The overt act - motivator sequence - the most important mechanism in which you will be interested as an auditor, and which, if it could be solved, would make the "wellest" pc, and which basically a Theta Clear comes mostly out of; is the overt act-motivator sequence or the DED-DEDEX sequence.

This is a mental mechanism. It stems originally from the association or identification of self with energy. Now, probably the first and greatest mechanism to which a thetan is subject is just this one mechanism, denial of self. That means also, irresponsibility for the products of self. He makes it, then he says, "I didn't." Denial of self or the products of self.

Now, this is all very germane to the overt act-motivator sequence. "That which I do will be done to me" is probably the first great civilizing (ha!) postulate. "That which I do will be done to me."

Person starts to believe this, he's had it. But the funny part of it is, it doesn't get serious or out of his control until it gets into an identification of self with energy. "I am energy." Or an identification of thought with energy. "Thought is energy." Or an identification of mass with energy, which the physical sciences went into the moment they leaped into nuclear physics. They said, "All mass is energy," see?

Now, identification in any form stops being useful and starts being insane when it gives the individual so much trouble that he can't operate. Up to that time, identification is perfectly reasonable. You do identification all the time with words; this is one of the primary identifications in a society.

In fact, the whole Know to Mystery Scale is an identification proposition.

The identification of words with objects is your best idea there of identification. Say "radiator" to you and that's a radiator. When somebody totally spins in, why, r-a-d-i- a-t-o-r is a heavy object which generates heat. No, it's not. No, it's not. It's just a series of letters strung together, and a word, and it's not the thing.

Now, the whole of general semantics, an activity which was very widespread in the first part of the twentieth century and not a bad activity at all, tried to get people over this idea of identification. But general semantics was so thoroughly messed up with "ideas are energy itself" that it never quite got off the runway.

Now, I'll give you an example of this: One of the things that was taught in general semantics was that nobody could ever understand what anybody else was saying because each thing meant something different to everybody. Ah, boy, don't try toteach a subject that you open up with a communication break of that magnitude.

You see, they avoided a thing called "knowingness." There is a thing called "knowingness" which is above all mechanics. A person simply knows, you see? He doesn't know because, he just knows. And knowingness is not energy, knowingness is not space, it's not time, it's not a lot of things - it is just knowingness. An individual simply knows.

Now, there could be a very pure brand of not-knowingness. Individual simply not- knows this thing that he knew. See, it wouldn't ever trouble him if that was as far as it went. But that isn't as far as it went.

General semantics tried to teach us that the thing was not the word and that two things couldn't occupy the same space don't ever tell a thetan that. A thetan can always occupy the same space as something else, you see. So there were some lies strewn into general semantics that made it relatively unworkable.

Two things can occupy the same space, two spaces can occupy the same space; pretty easy. If you don't believe it, why, just make a space in this room. Occupies the space of this room, doesn't it? So therefore, two spaces are occupying the same space. Oh, but you'd have to make a third space to say both spaces were occupying that space and there'd be three spaces in the same place. You follow me? A thetan can do anything. He's wonderful.

So there's no such thing as "can't," you know? There's no such thing as "totally unable to," you know? Those are the lies; those are the lies. Individual who says, "Under no circumstances will I..." the next thing you know; finds himself doing it.

"Never, never, never will I become a grenadier - where's the uniform?" It's almost inevitable that a person who is identifying thought with energy finds himself pulled into all of the things he resists.

This is one of the first things that happens when a thought becomes identified with energy. Thought is not energy, but energy can symbolize thought. You can take a sheet of paper that's got words in it, it's symbolizing thought. But this doesn't mean that thought is symbolizing it. But you could have a thought over here which says "sheet of paper" which symbolizes the sheet of paper, which says something, which is a thought. You could do that. A thetan can do anything.

There are no inflexible rules the moment that you depart from knowingness and not- knowingness. All other rules become flexible, limited, matters of agreement and so forth.

But this great civilizing postulate requires the identification of self with energy, so that an individual will get it in the teeth every time he hands it out to somebody in the teeth. And then we have a very reactive civilization. And not a very good one; not a very good one.

An individual has to believe this on any one subject before he goes around the bend. The proper method of sending somebody around the bend is to teach him absolutely, conclusively, inevitably and incontrovertibly that that which he doeth will be doneth. Inevitable.

Now, one of the ways you get people to practice this is, "When thou hast received a blow on the port side, turn hard to the starboard and get it on the other."

It's all going to inflow. That's almost a lost point on the track. "What. ever happens, it will become an inflow on me. I am totally the center of all effects that will ever occur." You carry this all the way down, you'll find an individual would be in total, total, total sub, sub, sub, sub-Tone Scale, total self-effect.

Now the communication formula is what invites the overt act-motivator sequence. Now, all things that are disorderly are preceded by order. So is the overt act- motivator sequence preceded by the very orderly thing called communication.

Therefore, communication itself can undo an overt act-motivator sequence since it is the communication that permitted the overt act motivator sequence to eventually congeal and counteract and act on the individual.

Let's see how this works. Bill says to Joe, "Hello," and is actually a little upset if Joe doesn't say, then, something to Bill. Got that? He insists on this interchange. Insists on the interchange! The interchange -absolutely necessary! Now, all they've got to do is identify thought and communication with energy and avoid the fact these things can exist on the plane of knowingness, see, and insist that there's an identification between thought and energy.

When Bill hits Joe, Joe will hit Bill. See, it's just one downgrade. We go into energy, exchange of, from communication, exchange of; see?

Now, Bill gets very upset when he says, "Hello, Joe," and Joe doesn't say, "Hello, Bill." See, he gets very upset.

Well, why does he get upset on the total reverse? He hits Joe and now he gets upset because Joe hits him. This upsets him. We could say that he's inconsistent or that he's inverted somewhere on communication, right?

Because in the first instance, he says, "Hello, Joe." And then he says, "What's the matter with you, Joe, why don't you speak up when you're spoken to? I've said hello to you, why don't you say hello?" See? Big growl. We didn't get a two-way flow on the hello.

All right, now let's just downgrade this into energy and mass and impact. Now, Bill walks up to Joe, hauls off and hits him in the jaw. Joe turns around and hits Bill in the jaw.

Bill says, "What do you mean hitting me in the jaw?" Well, the explanation is, immediately, according to Joe, that Bill hit him in the jaw, so therefore he should hit Bill in the jaw, you see? Explains it, doesn't it?

The parts of communication are something that you should know. And you should know them well, because the more direct and accurate communication of which you're capable, the more control you have over the fundamental which eventually becomes an overt act-motivator sequence!

Now, it isn't that communication is to blame. What's to blame is identification. Identification of thought with energy. All things go by gradient scales, another mental mechanism. All things go by gradient scales. Well, the gradient scale is from knowingness into spacingness into double exchangingness into energy is thought, you see? And about that time we've had it.

Now, this still - this still wouldn't make any lasting effect on anyone. No, you say it'd certainly knock a tooth out now and then. Yeah, well that was all it would do. People can go through life without a tooth. If people didn't insist that thought was energy and insist on copying each action and keeping in suspension a mock-up of the overt act-motivator sequence interchange - now we're just into mechanics, into basic fundamental mechanics.

This is almost the same as for every action there is an equal and contrary reaction, don't you see? And perhaps that's how the law in physics got there. It isn't true - it isn't true that for every action there is an opposite reaction.

In the first place, you'd have to at once say 'order of magnitude'. Because once in a while some physicist gives you the example, "When you stamp on earth, earth stamps back just as hard as you stamped on earth. And when you stamped on earth, you moved earth out of orbit some tiny degree..." I don't believe it. You've heard them say that, though. That's silly though, it's not true. Earth didn't move because you stamped on it, believe me - order of magnitude.

Now, if you stamp on a tennis ball, it stamps back at you in the same order of magnitude, don't you see? But the stamps are of order of magnitude. So you've got to have something of order of magnitude before you have "for every action there's an equal and contrary reaction." See, you've got to have an order of magnitude.

A building falls on you, you sure don't fall on the building as hard as the building fell on you. That I assure you. If you don't - I don't advise you to go out and put this thing to clinical proof. You won't make any dent at all in the building so don't try it, see? It's not order of magnitude.

But if you walk up to a person your own size and hit him in the jaw and then he turns around and hits you in the jaw, or you walk up to a girl your size and pull her hair and she pulls your hair, you've almost got a physical law in existence. And probably it's this fact which makes that law manifest itself in the physical universe, because the physical universe follows the laws of a thetan, a thetan doesn't follow the laws of the physical universe. You see this?

You've got this silly thing called an overt act-motivator sequence, that's all we're talking about. You see, it's manifestly untrue that if Bill shoots Joe dead, Joe then gets up and shoots Bill dead, see. That's obviously untrue, isn't it?

Now, if some swami, witch doctor, bogus saint comes along and tells you, "Now, you've just stored up some karma for yourself son, ha-ha. You've fixed yourself up. You have been guilty of a sin. And you've been guilty of a sin against your fellow man and, therefore, one of these days you're going to get shot just like you shot Joe." Ah! It takes this new thought added to it to make it true.

Therefore, we find a somewhat barbaric race like the Tartars never suffering particularly from a lot of the things they did. Wasn't held to be wrong to wipe out villages and so forth - this was not held to be wrong, generally.

But we find a nation where it is totally held to be wrong, and where there's terrific emphasis on the overt act-motivator sequence: "That which ye have done, ye will have happen to you, son." When that one goes... This nation gets so they can't even wave a feather. The individual citizen couldn't even wave a feather at another individual citizen. Nobody must act. Get the idea? Because if they wave a feather, the other person will wave a feather, too. You know? I mean it gets to be total pat-a- cake, you see this?

Well, both of these things exceed rationality. Going around and doing things to things continually and forever and chewing everything up and ruining everything and smashing everything; well, obviously that's pretty wrong. Obviously. It's at least uncivilized.

But that ought to be obvious. You shouldn't go around and chew up everybody's mock-ups just because there it is, you know. They build a building so shoot it down. You know?

England's got some museums and theaters and so bomb them! So we have a political disagreement between communism and whatever the United States has now. And that isn't a good enough reason for either country to start wiping out the other country. See? It's not a good enough reason, unless they're totally bogged down into this silly thing called overt act-motivator sequence.

That which I do will be done to me. That's actually a DED-DEDEX, we call it technically. Overt act-motivator sequence is that an individual gets kicked in the teeth, so he kicks somebody in the teeth. That's basically what it means. Actually, a truer state of affairs for any thetan is DED-DEDEX. Without any reason he kicks somebody in the teeth and then by some slip of the fist or something of the sort, or slip of the heel, he got kicked in the teeth. And after a while he begins to believe that if he kicks somebody in the teeth, they kick him in the teeth. Get the idea?

So that he keeps himself warned about this - he warns himself about this by keeping it mocked up! That's really fascinating. But how does he do this? He doesn't want to know the other person's pain. That is the whole crux of the bank. That is the whole thing in the bank. He doesn't want to know the difficulties he has caused. He should be able to experience anything, he says, but here he has caused something that he is not willing to experience.

So if we have "not willing to experience," we've come down at once to confront - remember the scale, Reality Scale? Ah ha! Now we're getting somewhere with this overt act-motivator sequence which is the designation we use to cover all this phenomena.

That means that when Bill hit Joe in the teeth, he did it to conceive an act - he conceived an act which Joe wouldn't like and which would make Joe flinch, so that Joe would not then come up to him again, you see. He sought to teach by punishment. So there's a big, moral rule that there's not a one here that won't agree with me instantly and immediately that there's something wrong about punishment. Isn't that true? There's something wrong with it. There's something wrong with the philosophy of punishment. Well, there certainly is. Bill wants to teach Joe a lesson.

Does he use reason? Does he use knowingness? Does he explain anything? No, he puts it on the duress line and he hits Joe in the teeth because Joe said or did something that Bill said was wrong.

"Civilize them with the sword." Now, unfortunately the sword never civilized anybody. It only bred a whole bunch more overt act-motivator sequences. It only bred a whole bunch more reality. What essentially has happened here? Bill hit Joe, but then Bill did something which narrowed his perimeter of observation for a moment.

You see, he. did it because he wanted to do something which the other person couldn't confront. So he has put at arm's length from him something that can't be confronted, which is a punch in the teeth. You see that clearly? He's got that right in front of him right over here, he's got something that mustn't be confronted and that's teaching by punishment.

Teaching people by showing them there are things they can't confront - Oh, boy! Look at this, look at this, look at this - to get somebody to know by showing them they can't know? Well, isn't that it? Huh? Isn't that it? Ah, walk up to me and - thetans sometimes play a wonderful game called majesty; deity; offended deity.

Joe walked up and spoke familiarly to Bill. And Bill says, "Whooh, you can't know me that well. Hhoowr-hoowr." Thud! So, it's a reduction of knowingness, isn't it? Well, where does knowingness go, by rule, when it reduces? Hmm, goes into energy, doesn't it? Small particles and then bigger particles and then masses and then inverted masses. Look at the Know to Mystery Scale. See?

So he lowered his knowingness. He taught him by punishment. When you teach by punishment, you of course teach not-knowingness. See that? You teach non- confrontingness. Ah! But all knowledge is, is familiarity. So you're going to teach somebody by making it so they can't be familiar?

Now, just look at this - look at this pile of illogic on man's part. Look at - look how silly this thing is. This individual has got somebody in his environment and he hits him. So, on the theory that the individual doesn't want to confront being hit - but, but, but Joe did it because Bill rigs it up that he can't tolerate being hit. Bill -he, Bill, can't tolerate being hit. So therefore, Bill at once loses his pan-determinism and drops into self-determinism. You see this? He's go can only be on one side of this duo now because the other side is being hit. Ah, he can occupy just that much less space, can't he? He can occupy just that much less perimeter, can't he, hm?

He doesn't want to be on this other side being hit. And if he made a picture of it, which he is - sort of conditioned himself to do, he mustn't even look at the picture, because the picture is of somebody being hit.

Now, it's not that he was or wasn't cause, it's that - the fact that he can't be on both sides of the communication formula. And we get into obsessive cause and mustn't be effect. See? The individual is now unbalanced on his cause and effect. He mustn't be over here at effect, so the only place he can be is cause.

And when somebody's really going up the spout, when they've really sent for the little boys in the white jackets, it's because an individual is obsessively at cause and can't be anyplace else and doesn't know where he is because he can't even receive a sense message from the walls and so can't even orient himself. So he's totally surrounded with demons and things that go boomp in the night. Get the idea? He doesn't know what's out there. He couldn't know what's out there because he has to be here at cause. What would be the penalty of being anyplace else but cause?

Getting hit in the teeth, getting shot, getting chopped with machetes - get the idea? Getting zapped, being cut to pieces, being tortured, see?

Now, it's not that he did those things; it's that he has surrounded himself with those things. He surrounded himself with things he mustn't be. He mustn't be hit, he mustn't be shot, he mustn't be chopped, he mustn't be zapped. You got the idea?

Now, he holds out just so long before he does a flip, because he's run out of space. If he continues to mock up all these things - and you will see in a moment that creation itself is both the curse and the boon of a thetan - without creation he could have nothing. There wouldn't be any universe, no game, nothing to be interested in or anything else. At the same time his creation has extended over into making pictures of everything he has done and then rubbing the pictures out so they aren't really rubbed out, but so he can't suffer from them.

Now, it doesn't matter whether he's on the Moon or on Earth, he's still got the picture three feet away. So he goes to Venus, so it doesn't matter if he's on Venus, he's still got the picture three feet away of Joe being hit in the teeth. Got the idea?

This mustn't be confronted. If it mustn't be confronted, I assure you it can't have any time. Can't be observed, can it? So you wouldn't know what time it was in. You'd have to look at it - somebody would have to give you a hand locating it on the time track. If you mustn't look at it... Yet he did it with the basic intention - and here we come to a very major thing - the intention of the action.

Now, the intention to punish is the intention to not have something experienced which a person must experience because one intends that it's to be experienced - the thing that can't be experienced. You see what a ball-up this is. And his intention sticks. Ah, but his punishment usually is something that's supposed to last for a long time.

No kid ever got spanked without being told, "Now, let that be a lesson to you." Which means what? Which means he's supposed to remember it from here on out, right? So the intention is that the other person shall continue to have a kick in the teeth or a blow in the mouth, you see, from there on, so as to teach him not to confront the deity or something that has hit him. You got the idea?

But whose intention is it? It's the person who did the hitting, isn't it? Now, the picture, the creation, the obsessive copying of everything that happens all adds up into this nasty sort of a situation that it mustn't abate. The person's mental image picture of this sequence of hitting Bill mustn't abate - or hitting Joe mustn't abate. Don't you see? Bill's intention that the lesson must go on and on and on and on - that's all wrapped up in Bill's engram.

Now, listen, Joe's intentions could never hurt Bill, but they could hurt Joe. Bill's intentions could never hurt Joe, but they could hurt Bill. Well, let's look that over. The only thing in the mock-up is knowingness. He knew what was in the mock-up, right? Well, he couldn't establish perfectly what the other person's intentions was, but he establishes perfectly what his own intentions are.

That's the biggest piece of knowingness and the biggest piece of order in it, and the order always precedes disorder, doesn't it? So he knew what his intention was but he didn't know what the other fellow's intention was. So he keeps his own intention on the track which is that the - must persist - the lesson must persist. You get this kind of a lock-up where the individual, every time he did something that he himself must not experience, he did it intending that it can't be experienced. You see? He said "This act that I am doing must not be experienced by the other fellow." And then he made a picture of this occurring. And because the picture can't be experienced by the other fellow, nothing can erase it. So, he doesn't erase it either - the fellow who made the picture. You look this over and you'll find some fascinating things with regard to it.

Now, as soon as we get into overt act-motivator sequence, we're into the subject of mental image pictures, we're into the subject of flows. The only pictures that ever hurt you are those that you couldn't take responsibility for. Supposing now you're totally trained to believe that it is very evil for you to do anything to any other living thing. You mustn't do anything to any other living thing. Now, if you're totally trained to do that, then you are trained that each one of these pictures is something that socially you can't take responsibility for. So therefore, you don't ever as-is the things that you cause which are bad.

Well, the individual gets hedged around by these mental image pictures of having beat up this one and killed that one and poisoned somebody else. By the time he's been seventy-six trillion years on the track, why, he's got quite a few views. He erases these things, he says, but he never does.

I had a psychoanalyst tell me one time who was - I was processing and who was undergoing processing, "Oh, the death of my mother has all been handled. Yes, that doesn't hother me anymore." I was trying to run this person's grief charge, you see. "Doesn't bother me anymore."

I said, "Well, let's sort of pick up the moment when you first heard your mother was dead and run it on through a few times anyway.

"Oh no, that's all been handled. It doesn't bother me anymore. "Well, let's just pick up the beginning of this anyhow."

What was I doing? I was taking the not-is off this grief charge. See, I was taking the obsessive "isn't there." The way this individual had handled it and the way a therapist had handled it was simply make it non-existent, more non-existent, you see? I think they had undone a guilt complex and the therapist had conclusively proven to this psychoanalyst - another psychoanalyst had proven to this psychoanalyst that at no time could this person have done anything to her mother. So there was no reason for a guilt complex. You get the idea?

Well, we started to run this engram and we just didn't get much of anyplace running the engram but we certainly got an awful lot of times when she pinched dimes and left her roller skates on the stairs and made her mother work too hard and so forth. And all we could pick up on the thing was obsessive bad cause on Mother. And we got a lot of that out of the road, why, then we spilled a lot of grief off of this thing and all of a sudden, the individual was not not-ising this death and did come up to PT. She looked at me very brightly and says, "You know, I guess we didn't handle it with psychoanalysis after all."

Now, every time you have an occlusion or, in its very extreme case, a "super-grouper," you just have a total not-is, which means intentions that this must not be confronted so the individual himself, of course, following his own rules doesn't confront it. And we get black screens, we get invisible fields, we get dub-in - at the lower part of the track, you get nothing but super-substitutions. Every time he tries to get a mock-up of Mama, she gets a mock-up of a dog, you see, or something like that. Never can get Mama - always somebody else or something else. That's a dub-in reality. Why? Because the person has done something to Mama which mustn't be experienced or faced. Why? Because it will happen to them.

Natural conclusion, you see, is the individual has to stay on this side of cause because if the individual got on to effect where Mama was concerned, bad things would happen, which by definition, must not be experienced.

Now, here's the wildest thing about an overt act-motivator sequence. Now, I'll just give it to you straight from the shoulder. There is nothing, nothing in this or any other universe that a thetan cannot experience. A thetan can experience anything, anywhere. That's a terribly big maxim in processing.

You get a total reality on this and, boy, you will have it made. You won't be stopping halfway through a run engram because it's just too upsetting to the pc. There is nothing a thetan cannot experience! There is nothing too painful to be experienced, there is nothing too horrible to be experienced or confronted or anything else. Now, that's the truth.

But the consistent intention behind punishment is the intention that this mustn't be experienced, and then do it. Get the idea? "You cannot stand a spanking," and then spank. Get the idea? All experiences - which is attended by the postulate "cannot be experienced," of course, cannot be experienced. Because what's senior here?

Postulates are senior. They monitor everything. So if the postulate in the incident says by intent that this cannot be experienced, that's the only experience that can't be experienced. But it isn't the experience that can't be experienced, it's the postulate that can't be experienced. Get the idea? That's the only thing there that can't be experienced, but that can be experienced too, so it's a damn lie. All you've got to do is get the individual to sit here and say, "This must not be experienced." And he'll get whap! And he'll get pictures and he'll get blast guns going off in his hands and he'll get spaceships running into things. It can all be experienced.

Anything can be experienced.

The - a thetan - a thetan's big problem is getting himself messed up. That's a much greater problem than staying unmessed. But he goes around punishing. They set up the blasters on the spaceship, or they set up the machine gun on the battlefield and they've got it all agreed amongst them that bullets cannot be experienced. You know, and electric beams cannot be experienced, electric shocks cannot be experienced and this - and sure enough they follow right on down the line, they can't experience them.

You already decided that falling under a car cannot be experienced before falling under a car can hurt you. This is one of the weirdest things. If you take a hair and cut it with a pair of scissors - a thing which I seldom do -you will notice the original experiment which unwrapped this puzzle. This is the original experience.

How is it that a pair of scissors, no matter how sharp, can cut a hair? How can it do it? "Oh," you say, "that's easy. The jaws come together and..." Oh, but you're just in agreement on the track. This hair must have consented to be cut in order to be cut. Got the idea?

So out of all of this we get another mental mechanism which is part and parcel of overt act-motivator sequences - is the person must agree to be injured. He must agree to be sick. He must state that he can be injured, that he can be sick, before he can ever be injured or sick.

A person has to have decided he could be harmed before he could be harmed. And that decision comes about mechanically in this way. An individual, obsessively at cause, punishing other people, decides that this is very bad, which indeed it is. He is very right because he lays himself a trap that he cannot easily extricate himself from and couldn't before Scientology. He gets a reversal eventually because he can no longer be such bad cause - the only other place he has to go is effect. Oh, but his intentions are totally that effect can be injured. And when he falls into his own trap and becomes the effect that can be injured - he has said so, you see? - he can be hurt. Even more simply than that, earlier on the track he had to say, "Don't shoot me, I can be hurt." Just part of a game, you know?

You'll start running early track on some people, you get into some of the most amazing things. The individual gets shot - big hole in his chest, you know?

The other fellow says, "You're shot, you're dead now."

"Oh, I'm supposed to be dead? What am I supposed to do?"

"Well, you're supposed to lie down, that's - everybody does that. That's what this game's all about."

"Well, why am I supposed to lie down?" "You got a hole in your chest."

"Well, what's that got to do with it?"

"Well, you can't breathe, your mock-up's got a hole in it. Therefore, you're dead." "Oh, I'm dead. All right."

Watch a bunch of little kids playing, you'll get the same thing. "You're dead."

"No, I'm not."

"Oh, yes, you are."

Now you have a whole bunch of people and they go out hurtling down the highway and they wrap themselves around a light pole. And a van comes along and loads the dead bodies in and that's - there, away we go, see?

How come? That's a big puzzle.

''Well," you say, "it's obvious, the body can't stand . . . "

Who said the body couldn't stand that much impact? I don't know that you couldn't take your body and bounce it off both walls like you would a volleyball or a tennis ball. And have it come right back to battery.

Tell me why injuries persist if they can be healed rapidly by Scientology processes? Then how is it they can persist? Oh, the trick is, how does an injury persist? And today in Scientology it's no real trick to narrow down an injury's duration by Scientology processes. This is no real trick. The real trick is how does one persist this long? Yeah, that's quite a trick.

Well, it's by being totally irresponsible for it and saying one didn't have anything to do with it and it wasn't one's fault and naturally automobiles hurt one. Everybody knows that, you see, all kinds of considerations have to go into this thing.

Scientologists are always shocking doctors. Poor medicos take a terrible beating. Actually, medicos have their place. They do, believe me. They're very handy to have around occasionally, console people who had - can't be processed. There are various ways and means and usages for medicos. They take in a little bit too much territory, sometimes.

But it's quite remarkable how many of them get horribly shocked and then can't believe what they are looking at. Scientologist breaks his leg or his arm or something of the sort - how he managed to do that's the puzzle. And some of his pals come up to the hospital or something like that, and they process him, you know, they run some Havingness on him. Get him to look at the walls and locate where he'd been injured and where it was now and so forth. And the bones go whirr, whirr, click, click, click, click, click, you know? And it's all healed up in a week or two, you know, and it's supposed to be six, eight weeks it takes, you know. Big argument ensues.

"Why can't I take the cast off?"

"Well, you can't take the cast off because..."

You know, big argument with the medicos because the time span isn't correct.

Well look, if processing will narrow the time span of healing, why is there any time span to healing? Why couldn't you take a body and totally smash it against that wall and have it bounce back in perfect condition? Well, it would unless something makes the injury persist. But what makes the injury persist? If bodies get well at all, then they would get well totally, right? You can assume that. Well, what makes the injury persist? Ah, that's the mystery.

Well, one, the individual consented to be injured before his body could be injured. He consented to have bodies injured. Two, he consented to feel pain - this is another oddity. People go around saying, "My body hurts, my arm hurts, my head hurts." Nonsense! What nonsense! The next time you have an ache or a pain, please examine carefully what's hurting and I'm sure you will come to this conclusion: you are. You, extended into the arm, are hurting. Well, what - how come you're hurting? Well, obviously, evidently, you're supposed to.

You start coaxing somebody out of his head - to rip half of his skull off all you have to do is, while he's backing out of his head, say to him, "Now say poor body, poor body, (sympathy, you know) poor body," nyah! Almost tears the body up. It's got to be some sort of sympathy. But the body evidently doesn't have an idea it can be hurt. But the thetan in it has an idea he can be hurt via the body. And then he says that he is the body and that the pain is the body and the injury stems from.... See?

Get all these vias? Well, you put that many lies on something, of course, you get persistence. Read your Axioms.

So let's look this over; overt act-motivator sequence - the genus of it. Individual creates experiences which can't be experienced. Creates the intention and postulate that things can be injured. Consents to be injured, postulates that he can be injured, gets into the other valence. Gets into the valences of the things he's injured. Doesn't any want to - longer want to occupy this particular cause area. Where can he go? He can only flip over into the effect area because he's stuck there someplace in time. So that practice which catalyzes flipping him is bad for him. You understand? That practice which speeds up or excites the idea that he must be on the effect end will of course drive him insane much more rapidly than any other practice, right? So practices that tell him he is on the effect side of everything will get him hurt, right?

After an individual's gone this far, these civilizations explain it this way. They say, "The individual who has caused bad things must be made to suffer for them so he will no longer cause bad things and therefore, we have nullified him." But hand in glove with this is "all communication and all familiarity is bad and the only training is by conditioning. And the only way anybody learns is by having it in his reactive bank." You got the idea? And the only kindness or communication there is at the bottom of the scale which is, of course, in an insane asylum. You see how this would be?

So therefore, those practices which speed up the assumption of this point of injury bring about a higher incidence of incompetence and insanity and so forth.

Now, you have to assume that a thetan will never have a kindly impulse, he will never know or be in communication with anything, in order to assume that you must downgrade him into an overt act mechanical sequence before he will be civilized.

See, we have to assume that he is incapable of civilization, natively, before we punish him into civilization.

But look, if we have already assumed that he's incapable of civilized conduct, how is punishment going to alter it? Because you have a being that has no capability of civilized conduct. Is that right? By that assumption. That's a plain philosophic point of view, isn't it? If the individual natively is incapable of civilization, how's anything going to make him civilized?

Try to build an electric train sometime without wire or electricity or train. You're not going to make it. Here's a philosophic fact: that to become a thing, a person must have that thing or must have available that thing to become, right?

So we have the idea afloat that all civilization and all civilized conduct is super- manufactured by some mysterious way and it's foisted off on beings that are wild, brutal, antagonistic and antisocial. Ah! But the only criminals we have around are people who have been the most civilized.

Well, let's just look them over. You start running - you start running profiles on criminals and you start running criminals on communication and you find out they should be the most civilized people on earth because they've been subjected to the most duress. See? They've been downgraded the most, they've been punished the most and therefore, they're the most civilized. Obvious, isn't it? Only it's a chain of reasoning that doesn't obtain.

Now, a person, perhaps, with all of his conduct left to his total power of choice, would or would not be dangerous to have around. But I would say that an individual who had total knowingness in his own perimeter would be safer to have around than a fellow who never suffered when he hit somebody in the teeth, because the individual with total knowingness is going to know all about being hit in the teeth when he hits Joe in the teeth, see? If not - if not, then he would never go to the trouble of not-ising hitting Joe in the teeth. But that's what he goes to the trouble of doing. That's what he always does. When he strikes anybody, when he hurts anybody, immediately his reaction is to wipe it out, scrunch it up! Why does he do that?

So there's some truth at the top of the line on the overt act-motivator sequence. That which ye do, ye can experience. Simple? What you do, you can experience. That's way up at the top of the scale. But it'd seem to me like people would be awfully, awfully social if what they did they could experience. Hmm?

And you'll find sometime when your communication level - sometime as you're coming up toward Clear - you'll find a funny phenomenon. Your communication will suddenly step up and very often you will cut it right back down, too. And it won't come up again for maybe many more hours of processing because it startles you. You start to lose control of inhibiting, or inhibited communication, you see?

I remember the first time this happened to me it startled me out of my wits. I was sitting at a table and there was a waxy milk bottle - awfully cold and clammy - sitting on the table in front of me. And I was about a yard or two away from this thing and I kept wondering what this odd clammy feeling I was having, you know, and I was experiencing the milk bottle, as well as the remainder of the room, you see? I was doing a total experience on the room. And that happened to be a very objectionable, cold, clammy milk bottle in a minute, and I objected to it. It's very funny, I pulled my communication lines off that milk bottle. I didn't like it.

It's very, very interesting to have - when you have something like this happen and you find out that you can experience things at a distance by straight communication, not by being told about it.

I should think that would be a much greater deterent to savage and uncivilized action than fixing a fellow up so that under no circumstances did he ever experience anything. Except maybe to go mad himself from some secret process nobody could understand. Do you see this?

Because you certainly wouldn't have many wars. As the young men of the world come up higher and higher, they are better educated, they get aroulid more, they see more things-they're in better physical condition, they have better food, better working conditions, less disease amongst them and so forth, greater longevity. They are in better shape than say a couple of hundred years ago or a hundred years ago. Less and less of them will fire their guns in battle. This is driving the war departments and ministries berserk.

Sergeant comes along after the battle, you know, and everybody's changing and handing in cartridges and he comes down the line to the third man down the line and he says, 'All right, now I want to - I want you to fill up your bandoleers." And the fellow says, "I don't have to, they're all full." And he goes to the fifth, the seventh, the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, eighteenth man. He hasn't fired a single shot in the whole battle. Everybody else has been pouring out shot and shells like mad. But a lot of these individuals just don't shoot. They put their guns up when they're told to but they don't fire.

Now, there could be two conditions under which they didn't fire. Way down scale where they didn't dare - didn't dare cause anything, or way upscale where they could experience almost anything, Ah, but we have a world which is teaching us more and more about the other fellow. For years now, they've been having pen pals between the Germans and the Czechs and the Americans and even people in Michigan. Now, these people have been writing to one another.

We have fallen away from a total third, you see, because somebody's skin is a little bit different color or because his nationality is different, his language is different, why, he is something else, somewhere else and has nothing to do with us. You see? We've fallen away from that idea and we've gotten the idea that we're all brothers or sisters under the skin.

Well, when that idea gets abroad, if it gets abroad intellectually and truthfully, not obsessively, you're not going to find very many soldiers firing their guns off in battle. You see? I don't think the general public at all understood war, perhaps, until Matthew Brady and some other photographers went out and took a few shots of battlefields.

That got along and that introduced a certain knowingness into the public ken- introduced it more forcefully because you didn't even have a dead body, you just had a photograph, you know? And individuals began to see war as something pretty bad. And the general consciousness of a third dynamic began to alert to the fact that it was all silly.

And then, more and more people learned how to read. And they could learn history, and they could learn that nobody had lost, or won a war yet - that wars were just all lost. You see, nobody ever won a war. That wars were just stupid. That the anger of kings made no profit for commoners. And they gradually began to understand this and more and more, and it became actually less and less possible.

I think the atom bomb to a large degree was evolved only for one reason. I think they're less and less capable of fighting a war with people - using people on the front lines. Now they have to have something they shoot totally detachedly.

By the way, something I've been expecting would happen for fourteen years has just happened. The man who dropped the first A-bomb in the world just went mad the other day. Totally insane. They put him in an institution in Dallas, Texas. He was a bomber pilot, he didn't even know what he was supposed to be doing. But when they - that crew dropped that bomb and looked at the tremendous damage, realized they'd probably wiped out a whole city, they didn't know - a hundred thousand or a million people. I think it was two hundred thousand or more people died under that blast. When the shock of knowingness of what he'd done came through to him, this man couldn't stand up to it. He eventually has gone mad. Nobody knows why he's mad.

Actually, a Scientologist could make him sane, but this individual went through a great many periods of criminality since he did that. As they go down scale, they become more and more criminal until they go insane. The insane come up scale to being criminals - something for you to remember.

Now, this individual, of course, had delivered a blow for which he could not personally be responsible, but unfortunately, just on a mechanical basis, that he himself could never experience. You see he could not be a town full of people killed under the withering blast of radiation. Never will he be able to be such a town unless he mocks it all up and so forth. You understand?

It's one thing to hit Bill in the chops and another thing to wreck a galaxy - because you can be Bill rather easily and it's rather tough to be a galaxy. So you can never be on the effect end of the line.

Solution, go mad. Now there's an overt act-motivator sequence. But there it is in reverse. It can never happen to him. This he can never, never experience reverse- wise. He hasn't a prayer now of ever being on both sides of that line, unless some Scientologist takes pity on him and processes him. But to do that, they better process the burned Japanese first.

Now, when we get to an overt act-motivator sequence then - when we assault or exceed the idea of being able to experience, we exceed the idea of being able to live, you see? And the overt act-motivator sequence is basically based on just this one thing: experience isn't possible. You must not be able to experience this in order to be civilized. Yet the most civilized thetan there would be would be one who was totally able to experience everything. Then he'd know better than to hit somebody in the chops.

This is the basic - the basic mechanism on which most civilizations are built, the motivating mechanism used in all between-lives areas, the mechanism most associated with mental image pictures, the mechanism which keeps mental image pictures in suspension and the thing which is basically wrong with individuals' minds. They have caused things which, by their definition, cannot be experienced. Not being able to experience them, they have to handle them some other way and this makes their whole track blank and finally winds them up in a very bad, second-hand condition.

To get them over this, all we have to do is demonstrate to them that anything can be experienced.

But this is the primary mechanism with which the auditor deals. Don't deal with it blindly, because you'll wind up with overt act-motivator sequences by yourself not understanding what you're doing. Be first willing to make somebody well and then there's no liability to doing so. First be willing to experience being well, and then you can make anybody well because that's something anybody can experience.

Thank you.

Thank you.