We have the first of the Prelogics having to do with theta's ability to locate things in time and space. And the ability to do that is of the essence, and so we'd better go into this a little bit further and find out what connotation this has and in addition to that, find out what time is, just by doing this.

Very certain, then, that we are dealing with the component parts of human beingness and MEST universesness.

Well, it comes into a lot of definitions. I'll type this up or do something with it so that you'll have this piece of paper here. But the definitions with which we're dealing can all be stated geographically - in relationship to position.

It's very obvious then, isn't it? Of what can we be certain?

So we find that determinism is the responsibility for location in space and time. That's what one determines. He determines location. That's all one determines. And when one can't determine something it's because he can't determine a location and that's all there are to it.

Now, let me tell you a little story very briefly. There's a young man around who has never had any auditing to amount to anything and yet he's an auditor. He's a very good auditor. He's been through several schools. Nobody's ever audited him.

And when you have you putting people in spaces and - relative to other spaces, why, you're determining them; and when other people are putting you in spaces and time, why, that's them determining you. That's all there is to self-determinism. It's all right to say self-determinism, but let's find out what we're determining from a standpoint we can use in processing.

He was in a hospital. He was lying there, not expected to go on with life. And he said one fine day - he was about ready to pass in his chips, and about everything was wrong with him that could be wrong - and a copy of the first article "Dianetics: Evolution of a Science" was lying on the table, next bed. He picked it up, read it - he picked it up, read it and he said, "Gee, that makes sense. That makes sense. Yeah, that makes sense. Gee-whiz, what do you know. Gosh, that's good. Yeah, that makes sense. That makes sense." All of a sudden, was well. He's never had a recurrence.

All right, then, we have determinism. We have another word here which is just terrible in - when these two come into conflict, and this second one is determination. When one's lookingness has shortened to a point where he has mostly effort, he doesn't use determinism, he uses determination. See, I mean, that's of the essence, determination.

Of what can we be certain? The very first thing which interested you about Dianetics and Scientology, the very things that interested you about it are things of which you can establish some kind of certainty. They tell you that there are further certainties to be reached.

It means "a will to effect something," is determination - the connotation of that word, as we're using it here, is "the use of effort in." And where we have determination cropping up, it takes the place of what we know as determinism. Determination is the will that one is going to effect a change of location in space. And determinism is the fact that one merely makes a location in space. He actually effects a location in space. And determination is trying to effect a location in space.

Of what can you be certain? You can be certain of the component parts of existence if you're certain of them. Now, understand that.

Well, let's get the difference. A fellow says, "This block of stone will be at 9th and Chester"; it is. And the other one, he takes the block of stone and he puts his shoulder to it and pushes; that's determination.

Now, you read something like "survive," "eight dynamics," all these things make sense. So you - there's a degree of certainty there. You've got a compartmentation of existence. This is very good. And then you take it out and you say to Joe Blow or Dick Suds or Mr.... You take it out to Miss Schmo and she says, "Nyowh-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyo! And all because nyuf-nyaw-nyeah-nyeha-nyeha-nyeha." And right away you feel you have to be invalidated.

Well, after he has done just so much determination by pushing on the stone, he can't tell you whether he's got to go and send the stone to 9th and Chester or 8th and Walnut or whether he was ever trying to - had any purpose at all for the stone. As far as the purpose is concerned. "What are we going to do?" that comes under the head of "How many things are going to be in this location in what space pattern?" "The reason for" is then: "We've got to have reason for effort," and so forth, is that so other people will attract their attention to that place. That is why they should pay attention to this location at 9th and Chester. See, that's "the reason for"; that's about all it is. "The reason for" comes down to grabbing a lot of other people and giving them a push toward 9th and Chester.

So once you start on this track it would be perfectly fine if nobody kept saying that to you, but they - what they do is pushing around your anchor points. What's your anchor point? Your anchor point is a certainty.

Well, now there's - people easily entangle; and most of the cases which are bad off have entangled badly determination and self-determinism. They know they got to have will and willpower, which comes under the head of biceps, and this doesn't work.

Out of the horrible seething mass of co-unindated [co-inundated] material, out of tremendous quantities of complete balderdash and control mechanisms, libraries full of pure and unadulterated bunk, out of the writhings of skip-skop Schopenhauer and the moanings of Schnietzke, the apathy of Zeno, man has taken a little bit of the incomprehensibles here and incomprehensibles here and said, "God, I wish I could be certain of this."

If you've ever seen anybody really getting down and sweating over something and grinding his teeth and having a rough time in general, he was using determination. Determination is an act or a play. It's something else. Determination is a something else thing; it isn't the thing. You see, it's a - a fellow says - says, "Well, I will do it! I will do it! I will ..." Well, he hasn't done it, has he? That's the first thing you can ask yourself about that.

People look all the way through books of philosophers, the Bible, life to find something that will agree with them. At first glance, they're trying to look for something to agree with. Nah, they're not looking for something to agree with; they're looking for something on which they have sufficient experience to establish a certainty.

Now, a low Step case is saying, "I will be exteriorized! I've got to be! I'm apathetic that I can't be!" and so forth; he's ramming all around the place; he just isn't. He can't get the concept of simply being. See? He's got to try to be before he is; and you know that you have to try to be. Well, that's merely a symptom of necessity to use effort. He's indoctrinated into the fact that the only allowable portion of the lookingness band which he is able to examine is that one which has effort in it, and he knows he can't do that. In other words, he has to collapse his looking in order to look. And if you find any one of these boys looking, you will find he's doing just that; he's collapsing his looking in order to look, and of course then he can't see. That's the only squirrel cage he's in and he's going round and round in that one; he's collapsing his looking in order to look.

And you go down and you get a book - old Will Durant's book The Story of Philosophy - whenever you get it out of the library you'll find page after page - underscore, underscore and an underscore here and an underscore there and exclamation points over in the borders and it's all marked up, old copies of it. Libraries have to replace it every time they turn around. Because people in their great enthusiasm will underscore "God is good." Here these rather clever statements one way or the other which are quite profound and quite interesting of which somebody could be certain and then they pick all the way through - the thing they find "God is good." Fine.

Did you ever see these people looking? Well, he's collapsing his looking. And when they look at something suddenly - you can actually get them to do this - you can say, "Look at that building." He's got the idea of the building being right here, see, and then way out there someplace. Very interesting.

Well, philosophy in its final analysis, would be - it's about time some body would define it - it would be a collection of routes by which, perchance, mayhap, somebody might find a way to discover a method of locating a sign-post which would indicate a route toward some tiny piece of certainty. That's philosophy.

Long time ago somebody decided that self-determinism was the stuff all right, and then immediately tried to sell everybody determination. "All you have to do is make up your mind to be cleared and you'll be cleared! Yah, yah, that's all, ah-hoo!" A fellow told me that one time; immediately afterwards says, "Well, now, if I wanted that ball in the middle of the floor, and you (he said to the little girl) wanted the ball in the middle of the floor," and so forth, "why, my self-determinism would cause me to pick up the ball on the floor." And she said, "Well, what if I picked up the ball?" "Well, I just - you'd just get killed that's all." Well, this was - this was the way he solved things. This case couldn't have been exteriorized with a rocket pistol.

Now, the mathematician is one of the most aberrated boys you ever ran into. He's done this, see. He's - this is - this is the way not to go about it; he's a good example of that. These guys are hanging on the walls and swinging from the chandelier. If you've ever run into one of these boys, they're sick - they're good and sick. They're handling this mass of what? Symbols so they can be certain. Great mass of symbols they've got in front of them there.

Now, determination has all of these things; besides "I will be," it's "I must be here," "I must be there"; "It must be here or there"; "You must be here, there"; "They must be here or there," or "He must be here or there," or "She must be here or there." In other words, we've introduced "will" into the problem, and the second "will" is introduced into the problem we, of course, immediately introduce conflict because the reason one uses will is because he feels it's going to be opposed. And if something is going to be opposed, then it has to have will exerted against it, and so on. It never occurs to these people to simply relax. All they have to do, actually, is just relax and say, "All right, I'm there," or "I'm looking at it" - they are. And if they can relax sufficiently on the subject, why, they stop trying. They don't have to know before they go, they simply go. But all this determination is knowing before you go.

And they will tell you something on the order of a dog snarling across an old decayed bone he's about to bury and which you're trying to take away from him? "That's all there is is mathematics. And this whole universe is built out of mathematics and it's built out of mathematics. And if you don't think it is then I'm going to rrrah! zuh! Try to take this bone away from me, no sir," and yet all they're dealing with is one plus one equals two.

"I will. do it! Now, what are the factors involved in this problem? The factors involved in this problem are such and such and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so. And if I walk across to the other side of the room, then the significance of being on the other side of the room will be .." and so forth. That's just determination. He knows he's going to be opposed.

And then they just get fine, that's swell. If they'd just stick with arithmetic they'd stay good and sane. They go one plus one equals two. Well, you can stand this level of symbol but immediately an apparent untruth has entered. Immediately an untruth has entered. No one plus ever - any other one ever equaled a thing with a - with a curve in it. No matter how many straight lines you add to how many straight lines, you will never get anything with a curve in it. Unless, of course, the things are so infinitely small as straight lines that nobody would notice whether they were curved or not and this would be an interesting piece of oversight, wouldn't it?

In other words, there's going to be something else saying "Be elsewhere." He knows this will occur.

So we have the apparent truth of arithmetic - if they stayed with arithmetic they'd be all right - one plus one equals two. That is, a straight line and a straight line, so on.

Now, what's loss? This is a very important thing, loss, because people go black when they lose and so forth. What's loss? All right, loss is it or you, they, he, I, she is not here or there and won't be here or there - of course wasn't here or there. This is loss. It's just the place isn't - the thing is not necessarily completely disappeared, but the location in which it is, is the - now the wrong location or can't be determined.

But they explain to you, "You dumb sap. That's a symbol for one quantity of something, you see? Ha-ha! Now, that's what we mean when we say the symbol, which means a quantity of one plus a symbol which means a quantity of one equals this curved thing over there and that means two quantities of one." You're supposed to be satisfied.

A person can consider he has lost a dollar in a poker game if the dollar is right in plain sight sitting in front of him but closer to another player who has just taken it in the pot, you see? See, the dollar is lost. In other words, his possession of it has ceased. His possession of it simply means his liberty to move it.

Don't ever say, "One what?"

Now that the dollar is sitting in front of somebody else, did you ever reach over while you were playing poker and start to make change out of the pile of somebody who was - who was very, very alert, shall we say, to the insidiousness of man? The moment you do that, of course, you're in a little bit of a squabble. Why? You're just changing its location in space; it's the only thing you're doing. He objects to that. He has large significance to this.

"Oh!" he says, "One apple, one orange, one dollar. That's the way it's done."

"Why you can't and why I must, and why I can't and why you must change locations in space" are the whole total of significance; that's significance. It's just a consideration has been added, completely specious and spurious of the point involved - that's the speciousness of the thing; the point involved is simply that something is going to change location in space. All right?

You say, "One dollar plus one dollar equals two dollars. Okay, let's get some dollar bills. All right."

Ownership is a matter of "It's here" or "It's there," and "I'm here" or "I'm there." The plainest example of it is "It's here and I'm here!" We've introduced determination into self-determinism. It's almost a dare. Any ownership is a dare: "Take it away. Go on. Go ahead. Go ahead, take it away. Go on. I'm right here. No, I won't do anything. Oh, go on, touch it."

God help a teacher that ever does this in school because she'll - even she will see where she bogs.

This is deeds of title, car licenses, everything else involved in this. If you touch somebody's automobile it's just - just faintly and you're in a line of traffic or something of the sort and you drift forward slightly, and there's a little tick, about enough maybe to have bent a cigarette slightly, hardly any noise involved - you very often have found somebody getting furious, just furiously angry and being all upset about this, and so on.

Lay out a dollar bill. Now you say, "You lay out another dollar bill, and that equals..."

Well, you see, you have almost moved something which he owns, so he has almost had to pay off because of the dare, and he gets all geared up to do this. His large significance on the matter is he mustn't have that thing moved.

Then she'll say, "Wait a minute, Just a minute. Let's go over this again. You lay out a dollar bill and then you lay out another dollar bill and that equals - well - well, I'll tell you, honey, all it is, is, you see, you pick up these two dollar bills and put them over there and that equals these two dollar bills."

Now, the worst possible thing you could do to anybody in a fight is simply move them off the space they're occupying, or move something they own off the space they're occupying. If you want to get even with somebody when you're fighting with him it tells you the way to drive a man utterly berserk - he's thrown his hat down - is simply pick his hat up, you see, and just put it in another location. You don't have to have any emotion with this or anything of the sort, nothing goes into it at all. Just put his hat in another location. And he says, "Don't do that." Why, just dust his hat off, and very carefully - don't throw it down, you see, or anything like that, because that springs him. I mean, he immediately then - it's destruction of property or destruction of a space shape has occurred and this is the trigger, and this is - this is horrible. So all you would do would be to pick up his hat and move it to a slightly different location, very carefully, and the guy would go mad. I mean, he hasn't received enough overt act, ordinarily in this society, to strike, and yet something is being done which he must not permit, and the result is he will talk. That's in essence this.

Something wrong about that, you see, because - because those two one-dollar bills never equaled anything but the two one-dollar bills right where they were and the second you've moved them elsewhere (as Korzybski has laid down), they're not the same two one-dollar bills, because they're occupying different space.

Now, artists and writers and things, their pictures, their books, and things like that - they never, when they're early in their careers, they never think of the thing as being theirs - somebody else's; it's just something created; they don't care. They can always create something else; it doesn't matter to them. Can always put something else in a new space.

In other words, the only way we can do arithmetic is to wildly confuse space. And if we sufficiently confuse space and get wild enough about our confusions of space, we can do arithmetic. But if we happen to notice that we are confusing space in order to do arithmetic, all the preponderables and unponderables and expoundables of arithmetic vanish.

Later on it becomes very upsetting to see their name in bookstores and books in bookstores, and to have people buying their books, because possessions of theirs are being moved around. They've lost the idea of selling something. And this is aided and abetted by publishers who pay on royalty instead of buying something outright.

The only thing wrong with arithmetic is that you can make all sorts of things equal to all sorts of things that they obviously are not equal to. So gradually as the fellow goes on up the line through calculus and theory of equations, he finds out that it takes him all the way through theory of equations to get there, and he should have learned it in the second grade, first grade, kindergarten, Mother should have taught him before she [he] went to school. You - if he - if she couldn't teach him this, he was too dumb to be in school. It's when you confuse two spaces you can get any answer you want. Any time you confuse two spaces you can get anything you want.

This society would be agreed with if the thing were bought outright and he had no further title to it. But they've got it rigged so that one goes on having titles to things just forever.

If you're permitted, in any game, to confuse spaces, then you can get any answer. Let's follow that for a minute. You lay down this dollar bill and you lay down this dollar bill and the second that you say, "Those two spaces are on the other side of the equal sign," your arithmetic formula is right - the second you do that - but then the arithmetic formula can't be right the second that we know that those two dollar bills occupied space. We haven't moved those two spaces over unless we're a thetan.

For instance, I have a motion picture about - I wrote a script and scenario for a producer a few years ago. And the conditions of sale were so many thousand dollars on the delivery of the scenario, and then a percentage of the box office gross from there on. This is very, very grim. One keeps on owning the damn picture, you see? And then he goes past marquees every once in a while and he finds out that it's still playing someplace or another, and then he has to worry about it being up in the projection room and how much the manager of the theater is - and whether the manager of the theater is saying how many pieces came into that particular space, of money you see, and whether or not this goes through to the producer and so forth. Some little scrap of it is his property, you see And other people are pushing it around.

The whole process of existence from the beginning of time until now has been the confusion of spaces and only when you could confuse spaces could you ever fool anybody.

Well, an artist or a writer who has gotten to this stage of where people have harassed and worried him about payment and about books and so forth, he'll only be upset if he doesn't feel that he would immediately be happy about creating another picture. See, the big difference is - so if people can make him unhappy about creating things, then he'll stop creating; that's the theory people go on. He'll stop filling up space and they can maybe have a chance to fill up space, only they don't. But it's an amusing thing - vested interest.

"Now you've seen it. Now you see it there, there it is, there it is. Now we turn over the hand and nothing there." See? Everybody says, "Gee, he's good with card tricks. How the hell did he do that?" Well, the way he did that was - slipped it up his sleeve, of course. There's where the space went. But he showed you his sleeve and it wasn't in it. So therefore, people are left in a confused state of mind.

Well now, everybody has a vested interest in the MEST universe; he's done a certain amount of creation in it. And if he were very factual about it, he would be wanting to know as a personality, individualized to the extent which he is individualized today, exactly what percentage of the MEST universe he created and exactly where these units were. This would be of concern to him. And people are shoving these around all the time.

Do you know what card tricks are for? Basically card tricks and suchlike magic was simply used to confuse people sufficiently - people who were ignorant - confuse them sufficiently, bing-bing-bing, see, to plant a suggestion, and you could then tell them that they had seen anything. And the only thing that you ever used the palming, the card trick, the sleight of hand, any of these things, was simply so that the crowd would become open-mouthed enough to suddenly believe that you had a small boy at the end of a rope which had leaped in the air and which was not held from above. And you only had to tell them this was true. Or you had to spread a mock-up that this was true from their viewpoint - bang! You didn't have to say a word, you just went into a regular communication system, but you got them confused by looking at MEST by confusing spaces.

You can get a preclear pretty shocky, by the way, by pointing this out to him and then showing him that people are driving automobiles and some of the particles he created might be in that automobile. See, there's never been a transfer of title and nothing has been routinized. So he has to figure either that he owns it all or to hell with it, he doesn't own any of it. And you'll find these people in this frame of mind mostly about just the MEST universe in general. Its space - what part of its space did he create, and what part of it doesn't he own, and so on. And he's real messed up about the whole thing.

Fellow says, "You see this quarter? It's gone. Where is it?"

And loss, of course, then takes place anytime anybody loses anything. See, he's a co-loser. The building burns down; well, that might have been some of his particles too, so he's a co-loser. So you get to a large degree the terrific absorption of interest in the destruction of things which people demonstrate.

Well, up his sleeve, of course, but he isn't wearing a coat.

All right. Ownership being "It's here and I'm here."

"Let me see," they said, "now, what is that? What is that?" In other words, how do we disentangle these two, three, four spaces there. We - all of us saw it as one space.

Now, protection is "I'm there." It's not so much "I'm here" as it is "I'm there." Protection, "I'm here," is perfectly good but then that's ownership and that's utterly defensible; one can see that there's a possibility of defending.

"Now, let's see, there was a space there, and now there's not a space there. The quarter is gone; it was an anchor point. So it was making up - if it was an anchor point that with a set of other things made more space. But now that space has evidently been destroyed and that space must be created someplace else but it obviously isn't any... Well, how do we figure this out? Let's see, how do we figure-figure-figure-figure-figure."

But protection - on the connotation which we'll use it here, since the word has too wide a latitude to mean anything very specific - protection would mean "Now that object over there is mine," or "That object over there is under my guard." You see, "I'm not there, but it's there. And as soon as it's there, why then, if you start to move that, then I will have to do something to you," and we get retribution. We get retribution after the fact because one is not there on the ground.

Well, how did they start figuring? They recoiled from looking. You have to recoil from looking. And why do you recoil from looking? Because it gets too confused.

Did you ever try to protect a preclear while he was on the couch? Noise, sudden noise occurs which is liable to be very upsetting to the preclear, and you're there immediately - pam! - to keep the noise from hitting the preclear, see. You put out some kind of a beam to arrest this or something of the sort. Real weird to do that, because you can't protect the preclear from being hit by the noise.

Now, who's the most pestiferous person you know? The most pestiferous person you know.

And I've run auditors and just have run that fact out of the case all by itself as an isolated fact, and we got into protection.

Get a mock-up of this person from in front - talking to you from in front - just the idea the person is there, talking to you from in front.

The effort to protect when one is not present is the effort of protection which is aberrative. Spaceship is about to hit a planet, and you decide it better not hit the planet; you might have some of your anchor points in it or something. So you put out a beam or something to keep from hitting the planet. Of course, it hit the planet an hour ago, and your beam is intercepting into the facsimile; that is to say, the space-particle pattern which arrived at you is not the space-particle pattern. So we're into the problem of present time.

Now, get the idea that while he's talking to you in front, he comes up from the right side talking to you about something else.

So protection is nearly always after the fact and people are engaged almost always entirely in locking the door after the horse is gone. It's almost a hundred percent operation.

Now he comes up from the left side while he's still talking to you from in front and on the right side.

You won't find a government will take a single preventive measure on Earth today unless it can be demonstrated that thousands or millions of casualties or losses of some sort have occurred through them not doing it. Protection is after the fact.

Now he comes in from above and starts talking to you.

When you realize that protection is after the fact, you see that the act of protecting, as it's past, then confirms one into the past instead of the present.

Now he comes in from below and starts talking to you.

The effort to protect puts the preclear in the past because of this MEST universe lag in communication. And you'll find out that the people have gone down most solidly into the past in failures to protect. We'll go into that more on space.

Now two more of him walk up in front while all of these others are talking.

Now, a protection failure could be qualified as "I was not there." Whenever a person is thinking "I wasn't there, and I should have been there" you've got a protection failure.

And you fix your attention on the - what those two new ones are saying and just get your attention fixed on them and he starts talking to you from the rear.

And you'll have some little kid, Papa is dead, and he should have been there because Papa died, and therefore, it's his responsibility. His responsibility for Papa's death is his blame. He should have been there and wasn't there so therefore, he is to blame for. See, he's to blame for Papa's death. Simple.

Now get your attention thoroughly on his talking to you in the rear and then have all the others start talking to you while he walks in from the other side of the room and talks to you while all of him is talking to you there.

Now, hiding: "It's not there, but it is there", and so you get hiding as a maybe. See, a fellow says, "It's not there," but he has put it somewhere. So you're onto a maybe. So things that are hidden go riding forward on the time track. It's most likely that you'll find hidden things in present time rather than - the preclear has - rather than things which you can see. And so we find this to be the case. Seeing somebody else's ridges is quite a trick; he's hidden them.

And then he appears exactly where you are, talking to you.

You see, a hidden thing is more likely to be riding a maybe than otherwise, because it's basically a lie; he says - he says, "I haven't got anything here," and he's got something. "I didn't put anything under the bed"; he's put something under the bed. And that's what hiding is, is: It's there, but it's not there, or it's here but it's not here. Overtly, "It's not here." Actually, "It's here."

What's happening here? There's obviously - there's one person we have postulated and then all of a sudden we get him in lots of locations. Do you get the idea of your attention being racked from one place to the other? Do you see how this could be?

This gives everybody a sneaky feeling sooner or later in processing, and that is exactly what that sneaky feeling is: he's sure he's hiding something. The auditor is always sure the preclear is hiding something. And it's both true; he is hiding something and so forth. But the consequence or significance of his hiding something is utterly nonsense. There is no significance to what he's hiding. Nobody is going to steal his facsimiles if he brings them into view. A person will get this sudden lurch feeling in his stomach "My God! The auditor's liable to locate me!" See, he's even hidden himself. It's just "Whoo! That's bad." Technique which I'll give this morning which does self-location and so forth is - generally gives people that feeling.

All right, now much more graphically - blow all those up.

Then, something being discovered which you have hidden resulting in the loss of the thing - well, this combination of stuff is guilt. You said it wasn't there, but it is there, and then they found out it was there, but it wasn't there, then you've been caught in a lie. In other words, you've been caught nowhere.

Now much more graphically get an explosion on the right side and just as you're looking at it, get an explosion on the left side.

Male voice: Shame in there?

Now while you're looking at this second explosion, get one in front of you and just as you fix your attention on it, get an explosion behind you.

Shame is a little bit different - shame and degradation. They're going in here a little bit later. Now, let's get into something really important in this, something that you've been batting around with for a long time. Something we talked about yesterday in terms of certainty, now we'll talk about it in other terms.

Just as you fix your attention on the one behind you, have an explosion under your feet.

What is reality? Well, let's find out what reality is by finding out what unreality is. We find out reality is "I'm here and it's here." That's reality. Or "It's there and I'm here" - reality. Now, unreality - what is this unreality that things kind of fade out and you get the sensation of having lost something and so forth? Unreality is "I'm not here, and it's not here or there." That's unreality. It's the effort to withdraw. It's the "I'm not here" with that effort to withdraw.

As an explosion happens under your feet, get one happening above you.

Now, what's happened is, is the fellow just about was ready to hit a brick wall, and just an instant before he hit the brick wall he said "Ha! Ha! I'm not here." That damned brick wall hit him anyhow. See, his postulate didn't work. And the MEST universe or somebody else got him.

As one happens above you, get another one happening above you when you expect to look away.

So, his postulate was invalidated, and that is unreality. So that any time in the future something invalidates a postulate - in other words won't let it remain in that space (the thought) - he is up against it; he's pam just on this.

What's happening there? You're just being asked to make space, make space or agree with space, agree with space, agree with space, agree with space. And every time you drag your attention off one space, then you try to hang that up and leave it there while you go to another space.

Somebody says, "Oh, that - that's really - that's really not so, is it?” And he gets a feeling of unreality. Well, it's basic; the basic engram on that is he was about to hit something, he says, "I'm not here" and boom! A heck of an invalidation. "Those anchor points are going to stay at that distance" was the first thing he said; and then that failed - And then he says, "I'm not here at all," and then he got hit; and there were anchor points. Well, that was anchor points with an emphasis he didn't want. And this is certainty on the MEST level.

All right, let's find the four upper anchor points of the room.

Certainty is that which is added to convince a fellow he's there by hitting him with anchor points. See. That's external certainty; that's certainty by impact. You want to know why an impact does deliver a feeling of certainty to an individual, it's simply that it confirms his presence in terms of sensation. And it immediately afterwards restimulates "I'm not here." See?

Now get the idea there's no room there.

The best way to be present is just simply to have some anchor points, not be hit or pounded around. But it's the mest - it's other-determinism. This certainty by impact is other-determinism determining one's position. Certainty by impact is other-determinism; that's what's wrong with it, and it, of course, always winds up in somebody else locating space for you. Somebody else locates space for you, why, that's other-determinism and that does not enhance one's self-determinism.

Now let's find the four upper anchor points of the room while there's no room there.

A psychiatrist trying to give a person an electric shock is simply delivering him an impact rather - that says to him "You're here."

Let's get the four lower anchor points of the room while there's no room there.

Of course, they spoil the whole thing. If they just simply would take the guy and hit him with a zap gun and the fellow could suddenly look at that beam and look at the room, boy, he would get an illumination the like of which he never heard of, see. I mean, he'd be sane right away. They ought to try this sometime just as a change. But, unfortunately, they are too decadent to do this and they are liable to get sick at their stomach doing this because they'd see all the pain. So, they anesthese somebody and make him unconscious before they give him the electric shock and that, of course, puts him nowhere. This is a confirmed nowhere then and is the most - easily the most aberrative thing you could do to an individual. This is an engram.

Now have the room appear eighteen feet to the right of you.

We haven't forgotten Book One - but this is why an engram is particularly rough; it just goes on that basis. And it goes on the basis of "I'm not" - the fellow is already "I'm not here;" see? And then you fix him up so he doesn't know where he is; he's in a complete fog; his consciousness goes because you've ripped off all of his anchor points and put them all out of control. And then, while he's in that condition, you suddenly wake him up into a one-sixteenth consciousness, or daze, by the administration of a terrific impact or a pain, and of course, this tells him he's somewhere. This impact or pain says, "Well, he must be somewhere," but it doesn't give him any present time anchor points.

Do you get this immediate impulse to yank the room back? Hm? Why do people get messed up on a time track? Why do they get stuck on a time track? It's just that they haven't had time to sort out the space that's been given them before they have to sort out some new space. You see?

The way not to give an electric shock - and let's be very psychiatric about it - the way to - not to give an electric shock is to anesthese somebody first. But the psychiatrist, being a sniveling coward (to be polite about it), wouldn't dare give anybody an electric shock without giving them some anesthesia first. But they've got to give an other-determinism present, if they just cut down the volume of the shock and omitted the anesthesia - but then that heads under the heading of cruelty. That would tell the fellow where he was, and that's cruelty, see, to such a person, because that person doesn't want to be there, and yet you insist he's there and you give him enough impact to show him that he is there; bring anchor points in on him quick enough. All right, you see how this is?

So arithmetic is the end-all swindle.

You see how psychiatry is invalidating itself and its own treatment; this is why an electric shock never does a patient any good.

The dollar bill plus the dollar bill is simply the dollar bill plus the dollar bill. It's exactly the same place that the two dollar bills ... But anytime we grant the fact that there can be a symbol for anything we're in trouble. We have said immediately that the thing is not the thing, that something else can represent the thing.

If they would give instead of 110 volt AC straight out of the outlet plug, which is what an electric shock is today - built up logarithmically - that's all it is. Oh, they have great big machines and so forth, but if you looked into them, their electronic components are simply a light cord. You'd give anybody an electric shock just by taking apart one of these plugs; you know, take an extension cord, set it into the wall outlet, and just fray the two ends off of the - unplug it out from the wall before you do this - and take the plug off as it goes into the lamp, you see, or take the end plug off the extension cord; now you've got two bare wires. Now plug the plug you unplugged back into the outlet, you've got two live wires, and you just simply touch the two live wires to either side of his temple.

Any time an executive wants to get in trouble, he hires a manager who then writes letters in the executive's name. We're in trouble. If we want to keep out of trouble, the way we do is not try to be an executive and have a manager, just have a manager. That's simple, then, see.

Well, because the - because the area is too small for the amount of shock involved, it'll burn him; he'll get a little burn on it probably, so the thing to do is to give him some jelly or something over the area to spread the area of impact, you see, a little bit; and it's more, then, like a blow. And then you would simply take these two probe - these two ends of the electric wires straight out of the outlet, you see, and just touch the fellow to either side of the temple and he would have had an electric shock administered to him.

But deputizing while still holding on to is the favored method of doing business in this community and culture today. And that happens to be an impossible method of doing business because it is intensely restimulating. While you're still holding on to this space, you've got to hold on, now, to another space. Now, while you've got to hold on to another space, we hold on to the next space. And before you can let go of it, you'll hold on to the next space and the next space and the next space.

That's all; it's a much more therapeutic electric shock, by the way, because there's been no hocus-pocus involved in it and there's no unconsciousness in it. This would really say, "Bud, you certainly are on either - there's two anchor points for you you're not going to escape easily." This is what it amounts to.

So finally, you say, “Well, just these words will stand for these spaces and that'll be that. And we won't try to hold on to any spaces anymore; we'll get some symbol that'll stand up and hold on to all these spaces for us."

Why anybody needs a machine to do this is a little bit puzzling, except, I suppose, it just adds more necromancy. It's something like witches have to have pots to boil things in so they can make potions and incantations before they simply hit the fellow over the head with chioral hydrate and give him the implant quick.

This is an immediate admission that one can't hold on to spaces; it's also an immediate admission that one cannot look. When one can't look, he's in trouble! That's the only place it goes, is into symbolism. And any time you get symbols, any symbol plus any other symbol can be two other symbols because you just simply said it was true. Then guys, after they've noticed that this is wrong, that is to say, it's contrary to regular postulates or contrary to existing spaces the second they've noticed that this is haywire, they will lay off arithmetic.

Now, the sound of the voice, the impact, the cuff in the cheek, the cut, the slash, while the person is unconscious, tells him he is somewhere without any co-related anchor points.

Try and teach some bright little kid arithmetic; you're in trouble. Just try and do it and you're in trouble. He'll ask you and ask you and ask you. And, of course, you say, “Well, of course, you always want to get the proper change" - some such thing. "And that's why you want to learn arithmetic, you little dummy!" It isn't a good answer at all. Learning arithmetic is just a method of looking at symbols while you should be looking at the real thing.

So, he's got sitting all by itself out there in the middle of the ocean, you might say - the ocean of nothingness - he's got five or six anchor points. Well, they must be valuable because they had impact with them, and somebody else wanted him to have them. This is certain. This is one thing a fellow is always certain about a bad engram: somebody wanted him to have it; he didn't want them. But somewhere in this mass of unconsciousness, uncorelated with any other anchor points, he's got some anchor points. And so these things will drift on the time track. See, they are - don't tie down in any particular time.

Do you mean to tell me you can't see at a glance a hundred objects and know whether or not there are ninety-nine or a hundred and one? You mean you have to go through a system of counting them? This is a superlimitation. The only reason you have arithmetic is because somebody else has agreed upon a system of symbols, not because you need them.

Why does "Remember something real" and so forth, why does this start snapping a patient up line? Well, it's very simple, he's just not adrift, then, because he's tied down location.

Now, computationally anybody can figure out where he is navigationally; he knows where he is, he doesn't have to figure it out with a sextant and all that sort of thing.

Now, you can actually straightwire out an engram one way or the other just by making the fellow locate it. If you were to simply take the fellow and cuff him around and ask him the question several times, "Well, all right, now you keep saying that operation is in restimulation. Now, goddamn it, were you out of the operating room at any time? Now, come on! Were you out of the operating room at any time?"

Driving through fog the other day, terrible fog, very thick fog and I was traveling at about sixty-five, seventy miles an hour - a real thick fog - and slowed down and braked down to about thirty and braked down to about twenty and then went around the truck which was crossparked on the highway. I never saw the truck even when I passed it. Why?

Fellow would finally break down on your new impacts and say, "No No I had the sensation once, I remember kind of like a dream of standing on the other side of the room looking at them butcher up my body."

Well, it's a simple matter of knowing that there's a truck up there. How do you know there's a truck up there? Well, you know there's an iron object in the fog. Why? Well, you can taste the iron, of course. How far ahead of you can you taste it? Well, you can taste it about five hundred yards.

"Well, you didn't leave the room though?"

People - this is real silly, you see. I mean, what do you need there? Well, you make the postulate you can't see in fog - you sure can.

Or he'd finally say, "Yes! I did. I went into an 'in pawns' area. Yeah, I - I'll admit that now. But there was all of that - drifty anchor points there, and there was somebody else someplace else and out of this confusion I couldn't orient myself for that period of time."

Now, the other way to do it is simply shift your sight to infrared. The second you shift your sight to infrared fog can't stop it. If you're depending on MEST vision and MEST objects, you can certainly count, look, see, sort. This is not difficult. It is hard to explain because the language does not admit it. This is the superlimitation.

"Well, where was your body at the time?"

Fellow who goes out has to - in a circus and balances himself with one finger in a bottle on top of a pole fifteen feet high while balancing the pole, has a certain state of mind. You could label this state of mind certainty. But actually, it's a sort of an elan - an elan. He's doing it, he knows he can do it - swing-pang! One day he goes swing-pang and the bottle collapses and so forth, and after that he isn't so hot at it. After that he'll start to set up circuits in training so he can do it.

"It was in the operating room."

I think that probably two or three-year little - old kids could walk high tight wires three hundred feet in the air with no trouble whatsoever, except that this is shown off as an exhibition, which means they can't do it. Nobody pays any attention to them, but people would pay attention to things doing it, so if nobody pays attention to them, then they can't do it either.

"Did anybody remove your body from the operating room?"

You find every little kid will have the sneaking hunch that if he had all the adulation that circus performers get, he could do all the things they do. The cross-circuit is, is nobody pays him attention and people pay attention to high-wire walkers. So it must follow, immediately, that there's a difference of space. See, he must be in a different space, so this must be a different thing. They're given the idea "they can't" before they get the idea "they can."

"Well, they must have taken it down the hall and put it in bed."

Now, I taught a little kid one time to steer a racing yacht which was one of the fightiest yachts anybody ever tried to... Lot of square footage was up there, some twenty-five hundred square feet of canvas was up there in a thirty-five mile breeze and she didn't have a single reef point in her. And she was going with her whole rail under.

"Well, did they take it anyplace else?"

And I just told this little kid, "Come over and steer it."

"No, I'm sure that they didn't take it anyplace else."

"Oh," he says, "I can't reach it."

"All right. Well then, what about this operation?"

"Well, why don't you stand up on the rail and put your foot on the tiller."

Well, you could actually jammer and yap at a person around like that, and beat him around until you actually got him more stirred up about putting some anchor points into the area, and you would have, in effect, settled either your determinism of where the engram belonged or his.

"Okay." He did, he steered it. Never occurred to him, you see, he couldn't, because it never occurred to me he couldn't. Well, that was rough beef, because actually a fellow had to grab ahold of that tiller real hard and push real hard and do all sorts of things. But he was just doing a beautiful job of steering that vessel. I didn't even tell him how to do it. She'd start to fall off and he'd bring her up into the wind a little bit more. Why? That's just the way he was supposed to do it; nobody had ever trained him how.

I've seen auditors do this in desperation by the way; practically get the feeling after a while that they'd just like to throttle this preclear. That's because the preclear won't put the engram anyplace, because it, of course, doesn't belong anyplace.

You see, a person then gets half-trained and they think they have to be trained And that's the only reason we're talking about Dianetics and Scientology, in we're talking on a cultural level where people are half-trained, then they have to be fully trained because they have to be out-trained out of being trained. The only excuse we have for going to school here is to get untrained so that we can recognize that we're trained. See that? It sounds silly but it's absolutely the thing, what we're doing.

Now, get this as unreality: "I'm not here." Now of course, unreality is no perception, which is "I'm and it's not here." "I'm not here; it's not here. Nah, there's nothing here! Ha-ha!" And that's the basic on unconsciousness: "I'm not here; it's not here." That's a complete scattering confusion and disorientation.

All right. As we look down the line we find out what's certainty. People think that they can get trained into a certainty. They can't get trained into a certainty. But they can be guided to feel, be guided to think, be guided to work and be guided to look on certainties. Not the symbols of the thing, hut the thing. They can look, they can feel, they can feel the effort and they can think, in just that order, on the subject of certainties.

People hope for unconsciousness sometimes just because they get so worn out trying to place anchor points. They know they can't place them anyplace, so let's just be in nowhere and that's the end of it.

So the component parts of livingness happen to be think, effort, emote, look and the objects and spaces about which one thinks, toward which one applies effort, which apply effort against one which one feels, which feels of one, at which one looks and which look (if they're mirrors) at one. Those are the component parts of existence.

Now, anxiety is, is "I'm supposed to be there." He's not, of course; it's just "I'm supposed to be there." Some fellow who was accustomed to being audience gets on a stage. Some fellow who was accustomed to being stage is audience. In either case, they will feel anxiety. One will feel anxiety for the audience, "What are they thinking? What are they saying?" and so forth. Fellow who is on the stage is not accustomed to being on the stage, he gets very anxious about the audience because he's not there, see; he's on the stage. And people in the audience will just very often - some poor actor or something who keeps dropping the teapot in the play, or whose hand is shaking s-s-so badly when he tries to utter his lines, and people in the audience will just agonize! They just watch this fellow and they just go batty, you see. And that's all there is, just "I'm supposed to be there." See, it has to be based on the idea they're supposed to be on the stage and they're not on the stage, and then they see something going wrong on the stage, and they feel, "Gee, you know, that'd be me." They get an association of location, so you get an anxiety and that's why anxiety and stage fright go together so easily.

If you become certain that these component parts of existence exist, then you have a certainty.

Now, this business of shame and degradation is where a fellow has said, with great confidence, "I'm not here," and then the brick wall hit him. And you get the emotion of shame. Shame is "postulate didn't work." And real degradation is "It didn't work and it's not worked and they haven't worked for the longest time." See, it's just a continuation of shame, shame, shame, shame, shame and then you get degradation.

You see anything?

And there's sudden impact of - the fellow is carrying - carrying the - well, this fellow's carrying the jewels of the czar of Russia and also has in his keeping the czar's mistress. And he's a very faithful and loyal courier and he is delivering same to the czar in - all in good order. And he's been entrusted and brought up all his life, you see, to have this take place, that he should be entrusted with such things. And as he's driving down the road or something like that, why, the revolutionists hit him, slay mistress, jewels and everything else with a terrific bombardment of bullets, or he goes over the cliff and hits something with a crush and he doesn't have these jewels or the mistress anymore. He's hit an impact and he was not supposed to be there at the moment of impact, you see? He just wasn't supposed to be there, that's all.

Well, right now, close your eyes, close your eyes. Did you get an impression of anything around you? An impression of anything?

In other words, the resulting - you just keep mounting it up. These things which he has are supposed to be someplace else, they are with him, he has this under protection - in other words, he's supposed to be here with these things - and all of a sudden, why, pam! he gets this terrific reason why he's not supposed to be there. If he were walking down the road all by himself, he had nothing in trust but a body, and he felt he could get other bodies and so forth, and he were hit in the face with a cannonball, why he wouldn't feel degraded particularly by it.

Male voice: Visually? No.

But it would be other people's determination of location, and other people's determining that he ought to be there, and then he ought to have these things there, and then he can't have these things there, and he is made to desert all these things, then you get, by this complexity of spaces deserted, degradation,

In the room?

And if you get - just in spaces deserted, valuable spaces deserted, you got degradation. And you just do a series of mock-ups of the fellow running away from various spaces, various valuable - first, just various spaces, then from various valuable spaces and just keep running away from these various spaces, and on and on and on, and all of a sudden, boy, the feelings of degradation would turn up to a point where, as a preclear, you'd almost throw up. And that would probably run out and get him loosened up on the track. All right?

Male voice: Not visually.

Interpersonal relations, on this positional matter, would be "want and don't want others to be here," in most cases. Want to be here, and don't want others to be here - just this interlocation, interrelationship of places, see? And where interpersonal relationships are bad you get into "want and don't want others to be here." That's about all the guy can hold on to finally, and most people down on the street are in that situation - don't want others to be here; they don't want them too close up, and they - so on.

Well, now, just a minute. Close your eyes again. Do you get an impression of anything visually?

And they get to a point finally where others aren't here. Guys can talk at them and yap at them and so forth, and no respondo. Interpersonal relationships are perfectly easy to manage upscale where everybody has a certain degree of determinism and no great anxiety about space. The second they get anxious about space they just tip on over into this: Spaces are too valuable and they can't desert them or come back to them.

Male voice: Sure. Everything's in the room. Everything that belongs here.

Now orders and commands are "Must - must not be here or there" for people and objects. And control: "Other things must be in consecutive places." Control is consecutive places, assignment of consecutive places. And let's go back and look at this all in terms of space now.

Well, do you get an impression of anything visually? Do you see anything visually?

Determinism is the establishment of space, whether creation or simply taking over something else's anchor points; that's determirnsm.

Male voice: Well, blackness.

And determination is an assignment of space; "That's your space, and that's my space and that's somebody else's space;" and so forth, which immediately bars out uses of space. Denial in uses of space is the lower scale of determination, and it'll follow all through on "I will be and won't be;" and so on.

There.

Loss is just the failure to assign space.

Male voice: It's not in the room, though.

Ownership is the fixation of space.

There we finally made some... It's not in the room?

Protection is the shielding of space - fixed shielding of fixed space.

Male voice: Well, you know...

You can also protect something in motion, but then each time you have to have a new fixation of shielding; that's force screens. You want to know what you're dealing with with force screens: you're dealing with the shielding of a space so nothing else can get into it. You've immediately gotten randomity mixed up into this.

Where is it?

And we have, there, protection and randomity right together. You have to select out something to protect, which means that you have to have selected out something evil or destructive, or otherness. You have to have found an otherness about existence before you can have randomity.

Male voice: It's right - it's right here but it's...

Now, the best way to get some randomity going is to start selecting othernesses, because it's very apparent that in order to have some action you've got to have a villain. See? There's got to be an other beingness who is not doing the assignment of space correctly and you're going to assign the space correctly. Just any kind of interaction like this, and you get randomity. And that's what randomity is. And that makes motion.

All right. Where is here?

Motion is something determining the courses of things. Something has to start reversing courses of things and changing courses of things before you get motion. Everything would be a static if that didn't happen. See how that is? Everything would be a static unless something had come along and had determined a - first thing it does is determine a change of fixation; and that's what life is best at.

Male voice: All right, right here in the room.

Life comes along and finds all these anchor points in the shape of a star, and life at first says, "Isn't that interesting, everything is in the shape of a star," and looks at it for a little while, and says, "Well, I've looked this long. Now I think it ought to be in the shape of a diamond," and simply reaches over and fixes this thing, which it had not - has not had any contact with formerly, into a diamond, and you get motion. Otherwise, the star would simply stay there without a determinism being exerted against making it into something else besides a star. Well, that's what life is best at - is shifting it around.

Okay. And so you can take any preclear and kick his teeth in on the subject of observation. That's the first place you kick his teeth in when he tells you're occluded - he's occluded.

That is not an aberrated impulse. Life just does this; it gets no interest, no motion, no livingness or anything else unless it starts shifting things around.

He says, "I'm occluded."

You get somebody doing something who has a very high velocity or something of the sort, and he won't be able to stand it unless he shifts something around.

And you say, "Okay, close your eyes and take a look. What do you see?" "Nothing," he'll say.

You get some truck driver, you look in a plant - here's a big plant and they've got a big lot of trucks there, you know. And they're high-speed drivers, they're boys who are really doing a good job, they are not the boys who break the speed laws. They break the speed laws, but nobody could probably catch and wouldn't anyway. The guys who are really traveling fast - you know, I mean they're in high motion like we were talking about in the last lecture yesterday; speed - their velocity is way up, so forth.

Sometimes he will keep up this damn-fool story about he sees nothing for minutes! And you just have to keep talking to him and arguing with him and saying, "Now, come on. Do you see anything at all? Is there anything at all to see?"

They look around the place and they'll see the trucks are parked in there, and all of a sudden it will irk them that a couple of trucks are parked a little bit out of line; they go and jump in the trucks and square them around and park them in the proper alignment order. Or the trucks are just too desperately well aligned. They see them like that every night, so they'll park their truck a little bit haywire, just a little bit kitty-cornered. Anything to change their - change position, and that way you get motion.

"Oh," he'll say after a while, "some blackness."

And if you don't get shift of anchor points, you don't get any randomity.

"All right. Is that something or isn't it?"

An automaticity is where no one has - wants to shift anchor points anymore, and so they set them up so the anchor points will shift themselves. And after you've got it so anchor points shift themselves, you're all set; nobody is keeping track of them. That's no responsibility; nobody is keeping track of them, nobody is looking at them, nobody is shifting them. It's just sort of going on that anybody - any time anybody glances over that way, you get a change of pattern.

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

And any time you get one of these sudden changes of pattern, you've got a picnic on your hands because nobody can tell which way it's going to go now because nobody was determining it before somebody looked at it.

That isn't what you've asked him, you've asked him if he saw anything. Get the essential difference there.

So, it was all set up to line up all the trucks. The trucks were simply left on the ramp and then this automatic machine was supposed to grab all the trucks quickly and suddenly and take them all in and line them all up in their proper stalls or parking places underneath the plant. There was a machine there that did that. They set it all up and the little hook would come up through the floor, you see, and hook on to the front axle and every truck would get its proper hook and they'd all go into place.

"All right, now where is it?" That is the next question.

And then one day, a bar breaks or something of the sort, see, and nobody has noticed this either. Nobody is looking at the thing. And the lever goes down, the sun goes down, and as the sun goes down it establishes a certain degree of light on a photometer and this turns on the machine and it parks all the trucks.

Well, I made him say where it was. He said it is - it's in the room. Of course, but he isn't sure of that, are you? Male voice: Yeah, I'm sure it's in the room but it doesn't have anything to do with the room, though.

Well, it has to assume that every driver is in by this time. Well, there's a little bar broken and quite in addition to that, somebody else didn't deliver his truck in that night, so there's a space empty. And they come back the next morning and all the trucks are wrecked.

Oh, it's not connected with the room in any way, shape or form Doesn't have anything to do with it.

And somebody says, "Who's responsible for this?" And of course, they can't fix any responsibility for it because the maintenance man, well, they forgot about it, but he was fired a long time ago; there's been no maintenance man for the rig. Well, the sun is responsible; it went down too late or too early or something of the sort. Or the fellow that didn't deliver his truck in - well, he's responsible. Well, he couldn't be responsible because his truck broke down. Well, why did his truck break down? He's responsible for that, then. No, what's responsible for that is management; management is responsible for that because after the maintenance man quit on the trucks, and so forth, and on the machinery, why, they didn't hire another one. And yes, they did hire another one; they sent orders to the foreman and the personnel department to hire another one, and as a matter of fact this is true, but when the fellow reported the machine which stamps all of the cards that hire and fire and so on, it stamped it in the wrong slot which said this person was merely supposed to clean up the place; he wasn't supposed to maintain it. So there was a machine failure there; well, that goes back to the maintenance man, but there was no maintenance man hired.

Male voice: Yeah, I got it when I'm outside, too.

Who's responsible? And then we just start playing this game, you see, this fantastic game "Who's responsible?" And that all comes out from somebody having set up some automaticity. This thing will now assign spaces without any livingness supervising it. This will now assign spaces.

Your - I see, I see, it carries - portable?

That always happens on any piece of automaticity. And there's one thing you can be absolutely sure of about automaticity: It's going to go haywire. It's going to break down. This is certain.

Male voice: Oh, yeah, I can take it anywhere I go.

Some fellow - in a science fiction story one time - wrote a story about a civilization which was composed of machines but then there were repair machines which repaired the machines which broke down and got them back into order. And then there were machines which kept in order the machines which kept in order. And then the original machines that were being repaired and being kept in order, of course, their primary task was to keep the third echelon of repair machines going. So you had a circular society.

Mmm!

Looked awfully well on paper until I pointed out to him that this was all very well, but what would happen if a meteorite had struck the planet? Then you wouldn't get perpetuation forever of these machines. He had omitted this in the story; so in the rewrite of the story he put in that there was maintaining a force screen around the planet so no meteorite could hit it. Real silly.

Male voice: It's not heavy.

To double-terminal the concept "setting up something so it will keep on going by itself" will very often produce a fantastic amount of action for the preclear; I mean, he'll get a lot of energy charges going in all directions, because that's all he's doing with automaticity; he's setting up something so it'll require no further action. That, in essence, is what happened to the MEST universe; it all got set up automatically. Now there's nobody hiring a maintenance man and we've got that sort of a problem in the thing.

Now, that's the only confounding thing about a body, an automobile, a bird or anything else. They're mobile, damn them. That's the only thing about a planet or a star that is even vaguely confusing. They're mobile.

Well, hiding is a denial of space, and when you have a person who is hiding something, he has some space but he's denying that he has space. Now, after he's hidden his first object, from there on he is denying space; first moment he hid something he's denying space. And you ought to add this to your list of things to be run in the MEST universe - the first place he hid something. He denied perception, he denied space the second he did that.

When a person recognizes something of this mobility it upsets him. And there is his excuse for using symbols; he tries to handle mobile objects.

All right. Hiding self: When you've hidden yourself completely - when a fellow is completely hidden as a - as a thetan, boy, he doesn't have any space to the amount of space he could have at all, so he doesn't have any anchor points.

The only mathematics I know that does me any good at all is rate of change - mathematics which handle rate of change in ratios. And I try to look at rates of change in ratios and mock-ups and any other way I think for them, I just get more and more confused. So does anybody else, because that is the sticker beyond stickers.

And now unreality (covering this in terms of space still): different space in the same space. Unreality is a different space in the same space. The fellow said, "I'm on the moon," and then the brick wall hit him. He said, "I'm not here;" you see. "I'm on the moon;" he said, and the brick wall hit him. He was right there on Earth; he was about to hit a brick wall and he said, "I'm on the moon." Bam! - brick wall hit him. Well, he got to the moon, but his lines energized and brought him back to before the brick wall.

You have a barrel, it is leaking at the rate of one drop every three minutes. What is the - at the rate of one drop - now, it is a conical structure rather than cylindrical, and you want to know the area of the water - the difference of the area of the water every three minutes.

You'll find a split instant of "I'm not here" and of the fellow being someplace else, and he'll get hung up being someplace else. So he's carrying - been carrying ever since, moon space; every time he saw a brick wall, he knew he was standing in moon space.

Now, the rate of change of the area of the water at the top of the water supply because it was leaking or because it was running seems to be an important problem to some people. Never found any use for it, but whenever I run up against that one, it has to be done mathematically. I have to add and subtract and cast it up and integrate and differentiate and so forth, and when I get all through I look up in the back of the book to find the answer and I take what I found in the back of the book.

And by the way, it's not not hidden; that's not hard to locate on a case. When he said, "I'm not here;" where was he? And he generally said he was someplace, early on the track.

The difference of area because of difference of escapement. It's hard to look at because it's very hypothetical - extremely. And people claim they want to know answers to this sort of thing, so they do.

Now, let's recover the first space - on the MEST track, again on this same list - let's recover the first space where he coincided two spaces; that's what he did, you see. Unreality is a lot of spaces coincided one with another. Tremendous number of spaces eventually get stacked up with a fellow. And now it's real? Well, boy, he's not - he's not here in each one of these spaces. It would he perfectly all right to coincide space, but where you have the fact that it's not the space you get in bad shape.

That introduces in this universe, then, an uncertainty. And actually, from that uncertainty of mobility of space - that is to say, mobility of anchor points - a mobility of anchor points introduces a possibility of confusion. We answer this question - well, we've answered it.

Well, no perception is no space, and anxiety is other space - always other space; it's just that - other space; he's supposed to be elsewhere other space. So he gets into the idea after a while that he has to be in other space, so then he, to settle his problem, he says, "All right;" he says, "I am in other space"; and he's done; he's not in other space because he has gotten an "I'm right here" keyed in the moment he did that. Nice little problems that mount up on people and which cause this thing called aberration.

We've got eight anchor points. These anchor points are unchangeable anchor points as far as their own character and beingness is concerned - individually unchangeable. Now, we move these to a new location so that you have them in eight new places. Do you have a different space? Well, do you or don't you? Do you have a different space?

Now, what's time? What's time? Time is "I'm not here." Anybody who is having trouble with time is also running "I'm not here." Anybody Who's running "I'm not here," or coincided spaces, is having trouble with time. Time is the single aberrative factor Why? It's "I'm not here."

Female voice: Yes.

And do you realize this stuff, to keep on going, has to be saying - this MEST stuff has to be saying all the time "I'm not here. I'm not here. I'm not. here. I'm not here. I'm not here?" Huh? Has to be saying at the same time, interlarded with that, "I'm here. I'm not here. I'm here. I'm not here. I'm here. I'm not here. I'm here. I'm not here."

Do you?

A fellow, to keep track of it, then has to at least locate the I-am-heres; he at least has to locate that. "I'm not here. I am here. I'm not here. I am here. I'm not here." Follow that? Time is consecutively on the track, the fellow is saying - is all the time he's saying, "I'm not here. I'm not here. I'm not here."

Male voice: It's determined by the location.

All right, remember when we talked about the motorcycle? Was the motorcycle taking the guy down the road, or was the guy taking the motorcycle down the road? Well, there's two postulates in time as far as this MEST is concerned: It's here and then it immediately has to be not here; it's here, not here.

That's correct! If you don't know that, though, about this universe, you don't know anything, do you?

All right, the person - this is just a matter of consideration. Believe me, it's just a matter of consideration, no matter how much proof goes with it. It's fantastic that it is, but there isn't any energy has to change hands, there's - none of the effort has to take place to change this consideration.

And you think and possibly you are looking at a point on a case where you could simply go bip! and the fellow would be Clear. It's whether or not he considers himself in tune with the I'm-not-here of time, or whether he's in tune with the I-am-here of time.

That's why holding the two back corners of the room produces such a fantastic result on a case. It does; it's fantastic. Because you're making him run - see, you're making him stop running "I'm not here. I'm not here. I'm not here." And making him start running "I am here. I am here. I am here." You've just changed his consideration.

And where you forcefully changed his consideration to "I am here. I am here. I am here. I am here," why, you're starting to key out the I'm-not-heres, I'm-not-heres, I'm-not-heres, I'm-not-heres, so the guy gets located after a while. And if you just keep that up for the preclear he'll be fully located before you get through.

That's idiotically simple, isn't it? It's whether or not one takes the motorcycle down the road, and the motorcycle takes one down the road. It's whether one thinks the molecules of a space-there are those anchor points - are saying "I'm not here" or whether one thinks they're saying "I am here." These molecules are saying two things: they're saying, "I am here; I'm not here. I am here; I'm not here. I am here; I'm not here. I am here; I'm not here. I am here; I'm not here." If they weren't saying it you wouldn't get any progress on the time track.

A fellow has to say, to go forward in time, there has to be this thing, and this is the base of the automatic machine which makes time. He's saying, "All right, I am in this instant; I'm not in this instant. I am in this instant. I am not in this instant. I'm in this instant; I am not in this instant. I'm in this instant; I am not in this instant. I'm in this instant." Has to be saying that all the time and it depends on how fast he can say this how much time he has. This is fantastic! I mean, it's one of those idiotic things.

Now, you have somebody who's having a rough time of it, simply hold the concept all through the MEST objects which he can locate all around him, "I'm not here." I don't advise you to do this; this is making him resist the universe. It's just a test; just have him locate this concept all through these objects: "I'm not here."

All right, now do that, do that, all of you. You get this stuff all saying "I'm not here."

Now get yourself saying now, "I'm not here."

It's a lie on some of these cases - it's a lie! But of course, you've hit your first one on hiding because there isn't a thetan present who isn't hiding.

All right, let's hit the other one now; let's get in all the surrounding space around you, this stuff saying just repetitively pam! pam! pam! pam! pam! "I am here. I am here. I am here. I am here. I am here." Now get yourself saying, right where you are "I am here. I am here. I am here. I am here." All right, now get yourself saying, suddenly, "I'm not here; I am here."

Now get something saying - get you saying suddenly, "I'm not here," and then something in front of you saying, "You're here!" You're saying, "I'm not here," something in front of you is saying "You're here!"

Now that little operation, the last one I gave you where you're saying "I'm not here" and something else is saying right immediately "You're here" is the exact moment where your V level's case is stuck. And his consideration is that the MEST universe around him is saying "I'm not here." And all you have to do is change it to where the MEST universe is saying "I am here" and then change it to where the MEST universe is saying "I'm not here. I am here. I am not here. I am here." He can get it very smoothly because he's doing it automatically in the final analysis. And this permits him to recover this automaticity.

Now, if you get a machine which tells you "You are here; you're not here. You are here; you're not here. You are here; you're not here," the machine will eventually turn into the MEST universe and that is the primary automaticity in which you're sharing.