There's nothing like obtaining extremes. An Aristotelian mean of speed of rendition here doesn't happen to be part of the goals.

The first things which put in their appearance for admiration will be bad things because those things persist. The bad things persist, that is, the nonadmired qualities persist.

Want to tell you, just in a few brief words, about the Hubbard Association of Scientologists, its functions. The organization is a continuation of organizations which have, with greater or lesser success, carried on this work.

So you ask a child to do a mock-up of arithmetic and you get a mock-up, but if you were to look at that mock-up yourself, you would find out it was a nonadmired mock-up. That is to say, he's mocked himself up doing arithmetic, ink up to the elbows and all drugged up and kept in and so forth. And now, if you were to tell him, "Now admire that facsimile" - or "admire that mock-up. Now admire it."

It has taken more than two years to stabilize the organizational picture in Dianetics and Scientology. The reason for this was - I'm afraid I'm cause - the reason for this was my own attention was being given rather exclusively to investigation, processing, writing, not to business management.

"Yeah."

And when you leave organizations alone and do very little for them or about them, they have a tendency to, let us say, occasionally get a wheel over the edge of the road and pile into brick walls, and other things happen to them.

"All right. Now get another mock-up of you doing arithmetic."

But my adjudication was made actually first in the very early part of 1950 - I gave over to some people that I thought, "Well, maybe I can trust these people," the organization of the first Foundation in this line. And it carried forward for a good long while; it went on for about a year before it fell on its face.

"Mm, mm-hm. Yeah. This is worse."

But it was certain that it would sooner or later, because in 1950 I even stopped corresponding on the subject of that organization because I found out I was working eighteen hours a day. Now, any time you want to work eighteen hours a day, you let me know, and I know where there's a job for you. Got a pair of shoes here you can have.

"Now admire that."

And I found out that I had not written the second book and that much material which should have been in public hands, not just in the Foundation's hands, should have been put into book form. And so, in October of 1950, I decided that what little contact I had maintained with the central organization had to be itself broken. And I went down to Palm Springs, and I took an auditor and a secretary and got to work and simply started backing off each successive spot of impact in order to conclude the investigation.

"Mm. Hm. Yeah."

I had learned to a large degree what I had to know: is how much did we have to know about the mind to permit an auditor to get results uniformly.

"All right. Now get another mock-up of you doing arithmetic."

I knew what I could do about the mind; I knew what people I immediately trained could do about the mind, but I have seen what people broadly could or could not do about the mind.

"Yeah."

And so, the codification of material had to continue. And believe me, the codification of what you know is as important or more important as an operation, as a thinking process, than what you know.

"Now admire that."

Now, there's something very strange about this, but you can know something and not have it all fitted into the English language, and so you had better find out that there are two steps here: one, to know something and the other to be able to simplify and communicate it.

"Oh, yes."

Now, in my own opinion, I think I've done quite well hitting this on a level of three years, because today auditors get very, very excellent results, and they continue to get them. And what we know about the mind and about this universe and about other things is codified. It isn't just known.

You're bringing him up the line on it. It'll be a little slower than that, but you're getting - the bad, nonadmired qualities are appearing. Some preclears in Mock-up Processing always get the bad ones first, Oh, it's just gruesome if you just let them run.

Now, there are process after process after process. There's technique after technique after technique, any one of which, if you just took this one technique and you kept on drumming with this technique in Dianetics or Scientology, either one, you would get there with a case. That's quite important, do you see!

Now, in the Creative Admiration Processing which we have yet to cover, we'll cover this theory. But let it suffice that evaluation of the goodness or badness of the mock-up to be gained is bad on the part of the Group Auditor. He says, "Now get yourself doing well in arithmetic." You see, he's evaluated, and the auditor never evaluates.

But now we have the techniques which stand over the top of all these various scattered techniques and that we can point to and say, "You do it this way. You take two eggs, you take a bowl, you break the eggs in the bowl - you make sure they're fresh eggs - and you break them in the bowl and then you take a fork and you beat them up. And then you take a pint of milk - and the first thing you know, you have a preclear who is cleared." Now, therefore, you could actually start out, and with the purest mechanical line, just follow this material just mechanically, just sort of dumbly, mechanically follow this material and you'd get there, and you wouldn't quite know where you were when you got there, maybe, but you'd be there. Or you could know the background of the techniques, or you could know the background of the theory and the techniques and the cake recipe. You see, there's these various stages.

There are two shuns: he never evaluates or invalidates a preclear, So he doesn't evaluate with this mock-up beyond this point: He says, "Get a time when you enjoyed something."

So the HAS is now in the United States about, oh, very well over a year old - a half a year old here - and getting older all the time as time happens to have a habit of doing, of increasing havingness or doing something about it. And we are operating on a stability because we aren't trying to do more than we can do.

Now, he's getting a time when he enjoyed spinach, you know-grim, terrible. Every time you ask him to get some - you can count on this - you ask him to get something he enjoyed, he's going to get the time when he won the prize and was very sorry because the other boy cried because he hadn't won the prize.

Now, I know how much you can start to do that you can't do organizationally in this world of ours in the twentieth century And I know organizations can't do a lot of things that you might think offhand, just at a glance, they could do. And the main problem throughout has been personnel.

You get the veteran, you say, "All right. Get a time when you enjoyed something," and the veteran gets the time when he was standing there in line, he was all clean, spick-and-span, everything was in fine condition. But it did result in the fact that the captain that did admire him during that inspection was killed in action the next week. I mean, he's immediately into that. You can almost depend on springing a grief charge if you go into this enjoyed something, enjoyed something, pleasure, pleasure, pleasure - bang, you've got the guy crying. All right. It's a reverse action of the universe. Because what's happening is, is the nonadmired things, the painful things have presented themselves first.

We have a type of organizational setup now which is devoted to performing certain functions and stressing those functions above every other function, One is to - and that's first and foremost - to make a darned good auditor. It's the first function of the HAS. And the next function to that is to try as well as possible to take care of his problems, particularly in relationship to new techniques, retraining and that sort of thing.

Now, what is survival? We've got two levels here we're operating on. Analytical, which is rational, which makes sense. There you're on safe ground. You say, "This is admirable. This is admirable? Yes, yes, that's admirable." Analytically, one knows it and one will continue on that basis.

And another one is procurement of preclears. That's something else, but that line has not been hit well, going solidly, and is just now being hit well and solidly. And actually, the lectures which I'm giving you right here are an advancement of that line.

Well, there's another level all the time right under that, and that is reactive, stimulus-response. And in the stimulus-response bracket everything runs backwards. The nonadmired things are the compulsive things. So that if one has a lot of ambitions, analytically, he's going to carry on and do very well. But if these are reactive ambitions, they are just compulsions and they are going to get him up in bad trouble, because he's going to make sure that he fails every one of them.

Now, the continuing functions, then, as we go down the line, is to guarantee some sort of good public representation for the subjects and to provide contacts and literature for the public. Now, that is done on what we call "V" staff, so that the organization is divided into two halves.

The fact that he's succeeding makes him fail and so on. Goes in reverses, There are a lot of characteristics of flows which we don't have to cover at this time. It just - just take it from there that you got a reactive level, which is a stimulus-response, unseen, uncomprehended thing, which forces computations on an individual.

One is there is the central staff, which is the main organization. It takes care of training, it takes care of servicing, and it takes care of the public on a very stable level. That is to say, people who want training, people who need advice, people who want information, and providing those people with publications. Now, that's all done by the central staff.

This analytical level? Sure, up here on the analytical level if you admire something, you want to do this, you know that will happen and so forth. Every once in a while this reactive level intrudes. And what is in the reactive level is unadmired things. They're hanging fire. There is a reactive level because of the missing particle.

And then we have another organization which is part of the same organization, and that's voluntaire staff. The voluntary staff evolved from this basis, It's very interesting that the central staff functions cannot exist and continue in a good stable condition in the absence of a volunteer staff.

Now, if you want to read Book One, you'll find a great deal of information in Book One. It's not controverted nor is it beyond use at this time. It's more than we had at the time. This technique of admiration, just to give you some kind of an idea, solves every problem advanced as a problem in Book One. So we've done a jump here.

Why! Because everybody wants to volunteer into the central organization. And the central organization has a certain function. You come along, you say, "Got a brand-new idea. And this will really put the show on the road and this will get Scientology accepted here and there," and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on. And you hit the central organization with this. And everybody starts wearing that hat or everybody just throws up his hands and says, "We're just doing too much now."

The Theta Clear was a milestone. Book One was a milestone. Behind that, survive was a milestone - its isolation as a principle of existence. So we hit this other milestone, and when we hit such a button, this button should, perforce, solve all the previous problems. And Book One now solves on Admiration Processing. All you do is get admiration for speech - not selectively, not with evaluation, not admiration for bad speech or good speech, just admiration for talking. Just mock up yourself admiring talking. Just mock up yourself admiring talking, other people admiring you talking. Just mock up talking, And the next thing you know, there will be quite several concussions and somatics and collisions and all sorts of things will happen in the being that shouldn't really happen to a dog, but they will occur, and you've run out the bank. It might take quite a little while before you could do that. But you take any turned-off perceptic on an individual and get him to admire that perceptic unselectively without evaluation - just admire the perceptic. Don't tell him nonselectively, just say, "All right, get 'Admire looking.’ ‘Admire looking.' Got that?"

Well, we just move that out of the central staff and move it over in the voluntary staff. And voluntary staff, then, takes care of the public advance, the advancement of Dianetics and Scientology into various fields and does have itself a small permanent staff, but it counts on the volunteer worker in order to carry things forward.

"Oooh, yes, yes. Well, I can't get anything. Yes, well, yeah. I got pain in my eye."

Now, by keeping those things separate, oddly enough, it isn't that we just have a better organization, it's that we have an organization. Big difference there.

"Just admire it some more."

Now, the HAS tries to engage in public service wherever possible. How much public service it can engage in has a great deal to do with its finance, has a great deal to do with a lot of other things.

Now, in Book One it said that the most abberative factor was speech. That's true, because you can't see sound, and man counts on sight more than he counts on sound. So here's this aberrative factor: sound gets buried in heavy incidents, gets buried all up and down the bank. What's been said to you, a person - the reactive mind takes it very literally. This is Book One, straight dope, You start admiring speech and you all of a sudden desensitize the aberrative quality of speech by providing the grease to let it fly to its normal terminals and unwind. And the bank just comes to pieces. So you just get admiring talk. That solves Book One.

We are trying to pull a hill here without asking for - without needing large quantities of MEST. You won't see too much MEST around the HAS from now till doomsday. There's too much MEST comes around, there's too many station wagons start sitting around out front and there are too many uniformed chauffeurs running around. If it ever gets to that level - and too many ivory columns - I can tell the central staff to beware, because some night there will be a loud boom. And believe me, I will be the first one that is surprised to hear about it.

I'm not telling you how many hours it'll take you, but the test on this was very interesting. Tests: admiration of speech, admiration of talking, men, women, records, talk and admiration of sound and then admiration of the individual. Now, there are easier techniques than this. I'm just telling you that that is not the technique. That is just a technique that solves Book One. Everything that's in Book One is in Book One. It's there and it solves on that basis. So that's the missing particle and that's why all of this speech didn't just suddenly fly out of the bank and leave a fellow Clear. See, you can create a MEST Clear with Admiration Processing, everybody furnishing the grease on that and permitting him to again be analytical about things that are said. And you get a tremendous change in an individual just from that.

That is the surest way in the world to stop, the surest way in the world. There's an old axiom about this: "When the troops start to accumulate too much baggage, they stop accumulating empire." Now, we've got a subject to put forward, and our goal is not the accumulation of ivory towers. We'll carry forward this function as best we can. This organization is very far from perfect, believe me. It's as perfect as can be made in this year, this century, within the reality of what Home sapiens is doing and what Home sapiens wants and tries to do. Now, it'll continue to be as perfect within that reality as possible, but you see, that reality is a long way from perfect.

Now, the whole society is rigged on a basis of evaluation of good and evil; the mind deals out good and evil, one after the other. Don't think, please, that you have to go around admiring evil. Don't think that you have to become a devil worshiper or something of the sort to reach God. No, don't make that error.

And the organization is trying along every line to be as helpful as possible and to get Scientology and Dianetics as far as possible. Now, we're taking care of the third dynamic here very, very interestingly.

There's a level of ethic which is very high on the Tone Scale that takes care of things like this. God and the Devil are arbitrary factors to a large degree. There are gods above gods, there are many gods. And there is a God above all those gods, And I'm afraid that from area to area, the messiah of Africa and the Chinese and so forth, these all these people have different kinds of gods. And there's all kinds of them. And they represent good or they represent evil to that people. They've evaluated, then, what was the function of God. And you will find in primitive society, God is almost always evil. Fascinating, but true.

And there's a fourth dynamic, you know. And there are atom bombs and there's all sorts of things. Well, let's get this third dynamic pretty well straightened out.

Evaluation takes it on the highest level, puts it clear up into deity.

Now, we have the techniques which can straighten out the first dynamic, and it's when we had those techniques that we could jump off and be adventurous on the subject of a third dynamic. And we're operating from a security that would make the Rock of Gibraltar look like a piece of paper in a storm as far as technique is concerned, You show me a psychosomatic illness that can't be cured, and I will (1) hang you with a technique to cure it and (2) show you that it can go away.

And deity, as conceived by Homo Sapiens, isn't terribly high. But the admiration for God as practiced, if practiced selectively of the good qualities of God, only leaves you with a devil. I'm sorry about it. (audience laughter)

The reason why these things don't fold up are several. Occasionally they don't fold up in the hands of an auditor. That's a little bit different than not folding up in my hands or not folding up in an instructor's hands. You get that?

Now therefore, you have a situation - you have a situation. Whether it's good or bad or not, that's not for us to worry about, but you will have this situation with your people in a group. You will find that some of these people are very, very sold on the "selective admiration of" to such a degree that they really run reverses. You ask them do it - mock up something good and they'll get something bad every time. You ask them to mock up something bad, they get something good. They're just turned backwards. God and the devil both get into the reactive mind. In the analytical mind they're in good shape and everything is fine. But when they sink into the reactive mind and go out of sight and start acting compulsively, you can expect many interesting things to occur. One of the least things that occur is the unknown communication line - mystery and aberrative quality of.

It's how much work are we willing to do! Well, fortunately, we've even shortened down the techniques to a point where that can be done on the very rough case, too, For instance, next week I'll be over here talking to the professional students again about this horrible Case Level V, so forth. Now, we're doing, then - we're operating from a security and we're trying to do a job to that degree.

And you will find many children, and this is particularly true of children, are so puzzled about this, as an evaluation, that they're almost spinning. "God is everywhere" or "The devil will get you" or some such thing as that. And this just means that just literally to the kid, and he goes around in terror. And you see this little boy in your class, and - you know, what's wrong with him? What's wrong? Probably never occurred to you to ask him about God because God is good and it's a good concept. Well, it's gotten into the reactive mind very deeply, and in the reactive mind it's raising the dickens with him. Raising the devil with him, I should say.

It isn't so much that someone who is trying to help on this is helping us. He's helping man and he's helping himself. Man needs some help, you know! This is sort of the last station on the line. That's the truth for the line.

And a religion on a basis of too far in advance of the understanding, that is, a compulsive level of action on the subject of religion can snarl a child quite badly because he's being told all the time that "This is bad," "This is bad," "This is bad," "This is bad." And he's being given evaluations: The only thing that's bad in the universe is the devil. And if he's riding on top of this computation that everything is bad is the devil and he is bad, he will be himself the devil in an effort to try to run it out, and he will become a thoroughly bad child. He will become almost unmanageable.

And when a lot of boys, unfortunately some of them my classmates, get slap-happy and say, "Well now, you know, it's an odd thing, but if you put too much plutonium in too close a proximity to too much plutonium, you get a complete absence of Great Britain. And this is a wonderful fact." And they seem to be able to go right along - right along the line and say, "This is a wonderful fact."

That's an interesting point that you should keep in mind, then, that evaluation on the part of the auditor really isn't called for. There's been just a trifle too much. You want to get this person up into an analytical level and have him assess things for himself. This is nothing against religion. Religion can be poured into ears a little too early, though.

If somebody had come to me in 1938 and said, "Would you now engage your knowledge and so forth in the construction of a bomb to end all bombs!" why, I would have said, "Aren't you an interesting fellow. Aren't you cute."

Now, when you have problems with relationship to children in a group, you will find that they've had too many things evaluated for them; and what is admired and what is not admired has been so laid out and has been pushed in so heavily upon them that they by this time got it all reactively and they'll run backwards. They'll just be backwards. Some little boy in class, you say, "Don't come here" and he'll come here. He just runs in complete reverse. You just try reverse commands on him and he'll act, he's gotten that bad off. So don't evaluate as an auditor.

They had a cartoon at the California Institute of Technology: is a scientist standing on a platform before an enormous room full of scientists. And he said, "Gentlemen, I have here the last product, the ne plus ultra, the final goal of our scientific age. In this small capsule is enough explosive to destroy the universe."

The mock-ups will come up pretty well in turn. And if you just tell him mock up mock-ups coming along, you be sure that you're mocking up 50 percent bad or better, because there's the persistence.

Now, nevertheless, the boys went ahead and built an atom bomb. I guess it was wonderful to them to wake up with a shock, by the way, in 1945 and to find out they'd built an atom bomb. I suppose before that they didn't know it, because they were all so shocked.

Now, survival tells you what is right is survival. That's analytical. That which is right survives, and that which is wrong dies. That's analytical. It's perfectly true on an analytical level. On a reactive level, it works exactly the opposite direction. It says, "That which persists is wrong," But if something is wrong, it must persist.

I talked to many of my friends at the Los Alamogordo group and so on, and they were all so surprised. They had been told by the governments, by the way, that they would one day explode this atom bomb before the spectators of Germany and Japan and say, "Now look what we've got. And if you don't stop fighting, we're going to use it against you." And these dopes fell for that. These so-called great brains fell for that story.

Persistence in a child is right, because to survive he has to persist, doesn't he? And then he'll come along and he's raising the devil. And you tell him not to raise the devil, and he persists. And you caution him again, and he persists even more. And then he persists further and further and further and further! Until he's practically out of his mind and so are you. Well, what's happening here? He is defending, reactively, his right to survive. Survival is duration, and he insists that what he is doing must be right because he's really incapable of being wrong, Persistence.

And they said, "What do you know The government is so nice. All these governments are very nice, and they're going to - they're going to bring Hitler and Hirohito over here to New Mexico. And they're going to build a grandstand there, and Hitler and Hirohito are going to sit there in a grandstand. And then they're going to press a button, they're going to have an atom bomb go off and they're going to say, 'See what we're going to do to you.'"

Now, you get, mechanically - the absence of the particle admiration on a certain line guarantees that persistence, so you get the persistence of death. And a child will keep on and on and on with something. And then people will stop him, and they will say, "No, no, you mustn't do that" and he does it more. And you say, "No, no, you mustn't do that" and then he does it more.

One morning the atomic scientists read in the newspapers that seventy thousand live, breathing human beings had ceased to breathe. Why? Because he was so handy with his slipstick.

What's he think you're telling him? He thinks you're telling him "Die! Die! Die! Don't persist! Don't persist! Don't persist!" And what he's saying with this badness is "Live! Live! Live! I'm going to live!" Because he's got the idea that livingness consists of persistence, that's all.

Well now it puts a little time factor on what we have to do, and that's unfortunate, because we ought to have about fifty years to do this job. And we don't have fifty years now. I don't know how many years we have. It all depends on how goofy central governments get.

You want to break that line down, just do Creative Processing - not even very thoroughly addressed to the subject - just get him mocking things up, that's all. And get him admiring them and the next thing you know, why it'll blow. He is in the horrible plight of having no admiration anywhere, and he doesn't know he himself can furnish it. By the way, does that hit any cases here personally?

You see the atom bomb isn't a weapon. It's just insanity. It's an unlimited weapon against which there is no defense. The second one of those weapons appears in the society, you get chaos and the end of central government. It doesn't even have to be used to end central government. Central government suddenly says, "You know, something's happening to us." And it starts to pull everything up in a big pile and control everything and get into everything quick so as to make sure it's all nailed down, and then it sort of all fritters away. And they say, "Well" - because the definition of a sovereign state, you see, is an interesting definition, It's the ability to protect a people from a foreign aggressor. And when you can't do that, you've - this definition of a sovereign state gets interesting.

Male voice: Yes.

When an atom bomb can come in - somebody was telling me down here the other day, when they'd come in at three thousand miles an hour . . . They don't happen to know the newest guided-missile material. And the newest guided-missile material tells us that they'll come in at thirty thousand miles an hour.

Female voice: Definitely, yes.

Somebody is going to get a radar beam on that and get a shell up and an interceptor in time to stop that thing as it comes in? Oh no. Boom. No Chicago. Boom. No New York. Boom. No Washington. Boom. No London.

Now, here we have, then, the reactive mind running on a 180-degree wrong vector, just in reverse to what the analytical mind should run. So when we say God and the devil we might as well say the analytical mind and the reactive mind, because one is going to get you in trouble and cease your survival quickly - the reactive mind - and the other mind is going to be very benign and very analytical and figure it all out right. And the two of them get into conflict. Now, you'll run admiration for mock-ups then. Just list some mock-ups, and you'll get your preclear right on up Tone Scale.

Meantime, United States and Great Britain says, "Look what Russia is doing to us!" So they go out and they pull a bunch of levers, and boom, boom, boom. No Stalingrad, no Leningrad, no Moscow. And, of course, the only people who are really around by this time are pilots and people operating atom bombs. And what do you know, what do you know! It was Yugoslavia, or it was the Argentine. You don't need much to build an atom bomb. It's completely overrated.

So nobody knows who's going to declare war on whom, and if we don't know this fact, then we can't retaliate, can we! And yet we're told that the greatest defense is the ability to retaliate.

Well, let's make sure we have the ability to know against whom to retaliate before we make this defense. Nervous sort of a thing, isn't it!

Well now, my only hope is with these techniques we can get out into the third dynamic right away, you know! We have the techniques there. We don't have to run pilots on this to any great extent. The only reason we have to run pilots on this and keep records is just to convince more people. We know what this will do. And we have it right there. And we can go out along the third dynamic level, and by the time we get well out along the third dynamic level, maybe I will have think up something or you will have think up something on the fourth dynamic level. That is a very easy way of doing it.

But the route lies through what we're talking about this afternoon. And the route to putting a muzzle on Mr. A-bomb is what we're talking about this afternoon, really. And by the way, nothing I am saying derides or decries the principles or activities of any of these central governments. They are unfortunately going down the only road they think they can follow. And they would be as happy as anybody else to have that road interrupted. And they don't want it, and you don't want it, interrupted by destruction and revolt. You want a gradual evolution into sanity.

If you were to just start processing children today in this society and pick up juvenile delinquency as one of these levels of the processing of children, you would automatically arrive at this goal in fifteen years. You'd have all the educated children in the Western culture solidly on our side, you see! We'd be old friends. So we could do it in fifteen years. But we don't have fifteen years, so we'll just sort of have to strain at the bit and hope for the best.

Now, there are many things that you could do and there's much that you can know in order to accomplish these goals. And just to finish up this first lecture, I'll give you a very brief resume of the ways and means of knowing for each level of process.

Now, we have here what we could call a technician. This person would be a Group Auditor. This person would not be any more formally trained than the prescribed Group Auditor's Course, the reading of some of the publications. He would be able to do Creative Processing, be able to get rid of psychosomatic ills. He'd be able to treat a group; he'd be able to adjust that group within itself. And out of experience and out of reports he will get, and out of reports he will make, his technology itself will build and he will become very knowing on this subject: groups, Creative Processing. It is not a slight thing to know, be or do. But he doesn't have to know all there is to know about everything in order to be this thing.

The next level we have up from that is actually a pretty broad jump. It's the level of professional auditor. It takes eight weeks - usually on top of considerable knowledge of the subject already gained out of texts - eight weeks of formal training to make a professional auditor.

Now, I won't say how much experience after that eight weeks it takes him. And we can only stand by, and by his practice and by our interest in him, keep him going ahead until we'll say, "He's a good professional auditor." And when we can say that, why, that's that. That's just between us guys, not for public consumption, but that's the truth of the matter about a professional auditor. It takes eight weeks of formal training, usually based on this other material, and then considerable practice on individuals.

You'd be surprised how long some people have been at the study of this subject and where they've arrived. You'd be quite amazed, because, you see, you haven't got any limit on this. And at this time, some of the study which has gone in on this subject amounts to a couple of years at the university, really.

And way up above that, after he's made some original contributions to the subject and so forth, then we can talk about a Doctor of Scientology. I don't expect to see any of those around for a while. Now, those are the levels.

Now, what processes do these use! The professional auditor uses now what we call - he can use many techniques, he's given many techniques, but he's expected to use what we call now Standard Operating Procedure 5, Issue 5. He's expected to use that at minimum and he's expected to use Long Form of that as an advanced technique. All right.

What would a Bachelor of Scientology be able to use? If we've got that, which is really a button-up of all the techniques along the line, what would a Bachelor of Scientology be able to use? Well, he ought to be able to use Book One, Science of Survival. He ought to be able to use Advanced Procedure and Axioms. He ought to be able to use the Handbook for Preclears in all of its ramifications. And he ought to know a little handy jim-dandy whizzer techniques of one sort or another of this kind and that, like - oh, they come up every once in a while. He runs into them, he dreams them up himself, various things. His virtuosity, you see, is quite large on the thing. And he can use Standard Operating Procedure, whatever number he's at, consummately well.

But what does a technician really have to know? What does he really have to know? And this applies to you who are only taking just this course. What does he really have to know?

He should know Self Analysis from cover to cover. You'd very slightly suspect that Self Analysis, about every third sentence in its text, is an axiom. You could look them up in Self Analysis and then you can go over and look at the list of Axioms in the Handbook for Preclears, and you will find that those Axioms had merely been strung out and listed, and that is the text of Self Analysis. Doesn't read that way, does it? It reads very simply, very smoothly.

It was given to a number of people who were morons and some people who were psychotics to see if they could understand the text, and it was changed wherever they couldn't understand it. So it's really a simplified rundown to end all rundowns.

Well now, that in your hands makes it possible for you to explain what you're doing. But a technician ought to know that fact about Self Analysis - that it's not quite as simple as it looks.

You start looking over the thing. You should go, really, and get yourself a copy of the Axioms - they have them in the office (they should have them anyway) - get a copy of the Axioms and look over these Axioms and then look at the text of Self Analysis, and you will be much edified on it. In other words, you'd have a good background grip of the subject. And then you should know that process in there and you should know what I'm telling you now about that process very, very well. You should know it very well.

And you should know Creative Processing in general. And that's the simplicity itself, really, of these technologies. And you should then have the experience of addressing this type of processing to groups.

Now, you will be given other lists from time to time; other lists will be available from time to time, and every once in a while you'll strike out and make up your own list on this level: Really, this is all you need to know and it's not a tough technique. You just read this technique at a group. You just have to know how to read this technique at a group. All right.

These are the various goals you could attain, then, on that. But the last that I mentioned there, I do hope that you will look this over from that viewpoint.

Now, to anyone, including a professional auditor, in attempting to present the knowledge of Dianetics and Scientology to the general public, let me give you this small, undoubtedly priceless, piece of information.

What do you give the public? What do you tell your friends? What do you tell your family? How do you explain all this to people? What is your public presence and utterance on this subject? Text: Self Analysis and nothing beyond it. And I mean nothing beyond it! The moment that you go beyond that text you're in hot water.

You see, we don't even give a doggone if such a thing as space opera exists; it's just unfortunate fact that it happens to exist - for the processes that we run, it just happens to exist. It occupies in its center of interest, oh, I don't know, maybe a thousandth of a percent of the total body of knowledge. It's slight, it's tiny. You don't even have to know anything about space opera, by the way, to run a case.

And yet it's so interesting. It's so fascinating. And one of the reasons you'll find the preclear latched up in it so consistently is because it's so fascinating.

Well, you go out and start to tell somebody, "Well, I was running this group and this little boy kept saying, 'I just came from Mars.' And, of course, you know, in Scientology we know that he did."

"Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!"

No. No, keep that - you know, there are communication lines that have too much power on them to be opened. And if you don't believe that, open to any degree you want to the main communication line on Scientology to a person who hasn't even any vague idea what you're talking about.

Just go up to a fellow offhandedly and say, "Be two feet back of your head." (audience laughter)

Huh-uh!

But in your anxiety to do something about that, you are overlooking something. In Self Analysis you're so far over his head already that if you open the gun on him with it just blankly without any kind of leading it into him - "listen, we have something to tell you. Now, be calm about the whole thing" (and hold his hand carefully while you're telling him) - you'll drown him.

And yet that material is quite assimilable and it's quite easily understood. It is easy to communicate. People don't argue with it. They will sometimes say, "Oh, there are higher things than survival. There are higher ideals and that sort of thing. There's all these various other things. Survival is too crude."

They're thinking in terms of the barest necessity when they think of terms of survival. They're giving survival a colloquial meaning, not its actual meaning, which merely is "duration of existence." That's all survival means. And you try to show me any duration of existence that can exist without aesthetics or ideals.

So, we're striking in there; we're not trying to cheapen or make their world sordid for them. We're simply trying to show them that there is an orientation of this horrible problem of what they're all about. And it's quite an adequate one in that Self Analysis text. So use that for your communication line and you won't get into trouble.

I give you that as advice. Don't take it for what it's worth; take it. Because it's the only place you will really start feeling bad. The only place where you will bog down is trying to go out here to Mr. Zilch and Mr. Blow and convince him of some of these things which are contained in Scientology. And he will give you no admiration like mad. He'll give you no admiration by the barrelful, hogsheads. And you'll find yourself under the gun of trying to prove, prove, prove, prove, prove.

What are you trying to prove it to him for? Do you really care whether or not this fellow - he hasn't got any admiration to give you anyway. He's total blank on the subject. What do you want to prove it to him for?

Well, you just haven't asked yourself what you want to do with this man, And if you have asked yourself what you want to do with this man and make a statement to yourself of what you are trying to do, you will fall back on the simplest possible explanation - and you're trying to give him a professional course in one hour's conversation? Most people try that. (audience laughter)

No, you can acquaint him with the fact that, "Well, some scientists worked this out and they found out the basic principle of existence is survival."

And he'll say, "Is that so?" He won't say, "Aw, I don't believe it." He'll say, "Is that so? You know, I kind of suspected that all along." And you say, "And you know, it's a funny thing, but they found out the basic nature of man - well, he basically was good."

"Yeah? Well, it's kind of hard to believe. But you know, you'd kind of expect that, too."

And you'd say, "I'm doing some interesting work with this material and so on, and seems like the imagination and so forth has got quite a bit to do with it. You see, and the imagination - everybody talks down imagination. But the funny part of it is, you don't have imagination, you know, you can't solve future problems - funny. You know, if you can't solve future problems, you - then you haven't got any goals or anything else if you can't solve future problems. And you need your imagination to solve the future problems. Good practical stuff, imagination. If you can't imagine something, then you couldn't imagine the factors and the solution for something."

The guy will say, "Yeah, it's kind of hard to swallow I guess you're right, but I hate to have all these people going around daydreaming all the time!"

Well, you say, "You don't ask them to do that. You just improve somebody's ability to conceive of factors, and he can then solve problems. Isn't that right?"

Fellow would say, "Yeah. What do you know. That's true, If you didn't know that there was a 'one and one' in the problem 'one and one equals two'; if you didn't know there was a 'one and one' - couldn't conceive of 'one and one' - then you, of course, you could never get the answer. What do you know, that works out."

So you say, "Imagination. Well, you have to be able to conceive of 'one and one,' and you do that by improving a person's ability to conceive all kinds of things, and then they're able to conceive 'one and one,' and then they can say, 'One and one equals two.' And we get the show on the road."

"Yeow? Yeah, it makes sense. Sure. Sure. Why, I knew that all the time, Nothing to that."

And you're over the hump. And he said, "Yes," Or he said, "You know, I'm kind of interested in that. Where do you find out about it?" Something of the sort.

If you have to go any further than that to interest him, he won't be interested. Now, I can give you forty problems for rendering him - rendering him non compos mentis. I can give you lots of solutions as to how to knock him out where he sits. Lots of ways to discombobulate him, to invalidate him, to wreck him. All kinds of things you can do to this fellow. Let's use the most efficient method. You don't want to ruin him, so just don't outflow against him with a whole bunch of incomprehensible data that he can't crack or put together. You want to help him out. So, want to help him out? Well, you give him what, within his frame of reference, he can assimilate,

And that data is in Self Analysis. It's not in Scientology 8-8008. You hand him Scientology 8-8008, and he - I mean, you start talking to him about it and he's just gone.

Let him make the bid to find out more about it Do you understand on that? So on a communication level, it's quite important, So, what do you have to know on a technician level? Well, boy, you better know that information very, very well.

Now, I've given you a long, discursive, roundabout talk on this, and our knowledge of the subject may or may not be advanced. Maybe some of your questions have been answered and maybe they haven't. But regardless of that, because of time and so forth, we've got to plow on straight into the second lecture.