People, oddly enough, have an inherent and innate knowingness. Kant came along, he tried to get to this by saying they had an innate morality – an innate sense of morality or something of the sort, which was inherent in man. And then he said that they got paid for having it, and he went around in circles on it and submitted himself to considerable criticism – such people as myself – for hitting such a low echelon and being so didactic about it.

There is some difference between a theta line and an organism, the difference being that an organism is MEST universe. An organism is a carbon-oxygen motor, low-heat engine, runs at a temperature of 98.6, has a circulatory system. You could actually, in a biological laboratory, build and grow a muscle engine. Wouldn't have a bit of theta in it. A muscle engine. You could hook up a flock of muscles to a crankshaft and grow the muscles and it would run the crankshaft. I mean, as simple as that. A carbon-oxygen engine should therefore not be confused with the human mind.

However, a sense of morality and a sense of knowingness would be two entirely different things. Morality, after all, can be considered to be a code. And knowingness would be considered to be an approach to bin 1.

Now, the human mind, again, should not be confused with a theta line. When you consider a mind, you consider a unit mind. It is a – in most of your concepts of the mind, you think of the mind as something which an organism has to pilot and monitor it. An organism – one organism has this one mind.

You'll find people accepting very, very easily what is really true, and you'll find them resisting very badly what is not true, unless they are very, very bad off and cannot face anything even faintly resembling truth, IF their survival or livelihood has been hung up on an untruth.

Well, that would be a subdivision of the theta mind or the theta line. The theta line would be a timeless, spaceless influence, capable of making recordings, capable of animating and motivating and controlling, forming, destroying, conserving: matter, energy, space and time. Now, that is theta, and you could consider that this sort of a situation existed.

Now, there you get an overbalancing. The trueness to them is whether or not they survive, not whether or not something is so, so that you get the vested interest computation.

You understand now that I am not talking to you from the field of mysticism. I am talking to you from an embracive field which also embraces the field of mysticism. This data neither admits the principle of mysticism nor debars the principle of mysticism. It neither admits the principle of science nor debars the principles of science as it is practiced today.

You could come along and you could try to tell the manager of a plant that cooperative or group management had much to recommend it – much to recommend it. It would make his workmen happier, it would make his work go more easily. And he'd say, "Group management. You're talking about communism!

This is merely – these subjects, mysticism and so forth, are just routes toward discovery. A lot of data has been collected out of them.

And you'll say, "No, I'm talking about group management. You submit your problems to the group, you keep the group – your workers in the factory – informed as to what's going on, and you will find that your results are much better and they are much happier."

Now, let's look at this subject both as to theta and the material universe and see if we don't have something vaguely resembling order coming out of the chaotic concept which most people have regarding mind.

And he'll say, "Well, we're not going to have anything like communism around here."

What I am telling you here is not necessarily true. It happens to be very workable and is relatively more true than anything which has been so far presented, since it embraces and organizes many fields which have been, in the past, merely specialized fields.

And you'll say, "We're not talking anything about communism. We're just talking about you keeping your workmen informed and letting them keep you informed as to what's going on. And this you can call a species of group management."

Let us consider the subject – the whole subject of knowledge.

And he says, "We're not interested in communism!"

Scientology would be the study of knowing, or the science of sciences. Therefore, the basic concept on which it is built should be of interest to you. This is an analogy which will tell you something about that.

What's the matter with this fellow? His whole survival depends utterly upon being the pin of the plant. He is very, very shaky about his own authority inside himself. As a result, anything which would tend to bring him off an authoritative, heavy hammered line whereby he could demonstrate with adequate force and punishment to anybody he cared to that he was the boss, threatens his survival, and though he knows it's very true, knows it innately, that if you communicate to your people and you let them know what's going on and they communicate to you about what's going on, that he'd have a much more smoothly run plant.

Up here we have what we will call bin 1. Bin 1 is full of data. Knowledge is perforce concerned with data. If you consider a datum broadly enough to also include a motivation, a cause or an existence, then bin 1 up here has nothing in it but data.

And yet you walk in with this plan, he's going to tell you, first crack out of the box – bang! – that's something – and he'll throw something which he just uses as a dirty word.

But let's consider that bin 1 has in it nothing but TRUE data. Here, for instance, would be, if it exists anywhere, the data considered in transcendentalism – the organization of knowledge which exceeds and goes above all knowledge. In other words, all knowledge is above the range of human experience, according to somebody like Kant, Hegel, – Hegel particularly. Hegel haggled around and got himself to be a very confused boy, and he got himself so confused that he says, "I'm just going to abandon the whole shooting match, and I'm going to tell you and me that anything that is worth knowing is beyond the realm of human experience. It cannot be sensed, measured or experienced by a human being. That gets me out of my difficulty and you're stuck with it." Typical Scholastic thinking.

Actually he doesn't know anything about communism. He doesn't know anything about group management. He doesn't want to know anything about these things. He doesn't want to know. He can't know. His survival depends upon his not knowing, His survival merely depends upon his shutting something off. So you find people who are in such positions cannot give ear to their own knowingness. And yet they know.

And yet the world was stupid enough, by the way, for a hundred and some years, to let Hegel lie across the path of human advancement. For instance, the astronomer Piazzi discovered the eighth planet. Hegel simultaneously had published a monograph demonstrating conclusively that there could only be seven planets, because seven was a perfect number indivisible by itself and others and the Constitution or something.

Actually, you take this fellow out of the plant and you take him out to the clubhouse and you show him how the clubhouse could run better if the manager of the clubhouse would only talk to the employees of the clubhouse more often, and he'd say, "Yes, that's a wonderful idea. You know, I just know there's something good about that. That's fine. Let's install it out here at the clubhouse."

And so do you know that nobody went out and took a look! Nobody went out and took a look at Plazzi's planet, They just read Hegel, And the planet was up there. All you had to do was look through a telescope and see that it was in – its path was influencing other planets, and there had to be a planet there. But it took them a long time to get around to being smart enough to say, "What we can sense, measure and experience is more valid than what we can guess." Now, oddly enough, the ... You know Ohm's law – that very important law in electricity? Well, I've forgotten how long Ohm's law was considered to be beyond bounds, but it was fought and not used by people of Hegel's complexion. Actually here was a natural law, and a person like Hegel could come along and repeal it. Well, of course, nobody would get any electronicking done if you didn't have Ohm's law. Nobody bothered to measure it. They just said, "Well, it says here on page 86 that Ohm's law ain't, so it ain't." I'm sorry to use the word ain't, but it better fits with the complexion of such thinking – thinking quote unquote (laughter) – as these lads were using.

But not in the plant, you understand, because if you installed it in the plant, you'd be taking him down as a manager. You get how that would work? His interest, his survival, is not vested in knowing but vested in his state of being. No matter how wrong that state of being might seem to others, it seems very vital to him.

I had a doctor come in – he saw my name on a grip – down in Washington, DC, about a year ago. And this doctor came in and he was going to give me a shot. I'd just come across the country and I was coughing – probably had Service Fac One in restimulation. Anyway, a little penicillin would have fixed me up.

In such a wise, you tell people who have nothing to gain or lose by knowing some of the facts connected with the history of the human race, and they will say, "Yes, that's true. Yeah, that's true." But if you tell somebody else whose book sales, for instance, depend on telling you that you were mud and you always were mud and you will always be mud and when you're dead you're good and dead, and you'll never be anything else but dead when you're dead, and his book sales, let us say, depends on that exclusively – uh-uh. No, no!

So I whistled up this doctor and he came in, and he saw my name on top of a grip. And he came in very sunnily, and the second he saw my name, he sort of froze up. And he said, "What do you do'" and "What are you?" and so on, He was a very nasty fellow anyway. And I said, "I'm an engineer," and – which is quite truthful. And he knew damn well who I was So he tried to give me a big breakdown on the fact – he said, "Well, there are people around that think things are useful just because they're workable and that people ought to have something to do with them just because they're workable." He says, "That's no argument at all" – jabs an eighteen-gauge needle into my gluteus maximus (laughter), and says, "I couldn't consider why anybody would work in that field anyway," pulls the needle out, doesn't bother to stop the blood flow, packs up his kit and leaves.

You go around and try to tell a fellow whose name I promised him faithfully I would never use, who wrote a book called Cybernetics – you go around and tell him, "Hey, Norbert, you can take those glasses off and get that crick out of your spine and take some of that weight down, because your knowledge of cybernetics happens to be quite accurate, and when joined up to actual investigation and so forth has panned out very well," and so on. No! Because he's got book sales to consider. He's a professor of mathematics at MIT. When he walks down the hall they say, "He wrote Cybernetics."

In other words, we still have Hegelism around. They'd rather read on page 82 that this is so than go and look.

Now, you'd think he would be the first fellow to come along and say, "Gee, we have advanced knowledge more." Nuh-uh, Not when he has the vested interest entered into it.

Well, this bin of knowledge up here might contain absolute knowledge. It might contain absolute knowledge. And if it did, it would also contain all this knowledge which Hegel himself couldn't experience. There would be no limit to the amount of data contained in this, but it would all be true. It would all be true. It'd be close to absolute truth, if not absolute truth. Now, this is just for an analogy.

Therefore, your medium who accepts pay for being a medium eventually will go to pieces. That is to say, her gain is whether or not she gains rather than whether or not she finds out, you see, and it enters the wrong factor in.

Now, if we consider – consider knowledge to be a circle, we find out that we have a continuing line here. At this point on the circle – just draw this circle, and then from the center out draw a line. Now, on the right side of that line – exactly on the right side of that Line – is one datum known. One datum, that's all. Now, existing right with it, but perhaps a tiny bit out of alignment with it, would be another datum. There'd be two data known,

In the arts, this works the same way. It's too bad that artists also have to eat, because the second they start to eat, then they have to make money out of their arts and this puts them into a nonindividual position. This puts them into a position down Tone Scale from their individuality, and they have a little bit of a rough time.

Now, as these would advance in a clockwise direction, we would find that we would be accumulating more and more data. This would be what would be known as thinking by figuring out a theory and then looking and seeing whether or not you found data to support the theory.

But that isn't any reason why a person can't do very well as a commercial writer. And that isn't any reason why one has to use that excuse, by the way, to keep from writing.

Now, around the clock here would come more and more known, more and more known, more and more known, more and more known, until just before we got to that zero, we would have all things known – not a single missing datum. Everything known. They're right next to each other – everything known, nothing known, and two data known actually occupy the same spot. They actually occupy the same spot on this circle.

Now, I tell you this just to show you that knowledge, which you can dig up in all honesty and so on, can be very savagely kicked back against. You'll find many people, if you suddenly told them, "Now look, the history of this race is so-and-so and so-and-so," they would say, "Well, Beard doesn't say that" or "Darwin didn't say that, or somebody else didn't say that.

But as we move clockwise on this wise, we collect more and more and more and more data. And finally, as we go all the way around, it's all known.

They're talking about authorities; they're not talking about investigation. So I want to warn you, when you sell this subject, you say you're talking about knowledge and investigation of knowledge. And when you process preclears, you just process preclears, and what you find in the case you find in the case.

Now, philosophy, extrapolative thinking, that horrible word, pragmatic thinking... Pragmatism, by the way, used to be a good word until the universities got ahold of it, and now it says that it's – oh, the most wonderful definition. It says "humbuggery" and "bellicosity" and "thinking by induction" and it has about – oh, a whole bunch of meanings. I'm being jocular about what it says there, but there are all these meanings surround this word pragmatism. Actually, basically and originally all pragmatism meant is you just took some data and went out and found out if it was true by measuring it up against the physical universe,

Don't go out and engage in big brickbat arguments with a bunch of vested interests on this subject, because it'll stop you in your tracks. And the reason it'll stop you in your tracks is because you're not trying to talk to anybody who wants to know. You're talking to somebody who has to maintain a state of beingness. And that's entirely different. You can't sell this to somebody that has to maintain a state of beingness.

Well, if we started backwards from all things known, up this way, we would just getting into the – be getting into the more and more theoretical. Now, it's very hard to advance from everything known and keep abandoning things you know – keep abandoning things you know, counterclockwise here, until you finally get down to two data. In fact, it's practically impossible to do that.

All right. The knowledge which we have gained so far is in no sense absolute, as to the history of this race, and in no wise is it a static, is it an unchangeable thing. More data can turn up on this. Much more data can turn up on this. And so I will give you at this time what is workable and give it to you in the full understanding that it is subject to change, improvement, as the number of cases examined keeps going out.

But you can start here with two data known and inductively locate phenomena in the physical universe. You can do this. You have, then, a yardstick by which you can find out what's known and what isn't known. And you can locate phenomena. You can say, "Well, look, this phenomena is supposed to exist; according to – according to these two data, that phenomena – there's a lot of phenomena that exists. Let's go and see if we can find it." So we go and look and it's there. Well, that's fine; we find a lot of phenomena.

An awful lot of cases have been examined up to this time on this, and they are checking out very smoothly and very beautifully. I see no real reason why this should change. But more will certainly be known about it, and certainly more will be known about the reasons and the modus operandi, which was standard. But you sit here on earth today, not as a race of people who go back down an evolutionary track on earth, but as an evolutionary race – or a race which goes back into the depths of this galaxy.

But coming back this way, you're just dumping things off the freight car, so to speak, all the time, and you're not looking for new phenomena. You're trying to somehow explain old phenomena by throwing away what you have, and so on.

Now, it would be very well if you'd always lived on earth; it would be fine. But your organism is adapted to earth, or you have adapted this organism to earth.

The latter method which I'm describing to you is the method which, in all seriousness, science has been using for a long time, It results in such things as super specialization.

The possibilities are high that you have, actually, an evolutionary line here on earth – that your organism did an evolution here on earth. But this in no wise means that you, as a theta individual, are THAT evolutionary line. Because, you see, that is a protoplasm line. That is what we're calling the genetic line: protoplasm. And its cycle is preconception, conception, birth, procreation; preconception and so on. In other words, it just keeps going up the line, up the line, as an unending stream of protoplasm going through earth time. And that unending stream of protoplasm goes through earth time. Give good attention to that. It goes through earth time. And it has on it various stages of evolution.

Why. you go down a hall in a medical building and you check in and you say, "There's something in my eye."

Now, evidently you went through these very rapidly because you were quite knowledgeable. And I don't think you have too much in common with the animals of earth. That again is open somewhat to question. But you really don't have anything in common with a tiger or a jackal or even the monkeys in the zoo.

And the doctor looks at you and he says, "No," he says, "I'm an optic specialist and you'll have to go next door. An optic surgeon is next door, and what I handle is the cornea.

You'll notice that the whole public came up and screamed like banshees the second that Darwin came in with monkeys. Well, there was good reason to: You've gone through a not-unlike-a-monkey form, but you've never been monkeys. And you probably went up through this span very rapidly, and probably you weren't even in the organism at the time it came up that line, You get the idea?

And you go next door and you find out he handles the pupil. Well, this spot of dirt is in the white. And you have to shop around for quite a while, and you find somebody with this – that handles the white part of the eye, you see, and he takes the spot of dirt out ONLY if he is a surgeon for the white spot of the eye. By the way, I'm going along with old Doc Pottenger. I know the old man – he's a great old man. And he says, "If there was just some way we could break down this G. D. blankety-blank-blank specialization," he says, "maybe we could cure something."

Well, you can follow that protoplasm line back. You can even follow a semblance of a theta line back on that protoplasm line. You get the idea?

Well, this method of thinking, then, going back here counterclockwise, is scientific thinking "Let's go and gather a whole bunch of data. Let's gather a lot of data and let's look at a lot of phenomena. And after we've gotten everything we can find on the subject, then let's go find a theory for it. And let's just take any old theory that happens to come along and see if it explains some of this data. If it does, we're all set."

The organism which you inhabit, then, has a background. It has a background which is a genetic background, which is even paralleled by a spur theta line background which yet is not you but which can influence you.

As a consequence, science won't advance around here counterclockwise, but just keeps sort of wandering off, and it gets off here and there and gets all confused about it. And it has been doing so, so that you get cytology arguing with biology, arguing with evolutionists. And these theories are all different. These theories were not arrived at inductively, and these theories do not predict new phenomena.

So when you start running somebody back down the time track, back through the evolutionary ages, you actually depart from a moment when he was he – and where that point is I don't know – but you depart from that and you go straight on back through some rapid stages of evolution here on earth.

Scientology is an effort to go around the clock clockwise – to take data and then look for material, look for the phenomena predicted by that data and see if it exists in the physical universe.

I haven't plotted this to the degree that it should be plotted, but let's say this is present time here, [marking on blackboard] and this back here was a moment of inception of your protoplasm line – protoplasm line. We don't care how long ago that was. Must have been a long time ago, though, because you run people back down this track and you find volcanoes on the track and earth very active – volcanic and so forth. But this line is a protoplasm line. Now, it's paralleled by a theta line.

Well, it's an interesting – an interesting field, Scientology, because all it's trying to do is pick up all the loose ends of people who were trying to travel backwards in this circle. It's trying to get a unification of science, combine it with a unification of anything – the humanities, religion or even mathematics, aesthetics. It's trying to bring these things all into the same field so that they can all be used.

Now, this is a small theta here, see – a theta line. It's life, monitoring energy and making bodies. And it comes up these lines and has experience. And by the way, it not only has a genetic line, but there is a theta facsimile line. There's deaths on this early line. There's the deaths of the organism at various times and so forth.

Now, that all by itself is a worthwhile goal. It wouldn't have to have anything to do with processing or application, curing up anything in people, to be quite worthwhile as a goal. As a matter of fact, it does that. It does that.

So this is a complete picture here, and it would all be all right, and we wouldn't be in any trouble at all if this line kept on going up here to present time (which it probably does), and it was all very well and it's up here in present time and that's all the lines there are. There's just theta line, and the protoplasm line – the protoplasm line going on its cycle of preconception, conception, birth, up to the year of procreation and then preconception and conception, birth, procreation. That's the protoplasm line, paralleled by and animated by the earth theta line.

It'll predict – by the way, you can take Scientology and you can predict what should be the whole field of biology and where it should mesh with cytology and where that should mesh with evolution. And you will come out with a package of data and phenomena which, if you presented them to the cytologist, to the biologist and to the evolutionist, you would find a point of agreement. They would agree on the data which you had there.

So this is theta-E, [marking on blackboard] theta earth, and here is this theta body line coming up here, and it's going through all the cycles of death and so forth.

Now, I'm giving you that to show you that, theoretically, there is just one set of data, but that set is of infinite size, and if it were all true we would put it up here in bin 1. Bin 1, this square.

Now, this is all very, very plain. It would be awfully nice if it just stopped right there and was very simple and we didn't worry about it anymore.

Now, there would be a third bin, however. How do you get to be human? Well, as a matter of fact, the only way you can be human is by being wrong. Actually the wrongest you can get is dead, you see, but you're pretty close to it when you agree to be human. For instance, you sense that – a person, for instance, tells little social lies and he says – he's polite and he's this and he's that, and he doesn't exert his own self-determinism very much in social concourse with the rest of the human race. And as a net result, he is permitting himself to be thrown out of his actual course of existence. It's wrong – social lies are wrong and so forth. But he has to be wrong to be human. He couldn't be very right and be human.

But anywheres from two hundred to even maybe a hundred thousand years ago, somewhere in that period (I haven't discovered the longest period ago; usually I discover two thousand or two hundred or ten thousand, or some order of magnitude in there – from person to person it varies, it varies from person to person), you joined. There is theta-I, or theta individual, which is the individual you are and are aware of being. Now, this theta individual line goes back here, mrrrrrow, as an individual, as a person, as a thinking, rational being, highly civilized. And it goes back, back, back, back, back.

Now its the same way with all this data down here. This is bin 3. Down here is bin 3. Now, bin 3 contains in it relative truths, workable truths, things you can sense, measure and experience. You don't have to be able to sense, measure and experience anything in 1, but down here in 3, that's human knowledge. And this is varying and shifting continually. And there isn't a datum in it which is absolute. Every datum in it has a little bit of wrongness about it. It's only relatively true; it can be sensed, measured, or experienced.

And it joins this theta line earth way up here, very recent – anywheres from, I suppose, ten, twenty thousand years would be your average. I don't know what it is. I haven't tried to make an average. But it was only a short time ago, and it's different times for different people. And it joins in at that spot.

This includes how to make clam chowder. It includes what they will be wearing in 1953. It includes the field of biology. It'll include literature, anything – just data, data, data, data, data – all relatively true, subject to opinion, subject to viewpoint and so forth. But it's what has passed in the human race for knowledge.

In other words, you've got a whole theta line. Now, this line does not come down to earth carrying any body. There isn't a protoplasm line extended onto earth to parallel that line, but back here there is. There's a line that ends there.

It all depends on what strata of truth or what degree of truth you're demanding from this bin. And you can go out and get a lot of opinions – each one of them is data. You can learn all about painting simply by going and taking a critic's manual of the great masterpieces of the world and memorizing it. You don't ever look at the paintings. Something here is van Gogh, and it said there in the critic's manual – he's an authority; you just read that, that's a perfectly valid datum – he says in there, "Van Gogh was yakety-yakety-yak, wela-dee-da-blah-blah-blahdeblah-blah and showed at various times a tremendous inclination toward power and strength, but he blahdeblah-blah-de-dah-da-blah. Now, the list of his paintings are so-and-so. This is known in Europe. This painting is known here and that painting is owned there, and this painting is particularly good for being balanced on all seven tricycles," or something.

And this line is what you'd call your MEST body line, and it probably will be found to have interruptions. In other words, there isn't an unending stream of protoplasm that matches you as an individual, but there are probably many streams of protoplasm that match you as an individual. You see, maybe you went through a whole cycle back here sometime or other and chopped the protoplasm line and migrated or went someplace else, and then, after a lapse, started another protoplasm line or dubbed into another protoplasm line and then finished that line and so forth.

And you get this – you get a whole command of the subject of van Gogh without even faintly getting any command of aesthetics. But do you know, you could go out, with having memorized that entire manual on the famous paintings and paintings of history, and pass for a tremendously aesthetic person. You could. You could go around and any time anybody mentioned something by – well, some obscure Finnish painter, and you'd say, "Oh yes, yes, his Blue Girl, I always thought was terribly 'rankatewa' don't you think?" And they would look at you and they would say, "Hm, an authority, an expert." And they would be very polite.

And here on earth – you'll find here you are arriving on earth, protoplasm line ends there – you arrive as a theta-I line and dub in on the earth theta line and the protoplasm line on earth, which was already continuing. You follow that?

Now, you could know all there is to know about painting, about music, in that wise, without ever knowing how to paint, never knowing anything about music, really, and with knowing nothing about aesthetics, having no more taste than a cow, and yet get by. And all of that's perfectly valid information. That's all – that's a valid performance. After all, people have been acting like that for centuries. And it's a perfectly valid performance to memorize a bunch of this data and say, "I am now cultured."

You should know this pretty well, because this is a track you're going to be – put your preclears back down. And I'm not telling you for the sake of fancy theory; I'm telling you to keep from getting into trouble with your preclear,

What's cultured? Well, that all depends on the time. For instance, a fellow couldn't be cultured two hundred years ago unless he was prepared to sit down and lose a thousand pounds every night at the gaming table. Well, our definition has changed – definition has changed. Now he has to lose it on dog racing or something.

All right, the history which can be roughly sketched at at this time is more or less as follows. And what we're going to follow now is just the theta body line that goes back – and here is theta-E plus theta-I. [marking on blackboard] Theta-E plus theta-I, and this is present time, and this is the theta body line and this is earth. This is the spot where it joins earth.

But all of... You see, I'm giving you this to try to show to you that the word cultured – without any definition of what we're going to agree on to he cultured, well, we can have all sorts of oddities here. A fellow memorizes a book and becomes cultured. Well, then, what's cultured? It's just whether or not we've agreed on the formula one is going to pursue to get cultured. That agreement will take bin 3 and rearrange what a person has to know or do to be cultured, you see?

Earth. And then we come back from here and we go through a cycle here which may have points on it, and undoubtedly does, which we've not determined. And it comes all the way back here.

So that a large segment of the human race that was more or less knowledgeable about data in the world could get together and sort of agree – sort of agree that hereinafter people who were to be considered in the line of the arts had to be able to practice the art. They had to know aesthetics and practice the arts – not memorize. And right away, all this alignment of data in bin 3 would change.

And here is "0," origin. This origin, at some unimaginable length of time in the past, certainly in terms of millions of years, perhaps in terms of hundreds of millions of years, perhaps in terms of thousands of millions of years (which would be billions), and perhaps even in terms of other universe years, as distinct from this universe and its planets – way back here at origin, you get the first separation from theta. And that actually would be incident one – incident one. Now, there are many other incidents follow that.

The difference between bin I and bin 3, then, is what we happen to be using at the present time and what we've agreed upon is relatively useful to us. You see? That's all there is to it. In here comes fashion, styles, changes, and so forth.

There is, by the way, a little bit of grief on that, and you can run that on preclears. You can run it on any of your preclears. You'll find incident one, there's a little grief on that separation.

For instance, fashions in physics have changed markedly. It was fashionable once upon a time to be entirely different and quite otherwise than the modern physicist. It's most fashionable now to use mathematics that he himself doesn't understand, and to sit around and hope that something won't blow up in your face. To – it's fashionable to say, "Well the law of conservation of energy is in question but it's not in question and so on. Fascinating subject right now. But just twenty-five years ago, this science – this exact science of physics – was quite otherwise, quite otherwise. It was a precision science. Nobody worried about a thing. All the data in here was just in beautiful condition – oh, wonderful! And nobody questioning it – everybody agreed on it. It was solid, It was almost a static. It was almost as though it was bin 1.

Now, you should be able to recognize incident one as distinctly different from the other incidents which I'm going to point out to you. Incident one, they – just sort of separates from theta and sort of joins in on a universe. And there is that moment of separation and there's a little bit of down Tone Scale, of course, because naturally it has joined into something resembling MEST, if not MEST itself. And it's joined MEST, so immediately that the theta joins MEST you get a drop on the Tone Scale. So naturally there's an emotional curve on it. And you can run that incident. You can find that incident in practically any preclear you lay your hands on – incident one. Incident one, then, is separation from theta.

And then, of course, somebody comes along and digs up a little more of Maxwell's work and Einstein's equations, and quantum mechanics gets invented and the Germans do this and we do that, and all of a sudden here's the whole subject – it's just up in air. You don't know from, actually, one month to the next, what's happening in physics: This month light is a particle, next month it's a wave and so on. And the fashions – fashions in the mathematics used in it change. So, again, the whole subject is in flux. It's random now as a subject.

Now we come up the track and we find what is actually Heavy Facsimile One. I'm calling it Facsimile One in these talks – its term would be called Heavy Facsimile One. The facsimiles or the incidents which occurred prior to Heavy Facsimile One are very light compared to Facsimile One, according to our present knowledge.

So knowledge changes in bin 3 in accordance with what we've agreed upon about the physical universe. It doesn't matter what we've agreed upon, that data can get into bin 3. And we can agree that something is true which is utterly false, and it'll still appear as a datum in bin 3. We can agree that all of us can make the tides of the ocean overflow and drown the Land on Shrove Wednesday or Ash August." And we can agree upon this. It doesn't necessarily have to happen. It's a datum. Now we can work on that.

You understand that by Facsimile One I don't mean that's the first time a person took a recording. And the reason that's called Heavy Facsimile One or Service Facsimile One is it is basic on the service facsimile chain. This is basic on the service facsimile chain. You don't have to have this one [blackboard] to run this one [blackboard]. You don't have to have incident one to run Heavy Facsimile One. But this is the beginning on the service facsimile chain.

For instance, a lot of people agreed once upon a time that the Roman Empire – Rome itself was suddenly going to disappear in a boiling mass of lava, red hot lava, and that every Roman in the town was going to perish in that boiling mass of lava. And they agreed upon this and they agreed upon it and they agreed upon it, and everybody sat around and waited for it to happen. Every body hated Rome. And they waited for it to happen and they waited for it to happen and they waited for it to happen, and it just didn't happen! And this became discouraging.

Now, it's a very simple incident, but very difficult to run. It's very patterned, and you can run it without much trouble. It simply consists of this: The race, with its bodies and so forth, inhabiting a place in THIS universe, a planet in this universe, was hit by, infiltrated by, an incoming race.

One time, by the way, they set fire to it just to make it come true, and then blamed the emperor. And then blamed him again when he crucified some people for having done it. Very interesting.

Now, the race to which we are native – the theta line to which we are native – was actually highly mystic. It was capable of a lot of things – telepathy, teleportation, odds and ends, stuff – and concentrated rather heavily in that.

But the point is that they had agreed upon it. It was an accepted datum. It was so thoroughly accepted that men would have killed each other rather than to have overset this datum: "Rome is going to go up in a cloud of hot lava." And Rome didn't, so they had to invent hell. (laughter) And that's right; that is the source of hell. They finally said "So we're talking about a symbolical Rome." We couldn't make this town go, so we had to change data in bin 3. My authority for this is Edward Gibbon. Edward Gibbon is a thorough Christian – thorough. Only I'm very – I'm sure, I'm sure that the Church and so forth is very happy that he has written with such long words so that so few people read him. Actually, he reads like a dime novel, and his blasts on this subject are – they really char the paper.

This invader race came in and says – with a lot of electronics and said, "Boys, all you've got to do is take this little jim-dandy whizzer, and you know, you will be twice as 'thetesque' as before."

But anyhow, there's bin 3 – even contains Gibbon. It also contains the endowment lists, that is – what do you call them? Oh, the index – what is that thing they called – what do you call it?

They sold you all a bill of goods, and evidently we didn't penetrate their minds, their thoughts or their intentions. Because one right after the other – bang, bang, bang, bang, bang - they knocked us off. They knocked us off with a very simple apparatus, and that simple apparatus consisted of something that went around your head and across the top of your head and under your chin – under your throat – and back of your head. And everything pointed at the pineal. They turned on the juice and something came in the middle of the head toward the pineal, three points on the top of the head toward the pineal, from under the throat up at the pineal, from the back of the head into the pineal and from the sides of the jaws into the pineal. In other words, every point of entrance toward the pineal was hit suddenly and hard and very excruciatingly. The net result: the pineal gland, which at that time occupied what you had as a skull and was practically all the skull there was, practically folded up. And your mystic powers more or less went by the boards.

Male voice: "Index of Forbidden Books."

Then you went ahead and dramatized it, and there are a lot of overt acts on it. And pretty soon you got so bad as a race that – perhaps you were elsewhere by this time – you were hauled up – oh, some long, long, long, long time later, maybe even a million years later - you eventually wound up before another crew. And this other crew said, "We don't want you around any more, and we're going to send you to jail." And so they packaged you up and shipped you off, and that is an incident we call Before Earth – B.E. That's Before Earth. And they shipped you off and you wound up here. And all they did was transport your theta line here and you joined in on the MEST body line here.

"Index of Forbidden Books"! Well, it's something like that. & I knew the Latin. & Well, just to be blunt here, we have the channels between 3 and 1, and those are the channels of search. Mysticism, religion – all of those things come on this second-channel level. That's 2. And those are the routes of knowing. And the data in 2 is just how you get data out of 1 and into 3.

I don't know too much about the modus operandi that worked at that time, but they evidently had it in mind. It contains, by the way, sort of being put in an ice cube state. It's quite nice. And by the way, the early Christian hell was painted up as a hot hell and a cold hell. And you see the early Christian paintings have guys up to the – ice cube up to the neck. Now, that's two hundred – about two hundred A.D, you find them doing this.

Scientology is actually a route which pretends to embrace everything here in bin 2. It doesn't matter what route is used, will be used, can't be used or anything else, or what argument is against using it – that is bin 2.

Now, when you got down here to earth, there's probably a join-up line, and then there is a series – probably, there's some overt acts here on earth, and overt act facsimiles, and then there's present time.

And what Scientology is, is bin 2: How do you get knowledge from 1 to its relatively highest degree of truth, into bin 3?

But the incidents you're trying to run on a case are actually Heavy Facsimile One and B.E. as the principal incidents, really. And don't get them mixed up here, because there's B.T, Before Time – and you can reach this on a preclear by asking "before time" – and there's Facsimile One, which is back here someplace (it's about a million years ago or a million, two hundred thousand years ago; it varies from person to person, but it's in the order of magnitude of a million years), and then there's rejection, B.E., being kicked off onto earth. And earth is hell and you're here, I guess, until you get reformed.

I hope you understand that so that no holds are barred in this subject. If you can find out that the Arabs had a method of blowing sand into certain shapes and finding out what was in bin 1, believe me, that is in the sphere of Scientology. Just like a slide rule, topology, the science of physics, or US government orders – US government orders – they're all in the same bin. Now, they're all embraced by Scientology.

And I hope you get a little better understanding, then, of what we're trying to do. We're trying to get the highest level of knowing that we can get, and this is a system of trying to get that highest level of knowing. So, no holds are barred in this subject.

But there are the incidents which you will find of principal interest in the preclear, and these are the incidents which you will have to run out of the preclear if you're going to take somebody off the top of the dial.

I'm sorry if it stretches your credulity. I do hope, however, that it doesn't stretch it to the point where you won't operate on it.