Now, the next process I'm going to tell you about is a very, very interesting process, but it's very destructive of havingness, and it is one which is done with considerable caution on the part of the auditor — Route 1-7. Route 1-7: "Have preclear let go and find many places where he is not." Now, the auditing command associated with this is a very simple thing: "Find a place where you are not." And you repeat this command many times until any communication lag developed by the question has been rendered constant.

We will now take up R1-10. R1-10: Route 1-10, an exteriorization drill or process.

Now, you understand that we have the preclear let go because that's the last part of R2-6. You tell him to let go before you tell him to do anything else. Actually, this little point belongs with 6, doesn't it? After you've told him to hold the two back anchor points of the room .. .

Route 1-10 is not solely confined to Route 1. You will find it also over in Route 2. This step is "Have preclear discover things he wouldn't mind occupying the same space with him." Now, that is the idea behind all havingness. You can only have something when you've got a universe or when you've got some space. And to get an individual over the idea of havingness, it's only necessary to ask him many, many times "What wouldn't you mind occupying your same space now? Give me something else that you wouldn't mind occupying your space." He'll tell you air, water, ideas. Anything he tells you, you don't care; you just want the question answered. "What wouldn't you mind occupying the same space with you?" And again, "What wouldn't you mind occupying the same space? What wouldn't you mind occupying the same space?" Now, this is not a short process. You can keep this process up with an individual for a couple of hours, always with benefit. It can be run on some-body inside or outside. When you run it on somebody who is exteriorized, he's liable to have the devil's own time trying to figure out how he could get some-thing to occupy the same space he's occupying, particularly if he's in good shape. But he's got to manage this. He's got to know what this is all about. Really, he will move around and occupy the same space as other objects for a while, and do all sorts of things. You're not interested too much in what he's doing, you just want to give him the process and get him finally into the idea that things can occupy the same space as a thetan.

In groups — tell groups that or anything else — for heaven sakes, always tell them to let go. Because there's some yap who will go on holding on till the end of time — and doing the other process while he's still holding on to the back anchor points of the room. So you tell him to let go and find some places where he's not. And that really is the auditing command which immediately ensues after R1-6, which is "Hold the two back anchor points of the room." So you say to him — the next time that you say anything to him, which is R1-7 — you say, "Let go, and find some places where you're not." Now, this is very destructive of havingness, this process is. And it really shouldn't be run lightly on somebody whose havingness is very badly in question. If this person's havingness is very badly in question, you ought to be right back there at R1-5! You shouldn't be doing this process at all.

What you are knocking to pieces is the basic postulate which makes a universe possible, and you are knocking that postulate to pieces. And this is simply this: the basic postulate is — for any universe which has space and energy — "Two things cannot occupy the same space." Alfred Lord Korzybski did not invent this. It was invented about seventy-four trillion years ago for this universe. "Two things cannot occupy the same space." If you will study general semantics, you will discover that they teachthis and it makes madmen out of them. They teach you "Two things cannotoccupy the same space! Those two are not the same cigarette; they are twodifferent cigarettes, if only because they are not occupying the same space."Nah, booey. The space is a postulate. So if you postulate that they can'toccupy the same space, they can't. If you postulate they can, they can. It's just a matter of you making up your mind about it.

Find some places where he's not. Well, this is a curious thing. It can be run on interiorized people. What you're asking for is certainty. You want people to get points where they're certain they are not. Now, here is the first time in Intensive Procedure that we enter into this thing called certainty, and boy, we enter into it with both feet!

So if we have somebody having difficulty with his language, difficulty with the universe around him, who is an avid student of general semantics — which is taught in every university in the land now, by the way ... They teach students that nobody really knows what anybody else is talking about, because every word means something different to everybody else.

If you let somebody say to you, "Well, I'm not in the room. I'm not in the backyard. I'm not into this. I'm not into that. A lot of places around here where I'm not, you know? Well, I'm not anyplace in the room. What are you talking about? I'm not anyplace around here! That's a silly question," you've got your nerve putting them on Route 1! Because this person would have shown up as an obsessive communication lag, or something of the sort, early in processing with two-way communication. He shouldn't be on Route 1. But let's say by some slip of something or other, you've got him on to Route 1 and you ask him this question: "Now, let go and find some places where you're not." And he says, "I'm everywhere. I'm not everywhere. I'm uh . . ." and yap-yap. "I'm not over there. I'm not over there. I'm not over there. I'm not over there. I'm not over there. Not over there. Not over there. Not over there." You can just count on the fact that you're dealing with a lot of junk. Let's slow this guy down (the way to run this process) — let's slow this guy down to a point where there will be one place in this or some other universe where he's not. Just get one where he's absolutely certain he is not. You see that? We want a place where he's absolutely certain where he's not!

Aha, I'm afraid that "coffee" means coffee. Of course, it can have associative reasonings to it. You could have an association with coffee, but you've still said "coffee." "Coffee," the fellow says, "plus my associations with coffee"; the other fellow says, "Coffee, plus my associations with coffee" — you're still talking about coffee.

So this fellow who's giving you yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yapyap-yap! — he isn't certain he's in none of those places. Chances are, he's buttered all over the universe.

The general semanticist is always thinking in terms of associative lines and masses and definitions and reasons why, you see — significance, significance, significance, significance.

By the way, the last person who did this to me, on a little bit of a test on the thing, said they were exteriorized ... They were run, by the way, right down to R1-7, and it was at R1-7 the auditor caught him.

Now, I'm not tramping on general semantics. I'm glad general semantics was around. I studied it for ten minutes once, and under a very, very good teacher, Robert Heinlein. He told me all about general semantics, and I was very happy to learn about general semantics. Several general semanticists since have undertaken my education, and they have quit with horror because they get just up to this point — they are not physicists or they have never studied the physical universe — they get up to this point of they say, "Now, you understand that two things cannot possibly occupy the same space." Oh, I'm afraid that we're at a divergence right at this point. That's the way you make a universe solid. That's how these general semanticists get ridges around. That's why they get tongue-tied and go out of communication. They get this repostulated, repostulated, repostulated — that two things can't occupy the same space — and that makes an energy mass, that makes terminals, that makes all sorts of weird things, see?

And the auditor came around to me afterwards, and he says, "You know, I don't believe this person is really exteriorized."

That gives you a universe. In addition to this fellow having a physical universe, you're asking him to build a universe again around himself, in his mind.

"Why not?"

Words, to a general semanticist, become lumps of lead. Everything takes on a mass form. It naturally would, because that's how you make mass, isn't it? "Two things cannot occupy the same space," you say. Therefore, by postulate, that terminal is over there and this terminal is here. You have to first say, however, if you're going to get these terminals apart, "Two things can't occupy the same space." You have to say that, see; you have to postulate that. "These two things are apart and they cannot occupy each other's space." This will make them, each one of them, a unit object. We've got two unit objects now, and we've got individuation. See? We say these two things are entirely separate. Each one has a personality. Why? They've got to go on having a personality to the end of time. Why? Because they can't occupy the same space.

"Oh, I don't know. It's just queer, but I've run these processes and this person says he can do these processes — she can do these processes all right. But, you know, for some reason or other, I don't think this person is doing these processes."

This is a very important thing to know in processing, because your fellow who is sitting there having a lot of difficulty — he is a thetan exteriorized, and he's got big masses of energy around him — there's only one common de-nominator to the things he's convinced of. Of course, he's convinced they're energy, convinced there's space and so forth, naturally, but much more important than that postulate is this basic consideration — this basic consideration: He considers that two things cannot occupy the same space.

"Well," I said, "Have you run any 8-C?"

For instance, he does not believe that he and his wife could occupy the same space. She is an individual, he is an individual. Oh, wait a minute. You'd have to be way downstairs in kindergarten not to have gone in some-body else's head and pulled a couple of motor controls, one way or one time or another.

"Well, no. This person didn't have any appreciable communication lag." So I got ahold of this preclear that this auditor had run up to R1-7. And this person would tell you ... Great glibness. They were insulted at the idea of being told that they couldn't find some places. Why, they could do all this sort of thing; "Do all this sort of thing very easily. Kindergarten stuff There's nothing to this! There's nothing to this. There wasn't anything to do this at all!" So you know what I did? I said to the person, I said, "What's your name?" And you know what that person said? Said "Why do you want to know?" And I said, "Well, what's your name?"

Sure, he as a thetan can occupy somebody else's space, but it's only by postulate that his body and his wife's body cannot occupy the same space; that's what makes them two different individuals. You break that postulate down and Lord knows what's going to happen. Actually, you get freedom, be-cause it's the basic restriction.

"Well, do you mean my maiden name, married name? What name do you mean?" I said, "Well, what's your name?" And the person said, "Well, you've got my name around here! You know who I am. I mean, we're not strangers or anything. In Certs, you've got my name!" And I said, "What is your name?" I was still asking this person's name one half an hour later, and I had yet to get this person to say, "My name is Smith." (The person's name was not Smith.) How do you like that? In other words, this auditor had made a blunder up there with two-way communication, in that he had never understood communication lag.

All aberration is, is restriction. And that is the fundamental common denominator of all restriction: Two things cannot occupy the same space.

Now, I'll give you a comparable one. The boys in the HCA course recently made the same blunder. Somebody had been around up there for three, four weeks, and they didn't think he had any communication lag. And do you know that in three or four weeks this person had never answered one question directly that anybody had ever put to him? These HCAs were perfectly willing to let this guy's utterance of sound be an answer.

All right, how important is this? Why are we stressing it? Is it an important theory? No. I tell you, I have enough theories ... I have a file in here which is called "Old Cuffs," and there is enough theory and speculation and so forth on those — so much so that we decided to start to photostat them on the backs of the wasted pages of the PABs. You know, just have them shoot an "Old Cuff" at random.

And to most people the utterance of a sound is a sufficient answer. You know, "What is your name?"

Boy, is that going to take some of these boys who figure-figure out in the field and throw them for a loop, because some of these things are not sequitur to anything we're doing — you know, they're just suppositions and so forth.

"What do you want to know for?" Well, there was no lag there, was there — no silence.

Theories: nobody will ever have to remedy my havingness in terms of theories. There's no scarcity of them. There are just billions of theories. That's the one thing I'm perfectly willing to agree on — that there could be more theories than there are coyotes. And that's a lot of theories. Any-how...

Well, that isn't what you're looking for. You want a direct answer. You want this person to say, "My name is Smith." And this person at no time anywhere along the line had done other than give a completely indirect dodge. And the Instructor finally got this fellow by the tie, and got the students around and said, "Now, I want you people to look and listen here for a moment: 'Now, how many legs are there on the chair you're sitting in?' " The fellow said, "I'm not really sitting in the chair." Yap-yap-yap-yapyap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap. See? And we were going on at a vast rate, and the auditor kept asking this question and asking this question, and about forty-five minutes later got a straight answer. And all of a sudden, every HCA knew what communication lag was, see. He actually answered the question put to him: "How many legs were there on that chair?" So this person who's saying where he's not — you know, "Well, I'm not there. I'm not there. I'm not there. Not heh-hu-huh da-da-da-da-ta-" — that's a form of lag. And a little bit of a test on this person will demonstrate this person usually will be buttered all over the universe. They'll tell you they're Tone 8s and everything else.

When we have this postulate in the bank, a person who firmly believes it, cannot believe that he can exteriorize. Because if he believes two things cannot occupy the same space, then it becomes impossible for him to assume that he is one thing and the body is another thing. Now, do you follow me? So he will have to tell you, if he's sitting in a body, that he is a body. You got that?

This person will also tell you they're exteriorized. They'll put a view-point out there someplace, an astral self or something, and tell it to walk someplace, and then they'll say they're exteriorized. A person who's exteriorized is looking from the place he is exteriorized into. See the difference?

See, "Yeah, I'm right here! And two things can't occupy the same space, so I can't be occupying the same space as a body, can I?" That logical? Well, it sounds logical enough to him so he won't exteriorize. And this is also your common denominator of nonexteriorization.

Well, you'll catch that person simply on communication lag if you know communication lag. But it's the interval of time intervening between the placing of the question and the receiving of the answer to that question — the answer to that question, you understand, no matter what appeared between — the exact answer to that question.

If you were to take R1-10, as a good process, how would you remedy his interiorization? You just keep asking him this question for hours and hours and hours and hours: "Give me some more things that could occupy the same space you're occupying. Some more things. Some more things. Some more things." And all of a sudden he gets the creepy notion — because it's just a postulate on the track, you see; it's just a consideration like "ice cream is good" or "ice cream is bad"; it's just the same order of magnitude — all of a sudden he gets the sneaky notion that "You know, I'm sitting here occupying the space something else is occupying. But then, of course, I am no mass at all. Well, I am mass, and I don't quite ... But there's something here about this." And the next thing you'll know, he'll be three feet back of his head looking at himself.

So we only got to R1-7 with this preclear because the auditor had made a blunder. But he was at R1-7 and he'd started the process and there was no time to lock off this process. It left me with the necessity of discovering some-place in the universe where this preclear, who was obsessively communicating, was not. And we had a picnic. We had a picnic!

So as an example of the workability of this particular process, the hold-outs (which is to say, the few who would not exteriorize cleanly) in the Advanced Clinical Course in London are reported to have exteriorized.

And we found out that this person was not in Universe 81, because there was no such universe — little did that person know. But this person, who finally got a certainty, slowed down to a completely silent lag. She said, "I think. No. Say, you know ... You know, there's a universe out that way some ... I'm not in it!" Gee. Good news, see. Big news. Big stuff. Wonderful thing had happened here!

All the holdouts — you know, I think that he had maybe three or four there that were just dead in their heads, right there at the last. He exteriorized this whole unit, by the way. And he got down to R2-22. That was the total processes used — all of R1 and R2-22. That exteriorized everybody in that unit, I think, in the first two weeks of its teaching.

And then we found another place, finally, where the person was not. And I worked the person for a relatively short period of time. I actually worked the person less than an hour, and at the end of that hour this person was centralized and knew where he [she] was. And we had killed the communication lag.

Now, the holdouts, the people who were having difficulty, blew on this one: "Give me something you wouldn't mind occupying your same space. Give me something you wouldn't mind occupying your same space. Give me some-thing else that you wouldn't mind occupying your same space." See? And they finally blew out of their heads.

Mind you, this person was invertedly exteriorized — that is to say, the person was in the body looking at a thetan out there someplace, saying, "I am over there." Nobody had caught this.

It's obvious to an individual who is interiorized that he is his body, be-cause he knows two things cannot occupy the same space. That's the first thing you want to learn about that.

An awful lot of auditing had gone down the drain with this person. The primary error, of course, was flubbing a two-way communication. So, al-though we don't pay as much attention to it today as we used to, here in R1-7 we have certainty entering into the picture with exclamation points. Certainty. This person has got to be certain he is not in that place. And you can hound him and badger him (to the point where you don't break off two-way communication entirely), until you actually do find a place where he's absolutely sure he's not.

The other thing is, that the only reason the universe can stand out here and the terminals can interchange or anything else, is because the postulate is woven thoroughly into this universe and everyone is convinced of it, indeed — that two things can't occupy the same space.

And at that moment, an individual who is using remote viewpoints (a technical term, meaning a thetan who is afraid to look from where he is; he puts a viewpoint over there and looks from that) — a person who is using re-mote viewpoints of one kind or another is capable of seeing from where he is. And occlusion is simply using remote viewpoints and then having the remote viewpoints go blind. See, the fellow puts something over four yards from him and looks with that. He doesn't look from where he is. You see?

Now, if it were just a theory, as I told you before, the devil with it. It's not a theory. It happens to have been something which was worked out on a theoretical basis along with eighty-nine other theories that sounded just as logical. But this one happened to work, and on research auditing demonstrated its workability. And in the hands of auditors ever since this was re-leased, this has been a very workable technique and has been responsible for many case recoveries — particularly recovery of the ability to be.

By the way, you take a look: "How far is Los Angeles?" — you're spotting spots — and all of a sudden you'll get a picture of Los Angeles in front of his face. He's got a remote viewpoint parked over Los Angeles.

An individual can't be anything very cleanly if he believes he can't occupy the same space as something.

The only reason he sees with his MEST eyes, by the way, is because he's got two little gold discs, one over each eye, and he's looking with those discs. It's very amusing. He's got it all figured out that when he shuts his eyes, you see, the gold discs won't see. But the gold discs happen to be in front of the eyelids in most cases. He would keep on seeing if he didn't say, "Now my eyes are shut." So he has to turn off his own visio, see, in order to shut his eyes.

Look, a thetan doesn't have any mass; he doesn't have any wavelength; he doesn't have any position unless he says he has. Well, if this is the case, and if he believed two things can't occupy the same space, then the only thing that he could do to be something, you see, would be in the same space as that something and consider himself absolutely nothing — without quality, personality or anything else.

Well, these remote viewpoints are buttered all over the place and a per-son, then, when he's asked where he is not, will suddenly tap in onto old remote viewpoints. And these darned old remote viewpoints, they'll give him the idea that he's there.

So he would be something fixedly, wouldn't he? Boy, would he be obsessed. Once he was in this thing, whatever it was, being it — whether a bed-post or a president; whatever he was — he would certainly be that thing.

So you'll have the guy totally badgered. Everything and everybody — he's there. No matter what he looks at, he's there. See? No matter what he thinks of, he's there. This is obsession; and this gets a fellow twisting and shifting valences.

Wouldn't he have an identity, though! He would be a symbol. The definition of a symbol is mass, meaning and mobility. Therefore, he would not be an orientation point. You have to be an orientation point in order to perceive. Just follow that through quickly and you'll see my point.

He walks up to somebody, and this fellow has got a cough, you know? The fellow is going "Cough-cough-cough-cough!" And this fellow with the re-mote viewpoints all over the place and so forth, he probably won't even notice it. But he'll walk away from there, at least for a little while, going, "Coughcough-cough-cough" — something wrong with his throat. See, he's buttered all over the universe; he's got remote viewpoints out there.

All right, if this individual believes two things can't occupy the same space, and he is being something, then he won't be able to be anything else.

Well, you're asking him to recognize his own actual location when you ask him places he's not. In view of the fact that the thetan really isn't any-where, he has to place himself by postulate. You see, "I am here, therefore I can see from here." See, he has to postulate that before he can do it. He has to be able to do that before he is stably exteriorized, and one of the ways of doing this is asking him places where he's not.

You hang a medal on him and tell him he's a hero, and he's it. You say to him, with some holy water, "Your name is John Jones," and, boy, he's it. See, he couldn't be "Bill Smith" suddenly.

He'll look around, finding places where he thinks he is, and he will as-is out of existence lots of these old remote viewpoints.

And yet his whole survival depends upon his ability to assume a number of identities! His survival depends upon his versatility, not his fixed beingness. His survival depends upon, not his ability to just call himself by different names, but to be different attributes, because a man has to adjust the environment to him. And if he's going to adjust the environment to him he will have to be able to occupy certain parts of the environment and change them, hm?

A curious process. We play it with absolute certainty. We work with the person no matter how long.

Otherwise, he will stand there as a fixed mass, being adjusted all the time by the environment.

Other phenomena turn up with this, by the way. At first he finds spots way, way out, see? And then he finds spots right up close. And then he finds spots a little less further out. And then he finds spots closer. And then he finds spots a little less further out. And then he finds closer spots, and then he finds nearer spots.

A rock is adjusted by the environment: The wind blows across it, erodes it; the rain washes on it; the birds chip pieces out of it; the earthquakes break it in half and the lightning pushes it into dust. That's adjusting to the environment.

For instance, "Give me some places where you're not."

Now, an individual who has the idea that two things can't occupy the same space, of course, the second he finds himself in a trap, is the trap — and you never saw a trap get out of a trap, did you? A thetan can get out of a trap, but a trap doesn't get out of a trap.

"Well, I'm not in England. I'm not in South Africa. I'm not in China." He'll really be able to get these (not giving you these answers this fast). "I'm — I'm not in Siberia. Huh, I'm not in that chair right there in front of me, you see. I'm not in that other chair right in front of me. I'm not in Washington, DC. I'm not in Los Angeles. I'm not here in the rug. I'm not in New Mexico" — you know, all the time coming in closer and closer, and all of a sudden, why, bang, he's pinpointed. Here he is. And this time his visio will turn on if you'd kept up this process — marvelous process.

So he believes that he can't be things at will and independently, and change his beingness or grant beingness or receive beingness if he believes that two things cannot occupy the same space.

But remember, it's destructive of havingness. So remember, when you are running it. For heaven sakes, have him "Mock up some anchor points and pull them in. Mock up some anchor points and pull them in. Mock up some anchor..."

R1-10 is, then, an important process, is it not?

"What do you mean by anchor points?" he'll say.

Don't forget that process. Some day you'll be up against it — you'll be up against it with some preclear. He won't exteriorize; he won't do something. Hammer and pound, hammer and pound: "What things wouldn't you mind occupying your space? Some more things you wouldn't mind occupying your space." Don't think you'll do it in five minutes, though. You won't. It will take a lot longer than that. It's a long process, not a short one. And when he's exteriorized, you ask him the same thing, and all of a sudden as a thetan he'll suddenly realize, "Hey! You know, I really can be something." Ah, this will be a wonderful sensation to him. Important process.

"Oh, gold balls, or something of the sort. Just some mass. And pull it in on yourself' — not on the body: on a thetan. 'All right. Let's find some more places where you're not. Some more places where you're not. Some more places where you're not. Some more places where you're not. Eight anchor points and pull them in. Eight anchor points and pull them in." You'll have to remedy havingness as you run the process. It isn't mentioned in the Auditor's Handbook. That's why you're being trained as auditors — things I forgot to put in the Handbook. If I'd put everything in the Handbook you wouldn't have to be trained as auditors.

Okay.

Okay. Actually, getting you to see the light — that there is no glaring light shining in your eyes, but that you are the glaring light of the world — is the real reason we're training you. Well, we'd never mention that to you.

Okay.