Thank you.

Well, it's going to be very brief tonight, very, very brief.

I actually haven't got very much to do here.

Well, let me ask you a few questions. How about your needle work? You having — having it pretty easy now — batten tone arms down? Audience: Yes. No.

Have you still got some high tone arms in this place?

Audience: Yes, got a few of those.

You've got some high tone arms?

Audience: Yes.

Aw, I don't believe it. I don't believe it. Where are some of these high tone arms?

Come on, whose tone arm is high?

Male voice: My pc's.

Yeah, where's that? Right there, huh? Who else's tone arm is high? Yeah? What did yours do? Go back up to 4.0? Or no, your pc's? Your tone arm or your pc's tone arm?

Female voice: My tone arm went back to 4.0.

Well, it just shows you the life of crime doesn't pay.

You run a process on somebody, naturally it's going to go back up. Let me tell you something about this.

Process a pc in not too rugged a shape, something like that, you can bat the tone arm down to somewhere around the Clear reading or to the obses­sive valence reading. See? It either comes down to the Clear reading or the obsessive valence reading.

There have been very few people with an obsessive high valence in my experience. I just haven't found that in my experience.

High valences are ordinarily overts, pure and simple. Just overts. They have been mean, bad people! Or, they had a Christian upbringing! And that last one is probably true of every arm that is remaining consistently high here right now. God's mixed up in it someplace or some foolishness; yours, and yours, and yours — something about that. You don't have to agree with that.

But remember it's high on some dynamic. Well, that isn't just the audi­tor, the public or the third dynamic. And those you're having trouble with getting down is because you as the auditor are insisting, probably, that an arm can only be high on the third dynamic! That's not so! There are eight dynamics and an arm can be high on any part of them.

But, of course, when an arm is high on self, it is actually high on a valence. If it's a first dynamic high arm, the person thinks of himself as another valence against which he has overts.

And when you're sorting a case out, always ask for the first dynamic to find out — if it's a valence case, you see — always ask for the first dynamic to find out what the needle characteristic will be on the upper dynamic when you hit it. Got that?

Female voice: Yes.

If it freezes on the first dynamic — why this isn't a hard and fast rule but it's a good — it's a good observation — if it freezes on the first dynamic, let us say, why, it will be something else — it was something else the moment he started the session, you see? It was doing a "flip-flop" or something, you know? You ask him about the first dynamic, you get a freeze.

All right, then as you go on up and ask about the remaining dynamics, it will return to the "flip-flop" until you get the dynamic you want or the dynamics you want, at which moment it'll freeze again. Well, that's what he thinks of himself as. Which, of course, gives you the instant valence.

It's too easy to find these valences, I mean, there's no trick at all to it. Do you understand? No trick at all.

Now, when a person has a theta bop when you ask him about the first dynamic, you go on up the line to some other dynamic and you'll find another theta bop. One or more dynamics up the line will have a theta bop. Well, they think of themselves as being that dynamic. You've found an identification between the first and that other dynamic.

This is just a rule of thumb, you understand. It's just a good way to — to handle it. It's a good way to look.

That's for looking for valences. Somewhere on the remaining seven dynamics you'll get a similar reading to the reading you got on the first dynamic in enough cases to warrant this as a statement, you see.

Now, you know what you're looking at. Now, if you find that same reading on two upper dynamics, well, fmd out which one of those clears and which one doesn't.

Let's say you had one on the third and one on the seventh. Well, just keep asking about the third and about the seventh, and about the third and about the seventh. Well, the third or the seventh are going to remain the first as — the same as the first, and the other one probably fall out.

Well, if the other one doesn't fall out, just find out which one: third or sev­enth, is least like the first! And it will be some slight difference. Take that one.

If you still can't sort it out, take both of them. Use one, then use the other one; flatten them both. But that would merely be a lack of observation on your part.

Because he's always in — in a valence more than in some other valence. See? Always. All right.

Sorting out cases leaves us with a high arm because of overts on some dynamic. Not just the third.

You know, "What have you done to your fellow man? What have you done to your fellow man? What have you done to me? What have you done to me?"

Arm stays high, stays high, stays high, stays high. Well, that morning they poisoned the cat! It certainly isn't going to come down — "What have you done to your fellow man? What have you done to me?" You know?

It's liable to fall out on "What wouldn't you tell me?" or "What question mustn't I ask you?" There's some possibility that you'd get a read there.

But that is not an absolute. And you also get misses on that one.

And if you don't get an arm reading the way it should read, why you just better sort it out.

The rule of the thumb is — or just the rule is in auditing, that if you can't — if you can't talk a person Clear in ten minutes, you have to process them. Got that?

Well, if you — if you are going to process them, well, you'd better have to — you have to assess them. Don't go processing them blind, process them on assessment.

If you're going to assess them, the most meticulous assessment we know anything about at all- is a Dynamic Assessment. I guess if you wrote down a dress parade, super colossal Dynamic Assessment, it would probably have about five or six hundred questions in it. You see? That would be a small one compared to the number of things there are on the dynamics, you know, the dynamics are big.

The earliest dynamic, the first dynamic, of course, we assume that's one — is going to read some other way, so that leaves seven dynamics to choose from. And you're going to find him somewhere on these remaining seven dynamics. And that's in a general category and you can nail that cate­gory down better and better once you've got it.

For instance, he's stuck on third, and you just, tis-tis-tis. It's third all right. Assessment says it's third. Well, come off of it. How many types, kinds of groups are there? How many types of groups are there?

Well, you could start just sorting out groups if you wanted to be arduous about it. Rather than to run him on a general terminal like groups, let's sort out groups, and you'll probably find it's an old lady's sewing circle or some-thing of the sort that he's jammed in. It would be something weak and unlikely. That you can always count on. That's the dynamic you're going to find him in. You're not going to find him in — in an elephant. You seldom find him in a lion.

Look at how hard the Zulu and the Masai have to work to get into a lion's valence, you know. Golly, those natives used to work from boyhood, you know? A little fellow crawling around and so on, they're trying to get him up to be something as tough as they knew anything about which was simba. That was a reverse valence then. When they finally got up to that valence, why, they knew they'd survive. See? So the tribe would survive and so forth.

The truth of the general situation is that lions are upper valences.

Now, an OT could go downstairs into the valence of a lion and find him-self in a very weak valence. You got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

See? So it is a matter of relative strength.

I know one day I was pawing around with a lion and moving him around, and so forth, and he wasn't very tough. He wasn't very tough for the excellent reason that he was simply a stimulus-response machine.

Now, similarly cats — that's a big cat, you see? I actually can't resist domestic cats. I mean I got something on it, you know. If it wasn't so much fun I'd process it out. I'm always watching cats. You know, London, ever since they had the plague, you know, has been cat happy.

And somebody imported plenty of cats into India, too. You never hearmuch about cats in India but you know they're crawling all over everything.But anyway, walking down the street and see a cat, why, I'm still tryingto develop the exact effect necessary to guide a cat. And because they're practically nothing but bone structure, you know, and a thetan, you know, and a bone structure. Boy, anything you put in there just rattles around like a pea in one of these rumba band gourds. I'm always knocking them into a dead faint, you know or scaring them half to death and they go flying over 10-foot walls. I'll get it someday; lions, same way.

Actually his basic temperament is really no different than any other kind of cat's. But we have a idea that a lion is powerful, and the Masai and the Zulu had an idea that he's terrifically powerful, and — and power, strength, force, that sort of thing.

And of course, I never saw a lion yet that could bite the tracks off a Panzer tank. See, they just couldn't do it. Relative force, relative power, but it would be an awful dumb man that couldn't drive a tank. You got the idea?

Actually, it's a pretty stupid thetan that can't steer a lion around.

The tiger, by the way, is the chief symbol of Tammany Hall, which was the principal political machine of New York City.

I was down writing an article one time in a big zoo, and a great big car came up, it was from California, a great big car drove up, one of these limou­sines, you know, that's three times as big as life, portable bar and blondes, you know? It says, "New York 1" on its license plate, you know? Guess who, you know? And pulls up naturally, in front of the tiger's cage. Going to show these politicians, their favorite animal, you know, a tiger.

Well, as a matter of fact, the tiger, he crawled down in the moat and was not visible from the immediate show, you know. I was standing there minding my own business, and this fellow and — turned around to me, you know, to find — and he says, "Where's the tiger?" and I said, "Well, he's out to lunch."

Well, they told each other, he was out to lunch and they were all satis­fied with the whole thing.

And the part of the story I've never told because I always felt queer, peculiar doing things like this, is I decided — well, they'd be too disappointed, you know — and fished the tiger up out of the moat, see, and got him to turn around and look at them, you know, and sit down. It was all fine just that far. You see? And I slipped. And the tiger goes, "Rawwwwwwwooor!" You see, you know, and then looks scared as the devil and runs into his hut. I'll get it someday.

But the handling and control of bodies is something you are not too bad at. You actually are not too bad at it. You can make a body walk and talk and so forth.

You've got the idea that you make it walk and talk and so forth through neurons and synapses and muscles and by eating food and you know, vias, vias, vias, vias, vias.

Unfortunately true, they don't assist you at all. They merely assist your consideration as to whether or not you can run a body. Simple as that. You see? They assist your consideration.

And you say, "Well, I'm well fed. I am healthy. And therefore, you know, I can have at it."

You know, "I make the body walk and climb and do sprints and hand-springs" and so forth. That's merely your consideration.

But part of your consideration is the body has to be well fed, has to be healthy, has to have been exercised, has to have been this, has to have been that, supposed to, supposed to, supposed to, laws, laws, laws, laws, laws. See?

If all those laws are true then your consideration is okay. See how it is?

Well, you have an idea that you can run the body you've got right this minute. You're not worried much about that. You can make it walk and talk and move it around and so forth.

But you've got ideas of separateness, obsessive separateness with regard to the body, and identification with the body probably, to some slight degree, so that you think that running the body sitting next to you, see, that would be difficult.

Well, why don't you just dream up a bunch of characteristics; if the body has gray pants on and — and polishes its shoes regularly and can whistle "God Save the Queen," if it can do all those things then you can run it, you know? Just add enough rules and laws onto it, and so forth, and waitresses will come over and wait on you and all sorts of things will happen that are not usually in the cards.

You can run another body than your own but it just falls outside your immediate consideration. You think of yourself as separate from these other bodies. And when it comes to you handling or running an animal body, well, that's just jumping a dynamic, you see? Well, that seems to be more incredi­ble and you get a lot of basic considerations. "Well, I would have to be three feet back of its head and if I was so-and-so, and if I could exteriorize and so forth — if these masses and energies and facsimiles didn't hit me in the puss every time I thought about cats, why, I — then, you know, consideration, con­sideration, considerations — then I could run a cat. You see this? I mean it's just a bunch of more considerations.

So, that — what you're actually seeking for is a pure consideration. That's all you want. In getting Clear, all you want is the ability to have an unalloyed consideration. You want to be able to make a pure consideration, which is to say, you want to have confidence in your own intentions. That's about what it amounts to.

Now, if Aunt Grace ran the whole family, and was very weak and easy to cave in on, you got a sure-fire valence! And it's liable to read most anyplace on the meter. But this person was a very weak valence but somehow ran the whole family. Got the idea? You're liable to find something silly with the tone arm reading if you get one of these weird valences.

Somebody who was an horrible tyrant, but apparently totally weak. See? If you could imagine such a character, why, then you've got some kind of a valence that won't read according to prescription.

I see we've only got two or three of them here. See, we've only got three or four of them. They're offbeat valences.

Now, the consideration there is, "In order to run the family one would have to be Aunt Grace." See? "To run the body one would have to be well fed." You've got the idea? See? "Well exercised, healthy, no bacteria — and run the body in the street — it has to be clothed." See, the basic considerations.

See, and then you say, "Well, I can run that body."

Now, if you don't — if you don't add all of these considerations and if you just say, "Well, I can run that body," you know, regardless of whether it's this way or that way or the other way, and all these conditions and ramifications, and have a license from the government to run bodies. You know? Anything like that, you can just go ahead and run a body.

But Aunt Grace is simply part of those considerations, you see?

"If I were Aunt Grace, and that irresponsible, or that sick, and this-that, and fed this, and ran the family that way, and so forth, and et cetera, yap-yap, then I could run a body in a family." Phew! Good thing we got that solved, you know? See, Aunt Grace was an invalid. Figure that one out. Yet, Aunt Grace ran the family. See?

Well, that's just another package; that's the number of panel switches that have to be appended to the pure consideration that you can run a body in a family. See? Get the idea?

Now, these aren't "now-I'm-supposed-to," these are the "necessary condi­tions of." Now, we express these things mechanically all the time so we fall for them ourselves. They actually aren't necessary at all but we fall for them.

We say, "If the motor is in good repair, if the tires are all inflated, if the gas tank is full of gas, petrol — known as gas now; they even call it gas in England — I won.

I've even walked into — driven into a service station and said, well, "Fill it up full of petrol, will you, old boy." You know, that sort of thing, and the fellow says, "You want some gas?"

And, "If its battery is charged up, and if there's a road there, and if you have a license, and if the car is licensed, and if the licenses are in force at that time," get the idea? "Then the car will run." Got it? "Then you can drive a car!" Got that?

Well, that's the conditions "appertaining to," the conditions which make it possible; these are the conditions, considerations which are necessary, in your opinion, to be added to the other.

Now, it's quite amazing, in the absence of machinery, many old-time civi­lizations have done some of the most fantastic road building jobs, some of the most fantastic pieces of castle and engineering building. And of course they were rather heroic.

You take Christophe in building his citadel down in Haiti, which is an enormous, imposing structure. It makes European fortresses look pale; a Frenchman designed it for him. These tremendous, big, blocks of stone were hauled up almost vertical cliffs. I don't know how many people he killed off — old Emperor Christophe — killed off building that thing. I saw it when — first when I was a kid; it staggered me. I think it's something on the order of 3,500 lives were lost in the building of that one citadel.

But he had a method of changing considerations which is worthy of note, and that method of changing considerations went like this: be a crew of ten men and a great big block of stone, and they'd be struggling along and they couldn't get the stone ... You see, they had very little engineering, no machinery, and so on, they were just hauling these tremendous blocks of stone practically up a vertical cliff. And they were having difficulty moving this block of stone up the cliff and constructing this citadel. Christophe would ride along there and he'd see that they weren't going — they weren't moving. He would turn around to the guard and he'd say, "Shoot every third man." The guard would. He'd tell the remaining men, "Move the block of stone." They would.

Now that's a rather heroic way of changing considerations. That was adding the consideration, "If you want to continue in the ownership and hab­itation of your body, you will change your considerations about moving the block of stone!" See? "Rent on your body is — been upped to the price of mov­ing stone blocks by changed considerations."

But this was quite remarkable; I was very struck with this when I was a kid because it — I had studied for a long time, "necessity level" and what people will do during necessities.

Well, all necessity level is the dropping of some of the considerations. That's all. You drop some of the considerations, and bang, there you go.

Well, it isn't necessary to have an emergency to drop some of the consid­erations when these considerations are getting so complicated. "If you hold your mouth right, and if you've got a license from Yahweh, and so forth, why, you're permitted to like tea" or something.

"If you want to change your body's structure or something, you have to go through some ritual hocus-pocus that has to do with diets, prescriptions, doctors' advices and so forth and ..."

I'm sure — I'm sure that if you set yourself up impressively enough as a "dietary agency" and if you set yourself up impressively enough, and adver­tised enough, and then put a lot of conditions "appertaining to" body struc­ture without actually really doing anything, people could walk in and have a body structure change, you see, and walk out. But that is under the basis of being overwhumped. They're made irresponsible for the body status, you see, and you were being — taking over the responsibility for them.

Well, that — that blinks them out just that much more. Highly unwork­able sort of a consideration and actually very dangerous to embark on because it's so very far from an optimum solution. See? It's a solution at the expense of Lord knows how many dynamics, which of course makes it an overt act. You know instinctively it's an overt act. You don't analyze it and say, "Well, it's this many dynamics, it violates ..." You see?

Now, how many bodies you can run and what you can do depends basi­cally on how few considerations you have appended to what you can do. See?

Well, this again is another Axiom 10 situation. You said, "I can produce an effect if ..." And then you draw a map which crawls all over the wall and goes around to the back of the building and up through the drainpipes and across the roof and through the police station and then gets back over and lands at its target. You see?

Well, every new consideration is added because of an anxiety of not being able to produce an effect. The more anxious you are about being able to produce an effect, the more considerations you have to add on the line.

And of course, you get reductio ad absurdum on this — is the old story about thinking of the word "hippopotamus" and the alchemist that gives the formula for making lead into gold.

And he said, "All you have to do is in the dark of the moon, go under­neath that big tree up there on the crest of the hill in the graveyard and knock off this certain incantation and pour it from one crucible to the other crucible and do this and that and you'll have pure gold — providing you don't think of the word "hippopotamus"! Well, now that — that is some kind of a slave master effort, don't you see, to add considerations into what effect you can pro-duce. See? He forbids it to go across one tiny corner; if you know darn well it's so easy to go across that corner, well, that's going to trip the whole thing up.

And you get the whole genus in that sort of thing of superstition. You know? "Everybody will enjoy dinner unless I drop a fork." You know. "If I drop a fork, why nobody will enjoy dinner."

People get so loopy after a while in the production of an effect, you see, that they start adding all sorts of specious, silly, goofy considerations into the line and then they begin to appear asinine.

And you go around some of the savage tribes and so forth I was conver­sant with earlier in my life, and it's utterly incredible, I mean some of the ...

You got one amongst the Aborigines here, one of the wildest ones I think I ever walked into was — when I first heard of this one, I blinked about three times, and after I obtained more knowledge of Scientology and so forth I didn't blink about it anymore.

"Women mustn't walk under trees that have long limbs."

I don't know if you know that here about Australia but the Aborigine woman mustn't walk under a tree that has a long limb unless she wants a baby because that's how she conceives. Because thetans hang by their heels from these long limbs and wait for a woman to walk by and after that they haunt her until she bears a child, you see. Did you know about this?

Audience: No.

I always love to tell a country about itself.

Actually the superstition and witchcraft and shamanism and that sort of thing of the Aborigines in Australia furnish some wonderful examples of how wild you can get to the production of an intended effect. See? Ah, it just goes wilder and wilder.

Most healings done amongst the Aborigines the — with the magic healing crystal and so on. And they've got various incantations and "now-I'm-supposed-to's" and so forth.

If you think this is totally Aboriginal — if you think this is totally Aborigi­nal, I ran an engram out of a pc one time, a prenatal, an attempted abortion, and mama was reading the directions on the medicine she was supposed to take to abort the child, you know? There was evidently an incantation involved with the medicine because she read this over two or three times, and she says, "You know, I — I don't think it's the — it's the words, it's probably the medicine that does the work."

And actually, the guy was stuck in this thing, see, an old — old Dianetic processing — it was just, "Oh, wow!" and you start running out the semantics, you know, and realizing what grip these semantics have actually had on the person's life. And that one, that one, he was always going around, not think­ing quite that the words did it. There must be something else to do with it, you know. And he had just had that as a standard, routine reaction. And he was the most semantically spun-in general semanticist I ever met. He had just spun right in on the subject.

And we cleared that phrase out of the bank, and — and this whole inci­dent and so forth, and he responded entirely differently to words. But here's the creation of an effect by vias.

Now, a mechanical society begins to create and produce effect by vias. More and more vias, less and less man, and more and more via. You got the idea? And eventually it has all the vias, sunk in concrete and no men left.

Oh, it's going that way now. You look at some of the fellows that are — move around in the cities. The so-called beatnik generation, and so forth. These guys, wow! You know? The fashion, you know, is to be no meat, totally weak, you know, and always talk circuitously about nothing. You know, total purposelessness, you know, just spin-spin.

We were discussing just a little while ago the new generation that's going to follow in after that because we might as well invent the new genera­tion. Consider the beatnik generation passé right now, you see, and just con­sider it's old fashioned.

And the new generation actually is, you go out and have experiences so that you can then sit down, all by yourself and contemplate them. I think they'd buy this on a dwindling spiral.

The next point would not even be able to talk pointlessly, you see, but just contemplation of self, no third dynamic left.

But you might trick them, you see, into going out and having experi­ences that they could contemplate and bust the whole thing sky-wide and handsome.

You're not particularly afflicted with that in Australia, but boy, it's — it's really getting somewhere in the United States today. I mean, it's the push-button world.

In England they're terrified of automation, even yet, and they can well be. The supplantation of the man by the machine; that's probably the only place where Labor Party and the Socialist and so forth have really got a point; he ought to make his point stick.

Of course, I've got my nerve talking about the Laborites and Socialists and so forth in England because two or three of their highest members are Scientologists. And the only reason I never put on the pressure in this par­ticular direction or I don't talk about them particularly, is, we're just trying to get them in for a little more processing. And, they're doing all right. In fact, I don't think one of them wanted to win the last election. I think he just figured out that it would be a bad thing to win the election. I do. I think he threw in the chips. Not to lose, I just think he thought it'd be bad for the country.

Now, the number of vias, then, the number of magic incantations and the number of this and the number of that, added to the line, actually reduce the actual effect that the person can produce. See?

But you've got pure cause-distance-effect, when we're discussing that. Now, in a situation where you are getting a co-effect, as in auditing, what we're trying to do is get the maximum result from a minimum of vias. We're trying to go straight to the exact thing that has to be hit in a case. And then move the person from being obsessive effect-point, over to being cause-point over that exact thing; and then strip the vias off, which are his comm lags; strip the vias off and his familiarity with that; move that up to a point where he doesn't have to be that to produce an effect.

Now, the odd part of it is, he'll drop it if you simply rehabilitate his abil­ity to produce an effect.

Now auditing — auditing is a highly specialized case because it's not pure Axiom 10 proposition at all.

Axiom 10 occurs so that the pc can then move to cause without having to put the auditor at effect. Because remember, there doesn't have to be cause-distance-effect at all.

In fact the Buddhist is so terrified of cause-distance-effect that he tells you, quite foolishly, that "You must not think of cause, and you must not think of effect. You must not have anything to do with cause. Not have any-thing to do with effect." Well, somebody had an idea someplace or another, but that's about the wildest rendition anybody ever heard of. You're not sup-posed to think of cause. You're not supposed to think of effect. In other words, you're always supposed to be talked to from nowhere! And, you're always sup-posed to receive at noplace. And, you're not supposed to be anywhere when you talk to anybody. And, you're not supposed to talk to anybody that's there. That sounds totally insane, doesn't it? Or awfully Asian!

Now, one of the things you're trying to do is not trying to make people — one of the things you're not trying to do — you're not trying to make people slice in hard, harder and harder and harder and to further and further and further confirmation — belief in Axiom 10! Don't you see?

You're not supposed to bring about further and further, and harder and harder belief in — in the cycle of action! See? These things are ... You're not trying to enforce these laws, you're trying to establish fluidity over these laws.

And there's a lot of ways you could do it. But a person finds out that Axiom 10 is safe, cycle of action is safe, and the communication formula is safe and they make a sort of a security, and a hold-together of the universe.

Now, if your pc is going to wind up with these three things: the commu­nication formula, the cycle of action and Axiom 10 — if he's going to wind up with these three things, for God sakes, at least, let him have them separate. Not identified. Establish some cause over these things!

Now, he doesn't have to pitch them out the window because the second he pitched them out the window, why, he'd lose one of the operating mecha­nisms by which he has concourse with his fellow man! See?

But it doesn't mean that these are necessary to his concourse with his fellow man. They are not totally necessary. They are at this stage of the game necessary for his fellow man! And if you start soaring above these laws, and start communicating, why, let's not get too surprised. Don't be too surprised if you find yourself somewhere outside the perimeter of these laws, somewhere along the next few weeks or few months or few years. You understand? Don't let this panic you.

First you'd move outside and you'd say, "Wait a minute, I'm communicat­ing without being cause-point. How could I be doing that?"

Well, you're doing that in the first place by not being obsessively located on a pinhead. See, you don't have to be anywhere if you don't want to be.

And you're not communicating by means of having a particle cross a dis­tance because communication doesn't occur that way anyhow. That's just an apparency. Communication occurs right where you are or it doesn't occur at all.

And furthermore, you're communicating with something or somebody by having your intention occur where he is. But if he isn't anywhere particu­larly, it's occurring as he is, not where he is. And if you're communicating as you are, not where you are, without distance, to as he is, and if you're doing it simultaneously so there is no time factor involved in it, of any kind whatso­ever, you've just thrown the communication formula out the window. Got the idea?

Audience: Yes.

But all of your communication depended, all the time you were communi­cating, on what I have just gone over. It didn't depend on cause-distance-effect at all. That's one to think about, see.

So, when you drop off these obsessive laws, don't be so surprised to find out the phenomenon can still exist.

Now, when you get up to an actress producing a tremendous effect on an audience without even going to the theater, well that's certainly a high action of the highest purpose.

There's worse than that. Supposing she were known everywhere as a wonderful actress and yet she had never produced any effect on anybody that anybody could find out about. Well, she is probably producing an effect on people to be thought of as a "wonderful actress." And she could probably have that without producing the effect, don't you see.

And there's Axiom 10 out the window.

And if you ever get born again and decide your family thinks you're awful stupid, so you get to be an old man at very — an old man with gray hair at ten years of age because you're tired of school or something, you know, and tell them all about it and then young, down to the degree that they get used to having you around and then remain at seventeen ... Let's not get too upset about it. Got the idea?

You're not violating laws to do this sort of thing. This isn't done by viola­tion of laws. It's done by the realization of laws. Anytime you want to have a freedom of a law, why, just realize the law totally. It'll as-is; cease to be a via on conduct.

This is why people superstitiously, only, believe that without processing or assistance or anything else, you can suddenly spring full armed from the brain of Jove, you know, that sort of thing. And just "think a certain thought" and you're an OT overnight, you know, bang, you know.

Oh, yeah? Well you can strip off that many considerations, that much experience, that much distrust, and that much lack of confidence in one split instant? Uhhh! You can just dive overboard into this horrible black pool called the unknown and you're going to swim very, very happily and then suddenly emerge from it pure and lily white ... No. No, it's something that's not necessarily approached slowly either.

But it's certainly approached through a realization of what it isn't, as well as a realization of what it is.

And a high operating state, as a person, is not a state of operation "via." See, you use what vias you consider necessary. Don't necessarily economize on vias. Although I've seen — I've seen old-timers in the Old West base all of their pride and manliness upon the lack of vias.

I've seen some old guy with a canteen and a frying pan and one blanket, you know, perfectly willing to walk two hundred miles through a roaring bliz­zard, you know? And he comes out the other side and points to the fact that he didn't have two blankets. You know? He was proud! Very proud.

You arrive in his midst and — I've actually had this experience — mosquitoes were swarming around, as only they do in the north woods, one time and they were ... well, actually if you fired a pistol ball straight in front of your face occasionally you could see where you were going; it would clear the mosquitoes out for a moment.

And an old-timer was trudging along back of me, part of a survey crew, and he was trudging along, you know, and pretty soon I stopped, and we were carrying a canoe, and I stopped, and we put this — made him put the canoe down, and I reached into my pocket, and I got a little, tiny vial of citronella out, you know, a little, tiny one. I unscrewed the top and put citronella on my face — put it on my face, put the vial back.

The old man looked at me, you know, there were mosquitoes layered about that thick on his own face. He looked at me and he says, "Tenderfoot." It took me a hell of a long time to get his respect back.

I'd added one item, you see, of assistance in standing up to the environ­ment, more than he considered the absolute minimum. That's a matter of vias.

Oh, there's also nothing wrong with having inflating beds, and pump-up camp stoves, and hot and cold running butlers! There's actually nothing wrong with it at all, until you fall for it as a necessity.

And basically what occurs in a game like this is — is you've got to explain to everybody why you've got all this junk, and eventually buy your own argu­ment. You tell them, "It's absolutely necessary." That's basically what occurs.

But before you start throwing junk away, I'm afraid you will have to see rather clearly through your own actions, efforts, processing, realizations, cog­nitions and so forth, that you can get someplace without it. You see?

As soon as you can see that, why, you'll start pitching the little hand-knitted sewing kit that Mama gave you just before you moved out on the Indian campaign or something of the sort, and you'll be willing to pitch this thing into the ditch, you know it's ...

And then the other way to, you'll get to a point where you're perfectly willing to carry two hundred of them. You say, "Look, this is a hand-knitted sewing kit. It sews baby clothes. That's what we need up here on the frontier." Of course that's a production of an effect in itself. You do something like that very often, it utterly dazzles people! See?

I have, once in a blue moon, pulled something out of the kit at sea or something like that, which is totally unlikely, utterly incredible, such as a beach umbrella on a war vessel. I've had whole crews almost terrified of me because things like this kept happening, you know.

But basically it isn't how much you have or how much you don't have. It's just basically how much you absolutely have to have. You see? As composed [opposed] to how much can you acquire, you see?

And if you can get the have to have and the must off of the vias, and that's the way it is, you still have a game. I'm afraid you don't have a case. Thank you.