other things, see? So it's a quick one.

Now, obviously, it should also be part of my responsibility to tell you what's not important.

One of the ways the ancient medicine man operated . . . I actually, at one time or another, have studied in this particular field. I remember about 1630 I was very disgusted; I did some study in North America on the subject of becoming an Indian medicine man. one of the fine ways to go about it is to learn how to scream. And if you can let off a good scream, see, that's got saw-toothed edges, that is twice as loud as any psycho's scream, see? — just a good, total-volume scream. You can stand close to somebody, scream suddenly, utter a command phrase, and then continue your scream. And it'll go in as a total implant. That is a crude and savage way of implanting, but very effective. This is your old medicine man. Make a terrific amount of noise, no noise for a second and utter a command phrase like "You are a pig," see, and then interrupt the scream at that point and then start it again at exactly the same pitch that you stopped it, and go on and finish the scream.

But look, but look: that's four or five million words, see, compared to a few hundred. That would be a job, man!

The person who heard this scream is unaware of its ever having been interrupted, and after the session will look at you attentively and say, "Oink." Really will. I mean, this is quite, quite effective — quite effective.

And you want to know about teaching you some of this stuff .. What is utterly, staggeringly fantastic, you see, is trying to guess what you're going to do wrong next. And I tell you, man, that would keep somebody awake all night if he really worried. You know? I worry about it enough. But trying to guess which way the mistake is going to go ... Because, you see, it can go into any of those unimportant channels. See? And they're just infinite in number.

There would be many ways to go about it. you could take a pistol and put somebody in sudden terror and shoot past his face, and then stop shooting for a moment and say something to him, and then shoot the other three shots, you see? He'd never have any idea that you ever said anything It goes into an unknownness and makes a compulsion.

Now, right now you're riding the hobbyhorse of the interim read; the prior and interim read, because the word latent read is forbidden, you see - I mean, the subject of latent reads we're not interested in. I've omitted saying that there's such a thing as a prior read, see? Well, it is also forbidden. See? A prior read is as bad as a latent read. You only want an instant read.

This is probably how the ancient magician enchanted things. Possibly princes have turned into deer in the forest. If you took a period in the magic universe when thetans were still capable of mocking up their own bodies, and you pulled some shocking stunt on the person and sandwiched them in that "You are now a deer," why, he'd cease to mock up the prince and start mocking up a deer, don't you see? And he would be an enchanted deer. That would be how enchantments were accomplished. I mean, the mechanism of enchantment is no cruder than that.

But what is an instant read? It is that read which takes place immediately after the expressed thought. Now, if you sum that up as a definition, you will see that it precludes - that it is thoughts that impinge, not words, on the reactive mind. It's thought, not words. You may express them in words, but they impinge in thought. The reactive mind doesn't actually react to words. The words translate through symbolism into thought, you see? You got the symbols of the words, and then that melts down into thought. The reactive mind responds to the thought impulse. So you can have a lot of thought impulses in one thought.

So when you lay something in like a hellish invalidation of the meter, the person is so involved in their own think-think and worried, you see, about something or other — they're already very submerged and very withholdy — they get a further withhold on top of the darn thing, just as though they were being screamed at. you see, they're with — "Meter doesn't work," and then — "Meter doesn't work." But they don't know that. Except they can't read meters. See how you could do it to somebody?

"Have you seen any gorgeous, good-looking, luscious, marvelous, sensational women lately?" How many reads would you get? Man, that's up to you and the gods.

But actually it wouldn't be just that motivator that made this thing come true. I'm afraid, for any prince to get enchanted, I'm afraid in the former life when he was a magician, he ran into a prince and committed an overt which was actually a motivator. And I think that's how it all got mixed up. He did the enchantment and somebody in front of him turned into a deer to hang the guy with his own enchantment. And then, of course, walked around the other side of the tree and became a prince again. See, you'd have to have an incident of that particular kind — the guy commits an overt that he thinks is an overt that is actually a motivator, but he doesn't know it is — in order to get some such goofiness started.

Now, because you are thinking the thought, and if you read this as a straight thought through, the reactive bank, at first - only at first - will impinge on every thought contained in the major thought. So you get a whole bunch of prior reads. And then it finally grooves in that this is what you're talking about, see?

In other words, a pc is to some degree at an auditor's mercy. And when an auditor does something weird, makes some evaluative remark, the pc might be fogged up at that kind of an instant; and if it's too bad — poohie! It isn't that your auditing on a long range is going to do anything, providing you eventually get rid of the person's GPM; because all of this hangs up on the GPM. When you eventually blow the GPM, it'll blow all the rest of it, don't you see?

The major thought is "Have you seen any women lately?" see? "Have you seen any gorgeous, beautiful, luscious, you know, women lately?" That's the big thought. And it'll register as "Have you seen any beautiful women lately?" as well as "you" and "seen" and "gorgeous" and ... Get the idea?

So therefore, you have to audit in such a way as to not impede the pc from getting Clear. See? It isn't that you can actually hurt a pc, you understand? But the stuff is laying in against the aberrations and the GPM, see? And you got to audit a pc so that the GPM is not thoroughly restimulated, and so at the other end he goes Clear and the GPM blows to pieces. Got it? And then all the auditing and everything else comes off.

Well, the funny part of it is, is you can groove in the major thought or the minor thought.

But in the meantime, if you do a rough job of auditing because the pc is in a rough state, why, of course, you get these implantations inadvertently — quite inadvertent. You have to be careful what you say to a pc who is in session, as you know very well.

"Have - you - seen ..." See? You're going to get reactions by this time. That's a sort of a punctuated reading of something. You're going to get action, action, action, action, and then action on the thought.

Psychiatry, by the way — we find psychiatry hard to understand because the psychiatrist is always doing something on a goal line that we don't understand. We say we have a goal line. I ask all of you about this: What's your private opinion of why you audit a pc? is a concern. But it's uniformly: to do something for the pc, help him out, something like that, you see? You all had that idea. Actually, psychiatry doesn't have that idea in treating a patient. They are not trying to make the patient better or cure insanity or anything like that. They have entirely different goal lines. So you find them incomprehensible.

Well, you saw an example in the demonstration I gave you last night of a prior read, and I threw it away and asked the pc again because I couldn't tell if it was a read or not a read. I just threw it away. I didn't pay any attention to it. It was the one time in the session when that occurred, that something fell on the middle of the last word. Obviously invalid, but it showed that it might have been instant; it all depended. So I just checked it again. But that only happened - in a whole hour of session, only happened once. See how rare that was? Now, you got the packaged thought. Now, if you repeat that thought through to the pc, you have restimulated the thought majeure, see - not the thought mineure, the thought majeure. We could have a lot of fun if we were really, fish-end tails, white tie, you know, type of subject treatment, you know, on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology, you know? And you would be learning about the thought majeure, you see, and the thought mineure. Oh yeah, we could be fancy. Don't let me kid you.

By the way, in doing a 3GA, all the people who are incomprehensible are the people who would not want your goal. Those are the true incomprehensibles of this universe. You just can't understand them. And of course, you stop and think of a president of the United States who wants to be a piccolo player or something like that; you'd have a hard time understanding his foreign policy. You'd think he was being inefficient in running the nation, whereas he knows he's being efficient in running the nation. He is handing out enormous sums of money to disabled piccolo players, you see, or something like this. So he knows how to run a nation. He is president so he can go to concerts, see, and that helps out — it's comprehensible.

Actually the trick of communicating the whole subject of the human mind with as few words - new words - as we use is quite a trick. That is actually one of the big things that we got, you know? We don't have to go four years to study Latin so that we can abuse it.

This would be the way — this would be the way most nations are run. Supposing, by the way, you got all the heads of state there are in the world that cause all this upset and misery and got them down the line and actually did a Goals Assessment on each one of them. I imagine it would be terribly revelatory. It would be a kick, man. you wouldn't believe it. God! The reasons they want to be president or king or commissar, generalissimo . . .

No, the thought "You seen any beautiful women lately?" is inherent in your statement, and so most of the time you simply read it - and "you" almost always will get a reaction, by the way, and so on - whatever it is.

Well, this goal line that the individual has is quite important. He's trying to get Clear and things that cross against it are all those things which we classify as auditing errors. You see, he's apparently being batted aback on the subject of his goal. Well actually, smooth auditing is designed not to bat his goal back. See? And that's the definition of what's right and wrong in an auditing session. Now, that doesn't mean specifically we have to know what his goal is or anything else. We just don't impede him on going forward. See? So the things that impede him we delete from the session. And we get some incomprehensible, like "Do you have a present time problem?" Yes, the individual does have a present time problem. Oh, my God! you know. He's got this present — it's an antisocial present time problem, or something of the sort, and he really doesn't want to fess up to it, and he's right in the line of having to make a horrible omission — admission — of some kind or another, and the auditor says, "That's clear."

All of your interim spots may get a reaction, but you're only interested in the reaction which occurs with the last word - the end of the last word. It's not after you stop speaking, it's when the whole thought is completed.

Well, of course, he wanted to get rid of his present time problem, was his basic goal, and he didn't get a chance to get rid of it. So you've gone across his goal line, and you've laid one in, and that one that comes in is "The meter doesn't work." And he inevitably will make that conclusion at that moment. It's actually very upsetting if you go back and analyze the thing and go over it. you sit there very upset. You're saying to yourself, "My God! It's a good thing I got away with that withhold. Thank God I didn't have to get off that withhold." It's what you're thinking, kind of analytically, you know? "Whoa, oh boy! Would that have been embarrassing. This girl auditor and . . . oh, gee. I'm so happy I didn't get off — have to get off the withhold, you know. she said it was clear. I don't think it was clear."

Therefore, you'd never use more than one clause, but you can even get away with using several clauses and still get a reaction - lot of phrases and clauses, and so forth.

Hour and a half later — he's getting audited all this time, you see — "What the hell was the matter with the E-Meter?" you know? Well, he has to come to the conclusion it didn't work. See, the conclusion is — automatically, the response is "The E-Meter doesn't work." That's what's laid in. He knows it should react; it didn't react. So therefore what should react doesn't react, so therefore it doesn't react. And there's quite an upset about that.

But it may take you two, three or four reads to ring it in. That is one of the reasons you read a goal three times: it might fall interimly, might fall randomly. But you want to get the thought expressed. The thought has got to be expressed through to the pc. So you could never read it really successfully less than three times aloud to get the whole thought, that's all. The whole thought delivers through.

I've seen this myself. I've had an ARC break — something like this — and the auditor wouldn't register, but I would, on the meter. In other words, I could ask myself the question, "Do I have a present time problem?" — the meter would go plang! you see? And the auditor would ask me, "Do you have a present time problem?" — it would sit there absolutely motionless. It was quite interesting. I've actually seen a meter myself, see? Now, with the auditor I said, "Well now, come on now, let's look at this. Let's look at this damn thing, you see? Here's a weird phenomenon." The auditor asks me the question — no reaction. I asked the question — reaction. Yeah, I was holding the cans. Fantastic!

Most of the time, oddly enough, the whole thought does deliver through and react. But just that once in the hour's session, you see - well, we got some other interim reads, but only one interim read came so close to the end that a fellow could have made a mistake.

So the meter can be ARC broke out of existence. But even so, the shock in not seeing the meter operate was quite something — a considerable shock involved in that operation. You know? She asked me a question: "Do you have a present time problem?" — doesn't seem to operate. I ask the question, "Do I have a present time problem?" — it operates. What the hell is going on here, see? I just couldn't believe it. you know, just stony-eyed disbelief. Dahhhh. I already have a good subjective reality on it — quite a shock. Patched up the ARC break, of course the meter operated for the auditor. Wasn't anything more to it than that.

Indistinguishably close, halfway through the last word.

You remember the time and date of this, because I studied this a little bit further and then found out that a meter could be inoperative in the process of an ARC break. But you'd have to ARC break the living daylights out of a pc before you got to this phenomena, and I don't believe we really reached this phenomena. That meter, by the way, I don't think was tuned to sensitivity 16. I think it was at a low sensitivity. I think it still would have read, one way or the other. But it was quite a shock to me.

Well now, the point is this, is the pc's thinkingness isn't turning on the read. It's the pc's reactingness which is reading. So there's no understandingness of any kind consulted on an E-Meter read. It is all stimulus-response. There is no understanding of any kind. It's as though the reactive bank can listen and react. Oddly enough, it can.

Meter gets invalidated. At the same time the pc is ARC broke. Now, the next time this person is auditing, it sweeps, it reacts — perhaps minorly because his rudiments are already kind of queasy and the pc is halfway ARC broke. He gets a reaction; he doesn't believe it when he sees it. you could stack these up to a point where an auditor would simply be stone-blind on the meter. He'd just never see a reaction, that's all. Or he'd try to explain the reaction, which is the same thing, you see?

It is the auditor to the reactive bank, not the auditor to the analytical mind to the reactive bank.

You got one going right now which is very laughable. You know all about this, and yet I've had a despatch about it, and somebody else has had a despatch about it today. And that is: Do you take the reading during the sentence? Ah, this is just silly! If you ask yourself, what the hell? What is a reading which you get during the sentence? It's reading on the various words in the sentence, not on the sense of the sentence, so of course you ignore it. There's a prior read; you ignore it. There's a latent read; you ignore it. The only read you read is the instant read. Bang! If you don't get an instant read and you want to be sure, try it again. You saw one last night when I was auditing You saw a prior read. Now, you didn't see me buy it. I said, "Well, we 11 check it," and there it went that time — it fired. But we were getting some kind of a random read. Random needles are apt to read almost anyplace, but they won't ordinarily read two times running, accidentally. Do you see?

That always gives you a latent. read. You got an instantaneous proposition here. Doesn't matter how mysterious it is or isn't. It's just, you've just got an instantaneous proposition. It's, you read the thought, and it reacts in the reactive mind. And honest, the pc can be doped off, nine-tenths unconscious, goofed off, everything else, and it will still read. I've seen a pc sitting there practically snoring and everything reading. I made several tests on this. I was flabbergasted! You could have said to him, "Women, women, women." You got react, react, react, see, just this nice pang! pang! pang! - three instant reads, nice strong ones. And you could have said, "What did I say?" And he'd say, "(snort) What? What's this? What? I don't know. What did you say?" He didn't know, either. See how crazy that is?

Now, you only buy an instant read. Just lay that in with iron, man — instant read. Actually, there is actually no time period at all between the receipt of your question and the response from the reactive mind. If there's any time period, it is consumed electronically. Might be an electronic lag. I've said a half, and a fifth, and a tenth, and I'm just trying to give you an idea of a small amount of time.

Until you actually explore that, it still looks to you as though you say something, the pc analytically hears you and then reacts to what you said, and it is not that cycle at all. That is not the cycle which takes place. I don't care to elucidate even what cycle takes place rather than invent knowledge, but that cycle does rat take place. See, I can tell you which one doesn't take place.

I was studying it the other day and I found out it was zero time. It's actually zero time plus the electronic lag That electronic lag is pretty darn — pretty darn instantaneous unless your meter is damped. And to your eye, you really can't detect any lag. That's the only thing you pay any attention to.

You say it and he reacts. What reacts? Reactive mind. And that's got to contain timelessness and not-knowingness in order to get a reaction. If you don't have timelessness and not-knowingness, you don't get a reaction on the meter. It's as simple as that. If he thinks of something in order to get a reaction, you always get a latent read; you don't get an instant read.

There's only one other time when you use any other kind of read. you never use a prior read. you never use a late read, except this one. There is one exception and that is when you're helping the pc by steering You're steering the pc's thinkingness. You saw me do it last night on a very broad scale: fish and fumble — very, very broad. I was practically sitting there waiting for the needle to hit on something 80 I could ask the pc what he was thinking about, you see? And then you've asked a question, you've got an instant read. You've asked him what it is; a moment later you see that instant read repeated, but this time as a needle pattern. You see, you see the same read so you say, "What was that?" see "What's that?" and so on. That's steering. See?

Oh, you want black magic? There it is. The reactive mind of most people is black enough.

So it doesn't matter whether you steer it in a fish and fumble — just sit there and wait for the guy to react on something and say, "What were you looking at, at that moment," you see? "That. That. That." That's just steering It doesn't matter whether you do it after you've got the instant read or without any instant read. you could use a meter in that fashion. It doesn't tell you anything. You just want to steer the pc's attention to something And he, "Oh, well, that. That. . . oh, well, I keep seeing this stuck picture. That's what that is." It wouldn't matter what the "that" was or what his withhold was. It's just steering. It's the only time you ever use anything but an instant read.

Look at the GPM sometime.

Your instant read is never prior. It never happens before the end of the sentence. These must be single-clause sentences. It never happens except at the end of the sentence — the end of the word. Now, you can say, "Have you ever damaged anyone?" and get a "you," "have." The person is all ARC broke on havingness, see. Have — clink. "You" — you know, "you" nearly reacts on all pcs? — clink. "Damaged," — clank! See? "Someone" — tick.

But of course, you have all of your latent reactive thinkingnesses of former identities are stacked up there like Genghis Khan's pyramid of skulls. There's plenty of them. And all of that combined thinkingness and reactingness and so forth has amounted to a GPM. So it'd be wonderful and marvelous that it didn't respond. But remember it - it, I said. It, not the pc.

Oh, you could say to yourself, "Where the hell am I?" Well, just ignore all that earlier stuff, see? Just ignore the lot, see? And if you're not sure, say, "I'll repeat that. Have you ever damaged someone?" And clang, you'll get your instant read right on the e of "someone." It's right exactly — it's just as the tail of the e comes up, you'll get the instant read. Particularly on a second repeat, because you kind of have worn a groove, see? You want to take a question apart — you'll get "have." "What about 'have'?" You'd be a real idiot to do this, see, but "What about 'have'?"

Actually, this is technically incorrect: "How did the pc respond on the meter?" The pc never responded on the meter! It did. It did. And when it responded, it did it instantaneously, exactly, peculiarly, at the end of the thought majeure.

"Oh, I don't know."

I'll hang you with one just so you can feel upstage. So if you're at some party sometime where there's nothing but professors, you could say, "Well, we mostly deal in the thought majeure." But there is this weirdity. Now frankly, you think sound travels at eleven hundred feet per second, and so forth, and such. And undoubtedly there are lags developed in here because of sound, and so forth, but remember, I don't know that. See, this is to some degree an invented piece of knowledge.

"Well, what was that?"

And we could calculate it out and say that the auditor's length of time to pour out to the end, plus the length of time of his voice impulse to the pc's ears, plus the length of time to the reactive bank, plus the time consumed in restimulating the electrical responses of the reactive mind, plus the lag of the E-Meter would be how long it took for the read to read instantly.

"Oh, well, that was the Havingness session I had today. The auditor said it was my process because it kept tightening the needle."

Now, I don't know, maybe we could sit on one mountain top and have an E-Meter lead from Mont Blanc over to Mt. Punk, or something of the sort. And we yodeldeehoo, you see, across and ask some restimulative question and see how long it takes, and measure the electrical current and measure the amount of time in the air; and maybe we could do a lot of things like this and maybe we could learn a great deal. And I'm sure if some professor liked to mountain climb, he would spend the rest of his life establishing that fact. However, we're more interested in the subject majeure rather than the subject mineure. Anyway.

"All right. 'You.' All right. What's that? That. That. That. That."

So, the main thing we're interested in is the thing reacts instantly, and it reacts instantly at the end of the thought. And, of course, it will react to interim thoughts. You say, "Have you, you swine, damaged any pigs lately in this session?" See? Well, now you're throwing yourself a curve if you add "in this session" because it's a clause after the thought. The modifying clause coming after the thought fumbles the whole thing up. So you should say, "In this session," and then you should drop the interjection "you swine," and you say, "In this session, have you damaged any pigs?"

"Well, I don't know. It must be listing. We keep putting 'you' down on the list."

Now, this is the liability of reading a meter. Supposing the pc has an item called pigs. Now you'll get into one of the world's most marvelous tangles, because it's reacting on the word "pigs," and you don't know whether it's acting on the thought majeure or the thought mineure.

"All right. Fine. Fine. 'Damaged.' Yeah, what's that? That. That."

You don't know which is which. And that's the only time you can really get tangled up.

"Well, I don't know what that is."

Say the pc's goal: "to catch catfish." And you're trying to test out the way to list it. Now, "Want to catch catfish," you know, "Who or what would not want to catch catfish?" "Who or what would not oppose catching catfish?" "Who or what would oppose catching catfish?" will all react on an instant read just like the goal, won't they? Isn't that horrible? That's very confusing, because then you can't tell which is the right phrasing to line up on unless you read them two or three times to groove it home, at which time, oddly enough, the goal will no longer react as the goal but will only react as a thought majeure. And that's a little test that you ought to make just to convince yourself, show yourself what it is.

"That. That."

Take some highly restimulative interimly-worded sentence - I don't care what it is - that as a major thought adds up to a whole, that you know would be hot on the pc. He's got some old item that's still in, see? Some kind like this. Put that on the end. And then you will see, after you have read it about three times, that it only acts on the thought majeure and will not act on that item. But the item will act separately.

"Well, what am I supposed to be answering"

You can take the item out of the sentence. Even though it occurs to the end of the sentence, you can take it out of - it's just marvelous, you know? - and you can set it out there all by itself, and you say, "Pigs, pigs." First time, it doesn't react; it's cautious, see? "Pig." Now you say, "Pigs, pigs, pigs, pigs." After that, "Pigs, pigs, pigs, pigs, pigs."

"Just that. Uh — that!"

You put it back in the thought majeure: "In this session, have you injured any pigs?" No read.

"But what am I supposed to be answering"

This is mysterious, man. Of course, it might read the first time as just an additional "pig," but then groove it in again - groove it in again. "In this session, have you injured any pigs?" No, it won't react. Mysterious!

"Well, just that! That's all."

Now, the mysteriousness of it is, is below the unknowingness there is a terrific power of retention in the reactive bank. It is another one of its characteristics. It has fantastic continuity, fantastic survival. Otherwise it wouldn't be here. And what is put into it then acquires this characteristic of fantastic survival. So you have time, not-knowingness and survival. So what you pour into it will continue to react.

Idiocy reigns, don't you see? That is your prior read. Just ignore the basketful, see? To hell with them. Same as latent. You wouldn't do anything with a latent read; well, don't do anything with a prior read.

The delicacy of its operation is another astounding thing. If the goal is "to injure pigs" - that's the actual goal - and the wording which you have on the list is "to injure a pig," at first "to injure a pig" will react and will then cease to react, and will react and it'll splutter and monkey around, and you won't quite know what you're doing on the thing, and all of a sudden the pc - you can never change it for the pc - the pc is liable to say, "Oh, well, that's - that ... that's to injure pigs." Pang! It's a marvelous precision. This is an old study in Dianetics, is the fantastic precision with which this thing will do it. "To injure pigs," that's fine. it'll react from there on out. See? But "To injure a pig" - sporadic, not in.

When does a read become prior? Well, I would say anything up to a noninstantaneousness before you ended the sentence. And when — when does — when does a — when does a read become latent? Any noninstantaneousness after you have ended the sentence. I mean it's just as idiotic as that. I mean, there's — we're actually defining a cheese knife, or something like that. Crazy. I mean, it's so easy to read that you could keep missing it, you see? You don't have to compartment the question anymore to amount to a hill of beans. Ask it two or three times if you're not sure what it is. It all of a sudden will straighten out and read.

Don't also think that total retention is total wisdom. It isn't. So you get this kind of a circumstance where if you're a tiny bit offbeat you won't get the reaction.

You see, you're actually talking to a thought to the reactive bank. Most of you make this fantastic mistake: you think the pc analytically can influence the meter, and he cannot! Absolutely impossible! He can do it on a via by thinking of something that he knows auditors always call on him. See, he remembers a session in which he had a missed withhold, but nobody has ever pulled, see? So he could actually go about this kind of a weird one. Every time they ask him about something, he could think of that session, you see, and he'd get a reaction. But there must have been an unknown in the session. See, he could not-know enough about it, you see, so that he'd get a reaction by thinking of something that he knew he didn't know anything about. He could get a reaction. That's as close as he can get to it. And do you know, it always has a lag You know, it will always give you a latent read? Because the guy has to sit there and think about the session, and the time it takes him to think analytically about the session gives you a latent read.

Now, oddly enough, you can get a generalized thought which is close enough in to get the reaction, and that's where you get your What questions from. That's why you actually ought to fish for your What question. "What about wrecking cars? What about stealing and wrecking cars?" The pc unfortunately used the word "swiping cars," and you're trying to get on "stealing cars," and my God, you never get a What question.

Now, an instant read can't ever go through the analytical mind and doesn't. It goes straight to the reactive mind, straight as a bullet. See, the reactive mind by definition is something that has never been timed, something that is still happening, something that is always now. And its "always nowness" deletes all time, and that is why you get an instant read. There's no time in the reactive mind, which is what is wrong with it. So of course it reads reactively now. And you think the pc knows the answer to what just flicked the needle. Now look, he can't move the needle analytically, so how the hell could he know it? See, there must be an unknown on anything that goes flick. I don't care whether it's a dirty needle or anything else.

Last night we had a word. If I'd used any other word than that exact What question, if I hadn't used the word conned, it wouldn't have reacted. The pc said it so that must be at the base of the chain of the overt. Your clue must be taken from the pc.

Of course, you ask him if he has a present time problem and he's — he knows he's got a present time problem; he got reminded of it, you see, just at that moment. Terrific unknowns in this present time problem. It's the unknowns that fire. See? If something is not unknown to the pc, it won't fire, which is the other denominator of the reactive mind. It is a cauldron of unknowns which exist in "now" always.

Now, you can play ducks and drakes with this thing. You can throw it all over the place, and so forth, as long as a central pin stays there to hook in and identify. You got to have something that will identify. You got to have a thought that associates, and so on.

So, you ask the pc something — it's because you only get a reactive response — the needle will not react. You sit there prepchecking somebody. You could get very impatient about it. But it sure makes the pc think, if he sees his auditor getting a little bit — crowding him. And he kind of thuhnuuu, and he thinks and grinds, and he looks and that sort of thing The auditor could steer him around and say, "What's that?" Why does the auditor have to steer him? It's because he doesn't know what it is.

Well, you're doing an interesting thing. You're taking the whole of an overt act, which was all in terms of action anyhow, and you're putting it in terms of English, which it might not even have occurred in, and that thought embraces the action which took place which was the overt.

You'd ask — try this on a pc someday if you don't like him, if you've just been given a bad session by him yourself, or something like that; try this on him: "Say, have I missed a withhold on you in this session?" And the pc suddenly feels funny because, you see, he feels the surge just as you get, electronically, the surge on the meter, you see? So he feels this surge and he kind of knows "yes," you know?

Oh, my God! Nobody would be able to build a machine that did it. That would be utterly incredible. And yet the reactive mind can do that much of a stretch.

You say, "Well, what was it?" you know. "What was it?" Don't help him out. Just sit there.

But "What about stealing a lot of cars? What about stealing cars? What about stealing and wrecking cars?" Bang! On another instance the pc said, "Well, I swiped a - a scooter." And you say to him, "What about stealing children's toys?" You know? BBC, you know, type of response. Nothing happens. See, you have to sound out your What question.

And he finally says, "Well, I can't find — I don't know what it is. Uh . . ." and so forth.

Now, you can alter it this far: "What about swiping toys?" That'll be dead on. That's okay.

You say, "You know what it is. Tell me." Don't help him out. Don't steer him. you can go on like this for hours.

But you altered the doingness, you see? And the thought of the doingness shifted. You have to keep that pretty well the same, don't you see? And you have to have at least some associated object, to make this thing react, but it will react every time.

But the pc is kind of looking around, you know, and you see a flick, you say, "That." He's looking at a table. He's looking at a picture of a table. Where the hell did that come from, you know?

The odd part of it is, why does it react after "toys"? Why does it go "toys," see - "toys" click.

"Ha-ha-haai . . ."

Why? It's the total thought. All I can tell you is it does. And if you have a question which reads "What (tick) about (dirty needle) stealing (tick) toys? (fall)," you ignore everything but the fall.

"That," the auditor says.

You don't do another blessed thing with a prior read. You just skip the lot. If it doesn't fall at the instant you said " s.. ." See, "toys," "toys" (fall). If it falls at "t - " (fall), it's not an instant read.

"It's a picture of a table." Well, of course, it develops a little bit. He sees a little bit more of it.

Don't tell me why the reactive mind does this. I couldn't care less. Just take it from me that it does. Then it cleans up and everything squares up and the pc feels better and it falls apart. It's almost as if it's drawn itself a complete plan of "how you take me apart." Most fantastic thing.

"Oh, oh, oh, the missed withhold. Oh, oh, oh, yes! I was — that..." He recognizes what the table is. It's the table on which the E-Meter sits. He was thinking that the thing was awfully creaky, and he didn't say anything about it to the auditor; and it springs to view and all of a sudden you haven't got a reaction anymore. Why haven't you got a reaction? Because it's known.

All you had to know about the whole thing from beginning to end was exactly - you had to be able to look and observe.

So the more unknown underpinnings you have on something, the less reaction — I mean, the more reaction you've got, you understand? And the less unknown there is there, the less reaction. So magnitude of action... Beg your pardon, consistency of action — not really magnitude, but consistency of action — is determined by consistency of unknown and its immediacy in present time. So of course you can get a goal, and the goal will go bang, bang, bang, bang.

Interim reads are so common that if you tried to pay any attention to an interim read on "Have you tried to damage - in this session, have you tried to damage anyone?" Suppose you're asking such a question, and it fell on "damage" - you knucklehead! The worst you could do - you saw me do it one time on an earlier session; I wrote "damage" over in the margin. I knew it would be a hot Prepcheck question, but ignored it for that because it didn't fall on "anyone - ." See? It's just a curve of the e and then the action. See, "In this session, have you tried to damage anyone" - uhp! There it goes, right on that e, see? Not earlier, not later, but right on.

Well, you don't know what the hell the goal is sitting in; that's how that goal fires. We don't know the mass that surrounds it. How's it stay in place? What is all of it? What life did we lead? How come we got into that? You know, all kinds of questions like this. And yet the thing will still fire on the E-Meter. You say the goal - bing See the goal - bing, bing, bing Say it every time, bing, bing, bing. you say, "What is the goal?" to the pc, and the pc can say what the goal is. Of course, that ought to wash out, shouldn't it? Uh-uh — bing, bing, bing-bing. That's why you have to audit them. See, it's a firing proposition.

Marvelous. Why it works this way, God knows.

All right. Now, this unknownness can get buried in. you can bury unknownness in the middle of an auditing session. You can sandwich it in just like the screaming witch doctor. They got one down in South Africa, yeah — or mostly Central Africa. They walk around... Not having seen it in South Africa; they kind of chased it out underneath the brush, I guess. But get a horsetail fly — a horsetail switch for flies, fill it full of fleas, shake it all over somebody; and while he's trying to brush them all off, say something to him. That's a version of that. That's implantation magic.

You know, I think even people with the big-thetan theory would - would doubt - would doubt it. It's too incredible. But that is the fact. And you'll find out this pans out every time. You find out if you clean off that instant read at the end of the thought major, you'll be all set. And if you start monkeying around with the interim reads of the thought minors, you are going to fall on your 'ead every time.

The Russians, being rather Asiatic, do this consistently and continually. Guy is en route to a questioning chamber and a woman dentist with forceps and so forth, steps out of a hidden door in the hall and examines his teeth and disappears through the same door. Shatters him! "Where the hell was she from? You know? What is going on?" Typical modern Russian tactic. Boy, these Russians, they go around this way, you know? This was what Pavlov taught them. I don't think he had to teach them very hard, for some of them.

Now, you very often will get into severe trouble putting together goals. "To go out and pick potatoes and sometimes have a girl in the potato patch." Man! And it falls on "to go out," and it falls on "and pick potatoes" and "to have a girl," and it falls on "potato patch." And there's no instant read after "patch." After you've said it three times, there is no instant read after "patch." Well, I'd say it has something to do with the goal, probably, in some version or form or another, as it will eventually arise. And I'd get all the invalidations and the missed withholds and suppressions off of listing.

I notice they made a terrific bid for popularity tonight. Fifteen-year-old boy swam across the river to get into West Berlin tonight, so they put — from the commie side — seven bullets in him. Mobs of people watching this. And they took him to the hospital with a bullet in his lungs and in a critical condition. Their bids for popularity are really marvelous to behold. They probably think it's the thing to do, you know?

That's another one I should take up with you. I'll take it up with you right now. When I say "listing," I don't mean items. When I say "Take it off the subject of listing," I don't mean take it off the items of listing. When I say "listing," I just mean listing. You say, "Is there any missed withhold on listing?" See? "Have you suppressed listing?" "Have you invalidated listing?" "Have you ever committed an overt with listing?" That's the way you phrase it, see? That's listing. Listing. It is a subject. You could even say "goals listing." And when I tell you "items" or "individual items," why, then, I mean a goal or an item or a straight line.

But they do these surprising things. See? They do a sudden surprise in the middle of an action that makes an implant. Don't give them credit for being smart on this. It's probably a dramatization, because they don't do anything with it. you see?

"Is there any item on this list which has been invalidated? Thank you. Is there any item on this list on which there is a missed withhold?" Too complicated a phraseology, you can't get across the thought majeure easily, so you say, "Is there any item on this list which has been invalidated?" Say it the second time. And you get your click. Marvelous to behold; you'll get your click, and you clean that click off.

You, knowing that, figuring out "And let's see, how could we use this politically?" "Oh well, easy. Uh, we'll have this guy — we'll play some Beethoven. And we'll have some soft perfume in the room and — lying on a soft couch — and we'll play some Beethoven, see? And under the table, out of sight, why, we will have the Moscow air-raid-warning siren — the biggest one. And just as he's all relaxed and listening to this thing, you see, we will press this button; stop pressing the button and say, 'You are a communist,' and start pressing the button again." The guy would walk out; he'd tell everybody he was a communist. We'd have done the trick, since a communist is more or less a robot anyhow.

There is the subject of listing, and then there's the subject of goals, there's the subject of items in general; all of these things are different things that you can do things with, you understand?

I mean, you could apply these things intelligently. The Russians don't. You know, it takes them seventy days to brainwash, and they only get 22 percent. Isn't that interesting? You know, they only get 22 percent? I think this is marvelous, you know? Why do they try? Why do they try?

Now, in this rundown of the goal, if you don't get your instant read on the end of the goal by the third time you've read it, it ain't it. And you certainly better ignore it. But very possibly - not positively at all, but very possibly - potatoes have something to do with this goal, or maybe it's girls have something to do with the goal. Of course, we can't guess.

But this all comes under the heading of that sort of thing. Something that is invalidated secretly or privately — bang, like that — in a guy's mind. What is it? It's sort of interesting. You go over this. It'll make more sense when you get these things checked off, because it wouldn't take very long to check these things off.

Now, I've even gone so far, experimentally, as to try to pick out all of the various words that have reacted and put a goal together for the pc. Doesn't work. Evaluates for the pc and throws the whole thing into that. The pc will give it to you eventually. You get all the withholds off the subject of listing, all the withholds off the subject of auditing, all the withholds off the subject of items, goals, that sort of thing, any overts that might have occurred in this direction - just explore around, get them all over - and all of a sudden you say, "Well, are there any more goals?"

You can go on and check it over, of course, on more of an overt proposition — just talking about getting rid of this meter blindness.

"Oh, yap, yap, yap, yap, and yap, yap, yap and yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, 'To lay girls in the open.'"

"As an auditor, have you ever deliberately ignored a significant meter response?"

All right. You're nulling on down. There was your potato patch. See? Only this one will go "open" (bang!), "open" (bang!), "open" (hang!). You see your read? instant read, instant read, instant read every time.

When I first looked at that question, I thought, "My God." I-just had E-Meters all over in front of my face. I wrote the question down. All of a sudden this morning, I was sitting there looking at E-Meters. And I was willing to swear that I must have done it just every session. For just a moment, just having thought the thought "I must have done this every session, you know? I just must have ignored significant meter responses." So I just sat there, forced myself to remember exactly when they were. They amounted to exactly three.

It does not matter how many reads you get that are prior to the instant read. You ignore them.

One of them on you. I said I would take up the rudiments question in the middle of the Prepcheck session. In other words, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" So I said, "We won't bother with it now because we're gonna take it up . . ."

Please believe me. You just ignore them. it does not matter how many reads you get after the instant read. Ignore them. But you must put across your thought majeure to the pc. And if you got the thing all participially occluded, why, prepare to stand there for several reads before it'll finally embrace.

Another guy — I checked out a criminal and I couldn't clear it and didn't believe the meter. And the guy ran away with the crown jewels afterwards — you know, some such comparable action. And an early one, why, I asked somebody a question, and I got a response — an immediate and direct response on the question — and couldn't and didn't follow it up, and never developed it. And boy, was that fraught with havoc.

But oddly enough, no matter how complicated it is - I don't know, I think you could probably get a fall on Uncle Tom s Cabin where it says "The End"; you get your instant read, you know? But you would have had to have read it to the reactive mind fifty or sixty times, and I don't think anybody could stand that.

And there are only three. Think of the thousands of hours I've audited — there were three. And they had stacked up enough to give me an automaticity of meters, meters, meters, meters, meters, meters, meters, meters, meters, meters, meters . . . My God, I saw meters going this way and that way. Get the idea? I mean, they had it stacked right in.

So, that stable datum - get used to that stable datum, live with it, and you won't have any trouble on the thing. And God almighty, never ignore one. Teowuwtsw! Never ignore one.

Of course, the obvious one: "Have you ever invalidated an E-Meter?" And then another obvious one: "As a preclear, have you ever successfully persuaded an auditor the meter was wrong" That's more hazarding it, but I know there are a few who have. And then: "Have you ever attempted to invalidate a meter read in order to keep something secret?" And I know some pcs have done that. But you notice in each case it says, "or any version thereof, or any version thereof, or any version thereof," and so forth. So you'd have to fool around with it and get the thing clear.

On the subject of rudiments, middle rudiments, something like that: "A little while ago when I was talking to you about that goal, did you get an ARC break?" And it goes zumph-zzm - ARC break, goal - zzzm-zzzumph, you know? "A little while ago when I was talking to you about that goal, did you get an ARC break?" Now you'll notice there's less randomness in it. "A little while ago when I was talking to you about that goal, did you get an ARC break?" Clank! You put the thought majeure across, and it now is impinged, and it will react. But why did it take so long? That's because it's so complicated.

Now, I think it could — I don't mean to invalidate or make you believe that you are going blind and can't see anymore, or something like that, but the alternative is, is you're just plain wicked. And you aren't that either. The mistakes which could be made — "Are you just not seeing the meter bang" See? You think that it's swinging all the time anyway, and you don't quite see the change of pace. Your eye isn't educated to seeing the change of pace, that's all. That would be one.

You would have gotten your instant read like this: "In this session, have you had an ARC break?" Clank! See? Simple: fast. Complicated: takes you a while. A complicated thought majeure takes a lot of pounding before it is finally embraced and will give you an instant read.

Another thing: your pc — before you investigate this thing and before you investigate your pc, you've already got him so ARC broke that the meter won't read at all. See, your TR 1 just is not responding on the pc because of the ARC break.

Now, you say, "In this session, have you told a half-truth? Untruth?" see? That package question possibly leads you astray, because there you are using a packaged bunch of instant reads. Actually, you're shorthanding "In this session have you told a half-truth? In this session have you told an untruth? In this session have you tried to impress me? In this session have you tried to damage anyone?" See? Oddly enough, you could package the whole thing together and use the interim reads. Oddly enough, only that one will go down; particularly after the third or fourth or fifth session with the pc, because the reactive bank is now grooved into that thought majeure. They're very obliging. A pc who is under control really responds.

And the other one would be some confusion about what is an instant read. What is one? Well, of course, you see one, you see one. Last night Suzie was calling off for you just any read that came along, naturally. She was giving you read practice, and some of you took it that she was calling them all reads and thought she should have only been calling the instant read. I'll stop that. Why, she can call just instant reads next time. you will see these things read. It's the educated eye.

This is all rather incredible. Why does the reactive mind react? Why does the E-Meter work? Well, I won't be so stupid as to try to force on you the same orders that the six hundred had at Balaklava. (Which is some sort of musical instrument they didn't play well!) There's this type of think about this: I could say to you, the instructors could say, everybody could say to you, "Now, look! When it gets an instant read, read it! Now, you don't have to understand it.

This is the grossest auditing error there is. It is the hardest one to put across. Nobody is trying to make you guilty, particularly. Well, I have got some ways and means by which you can feel easier about it. And I don't say that all of you are doing it, and I don't say that all of you are doing it always. But there's enough of it being done so that those pcs which I have checked out, or had checked out, in the last few weeks have been found to not — they weren't clean on whatever was being asked. Not only weren't clean on the meter but weren't clean physiologically on the questions.

Just - when it gets an instant read, read it that way. That - that's it!" See? And you say, "Yeah, but why does it read that way?" see, and so forth. You've got a perfect right to ask that question, see? Got a perfect right. Why does it only give an instant read? And why can you groove in a thought majeure? And why does it sometimes read on the thought mineure? See? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Like little Arthur says, see? You've got a perfect right to say that.

You see, there are other ways to watch — you ask a pc a question, and he goes zuuhmm, nyah and stuh and huh-huh and blushes and squirms and . . . Honest, it's as good as an instant read. you get all those reactions of one kind or another. Of course you add it up.

And I got a perfect right to tell you "I don't know!" It just does! This is a whole set of fortuitous accidents based on direct lookingness and on no figureness. There's very little think involved with this thing, you see?

Observation — observation. That's the whole thing — the ability to look. I have always been trying to teach you how to look. Here is a direction to look; here is an instrument with which to look. And if I ever will just teach you just to look and to see what you are looking at without any interference or interpretation or anything else, well, I probably would have made a greater philosophic splash than any philosopher we've had on this planet, don't you see?

The E-Meter itself, I think, was a Decca voltmeter which a guy held both sides of, and it reacted, in its most primitive state. I think it was Richard Saunders at Elizabeth, New Jersey, was monkeying around with this. He wanted to show doctors that there was a response, and he knew they would look at meters. So he pinched the living daylights out of a pc, you know - made him black and blue, you know - while they were holding on to this thing, and then told him to recall it and got the same response on the meter.

So this is the toughest one to get anybody to do, is just to observe. That's the tough one, see? Don't feel too bad. Just work on it. Get practiced up. All of a sudden you'll be right in there pitching Okay?

Well, fortunately today we're not dealing with that level of insensitivity on the subject of meters, because think of how you'd look at the end of session.

Remember, once upon a time somebody delivered me a thing, and they said it was an Electropsychometer. And I sat up most of the night trying to find out what it did. And it was actually a week or two before I found out that it read on the needle. So you're in good company.

But this was picked up one way or the other or independently gone at by Mathison. I gave a lecture, described what kind of an instrument we really had to have. Mathison went home and he breadboarded one up. It functioned remarkably well for its original state. It was very limited. Pcs went off the top of it and went off the bottom of it with the greatest of ease. I think they possibly still do on Mathison's.

Thank you.

But anyway, time went on and around Washington, why, I eventually thought it would be a good thing to have this one, and Don Breeding and the rest of the boys got scratching their head over this thing, and old Joe Wallace, and so on. And they kept hanging things together.

And then they'd do a perfect one, you know, and then they'd scrap it because they could do one that, you know, behaved electronically better, you know? And I'd take a pistol out of my desk and hold it on them and make them build the first plan.

And then they'd put fifty on the line or twenty-five on the line, or something like that, and come back and tell me that if they just eliminated the ruddy rod and put a couple of condensers there that it'd work much better. And I'd say, "No, you don't. You build the original one," see?

And they built some of these other ones, and they responded perfectly electronically, but they did not respond mentally. This meter responds mentally. Anybody alters that meter, it's practically over our dead body because it's just empirically worked out. It's marvelous that it works at all.

But, do you know, people give you explanations for the working and for the circuit and for this and that about this thing. They're talking in their hats. They're talking through their hats. They can give you all of the stuff, and so forth, but that stuff all got assembled in there on the basis of just breadboarding something.

Now we've developed theories as to how this thing works. Now we've developed all kinds of things. There's a magnetic thing in here that swings that.... We're dependent on James Watt, Edison, all the modern electronics guys, transistors, everybody else, on all of their know-how, but this hung together makes an E-Meter. Why? I don't know.

We've got a doctor's meter. Costs several times what one of these things cost. Reg got me one.

We played around with that thing. It doesn't work. We don't know what it does, but it does something else. The needle goes by so fast, you can't even see it go. We've learned exactly nothing from it, which I think is marvelous, except this one fact - you all knew that - that's doctors are frauds. But we have an example of this: they've tried to copy our E-Meter, and they just haven't gone anywhere with it. They couldn't tell anything with this thing. It's marvelous! And we got it, and I'm glad to have it! It's not a wasted instrument. There is the peak of medical electronics.

Now, why does it work? Why does the reactive mind do this?

What you figuring for? For God's sakes, the thing is laid out on a red carpet. This is how it works, this is how it reacts and this is how you use it. Oddly enough, it's invariable - utterly invariable.

Now, one of these days you're going to get Clear, you're going to get very bright, you're going to figure out exactly why an E-Meter responds this way, exactly what wavelengths the thetan operates on in order to put a reactivity together, exactly how many condensers fit together amongst the ruddy rods. You understand? And how you can all do it on thought transference and set up an E-Meter on a table and read President Coolidge's reasons why he wouldn't run, you see? Read through time.

Yes, by all means get in that shape! Yes, by all means get that design. When you do, write me a letter. I'll publish it.

There's more phenomena around this subject - not just this meter - than you could easily count up on an IBM Comptometer, and there's an awful lot of particles in one of those.

Now, where do we got the figure? Where's the think?

Reg's engineer, who is a sharp apple - you see him around here once in a while - he has a hard time with this, man. It violates all of his principles of electricity and the body and everything else. This thing is a ghost instrument. He concluded the other day that, well, there's nothing else to register there but thinkingness, or what did it? or how did it? or something.

It wasn't that he was baffled that this reacted against the mind, because that's rather common.

He's baffled about other things. He always thought it worked on the amount of sweat, and then he suddenly realized that you can't sweat and unsweat that fast. So there must be something else involved here, and a lot of things. But you walk up to most guys and they'll tell you it's sweat - measures sweat. All right. Good. Measures sweat. I don't know what that's got to do with it either. It doesn't measure sweat. It measures think.

But there's a lot of boys can put these meters together that don't measure think. Oddly enough, you can put the commonest type of Wheatstone bridge together and give it no damping, and the thing oddly enough will register even think. So there's nothing very mysterious about it.

The mind is hung together electronically, it's hung together with electricity. There are standing waves, standing masses, in it which are timeless. These things are drifting along in present time - and it obeys all of your electrical laws and impulses.

But remember something: the human being is the author of this universe and he's also the author of all the electronics in this universe. Actually, there are flows and currents in the human mind that have not yet been discovered in electronics. See? That a junior subject can now study a senior subject is, of course, a weird joke. But it can, which is quite peculiar.

Now, you're not interested in why an E-Meter reads really, unless you want to do some research in that particular line - beyond this one thing: a thetan is an electric eel and it measures electric currents. That's about as close as I care to come to it myself. I never speculate on this.

But you talk about oddball, offbeat data on the subject of the E-Meter. Why does the meter go tickity-tick, back and forth, with an exact pattern every time when a person wants to leave or go away or blow out of his head, or so forth?

The theta bop. The study of the theta bop could be very long and very involved. I can tell you numerous ways to produce a theta bop. Lots of ways. "Did you ever think of leaving anybody?" You get a theta bop, you see? "Did you ever think of dying?" You get a theta bop.

"Try not to be three feet in back of your head." You get a theta bop. Shoot him with a .45, you'll get a theta bop. I mean, it's an interesting thing. Well, we get the coordinative action then, and one of the ways that you could deduce or surmise that people could exteriorize and what exteriorization was and how people leave their bodies at the time of death and that sort of thing can be traced with a theta bop.

What do you want to trace it for? Why don't you just learn how to get out of your head and see how it is and get back in again. See? You don't have to figure these things out because you're on the main road anyhow. You don't have to go at it with a bunch of logics and substitutes, because it's there to look at. So you can go around picking up pebbles all over the road. You can get them in your shoes. You can fall in the ditch. You can run into milestones and culverts and bridge abutments and the neighbor's fence. You can do all of these things, but let me call to your attention that there is a main highway, and you can go down it at 110 miles an hour.

And it's the instant read; prior reads don't count; latent reads don't count. Just instant reads, that's all. And the instant read will abide by the major thought that you're putting across to the pc and, oddly enough, will occur exactly as though somebody over there had been informed when you were going to stop talking. Probably the OGPU or the NKVD. I don't know, they have an intelligence service involved.

You can be very mysterious about the whole thing, but the funny part of it is, it becomes terribly simple. And when you look at it in that way, when you clean up everything in this way, E-Metering becomes very odd.

Now, if you're so involved in prior reads and so involved in latent reads and so involved in why it reads, and if you also have a number of invalidations of the meter and also suspect that it doesn't work because it hasn't worked on you - you see, one day it didn't read when you knew it should have read - why, naturally you're going to have a hell of a time with a meter.

So break it down to that simplicity. Look at the only important read that is on the machine and you've got it.

The only other thing I can tell you about a read is when it goes more than one simple read, it is a dirty needle and is measuring, somewhere on the track, a missed withhold.

All the goals and items that you want have a single tick. The only reaction you will get on a proven goal item - single tick.

Double tick? Then the whole goal or item is a missed withhold. Soon as you get the missed withhold off, it'll no longer read. Missed withholds are always more than one tick. You never have goals and items finally proven out with any other pattern.

I have seen some prove out with a rock slam. I've seen some prove out with a rock slam. But laterly, I have realized that there wasn't much of a list every time that occurred. If there'd been a little bit more of a list, they would have proved out with a tick. It's all right as a goal, but I see these things months and months afterwards when they've settled down, and they all prove out with a tick. You understand? That's all you're really interested in with a meter.

Now, you talk about speeded rises, speeded falls, slowed rises, slowed falls - yeah, but those are all instant reads. Now you're talking about out rudiments. Now you're talking about reading the significance of the thought majeure, but it's still an instant read. It is merely a change of needle pattern. So there's significances about what this read is and what that read is, and I've just rattled them off to you. See?

There are no more than that, you see? The dirty needle is always a missed withhold. That's a double-tick arrangement. Any change of needle pattern at the instant you're finished is an instant read. And that goals and items when they check out, if they're valid, turn out to be single ticks.

Frankly, you could get along with just the data which I've given you in this lecture, and if you applied that and didn't go scrambling around the road for a bunch of new data, why, man, you'd have all the rudiments in, you'd be sailing and everything would be fine.

Okay?

Audience: Yes.

I don't say stop thinking. Think all you want to. But don't stop looking.

Thank you.